FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[Denthúl]

Whoa, what's with the name calling? And how come you've turned it around like that? This thread is about a mistake the team made, not Kovalainen. If you want to talk about whether or not Kovalainen is doing a good enough job or if he should be fired start another thread.

You think the person who (supposedly) made this mistake should be fired (if he's from McLaren). Meanwhile, Kovalainen has underperformed this season. i.e. both of these people have not been doing their job properly, so should be fired, according to your logic.

I think Kovalainen has done ok for his first season in the team,considering he has been plagued with bad luck and handicapped by team tactics/mistakes. But again, different subject different thread.

He's done better than his results would suggest but not well enough. Team tactics have not handicapped him, bad luck certainly has.

Yes,they have. Going into Q3 with fuel for several more laps than Hamilton is a big handicap.

For a shot at pole yes but had he been in Hamilton's position points wise he would be getting the less laps fuel load.

He was never allowed such an opportunity until the British Grand Prix. They could have let him have the lighter strategy in Spain, since he was only a point behind Hamilton, but they didn't. It's all well and good saying he's never done well enough to get that preference, but then he's not exactly had as many opportunities.

I honestly dont know who had what earlier on in the season. McLarenFan will have that info (McLarenFan??) I assumed they rotated early on but I may be wrong. I know Lewis and Alonso took it in turns. Its clear that for a while Heiki has been too far behind to warrent the strategy best suited to getting pole. I know he's had bad luck but his race pace has also been poor. The longer first stint should not cause his race pace to be so off.

Just the British Grand Prix, according to all the FIA records.

That seems bizarre. To only give Heikki the light fuel load at lewis' home GP. Are you sure??

Well. He could have been fuelled lighter at Monaco, but since Lewis pitted on lap five, we'll never know. Same with Canada - they queued up on the same lap because of the safety car. But seeing as Lewis took pole in Canada, one would assume that he was on a lighter load.

[7UpJordan]

Well. He could have been fuelled lighter at Monaco, but since Lewis pitted on lap five, we'll never know. Same with Canada - they queued up on the same lap because of the safety car. But seeing as Lewis took pole in Canada, one would assume that he was on a lighter load.

Possibly, but also the track was cracking up so bad in qualifying Kimi and Heikki qualified behind Alonso and Rosberg.

[Denthúl]

Well. He could have been fuelled lighter at Monaco, but since Lewis pitted on lap five, we'll never know. Same with Canada - they queued up on the same lap because of the safety car. But seeing as Lewis took pole in Canada, one would assume that he was on a lighter load.

Possibly, but also the track was cracking up so bad in qualifying Kimi and Heikki qualified behind Alonso and Rosberg.

Ah, indeed. I had forgotten about that. I'd still lean towards it, purely because it was the case at the other races, but it could be that Heikki was lighter - Lewis was supreme around most of Montréal

[McLaren Fan]

It's great to see people laying into McLaren's strategy choices without the proper information or understanding. There are advantages as well as disadvantages of running a couple of laps' extra fuel. The reason Hamilton usually runs lighter is because his tyre degradation is higher than Kovalainen's - not as bad as what it was at the start of the season, but higher nevertheless. Extra fuel means extra weight, which means Hamilton's tyres would not last until the end of the qualifying lap. Kovalainen does not have this worry. McLaren's strategy choices, therefore, suit both of their drivers' styles, strengths and weaknesses. Kovalainen may not end up on the front row of the grid, but as he is fueled for longer, he should be able to play the longer game and leap-frog other drivers in the pitlane. This is Raikkonen's preferred way of working, and he hasn't done too badly out of it, has he? Kovalainen's race pace, however, is so bad that he is unable to leap-frog anybody in the pits. It would be suicidal for McLaren to give him the lighter fuel strategy, for his mediocre speed in the race would see him fritter away his advantage. Contrary to what some ill-informed, biased clowns have said, McLaren have invested a lot of time into solving Kovalainen's problems, but to not avail. There is no conspiracy against Kovalainen. Take the last few Grands Prix. McLaren needed Kovalainen to be at the sharp end of the grid or to be able to come into play in the race itself so as to protect Hamilton (Kovalainen is out of the title race, of course) and to claw back lost ground in the constructors' title. That Kovalainen hasn't been able to do that is pretty telling.

[Rorschach]

Kovalainen's race pace, however, is so bad that he is unable to leap-frog anybody in the pits.

This is the problem as I see it. He seems to usually be off the pace whatever the fuel load he's carrying. Something that has to improve next season if he wants to delay a move back to Red Bull.

[TheOak]

It's great to see people laying into McLaren's strategy choices without the proper information or understanding. There are advantages as well as disadvantages of running a couple of laps' extra fuel. The reason Hamilton usually runs lighter is because his tyre degradation is higher than Kovalainen's - not as bad as what it was at the start of the season, but higher nevertheless. Extra fuel means extra weight, which means Hamilton's tyres would not last until the end of the qualifying lap. Kovalainen does not have this worry. McLaren's strategy choices, therefore, suit both of their drivers' styles, strengths and weaknesses. Kovalainen may not end up on the front row of the grid, but as he is fueled for longer, he should be able to play the longer game and leap-frog other drivers in the pitlane. This is Raikkonen's preferred way of working, and he hasn't done too badly out of it, has he? Kovalainen's race pace, however, is so bad that he is unable to leap-frog anybody in the pits. It would be suicidal for McLaren to give him the lighter fuel strategy, for his mediocre speed in the race would see him fritter away his advantage. Contrary to what some ill-informed, biased clowns have said, McLaren have invested a lot of time into solving Kovalainen's problems, but to not avail. There is no conspiracy against Kovalainen. Take the last few Grands Prix. McLaren needed Kovalainen to be at the sharp end of the grid or to be able to come into play in the race itself so as to protect Hamilton (Kovalainen is out of the title race, of course) and to claw back lost ground in the constructors' title. That Kovalainen hasn't been able to do that is pretty telling.

Let me get this straight, you think that with slightly more fuel for Q3 Hamilton couldn't even complete 1 quali lap cause his tyres would give out?

Oh yea, in the last few GP's Kovalainen's car/team has failed him.

[McLaren Fan]

Let me get this straight, you think that with slightly more fuel for Q3 Hamilton couldn't even complete 1 quali lap cause his tyres would give out?

Eh, yes. Why do you think the drivers change their tyres for their flying laps? Because even though the tyres are only several minutes used, they are at their optimum grip. In a qualifying situation whereby everybody is using new rubber, it's critical that your tyres last until the end of the lap. As a matter of fact, if you were watching the Grand Prix at the weekend, you would have known that drivers' tyres were beginning to give up grip in the final sector of the lap, such are the demands of the numerous constant-radius corners in Shanghai.

Oh yea, in the last few GP's Kovalainen's car/team has failed him.

So? That's part of motorsport. Kovalainen has had poor luck at times, too, but that does not excuse his poor performances. Indeed, for the most part, when his car developed technical issues, he was in no position to be on the podium never mind the race.

This is all very 1989 to me. Alain Prost and his fanatics were claiming McLaren were favouring Senna, despite the title battles going to wire and despite Senna having more than double the technical failures Prost had. It's not illegal to operate a one-two system in Formula One, so why would McLaren have to be all convert about having one. It would be far less hassle to have things out in the open!

[TheOak]

Let me get this straight, you think that with slightly more fuel for Q3 Hamilton couldn't even complete 1 quali lap cause his tyres would give out?

Eh, yes. Why do you think the drivers change their tyres for their flying laps? Because even though the tyres are only several minutes used, they are at their optimum grip. In a qualifying situation whereby everybody is using new rubber, it's critical that your tyres last until the end of the lap. As a matter of fact, if you were watching the Grand Prix at the weekend, you would have known that drivers' tyres were beginning to give up grip in the final sector of the lap, such are the demands of the numerous constant-radius corners in Shanghai.

Oh yea, in the last few GP's Kovalainen's car/team has failed him.

So? That's part of motorsport. Kovalainen has had poor luck at times, too, but that does not excuse his poor performances. Indeed, for the most part, when his car developed technical issues, he was in no position to be on the podium never mind the race.

This is all very 1989 to me. Alain Prost and his fanatics were claiming McLaren were favouring Senna, despite the title battles going to wire and despite Senna having more than double the technical failures Prost had. It's not illegal to operate a one-two system in Formula One, so why would McLaren have to be all convert about having one. It would be far less hassle to have things out in the open!

Yea, they do loose some grip for every lap they're used but come on. If Hamiltons situation with tyre degradation really was so bad that he simply cannot go to Q3 with "long first stint" fuel strategy because his quali lap would then be utter s*** is pretty far fetched. I mean he maintains blistering pace through race distance so it really can't be that bad.

