F1 Refuelling to be banned from 2010

Grim.

from crash.net

The FIA has announced that refuelling in Formula 1 will be banned from next season in a further bid to drive down costs.

Coming on the day that it was confirmed cost-capping will be introduced to the sport, the FIA have taken further steps to reduce budgets by revealing F1 cars will no longer be able to refill during pit-stops.

An attempt to save costs for transporting refuelling equipment and increase the incentive for engine builders to improve fuel economy, the move comes into effect next season and will go a long way to removing question marks about 'fuel weight' before the races.

In addition, tyre blankets and tyre-heating devices will also be banned from next season.

FearDark

I havnt watched F1 in four years because of the FIA continually interfering like this, its just an absolute joke tbh. When will they stop, when they outlaw engines and Hamilton and Button have to go around the track in peddal cars?!

amacachi

If they're going to do that then hopefully there'll be a bigger variation on tyres, eg one set that lasts the race but is 3/4 of a second a lap slower than one that needs to be changed twice during the race.

Also, how exactly will this make a big difference to costs? Unless they're going to regulate the fuel tanks to only be able to half way round the last lap unless they save fuel.

Royale with Cheese

If they want to cut costs they should only allow diesel engines. It's only fair.

colly10

F1 to me isn't worth watching anymore, their messing with the rules constantly and completly ruining the sport imo

Joneser

I have been trying to work out the reasoning behind this for a while now, one of the entertaining parts of f1 are different strategies the teams use, ban on refuelling = ban on strategy imo

Royale with Cheese

How about electric engines? They'd have to restop for more juice every half hour or so.

smooch71

Royale with Cheese wrote: »

How about electric engines? They'd have to restop for more juice every half hour or so.

One of the best things about F1 is the sound the cars make.

Can't imagine them humming past!

ednwireland

Royale with Cheese wrote: »

How about electric engines? They'd have to restop for more juice every half hour or so.

take about a week to complete a race ( just thinking of the tesla sports car with its 16 hour recharge time !)

Grim.

LIGHTNING wrote: »

, somebody using a smaller V6 that is better on juice or as somebody said diesel.

audi to f1 maybe

leeroybrown

Removing refuelling again makes sense in a way. It is an very costly operation and has caused a lot of the pit safety incidents in the sport since it came back. Fuel strategy has largely become a case of computer simulations working out when you should pit and how much fuel you should take resulting in a race where the field is out of sync and drivers spend a lot of the race racing the clock rather than each other.

I find the ban on tyre warmers strange. They're not something that add serious cost to the sport and I wouldn't like to be a driver exiting the pit lane mid race on cold tyres

amacachi

leeroybrown wrote: »

Removing refuelling again makes sense in a way. It is an very costly operation and has caused a lot of the pit safety incidents in the sport since it came back. Fuel strategy has largely become a case of computer simulations working out when you should pit and how much fuel you should take resulting in a race where the field is out of sync and drivers spend a lot of the race racing the clock rather than each other.

I find the ban on tyre warmers strange. They're not something that add serious cost to the sport and I wouldn't like to be a driver exiting the pit lane mid race on cold tyres

I don't see how the cost of refuelling is all that great.

I also find the ban on tyre-warmers a bit weird/stupid. They're going to make allowances for teams who stick to the budget, so why interfere further? Give them more free rein for staying within budget.

leeroybrown

amacachi wrote: »

I don't see how the cost of refuelling is all that great.

In the overall scheme of things it isn't but if you're a small back of the grid team I'd say that the cost associated with providing two of those refuelling rigs at every race is one you wouldn't mind seeing removed.

Cost issues aside, I think so long as an element of pit-stop strategy remains due to tyres we're better off without fuel stops.

amacachi

leeroybrown wrote: »

In the overall scheme of things it isn't but if you're a small back of the grid team I'd say that the cost associated with providing two of those refuelling rigs at every race is one you wouldn't mind seeing removed.

They'll still need them. Except maybe that they can use a cheaper model. Even then it'll mean another update to what they're currently using.

vectra

Fuel companys will now be trying to develop a slower burning fuel for this.

