Can we try to 'sus' out likely race strategy for Melbourne?

Hugh Jarce · 5 Mar 2003, 14:01 (Ref:525658)

I know many of you guys are far more technical than me, so can you try and help me out on this one.

A guess on Ferrari.

Race = 58 laps. Am I right in saying it's normally a 1 stop, even though there can be tyre issues, and last year with most pitting around laps 31-33?

If that's a right assumption, a one stop strategy, with the smaller stint first (to reduce qualifying weight) would therefore demand that you start with around 27 laps worth of fuel.

That's a heavy car for qualifying!

Past three years final gaps between 1, 2 and 3 have been:
2002 +18 secs (Ferrari) and +25 secs (Williams)
2001 +1 secs (McLaren) and +33 secs (Ferrari)
2000 +11 secs (Ferrari) and +20 secs (Williams)

Mind you by end of last season Ferrari were often achieving over 30 secs lead per race to next team.

That would just about afford them a two-stopper over a one-stopper.

So my guess is that they may well therefore go for a two-stopper with lower load early stints for a lightweight qualification and early speed for overtaking / lead building.

Stint / refuel 1: Lap 10
Stint / refuel 2: Lap 26

So, where would that leave the others?

Do you think anyone will run a full tank qualification and one-stop?

What d'ya think?

**Adam43** · 5 Mar 2003, 14:33 (Ref:525684)

Quote:

Originally posted by Hugh Jarce
Do you think anyone will run a full tank qualification and one-stop

If one stop is theoretically quicker then I think some will do it.

They just wait until the other (lighter two stopper) stops and falls behind them. Both will now have 1 stop to make with only a few laps where Mr 1 stopper has more fuel.

If 1 stop is quicker then ignoring being stuck behind someone (more of a problem if on a 2 stopper as it drops back behind people in the stop) it will win out over a 2 stop.

Glen · 5 Mar 2003, 16:29 (Ref:525787)

I reckon the thoereticaly quicker total time (in this case, one stop) will take precedence over any other consideration. There are no points for qualifying. Only where safety car is very likely will this change, since a quick stop at a lucky moment can be much less expensive - this happened in Canada last year.

It's a very interesting situation for sure - but my call is that the quicker strategy is still the quicker strategy, no matter where you line-up on the grid.

Mr V · 5 Mar 2003, 16:32 (Ref:525792)

But if one stopper is quicker, all teams will qualify on a similar fuel load thus bringing status quo to qualifying, the top 3 teams will still be at the front (providing they don't go off in quali's of course!)

Glen · 5 Mar 2003, 16:44 (Ref:525801)

Yes.

Hugh Jarce · 5 Mar 2003, 17:38 (Ref:525855)

I know this is not scientific but I still reckon someone will 'mix' it to break the status quo. If you normally are mid-pack or back-pack what have you got to lose to try something else?

Logrence · 5 Mar 2003, 17:39 (Ref:525856)

I reckon your Webber or your Stoddarts will go for a 3 stopper and go for a few laps in the lead, just for the papers - it's plausible...

Will we see 4 stoppers this year?

**Adam43** · 5 Mar 2003, 17:59 (Ref:525878)

Quote:

Originally posted by Logrence
Will we see 4 stoppers this year?

If some one tries qualifying on low fuel I think it will just result in a (very) short first stint. I suppose it may make a 1 stop strategy into a 2 stopper. I doubt it would ever turn a 2 stopper into a 3 or 4.

Red · 5 Mar 2003, 18:01 (Ref:525881)

I doubt about 4 stoppers, nut 3? I'm not at all sure.

Hugh Jarce · 5 Mar 2003, 18:35 (Ref:525898)

Quote:

Originally posted by Logrence
I reckon your Webber or your Stoddarts will go for a 3 stopper and go for a few laps in the lead, just for the papers - it's plausible...

Good point!

Pole for minor teams = sponsorship exposure

Red · 5 Mar 2003, 18:39 (Ref:525904)

That's not new strategy. In 2001 Jos in his Arrows overtook some 60-80 cars during the season. Usualloy on 1 pit stop extra as anyone else.

EERO · 5 Mar 2003, 18:51 (Ref:525912)

Quote:

Originally posted by Glen
I reckon the thoereticaly quicker total time (in this case, one stop) will take precedence over any other consideration. There are no points for qualifying. Only where safety car is very likely will this change, since a quick stop at a lucky moment can be much less expensive - this happened in Canada last year.

It's a very interesting situation for sure - but my call is that the quicker strategy is still the quicker strategy, no matter where you line-up on the grid.

However, a quick car with a heavy fuel could find itself mired amongst slower cars and not be able to turn laps at the highest possible speed for the amount of fuel carried. The "Quickest Strategy" as you describe does not factor in a slower car in front which could adversely affect the cumulative race time. for a faster car. If you are "racing for position" you have no obligation to pull over to let the Ferrari through.

**Adam43** · 5 Mar 2003, 19:00 (Ref:525922)

But the qualifying rules mean that a quick car with a heavy fuel load will only start behind cars that have got there by running less fuel. These cars will be quicker until they then stop for more fuel - falling behind the cars that started heavier.

Also cars that start with less fuel will stop earlier and there is more chance they will get stuck behind a slower car after their stop. Ruining there strategy.

Red · 5 Mar 2003, 19:01 (Ref:525924)

Yeah, but if you have a slower car ahead it will have to pit very early leaving the track clear. And if that car is some Jordan or similar they wouldn't wait the pitstop to go ahead. If it's a Mac or Willy, nothing really changed. Let alone that it won't be much slower.

Of course, the opposite strategy could very well be applied. Ferrari is fast, they qualify a light car in pole, and in several laps they would get a huge lead as they have clear track. Refuelling in lap 6 for example, they would rejoin last but the track is still clear and they could build the lead enough for the second pitstop.

Hugh Jarce · 5 Mar 2003, 19:15 (Ref:525939)

Isn't that what I said at the beginning - I'm now a bit confused

Red · 5 Mar 2003, 19:26 (Ref:525953)

Like us... too many unknown variable and too limited experience in elaborating strategy. I reckon it would be interesting, but it would take some time untill we could predict what they have in mind...

**Adam43** · 5 Mar 2003, 19:27 (Ref:525955)

If anything I think the new qualifying rules gives the theoretically quickest strategy even more chance of working.

If you thought a two stopper was just quicker than a one stopper then you might have been worried that you would get stuck behind a one stopper at the start. But now, you know you will end up ahead of him because you will qualify with a lighter load!

If you think a one stopper is quicker than two stopper then you don't need to worry if a two stopper is ahead because he will pit and fall behind you.

What it has done is make the situation more that everyone will be able to play out their strategy for the first few laps (at least) without being slowed by another car on another strategy. No one will need to overtake to make there strategy work!

Bring on the chess!

To take the extreme: If a Minardi did get on pole ahead of Michael (by running less fuel) the first few laps of the race won't consist of Michael all over the back of the Minardi. On lap 1 the Minardi will still have the weight advantage and will still be quicker than the Ferrari. Nothing can be changed on the car, it will be the same as in qualifying. Eventually (or very quickly) the Minardi will pit and Michael will be free to win.

zetta · 5 Mar 2003, 19:58 (Ref:525976)

I guess for the top teams it will end up at which driver is able of putting a very fast lap on a heavy car. We know TGF and Montoya can do it (maybe Ralf can do it too). I think we will see the 3 top teams qualifying in positions 4 to 10 (or something like that), and running one stop strategies. In Ferrari we can see some split strategies (remember Ruben's 3 stoppers last year?), betting on their superior speed to control the race. We could also see other teams splitting their efforts, with one heavy car on a one stopper and one light car on a two stopper, with the expectation that the driver in the light car prevents other team's cars from gaining too much of an advantage on their heavy car. In the end, nobody, not even the team's startegists, know how all this will play out. We will al learn as the season develops.

**Adam43** · 5 Mar 2003, 20:51 (Ref:526004)

You should only be concerned about a driver gaining too much advantage on your heavier car if you believe that their strategy is better. In which case why don't you just run more stops yourself?

Of course a team may put a spoiler in to get in the way of others (ones team's optimum strategy may not be another's).

But, as you say, we'll see...

I still expect to see the top three teams on pole more often than not. And if their not it will just be a false situation until the first stops.

**Asp** · 5 Mar 2003, 21:23 (Ref:526030)

Just for note, last year the regularly cautious one-stop strategy did prevail, with Schumey going for 38 laps before his stop (58 laps race, remember)
However, a late stop can be very clever - DC in 2001 going to lap 41 and leapfrogging Barrichello in the progress.

I expect that most teams will be conservatice and stick with 1 stop: with first race attrition being conservative is generally best. Some teams will continue with the fuel to the top and run as far as possible - but the gap that they'll make up in the laps between everyone else's stop and their own is unlikely to be the same as what they'll put on them beforehand.
A lot of teams may bring it down to about lap 26-8, thus keeping the one stop strategy; but not making the car too heavy in qualfying. NB - This is probably the one I'd pick if I was boss of one of the top 3
The rest of the one-stop teams should short fuel it, then at about lap 20 coming in and fuelling to finish. The problem with this strategy is the amount of time spent in pitlane to completely fill the car; but it'll be light in qualies.

A few teams may try a two-stop strategy: but not serious contenders, just a team trying something different to see if it works and jumpfrog the rest - potentially Renault?
If you're going to 2 stop, a short first stint would be best to make the most of your advantage, then possibly two equal firther stints - maybe laps 15 then 37 - but as this would be an experiment only a lot of options are open.

But, as said, a lot of variables, so computer simulations will be working overtime!

Glen · 6 Mar 2003, 09:19 (Ref:526411)

On the subject of a headline-hungry team electing for a light qualifying session for theexposure - Fisi is 40 to 1 (odds) for pole position. Good bet.

Big Mac · 6 Mar 2003, 10:35 (Ref:526454)

"Fisi is 40 to 1 (odds) for pole position. Good bet."

Maybe thats the way EJ's going to finance the rest of the season!

RWC · 6 Mar 2003, 11:39 (Ref:526501)

OH NOOOO
Here we go again!
Two stoppers stuck behind one stoppers.

I think there will be little mixing up in qualifying
only wet dry qualifying will really give us an on-it's-head grid

Glen · 6 Mar 2003, 11:52 (Ref:526508)

Quote:

Originally posted by RWC
OH NOOOO
Here we go again!
Two stoppers stuck behind one stoppers.

? Two stoppers shoud qualify ahead of the one stoppers - how are they going to get stuck behind them?

Logrence · 6 Mar 2003, 11:57 (Ref:526515)

If a team short fuels a one-stopper to qualify ahead so they've got the same amount of fuel at the start of the race as a 2-stopper wouldn't that be a big advantage?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
2006 3 Race Strategy	mmciau	Australasian Touring Cars.	16	30 Nov 2005 11:34
Monza - Alonso Race Strategy	TedN	Formula One	14	14 Sep 2003 00:53
Race Strategy: DC Ridicules BAR	Mania	Formula One	12	18 May 2003 11:55
race strategy	racealign	Racers Forum	7	20 Aug 2002 11:30
was it poor fuel strategy that cost Jordan and williams the race	sutts	Formula One	9	26 Apr 2000 22:49