r/F1Technical • u/jv2599 • 15d ago
Tyres & Strategy Why were 1-stop pit stops so popular this year, at tracks that didn’t have them before?
What was with the 1-stops this year?
Why were there so many tracks that were historically two stoppers turned into a one stopper this year?
Watching F1 TV this year there were at least three times when they predicted it to be a two stopper due to history then it wasn’t just a driver or two, but like a majority of the grid opting for one stop.
Honestly kinda miss the two stoppers because you could counter an over/undercut in the next stop but it felt like the one stop eliminated that aspect of strategy.
Examples I can think of is Abu Dhabi, Qatar, Vegas (I know it’s newer but still)
115
222
u/Mysterious_Research2 15d ago
Most of the teams have made significant improvements to the cars that is resulting in less tyre wear than previous years.
1
u/wavdl 12d ago
Then would compensating by enforcing softer tire compounds fix this?
1
u/Skirra08 12d ago
My recollection is that they went a step softer on a lot of tracks already this year.
63
u/Gadoguz994 Ferrari 15d ago
When was Abu Dhabi a preferred 2 stopper? Vegas too was a 1 stopper if not for the safety car in 2023.
In general, teams understand the rules better, and make the cars faster while maintaining equal or better tyre management than before. Plus city circuits aren't really known for being hard on the tyres and we have more of those every year
20
u/therealdilbert 15d ago
and sometimes Pirelly might be a bit too cautious with their compound choices (though at Abu Dhabi they already bring the softest compounds)
11
u/Gadoguz994 Ferrari 15d ago
Abu Dhabi was never too hard on tyres as far as I recall and I can't remember a 2 stopper for the entire grid. There may have been instances where one of the front runners has a massive gap and can afford to stop once again in order to try and chase down the guy in front
2
u/therealdilbert 15d ago
I often onder if a rule where you would be allowed to use only one compound instead of two if you do more than one stop would work. e.g. allow med-med-med instead of hard-med
3
u/Gadoguz994 Ferrari 15d ago
Surely in races where hards are dead slow and softs are useless other than qualifying but those races don't come around too often
1
u/GeologistPrimary2637 14d ago
I wonder what if they do away with the rule of using 2 different dry compounds BUT force a minimum 2 stops or 3 stops depending on tracks. Mighty be stupid but maybe we'll see less tyre saving and pirelli may focus on tyres that doesn't turn to mush after a few fast laps.
1
u/therealdilbert 14d ago
with out different compounds you wouldn't have some being faster or slower in parts of the race depending on when they use eaach compound
1
u/Doorknob11 14d ago edited 14d ago
Abu dhabi was a 2 stopper for almost everybody last year. And the year before that too
1
u/Gadoguz994 Ferrari 14d ago
I just checked and you're right, seems to have changed into a 2 stopper ever since they introduced softer compounds, but still went back to 1 this year. My bad.
Still the other points stand I believe.
6
u/mrkrabz1991 15d ago
I think this is the main reason. Remember, in 2021, the tire blowouts in Azerbaijan. I think that scared Perelli shitless, and they're now way more cautious on their tire choices.
2
23
u/Stupendous_man12 15d ago
Tyre deg always varies year to year at a given track, to a large extent because of weather conditions. But there can also be changes to the track surface if it gets re-paved, changes to kerbs which affect the load through certain corners, and Pirelli may choose a different set of tyre compounds leading to completely different behavior.
I’ll offer a counterexample to the ones you raised. Monza has almost always been a one-stopper in recent times because the long and fast main straight means a large pit stop loss. Charles won with a one-stop strategy, but most of the field did a two-stop.
5
u/Cantshaktheshok 15d ago
the long and fast main straight means a large pit stop loss
It would be great if newer tracks were designed to help minimize that loss. There is a huge difference between a 20 second loss in a pit stop and 30. Silverstone for example works really well, where Monza and most other tracks are just simple placements on one of the fastest straights of the track.
6
u/BobbbyR6 15d ago
Tires didn't drop off enough and often the differences between medium and hard were not white and black.
I'd definitely like to see much more deg on the hards or at least less grip. 2 stoppers are objectively more interesting, so it would be cool to see something other than MH/HM endurance strats.
20
u/zeroscout 15d ago
One stop is always going to be the preferred strategy. Two stop is going to place a burden of an on track pass and at the mercy of slower cars.
I agree with you on two stops. Perhaps all three compounds should be required during the race.
13
u/Mtbnz 15d ago
Is there a reason you'd make the rule 'run all 3 compounds' vs '2 mandatory pitstops'? It seems that the former restricts strategy more by making 2 stints on one compound extremely unlikely, no?
7
u/MMEnter 15d ago
Having to use all three means that you end up on the least good compound for a stint leading to more of a tire offset. A driver needing to get in the soft’s with 5 laps to go while everyone else opted for them early could be fun or vice versa. Driver starting on softs and everyone else on hards. Combine it with no more pitting under flags and you got yourself an race!
5
u/Mtbnz 15d ago
That's true, if/when that happens it could lead to some interesting offsets. But it seems more likely to me that if that was the rule, the high risk/high reward nature of going alternative on strategy would lead teams most of the time to stick very close to the predicted approach to avoid putting themselves wildly out of sequence with their competitors. That's also true of the current rule structure and would be the case to an extent with 2 mandatory stops as well, but I think that given the option to run M/M/H or M/H/H etc, along with combinations of the softs, we would see more teams opt for alternative strategies because it reduces the risk/reward gamble into a more acceptable window.
If you go M/H/M and the best strategy turns out to be M/H/H you'll be disadvantaged, but still in with a shot of getting something out of the race. If you gamble on softs at an alternate point in the race to the majority of the field and get it wrong you'd be looking at dropping out of the points, so I don't think teams would take the risk unless they go out in Q1 for example.
1
u/zeroscout 15d ago
I think it would have a huge effect on strategy and setup. Currently, the teams comprise strategy between two compounds. Having to use all three would force teams to comprise even further. It might also result in a more mixed tire selection on the grid for the start.
But I would be happy to see two stops mandatory too. I think either one would give us fans a little spice in our race weekends!
2
u/Mtbnz 14d ago
When you comprise do you mean compromise? Not a criticism, I'm just trying to follow your line of thought. I wrote this in another response, but I think that 2 mandatory stops would encourage more diversity of strategies than requiring all 3 compounds because the risk of getting it massively wrong is reduced. Given that the biggest determining factor in F1's pecking order is car performance, the only reasons teams tend to opt deliberately for an alternate strategy is if they qualify out of position and need to do the opposite of the field to reclaim lost places. So requiring them to run all 3 compounds would probably force top teams to go ultra conservative in tyre strategy because the risk of getting it wrong is far more costly than the benefit of getting it right, unless they're starting at the back.
Whereas simply mandating 2 stops would allow them to be more conservative with tyre strategies than running softs every race while still providing more strategic variety than we have right now. With the latter approach you'd see a lot more variety of MHM, MHH, MMH, maybe even SMH or MSH, whereas I think mandating all 3 compounds would just see most teams run MHS every race in order to avoid the risk. 2 stops with free choice of compounds would also probably mix up the pitstop windows more, whereas 3 compounds would just see every team run the same strategy in more or less the same window.
I honestly think that mandating teams to run all 3 compounds might even result in less variety in pit strategy than we have right now.
1
u/zeroscout 14d ago
Whoops. Yes, I meant compromise. Thanks for catching that.
I do agree with your logic. It might be a little bit of bias in me to see the softs used during the races.
1
u/mkosmo 14d ago
I just want refueling back.
2
u/therealdilbert 14d ago
why?
1
u/mkosmo 14d ago
Fuel loads being considered in strategy would make it more exciting again.
2
2
4
1
u/BigBill58 15d ago
Could they ever try out something like “start the race on the tyre you qualified on” and see what happens? Or would everyone just start qualifying on mediums and the soft tyres would never get used at all?
4
u/ComaMierdaHijueputa 15d ago
They already did that prior to 2022, and they eliminated it as soon as the ground effect cars came in because of how horrible a rule it was.
1
u/kittenbloc 14d ago
the rule was for q2 tyres. i think it could be interesting if everyone started on softs but probably very little actual strategy because it's just going to be everyone pitting on lap 5.
a change that needs to happen is that a tyre change shouldn't count if it happens under one-quarter race distance (so before lap 15 in a 60 lap race), and that would avoid the Monaco 2024 debacle.
5
u/BisectingPlanes 15d ago
One thing not mentioned here is with teams being much closer this year, track position was more important than pure race pace. As such, one stoppers were preferred
4
u/ualeftie 15d ago
The teams are looking for the fastest possible race completion time, however that might be achieved.
It is one of the reasons the drivers are not pushing and saving tyres to extend the stints. While counter intuitive, it actually achieves faster race completion time.
The field spread is lower this year, which meant you are to more likely to lose all asvantage from fresher tyres because of traffic. So, again, go slower to go further.
Regulations being stable means all teams have more optimized packages as well, so they are more efficient at racing them.
If driving backwards was the fastest way to complete a race distance, every single team would be doing it without any hesitation.
1
2
u/newsiesunited 15d ago
Does this provide an argument to move at least some races to a softer set of compounds to force more pit stops?
Pirelli is already pushed to have tire deg so that pit strategy actually comes into play, so why not take the next logical step and slide the tire selection down the scale a notch? Maybe make teams’ pit strat decisions a little harder.
Or are there reasons that’s an awful idea? Would the softs in that case not even stand up to one lap (which would be crazy dangerous)?
2
2
1
u/Carlpanzram1916 15d ago
The teams got better at extending tire life. Overtaking became more difficult as the cars developed more turbulent air so pit stops became more costly due to loss of track position. So the cars evolved a little bit the racing strategy evolved towards a 1-stop as well. There were also a few tracks that were unusually cool as a result of the calendar getting shifted around and a few oddities in the weather.
1
u/ThePiousInfant 14d ago
Less tire wear because cars are improving.
Number of laps needed to make up for a 20-30s pit stop loss increases because laps are faster (because cars are improving).
Overtaking is harder because more efficient cars cause more turbulence. (And also DRS zones kept getting shortened as an overreaction to passing last year).
You can opportunistically turn a 1 stopper into a cheap 2 stopper with the right safety cars. We had a long stretch of no safety cars this season.
1
u/bbqtoechips 15d ago
Should just make them use all 3 compounds. It would make better racing because you aren't going to be good on all three compounds.
1
u/1234iamfer 15d ago
They also changed the calender, moved some races to different times of the year, different weather because of that.
1
u/Karyudo9 14d ago
It's ridiculous that pitstops take so long now (total time; not time stopped). There should be track mods to reduce total time lost due to making a stop to about half what it is now. Like, put the pit exit past a corner or three further down the track. Or on your exit lap you get to skip a chicane or something. If the time loss were around 10 seconds instead of 20+, then you'd see more stops, and more competitive battles late in the race.
0
u/Appropriate_Ad_8566 14d ago
I've been saying for over 15 years that all races should have two mandatory stops. It just allows for so much more strategy wise that it would improve most races.
0
u/custard130 15d ago
making a pitstop costs 20 - 30 seconds
if a team doesnt think they will make that time back up by having fresh tires they wont make an extra stop
even if its marginal which is better they will normally prefer less stops, because extra pitstop is extra chance of something going wrong and will often require fighting way back through traffic
2
u/therealdilbert 14d ago
making a pitstop costs 20 - 30 seconds
so need to make up ~0.5sec per lap over the ~60 laps of a race
1
u/custard130 14d ago
0.5s a lap is a pretty big time delta even for fresher tires at many circuits
particularly when you factor in having to get through traffic
sometimes teams will try it, but generally they will choose the fewest stops they can
0
u/davidindigitaland 14d ago
I'd ask you to imagine you are driving a genuinely fast car. On hard or medium tyres you get away with a ONE STOP. It's also true to do so tyre conservation has be a priority of the driver, this feature of racing prowess has been displayed multiple GPs. If you can't keep the tyres in "the zone" you re likely to be in for another set before your rive
there is critsism and speculation over the current F1 tyre supplier, personally I would go with 2 suppliers. Why Pirreli has such a stranglehold I'd be grateful to hear.
3
u/mattiestrattie 14d ago
Tyre wars lead to two things and neither of them are good.
-The teams with the good tyres are at a huge advantage over the others. In the first year of Bridgestone running they managed to turn an average Prost chassis and an average Arrows chassis into podium contenders. Inevitably there was a huge run away from Goodyear and they were out of the sport altogether a couple of years later.
-Either the pace of development leads to wildly spiralling costs on all sides, or you lock development and end up in the same situation as every other locked part, where the advantage gained in one good development period can last for years at a time.
Here's Autosport with more on why very few people in any motorsport discipline want tyre wars back.
•
u/AutoModerator 15d ago
We remind everyone that this sub is for technical discussions.
If you are new to the sub, please read our rules and comment etiquette post.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.