"Strategy" as a new category

[johnakers]

Hi! Long time lurker, first time poster (I just made an account). I was directed here by the F1 Technical Twitter admin. My tweet even got a like from the Head of Strategy at McLaren!



I'm a BIG fan of race strategy. Whether it be F1, IndyCar, feeder series, WEC (which is a whole different ball game) and even sim racing.

Would it ever be possible to have "Strategy" as its own category, alongside "F1 Hardware & Development", "Aerodynamics, chassis and tyres", and "Engine, transmission and controls"?

The amount of software, math, variables (weather, temperature, starting position, etc.), I believe, deems it a worthy contender for such a great forum.

Thanks for your time


- John

[Slo Poke]

@Johnakers
Hi, John. I’d say you’ve come up with a very interesting topic, as countless best sellers have been written around the theme. Trouble is though, if you offer up any credible instance of Strategy anywhere hereabouts, some bright spark will likely as not demand a source.
You may intrigue someone brave enough to counter a specific theory by means of debatable logic but I think there are few, even though it’s actually all they ever do.
So! Let’s test things out. Here’s a Strategy based theory for you!
Sochi; 2014 Championship clincher. Was it a strategically pre-planned race from lap one, to end in a one, two finish, or just luck?

[Greg Locock]

I like the idea but I think most contributions will be Monday morning quarterbacking or fantasies.

OTOH it may be possible to figure out some likely approaches.

[flynfrog]

I like the idea. I am almost always watching the live timing more than the race.

[dans79]

I like the idea. I am almost always watching the live timing more than the race.

I go with the race on the big tv, and timing on my tablet!

[johnakers]

This post was more long winded than I meant it to be... apologies

I like the idea but I think most contributions will be Monday morning quarterbacking or fantasies.

Definitely! And to a degree, I think that's ok. What I'm more interested in is in empirical data and why certain decisions were made. I think it is really easy to say "[X team] messed up their strategy bad!" or "[Y team] got it right!" but being able to quantify that is the aim. Or... they chose the best option, or what they thought was the best option. If so, how did the team, in the moment, come to that decision?

For instance, 2019 Baku... Ferrari was criticized for leaving Leclerc out too long (pit on Lap 34/35 of 51). Ferrari's strategy seemed to be have #16 go long on Mediums, maybe play the team game and hold up the Mercs a bit for Vettel and then pit onto Softs to have a go. This is not an unfamiliar strategy that we saw multiple times in 2018 with Ferrari and Kimi.

2019 Baku Lap Chart + additional data
https://www.racefans.net/2019/04/28/201 ... and-tyres/

In hindsight, what we do know is that the Ferrari's tire life, especially in the first half of 2019, wasn't great. The hard tire didn't provide enough grip to create a delta where Ferrari felt they could make a significant gain up to the leaders. They'd probably end up 5th or 6th with that strategy. So, they stayed out long on Mediums, hope for a safety car (where there tends to be one frequently... "Ericsson hit us") and maybe Charles could attack with ~15 to go. The safety car at that time never came. Gasly went out and Ferrari ended up 5th.

What would have happened if they pit Charles onto hards on 31 or earlier, instead of dropping all the way back to 6th on 34? Leclerc was quoted as he backed off in his second stint as he was told there was no way to catch the leaders. https://www.racefans.net/2019/04/28/lec ... -pit-stop/ Especially on a tire that he couldn't lean on for very long. Again, what if he had hards for 20 laps and pushed within reason?

I think these conversations are great but also do understand that they may not fit into these boards elegantly but these are the ones I'd like to pursue. Currently, there is no board here that supports them.

I'd assume most software that teams use is robust, bespoke and requires more computing power than my and my little laptop. Calculating all possibilities of even a 10 lap race, in some sort of Monte Carlo Simulation per lap, can make the beach ball show up. That said, I think we (in the forum) can make more-than educated guesses based on free practice times, and overall how the race went. And there are some software solutions that we all can come up with that I think would be fun (such as the CFD threads).

Sochi; 2014 Championship clincher. Was it a strategically pre-planned race from lap one, to end in a one, two finish, or just luck?

I'd go with luck and just over-aggressiveness by Nico. He flat spotted his tires T1 and never had a legit shot at going for it. The race ends up differently and maybe more entertaining if Nico tries an undercut and Hamilton has to come back at him in the 2nd stint. In terms of team strategy, for Red Bull, that's a tough one as they were clearly off the Mercs pace, looking at qualifying results.


- John

[hollus]

If you are idle enough, maybe have a re-visit to Abu Dhabi 2010.
Considering that passing was "impossible" but that Red-Bull had pulled a few impossible passes that year (so, any car that Alonso could pass, Webber probably could pass too). And also considering that 2 cars were moving chicanes for Alonso but not for Vettel or Webber, I still remain to be convinced that any sure winning strategy existed for that Ferrari. Everything I could think of either falls to Vettel or falls to Webber.
As I saw and analyzed that race at the time, the guy in the Ferrari wall took one of the reasonable options:
Staying there was considered suicidal in hindsight, but how often does nothing happen for 40 laps or so? Not one crash anywhere, not one off moment from Petrov, no car trying a banzai strategy... in which percentage of races that year would Alonso have gotten the positions he needed just by doing nothing?

[Greg Locock]

https://www.mclaren.com/applied/lab/wha ... -engineer/