Mandatory pit stops in F1?

[pi314159]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/111657

This is just so stupid. If they want to get rid of tyre strategy as a race deciding factor, then just make tyres that last a whole race.

[eagleash]

But then that might make for actual racing......

[Onxy Wrecked]

But then that might make for actual racing......

Or actual strategy instead of merely wait for the pit delta.

[Cynon]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/111657

This is just so stupid. If they want to get rid of tyre strategy as a race deciding factor, then just make tyres that last a whole race.

The only thing I can see this accomplishing is creating more pitlane collisions by effectively forcing all drivers to pit simultaneously.

[Alextrax52]

To be honest I think it's a good idea because I consider a lot of races with just 1 stop to be a bit dull because there's hardly any variation in Tire Compounds. DTM have something similar to this don't they?

[pi314159]

To be honest I think it's a good idea because I consider a lot of races with just 1 stop to be a bit dull because there's hardly any variation in Tire Compounds. DTM have something similar to this don't they?

Mandatory pit stops won't make races interesting. They don't really create much of a variety in pit strategys, they're rather limiting it.

And more generally, Formula 1 should give up artificially creating exciting races. It failed badly this year. And as long as they don't start using scripted reality, boring races will happen. So they should just become a sport again.

[eytl]

The only thing I can see this accomplishing is creating more pitlane collisions by effectively forcing all drivers to pit simultaneously.

I tend to agree with this.

Mandatory pit stops won't make races interesting. They don't really create much of a variety in pit strategys, they're rather limiting it.

I generally agree with this as well.

Here's a thought - if they wanted to make use of the whole "two tyre compound" thing, instead of saying you must use both compounds all race and have mandatory stops, why don't they regulate that you must choose your compound before qualifying, and that's the type of tyre you qualify and race on. Then have a good disparity between prime and option each race (including possibly make the prime last close to the whole race without needing drivers to drive to a delta, ie they can pretty much push all race), and then you have a real tortoise v hare scenario. Those on options might start up from but have to make 2-3 stops. Those on primes might start further down but run non-stop or stop once whilst lapping a second slower per lap. What we want is real strategy conundrum + ability for drivers to push.

Or to spice things up further, make the prime last, say, 80-90% of the race, so drivers on the primes have the option of driving conservatively and running non-stop, or pushing hard and having to one-stop.

[SgtPepper]

Or to spice things up further, make the prime last, say, 80-90% of the race, so drivers on the primes have the option of driving conservatively and running non-stop, or pushing hard and having to one-stop.

Agreed. That would then allow the option to be conisderably quicker than the prime, and mean a 1 stop would be equally as viable as a 0 stop. However I think pi314159 really hits the nail on the head - this sort of rule making is attempting to artifically recreate something we know already to be one of the most exciting aspects of racing. However if DRS is anything to go by, attempting to forcefully recreate the best bits of racing tends to, by definition, remove the original excitement of its initial existence.

[Alextrax52]

Here's a thought - if they wanted to make use of the whole "two tyre compound" thing, instead of saying you must use both compounds all race and have mandatory stops, why don't they regulate that you must choose your compound before qualifying, and that's the type of tyre you qualify and race on.

That sounds interesting. Those on the faster Tire wear it out bringing in those on the slower but more durable one

[andrew2209]

Didn't A1GP have a similar rule to this? IIRC, it worked reaosnably well in that series.

Off topic, but I miss that series, it was underrated.

[takagi_for_the_win]

Having seen this, my initial thought was "Why can't they use the system they had in the 90's?" However, seeing as Eytl as analysed this point far better than I ever could, here's an earth-shattering proposal- introduce refuelling.

Really, this mandatory two pit-stop thing is a load of bollocks. Very quickly the teams will work out the optimum laps on which to pit, so for a 3-4 lap window every 20 laps the pit-lane would be hugely frantic, with 22 cars frequenting it. This would no doubt lead to pit lane collisions, given the narrow nature of the pit-lane, which in turn would lead the FIA to come up with another "solution."

As Pi said, restricting strategy is a stupid move. One of the real nailbiting parts of the racing back in the last decade was the strategy, and you'd see drivers on low-fuel strategies having to pass slower, heavier cars and push like hell to gain the required time. Of course, you'd end up with Trulli trains, but that meant that when we did get an overtake, it would generally be semi-decent, as opposed to a DRS-assisted breeze pat someone who is in tyre preservation mode and has no interest in even defending his position.

