Formula 1 runs the risk of making grands prix less exciting if it goes ahead with an idea of forcing teams into two-stop races, senior paddock figures have warned.
The agenda for a forthcoming meeting of the F1 Commission has tabled a discussion point about whether regulations should be introduced to stop grands prix being straightforward one-stoppers.
If there is a consensus that F1 would be better served by ensuring two-stoppers, then several options are in play to make that happen.
Rules making it mandatory to use all three compounds, a maximum stint length for tyres or a stipulation that teams must make a minimum of two stops are all possibilities.
But while there's a consensus that the increasingly common one-stop races are not ideal from an entertainment perspective, that does not make it automatic that forcing two stops instead is a clear gain.
In fact, ahead of the F1 Commission meeting, there is resistance from both teams and tyre supplier Pirelli itself to the idea of effectively outlawing one-stop races.
There seems to be agreement that if teams are forced to make two stops, then that could actually trigger less strategy variation and perhaps open the door to a worse situation than what we have right now.
As Pirelli’s chief engineer Simone Berra said when asked by The Race for his thoughts on the matter: “The risk is that the more rules you put on the table, then the more similar the situation you have in terms of strategies.
“Basically, all the teams would do the same. So I don't think you end up with a better show and better races.”
Racing Bulls team boss Alan Permane agrees that pushing through a rule that forces two stops could actually be a backwards step for the spectacle.
“I think everyone likes two stops or more, but we have to be careful,” he said. “If you force a two-stop, you can end up with everyone doing the same strategy and it actually having the opposite effect.
“Don't forget, we've seen plenty of races with one guy on a one-stop and one guy on a two-stop, and then the guy on a one-stop being chased down by the two-stop. That would obviously disappear.”
While two-stop races generally offer more opportunities for excitement than one-stops, Permane is right that perhaps the peak situation is when races are decided between drivers on different strategies.
The fight between the two McLaren drivers for victory at this year’s Hungarian Grand Prix came alive when Lando Norris elected to go for a one-stop, while team-mate Oscar Piastri committed to a two-stop.
There have also been races where drivers have elected to run totally different approaches too – like Max Verstappen's medium/soft route in Mexico that helped him avoid a two-stopper on a day when there was a big split in the top 10 between the number of tyre changes made.
Pushing teams down the route of mandating two stops through requirement would wipe away the possibility for this kind of variation.
Williams boss James Vowles thinks there would be no better way of making teams all do the same strategy than forcing their hands.
“My biggest worry would be that we end up, all of us, doing the same strategy to within a lap of each other because you're forced that way because of the two stops,” he said.
"So, to the key point, let's get the key foundations right, which is tyre degradation and the gaps between the tyres."
It is correct to say that one often overlooked aspect about the prevalence of one-stops is that strategies are not exclusively down to tyres - as they are influenced so heavily by how easy (or hard) overtaking is.
When cars can pass easily, then teams are encouraged to go for the second stop as they know that positions lost by an extra tyre change can be regained.
But when overtaking is difficult, as it is right now, then that steers teams down a more cautious route of prioritising maintaining track position.
There is almost a doom loop at play in that the harder it is for cars to race each other, then the worse the strategy gets too.
This is why the crux of the tyre strategy is one that involves a wider holistic picture than just tyre compounds, constructions and pitstop numbers.
McLaren team principal Andrea Stella reckons that F1 should wait to understand the impact of the 2026 rules rather than rush down a route of choosing tyre rules that may not be fit for purpose.
“We have so much change going on, and I think we should observe what kind of racing we are going to have before we change the technical side and also the rules of the game,” he said.
“So I would invoke a little bit of prudence from this point of view. Let's observe what happens in 2026, and then we can adapt from a sporting point of view to make sure that the entertainment and the racing is at the right level.”
If overtaking is easier next year, as some suggest it will, then that could be enough to already make two stops more appealing than they are right now.
Berra concurs that it is probably better to wait and see how 2026 pans out – both in terms of car performance and higher degrading rubber – before deciding what needs to be done with the tyre rules.
“I would wait personally,” he said. “We also don't really need to focus just on the degradation level, but also on the spacing between compounds.
“If we have compounds like here [in Brazil], with the C3 and C4 pretty close, then during the race they will be pretty similar, and we don’t improve the racing.
“I think the best way is to improve the delta lap time between the compounds, so you have proper spacing between them.
"In that case, you can generate different strategies, and a mix of strategies, compared to what we have now.”
That ultimately is what F1 really wants.
