Formula One leading figures and the Strategy Group teams have agreed a on a raft of regulation changes to revamp the sport, attempting to bring back some of the speed lost in recent overhauls.
Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
SectorOne wrote:Only thing stopping the whole field from running like a train switching leaders non stop is the inherent performance differential of the various cars.
Exactly. We here on F1T like it that teams have to build their own cars. (Don't we?) Inevitably, someone will build the best car. That car will be on pole and win the race, usually.
What we also want is racing at the limit. Refueling doesn't help with that. Instead, FIA should create an incentive to drive at the limit. That can be accomplished by awarding points for the gap that the lead car builds up. The lead car will drive at the limit to make the gap as large as possible. The next car will also drive at the limit to close the gap as much as possible. Wouldn't that be better than refueling and other gimmicks?
refuel is good, but extend the limit of fuel per race will be more excited as driver like alanso , kimi can push all the time without concern on fuel on canada gp, and daniel recardo can push to limit of the car , where we all wish to see
notsofast wrote:What we also want is racing at the limit. Refueling doesn't help with that. Instead, FIA should create an incentive to drive at the limit. That can be accomplished by awarding points for the gap that the lead car builds up. The lead car will drive at the limit to make the gap as large as possible. The next car will also drive at the limit to close the gap as much as possible. Wouldn't that be better than refueling and other gimmicks?
Refuelling will help racing at the limit due to lower weight, less punishment on the tires.
All your idea will do is wrap up the championship faster because at the end of the day, Mercedes has a faster car then Ferrari.
So if you start awarding more points based on how big of a gap Mercedes can get then it would be like clubbing baby seals.
Solve the dirty air problem and you will get good racing between the cars that happen to be of similar performance.
No need for DRS if you fix that as slipstream will provide the perfect set-up for an overtake every time.
"If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward, then brother that person is a piece of sh*t"
Well that's how it should be, it's a race. The faster driver and car combination should win. That's formula1.
It's not about giving a leg up for those who cant find more speed.
Refueling is also the biggest gain for fuel efficiency. They probably can keep the limit at 100kg per race and increase the mass flow and still have no issues with exceeding the limit. Fuel flow can even increase by 20% for example and still have 100kg with much lighter cars.
Do insulated hoses and dry couple nozzles have to fly First Class?
Liked your post but in any case the teams would be using those fuel browsers, with or without refueling. Then again those old rigs were probably less than a 100 kgs each with almost the same volume.
I also don't like these comments from team principals with Wolf saying it is unanimously accepted that it is a bad idea then Arrivabene comes and says he would still welcome the idea
I think there is some issue here in what people (the fans, the teams, the sport as a whole) want, and how they want to achieve it. Or, they want something, but for the wrong reasons.
Let's get something straight: refueling, drs, artificially designed tyres do not make the sport more competitive. They might add a sense of unpredictability or narrow the gap (while extending it in others) between teams, but in motorsport, the simple matter of fact is that the fastest car and best team is always going to be most likely to win. When you have the format that we have now, with qualifying pushing the fastest car to the front and the slower cars to the back, you will not enhance overtakes and what viewers view as "exciting races". If Mercedes build the most dominant car in F1 history, adding refueling will change squat about the race outcomes. Lewis and Nico will still be battling it out. It's happened with Schumacher during the refueling times, it held true when Vettel was dominating at RedBull, and it holds true now.
So why do we want refueling?
-> We want refueling because we want cars to be driven closer to the limit.
Why do we want cars to be driven closer to the limit?
-> Because it may push drivers closer into making mistakes, because it's more demanding.
And why do we want that?
-> Because driver errors is what spices up racing - it results in crashes, safety cars or simply puts drivers down the order and back into traffic which enhances overal excitment and unpredictability.
Lets think back; Last year, the most exciting races were when cars were battling it out. Bahrain between Nico and Lewis. A safety car caused that unique situation when one was on massively better tyres and behind, while the other had lost his advantage and had 10 laps to defend. Or in Canada, Austria, Silverstone or Monza when Lewis was on the backfoot and tried to close in on his team-mate, put him into pressure and into making an error. There are other numerous examples of other drivers too; Ricciardo on Vettel, Bottas etc.
The problem is; the more management you have going on, the less demanding the race is for a driver. Instead of pushing all out into a corner, he is perhaps conserving tyres, or fuel, lifting and coasting etc. If we had refueling, perhaps this would be less of an issue, as for one, the cars would be lighter, so the strain on the tyres less, and actually driving relative to your fuel strategy would mean you would need to maximize it for your strategy to work. It isn't the holy grail to create exciting races, but I think it would certainly add a bit. Of course, you also have the danger that overtakes might happen in the pitlane, rather on the track, but we already have this to some degree with the over- and undercut due to coming in a lap sooner or later than your competitor.
Anyway, it doesn't need to be refueling to get drivers to drive closer at the limit. Refueling just might not be such a bad idea, because fuel (and weight) can be a large performance differentiator. A dominant Mercedes that might go for a one stop and carry more fuel, might not be all that much quicker than a midfield team going for short fuel stints, carry less weight and therefore be quicker, but rely on overtaking to make the strategy work. I think the stragic element could be quite fascinating, and the lack of knowlege what the other teams are doing, what fuel strategy they are running to create a sense of unpredictability. Sure, the most dominant car will always be likely to prevail - you won't create a more level playing field like that, nor would you want to. Motorsport will always favour the fast over the slow. If you don't like that, go watch a spec series.
