Refuelling 2017

[bdr529]

I cannot watch that footage.

Try it now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_A-Z-4duH4

[toraabe]

I cannot watch that footage.

Try it now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_A-Z-4duH4

The problem were the skirts, since the whole underbody of the car was like an upside down wing.
Indy car has solved this by defining how the venturi tunnels has to be made. And it is working.
The current problems is that the current rear diffusor is making so much turbulence and because of the flat bottom that is currently in use, the front wing is not working as it should be. The result are drivers that cannot follow nose to tail in fast corners and instead made the DRS as the solution.

What has to be done is to create 50% more downforce under the floor with defined height, length and with of the venturis. A ban of diffusor rear of the diff and only permit wings with one flap front and rear + wider tyres and so on .

[iotar__]

You know who's pushing for refuelling return next to Ecclestone? It's Ferrari's S. Marchionne, one of the prime thinkers of formula 1 of our times. You want to bet how many races Marchionne watched in the last 5 years? People who applied those strategies hundredths of times say it's rubbish but he knows better. If you want to know who's responsible for the current poor state of F1: it's people like Marchionne, Ecclestone, Mateschitz, McKenzie influencing it for their own benefits with no clue about the sport or a plan.

[turbof1]

You know who's pushing for refuelling return next to Ecclestone? It's Ferrari's S. Marchionne, one of the prime thinkers of formula 1 of our times. You want to bet how many races Marchionne watched in the last 5 years? People who applied those strategies hundredths of times say it's rubbish but he knows better. If you want to know who's responsible for the current poor state of F1: it's people like Marchionne, Ecclestone, Mateschitz, McKenzie influencing it for their own benefits with no clue about the sport or a plan.

Still does not give any reason why it's per se worse or better.

Refueling would atleast benefit issues with fuel saving. They are only allowed to have 100kg, but not having to carry around the full 100kg means the car weighs less and reduces fuel consumption on its own.

Currently teams are already heavily depending on strategy rather then race craft to get in front, trying to undercut the competition. Undercutting or overcutting, it remains the same for me. Atleast they'll drive faster.

The only real issue I see is safety. You don't want to spill fuel on a red hot car, or having the driver leave with the hose still atttached. Especially not with 12 technicians around the car. That's something that needs to be tightly regulated. I was thinking about standard refuel rigs and a sensor in the refuel cap to stop the car from leaving until the hose is firmly disattached.

Costs were already beautifully demonstrated by Bhall to really be a none factor.

[bdr529]

The problem were the skirts, since the whole underbody of the car was like an upside down wing.
Indy car has solved this by defining how the venturi tunnels has to be made. And it is working.
The current problems is that the current rear diffusor is making so much turbulence and because of the flat bottom that is currently in use, the front wing is not working as it should be. The result are drivers that cannot follow nose to tail in fast corners and instead made the DRS as the solution.

What has to be done is to create 50% more downforce under the floor with defined height, length and with of the venturis. A ban of diffusor rear of the diff and only permit wings with one flap front and rear + wider tyres and so on .

Your original post was a little less elaborate then the one above,

Fantastic racing . Look how close they are able to race. With 2m wide cars and 420mm wide rear tyres and massive downforce
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ua70zL5 ... e=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdPIsAVxbt0

And I was commenting on the fact that the drivers didn't share the same view as you

[SectorOne]

I looked at your video and i did not hear any driver mentioning it wasn´t fantastic racing or that they cant race close to each other.
They said there was no skill involved and that the driver had little effect on the package as a whole (because as we know, the driver has a huge part in todays F1 cars with conventional aero)

[bhall II]

You know who's pushing for refuelling return next to Ecclestone? It's Ferrari's S. Marchionne, one of the prime thinkers of formula 1 of our times. You want to bet how many races Marchionne watched in the last 5 years? People who applied those strategies hundredths of times say it's rubbish but he knows better. If you want to know who's responsible for the current poor state of F1: it's people like Marchionne, Ecclestone, Mateschitz, McKenzie influencing it for their own benefits with no clue about the sport or a plan.

This is one of the exceedingly rare instances in which it might not necessarily be a bad idea to take Marchionne's word over that of most F1 engineers. As a (very) successful business executive, he undoubtedly has a thorough understanding of game theory, which is a field of study that's not particularly relevant to engineers (to my knowledge).

Refueling amounts to a zero-sum game, and that's defined as a situation where one or more participants' gain equals the loss of other participants. Thus, a gain for one must result in a loss for one or more others.

In context, the impact of a zero-sum game is such that no one can gain or lose any advantage through refueling if everyone refuels. In other words, by and large, refueling would have no impact on the competition beyond what's currently the case with routine tire strategy.

It would just make the cars quicker.

[Emmcee]

Some of the best races the sport has seen was from refuelling strategies. One that springs to mind is that fantastic drive schumi put in in the 98 Hungarian gp. Three stopping compared to the two stopping Mclaren's and had to find 21secs in 19 laps to ensure he would leapfrog both Mclaren's and win and he did so in what was one of his greatest ever drives. These are the sort of races we have missed out on in recent times, iam all for it, bring it back and now.

[toraabe]

I looked at your video and i did not hear any driver mentioning it wasn´t fantastic racing or that they cant race close to each other.
They said there was no skill involved and that the driver had little effect on the package as a whole (because as we know, the driver has a huge part in todays F1 cars with conventional aero)

http://www.formula1nexus.com/patrick-he ... d-effects/

[Shooty81]

Refuelling became boring, when we knew with how much fuel the cars started.
It was interesting, when qualifying was with light cars, and we did not know the fuel loads.
Then with qualifying on racefuel, we could calculate the strategies +- one or two laps.
At the end the weight of the cars was published after qualification. Maximum information, but we already knew how the race would end after the start.

So it is important to let the teams decide the fuel strategy after qualifying.

[PlatinumZealot]

What bugs me is when the team principals say that once we have refueling qualifying must be done on race fuel.

I mean... yeah it can be seen as unfair for the rest of the grid if the pole position guy turns his car into the Exxon Valdez in Monaco... but other than that scenario I don't think it is advantageous to start the race on heavy fuel if you are on pole. It's not like bridgestone days when the tyres could take heavy punishment. Any thoughts?

[Moxie]

I have already stated my objection to refueling, but if it must happen, I'd prefer quali to be done on race fuel. This would allow a mid-field team to occasionally compete for pole position, and some much needed media exposure (at the price of poor race strategy). At the same time if would force overtaking. Even if a car like a Force India takes pole, and becomes the Exxon Valdes during the race it forces the superior cars to actually do some overtaking. It will also force teams with WCC aspirations to make strategic decisions about quali fuel load vs. race fuel load, vs. tire deg. Teams will likely put individual drivers on different strategies. All of the unknowns increase the hopefully reduce the painful predictability of recent years.

[Emmcee]

I have already stated my objection to refueling, but if it must happen, I'd prefer quali to be done on race fuel. This would allow a mid-field team to occasionally compete for pole position, and some much needed media exposure (at the price of poor race strategy). At the same time if would force overtaking. Even if a car like a Force India takes pole, and becomes the Exxon Valdes during the race it forces the superior cars to actually do some overtaking. It will also force teams with WCC aspirations to make strategic decisions about quali fuel load vs. race fuel load, vs. tire deg. Teams will likely put individual drivers on different strategies. All of the unknowns increase the hopefully reduce the painful predictability of recent years.

Agree!!

[Shooty81]

Why should qualifying be done on race fuel?
Actually, the lighter midfield car will just disappear into a pitstop after three laps, without any overtaking (it will still be quick at the beginning of the race, because it is lighter).
This just does not help. And also we would know the strategies. It's been quite precise by calculation the delta times between Q2 runs without racefuel and Q3 runs on racefuel.

Qualifying need to be done without racefuel, then we can see overtaking and different strategies.

[Shooty81]

What bugs me is when the team principals say that once we have refueling qualifying must be done on race fuel.

I mean... yeah it can be seen as unfair for the rest of the grid if the pole position guy turns his car into the Exxon Valdez in Monaco... but other than that scenario I don't think it is advantageous to start the race on heavy fuel if you are on pole. It's not like bridgestone days when the tyres could take heavy punishment. Any thoughts?

Back in those days the strategy in front was 2 stops with the first stop a little bit later, or one stop. Usually the cars starting behind used more fuel than the cars in front. To pass another car, they tried to stay out longer. Usually one lap was enough for the pass, if the second stint was shorter (quicker refueling). It was also possible to pass by just refuelling less in the first stop at in the same lap. But then they had to pull a gap, because the second stop would be earlier.
The only point for qualifying on racefuel is to prevent one-stoppers. If all cars do only one stop, it means, strategies are predefined before the race.
For a two-stop race, there is always the chance to do a shorter or longer second stint.