Le Grand Retour
Paul Ricard 2018
French Grand Prix
A fan’s view on why F1 2010 wasn’t as great as everyone makes out
A fan’s view on why F1 2010 wasn’t as great as everyone makes out
Posted By: James Allen  |  19 Dec 2010   |  10:20 am GMT  |  195 comments

Fantastic response to the season review video posted yesterday, which reminded us all of what a great sport this is and what drama we had in 2010.

But not everyone thought 2010 was a ‘vintage’ year for F1. Long time reader and poster Paul Lucas, who posts here under the name FlukieLucas, sent in an interesting analysis of why he thought that the rule changes for 2010 made F1 into “Proforma” racing – with the absence of refuelling strategy.

He argues that it was only the “peripherals” such as weather, safety cars, penalties etc, which made the races entertaining. This was true even of races like Abu Dhabi where the first lap safety car set in train the Rosberg/Petrov strategy which led to Alonso losing the championship.

I think safety cars, while undoubtedly artificial, are not “peripheral”. They are now part of the fabric of F1 – how else can you keep the race going after a crash like the one on the first lap in Abu Dhabi? But overall I think he has a point and as a discussion starter I felt it worth sharing with everyone. It’s been edited down slightly.

Tomorrow I’ll explain why 2011 will be a completely different story.

FlukieLucas writes: Let met tell you exactly why I found F1 2010 a *passion killer*

People used to tell me when they saw an F1 race the only thing they observed was cars in a procession. I understood their complaint. I told them that, although there appears to be little unfolding, they were racing according to a strategy and that the gaps between cars each lap mattered because you didn’t know about the fuel strategy of the cars in front and behind. There were other variables like weather, driver error, mechanical/pitstop issues. But beyond those peripherals, it was as a base spectacle a game of high speed chess.

Bahrain showed the risks of the refuelling ban (Darren Heath)

The race was a gradual unfolding and unveiling of the ultimate result. Sport being an entertainment industry, that’s roughly what you want to keep people interested – some intruige, something uncertain, and a result.

It’s been disappointing then, that the rule changes churned out in 2010 have nearly defeated the entertainment value such that when you now observe cars processionally circulating there is actually little beyond that. F1 has manifested it’s own caricature.

Uniform strategy increases predictability
*Removing refuelling during race pitstops was a rule change for 2010. The measure intended to save the teams 300,000 EUROs per year in logistical costs.

Because refueling is now prohibited during the race, the only thing that the team needs to see to in-race is a change of tyres. The current rules require the use of two tyre compounds during a race, so the teams are mandated to pit their cars at least once. And once is almost always all there is. Because one set of harder compound tyres suffices for the entire race distance, as soon as the soft tyres which the cars start on are past their useful life the only sensible thing for all the teams to do is to pit the cars and switch them on to the “hards”.

And it inevitably occurs on roughly the same lap because once on the fresher tyres (bearing in mind all cars carry roughly the same fuel load throughout the race) they naturally lap quicker. So we have the inevitable pattern throughout all the races this year of one stop for tyres, occurring on roughly the same lap, and for the same amount of time 3-4 seconds. This contrasts steeply to the days of fuel strategy where not only are there varying strategies, different cars who are racing one another pitting on different laps, but a multitude of unknowns instead of a uniform window to pit for tyres like today.

The effect of this has been to universally standardise pitstop strategy. There’s no room for movement unless you want to play things different and lose out, as Button did in Japan and as Webber suffered in Canada. There was no mystery to the destiny of those “rebel” strategies.

With uniform strategy, I question the grounds for drivers giving it their all:
• With a heavier car there is greater advantage with regard to tyre care in contrast to pushing lap after lap – producing “qualifying laps” as some would term them. If you’re the car behind you tend to slide in the turbulent “disturbing” air of the car in front, so there’s no incentive to attack. In fact, as I see it, there’s every incentive to take things easy. You will note if you watch the Singapore race Sebastian Vettel coming over the radio saying “I am not pushing”. To illustrate my point about the effect of “uniform strategy” I would point out that in that particular race, Vettel who qualified 2nd sat behind polesitter Alonso for the entire 2 hour race duration, pitted on the same lap, and finished second. Without forcing Alonso into a mistake there was no means of racing him for the lead besides an outrageous overtaking attempt.
• Because race strategy is now, I would argue, ” uniform”, there is a sense that there is no longer that gradual unfolding or unveiling of the race’s ultimate result. There’s instead a proforma feel to it. The certainty is that you will finish where you qualify, so long as neither you nor the team make a blunder of some sort relative to the other cars and drivers.

The peripherals alone don’t make for interesting races
In fact, I would argue the peripherals have been the only true variable in all races this year. What I mean by peripherals are the incidental things that occur in a race:
1. Safety cars.
2. Accidents.
3. Weather.
4. Penalties.
5. Mechanical issues.

Because these things are incidental, I argue they cannot be the basis relied upon for an interesting race. It seems to me that the races lacking the peripherals, have all been uninteresting this season (eg Bahrain). Whereas these incidental matters can add to the interest of a race which already has a basis for interest on the weight of the “natural” racing, they are alone a poor foundation for the sport to produce flourishing entertainment for both casual and longtime fans alike.

Close action in Malaysia (Darren Heath)

Time gaps to competitors are meaningless without fuel strategy
With the advent of uniform strategy, it seems to me as though the time gap between two drivers becomes nearly meaningless. One can grant that if you are racing another car on fuel strategy, say you are pitting two laps before the car behind, then the time gap to the car behind becomes meaningful. I used to estimate that for each lap a car/driver could run longer before their pitstop (relative to the other guy’s earlier pitstop) they would gain 1.5 seconds per lap.
But what reason is there to create such a gap to the car behind if pit strategy is uniform? I would argue that tyre care wins you a greater advantage in the race than increasing the gap to the car behind (or else maintaining a close distance to the car in front).

In-laps, out-laps, and hot-laps are a lost art of racing this year
One of the single most appreciative opportunistic aspects of fuel-stop racing for me was when a driver and his team could “leap frog” the car in front via their in-lap or out-lap (the lap at which they were pitting or their first lap out of the pits). If a passing opportunity on the track didn’t present itself during a given stint in the race, the driver could look to utilise the moment in which the car in front they were racing wasn’t immediately ahead of them on the track but in the pits or on their own out-lap.

So, if your first fuel stint in the race is 23 laps as opposed to the guy ahead whose is 22, you might utilise that single lap with “clear air” to put in your best lap of the race, pushing your car to it’s very limits. If successful, the pace advantage from the extra lap, coupled with the fact that the guy formerly ahead is heavy on fuel, will be enough to “leap frog” him when you exit from the pitlane a lap later. This became known as a driver skill to be able to find the time when they needed to turn it on.

But is this limited to a driver having more laps of fuel than the car ahead? Not at all.

In contrast, the benefit of the fresher tyres and the first-lap performance posits an advantage that can also be utilised against the driver ahead who (although light on fuel) has older worn tyres. Michael Schumacher performed a pass on Kimi Raikkonen for 2nd place at the 2006 British Grand Prix by doing as much. Similarly, Schumacher was also able to maintain a gap to Mika Hakkinen at the 2001 Spanish Grand Prix by doing the exact same thing after the first round of pitstops.

Yet with uniform strategy, uniform fuel-loads (roughly), the opportunity for “hotlaps” is almost annihilated under today’s regulations. The only instance I can recall of a in-lap making a difference to a race result in 2010 was Alonso’s at Monza to leap-frog Jenson Button, though it must be said this was as much down to a faster tyre stop as it was Alonso’s in-lap. It’s frustrating as a viewer, to observe that the driver is simply unable to make a difference under these regulations.

I would argue that, for credibility, top level of motorracing demands two things: 1) the driver finding the limits of his car and finding the grip as it changes throughout the race, 2) the opportunity for drivers and teams to pass where on-track passing opportunities are limited. I would argue that the sport has changed in 2010 to fundamentally erode and these two essential tenets.

