One Stop or Two?

Forum rules
Please read the forum rules
Post Reply
User avatar
DOLOMITE
Posts: 1555
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 8:07 am

One Stop or Two?

Post by DOLOMITE »

Hamilton saying there shouldn't be 1 stop races, there should be at least 2.

The reason being that 1 stop results in large phases of the race being "tyre management" and we've definitely seen that.

Now I get that, but the flip side is that 2 stops can mean less on-track passing as the teams just plan their stops around under/overcuts and the driver is under less pressure to make an actual pass.

Thoughts?
"I'd rather lose a race going fast enough to win it, than win one going slow enough to lose it".
-Stirling Moss

User avatar
Badgeronimous
Posts: 881
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:57 am
Location: Scotland & Abu Dhabi

Re: One Stop or Two?

Post by Badgeronimous »

Tbh, I get more out of a strategy overtake than somebody just breezing by unchallenged with DRS and a big tyre advantage - which is the only way over takes happen with similar paced cars.

It isn't as if overtakes at the business end of the grid are particularly common. In fact you can probably remember just about every overtake for the past 5yrs within the top 3-4 places that took place without a huge tyre advantage being the reason for it. Overtaking is incredibly difficult in similar paced cars as you cannot run close enough.

Dare I say it...... allowing refuelling wouldn't be a bad thing, although 2022 rules may change that.

I prefer 2 or 3 stop races, as it allows more strategic scope. 1 stop races all follow the same modus operandi, especially as that stop is mandatory.
Last edited by Badgeronimous on Wed Aug 12, 2020 11:27 am, edited 2 times in total.

Schumacher forever#1
Posts: 2847
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 7:29 pm

Re: One Stop or Two?

Post by Schumacher forever#1 »

I posted something similar last week, but I'll post again as I think it's relevant.

Two stop races should always be considered faster than one stop races. Why? Because, a one stop strategy will give a driver track position, and therefore two-stoppers must received extra compensation for having to overtake the one-stopper - that extra compensation meaning it should be a faster strategy.

Because drivers are forced to pit at least once, I see no reason why the minimum pit stop strategy should be fastest. I don't really think it makes sense at all, really. One could argue that, through stopping at different laps, drivers can have different strategies. But why must we limit ourselves to such minimal strategies? The only alternative approach would be to get rid of the mandatory use of two different tyre compounds and allow drivers to race without ever having to stop.
"Always believe you will become the best, but never believe you have done so"

pokerman
Posts: 35334
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: One Stop or Two?

Post by pokerman »

The 2 stop race we just saw was all about tyre management, if you race on chocolate tyres it will always be about tyre management.
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)

User avatar
Badgeronimous
Posts: 881
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:57 am
Location: Scotland & Abu Dhabi

Re: One Stop or Two?

Post by Badgeronimous »

pokerman wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 11:27 am
The 2 stop race we just saw was all about tyre management, if you race on chocolate tyres it will always be about tyre management.
We are years into the Pirelli era, and unsure how much is the FIA mandate and how much is Pirelli - suspect a bit of both - but I think most drivers agree, and most fans agree - the tyres are a big part of the problem..... and have been saying it for a very long time now that F1 are not getting the tyres right.

JN23
Posts: 2379
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:14 am

Re: One Stop or Two?

Post by JN23 »

pokerman wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 11:27 am
The 2 stop race we just saw was all about tyre management, if you race on chocolate tyres it will always be about tyre management.
The thing is, I imagine if we had tyres that you could push throughout a stint and there was still no good racing then you’d get moaning. I don’t think Pirelli/FIA can win on that one.

Asphalt_World
Posts: 4950
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm

Re: One Stop or Two?

Post by Asphalt_World »

I'm more than happy for 2 stops to be enforced as a minimum.
Instagram @simply_italian_cars

User avatar
Covalent
Posts: 10155
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm

Re: One Stop or Two?

Post by Covalent »

Fix the problem with the cars not being able to overtake or even follow other cars and track position won't be that important anymore and they will choose the faster two-stop strategy.

mikeyg123
Posts: 17827
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm

Re: One Stop or Two?

Post by mikeyg123 »

I think what we need is a variety of situations. I don't mind the race we saw at Silverstone sometimes but I don't think that would be desirable all the time.

Essentially if we make cars that can follow teams will be more likely to go for a faster two stop rather than kep track position with the one.

What i do not think we should do is mandate two stops. That just closes strategy options down. Part of the fun is trying to predict who is doing what with strategy. Look at the last race... A lot of the interest was wondering if Verstappen then later Hamilton were going to try and one stop. Leclerc gained positions by pulling it off.

So in conclusion I think sometimes one stoppers on really hard tires that can be pushed for a whole race is good and sometimes a race of drivers nursing tyres and on big offsets is good. We can have a mix we don't need to pick one of the other.

User avatar
UnlikeUday
Posts: 8475
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:53 pm
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: One Stop or Two?

Post by UnlikeUday »

I actually enjoyed the 70th anniversary race in a way because softer compound tyres meant more graining and 1 stop was out of the picture.

No doubt almost all the drivers learnt from Silverstone race (1) and got rid of softs already in practice, but it still added a degree of uncertainty to the race when it came to mediums and hards.

I'll prefer 2 stops anyday because there are many factors that can come into consideration i.e unpredictable weather, safety car, slow pitstop etc.
Feel The Fourth

pokerman
Posts: 35334
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: One Stop or Two?

Post by pokerman »

JN23 wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 11:54 am
pokerman wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 11:27 am
The 2 stop race we just saw was all about tyre management, if you race on chocolate tyres it will always be about tyre management.
The thing is, I imagine if we had tyres that you could push throughout a stint and there was still no good racing then you’d get moaning. I don’t think Pirelli/FIA can win on that one.
This is supposed to be from the perspective of the drivers though who don't like excessive tyre management, in respect to the fans we will always disagree about everything.
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)

JN23
Posts: 2379
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:14 am

Re: One Stop or Two?

Post by JN23 »

pokerman wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 1:23 pm
JN23 wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 11:54 am
pokerman wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 11:27 am
The 2 stop race we just saw was all about tyre management, if you race on chocolate tyres it will always be about tyre management.
The thing is, I imagine if we had tyres that you could push throughout a stint and there was still no good racing then you’d get moaning. I don’t think Pirelli/FIA can win on that one.
This is supposed to be from the perspective of the drivers though who don't like excessive tyre management, in respect to the fans we will always disagree about everything.
Very true.

pokerman
Posts: 35334
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: One Stop or Two?

Post by pokerman »

Covalent wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 12:36 pm
Fix the problem with the cars not being able to overtake or even follow other cars and track position won't be that important anymore and they will choose the faster two-stop strategy.
Which was supposed to happen next year but got delayed by the pandemic lest we forget the state of the world presently.
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)

pokerman
Posts: 35334
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: One Stop or Two?

Post by pokerman »

mikeyg123 wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 12:50 pm
I think what we need is a variety of situations. I don't mind the race we saw at Silverstone sometimes but I don't think that would be desirable all the time.

Essentially if we make cars that can follow teams will be more likely to go for a faster two stop rather than kep track position with the one.

What i do not think we should do is mandate two stops. That just closes strategy options down. Part of the fun is trying to predict who is doing what with strategy. Look at the last race... A lot of the interest was wondering if Verstappen then later Hamilton were going to try and one stop. Leclerc gained positions by pulling it off.

So in conclusion I think sometimes one stoppers on really hard tires that can be pushed for a whole race is good and sometimes a race of drivers nursing tyres and on big offsets is good. We can have a mix we don't need to pick one of the other.
For once on this matter I agree with you 100%, people don't like predictible racing but then want to basically mandate that drivers do the same amount of pitstops.
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)

pokerman
Posts: 35334
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: One Stop or Two?

Post by pokerman »

UnlikeUday wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 1:18 pm
I actually enjoyed the 70th anniversary race in a way because softer compound tyres meant more graining and 1 stop was out of the picture.

No doubt almost all the drivers learnt from Silverstone race (1) and got rid of softs already in practice, but it still added a degree of uncertainty to the race when it came to mediums and hards.

I'll prefer 2 stops anyday because there are many factors that can come into consideration i.e unpredictable weather, safety car, slow pitstop etc.
Some drivers did 1 stops which benefitted them greatly.
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)

F1_Ernie
Posts: 3730
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm

Re: One Stop or Two?

Post by F1_Ernie »

Well you got to take into consideration that Mercedes will be the team out in front and would they be willing to let there drivers mix up strategies a little. Hamilton wants two stop races because he knows the first Mercedes generally wins after the 1st corner but with more stops and if Mercedes actually let the drivers try different strategies then it gives Hamilton even more chance to use his better race pace. For that reason I'm up for it :lol:
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place
2018: 12th place

Wins: Spain 2016, Canada 2017, Malaysia 2017
Podiums: 2nd Germany 2016, 3rd Mexico 2016, 3rd China 2018, 3rd Japan 2018, 2nd Mexico 2018

j man
Posts: 3494
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Location: UK

Re: One Stop or Two?

Post by j man »

The problem is that once they banned refuelling, the only way to provide strategically interesting races was to use comedy tyres. Contriving a two stop race by deliberately providing poor quality equipment is not the way to go if you ask me. Mandating a two stop race is even worse, it was bad enough mandating the single pitstop in the final year of Bridgestone tyres where you had the farce of drivers making stops on the last lap just to fulfil the requirement because the tyres didn't wear out.

I'd be in favour of bringing back refuelling and getting rid of these silly tyres. When we had it in the past it allowed for two stops to be the fastest race strategy without having to contrive anything, in fact this is presumably where this whole idea that races should have two stops even comes from. Yes that was a fairly dull era in terms of overtaking, but I believe that's because the cars couldn't follow each other rather than anything to do with refuelling itself. With DRS, or better with cars that can actually follow each other, I think the dynamic of the racing would be very different.

mikeyg123
Posts: 17827
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm

Re: One Stop or Two?

