Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
radical-one

Bring Back Re-Fueling And Ditch Drs

36 posts in this topic

Re-Fueling adds excitement to the current boring short pit stops.

DRS takes away the essence of REAL overtaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always said this, brings another element of strategy also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And while they're at it, do something with the sound. F1 used to be a lot exciting with the V8s/V10s.

The last time I watched in Suzuka I could hear the guy beside me burp and fart louder than them turbos meh.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need strategy, absolutely. F1 has only ever been interesting when there is strategy. It's pretty simple—you cannot have an overtake without a faster car behind a slower car. How does that happen? Strategy, mainly.

Without strategy, the fastest cars are, in general, at the front of the field through qualifying. So, they stay there. And everyone runs in a line.

With strategy, however, you will get points in the race where slower cars jump faster cars, and points in the race where a faster car may be running slower to conserve or a slower car may be running faster due to fresher tires. A lot of people whine that strategic racing is boring, but what's actually boring is all the cars going all-out all-the-time, because that's qualifying, and therefore, they stay in the order they qualified.

We had tire strategy in 2012 and half of 2013. Everyone but about three of us here complained and complained how it was "fake" or a "lottery," which was amusing, if not frustrating as someone who enjoyed the unpredictability and great racing. But the real downfall was safety, of course, after the 2013 Silverstone race. So, now we have no tire strategy.

And without refueling, we have no fuel strategy. But with refueling, we supposedly lose this effort to try to appear not environmentally wasteful.

What's the answer, then?

Keep the 100 kg fuel limit, but allow refueling. It's really that easy, I think. Let the teams use the 100 kg however they want. Your overall consumption will be the same (in actuality, less, because no one will need all 100 kg given how much lighter the cars will be if they don't have to carry it all at once—funny how the "green" concerns about banning refueling actually make the cars less efficient due to the heaviness of them), which is the only metric that matters, that these cars can complete a set distance with a set amount of fuel.

And then you get strategy back. Maybe it's better to run all 100 kg and not refuel, especially if you only need one tire change. Maybe it's better to try to set a ridiculous pace on a light load. Maybe you want to start light and end heavy, or start heavy and end light. Maybe some teams will find a design advantage in running a smaller tank, risking the fact they'll be bound to never running a huge load at one time. It opens things up again.

burp and fart

There is hope for this forum yet. It might not be dead, after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prepare for formula e take over, apparently they have had power added to those cars this season also, so there getting quicker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now they'll sound like louder space ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DRS is the lamest thing in F1.

F1 is about racing/overtaking and here we are getting Aid how to overtake ? F3, GT, DTM has more excitement than F1 after DRS.

DRS - Discards Racing Strategy

Edited by radical-one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've been down the path of refuelling and we know what it adds to racing on the track, NOTHING! In fact it takes away from racing on the track as drivers sit and wait for the pit stops to take place before going flat out to gain an advantage over a competitor. Refuelling should never return to F1 - we have run the experiment between 1994 and 2010 and we have the evidence.

DRS should never have been introduced in the first place but that should be taken off the cars immediately. No skill needed to overtake. Abu Dhabi shows it for the joke it is with it's double DRS zone. Shameful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You serious? Fuel stops as a whole other element of strategy, some of the best races I've seen was due to fuel stops. Like Schumacher in the 1998 Hungarian Gp when he made a three stop strategy work to brilliant effect while everyone else was on two, it defiantly spices things up, but hey that's your opinion, welcome to the forum btw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You serious? Fuel stops as a whole other element of strategy, some of the best races I've seen was due to fuel stops. Like Schumacher in the 1998 Hungarian Gp when he made a three stop strategy work to brilliant effect while everyone else was on two, it defiantly spices things up, but hey that's your opinion, welcome to the forum btw.

Yeah that Hungarian GP was an exceptional race, but it was one race out of several hundred that weren't, so many races where we were robbed of seeing drivers trying to overtake one another on the track because they were waiting for their fuel stop. Like I said we've got the evidence, we know the type of racing we'll get with fuel stops, that's one of the reasons it was banned.

I want to see a purer form of racing. No fuel stops, no DRS, no engineer's coaching or advice over the radio (they all sound so dull anyway). Let the drivers drive and race it out on the track.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was quite the opposite IMO, we had drivers faster than others during the full duration of the Grand Prix due to drivers and teams running different fuel strategies allow them to short fill for a faster car or full fill for a longer duration. Trying to figure out if someone is quick due to a fuel strategy or just plan quick outright was always the fun for me, but that's my opinion. The main reason it was banned was so betnie could pocket more of the cash and not have to bring so many people to a race and have smaller pit crews. It's all a money thing and that's all it ever is, it's never for the show or for safety.

Edited by Emmcee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah that Hungarian GP was an exceptional race, but it was one race out of several hundred that weren't, so many races where we were robbed of seeing drivers trying to overtake one another on the track because they were waiting for their fuel stop. Like I said we've got the evidence, we know the type of racing we'll get with fuel stops, that's one of the reasons it was banned.

I want to see a purer form of racing. No fuel stops, no DRS, no engineer's coaching or advice over the radio (they all sound so dull anyway). Let the drivers drive and race it out on the track.

"I want to see a purer form of racing. No fuel stops, no DRS, no engineer's coaching or advice over the radio (they all sound so dull anyway). Let the drivers drive and race it out on the track."

You can say that 100 times again !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stick DRS where the sun don't shine I say. Re-fuelling is good for everyone but closed c#ckpit will become a safety concern id both were employed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heck even the f-duct was more natural than Drs, at least teams could make there own interpretation of the ducting system. With Drs it's no different, how is an underpowered car suppose to close a gap of the more powerful car is using Drs to? At least with the f-duct some teams would be more sufficient than others but ban it all together, even kers or ers and the Drs and introduce more mechanical grip. Like nick heidfeld said, more mechanical grip is actually safer than less and racing karts for as many years as I did I can fully support that statement. A lot safer having a grippy car than a car you have to catch all the time or feather the throttle. More mechanical grip also rewards the one with the biggest balls to. It's a no brainier to return to refuelling and IMHO, I knew it would cause issues as soon as they removed it at it has, they have tried to make the gains elsewhere while failing to see what they have done. The way cars handle now is rediculous, they have spent millions of dollars to make a car handle this way and all they needed to do is just whack a set of 200mm wide tyres in a 90s chassis and would've got the same result. Now they want wider tyres but refuse to widen the chassis, that will make them even more twitchy to drive as the tyre will grip earlier but the chassis is simply to narrow to transfer the power efficiently, if you know what I mean?

Edited by Emmcee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is with fuel stops in F1 is that it sounds like a good idea, Team A might employ a different strategy from Team B and through clever thinking and fantastic driving triumph at the end of the day. Formula One is then exciting to the viewer and the sponsor because the racing is varied and interesting. Everyone’s a winner.

The reality is very different. Team A and Team B employ the same fuel stop strategy because they have carefully simulated the race hundreds of times using their sophisticated race simulation software and it shows that, with all variables taken into consideration, a two stop strategy is 25 seconds faster than a 1 stop strategy and 35 seconds faster than a 3 stop strategy. It’s a no-brainer, both teams go for a two stop strategy, along with the rest of the grid, including the team at the back who has no chance to score any points and therefore you think have nothing to lose, because to do anything different from the optimal is putting you at a disadvantage. So what you have is a grid of cars that have to make fuel stops all with around the same amount of fuel in the car, within about a lap or two.

The reason we got rid of refuelling was for several reasons;

  • It didn’t add anything to the racing
  • It made racing more difficult to understand for the casual viewer
  • The transportation costs of the rigs was expensive, this was during a time when F1 was trying to cut costs
  • The safety risks within the pit lane were increased

I don’t think Bernie had any ulterior motive, indeed I’m not sure how much he was involved in the decision as I think I’m right in saying it was the teams that decided to get rid of refuelling.

With regards to the handling characteristics of the modern F1 car I think this can be laid clearly at the door of Pirelli. However Pirelli are not to blame for this. Pirelli are supplying a tyre they have been asked to supply by the FIA/FOM. The cars have now got 900bhp, we haven’t been in this ballpark for a number of years. 900bhp along with very sophisticated aerodynamics and electronics. I’m not a tyre specialist so I don’t know what tyres you could supply that could cope with that power and provide more grip than they do and of course last a reasonable distance without disintegrating. I prepared to cut Pirelli a lot of slack, they come in for a lot of stick and I don’t see how it’s their fault. They don’t seem to get much good press out of their involvement in F1.


Edited by Senna's Ghost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You made some good points but I think we have to agree to disagree, as for the tyre situation, we had cars well over a 1000hp before with massive rear tyres, back in the last turbo era and had none of these handling issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You made some good points but I think we have to agree to disagree, as for the tyre situation, we had cars well over a 1000hp before with massive rear tyres, back in the last turbo era and had none of these handling issues.

Thanks for acknowledging my arguments. I tried my best.

With regards to the tyres and cars of yesteryear and modern tyres and cars it's virtually impossible to compare the two. The downforce created by the cars today, and the way that the power is delivered is so different. The old turbo cars had no power, no power, no power then lots of power in a small rev range. Today's cars have loads of power and loads of torque at anytime the driver demands it.

The tyres that were supplied by Goodyear, Michelin and Pirelli in the 80s only had to conform to the size restrictions set out in the rulebook of the time. Today's tyres also have certain performance criteria to meet.

Who's in the best position to write the rules - drivers? Engineers? The teams? The governing body? The fans? All of the above? I don't know myself. I am sick of hearing the drivers bitch about the tyres. I hope this gets resolved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah you make a good point, it's frustrating because of the potential of racing we could have compared to what we got.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heck even the f-duct was more natural than Drs, at least teams could make there own interpretation of the ducting system. With Drs it's no different, how is an underpowered car suppose to close a gap of the more powerful car is using Drs to? At least with the f-duct some teams would be more sufficient than others but ban it all together, even kers or ers and the Drs and introduce more mechanical grip. Like nick heidfeld said, more mechanical grip is actually safer than less and racing karts for as many years as I did I can fully support that statement. A lot safer having a grippy car than a car you have to catch all the time or feather the throttle. More mechanical grip also rewards the one with the biggest balls to. It's a no brainier to return to refuelling and IMHO, I knew it would cause issues as soon as they removed it at it has, they have tried to make the gains elsewhere while failing to see what they have done. The way cars handle now is rediculous, they have spent millions of dollars to make a car handle this way and all they needed to do is just whack a set of 200mm wide tyres in a 90s chassis and would've got the same result. Now they want wider tyres but refuse to widen the chassis, that will make them even more twitchy to drive as the tyre will grip earlier but the chassis is simply to narrow to transfer the power efficiently, if you know what I mean?

totally agree !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if you have raced karts properly before you will know that you widen your track for circuits with fast flowing corners as you want to get on the power sooner and want as much stability as possible. Now imagine doing that with bigger,grippyer tyres and not being able to adjust your track? It would be so twitchy when applying power and you would always be countersteering throughout the entire corner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A thought, while they discuss the 2017 F1 regulations this week...

Yesterday's Daytona 500 was one of the best NASCAR races in a decade. Normally, at Daytona, the cars just run around in a big pack, never lifting the throttle, until they all wreck with 3 laps to go. Then, "overtime" procedures take over, and all the fans throw trash on the track when their driver loses. It's NASCAR's biggest day, and often one of its most hideous. The biggest stage it has with the worst presentation it can give.

Not so yesterday.

The race wasn't about the usual dumb luck and wreck avoidance at Daytona. Instead, it took slick, skillful driving, smart strategy, and killer instinct. Even the elite drivers were sliding the back-ends out. Tire wear was involved. There were very few cautions. No big wreck and no bogus safety car periods to "improve the show." Instead, we saw good cars with good drivers able to run up front, and we saw the drivers really working. That's right—even lifting. At Daytona!

It produced a much more sensible, less ridiculous kind of race. Had to get in a rhythm, work on the handling, fight the car from getting too loose, and time the moves perfectly. In the end, it was the closest finish in Daytona 500 history after a very enjoyable afternoon of motor racing.

What changed?

The cars are challenging the drivers again. They removed a significant amount of downforce. And the racing has absolutely improved because of it.

F1 would be wise to go to a drivers' formula. Modern safety considerations, of course, and the realities of a formula that will attract manufacture participation/keep costs manageable, but something that ultimately challenges. A formula that makes drivers, designers, and race engineers work. I think NASCAR got onto something by reversing years of departing from what worked. They're on the right track.

Maybe F1 can get there next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0