No tyre warmers... No refuelling
Brilliant

PD09

What if they just limited the number of people at each event instead? If you could only bring a limited number of mechanics, say. Or maybe just limit the number of people who could be within 5m of the car during a pit stop. That's save a lot of money on travel, salaries, expenses, etc also mean they couldn't refuel, change tyres and fix bodywork at the same time.

If there was also a race limit to the amount of fuel, just like tyres, it'd mean they drivers would have to turn the mix up and down to use/conserve fuel during the race. The FIA could set the fuel limit to encourage efficiency if that's the goal.

That'd all save money and increase the excitement. Who remembers Nigel having to push his car across the line when he ran out of juice

colly10

Or if all drivers had to get out and push their car for a lap of each race, it would save on fuel and generate an interest, sounds like something the FIA could implement

vectra

colly10 wrote: »

Or if all drivers had to get out and push their car for a lap of each race, it would save on fuel and generate an interest, sounds like something the FIA could implement

LOL
I can just picture Lewis going round syphoning the fuel out of all the other competitors cars after quali and then saying " I didnt do it.. you didnt see me doing it.. you cant prove a thing"

leeroybrown

amacachi wrote: »

They'll still need them. Except maybe that they can use a cheaper model. Even then it'll mean another update to what they're currently using.

My understanding is that the existing closed-system fuel rigs are provided to the teams and will no longer be needed so the cost of shipping them around the world and looking after them will pretty much disappear.

Another major upshot of removing re-fuelling is that it should mean a return to genuine single lap pace based qualifying. Hurrah!

amacachi

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Each F1 team uses an average 200,000 litres of fuel a season, so that would be 2,000,000 litres of fuel a season for the entire grid. So cutting down on this would probably save money alright. Not to mention no need for expensive fuel rigs and all the supplemental gear to do with refuelling.

But do the teams not already own those fuel rigs? And how are they going to fill up over the weekend?
Also the FIA are lifting the ban on testing for teams who stick to the budget cap, how will that reduce the amount of fuel used in a season?
Also I'm assuming those figures are for last year as I can't see how the teams would get through half of that figure at race weekends alone.

As for the people saying they are sick of all the rule changes and its the reason why the dont watch it i have the following to say:


FORMULA 1 HAS ALWAYS BEEN LIKE THIS AND ALWAYS WILL BE

Rule changes made things tricky for teams ever since the formula 1 restarted in the 50`s. If you dont like it then dont watch it and dont complain about it.

So we're not allowed to say whether we agree or disagree with certain rules coming in? Maybe you should suggest that as a new rule to the moderators?:rolleyes:

amacachi

leeroybrown wrote: »

My understanding is that the existing closed-system fuel rigs are provided to the teams and will no longer be needed so the cost of shipping them around the world and looking after them will pretty much disappear.

Yeah but that's gotta be a pretty damn small cost in the scheme of things. If they're bringing in the budget caps surely it would make more sense to allow teams to spend the money as they wish.

leeroybrown

amacachi wrote: »

But do the teams not already own those fuel rigs? And how are they going to fill up over the weekend?

At a lot of other high-end formulas you'll see mechanics manually/electrically pumping fuel out of drums. All you need is a small unit that pumps fuel in a controlled fashion in the pit garage. I wouldn't be surprised if the teams weren't already dispensing fuel in a low-tech manner outside the main race. The fuel rigs they use at F1 races are huge heavy items because they need to dispense fuel at a very high controlled rate so as not to affect the race badly and they need to be closed-system pumps (an equivalent volume of air is pumped back from the tank simultaneously) for safety reasons during the race.

amacachi wrote: »

Yeah but that's gotta be a pretty damn small cost in the scheme of things. If they're bringing in the budget caps surely it would make more sense to allow teams to spend the money as they wish.

The savings should cover the costs of a good engineer/mechanic at each F1 team over the year. Between that and all the other aspects of it I think it's a good move. This is my last post on the issue of the cost of re-fuelling as we could go back and forth until oblivion...

amacachi

leeroybrown wrote: »

The savings should cover the costs of a good engineer/mechanic at each F1 team over the year. Between that and all the other aspects of it I think it's a good move. This is my last post on the issue of the cost of re-fuelling as we could go back and forth until oblivion...

I'm just saying it's daft to not allow teams to make their own decisions when their budgets will be limited anyway.

