Soldato
FOM may well be bleeding the teams dry, apart from the selfish top teams.
Formula 1: Refuelling to return in 2017
- Thread starter benhaha85
- Start date
FOM may well be bleeding the teams dry, apart from the selfish top teams.
The amount of revenue the teams get is a % of the total. More money for FOM means more money for the teams.
Not forgetting that Ferrari get paid to treat F1 as their only premier Motorsport factory supported racing team. Personally the way the payments are setup makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible for a new team to make any headway unless you throw a billion dollars at the thing over several years. Do well and you get rewarded which is right, but money is also paid to other teams on previous years performance which, IMO, is wrong.
Soldato
Unless you can 100% guarantee that it would never happen, which you can't unless you know something everyone else doesn't, then of course there is a danger of it happening.
What confuses me about refuelling is i've always thought one of the many reasons for scrapping it was down to costs and the FIA attempting to cost cut.
With a lot of the bottom and midfield teams struggling for cash, it seems a bit arse about elbow to introduce something that would further force teams into the 'red'
I could certainly see a lot of the smaller teams disappearing because of it.
Soldato
There was in 2009, the last year of refuelling in F1 :
Here's another from 2008 :
No danger. Eh?
Oh dear,
Why do people think refuelling equals pushing harder, it never has and never will.
The optimal race time, requires saving fuel, regardless of refuelling or not.
What is it 1kg of fuel costs 0.2s a lap on average, you can't make this back by pushing the engine faster.
Then pushing engine harder also means they have to build in more reliability, or conserve on that bases. More reliability generally means heavier or reduced performance or both.
I would like to see them open up the hybrids far more.
As to tyres, it depends how it's implement.
They need to get rid of using qualifying tyres and must use both compounds.
If you want to do two stints on hard that's fine.
If you want to do three stints on sorts that's also fine.
If your out of position and want to use softs to get passed people then switch to hard to save the Pit stop to slot back into clean air, also fine.
Don't need more than two compounds at races.
Why do people think refuelling equals pushing harder, it never has and never will.
The optimal race time, requires saving fuel, regardless of refuelling or not.
What is it 1kg of fuel costs 0.2s a lap on average, you can't make this back by pushing the engine faster.
Then pushing engine harder also means they have to build in more reliability, or conserve on that bases. More reliability generally means heavier or reduced performance or both.
I would like to see them open up the hybrids far more.
As to tyres, it depends how it's implement.
They need to get rid of using qualifying tyres and must use both compounds.
If you want to do two stints on hard that's fine.
If you want to do three stints on sorts that's also fine.
If your out of position and want to use softs to get passed people then switch to hard to save the Pit stop to slot back into clean air, also fine.
Don't need more than two compounds at races.
Last edited:
Soldato
Refueling just gives you a 30second pit stop, More Danger and more cost really.
I agree with a Glaucus post. Pinch me 
Its 0.03s per 1kg of fuel, but regardless your point is spot on. No team will ever over fill the car, they will under fill them and require fuel saving regardless of if they stop to refuel or not.
People have been banging on about the 2 compounds and start on qualifying tyres rules for years yet the FIA ignore them
And the 1000bhp figure Bernie keeps shouting on about would be easily achieved with a boost in the ERS. F1 has a 160bhp MGU fed with 4MJ of energy per lap, which is pathetic compared to Porsches LMP1 that pushes 8MJ of energy through a 400bhp electric motor.
Its 0.03s per 1kg of fuel, but regardless your point is spot on. No team will ever over fill the car, they will under fill them and require fuel saving regardless of if they stop to refuel or not.
People have been banging on about the 2 compounds and start on qualifying tyres rules for years yet the FIA ignore them
And the 1000bhp figure Bernie keeps shouting on about would be easily achieved with a boost in the ERS. F1 has a 160bhp MGU fed with 4MJ of energy per lap, which is pathetic compared to Porsches LMP1 that pushes 8MJ of energy through a 400bhp electric motor.
That's because of the distance they want to send the water and the size of the opening I presume. An aircraft is refuelled at at least 1000 litres per minute and you would have no issue holding the hose, especially like a fire hose it's attached to the car/aircraft rather than sending a jet of fuel 50m
I totally agree with your comments on this though, in the rules they have in mind it makes no sense at all. Someone mentioned it has never equalled pushing harder, it has for a period of time in the late 90's and early 2000's. The races where effectively sprint races. How many times did we see Mika or MS put in a stint of lap after lap extremely fast 20 or 30 lap stints.
