Raikkonen’s problems, Grosjean’s gains: Why Indian Grand Prix turned out as it did
Insight
XPB.cc
Strategy Report
Posted By: James Allen  |  29 Oct 2013   |  1:58 pm GMT  |  143 comments

The Indian Grand Prix was all set up to be a fascinating strategy battle with four of the top ten cars starting the race on the more durable medium compound tyres and six on the soft compound, which was short-lived. Everywhere there were different tactical approaches and possibilities, although some yielded good results, others didn’t work out.

Sadly incidents at the start meant that the fastest two of the outliers, Mark Webber and Fernando Alonso were not able to show what they might have done. A strong result for Sergio Perez, however, made the strategy look worthwhile and one wonders what might have been for Webber and Alonso.

Meanwhile the two Lotus drivers went about the race in completely different ways but came together near the end as both ended up trying a one stop strategy. It worked for Romain Grosjean, who scored an impressive podium, but not for Kimi Raikkonen.

Here we analyse in depth how and why the race turned out as it did.


Pre-race expectations

All teams have strategy computers, which model the race beforehand and give a likely outcome. On Sunday morning many had Webber winning the race by three to four seconds with Vettel catching him at the end. The key to it was how hard it would be to overtake and come back through the field for the drivers like Vettel, Rosberg and Hamilton, who were starting the race on the soft tyre and would be forced to pit early. Most estimates said that the soft tyres would last around five or six laps only at the start of the race. Because of this Webber, Alonso and the two McLaren drivers had opted to qualify on the medium. Although it was one second a lap slower than the soft, it was a much better race tyre. By qualifying a better than expected fourth, Webber managed to put himself into a position to win the race, if he could use the clear air after Vettel, Rosberg and Hamilton pitted to push hard, while Vettel would be coming back through traffic after his first stop.

Vettel had gone for the soft tyre in qualifying so he could stay out of trouble at the start, which turned out to be prophetic. Meanwhile the Mercedes paid went that route because they had been very fast and consistent on the soft tyre in their Friday long runs. It looked promising for a strong podium for them, so they wanted to maximise their advantage.

Meanwhile to throw another strategic dimension into the mix, on race morning Pirelli issued an advisory note that teams were not to do more than 15 laps on a set of soft tyres and 35 laps on a set of mediums. Ferrari and Red Bull were both struggling to get them to last.

The FIA refused to enforce Pirelli’s guidance, leaving it to the teams to decide how long to run the tyre. In the end Adrian Sutil set his fastest lap of the race on his 18th lap on the softs, while Kimi Raikkonen did 51 laps on a set of mediums. For Sutil and Romain Grosjean, ignoring Pirelli was central to their strategy and their result.


Webber’s plan fails at the first hurdle; Vettel comes through

Although the simulations said he should win, starting fourth on the medium tyre, it didn’t work for Webber because he got tangled up at the start with Alonso and dropped to seventh place, behind Hulkenberg and Raikkonen. His opportunity was lost at that point. His strategy relied on running in clear air at the front while time was being lost for Vettel in traffic.

By the time he hit the front he had only half the gap he needed over Vettel, who carved his way through the traffic better than expected. Once Red Bull strategists saw that Webber and Alonso’s strategies were compromised, they pitted Vettel on lap two to get him off the unfancied soft tyre. From here he had 58 laps to do on two new sets of medium tyres. He split the race evenly, doing two 29 lap stints.

The key to his race – and Rosberg’s race too – was being able to come through traffic after the early stop. Vettel was 17th on lap two and back up to the lead by lap 29. He had to pass all the medium tyre runners, who could otherwise hold him up by running long, and he did so.

Webber meanwhile, knowing that he was racing for second place, pitted on lap 28 for a short stint on softs, then pitted again on lap 32, as he had an opportunity to slot into a gap allowing him to run in free air ahead of Ricciardo. This gave him 28 laps to do on medium tyres to the chequered flag. This had secured him second place but then alternator failure ended his afternoon.


Perez standout drive and what might have been for Alonso

Sergio Perez was the most notable illustration of what might have been for Webber and Alonso as he ran the medium tyre in qualifying and at the start and managed to go from ninth on the grid to fifth, his best result of the season. He kept the medium tyre lapping competitively until lap 28 and then did a short stint on softs, in clear air, pitting on lap 33, rejoining behind Hamilton, but ahead of Hulkenberg. As Hamilton’s tyres faded in the closing stages, the man who replaced him at McLaren was able to pick him off.

Alonso, meanwhile broke his front wing and damaged his front suspension in the opening lap melee and his strategy was compromised as he made a forced early stop, losing the strategic advantage of starting on the medium tyre. He was unable to progress back through the field and ended the day not scoring any points.

In hindsight, he might have been better to qualify on the soft and do the same strategy as Rosberg. He set the second fastest time in Qualifying session 2, so if he had just repeated that lap time in Qualifying session 3 he would have been third on the grid. From there a podium was possible with a clean start like the one team mate Massa got on the soft tyre.


Contrasting Lotus strategies and what might have been for Massa

There was some controversy at Lotus in this race as Kimi Raikkonen refused to accept team orders and let his team mate Romain Grosjean through four laps from the end. Raikkonen’s tyres were six laps older than the Frenchman’s and had passed their best. They touched, Grosjean went off track but managed to repass the Finn and went on to score an impressive third place, from 17th on the grid while Raikkonen finished seventh. So how did Lotus end up in this situation?

The original plan was for Raikkonen to two-stop from sixth on the grid and for Grosjean to one stop. Both started on soft tyres, but Grosjean’s were new as he had messed up qualifying and was down in 17th place on the grid. This would prove important as he was able to run a longer first stint than his team mate and that made the second stint a more manageable length.

He managed to get to lap 13 before stopping which was ideal, as he then did 47 laps on the mediums. He picked up places when the likes of Gutierrez, Hulkenberg and Di Resta made their second stops. All the good work to set up the result was done in that opening stint.

Where Grosjean was lucky was when Felipe Massa and Ferrari failed to trap him on lap 29. Massa needed to make a second stop and had a 23 second lead over Grosjean. If Massa had pitted then he would have trapped Grosjean behind him and would then have been on fresh tyres, while Grosjean’s were older and needing to make the finish. So the Lotus would not have been able to attack.

Ferrari did not take this opportunity and so when Massa pitted on lap 30, he came out behind Grosjean. This was the turning point of Grosjean’s race.

Mercedes saw it. Rosberg was behind Massa in this phase of the race and they pitted Rosberg to cover Grosjean on lap 27, trapping the Frenchman. Massa could have been second in other words, but clearly didn’t feel he could make the finish on one set of tyres for 33 laps.

Grosjean lost some time behind Gutierrez between laps 21 and 25 and this cost him a shot at beating Rosberg to second place.

Raikkonen in contrast, had set out to stop twice and made his first stop on lap seven. This brought him out behind Hulkenberg and Di Resta on relatively new mediums. He could not pass because he was suffering a repeat of a rear brake problem he has had a few times before. When he closed up on the car in front his rear brakes overheated and didn’t perform as normal.

Raikkonen and the team had discussed the possibility of a Plan B, should he find it hard to pass traffic on a two stop. The alternative was to run one stop, which is what they then agreed to do. The gamble was that if it worked he could get a podium and if it didn’t he wouldn’t finish lower than seventh, which is what he would have got had he stayed in traffic on a two stop.

But having stopped on lap seven, he needed to do 53 laps on a set of medium tyres. It was an extreme gamble, but he and Lotus have scored some good results in the past this way.

This time it proved to be five laps too many, as his performance dropped off around lap 55. Losing four positions in the next three laps, he had a big enough gap to Di Resta to be able to pit on lap 58 for a fresh set of softs and stay in seventh place.


Force India back in the points

It was a good result for Force India on home soil after a barren spell recently which has allowed Sauber to close up on them in the championship. This result arrested that march a little. Force India now has a 23 point margin with three races to go.

Starting 12th Di Resta finished 8th on a two stop plan with a very early first stop. While Sutil started 13th and finished 9th on a one stop strategy.

Di Resta’s strategy was to start on the soft tyre, come in on lap one and then divide the race into two halves on new medium tyres. It meant that he ran in clear air for almost the whole race and it worked well. The team was disappointed not to beat Raikkonen to seventh, but Lotus were able to pit Raikkonen on lap 58 as his tyres were falling off a cliff and get out just ahead of Di Resta.


The UBS Race Strategy Report is written by James Allen with input and data from several of the leading teams’ strategists and from Pirelli

RACE HISTORY CHART

Kindly supplied by Williams F1 Team

Compare the yellow traces of Raikkonen and Grosjean (dotted), both initially careful on the medium tyre in second stint, look at the contrast in performance in the closing stages

Note also the time Grosjean loses behind Gutierrez between laps 21 and 25.

Strategy Insights
Strategy Briefings
Share This:
Posted by:
Category:
143 Comments
  1. Michael S says:

    53 laps for Kimi was an insane prospect. Nothing worse than watching a driver just fall off the cliff with tires. Should have brought him in for a second stop when others came in, better to lose out racing on track than watching tires go away. I can see why Pirelli was mad as well.

    1. Gabrielle says:

      This is, as Kimi is moving to Maranello, I doubt they are giving too mutch attention for the finnish man. Seems to me that all the prime strategies are going to Grosjean now – and that seems to be happening since Singapore.

      Plus with Lotus owning that load of money to Raikkonen (by the way, James, do you have any info. about that?), based upon how many points he scores, it’s a tricky situation for them to see Kimi scoring more and more every race.

      1. DK says:

        I thought Lotus was trying to fight for P2 in WCC? It is the team’s interest to see both drivers finish as many points possible. However, I do agree that there is bias towards Grosjean which I can understand.

      2. Tealeaf says:

        Also for Raikkonen if Lotus finish 2nd doesn’t he have a claim to that extra money seen as they can’t pay him right now.

      3. Antti says:

        Lotus desperately need all the points Kimi can bring in (finishing 4th in WCC as opposed to 3rd or 2nd means a lot of money), so I seriously doubt they’d deliberately put Kimi on a strategy that would disadvantage him. They would obviously like to see Romain ahead of Kimi, but not if that means less points for the team.

      4. Michael S says:

        I know an extremely high profile F1 journalist that told me Alan Permane told him in Austin last year that if Alonso was at Lotus they win the title(last year).

        Permane is also the one who said he has never felt as bad with a podium as he did in Singapore when Kimi took third(his claim was that Grosjean deserved it).

      5. Gabrielle says:

        Taking that Permane was the one who gave away his own bosses on the Singapore-gate back in 2008 (he was the witness X), we can’t relly be surprised over his criticism over his own drivers.

    2. Random 79 says:

      And after keeping him out that long they tell him to “get out of the ******* way” for Grosjean and then pit him at the end anyway.

      Räikkönen would not have had his happy face on.

      1. Phil says:

        Räikkönen has a happy face?

      2. Spoo says:

        ROFL with random 79. It was literally a RollingOnTheFlippinFloor for me… Good one

      3. Random 79 says:

        Cheers Spoo :)

      4. Glennb says:

        Seems he was ‘cool’ with it (tyre strategy) some time later.
        http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2013/10/29/one-stop-strategy-was-worth-a-try-raikkonen/
        I would have thought the “IceMan” would have tore ‘em a new one ;)

      5. Random 79 says:

        What is said to the media and what is said behind closed doors are not always the same thing.

        I think you’re right and a tearing would have ensued.

    3. All revved-up says:

      Hindsights a wonderful thing. If Lotus had called Kimi in and he finished 6th, he would have wondered aloud ala Webber in Japan – whether he could have risked it seeing Grosjean in 3rd.

    4. Marc Saunders says:

      If Kimi stopped, it could have been done in lap 49 when he could have put softs. Anyway he would have landed behind Perez, and could have surpassed Perez, Hamilton, Massa and eventually Grosjean to land 3rd.

    5. Mark Saunders says:

      Kimi should have stopped in lap 5 and then he would have landed few sec. behind Vettel. From then he coul have follewed Vettels strategy and probably land 2nd. On the other hand, had he pitted at lap 49, he could have landed behind Perez and with new softs could have surpassed Perez, Hamilton and probably Grosjean too finishing 3rd.

  2. Alexander Supertramp says:

    When talking about Grosjean: “He managed to get to lap 13 (on new softs) before stopping which was ideal, as he then did 47 laps on the mediums. He picked up places when the likes of Gutierrez, Hulkenberg and Di Resta made their second stops. All the good work to set up the result was done in that opening stint.”

    I know it’s P17 to P3, but for me this says it all. Good job by Romain for making it work, but he didn’t achieve p3 by racing, he achieved p3 by alllowing his Lotus to save tyres. F1 anno 2013 is not in the right place if that’s called impressive racing.

    1. DEANO says:

      Racing takes in a lot more then just going fast, all the cars can go fast, it’s about managing ones brakes, the conditiones of the race itself and tire management. Tire management is as much a part of raciing and anything the team and driver has to deal with. In fact it has always been so, if you think that this series of years with Pirelli as the tire supplier is any different that past season, just look back at the years when the FIA required the tire suppliers to put groves in their tires, 3 grooves for the front tires and 4 grooves in the rear tires, this was mandated by the FIA to force the drivers to slow down when cornering. Back in 1998 through 2008 the FIA was concerned, as they always have been about safety. So if anyone thinks that managing tire wear is something new to F1, well you simply don’t know your F1 history. Between those years you had drivers like Raikkonen, Hamilton, Alonso, Massa, Button, Vittel and Schumacher and many others driving on those grooved tires. I would not say that all those races were boring just because the tires resulted in slowing the drivers down. Don’t forget it’s an level playing field when all the drivers are dealing with the same tire management situation. Grosjean and Lotus simply did a better job with what they and others had to manage and that was finishing as high up as they could.

      1. Alexander Supertramp says:

        Slowing cars down for safety purposes has a different spirit than forcing a tyre manufacturer to produce tyres that will make for artificial “racing”. I agree with you that tyre management is part of the game, but it should play a more marginal part. Tyre efficiency should be something that gives you a small edge at the end of the stint or even at the beginning of the stint. Romain going from P17 to P3 basically purely on tyre management feels wrong to me, but that’s just my opinion off course. And I stand by my initial point that Romain has little to do with his India result, that was almost purely the car enabling him to run long stints while lapping competitive times. Great result by Lotus, but in my humble opinion Romain’s skills had not much say in the matter. Lotus’ ease on the tyres is nothing new and Romain has shown some great racing skill this year-e.g. Japan,Korea, Singapore,.. But sunday he just had to pass cars that were in the pitlane. That’s not a stellar performance in my book, but it might be in yours ;).

      2. Visconti says:

        Supertramp, one thing is slowing down the drivers, another thing is preventing then to race. I agree with you: tyre management has always been in F1. But it was a minor issue.

    2. RB says:

      My thoughts exactly. He just pulled a Perez/Sauber. Qualify poorly, then with all your fresh tires, race past those poor souls who burnt out tires trying to make qualifying worth while. Great race by Romain , but not as exceptional as it’s made out.

      1. Alexander Supertramp says:

        I made the comparison with Perez/Sauber yesterday as well, we share the same view ;)

    3. Visconti says:

      +1
      Definitely not racing at all. They should do 24h races as F1 is becoming more of a endurance championship.

  3. Kaartik says:

    But James its very obvious with Pirelli’s once reached the cliff, the fall will be dramatic even a commoner would tell that 50+ laps on Medium is just too much, instead Lotus could ve pitted wen Hulk was brought in, it would have given a chance for Raikkonen to attack Perez, Lewis and Massa in the final stint with Mediums.

    1. DK says:

      Agreed, I think they should reacted when Rosberg was catching him 1.5 sec per lap. It crazy to go further when the cliff was apparently over. At least he has a fighting chance to chase after P4 or better. Though it is a gamble, the risks is just too high.

      By the way, I do think the Lotus pit could have asked Grojean to make the pass at a more convenient place instead of the fast corner.

  4. Sebee says:

    Today’s laugh of the day? Found this on my daily F1 rounds. Oh, they are trying so so hard to find the RBR secret sauce!

    http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns26687.html

    Hilarious, don’t you think? :-)

    1. A=F/M says:

      The same Gary Anderson that predicted Webber to win by 5 seconds?

  5. C Lin says:

    James, do you know what are the issues which cause Raikkonen’s repeated rear brake problems? Can the team solved them? It will be crucial if they want to move up the WCC.

    1. Basil says:

      I subscribe to the theory that those problems are intended.

      1. Marybeth says:

        @asil, Ditto. I also subscribe to the theory of the strategy decision to send Kimi back out behind 2 slower cars is also intended, that they also knew that they would not bring him back in if RG was anywhere near where he could podium. And I believe that Lotus will keep it up until the checkered flag flies at Brazil. I guess they have no ambition to try to bring Kimi back in a few years. :)

  6. Clarks4WheelDrift says:

    Great analysis.

    Wonder if Button and Alonso would have gone Hard/Hard/Soft, or Hard/Soft/Hard without their damage on the first lap – surely it’s better to run the Softs on light tanks at the end.

    I love the graphs, they really show how good it is to race in clear air, not just for laptime, also to preserve tyres.

    You can clearly see how bad it is when a driver gets caught behind another car, where the steepness of the curve drops off. See Alonso’s final stint steepness till it reduces when he runs with Ric and Sut. Just as it did behind Guitierrez earlier in the race. Also see Rosberg’s final stint steepness compared to Lewis’s stuck behind Massa.

    It’s also apparent from the graph (as well as the laptimes during the race) that Lotus should have reacted to Kimi’s tyres running out. It didn’t suddenly happen over a lap or two.

    I also see Seb’s spike in steepness at 53-54. Looks like the Red Bull had plenty in hand, I take it that was when he started going for fastest laps before Rocky told him don’t even think about it. ;)

    1. Noltan says:

      +1

      Thanks very much to Williams for the graph.

      I also have a suspicion that Red Bull (or Vettel anyways) has more performance than they show. The template seems to be sprint off at the start to a 5 – 10 second gap and then maintain. Anytime he is down the field, he is easily able to make up time.

      It also seems like he can follow much more closely than others while trying to pass. Anyone else notice that?

  7. Harshad says:

    James, what do you think if Lotus had pitted Kimi on Lap 40 (after hulk’s DNF)? He would have came out behind Perez or in the battle, but atleast towards the end with 20 odd laps to go he could have picked them up easily, & could have scored p5/6 instead of P7, giving Lotus a better result!

    1. Harshad says:

      Correction Hulk retirement was on Lap 53, but anyways Kimi would have had a better chance, at the end with fresher tyres attacking Perez/Hamilton.

  8. mjsib says:

    Why has there been no stories about the disgraceful way Alan Permaine spoke to Kimi? For a team that aren’t paying him I found it really unprofessional. Yes Kimi should have let Romain past easier but Romain chose to overtake round the outside,a car that had problems with it’s brakes, had no tyres left and was trying to slow down from 200mph

    1. Chromatic says:

      Guess who [clue: first name begins with F, surname begins with A] will surely try to exploit these tensions within the Lotus team, and fan the flames higher if he possibly can?

      We’re bound to hear some comment in the run up to Abu Dabi designed to make RG more excitable and add to pressure on KR

    2. LEM says:

      Here’s some details:

      http://f1bias.com/2013/10/29/indian-gp-2013-the-kimi-and-permane-radiogate/

      Since Singapore, Lotus has been saying that without them, Kimi will not have a successful return to F1. I say that both parties benefited. However, Kimi’s contribution to Lotus far outweighs what Lotus gave to him.

  9. James says:

    Raikonnen told the team he wanted the 1 stop. It’s worked in the past, it didn’t quite happen this tune . Thems the breaks.

    1. Harshad says:

      It was a team’s call not the driver’s call, Kimi was saying tyres won’t last for one stopper!!

      but anyways, team shud have realised that doing 50+ laps on medium (which has never been done before) would have flirting with danger, and they just found that out!

      1. James says:

        Alan Permanent stated quite categorically that Raikonnen chose to go for the 1 stop. They had nothing to lose in sticking with it as the worst he could come was 7th.

      2. Marpabel says:

        Do you realy belive Alan Permane?

  10. Matthew says:

    They chose a terrible strategy for Lewis. They should have pitted him a lap after nico to try and get him ahead of massa, the same way it worked for nico. But because they pitted him at the same time as massa, they ruined his race. So he spent the rest of the race behind massa ruining his tyres trying to find a way past. Plus all that time he gained on nico was for nothing.

    1. Glennb says:

      I was surprised Lewis was stuck behind Massa for so long too. From all accounts the DRS zone made for highway passing. I witnessed many passes in the DRS zone. Surprised Lewis couldn’t make it happen. Webber was heavily critised for a similar event in Japan from memory and he only spent a lap or 2 behind Grosjean before getting it done. Maybe there was more to it.

      1. KRB says:

        Not much to it … bad traction onto the back straight, and a lower top speed. Even with DRS, Lewis and Nico’s Speed Trap figures were behind Massa’s. Add those two together = never gonna pass. That’s why neither Merc could pass Massa on track.

        I’m not sure why Mercedes is going down that route. When even RBR are emphasising decent top speed, you have to be in the game on that score. I recall Schumacher re-passing DRS-enabled Hamilton down the pit straight at Monza, b/c of Merc’s mega top speed back then.

        On the flipside, the McLaren’s now had good top speed in India, and it helped Perez clear a lot of cars at the end.

  11. Raj says:

    Regarding Perez, might it not have made sense for Perez (and also Webber) to run the short stint on Soft tyres at the end instead of in the middle of the race. If you look at the comparative lap times, Perez was faster than Grosjean and Massa when in clean air.

    When Perez came out after his second stop, he got stuck behind the train of Grosjean, Massa and Hamilton. Instead Perez could have run medium tyres in the middle stint in clean air. Could have given McLaren that elusive podium.

    1. Rockie says:

      You need to factor in the safety car and the softs dont last be it on low or high fuel

    2. Glennb says:

      I think in Webbers case, the decision was a good one. He put on the options and came out in clean air where he could thrash the tyres and make up precious seconds before discarding them. Webbers race was always going to be about running flat out till the end. The options would have only lasted 3 or 4 laps under those conditions. Had they put the primes on during his stop, he would still have been in clean air but on a slower tyre, thus not making the precious seconds up that he desperately needed to fend off Vettel in the closing stages (per James’ summary above). I can’t comment on Perez’s strategy.

  12. Stig says:

    A race full of faults:
    -Alonso clearly still had the pace of Massa. Doing the short stint on Softs in the middle was a bad idea. He dropped into traffic. Staying on the used Mediums (clean air until Hulkenberg!) and doing the stop for Softs 10 laps to the end would have given him the chance to attack Hamilton at the End.
    -Same for Perez. His short stint on Softs threw hin into traffic. He would have had clean air to the End…
    -Hamilton threw it away with stopping at the same time as Massa. They should have tried an undercut to profit from clean air or should have stayed out. His tires were still ok and there was no traffic to avoid. Pitting at the same time was stupid.
    -Raikkonen threw it away on lap 51. His tires were gone, it was clear, that he could not keep Gro, Per, Mas and Ham behind him with the pace of lap 51. With a stop he would have been right behind these 4 cars with new Soft tires.

    Interesting fact on the RedBulls:
    Pitting Vettel on lap 2 was really necessary. Webbers Soft tires were gone after 2 flying laps. His inlap was compared to the laptimes before very slow. Vettels tires had a lap of Q3 plus in- and outlap, plus two laps before the start…a second flying lap in the race was clearly not possible.

    1. All revved-up says:

      Thank you for the explanation. I wondered why RB called SV in so incredibly early on lap 2.

    2. DEANO says:

      To my understanding RBR pitted Vettel just after 2 laps on the soft because of track position after he pitted. Vettel was able to re enter the race circuit width little to no traffic. He’s always done very well on the mediums and he was able to pass the reasonably slower cars with ease. So to me it was done more for eventual track positions and had nothing to do with the soft tires degrading too fast. RBR knew that it was going to be a two stop race for both their cars, so why not get him off the soft at the right point in the race. People wonder why RBR is so dominant, it’s not just their cars and drivers, their strategy leading up to and during the race is outstanding, of course having great cars and drivers doesn’t hurt either.

      1. Stig says:

        The very early stop was clearly not about track position. Vettel came out right behind the Marussias. Another lap on the Softs with no degradation and he would have been in front of them after the stop. But this was just not possible.

  13. Vivek says:

    I for one could not believe what Lotus were doing.

    At one point around Lap 43, Kimi was about 10 seconds ahead of Rosberg. Had Lotus pitted Kimi, he would have come about around 10 seconds behind, on fresher mediums that had to last only 15 laps. I am sure he would have pushed Rosberg hard for 2nd Place. Lotus probably lost a 2-3 finish.

    May be the competitive performance of Romain on his mediums, made Lotus decide not to pit Kimi, but the difference was exactly the 5-6 laps that Kimi had put extra on those tyres. Kimi lost his tires on Lap 55.

    I am not convinced about the Lotus strategists, these mistakes seem commonplace.

    1. JL says:

      they seem to mess up with Kimi’s strategy at almost every race since he announced he was moving to Ferrari

      1. Yak says:

        It’s not just since he signed with Ferrari.

        Lotus are in the awkward place of being rather competitive, but not quite being quick enough to simply outpace Red Bull. To their advantage though, they have a car that treats its tyres rather kindly. So they lean towards running one less stop, knowing they won’t have the pace to simply run the “normal” strategy and win (or get whatever result they want). Kinda like how Webber in India knew he didn’t have the pace to beat Vettel and sail off into the distance from pole, so went on to the primes instead in the hope that he’d beat him through strategy.

