Should F1 drivers be forced to make two pit stops?

Debates and Polls

Posted on

| Written by

Formula 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?

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

Total Voters: 521

 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 © Marussia

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

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

  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. 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. petebaldwin (@)
      29th November 2013, 17:25

      @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

  20. No because 2 many pit stops

  21. Yes
    – rock hard tyres.
    – no mandatory pit window except not in first or last lap.
    – free compounds.
    – no start on qualifying tyres.

  22. One of the attractions of motor sport is the unpredictability factor (I know, I know…Vettel). At the top of the grid, the cars are (generally) fairly closely matched. Strategy has often come into play, thus allowing a car to get ahead of another via a pitstop.

    If two stops become mandatory, the teams with the best car/driver combos are going to be pretty much unbeatable. Variable pit stop strategies help to reduce the advantage of best car/driver, albeit Vettel still dominated in 2013. Take away that wee bit of uncertainty though, and Vettel could be even more dominant in 2014. If next year’s Red Bull is a good car, and Riccardio turns out to be comfortable in that car, we could be facing the prospect of Red Bull 1-2s virtually every race.

    There are issues over tyre wear, granted. Enforcing a two-stop strategy isn’t the way to deal with the problem. In any case tyre management, like it or not, is part of the skill of an F1 driver. Sort out the wear issues and leave the pit stops up to the team strategists.

    At first blush, the idea of a fixed number of pit stops seems rather unappealing.

    1. Michael Brown (@)
      30th November 2013, 1:13

      Agree. More strategic options means more unpredictability. Of course one strategy will always be better than any other, but if it keeps us guessing, I’m for it.

  23. I think that if compulsory pit stops are going to be mandatory then they should stipulate that all 4 compounds must be used during a race. The 4 different sets of compounds could come out of the allocation of 6 sets for the weekend, with the other 2 sets being the prior choice of the team. The teams should be able to choose which compounds to use on a given weekend beyond the mandatory 1 of each.

  24. No to more rules, however has anyone ever thought about using Success Ballast in F1?

    1. @baron I sincerely hope not. Another mistake F1 should avoid.

  25. exactly, (Such as how aerodynamic turbulence prevents cars from following each other closely) That’s the biggest problem with F1 cars currently. Bring back hard durable tyres less aero sorted.

  26. Hell, no, at least we have some strategy. In the old days – well, since 1994 – it was fuel strategy with no tyre fall-off, in the turbo days we had tyre strategy dominating race strategy again, etc., we need one of them.

    Okay, okay, we’ll have very strict fuel limits next year, so fuel strat could come back as it were in the Eighties a bit, but… Ugh, well, if we want no-holds-barred push-likehell racing we could just as well ban tyre change again a la 2005 and increase fuel limit and we’re done.

  27. NOOOOOO!

    I would not like a season where drivers generally only stops once at all or virtually all races. There is no problem if it happens at some races (but why then not allow zero stops?).

    Besides the reasons many others mentioned above, part of the excitement is often whether a driver will still need to make a second pit stop or whether he can make it to the end. With mandatory pit stops, this excitement would be gone.

  28. Aren’t there enough things changing for 2014 already? Surely we should wait and see how good the racing is with turbo engines, increased KERS etc. before introducing another rule to try to fix a problem that may no longer exist!

    1. How good could it possibly be? There’s 3 engine manufacturers in the sport. Even V8 supercars (20 years of Holden vs Ford cause the Aussies couldnt stand being romped by Godzilla in their own touring car championship) has more engine makes than F1 now

  29. Completely against this; I remember Sauber in 2012 where they would place a lot higher in the race because of their ability to run 1-stop races compared to other teams.

    I would actually prefer if teams had to choose a tyre compound ahead of the race, i.e. after FP1/FP2 and restrictions on running 2 compounds lifted. No more of this tyre-nursing nonsense, let the teams pick what works best and let them drive the hell out of the tyres.

    They have the mandatory system in DTM and more often than not, the results are very predictable. There are changes that need to be made to F1, but this is not one of them.

  30. Why not bring back refueling? Refueling mid race brought on multiple different strategies. Plus if they’re worried about teams running out of fuel or saving fuel next year that’s a big joke. With refueling there’s almost always 2 stops during the race. It would take the pressure off the tire degradation and would also slow the pit stops down. They can scream safety safety safety but almost every other racing has refueling and they work just fine. They could even implement something like endurance racing where no work can be done to the car until refueling was complete.

    Mandatory two stops with the current rules is blatant stupidity and will dumb down the racing even further.

    1. Why not bring back refueling? Refueling

      Because refueling killed the racing.

      From race #1 of refueling been allowed (Brazil 1994) the number of on-track overtakes plummeted, As soon as refueling was banned in 2012 the level of on-track overtaking shot back to pre-94 levels.

      Refueling may well have allowed for tons of strategy, But those strategy options killed the racing. There was nothing worse than enjoying the prospect of a good scrap for position only for refueling strategy to completely kill it & result in a boring pass via the pit stops.

      The on-track racing should be the most important & exciting part of the race, not fuel strategy & pit stops as was the case from 94-09 under the awful refueing era.

      1. ScuderiaFerrariMarlboro27
        30th November 2013, 3:10

        Pop the rear wing open and glide past on the longest straight. Thats real “racing”

  31. DTM had mandatory pit stops this year, and it actually made for some quite interesting racing. But in F1, the “doctoring” of the racing that’s been going on seems to only have led to less actual racing (lap times that’s 10-12 seconds off the quali pace, anyone?). Frankly, it scares me that the idea of these kinds of constructs are even entering the minds of the Strategy Group – that tells me that they have fallen for the idea that the racing itself is secondary to “the show”… It is going to kill F1 over time.

    I agree completely that the right way forward is to reduce the aero dependency – if the cars could actually follow each other closely, we wouldn’t need any other constructs like DRS and fragile tyres. Then we might even have a season where we don’t have to hear “maintain 2 second gap to save the tyres”…

  32. I don’t understand the logic of voting NO here.
    You vote NO saying it is artificial and takes away strategy element of the race.

    But then, when drivers try to do a 1 stop by conserving the tyres, you will complain saying it is the tyres are hurting the sport. (2013)

    Then, when super durable tyres are given, you will complain yet again that there is no overtaking and there is no strategy (2010).

    There is simply no pleasing some people, is there?

    Oh, before I forget, regarding the question posted in the article

    Such as how aerodynamic turbulence prevents cars from following each other closely

    SCIENCE is the answer for that. The reason this wasn’t a problem in the “classic” era of formula 1 is simply because aerodynamics wasn’t as developed as it is today.
    But now that it is developed, you cannot go back to not having aerodynamics. People have to live with this (whether they like it or not). I hope the powers to be make their decisions based on the real situation of today’s F1 cars and not based on some rose-tinted view of how F1 was in the past.

    1. That wasn’t even a question.

    2. I thought 2010 was a very good year.

      You can go back to not having aerodynamic dominance, reduce the size of ( or ban ) the wings.

    3. Michael Brown (@)
      30th November 2013, 1:22

      Then, when super durable tyres are given, you will complain yet again that there is no overtaking and there is no strategy (2010).

      2010 had more on track overtaking than any season with refuelling. Just because there was no overtaking in Bahrain or Abu Dhabi does not make the 2010 season boring.

      1. I think the trouble is that there was rarely much overtaking right at the front of the grid, so although there was a spread of winners, the win itself wasn’t contested much.

  33. the FIA is slowly killing the sport and its sad they do not see that. from V8 to V6, forced two stops, must use both tire compounds. no more engine development. no race re-fueling….WOW!

    1. ScuderiaFerrariMarlboro27
      30th November 2013, 3:15

      For me It died with the V10’s in 2005 unfortunately.

  34. NOOOO!

    Stop over-complicating things. Just make good tyres and let drivers provide the fireworks.

    1. @andae23 I agree and we shouldn’t also forget that the disparity between teams is bigger in F1 than in DTM so it would only further reduce the smaller teams’ chances to score a good result by successfully executing extreme strategy.

      1. @girts Exactly. The fine art of F1 strategy is being murdered.

  35. this sounds like way out of the context, they are reacting to a problem, instead of elliminating the problem. the problem is that almost no car potential can be exploited 100% (not even Red Bull!), because of the quickly destroyable tyres and the fuel consumption.

    a Pirelli representative stated, that manufacturing tyres that would last 10 000 kms is easy, but producing these tyres F1 today requires is a pain in the butt. now, why don’t they create those tyres that the driver cannot destroy in a few laps or behind another car? F1 is all about going green, but i don’t see where a set of tyres going into the wastebin after just a couple of laps is green… i like the idea of the 3 compounds @ogamii mentioned above, if they are well balanced.

    the other issue is the fuel consumption that would be critical next year. how about an average target number, that an engine needs to get to the checquered flag, adding 15% to it, and that’s the fuel amount you are starting with, which is controlled at the start of the race. if you have that, you are good to go, and don’t have to worry about running out just because you want to drive fast, you have a reasonable amount of movement room you can play with.

    however, these concepts are also like firefighting, the whole concept of F1 should be revised to avoid the fire.

  36. For goodness sake what a stupid idea. If you want drivers to make more pit-stops and allow for alternative strategies and make more exciting races: BRING BACK REFUELLING!!!

    I love watching the old races on Sky Sports F1 and it reminded me of how much better the racing was when we had refuelling. Cars didn’t start the race bloated with fuel and actually looked *quick*.

    Surely with next years formula being an ‘economy’ drive – it would be more efficient for the cars to run lighter? (e.g. more miles per gallon as the cars would run lighter without 100kg of fuel).

    Maybe with Refuelling, crappy Pirellis, Turobs, ERS and DRS it might actually make things interesting again…

    1. it reminded me of how much better the racing was when we had refuelling.

      The racing was awful when we had refueling. It was better pre-refueling & has been better since (DRS & Pirelli’s aside)

      All refueling did was move the racing off the track & into the pits.
      Fuel strategy was decided Saturday by the strategy guys & there computer simulations & races were run according to that.
      If a driver had a poor start & ended up further back in the pack, There was no chance to recover as fuel strategy was planned around starting position & where the simulations showed you would be based on predicted race pace.

      At least since refueling was banned race strategy is more in the drivers hands, If a driver has a poor start or whatever it is possible to recover & we have seen it many times the past 4 years.

  37. 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.

    Call me crazy, but if a tyre fails while it is still providing enough grip for teams to consider staying on them, them it is an inferior (not to mention dangerous) product. I’d have thought that ‘Tyre 101’ would be to ensure that grip runs out before the tyre explodes. In the same vein, I don’t expect to get a deadly case of alcohol poisoning from a single cider.

  38. Sure introduce 2 mandates pitstops one after 25-35 % of the distance, one after 60% of the race +/- 5%. That way Pireilli can just make one tyre type (save cost and need for extra testing) because there is no scope to have an advantage from alternative strategies and another advantage is that drivers won’t have to be told how to manage their tyres (or is it better to fix stops based on grid positions? making the first guy stop first, then the guy in 3rd, then the guy in 2nd and in 4th etc. to mix up the field a bit?).
    I would improve even on that, why not also look at safety and mandate that each stop takes a minimum of 5 seconds to increase safety (or go to 7-10 seconds and reduce the crew). While we are at it, it does need improving the show a bit, so we should mandate that a race winner has to do a minimum of 1 doughnut, and a maximum of 4 before coming back into parc ferme. Second and third are allowed to do up to one too.
    And couldn’t we spice up the action by having each driver have to make at least one on track passing move in front of the main grandstand (if it must be, they can first let the guy behind them past to HAVE someone to pass in the first place). A DRS pass is preferred, so as to avoid overly abundantly interesting action.

    WARNING – this comment is NOT meant to be serious.

    1. @bascb LOL …I lost it at the donut bit

  39. David not Coulthard (@)
    29th November 2013, 16:04

    No, and I’d like to also see the top-10-start-on-Q3-tyres and use-both-compounds-in-the-race rule removed.

  40. yeah thats a good idea and lets also have a rule that says we will have sign boards which say how fast the driver is allowed to go and how many times he is allowd to brake during a lap. that would be real exciting racing.
    i am very close to quitting watching F1, just need a small push. may be this is it.

    1. Great idea on the brakes, let’s have brakepads that are only good for 10 heavy applications or up to 20 gentle applications.

  41. Michael Brown (@)
    29th November 2013, 16:07

    Please don’t make this happen. There should be three compounds available for each race. The drivers pick which ones they want and don’t have to make any pit stops, although given the tire life they probably will have to. Also, remove the 10 qualifying tire rule. Let then start on any tire they want. This will increase strategic possibilities and unpredictability.

    Or introduce the 2 stop rule. I’ll watch WEC instead.

  42. Pirelli , please build some better tyres or else sod off from the sport. Enough of mandatory rules.

    F1 hasn’t had a full grid for 18 years.

    @keithcollantine Well said . That is the exact problem . Lesser entries , more performance gap between top teams and backmarkers , escalating costs and tyre conservation. There are thousands of problems to be addressed the right way and not not the “DRS” artificial way .

  43. Drivers should also be required to take a minimum number of drinks from their sippy cup during a race or face disqualification.
    (/extreme sarcasm)

  44. 91% voting NO. I await confirmation of mandatory 2 stops rule soon then :-(

  45. I dont see how pit stops make for a more exciting race. I agree with Keith it would be a stop gap to hide the bigger issue. Problem is too many people in the written press want it catered for casual F1 fans and for it to be easy to understand. They want it to be a mickey mouse sport and not F1

    Rant over

  46. petebaldwin (@)
    29th November 2013, 17:17

    HUGE mistake F1 community. You have voted (overwhelming) against the idea which means the FIA will already be inking up their “PASSED” stamp as we speak.

    Seriously though, why? The argument that it will reduce tyre conservation phases doesn’t hold water because they will all be fuel saving anyway! From what I’ve hard of fuel saving mixed with Pirelli’s conservative tyres, one set of tyres will likely last a few GPs anyway!

  47. It’s times like these were I wish the FIA would come to their senses and just have hard, soft and wet tire compounds + in race refueling.

    1. Why would you want refueling back, It destroyed the on-track racing last time it was around & was a big part of why the number of on-track overtakes declined so massively from the very 1st race it was allowed.

      Refueling sucked & should never be allowed back to ruin F1 again!

      1. Yes, and the “strategy” element of refuelling – stick to your target lap time and avoid on-track racing – has hung around like a bad smell even after it was banned.

      2. ScuderiaFerrariMarlboro27
        30th November 2013, 3:24

        At least when there was overtaking you knew it was something special. Think Mika Hakkinen passing Schumi round the other side of the BAR at Spa.

        Modern F1 has eliminated the opportunity for genuine classic moments because they want to create a lottery in every GP to keep the childish masses happy.

        Last to First these days is NO acheivement.

  48. So what have we got here then. Oooh, a sport that combines speed, engineering, strategy and skill.

    I know..let’s make the cars slower every four or five years, that should take this speed nonsense out of it. Now, what have we got left? Ah…engineering. I don’t like the sound of that, not your average TV watching chav friendly enough. Let’s just freeze development ridiculously early on and restrict the set ups to borderline spec series. Done and done!

    Right, we’ll be having none of this skill nonsense. How about…..oh and you’re gonna love this….how about everytime cars are close to one another, we give the one behind a speed advantage? We could do this by….oh, I dunno, opening the rear wing? Yes, yes. I like the sound of that.

    So that just leaves strategy. Easy way to kill this one off. Two mandatory pit stops.

    Righty-Ho, we’ve cracked it lads. We’ve murdered F1 in a few easy steps….To The Gentlemens Club!

  49. We’d lose events like Saubers frequent 2012 tyre wear inspired giant-killing if this was brought in. Achieving a low tyre wear design for a car should be rewarded just like the team with the best diffuser.

  50. No way. Not a good idea to say the least. The teams should be given the freedom to decide the number of pit stops. The FIA and the strategy group should look at the rules and come up with something which reduces the cars reliance on aerodynamics to increase the chances of over takes and they should have tyres which allow the drivers to race and not drive to a damn delta for the last 40 laps of the race.

  51. Defiantly no.

    The main advantage of getting rid of refuelling was that it allowed more variety with strategies and kept people guessing when a driver would stop.

    With refuelling you knew a driver would have to stop by lap x or run out of fuel, as it is now, yes drivers have to use both compounds which is another rule I don’t agree with, but if a driver can make the tyres last you don’t know when exactly they will stop.

