The next format experiment Formula 1 should try

As Formula 1 chiefs bed down to debate whether it is Pirelli or Bridgestone that wins grand prix racing’s new tyre contract from 2025, debate has inevitably intensified about the impact of this call on the spectacle.

Both F1 and Pirelli itself are well aware that grand prix racing has undergone a period where the Sunday show has fluctuated a great deal depending on the characteristics of the rubber. At all points, Pirelli has followed the demands of the series bosses – as the requirements have bounced between high degradation tyres and low degradation tyres, going softer with compounds and then harder again – and all the time battling the frustrations of the current testing rules plus the challenges of ever-faster and heavier machinery.

But in a year where Red Bull dominance has prompted some deeper probing about the elements that make a good F1 ‘show’, there seems to be a pretty well-grounded consensus that two-stop races are much more exciting than one-stoppers. They not only produce shorter stints where drivers can push more and so aren’t locked into maximum tyre whisperer management mode, but they open the door to something that has often proved critical to a good F1 race: strategic variation.

PLUS: Has F1’s tyre mandate reached the end of the line?

As the performance of the grid has closed up, with now tenths of a second in performance separating cars, it is almost impossible to expect overtakes if everyone is trapped in a DRS train and running the same tyres.

The original intention of high degradation tyres forcing pit stops was to ensure that at various stages of the race, cars would be offset in their performance – and it was the added grip from fresher rubber over older tyres that would be a key component in delivering overtaking. As F1 has moved away from the high degradation era, so too have races shifted more and more towards being one-stops. And the worst kind of one-stops are when there is almost zero degradation and drivers are touring around managing the gaps to make sure they can simply get to the finish.

There is a desire from both F1 bosses and Pirelli to try to deliver two-stop races as often as possible, but it is something that is much harder to achieve than appears at first glance.

Races have increasingly shifted to become one-stop affairs in recent years

Photo by: Mark Sutton / Motorsport Images

The most logical way to ensure two-stops would be to deliver softer tyres, which degrade more and therefore cannot be managed to get through races without extra stops. But F1 strategists and drivers are a clever bunch and, while the intention of going softer with rubber would appear to push them in one direction, they actually can often end up doing the complete opposite - as the lessons of 2018 well prove.

Pirelli’s head of motor racing and F1 Mario Isola has pointed out that a move to softer rubber for the 2018 campaign had been intended to encourage two-stop races, but fell flat on its face.

“In 2017, it was the first year with a wider tyres, so we said, ‘Okay, let's be a bit conservative’, because we had cars that were much faster than before,” explained Isola. “If we go too soft, then it's a bit too on the aggressive side.

“In general, the range was a bit too conservative. The year after, we decided to go one step softer and designed a softer compound – the Hypersoft. Everybody was like: ‘Okay, now we have two stops, for sure.’ But then it was one-stop. Why? Because teams were managing the pace in order not to add a stop.

"If we go softer, and if we have a higher degradation, then they just slow down to save the tyre to achieve the strategy they want. It is useless" Mario Isola

“I remember in Monte Carlo, where it is impossible to overtake, cars were off the pace by eight seconds or something like that. So, if we go softer, and if we have a higher degradation, then they just slow down to save the tyre to achieve the strategy they want. It is useless.”

What is important to understand is that the factors dictating whether a race goes one-stop or two extend far beyond just the characteristics of the tyres. Other elements like pitstop loss and the difficulty of overtaking also fall into this.

Isola adds: “We need to analyse the show in all the elements, not just tyres. We have this tendency to say. ‘Okay, let's talk about tyres’, and we just analyse what is linked to tyres. But we miss a part of that.

“We need to consider the full picture. In the simulation tools of the teams, they also consider the pitlane loss. That's an important factor. There is also a coefficient they use to understand and to calculate how difficult it is to overtake. And obviously, adding one stop means to drop back in traffic. And it's more difficult to plan a two-stop strategy if you take a bigger risk with overtaking...”

Drivers using the pink sidewall hypersoft tyre introduced for 2018 drastically slowed their pace at Monaco to avoid a second stop

Photo by: Andy Hone / Motorsport Images

So, there is an uncomfortable truth for F1 than when overtaking becomes harder and the show could really do with some mixed strategies to spice things up, teams are actually more reluctant to go that route because it is much safer sticking with the one-stop.

PLUS: The factors behind F1’s overtaking problem and why solving it won’t be easy

This is a reason why in the past the FIA has considered the idea of going a step further and mandating a two-stop race – either by explicitly stating that teams make two pitstops, or by saying that all three tyre compounds need to be used. However, progress on this point never got too far because teams reckoned that it was a dead-end solution as forcing them to make two-stops would mean complete convergence on strategies.

As Isola recalls: “I remember that some years ago, we made an investigation on that, together with the teams during a sporting committee meeting. The FIA asked the team managers to come back with some simulations on what happens if you are obliged to do two-stops, for example, or if you are obliged to run all three compounds, which is another way to do two-stops.

“The result was that most of the teams came back with the same strategy. Because if you add the constraints, then it's easy that you push everybody in the same direction. And the result is that you have same strategy, same pitstops for everybody.”

Ultimately, however, what teams say in a room away from the heat of competition can be completely different to how things play out in a real grand prix when decisions are made on the fly and there are opportunities to be had if you roll the dice. So, in an era where F1 trialled sprint races, and is now evaluating the Alternative Tyre Allocation which will impact qualifying at the Hungarian Grand Prix (after its planned trial at Imola was scotched by bad weather), surely the best way to get a definitive answer on this is to test out a mandatory two-stop race.

If it does end up delivering an entirely predictable grand prix, then at least uncertainty over the issue has been wiped away. But if it does throw up some variation, overtaking and a good spectacle, then it could prove to be something viable moving forwards. Even Isola suggests it worth thinking about.

“With the evidence of the last few years, that could be an option,” he said about trying it out as an experiment. “And clearly, if you have a two-stop compulsory, we can also consider going a bit softer with the compounds because you have shorter stints. But again, we have to consider the full package, not just one element. Without this, it is not a complete analysis and could lead to unexpected consequences, which are not what we want.”

And that’s the very reason why it’s surely worth a go…

The FIA has previously considered ways to make multiple stops a mandatory requirement

Photo by: Red Bull Content Pool