LIGHTNING wrote: »

I dont mind people discussing new rule changes but it seems every thread somebody posts whining about how rule changes are ruining the sport. As if rules changes is something that has only happened over the last year or two. I will be the first person to argue about a rule change :-) Ah maybe I am just a little cranky today.

If you look around you'll see I'm indifferent to some rules, supportive of some and disapprove of others.
I'm not trying to bait you btw, but I really would like to see a source on the amount of fuel used every year, I can't see how they're going through that much.

amacachi

LIGHTNING wrote: »

No problem here is the link, from the horses mouth as they say!

http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/understanding_the_sport/5288.html

I remember reading that a while back, doubt the figure has been changed. That has to refer to the pre-testing-ban seasons.

EvilMonkey

Dose the fia not own and supply the fuel rigs to the teams so if it saves anyone money its the fia.
Presumably they will still need the same amount of fuel, even allowing for better fuel efficiency it wont reduce it that much.
Not sure if this is a good idea we will see next year.
In 05 they decided fuel strategy was impotent and banned tyre changes, in 2010 they have decided that tyre strategy is important and banned refuelling
I'm wondering if the first time someone with cold tyres comes out of the pit and crashes into a another car at turn 1 this tyre warmer ban will be scraped.

vectra

EvilMonkey wrote: »

I'm wondering if the first time someone with cold tyres comes out of the pit and crashes into a another car at turn 1 this tyre warmer ban will be scraped.

Wasnt it Montoya that could come out of the pits on cold tyres in ( Indi?) and put in a blinder of a lap ?

I reckon these two rules are good
No tyre warmers and no refuelling

amacachi

vectra wrote: »

Wasnt it Montoya that could come out of the pits on cold tyres in ( Indi?) and put in a blinder of a lap ?

I reckon these two rules are good
No tyre warmers and no refuelling

Bourdais was unbelievable at it in Champ Car, often over a second faster than anyone else's outlap.

2011

I think banning fuel stops would be great. Too many races have been decided because of one car passing another due to a car being in the pits. I think passing on the track is much more exciting to watch.

IMHO F1 should be more about driver ability than pit stop strategy.

More passing out = more exciting race.

A ban on tyre warmers means the drivers have to use their skill and judgement more than before when their tyres are cold. It is a bit like when it rains, the advantage of having a better car is reduced. Again it bings the focus back to driver skill.

The days of only 1 or 2 teams having a chance at the podium are slowly ending. This can only be a good thing for the sport.

Slutmonkey57b

Surely banning tyre warmers goes against the focus on increasing mechanical grip and therefore overtaking? Teams will just increase their aero focus again to compensate for having to run on cold tyres - cold tyres may be "interesting" in lower formulas but in F1 I can only see it being a danger.

Grim.

well the tyres will be at operating temperature within one or two laps so the only place it will factor is the start and outlaps from the pits

amacachi

2011 wrote: »

I think banning fuel stops would be great. Too many races have been decided because of one car passing another due to a car being in the pits. I think passing on the track is much more exciting to watch.

Pitstops probably cause more on-track overtaking than they prevent. With no pitstops once the field gets in order there'll be little chance of overtaking without rain.

2011

Pitstops probably cause more on-track overtaking than they prevent. With no pitstops once the field gets in order there'll be little chance of overtaking without rain.

I dont agree.

I have seen lots of F1 races where the faster car in 2nd place waits fro the slower car in 1st place to pit so that he can get a few fast laps it. This is very boring to watch compared to a stiuation where neither need to pit.

F1 needs more action on the track and less of it.

jhegarty

With no fuel stops the winner of the Monaco gp will be decided on Saturday at qualifying.

leeroybrown

jhegarty wrote: »

With no fuel stops the winner of the Monaco gp will be decided on Saturday at qualifying.

Alternatively, it could mean that with two different tyre compounds, KERS and varying degrees of tyre wear that the teams/drivers may end up having to resort to out-breaking and other more traditional overtaking skills rather than fuel strategy. Even if it doesn't it'll be no worse.

vectra

jhegarty wrote: »

With no fuel stops the winner of the Monaco gp will be decided on Saturday at qualifying.

Not really
Picture the guy getting pole
Most cars very well matched
Polesitter had to run slightly lighter to get pole therefore must conserve his fuel whil the heavier fuelled car can gun it and make a pass

2011

With no fuel stops the winner of the Monaco gp will be decided on Saturday at qualifying.

Please explain, I cant see this.

Not really
Picture the guy getting pole
Most cars very well matched
Polesitter had to run slightly lighter to get pole therefore must conserve his fuel whil the heavier fuelled car can gun it and make a pass

+1

Slutmonkey57b

amacachi wrote: »

Pitstops probably cause more on-track overtaking than they prevent. With no pitstops once the field gets in order there'll be little chance of overtaking without rain.

2011 wrote: »

I dont agree.

I have seen lots of F1 races where the faster car in 2nd place waits fro the slower car in 1st place to pit so that he can get a few fast laps it. This is very boring to watch compared to a stiuation where neither need to pit.

F1 needs more action on the track and less of it.

They're still going to need to pit for tyres. Banning refuelling isn't going to ban pitstops, and teams will still pit tactically to get out of traffic etc. If anything, the fact that pitstops will now take less time (no waiting for fuel) will increase the use of them in tactical situations.

robinph

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

They're still going to need to pit for tyres. Banning refuelling isn't going to ban pitstops, and teams will still pit tactically to get out of traffic etc. If anything, the fact that pitstops will now take less time (no waiting for fuel) will increase the use of them in tactical situations.

...and it brings back in the skill of the pit crew doing a super fast tyre change. OK, at the moment it is still possible for them to balls up the change, but the time in the pits is basically down to the fuel strategy and if they get the rig on and off properly. How quick they could actually change the wheels had become irrelevant again.

Donnelly117

economical driving in F1. now ive seen it all

amacachi

Donnelly117 wrote: »

economical driving in F1. now ive seen it all

How old are you? Plenty of drivers ran out of fuel in the 80s due to non-economical driving.

Slutmonkey57b

robinph wrote: »

...and it brings back in the skill of the pit crew doing a super fast tyre change. OK, at the moment it is still possible for them to balls up the change, but the time in the pits is basically down to the fuel strategy and if they get the rig on and off properly. How quick they could actually change the wheels had become irrelevant again.

It's also become irrelevant because pit crews are so well drilled nowadays compared to 15 years ago or so. The days of confused mechanics trying to put wheels on backwards or losing their grip on the wrench, as ferrari we known to do, are long gone. The difference in tyre speed between the teams at the back and the front of the grid is little to nothing, certainly when compared to the lead in/out times.

Kinetic^

The constant rules changes are a joke tbh. They need the put in a set period for the rules to run, say 5 years and then review it towards the end of that period.

vectra

Donnelly117 wrote: »

economical driving in F1. now ive seen it all

Thats the way it was before and led to excellent races.. See some of them running out of fuel for driving too hard

amacachi

vectra wrote: »

Thats the way it was before and led to excellent races.. See some of them running out of fuel for driving too hard

Thought you preferred to see all-out driving from all drivers at all times?;):P

2011

I think all pits stops should cease unless the car develops a mechanical problem during the race or the weater cahanges dramatically. Cars should be fuelled until the end of the race, tyres should last race distance and the race should be about racing, passing out and action. Not about how quickly a tyre can be changed, or how you can avoid passing someone on the track because they have to pit.

EvilMonkey

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Its the drivers responsibility to get his tyres up to temp, if he stuffs it into the tyre wall at turn 1 because of cold tyres its tough luck.

I take your point, it will be interesting to see how F1 drivers (supposedly the best) do on cold tyres. I guess the teams will have to go back to leaving tyres out in the sun to get the temp up.

robinph wrote: »

...and it brings back in the skill of the pit crew doing a super fast tyre change. OK, at the moment it is still possible for them to balls up the change, but the time in the pits is basically down to the fuel strategy and if they get the rig on and off properly. How quick they could actually change the wheels had become irrelevant again.

I hope this is true pitstops will now take around 6 seconds + time in pitlane meaning any mistake/slow change will be very costly.

Donnelly117 wrote: »

economical driving in F1. now ive seen it all

What about conserving tyres, turning the engine revs down toward the end of a race, making engines/gearboxes last multiple events would this not be considered economical driving?

amacachi wrote: »

How old are you? Plenty of drivers ran out of fuel in the 80s due to non-economical driving.

I dont think it will happen now they will use electronics to make sure they dont run out just like in motogp.

Kinetic^ wrote: »

The constant rules changes are a joke tbh. They need the put in a set period for the rules to run, say 5 years and then review it towards the end of that period.

This is my problem they keep changing too often or dont fully realise the consequences of the changes and make things worse so they change again, but i do think they urgently needed to make some changes to get the costs down now. Hopefully after whatever is decided foe 2010 the will leave it settle for a few years or only make minor changes.

vectra

amacachi wrote: »

Thought you preferred to see all-out driving from all drivers at all times?;):P

Oh yes..
as hard as they can "Possibly" drive

Slutmonkey57b

That might be feasible for karts but an F1 car simply isn't set up that way. these things live on the edge of performance all the time, which is why budgets got so big in the first place. Standard mechanical parts like tyres simply can't stand up to the demands that an F1 car places on them - the science hasn't advanced enough. Drivers running on knackered tires for over half the race distance is going to take the edge OFF performance since they can't take the chances with braking distances that they can on fresh tyres.

As the medium tyre in the bahrain GP showed, bad tyres does not make for better racing. It just shows that the moden F1 car it massively sensitive to the smallest change in performance, and that just because the car in front is 35% slower, doesn't mean you can get past.

Slutmonkey57b

EvilMonkey wrote: »

I take your point, it will be interesting to see how F1 drivers (supposedly the best) do on cold tyres. I guess the teams will have to go back to leaving tyres out in the sun to get the temp up.

Meaningless comparison. An f1 car simply does not behave like a Formula 3000 car, or an A1GP car, or a kart. It has a lot more in common with "unstable airframe" fighter jets - the things are constantly just about over the edge of tearing apart. Comparisons with how it was done in the 80's before carbon ceramic brakes etc are meaningless. F1 tyres don't just work "better" when they're hotter - they're designed so they don't work at all when they're cold. It's like saying the driver should start the car himself. You can't start an F1 engine without a whole heap of computers and machinery. When not running, they are frozen solid. The whole car, nose to tail is designed to only work properly under race conditions. They don't work unless they're searingly hot, stressed out, and doing hundreds of kilometres an hour.

EvilMonkey

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Meaningless comparison. An f1 car simply does not behave like a Formula 3000 car, or an A1GP car, or a kart. It has a lot more in common with "unstable airframe" fighter jets - the things are constantly just about over the edge of tearing apart. Comparisons with how it was done in the 80's before carbon ceramic brakes etc are meaningless. F1 tyres don't just work "better" when they're hotter - they're designed so they don't work at all when they're cold. It's like saying the driver should start the car himself. You can't start an F1 engine without a whole heap of computers and machinery. When not running, they are frozen solid. The whole car, nose to tail is designed to only work properly under race conditions. They don't work unless they're searingly hot, stressed out, and doing hundreds of kilometres an hour.

Like i said I'm not sure if its a good change but guess what assuming the fia dont flip flop on this decision the teams drivers will have to make them work! Its just another technical problem for the teams and bridgestone to solve.
I agree with you 100% a F1 car is only happy running at the limit but i dont agree that its completely different to any other series.

Slutmonkey57b

Hamilton commented after one race that he'd considered an overtaking manoevre that he'd done before on one part of the same circuit. In his words "It worked in an F3 car, but I'm not sure you could do it in an F1 car". Hamilton is not a driver that lacks balls to try this sort of stuff out, and his conclusion was that the car itself would punish you, and punish you horribly, for doing something it didn't like. There is simply no margin for error, no margin for mechanical imbalance, and no margin for things being a little bit off. If your car is off by a tiny margin, you are going backwards almost instantly.

I think race-length tyres is never going to do what people seem to think. It's certainly not going to make for more competitive racing - the cars just don't work that way. F1 is a series that exists solely to push the envelope - in lower series the pressure simply isn't there to lose 10 grams of weight here, or 1 thousandth of a second there, or 50grams of downforce there. In something like touring cars, changes in tyre wear, or damage to body panels isn't a race-ending problem. In F1, the tiniest deviation from perfect means your car, and your race, is over.