54 replies to this topic

[Risil]

First it was mandatory use of the "prime" and "option" Bridgestone compounds. Then it was mandatory use of any two compounds from the three available. Now... using all three compounds? Somebody certainly thinks so!

 

There is a well-argued (well, I thought so) opinion piece about this by Jonathan Noble on the website today. The idea has already secured the backing of F1's undisputed king of "Yeah, why not?", Lewis Hamilton. A an excerpt for non-subscribers:
 

Needing to run all three compounds would increase the intensity of Friday practice; as there would barely be enough laps for teams to feel comfortable that they could get enough data from running on all three compounds. That would open the door for a bit more uncertainty for Sunday.

Add to that the prospect of teams and drivers potentially being much more out of kilter on their strategy approach during each phase of the race compared to now. Do you burn the hard first and compromise yourself early for a faster middle stint, or go soft and aggressive early on to gain position?

Perhaps the best route to the chequered flag in going through the compounds may not be even be obvious until the closing stages of the race.

But best of all about the rule is that it doesn't turn F1 into a fake lottery like reverse grids would do, nor does it cost a fortune like changing car designs to help boost overtaking. Its effect on anyone's budget would be negligible.

 
https://www.autospor...-up-f1-strategy

 

What do youse all think? Write your opinion below, and if that sounds like too much commitment you can just click the buttons and do the poll.

 

(For me personally I'm undecided, which is why I opened this thread.)

[jcbc3]

No, because that would force us into two pitstops, even if a hard tire could last all the way.

 

I still believe that the best solution would be to allow the teams to mix the compounds on the car. E.g. Hard on left rear tire, soft on right rear tire and mediums on front tires. Someone will always get the mix wrong and create upsets. But they would be of their own doing.

[SophieB]

As I saw the thread title, the words "sure, why not" appeared in a Beano-style thought bubble above my head and nothing in the article has made me think that's wrong. Karun Chandok has been advocating this for some time too (I think).

[Imperial]

No and No for me.

 

I want nothing more than F1 to go back to running the compound you qualified on.

 

There are far more interesting strategies available when certain drivers, at certain tracks, in certain weather conditions, at certain points of the championship battle, choose on Saturday if they are running soft or hard, and then they have to run with that compound and no other on Sunday.

[monolulu]

It would certainly spice up strategies.  Don’t think anyone likes to see tyre management for the majority of the race even if their favourite driver is good at it! Although might mean there is some extreme tyre management for a few laps. I’m sure there are some down sides I haven’t thought of though.

[Burtros]

Just ban race simulation runs in practice.

Stop the teams having the data that they use to destroy the unpredictable element of races.

[OO7]

No.

 

Fix the cars and or introduce a more robust set of compounds.

Edited by OO7, 24 September 2020 - 10:48.

[PayasYouRace]

I'd rather see it opened up. Allow teams to bring their own tyre selection from the complete set of compounds. They'd be allowed a maximum of about seven sets and that's it. I'd also have and additional two sets of the softest compound available to everyone only in qualifying which would provide some variance for the grid. This compound would not be available for the teams' weekend selection. No starting on the tyres you qualified on at all.

 

The best way to have different strategies is to have everything open, rather than forcing teams into a limited set of permutations of the same strategy.

[Anja]

As far as gimmicks go it's not so bad but I doubt its long-term effectiveness. Give them a few races and it'll be back to the good old "everyone does pretty much the same thing". 

[Pete_f1]

Yes I would give it a go. one stop races are boring. There are other reasons why I think it's a good idea but I am not in the mood to write right now

[noikeee]

Nah.

Would make races even more artificial and based on gimmicks. Would kill the chance of a 1 stopper v 2 stopper which are often some of the more interesting races. Would give F1 less room to play with if one of the compound proves unsafe on the race weekend. Wouldn't really solve anything.

Why do F1 always come up with bad solutions to problems that don't even exist?

[monolulu]

I'd rather see it opened up. Allow teams to bring their own tyre selection from the complete set of compounds. They'd be allowed a maximum of about seven sets and that's it. I'd also have and additional two sets of the softest compound available to everyone only in qualifying which would provide some variance for the grid. This compound would not be available for the teams' weekend selection. No starting on the tyres you qualified on at all.

 

The best way to have different strategies is to have everything open, rather than forcing teams into a limited set of permutations of the same strategy.

Isn’t this restricted by the costs involved transporting tyres around the world though?

[Fastcake]

Just ban race simulation runs in practice.

Stop the teams having the data that they use to destroy the unpredictable element of races.

How exactly would you ban race simulations in practice?

[uzsjgb]

This could lead to teams just running one lap on the slowest of the three compounds.

[lustigson]

From a purist's standpoint I would say 'no' and not force any stops at all, even allow for zero stops.

 

But from a viewer's perspective it may offer more of a spectacle. And I'd add scrapping Friday practice to increase the odds of teams screwing up their strategy.

[maximilian]

In reality it would probably just result in once again the "ideal" strategy implemented by pretty much every team, and make very little difference.

 

Once again, a proposed measure to "spice up", when the REAL problems with F1 are not being solved at the root.  We shouldn't even have to talk about tires.

[JimmyClark]

No that seems a bit too contrived.

 

Personally I would just tweak the current rule to say that you still need to use two compounds, unless you want to finish the race on the tyre you start on (i.e. you can go all the way on one tyre, but if you want to stop you need a different compound). 

 

It might get some teams to try a no stopper at places like Sochi or Monaco.  

[Jellyfishcake]

I think teams should be able to choose whether to use one compound so either soft/medium or hard for qualifying and the race, but also they would not have to disclose that information to the public/other teams so nobody should know.

 

That way teams are unable to use their simulators ot know exactly how the race will play out as they won't be able to know exactly what the other teams are doing...

[KWSN - DSM]

No and no in the poll.

 

Should be completely free for the teams to use any number of compounds they chose during a race, including running a non-stop race on one set.

[OO7]

From a purist's standpoint I would say 'no' and not force any stops at all, even allow for zero stops.

 

But from a viewer's perspective it may offer more of a spectacle. And I'd add scrapping Friday practice to increase the odds of teams screwing up their strategy.

I have to say I completely disagree with this.  Anything which leads to less running of the cars is bad in my opinion.  I tune into Free Practice, Qualification and the Race to watch cars on track, so I'd rather initiatives that allowed teams to run more and get the most out their cars in the time available.

[masa90]

In theory it could be fun but man they should fix the coreproblems instead of these patches. There is already too many sillygimmicks in place.

[milestone 11]

No and No. Neat and bloody cool, I'll give Lewis neat and bloody cool. Sorry, but if that's the most intelligent statement he can make on the matter he ought to keep his bloody nose out of rule making and stick to what he does best. I've noticed this year at the pressers when questioned, always first, that he doesn't have a clue what is being spoken of, so busy is he with other things. Thank Christ Max brings a little sanity to proceedings.

[Atreiu]

Jesus ****ing Christ, no. Mandatory pit stops are a strategic straight jacket and should be abolished.

[Marklar]

this is like a different, even worse way, to propose their horrible mandatory 2 stops idea

[F1matt]

The teams would soon get on top of the issue by making their drivers busier on a Friday, then employing more analysts/ strategists back at the factory to go through the data and pushing up costs which would benefit the big teams. Some of the more exciting have been when Friday has been a washout, so do away with Friday altogether and have a free practice session on Saturday morning and qualifying on the afternoon or ban the use of data for the entire GP weekend, the teams can only access the data after the race. 

[NixxxoN]

No, current rules are fine.

Reduce tthe gap between cars/teams, thats all they need to fix.

[cheekybru]

I'm just imagining the amount of air time that would be taken up by Crofty saying

"well he's on the mediums, meaning that he still has to use both the hard and the soft compounds before the end of the race"

For about 12 months or so

[ANF]

Two mandatory compounds is bad enough. I would rather see that rule scrapped so teams could choose a M/M or S/S/S strategy.

[TomNokoe]

I'd rather we just go back to two compounds, but I don't mind this idea at all.

[Augurk]

Please no. This would effectively completely eliminate what little difference we have left in strategies used. The only difference will be which order wil the teams use the tyres. 

If you want at least 2 pit stops, mandate 2 pit stops, but let go of the compound rules. 

 

Furthermore it sounds interesting to add another variable to the mix as it gives the opportunity to make mistakes, however it's just another thing that the top teams will be better equipped to dealing with than the smaller teams. Their armies of analysts will have run all the necessary simulations before the race starts, whilst the smaller teams will have to make do with a lot less. 

 

For those who don't want any mandated rules regards to tyre strategy: I wouldn't be in favor of returning to no rules at all as it would end up completely destroying a few races as long as we have cars that are unable to follow and overtake properly. Difficult track to overtake, front runners on hard compounds... Great. 

 

I'd say just mandate 2 pit stops but let the teams decide what to do with them. 

Edited by Augurk, 24 September 2020 - 12:42.

[BillBald]

No that seems a bit too contrived.

 

Personally I would just tweak the current rule to say that you still need to use two compounds, unless you want to finish the race on the tyre you start on (i.e. you can go all the way on one tyre, but if you want to stop you need a different compound). 

 

It might get some teams to try a no stopper at places like Sochi or Monaco.  

 

How about every team no-stopping at Monaco? Sounds exciting.

[AustinF1]

No. I'm not even sure they should be forced to run 2 of them.

[Augurk]

 

 

We shouldn't be forcing them to use tyres at all (3 votes [9.68%] - View)

I know these guys are tireless racers, but am keen to see what F1 would look like without tyres 

[ForzaFormula]

Open up tactic options and make races more interested, of course thats what fans want instead of boring 1 stoppers etc.

[BiggestBuddyLazierFan]

No for mandatory tire stops

No for obligatory compounds

Yes for another tire supplier

Yes for genuine tire competition

[Claymore25]

Mandatory pit stop should be banned. The only rule should be that you have to start in the qualy tyre.

[PayasYouRace]

I know these guys are tireless racers, but am keen to see what F1 would look like without tyres 

 

Like this:

 

[Augurk]

Like this:

 

Thanks for that. That's one of life's great mysteries solved. Onto the next 

[Afterburner]

Isn’t this restricted by the costs involved transporting tyres around the world though?

You would think that, but if the teams are selecting two months or however far in advance now and Pirelli has to bring the same amount of tyres, what difference does it make? More likely they’re worried that whichever team gets the exploding tires for going too soft will inevitably shower them with (deserved) bad press.

[jonpollak]

As far as gimmicks go it's not so bad but I doubt its long-term effectiveness.

 

It would be hysterically effective if one of the mandated sets were Inters !

Jp

[Risil]

Then they'd have to bring in Bernie's sprinklers as a safety measure.

[f1paul]

Do it for SOME races, not all.

 

For example do it at races which are guaranteed to be one stoppers so Australia, Monaco, Monza, Russia for example. Keep it as it is for the other races.

 

I'm a big fan of different length races or formats across the calendar just like other motorsport series do. I don't like having exactly the same format week in week out. Even the races are all 300-310KM (apart from Monaco which is 260km). Qualifying is ALWAYS knockout qualifying, practice is ALWAYS three times a weekend (apart from Imola next month) and this has been the way for years.

Edited by f1paul, 24 September 2020 - 13:58.

[statman]

people daydreaming about these things really have too much time on their hands...

[KLF1F]

Going deliberately slowly to save tyres is one of the most agonizing things about modern F1. If this change made the optimal strategy such that drivers pushed as hard as possible every lap, I'm in.

 

I'm unsure that it would though.

[ATM]

Why not just leave it as it is? Currently, we still have some little diversity in the strategies.
If they want to mandate 2 stops, that’s another thing alltogether. Especially at the ones the Pirelli tires failed, that miiiiight be somewhat justified.
But other than that, I see no reason to do it.

Edit to answer post above: unfortunately, they will still go slow, even with this new rule, to protect counted items-like engines, gearboxes etc.

Edited by ATM, 24 September 2020 - 14:14.

[Clatter]

I really don't care if they do or not. It has the possibility to shake the races up a bit, but for the most part I doubt it will change the results that often.

[Peter Perfect]

I'd prefer that the teams set the strategy, and so their choice of tyres. But then I'd also prefer to bring back refuelling to add a bit of variety into the performance of the cars to make overtaking easier. When was the last time we had genuinely different strategies in a race?

[HeadFirst]

As I saw the thread title, the words "sure, why not" appeared in a Beano-style thought bubble above my head and nothing in the article has made me think that's wrong. Karun Chandok has been advocating this for some time too (I think).

 

"Beano" ... last time I saw that publication was in the hands of Eric Clapton on a John Mayall album cover. Is it still alive? And in answer to the Autosport article ... "NO!"

Edited by HeadFirst, 24 September 2020 - 16:16.

[Sterzo]

"Beano" ... last time I saw that publication was in the hands of Eric Clapton on a John Mayall album cover. Is it still alive? And in answer to the Autosport article ... "NO!"

 

Yes, they still have a shop in Fleet Strret, and must be the ones coming up with these ideas.

[Atreiu]

Maybe if they meant simultaneously. Hard fronts, medium and soft rear tyres...