Pit stops Good or Bad?/Race order

[Sodemo]

Do you think pit stops are a good or bad thing.

I'm personally undecided, on the one hand i think it was just the BTCC's way of trying to look like F1, but yet it did bring a new element into the racing.
And it was great to see the quick stops. In 98' (first year for pit stops) the average time for a quick stop was about 8 or 9 seconds, by last year we were seeing 4 second stops!

I do think in a series where overtaking is possible we don't really need pit stops to change the order of a race.

Pit stops are only in F1 cus thats the only way to overtake.

I am also wondering whether they should change the race order so the feature race is first followed by the sprint. If you think about it, it makes more sense (sort of).

The whole idea of the spint is that you go hell for leather, taking risks and smashing into each other to get ahead. But you have to save the car for the feature race.

Why not have the feature race (so the drivers can be careful) and then they can go crazy in the sprint.

[GURRYP]

Waste of time. If a race is of such duration that they are required, fine. If not, then why bother, simple. If they are just used to make the racing more "exciting" then there is something fundamentally wrong with the rules/formula. good racing doesn't need piut stops.

[hunttheshunt]

I like the fact pit stops bring the team into the equation and it can make the team more professional, and the fact pit stops bring an element of surprise.

Like the feature race first idea , though!

[Didderly]

I agree with Sodemo, swap the race orders around, have the Feature race first, and then smash up the cars in the Sprint race second.

I like the pitstops, it adds that little bit off uncertainty to the racing.

But what about this... the Production cars where exempt from pitstops last year, because off there slower lap times. But now that the Tourers or BTCT are slower, will the Production cars have an advantage? Possibly giving some surprise results at certain circuits maybe??

[Larsen]

I think pit stops are a good thing, at least it spices up the racing in the end and can spring quite alot of surprices but not always. I would agree that the feature race should be first and the second/third race should be the sprint. The rain can make alot of surprices and does produce the best racing, the likelihood of rain is very high nowadays!

[hunttheshunt]

We've already had the discussion about whether a production car can win a feature race. personally, i dont think so, as it needs too much other stuff to happen.

[runnyhunny]

Pit stops are silly. They are completely artificial. They don't 'involve the team' in that sense, since the team have already built, prepared and set-up the cars!!!

As for the issues with the feature races, and how Production cars may finish ahead of Touring cars... I would assume that when the final classifications/points are decided, the two classes will be separate. Therefore, although a Production car may be ahead of a Touring car on the track, it won't make any difference.

I hope that they eventually scrap the pit stops, and split the feature race into 2 Production and Touring races, just like a longer sprint race.

[Les]

I like pit stops - they do involve the team, they add another element of chance but they also add an element of cunning - when to do them and when the conditions are iffy - what tyres to use.

[runnyhunny]

Les,

It's the team's job to build, prepare and set-up the car so that the driver can drive it. Why do they need to change tyres (during a race) that don't even need changing?! It's silly.

Oh, and as for the weather... may I remind you that if it rained in the pre-pitstop days, they would obviously pit to change tyres anyway!

[Sparky]

Why do they need to change tyres (during a race) that don't even need changing?!

You'd be surprised at how much difference fresh tyres can make to lap-times.

Oh, and as for the weather... may I remind you that if it rained in the pre-pitstop days, they would obviously pit to change tyres anyway!

Some drivers will always 'chance it' and go for broke on slicks in the rain.

And I believe pit stops DO give an opportunity for the team to get involved DURING the race. The race driver has as much influence during testing as the next team member.
Think about it. If you'd spent the preceding week setting up the car, or even being responsible for menial tasks like team transportation, wouldn't you want the chance to be in the spotlight for ten seconds every other Sunday?
I know I would!

Pit stops add another variable to an already spectacular event. A jack-man can let the team down (!) just as easily as a poor driver can miss a gear or an apex.

I love 'em...

[Didderly]

Sorry everyone, but sometimes they do need to change the tyres on the cars during the race. Thats why all the production cars stopped @ Thrux last year, not for the hell of it, because the tyres where buggered.

Just because they don't do all 4, doesn't mean they are all ok. Haven't you seen "Days of Thunder"!!!

PS. I still think the Pro cars will give some surprise results, with the differnce in speed and lap times of the two classes not being as great.

Ok, so it won't make a difference points wise, but it would be interesting to watch!

[touringlegend]

Pit Stops can affect the oucome of a race.

Look at Plato at Brands last year. The team really did a good job of getting him in early when he was being held up.

