Top ten: Worst rules ever seen in F1

Top Ten

A new rule offering double points at the last race of the year has provoked widespread criticism from Formula One fans.

It’s not the first folly F1 has undertaken – here are ten of the worst ideas ever to make it into the rule book.

Though we should consider ourselves fortunate none of them are quite as bad as Formula E’s ‘Vote to Pass’ rule. Except perhaps the last one…

Aggregate qualifying

Jarno Trulli, Toyota, Monaco, 2005A classic example of bad F1 rule-making: an excessively elaborate approach which failed to solve a fairly simple problem.

During the 2000s Formula One seemed to change its qualifying rules once per season at least. Aggregate qualifying was the surely nadir of the various schemes that were devised.

It involved running two qualifying sessions where each driver did a single lap, the first with no fuel restriction and the second using the fuel load they would start the race with. These times were then added together to produce the grid.

If ever a rule looked like an answer to a question no-one asked, it was this. As well as being needlessly complicated, the fact that the second session was held on Sunday morning deprived the sport of the media value of deciding the grid on Saturday.

The only positive thing to be said about this episode was that the powers-that-be realised how bad an idea it was fairly quickly. It was used for just six races in 2005 before being dropped.

Go ad-free for just £1 per month

>> Find out more and sign up

Point for fastest lap

In the first years of the championship the driver who set the fastest lap at each race got a bonus point. The plan was dropped in 1958 and ever since drivers have only scored points based on where they finish in the race.

The simplicity of that approach is something F1 would do well to preserve. There were discussions last year about reviving the practice, but giving the bonus point to the pole sitter instead.

F1 should be very wary of tinkering with the points system in this way without thinking carefully about exactly what incentive it is giving to competitors. It doesn’t take a great leap of imagination to see what farcical scenarios could unfold if rules like this were implemented.

For example if a driver needed only one point to win the championship and could do so by setting fastest lap in the race, they would be better off treating the race as a qualifying session, only leaving the pits for a few laps on soft tyres. Series which do give points for fastest lap, such as GP2, attempt to prevent that from happening with ever more complicated rules governing how a driver is eligible for the bonus point. All of which is needless complication for no real benefit.

As for granting a point for pole position, viewing figures for races would certainly not improve if millions tuned in one day to discover the championship had already been won 24 hours earlier thanks to the pole sitter taking a bonus point during qualifying. Besides which, starting the race ahead of everyone else is enough reward in itself.

Grooved tyres

Fernando Alonso, Renault R28, Hockenheimring, 2008From 1998 F1′s tyre manufacturers were required to produce tyres with circumferential grooves in them, in an attempt to reduce the contact patch on the ground and therefore reduce cornering speeds.

It proved an unpopular move with many drivers who did not like the handling sensation given by the new tyres. Jacques Villeneuve strongly criticised FIA president Max Mosley’s plan before it was introduced.

However the stated aim of controlling cornering speeds was not successfully achieved. The ending of competition between tyre manufacturers in 2007 finally achieved that. The unpopular grooved tyres were now surplus to requirements, and were scrapped in the 2009 regulations.

Narrow track cars

It was a double-whammy of rubbish rules in 1998. As well as the unpleasant grooved tyres, car widths were reduced from 2000mm to 1800mm.

To my eye the cars just haven’t looked right ever since – too narrow and too tall. Design expert Adrian Newey thinks so too, and that’s good enough for me.

Shared drives

A relic from a bygone age. Drivers were once allowed to take over a team mate’s car if their own broke down.

The sport became instantly simpler in 1958 when drivers were only allowed to drive a single car during the race, meaning an end to complicated post-race totting up of which drivers had appeared in which cars and finished in which positions.

Perhaps not so much a bad idea as one which doesn’t really belong in the sport of today, and which had to go to allow Formula One to become what it is.


Felipe Massa, Ferrari, Singapore, 2008In-race refuelling has been allowed at several points in the history of Formula One, but its last introduction was by far the most controversial.

Its return to F1 in 1994 came over the objections of all the teams bar Ferrari, who believed their V12-engined car stood to gain the most from it. But even after they joined their rivals in using V10 engines from 1996 the practice remained.

Promises the equipment would not leak and fires would not be possible were quickly disproven. Jos Verstappen’s Benetton erupted in a major conflagration during the 1994 German Grand Prix, injuring him and several members of his pit crew. Fire remained an occupational hazard of the F1 pit lane until refuelling was finally outlawed again in 2009.

Refuelling did produce some surprising twists in the races during its first few years. But as teams quickly mastered the new variable it became less a source of strategic interest and more a cause for frustration as drivers would ‘wait for the refuelling stops’ when stuck behind a rival rather than risk an overtaking move.

F1 finally rid itself of refuelling at the end of 2009, though not before it spawned some undesirable offshoots in the rule book, such as the regulation forbidding drivers from pitting while the Safety Car was out. But even that wasn’t as bad as…

Fuel credit qualifying

Jenson Button, Honda, Monaco, 2007F1′s three-part qualifying system was a change for the better when it was introduced in 2006, though it wasn’t without one honking great flaw.

Much as today’s Q3 drivers are handicapped by having to start the race on the tyres they qualified on, in 2006 they had to use their race fuel load in Q3. Making matters even more complicated, their race fuel load was fixed at the beginning of Q3, and for every lap they ran drivers were credited with a lap’s worth of fuel at the start of the race.

This led to the bizarre spectacle of every driver beginning Q3 by circulating the track at a steady pace to burn off as much fuel as possible before their flying lap, then having their tanks replenished before the start of the race.

Attempts to explain this particular piece of nonsense to the uninitiated invariably provoked confused expressions. The rule remained in force in 2007, when it was noted that Honda’s environmental awareness-raising ‘Earthdreams’ car was not above joining in the practice of burning fuel to satisfy this grossly ill-conceived regulation.

Dropped scores

Sometimes good intentions yield bad ideas. Allowing a driver to drop their lowest scores from a particular number of races promised to reduce the effect of unreliability on their season.

But it made for very complicated calculations at the end of championships, which involved working out how many points each driver would lose and gain based on each possible finishing position.

Making life even more difficult, for a period the championship was split into two halves, in each of which a driver could drop a certain number of results. That arrangement was scrapped in 1980 and ten years later the practice of dropping scores also ended. Since then every race result has counted towards the championship – a satisfyingly simple and logical arrangement.


Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes, Spa-Francorchamps, 2013“People say there’s not enough overtaking in Formula One.”

“That’s OK, I have a solution: we’ll make overtaking so easy no one cares when it happens any more!”

“Great idea! Every race will be like that brilliant grand prix at Dijon in 1979 where Rene Arnoux blasted past Gilles Villeneuve on a straight and then quickly pulled away from him.”

“That’s settled, then. Now, what shall we do about the points system…”

Double points at the last race

Tinkering with the points system is what those in charge of F1 do when they can’t face up to tackling the sport’s real problems. And so instead of addressing F1′s runaway costs and growing shortage of competitors, they decided to double points for the last race of the season this year.

This was a panicky response to the drop-off in television viewers at the end of last season, when Sebastian Vettel wrapped up the title with three races to go.

Presumably those who supported the move forgot how often the previous, fairer points systems produced thrilling last-race title showdowns (most recently in 2012, 2010, 2008, 2007 and 2006) and failed to appreciate how sport can only produce these moments of pure drama when the spectacle is genuine, rather than artificial.

Over 90% of F1 Fanatic readers oppose the plan. Rarely have I seen opinion among fans so strong and so near to unanimous on any topic.

This presents those in charge with a glaring contradiction: they are trying to make F1 more appealing to people by introducing a rule the vast majority do not want. Hopefully that obvious point will become clear to them in the coming weeks and the rule can be scrapped before the season begins.

Then they can refocus their attention on fixing the things that are broken with the sport instead of those that aren’t.

Over to you

What do you think belongs on a list of the worst rules ever seen in F1? Have your say in the comments.

F1 top tens

Read more top tens

Images © Toyota, Renault/LAT, Ferrari/Ercole Colombo, Honda, Daimler/Hoch Zwei

Advert | Go Ad-free


157 comments on Top ten: Worst rules ever seen in F1

  1. mrgrieves (@mrgrieves) said on 6th January 2014, 23:30

    I’d much rather add the unpredictability and imbalance of cars through refueling making races more interesting than the joke that is DRS!

    Another part of the refueling ban is how races become a procession until the person in front has to switch tyres Which makes the first 15-25 laps boring as we wait for cars to pit.

    In my 20 years of watching F1 my personal favorite season was 97 which i felt had a perfect mix of tyre’s and refueling influence in way the races panned out which makes it frustrating to see the current system in my opinion fail to offer good racing.

    Despite this i can see the other side of the argument on refueling as a friend pointed out on a Indycar race in the 90’s where Al Unser was the fastest guy all weekend, overtook Andretti 3 times in the race but still finished behind him meaning despite being the fastest driver and overtaking his nearest rival he still lost, arguably robbed by refueling which open another debate on the whether the (fastest driver & car deserves to win) Vs (More entertaining races through variables)

    • Dizzy said on 7th January 2014, 2:09

      Another part of the refueling ban is how races become a procession

      They were more of a procession when we had refueling though.

      Stats show that from race #1 of refueling been allowed (Brazil 1994) the levels of on track overtaking plummeted & we began to see more passing in the pits than on the track. This trend continued throughout the refueling-era as fuel strategy & pit-passing took priority over on-track racing/overtaking.

