23 replies to this topic

[Wouter]

McLaren (and perhaps some others) seems to love using 2-stop strategies with lots of fuel in qual3 and thus a long first stint; Montoya was on such a strategy, Raikkonen probably was as well, Michael Schumacher too and Alonso did so involuntarily. In MS' case I can understand this gives an advantage when one expects to be blocked by slower cars - pitting later is always an advantage then - but for Montoya it made no sense imo (and the fuel mistake didn't help Alonso).

This strategy means qualifying with a heavy load, in this very competitive field that would usually translate to rear of the top 10. Then you have a start and long first stint with lots of fuel, so the lighter cars will drive away from you. Once those cars pit, you will get to the front (but not necessarily even in the lead, as the fastest car may already have taken a pitstop distance before its stop), but unlike last year, your laptimes won't be better than those of the re-fuelled cars as they have new tyres and your own aren't 100% anymore. Purple sectiors are done immediately after stops now, in most cases. And you don't spare out a stop either - you will pit later but as often as the guys with a shorter fist stint do. At best, you can gain a little bit of time due to a slightly shorter stop and you will be a bit lighter in the second and third stint, but by then the race will probably already have been lost.

I understand the benefit of going all the way and using a one-stopper, that way you gain significantly on pitstop time so if your chassis/tyres/driver combo can handle it, great. But qualifying heavy and still two-stopping, can anyone make me see the benefits in that?

[Alfisti]

I have been asking the same question for 2 years and no one can answer it.

[Ghostrider]

With the tyre changes now allowed, the longer first stint has lost some of its advantage since as you say Wouter, the fresh tyres can make up for the additional load in terms of fuel after a pit stop.

[Foxbat]

In the case of Mclaren i've always wondered why they did this so consistently, it didn't suit DC and it doesn't seem to suit JPM either. Have we seen a single qood quali from Juan at Mclaren? Also holding out on a full load doesn't seem to be a typical strategy for an agressive driver (which Montoya used to be).

But to answer the question more generally, mclaren has been focussing on long runs for quite some time now. They figure that their car is balanced enough on a heavy load that it can still be competetive, putting them ahead at the first stops (or better runaway).
Kimi has shown that he can qualify well with a heavy car, and it doesn't take a lot of calculation to show that qualifying in the top-5, and being able to keep up while carrying more fuel is a race-winner.

ps. Another advantadge is that if your car is optimized for heacy running it isn't so bad if your driver has to start at the back of the grid.

[MortenF1]

If your car is competitive, the benefits are obvious. When the others pit, you have a handfull of laps to put the hammer down, and your stop will also be shorter.
It's as simple as that.

[MortenF1]

Originally posted by Foxbat
In the case of Mclaren i've always wondered why they did this so consistently, it didn't suit DC and it doesn't seem to suit JPM either.

What? DC was labelled "the master of heavy fuel loads" by Norbert Haug.

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by race addicted


What? DC was labelled "the master of heavy fuel loads" by Norbert Haug.

No offence for DC or his driving intended. But he suffered with the new qualifying system, and I always felt part of that was dragging a full tank along during the hotlap.

[MortenF1]

Originally posted by Foxbat


No offence for DC or his driving intended. But he suffered with the new qualifying system, and I always felt part of that was dragging a full tank along during the hotlap.

Oh so that's what you meant. Yep, but the problem was with the qualfying format, not with the heavier fuel load.

In the pre '03 format, DC always started brim-full of fuel, and it always worked really well. He often stretched his first stint past the 60% mark before he stopped.

[HP]

Originally posted by Foxbat


No offence for DC or his driving intended. But he suffered with the new qualifying system, and I always felt part of that was dragging a full tank along during the hotlap.

No, it's as race addicted says. DC often pulled off stunning drives with fuel tank. His weaknees in one lap qual was said to be that DC he was roo analytical about it. That IMO was subconcious until he got the hang of it. Instead of wringing everything out of his car on the q-lap, not worrying about anything until the lap is over, an analytical driver's mind already starts to make mental notes, where he could have improved, what needs to be changed etc..