[GURRYP]

The only reason the tyres are b*gg**d, is that they know they have to stop, so they run the softess compounds availble. If stop were not compulsory I don't think you'd see that many stops.

In other words the pit stops are a trumped up artificial gimick !!

[Sparky]

NO! Hard compounds means less grip and slower lap times.
Soft compounds means more grip and faster acceleration, harder cornering, etc...

C'mon!!

[Les]

I have to agree with Touringlegend - Plato came into the pits 2 or 3 times early becausehe was held up in traffic.
The only problem with it was when someone pitted early and was therefore at the back of the field. The safety car came out, he caught up and of course he then ended up a lap in front.

I sometimes wonder that when the safety car comes out there should be a speed limit so the relevant positions are unchanged.

[******]

As there is only one compound tyre for each class I think that you will find that it essential for the tourers to stop for new tyres in the feature race. As didderly correctly said even the production cars had to stop at Thruxton due to the high speeds and the abrasive surface reducing the tyre to canvas in very few laps.

[runnyhunny]

Folks,

The tyres do NOT need changing. If they didn't have the stops, they would just drive slightly less hard, or use harder tyres. Just like 1997.

When we first had the stops, they would shuffle the order, but now everyone just comes in/out in the same order.

As for Jason Plato winning at Brands... that was a silly fluke, caused by someone else's accident. It's not what racing is about.

[Didderly]

C'mon!!!

No I still think pitstops are a good thing. GURRYP... what planet are you on!!!

Ok Ok, because of pitstops we run softer tyres than before, but what do you want slower cornering speeds etc, and basically the cars looking silly, or faster cars etc, and the added excitement of pitsops??

But platos win wasn't a fluke, pitstops strategy is a key to winning races in all forms of motorsport.

[kmchow]

Or how about having a RANDOMLY CHOSEN number of pit stop races; each decided on race day by a computer,the public or the officials? Or a combination of all three??

Or have a PLANNED number of pit stops for the season?

Or to make things EVEN MORE interesting, throw in reverse grids? random girds?

Surely, this will make the racing/strategy exciting?

What do you think?

[runnyhunny]

If there were no pit stops, and the cars used slightly harder tyres, you wouldn't be able to see any difference in speed. It's just like moving from 320 hp to 270 - you won't be able to SEE much of a difference (if any).

I would accept pit stops IF they were actually worth the time they cost. i.e. if it's quicker to use soft tyres, get a big lead, and pit mid-distance, than it would be to run the whole race on harder tyres (like F1) then fine. But it's not like that. The pit stops are forced, which is farcial.

If they want to blatantly force 'racing', then I'd rather see them issue a RANDOM or REVERSE grid order. Or, perhaps extra points for places 'made up' (barring passing team-mates, or breakdowns) during the race.

Plato's win was a fluke. He only pitted early because of some kind of accident (I forget what exactly), and all of a sudden, the safety car is out (for a non-Plato reason), which hands Plato a 30+ second lead. Not fair.

[Craig]

Pit stops are a silly artificial gimmick. Nuff said. Get shot of em now!

[Didderly]

OK this is getting silly.

Random and backward grinds great, just like they used to for the TOCA shootout.

But pitstops and softer tyres do make a difference, benifit the racing, like you said runnyhoney...

i.e. if it's quicker to use soft tyres, get a big lead, and pit mid-distance, than it would be to run the whole race on harder tyres (like F1) then fine. But it's not like that. The pit stops are forced, which is farcial.

But they do, im sorry if you can't see that!

[Craig]

But pitstops and softer tyres do make a difference, benifit the racing, like you said runnyhoney...

How can that be when for the middle 30% of the race, no one in the world has a clue what the hell is going on in the race ?! Cars out of position all over the place when they should be *racing* each other!!

[Didderly]

Thats no different from any other form of racing with pitstops in. At least with BTCC you only have one stop to think about, and dont have to worry about different fuel loads, like say in F1 or Indycar!

When the draft rules for 2001 came out orginally, pitstops where out. But the teams and tyre manufacture campaigned to have them back in for this season. So if the teams wanted them, they must be benefical to the sport and racing!

[runnyhunny]

Er... no.

Just because the teams want something, doesn't mean it's good for the racing (or the sport).

The teams wanted the full-on aerodynamic kits that appeared in 1995, and they also didn't listen to Mr Gow when he suggested that costs would spiral out of control. Did either of those things help the sport/racing?!?!