        Unfortunately sometimes it just doesn’t work out for Lotus, and we the viewers are left wondering why they didn’t just run the extra stop and let the driver(s) go ape. But obviously it’s not such a simple matter. For one, to really run one stop less you need to commit to it pretty early on. And if you have to change your mind later on because the tyres aren’t going to make it… well then you’ve already done 3/4 or whatever of the race distance with a tyre-saving approach, i.e. you lose time trying to stretch the tyres out, then lose time again coming back in for tyres anyway.

    2. Phil Glass says:

      For Lotus, strategy has been a case of one less stop all year, as if there can’t be anything else. Of course Kimi would have got p2 if he, like Grosjean, had new softs to start on.
      And these “strategists” were too busy losing control of themselves and their pique at Kimi [because he's signed for Ferrari?] lead to bizarre hysterical behaviour on the Lotus pitwall !! Kimi was not refusing team orders, he just wanted to let RG pass where it was easy for both of them: on the straight. That’s how pros do it. RG wanted to pass him through that tight fast corner when his tyres were already shot.

    3. Gabrielle says:

      It’s Ciaron Pilbeam the dice-roller, isnt it?

    4. Jari says:

      I was thinking the exactly same. And no excuses that Kimi made the decision… They have the better information and the time to react on the pitwall. And I’m pretty sure that if you communicate the new strategy (without f-words) to Kimi, he certainly would have bought it.

      I find it funny that it seems Lotus pitwall don’t know how to communicate with Kimi, they should run the show and not the driver, no matter what kind of personality Kimi has…

    5. BW says:

      You seem to forget that gap from Rosberg wasn’t important (around Lap43 it was around 9 secs, actually). The important gap was from MAS-HAM-PER-HUL group. Kimi was 17 secs ahead of Massa, 20 secs of Perez, 23 secs of Hulk. Pitting at this particular moment meant battle with this group and no chance of coming anywhere near Rosberg.

      1. Vivek says:

        On the contrary, I noted this too. But I also noted that.
        MAS, HAM pitted on Lap 30
        PER, HUL pitted on Lap 33
        Kimi would have probably slotted in between PER and HUL. With tyres that were fresher by 10 Laps and knowing that they had to last only 15 Laps more, Kimi could have pushed a lot more than the others around him. He would surely have finished better than 7th and had a shot at 3rd place at the very least.

      2. BW says:

        So, you’re no longer speaking of 2-3 finish and rather of 3-4 finish? Not impossible, except for:
        ‘He could not pass because he was suffering a repeat of a rear brake problem he has had a few times before. When he closed up on the car in front his rear brakes overheated and didn’t perform as normal’
        It was a gamble: he’d hold to his position managing tyres, or he’d not. And when it turned put it wouldn’t work, it was too late (like in China).

    6. Marpabel says:

      And add pitline +6,7 sec stop!!

  14. Sebee says:

    You know fans, with change of power plants in 2014, and all this ERS and electric motors, we should probably start a list of car name suggestions for Vettel to choose from for 2014.

    I personally put forward 2 suggestions for Vettel’s 2014 car name.
    1) Electric Sandy
    2) Cherry 2000 (too retro for you?)

    Any ideas?

    1. Miguel Bento says:

      Sparky Elektra

      1. Sebee says:

        Not bad at all. We may have a finalist already.

    2. Glennb says:

      You think too much Sebee….
      OK, I’m in. How about “Marco’s Maid” and they can call Dan’s car “Helmut’s Little Helper”.
      Those names work on so many levels :)

      1. Sebee says:

        Too many male names in your car names.
        DSQ :-)

      2. Tyemz says:

        Hahaha never a dull moment when the word Sebee appears on your screen. A Seb fan with a difference. Got me smiling at my screen just like that.

    3. Clarks4WheelDrift says:

      Slow Startin’ Sally

      Fiery Fiona

      Alternating Angie

      Wheelsoffski Wilma

      Kers Koughing Kandi

      Sorry, these would be for Webber/Dan… DSQ too.

      Vee6 Vera?

  15. Omniprescient says:

    Anyone has got an idea why Vettel pitted so early after the start? He surely still had superquick lap or two left on those softer tyres, even after the Q3?

    1. James says:

      In FP2, Vettel’s softs went after 2 laps. They couldn’t take the risk of this set falling apart when the early pitstop would’ve set him up for at least a podium anyway.

    2. Joshua says:

      It’s in the article. No need to risk staying on tyres that go off quickly once Webber was coveted

  16. JohnBt says:

    Did anyone read this from Pitpass

    [Nonetheless, claims that during Sunday's exchange, Raikkonen also said; 'you can tell that f***ing f***er Alonso that he's in for plenty of this f***ing s**t next year so he'd better be f***ing prepared' remain unconfirmed.]

    I’m waiting for confirmation.

    1. Phil Glass says:

      LOL!!

    2. All revved-up says:

      Very poor leadership from that Lotus chap.

      Expletives is hardly the mark of a leader. No subordinate or colleague deserves to be spoken to in that tone.

      Hallmarks of a playground bully.

    3. Glennb says:

      I missed the transmission but my Grandmother told me about it.

    4. deancassady says:

      Is that true, or are you just joking around?
      It is out of pattern for such an outburst from Kimi, rather, the pattern is for him to ‘say’ exactly the same thing, but by driving it, as opposed to voicing it.

    5. Sebee says:

      I’d need to hear the actual audio streamed from formula1.com to believe that.

      1. Chromatic says:

        Obviously, John Bt is kidding.

      2. JohnBt says:

        No it’s from an article in Pitpass. I Didn’t say that. LOL!

    6. Basil says:

      Ridiculous, he would never say something like this.

    7. Shabee says:

      OMG !!!! Reminds of massa comment that Ferrari should breath as much as it can this season as next season it will be difficult to breath with kimi n alonso in same team….

    8. Alexander Supertramp says:

      Why would Kimi say that?
      Imagine if it where true though :D.

  17. Phil Glass says:

    Hats off: RB have never failed to find the shortest route for Seb from lights to flag.
    Whatever other teams like to pass off as ‘strategy’ is a very poor imitation. Ferrari may do a better job than most, but are not really on the same plane as RB. This will have to change next year. I’m guessing [hoping] there are plans ……

    1. SteveS says:

      No matter what strategy they give to Seb, he generally manages to make it look like an inspired choice.

      1. Yak says:

        Well… maybe not Canada 2012.

  18. Bruno says:

    Why F1 does not have youtube channel? MotoGP, Nascar, V8 Supercars, DTM… they all have videos! [mod]

    1. CJD says:

      greedy bernie ..

  19. Phil Glass says:

    Mark Webber:
    After all these years he didn’t know that the team strategy for Seb is the best one to follow. Webbs should simply have said, ‘whatever he’s having I’ll have the same’.
    Also he took the first three corners the way Grosjean used to, collecting ALO, RAI and maybe others in a few short seconds. Didn’t exactly help.
    Did his fastest lap from stricken parked car to paddock, and the very nice young RB PR person had trouble keeping up. I think she tripped on his heels……

    1. Yak says:

      In a straight fight, Webber knew he wasn’t going to beat Vettel. Vettel would take pole and then just disappear. Webber didn’t have the outright pace to match him. That’s why he went for the alternate strategy, because starting on the soft tyre would force Vettel back into the back early on along with the other option users. Webber would be left out the front to start opening up a gap while the others battled away to take positions back. This isn’t any kind of after-the-fact interpretation of events; Webber quite openly said he knew he had to try something different.

      What stopped it from working was Webber’s messy start. In the end, he was still comfortably looking at 2nd until his alternator died. Given that 2nd was the best he’d have been able to do on the “normal” strategy, it wasn’t really working out too bad.

    2. Aaron Noronha says:

      What works for Vettel never works for Webber. Just look at Japan it was India in reverse he had only to over take one car which Vettel pulled off even without DRS(he activated the drs only after he was alongside the lotus and not behind) Webber isnt the best overtaker that is why he was all smiles after the DNF because he knew he had the best strategy and it was seconded by the race simulations of all the teams. Unfortunately as usual he had a horrid start and Vettel just sliced through the field. If it were other way around Vettel would have still won with Webber stuck behind Grosjean or Massa

  20. quest says:

    A good strategy for Kimi would have been to stop for softs around the time the tyres started deteriorating. He would have come out right behind Hamiltion, Massa and Grosjean and would have had a very good chance of getting past them on fresher tyres. By lapping faster than the trio till that point on older tyres he had given himself that chance. But this is not the first time Lotus have shown themselves totally incapable of thinking on their feet.

    On top of that, the extremely rude, totally unprofessional barking of team orders with expletives at their first driver. They love to potray image cool image but the deserved backlash on their own supposed official fan page has put them in their place. Should make them realize to what extent it is based on leveraging Raikkonen’s popularity. As if their inability to honour their dues on a timely basis had not exposed their unprofessionalism enough.

    Hope Hulkenberg is able to sign for a better team than this one.

    1. Marpabel says:

      And why 10 person looking monitor, if drivers have to make all decision when they driving 300 km/h.

  21. TitanRacer says:

    what an incredibly awesome shakedown of the Indian GP, James!!!
    have not yet seen just how many passes on track Seb did. prior to the race, he downplayed the tire strategy as if to say “I am King and will deliver”!
    and that, he surely did… in fact, he has won the last 6 races with totally different strategies – the mark of a true champion… and his post-race antics and comments have endeared me even more to his likeability :)
    one more thing:
    the comments by your fans to this blog are mega incredible!!!
    long live JA!!!

  22. Bart says:

    Does anybody know where I can find Indian GP radio transcripts? Is there any official website?

    1. Bart says:

      of course I mean “team radio” transcripts
      Cheers, Bart

    2. Maxime Labelle says:

      I usually follow @F1PitRadio on Twitter for that.

      1. Bart says:

        Thanks a lot! Bart

  23. vyname says:

    Oh the karma sauce!
    Conspiracy or not, Brazil 2012, start, WEB covering VET and not ALO…
    India 2013, race to determine Championship, start, WEB and ALO get too entangled for comfort, only to “crash and burn” in terms of results.
    Oh,Karma… you do bite, don’t you :-D

  24. cometeF1 says:

    This is why I have followed F1 for a while now. I enjoy the beauty of the cars, the drivers performances, the skills not just the drivers, the technology, the what I really like about F1 are the strategies involve. A battle within a battle. After the race it is easier to see which strategy would have brought the better result. In the case of Kimi though, I feel as many who have already posted the opinion, that Lotus fail Kimi. We of course, will never know for certain that pitting would have helped him finish higher up, but still it seems very probable. James’ report shows how good a race this GP was, if there was a need for those who follow it live. Marc

    1. Taflach says:

      During the radio brodcasts Kimi told his engineer that he was going to try one stopping as his brakes were overheating if he got too close to the car in front so he couldn’t pass anyone.

      If Kimi had stopped again he would have ended up in the same position. By taking a risk on his tyres lasting it was possible to end up higher but unfortunately that didn’t happen.

      I love the strategy of F1 racing too:) There’s nothing else quite like it.

    2. Kimi4WDC says:

      I’m sorry. But those guys at Lotus pit-wall supposed to be analytic geniuses and they are paid big money to perform. This is why people expect them to be competent at what they are doing instead of letting their emotions run high. Considering that bad calls are consistent feature of Lotus pit-wall, I dont see how peoples dissatisfaction with their actions is misplaced.

  25. deancassady says:

    Fantastic article; the best yet!
    Thanks for being here, guys.

  26. roman is good but nothing else says:

    Now we have seen who’s lotus driver number one…but how many overtakes ramain done in india? I think not so many and if he doesn’t get easy passes, he is scream to the team radio like the baby. Maybe the old crasjaen is coming back….

  27. Vivek S says:

    Tangential topic: Its frustrating to see how the issue between Permane and Kimi continues to be ignored by the English media. What would be the outcry if any of the other world champions on the grid got abused by a senior team member like that?

    Grosjean panics and tries to overtake a car with shot tires on the outside of a 150+ mph corner. And Permane’s response is what? Abusing the guy who’s the very reason Lotus is in the constructor’s fight in the first place?

    Lotus/Enstone is really behaving like a jilted lover isn’t it? First the humping squirrels then Permane’s bizarre comments after Singapore and now this.

    1. Fireman says:

      Maybe there’s nothing worth writing about it and keeping objective.

      But maybe write about how Lotus built a great public image in the social media (by leveraging Kimi’s personality) and now they’re needlessly flushing it down the toilet. They’ve not even made the cash deals yet.

      Strategy is not their speciality, whether in or out of the track.

  28. Bernard says:

    Am I right to remember that one, possibly both Lotus had fuel issues, and that they both stopped at the pit exit after crossing the finish line? I think I remember Kimi being told to “save fuel without losing time” (hah!) which can’t have helped.

  29. Fireman says:

    So, according to this it was P7 for Kimi either way (one stop, two stop). Maybe less shouting though.

  30. zippy_the_cat says:

    Grosjean’s engine was acting up again so the Lotus pitwall was facing the prospect of a late-race DNF plus Kimi’s tires going off translating into zero points. So I’d cut Permane some slack on his excitability.

    See http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2013/10/29/grosjean-had-repeat-of-singapore-engine-problem-in-india-2/

    1. DK says:

      Strange, nobody talked about Kimi’s rear brake issue except Kimi himself …. Perhaps somebody just tried too hard to justified his emotional outburst ?

  31. Alberto Martínez says:

    This is the way Vettel picked up places from lap3 to lap 19

    ———————————————–
    Lap 3: Overtakes Chilton (p16)
    Lap 4: Overtakes Bianchi (p15)
    Lap 5: Pitstop from Hulkenberg (p14)
    Lap 6: Overtakes Bottas & Pitstop Button (p12)
    Lap 7: Overtakes Gutierrez & Pitstop Rosberg – Raikkonen (p9)
    Lap 8: Pitstop Massa -Hamilton -Maldonado (p6)
    Lap 9: Overtakes Sutil (No opposition because of 1stop strategy) (p5)
    Lap10: Overtakes Grosjean (No opposition because of 1stop strategy) (p4)
    Lap12: Overtakes Ricciardo (Let him pass) (p3)

    Running in clear air

    Lap19: Overtakes Perez (No opposition because of strategy) (p2)

    Running in clear air
    ———————————————–

    Overtakings: Chilton, Bianchi, Bottas, Gutierrez, Sutil, Grosjean, Ricciardo, Perez.

    Tough overtakings: Chilton, Bianchi, Bottas and Gutierrez.

    I think Vettel carved his way through the traffic better than expected because most of the opposition either was in a different strategy (they had to pit before he had to overtake them) or they let him pass to not destroy their tyres and achieve their strategies (Sutil, Grosjean, Perez).

    Moreover, with the RB9 being the class of the field, it doesn´t seem too difficult to overtake Chilton, Bianchi, Bottas, Gutierrez. Probably the former was his most difficult overtaking of the day.

    1. CJD says:

      thanx, i wish i read your posting earlier.

      i also already studied the graphs to find out who he realy had to “overtake”

      not that many this time – great strategy again

      greetings

    2. Clarks4WheelDrift says:

      Fair points there when the next Vettel fanatic declares he won the race from the back by overtaking everyone ;)

      It helps that Button and Alonso were knocked back so he never met them on track, then again that was their risk qualifying on the slower tyre and starting in the carbon-fibre zone with Webber backing into them all.

    3. Jari says:

      Yeah, but as you you can see from the graph, and probably remember from the race Alonso gut stucked behind the same Gutierrez for quite some time. Those are the small things that make the difference.

      It was one faultless drive again from Vettel and we should give him all the credit for that.

      1. Alberto Martínez says:

        I agree with the fact that Vettel drove a faultless drive. I don´t pretend to understimate his achievements!

        Nevertheless, its also true that overtaking in a car which is the class of the field is always easier: Let´s not forget that the RB9 has massive amounts of traction and downforce, and this year they got over the top speed problem from previous years

        With my comment I only pretend to show that in many occasions people don´t analyse the race deep enough and intend to shred light to biased statements like this one from Helmut Marko
        “I don’t know how many people Seb overtook – just to the people who say he can’t overtake!”

        Best regards.

    4. KRB says:

      Very good summation. Did you mean to say Chilton was his hardest overtake, or Gutierrez? ‘Cos if you meant Gutierrez, you would have used ‘the latter’ instead of ‘the former’. I’m guessing that’s what you meant, b/c the Saubers had crazy top speed again.

      Overtakes like that really do give the race more of a time trial feel.

      Have we had any on-track passes for the lead this year? Was Grosjean in the lead when Vettel passed him in Japan, or was that for P2 at the time? I can’t think of any, at least none that were real tussles for the lead like Austin last year.

      I guess Malaysia, but some nefariousness involved there, with Webber having turned down his engine.

      I haven’t gone over every race, just doin’ this off the top of my head right now.

      1. Alberto Martínez says:

        I meant Gutierrez. The Sauber had good traction and above all the best top speed in the race.

        As you say I should have written ‘the latter’ but my English in not perfect. Sorry for that!

        Cheers

  32. JC says:

    I still wonder why Web was not going for hard-hard-soft as the chance of sc was very small and would have has a new set with lowest fuel load stint of the race, able to attack for the win.
    Of course, being a strategist for RBR I would have done the same thing, avoiding Web to chase Seb at the end with quicker tyres and a high risk of an accident (Web at this point has nothing to lose ), and surely justify the hard-soft-hard on the SC risk….

  33. Elie says:

    Im totally disenchanted with Lotus and their inability to make effective strategy calls. We all know that since his 2014 plans – Raikkonen had become their de facto. No2 driver- which is all well and good if they weren’t fighting a tight battle for P2/3 and critical championship points- which no one needs more right now than cash strapped Lotus. Had Lotus pitted Kimi around lap 47/8 he would have undercut Hulkenberg – who was 21.8sec behind- worse case Kimi would have passed him when Hulk pit on 51.
    The race for the podium was over when they left out at after lap 50- he was in no mans land and the decision on whether to stay out or come in was irrelevant at that point regardless who made it- The Team needed to decide at lap 45 and no later than 48. In that window 2-2.5 + sec (maybe 3 on softs) a lap improvement on new rubber would have given at least 10 seconds race advantage and fresh rubber to attack.
    Grosjeans move on the outside of turn 1 was truly ridiculous- anyone with half an ounce of sense would not attempt to overtake a car with 50 lap old on the outside when all he had to do was pull into the inside and use better traction on exit ( this would have left Massa baulked in the approach also).. Despite his excellent drive up to that point, It just shows he lacks the decision making of a champion and because of his shock/surprise actually spurred on that idiotic comment from Alan Permaine. I’ve said it before, it’s not the first time Lotus have made wrong strategy calls- Germany/ Hungary – Kimi had a real shot at Seb at Hungary – but several laps pondering when to move the Frenchman out of the way Lost them that chance, Less so in Hungary chasing Hamilton but still an opportunity that was again buried by Lotus “strategy” showing otherwise.

    Here we had a lead driver fight for less than one corner ( possibly without clear informed feedback)and he’s told to “get out if the f/ing way” (otherwise he would not have said “no need to f/ing yell” ) Absolute disparity and inappropriate use or profanity !

