Refuelling back for 2017
Discussion
Agreed Eric, its why I think the turbo engines are a good thing, the amount of torque means that the cars are no where near as docile as the V8 cars, as Brundle so aptly demonstrated in the Force India, even after a warning from Jenson 
ETA, just to point out that Toto Wolff has been quoted as saying they will look at refuelling, if it works out to be too expensive they'll drop it. As per my first comment we've got a long way to go until all this hits the track. Curiously he's also quoted as saying they want to do it in the current time for a pitstop...
With regards to ever escalating costs, I think Mercedes and Wolff are good to have around, whilst they do have a big budget they seem to work very efficiently (allegedly they spent less on the V6 engine development than the others have have the best one).
They are clearly prepared to spend to win I don't think they want to piss the budget away just because someone said so - if the costs escalate too much they will use their influence to find another route.
ETA, just to point out that Toto Wolff has been quoted as saying they will look at refuelling, if it works out to be too expensive they'll drop it. As per my first comment we've got a long way to go until all this hits the track. Curiously he's also quoted as saying they want to do it in the current time for a pitstop...
With regards to ever escalating costs, I think Mercedes and Wolff are good to have around, whilst they do have a big budget they seem to work very efficiently (allegedly they spent less on the V6 engine development than the others have have the best one).
They are clearly prepared to spend to win I don't think they want to piss the budget away just because someone said so - if the costs escalate too much they will use their influence to find another route.
Edited by Crafty_ on Saturday 16th May 10:17
Plan.
1. Stop changing the rules every few years. Costs a bloody fortune
2. KISS. Keep it simple stupid. Simple cars, NA engines circa 1000bhp
3. Scrap all aero kit except for simple front and rear wings to trim the cars. Non carbon so they don't shatter on contact.
4. Tyres capable of completeing the whole race. But you can re-tyre whenever you want
5. Fuel capacity capable of the whole race. But you cab re-fuel whenever you want
6. Any pit stop for a fixed time (5secs)
7. Limited ground effects
8. Bigger wheels and tyres
9. A car capable of having the b
ks driven off of it for the whole race.
10. Minimum of a 2 hr race.
11. All cars predominatly in the national colors.
1. Stop changing the rules every few years. Costs a bloody fortune
2. KISS. Keep it simple stupid. Simple cars, NA engines circa 1000bhp
3. Scrap all aero kit except for simple front and rear wings to trim the cars. Non carbon so they don't shatter on contact.
4. Tyres capable of completeing the whole race. But you can re-tyre whenever you want
5. Fuel capacity capable of the whole race. But you cab re-fuel whenever you want
6. Any pit stop for a fixed time (5secs)
7. Limited ground effects
8. Bigger wheels and tyres
9. A car capable of having the b
ks driven off of it for the whole race.10. Minimum of a 2 hr race.
11. All cars predominatly in the national colors.
robinessex said:
Plan.
1. Stop changing the rules every few years. Costs a bloody fortune
2. KISS. Keep it simple stupid. Simple cars, NA engines circa 1000bhp
3. Scrap all aero kit except for simple front and rear wings to trim the cars. Non carbon so they don't shatter on contact.
4. Tyres capable of completeing the whole race. But you can re-tyre whenever you want
5. Fuel capacity capable of the whole race. But you cab re-fuel whenever you want
6. Any pit stop for a fixed time (5secs)
7. Limited ground effects
8. Bigger wheels and tyres
9. A car capable of having the bks driven off of it for the whole race.
10. Minimum of a 2 hr race.
11. All cars predominatly in the national colors.
2) Any who will build the engines ?1. Stop changing the rules every few years. Costs a bloody fortune
2. KISS. Keep it simple stupid. Simple cars, NA engines circa 1000bhp
3. Scrap all aero kit except for simple front and rear wings to trim the cars. Non carbon so they don't shatter on contact.
4. Tyres capable of completeing the whole race. But you can re-tyre whenever you want
5. Fuel capacity capable of the whole race. But you cab re-fuel whenever you want
6. Any pit stop for a fixed time (5secs)
7. Limited ground effects
8. Bigger wheels and tyres
9. A car capable of having the b
ks driven off of it for the whole race.10. Minimum of a 2 hr race.
11. All cars predominatly in the national colors.
3) As I previously said, we know too much about aero now, no such thing as "a simple wing"
4) If they can do a whole race, why would anyone bother?
5) As above, why would you ?
6) What happens if the stop is longer ? penalty ? what about of there is a loose wheelnut ? penalty for that ? or send unsafe car out ?
8) Why ? if we reduce aero and ground effect and then replace it with 70s esque huge tyres we're back at square one with regards to grip outweighing power.
9) All cars are and have been for some years
10) You're now in to endurance racing distance/time. Is this F1 or LMP1 by another name ? Not gonna happen.
11) Why national colour is that ? the drivers ? the owner of the team ? the engine manufacturer ? Where the team is based ? How will you cover the loss of sponsor revenue ?
If I remember when they used to have refuelling, if it was a 2 or 3 stop race you never got to see that flat out wheel to wheel racing as you never knew who was actually racing who for position until all the pitstops shook out near the end of the race. It was far more of a finely choreographed timetrial to the end than we see now.
celicawrc said:
So yet again the fkwits in charge, demonstrate they do not have a fking clue what they are doing.
Everything they have talked about changing is the opposite of what they should be doing. The new regulations sound utterly dreadful for a sport that is already flat on it's arse!
How is it the opposite of what they should be doing? and seeing as you have all the answers, what should they be doing ?kwits in charge, demonstrate they do not have a fking clue what they are doing.Everything they have talked about changing is the opposite of what they should be doing. The new regulations sound utterly dreadful for a sport that is already flat on it's arse!
Refer to my previous posts.
Do note the people to refer to as f
kwits include the teams themselves.robinessex said:
Plan.
1. Stop changing the rules every few years. Costs a bloody fortune
2. KISS. Keep it simple stupid. Simple cars, NA engines circa 1000bhp
3. Scrap all aero kit except for simple front and rear wings to trim the cars. Non carbon so they don't shatter on contact.
4. Tyres capable of completeing the whole race. But you can re-tyre whenever you want
5. Fuel capacity capable of the whole race. But you cab re-fuel whenever you want
6. Any pit stop for a fixed time (5secs)
7. Limited ground effects
8. Bigger wheels and tyres
9. A car capable of having the bks driven off of it for the whole race.
10. Minimum of a 2 hr race.
11. All cars predominatly in the national colors.
1) agreed1. Stop changing the rules every few years. Costs a bloody fortune
2. KISS. Keep it simple stupid. Simple cars, NA engines circa 1000bhp
3. Scrap all aero kit except for simple front and rear wings to trim the cars. Non carbon so they don't shatter on contact.
4. Tyres capable of completeing the whole race. But you can re-tyre whenever you want
5. Fuel capacity capable of the whole race. But you cab re-fuel whenever you want
6. Any pit stop for a fixed time (5secs)
7. Limited ground effects
8. Bigger wheels and tyres
9. A car capable of having the b
ks driven off of it for the whole race.10. Minimum of a 2 hr race.
11. All cars predominatly in the national colors.
2) No. The new engines are remarkable achievements and there is huge sunk investment in them. Key is how we free them up a bit
3) Carbon is good for many reasons, not least, weight.
4) Nope. Durable tyres don't add to the show.
5) OK
6) Why???
7) Within reason, ok. Cornering speeds rising is an issue.
8) Why? Wider tyres, sure, not sure why we need bigger wheels.
9) OK. Most are. What you are asking is for less fear of engine penalties. Cars are very reliable these days. Though balls out racing has not been in F1 for decades.
10) Why? What's wrong with 1hr 40? People have lives to lead as well. 2hrs max is just fine.
11) Why? How will you attract sponsors? National colours of what? Where it is built? The team owner? The registered office?
Vaud said:
1) agreed
2) No. The new engines are remarkable achievements and there is huge sunk investment in them. Key is how we free them up a bit
3) Carbon is good for many reasons, not least, weight.
4) Nope. Durable tyres don't add to the show.
5) OK
6) Why???
7) Within reason, ok. Cornering speeds rising is an issue.
8) Why? Wider tyres, sure, not sure why we need bigger wheels.
9) OK. Most are. What you are asking is for less fear of engine penalties. Cars are very reliable these days. Though balls out racing has not been in F1 for decades.
10) Why? What's wrong with 1hr 40? People have lives to lead as well. 2hrs max is just fine.
11) Why? How will you attract sponsors? National colours of what? Where it is built? The team owner? The registered office?
1. Disagreed. 2) No. The new engines are remarkable achievements and there is huge sunk investment in them. Key is how we free them up a bit
3) Carbon is good for many reasons, not least, weight.
4) Nope. Durable tyres don't add to the show.
5) OK
6) Why???
7) Within reason, ok. Cornering speeds rising is an issue.
8) Why? Wider tyres, sure, not sure why we need bigger wheels.
9) OK. Most are. What you are asking is for less fear of engine penalties. Cars are very reliable these days. Though balls out racing has not been in F1 for decades.
10) Why? What's wrong with 1hr 40? People have lives to lead as well. 2hrs max is just fine.
11) Why? How will you attract sponsors? National colours of what? Where it is built? The team owner? The registered office?
Change the rules constantly. Keep the designers on their toes. Don't let them settle. Keep them guessing.
Clearly understood technology equals boring racing.
It's much better for the car designers to NOT fully know what they need to do to make the cars work efficiently.
And trying to control costs is tilting at windmills. It can't be done and we should give up pretending that it ever will be done.
jsf said:
MartG said:
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
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.
Amusing you should use that Williams, as that's a ground effect FW07 and never ran a wing that big on the front in period. It now uses that size front wing because sliding skirts are banned in historic racing and you cant make them work as well as they did in period without the skirts on the ground, hence the bigger front wing.And going for something like this instead:
Much lower cost and potential for closer racing.
F1 will never go back to sliding skirts ground effect, which is the only real way to generate masses of downforce without the problems of cars following close behind having no front end grip.
Last years cars had better aero for racing, they should rethink the regs to go back to that type of config.
robinessex said:
Plan.
