No refueling, pit strategies & pace car implications

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.

Richard
Moderator
Joined: 15 Apr 2009, 14:41
Location: UK

Re: No Refueling Pit Stratrgies Tactics & Pace car implications.

Post

modbaraban wrote:I meant the 2010 situation where you can reach the pitstop but don't have enough fuel to finish the race unless you refuel
DNF. Imagine being on a podium place and then running pout of fuel on teh last lap. It used to happen a lot in the olden days.

AS I understand it, the refuel ban also saves money because the teams won't have to bring the fancy fuel rigs and people to operate them in a pit stop. So even if they wanted to refuel, they wouldn't have the kit or staff.

nae
nae
0
Joined: 29 Mar 2006, 00:56

Re: No Refueling Pit Stratrgies Tactics & Pace car implications.

Post

the strategy to win will be find a consistent pace that the
tyres will last at, that doesn't use to much fuel, run them
till the fall 5-10 % of that pace then pit for new rubber

repeat till race end


the might be over taking as the average pace required will
allow a driver to over use his reserves to perhaps try a move

if not its going to be dull
manage the engines , manage the gearboxes
manage the fuel, manage the tyres
..?

King Six
1
Joined: 27 May 2008, 16:52
Location: London, England

Re: No Refueling Pit Stratrgies Tactics & Pace car implications.

Post

I remember hearing on the BBC during Suzuka Friday practice that next years race distances could be reduced, I think but I'm not sure but it was a Bridgestone rep who was saying that.

You guys think that's a possibility, or even a necessity now that refuelling is to be banned. I hope not.

bill shoe
151
Joined: 19 Nov 2008, 08:18
Location: Dallas, Texas, USA

Re: No Refueling Pit Stratrgies Tactics & Pace car implications.

Post

This is an interesting discussion.

I assume 2010 rules will continue to require using both specs of tires at least once during a race. Therefore, drivers can't try to beat the competition by going non-stop. Too bad, that would actually make for interesting races.

I agree with some others that one-stop (two-stint) races could become the norm instead of the two-stop (three-stint) standard strategy we have now. Pitstops will take the same amount of time, but the driver will only get the benefit of tires, not the benefit of running with lower fuel weight. Therefore the cost of pitstops will remain the same but the benefit will be reduced. This creates an incentive to do fewer stops.

I think the hard compound is the obvious choice at the start with heavy fuel load, and then at half distance when the car is lighter you change to softs and go the distance.

Nealio
0
Joined: 03 Feb 2009, 18:35

Re: No Refueling Pit Stratrgies Tactics & Pace car implications.

Post

Lots of good ideas here but besides narrower front tires we don't know what Bridgestone will bring to the races next year. With the dearth of testing Bridgestone doesn't even know.
As I have long maintained it is against the spirit of racing to dictate to the teams what tires they have to use during the race. This concept of forcing drivers to use tires which are not suited to the track is dangerous and a failure to improving the 'show" (God I hate that term, I remember when it was called racing and we enjoyed it just fine). It's the right and purpose of the teams to compete as they choose (within the rules), to try and fairly win victory. You can not legislate exciting racing. That is manipulation, fakery, and it has given us BORING parades and endless political wars.
Bridgestone should use the same methods that they use in MotoGP, it's very fair to all teams, it's very safe for the riders and gee, every winner is on Bridgestones!

dumrick
0
Joined: 19 Jan 2004, 13:36
Location: Portugal

Re: No Refueling Pit Stratrgies Tactics & Pace car implications.

Post

King Six wrote:I remember hearing on the BBC during Suzuka Friday practice that next years race distances could be reduced, I think but I'm not sure but it was a Bridgestone rep who was saying that.

You guys think that's a possibility, or even a necessity now that refuelling is to be banned. I hope not.
I believe some "masterminds" at the FIA might at some time pitched the idea of reducing race lengths, but mainly for the benefit of reduced-span-of-attention TV audiences, but there's obviously no technical need for that. May I remember that, in the 60 years of F1 history, refueling is a rather novel mandatory feature (last 15-20 years?) and I don't recall the race distances being changed ever (more educated members may correct me here).

User avatar
ISLAMATRON
0
Joined: 01 Oct 2008, 18:29

Re: No Refueling Pit Stratrgies Tactics & Pace car implications.

Post

dumrick wrote:
King Six wrote:I remember hearing on the BBC during Suzuka Friday practice that next years race distances could be reduced, I think but I'm not sure but it was a Bridgestone rep who was saying that.

You guys think that's a possibility, or even a necessity now that refuelling is to be banned. I hope not.
I believe some "masterminds" at the FIA might at some time pitched the idea of reducing race lengths, but mainly for the benefit of reduced-span-of-attention TV audiences, but there's obviously no technical need for that. May I remember that, in the 60 years of F1 history, refueling is a rather novel mandatory feature (last 15-20 years?) and I don't recall the race distances being changed ever (more educated members may correct me here).
Again, it was not the FIA who suggested shortening the races, and again it was the teams who did so, specifically FOTA after they did their fan survey, one of the items they came forward with was the shortening of the races. I refer you to this thread...

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6418

please read carefully and see all the stupid ideas put forward by FOTA that the FIA is blamed for.

Astro1
0
Joined: 08 Jan 2008, 21:34
Contact:

Re: No refueling, pit strategies & pace car implications

Post

LOL @ ISLAMATRON, you really are on a mission to protect the FIA. In every thread.

Look! In a sea of bad rules and artificial "show enhancement" you find two bad ideas that are not certain to have originated from the FIA and use it as a valid argument?

Please the FIA from day one have been the route of all evil in F1 slowly changing a sport into an "on the brink of being orchestrated" series.

Bogus rule interpretation to favor a favorite, bogus on track penalties, bogus court rulings, and then there is the most recent "orchestrated crash" that basically went unpunished and was brushed under the carpet.

The only positive things to come from them is that their commercial interests required them to increase safety which they did saving many.

Sorry but they have failed at just about everything else. And had they been so great, we wouldn't see CONSTANT rule changes all under an obviously false idea of "cost reduction".

No refueling no matter how's idea it is, is certainly not there to CUT COSTS, come on! Nascar uses an F'n bucket with a spigot! How much cheaper can it get. There seems to be NO REAL reason to have to refuel. Had they wanted they could have done it this year. There is no requirement to refuel. Why make it mandatory? If you want to save money don't refuel but don't cut the guy that wants to.

Again no matter how you want to look at it, it all boils down to equalization in the hunt for revenue.

Night races? Dumb Tilke tracks etc. etc. etc.

Please get REAL!

dumrick
0
Joined: 19 Jan 2004, 13:36
Location: Portugal

Re: No Refueling Pit Stratrgies Tactics & Pace car implications.

Post

ISLAMATRON wrote:
dumrick wrote:
King Six wrote:I remember hearing on the BBC during Suzuka Friday practice that next years race distances could be reduced, I think but I'm not sure but it was a Bridgestone rep who was saying that.

You guys think that's a possibility, or even a necessity now that refuelling is to be banned. I hope not.
I believe some "masterminds" at the FIA might at some time pitched the idea of reducing race lengths, but mainly for the benefit of reduced-span-of-attention TV audiences, but there's obviously no technical need for that. May I remember that, in the 60 years of F1 history, refueling is a rather novel mandatory feature (last 15-20 years?) and I don't recall the race distances being changed ever (more educated members may correct me here).
Again, it was not the FIA who suggested shortening the races, and again it was the teams who did so, specifically FOTA after they did their fan survey, one of the items they came forward with was the shortening of the races. I refer you to this thread...

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6418

please read carefully and see all the stupid ideas put forward by FOTA that the FIA is blamed for.
Thanks for clarifying, although my main goal was to point out that there can't be technical reasons behind shortening the races because of the ban on refueling, because that's mainly for technical discussions that this forum is for.

User avatar
WhiteBlue
92
Joined: 14 Apr 2008, 20:58
Location: WhiteBlue Country
Contact:

Re: No refueling, pit strategies & pace car implications

Post

Astro1 wrote:LOL @ ISLAMATRON, you really are on a mission to protect the FIA. In every thread.

Look! In a sea of bad rules and artificial "show enhancement" you find two bad ideas that are not certain to have originated from the FIA and use it as a valid argument?

Please the FIA from day one have been the route of all evil in F1 slowly changing a sport into an "on the brink of being orchestrated" series.

Bogus rule interpretation to favor a favorite, bogus on track penalties, bogus court rulings, and then there is the most recent "orchestrated crash" that basically went unpunished and was brushed under the carpet.

The only positive things to come from them is that their commercial interests required them to increase safety which they did saving many.

Sorry but they have failed at just about everything else. And had they been so great, we wouldn't see CONSTANT rule changes all under an obviously false idea of "cost reduction".

No refueling no matter how's idea it is, is certainly not there to CUT COSTS, come on! Nascar uses an F'n bucket with a spigot! How much cheaper can it get. There seems to be NO REAL reason to have to refuel. Had they wanted they could have done it this year. There is no requirement to refuel. Why make it mandatory? If you want to save money don't refuel but don't cut the guy that wants to.

Again no matter how you want to look at it, it all boils down to equalization in the hunt for revenue.

Night races? Dumb Tilke tracks etc. etc. etc.

Please get REAL!
I was just enjoying this thread because there was a very good objective discussion going on. And bang, a blimming ideologist has to start the trillionth FIA bashing argument. Bääääh! How lame is that?

To get real means that we acknowledge the facts. DC floated the idea some 18 months back, FOTA have asked for the refuelling ban and everybody and his dog nodded to it, even evil Bernie. So lets see what kind of racing we will get from this. They can allways go back with an unanimous decision if it doesn't work out.

The main issue in my view is the return of an endurance aspect compared to a series of short sprint races that we had from 1994. The value of pulling off a proper pass will increase and so will the ability to drive a car quickly with less fuel and tyre consumption. I reckon that drivers like Heidfeld - who can pass - will see their value rise and Hamilton will have to make big changes to his style. What I want to say is that the impact on drivers will probably be heavier than on the engineering of the cars.

Shortening races is a big cheat scam invented by the FOTA big whigs. To hell with that!
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)

Astro1
0
Joined: 08 Jan 2008, 21:34
Contact:

Re: No refueling, pit strategies & pace car implications

Post

I think that the strategies will largely be dependent on the tyres that are provided. If we consider a standard 3 stint strategy what would be the optimal scenario?

The teams will have to stop at least once to change from prime to options or vis a versa so it would seem that starting the race on hard tyres and going as long as possible before the pace drops below a calculated level and then doing 1-2 short busts the softer sets.

It will all depend on the rate of tyre wear and grip level. This year many teams have claimed that the tyres have a very limited optimal grip level time window. 2-3 laps and then the grip drops off.

There is also the questions of fuel level towards the end of the race. Surely the best times will be achieved with a light car on soft rubber and the longer into the race you last on the harder tyres the faster you will be at the end of the race on the soft tyres.

How they will go about calculating the possible returns and possibilities I don't know.

The good thing will be that drivers will push hard at the end of the race with light cars, where mistakes and opportunities could be gained.

On track passing especially with the diffuser loophole not closed leaves the proportion of engine power to grip level in balance and I think that more passing occurs when human error is the biggest factor. The diffuser however creates more grip and less chance for human error as in scenarios where engine power outweighs the grip levels.

Richard
Moderator
Joined: 15 Apr 2009, 14:41
Location: UK

Re: No refueling, pit strategies & pace car implications

Post

WhiteBlue wrote: I was just enjoying this thread because there was a very good objective discussion going on. And bang, a blimming ideologist has to start the trillionth FIA bashing argument. Bääääh! How lame is that?
=D> =D> =D> =D>
WhiteBlue wrote: Shortening races is a big cheat scam invented by the FOTA big whigs. To hell with that!
:wtf: Irony?

User avatar
Rob W
0
Joined: 18 Aug 2006, 03:28

Re: No Refueling Pit Stratrgies Tactics & Pace car implications.

Post

modbaraban wrote:I meant the 2010 situation where you can reach the pitstop but don't have enough fuel to finish the race unless you refuel
I wondered that too... I mean, if it was a ten second stop-go penalty it'd be worth taking the penalty for sure to have a lighter fuel load.

I for one think this no-refuelling thing will cause more problems than it aims to solve. Especially I think it'll mean more races are ruined by people not being able to manage the tires with a car which is miles heavier than it has been for years - compounded by no tire warmers thing.. People will be flat spotting their tires early in the race and ruining their day.

Likewise, brakes will be a major issue with the extra weight imo. Moreso than most think.

Richard
Moderator
Joined: 15 Apr 2009, 14:41
Location: UK

Re: No Refueling Pit Stratrgies Tactics & Pace car implications.

Post

Rob W wrote: I for one think this no-refuelling thing will cause more problems than it aims to solve. Especially I think it'll mean more races are ruined by people not being able to manage the tires with a car which is miles heavier than it has been for years - compounded by no tire warmers thing.. People will be flat spotting their tires early in the race and ruining their day.

Likewise, brakes will be a major issue with the extra weight imo. Moreso than most think.
Yes, tyre degredation will be critical. The factors you cite improve the racing in my mind. That's because sensitive handling of the cars will be more critical.

The drivers who ruin their tyres will drop back, and rightly so because they are less skilled than those who protect their tyres.

Designers will also have a new challenge, and that will also sort the men from the boys.