Refuelling to return in 2017

Post by **Londoner** » 15 May 2015, 12:27

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/32751118. Yes, it's a Benson article, but it seems legit to me. I'm more interested in the proposed new tyre compound rules for 2016, that gives more freedom to the teams.

Wallio · Post by **Wallio** » 15 May 2015, 13:09

NBC is reporting it too. I've been calling for this since well, 2009. Pit stops will mean something now, and drivers can push harder (but with the 1980s style maximum fuel allotment they can push too hard). I like it.

Plus higher revs? Free choice of compounds? Is this 1994? I love it. The FIA woke up a bit I think.

Stinks they didn't approve the 5th engine though. Poor Riccardo is finished now.

Post by **Bobby Doorknobs** » 15 May 2015, 13:57

And it's on Autosport now: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/118991

tBone · Post by **tBone** » 15 May 2015, 14:27

These may be the plans F1 needs. The total fuel limit, as well as the hybrid techonology is kept, as it should be in my opinion. This shows F1's relevance for the road car industry and it's the reason Honda and Mercedes are current suppliers.

Just one thing that doesn't seem clear to me: the BBC article states that higher revs will be permitted, but at the same time, engine regulations remain stable. I suppose some adjustments to the engines will be necessary to provide a usable power output curve for these higher revs, or am I missing something here?

Aguaman · Post by **Aguaman** » 15 May 2015, 14:34

It should be interesting as well as teams picking the two compounds. We can see some exciting stuff both in the pits strategy wise and on the track.

F1000X · Post by **F1000X** » 15 May 2015, 14:59

tBone wrote:These may be the plans F1 needs. The total fuel limit, as well as the hybrid techonology is kept, as it should be in my opinion. This shows F1's relevance for the road car industry and it's the reason Honda and Mercedes are current suppliers.

Just one thing that doesn't seem clear to me: the BBC article states that higher revs will be permitted, but at the same time, engine regulations remain stable. I suppose some adjustments to the engines will be necessary to provide a usable power output curve for these higher revs, or am I missing something here?

I think the fuel flow limit will be a preventing factor, but if that is removed and maximum fuel allotment is still in place both goals can be accomplished.

Post by **tommykl** » 15 May 2015, 15:09

More noise, more "aggressive-looking" cars, refueling...

Are they trying to bring back the absolute crown jewel of F1, the glory years of 2005?

Because that was such a good era in Formula One with brilliant on-track action week-in-week-out and never a single complaint about the regulations due to the awesome quality of the racing.

Salamander · Post by **Salamander** » 15 May 2015, 15:51

tommykl wrote:More noise, more "aggressive-looking" cars, refueling...

Are they trying to bring back the absolute crown jewel of F1, the glory years of 2005?

Because that was such a good era in Formula One with brilliant on-track action week-in-week-out and never a single complaint about the regulations due to the awesome quality of the racing.

I think the only thing they'd be missing there would be no tyre stops. Yayyyyyyy.

DanielPT · Post by **DanielPT** » 15 May 2015, 16:19

Salamander wrote:
tommykl wrote:More noise, more "aggressive-looking" cars, refueling...

Are they trying to bring back the absolute crown jewel of F1, the glory years of 2005?

Because that was such a good era in Formula One with brilliant on-track action week-in-week-out and never a single complaint about the regulations due to the awesome quality of the racing.

I think the only thing they'd be missing there would be no tyre stops. Yayyyyyyy.

They might be trying to seduce those young 70 year old fans who started to watch back then and believe F1 golden era is 05.

Post by **mario** » 15 May 2015, 17:24

Wallio wrote:NBC is reporting it too. I've been calling for this since well, 2009. Pit stops will mean something now, and drivers can push harder (but with the 1980s style maximum fuel allotment they can push too hard). I like it.

Plus higher revs? Free choice of compounds? Is this 1994? I love it. The FIA woke up a bit I think.

Stinks they didn't approve the 5th engine though. Poor Riccardo is finished now.

Horner had already admitted that Ricciardo would be taking multiple engine penalties even with a fifth engine, so his season was already finished.

DanielPT wrote:
Salamander wrote:
tommykl wrote:More noise, more "aggressive-looking" cars, refueling...

Are they trying to bring back the absolute crown jewel of F1, the glory years of 2005?

Because that was such a good era in Formula One with brilliant on-track action week-in-week-out and never a single complaint about the regulations due to the awesome quality of the racing.

I think the only thing they'd be missing there would be no tyre stops. Yayyyyyyy.

They might be trying to seduce those young 70 year old fans who started to watch back then and believe F1 golden era is 05.

It certainly seems to have had the majority of those on sites like F1fanatic frenetically yapping their enthusiasm for those rules...

AndreaModa · Post by **AndreaModa** » 15 May 2015, 17:47

This is 100% not what F1 needs. Let us cast our minds back to the end of 2009. Why was refuelling dumped? Because it cost a hell of a lot to transport it all around and employ additional people to operate and look after it. No-one wanted it in 1993 when it was announced and I'll bet none of the independent teams want it now either.

It is completely ludicrous that these sort of proposals are being seriously considered when there are teams currently on the grid barely able to manage now. How on earth are they expected to pay for it?

It's just another ploy from the top teams to edge out the smaller guys and increase their power and their prize money, dressed up as "improving the show". Cost reduction wasn't even discussed in the meeting. Jean Todt should hang his head in shame.

With all that said, I like the sound of freeing up the restrictions on tyre choice. I hope it doesn't end up costing more though.

Post by **mario** » 15 May 2015, 18:32

AndreaModa wrote:This is 100% not what F1 needs. Let us cast our minds back to the end of 2009. Why was refuelling dumped? Because it cost a hell of a lot to transport it all around and employ additional people to operate and look after it. No-one wanted it in 1993 when it was announced and I'll bet none of the independent teams want it now either.

It is completely ludicrous that these sort of proposals are being seriously considered when there are teams currently on the grid barely able to manage now. How on earth are they expected to pay for it?

It's just another ploy from the top teams to edge out the smaller guys and increase their power and their prize money, dressed up as "improving the show". Cost reduction wasn't even discussed in the meeting. Jean Todt should hang his head in shame.

With all that said, I like the sound of freeing up the restrictions on tyre choice. I hope it doesn't end up costing more though.

The thing is, the only reference in that direction was a decided sting in the tail for the midfield teams - because that step is a feasibility study for the reintroduction of customer cars. According to Adam Cooper, it appears that Ron Dennis has been rather aggressively lobbying the F1 Strategy Group for the introduction of third cars and customer car programs - potentially in part because the additional mileage would hugely benefit Honda.
http://adamcooperf1.com/2015/05/15/f1-c ... -collapse/

As can be imagined, Force India have reacted very angrily to the suggestion, complaining that the big teams shut down all discussions on cost cutting and simply steamrollered through the idea of customer cars. http://adamcooperf1.com/2015/05/15/forc ... omer-cars/

WeirdKerr · Post by **WeirdKerr** » 15 May 2015, 19:15

Bernard Charles Eccelstone ... Pleasing none of the people none of the time since whenever.... Meh....

Barbazza · Post by **Barbazza** » 15 May 2015, 20:00

I'm confused - first I read a story on the BBC website about the fact that the F1 drivers are getting behind a survey which will be held over the Monaco GP weekend to ask fans what they want future F1 to be like. Not a bad idea, I think - I remember them doing something similar a few years back.

Next time I check in on the same website, we are being told what is going to happen. So filling that survey in is going to be extremely worthwhile then, isn't it?

We don't need refuelling back. It's a dangerous, expensive exercise that adds nothing to the spectacle.
Being able to choose the tyres from all available compounds is OK I guess. The other stuff I don't have a problem with either. None of these solve the core problems of a) cost and b) racing at decent circuits that people give a shite about.

dinizintheoven · Post by **dinizintheoven** » 15 May 2015, 21:40

"So, dad, refuelling in the race. What's it like?"

"Well, son... it's a bit like... an Amon Amarth album cover I didn't want to be part of..."

