Do you want Refueling back?

[komninosm]

IMO the lack of refuelling has made overtaking worse because of less incentive to do strategies with 1 more pit-stop than normal (since driving on lower fuel was a added advantage to fresh tires). Do you agree?

[Tim.Wright]

I agree that taking it away has made the racing boring. But it was ridiculously unsafe in its last incarnation. Ive said this before; I know racing is dangerous, but the fuel mechanics had the most dangerous job in the sport. They were getting injured at a much higher rates than the drivers and that just doesn't make sennse.

Some simple electronics fitted to the filler assembly and overriding the clutch/throttle commands would fix this problem though.

Tim

[mep]

YEEEEEEEES yes yes yes yes
bring it back I never wanted it to be banned.

[netoperek]

I hope bernie will read this BRING BACK REFUELING!!

[timbo]

I agree that taking it away has made the racing boring.

What???
Come on guys!
We have some of the best races of the last 5 years this year!

[Giblet]

Most of the things that people thought would happen have not. People thought the cars would be too big and bulky and ugly, not the case. People thought that there would be no strategy calls, but the tire compounds keep the engineers on their toes much more.

The refueling was/is dangerous, and always will be. In just the last few years, we could have killed/maimed Kimi, Massa, and others. We had a couple incidents with cars leaving with hoses attached. It's only a matter of time until someone is seriously hurt or killed, and the small spectacle of refueling is not worth that price to me.

I doubt anyone on this forum would say "Yeah sure that guy burned to death in front of everyone, but that's the price of refueling in F1".

All I have to do is look at Lauda for a reminder of what gasoline can do to you.

And as Timbo said, the racing has been great there is no reason to shake things up right now.

I think to spice up the racing however and strategy calls, teams should not have to use two compounds, but there should be some performance risk against running hards all race.

Good riddance to refueling says this kid.

[zeph]

No, I love the strategic element it brings to racing, but without is safer and demands more skill from the driver.

I am also in favor of gradually reducing fuel load to acceptable levels. 200 liters for 300 km of racing is unjustifiable in this day and age.

[ringo]

bring back refuelling with low fuel qualifying.
The races are really boring once the faster cars start at the front.
Brazil was very boring compared to 2009 and 2008 races.
Monaco was boring compared to the 2009 and 2008 races.
Turkey was boring for the majority of the race, so was any other race where to the top cars start at the front.
A lack of refueuling renders the slower cars helpless, they will run up to 40 laps after a pitstop with the knowledge that there is no way they'll be catching the guy at the front.

Never saw a last lap (or last 1o laps for that matter) showdown this year, never, thanks to lack of refueling. The cars are well settled and manage their race to the end. All teams basically mastered the single strategy of saving fuel, so there were no surprises in the race as it relates to strategy born from no refueling.

I say bring back refueling and the risks associated with it!!

[raymondu999]

I actually don't agree. tThe old refuelling days opened up the opportunity to just bide time, wait patiently, then slam down the hammer once the other guy pits, and pass them by the overlap. This new formula forces them all to go on the same strategy as they can't risk a different strategy (at least in terms of number of stops... people can still choose which tyres to start on) and they're forced to do their passing on track rather than in the pits.

[antsyd]

No need to bring it back. I would prefer there to be extreme differences in tyre compunds. E.g. 1 compound that can go the distance and another that will destroy itself after 10 laps or so. It will allow strategy to play its part.

[rfs]

With or without refueling, the faster cars will always start at the front, the slower ones at the back, the field spreads and we will always have only a few overtakes per race. What they could try though is to free up the tyre regs and allow teams to use whatever tyre they want without a mandatory tyre change. So for example, Alonso in the Ferrari may try running a two stopper with super soft tyres, and Vettel in the Red Bull could do an entire race on hards. Whichever driver and team comes up with the faster tyre strategy wins the race.

[jon-mullen]

I'd rather have soft tires with enough of a performance difference to make a 2 stop an option again.

[Shrek]

i don't know why, but refueling was much more exciting, posibly because there was more strategy involved, like 2009 Turkey when Vettel switched to 3 stops to try and catch Button, failing to and falling to third, behind Webber, and also, what if they went to Le Mans style refuelling and have a person just use the external starter to start it?

[andartop]

No.

Good or bad, changing a rule like that every year may lead to a huge waste of resources for the teams. Going back and forth is not progress. Let them develop cars and strategies around stable rules for at least a 5 year period. Make tires that don't last the whole race. Increase grip level differences between compounds. Allow more testing.

[Arunas]

No.

Good or bad, changing a rule like that every year may lead to a huge waste of resources for the teams. Going back and forth is not progress. Let them develop cars and strategies around stable rules for at least a 5 year period. Make tires that don't last the whole race. Increase grip level differences between compounds. Allow more testing.

+1 It's too early to call.