Refuelling ban

[Sharky]

I don't know if this has been posted before but I just read the news here:

http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=30960

Persdonally I couldn't agree more. I've had it with overtaking due to pit-stop strategie. In fact, I see that drivers in close battles are keen on waiting for the pit stop rather than take a chance on the track.

Perhaps to compensate for the extra weight FIA could reduce weight restrictions ad F1 cars today carry a lot of balast which could easily be removed to accomodate the new weight.

[muzza4ever]

Now all we need is slicks and a reduction in reliance on aero grip and we may get some racing again!

[Knowlesy]

I hope this happens.

[ASCII Man]

I pray this happens!
And i'm not a religious man!

[Gt_R]

Then ur prayers won't be answered

[BootsOntheSide]

Banning refuelling could be a good idea. There are a few issues though. Firstly, tyre manufacturers would build their tyres to be much more durable, reducing speeds and possibly making overtaking harder.

Also, refuelling does at least provide drama and surprise - if the cars remain as they are, the chance of seeing overtaking could actually be reduced by the cahnge, because the chance of a fast car being behind a slower one is so much lower.

[Kicking-back]

More durable tyres and lower speeds would not make overtaking harder.

[neil_davidson2]

I always get caught between two feelings on this one.

As a fan of racing I'm in favour of getting rid of pit stops and returning the racing back to the track where it belongs.

As a marshal I've always got a doubt over whether going back to fat cars with 300km worth of fuel in them is a good idea. I've marshalled the first corner of a GP and having twenty or so cars thrown at you at around 170mph is at the same time one of the most exhilirating and buttock-clenchingly apprehensive moments. Put three times as much fuel on the grid and the danger increases likewise.

I know we used to do it, but then we also used to not wear seatbelts, it doesn't mean we should go back and do it again.

[Kicking-back]

Fire safety of the cars and their tanks is better than ever.

There weren't any major problems with this issue in the early nineties before refuelling was permitted last time.

[slicktoast]

WE have to go pretty far back to when a car exploded or caught fire. We don't have to go as far back when we've had pit fires though do we. So which has been safer? Also the weight could slow the cars down as well as would a more substantial cockpit and fuel structure.

[Sharky]

In fact, refuelling itself could be quite dangerous. Lets not forget what happened top Verstappen in Hockenheim 1994, even what happened to Schu in Austria. Thanfuly those incidents didn't turn out to be tragic but there's always a risk involved in machines that pump many galons of fuel per second near car components which are very hot.

[Knowlesy]

It is more dangerous to refuel.

The tanks on these things simply don't split. But refuelling equipment can always go wrong.

[neil_davidson2]

Yep I know all those things and yet I'm still apprehensive. But like I said - as a race fan I'm all in favour of putting them back on the track.

But what was the original reason for the FIA enforcing fuel stops in the first place? Was it to make a better show for the TV audiences because the ontrack activity wasn't good enough?

[aprescott]

Not to be one to pee on anyones bonfire but if you consider how much fuel is taken on in the two or three pit stops (60+ litres) plus the fuel in the car at the start so thats about 120 litres of highly explosive liquid, one wonder about the safety aspect of cars travelling around at 200mph+. Just a thought???

[Kicking-back]

It was thrown in to a package of rule changes for 1994.

When the teams realised what they'd signed up to they tried to have the refuelling banned again.

That would have needed unaninmous agreement, but one team which had thirsty V12s in its red cars wouldn't agree, so we were lumbered with it.

[neil_davidson2]

But why did the FIA introduce it in the first place? The reason I ask is that I've often seen it referred to as "TV friendly" because it increased the drama.

[Knowlesy]

It was seen as a cure for lack of on track action I think.

[Adam43]

Yes, due to statements like the one made in the first post of this thread: http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...threadid=58734

[neil_davidson2]

So what we're saying is we want to remove something that was brought in as a cure for a lack of on-track action, because we think it'll improve the on-track action?

Just playing devils advocate...

[Knowlesy]

Thing is, I don't remember complaining about the action back then.

So therefore, never understood the introduction of refuelling.

Ah well......I was obviously in the extreme minority.

[006_007]

Originally posted by knowlesy
Thing is, I don't remember complaining about the action back then.

So therefore, never understood the introduction of refuelling.

Ah well......I was obviously in the extreme minority.

I think part of the reason for introducing re-fueling was to give more entertainment/action for the people that pay bigtime $$$ to sit in the grandstands at the start/finish area.........

[Knowlesy]

Well if the people in the grandstands desperately want to see cars at a standstill then they did the right thing.

And what about those who sit elsewhere at the track? Mmm?

[Adam43]

Originally posted by neil_davidson2
So what we're saying is we want to remove something that was brought in as a cure for a lack of on-track action, because we think it'll improve the on-track action?

Just playing devils advocate...

Sort of.

I wasn't brought in to 'cure' on track action, it was brought in to give us something to watch if there was no on track action. Not a cure, an alternative.

[billkirbywofb]

Concider that you will have to increace the size of the fuel tanks by two to three times. Making a longer and wider F-1 car. And that may make it harder for one bigger car to pass another bigger car. You might end up with even less passing.

[Adam43]

Originally posted by knowlesy
Thing is, I don't remember complaining about the action back then.

I do. An example: http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...5&pagenumber=1