+1 This also helps sort the good from the great as cars evolve massively from start to finish. Adaptability is key and gets rewarded.
For the sake of safety, refueling should be banned forever. And I am not concerned about the drivers but the team members. There are so many risks involved. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvgjhfQLTNk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMKguL2yDCY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCykFawdq40
+1 The high pressure systems are dangerous. Funnel and jerry can is actually safer. Image Unavailable, Please Login
I am not sure that high pressure refuelling was used. I am pretty certain towards the end it was gravity only, and with a flow restrictor too. The problem with funnel and jerry can is that the fumes escape, creating a volatile environment all around the car, the pit, etc... Not mentioning potential incident whilst handling the can, and the possible overflowing ! ! All that around hot metal ... But the whole concept of refuelling, with all the strategy involved, spoils the race for me anyway.
I think refueling can be made acceptably safe as demonstrated the very few incidents over many, many refueling stops over a season of NASCAR and indycar. Still, I want it to continue to be banned because it's unnecessary in F1 and detracts from the actual racing.
Kimi was faster than Vettel with a wounded car, Kimi finished 2nd. Hamilton was faster than Vettel with a wounded car, Hamilton finished 5th? You need to realize that we aren't racing the 1960's F1 cars anymore... Pitting and putting in the lap times your car can pace in clean air to make a pass, is still very much a pass. Tires that intentionally degrade? I didn't like that, I'm happier to see the longer lasting tires we have now. I find the laps made when its on the line when one car racing another pits to be fascinating, you really get to see what a car and driver can do without being impeded.
That take makes zero sense. Everyone has to refuel so "drivers racing" still determines the outcome of the race. How many times did Schumacher's insane in laps and out laps get him out in the lead? See Hungary 1998. France 2004. I miss teams qualifying light, running crazy strategies, etc. It mixes things up and like Bas says, if you have something bad happen and have to make an unscheduled stop you actually have a chance to get back into contention with a alternate fuel strategy Nice backpedal. You said essence of "racing" - never specified grand prix in particular. Cool story bro. I guess you like watching heavy cars on full tanks lumber around for half the race. F1 cars these days are already way too heavy anyway. Guess you like watching cars dial back engine modes so they don't use too much fuel rather than go balls out in a sprint. Isn't sprinting to the maximum kinda, uh, the point of these short duration races? I watch both. Both have great racing and fuel strategy adds another interesting factor to pay attention to
And I miss the time when there was no pit stop !! Am I allowed to have an opinion on the subject, or are you against that as well?
Are you another one who likes to split hair to make a cheap point? We were debating about F1, and not about any other form of motor sport. Can't you keep up with the conversation? Endurance is another kettle of fish, compared to GP.
In laps and out laps aren't racing. You'd rather see a quick lap by one car? Then eliminate the race and just have qualifying. You're missing the point. We don't care about "strategy." We care about racing. If you like strategy then wouldn't mandating four compounds instead of two be even better? Think of all the pits stops! If you like strategy then endurance racing is made for you.
+1 Beside, pits stops are really "outside assistance". The driver has no influence if they succeed or fail. A bad pit stop can ruin a race for a driver.
Too many have already bought into the fraud that "pit stops make the spectacle more exciting!" Expect more of it.....
I have been watching F1 since 1961, and for many years there was no pit stop of any sort, in GP. I specify "in GP", for TifosiUSA's benefit, he seems muddled up with Le Mans. Racing was purer on those pre-pit stop days. One tank of fuel, one set of tyres, and they drove flat out. The introduction of refuelling and tyre changes brought "clever" strategy and perverted racing, IMO.
Completely agree. The best modern days were Lauda, Prost, Piquet, Mansell versus Senna ... proper racing. While I enjoyed the early years of MS winning for Ferrari, that was often not really racing but touring around until pitstops and then put in a few quick laps and heck you have now made a "pass" and can cruise to the finish. Again Bernie ruined almost everything good about F1. Pete
+1 The TT is the ultimate challenge. We've attended each of the last 21 years. A few years ago Valentino Rossi and Agostini showed up to do a parade lap and Rossi was interviewed. When asked if he would like to compete in the TT when retired from Moto GP, Rossi stated "No, these guys are crazy !" Enough said.
Glad to see this idea gaining traction. Horner is right and some others have come out saying similar things, but I've been saying this for years.
LOL No, the point is going way over your head. It's really not that complicated so try a little harder. You along with your buddy william must enjoy watching cars trundle around on heavy tanks until the fuel burns off. Such a weird take for a racing format that puts emphasis on being a sprint. There are still pit stops anyway to change tires so strategy is a major part of the game whether there is refueling or not. So if you like "racing" instead of "strategy," maybe you should just quit watching F1 altogether because there is still major emphasis on strategy. Refueling just leads to lighter, faster cars and drivers pushing 100% between stops. In addition to that it provides teams with more different ways to win a race.