Which Fuel and Tyre Format was best?

Which Fuel and Tyre Format was best?

  • Total voters
I'm in the minority then LOL

I went for No fuel or mandatory tyre stops - Stop for whatever tyres you want, it would suit some but I reckon you'd still see pretty close tyre strategies - we've seen a couple of decent 2 stoppers recently.
I actually took it straight from one of your posts but didn't want use the quote feature and risk getting into trouble, Brogan ;)
I went for No fuel or mandatory tyre stops
I agree. Fuel stops lead to less overtaking on track. Mostly strategies were roughly the same anyway, so the theoretical weight advantage didn't really happen during the race. And in the last stint everyone's weight was the same anyway, so there was nothing happening then.

Besides fuelstops are dangerous. There have been numerous unsafe pitreleases with drivers getting released while the fuelhose was still attached to their car. Eventually someone will get hurt. Racing is dangerous, but this is an unnecessary risk (just like the pistopfrenzy during the SC. Imo this will eventually also lead to an accident).

Mandatory tyrestops are silly. Like I posted earlier, Boutsen managed to win Hungary once by starting on hard tyres and keeping everyone behind him after they had pitted while he took the lead. If someone can pull that off, kudos to him.

I don't like the bubblegum tyres a lot. It's OK that they degrade during the race, but there should be tyres avaible that last the whole race and tyres which degrade faster but with which you are marginally faster by doing two or three pitstops. That way you get different strategies and exciting races in a natural way. With the tyres it's now too artificial. In Bahrain several had to stop for tyres after only 9 laps. That's just ridiculous imo.
I'm surprised to see myself clicking on no fuel stops because if you'd have asked me that a few years back when they took it away I'd have said def bring the fuel strategy back in but its clear to me that having no fuel stops has meant that drivers have to attempt to overtake more.

For example in the GP just gone in the fuel era, Kimi would have cruised up to the back of Vettel, stayed out of the dirty air and eeked out as much fuel as possible so he could go a lap longer than Seb which he could do all guns blazing so after his pitstop the next lap he'd come out in front of him. The Schumi tactic if you would. Instead he had to have a go - he didn't take his chance and Seb won the race which to me is far more exciting.

So no fuel stops please because it means if someone is in front of you then your first tactic is to try and overtake them and only if you can't do that do you start thinking about strategy like the undercut. Thats how racing should be not having overtake as a last resort.
a small point... comparing the fuel stop / bridgestone-michelin tyre war days of the early / mid 00's to now ... since 2008... no traction control, electronic engine braking and variable differential locking... it all leads to increased driver input...:thumbsup:
Personally, I would go for no fuel stops, and tyre stops, but only when necessary (i.e. not compulsory) - but then give a real option between tyres... A hard set that will last a lot longer, and a soft set that will need changing... Give the option of no-stoppers, which would be slower, but if you choose to stop, then you have to overtake, losing track position, and getting delayed!
Unless of course you start at the front with the soft and have someone with the hard hold up the rest of the field whilst you sprint away and get a big enough gap to have you pitstop. But surely no team would employ tactics like that ;)

I think thats why they brought in the compulsive 'must use both' rule.
I think we should just open it up completely. Remove the usage of both tyre types, remove the restriction on fueling and allow teams to do their own strategies. Can you get to the end on heavy fuel and one set of tyres, or do you go for loads of tyres and very little fuel but multiple stops? Bring back the brains to the strategies as right now there is one right way an lots of wrong ways, mix it up a little and bring back the intrigue....
I'd keep the refuelling ban and liberalise the tyre regulations a lot; many more different compounds, allowing teams to run whatever they like, whenever they like, including tyres that could last the whole race, or different types from the front-left to right-rear and so on.
As soon as you allow refuelling, you make it compulsory I'm afraid.

Let's take Australia as an example because there 1 lap of fuel costs a nice round 0.1s. If you start the 58 lap race with a full tank, you are going 5.8s a lap slower on lap 1 as on lap 58.

5.8 + 5.7 + ... + 0.2 + 0.1 = 171.1s added to your race time because of the fuel weight.

If you start with fuel for 29 laps, then stop and refuel for another 29 laps...

(2.9 + 2.8 + ... + 0.2 + 0.1) x 2 = 87 seconds.

The pitlane cost is really high at (nearly) 29 seconds, so add that and you get a total fuel cost of 116s.

In other words, no stopping is 55.1 seconds slower than 1 stopping.

Two stops is 117s all in, so it's a choice between 1 and 2 stops for the fuel

Unless you put in a restriction that (say) only two mechanics are allowed to work on the car to prolong the stops, as in sportscar racing.
canis , I like your proposal but then I'm old school. I sat there at many english circuits filling in the lap sheet every lap as a kid, so I understand motorsport pretty well. Unfortunately not everyone is into the strategy side and prefer a simpler "popcorn eating" experience. As the number of people watching affects the amount of money being paid I suggest that whatever strategy they come up with will suit the largest possible audience as opposed to pleasing the old schoolers.
Re-fuelling doesn't belong in Formula One. As for the tyre situation it baffles me a bit to see criticism aimed at the fact drivers are made to look after their tyres. Surely it was always the case? The name of the game was always to go as fast as possible within the limits of the equipment at your disposal, including the tyres, so nothing new there. Some developments in the past few years have been a bit gimmicky for my liking, having to qualify on the tyres you start the race with and so on, but surely it's still better than the re-fuelling era when pole-position was mostly dictated by how much weight you carried and pit-stop strategies and weight carried at any one time had more bearing on drivers' race pace than actually actually fighting each other on the track.
Incubus I think you may be grabbing the wrong end of the stick on the criticism, I totally agree that drivers have always needed to take care of their equipment, I think the current concern - or at least speaking for myself - is that the tyres are currently playing too much of a part in the equation. The Bridgestones were alleged to last too long (although they allowed some great late-braking), now the Pirellis seem to last too short a time. Its just the pendulum at work and hopefully a middle ground where they justifiably play a part, but are not a crippling factor, can be found.
Yes I know but I don't see how can the current tyre situation bear too much influence on results when tyres are the same for everyone?!
So it can't be the tyres in themselves that make the difference. It's the way different designers incorporate tyre behaviour to the chassis they design, how the teams and drivers use them, and so on.
So from that point of view it's still a battle of engineers, teams and drivers, rather than tyres.
Because the tyres, well as I said they are tye same for everyone.
Top Bottom