The introduction of re-fuelling to Formula One for the 2017 was a decision that came from out of the blue and is unfortunately yet another misguided idea.
The FIA Strategy Group, in their well documented bundles of infinite wisdom – for lack of a better term – released a statement last week concerning the results of their latest get together.
The only noteworthy result of their chin wag was the backflip on refuelling, which had been outlawed for the 2010 season onwards.
The Strategy Group is currently made up of five constructors in Ferrari, Mercedes, McLaren, Red Bull and Williams and a sixth team based on constructor title placing (currently, this is Force India). Joining them are Jean Todt (FIA President) and Bernie Ecclestone.
The group’s main function is to make key decisions on the future of the sport, however sometimes only the opposite happens. The terms ‘FIA Chivalry Group’ and ‘FIA Strategy Group’ are not mutually exclusive.
Refuelling is now back for 2017, whether we like it or not. Judging by the reaction on social media to the news, public opinion (something Formula One has never really been too concerned with) is split. That being said, looking at the change one can see where the powers at be in the sport are coming from on this.
Less fuel means less weight. Lighter cars will therefore result in lower lap times, no doubt a response to the stinging criticism by many, including Mark Webber, that the current formula is too slow. Maybe Bernie does listen to public opinion then?
Less weight also reduces the loads the current Pirelli tyres are dealing with, resulting in drivers being able to push their tyres harder. This could spark an overhaul in tyre design, with Pirelli making tyres to last more than a handful of laps when pushed. Considering all the recent tyre talk and rumours Michelin may be looking to become the sole supplier in 2017, Pirelli will have greater incentive to reassess their current design.
This is all very well, but it seems like Formula One is currently suffering from a bad case of ‘the fuzzies’. It was only last year that the biggest single formula change ever occurred, as what was a V8 formula became a 1.6L, to bring in a turbo era.
It was branded as ‘sustainable’ and ‘green’, with the sport becoming a stepping stone for innovation in the motor industry, while doing its bit to save what’s left of those precious remaining fossil fuels.
I would like to let you in on a secret now, Formula One is a motorsport. Motorsport is inherently not Greenpeace friendly, with most fans lusting for a fiery V10 that chomps on fuel like a kid in a candy store. Unless, of course, you’re involved in that Formula E thing. While I find it incredibly short-sighted to not take action on climate change (and equally stupid to ignore the issue), surely Formula One, the pinnacle of motorsport, isn’t the place to do it.
The last litre of petrol in the world should be used to power one last qualifying lap at Spa. In a perfect world, every car in use would be under the influence of electricity, except the twenty cars on the grid at Monza that Sunday afternoon.
Re-fuelling won’t re-invigorate the spot. It’s dangerous, requires re-training of pitcrew employees, is expensive, won’t reduce costs, is counter-productive to the current brand and may not even result in ‘real’ overtaking.
Mr Ecclestone, Mr Todt and the Strategy Group, if you wish to improve Formula One, I suggest you take a step back and think deeply about every rule change you have implemented in the past decade.
I guarantee you that most of them will have been mistakes.
Looking for great odds on racing and sport? Get into the action with PlayUp today. Chances are you’re about to lose. Set a deposit limit.
The Australian finished second but had to work for it, as he fought off food poisoning, a race day engine change, and his own overheating body.
Nico Hulkenberg's move to a German team will hopefully bring back some of the German flare Formula 1 had just seven years ago.
Given how exclusive and precious a commodity scoring an F1 point is, why is it that mediocrity should be rewarded?
Team Penske is under the same umbrella of ownership as the IndyCar Series itself, so it was imperative for to drop the hammer and protect their integrity—which, thankfully, they did.
Red Bull can’t rest on its laurels and if Perez can’t provide them with cover on the rare days that Verstappen is having trouble, it's time to look elsewhere.
The absolute vitriol against the Canadian that has come from the incident is beyond reprehensible.
