How to fix F1?

[Alan52]

Tyre degradation has the same role in introducing variable factors into the racing that mechanical unreliability used to have.If you go back to most previous eras in F1 a much higher proportion of cars would DNF.Technology has changed that.Without tyre deg races would be more predictable.I think the tyre supplier should be instructed to only supply compounds that would make a 1 stop race impossible.If that's too hard for them make cars use all 3 compounds during a race.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Yeah, cause that has clearly worked so well, good lord

[GingerPixel]

Remember that the Pirellis are made of butter because thats what they were asked to produce. With the removal of refuelling there needed to be some reason for pit stops, and we were nearly getting to a situation where teams could go the full distance on one set.

[GingerPixel]

On the overall topic of fixing F1, I don't believe there really is a fix outside of a full ground up rebuild of everything. Nuke it from space and begin again. Before you start, I know how unlikely this is.

Where we're at now is a conglomeration of soooo many incremental adjustments and changes. Responses to changes in tech, responses to changes in team structure, responses to changes in funding, responses to changes in driver behaviour. You can't possibly hope to unpick such an interconnected web of rules, requirements and expectations and come out with a coherent and functioning product.

[S griffin]

Imagine a race where you didn’t have to pit if you didn’t want or need to

[GingerPixel]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Imagine a race where you didn’t have to pit if you didn’t want or need to

I'm sure I remember someone saying they could've gone to the end of a race at a competetive pace, and only pitted for new boots because it was required by the rules. Anyone?

[S griffin]

I remember Vettel pitting on the last but one lap at Monza just to meet the rules. Didn’t seem right

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Pitstops are apparently required in F1. Traditionally. Or something. Who knows?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

Pitstops are apparently required in F1. Traditionally. Or something. Who knows?

It's not a tradition, as explained on the F1 website:

'It was not always so. Pit stops tended to be disorganised, long and often chaotic as late as the 1970s - especially when (in the absence of car-to-pit communication) a driver came in to make an unscheduled stop. The age of the modern pit stop arrived when changes were made to the sporting regulations for the 1994 season to allow fuelling during the race.'

[E.B]

Originally Posted by GingerPixel

Remember that the Pirellis are made of butter because thats what they were asked to produce. With the removal of refuelling there needed to be some reason for pit stops, and we were nearly getting to a situation where teams could go the full distance on one set.

Was it 2005 (when we had a tyre 'war' between Michelin and Bridgestone) that the FIA deemed all cars had to use one set of tyres for qualifying and then use the same set of tyres for the entire race. The only allowance for a tyre change was a puncture or damage to a tyre. Then they could change the punctured tyre for a used one of similar age / wear.

We still had pit stops though as mid race refuelling was allowed then.

[coppice]

Pits stops were reinvented by Gordon Murray for the '83 Brabham BMW . He worked out it was quicker to run a car light and refuel. I watched my first GP live twelve years earlier and the idea of a pit stop, except to repair a car or to put wets on , was as quaint as supercharging or a riding mechanic .



Pit stops are appalling distractions , ruining the flow of a race and dissuading drivers from proper overtaking.It is worth noting that BTCC tried it a few years ago and then dropped it like a hot brick.



Pit stops belong in long races- we might even call them endurance races.... As does refuelling .

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

It's not a tradition, as explained on the F1 website:

'It was not always so. Pit stops tended to be disorganised, long and often chaotic as late as the 1970s - especially when (in the absence of car-to-pit communication) a driver came in to make an unscheduled stop. The age of the modern pit stop arrived when changes were made to the sporting regulations for the 1994 season to allow fuelling during the race.'

My sarcarsm perhaps translates less well in text but it was my intention.

MotoGP doesn't need pitstops. Neither does F1.

[chillibowl]

personal opinion, but i like pit stops. to each their own of course but i like the flurry of activity.

part of me agrees that mandating stops and compound usage leads to strategy conformity, more so as the season goes on, and (i guess) as we saw with Max in Russia trying something different rarely leads to success.

so on one hand, whats the point?

on the other hand, there is too much conservation philosophy in the sport. no refueling, limit the fuel used, limit the number and more durable engines/PUs etc...that the tires are like butter is kind of the one thing in opposition to this conservation philosophy.

also if a driver gets a flatspot they have to finish the race on it...thats just a different kind of penalty and arguably a more annoying one than an engine change grid penalty because there essentially is no coming back from a flatspot.

tough one imo!

[EffectiveSprinkles]

You don't have to forbid pitstops either. That's one of the other big problems in F1: over the top kneejerk reactions. There are a lot of middle grounds.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

personal opinion, but i like pit stops. to each their own of course but i like the flurry of activity.

The big problem is that it is the pit stops that tend to be the most exciting part of the proceedings, rather than the racing itself!

[Greem]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

You don't have to forbid pitstops either. That's one of the other big problems in F1: over the top kneejerk reactions. There are a lot of middle grounds.

Unfortunately though these days most of the noise from the peanut gallery comes from the opposite sides of every argument*, so they're the ones whose voices get heard and ultimately we get rule changes as a result.

If only the P's-T-B would stop and listen to those in the middle ground... that ship sailed some time ago.

*in everything - politics, sport, news, buying sweets, advertising etc.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by coppice

Pit stops belong in long races- we might even call them endurance races.... As does refuelling .

Good point given the "sprint" nature of F1 (or at least as it seems people think it is sprint racing).

Richard

[gert]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

You don't have to forbid pitstops either. That's one of the other big problems in F1: over the top kneejerk reactions. There are a lot of middle grounds.

Let's not forbid it, just discourage it.

If we bring in tires that can go the distance, then there's no need for pistops.
Besides: if there are no pitstops teams will have to think about producing a car that can overtake on track, rather than do 1 fast in-lap, a fast pitstop and a fast out-lap.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Indeed. If a team wants to pit they still can however. And of course in rain races you can change tyres as often as is necessary.

Pits stay closed during VSC/SC periods.

[Akrapovic]

I haven't thought about it much but I'd leave pits open during SC, but closed during VSC. As we seen in the Audi/Porsche/Toyota battles in WEC, open pits during FCY completely broke races. A mechanic designed to keep races from being ruined by SC, were creating artificially larger gaps with FCYs. Totally agree that pits should close during them. And I'd extend that to if you're in the pits when it happens, then you're held at the end of pit lane for X number of seconds to neutralise the advantage gained. These are safety regulations, not sporting ones and nobody should be gaining or losing from a system designed to keep gaps stable.

[Adam43]

It potentially works better in F1 when you close the pits, at least there is less impact to competitors, as there is no refuelling you can’t have the situation where you close the pits when someone needs fuel.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by GingerPixel

Remember that the Pirellis are made of butter because thats what they were asked to produce. With the removal of refuelling there needed to be some reason for pit stops, and we were nearly getting to a situation where teams could go the full distance on one set.

I remember when teams could go the full distance on one set.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I remember when teams could go the full distance on one set.

Isn't the Michelin tires for LeMans prototypes designed to double and triple stint which puts them into the 180-280 mile range and F1 races are supposed to be at least 190 miles or so? Seems doable with modern race tire technology.

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Isn't the Michelin tires for LeMans prototypes designed to double and triple stint which puts them into the 180-280 mile range and F1 races are supposed to be at least 190 miles or so? Seems doable with modern race tire technology.

Richard

I don't follow the WEC that closely but I believe that is the case. I watched GPs in the '70s and '80s and F1 teams would run on one set. They did so as recently 2005.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I don't follow the WEC that closely but I believe that is the case. I watched GPs in the '70s and '80s and F1 teams would run on one set. They did so as recently 2005.

With the tyre wear rate at some of the races the current harder compounds could go the full race distance, but pit stops are mandated because the quick cars would then have to battle their way through everyone who was not stopping.

My book - mandate one set of tyres for the weekend, possibly two, then any damged tyres can be substituted for a used tyre.