'%20x='0'%20y='0'%20height='100%25'%20width='100%25'%20%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20xlink%3Ahref=''%3E%3C/image%3E%3C/svg%3E)
If it ain’t broke why change it. But the Formula One top-brass doesn’t seem to agree with the thought. Why else would they want to make pit stops mandatory? The reason for tweaking the rules was based on fears emphasized by tyre suppliers Pirelli that the new 1.6 ltr V6 turbo-charged engines for 2014 would make tyres degrade faster and might lead to a Silverstone like catastrophe on the track.
But does Formula One require another outrageous rule change that makes the whole racing experience even more boring? Or is it that enforcing the rule will pose a new challenge for teams and drivers and make the sport exciting? Read on to get a better view.
How does it help?
A two stop will allow a shift the focus from tyre change to complete racing
So what does a mandatory stop mean for the team and drivers? It would mean a reduced emphasis on tyre strategy for teams, which would eventually shift the focus to full-throttle racing instead of drivers worrying about stretching their Pirelli’s for a longer life and gain an advantage during the race.
But currently a single pit-stop is mandated to switch from the Pirelli’s prime to option tyre’s over the course of the race. That in itself adds to the challenge as teams and drivers need to find a set-up which works for both tyres. In affect it adds a further tactical dimension to the races, particularly when one tyre is poorly suited to the track and track conditions define the choice of tyres. So isn’t that making a rule redundancy? The rule could also lead teams to devise artificial and contrived strategies. A driver could postpone his pit-stop stop until he has build the time-gap to dash into the pits and manage to stay ahead.
Just another needles rule?
The mandatory pit stop seems like another needless rule.
A team like Force India which has had success in executing a one stop strategy quite successfully(with Paul di Resta at the Canadian GP and both drivers at Abu Dhabi) wouldn’t want the rule to take away their advantage. Most tracks need drivers to stop for two times in the race anyhow, rendering the proposed idea useless. While most teams might run on similar strategies, the one who manages the tyre-degradation better gains the upper-hand and one who gamble’s on a different strategy stands a chance of gaining advantage bringing in the surprise element. Then why not leave the decision of choosing a pit-stop strategy with the teams?
It probably is a way of Pirelli, who are wary of the new regulations, saying to the FIA that they be provided with more testing opportunity and not be made a scapegoat if the tyres don’t live upto the expectations of making racing excting.
While the fans would want the pit-stop strategy to be a part of the race experience, it’s the overtaking on track that makes a race exciting to watch. The rule is a needless complication that makes the sport steer away from pure racing and more about satisfying the arbitrary demands of the rule-makers and in this case the tyre suppliers as well. There are saner things to worry about in Formula One.
