The current era of F1 should be the fastest

Pit stops for a tyre change after a puncture, to fit rain tyres or to repair bodywork damage could still be allowed, but anything else neutralised.
By which I mean a minimum set time between the pit entry and the pit exist lanes (for example), or 30 sec. stationary in the pit minimum for any stop.
I have seen that in several series in Europe, and it works well, stopping the competition among crews, cars being released unsafely and loosing wheels, etc...

The cars should be able to run the whole race on one tank full and one set of tyres.

I find it ridiculous under the present system that cars need several set of tyres for a 180 miles race, just to satisfy silly FIA rules.

 

It's a silly contrivance to make the sport more "exciting."

 

The racing has to be made more "exciting" because the cars don't provide a good spectacle.

The FIA has introduced these silly tyre rules to make each GP look like "a dog and pony show".

 

To me, pit stops are a part of racing. Why we have the pit stops maybe something we can all argue about, but even in MotoGP, it's pretty damn cool when on the rare occasion they all have to come in.

I think the tire constraints are silly and agree that you should be able to use whichever tire you want and how many you want.

It seems that everything in F1 is about preservation... conserve the tires during quali for the race? What is that all about? Don't attack during the race because you'll kill the tires? It seems there's just way too many things that prevent all out racing...including the most ridiculous idea of conserving fuel.

I like the strategic aspect of racing... pit stops play into that but because of all the other stupid rules... it just exacerbates the issues.

 

I'm not suggesting unlimited speed... but it's absolutely painful to watch the cars trudge down to their box.

 

It may be painful to you, but the race is on the track, not on the pit lane.

Beside, speed is dangerous and there are took much risks associated with a car getting out of control, crashing and injuring pit attendants.

 

Today's F1 is Crap, this IS F1
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I think a comment by GP2 racer Nick Yelloly, stepping in for an ill Pascal Wehrlein, at Force India says it all, " it was easier than I expected ", and in regards to F1 power steering, " the biggest change for me was the power steering, just how easy it is compared to the GP2 car physically. I thought it would be harder but I actually find it quite easy, so that was nice."

When you can just step into F1 like it's nothing, it's no longer the "pinnacle" of racing.

 

I've always wondered if that picture was manipulated. The following car (Hill) appears to be too elevated, particularly as it doesn't appear to have reached the peak where a launch would occur. The shadow under the leading car (Stewart, I think) appears to have been added later.

 

On one hand your're saying let's not be too dangerous... but your're okay having cars sail through the air at high speed. Interesting.

 

You don't seem to have noticed that "wiliam" and "WILLIAM H" are 2 different participants on this forum, hence the difference of opinions!

 

I was wondering how he got that from WILLIAM H's post.....

 

LMP1 cars, despite being much heavier, are within a few seconds of F1 cars now. F1 cars are also barely faster than GP2 cars.

Think about this: the "mighty" Mercedes W06 would not have made it out of Q1 at the 2013 Spanish Grand Prix. Rosberg's pole time this year was slightly slower than Giedo van der Garde's 2013 Spanish GP qualifying time in a Caterham. Van der Garde started 19th in that race. The 2013 cars weren't even close to the fastest V8-era machines, nevermind the V10-era cars, which would lap the fastest cars of today well before the race would be over.

It's sad, really.

 

More pathetic than sad, really. All that money, all that hype, for less performance. As for ever comparing current drivers with those of previous eras, as many like to do.....fugeddabouditt....

 

Couple this with ridiculously high ticket and hotel prices, poor fan access, etc. and it is a BAD combo.

 

And that DRS crap!!! can you guys imagine what someone like Gilles or Peterson would have said about it? And not going flayt out to save tires?= are you joking? tHEY WOULD HAVE CHANGED FOR ANOTHER SERIES WHERE THEY COULD DRIVE PROPER RACECARS....
I'll tell you guys, perfec f1 would be with cars similar to 87/88 in terms of downforce and grip and engines around 1000/1200 hp.....the rest is BS

 

Hand up... Yep I missed that. The apparent hypocrisy blinded me.

 

I understand the need for some sort of end game relevance for the engine makers. I think the issue is the lack of testing... a complete inability to shake out new technology and debug things puts the cars at performance windows that are simply too disimilar with little ability to close the gap. I mean look at this last race... Ferrari said they changed (I believe I read) 70% of the car's aero in some fashion... and still the gap was one of the biggest all season.

I think F1 then tries to remedy these sorts of deficits with DRS and all the other manipulated racing.

 

You have it wrong. in the 80's - 90's pit stops were done because YOU HAD to do it, the cars / tires could not make it the whole race. if making stops were not faster they would have never done it. its not artificial: the fastest drivers always won... Senna, Prost, Schumacher... etc...

As for pit Lane safety - I'm not saying to make it more dangerous, but it is way more spectacular. the pit lanes are so much safer now - nobody is allowed across the garage line unless they are a team member - or occasionally have to leave pit wall. frankly there is no need at all to walk across pit lane at all - they can make a gantry for team members to use.

Pit lane is still dangerous with un bound wheels etc... that is what caused the changes in the first place. before you could come in and out at any speed - 0-100 MPH in 3-4 seconds. so limit them to max 100MPH entry to exit. it would reduce passing in the pits ... makes it more about strategy. Pit lane speed was introduced as safety, but was really a way to slow down the leaders and even out the field.

 

I like it - open up the strategy.

 

No, not really. can you name one pit lane accident that killed someone because of pit lane speed? I cant.

there have been pit fires, wheels flung off, cars that hit the mechanics, or left early... but in all my years of following F-1 1970 - to now, I cant remember once a car that crashed in the pits becuase of speed or hit anyone - and killed them. again - cars have hit mechanics as they were coming to a stop, or leaving - but not as they were flying through the pits.

When i was lucky to be at F-1 races in the pits (Photography) in the late 80's and early 90's there were tons of non essential people there ... people like me who had no business to be there... but one think I knew was to look down to pit entry before ever going into the hot pits. - so did everyone else.

 

This is the F1 that I grew up on - listening to my dad.

I think this pic is more illustrative of what you are saying:
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

DRS is cool, but that you can only use it when they say you can use it is not. F-1 is too regulated Period. that is why its boring. they have all figured out how to get right to the line on the rules... problems is there are to many lines - it forms a box and F-1 is trapped in the box.

 

Well, we are not in the 80s anymore, and tyres could be made to last a whole race, so that excuse of durability doesn't work anymore. If Pirelli is told to supply tyres that last, it can do it. Maintaining tyre change, and forcing teams to use several compounds is artificial, it's just doing "a dog and pony show" in the middle of a motor race.

I can understand refuelling and tyre changes in a 500 miles race, in a 6 hours or more endurance event, but not in a race less than 2 hours!

Refuelling and tyre changes didn't exist when Clark, Stewart, G.Hill. Fittipaldi, Rindt, Brabham, Lauda, Peterson and many others used to race, so don't tell me they are necessary to the quality of the race.

 

Apart from F1, there have been serious pit lane incidents in other series (Indy league, NASCAR, etc...) with people seriously injured.

Do we really need severaql casualties to review pit lane speed and avoid pit stops when they are not necessary?

Why do you think pit walls were created in the 50 after the Le Mans catastrophe? To protect pit personels from cars passing at speed. But now, if we allow cars to drive at speed INSIDE the pit lane, we put plenty of people at risk. It seems that you are not concerned by a basic measure to lower the risk of accident and potential fatality.