planetf1.com

One thing I've noticed is that whenever the idea of bringing back refuelling during races comes up, it always splits opinion.

In the past, I haven't felt strongly one way or another about it, but in recent seasons, as I find myself tiring of the Merc-Ferrari-Red Bull domination over the rest of the field and the predictable WCC standings at the end of each year, the idea of bringing refuelling back seems more appealing to shake up the races.

So I was wondering what people think of it and especially the reasons why people think it's not a good idea.

All I remember is that it created pit lane dramas occasionally, and jumbled up grids. Was it 2009 when Fernando Alonso put his sub-par Renault on pole position because he had a really light fuel load? He didn't last long in the race as I recall his wheel coming off after his pit stop - but having track position and some clean air early on gave him an advantage. I also remember everyone here on the forums being fascinated as they waited for the fuel loads to be published after every qualy. There's no doubt in my mind that there are pros when it comes to spicing up the show.

But I wanted to know why it splits opinion and why it isn't being considered for reintroduction?

That would be a big no.

I would even like to have races without mandatory tyre changes and two obligatory types of tyres. Let the race be race, and athletics be athletics (by that I mean the work of the pit crew). Just my opinion.

Fuel loads were only published for 1 season, 2009.

Also refuelling in race does not mean qualifying with race fuel. That wasn’t the case 1994-2002.

I don’t think we need it at the moment but I always thought 2008 rules with DRS would have made great racing

Johnson wrote:Fuel loads were only published for 1 season, 2009.

Also refuelling in race does not mean qualifying with race fuel. That wasn’t the case 1994-2002.

I don’t think we need it at the moment but I always thought 2008 rules with DRS would have made great racing

Aside from the closing up of the grid before pitting under SC, the situation with Piquet in Germany and the ensuing scandal in Singapore would have to be a no-no.

Solution is the same as always, until they fix cars not being able to follow at speed the rest is just a papering over the cracks. Any gimmick isn't really going to solve the problem.

Edit - as for it not being a good idea, history suggests it would be worse for overtaking - https://twitter.com/RichieKippers/statu ... 8364554240

Refueling days are over. There have been other interesting ideas floating around.

One of my favourites is an extra battery charge. Similar to refueling, when you pit they can boost your battery. You would have drivers using more battery on inlaps if they were going to get the boost in the pits or if the driver just wanted the 2.4 second tyre pit stop, they would conserve the battery. You would have larger variances in pit stop times and cars on track with more boost available after a stop. Still a bit gimmicky but I can stomach that one a bit better.

medgar wrote:Edit - as for it not being a good idea, history suggests it would be worse for overtaking - https://twitter.com/RichieKippers/statu ... 8364554240

That graph needs to make an appearance every time someone brings up refuelling. Anyone who likes the wheel to wheel stuff needs a reminder that refuelling negatively impacts it.

And many people like different things. If a particular motorsport fan is a bigger fan of strategy, pitstops and refuelling, then WEC offers that in spades

mcdo wrote:

medgar wrote:Edit - as for it not being a good idea, history suggests it would be worse for overtaking - https://twitter.com/RichieKippers/statu ... 8364554240

That graph needs to make an appearance every time someone brings up refuelling. Anyone who likes the wheel to wheel stuff needs a reminder that refuelling negatively impacts it.

And many people like different things. If a particular motorsport fan is a bigger fan of strategy, pitstops and refuelling, then WEC offers that in spades

Correlation does not imply causation. I'm sure that if you trace that graph further back, the dip in 1994 was merely a continuation of the existing trend driven by increased aerodynamic complexity on the cars. The sudden jump up in 2011 coincides with the introduction of DRS, and the small increase in 2010 is explainable by the f-duct that appeared that year.

I don't have particularly strong views on this matter but there are merits to allowing refuelling. We've seen what F1 is like when the pitstop strategies are dictated by refuelling and now we can see what it is like when the strategies are dictated by tyre wear, and I preferred the former. The cars were faster and more "on the edge" in race trim, the drivers were pushing more and were making more mistakes. Take away DRS and I'm confident that the races now would be as processional and as much decided by pitstops as they were in the refuelling era.

Mandatory pitstops are not a good idea. Not for fuel, nor for tyres, nor for mandatory haircuts for the drivers mid-race. (Perhaps Kimi might like a mid-race ice cream, but I doubt it.)

If a driver has been doing a good job, there is no excuse for forcing him to put his race result in the hands of the mechanics. The race result should be the race result, not the outcome of randomization.

mcdo wrote:

medgar wrote:Edit - as for it not being a good idea, history suggests it would be worse for overtaking - https://twitter.com/RichieKippers/statu ... 8364554240

That graph needs to make an appearance every time someone brings up refuelling. Anyone who likes the wheel to wheel stuff needs a reminder that refuelling negatively impacts it.

And many people like different things. If a particular motorsport fan is a bigger fan of strategy, pitstops and refuelling, then WEC offers that in spades

But looking at the graph, overtaking actually began to plummet in 1992, 2 years before the introduction of refuelling so i'm not convinced refuelling was the catalyst for the overtaking drought.

As for the the jump in 2010, yeah refuelling was banned, but it was also the infancy of new regs designed to reduce aero dependency to create more overtaking. I'm sure Kers & DRS was at least partly responsible for the jump in 2011. 2010 was also around the time of component restrictions wasn't it so i'd imagine grid penalties would have played a part in the increase in overtaking.

Refuelling may have played a part in the lack of overtaking in the sport for 15 years but I don't think it was the sole factor in why it was so low for those years nor was it's removal the sole factor for the increase in overtaking.

Just no

The refuelling days were the days when they did their passing in the pitlane. Why chance a risky on-track overtake when we can just short fuel at the first stop? Anyone that watched the refuelling era and has a memory should be able to remember how this was conducted

Banning refuelling absolutely was the reason that overtaking shot up in 2010

Bring it back!

It adds more possibilities in strategy.

However the best part of it is, the cars are much lighter on average throughout the race so they can punch out qualifying type laps all through the race.
This is F1. The pinnacle of Motorsport. Not endurance racing.
I want to see cars and drivers on a knife edge.
Not cars loaded with 110kg of fuel posting laps 5 or more seconds a lap slower than pole for the whole race.

Now strategy is do an undercut and possibly get the jump on the guy in front.
With refueling, you had a lighter car with worn tyres vs a car that had just put in fuel (heavier car) with fresh rubber. You didn’t know who would come out on top after pitstops, or who had to pit when.

Most people think that it was a bad period. However Schumacher and Ferrari strategy dominated that time. It wasn’t refueling that made it bad.

With drs, and hopefully the recent aero change for 2019 we have more overtaking.
Refueling could bring back more excitement into the sport, that after the Merc show for 5 possibly 6 or 7 years, is really needed.

I don't really like the idea. Sure it would add some drama, but it's not race drama.

I would support lifting fuel capacity and fuel flow regulations, though. I'd also support tires that can (possibly) last the race distance and no mandatory pit stops. Let teams and drivers decide how much fuel they're going to carry and how to use it, and what tires they're going to put on and how to use them. One strategy could be a lighter fuel load with harder tires running a moderate pace, and another could be a heavier fuel load, softer tires, a pit stop, and aggressive pace.

j man wrote:

mcdo wrote:

medgar wrote:Edit - as for it not being a good idea, history suggests it would be worse for overtaking - https://twitter.com/RichieKippers/statu ... 8364554240

That graph needs to make an appearance every time someone brings up refuelling. Anyone who likes the wheel to wheel stuff needs a reminder that refuelling negatively impacts it.

And many people like different things. If a particular motorsport fan is a bigger fan of strategy, pitstops and refuelling, then WEC offers that in spades

Correlation does not imply causation. I'm sure that if you trace that graph further back, the dip in 1994 was merely a continuation of the existing trend driven by increased aerodynamic complexity on the cars. The sudden jump up in 2011 coincides with the introduction of DRS, and the small increase in 2010 is explainable by the f-duct that appeared that year.

