More pitstops to increase spectacle?

AndreaModa · Post by **AndreaModa** » 14 Mar 2010, 16:24

Martin Whitmarsh believes so, along with making the difference between the compounds greater.

In my view, thats all well and good but pitstops won't increase on track spectacle, I think the two compound rule is a joke anyway. What they need is a variety of compounds available, but drivers should be free to choose what they run on over the weekend. In an ideal world, and what should happen for 2011, is the FIA should invite at least two, maybe even three top tyre manufacturers into the sport, with Bridgestone leaving. I'd recommend Michelin, Goodyear and maybe even Dunlop or Pirelli. This would give the field a serious and interesting mix up, not only regarding tyre manufacurer, but also the tyre compound they choose too. The tyres themselves would have a design life of maybe half to three-quarter race distance, so that there is still the option of staying out for the whole race on one set, or come in to pit to give yourself an advantage towards the end.

Combined with the banning of the DDD and perhaps other aero tweaks for 2011, I think it would create a much more unpredictable field that would involve some decent racing.

Thoughts?

ADx_Wales · Post by **ADx_Wales** » 14 Mar 2010, 16:27

Maybe there should be 2 pitstops minumum for each driver, but not in a "window".
But we all saw today that even without refuelling some drivers gained race position in the pits.

We can all blame the rules for making todays race apparently boring, but its just one race.

Enforcer · Post by **Enforcer** » 14 Mar 2010, 16:32

I'm not a fan of insisting that people make X amount of pit stops, or use Y amount of tires, (save for an upper limit) because I think it makes things more predictable, and most importantly discourages overtaking on the track - "okay Rubens, you don't need to go nuts trying to catch and pass Kubica, he still has a mandatory pitstop/has to use the other compound of tire, just hold station within 20 seconds of him."

I think they should just scrap the compounds rule. If someone thinks they can do a whole race conserving a single set of hard tires, let them. If someone thinks they can go faster by 2 stopping and using 3 sets of soft tires, let them. You couldn't sandbag to preserve your tires/car incase you suddenly discover the guy thought was making 3 stops has actually got his tires to last long enough to switch to 2.

Alianora La Canta · Post by **Alianora La Canta** » 14 Mar 2010, 18:02

I think restricting the number of stops will make things even worse. The problems here are that the track was too narrow and precluded the preparation of overtaking moves, the strategists were far too conservative and the few people who gambled lost for reasons completely unconnected to the gamble.

tc3j3r · Post by **tc3j3r** » 14 Mar 2010, 18:27

People are being far too harsh on non-refuelling. Today's race, while not thrilling, was no worse than most of last year's races. Forcing more pitstops would be a terrible idea. What needs to be done is allow the cars to overtake on track, strategy is no substitute for real overtaking.

AndreaModa · Post by **AndreaModa** » 14 Mar 2010, 18:53

tc3j3r wrote:People are being far too harsh on non-refuelling. Today's race, while not thrilling, was no worse than most of last year's races. Forcing more pitstops would be a terrible idea. What needs to be done is allow the cars to overtake on track, strategy is no substitute for real overtaking.

Agreed. I don't think more pitstops will do much except break the race up more.

And it seems Prost agrees with my original suggestion: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/8566042.stm

PWNSNBM · Post by **PWNSNBM** » 14 Mar 2010, 20:52

Enforcer wrote:I'm not a fan of insisting that people make X amount of pit stops, or use Y amount of tires, (save for an upper limit) because I think it makes things more predictable, and most importantly discourages overtaking on the track - "okay Rubens, you don't need to go nuts trying to catch and pass Kubica, he still has a mandatory pitstop/has to use the other compound of tire, just hold station within 20 seconds of him."

I think they should just scrap the compounds rule...

I'm leaning towards this as well. Great example!

FloProAct · Post by **FloProAct** » 14 Mar 2010, 21:50

There is only one surefire way to promote overtaking...

Ban all pitstops!

CarlosFerreira · Post by **CarlosFerreira** » 14 Mar 2010, 21:58

I am going to be a bit silly and ask: why would pit stopping the cars more often make the racing more interesting? I can agree with banning pit stops altogether, re-introducing KERS (and making it real advantageous to run it, by increasing the power boost or the time of usage), ban the Double-D Diffusers and let drivers go about their business, and let the best man win. In other words, increase the incentives to overtake.

I somehow imagine the teams wouldn't want this, the drivers would be way too much important all of a sudden.

pher38 · Post by **pher38** » 14 Mar 2010, 23:40

After watching the race there should be major alarm bells on the entertainment value of F1. What is already extremely clear is we have gutted F1 racing because of the consequences and risks of wearing your tyres. Martin Whitmarsh worryingly raised the point if there was an early safety car then all the teams would have simply pitted early and driven on the harder tyre till the end of the race. It could have been much worse and the evidence of Bahrain was more than enough to demonstrate that to worry is not just a knee jerk reaction. If you will bear with me I will explain the reasons why.

In the refuelling era of F1 from 1994-2009 People always complained about drivers waiting till the pit stops to do their overtaking but whereas that may be true, at least pit stops and the potential variation of events strategies caused were exciting. Others may on the other hand compare today’s race to other races where there was little overtaking but in boring races such as the 2004 Hungarian Grand Prix at least we had the excitement of two pit stops to look forward to and drivers were not encouraged to almost literally ‘plod’ round and not push their cars to save their tyres. Hearing drivers after the race explaining they were not pushing 100% concerned me because the drivers were not being encouraged to take risks and push to the limit. Watching the race it seemed many drivers were in fact actually happy to ‘plod’ round in position rather than sprint to the pit stops because they were afraid of getting too close to the car in front because it would wear the tyres. This was easily one of the worst grand prix’s ever if not the worst.

What also frustrates me is the argument about the need to increase overtaking in F1. Whereas there is some truth in it, the fact is there has been nearly just as much overtaking in F1 in 2009 and 2008 as there was in the 1980’s. If we make overtaking too easy all it would do is get the fastest car to the front quicker and then it would stay there. Overtaking is not the only entertainment value involved in F1. The main problem lies with the incentives to overtake and the emphasis in F1 at the moment to come down hard on any driver who dares to attempt a risky pass. Montoya mentioned this when he left F1 in 2006 and he was right, we should not slam drivers who are willing to take risks, within reason of course. We should be encouraging this as well as gambling on alternative race strategy.

Because I am sad enough to have watched many races over the years as well I know 1997 was the year in which we had the best racing and a good balance between the tyre management and refuelling. This was because the tyres that year wore extremely quickly, which meant tyre management was involved, increasing the element of driver skill as well as the extremely exciting element of refuelling and pit stops. This was best shown in the 1997 Argentinean, Spanish and Hungarian grand prix’s. These were all potentially boring races which were turned into some of the best races for years because of the reasons explained above. Please watch these races if you can and I am certain you will not disagree with me.

What we need is to combine the best of both tyre management and refuelling. Why can we not have a race in which we have the potential of driver’s tyre management combined with the excitement of the sprints of two or three stop refuelling? Do we want drivers only ‘nursing’ their cars to the end because of the risks following another driver too closely? We must create more incentives for aggressive racing and risk taking, which would also cause a variation in race strategy. By this I do not mean anything stupid likes points for overtaking, fastest laps or pole but by producing short term softer tyres which Martin Whitmarsh mentioned to encourage short aggressive sprint racing till the pit stops. If the tyres wear too quickly this will only encourage varied speeds for drivers during the race and overtaking! This would mean the cars can follow each other more closely as a result in the increase on the emphasis on mechanical grip. The drivers would also not be frightened in wearing out their tyres because even is something goes wrong they could always make a pit stop. Tyre management would still be in the hands of the drivers to, which is the argument for banning refuelling in the first place. We could then combine this with having the excitement of drivers pushing and the excitement of pit stops and strategy ideas. For this reason we need to re-introduce refuelling to, as well as the rule to carry race fuel in Q3. It worked to disadvantage the pole sitter because it closed up the race and created an interesting dilemma for strategy. I know it may be too much now to ask it to be reintroduced in 2010 but it should be brought back for 2011.