Of course the tyres where a lot more competitive too.
The fuel flow restriction affects the max power the car can develop and is completely independent of the amount of fuel that can be carried.
The BBC are reporting that not a single team boss they have spoken too is in favour of refueling, and a lot of the other changes are getting a lot of push back because they will be costly to impliment.
Makes you wonder who actually came up with these proposals? There are a few good ideas in the mix, but overall its been a mass of poorly thought through suggestions lacking any common sense.
Makes you wonder who actually came up with these proposals? There are a few good ideas in the mix, but overall its been a mass of poorly thought through suggestions lacking any common sense.
Permabanned
Tyre wars were rejected in the Monaco team principles meeting, not one principal liked the idea. I liked their reasoning behind it.
Chances of these changes actually materialising before someone argues against them, or they get delayed because something can't be agreed on?
So this basically. What a surprise.
/slow clap
Yep.
Its a shame as in the pile of garbage are a few gems. They have just come up with the wrong way to impliment most of them.
Wider rear tyres. Good idea.
Faster cars. Good idea. But why mess with the ICE? Just give the ERS a 50% or 100% boost and you have 1000bhp over night.
More grip. Good idea. But why screw it with even more complicated front wings and aero? Just remove the restriction of a flat floor to allow ground effect and mandate a 2 element front wing to improve cars abilities to follow.
Free tyre choice. Good idea. But why all 4? Why not just take 2 to each race like now but ditch the 2 compound and qualifying on race tyre rules like everyone has been asking for for years.
The strategy group have succeeded in identifying the problems that need solving, and then catastrophicaly failed at coming up with solutions.
Except for cost cutting that is, they completely missed that one.
Its a shame as in the pile of garbage are a few gems. They have just come up with the wrong way to impliment most of them.
Wider rear tyres. Good idea.
Faster cars. Good idea. But why mess with the ICE? Just give the ERS a 50% or 100% boost and you have 1000bhp over night.
More grip. Good idea. But why screw it with even more complicated front wings and aero? Just remove the restriction of a flat floor to allow ground effect and mandate a 2 element front wing to improve cars abilities to follow.
Free tyre choice. Good idea. But why all 4? Why not just take 2 to each race like now but ditch the 2 compound and qualifying on race tyre rules like everyone has been asking for for years.
The strategy group have succeeded in identifying the problems that need solving, and then catastrophicaly failed at coming up with solutions.
Except for cost cutting that is, they completely missed that one.
Personally also think the grid being done on fastest q2 times is stupid. Personally would prefer them to keep the extra set of tyres for getting into q3 (which was to force people to appear, which is a good idea) but then use that as a pole time - otherwise q3 really becomes stupid.
Maybe Ive got something wrong with that - otherwise what happens if /when (Im surprised if it hasn't already happened) some one gets a better time in Q2 than they did in Q2 and there is aversely affected on their grid slot?
What are you on about? The top 10 grid positions are decided in Q3 not Q2
And the ERS systems that are twice as powerful as the ones in F1 cars that will do the Le Mans 24 Hours in a couple of weeks answers your first point. ERS technology is way ahead of where F1 has regulated itself at.
And the ERS systems that are twice as powerful as the ones in F1 cars that will do the Le Mans 24 Hours in a couple of weeks answers your first point
. ERS technology is way ahead of where F1 has regulated itself at.
Last edited:
Associate
What are you on about? The top 10 grid positions are decided in Q3 not Q2
And the ERS systems that are twice as powerful as the ones in F1 cars that will do the Le Mans 24 Hours in a couple of weeks answers your first point
If that's true, why are some of the teams still struggling to charge their batteries fully?
I'm pretty certain none of the teams would be able to make a 100% increase work effectively without harvesting issues.
Because of the regulation limiting them to only being allowed to harvest 2MJ through the MGUK per lap. They have to make the other 2MJ (they can discharge 4MJ per lap) through harvesting from the MGUH on the turbo, which they are struggling with.
The Porsche LMP1 happily harvests 8MJ per lap through unrestricted harvesting of kinetic and heat energy. The Toyota gets 6MJ (maybe 8 this year, can't remember) through kinetic alone as its an NA engine. Audi pull 4 and they aren't even trying.
The Porsche LMP1 happily harvests 8MJ per lap through unrestricted harvesting of kinetic and heat energy. The Toyota gets 6MJ (maybe 8 this year, can't remember) through kinetic alone as its an NA engine. Audi pull 4 and they aren't even trying.
Last edited: