Daniel Ricciardo, Red Bull, Sepang International Circuit, 2015

Strategy Group plans return of refuelling, free tyre choice and cars ‘five seconds quicker’

2015 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

Daniel Ricciardo, Red Bull, Sepang International Circuit, 2015The Formula One Strategy Group has announced plans to make F1 cars at least five seconds per lap faster by 2017.

The return of in-race refuelling has been set for the same year. From next season each team will be allowed to select which two of the four tyre compounds available it will choose for each race.

The planned new regulations, which require the approval of the F1 Commission before they come into force, are part of a package intended to enhance the spectacle of grand prix racing.

An effort to allow teams to use a fifth engine this season was rejected following opposition from some teams on grounds of cost. However no definite plans for further cost savings were announced. Refuelling, which is now set to return after next season, was banned at the end of 2009 as a cost-cutting measure.

An FIA-led initiative to bring costs under control will be discussed by the Strategy Group teams in the coming weeks “in consultation with the other teams involved in the championship”, according to an FIA statement.

“This constructive meeting between the FIA, FOM and the Teams has allowed paving the way for the future of the championship,” said the FIA in a statement.

FIA statement on F1’s planned new regulations

The Formula One Strategy Group met yesterday in Biggin Hill to exchange views on the current challenges that F1 faces. Besides the statuary members of the group, representatives of the engine manufacturers were also invited.

The Strategy Group members have debated a number of levers aimed at improving the show. An initial series of measures has been voted:

For 2016:

Free choice of the two dry tyre compounds (out of four) that each team can use during the race weekend

For 2017:

Faster cars: five to six seconds drop in lap times through aerodynamic rules evolution, wider tyres and reduction of car weight
Reintroduction of refuelling (maintaining a maximum race fuel allowance)
Higher revving engines and increased noise
More aggressive looks

A few other measures have also been discussed but require further investigation before they can be implemented:

A global reflection on race weekend format
Measures to make starts only activated by the driver without any outside assistance

Furthermore, in light of the various scenarios presented by the independent consulting company mandated by the F1 Strategy Group, at the initiative of the FIA, to work on the reduction of costs and following a constructive exchange, a comprehensive proposal to ensure the sustainability of the sport has emerged. The Strategy Group member teams have committed to refine it in the next few weeks, in consultation with the other teams involved in the championship. On the engine side, it has been decided that stability of the rules should prevail in consideration of the investments of the manufacturers involved in the sport and to give visibility to potential new entrants. The allowance for a fifth engine to be used during the 2015 season has been rejected.

This constructive meeting between the FIA, FOM and the teams has allowed paving the way for the future of the championship. All parties agreed to work together with an intention to firm up these proposals and submit them to the approval of the F1 Commission and the World Motor Sport Council of the FIA as soon as possible for implementation.

2015 F1 season

Browse all 2015 F1 season articles

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

238 comments on “Strategy Group plans return of refuelling, free tyre choice and cars ‘five seconds quicker’”

  1. Wow. Did i miss something… I can not belive that cars will be faster

    1. forget faster make the cars able to draft each other.

    2. Well, if they go refuel, then at the start they will certainly be a lot faster, because they won’t be having more than maybe 30-40 kg of fuel in the tank as opposed to close to 100kg @ylilb

    3. So they will allow them more aerodynamic gizmos to get faster fast. Basically again cars will be on rails like they were back in the days were overtaking was impossible. Horrible, horrible decision.
      Leave the cars alone and they will get faster by themselves while the engineers and aerodynamist work on them. This ridiculous thing with the 2004 comparisons went too far. When Red Bull was winning and the cars had V8 they were still a few seconds slower than 2004 but you didn’t get the vocal minority giving lap comparisons and yelling how awful the cars are.

      1. Also just to see the vanity in this and listening to sιlly voices like Coulthard, i will like to bring to notice how after making them faster they will start looking for methods to make them slower again because when you give them 5-6 seconds the teams will still continue trying to get faster and the next year will be 7 and then 8 and 9 seconds faster etc and it will become too much and too dangerous and the FIA will again change the rules and the result will be more cost etc.
        If they left them as they are they would have had quite a few years of development until the speeds become crazy.
        But just because Bernie(and his friend Horner) is not happy not getting his own they are yelling crisis and crisis along with some sιlly fans that never appreciated racing but loud noises instead. That much is clear on how they go on and on about how in the old days the racing was much more awesome but when you actually put a video of an old race and watch it you see that it was nothing awesome at all and if we had as many boring races now as we had then people will be yelling how F1 is the most boring thing ever.
        The 2004 everyone praises was so boring that i actually got sleepy threw the races and this people bring it as a reference of good racing. Ridiculous!!!
        The racers now are ten times more interesting than back then.

  2. So in short: they’ve messed F1 up with unnecessary rule changes once again.

    1. Back to being serious: at what expense is this 5-6 seconds going to come at? With the expense that refuelling alone brings, could this signal a serious problem for the smaller teams?

      1. And to add to that @craig-o, not one concrete measure to do something to battle costs (well, yes, default to a two-tier championship) but lots of changes to evaluate and sink money into, that probably isn’t a real question anymore: yes, yes it will be a serious problem.

        1. I’ve come to the view that F1 does not have a costs problem–no more than, say, the United States has a poverty problem. The people who call the shots are doing just fine; everyone else is told to grab hold of their bootstraps. They could always use a little growth in EBIDTA from year to year, but the strategy group members are not going to be forced to switch to California wines in their track-side cantinas any time soon.

      2. @craig-o probably not much. If they want cars to be 5 seconds faster than today, normal development will almost achieve that come 2017. And if they are planning a return to refuelling, smaller tanks and shorter cars would do a huge difference.

        1. FINALLY, they are realising what fans want, higher revving louder cars, and faster cars, back to how fast they were a decade ago. fuel stops and tyre choice will add more interesting strategy again, instead of the stupid “underpass” at the moment. more strategy options are the only way for formula one, where the cars are never level like in other series.

          1. The first question that pops into my mind is how refueling will affect the qualifying system. We have finally had a very good and stable system for several years so far after some wierd ones during the early 2000s. Also how will the amount of starting fuel of each car be reflected during qualifying?
            I hope they manage to find a really interesting format.

          2. And F1 was really better back then? I don’t think so.

      3. @craig-o In terms of sporting rules and technically speaking refuelling was in my book as the #1 priority. F1 cars make 300km’s on 1 fuel tank which is double of that of Endurance cars, also refuelling is the cheapest way of speeding up the cars, and finally aesthetics, the reduction of wheelbase resulting of smaller fuel tanks, should in my view, enhance F1’s appeal. The tyre allocation situation is a good compromise to level the sport, as slower cars are generally incompatible with the harder compounds especially down the championship, when the top teams put pressure on Pirelli.

        All I can say in terms of sporting rules thumbs up.

        1. @peartree Refuelling being the cheapest way of speeding up the cars? Perhaps a cheap trick in a book, yes, but logistically, no, far from it. All that refuelling will do is increase the risk and cost of F1 and ruin the on-track action.

    2. I am no friend to Formula 1’s strategy group. I have spent most of my career writing remonstrative articles following strategy group meetings. I find it staggering therefore, that I am so utterly in agreement with yesterday’s announcements.

      What is remarkable is the consideration given to the smaller teams and even to the needs of fans. I think they neatly define the appeal of F1: beautiful, fast, loud racing cars raced hard by the best. Plans to create faster, louder and more aesthetically appealing racing therefore will receive no complaints from me. And refreshingly, the measure most likely to throw the baby out with the bathwater, a reintroduction of refuelling, is heavily caveated, and will apparently not be implemented at great cost to the teams or at the cost of the spectacle of the pitstops. In 2009 I was not alone in heralding the end of refuelling as an unfortunate end of an era. In the race, refuelling consistently produced so terrific situations, with the only real downside being the effect on qualifying with weight, and slower pitstops. It could also be argued that refuelling is an all too fundamental component of motor-racing for F1 to ignore.

      Certainly, the proposed 2017 regulations would create cars positively agricultural compared with the technical masterpieces of today, since the proposed weight reduction would mean that much, if not all of the ERS system would need to be abandoned. In this respect perhaps the most valid critique is that versus the increasingly formidable technical showcase that is the FIA WEC, F1 would by contrast be going backwards. Also, that “road-relevant” technology doctrine didn’t last long did it?

      And yes, these proposals would herald yet ANOTHER “new era” for F1, with the previous new dawn just three years hence, but frankly I feel such an approach shows real promise.

      1. ColdFly F1 (@)
        16th May 2015, 9:52

        @countrygent, not sure if you are correct on the agricultural comment.
        I read this in motorsport magazine:

        The most significant obstacle to lap time improvement in the current formula is not – as has widely, but erroneously, been blamed – the hybrid engines, but the swingeing aerodynamic restrictions that came in simultaneously. The engines actually deliver more performance than the V8s, with more power and vastly more torque – comfortably enough to overcome the associated 50kg increase in weight.

      2. the proposed weight reduction would mean that much, if not all of the ERS system would need to be abandone

        @countrygent I was assuming that they want to keep the current energy recovery systems and lose weight by other mean, fuel tank, ballast etc. do u not think this possible?

      3. @coldfly @3dom You are both correct, but this depends on the extent to which laptimes are designed to decrease in the corners or on the straights. The raw straight-line performance of the V6s are better than the V8s, but the V8s retain an advantage at the apex, with reduced weight and less torque.

        Retaining the ERS system depends on the extent to which the FIA wants to extract laptime from the weight reduction rather than other factors such as wider tyres, although it will be a 30kg reduction at the very least. Seen as I think it is perhaps unlikely that refueling will make a return, the FIA cannot depend on smaller fuel tanks to reduce weight. For me, the most likely outcome is a 40kg weight reduction, and with just 20kg removable from the onboard ballast, I do not see how we can run the full hybrid systems we have now in 2017 under these proposals. Without emendation, it is very likely we will be seeing detuned hybrid systems in 2017.

