FIA publishes new F1 rules for 2013 and 2014

2013 F1 season

Mark Webber, Red Bull, Barcelona, 2012The FIA has finalised the changes to the F1 regulations for the 2013 season and updated its planned rules for 2014.

There are few alterations to the 2013 rules beyond those revealed after last week’s World Motor Sport Council meeting but the full regulations reveal some new details.

Among the changes to the technical regulations for next year is a rule governing what happens when cars run out of fuel at the end of a practice session, such as happened during qualifying to Lewis Hamilton in Spain and Sebastian Vettel in Abu Dhabi.

Teams will no longer be allowed to claim a car was stopped for reasons of “force majeure”, instead the FIA will determine how much fuel should have been in the car when it stopped:

After a practice session, if a car has not been driven back to the pits under its own power, it will be required to supply the above mentioned sample plus the amount of fuel that would have been consumed to drive back to the pits. The additional amount of fuel will be determined by the FIA.
2013 FIA Formula One Technical Regulations, article 6.6.2

As the tyres Pirelli are supplying next year will be heavier the rules on minimum weight and weight distribution have been revised (4.1-4.3). The minimum weight has increased by 2kg to 642kg and a more drastic change is coming for 2014 (see below).

An extra kilo has therefore been added to the minimum weights at each end of the car making these now 292kg at the front, 343kg at the rear. These will be adjusted to take final 2013 tyre weights into account.

A tougher front wing deflection test has been defined in article 3.17.1. The amount a wing may deflect when a 1,000N load is applied to it has been reduced from 20mm to 10mm, the further curb the use of flexing wings.

As of next year teams may add a panel to their car’s nose to remove the steps seen on many cars this year. The rules defining the shape of these has been altered in article 3.7.9.

Tougher standards for roll structures (15.2.1-2) and crash tests (16.2) have also been defined, the latter requiring the static load test to be applied to all of the teams’ survival cells (18.1.1)

There are fewer changes in the Sporting Regulations and some are already known including the restriction of using DRS outside the designated zone at any time during a race weekend (article 25.7a).

For teams to arrange a test outside Europe they now require the agreement of the FIA (22.4g) and the total number of tests during the season has been reduced to three each of no more four days long (22.4g ii). There will be no repeat of this year’s in-season test which was held at Mugello.

During race weekends the first of the two curfews on teams’ activity has been extended from six hours to eight (30.19). The number of curfew breaks each team is allowed reduced to two, and they may not both be used at the same event.

You can download PDFs of the updated 2013 rules via the FIA’s website here:

Heavier cars in 2014

The 2014 Technical Regulations are still at an early stage and have been heavily revised.

The minimum weight will be further increased from 642kg in 2012 to 685kg to account for the rise in weight from the new power units. The regulations on power units, electrical systems and transmission have been extensively revised – see the full rules below for details.

Although parts of the rules on aerodynamic bodywork have been moved closer to the current rules (articles 3.7.3-6), the planned reduction in front wing width from 1,800mm to to 1,650mm has been retained (article 3.4.1).

You can download a PDF of the updated 2014 technical rules via the FIA’s website here:

2013 F1 season

Browse all 2013 F1 season articles

Advert | Go Ad-free


73 comments on FIA publishes new F1 rules for 2013 and 2014

  1. PieLighter (@pielighter) said on 11th December 2012, 20:22

    So the 2014 engines are happening then?

    The minimum weight will be further increased from 642kg in 2012 to 685kg

    Eh? Do you mean 585?

    • PieLighter (@pielighter) said on 11th December 2012, 20:22

      EDIT: Screw that, for some reason I saw “decreased” instead of “increased”. My bad.

      • Uggghhh why do the FIA insist in an increase in weight? I understand the need for level pegging in the case of heavy drivers, a la Webber, but F1 should be the pinnacle of mototorsport – if the cars can be lighter and subsequently use less fuel, isn’t that what we should be aiming for?? ;)

        • HoHum (@hohum) said on 12th December 2012, 3:47


        • dennis (@dennis) said on 12th December 2012, 9:24

          That is my biggest gripe as well. Nothing burns more fuel and wastes more energy than weight. F1 should aim at 600 kg tops. All that technology goes to waste in cars that weigh almost as much as a track ready Mazda MX-5.

          Technology in F1 should come when necessary. Not when being implemented for the sake of implementation.

  2. Nick.UK (@) said on 11th December 2012, 20:30

    Now only 3 tests. Seems the importance of making a good car right of the bat has been increased. I assume it is one initial test at Jerez and two at Barcelona. Are the dates confirmed? I’m hoping to get down to at least one of the Barcelona tests this year! :)

  3. At this rate, if they keep making the weight increases, by about 2025 my 18-stone frame will be an ideal physique for an F1 driver.


  4. Master firelee (@master-firelee) said on 11th December 2012, 20:47

    Has anything been said about the ugly noses on the cars for 2013, or are they here to stay?

    • “As of next year teams may add a panel to their car’s nose to remove the steps seen on many cars this year. The rules defining the shape of these has been altered in article 3.7.9.”

      • Master firelee (@master-firelee) said on 11th December 2012, 20:59

        How did I miss that, thanks anyway.

      • Nick.UK (@) said on 11th December 2012, 21:02

        I don’t really get what they mean by ‘a panel’ though.

        • Scootin159 (@scootin159) said on 11th December 2012, 21:15

          As per the technical regulations:

          …an optional, single piece, non-structural fairing of prescribed laminate…
          …The external surface of any longitudinal or lateral cross section taken through the above fairing may contain no concave radius of curvature less than 50mm.

          Basically the car has to be built with a platypus nose as it was in 2012 (or you could go the McLaren low nose route), and then you’re allowed to just tack a removable panel on top of the nose cone to smooth out the step created. The end result should be a car that looks like a 2011 nose, but in a crash will function like a 2012 nose.

          The rules do say the panel itself can’t have any sharp radiuses (thus you can’t make it function like a wing or turning vanes or elephant ears or anything like that), but I see no reason they couldn’t be made to function as a duct if the team were so inclined (i.e. the Red Bull mailslot or the Sauber hole would both be allowed).

          • JerseyF1 (@jerseyf1) said on 11th December 2012, 21:39

            I wonder if this will be a source of some unusual innovation this year when it turns out the panel can be used to give some unintended aero benefit.

        • Nick.UK (@) said on 12th December 2012, 0:48

          Wow, what a pointless rule. I don’t think the stepped noses were mentioned at all after the first race or so… because nobody cared! To even address the situation with a rule is just an enormous waste of time for everyone! Especially as these new panels are clearly not allowed to give any aero benefit at all. As commentators always point out, nothing on an F1 car doesn’t sereve a purpose… these panels serve no (useful) purpose!… other than to make the cars a bit prettier! They don’t build them to look good, they build them to win!

          • BradFerrari (@brad-ferrari) said on 12th December 2012, 2:06

            It should bring a small aero benefit by streamlining the step and reducing the airflow disruption it caused.

          • Joey Zyla (@) said on 12th December 2012, 2:07


          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 12th December 2012, 8:22


            I don’t think the stepped noses were mentioned at all after the first race or so… because nobody cared!

            – That is not true

            A lot of fans have remarked about it at least until after the first 4-5 races. And it still comes up every now and again (its hard to keep talking about something that is not going to change during the year). I for one am glad they at least offer this to spare us as ugly noses on the cars for next season.

  5. Magnificent Geoffrey (@magnificent-geoffrey) said on 11th December 2012, 21:10

    Any particular reason why the FIA have decided to enforce the curfews more strictly?

    • JerseyF1 (@jerseyf1) said on 11th December 2012, 21:48

      The curfew didn’t seem to be needed that often, I suspect the FIA saw that and realised they could bring it down without causing any real problems for the teams. It also reduces the risk of teams ‘saving up’ their allowance to use strategically (when the purpose is really to allow for some bad-luck or unexpected situation). I guess the Ferrari situation in Abu Dhabi where they broke curfew intentionally two days in a row showed up a shortcoming in the rules which has now been removed.

