Hungarian GP 2011 - Hungaroring

[ringo]

the undebatable fact is that Button gets it right more often than others in these coinditions .
The race was not a lottery .Allen misses the point of on track mistakes committed by all the top runners .I have lost count of off track excursions of Alonso who just went a notch too aggressive into this race .
Same with Hamilton .You cannot af´ford to spin and have drive throughs in a race you want to win-usually.

Indeed, it's no coincidence that of the two races that have been seriously messed up by rain/drying/raining etc this year, Button has won both.

In pure wet conditions, I'll bet on Hamilton any day, but in semi-wet/drying/raining etc conditions, it's Button all the way.

Button wont win an all out rain race or a race that starts dry and ends wet.
Where he wins is when the pits have too many unclear decisions.
Ie when there is chaos. His experience allows him to watch others self destruct, and i don't even mean the drivers, i'm including the teams as well.

Hamilton's spin didn't really do any more damage to his race.
He still caught Button. It's not really something you can't afford to do in a damp race.
What you can't afford to do is go off, or mess up a pit stop.

From now on, every one should simply copy Button. That's the only solution.
Even if Hamilton is leading, he should let button pit first then follow him.

[Mr Alcatraz]

In Football American style it would be the equivalent of bringing your star running back in and making him change to cleats for muddy conditions when it is just starting to spit, however in racing you can’t substitute for him while he changes back to the more appropriate footwear!

LOL - in European sports you can't substitute like that. If a player needs to change shoes or needs treatment then the game goes on without them.

I'm aware of that but then what you are saying in contradicting my comparison is that Hamilton should have stayed out on slicks. Not a good comparison. It is a big mistake to compare field sports to racing and I think you know that, although I think mine is more to the point. Tyhe game goes on but you bring in Chandhok, to replace Senna for a bit. Or let's say bringing a player to the sidelines and having him change shoes while you play shorthanded it is really about the same thing if it is the wrong call! In American football it is done that way to eliminate deception as the plays and formations are complex. They are scrutinized to the enth degree, and to be quite honest with you I think American Football is one of the least equitable sports we play over here. But it can be spectacular, and it usually very exciting. I also agree that there are far too many rules.
Irrelevant activity quite often is the deciding factor in the best team losing.
BTW

Minute, sir!
There are a limited number of substitutions in rugby. As of the last update to this site, seven substitutions were allowed in each game (2 front row and 5 anywhere else). Temporary "blood" substitutions are allowed to give players time to tape up an injury.
A player can, however, call a "minute" anytime if they are injured or winded. The referee will take note of the time, and give one minute for the player/coach/trainer to evaluate the injury and determine if the player can continue playing or must leave the field. This gives the player a chance to catch his breath, and return to the field, or decide if he wants to leave the game.
Minutes do not interfere with continuing play, as long as the player who is down is not endangered by the other players. They can be called at any time, but the referee will not stop for the minute until the next stop in play (for example, an infraction, or the ball goes out of bounds). The referee's clock does not stop; instead, the extra minute is then added to the end of the game.

Stoping the match to catch your breath? retaping injuries? I don't want to start a fiasco but what you say is not altogether accurate! At any rate, vive la différence!

[Mr Alcatraz]

I hear ya''awl boys play basketball in Europe Don't even get me started on cricket

[Richard]

LOL - Yup, those softie rugby players stop play when someone is pouring with blood.

Back to F1 ...

I'm saying Hamilton made the wrong call, so he had to go back and change his tyres. Yes, it would be like your quarter back leaving the field to put on the correct boots while the game carried on without him, his team would have one less player. That happens regularly in the sports I watch, including F1

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Hmmm this could get messy!

Suffice to say, the american equivalent of rugby requires more pads, a helmet and less contact and no scrum. What does this tell you?

[marcush.]

guys ,following button will not win you a race.

Alonso and Hamilton were clearly faster but somehow derailled potential wins simply because of excessive eagerness.
When you spin ,you need to get into the race as quickly as possible but of course in a measured controlled way.Hamilton didn´t do this and in consequence he had to serve a penalty.Gambling on Intermediates was especially for a guy of his car control a very odd one as well.And after his phenomenal speed on the softs in Qualy I really cannot follow the idea of using the ss again ..It was simply a string of suboptimum decisions when people tried to be overly clever.

A mistake is a mistake and cannot be clawed back by being more aggressive or whatever you just can try your best to not to let it get to you -and prevent committing more mistakes.

[raymondu999]

To be fair marcush, I think they mean mirroring Button's tyre switches with inters/slicks etc.

[ringo]

guys ,following button will not win you a race.

Alonso and Hamilton were clearly faster but somehow derailled potential wins simply because of excessive eagerness.
When you spin ,you need to get into the race as quickly as possible but of course in a measured controlled way.Hamilton didn´t do this and in consequence he had to serve a penalty.Gambling on Intermediates was especially for a guy of his car control a very odd one as well.And after his phenomenal speed on the softs in Qualy I really cannot follow the idea of using the ss again ..It was simply a string of suboptimum decisions when people tried to be overly clever.

A mistake is a mistake and cannot be clawed back by being more aggressive or whatever you just can try your best to not to let it get to you -and prevent committing more mistakes.

The team should go with the better side of the garage and use that strategy across the board.
Hamilton side seems to be the least experienced since last year. They're learning but they cock up more often.

It's one thing to make the wrong choice in the mid feild trying to get to the front, but when you're leading, it's a major cock up.

[Mr Alcatraz]

Hmmm this could get messy!

Suffice to say, the american equivalent of rugby requires more pads, a helmet and less contact and no scrum. What does this tell you?

FYI the American equivalent of rugby is rugby, and has enjoyed varying degrees of popularity since 1875.

The United States is the most successful nation in Olympic rugby tournaments, having won the gold medal in both 1920 and 1924; France has the most medals, one gold (in 1900) and two silvers (in 1920 and 1924).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_unio ... r_Olympics

sssssssssssssssssnap ftw

[Traction]

After all the speculation and analysis and excuses it boils down to the simple fact that Mclaren in combination with Hamilton screwed up. Period.End of story.

[i70q7m7ghw]

Anyway - I still haven't gotten over the switch to super softs on Hamilton's Mclaren. Total disgrace. How was he supposed to win the race 30 laps on super softs and the pursuer only 7 seconds away on prime? In the words of Fernando Alonso, THAT IS F'ing RIDICULOUS!

He should have been faster on super softs, a second a lap for 13 laps was all he needed if the next car was 7 seconds down the road after the stop. It's a well known fact the super softs are a second faster than the softs, and fact is he wasn't fast enough chump, sorry.

*awaits a fanboy bashing*

On Sunday the Soft was faster than the super soft at that point in the race.

Yes, but it's only possible to see this after the race, what do you expect the teams to do? Rent out the TARDIS?

[beelsebob]

He should have been faster on super softs, a second a lap for 13 laps was all he needed if the next car was 7 seconds down the road after the stop. It's a well known fact the super softs are a second faster than the softs, and fact is he wasn't fast enough chump, sorry.

*awaits a fanboy bashing*

On Sunday the Soft was faster than the super soft at that point in the race.

Yes, but it's only possible to see this after the race, what do you expect the teams to do? Rent out the TARDIS?

That's exactly the point – people are making out that {McLaren, Ferrari, Hamilton, Alonso} screwed up, but in reality, any one of us in the same situation probably would have made the same decision. You have an aggressive driver who's relatively hard on the tyres, but quick when he's got them – you have a choice of getting a driver out for 16 laps to make up the gap of another pit stop on the "one second faster" super soft, or putting them out to cruise to the end of softs. The right call in this situation is clear – put them on the super softs.

No one screwed up, because none of them could make an informed decision, none of them had a clue that under the weird conditions of the track, the softs would actually be faster tyres.

[ringo]

They screwed up.
That strategy works, but not when you are leading.
Track position is king. A high risk strategy for the conditions may seem to be faster, but it's riskier and the leader should never be the one taking risks.
You make the other guys trying to catch you take the risks.

Alonso and ferrari was more justified. Hard to see what Mclaren were trying to with the leader, especially if there was a safety car that could cut any 1s per lap lead (that builds a 15s gap in 15 laps hypothetically) down to bumper to bumper traffic with worn and cooled SS with sturdier less worn softs behind waiting to pounce.

I can only see that were getting greedy, just like in Monaco qualifying and silverstone with the low fuel.

[myurr]

Ringo - McLaren didn't know that the soft would be faster than the super soft at that stage of the race, nor did they think Hamilton could make the softs last until the end of the race. Hindsight is a beautiful thing to behold, but useless for second by second decisions in a race.

[Richard]

myurr - I think that's the key to this.

I suspect McL didn't think Hamilton could go to the end of the race, he's notoriously hard n his tyres. So if you assume he has to stop, then it makes sense to put him on the fastest tyre available, doesn't matter if they burn out because he's going to have to stop whatever happens.

Then Button stopped a bit later and McL were probably wanting to cover off their rivals, plus they might have thought he could go to the end anyway due to his style and also having run a bit longer before his stop.

Whist McL got Hamilton's strategy wrong in hindsight, they did well to be adaptable and run Button on the other strategy. I'd love to know when they switched Button to the other strategy, was it before the race or was it in response to the other teams?