Red Bull and Ferrari submitted designs, apparently this Ferrari design was preferred.
If that allows cars to follow closely like ground effect does, then I won't mind at all.
Formula 1: Refuelling to return in 2017
- Thread starter benhaha85
- Start date
Red Bull and Ferrari submitted designs, apparently this Ferrari design was preferred.
If that allows cars to follow closely like ground effect does, then I won't mind at all.
Man of Honour
5 year old me thinks that car looks MEGA
All of this means increased cost though.
Refuelling rigs to purchase and ship around. Massive new set of aero regs always means increased cost. And no reduction of wind tunnels.
Refuelling has far more cons than pros, hope there's chance for reversal on this.
Refuelling rigs to purchase and ship around. Massive new set of aero regs always means increased cost. And no reduction of wind tunnels.
Refuelling has far more cons than pros, hope there's chance for reversal on this.
Yeah large scale changes will always cost money.
It looks like they have all sat in a room and got a bit too excited going "lets make them go faster and go brum brum" and reducing costs and keeping the racing good have been completely ignored.
It looks like they have all sat in a room and got a bit too excited going "lets make them go faster and go brum brum" and reducing costs and keeping the racing good have been completely ignored.
It allows for more complex strategies.
At the moment it is all about running the tyres longer/shorter hoping to undercut or get track position.
With differing fuel strategies, you can gain absolute speed in a race with the cost of pitstops.
Someone for example running a short stint will benefit from an early pitstop and lower fuel load in that stint. Someone fuelled low will have a much better launch at the start and gain track position. Want to run a longer stint? You'll need to fuel up more.
The ends of races shouldn't be too different as you get down to low fuel weight by then anyway.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Through one of the most twisty and difficult to drive races Hamilton was stuck up under the rear wing of Vettel with absolutely no freaking problem. Can people stfu about not being able to follow closely. Yes it hurts tires, NO it doesn't destroy them. How anyone can take the claims of a guy who basically never got within 1.5 seconds of the car infront who claimed his tires were destroyed seriously I really don't know. It was laughable at the time and even more so now when the same car managed to get significantly closer and a significantly worse for following track.
We have cars following close behind all the time, every single race. Clear air driving will always be better, the air coming into the car will be cooler, the air will be more stable, that is a fact of driving you can never under any circumstances get around. How bad it is can change, it is simply not as bad as being made out.
5-6 seconds faster will be talking about race pace and I have no idea how people can't see that can be improved drastically. What was Rosberg's pole time 1:24.xxx, what were the amazing laps Hamilton was doing at the half way stage, 1:29.xxx, where will they gain 5 seconds of race pace from.
Where will the car weight be reduced... du'h, 100kg of fuel, even one pit stop 50kg fuel per stint, oh look 50kg lighter car.
Lighter car = less weight for the fuel to push, the same speed would use less fuel, the same fuel usage would mean more speed. Pushing around on lighter cars with less fuel would also put less strain on the tires. Tire life from last stint and pace from last stint which is usually 2-4 seconds faster than the first stint, would become the pace across the race pretty much.
The massive majority of fuel saving is done in the first half of the race because lifting and coasting saves you that little bit more during the heavier car period. Most of the changes would effectively change a current 3 stint race on average to 3 x final stints rather than one slow, one medium, one fast stint as we get when they carry all the fuel.
Cars will also be set up for on average the handling and pace of the car over the last stint. Certain cars, I would say Merc, are optimised to be conservative on heavy fuel and awesome in the final stint, Ferrari conversely tend to be more even, more competitive in the first half of the race, much less so in the second half of a race.
Wider tires would help with tire life, more traction would mean less fuel wasted out of corners and faster overall speeds for the race.
All of these things should be pretty easy to work out, the only one that isn't immediately obvious is how races will play out with refuelling. Comparing it to the previous refuelling period isn't particularly sensible, tires, cars, engines, drs, all different. Refuelling could mean all overtaking done in the pits, but it certainly doesn't have to.
We have cars following close behind all the time, every single race. Clear air driving will always be better, the air coming into the car will be cooler, the air will be more stable, that is a fact of driving you can never under any circumstances get around. How bad it is can change, it is simply not as bad as being made out.
5-6 seconds faster will be talking about race pace and I have no idea how people can't see that can be improved drastically. What was Rosberg's pole time 1:24.xxx, what were the amazing laps Hamilton was doing at the half way stage, 1:29.xxx, where will they gain 5 seconds of race pace from.
Where will the car weight be reduced... du'h, 100kg of fuel, even one pit stop 50kg fuel per stint, oh look 50kg lighter car.
Lighter car = less weight for the fuel to push, the same speed would use less fuel, the same fuel usage would mean more speed. Pushing around on lighter cars with less fuel would also put less strain on the tires. Tire life from last stint and pace from last stint which is usually 2-4 seconds faster than the first stint, would become the pace across the race pretty much.
The massive majority of fuel saving is done in the first half of the race because lifting and coasting saves you that little bit more during the heavier car period. Most of the changes would effectively change a current 3 stint race on average to 3 x final stints rather than one slow, one medium, one fast stint as we get when they carry all the fuel.
Cars will also be set up for on average the handling and pace of the car over the last stint. Certain cars, I would say Merc, are optimised to be conservative on heavy fuel and awesome in the final stint, Ferrari conversely tend to be more even, more competitive in the first half of the race, much less so in the second half of a race.
Wider tires would help with tire life, more traction would mean less fuel wasted out of corners and faster overall speeds for the race.
