42 replies to this topic

[le chat noir]

Hi all,

Off the back of all the talk of the recent incident and Pirelli-gate (is that a thing?) leads me to wonder: do we actually need pit stops?

Tyres that run to the end, fuel to the end, what's not to like? Sprinting has gone already. Obvs a team may choose to swap tyres halfway thru, but the tyre should let another run to the end without stopping

Thoughts?

[g1n]

Even if we have tyres that can last the whole race, teams will still choose to stop as they will probably find that fresh rubber still out ways time lost in a stop.

[Sin]

It's a good question... I personally don't like pitstops... since it for me always seems like a break of the racing going on at the track

on the other hand F1 is motorsport where a certain degree of strategy is important and wanted by many people...

so I'm a fan of 1 pitstop races

[Vibe]

Pitstops will always be there because they mix things up and make the sport more "interesting" and marketable.At least that's probably how Bernie sees it...

Edited by Vibe, 11 July 2013 - 17:52.

[SpaMaster]

Good question.

I think the first thing that needs to go is this two-compound rule. That is contrived and useless. FIA anyway wants to use less tyres and less carrying around. Let's allocate a certain number of tyre sets for each team (even if it means two different compounds). Let the teams decide how they want to run the race. If they want to go all the way without stopping, so be it. If they want to stop twice or thrice, that is also fine.

[FrankB]

Why not allow pitstops but not make them compulsory?

Permit tyres that can go full distance as well as tyres that are only good for half, third or quarter distance. Then the teams can decide their own strategy for each circuit, no stops or up to 3 stops.

[racerbaz]

If I want to see tyre-changing I can go down to my local Quick-Fit depot.
Grand Prix racing has always been about wheel-to-wheel racing on the track not artificial pretend 'entertainment'.
I also won't need an expensive Sky subscription to fill a phone-hackers pockets.

[Scorg]

We have had a season of race tyres that were made to last the distance where tyre changes were only done if required, say a blow out or heavy flatspot.
Its the season where Kimi refused to pit after a heavy flatspot appeared on one of his fronts, in the end the vibrations caused eventually shattered the suspension struts as he was unwilling to give up his very strong race position.

Refuelling stops were still part of regular pitstops in that season though

[SR388]

Hi all,

Off the back of all the talk of the recent incident and Pirelli-gate (is that a thing?) leads me to wonder: do we actually need pit stops?

Tyres that run to the end, fuel to the end, what's not to like? Sprinting has gone already. Obvs a team may choose to swap tyres halfway thru, but the tyre should let another run to the end without stopping

Thoughts?

Go look up 2005. Ban on tire changes. Created its fair share of controversy.

Why not just do it like NASCAR? If you are not working on a car, get over on the other side of the wall.

[Deerfield]

no pitstops for me. and also no kers and drs. One set of tyres, a full tank, no adjustments: the one who is able to keep the car when it's degraded, tyres are worn and out of balance, is the one who win the race. simple.

unfortunately, this would imply a lot of "phenomenal" drivers we see would prove less than "phenomenal", and an entire economy based on contract, hype, overratings would deflagrate. And this is the reason we'll continue to see pitstops, kers, drs...

[KWSN - DSM]

Personally I think that pitstops belong in Sports Car racing and not F1, and they should never be mandatory.

[Szoelloe]

It would be an easy binary poll. Yes or No. No, we do not need them.

[Wander]

I don't think they are fundamental.

[SR388]

I also think there should be steps made to slow down pit stops. Limit the number of people allowed to touch the car. Slow it down to about a 8 second stop. When you have teams pushing sub 3 second average stops mistakes are going to happen on a regular basis.

[SpaMaster]

On a related note, I am a bit concerned about safety when these cars come off such speed and attempt to park into a crowd of people with may be a few inches of margin for the exact space into which the car must be parked. I wonder how close this is to ploughing people. May be my fears are unwarranted, I am not sure. These mechanics have no guards for their legs or their bodies except for the helmet. May be they could demarcate a couple of feet space on all sides outside the current car-parking space-limit?

[fabr68]

Pitstops make Formula 1 a lot less "easy"

[redreni]

Pitstops don't take that long to do. If you made a tyre that favoured a 0-stop strategy the deg would have to be extremely low - next to zero, in fact. Assuming everyone pushed, you would have the cars qualifying in order, fastest to slowest, then driving round for an hour and a half on the Sunday with the gaps between them getting steadily bigger. In reality, drivers would only push long enough to pull out a gap to the car behind, and then match their speed to him, so the last hour of the race would feature a procession of cars driving to a delta dictated by the slowest man.

High deg tyres are good in theory, and were good in practice for much of the first two years we had them, not just because they ensure that the fastest way to do the race is to make several stops, but because they create variation in laptime depending how you use they tyres. If you adopt a conventional two stop strategy, as long as deg is a significant enough factor to outweigh track evolution and fuel effect (the effect of burning off fuel thereby reducing the car's mass), your times get slower through the stint. This encourages drivers to stop earlier than what would be the optimum lap if they were just going for the fastest overall race time, because by pitting earlier than your rivals you can make places. This makes the strategy interesting because it's a game of how many laps earlier than the theoretical optimum lap are you willing to pit - the earlier you stop the better your track position after the stops, but the more laps you have to do to get to the end. So most of the time when there's a battle between two cars, when the one behind pits, the one ahead covers - but it's not always the case. If the car behind you pits but you feel it's too early to stop, you can stay out, which means you will lose track position, but by pitting later you give yourself the chance to spend the final stint running on fresher tyres, doing quicker laptimes than the other guy, and ultimately catching and passing him before the end. So high deg tyres and pitstops are a good way of ensuring variation in race strategy, which is good for the geeks, and late-race overtaking, which is good for everyone. The only drawback is it means it's often advantageous to drive quite carefully to prolong tyre life and gain track position that way - by stopping fewer times than your rivals, and this upsets some people (not me, particularly, but each to their own).

Is the high-deg tyres and pitstop route the only way to ensure strategy and overtaking rather than boredom? No, but if you suggest doing away with pitstops you need to explain how you would make the races worth watching.

[pdac]

I think either no pit stops (preferred option) or many (four or more) pit stops per race. There's always talk about the 'stragegy' element that they provide but in practice most teams do exactly the same thing. The only strategy is down to whether your pitstop crew can do the job a good few tenths faster than the other lot.

The problem, of course, is that it's still difficult to overtake on some tracks other than by using the undercut of the pitstop.

[Anderis]

Pitstops don't take that long to do. If you made a tyre that favoured a 0-stop strategy the deg would have to be extremely low - next to zero, in fact. Assuming everyone pushed, you would have the cars qualifying in order, fastest to slowest, then driving round for an hour and a half on the Sunday with the gaps between them getting steadily bigger. In reality, drivers would only push long enough to pull out a gap to the car behind, and then match their speed to him, so the last hour of the race would feature a procession of cars driving to a delta dictated by the slowest man.

High deg tyres are good in theory, and were good in practice for much of the first two years we had them, not just because they ensure that the fastest way to do the race is to make several stops, but because they create variation in laptime depending how you use they tyres. If you adopt a conventional two stop strategy, as long as deg is a significant enough factor to outweigh track evolution and fuel effect (the effect of burning off fuel thereby reducing the car's mass), your times get slower through the stint. This encourages drivers to stop earlier than what would be the optimum lap if they were just going for the fastest overall race time, because by pitting earlier than your rivals you can make places. This makes the strategy interesting because it's a game of how many laps earlier than the theoretical optimum lap are you willing to pit - the earlier you stop the better your track position after the stops, but the more laps you have to do to get to the end. So most of the time when there's a battle between two cars, when the one behind pits, the one ahead covers - but it's not always the case. If the car behind you pits but you feel it's too early to stop, you can stay out, which means you will lose track position, but by pitting later you give yourself the chance to spend the final stint running on fresher tyres, doing quicker laptimes than the other guy, and ultimately catching and passing him before the end. So high deg tyres and pitstops are a good way of ensuring variation in race strategy, which is good for the geeks, and late-race overtaking, which is good for everyone. The only drawback is it means it's often advantageous to drive quite carefully to prolong tyre life and gain track position that way - by stopping fewer times than your rivals, and this upsets some people (not me, particularly, but each to their own).

Is the high-deg tyres and pitstop route the only way to ensure strategy and overtaking rather than boredom? No, but if you suggest doing away with pitstops you need to explain how you would make the races worth watching.

[Deluxx]

1. why does everything have to have -gate attached to the end of it.
2. so i guess vettel running away with a victory 30 seconds in the lead would be exciting without pitstops too. I mean, I guess it makes no difference with pitstops now anyways

[BoschKurve]

I'd rather see pit stops only necessary if a team decides on a different strategy, or if there is a puncture/blow-out.

It'd be more interesting to see if a team could make it to the end of the race with one set of tires, but at the same time, another team could opt to push like hell, but need to stop for new tires. Pros and cons of both.

Of course I think what would make the pit stop thing more interesting in the current environment, is if radio communications were banned outright. Let the drivers dictate when they think they need to stop. Operate off of hand signals when passing in front of the pits.

[BlackCat]

i hate mandatory pit stops

[mnmracer]

I'm suspecting le chat noir to pitch this because (s)he hates the Monaco Grand Prix, and by suggesting something that will make it 100% boring, hopes to get it off the calendar sooner.

[sopa]

When overtaking was difficult before Pirelli and DRS era, F1 would have been massively boring without pitstops. Imagine all cars running in the same order until the end. At least pitstops and varying strategies created SOME excitement. However, in DRS-era it may not matter that much, they may try to run till the end.

[Atreiu]

As a strategic option, yay, as a mandatory event in a race, nay. So drop the two compound rule and let teams sort it out.

[Fastcake]

You don't need pit stops, it's perfectly possible to craft regulations to allow running until the end. You'll just end up with a lot more processional races, even with DRS still available.

[holiday]

You obviously need pitstops for reacting to changing weather conditions, so the teams will always have to provide the infrastructure for them, even if they fell out of favour in other respects.

[BoschKurve]

You don't need pit stops, it's perfectly possible to craft regulations to allow running until the end. You'll just end up with a lot more processional races, even with DRS still available.

F1 has historically been a processional race series.

[KWSN - DSM]

F1 managed quite fine without pitstops from mid 1930ies until Brabham revived them in the 1980ies. All which is needed is that the rules and regulations are written so that they are not needed. This will not happen as long as the current idea of what F1 is remain with the FIA, FOM and commercial rights holder.

[jimjimjeroo]

The only reason is even vote against pit stops is because of the error factor, too mAny people's races are scuppered by poor pitstops BUT it can generate some out standing drives!

[redreni]

When overtaking was difficult before Pirelli and DRS era, F1 would have been massively boring without pitstops. Imagine all cars running in the same order until the end. At least pitstops and varying strategies created SOME excitement. However, in DRS-era it may not matter that much, they may try to run till the end.

In general DRS doesn't allow slower cars to pass faster ones.

If you have non-degrading tyres you will have much less overtaking than currently. Nearly all the overtakes we get currently involve cars with a significant difference in the age of their tyres, so although the pass may be completed on the straight using DRS, the reason the second car can get in a position to overtake in the first place is due to the mechanical grip advantage his tyres give him. Take away the difference in tyre performance and the cars won't be able to pass as easily and, in any event, generally speaking the cars wouldn't be able to keep up with the car in front let alone pas it because, if they had the pace of the car in front, they wouldn't have qualified behind.

[Fastcake]

F1 has historically been a processional race series.

Not really, or at the very least it has never been as bad as the 2000s.

[Briz]

Mandatory pit stops I don't like, but pit stops in general I like a lot. Without them it would turn into a slightly less intelligent, slightly more boring and repetitive sport.

[Shambolic]

Wind the clock back 20 or so years, and there was no refueling, and no mandatory (ridiculous) mandatory running on two compounds. Teams and tyre companies ran the tyres they thought best, not to sub-optimal compounds in order to advertise a sole supplier, or spice up the "show".

There were drivers trying to go the whole distance on a set of harder tyres. Drivers going for one stop on medium compound tyres. Drivers going flat out for the duration, stopping more than once, on soft tyres. There were also drivers who put a different compound on one side, or one end, to suit their driving style and the circuit characteristics.

So, F1 needs to get away from this idiotic mandatory stop nonsense. It also needs to run as fast as it can from this notion that making tyres deliberately underwhelming is somehow a good thing. It needs to allow stops, but not demand them.

[mnmracer]

Not really, or at the very least it has never been as bad as the 2000s.

If you only consider 'processional' the evil of all motorsports, you might have a point.
But is 'processional' so much worse than the +20 second gaps we've had throughout history, which did the same for the amount of racing?

[johnmhinds]

Pit stops and different tyre compounds add some varity to the race strategies, even if it does feel forced sometime.

Tyres that last a whole race and no refuelling would result in the fastest car always winning the race, and any stragegic aspect the sport has would just be thrown out of the window.

[KWSN - DSM]

Pit stops and different tyre compounds add some varity to the race strategies, even if it does feel forced sometime.

Tyres that last a whole race and no refuelling would result in the fastest car always winning the race, and any stragegic aspect the sport has would just be thrown out of the window.

I do not agree that this would automatically being the case. As long as aero is allowed to play as big a role as it is, then yes would be processions. However re-writing the rules and regulations should for a natural part of getting rid of the forced spectacle of pitstops. I am on record in other threads of wanting a much much more 'dumbed down' version of F1, which in my view would allow for better strategy and non-processional races.

* No pit to car telemetry.
* No car to pit telemetry.
* No wings or anything which can be defined as an aero part between front and rear axle.
* No automatic or semi automatic gear, shift them the old fashioned way.
* Allow 'x' square centimeters of total wing on car, and let the FIA change with a race notice of they seem so inclined.
* Flat bottom meaning flat bottom, no holes, slants, slits, groves or what ever else they can come up with allowed.
* Ban carbon brakes.

There is more, but these are some of the immediate ones.

[One]

i hate mandatory pit stops

What if there is obligation to run harder of the two tire during the race and harder one is tough enough to cover all race? Q3 will be on soft, Q2 may be,...

Well it all sucks for sure! I just think that two tires should have much more differences in performance and durability.

[redreni]

F1 managed quite fine without pitstops from mid 1930ies until Brabham revived them in the 1980ies.

The cars were very fickle and unreliable then. Drivers often had to coax them to the end. They never changed tyres but they often had to stop to take on water or have other problems sorted out. That's those that made it to the end. Consequently the relative pace of the cars would change a lot during a race depending on how well each car was running. So you did get a certain amount of overtaking, but not a huge amount. The races were not televised through much of that period so it's easy to have a rose-tinted view of how good the racing was.

Give them everlasting tyres now and each car will be able to run at a consistent pace relative to the others from the beginning to the end. That will not result in better racing than we have now.

[johnmhinds]

I do not agree that this would automatically being the case. As long as aero is allowed to play as big a role as it is, then yes would be processions. However re-writing the rules and regulations should for a natural part of getting rid of the forced spectacle of pitstops. I am on record in other threads of wanting a much much more 'dumbed down' version of F1, which in my view would allow for better strategy and non-processional races.

* No pit to car telemetry.
* No car to pit telemetry.
* No wings or anything which can be defined as an aero part between front and rear axle.
* No automatic or semi automatic gear, shift them the old fashioned way.
* Allow 'x' square centimeters of total wing on car, and let the FIA change with a race notice of they seem so inclined.
* Flat bottom meaning flat bottom, no holes, slants, slits, groves or what ever else they can come up with allowed.
* Ban carbon brakes.

There is more, but these are some of the immediate ones.

I don't see anything you listed that would stop a non pit stop race from becoming processional.
If every strategy is equal then the most efficient car will almost always win regardless of how the cars look.

If you make tyres that last forever and remove the need for pitstops then the only uncontrolable variables left in the sport would be weather, car reliability and driver mistakes.

[V8 Fireworks]

I agree they should consider no mandatory pitstops at all, and bring back the 2005 tyre rules (without grooves). =)

[SenorSjon]

Why not allow pitstops but not make them compulsory?

Permit tyres that can go full distance as well as tyres that are only good for half, third or quarter distance. Then the teams can decide their own strategy for each circuit, no stops or up to 3 stops.

I hate mandatory pitstops. They are very artificial in DTM and GP2. Pitstops should be used when needed, not when mandatory.

We have had a season of race tyres that were made to last the distance where tyre changes were only done if required, say a blow out or heavy flatspot.
Its the season where Kimi refused to pit after a heavy flatspot appeared on one of his fronts, in the end the vibrations caused eventually shattered the suspension struts as he was unwilling to give up his very strong race position.

Refuelling stops were still part of regular pitstops in that season though

The 'flatsport tire' rule (and that wheel only, not a whole set) was made due to Kimi blowing his suspension. He could change the tire and get a drive through if he did it. The rule then changed because it was not a really safe idea to keep flatspots for 30+ laps.

F1 has historically been a processional race series.

Jup. And the diamonds between them get remembered. I can't remember the Pirelli races due to 'statistic' racing with Delta times, xxx near effortless overtakes, etc.

In general DRS doesn't allow slower cars to pass faster ones.

If you have non-degrading tyres you will have much less overtaking than currently. Nearly all the overtakes we get currently involve cars with a significant difference in the age of their tyres, so although the pass may be completed on the straight using DRS, the reason the second car can get in a position to overtake in the first place is due to the mechanical grip advantage his tyres give him. Take away the difference in tyre performance and the cars won't be able to pass as easily and, in any event, generally speaking the cars wouldn't be able to keep up with the car in front let alone pas it because, if they had the pace of the car in front, they wouldn't have qualified behind.

DRS prevents slower cars from defending against faster ones. Imola 2005 and 2006 were not possible with DRS and showed class act defending from both Schumacher and Alonso in both races. When Schumacher did it in Monza 2011, it was to great dismay to the FIA that DRS wasn't working with a set-for-topspeed Mercedes. Defending is becoming a lost art.

I recon that from Q onwards you still have six tiresets:
2x soft
2x medium
2x hard

No mandatory stops, compounds, or start on your Q tire. If I remember correctly, this was the way GoodYear did it and every team could tailor the car to their favorite tire. Sauber always used long runs, so could go for Hard, like Mercedes with his tire issues.
Perhaps even front soft and rear medium. Mix and match Or a different compound for every corner.

[Jon83]

I also think there should be steps made to slow down pit stops. Limit the number of people allowed to touch the car. Slow it down to about a 8 second stop. When you have teams pushing sub 3 second average stops mistakes are going to happen on a regular basis.

So even with less people, you could still have cars sitting for several seconds waiting. I don't see there to be a need for this.

I don't really think things need changing to be honest.