-1............
tactics of fuel is a looking point of F1
but agree for how much fuel they can use & limt the size of the tank.

e.g. only 1 refuel system foe each car and make a strip of paper on it, so thefuel how much the car can use is all form this box.

Also if they ban refueling you will never see a mid field runner going up agans't the top teams as its all about the car, not the strategy.

like said before, 05 banned tire changes and well that backfired badly.

Although there has been better seasons I dont think F1 is particularly broken right now. The only thing it needs to make it better is loosing James Allen and TV adverts!

We have a major regulations change next year though, and thats going to spread the field out as always happens in a major shake up, running 200 litre tanks again might help or it might not.

I remember back in the 80's a driver could be 2 laps down and finish in the top 6 - that doesn't sound like close racing to me - although it is the era I fell in love with the sport ( it was better than playing with trucks ) so it wasnt all bad.

Quote from Hyperactive :

Imho F1 should start using much harder compounds so the drivers could push a lot more throughout the whole race without fearing the tires letting go so easily and being so tender as they seem to be.

Slicks should be a step closer to that.

Quote from Shotglass :

+juan

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=eq_dtNL8iw8
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=nAP7AUcMJ-I

I have those reviews on videotape

and to ban refuelling in F1 it's a +1
In my point of view, it would add a little more strategy to the races. when to attack, when to run slower and save fuel, and such. but maintaining the pit stops for tyres.
one thing bothers me though. in order to save fuel, teams will surely reduce the cars' downforce, and in that case, will they still be safe?

Quote :

and in that case, will they still be safe?

Considering how few positive words anyone ever has to say about F1 drivers until they crash and burn, this might be a good thing!

Actually less downforce is exactly what the sport needs, that's why next years cars have new low downforce aerodynamic regulations. We need mechanical grip, not aero grip. What you've said still has merrit though as the tyres would be a harder compound again - and that would mean less mechanical grip.

Quote from jonny__27 :

one thing bothers me though. in order to save fuel, teams will surely reduce the cars' downforce, and in that case, will they still be safe?

1. Are you sure they'd reduce downforce to save weight? Don't you think they'd work out if more fuel onboard + more drag/downforce equals a faster race time? With less downforce they'd have lower corner speeds, and higher top speeds, meaning the cars will have to accelerate more, and perhaps use MORE fuel?

2. Since when has more downforce equated with more safety?

3. Do you know what you talking about?

becky we are losing the adverts. The bbc won the broadcasting contract. So no more adverts. I may even be convinsed to watch F1

You refuse to watch F1 because of the adverts? Blimey, I knew you had issues upstairs, but not that bad.

P.S. I think you'll probably find Becky probably knew of the BBCs coup before you did.

Is BBC going to censor all the billboards on the track too?

Err, no.

Err... joke?

Err, with no 'smiley' one had to assume it was a genuine retarted question. Sorry

Quote from tristancliffe :

You refuse to watch F1 because of the adverts? Blimey, I knew you had issues upstairs, but not that bad.

P.S. I think you'll probably find Becky probably knew of the BBCs coup before you did.

I'm also going to watch it cause of the slicks. I do watch it sometimes.

It's easy, Don't watch it, and get it on a "replay", all the adverts are nicely cut out, so I don't need to watch ads for <RANDOM CRAP iTV SHOW!>. Even still, watching it live the adverts aren't that big of a deal, the waking up at 4 AM is the biggest deal.

sky+ ftw

Anyways, rather than being retardedly off topic.

Fuel is good, becuase it enables cars to move. Disallowing refuelling would have silly incidents like people running out of fuel, creating a safety hazard.

Quote from dawesdust_12 :

Anyways, rather than being retardedly off topic.

Fuel is good, becuase it enables cars to move. Disallowing refuelling would have silly incidents like people running out of fuel, creating a safety hazard.

Oh, you've been unbanned. Nice.

Quote from tristancliffe :

1. Are you sure they'd reduce downforce to save weight? Don't you think they'd work out if more fuel onboard + more drag/downforce equals a faster race time? With less downforce they'd have lower corner speeds, and higher top speeds, meaning the cars will have to accelerate more, and perhaps use MORE fuel?

What about the drag? Ain't it the key factor in aerodynamics to fuel consumption?

Quote from tristancliffe :

2. Since when has more downforce equated with more safety?

Since the first time i saw a racing car "takeoff", and with those amounts of speed and little weight, i am a bit concerned about this.

Quote from tristancliffe :

3. Do you know what you talking about?

I guess i am.

Quote from jonny__27 :

What about the drag? Ain't it the key factor in aerodynamics to fuel consumption?



Since the first time i saw a racing car "takeoff", and with those amounts of speed and little weight, i am a bit concerned about this.


I guess i am.

F1 have had enough downforce to keep them from flipping for over 20 years.

next year will be no exception.

Quote from jonny__27 :

Since the first time i saw a racing car "takeoff", and with those amounts of speed and little weight, i am a bit concerned about this.

Cars taking off at high speed is usually caused by sudden failure of aerodynamic devices through physical breakage or poor design that produce downforce on the car. Simply having no downforce or some lift won't cause cars to take off if balance is maintained, GT40s, 917s and Lotus 49s all ran at around the speed modern F1 cars do and they didn't just randomly take off when they felt like it.

Quote from ajp71 :

Cars taking off at high speed is usually caused by sudden failure of aerodynamic devices through physical breakage or poor design that produce downforce on the car. Simply having no downforce or some lift won't cause cars to take off if balance is maintained, GT40s, 917s and Lotus 49s all ran at around the speed modern F1 cars do and they didn't just randomly take off when they felt like it.

Yes, i know it's not common, but the danger is still there, and the best thing to do is to avoid it as much as we can. We don't want to return to deaths in F1, or do we?

Quote from jonny__27 :

Yes, i know it's not common, but the danger is still there, and the best thing to do is to avoid it as much as we can. We don't want to return to deaths in F1, or do we?

Did you read what I posted? Reducing downforce would if anything reduce the chance of a car taking off due to wing failure.

Quote from ajp71 :

Did you read what I posted? Reducing downforce would if anything reduce the chance of a car taking off due to wing failure.

/me is now confused

ajp is stating that what causes a car to flip is the sudden loss of downforce, not having less downforce, therefore having less downforce is 'safer'.

I dont know much about the science of it, but I do know we're not going to see F1's flipping over because mid race fuelling was banned, but we might see harder tyres with less mechanical grip which in turn would result in less overtaking, and that would be bad.

Mechanical grip = good