> But do they have to limit fuel. Does the advantage of the turbo outweigh more pitstops?
Refueling is not allowed in Formula 1, it has only been allowed during two brief stints in the early 1980s and late 1990s. It was/is silly dangerous and there were a few quite nasty pitstop fire incidents.
One goal of the new regulations with the turbo, the regenerative braking and the fuel limit is to put emphasis on the efficiency of the engines. The engine manufacturer with the best efficiency is at an advantage.
There's a risk that this will introduce boring fuel saving periods to races. But on the other hand the fuel limit is the same for everyone. If you look at this from a different perspective, there will periods where you can crank up the boost and mixture to allow for more power at the cost of more than average fuel consumption.
> Refueling is not allowed in Formula 1, it has only been allowed during two brief stints in the early 1980s and late 1990s.
Brief? It was allowed from 1994 to 2009, and the official reason for removing it in 2010 was team expenses (they had to move expensive speed-refueling machinery around the world, and highly trained pit staff to match)
That's not strictly true. Refuelling was allowed (or, more accurately, it wasn't banned) from 1950 (the first F1 world championship) thru 1983. Fangio did a deliberate pitstop during his famous win at the Nürburgring in 1957 [1].
However, it appears that it wasn't until 1983 that a team (Brabham) deliberately built a car with a tank too small to hold enough fuel to finish a race [2]. Brabham went on to win the 1983 championship and refuelling was banned from 1984.
That video of Jos Verstappen's pitstop fire is quite disturbing. That fire was partially caused by the fueling rig that had been tampered by removing a filter to allow faster refueling.
It's already the case. You cannot refuel (I think for safety reasons, but not sure), so to get a weight advantage you have to take as little fuel as possible at the beginning of the race. So I don't expect changes. And yes, it happened to some, like Hamilton, to have to drive slower to save fuel. http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/formula1/21917717
> You cannot refuel (I think for safety reasons, but not sure)
Definitely not safety reasons. Refueling on pit stops was allowed from 1994 to 2009 (inclusive). The official reason for refueling ban was lowering team expenses: refueling stops required significant machinery, equipment and crew (much more so than calibration and tyres changes), which had to be carried around the world.
In race refueling has been banned since 2010. Their concern was with the increasing number of fuel related pit row accidents. But on the flip side, many argue that operating with the increased fuel loads is even more dangerous.
NASCAR has road tracks so stop the stupid and tell the truth.
I like NASCAR because F1 feels too teched up and NASCAR doesn't even give the driver a fuel gauge or speedometer. Plus all that weight and those small breaks. And just to stop another stereotype, I hate wrecks and cautions and I haven't met anyone who does.
NASCAR is also the most fan friendly sport with a huge amount of fan interaction with the drivers and cars. NASCAR fans can even go on the actual track in training vehicles.
Not very many NASCAR tracks are road tracks, looks like 5 out of 29. I don't believe NASCAR has ever (or at least in the past decade or so) raced an actual street course though. E.g. similar to the Monaco GP, Montreal GP or for ALMS, Baltimore GP.
Isn't the lack of fuel gauges more due to them being inaccurate if you are at a 30 degree slant and back to level? I believe they use fuel pressure gauges to indicate if they are running out of fuel.
Well, NASCAR only has 4 dates at 2 tracks with restrictor plates, but a lot is made of them. Cup has two course: Watkins Glen and Sonoma which each get 1 race. I do wish they would move one to the chase.
I cannot remember Cup racing a street course, but the Nationwide did in Canada and the Trucks raced on dirt[1] this year, so they might be a Cup date in the future. Nationwide ran a road course in Mexico City, so that might be a possibility for Cup.
They just don't let drivers have much info or else they'd let the drivers have a speedometer. Heck, they've banned cellphones in the car since that could be used to get performance information.
1) a Cup race on dirt is a scary thought, pitting would be odd
I'm just sick of folks repeating that same tired argument, much like most Linux / BSD people being told that neither can be used as a desktop machine. It gets old and you just know the person saying it is much smarter than that.
I used to think it was dull, but then I read up on the aerodynamic and engineering work that goes into each car's design and suddenly it became a lot more interesting.
It may well be the case that they are all topologically equivalent, but they needn't be, so long as bridges are allowed. Perhaps that's how they could make F1 more interesting.
There's something in the rules about maximum fuel flow rate, which IIRC is 100kg of fuel per hour, with a maximum of 100kg of fuel in the tank, so the trick has been to make these engines as efficient as possible, it's no use having the most powerful engine if if can't reach it's full capability, or can only reach it when it's using the max fuel flow rate as you'll run out having only completed half the lap.
I'm afraid races might get boring when drivers will have to conserve their fuel or just lose the race.