Dumbest rules in motorsports.

  • Thread starter Carbonox
  • 85 comments
  • 17,568 views
The definition and and imposing of track limit rules in certain forms of Motor Racing. I mean there appeared to be no indication that Ricky Collard had received any warning regarding track limits before getting penalised in Race 3 of today's British Touring Car Championship meeting at Brands Hatch. What do they expect the drivers to do when they are under pressure from whoever's behind them?

The same goes for limiting how much a driver can move around in an attempt to defend his or her position.
 
MetalApe
I think it is the track limit rules that are the problem, I really don't understand how UK Motorsport has got into the position it's created such a ridiculous rule in the first place. I can understand there's a few places where track limits are required, for instance where there's a run off for safety reasons that could be massively abused otherwise.

For a track like Brands Hatch there's nothing like that, the whole circuit has natural limits that do the job perfectly. There's so many things wrong with unnecessary track limit rules. From a driving point of view it feels crap driving to an articially painted line, from a spectators point of view it also doesn't look so spectacular. Driving a car to the natural limits of the circuit is much more exciting to both do and to watch.

As we saw on Sunday, it's also bad from a spectators point of view to have what was a thrilling dice for the win instead decided by an official looking at whether a car crossed a painted line or not. It must be gutting and so frustrating for a driver to lose a win like that. Whereas if you lost it because you ran wide, put a wheel on the grass or in the gravel you're left in no doubt it was your mistake, you can take it on the chin and resolve not to make the same mistake next time.

There was a farcial situation in the end of season FIA F3 showdown at Monza last year, where multiple track limit penalties kept getting announced one by one during a red flag stoppage. Penalites that changed the points scored by title contenders and potentially affecting the outcome of the championship.
Click to expand...
Exactly!

MetalApe
Nice article on the subject.

The national motorsport track limits mess that needs to be cleaned up
Click to expand...
Quite rightly so.
 
Har1MAS1415
In the 2001 British Touring Car Championship, they had this rule which applied only to the Sprint races where the Touring Class would start a certain number of seconds before the Production Class but would then have to complete an extra lap so the Touring Class runners would effectively be behind the Production Class runners, despite appearing to be ahead on the road. This resulted in 6 instances (not counting the first round at Brands Hatch where both classes had separate Sprint races altogether) where a Production Class runner was the first car to finish but would not be recognised as the official winner since the Production Class was a separate Championship from that of the Touring Class in order to avoid a repeat of what happened so many times in the multi-class era. Confusing for certain and dumb enough to be dropped for the 2002 Season. I know the BTCC was going through the immediate aftermath of the decline of Super Touring almost running the series into the ground at the time but still, if Alan Gow had never left, I am sure he would have found a better way of handling the transition than Richard West and Octagon Motorsport did.
Click to expand...
Just realised, if the Production Class runners had been eligible to win the championship outright (they weren't for the reasons specified in the quoted post), Yvan Muller would never have won a title!

2000 Alan Morrison (264) instead of Alain Menu (195)
2001 Jason Plato (336, Simon Harrison only scored 227)
2002 James Kaye (210) instead of James Thompson (183)
2003 Luke Hines (243) instead of Yvan Muller (233)

The lack of entries in the lower classes compared to the higher classes was usually the main contributing factor in so many Champions coming from the lower classes.
 
Har1MAS1415
The 1960 Season has got to be the dumbest in that respect as that year, the usual class system was dropped, in favour of what is known as a 'silhouette' specification, with all cars having to use an engine no bigger than 1,000cc in capacity. The cars also had to have the same overall appearance, wheel size, wheelbase, rear axel and gearbox casing as on the road cars they were based on.

Later in the year, cars with larger engine capacities (1,600cc or more) were allowed to enter races, although they were not eligible for the overall championship. The lack of entrants also saw the BSCC run alongside GT cars, confusing the entry list some what.

Also made for a season that only produced 5 point-scorers! FIVE POINT-SCORERS in a season in which just over SIX TIMES THAT MANY competed!
Click to expand...

Actually, after further research, the 1960 British Saloon Car Championship season had over 60 participants all in all (believe me, I've counted, the list is still incomplete). Makes that year's ruleset even more stupid than it already was.

By studying the results of each race, theoretically, there should be more than 5 point scorers with those who should have been eligible for points but weren't credited with any taken into account. I am going to research this further so watch this space.
 
Last edited:
Liquid
Dropped scores has always been something I have intensely disliked.

"Only the best 11 results from 16 races count"

Well, just have 11 races then. What's the point in the other 5 after the fact? Dropped scores punishes drivers who consistently finish and finish well:

1988
Actual Scores
Prost: 105pts
Senna: 94pts

Dropped Scores
Senna: 90pts
Prost: 87pts

Prost lost a staggering 18 points. That's almost two clear victories. He finished 1st or 2nd 14 times in 16 races whereas Senna was less consistent, finishing 1st or 2nd 11 times in 16 races; maybe only slightly less consitent but still less consistent.

In the interest of full disclosure Senna won 8 races to Prost's 7 which is absolutely fair and uncontested but really, finishing more races and more often on the top two steps of the podium to drop 18 points compared to just 4 is insane. I'm so glad that we don't have to deal with these sorts of fiascos any more.
Click to expand...
Agree with this. Would there be some possibility that the hypothetical situation of some pundits that the then boss of the sport Balestre was a fan of Prost might have manipulated these rules because Prost narrowly missed 1983 and 194 championships by 2 and 0.5 points despite having more wins than the champion in each year?
It might be ironic if the rule was to avoid that and the same time Prost adjusted his style to aim for more consistency and reliabiliity?

Prost ranked 2nd four times and counting all points his gap behind was 2, 0.5, -11, 5 so on average in those years he lost the championships by negative 0.8 points haha that's a good nonsensical skewed statistic - however the key takeaway is that he was an absolutelt great champion, and I would say it is incredible that despite being 4 time champion he seems underrated in almost all the "rankings of the greats" of the sport.

Edit: to correct 1988 point offset to -11.
 
Last edited:
Dropped scores were part of Formula One's scoring system for 40 years; every season from 1950 until 1990. It wasn't needed most years but the years it was used stand out egregiously.

sillybilly
it is incredible that despite being 4 time champion he seems underrated in almost all the "rankings of the greats" of the sport.
Click to expand...
As I have posted before, flashy drivers are more popular than precise drivers. Prost is one of the F1 greats but he's never going to be as popular as his flashier contemporary, Senna.

Edit: Case in point

 
Last edited:
sillybilly
Agree with this. Would there be some possibility that the hypothetical situation of some pundits that the then boss of the sport Balestre was a fan of Prost might have manipulated these rules because Prost narrowly missed 1983 and 194 championships by 2 and 0.5 points despite having more wins than the champion in each year?
It might be ironic if the rule was to avoid that and the same time Prost adjusted his style to aim for more consistency and reliabiliity?

Prost ranked 2nd four times and counting all points his gap behind was 2, 0.5, -21, 5 so on average in those years he lost the championships by negative 3.3 points haha that's a good nonsensical skewed statistic - however the key takeaway is that he was an absolutelt great champion, and I would say it is incredible that despite being 4 time champion he seems underrated in almost all the "rankings of the greats" of the sport.
Click to expand...
That should be -11.
 
So, here's a very stupid NASCAR rule that seems to have been mostly forgotten about: the 1991 Daytona 500 pit rules. This came about because of several incidents in 1990 where pit crew members were getting injured by cars braking too late and plowing into them, and it culminated in one of Bill Elliott's tire changers being killed. So the next year, NASCAR tried to make pit road safer. Their solution for it was about as simple as doing an algebra equation while tied up underwater...

*During caution periods, one pace car would lead the field around the track. A second pace car would come in every lap, and cars that wanted to pit would follow it in. BUT:

*Under caution, no tires could be changed,

*Cars would be designated as even or odd depending on their starting position. After the green flag comes back out, "even" cars could pit on the second lap, "odd" cars could pit on the third lap. After that, all green flag laps are open pitting,

*Changing tires under yellow or pitting in with the wrong group would result in a 1 lap hold penalty, overshooting your pit box or crew members coming over the wall too early would be a 15 second hold penalty.

Unsurprisingly, all this really did was make everyone confused and angry. If they tried implementing rules like this today, it would probably be called farcical. And also unsurprisingly, about three months later NASCAR decided that a better solution was to just implement a pit road speed limit. Sometimes the simplest solution ends up being the correct one.

Here's a full replay of the race (a raw satellite feed even, no commercial cuts!) so you can see this mess in action. At some points even the announcers are getting frustrated by how difficult it is to make sense of it all:

 
EngieDiesel
So, here's a very stupid NASCAR rule that seems to have been mostly forgotten about: the 1991 Daytona 500 pit rules. This came about because of several incidents in 1990 where pit crew members were getting injured by cars braking too late and plowing into them, and it culminated in one of Bill Elliott's tire changers being killed. So the next year, NASCAR tried to make pit road safer. Their solution for it was about as simple as doing an algebra equation while tied up underwater...

*During caution periods, one pace car would lead the field around the track. A second pace car would come in every lap, and cars that wanted to pit would follow it in. BUT:

*Under caution, no tires could be changed,

*Cars would be designated as even or odd depending on their starting position. After the green flag comes back out, "even" cars could pit on the second lap, "odd" cars could pit on the third lap. After that, all green flag laps are open pitting,

*Changing tires under yellow or pitting in with the wrong group would result in a 1 lap hold penalty, overshooting your pit box or crew members coming over the wall too early would be a 15 second hold penalty.

Unsurprisingly, all this really did was make everyone confused and angry. If they tried implementing rules like this today, it would probably be called farcical. And also unsurprisingly, about three months later NASCAR decided that a better solution was to just implement a pit road speed limit. Sometimes the simplest solution ends up being the correct one.

Here's a full replay of the race (a raw satellite feed even, no commercial cuts!) so you can see this mess in action. At some points even the announcers are getting frustrated by how difficult it is to make sense of it all:

Click to expand...

Good grief! How needlessly overcomplicated and that's putting it mildly.
 
Schumacher disqualification from championship "rule" by Max Mosley for 1997 - the only time a driver has been "disqualified" from the season?

It was largely to avoid repeat of 1994 incident which by modern standard the pass attempt would have been described as "a day late and a dollar short"... So many comments that Damon should have waited for after the corner from drivers like Jackie Stewart etc... the bias commentators really tainted Schumacher's reputation to this day from that incident that was equally valid to say Damon should not have driven so late into a closing gap. Some commentator continue to occasionally mention "being taken out" but Damon knows and he never ever engages discussion because he knows he was wrong.

Surprising that there was such a fuss when the end of 1989 and 1990 were similarly contentious events with dubious driving choices and straight bad sportsmanship. Where these actions bad for the sport - was there any kind of publicity that the FIA were unhappy as I am not aware if there was any kind of reprimand for those actions?

In the end my opinion it is sad thing for the sport that 1997 might be seen as worse than 1989 or 1990, it perpetuates needless vitriol against Schumacher's legacy and it just a record of the amount of power and influence dodgy Max Mosley had and was willing to appy.
 
sillybilly
Schumacher disqualification from championship "rule" by Max Mosley for 1997
Click to expand...
His DNF and Villeneuve's podium meant he wouldn't have won the title anyway. What I find unsual about his disqualification is not that he was disqualified from the whole season but that he kept his records; entries, points, victories etc. I personally find it very strange to say "You're not allowed to be part of the championship this year but you can keep all the trophies and points you won." That... doesn't sound like a real disqualification but it seems like the FIA thought that that was only way they could 'punish' Schumacher because they couldn't DSQ him from Jerez because he DNFed. It was strange but I'm not sure about stupid.

sillybilly
So many comments that Damon should have waited for after the corner from drivers like Jackie Stewart etc... the bias commentators really tainted Schumacher's reputation to this day from that incident that was equally valid to say Damon should not have driven so late into a closing gap.
Click to expand...
Schumacher took Villeneuve out, no question at all. But you could also argue that had he not rammed Villeneuve, Villeneuve would have overshot the corner. Go back and watch the footage, he was close to either going too deep into the gravel or hitting Schumacher and taking them both off, which would have ironically handed the title to Schumacher.

sillybilly
the only time a driver has been "disqualified" from the season?
Click to expand...
Yes and No. When Tyrrell were disqualified from the 1984 season, Martin Brundle and Stefan Bellof were disqualified as well including their entries, points and podiums for Tyrrell that year, which was a shame because they had both scored a podium each (Bellof 3rd at Monaco and Brundle 2nd at Detroit) which was extremely impressive but does not appear in the record books.

The team was disqualified from the entire season whereas the drivers were disqualified from every race they raced for Tyrrell but not the championship itself; the team was DSQ but the drivers were not classified. This little quirk is why Stefan Johanssen was also DSQed from his three races for Tyrrell but still scored points and ranked in the championship because his races for Toleman counted.
 
Last edited:
Liquid
The team was disqualified from the entire season whereas the drivers were disqualified from every race they raced for Tyrrell but not the championship itself;
Click to expand...
This is logical as in every event the drivers might have had an illegal advantage that would have been unfair to other drivers that had been beaten to position and points. It is unfortunate for Brundle and Bellof for sure, but it does make sense. Noted that the drivers were not disqualified from the championship as that would not make sense.

Schumachers action had no impact on the fairness of his involvement in any of the other races in the champion, therefore penalty applied to the whole championship makes no sense - it is nonsensical, illogical and stupid. It is not strange, it is stupid.
Liquid
doesn't sound like a real disqualification but it seems like the FIA thought that that was only way they could 'punish' Schumacher because they couldn't DSQ him from Jerez because he DNFed. It was strange but I'm not sure about stupid
Click to expand...
A DSQ in the records is categorically worse than a DNF - so if they wanted to they easily could have DSQ'ed him from the race. However this would create a precedent for an avoidable collision leading to a DSQ and that could cause big issues...

The modern penalty might be drive-through or time penalty and that could carry over to qualification position penalty for the following race. It's a stretch to carry a penalty to the next season but it would have been a logical enough thing to consider.

Liquid
Schumacher took Villeneuve out, no question at all. But you could also argue that had he not rammed Villeneuve, Villeneuve would have overshot the corner. Go back and watch the footage, he was close to either going too deep into the gravel or hitting Schumacher and taking them both off, which would have ironically handed the title to Schumacher.
Click to expand...
I never considered this.

I always thought Schumacher had started losing pace because something was wrong with his car (which he and Ferrari would never admit for pride of the red cars) - So I thought Schumacher had been bullied and teased by Mosley and his chronies in the F1 media circus about this situation and this stupid nonsensical rule had been made up.... I wondered if Schumacher was subconsciously calling Mosley's bluff if he would actually implement the rule - it didn't matter the championship was lost either way.

Note, my comment about the dubious situation was Adelaide 1994 with Hill, that I believe might have been used as example of the precedent they did not want repeated. I still am dumbfounded that the Brit-centric F1 media convinced a majority of viewers that Schumacher should have moved out of the way at let Hill though... This still because the foundation stone for much vilification of Schumacher's character over his entire career.

...

Ok, lets consider the stupid rule ponder if this was not stupid then should it have been kept in place since, and should it still apply today?

Logically it would apply to all races in a championship as all races count equally to the championship?

And it would apply to driver's that attempt to interfere with the outcome, as Schumacher's action did not affect the result but he was penalised for his attempt... this would open up many collisions since that could have resulted in driver's being DSQ'd from the championship?
 
Last edited:
As a concept, Fanboost wasn't terrible. It was intended to be a way for fans to react to events in the race and give a driver who needed the boost a literal boost. A way of letting the fans directly influence the race.

However it of course never worked like that. The voting time started before the race and there was no restrictions to voting. As such it just became "who has the biggest fanbase". There were seasons where it was just always the same 3 drivers getting Fanboost, which made it to joke it was. There were also occasions where a driver was penalised post-race for not using their Fanboost!

It needed some restrictions like making it so if a driver wins Fanboost, they aren't on the ballot for the next two races or something.


But Fanboost of course was never about the on-track action. Fanboost was voted for either on the Formula E website, or by using relevant hashtags on Twitter. The fan-engagement part of it worked well as it drove up traffic to the website and therefore all the other benefits of people visiting the website, plus it got Formula E being talked about on Social Media to boost it up in the algorithms. Formula E understood the power of social media from the start and brought in an odd gimmick that deliberately but slyly powered up the series' profile in the online world. A literal Fan Boost.
 
Jimlaad43
As a concept, Fanboost wasn't terrible. It was intended to be a way for fans to react to events in the race and give a driver who needed the boost a literal boost. A way of letting the fans directly influence the race.

However it of course never worked like that. The voting time started before the race and there was no restrictions to voting. As such it just became "who has the biggest fanbase". There were seasons where it was just always the same 3 drivers getting Fanboost, which made it to joke it was. There were also occasions where a driver was penalised post-race for not using their Fanboost!

It needed some restrictions like making it so if a driver wins Fanboost, they aren't on the ballot for the next two races or something.


But Fanboost of course was never about the on-track action. Fanboost was voted for either on the Formula E website, or by using relevant hashtags on Twitter. The fan-engagement part of it worked well as it drove up traffic to the website and therefore all the other benefits of people visiting the website, plus it got Formula E being talked about on Social Media to boost it up in the algorithms. Formula E understood the power of social media from the start and brought in an odd gimmick that deliberately but slyly powered up the series' profile in the online world. A literal Fan Boost.
Click to expand...
I don't necessarily think it was dumb but it obviously didn't work quite as intended for the reasons specified.
 
Liquid
Dropped scores has always been something I have intensely disliked.

"Only the best 11 results from 16 races count"

Well, just have 11 races then. What's the point in the other 5 after the fact? Dropped scores punishes drivers who consistently finish and finish well:

1988
Actual Scores
Prost: 105pts
Senna: 94pts

Dropped Scores
Senna: 90pts
Prost: 87pts

Prost lost a staggering 18 points. That's almost two clear victories. He finished 1st or 2nd 14 times in 16 races whereas Senna was less consistent, finishing 1st or 2nd 11 times in 16 races; maybe only slightly less consitent but still less consistent.

In the interest of full disclosure Senna won 8 races to Prost's 7 which is absolutely fair and uncontested but really, finishing more races and more often on the top two steps of the podium to drop 18 points compared to just 4 is insane. I'm so glad that we don't have to deal with these sorts of fiascos any more.
Click to expand...
There used to be a dropped scores system in the British Touring Car Championship and it messed up the 2000 Championship as Anthony Reid scored more points than Alain Menu (201-195) but had to drop 8 of them.

Also, in 1989, James Weaver outscored John Cleland 118-116 but had to drop 9 to Cleland's 6.
 
Last edited:
I remember WEC doing it for LMP1 in their initial yeat just to accomodate Toyota being the only other manufacturer but starting late (though not that it mattered for Audi as all it solo wins was enough to make the other races not matter as long as it got 1 win).

