66 replies to this topic

[August]

I was thinking about this the other day. I personally like the strategic element of pit stops. Series like Pirelli World Challenge with no pit stops just lack something. I'd even prefer F1 still to have the refueling, I like how in some series a caution before the final round of pit stops leads to some drivers still needing a splash of fuel whereas others are banking on another caution period to make it till finish, maybe running out of fuel on the last lap.

 

In a way, I like the ACO/SRO system of refueling first, then other work incl. tire changes; there's the strategic element of saving time by double-stinting the tires. Then again, it lengthens the stops and possibly works only in endurance racing.

 

But what's your opinion?

[Marklar]

Without overtaking problems I prefer races without pitstops. This increases the action ON the track. Otherwise if not possible then 'just' tyre changes. I don't like refuelling, because it takes the action on the track completely away IMO

[Clatter]

Without refuelling and with the current tyres there is very little in the way of strategic value to the pit stops. Unless someone does something silly like flat spotting a tyre they run near enough the same strategy.

[HoldenRT]

The only part of motor sport that I like without any stops is MotoGP.  With all other car racing, with the exception of junior categories which I don't watch, is pitstops for both fuel and tyres.  I don't believe it affects overtaking anymore than it does now (undercuts etc) but gives varied strategies like 3 stop vs 1 stop, which personally I enjoy more.  The worst racing for me is when everyone does the same amount of stops with the same fuel onboard, it's incredibly dull.

 

Where as for example, a driver like Rubens used to 1 stop, and a driver like Michael or Lewis would 3 stop, and they'd sometimes have to overtake the same car (ontrack) 3 times in the same race to make the strategy work.  It's not always ideal but on average I'd like it more.  Sometimes the current system works fine, but the absolute worst for me is when everyone would one stop on super durable tyres and after the first round of pitstops the order would be pretty much decided.  Pirelli countered that with cheese tyres, which sometimes works.  But even so, I'd still prefer varied fuel loads.  Simply because it gives more variables and opportunities for teams and drivers to think outside the box.

 

A chassis that's soft on it's tyres can one stop, a car that's hard on it's tyres can 3 stop.  But in the current system, the 3 stopping car is disadvantaged by having to carry the same fuel load.  A proper 3 stop has light fuel vs a 1 stopping car with high fuel.  Both can work in different scenarios and that to me is very interesting and can spice up certain tracks that would otherwise be dull.

 

I could just as easily argue that refuelling promotes overtaking, due to the scenario above.  But it's neither here nor there.  Same with the current system.. when a car hasn't stopped yet and a new car is on fresh tyres, is it really an overtake?  Or is it a fake overtake?  It's the same thing with fuel.

 

DRS already cures a lot of these problems so it's sort of a moot point, but for some reason.. people feel differently so it is what it is.  Already the extra compound of tyres has brought something, so that's a positive.  I believe different strategies would do much of the same thing but I don't think it'll be changing anytime soon as they are committed to these regs for the time being.  And as qualifying regs have shown, they hate to admit they are wrong about something and go back on changes that have been made.

 

On a separate both sort of related point, if they went back to sprint format, I believe some of the younger drivers wouldn't be able to handle it, especially on certain tracks.. while others would excel.  There would also likely be more driver errors.  The way it is at the moment, sort of equalises the talent level of the best driver to the worst.  If they were going 100% every lap of the race, the gap would grow bigger and discussing the ranking of fastest drivers in F1 would become fun again. 

[Tsarwash]

I don't like races where you can't stop for tyres apart from punctures, because it makes drivers more hesitant to make moves in case they flaty spot their tyres and ruin the rest of their race. We've had that before, and it was rubbish in my opinion. I don't like refueling, and I don't really like the current tyres. I don't like the current rules that you are obliged to use two different sets of tyres in the race, it's entirely artificial and put there for commercial reasons not for sporting ones. 

[maximilian]

I want to see racing, not pit stops.

[PlatenGlass]

If you need pit stops, it's because the racing isn't exciting enough.

I absolutely hate the current situation where Pirelli can prescribe the number of stops, and where you have to run both compounds.

There have been times in F1 where no stops was the default, and it was fine. I don't mind pit stops that happen "on the fly" so much, but when it's built into the system and the strategies, then I don't like it.

[superden]

Running two compounds was and is a crap idea.

[Zmeej]

Tyre changes (all kinds), repairs, and penalties.

[Garndell]

Option 4 (Repairs & Dry/Wet Tyre changes)

 

Quite frankly that would require non-cheese tyres to do which would be a good thing.  I don't particularly like the "strategic" pit stops of today, it's just not a satisfactory way to overtake.

[Zmeej]

Oh yeah, forgot their most important function - making everyone paranoid by bringing in one man before/after another and/or horrendously mis-handling a tyre change.

[Risil]

Wonder what the Le Mans rule -- either fuel or tyres -- would do for F1 strategies.

[Kalmake]

Wonder what the Le Mans rule -- either fuel or tyres -- would do for F1 strategies.

Depends how fast the pumps would be. With slow ones like Le Mans, no fuel stops. With old F1 pumps, probably one fuel stop. Two might not be worth it, because the weigh loss is so small (16kg vs 25kg average).

[Nathan]

I think pit stops add something.  I like the added strategy and suspense.

[KingTiger]

Refueling ruins on track racing, and it's always been that way. Teams will always choose to fiddle with the fuel strategy over risking their cars fight on track. For example, in the first half or so at LM 2015, the leading Audi and Porsche should've been fighting for the win, but instead the Porsche was ~40 sec behind, but theoretically ahead due to fuel. Instead of a great on track battle, viewers needed to do a bunch of math to figure out who is ahead. 

[Nathan]

Hmmm.. That's a good point.

[Ninjastar]

Pit stops with refueling and tyre changes please!

 

I liked it when cars qualified with the amount of fuel on board they would start with too, leaving the unknown for race day watching team fuel low for the element of surprise.

With refueling in race, cars can run flat out just before pitstop and we can see the true speed of the car in race, rather than these bloated cars as they are these days. I love seeing cars and drivers going flat out.

[Pingguest]

Formula One is above all the ultimate drivers' championship, or at least the series presents itself as such. That is why the FIA keeps clamping down on driver aids and continuously states that drivers must drive their cars "alone and unaided". This is the reason why the FIA initially banned strategy calls by radio at the beginning of this season. 

If Formula One is indeed the ultimate drivers' championship, it means drivers should do the entire race distance alone and unaided, hence without pit stop strategies. Pit stops allow drivers to have their teams making the race strategy and gain positions without on-track passing. This goes against drivers racing 'alone and unaided'.

 

Hence, pit stops should be banned. If it would require the use of treated, all-weather tires, I am in favor of their introduction. Those tires would also reduce grip, making drivers to fight their car.

[PayasYouRace]

I think pitstops for any work that you deep necessary, except refuelling, is ideal for F1. Refuelling works in Indycar (similar length of races, style of racing, etc) because of the way their races are neutralised more often by full-course yellows. But in F1 it just ended up being an optimisation exercise and everyone ran basically the same strategy, except whoever ran a bit longer before they stopped made up places. It was too formulaic.

 

 

 

If Formula One is indeed the ultimate drivers' championship, it means drivers should do the entire race distance alone and unaided, hence without pit stop strategies.

 

It isn't though, is it? It's also the ultimate constructors' championship. It's teams trying to build the best cars and get them to the end of the race, quickest, as a team.

[Nonesuch]

Formula One is above all the ultimate drivers' championship, or at least the series presents itself as such.

 

Right, and what is the phrase? Don't believe the hype? F1 isn't about the drivers. It's about the teams. The drivers come and go, some are celebrated and others mocked - but who watched GP2 when Hamilton and Rosberg were racing there? Not a whole lot of people.

 

I voted for the first option, not because the idea of refuelling particularly excites me, but because I'm not exactly thrilled with cars being half a dozen seconds slower than in qualifying, nor with the FIA getting involved in everyone's business. If there are teams that want to refuel, let them.

[foxyracer]

I don't like banning pit stops for tyre changes or refuelling.  But the preference is for cars to complete a race without stopping.  The racing must be done on the track not in the pits using strategic calls.  So, allow refuelling and tyre changes but make them unattractive by strictly limiting the number of mechanics who can be involved with a stop and make refuelling rigs so that they deliver fuel slowly and safely.

 

Much is said about cars having to be hybrids to enable manufacturers to develop these technologies for road use.  Surely the same should apply to tyres - so they should easily last a full race distance and grip should be at a consistently high level throughout the life of the tyre enabling drivers to get on with racing as fast as they can go!  And if road car relevance isn't that important let's go back to pure racing technologies - make whatever goes fastest with as much fuel being allowed as is required to get to the end of a hard race.

[foxyracer]

And another thing.  The one thing that used to keep me on the edge of my chair in an otherwise boring race was unreliability - the tension of would the leading driver get to the end.  Engineers need to take more risks.  Cars would be faster but break more often.  We want to see them at the limits.

[ConsiderAndGo]

Refueling isn't for me. Current pit stop requirements are fine.

 

One of the best things about races these days is watching the amazing mechanics service a car in sub 3 seconds. Incredible. 

[Pingguest]

I think pitstops for any work that you deep necessary, except refuelling, is ideal for F1. Refuelling works in Indycar (similar length of races, style of racing, etc) because of the way their races are neutralised more often by full-course yellows. But in F1 it just ended up being an optimisation exercise and everyone ran basically the same strategy, except whoever ran a bit longer before they stopped made up places. It was too formulaic.

 

 

 

It isn't though, is it? It's also the ultimate constructors' championship. It's teams trying to build the best cars and get them to the end of the race, quickest, as a team.

 

If being a constructors' championship includes finding the best possible pit stop strategy, there is no logical argument against mid-race refueling. No single part of the race strategy could be more important than a refueling strategy. Convergence is not a valid argument against refueling then, because the same counts to the situation in which only tire changes are allowed - the more teams know about the tires and understand the regulations, the more their tire strategies will converge.

[Seanspeed]

Refueling was an abomination.  

 

Tires only.  It's great the way it is right now.  Pitstop crews really have to work for it and it looks really slick and impressive when executed well.  Refueling was super clumsy, dangerous and alleviated most of the pressure from the tire changers. 

Edited by Seanspeed, 08 April 2016 - 12:11.

[Pingguest]

Pit stops with refueling and tyre changes please!

 

I liked it when cars qualified with the amount of fuel on board they would start with too, leaving the unknown for race day watching team fuel low for the element of surprise.

With refueling in race, cars can run flat out just before pitstop and we can see the true speed of the car in race, rather than these bloated cars as they are these days. I love seeing cars and drivers going flat out.

 

If you wish to see the true speed of cars, it simply incomprehensible that you want drivers to qualify with a car in race-trim, including the amount of fuel they would have to start the race with.

[Seanspeed]

If you wish to see the true speed of cars, it simply incomprehensible that you want drivers to qualify with a car in race-trim, including the amount of fuel they would have to start the race with.

 

Of course there was a time when they qualified with low fuel and then put in an unknown amount for the start of the race.  Which was interesting up until the first stops happened, then they all ran to prescribed and predictable strategies.  

 

It also meant that most of the passing happened in the pits....

Edited by Seanspeed, 08 April 2016 - 12:23.

[August]

If Formula One is indeed the ultimate drivers' championship, it means drivers should do the entire race distance alone and unaided, hence without pit stop strategies. Pit stops allow drivers to have their teams making the race strategy and gain positions without on-track passing. This goes against drivers racing 'alone and unaided'.

 

If F1 is the ultimate drivers' championship, shouldn't it have a spec chassis and engine? Think about what a huge advatage the Mercedes car gives to Hamilton and Rosberg compared to former champs Button and Alonso.

[LeClerc]

Without overtaking problems I prefer races without pitstops. This increases the action ON the track. Otherwise if not possible then 'just' tyre changes. I don't like refuelling, because it takes the action on the track completely away IMO

 

Hear, hear!

[Pingguest]

If F1 is the ultimate drivers' championship, shouldn't it have a spec chassis and engine? Think about what a huge advatage the Mercedes car gives to Hamilton and Rosberg compared to former champs Button and Alonso.

 

A good racing driver contributes to the development of the car. Inter alia, by providing good feedback and even helping the team setting priorities. Lauda, Prost and Schumacher were widely acknowledged for their talent for contributing to the car's development.

However, as (in-season) testing and the usage of consumables are severely limited and major components are standardized, the driver's role in this respect has become limited as well. 

[Pingguest]

 

Of course there was a time when they qualified with low fuel and then put in an unknown amount for the start of the race.  Which was interesting up until the first stops happened, then they all ran to prescribed and predictable strategies.  

 

It also meant that most of the passing happened in the pits....

 

With tire changes still allowed, drivers still gain or lose positions in the pits. Every race we see drivers making the so-called 'undercut', as initiated by his team.

[THEWALL]

Refueling is dead in F1, face it. And rightfully so if you know anything about racing, the kind that is closer to a sport, not a roulette. And actually, the best potential for on-track racing happens when there are no pit stops because then the cars are as equal as they can be, in terms of weight, type of tyre, tyre degradation, and others. The only reason for pit stops to exist these days in auto racing, where technology has allowed tyres that can safely last a race distance, is for repairs and emergencies (and penalties). The rest, including safety cars at the least incident, have been introduced as elements for the common fan, who finds real auto racing too boring, to be excited and/or to be able to introduce commercial breaks.

Edited by THEWALL, 09 April 2016 - 00:38.

[Atreiu]

Tyres only.

[maximilian]

Refueling is dead in F1, face it. And rightfully so if you know anything about racing, the kind that is closer to a sport, not a roulette. And actually, the best potential for on-track racing happens when there are no pit stops because then the cars are as equal as they can be, in terms of weight, type of tyre, tyre degradation, and others. The only reason for pit stops to exist these days in auto racing, where technology has allowed tyres that can safely last a race distance, is for repairs and emergencies (and penalties). The rest, including safety cars at the least incident, has been introduced as elements for the common fan, who finds real auto racing too boring, to be excited and/or to be able to introduce commercial breaks.

 

x2

[PayasYouRace]

If being a constructors' championship includes finding the best possible pit stop strategy, there is no logical argument against mid-race refueling. No single part of the race strategy could be more important than a refueling strategy. Convergence is not a valid argument against refueling then, because the same counts to the situation in which only tire changes are allowed - the more teams know about the tires and understand the regulations, the more their tire strategies will converge.

 

The difference is that fuel usage is entirely predictable and results in a pre-planned strategy. Tyre usage, especially when dealing with spec tyres on different makes of car, will not converge to essentially the same solution for all teams. Give teams a good set of options for tyre types, and the result is different strategies. On top of that, tyre usage isn't as predictable, so changes in pit stop tactics can be made.

[Hati]

Refueling doesn't add excitement on race and it makes pitstop as dull as Monday morning on Shell station. In theory one tyre that lasts whole race is ok but in practise I think it would lead to races where no one would push to limit in fear of destroying the tyre. And in worst case scenario race winner would be decided with first corner flat spot.

 

I don't know which approach would be best, one compound for everyone or several compounds to choose from but I know one thing, there shouldn't be mandatory rule to use more than one compound. If someone wants to use only supersofts then he should be able to do it and if someone wants to drive the whole race with one set of hard tyres that should be ok too.

[Marklar]

What IMO is very important if you have tyre changes is that it should be a real punishment. Currently a bunch of people is participating in a pitstop. If you reduce the number of mechanics in the pitstop to lets say less than 10, then the stops are so slow that the teams will seriously consider whether they should pit or not. If tyre changes should stay, then in this way IMO

[PayasYouRace]

You obviously haven't seen how quickly 4 Indycar mechanics can change all four tyres. 5 if you include the air jack hose man.

[Pingguest]

The difference is that fuel usage is entirely predictable and results in a pre-planned strategy. Tyre usage, especially when dealing with spec tyres on different makes of car, will not converge to essentially the same solution for all teams. Give teams a good set of options for tyre types, and the result is different strategies. On top of that, tyre usage isn't as predictable, so changes in pit stop tactics can be made.

 

Both before and after the banning of in-race refueling, teams make their race strategy. Tactical decisions are made throughout the race, as they try to react of how the race evolves. That includes changing weather and/or track conditions, the deployment of the Safety Car and decisions made by opponents. Throughout the era of in-race refueling many drivers won and lost races by tactical instead of strategic decisions. Ferrari was very good at making those decisions - remember the 1998 Hungarian and 2004 French Grand Prix' - as well as putting their rivals on the wrong track - they did so a couple of times during the 2006 season, forcing Renault to make the tactical decision the Scuderia was hoping they would make.

Edited by Pingguest, 11 April 2016 - 12:58.

[BalanceUT]

I think pit stops add something.  I like the added strategy and suspense.

It also makes it more of a team sport. 

[BalanceUT]

Refueling isn't for me. Current pit stop requirements are fine.

 

One of the best things about races these days is watching the amazing mechanics service a car in sub 3 seconds. Incredible. 

It is amazing precision synchronization of time and motion. I teach industrial and organizational psychology, which was largely about industrial process/assembly line time and motion studies. Still is to a certain extent. I will be searching for videos that illustrate the exacting standards of what happens in an F1 pit stop. 

[LeClerc]

Bah! If I feel like watching amazing and coordinated movement of human bodies, I'll go see a ballet.

however, when I'm watching cars, human body movement is not a priority.

[Dr. Austin]

I would prefer to have no pit stops at all. Have Pirelli give them a tire that will go the distance with a little care and that will stop all the undercutting and otherwise lack of on-track passing. Make the drivers use a little racecraft and take care of the car so they have something to race with at the end.

 

Passing someone on a pit stop is not real exciting. I'de rather see them bang wheels or run over each other. That or make them actually earn it by outdriving the other guy and making a clean move.

 

To discourage pit stops for fresh tires, cut the speed limit to 35 mph or so. That will also make whatever pit stops they do have much safer. That or make them stay stationary for 10sconds. If you are going to have fresh rubber and no one else can, there has to be a penalty. If you merely suffer a puncture, tough. It's the same for everyone.

 

As far as refueling, not only is that an expense the teams don't need, but even a methanol fire can get out of control really fast, as we have seen in Indycar. With the rocket fuels they are running in F1 now, a pit fire could turn into a kind of catastrophe we simply don't need just for the sake of "excitement."

 

We have seen pit stops repeatedly break up intense wheel to wheel battles, so less or no pit stops would eliminate that and then it would be strictly up to the drivers to get ahead, or stay ahead.

 

The whole thing with the multiple tire choices and "mandatory" option tires and all is just invented hokus pokus hooey. Just stop it with the manipulation and let them get back to racing.

 

While I am at it, dump the DRS units and make the drivers earn a pass.

 

Everyone seems obsessed with all of F1's supposed problems, but forcing the drivers to actually race each other instead of trying to out strategize each other would go a long way toward injecting some of the excitement everyone seems to be crying for.

 

Villeneuve (whom I generally think is full of it) did have a valid point that racing can't always be exciting. If you monkey with the rules trying to create something exciting, all you are doing is making up something contrived and phony. Racing should not be like professional wrestling. It should be exciting in an honest way.

 

Perhaps I am just being purist, but that's how I feel. Racing was good enough when it was real, but now days I feel like the wool is being pulled over our eyes when they try to pass off DRS as something real and not something artificial to give the guy behind an advantage. Now the biggest overtaking kill required is pushing a button. I'de rather see them fight like hell and occasionally even knock each other off. At least now days that's not the sure kid of death the greats of the 60s and 70s faced.

 

Instead of manipulating the rules to stop Red Bull or Mercedes dominating, just let them. A lot of people think the Schumacher days, or the Prost/Senna days were some of Formula One's supposed "glory days," but how were they any different from what we have now with Mercedes doing most of the winning?

 

Mostly I am tired of constantly hearing what is wrong with Formula One when it's really not that bad. Except for the Cosworth days, someone has always figured it out better and smashed the others. The same people who were cheering Rubens moving over to gift Schumacher a win are some of the same people who want to break up Mercedes dominance. At least Mercedes lets it's driver race each other while Ferrari did not.

 

And why is Formula One losing it's popularity? I think it's very simple. It's not real any more.  When formula One was real, there were no pit stops and no DRS leapfrog buttons. The tires they gave you were what you races from start to finish. The race started and the whole thing was in the drier's hands. Now, that's real.

[PayasYouRace]

 

As far as refueling, not only is that an expense the teams don't need, but even a methanol fire can get out of control really fast, as we have seen in Indycar. With the rocket fuels they are running in F1 now, a pit fire could turn into a kind of catastrophe we simply don't need just for the sake of "excitement."

 

 

F1 has used standard pump derived petrol since 1994.

 

Actually I generally disagree with your post in general. I don't think F1 was any more real in the 60s and 70s when there were no regular pitstops than in 50s or from the 80s to the present, when pitstops have been the norm.

[Dr. Austin]

Well, ok, but it's still gasoline, right? Remember Verstappen's pit fire in '94? That was bad enough.

 

I don't think racing is real when they make you use two different compounds and then call one of them the "option." How can something that is mandatory be "optional." If you want to have multiple compounds, that's fine, but let the teams choose what they want to run whenever they want to run it.

 

 I also don't think DRS is real. Giving the car behind an advantage over the one in front doesn't get is phony and contrived, and socialistic, maybe even affirmative action.  If you are behind, it's great, but if you are ahead, even if you get a better run off the corner, the guy behind can still run you down with the simple push of a button you have no access to, which is hardly fair. DRS also eliminates honest wheel to wheel passes. You still get some of the with guys like Verstappen, but most of the time it's push the button and sail on by. Mostly I don't like it because it's not honest and we are being treated like stupid children when we accept it.

[PayasYouRace]

Well, ok, but it's still gasoline, right? Remember Verstappen's pit fire in '94? That was bad enough.

 

I don't think racing is real when they make you use two different compounds and then call one of them the "option." How can something that is mandatory be "optional." If you want to have multiple compounds, that's fine, but let the teams choose what they want to run whenever they want to run it.

 

 I also don't think DRS is real. Giving the car behind an advantage over the one in front doesn't get is phony and contrived, and socialistic, maybe even affirmative action.  If you are behind, it's great, but if you are ahead, even if you get a better run off the corner, the guy behind can still run you down with the simple push of a button you have no access to, which is hardly fair. DRS also eliminates honest wheel to wheel passes. You still get some of the with guys like Verstappen, but most of the time it's push the button and sail on by. Mostly I don't like it because it's not honest and we are being treated like stupid children when we accept it.

 

Yeah it's petrol. I don't favour refuelling either, as we did see the occasional accident, but mostly because it dominated pit strategy.

 

At least this year it's not the case with as they have 3 compounds to choose from, and only have to use 2. It's even made the races more interesting as tyre strategy is much more varied.

 

As for DRS, it's not about giving an advantage to one behind over one in front, its about compensating for the dirty air problem. Sometimes it's implemented too strongly, but if done right it serves its purpose well. Take the political/economic comparisons to the Paddock Club. This isn't the place for it.

[Dr. Austin]

They could fix the dirty air problem by relying less on upper body downforce and give them some tunnels. It's not the perfect solution, but we have seen in Indycars (until this year) that works really well. This year with the aero kits they have more wingies and all, and not they can hardly pass each other. It was better when they ran less wings and more underbody.

 

That, and I am not a big fan of all the turning vanes and air deflectors and whatever they call all that junk they tack on the outside to direct air. The cars look fairly ungainly and there is nothing smooth or swoopy about them. They look like they are cobbled together with hobby plastic. The fifty piece front wings are ridiculous.

 

Formula One cars should be sexy, sleek and elegant, and the current ones are not. Perhaps it was all downhill after the Lotus 79.

 

As far as pit stop strategy, if you eliminate pit stops, there is less strategy and more racing. If you can't pass in the pits, you have to do it on the track, which is what I think we all want to see.

[PayasYouRace]

 

Formula One cars should be sexy, sleek and elegant, and the current ones are not. Perhaps it was all downhill after the Lotus 79.

 

 

If that brick is your peak of sleek and sexy we're never going to agree on anything, taste-wise. I think last year's Merc is one of the best looking F1 cars ever, up there with a Jordan 191.

[Dr. Austin]

Well, I like girls. Can we agree on that?

[Zmeej]

At this point, it's just as safe to say that you "like boys" in the non-pedophilic sense.

 

Apart from that, prefer women to girls (non-pedophilically).

Edited by Zmeej, 10 April 2016 - 22:25.