[Official] Italian Grand Prix 2024

[billy bleach]

How stupid could McLaren look at the end of the year…..

[bjohnsonsmith]

Not exactly a clean start, as Russell has to go down the escape road at the chicane, with Piastri taking the lead and Leclerc passing Norris for second place.

[chillibowl]

Th looming team order controversy at McLaren….

[Greem]

Broken wings
Bits of contact
Piastri passing Norris
Verstappen's right year wheel sticking in the first stop
VCARB mechanic screwing up a 5s penalty stop and causing a 10s additional penalty

It's all a bit messy so far!

[bjohnsonsmith]

A slow stop for Oscar Piastri.

[Greem]

Great radio call from Norris' race engineer - "Just ****ing get on with it"

[bjohnsonsmith]

I don't think Ferrari will pit again.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Congrats to Charles Leclerc and Ferrari on a famous Monza victory.

[Greem]

AMAZING drive from Leclerc. What a fantastic way to give Ferrari a win, and at Monza too. Poetry.

[GTRMagic]

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Who takes his place?

[thetool]

Oliver Bearman would seem the obvious pick.

[Tourer]

So we've had two Grands Prix this year where a one-stop strategy has just won the race (before DQ at Spa of course) despite the "conventional wisdom" of other teams and the commentariat.

Makes me wonder if teams are being overly conservative and/or if the tyres are actually more capable than 1st thought and/or if the commentariat is lacking in imagination (or all of those). As well as the winners of both events, others in the field went the one-stop strategy too.

Really like that roll-of-the dice approach at times but in this risk-averse world we live in, I wonder how often we'll truly see it? Maybe allowing more in-season testing would permit teams to REALLY run race distance simulations on the tyres and give them more confidence to run an "out there" strategy more often?

[TrapezeArtist]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

Th looming team order controversy at McLaren….

I have always been strongly opposed to team orders, so I have to be very careful what I say here. On the other hand, teams have been doing it (legally or illegally) for years, so I have to accept it when it is done for the greater good of the team. In the case of McLaren, Lando could have 10 points more than he actually has if the team had applied team orders to optimise his WDC position. That is looking very likely to come back and bite them at the end of the season.

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Makes me wonder if teams are being overly conservative and/or if the tyres are actually more capable than 1st thought and/or if the commentariat is lacking in imagination (or all of those). As well as the winners of both events, others in the field went the one-stop strategy too.

Really like that roll-of-the dice approach at times but in this risk-averse world we live in, I wonder how often we'll truly see it? Maybe allowing more in-season testing would permit teams to REALLY run race distance simulations on the tyres and give them more confidence to run an "out there" strategy more often?

Thing is, such happenings often tend to be at tracks that have recent surface changes. So there is an element of unknown, and Pirelli tend to be rather conservative, quite understandably.

[steve_r]

Originally Posted by TrapezeArtist

I have always been strongly opposed to team orders, so I have to be very careful what I say here. On the other hand, teams have been doing it (legally or illegally) for years, so I have to accept it when it is done for the greater good of the team. In the case of McLaren, Lando could have 10 points more than he actually has if the team had applied team orders to optimise his WDC position. That is looking very likely to come back and bite them at the end of the season.

Frank Williams mindset?

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by steve_r

Frank Williams mindset?

Wouldn’t have put it past him to have done that sort of thing

[antnee]

Originally Posted by Tourer

So we've had two Grands Prix this year where a one-stop strategy has just won the race (before DQ at Spa of course) despite the "conventional wisdom" of other teams and the commentariat.

Makes me wonder if teams are being overly conservative and/or if the tyres are actually more capable than 1st thought and/or if the commentariat is lacking in imagination (or all of those). As well as the winners of both events, others in the field went the one-stop strategy too.

Really like that roll-of-the dice approach at times but in this risk-averse world we live in, I wonder how often we'll truly see it? Maybe allowing more in-season testing would permit teams to REALLY run race distance simulations on the tyres and give them more confidence to run an "out there" strategy more often?

I'm sure before the race they were all saying it was going to be a 1-stopper - but then during the race it seemed the tyres were dropping off sooner than expected so most shifted to 2 stops

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Really like that roll-of-the dice approach at times but in this risk-averse world we live in, I wonder how often we'll truly see it? Maybe allowing more in-season testing would permit teams to REALLY run race distance simulations on the tyres and give them more confidence to run an "out there" strategy more often?

as mentioned the track resurfacing but also the length of pit lane here has for a long time now made a 1 stopper attractive but to your question as to how to make alternative strategies more attractive at a wider variety of tracks...

i suppose im of the belief that more tire testing/full race simulation runs would just lead to greater consensus on what the optimal tire strategy should be, leading to teams needing less running/practice to get dialed in, and ultimately resulting in more strategy uniformity not less.

for sure the introductions of unknowns, or the lack of preparation in this case, to spice things up is looked upon poorly but it is also the most convenient way to inject variety into GP weekends.

so as long as the tires are safe to run, which they seem to be this year, then as a general rule im for less testing/running not more?

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

as mentioned the track resurfacing but also the length of pit lane here has for a long time now made a 1 stopper attractive but to your question as to how to make alternative strategies more attractive at a wider variety of tracks...

i suppose im of the belief that more tire testing/full race simulation runs would just lead to greater consensus on what the optimal tire strategy should be, leading to teams needing less running/practice to get dialed in, and ultimately resulting in more strategy uniformity not less.

for sure the introductions of unknowns, or the lack of preparation in this case, to spice things up is looked upon poorly but it is also the most convenient way to inject variety into GP weekends.

so as long as the tires are safe to run, which they seem to be this year, then as a general rule im for less testing/running not more?

