Ban on refueling for 2010 - Interesting Elements

  • Thread starter Thread starter The Outlaw
  • 32 comments
  • 5,504 views

The Outlaw

Premium
Messages
3,042
United States
Bay Area, California
Messages
GTP_timeattack
Here's an article I found while browsing another forum in regards to the ban on re-fueling for next season. It's rather old but brings up some interesting points for this particular rule change for next year. Hopefully it hasn't been posted before :scared:

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/05/03/why-f1-will-be-better-without-refuelling/

Why F1 will be better without refuelling

3 May 2009 by Keith Collantine

webb_redb_melb_2009.jpg


"With refuelling gone in 2010 we'll see a return to super-quick three second pit stops

In October 1993 the first meeting of the FIA World Motor Sports Council announced that refuelling would be re-introduced into F1 for the 1994 season.

Earlier this week the same body confirmed refuelling will be banned in 2010 – leading to a mixed reaction from fans.

I’ve been surprised how many comments have been posted here complaining that the banning of refuelling will make F1 less entertaining in 2010. I’m convinced it won’t – here’s why.

The wrong rule
Refuelling was brought back into F1 at the beginning of 1994 as the sports’ governing body scrambled frantically to find a way of spicing up ‘the show’. The 1992 season and much of the early part of 1993 saw some decidedly unimpressive racing.

The reason for this was simple: Williams had created a car that was whole seconds faster than the opposition at most circuits. At one race in 1992 the closest car in qualifying to Nigel Mansell’s FW14B was a staggering 2.7s slower. Williams enjoyed a comparable margin of superiority in 1993, though as the season went on McLaren and Benetton began to narrow the performance gap.

It was the norm at this time to see the Williams cars lock out the front row of the grid and disappear off into the distance at the start of the race. This did not make for entertaining racing, and the FIA began pushing for the reintroduction of refuelling in the hope it would cause more changes in the running order.

Bringing back refuelling in 1994 was a knee-jerk reaction to their superiority. As it happened, come the start of the 1994 season Williams’ performance advantage had been completely eroded anyway.

Had refuelling been used in 1992 and 1993, would it have made any difference to the extent of Williams’ dominance? Absolutely not. Their cars were capable of winning races by whole minutes or more.

The death of strategy?
Still, there are many fans who enjoy the strategic dimension refuelling brings to F1. Should they be concerned about its extinction?

I say not – drivers will still have to make pit stops to use both types of tyre, and this will open up some interesting strategic avenues that could also have a positive affect on the racing.

With no fuel levels to worry about drivers will have much greater strategic freedom. We could well see some drivers nursing their tyres throughout the race on a one-stop strategy, while others make two or three changes of tyres. Alternatively, drivers could adjust their strategy on-the-fly, abandoning plans to make extra pit stops in a bid to keep track position.

This was a common occurrence until refuelling killed the practice at the end of 1993. At Portugal that year Michael Schumacher scored a fine second Grand Prix victory at Estoril after deciding not to make his planned second stop for tyres, holding Alain Prost back.

The flying pit stop returns
With drivers no longer taking fuel on board during pit stops we will see the return of ultra-quick tyre changes.

Will any of the teams be able to beat the current record for a four-tyre change? The mark stands at a scarcely-believed 3.2 seconds, set by Benetton on Riccardo Patrese’s car in the 1993 Belgian Grand Prix.

Setup changes
At present drivers have to set up their cars to work between weight of around 610kg (minimal fuel) to 680kg (maximum fuel).

Next year that 70kg spread could double or more. We will in all likelihood see drivers with better-performing cars at different stages during the race. Given the limited setup time drivers have at a race weekend, getting race setup spot-on at the expense of perfecting a one-lap low-fuel qualifying setup could play dividends.

Again, this has produced some wonderful races in the past. Nigel Mansell won the 1989 Hungarian Grand Prix from 12th on the grid in a dry race because he’d nailed his race-day setup. The following year Alain Prost won at Mexico from 13th in much the same way.

Winning on the track
Above all else, banning refuelling places a much greater onus on drivers to overtake their rivals on the track.

They will no longer have the option to delay trying to overtake a rival on the assumption that they can pass them by making a later pit stop for fuel.

