Two good reasons to ban refuelling

Posted on Author Keith Collantine

Kazuki Nakajima, Williams, Sepang, 2008, 470150

Two areas of the F1 rules have come in for criticism following the Australian and Malaysian Grand Prix.

The qualifying format is under fire following the incident involving Heikki Kovalainen and Lewis Hamilton in Sepang. And the safety car rules are being examined after several drivers were disadvantaged by them in Melbourne.

Happily, both these complicated problems share the same simple solution: ban refuelling during the race.

Qualifying has been changed several times over the last five years and although the current solution is very much better than some of the past efforts one sticking point remains: the dangerous situation where drivers returning to the pits very slowly after qualifying to save fuel are being passed by much faster drivers still on hot laps.

And the safety car rules were changed last year to prevent drivers rushing to the pits as the safety car arrives on track to get in a quick stop for fuel.

What’s the common problem here? Fuel or, rather, refuelling pit stops. Since it was re-introduced in 1994 to improve the ‘show’, fuel stops have added a rather tedious strategic dimension to F1 races.

In the 15th year since it was brought back I can remember many great and exciting battles for position on the track, but I can’t remember a single interesting pit stop, apart from the ones that went wrong and drivers were doused in sheets of flames. I can, however, think of many promising races spoiled by problems with refuelling rigs…

Ban refuelling, and we don’t have to have ‘race fuel’ qualifying – here are ten reasons why that’s a good idea. Ban refuelling, and the need for drivers to dash to the pits during safety car situations is considerably reduced.

What do you think of my solution?

55 comments on “Two good reasons to ban refuelling”

  1. i actually enjoy the extra dimension pit stops bring to the mix,Kimi would not be ‘Jack the Lad’ today if Mr. Hamilton had not slid of the pit lane in to a gravel trap yet!2008 will go down in my books as one of the best dog fights on and off the track in years!

  2. AJA: Hamilton would have had to come into the pits regardless of fuel, as he was changing tires from wets to drys. Note that Keith isn’t calling for a ban on pit stops, he’s calling for a ban on refueling.

  3. in my opinion, refueling give’s an extra dimension to the races. different fuel loads, different number of pits stops,…
    i’d hate to see it go

  4. With the current aero regulations I think you have to have refuelling to have any strategy dimension whatsoever. If you’re within 1 second of the car in front you’re in the dirty air and the aero doesn’t work as well.

    In 2009, though, this is probably the way to go.

  5. I agree it’s an extra dimension, Werner, I just don’t think it’s a worthwhile one. It doesn’t make the races better – it often spoils them and makes them harder to follow.

    And it creates a lot of extra complications which in turn require more solutions which inevitably lead to even more rules which is the problem we have with the qualifying and safety car situations.

  6. Getting rid of refuelling is a good idea. It would mean that, in qualifying, we’d know who was the fastest guy out there, instead of saying that Raikkonen is on pole but he’s not got much fuel and Massa in 3rd is fuelled heavy but not as heavy as Hamilton in 2nd so he’s actually fastest. F1 should be about who’s fastest, not who has the best strategy.

  7. I like it when people come along and make my point better than I can :)

  8. I agree that refuelling should be banned. It really doesn’t add any "extra dimension" because all the teams have essentially the same race strategy anyway. On the contrary, before refueling was introduced, I remember there were huge differences how cars performed with different fuel loads, some cars were relatively slower at the start of the race but relatively faster in the end, and sometimes this caused some really interesting race endings. Nowadays racing seems to stop after the last pit stop. It would also be environmentally justified to limit the fuel load to a certain amount, which would force teams to develop engines that would conserve fuel.

  9. Brad Pitney
    25th March 2008, 9:16

    well to be honest, the same really should go for tires.

    If Michelin can make tires that can last going around the world once, why can’t a tire last a race distance!? yes, I know the ad means in an "ideal world" but hopefully you see my point.

    Malaysia also probed that having to use a Prime & Option tire in the race doesn’t really add much, where as the old way was so much better, working out if soft or hard in qualifying was better for the race day.

    Plus it must cost more overall?

    +1 on refuelling ban.

  10. I totally agree with you Vertigo (and Keith) that race fuel loads should not be a part of qualifying. I also think you make a good point when you say "F1 should be about who’s fastest", but am nervous that banning refuelling would have quite the opposite effect.From memory, one of the reasons that refuelling was introduced in 1994 was because drivers stood much to gain by taking it easy. When drivers contested the whole race on a single tank there was an advantage to be had in saving fuel and (more importantly) conserving tyres. Whilst that was interesting in itself, it was not always the ‘fastest’ driver who won but the driver who looked after their consumables most efficiently.Whilst I appreciate the many positives that would arise from a ban on refuelling, it might be better for the show if drivers push as hard as they can over three ‘sprints’ than spend 50 laps within their limits.

  11. Varun.S.Murthy
    25th March 2008, 9:30

    I remember those races when Michael Schumacher would use pit stops and fuel strategy to win races..like having 4 stops and racing like a madman on track when everyone else would have one pit stop less..but that doesnt happen now at all..everyone always uses the same pit strategy..

    Getting rid of "race fuel" qualifying is definitely one of the things the FIA should do immediately..its screwing up qualifying..there are days when i would watch qualifying just for the pure thrill of it..the dying seconds would be totally awesome..the qualifying sessions now are totally useless and very very boring..

    Theres just one doubt that i have though..If re fuelling is banned,will cars be able to make full race distances?Will they be able to carry so much of fuel?

  12. This year’s cars wouldn’t, they’d have to make it a rule for next year so the teams would have time to add larger fuel tanks to their designs.

  13. If you want to ban fuel stops then obviously tire stops would go aswell or the whole show would be the same. Pit stops would  only be allowed for emergency repairs eg. nose cone/wing. replace tires for puncture damage or wets etc. A good driver would have to pace himself on fuel consumtion and tire ware in addition to speed.

  14. I think it would lead to overall slower lap times… that makes me wish against this.

  15. there pros and cons and people above mentioned both …

    ban refueling – yes, it would solve few issues and likely improve the qualifying spectacle. On the other hand I am afraid there also might be lots of fuel saving instead of racing … I am not sure the limits on anything are good for F1. Look at the 2 race engine rules and the engine saving it results in …

    The big difference in the weight of the car at the beginning and towards the end of the race might however create new extra dimension ….

    So if you have an undecided category here, count me in :-)

  16. Today, at Q3 session, the driver in pole position is not the fastest but the one with less fuel in the tank. It’s not what I wish to see in qualif session. I remember great fight in 2002 between Montoya and Schumacher for pole position. To have more interesting races in 2008, let drivers fight at their best in Q3 (like in Q2 and Q1) and allow the top ten to fuel its car same as the other 10 drivers. We will have again great fight in qualif and strategy is less predictable at race. But I agree that ultimate thing to do is to ban refueling during race.

  17. The cars are getting very similar everyday that banning refueling may just result in a very boring race. Cars may just finish the race in the same position they started from.

  18. Qualifying fix expected for Bahrain.

  19. NO WAY, keep tyre change and refuelling, otherwise it would be a procession from start to end!
    The little twists in the pitlane make F1….eg Lewis at the weekend, had to work harder than normal and showed he has actually got some fight in him!
    It all adds to the excitement of the race.
    TIS A GOOD JOB THE FANS DONT GOVERN THE SPORT OTHERWISE, THERE WOULD BE CHANGES TO THE RULES ON A DAILY BASIS!

  20. I’m not in favour, for two reasons, first this year a ban on refueling would result in almost no overtakings, but well yes you’re right next year that could be an option.

    However i think it would tend to make car slower and since we’re already to have slower cars next year i think that’s enough.

    Also i like the strategy dimension as said for example one of the very few highlights of malaysia GP is that kimi raikkonnen had to dash while felipe massa was in the pit stops.
    I like that "do x laps at that pace" thing, and if i remember correctly that’s what the race engineer of lewis hamilton said exactly during the last Gp, something like "give me 5 more laps like this and you’re good".

    I think that’s quite fun, after all racing is also about driving.

    Overall i ask you keith, if we have good aeros (logically next year) and refueling, don’t you think we can have both of the worlds?

  21. I think we should ban Bernie and Max from refueling. Then maybe they’ll expire of starvation and the sport can get back to the business of being a sport.

  22. Rick DeNatale
    25th March 2008, 11:55

    I think that one obvious fix to the qualification problem is to either allow free refueling after qualifying, or at least go back to limited refueling based on laps run in qualifying.

    I’m not sure I see the point of coupling fuel load at qualification to the race any more.

  23. I don’t know what happened to those good old days where we had most people doing 2 pit stops, some crazy ones doing 3 and racing like madmen and then suddenly, you get that guy that seemed to be dead on the race doing only 1 stop and coming back with not so good tyres to fight for the win… those were the days.

  24. On balance, I’m against a ban – refuelling adds another variable that tests which team deserves its constructors’ championship points more.

    I’m also reminded of the climax of the IndyCar season last year, when Dario Franchitti won the title because Scott Dixon ran out of fuel on the last lap and Franchitti still had fumes left. I’m not honestly sure whether that makes an argument for a ban or not (both could have pitted but gambled on staying out after a safety car period reduced how much they’d used) but it does show how fuel management is part and parcel of racing these days, and how teams have to get it right.

  25. All I see from refuelling is that cars do not have to pass in order to gain position, they can wait for a pit stop and hope. Without it, if you want to win, you have to pass. End of.

    I understand the danger that it would become a procession, but how many races do you think would go by where there was no hope of winning before the drivers started taking risks to overtake? and let’s be honest, as spectators that is what we want, risk, reward and more importantly punishment for getting things wrong.

    Ban pit stops, then make race wins the only component that matters, as Bernie suggested, then you have a situation where you either win or lose and the drivers will either step up, or lose their drive.

    Tell me that won’t be far more interesting than who has a slightly faster in-lap at each pit stop.

  26. Refuelling should stay, but the fuel load in qualifying should go. They should just fuel the car for a few laps, and let the drivers fight for pole, then make a rule that the in-laps can’t be slower than, say, 115% of their personal best. This would hopefully get rid of all the riddles now – i.e. people don’t go out until last minute to save fuel and tax super-slow after the fast lap

  27. More often that not passes for position happen during pitstops.

    In Malaysia Raikkonen got past Massa when his first stop was half-a-second quicker.  I would rather have seen him  overtake his teammate on track – but why risk your car battling for position when you can just wait for a pitstop?

    I am in favour of banning refuelling or at least slowing down the pitstops so that there is less advantage in stopping.

  28. I’ve been saying re-fuelling should be banned ever since it came in.  Not interested in arguments regarding the wonders of strategy – this is about racing, not chess.

  29. @Fred BMaybe do it ALMS/LMS style. No one can work on the car until refueling is complete — then you can do tires, wing adjustments, etc. That will slow down the stops.

  30. I’ve always thought race refulling added an interesting dimension to the GP.  These events to me are both about the driving and the chess game.  In the British GP a few years ago, I loved to see two drivers (Rubens and Takuma) racing each other, even though they were half a lap apart!  Even though I am an American, I don’t need my racing to be wheel to wheel!

    Also, Champ Car in the states mandated same size fuel tanks.  The result: boring racing.  The drivers were all in a line, but couldn’t try for a pass since they were so low on fuel!  If F1 bans refulling, that could be the result.  At the end of the race, everybody is low on fuel and coasting around, unable to challenge for position.  Then there’s the safety of carrying 100’s of liters of gasoline…

  31. ‘Race fuel’ in qualifying has a terrible consequence: since no single team is capable of doing two pit stops at the same lap, team-mates will NECESSARILY start with different fuel loads, so, the only occasion when you would know for sure who was faster than who is when, even heavier, one qualifies ahead of the other. Otherwise, it’ll be down to different fuel loads.

    In Malaysia, for example, Massa scored pole 0.492 secs ahead of Raikkonen, which is a lot of time, more than the one lap difference would explain. IMO, Massa would be faster than Raikkonen even with the same fuel load, but we can never know it for sure…

    So, fights for pole end up being fought only by one driver per team…

    Off topic: I’ve been silent about Massa’s performance in Malaysia because I had nothing to add and, in fact, I was embarrassed! I know he is better than that, but his time to prove it is running out…

  32. I’m with Clive. The argument that the "fastest" driver is the one who should win the race, not the one who drives carefully is bunk. The more skilled driver, who is able to balance all of the variables wins the race, or Massa and Trulli would be world champions. Back in the day, Prost was able to nurse his tires and judge his fuel load, adjust with a changing car, to win many races. That was skill, not race stint strategy. Not only that, but a ban on refueling and a lifting of the engine development ban would go a long way to giving F1 the green image that Max is allegedly trying to burnish. Fuel efficiency and low co2 emissions are far more relevant to the real world than KERS.

