Discussion
_Batty_ said:
So is F1 better for having fuel stops?
No.
Next question?
Just to add, with fuel stops the race is taken away from the track and settled in the pits when the cars are stationary, funny how the winner of the fastest racing car is settled when the cars aren't moving. They may as well be racing against the clock on different days at different tracks, or by networked computers in Ron, Frank, Flavio and Ross's offices. No what am I saying, I should mean settled by computers in Max & Bernie's offices.
Depending on the eras, fuel stops have been "in" or "out". In the very early dats, (1906 to 1914) they were essential as the races were up to 6 hours long.
In the 1920s and 30s they were still essential as the superrcharged engines of that era were extremely fuel hungry and didn't even use petrol.
In the 1950s supercharging was still popular so fuel consumption still dictated fuel stops. In the mid 50s supercharging was banned and so fuel stops became less important but tended to remain in place for strategy reasons.
By the late 1950s tyre technology was getting so good that some teams elected to try and run whole race distances without either fuel or tyre stops.
With the advent of the 1.5 litre formula in 1961 and better tyres, fuel and tyre stops disappeared completely. They didn't reappear until fuel hungry turbos were allowed and even then it wasn't until 1981 when Brabham decided that stoppping for fuel and tyres was quicker overall then trying to stay on the same set of tyres for the whole race. The turbo dictated a fuel stop anyway so it was decided that a new set of tyres was worth putting on.
Fuel stops were banned after the 1983 season for safety reasons but were re-introduced in 1993 purely in an attempt to spice up the action.
In my opinion, they have been the single largest element in the "boreifying" of modern GP racing.
In the 1920s and 30s they were still essential as the superrcharged engines of that era were extremely fuel hungry and didn't even use petrol.
In the 1950s supercharging was still popular so fuel consumption still dictated fuel stops. In the mid 50s supercharging was banned and so fuel stops became less important but tended to remain in place for strategy reasons.
By the late 1950s tyre technology was getting so good that some teams elected to try and run whole race distances without either fuel or tyre stops.
With the advent of the 1.5 litre formula in 1961 and better tyres, fuel and tyre stops disappeared completely. They didn't reappear until fuel hungry turbos were allowed and even then it wasn't until 1981 when Brabham decided that stoppping for fuel and tyres was quicker overall then trying to stay on the same set of tyres for the whole race. The turbo dictated a fuel stop anyway so it was decided that a new set of tyres was worth putting on.
Fuel stops were banned after the 1983 season for safety reasons but were re-introduced in 1993 purely in an attempt to spice up the action.
In my opinion, they have been the single largest element in the "boreifying" of modern GP racing.
Yes.
They all contribute to the current situation but the psychological approach of a driver knowing that he has a better chance of overtaking in the relatively low risk scenario of a pit stop rather than a do-or-die passing move on track is almost always going to chose the former.
What's more, the team managers usually put pressure on the drivers NOT to try any risky on-track overtakes.
They all contribute to the current situation but the psychological approach of a driver knowing that he has a better chance of overtaking in the relatively low risk scenario of a pit stop rather than a do-or-die passing move on track is almost always going to chose the former.
What's more, the team managers usually put pressure on the drivers NOT to try any risky on-track overtakes.
Eric Mc said:
Yes.
They all contribute to the current situation but the psychological approach of a driver knowing that he has a better chance of overtaking in the relatively low risk scenario of a pit stop rather than a do-or-die passing move on track is almost always going to chose the former.
What's more, the team managers usually put pressure on the drivers NOT to try any risky on-track overtakes.
They all contribute to the current situation but the psychological approach of a driver knowing that he has a better chance of overtaking in the relatively low risk scenario of a pit stop rather than a do-or-die passing move on track is almost always going to chose the former.
What's more, the team managers usually put pressure on the drivers NOT to try any risky on-track overtakes.
Fair enough. I disagree, but then this is a bit of a "what caused WW2" type question... everyone has their own opinion.
It's not just my opinion though.
For many years I droned on about the fact that they should take the wings off these cars and, in many ways, I still wished they would. However, I am not so convinced any more that it would result in better racing (although the cars would be much more exciting to watch - and drive).
For many years I droned on about the fact that they should take the wings off these cars and, in many ways, I still wished they would. However, I am not so convinced any more that it would result in better racing (although the cars would be much more exciting to watch - and drive).
Have to agree with Eric on this - with one small modification.
As I understand, modern F1 cars do not have sufficient space to incorporate a tank large enough to cary fuel for an entire race without stopping. I think that rather than ban fuel stops, they should build in the capacity to give teams the option of not stopping if they want to.
IIRC Minardi came very close to actually winning the Brazillian GP a few years ago. They fuelled to the brim and started on wets - big gamble but when it started to rain hard, others had to pit (before slowing to a crawl). Minardi had another 10 laps worth of fuel left and were on full wets. I can't recall the reason why they didn't win - think it was the confusion over laps run or something.
By giving the option could throw up some interesting battles and results.
As I understand, modern F1 cars do not have sufficient space to incorporate a tank large enough to cary fuel for an entire race without stopping. I think that rather than ban fuel stops, they should build in the capacity to give teams the option of not stopping if they want to.
IIRC Minardi came very close to actually winning the Brazillian GP a few years ago. They fuelled to the brim and started on wets - big gamble but when it started to rain hard, others had to pit (before slowing to a crawl). Minardi had another 10 laps worth of fuel left and were on full wets. I can't recall the reason why they didn't win - think it was the confusion over laps run or something.
By giving the option could throw up some interesting battles and results.
steviebee said:
As I understand, modern F1 cars do not have sufficient space to incorporate a tank large enough to cary fuel for an entire race without stopping. I think that rather than ban fuel stops, they should build in the capacity to give teams the option of not stopping if they want to.
It works the other way around. The teams make the fuel tanks too small to carry a race distance worth of fuel because they know that the best way to race is always to do one or more fuel stops. Maybe the regulations are such that it is not possible to fit in a full race size fuel tank (I don't know about this) but even if that were not so, the teams would still not make full race size tanks. If however, the regulations forbade fuel stops the teams could and would make the tanks larger.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff