Reading the 2010 rules verdict thread and reading Martin Whitmarsh's comments about introducing another mandatory pit stop during the race, I am interested in gauging the opinions of the board's members on this subject.

Should refuelling be allowed? Should tyre stops be mandatory? Fire away!

Keep refuelling out, but kick out the two-compound rule and the mandatory tire stop rule as well. Drivers will have to attack if they don't know whether they will be able to jump the guy in front in the pits.

we didn't see anyone really attack after the stops today.

the cars can't overtake, changing pit stop rules is not miraculaously going to change that fact

No mandatory stops, no tire rules, refuelling optional.

(two thumbs out of 3, optional refuelling i'm not sure about tbh)

Reintroducing mandatory pit stops is killing f1 for good. The question that needs addressing is overtaking, not in the pits but on track. That's the real issue and if that is not fixed, f1 will progressively attract fewer people.

I really think Wittmarsh is completely off the point. No refueling is the first of many steps that are need to bring F1 back from all the artificiality it has suffered these last 15 years. Other steps are significantly reducing downforce, making tires that do not marble, increasing mechanical grip and trying to get better circuits.

No forced stops, optional refuelling and better tracks.

Give the teams freedom and create choice in what they do, rather than limiting them to one way of running that someone has decided will make everything better - it keeps happening and it keep getting worse. No one today was willing to risk trying to overtake and wrecking their tyres if they were already in the points.

I think we should go back to a tyre war, qualifying tyres and races without pitstops.

If you want overtaking in F1 take off the front wings!

I don't think refuelling or non-refuelling makes any difference and the mandatory 2-stop rule is gimmicky and will not work.

I wish the teams would back of this idea before we have another contrived element introduced to the race format...

Bahrain is most often a terrible spectacle, so lets wait a few races before re-tooling the format (yet again) completely...
I think there as were some problems in Bahrain - the biggest, being that the cars (even though expected) still looked surpising sluggish at the start of the race, and much of the slash/dash drama was somewhat missing from the opening lap. This will hardly be cured by requiring a second stop...

Perhaps just a recognition the the re-fueling element is preferable in the present-era, and perhaps should be re-introduced in 2011...

Who is "we" or do you claim to speak for everyone ?

Personally I think that two mandatory pit stops would be a good thing to increase the excitement and give us some racing. Most of the teams have already admitted that it is virtually impossible to overtake even if your car if faster. That is not the kind of racing that I watch F1 for.

And mandatory two stops are going to make it easier to overtake even if you're faster... how?

This

Make a poll, buddy. And we'll see is it 'we' or 'they'

Maybe he doesn´t speak for everyone, but he does speak for me. Mandatory pit stops suck.

Oh, yes. Forgot that.
Artificial mandatory pit stops suck!

Mandatory pit stops suck indeed.

Best proposal so far (and a easy one) is from JA:

"It is for Bridgestone to bring tyres which are closer together in performance, rather than two steps apart as at present. This was done last season and it improved things, but now they have gone back to bringing super soft and medium to the first race. Because the soft is so much faster, around 6/10ths and degrades more quickly, it will always be the qualifying tyre, which then leads to an early first pit stop for the medium, which is the better race tyre.

With tyres that are closer together, the performance difference is less and so are the wear rates and it is more attractive to try a different tactic. "
http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2010/03/alon...e-is-an-answer/

I've written it in another threads and will do it here also: DTM has two mandatory pitstops and it is even more boring than F1. Don't make the same mistake again.

How can you advocate no 'mandatory pit stops' and then want to re introduce it via fuel loads?!

Why should we have pitstop strategies any way?

Well, I don't want mandatory pit stops!

I think Whitmarsh's statement was not thought out well, just a rash statement said within the disapointment of Buttons performance.

The pits stops also show that drivers can lose out a place because of that 50m rule and that is something that needs to be sorted out first.

Whitmarsh also stated that he wants Bridegstone to make weaker tyres. That is not the answer either, we just need to do away with the double diffuser and ask our drivers to push harder in their cars.

Isn't there any other way the air from the double diffuser could be diffused? Like through an attached vent and preferably upwards into the sky. stick a chimney at the back of the cars

Just give us cars that can actually FOLLOW each other closely without screwing their aerodynamics and get rid of every artificial stupid rule with manadatory tyre usage, etc.

Let the drivers sort everything on track. If they can't pass, they better try risking!

Why not just make overtaking mandatory.

Too true, seems like Whitmarsh is trying to bring in rules that favours a smooth boring driver, and force everyone else into mistakes, hmmm I wonder why.

I think F1 just needs to get rid of the DD's and stop tampering with the sport. The drivers need time to adapt to the new rules that are in already, lets not going around messing around with it now.

I am sure the drivers will be better prepared for Australia and will risk more.

No mandatory pit stops and drop the stupid rule of having to use the 2 different compounds!!!! Start with the tire you qualify on end of, everything else is fair game. You want to make no pit stops or 5 then go for it, you want to only use one kind of compound then go for it. Just let them do what they want them to do.

And after the second mandatory pit stop, drivers are required to carry an egg on a spoon.

He certainly speaks for me as well. The mandatory element strikes me as very gimmicky. It is superfluous to pure racing.

The ideal test of speed would be cars going the full race distance on one set of tires a one tank of fuel. A bit like an athletic marathon but at high speed - maybe a Roman chariot race is a better analogy.
If someone wants to go even faster on less durable tires that should be their strategic choice.

I say down with the mandatory gimmicks.

i doubt that we will see a second mandatory pitstop, if only because they will never get the required agreement from all teams.

in my opinion some people in F1 overreacted because of a single not that exciting race on a track which is not known for much overtaking even by the already low tilke standards. also the new part added to the track made things even worse.

lets see what the stop-and-go melbourne circuit will bring, and what the teams could learn in bahrain, in which most made an understandable conservative approach.

And I'm with you on that: he speaks for me.

If we want "exciting racing" well,

• Abolish the double diffuser
• Abolish the rule that requires starting on the quali tyres
• Abolish the parc fermé - allow them to have a "quali" setup

And I feel that those would be just a start. Mandatory pit stops? About as stupid as mandatory V8 engines.

+1

true, but we are talking about a quick fix to this seasons "appearant problems".

I really can't see how mandating 2 stops will help the show. To ofer only 1 race strategy is exactly the same kind of crap they have been introducing, the standarization of F1 is a big problem, if we had bigger flexibility, we'd have bigger performance differences during different stages of the weekend, and the GP itself.

I find it hard to believe Witmarsh with his experience came up with this one, it's absolutely ridiculous. Why don't they just mandate to let the car behind pass at least 3 times per GP then? same thing!!!!!

I wouldn't abolish the rule where u need to race the tire you qualify, I mean, it was like that back in the 80es if I remember correctly, and ussually, in most racing series, you're supposed to race the tire you qualify, so, I don't think that's the problem. Though I do agree with the rest.

I'd add to that to abolish the forceful use of both compounds in the GP, might open up the window of strategy possibilities.

I would also look into the possibility of removing the front wings and have them install something there with little effect mostly for sponsorship spots. If they don't use that front wing airflow for laptime, there will be little to affect the car while following close to another car. IMHO they went the wrong way with the bigger, more elaborate front wings.

As has been said already by many sensible people. Scrap all the gimicky tyre rules and let them run whatever they want, when they want! This isn't going to dramatically improve the racing but it is quite apparant that all these 'spice up the show' rules are making the racing worse rather than better.

Take the wings off, flat bottoms, venturi, job done.

No more contrivances please.

"B-b-bu-but our sponsorship space!"

Your sponsors don't want to be involved with boring shit. It worked fine for CART. You'll live.

Good stuff. I suppose that the qualifying tyre thing is the least of my worries - but the setup is a problem. With 160 litres of fuel obviously the ideal set up is different from "fumes"; so everyone has to make a compromise in qualifying.

I believe that Formula 1 should not concern itself overmuch with compromises - it is after all, supposed to be the "ultimate" isn't it?

I have written elsewhere that given the need for sponsors' advertising, surely these clever aerodynamicists could come up with "no effect" wings if required to do so? That is a bit extreme I agree, but certainly a major effort should be made to remove the aerodynamic impediments to close racing.

Not worried about sponsors, they would find a way...........................

This full lap of a Williams F1 car was presented to you with inboard camera by AT&T............proud partner of the Williams F1 Team since 19...

An athletic marathon where the competitors go around and round and end up in the order they started in, except for a few whose machinery broke. Can't think of anything worse really, no thanks.

Everybody knows aero is the main problem, but there's no short-term solution for that. Pit stops are better than nothing, at least the cars would go faster and the drivers could have a go at overtaking here and there without throwing their race away because they need to nurse the tyres until the end.

The mistake with the rules is that they were made in the wrong order. People complain that there's no passing except for the pit stops. The solution: remove pit stops. The result: there's no overtaking whatsoever, surprise surprise. When you have real overtaking, you don't need "gimmicks". But until then, I say weaken the tyres or bring in pit stops. Less is better than nothing.

I don't see how mandatory pit stops will solve the problem.

No one knows how to fix the formula, I'm really getting sick of this. Nothing works.

I'd rather see sprinklers come on halfway through the race to spice it up to be honest. Just as contrived, but so much more fun to watch.

Max once thought as you do, YOU DON'T KNOW THE POWER OF THE DARK SIDE!!!

Seriously though, that's some of the stupidest ideas I ever heard. like the shortcut, and every other gimmick that can be thought of to "spice up the show". I like my racing pure, as Formula 1 should be.

If I remember correctly, Formula 1 was a lot better before the re-introduction of re-fueling in 1994, and all the other gimmicky crap they added since.

I think a "Back to basics" approach is needed rather than trying to re-invent the wheel every time.

Well before 1994, the field was more spread out and there were also many boring races - over time people tend to forget those. But back then, the cars were more unpredictable, less sophisticated, etc. so there were far more mistakes, which led to more overtaking moves in general. Simpler aerodynamics also played a part in making them more 'raceable', but the conservation formula that we are seeing now in terms of tyres, etc. was certainly evident before 1994. Its one of the reasons why Prost won so much - he had mastered that art.

Otherwise: mandatory pitstop sucks...

I guess it comes down to a difference of opinion about what F1 really is. Is it a racing series or is it an "entertainment circus" ?
So long as it tries to be both things at the same time I believe the "problem" will remain.

Long term rule stability would be nice. However, IMO the removal of the rear wing and the limited reintroduction of underbody aero would greatly improve the ability to overtake.

a second mandatory stop would do nothing.

the tires last to way long.
There is no benefit in a second stop, never.

the tires shouldnt last as long as they did, than the drivers will be forced to decide if they want a new set of tires or if they risk it to run with way way older tires.

at the moment it's a no brainer, it was a ****ing hot race and yet the hard tires lasted long enough to get through with just on stop.

tldr:the difference between used and fresh tires is too small.