Massa's last pit

F1Pete · 1 Oct 2007, 14:42 (Ref:2027945)

Does anyone know if Massa was required to stop near the end of the race or was it a ploy to allow Kimi to move up a place?

mjstallard · 1 Oct 2007, 14:48 (Ref:2027955)

I've not read anything about this anywhere, but I remember at the time it felt rather fishy. Can't blame them if they needed to let Kimi through and wanted to avoid the rather annoying team orders rule (it was probably a bit too wet to risk an orchestrated overtaking manoeuvre), but it's a shame if it harmed Massa's race.

But at least it let us see the Massa/Kubica spectacle!

**Born Racer** · 1 Oct 2007, 14:55 (Ref:2027965)

I would've thought they would have had Massa let Raikkonen through on track. I know team orders are banned, but people seem to have been getting away with the "Felipe, Kimi is faster than you" approach (which is a nonsense- either they are banned or not.)

It's always vaguely possible that they felt it would be dangerous for Massa to let him past due to finding the best position on track whilst coping with the spray. This would be rendered easier by giving an instruction as to where on the circuit to do it, but of course they can't do that, and perhaps that's not so easy to cover up.

Anyway, I think that is unlikely and right now I suspect Massa had to stop, but it's not something I've looked into, and I don't actually know, so I've not answered your specific question!

Ralf's Girl · 1 Oct 2007, 14:56 (Ref:2027968)

I thought it seemed rather handy that he just happened to need a pit stop at the time that Raikkonen just happened to need to get past him. That said, though, there would probably have been easier ways of getting him past - in those conditions, he could easily have, say, accidentally run wide...

**Adam43** · 1 Oct 2007, 15:07 (Ref:2027978)

He could have just let him by.

It was a genuine pitstop. He needed fuel. It is a little daft to just go for a splash and dash, but Ferrari probably thought the race might finish early and that they may get an advantage from this. As with a few things they did during that race, they were wrong.

MonkeyDeath · 1 Oct 2007, 15:09 (Ref:2027980)

..........but its not passed Ferrari to pull a stunt like this, they dont need both drivers in the (high) points anymore due to McLaren beeing booted out of the constructers, and Kimi is the closest placed Ferrari driver to Hamilton in points, so it makes sence ot thry and maximise the amount of points he can win, plus with Alonso going out of the race it was a double bonus as he has clawed to with in 5 points of second.

Down F0rce · 1 Oct 2007, 15:16 (Ref:2027987)

It seemed a bit fishy, but I think it could just be Ross Brawn effect. If they sent the drivers out on the wrong tyres at the start of the race then perhaps they can mess up the strategy that necessitated a splash and dash.

**Adam43** · 1 Oct 2007, 15:28 (Ref:2027997)

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonkeyDeath

..........but its not passed Ferrari to pull a stunt like this, they dont need both drivers in the (high) points anymore due to McLaren beeing booted out of the constructers, and Kimi is the closest placed Ferrari driver to Hamilton in points, so it makes sence ot thry and maximise the amount of points he can win, plus with Alonso going out of the race it was a double bonus as he has clawed to with in 5 points of second.

It is "not passed Ferrari" to just swap them positions either! So why invent a full pitstop and lose places in a Grand Prix?

Massa's previous stp was on lap 20. He then stopped on lap 58. With about 6 SC laps. That is a stint of 38 laps, probably saving only 3 or so under SC. To get to the end he'd have had to do another 8 laps, which would have been a stint of 46 laps.
I've not looked hard, but I don't think anyone else went as long between stops(?).

I think this suggests he'd have probably needed fuel, although I concede that I don't know the Ferrari's fuel tank size, or consumption. However it hints that he needed to stop.

Kirk · 1 Oct 2007, 16:14 (Ref:2028031)

The Speed commentators were sarcastically saying something to the effect that Massa must have felt a … ahem … vibration. Or is, he has been told he feels a vibration. I questioned that as well Adam but in retrospect, I suppose Ferrari, (knowing that Massa was out of the WDC anyway and the constructors tile was also theirs) were being ultra conservative and did not want to risk a blatant on-track team order.

Its ridiculous if that is the case. I do understand why the FIA does not want artificial results but this conflicts with F1 being a team sport…. as we have discussed many times.

**Adam43** · 1 Oct 2007, 16:21 (Ref:2028043)

Ferrari have never had any problem with blatant on-track team orders, why now?

What retrospect gives us more information that says the cynical view is the right one?
Did Massa have a fuel tank big enough to do 46 laps? That is what is needed to get him to the end. 46 laps is 69% of the race distance. Can an F1 car do this, even in the wet?

Kirk · 1 Oct 2007, 16:25 (Ref:2028049)

Well, I did say " I suppose" .

As I recall, the last time Ferrari executed such a move, they were chastised mercilessly.

And yes it is easy to be cynical, it is F1.

**Adam43** · 1 Oct 2007, 16:28 (Ref:2028052)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kirk

And yes it is easy to be cynical, it is F1.

Suppose so.

Kirk · 1 Oct 2007, 16:35 (Ref:2028059)

One thing is certain in my mind. The only way for Massa to gain a podium was for him to overtake Heikka. Any way you shake it, it was a given that Kimi was destined to be ahead of Massa at the finish. As it should be given the WDC standings at this stage.

**Adam43** · 1 Oct 2007, 16:42 (Ref:2028066)

So Massa would have had enough fuel to last the distance if he had overtaken Kovalainen?

broadrun96 · 1 Oct 2007, 16:43 (Ref:2028068)

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

Ferrari have never had any problem with blatant on-track team orders, why now?

What retrospect gives us more information that says the cynical view is the right one?
Did Massa have a fuel tank big enough to do 46 laps? That is what is needed to get him to the end. 46 laps is 69% of the race distance. Can an F1 car do this, even in the wet?

If they could do the race on one stop as Matchett was saying many teams would do in the dry, why could't they do almost the whole race on one tank, if it was topped off. To say that Massa was running low on fuel and pulled off the to top off is a blatant disregard for what then happened in pitlane. If he really only needed fuel then why the tire stop too? Supposedly those tires could run half a season in the rain before any degradation, so changing them would be necessary because...? Me thinks there something fishy in their computers, both simulation (fuel needs) and their email. The FIA needs to state now what the next team pulling the we didn't get the email stunt (be it the truth or not) would get as punishment.

**Adam43** · 1 Oct 2007, 16:51 (Ref:2028078)

Quote:

Originally Posted by broadrun96

If they could do the race on one stop as Matchett was saying many teams would do in the dry, why could't they do almost the whole race on one tank, if it was topped off.

F1 fuel tanks are too small and generally do not allow teams to run anywhere near two thirds of a race. It seems likely that Ferrari would need fuel before the end, even with the top up. The top up was probably incase the race was stopped early.

Quote:

To say that Massa was running low on fuel and pulled off the to top off is a blatant disregard for what then happened in pitlane. If he really only needed fuel then why the tire stop too? Supposedly those tires could run half a season in the rain before any degradation, so changing them would be necessary because...?

I thought it odd to change the tyres, but what are you actually saying here. What regard do you have for what happened in the pitlane? What does it tell us? There was no need to lengthen the stop on purpose because Kimi was only just behind. This line of reasoning does not support any they did it on purpose theory. The stop was a rubbish one too, but what theory does that support?

Quote:

Me thinks there something fishy in their computers, both simulation (fuel needs) and their email. The FIA needs to state now what the next team pulling the we didn't get the email stunt (be it the truth or not) would get as punishment.

? Lots of cynicism there.

The email bit is discussed in the other thread.

Alan Raine · 1 Oct 2007, 16:53 (Ref:2028079)

Quote:

Originally Posted by broadrun96

The FIA needs to state now what the next team pulling the we didn't get the email stunt (be it the truth or not) would get as punishment.

Some email systems know when the emails have been opened. If the FIA have this system in place they will know when the email was opened at Ferrari and the FIA server will know the time.

**Adam43** · 1 Oct 2007, 16:55 (Ref:2028081)

Please see this thread: Ferrari and their tyre choice

f1manoz · 1 Oct 2007, 16:59 (Ref:2028084)

Ferrari's tactics all race were, quite frankly, daft. So I'm not surprised one bit that Massa stopped with only a handful of laps left.

Ferrari need Brawn back.

Alan Raine · 1 Oct 2007, 17:01 (Ref:2028088)

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

Please see this thread: Ferrari and their tyre choice

I know i'm getting confused which one I'm on. It's been a hard day!!

fazzaz · 1 Oct 2007, 17:13 (Ref:2028108)

"Me thinks there is something fishy...."

Well, perhaps. Certainly you can think what you wish, but there does seem to be substantial evidence otherwise.

As Adam has pointed out, based on the previous stop, it is quite possible that Massa really did need fuel (as did Barrichello at about the same time). The fact (?) that Ferrari could have fueled their cars to do the full race doesn't mean that they did. (And changing tires typically takes less time than fueling; the tire stop is effectively "free".)

Equally, it seems that the FIA has agreed that Ferrari might not have received the e-mail in question. If Ferrari did receive the e-mail ordering full wets, why would they then send both cars out on intermediates, knowing they would almost certainly be ordered to pit, and ensuring the cars would be in 21st and 22nd positions rather than 3rd and 4th.

I know Bob Varsha well enough to know his dislike of Ferrari; sadly, I think that bias is showing more and more after the WMSC verdict. I think it is quite possible that Ferrari made more than one mistake yesterday, from the initial wrong tire choice to perhaps a fueling strategy which didn't work. Neither proves any sort of disregard for the rules.

I suspect the most important Ferrari e-mails yesterday were from Jean Todt to Ross Brawn, asking him to please come home, and hurry....

Dani Filth · 1 Oct 2007, 17:17 (Ref:2028110)

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

It is "not passed Ferrari" to just swap them positions either! So why invent a full pitstop and lose places in a Grand Prix?

Massa's previous stp was on lap 20. He then stopped on lap 58. With about 6 SC laps. That is a stint of 38 laps, probably saving only 3 or so under SC. To get to the end he'd have had to do another 8 laps, which would have been a stint of 46 laps.
I've not looked hard, but I don't think anyone else went as long between stops(?).

I think this suggests he'd have probably needed fuel, although I concede that I don't know the Ferrari's fuel tank size, or consumption. However it hints that he needed to stop.

the stop on lap 20 i belive it was the drive through ..
so in fact he went even longer .. 5 laps or so under SC

**Adam43** · 1 Oct 2007, 17:48 (Ref:2028140)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Raine

I know i'm getting confused which one I'm on. It's been a hard day!!

No probs.

fazzaz, *cough*

**Adam43** · 1 Oct 2007, 18:03 (Ref:2028150)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dani Filth

the stop on lap 20 i believe it was the drive through ..
so in fact he went even longer .. 5 laps or so under SC

It was indeed. Thank you.

So, Massa's stops:
Lap 1: 33.588s (pit stop)
Lap 15: 34.520s (pit stop)
Lap 20: 23.769s (drive through)
Lap 58: 32.499s (pit stop)
Lap 67: The end.

So Massa went from lap 15 to 58 without stopping: 43laps (64% of the race). Could he have gone 15 to 67? 52laps (77%).
There was a SC from lap 1-19 and 43-48. So that is 8/9 laps of SC for Massa's fuel load. What amount of race fuel did he use in this? 3 laps?
So he would have needed to do about race 47 laps (70%) to get to the end without stopping.

No one, in this race went anywhere near that. As Dani says Rubens (lap 18-60) was did about the same. As did Trulli (lap 18-60) and Yamamoto (lap 13-57).

Now I do not know the size of the Ferrari's fuel tanks and neither does anyone save Ferrari (and maybe McLaren

). However all evidence from this race (and the others this year) strongly suggests that it isn't big enough to do 70+% of a race, even in the wet.

So IMHO the most likely primary reason Ferrari pitted Massa was because he needed fueling to get to the end of the race.

This is either getting very fishy or cynicism has replaced consideration. Considered cynicism is something else and the only true cynicism.

Marbot · 1 Oct 2007, 18:16 (Ref:2028162)

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

Now I do not know the size of the Ferrari's fuel tanks and neither does anyone save Ferrari (and maybe McLaren

).

Apparently on the lap before Massa pitted Lewis received a radio message that said: "Massa in for fuel next lap".

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Will Massa's ego haunt him at the end of 2007?	freud	Formula One	54	15 Mar 2007 23:27
"Pit Walk" or "Pit Crock"?	Tim Northcutt	Formula One	23	26 Sep 2003 19:01
Suzuka 2002 - Massa's last F1 race?	Yoong Montoya	Formula One	15	29 Oct 2002 12:01
massa's future at sauber	nreed	Formula One	20	3 Feb 2002 02:08