LH/McL inter choice in Q2
Discussion
Something that only dawned on me last night, forgive me if its been discussed but if it has i've missed it:
When in Q2, so long as you don't fail to make the cut, all you can do is progress into Q3. If you're in a front running car, it's not hard to make it 'cos the top ten go through, so it's not fine-line scenario. It's only that if you're in a Red Bull or something.
So what on earth were LH & McL even thinking about by gambling on inters in qually last sunday? Yes, he might have set some banzi time if it all worked out, but he loses that time when he goes into Q3, so why on earth bother? It was worse than using a mackeral to catch a sprat, they were gambling the whole goddamn trawler! What on earth were they thinking of? It would be more understandable if they tried it and failed in Q3, in an effort to secure pole, but that wasn't the case.
It was an insane thing to try, and it totally mystifies me how a team such as Mclaren can make decisions like this.
When in Q2, so long as you don't fail to make the cut, all you can do is progress into Q3. If you're in a front running car, it's not hard to make it 'cos the top ten go through, so it's not fine-line scenario. It's only that if you're in a Red Bull or something.
So what on earth were LH & McL even thinking about by gambling on inters in qually last sunday? Yes, he might have set some banzi time if it all worked out, but he loses that time when he goes into Q3, so why on earth bother? It was worse than using a mackeral to catch a sprat, they were gambling the whole goddamn trawler! What on earth were they thinking of? It would be more understandable if they tried it and failed in Q3, in an effort to secure pole, but that wasn't the case.
It was an insane thing to try, and it totally mystifies me how a team such as Mclaren can make decisions like this.
heebeegeetee said:
Something that only dawned on me last night, forgive me if its been discussed but if it has i've missed it:
When in Q2, so long as you don't fail to make the cut, all you can do is progress into Q3. If you're in a front running car, it's not hard to make it 'cos the top ten go through, so it's not fine-line scenario. It's only that if you're in a Red Bull or something.
So what on earth were LH & McL even thinking about by gambling on inters in qually last sunday? Yes, he might have set some banzi time if it all worked out, but he loses that time when he goes into Q3, so why on earth bother? It was worse than using a mackeral to catch a sprat, they were gambling the whole goddamn trawler! What on earth were they thinking of? It would be more understandable if they tried it and failed in Q3, in an effort to secure pole, but that wasn't the case.
It was an insane thing to try, and it totally mystifies me how a team such as Mclaren can make decisions like this.
+1 When in Q2, so long as you don't fail to make the cut, all you can do is progress into Q3. If you're in a front running car, it's not hard to make it 'cos the top ten go through, so it's not fine-line scenario. It's only that if you're in a Red Bull or something.
So what on earth were LH & McL even thinking about by gambling on inters in qually last sunday? Yes, he might have set some banzi time if it all worked out, but he loses that time when he goes into Q3, so why on earth bother? It was worse than using a mackeral to catch a sprat, they were gambling the whole goddamn trawler! What on earth were they thinking of? It would be more understandable if they tried it and failed in Q3, in an effort to secure pole, but that wasn't the case.
It was an insane thing to try, and it totally mystifies me how a team such as Mclaren can make decisions like this.
I suppose they were saving their full wet tyres for a 2 pit stop strategy on race day as they knew it would be wet as well on Sunday. They only have 3 sets of full wets the entire weekend. So that they could do a 2 stop race (fastest way if you are at the front) they needed fresh tyres, when they saw the track getting better they probably thought they could do a good enough time to go through to Q3 without taking the best out of a set of full wets. With very little between the teams in pace sometimes you have to take a calculated gamble.
FourWheelDrift said:
I suppose they were saving their full wet tyres for a 2 pit stop strategy on race day as they knew it would be wet as well on Sunday. They only have 3 sets of full wets the entire weekend. So that they could do a 2 stop race (fastest way if you are at the front) they needed fresh tyres, when they saw the track getting better they probably thought they could do a good enough time to go through to Q3 without taking the best out of a set of full wets. With very little between the teams in pace sometimes you have to take a calculated gamble.
That's what I thought, and I think LH used two sets in Q1 (didn't he?) so he'd be especially keen not to use wets if inters would have been near enough the pace to get into Q3.jamieboy said:
FourWheelDrift said:
I suppose they were saving their full wet tyres for a 2 pit stop strategy on race day as they knew it would be wet as well on Sunday. They only have 3 sets of full wets the entire weekend. So that they could do a 2 stop race (fastest way if you are at the front) they needed fresh tyres, when they saw the track getting better they probably thought they could do a good enough time to go through to Q3 without taking the best out of a set of full wets. With very little between the teams in pace sometimes you have to take a calculated gamble.
That's what I thought, and I think LH used two sets in Q1 (didn't he?) so he'd be especially keen not to use wets if inters would have been near enough the pace to get into Q3.at the end of Q1, inters would have been OK, by the time Q2 started, that was no longer the case...
FourWheelDrift said:
I suppose they were saving their full wet tyres for a 2 pit stop strategy on race day as they knew it would be wet as well on Sunday. They only have 3 sets of full wets the entire weekend. So that they could do a 2 stop race (fastest way if you are at the front) they needed fresh tyres, when they saw the track getting better they probably thought they could do a good enough time to go through to Q3 without taking the best out of a set of full wets. With very little between the teams in pace sometimes you have to take a calculated gamble.
Exactly!!!The track was drying rapidly and a line forming - look at how quickly the cars were going late in Q1. It must have been getting close to intermediate tyre speed (we could check that based on the race switchover lap times). It would have been an utter master stroke had it worked because it then rained later in the session deeming any laps done late in the session as useless. Unfortunately it rained too early and the whole session was wasted. But that's sport eh?
Derek Smith in another thread said:
Whilst many, including me I have to admit, have severely criticised LH for going for inters in Q2, it is perhaps not quite the idiotic, nonsensical move that we/I thought at first.
It suddenly occurred to me that those making such decision might possibly - an outside chance I know - have more inside knowledge of F1 than me. So if I saw it as stupid, I probably didn't know the whole picture. An extreme position to take, I know, but run with it for a while.
For the whole weekend McLaren, like the other teams, had access to just 3 sets of full wets. LH had used one set by the end of Q1, leaving just the two sets for the remainder of qually and the race. Given how competitive qually 3 was likely to be, isn’t it probable that he opted to keep one set for Q3, one for the race and then try and put in a decent time on inters in Q2. He wasn’t to know that he would lose time in the weighbridge at a critical period – gosh! How unlucky, eh? – leaving him just one lap on full wets if the inters weren’t suitable.
Also, given how conservatively he was obliged to drive when on full wets at the start of the race because of his fuel load, it would have made more sense for him to run a two stop strategy but, of course, given the weather and the probability at the start that all he had was two sets of extremes for the whole race, there was no option but a one stopper. A two stopper would have been the more sensible option as those around him would probably be fully loaded and LH would have expected to move up the field much quicker than he managed in the early part of the race.
So although the call for inters in Q2 was, demonstrably, the wrong one, had he not been called into the weighbridge he probably would have made it to Q3. But had he done so he would have been left with just one new set of extremes for the race.
So, by my reckoning, the call for the inters in Q2 was, whilst wrong, worth a gamble. Had the FiA weighbridge staff not pulled him in on one of their random checks at a critical time, he could probably have made it into Q3. Or, of course, had it not rained so heavily.
I know LH and McLaren were not that bothered by my criticism of their tactics, but I’d like to apologise just in case.
It suddenly occurred to me that those making such decision might possibly - an outside chance I know - have more inside knowledge of F1 than me. So if I saw it as stupid, I probably didn't know the whole picture. An extreme position to take, I know, but run with it for a while.
For the whole weekend McLaren, like the other teams, had access to just 3 sets of full wets. LH had used one set by the end of Q1, leaving just the two sets for the remainder of qually and the race. Given how competitive qually 3 was likely to be, isn’t it probable that he opted to keep one set for Q3, one for the race and then try and put in a decent time on inters in Q2. He wasn’t to know that he would lose time in the weighbridge at a critical period – gosh! How unlucky, eh? – leaving him just one lap on full wets if the inters weren’t suitable.
Also, given how conservatively he was obliged to drive when on full wets at the start of the race because of his fuel load, it would have made more sense for him to run a two stop strategy but, of course, given the weather and the probability at the start that all he had was two sets of extremes for the whole race, there was no option but a one stopper. A two stopper would have been the more sensible option as those around him would probably be fully loaded and LH would have expected to move up the field much quicker than he managed in the early part of the race.