      4. Ehm, do i read your comment right there @countrygent and it is just a bit sarcastic?

        Honestly bringing back Refuelling (safety no go, logistics bad, cost not too great either), then they more or less invite Pirelli to take a huge increase in cost, up its prices for the teams or just quit (because of having to bring all tyres to every race), then they push out the mid grid with “customer cars” (those are probably the measures for cost reduction mentioned in the statement) and will probably also make the whole weekend setup a joke (reverse grids?) all that while upping aerodynamics to go faster which will likely cut any last reasons for drivers to even try and overtake on track instead of just doing it in the pits (more under body DF surely will not come, the teams voted that down before already). This really does not make me feel like I will have much interest in watching it, congratulations, very strategic thinking from the group and Bernie+Todt!

        1. you have said it greatly. This proposals will destroy racing and F1. But hey the noise may be louder so all it’s fine.

  3. Simon (@weeniebeenie)
    15th May 2015, 14:49

    Stupid idea on the refueling IMO. Refueling was stopped because it was expensive and always had a potential danger. Not to mention the amount of races ruined because they didn’t work properly. Why would you want to bring all of that back? The cars can be made faster without needing to have them run lighter during races.

    The other stuff, seems promising on paper but let’s see how it plays out.

    1. i think they might be trying to bring back the sprint element to F1 so that drivers have to push throughout the race and not have to be so conservative with tyres and fuel. Mark Webber has been very outspoken about that.

      Have to say though, i was shocked when i saw the news…just wasn’t expecting the Group to be so sweeping with the changes.

      1. Simon (@weeniebeenie)
        15th May 2015, 15:02

        @eoin You could solve the fuel saving issues easily though, mandate that all teams carry the same maximum amount of fuel. The only reason we get fuel saving now is not because they put 100kg in the car and nearly run out, it’s because they calculate the lowest amount they think they can get away with, or even less, and then hope they can fuel save in the race.

        1. That could be dictated by the tyres though. If the tires don’t allow the drivers to push for faster lap times then it makes no sense to carry fuel for that purpose either. If the tires allow 80% of maximum speed throughout the race then obviously you’d really need 80% of fuel as well (very imaginative example…).

          1. Fill the tank AND fix the tyres.

      2. the sprint element to F1

        If they keep Pirelli as a tyre supllier, all the other changes will be made useless

        1. Pirelli is working to a prescription. I am sure they would be delighted to be asked to make longer life tyres. The reason we have the current tyres is because bridgestones were too good, people were doing a whole race one set of option and putting for prime with one lap to go. There was also no overtaking… I would love to see drivers being able to push harder but Pirelli do a great job of creating entertaining races

          1. “The reason we have the current tyres is because bridgestones were too good” – and Michelin was the best!

            The major problem of formula 1 is a guy who will soon turn ninety living in the eighties trying to revive spirit of the seventies!

          2. Yes Pirelli are so entertaining, when we saw Kimi going from a podium to nowhere on the last lap we laughed and laughed, we love a good laugh.

            Boomerang, if only Bernie was trying to recreate the early 70’s, no gimmicks, no pit stops, rapid and varied development, safety issues aside it really was a golden age.

        2. Honestly, I am not sure Pirelli will stick with F1 if they are asked to bring ALL compounds to every race to allow the proposed choice of which to use in 2016. They have stated often enough that the cost has to be sensible for them @hohum, @antznz, @paeschli @eoin16, @socksolid to stay in everytime a proposal came up that makes for a jump in cost

          This is something completely different from what FI originally came up with (they wanted teams to choose up front to allow for the logistics)

    2. I like the refueling aspect, to me it has always felt like part of a true pit stop, as much as taking on new tires. And there is already so much danger in merely racing (and the pitstops themselves, as displayed on multiple occasions last race) that refueling is a drop in the bucket.

      1. In the past, re-fueling killed both quali (‘fuel corrected’ times) and the races themselves as there was almost never any racing on the track, it was all done in the pits.

        1. We are in total agreement here @paulguitar.

          1. @hohum

            Well, that’s great to hear, and has not always been the case, particularly with ‘noise’, IIRC………:) Let’s hope the stupid idea of refueling is dropped before it happens…………………

      2. Simon (@weeniebeenie)
        15th May 2015, 15:20

        @chaddy it’s adding another risk that isn’t necessary, that’s the point. Saying “It’s already dangerous, no harm adding some more” doesn’t seem like a good thought process to me.

        Plus as I say the other issue is when they went wrong. How many times did we see a potentially great race between two cars ruined because one of them had the misfortune to have a fuel hose that got stuck, or worse? You will always have these potential race ruining issues in the pits but again, why add another one when it’s not necessary?

        1. Massa lost the race in Singapore in 2008 because refueling went wrong, maybe it was Ferrari’s fault but …

          1. @jcost – ooh I was at that race (first night race) cheering as the pit crew ran back with the severed hose – being that I am a one-eyed McLaren fan :P

          2. Massa lost the championship in Singapore in 2008 because refueling went wrong, maybe it was Ferrari’s fault but …

            There. Fixed it for you.

          3. Which basically cost him the 2008 WDC, by the way

          4. @jcost I think that Massa spinning off on countless occasions in the first half of the season cost him more points than a pit light issue.

          5. Wow – just wow…

            Being gifted a win when 20 seconds back from his team mate and no 1 opposition for a totally and completely unjust steward decision that has yet to be clarified (and could happen again… Oh wait it did – three times last year by Rosberg!)

            That is the only reason he was in with a shout. The fuel rig was pretty much karma and nothing to do with his driving!

          6. It was unfortunate for Massa but as an Hamilton fan I had mixed feelings that day and after Spa that felt like poetic justice :)

        2. You can also add to that the factor that the risk is being transferred to a different group – if there is a problem with refuelling, it is generally the pit crew who are the ones who will suffer the consequences, not the drivers.

        3. A guy on F1 technical proposed a slick and safe form of refueling. Pretty cool.

      3. I am happy to see refueling coming back. I don’t feel that the danger inherent to refueling outweighs the reintroduction of it.
        I obviously don’t know any details, but would wager that the refueling rigs that are introduced are not the same as the type they previously used. I think the danger was in the design and the attempted rates at which fuel was flowing into the cars.

        1. Happy? I watched F1 in the old refueling days. I don’t see that it adds to the spectacle, barring the occasional ball of flames or hose getting stuck, randomly ruining a driver’s day. I guess the cars will be quicker at the start of the race.

          1. Exactly. They just paraded around, and would play leap frog when the pit cycles started. It wasn’t really better. Less artificial then it is now thanks to there having been no DRS. More strategic, that’s all. Not really more. Just subbing the strategic element provided by the super degrading tyres of now, with the refueling of before. It’s a miracle I still follow F1.

    3. +100… how anyone thought they should bring back re-fueling is a mystery. In all honesty though, the rest of the stuff sounds pretty good.

      But why limit a team to only 2 compounds- limit the number of tires, not the compounds IMHO.

      1. Talking of mysteries, why is it that whenever they introduce a change for the better they always introduce a change for the worse to cancel the benefit of the 1st change.

    4. Won’t refueling make pit stops longer? Seems like that would change the pit calcution even more complex. Teams would be locked into pit windows more firmly.

      I think more random races take away from the sport. “Yeah, Merc was faster, but Ferrari won do to lucky pit windows”

      1. “Yeah, Merc was faster, but Ferrari won do to better pit strategy

        Fixed.

    5. Stupid idea indeed, still, looking on the bright side I wont be cursing the paywall in 2017.

  4. The Blade Runner (@)
    15th May 2015, 14:50

    Bring it on!

    “More aggressive looks” seems a little abitrary though. In the interests of racing surely the cars should be allowed to take on whatever form makes them fastest within the framework of the new rules?

    1. You misread the context. I think “aggressive” means that all drivers will be required to wear Hamilton-style stunt jewelry and/or get fierce sleeve tattoos like Kimi. No more boring typs like Vettel spoiling the scene.

    2. Now F1’s problem is a “beauty problem”… OMG!

    3. Aww geez… Maybe they’ll have spinning rims and neon lights on the undertray too!

      1. Remember Boudicea’s chariot, everyone could be a Pastor.

    4. @bladerunner, stop talking sense, this is F1.

  5. Those changes sound pretty good to me, although I wonder what ‘more aggressive looks’ and ‘aerodynamic rules evolution’ will turn out to be. After visiting a GP for the first time last friday I can only agree with the change in engine rules. The GP2 cars actually sounded better than the F1 cars, at a more or less equal volume.

  6. Typical F1 response. Order a change no one wants just so they can be seen to be doing something. I suspect there’s not a single person in the world who has been called for refuelling to be brought back. God knows what kind of trouble Maldonado can cause with a fuelling rig …

  7. I think coupling the return of refuelling with a free choice of two tyre compounds will be interesting. Will a 1 stop race on hards/mediums be a faster way to the flag than a 3 stop running super softs/softs? A team can set up the aerodynamics and mechanical grip to favour each strategy extreme …

    1. Simon (@weeniebeenie)
      15th May 2015, 14:57

      The problem with these huge variations in strategy is what leads to races being decided on paper in meetings and not on the track though. If you have a light car on softs approaching a heavy car on hards then where is the exciting racing going to come from? It’ll be easier than DRS passes.

      Obviously you need some variety in the races, otherwise they’ll race off in grid order and there will be no overtaking, but I think all of these things coming in is going too far in the other direction.

      1. Simon- can’t disagree with you more. Variations in strategy are what makes racing exciting- can a driver maintain a pace on harder tires and less stops over one doing shorter stops on faster tires? That is great stuff. Having all the drivers do the same strategy is what we have now and it isn’t very interesting. It is a rare occasion now when teams do something different.

        1. People overtaking each other in the pits instead of doing so on track, yeeeey!

        2. Variations in strategy is what makes Chess exciting, F1 should be about racing, strategy should be in the back seat.

    2. Just wait until Red Bull picks tyres that are bound not to last and then starts complaining that the tyre manufacturer is supplying bad tyres before too soon @JC.

      Races will then be decided by tyres not lasting from stupid choices, or will be decided in the pitstop. Something to look forward to.

  8. I think it’s great that we have refuelling back. Together with Pirelli tires this could be an interesting mix.

    Firstly the cars are really slow in races nowadays. In qualy the cars are much slower compared to 2004 (the peak of F1 speed) but in races the gap is just huge. In China over 10 seconds a lap! That’s not F1 anymore. With refuelling back the cars will be a lot faster in races, the drivers don’t have to save fuel so they’ll be pushing more which means bigger chance of a driver error, something we won’t see too often in races these days.

    And with the Pirelli tires teams can have a huge variety in strategy. We’ll see cars with old tires on low fuel loads, and with fresh tires on higher fuel loads. Hopefully DRS zones will be shortened, or drivers will get DRS seconds (just like FR3.5 in the past) as well, for me that would be the ideal F1

    1. @jlracing

      they’ll be pushing more

      I would not bet on it. In 1917 we will still have the fragile Pirelli tires and the 100 kg fuels per race allowance as now.

      1. Eh, sorry, in 2017. Got a bit carried away with a history book :-).

    2. Re-fueling in the past resulted in no racing on the track, and totally ruined quali.

      1. Yes that’s partly true. But now we have wide tracks, DRS and Pirelli tires so overtaking should be easier and won’t depend on re-fueling too much. And qualy doesn’t have to be with race fuel. Untill 2002 qualy was done with low fuel, so hopefully that will be the case in 2017 as well

        1. @jlracing

          Yep, that is massively important, never again ‘fuel corrected quali’, that was an all-time low!

  9. Wow – the FIA is completely out-of-touch with the fans. What’s next – Vegas style chaser lights to highlight the subtle variations of each car?

    1. I think it is more Bernie than FIA, unfortunately Bernie has always been out of touch with the fans, but totally in touch with the accountants.

  10. I think they should make refuelling optional. Make it a maximum of 1 refuel per race at a restricted flow rate. So the stop will be 10 to 15 seconds. I don’t want EVERY stop being for fuel. I can see people coming in just for fuel, then at the end of the race just changing to super soft tyres for the remaining laps to go as fast as possible.

    As for the 5 seconds quicker. I doubt that will happen. I think open tyre choice and 1 optional refuel per race would be a good rule change in a few years. I hope they don’t go changing the engines or aerodynamics massively. I like the way cars are now.

    1. @marc512

      I think they should make refuelling optional. Make it a maximum of 1 refuel per race at a restricted flow rate.

      That would be a more restrictive rule than what we had last time, when it was completely “optional”.

  11. I never thought I’d say this, but I like everything I’m hearing from the Strategy Group!

  12. The news from Biggin Hill smacks of desperation and panic. Teams are on the brink. Revenues are falling. Audiences are falling. Classic races are being axed. Alas, F1’s Strategy Group seems to have yielded to the easy temptation of contriving measures to make F1 “look good” while leaving the underlying problems in place. Who coined the phrase “putting lipstick on a pig”? There are even reports that customer cars are on the table again. It’s almost as if someone is actively trying to drive F1 into the ground. Or is this just the inevitable consequence of letting commercial interests overwhelmingly trump those of sport? After all, no other motorsport series is facing anything like the difficulties that bedevil F1.

    1. Don’t forget a certain driver to announce a 100 mill contract at Monaco lol that would help some of the smaller teams.

    2. re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic…You can’t polish a turd… ermmm… Can’t think of any more.

    3. When this fails it wont seem so silly to introduce sprinklers, followed by the wall of fire, a brawl on the podium etc.

  13. We All know this.. if the cars become faster we will see less of close, hard racing! If they improve the aerodynamics it will be harder for the chasing car to follow because of the hot air, and the more aerodynamics is on the car the more the car needs clean air to run fast.
    This is my plan:
    – less aerodynamic/wings on cars
    – make the cars lighter, no refueling
    – DRS available only if the car behind is 0,5 to 2,0 seconds
    – wider tyres at the back

  14. I have always liked the idea of free tyre choices, but bringing back refuelling sounds just stupid. Last 5 or so years everyone has been talking about bringing costs down. Then all fuel flow systems were introduced and now this. What does the refuelling mean and what are the consequences. Does it mean that qualifying will return to the old format where cars can go very light or some will run with more fuel and pay the price loosing a couple of grid positions so they can run longer their 1st stints ? I just can´t understand why millions and millions been spent in order to make the most out of the engine keeping fuel usage within 100kg per race, and now by the looks of things all these complex things will be scrapped again, just so that more money can be spent.

    1. F1 Strategy Group, once again, overreacting.

      The speed is a problem but the main issue is lack of competitiveness at the front. They can make cars 10 seconds faster, 2 meters wide on low profile tyres but if we end up with a dominant car, the problem will persist. What fans want is the best drivers in the best cars fighting for poles and wins, if it happens with cars 3 or 5 seconds per lap slower people won’t even notice.

      They need to find a way to close the gap to the leading car and I’m afraid there’s no easy fix for that.

  15. So, I have always been against refueling, simply because it usually leads to cars passing off the track instead of on it. However, with how different F1 is now in terms of its formula, perhaps it may work. It will certainly mean the cars can push harder (it will be interesting to see what happens to the tyres now).

    I am skeptical though. Simply because we know how races were during the last era of F1, and for the most part, whilst being fast, weren’t particularly interesting. F1 at the moment I think has gone too far the otherway and as a result has also lost interest as well. A happy medium would be good I think. Personally I would have loved a return to the 2010 spec F1 (or something similar), but with these engines, and some small tweaks.

    It will be interesting to see how it all works out. Hopefully cars can actually follow each other with this new formula, with wider tyres being introduced that should help. You would also suspect more durable tyres to allow cars to push…

    I don’t know, it all seems somewhat promising, but at the same time it could be awful. I just hope with how a lot of the rules have changed since those days, it might just work… It’s impossible to say either way.

    1. I’m ok without refueling and this tyres idea might work but I’d rather have harder compounds than “tyre freedom”. Make any compound raceable/pushable for at least 45% of the race distance and they can manage the other 5% before getting new ones, those 12/14 laps stints are ridiculous.

    2. I agree about the “happy medium” comment, I think 2010-spec F1 had a lot of potential – it certainly wasn’t perfect, but the racing was certainly much purer than it has become in later seasons (thanks to DRS, and also arguably the Pirelli tyres).

      You make a good point about refuelling as well, perhaps it will work better in the current era of Formula 1 than it did before.

      Still seems a bit odd to bring back refuelling while sticking with the current tyres though – I thought the main appeal of having refuelling was so that the drivers could drive flat-out, but if we are supposedly keeping the high degradation tyres… surely the drivers will still have to drive to the limit of the tyres, so they still won’t really be flat-out?

      At least the race times won’t be so slow compared to qualifying times with refuelling. I really hope that they don’t require cars to qualify on race fuel though, I hated the confusion of fuel-adjusted qualifying. Let them qualify on light fuel loads, then start the race with whatever fuel load they want.

    3. 2010 spec F1 (or something similar), but with these engines

      My dream <3

      2010 was the best season of the past 10 years. No DRS, no refueling, no Pirelli tyres and a lot of people fighting for the championship. Both the races and the championship as a whole were fantastic to follow.

      I agree with you @polo: what’s the point of having refuelling if we keep the high degradation tyres?

      1. Michael Brown
        15th May 2015, 21:00

        2010 was the best season of F1 in my opinion. However, when most people bring it up, I usually hear complaints about how boring it was, and Bahrain and Abu Dhabi are brought up. Surely 2010 isn’t defined by those two races alone? They were both horrible tracks, Bahrain especially.

      2. 2010 was a good championship, but it did not have good races.

        The only excitement of 2010 was because Sebastian wasn’t able to maximize his performance in races. Remember, the highest rated race in 2010 (on this site and others) was Canada which was the race where Bridgestones weren’t able to last the full race and hence that was the basis for Pirelli to make tyres from 2011.

        1. You’re right that the interest in 2010 mainly centred around what happened from race to race, but not the races themselves – Red Bull had a superior but fragile car (anybody remember Red Bull lapping more than a second a lap faster than anybody else at the Hungaroring?), whilst McLaren arguably started the season with the second best car only to be overtaken by Ferrari during the season.

          The individual races themselves were actually fairly predictable by comparison, unless reliability intervened.

  16. Great. But this is how I’d do it:

    1. Engines: free reign to do whatever you want, but limited to total of 100kg fuel per race. Total of 10 power units per year.
    2. Floor: every team must use the same design floor that runs from nose to just behind the rear wing. This is flat, and no part of the bodywork may extend beyond it.
    3. Front wing: free reign on design here, but must be 100mm off the ground and no more than 300mm off the ground. Width is no more than 1500mm
    4. Wide rear wing on flat endposts: width 1800mm, no aerodynamic devices below 500mm from the ground
    5. No part of the car may be more than 950mm from the ground.
    6. There may be no “winglets”
    7. The rest of the car to be designed by the manufacturer.

    Thoughts?

    1. 1. Yes, 1500hp combo capacitor-and flywheel-hybrid power units with 1.5 liter sequentially supercharged and turbocharged V8s with nitrous injection. (VTEC for Honda, of course.) That totally won’t break the small teams’ budgets.
      2. Basically, you want to extend the tunnels ban to eliminate diffusers. OK, but,
      3-6. The cars will be much slower. Remember, you cut out diffusers, a major source of downforce and relatively efficient as a source thereof. Big tires are not going to do it. You cannot achieve current speeds, and remain the “pinnacle,” with big ole tires alone.

  17. Wow! That really came out of nowhere!!!

    Although I think it’s great that refuelling will be back in F1, it’s not really cutting costs, isn’t it?!
    Together with higher revving power units, lighter cars, wider tyres + free choice of compounds and less or not so strict rules on the aerodynamics, which should restult in more downforce, this could be the best thing that happened for F1 in years!!!

    My only worry is that the costs could explode with such a drastic rules change.
    But to be honest, it can’t get any worse than it is now, can it?!

  18. Measures to make starts only activated by the driver without any outside assistance

    What does this mean? To me, it smacks of trying to ban driver aides, and didn’t that work well back in early 1990’s, and again in early 2000’s. While kudos for thinking about getting rid of a driver aide, I still don’t know what has changed in the last 10 years to suggest that they can police this any better than in the past?

    1. I think it means the driver has to find his own “bite-point” and torque map setting from the dummy start. I guess you are adding driver skill to the equation but the start is not where I really want to “spice” things up. It’s the most dangerous aspect of the race. There is plenty of start line action now without someone stalling and wheel-spinning helplessly while he gets hit from behind.

    2. That’s a strange one. It sounds like they want to do away with the external starter motors currently used, to be replaced by a built-in driver activated starter.

