Jules Bianchi, Marussia, Circuit of the Americas, 2013

Should F1 drivers be forced to make two pit stops?

Debates and PollsPosted on | Author Keith Collantine

Jules Bianchi, Marussia, Circuit of the Americas, 2013Formula One drivers could be required by the rules to make two pit stops per race in 2014.

F1’s Strategy Group has proposed forcing drivers to pit twice per race and limiting how long each driver can run on each type of tyre, according to a report in Autosport.

Would this be a positive change for the sport?


The proposed change would impose tight limits on how long each driver could run on a set of tyres for, reducing their incentive to preserve their tyres. Excessive tyre preservation has been a criticism of racing this year.

This could also have a safety benefit, as drivers would not be able to run the tyres until they are at risk of failing. At the Indian Grand Prix this year Pirelli expressed concerns over teams running the tyres for longer stints than they felt was safe.


Forcing drivers to make a minimum number of pit stops could reduce the scope for variety in the racing. On several occasions this year battles for position have been created by drivers making fewer pit stops than their rivals, which will be harder to do with these restrictions.

Races which feature a single pit stop for most drivers are not necessarily viewed as boring. For example last year’s United States Grand Prix was rated as one of the best dry races of the season.

Ensuring that drivers use tyres safely would be better achieved by giving them more time to test them, which has already been arranged for next year.

I say

This proposal would further reduce the freedom drivers and teams have with their tyre strategies. But past attempts to do so by forcing them to use both tyre compounds during races (in effect, requiring one mandatory pit stop) and making the top ten qualifiers start on used tyres have not achieved this goal.

It’s not hard to see why. Genuinely exciting racing comes from the unpredictable and unexpected. Rules such as these serve only to make racing more predictable and less exciting.

I’ve watched DTM and A1 Grand Prix races with multiple mandatory tyre stops and found the inevitability of each pit stop made for unexciting, dumbed-down racing. Formula One should avoid making the same mistake by replacing genuine racing strategy with fixed-duration tyre stints.

Instead of dubious sticking-plaster solutions like this F1 needs to address the deeper problems inhibiting good racing which have been ignored for too long. Such as how aerodynamic turbulence prevents cars from following each other closely, and why F1 hasn’t had a full grid for 18 years.

You say

Do you want to see more mandatory pit stops in F1? Cast your vote below and have your say in the comments.

Should drivers be required to make two pit stops per race in 2014?

  • Yes (8%)
  • No (89%)
  • No opinion (2%)

Total Voters: 521

Loading ... Loading ...

An F1 Fanatic account is required in order to vote. If you do not have one, register an account here or read more about registering here.

Debates and polls

Browse all debates and polls

Image ?é?® Marussia

169 comments on “Should F1 drivers be forced to make two pit stops?”

Jump to comment page: 1 2 3 4
  1. I’m already surprised one of the three voters has voted ‘Yes’. This is just eliminating every form of strategy.

    1. The statistic is very different now!!

    2. D’oh. I hit the wrong option! I meant to vote no. So please subtract one from whatever Yes total there is above.

      Frankly, I’d be happy if there were no mandatory pit stops. If someone can make a tyre last the entire race and that is the quickest strategy, why not let them do it.

    3. Yes but one can only imagine that it’s a desperate way to avoid tyre drama, that said Pirelli promised more conservative tyres for 2014.

    4. I’m actually surprised that not more people voted yes. When you read the rate the race comments then they expect every race to be a battle for every position including the win until the last corner.

    5. I think the should be 2 mandatory stops,or make the races longer.F1 races are too short.The stops makes it more interesting.

      1. I like the idea of drivers being able to push harder on the tires given that they would be restricted from taking them to a dangerous level of degradation, but I think the real shame is that tires have to be so much of the story because as Keith points out aero is still too dominant, causing them to have to add more and more rules and restrictions to try to shake things up.

        So the only thing I like about this proposal is that the drivers might be able to push harder because I think we are paying to watch the pinnacle of racing, not the pinnacle of drivers as passengers there to monitor the tires and lap at a pace dictated by the crew in the pits.

        But the real problem is F1 refuses to reduce aero so that there is close racing all day long on what should be far more stable tires which they have been able to make for years.

        I’m getting sick of thinking of F1 as an entity whose races have so much variation in tire condition and pit strategy that we don’t ever know what driver is actually out-driving what other drivers in an apples to apples way. Please simplify it so that we are watching driver vs driver on the track, not strategist vs strategist off the track. I’m sick of so many passes being because one driver was helpless due to DRS or tires.

    6. This is yet another attempt to level the play surface for teams who can not seem to understand how to manage tire wear and be competitive. FIA plays to a few insider teams so that they always are in the hunt versus earning it. Politics is all over the rule book process versus pure racing.

  2. For flip’s sake… NO!

    You have 3 compounds of tyre. Soft. Medium. Hard.

    The Hard does a whole race, but slowly. The Softs require 2 stops, but are faster. The Mediums need changing half way, and have lap times between the other two.

    Drivers choose which they want to use and when, and then they get on with it. First to the flag wins.

    What on earth are the FIA/FOM/Teams/Working Group/Pirelli/whatever doing? They must be nearly at China now with this colossal hole they’re digging.

    1. That’s perfectly said. I 100% agree with that.

    2. This.

      Multiple available compounds, Teams choose whichever is best for their car, and/or strategy. No more mandatory anything.

      Of course, each team is going to want to use a set of the softest (probably) for qualifying, to get the best position, adding to the strategies.

    3. @ajokay
      You are absolutely right! That would be the perfect way to go about it.

    4. Add to this a Super Soft for use in qualifying. It’s good for 3 laps and then melts.

      1. I would be all for it @ajokay. Its easy to unserstand, offers the scope for strategy and can make for interesting racing.

      2. So more durable than the 2013 supersofts :-)

        I reckon choose your tire at the end of fp2 and that’s what you have for the rest of the weekend. No mandatory stops. Allowances differ, less sets for hard more for medium etc.

    5. 100% with you! And I also say, like in the 80’s (@ least I remember it from the 80’s), if you want to put your left front on hards and the rest on softs, please, go ahead! But I’m afraid that’s asking to much, no?


      1. This, absolutely this.

    6. The Hard does a whole race, but slowly. The Softs require 2 stops, but are faster. The Mediums need changing half way, and have lap times between the other two


      You do realize what you are asking for is never possible. On a Monza, the hard tyre with no pit stop will be fastest. At Spain, the site will be the fastest tyre.

      It is impossible to make three strategies such that all three are equal fastest strategies.

      There is always only one strategy that is the fastest.

      1. Michael Brown (@)
        30th November 2013, 1:05

        He never said that he wanted all strategies should be equal. He just wanted different strategies throughout the field depending on what the drivers and teams want to do.

    7. Would be nice having three sets of tires to choose from, but you seem to be forgetting the cost of bringing 4 sets of 3 different types of tyre, not to mention the wets and inters! Unfortunetly we live in the real world where money doesn’t grow on trees!

      1. @madman If Pirelli are making the decision months in advance to the race on which tire ALL of the teams should race on, then I think that decision should be taken out of the hands of Pirelli and put in the hands of the team, say, one month or maybe up to two weeks prior to the race. Then the team can live with their decision while also giving Pirelli enough time to manufacture the two compounds. The problem would become that hopefully one team doesn’t choose two sets of tires that are different from the entire field and that hopefully Pirelli does not have any bias for or against that team… or maybe Pirelli just takes the tires from a stock of those compounds at random from the factory.

        1. So, weeks before race day the teams would have to decide their race strategy? without running the tyres on the circuit yet?
          How does that make sense?

      2. @madman

        What if we reduced the number of each tyre brought to each race…
        It might even promote the effect we saw in Brazil this year.

        1. If you reduce the number of tyres you reduce the testing the teams can do before the race….. They already have limited time for testing.

      3. @madman They don’t need to bring the wets, they never need to bring the wets. So that’s money saved there. If they ant to save more money, get Avon or Hankook to make the tyres. They’re pretty cheap.

    8. If only it were that simple. Pirelli can’t even make a tyre which can stay in one piece never mind engineer them to that level of accuracy.

      Further, if it were that nicely defined as Hard = 0, Medium = 1, Soft = 2 stops. The teams would just work out which was quickest on a Friday and all do the same thing. In fact they’d probably have a good idea which strategy was quickest before they even arrive.

    9. That about nails it alright. They are tightening so many elements of F1 now as to almost make everyone conform to the one strategy. The only positive I’ve seen for this new suggestion is that they will now be able to go hell for leather on the tyres knowing they have to change them. But THAT could be achieved by producing better tyres. So once again they’re answering a question no-one asked, but they’re providing the wrong answer.

      Add it to the pile of things that are wrong with F1 at the moment, as you say, an almost-China-sized tunnel and my (long term, hardcode, dedicated) loyalty is not unconditional. There will come a tipping point where F1 becomes 2 hours of my Sunday afternoon that I’d rather be doing something else with. We’re not far from that at the moment.

    10. The one real problem with that would be logistics. Pirelli would need to bring a massive amount of tires to each race not knowing which compounds the teams would prefer. At the (ever decreasing number of) European races it might not be an issue, but the flyaway races would entail a very large expense. Also, how would they decide which tires would be mounted on wheels? They cannot be unmounted and reused.

      Otherwise I like the idea.

    11. I had an idea: you elect your choice of two compounds a month in advance of the race, then the following rules apply:

      You must start on the same compound of tyre as you qualified – note: not the same set of tyres. This is to provide strategic variety – you can’t just use SS in qualifying and switch to the hards to complete the race distance, which makes it that bit more tricky to judge.

      This is applied to ALL runners, not just the top 10.

      You must choose between SS/S/M or S/M/H, depending on the track – this is mainly to reduce costs for Pirelli, but also to prevent too much disparity between the tyres so it isn’t simply a case of if you picked the correct tyres, you will win. Or course, you only elect two compounds out of the possible three (of which you will get three sets of each for qualifying and the race).

      Your thoughts wanted: special Free Practice tyres: this would mean that in the opening rounds the team are unbeknownst to how the tyres will react with their car besides what they have used in their simulator, and would reduce costly data collection on Fridays. But is it just tooartificial, the grid inevitably being skewed due to the lack of a proper set up?

      General thoughts?

      1. I pretty much shared the same sentiment regarding the teams pick the compounds, but I still think two compounds are fine.
        Special practice tires seem pointless if the teams cannot do anything useful with them unless Pirelli/FIA/F1 make FP1, for example, a tire testing window for development throughout the season or for the next season(s). That way Pirelli get what they want in tire testing, and the teams are doing something useful to help Pirelli and themselves for the future of that season and/or the following season(s).

        1. That was my line of thought @beejis60, and to allow test time for those teams who don’t have complicated simulators. Of course they would be shaped the same way and deform similarly to the current tyres (unless they were testing development ones) so the aero models aren’t skewed.

          Two compounds are okay, but if the current rules have to stay for that to be feasible I’d rather just ditch it for my new proposal! Thank you for your contribution though, the points are noted :)

          1. @vettel1 I thought Sauber was the only team without a simulator?

          2. Yes, but McLaren’s for example is significantly more complex than say Ferrari’s @beejis60.

    12. @ajokay, the HOLE analogy was the 1st. thing that came to my mind when I read that headline. I would be happy with your proposal, it’s the best option if we MUST have pitstops, personally I would just go for the MotoGP format or even a single durable tyre for all tracks, no pit stops, the team and driver that is fastest wins.

    13. @ajokay – They are obviously trying to find a solution to deal with the tyre issue. They want to create a situation where the drivers are free to push as hard as they like, knowing that they won’t compromise their own race because everyone will have to pit.

      The problems are two-fold. First, the tyre issue has been blown out of proportion. We saw plenty of instances this year where teams and drivers could be quite competitive when they dedicated themselves to figuring out how to make the tyres work best. The majority of complaints came from teams who weren’t getting the tyres to work as quickly as they liked, or weren’t doing as well as they assumed they would.

      Secondly, this is a decision that is being based on the 2013 tyres. However, Pirelli have said that they will change the tyres for 2014, and that they will be more conservative (and that they will get the teams to commit in writing what they want), which will make the mandatory pit stop rule unnecessary.

      1. @prisoner-monkeys

        The problems are two-fold. First, the tyre issue has been blown out of proportion. We saw plenty of instances this year where teams and drivers could be quite competitive when they dedicated themselves to figuring out how to make the tyres work best. The majority of complaints came from teams who weren’t getting the tyres to work as quickly as they liked, or weren’t doing as well as they assumed they would.

        Secondly, this is a decision that is being based on the 2013 tyres. However, Pirelli have said that they will change the tyres for 2014, and that they will be more conservative (and that they will get the teams to commit in writing what they want), which will make the mandatory pit stop rule unnecessary.

        That is the crux of the matter right there. This proposal sounds like a knee-jerk reaction to cover potential future liabilities for exploding tires based on past situations that have no bearing going forward. My guess is that this came straight from Pirelli and FIA legal departments to cover their interests by mandating tire usage limitations, not to promote better racing.

        If they want to make better racing, try this. Make more durable prime and option tires. Let the teams develop their cars for the tire that works best for them. No requirement to use both tires in a race. You must start on the tires you qualify with. Not much different than now, but gives some interesting opportunities. Team A develops car for harder tires that last longer, but may not be as quick as the soft tires. Team B develops for the softer tires that don’t last as long as the hard tires (without the cliff), they require more pit stops. This allows for different strategies based on car development rather than mindless arbitrary rules that stifle freedom of competition.

        And please, no more calls for refueling. It is unsafe, dangerous and artificial. There is no need to refuel F1 cars during a race, so it would be another contrivance to bring it back. Ask any pit workers or drivers who have been burned how safe they think refueling is. Just say no.

        1. @prisoner-monkeys – Not directing the refueling comment toward you, just a general statement based on seeing so many calling for a return to it as a way to spice things up.

        2. @bullmello – I would consider making “prime” and “option” actually mean something.

          The prime tyre would be a tyre that everyone has to use. It would be conservative enough to last most of the race distance, but would be slow. The option would be one of two compounds, with the teams testing both on Friday and nominating which tyre they intended to use at the end of FP2 and returning the unused set.

          1. @prisoner-monkeys – That sounds reasonable. There are so many ways the FIA could improve the racing through better strategy rather than restricting strategy for dumbed down racing. I can’t imagine the teams would agree to the required pit stops rule, but stranger things have happened.

          2. @bullmello – I think a lot of the issues people have, particularly with tyres and DRS could be fixed by finding a way to use them strategically. For example, DRS could be unrestricted in its use, but would automatically close after a certain amount of time, and once closed, could not be used for another period of time. Those times would depend on how a driver uses DRS; for example, if he executes a pass without DRS, he would get more time to use it (for a limited amount of time afterwards) to give him the chance to pull away and prevent getting passed again with DRS.

            Give the teams and drivers more strategic options to balance out the difference in performance between cars, and I think a lot of people will really take to the concept. Of course, the hard part is in fine-tuning those options so that the deciding factor is driver skill.

          3. @prisoner-monkeys – “Of course, the hard part is in fine-tuning those options so that the deciding factor is driver skill.”

            That is the key. It seems what is most frustrating for some fans is that DRS is perceived as an artificial contrivance rather than a strategic driver option. Having DRS available anywhere on the course with only so much time per lap to use where the driver sees fit would be a much better implementation.Team and driver options is the way to go. Not cookie cutter forced regulations that eliminate strategies and options.

    14. +1000, go for 3 compounds and qualy tires, no points for qualy or fastest lap and let the teams sort out how they want to race.

    15. It seems like a case of introducing a new rule to fix a broken rule. Why not fix the broken rule instead? I would like to see the teams be able to pick any of the compounds that Pirelli produce, and then see different strategies. Some teams might pick the hardest compound and try and do the race on one set of tyres / no pit stop, other teams might pick super soft tyres and do three pit stops and figure that the faster lap times make up for the time lost to pit stops. Also why not allow the the teams to use different compounds on the front and back, or even left side / right side, kind of like asymmetric tyres in MotoGP.

    1. And, NO NO NO NO again.

  3. If it lets drivers push for more than 10 laps a race then I say yes. The drivers should have more to do with the race that the tyre strategists.

    1. I like the strategy part of racing. But all strategies should include going as fast as you can.

    2. Drivers aren’t pushing since they’ve banned refuelling.

      1. No, drivers aren’t pushing since they’ve introduced balsa tyres. Give them real tyres and they will push !

      2. Mr win or lose
        30th November 2013, 12:55

        Not entirely true: in 2010 drivers were pushing. But without in-race refueling, nothing much happened in the races, so the FIA felt the tyres should become more fragile, which was a good idea, until the drivers found out how to reduce tyre wear, so the tyres had to become softer again, and the drivers had to nurse the tyres even more, etc. I think the best solution is to go back to Bridgestone-like tyres and to drop the two-compound rule. Hopefully there is some strategic variation (no pitstop vs. one or perhaps one vs. two) without tyre saving. But the main problem is that without in-race refueling there is an incentive to save the tyres; at least for the front-runners who don’t want to lose track position.

    3. Then just have 3 X 100Km races.

    4. I feel the same.
      I don’t know if I am truly for, but having drivers drive to a certain time is just not what f1 is about.
      Sure the better solution would be to have better tyres!

  4. Instead of taking away the stupid gimmicks that muddy the sport they want to add more…

  5. I think they ought to make two stops each, get out of the car, run round it twice and sing ‘Happy Birthday’ in the language of the host nation.
    There, that’s about as sensible as the F1 Strategy Group’s suggestion.

    For goodness’ sake, allow Pirelli to produce real tyres, allow the teams to choose whatever tyres and strategies suit them best and then . . . let them race!

  6. I think drivers should complete the last ten laps of the race in reverse gear. For that purpose there should also be introduced a new kind of DRS for the car behind, or in front if you like. The car in the behind-front zone should get a ‘chance’ of overtaking the car that is temporarily in the front-behind zone, and subsequently in the front-front zone, if it’s within a second of that car by using first gear for a hundred meters before reaching the second turn-zone where it must rapidly return to its original position by turning 180 degrees.

    I think this would improve the show by heaps and bounds.

    1. Or, let drivers do the pitstops.

      1. As a team, both drivers at same time!

    2. Excellent, I suggest, the leading driver has to do 2 donuts after leading for 5 laps.

  7. I find 2.6 sec pit stops stupid, that being said, I voted yes.

    1. You find the pit stops stupid and so you voted for MORE of them?

      1. Yeah, as much as I hate 2.6 sec pitstops, I think it still gives the oppertunity for passing, even if its pitstop passing.

        1. @mattynotwo, SpeedTV in the US had a program that was a pit-stop competition between Nascar or Indycar teams, you’d love it, and why bother with all that boring racing stuff?

          1. @hohum Yeah, thanks for that, I was’nt able to watch that where I am, but I’m sure it would have been good.

    2. That’s one thing I love actually. I think they’re deeply impressive to watch.

  8. Serious NO ! Pit stops should come out of necessity, not regulations ! Make 2 tyres, one fast and one durable. And free F1 of that rule of 1 mandatory stop… if someone tries preserving tyres to do the full distance without stopping, kudos to him. He won’t complain about preserving, and the others can push to make up the difference in whatever tyre they are on.

    If everyone uses the same strategy it’s because it’s the fastest one and that’s how it is.

    1. @fer-no65 Ah but you see, the others won’t be able to push to catch up. They’ll all be in “fuel conservation mode” so it won’t make a difference.

      They’ll plod around with the engines turned down saving fuel and with Pirelli’s ultra conservative tyres, they won’t need to stop at all. Therefore, I suppose it makes sence to have 2 manditory pitstops. Whatever numbers is the manditory amount, that’s the amount al drivers will do.

      If someone does dare to turn the engine up for a bit (which they won’t because they’ll have all done this at the start of the race where track position is easy to gain/lose), atleast we can look forward to the moment when they press the “overtake button” and move ahead. Looking forward to that!

      God I hate the FIA…… :(

      1. I agree, they’ll just be in fuel save mode as we’ve seen for the last few seasons.
        There was an excellent end to a race this year (i think it was Canada) where several safety cars ensured plenty of fuel for the drivers to go flat out for the last dozen or so laps. Was compelling viewing and reminded me what the sport used to be like.
        Instead of pumping fuel into the car, cars should have 2 tanks, a tiny one to keep the car ticking over and a larger one that can be quickly swapped.

  9. No mandatory pit stops and no rule to use both compounds. If one car can make to the flag with one single set of tyres, while the other car is chasing it on it’s fourth set, I am fine with it.

    1. I totally agree to that. It´s to much security here and security there. F1 is a dangerous sport and so it must be.
      Remember Schumachers outstanding 20 qualifying laps in Hungary 1998, to pass Mika and David with a extra pitstop . Then it was possible, then it was real racing, now you trash your tires.

  10. There is enough artificial rules and gimmicks in F1. We don’t need more of them.

  11. I voted no for precisely the same reasons you pointed out Keith. The rules forcing them to use both tyre compounds during dry races and making the top ten qualifiers start on used tyres are idiotic for that reason. We need more excitement in F1, and it’s not by defining how many pit stops each driver should do during a race that we’ll get that. If you want the drivers pushing the limits of the cars, then demand tyres which behave themselves and aren’t shreded by the minimum amount of extra speed a driver may have. Make the cars go to basic aerodinamics again – it’s not that I don’t like reading in detail what all the twists in a F1 car are for, but it has got to a ridiculous point where none of this aerodinamic solutions will be passed on to road cars – so that we can get cars overtaking each other naturally and force teams to focus on mechanics again. Or, if you aren’t going back to basic aerodinamics, at least create an aerodinamic solution that, without pushing a button, makes the car behind overtake the car in front naturally. But more ridiculous rules? God no.

    1. Bless me father for I have sinned the sin of impure thought, I nearly lusted after a 1-design aero package in F1.

  12. I’ve suggested this before, but instead of Pirelli nominating in advance two compounds of tyre to bring to each weekend, each team should place an order with the tyre supplier for any combination of tyre compounds they wish. So each team would have the same number of tyre sets as they do currently, but would be able to choose what tyres they got. This would stop silly situations like we got in Bahrain, where Pirelli changed the tyre allocation at the eleventh hour, ruining some teams’ preparations. It would also reduce the number of complaints by teams over tyre allocations.

    Two mandatory stops is just silly. F1 has always been a strategic challenge as well as a technical one, and a race to boot. Taking strategy options away from teams is entirely against the spirit of what F1 should be.

    1. Yes, I remember we discussed that, I think it would work.

    2. An excellent idea, but I fear it is far to sensible for the FIA to consider it.

    3. Maybe we could also have a look at allowing what they do in GP2, namely changing only the fronts or only the rears. I think that would add a ton of extra variables too.

  13. In 2010, I would have yes, because of all the one-stop races. But now with the Pirellis, a two-stop race isn’t impossible, and we have seen multiple times.
    On the other hand, I think 2 stops should be the norm. Pirelli should build tyres which don’t last more than half of a GP (or could last more than one half of a GP but with a significant performance drop). Of course, it should be a general rule with exceptions, with the possibility of a one-stop or a three-stop races, to add more possibilities for strategy.
    I’d say right now, imposing a two-stop-races is a bad idea, it would make races even more standardized, we could have the risk of seeing the same race happening at every venue…

  14. F1 is in need of a serious change/overhaul for next year.

    I will keep saying it. Pirelli was aked to replicate Canada 2010. Which with limited testing they have failed to do. The drivers have to SLOW down to preserve tires & make their time trial strategy work. They let don’t defend because it hurts tires. It’s horrible.

