To Fuel or Not to Fuel - That is the Question

[Rory]

OK guys - one for the old timers amongst us. Would F1 be a better spectacle if the rules were to change back to the 80's.... ie, start the race on the tank of fuel you're going to finish on, and a 1 hour qualifying shoot out to see who gets pole?

My own personal opinion is that Ferrari's incredulous demands to introduce fuel pitstops (they couldn't run on heavy fuel loads) has made F1 a poor relation to what we used to have 20 years ago. There's so much confusion now what with umpteen pit stops, umpteen strategies and qualifying is largely nullified as we never know who's doing what for the race (this 3 stage setup is ugly, dull and boring).

Come on Ecclestone - if you want to look at an entertaining motorsport on which to base your business plan on, look no further than MotoGP or Superbikes. And while we're at it, can we get back to F1 on BBC2 with Murray Walker's dulcit tones across the airwaves and 'The Chain' bellowing out and making the hairs on the back of my neck stand up!

[Bononi]

It was the Brabham team that introduced the fuel pit stops. Gordon Murray and Nelson Piquet to be more precise.

[Knowlesy]

Then they were banned after 1983 (a whopping one and a bit seasons) and then re-introduced to "spice up the show" in 1994.

I don't think it was anything to do with Ferrari, more just to make things different.

Personally, I see re-fuelling as both an unnecessary danger and a destroyer of races.

[dtype38]

Originally Posted by Rory

My own personal opinion is that Ferrari's incredulous demands to introduce fuel pitstops (they couldn't run on heavy fuel loads) has made F1 a poor relation to what we used to have 20 years ago. There's so much confusion now what with umpteen pit stops, umpteen strategies and qualifying is largely nullified as we never know who's doing what for the race (this 3 stage setup is ugly, dull and boring)

My recollection of F1 without fuel stops was an endless stream of precessional races with vitually no overtaking, and tyre wear adding to lap times as quickly as falling fuel load was reducing them. And what about those 1hour qualifying sessions with 53 mins of watching the track slowly drying and every team wanting someone else to go out first. Do you think that maybe your memory is a little rose tinted?

[Dutton]

Regarding pre-2003 qualifying...I personally found it highly satisfactory (including the wait). All they had to do was introduced a rule that said the teams had to complete 3 laps in the first 20 minutes - or something of a similar effect (I personally think it was fine as was, but that would solve the "wait" problem).

I would quite happily see re-fuelling banned. HOWEVER, I do not think, as many seem to, that this would suddenly induce overtaking. The drivers would overtake at the moment if they were able to.

[Rory]

Originally Posted by Bononi

It was the Brabham team that introduced the fuel pit stops. Gordon Murray and Nelson Piquet to be more precise.

Brabham weren't enough of a force to bring about such a monumental change. Everyone was so hellbent on seeing Ferrari win again, that they decided to go with the notion of lighter cars starting the race.... low and behold, Ferrari were a force again.

[Rory]

Originally Posted by dtype38

My recollection of F1 without fuel stops was an endless stream of precessional races with vitually no overtaking, and tyre wear adding to lap times as quickly as falling fuel load was reducing them. And what about those 1hour qualifying sessions with 53 mins of watching the track slowly drying and every team wanting someone else to go out first. Do you think that maybe your memory is a little rose tinted?

Motor racing is as much about speed of a driver as it is about how smooth you are. Those who went out of the gates like a bat out of hell generally didn't last the pace as they cooked their tyres before the end of race. And how many other formulaes of racing have fuel stops and tyre changes?

Let's face it, perhaps rose tinted, but F1 back in the day was about the drivers first and foremost - not being plugged into a laptop, controlled from the pitwall, dictated to by your race strategist and at the mercy of your 3 in and out laps being better than the rest.

Little wonder Ecclestone has to scratch around for new ideas every year to try and get the figures up. F1 is almost akin to playing the Sony equivalent on your PSP.... bloody repetitive and a far cry from purist motor racing.

Back to slicks, cut out the fuel stops, reduce the number of laps and get rid of this mind numbing qualies.

[foreversideways]

Bring it back to the driver. No traction control, manual gear changes, no pit to car radio, lots of power, big slicks and no pit stops. Flag to flag driver makes his own decisions without the benefit of 300 hundred other people.

[Knowlesy]

Originally Posted by Dutton

Regarding pre-2003 qualifying...I personally found it highly satisfactory (including the wait). All they had to do was introduced a rule that said the teams had to complete 3 laps in the first 20 minutes - or something of a similar effect (I personally think it was fine as was, but that would solve the "wait" problem).

I would quite happily see re-fuelling banned. HOWEVER, I do not think, as many seem to, that this would suddenly induce overtaking. The drivers would overtake at the moment if they were able to.

It wouldn't induce overtaking necessarily, or make it easier. But it would remove that choice of "waiting for the pitstops".

[ralf fan]

Originally Posted by Rory

low and behold, Ferrari were a force again.

Yes it took only about 10 years for Ferrari to 'force' the FIA to make these changes and a further 6 for them to win the championship. Man how do they get away with such blatant influence over the governing body!

[Dutton]

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

But it would remove that choice of "waiting for the pitstops".

They would have to ban tyre stops to achieve that. Given we just tried that, it seems unlikely we will go back to it anytime soon.

[ralf fan]

Originally Posted by Dutton

Given we just tried that, it seems unlikely we will go back to it anytime soon.

