Clicky

Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

5P33D3V1L

Ban Refuelling?

Recommended Posts

Winning races in the pits doesn't count to some of you, but winning because someone else runs out of fuel does?

No its not that... I object to watching races where you think someone is winning and it turns out they are running on fumes and have to come in and in fact its the fourth place guy who is going to be the winner.

Or where someone has a predicted win based upon a pit strategy, works his nuts off and comes out of the pits one second behind someone else on a different pit strategy and loses.

Or the person in the Squadra Torred Bullforcindianardi who lucks into a fourth place because they went with a seven stop strategy which just happened to work.

Boring, boring, boring.

I'd rather see action on the track. What I really don't get is why people think that banning mandatory pit stops will make it boring. This was the way it was for many, many years and there was plenty of action/racing.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No its not that... I object to watching races where you think someone is winning and it turns out they are running on fumes and have to come in and in fact its the fourth place guy who is going to be the winner.

Or where someone has a predicted win based upon a pit strategy, works his nuts off and comes out of the pits one second behind someone else on a different pit strategy and loses.

Or the person in the Squadra Torred Bullforcindianardi who lucks into a fourth place because they went with a seven stop strategy which just happened to work.

Boring, boring, boring.

I'd rather see action on the track. What I really don't get is why people think that banning mandatory pit stops will make it boring. This was the way it was for many, many years and there was plenty of action/racing.....

If you keep the current regulations for car design, you'll never see good, close racing anyway. That's why I think you need to change the cars first, give that a go, and then see where the sport stands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you keep the current regulations for car design, you'll never see good, close racing anyway. That's why I think you need to change the cars first, give that a go, and then see where the sport stands.

Ah now on that I do agree...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you keep the current regulations for car design, you'll never see good, close racing anyway. That's why I think you need to change the cars first, give that a go, and then see where the sport stands.

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Winning races in the pits doesn't count to some of you, but winning because someone else runs out of fuel does?

Yes. Its not the strategical planning that always has to count. But the people that **** it up too. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd imagine everyone will agree that the cars need to change. DOF's suggestions are pretty good imho there. Regarding banning pitstops, it's an interesting idea I suppose, but I dunno how it would work out with modern cars. Nevertheless, if I had to vote one way or the other (and not make any other changes to F1 cars/teams etc), I would say let's ban refuelling and let the drivers settle it however they can, rather than the pitlane boffins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd imagine everyone will agree that the cars need to change. DOF's suggestions are pretty good imho there. Regarding banning pitstops, it's an interesting idea I suppose, but I dunno how it would work out with modern cars. Nevertheless, if I had to vote one way or the other (and not make any other changes to F1 cars/teams etc), I would say let's ban refuelling and let the drivers settle it however they can, rather than the pitlane boffins.

I'd rather have "fake" drama than no drama. Without pit stops, there really would be no drama, assuming the regs stay the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boy, we agree on something! That's becomign a rarity around here, Bruce George. :P

:lol: True..don't worry though, soon you'll 'see the light' and agree with me :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been watching F1 for 25 years and it has always been the same;

The fastest cars at the front and every other team is trying to catch up.

It was the turbo era that is ultimately to blame for what we have now. Engineers were given free licence to do what they wanted and, as a result, F1 was spiraling out of control. 1000+ bhp turbo's with ground effect and traction control :o If the sport couldn't act responsibly in regulating itself, big brother (FIA) would intervene and impose responsibility on them. So the FIA have been trying to slow the cars down while the engineers have been trying to speed the cars up.

The FIA imposes mechanical/technical regs the engineers develop aero. F1 engineers will always find ways to make the cars go faster..fast cars win races..overtaking is of no consequence to an engineer, all that interests them is going faster than the other teams. Fans/FIA are concerned with the spectacle, the teams couldn't care less...win at all costs is their motto.

Furthermore, Schumacher's dominance of the sport has also encouraged the FIA to try and spice up the show.

- Re-fuleing

- New points system

- Banning of driver aids

- Blah blah blah

The FIA are partly to blame, but the sport should really have taken more responsibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd rather have "fake" drama than no drama. Without pit stops, there really would be no drama, assuming the regs stay the same.

True. Monaco with no pitstops or the Hungarian GP will be duller than the Irish weather is now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: Swollen, sweaty, hairy dog's bollocks!

I've been watching F1 for 25 years and it has always been the same;

The fastest cars at the front and every other team is trying to catch up.

It was the turbo era that is ultimately to blame for what we have now. Engineers were given free licence to do what they wanted and, as a result, F1 was spiraling out of control. 1000+ bhp turbo's with ground effect and traction control :o If the sport couldn't act responsibly in regulating itself, big brother (FIA) would intervene and impose responsibility on them. So the FIA have been trying to slow the cars down while the engineers have been trying to speed the cars up.

The FIA imposes mechanical/technical regs the engineers develop aero. F1 engineers will always find ways to make the cars go faster..fast cars win races..overtaking is of no consequence to an engineer, all that interests them is going faster than the other teams. Fans/FIA are concerned with the spectacle, the teams couldn't care less...win at all costs is their motto.

Furthermore, Schumacher's dominance of the sport has also encouraged the FIA to try and spice up the show.

