2025 Canadian Grand Prix - Montreal, June 13 - 15

[search]

McLaren and VCARB will be strongest here.

They are usually relatively good when a track requires traction and breaking stability indeed, but is there really any indication that VCARB will be one of the best two teams?!

[f1316]

Watching the 2007 race, I think they should bring back the rule where you can’t pit under the safety car.

It didn’t work under the refuelling era because folks might run out of fuel if they didn’t come in - so they had no option than to take the penalty - but that’s no longer an issue. Given that these days teams design their strategies around the possibility of a safety car and therefore prefer to nurse tyres than push hard and take more stops, these would nullify that and incentivise more aggressive strategies.

Not really about this year’s GP but I was watching the Canadian GP of 2007 when it occurred to me, so thought I would share.

[Seanspeed]

Watching the 2007 race, I think they should bring back the rule where you can’t pit under the safety car.

It didn’t work under the refuelling era because folks might run out of fuel if they didn’t come in - so they had no option than to take the penalty - but that’s no longer an issue. Given that these days teams design their strategies around the possibility of a safety car and therefore prefer to nurse tyres than push hard and take more stops, these would nullify that and incentivise more aggressive strategies.

Not really about this year’s GP but I was watching the Canadian GP of 2007 when it occurred to me, so thought I would share.

So your intention is create a more 'fair' competitive situation, but banning pitting under a full safety car just makes things a lot worse, depending on timing. For example, if you're about to hit your pit window and were building for a specific gap, but then a safety car comes out and stops you from being able to pit, and then everybody bunches up, but you STILL have to pit after it ends, you're gonna be thrown to the back of the field and probably by a sizeable margin.

That's obviously a seriously unfair and terrible situation, and wouldn't even be that uncommon, either.

That said, I do think it might make sense to ban pitstops under a VIRTUAL safety car rather than a full safety car. VSC's should be a complete 'pause' of the race without actually stopping the race. That was always the intention of its introduction in the first place. So there should be no harm in banning pitstops under it in order to preserve the competitive picture once things resume.

[f1316]

Watching the 2007 race, I think they should bring back the rule where you can’t pit under the safety car.

It didn’t work under the refuelling era because folks might run out of fuel if they didn’t come in - so they had no option than to take the penalty - but that’s no longer an issue. Given that these days teams design their strategies around the possibility of a safety car and therefore prefer to nurse tyres than push hard and take more stops, these would nullify that and incentivise more aggressive strategies.

Not really about this year’s GP but I was watching the Canadian GP of 2007 when it occurred to me, so thought I would share.

So your intention is create a more 'fair' competitive situation, but banning pitting under a full safety car just makes things a lot worse, depending on timing. For example, if you're about to hit your pit window and were building for a specific gap, but then a safety car comes out and stops you from being able to pit, and then everybody bunches up, but you STILL have to pit after it ends, you're gonna be thrown to the back of the field and probably by a sizeable margin.

That's obviously a seriously unfair and terrible situation, and wouldn't even be that uncommon, either.

That said, I do think it might make sense to ban pitstops under a VIRTUAL safety car rather than a full safety car. VSC's should be a complete 'pause' of the race without actually stopping the race. That was always the intention of its introduction in the first place. So there should be no harm in banning pitstops under it in order to preserve the competitive picture once things resume.

There’s just as much unfairness that happens all the time now - just look at the laments of Leclerc and Alonso at Imola. It happens all the time that people luck into a safety car pistop (Norris winning the sprint in Miami, for example) but more importantly it creates unadventurous strategies because safety cars happen so much more frequently than they used to, so it’s statistically safer to make your strategy include them.

But I’m not suggesting this to be more “fair” (that was your word), I’m suggesting it to make the races more interesting.

[search]

Indycar immediately closed the pits for years, but I don't think it really let to more interesting racing - just more random winners, at the leaders always ended up at the back.

As a result, now they usually delay the caution and only throw it when everyone has entered pit road. F1 would probably do the same, and launch the VSC first.

edit: and with Briatore back in F1, it's probably off the table anyway

[SiLo]

Indycar immediately closed the pits for years, but I don't think it really let to more interesting racing - just more random winners, at the leaders always ended up at the back.

As a result, now they usually delay the caution and only throw it when everyone has entered pit road. F1 would probably do the same, and launch the VSC first.

edit: and with Briatore back in F1, it's probably off the table anyway

It would stop people driving long and slow on a 1 stop hoping for a safety car.

[Big Tea]

Watching the 2007 race, I think they should bring back the rule where you can’t pit under the safety car.

It didn’t work under the refuelling era because folks might run out of fuel if they didn’t come in - so they had no option than to take the penalty - but that’s no longer an issue. Given that these days teams design their strategies around the possibility of a safety car and therefore prefer to nurse tyres than push hard and take more stops, these would nullify that and incentivise more aggressive strategies.

Not really about this year’s GP but I was watching the Canadian GP of 2007 when it occurred to me, so thought I would share.

So your intention is create a more 'fair' competitive situation, but banning pitting under a full safety car just makes things a lot worse, depending on timing. For example, if you're about to hit your pit window and were building for a specific gap, but then a safety car comes out and stops you from being able to pit, and then everybody bunches up, but you STILL have to pit after it ends, you're gonna be thrown to the back of the field and probably by a sizeable margin.

That's obviously a seriously unfair and terrible situation, and wouldn't even be that uncommon, either.

That said, I do think it might make sense to ban pitstops under a VIRTUAL safety car rather than a full safety car. VSC's should be a complete 'pause' of the race without actually stopping the race. That was always the intention of its introduction in the first place. So there should be no harm in banning pitstops under it in order to preserve the competitive picture once things resume.

There’s just as much unfairness that happens all the time now - just look at the laments of Leclerc and Alonso at Imola. It happens all the time that people luck into a safety car pistop (Norris winning the sprint in Miami, for example) but more importantly it creates unadventurous strategies because safety cars happen so much more frequently than they used to, so it’s statistically safer to make your strategy include them.

But I’m not suggesting this to be more “fair” (that was your word), I’m suggesting it to make the races more interesting.

The only way they could even it out and keep it sane is if they had a second pit limit button that reduced the speed again, or a set period delay on the pit release light. This ofcourse would open a whole new set of problems and complaints

There are "half baked" options like putting a cone at pit entry so the cars have to go around it, but that is going to be crap

[Wouter]

[f1316]

So your intention is create a more 'fair' competitive situation, but banning pitting under a full safety car just makes things a lot worse, depending on timing. For example, if you're about to hit your pit window and were building for a specific gap, but then a safety car comes out and stops you from being able to pit, and then everybody bunches up, but you STILL have to pit after it ends, you're gonna be thrown to the back of the field and probably by a sizeable margin.

That's obviously a seriously unfair and terrible situation, and wouldn't even be that uncommon, either.

That said, I do think it might make sense to ban pitstops under a VIRTUAL safety car rather than a full safety car. VSC's should be a complete 'pause' of the race without actually stopping the race. That was always the intention of its introduction in the first place. So there should be no harm in banning pitstops under it in order to preserve the competitive picture once things resume.

There’s just as much unfairness that happens all the time now - just look at the laments of Leclerc and Alonso at Imola. It happens all the time that people luck into a safety car pistop (Norris winning the sprint in Miami, for example) but more importantly it creates unadventurous strategies because safety cars happen so much more frequently than they used to, so it’s statistically safer to make your strategy include them.

But I’m not suggesting this to be more “fair” (that was your word), I’m suggesting it to make the races more interesting.

The only way they could even it out and keep it sane is if they had a second pit limit button that reduced the speed again, or a set period delay on the pit release light. This ofcourse would open a whole new set of problems and complaints

There are "half baked" options like putting a cone at pit entry so the cars have to go around it, but that is going to be crap

I know this is now super off topic - so maybe it needs its own thread - but I don’t see why you couldn’t just close the pit lane (with a red light, like they did for a while). Yes, some people will lose out through luck of the draw but that happens now as well and at least this way you are incentivised to pit more during racing speeds, since you know there’s no chance of getting a “free” pit stop under a SC/VSC (which is the current problem).

To be clear: I hated the 2007 rule when there was refuelling - folks had no choice but to come in when they were out of fuel and this made it very unfair, plus fuel was the determining part in how many pit stops folks were doing anyway, so we didn’t have the issue of folks trundling around to eek out a one stop like we do now - but it actually makes a lot of sense in today’s F1.

[Big Tea]

There’s just as much unfairness that happens all the time now - just look at the laments of Leclerc and Alonso at Imola. It happens all the time that people luck into a safety car pistop (Norris winning the sprint in Miami, for example) but more importantly it creates unadventurous strategies because safety cars happen so much more frequently than they used to, so it’s statistically safer to make your strategy include them.

But I’m not suggesting this to be more “fair” (that was your word), I’m suggesting it to make the races more interesting.

The only way they could even it out and keep it sane is if they had a second pit limit button that reduced the speed again, or a set period delay on the pit release light. This ofcourse would open a whole new set of problems and complaints

There are "half baked" options like putting a cone at pit entry so the cars have to go around it, but that is going to be crap

I know this is now super off topic - so maybe it needs its own thread - but I don’t see why you couldn’t just close the pit lane (with a red light, like they did for a while). Yes, some people will lose out through luck of the draw but that happens now as well and at least this way you are incentivised to pit more during racing speeds, since you know there’s no chance of getting a “free” pit stop under a SC/VSC (which is the current problem).

To be clear: I hated the 2007 rule when there was refuelling - folks had no choice but to come in when they were out of fuel and this made it very unfair, plus fuel was the determining part in how many pit stops folks were doing anyway, so we didn’t have the issue of folks trundling around to eek out a one stop like we do now - but it actually makes a lot of sense in today’s F1.

If there is an accident on track it is quite likely other cars would be in need of pitting for punctures as well as bodywork. It would be a shame to spoil the race of "innocent" drivers who just happened to be on the track behind the incident. There could be a list of items allowed to change, but that would just complicate it.

[Seanspeed]

Watching the 2007 race, I think they should bring back the rule where you can’t pit under the safety car.

It didn’t work under the refuelling era because folks might run out of fuel if they didn’t come in - so they had no option than to take the penalty - but that’s no longer an issue. Given that these days teams design their strategies around the possibility of a safety car and therefore prefer to nurse tyres than push hard and take more stops, these would nullify that and incentivise more aggressive strategies.

Not really about this year’s GP but I was watching the Canadian GP of 2007 when it occurred to me, so thought I would share.

So your intention is create a more 'fair' competitive situation, but banning pitting under a full safety car just makes things a lot worse, depending on timing. For example, if you're about to hit your pit window and were building for a specific gap, but then a safety car comes out and stops you from being able to pit, and then everybody bunches up, but you STILL have to pit after it ends, you're gonna be thrown to the back of the field and probably by a sizeable margin.

That's obviously a seriously unfair and terrible situation, and wouldn't even be that uncommon, either.

That said, I do think it might make sense to ban pitstops under a VIRTUAL safety car rather than a full safety car. VSC's should be a complete 'pause' of the race without actually stopping the race. That was always the intention of its introduction in the first place. So there should be no harm in banning pitstops under it in order to preserve the competitive picture once things resume.

There’s just as much unfairness that happens all the time now - just look at the laments of Leclerc and Alonso at Imola. It happens all the time that people luck into a safety car pistop (Norris winning the sprint in Miami, for example) but more importantly it creates unadventurous strategies because safety cars happen so much more frequently than they used to, so it’s statistically safer to make your strategy include them.

But I’m not suggesting this to be more “fair” (that was your word), I’m suggesting it to make the races more interesting.

Again, banning pitstops under VSC makes a lot of sense, while banning pitstops under a full safety car is obviously just awful. It was literally tried before and reverted quickly because of how bad it worked out. And then we got VSC which kind of saved the day and provided a superior alternative when possible.

If you just want races to be more interesting, there's a million ways to achieve that if you dont care about fairness. Maybe introduce a 'fan vote' like in Formula E where viewers get to vote on who they want to have a huge engine power boost over everybody else. Maybe have dice throws during the race which determine if a driver/car have to serve an extra pitstop. Maybe there should be race weekends where there's literally no sporting regulations at all and drivers can do whatever they want.

Fairness of competition should be the #1 goal of all rules inclusions, and anything that provides an 'unfair' situation should be ruled out where possible. Unless you dont view F1 as an actual sport or real competition.

[f1316]

The only way they could even it out and keep it sane is if they had a second pit limit button that reduced the speed again, or a set period delay on the pit release light. This ofcourse would open a whole new set of problems and complaints

There are "half baked" options like putting a cone at pit entry so the cars have to go around it, but that is going to be crap

I know this is now super off topic - so maybe it needs its own thread - but I don’t see why you couldn’t just close the pit lane (with a red light, like they did for a while). Yes, some people will lose out through luck of the draw but that happens now as well and at least this way you are incentivised to pit more during racing speeds, since you know there’s no chance of getting a “free” pit stop under a SC/VSC (which is the current problem).

To be clear: I hated the 2007 rule when there was refuelling - folks had no choice but to come in when they were out of fuel and this made it very unfair, plus fuel was the determining part in how many pit stops folks were doing anyway, so we didn’t have the issue of folks trundling around to eek out a one stop like we do now - but it actually makes a lot of sense in today’s F1.

If there is an accident on track it is quite likely other cars would be in need of pitting for punctures as well as bodywork. It would be a shame to spoil the race of "innocent" drivers who just happened to be on the track behind the incident. There could be a list of items allowed to change, but that would just complicate it.

Yeah, I thought about that too. I reckon you could build in some kind of aspect of “force majeure” where, if you can show that there was a need for repairs, you are able to pit. Given those repairs would drop them to the back of the field, I don’t think this would constitute an advantage.

[f1316]

So your intention is create a more 'fair' competitive situation, but banning pitting under a full safety car just makes things a lot worse, depending on timing. For example, if you're about to hit your pit window and were building for a specific gap, but then a safety car comes out and stops you from being able to pit, and then everybody bunches up, but you STILL have to pit after it ends, you're gonna be thrown to the back of the field and probably by a sizeable margin.

That's obviously a seriously unfair and terrible situation, and wouldn't even be that uncommon, either.

That said, I do think it might make sense to ban pitstops under a VIRTUAL safety car rather than a full safety car. VSC's should be a complete 'pause' of the race without actually stopping the race. That was always the intention of its introduction in the first place. So there should be no harm in banning pitstops under it in order to preserve the competitive picture once things resume.

There’s just as much unfairness that happens all the time now - just look at the laments of Leclerc and Alonso at Imola. It happens all the time that people luck into a safety car pistop (Norris winning the sprint in Miami, for example) but more importantly it creates unadventurous strategies because safety cars happen so much more frequently than they used to, so it’s statistically safer to make your strategy include them.

But I’m not suggesting this to be more “fair” (that was your word), I’m suggesting it to make the races more interesting.

Again, banning pitstops under VSC makes a lot of sense, while banning pitstops under a full safety car is obviously just awful. It was literally tried before and reverted quickly because of how bad it worked out. And then we got VSC which kind of saved the day and provided a superior alternative when possible.

If you just want races to be more interesting, there's a million ways to achieve that if you dont care about fairness. Maybe introduce a 'fan vote' like in Formula E where viewers get to vote on who they want to have a huge engine power boost over everybody else. Maybe have dice throws during the race which determine if a driver/car have to serve an extra pitstop. Maybe there should be race weekends where there's literally no sporting regulations at all and drivers can do whatever they want.

Fairness of competition should be the #1 goal of all rules inclusions, and anything that provides an 'unfair' situation should be ruled out where possible. Unless you dont view F1 as an actual sport or real competition.

I don’t understand why you think this is would be more unfair than it currently is?

[venkyhere]

How about this ?
SC/VSC/RedFlag - let it continue to operate the way it is right now - allowing 'free'/'almost free' pitstops to change tyre/do repairs etc etc.
Only with one change - the pitstops made in non-green flag conditions won't be 'counted' as a valid tyre change. So the 'benefit' will be dimished to only the 2nd/3rd pitstop and beyond, and never to the 1st pitstop. Only green flag tyre changes will be counted as a 'change'. This way, the 'safety' need for keeping pitlane open under SC/VSC/Red isn't taken away, at the same time the 'free' stop is denied as well.

[search]

I don’t understand why you think this is would be more unfair than it currently is?

With the current rules we have minor unfairnesses. Sometimes drivers win or lose 10s because they can pit under (V)SC, and thereby gain/lose a position or two. With a "closed pits" rule, the leaders will drop basically to last, just because everyone not competing for the win will gamble on early pit stops anyway.

And I also struggle to see how it will shift things away from one-stoppers. People will just stop earlier to avoid bad luck situation, and manage tires afterwards.