Cosworth CA2010 engine

F1 team principals said the 2014 engine rules were designed to attract new car manufacturers to the sport and would make engine development important again.

Speaking at the FOTA Fans Forum at the McLaren Technology Centre, Mercedes team principal Ross Brawn said there was no interest among car manufacturers to enter F1 under the present engine rules.

“The new engine creates a fresh opportunity for manufactures to come in,” said Brawn.

He added: “I think one of the exciting things for the future is the engine are going to come back into the equation.

“The engines have been sterilised, in a way. They’re all very similar, they’re all homologated, no-one really talks about the engines any more.

“We want to get that back in because there’s a lot of exciting technology coming through with engines. I’m really excited that engines are now going to be part of the equation and not just the spacer between the chassis and the gearbox.

“They’re going to be an exciting bit that we can put back in and talk about and we can create relevance, again, for manufacturers and transport.”

Team will have to use 1.6-litre V6 engines from 2014. The FIA released further details of the units today, saying they would be limited to a maximum of 15,000rpm with direct fuel injection up to 500bar and a single turbocharger.

According to the FIA, five manufacturers were developing four-cylinder engines under the original regulations announced for 2013 – believed to be the four current F1 engine manufacturers plus Craig Pollock’s new company PURE.

McLaren team principal Martin Whitmarsh said the teams had pushed for a single engine formula to make it more attractive to engine manufacturers:

“I’ve certainly argued for diversity myself in the past but I think the danger is that automotive manufacturers become inhibited of entering the sport if there’s just too great a variety.

“Typically, the regulations, although they’re fixed, they in truth evolve. And what would happen if you had a range of engines, after a year probably it would be clear that either a V6 or a straight four or one solution was right. At which point, the manufacturer that’s developed the alternate configuration has to reinvest all that money.

“So I think it’s about reducing the risk so that in future we can have four or five automotive manufacturers in Formula 1 at any time. They’re always going to come in and out as it suits them and works for their marketing programme, but I think we’ve got to create an environment that is attractive to those companies being in Formula 1.”

Whitmarsh said it was important to keep F1 at the cutting edge of car design: “Formula 1 has to be the absolute pinnacle of motor sport.

“It’s the bit that differentiates it from the other branches of motorsport. We have to have that balance, all the time.

“We have to have the most advanced vehicles in the world, in motorsport. We have to balance and control performance – the circuits that we race on have to be safe.

“The technologies that we develop have to be relevant, they can’t be completely irrelevant. I think on too many occasions – and I’ve certainly been guilty of it – we’ve pursued things that we’ve found passionately interesting and exciting, but they really weren’t relevant to anyone else and I think people will question that.”

2011 F1 season

• How well do you remember the 2011 F1 season? Take the F1 Fanatic quiz
• The 2011 F1 season: The complete F1 Fanatic review
• Your 2011 F1 predictions revisited
• Barrichello tipped to stay at Williams
• 2011 F1 statistics part 3: Stats and facts highlights
• 2011 F1 statistics part two: Vettel's domination
• 2011 F1 statistics part one: car performance
• New 2011 rules produced best racing of last four years
• What F1 Fanatics really thought of the 2011 season
• F1 Fanatic's top guest articles of 2011

Image © Cosworth

Honda V6 turbo F1 engine, 1984

The FIA has formally approved the change in engine regulations for the 2014 season.

In a statement issued on Wednesday the sport’s governing body said: “Following a fax vote by its members, the World Motor Sport Council has ratified the engine regulations recently drawn up in consultation with the main stakeholders in Formula 1.

“The new power plant will be a V6 1.6 turbo unit with energy recovery systems. This new formula will come into effect as from the start of the 2014 FIA Formula 1 world championship season.”

The current normally-aspirated 2.4-litre V8 engines with Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems will remain in use in 2012 and 2013.

Turbocharged engines were last used in F1 in 1988.

2011 F1 season

• How well do you remember the 2011 F1 season? Take the F1 Fanatic quiz
• The 2011 F1 season: The complete F1 Fanatic review
• Your 2011 F1 predictions revisited
• Barrichello tipped to stay at Williams
• 2011 F1 statistics part 3: Stats and facts highlights
• 2011 F1 statistics part two: Vettel's domination
• 2011 F1 statistics part one: car performance
• New 2011 rules produced best racing of last four years
• What F1 Fanatics really thought of the 2011 season
• F1 Fanatic's top guest articles of 2011

Image © Honda

Martin Whitmarsh, McLaren, 2011

McLaren team principal Martin Whitmarsh said yesterday’s decision to change the future F1 engine rules was “the right thing to do”.

Speaking in a Vodafone McLaren Mercedes media call he said the decision had the backing of all the F1 engine manufacturers:

“I’m happy that we have agreement between the manufacturers – they have all agreed and endorsed this, which is extremely positive – the teams have agreed it and it was agreed overwhelmingly within the F1 Commission yesterday

“So I think that’s positive because, clearly, there’s been a range of different opinions expressed and felt so to achieve a consensus amongst all the parties, I think, was very positive.”

Whitmarsh said the decision to postpone the new rules to 2014 and switch from a four- to six-cylinder configuration would encourage the existing engine builders to stay in the sport and should attract others in the future:

“In the long run we should make sure we are attractive to a range of automotive manufacturers. They will, according to their marketing needs and priorities, come in and out of Formula 1 periodically, which is what has happened over the history of Formula 1.

“The world’s gone through an economic crisis, the automotive industry had the largest recession in its entire history. And I think our timing was perhaps a little bit premature and perhaps it was a little bit too condensed.

“So I think the right thing to do is to ensure that you keep what you’ve got which I think we have been able to do with this agreement.

“I hope, in the future, for the sake of Formula 1, that new manufacturers find the regulations relevant, interesting and stimulating, and consequently at some time in the future come in as well.”

But he denied McLaren might build an engine of their own, despite having begun production of their own road car, the MP4-12C.

Whitmarsh said: “There isn’t any temptation to do so.

“Formula 1 is an incredibly powerful marketing opportunity and it’s an area that automotive companies have seen has been beneficial for brand exposure and brand differentiation. But the cost of Formula 1 is such that you need to amortise that over millions of cars per annum, not thousands.

“McLaren’s maximum planned output certainly for the foreseeable future is no greater than 4,500 units per year. So it really doesn’t make sense to use a marketing tool like Formula 1 for the engine.”

2011 F1 season

• How well do you remember the 2011 F1 season? Take the F1 Fanatic quiz
• The 2011 F1 season: The complete F1 Fanatic review
• Your 2011 F1 predictions revisited
• Barrichello tipped to stay at Williams
• 2011 F1 statistics part 3: Stats and facts highlights
• 2011 F1 statistics part two: Vettel's domination
• 2011 F1 statistics part one: car performance
• New 2011 rules produced best racing of last four years
• What F1 Fanatics really thought of the 2011 season
• F1 Fanatic's top guest articles of 2011

Image © McLaren

F1 race winners gets a bumper haul of points in 2010

The changes to the F1 rules are not as sweeping as they were last season. But there are several significant alterations such as the ban on refuelling during races and winners getting 25 points instead of ten.

And there are some other small-but-significant changes for 2010 to keep an eye on too, all of which are covered below.

Qualifying

Q1 and Q2

With 24 cars on the grid this year we’ll see seven drivers knocked out in Q1 and another seven in Q2, instead of five in each as last year.

Q3

The top ten drivers in Q3 will no longer have to qualify with the fuel loads they’ll start the race with, thanks to the banning of in-race refuelling (see below).

They will, however, have to start the race using the tyres they set their fastest lap in Q3 with, which could influence their decision on which compound to use in qualifying.

Races

No refuelling during races

The effect the in-race refuelling ban will have on races has been hotly debated between fans.

Certainly, drivers will have to take it easier in the opening stages of a Grand Prix or risk destroying their tyres. But as the race goes on we should see some interesting scenarios and strategies develop.

For example, if two drivers are running closely together and one pits to change tyres, that driver will enjoy the advantage of fresher tyres and be able to lap more quickly than the other for a few laps. Several F1 strategists have talked about how this will make strategy more reactive this year – teams will keep an eye on what their rivals do and respond. We could even see teams bluffing their rivals by sending their crews onto pit lane when their car isn’t coming in.

Some have doubts about the wisdom of the refuelling ban but I’m fully in favour. Here’s why: 14 reasons to love the F1 refuelling ban

Q3 tyre rule

The rule requiring drivers who reach the top ten in qualifying to start the race on the tyres they set their best time on will have an obvious effect on the race.

A driver who starts on softer tyres can expect a fast start and some quick opening laps but they will have to pit earlier to change tyres. A driver who starts on harder tyres will not be able to make as quick start but will have more suitable tyres for the opening stint when the fuel load is at its heaviest.

Fewer tyres

Drivers will also have to manage their tyre use more carefully over a Grand Prix weekend. The number of four-tyre sets available of them has been cut from 14 to 11 – six of the harder ‘prime’ compound and five of the softer ‘option’ tyre.

To encourage drivers to do more running during practice sessions they will have to return one set of ‘prime’ tyres before FP2 and one set of each type of tyre before FP3.

Championship

Points

Since the last race of 2009 the F1 points system has been changed not once, but twice. Here’s the system they eventually settled on and how it compares with the last points system:

On the face of it that’s a significant change: a winner now gets two-and-a-half times more points than last year, and ninth and tenth place finishers score poitns for the first time.

But there been little change to the relative worth of each finishing position:

This shows us that:

• Second place is worth less compared to a win than it was last year (but still much more than it was before 2003)
• Third to fifth places are worth more or less the same as last year
• Sixth to tenth places are worth more than last year

In short, the FIA seems to have tried to reduce the appearance of drivers ‘settling for second’ by making it worth slightly less. But the increasingly generous awards for lower place finishes should help keep the title fight going until the later stages of the championship as well as giving the new teams something achievable to shoot for.

More on the new (and old) points systems here:

• Teams considering an even more generous points system for 2010
• Every F1 points system since 1950

Cars

No refuelling during races

The most talked-about change for this year sees in-race refuelling banned for the first time since 1993.

This has had an obvious effect on car design – they now need much larger fuel tanks. It will also put brakes under greater strain.

Narrower front tyres

F1 cars will have narrower front tyres this year. The change is partly to correct an unintended consequence of last year’s switch from grooved to slick tyres.

Removing the grooves meant the front and rear tyre contact patches (the area where tyre meets road) increased in size. Because the front tyres were narrower to begin, the increase in contact patch size meant they gained more grip relative to the rear tyres. The new reduction in front tyre width will correct that.

There are fears that this reduction in ‘mechanical’ grip combined with further gains in ‘aerodynamic’ grip will make it harder for F1 cars to follow each other closely in 2010, which will make it harder for drivers to overtake.

The reduction in width applies to rain tyres as well as dry weather slicks and in testing several drivers found the intermediate tyre wear was much higher than last year.

Other changes

Among the other significant changes to the rules is a provision made for teams who want to bring in an untested driver during the season.

When Toro Rosso did this with Jaime Alguersuari last year he was unable to test before his debut. In the same circumstances this year the rules allow for a new driver to have a test before racing.

More on the other minor changes to the rules in these articles:

• 2010 F1 rules published: FIA changes post-race penalties and fuel declarations
• Updated 2010 F1 rules include new testing, engine and safety car regulations

What about…

Tyre compounds

Drivers still have to use each tyre compound at least once per race, unless they use wet weather tyres during it.

There were rumours about a new rule that would force drivers to make at least two pits tops per race, but no such rule was passed.

KERS

The Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems introduced last year remain legal in 2010 but the teams have agreed not to use them to save money.

Tyre warmers

A ban on tyre warmers has been proposed more than once in the past few years but not put in the rule books yet. They remain legal in 2010 but a new clause has been added which says the heating element may only act on the outer surface of the tyre.

Double-diffusers

Double-diffusers will be banned for the 2011 F1 season.

Stewards

A shake-up in the stewards’ office follows criticism over how race penalties have been handled in recent seasons. Most significantly the role of non-voting Chairman previously held by Alan Donnelly has been abolished (Donnelly has since left the FIA).

The FIA said in December the stewards “should aim to reach decisions very efficiently” which hopefully means an ends to the days of waiting half a race or longer for stewards to render important decisions.

Read more: F1 stewarding gets another overhaul

Some positive changes but too much fiddling

The package of changes for 2010 is, on the whole, fairly good with a few highlights but still too much needless fiddling.

Reintroducing refuelling in 1994 was the wrong decision made for the wrong decision. Happily they’ve finally corrected it.

The change in the points system is an attempt to acknowledge the increased number of participants in 2010 and this second version is certainly an improvement over the earlier version they produced. I just wishes they’d done more to increase the gap in reward between winning and finishing second, which still feels under-rewarded.

The rest of the regulations include some tidying up of problematic areas from last year’s swingeing changes. The biggest sticking point for me remains the Q3 tyre rule which intends to compromise the top ten qualifiers. I don’t like rules which arbitrarily penalise a group of drivers because they’ve performed well, and I can’t imagine it having a particularly beneficial effect on the quality of racing.

What I’d most like to see from next year’s rules is fewer changes and more stability.

See all the articles in the F1 Fanatic 2010 Season Preview

2010 F1 season

• 2010 F1 drivers and teams
• 2010 F1 calendar
• 2010 F1 season information

The double diffuser was an important part of Brawn's BGP 001

Autosport reveals the F1 teams are planning a change in the technical rules to ban double diffusers – but not until after the 2010 F1 season.

The thinking is this will help keep cornering speeds down and hopefully reduce the turbulence coming from the back of F1 cars, allowing them to follow each other more closely.

However with the teams already deciding to get rid of them in 2011, it does suggest a feeling that double diffusers may hamper the quality of racing this year.

Most if not all teams are likely to have an interpretation of the double diffusers on their cars. Teams like Red Bull and Ferrari, who did not have them on their cars at the start of 2009, will be able to fully integrate the designs into the 2010 designs.

Providing the teams can agree on a suitably tightly-worded rule this time, I think the double diffuser ban is a sensible decision. As I wrote earlier this week:

The design of the cars has a serious effect on how closely they can follow each other. If that’s going to be improved, the FIA needs to look at long-term changes as well as quick fixes it can make in the next two months.

Electing to get rid of double diffusers at the end of the year, when everyone has ample time to design revised cars to meet the new rules, makes a lot of sense.

While they’re at it, can they also do something about the less consequential but still quite ugly pod-wings which appeared on most cars last year, despite hopes we were going to see the return of clean sidepods?

Double diffusers

• F1 2009 Technology: Rear wings, diffusers – and the inevitable controversy
• The diffuser controversy explained (Video)

First man to the champagne gets 15 points more next year

The new F1 points system, which will give 25 points for a win next year, has provoked much debate and criticism.

Points in F1 have produced strange situations in the past. At one race seven drivers shared a single point. Other drivers have found themselves unable to score points in a race due to a quir of the rules. And two drivers failed to win world championships despite scoring the most points durnig a season.

The new points system may not be perfect, but it’s certainly an improvement on what we had before. Here’s how the points system has changed over the years.

1950: Top five score, eight for a win

The driver who set fastest lap during the race scored an extra point

The first F1 race winners got eight points – equal to what second place has been worth since 2003. Next year drivers will get eight points for finishing fifth.

Attempting to give a point to the driver who set the fastest lap was thwarted by 1950s lap timing technology. At the 1954 British Grand Prix seven drivers were credited with the best lap time of 1’50, the timekeepers being unable to measure their lap time any more accurately.

So the single point was shared between Alberto Ascari, Jean Behra, Juan Manuel Fangio, Froilan Gonzalez, Mike Hawthorn, Onofre Marimon and Stirling Moss. Each got one-seventh (0.14) of a point.

1958: No sharing

Up until 1958, drivers who shared their car with another driver also shared the points scored. And if a driver drove in more than one car which scored points, he accumulated each points finish.

This made for some complicated calculations. For example, in the searing-hot 1955 Argentinian Grand Prix Giuseppe Farina and Maurice Trintignant both drove in the cars which finished second and third, each time with a different third driver. So they each scored one-third of the second place points plus one-third of the third-place points, totalling three-and-a-third.

Thankfully they put a stop to this in 1958. From then on a driver could only score points for completing the entire race distance himself, as it’s been ever since.

1960: Top six score

Points were extended to sixth place in 1960. This was also the year when the point for fastest lap was dropped.

1961: Nine points for a win

The value of a win was increased to nine points in 1961, and the points distribution remained unchanged until 1990. This was the longest period of stability in the F1 points system.

1991: Ten points for a win, every race counts

Ayrton Senna scored the first ten-point win in 1991

Thought of by many as the best points system F1 had, the value of a win went up to ten points in 1991. Ayrton Senna won the first four ten-pointers on the trot.

This is the high-watermark for the value of winning in F1. At this point a win was worth 66% more than second place. Today it is worth just 25% more and that will remain the same in 2010 with the new points system.

The 1991 season also saw the dropping of the “best results count” rule – more on that below.

2003: Points down to eighth

In 2002 Michael Schumacher set a new record for the earliest a world championship had ever been decided. He sealed the title in the French Grand Prix on July 21st, with six rounds to spare.

The new points system introduced in 2003 was clearly designed to stop that happening again as it slashed the relative value of a win compared to second place. Despite that, two years later Schumacher was able to wrap up the title four rounds before the end of the season.

The “best results count” rule

Alain Prost scored more points but lost the title in 1988

Before 1991 drivers could only count their best points scores from a limited number of races. For example in 1990 of the 16 races on the calendar a driver could only count his 11 best scores.

The number of races counting varied with the calendar. At first it was close to half, then in the late sixties the number of races counted increased to around 80% of the calendar. That trend was abruptly reversed in 1979, and for much of the eighties a pattern developed: 16 races, best 11 scores counted. The chart below shows the details for each season the “best results count” rule was used.

Race results counted and dropped, 1950-1990 (click to enlarge)

The “best results count” rule tends to colour our view of previous champions. For example both Alberto Ascari’s championship wins were far more emphatic than the official points standings suggested:

1952

1953

There are other examples similar to Ascari’s. The best-remembered details about Mike Hawthorn’s 1958 championship win are that he only won once and beat Stirling Moss by a single point. The fact he lost three separate scores worth seven points, while Moss kept all his scores, tends to get overlooked.

The most famous examples of this concern drivers who ‘lost’ championships because of the “best results count” rules. This happened on two occasions. In 1964 Graham Hill lost to John Surtees by a single point. While Surtees kept all his scores, Hill had two deducted.

And in 1988 Ayrton Senna beat Alain Prost 90-87. But Prost had a mammoth 18 points deducted to Senna’s four. Debate still rages over the ‘fairness’ of the system. I’ll let you sort that one out in the comments! Their points-scoring finishing positions that year were as follows:

The “best results count” rule was dropped at the end of 1990. This has definitely been an improvement – it has certainly made championship-deciders easier to follow.