[Wouter]

Originally posted by race addicted
If your car is competitive, the benefits are obvious. When the others pit, you have a handfull of laps to put the hammer down, and your stop will also be shorter.
It's as simple as that.

The benefits are not obvious at all (just ask Alonso!). You can't really put the hammer down, cause your tyres are mostly shot by the time the short-fuelled drivers have pitted, and the latter will turn in times as good or better than you on their new tyres, despite the weight disadvantage. So you still end up behind those drivers after your own stop, unlike last year when low fuel meant superfast times.
And indeed, your stop will be shorter, but that's by the tune of 1 or 2 seconds at most. Is that worth giving up qual position and early race pace for?

[GregorV]

One very obvious advantage is that you can more easily run at the maximum pace the car is capable of as you are less likely to be stuck in traffic. As we saw today, being light didn't help Webber much as he was held by Alonso, whereas Alonso himself could run as fast as he could. The offset for initial slow laps comes in the period of the second stops, when you are still light when others are filled up, and you can also make a short first stop and a few blistering laps until the third stop to gain the advantage.

Running on one's own the more even spaced the stops the better the overall pace, but in a race when you can be hindered by others it pays to minimize that effect.

[Wouter]

One very obvious advantage is that you can more easily run at the maximum pace the car is capable of as you are less likely to be stuck in traffic. As we saw today, being light didn't help Webber much as he was held by Alonso, whereas Alonso himself could run as fast as he could.

But Alonso could not run near as fast as Fisichella, who won the race in the first stint, compared to Alonso's pace there. Normally you're also not stuck behind heavier/slower cars; that's the whole point of qualifying light. Webber's problem was caused by Alonso's lightning start.

The offset for initial slow laps comes in the period of the second stops, when you are still light when others are filled up, and you can also make a short first stop and a few blistering laps until the third stop to gain the advantage.

But it's no advantage that you're light and the others not, cause those others are just as fast as you are on their new tyres. You have a couple of blistering laps on new rubber then, but you'll be very likely still behind the lighter cars. Like Alonso was also behind Fisichella for the whole race.

If you want to win, you have to qualify light I think, or perhaps with one stop less than the other top drivers (on condition that the tyres can take that).

[MortenF1]

Originally posted by Wouter

The benefits are not obvious at all (just ask Alonso!). You can't really put the hammer down, cause your tyres are mostly shot by the time the short-fuelled drivers have pitted, and the latter will turn in times as good or better than you on their new tyres, despite the weight disadvantage. So you still end up behind those drivers after your own stop, unlike last year when low fuel meant superfast times.
And indeed, your stop will be shorter, but that's by the tune of 1 or 2 seconds at most. Is that worth giving up qual position and early race pace for?

The difference will more often than not be bigger than one to two seconds, of course. You don't necessarily have to give up qualifying position, and that you lose pace is obvious, but you gain time by not standing still in the pits, and going slowly in and out of it.

There are a few obvious one-stop races on the calendar, and it's not like some teams and drivers opt for that just for the fun of it. They do it when and if it will be the quicker strategy.

-Edit- I see that you've written another post, but I'm talking in general terms here, while you seem to focus on todays race.

[Wouter]

Originally posted by race addicted


The difference will more often than not be bigger than one to two seconds, of course. You don't necessarily have to give up qualifying position, and that you lose pace is obvious, but you gain time by not standing still in the pits, and going slowly in and out of it.

There are a few obvious one-stop races on the calendar, and it's not like some teams and drivers opt for that just for the fun of it. They do it when and if it will be the quicker strategy.

-Edit- I see that you've written another post, but I'm talking in general terms here, while you seem to focus on todays race.

Bahrain wasn't any different than todays race, as far as working strategies are concerned.

And I was talking about 2-stop strategies with long first stint, not one-stoppers (advantage of those is obvious - but it's not what Montoya did in either Bahrain or Malaysia). You lose almost as much time in the pits as the guys with a short first stint - a couple of seconds less refuelling in a stop, at most.

That you have to give up qual position is quite obvious, Alonso in 7th or Alonso on pole (or even 2nd) is a huge difference. And yes that's todays race, but somehow I doubt that Renault is going to try out thier "accidental" strategy on other tracks because it's so efficient.

I wish McLaren would also stop doing it - either a full-blown one-stopper (or 2-stopper if 3-stops is the norm on a particular circuit) or a normal first stint, please.

[Calorus]

I think you're missing the point - McLaren don't run long - they run Normal, everyone else runs short to give themselves better grid positions. McLaren run a race split into 3 meaning even tyre wear. so the don't finish two stints after have canvassed their tyres.

[MortenF1]

By saying you don't necessarily lose out in qualifying, I meant the guys starting outside the top ten. But in some scenario's, you can apply that to those in the top ten as well.

But this really isn't worth wasting time on; if X and Y opt for a one-stopper, or a very long first stint it is because the computer sim show that it will be quicker. That will alays be in theory, but they do it feeling sure it will materialize even in practice.

The F1 strategists have nothing to learn from us.

[Wouter]

Originally posted by Calorus
I think you're missing the point - McLaren don't run long - they run Normal, everyone else runs short to give themselves better grid positions. McLaren run a race split into 3 meaning even tyre wear. so the don't finish two stints after have canvassed their tyres.

Then McLaren should run short as well (if everybody does that, then it is the "norm" anyway). Especially since their chassis is supposedly relatively kind on tyres, so the somewhat longer second and third stint isn't a problem.

Besides, Montoya had a very short 3rd stint in Bahrain, pitting near the end of the race. I fail to see the advantages and I've yet to hear a compelling argument for them.

[Wouter]

Originally posted by race addicted
By saying you don't necessarily lose out in qualifying, I meant the guys starting outside the top ten. But in some scenario's, you can apply that to those in the top ten as well.

But this really isn't worth wasting time on; if X and Y opt for a one-stopper, it is because the computer sim show that it will be quicker. That will alays be in theory, but they do it feeling sure it will materialize even in practice.

The F1 strategists have nothing to learn from us.

Remember Canada 2005? Silverstone 2002? Just some examples of superior McLaren strategy.

And to be absolutely clear: the point of discussion is not , I repeat not , a one-stopper, but a 2-stopper with long first stint.

[Blaka Da Uglav]

It obviously works (and worked) for Mclaren. Last year they had obvious advantage in tyre consuption and could easily run on softer compounds. Sure they lost some of that advantage with this year rule change, but there still is some slight advantage for Mcs in that element. They obviously can and had designed car with that notion on their mind.

In todays case I wonder why it didn't work out for Alonso? I think that the car was simply set-up for shorter stint and that probably affected tyre wear (not to mention high temperatures in Sepang). Alonso was clearly strugling with the cars pace in the first stint when he couldn't hang on to Fisiko and Button pace. After that he was diminishing Fisicos advantage...

[Pep]

Originally posted by Wouter

The benefits are not obvious at all (just ask Alonso!). You can't really put the hammer down, cause your tyres are mostly shot by the time the short-fuelled drivers have pitted

No. Alonso can't be taken as an example because it was a mistake, as it has been explained by his team and himself. Their soft tyres weren't designed to spend so many laps and with such a big fuel load, at least in the Renault R26.

You indeed can put the hammer down because normally the tyres aren't going to be as shot as Alonso's in lap 26 today. Rosberg for example set his fastest lap in his last lap of a stint in Bahrain.

Anyway, I've made a quick comparation between lap times before and after pitstops in 2004 and 2006 and I think the advantage of running longer is smaller this year (in 2005 the advantage was very big as they used the same tyres). In 2004 the fastest lap was almost always made with a very light car, but this year most of the drivers are doing their fastest laps with a heavy fuel load and new tyres. But from a couple of laps after pitstops onwards it seems the light car has again the advantage. But I guess this is circuit dependant, there'll be circuits when stopping later will be a pretty good advantage and in some others it won't.

[MortenF1]

Originally posted by Blaka Da Uglav
Alonso was clearly strugling with the cars pace in the first stint when he couldn't hang on to Fisiko and Button pace. After that he was diminishing Fisicos advantage...

I don't think he struggled really. I think the pace difference was as expected (just from memory, I haven't checked) considering Alonso was, what was it, nine laps heavier?

[Wouter]

You indeed can put the hammer down because normally the tyres aren't going to be as shot as Alonso's in lap 26 today. Rosber for example set his fastest lap in his last lap in Bahrain.

While Webber set his fastest lap, only 0.2s slower than Rosberg's fastest, in his first lap after a stop IIRC. Schumacher and Alonso had some blistering fast laps immediately after stops in Bahrain and, Alonso did this in Malaysia as well.

When the tyres lose some performance after a lap or 2 the advantage may be to the lighter car again, but how much longer are you going to stay out? If it is,say, 5 laps extra, then you only have an advantage in three of those laps and possibly a slight disadvantage in the other 2 (if your opponent's car works excellent on new tyres, as the Renault and Ferrari seem to).

And the strategy did not really work out well for Montoya in both races, nor for MS in Malaysia. The one-stopper of Raikkonen and Massa, those worked well.

[Pep]

Originally posted by Wouter
While Webber set his fastest lap, only 0.2s slower than Rosberg's fastest, in his first lap after a stop IIRC. Schumacher and Alonso had some blistering fast laps immediately after stops in Bahrain and, Alonso did this in Malaysia as well.

Yes, if you had read carefully my post you would had noticed this: "this year most of the drivers are doing their fastest laps with a heavy fuel load and new tyres". But I wrote about Rosberg's fastest lap time in Bahrain to show to you that you can really put the hammer down (you had said you couldn't because the tyres were always shot).

Originally posted by Wouter

When the tyres lose some performance after a lap or 2 the advantage may be to the lighter car again, but how much longer are you going to stay out? If it is,say, 5 laps extra, then you only have an advantage in three of those laps and possibly a slight disadvantage in the other 2 (if your opponent's car works excellent on new tyres, as the Renault and Ferrari seem to).

Right, but the advantages, specially in the first stint, are also others. If you run a short first stint (as it became the norm in 2004, with first stints from the top cars of just 9 or 10 laps - Button in Imola 2004, Schumi in France, etc.) you are running two risks:

1. You can emerge in slower traffic after your stop, and maybe you can't use the new tyres at your disposal to score fast laps.

2. If there's a safety car you can be in deep trouble compared with other heavier cars.

I think we won't see this year short first stints, as that would mean to use 3 pit stops, and there are only 7 sets of tyres.

But as I've said before, from a quick comparative in f1matrix.it the advantage this year when running longer seems smaller than it was in 2004.

[Wouter]

Originally posted by Pep

Yes, if you had read carefully my post you would had noticed this: "this year most of the drivers are doing their fastest laps with a heavy fuel load and new tyres". But I wrote about Rosberg's fastest lap time in Bahrain to show to you that you can really put the hammer down (you had said you couldn't because the tyres were always shot).

I noticed what you wrote, but it kinda contradicts your earlier point, no? You can put the hammer down at the end of a stint; sure you can. But the problem is, the cars at the beginning of a stint also put the hammer down at the same time, and the end result is that the times are comparable - and your opponent has the better track position. That's not like last year, when the car running light at the end of a stint won heaps of time compared to an early stopper. This year, the gains appear to be marginal.

Right, but the advantages, specially in the first stint, are also others. If you run a short first stint (as it became the norm in 2004, with first stints from the top cars of just 9 or 10 laps - Button in Imola 2004, Schumi in France, etc.) you are running two risks:

Emerging in traffic after an early stop is a risk (a safety car can ruin any strategy depending on when it comes out), but from the front row and with a fast/light car one would normally be clear of most of the field. First stint also don't have to be supershort; just short enough to enable decent qualifying. If it was the norm in 2004, then there probably were good reasons for that.

But as I've said before, from a quick comparative in f1matrix.it the advantage this year when running longer seems smaller than it was in 2004.

And wasn't the advantage small to very small already back in 2004?