FIA proposes new 2014 rules but keeps double points

2014 F1 season

McLaren, Korea, 2013The FIA World Motor Sport Council has proposed further changes to the F1 rules for 2014 following today’s meeting in Geneva. They will be added to the rule book if they are approved by the F1 Commission.

Among the changes is the power for race stewards to impose a five-second time penalty on a car which can be served during a pit stop. A driver serving such a penalty would have to sit in his pit box with no work being performed on his car for five seconds, after which his team may change his tyres and perform other tasks.

Drivers will also be forbidden from stopping on the track after the race has finished in order to ensure they have enough fuel left in their car to provide a sample, as happened on several occasions last year. If it is approved by the F1 Commission, this will no longer be considered satisfactory grounds for stopping a car.

A further proposal would allow teams additions exemptions from the current curfew governing how much time their mechanics can spend working on their cars during a race weekend. Instead of the current two, teams would have six exemptions this year, to allow for the added complexity of working on this year’s cars.

The World Motor Sport Council also proposed requiring team members to wear helmets during qualifying as well as in the race, and increasing the minimum weight limit by one kilo to 691kg, due to differences in weight between this year’s tyres and those used last year.

The changes were agreed at a Strategy Group meeting chaired by FIA president Jean Todt and attended by Bernie Ecclestone and team representatives

A statement issued by the FIA made no reference to new rule which will award double points for the last race of the season, which has attracted widespread criticism from fans.

2014 F1 season


Browse all 2014 F1 season articles

Image ?? McLaren/Hoch Zwei

Advert | Go Ad-free

93 comments on FIA proposes new 2014 rules but keeps double points

  1. Force Maikel (@force-maikel) said on 23rd January 2014, 18:08

    For the love of god, why did so many in the paddock express criticism and now don’t act, this is a farce.

    • Fer no.65 (@fer-no65) said on 23rd January 2014, 18:30

      @force-maikel FIA just doesn’t give a damn…

      • DaveD (@daved) said on 23rd January 2014, 19:12

        Trying to keep more people watching till the last race or two is more important to them than the integrety of the sport. Clearly this is pure entertainment in their minds now and not racing.

        So let’s do this right: why not make the Safety Car into a clown car, replace driver interviews at the end of the week with a different stand up comedian and use WWE “wrestlers” instead of drivers. Hell, we’re already moving to pay drivers anyway so let’s just go all out and be done with it.
        Hulk Hogan and The Ultimate Warrior would make great drivers for Ferrari LOL

        Ok, rant off.

    • DC (@dujedcv) said on 24th January 2014, 19:41

      I really hope that F1 will turn into such an embarrassment this season so that it will fall apart and disintegrate, it’s rulers loose their money and go bankrupt and fans to go watching something else which has real racing in it (like Le Mans, or perhaps touring cars).
      Maybe then F1 can get a fresh start like World Endurance Championship and be watchable again.

    • reg (@reg) said on 24th January 2014, 22:23

      I’m sure that fistfuls of cash got Abu Dhabi the season ender and this was one of Bernie’s enticing bonuses in order that they pay the full asking amount.

      If they want to hand out double points so bad that day, there should be two races. Watching Abu Dhabi once is hard enough, though.

  2. matt90 (@matt90) said on 23rd January 2014, 18:11

    Proof that the FIA just doesn’t give a damn. Not about sport. Not about F1 (besides how to make money out of it, which it does incredibly inefficiently). Not about the fans. I don’t understand how they an run other championships which aren’t complete jokes and actually seem to be thriving.

  3. It probably means nothing, but the fact that the tyres are heavier makes me optimistic….

    • BJ (@beejis60) said on 23rd January 2014, 21:08

      It was said that Pirelli needed to add more kevlar to the tire to increase the strength due to the torque increase and therefore increasing the weight of the tire, so in theory, they should be more robust at least in the eyes of Pirelli.

  4. Magnificent Geoffrey (@magnificent-geoffrey) said on 23rd January 2014, 18:15

    It saddens me how the FIA and FOM can get away with being so obnoxious towards the fans and we can’t really do anything to make our voices heard loud enough to bring about change.

  5. crr917 (@crr917) said on 23rd January 2014, 18:21

    What could possibly deserve a 5s penalty?
    In 2 years Pirelli tires got 3kg heavier. Steel belt with even more steel for more exciting tire failures :)
    Also, since “Pirelli can make any tires”, why they want heavier tires?

    • matt90 (@matt90) said on 23rd January 2014, 18:24

      I don’t know. Plus, what if you don’t need another pit stop? Do you have to anyway, unfairly turning it into a 15 or so second penalty when you factor in the unnecessary pit time?

    • Strontium (@strontium) said on 23rd January 2014, 19:01

      5 second penalties are good for ignoring blue flags, Grosjean’s Hungary overtake on Massa. Things like that.

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 23rd January 2014, 23:51

      @crr917 – It’s for situations where an infraction is considered serious enough to warrant a penalty, but where a ten-second drive-through would be considered too severe for incident. Allowing drivers to serve that five-second penalty ahead of their stop (instead of forcing them to enter the lane a second time) is further proof of that.

      A lot of people have complained about inconsistencies in the way penalties have been handed out in the past, and I think that one of the main issues is that the stewards have only had limited options at their disposal, and so erred on the side of caution, choosing not to penalise because they felt that the penalties available were too severe. Hopefully this will open things up a little bit. It’s a good idea, and a rule that has clearly been lacking for a while now.

    • Maksutov (@maksutov) said on 24th January 2014, 8:19

      i dunno, but me thinks its a good rule. Better 5 than a drive through

  6. JackySteeg (@jackysteeg) said on 23rd January 2014, 18:26

    Drivers will also be forbidden from stopping on the track after the race has finished in order to ensure they have enough fuel left in their car to provide a sample, as happened on several occasions last year.

    Oh dear, not another daft rule. I presume the punishment will be the same as in qualifying, where the driver will be excluded. If the fuel-saving concerns prove true, I imagine we’ll see a lot of drivers being disqualified for breaching this rather stupid regulation. I can understand the thoughts behind it, but it seems ridiculous that drivers could potentially have to alter their strategy simply because they need a bit more fuel so they can drive around after the race is over.

    For all the fuel concerns teams are facing for 2014, this just seems to be adding a largely unnecessary complication to what is already going to be a massive challenge for the teams next year.

    • Strontium (@strontium) said on 23rd January 2014, 19:03

      Definitely agree with you.

      If a rule like this is to be introduced (hope it’s not), then it should be for 2015 at the earliest.

      • DaveD (@daved) said on 23rd January 2014, 19:16

        Please, PLEASE don’t let this rule happen. Can you imagine someone slowing down the last lap or two out of fear they may not be able to drive around AFTER the race is over? Talk about screwing up racing.

        I’m getting very, very frustrated with the FIA.

    • Euro Brun (@eurobrun) said on 23rd January 2014, 20:53

      So if a team’s pit garage is AFTER the start/finish line, could they potentially pit on the last lap, but technically finish (a bit like Schumacher’s last lap stop/go at Silverstone that time) and then park up?

      In theory, they’ve completed the race and not stopped on track, but yet returned to the pits.

      Granted, they may lose a place by slowing down, but they will still have finished, been classified and not broken this rule. Heck, the poor sap that overtakes them as they slow down to pit could yet get disqualified for not completing the cool down lap!

      • Hamilfan (@hamilfan) said on 24th January 2014, 2:59

        @eurobrun good thinking there Mr.Brawn Jr ;-) . I hadn’t thought of that . But I think the leader would have to have a huge lead to do that … atleast 10 plus seconds as he comes crawling into the pits . Maybe Mr Seb can manage . But yeah , the FIA don’t think through anything right ?

        Rant mode on :
        Okay , Lets have a new rule : All drivers must henceforth wave their hands on the formation lap and perform a minimum of five pre-race burnouts . Otherwise , the driver cannot change tyres during the race as he has got an unfair advantage as a result of not doing burnouts.
        Rant mode off

    • BJ (@beejis60) said on 23rd January 2014, 21:12

      I agree here. Who cares if you can’t drive one more lap? You’re already there by Parc Ferme at the end of the pit lane anyway… A 1L fuel sample seems a bit excessive to me though, which is one I never quite understood. I’m a chemist and could do all the analysis I need on fuel in about 100 microliters; at least cut the limit to 500mL or something.

      • @beejis60 I think the main reason for that is extraction purposes, as the fuel tanks obviously have many separate compartments.

      • Yappy said on 23rd January 2014, 22:25

        I was wondering why they don’t take a sample when the car is filled, but I guess teams could already put something funny in the tank before that.

        Does the 100kg of fuel include what is used during Warm-up lap and Cool down lap?

        Now they have a flow meter on the cars, can’t they use that to also analyze the fuel as it is being used?

        • Hamilfan (@hamilfan) said on 24th January 2014, 3:01

          Is it 100 kg of fuel per minute or 100kg of fuel totally ? I think it’s the former .

        • joetoml1n (@joetoml1n) said on 24th January 2014, 11:38

          The 100kg of fuel is from lights out to passing the checkered flag.

          • Timothy Katz (@timothykatz) said on 24th January 2014, 12:01

            I don’t think so. The complete Sunday ‘Event’ comprises a formation lap, the full race, slowing down lap and they will still have to have 1 litre in the tank for post-race analysis. All from 100 kg aka 135 litres.

          • joetoml1n (@joetoml1n) said on 24th January 2014, 12:38

            @timothykatz 29.5 from the 2014 Sporting regulations: “No car is permitted to consume more than 100kg of fuel, from the time at which the signal to start the race is given to the time each car crosses the Line after the end of race signal has been given.”

            So lights out to checkered flag.

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 23rd January 2014, 22:09

      I don’t think it is a stupid rule at all. We have seen teams try to rort the system before by deliberately under-fuelling their car to save weight and pick up a tenth of a second or two. It’s a practice that needs to stop.

      • JimG (@jimg) said on 24th January 2014, 9:29

        @prisoner-monkeys: When you say “rort the system” (I’ve not come across “rort” before, or is it a typo?), it sounds like what I would call “playing by the rules”. Pushing the boundaries of the rules is one of the fascinating aspects of F1, and if a team can calculate how much fuel they’ll need that accurately then why not?

        I can see why you need people to be able to get back to the pits during practise and qualifying (so that they don’t spoil someone else’s session, including other classes), but after the race I don’t see the same need. Sort of like Colin Chapman’s ideal car: just strong enough to make it past the chequered flag before falling apart :-)

    • davidwhite (@davidwhite) said on 24th January 2014, 1:30

      To be fair to the FIA i think this rule has some merit on safety grounds. Having been at the Canadian GP last year and, like many other fans, flooded on to the circuit once the race had finished, only to find out a marshall had been killed once i’d got back to my hotel. Trying to minimise the number of parked F1 cars on the circuit at the end of the race actually makes sense to me (I can’t believe i’m actually agreeing with the FIA on a rule change…)

    • Estesark (@estesark) said on 24th January 2014, 14:37

      Oh dear, not another daft rule. I presume the punishment will be the same as in qualifying, where the driver will be excluded.

      I’m not so sure. If a driver completes over 90% of a race, they are classified, even if they crash out. So a driver that completes 100% of the race but can’t get back to the pits and provide a fuel sample should still be classified, but behind all the other “legitimate” finishers.

      If that’s not the case, we could easily have a farcical situation: if fewer than ten cars are running, there is an incentive for a driver low on fuel to stop on the track before the finish line in order to get some points from the 90% rule rather than none from the 100%+1 lap rule.

    • Bullfrog (@bullfrog) said on 24th January 2014, 15:03

      Is this rule a doughnut ban?

  7. Colossal Squid (@colossal-squid) said on 23rd January 2014, 18:35

    This is yet another example of the FIA being completely out of touch with the core fanbase of this sport. They’re chasing larger audiences in the completely wrong way, instead of fostering closer competition and making a concerted effort to reduce costs they’re chasing gimmicks that debase the sporting credentials of F1 for the sake of ‘entertainment’.

    This can only lead to long term damage of the sport in the pursuit of short-term gains. Those that are passionate about what F1 is will be turned off as the traits of the sport that have drawn audiences for decades are eroded and replaced by hollow gimmicks and regulatory manipulations designed solely to create artificial excitement. F1′s credibility as a fair competition will be replaced with a view that it is little more than professional-wrestling in expensive cars. The FIA are determined to make Formula 1 a ‘show’ by destroying what makes it a sport.

  8. djdaveyp85 (@djdaveyp87) said on 23rd January 2014, 18:40

    Could we maybe organise a final round boycott? Nobody watches the final round on tv!

  9. craig-o (@craig-o) said on 23rd January 2014, 18:44

    Are there any races on the 23rd of November which won’t be a DRS-infested farce in anteater-shaped cars driven by a few decent drivers and a bunch of rich people?

    • BJ (@beejis60) said on 23rd January 2014, 21:39

      @craig-o World Rallycross has an event in Argentina on the 22nd and 23rd. There’s a 10th round of the Super GT series proposed but no date assigned yet, however the 9th round is November 15-16 so the 23rd could still be a possibility of making it to the calender. Maybe there will be some soccer/football, american football, rugby, cricket, baseball, basketball, and/or bowling you can watch on TV :p

    • matt90 (@matt90) said on 24th January 2014, 2:33

      Challenge a friend to a foot-race down the length of your road. As a spectacle it might be somewhat lacking compared to a Grand Prix, but it will have a damn sight more sporting integrity, and thus be more rewarding for you and whoever else takes the time to watch.

  10. Lopek (@lopek) said on 23rd January 2014, 18:49

    I’m probably more annoyed by the utter contempt that F1 has show for it’s fans yet again than I am by the rule change itself. That is not to say I don’t utterly hate the rule.

  11. Nice summation @keithcollatine

    Unfortunately I feel this is pointing further and further in the direction of corruption. The fact that Abu Dhabi was suddenly pushed to the finale along with the introduction of the rule looked quite suspicious from the onset. Now adding the massive objection towards the rule from many highly regarded sources and individual as well as the vast majority of fans and still causing absolutely no reaction from FIA just makes me think that someone has received a very nice check for the favor.

    I rather hope I am wrong but the idea is so unbelievably unintelligent to begin with that I cannot believe it is still upheld even under heavy pressure unless there is more reason than what meets the eye.

    • Colossal Squid (@colossal-squid) said on 23rd January 2014, 18:56

      Not that far-fetched to consider that money under the table is heavily involved. Just look at the way FIFA has handled all the criticism of the World Cup 2022 being held in Quatar. In Winter, during every European country’s domestic season. The pursuit of money trumps logic a lot of the time.

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 23rd January 2014, 22:30

      @poul – It is not corruption just because you dislike it.

      If a venue is willing to pay extra to be the final race of the season, then provided that this is set out in its contact, that it does not clash with another venue’s contract, and that another venue is properly reimbursed in the event that there is a clash, then it is perfectly legal.

      Corruption is a very serious allegation, one that certainly requires evidence, and some people are far to quick to accuse the sport’s decision-makers of being corrupt simply because they disagree with or dislike a decision that has been made.

  12. mr ROSSI (@mr-rossi) said on 23rd January 2014, 18:57

    Minimum weight up by 1kg is ridiculous,give them another kilo of fuel instead.

  13. BrawnGP said on 23rd January 2014, 18:59

    How can they keep making these rules to ‘attract new fans’ and keep alienating the true ones… Surely it’s not an effective business plan or healthy for the ‘sport’

    • Paulocreed (@paulocreed) said on 23rd January 2014, 19:01

      The problem is that they don’t treat this as the “pinnacle of motorsports”. it’s now the “pinnacle of Motorshows Entertainment” Inc.

      • Strontium (@strontium) said on 23rd January 2014, 19:13

        Or to be more precise:

        The pinnacle of FIA TM F1 TM (C) Bernie Eccleston FOM TM Motorshows Entertainment Inc. TM FIA (C) CVC TM (R) Bernie Eccleston TM (C) Bernie Eccleston Grand Prix TM Jean Todt (C) Charlie Whiting

  14. Atticus (@atticus-2) said on 23rd January 2014, 19:53

    I don’t like the idea of requiring drivers to be able to drive back to the pits after the checkered flag – with penalties looming and the expected uncertainty of fuel management the race might just as well not be over at the finish, but rather, when one is able to go back into the pits…

    Also, I think if a 5 sec penalty can be served with a pit stop connected, we could just as well have them serve 10 sec penalties this way as well. Or having both options for both for greater diversity of penalties – however, this would increase responsibility on the stewards as well in distinguishing between the severity of the offences, and by experience I’m not sure they could do so consistently. I understand that post-race penalties are not the way as they could completely alter results which surely does not go down well with the fans, so I support seeking solutions on the intra-race penalty field.

