Maybe a pits top window for tyres or fuel! I liked the refuelling era, but agree with alot of the negatives rasied here! Maybe reduce fuel flow in the pits (ie turning a fuel stop into the car being stationary for 10-15 seconds against tyres od 3-5 seconds) would reduce the the sprint approach! One thing I haet at the moment is knowing that in general the race pace will always be significantly slower against the natural pace of the car, it sort of defeats the object of having the fastest technology if it cant be accessed due to the weight penalty! The fuel windows could be calculated per race track maybe forcing the fuel stops out of sinc with the tyre life?
No NO NO NO NO no no NO NO NO! Mandatory pitstops inside a given window is not F1. Leave that to DTM and other formula.
Just a thought and maybe a little false, but then again we have DRS, Kers and short life tyres which is debatable as to whether or not this is manufactured racing? The logic would be that by not allowing cars to pit for fuel until a certain point would allow an element of different strategies that play out with a similiar race time, i.e the Tortoise & Hare. I agree will all the points against refueling, but I still dont like the idea of cars laping at a lower formula's pace because of the weight penalty or the life of the tyre. However, having said that the last 2 seasons have seen some greta racing!
I completely agree ASChris. Look guys, what we have at the moment is pretty damned good and messing about with it in a fundamental way is very unlikely to improve what has become so good since refuelling was done away with. My whole point - as referenced by Westy who was one of the many people I 'forum-debated' this with at the time - is that by creating a bigger platform of choice, we have racing which is a product of all things: we have the tortoise and the hare; we have intelligence v balls-out speed; we have the elevation of a contrast of styles, continually presenting a fascinating spectacle. This season we also have a run-away Champion elect but even this has not spoiled the spectacle! - Back in the days of refuelling, Vettel's current dominance would have had people turning away from repetitive three sprint processions. Keep refuelling for cars that genuinely need it; i.e. long-distance mega-races like Le Mans; but do not impose it where it is unnatural. Grand Prix racing was conceived on the basis of a realistic tankful of fuel, which at racing speeds translates to a race of under two hours and roughly 200 miles - and this does not need further artificiality! Let's try and keep the basic format pure. This way it requires the utmost skill.
Race pace is not about circulating at qualifying speed! The "natural pace" of a car is how quickly it can cover a reasonably large distance, not just one lap! If you want a car to be travelling at its ultimate fastest, you'd better introduce refuelling at the end of every lap; thus allowing every car to be running on 4 pints of fuel for the whole race. Then we'd see mega-quick cars (approximately 1% faster than what we see without refuelling); but we'd also see hugely reduced driver responsibility due to the increased dependence upon one's team! Keep refuelling well away from Grand Prix racing. This is not what it is about and it should never have been introduced - even as an artificial means of spicing things up; it was not necessary, and ensured boredom rather than offsetting it. Keep refuelling well away from Grand Prix racing!
I'd much prefer to see open tyres as the strategy option. "here ya go guys, 4 different tyre compounds, take your pick"
I'd just leave it as it is. We've had better racing this season than we have for the past decade, why potentially ruin it with more rule changes.
Yes, I'm with this one Miggs. But there is a big 'but'… If a tyre supplier can produce tyres which give a selection of realistic alternatives, then allowing teams to pick two of what is available instead of being told what they'll get would be good. However, there is the very practical drawback of logistics. The number of tyres for each weekend is already in the order of several thousand and increasing the choice means having an even greater number available for everyone to choose from. Unfortunately this is simply not practical in the modern era.
Not to mention the green issue. Remember, F1 has to be seen trying to reduce it's carbon footprint, at the expense of common sense and the sport's dignity.
I can understand this 'purist' point of view Sam. However, the argument for two compounds is that it is more likely to promote differences in the way teams decide to run, thereby increasing the element of unpredictability. From a practical point of view, allowing all teams the choice, they are extremely likely to come up with the same choice, increasing the chances of a race becoming 'processional' - which was, until recently, one of the biggest criticisms aimed at F1!
With the bridgestones, I would have said no to refuelling, because they were so durable, everyone would have just sprinted with no consideration for strategy. But with the pirellis you'd have to manage a balance between tyres and fuel, so it'd throw a huge spanner in the works.
I cant really argue with any of the points you have raised, and why we would want to mess with a formula that overall provides equal and intense racing is crazy. However, I still dont like the cars being anywhere between 5 - 10 seconds off the potential pace and race lap records we have seen in previous years! I do feel there needs to be a balance/trade off, and I am not for one minute suggesting that the race should be Quali after Quali laps, just something that reflects their raw speed! At present they are hindered at the start by pure weight, and at the end they are hindered by the slower tyre at the end of its life - just my thoughts but i agree with what you guys have said!
Thats how it used to be. Compounds were rated A to D. You could even have different compounds on the car if you wanted. Mclaren once put the wrong compound tyre onto one of Prosts wheels once! It probably won't happen again as cost issues would dictate it is cheaper to preoduce a specific quantity of the same tyre for each event and if different compounds were allowed, how many of each should be taken to each event? I would personally like to see it brought back in, but I also woudl like to see the format of the engines changed so you can decide how many cylinders to have. A trick I think was missed when they reintroduce turbo's. But just as in real life, romance seems to costs money and reminiscing about the good old days to be brought back in would just increase the costs which they are trying to bring under control. A shame, but that is the way of the world now.
Good debate hear, I'd be very interested in seeing a combo of ideas hear, ie. Allow refueling but only allow 1 fuel stop per race. Then there is the option of starting (and qualifying) on low fuel to get a breathing space or going heavy, or not refueling at all. Also not forcing 2 tyre compounds on drivers. Then someone could try and do a whole grand prix without stopping for fuel or tyres. I agree with westy that last years formula meant preserving fuel and tyres for a lot of the time, which despite the skills involved wasn't all that interesting. Refueling allowed a greater variety of strategies which for me made it much more interesting. Last year it was mainly go 10-15 laps, pit then drive to the end. Also the cars of the refueling era were far more nimbler and actually looked like they were moving when the lights went out.
the teams could be given a set number of each compound to use for the season, they can then use them as and when they like during the season, tyre strategy becomes a season long issue as well. Imagine if Seb had used up all his soft and supersofts by now? or, whilst in a seemingly unassailable race lead a team opt to put on a set of their worst tyres, whilst the driver in 2nd, seeing it, changes to SS to hunt him down
Interesting theory but what does a driver do if he has used all hs tyres? sit the rest of the season out?
I think for Miggins idea you would need two seperate tyre allocations: 1 to last all the practice sessions of the year and one for all the qualifying and races of the year. Then you would not be restricting teams from running in practice sessions.
