Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Get rid of refueling?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Get rid of refueling?

    In my personal opinion, it seems like fuel strategy plays way too large of a part in the outcomes of many Indycar races, such as Helio having to pit early and gambling the rest of the race in Kentucky as the most recent example.

    Should Indycar follow in F1's footsteps and scrap refueling altogether? When F1 did it at first I thought it was a horrible idea but now I'm beginning to think that Indycar would benefit even more from it than F1 has.

    Leave the racing to the drivers instead of the gas tank.

  • #2
    NO!!!!!!

    It hasn't improved the F1 show and fuel was the ONLY reason Indy was exciting this year.
    The Original Fan of Kimi "The Iceman" Raikkonen 2007 World Driving Champion: 21 Wins---102 Podiums---18 Pole Positions---43 Fastest Laps ---1 Gorilla Suit

    Comment


    • #3
      IndyCar has refueling.

      F1 is a joke.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by aaron5572 View Post
        NO!!!!!!

        It hasn't improved the F1 show and fuel was the ONLY reason Indy was exciting this year.
        I think it has improved F1 a little actually, although fuel strategy never really played that big of a part in F1 so it's hard to say.

        Good point about Indy, but even with "fuel drama" I still don't think Indy has been a very good race for a while now. I think there are some bigger issues that Indycar needs to deal with to make the 500 an exciting race again (i.e. different engines/chassis)

        I don't think we should have to rely on fuel strategy to have a watchable race at Indy. Obviously other things need to be done as well, but getting rid of these boring fuel gamble finishes would be a nice start.

        Comment


        • #5
          You do realize that they'd have to carry somewhere near 100 gallons of fuel to race at Indy, right? That would be an extra 600lbs!!!
          Speed has never killed anyone, suddenly becoming stationary… that's what gets you.

          http://twitter.com/WhateverJoel

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by jcmark611 View Post
            You do realize that they'd have to carry somewhere near 100 gallons of fuel to race at Indy, right? That would be an extra 600lbs!!!
            They could make the cars lighter. They might even set some record speeds towards the end of the race if they did!

            Or they could allow a single refuel at Indy or something, but I was mostly speaking about the rest of the schedule since none of the other races are that long.

            Comment


            • #7
              Please don't stop refuelling, F1 certainly isn't more exciting without it

              Comment


              • #8
                Good grief, eliminate refueling and there would be no passing at all on the side streets.
                "In America, the winner goes to Victory Lane, everybody else goes to the garage and should soak their tears in their beer and figure out how to be faster next week."
                Eddie Gossage

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by jcmark611 View Post
                  You do realize that they'd have to carry somewhere near 100 gallons of fuel to race at Indy, right? That would be an extra 600lbs!!!
                  Actually, it would be at least 250 gallons, assuming 2.0 mpg. Then safety would be severely compromised.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Indycars used to have much larger fuel tanks. The reason the fuel tanks are only 30 gal is not to "make a show" with fueling stops. It's for safety to limit the fireball when they crash.
                    "Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob." - Federalist 55
                    “My first reaction as a race car driver was to jump out of the car and use the Foyt technique of driver development - grab him and pound some sense into him.”
                    "Make way. I'm Reaganing."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      You would only need to see one crash and fire with a car carring 80 to 100 gallons of fuel to know why this is no longer done in IndyCars.
                      "If you don't do it this year, you'll be another year older when you do"

                      http://davidm.smugmug.com/

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        F1 nixed refueling as a cost-cutting measure, to save the cost of transporting the fueling equipment all over the globe. IndyCar would not see the same savings as shorter distances are involved for the most part.

                        Road cars are designed to go 400 miles without refueling, but that would be quite a bit more fuel for a race car that gets half the mileage at best.

                        I like the drama of pit stops to refuel, it adds to the excitement for me, and have no problem with cars having to refuel.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          or maybe they should just get rid of "fuel" altogether. that would make about as much sense.
                          http://danwheldon.shutterfly.com/

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            All I can say is 1964!!!!!!!!!!
                            BTW, Helix, if you think the Indianapolis 500 is not exciting, what in the world are you doing here!
                            Have a very blessed day!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Lemming51 View Post
                              Indycars used to have much larger fuel tanks. The reason the fuel tanks are only 30 gal is not to "make a show" with fueling stops. It's for safety to limit the fireball when they crash.
                              Not really, it kind of is. I'm pretty sure it's 22 gallons now also. 30 gallons vs. 40 gallons is a small difference if you're really worried about "fireballs." Fires from crashes are pretty rare. The worst "fire" at Indy in recent years was in 2008 because on Foyt IV's car, they forgot to properly attach the buckeye cover and it fell off in turn 3.

                              In 2007, when they went to the "100% blend" of ethanol, during testing, they discovered that they were getting much better milage from the ethanol over the previous methanol. So they made the tanks smaller. Instead of going 35 laps at Indy in one stint, they probably would have been able to do 50. In addition, with 30 or 40 gallon methanol tanks, the tires were falling off around the same time the fuel was running out. Not anymore with ethanol, if they'd have kept the tanks 30 or 40, the tires would have fallen off 15 laps before the fuel was empty. So make the tanks smaller, and everything needs changing at the same time.

                              At this year's 500, the leaders made only 5 stops. Mostly because there weren't a lot of cautions late. That's low compared to recent years, when some leaders did 8.
                              Doctorindy.com

                              Comment

                              Unconfigured Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X