I don't have particularly strong views on this matter but there are merits to allowing refuelling. We've seen what F1 is like when the pitstop strategies are dictated by refuelling and now we can see what it is like when the strategies are dictated by tyre wear, and I preferred the former. The cars were faster and more "on the edge" in race trim, the drivers were pushing more and were making more mistakes. Take away DRS and I'm confident that the races now would be as processional and as much decided by pitstops as they were in the refuelling era.

The drivers were pushing more with refuelling? - No. Most of the race they were sitting behind another car, saving fuel and waiting for the pit stops to come. And after the stops, the race was over and everyone just held position to the flag.

Do they have smaller fuel tanks now with the hybrid engines? If so then maybe the fuel loads won't work out right, for example running an extra stop would still lose you 25ish seconds now, so the weight saving needs to be higher than that to encourage more stops or otherwise everyone will just opt for one stop still.

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:The drivers were pushing more with refuelling? - No. Most of the race they were sitting behind another car, saving fuel and waiting for the pit stops to come. And after the stops, the race was over and everyone just held position to the flag.

And during that era I lost count on how many times David Coulthard said "undercut". And for too many races, the undercut was the topic of conversation next Monday.

Personally I do appreciate strategy. But the passing should be exciting battles of wheel to wheel and nose to tail as we sit on the edge of our seats with our mouths agape, nudge our friends in attendance, and breathlessly say "wow, did you see that?"

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

j man wrote:

mcdo wrote:

medgar wrote:Edit - as for it not being a good idea, history suggests it would be worse for overtaking - https://twitter.com/RichieKippers/statu ... 8364554240

That graph needs to make an appearance every time someone brings up refuelling. Anyone who likes the wheel to wheel stuff needs a reminder that refuelling negatively impacts it.

And many people like different things. If a particular motorsport fan is a bigger fan of strategy, pitstops and refuelling, then WEC offers that in spades

Correlation does not imply causation. I'm sure that if you trace that graph further back, the dip in 1994 was merely a continuation of the existing trend driven by increased aerodynamic complexity on the cars. The sudden jump up in 2011 coincides with the introduction of DRS, and the small increase in 2010 is explainable by the f-duct that appeared that year.

I don't have particularly strong views on this matter but there are merits to allowing refuelling. We've seen what F1 is like when the pitstop strategies are dictated by refuelling and now we can see what it is like when the strategies are dictated by tyre wear, and I preferred the former. The cars were faster and more "on the edge" in race trim, the drivers were pushing more and were making more mistakes. Take away DRS and I'm confident that the races now would be as processional and as much decided by pitstops as they were in the refuelling era.

The drivers were pushing more with refuelling? - No. Most of the race they were sitting behind another car, saving fuel and waiting for the pit stops to come. And after the stops, the race was over and everyone just held position to the flag.

Yes true, but that was primarily because overtaking was near impossible. My point is that it's DRS that has changed that, not the ban on refuelling.

j man wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

j man wrote:

mcdo wrote:

medgar wrote:Edit - as for it not being a good idea, history suggests it would be worse for overtaking - https://twitter.com/RichieKippers/statu ... 8364554240

That graph needs to make an appearance every time someone brings up refuelling. Anyone who likes the wheel to wheel stuff needs a reminder that refuelling negatively impacts it.

And many people like different things. If a particular motorsport fan is a bigger fan of strategy, pitstops and refuelling, then WEC offers that in spades

Correlation does not imply causation. I'm sure that if you trace that graph further back, the dip in 1994 was merely a continuation of the existing trend driven by increased aerodynamic complexity on the cars. The sudden jump up in 2011 coincides with the introduction of DRS, and the small increase in 2010 is explainable by the f-duct that appeared that year.

I don't have particularly strong views on this matter but there are merits to allowing refuelling. We've seen what F1 is like when the pitstop strategies are dictated by refuelling and now we can see what it is like when the strategies are dictated by tyre wear, and I preferred the former. The cars were faster and more "on the edge" in race trim, the drivers were pushing more and were making more mistakes. Take away DRS and I'm confident that the races now would be as processional and as much decided by pitstops as they were in the refuelling era.

