No. That would be slower than a more evenly-spaced Hard-Hard-Medium. Such "splash and dash" strategies are only viable when one tyre is rubbish.turbof1 wrote:Is it a viable tactic to do a "1" stopper, starting on hard and switching to hard, and then doing a second stop a few laps before the finish flag , going to medium?
It's not about how relatively rubbish the tyre is - it's just about how long the tyre lasts in itself.turbof1 wrote:The medium might become rubbish compared to the new hard tyre.
I disagree. If the hard tyre can give much more performance after X amount of laps then the medium tyre can in, let's say, 5 laps, then you basicilly want to stay out as long as you possible can on the hard tyre. Then you don't want to bolt on the medium tyre at all due it only gives a slight ultimate pace advantage with the much larger disadvantage that they are performing less good then the hard tyre after a rather small amount of laps.raymondu999 wrote:It's not about how relatively rubbish the tyre is - it's just about how long the tyre lasts in itself.turbof1 wrote:The medium might become rubbish compared to the new hard tyre.
If the circuit has a high wear on the medium tyres, it might pay off vs medium tyres. if medium tyres have to pit early, the hard tyres are out of the dirty air. Undercut is not important when driving 2 different strategies. What counts is if your tyres last long enough to keep the ones on fresher tyres behind you.I have never understood the fascination with starting on the harder tyre. You're guaranteed a worse grid slot, and a worse start (even if not worse by much). Then you're stuck in dirty air, making you even slower. And after the guys on the options ahead of you pit, then they'll have the undercut on you, on much fresher rubber. You're only guaranteeing that you lose track position, for the gain of better pace. The only time starting on the primes works is when track position is already lost anyways - generally, through bad qualifying.
But we're not alking of two different strategies. I'm talking of "reverse" strategies. Eg. OPP vs PPO. Then what I'm saying would be entirely valid. It's basically looking at how for example Raikkonen/Hamilton's races unfolded, relative to Vettel's, in China.turbof1 wrote:Undercut is not important when driving 2 different strategies. What counts is if your tyres last long enough to keep the ones on fresher tyres behind you.
All depends on how the medium tyres can cope with the abrasiviness of the circuit.
I do apologise. I thought the word "competitively" went without saying.turbof1 wrote:I disagree. If the hard tyre can give much more performance after X amount of laps then the medium tyre can in, let's say, 5 laps, then you basicilly want to stay out as long as you possible can on the hard tyre. Then you don't want to bolt on the medium tyre at all due it only gives a slight ultimate pace advantage with the much larger disadvantage that they are performing less good then the hard tyre after a rather small amount of laps.raymondu999 wrote:It's not about how relatively rubbish the tyre is - it's just about how long the tyre lasts in itself.turbof1 wrote:The medium might become rubbish compared to the new hard tyre.
No because pitstops would be at entirely different points. Albeit it changes what happens at the end; then you need to push hard at the end.But we're not alking of two different strategies. I'm talking of "reverse" strategies. Eg. OPP vs PPO. Then what I'm saying would be entirely valid. It's basically looking at how for example Raikkonen/Hamilton's races unfolded, relative to Vettel's, in China.
Vasconia wrote:With the new hard tyres I expect less pistops, less changes and consequently a more boring race. I think Vettel will win this one if Alonso hasnt got a great day.
The medium-(new)hard combination is so conservative and boring...