56 replies to this topic

[BillBald]

There's a lot of discussion of McLaren strategy in the Lewis vs Jenson thread, but I don't feel it really belongs there as McLaren strategy mistakes have hurt both drivers.

Of course McLaren sometimes get it completely right, and they should be given credit when it happens. But too often they seem to get it very wrong, and what happened to Jenson in Spa Q2 just seems like the most recent example.

It's always seemed to me that the team need someone whose job it is to just shout 'NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO'!!!!!

We are thinking it would be a good idea for Lewis to go out just once in Monaco Q3, late in the session to get the best track conditions - NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

What seems to have happened in Spa is that they didn't put enough fuel in for the whole session, maybe confident that it would rain hard at some point. If so, an unnecessary risk as the car was quick enough, even if overfuelled. Or did they call Jenson in to save the tyres, in case they were needed for the race?

Let's sort out the strategy for McLaren, they seem to need our help.

[Totza]

It happens too often to just be called bad luck

[jonnoj]

This is a long running issue with McLaren, they've balls up races by making similar poor decisions going back 10 years or more. There are too many people involved in McLaren's strategy dept. Whoever gets to make the final decision is probably receiving far too much information. It can't help having so many people back in Woking sticking their oar in.

[BillBald]

This is a long running issue with McLaren, they've balls up races by making similar poor decisions going back 10 years or more. There are too many people involved in McLaren's strategy dept. Whoever gets to make the final decision is probably receiving far too much information. It can't help having so many people back in Woking sticking their oar in.

There also seems to be a strong likelihood that computers are involved in the decision-making. Not perhaps a bad thing in itself, as long as common sense overrides the supposedly optimum strategy when it's just too risky.

[F1ultimate]

It happens too often to just be called bad luck

Yeah. It's to the extreme now that repeat strategy failures is making them look unprofessional and letting down their fine drivers.

[HAM]

For some funny reason I expect Jenson to get the right tyres this time. McLaren strategy really destroyed many races for their drivers. In fact almost every race! How can they ever win a WCC? They should resign their team for next season. Fresh blood and a new leader should do good.

[CodeRacing]

It seems as though the team struggles to react in a positive manner to any sort of weather change or strange happening out on track...safety cars and the like. Anyone remember Germany '08? It seems to be a long running problem. They very rarely make a prime strategic call for both their drivers.

[Bruce]

I'd usually say "take it easy - they're trying their best and doing as well as anyone else"...

But it's simply not true anymore - too many bad calls - for both drivers - in spite of being one of the best funded teams on the grid with all that entails in the way of preparation and execution, far too often McLaren is making it look like amateur hour....

[fieraku]

Too many to count this season alone. It's been beyond ridiculous and I don't see any real concerns regarding this.It seems as if Mac has become a total corporate team and Whitmarsh is too lovey-dovey for my taste. Mac needs a real jacka@@ at the helm that will scream,yell, curse ,and even slap people when they're messing up.

I think it's all Whitmarsh's fault bcause he's the TP and it seems that these mistakes have become the norm without consequences.
IMO Marty has to go.NOW!

[zepunishment]

There also seems to be a strong likelihood that computers are involved in the decision-making. Not perhaps a bad thing in itself, as long as common sense overrides the supposedly optimum strategy when it's just too risky.

I think their reliance on computers is also their downfall sometimes. Remember when they failed to get a banker lap in a couple of years ago in Malaysia and then it poured down?

[Totza]

Too many to count this season alone. It's been beyond ridiculous and I don't see any real concerns regarding this.It seems as if Mac has become a total corporate team and Whitmarsh is too lovey-dovey for my taste. Mac needs a real jacka@@ at the helm that will scream,yell, curse ,and even slap people when they're messing up.

I think it's all Whitmarsh's fault bcause he's the TP and it seems that these mistakes have become the norm without consequences.
IMO Marty has to go.NOW!

Yes please !

[BillBald]

It's easy to criticise, of course, but I'd like to try to be positive as well.