Splitting the season

Alan Jones couldn't score any more points after his 1979 Montreal win

As if the “best results count” rule wasn’t complicated enough, for 14 years the championship was effectively split into two. Drivers could only score points in a certain number of races in the first and second halves of the season. Here’s how they were shared out:

1967: Five from the first six and four from the last five
1968: Five from the first six and five from the last six
1969: Five from the first six and four from the last five
1970: Six from the first seven and five from the last six
1971: Five from the first six and four from the last five
1972: Five from the first six and five from the last six
1973-4: Seven from the first eight and six from the last seven
1975: Seven from the first eight and five from the last six
1976: Seven from the first eight and seven from the last eight
1977: Eight from the first nine and seven from the last eight
1978: Seven from the first eight and seven from the last eight
1979: Four from the first seven and four from the last eight
1980: Five from the first seven and five from the last seven

The strangeness of this system was shown up in 1979 when Alan Jones arrived for the final race of the season unable to improve on his points total. He’d already won four of the preceding seven races, giving him a maximum score for that portion of the season.

The “split season” system was dropped the following year. But you have wonder that, had a variant of it been in use in 2009, Jenson Button would have been in serious trouble in the second half of the season.

What about the constructors’ championship?

Often disregard as the uninteresting junior brother of the drivers’ championship, the constructors’ championship started in 1958.

Ferrari are quite fond of pointing out they’d have even more than their still-huge tally of 16 titles had the title begun in the same year the drivers’ did. Stil lthe first constructors’ champions was not the Scuderia but Vanwall.

To begin with only a team’s highest placed car could score points in each race. When the “best result counts” rule was in place, this also applied to the constructors’ championship.

It wasn’t until 1979 that both a team’s cars could score. At that year’s Brazilian Grand Prix Ligier became the first team to score a then maximum 15 points for a one-two finish.

For a while, only teams who entered two cars throughout the season could score points. So in 1984 Osella and ATS could not claim the two and one point respectively scored by drivers Jo Gartner and Gerhard Berger because they were single-car entrants.

The future: 25 points for a win

Jenson Button would have scored 230.5 points under the new rules in 2009

Here is the new F1 points system for 2010:

Read more: 2009 standings under 2010 F1 points system

As we’ve already discussed here the new points system is proportionally little different to what has gone before – though seventh place being valued at five points instead of four looks like a mistake.

It’s been pointed out that awarding 25 points for a win from 2010 will render comparisons with previous championships impossible. But as we’ve seen here trying to compare drivers’ performance based on points scores is already meaningless.

The failing of the 2010 F1 points system is that it doesn’t address the under-valuing of a win, a knee-jerk change brought in six years ago. Ultimately, it’s not the points system that makes a championship exciting, it’s how closely-matched the cars are.

Update: The 2010 points system was changed again after this article was written. The following system was used: 25, 18, 15, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, 2, 1.

2010 F1 points system

• FIA confirms new points system in 2010
• Race winners could get 25 points in 2010

Images (C) Red Bull/Getty, Honda, Honda, Williams/Sutton, Brawn GP

Drivers will have to pass on the track, not in the pits, in 2010

The F1 Sporting Working Group has been asked to come up with new ideas to “improve the show” in F1 in 2010.

But the best decision to improve the show was taken this time last year. After 16 years, refuelling during the race is finally being banned. This will make F1 more exciting, easier to follow, less expensive and safer.

1. Qualifying will be more exciting

For the past few years whenever a driver pulled a quick lap out of the bag to snatch pole position the response was not “what a great lap” but “How much fuel has he got on board?”

Next year when a driver hangs it all out and grabs the number one spot by a few thousandths we’ll know it’s because of what he got out of the car and not how little fuel was put in it.

The nay-sayers who insist it will lead to the fastest car always starting from pole position should pause to consider the last season in which we had proper low-fuel qualifying. Juan Pablo Montoya started from pole position seven times in 2002 – but never won a race.

Read more: Real qualifying returns in 2010

2. Easier to compare drivers’ performances

With all drivers qualifying on low fuel we will be able to tell very easily who got the most out of their car over a single lap – especially between team mates. The tedious and contrived calculations about who did the best ‘fuel-adjusted’ lap will go in the bin.

3. Easier to follow races at the track

Sat at home with the television broadcast, F1.com’s timing screen and, of course, the F1 Fanatic live blogs, it’s easy to keep on top of the race strategies. But sat in the rain at Pouhon without a TV screen, no Kangaroo reception and the tannoy drowned out by the scream of the engines, who knows which driver is on what strategy.

Yes, they’ll still be tyre stops in 2010, but the added complexity of different fuel loads will be gone, making it a lot easier to follow a race. That can only be a good thing for the accessibility of the sport.

4. Racing will be less artificial

Although knockout qualifying has brought an exciting dimension to Saturdays, it has created the strange phenomenon where drivers on row six can be better-placed strategically because they didn’t make it into the final ten and therefore have free reign on their fuel strategy.

In short, qualifying ninth or tenth can put you at a disadvantage compared to starting 11th or 12th. This artificial advantage will be neutered in 2010.

5. It will save the teams money

This is the main reason why refuelling is being axed – and it’s a sound one.

Lugging a pair of refuelling rigs per team around the world isn’t cheap, especially when there’s a bunch more new teams showing up.

