Would you like to see Formula One with no pitstops? No refuelling, No tyre changes and drivers can only have a pitstop for damage or to tweak aerodynamics.
Would you like to see Formula One with no pitstops?
Started by
THE "driverider"
, Jan 25 2010 19:51
57 replies to this topic
Advertisement
#2
tifosi
-
- 22,758 posts
- Joined: June 99
Member
Posted 25 January 2010 - 19:59
I voted yes but with a caveat. That being, the use of pitstops are is not mandated in the rules, rather, should a team so desire they can try for a no pitstop race.
#3
JKTRacing
-
- 186 posts
- Joined: April 09
Member
Posted 25 January 2010 - 20:07
Yes, a race should be won/lost in the race track, not in the boxes
#4
MadYarpen
-
- 4,763 posts
- Joined: December 09
Member
Posted 25 January 2010 - 20:11
depends on race. Some may be interesting only with racing on track, but in valencia let's say, only time when something is happening, is in da pit-stop-fun-time
#5
RSNS
-
- 1,521 posts
- Joined: June 02
Member
Posted 25 January 2010 - 20:14
depends on race. Some may be interesting only with racing on track, but in valencia let's say, only time when something is happening, is in da pit-stop-fun-time
I voted yes just to counter the importance pit stops now have. But I think _optional_ tires changes and no refueling would be best.
#6
Lazarus II
-
- 4,527 posts
- Joined: July 04
Member
Posted 25 January 2010 - 20:15
ExactlyI voted yes but with a caveat. That being, the use of pitstops are is not mandated in the rules, rather, should a team so desire they can try for a no pitstop race.
. If the team wants/nedds a pitstop, then they should have one. No mandatory pit stops, no disallowed pit stops, no must use both compounds, no can't use different compounds at the same time. Just let the cars race. KISS
Edited by Lazarus II, 25 January 2010 - 20:16.
#7
Victor_RO
-
- 6,067 posts
- Joined: March 09
RC Forum Host
Posted 25 January 2010 - 20:15
No mandatory pitstops. If they want to stop for tires, great. If they want to go through the race, great. Just leave this open.
#8
Risil
-
- 61,745 posts
- Joined: February 07
Administrator
Posted 25 January 2010 - 20:16
Exactly
IRL tried that, Gene Simmons proved less useful than you projected.
#9
tifosi
-
- 22,758 posts
- Joined: June 99
Member
Posted 25 January 2010 - 20:17
to steal a term from facebookI voted yes just to counter the importance pit stops now have. But I think _optional_ tires changes and no refueling would be best.
phil likes this
#10
Jackmancer
-
- 3,226 posts
- Joined: September 09
Member
Posted 25 January 2010 - 20:46
Where's the 'I do not care' button? Seriously, overtaking and action arn't made by (lack of) pitstops in my oppinion.
#11
MadYarpen
-
- 4,763 posts
- Joined: December 09
Member
Posted 25 January 2010 - 20:48
and if it would be left open, everyone would take pit stops cause now they will last with whole pit lane 100km/h around 16 sec... so only way would be to forbid it, which sounds a little stupid
#12
tifosi
-
- 22,758 posts
- Joined: June 99
Member
Posted 25 January 2010 - 21:16
and if it would be left open, everyone would take pit stops cause now they will last with whole pit lane 100km/h around 16 sec... so only way would be to forbid it, which sounds a little stupid
No refueling may change the equation.
#13
MadYarpen
-
- 4,763 posts
- Joined: December 09
Member
Posted 25 January 2010 - 21:18
No refueling may change the equation.
with refueling it is more than 20 sec
#14
Seanspeed
-
- 21,814 posts
- Joined: October 08
Member
Posted 25 January 2010 - 21:19
I'd only approve of this if they finally get the cars to follow each other easily through fast corners.
Even then, you'd have tracks like Monaco, where pretty much nothing would happen, and the saving grace(passing in the pits) would be obsolete.
Even then, you'd have tracks like Monaco, where pretty much nothing would happen, and the saving grace(passing in the pits) would be obsolete.
#15
giacomo
-
- 6,977 posts
- Joined: December 05
Member
Posted 25 January 2010 - 21:25
Passing in the pits has nothing to do with the spirit and essence of motor racing which is man/machine vs man/machine.
So no, I won't miss pitstops in F1.
So no, I won't miss pitstops in F1.
#16
Bouncing Pink Ball
-
- 758 posts
- Joined: May 08
Member
Posted 25 January 2010 - 21:25
My ideal would be nothing mandated – pit or not pit, refuel or run the full race on one tank, use whatever compound of tire a team wants and in any sequence the want.
What's the right option for that? Yes to pitstops (no in the poll)? That's what I voted, anyway...
What's the right option for that? Yes to pitstops (no in the poll)? That's what I voted, anyway...
#17
Clatter
-
- 44,736 posts
- Joined: February 00
Member
Posted 25 January 2010 - 21:27
I voted yes but with a caveat. That being, the use of pitstops are is not mandated in the rules, rather, should a team so desire they can try for a no pitstop race.
That would be my option. Happy with no refueling, but not with enforced tyre changes.
#18
Seanspeed
-
- 21,814 posts
- Joined: October 08
Member
Posted 25 January 2010 - 21:30
Sorry, but the 'essence' of motorsports is not something that is clearly defined, and is clearly different from person to person. I see no reason why race strategy shouldn't be a large part of motorsports. After all, it always has been.Passing in the pits has nothing to do with the spirit and essence of motor racing which is man/machine vs man/machine.
#19
giacomo
-
- 6,977 posts
- Joined: December 05
Member
Posted 25 January 2010 - 21:44
That's fine for me. I express my own point of view, not that of someone else.Sorry, but the 'essence' of motorsports is not something that is clearly defined, and is clearly different from person to person. I see no reason why race strategy shouldn't be a large part of motorsports. After all, it always has been.
And if people think it's thrilling to watch people changing tyres, so be it. This is a free world.
Advertisement
#20
WACKO
-
- 2,293 posts
- Joined: June 03
Member
Posted 25 January 2010 - 21:52
Yes, a race should be won/lost in the race track, not in the boxes
It would be the most boring procession you have ever seen.
#21
THE "driverider"
-
- 804 posts
- Joined: September 09
Member
Posted 25 January 2010 - 22:03
I think it was the 1996 Monaco Grand Prix where Mika Salo made no pitstops and finished 5th in a Tyrrell.
#22
giacomo
-
- 6,977 posts
- Joined: December 05
Member
Posted 25 January 2010 - 22:04
Doesn't matter at all. The main point of a race is not to be 'entertaining' but to find out the fastest driver/car combination.It would be the most boring procession you have ever seen.
#23
Risil
-
- 61,745 posts
- Joined: February 07
Administrator
Posted 25 January 2010 - 22:16
Doesn't matter at all. The main point of a race is not to be 'entertaining' but to find out the fastest driver/car combination.
Is it?
Did it not occur to you that the unwashed masses who show up to a race wanting to be entertained, might appreciate a good piece of engineering or driving skill when they see it? That they don't just show up hoping that the poor sod next to them will be knocked out cold by a piece of debris from yet another huge smash?
Edited by Risil, 25 January 2010 - 22:16.
#24
giacomo
-
- 6,977 posts
- Joined: December 05
Member
Posted 25 January 2010 - 22:22
No idea about the point you're trying to make with those questions.Is it?
Of course the spectators are there to get entertained; however the drivers and teams don't race to entertain the spectators, in the first place they race to beat their opponents.
#25
COUGAR508
-
- 1,184 posts
- Joined: February 07
Member
Posted 25 January 2010 - 22:29
I would agree with those who favour the option of tyre stops, but with no refuelling.
#26
pingu666
-
- 9,272 posts
- Joined: October 07
Member
Posted 25 January 2010 - 22:37
id be scared that nothing would happen, like motogp, but longer and without rossi. its something that really needs trying out before you know if its better
#27
Risil
-
- 61,745 posts
- Joined: February 07
Administrator
Posted 25 January 2010 - 22:39
No idea about the point you're trying to make with those questions.
Of course the spectators are there to get entertained; however the drivers and teams don't race to entertain the spectators, in the first place they race to beat their opponents.
The drivers and teams aren't the whole sport, not by a long shot. The body that sets the rules has to consider the effect they have on more than just the drivers and teams.
#28
johnmhinds
-
- 7,292 posts
- Joined: July 09
Member
Posted 25 January 2010 - 22:40
No idea about the point you're trying to make with those questions.
Of course the spectators are there to get entertained; however the drivers and teams don't race to entertain the spectators, in the first place they race to beat their opponents.
I'm sure the sponsors whose money pays for the cars would like them to try and entertain the fans.
#29
Szoelloe
-
- 7,054 posts
- Joined: December 06
Member
Posted 25 January 2010 - 22:49
no. Pitstops are part of Formula one racing, this way, or that way, it has always been. I want pitstops, but refueling is too artificial, it is good it has been banned.
#30
Tenmantaylor
-
- 18,124 posts
- Joined: July 01
Member
Posted 25 January 2010 - 22:55
No. I would like it to be legal not to make a pitstop but forcing everyone to no-stop would remove alot of strategy elements. We wouldnt get a huge rise in overtaking, there'd just be longer processions.
#31
Demo.
-
- 1,205 posts
- Joined: May 09
Member
Posted 25 January 2010 - 23:01
I would vote yes for no mandated pitstops but no if you mean no tyre changes allowed.
Sorry it needs to be clearer with more options IMHO
hence no vote cast as i don't agree with either as posted
Sorry it needs to be clearer with more options IMHO
hence no vote cast as i don't agree with either as posted
#32
Radoye
-
- 3,368 posts
- Joined: March 09
Member
Posted 25 January 2010 - 23:04
My ideal would be nothing mandated – pit or not pit, refuel or run the full race on one tank, use whatever compound of tire a team wants and in any sequence the want.
Exactly. The more freedom the better, it would give someone a chance to take a risk doing something differently than the rest and maybe profit from it.
#33
Lazarus II
-
- 4,527 posts
- Joined: July 04
Member
Posted 25 January 2010 - 23:06
Preach it brotherPassing in the pits has nothing to do with the spirit and essence of motor racing which is man/machine vs man/machine.
So no, I won't miss pitstops in F1.
#34
SeanValen
-
- 17,023 posts
- Joined: February 01
Member
Posted 25 January 2010 - 23:28
I thought about this, and I think, pitstops are needed mainly because overtaking has just gotten almost mission impossible like.
There's a certain element to strategies I appreciate, where there is this suspense about has this driver made up enough time to outflank a rival, and as he's getting out of the pits, we are on edge, or amazed he got out in front, I think the way formula one's rules have been going, pitstops are a nescessity because some tracks with these cars, there's just no chance to make positions up with the current cars in enough time to go for wins if you don't quali on poles.
Something about a f1 car entering and exiting a pitlane is a part of the action, especially when tracks/cars and conditions can't offer overtaking, then strategies have become crucial to the sport, some of Ross Brawn and Michael Schumacher's wins with strategy helped made interesting gps.
Formula One has to sort it's other problems out like actually being able to race with other cars and outbreak someone in the corner, these days the breaking systems are too good for the driver behind to really make a difference, we'lve been pushed into using pitstops as a way to get ahead, I like the option of the pitstop, but we depend on it too much in f1 because that's the way they've allowed the rules to go.
So I think the thread title should be something like, would you like pitstops in a world where formula one cars can race like they did decades ago? And I would say yes, because I want the strategies and pitstops/team working spirit, along with the action on track as well, the best of both worlds. Right now we have focus on pitstops because they've haven't changed the cars for the better racing.
There's a certain element to strategies I appreciate, where there is this suspense about has this driver made up enough time to outflank a rival, and as he's getting out of the pits, we are on edge, or amazed he got out in front, I think the way formula one's rules have been going, pitstops are a nescessity because some tracks with these cars, there's just no chance to make positions up with the current cars in enough time to go for wins if you don't quali on poles.
Something about a f1 car entering and exiting a pitlane is a part of the action, especially when tracks/cars and conditions can't offer overtaking, then strategies have become crucial to the sport, some of Ross Brawn and Michael Schumacher's wins with strategy helped made interesting gps.
Formula One has to sort it's other problems out like actually being able to race with other cars and outbreak someone in the corner, these days the breaking systems are too good for the driver behind to really make a difference, we'lve been pushed into using pitstops as a way to get ahead, I like the option of the pitstop, but we depend on it too much in f1 because that's the way they've allowed the rules to go.
So I think the thread title should be something like, would you like pitstops in a world where formula one cars can race like they did decades ago? And I would say yes, because I want the strategies and pitstops/team working spirit, along with the action on track as well, the best of both worlds. Right now we have focus on pitstops because they've haven't changed the cars for the better racing.
Edited by SeanValen, 26 January 2010 - 00:06.
#35
Mungo Fangio of the Year
-
- 565 posts
- Joined: November 09
Member
Posted 25 January 2010 - 23:34
I voted yes, but I don't want it to be mandatory. I want those who want to change tires, to do it.
#36
Witt
-
- 3,308 posts
- Joined: November 98
Member
Posted 26 January 2010 - 00:06
I voted yes but with a caveat. That being, the use of pitstops are is not mandated in the rules, rather, should a team so desire they can try for a no pitstop race.
I agree with this idea.
Mandatory pit stops are THE worst thing in motor racing. Period.
Ban refuelling, and let the teams/drivers decide if they want to pit or not for fresh tyres. Simple.
#37
De Jokke
-
- 818 posts
- Joined: November 09
Member
Posted 26 January 2010 - 00:48
Pitstops should stay, including refuelling.
#38
Augurk
-
- 5,512 posts
- Joined: December 09
Member
Posted 26 January 2010 - 08:40
Pitstops should definitely stay allowed. Strategy is such a big and interesting part of F1, it should definitely stay. F1 should be the pinnacle of racing, technology and strategy. They're already dumbing down technology, don't remove strategy.
I want to be amazed again when someone finishes a race in the points without a pitstop (salo, monaco 1997) or when someone tries something really unexpected like a 4 stop strategy to win the race (ferrari, mangy-cours, forgot the year).
I want to be amazed again when someone finishes a race in the points without a pitstop (salo, monaco 1997) or when someone tries something really unexpected like a 4 stop strategy to win the race (ferrari, mangy-cours, forgot the year).
#39
CaptnMark
-
- 1,026 posts
- Joined: March 99
Member
Posted 26 January 2010 - 09:37
Decrease pit stop speed limit until it's viable to do a no stop (and is actually being done).
Advertisement
#40
Shevek
-
- 265 posts
- Joined: October 07
Member
Posted 26 January 2010 - 11:03
when someone tries something really unexpected like a 4 stop strategy to win the race (ferrari, mangy-cours, forgot the year).
2004.
#41
Hippo
-
- 2,378 posts
- Joined: April 08
Member
Posted 26 January 2010 - 11:05
I don't want to see F1 without pitstops. Ban on refueling is good. They should have removed the mandatory "use both compounds" bullcrap too.
If someone then wanted to not pit at all, fine. But it certainly would be slower, because his tires would be worse for at least half of the race.
Thinking about it I actually despise the way tires are chosen by Bridgestone too. Teams should be allowed to choose their tires instead of BS doing it. Like in the old days, when there were 4 compounds of Goodyears (classed A to D if I'm not mistaken) and everyone used the ones they deemed fit. It would reduce the atrocity of a forced single tire supplier somewhat.
If someone then wanted to not pit at all, fine. But it certainly would be slower, because his tires would be worse for at least half of the race.
Thinking about it I actually despise the way tires are chosen by Bridgestone too. Teams should be allowed to choose their tires instead of BS doing it. Like in the old days, when there were 4 compounds of Goodyears (classed A to D if I'm not mistaken) and everyone used the ones they deemed fit. It would reduce the atrocity of a forced single tire supplier somewhat.
#42
tifosi
-
- 22,758 posts
- Joined: June 99
Member
Posted 26 January 2010 - 11:12
Thinking about it I actually despise the way tires are chosen by Bridgestone too. Teams should be allowed to choose their tires instead of BS doing it. Like in the old days, when there were 4 compounds of Goodyears (classed A to D if I'm not mistaken) and everyone used the ones they deemed fit. It would reduce the atrocity of a forced single tire supplier somewhat.
Agreed!!! End the tire restrictions. 3-4 compounds, teams decide what they want to race. Even back to when they may run softs inside and hards outside or whatever trhey choose.
No refueling.
So do you go hard with 0 or 1 pitstop, or medium with 2-3 pitstops???
Let the COMPETITORS determine the strategy not the FIA.
#44
Orin
-
- 8,444 posts
- Joined: October 04
Member
Posted 26 January 2010 - 11:19
Would you like to see Formula One with no pitstops? No refuelling, No tyre changes and drivers can only have a pitstop for damage or to tweak aerodynamics.
If there is one thing that would sort out the overtaking problem, this is it. Such rules would make finding a solution a priority. I voted 'yes' but ideally I'd like to see either no rules on tyre changes or a requirement to run different compounds.
#45
wrighty
-
- 3,794 posts
- Joined: November 06
Member
Posted 26 January 2010 - 11:27
I voted yes but with a caveat. That being, the use of pitstops are is not mandated in the rules, rather, should a team so desire they can try for a no pitstop race.
ditto, it should be a strategy choice, not outlawed or mandatory (and i would include the point i mentioned in the other thread about the points tweak, that if a team chooses to pit for strategic purposes, then both types of tyres must be used but they should not be forced to use both types as they are now)
#46
Jay101
-
- 649 posts
- Joined: July 09
Member
Posted 26 January 2010 - 11:55
Not only that but they also had a super soft qualifying tyre as well.I don't want to see F1 without pitstops. Ban on refueling is good. They should have removed the mandatory "use both compounds" bullcrap too.
If someone then wanted to not pit at all, fine. But it certainly would be slower, because his tires would be worse for at least half of the race.
Thinking about it I actually despise the way tires are chosen by Bridgestone too. Teams should be allowed to choose their tires instead of BS doing it. Like in the old days, when there were 4 compounds of Goodyears (classed A to D if I'm not mistaken) and everyone used the ones they deemed fit. It would reduce the atrocity of a forced single tire supplier somewhat.
I always prefered the multi compound days as well, far more stratergie was involved and the performance difference between tyre compounds as they were used on track I always felt helped with the on track overtaking oppertunities as well.
#47
Hairpin
-
- 4,468 posts
- Joined: September 09
Member
Posted 26 January 2010 - 12:21
Surprising poll result. Maybe it would have been different if the question was "should pit stops be mandatory"?
#48
Hippo
-
- 2,378 posts
- Joined: April 08
Member
Posted 26 January 2010 - 12:22
Yeah I see there are people remembering how it used to be. But don't get me wrong. I didn't mean to bring back anything from 20 years ago. Times have changed. It would already be a step in the right direction, if the individual tire choice would be made by teams. Even if it has to be done months before the respective races. It wouldn't be such a foul compromise with teams rightfully complaining that sometimes BS's choice didn't suit them at all. And it would not cost any major amount of additional money, because the number of "ordered" tires would be the same as it is now.
#49
uffen
-
- 1,892 posts
- Joined: April 04
Member
Posted 26 January 2010 - 12:22
I made the assumption that the poll was asking about refueling stops. Pit stops must be allowed for changing tires due to rain, or rain stopping, and punctures and the like.
Also, sometimes a nosecone needs changing. So, we shouldn't ban them completely. Ban this stupid dual compound tire nonsense, though.
Also, sometimes a nosecone needs changing. So, we shouldn't ban them completely. Ban this stupid dual compound tire nonsense, though.
#50
Raincoat
-
- 775 posts
- Joined: December 09
Member
Posted 26 January 2010 - 12:27
Yes, a race should be won/lost in the race track, not in the boxes
I bet this would make Valencia and singapore lots of fun
