Race Strategies

[Max Mosley 2]

I think maybe you are taking Meanies statement a little too literally. We have to have an official measurement of a driver's ability and that measurement will always be the points he accrues and the position he finishes in. Unofficially, it is very different from that; Gilles and Stirling are two great examples, as you mentioned. In my observations of Meanioni and his passion for our sport, i don't think the concept of being able to judge a driver outside of this box is beyond him for one second. Ultimately, a great driver (whether he achieves actual points/championship position success) will never escape the attentions of the informed viewer.

I strongly disagree.

Well, not really. That was just for rhetoric's sake. Andres is taking Meanioni's statement too seriously, but Fed Up, Mike and others do take the view that only results matter at the end of the day. Personally I think it's a load of poppyc#ck too.

[Quiet One 15]

@Russ: Chris Amon! How could I miss that one?

@Steve:

I think maybe you are taking Meanies statement a little too literally. We have to have an official measurement of a driver's ability and that measurement will always be the points he accrues and the position he finishes in. Unofficially, it is very different from that; Gilles and Stirling are two great examples, as you mentioned. In my observations of Meanioni and his passion for our sport, i don't think the concept of being able to judge a driver outside of this box is beyond him for one second. Ultimately, a great driver (whether he achieves actual points/championship position success) will never escape the attentions of the informed viewer.

Guilty of charge. I knew that Meanie Weenie didn't mean it that way. I just took the opportunity when I read the phrase to explain my concept. Through my post, I tried to make clear that I don't really think he thinks that way. I am sorry if it wasn't clear enough.

@FedUp: as Steve said, nope.

[AleHop 0]

It's a common thinking around these forums that the only thing that matters is the final result (a twisted way of saying "the end justify the means", perhaps?)

You aren't asking Murray about that, are you?

Hungaroring '06 was probably Alonso's best race ever = 0 points.

Hungaroring '06 was probably Button's best race ever = 10 points.

Who did you vote for DOD?

[Quiet One 15]

You aren't asking Murray about that, are you?

Hungaroring '06 was probably Alonso's best race ever = 0 points.

Hungaroring '06 was probably Button's best race ever = 10 points.

Who did you vote for DOD?

Nobody. I wasn't in any forum back then. My life was marvelous, I had long golden locks and was thin and filthy rich. Or maybe just thin and filthy, my memory isn't as good as it used to be.

[AleHop 0]

Nobody. I wasn't in any forum back then. My life was marvelous, I had long golden locks and was thin and filthy rich. Or maybe just thin and filthy, my memory isn't as good as it used to be.

I joined TF1 9 months ago but my hair is still on my head.

I have a few more grey hairs but girls tell me it makes me look like George Clooney.

[kuskor 0]

That's quite a generalisation about strategy options.

In principle, you run a simulation with one, two or three stops and see which is faster. The qualifying system makes one-stoppers very unattractive and with on-track overtaking being very hard and sc situations, a three stopper is more of a gamble,therefore two stops has become the norm. We see some variations with the middle stint here and there, but that's about it.

In theory Hamiltons strategy should have cost him second place. He should never have been able to pass Massa on track, he would instead get stuck there wasting his advantage and then pit early and end up in a traffic jam. One could always wonder if he would have been able to stay ahead of Kimi, had they been on the same strategy. 3 stops is usually an agressive strategy and requires more of the driver.

[pabloh20 1]

I joined TF1 9 months ago but my hair is still on my head.

I have a few more grey hairs but girls tell me it makes me look like George Clooney.

Before or after you pay them ??

[AleHop 0]

Before or after you pay them ??

They tell me it makes me look like Max Mosley before I pay them.

Shouldn't say that once I pay them?

Women!

[Autumnpuma 0]

I strongly disagree.

Well, not really. That was just for rhetoric's sake. Andres is taking Meanioni's statement too seriously, but Fed Up, Mike and others do take the view that only results matter at the end of the day. Personally I think it's a load of poppyc#ck too.

You rang? Since I was mentioned, I figure I'll clarify my stance on this. I look at it in two ways. The first way is in the context of the 'game'. Accumulation of points is the whole object of this 'game' we call F1 and in that context you must judge the drivers that win the races and rack up the points as the best at the game of F1.

The second way is the 'sport' of F1. This is where you look at the Villeneuves, Amons, Brundles, Alesis and admire their racecraft and skill.

Two different ways of 'ranking' them, if you will.

[Max Mosley 2]

Yeah, I agree, Mike. Sorry for calling you a purveyor of poppyc#ck! I know you peddle nothing but the finest wares. (I forgot about your views on Gilles, Jean et al.)

[Silver_Arrows 0]

1. The weaker package _needs_ something to go wrong for the strong package.

I am gonna have to disagree with that one, it doesn\'t always work. If you look at Alonso\'s win at hungary 2003, and Coulthard\'s win in the pants 2002 McLaren in Monaco, it is quiet possible for weaker packages to score good results, where the track layout is permissive to defensive driving. Also, if you look at 2007 it was generally considered that the Ferrari was a faster race car, than the McLaren but more often than not McLaren where able to play havoc with Ferraris races because they got amongst them on the grid. Granted the performance difference between the 2 wasn\'t massive, but it does show that you can achieve decent results by qualifying your car well.

As for Alonso\'s performance in Barcelona, it wasn\'t about showboating. The team tried something different on their strategy because they sniffed a good result. Alonso was only 3 laps lighter than kimi, and considering his car, even with the new improvements is on average about 1/2 a second a lap slower than the Ferrari, to only lose pole by a tenth of a second was a creditable performance. yes, he was never going to win, but realistically nobody expected him to.

Personally I do not see the need for threads like this, most people know how important Strategy is to Formula 1

[Max Mosley 2]

Here's a calculation of where Alonso was at in terms of qualifying pace in Barcelona. Seems a good estimate to me (it's explained over several posts in the link) and suggests Alonso was 7th fastest after correcting for fuel only. As to whether that was achieved by running the engine more aggressively, I guess we can only guess.

[Silver_Arrows 0]

Firstly: with the engines limited to 19,000 RPM, pretty much everyone runs them agressively in qualifying

Secondly: I seriously doubt that Renault would take any risk that could potentially hit the reliability of one of their cars

Personally, I think it just comes down to Fernando being in front of his home croud, loving where he was at in setup terms, and putting in a fantastic lap. The engine failure was very unfortunate for him, but I don\'t believe it was related to his effort in qualifying

[Max Mosley 2]

Yes, perhaps. We'll never know what they did, but I'm sure they do have some freedom to run the engines more aggressively if they need to, and it would make sense to go for glory in front of your home supporters. He wouldn't be the first driver, or sportsman in general, to take a gamble in that situation.

Regarding his pace, I don't think it was anything special. His strategy has succeeded in confusing people rather well. He was about the same in Turkey as in Spain, after fuel loads are accounted for.

[dribbler 6]

Nobody. I wasn't in any forum back then. My life was marvelous, I had long golden locks and was thin and filthy rich. Or maybe just thin and filthy, my memory isn't as good as it used to be.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

You rang? Since I was mentioned, I figure I'll clarify my stance on this. I look at it in two ways. The first way is in the context of the 'game'. Accumulation of points is the whole object of this 'game' we call F1 and in that context you must judge the drivers that win the races and rack up the points as the best at the game of F1.

The second way is the 'sport' of F1. This is where you look at the Villeneuves, Amons, Brundles, Alesis and admire their racecraft and skill.

Two different ways of 'ranking' them, if you will.

That about sums up my thoughts too!

Yes all, my comments were taken a little literally... thanks Steve for the kind comments.

...and Andres - Meanie-Weanie???!!! Meanie-Maxi if you please, Baldy Waldy!!!

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

They tell me it makes me look like Max Mosley before I pay them.

So it was *you* in that video???!!! Good luck in Paris in a couple of weeks Hopefully they won't give you too much of ze punishment

[pabloh20 1]

They tell me it makes me look like Max Mosley before I pay them.

Shouldn't say that once I pay them?

Women!

I guess it depends on how much you pay them

[AleHop 0]

I guess it depends on how much you pay them

[maure 1]

I am gonna have to disagree with that one, it doesn\'t always work. If you look at Alonso\'s win at hungary 2003, and Coulthard\'s win in the pants 2002 McLaren in Monaco, it is quiet possible for weaker packages to score good results, where the track layout is permissive to defensive driving. Also, if you look at 2007 it was generally considered that the Ferrari was a faster race car, than the McLaren but more often than not McLaren where able to play havoc with Ferraris races because they got amongst them on the grid. Granted the performance difference between the 2 wasn\'t massive, but it does show that you can achieve decent results by qualifying your car well.

As for Alonso\'s performance in Barcelona, it wasn\'t about showboating. The team tried something different on their strategy because they sniffed a good result. Alonso was only 3 laps lighter than kimi, and considering his car, even with the new improvements is on average about 1/2 a second a lap slower than the Ferrari, to only lose pole by a tenth of a second was a creditable performance. yes, he was never going to win, but realistically nobody expected him to.

Personally I do not see the need for threads like this, most people know how important Strategy is to Formula 1

Yet some of the hooligans claim that what I wrote was "obviously so"... amusing bunch.

Naturally, I agree with the first part your statement. It is imposiible to propose a good-for-all strategy and that was not my intent.

Regarding Alonso, Reanult did not gain much from the strategy but a show in QP. You said it yourself. They simply didn't have the speed. I am not against it, understand, if all a team can do is to flash in QP, gring it on.

Regarding the need for this thread, poster's responses illustrate that much could be gained by delving into this and other F1 related matters... not that that's ever going to mean that it will be applied with honesty around here. Hated drivers will be inspected with a microscope if they do well, while worshipped ones will be excused if they do poorly... there is a sign of the health and knowledge of this forum.