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!

[johnfm]

Don't forget the car is heavier with a 2-stop strategy. I expect the simulation calcs take the lighter fuel load into account.

[jimmystratos]

3 stop strategy = car carrying less fuel = quicker lap times.

[johnfm]

snap!

[FourWheelDrift]

jimmystratos said:

3 stop strategy = car carrying less fuel = quicker lap times.

But very marginal though. Normally only half a second per lap from memory of past discussions, without mistakes, without behind held up in traffic, without tyres wearing because of the extra fuel or faster pace.

[skinny]

i think someone maybe got their calcs wrong. rosberg on a 2 stop started behind but finished in front of kubi on a 3 (tho he did hold him up in the middle...)

if mclaren gained over 10 seconds by switching to teh 3 stop, then why wasn't that strategy chosen before the race, and why did alonso stay on a 2 stop (i think)?

Edited by skinny on Thursday 25th October 23:52

[uriel]

Isn't there also the advantage of doing fewer laps on the less optimal tyre?

And if the figures given in this thread are correct, 10 seconds lost in the pits doing 2 stops, but 0.5 seconds gained per lap, then over 70 laps wouldn't that give roughly the 20odd second advantage that Dennis quoted?

[Derek Smith]

By 'calculations' doesn't he also mean where the traffic is and what their driver is likely to hit if they stick with a two-stopper? And further, wouldn't they need to take into account the other teams' strategy? LH might have been happier with the car on a light loading. Or they may have wanted the option of bringing the car in for a reboot if the gear problem resurfaced. Going for a three-stopper lowers the chances of a significant loss of time.

If it was as simple as Bern says, just a straight calculation of time gained/lost in pit stops and lap times, we could all do it. You wouldn't need strategy just a calculator. Bern's being disingenuous. Ron made a call and it may or may not have been the right one. Until we know what he was including in the calculation we can't tell whether it was worth the risk.

[AKA8]

I thought he had to do a three stopper because his hard tyres weren't holding up too well due to McLaren's heavy tyre wear in the high temperatures. Makes sense to me.

[jon-]

AKA8 said:

I thought he had to do a three stopper because his hard tyres weren't holding up too well due to McLaren's heavy tyre wear in the high temperatures. Makes sense to me.

Ding.

If you follow the press you will see in another interview McLaren's plan was to get the softs out of the way with a short middle stint then fuel him to the end (36 laps IIRC).

However once they'd inspected the hards that came off the car after the first 26 lap stint the fronts were nearly down to the canvas. This means the hard tyres wouldn't last the planned final stint which was 10 laps longer so they had to switch strategies.

[JP_Midget]

Being on the three stop, with lighter fuel loads would have made it find it easier for Hamilton to get past people, so losing less time running behind people. If he hadn't been able to pass then a 2 or 1 stop may have become more effective, as others would eventually pit and get out his way, with the sole intention then being to make up enough time to come out in front when he finally had to make a stop.

Because Lewis was in a faster car than those he found himself racing, and has been good at overtaking, the three stop was the one to try if he was to be given a chance of doing what was needed.

[mikee boy]

I have always been confused by the 3 stop strategy employed by McLaren. I can't understand why it's used for one driver and not another within the same team, it doesn't make sense to me. 3 stops increases the risk of things going wrong, especially in the pits. I don't think Ron Dennis is/has been honest regarding their strategy (and wouldn't expect him to either, so there's a LOT of guessing going on.

Therefore, I think they were gambling on something else happening in the race (but can't think what) or that they just screwed up somehow at the second pitstop.

[AKA8]

mikee boy said:

I have always been confused by the 3 stop strategy employed by McLaren. I can't understand why it's used for one driver and not another within the same team, it doesn't make sense to me. 3 stops increases the risk of things going wrong, especially in the pits. I don't think Ron Dennis is/has been honest regarding their strategy (and wouldn't expect him to either, so there's a LOT of guessing going on.

Therefore, I think they were gambling on something else happening in the race (but can't think what) or that they just screwed up somehow at the second pitstop.

For a start, both drivers will have different rates of tyre wear even if they are driving in the same style.

Secondly, Alonso was cruising along in third and not having to be too hard on his tyres whereas Lewis was having to make them work harder.

McLaren did nothing wrong in that race. They had to bring him in three times because of the race he was driving.

[Schmalex]

Looks like I was being hard of thinking! Cheers folks

[coetzeeh]

This once again demonstrates what experience brings - FA was able to two stop and bring the car home in third place.

[jon-]

coetzeeh said:

This once again demonstrates what experience brings - FA was able to two stop and bring the car home in third place.

Alonso 22
Lewis 22
Lewis 36 (-35)
Alonso 52 (-15)
Lewis 56

71 lap race.

The longest "Mr experienced" did on a set of tyres was 29 laps in his middle stint when he was just cruising on his own. Lewis would have had to do 35 qualifying laps with a heavy car.

I'm no Lewis fanboy but it's plainly obvious to see filling him to the end on lap 36 would not have worked. The team made the mistake of underestimating tyre wear, but they didn't realise how abrasive the new surface was until they'd already short fuelled the 2nd stint to get the supersofts out of the way.