      Refueling was banned in 2010 & the levels of on-track overtaking shot back to pre-refueling figures & the 2010 season featured more on-track overtaking than any season since 1989.

      I hated refueling, I hated what it did to the racing & how it destroyed good racing battles for position & took away potential on-track overtakes.

      The example from the 1st race it was allowed again the ’94 Brazilian Gp. A great fight for the lead between Senna/Schumacher, Fuel strategy kicks in & Schumacher ends up ahead & then drives away to a dominant win. Go back a year & with no refueling with no guarantee that Senna would be making a pit stop (Since No-stop races were common) Schumacher would have had to try & overtake Senna on the track & we would have got a much better race.

      Go forward 10 years to the 2004 French Gp. A great fight for the lead between Alonso/Schumacher. Fuel strategy kicks in with Schumacher going for a 4-stop strategy & from the 1st stops on you have the 2 guys fighting for the win nowhere near one another on track with Schumacher eventually taking the lead via fuel strategy having been 10+ seconds behind Alonso for most of the race after the initial stops.

      What we had before refueling with completely open tyre strategy with drivers able to determine strategy & opt to change it mid-race was far better than anything we’ve had since be it refueling or the current mandated tyre stops to run both compounds.

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 7th January 2014, 11:57

      Another part of the refueling ban is how races become a procession until the person in front has to switch tyres Which makes the first 15-25 laps boring as we wait for cars to pit.

      yeah, sure. A very big downturn in excitement from waiting for the guy in front to stop for fuel and hope you come out of the pits before he passes the pits when you stop later on, right (and before you mention saving tyres – we have seen saving fuel a lot too to eke out a stop)?

      Personally I don’t see that much difference, apart from that the tyres worked well when drivers and teams were not exactly sure what to expect.

  2. JMLabareda (@jmlabareda) said on 6th January 2014, 23:32

    Great article
    I also liked the 2005 rule that gave no penalty for an engine change when a car retired from the race… Leading to both BAR Hondas retiring from the Australian GP on purpose during the last lap!

    The other thing I remember being pretty confusing when I started watching F1 was the old red flag / safety car rule of considering two separate race segments and adding the times… Pretty tough to follow!

  3. matt90 (@matt90) said on 7th January 2014, 0:31

    I would include the single-race application of disallowing all cutting of corners for Senna in Suzuka 1989.

  4. Now that’s a nice list! I agree with 9,5 of 10. And that half belongs to DRS. 3 years on I can’t still make up my mind about it! I don’t know maybe I have watched too many processions the last 25 years that I dread to get back there! My main concern is that since DRS and Pirelli have always co-existed together we can’t say just how much affects overtaking each one individually. In reality tyres get you in range and DRS makes it easier than it should be, but still you must be in range.
    I believe the root of all evil is in the freezing of engine development, back in the day different engines meant different power, driveability, reliability, fuel consumption. Now the last 3 years we have 3 similar units and therefore a gimmick had to be invented for some straight line action. Perhaps the new units will have inherent differenties that will render the DRS redundant. I read many comments about the build up to an overtake to be equally as important as the passing itself and I totally disagree. People don’t you forget that certain tracks featured virtually zero overtaking and yes we knew about it so there was no build up whatsoever.

  5. Nathan said on 7th January 2014, 2:59

    add 1 = allowing Traction Control in 2001.
    changing the rules each year hasn’t made the sport more or less interesting at all. it only serves to complicate things and confuse the non die hard fan.
    i still would prefer the 1 session = 1 hour Qualifying system. even if it was set to 40mins to eradicate the 1st 20mins of the 1 hour session when not much happened. but that only led to a crazy last 15mins anyways with times changing by the lap. damn i miss the good old days of F1.

  6. smifaye (@smifaye) said on 7th January 2014, 8:17

    I really thought this was going to be a troll post. 1. Double points for last race 2. Double points for last race 3. Double points for last race…….

  7. Prof Kirk (@prof-kirk) said on 7th January 2014, 8:57

    To my eye the cars just haven’t looked right ever since

    The appearance debate of F1 cars is very very tiring. They are what they are, it’s the story they tell that make them beautiful.

  8. regulus (@regulus) said on 7th January 2014, 12:17

    I couldn’t agree more with you. Specially this:
    1. Narrow track cars – the cars were never so ugly. May be I change my opinion after seeing the 2014 cars….
    2. Refueling – I always hated this rule. In some tracks, the only overtaking point was the Pit Lane.
    3. DSR – this is too artificial. A number of Push to Pass would work better.
    4. Double point in the last race – remembers 1991 when Balestre changed points for first place from 9 to 10 trying to make the victory more important

    I would add the discarded points system used during the 80’s

  9. Andrew said on 7th January 2014, 14:08

    I would love to see double points for some races. Especially those that are very difficult to pass on. Double points for monaco would make drivers keener to overtake than settle for a comfortable points haul.

  10. Two rule changes in recent history stand out as glaringly stupid to me. First, engine homo-ligation. Rarely are the engines discussed for their differences anymore. I thought the sport was much more interesting when really the only rule was how many liters your engine could be. Some had V8s, V10s or V12s. The racing was fantastic when two competitors had different advantages: This engine has better top speed while this other one has better grunt out of the corners; or this team has the best engine but it is far less reliable….
    Second is this stupid notion that they now intentionally make rapidly degrading tyres. Tyre competition sometimes gave an advantage, but it was to half of the field and it changed from race to race and season to season. Sometimes you would see the top ten all on one tyre except somehow a particular driver managed a podium on a different tyre. That reveled true driving talent when now it is only down to who has the best aerodynamicist.
    Wake up F1. You are slowly turning yourself into my worst nightmare: NASCAR.

  11. hrpanjwani said on 12th January 2014, 7:01

    Multiple issues so dividing them by topic.

    DRS situation
    I think overall DRS has been a positive step given that the focus on aero made overtaking all but impossible. Yes, there are situations where the driver in front becomes a sitting duck. This can be remedied in multiple ways:
    1) Ensure that DRS confers a maximum advantage of increase in speed of say 5 mph. [Complex and difficult to enforce]
    2) Change how ERS can be used in conjugation with DRS. The lead driver is allowed to use the full ERS capacity (120 kW) while the driver using DRS can only use a fraction of the ERS capacity. The fraction may be a global number for the season or it may vary from race to race. [Simple and easy to enforce, pressing the DRS button limits the ERS capacity to a preassigned fraction.]
    3) Allow current form of DRS only after the gap between two drivers in 30 seconds or less. [Easiest change of the lot]
    4) Have adjustable rear wings and adjustable front wings and split DRS into offense and defense modes:
    a) Offense mode: Adjustable rear wing that allows the following driver a burst of speed of 10-12mph
    b) Defense mode: Adjustable front wing that allows the lead driver a burst of speed of 4-6 mph
    This means the speed difference between the drivers will be somewhere between 4-8 mph and may or may not be enough for an overtaking maneuver. [Really complex and difficult to enforce]

    Double points situation
    Double points for the last race is a dumb idea as it clearly adds value only to marketing and entertainment at the cost of the competition.

    However it can be done in a nice way by introducing the idea of jokers.
    1) In a season, every driver gets 1 joker for use in the driver’s championship(WDC) and every team gets 1 joker to use in the constructor’s championship(WCC). At a given race, a team and its associated drivers can only play either the driver’s joker or the teams joker and not both.
    [This ensures that a driver’s interest’s and a team’s interest’s are not in conflict and offers a degree of protection to the driver’s, particularly the team’s 2nd driver.]
    2) When you use a joker in a race any points that you score get doubled.
    3) The intention to play the joker can be made
    a) earliest: after the end of qualifying
    b) latest: one hour before the start of the race
    [Creates an element of surprise for the audience and provides the teams with an element of security]

    1) Every driver/team has a chance to score extra points on a circuit that suits them.
    2) There is an element of strategy involved here, for both the top teams and the mid-field teams.
    3) Generates audience interest, speculation and discussion.

    1) A team’s WCC points will not be equal to WDC#1 + WDC#2. [This seems like a small price to pay, the equality will only happen if zero additional points are scored with the jokers]
    2) How do we deal with undue mischief from other drivers/teams towards a driver/team who is playing a joker in a given race? As this is a bit of a ‘WMD’ situation, the FIA will have to add very stiff penalties for undue interference. The GPDA will also have to play an active role in ensuring that the driver’s play nice with each other as far as joker’s go.

    Ideally, I think it should be 2 jokers for every driver and 2 joker’s for every team but as proof of concept 1 joker will do. More than 2 will be too tough to manage.


  12. Rohan said on 12th January 2014, 11:30

    I whole heartily agree that the narrow cars look like crap compared to the wider 200cm cars. DRS is a joke.

  13. I like the narrow track more than the 2009 new wing ration, personally most people have become more appreciative of the narrow track cars, they were actually not bad even if the grooved tyres had most of the blame for the 1998-2008 cars

  14. No refueling, F1 is sprint racing. No tyre changes F1 is sprint racing, turbos the 80’s and the new turbos F1 is not all about power but about efficiency and lightweight, most of the blame behind the turbos was that it meant that marketing and money started to sever the big teams from the middle teams.

    All of this rules makes sense for someone that loves the 50’s 60’s and 70’s of F1 but started on the 90’s

  15. Daniel said on 22nd January 2014, 12:58

    IMO one of the worst rules ever has been in 2005, that it wasn’t allowed to change the tyres in a race …^^

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.