Raikkonen could go for a 1 stopper like last year but only if the two leading teams have a sizeable gap behind them.

If not, on the much heavier fuel load he will struggle to even make the top 8.

I think lighter, more aggresive strategy is needed if McLaren have the advantage. Put Lewis in a Ferrari sandwich and get the better of him that way.

Perhaps you should just read the posts carefully before you start setting up your straw men.

It was KR who made the Q3 mistake. That's not a problem to be solved by his strategist or his pitcrew.
Its HIS quali problem, not THEIR quali problem.

There is no Ferrari quali problem existent.
Ferrari has a wet track problem, and Ferrari has a race strategy problem in changing conditions.

And your opinion seems to be that Massa should be punished with a heavy car for his better quali abilities.

How does it punish Massa if Kimi fights for win in front of everyone? Massa and Hamilton can still have their little championship fight behind Kimi. What does it matter if Kimi is ahead or behind them, as long as he isnt between of them if Lewis is in front.

I love how you are talking about the little Hamilton-Massa championship fight in the slipstream of the great Kimi.

But will Kimi get the lighter strategy again?
We saw in Spa that a 2 laps lighter Kimi can't beat Massa in qualy.

What do the Kimi fans who were screaming for him to be lighter have to say now?
Should he go 5 laps lighter next time?

Yep, and if this doesn't help at all, 10kgs ballast for Massa in Singapore.

It matters because up until Spa, Massa was not just racing against Lewis but Kimi as well. So basically anything that helps kimi get infront of Massa is a disadvantage to Felipe. To solve this issue of having two drivers wishing for the best strategy the ideal solution as implemented by the team was to have them race for it in Q2.

And of course even if Massa is not racing Hamilton directly, still Raikkonen being in front of him is taking away precious points from him.

Points that might hand over the WDC to a McLaren driver at the end of the year.

Why not?
Why can´t he have the optimum race stragety regardless
of what strategy Massa is having?

Who cares if he´s slower in qualifying, he´s almost always faster
in the races. If Massa is quicker in qualifying, why should that be
a punishment for Kimi? ie Why should Kimi have an strategy which he can´t fight
against Lewis with because Massa is quicker in qualifying?

Ferrari should treat their drivers equally, Massa should be fully allowed to exploit
his qualifying/strategy and so should Kimi, going light or heavy.

Ferrari always treated their drivers equally; they always gave the faster one in Q2 the first strategy choice.

No idea why people here are unable to grasp that.

I think you been watching Formula kimi and not Formula 1.

That´s not treating their drivers equally. That´s favouring the driver that´s
faster over 1 lap, not 300 km.
Why don´t they hire Trulli?!

If been watching Ferrari favouring one driver for too long.
You´re registered this year, maybe you didn´t see Austria 2002, guess not

Kimi has had better race pace than Massa on selected races only. Perhaps Trulli would also be doing a very good job with this year's Ferrari.

You are so intelligent that you figured out I began watching F1 the exact same month/year that I joined this forum.

Describe your imagination of "equal" treatment then.

Because I can't imagine a more fair and equal method.

You do realise Michael Schumacher and Rubens Barricehllo are no long drivers for Ferrari, right? Just curious coz it sounds like you've been trapped in a time warp for at least 6 years.

At the end of 2006, Ferrari underwent a massive technical and managerial restructuring of the race team, many of the senior management team that oversaw Michaels success have moved onto pastures new.

With those changes and young members of the team stepping into new roles, came new ways and methods of doing things. Strange concept to grasp for some I'm sure As an example have a look at the difference in managerial styles of Jean Todt and Stefano Domenicali.

One of those changes was on a driver front Ferrari no longer have naturally one dominant driver, so it does not make sense to put all their eggs in one basket for the championship. Having two equally competing drivers gives them two shots at the championship instead of one. Forcing two equal drivers into a number 1 and number 2 role is counterproductive, better to let them race and give them equal chances.

I know its difficult to understand but times do change my friend, and if you don't adapt with them you cannot be successful.

More often than not, his fastest laps prove that too.

Impossible to know for Ferrari on Saturday which one of their drivers will be faster on Sunday.

So, again: What's your imagination of "equal" treatment?

fastest laps prove nothing. Nick had the fastest lap two races ago, does that prove that he had the best race pace on that race?

I said that above, why not take full advantage of each drivers strenghts?
Lets say that they figured out that the optimum strategy for Massa would
be stopping on lap 20. If Kimi have found a good race setup but is
slower in the so called Q2, should he get a strategy that is less good for him
compaired to Massa, or compaired to ex Lewis?

In your opinion, should he be allowed to get an alternative strategy which could
look like a 15 lap first stint?

Do you think he set the fastest lap because he was slow..
He was held up by Massa!

I said that above, maximising both drivers full potential.
Not favouring the faster qualifier.

I ask you this, what if they decided the strategy on who`s faster in the race?
Is that fair? I think not.

If Massa is faster in Q2 and selects to stop in lap 20, of course Raikkonen has the right to select to stop in lap 15 afterwards.

Still I fail to understand the point of this your answer. Is KR being 5 laps lighter than FM your imagination of "equal" treatment? Because that was the question.

Please elaborate "maximising both drivers full potential".

Because you seem to think that being light is good for Kimi but not for Felipe.

Nothing to do with fairness: As I said above - impossible to know for Ferrari on Saturday which one of their drivers will be faster on Sunday.

Overtaking is the customary solution for such a dilemma. If you can't overtake the driver in front, you are not fast enough.

he pushed harder than orders on that particular lap of the race. Fastest lap is not he best measure to determine which driver has the better race pace. I thought you have been watching F1 for such a long time - you should know this.. The race track conditions change throughout the race, it becomes faster as more rubber get laid down..Also different positions in the race demand for different approach to a race from a drivers' perspective. Kimi can be running 5th with several slower cars which are 5-10 seconds ahead. If he wants a podium he needs to push as hell and he would catch them.. but if you have a driver at the front leading the race and the pace of the second driver is similar to his there is no way for him to push as much.. Capisce.. ?

What Im trying to say is that one drivers weekend shouldn´t be compromiced because he´s slower
in one more or less meaningless session.
They could have a system that Mclaren applied last year that´s quite fair, every other weekend one driver gets
the optimum strategy, or gets first choise.

this is the fundamental problem that you and mickra seem to be unable to comprehend..
Massa is racing both Kimi and Lewis. His strategy should be one that gets him infront of both, but that is unfair to Kimi if it was just given away to him for free therefore they race for it and Massa wins. Qualifying is part of the game.. It cannot be ignored.
The optimum strategy for Massa is not stopping just on lap 20 but one that he can win a race with by beating everyone in the race including Kimi..

qualifying has always been the primary sole factor in determining the starting grid. The fastest race lap does not award to anything.. it does not even give you points. You should enjoy rally..I think they have a formula that you would like..

The pit stop window estabilished by the team does exactly that which you propose. It's gives them the oppoturnity to chose their strategy according to their performance and strengths. The window is obviously estabilished talking all the data gathered through the weekend and more into account, and not simple wishes and guesstimates. What cannot be done is create a strategy which is invunerable to driver errors in Q3 or to surprising performances from pilots of other teams.



The team will obviously not allow an alternative 15 lap strategy if all the data they've collected points out at it being uncompetitive. Look at Spa. No matter how good Kimi is around it and how much pace he had on long runs, do you ever think the team would have allowed him to start the race with 21 laps worth of fuel simply because he is stronger over long distances? Of course not.



You may think it's unfair because Massa has been stronger in his qualifying runs, but the truth is that the races now begin on Saturday as a result of fuel load qualifying and how the cars are incredibly disturbed by turbulence.

It´s not that difficult or complicated, one driver shouldn´t (imo) be at disadvantage
because he´s slower in one meaningless session.

You say that one drivers weekend shouldn't be compromised because he's slower in Q2.

But your proposal - the McLaren 2007 1-3-5-7- system - compromises one driver just because it's not "his" turn this time.

How's that better or fairer than the Q2 system? At least the Q2 system is based on merit.

There's nothing meaningless in qualifying nowadays. The drivers who have made it the most to the front row have also made it the most to the podium and lead the championship.

No idea who told you that Q2 is meaningless. It isn't.

Doesn´t that iclude Q2 then?

but if you suggest that by Kimi getting a lighter fuel load is not a disadvantage and is better for Kimi how do you explain this same strategy would not be beneficial for Massa?

Sorry, but I have no idea what you are trying to tell me now.

You can be 2 seconds faster and still not be able to overtake, watch next Monaco GP and you´ll get a clue.

BMW F1 was laughing about Nick´s FL, claiming it was nothing, when in fact he catched Massa and was held up.

Well, they both have the exact chance to be faster than the other Q2. Where's the unfairness?

Man, grow up.

If he was slower, how come that he catched Massa and was held up? Because he was faster on one lap

Do you really think Q2 is a great system? thankfully none of the Ferrari drivers has qrashed out trying to get the best stategy.

huh? All I am saying is that he could be faster or he could not.. what I was trying to explain to you, which you fail to understand is that the fastest lap of the race does not necessarily mean that driver has the fastest race pace. I already told you that Nick's fastest lap the other day does not prove that he was the fastest driver of that day.. does it?

Nick set the fastest lap of the race in Malaysia, a race that Kimi won.. Was Nick's pace faster than Kimi?

If Heidfeld had the better overall race pace how come that he even came in the situation to have to catch up against Massa?

One single fast lap in a series of some 60 or 70 laps is not very meaningful.

I didn´t say qualifyng was meaningless, I said Q2 is meaningless.

I cannot imagine a better system now, but my ears are open towards more optimal suggestions.

You think it's meaningless, Ferrari obviously doesn't and they have much more on their hands to work over than TV feed and lap charts available on the internet.