One Stop Strategy

What kind of crap was that Sunday? I mean finally the car was strong and holding it's own and then they do a dumb thing like that. It just pains me to see this happen to Alonso after all he's done to wrangle that car this season and they leave him out to dry.

 

Sometimes you win.
Then there are other times.

 

It's already been done to death in the race thread, but, as always, hindsight is 20/20.....

He was leading the race with just 7 laps left. Lettuce & Checo were on the same strategy and their tires lasted - Ferrari admitted they were watching them to get a sense of if they'd last - Which they did for those guys, but unfortunately not for Fred.

Turn it round the other way, and the *howls* from the Monday morning QB's here would have been just as loud I'm afraid;

"WTF were they thinking bringing him in from the lead with just a handful of laps left!?"
"WTF did they two stop? Other guys lasted OK, why didn't they watch what the others were doing?"
etc, etc.

They gambled and they got it wrong, that's racin' 2012.....

Cheers,
Ian

 

Indeed. Remember Monaco?

"They should have left Alonso out longer their strategy is too conservative, no imagination, Abu Dhabi blah blah"

 

Exactly!.... Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

After the fact analysis is a whole lot easier than sitting on the pit wall with your man in the lead with half a dozen laps left.......

Cheers,
Ian

 

They had a choice at one lap after and 2 laps after LEwis took his pit stop. After that the die was cast.

What we saw was that a 2 stop strategy was 20 seconds faster than a 1 stop strategy.

My guess is that we won't see a replay of that strategy by Ferrari this year.

 

Hindsight......

What we saw was *Lewis* was that much faster. A one stopper put Lettuce & Checo on the podium though.......

Cheers,
Ian

 

It just goes to show how a driver can set his personal best lap or sectors and then fall pray to the wolves, it is just racing and I enjoyed the outcome. Aswell it is another example of why all teams should be allowed to choose from every compound offered and not what non-drivers think is suitable for each circuit.

 

+1

It's racing - get over it. I liked the race, even if the outcome didn't fulfill my wishes.

 

If racin is only about coming in 1st then I agree it is a gamble but once Vettel came in it was clear Alonso needed to, or else he was going to be passed. They didn't bring him in and so he got passed. It was a matter of math - which escaped the Scuderia. Their pursuit of the win wasn't a gamble it was ignorance.

 

It was only clear that they would have needed to pit when Vettel too was a lot faster than the rest. He could have well got stuck on #6 or #7 or where he came out after his pit stop.

 

It was clear on lap 69 that Hamilton was going to catch them. I was sitting at the hairpin and saw it. If they felt they could have sustained the inevitable DRS-powered pass from Hamilton then I guess they could have kept Alonso out there, but it was also clear on every pass made on Alonso, that he held his line (which is the same as moving over) whenever he was challenged in the DRS zone. They had the information on lap 69 to calculate that he would be toast.

 

I don't know if it was obvious he'd be passed by Vettel...I thought Vettel/RBR crapped their pants at that point and were wrong to pit him that late. I opined in the race thread at the time that I thought Ferrari's decision to go for the 1-stopper was a mistake because Hamilon had already significantly closed the gap (to 14.8 secs) within a couple of laps after a botched pit stop. By that time they had to roll the dice to get the win (assuming they wanted that and not 2nd or 3rd place). The pit window was really only 1 lap after Hamilton, so I can see why they did what they did (especially given Grosjean's success on the 1-stopper)(the difference was that he pitted on lap 21, not lap 17).

Hindsight is 20/20, but at the time they had a small window to pit Alonso and come out in front. They were probably as surprised as I was when he was that close only 2 laps after pitting. At that point, you just do what you can.

 

What I want to know is how much of the strategy decisions are FA and how much is the team, both before and during the race. If the know the drop off can be sudden (e.g. KR earlier this season), and they know its been and will be a hotly contested season, then why take such a risk? Those lost points will come back to bite them...

 

I think the key point is that they CAN go off (a la Kimi) not WILL go off (see R Grosjean in the same Lotus as Kimi getting 49 laps on his tires). It could have been just those 4 extra laps that did FA in (since he drove 53 laps on his softs), but Ferrari knew within 2 laps of Hamilton's pit that they had no shot at first if they pitted FA again.

They rolled the dice and lost. Simple as that.

 

They NEVER had a chance against Hamilton but they could have finished 2nd or 3rd and stayed ahead in points had they pitted for tires. As a former professional race team owner I was able to do the pit strategy in my head right after Hamiltons 2nd lap out after his last stop and realize they NEEDED to stop. No hindsight involved...It was a BAD call

 

Exactly.

And as Len pointed out, they failed to see the big picture, and handed valuable points to Vettel and Red Bull.

Knowing how FA won his first championship, and his inclination to consistently take points rather than shoot for a win every race, he must not have been in the decision making process on Sunday.

 

Correction: that should have been 59.

 

Except he was. It was mutual between the pit wall and driver.

 

No, Alonso was leading much earlier than that. Vettel pitted with 7 laps to go.

 

I think had they pitted 1 lap after Hamilton they had a shot at first, but not beyond that. The sfer move was o pit (hich is hat I was harping on during the race) but thy wanted the win and took an unnecessary chance (imo).

It's their team though, so my opinion is irrelevant...

 

Alonso's contribution to strategy is next to zip. He has lots of other stuff to occupy his time.
Its his function to report what is going on and let the powers that be make the big choices.
An obvious exception to all are flat/deflating tires.
Even if he just flat spots a set that info will go into the decision making hopper.

If he flat spotted a set then pulled in for a tire change on his own he'd be read the Riot Act.

 

What happened is the sort of "exciting racing" that the FIA had in mind when they set the tire specs.

 

.

 

I was sitting trackside and all we see is what is happening on the track. Where was this mutual agreement confirmed?