Formula 1 bosses have agreed to bring back refuelling in 2017 as part of a range of measures aimed at making the sport more exciting. There will also be higher revving and louder engines and changes aimed at making cars "five to six seconds a lap faster", governing body the FIA said. For 2016, bosses have approved a plan to allow teams free choice of the four available tyre compounds for each race. The changes still need to be approved by two further legislative stages. The changes were agreed on Thursday at a meeting of the F1 strategy group, which comprises FIA president Jean Todt, commercial supremo Bernie Ecclestone and the Ferrari, Mercedes, McLaren, Red Bull, Williams and Force India teams. The engine manufacturers were also represented at the meeting. The FIA statement added that a "comprehensive proposal to ensure the sustainability of the sport has emerged". This, it said, would be refined by the teams in the coming weeks. The engine rules, which saw the introduction of turbo hybrid engines and a fuel restriction last year, will remain stable. This is to give clarity for any potential new manufacturers who may be considering entering the sport. But it is the return of refuelling which will attract the most attention - the practice was last permitted in 2009. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/32751118 True?
Completely ****ing incompetent. We've all seen the statistics by now. Refuelling makes the racing more boring. Overtaking drops drammatically. Its also far more dangerous and i doubt thats changed in the past 6 years. http://cliptheapex.com/overtaking/ Just look at that 1994-2009 slump. Changes for the sake of changes.
F1 has tried to spice up since 1998.... So what's going wrong?.... The rule changes are just stupid! The fix is simple but one thing is getting in the way.....MONEY
Everything Julius says x100. Once all the teams had worked out the best strategies previously, it became stale, boring and everyone waited for the pitstops as there was little point 'risking' an overtake on the track. Does that also mean they are opening up the fuel limits again, so it's goodbye to F1's eco-drive? More money for the teams to have to buy all new equipment, and do you really want that much fuel flowing and a fast rate with the massive amounts of electricity in these cars? One small static charge and you have Verstappen 1994 all over again.
Just got a notification from one of my F1 apps. Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaattttttttt.... only upside is possible 1000bhp engines with cars at low fuel in the race, down-side is lack of overtaking. Atleast teams can choose their tyres next year.
And more complicated for the fans "who is fuelled for x laps", "who is going longer on which stint"...etc. We already have that with the tyres.
Seems stupid to allow refuelling when they will still be limited to 100kg per race and a max of 100kg/hr flow rate!!! Also they are reducing the minimum weight, so then all the tall heavy drivers are out!
Even more so than now, though with the weight limit being quite high at the moment it should only affect how much ballast can be placed in strategic places of the car (Unless your British and drive a Manor, in which case it's an excuse as to why you're beating your teammate.........). Any reduction in the weight limit then it will be a major issue. Racing drivers would be no bigger than jockeys before long.
Maybe this is a back door method to encourage teams to get women driving F1 cars? Mind you Bernie would have vetoed that idea, so that can't be it. I don't get why reduce the weight limit. How does that save money, make the show better, increase overtaking etc..... No sense to it. Same with the refuelling really, we want to see the drivers able to push 100% of the time. They are allowing choice of tyres which helps, but they need to be able to use more power. Keep fuel limits as they are but allow unlimited energy recovery and usage. That benefits the motor industry as a whole.
Surely reducing the weight limit also compromises the safety of the cars as teams will strive to make everything (including monocoques, crash structures etc) as light as possible? Why don't the FIA keep the weight limits, but insist that these vital parts have a minimum weight so they can be as strong as possible and stop all the placement of ballast around the cars?
Because allowing the teams to develop along the current regulations and see what transpires was too much ****ing effort. Seriously, last time there was a big shake-up it lasted five years (2009 to 2014), this one will barely last three. How many more before we get something that sticks?
That could probably be overcome by "interlocking" the mechanism that opens the fuel flap with the ERS so that if the ERS isn't in a "safe" state, the fuel flap won't open
The only way it will be sorted is to distribute the prize money correctly. The top teams will always find something which gives them an edge. RBR had it until 2013, Mercedes have got it now. Anyone outside of the big teams stand no chance at all anymore. If they had more money, what has been seen is they are more resourceful with it. Sod the rules, sort out the money!
Refuelling should at least sort out the economy drive side of things. Lighter cars are more fuel-efficient, so the 100kg limit should be less relevant. Hopefully we won't get drivers managing fuel rather than racing. Beyond that, utter incompetence throughout the changes.
I'm all for making the cars faster and therefore lighter fuel is an option. However, is there a way to keep cars on the same low fuel loads (mandatory refuelling at a specified amount?) Not sure how but something along those lines? Otherwise as you all rightly say, it becomes a total strategy-dominated sport. Looking back, they had some things round about right in 2009 didn't they? Refuelling had gone, DRS hasdn't come in, slicks were back.
