Refuelling back for 2017
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
I hate pit stops and think they are the ruination of racing. Fuel stops are just a further impediment to track action. Maybe if they abolished the pit lane speed limit the stops would be more dramatic 
Indeed, it's somewhat ironic that people are talking about increasing the spectacle by looking for ways to make the cars stationary in the pits for longer. If pit stops were that exciting to watch then people would be going down to their local Kwikfit for kicks at the weekend rather than watching a race.A large part of the problem with modern F1 for me is that the cars look too easy to drive. Drivers jump out after a long race having barely broken a sweat, teenagers can jump in with almost no prior experience and be on the pace, and for the most part they just look like slot cars going around a track. All this stuff like DRS and trying to engineer close racing is just so artifical, and doesn't address the real issue for me. I want to watch the drivers wrestle a beast of a car around a track and leave me thinking "wow, I couldn't do that". Today's F1 does not give that impression at all.
I want to see cars with way more power than grip, so they're always on a knife edge coming out of corners, but with tyres that can take the abuse without falling apart. Having tyres that the drivers have to 'manage' just to get them to last for 30 miles is ridiculous. The tyres should be able to handle 1000 or 1200 or even 1500 bhp of abuse for a full race distance, just make them wider and harder or whatever they have to do to achieve this. Pit stops should just be for punctures and repairs. Make the cars much harder to drive and the drivers will make more mistakes, which will result in more action and overtaking, the best drivers will shine and the spectators will be wowed again.
thegreenhell said:
Indeed, it's somewhat ironic that people are talking about increasing the spectacle by looking for ways to make the cars stationary in the pits for longer. If pit stops were that exciting to watch then people would be going down to their local Kwikfit for kicks at the weekend rather than watching a race.
A large part of the problem with modern F1 for me is that the cars look too easy to drive. Drivers jump out after a long race having barely broken a sweat, teenagers can jump in with almost no prior experience and be on the pace, and for the most part they just look like slot cars going around a track. All this stuff like DRS and trying to engineer close racing is just so artifical, and doesn't address the real issue for me. I want to watch the drivers wrestle a beast of a car around a track and leave me thinking "wow, I couldn't do that". Today's F1 does not give that impression at all.
I want to see cars with way more power than grip, so they're always on a knife edge coming out of corners, but with tyres that can take the abuse without falling apart. Having tyres that the drivers have to 'manage' just to get them to last for 30 miles is ridiculous. The tyres should be able to handle 1000 or 1200 or even 1500 bhp of abuse for a full race distance, just make them wider and harder or whatever they have to do to achieve this. Pit stops should just be for punctures and repairs. Make the cars much harder to drive and the drivers will make more mistakes, which will result in more action and overtaking, the best drivers will shine and the spectators will be wowed again.
Did you see Brundle in the Force India ?A large part of the problem with modern F1 for me is that the cars look too easy to drive. Drivers jump out after a long race having barely broken a sweat, teenagers can jump in with almost no prior experience and be on the pace, and for the most part they just look like slot cars going around a track. All this stuff like DRS and trying to engineer close racing is just so artifical, and doesn't address the real issue for me. I want to watch the drivers wrestle a beast of a car around a track and leave me thinking "wow, I couldn't do that". Today's F1 does not give that impression at all.
I want to see cars with way more power than grip, so they're always on a knife edge coming out of corners, but with tyres that can take the abuse without falling apart. Having tyres that the drivers have to 'manage' just to get them to last for 30 miles is ridiculous. The tyres should be able to handle 1000 or 1200 or even 1500 bhp of abuse for a full race distance, just make them wider and harder or whatever they have to do to achieve this. Pit stops should just be for punctures and repairs. Make the cars much harder to drive and the drivers will make more mistakes, which will result in more action and overtaking, the best drivers will shine and the spectators will be wowed again.
They may look easy to drive but I don't think they are.
Crafty_ said:
Did you see Brundle in the Force India ?
They may look easy to drive but I don't think they are.
^This. I think part of the problem is the drivers have become so good. It happens in other sports I watch too - the tennis, snooker and darts (ok not really a sport) players all make it LOOK easier than the guys did a generation ago. I think it is partly down to the dedication and improved training techniques they must use. They may look easy to drive but I don't think they are.
And people look back with rose tinted glasses as well.... I mean at his peak Schumacher made it look ridiculously easy too.
Having said I think these turbo engines are overhyped for 'difficulty' to drive - watch some replays of the Haikkinen/Schumacher era and those cars are squirming about under throttle just as much. I would welcome V12 or V10 engines.
HarryFlatters said:
hairyben said:
or allow (active?) front wings to follow closely.
The 2009 rules allowed front wings to be adjusted from in the cockpit, so we know it's possible.Remind me why the idea was abandoned so quickly?
ajprice said:
ash73 said:
Pit stops should take longer if you take on fuel, in fact I'd go the other way and say they should only add fuel after the wheels have been changed, or reduce three men per wheel to two, or one. Less safety risk and more interesting strategy options.
