I'm sorry, "fuel gambling" isn't a sport.

[ChrisB]

This isn't a slam against Danica, but a long-time annoyance with me. This race was determined entirely by fuel... some drivers, despite driving well, pitted under green while others "got lucky" when the yellow came out soon after. A lot. The final outcome seems to have been based on a "fuel gamble" too.

THIS IS NOT A SPORT!!! Sports are about competing based on mostly SKILL, not mostly LUCK (sure, I can understand a little luck, but not to the degree this has become because of fuel)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again... make EVERYONE come in for fuel at the same predetermined laps. These cars are supposed to be getting 5-6mpg with a 22 gal tank? That's a 110-132 mile range, although Firestone recommends the tires shouldn't go past 100 miles. OK, 100 miles.

Fine... for a 1.5mile track like Motegi (300 miles) make everyone come in for fuel every 100 miles, which would be lap 66 and 132 and then again at maybe lap 166 with 50 miles to go so everyone can run full out without any worries. (someone correct me if I've got these numbers wrong)

By doing this it takes the "gambling" equation and the randon luck of yellows out of the game. (and don't tell me all the cars won't fit in the pits at once.. I've seem it multiple times at Nazareth, including everyone taking off at once from thier pits for morning warmup).

Of course, the notion of racing being determined by "fuel strategy and luck" has been so ingrained for so long, that no one can think out of the box anymore.

[trish]

I'm sure she's not the first to win on fuel mileage. It sucks that there's nothing to hold over her head anymore, but she won. Maybe if the race was longer (which it should have been, I don't get these 300 and 250 races) she wouldn't have won. They've made it too easy and the field really isn't that great.

[ChrisB]

This isn't a Danica thing... I've made many posts on this subject before. Last night just happened to be great example, irregardless of Danica. There really needs to be something done about making the sport less dependant on the random luck of fuel stops.

IMO... mandatory predetermined fuel stops for everyone would be a big help.

[opinionated ow]

This isn't a Danica thing... I've made many posts on this subject before. Last night just happened to be great example, irregardless of Danica. There really needs to be something done about making the sport less dependant on the random luck of fuel stops.

IMO... mandatory predetermined fuel stops for everyone would be a big help.
takes out the spirit of competition. Just don't allow pitting under yellow, or allow them to run as much fuel as they like ala F1

[TRDfan]

My wife said " So Danica didn't really win, it was whoever figured out her gas mileage "

[trish]

Well, it is a team sport. And the other teams could have done a better job at figuring out their guys fuel mileage.

On the other hand, it is also good publicity for TG's new race. I bet they make sure she's in Long Beach posthaste.

[racermike]

Fuel strategy will always be a part of racing, and there is nothing you can do artificially to change that.

[ChrisB]

If anyone cares, I'm also arguing this thing here on TF (http://www.trackforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106157) too. NOBODY is agreeing with me :)



Fuel strategy will always be a part of racing

That's what a lot are saying over there... if we've come to expect that Nascar/Indy style *is* the only racing we follow.

Fuel strategy has little to no bearing on Sprint cars, Drag racing, 12/24 hr endurance, and F1 - where FCY's are so few that pitting under a "lucky yellow" almost never happens.

[Insomniac]

ChampCar did that once and it didn't help. Everyone conserved fuel so their stop would be as short as possible or so they could pit as late into the window as possible and they pitted on the last lap of the window (unless a caution came out during the window).

[Insomniac]

Fuel strategy will always be a part of racing, and there is nothing you can do artificially to change that.

That's not true. There are a lot of things you could do.

- Pressurized fuel delivery.
- Smaller tanks.
- Longer tire change times.
- Shorter tire life.
- Faster pit lane speed limits.

Whether anyone wants to or not is a whole other story.

[Insomniac]

If anyone cares, I'm also arguing this thing here on TF (http://www.trackforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106157) too. NOBODY is agreeing with me :)



Fuel strategy will always be a part of racing

That's what a lot are saying over there... if we've come to expect that Nascar/Indy style *is* the only racing we follow.

Fuel strategy has little to no bearing on Sprint cars, Drag racing, 12/24 hr endurance, and F1 - where FCY's are so few that pitting under a "lucky yellow" almost never happens.

Why couldn't anyone else pit at the same time as the fuel conservers and conserve fuel too? The rules are the same for everyone, right? The winner completes the distance of the race faster than everyone else.

[ChrisB]

Insomniac - I agree that the CC "pit window" thing was bad.... this is nothing like that.

And fuel strategy in Nascar/Indy is totally different from F1. In F1 you're trying to optimize your race for when you think you'll need to have a lighter car... on the assumption that there will probably NOT be any FCY's.

In Indy/Nascar.. it's all about trying to optimize for FCY's... which are random/luck occurences. That sucks. Making everyone stop for fuel at predetermined laps takes the randomness out of it. Drivers would have to win on skill.

[Sean O'Gorman]

If anyone cares, I'm also arguing this thing here on TF (http://www.trackforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106157) too. NOBODY is agreeing with me :)

Along with 1000 hp, and only running road courses, and anything else you've said over the years that isn't grounded in reality...

Removing fuel mileage from the equation makes as much sense as making all the drivers run the same tire pressure, shock settings, and gear ratios.

[opinionated ow]

If anyone cares, I'm also arguing this thing here on TF (http://www.trackforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106157) too. NOBODY is agreeing with me :)



Fuel strategy will always be a part of racing

That's what a lot are saying over there... if we've come to expect that Nascar/Indy style *is* the only racing we follow.

Fuel strategy has little to no bearing on Sprint cars, Drag racing, 12/24 hr endurance, and F1 - where FCY's are so few that pitting under a "lucky yellow" almost never happens.

Where on earth do they go to see sprintcar races with few cautions? There is no such thing.