So although the call for inters in Q2 was, demonstrably, the wrong one, had he not been called into the weighbridge he probably would have made it to Q3. But had he done so he would have been left with just one new set of extremes for the race.
So, by my reckoning, the call for the inters in Q2 was, whilst wrong, worth a gamble. Had the FiA weighbridge staff not pulled him in on one of their random checks at a critical time, he could probably have made it into Q3. Or, of course, had it not rained so heavily.
I know LH and McLaren were not that bothered by my criticism of their tactics, but I’d like to apologise just in case.
Ah yes, good points, hadn't thought about keeping a set of full wets back. I thought at the time it was forecast to rain more, and that the dry line would only be there for a short time. I guess if it had though, and LH had got his time in, he wouldn't need to go out again in Q2.
The only thing that still bothers me though, is the fact that nobody else thought it was a good idea and few others got caught out.
Another point: The teams are spending fortunes on weather forecasting, which keeps coming up with a right load of cobblers. Couldn't the FIA look into this, and to assist the teams cut costs, issue regulation FIA spec fir cones, to be placed outside each pit garage?
The only thing that still bothers me though, is the fact that nobody else thought it was a good idea and few others got caught out.
Another point: The teams are spending fortunes on weather forecasting, which keeps coming up with a right load of cobblers. Couldn't the FIA look into this, and to assist the teams cut costs, issue regulation FIA spec fir cones, to be placed outside each pit garage?
No sorry; with respect, I don't buy that.
I've made the same mistake myself.
You invariably get caught out if you don't run with the axiom that if it is raining, the track will be wet. If it is not raining, it will be dry.
I also think that there does comes a stage in every racer's development where they are guilty of over confidence.
And predicting the weather is one of those areas where if everyone is going left, as a racer you want to go right. Because you didn’t get to where you are by not taking risks and using your superior experiences …
‘Anticipating’ is where you go wrong, and McLaren do go wrong regularly anticipating the weather (Yes, I know LH says he and his engineer decided on the inters/well, they were WRONG and don't tell me the team manager couldn't have forseen a problem, just by putting his hand out in the pit lane). I think it's a systemic problem with the team; they just need to work with common sense rather than refer to Woking to tell them what's happing or going to happen down the pit lane they are standing in.
I can recall think how stupid Michael Schumacher was time and time again when judging how fast he could go. Once you get to his stratus, he ALWAYS believed he could find another 0.5 sec, always. But some times he could not. He simply could not contemplate coming 3rd etc.
Winning championships is about being conservative; it looks as though LH believes he can out-drive/dominate every last situation. So he is going to make it tough on himself.
Imho.
I've made the same mistake myself.
You invariably get caught out if you don't run with the axiom that if it is raining, the track will be wet. If it is not raining, it will be dry.
I also think that there does comes a stage in every racer's development where they are guilty of over confidence.
And predicting the weather is one of those areas where if everyone is going left, as a racer you want to go right. Because you didn’t get to where you are by not taking risks and using your superior experiences …
‘Anticipating’ is where you go wrong, and McLaren do go wrong regularly anticipating the weather (Yes, I know LH says he and his engineer decided on the inters/well, they were WRONG and don't tell me the team manager couldn't have forseen a problem, just by putting his hand out in the pit lane). I think it's a systemic problem with the team; they just need to work with common sense rather than refer to Woking to tell them what's happing or going to happen down the pit lane they are standing in.
I can recall think how stupid Michael Schumacher was time and time again when judging how fast he could go. Once you get to his stratus, he ALWAYS believed he could find another 0.5 sec, always. But some times he could not. He simply could not contemplate coming 3rd etc.
Winning championships is about being conservative; it looks as though LH believes he can out-drive/dominate every last situation. So he is going to make it tough on himself.
Imho.
ph123 said:
No sorry; with respect, I don't buy that.
I've made the same mistake myself.
You invariably get caught out if you don't run with the axiom that if it is raining, the track will be wet. If it is not raining, it will be dry.
I also think that there does comes a stage in every racer's development where they are guilty of over confidence.
And predicting the weather is one of those areas where if everyone is going left, as a racer you want to go right. Because you didn’t get to where you are by not taking risks and using your superior experiences …
‘Anticipating’ is where you go wrong, and McLaren do go wrong regularly anticipating the weather (Yes, I know LH says he and his engineer decided on the inters/well, they were WRONG and don't tell me the team manager couldn't have forseen a problem, just by putting his hand out in the pit lane). I think it's a systemic problem with the team; they just need to work with common sense rather than refer to Woking to tell them what's happing or going to happen down the pit lane they are standing in.
I can recall think how stupid Michael Schumacher was time and time again when judging how fast he could go. Once you get to his stratus, he ALWAYS believed he could find another 0.5 sec, always. But some times he could not. He simply could not contemplate coming 3rd etc.
Winning championships is about being conservative; it looks as though LH believes he can out-drive/dominate every last situation. So he is going to make it tough on himself.
Imho.
But if LH hadn't been called into the pits on one of those 'random' checks at the most critical time for him, he would, one assumes, have gone out on full wets, been able to put a couple of laps in and get through to Q1. So the risk would not appear to be that high.I've made the same mistake myself.
You invariably get caught out if you don't run with the axiom that if it is raining, the track will be wet. If it is not raining, it will be dry.
I also think that there does comes a stage in every racer's development where they are guilty of over confidence.
And predicting the weather is one of those areas where if everyone is going left, as a racer you want to go right. Because you didn’t get to where you are by not taking risks and using your superior experiences …
‘Anticipating’ is where you go wrong, and McLaren do go wrong regularly anticipating the weather (Yes, I know LH says he and his engineer decided on the inters/well, they were WRONG and don't tell me the team manager couldn't have forseen a problem, just by putting his hand out in the pit lane). I think it's a systemic problem with the team; they just need to work with common sense rather than refer to Woking to tell them what's happing or going to happen down the pit lane they are standing in.
I can recall think how stupid Michael Schumacher was time and time again when judging how fast he could go. Once you get to his stratus, he ALWAYS believed he could find another 0.5 sec, always. But some times he could not. He simply could not contemplate coming 3rd etc.
Winning championships is about being conservative; it looks as though LH believes he can out-drive/dominate every last situation. So he is going to make it tough on himself.
Imho.
All the teams get the same weather forcast, which they pay the FiA for. I have no idea what the cost is to each individual team but I do feel safe in suggesting that they are not getting a bargain. It was not a question of whether it was raining or not as LH went out of wet weather tyres. It was a question of whether the inters would get him through to Q3.
We do not know the ins and outs of the decision to go for inters. We are not privvy to the pressures that limited or modified the choice. I would suggest that if it is so bloddy obvious, then why did the team that is second in championship (first really if it was not for the FiAsco of Spa) and has the leading driver, see it?
The answer is that they must have done but, for reasons which we are not privvy to, thought it worth the risk.
Qually in 1 and 2 is not just a case of putting in the fastest laps, it is getting through to Q3. With 15 cars competing for 10 places then the risk was felt worth taking.
Further, had the rain, which was forecast, appeared for the last few laps of the GP, LH would have probably won. They all thought it would come as they put their hands out and low and behold, it was raining. Had he done so then we would be overwhelmed by people suggesting that it was the greatest victory since the last greatest victory.
What I'm saying is that the decision was not clear cut. They opted for inters for a good reason. It didn't pay off. If he'd stayed on wets and used them for two complete qually sessions then he'd have compromised his race.
Whilst I said earlier that the decision was patently wrong, what I meant was that it didn't pay off. If, in similar circustances the team felt they would try the same thing again, then the decision is the right one in the circumstances as they appeared at the time.
I've got this sneaking suspicion that the members of the Mclaren team are not stupid. So if I feel one of their decisions is stupid then I reckon it is safe to assume I've not got a firm grasp on all the circumstances that affected the decision.
In any session, in a conservative/championship winning mindset, surely you do anticipate the worst case scenario. Getting caught out by the weighing could in part have been expected.
I agree that it is not ‘bloody obvious’ but again in the right mindset, going with the general flow maybe a wiser approach.
I thought at the time that it was a very clever thing to do because of the flexibility it allowed in attacking the race itself; but I don’t think they planned to be that clever (although KR and Kubica went the same way)
I think Derek that I am so adamant that the team itself is to blame about this, because they lost the championship last year as far as I’m concerned by staying out so long in Malaysia (where he went off final corner, failed to finish) over tyres.
I shudder when I read Whitmarsh welcoming wet weather in Singapore; I’m not confident the team isn’t capable of doing something stupid again in such conditions.
Just goes to prove it’s still a ‘sport’. You can’t ‘science/technology’ your way through every decision, eh?
I agree that it is not ‘bloody obvious’ but again in the right mindset, going with the general flow maybe a wiser approach.
I thought at the time that it was a very clever thing to do because of the flexibility it allowed in attacking the race itself; but I don’t think they planned to be that clever (although KR and Kubica went the same way)
I think Derek that I am so adamant that the team itself is to blame about this, because they lost the championship last year as far as I’m concerned by staying out so long in Malaysia (where he went off final corner, failed to finish) over tyres.
I shudder when I read Whitmarsh welcoming wet weather in Singapore; I’m not confident the team isn’t capable of doing something stupid again in such conditions.
Just goes to prove it’s still a ‘sport’. You can’t ‘science/technology’ your way through every decision, eh?
I understand the argument about holding back a set of wet tyres, but was not Hamilton in the same position as everybody else in terms of tyre availability and tyre use after the first knockout session?
Hamilton was, and is, leading the championship. His main rival is clearly Massa, so it is against Massa that he is competing. It seems clear that in wet or damp conditions, the Hamilton / McLaren package is better than Massa / Ferrari. So the best strategy has to be to go out on the same tyres as Massa, with the very likely outcome that you beat him.
The only reason I can think of that gives the argument that they were holding back a set of wet tyres any validity is Hamilton's ability to destroy a set of tyres quicker than anybody else, creating a requirement to go into race day with more and fresher sets of tyres than the competition.
Hamilton was, and is, leading the championship. His main rival is clearly Massa, so it is against Massa that he is competing. It seems clear that in wet or damp conditions, the Hamilton / McLaren package is better than Massa / Ferrari. So the best strategy has to be to go out on the same tyres as Massa, with the very likely outcome that you beat him.
The only reason I can think of that gives the argument that they were holding back a set of wet tyres any validity is Hamilton's ability to destroy a set of tyres quicker than anybody else, creating a requirement to go into race day with more and fresher sets of tyres than the competition.
ill happily agree with derek's comments, seeing as i was actually there and fully experienced the weather situation. had lewis not had the weigh bridge thing, im pretty sure he would have been comfortably quickest in Q2. it wasn't very heavy rain at the start, but it was a couple of minutes into the session.
Exige46 said:
I understand the argument about holding back a set of wet tyres, but was not Hamilton in the same position as everybody else in terms of tyre availability and tyre use after the first knockout session?
Hamilton was, and is, leading the championship. His main rival is clearly Massa, so it is against Massa that he is competing. It seems clear that in wet or damp conditions, the Hamilton / McLaren package is better than Massa / Ferrari. So the best strategy has to be to go out on the same tyres as Massa, with the very likely outcome that you beat him.
The only reason I can think of that gives the argument that they were holding back a set of wet tyres any validity is Hamilton's ability to destroy a set of tyres quicker than anybody else, creating a requirement to go into race day with more and fresher sets of tyres than the competition.
From what I recall, the first set of wets that were taken of LHs car in Q1 were pretty worn. Had he made it though to Q3, he'd have been in trouble on race day with this tyres.Hamilton was, and is, leading the championship. His main rival is clearly Massa, so it is against Massa that he is competing. It seems clear that in wet or damp conditions, the Hamilton / McLaren package is better than Massa / Ferrari. So the best strategy has to be to go out on the same tyres as Massa, with the very likely outcome that you beat him.
The only reason I can think of that gives the argument that they were holding back a set of wet tyres any validity is Hamilton's ability to destroy a set of tyres quicker than anybody else, creating a requirement to go into race day with more and fresher sets of tyres than the competition.
Had the inter gamble in Q2 come off, we'd have all been saying what a master stroke it was. Shows what a fine line there is between success and failure.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff