Mandatory pit stops proposal

Have not seen a poll, so I made one.

Add options:

Should there be 1 stop
Should there be 2 stops

Should there be 2 stops, but no percentage limitation on the sets

There should be 2 stops, but no percentage limitation on the sets - 100%

 

People complain about 1 stop races

People complain about cheese tyres

 

I think F1 should enforce two stops, avoid stint limitations (what's that even about? Safety?) and allow Pirelli to build a variety of really great tyres. I think this is definitely the way forward. We'd no longer have to see teams tip toe around on tyres and it might actually open strategy a bit. I know this sounds counter-intuitive however if teams can do a 0 or 1 stop race and it's faster they'll all do it - they'll all be on one compound/similar compounds and there won't be much variety.

 

For two stop strategies, you get a bit more opportunity. For example one team may favour to run harder compounds throughout the race because they're harder on tyres e.g. Mercedes. Lotus could run two hard stints followed by a soft stint and really attack at the end because they're able to extract more pace over a longer period on the hards.

 

Everyone has their own opinions but for me if you can ignore the 'artifical' nature of it, it will create a much better show and spectacle.

 

EDIT: I'm also a fan of three tyre compounds being brought to each weekend or competition between two providers. Both could work with the mandatory 2 stop strategy. The latter point in particular does not work under the current set-up.

Edited by Cult, 06 December 2013 - 15:41.

At a time when fans are calling for more freedom for teams on strategy (free choice of tyres and number of pit stops) the FIA decide to look at taking freedom away? Makes no sense to me tbh..

At a time when fans are calling for more freedom for teams on strategy (free choice of tyres and number of pit stops) the FIA decide to look at taking freedom away? Makes no sense to me tbh..

 

Free choice on strategy leads to either a) bad tyres or b) 0 or 1 stop races. Both have been criticised so heavily recently. Free choice basically killed the sport before.

free strategy + no spec tires

 

everything else is crap

free strategy + no spec tires

 

everything else is crap

 

You're happy to see no stops in a race then?

free strategy + no spec tires

 

everything else is crap

 

Agreed! We need to reduce artificial racing in F1 not create more...

FIA are really ratcheting up the farce factor on this mess that F1 is becoming.

Free choice on strategy leads to either a) bad tyres or b) 0 or 1 stop races. Both have been criticised so heavily recently. Free choice basically killed the sport before.

Very true but I don't see how mandatory pit stops would help, unless I am missing something?

What's wrong with a zero stop race?

I don't watch F1 for pit stops.

No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

Free choice on strategy leads to either a) bad tyres or b) 0 or 1 stop races. Both have been criticised so heavily recently. Free choice basically killed the sport before.

 

It was the fact that overtaking was almost impossible which 'killed the sport'.

 

I think that these cars may be difficult enough to drive, that overtaking should become much more common, even outside DRS zones.

 

This pit stop proposal is complete overkill, a solution to a problem which hopefully we won't have next year.

Free choice on strategy leads to either a) bad tyres or b) 0 or 1 stop races. Both have been criticised so heavily recently. Free choice basically killed the sport before.

 

The combination of the cars reliance on downforce generated by aerodynamics and circuits that no longer seperate the drivers in terms of bravery and ability were to blame for 'killing' the sport before.  Give us a free choice of varying compound tyres that don't cause marbles, less downforce generated by wings and circuits with grass or gravel at the edges and there is no need for mandatory pitstops, DRS, push to pass bullshit or tyres designed to be crap, just so the contrived racing appeals to viewers with the attention span of a typical One Direction fan!

free strategy + no spec tires

 

everything else is crap

 

This.

 

 

You're happy to see no stops in a race then?

 

Yes. A million times over yes.

 

(unless a team finds it a quicker strategy to stop, in which case good luck to them)

Edited by FerrariV12, 06 December 2013 - 16:50.

If don't know which series is worse. F1 or DTM; they seem to copy what each other does. However, F1 has no excuse; it's a World Championship - artificial aids to 'spice up' the racing has no place.
Let them choose what tyres they want, and let them get on with it.

The combination of the cars reliance on downforce generated by aerodynamics and circuits that no longer seperate the drivers in terms of bravery and ability were to blame for 'killing' the sport before.  Give us a free choice of varying compound tyres that don't cause marbles, less downforce generated by wings and circuits with grass or gravel at the edges and there is no need for mandatory pitstops, DRS, push to pass bullshit or tyres designed to be crap, just so the contrived racing appeals to viewers with the attention span of a typical One Direction fan!

 

The problem is you have to cater to 'casual' fans to keep F1 as well funded and commercially viable as it as at the moment. The whole problem is that the teams aren't being paid effectively all of the revenue from F1.

 

I'm happy for limitations to be removed if the regulations make the cars very difficult to drive. Also if we can get seasons like 2007, 2008 and 2010 then I'll be excited. 2011 and 2013 have been particularly bad but that's due to one team dominating, not the actual regulations.

Perhaps they should introduce mandatory goals in football to make sure the casual fans watch the World Cup.

The problem is you have to cater to 'casual' fans to keep F1 as well funded and commercially viable as it as at the moment. The whole problem is that the teams aren't being paid effectively all of the revenue from F1.

I'm happy for limitations to be removed if the regulations make the cars very difficult to drive. Also if we can get seasons like 2007, 2008 and 2010 then I'll be excited. 2011 and 2013 have been particularly bad but that's due to one team dominating, not the actual regulations.

I'd rather F1 wasn't as well funded, or rather that Cwc weren't kept as rich... Balls to casual fans, f1 doesn't have to appeal to them but Cwc want the revenue, anyone supporting such a notion either hasn't experienced f1 before the 90s or doesn't actually care about f1!

terrible, i think some of the most edge of seat moments have been because you dont know if that guy is going to have to pit, so id rather have it open tbh

How about dice roll for pole position?

 

How about dice roll for pole position?

 

 

As long as Vettel's dice is always loaded.

 

In an ideal world there would be no limitations/restrictions. I think it's naive to think that that's the most appropriate solution though. It's kind of like having two species who kept each other in balance (in the past), however now one species is far more dominant - without intervention the result will be disaster.

 

Always happy to hear other people's opinions however the purists aren't really offering up a viable alternative. Even hardcore fans are turned off by boring races. In fact most remind us how boring each weekend is regardless of the result.

Edited by Cult, 06 December 2013 - 22:19.

As long as Vettel's dice is always loaded.

 

In an ideal world there would be no limitations/restrictions. I think it's naive to think that that's the most appropriate solution though. It's kind of like having two species who kept each other in balance (in the past), however now one species is far more dominant - without intervention the result will be disaster.

 

Always happy to hear other people's opinions however the purists aren't really offering up a viable alternative. Even hardcore fans are turned off by boring races. In fact most remind us how boring each weekend is regardless of the result.

 

Boring isn't the problem, manufactured is the problem. You want more overtaking, reduce aero, don't give us gimmicks. You want a real drivers championship, give them an H pattern gearbox with a clutch.

Edited by senna da silva, 06 December 2013 - 22:24.

No. These mandatory pitstops and limits on the number of laps per tire type will become defacto strategies imposed on all the teams.  There would be little or no variation in teams strategies on most tracks which would take away a critical element of F1's appeal. 

 

Also this type of all out 'stint' racing would bring drivers who are only skilled in doing one thing well to the front of the grid.  Drivers like Maldonado, Hamilton, Massa, Perez etc who are quick but have trouble managing decision making, implementing tire strategies, or are prone to impulsive maneuvers would be advantaged by this type of one dimensional racing.  F1 would suffer for it.  

 

There should be no mandatory pitstops at all, let the teams maximize their cars and drivers over the whole distance without artificial rules imo. 

Edited by halifaxf1fan, 06 December 2013 - 22:42.

No. These mandatory pitstops and limits on the number of laps per tire type will become defacto strategies imposed on all the teams.  There would be little or no variation in teams strategies on most tracks which would take away a critical element of F1's appeal. 

 

Also this type of all out stint racing would bring drivers who are only skilled in doing one thing well to the front of the grid.  Drivers like Maldonado, Hamilton, Massa, Perez who are quick but have trouble managing decision making, implementing tire strategies, or are prone to impulsive maneuvers would be advantaged by this type of one dimensional racing.  F1 would suffer for it.  

 

To be honest I'd prefer it if everything was opened up including no mandatory rule about no refuelling.

 

I really miss the stint era. At least the drivers were tested and had to push. It's a shame that there are so many rules. However saying that I think 0/1 stop races would damage the sport unless the cars are really difficult to drive next year/really unreliable. I'd welcome refuelling back despite its problems.

Very true but I don't see how mandatory pit stops would help, unless I am missing something?

Can‘t you at least see the FIA and Pirelli‘s point of view, though? The FIA were heavily criticised in 2010 when we had very durable tyres and no refuelling, which led to predictable 1-stop processional races. If there hadn‘t been so many wet races that season to liven things up, the criticism would have been worse. So to encourage variety of strategy, and overtaking therefore, the FIA told Pirelli to make tyres that would degrade sufficiently to make sure the optimum tyre strategy would be for 2 or 3 stops. Unfortunately Pirelli don‘t get to test much and have to produce a range of just four compounds to handle all the radically different track characteristics and temperatures seen through the season, so it‘s inevitable that if Pirelli is aggressive enough with its tyres to give itself a chance of meeting the 2-3 stops criterion everywhere, then there will be certain tracks like Barcelona, with its high ambient temperatures and medium-high speed, high radius, high load corners where people will have to virtually cruise around just to make the finish on 3 stops. This was also extremely unpopular.

So the FIA had a problem, its attempt to solve it with short-lifespan tyres has failed and all the signs are now that Pirelli isn‘t prepared any longer to deliberately produce tyres that are going to be slated by drivers and pundits and laughed at by fans. But that doesn‘t mean the original problem has gone away. The FIA doesn‘t want to go back to 2010. Looked at in that context, the mandatory two stops does seem to have the advantage of encouraging drivers to push and use the tyres by taking away the option of conserving tyres and saving a stop.

I lack the technical authority to go into detail but the rule makers should focus relentlessly on minimizing the turbulent air and marbles. Those two things physically stop close racing. They should also be very suspicious of anything that makes the cars easier to drive. And it's not like paddle shifters are relevant to road cars is it?

I'd be in favor only if they turned on the sprinklers in the pit box while the teams were stopped and turned off all the pit lane lights when there were cars in the lane.  If they are going to implement capricious ideas for managed competition they might as well go all the way.  A better way to increase competition would be to distribute the proceeds from the sport more equitably to the participants to encourage everyone to do the best with what they have.  Have three tires for the weekend, dry tire, inters and full wets.  Decrease the fuel capacity and require fueling.  I think the cost/safety reason given for not refueling is a strawman.  While fueling is potenitially the most dangerous time in the pit these days it's more likely one would be hit by a loose wheel or run over by thier own driver.

 

On edit:  to clarify, one dry compound per event with as many sets as one needs.  That compound could vary depending on the charicteristics of the surface but there would only be one dry chioce per event.

Edited by loki, 06 December 2013 - 22:52.

no

Here's what the Strategy Group should do:

• Reject the proposal for two mandatory stops
• Abolish the rule that requires drivers to use both compounds
• Allow Q3 drivers to start the race on whichever set of tyres
• Ask Pirelli to make hard-compound tyres that will last a full race at Monza and 35–45 laps at Barcelona
• Let the calendar be a mix of two- or three-stop races, one- or two-stop races – and even one- or non-stop races
• Have a merry Christmas

How about dice roll for pole position?

 

 

 

Better yet, dice roll for which car you get for the weekend.

Boring isn't the problem, manufactured is the problem. You want more overtaking, reduce aero, don't give us gimmicks. You want a real drivers championship, give them an H pattern gearbox with a clutch.

 

  Oh, I love you

Boring isn't the problem, manufactured is the problem. You want more overtaking, reduce aero, don't give us gimmicks. You want a real drivers championship, give them an H pattern gearbox with a clutch.

Agreed 100%

Shouldn't the FIA wait until they see what the '14 cars do with tirewear, fuel consumption, reliablity etc. before jumping the gun with more fake racing ploys? Plus, we already have mandatory pit stops to change from one compound to another.

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/111756

 

 

 

If it is accepted, next year each driver will have to make two pitstops per race and cannot use that event's harder tyre compound for more than 50 per cent of the distance, or the softer tyre for more than 30 per cent, significantly reducing opportunities for strategic variation.

 

So they want to make the rule so restrictive that everyone will pit at the same time?

 

Why?

Bring back a tyre war - Yes, it means one tyre manufacturer might get it dominantly right, but how is that really different to one engine manufacturer next year, or one chassis constructor this year?

 

Cap tyre contract costs, so if a manufacturer does want in, they cannot charge more than an affordable to even the smallest team amount.

 

Rule that a supplier has to be prepared to supply at least x (x being some percentage greater than 50) of the whole grid if required/ requested.

 

Allow tyre testing, paid for by the tyre manufacturer, using a randomly selected team holding a contract with them.

 

No more mandatory pitstop two compound races, no more state on the tyre you quallified on.

 

Variance in stretegy comes from variance in components, if all the teams have the same rubber they will all come to a similar conclusion as to the best use of it. And if the current single mandatory stop wasn't farcical enough, making it two stops will be keeping F1 firmly on the path to Nascarism.

86% is a massive NO even if the number of votes is small at this stage. What a hideous idea this mandatory stop is! I thought DRS was the most artificial, but this would take the cake. If ever the organizers needs to listen to what fans say..

Mandatory pit-stops will be no less artificial than asking the drivers to stop after 20 laps, get out of the car and hop 25 times on their left foot; then stop again after 43 laps, get out and hop 33 times on their right foot. If introduced, it may bring to an end nearly 60 years of watching F1 on my part; it's bad enough having silly tyres, this would be the last straw.

If it means that drivers can push every stint instead of saving tyres all the time, I vote yes. Too bad a mandatory pit stop is the only way to do it.

If it means that drivers can push every stint instead of saving tyres all the time, I vote yes. Too bad a mandatory pit stop is the only way to do it.

This is what I want to see, and I hope they find a way of doing so without mandatory pit stops.

 

For my own tastes, tyres were too much of a factor last year, and I fail to see why we cannot create a happy medium where say the likes of Hamilton can bomb around at full pace all afternoon and do 2 pit stops, whereas Jenson, Kimi and Perez can do their tyre whispering, and save time by only doing 1 pit stop.

 

For myself, that would be more reflective racing, as it allows all drivers strengths and weaknesses to be showcased and contrasted with one another.

Pirelli can provide no-stop tyres, no problem. We can see drivers pushing throughout the whole race!

Another contrived element to go in the bin with DRS, KERS, 'fake' tires and the like…  I agree with the posts that say the path to greater competitiveness is reduce importance of aero, improve importance of mechanical grip, and allow engine development...

I stopped watching DTM due to the mandatory pit stop silliness. Some would go in at lap 5, then again at lap 10, others run 30 laps and stop again at lap 32. No natural flow. Ideally the dynamics of a race should change throughout when the strategies comes into play, but with mandatory pit stops that will not happen.

One of the dumbest suggestions ever....

Is there only a  yes or no for two mandatory pit stops, or is there any idea to avoid driving for deltas and giving up race positions while saving tyres?

How can this '2 mandatory pit stops' rule forces the drivers to push like hell? There is a strict engine rule, gearbox rule, and the newest will be save fuel rule, so I doubt if it a good rule for 2 pit stops. 

But to choose between exploding tyres and boring races? Really black and white are the options? No 'shades' between these?

wasn't Pirelli making ultra enduring tyres for 2014 anyway, so mandatory pitstops would be pointless (in terms of pushing)?

 

I think Pirelli is highly unsure about how the 2014 tyres (basicly 2012/2013 shape/size with some strengthening modifications) will perform on the 2014 cars with so many things changed, I think they are scared that the quality of their F1 is again sh*tty. 

 

Bring back Bridgestone or Michelin as sole F1 tyre provider.

There should be 2 stops, but no percentage limitation on the sets - 100%

 

People complain about 1 stop races

People complain about cheese tyres

 

I think F1 should enforce two stops, avoid stint limitations (what's that even about? Safety?) and allow Pirelli to build a variety of really great tyres. I think this is definitely the way forward. We'd no longer have to see teams tip toe around on tyres and it might actually open strategy a bit. I know this sounds counter-intuitive however if teams can do a 0 or 1 stop race and it's faster they'll all do it - they'll all be on one compound/similar compounds and there won't be much variety.

 

For two stop strategies, you get a bit more opportunity. For example one team may favour to run harder compounds throughout the race because they're harder on tyres e.g. Mercedes. Lotus could run two hard stints followed by a soft stint and really attack at the end because they're able to extract more pace over a longer period on the hards.

 

Everyone has their own opinions but for me if you can ignore the 'artifical' nature of it, it will create a much better show and spectacle.

 

EDIT: I'm also a fan of three tyre compounds being brought to each weekend or competition between two providers. Both could work with the mandatory 2 stop strategy. The latter point in particular does not work under the current set-up.

This wouldn't be the worst idea in the world - Bridgestone and Michelin used to build tyres you could run flat out on for twenty-odd laps that would go off afterwards - of course, back then this was ideal as tyre changes were 'mandated' by refuelling. The situation in the post-refuelling era is that if Pirelli turned up with tyres like we had in the early 2000s, the teams would make their drivers save them anyway so they can get to the end with only one stop. This is F1's conundrum - there is basically a choice between tyre-saving races and races that are flat-out but processional. This idea, I think, may provide a solution to that problem.

If it means that drivers can push every stint instead of saving tyres all the time, I vote yes. Too bad a mandatory pit stop is the only way to do it.

 

Drivers were pushing every stint in the refueling era, but that didn't lead to passing on track, that is why they introduced Pirelli and DRS/KERS etc. This would be correcting a mistake with another mistake.

I think the poll is not really clear. Is it about the new FIA proposal for regulating race tactics? Or is it about basically keeping the existing mandatory two tyre compound (and hence mandatory pit stop) rule? The thread title suggests the former and the wording of the question the latter (at least for me).