Pit windows gone?

[Accipiter]

http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/champcar/15106/

"There’s definitely more than one way to win a race, and if one of them happens to be one team outsmarting everybody on fuel mileage, that’s just part of racing.” - Tony Cotman

See, that's always been my opinion on this issue. The only true way to do away with fuel economy runs without adulterating the racing with nonsesical and confusing rules is to ban refueling all together. But until you have a set of technical regulations that make that possible, economy runs are just a fact of life.

[racermike]

Goes back to CART fixing something that wasnt broken.

No pit windows or mandatory stops.

You would see some teams on a burn fuel to go fast strategy, and when race conditions changed, they would go to a fuel conservation mode.

I liked how Penske and Walker would always roll the dice, and made for a lot of drama on track.

[nrc]

The problem was that it got to the point where everyone was playing fuel strategy and nobody was racing. Eliminating the fuel economy wars between manufacturers solved most of that.

[Andrew Longman]

Yes either you make a fuel tank so big that it can make it the entire way, or I've also thought about making it so small that there is not a lot of wiggle room. If it is small enough you'd have to stop, let's say, 5 times no matter what.

Either way though I applaud doing away with artificial windows. When I was in the stands at T5 at RA last year I was lucky enough to have a scanner and radio and could figure out what was going on with Tags. I had to keep my entire section informed and explain why Tags was actually winning they were so confused.

And Oz the year before should never be repeated.

[Mike Kellner]

I would make the fuel tank a lot bigger. (60 gallons?) So big, that filling it all the way will slow the car, or outlast the tires. Second, remove the fuel mileage limits. Make how much fuel you put into the car, and how fast you burn it a strategic decision.

I know people will say it is unsafe, but any fuel tank rupture is bad news. A 35 gallon fire will be a disaster. When is the last time there was a major spill from the car's tank? Usually is it a hose problem that causes fires.

I would also quit closing the pits NASCAR style. I think they should have open pits, and you stop when you want. If you manage to play a yellow and gain an advantage, good for you, tough for them... Racing ain't bean bag. They should not close the pits unless they are unpassable, or a rescue is in progress. Then the race should be red flagged, because a vital part of the track is unusable.

A last part of changing the current pit rules mindset would be to speed up the pits. These long in and out roads with low speed limits add time to the cost of the stop, and make an economy run a more viable strategy. If you can make a quicker stop and get more fuel when you do, it would be a better strategy to stand on it. I am all for safety, but I think they have gone overboard with the in/out roads and low speedlimits on them and in the pits.

I would try to speed up the yellows. The more green flag laps, the better in my book. The less time the spend getting the field together, and pitting them in groups, the more green flag action. I wanna watch racing, not parade laps. Plus, I think that if they do not pit the cars en masse, 1/10 of a second will not cost you positions in most cases, and a lower pressure level will reduce the number of accidents and mistakes.

mk

[L1P1]

Yay! Dump the pit windows! Part of racing has always been about conservation - whether it's tires, brakes or fuel (or even money ;)).

[pferrf1]

You still need something to discourage fuel economy runs or else I firmly believe the races will deteriorate to that again. The last time they had a chance to go back was Brands Hatch.. All the teams went back to FE runs. Its brutal.

Maybe require a minimum amount of fuel burned - if thats even possible.

[Mike Kellner]

You will get fuel economy runs when the cost in time of adding a gallon of fuel to the car is higher than the cost in lap time of saving a gallon of fuel. Long slow in and out lanes, and low pit speed limits increase the overhead time cost of a stop. Add a smaller tank, which means that overhead cost buys you fewer gallons of fuel, and it gets worse.

An example. in both cases the cars can be refueled at 4 gal/second

1) 30 seconds per stop on top of fuel pumping time, and you get 32 gallons.

Total time 32/4 = 8 seconds + 30 seconds = 38 seconds/32 Gallons, or 1.19 sec/gal.

2) 20 seconds per stop on top of fuel pumping time, and you get 48 gallons.

Total time 48/4 = 12 seconds + 20 seconds = 32 seconds/48 Gallons, or 0.67 sec/gal.

This is a dramatic difference in the cost of fuel, and will change the strategy.

mk

[Sean O'Gorman]

Fuel economy runs and first turn crashes wouldn't be an issue if the tracks and cars weren't so restrictive for passing. Chances are this wouldn't be an issue if we had more Road Americas and Clevelands, and less San Joses and Monterreys.

