Did Lotus/Raikkonen make the right decision to pit at the end?
#51
Posted 08 July 2013 - 02:09
Advertisement
#52
Posted 08 July 2013 - 03:27
But Lotus already made the wrong call in the first round of pitstops, when then pitted Kimi directly into traffic. The safety car give them another chance to get it right. Grosjean should have let Kimi pass right after the safety car came in. If you are going to use team orders, atleast do it at the right time.
All of Kimi's pitstops where just badly timed.
#53
Posted 08 July 2013 - 03:40
Edited by Afterburner, 08 July 2013 - 03:41.
#54
Posted 08 July 2013 - 04:02
In the event the tyres hit the cliff, just call Raikkonen in and he will still secure 3rd place or at worst 4th.
#55
Posted 08 July 2013 - 06:44
Maybe Lotus was too cautious because of Silverstone tyre explosions.
I think it was probably more because leaving Kimi out while others pitted at Silverstone cost them some positions. With that fresh in their mind from only a week prior, it's somewhat understandable why they made the call they did.
Whether it was the right call or not, I think is almost impossible to say with any certainty. These tyres don't give much indication of how much longer they are going to last. They just suddenly hit "the cliff". Even Lotus probably don't know for sure when they would have reached it.
Edited by travbrad, 08 July 2013 - 06:47.
#56
Posted 08 July 2013 - 12:29
I agree it was the correct call, but there was no way to end up 4th today.
If the tyres hit the cliff early in the lap, or even midway through the lap, I'd say there would have been a great chance of him finishing 4th based on how close the top 4 was at the end.
You have to make the decision at the time. Look at Canada last year when Alonso tried to hang on and ended up finishing 5th I think it was. That might not have happened here but Lotus and Kimi have a championship to fight for and ultimately, the risk looked too great.
The point intelligentsia makes about their indecisiveness is a fair one. I still think without the SC, Grosjean would have had a great chance for the win given his first stint.
#57
Posted 08 July 2013 - 12:56
Pitting was fine. But it should have been for fresh tyres, not old softs.
DITTO
#58
Posted 08 July 2013 - 13:02
There was nothing else to lose by going to the end, than losing to Alonso. They could have reacted when tyres go away and save P4. I was hoping them to try it because wins are not at hand so often.No idea if the tyres would have held on or not...
#59
Posted 08 July 2013 - 19:53
I don't know. But they should have won this race. But they didn't.
LOL, great reply Tom, summed it all up perfectly in 13 words.
Advertisement
#60
Posted 08 July 2013 - 19:55
Edited by MikeV1987, 08 July 2013 - 20:05.
#61
Posted 08 July 2013 - 20:02
BTW. If they wanted Kimi to finish on the set of tyres, the better strategy would have been to pit Grosjean much later (but before Vettel!) and put him on the softs. Bang in a quick out lap and overtake Vettel; acting as a buffer to get Kimi safe to the chequered flag in 1st.
Edited by F.M., 08 July 2013 - 20:02.
#62
Posted 08 July 2013 - 20:09
And didn't they say in commentray, that Webber had done 30 laps on a set of primes and the tyres had good enough wear? Raikkonen would have done 6 laps extra with better tyre management on the tyres.
Another missed oppurtunity for the team I'm afraid.
#63
Posted 08 July 2013 - 20:13
Thing is that his tyres were already used. At least that's the info I heard somewhere. And it makes sense, because why else was Kimi slower than Alonso or Button when they switched to the options at the end. If Kimi had their tyres, he would have blown passed Grosjean and Vettel easily.Think they pitted him too late for the options, they should have pitted him when he had the 15s gap to Vettel, this would have also have given him more laps to attack.
And didn't they say in commentray, that Webber had done 30 laps on a set of primes and the tyres had good enough wear? Raikkonen would have done 6 laps extra with better tyre management on the tyres.
Another missed oppurtunity for the team I'm afraid.
#64
Posted 08 July 2013 - 20:18
They didn't. Remember, those tyres were six laps old already (actually, somebody claimed they were six laps old on this forum, I'm just picking it up without knowing for sure). Add the remaining ten laps and you'd have 16 laps on softs.Think they pitted him too late for the options, they should have pitted him when he had the 15s gap to Vettel, this would have also have given him more laps to attack.
And didn't they say in commentray, that Webber had done 30 laps on a set of primes and the tyres had good enough wear? Raikkonen would have done 6 laps extra with better tyre management on the tyres.
Another missed oppurtunity for the team I'm afraid.
And how do you figure about the "better tyre management"? Yes, Kimi is known to be gentle on the tyres, but still, this could have been pretty risky, if they had tried to finish the race on the set he was on before the last stop.
Just remember China 2012, they tried to finish the race on those tyres as well. Kimi lost 12 places in the last two laps! This could have happened again.
Edited by Radion, 08 July 2013 - 20:19.
#65
Posted 08 July 2013 - 20:19
Yes, Lotus's managment of tyres was superior in this race. Sure the temperatures were much higher in race than in FP2 where Webbo managed 30 laps on that tyres, but that was on full race fuel on board. Kimi had to drive 36 laps but with half reservoir of fuel. I think it was manageble and worth of gamble. He's trailing Vettel 41 points(almost two races) while if he won it could have been on 27(one race in points).Think they pitted him too late for the options, they should have pitted him when he had the 15s gap to Vettel, this would have also have given him more laps to attack.
And didn't they say in commentray, that Webber had done 30 laps on a set of primes and the tyres had good enough wear? Raikkonen would have done 6 laps extra with better tyre management on the tyres.
Another missed oppurtunity for the team I'm afraid.
Edited by Trust, 08 July 2013 - 20:20.
#66
Posted 08 July 2013 - 20:29
As for the tyre management, we know from comparing to Vettel that Webber punishes his tyres more, and we also know that the Lotus is good at managing it's tyres along with Raikkonen.
#67
Posted 08 July 2013 - 20:30
#68
Posted 08 July 2013 - 21:44
on the one hand - try to go the end and getting 1st place - or maybe going backwards on the final laps and ending up 4th or 5th or even worse.
on the other hand - pitting and getting an almost certain 2nd place with a good chance of getting 1st. too bad the options didn't give them the advantage they expected.
I can understand why they did it because it wouldn't have been nice to see Kimi going backwards on the final laps. I am all for an attitude where they stop being defensive and try to go racing instead. take a pitstop extra and drive flat out is better than cruising.
Edited by FenderJaguar, 08 July 2013 - 21:45.
#69
Posted 08 July 2013 - 22:08
They just don't quite have the speed of Red Bull, so they had to try something.
#70
Posted 09 July 2013 - 08:06
Considering how small his speed advantage was over Grosjean in the end, maybe he should have pitted for hards? Or how used was the remaining set?In hindsight they should have pitted Kimi a few laps earlier, but overall I think it was the right call.
10 laps all out with a fresh set of hards should have been quite fast?
Edited by Mauseri, 09 July 2013 - 08:07.
#71
Posted 09 July 2013 - 09:42
#72
Posted 09 July 2013 - 09:50
I think it was the right decision to test two separate strategies.
They just don't quite have the speed of Red Bull, so they had to try something.
Exactly - Vettel always looked like he had it in hand IMO.