What it takes to be tactically brilliant.

[Adam43]

Lets have a closer look at what it takes to make that four stopper work. To give some credit to Schumacher and Brawn.

Race distance: 70 laps.
Thus a three stopper roughly four stints of 17/18 laps. A four stopper is five stints of 14 laps.
On average Alonso had 8.5laps of fuel aboard and Schumacher 7 laps of fuel. Over the entire distance on average Schumacher was running 1.5 laps lighter than Alonso.

Total Time in the pits:
Alonso (3 stops 14, 32, 46): 1:03.198
Schumacher (4 stops 11, 29, 42, 58): 1:18.545
So Schumacher had to make up 15.347s over the race distance. Or 0.22s a lap. Not a lot.
However he really needs to do it before his final stop because otherwise he'll be stuck behind the Renault and need a vast advantage to overtake. In addition he was behind the Renault for the first couple of stints.

Another factor that helped Michael is that he will generally got to run on newer tyres. Specifically those early laps when they are best. He used this to take the lead after on lap 33. He banged in a 15.8s and a 15.377 (the fastest lap of the race) while Alonso was doing 16.8s on low fuel, but old tyres.

And there is more to the tyres. Michael got to run on the softer Bridgestones to Rubens.

Generally then, looking at this I think it shows that a four stopper isn't outrageous. Hindsight eh! Although the risky part is whether Michael would get stuck in traffic and his first stop showed it might have been a problem.

Another good thing about a four stopper is that it is easy to convert from or too a three stopper. The difference in laps is only 3 or 4. However the difference between a 2 and 3 is 6 laps. So it aids flexibility.

One other point. I think that Renault got a little spooked. They compromised Alonso's race pace by having such a short third stint (trying to react to Ferrari?). This meant that Alonso had a very long race stint, which reduced the chance of him responding to Michael towards the end.

Ferrari did well and perhaps did the sensible thing not the risky thing! This is the trick to a good win though and, of course, no other team used a four stop strategy.

[fog_shadow]

"no risk, no fun" if i remember correctly is what MS said afterwards.

[BootsOntheSide]

Originally posted by AdamAshmore


Total Time in the pits:
Alonso (3 stops 14, 32, 46): 1:03.198
Schumacher (4 stops 11, 29, 42, 58): 1:18.545
So Schumacher had to make up 15.347s over the race distance. Or 0.22s a lap. Not a lot.

That's not quite right, because the time in the pits doesn't consider the fact that it takes time to cover that section of the track anyway, so in reality Michael only had about half of that time to make up.

Otherwise, good analysis, that should show how they got the win. It's definately been one of the best displays from the entire team, in a rac ethey shoudln't've been able to win

[JohnSSC]

The Speed Channel crew (Bob Varsha, David Hobbes and Steve Matchett were pretty much giving the race to Alonso. Then after the second stop Michael put his head down and after the third one he really got down to business turning 1:14.1's - absolutely phenomenal!

They have the equipment, the engineers and the driver that get the job done. Plain and simple. The same announcing crew couldn't say enough about the planning and the execution of the strategy.

One of the smartest races ever run, imho.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally posted by AdamAshmore
............no other team used a four stop strategy.

Except Jordan.

[Peter Mallett]

Being serious. Well thought through Adam. I was gobsmacked when I saw the gap before the final (4th) stop.

As I said elsewhere, the others weren't even trying today. RB was on a mission though.

[Wrex]

Alot of this hinged on Renault taking the bait. They short filled Alonso thinking Michael was doing the same. By the time they realised they had been tricked, Alonso was carrying half a race of fuel.

[Kicking-back]

Softer tyres and an inherently faster car helped too, but hats off to them!

[Mr V]

Magny-Cours is the only place this could have worked, due to the pit lane being so short.

Imo, Renault "aided" the Ferrari victory when the pulled Trulli in before Alonso. Had Alonso not have lost so much time whilst Michael was setting those fast laps, he may just have got out in front and ruined Ross's stratergy.

Oh well, look for all teams on a 4 stopper in France next year

[avsfan733]

I think Ferrari has finally struck upon a clever little bit. The fact that other teams often react to Ferrari as opposed to running there race. I can gaurantee you that Alonso would have won had any person besides Michael been leading...and not just because of Michaels string of fast laps

[shelsleyF2]

Accepting Brawn's brilliant tactical gamble, was there a point at which Renault should have realised how much fuel MS had on board and brought Alonso in early short filled him new tyres etc and got him out infront of MS instead of staying out and watching there track pos'n slowly dissapear?. Or have I missed something, watching Alonso sliding around for 5 laps on worn tyres and giving time away each lap.....could it have been played any other way by Renault.

[Peter Mallett]

Welcome shelsleyF2.

[Super Tourer]

Indeed welcome to 10 tenths - enjoy.

Once again, a masterclass in race winning by the Brawn/Schumacher duo.

As we heard this weekend on the 'meet the team feature' on ITV, Schumacher is feeding data back to the team all the time, on the state of the tyres, the car's overall performance, track conditions, weak points of other cars, etc - which Ross then sticks into his mix and between them they devise the strategy, which is then reliant on Michael putting in those searing laps around the pit window, and the team doing a quick turnaround.

All in all, it's brilliant TEAM work, a combination of clever thinking and perfect execution by the driver and pit crew.

No other teams seem to have the consistent 'thinking on their feet' approach that Brawn and Ferrari do, hence their reactive qualities are not as good as Ferrari.

[Gt_R]

Firstly, credit needs to be given to Ferrari Strategist Luca Baldisserri, he's the one who suggested a four stopper as a possibility.

This is a race Renault should/would/could have won rather easily. Ferrari knew it would be a hard race if they are to fight Renault on the same strategy.

And it's a calculated risk, with benefits far outweighing the relatively small risk. But still, credit must be given to Ferrari to make the bold step.

And perhaps, it is here where we can be critical of Renault for actually "helping" Ferrari out. They should have known the characteristics of their tyres, and either work around the capabilities of their tyres as planned, or be more flexible in responding to Ferrari's changing strategy.

On hindsight, it's easy to claim that the whole strategy Ferrari employ is easy. But the thing is nobody knew what pace and what strategy the others would be using for sure...and Ferrari responded well in adapting their strategy to their capabilities, and MS did what the team expected in putting in very quick lap times where it mattered.

Renault and alonso looks beaten after the race, in fact, they seem to be helplessly watching the race win slip away from their hands during the race. And they know they lost the chance of victory at their home race.

If Renault have been smart and quick enough, they could have figured MS's strategy and easily counter it with a four stopper themselves...because the Michelins work beautifully on short term, not long distances...and the outright pace of Renault/new Michelins would be enough to meet MS's challenge. instead, they pitted Alonso too late for a 4-stopper switch, and too early which made Alonso run his last stint for longer than his tyres prefer.

[Super Tourer]

I agree, but once again from rival teams it's all 'if's and but's', seemingly Ferrari only ever execute the correct strategy, at the right time.

[Peter Mallett]

Of course the five stop strategy they'll be using at the British GP with extra sticky soft tyres will top this effort.

[enemy-ace]

Originally posted by Gt_R

And perhaps, it is here where we can be critical of Renault for actually "helping" Ferrari out. They should have known the characteristics of their tyres, and either work around the capabilities of their tyres as planned, or be more flexible in responding to Ferrari's changing strategy.

Whilst I agree with the majority of your post; Renault did not have full knowledge of their tires performance envelope due to the wet practice. This of course was the same for Ferrari, which in turn could have lead to their innovative strategy.

[Aysedasi]

Originally posted by Peter Mallett
Of course the five stop strategy they'll be using at the British GP with extra sticky soft tyres will top this effort.

Hell, let's have him stop every other lap..........

[JohnSSC]

The team aspect though is what won this - they have confidence in the data and the interpretation of the data they give to each other. For example, Michael's assessment of what Alnso could/could not do at particular points in his stints would affect greatly the decisions made.

They mesh amazingly well at the Scuderia Ferrari.

[Kicking-back]

A great strategy, but you also need a bloody fast car to pull it off.

[deeks6]

here's the saddest driver quote after an event I have seen for a race fan - it is an edited part:

"We might have won on a normal three stop, but this would have involved passing cars on the track."

I've always been in awe of Schumacher's ability as a driver but the game has gotten silly when this is an accepted part of "Racing".

[ralf fan]

Fantastic strategy by the Ferrari guys... whod have thought!

[Knowlesy]

deeks....pleae tell me that is not an actual quote!

BAN REFUELLING! BAN REFUELLING! BAN REFUELLING!

[NiceGuyEddie]

Originally posted by deeks6
here's the saddest driver quote after an event I have seen for a race fan - it is an edited part:

"We might have won on a normal three stop, but this would have involved passing cars on the track."

I've always been in awe of Schumacher's ability as a driver but the game has gotten silly when this is an accepted part of "Racing".

Indeed it is, but whose fault is it that pitstop-strategy is to prefer over battling it out on track? Certainly not the drivers' fault.

[Adam43]

And now there is a thread about that: Was F1 better without refuelling?