117 replies to this topic

[dierome87]

I've been reading Autosport forums for over 5 years but since we have such a long break, I thought it would be cool to post for the first time to discuss one of the most infamous events in recent years for Ferrari & Fernando Alonso fans: The 2010 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix.

This race has come to be known as the one in which Ferrari threw the WDC "under the bus" with a strategic mistake that left Fernando Alonso behind Vitaly Petrov in 7th place, while Sebatian Vettel stormed to victory and the world championship.

I've watched the race a couple of times again and can't help but think what else could have Ferrari done not to lose the championship. At the time, stopping Fernando to cover Webber seemed like a sensible decision. Should Ferrari have waited a little more (even if the car was losing pace with old tyres)? Should Fernando have stopped in lap 1?

Is it realistic to expect Ferrari not to have panicked to Webber's out laps?

In my humble view, Ferrari and Alonso were in such a vulnerable position that no matter what strategic route they took, the championship would have ultimately fallen in either Webber's or Vettel's hands. Rosberg and Petrov would have been ahead of him anyway, because they stopped when the safety car was deployed in lap 1.

What do you think?

Edited by dierome87, 12 August 2013 - 15:55.

[sopa]

Third placed Button opened up enough of a gap to get ahead of Petrov after his pitstop. Alonso was fourth. However, how much time was Alonso losing to Button and what was the gap with which Button emerged ahead of Petrov AND Rosberg after the pitstops? I don't really remember TBH. But therein lies the potential answer.

[AlexanderF1]

in my view the title was lost at spa when alonzo crashed out, alonzo had everthing go his way, germany team order, vettel screwing up the sc restart at hungary,monza hamilton taken out(might have beat alonzo),korea both red bulls out and alonzo wins. he had all these things in his favour but he blew it.(also the error at monaco and china jump start proved decisive looking back now)

sorry abit off topic but i wanted to make a point
anyway at abu dhabi the bad qualifying cost them the title in my view with it being hard to overtake

[Atreiu]

Ferrari and Alonso clearly threw it away.
Webber was out of shape that weekend and was giving all signs to have 'burned out'. Covering him made no sense against Vettel's most recent form and results. After his stop, Webber was bound to get stuck behind Petrov and Rosberg. His chances were effectively over. So all Alonso and Ferrari had to do was mimic Vettel's strategy to finish 3rd or 4th and win the title.

That was a "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory" moment.

Third placed Button opened up enough of a gap to get ahead of Petrov after his pitstop. Alonso was fourth. However, how much time was Alonso losing to Button and what was the gap with which Button emerged ahead of Petrov AND Rosberg after the pitstops? I don't really remember TBH. But therein lies the potential answer.

The gap to Button remained stable at around 2 seconds. Maybe they were spooked by Webber's fastest lap at lap 15, but he had no track position and was out of it.

I think he lost the title in the first half of the season when his mistakes squandered and threw many points away. Abu Dhabi was just a return to that inexplicable clumsiness.

Edited by Atreiu, 12 August 2013 - 15:30.

[EthanM]

There is no right answer. Yes every team under those circumstances would have covered Webber, that's the logical thing to do, Webber was Alonso's main rival at that specific point in time.

With hindsight, sure, everybody's a genius. They can see how the race unfolded and what would have been the optimal thing to do. But at the time not covering Webber would have been pure crazy

[redreni]

I haven't re-watched the race recently (and am not really inclined to, to be honest) but Alonso's pace compared to Petrov was much, much quicker.

The leading cars that did not pit under the SC, including Vettel, Hamilton, Button, Alonso and Webber, needed to wait until they had gapped everyone who had pitted under the SC and was therefore running to the end (i.e. Rosberg, Petrov etc.) before pitting themselves. They all managed to do this comfortably except Webber and Alonso, who both pitted much too early albeit for different reasons. Button, who was the slowest of the top three drivers, managed to pit on lap 40-odd and came out some 15s clear of Rosberg. Before his pitstop Alonso was comfortably keeping pace with Button.

All Ferrari had to realise was that Webber wasn't going to be able to magically overtake Petrov and Rosberg and therefore wasn't a threat, and they could have just sat behind Button, matched his strategy, come home fourth and won the title.

[redreni]

There is no right answer. Yes every team under those circumstances would have covered Webber, that's the logical thing to do, Webber was Alonso's main rival at that specific point in time.

With hindsight, sure, everybody's a genius. They can see how the race unfolded and what would have been the optimal thing to do. But at the time not covering Webber would have been pure crazy

There is a right answer and that's why F1 teams spend a fortune hiring the brightest brains in the industry to work out what it is at the time - hindsight is no good when the WDC is lost. If you think it was not predictable that Webber and Alonso would be unable to overtake Petrov and Rosberg, you weren't watching the 2010 season particularly closely. Working out race strategy on the hoof is about more than just fixating on one car, even if he is your main title rival. There were three cars competing for the title in that race and the one that was leading the race needed to be considered too.

[dierome87]

Ferrari and Alonso clearly threw it away.
Webber was out of shape that weekend and was giving all signs to have 'burned out'. Covering him made no sense against Vettel's most recent form and results. After his stop, Webber was bound to get stuck behind Petrov and Rosberg. His chances were effectively over. So all Alonso and Ferrari had to do was mimic Vettel's strategy to finish 3rd or 4th and win the title.

That was a "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory" moment.

It may have made no sense from the overall results point of view, but in the race, Webber was right behind Alonso. Had Alonso stayed out for a couple more of laps, he would have been leapfrogged by Webber. IIRC, that would have handed the championship to Webber.

Alonso qualifed very well there (3rd) but had an ultra-conservative start (lost out to Button) which ultimately costed him dearly. That's probably where everything started to go wrong.

Would it have been just as stupid to stop in lap 1?

[Winter98]

There is a right answer and that's why F1 teams spend a fortune hiring the brightest brains in the industry to work out what it is at the time - hindsight is no good when the WDC is lost. If you think it was not predictable that Webber and Alonso would be unable to overtake Petrov and Rosberg, you weren't watching the 2010 season particularly closely. Working out race strategy on the hoof is about more than just fixating on one car, even if he is your main title rival. There were three cars competing for the title in that race and the one that was leading the race needed to be considered too.

I find it incredible that Ferrari/FA wouldn't have worked out every possible scenario regarding Webber and SV before the weekend even began. The required results were known.

Yet apparently that is what happened. Either that, or Ferrari/FA overestimated FA's abilities or underestimated SV's abilities.

Edited by Winter98, 12 August 2013 - 15:56.

[Atreiu]

It may have made no sense from the overall results point of view, but in the race, Webber was right behind Alonso. Had Alonso stayed out for a couple more of laps, he would have been leapfrogged by Webber. IIRC, that would have handed the championship to Webber.

Alonso qualifed very well there (3rd) but had an ultra-conservative start (lost out to Button) which ultimately costed him dearly. That's probably where everything started to go wrong.

Would it have been just as stupid to stop in lap 1?

OTOH, those were pre DRS+KERS days. There were no free overtakes and Webber had no top speed advantage over anyone. At the same time, Alonso was faster than Petrov, Rosberg and Kubica. Nobody would have leapfrogged him.

Maybe it was a panic reaction to Webber's fastest lap, but it doesn't change that all they had to do was copy either Vettel's or Button's strategy to remain 4th and get it done.

Edited by Atreiu, 12 August 2013 - 16:01.

[Disgrace]

There is no right answer. Yes every team under those circumstances would have covered Webber, that's the logical thing to do, Webber was Alonso's main rival at that specific point in time.

With hindsight, sure, everybody's a genius. They can see how the race unfolded and what would have been the optimal thing to do. But at the time not covering Webber would have been pure crazy

I disagree, I can only speak for myself but I called it as an inexplicable move as it happened. My reading of the race was that Webber was dead and buried already and the pitstop was a desperate last roll of the dice.

Ferrari got it hopelessly wrong with Alonso because they completely failed to cover Webber with Massa. They pitted Massa, but he came out behind Webber. Had this succeeded, there would have been no reasons left to pit Alonso.

I can only think that at this point Ferrari just panicked and lost sight of the big picture, i.e Rosberg and Petrov were net ahead having pitted under SC.

[TomNokoe]

The tyres grained, Webber and Alonso blinked first, but the graining went away and those who didn't pit (Hamilton and Vettel) were fine. If Ferrari stayed out they would have won the WDC.

[halifaxf1fan]

If only Massa had been able to cover Webber then Ferrari wouldn't have been faced with the situation/question they were obviously unprepared for, Whose strategy was best - Webber's or Vettel's? For us at home staying on RB's favourite driver's strategy was an obvious decision, besides how was Alonso supposed to get around Rosberg, Kubica and Petrov on that track?

Edited by halifaxf1fan, 13 August 2013 - 02:18.

[Boxerevo]

Ferrari doesn't stand a chance until they give Alonso a car than can qualify ahead of #4.

/thread.

[PayasYouRace]

What position did Alonso have to finish in to win it? My understanding is that with Vettel winning Alonso needed 5th to tie with Vettel.

[scheivlak]

Ferrari doesn't stand a chance until they give Alonso a car than can qualify ahead of #4.

/thread.

He qualified 3rd

But in a way you might have been right - maybe the decisive moment was when Button went ahead of him in the first corner.

[IAMG]

I disagree, I can only speak for myself but I called it as an inexplicable move as it happened. My reading of the race was that Webber was dead and buried already and the pitstop was a desperate last roll of the dice.

Ferrari got it hopelessly wrong with Alonso because they completely failed to cover Webber with Massa. They pitted Massa, but he came out behind Webber. Had this succeeded, there would have been no reasons left to pit Alonso.

I can only think that at this point Ferrari just panicked and lost sight of the big picture, i.e Rosberg and Petrov were net ahead having pitted under SC.

They pulled a McLaren!..... China 2007. didn't someone get fired over that call?

[Blackmore]

I remember thinking when I saw Alonso go into the pits following Webber, that he definitely would win the title and that Vettel would not even get the podium because of not pitting him on that lap. And Brundle was agreeing too, it was the best call for that moment.

But people forgot about the tyre performance. Vettel mentioned this too, the tyres were going and going every lap (which is why Webber pitted followed by Alonso). Then when everyone in the back made their stops, Vettel's tyres started coming back to him and he went faster together with the other few cars that did not pit. And he just waited until the pits were done and see what gap he could fit back in to.

I didn't think Alonso on new tyres would have trouble getting past Petrov on old. But Petrov was not the only problem, there was 1 other in front if I remember correctly, Rosberg being way ahead. And didn't Alonso have a poor start, losing a place which then played a strategic part too? So he is partly to blame too there clearly.

[sopa]

One thing is that Kubica, who had started and raced behind Alonso, went very long and actually emerged ahead of Petrov too after his pitstop staying out very long.

[DutchQuicksilver]

Webber was nowhere that weekend, didn't have the pace at all. Ferrari should have taken that into account and left Alonso out longer. They also should have known Abu Dhabi was difficult for overtaking.

[MikeV1987]

In hindsight it was a bad call, but that is the nature of the sport.

[wj_gibson]

The tyres grained, Webber and Alonso blinked first, but the graining went away and those who didn't pit (Hamilton and Vettel) were fine. If Ferrari stayed out they would have won the WDC.

It's basically this (and the fact that Massa was nowhere). Within 2 laps of Alonso's stop Vettel and Hamilton were back setting fast laps again (which they were not doing when Webber and Alonso were pitted).

It's very easy to think about hindsight. Most commentators expected a Red Bull massacre at Abu Dhabi, as everywhere else in late 2010, and it was widely assumed that if Webber got ahead of Alonso then the latter wouldn't see the former again, which is why Ferrari covered him off. Massively costly, but ultimately "one of those things". Just that it had to happen at the final race, didn't it?

