Re: Audi in F1???

["John Corbishley" <JCorbs@gtresort.com>]

Didn't they limit the amount of fuel that the cars could carry, and thus
make refueling a necessity?

John Corbs

----- Original Message -----
From: <MSV96@aol.com>
To: <quk@isham-research.freeserve.co.uk>; <quattro@audifans.com>
Sent: Monday, December 06, 1999 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: Audi in F1???


> In a message dated 12/3/99 5:05:52 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> isham-research.freeserve.co.uk@pop.freeserve.net writes:
>
> << > The only reason F1 cars even have pit stops are for tires.
>
>  No.  The only reason F1 cars have pit stops is that the rules require
>  it.
>
>  For many years (e.g., all of Nigel Mansell's time) they didn't stop and
>  refueling in the pits was explicitly banned. >>
>
> Not the way I recall it. Yes, during the era of no refueling some cars did
> indeed run the entire distance on one set of tires. However I don't recall
> there ever being a rule saying one must stop. What happened was once
> refueling was allowed again, tire makers made tires with softer compounds
> which combined with lower car weight (less fuel) made up for the time lost
in
> fuel/tire stops. I just reread the FIA 1999 "Sporting Regulations" (at
> http://www.fia.com/regle/reg_spt/F1spt-a.htm) and in no place does it
state
> that pit stops are mandatory. That said, I doubt that the cars built today
> have enough fuel tank capacity to run a full race distance. Also it is
> possible that rules that dictate tank size effectively require pit
stops...I
> didn't dig that far deep into the rulebooks. HTH
>
> Mike Veglia
>