The car that wins an F1 race is the one that competes the race distance in the shortest amount of time. For this reason, Alonso and Perez are an irelevace for a team that has the confidence to run thier own race.
Head To Head Jenson Button vs Lewis Hamilton
- Thread starter Brogan
- Start date
- Status
The Artist.....
Champion Elect
Hamilton stopped on the same lap as perez. As such Hamilton lost no time to perez. Alonso, on the other hand.....
But I don't think they lost. At that point in the race they were the 2nd, 3rd or 4th fastest car, based on your perspective of Sauber, Red Bull and Ferrari.
I think they needed a roll of the dice to move forwards, Sauber had them covered, they kept that roll going until 1 more lap would have forfeited 3rd.
I agree, in hindsight they may have got 2nd, but then, with hindsight freely available Alonso would never have had 1st, so who knows.
I feel with where they were at that point in the race they were not far off playing the odds just right.
I think they needed a roll of the dice to move forwards, Sauber had them covered, they kept that roll going until 1 more lap would have forfeited 3rd.
I agree, in hindsight they may have got 2nd, but then, with hindsight freely available Alonso would never have had 1st, so who knows.
I feel with where they were at that point in the race they were not far off playing the odds just right.
The Artist.....
Champion Elect
But they're not irrelevant, as track position is also very important! Even with drs, kers, and other acronyms, it is still possible to get stuck behind another car!
My mistake, I was looking at the wrong data.
You're right, Hamilton lost no time to Pérez but conversely he didn't gain any either.
There was the possibility of making up 10 seconds to him, which McLaren chose not to do.
The Artist.....
Champion Elect
Plus, if multiple teams independently came to the same strategy, then it suggests that there was merit to it! If all of the teams had changed on lap 38, I would agree that it was idiotic to wait to lap 41 for mclaren, but they didn't! As such, it suggests that alternative strategies were thought viable by team strategists!
They very nearly lost track position to Vettel by being reactive rather than proactive. As i said earlier in this thread, you don't win races by playing follow the leader.
The Artist.....
Champion Elect
I will say that it is unlikely that they would have made 10 seconds on Perez- even if they stopped on lap 39- perez would (likely) have stopped on the subsequent lap. As far as I can tell, the maximum gain would've been 5 seconds- however, this is just conjecture!
They didn't have the same strategy. There were a cascade of pitstops over the space of four laps.
Your first sentence is also a comple contradiction to your last, unless I have misunderstood your point.
The Artist.....
Champion Elect
Perez and hamilton stopped on lap 41. Same strategy
Alonso, vetted, raikkonen, verge, hulkenberg and kobayashi all stopped the lap before... Similar strategy - but they needed to cover off the teams behind them!
Since they didn't all jump into the pitlane on lap 38, it suggests that they all thought it would be optimal to stay out, as there was a chance of rain. Mclaren and sauber were the last to change their strategies!
Ps alternative strategies relates to different strategies from just stopping on lap 38!!!
Seeing as that hindsight keeps getting brought up...
In there were two strategists at McLaren peddling both of these strategies at the time then, under analysis in the debrief afer the race, one would look sillier than the other. They will realise that they made a mistake and would hopefully look to avoid it in future.
The guy who was peddling the correct strategy would be too frustrated to afford feeling smug.
In there were two strategists at McLaren peddling both of these strategies at the time then, under analysis in the debrief afer the race, one would look sillier than the other. They will realise that they made a mistake and would hopefully look to avoid it in future.
The guy who was peddling the correct strategy would be too frustrated to afford feeling smug.
The Artist.....
Champion Elect
I would agree- but then again, this is all getting into the what-ifs and wherefores!
The Artist.....
Champion Elect
But again, you're missing the fact that both strategies can make sense- since the 2 drivers were in different parts of the race! Had button not stopped, and then it hadn't rained, he'd have been near enough last. Hamilton lost no places by not stopping, but had the opportunity to jump alonso had it rained again! I'd say both strategists would be happy with that day's work!
So the downside risk was low for Hamilton but high for button- the upside opportunity was probably high for both, but for button, the upside opportunity was outweighed by the downside risk!
Suppose that you were a gambler. If you had a bet that would pay off £100 with probability 0.02 and 0 with probability 0.98, and the gamble costs £1 to enter, then someone who has £1 in total will likely not take the gamble, but someone with £1,000 may be much more likely to take the risk!
I agree, Perez's off was because Alonso was in his sights, trying to double guess how he would react to Hamilton closing is beyond any pure statistical view.
This is the whole point. If the decision they made was on a 50-50 of rain or no rain then it is entirely based on what-ifs and where-fors, which is the decision that you are defending. Conversely, they knew exactly what would happen if they pitted Hamilton on lap 38 - he would have been 5 seconds a lap faster or thereabouts, regardless of what anyone else around him was doing.
Maybe I'm missing the point.
Every post I've made is based around the fact that I feel there could be justification for the strategy McLaren employed.
Is there something I'm missing? Is there one big question McLaren should be answering?
I don't see the question simply because I see a reason why they went the way they did. I don't necessarily agree with it, but then, I'm an F1 fan, not a manager, does every Nigerian have to support every decision Sir Alex makes?
The only presumption I am making is that every decision McLaren made could be backed up by a strategy based on the situation. It may not have been the best, but it can certainly be traced back to the facts at hand.
Every post I've made is based around the fact that I feel there could be justification for the strategy McLaren employed.
Is there something I'm missing? Is there one big question McLaren should be answering?
I don't see the question simply because I see a reason why they went the way they did. I don't necessarily agree with it, but then, I'm an F1 fan, not a manager, does every Nigerian have to support every decision Sir Alex makes?
The only presumption I am making is that every decision McLaren made could be backed up by a strategy based on the situation. It may not have been the best, but it can certainly be traced back to the facts at hand.
The Artist.....
Champion Elect
(same goes for me!)
Yes, mclaren would have been better pitting Hamilton on lap 37 (or probably 36,35 or even 34), but there were good reasons why they didn't
- Status