      1. I’ve always wondered why the electric drive motor can’t operate as a starter motor.

        1. ColdFly F1 (@)
          16th May 2015, 9:59

          @hohum, even though the electric drive sits after the ICE, they could drive off on the electric motor and push/bump/clutch start the ICE.
          That would make an interesting start! Next is to start diagonal on the starting grid and the show is complete ;-)

          1. @coldfly, I guess it depends whether the electric motor can turn the ICE over without drive to the wheels, but regardless, with all that torque and 150 hp it should be able to overcome the compression and move the car pretty quickly at the same time without resorting to a clutch dump.
            Le Mans starts ? great idea !

  19. I think the reason they have decided to bring back refuelling is so the cars can run lighter for longer and therefore more efficiently. Meaning that they don’t have to save as much fuel because the cars aren’t so heavy. The drivers then have more freedom to push (tyre permitting) as they aren’t fuel limited.

    This will potentially open up a selection of super soft and soft tyres with short fast stints on low fuel against someone on mediums/hards running longer stints and saving a bit of fuel.

    Could work well for the race strategy but I don’t see how it will help costs unless the freight costs for the refuelling rigs is heavily subsidised by FOM.

    1. That may well be but if the cars are out on track in their own traffic-free space it wont be visually any more interesting, we wont be able to tell if they are 2 seconds or 10 seconds a lap faster without looking at the timing board.

  20. Ban DRS and hybrid engines. Everything else is merely a footnote.

  21. All I care about is speed (after all, isn’t that why we are all here)… so the fact that they have acknowledged and increase in 5-6 sec is a priority is good new to me.

    Refueling though… UGH… more gimmicks. I don’t know if I will be able to stand races with DRS and refueling. Is there anything more artificial than purposely designing fuel tanks too small?

    1. If all we care about is speed we should be at Bonneville. I care about racing.

  22. Refueling coming back is the final straw for me & so my 35 year love of F1 will end.

    I despised refueling the last time, I hated what it did to the racing, I hated how it made fuel strategy the most important aspect of a race & I hated how it caused a drop in on-track racing action & overtaking.

    I tolerated it before because i was generally happy with the rest of F1, But now I’m not because I dislike the current tyre philosophy & the other gimmicks such as DRS & addinf refueling on top of that kills it for me.

    Goodbye F1!

    1. I hear ya… I could take (barely) DRS or refueling on their own, but together… that might just push me out.

    2. Yup, it’s just a random lottery now.

      It was so nice to ditch all the fuel estimations and rubbish. Admittedly, we got DRS in response, which was horrible. Now, both.

      I’m probably just about done, too. I’ve gone from ‘Fanatic’ to casual viewer.

      1. PeterG seems to enjoy goodbyes, as this is certainly not the first time I’ve seen him say so.

        But maybe we should just keep waving, one day there might be money where there only used to be a mouth.

    3. Yes, refueling will definitely be the last straw for me.

  23. Refuelling… yeah, that worked great back in the days. The single most reason for drivers not battling on track reintroduced. Yay.

    And gaining speed through aerodynamics won´t help either. More downforce = more dirty-air-effect.

    1. Yes but that wont matter because they will all be running in their own little piece of clear track.

  24. Hmm, as far as Strategy Group meeting go, this is probably as good as it gets. Refuelling is not a great idea, especially in combination with DRS: I’m afraid proper overtakes for position will become even rarer. I also wonder whether teams will actually bother with refuelling too much, since these engines are pretty good on fuel consumption. We may see something like 4 to 6-second pit stops, it’s all a bit pointless to be honest.

    Free choice of tyre compounds is really interesting idea in my opinion. I’m worried though that the teams will pick the softest compound as their ‘qualifying tyre’, and some other compound as their ‘race tyre’. Maybe they can nerf it by restricting the amount of times a tyre compound can be chosen.

    Faster cars is definitely something I’m looking forward to. I don’t care if it will mean less overtakes, I just want to see properly fast cars again. One of the easiest ways to do that is to ask Pirelli to make more conservative tyres, which may actually happen because refuelling will make sure teams will make some pit stops anyway.

    The most worrying thing is that final paragraph about costs. The changes mentioned, refuelling in particular, sound rather expensive. So now “a comprehensive proposal to ensure the sustainability of the sport has emerged” to reduce costs, what’s going to happen here? I’m guessing they are talking about customer teams, which would be pretty disastrous for the sport. Not only will these customer teams not stand a chance against the other teams, having a dozen different cars is pretty much the one thing that sets Formula 1 apart from other single seater racing series. I’ve always enjoyed seeing the ‘smaller’ teams come up with their own designs, occasionally outwitting the bigger teams (2009 springs to mind).

    So yeah, some good things and some bad thing in the short term, some pretty worrying things in the long term.

    1. I don’t care if it will mean less overtakes, I just want to see properly fast cars again.

      Couldn’t disagree more. I don’t care about slow, silent cars if the racig is good.

      If they really want to bring both costs down and make cars faster:
      – wider Michelin tyres
      – keep all the rules the same until 2020
      bonus: remove DRS

      5-6 seconds faster cars by 2020 guaranteed.

      1. @paeschli Maybe I should have stated it a bit more clearly. I don’t mind if the cars are actually slow and silent – I’m a big fan of Formula E, really enjoy watching those races. The problem with Formula 1, imo, is not that the cars are actually slow, but that they are being driven slowly. I hate seeing the post-race interviews with drivers that look more bored than tired, saying ‘I just couldn’t do anything, every time I pushed the tyres just disintegrated.’ I want the cars to be driven faster, not faster cars per se.

    2. In case you missed the media buzz recently @andae23, the

      comprehensive proposal to ensure the sustainability of the sport has emerged

      is actually bringing up enshrining the 3 car thing in rules to be possible and then enabling customer cars (it would be cheaper right, because only the big teams would need to do development, and they would get some of that back from paying customer teams too!)

  25. Ah, so we’ve wanted refuelling back, haven’t we….? Haven’t we?!

    Great. That’s just what we need. More passing through pitstops. Marvellous.

    At least the DRS will save the day!

    Falling out of love hurts.

    1. As they say, all good things must come to an end…

  26. Aditya (@adityafakhri)
    15th May 2015, 15:39

    2004 aero kits
    2015 engines
    2012 tyres + free usage
    the cost will rising surely, killing off privateers, and the era of customer cars will begin…

  27. If Refueling does end up coming back it may very well end my interest in F1 i’m afraid. I hated it the last time as I just didn’t like the effect it had on the races & was thrilled when we finally got rid of it after 2009.

    May seem like a small thing to walk away over but with everything else I don’t like about F1 at the moment, adding that 1 more element on top of the rest is enough to see me walk away.

    1. Let’s hope we live to see Formula Phoenix arise from the ashes of F1.

  28. Faster cars: five to six seconds drop in lap times through aerodynamic rules evolution, wider tyres and reduction of car weight
    Reintroduction of refuelling (maintaining a maximum race fuel allowance)
    Higher revving engines and increased noise More aggressive looks

    Some of the points mentioned sound quite acceptable, but overall, especially the highlighted points, this sounds like something a bunch of over-excited ten-year-olds could’ve come up with after spending the afternoon watching action movies and drinking way too much coke.

    As for the weight reduction: Worries about starving drivers to death seem to have gone with the wind. One step forward, to steps back …

    1. At least, there’s one thing I really appreciate: The reintroduction of refuelling (without exceeding a maximum value). Neither the safety, nor the cost arguments have ever convinced me in that regard, and I really missed this strategic component.

      1. @nase So you liked all of the racing been done in the pits & not on the track?
        You liked on track action & overtaking plummeting from the very 1st race refueling came back.
        You liked seeing races decided effectively via time trials as cars racing each other were nowhere near each other on track thanks to fuel strategy?

        I hated it, Despised it & loathed it.

        Refueling was the single worst thing to ever come in from a racing perspective & was the start of the overtaking problem, Every stat shows the effect refueling had on the races & none of it was positive.

        1. @PeterG

          You’ve hit the nail directly on the head there.

          1. You guys get a room. Preferrably not next to mine.
            But first, kindly give me a link to where your stats came from.

          2. @nase all the overtaking stats come from the cliptheapex site who have overtaking figures going back to the early 80s.

            said stats show a steep decline in overtaking in 1994, Those stats staying low throughout the refueling era & the overtaking stats rocketing back upto the pre-refueling levels in 2010.

      2. Simon (@weeniebeenie)
        15th May 2015, 16:02

        You didn’t see all of the incidents involved fuel rigs over the years, from that famous Benetton fire, to a few smaller ones, to all of the times drivers went off with it still attached? As for cost it should be obvious, carrying around those huge rigs is going to be an extra cost.

        1. @weeniebeenie
          Yes, I’ve seen them all (except for the Verstappen one; that was before I started watching F1), and it was a mere handful over the course of 17 seasons, whereas I can’t shake the feeling that wheel-related incidents due to the extremely short non-refuelling pit stops have happened a lot more often, proportionally, since 2010. Thus, in my opinion, the safety argument is moot.

          However, this doesn’t mean that new safety measures ought to be improved for the new fuel rigs. For example, software that electronically shuts off the throttle (or forces the gear box to stay in neutral) while the fuel hose is attached to the car. Installing such a system shouldn’t be too much of a challenge.

          1. Simon (@weeniebeenie)
            19th May 2015, 17:39

            @nase The point is it’s a handful that didn’t need to happen. There will always be inherit danger in motorsport generally, just by virtue of racing cars around tracks as speed. You can’t get ever get rid of that. You can however reduce the risk of incidents related to in-race refuelling by simply…not refuelling in races. There are always places you can improve safety even if the overall sport will never be totally safe. Re-adding something that adds potentional danger just for “The Show” seems backwards to me.

            I’m sure they could make them safer than before but that leads to your other point, cost. This R&D is not cheap.

    2. Musings of excited ten-year olds, highly paid consultant’s report—pretty much the same thing. Except the ten-year old can’t use powerpoint, so he doesn’t get paid.

      1. If anything, today’s ten-year olds are more proficient Powerpoint users than fourty+-year old consultants …

        But yeah, I understand what you’re getting at.

    3. 10 year olds high on Red Bull might be the new target demographic.
      @peterg, is spot on.

  29. REFUELLING?

    Oh dear I hope Rush has released a new Album by then, which better be good (enough to cheer me up once the refuelling comes back into force).

  30. A few other measures have also been discussed but require further investigation before they can be implemented:

    A global reflection on race weekend format

    How new age! They will all sit down, quietly in a dim room with some scented candles, and think about race weekends. I mean, REALLY think about it.

    ;)

  31. Interested to hear from you all which races of 1994-2009 do you think were either made great or spoiled by refuelling?

    1. Spoiled, Singapore 2008.

    2. Hansguenther
      15th May 2015, 16:05

      The refueling ban has made F1 cars look like dogs on track for the first 20 laps. Also the engineers have had no choice to make the wheel bases longer to fit the massive fuel tanks. I’m happy to see it come back. I’m happy to see proper 3 pit stradegies attempted and faster cars on track. I only hope they can introduce it again safely.

    3. Simon (@weeniebeenie)
      15th May 2015, 16:05

      @keithcollantine Not only that question specifically but I refer the rt. honorable gentleman to an article he wrote some years earlier.

      http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/12/17/14-reasons-to-love-the-refuelling-ban/

      :)

      1. “No more fuel-saving means they’re flat out all the way”…

      2. @keithcollantine @weeniebeenie Now with 20/20 hindsight we knew the result of “predictions” on that article. Of those 14 points here are my thoughts:

        1 and 2: Qualifying is improved because they finally get rid the qualify on starting fuel rule. Old qualy format (12 lap in 1 hour) give s us the same result argued in those points in the refueling era.

        3. Agreed but its not that significant since they still have to keep track of the tires and how many of unused set of primes and options each driver have.

        4. Its still the same situation with 11th qualifier can choose what tire to start (and fresh one instead of used like top 10 qualifiers) on instead of fuel.

        5. Agreed. But ironically teams still goes bankrupt and money issue is worse than ever.

        6. LOL no. I think we all agree on this.

        7. Disagree, but I blame Pirelli tires more that killing the potential of more diverse strategy. Only Sergio Perez in Force India that somehow could make them last much better than other driver (which he don’t really able to do it in McLaren).

        8. Any competition is fair as long as all contestant using the same rule, regardless there are refueling or not. Keith argument itself is about the pit only able to service 1 car and it still a problem especially when it matters most: during safety car pit rush.

        9. Same as 8. Refer to Vettel and Webber “not bad for 2nd driver”. Also Massa “Alonso is faster than you please confirm”. Oh yeah Rosberg “Hamilton can still go faster please hold position”.

        10. The time we heard F1 cars is too easy to drive is this season, not during 1994-2009.

        11. No it’s not. Even though the answer is yes and by surprisingly 1 seconds (I think McLaren set 2.2s pitstop last year?).

        12. Obviously, but in exchange we have races ruined by malfunctioning guns, which have more dire consequences and seems happened more often than rig failure.

        13. Agreed. But I also wonder if the increased stress leads up to more unsafety release and unsecured wheels before FIA gave super severe penalty for those unsafe release.

        14. It still the same situation thanks to Pirelli (FIA) again. We also often hear to let someone pass because they not racing him because it will destroy their tires just to defend.

    4. From a racing perspective I don’t believe it ever made any race better.

      On the other hand I believe it hurt a lot of races by taking away good, close racing fights for position & possible overtaking.

      For example you often hear France 2004 or Hungary 1998 brought up as great examples of refueling been a positive & while its true those races were interesting from a strategy perspective, From a racing perspective they were crap because there was no racing been done between the cars fighting for the win. Everything was been conducted via lap time & pit strategy with a big gap between the cars battling for the win & eventual passes been done in the pits, I found those sorts of races boring to watch because there was nothing to watch.

      Even the 1st race refueling came back (Brazil 1994) we had a good on track fight for the win between Senna & Schumacher killed by refueling as the pass was done in the pits & Schumi then ran away, Again I found that boring to watch.

      Watching cars sprint between stops & engage in strategy battles where ther enot racing one another in a close fight on track simply isn’t exciting to watch from a racing perspective & will do nothing but reduce overtaking.

      1. Totally agree Peter G. People are clamoring for more and better racing on the track. Refueling provides for refueling contests in the pits. And it adds another level of danger back into F1. How many crew members and drivers have been injured since refueling was banned? That is an easy answer. Zero.

        1. How many crew members and drivers have been injured since refueling was banned? That is an easy answer. Zero.

          Sorry, but it’s definitely more than zero. Alonso and Grosjean incident last race, Red Bull incident in Nurburgring 2013, Williams fire accident in Spain 2012, also some people who get shocked from KERS. Refueling is not the only danger in F1.

          1. @sonicslv – Sorry, poorly worded. How many have been injured from refueling is what I meant to say.

    5. I liked the strategic aspect a lot. People were mad because no action on the track until the end, hard to understand. Well, yeah. You had to pay close attention and you had to wait to the end to see who was actually really in contention. Those were good things. It also mixed up qualifying a bit. It’s not like the alternative was 90 minutes of door-handle-to-door-handle action. That was never F1. Refueling added something. Also, it makes no sense to say it “caused” passing in the pits. As long as cars have to pit for want to some consumable, cars will pass in the pits. It’s easier and less risky, and thus more rational, than just diving down the inside from way way back.

      1. @dmw I’d rather see close racing on the track rather than fuel strategy that only plays out at the end.

        For F1’s faults right now at least we see close racing & cars passing on the track with drivers forced to at least have a go at passing on the track. Seeing the extreme’s of refueling where there is less close racing & less overtaking with teams looking more towards strategy with less incentive to have a go & try to overtake is simply not what I want from F1.

        If they do push this through I guarantee you there will be less close battles & a lot less overtaking, Just like there was when we last had to put up with it from 1994-2009.

        1. @stefmeister

          17 Peter Bonnington Lewis Hamilton We’re going to need to push and attack Vettel. We’re going to need to do this on-track, mate?
          17 Lewis Hamilton Peter Bonnington Well I can assure you that’s pretty much impossible, Bono, so we need to come up with another solution.
          17 Peter Bonnington Lewis Hamilton OK Lewis we are on Plan B. So it’ll be a battle at the end of the race and we’ll be on inverted tyres.

          Emphasis mine. And it taken from last race radio transcript from a driver that arguably one of the best over taker in the field armed with the best car against someone with a car that a step behind.

          1. @sonicslv Overtake or not that battle between Hamilton/Vettel was one of the best moments of the race & is example the sort of racing I enjoy seeing, 2 drivers fighting hard with 1 attacking & the other defending.

            If we had refueling & Lewis had gone off strategy at the 1st stop & ended up ahead, The rest of that race woudl have been far less interesting than it was thanks to that fight between them.

          2. @stefmeister I chose that example because what you said

            I’d rather see close racing on the track rather than fuel strategy that only plays out at the end.

            is not only relevant for fuel strategy. But in principal I agree with you, we need more racing and battle settled on track instead of pit. Unfortunately though, the number of times you pit is more important than the time you spent on the pit per stop. So we will see more overtaking from 1 stop with refueling than 2 stop without. Ability to refuel however did make tendencies to make more stop is the fastest way to complete the race.

            Also I found its funny you enjoy Lewis/Vettel battle since I thought it was the most boring lead battle so far this season. The only thing why it didn’t end in first stop is because Mercedes botched it badly. Even we can see in the transcript Ferrari cover it just because Mercedes pit is so slow. For me the best battle so far is Lewis/Nico in China which ironically pit strategy is also the most defining factor for the outcome.

          3. Which is why I say go back to the no pitstops era when every pass had to be made on the track.

    6. There were no great races thanks to refuelling, only good races despite refuelling.

    7. There is no real difference to passing in the pits with re-fueling and the current method of pitting a lap earlier to get the ‘Undercut’.

    8. @keithcollantine

      Of the many races spoiled, one classic example: Turkey 2008.

      Massa was on pole with Kovalainen along him in the front row. Hamilton and Räikkönen were in the second row. The two Finns touched slightly at the first corner, enough to cause slow puncture for Kovalainen which put him out of the battle in the front. Massa led early with Hamilton second and it went that way for some time. Soon after first round of pit stops was concluded, Hamilton went pass Massa for the lead but in fact it was for nothing. Hamilton was on three-stop strategy while Massa stopped twice, so during Hamilton’s third stop Massa went to the front again and won the race.

      1. Mr win or lose
        16th May 2015, 21:38

        But without refueling Hamilton may never have been in a position to overtake Massa in that race. Problem: we can only speculate.

    9. @KeithCollantine It is really hard to say because refuelling was just one of the many variables during that era and we also do not know how drivers and teams would have acted if refuelling had not been allowed.

      I guess a few races would have been more exciting but I also remember a few races just because of refuelling. One example is the 1998 Hungarian Grand Prix where Schumacher switched to a 3-stop strategy and won the race giving fresh hope to his title bid. Another example is the 2004 French Grand Prix where Schumacher stopped 4 times and still won the race.

  32. 10 years. It took 10 years to get rid of refuelling, and now they want to introduce it again.

    Remember these refuelling years: when, on lap 2, the leader was already 4s ahead of the field, because of the difference in fuel load.
    Remember the 4 stops races when only the first 10 laps and last 10 laps were understandable.
    Remember when the action was in the pits. ONLY in the pits.

    Refuelling is the worst thing (with grooved tyres) that had been introduced in F1. No, no, no, please NO !

    1. Agree 100% with the refuelling: watch the start and tune in around the end of the race. Why bother watching what happens in between? You don’t understand it anyway.

      But why do poeple dislike grooved tyres so much? They never bothered me.

  33. Refuelling, keeping cars well apart with the promise of wheel to wheel racing in the last few laps when all have equal fuel but due to various factors this never happens. At least no DRS as no cars will be within a second of each other to use it.

    Going back to older style rules but why were those rules changed in the 1st place? They were rubbish for racing. Shame the rose tinted glasses brigade have won. People moaned more than they do now 10 years ago during this so called golden age.

    In 2017 the 1st person on the internet who starts moaning about F1 not being as good as the races of 2014 and makes the current era out to be awesome should be cross referenced with todays moaners and if one in the same should have Maldonado as their chauffeur.

    1. Michael Brown
      15th May 2015, 20:50

      I’ve noticed that the rose-tinted crowd have gotten their way lately. Remember the permanent helmet design rule? Because Senna had a recognizable helmet, no driver should be allowed to change theirs, right?

  34. Tires–Fine let people choose whatever tires Pirelli has in the warehouse. People will tend to all choose the same tires anyway, but Pirelli will be forced to build and schlep a huge additional number of tires around at great cost. I suppose they will stick Pirelli with the bill for that, not the teams. But it seems pointless.

    Moar speed–I thought we were cracking down on speed for safety?! Now, never mind, I guess. In any case, 5 seconds of lap time requires only 1. freeing up the fuel flow rate 2. stickier tires and/or 3. more freeing up more “boxes” for aero. None of that requires radical rule changes. However, I think no one really cares out in TV-Land. The casual viewer is not keeping tabs on year on year lap time changes.

    Higher revving engines and noise—If you want loud, cool-sounding engines, let everyone order an LS7 from Chevy and call it day. As a costlier option, someone can clean up a few old Cosworth DFVs. Why wring your hands about it? The F1 engine formula was never about cool noise, for a reason. But noise is easy to get and cheap. But remember we left the V8s for a reason. No manufacturers wanted them. Unless Bernie will supply some refurbed Mechachrome V-10s for everyone, I don’t think this is a good idea.

    Refueling–I can take it or leave it. I know Keith hated it and there were so many battles about that issue on this blog back in 2010. And I know that is about to start up again. Let me kick it off by saying that the hated passing in the pits was not stamped out by banning refueling. As long as cars have to stop for tires, it doesn’t matter that much really. The issue is that it changes the strategic dynamics. I find this aspect of the racing interesting, but apparently most people just want to see plain old tradin’ paint than calculator work. Also it will make the race times a bit shorter because the cars will be faster in the beginning. The downsides are the danger and the cost, which are fairly serious I think.

  35. Having ‘sprint’ races back only leads to car performance being the major performance differentiator. Like qualifying, only 15 laps long at a time.

  36. I’m sure the first person dowsed in fuel then set ablaze thanks for a botched pitstop will take comfort from the fact they are improving The Show™

  37. What a perfect example of sexism: Sir Stirling Moss telephoned Susie Wolff to tell her that while women don’t have the “mental aptitude” to be successful on track, he didn’t include her in that assessment.

    Moss is absolutely right. Most women do not have what it takes to be successful F1 drivers. But nor do most men. I doubt he calls male test drivers to tell them the same thing.

  38. Here’s a graph showing how refueling affected overtaking last time:

    http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e381/loofer/CaptureF_zpsj4wxwkhl.jpg

    1. Really?…..Really?????

      So it was all refueling and not the massive changes in Aero regs, re-introduction of slick Tyres, KERS etc.? All refueling? That graph tell us nothing but that overtaking increased in 2009 when there was a HUGE rules change of which refueling was but one part!

    2. But as the graph showed, it was already declining before the refueling era and even then there are also lot of significant rule changes besides refueling. Also after refueling banned, the graph only goes upward for 2 years before it start declining again and we already saw much less overtaking this season already.

      1. @sonicslv, yes after refueling overtaking shot up and then we got crap tyres and overtaking fell right back down again, 2 bads don’t make 1 good.

    3. @asanator Overtaking didn’t increase in 2009 after the aero changes, slicks & KERS It remained roughly the same as 2008.
      In 2010 however overtaking stats shot up massively & the only change was the banning of refueling.
      @sonicslv It was going down before refueling, However it declined far steeper when refueling came in & never really showed any signs of going back up until refueling was banned.

      Refueling may well not be the only reason for the decrease, But it certainly didn’t help & all you have to do is look at races like Hungary 1998, France 2004 & a few others to see that a reliance on fuel strategy to make up places did have a detrimental effect on the racing & the number of overtakes because during that era passing in the pits was far more prevalent than it was before & after.

      1. @stefmeister Yes and no. I agree refueling did decrease the overtakes but I don’t agree its detrimental for racing. I present Spa 1998 which have the best overtake moment or Japan 2005. Furthermore some track is always difficult to overtake (Spain, Hungary, Monaco) and refueling helps those tracks to become less boring or processional.

        1. @sonicslv Spa 1998> Maybe you mean 2000 if your thinking of the Hakkinen/Schumacher pass, Which had nothing to do with refueling BTW. Japan 2005 is the same that pass had zero to do with refueling & both likely woudl still have occurred without it.

          Furthermore some track is always difficult to overtake (Spain, Hungary, Monaco) and refueling helps those tracks to become less boring or processional.

          Interestingly these tracks prove the point that refueling had a negative effect because Pre-1994 there used to be more overtaking on those tracks than there was after refueling came in & it was those tracks above all others where the use of fuel strategy to pass cars became most prevalent.

          I used to have the exact figures for each race (And used them in past discussions about refueling), But the website I got them off now requires a subscription which I don’t have.
          http://cliptheapex.com/overtaking/

          1. @stefmeister Yes my bad, I mean Spa 2000. And that’s precisely my point BTW, refueling doesn’t negate the chance of having great passes.

            I think we actually on the same page and prefer few great passes rather than hundreds meh passes (hello fresh rubber with DRS vs old tires without one). Also 2011 has the highest overtake number but I don’t think that season is better than 2008 which have really low overtakes.

            It’s unfortunate that website need subscription, I’d love to see how each track overtakes stat.

      2. Mr win or lose
        16th May 2015, 21:50

        2 important things changed in 2010: the ban on refueling and the 3 new teams that entered the sport.
        They both contributed to the higher amount of overtaking in the races that year: 1) there were more cars to overtake and 2) drivers were encouraged to make their mandatory pitstop at the beginning of the race, so they ended up behind the slow new teams.
        Between the established teams there was no more overtaking than in the years before.

  39. Rick Lopez (@viscountviktor)
    15th May 2015, 16:30

    I’m actually quite excited about this.

  40. Why refuelling? The cars are quite efficient to run a full race without refuelling. The manufacturers put a lot of R&D to make efficient engines and it is road relevant to some extent. Add to that the cost and safety issue. I don’t know the effect of refuelling on on-track racing (didn’t watch F1 back then), but I get the feeling the races would be more strategic.
    The freedom to select tires is a good one.
    And they’re still keeping DRS…..

  41. These changes sound very promising (except refuelling), as long as everything is sustainable for the smaller teams.

    The increased speed and noise are big plusses for me. To have tyres that the drivers can push on would be nice to see.
    I’m not really bothered by what the cars look like, as long as they are fast. I think any car is beautiful if it is quick.
    Pretty surprised to see refuelling reintroduced. The jury is out on how it will effect the racing from 2017 onwards. It’s a different formula to those from 1994-2009, but my first thought when I saw the headline was “Is refuelling really necessary?” That’s something we’ll find out soon enough. If they can’t come up with a reasonable way of cutting costs to help the teams in this new formula, I think refuelling is the first thing that needs to go.

    With all these changes though, will DRS finally get the boot?

  42. Problems with F1: too expensive, DRS and Pirelli tyres

    Solution: expensive rule change, keep DRS and keep the Pirelli tyres

  43. This all seems rather artificial to me but F1 has been so boring recently so I’m looking forward to the changes

  44. Wonder what Gene Haas thinks of this, putting all this money into a 2016 car only for there to be an aero “revolution” one year later, not impressed I’m thinking

    1. No doubt he can get loads of column inches by deferring his start to 2017, and all without spending a single penny.

  45. Very confused with F1 organisers at the moment. In the same week they announced that the drivers will be asking fans what they want, they announce a raft or rule changes that the majority of fans do not like. Surely the removal of DRS and the 100kg flow limit would be a good place to start?

    It is my understanding that F1 is trying to cut costs, the introduction of refueling and a wider selection of tyre compounds at each race weekend would, I imagine, raise overall costs for the teams?

    If this is F1’s way of producing a news story then it’s worked as it has got us all talking about it. I hope these rule changes will not come into effect. F1 is going round in circles, literally.

    1. Seems to me that one of the consequences of these new rules will be the removal of the fuel flow limit, it doesn’t make sense with the refuelling, so maybe a positive thing will come of refuelling.

  46. There’s a lot of vagueness in that press release. There’s even more in there that I’m not sure will improve the show, the way those who love the sport want to see it be improved, or make the sport more sustainable. All of these proposals are fine for the wealthy mega teams, who can easily afford them.

    How are Marussia, or any other small teams that want to break into the sport, supposed to afford the extra costs of refuelling? What is this comprehensive package on cost cutting, and how is it fundamentally different to all those cost cutting proposals in the past that have failed miserably?
    How will the extra costs associated with improving lap times, refuelling, making cars look more aggressive, sound noisier and rev higher be offset by such plans?
    What is being done to attract new teams into the sport in order to have a full grid of 26 cars?
    What does a “global reflection on the race weekend format” mean?
    What will be done to ensure closer racing throughout the field, without artificial aids such as DRS and fragile tyres?

    I think there’s a lot of hot air in that press release. Some of the things proposed seem to contradict each other at first glance, and I’ve seen enough proposals in F1 to know that the reality of such ideas usually ends up being far from what was originally envisioned. Don’t believe the hype.

  47. What’s happening? First Bernie talking sense about those 18″ tuner rims, now the strategy group comes up with actual good ideas?

    1. You must have hypnotised them.

  48. Apex Assassin
    15th May 2015, 16:48

    Too bad Pirelli said it would be IMPOSSIBLE to supply the teams their choice of tyres at each venue, lol. Hembrey LIES AGAIN!!!

    I just love how poorly managed this sport is. May as well hire soap opera writers.

  49. The fact that the Strategy Group talks vaguely about its “work on cost reduction” and then the only specific changes announced will increase costs considerably, says it all for me. Utterly directionless.

    Never liked refuelling personally, I still think it killed more races than it created. I don’t seem to remember many drivers bothering to overtake when they knew they could pass them in the pits. Pitstops themselves will no longer be at all interesting to watch. 4 tyres casually changed in no rush, while they all wait for the man with the fuel hose to finish off.

    Perhaps the only thing decent outcome of this meeting is the freeing up of tyre choice, although I might be optimistic in assuming this will mean complete freedom during races. I can’t imagine they won’t impose some sort of daft restriction to make it more “exciting”.

    Also I don’t understand how they can expect to reduce weight and allow drivers to start cars without outside assistance – isn’t the very reason F1 cars don’t have starter motors is to save weight?

  50. I am not in favor of refueling on safety grounds and I also enjoy watching the sub 3 second pit stops we currently have. Refueling also introduces unnecessarily complicated strategy.

    I do like the idea of the free tyre choice and would like it if the rules were changed to allow the cars to go 5 seconds quicker (along with the wider tyres and more fuel flow). I want to see these lap records fall, but I also want the sport to stay alive and I think these rules would allow for that, as most of the changes could be adapted to on current budgets. I am not in favor reducing the minimum weight, however, as this will surely disadvantage taller/heavier drivers.

    I like the idea of making the cars quicker and these ideas for doing so are good ones (except refueling), except I do not think they should all come at once. A more gradual introduction of these rules would be more cost effective and would allow us to evaluate the affects of each aspect of the plan and decide which aspects are not needed.

    1. A more gradual introduction of these rules would be more cost effective

      I disagree. Isn’t it better to introduce a big rule change one year and keep the rules the same the following years?

  51. I have to say, this is music to my ears. Probably the best F1-news all year. I certainly welcome refueling, and higher reving engines (although not sure how they will make it happen). More of a sprint race, with better lap times, and drivers pushing much much more is exactly what I hoped for.

  52. Don’t you guys agree that the combustion engine is on its way out? In the near future F1 will have electric motors charged by fuel cells. No more sound issues.

  53. So, the changes are all for ‘The Show’. Don’t get me wrong, it seems like they’re worth a try, but does anyone else feel that it’s like giving a crack-fiend a manicure? Sure, you’ll notice the pretty nails for a few minutes, but then the much bigger fundamental problems are going to ooze through. I guess the political situation in F1 and the Concorde Agreement ensure that it can’t really fix itself though.

  54. The most interesting and baffling note contained in the boondoggle of proposals is the 5 engine allowance denial. It was rather obvious the teams not suffering reliability issues were never going to allow the 5 engines allowance to happen.

    An effort to allow teams to use a fifth engine this season was rejected following opposition from some teams on grounds of cost.

    But, the reasoning against it is mind boggling. The reason given is cost savings. What are the cost savings when teams with engine reliability issues still have to purchase/use new power plants anyway? How does that save anything?

    1. It will save money for the teams with reliable engines … Lotus and Sauber, for instance, will presumably save money by using four engines this year rather than five.

      It will cost more for McLaren, Red Bull and TR, but they can afford the cost. Also, they’re very probably going to need more than five engines this season. I imagine those teams, especially Macca and RB, are more worried about the grid penalties than the cost of additional engines.

      1. So, if the teams only use 3 or 4 engines and if the allowance were 5 engines, they would be required to buy 5 even if they don’t need or use all 5?

    2. McLaren and the Renault four should get on with using engine number 5, 6 and 7 (and take the penalty for doing so) while they’re still crap, and the penalty costs them less.
      By the time they’ve blown those engines up, they might be more competitive.

  55. Kudos to F1 for owning itself. The engineers will love the challenge of designing these cars, the drivers will love the challenge of driving them and the fans will love to see something original in action pushing the extremes. At least the “private business” is no longer deluding itself to be a “sustainable sport”, because frankly the new generation knew better than to fall for the scam that it was.

  56. Robert McKay
    15th May 2015, 17:56

    I know I argued for change yesterday but there’s not much here I can get on board with.

    Whatever the question is, I’m not sure how refuelling is ever the answer. The rest, apart from the free choice of tyres (sounds ok, let’s see how it works, bet Pirelli hate it with a vengeance), is vague to the point of pointlessness.

  57. Besides all the other obvious dross on the list (re-fuelling, a ridiculous decision), this caught my attention and signals exactly how inept F1 is at self-governance:

    More aggressive looks

    What does that even mean? How drastic will the changes have to be to achieve this? I don’t like the wing proportions of the current car, but they certainly look aggressive, and I’m not sure a wider rear wing and/or narrower front would actually change it.

    They also seem to have forgotten that people were complaining about overtaking, and have actually chosen a direction which sounds like it will make aero yet more important instead.

    Frankly, the ridiculousness of most of this has left me utterly bemused more than anything else, the same as my reaction to safety car grid restarts. I’m past the point of annoyed.

    1. Paint an angry face on it. Or maybe it means the drivers, not the cars. Who knows? Who cares any more?

    2. @matt90, This is the genius of the strategy group, by re-introducing re-fueling the cars never have to be close to each other so the aero can be maxed out and lap times will decrease as fast as the viewing audience.

  58. Well this is announcement was a surprise, it seemed that the talk beforehand was that the Strategy Group meeting would agree on nothing and then we get some big changes, the main being a return to refuelling which I didn’t realise was on the cards at all.

    To go through the intended changes

    Free choice of tyre for a race weekend
    It will be interesting to see when a driver has to decide on the tyres to use for a weekend, just before FP1 or enough time for before for Pirelli to ship the tyre to the Grand Prix?

    The change itself will probably be welcomed more by the small teams as they can afford to take a gamble as they will have less to loose, in a similar situation to changeable weather conditions now, if you are last you can take a risk on changing to dry tyres early and if it doesn’t work so what, if the leader took the same risk they could loose the victory.

    Faster cars
    As I understand it one of the reasons cars have been slowed down over the years is to do with safety, I know a lot of circuits now have acres of run off but not everywhere, so is this not a factor in slowing cars down now?

    If they are going to make the cars faster through aero changes will this not just further impede cars trying to follow closely and so make close racing less likely.

    The recently increased the car weight because the minimum weight was too low for taller drivers, as long as they are intend to solve this by doing something like having a minimum driver and seat weight then it should be okay.

    Tyres are one of the biggest, if not the biggest, performance differentiators in F1 and there are currently designed to degrade tyres because the powers that be have told Pirelli that is what they want, whether you think that is what F1 needs is a separate debate, but I think that they could find a big chunk of that 5-6 seconds a lap just through the tyres if it was decided that ultimate performance was what was wanted.

    Higher revving engines and increased noise
    I only watch F1 on TV and have not been to a race so I understand that the thoughts of people who attend Grand Prix may be very different with regards to the noise, but for me the sound of the new engines is not an issue, at first the it was a bit odd as you heard different things such as tyre squeal but the broadcasters have adjusted the volumes and I just don’t think about it now when watching F1.

    For me the new engines are an example of how F1 is so poor at promoting itself, when they were introduced last year they were much more efficient and technically impressive than the old engines but all we got from the top people in the sport was whining and moaning about how they weren’t as loud, when they should have been talking about all the good things about the new engines.

    More aggressive looks.
    How do you do that? We have all seen the problems with the rule changes to the nose of the car in recent years, teams will go with the design which they think is fastest no matter how ugly the car turns out and trying to set the regulations so the cars look good without actually making each team run a certain design and so turning F1 into a spec formula, will be extremely difficult.

    Reintroduction of refuelling.
    This is the biggest surprise and the change that will get the most headlines. I didn’t think there was any real demand for refuelling to return so it was quite a shock to me when I read the news.

    It is obviously a matter of opinion but I can’t see how banning refuelling in 2010 has negatively impacted the racing or the sport as a whole and I think any changes the ban has brought have been positive so I see no reason for refuelling to return.

    I have read that one of the reasons for the ban on refuelling was for cost saving, well problems with costs haven’t gone away, in fact they are an even bigger issue now, so have they decided that refuelling will in fact not be more expensive, and have the solved the safety problems with refuelling?

    Besides, if they are intending to keep a maximum race fuel allowance is there really any need to bring back refuelling anyway, what difference will it make?

    One of the examples I use against refuelling is that it can make strategies less flexible, currently if a driver has used both types of tyre you don’t know if he will stop again or try to make his tyres last, but if you know that he doesn’t have the fuel to get to the finish then then you definitely know he has to stop again.

    These changes seem to be aimed at “improving the show” but I really don’t see how they will make a significant positive impact in that respect.

    The other big problem facing F1 is costs and the unfair distribution of income, and the changes don’t address these issues and are in fact more likely to lead to an increase in costs.

    When I look at the way F1 is heading I worry for the long term future of the sport, and I could easily foresee a time when F1 ceases to be or the sport changes so much that I simply decide not to follow it anymore.

  59. HamiltonNumber1
    15th May 2015, 18:26

    Haha and they think now is boring?. Well one thing for sure we will be even longer into Hamilton dominance. Hamilton and refuelling is literally and unbeatable combo.

  60. I actually like what proposed here, but if course it depends on how it implemented.

    Free choice of the two dry tyre compounds (out of four) that each team can use during the race weekend

    The prospect of some teams that make the car that optimized for more mechanical grip is really excited me. Imagine cars by James Allison or Sergio Perez can choose softer compound for each race. Of course the biggest problem is logistics as to not increase the cost too much and I think each team should nominate their chosen tires few weeks before the event just like what Pirelli does now.

    Faster cars: five to six seconds drop in lap times through aerodynamic rules evolution, wider tyres and reduction of car weight

    Faster cars is always nice, and 5 to 6 seconds? Hell yes. We improved safety a lot and with current cars is 3s slower than 2004, so its only increased by 2s which I think our current safety standard is still very adequate for those speeds.

    Reintroduction of refuelling (maintaining a maximum race fuel allowance)

    I also like this. The second part is important thing, the total fuel should still be limited at 100kg. Also my understanding is refueling is still optional (like it was in 1994-2009) and if you want to run big tank and no refuel for faster pit stop you could. The biggest problem here is increased cost but I propose FIA or FOM should subsidize the rig and transportation cost. Or make they can only use FIA supplied rig.

    Higher revving engines and increased noise

    This is the only thing I don’t like. We have higher limit rpm since last season but no one uses it because it wasn’t needed. Also personally I think noise is something to get used to. Just like lower wider rear wing and narrower front wing. I like all parts of my F1 cars is there for winning races, if the sound must be loud or silent, so be it.

    More aggressive looks

    Same as above, I prefer if they are there to win the races (or safety) instead for just looking good or right.

    One other thing that I would love to see is the un ban of moving aero device. Set some restriction and the ability for FIA to ban some implementation if it proved unsafe but moving aero is something that can be done cheaper than hiring Newey and finding that 1mm slot or winglet place to give you extra few thousand of a second. Also imagine if the cars has secondary aero mode that suited more to following car behind so they can stick around instead of losing few tenths behind dirty air. …I must admit I really like Future GPX Cyber Formula :)

    1. There will be no subsidy, FOM pay for NOTHING it’s all paid for by the teams, FOM take all costs off the top before distributing what’s left.

  61. Interesting. I’ve missed refuelling, so I’m happy to see it back (or more accurately, I’ve never liked tyre-based strategy.)

    Higher revving engines is nice too, although the return of refuelling pleases me enough that I no longer care what the cars sound like.

    1. That’s illogical, all refueling does is replace the tyre based strategy you don’t like.

  62. We’re all grown up enough to understand what this list represents are a bunch of bargaining chips. I never understand how long time fans cannot get this simple fact. Refueling will not be coming back, it’s on that list for political purposes and will be sacrificed as such at some point.

    1. I do hope you are right.

  63. why… WHY…. WWWHHHHYYYYYYYYY?????

  64. They are making me hate what used to be my favourite sport…

  65. I was thinking about DRS lately and here is my quick suggestion: There is a way how to make DRS non-artificial -> 100 seconds per weekend and it is up to driver – use it in Qualy or 50/50 or save it to the last 5 laps for example…

    1. I think an amount of time would be difficult to police.
      Make it 100 clicks per weekend.

  66. Michael Brown
    15th May 2015, 20:45

    2010 had more overtaking on track than any year with refueling, and it had the most championship contenders go into the final race in F1 history.

    If anything, they should try to bring those rules back.

    Refueling does not make for exciting racing in F1.

    1. Mr win or lose
      16th May 2015, 11:35

      If we go back to the 2010 F1 most people will complain about how boring it is. I know the tyre-saving issue can be annoying, but the races nowadays are generally exciting. I really prefer the multiple tyre stops over the first-lap pitstops in 2010.

  67. What I love most about bringing back refueling is the opportunity to see how good each driver is again. I have been watching races from 2000 and 2007 recently and you can see how good drivers like Schumacher, Hakkinen and Hamilton really were. They set some amazing lap times before having to coming into the pits, so I think it brings back the Hero element of these drivers.

    1. @giggsy11 But how does that make the racing better?

      Seeing those drivers set fast lap times may be interesting & all but it came at the expense of the racing & as all the stats show at the expense of overtaking.

      Surely seeing the closer, more competitive racing & more overtaking than we have without refueling is far better than those horribly boring strategy races where drivers did 1-2 fast laps before coming in to sit stationary in the pits for 10 seconds as the mechanics prayed there was no fire.

      For the sake of the racing & especially the overtaking, Refueling should stay banned. I’ve certainly got no interest in going back to those horribly boring, processional strategy races that had very little racing & even less overtaking.

    2. Why not just watch qualifying, if fastest laps is all you are interested in,@giggsy11 .

    3. Fully electric with optimal power 100% of the race would also create Heros. Imagine if every lap was a qualifying lap. I never let an entertainment function of my life get to me, but this just reeks of BIG OIL. What bemoans me is that this conversation further pushes out the first fully electric F1 races – and make no mistake i do not mean formula electric, I mean when electric performance makes even the fastest gas cars look slow. There is no argument of a fully electric f1 happening, it’s not if, it’s when, it saddens me that this new conversation pushes that out.

  68. The only thing here that makes a lot of sense is not modifying the engine regulations greatly. Some tire changes sound OK. Bringing back refueling will certainly come to tears.

    The rest of these massive changes will cost all teams a fortune and probably drive some more teams from the sport. This will include costs for all new aero, chassis, suspension, wheels, tires and many other items, some of which that won’t become even become apparent until actual design and implementation begins. There is very little time to put all this in place and no budget for it at this moment either. Stability and gradual change makes infinitely more sense to improve the sport and keep current teams engaged as well as attract new teams. Implementing all these changes by 2017 is a recipe for disaster.

    I’ve been a fan of F1 since 1965 and will continue to be. Some have said they will quit watching if this happens or if it doesn’t happen. There have been many changes in F1 throughout its history and it will likely survive whatever takes place in 2017.

    I would much rather view a racing spectacle on the track than a debacle in the boardroom. Meanwhile I’m just another fan and observer waiting to see what happens next in our beloved sport.

    1. The teams wont even have the current rules sorted before having another fiasco implemented.

  69. “We want to cut costs.”

    “We’ll reintroduce refueling.”

    …what are they smoking?

  70. Anybody have ANY figures on insurance costs increases associated with refueling?
    IIRC that along with logistics were two biggest savings when they were dropped.

    Want to make the series more exciting? Make the TEAMS more prone to “safe” errors and do not impose insurmountable penalties for such errors, be it race-ending or season-ending.

    One example Red Bull. So, they got some things wrong, should they write their season off by the fifth race? that does not sound very sportsmanlike. That puts them out of contest way too early to have an entertaining season. The other way around is also detrimental to the ‘show’. Mercedes have an early advantage, should they use that advantage to win 95% of the races during 3 consecutive years?

    The rules we have provoke these disparities.

    I say yes to teams choosing their tires, as long as it introduces new variables to the sport.
    With the abolition of gravel traps, cars are no longer beached so mistakes go unpunished, and everyone from Mercedes to Manor abuse these lenient spaces needed for safe racing, so why not introduce rev limiting penalties for cars that put 4 wheels off-track, It’s well within the limits of current technology. Sorry Felipe, but we’ve been watching you, and we don’t want to disqualify you, we just want you to stop playing safe and risk your position, not your health.
    Mandatory pits stops or tyre choice are ridiculous, get rid of them.
    Drivers are now coasting and cars are easy to drive. Ban power-assisted steering then.
    With the super wide tarmac we now have, why not make starts 3-wide? A second or two after the lights go off we have 4 or 5 cars abreast.
    Reduce the number of mechanics allowed on pitstops. If pitlane drives go up from 23 to 40 seconds perhaps it would be more difficult to time the undercut and the clean air laps. Wouldn’t that force drivers to pass on track instead of waiting for the number crunchers to coach them to a certain delta? I’m up for more “Hammer time” and not just the couple of laps immediately after Vettel has come to the pits.

    Of course the Strategy Group can make F1 more competitive, more sport, less expensive, less gimicky but not under the current motivations.

  71. This is very good news!

  72. Some good things. It’s right the cars should be faster. They’ve spent years slowing them down because of ‘safety’ and now we have tracks with car park run offs, the cars can afford to speed up. As for Refuelling, it isn’t needed in a 90 minute race and just confuses people.

  73. “This constructive meeting between the FIA, FOM and the Teams has allowed paving the way for the future of the championship,”

    I wonder how often they tell themselves that… Can’t believe how disappointed I am with this news.

  74. So elated to hear refueling being brought back. Not sure why so many on here are against it.

    As far as I know, the refueling era in the mid-2000s saw fewer overtakings than now due to a multitude of other factors – not just the existence of refueling itself. Lack of DRS/KERS, super durable tyres and a high aerodynamic footprint all contributed to making overtaking difficult in that period. As such, I am positive that if refueling is bought back in 2 seasons’ time, we won’t see a drastic reduction in overtakings per race, and we may even see an increase in that respect!

  75. Let’s face it no matter what they do us diehards will watch it. The real problem is the loss of tradition by cutting the classic venues and moving to nations of questionable character due to money. Yes money is important but Bernie has to move on now so someone new can implement the changes agreed. The money should be more evenly distributed so smaller teams can compete. Cost caps simply won’t work as an engine manufacturer who owns a team, like Mercedes for example, will always have an advantage over a customer team. What we really need is close racing and more rivalries and personalities. Mark Webber was right in that all the driver worry about is fuel and protecting their tyres. Let them go flat out! If Red Bull and to a far lesser extent Ferrari can catch Mercedes then we would be saying how great F1 is.

  76. pxcmerc (@)
    16th May 2015, 6:09

    cars will be 5 seconds faster?

    says who? the guys trying to go faster or the ones building the maze?

  77. Mr win or lose
    16th May 2015, 11:27

    I hope they will increase the ground effect.

  78. Formula one just doesnt seem like “Formula One” anymore – it is not just the lack of speed, it is the type of powerplant and the sound it makes, the stupid need to try to make the series “road car relevant”, the pretentious nature of the sport that doesnt sit well in 2015, the lack of character in the drivers. the stupid hard to follow rules for casual viewers, gimmicks like sparks and drs, rubbish sterile tracks designed by a monopoly….. the only saving grace for F1 at the moment is that its “Formula” is stil “1” – in that fact that the cars are still the fastest over a lap on most race tracks. But with Indycar and LMP1 not much slower, and in the case of indycar offering better racing, and in the case of LMP1 taking over from F1 as the pinnacle of motorsport technology, it is definitely time for F1 to become F1 again, but with the power structure of the sport, and those ahead never willing to give up an advantage, i do not see this series getting drastically better in the near future. i hope i am proven wrong. So many race series now have better tracks then F1 and better sound and looks — aural and visual sensation was a huge think that made F1 “F1” – it used to be a spectacle! now it is just a shadow of its former self. F1 at its best was always when it had no road car relevance.
    A lot of people on this “f1” website are defending the current f1 by saying there has been good races, yeh well, most race series in the world have better races, and every week, not on the odd race.

  79. Alex McFarlane
    17th May 2015, 10:45

    It’s interesting that even with all the money spent in Formula 1, and all the technical developments, it isn’t all that good as a spectacle.

    I’ve watched all the Indycar races from Long Beach on, and to be honest, for pure racing it trounces F1 at the moment. The Chevy cars are one of the best looking single seaters out there at the moment, clean lines and a nice mix of retro and modern looking features, all at a fraction of the cost of F1.

    All Indycar needs is a return to tracks like Watkins Glen and Road America instead of some of the more inane street circuits to be really great. Would love to see also how those cars perform at an F1 circuit, just to see how they compare.

  80. I wonder if we’re reaching a point where fastest lap times are converging between each series? The “lesser” ones (GP2, LMP1, Indy, etc) are catching up to F1 but F1 can’t really (be allowed to?) go significantly faster due to safety issues arising from the tracks.
    Not to mention LMP1 teams sound like they manage their season on 1/3 of a top F1 teams budget AND do more testing AND are allowed more technical freedom.
    This isn’t a criticism of Formula 1, just an observation. I still love it.

Leave a Reply

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

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.
If the person you're replying to is a registered user you can notify them of your reply using '@username'.