IMO - I would concentrate on making cars more difficult to drive. More difficult puts the driver into focus. It also adds excitment because drivers are more likely to make errors and mistakes. If we want to see overtaking during races, we need to find ways on how to bring those "quicker" cars into traffic at some point during the race. Pitstops help. Pitstops either to change tyres (like we have now), or fuel. And above all, I think it should be possible for teams to narrow the gap through in-season-development without adding to the costs.
In fact, I think I'd think of a system that doesn't necessarely reward winning with lots of cash and money, as that will only make the rich, even richer and enlarge the gap between teams. One has to ask; Are teams racing for fame, publicity, prestige or the money? The teams that need the money to compete, aren't getting it, because they are losing. Now, I'm not saying that the teams at the back should get more than the ones that are winning, but we seriously need fairer price money distribution.
Not for nothing, Rosberg's Championship is the only thing that lends credibility to Hamilton's recent success. Otherwise, he'd just be the guy who's had the best car. — bhall II #Team44 supporter
I tend to think that the talk of refuelling only really goes towards disguising the issues that are present in the 'sport'.
With virtually no room for innovation, the cars are all becoming too similar. There are differences to approaches in terms of barely visible aero appendages, there are also subtle differences in terms of electronics or other things that I cannot remember or care about.
Back in the day, we would have Flat-12 Ferraris bellowing down the straights, only to be overtaken in the bends by the more nimble, but less powerful (and quieter) Cosworth V8's. Some tracks were Goodyear tracks, some Michelin tracks, some favoured big power, some handling.
Now all the cars have (essentially) the same engine, the same tyres and the same chassis dimensions.
It tends to come down to who has the best electronics (yawn), the best aero team (double-yawn) and the drivers that are best able to manage fuel consumption and brakes during the race (zzzz).
Refuelling may help with the show - but really, optimum strategies will be calculated very quickly, before long it will be FACT that Silverstone is bet approached with 31.8 litres of fuel to start on the harder compound, followed by a stop to switch to soft and putting 42.9 litres in for the middle section where the falls asleep or wanders off to buy a $47 hamburger, then finally the last sprint to the line is accomplished on softs again with the last 25.3ltrs of fuel required to get to the line (including the cool down lap and the fuel sample).
Not really very exciting.
The only upside is that the cars will be running lighter for more of the race. So perhaps they will be a second or so a lap faster and there will be slightly less need for them to manage the brakes and tyres ??
WilliamsF1 wrote:I also don't like these comments from team principals with Wolf saying it is unanimously accepted that it is a bad idea then Arrivabene comes and says he would still welcome the idea
He's completely full of ---. He tacitly admitted as much in Canada, and that tells us his views should never be considered objective.
Toronto Sun wrote:“I am being paid to deliver as many wins and as many championships for Mercedes as possible,” [Toto Wolff] said in a wide-ranging interview in the team’s hospitality suite at Circuit Gilles Villeneuve on Friday.
“If I were to take my Mercedes hat off I would be saying, yes, it would be more exciting for Formula 1 if you had many teams fighting and many drivers fighting for wins and championships, that is obvious.
“But that is not what I get paid for.”
(As if the tendency for his statements to crumble under the weight of even modest scrutiny hadn't already made that clear.)
If I ran a highly successful team and wanted to kill any chances of a return to refueling, which is a development that might dilute my advantage, I'd first let everyone know that refueling is coming back. Then I'd wait for public opinion to jell against it, because I know most F1 fans, and a surprising number of pundits, confuse correlation for causation, and they think refueling is to blame for the processional races in the '00s. Finally, I'd reverse course and parrot the most common reasons given for why refueling is a bad idea, regardless of whether or not they have any basis in reality.
It's taking advantage of ignorance, and that's how you affect a decision when sound logic is not on your side.
SectorOne wrote:With a fan that is intended to suck air out from under the floor it can only thrive in such an environment.
Whether theres a car in front or not will have virtually no impact, in fact i would guess its probably even beneficial to have a car in front of you.
Look at this Las year ground effect cars 1982 san marino---
Fantastic racing . Look how close they are able to race. With 2m wide cars and 420mm wide rear tyres and massive downforce https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ua70zL5 ... e=youtu.be
Stunning racing yes Only thing stopping the whole field from running like a train switching leaders non stop is the inherent performance differential of the various cars. If they ran the same car you´d have half the field dicing it out like Pironi and Villeneuve.
But if you look at this they are able to follow close at 290 km/h in the variante tamburello because of ground effect. They are according to this article now looking to Indy who are running venturi tunnels since 1979. http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 89856.html to make cars able to follow without using DRS and those things..
toraabe wrote:
Look at this Las year ground effect cars 1982 san marino---
Fantastic racing . Look how close they are able to race. With 2m wide cars and 420mm wide rear tyres and massive downforce https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ua70zL5 ... e=youtu.be
toraabe wrote:
Look at this Las year ground effect cars 1982 san marino---
Fantastic racing . Look how close they are able to race. With 2m wide cars and 420mm wide rear tyres and massive downforce https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ua70zL5 ... e=youtu.be
Only thing stopping the whole field from running like a train switching leaders non stop is the inherent performance differential of the various cars. If they ran the same car you´d have half the field dicing it out like Pironi and Villeneuve.