The cost-cutting plans: refuelling ban

Posted on | Author Keith Collantine

Refuelling will be gone in 2010. Three cheers!
Refuelling will be gone in 2010. Three cheers!

Two months ago Max Mosley rubbished FOTA?s suggestion that refuelling during F1 races could be banned.

Now a refuelling ban is on the cards for 2010. What has brought about the happy change of heart at the FIA?

As with tyre warmers I think banning refuelling will both improve the F1 spectacle and reduce costs.

Adds nothing to the spectacle

Since 1994 the FIA has clung to a notion that refuelling somehow adds to ‘the spectacle’ of F1. I don’t see how – in fact, I think it shows a complete failure to understand what is truly spectacular about motor racing. If you want to go to a race and see something stunning, watch the drivers brushing the barriers at Monaco, or twitching through Eau Rouge in the damp, or slipstreaming each other at 200mph. Watching a couple of guys pump petrol into a car isn’t spectacular. You don’t get crowds of people standing around filling stations.

I don’t want ‘interesting strategies’ I want pure, unadulterated, heart-pumping racing.

The FIA doesn’t seem to understand this. Back when it surveyed the fans on what they wanted from F1 in 2005 and 2006, it never even bothered to ask whether anyone liked refuelling. When FOTA first raised the possibility of banning refuelling Max Mosley said rather sniffily that he would not consider proposals that threatened to change ‘the show’.

Either he has been convinced that refuelling will not affect the show, or it will improve it, or FOTA have got the better of him politically.

A worthless cost

I expect the decision to drop refuelling isn’t about spectacle, it’s about cutting costs. At present each team has two refuelling rigs, meaning a total of at least twenty that have to be flown and driven around the world. They only make races interesting when they fail (and they do that too often – remember all the fires at Hungary this year?) so they are not worth having around.

More good news: at a stroke it would make qualifying better by removing the confusing, excitement-sapping ‘race fuel’ element. And it would largely solve the problem of drivers having to pit for fuel during pit lane closures and getting penalties.

The FIA has also said it will conduct research into whether F1 races should be shorter. There is no reason why Grands Prix would need to be shorter if refuelling were banned – race were not made longer when refuelling was introduced in 1994. The teams would simply have to use larger fuel tanks in 2010, and there’s plenty of time for them to factor that into their designs.

Getting rid of refuelling would be worth doing even if it cost money. As it is, this is a win-win scenario for F1, and I looked forward to refuelling-free racing in 2010.

Read more

62 comments on “The cost-cutting plans: refuelling ban”

  1. If there’s no refuelling how many times will drivers come in to change tyres? I’m in favour of the refuelling ban, but is it possible that if overtaking doesn’t improve with the new regs we could have processional races from start to finish?

    I also noticed that market research might determine whether races should be shortened. I hope Max doesn’t get the idea that a shorter race makes for a better TV show.

    1. but is it possible that if overtaking doesn’t improve with the new regs we could have processional races from start to finish?

      My thoughts exactly.

  2. Surely no refuelling means shorter races?

  3. Do you thik this could possibly have anything to do with Ferrari twice making refuelling mistakes?? maybe Max thinks that if he takes away refuelling, he’ll remove more opportunities for Ferrari to lose races??

  4. Given that there is a single tyre supplier, surely the graining rate of the tyres could be controlled so that the optimum strategy would involve pitting for tyres at least once. If it comes to that.

    Before control tyres, it is even more likely that tyres would not last the entire race. Competing suppliers would focus on eking out the last possible ounce of performance, rather than opting for conservative designs that will be more durable.

  5. Watching all the old F1 videos from when there was no refuelling it led to exciting finishes,
    the leader trying to preserve what fuel he had whilst second place is catching him will lead to great drama.
    plus any one remember the famous Monaco race(can’t remember what year now) when it five or so leaders in the last lap because they all ran out of fuel.

    Good on you Max!!!
    The right outcome for the wrong reason.

  6. Ratboy, it was 82. Thanks to a last minute rain not unlike the ones we got at Spa and Interlagos this year, Both Prost and Patrese spun, while De Cesaris and someone else went out of fuel and Patrese who TV didn’t notice manage to restart his car ended up winning (his 1st win). I think one can still find this on you tube, Murray Walker completely lost at what is going on at the track is pretty funny.

  7. I am too young to remember the times of fefuelling-free racing, but I think that with no fuel strategies it will be very easy for a faster car to stay behind trying to overtake slow cars.This plan can be only good if the 2009-changes actually increase overtaking(which I don’t think so).Also sponsors like BR(man with yellow shirt in Williams pit-stops) Mobil 1 , Shell will be very dissapointed because in a pit-stop they now have their OWN MAN working for the team ,he will not be necessery in 2010.

  8. Surely no refuelling means shorter races?

    In a word, no.

  9. In a word, no.

    Well put. Three more words – bigger fuel tanks.

  10. HounslowBusGarage
    12th December 2008, 22:21

    But it does mean either refuelling after qualifying, or Q3 qualifying with full tanks.

  11. Terry Fabulous
    12th December 2008, 22:24

    This will force Lewis into a refinement of his driving style since he is quite rough on his boots.

    And Kimi will have to pass people on the track!

    Great news though.

  12. So far, teams would still have to pit for tires. The proposal doesn’t include not stopping for tires. And we all remember how more “exciting” racing was in 2005. The tires were compromised and safety was affected. It’s going to be the same with heavy fuel loads, we won’t see exciting racing throughout the grand prix, they’ll be so heavy and bloated to do anything it won’t even be funny.
    And now days the fuel systems are so precise that it will be very hard for a team to “run out of fuel” in the closing laps of a race. Telemetry now days will completely eliminate the only exciting part of yesteryear racing.
    Also Keith, everyone but two (I think there are only two fuel rig guys) would be included in the pit stop. Everyone else will have to be there to change tires. So a team thinking of saving money by banning refueling is a pretty dumb idea. They’re going to use just as much or even more fuel than before to MAKE SURE they get to the end.

    I’m against the refueling ban. How many times have we seen drivers come out ahead or behind due to the pit stops this year; Canada, Valencia, Hungary, Singapore, are only a few that come to mind, and those are the deal breakers, there are probably many other times where refueling helped some cars move up a few spots. And I have a soft spot for BMW, who this year was undoubtedly the fastest pit stop team. What’s going to happen to teams who base their strategies on refueling?

    I’m too young to the non-refueling days, but I think those who believe that it’s going to be like “the-good-‘ol-days” again are going to be in for a big surprise.

  13. HounslowBusGarage
    12th December 2008, 23:17

    Ccolanto, there’s no such thing as ‘the good ol’ days’. I know, I was there.
    With this particlar regulation, I think the devil will be in the surrounding detail; whether they allow post-qualifying refuelling, whether they still require two types of tyre compound to be used, whether there will be a restriction on fuel tank size etc. We will have to see, but you have to applaud the intention which is to keep cars on track more and to force position changes onto the track and out of the pits.

  14. Good point Josh J. I just don’t think these guys have thought things through enough. Oh well, we’ll see.

  15. swapping position because a longer fuel stop isn’t racing!
    And if you read the article you must have read that costs will be cut!
    The rigs + transport and less people will be needed during a stop (will probably be regulated)

  16. Robert – According to the ITV website…

    A ban on refuelling stops is the headline announcement, meaning that from 2010 cars will have to run on the same tank of fuel for the entire race distance for the first time since 1993.

    The change may also lead to a reduction in the distances or duration of races, a proposal on which the FIA says will be submitted following market research.

  17. Keith, isn’t this going to increase cost for the teams. What it means is that all the design process going into building the 2009 cars will be wasted as new cars have to be built for 2010. Does this help the smaller teams in any way?

  18. Ccolanto –

    they’ll be so heavy and bloated to do anything it won’t even be funny.

    Ayrton Senna had a full tank of fuel during the first lap at Donington Park in 1993, and he did alright. Racing drivers are still racing drivers even with a heavy fuel load.

    Solid –

    swapping position because a longer fuel stop isn’t racing!


    Manatcna – The statement from the FIA lists the refuelling ban and potential shortening of the races as two separate things. Given that one has been decided and the other is being given further thought, I don’t think it follows that a refuelling ban must lead to shorter races.

  19. Oliver – Surely given that practically every team builds a new car design each year it wouldn’t make a difference?

  20. This gives the better teams an even greater competitive advantage on the track if its pure performance and no strategy. There will be even less passing and fewer variations at the top since all will be on the same strategy.

    I might be the only one, but I do not like it. Underdogs stand no chance as is in this sport, no wonder Honda quit. Get ready for an even smaller car count. The sport might be getting less expensive, but who on earth wants to sponsor a car with no chance?

  21. Hurray for this decision.

    I don’t know why people complain about the cars being heavy with fuel and slow. They won’t be slow… they’ll still do 200mph in a straight line, and they’ll only get faster and faster during the race.

    Plus like Ratboy mentioned, you get thrilling finishes to races where one or two might start to slow or drop out due to empty tanks.

    Plus it means the pit crews can wear their t-shirts and shorts for the tyre changes again.

  22. I wonder what tyre options there will be under the new rules. Will there be a super hard tyre that is predicted to last the full race distance, a medium that is predicted to last 75% and a soft that will go to 50%? this would add an interesting strategy element no?

    Could we have a situation where a driver in second place opts to stop for new tyres because that should make them much faster, but a pit stop in time behind, and with him having done so the driver in first place can’t stop because the time it would take to pit would mean he would then be second place?

    I still think there is the potential for strategy here.

  23. I have never seen races of the ‘good old times’; so seeing everyone excited about this ban seems a little amusing to me.

    Ban on re-fuelling would mean lesser overtaking at the start of the races;isn’t it?

    About the end of the races being exciting.. by that time; haven’t all drivers moved atleast 20-30 seconds adrift of each other by then? (Like we see now)

    Plus; cost of developing a radical new design again for the cars.

    Anyways; I will reserve my judgement till I watch a race with all these new rules enforced

  24. naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!
    i lub the stategy portion in the game :(
    i will keep my fingers crossed the whole 2009, i hope its not finalized

  25. Is there a potential risk of F1 becoming too much of an ‘economy formula’ with the absence of refuelling? It solves a lot of problems (especially Q3 and the safety car rules) but it places a huge emphasis on fuel and tyre conservation. Surely that will encourage drivers to take it much easier than they do now because there will be an advantage in doing so. Personally, I’d like to see the fastest driver win the race, not the driver who looked after his fuel and tyres the most.

  26. its not about refuelling its about pitting. ban that. It might kill Kimi’s career at a stroke but tough. Single lap qualifying killed Coulthard. I largely applaud the new rules. F1 had gone down a cul de sac with incremental changes the order of the day. Id like to see the spiritual successors to Chapman & Murray come back to F1 where we’d have cars appearing with crazy changes that pulversie the opposition before being banned.

    Whisper it quietly but Max has got it right.

  27. MartyP – In my opinion, the winner should be the driver who can conserve his fuel and tyres and be extremely fast at the same time. That is true skill to me.

  28. its A skill but f1 needs more giles vileneueve’s than it needs more alain prosts

  29. Nice to hear about the refuelling ban. But how will this affect the plank wear? Before 1994 the cars used to drag along the ground because of all the fuel they had + the low ride height. Or am I missing something?

  30. I forget how long I’ve been watching sometimes. Guys and Gals, seriously, full tanks barely affect anything. The V12 was still viable in the old days; and to the viewer there is no noticeable difference in the speed of the cars, or their ability to overtake. Alain Prost said his FW15 was better on a full tank through Eau Rouge than when it was light, as an illustration.

  31. TMFOX – Raise the ride height slightly. The downforce is considerably greater than the actual weight of the car anyway.

  32. TMFOX,
    This year there is going to be less downforce as well isn’t there, therefore the cars are already a bit higher at top speed, not much but a bit.

  33. ah geez, Keith…………this is the best line yet!

    You don’t get crowds of people standing around filling stations.

    (Actually, in my little town you do get crowds standing around at a gas station, but in my little town it only takes two to make a crowd)

    Where does the initial fueling take place now, and where will it take place after the ban on refueling during the race?

    Remove all that fuel from the pits…it carries with it the potential for catastrophe unlike anything seen in F1 history. (Please don’t point out that the fuel rigs are accident proof)

  34. MartyP –

    it places a huge emphasis on fuel and tyre conservation.

    I don’t think it will place an emphasis on fuel conservation, as there isn’t a limit on the amount of fuel a car can carry.

    TMFOX – I guess they’ll have to use higher ride heights.

  35. Don’t forget about the SC.

    No more podiums decided by the moment SC showed up. No more disscussions about if stewards decissions benefits more one driver than the others. And no more drivers driving really fast with SC on the track, because of any strategy thing.

  36. Will they still have to use hard and soft tyres during the race i.e. at least one tyre stop will be mandatory?

    Also: At what point will their tanks be sealed? I’m thinking of a situation where a wet race is possible. Some teams may wish to gamble on a low fuel load in anticipation of a slow race. Obviously, they will want to wait until the last minute before deciding.

  37. Im not optimistic. Whatever “real” racing is supposed to be like, I think we’ll see more processions. The new competition dynamic will be tire degradation. Since there is only one tire maker, there will be no real diversity of tire strategy, just as with the “option” tire business. So there will be nothing to heterogenize performance curves over race distance now.

    And I actually think the fuel strategy issues made passing more imperative because (in some circumstances i.e., for Trulli Train victims) it had to be done by a certain point, rather than just eventually. See, e.g., Turkey, Singapore, Hockenheim.

  38. Banning fuel stops is the best change of the lot. They should have done it years ago.

    Everyone uses fuel at the same rate, but the drivers make the difference with tyre wear. I hope there’s a choice of hard and soft tyre, and fuel isn’t limited – I remember it being deadly dull watching drivers trying to save fuel in the 80s.

    Those fuel rigs must have ruined many teams’ races over the years, and always looked cheap, cumbersome and out of place next to the cars with their miniature engines and perfect aerodynamics.

    And tyre-only pit stops will be properly spectacular again. The best pit crews were down to 5-second tyre stops before refuelling was brought in – wonder how quick they’ll be now?

  39. @ anthonyb

    its A skill but f1 needs more giles vileneueve’s than it needs more alain prosts

    Well Hamilton’s not a bad start! But seriously, I agree that refuelling adds very little to the show of contemporary F1. Why risk an overtaking move when a quick in and out lap plus some speedy pit work will do the job for you with less risk? The whole setup of modern Formula One seems designed to actively discourage ‘racing’. Give me sports cars any day (where, you’ll note they have refuelling and ‘tactics’ out of necessity – but then they also have abundant overtaking).

  40. Will they be able to run out of fuel?
    In MotoGP they have electronics that control how much fuel they are burining and if they would run out of fuel before the end of the race, the electronic limit the amount of fuel used to ensure that they make it to the end of the race.

    That would be funny if all of the cars finished the race but ddin’t make it back to the pits.

  41. Good, I am glad this is on the cards, and I think FOTA (and especially Ferrari) would have pointed out how UNSAFE refueling is, and always was, and if Max only wanted ‘the show’ to include cars and drivers being incinerated on a regular basis, he either has a very low opinion of the fans, or has some very strange ideas about entertainment (oh, but then again he does!)
    Also of course, it gets rid of the expense of paying the supplier of the fuel rigs, and the extra pit crew required to use it.
    It should also mean that drivers have to return to the days of driving fast but conserving tyres, and any pit stop in a race is an uneccessary hindrance. Although I am sure the two compound rule will stay – but how will the difference be shown on slick tyres??

  42. The main plus point for me with a ban on refuelling is the return of low fuel qualifying, we will finally get to see who is quickest at each circuit, just like it used to be. It will also solve the problem of drivers having to pit under a safety car and so ending up being penalised.

    Although it will mean an end to teams opting for different fuel strategies which I have mixed feelings about. However if the rule of having to use both types of tyre during a race stays then there still may be a small amount of strategy to play about with.

    I started watching F1 in 1991 but I was too young to remember how much of a difference refuelling made. One of the earliest races that sticks in my mind was when Senna ran out of fuel so Mansell gave him a lift back to the pits at Silverstone 1991.

  43. No refueling is a step in the right direction. Now if they want F1 technology to carry over to the real world they need to slowly decrease the maximum allowable fuel tank size over a number of years. This will force teams to develope more efficient race cars based on technology that could benefit the entire planet.

  44. It always surprises me how many people enjoy the fuel stop strategy aspect of the current rules. But each to their own. For me, it’s decided by the techies and their input with F1 should end once the green light comes on – then it’s down to the drivers. Summed up by McLaren’s team of boffins sat in a room at the factory deciding when is best to stop – they aren’t even at the track!

    Great news about the refuelling ban, let the advantage come from better use of tyres and if there’s going to be an overtake, let it happen on the track.

    And FINALLY, we can end all the speculation about who’s qualifying lap was quickest. Nor will drivers be able to claim they were “satisfied with race strategy”, suggesting they were fastest after qualifying 4th.

  45. I think this is ruining the sport. Max Mosley is letting ferrari win at all costs, this meaning the fuel hose wont put the ferrari down to 14 from 1

  46. I completely disagree.!

    I dont know about anyone else but i kinda like the strategy elements of F1. I think most of the drivers are so closely matched that removing strategy options will make it all too predictable. I.e. At tracks where overtaking is very difficult(Hungary,Valencia etc) – the fuels stops i think are the most watchable parts of the race.
    Also, all this talk of drivers having to protect tyres more is a little worrying. I like F1 as a team vs team and not racer vs racer. If i wanted that then id turn my playstation on and turn the damage off.

    I dont want conservation – I want flat out racing

    1. completely agree! well put
      tacticsare the most exciting part of F1 and don’t be stupid with todays technology there’s no way that the teams will run out of fuel, besides the F1 people prob wont allow the cars to take risky fuel loads caz it will massive safety hazzard if a car infont of u all of a sudden stops in the middle of the track.
      + the drivers are already forced to protect tires and whats going to happen with full fuel loads. also they won’t save the cost of fuel hoses caz theil still have to fuel the cars and theil still have to have a spare one incase one goes wrong on race day, just caz they wont refuel during raced doesnt mean they wont re-fuel pre-race. also weather will have much more of an impact on fuel load therefore thweil have to leave fuelling as late as possible so theil have to invest in more proffesionals to manage their fuel so dont think this will actually save that much cost + they might lose sponsors…

  47. Maurice Henry
    21st April 2009, 2:06

    If you want a vision of formula racing with no refuelling watch GP2 or A1GP. Some exciting races some dull races. That’s racing. The “good old days” led to a few exciting races at the end but not that many…rose tinted glasses are all the rage this year. Limiting fuel tanks to get fuel economy relevent to road cars? No, no, no. The best engine techies always won. 1984 Tag-Porsche; 1985 Tag-Porsche; 1986 Hon…I mean Tag-Porsche (so there’s always the odd blip); 1987 Honda; 1988 Honda; 1989 Honda – Are you seeing a pattern here?; 1990 Honda; 1991 Honda; 1992 Renault; 1993 Renault – I hope you get my drift. A classic non stopper – Hungary 1990, Italy 1991. The top three or four chasing each other for 80% of the race. I hope for 2010 they:
    (1) Do not reduce the race distances – why would people pay £100 to see a race reduced by up to 50Kms?
    (2) Allow unlimited fuel tank capacity – the bigger the tank the more of a weight penalty the driver had to carry around for the whole race back in the day – that’s one of the reasons why Ferrari saw the light and stopped building V12s after 1995. From the Gorgio Piola books I have, Sepang requires 170 kilos of fuel, for example.
    (3) Keep the prime and option tyre rule
    (4) Sort out whether KERS is really just a marketing gimmick or whether it should be the push to pass saviour of dull racing. I’m not convinced. Back in December on Radio 5 Live, I heard John Watson say engineers in one team had told him that they were going to throw the batteries away after every race! So much for saving money! And then during the Sebring 12 hour ALMS race Johnny Mowlem said that one manufacturer in F1 had spent around £50 million developing the system.
    (5) Cut revs again if they want to maintain engine life and cut rebuild costs for customer teams
    (6) This should probably have been number 1 – decide now whether or not double/triple deck diffusers are going to be illegal before the teams spend a gazzillion dollars on research in simulators and wind tunnels for next year. I know this is highly unlikely to happen but this is my fantasy, damn it.
    (7) Why is it I can watch a NASCAR race where they race for 500 miles and refuel from a fuel can that reminds me of a genetically modified bong a dozen times, but yet F1 must be pure and have no refuelling?

    With or without refuelling the tracks will have a big influence on how good the races are going to be.

  48. All very good points maurice but you miss the point. Non fad f1 watchers are quite happy if there are other important “outside” influences. The engines/tyres/engineers all impact the winningness of any driver and thats fine. If i want to watch a sport where man is the only influence i’ll watch the 100metres

    1. Maurice Henry
      21st April 2009, 17:07

      Fair point Anthony, but what I railing against was the idea that non stop F1 fuel economy races were ever that exciting on a regular basis. Putting my cards on the table I don’t mind refuelling where there can be variations in strategy, but I’m a realist and know that all those clever engineers in F1 will tend to find the one best way to do anything. Therefore you get predictability. So much so that the Gorgio Piola F1 Tech Analysis books haven’t bothered with a “Winning Strategies” chapter for the past two years (those covering 2006 and 2007). My suggestions were about what I hope will prevail if refuelling is banned.

  49. I agree, f1 when it was a marathon wasnt wall to wall excitement

    There are unintended consequences to any rule changes. I dislike pitstop overtakes more than anything else in F1 but id also bring back manual gearshifts and lose the power steering. Really downforce needs to be banned all together but im not sure its governable and we’d end up where we are now: One long squabble about anything and everything.

    1. Maurice Henry
      23rd April 2009, 21:12

      Does anyone know if this is definitely in the rules for 2010?

  50. I’m worried about start action. When everyone starts with the very same amount of fuel (I doubt there is fuel efficiency differences between them) we won’t see all the overtaking in the beginning we are seeing right now, really, the cars will start to perform towards the end of the race when they’re further apart from each other. Doesn’t seem that fun to me.

  51. Maurice Henry
    30th April 2009, 19:36

    My query has been answered. I am interested to see that people are constantly refering to the cars having the same weights at the start. Back in the turbo days fuel capacity was limited to 220 litres 1984-85, 195 litres 1986-87 and finally 150 litres 1988 (free for atmo powered cars). The secret to making this varied and “exciting” is to allow engine builders free reign by not enforcing a fuel tank limit. The performance imperative will always be the top priority. Economy will always equal less fuel at the start line with the consequence that you are not carrying a weight penalty around for the rest of the race. Remember the strategy info we get at each circuit about the weight penalty of 10kg of fuel. And don’t forget the “KERS system” that can give them that boost out of slow corners on full tanks. As for qualifying, the sensible thing – yes, I know that this is the FIA I’m talking about – to avoid teams spending money for no good reason is to:
    (1) Cars qualify in a low fuel shoot out in the same sequence as it is now. This will force teams to put their cars out in every segment of qualifying
    (2) Maintain the Parc Ferme conditions that exist today post qualifying
    (3) Teams fuel up their cars pre-race
    (4) Two compounds of tyre have to be used during the race
    (5) KERS energy store limit is doubled and its use still limited to 5 times a lap

  52. Urrrgghhh…..imagine a Micheal Schumacher era when there were no pit stops. The whole interest in F1 is strategy vs speed. If you take that away what’s the point? Also I really don’t see how 20 fuel rig transports per race add much when you consider the hundreds of people and millions of pounds (and lbs) of kit. This seems nonsensical.

    Also, as others have noted, starting loaded with fuel will make for limited overtaking at the start, and none later as the cars will be millions of laps apart.

    I’m all for low fuel maximum attack qualification but this is dumb, I think they just killed my sport by the back door

    1. Maurice Henry
      1st May 2009, 18:56

      You make some very valid points Billy. That’s why I think they’re trying to encourage the uptake of KERS. Of course the problem I can see is that a lot of engineers are looking at 2009 cars on lowish fuel strategies chewing up tyres because KERS compromises car layout. Imagine what it will do when you are carrying around 180kg-200kg of fuel? However, this may be offset by the power of KERS aiding midrange acceleration out of corners. The two compound rule is a backdoor method of instigating pitstops. It is stopping short of A1GP/DTMs mandatory pitstop windows. I agree that sometimes a non stop strategy would be exciting to see against a 1- or 2- stop strategy. However, next year we will see drivers have to conserve tyres, brakes, engines and fuel for a big push at different stages of the race.

  53. S. Wibberley
    26th July 2009, 13:11

    Years ago they didn’t have fuel stops and the driver who got pole was often the driver who won, this made for a very boring procession of way to many laps. I see no reason why F1 should want to go back to this unless in my opinion it’s because their finding it to hard to fix the outcome anymore
    Racing its more like wrestling on wheels

  54. Personally, I think that by loosing refueling, the races would be a lot less interesting. There would be much less action at the start, as being all the same weight there would be much fewer dramatic start of race place gaining. Strategy has also really become part of modern F1, it’s one of the most interesting things finding out who’s going to do a 2 stop/3 stop race, and guessing which driver out of 2 battling will stop first. If this comes into effect, it will be another rule that seems to have only been put in place to slowly destroy formula 1.

  55. Isn’t having a car extremely heavy on fuel would discourage drivers to overtake?
    And how much fuel is it going to take to complete the whole race? I hope they’re not planning to cut the number of laps…

  56. past amplified roughly instead colleagues wide ces low

  57. international variations evaporation degree

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.