Rob W wrote:Aren't those examples of things which support what I said? Things which will get tweaked, rules bent etc? Teams accusing others of having half a litre more fuel... and confuse the people watching.
I wouldn't necessarily say they support Your argument, but the statement wasn't intended to counter Your arguments either. You are correct in that it adds something new for the engineers to learn and adapt to but that's their job. It makes their job easier in that now You don't have to do any dynamic calculations to predict how much fuel to put in (dynamic because of yellow flags and traffic). Things like standard issue tires, lower minimum weight and a standard issue "KERS use sensor" cannot be tweaked. If the fuel delivery is closely monitored (or even delivered) by the FIA, and the minimum fuel everybody can run will go the full race distance + 4laps, there is no issue about teams running 1/2 a litre more than anybody else as any such efforts would be counterproductive.
Here's a question for (not you specifically) - what happens when a car which is blowing the others away runs out of fuel on the last lap? Oh dear... some people will say: they should have calculated their fuel better and paid the price.
But many people will be at home thinking: F1 has been poked as an entertainment form because the whole race everyone thought he was the fastest car but he actually wasn't because he was running light... and failed to finish at all. The person who ran 4th the whole race actually won but the person who came last had the fastest car.
How is that racing?
I see we're in agreement about the result of maximum fuel loads. Even a minimum fuel load that doesn't guarantee full race distance may result in the same effect. My solution (i.e. a minimum fuel load which guarantees
full race distance) eliminates this problem. But it won't look 'carbon friendly' or push engineers to make more fuel efficient engines...
It complicates it too much from a spectator's perspective imo.
I do agree it is complicated for the spectators but I don't know if I'd say it complicates it any more than current strategies do. Fast in laps still don't guarantee drivers will pass the person they're trying to beat when coming out of the pits. Spectators still don't know what's happening until they show the shot of the front straight and the pits to show where the two cars are relative to each other. And even then, it's still no guarantee as the guy in the lead after the firt set of pit stops may still be running a lighter fuel load, only to be passed in the 2nd round of pit stops. I must admit it does build anticipation, and is probably a strategy by the FIA to keep people watching or at least to change back occassionally (tv ratings?) but it must be considered that majority of the people prefer wheel to wheel racing. (I personally would prefer something like a couple 10 lap time-attack-format sprints, but I also get excited watching the live timing feed so I know I'm a minority in this case).
Getting back on track, do I think no pit stops will improve the show? Not by itself. If teams are still allowed to choose their own fuel loads it may become an even worse "show". Then again, some people would enjoy seeing the back markers on the podium but my preference is that the finishing order should be fastest package (car & driver) to slowest package. This will require less 'strategic' racing.
H. Kurt Betton