Chinese GP 2009 - Shanghai

[DaveKillens]

The huge difference in tire types is the same for all, and all drivers will have to run at least one stint with them. I believe that some driver's concerns is that they will choose to use such tires at the wrong moment, and look foolish. Just like Kimi putting on full wets before everyone else at Malaysia embarassed everyone wearing red, incorrect strategy can put a good car right out of the equation.
Funny, so far in this thread no one has mentioned Ferrari's chances. They have a very good car, and two top drivers. If they keep from screwing up (again), it's reasonably possible we can see a Ferrari at least on the podium, if not challenging for the win.

[ESPImperium]

Is this McLarens double deck diffuser at the moment???





Renault Floor:

[De Jokke]

Looks like heikki is up for more!:


Q. Mark, so far there seems to have been a lot of promise if not the result. What are your feelings about the first couple of races?

Mark WEBBER: I agree with that. We had a pretty good run in Melbourne until the first corner. I think Heikki hit Rubens. I haven't spoken to Heikki about that yet but Rubens and I said we are going to bash him up later on. Yeah, that happens.

HK: You guys brake so early for the first corner. Next time I will run over you even more.

[Roland Ehnström]

Then why not have a computer spew out six random names, and these six drivers will have to use third gear only for five laps? That'll slow them down properly and give others a chance to overtake them.

Why not give teams three possible fuel-loads, and tell them to mix-and-match their strategies on a pre-determined set?

Why not install a random-number generator attached to a grenade in each engine, and have it detonate if it hits a certain number?

Because random = unfair. But there is nothing random or unfair about having to use super-soft tires for at least one lap of the race, it's the same for everyone. I fail to see your point.

Or have drivers racing with a sword hanging by a thread over their heads?

What?

If you want racing, give drivers their proper equipment. Don't give them one over-hard tyre that gets no temperature (Malaysia's Hard compound), or a tyre that breaks up after five laps.

If everyone has perfect tires which give perfect grip for every lap of the race it becomes rather dull and predictable. Forcing teams to adapt their strategy and forcing drivers to adapt their driving-style to less-than-perfect tires adds a dimension to the race and the sport. Formula 1 is not only about driving fast in perfect conditions, it is also about adapting to less-than-perfect conditions.

We have refueling because it's the fastest way to finish a GP - why not tyres that are optimal for the distance?

I agree it would be even better if there was a way to do this less "artificially", but that's not really the point we are discussing. We are discussing whether or not it is a big problem that one of the compounds available to the teams is less than perfectly suited for the track. In my opinion this is not a big problem, because it is still fair since it is the same tire for every team. In my opinion it can even be a good thing, since it adds another dimension to the sport.

[Roland Ehnström]

run a 2-stop race..

- qualify with 8 laps fuel to get pole.
- start the race with the soft compound.
- 5 hot-laps into the race, pit for fuel and prime tyres.
- 1 pitstop to go at roughly 60% race-length!

Simple as that Fernando!

That strategy would put you right back into the pack with no clear air.

After the first pit-stop yes, but then you'd be much heavier than the other cars, so chances are that you will be holding them up rather than them holding you up. And ten laps later they will pit, and you will gain bags of time with a lighter car all the way until your second stop. AND they still have to use the super-softs at the end while you don't. I think this strategy is very good, and I think we will see some teams try it this weekend, especially if the super-softs are as bad as Alonso predicts.

[ISLAMATRON]

run a 2-stop race..

- qualify with 8 laps fuel to get pole.
- start the race with the soft compound.
- 5 hot-laps into the race, pit for fuel and prime tyres.
- 1 pitstop to go at roughly 60% race-length!

Simple as that Fernando!

Hey thats what I was thinking, however it would prolly only work for BrawnGP, RedBull or Toyota as their cars have the race pace to make a good getaway.

Exactly... if the tires are so bad I want Alonso to not qualify on them or just shut the eff up....He just whining like a bitch... but we should be used to that from him.

The tires are fine, it is up to the teams to use the proper race strategy... they are the fools who think the SS tires will last even if they have a huge fuel load... Why the hell did RBR start in Austrailia with the Mediums if they knew they only had 16 laps of fuel on board...

[ESPImperium]

Im gonna put this strategy forward.

Quali with 28 laps on board, scraping into the top 6 cars
Start on primes.
Pit on lap 25, put in enough fuel not to be peanalised on next stop (soon) drive 6 good evenly paced laps on the options
Pit on lap 31 for primes, leaving you 25 laps to run in the race, run falt out till the finish.

May be the hybrid to use the SS tyres on the middle stint, but also the most risky id think. Id rather get them gone within the early stages of the race. Say pit between the 5th and 9th lap. But its also a bet on a saftey car in the first lap or two with this one as well.

Dont think many teams will use them on the last stint tho.

[Metar]

Dont think many teams will use them on the last stint tho.

Definitely not after Australia.


I wonder. With the races effectively the same-but-five-laps-shorter, will teams run three-stoppers? Or will they all do these effectively-one-stoppers?

[ISLAMATRON]

Im gonna put this strategy forward.

Quali with 28 laps on board, scraping into the top 6 cars
Start on primes.
Pit on lap 25, put in enough fuel not to be peanalised on next stop (soon) drive 6 good evenly paced laps on the options
Pit on lap 31 for primes, leaving you 25 laps to run in the race, run falt out till the finish.

May be the hybrid to use the SS tyres on the middle stint, but also the most risky id think. Id rather get them gone within the early stages of the race. Say pit between the 5th and 9th lap. But its also a bet on a saftey car in the first lap or two with this one as well.

Dont think many teams will use them on the last stint tho.

Why not, the rubber builds up the further you go into the race, the more rubber on track the easier it is on the tires. The supersofts(options) are better suited to lower temps as overheating them leads to graining, and the Mediums(primes) need more heat on track to keep up temp, especially behind the SC. Doesnt the track temp usually go down as the race progresses? It did in austrailia(mostly because of the late start)


The problem with a preset strategy is it is highly problematic when the weather or the SC comes into play, we saw that in both of the first 2 races... the safe way to go is to start the race with enuff fuel for a long first stint(when the SC usually comes out)


Honestly tire strategies may be moot seeing that rain is expected this weekend.

[ISLAMATRON]

Dont think many teams will use them on the last stint tho.

Definitely not after Australia.


I wonder. With the races effectively the same-but-five-laps-shorter, will teams run three-stoppers? Or will they all do these effectively-one-stoppers?

The Winner and second place used the options in the last stint. It was the best choice, but it had to be run smartly... actually running the option tires for the first stint is stupid to me.

The bigger gaps between the 2 tires have effectively ruled out 1 stop races where the supersofts are the option tire... but it has made 3 stop strategies more feasable.

[ESPImperium]

The one thing that the SS tyres will have going for them is the temprature in China, its very similar to what we are experiencing here in Glasgow in the mornings, arround 12-14 celcius, so the reduced track temprature may have a impact on the tyres longevity, maybes adding a lap or two compaired to Australia.

But i can see teams ditching them in the first 10 laps of the race no matter what. Any driver that runs more than 10 laps on them in China i will happly give a £5 note to.

Id recon that teams will take them and pit between lap 5 and 8, just to get rid of them.

A 3 stopper may work well;

Start on primes, run for 17 laps, Pit for primes after another 15-17 laps, pit for primes in another 15-17 laps FUEL FOR THE FINISH, pit on lap 50 for the option, run them on a even pace, try and concerve them on the first couple of laps of running and try and conserve your standing in the race. Will probably work, as long as you can constantly come out into clear air when on the primes.

If we see a first lap pile up tho, meaning those on the options will turn it into effectivly a 2 stopper on the primes for them as they will pit, and not get penalised too much as they can catch up the back of the pack and cleverly work their way thru the order.

[Metar]

The Winner and second place used the options in the last stint. It was the best choice, but it had to be run smartly... actually running the option tires for the first stint is stupid to me.

Yet Kubica has shown that, with Primes at the end, one can be faster than his actual pace suggests, if the (highly probable) safety-car appears. Jenson himself admitted that his softs were going, despite doing his best to drive slow and conserve them - a charge from Kubica could've forced him to wear his tyres down like Vettel did.

Kubica, pace-wise, shouldn't have been up there with Vettel - but because he completed his softs-obligation at the start, he had better tyres at the end, and gained several positions. Second-place ran options, and was fourth just a few laps from the end - finishing 2nd place was luck for Rubens, thanks to the collision between Vettel and Kubica. If it weren't for that, 2nd place - or potentially the winner - would be a Prime driver.


Using Options at the start makes sense because of safety-cars. We see them more often than not, especially during the opening stages - and having completed the requirement on the "worst" compound, this early disadvantage turns into a huge advantage.

[ISLAMATRON]

Yet Kubica has shown that, with Primes at the end, one can be faster than his actual pace suggests, if the (highly probable) safety-car appears. Jenson himself admitted that his softs were going, despite doing his best to drive slow and conserve them - a charge from Kubica could've forced him to wear his tyres down like Vettel did.

Kubica, pace-wise, shouldn't have been up there with Vettel - but because he completed his softs-obligation at the start, he had better tyres at the end, and gained several positions. Second-place ran options, and was fourth just a few laps from the end - finishing 2nd place was luck for Rubens, thanks to the collision between Vettel and Kubica. If it weren't for that, 2nd place - or potentially the winner - would be a Prime driver.

Using Options at the start makes sense because of safety-cars. We see them more often than not, especially during the opening stages - and having completed the requirement on the "worst" compound, this early disadvantage turns into a huge advantage.

You cant be "faster than your pace suggests" its all in lap times. Kubica was normal for the BMW & Vettle was slower than he should have been because of terrivle strategy... Jenson got it just right.


Jensen was fine... it was BMW, Theissen and Kubica talking out of their ass wishful thinking that was not gong to win the race for them... they try crazy strategies and it rarely if ever works out for them... same with Redbull... Vettle's race was effectively over after having to pit for fuel on lap 16 without having used the mandatory option tires that could not last for more than ten laps, that meant he would have to run 32 laps(55% of the race) on his other set of prime tires... BAD strategies by Reb d bull is what made Kubica look faster than what he was in Austrailia... Jesen lost over 20 seconds lead because of the safety car.

The BMW was not fast enuff to qualify as high as it did but Kubica was extra light, that type of strategy never wins.

[Metar]

You cant be "faster than your pace suggests" its all in lap times. Kubica was normal for the BMW & Vettle was slower than he should have been because of terrivle strategy... Jenson got it just right.

Over a race-distance, you can end up in a position higher than you would earn by pace alone. That's a point nobody can argue with, because it's true.

Kubica, overall, wasn't fast enough to come near the Red Bull, no matter it's strategy. It was a safety-car that wiped all of Vettel and Brawn's advantages. At that time, Kubica had a far superior tyre - and that's how he passed Nico, Rubens and almost passed Sebastian, even though they were all faster cars, both over a single lap and both over the whole distance, hadn't it been for a safety car. You yourself said:

The BMW was not fast enuff to qualify as high as it did but Kubica was extra light, that type of strategy never wins.

And yet it was charging hard for 2nd place, with the leader not too far off - perhaps not catchable, but definitely not as far ahead as he was before.

That was due to strategy alone: That same strategy I suggested would make sense - using up the "bad" tyres first, and then hope a safety-car brings you back to the pack. And you yourself suggested Red Bull should've done that on Vettel - and yes, without disintegrating tyres at the end, who knows? Vettel on the Prime was faster than Button on the Options. Kubica on the primes was equal or faster than Button on the Options.

Rosberg got --- over by the whole midfield because he had the Options at the end, while his competitors had primes..

[ISLAMATRON]

That was due to strategy alone: That same strategy I suggested would make sense - using up the "bad" tyres first, and then hope a safety-car brings you back to the pack. And you yourself suggested Red Bull should've done that on Vettel - and yes, without disintegrating tyres at the end, who knows? Vettel on the Prime was faster than Button on the Options. Kubica on the primes was equal or faster than Button on the Options.

Rosberg got --- over by the whole midfield because he had the Options at the end, while his competitors had primes..

Rosberg did not lose out because he had the options on at the end, he lost out because his strategy caused him to run them for way too long at the end... he would have been equally proper --- if he ran them for too long in the first stint like Ferrari did.

Kubica did nothing special, he lucked out with the safety car and his team just didnt make bonehead strategy decisions like Vettle/Red Bull and Rosberg/Williams did.

Hoping for a safety car is not a strategy, it is just that a hope... Just like efrrari was hoping for rain when they put the rain tires on KIMI.

Jenson had the safist and most optimal strategy for Austrailia, and guess what he won... bacause Charlie didnt mash the SC button until after Button pitted.... hmmm maybe thats why they call it a button.