Chinese GP 2011 - Shanghai

[PlatinumZealot]

Back on the Vettel strategy, why do you guys think that Vettel should not have done Q3 on hards? He would have started about third on the grid, and have THREE new softs. Would have been on Webber's pace and better by the end of the race.

[Terrible3]

Back on the Vettel strategy, why do you guys think that Vettel should not have done Q3 on hards? He would have started about third on the grid, and have THREE new softs. Would have been on Webber's pace and better by the end of the race.

1. It was not known that a three stopper was the better strategy (we only learnt this as the race progressed into the closing stages on Sunday).
2. In the previous two races several drivers made up several positions by driving longer stints with few pit stops.
3. Vettel has been easy on his tires this year so it seemed like longer stints were a viable option.
4. Webber fell out of Q1 when the team gambled on primes.
5. look at Q2 times... JB, LH, FA, VP, NH (had he gotten a lap in) and NR were all in with a chance of out pacing the redbull had vettel been on the primes.
6. Options are better for getting off the line.
7. Track position is important.

[ringo]

I saw it as a 3 stopper from the beginning contrary to Pirellis guess. 2 was a stretch for a track like this and especially with the redbull's pace teams would be forced to run harder.
In the same way Mercedes didn't expect he pace of the race to be so high.

that list there only applies to non red bull cars. DRS has now made the redbulls even more ominous.
Track position was important last year. With DRS and tyres falling off, passing slower cars is routine.

[Tamburello]

All in all i have to agree with webber being happy Vettel didn't win this one.
The race would have only seemed like a good mid field squable if Vettel waltzed to the win.(

You're only happy if Hamilton wins so it hardly counts...

[nipo]

Heikki finished in front of a Sauber and a Williams; Trulli's fastest lap was quicker than Alonso's - have Lotus made the magical leap forward?

The TV coverage of the race obviously didn't include ANY Lotus. Did anyone here have lap times for comparison to see if they are really on the pace with the tail end of the midfield? Or was it just strategy and a bit of luck?

[raymondu999]

To be fair I think most drivers who are vying for the title will be happy that Vettel didn't win (especially Vettel, obviously) seeing as he had run away with the first two races, and had he won this one as well, he'd have a runaway lead of over a race in terms of points difference

[myurr]

To be fair I think most drivers who are vying for the title will be happy that Vettel didn't win (especially Vettel, obviously) seeing as he had run away with the first two races, and had he won this one as well, he'd have a runaway lead of over a race in terms of points difference

Vettel was already in that position entering this race.

[raymondu999]

Not quite. He had 24 points. I was talking of 25 points or more (ie a Vettel DNF plus closest challenger win would still leave Vettel in the lead)

[beelsebob]

I think in hindsight, Rosberg had the best strategy. His 1st stop was placed in the correct lap for a good 3-stopper, whereas the others seemed to have 1st stints that were too long and 2nd stints that were too short

I'm not convinced by this – I think the long first stop was what allowed Hamilton to attack at the end of the race. Suppose his stops had been more evenly spread – he would not have been able to extend the lead in the second and third stints, and he would not have been able to close Vettel down in the last one... Oddly, having his tyres fall off the cliff and Massa overtake him may have been what won him the race.

[beelsebob]

but he did not win the start did he? so why the hell did they NOT switch to an agressive pit strategy right on the spot?
Vettel had enough tyres to do this ...and pit signalling with boards is maybe outdated but sure possible even for RedBull and the playstation boy....

KERS and strategy ..my words: they will not win this championship.

The issue was not the start necessarily. He had overtaken both Button and Hamilton by the first round of pit stops so all he had to do was cover their strategy to stay in front of them. I think they must have got worried about Rosberg and Massa and were trying to cover the latter whilst trying to get ahead of the former on strategy??

Pardon? Were you watching a different race? In the race I was watching, Vettel overtook Button only because Button noobed up his pit stop.

[raymondu999]

I'm not convinced by this – I think the long first stop was what allowed Hamilton to attack at the end of the race. Suppose his stops had been more evenly spread – he would not have been able to extend the lead in the second and third stints, and he would not have been able to close Vettel down in the last one... Oddly, having his tyres fall off the cliff and Massa overtake him may have been what won him the race.

I don't think so, actually (in terms of your long first stop).
Rosberg pitted on: 12, 25, 39. That's 12, 13, 14, 17 laps each stint.
Button did: 14, 24, 37. That's 14, 10, 13, 19 laps.
Hamilton did: 15, 25, 38 That's 15, 10, 13, 18.
Now give or take a lap, the last two stints were equal on the three. But I feel that strategy wise, Rosberg's first two stints were more even, and McL ran too short on the 2nd stint. I'm not saying that they were stupid or anything, no. It would seem like (to me, anyways) that McL initially planned a strategy like the one Vettel was on; but they switched to a 3-stopper on the fly. But just saying that Rosberg's strategy seemed to me that it was the best. The first thing that I thought, after they all had 1 stop completed, and Rosberg was leading, was that Ross Brawn (as a strategist, which is what I always thought of him anyways) was back on form as a strategist.

Pardon? Were you watching a different race? In the race I was watching, Vettel overtook Button only because Button noobed up his pit stop.

Regardless of the reason that Vettel got past, the end result was he got past, and after the 1st round of stops, Vettel was ahead of the MacMercs; what Tumbarello is saying (I believe) is that they should have just mirrored the McLarens' strategy, but it seemed like they were afraid Rosberg and Massa would 2 stop, and the fresher tyres might not be enough to make up the 18 or so seconds lost in the stops

[Formula None]

I enjoyed Webber's analysis of Vettel during the post-race press conference. Priceless. It even got a smirk out of Hamilton.

DC called Mark's drive before the race start, knowing he was starting on the hards, and noting his abilities when he starting on the back foot. And having DC & Brundle commentate has been just excellent, they both make good insights frequently & have a couple of laughs through the race while doing so. Hope the BBC keep this pairing for a while.

[raymondu999]

which analysis are you talking about mate? Could you maybe quote the relevant section?

[Formula None]

During the press conference he said:

Congratulations to Lewis. It's good that someone finally, um... of course it's... Seb on the same team, but uh... He's been on a phenomenal run and we're all here fighting for victory, so uh... Shame McLaren won in a way, but it's also, we can't let Seb get to far away. So it was a good day for the racing, I think.

[Hangaku]

Horner said in his post-race interview on the BBC, that even if they ran a three stopper for Vettel, the result would be the same. Interesting how he claims to have that information so soon after the race. I'm not sure that it's technically true - I suspect he's made the comment to save face - detracting from the fact that RedBull didn't have the best strategy, and basically saying that a McLaren winning wasn't their fault.

Also, nice to see the first person to congratulate Lewis out of the car was Heikki.