  6. Deepak (@ideepak) said on 11th December 2012, 21:11

    Can someone please upload a picture of what next years cars will look like ? I’m dying to know. A link would be fine too, anything that comes close — concepts, drawings, whatever you have.

  7. A F1 car should not weigh 685kg.

    • Drop Valencia! said on 11th December 2012, 22:09

      +1 they are letting designers be lazy, should be 585kg.

    • If fuel consumption was really that big of a concern then I would have thought they would decrease the minimal weight.

    • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 11th December 2012, 22:24

      @kcampos12 As recently as 2009 the minimum weight for an F1 car was 605kg. If the 2014 rules change remain as they are they’ll have gained 80kg in five years – a 13.2% increase.

      That’s a lot for cars of this size. For them to retain similar lap times they going to need more power or grip. I wonder if this is why they’ve decided not to depart as far from the 2012 aerodynamic regulations as they originally envisaged?

      • @KeithCollantine – Excellentv point, as usual..

        If the FIA hqad decided to implement the aero changes in 2014 alongside the engine changes and yet persisted with such a high minimum weight then we’d see indy and nippon cars beating F1 cars around a track. The only way I could continue to watch F1 if it wasn’t the pinncale of circuit racing is if it had the mst exciting racing and as that couldn’t be guaranteed, it is very wise that the FIA decided to ensure F1 cars remain the fastest around any tarmac circuit on earth..

      • HoHum (@hohum) said on 12th December 2012, 3:56

        The weight of the batteries or “energy storage systems” is what makes “hybrid” powerplants a self defeating technology.

        • javlinsharp (@javlinsharp) said on 12th December 2012, 15:50

          Such is the delicate balance the FIA tries to maintain.
          The balance between safety, consumer/technological relevance, sufficient space for Sponsorship logos, and maintaining a sport that people actually want to watch.

          Most people cant tell the difference between an car that weighs 630kg and one that weighs 680kg. Seems they took advantage of this and decided to screw we viewers with slower speeds/laptimes. We viewers, after all, are only the eyeball to which the true purpose of F1 is expressed. That purpose being “rolling billboards”. Bernie has executed his vision flawlessly…

    • I’m no car designer, but here are some reasons why the weight is what it is. Making cars lighter requires the use of expensive alloys, and there is already a feeling that F1 is too expensive, especially for the smaller teams. Making the cars lighter may compromise on safety and structural integrity. And lighter cars would require more downforce to keep stuck to the track, while the FIA is trying to de-emphasize the role of downforce.

      • HoHum (@hohum) said on 13th December 2012, 2:15

        @jonsan, “lighter cars would require more downforce to keep stuck to the track” as true as “the Earth is flat”, superficially apparent but totally baseless, a lighter car generates LESS side-force when deviating from a straight line and so requires LESS downforce to stop tyre-adhesion failure.

  8. Richard07 said on 11th December 2012, 21:49

    Can teams shape front wing center part to gain downforce in 2014 due to reduction in front wing width?

  9. Jeanrien (@jeanrien) said on 11th December 2012, 22:51

    Looks like overall pushing to slower cars, let’s hope the margin won’t be that significant.
    I was worried at the beginning of this year as well when I saw they were weel over 1s of last year but still went okay as far as the “on track” appearance is concern.
    I’m quite concern about 2014 cars behaving the same as now, I have a doubt on that. Quite a lot of weight added, the power delivered is still unknown but not expected to be greater … But maybe that with lower downforce, we will have some sliding cars in turn back again which would be awesome (though it’s quite unlikely given the actual tyres).

    Now I remember why I get some headaches at this period of year, not all comes from champagne …

  10. I personally can’t see why there is any minimum weight anymore in F1. The minimum weight was originally introduced because cars were being designed without sufficient strength and not strong enough so it was a way to give designers the opportunity to design cars strong enough without penalty. But that has not been the case for many years. All safety critical structural components are tested for strength by the FIA and the use of exotic materials is limited by the rules. The designers all design the cars as light as possible anyway so that they have the most flexibility to tune the handling by moving the ballast about. I don’t think F1 cars should be carrying ballast as a matter of course. All that does is restrict another area where innovation is possible.

    OK it is used to even out drivers weights, I wouldn’t mind a ballasting system for that, but I think a minimum weight for cars is totally unnecessary.

    • Kimi4WDC said on 11th December 2012, 23:19

      If memory serves me right, on average F1 car used 1.7L fuel per lap wich is equivalent to 0.2-0.3 seconds per lap. Considering drivers weight difference it evens out the odds, but you have to consider that lighter drivers have more weights to play around with in order to achieve the perfect balance of the car.

    • infy (@infy) said on 12th December 2012, 7:00

      It is for the drivers. Without it driver skill/speed would be determined by how skinny and short they are. There would be no room for drivers like Webber.

      Its one or the other! Cant have both.

  11. Hallard (@hallard) said on 12th December 2012, 1:10

    Boo. F1 cars should not be getting slower.

    I can’t be the only one who finds it depressing that F1 cars were much faster 10 years ago than they are now (even with the stupid grooved tires), and the 2014 regs are likely to make them slower still. I dont mind the cars having hybrid, turbocharged V6s… but they need quite a lot more power.

    • Abdurahman (@) said on 12th December 2012, 2:14

      Here here. I remember last year season seeing some of the fastest laps at some circuits were still held by like Montoya? Barrichello from like 04? Can anybody correct me or find some of that info?

      • Kingshark (@kingshark) said on 12th December 2012, 5:21

        2004, in the Italian Grand Prix at Monza, Rubens Barrichello took pole position, with race fuel load, doing a 1:20.069. 4 seconds faster than the Monza pole lap of Lewis Hamilton this season.

        Juan Pablo Montoya clocked a time of 1:19.525 in Q1 with light fuel loads. That is 4.5 seconds faster than the pole lap this year.

        • Hallard (@hallard) said on 13th December 2012, 1:27

          Thanks for that! I had looked up the figures for the Belgian grand prix 2002 vs. 2012 and saw a similar delta there, even with Spa being slightly more demanding in terms of downforce (meaning that the drop in power between V10s and V8s would theoretically not be as prevalent).

    • AndrewTanner (@andrewtanner) said on 14th December 2012, 13:51

      @hallard Speed has no bearing over me. Sure, I like it fast and I wouldn’t want it to diminish too much but making a fast car is easy…making an efficient car is so much more interesting to me personally.

      Making a car go at a similar speed with reduced volume and cylinders is a challenge and that’s what it’s about!

  12. davidnotcoulthard said on 12th December 2012, 1:14

    ……..TOfurther curb the use of flexing wings…..?

  13. Boo. F1 cars should not be getting slower

    Well, if you’re going to make them sound rubbish, produce less power and cost more, why not chuck in extra weight as well?

  14. Fisha695 (@fisha695) said on 12th December 2012, 4:30

    685kg = 1,510lbs That’s just crazy lightweight. I mean I’ve worked on a NASCAR style Asphalt Modified (used NASCAR rules but ran at a non-NASCAR local track & not on their tour) and that only had a minimum weight of 1179kg / 2600lbs. I mean I understand that they’re made of two completely different materials pretty much from top-to-bottom but still that’s just IDK crazy to think about how lightweight they are (I’ve known this for awhile but it’s now just “clicking” in my brain l0l)

    BTW here is the kind of car I’m talking about.

  15. HoHum (@hohum) said on 12th December 2012, 4:39

    A quick look at the 2014 engine regulations confirms that they are even worse than I thought, I used to think that there would be some opportunity to vary the bore/stroke ratio but now I see that the bore must be 80mm and therefore the stroke will be the same for all engines. Max Mosley is getting his wish for a single engine after all, it wont be long before the teams see the advantage of a single manufacturer and parts interchangeability when the engines are otherwise identical.
    Is anyone not as skeptical as me when it come to driving an alternator of the turbocharger ? I am no expert but this seems to go against everything we know about turbocharging variable load/rpm engines for driving motor vehicles.
    R.I.P F1.

Add your comment

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

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.