This will no doubt prove to be unpopular amongst certain quarters here, but I really think that the FIA got it all wrong when they banned refuelling.

[good_Ralf]

Having seen this, my initial thought was "Why can't they use the system they had in the 90's?" However, seeing as Eytl as analysed this point far better than I ever could, here's an earth-shattering proposal- introduce refuelling.
This will no doubt prove to be unpopular amongst certain quarters here, but I really think that the FIA got it all wrong when they banned refuelling.

Seconded. As many of you might already know, I... really like the idea of refuelling and the FIA should scrap an overtaking aid and bring back refuelling in it's place! After all, it would be another variable and today's F1 cars, with that bigger fuel tank look a bit too... long.

[DanielPT]

Suddendly the sprinklers and the shortcut ideas that Bernie had look less stupid...

[nigellamansell]

Having seen this, my initial thought was "Why can't they use the system they had in the 90's?" However, seeing as Eytl as analysed this point far better than I ever could, here's an earth-shattering proposal- introduce refuelling.
This will no doubt prove to be unpopular amongst certain quarters here, but I really think that the FIA got it all wrong when they banned refuelling.

Seconded. As many of you might already know, I... really like the idea of refuelling and the FIA should scrap an overtaking aid and bring back refuelling in it's place! After all, it would be another variable and today's F1 cars, with that bigger fuel tank look a bit too... long.

Thirded....refuelling shouldn't have been banned. I also like the tyre choice idea.

Another way would be a properly administered budget cap but teams are so short sighted that they'd never agree to this

[Collieafc]

Having seen this, my initial thought was "Why can't they use the system they had in the 90's?" However, seeing as Eytl as analysed this point far better than I ever could, here's an earth-shattering proposal- introduce refuelling.
This will no doubt prove to be unpopular amongst certain quarters here, but I really think that the FIA got it all wrong when they banned refuelling.

Seconded. As many of you might already know, I... really like the idea of refuelling and the FIA should scrap an overtaking aid and bring back refuelling in it's place! After all, it would be another variable and today's F1 cars, with that bigger fuel tank look a bit too... long.

Thirded....refuelling shouldn't have been banned. I also like the tyre choice idea.

Another way would be a properly administered budget cap but teams are so short sighted that they'd never agree to this

Fourthed. I honestly thought banning refuelling would force drivers to overtake as sitting and waiting for your fuel stop would be gone - I was very wrong, if anything it has done the opposite, as its all maths in working out tyre deltas. Intriguing for team engineers and mathematicians but boring and too mechanical for Joe Public to get excited about.

[FMecha]

Since refueling is banned, can we ban tire changes (like 2005), and by extension, pit stops, instead of having mandatory pitstops?

[sswishbone]

I also think this is stupid, remember Webber's recovery to a 1 stop in Suzuka after grosjean's brainfade? di resta's awesome 57 lap stint in Montreal, Kobayashi's stirling strategy that allowed him to spice up Valencia 2010? All illegal if this goes through, ridiculous.

[SgtPepper]

I still support the ban in refuelling, though obviously DRS should be banished and never spoken of again. To my eyes, 2010 had the best balance in terms of rules, as it's the tyres and DRS that are the issues that need to be resolved right now, as drivers are unable to push, or defend.

[mario]

Having seen this, my initial thought was "Why can't they use the system they had in the 90's?" However, seeing as Eytl as analysed this point far better than I ever could, here's an earth-shattering proposal- introduce refuelling.

Really, this mandatory two pit-stop thing is a load of bollocks. Very quickly the teams will work out the optimum laps on which to pit, so for a 3-4 lap window every 20 laps the pit-lane would be hugely frantic, with 22 cars frequenting it. This would no doubt lead to pit lane collisions, given the narrow nature of the pit-lane, which in turn would lead the FIA to come up with another "solution."

As Pi said, restricting strategy is a stupid move. One of the real nailbiting parts of the racing back in the last decade was the strategy, and you'd see drivers on low-fuel strategies having to pass slower, heavier cars and push like hell to gain the required time. Of course, you'd end up with Trulli trains, but that meant that when we did get an overtake, it would generally be semi-decent, as opposed to a DRS-assisted breeze pat someone who is in tyre preservation mode and has no interest in even defending his position.

This will no doubt prove to be unpopular amongst certain quarters here, but I really think that the FIA got it all wrong when they banned refuelling.

I have to agree with the general sentiment that both sides seem to be looking for a quick fix to the symptoms rather than dealing with the root cause.

The tyres are as they are for a multitude of reasons, ranging from designed destructibility to no opportunities to test those compounds and teams that are unwilling to co-operate fully with Pirelli, but that came about because of a desire to "spice up" the show by introducing more overtaking via the artificial mechanism of highly variable mechanical grip levels.

Adding more or less stops still doesn't deal with some of the larger issues though, such as the number of available compounds. Ultimately, Pirelli has to try to produce four difference compounds that have to deal with a fairly widely varying set of track conditions, with the medium and soft tyres being used across the bulk of the tracks.
Whilst constantly varying the compounds wouldn't help either party, at the same time it is perhaps a little difficult for Pirelli to create a tyre compound that would cope with, for example, the demands of a highly abrasive and hot Bahrain circuit and the relatively cold, smooth Nurburgring circuit (the soft compound was used at both circuits this year) and guarantee that the tyres would be capable of a two stop strategy at both locations.

Refuelling was intended to work in a similar manner - introducing an additional variable that was intended to create on track performance differences from differing fuel loads - that, rather like the tyre strategy, failed to work because generally one particular strategy would tend to be the optimal one.

We've even seen a few races during the refuelling era where, much like drivers do now with tyre preservation strategies, tended not to defend too hard because they knew the other driver was on a worse strategy. Consider Massa letting Hamilton past in the 2008 Turkish GP because he knew Hamilton, having been warned by Bridgestone that he couldn't two stop as the tyre sidewalls were unable to cope with his driving style, simply couldn't beat Massa despite pushing like hell during the race.

Thinking about it, adding refuelling to the mixture probably would not make a massive difference to the situation - it might make balancing the tyre and fuel strategies a little trickier, but ultimately you would probably see most teams converge towards a much more similar strategy that combines the optimum fuel and tyre life scenarios.
Yes, enforcing pit stops might mean drivers might push a little harder in their stints, but it would still ultimately be something of a crutch to hide some of the bigger flaws that exist - namely, a lack of variability that comes from technological convergence towards a solution that proves to be optimal for performance across most track. It's a clumsy attempt to fix something quickly and cheaply rather than looking at other issues - maybe adjusting the tyre allocations, for example, or aerodynamic packages - from which these issues arise.

[andrew2209]

If Pirelli can create tyres that last for 30% of the race for softs, and 50% for hards, then there is an argument that we could have a return to "flat-out racing", as opposed to tyre management races.

[Sublime_FA11C]

Problem is/was that nobody could foresee the teams would choose tyre management over racing. You can't make teams race anymore than you can force them to pick talent over paydrivers. In Austin tyres lasted much longer than other races in 2013, all teams reported tyre degradation was minimal. So was it a hard charging race? No. It was the most defensive, tyre management-oriented race of the year. A real dissapointment that all teams would choose to extend the life of even longer lasting tyres, and these were easily the longest lasting tyres of the season. Sadly instead of pushing harder during the stints, all drivers were forced to extend stints as all team strategists tried to one-stop...

Be carefull what you wish for, teams may use it to make genuine racing even more impossible.

[FanOfF1]

Yawn on 2014.

[Ferrim]

The only thing I can see this accomplishing is creating more pitlane collisions by effectively forcing all drivers to pit simultaneously.

I tend to agree with this.

Mandatory pit stops won't make races interesting. They don't really create much of a variety in pit strategys, they're rather limiting it.

I generally agree with this as well.

Here's a thought - if they wanted to make use of the whole "two tyre compound" thing, instead of saying you must use both compounds all race and have mandatory stops, why don't they regulate that you must choose your compound before qualifying, and that's the type of tyre you qualify and race on.

Wasn't this the state of things before they introduced the "must use both compounds during the race" rule? But with refuelling, of course. People chose the tyre they wanted to use before qualifying and they stuck with it for the remainder of the weekend. I don't remember this being a factor, as almost everyone went for the same compound, but of course back then we had refuelling and the gap between the compounds wasn't very dramatical. I fear that with your proposal we would end up with a similar situation -ie., 90% of the time, one of the strategies is clearly better than the other one, and everyone goes for it in the end- but it would still be vastly better than mandatory two stops.

In fact, I feel I will stop watching F1 altogether if they introduce this rule, and for the first time ever, I think I'm not bluffing.

[CoopsII]

In fact, I feel I will stop watching F1 altogether if they introduce this rule, and for the first time ever, I think I'm not bluffing.

When you bluffed in the past, who were you bluffing to?

[Ferrim]

Myself, I guess. I've said "if they do X, I will stop watching F1!" a few times before. But inside I knew I would nevertheless keep watching. Now I'm not so sure.

It wouldn't be exclusively because of this rule, but because I'm fed up with the way the sport has been going, and this year has been specially painful with all the b******* about the Pirelli tyres. The sport is increasingly becoming a farce, with ever more restricting rules. They already disallowed non-stop races with the two compounds rule, and now they want to force three stints upon us, no matter what. The powers seem unable to be creative about anything -they always try to enforce rules instead of giving incentives. If they want several pit stops they should go back to refuelling (even if I don't like it), not introduce a new rule saying "you must pit at least twice". No rule saying "you have to pit at least once" was needed when we had refuelling, for example.

Another example is when, from time to time, three or four drivers choose not to do a lap in Q3 because they expect to gain an advantage during the race. Immediately, talk about introducing penalties for not going out begins: another new rule! It would be far more elegant to give an extra set of tyres in race day to the cars that go out and set a competitive time in Q3, and the total amount of tyres needed over a season would be less than 800 -not a huge extra amount when they use well over 10.000 during a year.

And let's not talk about how wet tyres have become effectively obsolete in F1...

[watka]

And let's not talk about how wet tyres have become effectively obsolete in F1...

No, let's. I haven't seen it discussed on this forum even though it's a pretty good observation. It seems that the inters have a pretty good operating window and the only thing that they can't cope with that the wet tyres can is standing water. In most cases, if there is standing water in a few places on the track, then that is safety car territory. In which case, the only instance we'll see them is to keep the cars on the road behind the safety car. The last race I can think of where full wets were used significantly in racing conditions is Brazil 2003 (correct me with other examples if I'm wrong). Yes, we see plenty of races where there are changeable conditions but I think the days of a true wet race are dead. Imagine if we had the same situation back in the 80s; no one would be talking of Bellof so highly these days. Senna might not have built up such a reputation either.

Perhaps this is one for the ponderbox rather than this thread, but I'd be interested to know what people think.

[DanielPT]

No, let's. I haven't seen it discussed on this forum even though it's a pretty good observation. It seems that the inters have a pretty good operating window and the only thing that they can't cope with that the wet tyres can is standing water. In most cases, if there is standing water in a few places on the track, then that is safety car territory. In which case, the only instance we'll see them is to keep the cars on the road behind the safety car. The last race I can think of where full wets were used significantly in racing conditions is Brazil 2003 (correct me with other examples if I'm wrong). Yes, we see plenty of races where there are changeable conditions but I think the days of a true wet race are dead. Imagine if we had the same situation back in the 80s; no one would be talking of Bellof so highly these days. Senna might not have built up such a reputation either.

Perhaps this is one for the ponderbox rather than this thread, but I'd be interested to know what people think.

Wet races? What are these wet races you guys are talking about?


Seriously though, I can understand the safety point of view. It is an ungrateful position for the race control. If the race is stopped because of it fans complain about not racing in wet but if goes ahead and a driver gets injured or worse in a crash the press would be all over it. Regardless I still think many decisions about either red flag a race in wet conditions or doing lap after lap behind safety car appear exaggerated and F1 should relax a bit in this side. I still like to think that F1 cars can be driven in almost any sort of weather conditions. About the wet tyres these days, Ferrim really hits the nail on his head there...

[eytl]

Here's a thought - if they wanted to make use of the whole "two tyre compound" thing, instead of saying you must use both compounds all race and have mandatory stops, why don't they regulate that you must choose your compound before qualifying, and that's the type of tyre you qualify and race on.

Wasn't this the state of things before they introduced the "must use both compounds during the race" rule? But with refuelling, of course. People chose the tyre they wanted to use before qualifying and they stuck with it for the remainder of the weekend. I don't remember this being a factor, as almost everyone went for the same compound, but of course back then we had refuelling and the gap between the compounds wasn't very dramatical. I fear that with your proposal we would end up with a similar situation -ie., 90% of the time, one of the strategies is clearly better than the other one, and everyone goes for it in the end- but it would still be vastly better than mandatory two stops.

That's a fair point. I thought of that as well. I do agree that my proposal would only work if there was a good number of cars on each tyre. Hang on, I know ...

[joke] They could introduce another rule and make each team run one car on one compound and the other car on the other. And then swap them for the next race so driver X isn't always the tortoise on primes. [/joke]

[Alextrax52]

Hey Enoch are you making a decision on Brazil ROTR? I don't blame you if you've forgotton about it.

[FanOfF1]

I still support the ban in refuelling, though obviously DRS should be banished and never spoken of again. To my eyes, 2010 had the best balance in terms of rules, as it's the tyres and DRS that are the issues that need to be resolved right now, as drivers are unable to push, or defend.

DRS was introduced to encourage more overtaking. Yeah, for those who get bored easily and don't want to see taxis lining up on queue all the time, it works. But for those who actually want to see drivers earning their overtakes, relying on pure skill of drivers, and who like the skill of drivers who can defend for their lives, then does that kind of not ruin that point?
I'll never forget Raikkonen in Japan winning from 17th to 1st passing Fisichella on the outside, ALL driver skill.

[Sublime_FA11C]

Main problem with more overtakes, and i think we've seen this plenty of times this year, is that FEW overtakes mean anything. Is less overtaking worse IF an overtake is exciting and contested by both drivers. In 2013 all too often one driver had a DRS advantage, and the other guy was further hampered by doing delta time laps and having to preserve tyres, so the net result was one driver making a pass with minimal tyre damage, and the other choosing not to contest the pass atempt.

I don't want a return to boring, no overtaking races, but the issue back then was aerodynamic wake which caused a lot of understeer on the driver following another. That made it difficult to pass. Now with wake being somewhat less of an issue, the following driver sufferes less understeer but considerable tyre damage which makes overtaking a battleing for position difficult again. DRS gives some incentive the the driver behind and gives him an opportunity, but it's balanced very heavily in the attacker's favor. It would maybe work better if the overtaken driver would try and re-take the position, but very often that simply doesn't happen.

But the cause of the problem is that aerodynamic wake and degenerating tyres combine to make it very difficult to fight for position. That is what the rules should aim at, not positioning DRS zones or whatever else. DRS cures the symptom, not the disease. Mandatory pitstops would be another attempt to deal with the consequences, rather than the cause.

No refueling for me please. Don't want accidents nor a return to sprint racing. The idea of a tyre that has limited usefullness (but not limited life) sounds good, and i would like Pirelli to be allowed to make and TEST such a tyre. Would like to see further emphasis on mechanical (tyre) grip, and if dreams can come true, some sort of regulation of wake. Anything that prevents racing drivers from racing each other in a series that lavishly praises itself and pretends to be the pinnacle of motorsport is a major issue, and one that demeands more than knee-jerk or band-aid solutions. Please get rid of the damn obstacles to racing for position, be it wake, tyre degradation, delta efing times or anything else.

[CoopsII]

Myself, I guess. I've said "if they do X, I will stop watching F1!" a few times before. But inside I knew I would nevertheless keep watching. Now I'm not so sure.

It wouldn't be exclusively because of this rule, but because I'm fed up with the way the sport has been going, and this year has been specially painful with all the b******* about the Pirelli tyres. The sport is increasingly becoming a farce, with ever more restricting rules. They already disallowed non-stop races with the two compounds rule, and now they want to force three stints upon us, no matter what. The powers seem unable to be creative about anything -they always try to enforce rules instead of giving incentives. If they want several pit stops they should go back to refuelling (even if I don't like it), not introduce a new rule saying "you must pit at least twice". No rule saying "you have to pit at least once" was needed when we had refuelling, for example.

Another example is when, from time to time, three or four drivers choose not to do a lap in Q3 because they expect to gain an advantage during the race. Immediately, talk about introducing penalties for not going out begins: another new rule! It would be far more elegant to give an extra set of tyres in race day to the cars that go out and set a competitive time in Q3, and the total amount of tyres needed over a season would be less than 800 -not a huge extra amount when they use well over 10.000 during a year.

The problem is before they started messing about with the rules people (not me) said F1 was boring. Since then it seems we've gone from regulation adjustments from time to time to radical overhauls every ten minutes and now people (not me) say F1 is boring. But the trouble now is that its so messed up nobody seems to know how to reset things and begin making tiny adjustments again, its all a tangled mess.

[takagi_for_the_win]

[joke] They could introduce another rule and make each team run one car on one compound and the other car on the other. And then swap them for the next race so driver X isn't always the tortoise on primes. [/joke]

Sshhhh, don't give the F1 Strategy Group any ideas!

[Collieafc]

I remember in an article in F1 Racing back in 2006, Max Mosley had a column and one of them was about addressing the complaint at the time that overtaking was too hard. One of the main points that he posed to the reader was "sure, we can make overtaking easy, but do we want that?". At the time, I thought "yes, why wouldnt you?" but he then explains the downsides to this, which, if I remember correctly, mirror some of the criticisms of DRS today. And he does it in quite a balanced way as well. I suppose its a classic case of "beware of what you wish for" as overtaking has now become devalued (which he warned about at the time)

If I can find the magazine and article I will see about scanning it and putting it on this site, as it was a good read

As for the whole wet weather thing, I do wish they would actually race in a full wet race, as right now with safety cars and session delays, we are losing the prospect of eventful and all time great races and drives. Can you imagine Belgium 1998 nowadays for example? (And I dont mean the 1st start either), Spain 1996, Japan 1994 or Monaco 1984? (and that's just ones of my opinion, everyone here is sure to have their own choices to list) I cant.

That being said, we need rain first, otherwise its a moot point!

[Onxy Wrecked]

Main problem with more overtakes, and i think we've seen this plenty of times this year, is that FEW overtakes mean anything. Is less overtaking worse IF an overtake is exciting and contested by both drivers. In 2013 all too often one driver had a DRS advantage, and the other guy was further hampered by doing delta time laps and having to preserve tyres, so the net result was one driver making a pass with minimal tyre damage, and the other choosing not to contest the pass atempt.

I don't want a return to boring, no overtaking races, but the issue back then was aerodynamic wake which caused a lot of understeer on the driver following another. That made it difficult to pass. Now with wake being somewhat less of an issue, the following driver sufferes less understeer but considerable tyre damage which makes overtaking a battleing for position difficult again. DRS gives some incentive the the driver behind and gives him an opportunity, but it's balanced very heavily in the attacker's favor. It would maybe work better if the overtaken driver would try and re-take the position, but very often that simply doesn't happen.

But the cause of the problem is that aerodynamic wake and degenerating tyres combine to make it very difficult to fight for position. That is what the rules should aim at, not positioning DRS zones or whatever else. DRS cures the symptom, not the disease. Mandatory pitstops would be another attempt to deal with the consequences, rather than the cause.

No refueling for me please. Don't want accidents nor a return to sprint racing. The idea of a tyre that has limited usefullness (but not limited life) sounds good, and i would like Pirelli to be allowed to make and TEST such a tyre. Would like to see further emphasis on mechanical (tyre) grip, and if dreams can come true, some sort of regulation of wake. Anything that prevents racing drivers from racing each other in a series that lavishly praises itself and pretends to be the pinnacle of motorsport is a major issue, and one that demeands more than knee-jerk or band-aid solutions. Please get rid of the damn obstacles to racing for position, be it wake, tyre degradation, delta efing times or anything else.

I think one would need to make a prime with much less traction and much slower and a quick wearing option. Pirelli needs to test tires so we can have tires that can alter an outcome meaningfully.

[RAK]

Or to spice things up further, make the prime last, say, 80-90% of the race, so drivers on the primes have the option of driving conservatively and running non-stop, or pushing hard and having to one-stop.

I agree with this; I think that if you balanced this correctly, you'd have the two different strategies that would spice things up, which I don't think can be attained with a return to refuelling, mandatory pit stops or artificial driver aids (e.g. DRS).

I would particularly not like to see a return to refuelling. I did not enjoy the racing particularly the last time we had refuelling, finding it artificial and devoid of contest outside of the pits. It didn't suit qualifying either to have drivers start on the fuel loads that they finished qualifying with; the differing fuel loads meant that a pole position looked artificial when it turned out that it was attained because somebody had gone for a glory run on low fuel.

[go_Rubens]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/111756?source=mostpopular

Ross Brawn's take on the idea of mandatory pit stops.