Alonso drives Renault R25 at Yas Marina Circuit

[Mogster]

Besides from the lack of wheel to wheel action the thing I hated most about the refuelling races was that no one outside the teams had the foggiest idea what was actually going on... At least with tyre strategy everything is revealed to the viewer, nothing can be hidden, with uncontrolled refuelling the actual positions of the cars were known only to the teams.

[jjn9128]

Some of the fastest cars in F1 history and there is good on track overtaking. Other than at junk tracks like Abu Dhabi. Otherwise, you're spot on.

I don't know... other than DRS passes there would probably be the same number of proper overtakes as the refueling era. The races they showed in lockdown were all pretty epic - the great race to dire race ratio was probably about the same as now.

It did give some interesting strategy in a way the tyre formula mostly hasn't, like 1 stop vs 4 stop sometimes, but I think I prefer the 2s tyre pitstops to a refueling stop where things could go dangerously wrong, it means the teams are important for the result too. On the other hand cars operating closer to their theoretical minimum weight are more spectacular than heavy cars nursing their tyres to a mandatory stop and compound change.

[cooken]

I'll hail size as my number 1 issue. Smaller cars means less footprint on the track, leaving more space for other cars and more scope for racing line adjustments (eg more room for cutback manoeuvre). Does it make sense that the size of the car relative to the track affects the perception of speed, and to the smaller car's benefit?

[e30ernest]

I'll hail size as my number 1 issue. Smaller cars means less footprint on the track, leaving more space for other cars and more scope for racing line adjustments (eg more room for cutback manoeuvre). Does it make sense that the size of the car relative to the track affects the perception of speed, and to the smaller car's benefit?

Yes. The size probably adds to the illusion that the car is faster.

Also, I think the footage of Alonso's run looks faster because the 360 footage has a very wide FOV (it gives an illusion of speed) while the other static cameras are following the car at a fixed FOV.

The TV cameras following F1 cars are zooming in and out to follow the action and this kills the sensation of speed a lot. Just look at how much faster the current cars look when taken at trackside with mobile phones compared to the TV footage.

[cooken]

Yea that's true as well, the camera work is detestable.

[Zynerji]

Some of the fastest cars in F1 history and there is good on track overtaking. Other than at junk tracks like Abu Dhabi. Otherwise, you're spot on.

I don't know... other than DRS passes there would probably be the same number of proper overtakes as the refueling era. The races they showed in lockdown were all pretty epic - the great race to dire race ratio was probably about the same as now.

It did give some interesting strategy in a way the tyre formula mostly hasn't, like 1 stop vs 4 stop sometimes, but I think I prefer the 2s tyre pitstops to a refueling stop where things could go dangerously wrong, it means the teams are important for the result too. On the other hand cars operating closer to their theoretical minimum weight are more spectacular than heavy cars nursing their tyres to a mandatory stop and compound change.

Kimi's left-rear tyre guy would beg to differ...

1.9s pitstops are more dangerous than 11s refueling stops. I'd rather see refueling come back as "fuel-pods" that pop in and out of the chassis than the pressurized liquid firehose they used in the past, however.

Pitstops would go to 6s, and we would have faster "race" cars instead of only seeing the max speed in Qualifying.

[jjn9128]

Kimi's left-rear tyre guy would beg to differ...

1.9s pitstops are more dangerous than 11s refueling stops. I'd rather see refueling come back as "fuel-pods" that pop in and out of the chassis than the pressurized liquid firehose they used in the past, however.

Pitstops would go to 6s, and we would have faster "race" cars instead of only seeing the max speed in Qualifying.

Yes but how many of those were there relative to pitstop fires/drivers leaving with the hose attached? The front jackperson has the most dangerous job of all in either type of pitstop. You probably see at least one of them get hit every year. I would think a detachable/removable fuel cell would be more dangerous than a hose.

The minimum weight and overall size are the bigger issues IMO than race start fuel.

[Zynerji]

Kimi's left-rear tyre guy would beg to differ...

1.9s pitstops are more dangerous than 11s refueling stops. I'd rather see refueling come back as "fuel-pods" that pop in and out of the chassis than the pressurized liquid firehose they used in the past, however.

Pitstops would go to 6s, and we would have faster "race" cars instead of only seeing the max speed in Qualifying.

Yes but how many of those were there relative to pitstop fires/drivers leaving with the hose attached? The front jackperson has the most dangerous job of all in either type of pitstop. You probably see at least one of them get hit every year. I would think a detachable/removable fuel cell would be more dangerous than a hose.

The minimum weight and overall size are the bigger issues IMO than race start fuel.

I mean, with the last 2 refueling issues that we saw (Massa Singapore 08, Raikkonen/Kovalainen Brazil 09), no one was put in a body cast for 12 weeks. Kimi's wheelman with the knee turned backwards took FAR more damage. Maybe we should rank them by Hospital Hours Acumulated...

And about the detatchable fuel tank... If they were just SCUBA-type tanks, the drivers could press a button, and pop them on pit entry. with one on each side, the mechanics simply pull out, slide in, and the driver activates the lockdown while exiting the pits via another button press. I don't see how this would be so unsafe. Could also move directly to CNG fuel (or some bio-equivalent) with the pressureized tanks like this.

[Mogster]

I'll hail size as my number 1 issue. Smaller cars means less footprint on the track, leaving more space for other cars and more scope for racing line adjustments (eg more room for cutback manoeuvre). Does it make sense that the size of the car relative to the track affects the perception of speed, and to the smaller car's benefit?

The cars were wider in the 80s and overtaking was possible then, most of the tracks were narrower also. Much narrower than 2M and the cars start to look skinny and too tall. 2M is about right. I do agree the cars are too long but that started when the drivers feet were moved behind the front axle, some of it is design choice also.

After watching the sport for over 30 years we have more wheel to wheel action than there’s ever been. Battles that continue for several corners aren’t uncommon, not all the overtakes are DRS zoom bys.

[Big Tea]

IF refueling made a comeback it would have to be accompanied by a change in tyre regs or it would not be flexible.
Low fuel to start and soft tyres would stretch the mileage of the tyre a little, but still not leave much wriggle room.
Tyre stops were brought in to entertain the TV viewers, and a pit stop is a pitstop, so tyres do not need to be so regulated.

The option of hard tyres full fuel no stops v low fuel 3 stops for very soft tyres and a soft would be opposite ends and fight for the last 3 laps.

[Zynerji]

I'll hail size as my number 1 issue. Smaller cars means less footprint on the track, leaving more space for other cars and more scope for racing line adjustments (eg more room for cutback manoeuvre). Does it make sense that the size of the car relative to the track affects the perception of speed, and to the smaller car's benefit?

The cars were wider in the 80s and overtaking was possible then, most of the tracks were narrower also. Much narrower than 2M and the cars start to look skinny and too tall. 2M is about right. I do agree the cars are too long but that started when the drivers feet were moved behind the front axle, some of it is design choice also.

After watching the sport for over 30 years we have more wheel to wheel action than there’s ever been. Battles that continue for several corners aren’t uncommon, not all the overtakes are DRS zoom bys.

I prefer the 1800mm X 2915mm form factor. If you want wider cars, do it in the tyres...

[ringo]

I'll hail size as my number 1 issue. Smaller cars means less footprint on the track, leaving more space for other cars and more scope for racing line adjustments (eg more room for cutback manoeuvre). Does it make sense that the size of the car relative to the track affects the perception of speed, and to the smaller car's benefit?

Yes. The size probably adds to the illusion that the car is faster.

Also, I think the footage of Alonso's run looks faster because the 360 footage has a very wide FOV (it gives an illusion of speed) while the other static cameras are following the car at a fixed FOV.

The TV cameras following F1 cars are zooming in and out to follow the action and this kills the sensation of speed a lot. Just look at how much faster the current cars look when taken at trackside with mobile phones compared to the TV footage.

People were trackside watching, and the car still looked faster in their eyes. So no cameras factor there.

Refuelling days were not bad. It's just as confusing as today's strategy. Nowadays the cars are not going all out and never will. I don't find that more exciting. When you are pushing 100% there will be more errors and more failures, fatigue sets in etc. The cars will also carry less fuel at any given time, and will be smaller.
If the current cars had refuelling the tanks would be considerably smaller than they are now.
The rule that made the cars 2m wide was also a mistake. 1800mm wide was not an issue, and those cars still looked more menacing that these fat whale cars we have today.
Someone needs to make an alternate series that competes at F1 level. V10, LNG power, 150kg less, KERS, (no mguh) refuelling cells etc. It would steal F1's thunder.