    Strategies are fantastic because you can correlate so much data in split seconds, but they cannot account for Unforseen circumstances, experienced drivers, -drivers making mistakes or competitors failing , safety cars chances etc..Hence you need people who understand the data but understand people and their abilities equally when making the strategy calls– you quick decisive thinking – not morons yelling at a WC moved out of the way only 2 corners later. Red Bull and Ferrari are second to none at this and the other are a fair way behind. Lotus had a genuine shot at P4 with Kimi instead settled for P7 just to ensure P3 for Grosjean.- I think they were taking lessons from RBR an I think the French connection are hugging and kissing all round ! Best decision Kimi ever made to get out of there despite the great opportunity and unrivalled success on/ off track both have achieved.

    Further I wonder how attractive Lotus are to new investors after that race…mmm maybe not so ! Well done Permaine

    1. Marpabel says:

      +1000

  34. McRocket says:

    Very interesting…thanks for this JA.

  35. HJ says:

    I never comment, but I just wanted to say how much I enjoy these post-race strategy posts. Together with the pre-race analysis which you do (which identifies pit-stop times, percentage of lap spent braking, etc.) they are my favourite of your posts. I can follow some of the variations during the race but it’s impossible to keep track of everyone, so sometimes I’m wondering: “how did that happen for X?”. Thank you!

  36. Grant says:

    Well done to Grosjean

  37. Tim says:

    I don’t think so. Besides, I’d much rather see a beautiful lap than a perfect one. That’s we watch in the first place.

  38. Sebee says:

    Have you seen? Rush pulled in nearly double the budget at the box office already. Here come DVD/On Demand sales now.

    Fantastic!

    I was hoping it would do well, and it really has.

    1. James Allen says:

      Not in the US.

      It’s done well in UK

      1. Sebee says:

        Hey America!

        Are you going to let UK win?

        I guess British fans really are better than US fans. Is it all vampires and hang overs in the US? :-)

        Let’s go U.S.A.! There is still time to take your significant other on a date this weekend. Come on, 4K projection, you’ve never seen F1 on a big screen like that in this res. Worse case go to the 3 stopper fall-back strategy with DVD, BluRay, OnDemand!

        Don’t let UK fans win!

      2. Random 79 says:

        You know there’s such a thing as being too competitive right? ;)

    2. Random 79 says:

      I was all set to watch it at the cinema yesterday, but had to miss it due to unforeseen circumstances.

      Now looking forward to the Blu-ray release :)

      1. Sebee says:

        Oh Random…not you!

        On behalf of FIA I’m having you reprimanded! Also a 10 comment penalty for next GP.

        You’re lucky you admitted your indiscretion, or it woukd have been a one GP suspension.

        Look…have you ever seen me use this emoticon? :-(
        Never!

      2. Random 79 says:

        I think in my defense having to miss the movie in the first place is punishment enough.

        Still, I have to recognise your authority in this matter and accept the punishment handed out.

        10 Comment penalty for the next GP. So that leaves me with…give me a second to work this out…yep, about 568 give or take ;)

      3. Sebee says:

        4 screenings? Even more reasons to make it to one!

        And yes…why are you commenting? FIA has your comment telemetry and knows your GP weekend average. Don’t try to be sneaky with short comments. :-)

    3. KRB says:

      Yeah, not sure if it has. You’re talking worldwide box office? In N.America it’s sitting at around $26m, with a budget of $35m. So yeah, worldwide it will recoup its money, although that’s total box office … what’s the final cut that goes to the studio?

      I saw it on the weekend, and liked it, good movie. Took the wife, and while she’s not a racing fan, she still liked the human drama story it told.

      Oh man, that tube down the throat?!?! Agh!!

      1. Sebee says:

        Funny that a few F-bombs, cig logos and a tube down throat during graphic treatment shots and yes…human drama you can learn from = R.

        But mindless murder and decapitation – we’re good with PG rating. As long as you don’t drop the F-bomb while you’re taking off a few limbs, welcome all you 12 year olds!

        Who’s responsible for this agenda anyway? And why is it OK to show gun shootings, decapitations, suicide etc. in TV ad shows? I was watching a game with the kids, they cut in with an ad for some dramatic show episode, guy puts a hand gun to his head in the commercial, pull the trigger, they cut away. And they wonder why people cut their cable!?

        At least during an F1 feed all we see is car ads, oil ads, ED medication ads and occasional Kimi after a comb attacked his hair pushing Degree deodorant. It must me just a luck of the draw that the time windown F1 is shown in probably restricts the ads they can show 8PM or later.

        Boy…I’m ranty today. It’s all Random’s fault. I would never have thought Random o all people would not have seen the movie month into screening.

      2. Sebee says:

        Can you handle Kimi after a vicious comb attack?

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5ejB9SLypQ

        Mr. Rikkonen, based on your clean hair cut, we are pleased to extend you membership in our country club.

      3. Random 79 says:

        In my further defense where I am they only had about four screenings in total :(

      4. Random 79 says:

        Damn I just wasted another comment. 567 to go.

  39. Marc Saunders says:

    Dear James. I live out of Europe and have been reading many european F1 sites (which I will not tell but you can imagine), since I can read English German and Spanish. It is very interesting that many of the journalists induce conspiracy theories about Red Bull in many ways. Some state that Webber is not beeing properly provided, other say that the RB9 is illegal, and the FIA controls are failing on purpose. I am very impressed by the quality and accuracy of your information that is also keeping away of such theories that impressively are being repeated thoughtless by too many people. For all this I congratulate you!!

  40. Bill says:

    That Austin comment is funny by Permane, if he really did say that since Raikkonen is much faster than Alonso on RAW pace. Not a contest. It is just a matter of giving Kimi the ideal front end, steering sensitivity that he needs. I think Kimi is, categorically speaking, too good for Lotus as they can’t even fix a simple steering problem as Mclaren did after 2002…

  41. Bruce says:

    Wondered why, given that Grosjean had shown that in fact, in Sunday’s conditions, the Softs could last for 15-20 laps, RB only allowed Webber a handful of laps on the Softs before dragging him back in for Mediums again. Surely the RB doesn’t destroy them that quickly … could MW have got closer to SV if left on the Softs for longer (not that t mattered in the long run).

    1. Mark Saunders says:

      You see that Seb. also did 2 laps on softs, and in the graph over also see that Webber wasn´s faster on softs than in mediums.

LEAVE A COMMENT

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Top Tags
SEARCH Strategy
JA ON F1 In association with...
Download the chequered flag podcast today
Download the chequered flag podcast today
MTS
Industry-Leading Testing and Sensing Solutions
Multi award winning Formula One photographer
Multi award winning Formula One photographer