The drivers were pushing more with refuelling? - No. Most of the race they were sitting behind another car, saving fuel and waiting for the pit stops to come. And after the stops, the race was over and everyone just held position to the flag.

Yes true, but that was primarily because overtaking was near impossible. My point is that it's DRS that has changed that, not the ban on refuelling.

Have a look at the overtaking stats between 1993 and 1994.

mikeyg123 wrote:

j man wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

j man wrote:

mcdo wrote:That graph needs to make an appearance every time someone brings up refuelling. Anyone who likes the wheel to wheel stuff needs a reminder that refuelling negatively impacts it.

And many people like different things. If a particular motorsport fan is a bigger fan of strategy, pitstops and refuelling, then WEC offers that in spades

Correlation does not imply causation. I'm sure that if you trace that graph further back, the dip in 1994 was merely a continuation of the existing trend driven by increased aerodynamic complexity on the cars. The sudden jump up in 2011 coincides with the introduction of DRS, and the small increase in 2010 is explainable by the f-duct that appeared that year.

I don't have particularly strong views on this matter but there are merits to allowing refuelling. We've seen what F1 is like when the pitstop strategies are dictated by refuelling and now we can see what it is like when the strategies are dictated by tyre wear, and I preferred the former. The cars were faster and more "on the edge" in race trim, the drivers were pushing more and were making more mistakes. Take away DRS and I'm confident that the races now would be as processional and as much decided by pitstops as they were in the refuelling era.

The drivers were pushing more with refuelling? - No. Most of the race they were sitting behind another car, saving fuel and waiting for the pit stops to come. And after the stops, the race was over and everyone just held position to the flag.

Yes true, but that was primarily because overtaking was near impossible. My point is that it's DRS that has changed that, not the ban on refuelling.

Have a look at the overtaking stats between 1993 and 1994.

According to the graph linked above it's similar to the drop that occurred between 91 and 92. Overtaking was in general decline over that period.

j man wrote: According to the graph linked above it's similar to the drop that occurred between 91 and 92. Overtaking was in general decline over that period.

Refuelling took it to the bottom. It's not just the stats. Anyone who's watched F1 through that period can see that refuelling killed actual racing. It also severely restricted strategy and I'm not sure the drivers were pushing harder in the main. There's still loads of mistakes now just most go unnoticed as there is a car park on the outside of every corner these days.

Do away with the fuel flow restrictions before you do anything about refueling!

mmi16 wrote:Do away with the fuel flow restrictions before you do anything about refueling!

Agreed. I kind of wish with the engine regs they'd just said the only rule is you can only use x amount of KG of fuel per race. Go off and design what you like.

mikeyg123 wrote:

mmi16 wrote:Do away with the fuel flow restrictions before you do anything about refueling!

Agreed. I kind of wish with the engine regs they'd just said the only rule is you can only use x amount of KG of fuel per race. Go off and design what you like.

100% on this. I think the sport would be so much better off under fairly open engine regs.

Jezza13 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

mmi16 wrote:Do away with the fuel flow restrictions before you do anything about refueling!

Agreed. I kind of wish with the engine regs they'd just said the only rule is you can only use x amount of KG of fuel per race. Go off and design what you like.

100% on this. I think the sport would be so much better off under fairly open engine regs.

me too. I've been saying this for years. Who cares if they have a V6 or a Wankel at the back of the car?

it always and always will be a pretty even split in terms of for/against. Personally I was never a fan - always seemed to reduce the requirement for passing on-track.

Zoue wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

mmi16 wrote:Do away with the fuel flow restrictions before you do anything about refueling!

Agreed. I kind of wish with the engine regs they'd just said the only rule is you can only use x amount of KG of fuel per race. Go off and design what you like.

100% on this. I think the sport would be so much better off under fairly open engine regs.

me too. I've been saying this for years. Who cares if they have a V6 or a Wankel at the back of the car?

