planetf1.com

It is currently Sat Oct 19, 2019 3:17 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Sep 27, 2019 11:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2411
In past seasons we've seen that kind of thing called out as 'not racing', but it seems to have passed with barely a comment... and Bottas even seems fine with it. Is the guy just accepting that his 'job' is to help Lewis win and presumably beat MSCs WDC record. It just seems odd that with Bottas in second place in the WDC (albeit he is a long way off) Wolf can make that call without getting both barrels from the public. Or maybe the public has already accepted that the WDC is over so 'whatever'...? In the past Wolf has been at pains to point out how scrupulously fair they are to both drivers, it just seems a bit weird. If anything I would have thought they should be protecting Bottas's second place in the WDC, Lewis can clearly take care of himself! I kind of expected to see more 'vitriol' in this forum, but even here it's just kinda.... 'whatever, Bottas is expendable'. It feels like nobody has any belief or interest in the guy, so why does he keep his seat?

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 27, 2019 11:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 1247
Mercedes were trying to win the race with Hamilton, Hamilton wasn’t really racing Bottas. Mercedes left Hamilton out to wait for a SC (that would have won him the race between laps 20-26) / possible attack leaders with fresher tyres later in the race.

Mercedes could have pitted Hamilton a few laps earlier and secured P4 and P5 and not had to instruct Bottas. But what good is that?

Instead they had Bottas hold up Albon in order to leave Hamilton out as long as possible waiting for the SC and to give a larger tyre offset for Hamilton at the end. It gave the team the BEST chance to improve what was at that point a locked in p4 and p5.

Hamilton simply wasn’t racing Bottas, Bottas was nailed on for p5. There was no way Bottas could improve that position and that is where he finished. In fact there is no strategy available to him at any point to improve his position, he was nailed on for p5 all race since Max and Vettel both pitted on lap 19 the earliest point possible to come out in clean air and Max actually came out behind Hulk so pitted a lap too early if anything. Mercedes maximised Bottas’ result in the race and then used him to try to maximise Hamiltons.

The reason they asked him to slow rather than just instructing him to let Hamilton by later on, was because Albon was there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 27, 2019 11:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16051
If you read through the various threads you'll see some people have been calling it out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 27, 2019 12:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 12:14 am
Posts: 194
Location: Salisbury, Wiltshire UK
ALESI wrote:
Bottas even seems fine with it.
I may have imagined it, but I'm sure I heard James Allison on the radio to Bottas after telling him to slow down that he'd make it up to him? I can't find any link to this to prove it unfortunately.

But maybe this is why Bottas was "ok" with it, or appeared to be?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 27, 2019 12:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 2188
Location: Far side of Koozebane
SteveW wrote:
ALESI wrote:
Bottas even seems fine with it.
I may have imagined it, but I'm sure I heard James Allison on the radio to Bottas after telling him to slow down that he'd make it up to him? I can't find any link to this to prove it unfortunately.

But maybe this is why Bottas was "ok" with it, or appeared to be?


Yeah heard the same

_________________
Races since last non RB, Merc, Ferrari winner (After Japan- 19) - 135 & counting.( Last win, Lotus, 17/3/13)

Non RB, Merc, Ferrari podiums won in Hybrid era - 351 trophies available, 24 won

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 1247
I cant see why anybody would have a problem with it, Bottas lost nothing. Hamilton gained a greater chance to win the race. The team gained without Bottas losing anything.

It’s like saying Vettel left out in Spa or was it Monza to hold Hamilton up for a few laps. Nobody complained about that and rightly so, because it did not change Vettels position or end result at all and it had the same effect as Bottas-Hamilton, no loss to him but increased his team mates chance of the win. People have said Hamilton would have beaten Leclerc without Vettel holding him those few laps. Was it also unfair for Vettel to be asked to do that?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:23 am
Posts: 2962
Holding? I thought it was called 'backing the pack up'? If that wasn't what he was doing; or doesn't want to do in the future, they just pit the lead driver first surely?

And maybe as we have seen in the past when they have pitted Ham second; despite Ham leading, to protect Bottas from the undercut, Ham can in future say 'not this time'.

Interesting that Bottas admitted there is a long standing agreement on this within the team that both drivers have abided to since he joined the team.

Amusing that Ham wanted a strategy that would have prob given him the win, but Mercedes screwed up and he finished forth. Yet Bottas who finished where he would have anyway is the one hard done by?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16051
shoot999 wrote:
Holding? I thought it was called 'backing the pack up'? If that wasn't what he was doing; or doesn't want to do in the future, they just pit the lead driver first surely?

And maybe as we have seen in the past when they have pitted Ham second; despite Ham leading, to protect Bottas from the undercut, Ham can in future say 'not this time'.

Interesting that Bottas admitted there is a long standing agreement on this within the team that both drivers have abided to since he joined the team.

Amusing that Ham wanted a strategy that would have prob given him the win, but Mercedes screwed up and he finished forth. Yet Bottas who finished where he would have anyway is the one hard done by?


They were both hard done by but at least Hamilton's strategy was an attempt to win. There was a possible upside.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:53 pm
Posts: 7984
Location: Mumbai, India
SteveW wrote:
ALESI wrote:
Bottas even seems fine with it.
I may have imagined it, but I'm sure I heard James Allison on the radio to Bottas after telling him to slow down that he'd make it up to him? I can't find any link to this to prove it unfortunately.

But maybe this is why Bottas was "ok" with it, or appeared to be?


Maybe once Hamilton has won the championship, Mercedes will orchestrate the strategies so Bottas wins the race(s) & finishes in a strong 2nd in WDC?

_________________
Feel The Fourth


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 27, 2019 2:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6730
Location: Nebraska, USA
ALESI wrote:
In past seasons we've seen that kind of thing called out as 'not racing', but it seems to have passed with barely a comment... and Bottas even seems fine with it. Is the guy just accepting that his 'job' is to help Lewis win and presumably beat MSCs WDC record. It just seems odd that with Bottas in second place in the WDC (albeit he is a long way off) Wolf can make that call without getting both barrels from the public. Or maybe the public has already accepted that the WDC is over so 'whatever'...? In the past Wolf has been at pains to point out how scrupulously fair they are to both drivers, it just seems a bit weird. If anything I would have thought they should be protecting Bottas's second place in the WDC, Lewis can clearly take care of himself! I kind of expected to see more 'vitriol' in this forum, but even here it's just kinda.... 'whatever, Bottas is expendable'. It feels like nobody has any belief or interest in the guy, so why does he keep his seat?

While there have been a few, very few, who have commented on it, there is a fair bit of hypocrisy in the subject here. Personally, as a believer in the TEAM first, I am not bothered by team orders, however, watching several of those who have all but "crucified" Ferrari for team orders ignore the same by others is good for a chuckle.
:nod:

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 27, 2019 2:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 1247
Blake wrote:
ALESI wrote:
In past seasons we've seen that kind of thing called out as 'not racing', but it seems to have passed with barely a comment... and Bottas even seems fine with it. Is the guy just accepting that his 'job' is to help Lewis win and presumably beat MSCs WDC record. It just seems odd that with Bottas in second place in the WDC (albeit he is a long way off) Wolf can make that call without getting both barrels from the public. Or maybe the public has already accepted that the WDC is over so 'whatever'...? In the past Wolf has been at pains to point out how scrupulously fair they are to both drivers, it just seems a bit weird. If anything I would have thought they should be protecting Bottas's second place in the WDC, Lewis can clearly take care of himself! I kind of expected to see more 'vitriol' in this forum, but even here it's just kinda.... 'whatever, Bottas is expendable'. It feels like nobody has any belief or interest in the guy, so why does he keep his seat?

While there have been a few, very few, who have commented on it, there is a fair bit of hypocrisy in the subject here. Personally, as a believer in the TEAM first, I am not bothered by team orders, however, watching several of those who have all but "crucified" Ferrari for team orders ignore the same by others is good for a chuckle.
:nod:


There is a difference between team orders than change the result and team orders that use one driver to help the other and not lose anything himself. Russia 2018 and Austria 2002 being prime examples of the former. I’ve never seen anybody make a fuss out of the later before.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 27, 2019 2:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 1247
mikeyg123 wrote:
shoot999 wrote:
Holding? I thought it was called 'backing the pack up'? If that wasn't what he was doing; or doesn't want to do in the future, they just pit the lead driver first surely?

And maybe as we have seen in the past when they have pitted Ham second; despite Ham leading, to protect Bottas from the undercut, Ham can in future say 'not this time'.

Interesting that Bottas admitted there is a long standing agreement on this within the team that both drivers have abided to since he joined the team.

Amusing that Ham wanted a strategy that would have prob given him the win, but Mercedes screwed up and he finished forth. Yet Bottas who finished where he would have anyway is the one hard done by?