Refuelling has provided the odd moment of interest in the 15 years since it was re-introduced: Schumacher’s win at Hungary in 1998 for example. But I have seen far more races rendered dull by drivers ‘passing in the pits’ instead of on the track, or ruined entirely by faulty refuelling rigs.

I’m delighted to see a return to real racing in 2010. As ever I’d like to know what you think and it would be particularly interesting to see if those who started watching F1 before 1994 see things differently."
 
Yes, I agree. Today a driver with a faster car will wait until the pit stops. With no refuelling we could see more action on the track.
 
Meh F1 is just a shell of its former self now. I think LMP1 prototype cars prove far more interesting and competitive than F1 is. I don't think banning fuel is for improving the show, but for reducing the costs.
 
Yes.. I think we could see more actions on the track but for cutting cost??? I think no because the amount of fuel that will be added into the car will just be the same amount of fuel that they made by making stops in a race... I also think that we can see more cars playing on saving fuel and run on economy mode so I'd say that this would not going to make a lot of improvements in case of actions on the track...
 
For some reason F1 is doomed to keep finding solutions to keep the sport popular. It's a victim of its own success.
 
There are easy solutions to fix the quality of racing among other things...the problem is just the delusional dictators who run the damn sport :mad: (Or should I even call it a sport :boggled: )

Should be interesting to see what Ferrari decide to do when their contract agreement expires in 2012 I believe.. Hopefully we see some drastic changes by then :sick:
 
Yes.. I think we could see more actions on the track but for cutting cost??? I think no because the amount of fuel that will be added into the car will just be the same amount of fuel that they made by making stops in a race... I also think that we can see more cars playing on saving fuel and run on economy mode so I'd say that this would not going to make a lot of improvements in case of actions on the track...

actually they mentioned early in the season that by eliminating the refueling the cost saving would be in not having to ship the super expensive refueling rigs to every venue. apparently it costs alot to ship them plus those things are expensive just to make.
 
actually they mentioned early in the season that by eliminating the refueling the cost saving would be in not having to ship the super expensive refueling rigs to every venue. apparently it costs alot to ship them plus those things are expensive just to make.

Yeah didn't thought about that... That stuff refuels the car 4 liters in 1 seconds... Like a jet plane refueller. I know that stuff is expensive so by this it really saves money quite a lot!!!
 
This article conveniently mentions how refuelling would have made no difference to 1992 and 1993, but then its trying to argue how banning it is going to improve the racing in 2010 - if it would have made no difference then, why in any season?
As I've said before, no refuelling just means the pit stops will happen earlier on and that we will know the winner of the race a lot earlier. Whether the racing is improved or not remains to be seen - its not a certainty.

Of couse I'm not going to complain if it does produce good racing, but I doubt its the magical change that sees a hundred overtakes.
 
This article conveniently mentions how refuelling would have made no difference to 1992 and 1993, but then its trying to argue how banning it is going to improve the racing in 2010 - if it would have made no difference then, why in any season?

"conveniently"? :lol: Ughh...that's because the William FW14B/FW15C were two of the the most dominating cars in the past few decades 💡 The ENTIRE field nowadays is seperated by less than a second (roughly) in Qualy...the next closest car to the FW14B was on average 1 second behind during qualifying. Refueling wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference when the car was that dominately quick. I think that should be quite clear.

As I've said before, no refuelling just means the pit stops will happen earlier on and that we will know the winner of the race a lot earlier. Whether the racing is improved or not remains to be seen - its not a certainty.

There will be too much on the fly changing of strategy to say something as simple as that though, depending on how things play out around you (in terms of what strategy other drivers around you take, and how dratically they fall off). Due to strategy being completely secretive up until the start of the race, a lot of the decision making regarding strategy will have to be done on track, on the fly.

Of couse I'm not going to complain if it does produce good racing, but I doubt its the magical change that sees a hundred overtakes.

Of course it's not going to magically fix the overtaking issue, but it will definitely force drivers to be more aggresive ON track...which is a good thing, instead of relying on the rather lame aspect of fuel strategy to bypass a car. IMO the racing should be done on the track...not in the pits, and anything that promotes such an idea is fine with me :)

My 2 cents
 
Last edited:
I meant in the sense it was convenient for his argument that he only mentions that it made no difference for those seasons - why bother mentioning it at all? It doesn't apply to the current seasons because we don't have a FW14 in the field. Perhaps he was trying to argue against people who stated those seasons as examples why no-refuelling doesn't work - but he didn't state this.
Apparently with your arguments things are usually "quite clear" - clearly they are not if I'm debating with you ;) If things were clear we wouldn't be here discussing it.
 
