44 replies to this topic

[Tmeranda]

While talking part in the great FA/LH Monte Carlo debate, it came to me that I don't remember anyone using three pit stop strategy this year in F1. A three stop stragey at Monte Carlo would seem to me to be a good way to go for some of the cars off the pace of the first couple of rows. Has something happen to make this strategy illegal or unuseable?

[AyePirate]

Softer bespoke tires were a part of the 3 stopper strategy. The new (harder) tire rules negate the benefits of the 3 stop. ..at least that's my theory.

[Tmeranda]

Could be, but don't the regs now require the teams to run at least one stint on both sets of tires (hard and soft compound). If so, then a three stop strategy would allow the teams to run fewer laps on the least effective compound in addition to carrying the lower amount of fuel.

[Clatter]

Simple case of time lost due to extra stops is greater than staying out. All teams will have worked out the quickest way to do the race, and if 3 stops was quicker they would go for it.

[F1Fanatic.co.uk]

The fewer fuel stops the better as far as I'm concerned. Zero would be nice.

[Peri_Piket]

Making a lot of pits would make more sense in the forbiden catch tank era.
Cars had to start on legal weight - filled with fuel - and then use all the gas and then after the 1st pit, use only the smaller tank (not filling the catch) and therefore run underweight to gain track time.
Then make other stops to fuel only the small official tank and in the last pit finally fill it up (both base and catch) to reach the legal weight limit.

That is the explanation of the pre-pit flying laps that a certain retired driver used to make.
The "phenomena" ceased after the catch tank became a benchmark in the field and the 1st developer stopped using it.
But a certain Japanese team kept using it until another team denounced it to FIA.

[scheivlak]

Originally posted by Tmeranda
While talking part in the great FA/LH Monte Carlo debate, it came to me that I don't remember anyone using three pit stop strategy this year in F1. A three stop stragey at Monte Carlo would seem to me to be a good way to go for some of the cars off the pace of the first couple of rows.

But I can't remember anybody who used a three stopper strategy in Monaco in recent times! Monaco was almost the only circuit where a one stopper strategy used to be quite normal.

[Keverich]

Originally posted by Tmeranda
While talking part in the great FA/LH Monte Carlo debate, it came to me that I don't remember anyone using three pit stop strategy this year in F1. A three stop stragey at Monte Carlo would seem to me to be a good way to go for some of the cars off the pace of the first couple of rows. Has something happen to make this strategy illegal or unuseable?

Not to be rude or anything, but....

...what an utter load of crap?

Three stop strategy is useless in Monaco, because the track isn't fuel sensitive compared to other circuits. For example, extra ten laps of fuel don't have visible impact on lap times. Track surface is extremely smooth, loads on tyres are really small, which means that you can use the same set of tyres for, say, 40 laps without any significant tyre degradation.



We will probably see three stop strategy at Magny-Cours...

[Zmeej]

Tmeranda

Interesting points, although I'm certainly glad it has disappeared.


Ved

Do you have anything else to contribute other than abuse? :

[Tmeranda]

Originally posted by Keverich


Not to be rude or anything, but....

...what an utter load of crap?

Three stop strategy is useless in Monaco, because the track isn't fuel sensitive compared to other circuits. For example, extra ten laps of fuel don't have visible impact on lap times. Track surface is extremely smooth, loads on tyres are really small, which means that you can use the same set of tyres for, say, 40 laps without any significant tyre degradation.



We will probably see three stop strategy at Magny-Cours...

Beg tp differ with you on several points>

First Monaco is fuel sensitive. I've seen estimates that a little as a 10kg difference in fuel load can mean .3-.4 sec. per lap. Thats a big difference.

Tire degradation was high. Tires were graining and going off in as little as 10 laps.

lasty, you are rude.

[Keverich]

Originally posted by Tmeranda


Beg tp differ with you on several points>

First Monaco is fuel sensitive. I've seen estimates that a little as a 10kg difference in fuel load can mean .3-.4 sec. per lap. Thats a big difference.

