19th September 2010, 9:01 at 9:01 am #128070
I was thinking..why don’t any of the slow teams (at least those which are certain not to score points on a normal raceday anyway) do some sort of stunt, by fueling one of their cars with a quarter of the tank which would allow the driver to blast through the field and catch some more TV time..it wouldn’t be illegal, it would be apparently stupid and maybe useless, but so was Ferrari’s Marlboro-alluding skin which still was good publicity19th September 2010, 10:05 at 10:05 am #144689
Do I remember a team many years back doing the same thing, or is my mind playing tricks on me.19th September 2010, 10:05 at 10:05 am #144690
It’s not the fuel load that is slowing the new teams down. It’s their aerodynamics – they’re just not developed enough. Haven’t you noticed how they don’t get much faster when they’ve only got a uarter tank left? Besides, the cars are all fuelled in parc ferme. They can’t just put a quarter-tank in because they would be caught out.19th September 2010, 10:40 at 10:40 am #144691
Would it actually be against the rules though? Earlier in the season people were speculating whether some teams would shrot fuel their car in the event of a safet car.
It may get them some publicity but probably not the best kind of publicity. If they only lasted a few laps then it wouldn’t really be worth it anyway.
I agree with PM too. Even if they hadf less fuel I don’t think they would actually just storm off into the distance.
Macca didn’t a team do that during testing to get a load of sponsors but then their pace suddenly disappeared? I can’t recall exactly, maybe I dreamt it!19th September 2010, 10:54 at 10:54 am #144692
Very interesting, the lap times of Monza speak for it:
Timo Glock: Around lap 40 (quarter-fueled) he was posting mid 1.28s, same with Heikki Kovalainen
These are actually a bit lower than a midfielder’s (Alguersuari) in the start of the race…
So yes, they could to an extent.19th September 2010, 11:36 at 11:36 am #144693
Except that they’d retire with no fuel. Which kind of defeats the purpose.19th September 2010, 11:52 at 11:52 am #144694
Except that they would mask it as a retirement problem. Given VR’s reliability woes at the start of the season, they could easily do it.19th September 2010, 13:28 at 1:28 pm #144695
Do I remember a team many years back doing the same thing, or is my mind playing tricks on me.
Are you thinking of Prost?
I believe they ran underweight in 2000 or 2001 pre-season testing to try and get some extra sponsorship…19th September 2010, 13:33 at 1:33 pm #144696
If they can worked that then it would have been awesome.19th September 2010, 14:09 at 2:09 pm #144697
One of the most famous examples of this was Derek Warwick running second in the Toleman at Brands Hatch in 1982. They claimed he had a driveshaft failure after he retired 40-odd laps in.
The advantages of this kind of strategy were tied in very closely with exposure for sponsors. At a time when not every race was televised live it guaranteed that Toleman – a British team – would get a lot of camera time in one of the few races that was shown live – the British Grand Prix.
There are other reasons why it wouldn’t work so well today. Reliability is far better and the performance advantage you need over another car to overtake it is much higher. Also consider that it takes until almost the end of the race for the likes of Virgin at Lotus to lap at the pace the leaders were doing at the start. See here: Italian Grand Prix fastest laps
There’s quite a lot on it in a recent book about Toleman by Christopher Hilton. According to him Rory Byrne was in on the plan as was Pat Symonds who apparently disapproved of it – apparently 26 years later he was willing to tolerate much worse things. Hunt out a copy of “The Toleman Story” for more.19th September 2010, 14:32 at 2:32 pm #144698
Thanks Keith, I knew I was imagining it.19th September 2010, 14:36 at 2:36 pm #144699
Guys there is a more recent example of running low-fuel in testing! Sauber 2010!!19th September 2010, 15:16 at 3:16 pm #144700
Thats right. Many people believed that Sauber had a competitive car because their low fuel testing times were quite good. In spains pre season testing they almost ran low fuel only!20th September 2010, 8:51 at 8:51 am #144701
Thats right. Many people believed that Sauber had a competitive car because their low fuel testing times were quite good. In spains pre season testing they almost ran low fuel only!
…and still they weren’t able to catch any sponsor! I don’t believe that companies want to sponsor a inconsistent minor team. Last year, Virgin started supporting Brawn only after a whole convincing pre-season and the Australian GP, where they dominated from Friday till the end of the race.20th September 2010, 10:55 at 10:55 am #144702
Surely there would be much better ways of gaining publicity: fit a nitrous kit to the back of the car, run through the field, lead for a few laps and then get black flagged. There’s no fine the FIA could impose will beat the publicity generated.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.