Agree with all of these posts and have been saying similar for a long time whenever I get into a conversation about F1 with friends/colleagues.

X amount of fuel and once it's gone it's gone. That aside, do whatever you want.

I think it would attract far more manufacturers too if they were given the freedom to try something "different" with the possibility of it being a winning design!

mikeyg123 wrote:

mmi16 wrote:Do away with the fuel flow restrictions before you do anything about refueling!

Agreed. I kind of wish with the engine regs they'd just said the only rule is you can only use x amount of KG of fuel per race. Go off and design what you like.

That kind of goes against only having 3 engines to use in particular if they wind things up for qualifying, I see some people complain about qualifying modes and then you go to this anything goes for qualifying.

Zoue wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

mmi16 wrote:Do away with the fuel flow restrictions before you do anything about refueling!

Agreed. I kind of wish with the engine regs they'd just said the only rule is you can only use x amount of KG of fuel per race. Go off and design what you like.

100% on this. I think the sport would be so much better off under fairly open engine regs.

me too. I've been saying this for years. Who cares if they have a V6 or a Wankel at the back of the car?

It's strange were we hear the hybrid era being ruined by engine dominance and just as we are seeing convergence on the engines we want to see open engine rules which will surely create a wide disparity in engine performance as some get it right and some get it wrong.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

mmi16 wrote:Do away with the fuel flow restrictions before you do anything about refueling!

Agreed. I kind of wish with the engine regs they'd just said the only rule is you can only use x amount of KG of fuel per race. Go off and design what you like.

100% on this. I think the sport would be so much better off under fairly open engine regs.

me too. I've been saying this for years. Who cares if they have a V6 or a Wankel at the back of the car?

It's strange were we hear the hybrid era being ruined by engine dominance and just as we are seeing convergence on the engines we want to see open engine rules which will surely create a wide disparity in engine performance as some get it right and some get it wrong.

It's not a recent thing, though. Do a search on my posts and "Wankel" and you'll see I've brought it up long before now (just using Wankel as an obvious outlier, not that I'm fanatically pro-Wankel).

The point is part of a broader discussion where the rules are too stringent and narrowly focused. F1 used to be about innovation but with every year they try to strangle that some more. Take your point about the current engine situation but at some point they will inevitably want to have an overhaul and then we'll be back at square one again where everyone will be in a race to design the best 0.9l flux capacitor...

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote: Agreed. I kind of wish with the engine regs they'd just said the only rule is you can only use x amount of KG of fuel per race. Go off and design what you like.

100% on this. I think the sport would be so much better off under fairly open engine regs.

me too. I've been saying this for years. Who cares if they have a V6 or a Wankel at the back of the car?

It's strange were we hear the hybrid era being ruined by engine dominance and just as we are seeing convergence on the engines we want to see open engine rules which will surely create a wide disparity in engine performance as some get it right and some get it wrong.

It's not a recent thing, though. Do a search on my posts and "Wankel" and you'll see I've brought it up long before now (just using Wankel as an obvious outlier, not that I'm fanatically pro-Wankel).

The point is part of a broader discussion where the rules are too stringent and narrowly focused. F1 used to be about innovation but with every year they try to strangle that some more. Take your point about the current engine situation but at some point they will inevitably want to have an overhaul and then we'll be back at square one again where everyone will be in a race to design the best 0.9l flux capacitor...

I know and I also replied the same.

At the height of Mercedes engine domination the answer is to bring forward a new engine formula that will surely also promote engine dominance, that made no sense to me, and now we are seeing engine convergence it makes even less sense.

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

mmi16 wrote:Do away with the fuel flow restrictions before you do anything about refueling!

Agreed. I kind of wish with the engine regs they'd just said the only rule is you can only use x amount of KG of fuel per race. Go off and design what you like.

That kind of goes against only having 3 engines to use in particular if they wind things up for qualifying, I see some people complain about qualifying modes and then you go to this anything goes for qualifying.

Maybe they are different people? I know I've never complained about engine modes and I don't think I should have to alter my opinion because some people have.

