Advances in Race Strategy: Now and Then

[craigd]

I want to ask what peoples views are on how they view the progression of race strategy through the years, and if, for those who watched F1 in the 80s, early 90s, they've noticed drivers and teams becoming a lot more 'intelligent' with how they plan and react to situations in a race.

I ask because I recently rewatched the 1996 wet/dry Monaco gp on youtube (it was a dull day), and though clearly a classic race, it struck how much more sharp teams and drivers now seem with regard to race strategy compared to then. Now obviously nowadays teams have reams of data and computers to draw upon throughout a race, which is a major factor, but the way the teams reacted (or rather didn't react) throughout the 96 Monaco gp beggered belief in light of the quick decision making and sharp intuition we see today.

Main case in point: the gp started wet and gradually dried out throughout. Around a 1/3 into the race it got to the point where the track was clearly drying out and lap times were constantly dropping and significantly quicker than at the start; yet everyone continued to chug around on inters! When they did come in for dries they were then over 10s(!!!!) a lap faster! There was no tight cross-over point where a few drivers take a tempting early switch to dries and we see them perhaps struggle for a lap or two before matching the inter-runners, then witness the point where track conditions finally shift and those who got the change right reap the rewards. No, in 96 everyone sat like lemons!!!

Now, I know as the commentary stated, the drivers were trying to hang on with the inters to reach the window where they could fuel to the end, but this is flawed since a driver who'd pitted earlier for dries could have made up a pitsop in no time going nearly 10s a lap quicker! In fact Hill (1st) pitted a couple of laps before Alesi (2nd) for dries, exited just behind him and breezed past Alesi, for the lead! in Monaco! as easily as if he'd been driving backwards. So the speed difference was enough to allow easy overtaking!

It was even more remarkable that no driver/team attempted some Brawn-esque inspirational strategy call in the 96 Monaco gp, since Irvine in 3rd was holding up the rest of the field down to 11th or so (and Hill and Alesi were seconds per lap quicker up front). I was shocked that no one was brought in early to give themselves free air, even if the race had been in the dry.

In fact the main reason Panis won the race was that though he was near the back of the Irvine-train, he pitted for dries a little earlier than others and leaped straight to 3rd (Coulthard should really have won the race given the others reliability woes); but even Panis should have pitted for dries earlier. And even if a driver would had need to pit for fuel again towards the end, they would have already gained so much time before with everyone else creaking around on inters (and overtaking was possible in that race as highlighted above). Surely the teams and drivers would ahve had data to know, judging by the times and look of the track, when dries would have been suitable and didn't need all the computer power of today to make that decision. And to those who might think perhaps the drivers did change to dries at the optimum time, well surely they didn't if, as I said, they then lapped 10s faster straightaway! That's surely a case of teams/drivers being extremely slow to react, and not really 'thinking how to win', and the lower teams taking risks.

Anyway, perhaps some over-detail there, but it struck me how much more integral race strategy is now to F1. Thoughts? Were other races in the past similarly lacking from the war-like strategy planning and quick-thinking of today? With the increased professionalism of the sport are drivers more intelligent (not necessarily meaning IQ-wise) these days in the way they apply themselves and think thoughout a race? Perhaps this is something Schumacher brought to the sport... (sorry for the length)