[wj_gibson]

Webber was nowhere that weekend, didn't have the pace at all. Ferrari should have taken that into account and left Alonso out longer. They also should have known Abu Dhabi was difficult for overtaking.

He was not "nowhere", he was less than a second behind Alonso when he pitted and setting faster lap times.

[rasul]

Does it matter now?

If Alonso didn't have a slow start, Ferrari probably wouldn't have pitted him to cover Webber, and Alonso would have been the champion. Would have, could have... Useless.

[bourbon]

One aspect not often discussed is Alonso's attempts to pass Petrov. Alonso only made a couple few attempts and backed out rapidly when they looked to fail. According to Petrov, he would not have jeopardized Alonso's title chances had Alonso pushed harder to pass against him.

However, if I recall correctly, Petrov was making a number of novice mistakes that year, so perhaps Alonso was wary on that basis alone.

[scheivlak]

He was not "nowhere", he was less than a second behind Alonso when he pitted and setting faster lap times.

Not true.

He wasn't setting faster lap times. He was slightly losing time to Fernando http://www.forix.com...&r=20100019&c=7

[Gorma]

Sure Ferrari made a tactical error when pitting against Webber, but that is not why they lost the championship. It is only a part of it. They lost it because Alonso could not get past the much slower Renault driven by a rookie in a ton of laps. It wasn't the drive of champion from Alonso or Webber. Vettel was the only one who drove like a champion that day and deserved to win. But even if we get into this game of "what ifs" then Red Bull has a lot more what ifs than Ferrari and Alonso. They could have easily won the championship earlier if they had stood behind either of the drivers.

[lustigson]

Sure Ferrari made a tactical error when pitting against Webber, but that is not why they lost the championship. It is only a part of it. They lost it because Alonso could not get past the much slower Renault driven by a rookie in a ton of laps.

No it wasn't. They lost it because they hadn't amassed enough points during the previous 19 (!) Grands Prix to cover such an event. Championships are won and lost over a full season, not in the final race.

[apexpredator]

Ferrari and Alonso were too conservative in that race, looking to cover a certain driver instead of just looking to get the maximum result.

Then Alonso was quite conservative in his attempts to pass Petrov, although I am sure he was thinking just finish the race as Vettel could have a failure, which was a very frequent occurrence that year.

I try not to think about it as it was probably the single-most depressing moment in sport for me. However as a Ferrari fan we had it go our way in Brazil 2007, so I consider it even. 2012 was tough to take but Ferrari fans tuned into Brazil knowing Alonso had a knife at a gun fight.

[redreni]

They pulled a McLaren!..... China 2007. didn't someone get fired over that call?

When a tyre is down to the canvass I'm afraid that's long past the point where it becomes the driver's call to stop. As I recall, they didn't sack Hamilton.

When the tyres are fine but you have to make a mandatory stop, it's not the driver's call to say when to pit because he's not the one with the timing screens and the GPS etc. That's why Dyer was held to account.

[redreni]

One aspect not often discussed is Alonso's attempts to pass Petrov. Alonso only made a couple few attempts and backed out rapidly when they looked to fail. According to Petrov, he would not have jeopardized Alonso's title chances had Alonso pushed harder to pass against him.

However, if I recall correctly, Petrov was making a number of novice mistakes that year, so perhaps Alonso was wary on that basis alone.

To be honest, I've never seen it as a topic worth discussing. Alonso couldn't get near. There was no opportunity to make a proper attempt to overtake as long as Petrov kept going and didn't make any massive error. Alonso wasn't even close enough to divebomb the apex and leave it up to Petrov whether to move aside or crash. Not, that is, if he wanted to make the corner himself.

In my view Alonso's only options were to stay in the race knowing that if Vettel didn't finish, he would be champion, or cause a pointless accident that would eliminate himself and Petrov from the race. He chose wisely.

[scheivlak]

When a tyre is down to the canvass I'm afraid that's long past the point where it becomes the driver's call to stop. As I recall, they didn't sack Hamilton.

Apologies for getting OT - Who's suggesting it should be Lewis

It was a massive strategy cock up they didn't pit at least one lap earlier. And what was the explanation? "We weren't race Kimi, we were basically racing Fernando"- Ron Dennis.

[Winter98]

To be honest, I've never seen it as a topic worth discussing. Alonso couldn't get near. There was no opportunity to make a proper attempt to overtake as long as Petrov kept going and didn't make any massive error. Alonso wasn't even close enough to divebomb the apex and leave it up to Petrov whether to move aside or crash. Not, that is, if he wanted to make the corner himself.

In my view Alonso's only options were to stay in the race knowing that if Vettel didn't finish, he would be champion, or cause a pointless accident that would eliminate himself and Petrov from the race. He chose wisely.

I think I would go with this.

FA needed the points he had been squandered earlier in the season.

Edited by Winter98, 12 August 2013 - 21:47.

[Kingshark]

Alonso did throw away quite a few points early on in the season, but he had an epic second half of the year, he out-scored everyone Silverstone-onward despite not having the fastest car. His grand chelem in Singapore was probably his best win ever, because it was perhaps the only grand chelem in history which was done with a clearly inferior car.

The strategic mistake in Abu Dhabi is another matter. Alonso's gap to Button was around 2 seconds, and it stayed stable all the way until Ferrari pitted Fernando on lap 16. Button emerged ahead of Rosberg and Petrov when he pitted many laps latter, so obviously, in hindsight it definitely would've been the best decision for Ferrari to pit Alonso around the same time as Button, which would have allowed him to keep fourth.

Then again, hindsight vision is always 20/20.

[teejay]

The other thing that hurt Ferrari was that Petrov's car was not slow in a straight line - just most other places.

Did they do wrong by reacting? Sure.

Still - Alonso should of thrown caution to the wind to get past. Coming in 7th was not enough, so surely there had to be a stage where he backed off a bit, reset, and took a massive run at Petrov.

It never happened.

[Thomas99]

Ive often felt that Red Bull played a joker card with Webber and Ferrari fell for it.

[Disgrace]

No it wasn't. They lost it because they hadn't amassed enough points during the previous 19 (!) Grands Prix to cover such an event. Championships are won and lost over a full season, not in the final race.

This is the ultimate truth. The fact is, 2010 was one of those seasons (2008, 2003, 1999, 1997) where one individual event out of many could arguably have decided the championship. These seasons are particularly exciting IMO, but not necessarily of the highest quality. It's foolish to boil it down to a single incident; the classic signal vs. noise argument.

[George Costanza]

Had Fernando made a better start to the race, he would have been the World Champion. IIRC, Michael Schumacher stalled in his 1998 title bid in Japan, but that's a very different example.

I think FA's 2010 season wasn't his best compared to 2006 and 2012.

[plumtree]

Not true.

He wasn't setting faster lap times. He was slightly losing time to Fernando http://www.forix.com...&r=20100019&c=7

I don't have an access to the page, so apologize if I got it wrong.

- http://en.mclarenf-1...er#.UgmM_hx7LX0
- http://en.mclarenf-1...h...&hid=6_8_17

Webber initially lost ground to Alonso after the pitstop but it was due to the fact that he needed to clear Alguersuari during the first two laps. Once Webber got ahead of him, he went 8 tenths quicker over a lap and again, IIRC, was setting purples in Alonso's in-lap.

Ive often felt that Red Bull played a joker card with Webber and Ferrari fell for it.

If that had been the case we surely would've heard something about it from Webber.

http://www.youtube.c...e...4Wog-E&t=80
I understand conspiracy theories are much more attractive though.

[halifaxf1fan]

Ive often felt that Red Bull played a joker card with Webber and Ferrari fell for it.

Red Bull were quite smart to split the strategies of their drivers. They could win the championship either way or cause a poor strategy decision from their competitors and win that way. Smart.

Ferrari were not in the same game as Massa was well out of the wdc race and they could only react to RB's moves. And in the race Massa didn't execute leaving Alonso exposed.

Red Bull also were smart in keeping the competition guessing as to which driver was their favoured driver who was likely to have the best strategy. Ferrari guessed wrong.

Edited by halifaxf1fan, 13 August 2013 - 02:56.

[V3TT3L]

There was no opportunity to make a proper attempt to overtake as long as Petrov kept going and didn't make any massive error. Alonso wasn't even close enough to divebomb the apex and leave it up to Petrov whether to move aside or crash. Not, that is, if he wanted to make the corner himself.

In my view Alonso's only options were to stay in the race knowing that if Vettel didn't finish, he would be champion, or cause a pointless accident that would eliminate himself and Petrov from the race. He chose wisely.

No, Petrov said he would retreat had Alonso made an agressive move.

[Winter98]

No, Petrov said he would retreat had Alonso made an agressive move.

So do you think it's a classic case of "No Guts, No Glory"?

[V3TT3L]

So do you think it's a classic case of "No Guts, No Glory"?

Can't judge Alonso on this issue.
Just mentioned what comrade Petrov said after the event.
Maybe Alonso was waiting for a miracle, like Vettel DNF... who knows

[Bleu]

Instead of Webber, Ferrari should have been concentrating leading stopped car, which was Rosberg. He would eventually finish 4th, the position which Alonso would have needed. Lap-by-lap, here's gap from leader (Vettel) to three drivers: Alonso, Rosberg and Petrov. As the time loss for Alonso on laps 15 and 16 suggests, pit stop cost about 22 seconds. Rosberg didn't have a clear road, he was behind Buemi. The Swiss driver started on harder tyre (medium).



The gap to Rosberg was mainly increasing, although not as much in the last laps.

[Thomas99]

It still amazes me to this day that when Red Bull were fighting for the championship that Algersuari aggressively held up Webber and didn't get fired for it.

[lustigson]

It still amazes me to this day that when Red Bull were fighting for the championship that Algersuari aggressively held up Webber and didn't get fired for it.

For what it's worth, it did show the relative independence of the STR team.

[redreni]

It still amazes me to this day that when Red Bull were fighting for the championship that Algersuari aggressively held up Webber and didn't get fired for it.

It amazes me that Algersuari can be blatantly ordered to let Webber through and nobody complains about intra-team collusion. Team orders were banned at the time. Intra-team collusion has always been regarded as illegal and was illegal then and is still illegal now, Red Bull and STR do it all the time (Abu Dhabi 2010 being a salient example; there are plenty of others) and apparently it's fine. Not that it helped Webber much as he was still buried in the pack and couldn't expect everybody to let him through the way the STR did.

[redreni]

For what it's worth, it did show the relative independence of the STR team.

It showed the relative independence of one of the drivers, but Webber did eventually get past on a track where overtaking generally proved impossible, even overtaking of slow cars by much faster ones. I'd say that rather smacks of an order being given, and belatedly followed, to let Webber through, which in 2010 would have been illegal even if they were driving for the same team, and which is doubly illegal when they're driving for supposedly independent outfits.

[PayasYouRace]

Sounds like you've already made up your mind on that one then. If he'd let him through, you'd see collusion. That he didn't let him through, you still see as evidence of collusion. Overtaking at Abu Dhabi might be difficult, but it's not Monaco.

[scheivlak]

I'd say that rather smacks of an order being given, and belatedly followed, to let Webber through, which in 2010 would have been illegal even if they were driving for the same team

Ferrari more or less got away with it a few months earlier and the FIA announced in september 2010 that they would review their rulings. So it may still have been tecnically illegal but everyone knew it wouldn't be penalised anymore effectively. See also http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/86509

That said, I had another look at the video and it seems to me that Jaime defended in pretty tough way for 1 lap and then suddenly let him by very easily.