I'm confused...

[Schmalex]

Reading this article from Eurosport (http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/25102007/58/bernie-ron-cost-hamilton-title.html), the final comment from Ron Dennis piqued my interest..

Ron Dennis said:

"We did our calculations and simulations and worked out that he would have been about 22 seconds further back if he had been on two stops."

This got me thinking. Working on really rough timings, say the total time per pit stop (from leaving the track to re-joining the track) is 25 seconds for a 2 stop strategy and 20 seconds for a 3 stop strategy.

Total time lost for 2 stop strategy = 50 seconds
Total time lost for 3 stop strategy = 60 seconds

Notwithstanding traffic, I just can't see how 3 stops would have saved them 22 seconds over the 2 stop strategy Hamilton was initially running, unless I am being really hard of thinking here.

Additionally, in pretty much all other GP's, whenever a car starts towards the middle / back of the pack, the team absolutely brim the tank so as to go as far as posible into the race before having to stop, preferably only once.

This kind of re-inforces my belief that McMerc's extremely weird strategies & tactics in the last few races compltely blew their chances of winning the Drivers title.

Or maybe I'm just being thick!

[Schmalex]

Looks like I was being hard of thinking! Cheers folks