Should F1 bring back refuelling?
The British Grand Prix was one of the most entertaining in Formula One’s recent history. But while several drivers stole the show — such as Charles Leclerc and Max Verstappen — for the right reasons, others made headlines they would have rather avoided. Sebastian Vettel was one of them after adding to the list of high-profile errors over the past 12 months.
Our F1 writers Laurence Edmondson and Nate Saunders join columnists Maurice Hamilton and Kate Walker to dissect the biggest talking points in F1 right now, starting with the four-time world champion.
LE: No. Clearly things aren’t improving right now, but imagine if Ferrari sorts itself out in 2020 and he’s no longer there. Imagine how much he would kick himself. Right now he’s 100 points adrift of Lewis Hamilton, so he should forget about this year’s title and focus on getting himself prepared for 2020. Whether Ferrari feel the same is another matter…
NS: I think so, and I hate to say that as I think he should be remembered as one of the greatest in the sport’s history. Since he crashed out of the lead in Germany 12 months ago, Vettel has looked like a shadow of the driver he used to be. Unless he can quickly rediscover the Vettel of the early 2010s or the early years at Ferrari before too long, I can see his mind turning to retirement very quickly.
MH: That’s a dramatic statement. Not sure I’d want to see him go, just like that. And I don’t think he wants to go just yet, particularly with another year left on his contract. But… he has to be thinking hard about yet another rookie error; one that was totally his fault. The Ferrari does not suit his driving style whereas Leclerc is making it work to such an extent that he has now become Ferrari’s main man. Seb needs to accept that and get his head together. If he can’t do that, then, yes, it’s time to go. Which would be a great shame.
KW: No, because Seb is so much better than he’s been over the past year, and if he leaves now he leaves at a low, not a high. It’s hard to know when to quit, but history is far kinder on those who bow out at their peak than those who back away in a low point. If I were Seb and considering retiring, I’d do so in dramatic fashion on my next winner’s podium.
LE: It would cut the starting weight of the cars by about 50kg to 66kg, which would help drivers push on the tyres and eliminate some of the fuel saving we currently see. But F1 should be seeking ways to cut that weight (ideally more) from the car itself, and not simply reaching for the easiest Band-Aid solution. Sprint races on low fuel are fun for the driver, but they put the emphasis on pit stop strategy instead of overtaking. If we’re going to great lengths to improve the ability of cars to follow each other in 2021, why shift the race-deciding moments to the pit lane?
NS: History would suggest not. It’s easy to talk with rose-tinted spectacles about refuelling and it adds some strategic variation in to play, I guess, but why would you bring this back when F1 is trying to lower costs? The seasons we saw in 2010 and 2012 prove you don’t need refuelling for great championships — F1 has a lot of fundamental flaws at the moment but I don’t think the lack of refuelling is one of them.
MH: It’s been part of racing since Day 1 and I’ve no feelings either way. Refuelling would probably ‘improve the show’ — but it would be no more than a sticking plaster over the gaping wound which we’ve discussed before; overcomplicated and heavy power units, tyres and aero dependent cars that can’t be raced — even if Silverstone proved a massive and welcome exception!
KW: No, but it would give us a slightly different show. There was some talk of teams not being allowed to refuel and change tyres at the same time, which helps the safety element and would also mean stops took different times for different strategies, and if that’s the case I can see us going back to those ‘glory days’ of endless position changes in the pits. If that’s what the fans want…
LE: How can he not have regrets? But as strange as it sounds, I think McLaren was the right move for Sainz. He’s the hero there right now and that would not be the case at Red Bull.
NS: 100 percent regret. The issue isn’t Gasly himself, but the fact he had to be promoted earlier than intended. In my eyes Sainz was the more prepared driver for both the pressure of Red Bull and the challenge of Max Verstappen, who was his teammate in 2015 and for four races of 2016, let’s not forget. Whether Sainz would be thriving if he had gone there is another debate altogether.
MH: I would regret not taking Sainz — but that’s history and regrets aren’t going to help. It was always going to be tough for Gasly with Verstappen as teammate. Apart from his obvious speed, Max is at home at Red Bull and, in truth, it was unlikely that Pierre would match him. But he showed a big step forward at the weekend; belated, but enough to make it worth Red Bull persevering.
KW: On the back of his performances earlier this season, I might be feeling regretful. But based on Silverstone, I’d be very happy with Pierre — he qualified well Saturday, he fought cleanly with Leclerc in the opening stages, he let Max past when asked, and he brought home a good result. It may have taken him a little while to settle in, but Gasly looks to have found his feet at Red Bull at last.
LE: I’m going with three. When Bottas is at his best he really isn’t that far away from Hamilton. A run of good luck (including a retirement or two for Hamilton) would put him back in the race. It happened for Rosberg in 2016, so it could happen again. I really think he still believes in himself, and as long as he has that he will have an outside chance.
NS: Can I say zero? I’m going to say zero. I just can’t see a scenario where Lewis loses it from here.
MH: On the evidence of last weekend, about 2. He’d done the hard bit by snatching pole, driven really impressively defending his position — but then Lewis outthinks him on tyres and strategy. OK, the safety car didn’t help Bottas — but he’d lost the race by then. It’s just Valtteri’s hard luck that he’s in this team at a time when Hamilton keeps moving onto a higher and higher level. On second thought, make that 1.
KW: Pretty slim. If the Mercedes pair finish the next four races in 1-2 formation with Valtteri ahead, Lewis will still have a small margin in the title fight. Lewis can afford to DNF when Valtteri wins and still holds a decent lead. For the fight to go Valtteri’s way now, Lewis will have to have a long-running dip in form and/or several reliability issues with no chance of a fightback.
LE: The drivers are not the problem at Haas right now, so it would smack of mismanagement to make a midseason change. What’s more, they aren’t going to attract anyone better with the car and resources they have right now.
NS: To be honest, I’d be saying this regardless of the British Grand Prix incident — bin Grosjean, keep Magnussen, move for someone like Sergio Perez or Nico Hulkenberg. I’m not saying Grosjean is more culpable for the two clashes this year than Magnussen, but he just happens to be the one less capable of scoring regular points when the car is in the right place.
MH: The collision was the last thing they needed but, as mentioned, the Haas problem is more fundamental than that. They need to sort that car and, with Grosjean and Magnussen, they’ve got drivers with experience to help do it. Apart from giving them a good talking to, there’s nothing to be gained by doing anything more drastic.
KW: Better the devils you know? The Haas car isn’t perfect, but the team should be further ahead in the standings. I’d consider this season something of a write-off and start looking at my options for 2020, and particularly at Nicolas Latifi’s deal with Williams. If they fancy a clean slate and an all-North American line-up, perhaps Alex Rossi could be tempted back from IndyCar?
LE: In terms of popularity in the U.K., no — a free-to-air TV deal is what’s needed there. But if a race — even a one-off — can be held with London landmarks as a backdrop, it would generate huge interest around the world. The only problem is that London doesn’t need F1.
NS: I’ve never understood why anyone gives talk of a London Grand Prix any time of day. Logistically you are never going to be able to host a race around the famous landmarks in or around the centre of the city — and if you can’t do it there, what on earth is the point?
MH: The valid question of the U.K. being able to financially sustain a second grand prix is not Liberty Media’s primary concern. It would be interesting to know if their new agreement with Silverstone precludes a London Grand Prix in the near future. Much as I like a few street races on the calendar, I’m not sure the U.K. needs one which would have to be in Docklands or somewhere away from central London.
KW: Need? No. Would it be nice to have one? Definitely. The British fan base could easily sustain two races, with Silverstone the heritage race and London a swanky event for all those sponsors who come to the current race but for some reason schedule their events in W1. Silverstone gave us a great motor race, London would give us a spectacle.