[Spicoli]

This isn't a slam against Danica, but a long-time annoyance with me. This race was determined entirely by fuel... some drivers, despite driving well, pitted under green while others "got lucky" when the yellow came out soon after. A lot. The final outcome seems to have been based on a "fuel gamble" too.

THIS IS NOT A SPORT!!! Sports are about competing based on mostly SKILL, not mostly LUCK (sure, I can understand a little luck, but not to the degree this has become because of fuel)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again... make EVERYONE come in for fuel at the same predetermined laps. These cars are supposed to be getting 5-6mpg with a 22 gal tank? That's a 110-132 mile range, although Firestone recommends the tires shouldn't go past 100 miles. OK, 100 miles.

Fine... for a 1.5mile track like Motegi (300 miles) make everyone come in for fuel every 100 miles, which would be lap 66 and 132 and then again at maybe lap 166 with 50 miles to go so everyone can run full out without any worries. (someone correct me if I've got these numbers wrong)

By doing this it takes the "gambling" equation and the randon luck of yellows out of the game. (and don't tell me all the cars won't fit in the pits at once.. I've seem it multiple times at Nazareth, including everyone taking off at once from thier pits for morning warmup).

Of course, the notion of racing being determined by "fuel strategy and luck" has been so ingrained for so long, that no one can think out of the box anymore.

100% agreed. but brian barnfart and ftg are idiots. nuttin wil change.

[ChrisB]

Where on earth do they go to see sprintcar races with few cautions? There is no such thing.

I meant "little to none" because I was including F1 and Endurance in the sentence. Everyone keeps saying how much "fuel strategy" has on racing, when in fact there are whole forms of racing where fuel strategy has no bearing. I guess these folks only watch Indy and Nascar.


Along with 1000 hp, and only running road courses, and anything else you've said over the years that isn't grounded in reality...

Take a look... CART/CCWS is *dying* today! Whatever they were doing... it didn't work.

Likewise, the IRL/ICS despite having the Indy 500 and all of the top teams for the past 5 or so years is still getting .4 TV ratings (and God only knows what last nights was) Their ideas don't seem to be working either.

[Insomniac]

Insomniac - I agree that the CC "pit window" thing was bad.... this is nothing like that.

And fuel strategy in Nascar/Indy is totally different from F1. In F1 you're trying to optimize your race for when you think you'll need to have a lighter car... on the assumption that there will probably NOT be any FCY's.

In Indy/Nascar.. it's all about trying to optimize for FCY's... which are random/luck occurences. That sucks. Making everyone stop for fuel at predetermined laps takes the randomness out of it. Drivers would have to win on skill.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I saw plenty of CC races worked out just as you want with everyone pitting on the same exact lap. It made for more of a parade and people still conserved fuel. What you propose will not stop fuel conservation.

[Sean O'Gorman]

Where on earth do they go to see sprintcar races with few cautions? There is no such thing.

I meant "little to none" because I was including F1 and Endurance in the sentence. Everyone keeps saying how much "fuel strategy" has on racing, when in fact there are whole forms of racing where fuel strategy has no bearing. I guess these folks only watch Indy and Nascar.


Along with 1000 hp, and only running road courses, and anything else you've said over the years that isn't grounded in reality...

Take a look... CART/CCWS is *dying* today! Whatever they were doing... it didn't work.

Likewise, the IRL/ICS despite having the Indy 500 and all of the top teams for the past 5 or so years is still getting .4 TV ratings (and God only knows what last nights was) Their ideas don't seem to be working either.

And 1,000 hp wont fix that because cars cant pass each other when they are going that fast.

[Insomniac]

Everyone keeps saying how much "fuel strategy" has on racing, when in fact there are whole forms of racing where fuel strategy has no bearing. I guess these folks only watch Indy and Nascar.

Have you watched an F1 race recently? Fuel plays a huge role. They make the Top 10 qualifying teams decide on a strategy the day before the race during the final qualifying session. They make the tanks sufficiently large enough you could do the race in 1, 2, 3 or more stops if you want. You can change your fuel strategy during the race. Going that extra lap over the guy right in front of you means you probably pass them with your pit stop.

[opinionated ow]

And 1,000 hp wont fix that because cars cant pass each other when they are going that fast.

I call BS on that one. Did you watch late 90s CART?

[ChrisB]

And 1,000 hp wont fix that because cars cant pass each other when they are going that fast.

F1 cars STILL have a higher hp/wt ratio than what a 1000hp Champcar would have had.

And lets face it... "fuel conservation strategy " runs here (USA) means sandbagging waiting for a FCY so everyone can pit.

[Sean O'Gorman]

I call BS on that one. Did you watch late 90s CART?

I watched early 2000s CART when they had 900 HP, and it was boring. The average person can't tell the difference between 650, 700, and 1000 hp, but they can tell when you are going to see a parade.

[Insomniac]

I watched early 2000s CART when they had 900 HP, and it was boring. The average person can't tell the difference between 650, 700, and 1000 hp, but they can tell when you are going to see a parade.

The problem wasn't the HP though. It was the single engine, chassis and tire (and aero, wind tunnels and computers).

[ChrisB]

(my cut + paste from the TF thread)

Instead on re-doing the old arguments, let me just say... is there ANYONE out there would like to see JUST ONCE an Indy-car race run with fuel stops for everyone to come in at the same predetermined laps? Just once?

Assuming a range of 100 miles for tires and tank size, I suppose if they did it at the Milwaukee 225 they would have the fuel stops at laps 100 and 200, with a near-full tank sprint for the last 25 miles.

Or.... they have several 300 mile races on 1.5 mile tracks. They could have the fuel stops at laps 66 and 132, with a half-tank refill at lap 166 for a 50 mile sprint.

Would anyone like to see that done JUST ONCE? I mean just once to see what would happen if strategizing for FCY's were eliminated and what new strategies would emerge if everyone had the same amount of fuel and knew exactly where the fuel stops will occur?