[Mike Kellner]

That is a separate rant. Getting rid of chicanes, and quit designing tracks that are all short straights and series of second gear turns. They need some racin' room.

mk

[L1P1]

You will get fuel economy runs when the cost in time of adding a gallon of fuel to the car is higher than the cost in lap time of saving a gallon of fuel. Long slow in and out lanes, and low pit speed limits increase the overhead time cost of a stop. Add a smaller tank, which means that overhead cost buys you fewer gallons of fuel, and it gets worse.

An example. in both cases the cars can be refueled at 4 gal/second

1) 30 seconds per stop on top of fuel pumping time, and you get 32 gallons.

Total time 32/4 = 8 seconds + 30 seconds = 38 seconds/32 Gallons, or 1.19 sec/gal.

2) 20 seconds per stop on top of fuel pumping time, and you get 48 gallons.

Total time 48/4 = 12 seconds + 20 seconds = 32 seconds/48 Gallons, or 0.67 sec/gal.

This is a dramatic difference in the cost of fuel, and will change the strategy.

mk

Perhaps the best and most insightful post of the new year. Why was this not a problem before and now it is? There's your answer. The root cause. Ergo, we need to reduce the penalties of a stop.

Some possible solutions:

A) Raise or alter pit speed limits. Perhaps a graduated speed limit for different parts of the pit lane. Too hard for the driver? Control it centrally with a remotely actuated computerized rev-limiter. No more speed limit violations.

B) Pressurized fueling.

C) Move the push-to-pass system to nitrous and allow a top-up of the bottle at each stop.

[Sean O'Gorman]

C) Move the push-to-pass system to nitrous and allow a top-up of the bottle at each stop.

But NAAAWWWWZZ explodes!

http://www.geocities.com/ffuriouss2002/ff050.JPG

:gomer:

[JLMannin]

Closed pits during a yellow is a legacy of ultra-whiner Nigel Mansell. We have bore rules imposed as a direct result of Nigel whining than any other racer. Reemeber when Emerson Fittipaldi had a stop ang go penalty (Long Beach?) and took on tires and fuel after the official waved him on? There was no specific rule against servicing the car on a stop and go penalty, until Nigel whined.

[L1P1]

Closed pits during a yellow is a legacy of ultra-whiner Nigel Mansell. We have bore rules imposed as a direct result of Nigel whining than any other racer. Reemeber when Emerson Fittipaldi had a stop ang go penalty (Long Beach?) and took on tires and fuel after the official waved him on? There was no specific rule against servicing the car on a stop and go penalty, until Nigel whined.

I think I'd call that a valid whine.

[nrc]

Fuel economy runs and first turn crashes wouldn't be an issue if the tracks and cars weren't so restrictive for passing. Chances are this wouldn't be an issue if we had more Road Americas and Clevelands, and less San Joses and Monterreys.

In the Honda/Toyota days fuel economy runs were everywhere. Passing opportunities had nothing to do with it.

[cart7]

Give em the gas they need to run the race as fast as they want and for Gods sakes cut out all these FCY's. :mad: Those do more to screw up a good race than anything.

[Sean O'Gorman]

Give em the gas they need to run the race as fast as they want and for Gods sakes cut out all these FCY's. :mad: Those do more to screw up a good race than anything.

How so? Obviously too many yellows ruin a race, but often times a runaway win can be "avoided" (for lack of a better term) by a FCY. Obviously I don't want to see contrived yellows for the sake of close competition, but a race isn't much fun to watch if everyone is so spread out after 90 laps.

[cart7]

How so? Obviously too many yellows ruin a race, but often times a runaway win can be "avoided" (for lack of a better term) by a FCY. Obviously I don't want to see contrived yellows for the sake of close competition, but a race isn't much fun to watch if everyone is so spread out after 90 laps.

Nearly every incident on the track anymore turns into a FCY. F1 somehow manages to avoid that problem by using them sparingly. As for runaway wins, I guess everyone will just have to step up the pace. The only way to keep the cars in contact half the time would be to throw debris yellows ala the earl. I know you don't want that.

[Methanolandbrats]

F1 races on racetracks which explains the lack of FCYs.

Pit windows, funny tires, boost buttons and all other goofy crap have got to go. They screw up the race more than they help. How about this for all you people whose butts pucker at a fuel saving strategy. If you win the race, but have one less pit stop you lose a percentage of the championship points. Then there would be no advantage to not going flat out.

[nrc]

F1 races on racetracks which explains the lack of FCYs.


Lack?

I don't follow F1, but I have a vague impression that they're using the Safety Car more often these days. Must need bigger cranes.

[NismoZ]

2-3 heat races, no stops. All have abundant fuel for any heat distance, Start in qualifying order in 1st heat, finishing order in heats 2 &/or 3. Stops still allowed (problems, rain tires etc.) but no fuel. Results determined by an aggregate points system. Tie broken by fastest race lap, in any heat. All out all the time. (60 gal. tanks and pressurized refueling? How 'bout front engines and 140 mph runs down the pitlane!? THAT was always exciting?)

[Ankf00]

Lack?

I don't follow F1, but I have a vague impression that they're using the Safety Car more often these days. Must need bigger cranes.
compared to CCWS? a huge lack...

count me in the "get rid of all the gimmicks" camp... the more rules the more crap, imo.

[Mike Kellner]

I have been thinking about this, and have come up with what I think is a more powerful force driving the races to fuel economy runs.

The unintended negative synergy bewtween the NASCAR style pit stops, and no passing car and track designs.

Under the current pit stop rules, they close the pits, and bunch the cars up nose to tail. Then all the cars on the lead lap get to pit by themselves. The typical pit speed is 60 mph, which is 88 feet/second, or about .2 seconds from the nose of one car to the nose of the car behind it. They cross the pit boundary in formation, have a regulated speed in the pits, and have nearly identical performance stopping, and launching. The crews can change tires faster than they can refuel the car. The rate of fuel flow is regulated to about 4 gallons per second. They all have the same size tank. What this all boils down to is if one car spends less time filling the tank, it can leave sooner, and each .2 seconds it leaves sooner is one track position, and a couple of championship points. Plus, passing in the pits by pumping less fuel is a guaranteed low risk way to gain track position. If it is impossible to pass for position without using huge amounts of fuel, and taking a huge risk of crashing the car and getting no points, the fuel economy run is the only way to go. Right now for about every 3 quarts of fuel you save, you can gain a track position on the next pit stop. If you do go for it, and pass someone, but burn 2 extra gallons during that segment, you will lose 3 positions on the next yellow flag stop, for a net loss of two positions. Furthering the advantage for the economy run strategy, is that with everyone else using that strategy, combined with the difficulty passing, it means that if you take it easy, the guy behind you is not going to blow past. Instead, he will try to save more fuel than you are and get around in the pits.

So, how do we fix this?

Going back to the old style open pit rules would help a lot. If people don't pit in formation, 1/5 second of fuel flow won't cost a position most of the time.

Fixing the tracks and aero rules so passing becomes a commonplace manuver again is another. If you can't pass, and aren't on the pole, you have to find another way to win. The economy run may be good point earning strategy, but it is bad TV.

I also think cutting the time cost of pit stops, and increasing tank size would help. If Green Flag stops become viable again, there will be less passing in the pits, because the leaders are seldom 1/10 of a second apart, and when they are, a Green Flag pit stop duel becomes good TV. Fewer Yellow Flags would help here.

Ditching the fuel supply limits so you could burn as much fuel as you wanted would be another. Having all the fuel you could burn will favor those who stand on it.

Comments?

mk

[Mike Kellner]

One quick fix has occurred to me. Increase the time it takes to change a set of tires, or reduce the time it takes to fill the car, to where it takes longer to change tires than it does to fill the car. That takes away the time advantage of a short fill.

Possible ideas. F1 style jacks, and only allow 1 per car, so they have to change the fronts and rears sequentially. Only allowing 4 tires over the wall per car, including the tires on the car, so they have to take the tires off, and carry them to the pit wall before they get new ones. Limit the number of air wrenches over the wall.

And don't forget.... Lug nuts and 1 X wrench per car. :laugh:

mk

[nrc]

Or maybe just two fewer crew members over the wall?

Avoiding the benefit of gaining .1 seconds while the field is bunched in the pits is one of the reasons I like idea of no pitting under yellow at all.

[racer2c]

Didn't I read that NASCAR was thinking of going to 'two over the wall'? I'm not a lawyer but I think I see what's going on here. Common sense would dictate that a pit rules revision would help the on track action. Hey, this Wilki'ism stuff is fun! :)

[Andrew Longman]

Brilliant analysis Mike.

At the risk of being accused of copying the IRL, I suggest fewer crew members over the wall to require that only two tires can be changed at a time. This will also make the pit lane less crowded and perhaps allow a bit higher pit speed. FWIW I like the skill of the pit crew playing a role in the race outcome. When the length of a stop is mostly determined by gravity dropping the fuel, it diminishes the crew as a factor unless they just screw up.

Definitely leave the pit open after a yellow. No reason to bunch people up. I think Nascar likes to do this for "competition" reasons and because they don't trust their ability to correctly score 43 cars. All that matters less on a road course with fewer cars and most on the same lap.

Also, leaving the pits open means people will not all pit together which also might allow for higher pit speeds

I'm not crazy and the cost and safety of pressurized fuel delivery.

Larger tanks appeal to me because the car will change more throughout a stint and I'd like the fuel to outlast the tires. But I'd have to be convinced that it would be safe. I don't want to go back to the day when a champcar sprayed 80 gallons of fuel on the crowd at Indy.

But whatever they do I think you've nailed the situation in terms of risk/benefit of fuel economy vs banzai runs

[NismoZ]

I was being sarcastic of course earlier, but help me understand how many of your suggested changes IN the pits (some compromising WAY too much on safety) directly connect to all-out on track racing? #s of crew over the wall? #of tires? jack type, pit speeds, etc.? How does any of that stop economy runs? Couldn't flag to flag stopless racing also save overall$$ for teams? (less equipment, crew, etc?) I mean , besides never compromising on safety I think any mandated changes should look toward saving money as well as improving the product. I'm certainly not a proponent of heat races but it would produce the all out racing many of us crave. Heck, I think CC could experiment with that as well as standing starts at certain venues. The track type was correctly identified as a major factor and has contributed to "pitstop" racing...something to be seen and appreciated, but only secondary to the on track performance of the cars and drivers.

[pferrf1]

How about new, pressurized fuel rigs that move the fuel quicker.

[racer2c]

And tire warmers!

[Ankf00]

ninjas?

ninja crews would perform the crew work before you could blink your eyes, and the cars would be right back on the track

plus they have super senses and leaping ability thereby allowing them to avoid any dangerous cars careening their way as the cars speed through the pits

you can't go wrong with ninjas.

[NismoZ]

No, warmers and pressure rigs are too expensive but Ninjas COULD work, especially if they're doing it only for the glory of the Emperor. (Think they'd be appreciated more in the JRL, however.)

[Mike Kellner]

NismoZ asked:

"help me understand how many of your suggested changes IN the pits (some compromising WAY too much on safety) directly connect to all-out on track racing? #s of crew over the wall? #of tires? jack type, pit speeds, etc.? How does any of that stop economy runs?"

What I was saying was the interplay of it being hard to pass, lots of yellows, so all pit stops were under yellow, and the way the stack the cars up for en masse pit stops, which combines to make the economy run the best race winning strategy. All of the changes were recommended to disrupt that situation. Because the cars always come in together, cars which spend less time stationary can pick up track positions at a rate of several per second. Refueling is the longest part of the stationary time. By saving fuel on the track, you can cut the amount of time needed to get the required load of fuel into the car, and leave sooner, which is more effective than battling for position, which uses a lot of fuel, and will cost track positions in the next stop.

The in pit changes I recommended were for the following reasons.

Faster fuel flow, or slower tire changes. If they can fill the car faster than they can change tires, the economy run becomes less advantageous, because it doesn't save pit time.

Getting rid of the en masse pit stop with the lead lap cars separated from the lapped cars. This is what puts them in such close time order, so a 0.2 or 0.3 second advantage can gain a track poistion.

Those are the two biggies I recommended.

On track, I wouild like to see fewer full course yellows, which is going to take changes in track design, rescue practices, and officiating mentality. If the tracks were a bit wider, they could make people drive around the wrecks. A guy with a radar gun enforcing a low speed limit in the rescue area would make it safe for the workers. Cranes, and parking areas for dead cars at predictable trouble spots. Not sending out a safety caravan to drive around the whole track for a stalled car where the driver walks away from the wreck. If you can slow the cars down, 3 guys with a garden tractor, brooms and shovels, can clear most wrecks if they have a safe place to park the car.

If there are fewer yellows, people will have to make green flag stops.

Faster, shorter in and out lanes will make green flag stops more viable. They used to happen all the time. Now, your race is over if you make one.

