Abu Dhabi Grand Prix 2010, Yas Island Marina Circuit - Race 19/19

CaptainRAVE said:
I am still not convinced it was a bluff. The tires were going off and they had no idea they were going to come back to them. The leaders had to take a chance, plus, Alonso at the time was racing Webber, not Vettel. Ferrari had to cover Webber.
Click to expand...

fair point about the tyres I totally agree with that (and with taking a chance)

I dont agree at all that Ferrari had to cover Webber

1) On a track known for limited overtaking, mid-field teams had already pitted so wouldnt be pitting again, so RB and Ferrari knew they would have to over take a few cars on the track to start with - this was going to be highly unlikely given the cars

2) With Ferrari hardly challanging McLaren for 2nd and 3rd (in the first part of the race), Alonso only had a couple of positions lee-way from where he was before Webber was irrelevant anyway (ie as SV was leading (the race) the WDC was lost for Ferrari had Alonso dropped those couple of places)

3) Alonso was ahead of Webber on the track before their pitstop - if he had been behind I would completely agree with you but he wasnt (and he was in free air, I dont think there was much, but I seem to recall a little gap to JB in 3rd at the time)

Dutch Guy said:
Hmmmm, I don't think DC is an impartial reporter when it's about RB though.
Click to expand...

Bit of an understatement there :)
 
Last edited:
Yep. I'd go along with that. Personally, I think Ferrari messed up big time with their pit-stop strategy.

The worst thing was that they pitted Massa (for some reason), a lap earlier. What was the point of pitting Massa, when he was going to come out behind Webber? Surely, they should've left Massa out for longer, to allow him to build up a lead so that he could come out ahead of Webber? Were Ferrari trying to sandwich Webber between their 2 cars?

Ferrari not only took Massa out of the equation, but they also forced Alonso into the midfield traffic.

If RBR pitted Webber on purpose to force Ferrari's hand, it worked like a charm and was a stroke of genius. Webber's pitstop, resulted in Ferrari panicking and instigated 2 early pitstops which were completely unnecessary and effectively took both Ferrari cars out of the picture. Meanwhile, RBR's chosen one, got a run on the championship, in the final race, without any competition from Alonso.
 
Was Massa that far behind already to pit the lap before Alonso and Webber (and yet allow Ferrari to know when Webber was pitting the next lap?)

Or did I misunderstand you?

Massa was out of it already - Im not sure he could have done much even if on a very long run until when JB pitted (and therefore getting ahead of most of the contenders) - although admittedly the track would have helped even if Massa wasnt completely upto lap speeds of SV /FA etc
 
Last edited:
FrankJH said:
Massa was out of it already - Im not sure he could have done much even if on a very long run until when JB pitted (and therefore getting ahead of most of the contenders) - although admittedly the track would have helped even if Massa wasnt completely upto lap speeds of SV /FA etc
Click to expand...

From what I recall, Webber pitted first. He did this because, stuck behind Alonso as he was, would not help his cause. He needed to try some form of risky/alternative strategy to somehow get ahead of Alonso, because overtaking was not an option on this track. Webber's early pitstop was justified/understandable.

Ferrari, soon after Webber's pit stop, pitted Massa. Massa came out of the pits, behind Webber. This did not help Ferrari at all. Had Ferrari kept Massa out for longer, because he was lapping with cars ahead of Webber, he would've been going faster. Webber, although in a faster car, would've been held up by slower cars in front of him. Had they pitted Massa after another 10 laps, in all likelihood, Massa would've been ahead of Webber. This would've allowed Massa to "control" Webber. What possessed Ferrari to pit Massa so early when there was no need to? By pitting him early, they effectively took Massa out of the picture.
 
MagicBoy said:
It's better evidence than unconfirmed rumour and speculation, and it's not like the Telegraph is the Sunday Sport.
Click to expand...

Hey. Enough of that now.

I'll have you know that the Sunday Sport is one of the best newspapers around. I'll take the Sunday Sport over the boring Telegraph any day of the week.

:p
 
That article seems to suggest that the biggest audiences are observed in the first and last GPs of the season.

It looks like the Arab countries have got it right, from a commercial point of view. No doubt, they are both paying a premium for staging the 2 GPs which pull in the highest audiences. It really is a shame though that both GPs are as boring as watching paint dry. From a hardcore F1 fan's perspective, both Arabian GPs should be got rid of.
 
sunama said:
It looks like the Arab countries have got it right, from a commercial point of view. No doubt, they are both paying a premium for staging the 2 GPs which pull in the highest audiences. It really is a shame though that both GPs are as boring as watching paint dry. From a hardcore F1 fan's perspective, both Arabian GPs should be got rid of.
Click to expand...

I don't think they should be gotten rid of - they just need to improve the track layout. They bring a lot of investment into F1. My biggest problem is that they have the two prime slots. The F1 season should finish in Brazil. Sadly, with Tilke at the helm, more and more of the races will become like this.
 
CaptainRAVE said:
I don't think they should be gotten rid of - they just need to improve the track layout. They bring a lot of investment into F1. My biggest problem is that they have the two prime slots. The F1 season should finish in Brazil. Sadly, with Tilke at the helm, more and more of the races will become like this.
Click to expand...

Luckily back to Brazil as last race next year!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom