Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Did Lotus/Raikkonen make the right decision to pit at the end?


  • Please log in to reply
71 replies to this topic

Poll: Did Lotus/Raikkonen make the right decision to pit at the end? (147 member(s) have cast votes)

Did Lotus/Raikkonen make the right decision to pit at the end?

  1. Yes (58 votes [39.46%])

    Percentage of vote: 39.46%

  2. No (89 votes [60.54%])

    Percentage of vote: 60.54%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 harrys

harrys
  • Member

  • 294 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 07 July 2013 - 13:48

Raikkonen was 14 seconds ahead of vettel with 11 laps remaining and Lotus brought him in, despite the fact that Vettel was closing at less than one second a lap.

I couldn't believe the decision - especially as the set of soft tyres he put on were 6 laps old. He would have won the race IMO without stopping again.

Edited by harrys, 07 July 2013 - 13:49.


Advertisement

#2 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 61,754 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 07 July 2013 - 13:54

Imagine there were no championship points. They'd've left him out.

Yet again the presence of the world championship buggers up the racing.

#3 Rikhart

Rikhart
  • Member

  • 626 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 07 July 2013 - 13:54

No idea if the tyres would have held on or not...

#4 Wander

Wander
  • Member

  • 2,367 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 07 July 2013 - 13:55

I think I have to agree. Of course we can't know for sure, but the tyres seemed fine. I was extremely surprised when they pitted.

#5 Andrew Hope

Andrew Hope
  • Member

  • 7,911 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 07 July 2013 - 13:55

Losing a second a lap when your tires are 10 laps old doesn't mean you're still only losing a second when they're 20 laps old. There was a very small window to pit him and get him out with a fighting chance and Lotus just slightly missed it, and seemingly only by a lap or two.

#6 Disgrace

Disgrace
  • Member

  • 31,245 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 07 July 2013 - 13:56

They lost the race when they pitted Grosjean prematurely to get him out of Kimi's way (which didn't work).

Edited by Disgrace, 07 July 2013 - 13:56.


#7 Lights

Lights
  • Member

  • 17,874 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 07 July 2013 - 13:56

Pitting was fine. But it should have been for fresh tyres, not old softs.

#8 Wander

Wander
  • Member

  • 2,367 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 07 July 2013 - 13:56

Losing a second a lap when your tires are 10 laps old doesn't mean you're still only losing a second when they're 20 laps old. There was a very small window to pit him and get him out with a fighting chance and Lotus just slightly missed it, and seemingly only by a lap or two.


It was tough to overtake here today unless you were significantly quicker. I don't think Kimi had any chance of overtaking even if he had caught Vettel a couple of laps earlier.

#9 TomNokoe

TomNokoe
  • Member

  • 33,568 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 07 July 2013 - 13:56

I don't know. But they should have won this race. But they didn't.

#10 Shambolic

Shambolic
  • Member

  • 1,285 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 07 July 2013 - 13:58

There was a point where he was about 15 seconds ahead - With some luck he could have come out neck and neck with Vettel. Going onto options would have been a bad idea (I didn't realise he'd put on 6 lap old options, that makes the decision even more nonsensical) but a fresh set of primes would have given him a hell of a chance to keep/ take the lead.

Once the gap was getting down to less than ten seconds, it made more sense to try to stay out. Worst case was likely to be second place if he couldn't hold off Vettel, and best case if he stopped was likely to be a second place.

Unlike Ferrari, who *had* to slap options on Alonso's car (though they didn't stretch out their prime usage enough to make that truly viable), Lotus had already gone through the still ludicrous two compound obligation.

#11 krobinson

krobinson
  • Member

  • 610 posts
  • Joined: January 99

Posted 07 July 2013 - 14:16

Bad mistake from Lotus once again. If they had to pit Kimi, they should have pitted him earlier and given him mediums, he looked more impressive on those today. Failure decision.

#12 DarthWillie

DarthWillie
  • Member

  • 2,559 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 07 July 2013 - 14:16

I doubt he could have gone to the end on the mediums, look at the pace Vettel had at the end. Had his tires dropped to 1:36 he would have been out of it.

#13 motorhead

motorhead
  • Member

  • 1,563 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 07 July 2013 - 14:17

They lost the race when they pitted Grosjean prematurely to get him out of Kimi's way (which didn't work).


I think Kimi´s race was lost in the first pit stop which was too early. RG did his later and had a clear track to pull away when Kimi was stuck behind Mercs

#14 MortenF1

MortenF1
  • Member

  • 23,720 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 07 July 2013 - 14:18

I think they HAD to pit, but they should've done it sooner, and not when Vettel had got the gap down from 15 plus, to 13 plus. Amateurs.

#15 Jyllenberg

Jyllenberg
  • Member

  • 71 posts
  • Joined: December 12

Posted 07 July 2013 - 14:20

Maybe Lotus was too cautious because of Silverstone tyre explosions.

#16 Shiroo

Shiroo
  • Member

  • 4,012 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 07 July 2013 - 14:20

Nah they needed to pit I believe. Or it was the safest. Silverstone could be repeated or so. He was lapping in 1:35:xxx on old meds. He would lap in around 1:36:xxx at the end of the race, while nwo Vettel was lapping in 1:34 (and Raik in 1:33 sometimes after pit so it is a bit difference).

Edited by Shiroo, 07 July 2013 - 14:21.


#17 hupholland

hupholland
  • Member

  • 110 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 07 July 2013 - 14:21

Kimi knew he was going to pit, we didn't. So keep that in mind when you analyse his laptimes before his last stops. If he knew he had to go to the end they would have been slower for sure. Kimi looked very happy after the race, so I guess he has no doubts about it.

#18 DarthWillie

DarthWillie
  • Member

  • 2,559 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 07 July 2013 - 14:22

pitting him sooner would probably not have worked, I doubt the soft would have lasted that long. Putting him on med would have gotten him on the same speed as Vettel. Nothing more.

#19 KimiSolberg

KimiSolberg
  • Member

  • 73 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 07 July 2013 - 14:27

Pitting was probably the way to go. I´m happy with 2 & 3.

Advertisement

#20 SpaMaster

SpaMaster
  • Member

  • 5,856 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 07 July 2013 - 14:33

Thing is we don't know. I was also hoping he would stay out. But Raikkonen says that the risk was too high. I agree with that because it could have been catastrophic if the tyres had reached the cliff. The tyres were put on 36 laps before the end and he was pushing like crazy throughout. It is one thing to go for 24 laps in practice. In race mode, 100% flat out, banking on 31 laps on tyres that were 6 laps old behind SC was quite risky.

#21 Shiroo

Shiroo
  • Member

  • 4,012 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 07 July 2013 - 14:33

Pitting was probably the way to go. I´m happy with 2 & 3.

hehe Lotus fans whining with P2 and P3. Imagine that in 2011

#22 discover23

discover23
  • Member

  • 9,302 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 07 July 2013 - 14:37

They lost the race when they pitted Grosjean prematurely to get him out of Kimi's way (which didn't work).

I now think that they did that for Redbull to react which they did but after that I have no clue what Lotus plan was..

#23 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 4,709 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 07 July 2013 - 14:45

It's not as simple as "we're losing less than a second a lap, our gap in seconds is greater than the number of laps left, therefore we're going to win". Laptime drop-off due to degradation is non-linear. If the tyres reach a critical point you will suddenly start losing 4-5s a lap more than your rivals and they could have easily fallen behind Alonso. They had a lot more data available than we did, based on previous runs that weekend, tyre temps, driver feedback etc to predict what was going to happen to their laptimes. Unless they were projecting victory by staying out, they were right to pit. Unfortunately the tyres they put on were not good enough to challenge Vettel. But they were third before the last stops so second wasn't the worst outcome in the world.

#24 stuck-in-first-gear

stuck-in-first-gear
  • Member

  • 1,877 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 07 July 2013 - 14:45

We will never be able to find out, sadly.

In my opinion, Lotus should have gone for it.

#25 Coops3

Coops3
  • Member

  • 1,841 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 07 July 2013 - 14:49

No, insofar as they should have pitted sooner... for primes.

#26 Skinnyguy

Skinnyguy
  • Member

  • 4,391 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 07 July 2013 - 14:49

Yes. They did everything OK after the SC.

Before that, Romain should have been released before first stop plus both cars should have stopped around the time Grosjean did. Anyway, it´d have been irrelevant since SC would have neutralized it all. Ah, the hindsight :lol:

#27 Currahee

Currahee
  • Member

  • 596 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 07 July 2013 - 14:52


I think they were correct.

Look at di Resta. He was a sitting duck at the end.

#28 Gorma

Gorma
  • Member

  • 2,713 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 07 July 2013 - 14:53

They lost the race when they pitted Grosjean prematurely to get him out of Kimi's way (which didn't work).

The pitted him early to challenge Vettel, not to get him out of Kimi's way. That's like saying the they pitted Kimi first in the first stint to get him out of Grosjean's way.

#29 stillOrange

stillOrange
  • Member

  • 950 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 07 July 2013 - 14:54

In a hindsight it was a good decision to change tyres and not to run the old ones till the end

#30 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 19,631 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 07 July 2013 - 14:57

Unless we know the reasons for the tire change, it's hard to support either poll option

Pitting was fine. But it should have been for fresh tyres, not old softs.

Consequently the real mistake was made on Saturday, when they used on set softs too much.



#31 Cyanide

Cyanide
  • Member

  • 5,299 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 07 July 2013 - 15:36

Kimi Raikkonen:
"I could run longer and we had to think about if we should try to run until the end. But I had massive problem with the radio. I could hear the team but they couldn't hear me, apart from at two corners. I wonder if we should have gone to the end as the tyres were OK."

I think they were afraid that a Silverstone repeat would happen with Kimi falling behind even Alonso if they don't pit.

Edited by Cyanide, 07 July 2013 - 15:37.


#32 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 20,496 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 07 July 2013 - 16:57

Pitting was fine. But it should have been for fresh tyres, not old softs.

OK, so why did they put old softs on? Is that all they had? Did they really have 6 laps on them as Hobbs & matchett said? How do they know?

#33 DutchQuicksilver

DutchQuicksilver
  • Member

  • 6,314 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 07 July 2013 - 16:58

Definitely the wrong decision. Kimi had a 15 second lead with roughly 14 laps to go. He would have won that race for sure if he hadn't made that pitstop.

#34 2ms

2ms
  • Member

  • 2,212 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 07 July 2013 - 17:06

The mistake was pitting at the wrong time with his first stop. They pitted ideally for Grosjean, and got Kimi stuck in traffic and running slow tires too long. It's how Grosjean got ahead of him in the first place. Not one of their Kimi pits was well timed.

The timing of their last stop had much smaller influence on the race outcome than the timing of the first stop did.

However, letting their championship contender be bottled up behind his 1s/lap slower teammate who had 26 points in the championship/barely 1/4th the points of their championship contender, was remarkable to say the least. They would have won DESPITE the strategy errors if that hadn't happened.

Edited by 2ms, 07 July 2013 - 17:13.


#35 Boxerevo

Boxerevo
  • Member

  • 3,598 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 07 July 2013 - 17:08

Kimi Raikkonen:
"I could run longer and we had to think about if we should try to run until the end. But I had massive problem with the radio. I could hear the team but they couldn't hear me, apart from at two corners. I wonder if we should have gone to the end as the tyres were OK."

I think they were afraid that a Silverstone repeat would happen with Kimi falling behind even Alonso if they don't pit.

This.

Edited by Boxerevo, 07 July 2013 - 17:09.


#36 EvanRainer

EvanRainer
  • Member

  • 1,364 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 07 July 2013 - 17:15

Exactly. It's fine to wonder if it would have worked but Lotus has tried the stay out option before and failed more than once (it has worked too of course). So to call it a "mistake" is a bit too far.

#37 Msaman

Msaman
  • Member

  • 119 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 07 July 2013 - 17:39

The first mistake was when they pitted Kimi for 1st time and let Gro longer.After the SC they should immediately swap positions with RoGro as Kimi was much more agressive than Romain.Romain had so many laps spent behind Vettel and didnt try even once.A poor strategy for Kimi .
The good thing is I am glad Romain is back to his old :p
Do you guys think because he had so many accident last year that's why he is not that aggressive ?

#38 ardbeg

ardbeg
  • Member

  • 2,876 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 07 July 2013 - 17:41

They had a decent lead over Alonso and it would have been pretty easy to cover him if the tires suddenly degraded. They could have kept him out for a pretty good chance at victory and still been safe enough to keep the position they had in a worst case scenario. So yes, wrong decision. Or maybe bad radio.

Edited by ardbeg, 07 July 2013 - 17:41.


#39 Skinnyguy

Skinnyguy
  • Member

  • 4,391 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 07 July 2013 - 17:49

They had a decent lead over Alonso and it would have been pretty easy to cover him if the tires suddenly degraded. They could have kept him out for a pretty good chance at victory and still been safe enough to keep the position they had in a worst case scenario. So yes, wrong decision. Or maybe bad radio.


Hadn´t thought about that :| There was no other risk than losing to Vettel, which happened anyway.

Advertisement

#40 Torsion

Torsion
  • Member

  • 627 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 07 July 2013 - 18:09

Hadn´t thought about that :| There was no other risk than losing to Vettel, which happened anyway.


Raikkonen's last lap on the Mediums was 1.35.5, whereas Alonso was doing 1.34.3 at the end of the race on the Softs. So if Kimi did stay out, I think the opportunity to pit and come ahead of Alonso would have disappeared few laps after Alonson's stop (around lap 54-55).

Edited by Torsion, 07 July 2013 - 18:10.


#41 SpaMaster

SpaMaster
  • Member

  • 5,856 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 07 July 2013 - 18:15

Hadn´t thought about that :| There was no other risk than losing to Vettel, which happened anyway.

When tyres go over the cliff, most of the times it is all over by the time you come back to the pits. Just look at China 2012. Also, it may have been too late anyway if it happened in the last few laps. Let's say Alonso was running 7-8 s behind Vettel like he did today. It would be too enticing to play the cat-and-mouse game with Vettel that it would have cost with Vettel. Let's say Vettel was within 6-7 s with 7-8 laps to go (Alonso 5-6 s behind at this point). It would be too late to pit even to guard against Alonso. So the tyres didn't even need to go off the cliff. Alonso was just 4 s behind when he pitted and he would have made up those 4 s in 3-4 laps and Kimi would not have had enough time to come in front of Alonso.

#42 TheThirdTenor1

TheThirdTenor1
  • Member

  • 882 posts
  • Joined: April 13

Posted 07 July 2013 - 18:20

The first mistake was when they pitted Kimi for 1st time and let Gro longer.After the SC they should immediately swap positions with RoGro as Kimi was much more agressive than Romain.Romain had so many laps spent behind Vettel and didnt try even once.A poor strategy for Kimi .
The good thing is I am glad Romain is back to his old :p
Do you guys think because he had so many accident last year that's why he is not that aggressive ?


Lotus were well down in the speed traps in qualifying (kimi more so than romain). Was always going to be difficult to pass a Red Bull with superior top speed and traction.

#43 Skinnyguy

Skinnyguy
  • Member

  • 4,391 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 07 July 2013 - 18:24

When tyres go over the cliff, most of the times it is all over by the time you come back to the pits. Just look at China 2012. Also, it may have been too late anyway if it happened in the last few laps. Let's say Alonso was running 7-8 s behind Vettel like he did today. It would be too enticing to play the cat-and-mouse game with Vettel that it would have cost with Vettel. Let's say Vettel was within 6-7 s with 7-8 laps to go (Alonso 5-6 s behind at this point). It would be too late to pit even to guard against Alonso. So the tyres didn't even need to go off the cliff. Alonso was just 4 s behind when he pitted and he would have made up those 4 s in 3-4 laps and Kimi would not have had enough time to come in front of Alonso.


You forget no pitting means Alonso has an extra pitstop over Räikkönen. And There´s no way he´d have lost a full pitstop + the 4-5 second gap he had in the remaining 10 laps. Other than a puncture.

#44 Jon83

Jon83
  • Member

  • 5,341 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 07 July 2013 - 18:27

If they don't pit him and he ends up 4th say because his tyres hit the cliff early into a lap, they'd have been slaughtered.

It was the right call IMO. Vettel always looked like he had just enough to keep them behind.

#45 fabr68

fabr68
  • Member

  • 3,963 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 07 July 2013 - 18:28

At first I thought Red Bull ate Lotus' dummy, but then I saw Raikkonen pit and realized they were eating their own dummy...

Edited by fabr68, 07 July 2013 - 18:28.


#46 Skinnyguy

Skinnyguy
  • Member

  • 4,391 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 07 July 2013 - 18:29

If they don't pit him and he ends up 4th say because his tyres hit the cliff early into a lap, they'd have been slaughtered.

It was the right call IMO. Vettel always looked like he had just enough to keep them behind.


I agree it was the correct call, but there was no way to end up 4th today.

#47 SpaMaster

SpaMaster
  • Member

  • 5,856 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 07 July 2013 - 19:59

You forget no pitting means Alonso has an extra pitstop over Räikkönen. And There´s no way he´d have lost a full pitstop + the 4-5 second gap he had in the remaining 10 laps. Other than a puncture.

That was all considered in the calculation. He could have come out ahead of Alonso only if he had pitted within 2 of the lap he pitted. He almost had a pit-stop on Vettel as well. The difference between worn out tyres and normal tyres can be 2-3 s per lap. So, Alonso would have needed only 1 or 2 laps at max to get past Kimi after Vettel gets past him. Just like in Silverstone. It could be much worse.

#48 EthanM

EthanM
  • Member

  • 4,819 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 07 July 2013 - 20:02

I agree it was the correct call, but there was no way to end up 4th today.


sure there was, go watch the 2012 Chinese grand prix. The tyres *might* have done 30 racing laps and 6-7 laps behind the SC, but there was no guarantee they would have.

#49 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 9,272 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 07 July 2013 - 22:16

lol 6 lap old options, I wondered why he wasn't that much faster

#50 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 16,473 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 07 July 2013 - 22:23

The poll needs a third option: "I don't know"