Reject Rules and Regulations

[Londoner]

So many of the FIA's rules are rejectful, it's unreal! One of the ones that I absolutley hated was the no tyre change rule throughout 2005. It was supposed to liven up (somehow) the racing, yet just produced most of the time (ignoring Suzuka that year) boring processions, as well as contributing to the farce at Indianaopolis. It was also an incrediably dangerous rule as well (Raikonnen's last lap accident at the Nurburgring and JPM's delaminating tyre at Monza being proof of that). I was wondering what other rules and regulations created by the FIA (or Ferrari International Assistance for some rules) over the years, as well as much of the current regulations, are just completley rejectful.

[Pieman]

Banning six-wheelers and fan cars.

[Salamander]

Chronological penalties. Whoever thought that was the best way to apply them clearly needs their head checked.

[DanielPT]

Most of pitting under safety car rules. The one that prevented pitting altogether under safety car was just plain stupid and wrecked a few races...

[ADx_Wales]

Without the pitting under safety car rules robert Kubica wouldn't have won the canadian gp, or Alonso wouldn't have ''won'' the singapore gp.

Also the 2005 indy farce would still have happened despite the most tedious of pitstop rules.

The safety car finishing rule was a sham last year, the original reason i stopped watching F1 races and in turn apparently missed the best race of the 2010 season.
Also the RULE against team orders, not for the obvious that happened.

But worst of all, the ''must use both compounds'' on tyres. Could have mixed it up if drivers could have free choice, and some people gambling on one or the other for the entire race

[P_Friesacher]

Can't agree with your hatred of the "must use both compounds" rule - has produced some interesting race.

But, clearly, the most rejectful was the one (or rather two) lap qualifying rule a few years back. Bad and boring enough on it's own, what made this rule really rejectful was that they had to run on race fuel and tires. Even worse was the intruduction of a second one lap qualifying session on early Sunday in 2005, apparently because Bernie liked the Sunday-qualifying brought about by a typhoon during the Japanese GP in 2004.

Also, that rule they had in the 80s that drivers navigate back to the entry of a chicane if they missed it.

[Phoenix]

About the use both tyre compunds rule, I have to say that it would be a good idea if there was the choice to run the race only with hard tyres if a driver wanted to try it (or the entire race with soft tyres, if Bridgestone was still hanging around...). Also, I don't understand why there are only a type of each set of tyres brought in on a race weekend (for example, only supersoft and hard tyres). Why not bring all compunds? (and, by the way, sorry if my question happens to be a bit dumb, so to say).

And I liked the one lap qualifying format. It put pressure on drivers because they only had a single chance to set a time, but maybe they should have allowed drivers to choose the fuel load or something.

[DanielPT]

Also, I don't understand why there are only a type of each set of tyres brought in on a race weekend (for example, only supersoft and hard tyres). Why not bring all compunds? (and, by the way, sorry if my question happens to be a bit dumb, so to say).

I think it is a cost contention measure...

I don't complain about the both tyre compound rule, since as long they are a lot different, performance wise, it produces good racing moments. Of course, it can all be viewed as a gimmick...

[ADx_Wales]

Also, I don't understand why there are only a type of each set of tyres brought in on a race weekend (for example, only supersoft and hard tyres). Why not bring all compunds?

This was missing from my original post. Could not agree more Mr Phoenix.

[James1978]

Lots of people are talking about 2005 rules - another one that year which I absolutely loathed (it may have been in use other years too but it was most noticeable in 2005), was that the order they would do single-lap qualifying in after they they dumped the aggregate order system would depend on the previous race. It was stupid seeing cars just circulate lots of laps behind in order to try and get a better qualifying slot for the next race!

Oh and the "fuel burn" part of Q3 in 2006 and 2007. I never understood it so it just confused me, and I was totally confused as to why all the aggro between Alonso and Hamilton at Hungary happened over something which appeared totally pointless.......the only think I liked about the rule was Martin Brundle calling them "tiger tokens" at Bahrain 2006"

[thehemogoblin]

Not banning double-deck diffusers entirely right away seems to be pretty rejectful. It turned a couple of years upside down.

[Cynon]

Not FIA sanctioned, but...

The 1991 NASCAR pit rules. They were so rejectful that they were dropped 5 races into the season! Cars with orange stickers pitted one lap, cars with green pitted another lap... something like that, I can't remember clearly because an obviously illegal truck driven by the preeminent deebag of all auto racing won and it annoyed the hell out of me.

The 2003-2004 Champ Car pit window rule.

[TomWazzleshaw]

There was this rule in the V8s one year where the qualifying session decided the grid for BOTH races. Needless to say it was dumped after one round and replaced with the current system.

[ADx_Wales]

Why did they not take a leaf out of A1GP's book and use their 4 x 15 minute one lap only sessions with the drivers best two times totalled?

It showed who was the fastest over a single lap AND made an entertaining saturday.

Did Sheikh Maktoum have it under copyright?

The DTM mandatory two stop rules also ruin the once entertaining series, if you get caught in a first lap melee you will still need to pit twice between set laps, thus destroying the concept of a great comeback drive, and to make matters worse, if you dont pit and you are defending your position ahead of someone who's already pitted, you will get blue flagged...

Any rule where you aren't allowed to defend your lead or well earned finishing place is a rule that ruins racing.

[tommykl]

I thin kthere was a rule in the 1950's where, to be classified, if you retired past the required mark, you had to push your car across the finish line after it had retired.

[mario]

Oh, I can think of a few different rules which would be eligible here.
1. The banning of tuned mass dampers as "a moveable aerodynamic device" as a way of deliberately hampering the performance of the R26 back in 2006. I still fail to see the logic of how a tuned mass damper could be defined as part of the bodywork when the regulations stipulate that bodywork must be exposed to the external air stream, which it wasn't (the tuned mass dampers on the R26 were housed within the nose cone of the car).
Incidentally, thought the biggest beneficiary was Ferrari, since they were able to draw level with Renault, Briatore actually accused Mclaren of lobbying the FIA to get the tuned mass damper system banned. Of course, with the name of the team that protested kept anonymous, we have no way of verifying Briatore's claims, and Mclaren subsequently denied Briatore's accusations anyway.

2. The attempts by the FIA to restrict ground effects in 1981 and 1982. Now, I appreciate that the FIA felt obliged to try to cut the cornering speeds of the cars at the time, given the benefits that the sculpted underbodies gave the cars. Once Brabham perfected their pneumatic suspension, though, which took advantage of the fact that the ride height couldn't be measured out on track, the floodgates were opened to rampant rule abuse with the adjustable ride height suspension systems other teams adopted.
By the way, speaking of the adjustable suspension systems, is true that, at the German GP that year, Chapman, infuriated by FISA ignoring complaints about adjustable suspension systems, made it abundantly clear what was going on to the public by having the cars about eight inches off the ground in the pit lane, but, of course, much closer to the ground on the track.
The banning of sliding skirts for 1982 arguably made things worse; with fixed skirts came absurdly rigid suspension systems to maintain a relatively constant ride height, making the cars pretty horrendous to drive. Much as people may nostalgically remember the ground effect era, given how unpredictable and physically punishing it was to drive a 1980's ground effect car, FISA really should have imposed the flat floor regulations, or at least banned the skirts, much sooner than they did.

3. The "closed pit lane" safety car rules, as mentioned previously. That rule, frankly, caused much more trouble than it was meant to solve; it lead to several drivers being penalised unfairly for having to pit early, or risk running out of fuel (which I think actually happened to Barrichello), and without that rule we wouldn't have had the whole race fixing scandal in Singapore. And the main problem was that it didn't prevent drivers rushing into the pits - all it did was delay the rush until refuelling was permitted.

[ADx_Wales]

Also, that rule they had in the 80s that drivers navigate back to the entry of a chicane if they missed it.

That only happened once, at one race, the year after the obvious happened.

Anyway how could that rule apply in practice? In 1992 Mansell cut the second part of the "new" Ostkurve Chicane at the Hockenhiem and didnt get penalied for it.

Coming to think of it, how safe was the "must stop" if overshot chicane rule?

[Phoenix]

Not exactly a rule, but how on Earth did the stewardom let Michael Schumacher get away with the 1998 British GP win after winning the race during a stop-go penalty? Why can't common sense prevail?

[mario]

Not exactly a rule, but how on Earth did the stewardom let Michael Schumacher get away with the 1998 British GP win after winning the race during a stop-go penalty? Why can't common sense prevail?

I believe that the reason that Schumacher was not penalised was because the stewards basically made several errors when giving him the penalty, or at least that was the story according to contemporary media reports.

Firstly, under the regulations at the time, the stewards should have notified Ferrari within 25 minutes of the transgression that they would penalise Schumacher, which it appears they failed to do (it took them 31 minutes). Secondly, at the time it was reported that the stewards didn't make it clear to the Ferrari team what penalty he had been given (a 10s stop and go penalty, or a post race time penalty, both of which were valid penalties at the time).

Now, since it was not within the powers of the stewards to award a post race time penalty, and because they had not followed the procedures outlined in the FIA's regulations at the time, the stewards had to eventually rescind the penalty on technical grounds. It also cost the stewards at that race their licences; officially they voluntarily handed in their licences, although some seem to suggest that they were pushed into handing them over.

Unsatisfactory? I agree that it is a mess, but the WMSC decided that the stewards had done the right thing in rescinding the penalty. Ultimately, whilst the penalty issue is still debated today, the WMSC had its say on the affair, and their decision is final, whether we like it or not.

Whilst this topic is more likely to be about the regulations for the cars, I guess that we can also look at the regulations for the tracks. Under this category, I would say that the introduction of catch fencing in 1973, and maintained until 1985, would count, since catch fencing more often than not made it difficult for a driver to quickly escape a vehicle.

[Phoenix]

Thanks for your comprehensive explanation, mario! And I agree that putting catch fencing was not very wise. It was not only that it made difficult for a driver to get out of his car (I remember seeing a video of a Riccardo Patrese crash at the 1979 Dutch GP and the car was covered with the catch fencing), but it wasn't that much effective to stop the car.

[DanielPT]

Grooved tyres. They were introduced to slow down cars in the corners. But not only they cornered as fast as before, they deepened the overtaking problems. It was really a knee-jerk reaction that they didn't thought through from FIA.

[Jeroen Krautmeir]

Grooved tyres. They were introduced to slow down cars in the corners. But not only they cornered as fast as before, they deepened the overtaking problems. It was really a knee-jerk reaction that they didn't thought through from FIA.

They also ruined any chance of JPM, CdM, SB and all the other Indy/CART stars from shining properly.

[Cynon]

Grooved tyres. They were introduced to slow down cars in the corners. But not only they cornered as fast as before, they deepened the overtaking problems. It was really a knee-jerk reaction that they didn't thought through from FIA.

They also ruined any chance of JPM, CdM, SB and all the other Indy/CART stars from shining properly.

CdM wouldn't have shined properly anyway. He was only a CART star due to regulations loopholes, no Team Penske, and being a lot smaller than everyone else in the field. Before 2002, I remember calling him Crashtiano da Matta... and there's a reason why...