Do You Think No Refueling Will Add To F1??

[mikathegreat2 2]

Only six posts and you are already begging for my attention while trying to hump my leg...

The fun we are going to have.

He joined in April so I think he knows you!

[Autumnpuma 0]

He joined in April so I think he knows you!

To know him is to ignore him.

[F1 FANatic 1]

Like the speed guys say, especially Matchett, one of the mechanics in the big fire of 94 I think it was, it is safer for the mechanics without refueling but even Matchett says this:

Refueling was reintroduced to make things more exciting.

Refueling was banned to make things more exciting.

Honestly, check out the 2010 prediction thread and Insider and I already proved, mathematically and logically by looking at the new rules that banning refueling is only detrimental to F1.

[shampion 0]

Do you think no refueling will help F1??

I think if the kept kers it would have made it alot like the 80's when they had turbo's and no refueling.

Definitely NO!

[yurp 0]

refuelling was first used by Bernie and co. when they figured theycould get the car around the 70 laps quicker if they had less fuel onboard and stopped for slightly longer to refuel (there was no ruleagainst refuelling then).

then it was banned (mainly because other teams hadn't thought of it first).

then it was reintroduced to spice things up.

now it will be banned again - to spice things up.

I know that now cars will be slower at the beggining of the race and will go picking up speed but I don't have a clear idea if the races are going to longer or shorter now, I know pit stops will be shorter but just by 5 second in average so it is not much of an influence in how long the races will be now, anyway I think races will be longer now because cars will be near empty at the end of the race while they were near empty 3 times in a normal race.

Can someone of you tell me someting about this?

EDIT: by longer I mean more time to complete the race, I know they will cover the same distance but how much time it will take to complete the race with refueling?

So - to answer your question - by banning refuelling they will take longer to complete 70 laps.

without refuelling we get slower races, less strategy difference between teams, identical tyre selection from everyone, identical pitstop lengths, heavy cars that will be harder to overtake in, fastest laps happening only at the end of races, quallifying deciding race order and finishing order, processional dullness.

The first few races will be funsies, with a few drivers going off (not being used to driving tanks), but after that it'll return to dullness as everyone gets used to it.

We've done this discussion ad nauseum for the last 2 months now. I wonder if we'll ever again get a new season without a rule change to 'spice things up'.

If they want to cut costs, surely it would be a good idea not to change rules every year and force teams to spend extra on r&d as a result.

[Jez 0]

I say ban refueling. Some of the races this year have been too exciting to watch.

[Kopite Girl 0]

It depends on what you mean by 'help F1' so at the moment its a yes/no answer.

Cost of F1 - yes.

Pure out and out racing will maybe get exciting towards the end of the race when all cars are light. For the more conservative drivers, this would work well. For the sprint racers, this wouldn't bode as good. The FIA need to find a balance. I don't know whether limiting the amount of stops per race inclusive of repairs may mix it up. Don't know though. Drivers may become too conservative!

[F1 FANatic 1]

I say ban refueling. Some of the races this year have been too exciting to watch.

and you think next year will be better....

[Bredda Natty 0]

Bollocks! TF!

If what you say is the case then most of the races pre mandatory refuelling would have been dire and I don't remember them being that way.

We'll see who has the greater skill to get the car through the race and I certainly remember the drivers who raced off at the start, burning lots of fuel in the process than had to slow down at the end, nursing their fuel and in so doing put them in the clutches of others who had played a more strategic game. Made for some very exciting racing.

My thoughts exactly. Also with this only being one of few changes in rules for next season and teams having a better knowledge of tyre behaviour with the current aerodynamics I don't expect boring races. Except on the obvious tracks

[dribbler 6]

Have we discussed yet what impact it will have on the cars, having larger fuel tanks? Surely this will be significant? There will have to be re-packaging and a shift in dynamic mass which will have an effect on the whole design. Or have I misunderstood and they will just carry the extra fuel around in mobile colostomy sacks, stuck to the sidepods (Rubens already carries one, apparently).

[Schumikonen 2]

So - to answer your question - by banning refuelling they will take longer to complete 70 laps.

without refuelling we get slower races, less strategy difference between teams, identical tyre selection from everyone, identical pitstop lengths, heavy cars that will be harder to overtake in, fastest laps happening only at the end of races, quallifying deciding race order and finishing order, processional dullness.

The first few races will be funsies, with a few drivers going off (not being used to driving tanks), but after that it'll return to dullness as everyone gets used to it.

We've done this discussion ad nauseum for the last 2 months now. I wonder if we'll ever again get a new season without a rule change to 'spice things up'.

If they want to cut costs, surely it would be a good idea not to change rules every year and force teams to spend extra on r&d as a result.

So now in the cae of rain we may see more race ending because they reached the 2 hours limit and we will have less podium/interviews time s there will be another program waiting to be aired right at the end of the race, it looks like we are the ones who are going to loose more on this move.

[Autumnpuma 0]

Refueling was reintroduced to make things more exciting.

Refueling was banned to make things more exciting.

Matchett is wise.

My thoughts exactly. Also with this only being one of few changes in rules for next season and teams having a better knowledge of tyre behaviour with the current aerodynamics I don't expect boring races. Except on the obvious tracks

This is also wisdom. The biggest determining factor in having an exciting race is to have a challenging circuit.

Have we discussed yet what impact it will have on the cars, having larger fuel tanks? Surely this will be significant? There will have to be re-packaging and a shift in dynamic mass which will have an effect on the whole design. Or have I misunderstood and they will just carry the extra fuel around in mobile colostomy sacks, stuck to the sidepods (Rubens already carries one, apparently).

Extra weight will mean more turn-in understeer; much like what we have this season, only moreso (I don't know how much mass-shifting they can do. The fuel tanks are located just to the rear of center). I would think the drivers that can deal with entry understeer and exit-oversteer will be ahead. Look for Alonso, Vettel, Kubeeetza, Webber, Hamilton, Massa, and possibly Rosberg and Rubens to do well (mostly the same drivers that have done well this year). Sorry, Button fans, but the Englishman has not done well with a heavy car (compared to what he can do with a light one). Those are my guesses and I'll be eager to see if I'm right.

[Quiet One 15]

It doesn't matter whether or not refueling is banned. With no testing, no actual freedom for teams and more DON'Ts than DOs, discussing about refuelling yes or no is choosing what kind of boredom we want for next year.

[monza gorilla 1]

Extra weight will mean more turn-in understeer; much like what we have this season, only moreso (I don't know how much mass-shifting they can do. The fuel tanks are located just to the rear of center). I would think the drivers that can deal with entry understeer and exit-oversteer will be ahead. Look for Alonso, Vettel, Kubeeetza, Webber, Hamilton, Massa, and possibly Rosberg and Rubens to do well (mostly the same drivers that have done well this year). Sorry, Button fans, but the Englishman has not done well with a heavy car (compared to what he can do with a light one). Those are my guesses and I'll be eager to see if I'm right.

Add narrower front tyres into the mix. I was under the impression that the 2009 fronts gave too much turn in, hence reducing the width for 2010. I don't think any of the current pedallers have tried a car with a race load of fuel except Rubinho. So, if he can remember anything from that long ago he may surprise a few.

[Autumnpuma 0]

Add narrower front tyres into the mix. I was under the impression that the 2009 fronts gave too much turn in, hence reducing the width for 2010. I don't think any of the current pedallers have tried a car with a race load of fuel except Rubinho. So, if he can remember anything from that long ago he may surprise a few.

Hm. I hadn't heard that (shows how much I've been keeping up with the tech side of things) and, to me, the cars don't look like they have good turn-in, but I suppose it's all relative. More turn-in from 2008 is still not a lot when you consider the front-end grip that's been lost with the raising of the front wing a few years back. I'd be interested to know if the drivers made the comment about turn-in or was it the engineers/designers?

[Schumikonen 2]

It doesn't matter whether or not refueling is banned. With no testing, no actual freedom for teams and more DON'Ts than DOs, discussing about refuelling yes or no is choosing what kind of boredom we want for next year.

I will agree with you in this one but don't ge used to it.

[JHS 1]

Won't add anything, won't take anything away in terms of action in my opinion. Of course, the pit stop phase has been a good chance for people to overtake, but I'd rather see it done on the track.

[lewisthegreat2 0]

Won't add anything, won't take anything away in terms of action in my opinion. Of course, the pit stop phase has been a good chance for people to overtake, but I'd rather see it done on the track.

Bah, silly driversport fans.

I find it interesting when a team out-strategizes another, honestly. I can't say I care how the positions change; it's always exciting when they do.

Now we'll just see less, because they won't on pit lane, and they won't change anymore on track than they already do (which is a decent amount).

So I do think it'll take from the sport, but I'll judge it when I see it.

[parabs 0]

No refueling? Ok. Makes no difference in the big picture.

Only six posts and you are already begging for my attention while trying to hump my leg...

The fun we are going to have.

We have already had a rodeo:

http://www.totalf1.com/forums/index.php?/topic/10730-diffuser-saga-over-then/page__st__90

I think my first post was #112 in response to some your peculiar takes

[Autumnpuma 0]

We have already had a rodeo:

http://www.totalf1.com/forums/index.php?/topic/10730-diffuser-saga-over-then/page__st__90

I think my first post was #112 in response to some your peculiar takes

A fine read. I agree with our 500-pound Gorilla; nicely acidic and yet filling. I approve of someone coming in out of the blue with both guns blazing.

[monza gorilla 1]

Hm. I hadn't heard that (shows how much I've been keeping up with the tech side of things) and, to me, the cars don't look like they have good turn-in, but I suppose it's all relative. More turn-in from 2008 is still not a lot when you consider the front-end grip that's been lost with the raising of the front wing a few years back. I'd be interested to know if the drivers made the comment about turn-in or was it the engineers/designers?

Yeah. When the grooves were removed the rubber ratio front/rear changed with the front footprint increasing relative to the rear. This is really only a factor in the slow speed twisties though because, as you say, on the higher speed stuff there is less aero. It was one of the Bridgestone guys who highlighted it. I'll see if I can find you a link.

Edit: 500 pounds? So that's why my trousers don't fit anymore.

[mikathegreat2 2]

A fine read. I agree with our 500-pound Gorilla; nicely acidic and yet filling. I approve of someone coming in out of the blue with both guns blazing.

+1 & not just towards maure! It's also forum comradeship to argue all the time!

[monza gorilla 1]

No it isn't.

[Autumnpuma 0]

Only argue if you really disagree. It was his 'first post guns blazing' attitude that I liked. I'm not into halfways. Do it all, full tilt, or sit down and shut up. I think. Lemme ponder that, maybe it shouldn't sound so harsh.

[monza gorilla 1]

Sometimes subtlety backfires.