[Gaz]

Let me get this straight, you think that with slightly more fuel for Q3 Hamilton couldn't even complete 1 quali lap cause his tyres would give out?

Eh, yes. Why do you think the drivers change their tyres for their flying laps? Because even though the tyres are only several minutes used, they are at their optimum grip. In a qualifying situation whereby everybody is using new rubber, it's critical that your tyres last until the end of the lap. As a matter of fact, if you were watching the Grand Prix at the weekend, you would have known that drivers' tyres were beginning to give up grip in the final sector of the lap, such are the demands of the numerous constant-radius corners in Shanghai.

Oh yea, in the last few GP's Kovalainen's car/team has failed him.

So? That's part of motorsport. Kovalainen has had poor luck at times, too, but that does not excuse his poor performances. Indeed, for the most part, when his car developed technical issues, he was in no position to be on the podium never mind the race.

This is all very 1989 to me. Alain Prost and his fanatics were claiming McLaren were favouring Senna, despite the title battles going to wire and despite Senna having more than double the technical failures Prost had. It's not illegal to operate a one-two system in Formula One, so why would McLaren have to be all convert about having one. It would be far less hassle to have things out in the open!

Yea, they do loose some grip for every lap they're used but come on. If Hamiltons situation with tyre degradation really was so bad that he simply cannot go to Q3 with "long first stint" fuel strategy because his quali lap would then be utter s*** is pretty far fetched. I mean he maintains blistering pace through race distance so it really can't be that bad.

So why do they do it then?

why don't they slightly overfill the car for the stratergy and do several laps to increase the chance of being a good one.

Rarther than go out do a lap then pit change tires and do another?

why do you think that is Oak?

Because they HAVE to if they want to get pole.

Whats your point in all this anyway Hekki has under performed as a driver but hes still on for next year and i expect we'll see an improvment.

[TheOak]

Let me get this straight, you think that with slightly more fuel for Q3 Hamilton couldn't even complete 1 quali lap cause his tyres would give out?

Eh, yes. Why do you think the drivers change their tyres for their flying laps? Because even though the tyres are only several minutes used, they are at their optimum grip. In a qualifying situation whereby everybody is using new rubber, it's critical that your tyres last until the end of the lap. As a matter of fact, if you were watching the Grand Prix at the weekend, you would have known that drivers' tyres were beginning to give up grip in the final sector of the lap, such are the demands of the numerous constant-radius corners in Shanghai.

Oh yea, in the last few GP's Kovalainen's car/team has failed him.

So? That's part of motorsport. Kovalainen has had poor luck at times, too, but that does not excuse his poor performances. Indeed, for the most part, when his car developed technical issues, he was in no position to be on the podium never mind the race.

This is all very 1989 to me. Alain Prost and his fanatics were claiming McLaren were favouring Senna, despite the title battles going to wire and despite Senna having more than double the technical failures Prost had. It's not illegal to operate a one-two system in Formula One, so why would McLaren have to be all convert about having one. It would be far less hassle to have things out in the open!

Yea, they do loose some grip for every lap they're used but come on. If Hamiltons situation with tyre degradation really was so bad that he simply cannot go to Q3 with "long first stint" fuel strategy because his quali lap would then be utter s*** is pretty far fetched. I mean he maintains blistering pace through race distance so it really can't be that bad.

So why do they do it then?

why don't they slightly overfill the car for the stratergy and do several laps to increase the chance of being a good one.

Rarther than go out do a lap then pit change tires and do another?

why do you think that is Oak?

Because they HAVE to if they want to get pole.

Whats your point in all this anyway Hekki has under performed as a driver but hes still on for next year and i expect we'll see an improvment.

Because everybody does it and I already said I know the tyres lose some grip every lap. But you seem to be thinking like they still use quali tyres that really were good for only 1 lap. This isn't the case anymore and Hamilton's tyres cannot go from pole time tyres to s*** tyres in 1 lap if he does his flying lap in Q3 with fuel for a few more laps. If that were true then he has some very serious problems with his driving.
Besides, if he went with a longer 1st stint strategy not getting the pole would be expected. But as you said, Mclaren have realy, really wanted Hamilton to be on pole cause that's the best place to start the race from.

My point(it's late here so I think this was my point)was that why give Heikki fuel for 2-6 more laps over Lewis and compromise his qualifying instead of giving him enough for just 1 more lap, so he'd start higher up the grid.

[Gaz]

Let me get this straight, you think that with slightly more fuel for Q3 Hamilton couldn't even complete 1 quali lap cause his tyres would give out?

Eh, yes. Why do you think the drivers change their tyres for their flying laps? Because even though the tyres are only several minutes used, they are at their optimum grip. In a qualifying situation whereby everybody is using new rubber, it's critical that your tyres last until the end of the lap. As a matter of fact, if you were watching the Grand Prix at the weekend, you would have known that drivers' tyres were beginning to give up grip in the final sector of the lap, such are the demands of the numerous constant-radius corners in Shanghai.

Oh yea, in the last few GP's Kovalainen's car/team has failed him.

So? That's part of motorsport. Kovalainen has had poor luck at times, too, but that does not excuse his poor performances. Indeed, for the most part, when his car developed technical issues, he was in no position to be on the podium never mind the race.

This is all very 1989 to me. Alain Prost and his fanatics were claiming McLaren were favouring Senna, despite the title battles going to wire and despite Senna having more than double the technical failures Prost had. It's not illegal to operate a one-two system in Formula One, so why would McLaren have to be all convert about having one. It would be far less hassle to have things out in the open!

Yea, they do loose some grip for every lap they're used but come on. If Hamiltons situation with tyre degradation really was so bad that he simply cannot go to Q3 with "long first stint" fuel strategy because his quali lap would then be utter s*** is pretty far fetched. I mean he maintains blistering pace through race distance so it really can't be that bad.

So why do they do it then?

why don't they slightly overfill the car for the stratergy and do several laps to increase the chance of being a good one.

Rarther than go out do a lap then pit change tires and do another?

why do you think that is Oak?

Because they HAVE to if they want to get pole.

Whats your point in all this anyway Hekki has under performed as a driver but hes still on for next year and i expect we'll see an improvment.

Because everybody does it and I already said I know the tyres lose some grip every lap. But you seem to be thinking like they still use quali tyres that really were good for only 1 lap. This isn't the case anymore and Hamilton's tyres cannot go from pole time tyres to s*** tyres in 1 lap if he does his flying lap in Q3 with fuel for a few more laps. If that were true then he has some very serious problems with his driving.
Besides, if he went with a longer 1st stint strategy not getting the pole would be expected. But as you said, Mclaren have realy, really wanted Hamilton to be on pole cause that's the best place to start the race from.

My point(it's late here so I think this was my point)was that why give Heikki fuel for 2-6 more laps over Lewis and compromise his qualifying instead of giving him enough for just 1 more lap, so he'd start higher up the grid.

Because Hekki has not got Lewis Race pace.

[racechick]

Let me get this straight, you think that with slightly more fuel for Q3 Hamilton couldn't even complete 1 quali lap cause his tyres would give out?

Eh, yes. Why do you think the drivers change their tyres for their flying laps? Because even though the tyres are only several minutes used, they are at their optimum grip. In a qualifying situation whereby everybody is using new rubber, it's critical that your tyres last until the end of the lap. As a matter of fact, if you were watching the Grand Prix at the weekend, you would have known that drivers' tyres were beginning to give up grip in the final sector of the lap, such are the demands of the numerous constant-radius corners in Shanghai.

Oh yea, in the last few GP's Kovalainen's car/team has failed him.

So? That's part of motorsport. Kovalainen has had poor luck at times, too, but that does not excuse his poor performances. Indeed, for the most part, when his car developed technical issues, he was in no position to be on the podium never mind the race.

This is all very 1989 to me. Alain Prost and his fanatics were claiming McLaren were favouring Senna, despite the title battles going to wire and despite Senna having more than double the technical failures Prost had. It's not illegal to operate a one-two system in Formula One, so why would McLaren have to be all convert about having one. It would be far less hassle to have things out in the open!

Yea, they do loose some grip for every lap they're used but come on. If Hamiltons situation with tyre degradation really was so bad that he simply cannot go to Q3 with "long first stint" fuel strategy because his quali lap would then be utter s*** is pretty far fetched. I mean he maintains blistering pace through race distance so it really can't be that bad.

So why do they do it then?

why don't they slightly overfill the car for the stratergy and do several laps to increase the chance of being a good one.

Rarther than go out do a lap then pit change tires and do another?

why do you think that is Oak?

Because they HAVE to if they want to get pole.

Whats your point in all this anyway Hekki has under performed as a driver but hes still on for next year and i expect we'll see an improvment.

Because everybody does it and I already said I know the tyres lose some grip every lap. But you seem to be thinking like they still use quali tyres that really were good for only 1 lap. This isn't the case anymore and Hamilton's tyres cannot go from pole time tyres to s*** tyres in 1 lap if he does his flying lap in Q3 with fuel for a few more laps. Besides, if he went with a longer 1st stint strategy not getting the pole would be expected. But as you said, Mclaren have realy, really wanted Hamilton to be on pole cause that's the best place to start the race from.

My point(it's late here so I think this was my point)was that why give Heikki fuel for 2-6 more laps over Lewis and compromise his qualifying instead of giving him enough for just 1 more lap, so he'd start higher up the grid.

Because one lap extra would not be enough to leap frog cars. Do you not remember Michael staying out longer and leapfrogging in the pits. Its a good strategy and can give wins but you have to be capable of blisteringly quick laps when needed. Heikki hasnt peformed .

[TheOak]

Let me get this straight, you think that with slightly more fuel for Q3 Hamilton couldn't even complete 1 quali lap cause his tyres would give out?

Eh, yes. Why do you think the drivers change their tyres for their flying laps? Because even though the tyres are only several minutes used, they are at their optimum grip. In a qualifying situation whereby everybody is using new rubber, it's critical that your tyres last until the end of the lap. As a matter of fact, if you were watching the Grand Prix at the weekend, you would have known that drivers' tyres were beginning to give up grip in the final sector of the lap, such are the demands of the numerous constant-radius corners in Shanghai.

Oh yea, in the last few GP's Kovalainen's car/team has failed him.

So? That's part of motorsport. Kovalainen has had poor luck at times, too, but that does not excuse his poor performances. Indeed, for the most part, when his car developed technical issues, he was in no position to be on the podium never mind the race.

This is all very 1989 to me. Alain Prost and his fanatics were claiming McLaren were favouring Senna, despite the title battles going to wire and despite Senna having more than double the technical failures Prost had. It's not illegal to operate a one-two system in Formula One, so why would McLaren have to be all convert about having one. It would be far less hassle to have things out in the open!

Yea, they do loose some grip for every lap they're used but come on. If Hamiltons situation with tyre degradation really was so bad that he simply cannot go to Q3 with "long first stint" fuel strategy because his quali lap would then be utter s*** is pretty far fetched. I mean he maintains blistering pace through race distance so it really can't be that bad.

So why do they do it then?

why don't they slightly overfill the car for the stratergy and do several laps to increase the chance of being a good one.

Rarther than go out do a lap then pit change tires and do another?

why do you think that is Oak?

Because they HAVE to if they want to get pole.

Whats your point in all this anyway Hekki has under performed as a driver but hes still on for next year and i expect we'll see an improvment.

Because everybody does it and I already said I know the tyres lose some grip every lap. But you seem to be thinking like they still use quali tyres that really were good for only 1 lap. This isn't the case anymore and Hamilton's tyres cannot go from pole time tyres to s*** tyres in 1 lap if he does his flying lap in Q3 with fuel for a few more laps. If that were true then he has some very serious problems with his driving.
Besides, if he went with a longer 1st stint strategy not getting the pole would be expected. But as you said, Mclaren have realy, really wanted Hamilton to be on pole cause that's the best place to start the race from.

My point(it's late here so I think this was my point)was that why give Heikki fuel for 2-6 more laps over Lewis and compromise his qualifying instead of giving him enough for just 1 more lap, so he'd start higher up the grid.

Because Hekki has not got Lewis Race pace.

If my memory serves me correctly Heikki's race pace has been just fine when he's not been stuck behind slower cars due to qualifying behind them which in turn was due to a considerably heavier fuel load. Pitting him 1 lap after Hamilton would atleast have given him the chance to hang with Hammy, Kimi and Massa for the first stint and out run the other teams.

[racechick]

Let me get this straight, you think that with slightly more fuel for Q3 Hamilton couldn't even complete 1 quali lap cause his tyres would give out?

Eh, yes. Why do you think the drivers change their tyres for their flying laps? Because even though the tyres are only several minutes used, they are at their optimum grip. In a qualifying situation whereby everybody is using new rubber, it's critical that your tyres last until the end of the lap. As a matter of fact, if you were watching the Grand Prix at the weekend, you would have known that drivers' tyres were beginning to give up grip in the final sector of the lap, such are the demands of the numerous constant-radius corners in Shanghai.

Oh yea, in the last few GP's Kovalainen's car/team has failed him.

So? That's part of motorsport. Kovalainen has had poor luck at times, too, but that does not excuse his poor performances. Indeed, for the most part, when his car developed technical issues, he was in no position to be on the podium never mind the race.

This is all very 1989 to me. Alain Prost and his fanatics were claiming McLaren were favouring Senna, despite the title battles going to wire and despite Senna having more than double the technical failures Prost had. It's not illegal to operate a one-two system in Formula One, so why would McLaren have to be all convert about having one. It would be far less hassle to have things out in the open!

Yea, they do loose some grip for every lap they're used but come on. If Hamiltons situation with tyre degradation really was so bad that he simply cannot go to Q3 with "long first stint" fuel strategy because his quali lap would then be utter s*** is pretty far fetched. I mean he maintains blistering pace through race distance so it really can't be that bad.

So why do they do it then?

why don't they slightly overfill the car for the stratergy and do several laps to increase the chance of being a good one.

Rarther than go out do a lap then pit change tires and do another?

why do you think that is Oak?

Because they HAVE to if they want to get pole.

Whats your point in all this anyway Hekki has under performed as a driver but hes still on for next year and i expect we'll see an improvment.

Because everybody does it and I already said I know the tyres lose some grip every lap. But you seem to be thinking like they still use quali tyres that really were good for only 1 lap. This isn't the case anymore and Hamilton's tyres cannot go from pole time tyres to s*** tyres in 1 lap if he does his flying lap in Q3 with fuel for a few more laps. If that were true then he has some very serious problems with his driving.
Besides, if he went with a longer 1st stint strategy not getting the pole would be expected. But as you said, Mclaren have realy, really wanted Hamilton to be on pole cause that's the best place to start the race from.

My point(it's late here so I think this was my point)was that why give Heikki fuel for 2-6 more laps over Lewis and compromise his qualifying instead of giving him enough for just 1 more lap, so he'd start higher up the grid.

Because Hekki has not got Lewis Race pace.

If my memory serves me correctly Heikki's race pace has been just fine when he's not been stuck behind slower cars due to qualifying behind them which in turn was due to a considerably heavier fuel load. Pitting him 1 lap after Hamilton would atleast have given him the chance to hang with Hammy, Kimi and Massa for the first stint and out run the other teams.

I address you to my previous answer. And he has not always been stuck behind slower cars, he has fallen back from the cars in front of him.He may be able to match Lewis's time over one quali lap sometimes -but not reliably, and he would be less likely to capitalise on the pole than Lewis would. It would not be a sound strategy at all.

[McLaren Fan]

Yea, they do loose some grip for every lap they're used but come on. If Hamiltons situation with tyre degradation really was so bad that he simply cannot go to Q3 with "long first stint" fuel strategy because his quali lap would then be utter s*** is pretty far fetched. I mean he maintains blistering pace through race distance so it really can't be that bad.

It's impossible in the real world to pit both of your cars at once, so somebody needs to get a heavier load of fuel. Because of the differences between the driving styles of Hamilton and Kovalainen, the latter is always going to have to go heavier on fuel. You also have to factor safety cars etc. into your strategy. That means that although you can bring your drivers into the pits over two laps, you're leaving yourself open to being a victim of a safety car scenario. One driver has to carry two laps extra fuel because of that. Therefore, the smallest difference you can have in fuel levels between your two cars in the real world is three laps.

The evidence suggests that Hamilton's tyre degradation is higher, for he tends to set his fastest laps earlier in a stint than one of the Ferrari drivers. You don't even have to look at data to prove this, for you can see with your own eyes the Ferrari getting closer to Hamilton towards the ends of the stints, and, earlier in the season, Hamilton's tyres looking a hell of a lot more worn that Kovalainen's tyres and the tyres on the Ferrari.

There is no way McLaren could put Kovalainen on the short-fuel strategy. Being on this means that you have to build up a lead very quickly over your rival. As Kovalainen's race pace is so poor, he would not be able to build up a suitable gap and would be passed in the pits. Kovalainen has s*** in his own nest this season, I'm afraid.