Yep it was like the Hammertime of old. Lovely to see.Was nice to see the old Lewis back. That medium stint taking 2.5s a lap out of the leaders was awesome.
Based on the strategy, he would have put on mediums with the Mercedes 12 laps into their tires. Based on how fast he was in the 3rd stint, I have to think he would have eaten them alive on new rubber.Did Ferrari really make the right strategy call? I'd say not. They just got extremely lucky.
They managed to lose only 13 seconds (rather than 22) on their second pit and still only won by 20 seconds.
If it works out, he wins. If it doesn't, he finishes second. In a straight fight, he'd be very hard pushed to overtake the lead Merc anyway, so there was really nothing to lose.Did Ferrari really make the right strategy call? I'd say not. They just got extremely lucky.
They managed to lose only 13 seconds (rather than 22) on their second pit and still only won by 20 seconds. That's with running in clear air or not having to attack or defend anyone trying to take the front spot that entire time while the two Mercedes were fighting the whole way.
Sometimes it's better to be lucky than good. It's pretty clear that without that perfectly-timed virtual safety car Hamilton would have come out behind Antonelli who would have slowed him enough to prevent catching Russell.
Nothing really weird about it; Alpine was the only team to lodge an appeal on the pit-lane speed limit infraction, so Gasly was the only one to get his penalty rescinded.Surprised there was no mention of the weirdness of the Monaco ruling
Great strategy race to watch though
Liam does play golf. There was a video interview last week showing him doing it. While he looks to have fun, he didn't seem very good.According to Nico Hulkenberg, his Audi's kill switch was activated by a piece of gravel, thrown up by Liam Lawson's car, while both were running in the points. If true, Lawson should probably take up golf, because he'd be nailed on to win the Masters with his ability to hit holes-in-one.
You're making some very big assumptions there. Was Lewis pushing 100% the entire last stint while he was in the lead? Almost certainly not. Once you're ~20 seconds out front, you're not particularly concerned about bein 30 or 40 seconds out front as well. Lewis' pace compared to the Mercs while pushing suggests that he would have easily been able to catch and pass if he had needed to.Did Ferrari really make the right strategy call? I'd say not. They just got extremely lucky.
They managed to lose only 13 seconds (rather than 22) on their second pit and still only won by 20 seconds. That's with running in clear air or not having to attack or defend anyone trying to take the front spot that entire time while the two Mercedes were fighting the whole way.
Sometimes it's better to be lucky than good. It's pretty clear that without that perfectly-timed virtual safety car Hamilton would have come out behind Antonelli who would have slowed him enough to prevent catching Russell.
I don't know, I thought it was nice to focus on this race rather than spend another week talking about Monaco. It's all still going on, given that multiple teams are now looking at potentially appealing the outcome of the right of review.Surprised there was no mention of the weirdness of the Monaco ruling
Great strategy race to watch though
I've worked as a crew chief for a winning endurance racing team. Strategy is critical. Racing is a game of high speed chess - casual viewers think it's just a matter of "put foot down drive fast" but it's a whole lot deeper than that. Races are won and lost by decisions made well before the checkered flag.Strategy has a way of winning F1 races when a team or driver already has an underlying pace advantage. The strategy tends to obfuscate the obvious advantage of speed until the final pit stops are taken.
Too much is made of it.
Not sure where you're going here. Hamilton has more wins than any F1 racer in history. What he had to battle from chilkdhood was shown clearly in the Abu Dhabi debacle, where rules were changed during the race. So winning based on "merit, determination" is something he done many times over.Finally, a race that was more about strategy and driving ability, rather than yo-yo passes by who presses the button first. Flat out qualifying. Pushing the cars to the limits. And putting Mercedes in their place.
Not a huge Sir Lewis fan thanks to Sky Sports, but was happy to see him get the win based on merit, determination, and just a bit of luck.
Brother needs to watch some endurance racing...Crew chiefs have nothing to do with strategy.
Tell me some of the other jobs you've done.
Racing is about going fast and leaving nothing on the table.
What jobs, pray tell, have you held in professional motorsports that would make your thoughts on this matter more insightful than theirs?Crew chiefs have nothing to do with strategy.
Tell me some of the other jobs you've done.
The crew chief is the one talking to the strategy team and juggling the cars. They actually implement the strategy so they're quite aware of it. As you noted, they've got the ability to screw it up as well. Ever had to make the call at 7 AM, 19 hours into a race, as to whether you should take the time to do a brake pad change or not? That's not a matter of just sending it, that's a matter of evaluating just how fast you're using the brakes and what you think your lap times will be if you do or don't. That decision comes after hours of measuring pad wear at every fuel stop. Or maybe one of the team cars has just rolled at dawn and it has the only good remaining transmission in it, do you call in the car with the bent shift fork that can only use 4th gear into the pits so you can do a transmission swap? The answer to the former was "yes" and it won us the race. The answer to the latter was "no, because we'd lose time overall even though we'd be able to go faster".Crew chiefs have nothing to do with strategy.
Tell me some of the other jobs you've done.
Racing is about going fast and leaving nothing on the table. Strategy, for the most part is just a game of hiding advantages that really make the result. If you're winning, you have choices; if you're losing, you're losing, no matter which call you make.
Yeah, you can lose a race by ballsing up 'strategy' really badly but that rarely happens. Usually it's just crew chiefs screwing up.
I mean I guess we could all listen to you, Some Actual Guy On the Internet, or we could listen to Alain Prost, perhaps the smartest WDC of the bunch: "I always say that my ideal is to get pole with the minimum effort, and to win the race at the slowest speed possible."Racing is about going fast and leaving nothing on the table. .
Was that too many words? Mechanic, driver, team principal were all mentioned for race types that range from 25h to a full week. And even in cases where I wasn't actually making the calls, I was part of the team that was actually implementing the strategy and often involved in discussions as to what could and couldn't be done. That means I was aware of it. And in other cases, I was solely responsible for the calls, making decisions that could have an effect days later. So yes, yawn.Yawn.
You're a mechanic. You do the work. You don't make the calls.
Same as me in my day but we didn't do pitstops in Formula Atlantic.
We really don't, because it sounds an awful lot like you've made your decision.Someone needs to explain to me why this isn't just watching traffic.