Strategies cause McLaren headaches

Posted on | Author Keith Collantine

Fernando Alonso, Nick Heidfeld, Magny-Cours, 2007McLaren weren’t on Ferrari’s pace at Magny-Cours – but some bad strategy calls made the gap look even greater.

A questionable switch to a three stop strategy did nothing to help Lewis Hamilton’s cause.

And whoever made the tactical decisions for Fernando Alonso left him behind two drivers he had already overtaken at the end of the race.

Hamilton’s extra stop

Hamilton was the only driver to finish in the top ten having made three stops. But the extra visit to the pits only seemed to cost him time.

McLaren brought Hamilton in on laps 16, 38 and 51 giving him stint lengths of 16, 22, 13 and 19 laps. At the time of his second stop it looked as though he might have been pitted early to avoid some traffic.

Had they fuelled him to the end at that point he would have had to go 32 laps on the softest tyre compound. The Ferrari drivers managed slightly shortly stint lengths on the same tyres with no obvious problems.

So why did McLaren switch Hamilton to a three-stopper? The only way it might have benefited him would be if he’d been able to get ahead of Ferrari before his final stop. But at six seconds adrift before his third stop he never even looked close to making it.

The strategy might have worked better had they been able to leave his third stop later, giving him more time on the more durable harder tyres. But that would have left him enormously vulnerable in the event of a safety car period.

By the end of the race his six second deficit had ballooned to over half a minute – most of which was accounted for by an apparently unnecessary extra pit stop.

Alonso’s poor reward

Fernando Alonso, McLaren-Mercedes, Magny-Cours, 2007Starting tenth on the grid was always going to be a challenge at a track where overtaking is very hard when the weather stays dry.

But the advantage Alonso gained from the handful of excellent passes he was able to make was squandered by the compromises forced on his strategy.

The vagaries of F1 qualifying forced Alonso into a compromised position from the start. The drivers immediately in front of him had carried more fuel into qualifying because they expected to qualifying where they did.

Forced to race through the field Alonso made two particularly fine passes in his second stint, taking Giancarlo Fisichella at Adelaide hairpin and Nick Heidfeld at – of all places – the Imola chicane.

Alonso’s made his two first stops at the same time as Hamilton – but he was fuelled to the end at the second stop.

The long stop and carrying a heavy fuel load in the final stint doomed him to fall back behind Fisichella and Heidfeld.

More so than Hamilton, Alonso was a victim of circumstance.

Racing vs strategy

I don’t ordinarily write posts about race strategy because they’re boring. I don’t believe any fan ever came home from a race and said: “I saw the most amazing pit stop.”

My point is this: Alonso made two excellent overtaking moves at a circuit where passing is always difficult. He ultimately lost those positions because of compromises forced on McLaren by the structure of qualifying.

I think F1 is placing rather too much emphasis on tedious race strategies over what motor sport should be all about – driver ability.

Related links

Tags: / / / /

6 comments on “Strategies cause McLaren headaches”

  1. Strategy…….starts when they off load the cars for Friday warm-up. The silly three part qualifying is filled with “strategy” and invariably
    the race is won or lost based on some “strategy” that worked or didn’t. Where has motor racing gone? McLaren’s “strategy” may have taken a hit during Q3 when Alonso did one lap and parked it, the next order over the radio was to Hamilton to do more laps!!!!! Regardless of McLarens “strategy” or luck, Ferrari …. BOTH of them …. had a good margin over Hamilton today. 6 days and counting……

  2. I agree that strategy has become almost more important than the racing – and also that luck plays much more of a part than is necessary. The answer? Ban refuelling, simple as that.

  3. Nathan Jones
    2nd July 2007, 8:41

    i dont know why they still have refuelling when it’s the most dangerous thing they do, and all the talk of slowing the cars for that reason etc.
    if a mechanic was struck in the head by the gantry that came off albers car he’d have been killed!

  4. Getting rid of refueling would be one less variable to deal with when trying to figure out who is truly the fastest. Isnt that what F1 is all about?

    It would also be one less thing to go wrong for Spyker.

  5. I’ll second that, Dan M – I was surprised nobody got more than bruises from Albers’ removal of the fuel hose.

    As for strategy, yes it has become ultra-important – but in addition to banning refuelling, measures need to be taken to make overtaking a more reasonable proposition. I know Fernando Alonso was able to overtake relatively easily, but the number of times I’ve seen a quick driver stuck behind a slower one over the last three years is astonishing given that this is supposed to be the top tier of motor sport.

  6. in Hamilton case, Dennis said somewhere that they wanted to make sure he does not get stuck in traffic. So, basically they settled for 3rd …

Leave a Reply

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

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.
If the person you're replying to is a registered user you can notify them of your reply using '@username'.