2014 Australian Grand Prix

TC said:
But if they were to run smaller amounts of fuel, the car would be lighter and faster, while using less fuel, no? Lugging around a whole race's worth of fuel can't be good for efficiency either.
Click to expand...
That's true, and I don't believe any of the greenwashing bullshit going on. The question is whether one wants racing without refueling (as it was in pre-1980s F1). After being first used by Bernie Ecclestone's Brabham team in mid-1982*, refueling was banned in 1984, re-introduced in 1994 and banned again in 2010. Thus, depending on what one counts as the golden age of classic F1 racing, a refueling ban is either how things should be done in F1 or the work of satan.

*They used exactly your line of thinking: Doing the maths they found out they'd be faster with less fuel onboard and a mid-race refueling pit stop.
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty new to the F1 fandom, so it doesn't matter to me. I just think it could add another level of strategy to the racing. They can still limit fuel flow to the engine with their sensors and stuff, but it makes me wonder what teams would do if they were allowed to manage the amount of fuel they put in the car. Would they keep a full big tank and keep their 2 second pit stops? Or would they sacrifice time in the pits to refuel in order to be a bit lighter and faster around the track? Could be interesting.
 
Could certainly be interesting. But as you know, the question whether something that enhances racing is "artificial" is quite important around here. And this is where personal background comes into play: As refueling has always been part of racing in the major US series, you don't see anything wrong with it - as do people who got hooked on F1 during the Schumacher era. On the other hand, I watched the Prost/Senna battles as a kid (I remember getting up in the early hours of a sunday morning to witness Senna taking out Prost in the first corner of the 1990 Japanese GP) and when refueling got introduced, I first perceived it as being "artificial". I got used to it, and rule changes in general, but traditionalists hold strong views on the matter...
 
The best way to make F1 more green would be to reduce travel distances. Reducing the fuel used by the cars on track saves what, a few tons per race? Cutting down flight distance would save that almost literally in the blink of an eye.
Assuming very few trips back to the UK in between and direct flights, you're looking at about 125000km for an F1 season based on the 2014 calendar (not counting winter testing). For example, they're lugging everything across the pond for Montr?al, only to lug it back to Europe a week later. Same story with S?o Paulo, that's a lot of emissions for one race. You could have Singapore and Kuala Lumpur happen back-to-back, instantly saving a boatload of cash and emissions. Combine Japan and China into back-to-back races as well, same with Bahrain and Dubai :dunno:
 
Last edited:
True, there are many miles that can be optimized with the schedule they have now. Also, double headers like in Indy make sene, you're there anyway so why not race twice in one weekend. That way the double points rule even makes sense, since you'll do twice the mileage
 
narf said:
The best way to make F1 more green would be to reduce travel distances. Reducing the fuel used by the cars on track saves what, a few tons per race? Cutting down flight distance would save that almost literally in the blink of an eye.
Assuming very few trips back to the UK in between and direct flights, you're looking at about 125000km for an F1 season based on the 2014 calendar (not counting winter testing). For example, they're lugging everything across the pond for Montr?al, only to lug it back to Europe a week later. Same story with S?o Paulo, that's a lot of emissions for one race. You could have Singapore and Kuala Lumpur happen back-to-back, instantly saving a boatload of cash and emissions. Combine Japan and China into back-to-back races as well, same with Bahrain and Dubai :dunno:
Click to expand...

This was always my response to the people who gave "less wasteful" as a justification for going to tiny engines. You could probably save the same amount of fuel by reducing the cruising speed of the personnel and equipment planes that carry the F1 circus around the world by 10kts all year. The fuel-spend in a racing car is infinitesimal next to the fuel-spend of a jet plane. A private jet carries as much gin as an F1 car carries fuel.
 
Here's the current schedule vs a slightly optimized one:




Shaved 50000km off the 125000km travels, with equally few trips back home to the UK. Might need a little tweaking to fit better to the seasons, but it's certainly doable.
 
SchumacherM said:
Because they were so frequent, eh. Another F1 problem...everything is so scary, omg.
Click to expand...

at least once a year is too often. The Last time there was a gas hose dislodging, Kimi got fuel in his eye and if that doesn't sound dangerous I don't know what to say.
 
narf said:
Here's the current schedule vs a slightly optimized one:
Shaved 50000km off the 125000km travels, with equally few trips back home to the UK. Might need a little tweaking to fit better to the seasons, but it's certainly doable.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the politics of reserving a track for a week for that specific time frame. 'Doable' is not a word I'd use here.
 
Pininfarina_ said:
Don't forget the politics of reserving a track for a week for that specific time frame. 'Doable' is not a word I'd use here.
Click to expand...
Bernie usually gets his will. If anything, narf's calculations prove what we all know anyways: Apart from lip service, no one really wants F1 to become more green, otherwise things like the schedule would be laid out differently.
 
Pininfarina_ said:
Don't forget the politics of reserving a track for a week for that specific time frame. 'Doable' is not a word I'd use here.
Click to expand...

It's F1. The reason most of those tracks exist. They'll get the week they want.

Dr_Grip said:
Bernie usually gets his will. If anything, narf's calculations prove what we all know anyways: Apart from lip service, no one really wants F1 to become more green, otherwise things like the schedule would be laid out differently.
Click to expand...

:+1:
 
Regarding fuel: I'd only want to see them go back to refueling if they had a way of refueling using sealed units, such as fuel charges (perhaps the tank is sealed in a removable hard plastic bladder that can be replaced by the pit crew). As a racer myself, I understand that pouring highly flammable liquid into a hot car in a hurry is the most dangerous part of racing.

Regarding the schedule, I'd love to see a more optimized one because my theory is that it would allow more back-to-back weeks of racing, which would in turn allow the schedule to take on a more consistent layout of season breaks rather than almost always 2-3 weeks between races. The only problem is that there are a lot of tracks that you don't want to visit in certain times of the year.
 
jsausley said:
Regarding the schedule, I'd love to see a more optimized one because my theory is that it would allow more back-to-back weeks of racing, which would in turn allow the schedule to take on a more consistent layout of season breaks rather than almost always 2-3 weeks between races. The only problem is that there are a lot of tracks that you don't want to visit in certain times of the year.
Click to expand...

Without adapting to seasons, there's nothing stopping F1 from doing Singapore/Malaysia and Bahrain/Dubai back to back each. They're so close together climatically the drivers wouldn't need to adapt so much, transport expenses are low,...
 
narf said:
Without adapting to seasons, there's nothing stopping F1 from doing Singapore/Malaysia and Bahrain/Dubai back to back each. They're so close together climatically the drivers wouldn't need to adapt so much, transport expenses are low,...
Click to expand...

Yeah, definitely. I never understood why Brazil, Austin and Montreal are all so far apart.
 
jsausley said:
Yeah, definitely. I never understood why Brazil, Austin and Montreal are all so far apart.
Click to expand...

It'd either go Texas in June which would be like sitting on an actual stove, not sure about Brazil. Or it would go Montreal in October/November which would probably require those jet engines they have in Nascar to keep the track warm enough.
 
Topgearfanatic said:
It'd either go Texas in June which would be like sitting on an actual stove, not sure about Brazil. Or it would go Montreal in October/November which would probably require those jet engines they have in Nascar to keep the track warm enough.
Click to expand...

Which goes to show you should have NYC rather than Austin :)
 
mpicco said:
no
Click to expand...

Gotta disagree there. Other than the layout of turn 1, fuck everything about Texas. NYC would mean that I could actually attend without paying a thousand dollars for a plane ticket. At least if the race was in NYC they wouldn't make the drivers wear those cocksucking brokeback mountain hats on the podium. Plus there would be other stuff to do in the area instead of the tack being in the middle of nowhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top