Look, I'm with you in general on this - my thought was however that if teams HAD been able to do a little testing, they'd KNOW that it was possible for a tyre to clean up after some graining if it was treated right. Wouldn't necessarily lead to them all following the same strategy (although in most cases they do that now already if you think about it) but it could lead to teams rolling the dice a little more when the situation demands.

Piastri based his entire thinking on 1 vs. 2 stop on the graining he was seeing on his left front tyre at Monza - if he knew he could clean it up and the tyre would "come back" a bit, he may have rolled the dice.

Anyway, it was just a thought - with the expenditure cap in place, IMHO if teams want to do some additional testing here and there & spend some of their money that way, then I reckon they should be able to fill their boots and have a go if that's the way they're inclined - but that's a whole other discussion I guess.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Anyway, it was just a thought - with the expenditure cap in place, IMHO if teams want to do some additional testing here and there & spend some of their money that way, then I reckon they should be able to fill their boots and have a go if that's the way they're inclined - but that's a whole other discussion I guess.

fair point...that would add an interesting dynamic under the cap rules!

[TrapezeArtist]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Anyway, it was just a thought - with the expenditure cap in place, IMHO if teams want to do some additional testing here and there & spend some of their money that way, then I reckon they should be able to fill their boots and have a go if that's the way they're inclined - but that's a whole other discussion I guess.

You're absolutely right, and I think no-one has thought of it before. Testing restrictions were brought in to save money (and, I suppose, to look a bit greener). With the cost cap, the restrictions are no longer necessary. Like you say, spend some money on testing instead of making more parts, if you think that's the best way to get performance within the cost cap.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

i suppose im of the belief that more tire testing/full race simulation runs would just lead to greater consensus on what the optimal tire strategy should be, leading to teams needing less running/practice to get dialed in, and ultimately resulting in more strategy uniformity not less.

I agree 100%. This leads to more optimal setups and strategies and less "surprise" results. Such as Ferrari taking the risk (and McLaren not) and seeing that a one stop was the right answer.

Originally Posted by Tourer

Piastri based his entire thinking on 1 vs. 2 stop on the graining he was seeing on his left front tyre at Monza - if he knew he could clean it up and the tyre would "come back" a bit, he may have rolled the dice.

So if there had been more testing and the teams had a better understanding on tire life and characteristics... there would be no "rolling of the dice", they would know. Which I think speak to the point chillibowl is making above. With more knowledge comes more confidence in decision making. Teams will know which strategies will work and which will not. See my comments below about the positive impact of limited testing.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

Anyway, it was just a thought - with the expenditure cap in place, IMHO if teams want to do some additional testing here and there & spend some of their money that way, then I reckon they should be able to fill their boots and have a go if that's the way they're inclined - but that's a whole other discussion I guess.

So I agree in general that they don't allow enough testing. When they started to control testing, they gradually shrank the number and duration of testing sessions. I think we had two sets (multiday) in pre-season with at least a week between so that teams could bring development parts to the second week. Now we are now down to one three day set of tests pre-season and some post season testing. Which IMHO is not enough.

I personally think the number of testing days are too few. But... in addition to cost savings, I suspect part of the reduction in testing is that the lack of knowledge that comes from such severe restrictions helps to create a level of uncertainty that shows up during the season. It's a way (right or wrong) to help spice up the show by making it harder on the teams. Such as... Is it a one or two stop race? We just don't know because we don't have the data. That is the "positive" aspect of limited testing.

Richard

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Richard C

So if there had been more testing and the teams had a better understanding on tire life and characteristics... there would be no "rolling of the dice", they would know. Which I think speak to the point chillibowl is making above. With more knowledge comes more confidence in decision making. Teams will know which strategies will work and which will not. See my comments below about the positive impact of limited testing.

There is zero in-season testing now, none. It is not a case of allowing "more testing" but I'm suggesting that a small amount of testing would be good. It would give teams a little more base knowledge - tyres being one area that it would help BUT there will ALWAYS be variations from circuit to circuit on grip, wear rate etc. and in some cases (not all) potential for "outlier" strategies will still exist. Teams would know for sure (with a little bit of testing) that (in this case) a graining tyre CAN be brought back or can recover, giving them strategy options.

Doing a 10 or 15 lap "long run simulation" during a GP practice session doesn't provide that type of knowledge.

The only testing at the moment is pre-season at one circuit (that is known to be substantially different to anywhere else, particularly for tyres) and also when all the teams have brand new cars and very limited time, so the focus goes onto the cars, onto the following week's Grand Prix and very little (if any) on tyres & genuine long runs.

Back in the day, when test teams were a thing (& I'd agree that it got out of hand) an awful lot of the testing being done was tyre testing, largely because there were competing tyre brands (that often paid teams for the test days). Whilst today's situation is different, we used to do things like full race simulations, running a full GP distance & if the tyres were graining up, adapting driving style to see if they could be "brought back". That doesn't help you decide on a strategy at every circuit but it DOES provide some base knowledge on what the tyres are capable of.

I'm not suggesting a free-for-all but limited testing (which is quite similar to what you say in your post Richard). Here in Oz, Supercar teams used to be permitted 6 test days per year (now down to 3 - probably not quite enough). 5 full days (which teams could choose to split into 10 half days if they wish) might be a good number. Would also allow teams to shake down new updates, so they arrive at a GP in a more competitive state - which could give us better racing outcomes.

Anyway, like I said, it was just a thought.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Tourer

There is zero in-season testing now, none. It is not a case of allowing "more testing" but I'm suggesting that a small amount of testing would be good.

I think we are in agreement. I think we both think there should be more testing. I would ague for two two tests pre-season spaced apart and a mid-season test. I think my point was... even beyond the cost, too much testing allows for too much refinement. But there is a happy middle there somewhere. And I think we both are saying the pendulum has swung too far in the "don't test" direction.



Richard