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

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

Post

richard_leeds wrote:The drivers who ruin their tyres will drop back, and rightly so because they are less skilled than those who protect their tyres.
You could look at this a different way. Are they implementing stuff which really has little to do with actual racing? I think so.

I can see just as many situations where the first corner sees more crashes as cars struggle to manage the extra weight and consequent comparative lack of grip. Likewise, the more skilled drivers still have to avoid the guys who aren't as skilled or who get caught up in corners (as they do now - but even moreso) - I fail to see how that could improve races other than for people who like anomalous results or get their jollies from crashes.

Ian P.
2
Joined: 08 Sep 2006, 21:57

Re: No refueling, pit strategies & pace car implications

Post

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.
When refueling was taken up in the modern era, it was to use the advantages of running light and quicker lap times. Enough to offset the time for a pit stop.
Might as well do tyres as wel....
Problem was the teams designed and built their own refueling rigs. Pressurized, temperature controlled and hugh volumes in 4 seconds....WOW.
The FIA instituted the standardized rigs as much to promote safety as to eliminate another development race.
The NASCAR system with a bucket and a funnel was implemented for the same reason, no development, standardizing of equipment and limiting the safety risk through control of the quantity of fuel being handled.
I can't see F1 taking on Jerry-Cans and plastic hoses no matter how entertailing Ferrari would undoubtedly make it.
I am convinced Max instituted the no-refueling requirement to reduce the cost of transporting the equipment (2 rigs for each team and remember who pays for the transportation....the FIA).
Personal motto... "Were it not for the bad.... I would have no luck at all."

User avatar
Fil
0
Joined: 15 Jan 2007, 14:54
Location: Melbourne, Aus.

Re: No refueling, pit strategies & pace car implications

Post

if part of the cost-cutting incentive is to not bring the bulky refueling rigs to the races, will the teams revert to the old gravity-fed fuel fillers for practice & for each quali session..?
Any post(s) made by this user are (semi-)educated opinion(s), based on random fact(s) blurred by the smudges of time.
Any fact(s) claimed by this user will be supplemented by a link to the original source of said fact(s).

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

Re: No refueling, pit strategies & pace car implications

Post

Ian P. wrote:
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.
When refueling was taken up in the modern era, it was to use the advantages of running light and quicker lap times. Enough to offset the time for a pit stop.
Might as well do tyres as wel....
Problem was the teams designed and built their own refueling rigs. Pressurized, temperature controlled and hugh volumes in 4 seconds....WOW.
The FIA instituted the standardized rigs as much to promote safety as to eliminate another development race.
The NASCAR system with a bucket and a funnel was implemented for the same reason, no development, standardizing of equipment and limiting the safety risk through control of the quantity of fuel being handled.
I can't see F1 taking on Jerry-Cans and plastic hoses no matter how entertailing Ferrari would undoubtedly make it.
I am convinced Max instituted the no-refueling requirement to reduce the cost of transporting the equipment (2 rigs for each team and remember who pays for the transportation....the FIA).
Why do these boards live in an alternate reality? FOTA instituted the refueling ban NOT MAX OR THE FIA, and the FIA does not pay for transportation, the teams and FOM(Bernie) do, these are well known FACTS in the F1 community, but why not on these boards?

The teams make up the rules as we can clearly see now with the way they are forming next years rules(refueling ban, no wheel covers, brake disc thickness, no KERS)... The FIA merely enforces the rules, although very badly, and it has pretty much been like that since the first concord agreement was signed... the only changes that the FIA has total control over are in the interest of safety, and obviously with the cars gaining speed in leaps and bounds every year they must impose restrictions in said interest of safety. Each team makes a new car every year anyway, so the minor changes the FIA enforces after the TWG initiates the rule changes (and we all know who the TWG is composed of) does not really cost them alot of money.