When a spectacle becomes a parody of his own

[Phil]

Sorry but this makes no sense at all. Gaps are opened by the car in front, if he can, the one who always try to prevent an undercut from his chaser... openning a gap

Obviously, I was referring to the gap of 28 seconds behind - e.g. the time delta of the pit stop. An 'undercut' only works if you can pit into a gap and then use the fresh rubber to drive faster than the car you are racing is able to do on its old tires. If Hamilton had not controlled the pace by driving slower than he needed to, the gap to Grosjean would have opened sooner. He then would have made himself vulnerable to being undercut too early in the race when a 1-stop was still too ambitious.

So Hamilton's game plan was to drive slow and keep the traffic bunched up, so that his closest competitors couldn't pit, because if they would, they'd end up in traffic and be stuck. Obviously, this achieved another advantage too; that being: he conserved his own tires so that when Vettel/Ferrari did bounce and pitted into the first small gap that emerged (the one between Perez and Grosjean), he had enough performance in his tires to react and counter the fast outlap from Vettel.

Alternatively, if he had pushed from the beginning, he would have had the gap to Grosjean already around lap 10. If Vettel had remained close enough (all indications from FP2 were that Ferrari easily had the pace), they would have faced the dilemma of either preempting the undercut themselves, but having to go for the US tire (for a fast outlap) and then having to do 51 laps on them or again letting Vettel pounce first, but then not having enough rubber to react and counter the undercut.

Driving slow and controlling the field was the best way to ensure he kept track position.

[zac510]

-Pirelli tires. Megasoft lasts 20 thousand laps if you don't push, but if you do they fall apart after half lap. Thermal degradation has to go.

If you go for physical degradation instead of thermal degradation you'll get tons of marbles on the side of the track == narrow racing line == procession. Or you get tyres that have physically compromised and fall apart == Silverstone 2013.

It seems pretty hard for Pirelli to get the thermal degradation formula correct (2012 was.. weird!), but there are advantages.

[Just_a_fan]

The real aim of racing is to win by going as slowly as possible (to paraphrase Lauda).

Hamilton/Mercedes did the correct thing in order to win. Was it "slow"? Yes. Was it "boring? Only if you think that going 100% all of the time is what racing is.

This isn't just in F1. It applies in all racing, even athletics.

[sosic2121]

The real aim of racing is to win by going as slowly as possible (to paraphrase Lauda).

Hamilton/Mercedes did the correct thing in order to win. Was it "slow"? Yes. Was it "boring? Only if you think that going 100% all of the time is what racing is.

This isn't just in F1. It applies in all racing, even athletics.

There is nothing wrong with Merc and Hamilton did. I congratulate them. Everyone benefitted from this. Hamilton won, and Vettel saved his tires and P3, Ric won Monte Carlo and and Vettel won 2017 Hungary.
But IMO this should not happen. We need overtake delta to be less than 2s, maybe less than 1s.

[sosic2121]

-Pirelli tires. Megasoft lasts 20 thousand laps if you don't push, but if you do they fall apart after half lap. Thermal degradation has to go.

If you go for physical degradation instead of thermal degradation you'll get tons of marbles on the side of the track == narrow racing line == procession. Or you get tyres that have physically compromised and fall apart == Silverstone 2013.

It seems pretty hard for Pirelli to get the thermal degradation formula correct (2012 was.. weird!), but there are advantages.

Tires are No.3 on my list. I understand that marbles are an issue, but we don't often see cars two wide in corners anyway.

[Andres125sx]

Sorry but this makes no sense at all. Gaps are opened by the car in front, if he can, the one who always try to prevent an undercut from his chaser... openning a gap

Obviously, I was referring to the gap of 28 seconds behind - e.g. the time delta of the pit stop. An 'undercut' only works if you can pit into a gap and then use the fresh rubber to drive faster than the car you are racing is able to do on its old tires. If Hamilton had not controlled the pace by driving slower than he needed to, the gap to Grosjean would have opened sooner. He then would have made himself vulnerable to being undercut too early in the race when a 1-stop was still too ambitious.

So Hamilton's game plan was to drive slow and keep the traffic bunched up, so that his closest competitors couldn't pit, because if they would, they'd end up in traffic and be stuck. Obviously, this achieved another advantage too; that being: he conserved his own tires so that when Vettel/Ferrari did bounce and pitted into the first small gap that emerged (the one between Perez and Grosjean), he had enough performance in his tires to react and counter the fast outlap from Vettel.

Alternatively, if he had pushed from the beginning, he would have had the gap to Grosjean already around lap 10. If Vettel had remained close enough (all indications from FP2 were that Ferrari easily had the pace), they would have faced the dilemma of either preempting the undercut themselves, but having to go for the US tire (for a fast outlap) and then having to do 51 laps on them or again letting Vettel pounce first, but then not having enough rubber to react and counter the undercut.

Driving slow and controlling the field was the best way to ensure he kept track position.

Of course, but that was possible to that extent, only due to the fact it was Singapore and overtaking a car with similar pace is pretty difficult (euphemism alert!)

The real aim of racing is to win by going as slowly as possible (to paraphrase Lauda).

Hamilton/Mercedes did the correct thing in order to win. Was it "slow"? Yes. Was it "boring? Only if you think that going 100% all of the time is what racing is.

This isn't just in F1. It applies in all racing, even athletics.

Yes and no. Racing is not going 100% a 100% of the time, but there should be some limit to that. IMHO when the leader can go several seconds slower than posible and still the second car can´t even consider an overtake, something is wrong with that formula.

As your comparison with athletics, it´s like if once the start is done all of them must run on same line so once one of them take the lead, the rest can´t pass him so he can do 100m in 13 seconds instead of the 9-10 he´s able to, and still win. Would you watch such a race?


Strategy is fine, controlling pace is fine, but F1 has always been measured in tenths, or even miliseconds. Nowadays we´re talking about several seconds difference, and still not possible to overtake. Do you really think this is fine? There will always be some overtake delta, but as sosic2121 said, it should be around 1 second as much. That´s a world of pace difference in F1.

Heck, half a second has always been considered a huge difference in F1. Now 3 seconds difference and still impossible to pass is fine?

[strad]

Andres; I agree totally. When the McLaren can set fastest lap three quarters of the way thru the race it shows just how much conserving tires affect racing and the race.

[DiogoBrand]

Drivers don't make a difference? What about the gap from Lewis to Bottas, from Vettel to Kimi, from Hamilton to Vettel in what we assume are equal cars?

They are definitely not cruising around, the difference is easy to explain: No qualifying mode, 100Kg of added fuel, tyres that must last over a longer distance than only one lap and there you have it.

[Nickel]

But mainly, you never saw any processional racing. And this is what I hate. So I'll politely disagree with your theory based on the fact that the processions started as soon as refueling was stopped.

I want some of what you're having. the mid 2000s were insanely processional more often than not. let's not forget the circumstances that led to the 2009 rules overhaul based on OWG recommendations. most of which has since been undone due to esthetic considerations.

[Just_a_fan]

I would contend that the drivers could not physically have driven 100% for the whole race, or even a significant portion of it. Look at the drivers after the race - they were all knackered. These cars are beasts to drive in terms of the loads imposed on the drivers. Add the temp/humidity and you have a very draining experience.

And before people say "in the old days...blah blah blah", these drivers are fitter than any from yesteryear and the cars generate g forces as high or higher than any before. Trying to do Singapore at close to 100% of what the current cars can achieve is probably, likely even, physically impossible.

[zac510]

-Pirelli tires. Megasoft lasts 20 thousand laps if you don't push, but if you do they fall apart after half lap. Thermal degradation has to go.

If you go for physical degradation instead of thermal degradation you'll get tons of marbles on the side of the track == narrow racing line == procession. Or you get tyres that have physically compromised and fall apart == Silverstone 2013.

It seems pretty hard for Pirelli to get the thermal degradation formula correct (2012 was.. weird!), but there are advantages.

Tires are No.3 on my list. I understand that marbles are an issue, but we don't often see cars two wide in corners anyway.

Yes I agree with your other post that getting the overtake delta down to 1sec is more important. Then tyre marbles would become important, such is the inter-connected nature of F1.

[Andres125sx]

Andres; I agree totally. When the McLaren can set fastest lap three quarters of the way thru the race it shows just how much conserving tires affect racing and the race.

Exactly

Drivers don't make a difference? What about the gap from Lewis to Bottas, from Vettel to Kimi, from Hamilton to Vettel in what we assume are equal cars?

They are definitely not cruising around, the difference is easy to explain: No qualifying mode, 100Kg of added fuel, tyres that must last over a longer distance than only one lap and there you have it.

So you think now that magically means a 11-12 seconds slower laptimes for same car and same driver? Take a timer and count to 12 please, I think you´re understimating what 12 seconds are for same car and same driver. Difference between F1 and GP2 pole times are not that big....

You think McLaren is fast enough to make the fastest lap in the race at the last third of the race?

You think Magnussen did the fastest lap in the race because he was the fastest car? He really was 1 second faster to Hamilton and 2.8 seconds faster to Vettel?

https://www.formula1.com/en/results.htm ... -laps.html

[gibells]

But mainly, you never saw any processional racing. And this is what I hate. So I'll politely disagree with your theory based on the fact that the processions started as soon as refueling was stopped.

I want some of what you're having. the mid 2000s were insanely processional more often than not. let's not forget the circumstances that led to the 2009 rules overhaul based on OWG recommendations. most of which has since been undone due to esthetic considerations.

Yes for sure. The 2009 rules largely fixed the processions. Of that there is no doubt. But wasn't it 2010 where no refueling came in.

[WaikeCU]

Maybe the constant change in technical regulations is the problem? I remember whenever the technical regulations are somewhat set for a few seasons, the gaps between cars starts to decrease. It's radical technical regulation changes that lead to bigger gaps, because that's just like a reset button.

I believe we have seen three big technical regulation changes in the last 4 seasons:
- Hybrid era V6
- Wider cars, lower rear wings, bigger tires
- Halo

To me that's massive, whereas if you compare this to late 90's and early 2000, I believe we didn't had that massive changes from 1999 to 2005? Is it?

[Big Tea]

Maybe the constant change in technical regulations is the problem? I remember whenever the technical regulations are somewhat set for a few seasons, the gaps between cars starts to decrease. It's radical technical regulation changes that lead to bigger gaps, because that's just like a reset button.

I believe we have seen three big technical regulation changes in the last 4 seasons:
- Hybrid era V6
- Wider cars, lower rear wings, bigger tires
- Halo

To me that's massive, whereas if you compare this to late 90's and early 2000, I believe we didn't had that massive changes from 1999 to 2005? Is it?

I think this, and the rules for construction being so restrictive is the main cause. Id there were different ways to build the car, the cars would have better performance in different areas. The best example is at the start of the previous turbo era. Option one, nimble car, advantage around corners and twisty bits. Option 2. brute force, fly by on the straight.
With all cars the same weight engine type and basic design where one is good/not-so-good they all wil be.