1. Stop changing the rules every few years. Costs a bloody fortune
2. KISS. Keep it simple stupid. Simple cars, NA engines circa 1000bhp
3. Scrap all aero kit except for simple front and rear wings to trim the cars. Non carbon so they don't shatter on contact.
4. Tyres capable of completeing the whole race. But you can re-tyre whenever you want
5. Fuel capacity capable of the whole race. But you cab re-fuel whenever you want
6. Any pit stop for a fixed time (5secs)
7. Limited ground effects
8. Bigger wheels and tyres
9. A car capable of having the bks driven off of it for the whole race.
10. Minimum of a 2 hr race.
11. All cars predominatly in the national colors.
So, your first rule is to stop changing the rules, then you propose another 10. 1. Stop changing the rules every few years. Costs a bloody fortune
2. KISS. Keep it simple stupid. Simple cars, NA engines circa 1000bhp
3. Scrap all aero kit except for simple front and rear wings to trim the cars. Non carbon so they don't shatter on contact.
4. Tyres capable of completeing the whole race. But you can re-tyre whenever you want
5. Fuel capacity capable of the whole race. But you cab re-fuel whenever you want
6. Any pit stop for a fixed time (5secs)
7. Limited ground effects
8. Bigger wheels and tyres
9. A car capable of having the b
ks driven off of it for the whole race.10. Minimum of a 2 hr race.
11. All cars predominatly in the national colors.
Good work.
Gaz. 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.
GP2 & GP3 have really simple wings and they had really boring races in Spain too once you take away the mistakes, inexperience and tyres falling off a cliff.And going for something like this instead:
Much lower cost and potential for closer racing.
In the spirit of the thread why not introduce a rule that says if a car gets within 1.5s of the car in front, that car gets blue flagged? Makes as much sense of some of the suggestions........
Smollet said:
Not quite how you think having a car stationary whilst it's refuelled is racing but each to their own I guess
^This. Plus never being able to directly compare drivers and lap times because we are always guesstimating how much fuel driver A or B actually has on board. Some of the other suggestions seem OK to me - more power, making the cars faster, etc. But I really take objection to the refueling... I think it belongs in a bygone era. I also don't see how refueling ties in with the cost cutting agenda. How many millions is it going to cost to fly those rigs around the world each year?
oh and some tracks, like Spain, just do not really produce interesting racing on a consistent basis regardless of the car design or rules.
I will probably get shot for saying this............ but some of the 'traditional' circuits like Spain and Monaco would not be missed from the F1 calendar in my eyes.
I will probably get shot for saying this............ but some of the 'traditional' circuits like Spain and Monaco would not be missed from the F1 calendar in my eyes.
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.
Meanwhile, in America... More wings on wings.And going for something like this instead:
Much lower cost and potential for closer racing.
As for refuelling, take a leaf from other series, no tyre changing until the fuel pipe is off the car.
Edited by ajprice on Saturday 16th May 20:42
Which in the eyes of CVC it's probably a blessing since we wouldn't be able to remember if the race was good or not but still watch it .
F1 is trying really hard to become irrelevant. They should allow for more aerodynamic changes and allow for the shape of cars to change far more dramatically rather than raise or lower the nose every 2 years.
Refuelling and all that jazz is just not cool unless they start a fire first.
And purposefully exclude some teams from the decision making progress is rather short sighted. Why would anyone want to be involved in F1 now? And why customer cars?
.F1 is trying really hard to become irrelevant. They should allow for more aerodynamic changes and allow for the shape of cars to change far more dramatically rather than raise or lower the nose every 2 years.
Refuelling and all that jazz is just not cool unless they start a fire first.
And purposefully exclude some teams from the decision making progress is rather short sighted. Why would anyone want to be involved in F1 now? And why customer cars?
With the news that refuelling is set to return to Formula 1 in 2017, Mercedes AMG PETRONAS boss Toto Wolff has issued a warning that it will only come back if it is cost effective.
The F1 Strategy Group had discussed ways of making the sport more exciting, and the re-introduction of refuelling that was last seen in 2009 was the on the agenda, but Wolff insists that it will not come back if it costs too much.
“Refuelling was banned because of cost and because the pit stops were taking too long,” said Wolff to the BBC.
“But we want to re-explore it and see if we can make pit stops for fuel and tyres happen in the same time it takes to change the tyres now – two to three seconds.
“We have agreed to explore this avenue and the cost involved because it could be spectacular. If it’s too expensive, we won’t do it
So its not cut and dried just yet
The F1 Strategy Group had discussed ways of making the sport more exciting, and the re-introduction of refuelling that was last seen in 2009 was the on the agenda, but Wolff insists that it will not come back if it costs too much.
“Refuelling was banned because of cost and because the pit stops were taking too long,” said Wolff to the BBC.
“But we want to re-explore it and see if we can make pit stops for fuel and tyres happen in the same time it takes to change the tyres now – two to three seconds.
“We have agreed to explore this avenue and the cost involved because it could be spectacular. If it’s too expensive, we won’t do it
So its not cut and dried just yet
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff