It was the start which determined the race.
I'm pretty sure it was the finish...
It was the start which determined the race.
It's not high risk as long as you don't lose a position. Vettel was no threat and was covered anyway.They played safe with Hamilton. If you're in 3rd position that's not unusual. You need the points for the championship. Waiting for potential rain would be high risk not safe as everyone else had pitted and were on faster tyres, so wouldn't it be more logical to choose a strategy that covers Vettel and gives Hamilton a chance to challenge both cars in front?
Webber was the first one to pit that race and was put on the soft. Alonso also had pitted early (I'm not sure if he pitted before or after Webber, I think Alonso pitted first) and he was faster then Webber at that time. Then Hamilton came in and also was put on super-soft. Shortly after that Vettel overtook Alonso and it turned out supersofts weren't the right choice. And only then Button came in.Webber, Vettel and then Jenson all put on the Soft tyres, which would get them to the end of the race and then for a reason that I have still not had explained, Hamilton got given super-soft tyres, which clearly would not get him to the end of the race.
You still haven't explained why they chose to pit Button yet leave Hamilton out for two further laps. If they didn't want to risk it raining again then they would have left both cars out.
It's not high risk as long as you don't lose a position. Vettel was no threat and was covered anyway.
No offense, but this shouldn't be used as an excuse (or at least not be used as a main excuse for his bad race as some people do... imo) as they only had a small clutch issue at the start.
Well, my point is that I don't think you can make it as clear cut as you have. I don't think the strategy of McLaren was the decider in this race, but it was (mostly) the time they lost on their pitstops. Especially on the first one, which made Alonso jump Hamilton and Button and getting him into the lead (and in control of the race).I'm not suggesting in this scenario that was even the case but I don't think you can make it as clear cut as you have.
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2012/03/25/2012-malaysian-grand-prix-tyre-strategies-pit-stops/Consistently quick pit stops from Ferrari helped Fernando Alonso on his way to an improbable win. His lap 14 stop allowed him to leapfrog both McLaren drivers – the corresponding pit stops for Jenson Button and Lewis Hamilton were three and five seconds slower respectively.
Hamilton lost time in this visit as the rear jack did not go on properly and the team had to hold him in his pit box. His lap 41 visit was little better – as one mechanic struggle to remove tape from one of his brakes, Hamilton made an early departure.
Hamilton lost 8.5 seconds to Alonso over his three pit stops – more than half his deficit of 14.5 seconds at the finishing line. “In general, we lost some time in the pit stops and I was pushed out of the fight somewhat,” said Hamilton after the race.
Those were just the rain scenarios. You're missing my point, the worst case scenario is what actually happened where Hamilton stayed out too long, it didn't rain and his 3rd place was under threat from Vettel who fortunately for Hamilton got a puncture when he was just 2 seconds behind with 9 laps left. They chose a strategy that allowed for the worst possible scenario.It's not high risk as long as you don't lose a position. Vettel was no threat and was covered anyway.
Even in your worst case situation he doesn't lose a position. In my previous post I already explained that the chance of Hamilton gaining a position due to an earlier pitstop are virtually none-existent.
What really influenced the outcome of the race is the first pitstop of Hamilton, where McLaren screwed up. If they hadn't done that, Hamilton would have been in the lead. That would have been a different race, because Alonso and Perez would need to pass him to win.
Well, my point is that I don't think you can make it as clear cut as you have. I don't think the strategy of McLaren was the decider in this race, but it was (mostly) the time they lost on their pitstops. Especially on the first one, which made Alonso jump Hamilton and Button and getting him into the lead (and in control of the race).
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2012/03/25/2012-malaysian-grand-prix-tyre-strategies-pit-stops/
So we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Button's problem, on the other hand, was well within his control: He hit an HRT.
There's a difference.
In a tight championship with a closed up grid, Button needs to be more consistent than Hamilton if he's to over-come the singular flying lap disadvantage that he clearly has to Hamilton. You can't go from Hero-To-Zero in the course of one week in this year's championship. That's what Button did.
....
Comparing JBs mistake to all of LHs last season, I can't think of any where LH crashed into another driver and it was entirely his fault. ....
PS - JB wasn't thrashing his intermediates - his problem was more that he was failing to keep heat in them! Very different issues indeed!
By a few inches. It looked worse at the end of the tyre change as the car rolled forward when dropped off of the jacks. Considering the state his old tyres were in when he pulled in, it's remarkable that his tyres didn't need to be changed by the Ferrari squad.Didn't Hamilotn miss the pit box on his first stop which put the team out of position?
Massa, Singapore.
It appears that before the collision between Lewis Hamilton and Felipe Massa, Rob Smedley was goading his driver to “hold Hamilton as much as we can. Destroy his race as much as we can.”
If, as rumoured in some circles, Lewis is possibly out of his way from McLaren at the end of this year, then he'll have a huge challenge on his hands.