Let us know your point of view.

Featured News
Editor's Picks
Share This:
Posted by:

Add comment

E-mail is already registered on the site. Please use the Login form or enter another.

You entered an incorrect username or password

Sorry that something went wrong, repeat again!

It is the best time to make a few plans for the future and it’s time to be happy. I have read this post and if I could I wish to counsel you few interesting things or suggestions. Perhaps you can write next articles regarding this article. I desire to learn more issues about it!


I loved the refueling ban & actually think it improved the racing rather than hurt it.

While refueling was good for strategy, it wasn’t good for racing as it put strategy over the racing & often saw the races decided by the strategy guys running the race simulations in the pit lane on computers.

I actually think that killed some races which would have been better without refueling.

Take the 2004 French Gp, Schumacher ran a 4-stop strategy & while it was a good strategy, Having the 2 cars fighting for the win 10+ seconds apart running the strategies wasn’t exciting. I’d have rather seen them right together all race with the 2nd place car having to try & find a way past on the track.

The only problem with the rules this year regarding pit-stops was how limited the tyre regulations were & unfortunately this isn’t changing for 2011.

Making the top 10 start on the tyres they qualified on didnt work because there was a faster tyre which 99% of the time everyone in the top 10 ran.

However my biggest problem is the mandatory tyre stop. It created the ‘safe’ strategy of start on soft’s, pit early which proberly 90%+ of the field took each race.

With the banning of refueling they should have opened up tyre strategy like what we had prior to refueling coming back in 1994.

Pre-94 teams had 4-5 tyre compounds avaliable & could run whatever tyre they wanted, whenever they wanted to during the races.

They could start on the softer compounds & do 1 or 2 tyre stops, Start on soft’s & switch to medium/hard’s on a 1-stop or they could pick the hardest & run without stopping.

This produced some brillinat & very unpredictable races Pre-94. Such as the 1990 French Gp where Ival Capelli didn’t stop at all while others did 1 or 2 tyre stops & he came within a few laps of winning untill Prost on fresher tyres managed to get him with about 3 laps left.

If they opened up the tyre regulations to something like we had Pre-94 I guarantee we would see better, less predictable races with more varied tyre strategies between each team/driver.

The tyre strategy we had Pre-94 was always more intresting, less predictable & produced better racing compared to the refueling strategy we had Post-94.


Couldn’t agree more with FlukieLucas. It annoyed me so much, that I’ve pretty much repressed these thoughts by now, but seeing this has brought them all back.

Melbourne was the big moment for me when Hamilton and Webber went onto contrary strategies and after catching 2 secs per lap, couldn’t even get close enough to attempt an overtake. The tyres are partially to blame but also the aero changes, also the heavier cars and similar strategies. Combination of all factors really.. I don’t want to get into another big post listing them, I’ve just come to accept F1 for what it is. One step foward, two steps back in terms of regulations. Seasons like 2005 and 2006 are gone. Go back and watch a DRY 2006 Melbourne race, and compare it to the 2010 wet race in terms of overtaking and change of positions. To sum it up basically you used to watch the race until the second round of stops and then sort of wait for the race to end, but that period began at half race or even earlier sometimes in 2010. Unless there were outside factors influencing it.

I still enjoyed the season but not from a racing standpoint, but more from a suspenseful who is going to win standpoint like it was a dramatic movie. The sporting aspect was a big letdown but oh well.

FlukieLucas summed it up much better then I could have.



I dont know why you have spent so much time and energy on this topic when it is clear that the 2010 season is down to the individuals perception and interpretation. Take any topic in the world and you will find people percieve it differently. Our outer world is a reflection of our inner world. For those who feel that this season was not that good, then i wouldnt be suprised if you found everything in your lives to be ‘not that great’. End of story.


I haven’t. I was just giving a fan a voice. He had a different point of view – one I don’t particularly agree with, but interesting nevertheless. You’ll find that most F1 sites lecture to their readers from the hight of their great wisdom. We were given two ears and one mouth and should use them in those proportions. I like to reflect different voices here


Well said.

It is the off season and the topic certainly brought up an interesting discussion – 188 comments so far and counting.


BTW James – off topic

I’m going to the Indy500 for the first time in 2011 and I’d love to see a current F1 car go round the speedway circuit at full throttle.

Do you think you could persuade the RedBull team to put on a special show and do this for the Indy500 100th anniversary?


Good article with some good points, definitely thought-provoking. Although there are some nuances to what is said (for example in the refuelling days you still had drivers pitting in the same window more often than not except this occured more often), I think an important reason is that despite most races (particularly from Monza onwards) being fairly soporific, they were crucial in helping determine the outcome of the championship battle. I think most fans don’t mind some given races being a bit dull provided the overall story of the championship is sufficiently exciting and compelling – as 2010 definitely was. By contrast, in 2004 there were some pretty good races but they made very little impact to the top of the championship standings so the consensus probably doesn’t look back on 2004 as a really good season for racing as a whole.

Another reason 2010 is being seen as positively was perhaps the feel-good feeling generated by the relative lack of politics in the sport this year. The 2006-8 championships were all as intense and compelling (and in some cases more so) as this year’s but the persistently controversial decisions including those on mass dampers, Alonso’s Monza 2006 penalty, the ruling on McLaren over the 780-page dossier in 2007, plus the penalties on Lewis Hamilton at Spa and Fuji in 2008 left a bitter taste in the mouth to many fans. In some of these cases, the FiA may indeed have strong grounds to argue their decisions were necessary; however, that feeling of unnecessary or confusing interference (and in some cases injustice) didn’t go away and this is what rankled (different fans may have agreed – as indeed I did – with the FiA on some the above points but I suspect very few of us could see the logic – and I couldn’t – in all or even the majority of the above decisions).

Again one could argue there were nuances to the above argument but I feel it largely holds. For example, the questions over the legality of the RB6 were kept remarkably away from the foreground of the battle, while the Ferrari team orders controversy was always a loophole of an awkward rule which was frustrating more than anything else.


Whenever they change the name to World Team Championship I will agree.1988 was not boring,you were still watching the best drivers on Earth.They almost never pitted in 1988,reduced boost meant lower temps on the rears,it was a question of not using up the fronts.Remember Hungary ’88?One of the best battles ever in F1,no pit stops at all,just superb driving.Drivers left to there own racing,no crutch available,other than one pit stop(or two at most),the teams only preparing the machines and letting the driver concentrate without constantly “encouraging” or “pestering” on the radio-just lap times,safety issues and pit schedule.I will not apologize for an active imagination,can only hope others can develop their brain.I do not need artificial entertainment,I NEED Formula One.


I read on the BBC site that numerous changes are being made to the Formula for 2013. They are not changing the tyres because they want “cornering speeds remain high”.

All the time F1 keeps high cornering speeds, the cars will have problems overtaking.


Why doesn’t the FIA allow refueling but limit the maximum amount of fuel that can be distributed during a race and allow teams to decide on the size of the fuel tank in their car?

That way a team can decide on a wide number of different strategies and which way they want to develop their car.

For example design a car with a fuel tank large enough to fuel the car for the entire race. Or have a car with a smaller tank that is lighter and can run faster but has to stop more frequently. The smaller tank would also allow for better weight distribution for KERS and would also act as an encentive for engine manufacturers to design more fuel efficient engines.

Instead the FIA seem obsessed with imposing icreasingly artificial rules to try an reach the same goal.


Firstly, apologies if this has been covered, I couldn’t read all the comments.

Secondly, hello. This is my first reply here. 🙂


Odd thinking in that analysis. To claim this season was only exciting because of peripheral events, then cite a peripheral procedure as the reason for past excitement is kinda weird to me. Fuel stops are peripheral in themselves. They were added to even out fuel weight when Ferrari insisted in running thirsty V12 when V10 and V8 were leaving them behind. (Of course soon after that, Ferrari went V10 anyway)

IIRC, F1’s most recent boring period was when Ferrari and Schumacher were dominating, with fuel stops… So, how does matey’s theory work there? Only MS and Ferrari fans enjoyed that, and I know plenty who eventually got bored of such domination.

F1 *is* boring at times. Well, it is boring if you also believe a football match score of 0-0 is also intrinsically boring. F1 can be boring because it is not a spec series and the people who make and drive the cars are so damned good at it.

These new rules will make F1 for exciting for those with a WWE mentality. Flappy wings or and push to pass ideas are horribly artificial. They should have no place in F1. F1 is about, or should be about the fastest car and the fastest man with that car, and yes, it will often be boring. That’s kind of the whole point of F1. If that’s not what people want, then watch NASCAR, IRL, etc. Watch a driver orientated spec series. NOT F1.

Ultimately, the question to fans is this: Why should the fastest car with the fastest driver not be on pole and then drive off in to the sunset? Why should a slower car and driver be artificially bunny hopped past a faster car and driver? If a team builds the best car, then it wins. That, ladies and gentlemen, is F1.

If Mr Fast Package messes up and gets behind a slower car and cant over take, like Alonso behind Petrov, then that’s part of it too. Funny how Petrov keeping Alonso at bay is a problem when Senna keeping Mansel at bay in Monaco is somehow “genius” driving, and exciting. Hmm, limited memory or double standards?

I’ve been reading this blog since it started, so obviously I value the articles and the community who reply, but I am surprised, no shocked, that both JA and his readers have fallen for such a misunderstanding of the sport. I am dismayed that the sport it’s self is falling in to the trap of the quick fix and is knee-jerking in to artificiality.

Please don’t accept an X-Factor / WWE type F1, which is what we are heading too. Please accept a 0-0 draw!!!!!


The conclusion is good, but the article is somehow one-sided. Everything is blamed on the lack of refueling. But that is not a valid argument.

Tires, aerodynamics and circuits are also factors.

Look at 2009 – was it more exciting with refuleing? The answer is NO.

Before the season some people ciriticized the ban of refueling while others said that it will be good. There is other people who during the season said that ban of refueling did not make things more interesting but that going back to refueling will not change things dramaticaly. I tend to agree with this last opinion.

I think that all depends how you make things happen. You need to make it work. F-1 just did not maximise the opportunities. I am surprised that so many chances and opportunities were wasted.

Some may think that the WTCC championship this year lacked credibility (for various reasons), but there were a lot of exciting races. It was more interesting than F-1. In the end the WTCC championship battle turned out not so exciting but a lot of races were good. I also followed some of the bike championships (not Moto GP) and some of them were also more exciting than F-1.

I also think that the tires ruined a lot this year. Before the season we were promised to have unpredictability and a lot of people were so hopeful. Almost nothing of it did come true.

I hope that 2011 will be better but a lot depends on the teams. No one can blame only the FIA because teams also can do a lot to improve the show.

All in all I would like to thank the author for this article and James for publishing it. Although I do not agree with everything it shows that some people can look at things differently and realisticaly.


Brilliantly said. let’s face it everyone…if Red Bull build the best car again in 2011, the season will run ‘the same’ as there’s no device that they won’t have, so the others, with their similar devices will be negated by the simple fact that there’s no strategey allowed now to get a slower car cunningly past a faster one. The drivers go into each practice and race with a computer prediction of where they will end up…what motivation is that every weekend, unless it rains?


I find myself in complete agreement with FlukieLucas. The excitement of five drivers entering the championship run-in more than piqued my passion for F1 this season, but looking at the racing itself I found myself emitting jaw-cracking yawns more often than any season I can remember. Had it not been for the fragility of the RB6 in the early stages, we would have been watching a 2002 or 2004 style annihilation of the opposition and there would have been very little talk of a ‘vintage’ season. I stand by my assertion, made following the regulation change banning in-race refuelling, that it would neuter the teams strategically; I remain convinced that in Abu Dhabi for example, Ferrari would have been able to deal with Petrov and Rosberg easily had there been refuelling strategies in play, and effectively lead to processional races. Sadly I was right.

There are many reasons to be optimistic about the future of F1, but I am under no illusions that 2010 was a vintage season, or that, unless the problems that the refuelling ban has caused are dealt with, there will be no return to the sort of genuine sporting contest which we have seen in the past. Hopefully marginal compounds from Pirelli will improve things next season, and then looking forward the move towards freeing engine development combined with a fuel limit, will see differing strategies return to the sport.


F1 has not manifested it’s own caricature, it has returned to real racing.

Pitstop strategies are ok if you like the guys on the pitwall dictating how the races are run especially when you have brains like Ross Brawn making it look easy,but i would rather see the drivers on the track win the race.

I for one am glad refueling is banned!


The problem is fundamentally I disagree with FlukieLucas when he says refuelling strategy was interesting. It wasn’t.

“In-laps, out-laps, and hot-laps are a lost art of racing this year” – man I don’t care about that stuff. The only reason why in and out laps were so important under refuelling was because overtaking was far too difficult. Make it so that overtaking is possible and f1 will be great. Imagine how fantastic Abu Dhabi would have been if Alonso had been able to barge his way past Petrov and Rosberg with Webber tracking him every step of the way.


to begine with i think it was a good year, mainly due to changable weather and drivers making silly mistakes.

as for the cars needing more trye grip and less areo, answer me this why do we see more overtaking in the wet when tyre grip is alot less and areo similar?

i do agee that the dirty air issue is a problem, bring back proper ground effect and less efficient wings, that should help.

as for the idea of reducing the engine size how about giving the teams a set amount of fuel for the weekend and let them decide which route to go down.

to many rules will not help, let the clever teams use thier brains in car design, F1 is suposed to be the pinicle of mototrsport, we already have plenty of spec series.


I agree with the original article. Imho this season sucked.

And the rule changes for next season do not hold much hope either. (Although at least the new engine specs gave me a laugh in that 3-Car Monte and I agree on something after all!)

F1 is as much an engineering competition as a driving one and the rules need to be loosened for *all aspects of the cars so that they don’t *all look the same and perform the same and sound the same. Lets get some variation!

ANd lets get a real engine! This spec little girlie-engine is pathetic!


I have been following F1 since the Sixties and have been to Silverstone and Brands hatch GP’s in the Seventies and then started again at Silverstone in the late 90’s early 00’s. I regularly look forward to watching on TV but nearly always end up disappointed with the quality of the racing and now prefer to watch the Moto GP.

I agree that it is now the peripherals which tend to make a race more exciting but the use of refueling and tyre selection plus movable wings are contrived rules which are not working.

F1 needs overtaking or the threat of overtaking to make exciting racing.

I recall racing back in the eighties when cars were racing side by side for corner after corner using the whole width of the track (I think it was the French grand prix that I remember in particular where they were banging wheels for several laps)

Exciting racing was achievable in the past with high power (turbos) and high downforce (ground effect with skirts) so why not now?

I accept that brakes are now much improved with much reduced braking distances.

However, I believe the problem now is not with power or downforce or brakes but is with the effective (usable) width of the track that is available. It is now so narrow that there are few opportunities to overtake.

They used to use all of the width of the track for racing; many of the tracks were quite narrow but still allowed overtaking.

Nowadays, even on purpose built tracks with wide sweeping curves, the usable width of track is just a narrow racing line where the grip is very high as it becomes “rubbered in”. The remainder of the track has “marbles”, tyre debris etc., provides very little grip and is therefore useless for overtaking.

I believe the tyre envelope and material needs to be changed so that they get back to a situation where the change in grip levels across the width of the track is much less pronounced (ie less sticky rubber on the racing line and much less debris off it).

We would be back to a situation where the entire track is available for racing and will present more opportunities for overtaking and, in my view a much more exciting spectacle.

Am I missing a trick here? All the F1 brains, overtaking working groups, forum members etc. have not considered this as a problem.


Totally agree with Dominic – How often do we see a move like this anymore http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mp37Rl2J_fg&feature=related (James, hope you don’t mind)

Grand Cojones ;o)


How about a rule stating that each team MUST start one car on each compound, to be drawn by lot.


I think the qualifying was more interesting than some of the races this year . Most of the races seem to be decided in qualifying only. At least the top 3-4 positions .


Totally agree. The last few seconds of qualy were the only times I can recall the commentaters yelling.


If refuelling is considered to be a catalyst for strategy and overtaking, then by all means bring it back, but couple t with much smaller fuel tanks to keep in line with the efficiency measures for the turbo engines. Would shake things up for the chassis designers a bit



There are many “standard or controlled” specs in F1 and I honestly think this movable wing thing is too Play Station. Each year on F1 is less and less REAL RACING. May I suggest:

1.- If you like to standardize everything just make a standard “overtaking friendly” diffuser.

2.- Every year is the same story, the New Circuit A lacks overtaking opportunities, and so is B and C. Is Tilke the only qualified man on the planet?



An interesting set of comments

My two-pennorth worth from someone who has just notched up their 25th season of F1 – still a baby to some of you though ;o)

Over that time there have been some great and dull races however when we look back to the past it is with rose tinted glasses and we only remember the ‘great’ races to back up our arguments. There were bad races in the 80’s.

On the tyre scenario I don’t mind if one tyre will go the whole race it just needs to perform less well than the softer tyre – the last few years with Bridgestone as sole supplier there wasn’t enough time gap between the compounds and when there was the drivers moaned they were being made to look idiots – think it was Alonso but not 100%. So for me get rid of the ‘mandatory stop’. Looking back some of the best/most exciting races were when there was this different tyre situation e.g

Silverstone 87 – Piquet on Hard Mansell one stop due to balance issues – The chase made it exciting – If Mansell had of come short and beena few seconds behind it would of still been a great race

Monaco ’92 – Senna v Mansell – Mansell unable to pass but a fantastic last few laps

And many more – often the chase is more exciting than the pass however whilst I agree with a lot of points raised losing mandatory tyre stops would be a big step in the right direction


There will always be gaps between cars because the cars are all different team to team. With qualifying there shouldn’t be much overtaking at all unless somebody screws up the start or has a very good launching car. Aerodynamic design of the cars may make it harder for one to overtake another, but it will not increase overtaking chances. Such is F1.


Of course some cars may utilize the tires better than others, so chances may arise from that.


F1 is totally stuck.

Lets see – you all make totally different cars, right? why not have a spec engine – well we do – we just waste millions having each team design it.

Why worry about refueling? Why worry about what sort of fuel? This is high tech, right? Just give each team x ergs of energy to expend – get it to the road however you choose.

I mean, who wants to watch a bunch of identical cars (painted differently) race around, all sounding alike? NASCAR fans, thats who.

Just think of the fun if fuel, engines, tires, etc were free. Minimum weight, crash regs, run what you brung. Exciting? You wouldn’t know how to handicap the first races – now that’s exciting. And the highest of tech? how could it not be?


I have only been watching F1 since about 1990/91, so not as long as some, and this for me was by far the best season, without question. I also think the run of great seasons (2005 – 2010) has been significantly better than any I’ve known.

I do think F1 could be better though. I think re-fueling should remain banned and the action should be spiced up via the tyres. I think get rid of the two compounds, and have 1 tyre each weekend with 2 compounds to cover the whole season and them make the tyres slightly marginal and remove the need to do a madatory stop.. Then you should get either 0 stoppers, 1 stoppers or perhaps even 2 or 3 stoppers depending on the tyres.

Keep the movable wings and KERS for next year and then I think you could have the right ingredients for an even better season


Aargh! Please: no more silly tyres rules!

People watch racing to… watch racing. Not to see how well each team or driver copes with the ever increasingly complex tyre rules. We want to see how drivers can coax tyres for longevity (ala Button) or how they can fall back on natural instinct to keep going with worn tyres (ala Hamilton). The new rules for 2011 won’t add to the spectacle, only more powerful, less aerodynamically efficient cars will do this.

Top Tags