Fuel knobs will be back in 2012, much to the lament of me and others. Tony Cotman is out today with a blog talking about why the knob is doming back. Read it here.
Unless I read it wrong (and for sure read it for yourself here), Tony's argument is 1) IndyCar-style racing almost always involves saving fuel at some point or some fashion, 2) so what difference does it make if it's the knob or forcing drivers to do it using their right (accelerator) foot? Tony also says you "could argue" that knob may increase safety by letting drivers save fuel without the potentially herky-jerky changes in speeds caused by lifting.
My argument remains: Yes, fuel conservation is always going to be part of racing. Nobody disputes that. The central quesiton is, will we used technology to make that easier, or will we leave saving fuel up to driver skill as he or she manually deals with the accelerator pedal? I vote for forcing the driver to do it manually. Because it adds more elements of human talent to racing. I don't hear a lot of people calling for making the cars easier to drive (relatively speaking, to be sure).
"You could argue it's actually safer to have an on-board switch, particularly on speedways," Cotman said. Yes, you could, but in the last year of no knob, I wasn't aware of a safety concern. What's the risk not having the knob? One crash in 1000 races? More? Less? I can't see the risk being worth the knob absent anything more compelling than "you could argue."
At minium, embrace an idea from Scott Dixon -- keep the knob, but make the differences from one setting to another much greater than they are now. So, instead of having knob stops at, say (this is a completely made up example), 100%, 98%, 96% and 94% (with 2% difference between settings), have stops at 100%, 95%, 90%, and 85%. (5% difference between settings.) That way you'd have to do some major strategizing to determine if slapping it in fuel position 2 (95%) was worth running 5% leaner than people in position 1 (100%).