I would also love to have passing return, but that is going to take longer straights, tracks where passing areas are a high design prioroty, and!!!... cars which can follow close in turns. (Ergo, more open aero rules, but that is a whole nother argument, for another day.)

mk

[Ankf00]

slander the ninja at your own risk... just remember that you never know when they're around, because, well, they're ninjas...

[Mike Kellner]

Faster fuel flow could be achieved by making the fueling rigs a few feet taller. It likely would chop a second or two off fill time. That alone might make tire changes take longer than a refill, which would change the strategic situation.

mk

[Fitti Fan]

Shouldn't be much of an issue anymore. Fernandez is gone. :)

[RTKar]

NismoZ asked:

If there are fewer yellows, people will have to make green flag stops.

Faster, shorter in and out lanes will make green flag stops more viable. They used to happen all the time. Now, your race is over if you make one.

I would also love to have passing return, but that is going to take longer straights, tracks where passing areas are a high design prioroty, and!!!... cars which can follow close in turns. (Ergo, more open aero rules, but that is a whole nother argument, for another day.)

mk

Don't forget tire degradation and the inherent marbling of the track that occurs. While tire degradation affects the car's handling, marbling affects on track passing more than anything. On already narrow street courses, marbles turn the circuit into sidewalk size lanes which allow on track passing to be a low percentage move, so most passing is done in the pits. Designing a tire that doesn't degrade may be the cheapest way to bring back racing on the track. How many yellows have been brought about by marbles? Fewer yellows, better racing.

[Mike Kellner]

I have wondered if an abraision test is possible. Everything on a racecar has some sort of test it has to pass. Why not test tires for how quickly they shed rubber particles? Perhaps you could put a tire/wheel on a lathe, spin it up to some standard speed, force it against some standardized rough surface, with a standard force, for a fixed amount of time. Weigh the tire before and after, to determine the weight of material lost. You can test almost anything in a lab. Why not develop a test for marble creation rate?

mk

[NismoZ]

I have to believe the tire guys know EXACTLY when the marbles will fly, but that was always secondary to adhesion/lap-times. I was really worried when CC was going to allow 2 tire compounds and mandate the use of both (an admirable effort to vary lap times and create better racing, passing, or at least drama) but I don't think the marbling had anywhere near the adverse affect it used to. Narrow street courses + marbles was like watching a rain race! If EVERYONE has to run the same, harder, compounds then the competition remains keen and the marbles become less a concern. The problem for CC is to convince the teams that they HAVE to run the harder compounds, because tire choice is the cheapest and easiest way to go faster these days. Yes?

[Ankf00]

I'm pretty sure ADAMS just teamed up with some north american tire manufacturer this past fall as a supplier of tire abrasion simulation software...

[racer2c]

I have wondered if an abraision test is possible. Everything on a racecar has some sort of test it has to pass. Why not test tires for how quickly they shed rubber particles? Perhaps you could put a tire/wheel on a lathe, spin it up to some standard speed, force it against some standardized rough surface, with a standard force, for a fixed amount of time. Weigh the tire before and after, to determine the weight of material lost. You can test almost anything in a lab. Why not develop a test for marble creation rate?

mk

Sounds feasible, but each track would have a different abrasive rating. Each track would require its own compound. Not exactly cost efficient.

[Mike Kellner]

It would not be that difficult to test the tires and certify them, once the equipment existed. This is something that has a huge effect on the quality of the product. It is worth a bit of work.

This is not an impossible demand. The best modern all weather radials have good grip on snow and ice, which takes a soft compound, while lasting 70 - 80 thousand miles, which requires low abraision rates. It actually make the race tire programs more applicable to street tires.

mk

[Old3Fan]

:thumbup: This is one of the most informative and interesting threads I have read on any racing forum in a year or more. Am I getting old or is this as I remember how it used to be. :gomer:

[NismoZ]

Sure, we're older...doesn't mean we're dumber! :gomer:

[Hard Driver]

Sounds feasible, but each track would have a different abrasive rating. Each track would require its own compound. Not exactly cost efficient.

I think the standardized test could be one test that created on standard for marbling. That would invariably mean a durable compound. However, you could leave that standard and then leave it up to the tire company to create either individual tires or one tire. Considering it is a one tire series, I think they would create one tire to meet the test.

BTW, I like the return to pure racing without artificial pit windows.