Refueling?

[Andrew Longman]

I had trouble sleeping the last two nights so I stayed up and blew through Matchett's last book. Interesting to learn that neither he or Briatori had much knowledge or interest in F1 or racing before coming to F1 (more so Briatori). Important read if you are a race fan, but Steve is a better mechanic (and TV commentator) than writer.

Anyway, Steve goes on at great length about the stupidity and lack of necessity to refueling during the race. This surprised me give how much emphasis he put on the non-driver elements of racing as being important at the F1 level (e.g., engineering, mechanics, strategy, marketing, team work and leadership, etc.) All stuff I agree with.

To not refuel takes away a big part of the dynamics of the race; how hard to run, how much fuel to carry, how efficient the engine, etc. Why not just ban tire changes too?

I'll cut Steve slack because he and his team got toasted and in the mid 90s when he was expressing the opinion pit fires were too common. But to not refuel only in the name of safety ignores the basic race engineering question; how do we make it safer while making it faster?

In the mid 90s my opinion was:

a) pressurized refueling was too dangerous. Go to gravity feed which doesn't spray as much fuel as far

b) get the rig design right and standardize it (again). If reliability of the buckeye valve to shut off flow isn't 100% then fix it.

c) Go to methanol which can instantly be extinguished with water and diluted so it won't reignite.

d) put fewer crewman over the wall and in harms way

That shows my CART bias, but I am curious if people then and now share Matchett's POV (or even if Matchett does)

Matchett is also proud of Benniton's record 3.2 second pit stop (without refueling) which will never be broken. But as I said, why stop at all? Find the harder tire compound that is only 3.2 seconds slower than those that require changing mid race. Philosophically, I don't see the difference from an engineering POV

[SteveH]

Ya suppose this had any effect on his opinion?

HdyuN_cUqjA

[STD]

F1 was better without it.

[Methanolandbrats]

Yup, best racing was turbo era when the motors were insane and the car was basicly nothing but a fuel tank with a steering wheel. Screw refueling.

[robot9000]

I don't get a lot of things about F1 racing, or at lease the reasoning behind it. Such as:

Refueling. I'm with ya. Every major series does it and they have minimal problems. Yes, accidents occur and parts fail, so don't pressurize your jungle juice and take other steps to minimize the risk.

Tire Warmer. I never got this one. How much can they really cost? Couple hundred a corner? Maybe carry 3 sets? Probably under $10K total, and you use them for a few seasons? Most teams spend more on coffee in the paddock...

Air Jacks. CART had em. IRL has em. Most sports cars have am. F1, um, not so much. So I can have 31 guys over the wall but no air jacks? I can have a carbon fibre transmission, but I have to use 7th century tools to lift the car for tire changes.

[Methanolandbrats]

I don't get a lot of things about F1 racing, or at lease the reasoning behind it. Such as:...
Air Jacks. CART had em. IRL has em. Most sports cars have am. F1, um, not so much. So I can have 31 guys over the wall but no air jacks? I can have a carbon fibre transmission, but I have to use 7th century tools to lift the car for tire changes.:laugh:

[pchall]

Ya suppose this had any effect on his opinion?

I remember that. Scary stuff.

[opinionated ow]

I don't get a lot of things about F1 racing, or at lease the reasoning behind it. Such as:

Refueling. I'm with ya. Every major series does it and they have minimal problems. Yes, accidents occur and parts fail, so don't pressurize your jungle juice and take other steps to minimize the risk.
There is pretty much no issue there these days...

Tire Warmer. I never got this one. How much can they really cost? Couple hundred a corner? Maybe carry 3 sets? Probably under $10K total, and you use them for a few seasons? Most teams spend more on coffee in the paddock...
Yeah, I don't get why they're considered a cost extravagance.

Air Jacks. CART had em. IRL has em. Most sports cars have am. F1, um, not so much. So I can have 31 guys over the wall but no air jacks? I can have a carbon fibre transmission, but I have to use 7th century tools to lift the car for tire changes.
Weight. European formula cars don't have them.

[Andrew Longman]

Ya suppose this had any effect on his opinion?

As I said I'll cut him some slack because he got toasted. That fire is on the cover of his book. But what crashes have lead designers and rule makers remove an entire aspect of the sport to be removed?

Tragedy has led to revised tech specs to improve safety, some in the form of rules changes like pit speed limits, but should it really so drastically eliminate a major engineering problem/compromise?

[Andrew Longman]

Weight. European formula cars don't have them.

OK cool, but if safety is a counterbalancing issue then why have two extra people over the wall, especially one directly in front of the car? How much weight is it in all the right/wrong place and what is that lap time savings worth if everybody has to use an airjack? And it plays no role in race strategy.

I don't get questioning refueling and not hand jacks

[oddlycalm]

I don't get questioning refueling and not hand jacks
They Euros AL, logic has nothing to do with it. Applying logic to what are, for them, ideological questions will just give you a headache. :laugh:

oc

[opinionated ow]

OK cool, but if safety is a counterbalancing issue then why have two extra people over the wall, especially one directly in front of the car? How much weight is it in all the right/wrong place and what is that lap time savings worth if everybody has to use an airjack? And it plays no role in race strategy.

I don't get questioning refueling and not hand jacks

FIA International Sporting Code dictates that each car must have a car controller in front of them. You see this person in DTM, V8 Supercars, Sportscars etc. This realistically is no different. I'm yet to see (at least that I can remember) a situation where the front jackman has been run over. It is a minor concern, and also it is subjected to different liability legislation being run under the regulations of the European Union (rather than the USA). It just isn't a concern.

[Cam]

\ I'm yet to see (at least that I can remember) a situation where the front jackman has been run over. .

You forget Rubens bowling over his jackman when he was was shumis butt boy. Yes rare. But it happens.

[Andrew Longman]

They Euros AL, logic has nothing to do with it. Applying logic to what are, for them, ideological questions will just give you a headache. :laugh:

oc

I get it. Matchett also got all grumpy about Mansell not defending his title. Honor and letting other challenge him and all that.

But ideologically F1 is supposed to be the greatest ideological and technical challenge. How does making you race with more fuel (which also means having more fuel on board in a crash) just because you can't figure out how to refuel without blowing yourself up fit with that ideology?

I guess its that logic thing again. ;)

[Elmo T]

If they eliminated refueling, how hard would they work towards making passing on the track more likely?

Granted pressurized fueling rigs make my eye twitch, but have there been that many pit fires?

[robot9000]

Adding air jacks is a no brainer tech and weight wise. If I recall correctly, all the cars are underweight so ballast can be placed in ideal spots. One guy plugging in a hose has got to be less chaos than all those people running around in that Chineese firedrill they call pitstops. And, OOW, I can't think of a racing series in which a 'guy' (Tire changer, lollypop dangler, whatever) does not give the driver the go-no go signal for the stop, Ferrari being the exception because they are apparently 'Smarter than the Average Bear' (And it ruined their championship last year too).

Each year Max comes out with his totally out-there ideas on practice, techlology, points, driver hair styles, whatever. It usually make no sense at all and the stuff that does, never gets inplemented. It always seemed that he was this guy in some strange orbit of the racing world thinking up all these oddball ideas. Then you look at F1, and realize they are two peas in a pod.

Must be a Yuro thing, cause this Yank doesn't get it...:tony:

[Gnam]

And, OOW, I can't think of a racing series in which a 'guy'...does not give the driver the go-no go signal for the stop
I'd like to see these installed at every pitbox, where the driver has to "Push Button for Ticket" before the arm will raise. :gomer:

http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/66/504271.jpg

[oddlycalm]

I guess its that logic thing again. ;)
Yeah, logic is not what it's about. The sporting regs are heavily influenced by ideology. While massive technical innovations have come over the years from Oz, the US and Asia the sport itself has always remained European in flavor because of ideology as applied to the sporting regs.

My fear is actually that the sporting regs will get changed to the point where F1 will lose that flavor. The spec engine discussion is the most troubling to me as the assumption that F1 fans don't know and don't care about the engines is fundamentally wrong. The lump may not matter in the US (I'm not sure that's true) but it matters a lot in F1.

oc

[Insomniac]

I don't think it takes a huge dynamic out of the race. There is still strategy involved, it becomes a different one though. Fundamentally, F1 has (at least as long as I have watched it) differed from other racing because I can't think of any team that actually filled the tank. (It's also possible that their tanks can accommodate enough fuel for the entire race.) In CART, they fill the tank to the top unless it's a quick splash. I can't think of any time that someone in CART started with anything but a full tank.

If they took away re-fueling in F1, there is still strategy. Off the top of my head, they need to now account for the bigger change in weight over the course of the race, they have to pass on track rather than count on a pit stop cycle, tires would be a wild card if they had compounds that could go various distances, how much fuel do they actually need to go the distance, can they make a more efficient engine (even more complex if you add KERS into the calculations) and can a driver conserve fuel enough to use that as a strategy.

I think another thing in favor of this working in F1 is the lack of full course yellows. At this point, what does re-fueling really add? If you want them to stop, mandate softer tires. It is rarely the difference between two cars positions. The bigger factor is when they stop. From my perspective, it's usually a fueler who gets hurt in the pits. I don't see that (if they ever changed the rules) hurting the product.

[Michaelhatesfans]

F1 was infinitely better before refueling. I never got how moving all of the drama to the pit lane spiced up the show.:irked:

[73B]

"I think another thing in favor of this working in F1 is the lack of full course yellows. At this point, what does re-fueling really add? If you want them to stop, mandate softer tires. It is rarely the difference between two cars positions. The bigger factor is when they stop. From my perspective, it's usually a fueler who gets hurt in the pits. I don't see that (if they ever changed the rules) hurting the product."

I agree. You'll need to stop for tires, or you'll need to stop for fuel, or neither. If you make tires so hard that they last the race, it would be a shame if you got a puncture or a flat spot, and had your race ruined because you normally wouldn't need to have stopped. So I think tires should be soft enough that they won't last a full race. Soft compounds, hard compounds, there's plenty of difference in performance and could make or break a race. Plenty of opportunity for strategy.

Whether you mandate that everyone fills up once, or fills up only when needed, I don't think that changes the dynamic of the race. Tires are the limiting factor. If you have to come in for more rubber, you have to come in for more rubber.

[devilmaster]

You forget Rubens bowling over his jackman when he was was shumis butt boy. Yes rare. But it happens.

IY0jmjv_Th0

[Insomniac]

I agree. You'll need to stop for tires, or you'll need to stop for fuel, or neither. If you make tires so hard that they last the race, it would be a shame if you got a puncture or a flat spot, and had your race ruined because you normally wouldn't need to have stopped. So I think tires should be soft enough that they won't last a full race. Soft compounds, hard compounds, there's plenty of difference in performance and could make or break a race. Plenty of opportunity for strategy.

Whether you mandate that everyone fills up once, or fills up only when needed, I don't think that changes the dynamic of the race. Tires are the limiting factor. If you have to come in for more rubber, you have to come in for more rubber.

I don't see much difference between a punctured tire and any other mechanical failure or crash. Things happen during a race. As long as the rules are the same for everyone (but Ferrari ;)).

[oddlycalm]

Yup, best racing was turbo era when the motors were insane and the car was basicly nothing but a fuel tank with a steering wheel. Screw refueling.

Can't argue with that. It was the best racing.

oc