As is tradition, Formula 1 fans online found reasons to complain after the 2025 Mexican Grand Prix. One of the things that drew the ire of those parts of the audience was the fact that almost every driver managed to do fine with only one stop, and many of them managed over 30 laps on the softest tyre. Conversations at the FIA and Liberty Media about introducing forced pitstops began. This obvious idea attempts to counter the fact that teams try to get by with as few stops as possible, and the current tyres let them do it. What, however, if the answer is not to make tyres degrade more or force drivers to change tyres more often? What if the best way to get more strategic excitement in F1 is not to change tyres more often, but change them less often?

In this Gravel Trap, the author will make his case for a return of perhaps the single least popular raceday rule change of the 21st Century. In 2005, the FIA decided to ban tyre changes during refuelling stops as part of their attempt to stop Ferrari’s domination of the sport. The rule failed to provide more excitement in 2005 and was scrapped after only one season. However, in 2025, bringing back refuelling and in turn banning tyre changes may be a very excellent way to solve some of the issues facing the sport at the moment on the entertainment side of things.

The first point with a rule like this is indeed the tyres themselves. Honestly speaking, the author sometimes questions what Pirelli gets out of their work as the official F1 tyre supplier. It must be a net positive, otherwise the publicly traded company would have already pulled the plug on their Formula 1 engagement. However, outside of using that title as a marketing prop, it cannot be particularly helpful. With the perpetual balancing act they have been asked to do between gimmicking their tyres and making sure they do not cause the kind of punctures that directly or indirectly cause fatal crashes, Pirelli rarely tends to draw positive comments from drivers or fans. A change towards tyres needing to last an entire Grand Prix would not immediately solve this. Especially early in the adjustment, drivers would probably complain more than ever. However, Pirelli would then be able to prove their mettle, being able to solely focus on improving the tyres and adjusting it for safety. They would not also have to consider if those changes also ensure enough wear on the tyre, not being in a position where they have to artificially create a drop-off point in their tyres.

Of course, there are two arguments the author expects to be raised. The first one would be pointing out the infamous 2005 United States Grand Prix in which the very rule the author is supporting led to a farcical race with six starters. The counterpoint is that that race was in an era of a tyre war, something the FIA has never seriously entertained for Formula 1 ever since Bridgestone became the sole supplier in 2007. Michelin refused to test on oval road courses, leaving them unprepared for the resurfaced Indianapolis Motor Speedway. Today, there are no oval road courses on the calendar; the banked corners that have been added to venues like Zandvoort have been handled without any major issues by the Pirellis. The other counterpoint is to question if Pirelli can make a tyre that can handle the entire 305+ km of a Grand Prix. That concern is unfounded. In 2023, the longest stint on a single set of tyres was achieved by Oscar Piastri. He managed 302.6 km on a set of C2 (the second-hardest option in Pirelli’s current Formula 1 tyre portfolio) at the demanding Jeddah Corniche Circuit. It stands to reason that if needed, you could go a full race distance with the hard tyres we currently have right now at almost all of the circuits. Pirelli would then probably be able to modify them to work at all tracks and in a way that drivers do not have to spend the last quarter of the race driving on egg shells. If not, then it would provide genuine cause to go with a new tyre supplier. More tyre manufacturers would then be willing to place a tender to become the official supplier, as they would not be scared off by being asked to make worse tyres on purpose the same way Pirelli was asked to.

Now, having addressed the “could”, the author ought to address the “should”. In terms of entertainment, what would be the benefits of permitting refuelling and banning tyre changes? First off, drivers will be able to push more. As anyone who has ever owned a road car can tell you, fuel-saving driving is not fun and in racing, lift-and-coast is boring to watch. Without refuelling, it is at a premium. Even if fuel in-flow was not limited, teams would still try to avoid needing large tanks to save on car weight. These cars cost nine-digit figures to build, and Formula 1 is doing itself a disservice by not letting them be driven at 100% aggression, at least at some point in the race. Low-fuel laps in the refuelling era have led to some of the most exciting driving not involving overtakes. Something like Michael Schumacher’s supreme racecraft to close up a major margin to Fernando Alonso at the 2005 San Marino Grand Prix is very rarely found in modern Formula 1. While some drivers have achieved similar feats with fresher tyres, there lacks the true excitement of such fights, as the driver catching up generally does so when the driver ahead is left defenceless because of their old tyres. The actual overtake at the end of the hunt becomes way too easy.

This also ties into another benefit. Nowadays, in the early stages of a Grand Prix, many drivers are perfectly content to just sit around and nurture their tyres until the pitstops unless they have a major advantage, knowing they can make up lost time late in the race on fresher rubber. Differing fuel loads would encourage more action early in the race, as lighter cars could not just kill time until they get fresh tyres. Therefore, Formula 1 would see more early-race action while only losing a few late-stage passes. The observant fan would at this point interject and note that we have a lot more passing under the current system than we ever had in the refueling era. That is true, but it should be noted that the current state is a product of aerodynamic rules designed with overtaking in mind first and foremost, as well as tools like the Drag Reduction System being available to the drivers. If DRS had been available in the refuelling era, a lot more passing would have happened then as well.

Outside of the on-track product, this change would also turn Formula 1 into a more exciting sport on the strategic level. One of the inherent facts of motorsport is that teams would prefer to stop their cars as little as possible. The only way for a team to willingly go with more stops is for that to provide a major advantage. This is something the current Pirellis are not able to do. Nowadays, strategic variance is very underdeveloped (and even using that description involves the generous notion that medium -> hard is technically a different strategy than hard -> medium). Even when Pirelli tries to expand the available tyre range, that only results in a specific tyre seeing no use. This was demonstrated excellently at this year’s Azerbaijan Grand Prix, where various teams in bad positions did not try to use the soft tyre at all when pitting late – preferring to do short stints with new hard tyres. Alan Permane, the new team boss of Visa Cash App Red Racing Rapidmon Digivolves to MegaGargomon Boss Bulls, pointed out that forcing teams to make multiple tyre stops will only lead to even less strategic divergence if the tyres do not sufficiently degrade. When refuelling is in place, teams rarely prefer a one-stop strategy simply because the fuel load is so heavy that it slows cars down. More stops also mean more chaos, more chances for safety cars to throw a wrench in everybody’s plans. While it is easy to argue about the sporting legitimacy and the potential dangers, the fun of the chaos created by these events is hard to deny.

A last factor is something many people are tired of hearing, but something that motorsport will never be able to ignore: road relevancy. Two questions about this point: how often do you, the car-owning reader, change your tyres? How often do you go to the gas station? Thought so. Yet in the world’s premier motorsport, the one where, next season, nine road car manufacturers are competing to advertise their product, all the focus is on tyres and none is on refuelling. Not to mention this rule change means Pirelli has to bring fewer tyres to a race weekend, saving on waste and helping Formula 1’s perpetual aim of greenwashing itself.

With those arguments in mind, the author is fully convinced the way forward is not found in mandating maximum stint lengths or making pitstops mandatory. Instead, Formula 1 could turn towards a failed rule change of the past and come to find that it – much like the budget cap – was merely an idea ahead of its time.

Sources: ITV, motorsinside.com, motorsport-total.com

Image sources: Alexandre López (licensed under CC BY 2.0, resized), Dan Smith (licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0, resized), Steffen Prößdorf (licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0, resized)