Post by mikeyg123 »

j man wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 4:45 pm
The problem is that once they banned refuelling, the only way to provide strategically interesting races was to use comedy tyres. Contriving a two stop race by deliberately providing poor quality equipment is not the way to go if you ask me. Mandating a two stop race is even worse, it was bad enough mandating the single pitstop in the final year of Bridgestone tyres where you had the farce of drivers making stops on the last lap just to fulfil the requirement because the tyres didn't wear out.

I'd be in favour of bringing back refuelling and getting rid of these silly tyres. When we had it in the past it allowed for two stops to be the fastest race strategy without having to contrive anything, in fact this is presumably where this whole idea that races should have two stops even comes from. Yes that was a fairly dull era in terms of overtaking, but I believe that's because the cars couldn't follow each other rather than anything to do with refuelling itself. With DRS, or better with cars that can actually follow each other, I think the dynamic of the racing would be very different.
Refuelling killed racing. There's actually a graph that shows a huge drop off in overtaking between 93 and 94 and then a huge incline between 09 and 10. That's not all about the cars. They could follow each other a hell of a lot more closely than they can now.

I've never understand why high degradation tyres are seen as artificial? I just think they're a but fairy cakes to see race after race because nobody actually ever gets to drive fast.

j man
Posts: 3494
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Location: UK

Re: One Stop or Two?

Post by j man »

mikeyg123 wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 8:44 pm
j man wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 4:45 pm
The problem is that once they banned refuelling, the only way to provide strategically interesting races was to use comedy tyres. Contriving a two stop race by deliberately providing poor quality equipment is not the way to go if you ask me. Mandating a two stop race is even worse, it was bad enough mandating the single pitstop in the final year of Bridgestone tyres where you had the farce of drivers making stops on the last lap just to fulfil the requirement because the tyres didn't wear out.

I'd be in favour of bringing back refuelling and getting rid of these silly tyres. When we had it in the past it allowed for two stops to be the fastest race strategy without having to contrive anything, in fact this is presumably where this whole idea that races should have two stops even comes from. Yes that was a fairly dull era in terms of overtaking, but I believe that's because the cars couldn't follow each other rather than anything to do with refuelling itself. With DRS, or better with cars that can actually follow each other, I think the dynamic of the racing would be very different.
Refuelling killed racing. There's actually a graph that shows a huge drop off in overtaking between 93 and 94 and then a huge incline between 09 and 10. That's not all about the cars. They could follow each other a hell of a lot more closely than they can now.

I've never understand why high degradation tyres are seen as artificial? I just think they're a but fairy cakes to see race after race because nobody actually ever gets to drive fast.
It's here:
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/12759 ... ng-records

I think that graph is open to interpretation. Overtaking was already in decline prior to 1994, the drop off that year looks like a continuation of an existing trend. The jump from 09-10 is not as dramatic as 10-11 when DRS and fragile tyres were introduced. 2010 also had the F-duct which provided some DRS-like benefit to the cars that had it, and there were also a few wet races (China, Australia, Korea) as well as the infamous Canada race with high tyre degradation that were more jumbled up than usual.

Thinking about it logically I don't see why pitstops for refuelling should inhibit overtaking for position any more than pitstops for rapidly degrading tyres, although the latter does create a lot of meaningless overtakes of cars out of position on worn out tyres.

WHoff78
Posts: 776
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:01 pm

Re: One Stop or Two?

Post by WHoff78 »

As some others have mentioned, if they push things in that direction they should encourage it by ensuring that the 2-stopper is quicker because the softer tyres are that much quicker to ensure those 2-stopping have an advantage; and not by just forcing two stops and limiting strategy. That way everyone is in the same boat, and there will be times where they don’t get it quite right and those choosing the one stop will still have an advantage. Agree that it is equally important to maintain the different strategies, as variety makes the sport.

Trouble is Pirelli don’t seem capable of making tryes degrade quickly, provide that extra pace but in a safe manner that avoids failures and delaminations. People will say they’ve supplied what they are asked to, and that they don’t have enough testing, but they just don’t seem up to the job.

User avatar
tootsie323
Posts: 3176
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am

Re: One Stop or Two?

Post by tootsie323 »

^ This.
As well as cars that can follow more closely (and I believe that the 2022 regs will address this) the tyres need to have a more 'predictable' degradation that will allow teams / drivers to choose a strategy which means either flat-out on a multi-stopper or management on a one-stopper / fewer stops.
We have seen examples of exciting races due to divergent strategies, just too few of them!
Where I'm going, I don't need roads

mikeyg123
Posts: 17827
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm

Re: One Stop or Two?

Post by mikeyg123 »

j man wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 9:49 pm
mikeyg123 wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 8:44 pm
j man wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 4:45 pm
The problem is that once they banned refuelling, the only way to provide strategically interesting races was to use comedy tyres. Contriving a two stop race by deliberately providing poor quality equipment is not the way to go if you ask me. Mandating a two stop race is even worse, it was bad enough mandating the single pitstop in the final year of Bridgestone tyres where you had the farce of drivers making stops on the last lap just to fulfil the requirement because the tyres didn't wear out.

I'd be in favour of bringing back refuelling and getting rid of these silly tyres. When we had it in the past it allowed for two stops to be the fastest race strategy without having to contrive anything, in fact this is presumably where this whole idea that races should have two stops even comes from. Yes that was a fairly dull era in terms of overtaking, but I believe that's because the cars couldn't follow each other rather than anything to do with refuelling itself. With DRS, or better with cars that can actually follow each other, I think the dynamic of the racing would be very different.
Refuelling killed racing. There's actually a graph that shows a huge drop off in overtaking between 93 and 94 and then a huge incline between 09 and 10. That's not all about the cars. They could follow each other a hell of a lot more closely than they can now.

I've never understand why high degradation tyres are seen as artificial? I just think they're a but fairy cakes to see race after race because nobody actually ever gets to drive fast.
It's here:
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/12759 ... ng-records

I think that graph is open to interpretation. Overtaking was already in decline prior to 1994, the drop off that year looks like a continuation of an existing trend. The jump from 09-10 is not as dramatic as 10-11 when DRS and fragile tyres were introduced. 2010 also had the F-duct which provided some DRS-like benefit to the cars that had it, and there were also a few wet races (China, Australia, Korea) as well as the infamous Canada race with high tyre degradation that were more jumbled up than usual.

Thinking about it logically I don't see why pitstops for refuelling should inhibit overtaking for position any more than pitstops for rapidly degrading tyres, although the latter does create a lot of meaningless overtakes of cars out of position on worn out tyres.
I think you're being a bit disingenuous with your interpretation of the statistics. Overtaking reduced by just 14 between 92 and 93 and then a much higher 103 between 93 and 94. In fact the drop off when refuelling was reintroduced in 94 was greater than the entire drop off between 1990 and 93. So I think it's a stretch to say the huge drop in 94 was just a continuation of what was already happening.

Then when refuelling was banned again in 2010 you are right to suggest the jump between 2009 and 2010 is a smaller one than the jump between 2010 and 2011 but what you negate to mention is the fact that overtaking more than doubled going from just 211 in 2009 to 452 in 2010. And it's 2009 had wet races as well in Malaysia and in China and also had a mixed up grid due to rain in Brazil.

Siao7
Posts: 8633
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am

Re: One Stop or Two?

Post by Siao7 »

mikeyg123 wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 5:56 am
j man wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 9:49 pm
mikeyg123 wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 8:44 pm
j man wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 4:45 pm
The problem is that once they banned refuelling, the only way to provide strategically interesting races was to use comedy tyres. Contriving a two stop race by deliberately providing poor quality equipment is not the way to go if you ask me. Mandating a two stop race is even worse, it was bad enough mandating the single pitstop in the final year of Bridgestone tyres where you had the farce of drivers making stops on the last lap just to fulfil the requirement because the tyres didn't wear out.

I'd be in favour of bringing back refuelling and getting rid of these silly tyres. When we had it in the past it allowed for two stops to be the fastest race strategy without having to contrive anything, in fact this is presumably where this whole idea that races should have two stops even comes from. Yes that was a fairly dull era in terms of overtaking, but I believe that's because the cars couldn't follow each other rather than anything to do with refuelling itself. With DRS, or better with cars that can actually follow each other, I think the dynamic of the racing would be very different.
Refuelling killed racing. There's actually a graph that shows a huge drop off in overtaking between 93 and 94 and then a huge incline between 09 and 10. That's not all about the cars. They could follow each other a hell of a lot more closely than they can now.

I've never understand why high degradation tyres are seen as artificial? I just think they're a but fairy cakes to see race after race because nobody actually ever gets to drive fast.
It's here:
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/12759 ... ng-records

I think that graph is open to interpretation. Overtaking was already in decline prior to 1994, the drop off that year looks like a continuation of an existing trend. The jump from 09-10 is not as dramatic as 10-11 when DRS and fragile tyres were introduced. 2010 also had the F-duct which provided some DRS-like benefit to the cars that had it, and there were also a few wet races (China, Australia, Korea) as well as the infamous Canada race with high tyre degradation that were more jumbled up than usual.

Thinking about it logically I don't see why pitstops for refuelling should inhibit overtaking for position any more than pitstops for rapidly degrading tyres, although the latter does create a lot of meaningless overtakes of cars out of position on worn out tyres.
I think you're being a bit disingenuous with your interpretation of the statistics. Overtaking reduced by just 14 between 92 and 93 and then a much higher 103 between 93 and 94. In fact the drop off when refuelling was reintroduced in 94 was greater than the entire drop off between 1990 and 93. So I think it's a stretch to say the huge drop in 94 was just a continuation of what was already happening.

Then when refuelling was banned again in 2010 you are right to suggest the jump between 2009 and 2010 is a smaller one than the jump between 2010 and 2011 but what you negate to mention is the fact that overtaking more than doubled going from just 211 in 2009 to 452 in 2010. And it's 2009 had wet races as well in Malaysia and in China and also had a mixed up grid due to rain in Brazil.
What are you talking about? j man said the trend was on decline before 1994. Which is entirely true, they were on decline from 1990 onward. How is this disingenuous?

mikeyg123
Posts: 17827
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm

Re: One Stop or Two?

Post by mikeyg123 »

He also said "the drop off that year looks like the continuation of an existing trend"

I don't think that's a fair conclusion based on the data. He's trying to frame the data in a way to make it sound like it's saying what he wants it to when in reality I don't think it is saying that.

Siao7
Posts: 8633
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am

Re: One Stop or Two?

Post by Siao7 »

mikeyg123 wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 10:52 am
He also said "the drop off that year looks like the continuation of an existing trend"

I don't think that's a fair conclusion based on the data. He's trying to frame the data in a way to make it sound like it's saying what he wants it to when in reality I don't think it is saying that.
But you also had '91-'92, to the tune of 90 or so overtakes, directly comparable to '93-'94. What I take is that there was a decline even before '94, which is backed from the data. Unfortunately (and annoyingly!) it does not include the data from the years before that, so I guess it is a small pool of 4 seasons. I agree it is not a fair conclusion, but it was surely going down in these 4 seasons before '94.

Schumacher forever#1
Posts: 2847
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 7:29 pm

Re: One Stop or Two?

Post by Schumacher forever#1 »

mikeyg123 wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 8:44 pm
j man wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 4:45 pm
The problem is that once they banned refuelling, the only way to provide strategically interesting races was to use comedy tyres. Contriving a two stop race by deliberately providing poor quality equipment is not the way to go if you ask me. Mandating a two stop race is even worse, it was bad enough mandating the single pitstop in the final year of Bridgestone tyres where you had the farce of drivers making stops on the last lap just to fulfil the requirement because the tyres didn't wear out.

I'd be in favour of bringing back refuelling and getting rid of these silly tyres. When we had it in the past it allowed for two stops to be the fastest race strategy without having to contrive anything, in fact this is presumably where this whole idea that races should have two stops even comes from. Yes that was a fairly dull era in terms of overtaking, but I believe that's because the cars couldn't follow each other rather than anything to do with refuelling itself. With DRS, or better with cars that can actually follow each other, I think the dynamic of the racing would be very different.
Refuelling killed racing. There's actually a graph that shows a huge drop off in overtaking between 93 and 94 and then a huge incline between 09 and 10. That's not all about the cars. They could follow each other a hell of a lot more closely than they can now.

I've never understand why high degradation tyres are seen as artificial? I just think they're a but fairy cakes to see race after race because nobody actually ever gets to drive fast.
I don't either. The only artificial thing really is forcing drivers to use two different sets of tyres. It's a Grand Prix, not a sprint race, and we should expect teams to need to pit at least once. Either that or make races longer.

It's true that we shouldn't be watching drivers conserve their tyres to the extreme extent needed today, but that's the fault of Pirelli's tyre design, not because of the goal to have multiple pit stop strategies.
"Always believe you will become the best, but never believe you have done so"

mikeyg123
Posts: 17827
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm

Re: One Stop or Two?

Post by mikeyg123 »

Siao7 wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 11:02 am
mikeyg123 wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 10:52 am
He also said "the drop off that year looks like the continuation of an existing trend"

I don't think that's a fair conclusion based on the data. He's trying to frame the data in a way to make it sound like it's saying what he wants it to when in reality I don't think it is saying that.
But you also had '91-'92, to the tune of 90 or so overtakes, directly comparable to '93-'94. What I take is that there was a decline even before '94, which is backed from the data. Unfortunately (and annoyingly!) it does not include the data from the years before that, so I guess it is a small pool of 4 seasons. I agree it is not a fair conclusion, but it was surely going down in these 4 seasons before '94.
I'm not denying that. In my post I discuss it dropping. I mention it dropped more between 93 and 94 than 90-93 combined.

Siao7
Posts: 8633
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am

Re: One Stop or Two?

Post by Siao7 »

Schumacher forever#1 wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 11:27 am
mikeyg123 wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 8:44 pm
j man wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 4:45 pm
The problem is that once they banned refuelling, the only way to provide strategically interesting races was to use comedy tyres. Contriving a two stop race by deliberately providing poor quality equipment is not the way to go if you ask me. Mandating a two stop race is even worse, it was bad enough mandating the single pitstop in the final year of Bridgestone tyres where you had the farce of drivers making stops on the last lap just to fulfil the requirement because the tyres didn't wear out.

I'd be in favour of bringing back refuelling and getting rid of these silly tyres. When we had it in the past it allowed for two stops to be the fastest race strategy without having to contrive anything, in fact this is presumably where this whole idea that races should have two stops even comes from. Yes that was a fairly dull era in terms of overtaking, but I believe that's because the cars couldn't follow each other rather than anything to do with refuelling itself. With DRS, or better with cars that can actually follow each other, I think the dynamic of the racing would be very different.
Refuelling killed racing. There's actually a graph that shows a huge drop off in overtaking between 93 and 94 and then a huge incline between 09 and 10. That's not all about the cars. They could follow each other a hell of a lot more closely than they can now.

I've never understand why high degradation tyres are seen as artificial? I just think they're a but fairy cakes to see race after race because nobody actually ever gets to drive fast.
I don't either. The only artificial thing really is forcing drivers to use two different sets of tyres. It's a Grand Prix, not a sprint race, and we should expect teams to need to pit at least once. Either that or make races longer.

It's true that we shouldn't be watching drivers conserve their tyres to the extreme extent needed today, but that's the fault of Pirelli's tyre design, not because of the goal to have multiple pit stop strategies.
Wasn't it that Pirelli produces the tyres to the exact spec that was given to them? So they are not really at fault here.

Siao7
Posts: 8633
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am

Re: One Stop or Two?

Post by Siao7 »

mikeyg123 wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 11:33 am
Siao7 wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 11:02 am
mikeyg123 wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 10:52 am
He also said "the drop off that year looks like the continuation of an existing trend"

I don't think that's a fair conclusion based on the data. He's trying to frame the data in a way to make it sound like it's saying what he wants it to when in reality I don't think it is saying that.
But you also had '91-'92, to the tune of 90 or so overtakes, directly comparable to '93-'94. What I take is that there was a decline even before '94, which is backed from the data. Unfortunately (and annoyingly!) it does not include the data from the years before that, so I guess it is a small pool of 4 seasons. I agree it is not a fair conclusion, but it was surely going down in these 4 seasons before '94.
I'm not denying that. In my post I discuss it dropping. I mention it dropped more between 93 and 94 than 90-93 combined.
The discussion was that the overtakes were in decline before the refuelling was introduced in 1994. That's about it really.

Not denying that refuelling worsened it, but it was there already. For me these stats are skewed anyway, for example in 1990 we had 19 teams with close to 40 drivers. Of course there were more overtakes with a larger number of drivers. If they also had 20 races instead of 16, the numbers would have been very different.

mikeyg123
Posts: 17827
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm

Re: One Stop or Two?

Post by mikeyg123 »

Siao7 wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 12:10 pm
mikeyg123 wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 11:33 am
Siao7 wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 11:02 am
mikeyg123 wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 10:52 am
He also said "the drop off that year looks like the continuation of an existing trend"

I don't think that's a fair conclusion based on the data. He's trying to frame the data in a way to make it sound like it's saying what he wants it to when in reality I don't think it is saying that.
But you also had '91-'92, to the tune of 90 or so overtakes, directly comparable to '93-'94. What I take is that there was a decline even before '94, which is backed from the data. Unfortunately (and annoyingly!) it does not include the data from the years before that, so I guess it is a small pool of 4 seasons. I agree it is not a fair conclusion, but it was surely going down in these 4 seasons before '94.
I'm not denying that. In my post I discuss it dropping. I mention it dropped more between 93 and 94 than 90-93 combined.
The discussion was that the overtakes were in decline before the refuelling was introduced in 1994. That's about it really.

Not denying that refuelling worsened it, but it was there already. For me these stats are skewed anyway, for example in 1990 we had 19 teams with close to 40 drivers. Of course there were more overtakes with a larger number of drivers. If they also had 20 races instead of 16, the numbers would have been very different.

TBF though only 26 drivers ever started a race. The overtakes per race stat is also shown as well.

Siao7
Posts: 8633
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am

Re: One Stop or Two?

Post by Siao7 »

mikeyg123 wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 12:16 pm
Siao7 wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 12:10 pm
mikeyg123 wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 11:33 am
Siao7 wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 11:02 am
mikeyg123 wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 10:52 am
He also said "the drop off that year looks like the continuation of an existing trend"

I don't think that's a fair conclusion based on the data. He's trying to frame the data in a way to make it sound like it's saying what he wants it to when in reality I don't think it is saying that.
But you also had '91-'92, to the tune of 90 or so overtakes, directly comparable to '93-'94. What I take is that there was a decline even before '94, which is backed from the data. Unfortunately (and annoyingly!) it does not include the data from the years before that, so I guess it is a small pool of 4 seasons. I agree it is not a fair conclusion, but it was surely going down in these 4 seasons before '94.
I'm not denying that. In my post I discuss it dropping. I mention it dropped more between 93 and 94 than 90-93 combined.
The discussion was that the overtakes were in decline before the refuelling was introduced in 1994. That's about it really.

Not denying that refuelling worsened it, but it was there already. For me these stats are skewed anyway, for example in 1990 we had 19 teams with close to 40 drivers. Of course there were more overtakes with a larger number of drivers. If they also had 20 races instead of 16, the numbers would have been very different.

TBF though only 26 drivers ever started a race. The overtakes per race stat is also shown as well.
That's true

Rockie
Posts: 2192
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am

Re: One Stop or Two?

Post by Rockie »

Tyres are not the problem in F1 now its the PU, everyone is worried about pushing components to fail, even if there are 5 stops teams are not going to go faster than needed.

