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

#51 TF110

TF110
  • Member

  • 3,068 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 08 July 2013 - 02:09

Bad call imo. Combined with the timing of Grosjean's pit. They could have covered Vettel and possibly 1-2'ed.

Advertisement

#52 intelligentsia

intelligentsia
  • Member

  • 2,407 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 08 July 2013 - 03:27

It doesn't matter so much that they pitted, it was Lotus's indecisiveness that cost them the most. Either leave Kimi out or pit him at the right time. His pitstop was badly timed, he could have been much closer to Vettel if he pitted earlier and used a new set of medium tyres.

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 Afterburner

Afterburner
  • RC Forum Host

  • 9,173 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 08 July 2013 - 03:40

They made the right call, I think--they just needed fresh tyres. I don't think he would've hung onto the lead until the end of the race by staying out.

Edited by Afterburner, 08 July 2013 - 03:41.


#54 Kelateboy

Kelateboy
  • Member

  • 7,032 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 08 July 2013 - 04:02

I thought it was the wrong decision to call him in for soft tyres. He got a sizeable 13s lead with 11 laps to go. We won't know for sure if the tyres will hold up, but I thought it was worth a gamble.
In the event the tyres hit the cliff, just call Raikkonen in and he will still secure 3rd place or at worst 4th.


#55 travbrad

travbrad
  • Member

  • 1,058 posts
  • Joined: October 07

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 Jon83

Jon83
  • Member

  • 5,341 posts
  • Joined: November 11

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 One

One
  • Member

  • 6,527 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 08 July 2013 - 12:56

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


DITTO

#58 Mauseri

Mauseri
  • Member

  • 7,644 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 08 July 2013 - 13:02

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

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.

#59 Winter98

Winter98
  • Member

  • 638 posts
  • Joined: October 12

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 MikeV1987

MikeV1987
  • Member

  • 6,371 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 08 July 2013 - 19:55

edit, wrong thead :lol:

Edited by MikeV1987, 08 July 2013 - 20:05.


#61 F.M.

F.M.
  • Member

  • 5,577 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 08 July 2013 - 20:02

Yes, it was the right decision. They could see the tyres already slowly losing a bit of performance at that point according to Bullier, and like he said, they all remembered China 2012. If the hadn't pitted, Kimi might have finished 1st, but just as or even more likely, 4th.

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 Ragingjamaican

Ragingjamaican
  • Member

  • 996 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 08 July 2013 - 20:09

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.

#63 Lights

Lights
  • Member

  • 17,874 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 08 July 2013 - 20:13

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.

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.

#64 Radion

Radion
  • Member

  • 2,523 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 08 July 2013 - 20:18

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.

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.
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 Trust

Trust
  • Member

  • 5,153 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 08 July 2013 - 20:19

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.

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).

Edited by Trust, 08 July 2013 - 20:20.


#66 Ragingjamaican

Ragingjamaican
  • Member

  • 996 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 08 July 2013 - 20:29

Grosjean managed 13 laps on a set of softs with a full tank, so an extra three on a light tank shouldn't have been much of a problem, it's not as if his times dropped off like Buttons anyway.

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 MikeV1987

MikeV1987
  • Member

  • 6,371 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 08 July 2013 - 20:30

In hindsight they should have pitted Kimi a few laps earlier, but overall I think it was the right call.

#68 FenderJaguar

FenderJaguar
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 08 July 2013 - 21:44

voted no but it is easy to say after the race. I think China 2012 came back to haunt them.
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 rijole1

rijole1
  • Member

  • 633 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 08 July 2013 - 22:08

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.

#70 Mauseri

Mauseri
  • Member

  • 7,644 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 09 July 2013 - 08:06

In hindsight they should have pitted Kimi a few laps earlier, but overall I think it was the right call.

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?

10 laps all out with a fresh set of hards should have been quite fast?

Edited by Mauseri, 09 July 2013 - 08:07.


#71 skyfolker

skyfolker
  • Member

  • 393 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 09 July 2013 - 09:42

Worst decision,imo,they would have better chances for victory if they pitted him earlier(when he was 17s ahead of RoGro,and with clean pit stop would have come out in front of him),then they could have pitted him on the same lap only for new mediums,and not pitting was risk-worthy option(in that case,the worst scenario would be finishing 4th).

#72 Jon83

Jon83
  • Member

  • 5,341 posts
  • Joined: November 11

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.