Should CART drop the required pit stop window?

[nrc]

Should CART drop the required pit stop window?

(an opportunity to test polls)

[Peter Venkman]

Yes.

[RiverRunner]

I thought with the new engines they won't have that rule.

[Mike Kellner]

Not only would I drop the pit stop rule, but I would also ditch limits on the size of fuel tanks in the car and total fuel allotment rules as well.

[nrc]

Originally posted by RiverRunner
I thought with the new engines they won't have that rule.

That's what everyone expected and what a couple of folks within CART implied, but for some reason the Franchise board voted to keep it.

Racermike has started an online petition to get it dropped:

http://www.petitiononline.com/mph2003/petition.html

[Foxman]

Yes, I think that they should drop the pit rule, but I also think that they should take away adjustable fuel/boost controls from the steering wheel and not allow them to be changed/adjusted during a race. If you want to run 92% fuel thats fine, but you'll have to run with that setting for the entire race.

Fox

[JSR]

YES

[Classic Apex]

NO.

:p

[Railbird]

IMO

Drop the required stops.

Drop the overall fuel allotment limits.

Eliminate the "mapping" choices.

[oddlycalm]

Originally posted by Railbird
IMO

Drop the required stops.

Drop the overall fuel allotment limits.

Eliminate the "mapping" choices.

Ditto.

[damiandoan]

The window needs to be dropped. Personally I didn't mind the fuel economy stuff as much as others, but there needs a logical control over it to prevent it from coming down to pure luck.

I'd vote for just eliminating stopping during yellow flags. All stops must occur under green. If you can't make it until the green comes out to stop, then you have to make a pit drive through as soon as the green comes out. I wouldn't want a team to suffer a huge penalty if they have to stop, but, there should be enough of a discouragement there.

DD

[Twisty Bits]

Originally posted by Railbird
IMO

Drop the required stops.

Drop the overall fuel allotment limits.

Eliminate the "mapping" choices.

BINGO BANGO

[FortyOneFord]

I think the mandatory pit windows worked good for Fontana, but they were less then successful at all other venues.

[Lizzerd]

Originally posted by damiandoan
I'd vote for just eliminating stopping during yellow flags. All stops must occur under green. If you can't make it until the green comes out to stop, then you have to make a pit drive through as soon as the green comes out. I wouldn't want a team to suffer a huge penalty if they have to stop, but, there should be enough of a discouragement there.

DD

Now THAT is an excellent suggestion! It would allow them to keep the mapping adjustments, if a team wanted to gamble that a race would stay green and they could maybe skip a pit stop, but force them to gamble if they were behind the others when a yellow occured and HAD to pit. Good idea.

[rabbit]

Drop the mandatory stops. Other than that, leave it alone. The more rules and rule changes there are, the more problems are created.

[Mike Kellner]

Eleminating mapping or mixture changes won't eleminate fuel saving strategies. Racers have been doing that ever since they began to hold races long enough to require pit stops or make the weight of fuel carried a factor. Fuel consumption/pit stop timing is one of the classic areas of competition, and trying to eleminate either is just dumbing down the sport. I would look to ways to reduce the cost of pit stops. Pit speed limits, he long slow down and exit lanes raise the cost in time. The more a pit stop costs in time, the more likely you are to have a fuel saving contest.

[Napoleon]

Originally posted by Mike Kellner
Racers have been doing that ever since they began to hold races long enough to require pit stops or make the weight of fuel carried a factor.

Last year, allegdedly, Trans Am mandated pit stops. It ends up all they did was increase the lenght of the race (or decrease tank sizes) yet at Cleveland someone managed to run pit stop free.

[mnkywrch]

Originally posted by Mike Kellner
Eleminating mapping or mixture changes won't eleminate fuel saving strategies. Racers have been doing that ever since they began to hold races long enough to require pit stops or make the weight of fuel carried a factor. Fuel consumption/pit stop timing is one of the classic areas of competition, and trying to eleminate either is just dumbing down the sport. I would look to ways to reduce the cost of pit stops. Pit speed limits, he long slow down and exit lanes raise the cost in time. The more a pit stop costs in time, the more likely you are to have a fuel saving contest.

1) IMO, it doesn't dumb down the sport if you have some drivers saving fuel via short shifting... while others drive flat out and try to go fast enough to cover the pit stop... if the driver's the one doing it, not the engine mapping.

2) Shortening the pit in/pit out is a good idea, but I think pit speed limits are here to stay.

[cart7]

Yes. I'll agree with Railbirds idea's. Let's getem back to racing.

[nrc]

I guess we don't have to wonder how Tony Cicale feels about it. From a CART.com story (http://www.cart.com/News/Article.asp?ID=5349):
"I think the mandated number of stops we had this past year and having to change tires, to me that was foolish. It made racing worse, for sure. I think the thing we had last year in terms of mandating stopping distances discouraged overtaking. A rule like that is quite offensive to the whole concept of what we should be about. I think you can make a regulation that will make racing more interesting and more competitive or you can a regulation making it less likely to overtake and more boring, which I think was what we basically did with the regulations last year." I wonder if this is the same hindsight most of us have or if he was agin it from the start.

[ChrisB]

No... I've never liked the "random chance" aspect of allowing fuel stops anywhere in which the yellow flag may strongly affect the outcome. Or having drivers poke around on economy strategies to save one less stop. In fact I'd go even further...

200 mile standard race length, with fixed fuel stops for everyone at mile 66 and mile 133.

Kinda like a rally where everyone must stop at the same place. No "rolling the dice" on yellows.. just 3 consective sprints of everyone driving as fast as they can within a given fuel allotment.

[RTKar]

Yes, as Peter Venkman...........DR PETER VENKMAN said , too contrived.

[formulaben]

I liked the idea of letting the drivers choose their strategy. Anyone remember Luyendyk back in Phoenix (92?) when he won by staying out and pitting out of sequence and taking a come from behind win? Many thought it was luck, but Mo Nunn was his engineer and they gambled and won. As exciting as the pit stops were with EVERYONE coming in, I didn't like it. I'd prefer a minimum number of pit stops over a window, if I had to choose.

[RaceChic]

To me, it takes a lot of the mystery and subsequent fun out of fuel strategies (light or heavy and therefore how many pit stops planned) as well as reducing the thrill of the starts with a lesser variation on the amount of fuel on board. It was more fun when there were no mandates on the pit stops allowing for more variables in strategies. It took a lot of the thrill out of the racing which is based on unpredictability that creates the adrenaline rush that makes us covet racing. Myself anyways! :rolleyes: