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)

[Marbot]

I remember the 97 Monaco GP and the Williams sat on the grid at the start in the pouring rain on slicks! Bad call!

There have been some bad calls in recent times too (Hamilton,China,07).

The strategies these days are always fairly predictable (to within a lap or two),and only when it rains do they seem to vary at all.Plus the cars that have qualified from 11th to the back invariably fill up on fuel to take any advantage of safety cars or rain or whatever because it's the only strategy that may net them some point from those positions.

In the eighties (sniff) strategies were rather more varied.You had cars going the distance on one tankful of fuel and one set of tyres,while others stopped for fuel or tyres or both.It wasn't really possible to react to other teams strategies simply because they would be doing something totally different.

Tyres and tank capacity made more of a difference then than it does now.

[BootsOntheSide]

Off-topic a bit, but the system where qualifying 11th is ebtter than qualifying 10th has to be changed - it runs completely counter to the entire purpose of qualifying sessions.

I think the teams have better weather-prediction software now, and the system which shows exactly where each car is on the track (which can be used to see whether a car will get clear air following a pitstop) is a recent innovation which has helped.

[duke_toaster]

Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide

Off-topic a bit, but the system where qualifying 11th is ebtter than qualifying 10th has to be changed - it runs completely counter to the entire purpose of qualifying sessions.

What about getting all the cars to decide their fuel load before Q1? That way Q3 could also become a light fuel session.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

In the eighties (sniff) strategies were rather more varied.You had cars going the distance on one tankful of fuel and one set of tyres,while others stopped for fuel or tyres or both.It wasn't really possible to react to other teams strategies simply because they would be doing something totally different.

That was only in 1983. Some teams choosed not to do a pit stop simply because they didn't have the right equipment. Some teams did have, although things could still go wrong. Mid-race refuelling was banned from 1984 and not to be relegalised before 1994. Since then refuelling went wrong on several occasions.

[ivanalesi]

In the mid 90's, Williams were my favourites when it came down to strategy. Very rarely they were having the right strategy and they lost a lot of races because of this, it seemed they were just sooo confident in their speed that they didn't care much about strategy. For me the worst cases were Monaco 97 and Donington 93. May be there was some break-through in meteorology in the last couple of years, because just until recently there were a lot of such crazy races. Think about Malaysia when Michael, Rubens were flying...

[Pingguest]

Weather radars are available for all teams. Some teams have signed a contract with a meteorological service to get the latest and most accurate weather forecast (Ferrari has an exclusive deal with Météo France, for example). Some teams have also developed very advanced software to find out the best possible strategies. Some of these tools are currently used by companies for their business models.

In other words: very interesting and useful tools but Formula 1 should be doing without them.

[duke_toaster]

I thought all the teams clubbed together to fund Meteo France ...

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

I thought all the teams clubbed together to fund Meteo France ...

As far as the Dutch were told by their commentator Olav Mol Ferrari still has an exclusive agreement. Normally Mol is well informed on sort of stuff.

[FPV GTHO]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

What about getting all the cars to decide their fuel load before Q1? That way Q3 could also become a light fuel session.

What would be even better is to have fuel loads open until Sunday morning before the race, so qualifying and fuel loads are no longer related.

[Shoe-maker]

The Schumacher/Benetton strategies were always interesting during the battles with Hill/Williams in 1994/5. Williams, for all their power, seemed strangely vulnerable when it came to strategies and Benetton got the call right so many times but with Schumacher at the wheel, there was always scope for something a bit different.

[craigd]

Yeah true. I remember in '95 that while Hill did make mistake after mistake, a lot of points were also lost to Schumacher through just better strategy, Monaco and France are two I think.

[JamesH]

You can have as many weather services as you like (its still a prediction and possible to be incorrect), but I still don't understand why teams don't have 10 blokes with mobile phones around the circuit (and some further upwind ofr advanced warning), telling the pits what is happening or about to happen on the circuit - or perhaps they do...

[ECW Dan Selby]

/\ I'm sure they do actually

Selby

[FPV GTHO]

That in itself would just be a primitive form of whatever weather services they already use. The weather services may not always be accurate with their predictions but they can still show the weather in present time which is all a bunch of scouters around the track would be able to achieve.

[Bononi]

I thought many of them have those spy satellites that can record the track from the above and analyse all sort of things happening with the track.

[Marbot]

Don't the teams have to share all their tyre/weather/best restaurant in town info this year? Or is it next year?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Bononi

I thought many of them have those spy satellites that can record the track from the above and analyse all sort of things happening with the track.

GPS.

Maybe they can see Bernies wallet! Shouldn't be that hard to find.

[Bononi]

GPS is simple, anyone can have it. I mean those ones that CIA has and we often see at hollywood movies...

I bet McLaren and Ferrari spy each other with that...

[werner]

Originally Posted by Marbot

The strategies these days are always fairly predictable (to within a lap or two),and only when it rains do they seem to vary at all.Plus the cars that have qualified from 11th to the back invariably fill up on fuel to take any advantage of safety cars or rain or whatever because it's the only strategy that may net them some point from those positions.

Both Renault-drivers have shown that strategies with early pitstops can be very usefull in case of a safetycar. The only reason Piquet got the lead in the German GP was that he already had done a pitstop, and could catch up with the drivers that had not done theirs yet when the safetycar hit the track due to Glocks accident.

More or less the same scenario helped Alonso get the Singapore win. Without the new safetycarrules I think an early pitstop could be a usefull guess at a track where safetycars can be expected, ie tracks with barriers close to the track.