As an example, the last hour of the WEC Spa race got very interesting between the lead Audi and Porsche, because of the strategy. Both cars needed fuel to reach the end of the race, so do you save time and only pit for fuel, but double stint the tyres, or take a longer pit for fuel and fresh tyres, or stay out longer on the tyres you've got and splash n dash. This of course also depends on the tyres not being what we've got now in F1.
With a tyre war there were different strategies, but both tyre manufacturers had tyres that could be used for 1 stint or left on for 3.
The limit on people touching the car in WEC/ELMS is genius. Such a simple rule but it forces teams to choose between changing two tyres, four tyres and/or refuelling.
Maybe if F1 moves to 18" tyres then we could have a tyre war using quality endurance tyres.
Redlake27 said:
Maybe if F1 moves to 18" tyres then we could have a tyre war using quality endurance tyres.
Don't have to go to 18" wheels to get "quality" tyres, Pirelli are perfectly capable of making a "quality" tyre in the current size. Pirelli make the tyres behave as requested.Not against a wheel size change, just pointing out its not mandatory.
RichB said:
The point being that a rim size that relates to road cars may encourage more manufacturers to show an interest in joining in.
I doubt it. Shiny bling 18s maketh not a global marketing strategy.Highly efficient, amazing engines and close racing might encourage others, as would an overhaul in F1 marketing.
But is another manufacturer wanted ? Bernie certainly doesn't want anyone else coming in. Be interesting to see what the teams think.
Either way, it doesn't matter who makes them, if its decided that the tyres should last X laps, they'll last X laps.
Anyways, I don't think tyres are an issue currently ?
Either way, it doesn't matter who makes them, if its decided that the tyres should last X laps, they'll last X laps.
Anyways, I don't think tyres are an issue currently ?
HarryFlatters said:
hairyben said:
Remind me why the idea was abandoned so quickly?
Effed if I know 
Between 2009 & 2010 drivers had the option to use the adjustable front wing flap mechanism. Allowed in the rules in 2009 as a pre-DRS overtaking aid. Although the idea did not really aid overtaking, teams did use it for the driver to alter balance during practice and in race stints.
It was replaced by DRS rules in 2011.
Mr_Thyroid said:
I'm no aerodynamicist but my understanding from reading Gary Anderson's analysis in Autosport is that multi-element wings improve stability and predictability of wings - therefore I'm wondering if reducing the wings to single element would really have an impact on a car's ability to follow another - could it have the opposite effect because a single element is affected more by dirty air?
The multi elements wings are tending to reduce drag by directing air flow over the bodywork, wheels and suspension. Lamina airflow reduces drag; turbulent air does the opposite. It is the turbulent air from the rear wing that causes the problem. When widths are reduced on safety grounds the attack angle tends to increase to compensate making the air even more turbulent. Returning to single element but wider wings may help. If the driver was also able to adjust the trim then he can offset the some of the negative effects of the turbulent air.
It is about 50 years since cars started to sprout wings and my guess is that almost everything there is to know is now known. Using exhaust thermodynamics for blown diffusers was probably the final big leap. Spending the next 50 years discovering the final 2-5% is a massive waste of effort and so it is probably as good a time as any to direct development elsewhere.
Eric Mc said:
Maybe we should go back to these -
An excellent example showing that from day-one, even before CFD, everyone knew that the best place to deploy a wing on a race car was above the turbulent air created by the car in front. And also why the FIA have been forced to legislate against unsafe practices.
I feel sure Eric will be able to educate us about the ground effects research undertaken by Alexander Lippisch.
rdjohn said:
Eric Mc said:
Maybe we should go back to these -
An excellent example showing that from day-one, even before CFD, everyone knew that the best place to deploy a wing on a race car was above the turbulent air created by the car in front. And also why the FIA have been forced to legislate against unsafe practices.
I feel sure Eric will be able to educate us about the ground effects research undertaken by Alexander Lippisch.
To be honest, even though I am aware of Dr Lippisch and his pioneering work on the delta wing (he's often referred to as the Father pf the Delta), I wasn't aware of the fact that he had worked on ground effects for motor cars.
Having said that, I do know that early experiments in generating downforce for fast moving cars was carried out in Geermany in the 1920s and 1930s - particularly by Fritz Von Open and by Auto Union.
The first use of a recognisable "modern" downforce wing was on a mid 1950s Porsche which ran at Le Mans practice. It wasn't allowed race with teh wing fitted.
Having said that, I do know that early experiments in generating downforce for fast moving cars was carried out in Geermany in the 1920s and 1930s - particularly by Fritz Von Open and by Auto Union.
The first use of a recognisable "modern" downforce wing was on a mid 1950s Porsche which ran at Le Mans practice. It wasn't allowed race with teh wing fitted.
Eric Mc said:
That bang on the head must have affected him more than I originally suspected.
Why? Racers want the fastest possible car at all times. Refuelling gives you a lighter car?With a dominant engine as Merc have now, variables like refuelling widen the strategy options for a team like Williams, so I can see the attraction.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff