planetf1.com

F1_Ernie wrote:Hamilton saying he always wanted to go for the undercut, Mercedes need to start being more aggressive, relying on Hamiltons race pace and tyre management wont work every race, especially on a track you can't overtake.

Hamilton also wanted to use the hard tyres at Monza but was told they were too slow, these being the hard tyres that Leclerc managed to win the race with. It was Hamilton's decision to change from a 2 stop to a 1 stop strategy at Silverstone after being told the strategy wouldn't work.

I count 5 times this year were they got the strategy wrong nearly costing them 2 wins and I would say possibly costing them 3 wins the other times.

If there is a 3 way dog fight next year the Mercedes strategy team for me is an obvious weakness in an otherwise excellent operation.

pokerman wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:Hamilton saying he always wanted to go for the undercut, Mercedes need to start being more aggressive, relying on Hamiltons race pace and tyre management wont work every race, especially on a track you can't overtake.

Hamilton also wanted to use the hard tyres at Monza but was told they were too slow, these being the hard tyres that Leclerc managed to win the race with. It was Hamilton's decision to change from a 2 stop to a 1 stop strategy at Silverstone after being told the strategy wouldn't work.

I count 5 times this year were they got the strategy wrong nearly costing them 2 wins and I would say possibly costing them 3 wins the other times.

If there is a 3 way dog fight next year the Mercedes strategy team for me is an obvious weakness in an otherwise excellent operation.

I have said this before and I still believe it but what has helped Mercedes strategy team over the last couple of years is that Ferrari have made alot if not more bad strategy calls, Mercedes seem to go under the radar a little.

F1_Ernie wrote:

pokerman wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:Hamilton saying he always wanted to go for the undercut, Mercedes need to start being more aggressive, relying on Hamiltons race pace and tyre management wont work every race, especially on a track you can't overtake.

Hamilton also wanted to use the hard tyres at Monza but was told they were too slow, these being the hard tyres that Leclerc managed to win the race with. It was Hamilton's decision to change from a 2 stop to a 1 stop strategy at Silverstone after being told the strategy wouldn't work.

I count 5 times this year were they got the strategy wrong nearly costing them 2 wins and I would say possibly costing them 3 wins the other times.

If there is a 3 way dog fight next year the Mercedes strategy team for me is an obvious weakness in an otherwise excellent operation.

I have said this before and I still believe it but what has helped Mercedes strategy team over the last couple of years is that Ferrari have made alot if not more bad strategy calls, Mercedes seem to go under the radar a little.

Exactly.

Simple answer to the Stone face. Charles is a racer, he wants to win every race.

You know a drivers starting to really impress when people have to start resorting to seriously exaggerating his radio comments and post race facial expressions.

Asphalt_World wrote:You know a drivers starting to really impress when people have to start resorting to seriously exaggerating his radio comments and post race facial expressions.

Yup. Kinda funny isn't it.

The race didn't look as exciting as the previous races but we did see some good overtakes in places where DRS wasn't a big factor.

Lt. Drebin wrote:
Lol, like vettel in Canada?
So him not smiling is his emotion getting the better of him, but vettel literally storming off the track is not? Amazing

So you make no difference between events? Vettel being robbed by stewards was condemned by the greatest F1 champions and many others. This, won't be, because it is not comparable. So, for the third time, calm down, please.[/quote]

Vettel wasn't robbed in Canada. He screwed up, went off track, failed to rejoin safely and squeezed Hamilton in the process in order to keep the lead. The penalty was 1000000% deserved.

Vettel was opportunistic in Singapore - his pace didn't come anywhere near matching Leclerc's for the vast majority of the weekend and he get a lucky call with the undercut from Ferrari. Personally, I think think Ferrari should be ashamed of themselves. Charles was ahead of Vettel in the WDC, despite bad luck at 2 races (Bahrain & Austria), and despite heavy favouritism from Ferrari for most of the rest of the season. Charles is showing Vettel to be the overrated driver that I have long said he is.

pokerman wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:Hamilton saying he always wanted to go for the undercut, Mercedes need to start being more aggressive, relying on Hamiltons race pace and tyre management wont work every race, especially on a track you can't overtake.

Hamilton also wanted to use the hard tyres at Monza but was told they were too slow, these being the hard tyres that Leclerc managed to win the race with. It was Hamilton's decision to change from a 2 stop to a 1 stop strategy at Silverstone after being told the strategy wouldn't work.

I count 5 times this year were they got the strategy wrong nearly costing them 2 wins and I would say possibly costing them 3 wins the other times.

If there is a 3 way dog fight next year the Mercedes strategy team for me is an obvious weakness in an otherwise excellent operation.

Mercedes has a long habit of not listening to Hamilton when it comes to strategy. With that said, I think a lot of other teams are just as bad in this respect. They definitely should have tried the undercut (nothing to lose by doing it) and popped on mediums imho.

I do suspect that the ambient and track temperature didn't help Mercedes at all (30 degrees ambient) and they had to back off on the engine settings to preserve them. Mercedes had the slowest speed trap speeds of any Mercedes powered car (at least, from the speed traps that I saw).

dpastern wrote:

Lt. Drebin wrote:


Vettel was opportunistic in Singapore - his pace didn't come anywhere near matching Leclerc's for the vast majority of the weekend and he get a lucky call with the undercut from Ferrari. Personally, I think think Ferrari should be ashamed of themselves. Charles was ahead of Vettel in the WDC, despite bad luck at 2 races (Bahrain & Austria), and despite heavy favouritism from Ferrari for most of the rest of the season. Charles is showing Vettel to be the overrated driver that I have long said he is.

We knew this since Ricciardo was Vettel's teammate in 2014

Alienturnedhuman wrote: The chances of safety cars are always high during the pit window, especially at Singapore. First to pit is most likely to lose out to that. The undercut was the fastest strategy with no safety car, but given the high probability of one means there were risks attached. Yes, if Hamilton had pitted first he would have won, but if there had been a safety car then then leaders would have had a free stop and fresher tyres. It was a gamble whichever way you went, and it's only the wrong or right strategy after you know what unfolded.

i think it's just about doing what the situation calls for rather than gamble on unknowns. While SC is a high probability, it can also take many laps before it happens so there's no point waiting for that.

https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433 ... -with-risk

"I knew that we should have undercut," Hamilton told Sky F1 after the race.

"I kind of knew it this morning as well in the brief. I was like, 'let's just take the risk'. But they didn't.

"But we win and we lose together as a team and we all take this on our chin. It's painful for us because we could have easily won today but it just didn't work out."

Seems Hamilton talked about the undercut in the brief and race, he knew with a one stop race on a street circuit the pitstops was when the action would start. I also dont understand why Mercedes set the car up more for qualifying on a street track and when track position is king. Apparently Leclerc convinced Ferrari to set the car up more to qualifying.

F1_Ernie wrote:https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433 ... -with-risk

"I knew that we should have undercut," Hamilton told Sky F1 after the race.

"I kind of knew it this morning as well in the brief. I was like, 'let's just take the risk'. But they didn't.

"But we win and we lose together as a team and we all take this on our chin. It's painful for us because we could have easily won today but it just didn't work out."

Seems Hamilton talked about the undercut in the brief and race, he knew with a one stop race on a street circuit the pitstops was when the action would start. I also dont understand why Mercedes set the car up more for qualifying on a street track and when track position is king. Apparently Leclerc convinced Ferrari to set the car up more to qualifying.

I could have sworn I heard Lewis say that they should stay out on the team radio. Maybe that was after it was too late to cover the Ferraris.

Covalent wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433 ... -with-risk

"I knew that we should have undercut," Hamilton told Sky F1 after the race.

"I kind of knew it this morning as well in the brief. I was like, 'let's just take the risk'. But they didn't.

"But we win and we lose together as a team and we all take this on our chin. It's painful for us because we could have easily won today but it just didn't work out."

Seems Hamilton talked about the undercut in the brief and race, he knew with a one stop race on a street circuit the pitstops was when the action would start. I also dont understand why Mercedes set the car up more for qualifying on a street track and when track position is king. Apparently Leclerc convinced Ferrari to set the car up more to qualifying.

I could have sworn I heard Lewis say that they should stay out on the team radio. Maybe that was after it was too late to cover the Ferraris.

I'm pretty sure I heard Hamilton say try the undercut on the radio.

F1_Ernie wrote:

Covalent wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433 ... -with-risk

"I knew that we should have undercut," Hamilton told Sky F1 after the race.

"I kind of knew it this morning as well in the brief. I was like, 'let's just take the risk'. But they didn't.

"But we win and we lose together as a team and we all take this on our chin. It's painful for us because we could have easily won today but it just didn't work out."

Seems Hamilton talked about the undercut in the brief and race, he knew with a one stop race on a street circuit the pitstops was when the action would start. I also dont understand why Mercedes set the car up more for qualifying on a street track and when track position is king. Apparently Leclerc convinced Ferrari to set the car up more to qualifying.

I could have sworn I heard Lewis say that they should stay out on the team radio. Maybe that was after it was too late to cover the Ferraris.

I'm pretty sure I heard Hamilton say try the undercut on the radio.

He wanted to undercut yes.

Pit stops in the race:


Source - Imgur

I've been thinking about the first stint and the driving to protect the tires to make it a one stop. To avoid that in future Singapore events, could Pirelli not make the soft tire a harder compound that they won't have to look after so much.

I'm not an expert and this probably comes across as too simplistic so feel free to tell me if it won't work!

I don't quite understand why people are saying that Ferrari should have given Leclerc the undercut option first.. I just think no one realized that the undercut would be so powerful here. Sure, hindsight is 20/20, but I've been thinking about this: When is the last time someone leading THE RACE (not just leading their teammate) blinked first? It's almost always people reacting to someone slightly further down pitting first, then reacting to them. The person leading the race rarely pits first to set off the chain reaction..

Unless my memory is just that bad.. which it often is.

This needs to be seen:

https://www.formula1.com/en/video/2019/ ... apore.html

tamalon55 wrote:I don't quite understand why people are saying that Ferrari should have given Leclerc the undercut option first.. I just think no one realized that the undercut would be so powerful here. Sure, hindsight is 20/20, but I've been thinking about this: When is the last time someone leading THE RACE (not just leading their teammate) blinked first? It's almost always people reacting to someone slightly further down pitting first, then reacting to them. The person leading the race rarely pits first to set off the chain reaction..

Unless my memory is just that bad.. which it often is.

There is a lot of truth in your post. It was a reaction to others. Ferrari was basically reacting to what they saw as a likely undercut attempt by Max (due to activity in the RB pit). Leveled was too far down the track to bring him in at the time they felt a need to react, but Seb was not. Even at that point, they thought that Leclerc would still be ahead after they pitted him on the next lap. Ferrari was very surprised that the undercut amounted to 3.9 seconds, normally an undercut is worth about one second. Getting by both Lewis AND Leclerc was an unexpected by-product.

tamalon55 wrote:I don't quite understand why people are saying that Ferrari should have given Leclerc the undercut option first.. I just think no one realized that the undercut would be so powerful here. Sure, hindsight is 20/20, but I've been thinking about this: When is the last time someone leading THE RACE (not just leading their teammate) blinked first? It's almost always people reacting to someone slightly further down pitting first, then reacting to them. The person leading the race rarely pits first to set off the chain reaction..

Unless my memory is just that bad.. which it often is.

The leader pits first when its a close battle between 2 different teams for 1st and 2nd. Exactly like the scenario yesterday. The same as Canada, Vettel from P1 pitted before Hamilton as soon as he had clean air available behind. If Hamilton had pitted first in Canada and Yesterday he would have won both races - on track in the case of Canada.

Leclerc HAD to pit before Hamilton otherwise, Hamilton would have 100 percent overtaken him. Hamilton was just 0.6 behind him.

If Hamilton had pitted the lap Vettel did, like he should have, then Ferrari lost Leclerc the race. Why Mercedes didn't pit this lap is crazy, Vettel who was 2.3 seconds behind Hamilton managed to pit and come out ahead of Hulk. So Hamilton would have easily managed it.

The leader cars are waiting for a gap to emerge for them to pit into. Spa 2017 is a classic example of this. The leader only gets the luxury to wait for others to pit before him if he has at very least a 3.5-4 second lead depending on the track.

Covalent wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433 ... -with-risk

"I knew that we should have undercut," Hamilton told Sky F1 after the race.

"I kind of knew it this morning as well in the brief. I was like, 'let's just take the risk'. But they didn't.

"But we win and we lose together as a team and we all take this on our chin. It's painful for us because we could have easily won today but it just didn't work out."

Seems Hamilton talked about the undercut in the brief and race, he knew with a one stop race on a street circuit the pitstops was when the action would start. I also dont understand why Mercedes set the car up more for qualifying on a street track and when track position is king. Apparently Leclerc convinced Ferrari to set the car up more to qualifying.

I could have sworn I heard Lewis say that they should stay out on the team radio. Maybe that was after it was too late to cover the Ferraris.

I think he wanted the undercut, but after Leclerc pitted wanted to try staying out I think.

BMWSauber84 wrote:

Covalent wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433 ... -with-risk

"I knew that we should have undercut," Hamilton told Sky F1 after the race.

"I kind of knew it this morning as well in the brief. I was like, 'let's just take the risk'. But they didn't.

"But we win and we lose together as a team and we all take this on our chin. It's painful for us because we could have easily won today but it just didn't work out."

Seems Hamilton talked about the undercut in the brief and race, he knew with a one stop race on a street circuit the pitstops was when the action would start. I also dont understand why Mercedes set the car up more for qualifying on a street track and when track position is king. Apparently Leclerc convinced Ferrari to set the car up more to qualifying.

I could have sworn I heard Lewis say that they should stay out on the team radio. Maybe that was after it was too late to cover the Ferraris.

I think he wanted the undercut, but after Leclerc pitted wanted to try staying out I think.

Looking at the team radio video posted by F1.com. After being told to do a slow lap (on the notion that he got the first stop) Bottas asked wasn't it Lewis own choice to go long which the race engineer confirmed.

UnlikeUday wrote:This needs to be seen:

https://www.formula1.com/en/video/2019/ ... apore.html

Brilliant stuff, that really backs up the confusion I've had this past 24 hours when I've read a lot of people saying the circuit is rubbish and you can't pass. Of course I know it was lacking at the very front, but down the field there were loads of successful and equally exciting unsuccessful passing attempt. It was fantastic at times.

Covalent wrote:

BMWSauber84 wrote:

Covalent wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433 ... -with-risk

"I knew that we should have undercut," Hamilton told Sky F1 after the race.

"I kind of knew it this morning as well in the brief. I was like, 'let's just take the risk'. But they didn't.

"But we win and we lose together as a team and we all take this on our chin. It's painful for us because we could have easily won today but it just didn't work out."

Seems Hamilton talked about the undercut in the brief and race, he knew with a one stop race on a street circuit the pitstops was when the action would start. I also dont understand why Mercedes set the car up more for qualifying on a street track and when track position is king. Apparently Leclerc convinced Ferrari to set the car up more to qualifying.

I could have sworn I heard Lewis say that they should stay out on the team radio. Maybe that was after it was too late to cover the Ferraris.

I think he wanted the undercut, but after Leclerc pitted wanted to try staying out I think.

Looking at the team radio video posted by F1.com. After being told to do a slow lap (on the notion that he got the first stop) Bottas asked wasn't it Lewis own choice to go long which the race engineer confirmed.

Bottas said "That was his decision to go long". The team affirm it but it was Mercedes who made the strategy decision, all Hamilton said was something about the tyres not being great but can go longer. Hamilton wanted to undercut and always did, he asked for it in the race.

tamalon55 wrote:I don't quite understand why people are saying that Ferrari should have given Leclerc the undercut option first.. I just think no one realized that the undercut would be so powerful here. Sure, hindsight is 20/20, but I've been thinking about this: When is the last time someone leading THE RACE (not just leading their teammate) blinked first? It's almost always people reacting to someone slightly further down pitting first, then reacting to them. The person leading the race rarely pits first to set off the chain reaction..

