Ban Refuelling?

[DOF_power 0]

A Honda engineer said with turbos on a V10 they can get from 320+ hp per litre to 1200 hp per litre in race trim at peak.

3.5 liter x 1200 hp = 4200 hp.

[Jez 0]

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

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.

But if F1 cars went that fast, would we see even less overtaking?

[DOF_power 0]

But if F1 cars went that fast, would we see even less overtaking?

Well if they'll eliminate all the chicanes they put from 1970 onwards and bring back slipstream track then it's just more toe for the cars (like oval racing).

[Autumnpuma 0]

If we ban refuelling, the best cars will still be at the front. The FIA won't run with that ball. From an environmental and safety point of view it makes profound sense but I remember racing without it and it wasn't any more exciting than it is today. Either Senna, Mansell or Prost would hare off into the distance and that was that. Once in a while, one of these giants would make a bad call on tyre changes and would go backwards into the pack - like Piquet did at the British in '87, where Mansell [ the only driver who was ever Senna's equal], made up 20 secs in 20 laps to catch Piquet and beat him right at the death. That was exciting but a rare occurrence. For me, there should be a universal budget cap but beyond that teams can do what they like. It's called racing. As far as I am concerned, the sterile shambles the FIA has created over the past few seasons is appalling. Moreover, it bores the pants off me. Let's strip off these Noddy wings, get these babies slick-shod, wring the necks of the engines and let go racing people! Can you hear me Max!!

You leave me with nothing to say. Your post, sir, captures the whole point and passion of this sport. Well said.

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 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.

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

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.

Everything you've talked about in your two posts have one underlying theme: Fear of excess speed. Funny thing is, this sport is all about excess speed. It's about risk and it's about danger. Younger viewers with urbane sensitivities have been seeking to civilize this sport for the past 20 years and they've largely succeeded, but that doesn't change what racing is. Racing isn't civilized, it isn't urbane. It's drivers getting into the fastest cars and fighting with everyone else to get that checkered flag first. It's fear and it's courage and it's skill and sometimes it's death but through it all it's always racing. We can b itch all day about how racing today is lacking that special something of the eras that have come and gone without ever realizing that it's the danger and the thrill of watching a skillful driver court that danger while defending a piece of tarmac from the other guy that created that special something to begin with.

Racing will only ever change when we, as a collective of fans, come back to a place that's a little less civilized. If we can't do that, then all we're really left with is a soulless technical exercise every other Sunday and we've no right to b itch about a rule change here or there that will ultimately change nothing.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Everything you've talked about in your two posts have one underlying theme: Fear of excess speed. Funny thing is, this sport is all about excess speed. It's about risk and it's about danger. Younger viewers with urbane sensitivities have been seeking to civilize this sport for the past 20 years and they've largely succeeded, but that doesn't change what racing is. Racing isn't civilized, it isn't urbane. It's drivers getting into the fastest cars and fighting with everyone else to get that checkered flag first. It's fear and it's courage and it's skill and sometimes it's death but through it all it's always racing. We can b itch all day about how racing today is lacking that special something of the eras that have come and gone without ever realizing that it's the danger and the thrill of watching a skillful driver court that danger while defending a piece of tarmac from the other guy that created that special something to begin with.

Racing will only ever change when we, as a collective of fans, come back to a place that's a little less civilized. If we can't do that, then all we're really left with is a soulless technical exercise every other Sunday and we've no right to b itch about a rule change here or there that will ultimately change nothing.

Absolutely agree.

For me this is a symptom of creeping political correctness and just more evidence that FIA micro-manages everything.

If you've ever heard Jackie Stewart talk about this, he recalls a time when (I think this figure is correct) 1 in 4 drivers would not finish the season. Now I don't particularly want to see dead or injured drivers, but in the post-Senna era so much of the risk, danger and speed has been taken out that it has become sterile.

My memories of F1 past include 32 car grids, cars going sideways around corners, engines blowing spectacularly, even the Prost vs Senna incidents. None of which are allowed to happen nowadays.

Shame.

[DOF_power 0]

Absolutely agree.

For me this is a symptom of creeping political correctness and just more evidence that FIA micro-manages everything.

If you've ever heard Jackie Stewart talk about this, he recalls a time when (I think this figure is correct) 1 in 4 drivers would not finish the season. Now I don't particularly want to see dead or injured drivers, but in the post-Senna era so much of the risk, danger and speed has been taken out that it has become sterile.

My memories of F1 past include 32 car grids, cars going sideways around corners, engines blowing spectacularly, even the Prost vs Senna incidents. None of which are allowed to happen nowadays.

Shame.

Nope, the grids were restricted to 26 cars max via pre-quals (18 or 20 cars at Monaco, 14 cars at Spain).

Engines blowing true.

Note to Max bring back the turbos and some small electric engines to the front powered by the KERS to generate some temp overboost/overtraction.

Prost vs. Senna yeah, funny thing is that actually there where more on track incidents/collisions/accidents between Mansell and Senna (85, 86, 87, 89, 92 just the ones I remember) then between Prost and Senna.

That's because both where hot-heads/big-ego/no-holding-back/agressive-irresponsible types, and while Prost was quite scared by Senna dangerous maneuvres the same was not true Mansell.

Senna and Prost in fact only colided at Suzuka in 89 and 90.

Here's some Mansell - Senna on track incidents/collisions/accidents videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8GOh4CT2J8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6UmfyYRA_c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bes1tCIzPY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aqo_dUmhFMM

[Fed up 0]

Everything you've talked about in your two posts have one underlying theme: Fear of excess speed. Funny thing is, this sport is all about excess speed. It's about risk and it's about danger. Younger viewers with urbane sensitivities have been seeking to civilize this sport for the past 20 years and they've largely succeeded, but that doesn't change what racing is. Racing isn't civilized, it isn't urbane. It's drivers getting into the fastest cars and fighting with everyone else to get that checkered flag first. It's fear and it's courage and it's skill and sometimes it's death but through it all it's always racing. We can b itch all day about how racing today is lacking that special something of the eras that have come and gone without ever realizing that it's the danger and the thrill of watching a skillful driver court that danger while defending a piece of tarmac from the other guy that created that special something to begin with.

Racing will only ever change when we, as a collective of fans, come back to a place that's a little less civilized. If we can't do that, then all we're really left with is a soulless technical exercise every other Sunday and we've no right to b itch about a rule change here or there that will ultimately change nothing.

Agreed!

F1 is now the global spectacle that it is because of this shift in thinking. Back in the day Bernie and Max identified manufacturer backed teams as the way forward as global consciousness targeted tobacco companies and their sponsorship as politically incorrect. The sport would have died a death or, at the very least dumbed down, if Bernie/Max were unable to fill the void left by the likes of BAT, Benson & Hedges, Rothmans, 555 & Malboro. Microsoft and other blue chip companies were not prepared to invest the huge sums required of an F1 team for advertising.

As a result of courting the Manufacturers the sport had to become responsible and pc. Mercedes pulled out of F1 back in the day due to fatalaties...I'm pretty certain they wouldn't have to returned to a sport that retained the old consciousness. We now have BMW, Mercedes, Toyota, Ferrari, Honda and Renault pouring $billions into F1 and the audience worldwide is at the highest it has ever been. These companies do not want to be associated with a sport where drivers die as this could rub off onto their showroom sales - a lay person could associate a driver dying on the track in their Honda to their planned car purchase...Death is not good for sales unless you're an undertaker.

As a result of manufacturer backing you now have other blue chip compaines like Lenovo, Intell, Santander etc involved in F1.

F1, as it used to be, is no more. Privateer teams cant afford to compete with the manufacturers and the level of technology and engineering is truly mind boggling. The sport has evolved and is better for it IMHO

[monza gorilla 1]

I like the idea of banning refuelling. It may force teams (not the FIA, who have proved to be spectacularly inept when it comes to technical thinking, or any sort of thinking come to that) into working out how to get past each other on the track instead of playing Max's "chess". Whoever made the astounding observation that the fast cars would still be at the front (can't be arsed to look up the post), isn't that what it's all about??

Leave refuelling to the endurance boys, where it belongs.

[Quiet One 15]

I like the idea of banning refuelling. It may force teams (not the FIA, who have proved to be spectacularly inept when it comes to technical thinking, or any sort of thinking come to that) into working out how to get past each other on the track instead of playing Max's "chess". Whoever made the astounding observation that the fast cars would still be at the front (can't be arsed to look up the post), isn't that what it's all about??

Leave refuelling to the endurance boys, where it belongs.

That would be ok...in theory. The problem is that, given the current terminally idiotic regulations, those at the front will never change (I know they never did in the past, but at least we could hope). With the engine freeze in place, a middle-to-back of the field team can only add so many wingies and thingies to improve their crappy car. All I can see with banning refuelling at this stage is a race-long parade. No overtaking on track, plus no refuelling means only hoping for crashes and mechanical failures to see any changes between the first and last laps.

[Rainmaster 7]

With the current regs, refuelling strategies are the only way for smaller teams to make up ground. If we didn't have them this year, we'd be calling last year 'a great year for racing' in comparison.

[monza gorilla 1]

I seem to remember the Cosworth DFV powering almost the entire field. Not much different to an engine freeze I suppose. Anyway, that's why I said it would be up to the teams and not the FIA to come up with the answers. I suppose it's because I'm interested in seeing who are the more complete drivers. The ones who can handle a car full and empty, with fresh and worn rubber, and all the balance changes that these things cause. You're right about the aero side of things of course, the little guys just can't afford to employ 100 boffins to design new wheel nuts that save a few nano seconds per lap. But getting rid of the greeblies will help the smaller teams, I think. And it may well encourage some new thinking in design. Or maybe I just want it to be better than the snoozefest we've got now.

[Quiet One 15]

I seem to remember the Cosworth DFV powering almost the entire field. Not much different to an engine freeze I suppose. Anyway, that's why I said it would be up to the teams and not the FIA to come up with the answers. I suppose it's because I'm interested in seeing who are the more complete drivers. The ones who can handle a car full and empty, with fresh and worn rubber, and all the balance changes that these things cause. You're right about the aero side of things of course, the little guys just can't afford to employ 100 boffins to design new wheel nuts that save a few nano seconds per lap. But getting rid of the greeblies will help the smaller teams, I think. And it may well encourage some new thinking in design. Or maybe I just want it to be better than the snoozefest we've got now.

Me too. With no engine freeze and FIA's applying the DOF chant (slicks, V10, active suspensions and such) plus freedom in tire strategies , banning refuelling would actually make for an exciting challenge as the drivers struggle not only to be be the fastest, but also the best at keeping the car, brakes and tires together for the whole race.

Of course, Max will tell you that it would be too "expensive", unlike now when anybody can afford an F1 team, provided they are a huge manufacturing company with the budget of a middle sized European country.

[Max Mosley 2]

I seem to remember the Cosworth DFV powering almost the entire field. Not much different to an engine freeze I suppose.

No it's very different. If everyone has the same engine the racing should be much closer.

But getting rid of the greeblies will help the smaller teams, I think.

Agreed. Also, I think there would be more overtaking without refuelling even with unchanged regs. For example, differences in tyre degradation rates would become more significant if tyres had to last a whole race, which would give more opportunity for eg the Ferraris to pass eg the McLarens.

[DOF_power 0]

You seem to confuse close racing with good racing. Very big mistake.

Webber keeping 5 cars behind (faster and with better drivers) is close racing but it ain't any good.

In the turbo era a Mansell/Pique/Prost/Senna would have cranked up the turbo boost and 50 to 500 extra Honda horses and easily pass him.

[Max Mosley 2]

Actually I'd rather see someone in a slow car (eg Webber) keep faster cars behind than enable the faster cars to easily pass him. Most people seem to be complaining that slower teams have no chance, whereas you are complaining the opposite is true! In any case, I didn't mention 'good' racing, so it's hard to see how I could have confused it with anything. Close racing is a necessary but (arguably) insufficient condition for good racing.

[F1 FANatic 1]

Of course we should.

What's more important than money?

Money, money, money... Saving money, money, money... If I were a rich man...

Max, maximum savings.

are you crazy? go karts are way to expensive. Paddle cars with stone tires that don't ware are a far better solution, that way you don't need the fire suits for drivers either which saves money

[AleHop 0]

are you crazy? go karts are way to expensive. Paddle cars with stone tires that don't ware are a far better solution, that way you don't need the fire suits for drivers either which saves money

Oh, and they are green too...

I hope Max is not reading around here.

[DOF_power 0]

Actually I'd rather see someone in a slow car (eg Webber) keep faster cars behind than enable the faster cars to easily pass him. Most people seem to be complaining that slower teams have no chance, whereas you are complaining the opposite is true! In any case, I didn't mention 'good' racing, so it's hard to see how I could have confused it with anything. Close racing is a necessary but (arguably) insufficient condition for good racing.

His position has nothing to do with his skills or his car's pace, but with how much fuel the strategy boys decided, how much dirty air his car is producing and how thin the rubber line is.

Dirty air parades have nothing to do with actual racing.

[Rainmaster 7]

His position has nothing to do with his skills or his car's pace, but with how much fuel the strategy boys decided, how much dirty air his car is producing and how thin the rubber line is.

Dirty air parades have nothing to do with actual racing.

Yep.

[Max Mosley 2]

His position has nothing to do with his skills or his car's pace, but with how much fuel the strategy boys decided, how much dirty air his car is producing and how thin the rubber line is.

The way things stand, it's a team sport and strategy is part of that. Those people are some of the smartest in F1.

[DOF_power 0]

That reduces the importance of man and machine.

[Max Mosley 2]

Strategists are men; their computers, machines.

[Autumnpuma 0]

Agreed!

F1 is now the global spectacle that it is because of this shift in thinking. Back in the day Bernie and Max identified manufacturer backed teams as the way forward as global consciousness targeted tobacco companies and their sponsorship as politically incorrect. The sport would have died a death or, at the very least dumbed down, if Bernie/Max were unable to fill the void left by the likes of BAT, Benson & Hedges, Rothmans, 555 & Malboro. Microsoft and other blue chip companies were not prepared to invest the huge sums required of an F1 team for advertising.

As a result of courting the Manufacturers the sport had to become responsible and pc. Mercedes pulled out of F1 back in the day due to fatalaties...I'm pretty certain they wouldn't have to returned to a sport that retained the old consciousness. We now have BMW, Mercedes, Toyota, Ferrari, Honda and Renault pouring $billions into F1 and the audience worldwide is at the highest it has ever been. These companies do not want to be associated with a sport where drivers die as this could rub off onto their showroom sales - a lay person could associate a driver dying on the track in their Honda to their planned car purchase...Death is not good for sales unless you're an undertaker.

As a result of manufacturer backing you now have other blue chip compaines like Lenovo, Intell, Santander etc involved in F1.

F1, as it used to be, is no more. Privateer teams cant afford to compete with the manufacturers and the level of technology and engineering is truly mind boggling. The sport has evolved and is better for it IMHO

You are correct, yet through all that corporate goodness, global popularity and manufacturer-inspired technology, almost everyone will agree the races are missing something. Is that something death? No, but it's the risk of death. We humans admire men that are willing to do something dangerous and come out alive on the other side of it. We look at the daring climb of the Eigerwand back in the '30s and those men get respect and awe dished towards them for that far more than I'd get climbing the hills behind my house. So it is with auto-racing. To truly catch the magic, there must be risk and daring men willing to take that risk. Motor racing and mountain climbing are the only true sports...everything else is just a game. I'd like to keep it that way.

On the refuelling thing, don't ban it. I like the pit-lane strategies and the endless chances for mistakes that presents. It also gives the team a little something to do other than sit and eat pastries and red bull while watching the race. I do like Russ' viewpoint on it and I'd also like to see how the new boys handle the shifting conditions of tyre/fuel load during a race. Either way is fine with me because both options give me something I like to watch.

[Rainmaster 7]

You are correct, yet through all that corporate goodness, global popularity and manufacturer-inspired technology, almost everyone will agree the races are missing something. Is that something death? No, but it's the risk of death. We humans admire men that are willing to do something dangerous and come out alive on the other side of it. We look at the daring climb of the Eigerwand back in the '30s and those men get respect and awe dished towards them for that far more than I'd get climbing the hills behind my house. So it is with auto-racing. To truly catch the magic, there must be risk and daring men willing to take that risk. Motor racing and mountain climbing are the only true sports...everything else is just a game. I'd like to keep it that way.

On the refuelling thing, don't ban it. I like the pit-lane strategies and the endless chances for mistakes that presents. It also gives the team a little something to do other than sit and eat pastries and red bull while watching the race. I do like Russ' viewpoint on it and I'd also like to see how the new boys handle the shifting conditions of tyre/fuel load during a race. Either way is fine with me because both options give me something I like to watch.

Quite right. Risk is the essence of racing.

[Quiet One 15]

Quite right. Risk is the essence of racing.

Wrong.

Risk is the essence of unprotected sex.

Wearing tight racing suits is the essence of F1.