Does anyone have any ideas on a strategy that would allow Jenson to get to the front, starting from 13th?

Of course a lot depends on whether the race is dry or wet, or mixed conditions.

It seems from quali that both McLarens don't have very good straight-line speed. Jenson might still be able to overtake, as long as his gearing allows extra speed when he has the benefit of DRS plus a slipstream. If he is short-geared, he's going to need a very good strategy, because overtaking will be almost impossible.

[F1matt]

It always looks like decisions at McLaren are made by committee thus making them slow to react, when Jenson has won a race due to changing conditions it always seems to be his call rather than the teams, often with Lewis trailing having been the victim of relying on McLarens decision making, last year David Coulthard spent a race weekend with the team at MTC and it looked like they played a huge role in strategy, would be interesting to know if they rely on this method more than other teams.
A few of the above posts have mentioned computer systems, any links on how this works?

[BillBald]

It always looks like decisions at McLaren are made by committee thus making them slow to react, when Jenson has won a race due to changing conditions it always seems to be his call rather than the teams, often with Lewis trailing having been the victim of relying on McLarens decision making, last year David Coulthard spent a race weekend with the team at MTC and it looked like they played a huge role in strategy, would be interesting to know if they rely on this method more than other teams.
A few of the above posts have mentioned computer systems, any links on how this works?

I think a number of the teams have used computer systems for some years. I remember Martin Brundle (I think it was) saying that teams had the 'Trulli train' programmed into their system, as being one likely scenario they might have to deal with.

Using a computer to suggest possible strategies is one thing. It might lead you to consider strategies which you wouldn't otherwise have thought of. But you can't use the computer to make the actual choice, it has no 'common sense'.

And sometimes you need to make a decision quickly, you don't have time for the number-crunching, or your computer isn't programmed to deal with the situation which you are facing.

[jonnoj]

A few of the above posts have mentioned computer systems, any links on how this works?

Originally they were used to work out the effect of pitting to change tyres and add fuel. Which car would they be behind after pitting and what were their chances of getting past them if that car was running for a longer session. The software would indicate when it was considered safe to escape the clutches of the Truilli Train!

Now they have to add the effect of tyre degradation and fuel usage, leading to those "slow down" messages. Which is why the teams spend so much time running track simulations on Friday. At the end of the day thet have reams of "what if" info to play around with.

McLaren have a problem - they don't appear to have a clue how to select the right information and how best to use it during the race. It would seem there are dozens of people shouting at the driver's engineers, who ends up totally confused.

[f1dies]

It does beg the question are they putting too much store behind computers and too little on gut feeling and giving it a try.
While we will never know for certain if they really do put too much weight behind their computer simulations i do fear that too often they go the safer route, which when others take risks exposes the fact that safer while exposing yourself to less risks also exposes yourself to losing out to anyone who takes a risk and gets it right and unfortunately with most other teams (at the sharp edge) being very professional and willing to take a risk means that if other teams just split their drivers it ensure McLaren will never benefit from a safe strategy and unfortunately will more times than not lose out to the calculated risk taker.
But it still does not excuse such silly calls as for Jenson to slow down for one lap before suddenly finding out he did not have the time to start a second timed lap.

[BillBald]

What did people think of the strategy for Spa?

I actually thought McLaren had made a mistake pitting Jenson under the safety car, it seemed to me that it would be better to gain track position and get out of traffic.

Edited by BillBald, 28 August 2011 - 15:08.

[MinT]

Witht the tyre difference this year I dont think track position plays as much of a part as it did - better tyres = overtakes.

[BillBald]

Witht the tyre difference this year I dont think track position plays as much of a part as it did - better tyres = overtakes.

But a lot of other cars were pitting at the same time, so Jenson wasn't going to have better tyres. And he didn't seem to have the greatest straight-line speed either, so I was finding it hard to imagine how he was going to pick up many places.

[Alx09]

For me it felt like the McLarens were nowhere near the pace of the rest, especially straightline speed, for the first half of the race.

Sometimes I wonder if they focus too much on Qualy pace and sacrifice too much race pace for it.

[BillBald]

For me it felt like the McLarens were nowhere near the pace of the rest, especially straightline speed, for the first half of the race.

Sometimes I wonder if they focus too much on Qualy pace and sacrifice too much race pace for it.

Well, it's Red Bull who tend to do that, but then again they rarely seem to mess up quali, so it works for them - Vettel at least doesn't have to do much overtaking.

[BillBald]

I'm fearing that Red Bull might again have outfoxed McLaren, at Monza.

Vettel is apparently running with unusually low gearing, which should give him an advantage in race pace when running in clean air.

Some have said that he will struggle to overtake in that configuration, but I'm not quite sure about that. Clearly he won't be able to overtake by using DRS on the main straight, but there are 2 DRS zones this time. In the zone running from Lesmo 2 to Ascari, the lower gearing might well be an advantage in giving better acceleration, and the speed reached at the end of this straight may be within the capability of Vettel's 7th gear. (Not sure about that, but at the moment I can't seem to access timing info).

So even if the McLarens jump him at the start, it might not be game over for Vettel. And that is maybe unlikely anyway since he will have good acceleration from the lower gearing.

Last year Red Bull's strategy dept was not very impressive, but this year they seem to have someone who is thinking very clearly.

[Atreiu]

The better the car the more strategies it can make work.

[BillBald]

So how can McLaren respond to Vettel?

If the weather or a safety car doesn't intervene, it looks like they may be following the Red Bull through the whole race.
If they can stay close enough, they could use slipstream and DRS to keep up, and in that case there are possible scenarios which could cause Vettel to lose his lead, eg lapped cars being unhelpful.

One problem which Vettel has had to face in some races, is that if he has to pit relatively early, he might drop behind a slower car which hasn't yet pitted. That is probably less likely in Monza because tyres last longer, and his pace advantage over the field appears to be considerable. And anyway it tends to not be much of a problem, because in that situation Vettel is on new tyres behind cars which have very worn tyres, so he should easily be able to pass them in the 2nd DRS zone, if nowhere else.

One possible scenario is for Jenson to try stopping less than Vettel. That didn't work too well earlier in the season, mainly because it seems that the Pirellis can't be made to last much longer with reasonable pace. I've noticed that more recently Jenson tends to run the same number of stints as the leaders unless he's back in the pack at the beginning of the race. Jenson still takes it easy at the beginning of a stint, but just to be faster at the end, rather than to try and save a pitstop.

[TeamMacca]

Looking at the race pace in practice Mclaren cannot compete with RedBull today, not a chance and i am a big Mclaren fan.

There is hope but a podium is the most we can hope for unless Seb has problems and Mark doesn't charge through.

[femi]

Mclaren had lost out on several occasions through failing to make sound strategy judgements. Sometimes these are so obvious and they still get it wrong!
Mclaren isn't where they want to be and I don't think they are ever going to get there under this management. There is something wrong. There has to be, these guys aren't fools but they sure strive hard to look like one on some occasions.

[BillBald]

Interesting that Vettel with his lower gear ratios had little trouble out-accelerating Alonso (although he had a slight problem with not being given enough track).

On the other hand, the McLarens with their supposedly overtaking-friendly setup had some difficulty overtaking.

I think the reason is that McLaren were running a compromise setup, and the problem with a compromise is that there's no point on the track where you are very much faster than the opposition.

Maybe McLaren should think about trying lower gear ratios themselves. That will give a lower top speed in quali, but it will only affect them at the fastest point of the track. As Vettel's pole position showed, better performance around the rest of the lap can more than compensate for a deficiency at one point of the lap.

[Archybald]

Wow a McLaren strategy thread .... i didnt think it'd have so much content.

[Andy865]

Interesting that Vettel with his lower gear ratios had little trouble out-accelerating Alonso (although he had a slight problem with not being given enough track).

On the other hand, the McLarens with their supposedly overtaking-friendly setup had some difficulty overtaking.

I think the reason is that McLaren were running a compromise setup, and the problem with a compromise is that there's no point on the track where you are very much faster than the opposition.

Maybe McLaren should think about trying lower gear ratios themselves. That will give a lower top speed in quali, but it will only affect them at the fastest point of the track. As Vettel's pole position showed, better performance around the rest of the lap can more than compensate for a deficiency at one point of the lap.

not with you here man, shorter gears = faster acceleration by default?

[BillBald]

Wow a McLaren strategy thread .... i didnt think it'd have so much content.

Perhaps it should have been called the 'McLaren lack of strategy thread'.

[BillBald]

not with you here man, shorter gears = faster acceleration by default?

Yes, shorter gears means closer ratios. If you have a long 7th gear to get maximum benefit from DRS, you either have a bigger interval between 6th and 7th, or you have a bigger interval between 5th and 6th, and so on.

The idea of allowing free use of DRS during quali is to persuade teams to use higher gear ratios, otherwise they wouldn't use that long top gear and DRS would be useless in the race (except maybe when fully-laden with fuel).

[Atreiu]

I missed out on McLarens being overtaking friendly while Hamilton was stuck for ages behind Schumacher and Button only got by Alonso once they went to medium tyres.

[BillBald]

I missed out on McLarens being overtaking friendly while Hamilton was stuck for ages behind Schumacher and Button only got by Alonso once they went to medium tyres.

That's my point - McLaren went for a compromise setup which sacrificed some race pace, but supposedly would make it easier to overtake, while Red Bull went all-out for race pace. So maybe the 'compromise' doesn't work - something McLaren should be thinking about IMO.

[Atreiu]

Red Bull can afford it because its a rocket.
We won't see mch of it anymore because, maybe Interlagos aside, all tracks are straightforward high DF tracks. There won't be much to chose between top speed, race pace, etc...

[BillBald]

Red Bull can afford it because its a rocket.

I have a suspicion that if the McLaren had been set up for max race pace rather than with overtaking in mind, it might even have been quicker than the Red Bull.

Basically Red Bull got their analysis right, and realised that the fastest race car would also be the fastest quali car, and would not be at a disadvantage when it came to overtaking.

[engel]

That's my point - McLaren went for a compromise setup which sacrificed some race pace, but supposedly would make it easier to overtake, while Red Bull went all-out for race pace. So maybe the 'compromise' doesn't work - something McLaren should be thinking about IMO.

And maybe if Vettel hadn't gone balls out to overtake Alonso Button would have won the race eh?

Strategy is always easier with hindsight, McLaren *thought* they would be racing RedBull and they setup their cars for that. In the end Lewis got stuck behind Schumi, his fault not McLaren's, and ruined his own race.

Strategy isn't just boffins on the pitwall making weird decisions. Strategy also depends on the driver(s) understanding it and actually applying it. Vettel won cause he did precisely that, he understood his strategy, knew which pass was absolutely critical, he went for it and won the race. It was equally critical for the McLarens to stay ahead of the faster (in terms of top speed) cars. They didn't.

[Bruce]

And maybe if Vettel hadn't gone balls out to overtake Alonso Button would have won the race eh?

Strategy is always easier with hindsight, McLaren *thought* they would be racing RedBull and they setup their cars for that. In the end Lewis got stuck behind Schumi, his fault not McLaren's, and ruined his own race.

Strategy isn't just boffins on the pitwall making weird decisions. Strategy also depends on the driver(s) understanding it and actually applying it. Vettel won cause he did precisely that, he understood his strategy, knew which pass was absolutely critical, he went for it and won the race. It was equally critical for the McLarens to stay ahead of the faster (in terms of top speed) cars. They didn't.

It's also possible that the Red Bull (finally) got Monza sorted - and that Vettel's apparently controversial strategy was actually an average one that was obviated by a superior car. Not saying that IS the case- but it's a possibility.

[engel]

There is no "Right" strategy, strategy in contingent on where you are in the race. If you setup your car for lap pace ignoring top speed you need to be out front running in clean air to take advantage of your lap pace, you get stuck behind another car you 're basically ****ed cause 95% of overtakes happen at the end of straights.

Redbull basically gambled that Vettel would stay in clean air and take advantage of his pace. It *almost* blew up in their faces when Alonso went P1. Had there not been a SC and had Hamilton not fallen asleep at the restart Vettel would have be piecemeal and all the armchair experts would be applauding Ham and McLaren on an excellent race and there would be a similar thread about RB and Vettel questioning their strategy and wondering if they had just gotten too cocky. And therein lies the problem with threads like these. You can't cover all eventualities when you plan your race weekend. You can only cover what you think is most likely especially since setup is basically locked before quali.

Just imagine where Vettel would have ended up had he made a mistake in Q3 and qualified 8th with the setup he had.

[brakedisc]

Too much rear wing in my opinion. Could this be because Button got lucky last year and led the team down this path again? Fitting a gurney under the wing to destabilise the airflow appears to confirm this.

Not the first time this year that they have brought the wrong wings to a circuit. The got lucky in Cnada because the barn door rear wing suited the race conditions.

[Rob]

Hamilton was clearly on the rev limiter for far too long. I think they simply chose the wrong gearing.

[Jejking]

It's also possible that the Red Bull (finally) got Monza sorted - and that Vettel's apparently controversial strategy was actually an average one that was obviated by a superior car. Not saying that IS the case- but it's a possibility.

It is very likely though. The RBs ran skinny wings but still kept a very good amount of downforce due to their floor and airflow under the car. Better acceleration out of the corners with shorter gears and being able to sprint away in the faster corners was a very inspired choice because of the strength of the car itself. Just like Button did last year something else than his opponents to protect his tyres, Vettel opted to stay out of trouble / DRS by going for acceleration and cornering speed.

[BillBald]

OK, I think we can agree that there is no strategy that is certain to bring success in all possible situations.

But the fact is that Red Bull have mostly got the strategy right this year, and McLaren have mostly got it wrong.

I'd like to speculate on how the race might have gone if McLaren had used the lower gear ratios which were chosen by Red Bull.

I'm fairly sure that the grid positions would not have been adversely affected. Vettel's gearing lost him time on the main straight, but he seems to have gained time everywhere else, where he would still have been able to use the DRS because he was within the maximum speed allowed by his 7th gear. I can't see why it would be different for the McLarens. Maybe pole would have been possible, but lets assume the grid positions remain the same.

At the start, on the run down to the first chicane, the McLarens would have had a slight advantage from lower gear ratios, but let's assume that everything still works out the same. Let's also assume that the same thing happens again at the restart, and then subsequently to every other car in the race.

So we have the 2 McLarens stuck behind Schumi. On the main straight, it's even easier for the high-geared Merc to defend. But on the acceleration zones between the first and second chicanes, and between Lesmo 2 and Ascari, Schumi would be at more of a disadvantage with his high gearing.

If the McLaren had been clearly faster in those parts of the track, I suggest that Schumi would not have felt able to mount such a robust defence. It's one thing to swerve into the path of the following car, and then swerve back the other way to 'take your line' for the corner. But even Schumi won't keep swerving from side to side all the way down the straight.

In the race as it happened, Jenson was only able to drive past Alonso with the help of the medium tyres. But with lower gear ratios, he would have been able to do it more easily, and therefore probably much sooner.

And the greater race pace would have allowed the McLarens, having quickly cleared the slower Merc and Ferrari, to put a lot more pressure on Vettel, maybe even catch him.

So I would suggest that, even in the unfavourable circumstances that McLaren found themselves in, they might well have done better with Vettel's gear ratios. The strategy depends on having the fastest car, but it doesn't depend on making a good start, in fact it would have given protection against a bad start.

[fed up]

This has probably already been covered, but why didn't Mclaren pit Lewis and try for the under cut. It seemed to be a waste of time stacking their drivers behind the obviously slower MS and given that Jenson had saved his tyres he would also had got past MS with ease.

It seemed that Lewis was wasting energy and tyres trying to get by in a car that didn't have the straight line pace of the Mercedes when the better option woould have been to pit.

Did Jenson pit first and if so why?

[BillBald]

This has probably already been covered, but why didn't Mclaren pit Lewis and try for the under cut. It seemed to be a waste of time stacking their drivers behind the obviously slower MS and given that Jenson had saved his tyres he would also had got past MS with ease.

It seemed that Lewis was wasting energy and tyres trying to get by in a car that didn't have the straight line pace of the Mercedes when the better option woould have been to pit.

Did Jenson pit first and if so why?

That's a good point, and according to Ted Kravitz they actually called Lewis in on the same lap as MS pitted, but then told him to stay out when they saw the Merc coming in.

They could have cut the first stint shorter to get the undercut, but that would have made the final stint longer, which they always try to avoid. Computer always says 'prime is slower', so they try to use it as little as possible. But of course even if the prime is slower, it's not necessarily slower than being stuck behind a Merc.

It looks as though they pinned their faith in Charlie Whiting, which seems a little unwise to me, but presumably he was assuring them that MS wouldn't be allowed to continue with the same kind of blocking.

Jenson pitted first because he was ahead. After he'd just overtaken Lewis, they weren't going to put Lewis ahead of him again.

Once again, McLaren stuck to the formula of only using the primes for the final stint. If they'd put Lewis on the primes for stint 2 (they should have been able to calculate that MS would most likely stay ahead after the pitstops), he could have run stint 3 on options against the opposition on primes, that might have been worth a try.

Edited by BillBald, 12 September 2011 - 17:00.

[BillBald]

There is no "Right" strategy, strategy in contingent on where you are in the race. If you setup your car for lap pace ignoring top speed you need to be out front running in clean air to take advantage of your lap pace, you get stuck behind another car you 're basically ****ed cause 95% of overtakes happen at the end of straights.

Redbull basically gambled that Vettel would stay in clean air and take advantage of his pace. It *almost* blew up in their faces when Alonso went P1. Had there not been a SC and had Hamilton not fallen asleep at the restart Vettel would have be piecemeal and all the armchair experts would be applauding Ham and McLaren on an excellent race and there would be a similar thread about RB and Vettel questioning their strategy and wondering if they had just gotten too cocky. And therein lies the problem with threads like these. You can't cover all eventualities when you plan your race weekend. You can only cover what you think is most likely especially since setup is basically locked before quali.

Just imagine where Vettel would have ended up had he made a mistake in Q3 and qualified 8th with the setup he had.

I don't think you can say that RedBull are gambling with their strategy, when they nearly always seem to get it right.

The McLaren is basically pretty much on the pace of the RedBull, so I don't see why they couldn't make a similar strategy work. I think they should be looking closely at RB strategies, they might be able to learn something.

[BillBald]

So any thoughts on strategy for Singapore?

Tyres are Softs and Supersofts, same as Monaco.

I'm wondering whether a long stint on primes might be possible, similar to Vettel at Monaco. Then if they can't be made to last, a quick dash on options at the end, similar to Kubica last year.

I don't know why it should be the case, but the Soft tyres always seem to show the best combination of pace and durability, whether they are used as the primes or the options.

[Atreiu]

Singapore goes the full race distance as opposed to Monaco. I gues that makes one stoppers less likely.

[BillBald]

Singapore goes the full race distance as opposed to Monaco. I gues that makes one stoppers less likely.

Good point, but I really hope that McLaren don't just keep sticking more options on, and end up making more stops.

They did that to Lewis in Hungary, as well as Jenson in Monaco.

[Kubiccia]

Mclaren strategy is usually gr8. If it wasn't for strategy, they would never win China 2011

[BillBald]

Mclaren strategy is usually gr8. If it wasn't for strategy, they would never win China 2011

I don't see how one example can support that statement.

If you really mean what you are saying, I'd like to hear which races you think McLaren won through having the better strategy.