44 replies to this topic

[BillBald]

It’s maybe a little early to talk about McLaren’s strategy and race operations in 2015. It’s clear that, at the moment, they really are focussed more on testing than on actual results. But at the same time, good results should help motivate the team, so maybe they should at least aim for slick operations.

So far, the pitstops have been very slow. I assume that’s a combination of not practising them very much (because the mechanics are kept pretty busy doing other stuff), and also being cautious – they don’t want to send a car out on 3 wheels and lose some precious testing time.

What do people think of pitting under the safety car in Malaysia? I’m a little bit puzzled by it, because it meant they didn’t get much running on the prime tyre (just 3 laps at full racing speed). Did this strategy actually help their position in the race?

It would have helped Jenson a lot less, having to wait behind Fred and then getting stuck behind Merhi and taking the restart 5 seconds down. I hope that McLaren aren’t going to make a habit of double-stacking in the interests of ‘equality’. Obviously it’s OK when it makes more sense than doing another lap before pitting.

The car did seem to be pretty slow on the prime, compared with all the other cars which were on options. And after the change to options, they were immediately a couple of seconds a lap faster. That might have been because they started the race intending to run very long on the primes, and so were deliberately taking it very easy for the first few laps. There was no taking it easy in the following stint on options, certainly not for Jenson who was clearly pushing very hard (too hard I think) in order to close the gap.

Jenson’s 2nd pitstop seemed to come a little bit too late. Looking at his laptimes he was starting to get major deg, even though he was able to overtake Perez who was also suffering. The problem arose because Jenson pushed too hard at the beginning of the stint, but the strategy should have been adjusted accordingly.  They pitted Jenson 4 laps after Perez, who ended up being 10 seconds ahead as a result

Were they trying to do the race on just 2 long option stints? That would surely have been over-optimistic, although Alonso’s laptimes were holding up well until he retired.

I think we can be reasonably sure that the option was the right race tyre for the car, and that getting rid of the prime was probably the right choice. So, on balance, I think the strategy boys get a muted ‘thumbs up’.
 

[george1981]

Even though the car is slow and unreliable at the moment I'm surprised they're not being quick with their pitstops. It's got to be better for the car keeping it stationary for as short a time as possible.

[BillBald]

Second race in a row that Alonso gets to run the prime tyre in the middle stint, rather than the last stint.

 

In the past I've criticised McLaren for always saving the prime tyre for the last stint, and never recognising the possible advantage of running the option at the end when most others are on the prime.

 

So I'm pleased that they've been listening to me..

 

Seriously, it does suggest that they might be starting to have a rethink on strategy, perhaps inspired by Stella, and I believe they've poached a new strategy guy from Force India as well.

[krumpli12]

Actually I have been pleasantly surprised by the strategic choices of McLaren, in Bahrein it was spot on. 

[BillBald]

Perhaps a slightly disappointing quali overall, but good call for Alonso to abort his last lap in Q1 and save his tyres.

 

McLaren seem to be saying that the race pace will be better than the quali pace, because they don't yet have a quali mode for the engine. The question is, how do they show that pace on a track where overtaking is very difficult?

 

I'm inclined to say that starting on the primes might be a reasonable idea. Getting the slower tyre out of the way in the early stages of the race when midfield cars are slowed up anyway by a train developing, and putting themselves on a different pit-stop schedule, if the prime allows a longer stint.

 

I saw that someone (one of the commentators?) was suggesting that the stint length might actually be the same for hard vs medium, but I find that difficult to believe. There always seems to be a tendency to underestimate the harder tyre. In the race (as opposed to FP2) it often turns out to be both quicker and more durable than the teams are expecting. The only time the harder tyre doesn't perform, is when they can't get enough heat into it, but warmish weather and an abrasive track should take care of that.

[CPR]

Perhaps a slightly disappointing quali overall, but good call for Alonso to abort his last lap in Q1 and save his tyres.

 

McLaren seem to be saying that the race pace will be better than the quali pace, because they don't yet have a quali mode for the engine. The question is, how do they show that pace on a track where overtaking is very difficult?

 

I'm inclined to say that starting on the primes might be a reasonable idea. Getting the slower tyre out of the way in the early stages of the race when midfield cars are slowed up anyway by a train developing, and putting themselves on a different pit-stop schedule, if the prime allows a longer stint.

 

I saw that someone (one of the commentators?) was suggesting that the stint length might actually be the same for hard vs medium, but I find that difficult to believe. There always seems to be a tendency to underestimate the harder tyre. In the race (as opposed to FP2) it often turns out to be both quicker and more durable than the teams are expecting. The only time the harder tyre doesn't perform, is when they can't get enough heat into it, but warmish weather and an abrasive track should take care of that.

 

Apparently most teams are expected to do a 3 stop strategy. McLaren have generally had better tire wear than the other midfield teams but I dunno if it'd be enough. Could always try a flexible strategy and see how things pan out...

 

Incidentally, Lotus have two sets of fresh option tires while McLaren have one. The MP4-30 seems to run fine on the hard so maybe hard-hard-soft?

[BillBald]

Pitstops still sub-par. We know the car is rubbish but still...

 

What went on with Jenson's strategy? Apparently he was complaining of wheelspin every time he touched the throttle. What genius thought that the solution would be to pit and switch to the prime tyres?

 

That decision would only have made sense if the option tyres had been completely wrecked, but Jenson's pace was still gradually improving, so that was clearly not the case.

 

It's the kind of amateurish nonsense which we've sadly got used to in the last few years.

[Force Ten]

Perhaps a slightly disappointing quali overall, but good call for Alonso to abort his last lap in Q1 and save his tyres.

 

McLaren seem to be saying that the race pace will be better than the quali pace, because they don't yet have a quali mode for the engine. The question is, how do they show that pace on a track where overtaking is very difficult?

 

I'm inclined to say that starting on the primes might be a reasonable idea. Getting the slower tyre out of the way in the early stages of the race when midfield cars are slowed up anyway by a train developing, and putting themselves on a different pit-stop schedule, if the prime allows a longer stint.

 

I saw that someone (one of the commentators?) was suggesting that the stint length might actually be the same for hard vs medium, but I find that difficult to believe. There always seems to be a tendency to underestimate the harder tyre. In the race (as opposed to FP2) it often turns out to be both quicker and more durable than the teams are expecting. The only time the harder tyre doesn't perform, is when they can't get enough heat into it, but warmish weather and an abrasive track should take care of that.

I don't think they have yet any modes for engine except "whoah, it turns over, great".

It would do a world of good if at least some of the Honda guys would for once get their scientist hats off and realise it is not some sort of PhD science project with unlimited funds for experimental propulsion solutions thesis they are working on, it is also supposed to be a race team and things tend to happen fairly quick in that environment for their competitors.

Edited by Force Ten, 10 May 2015 - 18:58.

[BillBald]

Sometimes you can only shake your head, where McLaren is concerned.

 

Is it really such a surprise that there's a yellow flag towards the end of a Monaco quali session?

 

Haven't they been caught out before? Lewis in 2011, just off the top of my head.

 

How much do they gain from just doing the one lap, compared to a longer run with 2 hot laps? At the most a tenth maybe?

 

It's not even as though the car was looking marginal, as long as it kept running, it seemed like a near-certainty for Q3.

Edited by BillBald, 23 May 2015 - 17:28.

[Force Ten]

Here's betting they will run options at the start of the race for both Alonso and Button.

[MortenF1]

They couldn't possibly that numbskulled.

[Force Ten]

They couldn't possibly that numbskulled.

They are McLaren. Yes they could.

[BillBald]

Someone pointed out that McLaren were probably saving the tyres for the race, that might be why they didn't put Jenson on a multi-lap run at the end of Q2. Still a poor decision, because in Monaco grid position is all that matters, really.

 

Both cars are squarely in the first corner crash zone, so the race could be over before it's begun.

 

Starting on primes would allow them to run a longer first stint and gain positions when the cars in front pit, the main problem would be with possibly losing places at the start. I'm fairly sure that they will start on options.

[Exb]

Hmmm, with the super softs looking so durable will running the softs be that much of an advantage by going longer? I would agree if the ss only lasted about 5laps before the performance started to drop but if they can do 1/2 the race on them then running longer on dofts wont be that much of an advantage (especially as changing to fresh softs should mean those cars will be lapping quicker than those on old softs, especially if they can stretch out the 1st stint long enough to clear traffic) I guess it may come down to luck of a safety car, an early one will benefit those on ss as they can change and run softs till the end, but it may still be too far for the SS to pit then, so they would in effect lose a pitstop. However a late safety car could help as it would bunch the pack and fresh ss against oldish softs may be enough to make a difference? Could also pay off if they use the virtual safety car like they did in the GP2 yesterday, that gave a huge advantage to those pitting late.

Edited by Exb, 24 May 2015 - 00:20.

[BillBald]

Hmmm, with the super softs looking so durable will running the softs be that much of an advantage by going longer? I would agree if the ss only lasted about 5laps before the performance started to drop but if they can do 1/2 the race on them then running longer on dofts wont be that much of an advantage (especially as changing to fresh softs should mean those cars will be lapping quicker than those on old softs, especially if they can stretch out the 1st stint long enough to clear traffic) I guess it may come down to luck of a safety car, an early one will benefit those on ss as they can change and run softs till the end, but it may still be too far for the SS to pit then, so they would in effect lose a pitstop. However a late safety car could help as it would bunch the pack and fresh ss against oldish softs may be enough to make a difference? Could also pay off if they use the virtual safety car like they did in the GP2 yesterday, that gave a huge advantage to those pitting late.

 

Track position is important in Monaco, mainly because the nearer you are to the front, the less chance of getting stuck in a train behind someone who is really struggling for pace (but still can't be overtaken).

 

So that's an argument for starting on primes, as you stand a chance of improving your track position when guys in front go into the pits. That might mean you can lap faster on old primes than someone who has just pitted and is on new primes - they would have the pace but can't use it.

 

There's also the question of whether it might rain. It probably won't, but if it did rain later in the race, you could go straight from primes onto wets and save a pitstop entirely.

[ch103]

It’s maybe a little early to talk about McLaren’s strategy and race operations in 2015. It’s clear that, at the moment, they really are focussed more on testing than on actual results. But at the same time, good results should help motivate the team, so maybe they should at least aim for slick operations.

So far, the pitstops have been very slow. I assume that’s a combination of not practising them very much (because the mechanics are kept pretty busy doing other stuff), and also being cautious – they don’t want to send a car out on 3 wheels and lose some precious testing time.

What do people think of pitting under the safety car in Malaysia? I’m a little bit puzzled by it, because it meant they didn’t get much running on the prime tyre (just 3 laps at full racing speed). Did this strategy actually help their position in the race?

It would have helped Jenson a lot less, having to wait behind Fred and then getting stuck behind Merhi and taking the restart 5 seconds down. I hope that McLaren aren’t going to make a habit of double-stacking in the interests of ‘equality’. Obviously it’s OK when it makes more sense than doing another lap before pitting.

The car did seem to be pretty slow on the prime, compared with all the other cars which were on options. And after the change to options, they were immediately a couple of seconds a lap faster. That might have been because they started the race intending to run very long on the primes, and so were deliberately taking it very easy for the first few laps. There was no taking it easy in the following stint on options, certainly not for Jenson who was clearly pushing very hard (too hard I think) in order to close the gap.

Jenson’s 2nd pitstop seemed to come a little bit too late. Looking at his laptimes he was starting to get major deg, even though he was able to overtake Perez who was also suffering. The problem arose because Jenson pushed too hard at the beginning of the stint, but the strategy should have been adjusted accordingly.  They pitted Jenson 4 laps after Perez, who ended up being 10 seconds ahead as a result

Were they trying to do the race on just 2 long option stints? That would surely have been over-optimistic, although Alonso’s laptimes were holding up well until he retired.

I think we can be reasonably sure that the option was the right race tyre for the car, and that getting rid of the prime was probably the right choice. So, on balance, I think the strategy boys get a muted ‘thumbs up’.
 

 

Bill, you seem to be fed up with the race operations of McLaren.  What did McLaren do that you considered to be crossing the line?  What was it that originally upset you the most about this team?

 

From memory, the Mika and Kimi McLaren team were ones to be feared.  Ever since 2008 the team hasn't been.     

[BillBald]

Bill, you seem to be fed up with the race operations of McLaren.  What did McLaren do that you considered to be crossing the line?  What was it that originally upset you the most about this team?

 

From memory, the Mika and Kimi McLaren team were ones to be feared.  Ever since 2008 the team hasn't been.     

 

I'm just very frustrated that they seem to get it wrong so often. And I don't understand why they can't sort themselves out. It was only after Hungary last year, that they seemed to acknowledge that they had a problem.

 

Without reasonable pitstops and sensible strategy, even a competitive car with good drivers at the wheel won't win any titles.

[Exb]

Track position is important in Monaco, mainly because the nearer you are to the front, the less chance of getting stuck in a train behind someone who is really struggling for pace (but still can't be overtaken).

So that's an argument for starting on primes, as you stand a chance of improving your track position when guys in front go into the pits. That might mean you can lap faster on old primes than someone who has just pitted and is on new primes - they would have the pace but can't use it.
.

That was kind of my point though - I agree with you if the supersofts were fragile and only lasted a few laps, but if they are able to be used for 1/2 the race like Bottas? suggested and the deg isn't bad then the front runners should be able to build enough of a gap so they won't come out in slower traffic, even if the McLarens can stay in front at that point then they will start losing time by being on older tyres and having quicker tyres at the end won't help as they will still be behind... I guess it depends on how the tyres behave. Still may be worth a shot to try something different and hope luck plays a part and the strategy falls to them - rain or like I said the GP2 race was turned on its head by the VSC as I thought Pic was on for a win and he ended around 5th.

[micktosin]

I'm just very frustrated that they seem to get it wrong so often. And I don't understand why they can't sort themselves out. It was only after Hungary last year, that they seemed to acknowledge that they had a problem.

Without reasonable pitstops and sensible strategy, even a competitive car with good drivers at the wheel won't win any titles.

Most of us are equally frustrated.I mean for such a top team, how hard can it be to be consistent for once.

[BillBald]

I don’t think reliability really comes under Race Operations, so at Monaco we saw a pretty good performance, resulting in the first points of the season.

Pitstops were better than of late, although the slowest stop was the one where it really mattered, because Fred could have lost a position.

They split the strategies in an intelligent way. Alonso being further back took the primes with Jenson on the options. In fact there didn’t seem to be much difference between the compounds, probably because the softs could really be hammered, while the supersofts needed to be treated more carefully. That was particularly the case for Fred, who was going to have to run very long on the options after an early stop.

That early stop was required because of the 5 second penalty. Sauber tried to take advantage by pitting Nasr quite early. He was then on newer primes and able to match Alonso’s pace. If McLaren had delayed too long, it probably wouldn’t have been possible for Fred to make the gap he needed to pit and stay ahead. So a good call, and good driving to pull that gap.

Jenson lost time under the safety car, otherwise he might have got ahead of Perez when he pitted. Or, more likely, Perez would not have pitted if Jenson didn’t lose that time. But it was probably the right call to pit Jenson, since it didn’t seem like he could jump ahead of Perez by staying out.
 

[BillBald]

What can McLaren do in Canada?

 

They are painfully slow on the straights, so overtaking seems unlikely. A one-stop strategy, hoping that others will have to 2-stop, seems to represent the only chance of a result. 

 

Jenson seems very unlikely to score points unless something major happens, Alonso has a chance but would need some luck.

 

There's a case for starting Fred on options, he might pick up places at the start. Jenson should probably start on primes, a late run on options might make the difference if there's a safety car.

[Quickshifter]

Mclaren will two stop tomorrow imho. Super-soft / Soft/ Super-Soft looks likely. Accidents are bound to happen. Safety car is high probability.  Points are possible as the race pace is better compared to qualifying pace.

Edited by Quickshifter, 06 June 2015 - 22:25.

[kosmos]

What can McLaren do in Canada?

 

 

 

 

Alonso:

 

"Our top speed on the straights will be our main concern tomorrow, so we’ll try to do something clever in terms of strategy and tyre management in order to compensate for that and try to get some points."

 

 

http://www.f1zone.ne...r-alonso/46356/

[BillBald]

Hungary.

 

A great result I think, given the car's current pace. How much of it was down to race operations?

 

They pitted Jenson for the first time on lap 14, which was perhaps a bit early for a 2-stop, but it stopped Grosjean from getting the undercut when he pitted at the same time. Was this McLaren being very alert, noticing that Lotus were getting ready for a stop, and reacting very quickly? I'd like to believe it, but it might have been pure luck.

 

All of the pitstops looked pretty good, the highlight being getting Fernando ahead of Sainz.

 

The decision to stay out when the SC was called seems very questionable. They pitted Alonso a lap later, but according to their own report this was about removing debris from the brake duct, rather than a tactical move to get onto the faster tyre.

 

In Fernando's case it was a 'no brainer' really. It was a difficult decision in Jenson's case because of the lack of straight-line speed compared to the Merc-powered Lotus. I think they should have pitted both cars as soon as the SC was called, but if Grosjean had stayed out and jumped ahead of Jenson, it would have been very difficult for Jenson to repass, even with a tyre advantage. On the other hand, with the advantage which options had over primes added to the power difference, it was definitely going to be impossible for Jenson to keep him behind.

 

Bearing in mind that Jenson wasn't even defending a point-scoring position at the time, I think it was the wrong choice to leave him out. Budapest is not quite Monaco, overtaking is possible if the car in front is really struggling for grip.

[BillBald]

I haven’t been commenting on McLaren race operations very much this season, mainly because the car itself is so slow that it hasn’t seemed relevant. Yes, they lost some time in the pits, but not nearly as much as they were losing on the track.

But in the last 2 races McLaren have managed to get my attention. A pitstop in Singapore lasting nearly 40 seconds, and multiple errors in Japan, might not have actually cost any points, but doesn’t suggest that they are ready to compete at the top level.

In Singapore Jenson experienced that rare event, a safety car which actually worked in his favour. Many other midfield cars had already stopped, so a stop under the VSC would have elevated him into a strong points position, if it had been anything like a normal pitstop.

So what happened? There was a problem with one of the wheels, the wheelnut appeared to be jammed inside the wheel. The right thing would have been to switch to another set of wheels, giving a slow pitstop, maybe about 15 seconds or so. Instead we were treated to the sight of mechanics fiddling with the wheel, almost as though they didn’t know that there was a race going on.

In Japan, there was an engine setting mix-up in quali, and then losing the 2nd run to a yellow flag. Some will claim that was just bad luck - I disagree, but it’s more important to focus on the race.

Jenson started on the primes. That lost him a couple of places in the early laps, but when the tyres came in, his pace was similar to the option-shod cars around him, with the advantage that he would be able to run a much longer stint. If the team had been previously planning to run most of the race on the option tyre (because they had 2 new sets?), they now had sufficient data to cause them to change their minds.

Lap 10, and a few cars have already pitted, as expected. They were on options, and a lot of them were trying for the undercut. Jenson was being held up slightly by Nasr, who was clearly going to have to pit fairly soon, in fact he pitted at the end of the lap. I was annoyed to see Jenson following him in, although in fairness they did get him out ahead of Nasr.

Jenson took the pain of being off the pace initially, without any of the gain. It seems clear to me that you should never start on primes unless you intend to run much longer than the cars on options.

 Even the BBC commentators remarked on this strange decision, pointing out that the primes were supposed to be good for 25 laps. They said it must be all about the undercut. Well, the undercut is worth a lot around this track, in some cases you might choose to stop as much as 5 laps early to gain a place. But to stop 15 laps before you could have, that is just going to mess up your strategy for the remainder of the race.

And then they gave away the track position later in the race, by pitting Jenson after Ericsson. He had spent the entire stint trying in vain to overtake Jenson, so it should hardly have been a surprise when he went for the undercut.

Then the team put the final touches to this masterpiece, by fitting options while everyone else was doing a long stint on primes. What the hell were they expecting to happen? Jenson was going to power past other cars because he had (slightly) superior tyres early in the stint? Jenson ended up doing 25 laps on the options, the longest option stint of anyone in the race.
 

[cas422]

I got spanked for asking how Eric Boullier gets a free pass for this debacle in another thread. I am still curious however. How does that happen?

[BillBald]

I got spanked for asking how Eric Boullier gets a free pass for this debacle in another thread. I am still curious however. How does that happen?

 

I think if you want to criticise EB, you need to be a bit more clear in what you are saying. Otherwise people might think you are just being negative for the sake of it, which can happen in this forum.

 

I would agree with you, if you are saying that he has failed to sort out the race operations, and if we're expecting a greatly improved car next year, now is the time to get it right.

[BillBald]

Sochi.

 

Good pitstops and sound strategy. I'm really struggling to find anything to criticise.

 

It seemed like a good choice to start Button on the options and Alonso on the primes, given their grid positions.

 

It was obviously the right decision to pit Jenson under the SC, but I wasn't so sure about pitting Alonso the next lap and putting on the options. At the time, I wondered whether they were gambling on yet another SC later on in the race. But they got it 100% right. Perhaps Fernando promised them that he could make the tyres last.

[blacky]

They have to work better as a team in my opinion when they are on different strategies. After SC BUT should have let ALO pass that he could use the SS and then pit again for another set of SS. After this second stop he would have been behind BUT anyway and when he closes the gap to BUT in the end they could have a nice fight. For me it's total rubbish what they did yesterday, they sacrificed ALO's race with this. When ALO would have not come in for a 2nd time, just change places again.

 

Team orders at the beginning/middle of the race on different strategies --> YES

Team orders at the end of a race --> NO

Edited by blacky, 12 October 2015 - 18:02.

[PARAZAR]

They have to work better as a team in my opinion when they are on different strategies. After SC BUT should have let ALO pass that he could use the SS and then pit again for another set of SS. After this second stop he would have been behind BUT anyway and when he closes the gap to BUT in the end they could have a nice fight. For me it's total rubbish what they did yesterday, they sacrificed ALO's race with this. When ALO would have not come in for a 2nd time, just change places again.

 

Team orders at the beginning/middle of the race on different strategies --> YES

Team orders at the end of a race --> NO

Why? Fernando wasn't faster at any point. It's not like Jenson was impeding him.

[CPR]

Fernando did more laps on the SS than anyone else - seems like Perez had more degradation on the S while doing almost same number of laps. Probably wasn't much point pushing them. Jenson said he had no degradation on the S and he did same number of laps as Perez. (To be fair to FI their higher speeds would have meant they degraded faster other things being equal)

[BillBald]

They have to work better as a team in my opinion when they are on different strategies. After SC BUT should have let ALO pass that he could use the SS and then pit again for another set of SS. After this second stop he would have been behind BUT anyway and when he closes the gap to BUT in the end they could have a nice fight. For me it's total rubbish what they did yesterday, they sacrificed ALO's race with this. When ALO would have not come in for a 2nd time, just change places again.

 

Team orders at the beginning/middle of the race on different strategies --> YES

Team orders at the end of a race --> NO

 

Red Bull have made this kind of deal work, notably at Monaco, but I'm not sure it would work between the 2 McLaren WDCs. I think they are rather too keen on beating one another, and the team likes it that way.

 

I don't think McLaren have tried this kind of team orders since Coulthard was asked to give way to Hakkinen. DC has always given the impression that he was pretty unhappy about that.

[blacky]

Why? Fernando wasn't faster at any point. It's not like Jenson was impeding him.

 

Not being able to overtake doesn't mean being not faster. ALO stayed this 2 sec behind BUT for the whole race until 2-3 laps before end. A total waste of opportunities in my mind. When he is not faster and can't pull away after 5-10 laps, just change places again.

[PARAZAR]

Not being able to overtake doesn't mean being not faster. ALO stayed this 2 sec behind BUT for the whole race until 2-3 laps before end. A total waste of opportunities in my mind. When he is not faster and can't pull away after 5-10 laps, just change places again.

I was watching live timing, He wasn't faster. They were doing very similar times. If he was stuck behind Jenson it would be a different story but he wasn't.

[blacky]

I was watching live timing, He wasn't faster. They were doing very similar times. If he was stuck behind Jenson it would be a different story but he wasn't.

 

Dirty Air is something you know?

I don't talk about being a second per lap faster (although also in this case it is very difficult to overtake, just think about their Monza battle), I talk about 4 tenths or so, when you are never able to overtake someone in the same car. 

[PARAZAR]

Dirty Air is something you know?

I don't talk about being a second per lap faster (although also in this case it is very difficult to overtake, just think about their Monza battle), I talk about 4 tenths or so, when you are never able to overtake someone in the same car. 

He was 2 secs behind. What dirty air? Why should Button yield for someone that's not faster? Button qualified better and he should get to run his race and not sacrifice it for someone else.

 

http://en.mclarenf-1...Fernando Alonso

Edited by PARAZAR, 13 October 2015 - 11:06.

[Imateria]

They have to work better as a team in my opinion when they are on different strategies. After SC BUT should have let ALO pass that he could use the SS and then pit again for another set of SS. After this second stop he would have been behind BUT anyway and when he closes the gap to BUT in the end they could have a nice fight. For me it's total rubbish what they did yesterday, they sacrificed ALO's race with this. When ALO would have not come in for a 2nd time, just change places again.

 

Team orders at the beginning/middle of the race on different strategies --> YES

Team orders at the end of a race --> NO

This misses the fact that tyre degredation was is very low at Sochi so the benefit of new tyres is a lot less than normal, it's why nobody tried a two stop strategy, it wouldn't make up the 25s or so you'd loose in the pits. There's also the fact that it's a very hard track on fuel consumption, particularly for the Honda engine which struggles with energy recovery and deployment, meaning Alonso may not have had the luxery to push on harder regardless.

 

It was always intended as part strategy gamble and part learning excercise, hoping to jump their cars ahead of the opposition that pitted later and see if they can hold them off.

[balmybaldwin]

Also, they were testing 2 different set-up strategies - running them 2 s apart might well have meant better comparative data than them racing each other hard

[BillBald]

Dirty Air is something you know?

I don't talk about being a second per lap faster (although also in this case it is very difficult to overtake, just think about their Monza battle), I talk about 4 tenths or so, when you are never able to overtake someone in the same car. 

 

It's not clear that Alonso was capable of going 4 tenths faster than Button, and even that wouldn't have been enough to allow an extra pitstop.

 

After the safety car, Fred was within a second, so he was getting the DRS, but Jenson was also getting the DRS from Max ahead of him. On lap 21, Max broke the DRS, and I thought that would be the moment when Jenson might be vulnerable. Instead, on the next lap he gained more than a second on Fernando to make himself safe from attack.

 

From then on, Jenson was clearly pacing himself to keep the gap more or less constant while looking after tyres, fuel etc. Neither of them had anything to gain from going faster (although "with hindsight", if Jenson had been just a few seconds up the road, he would have benefitted from Kimi's penalty).

 

If a situation does arise where one driver is clearly faster, and is being prevented from scoring more points, it will be interesting to see how the team handle it. My guess is that they will not try any kind of team orders, but I could be wrong.

[WitnessX]

Also, they were testing 2 different set-up strategies - running them 2 s apart might well have meant better comparative data than them racing each other hard

 

Reading "McLaren Live" http://www.mclaren.com/formula1/live/  Alonso gets told to pressurise Button several times during the race, including racing him for the point. So they were encouraged to race each other in this particular case.

 

However there are situations where the team result comes first. At China Alonso put up no fight against Button as he was on a different strategy. Similarly at Hungary Button waved through Alonso at the SC re-start and played the blocker as he had the old medium tyres.

[BillBald]

Reading "McLaren Live" http://www.mclaren.com/formula1/live/  Alonso gets told to pressurise Button several times during the race, including racing him for the point. So they were encouraged to race each other in this particular case.

 

However there are situations where the team result comes first. At China Alonso put up no fight against Button as he was on a different strategy. Similarly at Hungary Button waved through Alonso at the SC re-start and played the blocker as he had the old medium tyres.

 

Good points, although I suspect that as the car moves (hopefully!) towards the front of the grid, the drivers will become rather less inclined to give way.

[BillBald]

Austin

Generally good race operations resulted in a good points haul, which could have been even better.

The timing of the pitstops was partly determined by the Virtual and actual Safety Cars, but I was especially interested in the decision to pit Jenson during the last SC. It was a pretty bold decision, considering that the lack of straight-line speed makes it extremely difficult to overtake in the current car.

If Jenson hadn’t managed to pull that double overtake, it seems to me that stopping and losing track position might have looked like a poor decision. On the other hand, with just a handful of laps to go Fernando was saying that he too needed fresh tyres according to the F1Fanatic radio messages listing: http://www.f1fanatic...dio-transcript/

I can’t help reflecting on the contrast with last year, when Jenson was allowed to fall back, in the USA and also in Germany, on tyres which were both unsuitable and too old, and when fresh options were very clearly needed.  What’s the reason for this much more racy approach? Influence from Alonso and his former RE? Jenson’s side of the garage having to be more wide-awake than when he was matched against Checo and Kevin? Whatever it’s about, I would like to see more of it.

We only get a few selected radio messages, and it’s easy to draw false conclusions, but it does seem that the team is discussing strategy and tyre options more with the drivers than they did in the past.  But it’s still the pitwall that has, or should have, the ‘big picture’, so they mustn’t rely entirely on the drivers’ feeling for what’s required.
 

[WitnessX]

Yep, the radio transcripts are quite revealing.

 

I've always been of the opinion that the medium is the crappiest tyre of the range, it's slow and not that much more durable than the soft.

 

http://www.motorspor...-mclaren-honda/

 

There was obviously pressure on Button from the pit-wall to defend the 5th place. I suppose the experience of races like Silverstone 2013 where Button and Perez stayed out and everybody else behind them pitted which led them to being destroyed after the re-start swayed his judgement.

 

It's interesting that they would have brought him into the pits at Hungary (stacked presumably) but the problem was that it was blocked because Alonso's car needed the brake duct cleaned out.

Edited by WitnessX, 30 October 2015 - 07:41.

[BillBald]

Yep, the radio transcripts are quite revealing.

 

I've always been of the opinion that the medium is the crappiest tyre of the range, it's slow and not that much more durable than the soft.

 

http://www.motorspor...-mclaren-honda/

 

There was obviously pressure on Button from the pit-wall to defend the 5th place. I suppose the experience of races like Silverstone 2013 where Button and Perez stayed out and everybody else behind them pitted which led them to being destroyed after the re-start swayed his judgement.

 

It's interesting that they would have brought him into the pits at Hungary (stacked presumably) but the problem was that it was blocked because Alonso's car needed the brake duct cleaned out.

 

I was going to agree with you completely. Normally the medium is not effective at all, lacks durability with very little extra pace when it's the option, and lacks pace without added durability when it's the prime.

 

And then in Mexico the medium looked like maybe the better tyre, fast and durable.

 

Confusing.

 

Interesting about Hungary, I thought it was just typical McLaren.

[WitnessX]

I was going to agree with you completely. Normally the medium is not effective at all, lacks durability with very little extra pace when it's the option, and lacks pace without added durability when it's the prime.
 
And then in Mexico the medium looked like maybe the better tyre, fast and durable.
 
Confusing.
 
Interesting about Hungary, I thought it was just typical McLaren.

The track temperature at Mexico was around 50 ^oC, so it could just be that it suited the mediums temperature window better. However I think some of the teams may have decided to go with the medium as they only had mashed soft sets from qualifying.

Edited by WitnessX, 03 November 2015 - 18:36.