Tire degradation was high. Tires were graining and going off in as little as 10 laps.

lasty, you are rude.

That's interesting. Could you post a link to those estimates. What I know is that Kubica was heavier by 13 laps worth of fuel than Heidfeld yet he set almost identical time. Hamilton was on a one-stop strategy initially and nearly took pole, after his first pit stop Alonso started lapping in low 16th and etc.

Tyres held well.

[kNt]

If I remember correctly, a factor also is the pit lane speed limit, it was lowered again this year I think, plus in Monaco it was/is alway 60 kph because of the narrow pitlane.

[Tmeranda]

See the tread, McLaren “controlling the race” in which many make the point that LH lost the race because he was 5 laps heaver than FA (about 9kg.).

FA was doing 16's right after his fuel stop, and a few laps later in was dong low 15's.

US broadcast went on at length about LH’s tires going off during the latter part of his 2nd stint.

Howere, as kNT points out, I can see the point about the narrow nature of the Monte Carlo pit layout.

[Keverich]

Originally posted by Tmeranda
See the tread, McLaren “controlling the race” in which many make the point that LH lost the race because he was 5 laps heaver than FA (about 9kg.).

FA was doing 16's right after his fuel stop, and a few laps later in was dong low 15's.

US broadcast went on at length about LH’s tires going off during the latter part of his 2nd stint.

Howere, as kNT points out, I can see the point about the narrow nature of the Monte Carlo pit layout.

LH lost the race because Ron Dennis came over the radio and told him to slow down.

To be precise, after his first stop Alosno posted a few laps in low 15's, then he started lapping in low 16's, and towards the end of his stint Alonso was doing mid 15's.

[pedrovski]

Monaco has the lowest fuel consumption of the year something like 1.8kg a lap compared to 2.8kg in suzuka(off calendar now). In Magny cours the 3 stop is often worth it due to the short pitlane.

[Tmeranda]

Pedrovski,

Good point. Do you know the consumptions figures for Canada or Indy?

Keverich,

LH lost the race because FA was just plain faster. If you take the 2nd stint and displace the laps to make the fuel levels of the two drivers approximately equal, FA was faster 13 of the 22 laps where equal fuel can be assumed. LH was faster only 5 laps with 4 being dead heats. In all honesty, it looks as if LH was blocked on at least three of those laps as his times were way off. Ignoring the laps where he was apparently blocked, LH was consistently .4 to .5 sec per lap slower on approximately equal fuel. It would be interesting to know on exactly which lap RD called the halt to see how this would affect analysis.

[Keverich]

Originally posted by Tmeranda
Pedrovski,

Good point. Do you know the consumptions figures for Canada or Indy?

Keverich,

LH lost the race because FA was just plain faster. If you take the 2nd stint and displace the laps to make the fuel levels of the two drivers approximately equal, FA was faster 13 of the 22 laps where equal fuel can be assumed. LH was faster only 5 laps with 4 being dead heats. In all honesty, it looks as if LH was blocked on at least three of those laps as his times were way off. Ignoring the laps where he was apparently blocked, LH was consistently .4 to .5 sec per lap slower on approximately equal fuel. It would be interesting to know on exactly which lap RD called the halt to see how this would affect analysis.

I suspect it happened somewhere around the first pit stop. Besides, it is important to remember that LH's first pit stop was very premature. Thus he was robbed of the opportunity to exploit full advantages of his strategy.

[Keverich]

Originally posted by kNt
If I remember correctly, a factor also is the pit lane speed limit, it was lowered again this year I think, plus in Monaco it was/is alway 60 kph because of the narrow pitlane.

AFAIK, pit lane speed limit is 60 kph at all circuits.

[Tmeranda]

Originally posted by Keverich


I suspect it happened somewhere around the first pit stop. Besides, it is important to remember that LH's first pit stop was very premature. Thus he was robbed of the opportunity to exploit full advantages of his strategy.

Yes I will give you that. He was called in early which destroyed his fuel strategy. I know RD says that was to prevent being caught behind the safety car if it were to be deployed, but it was a little odd. What is even stranger is the fact that if he had gone to the fullest extent of his fuel, it still would have been a strech to make the race end on a one stop strategy. He would have needed for the safety car to come onto the track for several laps. Seems a large gamble to me.

[Clatter]

Originally posted by Keverich


AFAIK, pit lane speed limit is 60 kph at all circuits.

60kph during practise, but 80kph during the race, except Monaco where the limit is 60kph at all times.

[Timstr11]

Originally posted by Tmeranda
While talking part in the great FA/LH Monte Carlo debate, it came to me that I don't remember anyone using three pit stop strategy this year in F1. A three stop stragey at Monte Carlo would seem to me to be a good way to go for some of the cars off the pace of the first couple of rows. Has something happen to make this strategy illegal or unuseable?

If cars were able to fly over each other to overtake, your theory would work. And believe me, many teams would adopt that strategy.

Sorry mate, you're not making sense.

[pedrovski]

Originally posted by Tmeranda
Pedrovski,

Good point. Do you know the consumptions figures for Canada or Indy?

Keverich,

LH lost the race because FA was just plain faster. If you take the 2nd stint and displace the laps to make the fuel levels of the two drivers approximately equal, FA was faster 13 of the 22 laps where equal fuel can be assumed. LH was faster only 5 laps with 4 being dead heats. In all honesty, it looks as if LH was blocked on at least three of those laps as his times were way off. Ignoring the laps where he was apparently blocked, LH was consistently .4 to .5 sec per lap slower on approximately equal fuel. It would be interesting to know on exactly which lap RD called the halt to see how this would affect analysis.

I don't have them to hand there in an F1 racing mag i have from last year which also gives the mass effect on lap time.

EDIT: I posted this in another thread: "According to a matrix I have from last year a lap of fuel at monaco is worth 0.045sec. Monaco has the lowest fuel consumption on the calender."

[512 TR]

The super-soft tyres this year are harder than the softest Bridgestone tyres a couple of years back. That's why Michael could use a three-stopper at Magny-Cours a couple of years ago. It's not possible anymore. The tyres this year don't give that one-lap speed anymore.

I hate this one supplier rule. Intstead of just one supplier we should have three or even four. Bridgestone, Michellin, Pirelli and Firestone. At least.

[fastlegs]

Originally posted by Keverich
LH lost the race because Ron Dennis came over the radio and told him to slow down.

As you quoted earlier in this thread;

Not to be rude or anything, but....

...what an utter load of crap?


There was no way Hamilton was going to get ahead of Alonso in the final stint.

[Mauseri]

-V8 less thirsty
-standard tyres more durable
-refuelling (at least a bit) after qualifying

[Frans]

hmm, as soon one tries a three stop I'll acuse them of illegality! (if they win with it)

[Lifew12]

Originally posted by F1Fanatic.co.uk
The fewer fuel stops the better as far as I'm concerned. Zero would be nice.

The most sensible post in the thread.

[Keverich]

Originally posted by 512 TR
The super-soft tyres this year are harder than the softest Bridgestone tyres a couple of years back. That's why Michael could use a three-stopper at Magny-Cours a couple of years ago. It's not possible anymore. The tyres this year don't give that one-lap speed anymore.

I hate this one supplier rule. Intstead of just one supplier we should have three or even four. Bridgestone, Michellin, Pirelli and Firestone. At least.

Did you like 2005 season?

[Lifew12]

Originally posted by Keverich





Did you like 2005 season?

Lets see - two utterly dominant teams and then the best of the rest - in what way did it differ considerably from this one? Aah, I got it - Ferrari were crap!

[Keverich]

Originally posted by Lifew12


Lets see - two utterly dominant teams and then the best of the rest - in what way did it differ considerably from this one? Aah, I got it - Ferrari were crap!

...and the only reason why Ferrari were crap was that they were on Brigestone tyres.

[Lifew12]

Originally posted by Keverich
...and the only reason why Ferrari were crap was that they were on Brigestone tyres.

Nope; one of the reasons Ferrari were crap was because they were on Bridgestones.

The point I made was that you did not enjoy the 2005 season simply because Ferrari were not competetive; there is no reason to say the same would be so if we had more than one tyre supplier. There were, after all, seasons where the Ferrari tyres were instrumental in their success, yet you don;t cite those in your criticism.

We've been through this many times before, but suffice to say there is no reason why F1 should be restricted to a standard tyre supplier, or a standard anything. Unless, in your case, it is detrimental to your beloved Ferrari's.

[512 TR]

Originally posted by Keverich





Did you like 2005 season?

What has multiple tyre suppliers to do with how Ferrari did in 2005?

The only reason why Ferrari were uncompetitive in 2005 was because of the no tyre change rule. It had nothing to do with the other teams using Michellin. Bridgestone screwed up and Ferrari could have accused them, but they didn't.

[Tmeranda]

Originally posted by pedrovski
Monaco has the lowest fuel consumption of the year something like 1.8kg a lap compared to 2.8kg in suzuka(off calendar now). In Magny cours the 3 stop is often worth it due to the short pitlane.

Very interesting. If my math is right, the cars have BETTER fuel consumption at Suzuka then at Monte Carlo. True it takes 56% more fuel for each lap, but each lap is 80% longer! As us Yanks measure fuel consumption, the cars are getting about 3.1 mpg at Monte Carlo and almost 3.6 mpg at Suzuka. I've used your kg/lap information in these calculations, and I hope we are not mixing V-10 and V-8 data. Do you have the fuel/lap data for Canada and Indy?

[Keverich]

Originally posted by 512 TR


What has multiple tyre suppliers to do with how Ferrari did in 2005?

The only reason why Ferrari were uncompetitive in 2005 was because of the no tyre change rule. It had nothing to do with the other teams using Michellin. Bridgestone screwed up and Ferrari could have accused them, but they didn't.

In my view F1 should be the championship of drivers, teams, but not the tyre manufactures. In recent years F1 championship has been, to a large extent, reduced to competition between Michelin and Brigestone, and the team that used right tyres ( that is tyres of right manufacture ;) ) won. I for one hated it. Now I'm glad that period is over.

[clampett]

Originally posted by F1Fanatic.co.uk
The fewer fuel stops the better as far as I'm concerned. Zero would be nice.

Hopefully the biggest disaster in F1 history (refueling) will come to end in the near future.

[Tmeranda]

I don't mind the pit stops at all. I think it introduces issues like fuel strategy, tire selection and qualifiying strategies which brighten up what would otherwise be pretty dull racing. As it now, with passing all but impossible, the pit stops the most exciting part of the race. Sad maybe, but true.

[Keverich]

Originally posted by clampett


Hopefully the biggest disaster in F1 history (refueling) will come to end in the near future.

Bad point.

Ban pit-stops, and then you can stop races after the first corner. :yawn:

[Lifew12]

Originally posted by Keverich


Bad point.

Ban pit-stops, and then you can stop races after the first corner. :yawn:

This has to be the most ludicrous and short sighted view in the entire spectrum of Motor Racing opinion.

How does a pit stop enhance a race after the first corner? All it is is someone stopping for a handful of seconds to take on fuel and tyres; while he is doing that, he plays no part in anything on the track - he is not 'racing'.

Where do most place changes take place, bar the start? I think you would have to agree it is in the pits. Do we see the cars overtake each other? Do we gain any pleasure, any action, apart from a few blokes wielding some power tools?

What if, and to you it's obviously a stretch of the imagination, the opportunity to 'make up places' in the pits was removed? What if they were forced to have no alternative but to risk a move? What if they were forced to adapt to a car whose handling characteristics were changing throughout the race thanks to tyre wear, a lightening fuel load, all the variables that come into it when a car is not running 75% of its race (or more) in optimum condition?

You are obviously very recent to this game, or you would have some experience of watching races - races, not three part sprints - where the very complexion of the contest changed considerably throughout, where the driver had to think, to manage his machine for a constant 200 miles, where racingwas actually that - and not down to the pit crew. It is, indeed, sad that you have not got that experience.

in short, you couldn;t be more wrong.

[Keverich]

Originally posted by Lifew12


This has to be the most ludicrous and short sighted view in the entire spectrum of Motor Racing opinion.

Thank you. I do my best.

Originally posted by Lifew12


How does a pit stop enhance a race after the first corner? All it is is someone stopping for a handful of seconds to take on fuel and tyres; while he is doing that, he plays no part in anything on the track - he is not 'racing'.

Where do most place changes take place, bar the start? I think you would have to agree it is in the pits. Do we see the cars overtake each other? Do we gain any pleasure, any action, apart from a few blokes wielding some power tools?

What if, and to you it's obviously a stretch of the imagination, the opportunity to 'make up places' in the pits was removed? What if they were forced to have no alternative but to risk a move?

They would probably try and make a mistake and spin and run wide and lose some positions because of that, and then YOU would say how stupid they were to pull such a move, and what dopey drivers they are.;)

Originally posted by Lifew12


What if they were forced to adapt to a car whose handling characteristics were changing throughout the race thanks to tyre wear, a lightening fuel load, all the variables that come into it when a car is not running 75% of its race (or more) in optimum condition?

We had a season with a single tyre rule and it was pretty boring in my view. :yawn: Single tyre rule didn't improve the show, but only made F1 cars less safe, and I didn't like it.

Originally posted by Lifew12


You are obviously very recent to this game, or you would have some experience of watching races - races, not three part sprints - where the very complexion of the contest changed considerably throughout, where the driver had to think, to manage his machine for a constant 200 miles, where racingwas actually that - and not down to the pit crew. It is, indeed, sad that you have not got that experience.

in short, you couldn;t be more wrong.

I want to see drivers pushing flat out throughout the race. I'm not interested in watching drivers protecting their tyres, engine or whatever, I want to see them pushing.

You must understand, the lack of overtaking in F1 has nothing to do with the pit-stops. It is all about aerodynamics. Modern F1 cars are extremely aero-efficient and aero-sensitive as well. When one car is following another one it loses a lot of grip in slipstream and often cannot get close enough to overtake. If you simply ban pit-stops, it won't lead to more overtaking, but will only make races more boring, because the cars won't be able to improve their positions after the start.

[giacomo]

Originally posted by Lifew12
This has to be the most ludicrous and short sighted view in the entire spectrum of Motor Racing opinion.

How does a pit stop enhance a race after the first corner? All it is is someone stopping for a handful of seconds to take on fuel and tyres; while he is doing that, he plays no part in anything on the track - he is not 'racing'.

Where do most place changes take place, bar the start? I think you would have to agree it is in the pits. Do we see the cars overtake each other? Do we gain any pleasure, any action, apart from a few blokes wielding some power tools?

What if, and to you it's obviously a stretch of the imagination, the opportunity to 'make up places' in the pits was removed? What if they were forced to have no alternative but to risk a move? What if they were forced to adapt to a car whose handling characteristics were changing throughout the race thanks to tyre wear, a lightening fuel load, all the variables that come into it when a car is not running 75% of its race (or more) in optimum condition?

You are obviously very recent to this game, or you would have some experience of watching races - races, not three part sprints - where the very complexion of the contest changed considerably throughout, where the driver had to think, to manage his machine for a constant 200 miles, where racingwas actually that - and not down to the pit crew. It is, indeed, sad that you have not got that experience.

in short, you couldn;t be more wrong.

[Keverich]

Originally posted by giacomo

[Lifew12]

Originally posted by Keverich


I want to see drivers pushing flat out throughout the race.

Lets see; the current race goes like this - drivers settle in position for twenty laps. When driver A pits, driver B puts in two fantastic, blindingly quick laps to make up time before making his stop. yes? For those two laps he did what you want to see - pushed flat out; not for the whole stint, otherwise he wouldn;t have been able to find the extra time all of a sudden, would he? So bang goes your argument, as you're clearly not seeing drivers push flat out for the whole race - just when it matters.

Now, why is that? The answer is simple - it's because he knows he can make a place change in the pits.

What if he didn't have that option?

You must understand, the lack of overtaking in F1 has nothing to do with the pit-stops. It is all about aerodynamics. Modern F1 cars are extremely aero-efficient and aero-sensitive as well. When one car is following another one it loses a lot of grip in slipstream and often cannot get close enough to overtake. If you simply ban pit-stops, it won't lead to more overtaking, but will only make races more boring, because the cars won't be able to improve their positions after the start.

Oh, of course the aero problem comes into play - but then it has been there ever since wings appeared on the back of F1 cars. Despite the beliefs of the 'Schumacher generation' (and it's quiote clear you have come to the sport in, or around, that time) the 'dirty air' phenomenon is not new- it did not, as an Irishman say, come up the Liffey in a bubble! Its been around decades.

What adds to the problem is the knowledge, the safety cushion, that a driver has these days in knowing that his rival will pit, and that he may have a better stratey and be able to make up a place, and added to that, that if he doesn;t do it this time then, hey, there's another pit stop down the road - we can relax a little and think about that one!

Now, take away that comfort blanket, and are you seriously telling me that these hyper competetive individuals, these Racing Drivers, would lose the will to win simply because they no longer have the option of overtaking in a pit stop? has it ever occured to you (well, probably not) that part of the lack of overtaking these days it that it is safer to do it in the pits than actually risk a move?

Of course, thats not all of the problem, but neither - as you insist - is the aerodynamics all of the problem, either. The lack of overtaking in f1 these days has a lot to do with the pit stops, just as it has a lot to do with the aerodynamics. Elimate one, and you eliminate half the problem.

The truth is, however, that you are unlikely to see the 'dirty air' problem eliminated, as that would mean cutting wings out, and removing valuable sponsorship space. The answer, or half of it, is the alternative.

i can not understand why you think it would make races more boring, to be honest, as lets face it, a car overtaking another in apit stop simply results in it being in front of the other afterwards; there is no overtaking move, no action, no suspense, no satisfaction. Unless, of course, you enjoy watching mechanics at work. In which case, you can spend your day down at Kwik-fit, and get the same thrill.

Seriously, watch some racing from the non pit-stop era - educate yourself.

[inaki]

Originally posted by Keverich

We had a season with a single tyre rule and it was pretty boring in my view. :yawn: Single tyre rule didn't improve the show, but only made F1 cars less safe, and I didn't like it.

I saw this same season and I think that it was much better. And the most intelligent and skilled drivers have much more to offer with one single tyre. Michael himself said that in 2005 preseason.

By the way, 1 single tyre rule has nothing to be related with F1 less safe, at all.

[Keverich]

Originally posted by inaki




By the way, 1 single tyre rule has nothing to be related with F1 less safe, at all.

What happened in 2005 US GP is a direct result of the single tyre rule.
Savvy?

[inaki]

Originally posted by Keverich


What happened in 2005 US GP is a direct result of the single tyre rule.
Savvy?

This was an absolutely exceptional situation and in an exceptional circuit. Single tyre rule does not make F1 less safe.