Unless my memory is just that bad.. which it often is.

If the driver behind you is in undercut range then the car in front always endeavours to pit first once there is a gap in the midfield.

Covalent wrote:

BMWSauber84 wrote:

Covalent wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433 ... -with-risk

"I knew that we should have undercut," Hamilton told Sky F1 after the race.

"I kind of knew it this morning as well in the brief. I was like, 'let's just take the risk'. But they didn't.

"But we win and we lose together as a team and we all take this on our chin. It's painful for us because we could have easily won today but it just didn't work out."

Seems Hamilton talked about the undercut in the brief and race, he knew with a one stop race on a street circuit the pitstops was when the action would start. I also dont understand why Mercedes set the car up more for qualifying on a street track and when track position is king. Apparently Leclerc convinced Ferrari to set the car up more to qualifying.

I could have sworn I heard Lewis say that they should stay out on the team radio. Maybe that was after it was too late to cover the Ferraris.

I think he wanted the undercut, but after Leclerc pitted wanted to try staying out I think.

Looking at the team radio video posted by F1.com. After being told to do a slow lap (on the notion that he got the first stop) Bottas asked wasn't it Lewis own choice to go long which the race engineer confirmed.

Hamilton clearly stated that he asked for the undercut, once that window closed for him then the overcut became an option.

F1_Ernie wrote:

Covalent wrote:

BMWSauber84 wrote:

Covalent wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433 ... -with-risk

"I knew that we should have undercut," Hamilton told Sky F1 after the race.

"I kind of knew it this morning as well in the brief. I was like, 'let's just take the risk'. But they didn't.

"But we win and we lose together as a team and we all take this on our chin. It's painful for us because we could have easily won today but it just didn't work out."

Seems Hamilton talked about the undercut in the brief and race, he knew with a one stop race on a street circuit the pitstops was when the action would start. I also dont understand why Mercedes set the car up more for qualifying on a street track and when track position is king. Apparently Leclerc convinced Ferrari to set the car up more to qualifying.

I could have sworn I heard Lewis say that they should stay out on the team radio. Maybe that was after it was too late to cover the Ferraris.

I think he wanted the undercut, but after Leclerc pitted wanted to try staying out I think.

Looking at the team radio video posted by F1.com. After being told to do a slow lap (on the notion that he got the first stop) Bottas asked wasn't it Lewis own choice to go long which the race engineer confirmed.

Bottas said "That was his decision to go long". The team affirm it but it was Mercedes who made the strategy decision, all Hamilton said was something about the tyres not being great but can go longer. Hamilton wanted to undercut and always did, he asked for it in the race.

As Bottas confirmed later they have rules of engagement at the pits stops as they do not want to use them to swop the drivers (as Ferrari did). If the second car gets in front of the other one, by an undercut for example, they will swop the places back.

tamalon55 wrote:I don't quite understand why people are saying that Ferrari should have given Leclerc the undercut option first.. I just think no one realized that the undercut would be so powerful here. Sure, hindsight is 20/20, but I've been thinking about this: When is the last time someone leading THE RACE (not just leading their teammate) blinked first? It's almost always people reacting to someone slightly further down pitting first, then reacting to them. The person leading the race rarely pits first to set off the chain reaction..

Unless my memory is just that bad.. which it often is.

This is a part of game theory that is particularly interesting in Formula One.

In a standard race, the leading driver has to make a decision on whether to pit or not based on the expected lap in which the driver behind pits. The driver behind has two strategies available to him however. Either they can pit before the leading car, or they can stay out a lot longer than the car in front has in order to gain a tyre advantage in the race later on. Therefore, in order for the leading car not to fall prey to the car behind overtaking him with fresher tyres, they must wait and pit on a lap such that the difference in tyre wear is not as severe. However, they must also not wait so long that the potential for the driver in second to undercut without losing sufficient tyre wear towards the end is not there. Therefore, all things equal, a relatively similar strategy is available for both drivers, and, as long as the potential to undercut is available in a race, one would think that both drivers would have an equal chance of winning, regardless of who was leading.

