63 replies to this topic

[Baddoer]

I was just wondering what race victories were lost because of brain fades at the team's HQ . So far my favorite ones of recent times:

1. Bahrain 2009
2. Germany 2013
3. Spain 2012 (hello Lotus again!)
4. Malaysia 2012
5. Bahrain 2012 (and again hello Lotus!)

[scheivlak]

I was just wondering what race victories were lost because of brain fades at the team's HQ . So far my favorite ones of recent times:

1. Bahrain 2009
2. Germany 2013
3. Spain 2012 (hello Lotus again!)
4. Malaysia 2012
5. Bahrain 2012 (and again hello Lotus!)

Neither Germany 2013 nor Spain 2012 were lost because of "bizarre strategies". Vettel was simply the fastest guy and on supreme form last Sunday, just like Maldonado in Spain. Very easy to suggest an "if" that didn't happen.
Bahrain 2012 was maybe weak, but not bizarre.

Only Bahrain 2009 was rather bizarre, but I have my doubts about Toyota winning even if they got their strategy right.

[Afterburner]

If we're going by brain-fades in general, then the winner has to be when Nigel Mansell accidentally shut his car off while waving to the crowd in Canada that one year...

[SpaMaster]

You sure like Lotus! Yeah, they never lost much of any position, let alone victories, except for the last week Silverstone P2. Other than that, they have never lost victories due to brain fade. They are too desperate to win to have brain fade.

[Collombin]

There have been a few where the strategy to keep the car as light as possible has been achieved by the questionable tactic of not putting enough fuel in it.

Jerez 1997 must be classed as bizarre, although as it was deliberate can hardly qualify as a brain fade.

Lack of team orders has sometimes resulted in a team losing a sure fire win, but I don't like to criticise teams that actually allow their drivers to race each other.

EDIT: speling eror

Edited by E.B., 09 July 2013 - 15:54.

[Disgrace]

Monaco 1997: Williams starting their cars on slicks on a wet circuit.
Silverstone 1998: McLaren putting inters on Coulthard for no good reason when they put Hakkinen on wets.
Hungary 1998: McLaren left Coulthard sitting behind Hakkinen's ailing car.
Turkey 2006: Ferrari leave Schumacher behind Massa, get caught out with trousers down by safety car.
China 2007: McLaren do nothing while Hamilton drives around with tyres down to the canvas, losing eight seconds a lap.

Bonus incomprehensible strategies:

Silverstone 2002: Coulthard making four stops, getting it wrong every time.
Abu Dhabi 2010: brain fade that lost a championship.

[TheThirdTenor1]

Lotus lost the last race in Germany because of the safety car, rather than poor strategy.

some others

- Suzuka 94 (Benetton should have fuelled Schumacher to the end of the race)
- Spa 96 (Williams should have pitted Villeneuve when the safety car came out)
- Monaco 97 (Williams should have started both cars on wets and with wet setups. Still i think Schumacher would have won either way)
- Silverstone 12 (Ferrari should have started Alonso on the option tyre, but i guess we only really knew this in hindsight).

[Atreiu]

You also have to wonder if it was worth the trouble to have Coulthard win from Hakkinen at Spa 1999 a month after he punted Hakkinen at Austria and still managed the incredible feat of losing to Irvine (out of all slow drivers in fast cars ever!).

[maverick69]

McLaren. The 2012 WDC .

Stopping all meaningful development mid-season to focus on a new, radical car..... that's turned out to be crap.

[Briz]

Not really decisive for the victory, but Prost @ Donnington'93 changed tires like 7 times, team usually getting it completely wrong (changeable conditions)

[SpeedRacer`]

Canada 97, Coulthard was miles ahead but had a clutch problem but Ron Dennis brought him in. Sure enough he stalled in the pits for over a minute and slipped to 7th.

[sopa]

Belgium 2005. I don't know if Ralf Schumacher would have won, but he was certainly in contention before given dry tyres on a wet circuit...
China 2006. Alonso was left out on old inters, which cost him the lead.
Donington 1993. Senna was on his own, but helped by Prost pitting six or seven times, leaving the Frenchman a long way behind.
Belgium 1995. Hill was leading comfortably before pitting for wets and then again dries a few laps later... and then getting a stop & go penalty.

Overall I think we can find lots of examples from wet races.

[scheivlak]

How about China 2007?

OK, they were racing Fernando......

[Atreiu]

Belgium 2005. I don't know if Ralf Schumacher would have won, but he was certainly in contention before given dry tyres on a wet circuit...
China 2006. Alonso was left out on old inters, which cost him the lead.
Donington 1993. Senna was on his own, but helped by Prost pitting six or seven times, leaving the Frenchman a long way behind.
Belgium 1995. Hill was leading comfortably before pitting for wets and then again dries a few laps later... and then getting a stop & go penalty.

Overall I think we can find lots of examples from wet races.

It was the other way around at China 2006.
Alonso put on new inters and they never warmed up properly, demoting him from 1st to 3rd.

[TheThirdTenor1]

Canada 97, Coulthard was miles ahead but had a clutch problem but Ron Dennis brought him in. Sure enough he stalled in the pits for over a minute and slipped to 7th.

I remember this one! they brought him in for a "precautionary stop" (the goodyears were wearing out very quickly that day). Funny thing is, the race was stopped only a few laps later.

[TomNokoe]

Hungary 2011. Button's 200th Grand Prix. McLaren made him a cake and gifted him the win away from Hamilton.

[andrewf1]

McLaren. The 2012 WDC .

Stopping all meaningful development mid-season to focus on a new, radical car..... that's turned out to be crap.

What are you on about? Sure they lost the WDC with all their race operations errors, but certainly not due to the car or car development. The car continued to be developed up until at least Austin when they introduced a new front wing and it clearly finished the season faster than everyone else in Brazil.

Edited by andrewf1, 09 July 2013 - 17:56.

[MortenF1]

I remember this one! they brought him in for a "precautionary stop" (the goodyears were wearing out very quickly that day). Funny thing is, the race was stopped only a few laps later.

One of the rear tires had a cut, or a serious blister, but as far as I remember there weren't serious concern with wear.....??

...Christ, McLaren screwed up so many races for DC.

[mnmracer]

The tricky thing with 'bizarre strategies' is that it's a gamble. You don't do it unless you think it can benefit you, and if it works, you profit from it.

[P123]

Canada 2005. McLaren call Montoya into the pits under the SC only after he has passed the pitlane entry. It conveniently allows Raikkonen to inherit the lead as Montoya has to join the train after pitting a lap later.

[P123]

...Christ, McLaren screwed up so many races for DC.

It's a McLaren thing.

Edited by P123, 09 July 2013 - 18:30.

[Rob]

Williams' strategies were pretty awful in 1995. Hill lost several wins that year because of it.

[BillBald]

Hungary 2011. Button's 200th Grand Prix. McLaren made him a cake and gifted him the win away from Hamilton.

We are looking for bizarre strategies, not bizarre posts.

[Peter Perfect]

One of the rear tires had a cut, or a serious blister, but as far as I remember there weren't serious concern with wear.....??

...Christ, McLaren screwed up so many races for DC.

Indeed. The idea that McLaren operations were a smoothly oiled machine before Martin Whitmarsh/Sam Michael took over is quite a fantasy. In fact you could almost say it's been their trademark!

[ArkZ]

Ferrari during summer races in 2012 didn't have special strategies, we lost wins with Alonso in:
Spain 2012
Canada 2012
GB 2012

Edited by ArkZ, 09 July 2013 - 18:52.

[scheivlak]

Ferrari during summer races in 2012 didn't have special strategies, we lost wins with Alonso in:

Canada 2012

How would Alonso have won that one?

[ArkZ]

How would Alonso have won that one?

By covering Hamilton's strategy, Ferrari decided to do one stop less that's why Alonso and Vettel with RB lost ground to Hamilton in 2nd stint, in the 1st stint when all of them were on same strategy Alonso was the fastest (he took the lead after the first pit stop), it's not clear he would won that but he had decent chance.

Edited by ArkZ, 09 July 2013 - 19:04.

[CSquared]

Abu Dhabi 2010: brain fade that lost a championship.

This for sure. Bizarre is the most polite way to describe Ferrari's decision to pit Alonso stupidly early.

Britain 2008: Räikkönen was on the gearbox of the leader when they decided not to change his tires. He then went backwards at an embarrassing rate.

[scheivlak]

By covering Hamilton's strategy, Ferrari decided to do one stop less that's why Alonso and Vettel with RB lost ground to Hamilton in 2nd stint, in the 1st stint when all of them were on same strategy Alonso was the fastest (he took the lead after the first pit stop), it's not clear he would won that but he had decent chance.

I don't think that could possibly give him more than a second place (remember he lost that lead and Hamilton still had a 3 second lead when he pitted) - which in hindsight wouldn't be too bad of course

[sopa]

Williams' strategies were pretty awful in 1995. Hill lost several wins that year because of it.

I think we can widen this. A lot of teams and drivers lost races to Schumacher/Brawn combo due to awful strategies or conversely due to the mastery of Brawn strategy during 1994-2006. I still remember, how Alonso lost Imola 2006. Schumacher was deliberately slow, forcing Alonso to pit early. Another one for the list of "lost wins due to strategy".

[TheThirdTenor1]

Williams' strategies were pretty awful in 1995. Hill lost several wins that year because of it.

Though i remember reading a rumour at the time that Williams had a smaller fuel tank than Benetton which meant they couldn't run 1 stop strategies at some races.

[noikeee]

The problem with calling out bad strategies is that even with benefit of hindsight it's not 100% certain a dodgy strategy would've played out much better if another call was made. All strategies have their pros and cons and what-ifs in such a complicated game of chess are often very hard to play out. At least in my mind - I'm not an expert on pit strategy tbh.

[Blackmore]

I always thought one of the dumbest moves an F1 team did was BMW in 2008 stopping development of their car after the Canada win while Kubica could have won the title with Hamilton-McLaren/Massa-Ferrari trying really hard to throw away their chances.

I think Kubica could have gotten it and that move heralded the end of BMW in 2009 with a poor car.

[Briz]

Maybe Senna would have stood a chance at Mexico'90 had he not gambled on making the whole distance on one set of tires. Similarly another tire gamble destroyed his chances at Spa '1992 and a different rainmeister won .

[PretentiousBread]

This for sure. Bizarre is the most polite way to describe Ferrari's decision to pit Alonso stupidly early.

Britain 2008: Räikkönen was on the gearbox of the leader when they decided not to change his tires. He then went backwards at an embarrassing rate.

They were reacting to Webber who had pitted the lap before, and who at that stage was second in the WDC standings to Alonso. Several cars lap times were dropping off at that stage due to a temporary tyre graining phase, which was mistakenly interpretted at the time as the tyres going off.

It was a mistake, they were watching Webber too closely and didn't consider all the potential outcomes, in particular that other cars wouldn't pit, leaving Alonso stuck in traffic far behind Vettel, gifting him the title. However, it wasn't without logic, it wasn't incomprehensible.

Edited by PretentiousBread, 09 July 2013 - 20:20.

[scheivlak]

Though i remember reading a rumour at the time that Williams had a smaller fuel tank than Benetton which meant they couldn't run 1 stop strategies at some races.

Coulthard ran the German GP at Hockenheim with 1 stop, so I don't think that tank was too small.

[Niceone]

How about China 2007?

OK, they were racing Fernando......

He didn't lose victory there: If McLaren had pitted him early he would have ended up 4th.

[scheivlak]

He didn't lose victory there: If McLaren had pitted him early he would have ended up 4th.

And you know this why?

What do you mean by "pitting him early"? Which lap?

If he had pitted on, say, lap 29 and didn't have a mechanical failure there's no way he wouldn't have reached the podium at least - IMHO!

[SpeedRacer`]

Coulthard ran the German GP at Hockenheim with 1 stop, so I don't think that tank was too small.

They had a lot of bad reliability too though, Coulthard could easily have won 4 or 5 races.

[TheThirdTenor1]

They were reacting to Webber who had pitted the lap before, and who at that stage was second in the WDC standings to Alonso. Several cars lap times were dropping off at that stage due to a temporary tyre graining phase, which was mistakenly interpretted at the time as the tyres going off.

It was a mistake, they were watching Webber too closely and didn't consider all the potential outcomes, in particular that other cars wouldn't pit, leaving Alonso stuck in traffic far behind Vettel, gifting him the title. However, it wasn't without logic, it wasn't incomprehensible.

It's not so much that Webber was 2nd in the WDC, but that he was in 5th during the race, and if he overtook Alonso for 4th place (thus demoting Alonso to 5th) then that would give the title to Vettel.

Edited by TheThirdTenor1, 09 July 2013 - 21:21.

[scheivlak]

They had a lot of bad reliability too though, Coulthard could easily have won 4 or 5 races.

That's quite another discussion....

[Atreiu]

Ferrari during summer races in 2012 didn't have special strategies, we lost wins with Alonso in:
Spain 2012
Canada 2012
GB 2012

"We" as in you were part of the decision making process?

[George Costanza]

Williams' strategies were pretty awful in 1995. Hill lost several wins that year because of it.

Fully agreed...

The '95 Williams car was significantly better than the Benetton, I'd argue.

[Kingshark]

Both China 2006 and China 2007, for Fernando and Lewis respectively.

Malaysia 2012 is another honorable mention.

[Atreiu]

Singapore 2008, Renaults truely bizarre cheating and effective strategy cost Rosberg and Williams a win.

Edited by Atreiu, 10 July 2013 - 03:20.

[Zippel]

Singapore 2008, Renaults truely bizarre cheating and effective strategy cost Rosberg and Williams a win.

Rosberg wouldn't have been in that position without the cheating, so no.

[Borko]

San Marino 2006. Renault lost the win because they decided to pit Alonso earlier, although it was scheduled for him to pit 2 laps later.

[SenorSjon]

In the hayday of the Schumacher-Ferrari combo, you saw some weird tactics. Keep the wrong wet/intermediate tire on and guestimating it will only lose 1 second/lap during 15 laps of drying track, while with a pitstop, you would be way faster than other cars and thus negating the time lost in a pitstop. In the end he lost 4-5 seconds/lap and finally crashed out the race while defending.

[Atreiu]

Rosberg wouldn't have been in that position without the cheating, so no.

Indeed.

[FordFan]

Euro GP 1999.

In retrospect, I'm sure Ferrari view their decision to send Irvine out with three wheels as somewhat of a miscalculation.