Can you imagine the damage?

[slicktoast]

Stop refueling now! Can you image the damage done if the fire would have been larger and gotten out of hand? The current WDC burned or worse, not to mention the pit crew? This is a disaster waiting to happen and it doesn't have to. I know many will disagree but just think if the worst case scenario would've happened. Even for those who don't particularly like TGF. Today all involved dodged one, whew.

[gttouring]

refuelling is a nescessary evil- however- why not use non-pressurized methanol- water puts it our and it's never really been a problem. The gasoline in F1 and the pressure hoses cause the trouble, lord that was close.
Let's hope this doesn't get repeated.

[bcobbus]

Keep in mind that during the Bennetton fire at Hockenheim in 1994, the fuel sprayed out of the nozel for under a second, in fact I think not even half a second, at look at the fire that resulted! All we need is for a rig to malfuntion and spray fuel for a second to get something really really bad! I'm surpried that this dort of thing does not happen more often!

[racer69]

The racing would be much better without the stops as well. The drivers would have to pass on the track, not be able to wait for the stops.

[Fish_Flake]

Let's go back to the way things were, when the cars would explode at medium impact.

[Lee Janotta]

It's not even necessary! They _could_, within a year, have cars with the fuel capacity to go the whole race! They did it all through the '80s, and without a single fatality!

[Armco Bender]

Thats not a pit fire.

[Armco Bender]

Thats a pit fire!

[jetsetter]

That was a scary incident for one moment in the Ferrari pits, we're just lucky it didn't get to out of hand.

[Jukebox]

Nowadays the car wouldn't blow up cause there are auto triggered fire extinguishers inside the chassis

[golem]

Yeah, dropping refuelling would be allright. It drops back power for starts, but also forces very hard compounds into the tyres so you're back to mechanical grip dropping, and a reliance on aero efficiency.

[DNQ]

They got onto that fire very quickly, even a bigger fire they'd have 5-10 seconds to put it out...the Ferrari crew would be on it in a second, and rival teams would run over to help, as happened at Germany 1994.

[Hugh Jarce]

Why not have electric F1 cars?

When they get low all you'd have to do is bring them into the pits and plug 'em in for around 2 hours.

Safe and clean!

[Jensen]

Fuel stops should stay, yes I agree the safety side should be closely looked at, but I think they should remain, maybe the teams should be permitted to use and make their own fuel rigs ?, with a set flow rate, either way these things have to be looked at closely but I think the fuel stops add an extra interest with regards to spectators and other teams guessing what the opposition is doing according to how long the fuel hose has been in. Of course the other option is to run Diesel engines !.

[903cc]

Coincidence.... Schumacher was Verstappens team mate when Benetton had a Barbeque in the pit lane. Now when Ferrari have a Barbeque Schuey is there. Now for the conspiracy theory ...

[bosch!]

We could ban refueling as dangerous. we also could ban F1 for the same reason. but no one straps those guys in there at gun point you know.

[krt917]

The point is that refuelling is not, as gttouring puts it, a 'necessary evil'. Pit stops and strategy were brought in (and kept) because the teams and FIA weren't prepared to tackle the real problems of a lack of overtaking and wanted to bring in more 'spice'. All this did was to discourage the drivers to make a passing effort even further ('wait for the pit stops' comments abound). All the pits should be for is to change tyres - there could be 3 compounds, like there were in the late-80s/early 90s, so that some could run non-stop on slower tyres whilst others run faster but pit - and to fix problems.

As for the danger, it clearly exists and while I agree with bosch that F1 is dangerous, a pit-lane fire could injure a lot more people than just the drivers, who know the risks they are taking.

It's definitely time to get rid of fuel stops, but then some people have been saying that for a long time...

[Sodemo]

Ive been saying get rid of fuel stops since 1994.

In fact if we just returned to the tech regs of 1993, id be very happy.

[Dani Filth]

they all know the risks .. including the mechanics ...

[Spudgun]

I wish they would go back to non-refueling.

Everyone would have the same fuel-load, there would be less bungled pitstops due to the refuel rig problems and pitstops would return to being a battle between the mechanics with sub 5-second stops.

While they're at it the should bring back turbos. No more pumping in millions of quid to eek out an extra 500 rpm for more power. Just chuck a turbo on it. That's how to spice up the racing. The driver playing the balance between boost pressure and fuel economy. But I digress...

As has been said before, fuel stops are both dangerous and contrived. The real issue is a lack of overtaking, which has not been properly addressed.

[Mr V]

Michael was lucky, but this was a fire..

.

[Mr V]

another view...

.

[Lee Janotta]

krt917, I agree wholeheartedly.

Can you believe they thought there was a lack of overtaking back in '93? Cripes, it's chaos out there compared to the parades we see these days!

903cc, it's never been a coincidence, the Benneton team was cited by the FIA for illegally tampering with their refueling rig in '94, which directly led to the Verstappen pit fire. It also gave Schumacher a huge advantage over Hill and Senna in the first half of the year, along with the illegal traction control his car and his car alone had. So who's the say that the guys at Ferrari, many of whom who were also at Benneton at that time, aren't still going for that little over over the competition by stepping over the rules?

[RWC]

Right on krt917!!!

The bit i find infuriating is that mad max can ban anything he damnwell likes on 'safety grounds' but it is max who has repeatedly quashed any questions of banning refueling