With both tyre management and refuelling possible in the same race why can we not have the best of both worlds?

RejectSteve · Post by **RejectSteve** » 14 Mar 2010, 23:43

Enforcer wrote:ENTIRE POST

Yep. Strategy should be in the teams' hands and not in the sporting regulations.

lostpin · Post by **lostpin** » 15 Mar 2010, 00:17

I think that this whole strategy thing is overestimated. I dare to say it's superfluous since it's really not what's racing is about. Racing is about taking risks, wheel to wheel action and pushing like crazy... the ideal end for a race driver should be with an inflamed car, two missing wheels and the driver pushing the car across the finish line (ok, I'm going way over the line here..

). But really, changing tires comes out of physical necessity, and it really shouldn't be there in the first place. Racing should be on the track, and not in the pits, and especially not over the radio! My two cents...

PWNSNBM · Post by **PWNSNBM** » 15 Mar 2010, 02:28

Fond as i am of jumping off and on the "State of F1" bandwagon (depending on the flavour of the month), maybe we should all take a deep DEEP breath right about now:

So did we fall for the "most exciting in years" over-hype? Hook, line and sinker.

Was Bahrain 2010 boring as batcrap? Par for the course then.

But then i realized:

1) there's still 18 races left! i'm making the radical F1Reject prediction that NOT ALL 18 will have the same result as Bahrain.

2) WC done and dusted? perhaps, but we perhaps could stick around for the emerging sub-plots:
a) ALO > MAS
b) HAM > BUT
c) MSC < MSC
d) Red Bull Sr knows they have a winning car - they won't be throwing in the towel just yet.
e) Faux India has thrown down the gauntlet as Best of the Rest - could we've even imagined this scenario this time last year?
f) Lotus has proven (at least for 1 race) it can last the distance - time to work on pace?
g) Will the Virgins ever get to last?
h) Will we get to see KOB demonstrate his Banzai-osity ever again?
i) And most important of all, will Team Hormone Replacement Therapy make it past race # 2?

No doubt copious notes will be taken for every flaw, but we can crunch the numbers once we get to the end (as will everyone else). But until then, bring on Australia!

[Turns 'Mark Webber mode' off]

Captain Hammer · Post by **Captain Hammer** » 15 Mar 2010, 03:13

Given the behaviour of the tyres and the everyone-makes-one-early-stop-then-drives-home response from last night, I wouldn't have issues with the mandatory stops.

Somethng I wouldn't mind seeing is the opening up of tyre allocation. Allow teamsaccess to all four sets of tyres, but "twin" them. The soft compound could be Prime A and the supersoft Option A, while the hard tyre would be Prime B and the medium Option B. The teams and drivers have to decide which allocation they will take for the race: the A-set or the B-set.

Failing that, I'd get rid of the stagger. As Sutil showed, anyone wo qualifies on the harder compound will almost certainly be in the lower half of the top ten. But by removing the stagger, they can qualify higher and have better rubber or the race - they can go for longer, but they can keep up with the rest of the pack.

dr-baker · Post by **dr-baker** » 15 Mar 2010, 09:20

CarlosFerreira wrote:...re-introducing KERS (and making it real advantageous to run it, by increasing the power boost or the time of usage),...

Simple answer: Let the teams extract as much potential as possible from the KERS with no limits. Then, OK it'll be an arms race, but it may well increase unreliability WHICH IS WHAT THIS SPORT NEEDS.

And let there be several tyre manufacturers and let the teams pick and choose which manufacturer they go for from race to race, even with the possibility of mixed front to back. Could even say that you have to run both equally through a season, so for example, where there are 19 races, you run one tyre 9 times, the other tyre 9 times, and run both at one race... And then you can't build a car around the tyre characteristics...

Pedestrian · Post by **Pedestrian** » 15 Mar 2010, 09:38

A lot of very good points were made allready, and there is not much more to say on the subject. Last year everyone said that we need less pitstops. That's why the new rules were introduced. To get rid of pitstops. And now we hear that we need more pitstops! So what is the conclusion? That the last rulechanges were useless and that the decision makers in F1 have no ideea what they should be doing...

Mister Fungus · Post by **Mister Fungus** » 15 Mar 2010, 11:00

As long as it's impossible and destructive to follow a car in front of you and you need a 2 second advantage to overtake, there is NOTHING that can be done and I mean NOTHING.

I find it amusing how senile people are and blame the no refueling rule and nursing the tyres when we had it EXACTLY the same last year, or did you suddenly forget how many times drivers backed of last year and waited away from the car in front of them to save tyres? Exciting strategies? Really? I can't say I remember any memorable "strategy" in the last few years, teams were basically using the same strategies all the time, and results were very predictable.

Whereas there is some truth in it, the fact is there has been nearly just as much overtaking in F1 in 2009 and 2008 as there was in the 1980’s.

You are very very very wrong there, there are statistics that prove otherwise.

Code: Select all

Average Overtaking Moves per GP per Season
1983 - 40.47
1984 - 41.63
1985 - 41.06
1986 - 36.31
1987 - 34.88
1988 - 30.81
1989 - 34.19
1990 - 30.88
1991 - 30.94
1992 - 25.38
1993 - 24.5
1994 - 18.06
1995 - 17.47
1996 - 11.63
1997 - 15.59
1998 - 12.94
1999 - 16.25
2000 - 16.41
2001 - 13.53
2002 - 13.82
2003 - 18.94
2004 - 15.94
2005 - 10.89
2006 - 16.17
2007 - 15.88
2008 - 14.83
2009 - 12.59

(source: http://www.cliptheapex.com/forum/viewto ... f=51&t=822)

Also I don't care for strategies I want overtaking ANYWHERE, so in retrospect at least we got some overtaking in the back of the field, unlike last year Bahrain GP which was even worse. Strategies can only be be interesting when they facilitate action on the track, and with todays F1 that's impossible,

rffp · Post by **rffp** » 15 Mar 2010, 12:38

I think it was Sam Michael that pointed out something very obvious last year when asked what F-1 should do in order to increase overtaking in the track. He said that overtaking occurs when a faster car is behind a slower car and hence can make use of the superior speed to gain a position.

Unless F-1 copies Superleague - and god forbid that! - and imposes a reverse grid, with the current rules, the faster cars are starting in front of the slower cars, hence the former are not in the need of overtaking to reach the first positions. I agree that refuelling had to be banned because drivers were getting "lazy" in the track and they need to be forced to take chances. But until last year, the rules permitted slower cars to be in the front due to low fuel runs in Q3.

So the FIA reverted the rules back to 1993, when there was a general complaint about dull races, in specific due to the Williams domination. I started to watch races in the 1983, and there were 3 tyre suppliers. This made a big difference as sometimes the quickest driver in qualifying was not the quickest in the race, as it could be seen in the historical Long Beach 1983 GP. And in those years, there were qualifying tyres, qualifying engines, which catapulted many times cars to the pole that had small chances of winning. And in those years, there were no mandatory use of determined number of type of tyres. But there were exciting races such as the 1986 Spanish GP, when Mansell used qualifying tyres in the dying laps and almost defeated Senna to the victory in the finish line, the 1987 British GP, when Mansell had to pit to change for fresh tyres and demolished Piquet's 30s lead, and the 1986 Mexican GP, when Berger surprised everyone by not changing the tyres and snatching the lead from the favorites.

