Formula 1: Refuelling to return in 2017
- Thread starter benhaha85
- Start date
Wow, I'm delighted to hear this!!
I like how the justification is to "make it more exciting" though, isn't that the reason they gave when they abolished it?
It sounds like they're undoing a lot of the **** they've implemented in recent years, I guess they've realised that aiming the sport at casuals is not a good idea because when stuff gets boring (which is inevitable at times) those people will just do something else instead.
No more fuel saving, no more tyre saving, drivers able to show their true ability instead of being artificially slowed down to a fixed speed, thank god.
I like how the justification is to "make it more exciting" though, isn't that the reason they gave when they abolished it?
It sounds like they're undoing a lot of the **** they've implemented in recent years, I guess they've realised that aiming the sport at casuals is not a good idea because when stuff gets boring (which is inevitable at times) those people will just do something else instead.
No more fuel saving, no more tyre saving, drivers able to show their true ability instead of being artificially slowed down to a fixed speed, thank god.
Soldato
The big meeting last night was about discussing ways to go forward, and it seems 2m wide cars (currently 1.8m) are very much agreed on and likely wider tyres too (though not the larger diameter wheels).
Also seems we've moved on from customer cars into "franchise cars", where a customer takes more than a car and engine, but can almost becomes a B team, running junior drivers and perhaps engineers and so on. It does seem likely this will only happen should team numbers drop though.
Unless we develop a tyre which unlocks softer, better conditioned rubber the more it wears down, that trend has well and truly set in, no matter how hard they make the rubber.
Even if we had rock-hard Bridgestones back, they'd still be conditioning the tyres if they couldn't overtake, just to have that percentage more than your opponent at a later stage.
Also seems we've moved on from customer cars into "franchise cars", where a customer takes more than a car and engine, but can almost becomes a B team, running junior drivers and perhaps engineers and so on. It does seem likely this will only happen should team numbers drop though.
Unless we develop a tyre which unlocks softer, better conditioned rubber the more it wears down, that trend has well and truly set in, no matter how hard they make the rubber.
Even if we had rock-hard Bridgestones back, they'd still be conditioning the tyres if they couldn't overtake, just to have that percentage more than your opponent at a later stage.
Man of Honour
You mean like the first half of 2012, for example? Where everyone was complaining F1 was a lottery and too unpredictable.
A different winner every race, that was how F1 should be
So long as the cars getting wider is to allow wider tyres, rather than some artificial attempt at improving aesthetics then fine. I'm not keen on their suggestions of making the front wings more complicated.
Haas are basically the model for what a franchise team would be, so I think we should reserve judgement on how that will work until we have seen how they do. Personally I'd rather see the big players funding more than 1 team than have half the grid woefully uncompetitive. Just look at how many pay drivers STR have had to run to survive in the midfield... None. And they brought us Vettel, Ricciardo, etc. With Test Driver roles now utterly worthless, having a B team you can run young drivers in is also better for the grid.
Haas are basically the model for what a franchise team would be, so I think we should reserve judgement on how that will work until we have seen how they do. Personally I'd rather see the big players funding more than 1 team than have half the grid woefully uncompetitive. Just look at how many pay drivers STR have had to run to survive in the midfield... None. And they brought us Vettel, Ricciardo, etc. With Test Driver roles now utterly worthless, having a B team you can run young drivers in is also better for the grid.
Last edited:
Soldato
Wider cars would be great, wider cars and shorter wheelbase would be even better and improve several things at a stroke. Wider cars and wider tyres for improved grip in the corners. A shorter wheelbase would force teams into making wider bodywork to contain all the grubby bits (since they can't take any length out of the front due to crash test regulations), which will increase drag and therefore increase the effect of slipstreaming. A shorter wheelbase will also make the cars more eager to rotate/less stable, which will reward the better drivers on the grid. And as an added bonus, the cars will look better.
The cars don't have to be as long as most of them are built now, so I assume the designers have found benifits in being that long. Just making the cars wider won't naturally mean they get shorter, they would have to mandate it some how. But like you say theres not a lot they can shorten, especially as they have a large fuel tank and extra radiators to fit in compared to the last time the cars were short, back in the mid 00s.
They do look better shorter, but I don't want that to be the reason they do it. It should be a good side effect of other changes.
How wide have Pirelli proposed the tyres to be?
Edit: "Over 400mm" up from the current 325mm. That's 15cm of increased width there assuming they put the extra width on the outer edge rather than the inner.
They do look better shorter, but I don't want that to be the reason they do it. It should be a good side effect of other changes.
How wide have Pirelli proposed the tyres to be?
Edit: "Over 400mm" up from the current 325mm. That's 15cm of increased width there assuming they put the extra width on the outer edge rather than the inner.
Last edited:
Makes sense. Was it Sauber last year that had a super narrow sidepod profile? So the only way they will make the cars wider is if you force them, and that way lies FIA mandated regulations defining asthetics... And we know how successful that has been with the noses
Maybe a maximum length that's a good foot shorter than now while allowing car widths of 2m would be enough on its own?
If they were on a 3 stop strategy they could thrash the tyres without a care in the world, one of the main benefits of different fuel strategies was that a car lighter on fuel with tyres they didn't need to babysit could more often than not overtake a car on 1 or 2 stop strategy without any artificial go faster buttons. I hear people currently arguing that there are more overtakes now and that is primarily down to DRS/KERS, you could still have refuelling without getting rid of the circus show buttons for those who think DRS/KERS overtakes are actually skillful.
Of course the teams had a lot to do with things but they do today only there's much less for them try and to get wrong these days, all that ever happens in recent years is the car in front stays there and the rest can't hope to catch them due to fuel/tyre limitations and no different options in strategy, sure they can put different compounds on at different times but they've all got to run those same compounds at some point so it evens out in the end.
I see they have already ruled out refuelling though, very disappointing.
Last edited:
Soldato
As they can't even make the grip last a of lap driving at 100% on the tyres, they couldn't thrash the tyres over 20 laps.
It's not about rubber loss, it's about thermal degradation - you can't just trash a set of tyres any more, as the harder you push them, the worse they get - it's not about how much rubber is left on the tyre.
You won't like it, but the fastest way to get to the end of a stint is to manage the tyres. The amount of management is all that differentiates the stint lengths.
Last edited:
Soldato
Indeed they have. Longer wheelbase means stability. Longer chassis means you can get everything in and maintain a small frontal area to get less drag.
Welcome to the point I was making
The last time F1 cars were 2m wide and refuelling was banned was 1993. Funnily enough, that was about the last year that Formula One actually was Formula ******* One. And if you look at the budgets that they ran on back then....well, the 1993 McLaren budget would barely keep the 2015 McLaren team afloat for five races. I'm 'reliably' informed that we can't have an arms race in F1 now as it would be too expensive. I would submit that locking the formula down simply hasn't worked, so how about we try it the '93 way for a couple of years and see what happens?
Again....welcome to the point I was making
Skeeter said:
Something I didn't know until I looked it up the other day after an article I'd seen on NASCAR.com about motorsport records - the F1 race with the most recorded on-track overtakes. 2011 Turkish GP, at least as far as dry races are concerned. So at least Tilke designed one good 'un!
Yeah, the one good Tilke track and its been dropped
My point about regulations is we don't want the FIA regulating based on astherics, because they clearly suck at it. We want them to regulate based around making the racing better. Shorter, wider cars would, in theory, provide that.
My point about regulations is we don't want the FIA regulating based on astherics, because they clearly suck at it
. We want them to regulate based around making the racing better. Shorter, wider cars would, in theory, provide that.
Soldato
My point about regulations is we don't want the FIA regulating based on astherics, because they clearly suck at it
Exactly. So as long as they mandate a shorter wheelbase for sporting reasons then everything should work out fine. If they mandate it for aesthetics then it'll be doomed to failure.
If they could see their way clear to allowing ground effect and active ride while they're at it, so much the better
Yeah, I saw a concept a while back. Keep the plank etc, but remove the requirement for the rest of the floor to be flat. It would mean the floor each side could be used as venturi tunnels. Couple with rules to simplify the front wing (2 or 3 elements max), and you have faster cars capable of following each other.
I was at Brands a couple of weeks back and watched a bunch of late 70s and early 80s F1 cars stuck to each others gearboxes for the full 40 minutes.
Why is it the solution is so obvious to us yet the FIA and FOM are so blind to it? I genuinely think they are just unable to get the changes they want through, and are to scared to do it anyway.
I was at Brands a couple of weeks back and watched a bunch of late 70s and early 80s F1 cars stuck to each others gearboxes for the full 40 minutes.
Why is it the solution is so obvious to us yet the FIA and FOM are so blind to it? I genuinely think they are just unable to get the changes they want through, and are to scared to do it anyway.
Soldato
The rules package really ought to be nothing to do with FOM. After all, they're only there to make sure that the cameras are pointed vaguely in the direction of a car once in a while.
And yes, that would mean granting the FIA sole charge of the rulebook. Which is where my idea falls down somewhat, because the FIA cannot be relied upon to do the right thing at all.
OH WELL.
And yes, that would mean granting the FIA sole charge of the rulebook. Which is where my idea falls down somewhat, because the FIA cannot be relied upon to do the right thing at all.
OH WELL.
I disagree. The whole 'show' of F1 is FOMs remit. They have to make sure the races are exciting to watch so should have a say in the rules.
But you have the same issue, they are also incapable of writing a rule book.
One thing I do agree with Bernie on, the teams most definitely shouldn't have a say.
In fact I only know of one regulator who I think have done a good job of their series recently, and that's the ACO. So may be what F1 really needs is to ditch the FIA?
But you have the same issue, they are also incapable of writing a rule book
.One thing I do agree with Bernie on, the teams most definitely shouldn't have a say.
In fact I only know of one regulator who I think have done a good job of their series recently, and that's the ACO. So may be what F1 really needs is to ditch the FIA?