Read more: The cost-cutting plans: refuelling ban

6. No more fuel-saving means they’re flat out all the way

If the widespread use of in-car radio in F1 has shown us anything it’s that as soon as drivers get stuck behind a rival they concentrate more on trying to save fuel – and therefore pit later and more advantageously – than trying to overtake.

I doubt banning refuelling will lead to a lot more overtaking – that problem is more to do with the aerodynamic sensitivity of the cars and, to a lesser extent, track layouts.

But it will at least remove an incentive for a driver to sit back and not try to overtake, which can only be a good thing.

7. Race strategy will be more interesting and exciting

Smart tyre strategy helped Schumacher win in 1993

Banning refuelling does not mean the death of race strategy. Instead, Grands Prix will have a strategic dimension which has more interesting consequences for the racing.

Now it will be all about which drivers can get through the race on a single tyre stop, nursing their car in the early stages on a heavy fuel load, and which ones have to make an extra stop. Already some commentators are talking up the chances of drivers who are kind to their tyres (like the current world champion) versus those who might not be (like the last one).

When the refuelling rules were brought in for 1994 the governing body ignored the fact that this very facet of the rules allowed for one of the rare occasions when the dominant Williams of 1993 was beaten by a lesser car on a dry track. Michael Schumacher elected not to make his final stop for tyres at Estoril and clung onto his lead despite being chased down by Alain Prost in the closing stages.

There are rumours the governing body is considering making two pit stops mandatory in 2010. That would be a terrible idea as it would completely kill any potential for strategic variety. Instead, they should go in the opposite direction and remove the present need for drivers to make at least one pit stop.

8. Fairer competition

F1 has never been properly set up for refuelling, in the modern era at least. F1 pits only permit one car to be serviced at any given time, forcing teams to run drivers on at least slightly different strategies.

So on occasions where the safety car has been deployed we have seen drivers’ races ruined because they had to queue up behind their team mate before they could take on fuel.

It’s disappointing no-one tried to fix this problem in the last 16 years, but at least it won’t matter any more now.

9. Harder for teams to favour one driver

There is no question there is always one fuel strategy that is superior to another – even if the difference is only a lap here or there.

Without refuelling it’s going to be a lot harder to have those “Team X always favours Driver Y” arguments in 2010.

10. More challenging for the drivers

No-one’s saying F1 is easy. But at the moment F1 drivers have to prepare their cars to work within a weight range of around 630kg to 700kg. That range will be roughly doubled next year, leaving them having to prepare cars that will handle radically different at the start of the race to the end, with lap times falling by around five seconds during the race.

That opens up a far greater scope for variety in set-ups, strategies and performance – not to mention potential for people to get things wrong and end up with a car that destroys its tyres at the beginning of a race or can’t get heat into them at the end.

11. More exciting pit stops

The pit stops that do happen will be brief, exciting bursts of energy as teams scramble to get four tyres off and on the cars as quickly as possible.

As refuelling almost always takes longer than a tyre change the pressure on the mechanics has been less severe in recent year.

But in 2010 how quickly they turn the car around will determine how little time their man loses. In 1993 Benetton whittled their best tyre change time down to a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it 3.2 seconds. Will any of the teams be able to top that next year?

Read more: A brief history of pit stops in F1

12. No more races ruined by rigs

Giancarlo Fisichella pits for fuel at Catalunya in 2006

Despite having 16 years to perfect refuelling rigs, last year faults were still causing drivers to receive too little fuel, ruining their races – notably for Felipe Massa at Catalunya.

No more will we see a closely-fought battle between two drivers spoiled because one of their races was ruined by a dodgy rig.

13. Improved safety

Just as 16 years of development hasn’t stopped fuel rigs from failing, it also failed to weed out refuelling fires. There was a spate of fires at the Hungarian Grand Prix last year and more incidents this year too.

The trade-off for that is that cars will be carrying much more fuel at the start of a race, which is potentially an increased risk. However cars today are far less likely to catch fire on impact and marshals are much quicker at arriving on the scene than they used to be. On balance I suspect we’re better off this way.

14. Overtaking will be more important

A battle for position is more exciting when it’s significant. A driver on a lighter fuel load breezing past a much heavier car is less compelling because you know he’ll eventually have to pit and, in all likelihood, lose the position again.

Next year when a driver passes another it’s much more likely to be decisive. I’d far rather see that than an occasional jumbling of the order just because some drivers have pitted to refuel.

I know some people are unconvinced about the refuelling ban – especially those who didn’t watch F1 before 1994. There are downsides to the refuelling ban but I think they are vastly outweighed by the benefits. Tell me what you think in the comments.

F1 2010 rules: Refuelling ban

• How new rules will change 2010 F1 cars
• F1 2010 rules: A return to proper qualifying and real Grand Prix racing

Image (C) Williams/LAT, Ford.com, Renault/LAT

Button would stay champion under the new system - with 230.5 points

The FIA will vote tomorrow on a new points system for F1 proposed by the re-formed F1 Commission. The change looks radical on the surface with a winner getting 25 points instead of ten.

