FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[racechick]

No he doesn't suggest the best strategy to win was to back Rosberg over Hamilton. Why do you say that? What he says is this...

With Hamilton leading, Vettel second and Rosberg third, the only way for Mercedes to split the strategy would have been to back Rosberg for the win and pit him under the Safety Car, leaving Hamilton out to hold up Vettel. This would have made Hamilton vulnerable, as his race strategy would be compromised, given that once the race resumed, he would have to pit long before Vettel.
The fact that they did not do this, perhaps indicates that Mercedes felt their best chance of winning in Malaysia, given the relative performance of their two drivers at this point in the season, was with Hamilton.

Conclusion
With the benefit of hindsight, there are a number of things Mercedes might have done differently which would have given Hamilton or Rosberg a better chance to win.
But with the tyre performance they had, they would have been taking a huge risk to try to beat Ferrari on a similar two stop plan. More likely they would still have pitted Hamilton under the Safety Car, but if they had saved the set of medium tyres they used in Qualifying session 1 for Hamilton to use during his second stint of the race, he might have been closer to Vettel to challenge for the lead at the end.

That's a slightly different picture to the one you chose to present. Taking quotes out of context distorts the meaning of the writer.

Here's the view from Mercedes

http://www.planetf1.com/driver/3369/399 ... all-for-us

[sagi58]

Yet another view on how the race went down:

Mike Wise wrote:">Five questions to ask after Sebastian Vettel's Malaysia GP win

Did Mercedes make the wrong call? Does Ferrari's SF15-T have the pace of Mercedes' W06? Is Sebastian Vettel 'back'?

After qualifying behind Lewis Hamilton in wet conditions on Saturday, Sebastian Vettel thought victory was possible but suggested that more rain on race day was what he and Ferrari really needed. As it was, the win came in baking hot conditions. So how did they manage it and what does it mean?

Did Mercedes make the wrong strategy call?...

...Is the Ferrari a match for the Mercedes on pace?...

...Was tyre wear the key to Ferrari's victory?...

...Are Ferrari now contenders?...

...Is Sebastian Vettel 'back'?...

[overboost]

No he doesn't suggest the best strategy to win was to back Rosberg over Hamilton. Why do you say that? What he says is this...

With Hamilton leading, Vettel second and Rosberg third, the only way for Mercedes to split the strategy would have been to back Rosberg for the win and pit him under the Safety Car, leaving Hamilton out to hold up Vettel. This would have made Hamilton vulnerable, as his race strategy would be compromised, given that once the race resumed, he would have to pit long before Vettel.
The fact that they did not do this, perhaps indicates that Mercedes felt their best chance of winning in Malaysia, given the relative performance of their two drivers at this point in the season, was with Hamilton.

Conclusion
With the benefit of hindsight, there are a number of things Mercedes might have done differently which would have given Hamilton or Rosberg a better chance to win.
But with the tyre performance they had, they would have been taking a huge risk to try to beat Ferrari on a similar two stop plan. More likely they would still have pitted Hamilton under the Safety Car, but if they had saved the set of medium tyres they used in Qualifying session 1 for Hamilton to use during his second stint of the race, he might have been closer to Vettel to challenge for the lead at the end.

That's a slightly different picture to the one you chose to present. Taking quotes out of context distorts the meaning of the writer.

Not really a different picture regarding Merc using more creative strategies to get the win.

But the additional quotes you have posted does perhaps explain why Mercedes did not opt for a more creative strategy in Malaysia. They backed Hamilton over Rosberg "given the relative performance of their two drivers at this point in the season".

However this performance difference to Rosberg wasn't apparent in the race. Perhaps the reason for Merc's troubles in Malaysia wasn't the strategy but was Hamilton's execution of the strategy? I do remember that the expectation was for Lewis to catch Vettel with about 5 laps to go which didn't happen.

[racechick]

Are you seriously suggesting that the reason Mercedes didn't win the Malaysian GP was because Hamilton was unable to execute Merecedes strategy? Really? You have'nt considered the following....
- it was the wrong strategy?
- Mercedes was overconfident about its advantage and stuck to a wrong strategy?
- in sticking to this strategy Mercedes committed to a 3 stop strategy on the harder tyres?
-in sticking to this strategy, Mercedes squandered the softer tyres in Q1?
- Mercedes again stuck to the predecided strategy and pitted both cars during an early safety car?
- by squandering the softer tyres Hamilton had nothing to attack Vettel with ?
- ferrari had made greater gains than Mercedes expected?( credit to Ferrari for this! Respect ! )
None of the above strike a chord? No? It's just that Hamilton was unable to execute Mercedes chosen srategy

[myownalias]

I think that the biggest single factor in Hamilton not being faster and able to challenge Vettel at the end of the race is that he was stuck on the harder tyre, same a Vettel without the usual Mercedes speed advantage, Rosberg was faster in the last stint because he had the preferred medium tyre. Personally I would have liked to have seen Hamilton on the softer of the two tyres at the end to set up a grandstand finish.

[stonemonkey]

Shouldn't they have called it SF1N63R then?

Edit: ive completely lost the post i was replying to, sagi saying something about SF15T being Sebs fist.

[darwin dali]

I think that the biggest single factor in Hamilton not being faster and able to challenge Vettel at the end of the race is that he was stuck on the harder tyre, same a Vettel without the usual Mercedes speed advantage, Rosberg was faster in the last stint because he had the preferred medium tyre. Personally I would have liked to have seen Hamilton on the softer of the two tyres at the end to set up a grandstand finish.

He wouldn't have made it home on the medium tires as there were still 25 or so laps to the end, so he'd have to come in again for another set of mediums, which would seem a losing strategy.

[sagi58]

Shouldn't they have called it SF1N63R then?

Edit: ive completely lost the post i was replying to, sagi saying something about SF15T being Sebs fist.

That's pretty good!!

Can't take credit for that little gem; but, this may be the post you're referring to:

...In Malaysia though Sebastian was the deserved winner. Now we know what SF15T stands for (for this race at least) - Sebastians' FIST.

p.s. I think I may have just reported it, when I clicked on the post's number??

[myownalias]

I think that the biggest single factor in Hamilton not being faster and able to challenge Vettel at the end of the race is that he was stuck on the harder tyre, same a Vettel without the usual Mercedes speed advantage, Rosberg was faster in the last stint because he had the preferred medium tyre. Personally I would have liked to have seen Hamilton on the softer of the two tyres at the end to set up a grandstand finish.

He wouldn't have made it home on the medium tires as there were still 25 or so laps to the end, so he'd have to come in again for another set of mediums, which would seem a losing strategy.

If LH had the hard tyre on for the third stint instead of the fourth, he could have stopped later!

Edit: according to F1 Fanatic, LH ran for only 18 laps... only 3 laps more than Rosberg on the medium tyre.

[overboost]

Are you seriously suggesting that the reason Mercedes didn't win the Malaysian GP was because Hamilton was unable to execute Merecedes strategy? Really? You have'nt considered the following....
- it was the wrong strategy?
- Mercedes was overconfident about its advantage and stuck to a wrong strategy?
- in sticking to this strategy Mercedes committed to a 3 stop strategy on the harder tyres?
-in sticking to this strategy, Mercedes squandered the softer tyres in Q1?
- Mercedes again stuck to the predecided strategy and pitted both cars during an early safety car?
- by squandering the softer tyres Hamilton had nothing to attack Vettel with ?
- ferrari had made greater gains than Mercedes expected?( credit to Ferrari for this! Respect ! )
None of the above strike a chord? No? It's just that Hamilton was unable to execute Mercedes chosen srategy

RC imo Hamilton didn't have the best of weekends, the lack of practice wouldn't have helped. In JA's comment you had posted, his opinion was that Merc had pinned their hopes on Hamilton's superior performance.