So, in my opinion, let us not increase the number of pit-stops, but let the drivers decided which tyres they can use. Maybe we will have a surprise during the year. And as mentione by Mister Fungus, more than one tyre supplier is a very welcome suggestion IMHO.

Tealy · Post by **Tealy** » 15 Mar 2010, 12:49

Mister Fungus wrote:2005 - 10.89

Wow, the 1 tyre per race rule really didnt help 2005. Or are these results skewed by the Indy race that year?

BigG80 · Post by **BigG80** » 15 Mar 2010, 15:01

Tealy wrote:
Mister Fungus wrote:2005 - 10.89

Wow, the 1 tyre per race rule really didnt help 2005. Or are these results skewed by the Indy race that year?

A bit of both I think. Some races such as Japan were amazing but a lot of the others were processions.

I don't want to see mandatory pitstops. What the rulemakers have missed (and yet most of F1 rejects forum members) have worked out is that having the two tyre compound rules has removed the freedom of strategy and made everyone do the same thing. Hence a procession.

Obviously the ever present reliance on aerodynamics compounds (natch) the problem.

crazydude1992 · Post by **crazydude1992** » 15 Mar 2010, 17:47

Actually, the most interesting season Ive seen race-wise was 2008. It was just basically unpredictable, 7 race winners and the winner of the race would come in as a surprise. I guess you could say it was due to the safety car rules, they just made the race positions go upside-down, but it made races more interesting with the faster guys being in the back, trying to go up. I cant recall too many processions from 2008...Not to mention for some reason attrition was higher that year. But lets not put our noses down, Bahrain wasnt particularly the place where interesting races happen...

Jordan192 · Post by **Jordan192** » 15 Mar 2010, 18:33

Pretty much been said already, but basically:
No mandatory pitstops.
Lose the 'Clown shoes' Rule - if someone wants to do a race without stopping on hards, fine. If someone wants to punish two (or even three) sets of softs and thrash it, fine.

Also, a fairly simple tech rule would be slightly wider tyres - the fronts gained more grip than the rears when we lost the grooves, so why was the solution to that imbalance to reduce mechnical grip at the front? The place where it's most important for following someone? Restore the fronts to 2009 width, make the rears an inch wider and you also indirectly get to knock 2 inches off the diffuser width. Sadly, the die's already cast on that one - you couldn't introduce it mid-season.

Phoenix · Post by **Phoenix** » 15 Mar 2010, 19:09

The only way to increase overtakings properly is to modify the aero of the cars. That drivers can't get slipstream because of air turbulences and overheating is ludicrous in the highest echelon of motorsport.

IdeFan · Post by **IdeFan** » 15 Mar 2010, 20:01

I feel the current regulations are a mismatch:

The mandatory compound change adds a bit of intrigue when combined with fuel stops. Do you run light, put on the stickys and try to run away with it, or run heavy with the hards and do a splash and dash on the stickies?

The fueling ban adds some intrigue with regards tyre wear. Do you try to do the whole race on one set, or do you try softer tyres with a pitstop?

Combine the mandatory compound change and refuelling ban and you get the worst of both worlds IMO.

eytl · Post by **eytl** » 15 Mar 2010, 22:30

Needless to say I've been giving this subject a lot of thought for the written race review. I will expand on it much more there (so you'll all have to stay tuned) but I think I am in basic agreement with those who suggest that the "two compounds per race" rule should be scrapped. The issues of aero dependence and over-reliability can't be changed overnight, but tyre rules can.

Here are few other things which I would like to throw into the mix - all of which, I would have thought, could be instantly implemented. Just thinking outside the square a little bit as well.

(a) Same two compounds brought to every race, none of this 'horses for courses' stuff from Bridgestone. Currently Bridgestone make four compounds, and bring the most suitable harder tyre and the most suitable softer tyre. Scrap that and save some production costs! Same harder and softer compounds for every circuit. Some places they'll both be durable. Some places one will be and the other won't. Some places neither will work. Puts the teams on the hop.

(b) Same total practice time, but shorter sessions, eg chop all three FP sessions into two. No one can do a really long run to gauge how a tyre will perform after, say, 20 minutes.

(c) Let's be radical and politically incorrect. If you want to go back to 1993 and earlier, and give the option of pit stops, there is one major factor everyone has forgotten - the pit lane speed limit. Introduced for safety in the wake of Imola 1994, but what's the point of gambling on softer rubber but having to pit if you will lose 30+ seconds in the pits? You just can't make that back up. How about increasing the speed limit? How about scrapping it altogether?

How to maintain safety? A1GP or old-school CART style "pit crew aren't allowed out until the car has stopped", and car can't leave until crew have all gone back in (except for one lollipop man)? 7-8 secs total stationary time but with no speed limit in the lane is better than a 4s stop but dawdling in the lane.

I'll expand on these more in the race review, but just thought I'd throw them out there and see if you guys have any initial opinions.

Jynister · Post by **Jynister** » 15 Mar 2010, 23:06

eytl wrote:(a) Same two compounds brought to every race, none of this 'horses for courses' stuff from Bridgestone. Currently Bridgestone make four compounds, and bring the most suitable harder tyre and the most suitable softer tyre. Scrap that and save some production costs! Same harder and softer compounds for every circuit. Some places they'll both be durable. Some places one will be and the other won't. Some places neither will work. Puts the teams on the hop.

Yeah, I agree with that. I'd also like to see the "run both compounds" rule removed.

Edit* If Bridgestone currently make 4 compounds, cars can run a different compound on each wheel.

Lux Interior · Post by **Lux Interior** » 15 Mar 2010, 23:31

Not much of a spectacle Sunday's race put me to sleep.

CarlosFerreira · Post by **CarlosFerreira** » 16 Mar 2010, 00:03

eytl wrote:(c) Let's be radical and politically incorrect. If you want to go back to 1993 and earlier, and give the option of pit stops, there is one major factor everyone has forgotten - the pit lane speed limit. Introduced for safety in the wake of Imola 1994, but what's the point of gambling on softer rubber but having to pit if you will lose 30+ seconds in the pits? You just can't make that back up. How about increasing the speed limit? How about scrapping it altogether? How to maintain safety? A1GP or old-school CART style "pit crew aren't allowed out until the car has stopped", and car can't leave until crew have all gone back in (except for one lollipop man)? 7-8 secs total stationary time but with no speed limit in the lane is better than a 4s stop but dawdling in the lane.

So... 160 mph in the middle of walls, with other cars being worked on few inches away, with the driver sitting in a position out of which he can't see (remember Alguersuari in Abu Dhabi last year)? Not really, boss.

TeamTipper · Post by **TeamTipper** » 16 Mar 2010, 07:21

Go back too the early 90's rules. Optional pitstops and maybe also look at the tracks. The new tracks are far too common these days. Long straight and heavy braking. That doesnt tend to increse overtaking. Rival tyre compays e.g Michelin Goodyear and others make it more intresting and also one tyre could suit a certain track. (also the FIA needs to realise that one tyre rule doesnt tend to keep cost down)
Finally look at the cars. the rules for the cars are far too tight and makes the cars to even. A certain car can be faster on one track then the next race and so fort.
Tyres arent the issue. The FIA!!!! ARE!

kowalski · Post by **kowalski** » 16 Mar 2010, 08:44

Tyre War - No thanks, I don't want races to be decided by the tyres someone happens to have.

Pitstops - Yup, let the tyre company bring the same 2 (or 3) componds to each race and let the teams decide their own strategies. (as has been said here - lets see Button try and last on one set of hards and see how he compares to Hamilton who does 3 stints on the super-softs)

- Which then leads to: INCREASE the pit lane speed limit... maybe removing it would be a little too much- but increasing it a bit to allow for more chance of interesting stratergies.

- oh, and forget the whole 'must use different compounds' rule (unless you choose the 2 furthest from each other and bring them to every race - but still it is all a little silly and contrived)

Post by **mario** » 16 Mar 2010, 11:07

As expected, Bernie has now weighted in on the matter http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/82180
And looking at the comments he has made, I actually find myself agreeing with him, which is an entirely peculiar situation. For a start, he is right when he says "we should not just knee-jerk into changes.", which is what the teams seem to want to do. He suggests waiting until the four long haul races are over, before makign a judgement on what the right course of action would be. Now, he is in a delicate position - leave it too long, and interest in the sport will have dropped off very quickly. However, move too soon in one direction, and you could end up making things worse.
Mandating pit stops, in my mind, is unlikely to make things better - it isn't going to noticeably shake the order up (since all that happened was as soon as some of the teams - for example, when Hamilton stopped for tyres - all the other big teams reacted in turn (see Mercedes bringing in Rosberg the following lap) - all an extra stop would do is repeat that process).

Bear in mind that the teams are having to adjust to the situation - the new tyres (there is a subtle difference here, in that Bridgestone has changed the tyre allocations this year - for example, they are bringing the soft and hard tyres to Australia, instead of the super softs and medium tyres which they brought last year), that are much stiffer (and also more resistant to wearing out). For these first few races, the teams are effectively going to be feeling their way, and trying to judge how far they can push the tyres and the cars.
And the refuelling ban seems to have brought one of Murray Walker's prophecies to the fore, based on his experience of the non-refuelling era - that all the refuelling ban woud make the races more boring, not less, as what would happen is that after the opening laps, the fastest cars would simply drive away from the rest of the pack, and the races were more processional, not less.
However, I'm not sure that we can condemn this season quite yet - we are still making judgements off one race alone. Perhaps Bernie has a point when he says

Bernie wrote:"The first race with new regulations was always going to be a learning curve for them all," he explained. "Now they know they can make improvements and be a bit bolder and we will get more action."

Interestingly, Bernie, as always, has an interesting proposal, but for once he might have a point about it. He suggests that they could actually get rid of the harder tyre altogether, and just get Bridgestone to bring one soft tyre compound to the races. That way, you would not have to mandate pit stops, but would push the teams towards extra stops instead by making the tyres easier to wear out.

Bernie wrote:"Maybe if we only gave them a soft compound they would have to stop twice, but I am not sure that they will vote unanimously for a mandatory two-stop race which Red Bull proposed."

Captain Hammer · Post by **Captain Hammer** » 16 Mar 2010, 11:14

I think that part of the problem in Bahrain is that everyone was a bit uncertain as to how the rules would play out under race conditions. Testing can only tell you so much; now that the teams have some more data, I think they'll start getting a bit more creative with their strategies.

pher38 · Post by **pher38** » 16 Mar 2010, 23:46

Mister Fungus wrote:You are very very very wrong there, there are statistics that prove otherwise.
Code: Select all
Average Overtaking Moves per GP per Season
1983 - 40.47
1984 - 41.63
1985 - 41.06
1986 - 36.31
1987 - 34.88
1988 - 30.81
1989 - 34.19
1990 - 30.88
1991 - 30.94
1992 - 25.38
1993 - 24.5
1994 - 18.06
1995 - 17.47
1996 - 11.63
1997 - 15.59
1998 - 12.94
1999 - 16.25
2000 - 16.41
2001 - 13.53
2002 - 13.82
2003 - 18.94
2004 - 15.94
2005 - 10.89
2006 - 16.17
2007 - 15.88
2008 - 14.83
2009 - 12.59
(source: http://www.cliptheapex.com/forum/viewto ... f=51&t=822)

Ok fair do's and I hold my hands up on that point. It's Interesting someone went this far out of their way to work it out in such detail!

Scotto · Post by **Scotto** » 17 Mar 2010, 00:54

I'm new to the forum so someone might have already brought this up, but I think Brabham had a solution for creating down force without the creating dirty air for the following car.

TeamTipper · Post by **TeamTipper** » 17 Mar 2010, 02:19

Tyre wars to me are important. The idea of f1 is to have the best engineering techinal in the paddock. Also David Couthard blames Max Mosley and calleds for mandatory pitstops which wont help at all http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/82186

McDuck · Post by **McDuck** » 17 Mar 2010, 02:58

Here's a crazy thought! Why not let the teams decide their own tire

strategy!?

If Sauber and Lotus want to run one set of ultra hard tires and make zero pit stops, then let them.

If Ferrari, McLaren, Red Bull, and Mercedes want to run eight sets of super duper soft tires and make seven pit stops, then let them.

This legislating a desired outcome via more draconian rules needs to stop. Let the market decide what's best. The racing will be better for it.

TomWazzleshaw · Post by **TomWazzleshaw** » 18 Mar 2010, 05:16

McDuck wrote:Here's a crazy thought! Why not let the teams decide their own tire strategy!?

If Sauber and Lotus want to run one set of ultra hard tires and make zero pit stops, then let them.

If Ferrari, McLaren, Red Bull, and Mercedes want to run eight sets of super duper soft tires and make seven pit stops, then let them.

This legislating a desired outcome via more draconian rules needs to stop. Let the market decide what's best. The racing will be better for it.

I remember suggesting a similar idea on the forum a few months ago but the problem is that I doubt Bridgestone would agree with it on the basis that they'll be forced to make tyres that may or may not be needed and Formula 1 tyres are pretty expensive.
And on a slightly different note Mark Webber has thrown his 2 cents into the ring

LionZoo · Post by **LionZoo** » 18 Mar 2010, 14:50

Wizzie wrote:
McDuck wrote:Here's a crazy thought! Why not let the teams decide their own tire strategy!?

If Sauber and Lotus want to run one set of ultra hard tires and make zero pit stops, then let them.

If Ferrari, McLaren, Red Bull, and Mercedes want to run eight sets of super duper soft tires and make seven pit stops, then let them.

This legislating a desired outcome via more draconian rules needs to stop. Let the market decide what's best. The racing will be better for it.

I remember suggesting a similar idea on the forum a few months ago but the problem is that I doubt Bridgestone would agree with it on the basis that they'll be forced to make tyres that may or may not be needed and Formula 1 tyres are pretty expensive.
And on a slightly different note Mark Webber has thrown his 2 cents into the ring

How about a compromise solution:

Currently our problem is that the fastest cars qualify in front and stay in front. The mandatory use of both compounds means that variations in strategy are lessened as you absolutely need to use both sets of tires, making it more predictable when teams would stop for tires (the prime will always have a longer run while the option has the shorter run).

Instead, how about having teams declare whether they are using the prime or option tire before the race weekend or perhaps at the end of Friday. Hopefully, the better qualifying tire will not be as good of a race tire so teams are faced with a dilemma; go faster in qualifying and defend from the front or take a hit in qualifying that will hopefully pay off in the race? This way we might actually see some instances where the faster qualifier isn't the faster racer.

Declaring at the end of Friday will be safer for teams, but declaring before the weekend might produce more interesting action as teams won't have Friday to test tire choices and run a billion simulations. This might also give the smaller teams an option to gamble on a choice so that instead of safely running in the say P10 to 15, they might make P5 to 10 if the gamble pays off, but might also end up in P15 to 20 if it fails. To address possible safety concerns, perhaps teams can still change their tire choice after qualifying, but they need to take a 10 place grid penalty if they do. Personally, I think this idea might have some promise...

XurizManson · Post by **XurizManson** » 18 Mar 2010, 19:22

"I have a fever. And the only prescription is: more OVERTAKING!"

Jordan · Post by **Jordan** » 18 Mar 2010, 19:45

Would addition of ballast weight to winning cars totally ruin everything? I suppose it wouldn't really help overtaking necessarily, but it might spice things up.

Or more likely make an already bad situation worse