- Re-fuleing

- New points system

- Banning of driver aids

- Blah blah blah

The FIA are partly to blame, but the sport should really have taken more responsibility.

That is a very fair post. I reckon the teams never will take more responsibility, and therefore in an ideal world we wouldn't have them at all. But that's another issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've been watching F1 for 25 years and it has always been the same;

The fastest cars at the front and every other team is trying to catch up.

Except that there were more winners and more overtaking and innovation.

1000+ bhp turbo's with ground effect and traction control :o

Add active suspensions, movable wings and fat slicks.

In 1987 at Monza people shocked, Nelson Piquet in his Williams fitted with active suspensions and a 1050 peak hp Honda turbo engine took the Curva Grande at 351 km/h, nobody had done this before.

It was when F1 was trully the pinnacle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The FIA are partly to blame, but the sport should really have taken more responsibility.

Why? I don't think I want the sport to have more responsibility. Bring on the turbos and innovation -that's what F1 was about.

Now someone will say "ah but think of all the dead drivers..."

True it introduces more risk, but racing of any type is risky and the drivers know it. To a degree it will become self-limiting as no driver will drive something which is that stupidly dangerous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why? I don't think I want the sport to have more responsibility. Bring on the turbos and innovation -that's what F1 was about.

Now someone will say "ah but think of all the dead drivers..."

True it introduces more risk, but racing of any type is risky and the drivers know it. To a degree it will become self-limiting as no driver will drive something which is that stupidly dangerous.

I don't know whether you watched f1 during the turbo era of the 1980's, but those cars were insane. The BMW in the Brabham reached over 1500bhp :o and the cars were still hitting 1400 bhp upto their demise in 1988. In 1988 a Porsche 959 had about 400bhp as did the Ferrari F40, a normal family saloon generated about 90bhp and a GTI about 130bhp. The F1 cars were socially irresponsible and were getting too fast for the tracks at the time. Do the maths, if that pace of development had continued the cars would have be reaching similar speeds to jet powered cars.

In 2008 Lewis' F1 car, with half the power, is about 8 seconds per lap faster than the turbo cars on certain tracks.. A Ferrari Enzo has 620 bhp, a Bugatti Veyron 1000bhp - the average family saloon has 150bhp and a GTI close to 200bhp. With this pace of development how fast would F1 cars be over the same period of development.

Innovation with social responsibilty has to be the way forward or governmnets would intervene to break up the party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway the tracks are the ultimate limiting factor - everyone is envisaging carnage but the reality is that the cars would not be able to lay down all that power - what use is 1500 BHP in Monaco for example (apart from the short blat in the tunnel)?

The tracks and available grip would limit the development with Max speed only occurring in a few places on straights and the like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Add active suspensions, movable wings and fat slicks.

In 1987 at Monza people shocked, Nelson Piquet in his Williams fitted with active suspensions and a 1050 peak hp Honda turbo engine took the Curva Grande at 351 km/h, nobody had done this before.

It was when F1 was trully the pinnacle.

The lap was awesome, but Montoya went faster 22 years later with half the power

http://www.f1-fansite.com/circuits/monza.asp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyway the tracks are the ultimate limiting factor - everyone is envisaging carnage but the reality is that the cars would not be able to lay down all that power - what use is 1500 BHP in Monaco for example (apart from the short blat in the tunnel)?

The tracks and available grip would limit the development with Max speed only occurring in a few places on straights and the like.

If you give a driver 2000bhp he will use it, drivers don't use part throttle on the straights. You are right regarding the tracks being the limiting factor, but slick tyres would have seen drivers taking eau rouge at 200mph :o

Health and saftey has been the limiting factor. No matter how strong the cars are there is still a point at which a crash will result in a fatality. After 1994 fatalities in f1 are no longer socially acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know whether you watched f1 during the turbo era of the 1980's, but those cars were insane. The BMW in the Brabham reached over 1500bhp :o and the cars were still hitting 1400 bhp upto their demise in 1988. In 1988 a Porsche 959 had about 400bhp as did the Ferrari F40, a normal family saloon generated about 90bhp and a GTI about 130bhp. The F1 cars were socially irresponsible and were getting too fast for the tracks at the time. Do the maths, if that pace of development had continued the cars would have be reaching similar speeds to jet powered cars.

In 2008 Lewis' F1 car, with half the power, is about 8 seconds per lap faster than the turbo cars on certain tracks.. A Ferrari Enzo has 620 bhp, a Bugatti Veyron 1000bhp - the average family saloon has 150bhp and a GTI close to 200bhp. With this pace of development how fast would F1 cars be over the same period of development.

Innovation with social responsibilty has to be the way forward or governmnets would intervene to break up the party.

The 1500 hp stuff was just a deduction from a flash reading (they probably added a hundred or 2 horses). And that was a qualli special. Those engines only lasted for qualification, for the races the actual cruise power was more like ~800 (apart from the Honda), but that's only at the end of the straight lines on full boost.

Cars however weren't capable of running full boost apart from when overtaking as they would have run out of fuel or blown up.

Right now in race trim a peak a 3.5 V10 (89 spec) NA would have pumped ~1500 hp, and 1.5 turbo 1800, combined a 3.5 V10 Turbo 4200 hp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...