Time to get rid of the two compound rule?

I mean the literal time to get rid of it was before the start of the 2007 season but, after watching today's race seeing Albon and Williams having to give up a strong position (I know they got one point in the end) just to satisfy a regulation like this kind of acted as a reminder of what a joke this rule is and always has been.

While I'll always hate the nature of the Pirelli cheese tyres, the fact they exist means the pit stop fans will be satisfied 99.99% of the time regardless, so why have this rule on top of that? I feel like if a driver and team can make one set last the full distance against the odds, they should be rewarded for it.

He was only in such a good position because everyone else had to pit. If the rules were different I'm sure a lot of cars would have started on the hards and run the same stratergy.

Edited by Misk, 10 April 2022 - 22:26.

He was only in such a good position because everyone else had to pit. If the rules were different I'm sure a lot of cars would have started on the hards and run the same stratergy.

Fine by me. They're forced to overtake on track if there's no over/undercutting.

It would be nice if non-stop races were an option, but let's not pretend Albon was robbed today. Williams went for an unconventional strategy that paid off fairly well, but he was running higher than he should have been until his stop.

They should make it so, if you pit, you have to run different compounds as it is now, but if you reckon you can make it, you don't have to pit.

I know this rule is quite artificial but I think it should stay. It throws quite a lot of variables into a race. If we give completely free tyre choice then teams would likely run the whole race on the compound that suits them best, and we see fewer surprises through a race. It is interesting when they all switch from compound 1 to 2 and then the car that was quickest in the first stint, suddenly isn't anymore. You'd be reducing the scope for this kind of thing to happen.

Fine, but limit the number of crew working on the car.

They should make it so, if you pit, you have to run different compounds as it is now, but if you reckon you can make it, you don't have to pit.

While still very artificial, to be honest I wouldn't mind this as a compromise and at the end of the day an improvement over the current situation. It would retain the feature that noikeee mentions above you the vast vast majority of the time (given that with these tyres pitting at least once is usually by far the quicker way to go), while also throwing in no-stop as an extra strategic option for those that can manage it and make it work.

Yes.  And Pirelli.

I know this rule is quite artificial but I think it should stay. It throws quite a lot of variables into a race. If we give completely free tyre choice then teams would likely run the whole race on the compound that suits them best, and we see fewer surprises through a race. It is interesting when they all switch from compound 1 to 2 and then the car that was quickest in the first stint, suddenly isn't anymore. You'd be reducing the scope for this kind of thing to happen.

Edited by w1Y, 11 April 2022 - 03:13.

Most of the time, the hard tires won't last the race. We had one compound softer barely being able to do 10-20 laps, yet the hards could do 60 laps.

I mean the literal time to get rid of it was before the start of the 2007 season but, after watching today's race seeing Albon and Williams having to give up a strong position (I know they got one point in the end) just to satisfy a regulation like this kind of acted as a reminder of what a joke this rule is and always has been.

 

While I'll always hate the nature of the Pirelli cheese tyres, the fact they exist means the pit stop fans will be satisfied 99.99% of the time regardless, so why have this rule on top of that? I feel like if a driver and team can make one set last the full distance against the odds, they should be rewarded for it.

You realize there are several tracks where teams would nurse tires to finish with zero stops? Monaco and Monza comes to mind, but also most of the street circuits like Baku, Saudi and perhaps Singapore could easily be extended to a zero stop race with the hardest available compound. Pirelli tires haven't been cheese tires for several years, it's just the new regs that require teams to adjust for a while and soon they'll easily make any compound last half a race again.

Edited by timmy bolt, 11 April 2022 - 06:31.

This would just lead to more delta driving and tyre saving would it not?

I forget now, but did we not do a season with tyres that last the whole race? How’d that go?

Not something we can meaningfully compare to. There was a tyre war, so the tyre companies were pushing to make tyres that would last for qualifying and the race without issues. There was also refuelling, which dominated race strategy. It was the extreme of fuel stop sprint racing.

It would be great but Pirelli’s bottom line is more important than fans…

Plus you have a big camp of newbies that have been brainwashed to believe pit stops are great for races.

I'm not a newbie, I have been following F1 since 1992, and I know that pitstops are great for races.

This would just lead to more delta driving and tyre saving would it not?

I forget now, but did we not do a season with tyres that last the whole race? How’d that go?

One of the best title battles we had all decade. And Indy only happened because of politics

Edited by TomNokoe, 11 April 2022 - 07:17.

I'm not a newbie, I have been following F1 since 1992, and I know that pitstops are great for races.

*more strategy options are great for races. When everyones forced to go on the same strategy, it gets boring

I have never liked the rule, hinders radical strategies.

I think people are forgetting why they brought this rule in…and it does spice up races. I wouldn’t say that it’s particularly ‘artificial’ either and it’s quite fair overall.

If you had the option to not pit you would have drivers running at a very slow pace and not taking any risks, there would be less aggression on track, etc.

I don’t really thing the whole ‘it makes them overtake on track instead’ thing applies too much any more. We’ve seen that with DRS it is fairly straightforward now.

I can’t see many/any advantages in changing the current rules. 

I think people are forgetting why they brought this rule in…and it does spice up races. I wouldn’t say that it’s particularly ‘artificial’ either and it’s quite fair overall.

I'd say it's the go-to example of an artificial gimmick.

By the way I don't think this has ever happened but if a race starts on a damp track and some people start on slicks and some on wets and it dries out, those on the wets will obviouslt have to change to slicks at some point. But the slick gamblers would then have to hand back in their well-earnt advantage by stopping for a new set of slicks even if they could last the race because of this stupid rule (I presume). That would be ridiculous.

If the track is declared wet by the race director (which it would be if people felt the need to be on inters or wets) then those gambling on slicks wouldn’t be mandated to stop again. If anything, that situation benefits those gambling on slicks.

Edited by IrvTheSwerve, 11 April 2022 - 07:59.

I'm not a newbie, I have been following F1 since 1992, and I know that pitstops are great for races.

Fine, but limit the number of crew working on the car.

Another aspect that has not been mentioned is, it would likely become a safety issue, especially around street tracks. 

Many will go beyond the limit and will try to make it to the end on one set of tyres.

Around street tracks, that is just messy and dangerous.

Edited by LolaB0860, 11 April 2022 - 08:54.

Another aspect that has not been mentioned is, it would likely become a safety issue, especially around street tracks.

Many will go beyond the limit and will try to make it to the end on one set of tyres.

Around street tracks, that is just messy and dangerous.

Absolutely not...until Pirelli can come with some of the best lasting tyres....this is clearly also a safety measure..to run from ambition and to keep a place until your tyres are gone and probably crush, no...not everybody can have the luck that albon has to run the same tyre for over 55 laps...and what about more abrasive tracks where even the harder compound cannot last 30 laps!? When you are heading out of Monaco tunnel in the last 2-3 laps , your tyre to fail on you and crush dramatically...

Such a great rule, it must stay

Edited by Shell, 11 April 2022 - 09:02.

Absolutely not...until Pirelli can come with some of the best lasting tyres....this is clearly also a safety measure..to run from ambition and to keep a place until your tyres are gone and probably crush, no...not everybody can have the luck that albon has to run the same tyre for over 55 laps...and what about more abrasive tracks where even the harder compound cannot last 30 laps!? When you are heading out of Monaco tunnel in the last 2-3 laps , your tyre to fail on you and crush dramatically...

Such a great rule, it must stay

Precisely. It requires skill & circumstance. In most cases the top teams know that like now, a pit stop would be the quicker option for them.  It'll be the lower placed teams using it as a way to get into the top 10 and hopefully stay there. The guys at the front won't really be affected, but the midfielders - instead of trundling around in 9th, they'll have to push. And it would be only workable at a few tracks anyway.

However if we can get tyres actually designed to last a whole race, we can increase safety in F1 by getting rid of dangerous pitstops altogether.

One of the best title battles we had all decade. And Indy only happened because of politics

There wasn't much of a title battle in 2005 if by battle you mean actual encounters on track. Raikkonen was clear on his own in most races until his car broke or had to start from the back due to engine breaking in free practice. Overall those race lasting tires brought nothing but worse racing, which is why that experiment only lasted a season.

And as pointed by someone above, having any kind of option to do zero stops and tires that allow that even in theory would always make it a very attractive strategy. Driving to a delta is always a better option than risking a pit stop with possible issues and dealing with the traffic afterwards or a badly timed safety car period. It is unfortunately always a better strategy to avoid pit stops so long as there isn't a significant time gain for the strategy that involves doing a stop or more.

Absolutely not...until Pirelli can come with some of the best lasting tyres....this is clearly also a safety measure..to run from ambition and to keep a place until your tyres are gone and probably crush, no...not everybody can have the luck that albon has to run the same tyre for over 55 laps...and what about more abrasive tracks where even the harder compound cannot last 30 laps!? When you are heading out of Monaco tunnel in the last 2-3 laps , your tyre to fail on you and crush dramatically...
Such a great rule, it must stay

He was only in such a good position because everyone else had to pit. If the rules were different I'm sure a lot of cars would have started on the hards and run the same stratergy.

In that case, stopping would then become the alternative strategy.

Pit stop strategy has been a big part of F1 since the early 1980s. So anyone under 40 at this point must be a “newbie”.

In the late '80s (really, until the refuelling era of F1) my recollection was that it was more a question of "will a driver who has gone with harder tyres be able to make them last or will he have to pit?" and "will the driver who has gone with the softs be able to make it on just one stop?"

There wasn't much of a title battle in 2005 if by battle you mean actual encounters on track. Raikkonen was clear on his own in most races until his car broke or had to start from the back due to engine breaking in free practice. Overall those race lasting tires brought nothing but worse racing, which is why that experiment only lasted a season.

 

And as pointed by someone above, having any kind of option to do zero stops and tires that allow that even in theory would always make it a very attractive strategy. Driving to a delta is always a better option than risking a pit stop with possible issues and dealing with the traffic afterwards or a badly timed safety car period. It is unfortunately always a better strategy to avoid pit stops so long as there isn't a significant time gain for the strategy that involves doing a stop or more.

a) they're driving to a delta anyway apart from a few laps of  'hammertime'. And they're on the same strategy anyway

b) not stopping for tyres but stopping twice a race for 7 second fuel stops rather impacted the track action

In the late '80s (really, until the refuelling era of F1) my recollection was that it was more a question of "will a driver who has gone with harder tyres be able to make them last or will he have to pit?" and "will the driver who has gone with the softs be able to make it on just one stop?"

and as the Nigel enthusiasts on here will tell you, it created some epic moments in F1 history. 

Let's only change the two compound rule when Pirelli doesn't provide tyres that can last an entire race.

Edited by TomNokoe, 11 April 2022 - 10:13.

It was a stupid idea to begin with

Agree totally with the OP. Moto GP can provide good racing without compulsory pit stops, so could F1 for many years. Making a tyre that needs a little management (but not much) is perfectly possible, it's simply not the brief the FIA has given Pirelli.

Not a fan of "strategies." Where good information is available, the teams end up on the same one. Where it's not, it's a throw of the dice - and I want to watch racing, not Ludo.

Let's have durable tyres with a broad operating window so they aren't so temperature-critical. It would help close following too.

He was only in such a good position because everyone else had to pit. If the rules were different I'm sure a lot of cars would have started on the hards and run the same stratergy.

And they should have been allowed to. If Pirelli make tires that last the whole race, use it for the whole race if you think it is the quickest way. I find the "use two different compounds" rule utterly ridiculous.

IMO, they only should have the following compound of tyres available the entire weekend:

Qualifying Tyres - the softest compound that is to be used for qualifying

Extreme Wet Tyres - As the title says. Logistics wise, can save by not bringing these tyres for say Jeddah

Inter Tyres - Mandatory for each weekend

Medium Tyres - I think this should be a standard race tyre. Hard means we will not see any pitstops, and chances of drivers managing tyres, not racing the cars will occur. Ideally, a race with 1 - 2 pitstops is good enough. 

This stupid current tyre rules actually was lots of money in freight. 

One of the best title battles we had all decade. And Indy only happened because of politics