What a shame that they didn't stick with it too.

[Knowlesy]

Originally Posted by Dutton

They would have to ban tyre stops to achieve that.

Not necessarily. You would quite possibly get some gambling on not changing tyres, meaning they would have to be passed. It's unlikely, but you never know really.

As for the one tyre thing...argh, you have re-opened an old wound. Why did they get rid of that idea!

[Dutton]

Some would argue because Ferrari were suffering badly as a result.

I'm not saying that is the case, but many would say that. OTOH, if that was the reason, it leaves open hope since there is no tyre war now.

[Bononi]

Originally Posted by Rory

Brabham weren't enough of a force to bring about such a monumental change. Everyone was so hellbent on seeing Ferrari win again, that they decided to go with the notion of lighter cars starting the race.... low and behold, Ferrari were a force again.

It wasn't a change, it was an innovation, and it was adopted by all other teams, and then like Knowlesy clarified, it was banned for a long time, mostly because the danger of the refueling, there wasn't technology good enough to make it safe. There wasn't any political purpose on that.
Like Ralf fan observed it took a long time until Ferrari start to win again, hardly they had benefited from that "change".
The Ferrari "win all" conspiracy is related to TGF's era rather than the previous versions of the team...

But if you like conspiracies theories, here's a good one... Bernie owned the team at the time of invention of the refueling, so it might have grown on him to bring it back...

Anyway, Gordon Murray's ideas have brought many technologies that today are common place, so he deserves to be respected.

[FPV GTHO]

Originally Posted by Rory

Come on Ecclestone - if you want to look at an entertaining motorsport on which to base your business plan on, look no further than MotoGP or Superbikes.

Formula 1 runs twice as long as MotoGP and Superbikes, no comparison.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

Then they were banned after 1983 (a whopping one and a bit seasons) and then re-introduced to "spice up the show" in 1994.

I don't think it was anything to do with Ferrari, more just to make things different.

From what i recall, the idea of re-fuelling was touted for 1994 and every team rejected it with one exception - Ferrari. It was better for them because of their V12 engine and it need a unanimous decision to reject it.

Ironic really, because only 2 seasons later, 1996, nobody used the V12, so there was even less need for refuelling.

[BootsOntheSide]

I think every race that's longer than an hour in any form of motorsport does have refuelling. It's the fastest way to complete a 190-mile F1 race, but not the fastest way to complete a 100-mile MotoGP race. In truth, the races are better due to refuelling and tyre stops, as their pace varies much more. I wish it was easier to overtake, but that's primarily an aerodynamic issue.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

As for the one tyre thing...argh, you have re-opened an old wound. Why did they get rid of that idea!

I personally think that tyre consumption is none of the FIA's business. But with a tyre war the FIA could discourage tyre changes by banning refuelling and tyre blankets, re-legalizing wide slicks, setting a maximum of mechanics by a pit stop and lowering the pit lane speed limit.

[FPV GTHO]

Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide

I think every race that's longer than an hour in any form of motorsport does have refuelling. It's the fastest way to complete a 190-mile F1 race, but not the fastest way to complete a 100-mile MotoGP race. In truth, the races are better due to refuelling and tyre stops, as their pace varies much more. I wish it was easier to overtake, but that's primarily an aerodynamic issue.

If we could get a race that was effectively 3 sprints linked by the pitstops, it'd be the ideal situation but currently its usually 2 sprints and 1 conservation session, not helped in the least by the new tyre rules.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide

I think every race that's longer than an hour in any form of motorsport does have refuelling. It's the fastest way to complete a 190-mile F1 race, but not the fastest way to complete a 100-mile MotoGP race. In truth, the races are better due to refuelling and tyre stops, as their pace varies much more. I wish it was easier to overtake, but that's primarily an aerodynamic issue.

I don't think the races have become better due refuelling. Before 1994 drivers had to overtake on the track. Overtaking already was an issue in the early 1990's, but drivers were more pushed to do an attempt

[dtype38]

Originally Posted by Rory

Let's face it, perhaps rose tinted, but F1 back in the day was about the drivers first and foremost - not being plugged into a laptop, controlled from the pitwall, dictated to by your race strategist and at the mercy of your 3 in and out laps being better than the rest.

Personally I find following the in and out laps really interesting. It's one of the few times when the drivers car control skill is the most important bit. You're right that he's highly dependant on the team picking the right spot to feed him back into the traffic, but then that's only another part of the skill in winning a race, like bolting the tyres on properly... not something the driver does, but still exceedingly important. Same as lots of other stuff in F1 needed to win a race but not involving the driver. Lets face it, if F1 was about "drivers first and foremost" why would manufacturers pile billions of pounds into it?

[JeremySmith]

After what I saw today in Hungry, refueling should be banned as soon as possible...Why do we have to wait until someone is maimed before this takes place?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

After what I saw today in Hungry, refueling should be banned as soon as possible...Why do we have to wait until someone is maimed before this takes place?

Thankyou Jeremy for getting back to the 'real' reason why fuel stops should be banned.

[Pingguest]

I’m totally against refuelling, but because of the current set of rules refuelling can’t be banned. The current engines use about 210 litres of fuel per race, while most teams have a fuel tank size of no more than 100-110 litres. A ban on refuelling would require more fuel efficient engines, but due to the ‘engine freeze’ these engines can’t be developed.