Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Would Ricciardo have won if he did not pit


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 Alfisti

Alfisti
  • Member

  • 39,658 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 29 July 2014 - 17:22

Just re-watched the race and was thinking this through. In the end it all worked out but if he'd of stayed out, do his lap times plummet to catastrophic levels or does he plateau around the pace Alonso was setting at the end? I know he'd have had to go longer but would the grip continue to drop or is there some sort of wall? 



Advertisement

#2 Logiso

Logiso
  • Member

  • 311 posts
  • Joined: April 14

Posted 29 July 2014 - 17:40

He wouldn't have won if he had stayed out rather than pit for the final stint.

 

He would have won even easier though if he hadn't pitted under the safety car. Vergne and then Alonso would have provided the blockers for him to make his escape and he wouldn't have needed to overtake any of them. The Red Bull looked half a second faster than the Ferrari all weekend, although the cooler temps probably made that gap smaller and all season Ricciardo in the Red Bull has been able to keep performance at the end of a stint better than anyone else so there's no reason to think he wouldn't have pulled off the Ferrari strategy even better than Ferrari did



#3 ardbeg

ardbeg
  • Member

  • 2,876 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 29 July 2014 - 17:40

Seems like most teams was surprised over how long the tires lasted, so I think it is certainly possible that he would have survived without a pit stop, but at the time it seemed unlikely. I believe went for  safe podium with a shot at the win rather than a possible win with a reasonably high risk of falling out completely. His laptimes was quite a lot slower than the followers and the decision to pit had to be taken sooner rather than later. It all went well and as a bonus Ricciardo got to show us that he is one of the very best.



#4 ArkZ

ArkZ
  • Member

  • 610 posts
  • Joined: June 12

Posted 29 July 2014 - 18:23

If he would not make pitstop then he would have to make his softs last 47! laps. Riccardo's tires most probably would hit the cliff and either he would try to make to the end and drive 7s slower and would finish 4th or make pitstop with something like 7 laps to the end and still finish 4th. His strategy was optimal, and the key to his win was one lap earlier pitstop than the top 4 made under SC, which promoted him from 6th to 1st.



#5 William Hunt

William Hunt
  • Member

  • 10,928 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 30 July 2014 - 01:08

I wonder where Massa would have ended had he not pitted, he was on the harder compound I believe so I was surprised to see him pit again



#6 HoldenRT

HoldenRT
  • Member

  • 6,773 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 30 July 2014 - 04:24

He wouldn't have won if he had stayed out rather than pit for the final stint.

 

He would have won even easier though if he hadn't pitted under the safety car. Vergne and then Alonso would have provided the blockers for him to make his escape and he wouldn't have needed to overtake any of them. The Red Bull looked half a second faster than the Ferrari all weekend, although the cooler temps probably made that gap smaller and all season Ricciardo in the Red Bull has been able to keep performance at the end of a stint better than anyone else so there's no reason to think he wouldn't have pulled off the Ferrari strategy even better than Ferrari did

 

Yes the first SC helped, the second one hurt, and made things harder (which brought about the final 10 laps).  The first SC gave a lucky opportunity, but the second SC took away some of the luck and made him have to earn it.  He already lost a 5 sec advantage but then also pitted and had to create a new gap (or overtake).

 

I agree, most likely Alonso's strategy would have worked very well.  But it's easy to see these things in hindsight.

 

What's interesting about the first SC is that Button, Ric and Massa gained an advantage from it.. but for the other two didn't actually get much in the end.  Bad tyre choice for McLaren, but it makes you wonder about Massa and how much quicker he would have been on the softer tyre.  He still might have struggled.  And that's why Smedley says that strategy wasn't the problem because of the poor race pace/tyre wear.. however being on the right strategy always helps.  It's never a bad thing.



#7 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 22,883 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 02 August 2014 - 02:49

I may look at the times and equalize the tyre wear and traffic issues.

 

Once this was easy but now Autosport does not supply the data, and Forix doesn't supply all the drivers (one axis) v lap times (other axis).

 

So its a pain to get all the data ... but after doing so, I could make some conclusion. I intend doing so, could have by now, but for Autosport dropping the ball and not providing what they used to provide.

With the thinness of articles and now not getting proper data, I am unlikely to renew my subscription to Autosport.

 

Anyhow, I'll get the data eventually - unless someone has a link to a site with it - and I'll put some numbers together.

 

The main race question for me though,  is the strategy change that happened after the second SC. The team pitted Dan Ric but left out Seb. What would have happened, if Dan had not pitted?

 

Also how fast was Dan vis a vis Seb, when tyres and fuel loads and traffic issues are equalized?

 

How fast was Dan vis a vis Rosberg is also an interesting question.

 

As far as winning - the top speed of the RBRs is too limited to permit most overtaking, so if there had of been no pitstops, Dan couldn't have won IMO, but I look forward to looking at how fast the RBRs were.



#8 HoldenRT

HoldenRT
  • Member

  • 6,773 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 02 August 2014 - 05:33

I used to look down on some here, because I used to think I was the only sober who who ever watches the races (and most people must be drunk), but these days, I'm one of those people and usually have a beer or glass of wine.  So it gets a bit blurry compared to years gone by, so take this with a grain of salt.

 

Rosberg vs Dan is a hard comparison for a lot of reasons.  Rosberg's dry pace seemed off in a lot of parts of the race, combined with traffic and also brake issues.  We saw the smoke coming out and him struggling relative to others, so we know it's not just excuses.  On the inters Nico was strong at the start but from the first pit stop onwards.. he didn't seem his usual self.  He had trouble getting past Vergne but also in general just seemed to be struggling.  In the middle stint he never really pressured Lewis to pass and that was despite Alonso and Hamilton driving quite slow laptimes.  The funny thing was as soon as Rosberg pitted, they both RAMPED UP their speed quite a lot.  It was like they had both been deliberately trying to save the tyre and destroy Rosberg's strategy at the same time.  And with that, you'd expect him to be all over them?  But he wasn't.  Never even attempted a pass as far as I can remember.  Lewis was the quicker driver on dry tyres all race but he was bottled up behind Alonso or on the harder tyre trying to make it last.  So Lewis' pace was hidden relative to Nico.

 

In the final stint, Nico was quicker than Dan (and Lewis probably would have been even quicker in the same situation).  Nico's raw laptimes were quicker but he pitted 2 laps later and didn't seem to have much tyre left at the end of the race for overtaking, so it's hard to actually say he was quicker or slower because he might just have used more of the tyre in a shorter amount of time.  That's what makes all this stuff hard because in the sprint format it was easy but with Pirelli's it's all about tyre management and that can hide or blur the true pace.  For example in Silverstone, you could say Dan's times were nothing special but he made the softer tyre last something like 37 laps.  Which is a minor miracle.  Sometimes people can have a good pace but leave 30% of the tyre left at the end of the stint, and others can be forced to pit because they've already hit the cliff.  It makes comparisons really hard if the cars do good pace.  The easiest way to compare is if both cars do 20 laps stints, and then another 20 or 30 laps.. and then they'll know more about how to manage them and it'll be less of a guess.  If 2 cars from different teams do that, it makes a good comparison.  But in this race it was pretty much the opposite of that.  And even when they were on the same strategy, there was traffic getting in the way.

 

If Ricciardo didn't pit at the final SC, I always assumed he would have had an easy win.  He could maintain track position, build up a lead and pit without having to worry about passing anybody.  Instead he needed to wait for those infront to pit (saving his tyres quite smartly and never trying to attack) and then got on it after they had pitted.  What helped make it work, was that at that stop he bolted on new soft tyres, that weren't used in qualifying.  It helped to have good pace and stretch out the stint, so that the final stint could be short and a proper sprint to the finish.  This strategy was safer, in the sense that he wasn't vulnerable to tyre wear or having to try to hang on like Alonso/Lewis were but also riskier in the sense that it also meant that he'd have to overtake on track.  Which at Hungary in years gone by, is usually pretty tough.  Overall staying out would have been the safer/easier option, but only when looking back in hindsight.  At the time they pitted, they had no idea what others would do.  And maybe he'd worn his tyres out more than others when building that gap (5 secs) before the stop.  What would have helped him is the traffic that the others had, especially Vergne.  But again, no way of knowing that in advance.

 

His pace was pretty poor/average in the first part of the race and it wasn't until after Button pitted to ditch the inters after the SC, that he had some clear air and actually started putting in good laptimes.  From that point his pace was very good until the end.  Alonso's was very impressive as well, in terms of a good balance of laptime/tyre wear.  Regardless of Alonso's talent, the Ferrari was quite quick.  Both Mercs either had brake problems/traffic/bad strategy but the raw pace seemed to be there.  Just hindered by bad strategy.

 

Direct comparisons of car pace are hard though.  In a straight fight, I still don't know if Nico could have outpaced Dan.  He seemed off, and his race was unusual, probably do to the brakes.  Lewis probably would have beaten Dan, if on a better strategy and had some clear air and the right tyres.  And that's despite some front wing damage and a spin on lap 1.  But Dan was very quick though, it's just that he wasn't hindered as much by strategy as the others.  Very unpredictable race..


Edited by HoldenRT, 02 August 2014 - 05:36.


#9 bourbon

bourbon
  • Member

  • 7,265 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 02 August 2014 - 05:41

Yes the first SC helped, the second one hurt, and made things harder (which brought about the final 10 laps).  The first SC gave a lucky opportunity, but the second SC took away some of the luck and made him have to earn it.  He already lost a 5 sec advantage but then also pitted and had to create a new gap (or overtake).

[...]

 

The second SC took time away, but the new tyres gave him a lopsided advantage over the other two when he caught up with them.  He was on a new pair of softs with 11 laps and Hamilton on mediums s at 21 laps, and Alonso on softs at 25 laps.  Daniel bid his time well and hit them when they were vulnerable (passing with little fanfare at 25/31 laps respectively), which was great driving, but they were kind of sitting ducks with no grip at that point.  So I would not say he lost the luck, just had to make up time and fresh tyres made it quick work.  At the other end, Bottas was in a similar position, catching Seb with 3 laps left on soft tyres at 11-12 laps and Vettel on mediums with 32-33 laps at that point.  Although on older tyres, he had more grip than the front runners as he had not been in any battles since backing off Raikkonen and deciding to make it to the end on those mediums.  So you have to wonder if Hamilton and Alonso had not been racing one another during that last stint if they too could have made it home in 1-2 (having some grip left to make themselves wide against the faster Ricciardo and ultimately Rosberg.


Edited by bourbon, 02 August 2014 - 05:43.


#10 HoldenRT

HoldenRT
  • Member

  • 6,773 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 02 August 2014 - 05:50

Losing (some of) the luck in terms of needing to earn the win, because while those 2 were sitting ducks.. it's still a tricky track and they are both top class drivers, so passing them is never easy.  Massa had a similar situation in Canada, with fresher tyres and the chance for a win, and that was on a track that is easier to overtake on and with a good engine for the long straight and we saw how that went.

 

I really have no idea of Seb's pace in this race other than it was good until the first SC, and from then on there was traffic and bad strategy.  People point to the mistake but it wasn't all about the mistake.  It still would have been a tough race.   Don't know how he kept Bottas behind when on the straights.  Don't think it was shown on TV.  You would think he needed good traction out of final corner but 30+ laps old worn meds aren't known for their traction and that Williams always had huge straight line speed even in Hungary.



#11 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 22,883 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 02 August 2014 - 09:04

... In the final stint, Nico was quicker than Dan (and Lewis probably would have been even quicker in the same situation).  ...

 

You need to run the numbers to know for sure.

 

I looked very quickly, and by applying the fuel weight decrease in lap time to Dan, I thought that he was much the same speed as Nico.

 

Also Dan's approach to the cars in front may have not been flat out, since he knew he was going to catch them. The issue for him was IMO - when will their tyres fail? Because the current tyres tend to sit on a plateau, and then suddenly, they loose their performance. But while they are on their plateau, the car can lap faster each lap, due to lesser fuel loads. 

 

Without knowing all the times, its not worth guessing IMO.



#12 HoldenRT

HoldenRT
  • Member

  • 6,773 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 02 August 2014 - 09:43

It's hard to compare the times though because Dan did a few quick laps, (no urgent rush since he had plenty of laps to catch them and was only 5 or 6 secs back after the pitstop).  Then caught up to the two infront and was sort of cruising for a bit waiting patiently (like he did when he pitted under 2nd SC) and then attacked, and then had some life in the tyre left at the end to pull away.  He probably wasn't even pushing hard in those final few laps.  Nico was in traffic before pitting.. then basically went flatout in a mad dash to catch up before the race ended, and despite some poor laps from Alonso, and some defending/attacking from all 3, Nico only caught up on the last lap and didn't seem to have much life left in the tyre on that last lap to attack Lewis, while Dan probably still had lots of life left.  Pretty sure Nico said something about the tyres being gone after the race as well.  Even with the lap times, even if one or the other was quicker, they weren't really driving in the same context or circumstance.  So yeah, agree that it's hard and it's basically just guessing.

 

And thinking that Lewis could be quicker has nothing to go on, other than a feeling of watching them both in the race, which isn't much to go on.  Dan managed everything really well though, driving as quick as he needed to in each moment of the race.



#13 juandiego

juandiego
  • Member

  • 404 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 02 August 2014 - 10:59


Logiso:

 

He wouldn't have won if he had stayed out rather than pit for the final stint.

 

He would have won even easier though if he hadn't pitted under the safety car. Vergne and then Alonso would have provided the blockers for him to make his escape and he wouldn't have needed to overtake any of them. The Red Bull looked half a second faster than the Ferrari all weekend, although the cooler temps probably made that gap smaller and all season Ricciardo in the Red Bull has been able to keep performance at the end of a stint better than anyone else so there's no reason to think he wouldn't have pulled off the Ferrari strategy even better than Ferrari did

 

 

I agree with your first paragraph: the 47 laps stint on softs Ricciardo would have needed doesn't seem possible at all.

 

As for your second point, Logiso, it's also important to consider that during the stage of the race in which both Alonso and Ricciardo were under the same conditions, same aged soft tyres and clean air in front, Alonso was a bit faster than Ricciardo. It took place between the two SCs, in laps: 16, 17 and 18. Ricciardo had no one in front because he was leading. Once Button (P3), right in front of Alonso (P4), moved aside to pit in lap 15, Alonso also got some clean air since Massa (P2) was more than 4 seconds ahead. During said three laps Alonso caught Massa and set some race fastest laps. He got stuck behind Massa until the next SC in lap 23, however, Ricciardo did not increase the gap significantly from both Alonso and Massa from lap 19 to 22 (1.4 seconds.).

 

Too short number of laps to draw a clear pattern, I know, nonetheless it points to the opposite one you assumed in that text in bold.

 

Another interesting scenario to speculate on would be what would have happened if the first SC hadn't promoted Ricciardo from P6 to P1.


Edited by juandiego, 02 August 2014 - 11:02.


#14 juandiego

juandiego
  • Member

  • 404 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 02 August 2014 - 13:54

[...]. His strategy was optimal, and the key to his win was one lap earlier pitstop than the top 4 made under SC, which promoted him from 6th to 1st.

I agree with you, Arkz. In my opinion, this is something that, in general, has been widely disregarded by the media when assessing the merit of Ricciardo's win, it's been fully eclipsed by the two overtakes he did on Hamilton and Alonso at the end and perhaps because it took place early in the race. Both were of merit, of course, especially because on whom they were made, but Ricciardo's tyre advantage was huge at that moment, hence expectable.  However, hardly Ricciardo would have had the chance of getting them had not the first SC randomly caused that positions alteration.

 

It's also interesting that it came about as a consequence of Ricciardo's poor start. He lost position respect to Alonso and Button, got stuck behind this latter for the whole first stint and accumulated a 6 seconds gap deficit from Alonso because of a slower Button. Well, that delay is precisely what allowed Ricciardo not to miss the pit entry when the first SC was deployed.


Edited by juandiego, 02 August 2014 - 14:18.


#15 HoldenRT

HoldenRT
  • Member

  • 6,773 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 02 August 2014 - 13:54

Yeah Alonso was very quick during certain parts of the race, way quicker than expected.  Think he said it might have been helped by the cooler temps.



#16 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 20,436 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 02 August 2014 - 16:49

Yeah Alonso was quick and was able to finish 2nd despite the bad luck with SC timing. The big question for me after watching the race was whether Alonso might have won had the team, on the last stop, opted for the harder option rather than soft.


Edited by AustinF1, 02 August 2014 - 17:27.


#17 bourbon

bourbon
  • Member

  • 7,265 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 02 August 2014 - 18:47

Losing (some of) the luck in terms of needing to earn the win, because while those 2 were sitting ducks.. it's still a tricky track and they are both top class drivers, so passing them is never easy.  Massa had a similar situation in Canada, with fresher tyres and the chance for a win, and that was on a track that is easier to overtake on and with a good engine for the long straight and we saw how that went.

 

I didn't have time to answer yesterday, but I agreed in general.  What you wrote is what I meant when I said he waited and struck at their most vulnerable moments, while still having enough time to pass for the lead.  Alonso couldn't defend at all and Hamilton's was more or less perfunctory.   So that was using good judgment on Dan's part as they can be tricky to pass even if on old tyres - which is why I brought up Sebastian holding off Bottas, that was an example of that very thing.  I was more speaking in terms of time advantage Dan had and how losing that hadn't really been an issue.  But in terms of position, it is always better to be in front and not have to fight - and if he hadn't pitted, I don't think he'd of remained in front.  So to me it was win win.  The two in front were battling and had no grip and Dan had fresh tyres and could easily pass them once they became to vulnerable to stop him.

 

 

 

I really have no idea of Seb's pace in this race other than it was good until the first SC, and from then on there was traffic and bad strategy.  People point to the mistake but it wasn't all about the mistake.  It still would have been a tough race.   Don't know how he kept Bottas behind when on the straights.  Don't think it was shown on TV.  You would think he needed good traction out of final corner but 30+ laps old worn meds aren't known for their traction and that Williams always had huge straight line speed even in Hungary.

 

 

Well both Alonso and Vettel were jettisoning out of that final turn into the straight, giving themselves a boost against the faster Merc.  That is how Seb held off Lewis earlier on - so I assume it was the same with Bottas (less the evil astroturf :p).