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

mmi16 wrote:Do away with the fuel flow restrictions before you do anything about refueling!

Agreed. I kind of wish with the engine regs they'd just said the only rule is you can only use x amount of KG of fuel per race. Go off and design what you like.

That kind of goes against only having 3 engines to use in particular if they wind things up for qualifying, I see some people complain about qualifying modes and then you go to this anything goes for qualifying.

Maybe they are different people? I know I've never complained about engine modes and I don't think I should have to alter my opinion because some people have.

Well what you have is a situation were you may have massive engine disparities during qualifying, is this a way forward?

Zoue wrote:... at some point they will inevitably want to have an overhaul and then we'll be back at square one again where everyone will be in a race to design the best 0.9l flux capacitor...

That will ruin the race. The first driver / car to reach 88mph will suddenly appear at the chequered flag - job done.

tootsie323 wrote:

Zoue wrote:... at some point they will inevitably want to have an overhaul and then we'll be back at square one again where everyone will be in a race to design the best 0.9l flux capacitor...

That will ruin the race. The first driver / car to reach 88mph will suddenly appear at the chequered flag - job done.

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

mmi16 wrote:Do away with the fuel flow restrictions before you do anything about refueling!

Agreed. I kind of wish with the engine regs they'd just said the only rule is you can only use x amount of KG of fuel per race. Go off and design what you like.

That kind of goes against only having 3 engines to use in particular if they wind things up for qualifying, I see some people complain about qualifying modes and then you go to this anything goes for qualifying.

Maybe they are different people? I know I've never complained about engine modes and I don't think I should have to alter my opinion because some people have.

Well what you have is a situation were you may have massive engine disparities during qualifying, is this a way forward?

We had that with the 2014 regs anyway. At least had it been open we could have had lots of different ideas with a much higher chance of other manufacturers being able to catch up with a new idea.

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote: Agreed. I kind of wish with the engine regs they'd just said the only rule is you can only use x amount of KG of fuel per race. Go off and design what you like.

That kind of goes against only having 3 engines to use in particular if they wind things up for qualifying, I see some people complain about qualifying modes and then you go to this anything goes for qualifying.

Maybe they are different people? I know I've never complained about engine modes and I don't think I should have to alter my opinion because some people have.

Well what you have is a situation were you may have massive engine disparities during qualifying, is this a way forward?

We had that with the 2014 regs anyway. At least had it been open we could have had lots of different ideas with a much higher chance of other manufacturers being able to catch up with a new idea.

I just get confused we want the manufacturers to have the chance to catch up so ideally we want things to be close but then introduce new rules that will surely induce performance gaps and this in the midst of engine convergence.

pokerman wrote: I just get confused we want the manufacturers to have the chance to catch up so ideally we want things to be close but then introduce new rules that will surely induce performance gaps and this in the midst of engine convergence.

If the goal is really engine convergence then just standardise the engines and save everyone a great deal of time and money.

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote: I just get confused we want the manufacturers to have the chance to catch up so ideally we want things to be close but then introduce new rules that will surely induce performance gaps and this in the midst of engine convergence.

If the goal is really engine convergence then just standardise the engines and save everyone a great deal of time and money.

No I think the manufacturers want to develop their technologies, convergence becomes a natural thing that happens with stable regulations, convergence doesn't necessarily mean the engines are identical.

After years of listening to unhappy posts about engine inequality I guess I wasn't expecting to read a post that kind of welcomes it?

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote: I just get confused we want the manufacturers to have the chance to catch up so ideally we want things to be close but then introduce new rules that will surely induce performance gaps and this in the midst of engine convergence.

If the goal is really engine convergence then just standardise the engines and save everyone a great deal of time and money.

No I think the manufacturers want to develop their technologies, convergence becomes a natural thing that happens with stable regulations, convergence doesn't necessarily mean the engines are identical.

After years of listening to unhappy posts about engine inequality I guess I wasn't expecting to read a post that kind of welcomes it?

You honestly didn't think people would have a difference of opinion?