Pitstops

[coxmattycox]

Personally i dont like pitstops, it ruins the race by splitting the field up, like silverstone, all packed together till the pitstops,
Either none OR the old sprint and feature race format

[tecmerc]

i think pit stops are good. it adds another variable in to the race, and it also means that the teams are more involved with the racing.

[ATF]

Pit stops have really spoiled the races for Honda this year but that means the teams have to work harder and practice just to make sure they are in front.

[Hammerwerfer]

Artificial pit stops are silly. If the race can be completed on one set of tyres and a tank of petrol, they should do so. Pit stops are for endurance racing.

I like my sprint racing decided on the track.

[racingdick]

but it adds a team element to it..

[bella]

bring back the sprint race.
you had a driver race and a team race. god knows why they ever changed it.

[rdjones]

Originally posted by bella
bring back the sprint race.
you had a driver race and a team race. god knows why they ever changed it.

One word - Television

[racer69]

Originally posted by Hammerwerfer
Artificial pit stops are silly. If the race can be completed on one set of tyres and a tank of petrol, they should do so. Pit stops are for endurance racing.

We're having the same dilemma over here about pit stops in V8s.

I agree with everything you say there Hammerwerfer

[touringlegend]

I was in favour of this change last year but only if the pit stop window was very small - and in that I mean 3 or 4 laps. I enjoyed the sprint races because the order the cars came round the track in was the order they were in on the track - but having 8 laps of a window wastes half the race IMO.

On the other hand, I really really liked the feature at Croft last year because the race was so close between Priaulx and Muller that the pit-stops were actually entertaining.

[SpeedLite]

I agree with coxmattycox. Why split up the field and waste laps with cars going round half a lap apart.

As for the arguement that it gets the team more involved, well, the teams are involved for at least 8 hours a day for 12 out of 14 days. What they do during this time influences the result. How more involved do they need to be. Its nice to get a breather while the cars are out on the track. Its worrying enough for mechanics wondering whether the car they have built is going to hold together till the end of the race without having the added pressure of unnecessary pit stops.

[sceptic]

Originally posted by rdjones
One word - Television

Quite the opposite. Ask any motorsport producer and they would tell you they would prefer races not to have pit stops.

[Craig]

Originally posted by Hammerwerfer
Artificial pit stops are silly. If the race can be completed on one set of tyres and a tank of petrol, they should do so. Pit stops are for endurance racing.

I like my sprint racing decided on the track.

Couldn't agree more. Pitstops are fine at Le Mans but in a 25 lap sprint? For crying out loud people - it's a motor race - let the cars race - don't interfere with that by forcing them to stop for new tyres. It's pathetic.

The teams don't like them and they make the race confusing to follow for new fans (and older ones too on occasion!) what more reasn do you need to get shot of them once and for all?

[silverfox]

Never have been the greatest fan of pitstops and for me Silverstone proved a point.
I was standing out of reach of the public address system and had no idea when the pack came round if a driver had pitted or gone missing.
If there have to be pitstops at least go back to the old format of one sprint race as at least you have two very different styles of touring car racing on one day