User avatar
Jezza13
Posts: 2395
Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Location: Far side of Koozebane

Re: One Stop or Two?

Post by Jezza13 »

Ideally for me we'd have a situation that a team could chose what ever tyre they wanted & ran whatever tyre strategy they preferred.

If team A wanted to roll the dice & put on a tyre hard enough to allow a no stopper then go for it. If team B wanted to go a very soft 3 stop strategy then do it. Let the teams decide how they run their race.

We need more strategic options in the sport & opening up the tyre regs to give the teams more a greater range of choices could be a good starting point.
Only took 7 yrs, 5 mths & 21 days.

Cooper, Arrows, Brabham, Ligier, Lotus, Tyrrell, Minardi, McLaren, Sauber, Williams,

Remember the garagista's. The heart & soul of F1. They raced to race.

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)

Schumacher forever#1
Posts: 2847
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 7:29 pm

Re: One Stop or Two?

Post by Schumacher forever#1 »

Siao7 wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 11:46 am
Schumacher forever#1 wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 11:27 am
mikeyg123 wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 8:44 pm
j man wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 4:45 pm
The problem is that once they banned refuelling, the only way to provide strategically interesting races was to use comedy tyres. Contriving a two stop race by deliberately providing poor quality equipment is not the way to go if you ask me. Mandating a two stop race is even worse, it was bad enough mandating the single pitstop in the final year of Bridgestone tyres where you had the farce of drivers making stops on the last lap just to fulfil the requirement because the tyres didn't wear out.

I'd be in favour of bringing back refuelling and getting rid of these silly tyres. When we had it in the past it allowed for two stops to be the fastest race strategy without having to contrive anything, in fact this is presumably where this whole idea that races should have two stops even comes from. Yes that was a fairly dull era in terms of overtaking, but I believe that's because the cars couldn't follow each other rather than anything to do with refuelling itself. With DRS, or better with cars that can actually follow each other, I think the dynamic of the racing would be very different.
Refuelling killed racing. There's actually a graph that shows a huge drop off in overtaking between 93 and 94 and then a huge incline between 09 and 10. That's not all about the cars. They could follow each other a hell of a lot more closely than they can now.

I've never understand why high degradation tyres are seen as artificial? I just think they're a but fairy cakes to see race after race because nobody actually ever gets to drive fast.
I don't either. The only artificial thing really is forcing drivers to use two different sets of tyres. It's a Grand Prix, not a sprint race, and we should expect teams to need to pit at least once. Either that or make races longer.

It's true that we shouldn't be watching drivers conserve their tyres to the extreme extent needed today, but that's the fault of Pirelli's tyre design, not because of the goal to have multiple pit stop strategies.
Wasn't it that Pirelli produces the tyres to the exact spec that was given to them? So they are not really at fault here.
Pirelli aren't given much of a chance to test their tyres, so I do sympathise with them in some regard. But they have gone backwards, and I doubt very much if this is what the FIA were looking for. They're completely susceptible to degradation caused by overheating, and driving them at 80% means you can do a Leclerc or Ocon and outlast their supposed life by several laps. There is no linear trend of degradation - only that if you push them hard, they last a couple of laps, or if you drive cautiously, they have the potential to last a whole race.
"Always believe you will become the best, but never believe you have done so"

Siao7
Posts: 8633
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am

Re: One Stop or Two?

Post by Siao7 »

Jezza13 wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 12:23 pm
Ideally for me we'd have a situation that a team could chose what ever tyre they wanted & ran whatever tyre strategy they preferred.

If team A wanted to roll the dice & put on a tyre hard enough to allow a no stopper then go for it. If team B wanted to go a very soft 3 stop strategy then do it. Let the teams decide how they run their race.

We need more strategic options in the sport & opening up the tyre regs to give the teams more a greater range of choices could be a good starting point.
Yes, 100%. Although I would think that after a while they would wise up to what strategy works best for what track and they would follow suit. But it would be a good few fun races until then! Just open it up, if it doesn't work then do something else

User avatar
tootsie323
Posts: 3176
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am

Re: One Stop or Two?

Post by tootsie323 »

mikeyg123 wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 11:33 am
Siao7 wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 11:02 am
mikeyg123 wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 10:52 am
He also said "the drop off that year looks like the continuation of an existing trend"

I don't think that's a fair conclusion based on the data. He's trying to frame the data in a way to make it sound like it's saying what he wants it to when in reality I don't think it is saying that.
But you also had '91-'92, to the tune of 90 or so overtakes, directly comparable to '93-'94. What I take is that there was a decline even before '94, which is backed from the data. Unfortunately (and annoyingly!) it does not include the data from the years before that, so I guess it is a small pool of 4 seasons. I agree it is not a fair conclusion, but it was surely going down in these 4 seasons before '94.
I'm not denying that. In my post I discuss it dropping. I mention it dropped more between 93 and 94 than 90-93 combined.
Analysis (anally, using Cusum) does suggest a step change between 1993 and 1994 and again between 2009 and 2010. As stated, without the data going further back than 1990, the first 'step' does not end itself to a powerful argument. However, I;d say that it;s more then just a little coincidental that refuelling regulations changed at these times.
Where I'm going, I don't need roads

User avatar
Flash2k11
Posts: 2931
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:06 pm
Location: England
Contact:

Re: One Stop or Two?