I think it's a good idea to ban refueling because it means the races results will be defined more by driver skill than a good strategy. If everyone starts with the same fuel load, then the only variable is the tyre choice, and since everyone has to use both types of tyre in the race, then that cancels out that variable. Should be exciting to watch.
 
I heard also that everyone agreed to ban the wheel fairings, so that'll save time with the wheel changes in the pitstops. Plus the racing will be a little more close and the cars look better overall. :)
 
I heard also that everyone agreed to ban the wheel fairings, so that'll save time with the wheel changes in the pitstops. Plus the racing will be a little more close and the cars look better overall. :)

Agree!!!
 
I meant in the sense it was convenient for his argument that he only mentions that it made no difference for those seasons - why bother mentioning it at all?

I think it's pretty obvious and quite simple as to why he mentioned those seasons in particular, as this is when we saw the re-introduction of refueling, an important point on the time line in regards to his article. There needs to be some type of introduction and briefing to make his entire article well informed. All you're doing is reading into things too deeply, looking for things to nitpick about that are unrelated and beyond the point of entire of the article :sick:

It doesn't apply to the current seasons because we don't have a FW14 in the field. Perhaps he was trying to argue against people who stated those seasons as examples why no-refueling doesn't work - but he didn't state this.

My above paragraph answers that issue. The author was not trying to counter argue as you're trying to read into...he's simply stating FACTS and events on the time line regarding this particular subject. I don't see what's wrong with that...

Apparently with your arguments things are usually "quite clear" - clearly they are not if I'm debating with you ;) If things were clear we wouldn't be here discussing it.

I guess I can't disagree with you there :lol: I'm always up for a friendly discussion even if we are on the complete opposite ends of the spectrum :cheers:

So where does this leave us now? I forgot :odd: :lol:

I heard also that everyone agreed to ban the wheel fairings, so that'll save time with the wheel changes in the pitstops. Plus the racing will be a little more close and the cars look better overall. :)

I totally agree. The cars will look WAY better without the stupid wheel fairings and according to Ross Brawn they have a rather large impact on dirty air to car following. So yea, it's a Win/win situation :)
 
I'd like the rules changed to free up the use of tyres so teams can adopt whatever strategy they want.
 
I never cared much for re-fueling "strategy"; after about one year, everyone pretty much uses the same two-or-three-stops, just at slightly different intervals.

On the other hand, racing was rather dull around 1988 when the Goodyear tire that was originally designed for 1000 horsepower was being used on F1 cars with 500-600 ponies; hence, no tire pit stops on the less-abrasive circuits, and re-fueling was banned at the time, anyhow. I rather like the "option" tires and their unpredictability. How a driver uses his tires should be measures into his success. Almost all the drivers use their fuel in the same way.

I really do not believe this will make for much (or any) more passing, but I'd rather see passing on the track, rather than because of a botched pit stop or an extra second wasted in the pits. I also do not like the confusion of who is where and why after a flurry of stops.
 
Last edited:
I read some articles where some drivers seemed to be excited about it. In one of them Rosberg said his dad told him that now he'll know how it feels to drive a real f1 car.

On a side note, I just remembered Barrichello actually raced when there was no refuelling. That's a reminder of how long he's been racing.
 
I think it's a good idea to ban refueling because it means the races results will be defined more by driver skill than a good strategy. If everyone starts with the same fuel load, then the only variable is the tyre choice, and since everyone has to use both types of tyre in the race, then that cancels out that variable. Should be exciting to watch.
I completely agree, but does driver ability have much to do with success in F1 now or ever, yes and no, it is all about the car you have, if you have a Brawn, Red Bull, Ferrari, or Mclaren then you will be faster than everyone else, but ya, good point.
 
Another thing is that cars will behave very differently throughout the race, which also adds a new element of strategy. So drivers who are picky when it comes to setup might have problems. And overall, the final result of the race will probably have a greater dependency on driver's ability.
 
Another thing is that cars will behave very differently throughout the race, which also adds a new element of strategy.
I think that's the idea: different cars will respond in different ways depending on their fuel load and tyres. Either the teams will have to go in for a setup that favours one set of conditions exclusively, or they're going to have to compromise and find a setup that is a jack of all trades and master of none.
 
Will this mean that everyone will be doing 1 stoppers only? And what about minimum car weights?
 
depends really what the teams find that suits them best. if there finding there cars run really well on the harder compound at heavier weight you might see 2 stoppers where they take 2 sets of the tire that suits there car the best the longest and then run as little as possible on the other tire. so unless they can make that optimum tire last most of the race while the car is heavy they might find it more beneficial to go to a 2 stopper and take an extra set of the good tires and switch to the bad tire at the closing of the race.
 
I completely agree, but does driver ability have much to do with success in F1 now or ever, yes and no, it is all about the car you have, if you have a Brawn, Red Bull, Ferrari, or Mclaren then you will be faster than everyone else, but ya, good point.

Are you serious!? You must not be watching many races this season :lol: If it's all about "the car you have" then what the hell is wrong with Fisichella and Kovi? Sorry but... :lol:

Another thing is that cars will behave very differently throughout the race, which also adds a new element of strategy. So drivers who are picky when it comes to setup might have problems. And overall, the final result of the race will probably have a greater dependency on driver's ability.

Great to see someone else who see's that element as well :cheers:
 
Last edited:
It won't increase the amount of overtaking on track because the thing that's stopping cars from overtaking at the minute is aero, not fuel levels. If anything, it's going to make things worse, as quali will be on low-fuel, and thus not affected by time-to-first stop. So, as Max Mosley says "You can't spend two days lining the cars up so that the fastest is at the front, and then justifiably complain when there's no overtaking."

There's no overtaking at the minute, not because the drivers won't (as in the oft-trotted excuse "waiting for the stops") but because they can't because the performance differential is not there.
 
Are you serious!? You must not be watching many races this season :lol: If it's all about "the car you have" then what the hell is wrong with Fisichella and Kovi? Sorry but... :lol:
Fisichella is in a new car that he isn't used to, that could be a huge problem, and I don't know what is up with Kovilienen(sp), but most years, Ferrari and Mclaren are faster than the rest, so that is why I put them up there.
 
Are you serious!? You must not be watching many races this season :lol: If it's all about "the car you have" then what the hell is wrong with Fisichella and Kovi? Sorry but... :lol:

You must not watch F1 very often if you don't realise performances depend on car.

Its not entirely on the car, but F1 has and should always be a team game - the driver is only half the equation, yes they can make up some of their car's defficienicies, but there is only so much they can do.

If you want to watch drivers in equal machinery, there are hundreds of other series across the world ;) I personally don't think spec-series are good for showing how truly good drivers are though, because the car is always going to favour one driver's style over another.
 
You must not watch F1 very often if you don't realise performances depend on car.

Its not entirely on the car, but F1 has and should always be a team game - the driver is only half the equation, yes they can make up some of their car's defficienicies, but there is only so much they can do.

If you want to watch drivers in equal machinery, there are hundreds of other series across the world ;) I personally don't think spec-series are good for showing how truly good drivers are though, because the car is always going to favour one driver's style over another.

Wow, there you go again, reading into things too deeply missing the general point I was making :rolleyes: Not to mention your argument contradicts itself and what I was getting across to begin with, in that the driver CAN play a large part in the success of the car and team....so WHAT in the hell are you trying to argue over anyway, when you say the driver is "half the equation"? :lol: Put down the magnifying glass and you may see my general points a bit more clearly. And also, what the hell does your last paragraph have to do with ANYTHING I was commenting on??? :odd:

To remind you, here was Pescara's comment that I responded to...

...it is all about the car you have, if you have a Brawn, Red Bull, Ferrari, or Mclaren then you will be faster than everyone else, but ya, good point.

Now this is CLEARLY, at least I would think to anyone with ANY sense, not true. Kovalainen is the epitomy of this...his inconsistencies in qualifying and poor race craft are the biggest evidence of this, especially when comparing his results to his teammates. He could have the best car in the field and still be outperformed by Hamilton by a fair margin every season and never win a WDC...so I ask you...the driver play NO difference? Put Alguersuari in the Brawn and you truly think he would have a good shot at winning the WDC , simply because the performance of the car? I surely think NOT! And again, all I was doing was responding to Pescara's comments...

Keep trying 👍
 
Last edited:
Back