They were both hard done by but at least Hamilton's strategy was an attempt to win. There was a possible upside.


Bottas was hard done by how? There is no strategy, even with the benefit of hindsight, that could have placed him higher than p5 in that race. Absolutely none since Max and Vettel pitted on lap 19 as the window opened and Max himself actually pitted too early as he came out behind Hulk who was the key driver.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 27, 2019 2:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16051
Johnson wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
shoot999 wrote:
Holding? I thought it was called 'backing the pack up'? If that wasn't what he was doing; or doesn't want to do in the future, they just pit the lead driver first surely?

And maybe as we have seen in the past when they have pitted Ham second; despite Ham leading, to protect Bottas from the undercut, Ham can in future say 'not this time'.

Interesting that Bottas admitted there is a long standing agreement on this within the team that both drivers have abided to since he joined the team.

Amusing that Ham wanted a strategy that would have prob given him the win, but Mercedes screwed up and he finished forth. Yet Bottas who finished where he would have anyway is the one hard done by?


They were both hard done by but at least Hamilton's strategy was an attempt to win. There was a possible upside.


Bottas was hard done by how? There is no strategy, even with the benefit of hindsight, that could have placed him higher than p5 in that race. Absolutely none since Max and Vettel pitted on lap 19 as the window opened and Max himself actually pitted too early as he came out behind Hulk who was the key driver.


That isn't really the point.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 27, 2019 2:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 1247
mikeyg123 wrote:
Johnson wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
shoot999 wrote:
Holding? I thought it was called 'backing the pack up'? If that wasn't what he was doing; or doesn't want to do in the future, they just pit the lead driver first surely?

And maybe as we have seen in the past when they have pitted Ham second; despite Ham leading, to protect Bottas from the undercut, Ham can in future say 'not this time'.

Interesting that Bottas admitted there is a long standing agreement on this within the team that both drivers have abided to since he joined the team.

Amusing that Ham wanted a strategy that would have prob given him the win, but Mercedes screwed up and he finished forth. Yet Bottas who finished where he would have anyway is the one hard done by?


They were both hard done by but at least Hamilton's strategy was an attempt to win. There was a possible upside.


Bottas was hard done by how? There is no strategy, even with the benefit of hindsight, that could have placed him higher than p5 in that race. Absolutely none since Max and Vettel pitted on lap 19 as the window opened and Max himself actually pitted too early as he came out behind Hulk who was the key driver.


That isn't really the point.


Surely to have been hard done by you have to have lost yourself or be in worse situation? I genuinely do not see how Bottas was hard done by.

He was tasked with holding up another car to aid his team mates chance of winning. Exactly what Vettel did to Hamilton in Spa to help Leclerc. Was Vettel hard done by in Spa?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 27, 2019 2:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3587
If Bottas hadn't have held back, then Hamilton would have finished behind Albon, so it would have been a 4-6 for the team not a 4-5. If it was just about Hamilton being ahead of Bottas then Mercedes could have just done the switcheroo on track a la Sochi 2018.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 27, 2019 2:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 1946
Blake wrote:
ALESI wrote:
In past seasons we've seen that kind of thing called out as 'not racing', but it seems to have passed with barely a comment... and Bottas even seems fine with it. Is the guy just accepting that his 'job' is to help Lewis win and presumably beat MSCs WDC record. It just seems odd that with Bottas in second place in the WDC (albeit he is a long way off) Wolf can make that call without getting both barrels from the public. Or maybe the public has already accepted that the WDC is over so 'whatever'...? In the past Wolf has been at pains to point out how scrupulously fair they are to both drivers, it just seems a bit weird. If anything I would have thought they should be protecting Bottas's second place in the WDC, Lewis can clearly take care of himself! I kind of expected to see more 'vitriol' in this forum, but even here it's just kinda.... 'whatever, Bottas is expendable'. It feels like nobody has any belief or interest in the guy, so why does he keep his seat?

While there have been a few, very few, who have commented on it, there is a fair bit of hypocrisy in the subject here. Personally, as a believer in the TEAM first, I am not bothered by team orders, however, watching several of those who have all but "crucified" Ferrari for team orders ignore the same by others is good for a chuckle.
:nod:


It is always fun watching them, especially as its the same set of folks defending Mercedes who were Vocal against Ferrari.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 27, 2019 3:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2014 9:21 pm
Posts: 157
ALESI wrote:
In past seasons we've seen that kind of thing called out as 'not racing', but it seems to have passed with barely a comment... and Bottas even seems fine with it. Is the guy just accepting that his 'job' is to help Lewis win and presumably beat MSCs WDC record. It just seems odd that with Bottas in second place in the WDC (albeit he is a long way off) Wolf can make that call without getting both barrels from the public. Or maybe the public has already accepted that the WDC is over so 'whatever'...? In the past Wolf has been at pains to point out how scrupulously fair they are to both drivers, it just seems a bit weird. If anything I would have thought they should be protecting Bottas's second place in the WDC, Lewis can clearly take care of himself! I kind of expected to see more 'vitriol' in this forum, but even here it's just kinda.... 'whatever, Bottas is expendable'. It feels like nobody has any belief or interest in the guy, so why does he keep his seat?


because HE is number two driver he will mover when instructed just like Felipe and all the others did when it comes to supporting a wdc fight he is nowhere and his contract will state this

I dont see what your beef is its been common practice for the day dot if f1

_________________
Then he said to his disciples, “The time is coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, but you will not see it. Luke 17 22


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 27, 2019 11:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 554
Johnson wrote:

Instead they had Bottas hold up Albon in order to leave Hamilton out as long as possible waiting for the SC and to give a larger tyre offset for Hamilton at the end. It gave the team the BEST chance to improve what was at that point a locked in p4 and p5.



For every extra lap in the middle of the race that you use to give yourself a larger offset, you are also losing more time to the leaders which the newer tyres will have to make up. Overall it will be a false economy. This is because Lewis doing an extra lap on his starting tyres that were about 28 laps old compared to Ferrari who were on much fresher tyres of 7 laps old costs him a big chunk of time, and in return he gets to do the final stint with tyres that are 8 laps younger rather than 7 laps younger than Ferrari to the end of the race.

Essentially what I am saying is that you don't get to build a larger offset for free, and the cost in time to build one extra lap of offset is not worth it because that is just even more time that you will have to make up later during your next stint when those fresh tyres that you have wear further in closing the lost time. Do you agree?

Johnson wrote:
Hamilton simply wasn’t racing Bottas, Bottas was nailed on for p5. There was no way Bottas could improve that position and that is where he finished. In fact there is no strategy available to him at any point to improve his position, he was nailed on for p5 all race since Max and Vettel both pitted on lap 19 the earliest point possible to come out in clean air and Max actually came out behind Hulk so pitted a lap too early if anything. Mercedes maximised Bottas’ result in the race and then used him to try to maximise Hamiltons.



Why wasn't Bottas racing to win? He was only a bit behind Hamilton and had tyres that had an offset to Ferrari for the rest of the race. Why couldn't he be allowed to show what he could do?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 28, 2019 5:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 1247
That is down to numerous factors, the lap Lewis pitted Vettel caught the first of 3 cars he needed to pass. Unfortunately Hamiltons tyres went that lap but he could have got 3-4 laps for “free”.

Getting a tyre offset is a good tactic but you need to be quicker.

I.e. you are 0.5 per lap quicker on equal tyres but you need to be 1 second a lap quicker to overtake on that track. If you run the same strategy you cant overtake.

You are stuck in the first stint, unable to overtake. So you get a tyre off set for the 2nd stint. This plus your cars natural speed advantage allows you to overtake the leader. This is how Hamilton won Monza 2018 against Kimi Raikkonen.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 29, 2019 12:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 8:26 pm
Posts: 144
I called it out for one. Heck, I called it out when Mercedes-Benz retained Bottas after years of mediocrity and then delivering nothing at all when challenged to dazzle them in the two races proceeding the summer break and his contract extension. Obviously, his willingness to be humiliated internationally is the reason they kept him.

_________________
Does anyone think that there has ever been a moment of frustration with his father when Max has pointed out to Jos that he was the Pierre Gasly of 1994?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 29, 2019 2:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 554
Johnson wrote:
That is down to numerous factors, the lap Lewis pitted Vettel caught the first of 3 cars he needed to pass. Unfortunately Hamiltons tyres went that lap but he could have got 3-4 laps for “free”.

Getting a tyre offset is a good tactic but you need to be quicker.

I.e. you are 0.5 per lap quicker on equal tyres but you need to be 1 second a lap quicker to overtake on that track. If you run the same strategy you cant overtake.

You are stuck in the first stint, unable to overtake. So you get a tyre off set for the 2nd stint. This plus your cars natural speed advantage allows you to overtake the leader. This is how Hamilton won Monza 2018 against Kimi Raikkonen.


More often than not we see people losing bags of time doing this though, for example Leclerc's race in China this year being left out pointlessly for ages losing time hand over fist that they won't recoup in the next stint. Bottas has had a few races like this too where he has been used to hold a leader up and as a result he falls a pitstop behind despite theoretically getting to build a huge offset by doing this.

Monza 2018 is probably the only time this has worked, and it likely wouldn't have worked if it was Hamilton vs Seb fighting for the lead, (with Seb ahead and Kimi spinning at the chicane on the opening lap instead).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 29, 2019 10:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 1247
Monza 2018, the only time it has worked? Verstappen won Austria this year doing a textbook tyre off set strategy. It was 6 races ago.

Australia 2018, although in that instance it worked because the SC came out which is a big part (if not the main part of running that strategy) because if a SC comes, you win. Silverstone 2019 too with the SC as well as Baku 2018 when Bottas got the lead from Vettel by going long and the SC coming out.

That’s just the last 2 seasons and 5 races that tactic has worked in for the race winner and just from memory.

Leclerc strategy in China was pointless I agree and that was simply just bad strategy. The only benefit for him there was if a SC came out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 29, 2019 10:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 554
Johnson wrote:
Monza 2018, the only time it has worked? Verstappen won Austria this year doing a textbook tyre off set strategy. It was 6 races ago.

Australia 2018, although in that instance it worked because the SC came out which is a big part (if not the main part of running that strategy) because if a SC comes, you win. Silverstone 2019 too with the SC as well as Baku 2018 when Bottas got the lead from Vettel by going long and the SC coming out.

That’s just the last 2 seasons and 5 races that tactic has worked in for the race winner and just from memory.

Leclerc strategy in China was pointless I agree and that was simply just bad strategy. The only benefit for him there was if a SC came out.


Oh wow, this really is crazy talk.

Australia 2018 doesn't count because of course like you say, one team took advantage of a safety procedure to win. Nor does Britain 2019 and Baku 2018 for the same reasons. This loophole really needs to be written out of the regulations but I guess deep down the powerbrokers enjoy it because it adds an element of randomness to procedings and the (false) notion of winning the race via superior 'strategy', but from a purity point of view I am ruling all of these examples out.

Austria 2019 doesn't count because (i) it required the leading team to blunder and come in way too early when they had pleny of tyre life in hand, (as opposed to them coming in at the optimal time for them), so the initial leaders contributed to a big chunk of the large offset themselves and (ii) they had to be crashed off the track in order for the win to happen, it wouldn't have happened otherwise.

So it stands at one time the offset strategy actually works out legitimately in 5+ years of having these types of tyres. It goes hand-in-hand with my belief that there isn't much to strategy with these tyres, only the fairly regular undercuts, the very rare overcut and plenty of failed offsets with only one succesful one that we can think of so far. There really isn't as much strategy flexibility as we are led to believe with the current tyre system, (if you defend against the undercut, then you are good about 98%+ of the time).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 29, 2019 11:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 1247
The main part of going long is waiting for a SC. That’s the main aspect of running that strategy, if you aren’t appreciating that I can see why you think that way. If the SC came out during laps 20-26 in Singapore Hamilton won the race. This has changed the leader at least 5 times in the last 2 seasons. It’s not just about getting a tyre off set its the possibility of a SC.

98% of the time? What are you watching?
- Bottas defended the undercut at Silverstone 2019, the SC came out and he lost the lead
- Austria 2019, Leclerc defended the undercut, the reason he pitted so early. Lost the race. You say he pitted too early, but he had to, to ironically “defend the undercut”
- Hungary 2019, Verstappen defended the undercut, Hamilton switches to 2 stops and he lost the race.

That is 3 times in the last 7 races..98% you say?

Hamilton also defended the undercut in Australia 2018 as did Vettel in Baku 2018. Bottas in China 2018, Vettel in Spain 2017 etc etc


Last edited by Johnson on Sun Sep 29, 2019 11:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 29, 2019 11:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 554
Johnson wrote:
The main part of going long is waiting for a SC. That’s the main aspect of running that strategy, if you aren’t appreciating that I can see why you think that way. If the SC came out during laps 20-26 in Singapore Hamilton won the race. This has changed the leader at least 5 times in the last 2 seasons. It’s not just about getting a tyre off set its the possibility of a SC.

98% of the time? What are you watching?
- Bottas defended the undercut at Silverstone 2019, the SC came out and he lost the lead
- Austria 2019, Leclerc defended the undercut, the reason he pitted so early. Lost the race
- Hungary 2019, Verstappen defended the undercut, Hamilton switches to 2 stops and he lost the race.



That is 3 times in the last 7 races..98% you say?


That's not related to the offset strategy working, the 98% is a rough number I plucked out for where the team's strategists really just need to defend against undercuts if they are ahead, (and attempt undercuts when behind), as they are the only 'strategy move' that we see working on a semi-regular basis. The overcut worked at Monaco 2017 when Seb jumped Kimi and maybe another time but not sure, and the offset worked in Monza 2018, (again both of these strategies worryling worked against Kimi so perhaps it requires a dozy Kimi to be involved for the strategies to work!)

Therefore two times out of five seasons of 20+ races so (2) / (100+) = less than 2% so therefore 100% - less than 2% is 98%+.

Remember Austria 2019 also doesn't count due to the crash, and Hungary 2019 doesn't count as it was a different strategy working completely, (and perhaps the only example of that type of strategy).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 29, 2019 11:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 1247
That’s not related? Genuine lol.

The point of running long is two fold.
1) If a SC comes out you win the race
2) If a SC does not come out, you get an opportunity to attack at the end.

Those are the two benefits to running long, so you want to ignore the first and more crucial aspect. That’s illogical.

Statistics do not work like that. You would need to get a percentage of times it worked as a percentage of the times it was attempted, that would give you a percentage of its success rate. Oh and also not discount races that you feel shouldn’t be there like Austria 2019.

You are also completely ignoring the fact that if you are running p2 and attempt an offset and it fails, you finish p2 (usually) like Vettel did in Russia 2017, he nearly won the race overtaking Bottas on the last lap and got a lot closer to winning than if he had just mirrored Bottas’ strategy that day. He didn’t win the race but it improved his chances of doing so, if he mirrored Bottas that race he had no chance to win. Similarly Hamilton in AD 2015, it didn’t work but his position did not change.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 29, 2019 11:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 554
Johnson wrote:
That’s not related? Genuine lol.

The point of running long is two fold.
1) If a SC comes out you win the race
2) If a SC does not come out, you get an opportunity to attack at the end.

Those are the two benefits to running long, so you want to ignore the first and more crucial aspect. That’s illogical.

Statistics do not work like that. You would need to get a percentage of times it worked as a percentage of the times it was attempted, that would give you a percentage of its success rate. Oh and also not discount races that you feel shouldn’t be there like Austria 2019.

You are also completely ignoring the fact that if you are running p2 and attempt an offset and it fails, you finish p2 (usually) like Vettel did in Russia 2017, he nearly won the race overtaking Bottas on the last lap and got a lot closer to winning than if he had just mirrored Bottas’ strategy that day. He didn’t win the race but it improved his chances of doing so, if he mirrored Bottas that race he had no chance to win. Similarly Hamilton in AD 2015, it didn’t work but his position did not change.


It's not illogical, I am saying that it is only really done for the SC opportunity (1), as the ''attack at the end'' part of the equation (2) pretty much never materialises. So while I appreciate that the SC aspect behind the strategy call exists, (despite it being impure), I would say that it is also the only real viable one as the second aspect does not occur successfully enough for it to be taken seriously. There are far more examples of a driver losing bags of time by running needlessly long and accusations of being abandoned by their team, (Leclerc in China 2019 and Bottas many times). And the reason why there are more examples of running long working out badly is because of the false economy that I alluded to earlier.

So yeah, running long is really only good for the SC aspect, and I hate that personally as it feels like cheating when it pays off.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 29, 2019 12:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 1247
Staying out waiting for a SC, lets add Russia 2019 to that list


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 30, 2019 8:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2411
lord byron wrote:
because HE is number two driver he will mover when instructed just like Felipe and all the others did when it comes to supporting a wdc fight he is nowhere and his contract will state this


When did you see his contract? How is he supporting Lewis' WDC 'fight' exactly. He's the only one who's anywhere near and he needs a miracle.


lord byron wrote:
I dont see what your beef is its been common practice for the day dot if f1


It's not MY beef, I'm just surprised there wasn't more 'outrage' over it, that's all.

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Covalent and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group