eleventenths wrote: ↑27 Mar 2018, 02:51
Vettel didn't win in Australia by luck or some "Computer Glitch". He won because Mercedes were incompetent.
Those are strong words, I assume from someone with technical IT experience or programming skills? I'm not sure what warrants a topic being created on this topic alone. If the aim is to simply criticize the official one-line explanation of why the race was lost by Mercedes, then by all means carry on. As a matter of fact however, the program/simulation that does the tracking and ultimately tells the strategists if a gap is sufficient or not is probably a little more complex than simply punching in a few numbers or hitting a few switches.
For one, the simulation is track specific. That means that every track represents a unique set of variables. Pit time loss is different, so is the influence on a potential safety car or virtual safety car. I also assume that in case of a virtual safety car, as was the case in Melbourne, that the delta drivers need to drive to is not a fixed number. It varies, probably at the discretion of the race-director. Depending on what delta drivers must drive to, it changes the outcome of the simulation. Obviously, the slower the delta time, the more time is saved when entering the pits relative to those staying out on track.
Then there is also the point that a car may accelerate on pit entry and pit exit without impacting the allowed delta that is given. This of course also adds a significant factor, one that I assume added to how Mercedes lost the race. In some interview, Toto said that according to their "software", a gap of 15 second [to Vettel] would be sufficient to retain the lead even if he pitted under the VSC. At that point, Vettel was under that, at 12 second, which would yield a 3 second safety margin if you like. By analysis of ORF (Austrian broadcast), when Vettel entered the pits, the gap increased from 12 to 16 seconds. I assume this was as a direct result of his accelerating in just the right time.
When Vettel came out of the pits, he was nigh on ahead, perhaps by a second at most, so the gap of 15 seconds was perhaps accurate at the assumption that a car entering the pits would not accelerate. So the "error" was most likely to be found there.
For what it's worth, I also think that Toto was speaking of a "software glitch" moments after the race when analysis of how and why wasn't completed. From his point of view at that point, it was that something went wrong in the simulation. I am not entirely sure they realized that the error was in fact none and that Vettel was aware of some loophole in the regulations that allowed him to accelerate on pit entry without consequence.
For the record, Vettel has always been very good with exploring the limits of regulations. There was a case where i.e. he once placed his car outside the box at the start of the race (after the formation lap) without consequence because at the time, it was insufficiently regulated how the cars must be placed inside their starting box.
As for the software that determines if a car has a sufficient gap or not - Monaco 2015 comes to mind when the team pitted Hamilton from a very significant lead towards the end of the race believing he would retain it. Obviously, the calculations weren't correct, as he then came out behind both Vettel and Rosberg who hadn't pitted. Thus the conclusion must be that the software/simulation is very sophisticated, but relies on very accurate numbers of the track and GPS tracking (or gaps) of the cars.