Post by Flash2k11 »

Perhaps a return to Bridgestone era tyres, coupled with a mandated maximum stint length? The tyre whisperers would still get a bit of an advantage if they can use their softness on the tyres to attack each lap a bit harder and it would avoid the farcical situation of tyres falling to bits the second the sun comes out or the cars get a bit too quick ( :uhoh: ). It'd take a bit of jigging but a maximum stint length coupled with the right amount of grip loss on the tyres could still produce strategy differences....

It's still an artificial thing to do, but so is making cheese tyres or imposing draconian tyre pressures/camber limits.
2018 Pick 10 Champion

j man
Posts: 3494
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Location: UK

Re: One Stop or Two?

Post by j man »

mikeyg123 wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 11:33 am
Siao7 wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 11:02 am
mikeyg123 wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 10:52 am
He also said "the drop off that year looks like the continuation of an existing trend"

I don't think that's a fair conclusion based on the data. He's trying to frame the data in a way to make it sound like it's saying what he wants it to when in reality I don't think it is saying that.
But you also had '91-'92, to the tune of 90 or so overtakes, directly comparable to '93-'94. What I take is that there was a decline even before '94, which is backed from the data. Unfortunately (and annoyingly!) it does not include the data from the years before that, so I guess it is a small pool of 4 seasons. I agree it is not a fair conclusion, but it was surely going down in these 4 seasons before '94.
I'm not denying that. In my post I discuss it dropping. I mention it dropped more between 93 and 94 than 90-93 combined.
Another way of interpreting that part of the graph is that the drop from 93-94 is similar to the drop from 91-92.

I just disagree with the statement that "refuelling killed racing". There are many factors dictating the trends on that graph, and despite the fairly decent correlation I just don't think refuelling is one of the main ones. "Aerodynamics killed racing" (or at least the excessive reliance on it, aero devices of course existed in the sport for decades prior to 1994) would be my view.

WHoff78
Posts: 776
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:01 pm

Re: One Stop or Two?

Post by WHoff78 »

One idea that goes a little bit against my earlier post, but still leaves the door open for different strategies – could it work if they enforce a minimum of 2 pit stops if a team chooses to use the softest compound in the race.

That way teams would not be able to just use that tyre, and run round at 80% to eek out sufficient pace to offset the time lost for the extra pit stop. They would have to push.

I think that you would end up with the majority of the teams using the two harder compounds, but at least it would be abundantly clear from the lack of selection whether there was not enough pace in the soft tyre to justify a 2-stop strategy. This would allow them to work with the softest compound until they get it to a point where the pace advantage brings it into play and more teams use it. Teams can also still switch to the softest tyre in the later stages if they decide to pull the plug and go for an extra stop.

One downside is that you would know as soon as the team fits the tyre that they are locked in to a 2-stop so it would eliminate the element of surprise, but I would expect that most of the teams can predict this after gauging the pace for a couple of laps anyway.

Are there any other obvious downsides?

Paolo_Lasardi
Posts: 2566
Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm

Re: One Stop or Two?

Post by Paolo_Lasardi »

Jezza13 wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 12:23 pm
Ideally for me we'd have a situation that a team could chose what ever tyre they wanted & ran whatever tyre strategy they preferred.

If team A wanted to roll the dice & put on a tyre hard enough to allow a no stopper then go for it. If team B wanted to go a very soft 3 stop strategy then do it. Let the teams decide how they run their race.

We need more strategic options in the sport & opening up the tyre regs to give the teams more a greater range of choices could be a good starting point.
I do not think that this would work because of two factors:
- excessive reliance on advanced computer simulations: as long as nothing unpredictable happens, everyone will converge to the same " optimal" strategy. This is also the reason why predictably degrading tyres won't work.
- conservative mind of the teams: the teams have become obsessed with risk-aversity, especially the leading ones. This is further promoted by a lack of fresh ideas from new competitors. F1 really has become very static with the same ten incumbent teams year-in year-out. And within this static structure, the same three teams compete for race wins. Never before there has been such a long period of just three teams winning.

The first factor is IMO the biggest difference of the modern era compared to earlier eras. It cannot be changed. Only if taking risks ( strategy-wise) becomes systematically more attractive, strategy variety may come back ( more often than in the odd race). In other words, unpredictable things must be increased. That's why the "artificial' stuff like unnecessary safety cars, unpredictable tyre degradation, surprise changes of camber and pressure, etc. are so "popular".
The second factor is the fault of FIA/Ecclestone and the cost structures and revenue allocations as well as the governance structures they created. Liberty struggles to depart from these arrangements due to the power of the big teams (resulting from a severe lack of potential new competitors) and the lack of support by FIA ( showing zero interest in bringing in new competitors ).

Post Reply