Backmarker · Post by **Backmarker** » 15 May 2015, 23:14

The only thing to look forward to with refuelling is watching Ferrari manage to cock it up every week.

Spectoremg · Post by **Spectoremg** » 16 May 2015, 03:58

Bernie should run for the British Conservative Party leadership, they like people who stumble from one stupid idea to the next which benefit the rich.

AdrianBelmonte_ · Post by **AdrianBelmonte_** » 16 May 2015, 08:03

dinizintheoven wrote:"So, dad, refuelling in the race. What's it like?"

"Well, son... it's a bit like... an Amon Amarth album cover I didn't want to be part of..."

This was exactly what I was waiting for...

Collieafc · Post by **Collieafc** » 16 May 2015, 09:46

These changes are all well and good but with F1 increasingly moving its viewing behind closed doors pay per view esque models (ie Sky) it wont be able to do much about falling viewership or gaining new long term fandom.

Although I do agree with some of the changes (The free tyre choice grabbed my attention) it does feel bit bit like a knee-jerk - as if they have just come from 4 years one one driver and team utterly dominating and all its negative effects, and with what looks like the start of another driver and team dominating for possibly years, they dont want this all over again so they are trying to revert to the start of the last era which featured 2 teams fighting it out - 2005-2006

dr-baker · Post by **dr-baker** » 16 May 2015, 10:47

So, if we get customer cars, will the customers get to mix-and-match chassis and engines? Because, while I think a Sauber-Mercedes combo could be an interesting retro mix, someone could then try running a Ferrari-Renault! :lol:

RAK · Post by **RAK** » 16 May 2015, 13:24

*facepalm*

I disliked watching refuelling and I wasn't much of a fan of the races where it was key. The refuelling process itself was usually boring as hell, except on the few occasions where it went wrong; when the most interesting part of the process is when things are cocked up, it doesn't say much for its entertainment value. With tyre-only stops being in the order of three seconds, it can be very interesting to see how much of a margin the pit stop mechanics can get out of the stop on occasions where things don't go wrong.

The races in the refuelling days weren't all that good either. Instead of trying to overtake cars on track, there was too much reliance - more than currently - on trying to rely on pit strategy to get ahead of other cars, which when the pitstops were, as mentioned above, boring unless something went wrong, didn't create much in the way of excitement in the races themselves. There's a reason why the number of overtakes per race shot up in 2010, even with the rock-hard Bridgestone tyres.

AndreaModa · Post by **AndreaModa** » 16 May 2015, 14:28

What no-one seems to be able to grasp is that at no one time in F1's history have the races ever been consistently close, unpredictable and action packed weekend after weekend.

Throughout all of the different regulations and technical innovations nothing has served up the sort of action you'd take for granted in the 3rd race of a BTCC weekend.

So to continue searching for that is futile in my mind. And I think the teams know that. The strategy group teams are serving their own interests whether the fans like it or not. They'll throw a few consolationary changes our way to keep us happy, and push through what they want (expensive chassis revisions, etc) which will ultimately lead to customer cars, more control over results and a bigger slice of the prize money pie.

Post by **Ataxia** » 16 May 2015, 15:32

The only real way to make the teams fight on a level playing field whilst allowing cars to run a few seconds faster is to standardise more components such as perhaps gearboxes, remove some of the engine running characteristics (such as fuel flow rate) and force through a $50m budget cap, which would be monitored through independent audits.

Tyres will always be an issue; if you make tyres that degrade at a silly rate, then people will complain that the sport is bringing in artificial measures. If you make tyres that degrade a bit and generally follow a development path that intends to allow drivers to push on them 100% of the time, teams will simply find ways to try and stretch them out by a few laps in order to cut out a pitstop; that's natural. How do you influence the way the tyres are used in order to ensure that drivers continue to push? Set a minimum number of pitstops? Create tyres that have micron-thick layers of variable grip rubber (so you have amazing grip for a couple of laps, before hitting a less adhesive layer a few laps later)?

With regards to the aerodynamics, I'm a bit worried that widening the car will increase the effect of unconditioned turbulence behind each car, making it more of a disadvantage to follow 1-2 seconds behind the car in front. Furthermore, the amount of turbulence that larger rear wheels will create will increase, and would certainly produce a negative affect on the front wing balance of the car behind.

Finally, just to bring things back in line with the thread title, I'm not overly enthused about the prospect of refuelling the cars in the pit; I think it brings unnecessary risk to the pitstop. Okay, it reduces the overall rush to get tyres on the car and so we'll see fewer cars pull over with incorrectly tightened wheels, but we know the issues refuelling can bring (I think Kovalainen, Massa and Albers do too...and Max has probably seen the video of his old man enough times too...). Again, I'm worried teams will underfuel the car and simply stretch out the stint, leaving us in what is essentially square one.

Of course, we have to wait and see how everything plays out (people are probably sick of me sitting on the fence by now), but unlike new technology where I don't think it's worthwhile complaining about something we've not seen the effect of, we can get a good idea of how things might be with the return of refuelling in races considering it's been a predominant feature before.

good_Ralf · Post by **good_Ralf** » 16 May 2015, 16:19

Of course I like the idea of refuelling coming back (it adds diversity and unpredictability) but I do understand that will cause unwanted issues.
Indeed, getting a budget cap implemented would be one of the best things F1 could do to close up the field, but tragically because of the top team's arrogance that will never happen.
Plus cars should be more reliant on mechanical grip, rather than aero grip and that should make following another car closely more easy.
Ultimately, the FIA aren't going to listen to anyone but themselves and their ideas are worsening the field spread and the condition of the sport with no end in sight.

FMecha · Post by **FMecha** » 16 May 2015, 16:35

I can guess that the customer car idea will inevitably get blocked by Williams again... or not? :roll:

Spectoremg · Post by **Spectoremg** » 17 May 2015, 07:07

One of the major changes suggested lately is the budget cap which I agree wholeheartedly with. But I've often thought that it would be one thing to legislate for it and another to enforce. My teams finances could show that we get extremely good value from the sub-contractor who builds our front wings. Another sum of money then appears in an undisclosed bank account which no-one could trace to that sub-contractor. At face value our front wings are cheap.

FullMetalJack · Post by **FullMetalJack** » 17 May 2015, 10:22

mario wrote:
Wallio wrote:NBC is reporting it too. I've been calling for this since well, 2009. Pit stops will mean something now, and drivers can push harder (but with the 1980s style maximum fuel allotment they can push too hard). I like it.

Plus higher revs? Free choice of compounds? Is this 1994? I love it. The FIA woke up a bit I think.

Stinks they didn't approve the 5th engine though. Poor Riccardo is finished now.

Horner had already admitted that Ricciardo would be taking multiple engine penalties even with a fifth engine, so his season was already finished.

Given that he'll be getting all these penalties, it's a good job he can overtake.

Aguaman · Post by **Aguaman** » 17 May 2015, 15:09

A part of me feels (I know it sound stupid) that the drivers had some input somehow. A lot of drivers have complained about the lack of pushing the cars and going fast due to the tires and stuff. So I have this little feeling that the drivers had some input somehow.

I don't know.

Post by **mario** » 17 May 2015, 20:18

good_Ralf wrote:Ultimately, the FIA aren't going to listen to anyone but themselves and their ideas are worsening the field spread and the condition of the sport with no end in sight.

I think that should read "the top teams" rather than the FIA - Bernie did indicate that the FIA were effectively a non participant in the Strategy Group meetings, and with only the top six teams represented in that body it is effectively the largest teams and FOM who get to dictate the terms.

FMecha wrote:I can guess that the customer car idea will inevitably get blocked by Williams again... or not?

Williams have certainly fought hard against such proposals (to the point of threatening legal action in the past) and they would have a common ally in Force India, who are also fiercely against the idea.

At the moment, Mercedes would probably also be more likely to vote against rather than for such a move - Toto Wolff has said that he wants the teams to remain separate constructors - whilst some of Arrivabene's statements would seem to suggest that he is potentially less receptive to the idea than his predecessor, suggesting that Ferrari might be moving away from its previous support for customer cars.

On the opposite side, McLaren have now switched sides on the debate - whilst Whitmarsh was supportive of the smaller teams, it seems that Ron has been driving forward this latest push for customer cars as a way for Honda to gain additional mileage and information from customers. Red Bull, meanwhile, would appear to remain supportive of the idea given that it would make it much cheaper for them to run Toro Rosso.

To a certain extent, though, the key issue would be Bernie's position on the matter - given that the FIA would probably vote in lock step with him, that would give him a two thirds majority that could be used to force the changes through (having a few extra votes from teams would help, but by no means is critical). With Bernie having previously voiced support for the idea, I can see him trying to push a deal through for customer cars given he knows he could potentially force it through if necessary.

yannicksamlad · Post by **yannicksamlad** » 18 May 2015, 10:53

RAK Wrote [quote][I disliked watching refuelling and I wasn't much of a fan of the races where it was key. The refuelling process itself was usually boring as hell, except on the few occasions where it went wrong; when the most interesting part of the process is when things are cocked up, it doesn't say much for its entertainment value. With tyre-only stops being in the order of three seconds, it can be very interesting to see how much of a margin the pit stop mechanics can get out of the stop on occasions where things don't go wrong.

The races in the refuelling days weren't all that good either. Instead of trying to overtake cars on track, there was too much reliance - more than currently - on trying to rely on pit strategy to get ahead of other cars, which when the pitstops were, as mentioned above, boring unless something went wrong, didn't create much in the way of excitement in the races themselves. There's a reason why the number of overtakes per race shot up in 2010, even with the rock-hard Bridgestone tyres./quote]

I agree; TV cuts away from on track action to watch yet another fuel stop...its not motor racing. And out on track no-one tries to pass- just wait for the pit stop and fuel effect. Faster cars which are wider are going to be harder to pass aren't they? They'll brake less for corners, so it'll be DRS passing, or wait for the stops rather than trying a lunge inside under braking . ..especially when contact can get you a penalty, no?
Why the emphasis on faster cars- if anyone can drive flat out from Woodcote to the Vale (or just a quick gear change ) ..why is that better ?
One problem F1 has is that GP2 cars are quick, can follow each other and are raced enthusiastically and entertainingly ...but F1 can't work out how. (I'm being silly now.....)

yannicksamlad · Post by **yannicksamlad** » 18 May 2015, 10:54

sorry - I still have trouble getting the 'quote' thing to work....

Faustus · Post by **Faustus** » 18 May 2015, 11:22

I think Bob Fearnley's idea from sometime (can't remember exactly when it was, sorry) just before the Spanish Grand Prix was great. Each team can choose the 2 tyre compounds for a race, without having to use both, a minimum of 4 weeks in advance, and Pirelli will not divulge the tyre choices until the Thursday of the race, when everybody is at the track. The choices are locked in and if somebody wants to do 4 pitstops and use the super soft or conversely not stop and use the hard, by all means go ahead. Pirelli will not incur any extra costs and someone will cock it up and end up on the wrong tyres, for whatever reason.
Remember Kobayashi in 2010 (or was it 2011?) in Valencia when he did his pitstop 5 laps from the end?

shinji · Post by **shinji** » 18 May 2015, 13:19

yannicksamlad wrote:sorry - I still have trouble getting the 'quote' thing to work....

Just press the speech bubble in the top right of a post, and write below it

yannicksamlad · Post by **yannicksamlad** » 18 May 2015, 13:33

Faustus wrote:I think Bob Fearnley's idea from sometime (can't remember exactly when it was, sorry) just before the Spanish Grand Prix was great. Each team can choose the 2 tyre compounds for a race, without having to use both, a minimum of 4 weeks in advance, and Pirelli will not divulge the tyre choices until the Thursday of the race, when everybody is at the track. The choices are locked in and if somebody wants to do 4 pitstops and use the super soft or conversely not stop and use the hard, by all means go ahead. Pirelli will not incur any extra costs and someone will cock it up and end up on the wrong tyres, for whatever reason.
Remember Kobayashi in 2010 (or was it 2011?) in Valencia when he did his pitstop 5 laps from the end?

Think about having to pick the compounds for your title decider before you know the likely local temperature and the effect of your planned upgrades....mmm. That'd be a big decision (except Adu Dhabi is always the same weather)
As a way of controlling costs and mixing it up- it's a good idea. As 'motor racing' , I'm not quite so sure.
But thinking of Kobayashi- why not one mandatory pitstop, but super hard tyres with little deg? You might pit lap 8, or lap 52? No one will know- no 'window' of 10 laps.. You'll have to decide as you go along. And you drive flat out because you won't ruin them . And you have to slide because they've got no grip, and you have longer braking distances. And if there's only one stop in a race then you won't put off passing while waiting for your stop ( you'll only use a 'pitstop pass' once in a race) .
What have I missed?

SuzukiSwift · Post by **SuzukiSwift** » 18 May 2015, 16:47

Wallio wrote:
Plus higher revs? Free choice of compounds? Is this 1994? I love it. The FIA woke up a bit I think.

Uh oh.

Ciaran · Post by **Ciaran** » 19 May 2015, 11:34

I was disappointed to see that nothing's been done in the area of controlling costs. Hell, even using common components such as brakes, suspension etc would have been a good start.

CoopsII · Post by **CoopsII** » 19 May 2015, 11:56

I've thought about this for a while and I've decided I don't really care what they change because I personally think the declining viewing figures is directly connected to pay-per-view and that the bulk of the F1 viewers historically were, like it or not, more casual and less obsessive than perhaps we all are. Also, perhaps if pay-per-view was just that (and a bit cheaper) maybe it would appeal to these casuals more. You're hardly paying per race with these deals, you have to commit for a long period.

So F1 can reverse most of what it's put in place during the last few years and when the figures are still declining maybe they can change them back again ad infinitum.

Post by **mario** » 19 May 2015, 18:21

Faustus wrote:I think Bob Fearnley's idea from sometime (can't remember exactly when it was, sorry) just before the Spanish Grand Prix was great. Each team can choose the 2 tyre compounds for a race, without having to use both, a minimum of 4 weeks in advance, and Pirelli will not divulge the tyre choices until the Thursday of the race, when everybody is at the track. The choices are locked in and if somebody wants to do 4 pitstops and use the super soft or conversely not stop and use the hard, by all means go ahead. Pirelli will not incur any extra costs and someone will cock it up and end up on the wrong tyres, for whatever reason.
Remember Kobayashi in 2010 (or was it 2011?) in Valencia when he did his pitstop 5 laps from the end?

I think that one potential issue with that proposal is the fact that, at quite a few venues, the choice of tyre would be a fairly clear cut decision. In theory it would offer more strategic variation, but in reality I am not sure that it would actually open up that many options in terms of tyre strategy.

Spectoremg · Post by **Spectoremg** » 19 May 2015, 19:17

CoopsII wrote:I've thought about this for a while and I've decided I don't really care what they change because I personally think the declining viewing figures is directly connected to pay-per-view and that the bulk of the F1 viewers historically were, like it or not, more casual and less obsessive than perhaps we all are. Also, perhaps if pay-per-view was just that (and a bit cheaper) maybe it would appeal to these casuals more. You're hardly paying per race with these deals, you have to commit for a long period.

So F1 can reverse most of what it's put in place during the last few years and when the figures are still declining maybe they can change them back again ad infinitum.

Pay-per-view in all forms of entertainment was supposed to give everybody what they wanted. It turned out to give anything but. A casual GP viewer asked me a while back 'whatever happened to Martin Brundle...'

Dj_bereta · Post by **Dj_bereta** » 20 May 2015, 03:35

The last two seasons with refuelling were good (2008 and 2009), better than 2010, 2011, 2013 and 2014 imo. I support the refuelling return if the costs don't raise too much and the free tyre choice. But I think the most important thing now for produce better races is to replace, at least, half of the tracks.