J
johnnoble1990
Guest
At melbourne, Brundle seemed to suggest that Lewis needed to go longer on his tyres than Vettel to "undercut" him. I couldn't understand this because Vettel was always going to be quicker on fresh tyres, so the longer Lewis went the further behind he would be. Sure enough, when Lewis pitted two laps later he was 5 seconds or so behind, having been 1.5 seconds.
It seems to me now that the optimum strategy is to be the first to pit and have a lap or two on fresh rubber. Of course, the earlier you go the more you compromise your strategy later in the race and the less degraded you opponents tyres will be.
This idea of pitting 2nd to undercut a driver seems to be left over from the days of refueling, where the team who pitted second would have a few laps on low fuel, against someone with high fuel. What we saw a lot last year was as soon as one driver pitted at the back of a bunch then they all pitted to cover him off.
It seems to me that Lewis could've jumped Vettel in Melbourne had he pitted just before Seb or the lap after. It seems like a strategy mistake and a lapse in logic to me?
It seems to me now that the optimum strategy is to be the first to pit and have a lap or two on fresh rubber. Of course, the earlier you go the more you compromise your strategy later in the race and the less degraded you opponents tyres will be.
This idea of pitting 2nd to undercut a driver seems to be left over from the days of refueling, where the team who pitted second would have a few laps on low fuel, against someone with high fuel. What we saw a lot last year was as soon as one driver pitted at the back of a bunch then they all pitted to cover him off.
It seems to me that Lewis could've jumped Vettel in Melbourne had he pitted just before Seb or the lap after. It seems like a strategy mistake and a lapse in logic to me?