[Zynerji]

I'll hail size as my number 1 issue. Smaller cars means less footprint on the track, leaving more space for other cars and more scope for racing line adjustments (eg more room for cutback manoeuvre). Does it make sense that the size of the car relative to the track affects the perception of speed, and to the smaller car's benefit?

Yes. The size probably adds to the illusion that the car is faster.

Also, I think the footage of Alonso's run looks faster because the 360 footage has a very wide FOV (it gives an illusion of speed) while the other static cameras are following the car at a fixed FOV.

The TV cameras following F1 cars are zooming in and out to follow the action and this kills the sensation of speed a lot. Just look at how much faster the current cars look when taken at trackside with mobile phones compared to the TV footage.

People were trackside watching, and the car still looked faster in their eyes. So no cameras factor there.

Refuelling days were not bad. It's just as confusing as today's strategy. Nowadays the cars are not going all out and never will. I don't find that more exciting. When you are pushing 100% there will be more errors and more failures, fatigue sets in etc. The cars will also carry less fuel at any given time, and will be smaller.
If the current cars had refuelling the tanks would be considerably smaller than they are now.
The rule that made the cars 2m wide was also a mistake. 1800mm wide was not an issue, and those cars still looked more menacing that these fat whale cars we have today.
Someone needs to make an alternate series that competes at F1 level. V10, LNG power, 150kg less, KERS, (no mguh) refuelling cells etc. It would steal F1's thunder.

I agree. Although, I might migrate to an inline 5 (same v10 sound, 1/2 the parts).

[sosic2121]

People were trackside watching, and the car still looked faster in their eyes. So no cameras factor there.

Refuelling days were not bad. It's just as confusing as today's strategy. Nowadays the cars are not going all out and never will. I don't find that more exciting. When you are pushing 100% there will be more errors and more failures, fatigue sets in etc. The cars will also carry less fuel at any given time, and will be smaller.
If the current cars had refuelling the tanks would be considerably smaller than they are now.
The rule that made the cars 2m wide was also a mistake. 1800mm wide was not an issue, and those cars still looked more menacing that these fat whale cars we have today.
Someone needs to make an alternate series that competes at F1 level. V10, LNG power, 150kg less, KERS, (no mguh) refuelling cells etc. It would steal F1's thunder.

While I believe PUs and fuel flow limit were mistake, I can understand the reason why they brought them.

But I can not understand 2 meter cars! IMO that was most stupid rule ever.

[Jolle]

Yes. The size probably adds to the illusion that the car is faster.

Also, I think the footage of Alonso's run looks faster because the 360 footage has a very wide FOV (it gives an illusion of speed) while the other static cameras are following the car at a fixed FOV.

The TV cameras following F1 cars are zooming in and out to follow the action and this kills the sensation of speed a lot. Just look at how much faster the current cars look when taken at trackside with mobile phones compared to the TV footage.

People were trackside watching, and the car still looked faster in their eyes. So no cameras factor there.

Refuelling days were not bad. It's just as confusing as today's strategy. Nowadays the cars are not going all out and never will. I don't find that more exciting. When you are pushing 100% there will be more errors and more failures, fatigue sets in etc. The cars will also carry less fuel at any given time, and will be smaller.
If the current cars had refuelling the tanks would be considerably smaller than they are now.
The rule that made the cars 2m wide was also a mistake. 1800mm wide was not an issue, and those cars still looked more menacing that these fat whale cars we have today.
Someone needs to make an alternate series that competes at F1 level. V10, LNG power, 150kg less, KERS, (no mguh) refuelling cells etc. It would steal F1's thunder.

I agree. Although, I might migrate to an inline 5 (same v10 sound, 1/2 the parts).

Yea!! And riveted aluminium tubs! To decide who are boys and who are men!

In the real world, no NA engines are used anymore. You can’t buy an Audi, BMW, Mercedes or McLaren with a NA engine. The only Ferrari is a V12, while even their last halo car has a turbo. You can still buy a 1.0 Polo if you want something atmospheric.