Ferrari reacted to the pace that Hulkenberg was showing on relatively fresh tyres, in that they were keen to out Vettel out into clean air. The assumption was that Leclerc would pick up the pace and the undercut would be worth only 1 - 1.5 sec.
When it was clear that it didn't play out that way the crew apparently had a discussion on whether to switch the two. Whilst this went on, Vettel made short shrift of those ahead who hadn't pitted - specifically, in my view, his risky move on Gasly was what would have probably won him the race had there been no SC. As for the SC periods (restarts), Vettel handled those as well as would be expected of someone with his experience.
To say that he was gifted the win does not do him full justice. He was gifted the lead, yes, but to assume that it was simply a cruise home from there discredits him to a degree. Leclerc can feel justifiably put out but he did not do as good a job as Vettel in passing the 'non-pitters' and any attempt to manipulate the positions once the SC had bunched up the field would leave them vulnerable.

FormulaFun wrote:
What are you actually even talking about? You want him to just be fake? For the media? No thanks. I prefer the drivers to be real.

As Kimi once said, quoting Dale I believe, "2nd place is the first loser." From that point of view, it should be sour faces all around except for the guy on the top step of the podium.

Vettel was not better than Leclerc today, he just got handed the win through better strategy. You won't accept that being a vettel fan you have to cling onto every victory nowadays but reality is vettel would not have won if they putted Leclerc first

I would have to disagree. I believe Vettel was better than Leclerc. He was better on the tyres; quicker on the passing; and he put himself in a position to make the undercut work, which is not a given. Also not a given: pitting Leclerc first would have garnered him the win, since he was on the horn about his tyres shortly after the pit stop and started losing time to Vettel.

F1_Ernie wrote:

Covalent wrote:

BMWSauber84 wrote:

Covalent wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433 ... -with-risk

"I knew that we should have undercut," Hamilton told Sky F1 after the race.

"I kind of knew it this morning as well in the brief. I was like, 'let's just take the risk'. But they didn't.

"But we win and we lose together as a team and we all take this on our chin. It's painful for us because we could have easily won today but it just didn't work out."

Seems Hamilton talked about the undercut in the brief and race, he knew with a one stop race on a street circuit the pitstops was when the action would start. I also dont understand why Mercedes set the car up more for qualifying on a street track and when track position is king. Apparently Leclerc convinced Ferrari to set the car up more to qualifying.

I could have sworn I heard Lewis say that they should stay out on the team radio. Maybe that was after it was too late to cover the Ferraris.

I think he wanted the undercut, but after Leclerc pitted wanted to try staying out I think.

Looking at the team radio video posted by F1.com. After being told to do a slow lap (on the notion that he got the first stop) Bottas asked wasn't it Lewis own choice to go long which the race engineer confirmed.

Bottas said "That was his decision to go long". The team affirm it but it was Mercedes who made the strategy decision, all Hamilton said was something about the tyres not being great but can go longer. Hamilton wanted to undercut and always did, he asked for it in the race.

Ok but going long was still his decision and was what cost him a podium and what should have allowed even Bottas to get ahead.

Covalent wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:

Covalent wrote:

BMWSauber84 wrote:

Covalent wrote:a
I could have sworn I heard Lewis say that they should stay out on the team radio. Maybe that was after it was too late to cover the Ferraris.

I think he wanted the undercut, but after Leclerc pitted wanted to try staying out I think.

Looking at the team radio video posted by F1.com. After being told to do a slow lap (on the notion that he got the first stop) Bottas asked wasn't it Lewis own choice to go long which the race engineer confirmed.

Bottas said "That was his decision to go long". The team affirm it but it was Mercedes who made the strategy decision, all Hamilton said was something about the tyres not being great but can go longer. Hamilton wanted to undercut and always did, he asked for it in the race.

Ok but going long was still his decision and was what cost him a podium and what should have allowed even Bottas to get ahead.

You must be the only person who really believes this. Hamilton wanted to undercut, Mercedes wanted to go long. The podium was lost once Hamilton didn't pit the same lap as Leclerc. If you want to use the strategy to go longer and have fresher tyres you need to make the stint last as long as possible, it's not worth having just 2 or 3 lap newer tyres, Mercedes pit Bottas on lap 22 to cover the undercut from Albon, Mercedes pit Hamilton on lap 26 to make sure he would be out ahead of Albon with the help of Bottas or the strategy is *inaudible* straight away. If you want to use your radio message these was played on lap 25, Hamilton was asked to keep telling the team about the tyes and Hamilton responded to say don't pit him yet but the decision to go long had already been made so you need to max the stint as much as possible.

https://www.racefans.net/2019/09/22/mer ... -strategy/

"After the race Hamilton said they could have won it “easily” if they had pitted at that point. The team’s trackside engineering director Andrew Shovlin admitted they had squandered the chance.

“We missed an open goal today by not taking the undercut on lap 19,” said Shovlin.

“We had talked about it but didn’t really react quickly enough to how fast Charles’ tyres were dropping. We decided to call Valtteri [Bottas] to do the opposite to Verstappen on the lap that mattered.

“Obviously we should have made that call with Lewis, and made it late enough that they would not be able to react. That was our opportunity to win and it’s upsetting when you let something like that slip through your fingers.”

Mercedes brought Bottas in to protect him from the car behind. “We ended up boxing Valtteri first to avoid losing a place to Albon, which was the reason we asked him to maintain a gap, otherwise it would have forced Lewis in.”

"Having missed the opportunity to bring Hamilton in early, Mercedes were forced to leave him out later. “With Lewis we tried to stay out to maximise the tyre offset to the leading pack and see if we could get a Safety Car. We had lost the position to Vettel, but we consciously gave up the position to Verstappen to maximise this gamble.

“The sequence of Safety Cars at the end didn’t help our cause but it probably didn’t make much difference.”

F1_Ernie wrote:

Covalent wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:

Covalent wrote:

BMWSauber84 wrote:
I think he wanted the undercut, but after Leclerc pitted wanted to try staying out I think.

Looking at the team radio video posted by F1.com. After being told to do a slow lap (on the notion that he got the first stop) Bottas asked wasn't it Lewis own choice to go long which the race engineer confirmed.

Bottas said "That was his decision to go long". The team affirm it but it was Mercedes who made the strategy decision, all Hamilton said was something about the tyres not being great but can go longer. Hamilton wanted to undercut and always did, he asked for it in the race.

Ok but going long was still his decision and was what cost him a podium and what should have allowed even Bottas to get ahead.

You must be the only person who really believes this. Hamilton wanted to undercut, Mercedes wanted to go long. The podium was lost once Hamilton didn't pit the same lap as Leclerc. If you want to use the strategy to go longer and have fresher tyres you need to make the stint last as long as possible, it's not worth having just 2 or 3 lap newer tyres, Mercedes pit Bottas on lap 22 to cover the undercut from Albon, Mercedes pit Hamilton on lap 26 to make sure he would be out ahead of Albon with the help of Bottas or the strategy is *inaudible* straight away. If you want to use your radio message these was played on lap 25, Hamilton was asked to keep telling the team about the tyes and Hamilton responded to say don't pit him yet but the decision to go long had already been made so you need to max the stint as much as possible.

I meant after they missed their opportunity with the undercut it was Lewis' decision to stay out. Had they pitted after the Ferraris he'd come out ahead of Verstappen and Bottas no?

Covalent wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:

Covalent wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:

Covalent wrote: Looking at the team radio video posted by F1.com. After being told to do a slow lap (on the notion that he got the first stop) Bottas asked wasn't it Lewis own choice to go long which the race engineer confirmed.

Bottas said "That was his decision to go long". The team affirm it but it was Mercedes who made the strategy decision, all Hamilton said was something about the tyres not being great but can go longer. Hamilton wanted to undercut and always did, he asked for it in the race.

Ok but going long was still his decision and was what cost him a podium and what should have allowed even Bottas to get ahead.

You must be the only person who really believes this. Hamilton wanted to undercut, Mercedes wanted to go long. The podium was lost once Hamilton didn't pit the same lap as Leclerc. If you want to use the strategy to go longer and have fresher tyres you need to make the stint last as long as possible, it's not worth having just 2 or 3 lap newer tyres, Mercedes pit Bottas on lap 22 to cover the undercut from Albon, Mercedes pit Hamilton on lap 26 to make sure he would be out ahead of Albon with the help of Bottas or the strategy is *inaudible* straight away. If you want to use your radio message these was played on lap 25, Hamilton was asked to keep telling the team about the tyes and Hamilton responded to say don't pit him yet but the decision to go long had already been made so you need to max the stint as much as possible.

I meant after they missed their opportunity with the undercut it was Lewis' decision to stay out. Had they pitted after the Ferraris he'd come out ahead of Verstappen and Bottas no?

It was Mercedes strategy to stay out longer to have fresher tyres, Shovlin explains it all in the article above.

Just watched Vettel and Verstappen's pit stops. I would say that Leclerc was lucky that Verstappen came back on track just behind Hulkenberg. Otherwise Leclerc would have been third after his pit stop I think.

Schumacher forever#1 wrote:

tamalon55 wrote:I don't quite understand why people are saying that Ferrari should have given Leclerc the undercut option first.. I just think no one realized that the undercut would be so powerful here. Sure, hindsight is 20/20, but I've been thinking about this: When is the last time someone leading THE RACE (not just leading their teammate) blinked first? It's almost always people reacting to someone slightly further down pitting first, then reacting to them. The person leading the race rarely pits first to set off the chain reaction..

Unless my memory is just that bad.. which it often is.

This is a part of game theory that is particularly interesting in Formula One.

In a standard race, the leading driver has to make a decision on whether to pit or not based on the expected lap in which the driver behind pits. The driver behind has two strategies available to him however. Either they can pit before the leading car, or they can stay out a lot longer than the car in front has in order to gain a tyre advantage in the race later on. Therefore, in order for the leading car not to fall prey to the car behind overtaking him with fresher tyres, they must wait and pit on a lap such that the difference in tyre wear is not as severe. However, they must also not wait so long that the potential for the driver in second to undercut without losing sufficient tyre wear towards the end is not there. Therefore, all things equal, a relatively similar strategy is available for both drivers, and, as long as the potential to undercut is available in a race, one would think that both drivers would have an equal chance of winning, regardless of who was leading.

I disagree the leading driver is normally in the better position, first of all if he's quicker he can build up an undercut cushion, if not he simply pits first as soon as the pit stop window opens thus keeping track position and forcing the car behind into an overcut situation, but even that can be short lived as at some point he has to pit to stop being undercut himself.

Covalent wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:

Covalent wrote:

BMWSauber84 wrote:

Covalent wrote: I could have sworn I heard Lewis say that they should stay out on the team radio. Maybe that was after it was too late to cover the Ferraris.

I think he wanted the undercut, but after Leclerc pitted wanted to try staying out I think.

Looking at the team radio video posted by F1.com. After being told to do a slow lap (on the notion that he got the first stop) Bottas asked wasn't it Lewis own choice to go long which the race engineer confirmed.

Bottas said "That was his decision to go long". The team affirm it but it was Mercedes who made the strategy decision, all Hamilton said was something about the tyres not being great but can go longer. Hamilton wanted to undercut and always did, he asked for it in the race.

Ok but going long was still his decision and was what cost him a podium and what should have allowed even Bottas to get ahead.

What part of James Vowles owning up to having got the strategy wrong trickles down to any blame being put on Hamilton considering that Hamilton was ignored when he asked for the undercut?

Regarding the situation with Bottas and Hamilton that was a farce again played out by Vowles who having made the initial mistake then started to go into meltdown which we have seen before, the last time being in Germany.