Refuelling return ‘may not change strategy much’

2015 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

The F1 Strategy Group’s plan to bring back refuelling in 2017 may have little effect on race strategies, according to Lotus technical director Nick Chester.

Refuelling was last seen in F1 in 2009 but could return after next season if the group’s plans are endorsed by the Formula One Commission.

However as it is already common practice for drivers to make at least two pit stops during a grand prix, Chester expects it won’t drastically change the pattern of races.

“It may not change the strategies that much as everyone will re-optimise for it,” said Chester.

According to Chester, the attraction of bringing back refuelling has more to do with making the cars quicker. “There has been a lot of talk to bring lap times down in 2017 and refuelling will do so by running less fuel in the first couple of stints during the race,” he said.

“It may mean that drivers can push a little bit harder on their tyres as they’d not carry as much fuel,” Chester added.

It would also mean the current two-second pit stops are likely to become a thing of the past. “The challenge would be to bring refuelling times down to the times we can do a tyre pit stop nowadays and that would prove quite difficult,” said Chester.

2015 F1 season

Browse all 2015 F1 season articles

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

69 comments on “Refuelling return ‘may not change strategy much’”

  1. petebaldwin (@)
    29th May 2015, 18:57

    “Re-optimise” :D

    The interesting thing for me so far has been the driver’s opinions on it. Most were positive towards bringing refuelling back.

    I appreciate it’s expensive but don’t we want cars going as fast as they can? Why limit them by using a “sub-optimal” strategy when refuelling allows them to complete the race faster?

    The problem is money but as it would improve the show, how about Bernie foots the extra bill? Pocket change to him.

    1. @petebaldwin

      The problem is money but as it would improve the show

      But it wouldn’t improve the show, Certainly didn’t the last time & I’d argue it made ‘the show’ much worse by moving most of the racing/overtaking/interest into the pit lane.

      There are better ways of making the cars faster without the need for bore-fueling to return & once again kill the ontrack racing. Better tyres & more power been the obvious 2.

      1. However, when we last had refueling, we also had never-wearing Bridgestones and no DRS.

        Removing the 10,500 RPM cap on fuel flow would be one way to increase power (and noise) and therefore reduce lap times– but now a 100kg tank will *not* get you to the end of the race in a meaningful fashion. Sure, you can put in a larger tank– but that’s going to reduce the speed of the cars again.

        Cut the tank size in half (50kg), allow the teams to refuel, but only during a tire change, and borrow IndyCar’s shift interlock for safety reasons. I keep hearing about the cost of the fuel rigs, but as I understand it, they’ve got a fuel rig in the garage already (See “Williams fire”)– move the rig outside, and do all your fueling in the box.

        Oh, and bring back active suspension, because “technology” and “cheaper” and “safer”.

        If those two things don’t make the current cars faster than the 2013 cars, I’ll be very surprised.

        1. I don’t give a damn whether the cars are 5,6,7,seconds a lap faster or 2,3,4, seconds a lap slower than they were 10 years ago, it is not visible to the naked eye, what is visible to the naked eye is how close to the limits of adhesion the driver is pushing the car and how much faster or slower the car immediately in front or behind is. Now drivers don’t drive close to the limit of adhesion or immediately behind another car for fear of ruining their tyres in only 1 or 2 laps, refueling wont help this except for the last lap or 2 before pitting, but this will be on spent tyres and only possible with a clear track ahead and there will be almost zero real racing as the tactics will be to ensure the car is not running in traffic between pit stops. If the only important part of F1 is how quick the cars can do a low fuel lap then Q3 is all we need, why bother running on Sunday.

          1. What F1 misses is the hero aspect. Go watch a race from 2000-2008 and you will see how hard drivers like Mika, Schumacher, Kimi, Alonso and Hamilton had to push on low fuel. Martin Brundle was in awe at times watching them pump in the fast laps, you don’t here that nowadays.

          2. Glad Martin Brundle was enjoying himself. Because I wasn’t, watching a car go round on its own for half an hour, with lousy TV coverage bringing us long shots of advertising on bridges and no sense of speed.

          3. petebaldwin (@)
            2nd June 2015, 15:58

            @hohum – I agree that racing needs to be closer, gimmicks need to be removed, teams need to be treated fairly and so on. I’m not suggesting that speed is the only thing that is important in F1.

            Having said that – what is the reason to watch F1 over other series that have much closer racing, more competitive grids, no need for DRS, tyres that allow drivers to push, tracks which punish mistakes and so on?

            For me, the thing that sets F1 apart from all of those other series is the speed – the fact that these are some of the fastest cars in the world and it is (or should be) a real challenge to drive them. At the moment, GP2 looks almost as fast and certainly as much of a challenge.

            The cars will be much lighter at the start of the race with refuelling which allows for them to push harder – carrying a load of extra weight will eat through the tyres much more quickly which causes the drivers to have to drive even more conservatively. If you push 100% with that much fuel on board, you will only last a few laps before you’re pitting.

            Don’t get me wrong, refuelling won’t fix F1 without all the other changes needed but I can only see it adding more variables and allowing the drivers to push harder from the start of the race.

    2. BJ (@beejis60)
      30th May 2015, 5:46

      I appreciate it’s expensive but don’t we want cars going as fast as they can? Why limit them by using a “sub-optimal” strategy when refuelling allows them to complete the race faster?

      @petebaldwin People fail to recognize that FOM/F1 pays for shipping for flyaway races. Moreover, they already have refueling rigs, It’s just a sort of different AND the teams already transport their fuel, meaning that it’s really not expensive at all, other than the teams needing to carry an extra bit of hose on the Euro leg of the F1 calender.

      Big deal.

      1. Why were teams making the argument about the extra cost of refuelling then? There must be some extra cost to them, at the very least they have to employ extra mechanics.

        1. Because of development costs. The big teams will throw millions to reduce the time in the pits. All developments cost something, from man hours to speculate ideas to prototyping.

          1. petebaldwin (@)
            2nd June 2015, 16:00

            Simple solution – all use FIA supplied refuelling rigs. Next problem? :)

      2. @beejis60 @williamstuart @rybo Few points on those comments.

        The refueling systems the teams current have could not be used for refueling during races. There very slow at pumping fuel into the cars because there not designed for performance, There just designed to get fuel in the cars via small hoses at a very slow rate.

        Regarding where the cost’s come from.
        A big chunk of it is buying the rigs, The rigs they had last time were very expensive to buy & also required regular servicing to change out filters, pumps & replace the electronics that were built into them.
        You then also have to hire people to do the maintenance & keep checking the rigs to ensure there’s no faults & you also have people programming the systems that were a part of them.
        And teams do actually pay for the shipping because the FOM shipping costs come out of the prize money which leaves less for the teams.

        Also factor in that teams had 2 rigs, the main rig & a backup so that doubled costs since the same maintenance etc.. was done to both rigs plus any spares at the factory.

        The cost over a season for the teams throughout the last refueling era was over $1m, Often more since teams sometimes had to buy new rigs & related items if they suffered damage to the existing rigs.

        Remember this isn’t some basic gravity fed system as you see in Indycar, WEC etc.. They used very sophisticated pressure driven rigs full of electronics in order to keep pit stop times short & optimise there strategy by only putting the exact amount of fuel in they planned to.

        In Indycar, WEC & other categories that have refueling the plan usually is fill the tank at every stop which is different to how refueling was used in F1 where you only filled the tank if you were doing 1 stop so you need to get very precise amounts of fuel in to run to whatever strategy you had planned.

        1. @beejis60, Please please please, don’t keep saying FOM pays for anything, everything, and I mean every<thing is paid for out of the revenue the teams generate./strong>

  2. It reduces the effectiveness of the undercut. Is that bad or good?

    I’d say bad, I think, because undercuts tempt cars to run out of tyres at the end of the race, which can give us a great finish.

    Also I’d miss the amazing clockwork 2.x pitstops.

    1. The undercut only exists in a Formula where there are tyre changes but no refueling. In the refueling era, a lighter car on worn tyres was still faster than a heavier car on new tyres, which is why you’d always see drivers “stay out a few extra laps” to jump the competition.

      In the most extreme cases, I remember Schumacher jumping 10 cars, and moving from 13th to 3rd, in the opening round of pit stops at San Marino 2005 by staying out an extra few laps.

      1. Cameron Keen
        29th May 2015, 23:07

        I remember that as well but Schumi’s car was just in the zone that day, old tyres low fuel, old tyres full fuel he was in a league of his own that day. But I remember schumi waiting till the pitstops to jump people. However, looking at the 2009 replays, the cars looked faster when they had full pitstops for fuel and tyres.

        1. No, the cars were definitely faster towards the end of the stint than in the beginning, even in 2009. Low fuel loads and worn tyres were faster than a heavy fuel load and new tyres.

      2. Yeah, that wasn’t with the current tyres though was it? If they’re degrading at 0.2 per lap I think it would be closer.

        Either way I think the undercut is a good part of the current formula and it would be yet another F1 unintended consequence to lose it.

      3. @lockup
        Personally, I don’t find the undercut any more exciting than the overcut, maybe that’s just me.

        1. I like how the performance varies at the end of the race @kingshark, because some cars changed early while others now are behind but with more grip.

          1. I prefer to see the cars racing on their merits, not artificially handicapped by crud tyres.

          2. I think that’s a bit of a myth now tbh.

          3. Let’s not forget MS had exclusive tires, so it should be no surprise he was able to stay out longer and pip the competition that way.

            I would not be surprised if the nature of the tires for 2017 will be different than today’s due to refueling coming back, so I think we will just have to see what they bring once these changes arrive. Whoever the tire supplier will be, they will be the exclusive maker, we know that, so they will still be wanting the story of F1 to revolve around the tires so that we talk about tires even though everyone will have the same ones.

            If this is all mainly to make the cars faster by never having to be fully laden with fuel, I’m good with that. I realize the point made about our perception on TV being unable to really see and appreciate that added speed, but I just like the thought of faster cars and therefore faster reaction times needed by the drivers and team in making split-second decisions. The drivers these days are not taxed enough imho.

          4. For once only I agree with Bernie @robbie, that Michelin would not put up with the abuse Pirelli have, and would give us durable tyres like Bridgestone did. Then we’d be more in the ‘pure’ situation where all the faster cars are in front of all the slower cars…

            I think Pirelli have been pretty game, giving us mainly 2 stops. Let’s not forget Sochi, where they accidentally didn’t…

            On speed/spectacle I reckon they should bring skirts back. They are tricky, because if the car gets out of line the downforce disappears

  3. Simon (@weeniebeenie)
    29th May 2015, 19:13

    I see he is ignoring the ruined strategies when fuel rigs failed. Boy, I can’t wait for those again.

    “Hakkinen has driven a perfect race, making his final pit stop should be a formality….NO, the fuel rig has failed, they can’t get it off, he’s just sitting there, losing time, and the win”.

    1. petebaldwin (@)
      29th May 2015, 20:42

      @weeniebeenie – yeah but races get ruined by botched tyre changes now. When pit stops are longer, this will happen less. Refuelling hasn’t been around for years so I’d imagine it’ll be more reliable this time.

      1. Simon (@weeniebeenie)
        29th May 2015, 21:22

        @peterbaldwin they do, sure, but why add another possible way to ruin a race that is unnecessary. I’d totally understand if refueling was necessary but clearly it isn’t.

    2. BJ (@beejis60)
      30th May 2015, 5:51

      @weeniebeenie You win as a team and you lose as a team.

    3. How is that a bad thing for neutrals, it introduces more variability and potential excitement into the races.

  4. What I want is a car which has a decent ultimate pace which it demonstrates on Saturday. I want that same car to be used on Sunday. I would like the car to be able to run at its limit during the race for more than a couple of laps without destroying its tyres. I don’t care if that limit it’s running at is below the ultimate pace just because it’s been filled with fuel.

    The cars being fast ultimately is good, and them being on the edge throughout is good. They do not need to demonstrate their ultimate pace constantly though.

    1. Well said that man.

    2. See, I’m not so sure it’d work like that. Longer pit stops will incentivize less stops. Less stop means they will run the tyres longer, which means they will back off more to save the tyres.

      1. I don’t see the pit stops being so much longer that it will incentivize less stops. I think Nick Chester is right that the number of stops will remain the same ie. the strategy from that sense, but there is so much we can’t know right now about the nature of the tires they will bring for a refueling season. How will they behave for which cars at which tracks in terms of getting and maintaining the right heat in them with a lighter car…presuming the cars will not be mandated to be heavier given that they will never have to be laden with fuel like they are today. Ie. so much changes once they go to refueling so it is hard to relate it to how they run a race today other than likely the same number of pit stops as the do now.

        1. Agreed.

    3. BJ (@beejis60)
      30th May 2015, 5:52

      @matt90 Then you want better tires, not necessarily refuelling.

      1. @mike @beejis60
        My point was that I don’t care if the race lap times are significantly faster, so I don’t want refuelling. I just want the cars to be able to push more, and tyres rather than fuel are key to that.

  5. Michael Brown
    29th May 2015, 19:42

    I don’t think refuelling needs to be brought back in order to make the cars faster. Right now they run at a reduced pace because they need to protect the tires.
    Besides, it’s been statistically shown that the removal of refuelling has contributed to more overtaking on track. Reintroducing it would only encourage drivers to sit behind the car in front.

    1. It hasn’t been statisticly shown that the removal of refueling contributed to more on track overtaking. Corrolation does not equal causation. When they removed refueling(and the overcut), they added the tires we have today (and the undercut).

      1. Michael Brown
        29th May 2015, 22:34

        I’m talking about 2010 in which the refuelling rule was removed but Bridgestone’s durable tires remained. Overtaking numbers were higher than any season with refuelling, with 2011 getting even higher numbers thanks to DRS.

        1. Again correlation does not equal causation.

          Turbulent air was a big problem during the refuelling era. Watch some onboard footage from 1998-2008 and notice how difficult it was for drivers to stay close to the car ahead. Through high speed corners it was downright impossible.

          1. @kingshark It was just as difficult in 2009/2010 though.

            And going back to the original point the only rule changes from 2009 to 2010 was the banning of refueling & overtaking averages increased from 2009>2010, Not just for the season but also for each individual race. The banning of refueling for 2010 saw overtaking figures go back to the levels that were seen prior to refueling been introduced in 1994.

            The stats very clearly show that from race #1 of 1994 overtaking figures declined over what they had been over previous years. They stayed at historic lows through 2009. When refueling was banned the overtaking figures went back to what they had been before.

  6. One problem I see is it isn’t mandatory to link the refueling rig to some sort of transmission disable system, meaning a driver could inadvertently drive off with the hose still attached to the car, as has happened in the past.
    In fact, why not have a minimum refuelling time, e.g. 11 seconds? So car pulls into the pits, a red stop light comes on, refueling starts, tyres changed, front wing is adjusted, refueling finishes, light goes green, and car drives off. Yes, that does mean there isn’t this “can we do it quicker than them” requirement, but that leads to accidents.
    I think this is just an unnecessary expense for the teams on a tight budget. I wouldn’t be surprised if these rigs have to be cleaned very thoroughly before being allowed onto an aeroplane, to remove all traces of fuel and vapour.
    Yes, refueling makes the cars a bit slower, but so does having 4 engines to use in a year make them slower, braking that generates electricity, limitations on wind tunnels, mandatory tyre use requirements, engine cc ratings, etc.

  7. Why can’t fuel flow or ERS use be increased at the start of the race instead? No need for refueling, but consistency with quick lap times. As they burn off fuel and lose weight, so the fuel flow/ERS capacity reduces.

    Quick lap times and consistency.

    1. @john-h, it is not a power problem, it is a tyre problem, going fast with a heavy car on these tyres while still not up to optimal temperature creates slip and thereby damages the tyres.

      1. BJ (@beejis60)
        30th May 2015, 5:54

        @hohum Especially starting a race on scrub tires for the q3 guys.

  8. Faster cars won’t automatically make for better racing just because.

    1. I actually think that there’s a negative correlation. Usually, the faster the cars are, the less overtaking we see.

    2. Who cares about better racing being the end all? That’s not the only criteria for F1.

      Cars can be fast and still be a spectacle. I saw Hakinnen at Silverstone 1998 in the wet during qualifying and it was awesome. No overtaking necessary.

      1. @john-h Yes & everyone was complaining that the racing was crap, Thats why the FIA & Bernie started adding all the various gimmicks & rule changes over the next 10 years.

        The races were not better with refueling, They were worse. And 2004 (when F1 cars were at the fastest) was one of (If not the) single most boring season in F1’s history. There was no good racing, There was very little overtaking done on the track & again the majority of fans were complaining about it.

        1. True, but now we look back on 2004 with nostalgic V10 eyes. My point is that overtaking and racing is not the only barometer for a successful F1.

          We want to be in awe of these machines as much as the quality of racing. If you want to watch great racing, go watch a kart race. Sure, racing is important but clearly F1 is much more than this.

          1. @john-h I do agree to a point, But I don’t really see what effect refueling/no refueling as.

            For example we didn’t have refueling prior to 1994 yet people were still “In awe” of the cars through that time & I don’t really recall many complaints about a lack of “Awe” in the immediate aftermath of the refueling ban in 2010.

            I actually think that for the most part the lack of refueling has become a scapegoat the past 2 years in this lack of awe argument when infact the cause are more the quieter engines, Pirelli tyres & Reductions in downforce/overall grip.

            If they want to make the cars faster, more spectacular & awe inspiring the only things they need to do are allow Pirelli to create tyres for pure performance, Make the tyres wider to get more grip & give them a bit more power.
            That alone would make them faster by as much as 5 seconds i’d bet & you would get additional gains from the natural evolution of the cars.

            If you want even more spectacle bring back the splitters on the front wings that created sparks in the early 90s-
            They would also give a performance benefit. Damon Hill recently mentioned that banning those in 1994 made following another car harder because they were getting a lot of front grip from those splitters that was less affected by turbulent air.

            You could also extend the titanium skids & reduce the rake angle to get more sparks coming off the floor, Again like 80s/early90s.

            Thats added spectacle, awe, performance without the negative effect refueling woudl have on the racing IMO.

      2. @john-h, that’s Qualifying, we still have that, refueling wont make any difference, better wet tyres might.

    3. BJ (@beejis60)
      30th May 2015, 5:55

      Because racecar @cjpdk

  9. This seems to be a case of the drivers are all behind it while the teams and team bosses are against it, mainly on cost grounds, which is a shame given their ready to shell out $30m+ annually to Alonso, Hamilton and co. (OK for the small teams its a legitimate excuse, but for Toto Wolff and Christian Horner to come out and use it is laughable.)

    Personally I’d love to see as it would most likely see an end to the “made to degrade” pirellis wouldnt it? The ban on refuelling was a massive factor leading to their creation in the first place. Formula 1 should be about drivers getting every last possible millisecond of laptime out of the car which is far from the case currently. Way too much tyre and fuel management for my liking, its not racing. An end to the pirelli’s in their current form coupled with lighter cars and next to no worries on fuel management on the drivers part should see this happening

    I won’t be too put out when they eventually decide to scrap the idea of re-introducing refuelling on “cost and safety grounds”, its ban hasn’t really hurt the racing in any major way, just look at Brazil 2012. That was arguably the best race F1 has ever seen, certainly for me anyway. What has hurt the racing is the hybrids, the constant tyre wear, fuel consumption worries, DRS and other artificial attempts to improve the entertainment factor.

  10. Interesting how whenever people think of refueling, they think of seasons like 2002 and 2004, but never seasons like 1997, 1999, 2003 and 2008.

    Similarly, when you think of no-refueling, they think of 2012, but never the 2nd half of 2013, or the dreadful 2015 season so far.

    1. @kingshark Whats been wrong with 2015 so far? I think there has been some good bits of racing & have generally been enjoying it (Melbourne aside).

      I’ve still yet to see any good argument put forward saying how refueling helped make racing better & the races that usually get put forward as great examples of refueling been good are races that didn’t actually feature any racing with the only interesting moment been the pit stops.

      The best thing about having no refueling is that the racing is done on the track & there’s far more incentive to overtake which is why there has always been more close racing/overtaking when there has been no refueling.

      IF they were to ever bring bore-fueling back & it had the negative effect on the racing it did before i’d just stop watching altogether. It was bad enough having to sit through 15 years of it the last time & I’ve little interest in watching that sort of non-racing again.