    Add on DRS & cars just drive by into a braking zone. I don’t understand why the zones are so damn long. The only good DRS zones have been Melbourne & Monaco pit straights. They didn’t give a driver the place easily.

    1. Suzuka’s DRS zone was pretty good as well.

      1. Any DRS Zone is a bad one. The pirelli tyres are enough to make passing possible we don’t need this playstation accessory.

        This is just another stupid idea to supposedly improve F1 which will not work.

        Scrap DRS, scrap the top 10 starting on used tyres, scrap lapped cars unlapping themselves under the safety car, reduced aero parts that create dirty air then make changes to increase mechanical grip.

        Is it really that hard to implement instead of thinking up crazy new gadgets like Push to Pass etc. This is real driving not a Playstation arcade racing game

  15. I’ve long wanted the two tyre rule gone, the same with the top 10 qualifiers starting on the same tyres the qualified on. Both served to make the racing more exciting, but with the new tyres, it’s failed to do so. This would be the same for the mandatory tyre stops. It would reduce strategy, and the chances are, the cars would be more spread out due to less performing teams having the option to run for longer than others.
    The only way mandatory pits works is if the cars are equal, and therefore are already close on track. With F1, as the cars aren’t equal (although they could be close next year, being the only thing that could possibly make it work but is highly unlikely to), it’s a bad idea. It’s why it works in GP2, DTM and the like… But not for F1.

  16. Why two, I suppose five pits per race :-)

    1. Maybe we can have fans vote on it!

      1. I was thinking that too.
        FIA should give fans the chance to influence the sport we love

  17. Why not no mandatory pitstop? Basically dare the teams to try finishing a race without pitstop.
    Or if they want to introduce 2 mandatory pitstops, for me, it’s better to just make a stronger tyre because the effect would be the same (more flatout racing). The fact that they think adding pitstop for a better racing tells me that they thought process is flawed. Why stop at 2? Why not 3? The more the merrier.

    1. Right on Frans, and don’t forget the holy grail of making F1 less expensive, no pit stops equals a quarter of the tyres to build, transport and buy and less than half the pit-crew to fly, acommodate, feed and pay, big savings for the lesser teams.

    2. Personally, I liked the 2005 tyre regs that required the teams to use one set in the race unless there was a “danger” element – it meant there was an element of tyre management but it wasn’t so insane as to make drivers scared to push for even a couple of laps before they fell off the cliff.

      You got a bit of wild racing towards the end of the race as those who’d pushed too hard lost some pace (but not 3 seconds a lap like you see with 2012-2013 Pirellis.)

      Still never want to see refuelling back frankly though.

  18. Another artificiality, which will never work. We saw during the last few seasons that artificial things reduces the excitement of racing. DRS and quickly degrading tyres looked like a good idea at first and I really liked it. But eventualy it made races unexciting – last year’s Vettel’s Abu Dhabi charge from last to third wasn’t as much exciting as Raikkonen’s charge to victory in 2005 Japanese GP, because it was aided mainly by tyres and DRS and it didn’t feel as hard-worked as Raikkonen’s. So mandatory two stops would make it even more artificial, therefore dminishing excitement even more.

  19. Wasn’t the the point of getting rid of refueling to open up strategy options? Now F1 is heading back to the refueling minimum 2 stop with the option for a 3 stop. Just bring on the sprinkler system and be done with it.

    1. In which case Charlie throws out the red flag until the track is as dry as a dead dingo’s donger.

      Why do Pirelli even bother making Wet tyres? Every time it rains Charlie red flags the Grand Prix and by the time things resume everyones jumping straight on to inters. F1 has become a joke

Jump to comment page: 1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.