    If this proposed rule comes in then we will know that even if a driver is having no problems with his tyres he will have to stop in x laps because he is only allowed so long on each set.

    I really hope this rule is not introduced but the way F1 is going I fear it will be, and I can see my enjoyment of F1 further diminishing.

  52. If they could just get get back to the tires from 2012. Or go with only soft, medium, and hard tires during the races. Use the super softs for qualifying only, as the super softs seem to be nothing more than qualifying tires anyway.

  53. Can’t we just bring in reverse grids, points for every practice session, more DRS, heavier cars, ~30 minute races with a compulsory safety car 3 laps from the end, a chase for the championship and fan-assigned extra DRS or KERS boosts and be done with it?

    1. *If anybody from the FIA should happen read this, I don’t trust you to spot the obvious sarcasm, so here’s something that may shock you- all those suggestions were sarcastic and all are terrible ideas.

  54. Terrible idea. Not only does it miss the point of having heavy-wear tyres, it also eliminates the strategy element and will introduce more cruising. Next thing you know, there will be pitstop windows and safety cars for every yellow on the track.

  55. I’ll keep this short:


  56. 2012 – 7 races, 7 different winners – we want that! Not 2 mandatory pit stops with tyres that could go 100 laps.

    1. Michael Brown (@)
      30th November 2013, 1:39

      That sounds good, but the reason we had 7 different winners is because the Pirellis worked for one specific car at one specific track. That’s why Mercedes won on China and struggled everywhere else

    2. ScuderiaFerrariMarlboro27
      30th November 2013, 3:36

      How was that good? Do you honestly consider that exciting? All this does is eliminate the opportunity for those rare once-a-season genuinly surpising Grands Prix born out of unmitigating circumstances, like say Brazil 03, Canada 08, Australia 02, spa98 i could go on forever.

      And back in the day when a young driver won his first GP you knew a star was born. Now days its just the product of the FIAsco’s botched sunday lottery. Its a farce.

      I much prefer motoGP where 3 riders only have a realistic chance of winning and if anyone else manages to score a podium let alone win you knew they earned their stripes. Then you have your classic head to head championship fight like Marquez v Lorenzo this year.
      Senna v Prost
      Schumi v Hill
      Schumi v Villeneuve
      Schumi v Mika
      Schumi v Alonso
      Massa v Hamilton

      Every year in the days of real f1 there was at least 1 lottery race a year. WHY DO WE NEED TO ARTIFICIALLY RECREATE THAT IN EVERY GP? It takes what was once special and devalues it to every other sunday.

      Thanks Bernie
      Thanks FIAsco

      Your doing a great job

  57. Ok, let’s say we get to tweet how many hairs we think are on a randomly selected Kiwi fruit, now divide the average error of the fans by the real hair count and the reciprocal of this is the number of pit stops per driver (pit stop density) that is permitted or else 8.5 penalty points are applied to each driver’s helmet in the form of spokey dokey ballast. #F1

  58. Mark in Florida
    30th November 2013, 0:18

    Well if you want to level the field a bit have a mandated front and rear wings like Indy racing has and sealed engines. This would hopefully level the tire wear to manageable degrees for everyone. Weight penalty for winners and power refactoring like the ALMS series does. Get rid of drs up the engine power and reduce down force. Make the tires stronger so that the drivers aren’t afraid to push it hard. Remember in the old days with less aerodynamics involved the drivers could really hang on the ragged edge.

  59. Mandatory pitstops are kind of like that artificial rain idea that came up a few years ago.

    It would probably make the racing better, but it wouldn’t really be racing, would it?

  60. Hell to the no. Stupidest thing ever.

    I just want to know who voted for ‘yes’. I hope they were all either drunk or they simply misclicked, or both.

    1. Hear hear!

  61. I still don’t get why they banned refueling. If they reinstated refueling it would most likely let the drivers push on the current tires and it would also make for a different strategy for designers. The FIA could still enforce the total fuel consumption by only allowing the teams x amount of liters, it just becomes the team’s choice to design how big of a fuel tank they want.

    I know people against refueling argue that it takes away from the on track action but those are probably the same people that whine about DRS passes. I’d rather see a driver put in 18 qualifying laps than a driver do 30 slow laps.

    1. completely agree! :)

  62. Bjorn Sandberg
    30th November 2013, 8:33

    Ridiculous! Get rid of ALL pit stops, make Pirelli produce tyres that will last the entire race! Make them so durable the dirvers can drive flat out all the time. This will mean harder tires, less grip, more sliding, but what´s wrong with that?

  63. I agree with Jared H, bring back refuelling, but only once during any race. Also bring back tyre manufacturer choice so that the teams can choose which tyre maker they prefer, Firestone, Goodyear etc. Pirelli would then have some competition to go against.

  64. I have just gone over the comments. Is there ANY comment positive of the change (apart from the sarcastic ones :-o)?

    I must say it surprises me that as many as 38 people have been voting in favour of this proposal (of a total of 423 currently)

  65. Hey, if you want this poll to actually mean something, don’t use words like ‘force’ in the title and don’t express your opinion just before the voting form. Cheers!

    1. @floring The headline is a fair description of what’s been proposed. Under the proposal drivers would be forced to pit at least twice per race whether they needed to or not. Normally I try to keep it close to the title of the poll to avoid confusion, as is the case here.

      The layout is the standard format used for polls on F1 Fanatic (apart from Rate the Race and Driver of the Weekend which have their own styles). I try to give both points of view as plainly as I can (i.e. ‘For’ and ‘Against’).

      I also give my opinion because past experience has shown I either get asked what it is or accused of having written the ‘For’ and ‘Against’ opinions in such a way as to push a particular view. It would be silly to pretend I don’t have an opinion so why not include it? Particularly as those who’ve been reading a while will already know anyway. At any rate I think you vastly overestimate my ability to influence what other people think!

      1. It’s ok to have an opinion and probably yours is more competent than most, but if you express it just a couple of scrolls away from the poll, I think the general user will be affected by it even if he/she might normally think different. That is what I meant to say. And no, I don’t overestimate your ability of influence, it is only normal to be so. That is why this kind of thing is regulated in political polls, for instance. People do act like sheep, no disrespect for other users, it’s just human nature.
        I am curious what this poll would look like if the title was say… “Are two mandatory pit stops a good thing for F1?” or something along this line, then just presenting the facts and stating your opinion on a related linked article, just like you did when you replied to my post.
        It is my personal opinion this poll is flawed. Now the majority might still be on the “no, it’s wrong” side, but the percentages would be more balanced had it been constructed differently.

        1. @floring All I can say is that from my experience people are quite capable of making up their minds for themselves. As a case in point, I would offer this conversation as an example. You’ve obviously decided on your point of view and mine is obviously having little effect!

  66. NO NO NO and NO!!

    ***, stop ruining F1 with these short term, pointless gimmicks.

  67. Genuinely exciting racing comes from the unpredictable and unexpected. Rules such as these serve only to make racing more predictable and less exciting

    Gospel. This needs to printed above every FIA/FOM door and hallway.

  68. Couldn’t agree more with Keith. Most notably the last paragraph.

    It does strike me as being a little odd though. Over the years as on-track overtakes steadily declined, until the introduction of KERS and DRS, did no-one from FOTA or the FIA suggest a change to aero regs to stop/reduce the turbulent air produced by cars??

    Honestly, no-one came up with that? If not, they all deserve to be fired. If yes, then why was nothing done about it..? Really done about it, not throwing KERS and the DRS gimmick at the problem?

    1. Wasn’t that what the 2009 reg change was for? All that served to acheive was giving us ugly cars and loads of gimmicks.

      Then every time anyone game up with an ingenious design within the rules the FIAsco have banned it almost immediately.

      Now we will have dud looking cars and dud sounding engines on the grounds of “relevance”. If they really care about relevance they wouldn’t be banning every major technical revelation the teams discover.

      Look how many engine suppliers and full works teams there were in the 2000’s with “irrelevant” (yet incredible sounding and spectacular) V10’s. But no the FIA had to kill it and the manufacturers waved goodbye.

      They’re just trying to turn F1 into Mario Kart to appeal to fresh markets, and race on ultra modern psuedo-glitterati carpark track ignoring 64 years of F1 history.

  69. Knowing Pirelli, FIA wont need to create a rule for that.

  70. While I feel that a 2 stop race is ideal, this is definitely not the right way to implement it. That should be done with the tires.

Comments are closed.