Where does the extra stop come from?

[Glen]

Ralf won Sepang last year on a one stop, and it is comfortably a one-stop race... in other words the two stop is theoretically considerably slower than the one. So why do people seem to think that one-shot/no refuel qualifying introduces the possibility of two stops? Surely the quicker way is still the quicker way?

Anybody throw a little light on this? I can't understand it - surely they aren't about to compromise their race strategy just for the PR value of being further up the starting grid?

[Red]

Not quite sure of that Glen. Remember, last year you could qualify and AFTER that chose the strategy. For example. Imagine several cars, which are slower than Williams, but qualify ahead of them for a reason or another (not by much, say 0.01s; but a place on the grid). Being on 2 stoppers they would eventually pit before Ralf, but for 15-20 laps they can really slow him down. A Williams car, altough faster, cannot easily pass a car that has much lower fuel load. In that time, the Macs or Ferrari who started light (and qualified ahead) could get 1 extra second per lap or even more, and that could get them ahead after the second stop.

[ASCII Man]

I think that they (Fer/Wil/Mac) won't be starting light just for the sake of a good spot on the grid. We saw that in Melbourne when all the topteams looked like qualifying on heavier fuel loads than the rest since the times dropped considerably compared to 2002, hence the great qualifying results of Frentzen & Co IMHO.

The top three don't need to start light IMO, they can carve right trough the grid in a matter of 3-4-5 laps. (with the exception of Ralf ofcourse)

[Glen]

Originally posted by Red
Imagine several cars, which are slower than Williams, but qualify ahead of them for a reason or another (not by much, say 0.01s; but a place on the grid). Being on 2 stoppers they would eventually pit before Ralf, but for 15-20 laps they can really slow him down.

How can that happen? They can only slow him down by being appreciably slower, in which case he ought to out-qualify them.

This is just down to driver effort and error on their one qualifying lap - factors which were there to start with, although they are now heightened by the ability to to do only one lap. Other than that a quicker car is still a quicker car - if its quick enough to qualify ahead of you how is it going to hold you up? In this sense the new way of things is simpler to work out - before you could get pole and then start really heavy... you can't do that now.

Saturday qualifying is just the first lap of the race now.

[Adam43]

Originally posted by Red
For example. Imagine several cars, which are slower than Williams, but qualify ahead of them for a reason or another (not by much, say 0.01s; but a place on the grid). Being on 2 stoppers they would eventually pit before Ralf, but for 15-20 laps they can really slow him down.

But these several cars qualified ahead because of their lighter fuel load, they will also have a lighter fuel load for those 15-20 laps and continue to be quicker than the Williams. Eventually they will stop and fall behind the Williams. They will have one stop left, but they are now behind the Williams.

[Bononi]

Agreed. They most likely will make similar strategies and it will be a one-stop.

[Red]

It's not only 4-5 laps Rij. We're talking about 15-20. Lets take Melbourne. Schumacher got pole with 1:27.173 (2 stops) Coulthard got an 1:29.105, that's almost 2 seconds. Granted that he did a small mistake, let's subtract 0.5 seconds from the gap. Heck, make it 1 full second. Now, it is reasonable to suspect that Schumacher who starts on pole will keep similar pace, while Coulthard in 11ths will get a bit slower (he's in traffic). In 20 laps that does make a difference.

Another reason to qualify in front and not rows 3-4 is that front row (and last) usually gets away from a possible pile-up, but when in mid-grid (but not so far back) you don't have much options to avoid. Especially when your surrounded by youngsters driving light cars...

PS: Adam, I'm not talking about those cars immediately ahead of them. (BAR, Saubers, whatever) I'm saying that those cars, altough nothing to gain, will help a potential top car who got pole using a light strategy. Indeed the minnows will eventually fall behing, but they could blow the 1 stop strategies..

[Adam43]

Snap Glen!

If the choice between one or two stops was marginal I might be tempted to go for 2 now, but other than that I feel quickest is still quickest.

If anything the new fuel rules allow everyone to play out their strategy with less interference. Less chance of being on a different startegy and suffering because of the slower people around you - forcing you to perhaps attempt an overtaking manoever.

The grid can be messed up, but in reality it is only if someone underperforms in qualifying (taking into account their fuel load).

[Red]

I'm not sure if I was clear with my post. A BAR on 2 stoppers might not be necesarily faster (generally speaking) than a Williams on 1. But it still could get a higher position on grid. By a marginal gap, say 0.1 or whatever. Very possible. That does not mean that in the first stint they will increase the gap. On average over 15-20 laps, the Williams will be faster, but not that faster to succesfully make a pass.

It does not imply mistakes in that single qualifying lap. Over 1 lap a lighter car might be faster, but over 15-20 nope.

[Adam43]

Originally posted by Red
PS: Adam, I'm not talking about those cars immediately ahead of them. (BAR, Saubers, whatever) I'm saying that those cars, altough nothing to gain, will help a potential top car who got pole using a light strategy. Indeed the minnows will eventually fall behing, but they could blow the 1 stop strategies..

I'm not sure what you mean.

A BAR, Saubers, whatever on a 2 stop that got ahead of a 1 stop Williams by being light won't ruin Williams' 1 stop. Because they will be quicker than the Williams until they stop.

I agree with the point about the danger of qualifying in teh pack. That is why I reckon a marginal choice should towards the light load in qualifying. Or indeed maybe making your first stint shorter.

[Red]

Originally posted by AdamAshmore
A BAR, Saubers, whatever on a 2 stop that got ahead of a 1 stop Williams by being light won't ruin Williams' 1 stop. Because they will be quicker than the Williams until they stop.

Yes, the BAR or SAuber might ruin Williams 1 stopper. (I guess we posted in the same time... )

[Adam43]

Ah you mean the consistency. I get it. Thanks.

It could work the other way round. It is equally possible that the BAR (let's stick with this example!) on 2 stops may be more consistent than the Williams on 1 stop. Perhaps because it doesn't have to look after it's tyres as much.

I suppose you have to consider a BAR with 2stops worth of fuel compared to a Williams with 1stop worht of fuel - Begining of the stint. AND also a BAR almost empty and a Williams with the difference between 1 and 2 stops left (i.e just before the stops). At he end of the stint the same fuel difference is a bigger percentage of the cars weight so could mean that the BAR is even more (relatively) quicker at this point.

All this is very difficult to see in a race because of the general random changes that occur.

Btu I still think that it would have to be close between a 1 or 2 stop to make me go 2 (assuming 1 is theoretically better!).

[Red]

Adam, I'm not talking about whether BAR will finish ahead of Williams (it won't Sorry Honda/Jacques/Button boys ) I'm saying that for those momentarily shots at glory, BAR will involuntarily help Ferrari/Mac who might use the 2 stoppers...

PS: Anyway. If we can exclude the other teams, that is if we could make 2 separate leagues, not much will change and I would agree. The faster strategy will stay faster no matter what. But as Melbourne proved, the gap between them is not that much, so we can't. So actually Max' rules only boosted Bayer's sales for aspirin, as all of team's managers will triple their dose. Provided lot's of action (mid grid) for a couple of laps and increased the confusion until 60-75% of the race was done... But other than that, Max is still far away from the "F1 savior" nomination.. He'll still announced for the thursday Press Conference. Wonder if he shows up..

[Adam43]

I am saying that too. No way would the BAR finish ahead. I'm saying that the BAR would not hinder the progress of the Williams' strategy. It would be quicker than the Williams until it stops, so the Williams would be able to play out it's strategy as if the BAR wasn't there.

Of course, if the Williams was going to find some more pace to be able to overtake the Ferrari ahead of them it also has to get past a couple of others if it wants to try and overtake in the first 15-20 laps.

[Red]

No. I disagree. They won't be much quicker (if at all) Perhaps a Williams on 1 stopper would be 1 second slower than a Ferrari on 2. With no cars between them But with a BAR, they'd be 1.5 seconds slower.

PS: If this Williams, on 1 stopper, can overtake the Ferrari on 2, then roll on 2004 Flying Pigs World Championship...

What the heck am I talking! Montoya was 1 full second slower than Ferrari, using the same strategy (2 stoppers at Melbourne)

[Adam43]

Why would the 2 stop BAR be slower than the 1 stop Williams by 0.5s? It out qualified it with the same fuel/set-up.

[Red]

Yes, by 1/1000s. Shi.. bad things happen all the time... (montoya qualified a mere 0.17 ahead of Panis, on same strategy)

[BootsOntheSide]

I think the ebst strategy in Malaysia might be to still make one stop, but make it about 1/3 of the way through the race, as late as the fuel tanks will allow. This will allow you to qualify as light as the two stoppers, the field should be spread out after 1/3 of the race (weather / long safety car period permitting (if the safety car comes out for any length, after more than a few laps, this trategy could be modified with a quick stop under yellow)) and should, as far as I can see, be the best option for the top teams.

[Adam43]

Well that is the Williams' drivers fault for not going that 0.5s quicker then. He messed up and it out of position - the true joker card played by single attempt qualifying.

[Red]

In that particular case (malaysia) 1 bet is NOIT the best, since most probably the munsoon will do an appearence. (Haven't checked the prognosys though, but we're talking about tropical weather)

[Red]

Montoya didn't mess it up. Ralf, David yes. And perhaps Panis or Villeneuve could improve a tad bit too... And lety's not forget the 3 stoppers Saubers .....

[Adam43]

Originally posted by Red
In that particular case (malaysia) 1 bet is NOIT the best, since most probably the munsoon will do an appearence. (Haven't checked the prognosys though, but we're talking about tropical weather)

Well yes, quite possibly. With rain they have all got to be a bit flexible.

[Red]

Yeah. And McLaren, having a more fuel-efficient engine will have a slight advantage. Also Schumacher (Sr). According to Ross Brawn he can keep similar pace with others, still having 20-25% more fuel on board (which he usually has)

[Bononi]

...and anyone can make McLaren's Melbourne stategy too. They got Kimi to pit in in the formation lap, and refueled the car...

[Red]

The Merlbourne case won't repeat in the next 5 championships. A wet track that dries in first 2-4 laps. And even if it will, anyone learned that lesson. (The hard way)