    2. RogerA
      We are 6 races into the season, and we’ve had 4 dreadfully boring races, and 2 reasonably good ones (Malaysia & Bahrain).

      Nowadays surprises in qualifying and in grid positions are extremely rare. I can already predict the grid in Canada: Two Mercedes on the front row, then Ferrari, then the Williams, then Lotus, then a group of Red Bull, Toro Rosso & Sauber.

      When you compare 2010 or 2012 with 2002 or 2004, then yes, the ban of refueling seems like a good move. OTOH, when you compare 2003 with 2013 or 2015 for instance, it doesn’t seem all that great anymore.

      1. Refueling would change the grid, how?

      2. @kingshark

        We are 6 races into the season, and we’ve had 4 dreadfully boring races, and 2 reasonably good ones (Malaysia & Bahrain).

        I dsagree, Melbourne wasn’t great & Monaco was Monaco but I thought China & Spain were good with some good racing, nice battles & overtaking through the field.

        When you compare 2010 or 2012 with 2002 or 2004, then yes, the ban of refueling seems like a good move. OTOH, when you compare 2003 with 2013 or 2015 for instance, it doesn’t seem all that great anymore.

        I think 2003 is a bit overrated to be honest, Especially having gone back & re-watched the full season recently (Thanks to an uploaded on a torrent site).

        A few races stand out thanks to mixed grids or people running onto the track but for the most part the racing was quite poor with close fights, good racing & overtaking few & far between.
        Even looking at Silverstone (which may have been the best race of the year) it was boring until the man ran on track & saw several top drivers end up at the back.

        As to 2013, What was wrong with it? Was some good racing that year… Oh wait was it just because Red Bull had a dominant car? Well boo hoo there’s more to racing than the guy in 1st & I enjoy watching battles/overtaking through the field & not just the 1 place at the front so I can overlook dominance.

        Also what about all those years before refueling ruined the racing in 1994? You can pick & choose a season or 2 but it doesn’t hide the fact that 95% of the time bore-fueling was bad for races, hurt overtaking & moved action to the pits in boring to watch 10 second stops.

        If you want to see less ontrack action then by all means lets bring back bore-fueling, But I want to see as much action, as much racing & overtaking ontrack as possible. Having bore-fueling move the action into the pit lane isn’t good for racing.

        1. Surely we should just try to maximise downforce with minimal drag (actually allow the teams to innovate with ground effect perhaps), increase the size of the fuel tanks by the smallest amount to ensure they can run at 15,000rpm throughout the race and take as much weight out of the cars (without compromising drivers) as possible. I don’t think the width of the tyres need to be increased if they can be made durable enough.

      3. @kingshark 2003 was indeed a good season however refueling had nothing to do with it just like having no refueling wasn’t the reason 2013 may not have been that good (Although i’m not sure i’d fully agree that it wasn’t).

        When looking at 2003 & why it was better than others in that era the answer is simple, The new rules. We had single lap qualifying, qualifying on race fuel & Parc-ferme introduced & as teams/drivers were trying to figure them out they helped mix the grids up a bit & mixed grids pretty much always lead to better races.

        You also had that lunatic at Silverstone who caused the SC which made that race as good as it was, Had that not happened I doubt we’d remember it because until then it hadn’t been that good.

        You also must consider the tyre war, 2003 was probably the season that saw the biggest difference in performance between Bridgestone/Michelin at different circuits which created a situation where different teams were competitive at different circuits depending on conditions & that helped the championship fight.

        Have the 2003 season happen as it did but without refueling & it still would have been a good year.

      4. I dsagree, Melbourne wasn’t great & Monaco was Monaco but I thought China & Spain were good with some good racing, nice battles & overtaking through the field.

        China was rated 5.721 out of 10 on the rate the race poll, and Spain was rated merely 5.154 out of 10.

        A few races stand out thanks to mixed grids or people running onto the track but for the most part the racing was quite poor with close fights, good racing & overtaking few & far between.Even looking at Silverstone (which may have been the best race of the year) it was boring until the man ran on track & saw several top drivers end up at the back.

        I beg to differ on this one.

        We had at least 4 classic races in 2003 (Australia, Brazil, Silverstone & Indianapolis), all the other races were solid bar France and Monza, which were boring.

        In 2013, we had one classic race (Malaysia), a couple of solid races here and there (Silverstone, Nurburgring, Hungary), and the rest of the season was dreadful and forgettable.

        As to 2013, What was wrong with it? Was some good racing that year… Oh wait was it just because Red Bull had a dominant car? Well boo hoo there’s more to racing than the guy in 1st & I enjoy watching battles/overtaking through the field & not just the 1 place at the front so I can overlook dominance.

        Having more equal cars will create better racing. This is why we had 8 winners in only 16 races in 2003, while one guy won all the races past the midway point in 2013. One scenario is obviously much more exciting than the other.

        Likewise, I don’t mind a dominant car if we at least have a fight for the WDC, something we did in 2014, but lacked in 2013.

    3. BJ (@beejis60)
      30th May 2015, 5:56

      @kingshark Ummmm, how about the tires for the second half of 2013? That was likely THE biggest factor for that season.

  11. flatdarkmars
    29th May 2015, 23:28

    There’s a lot of talk these days about the “spectacle” and “the show” of Formula 1, but in my opinion, two-second pit stops are one of the few remaining pieces of genuine spectacle remaining in the sport.

  12. Refuellin would be a good idea with applying another strategy options.

    1. @kingshark Yeah refueling is great if you want LESS racing & LESS overtaking.

      Refueling add’s NOTHING to the racing but it takes a lot away because we would be back to the fuel strategy dominated pit passing bore-fest’s that everyone spent years complaining about when we had bore-fueling in the last time.

      Honestly if they do bring bore-fueling back I’ll just sit back & laugh as it does what it did before & kills the ontrack racing/overtaking etc.. & those same fans who were praising its return once again start whining about the lack of ontrack action which is all most fans did when we had refueling the last time.

      Rose tinted glasses, Thats all this bore-fueling love is.

      Racing should be done on the track, Not in the pits!

  13. I still just don’t see the fascination with refueling from some fans.

    Yeah fine there’s some strategy elements but to be perfectly honest I don’t really care about strategy & I certainly don’t care about fuel strategy which is mostly out of the drivers hands & been totally controlled by what the strategist comes up with on Saturday which is when fuel strategy is locked in with very little room for change in it.

    Yeah there’s also the ‘lighter & faster cars’ argument but if you want faster cars just give them tyres designed for performance rather than degredation & make them wider tyres to increase mechanical grip. You have at least 3-4 seconds performance gain by doing that without making any other changes. Then throw in more power & the natural evolution they will get in car performance year to year & by 2017 you have cars that are 6+ seconds faster than they are today without the need for refueling.

    And regarding race pace, Yes with full tanks cars will be heavier & slower at the start, But that & how the car balance changes over a race as fuel loads go down makes it more challenging for the drivers & will also alter performances throughout a race which has the potential to create better racing than what you have with refueling where performance differences from qualifying->Race is negligible.

    Look at this year as an example. Mercedes blows everyone else away in qualifying but Ferrari is much closer in race pace. You have situations where STR for example are very fast in qualifying but don’t have the pace in the race. This is in part down to fuel loads & how the car/driver adapts & responds to full tanks & the fuel burning off during a race & these variables in performance from qualifying->race generates better racing due to bigger shifts in car performance.
    If we had refueling this season given Mercedes performance advantage when they can go flat out in lower fuel conditions what do you think would happen if they could fully utilize that advantage over a full race?

    Reintroducing refueling would do nothing but make the racing worse IMO as It would shift the focus from the track & back to the pits which is what it did from 1994->2009 & that would only be a negative from a racing perspective.

  14. pxcmerc (@)
    31st May 2015, 7:35

    don’t ban refueling, then see how many of the team principals decide to do it :)

    the team principals seem more like CEO’s working for Wall-street and investors, more interested in return on investment than actually doing anything about their position with in the field.

    1. pxcmerc (@)
      31st May 2015, 7:45

      risks = opportunities.

      no risks = boring spectacle.

      enough risks, provides enough opportunity for growth, and a very expensive venture for the factories if they want to cover all the bases. … After all, it’s the factories trying to write the rules and squeeze the little teams out :(

Comments are closed.