Magnussen hopes for an end to F1 fuel saving
- Published on 08 Feb 2019 09:02
-
- By: Coilin Higgins
Haas F1 driver Kevin Magnussen hopes the new rule changes for 2019 will end the fuel saving problem in recent years, which the Danish driver branded a 'joke.' One of the many regulation changes for this year sees the fuel limit slightly raised from 105kg to 110kg for a race distance.
Magnussen, who was disqualified for being just being 170 grams over the 105kg limit at last years' United States Grand Prix has been highly critical of the limit, saying he was forced to drive 'like a grandmother.' He expressed his hopes for ending the fuel saving problems at yesterday's F1 car launch with Haas.
"We have a bit more fuel, which is a nice thing," Magnussen told Autosport at the event. "The most frustrating thing is having to save too much fuel. A little bit of saving is fine, there's always been a little bit of fuel saving in F1, but for me fuel saving the way we had to do it a couple of times last year is a joke.
Magnussen also expressed concerns at the tyres Pirelli produced for last season. He stated hope that the new tyres for 2019, which Pirelli are making more conservative, will also contribute towards better racing this season.
"The tyre thing is another thing – in Mexico it just didn't work for us, we were going eight seconds slower than what we could do with a new tyre in the race, and that's also very frustrating," Magnussen added. "I just hope we won't get these extreme scenarios where you're not racing anymore."
"To manage in those extreme and ridiculous ways that we had to do a few times, whether it's fuel or tyres, is a bit stupid.I hope that situation is altered."
20
Replies (9)
Login to replyajpennypacker
Posts: 2,475
Finally something I can agree with Kevin. That being said, if I could make it even better, I'd bring re-fueling. I understand the environmental and safety arguments against it. But it really did spice up strategies. That's why back then you could have odd winners every once in a while. Or odd podiums from backmarkers. When was the last time you saw an odd winner? Let me remind you Pastor Maldonado. That's it. And I don't even know if that counts, because that Williams beat Ferrari fair and square. It was no strategic advantage.
calle.itw
Posts: 8,527
I think we all agree on that. But I still disagree with refuelling. At this time, with all this talk about "going eco" (much of that being a load of bollocks, FE being part of said bollock, probably that itchy bit just out of reach), refuelling don't make sense. Put more pressure on the suppliers to be efficient with their fuel, and increase the fuel load as they've done now slightly. That way, the cars will be a bit heavier=more challenging to drive, while we also get development that can be used in our road car hybrids, a bonus for eejits like me who are all for ERS-hybrids but are, perhaps ironically, very critical or EVs.
calle.itw
Posts: 8,527
Also: yeah, I miss the days of odd winners. But I kinda think a budget cap of some sort would be better for that. With Mercedes and Ferrari spending that kinda silly money on F1, hell even Red Bull look cheap in comparison, there is no chance for the others to catch up.
ajpennypacker
Posts: 2,475
I think the argument against refuelling are fair. That permanent changes need to be made elsewhere. Oh... the elusive budget caps. It sounds so good in theory, but in practice, I feel it would never work. Because I can't even begin to comprehend how you would police that in massive company like Renault, Honda, or Mercedes, where Formula 1 is just one of many projects. Where accountants could run circles around auditors in blurring the budgetary limit lines.
calle.itw
Posts: 8,527
I dont think we should have a very hard budget cap, but I think one is required. Did you just see the kinda budgets Ferrari and Merc' put at their cars? Again, if you make Red Bull look like Smålänningar, you done goofed. I think a high budget cap would work wonders. It should be high enough that it pays for the big spenders, but low enough for the lower spenders to still have a shot. So kinda around where RB spent last year would be fair, metinks. Im not saying a budget cap will solve everything, that'd be a straight up lie, but the ridiculous spending is most certainly part of the problem, and thats my shrimp in this.
ajpennypacker
Posts: 2,475
@calle don't get me wrong, I think a budget cap properly enforced would be a massive improvement. We see similar solutions in other professional sports like the NBA, MLB, MLS, and NFL. It doesn't happen in soccer and that's why you see very similar dominance by a few teams. Look at Real Madrid and Barcelona the last 10 years. But I digress, I just wish we had a proper way to enforce budget caps. Large ones as you said, because F1 should still be very expensive, but not prohibitively so. Besides, I think that if Renault thought that investing an extra 50m would given them a real shot for the championship they would. Same other manufacturers. But when they know that if they increase 50m, Mercedes and Ferrari would be willing to increase 150M, then what's the point?
calle.itw
Posts: 8,527
Exactly, not the entire solution, but an improvement. There should be a reason for big companies to invest in F1, no doubt, but it shouldn't be that we have these kinda silly spendings. Its a thorn in my very perfect shrimp bum. And considering Renault last year spent about a fourth-a third less than RB last year, I think its safe to assume they can spend more if we put the roof around where RB spend.
Oh, and do you think Ghosn's departure will affect Renault's F1 efforts? He was after all one of the more driving forces behind it..
ajpennypacker
Posts: 2,475
I have no idea what to think. First of all regarding Ghosh in particular, I think he got screwed big time. I don't quite buy the narrative that he was deeply corrupt. But I say that with very limited knowledge of the case.
Regarding Renault F1. I think that the commitment will remain strong this year out of a sense of sunk cost (at least). Depending on how the year goes (i.e. this has to be a good year) they will evaluate? In general I tend to think that Renault's commitment runs much deeper than the vision of their incarcerated former CEO. Renault belongs in F1 as much as any other manufacturer.
boudy
Posts: 1,168
In F1 there has always been an case of being fuel restricted and that's because of the nature of racing. The only way I could see that being resolved is to have a fixed amount of fuel based on maximum fuel flow per race distance. I would rather see the removal of the restrictions from the hybrid elements. This would naturally move F1 to an more EV based series which is were it needs to be in my opinion.
I don't think refuelling should be brought back since too many incidents occurred.
With regards to budgets I would support the idea of an max budget but I would have no idea how to implement this. The issue with comparing to other types of sports is an mute one since the budget is mostly spend on the car or R&D and not on the drivers.