However this performance difference to Rosberg wasn't apparent in the race.

In fact it was Rosberg that pulled back 5 secs on Hamilton during the race from when he cleared traffic following the safety car period. So not the best race for Hamilton, he didn't have the expected edge which might have made the difference. If he had a just a .2s edge as compared to Rosberg he catches Vettel at the end.

Of your points I would say that definitely Mercedes was overconfident and that Ferrari had made gains. A three stop strategy though was all they had to work with.

[racechick]

Are you seriously suggesting that the reason Mercedes didn't win the Malaysian GP was because Hamilton was unable to execute Merecedes strategy? Really? You have'nt considered the following....
- it was the wrong strategy?
- Mercedes was overconfident about its advantage and stuck to a wrong strategy?
- in sticking to this strategy Mercedes committed to a 3 stop strategy on the harder tyres?
-in sticking to this strategy, Mercedes squandered the softer tyres in Q1?
- Mercedes again stuck to the predecided strategy and pitted both cars during an early safety car?
- by squandering the softer tyres Hamilton had nothing to attack Vettel with ?
- ferrari had made greater gains than Mercedes expected?( credit to Ferrari for this! Respect ! )
None of the above strike a chord? No? It's just that Hamilton was unable to execute Mercedes chosen srategy

RC imo Hamilton didn't have the best of weekends, the lack of practice wouldn't have helped. In JA's comment you had posted, his opinion was that Merc had pinned their hopes on Hamilton's superior performance.

However this performance difference to Rosberg wasn't apparent in the race.

In fact it was Rosberg that pulled back 5 secs on Hamilton during the race from when he cleared traffic following the safety car period. So not the best race for Hamilton, he didn't have the expected edge which might have made the difference. If he had a just a .2s edge as compared to Rosberg he catches Vettel at the end.

Of your points I would say that definitely Mercedes was overconfident and that Ferrari had made gains. A three stop strategy though was all they had to work with.

A three stop strategy was what they chose to work with. It wasn't their noy choice. They didn't have to compromise their choice by wasting the faster tyre in q1. That was their first big mistake.

And had they not pitted on lap four behind the safety car , Hamilton would have retained track position, had more use out of his first set of tyres, not lost time in traffic and maybe forced Vettel to try an overtake on track. It may not have been enough to win given Ferraris better pace but it would have put Hamilton much closer at the end, and if hed then had the correct tyres on he could maybe have fought for it. That was their second big mistake. There were other small errors form mercedes too.
Mercedes made a lot of errors and they underestimated Ferrari. That was what lost the race. Not Hamilton being unable to execute a strategy.

[Ferrari man 009]

I see a lot of discussion about why Mercedes lost the race, but actually they didnt lose the race - Ferrari won it. Ferrari were almost as fast, could do 1 less stop and when Vettel came up behind the Merc's he was able to pass immediately. Ferrari won the race and deserve far more credit from some than they have got. Even Mercedes bosses admitted there was nothing they could do - Ferrari were simply faster on the day on that specific track in the conditions!

[overboost]

A three stop strategy was what they chose to work with. It wasn't their noy choice. They didn't have to compromise their choice by wasting the faster tyre in q1. That was their first big mistake.

And had they not pitted on lap four behind the safety car , Hamilton would have retained track position, had more use out of his first set of tyres, not lost time in traffic and maybe forced Vettel to try an overtake on track. It may not have been enough to win given Ferraris better pace but it would have put Hamilton much closer at the end, and if hed then had the correct tyres on he could maybe have fought for it. That was their second big mistake. There were other small errors form mercedes too.
Mercedes made a lot of errors and they underestimated Ferrari. That was what lost the race. Not Hamilton being unable to execute a strategy.

I see that you are focused on speculating about what Mercedes could have done better etc, which are good points btw, but are not interested in acknowledging Hamilton's part of the Malaysia loss which is documented.

I will leave the race history graph and tire usage chart for your info. http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2015/03/a ... -mercedes/. Just scroll down.

Hamilton race pace is an issue throughout the race but can most clearly be seen in the third stint where his teammate on the hard compound was lapping at a similar pace to Hamilton who was on the faster medium compound. The struggling Rosberg was able to pull almost .7s a lap out of Hamilton when the situation was reversed in the final stint. Rosberg had better race pace in Malaysia.

Hamilton of course being the faster driver should have been able to even do much better than Rosberg's .7s. So there was a significant amount of time lost on Hamilton's part due to his slow race pace which would have thwarted any attack on Vettel imo.

[sagi58]

I see a lot of discussion about why Mercedes lost the race, but actually they didnt lose the race - Ferrari won it. Ferrari were almost as fast, could do 1 less stop and when Vettel came up behind the Merc's he was able to pass immediately. Ferrari won the race and deserve far more credit from some than they have got. Even Mercedes bosses admitted there was nothing they could do - Ferrari were simply faster on the day on that specific track in the conditions!

It looks like we're not the only ones who believe that:

 wrote:">What can we learn from F1 practice about how Chinese GP will turn out?

The keys to Ferrari’s victory in Malaysia were there for all to see after Free Practice 2 in Sepang. So is the same true for this weekend’s Chinese Grand Prix, based on what we saw today?

There were plenty of laps to give us quite a good idea of how qualifying and the race might turn out.

The first thing to note is that Mercedes were very careful on their tyre preparation today, having suffered a painful setback in Malaysia when Lewis Hamilton got limited running due to technical issues and wasn’t able to do enough homework on the two tyre compounds.

Today the Mercedes drivers did a back-to-back comparison, similar to what Ferrari has been doing on Friday afternoons all season, with one driver working on softs and the other on mediums in parallel.

In terms of qualifying pace, it looks like Mercedes has a margin once again. The margin today was 4/10ths, but the exact level is hard to judge because there was less difference between Mercedes’ single lap pace and its high fuel lap times than Ferrari.

Against that Raikkonen did his fastest time on the first lap of a four-lap run, whereas Hamilton did an out-lap, hot lap and in-lap only. But it’s likely to be at least half a second again, once Mercedes turn up all the clever things on the engine,as they tend to do in Q3.

So if Rosberg gets it together it will be difficult for Ferrari or Red Bull, which looked more competitive today, to split the Mercedes on the front row.

However on the long runs, once again we can see a clear pattern of Ferrari suffering less tyre degradation than Mercedes and this could hold a key to the race. Vettel was in charge of working on the softs today and saw degradation of 0.16s per lap on them.

In contrast Lewis Hamilton had degradation of almost 0.2secs per lap on the softs. But Hamilton’s lap times were faster than Vettel’s again by around half a second per lap. But they would need to be if Mercedes were to need to do one stop more than Ferrari. A stop in Shanghai takes around 23 seconds to make.

On the medium tyres, Raikkonen and Rosberg were quite closely matched; again the Ferrari edged it: 0.1s per lap of degradation against 0.11s per lap for Rosberg.

There is a lot of talk about this being a default two stopper for most people, but from the look of how far Hamilton managed to go on a set of Softs before they fell apart (13 laps), there is a small risk that for a 56 lap race, two stops could be marginal and that a three-stop Soft/Soft/Medium/Medium strategy could be on the cards. The expectation will be that the stable conditions will lead to the track rubbering in and this will make it kinder to the tyres and reduce the number of stops.

Shanghai is a track where you can focus on your fastest race strategy, because passing cars is not overly difficult thanks to the long straight, so working through traffic is not as big a problem as at other circuits.

However if Mercedes feel that the fastest strategy is to consider three stops, then Qualifying tyre strategy is going to be important, as in Malaysia. Here they will want to try to save a new set of Soft tyres if possible and the way to do that is to run mediums in Q1. But this could be risky if a Mclaren or Force India springs a surprise and puts a really strong lap together, which may force the Mercedes to use up a set of softs to get through to Q2.