  15. Mads (@mads) said on 23rd January 2014, 19:54

    The teams can’t agree on anything, and even if they have the opportunity to have all the power they want, they won’t use it. Heck, Ferrari still have their VETO right, and they don’t seem to be pulling that out any time soon.
    FIA don’t care. FOTA don’t care. None of them cares about the core fanbase. The dedicated, the fanatics. They swipe us under the rug, and desperately try to attract people who don’t care.
    But will they care once F1 gets a reputation for not being a sport? Probably not.
    Then one might as well watch NASCAR for the crashes and unpredictability. Which is far above what F1 could ever hope to achieve.
    All would suggest that F1 was run like a hardcore business, only here to make money. Yet they do that so, incredibly inefficient that it cannot possibly work.
    What big firm would EVER make the product significantly worse for 95% of the dedicated fanbase (which is quite large), in order to attract buyers who don’t really care, and whom will probably move on once the next big hit comes along?
    No company would do that.
    But I guess the major shareholders don’t care about the sport, neither as a sport or a business, but merely see it as a way to gain a short term profit.
    Which to me is disgusting, but what is worse is that the teams don’t do anything about it.
    If they really wanted to, they could just choose not to race if they all could ever agree on something, but it must certainly be in the interest of all the teams that the sport can actually remain profitable in 10 years time.

    • PeterG said on 23rd January 2014, 21:49

      Then one might as well watch NASCAR for the crashes and unpredictability.

      Nascar’s an even bigger joke than F1 is becoming, I stopped watching Napcar when they started making stuff up as they went along.

      The restrictor plate races are a complete joke, The drivers hate driving in them & they serve as nothing more than so Nascar can go on about 8 lead changes & the big one which took over over half the field.

      The chase for the cup points sysetm is ludicrous, 1st 3/4 of the championship may as well not count.

      The ‘boys have at it’ idea has done nothing but encourage drivers to wreck one another without the risk of penalty, Even if a driver takes out another driver in a blatantly obvious way & causes a big wreck (The Carl Edwards/Brad Kesalowski couple wrecks from not long ago).

      I used to be quite fond of nascar, But as it chased entertainment && moved away from racing I turned off.
      Been honest with F1 starting to go the same way with DRS, high-deg tyres & this new double points rule F1 races may soon also be erased from my calender with WEC & Perhaps Indycar taking its place.

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 23rd January 2014, 23:43

      @mads

      The teams can’t agree on anything, and even if they have the opportunity to have all the power they want, they won’t use it. Heck, Ferrari still have their VETO right, and they don’t seem to be pulling that out any time soon.

      I’m pretty sure the veto only applies to the technical regulations. With this being the domain of the sporting regulations, Ferrari have no power to use it.

    • S2G-Unit (@s2g-unit) said on 24th January 2014, 6:28

      There are many people from teams who have spoken out about the way things are going. They never directly say Bernie or FOM other than Whitmarsh saying recently “it’s bad for business to go against Bernie” (or something similar).

      At the FOTA fan forum in Montreal in 2013. The team principals said more than once during the even that maybe it would be better if the sport was controlled by people who have a genuine interest in improving the sport & re-investing into it.

      They won’t speak out directly at Bernie, even though many surely do for a variety of reasons.

      • Mads (@mads) said on 24th January 2014, 8:16

        @s2g-unit
        Yes, but why don’t they?
        I know Bernie is a powerful man, but if he ends up having to explain the Abu Dhabi race organizers why the team trucks didn’t arrive, then what can he do?
        He will eventually have to agree to their terms. If the teams could just agree on something for once, then they could be directing this soap opera instead of letting themselves be pushed around.
        Bernie might hurt the teams financially, but I would see that as an investment. Stopping the sport from alienating the dedicated fans is worth quite a lot of millions in the long run.

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.