But on closer inspection the new points system will probably make little difference at all and only act to encourage drivers to settle for a lower position instead of trying to move up a place.

If it had been applied in 2009 the most significant change would have been moving Jarno Trulli up to seventh in place of Nico Rosberg.

The extension of points to cover ninth and tenth places means non-scorers Nelson Piquet Jnr and Kazuki Nakajima would have picked up points.

Proposed 2010 F1 points system

The present points system, introduced in 2003, was criticised for making second and third place finishes more valuable compared to winning.

As the table above shows under the new system the difference between finishing second or third compared to winning remains proportionally the same. Second place still gives 80% of the points for finishing second, and third gives 60%.

It appears to be another attempt to ensure championships are decided as late in the season as possible, as it will be harder for a driver to amass a 25-point lead of a rival when you get ten points just for finishing fourth.

It is opposite in philosophy to the system FOTA suggested last year (12-9-7-5-4-3-2-1) which would have increased the relative value of a win.

What is truly strange about the proposed points system is that seventh place would be worth five points which is two more than eighth but one less than sixth. Surely it would make more sense for seventh place to be worth four points?

I’m not convinced by the perceived need to keep the championship alive until the last stages of the year. A good race is a good race regardless of whether the championship is it stake or not. One of the most popular races of the last ten years was the 2005 Japanese Grand Prix, after that year’s drivers’ title had already been decided.

I do think it’s worth extending the points further so that F1′s increased number of teams next year will have a greater chance of scoring points, making it easier for us to differentiate between their performance over a season.

On the other hand a driver who only needs a point to win the championship can go into the final round aiming to finish tenth.

I still feel wins are seriously under-valued by the present points system. If tenth place is worth a point, a win should be more like 50.

What do you think of the proposed change to the F1 points system?

Update: FIA confirms new points system in 2010

2009 F1 points under the new 2010 system

Actual 2009 F1 points

Read more: Final 2009 F1 championship standings

Image (C) Brawn GP

Felipe Massa might not be too disappointed refuelling is being banned

It’s the last race of the season so we’ll be saying our farewells this weekend – some of the fondly, others not so much.

One goodbye likely to divide reaction among fans is the long-awaited banning of refuelling.

When we witness our final refuelling pit stop this weekend will we have lost something special from F1? Or, like me, will you be saying good riddance to the tedium of race refuelling strategies?

Refuelling was last banned at the end of the 1983 season. Today fans are likely to argue about whether it makes racing better or worse – but on that occasion it was banned because it was deemed unsafe.

Even 25 years later, safety is still a concern. During the last race at Brazil we saw Kimi Raikkonen’s car set alight when another was sent from the pits with a refuelling hose still attached.

This time refuelling is being banned to save money. Lugging two refuelling rigs per team to every race incurs huge freight costs, especially for flyaway races.

Banning refuelling is going to have a big affect on F1 and that will be the subject of a later article here.

But as F1 approaches its final race with refuelling I wanted to ask a different question – whether refuelling has become irrelevant as part of the F1 ‘spectacle’.

F1 coverage, in Britain at least, is much more sophisticated now than it was 15 years ago. We know how much fuel a car has at the start of the race, and when they make a pit stop we can predict quite accurately when they’re going to stop again.

So a change of position due to a refuelling stop becomes more or less inevitable. When Jenson Button beat Rubens Barrichello at Spain because he used a two stop strategy instead of three there was little excitement or surprise at the outcome – other than the fact that two team mates had been put on different strategies.

To my mind it’s been five years since anyone did anything remarkable with a pit stop strategy – when Michael Schumacher won with four pit stops at Magny-Cours.

I’ve got a list as long as my arm of reasons why I’m glad to see the back of refuelling. But the most compelling justification is that it’s always the same and no-one seems to be surprised by it any more.

Are you happy refuelling is going? Was Grand Prix racing better before 1994 or after? Share your reaction in the comments – and do mention whether you watched F1 before refuelling was brought back in 1994, and what you thought of it.

Refuelling

• Why F1 will be better without refuelling
• The cost-cutting plans: refuelling ban
• Refuelling rig fires and failures hit race
• Two good reasons to ban refuelling

Read more on the 2010 F1 season

The testing ban has robbed rookies like Grosjean of precious practice time

F1 Fanantic guest writer and Vee8 author Duncan Stephen looks at the problems the testing ban has caused this year.

This year has seen several major changes in F1, but among the biggest has been the ban on in-season testing. As is usually the case with sweeping rule changes, it has brought more than its fair share of unintended consequences.

The most obvious problem with the testing ban is the fact that substitute drivers now have little or no way of winding themselves up for a race weekend. This wouldn’t have been much of a problem last year, when all 20 drivers competed in every Grand Prix – an unprecedented situation.

This weekend Kamui Kobayashi will become the fifth rookie to make his F1 debut this year only one of which – Sebastien Buemi – did so in the season-opener at Melbourne.

At the start of this season, the grid looked more or less identical to last season. The only change was Sebastian Vettel moving to Red Bull to replace David Coulthard who had retired, and Buemi taking Vettel’s place at Toro Rosso.

It is reasonable to suggest that a lot of the reason for this stability was due to the uncertainty surrounding the ability of rookies to get up to speed. That may explain why marginal cases, such as Nelson Piquet Jnr or Sebastien Bourdais, were given second chances when perhaps they did not deserve them.

But while the testing ban may have given Piquet and Bourdais a second chance, it also hastened their exit from that second chance. In another era, Piquet or Bourdais may have been allowed to see the season out with a modicum of dignity in tact. But the only way for Renault and Toro Rosso to find out if their replacements were any good was to just throw them straight into the car. In this case, waiting until the start of the 2010 season is no good – they want to know now so that the matter is out of the way by then.

But now we run into another problem. Both Romain Grosjean and Jaime Alguersuari, lacking experience of driving these cars, have noticeably struggled to get to grips. They have been thrown in at the deep end, and you cannot blame them if they have failed to cope with the situation.

You don’t have to be a rookie to be disadvantaged by the lack of testing. Luca Badoer couldn’t get up to speed in his Ferrari, although that may have been expected since he hadn’t raced in F1 for ten years. His replacement at Ferrari, Giancarlo Fisichella, has meandered around in the bottom half of the field. Fisichella is a competent driver who finished second in Belgium with a Force India he was familiar with. But Fisichella has not had the chance to acclimatise to the F60 properly. If he was allowed to test, he might be putting in some decent performances.

Not even a seven times world champion could avoid being adversely affected by the testing ban. Michael Schumacher clearly needed an opportunity to prepare for a potential race drive. This left him scrabbling around trying to test old chassis on GP2 tyres in an attempt to get round the ban while assessing if his neck could stand the stresses of driving an F1 car again. This weekend Kobayashi is the latest driver to be thrown in at the deep end, and it is only sheer fortune that he got two sessions’ running in Suzuka last week (albeit in the wet).

Surely it is not right for inexperienced or out-of-practice drivers to be expected to go into a race completely cold. It is just plain unfair on young drivers, or drivers recovering from injury. But more than that, it has real safety implications on the racetrack. It is no surprise to see rookies make mistakes. But would, for instance, the Toro Rosso drivers have had so many major crashes at Suzuka if they had been given more time to test? Possibly not.

Why the testing ban isn’t all bad

The testing ban is not all bad though. Clearly it exists for a reason, and that major reason is cost. This remains the biggest political issue in F1 today. Placing a ban on testing is a useful way to help reach the goal of making F1 more financially sustainable.

In this respect, the testing ban appears to have been a roaring success. According to James Allen writing in August, the testing ban seems in fact set to become even more severe. Clearly, the clamour to reduce costs outweighs any issues surrounding young drivers who are struggling to get a break now.

Also in favour of the testing ban is the fact that is does not appear to have prevented teams from developing their car. Some feared that there would be little change in cars’ performance throughout the season. Instead, we have had a highly unpredictable picture, with cars varying greatly in performance as the season has progressed.

This is probably most notable in the case of McLaren. Arguably they had the slowest car at the start of the season. But come Hungary it was a proven race winner. For me, this achievement – made with almost nothing in the way of testing – is awe-inspiring. McLaren deserve plaudits for this amazing comeback in an adverse situation.

It could be the case that testing actually proved a distraction to the teams. I remember during one of his commentaries this year, the ever-opinionated Ian Phillips from Force India scoffed at the idea that the testing ban prevented development. It appeared as though he was implying that test teams liked to go testing at circuits in exotic parts of the world at their employers’ expense for a bit of a jolly, not because they wanted to make the car faster.

Despite his team’s demonstration of engineering excellence, McLaren driver Heikki Kovalainen remains a critic of the testing ban. For him, “the season has been a bit silly, up and down.”

Silly or not, the up and down nature of this season has been its saving grace in my view. It is hardly as if the racing has been scintillating this year.

Overall, my feeling is that the testing ban is a good thing. But something needs to be done to allow inexperienced drivers a better chance to build up their skills and familiarity with their car.

The issue of quite how you do this is another that is fraught with difficulty. A nice idea might be for each team to bring a third driver to each race, and they can participate in a sprint race on Friday using spare cars. But this in itself would probably be expensive. The teams may resent the distraction from the more important business of their actual race drivers. And Bernie Ecclestone probably wouldn’t like it because it could detract from GP2 and GP3.

The testing ban is good in principle and may have helped spice up this season. But the problem of how to give young drivers experience in a convenient and low-cost way is a puzzle that is proving difficult to solve.

One idea put forward on this site two months ago was to bring back testing as an event prior to Grands Prix at different (but nearby) venues. Ecclestone has proposed something similar, suggesting teams could stay at Grand Prix venues an extra day and test on Mondays.

Could either of these ideas work? Have your say in the comments.