  33. If they eliminated "race fule qualifying" it would take care of your top ten reasons.  It’s not the refueling during the race, but in effect having ten cars start the race on Saturday and the other 12 start on Sunday.  Without pit stops for fuel and tire changes, there would be hardly any position changes after the first cornor.  When you have cars that are a second faster a lap, but cannot pass, pit stops allow for position changes when cars pit on different laps.

  34. Re Comment 31 – the F1 Kinetic Energy Recovery System – KERS – is extremely relevant to the real world. Within 5 to 10  years all new vehicles – cars, buses, trucks, will have some form of KERS because it’s foolish and wasteful to discard increasingly expensive energy generated as heat during braking, and innovative recovery/regeneration systems and power storage devices will greatly reduce their cost.  F1 will provide rapid innovation, development and testing for future commercial KERS and power storage mediums – batteries, ultracapacitors, flywheels and the FIA has shown great foresight by making F1 the first racing series to introduce it.

  35. Apologies – my previous comment related to Comment 32, not 31.  And I agree with Comment 33 – Q3 should allow low fuel qualifying to determine who’s fastest, with all cars allowed to refuel for the race to any fuel load appropriate to their race strategies.

  36. There’s nothing wrong with re-fueling, they do it in every other form of motorsport. What are we ……. PANSIES?  Most of the comments seem to favor re-fueling but wish for ways around the foolish "stratigies" that come into play.  The incidents at Sepang Sunday were driver errors……..what driver in his right mind would switch to the pitlane limiter while others were still at speed……you know the names!!! Allow Q3 to refuel and that wouldn’t have happened. There are solutions to every problem without BANNING anything.  Ask me, I’ve got all the answers.

  37. Right church, wrong pew.

    In my view the problem is not with refueling, but with the tire rules. Because teams are forced to use both hards and softs during races, everyone is on the same two stop strategy. I personally liked the system before hand, where teams can do with the tires whatever they damn well pleased. If you want to load up on fuel, go on a one stop strategy, and win on mileage and conserving… fine. If you want to do a 5 stop sprint to a win, so be it.

    I don’t we are to the point yet of getting rid of refueling. I think there are some things that could be done to negate these ill effects. First, lets get rid of race fuel qualifying. I want to see who really is the fastest on the grid on qualifying day. Second, if we want to make pit stops more of a punishment… why don’t we lower the pit lane speed limit from 50 to say 30… that couple of extra seconds might make teams think twice  having  so many stops in their strategy.

  38. As opposed to banning refueling, how about making it optional, after qualifying? You can start on full tanks or vapor, which leaves some strategy to the teams.

    Tires need to be constant, as in capable of going the distance, but allow changes if you decide on light tanks and a refueling strategy.

    You would then have best Q results and possible differing fuel and tire wear strategies. I would have to believe no one would settle for a no stop strategy as too much track position would be lost trundling around with full tanks and worn tires at the end.

  39. Green Flag, I am not saying that KERS isn’t important in terms of F1 and road car use, but Toyota’s Luca Marmorini has opined that the model for KERS that the FIA has chosen is "primitive." If the energy recovery device in a Prius is more advanced than that on an F1 car, which is what he is suggesting, then implementing it in F1 will not help the automotive industry at all. My larger point was advancing fuel efficiency research will help applying that to road cars, whereas the current KERS devices probably won’t.

  40. I’ve said in previous posts that overtaking is what I’m most interested in, but.
    Motor racing as it stands today, is a team sport and must include all of the team. Sometimes a race is won by using the correct strategy, as the driver can’t be expected to know exactly what’s going on, and sometimes a race is lost by a mishap in the pits.
    If you want no tyre changes or refuelling just watch drag racing

  41. Short answer – NO – leave it alone – in fact bring back another tyre supplier as looking at this years tyres they degrade alarmingly quickly or just dont grip – when you are a sole provider why spend money in developing better mixes and co – operating closely with certain teams??(oops was it the ferrari teams supplier that was kept?)

  42. ps kers sucks – it contradicts the whole point of motor racing  – ie he who is fastest wins – not the most economical!!!

  43. Arnet – The FIA have not prescribed any particular KERS technology, only that it cannot produce more than 60kW in motor or generator modes, that energy released from the KERS may not exceed 400kJ in any one lap and that the total amount of recoverable energy stored on the car must not exceed 300kJ, and recovery at a rate greater than 2kW must not exceed 20kJ.  This allows electric, hydraulic/pneumatic or flywheel based KERS to be employed. The issue that bothered Marmoroni is that only the rear wheels may generate or be powered by by the KERS, but, unless AWD is allowed in F1 that’s the way it is.

  44. Alan – KERS is not about economy, it’s about additional power generation and will make the cars faster. A typical F1 engine puts out about 800 HP.  A good KERS will add 60 kW – about 80 HP – so that for a few seconds each lap a driver will have 880 HP available – what’s wrong with that?

  45. Green flag – doesnt that sound like the power button on A1 GP? – that series from next season will all have ferrari based cars – hopefully that avenue will allow ferrari to develop more reliability – if it gives more power ok – if it goes like that power button – keep it

  46. Next year, along with all the radical changes to the cars, refuelling should be banned.

    Qualifying in the same format as now, except all sessions will be low-fuel and no refuelling in the race.

  47. Another one of those debates that is a tricky one… lots of people have already said what I think already!  George K – refuelling isn’t mandatory now, but any quick bit of mental arithmetic shows that it is quicker, over a race distance to run a car on lighter weight levels for several shorter stints.  Given that you’d have to stop for tyres at some point, more than likely, you might as well take a couple of seconds extra and refuel.  The teams then deliberately build a car with a smaller fuel tank, which of course leads to aerodynamic benefits and weight saving.

    I’m not sure that refuelling has destroyed the racing.  Watch a video of any race from, say, the late 1980s and whilst there are some crackers, a great many of them were long, drawn out processions.  The myth of some golden age of overtaking, or whatever it is we are pining after, is exactly that – a myth.  I do agree that the current tyre regulations force most of the teams into the same strategy, with little room for flexibility.  This means that you are less likely to see a Nurburgring 1995 or a Magny-Cours 2005. 

    From a safety aspect – it is more dangerous, especially on the first lap, to have cars brim full with nearly 200 litres of fuel racing around than to have cars filled with, say, 50 litres of fuel on board.  Although there have been amazing advances in fire safety and a number of technologies that minimise the risk of a fire in the event of an impact, I would not like to see another accident in the manner of Berger’s massive shunt at Imola, 1989.

    And, let’s face it, before we deride the current generation of drivers for using strategy to win a race, let us not forget that the great Juan Manuel Fangio won a number of victories through daring use of different strategies.  His final, and greatest Grand Prix win came at the Nurburgring in 1957, where he stopped for fuel, whilst the Ferrari’s didn’t.  If the pitstop hadn’t been botched, he’d have won the race at a canter.  As it was, he produced one of the finest displays of high-speed driving that has ever been seen…

    Swings and roundabouts.  Though, the sooner they ban race fuel in qualifying the better.  That really should be about who is the fastest!

  48. I have not had time to read the comments so I am probably repeating what others I have said. 

    I am in 100% agreement re-fueling must go.  It adds nothing but ruins races.  I would ban all planned pit stops.  To me a grand prix is two dozen drivers racing from the grid to the flag unaided.  I have discussed this on a couple of sites but it bears repeating.  Imagine Gilles Villeneuve’s iconic drive at Jarama in 1981 with pit stops.  Instead of Gilles holding of a string of following cars by superbly positioning his car and winning in a car that had no right to be in the top half of the grid he would have lead into the first stop.  After the first stop he would have been fifth at best and after a second stop he could have finished 12th and no-one would have noticed.

    The idea that overtaking didn’t happen in the past is wrong.  Up until ground effect came into being at the end of the 70s it was not uncommon for the number of changes of leader in a race to be well into double figures.  There was a website that logged the changes of leader at the start line of every GP.  At Monza there were regularly 30+ changes of leader at the start line.  Multiply that by moves elsewhere and changes of other positions and you get an awful lot of overtaking.  I really must try and find that site again.  There is a reason why people rave about those Monza slipstreamers.  Overtaking at other tracks may not have been as easy but it happened regularly.

    There is a famous quote by Gilles Villeneuve which debunks the myth that the lack of overtaking is a recent phenomenon.  He said something like ‘The trouble with modern race cars is that the front wing is so sensitive that if you get too close behind another car in a corner you lose grip and the car understeers.  As a result you lose contact with the car and cannot slipstream it down th straight and overtake into the following corner.’  Max and co have consistently over the past 20 years put out the story that overtaking has become more difficult in the last 5 years but before that it was OK so a minor tweak here and there will sort it.  Gilles died in 1982.  The problem has been around for a very long time.  His solution was to take the wings and throw them away.  Don’t modify them bin them.  He wanted to fit 5 litre normally aspirated engines and big wide slick tyres.  Increase the mechanical grip and reduce the aero.  26 years on and we are still going in the opposite direction.

    Re-fueling pit stops were one of the little tweaks added to patch up the ‘show’.  Proper technical regulations would give us proper racing and we can get rid of many of the current abberations.  There is a belief in some sectors that to make radical change to the essence of F1.  It seems odd to me that so many people are attached to rules and regulations drawn up by people they despise.

    Reduce the aero + increase the mechanical grip = proper grand prix racing.

    Forza Gilles

  49. Alan – the difference is that the extra power in the A1 GP cars (like the push-to-pass on Champ Cars) uses more fuel while the extra power from the F1 KERS uses no fuel since it’s regenerated power.

  50. HI To ban refuelling would make formula one racing a joke,these cars drive faster on the straight  than the speed at which an  aircraft takes off which is around 168 mph,and you want them bigger clumsier and slower, to accomodate the tanks,you can have that in champ car. bigger and uglier,I have followed gp racing for 4 nearly 5 decades,the cars are now being driven as they should by the drivers using their skill, leave it at that for a few seasons.never in the history of GP1 has so much change been forced on so many by so few, cheers josie

  51. Something to consider:

    People want F1 to be about constructors designing great cars as well as about great drivers driving them. Can you imagine F1 with one centrally-supplied car design like A1GP or in the US? Me neither.

    But that means some cars will be faster than others.

    People also want qualifying to be about cars going as fast as they can.

    But that means the fastest cars qualify at the front.

    And people also want overtaking. Natural overtaking that comes from drivers racing naturally, not from some heavy-handed manipulation like reverse grids.

    Alas – you can’t have both. If you want overtaking and wheel-to-wheel racing, you have to either fiddle the grid or equalise the cars – anything else, like banning or requiring refuelling stops, is just tinkering. But to equalise the cars you have to hobble the constructors. And the more successful you are at doing that, the more you kill what makes F1 unique.

    Cap the teams’ development budgets, force them into using blander dependable equipment that lasts several races, or prevent them from innovating by requiring them to use standard parts, and you remove a lot of the incentive for a big automotive brand to take part. You may well get a great racing series from doing it but it won’t be F1, the pinnacle of motorsport, any more.

    Is there an answer? I don’t think so. You just have to hope that economic conditions are such that several teams can all afford the price of developing state-of-the art cars.

  52. Moto GP has manufacturer bikes, fastest guy at the front of the grid etc etc but they have overtaking.  Formula Ford at its peak had half a dozen manufacturers and overtaking all through the grid.

    The problem with F1 is there is way too much aero influence.  It really isn’t any more complex than that.  In the days when there was a lot of overtaking in F1 (and it did happen) we had all the same elements we had now other than advanced aero, random chicanes  and pit stops breaking the race up.

  53. I’m against the re-fuel ban..

    I few comments further up say about “conserving fuel” and limiting fuel tank size to make teams develop more eco engines.. What a load of rubbish.. I don’t wanna see a race between a load of toyota prius’s!!

    Let the teams have to work out they’re stratigies.. Let the back runners take a gamble and re-fuel and put dry tyres on extra early.. Keep the race totally un-expected and random..

    otherwise, yes it will be the fastest man out there who win’s qually and yes the fastest man will win the race..

    And there will be no other excitement within the race apart from the first lap tumbles..

  54. I have been following Formula one for many many years now and have seen re-fueling not refueling and the races that stand out as the best are those with no re-fueling stops. To stop the race being a procession it may be that the points system needs to be looked at to force drivers to go for an overtake to gain significantly more points that on offer now.

    example.

    1st 20
    2nd 15
    3rd 10
    4th 6
    5th 5
    6th 4
    7th 3
    8th 2
    9th 1

    a point for pole and a point for fastest lap.

    this would then force drivers to go for it rather than sitting back happy with the place. the man in 3rd is not going to want the man in first to potentionally gain 10 points on him. it would also make them go for it in qually and the race to gain maybe 2 extra points

  55. goodness gracious ,when is this sport going to be given a break from constant rule changing ,not always for the better ,cant see owners being to happy at a car being totalled for a point,unless like senna you want to steal a champion ship anyhow possible

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.