2012 Canadian GP - Gilles Villeneuve

[myurr]

I was not impressed with Lewis lap times after his second pit stop. I mean Perez was stuck behind Rosberg who was just 0.5 slower than HAM with 12 lap older soft tyres (And didn't they tell HAM to go flat out), after Perez got past Rosberg he was faster than Hamilton (also before Lewis got past Alonso,Vet, after Lewis passed ALO, HAM was maybe slowing down a bit). I mean PEREz was on new/unused supersoft but they were 18 laps old in lap 59.

No, they told Lewis to drive to target times. Those target times ensured he'd catch Vettel with around 6 or 7 laps to go and Alonso with about 4 laps to go with plenty of life left in the tyres, even if they didn't have a drop off in pace.

[FrukostScones]

okay.

[raymondu999]

They probably thought saving the stop would be worth more than the fresh tyres.

Around this circuit, with such a short pitstop delta (something like 14s) so many traction zones which benefit from fresh rubber, and the ease compared to other circuits of overtaking, I'm surprised a 1-stop even worked for some people. As a gamble, possibly. As a planned strategy I'm surprised it was even considered.

I would have thought the pace that Hamilton demonstrated would have shown that it wasn't going to work out for them. Had they pitted even 10 laps from the end then they would have been a few seconds behind Grosjean but on almost new supersofts, with 10 laps to hunt him down and reclaim second. You could clearly see by that point that Alonso's tyres were going off and Vettels were just showing signs of going.

Agreed. But maybe they thought on the Circuit Gilles Villeneuve that the great man himself would possess El Nando and he would produce one of Villeneuve's trademark tyre-saving-but-successfully-defending races?

[FakeAlonso]

Alonso's graph looks like falling from a cliff in the last laps.
It is no brainier that when the Pirelli Lottery tires go off they go off way to much. So Ferrari should have known this but I guess the pit wall needs some better strategists.


Looking at this graph, I dont see a "cliff" for Alonso at all. If anything, it is pretty gradual.

In order for you to see the cliff your are looking for he had to made a pit stop. Other than that there is massive loss of performace and the graph shows that. If the tires would have lastet like PEREZ or GROSJEAN the graph would have been the same as those two guys. THat's why that kind of tire degradation is called a "Cliff" not only by me but Also Domenicali.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfjU6-8sUkI[/youtube]

[raymondu999]

The point is there was no cliff. It was a hill, and you could see it was slowly losing performance, it wasn't "BANG" and the tyre was gone.

[foxmulder_ms]

Exactly,

Since the performance plateau and then started to get worse gradually, they had time to react. I think they simply underestimated the competition.

[FakeAlonso]

The point is there was no cliff. It was a hill, and you could see it was slowly losing performance, it wasn't "BANG" and the tyre was gone.

I think we agree but you are being a bit too much precise. When I mean "cliff" I don't mean a literal one, but in F1 that kind of sudden drop is very bad.

Let me put it this way. I consider my self a simple F1 fan and no expert at all in f1 strategy. However during the race two laps after HAM pitted and he started gaining on Alonso an Vettel I would have put my hand on fire that was the right strategy to pit immediately. It was easy to see that for 20 laps even if ALO had a smooth drop in lap times HAM would have passed him.

My point is that it was not hard for them to see the numbers and take the right decision. I think at the moment Ferrari does not have the best strategists so sometimes like this time or ABU DHABI they do some unnecessary adventures and ruin a good result.

Anyhow nice try but wrong strategy. Again covering the wrong person.

[fritticaldi]

@Fake Alonso. I totally agree with you. The Ferrari men on the pit wall should have brought in Alonso the lap after Hamilton pitted. Especially since the Englishman's pitstop wasn't so smooth. Those were bonus seconds gifted to Alonso. Ferrari were marking Vettel who was right behind Alonso instead of concentrating on race leader Hamilton. What is it lately with McLaren pitstops? Once upon a time they were perfect. Now they ressemble the Williams pit during the Mansell era.The weakest link within the Ferrari team is The men behind the pit wall. As if Abu Dhabi wasn't enough two years ago. Surely the Scuderia cannot continue this way. Is Domenicali that incompetant and the single one to blame? Or is it Pat Fry? Or who calls the shots?

[bhall]

What is it lately with McLaren pitstops? Once upon a time they were perfect. Now they ressemble the Williams pit during the Mansell era.

I've noticed that McLaren's pit stop woes have coincided with a dramatic increase in Ferrari's pit stop quality. If those two things are truly related, then the answer is Pat Fry.

As far as Ferrari's strategy goes, it was just greed on their part. I think they viewed McLaren's pit stop gaffe as an invitation to take the win rather than to solidify a strong second-place showing. It should have been obvious that a win wasn't possible, but that's the nature of any gamble.

[Ray]

What is it lately with McLaren pitstops? Once upon a time they were perfect. Now they ressemble the Williams pit during the Mansell era.The weakest link within the Ferrari team is The men behind the pit wall.

I wondered the very same thing about Webber and his starts last year. Just like Button isn't having the pit troubles Lewis is having, Vettel didn't have the trouble Webber did. Something was wrong with the RB7 last year, Mark didn't all of a sudden have a season long brain fade and forget how to launch a Formula 1 car off the start. Something has happened in McLaren and they will find it soon enough. Shame that Lewis is getting screwed by mistakes, but I don't believe for one second McLaren are putting their hands up and shrugging it off.

[raymondu999]

I think we agree but you are being a bit too much precise. When I mean "cliff" I don't mean a literal one, but in F1 that kind of sudden drop is very bad.

Yes but don't call that a cliff - because what people called the cliff in 2011 and early 2012 Pirellis were that the laptime would suddenly disappear. Raikkonen China?

Food for thought from Gary Anderson: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/18427377

Exactly,

Since the performance plateau and then started to get worse gradually, they had time to react. I think they simply underestimated the competition.

Especially since Felipinho had done his first stop earlier than Fernando, and was struggling after some 40 laps into his stint.

[myurr]

Food for thought from Gary Anderson: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/18427377

While an interesting read, the premise presumes that Hamilton was going as fast as he could. He was driving to a target time that assured the tyres would last but was fast enough to win the race, he could have gone quicker. Plus he definitely backed off once past Alonso - he had no need to push the tyres from that point.

Why would his car, that had been the class of the field in the second stint and at least a match in the first, suddenly have become significantly slower? They could certainly have put more pressure on him, but I doubt either could have won. Especially Vettel with the slow-in-a-straight-line Red Bull.

His central point, that the teams had all the data they needed to make a better decision, is certainly valid though.

[beelsebob]

Food for thought from Gary Anderson: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/18427377

While an interesting read, the premise presumes that Hamilton was going as fast as he could. He was driving to a target time that assured the tyres would last but was fast enough to win the race, he could have gone quicker. Plus he definitely backed off once past Alonso - he had no need to push the tyres from that point.

Why would his car, that had been the class of the field in the second stint and at least a match in the first, suddenly have become significantly slower? They could certainly have put more pressure on him, but I doubt either could have won. Especially Vettel with the slow-in-a-straight-line Red Bull.

His central point, that the teams had all the data they needed to make a better decision, is certainly valid though.

Yeh, it also assumes that McLaren wouldn't have just immediately stopped Hamilton the next lap. Alonso would reasonably have been about 0.8 seconds a lap faster on new tyres at that point, hamilton probably had about 0.2-0.3 in hand, so you're talking about losing 0.5 seconds to alonso lapping faster for one lap, and 1 second in the pits to having a problem on the right rear... He'd only have lost 1.5 seconds, and still come out 1 second ahead of alonso.

[FakeAlonso]

raymondu999"

Yes but don't call that a cliff - because what people called the cliff in 2011 and early 2012 Pirellis were that the laptime would suddenly disappear. Raikkonen China?

4 seconds per lap is not a cliff???? So again lets not get lost in definitions.

Food for thought from Gary Anderson: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/18427377

My point is basically the same as Gary's that Ferrari had plenty of data to make an informed decision and not gamble. They ignored the data or didn't analayse it enough and were over confident with Alonso. Still they have different opportunities to react.

1. Pit Alonso right after HAM to cover him and capitlize on their small pit stop mistake.

2. Pit ALO two or three laps after HAM pit stop when HAM started gaining on Alonso and Vettel.

3. As Gary says 10 laps before the end they had enough data to react and pit. They would have passed Grojean on fresh tires.

4. Pit when Vettel did to cover for him.


There is no reaction at all at least in four occasions I am pointing out. They just waited lap after lap until ALO was losing 4 seconds per lap to Vettel and finished 0.4 sec to Rosberg. Extremely risky the inability to react by the pit wall.

[raymondu999]

raymondu999"

Yes but don't call that a cliff - because what people called the cliff in 2011 and early 2012 Pirellis were that the laptime would suddenly disappear. Raikkonen China?

4 seconds per lap is not a cliff???? So again lets not get lost in definitions.

This is a technical forum - how do you not get lost in definitions?

The cliff refers to the rate of change of the laptime loss - not the actual laptime loss itself. If you lose .1s of speed for 100 laps and end up 10s off the pace, that's not a cliff. If you lost 1s of a second over a single lap, THAT'S a cliff. It's about how 'sudden" the change is. Like a real cliff ends abruptly:


about your other point...
Yes - it's very surprising really. I think Ferrari maybe overestimated Alonso's prowess and assumed that Alonso on worn tyres could hold off the other runners, given track position. Given that it's Canada... I don't know what possessed them to think that way.