Neubauer and Uhlenhaut would take exception. Not to mention a couple of guys from Modena. Strategy has always been a part of F1. Limiting options is just as arbitrary and gimmicky as mandating them is.
I repeat my post #39: "P.Hill, Graham Hill, Jim Clark, John Surtees, Jack Brabham, Denny Hulme, Jochen Rindt, Emmerson Fittipaldi, Jackie Stewart, Niki Lauda, Jody Schekter, those are the world champions I can remember who won before refuelling started. There may be more, but I cannot recall them all. Maybe Piquet, Rosberg and Jones won without refuelling too; I can't remember. Do you think there was no worthwhile racing before refuelling was allowed?" If there was any strategy, it was the driver who was making decisions, such as saving his engine (reliability was an issue in the past), or pacing himself, but races were races. As I said, all the above mentioned drivers were world champions in an era where refuelling and tyre changes were unknown. In 1961, GPs lasted almost 3 hours! Now they are less than 2 hours (often 90 minutes); distances have been reduced too, and average speed greatly increased. With fuel efficiency, the cars use less than 100L, and some would like you to believe that refuelling is necessary. No way! If they come back, it's just to artificially spice up the races for public consumption. Refuelling and tyre changes are part and parcel of Indy and Le mans, but this is not Indy or Le Mans; it's just a sprint race.
During the Silver Arrows era, the GP cars used a volatile fuel mixture made alcohol, blended with acetone, a bit of benzine and oil mixted. They were consumming fuel at at alarming rate, so the cars couldn't possibly do a whole GP (up to 5 hours in those days) on a tankful. Of course refuelling was necessary, just like tyre changes. The tyres were narrow (4 inches) , with a canvas carcasse, and had to deal with 500hp and enormous torque. So yes, tyre changes were also necessary. Certainly Neubauer devised some tactics with his drivers, although he certainly wasn't able to monitor the cars like they do now. As for the guys from Modene, well, it was Enzo Ferrari who observed that the post-war supercharged 1.5L Alfetta was spending so much time in the pits refuelling, that maybe opting for a 4.5L atmospheric sport car engine would allow his cars to do a whole GP without refuelling. He was right !
My only question is whether the race distance can be completed quicker with or without fuel stops and tire changes? If the answer is yes, then it's not a gimmick but a legitimate way to cover the race distance in a shorter time. Mark
It's not certain that it would quicker with fuel stops. You have to take into account the time spent decelarating the car, refuellin and accelerating again to rejoin the race. That depends from the length of the pit lane, the speed of the crew and the flow rate allowed. Have I heard from commentators that a pit stop costs on average 25 secondes? That is if everything is OK. No hick ups, no spillage, the hose connecting perfectly, no trafic jam in the pits, etc... A car would have to gain a lot of weight advantage to make up for the time lost in refuelling. Aren't we told that 10kg equals 1/10 sec. per lap? Would a lighter car be able to lap 1 or 2 secondes per lap quicker if it ran with never more than half of its fuel allocation?
Refuelling has never been, and neither will be mandatory, I believe. So if they do it, it is faster. Especially if they do it while changing tyres. A full tank must be at least 1 second slower than an half full one. Multiply that for at least 30 laps to halfway race and you have more time than a complete pit stop just dedicated to refuel.
William, William, William, are you even listening? There's been great racing in eras with refueling, without refueling, with tire changes and without tire changes. Was Nuvolari or Varzi or Carraciola or Rosemeyer or, or , or a lesser driver because he raced in a era with pit stops? Were the epic battles of the twenties, thirties, forties or fifties less gripping? What is it that you find anathema about even offering the option? If it's not faster no teams will opt for them and the question will be moot. If they make for faster racing what's wrong with that?
I don't much care about quicker - I care about action on the track. I want to see the return of genuine overtaking, with drivers having to work out how to pass a slower car ON THE TRACK. The whole problem with the recent refueling era in F1 was that drivers and teams would leave the strategy for the pit stops - planning their overtaking in the pits. While I appreciate the strategic aspect of the racing, I hated watching drivers follow in procession while waiting for their pit stop window. I want the Strategy Group to figure out how to reduce the aero dependency to allow genuine overtaking on track. I actually don't mind DRS, because it has allowed a faster car to actually overtake. Wider tires and wider cars? GREAT, they look better. Mandatory template simple front wings and rear wings? Great, the teams would get the billboards they want and eliminate 30% of their wind tunnel time wasted on playing with miniscule wing variations. Allow downforce tunnels (standard profile) to generate some underbody aerodynamics to replace the lost surface downforce, which would allow cars to follow each other more closely? GREAT. I really don't like the idea of reintroducing refuelling - it will just lead to pitstop games and drivers not trying to overtake. I want the drivers to have to DRIVE, and to have to pass on track to gain a position. Can you imagine if the FIA banned tire changes, and let Pirelli or Michelin make tires that were grippy and didn't instantly degrade if driven on the limit for 2 laps? How about tires that could be driven on the limit without overheating for the entire race? No tire limits, no cruising to preserve tires, and if a driver wants to gain a position, he has to overtake on the track? Basically, overtaking on track was drastically reduced during the last refuelling era - http://cliptheapex.com/overtaking/ has compiled the numbers. Pre-1985, races averaged 40 overtakes per race; from 1985 to 1994, that gradually reduced to an average of 20 overtakes per race. From 1994 through 2009, there were only typically around 15 overtaking moves on track during an entire race - which is, seriously, nonsense. From 2011 through now, the average is back up to 55 overtakes per race in 2011 and 12, still around 40 this season. Frankly, 15 overtaking moves on track for an entire F1 race is boring. Despite Max Mosley's regular contentions, I don't want to see a chess match played out in the pits - I want to see Hamilton and Rosberg trying to outbrake each other at the end of the Monza straight for position, and more and more. Move the action to the track, let's not go back to strategic processions.
