Strategic Straitjacket: Why the F1 Paddock Opposes Mandatory Two-Stop Rules
Formula 1 is as much a high-speed chess match as it is a test of engineering. The thrill of a Grand Prix often lies in the strategic gamble: can a driver nurse their tires to the end on a risky one-stop? Will the undercut pay off? When the sport’s governing bodies propose a mandatory two-stop rule, they aim to manufacture excitement. However, the F1 paddock—the teams, drivers, and strategists—is almost universally unenthusiastic, viewing it not as an enhancement, but as a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes F1 great.
Here is a breakdown of why the mandatory two-stop (or three-stop) concept is met with such heavy resistance.
1. It Kills Strategic Diversity
The primary complaint from team principals and strategists is that a mandatory rule, ironically, makes the race less strategic. In a normal Grand Prix, teams are in a constant battle of wits. A team with a car that is kind on its tires (like Red Bull in recent years) might aim for a one-stop, while a rival might opt for an aggressive two-stop with shorter, faster stints.
A mandatory two-stop rule eliminates this entire dynamic.
As Williams Team Principal James Vowles has pointed out, forcing two stops removes the tension between a one-stop and a two-stop strategy. Instead, every team is forced onto the same basic « formula. » The « chess match » disappears, replaced by a simple, predictable equation. The risk of one strategy failing while another succeeds—the very thing that creates dramatic comebacks and thrilling finishes—is neutralized.
2. It Creates Predictable, « Homogenized » Racing
If every team knows they must stop twice, the strategic options narrow to almost zero. Teams, armed with terabytes of data, will all converge on the same « optimum » strategy. The result? Everyone pits within the same few laps, twice.
Pirelli’s own chief engineer, Simone Berra, has even warned about this effect. He noted that the risk of adding more mandatory rules is that « the more similar the situation you have in terms of strategies, » because all teams would simply « do the same. »
This was seen in practice at the 2023 Qatar Grand Prix. While technically a three-stop race forced by maximum stint lengths due to safety fears, the principle was the same. Drivers were left frustrated. Max Verstappen, despite winning, noted that the rule prevented his team from getting the best out of their car, which is famously strong on tire management.
3. It Feels « Artificial » and Punishes Skill
Formula 1 drivers and purists have long been wary of « artificial » elements designed to spice up the show. A mandatory pit stop rule falls squarely into this category. It’s seen as a gimmick, a rule that fundamentally changes the nature of the sport from an endurance and management challenge to a series of flat-out sprints.
Drivers like Lando Norris have openly criticized the concept, stating such rules are « made for the fans » and not for the drivers, questioning if they even succeed in providing more entertainment.
Furthermore, it penalizes the skill of both drivers and engineers. Teams that design a car that is gentle on its tires, and drivers who excel at tire conservation, see their advantage completely erased by a line in the rulebook. It effectively punishes excellence and innovation in one of F1’s most crucial areas.
4. A Misguided Solution for a Deeper Problem
The push for mandatory stops often comes from a desire to solve two problems: safety (preventing tire failures from overly long stints) and « boring » races.
While safety is paramount—as seen in Qatar 2023, where tire failures were a real risk—the paddock argues that forcing stops is a clumsy solution. The better solution, they contend, is for Pirelli to provide tires that have the right level of degradation, naturally encouraging multiple stops without a mandate.
As James Vowles stated, the focus should be on getting the « key foundations right, which is tyre degradation and the gaps between the tyres. » If the tires are designed correctly, strategic diversity will follow naturally, without the need for an artificial rule that the sport’s core participants so clearly oppose.
Sources
- The Race. (November 2025). Why F1 forcing two-stop races risks making things worse.
- Motorsport.com. (November 2025). F1 team bosses pour cold water on mandatory two-stop idea.
- Formula1.com. (October 2023). ‘What the teams said’ – Race day in Qatar.
- GPblog.com. (May 2025). Norris was not nervous about Verstappen, but this made the Monaco GP ‘scary’ for him!
- Pitpass.com. (November 2025). Teams sceptical of mandatory two-stoppers.