Refuelling 2017

[PlatinumZealot]

Problem with one of your points... the drivers say they can't feel the Pirelli tyres at all!

[Edax]

Just some random thoughts.

An overtake is caused by the guy behind being faster than the guy in front. That is not a naturally occurring situation in any form of motorsports. Since the races are preceded by a qualification, the faster driver car combo's will be in front of the slower ones and will remain there. Any form of encouraging overtakes is going to be artificial.

There are only two ways to prevent that.
1) messing up the qualification order.
2) creating speed differentials during the race.

Creating speed differentials during the race can be done by refuelling as drivers have a heavy car and a light car, at different points in the race, or by different sets of tires with different characteristics.

However the effect of both measures is partially cancelled by the fact that a race usually converges to one or two strategies, so most cars will get the same handicap/benefit at the same time. Besides if there are two strategies, the winning strategy for the front drivers is to start as fast as possible and to take the penalty at the end of the race, while for the lower ranked drivers the reverse strategy often is the best. So the different strategies will usually be separated by a huge gap for most of the race which often doesn't even converge at the end..

Messing up the qualification order works for some racing series pretty well. But usually this is done via a sprint race/ main race construction, because otherwise people are qualifying for the nth place which will be converted to pole. they you're just testing the drivers ability to drive to a delta.

Perhaps F1 could work with a system where the winners of the race get a grid penalty for the next weekend? Say win the race get 5 places for the next? 2nd 4, 3rd 3, 4th 2 etc.

[PlatinumZealot]

Just some random thoughts.

An overtake is caused by the guy behind being faster than the guy in front. .

Or if the guy infront makes a mistake... ie cars that are harder to drive.

[mzivtins]

Refueling, as an action, is more exciting to watch. No one cares if someone made a pit stop pass because they are interesting and i feel anxious watching it unfold, i love it.

Overtakes are awesome but not all of it is about that. race starts are incredibly exciting, even if not pass is really made.

consistent close action is really interesting too!

It has to be said, all these other points and considerations are irrelevant. Refueling is for pit stops. otherwise i would say, the best way to make f1 races more interesting and exciting, is to watch them in the company of good friends.

what about rain? Should team bosses start complaining that we need rain at every gp or none at all?

All this analysis, and trying to create the perfect solution has lead to a partial fake show... any more and f1 may as well become staged like wrestling etc.

Add refueling for technological reasons only. It is POINTLESS for a car to carry the fuel it requires for the last lap on the race whilst on lap 0, when it has to enter the pits an average of 2 times within that race.

As a spectator, any boost in excitement we get from that is great, if it ruins an element of excitement then, and only then, should it be reviewed.

Change is interesting and exciting in itself.

[BanMeToo]

Add refueling for technological reasons only. It is POINTLESS for a car to carry the fuel it requires for the last lap on the race whilst on lap 0, when it has to enter the pits an average of 2 times within that race.

Yea this is really what it boils down to for me. I don't consider myself a fervent supporter of refueling in F1... But the general concept you've hit on, yes, it means that I implicitly support refueling.

It's nice when someone (I don't personally know any knowledgeable F1 fans) asks me a question, "why are the cars like that" or "why do they do it that way", and my answer is "because it's faster that way." But it seems kind of rare anymore to be the explanation. Instead it is about dodging this reg, optimizing that rule... I know that is the nature of F1, engineering around the constraints of the rules, and I even consider myself a fan of current-gen F1 but, some of it gets all too silly, inane, arbitrary...

[Sniffit]

what about rain? Should team bosses start complaining that we need rain at every gp or none at all?

It has been suggested.

[f1316]

Thank God - perhaps now they will come to their senses:

http://m.autosport.com/news/report.php/ ... f1-in-2017

Completely solves the issue of needing high degrading tyres to force pitstops, allows teams greater use of strategy, gives another unknown... It's just the best option and, as Todt says, 50k of cost is a drop in the ocean.

[Scorpaguy]

Well...I'm generally for the concept of refueling, but it willcause a fervor amongst those that feel all aspects of danger/risk must be eliminated from every aspect of life (sissies!).

However, if overtaking is the percieved need for reintroducing refueling...a much simpler and less expensive option is readily available. NO QUALIFYING AND ALL RACES START IN INVERSE CHAMPIONSHIP ORDER. If you want pasing and track action...this would deliver it.

[Pingguest]

Thank God - perhaps now they will come to their senses:

http://m.autosport.com/news/report.php/ ... f1-in-2017

Completely solves the issue of needing high degrading tyres to force pitstops, allows teams greater use of strategy, gives another unknown... It's just the best option and, as Todt says, 50k of cost is a drop in the ocean.

It is a misconception that pit stops are necessary for entertainment. This is only why I believe the ban on mid-race refueling should stay, but also why tire changes should be binned. Then, drivers would have to find a race strategy on themselves. Alain Prost and Niki Lauda were known for inventing the best race strategies that included the preservation of fuel and tires.

Without pit stops cars would find their sweet spots at different stages of the races, resulting in more on-track passing. An abolition or change of the post-qualifying parc fermé might help too, as cars would no longer qualify in race-trim.

[krisfx]

Thank God - perhaps now they will come to their senses:

http://m.autosport.com/news/report.php/ ... f1-in-2017

Completely solves the issue of needing high degrading tyres to force pitstops, allows teams greater use of strategy, gives another unknown... It's just the best option and, as Todt says, 50k of cost is a drop in the ocean.

It is a misconception that pit stops are necessary for entertainment. This is only why I believe the ban on mid-race refueling should stay, but also why tire changes should be binned. Then, drivers would have to find a race strategy on themselves. Alain Prost and Niki Lauda were known for inventing the best race strategies that included the preservation of fuel and tires.

Without pit stops cars would find their sweet spots at different stages of the races, resulting in more on-track passing. An abolition or change of the post-qualifying parc fermé might help too, as cars would no longer qualify in race-trim.

The last time tyres had to last a race it was dangerous, like when Raikkonen's tyres were flat spotted and then completely destroyed the suspension.

[Pingguest]

Races without pit stops were common before 1994. It was not a problem then. Besides, Raikkonen was allowed to change his damaged tire during the 2005 European Grand Prix.

[FW17]

I think F1 needs a little bit of instability of rules to make it more exciting

2017 - refueling + tyre change
2018 - Only Refueling no tyre change
2019 - Only tyre change no refueling
2020 - refueling + tyre change
2021 - Only Refueling no tyre change
2022 - Only tyre change no refueling


People argue against refueling by taking the sample years as 2009 and 2010 but that is wrong interpretation of the results as refueling had been there for many years and it was the first year of the new regulations and teams were finding the best strategy. Now that this regulation has matured comparing 2009 with 2013 or 2015 shows that with or without refueling the number of changes in position remains the same.

1) Refueling now is being proposed to be brought back as a way of reducing lap times in races as the other technical changes to reduce lap times will not be taken up.
2) Drivers will also be pushing for longer periods and will be on the limit more often
3) Race allowance may increase from the 100kg to no limit so no more seeing teams start the race with 90kg race fuel
4) overall lesser management

[GoranF1]

https://twitter.com/tgruener/status/689529169538080769

[f1316]

https://twitter.com/tgruener/status/689529169538080769

Fan surveys were in favour; majority of drivers were in favour - but of course it's a formality that it would be rejected...

There are two parties not seemingly in favour: journalists and, from what the journalists tell us, teams. From which I can only surmise the following:

1. It's in the interests of the majority of teams to keep the status quo. I'm not entirely sure why, but I would suggest that it may be because pre 2009 there was an even greater 'glass ceiling' in F1, with lower level teams less able to score points than since - particularly when Pirelli tyre lottery afforded them random chances for reasonable positions. A system which would allow better tyres removes the random element the tyres introduced, so these teams would prefer to steer in the direction of mixed up 2012.

2. Journalists are working on a combination of two falsehoods: the information supplied by the teams (presumably coloured by the above interests); the notion that more overtaking equals better racing.


The latter is simply not the case, as I and others have demonstrated throughout this thread. An easy overtake adds what to the show? Very little, in fact I'd argue that they become devalued as a result and the audience somewhat desensitised - you actually water down what should be a 'high spot'. We had an issue in the 2008 and before era where it was certainly too hard to overtake - and the high spots too few and far between - but when the ill conceived 2009 changes did not work, f1 went radical in ensuring overtakes happened and in so doing devalued the product.

On the team side, there's also a notion that mixed up orders are something fans want - again I think this is a fallacy. Did fans enjoy pure head to head battles between two teams such as Schumacher/Hakkinnen era or 2007/2008 era more or less than 2012 where there were 8 different winners at the start of the season? I would argue most would say the former.

This is because, I would suggest, a head to head rivalry between two titans head and shoulders above the rest is actually a more easily digestible and more intriguing story than pure unpredictability. One team dominating is no fun, but it's the nature of sport that it sometimes happens - you get into unsporting territory when you try to manufacture a 'good show every time' (and, again, it becomes devalued).