V8 Supercars dodged the bullet of controversy when they decided to try the points drop system in 2003. If Greg Murphy and Mark Skaife didn't have a horrid final round they would've lost due to the points drop system instead.
 
Com Fox
V8 Supercars dodged the bullet of controversy when they decided to try the points drop system in 2003. If Greg Murphy and Mark Skaife didn't have a horrid final round they would've lost due to the points drop system instead.
Click to expand...
Watching the 2003-06 seasons, the points system at the time was so atrocious that I felt it warranted its own entry in this thread. The gaps between positions all across the field were so tiny that there was no incentive to take risks to win, when one could rather grind mediocre 5th-10th places mistake-free all season and come out with a bigger tally on the long run.

The new Cha$e idea for the same series already takes the cake by default though. NASCAR has had plenty enough undeserving "champions" because of it for the past 20 years already, thank you very much.
 
Last edited:
When the British Touring Car Championship introduced reverse-grids in 2004, the Top 10 finishers in Race 1 would be reversed for Race 2, with that race's finishing order determining the grid for Race 3. This was reversed for 2005.

It wasn't long before the drivers started intentionally giving away positions in order to start higher up in the reverse grid race. This was seen as deliberate race fixing, not to mention the possibility of drivers slowing down dramatically on the run to the finish line, forcing the drivers behind to take evasive action in order to avoid a collision. This also contrasted with the spirit of motor racing as well as the inevitable accusations of detraction from the purity of racing.

Whether this was dumb or not, it was certainly dangerous, or at least threatening to be. This is why the reverse grid has been determined by the drawing of a number between 6 and 10/12 since the 2006 Season.
 
Last edited:
It isn't a free pitstop, it's the changing of tyre compounds which some people dislike.

Impossible to ban without causing more issues. Weather conditions change? Drivers need to be able to change tyres. Run through debris and puncture a tyre? You have to change tyres or that's also just a safety issue. If a rule states that you cannot change compound in a red flag, well what if a driver doesn't have any more of the same compound they are on? Any damage caused in the incidents that caused the Red Flag need to be fixable because what we don't need is a million drivers retiring from a race if they made it back and the damage is repairable.

The place to change the rule is that the two compounds rule needs to specify that tyre compounds can only "count" if they are changed in a pitstop or any subsequent red flags after the first one in the race.

Red Flag tyre changes are necessary, and it's something people win by or lose by. Sometimes it's good for the sport - Alpine's double podium or Gasly's win are prime examples. Sometimes it's crap - see Monaco 2024.

Rules are the rules and the games the game. Teams who gamble and play it clever will be rewarded, and if the Red Flag never appears then they lose out. In a sport where most teams go for the same 1-stop strategy, this kind of randomness that throws up unexpected results is kinda fine and nowhere near the top of the list of disastrous flag rules F1 needs to sort out.
 
So I got my choice of words wrong, it is part and parcel of my hidden disability unfortunately, and I don't necessarily think these things are dumb or failures or anything like that. For the most part, I don't, I am only curious as to what other users think about these things.
 
What did everyone think of the Hybrid rules in the BTCC, now that the series has ditched it for 2025?

(Not saying they were dumb, just asking!)
 

Similar threads

K
Ghosting in GT7 sport mode
Replies
2
Views
1K
Famine
Famine
W
Endurance racing pack
Replies
2
Views
827
Nakano219
Nakano219
ElmoRosenberg
timed race rules question
Replies
12
Views
848
MrWednesday
MrWednesday
Sweaty Palms
Special Race Tonight @ Spa | 9:30pm EST | Choose From 2 Cars
Replies
0
Views
815
Sweaty Palms
Sweaty Palms
Theufcveteran
Bored of GT7? Over 130 Custom Races, Super Fast Setup
3 4 5
Replies
145
Views
26K
benjoi84
benjoi84

Latest Posts

Back