2017 Monaco Grand Prix, Monte Carlo, 26-28 May

[basti313]

...
I really thought yesterday it was the car design and tyres to blame, just as the drivers had been saying since the early part of the season and we witnessed in places like Melbourne and China - cars just aren't able to follow as closely through the corners as they have been in years prior to this one. The aerodynamic regulations have gone backwards and Monaco highlights that. Don't shoot the messenger!

Yes, furthermore I think you need to separate the points:
The cars were made deliberately wider. This makes not much difference on a normal track, but in Monaco it avoids overtakes at the grand hotel as one can defend easily by driving just a little bit off the line.
On the other hand the width of the cars is not the problem in the tunnel or the DRS straight. Here we have the problem, that we have too good traction even with old tires and bad aero for the following car.
So I second that the aero is the main problem. Not the width of the cars as it is said quite often.

for those who say nothing happens in the race.

only Carlos Sainz in 6th and Roman Grosjean in 8th finished the race where they started

Since, I was arguing against the track, I wanted to respond. My argument was, "not much happens **on track** during the race". Strategy, attrition, team orders, undercut, overcut etc. can shuffle the field, but, for many (at least for me) on-track battles are important in a race.

I don't deny strategies are clever, but, I enjoy it only when it complements on-track action.

Maybe we are already spoiled by DRS. In the pre-DRS aera with Bridgestone tires we had only races like this. And even less action in the strategies. At least the possibilities for under- and overcuts showed a lot of action if you were watching the live timing mid race. Also the early stops from Weh and But were interesting for a few rounds, unfortunately they never picked up any pace...wrong cars, I would have liked to see a midfield car doing this.

[Juzh]

On a track where power is not be all and end all of racing, mercedes suddenly became only the 3rd fastest race car. Just gonna leave that here.

[Sevach]

After FP i was sure the overcut was better than the undercut.
However, when Verstappen nearly made the undercut work my "faith" was a little shaken, it didn't seem as clear cut as i originally thought, it was much closer...

Over the last couple of years Mercedes idea of "fairness" could be summed up to "the guy who was leading before the pitstops should be leading after the pitstops", here in Monaco it was a weird one on which was best, but... If Ferrari was quite as obsessed as Mercedes used to be with "fairness" they would have pitted both cars within a lap of each other to keep the differences at a minimum, when they allowed Vettel a number of extra laps, giving him every chance to make his strategy work, to me at least it means that Ferrari wasn't that concerned with preserving the original order.

Maybe their idea of fairness is different, giving the second driver a good shot at making his strategy work or maybe a Vettel victory is what they wanted and they achieved it without telling Kimi to lift.

Also worth pointing out that Mercedes is playing by very different rules in 2017 than they played the last couple of years.

[Big Mangalhit]

when they allowed Vettel a number of extra laps, giving him every chance to make his strategy work, to me at least it means that Ferrari wasn't that concerned with preserving the original order.

Maybe their idea of fairness is different, giving the second driver a good shot at making his strategy work or maybe a Vettel victory is what they wanted and they achieved it without telling Kimi to lift.

Also worth pointing out that Mercedes is playing by very different rules in 2017 than they played the last couple of years.

the extra number of laps you mention I think was 1. Personally I liked the strategy from Ferrari. In monaco the car in front can+t be overtaken especially if the car behind is the same. So it was nice for them to let them race for those two laps. The one who did the better job would take the win. Fresh SS vs very old US.

I think Vettel really wanted it and really had to sweat. In order to do those very fast laps and make it work Vettel risked touching a wall and losing his guaranteed 18 points. After the overtake he also managed to really open quite a gap to Kimi. The faster overall driver won and not because of a radio stand aside order. Much more dignifying.

I'm really happy that Ferrari seem to have changed its ways, we have seen numerous times that Vettel has to really take the effort to beat kimi including real on track overtakes sometimes. Hope this continues throughout the whole year. I don't want to hear that "fernando is faster than you". Even tho everything might change in the end

[Big Mangalhit]

Nope I was wrong I checked it and was actually 4 extra laps. That part of the race went extra fast I guess. My bad

[komninosm]

...