Allowing teams to push as much fuel through the car as possible allows for re-fueling. Having a 1.6 ecotech turbo limited 12k rpm's is down right boring. The sport needs excitement again not a mechanical engineering 101 class
Just to clarify for you William, all those drivers you have listed had to option to refuel during races. From the get-go F1 teams refuelled cars. For the 60's teams decided they were faster if they didn't stop so they didn't - but they always had the option. In the early 80's, I think it was the Brabham team that decided they could be faster by using the option to refuel. The artificial/gimmick rule preventing refueling was introduced in the mid 80's. As an aside, I believe a lot of deaths were contributed to in those early years because teams decided not to refuel their cars during the race.
Do you think there were no entertaining races then? Brabham (Gordon Murray) brought refuelling by exploiting a loophole in the rules. Refuelling had happened at the end of a race when someone had to top up if he was running out of fuel. Murray interpreted that as the right to start a race with half-full tank, and stop to refuel for the second part of the race. It was a pity, in my opinion, that the authorities did allow that to the point that every team had to adopt it, negating Brabham's advantage.
I really don't think the quantity of fuel made much difference in several deaths caused by cars burning. If a car carry 100L, instead of 160L, there is still enough fuel to feed a violent fire. Even fuel vapors left in the tank were enough. Other factors caused deaths: the chassis design themselves, the use of magnesium, etc... The introduction of self-seal fuel tanks was really the turning point in term of safety.
Again, to clarify, teams were always allowed to refuel. From the very first f1 race, and the grand prix races beforehand refueling was the norm. And it was not as you are trying to represent only as a splash and dash to the finish. The right to refuel was an intrinsic part of f1 until the mid 80s.
Whilst all the additional fuel cars had to carry absolutely did increase the danger, that was miniscule in impact compared to "where" all this additional fuel was stored. To fit enough fuel on board the driver was basically encased in a fuel coffin, fuel was stored right beside the driver for his body length.
very true. Piquet was the first one who's team - Gordon Murray - figured out that it was faster to start on 1/2 tanks - come in and re fuel - it was their decision they were not fored to do it. but like all innovations - when it works everyone else will copy it. so mandatory re fuling - is a gimmic, but to open it - if the team wants to or not makes it up to the driver and team strategy. its an option. if it makes sense they will all do it, if its too slow - they will not. same for tires. it gives the drivers options, on how they drive. some are better on hard or Soft... etc.. Personally I dont care so much for passing etc... a good battle is a good battle even if its done in the pits - the strategy and who can change on a whim is what wins the WDC ... and its always been that way. AKA - Fangio taking over a team mates car - to win the championship - and the team mate was also in the running!
Yes very true. when the limted the distance of the GP's in 1960 with the 1.5 L cars, the need to re fuel was not really there. from 1950 - 1983 you could re fuel, re oil, re water and repair the cars in the pit lane. in 1980 - 83 the rules for pit "safety" were modified - so any repairs had to be carried out in the garage and not in pit lane. re fuling was banned for 85 when they started to introduce the stricter fule usages... which directly contributed to electronic fuel injection we have today... that was when F-1 was throwing off real world advances every month. most of the fires that killed drives - Bandini and Courage come to mind as the most famous - would have still happend even with re fuling. F-1 is v. dangerous. what has changed is the safety response teams and the amount of resources they now have - which is FANTASTIC. In Bandini's case - the fire was so bad and being fed by fuel and hay bales ... you rarely see that today - but it can happen.
Not to forget Roger Williamson, Jo Schlesser or Jo Siffert. In the case of Jo Schlesser, his car had a magnesium chassis!! The poor guy didn't stand a chance ... Most of people survive big accident these days thanks to quick intervention as you mention, but mostly because the fire risk has been reduced thanks to the introduction of safety fuel cells and fuel lines. The fuel lines come from aircraft technology, and the fuel cells were brought in by Autodelta and made mandatory by the FIA in most forms of racing.
when i was a senior in High school - our Drivers Ed teacher was a family friend - he asked me in front of the class - what a racing drivers biggest fear was - I said - fire. today I'd say high G deceleration and or impact... then Fire. it can always happen but with the self healing tanks and rupture resistant Carbon chassis etc... as well as self healing fuel lines fire is a relative risk - even with re fuling
I think refuelling increases the risk of fires, as demonstrated by the numerous incidents, in F1, Indy, endurance, etc.... The only saving grace is that fire happens in the pits where there is immediate assistance to put it out But there have been real dramas, with cars catching fire, rigs crashing to the ground, pit crew badly burned or fuel hoses not releasing, etc... The fact that refuelling is done against the clock, pushes crews to rush it which increases the risk of accidents. Just like tyre changes are rushed and there are incidents like drivers missing their pits, cars hitting pit crews, wheel retaining nuts not being properly done, wheels coming off, cars not released safely, crashes in the pit lane, etc... If pit stops have to exist, I think they should be neutralised and all competitive aspect taken away, so that the crews can work in safety without pressure, and check their work. For example 30 secs from pit entry to pit exit (with a 40 miles speed limit), with the car stationary for minimum time of, say 15secs. All this depending from the track and the length of the pit lane, obviously.
