Refuelling back for 2017

Refuelling back for 2017

Author
Discussion

Mr_Thyroid

1,995 posts

226 months

Friday 15th May 2015
quotequote all
thegreenhell said:
How are they going to reduce the weight of the cars? Haven't they just had to increase the minimum weight because they couldn't hit he limit without forcing the drivers to become unhealthily thin?
It's an artificial weight limit - all the cars carry ballast.

Found an article that suggested pre-2014 cars would carry at least 150kg. Heavier power units since 2014 may mean the ballast is slightly less but is still a significant proportion of the overall weight of the car.

the other me

613 posts

152 months

Friday 15th May 2015
quotequote all
Think (judging by the sparks) that "bio" addition has gone . . . . . we don't need/want refuelling back thanks nono , we do really need/want aero taken much further from the equation (as proven in Barcelona last weekend) if we want to get the "Racing" back into F1 racing.

Edited by the other me on Friday 15th May 23:19

andyps

7,817 posts

281 months

Friday 15th May 2015
quotequote all
A shame they don't seem to have considered getting rid of this:



And going for something like this instead:



Much lower cost and potential for closer racing.

wibble cb

3,586 posts

206 months

Friday 15th May 2015
quotequote all
Cos18 said:
Gonna submit my CV for an F1 team refueller. Previous experience of filling both petrol AND diesel cars, never getting the two mixed up. Also have experience of high speed fuelling systems - pressing the 'HGV' only button on the diesel pump to see what would happen.
Sorry , but you're merely an amateur , I actually worked for a filling station part time for 6 weeks in 1988, I am vastly more qualified than you!!!

biggrinsmilebiggrin

Klippie

3,099 posts

144 months

Friday 15th May 2015
quotequote all
Refuelling...brilliant, racing returns to F1 at long last, light fuel loads so flat out sprints between stops cars driven to the max, mechanics fking up pit stops...I can't wait.

anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 15th May 2015
quotequote all
andyps said:
A shame they don't seem to have considered getting rid of this:



And going for something like this instead:



Much lower cost and potential for closer racing.
Why not just give them horses and carts?


MartG

20,630 posts

203 months

Saturday 16th May 2015
quotequote all
REALIST123 said:
andyps said:
A shame they don't seem to have considered getting rid of this:



And going for something like this instead:



Much lower cost and potential for closer racing.
Why not just give them horses and carts?
Dumbest comment I've seen all day !

Shorter, less fancy front wings are less likely to be damaged by a minor tap from another car. Also less reliance on wing-generated grip means reduced impact from running close to the car in front

andyps

7,817 posts

281 months

Saturday 16th May 2015
quotequote all
MartG said:
Dumbest comment I've seen all day !

Shorter, less fancy front wings are less likely to be damaged by a minor tap from another car. Also less reliance on wing-generated grip means reduced impact from running close to the car in front
I'm a very long way from being an aerodynamicist but that was my thought on followinng cars. And it is pretty obvious what the cost implications would be.

And just for clarification, I was thinking design and complexity rather than material, but aluminium or similar would be much more durable in small incidents, potentially leading to less likelihood of punctures as Lewis had with a relatively light tap from Nico (or whichever way round you view the incident) at Spa last year.

MartG

20,630 posts

203 months

Saturday 16th May 2015
quotequote all
andyps said:
MartG said:
Dumbest comment I've seen all day !

Shorter, less fancy front wings are less likely to be damaged by a minor tap from another car. Also less reliance on wing-generated grip means reduced impact from running close to the car in front
I'm a very long way from being an aerodynamicist but that was my thought on followinng cars. And it is pretty obvious what the cost implications would be.

And just for clarification, I was thinking design and complexity rather than material, but aluminium or similar would be much more durable in small incidents, potentially leading to less likelihood of punctures as Lewis had with a relatively light tap from Nico (or whichever way round you view the incident) at Spa last year.
thumbup

Stronger suspension components wouldn't go amiss either - you didn't see cars retiring with broken suspension after a minor tap when the suspension arms were aluminium

thegreenhell

15,115 posts

218 months

Saturday 16th May 2015
quotequote all
Mr_Thyroid said:
thegreenhell said:
How are they going to reduce the weight of the cars? Haven't they just had to increase the minimum weight because they couldn't hit he limit without forcing the drivers to become unhealthily thin?
It's an artificial weight limit - all the cars carry ballast.

Found an article that suggested pre-2014 cars would carry at least 150kg. Heavier power units since 2014 may mean the ballast is slightly less but is still a significant proportion of the overall weight of the car.
I'm pretty sure I read that some cars weren't carrying ballast at all last year, and were still above the minimum weight. Several of the drivers were on drastic diets since their weight is included in the vehicle weight, hence this year' s minimum weight limit was raised by 10kg.

VolvoT5

4,155 posts

173 months

Saturday 16th May 2015
quotequote all
Gaz. said:
I think those hoping the racing will improve are in for a massive disappointment.
Uhuh. I think people are looking back at the refueling era with rose tinted glasses... the races were always about "dCoes he have enough fuel to get to the end", "Can he go an extra couple of laps and steal the place...." etc, etc. Plus there will be a huge cost associated with dragging the fueling kit all over the world.

Why can't they just simplify the aero and engine regs... that is what everybody has been calling for in these last few years of RB and Merc dominance.

Eric Mc

121,788 posts

264 months

Saturday 16th May 2015
quotequote all
I've been banging on about aero reform since about 1994.

Mr_Thyroid

1,995 posts

226 months

Saturday 16th May 2015
quotequote all
We want to see the drivers pushing so every lap is a quali-lap; right?

Nope. If every lap is a quali-lap, quali will decide the race?

Crafty_

13,248 posts

199 months

Saturday 16th May 2015
quotequote all
andyps said:
A shame they don't seem to have considered getting rid of this:



And going for something like this instead:



Much lower cost and potential for closer racing.
The problem is that the 2nd picture became too efficient, the cars too fast for the circuits and so on.

So, rules were changed to limit their effectiveness. Engineers looked harder at how to generate downforce, over the years this has led to the first picture.

You can't go back too easily, we've learnt too much, to the point that what we have now is far more efficient that what we started with. Sure you could mandate a single plane wing of a certain size, but there are many tricks - the underside, the eng fences and so on.

Of course, the original problem isn't a problem any longer, circuits are safer, drivers better protected and so on.

Not making judgement one way or another, just explaining as I see it.


To be honest I don't understand the continued criticism, 2 weeks ago it was
"The drivers don't race, they can't push the tyres"
"The cars are too slow"
"They are cruising around fuel saving"
"The engines are crap and not powerful enough"
"The tyre compounds are crap"

So, you've got 1000hp engines on the horizon, 5 to 6 seconds a lap quicker, more noise, more revs (and I believe the fuel flow rule will quietly disappear from what I've read), teams able to pick any tyre they want, refuelling means pretty much no fuel saving.

And everyone still bhes and moans. Seems it doesn't matter what F1 does the detractors will not be satisfied and will criticise anything that the sport does.

I'll reserve judgement until
1) We actually see all this happen - 2017 is a long way off, until it actually happens nothing is set in stone
2) We see what else changes
3) A full season goes by and we can reflect on the good and bad.

RichB

51,435 posts

283 months

Saturday 16th May 2015
quotequote all
Crafty_ said:
...To be honest I don't understand the continued criticism, 2 weeks ago it was
"The drivers don't race, they can't push the tyres"
"The cars are too slow"
"They are cruising around fuel saving"
"The engines are crap and not powerful enough"
"The tyre compounds are crap"

So, you've got 1000hp engines on the horizon, 5 to 6 seconds a lap quicker, more noise, more revs (and I believe the fuel flow rule will quietly disappear from what I've read), teams able to pick any tyre they want, refuelling means pretty much no fuel saving.

And everyone still bhes and moans. Seems it doesn't matter what F1 does the detractors will not be satisfied and will criticise anything that the sport does.

I'll reserve judgement until
1) We actually see all this happen - 2017 is a long way off, until it actually happens nothing is set in stone
2) We see what else changes
3) A full season goes by and we can reflect on the good and bad.
Good points

Eric Mc

121,788 posts

264 months

Saturday 16th May 2015
quotequote all
I( actually think that the detail of the regs is not that important. It's the "changes" that matters.

When a brand new set of regs is introduced, it takes a couple of seasons for the engineers to get the best performance out of the regs. Some do it better than others - some find it difficult. After the 2nd season of the new regs, the issues are better understood and the racing starts to become processional and predictable.

What you do is change the regs every two years and make the engineers start from scratch each time. Keeps them on their toes and makes life unpredictable.

Of course, the downside of all this is that it escalates costs.

Crafty_

13,248 posts

199 months

Saturday 16th May 2015
quotequote all
Thats pretty much what does happen though at least every 2 or 3 years ? 2006 change to V8, 2008/9 aero reg changes, 2011 KERS, since then we've had the V6s, nose changes, wing changes, EBDs banned, front exit exhausts, f-duct etc.

In fact its something I've seen criticised that things change too often... like I said, can't win - no matter what the sport does.

Eric Mc

121,788 posts

264 months

Saturday 16th May 2015
quotequote all
And to be fair, over the past four or so years, the racing has been a bit more interesting than it had been (say) ten years ago. This year, so far, it does look like the cars are a lot more sorted and predictable and that is why people are beginning to twitch a bit.

I don't think we should get too fixated on overtaking and even following other cars closely. I love to see cars move about on the track, slide into and out of corners, lots of oversteer, pitching up on acceleration and diving under braking.

Formula 1 cars have not exhibited these tendencies for many, many years - mainly because the engineering in them is now way too clever and these "faults" have been dialed out by the designers.

And because they are so well sorted dynamically, even when travelling fast, they actually don't LOOK fast. A 1965 1.5 litre 300 bhp F1 car can look faster than a modern 600 bhp vehicle purely because of the crude technology incorporated in the older car.

Smollet

10,470 posts

189 months

Saturday 16th May 2015
quotequote all
Klippie said:
Refuelling...brilliant, racing returns to F1 at long last, light fuel loads so flat out sprints between stops cars driven to the max, mechanics fking up pit stops...I can't wait.
Not quite how you think having a car stationary whilst it's refuelled is racing but each to their own I guess

Puddenchucker

4,038 posts

217 months

Saturday 16th May 2015
quotequote all
So, they're changing the regulations (again).

All that will happen is that the 'big' well funded teams will throw a huge amount of money and resources at designing, developing & testing new cars & engines to optimise for and exploit these new regulations (so much for cost control in F1) and the smaller teams will be left behind again. If they stopped changing the regulations, the smaller teams would, IMHO, after a few seasons close the performance gap the big teams and we'd have more competitive & closer racing throughout the grid.