BOT was stuck behind Sainz too. If they didn't pit him with VER then only VER would be stuck and BOT would stay ahead of both VER and RIC.

Sainz times were dropping like mad. Low 17s to high 18s. A bet on a soon Sainz stop was easy. It just came a bit late...there was nothing to loose, but it was a strange call by Torro Rosso to leave him out with these times. I wonder if he would have stayed out with only Ver behind.

Undercut did not work at all in Monaco. Overcut did work (at least for VET). SS tire was quite a bit slower at first and US could last whole race (and also traffic made undercut worse/riskier).

Again: Ver lost nearly a second in the pits and Bot still came out only close in front. I still do not see any argument on a not working undercut. Only the circumstances were bad.

Do you have evidence to support HAM dropping behind GRO? Live Timing was BUGGED as hell for me, but from what I could tell HAM was doing faster laps than GRO without even trying hard.

Lap 45 Gro: 1:17.095, Ham: 1:17.469
There was even more the danger of running into a backmarker than the danger of Gro running low 17s for a long time. As soon as the target (getting past Gro) was achieved, Ham pitted. There was nothing else to win, a few laps more and Sai would have been out of the SC window.

If Sainz times were dropping so fast, a few laps more would allow them to go ahead of him. I seriously doubt everything you say now, without evidence. Nobody should expect Sainz to pit that early really, given the tire situation.

BOT had a bad lap and VER still couldn't undercut. Tires just weren't up to it. The pit difference was half a second. BOT was over a second ahead. Undercuts usually work spectacularly. You have no proof for and several against. Yet you use one might have been undercut as evidence.

HAM had to pass 1 backmarker in lap 45. GRO would have to pass more up to lap 60. Mercedes in US could outpace GRO easily and US would last entire race.

[CriXus]

The critical laps around Ferrari's pit-stops

Lap Raikkonen Vettel
30 1:17.105 1:16.636
31 1:17.074 1:17.166
32 1:17.663 1:17.052
33 1:17.034 1:17.188
34 1:34.039 (in-lap) 1:16.592
35 1:19.518 (out-lap) 1:16.446
36 1:16.114 1:16.264
37 1:16.133 1:15.587
38 1:15.606 1:15.238
39 1:15.527 1:32.673 (in-lap)
40 1:17.709 1:18.650 (out-lap)

The out-lap of Raikkonen is the one with the traffic (McLaren and Sauber cars), so he is 0.8 slower than Vettel, on the in laps Vettel's is 1.3 faster than Raikkonen (no traffic for both of them). Let us suggest that the Vettel's lap is the same as Raikkonen's one. We can see that Vettel's mighty laps after Raikkonen's pit-stop are the important ones.

[komninosm]

for those who say nothing happens in the race.

only Carlos Sainz in 6th and Roman Grosjean in 8th finished the race where they started

What is that supposed to mean?
If no car overtakes another and the pole car crashes then ALL cars will finish in a different place than they started.
Monaco is super-boring every year. Controversies are mostly about team mistakes and Rosberg parking it during qualify or Schumacher doing the same and who gets a penalty. Oh and who crashed into who during the race.

[WaikeCU]

Why Monaco is on the calendar?
- To showcase the glitter and glamour of Monaco
- To be associated with prestige, the famous and the richest. F1 is the most expensive and prestigious (auto)sport there is.
- To showcase (most) drivers can actually drive on the limit without making any mistakes and reach the finish line. Hey, there are only 20 (or 22?) of the world's best drivers that can drive F1. It's what they say.

Ever seen bobsleigh or luge? Well, this is the same, but with added posh.

But should it be scrapped from the calendar?
- No, because it's been there from the early days and a true drivers kind of circuit where drivers should be able to make a difference. F1 needs Monaco, just like Monaco needs F1. It adds value to both. There's always something magical about it. From the atmosphere to the driving itself. Every year there's always something that catches our eyes during the GP weekend. I agree there's lots more circuits where overtakes are done during the race, but do they have the magic of Monaco?

[Phil]

CriXus, do you have Vettels laps post 40 in hand?

When I look at Kimi's lap post his pitstop, I feel he suffered most due to traffic and the factor that the slightly harder tires (SS) would have taken a bit more time to get into the ideal temperature window, hence why we can see Kimi hit the 1:15s 3 laps after pitting. If we had Vettels times of lap 41, 42, 43, we could perhaps see if Vettel went through a similar evolution of performance or if he was able to "switch on" his tires more quickly.

Despite all this; I am fairly confident Ferrari knew full well what they were doing when they brought Kimi in. They must of had a decent idea of where the traffic was on the track and Kimi came right out into it, which cost a fair amount of time on his outlap. IMO that was already enough to get the job done and had Vettel pitted the lap after, he probably would have retained the lead. Adding to that, Kimis inlap was quite slow (compared to Vettels) - did Kimi have traffic just before pitting?

Can't blame Ferrari, though I do feel for Kimi. He should have won this. His performance was superb in qualifying and at the beginning of his first stint, he had very good performance. I do get though that to a certain degree, it all just fell into place for Vettel, just as it did for Ricciardo when Max pitted and all other drivers ahead cascaded into pitting as well.

[ferkan]

Kimi shouldnt have won this. Look at the data. Kimi was doing 1:17s on his US. He went 1+s faster on his SS when he went out of pits. His only problem was a fact that Seb actually had MASSIVE advantage on US tires as he posted up to 2s faster times, and even though Kimi got pace advantage in comparison to his US run at the end, he still came behind.

What happens had Kimi stayed out for few laps to not get behind lapped cars and Vettel came in for SS? Well Vettel woukd have driven in 15s for these 3-4 laps while Kimi would lap slowly in 17s. His advantage over Vettel before pits was meesly 1.1s, its absolutely not enough for "should have won argument". He didnt have nearly enough pace as he wasnt able to get more then 1s before his pitstop against his teammate (even though he was in free air).

[Mamba]

The critical laps around Ferrari's pit-stops

Lap Raikkonen Vettel
30 1:17.105 1:16.636
31 1:17.074 1:17.166
32 1:17.663 1:17.052
33 1:17.034 1:17.188
34 1:34.039 (in-lap) 1:16.592
35 1:19.518 (out-lap) 1:16.446
36 1:16.114 1:16.264
37 1:16.133 1:15.587
38 1:15.606 1:15.238
39 1:15.527 1:32.673 (in-lap)
40 1:17.709 1:18.650 (out-lap)

The out-lap of Raikkonen is the one with the traffic (McLaren and Sauber cars), so he is 0.8 slower than Vettel, on the in laps Vettel's is 1.3 faster than Raikkonen (no traffic for both of them). Let us suggest that the Vettel's lap is the same as Raikkonen's one. We can see that Vettel's mighty laps after Raikkonen's pit-stop are the important ones.

Do you have the laps of Bottas and verstappen before and after they pitted? Verstappen came in on lap 32, Bottas on 33 and kimi on 34. Ferrari probably knew of the traffic but the times of Bottas and Verstappen were most probably a mystery since Verstappen did basically one lap and Bottas was yet to do a full lap when they called Kimi in. What would have happend if the new set of SS was the better tire and they were out and yet to stop? They had a bit of a buffer yes but the can not predict the lap deficit of improvement of others. Kimi just did not have luck on his side that day. A strategy (mistake now with hindsight) cost him the lead plus very good laps by Vettel pushed by Riccardo and helped by a pitting Ericsson opening the track in front.

As I said previously, we can only speak with hindsight. Ferrari had no clue exactly what Vettel's times (how much faster now that he had a bit of clear track) would be like and how the car on that time and in that moment would react to the SS tire. Simulations must have said that would be the faster tire for Kimi and the speed Vettel now showed helped to keep the 1-2 secure from a charging Riccardo. Vettel got the lead and the kept their 1-2. Championship leader got max points and so did the team. Sometimes things just don't go as planned. Hamilton's clear win that became third in 2015? Red Bulls pit stop error last year? No matter what happend on Sunday, one of the two Ferrari drivers was bound to be unhappy with the result.

MAMBA

[CriXus]

CriXus, do you have Vettels laps post 40 in hand?

When I look at Kimi's lap post his pitstop, I feel he suffered most due to traffic and the factor that the slightly harder tires (SS) would have taken a bit more time to get into the ideal temperature window, hence why we can see Kimi hit the 1:15s 3 laps after pitting. If we had Vettels times of lap 41, 42, 43, we could perhaps see if Vettel went through a similar evolution of performance or if he was able to "switch on" his tires more quickly.

Despite all this; I am fairly confident Ferrari knew full well what they were doing when they brought Kimi in. They must of had a decent idea of where the traffic was on the track and Kimi came right out into it, which cost a fair amount of time on his outlap. IMO that was already enough to get the job done and had Vettel pitted the lap after, he probably would have retained the lead. Adding to that, Kimis inlap was quite slow (compared to Vettels) - did Kimi have traffic just before pitting?

Can't blame Ferrari, though I do feel for Kimi. He should have won this. His performance was superb in qualifying and at the beginning of his first stint, he had very good performance. I do get though that to a certain degree, it all just fell into place for Vettel, just as it did for Ricciardo when Max pitted and all other drivers ahead cascaded into pitting as well.

Vettel's lap after the pit-stop

Lap Time
41 1:16.19
42 1:16.35
43 1:16.75
44 1:16.38

He was able to switch them better than Raikkonen, but that is a bit misleading (Vettel did not have to put qualifying laps after he exit the pit). To me, the problem for Raikkonen was that he could not make much bigger gap to Vettel before the first pit-stop. And we know that the driver who is first pits first, that is unwritten rule. Raikkonen had 1s to 1.3s advantage and that's not enough.

[CriXus]

For the people asking about lap times, here is the link. http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2017/05/28/2 ... test-laps/

[basti313]

CriXus, do you have Vettels laps post 40 in hand?

Stable 16s low for ~15 laps. He was not really pushing as Rai was much slower. But his outlap was nearly a second faster than the outlap of Rai, so I guess the argument with switching the tires on is valid.

When I look at Kimi's lap post his pitstop, I feel he suffered most due to traffic and the factor that the slightly harder tires (SS) would have taken a bit more time to get into the ideal temperature window, hence why we can see Kimi hit the 1:15s 3 laps after pitting.

I think you are right with the tires. Looks like it really took 3 laps to get to pace for him. I do not agree with the traffic, this did not cost the lead, this was not more than half a second. The laps afterwards cost more time, he lost half a second in lap 37 alone without traffic.

Despite all this; I am fairly confident Ferrari knew full well what they were doing when they brought Kimi in. They must of had a decent idea of where the traffic was on the track and Kimi came right out into it, which cost a fair amount of time on his outlap. IMO that was already enough to get the job done and had Vettel pitted the lap after, he probably would have retained the lead. Adding to that, Kimis inlap was quite slow (compared to Vettels) - did Kimi have traffic just before pitting?

I do not think this was the goal to pit him into traffic. Ferrari was under pressure from behind: Ric was closing in with 0.6sec rising, Ves did an outlap matching a 1:15low...with Rai doing 1:17mid with a gap of 5 sec before the stops. There was not much space to pit Rai and Vet if you consider that both need to pit before the Bulls/Mercs are close and Eri as traffic in front.

Weh did a 1:20 before the Rai stop. This was the trigger: With another 1:20 of Weh and a good inlap of Rai, Weh and But would have ended up behind Rai. But it came out different...Rai had a horrible inlap and Weh did a low 19, thus, Rai ended up in traffic.

If we look back it looks, of course, different. Ric could not hold his pace, Bot was slower than Ver and both ended up in traffic. But as a strategist looking for a safe way to a 1/2...I think I would have pitted Rai always at that point to defend P2 as there was the danger of Vet not having more pace than Rai on the old tires.