All of these things should be pretty easy to work out, the only one that isn't immediately obvious is how races will play out with refuelling. Comparing it to the previous refuelling period isn't particularly sensible, tires, cars, engines, drs, all different. Refuelling could mean all overtaking done in the pits, but it certainly doesn't have to.
Associate
That concept pic makes it look like the helmet is attached to the car.
With regards to the refueling while part of me doesn't like the heavy fuel ridden cars parading around. Also the idea of stopping the car, earthing the car, chucking x amount of fuel over or into the car depending on how well the stop goes. then the driver leaving with a hose man attached and creating the worlds most expensive bbq. Safety has to be key.
Obviously with the need for a smaller tank means the car can be shorter and that'll save weight. As I really do not want to see F1 becoming a small persons sport I want the best drivers. Okay its a business so we'll always have better funded over the worlds best but to limit the driver via size isn't going to help get the best drivers. Best way to make it a even playing field is the heaviest driver on the friday makes the base weight for the driver and anyone below that gets some lead popped under his seat to match them all up. The lower center of gravity will still provider a small advantage.
With regards to the refueling while part of me doesn't like the heavy fuel ridden cars parading around. Also the idea of stopping the car, earthing the car, chucking x amount of fuel over or into the car depending on how well the stop goes. then the driver leaving with a hose man attached and creating the worlds most expensive bbq. Safety has to be key.
Obviously with the need for a smaller tank means the car can be shorter and that'll save weight. As I really do not want to see F1 becoming a small persons sport I want the best drivers. Okay its a business so we'll always have better funded over the worlds best but to limit the driver via size isn't going to help get the best drivers. Best way to make it a even playing field is the heaviest driver on the friday makes the base weight for the driver and anyone below that gets some lead popped under his seat to match them all up. The lower center of gravity will still provider a small advantage.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Engine development costs massively more than aero and each team does new aero every year anyway. So ultimately I don't think costs change with a massive aero change. They max out their wind tunnel and computing time every year regardless of the aero rules... so how would those costs change? Everyone does a new wing, and rear wing, and side pod, and radiators, and chassis every year, so how would those costs change? They will spend the money on R&D and parts production regardless of aero rules. The teams with less money make basic parts anyway but to suggest not making aero regulation changes because teams can't afford it would be ridiculous. If they can't afford to make new parts to new regulations, they can't afford to make better parts in the current regulations... thus they wouldn't be competitive anyway.
Those that are competitive at any level(ie everyone but Marussia) spend that money every single year regardless.
New engines would be an easier way to increase power/speed, but would also increase costs. Merc/Renault/Ferrari develop and engine and factor in cost of engines and how long they'll be selling them into those costs. 300mil development but selling to 3-4 teams over 5 years, you get a rough cost per engine to make some of that back. You change it after 2 years and ask them to spend another 300mil on a different engine... imagine what the engine developers will do. They'll say because they can't be certain the engines will be used for 5 years, they can't spread out the costs, we'll do $50mil per year for engines for 2 years, then drop the prices to $10mil per year once our money is back. That would destroy multiple teams.
Engines induce huge costs and the price of engines are based on time that engine will be used, reduce time.. massively increase costs. Aero gets renewed on every car every year, there is no associated massive increase in costs. They will just spend that money, time, wind tunnel time on new parts rather than refining old parts for the 15th time, very little difference.
Soldato
I suspect one of the thoughts is if they reintroduce refuelling then teams can use smaller fuel cells and in-turn reduce the weight of the car.
Still seems like a backwards step to me; would rather see a few less restrictions on aero and power-units.
Yeah I guarantee the thinking behind refueling is that a car with 30KG of fuel is faster than a car with 100KG.
They haven't thought about the racing.
Associate
Except... The last time they had refuelling, the cars were so aero-dominant that they couldn't travel within ~2 seconds of each other due to aero. Therefore, overtaking during the pit stop was essential.
Now, with tyre wear, drs, kers, engine map etc, there are so many variables that can create a speed differential between two cars, overtaking is likely to increase.
If they're all on the same fuel, it's difficult to overtake as you're all lugging around the same mass.
If you've got 10 laps less fuel, your car will be lighter and it'll be imperative you overtake to optimise your strategy...
Soldato
I think people are forgetting about the driver. Aero is the worst thing to happen to F1 in it's life time.
Up to 2008 F1 was great with close racing, then the aero came in and it started dying from 2009.
Ditch all the false racing aids or F1 will die faster then it is now.
Associate
That's really not how I remember it.. Aero was a lot worse before 2009 I thought? They changed the 2009 rules to close things up again..
Soldato
Refuelling, but still with the same restrictions on the amount of fuel they can use. Thats purely just to make the cars lighter. Not sure how that will make any difference to what we have now, just more stops as the cars will be slightly faster.
Bwahahahahaha! Pull the other one. The 2009 regulations removed all the aero rather than bringing it in!
Racing before that was 'close' in that everyone just followed everyone else round.
Choo choo, all aboard the Trulli Train!
With a pit stop costing around 35 seconds they will want to make as few as possible.
Does anyone have the figures for the average time penalty per lap of a KG of fuel?
Fliw rate is also going to be the same
So it sounds like teams can work the tyres better / longer because the car is lighter for more of the time but pit stops are going to be longer too ( so the balancing act of How much fuel to start the race, how long to stop for etc will be interesting)
If they had increased allocation per car and flow rate while allowing refuelling that would be mega, but isnt this a half hearted measure to improve the spectacle?
0.3s per 10kg is what I remember Brundle always quoting.
That might actually work, so teams who qualify badly ( or just do less quali runs) can run a faster flow rate / use more fuel in the race
Like this a lot actually
That fits with a McLaren article I've found that says 1kg is 0.03 seconds so sounds good.