How many pitstops per race would you like?

I liked it when they had two pitstops along with refuling.
Pitty we dont get to see the testing, i wonder why Bernie and the BBC dont work sone thing out

 

I liked it when pit stops were not mandated.

 

True, but I'd settle for 2.

Yes bored Ian..

 

+1...Remember back in the day when they pitted because the car had no tires or fuel left and it was strategically most advantageous to do so??? That's when I want to see stops.

Mark

 

When pit stops or change of tires compounds are mandated the plot of F1 has been lost, jmo of course. Lets not forget that Bergers first win in '86 at the Mexican GP was mainly do too compound choice on one of the most abraisive track's on the schedule then, and that win was the icing on the cake that season atleast for me. Team strategy has been replaced by mandates, not to the extreme, but enough too relieve the team's of a certain fuel load/tire strategy. Sorry I'm kinda old school in that I believe those choices should be the team's and not the FIA's.

 

+1

Bring back refueling. Even with no passing it was (somewhat) interesting to see different strategies played out...

 

And it made overtaking when someone messed up their re-fueling for example. All last seasons pit stops were boring.

 

I would like the tire supplier to bring all compounds to each race. If a team wants to filler-up and run harder tires w/o stopping great. If another team wants to run super softs and stop 4 times. great.

and they should be allowed to change strategy at any point. no starting on quali tire / fuel crap.

each team should be free to pick the best strategy for there car that day.

 

Two.

Dry to full wet.

Wet to intermediate or dry.

 

Two, but the drivers should have to do all the work themselves.

 

Might get a bit expensive for Pirelli.

 

So!! The suppliers have enough resources to supply any stategy, let the team's race for crying out load.

 

I agree.

Also, if a pit stop is necessary (mechanical woes, puncture), there should be a minimum time spent in the pit for the car that stops, to prevent it becoming a competition between mechanics.

Tire supliers could perfectly create compound able to last a GP distance.

 

I wonder what the bigger challenge is for Pirelli: developing a tire that lasts longer or making the added number of tires that need more frequent changing?

 

Modern technology makes pit stops optional in GPs of today's lengths. The question is if they'd add anything to the sport.
Personally I see F1 as a team sport so throwing the pit crew into the mix adds something. Pit stops also allows strategy to become a factor. Another plus. Less fuel carried and softer tires mean faster cars. Another plus.
Throw in the fact that on today's circuits most passing happens during pit stops and I think the case is clear. Pit stops improve racing.
Your opinion may differ

 

If that was the case, they would have been introduced in many other forms of racing: horse racing, athleticism, marathon, skying, sailing, etc... LOL. I am only joking ...

I think that GPs, which are already limited to 2 hours, are to be considered as sprints, and that not outside interference should be introduced in a competition that is already so short.

For 'team motor racing, there is sport car racing, or endurance, with changes of drivers, refuelling, tyre stops, and intervention of mechanics to repair the cars.

F1 should be racing in its purest form. IMHO.

I remember GPs in the early 60s, with no pit stops, and no one can say they were boring. Gordon Murray introduced the first pit stops in F1 for a long time, when he sent Piquet with half tank to take the lead at some GP, opening a Pandora box and creating a trend that didn't left us for a long time.

Pit stops should be considered as 'incidents' that slow progression, not some artificial side competition for team strategists and mechanics added to the pure essense of racing.

 

As I think I said, it comes down to personal preference.
BTW I'd love to see pit stops in sky-diving!

 

I think so.

Pit stops have changed the way people race. Now, it's all about tactics and pit strategy, etc...

It may be that the enforced pit stop at the last 2010 GP costs Alonso the title.

Hamilton would never have ramed Raikonen at Montreal is there had been no compulsory pit stop, etc, etc, etc...

Some drivers have lost races because of a jammed air gun, or a cross threaded wheelnut. Is that racing?

The way teams employ so many 'strategists' behind the scene to chose their pit stop, and the whole science around pit stops didn't bring anything to racing, in my eyes, just added cost and more uncertainty.

 

Now I see why PHENOMM has such issues with you.

THE ABOVE IS DRIPPING IN IRONY!

 

3 would be the best. The best combination between strategy and speed. No refueling with more durable tyres means less or no overtaking and slower cars.

I really hope the new Pirellis are not as durable as the BS.

 

LOL .

 

I think there should be no mandated pit-stops. There should be a massive difference between the hard and soft tyres. If a team decides to fo the soft route theey should last 25 laps max. A hard tyre should last the race but have less grip. I'm glad refuelling has been banned.

 

i think pit stops have very little to do with how good the racing is.

if hamilton can't get past alonso then it doesn't really matter how many pitstops we have.
the problem is the cars. reduce aerodynamics and increase the mechanical grip.

i think pit stops are needed because otherwise it would be follow john from the start to finish. by having pitstops you can mix up the field and create some excitement rather then everybody following the leader from start to finish.

now they can't even follow each other closely so when they get out on the straight they are two far apart to make things interesting.

i say 2 pitstops so the tyres last shorter. going a full race on soft tyres is not very entertaining.