And what new strategies would emerge if that were tried, just once?

[Insomniac]

(my cut + paste from the TF thread)

Instead on re-doing the old arguments, let me just say... is there ANYONE out there would like to see JUST ONCE an Indy-car race run with fuel stops for everyone to come in at the same predetermined laps? Just once?

Assuming a range of 100 miles for tires and tank size, I suppose if they did it at the Milwaukee 225 they would have the fuel stops at laps 100 and 200, with a near-full tank sprint for the last 25 miles.

Or.... they have several 300 mile races on 1.5 mile tracks. They could have the fuel stops at laps 66 and 132, with a half-tank refill at lap 166 for a 50 mile sprint.

Would anyone like to see that done JUST ONCE? I mean just once to see what would happen if strategizing for FCY's were eliminated and what new strategies would emerge if everyone had the same amount of fuel and knew exactly where the fuel stops will occur?

And what new strategies would emerge if that were tried, just once?

It's been done. Here is the race for you. Turn the fuel mixture down all the way. Conserve fuel. And, if by some chance the leader decides that they will go full rich, everyone else will too. The same cars will get lapped. There will be the "luck" of not having a mechanical problem and avoiding an accident. What's the difference? A couple times each season someone doesn't win the race on fuel strategy and no one tries and runs out of fuel near the end. So you get even more parades. Having one chassis, engine and tire isn't enough. Now one fuel strategy is needed too?

[mlj]

This isn't a slam against Danica, but a long-time annoyance with me. This race was determined entirely by fuel... some drivers, despite driving well, pitted under green while others "got lucky" when the yellow came out soon after. A lot. The final outcome seems to have been based on a "fuel gamble" too.

THIS IS NOT A SPORT!!! Sports are about competing based on mostly SKILL, not mostly LUCK (sure, I can understand a little luck, but not to the degree this has become because of fuel)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again... make EVERYONE come in for fuel at the same predetermined laps. These cars are supposed to be getting 5-6mpg with a 22 gal tank? That's a 110-132 mile range, although Firestone recommends the tires shouldn't go past 100 miles. OK, 100 miles.

Fine... for a 1.5mile track like Motegi (300 miles) make everyone come in for fuel every 100 miles, which would be lap 66 and 132 and then again at maybe lap 166 with 50 miles to go so everyone can run full out without any worries. (someone correct me if I've got these numbers wrong)

By doing this it takes the "gambling" equation and the randon luck of yellows out of the game. (and don't tell me all the cars won't fit in the pits at once.. I've seem it multiple times at Nazareth, including everyone taking off at once from thier pits for morning warmup).

Of course, the notion of racing being determined by "fuel strategy and luck" has been so ingrained for so long, that no one can think out of the box anymore.

I love that idea !!!! Too bad we will never see it happen:(

[mlj]

No one in here has mentioned the weight advantage factor involved, correct me if I am wrong, but, based on my fuel consumption in my loaded versus unloaded SUV I get better fuel mileage unloaded. Wouldn't the same principle apply in these race cars? Isn't there still an advantage for the drivers who weigh less here in the Indy Series? I'm asking.. don't jump on me

[Insomniac]

No one in here has mentioned the weight advantage factor involved, correct me if I am wrong, but, based on my fuel consumption in my loaded versus unloaded SUV I get better fuel mileage unloaded. Wouldn't the same principle apply in these race cars? Isn't there still an advantage for the drivers who weigh less here in the Indy Series? I'm asking.. don't jump on me

They are weighing the driver and car this year.

[trish]

With 3 laps to go, why wouldn't Helio just go for it? Why would he slow down unless he was running out?

[trish]

Danica sounds just like her mom.

[Dirk Diggler]

I can't believe that you guys are knocking the most incredible first win since Mario "Yeah Mother*******" Dominguez staged that dramatic come-from-behind win at Surfers.

The stuff of legend, I say.



(where's the barf smilie?)

[Insomniac]

With 3 laps to go, why wouldn't Helio just go for it? Why would he slow down unless he was running out?

He was on that strategy too? My best guess would be the championship (and if you like "the call" ;)).

[Brickman]

This isn't a slam against Danica, but a long-time annoyance with me. This race was determined entirely by fuel... some drivers, despite driving well, pitted under green while others "got lucky" when the yellow came out soon after. A lot. The final outcome seems to have been based on a "fuel gamble" too.

THIS IS NOT A SPORT!!! Sports are about competing based on mostly SKILL, not mostly LUCK (sure, I can understand a little luck, but not to the degree this has become because of fuel)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again... make EVERYONE come in for fuel at the same predetermined laps. These cars are supposed to be getting 5-6mpg with a 22 gal tank? That's a 110-132 mile range, although Firestone recommends the tires shouldn't go past 100 miles. OK, 100 miles.

Fine... for a 1.5mile track like Motegi (300 miles) make everyone come in for fuel every 100 miles, which would be lap 66 and 132 and then again at maybe lap 166 with 50 miles to go so everyone can run full out without any worries. (someone correct me if I've got these numbers wrong)

By doing this it takes the "gambling" equation and the randon luck of yellows out of the game. (and don't tell me all the cars won't fit in the pits at once.. I've seem it multiple times at Nazareth, including everyone taking off at once from thier pits for morning warmup).

Of course, the notion of racing being determined by "fuel strategy and luck" has been so ingrained for so long, that no one can think out of the box anymore.

Helio got beat two races in a row because of different stratagies, one could argue about fuel, then one could argue about tires. Helio was on older tires when he got beat, simply because of race strategy.

I don't think fuel should be controlled by knobs, but by the skill of the driver letting off and easing on the gas. I am hesitant to mention a couple years ago when manatory pit stops were required, it did not create the best racing. IF my brain cells work right... Teo Fabi's win at Mid-Ohio was a classic example of no rules on fuel.

Racing is a combination of gambling, pitting, taking tires or not, conserving fuel, and luck.

[Indy]

No offense Chris, but I think your logic is completely upside down. The problem is too much sameness, not too much diversity of technology, strategy, whatever.

If you want IROC, start an IROC style series. If you want real motorsport, open up the rules and variables in the game. If they are not willing to do this by 2010, the sport will be lost forever.

[mlj]

They are weighing the driver and car this year.

I thought that I read they are weighing both, but that it isn't completely leveled off, there is still some differences. Seems like my recollection is there are weight categories (groups within a certain weight range). Yes?

[Insomniac]

I thought that I read they are weighing both, but that it isn't completely leveled off, there is still some differences. Seems like my recollection is there are weight categories (groups within a certain weight range). Yes?

I don't know thew details but I don't think it's the same as F1 (weigh driver and car after he race) but a ballast system to ensure roughly the same weight. Basically, they should all be pretty close in weight when including the driver. (It's definitely no longer car only.)

[mlj]

I found the quote

New weight rule

Barnhart explained the new weight rules in effect for this season. Essentially the drivers will be divided into 5 groups, A thru E. Groups A, B and C will add weight to their cars. Group A (lightest drivers) will add the most weight, B the next most, and so forth. Group D will add or subtract no weight and Group E will remove weight from their cars. This will make all the cars with drivers almost the same weight and therefore make the weight differences almost negligible.

The drivers will be weighed just once before the season starts.

So, I guess after the season starts the Drivers should go on a diet:D

[cameraman]

Fuel strategy has little to no bearing on [SNIP] F1

Say what:saywhat: F1 is all about fuel loads, getting an extra lap, refueling to get out of the pits a 1/10 of a second ahead of your team mate. They have made it even more so with this version of qualifying. F1 is all about fuel strategy.

[ChrisB]

What I meant was "American style fuel strategy" where you try to do everything you can to avoid pitting under green. (F1 almost never has FCY's where everyone tries to base their fuel strategy on)

[ChrisB]

It's been done.

When? This is not the CC "pit window" thing:

1. make your first pit stop whenever
2. the 2nd pit stop must occur within a window of no less than 40 laps and no more than 50 laps (or something like that, I don't remember the exact numbers)
3. same thing for the 3rd and 4th "windows".

This resulted in cars leading the race near the end, but they needed to pit because they had to satisfy their "window" requirements.


Here is the race for you. Turn the fuel mixture down all the way. Conserve fuel. And, if by some chance the leader decides that they will go full rich, everyone else will too. The same cars will get lapped.

Why "by chance" would the leader suddenly go rich? To run away from the field like a rabbit? What's the point if there's a FCY and he loses that big gap when they bunch up behind the pace car? Or if there isn't a FCY, and its still far from the end of the race, he'll increase the chances that he'd have to refuel under green.

There will be the "luck" of not having a mechanical problem and avoiding an accident. What's the difference?

The bad "luck" of pitting under green when your main challenge pitted under FCY happens WAY more often than the "luck" of hitting debris or mechanical failure, IMHO.



Question for anyone.... *if* mandatory refuel stops for everyone were ever tried, what would be the prevailing race strategy? (I'm trying to see if anyone can shoot holes in this)

[Insomniac]

When? This is not the CC "pit window" thing:

1. make your first pit stop whenever
2. the 2nd pit stop must occur within a window of no less than 40 laps and no more than 50 laps (or something like that, I don't remember the exact numbers)
3. same thing for the 3rd and 4th "windows".

This resulted in cars leading the race near the end, but they needed to pit because they had to satisfy their "window" requirements.

You did not watch enough CC races that involved either 1. minimum number of mandatory green flag pit stops or 2. maximum number of laps you could run before pitting.

The latter is how the "windows" were created under the assumption that no team would want to stop more than needed. So, if you want to use your 100 miles example on a 2 mile oval, that meant that no car could go more than 50 laps before pitting. Guess what happened race after race? Drivers would conserve fuel and try to get all 50 laps in. The only time they would break from this was if a caution happened during the "window". Even then, everyone followed the leader. So yes, they could pit early, but no one ever dared.


Why "by chance" would the leader suddenly go rich? To run away from the field like a rabbit? What's the point if there's a FCY and he loses that big gap when they bunch up behind the pace car? Or if there isn't a FCY, and its still far from the end of the race, he'll increase the chances that he'd have to refuel under green.

OK, so you feel that the leader won't go full rich. And no one else will go full rich. So they will all conserve fuel because either 1. they don't want to run out before the pit lap comes up or 2. want to shorten the amount of time it takes to get fuel because they used less in the first place. Welcome to the parade. Also, why does it matter if the stop is under yellow or green if everyone has to stop at the same lap anyway?


The bad "luck" of pitting under green when your main challenge pitted under FCY happens WAY more often than the "luck" of hitting debris or mechanical failure, IMHO.

Again, you are not watching enough races. There are generally two strategies if possible. The leader's and an alternative. The alternative is used much less because it requires things to fall your way. The leaders of the race don't use it and it works out every now and then. The current alternative is a parade.


Question for anyone.... *if* mandatory refuel stops for everyone were ever tried, what would be the prevailing race strategy? (I'm trying to see if anyone can shoot holes in this)

As I said before, the only strategy available is follow the leader. What other strategy is there? Full rich assuming that you have enough fuel for the distance and a green flag from beginning to end? If you're trying to win a championship, that strategy will never work. You might get a win, but not a championship.

[Ed_Severson]

This is a silly argument.

Fuel strategy is part of this sport, and always has been. No matter what contrived ideas have been attempted, nothing has ever worked to eliminate it, and nothing ever will work.

If your definition of sport includes mandating not only rules but strategy as well, you need a new dictionary.

[oddlycalm]

Fuel strategy has little to no bearing on Sprint cars, Drag racing, 12/24 hr endurance, and F1 - where FCY's are so few that pitting under a "lucky yellow" almost never happens. It's totally a US oval track legacy. The FCY, often for no particular reason, that artificially bunch the field late in the race. The first 3/4 of the race is to create attrition and work on car setup then they bunch up the field for a sprint finish. It's what people in the US expect.

To his credit Tony Cotman did a great job of doing away with BS yellows in road course events. He never sacrificed safety, but he cut the crap down to size.

F1's knockout qualifying has been so popular that it made me think about the traditional oval track model of heat races and A & B mains. Having a series of sprint time trials with a longer race the following day has worked for them and as you point out they don't hold up the race artificially.

You will never completely get away from fuel economy runs unless you run all sprint races, and I doubt many would want to give up the drama of pit stops, but removing the artifice would be nice. Of course the EARL is not exactly about removing artifice. :gomer:

oc

[cart7]

..

So, I guess after the season starts the Drivers should go on a diet:D

Binge, then purge. :tony:

[ChrisB]

As I said before, the only strategy available is follow the leader. What other strategy is there?

What you call "follow the leader" I call "go like hell, the whole race" (except when refueling/tires). It's the most basic racing strategy of all.

You made a good case of how the old CC "pit window" could be gamed. How could my idea be gamed? I'm curious if anyone can think of one way.

[NismoZ]

Three 75 mi. heats, no stops.:) ...no rigs, no :SpeedBumps", save big money, no pit fires, fastest guy wins, period. Not advocating it, just sayin'.

[Insomniac]

As I said before, the only strategy available is follow the leader. What other strategy is there?

What you call "follow the leader" I call "go like hell, the whole race" (except when refueling/tires). It's the most basic racing strategy of all.

You made a good case of how the old CC "pit window" could be gamed. How could my idea be gamed? I'm curious if anyone can think of one way.

You fail to understand that your idea would not make everyone "go like hell, the whole race".

[ChrisB]

You fail to understand that your idea would not make everyone "go like hell, the whole race".

If I fail to understand, then please give me a scenario.



Otherwise, here's a change of gears. Let's examine the "ban FCY refueling" idea that inevitably comes up whenever I post stuff like this. I already started a thread on this at TF here (http://www.trackforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106255)

I'm primarily in favor of taking "luck" out of this whole fuel thing. Mainly that someone pits under green while others catch a lucky break and pit under yellow, and everyone conserves fuel to increase their chances of pitting under FCY.

If FCY refueling were banned (or severly penalized) one concern is that if a team had planned to refuel on a certain lap, and a FCY comes out just before, then that's "bad luck"... they must either run outta fuel on the track or get a penalty for coming in under the FCY.

I would suppose the strategy against that happening would be for teams to never let their tanks get below the amount of fuel needed to make it through a FCY period... just a few gallons. In other words, refuel when your tank gets down to that level. That way if a FCY happened, they would be able to refuel when the track goes back green.


What are the potential flaws with a rule like that? (banning FCY refueling)

[pfc_m_drake]

You fail to understand that your idea would not make everyone "go like hell, the whole race".

If I fail to understand, then please give me a scenario.


In addition to Insomniac's points, what always happens is this:

Since everything is spec these days and most passes seem to happen in the pits, the teams therefore desire to minimize their time in the pits. Therefore, everybody saves fuel during the course of the entire race to minimize refueling time. For the final stop, time is further minimized by filling the car to the absolute minimum level required to finish the race. As such, this doesn't lend itself to the 'go like hell' scenario.

Additionally, I tend to agree with what Ed said. Further, good racing is the result of competition, strategy, skill, and many other things. Good racing is *not* the result of writing enough rules.

[Insomniac]

You fail to understand that your idea would not make everyone "go like hell, the whole race".

If I fail to understand, then please give me a scenario.



Otherwise, here's a change of gears. Let's examine the "ban FCY refueling" idea that inevitably comes up whenever I post stuff like this. I already started a thread on this at TF here (http://www.trackforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106255)

I'm primarily in favor of taking "luck" out of this whole fuel thing. Mainly that someone pits under green while others catch a lucky break and pit under yellow, and everyone conserves fuel to increase their chances of pitting under FCY.

If FCY refueling were banned (or severly penalized) one concern is that if a team had planned to refuel on a certain lap, and a FCY comes out just before, then that's "bad luck"... they must either run outta fuel on the track or get a penalty for coming in under the FCY.

I would suppose the strategy against that happening would be for teams to never let their tanks get below the amount of fuel needed to make it through a FCY period... just a few gallons. In other words, refuel when your tank gets down to that level. That way if a FCY happened, they would be able to refuel when the track goes back green.


What are the potential flaws with a rule like that? (banning FCY refueling)

I've provided many scenarios. I'm not sure why you disregard them.

If you can save fuel you can complete your pit stop faster. It's been proven out over and over that this is what the teams will do.

CC has essentially done the no pit stops during FCY. They had a season where each car had to make a minimum number of green flag stops. That number happened to be the same number of stops you would need to complete the race. You could make more, but not less. Same thing happened. Conserve fuel and try to stop as late as you can.

Limits on when to refuel or what conditions you can refuel makes the racing worse. It's a parade of who can qualify best and then conserve fuel the best. You are not going to make them "go like hell" with either of those limitations.

[ChrisB]

everybody saves fuel during the course of the entire race to minimize refueling time.

If you can save fuel you can complete your pit stop faster.




Guys, I agree... no matter what, teams are going to try to conserve fuel for the purpose of shaving a few seconds in the pits by putting only as much fuel as needed into the tank. (short of mandating that everyone "top off" everytime)

Getting back to my original post... the one thing I most want to eliminate is the "lucky dog" scenario where one driver pits under green, and someone else pits under yellow and gets a lucky break.

What could be done to eliminate that?

Or should I ask: Why don't some of you want to eliminate that scenario?

[opinionated ow]

everybody saves fuel during the course of the entire race to minimize refueling time.

If you can save fuel you can complete your pit stop faster.




Guys, I agree... no matter what, teams are going to try to conserve fuel for the purpose of shaving a few seconds in the pits by putting only as much fuel as needed into the tank. (short of mandating that everyone "top off" everytime)

Getting back to my original post... the one thing I most want to eliminate is the "lucky dog" scenario where one driver pits under green, and someone else pits under yellow and gets a lucky break.

What could be done to eliminate that?

Or should I ask: Why don't some of you want to eliminate that scenario?
there is only one solution. No full course cautions.

[Andrew Longman]

Or should I ask: Why don't some of you want to eliminate that scenario?

Because I prefer the outcome of the race to be determined by the actions of the driver and team, rather than contrived by the rules. Frankly, the fewer rules the better, though some are necessary for safety and the good of the sport.

Consider too that the outcome sometimes happens the other way. Helio would never have won his second 500 if Giaffoni hadn't brought out the last caution allowing HCN to make it to the end on his low fuel.

Danica never would have made her famed 4th place finish if her lifting to save fuel/low fuel pick up in the corners hadn't caused SeeBass to crash and bring out a caution.

Sometimes it rains. Stuff happens and the teams and drivers have to plan accordingly.

[Insomniac]

everybody saves fuel during the course of the entire race to minimize refueling time.

If you can save fuel you can complete your pit stop faster.




Guys, I agree... no matter what, teams are going to try to conserve fuel for the purpose of shaving a few seconds in the pits by putting only as much fuel as needed into the tank. (short of mandating that everyone "top off" everytime)

Getting back to my original post... the one thing I most want to eliminate is the "lucky dog" scenario where one driver pits under green, and someone else pits under yellow and gets a lucky break.

What could be done to eliminate that?

Or should I ask: Why don't some of you want to eliminate that scenario?

If that is all you care about, then what you suggest will obviously accomplish that. No pitting under a FCY or everyone pit on the same lap takes any strategy as far as when to pit out of the equation.

Speaking for myself, that will make the racing even more boring. I applaud ChampCar for trying to improve the on track product, but it showed it simply did not make the racing better, but worse. Variety makes it better.

[ChrisB]

If that is all you care about, then what you suggest will obviously accomplish that. No pitting under a FCY or everyone pit on the same lap takes any strategy as far as when to pit out of the equation.

And if it eliminating FCY refills does take that strategy out of the equation... what becomes the NEW strategy?

[Andrew Longman]

And if it eliminating FCY refills does take that strategy out of the equation... what becomes the NEW strategy?

There was a rule in CART, and perhaps there still it, that you were only given so much fuel to complete the race. 2.3 mpg IIRC. It don't remember it ever playing into a race result, but it could if you raised the mpg requirement.

That could be interesting, especially as we enter a more green era of racing.

[pfc_m_drake]

And if it eliminating FCY refills does take that strategy out of the equation... what becomes the NEW strategy?

Attempt to save yet even more fuel in an attempt to either:
1) Minimize the penalty associated with always pitting under green
2) Eliminate an entire pit stop altogether

[cameraman]

Much of the problem would go away with a pressurized fuel rig that could fill a car faster than four guys can change the tires. Also make damn sure you can't double stint the tires or just mandate x number of tire changes if you can't convince Bridgestone to make tires that will wear out after a hundred miles.

That will put the onus back on the pit crew's tire changing skills (none of this F1 95 person pit crew crap) and take much of the fuel gambling out of the picture.

[Brickman]

Don't low people to pit under the yellow.

[mueber]

A win is a win is a win.

[Insomniac]

If that is all you care about, then what you suggest will obviously accomplish that. No pitting under a FCY or everyone pit on the same lap takes any strategy as far as when to pit out of the equation.

And if it eliminating FCY refills does take that strategy out of the equation... what becomes the NEW strategy?

It would all depend on what laps they had to fill fuel up on. However, given the spec racing, there is no benefit to running flat out. They'll run to conserve fuel to minimize how much they need to take on for a pitstop.

The only way I see them going all out with your proposed strategy is to force them to fill up often enough that changing tires takes longer. Even then, that assumes the additional; weight of fuel won't be a hindrance. Also, that could also be done by just simply making the tank smaller.

[Insomniac]

There was a rule in CART, and perhaps there still it, that you were only given so much fuel to complete the race. 2.3 mpg IIRC. It don't remember it ever playing into a race result, but it could if you raised the mpg requirement.

That could be interesting, especially as we enter a more green era of racing.

RM suggested that a while back. I liked the idea. He said provide X gallons of fuel and let the engine makers figure out how to cover the race distance (any type of engine design they want, I'm sure with some limitations). If engine manufacturers actually signed on, that would bring back actual engine competition/differences.

[shaggy_socal]

I'll finish reading the last page and a half in a bit, but as far as my opinion on fuel strategy, it goes something like this...

So long as the driver has direct influence over how much gas goes to the engine, and especially when there are pit stops invloved, you will always have some form of fuel strategy.

Sometimes it's just way more blatant than others.

[Gnam]

Good racing is the result of competition, strategy, skill, and many other things. Good racing is *not* the result of writing enough rules.
word.

[Accipiter]

I always thought banning refueling under caution would be the best way to deal with this problem. Or Banning refueling all together works too.

[cameraman]

Or Banning refueling all together works too.Then you have a rather short race or the cars are rolling bombs at the start.

[TrueBrit]

Then you have a rather short race or the cars are rolling bombs at the start.

Like they used to do in the old days....

Fill 'em up and let 'em race...you had to manage your tyres AND your fuel or you were done...A visit to the pits meant you were retiring...

[Insomniac]

Like they used to do in the old days....

Fill 'em up and let 'em race...you had to manage your tyres AND your fuel or you were done...A visit to the pits meant you were retiring...

Isn't that how F1 was in the 80s?

[emjaya]

Isn't that how F1 was in the 80s?

Yes. I'm not sure how large the tanks got to, but they did bring in a 220lt limit at one stage.


Edit: http://www.f1technical.net/articles/26 (http://www.f1technical.net/articles/26)


1980-1983
1500 cc with compressor or 3000 cc without a compressor. Maximumweight 575 kg (1980), 585 kg (1981), 580 kg (1982), 540 kg (1983)
480 hp at 10000 rpm-588 kg (1980 Williams 07B)
640 hp at 11000 rpm-540 kg (1983 Brabham BMW BT55 Turbo)
1984-1985
1500 cc without and 3000 cc with compressor.
Minimumweight 540 kg, maximumfuelconsumption 220 l/race.
750 hp at 12000 rpm-540 kg (1985 McLaren-TAG MP4/2B Turbo)
1986
1500 cc with compressor. Minimumweight 540 kg, max.fuelcons. 195 l/race
1400 hp at 12000 rpm-540 kg (Williams-Honda FW11 Turbo)
1987-1988
- Min.weight 500 kg (1987), 540 kg (1988). Max.fuelcons. 195 l/race (1987), 155 l/race (1988), max.pressure 4 bar (1987), 2.5 bar (1988).
850 hp at 13000 rpm-540 kg (Williams-Honda FW11 Turbo)
- Or: 3500 cc not compressed. Minimum 500 kg, no fuel-limit.
590 hp at 12000 rpm- 500 kg (Tyrell-Ford 016)
1989
3500 cc not compressed (no more turbo engines), no refuelling.
685 hp at 13000 rpm-500 kg (McLaren-Honda MP4/5)

[Linda]

So are you saying pit stops isn't part of the sport of racing? Should they all pit and re-line up placed where they were running before they pitted?
Also the weight factor of the drivers is there that much difference in the weight of Danica to Helio ?
Was it a fixed race? I'd hope not but then I watched Paul Tracy win the Indy 500 by losing it to the Penske clan. Would Penseke have Helio slow down so a women could beat him? I don't know looks like Helio and Penske like to win races to much. But Penske does like money too. TG give them extra to let Danica win? :\

[JLMannin]

The more I think about it, I do not think Helio pulled aside for princess. Her race strategy was 100% contingent on the last 49 laps being caution free. In the IRL, 49 caution free laps to close out a race are exceedingly rare.

It was a very risky proposition that ended up panning out for the team.

[Racing Truth]

Fuel strategy will always be a part of racing, and there is nothing you can do artificially to change that.

Yep, AND O'Gorman's right. They should NOT even try to do so. This isn't IROC, folks; nor should it be.

Not every race will have a "satisfying" finish. So what? The strategic element is one thing that attracts me to it. Taking it out seems utterly contrived.

[Racing Truth]

there is only one solution. No full course cautions.

Good luck with that on ovals.

[Racing Truth]

More shameless blog pimping:

My original take on "The Win," etc. (http://http://racingandpolitics.blogspot.com/2008/04/you-dont-need-memorable-performance.html)

[Insomniac]

Yes. I'm not sure how large the tanks got to, but they did bring in a 220lt limit at one stage.


Edit: http://www.f1technical.net/articles/26 (http://www.f1technical.net/articles/26)

Interesting stuff. When did the start to use gasoline? They had it down to 155 L, which is roughly 40 gallons per race. A CC fuel cell was 35 gallons I believe.

[Insomniac]

The more I think about it, I do not think Helio pulled aside for princess.

He said the team told him to at LB.

[ChrisB]

IIRC, F1 before 1994 were using about 55gals of gasoline onboard, so there was no need to stop for fuel. And because they have such good runoff areas, there are almost never any FCY's (obviously impossible with oval racing). For awhile there at that time, the only reason to come into the pits (pre '94) was for tires. They would have these insane 4 sec tire stops!


BTW... does anyone remember that in the late 60's/early 70's it was not uncommon to run the entire Indy 500 with the same set of ties? I have a Mario Andretti 1969 Firestone promo picture that says "500 miles without a change".


Somebody also mentioned earlier about presurrized fuel rigs... I wouldn't mind seeing that. Does anyone know what the current GPM is for the gravity-fed rigs? If they went to 2x the current rate it would reduce the emphasis on trying to get *just enough* fuel into the tank to save a few seconds in the pits. Ideally, a total refuel should take about the same amount of time as changing 4 tires.... think about that.


But my main beef remains with the "lucky dog yellow refuel" scenario. I'd really like to see FCY refueling banned to eliminate that!

[opinionated ow]

Good luck with that on ovals.

hey I didn't say it was practical ;)

[Accipiter]

Then you have a rather short race or the cars are rolling bombs at the start.

Then you limit the fuel, bring in more fuel efficient engines, and possibly along the way interest manufacturers in participating again.

[Insomniac]

Somebody also mentioned earlier about presurrized fuel rigs... I wouldn't mind seeing that. Does anyone know what the current GPM is for the gravity-fed rigs? If they went to 2x the current rate it would reduce the emphasis on trying to get *just enough* fuel into the tank to save a few seconds in the pits. Ideally, a total refuel should take about the same amount of time as changing 4 tires.... think about that.

F1 has pressurized refueling but going one extra lap longer than the guy in front means a lot more to them. You would still have to force them to pit at specific times.

[cameraman]

F1 has pressurized refueling but going one extra lap longer than the guy in front means a lot more to them. You would still have to force them to pit at specific times.

No, just limit the size of the pit crew to one individual per tire instead of three. I don't think too many Champ Car teams were able to change all four tires in six seconds.

[Insomniac]

No, just limit the size of the pit crew to one individual per tire instead of three. I don't think too many Champ Car teams were able to change all four tires in six seconds.

I was just talking specifically to his desire to avoid anyone getting an advantage via refueling. In F1, they try to go a lap longer, so they'd need to make everyone pit on the same lap. So I was saying even with those kind of refueling times (and tire warmers), getting an extra hot lap is more beneficial.

[ChrisB]

F1 has pressurized refueling but going one extra lap longer than the guy in front means a lot more to them.

Why? Is it that old Michael Schumacher trick of trying to crank off the fastest lap of the race while your nearest opponent is pitting? Why would an F1 team need to get that one extra lap of mileage? (to keep the tank weight and refuel seconds as low as possible?)

[Insomniac]

F1 has pressurized refueling but going one extra lap longer than the guy in front means a lot more to them.

Why? Is it that old Michael Schumacher trick of trying to crank off the fastest lap of the race while your nearest opponent is pitting? Why would an F1 team need to get that one extra lap of mileage? (to keep the tank weight and refuel seconds as low as possible?)

It's an extra hot lap over the guy right in front of you. While they do have tire warmers, they aren't 100% up to temp and the other guy is going to have a longer out lap (with the slightly colder tires and significantly more heavy car) than your in lap. You can get out in front of them and keep them behind you. There is probably a 4s gap in the combined lap times.

[Ray Scar]

F1 has pressurized refueling but going one extra lap longer than the guy in front means a lot more to them.

Why? Is it that old Michael Schumacher trick of trying to crank off the fastest lap of the race while your nearest opponent is pitting? Why would an F1 team need to get that one extra lap of mileage? (to keep the tank weight and refuel seconds as low as possible?)

The pit boxes in F1 can only accommodate one car at time. One teammate has to go a lap further than the other.

[ChrisB]

There is probably a 4s gap in the combined lap times.

OK, thanks. But is that really relevant in American racing where we inevitably have lots of FCY's (relative to F1) where long leads don't last as the cars are often (relative to F1) bunching up behind the pace car?

[Insomniac]

There is probably a 4s gap in the combined lap times.

OK, thanks. But is that really relevant in American racing where we inevitably have lots of FCY's (relative to F1) where long leads don't last as the cars are often (relative to F1) bunching up behind the pace car?

It would be more relevant, right? If you know that if you can maintain a 3s gap to the car in front of you and can pit one lap later, you have an incentive to save fuel. With the FCY, it reduces the chance of relying on a strategy where you can pull away from the field. This is all a problem because passing is difficult (on road courses) so teams prefer not to waste fuel trying to pass. Easier to save fuel and get them on the pit stop exchange.

[ChrisB]

This is all a problem because passing is difficult (on road courses) so teams prefer not to waste fuel trying to pass. Easier to save fuel and get them on the pit stop exchange.

Yep, the Michael Schumacher thing.

Remember, Racing competes with all other forms of entertainment, and if there's no passing on the road-race tracks, people will watch something else. Formula roadracing hasn't done very well in this country (F5000, CCWS, USGP) ... so perhaps trying something like mandated milemarker refuel stops to eliminate the "passing only happens when pitting" syndrome for roadracing might not be so bad?

Yes, it would essentially turn a road-race almost into 3 consecutive sprint races. I wouldn't mind seeing how that would turn out.

[opinionated ow]

This is all a problem because passing is difficult (on road courses) so teams prefer not to waste fuel trying to pass. Easier to save fuel and get them on the pit stop exchange.

Yep, the Michael Schumacher thing.

Remember, Racing competes with all other forms of entertainment, and if there's no passing on the road-race tracks, people will watch something else. Formula roadracing hasn't done very well in this country (F5000, CCWS, USGP) ... so perhaps trying something like mandated milemarker refuel stops to eliminate the "passing only happens when pitting" syndrome for roadracing might not be so bad?

Yes, it would essentially turn a road-race almost into 3 consecutive sprint races. I wouldn't mind seeing how that would turn out.

you are about the only one...

[Insomniac]

This is all a problem because passing is difficult (on road courses) so teams prefer not to waste fuel trying to pass. Easier to save fuel and get them on the pit stop exchange.

Yep, the Michael Schumacher thing.

Remember, Racing competes with all other forms of entertainment, and if there's no passing on the road-race tracks, people will watch something else. Formula roadracing hasn't done very well in this country (F5000, CCWS, USGP) ... so perhaps trying something like mandated milemarker refuel stops to eliminate the "passing only happens when pitting" syndrome for roadracing might not be so bad?

Yes, it would essentially turn a road-race almost into 3 consecutive sprint races. I wouldn't mind seeing how that would turn out.

It's not the Michael Schumacher thing. It was/is done in CART/CC and the IRL. Mandatory pitting will not increase passing, it will only make them pass less. The problem isn't fuel. If people could pass easily, they would. No one would save fuel to get a few seconds on a pit stop when they could just pass the guy in front of them.

[ChrisB]

you are about the only one...

Yea, I'm not trying to be an endless antagonist :) it's just that this is something that's been starting to bug me for a while now, whereas for years I just accepted it as part of the game without criticism.

Let's just watch tomorrow's race from Kansas and see what happens.

[opinionated ow]

you are about the only one...

Yea, I'm not trying to be an endless antagonist :) it's just that this is something that's been starting to bug me for a while now, whereas for years I just accepted it as part of the game without criticism.

Let's just watch tomorrow's race from Kansas and see what happens.

farting bees on a s^#$house cookie cutter oval, not an enjoyable combination :sick:

[pchall]

"Fuelish" gambols were going to kill CART oval racing according to the :gomer:s. I hope they enjoy that the saviorette of their sport can only win with one and usually loses because of her owner's Foyt-like stupidity at the laptop.