[Artemis]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

Everyone yelled Noooooooooo
The strange thing is, that his teammate at that time was already on inters.
Stroll was one of the first (with BOT) to go to inters if I look at the information given during the race

I wonder if feedback from him played a role in the decision to send ALO out on slicks again.

On the other hand:

• 55 laps with the same tires (graining, degradation and all)
• those tires are mediums (instead of hards) supposed to last 30 to 38 laps
• at the daunting crash-prone Monaco street circuit
• rain intensifies
• several cars getting into trouble even with inters
• a lot to lose (leading the race)
  = maximum risk

But Verstappen bossed it. Images showed how he was 'dancing on ice', almost losing control of the car, in treacherous conditions shortly before pitting for inters.

When the rain started to fall, Fliplegend chimed in with the comment:

Originally Posted by Fliplegend

The great equalizer just entered the chat

He was right. We have seen those who managed to control their cars in the rain and those who didn't.

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by Autobacs

It could have worked the other way around as well.

Only the difference is that ALO was the only one to come in for slicks. Everyone else came in on inters.
At the time ALO came in for slicks, BOT, STR, ZHO, ALB and SAR were already out on inters, and RUS, TSU and DEV were also pitting, but all on inters.
And within a few seconds after that, GAS, OCO and HAM also came in for inters.

It could have worked the other way round, sure but it didn't and the whole field realised that. It's a bit like the Hungary GP, where everyone then pitted for slicks exept HAM, standing on the grid all by himself in inters on a dry track.
That could have worked the other way around as well.... but it didn't and every team realised that exept MERC back then.

It was a big mistake from AMR/ALO. Luckily he had the room at the back to OCO to not loose a position, but realistically and objectively it was the wrong call. At the time he came in it was already wet on some parts. Max made the right call to drive one extra lap on those worn tyres to see how it would develop.

I cried noooo (well, I was surprised and had my doubts, no actual cry though ), Artemis cried nooooo, all the commenters on the sports channels cried nooooo (at least the ones I've seen), but you cried "Yessssss" ?!?

[Artemis]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

I cried noooo (well, I was surprised and had my doubts, no actual cry though ), Artemis cried nooooo, all the commenters on the sports channels cried nooooo (at least the ones I've seen), but you cried "Yessssss" ?!?

On Belgian TV the F1 journalist Gaëtan Vigneron and his co-presenter Jacky Ickx (legendary race driver) also immediately expressed their astonishment, wondering why Alonso hadn't fit inters. Ickx replied that it was "courageous". The journalist concluded that it was "a poker move": "if it dries, he'll win, but he needs to stay on track now". Once Alonso re-entered to fit inters, Ickx commented that it was a "wise decision" to get inters.

[Autobacs]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

Only the difference is that ALO was the only one to come in for slicks. Everyone else came in on inters.
At the time ALO came in for slicks, BOT, STR, ZHO, ALB and SAR were already out on inters, and RUS, TSU and DEV were also pitting, but all on inters.
And within a few seconds after that, GAS, OCO and HAM also came in for inters.

It could have worked the other way round, sure but it didn't and the whole field realised that. It's a bit like the Hungary GP, where everyone then pitted for slicks exept HAM, standing on the grid all by himself in inters on a dry track.
That could have worked the other way around as well.... but it didn't and every team realised that exept MERC back then.

It was a big mistake from AMR/ALO. Luckily he had the room at the back to OCO to not loose a position, but realistically and objectively it was the wrong call. At the time he came in it was already wet on some parts. Max made the right call to drive one extra lap on those worn tyres to see how it would develop.

I cried noooo (well, I was surprised and had my doubts, no actual cry though ), Artemis cried nooooo, all the commenters on the sports channels cried nooooo (at least the ones I've seen), but you cried "Yessssss" ?!?

I neither cried yes or no because I personally do not have the information required to make an informed opinion of what the right call is, simple as that.

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by Autobacs

I neither cried yes or no because I personally do not have the information required to make an informed opinion of what the right call is, simple as that.

In that regard you can never form an opinion about the strategic or technical side of F1.
Because all teams and all drivers will always have more information. (but that doesn't mean they make the right decision)
However, all who cried noooo were right. Just as everyone that switched to inters (that is: pretty much everyone else).
So in that regard it was like HAM/MERC in Hungary, and arguably NOR in Sochi.

In all those situations, one can ask oneself "it could've", but it doesn't matter as it "didn't"
The level of "informed opinion" is always very much up to debate (when is an informed opinion 'informed'?), but then again, no opinion at all is also very boring.

[Autobacs]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

In that regard you can never form an opinion about the strategic or technical side of F1.
Because all teams and all drivers will always have more information.
However, all who cried noooo were right. Just as everyone that switched to inters (that is: pretty much everyone else).
So in that regard it was like HAM/MERC in Hungary, and arguably NOR in Sochi.

In all those situations, one can ask oneself "it could've", but it doesn't matter as it "didn't"

LOL, You took a wide broom there. I was specifically referring to the weather information for that race. I don't have access to it and neither does anyone on this board. In any case it was a 50/50 shot. Hindsight is always 20/20 is it not? I certainly can form opinions on some aspects of F1.

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by Autobacs

Hindsight is always 20/20 is it not?

It's not hindsight 20/20.
It's what we felt when we saw that pitstop. Because that decision (going to slicks or inters) was already in the air for quite a few laps. That's why they pitted that late.
And all the commentors on tv yelling noooo.... that's also not hindsight. It was in the moment.
It's only a 50/50 shot in therms that there are 2 outcomes, the right call and the wrong call.
But everyone made the right call, except ALO. To me that doesn't characterizes a 50/50 shot.

What for me is the strangest fluke: did ALO make that call or did AMR make that call?
And why was STR already out on inters? And did that influence the call on ALO's stop?

I also don't understand why ALO pitted first in such a critical stage of the race. I'm sure he could've waited a lap. Also, they didn't wait what RUS and OCO's move would be, being the 1st 2 drivers behind ALO, also on hards. At that time he had 25 sec on RUS, so that's a free stop, but it's cutting it very close if you have to use that time for a 2nd stop, especially it this chaotic part of the race.

If you look at it realistically what they could gain, I think the chance of loosing a position (so 2nd place) was more likely than to gain a position (getting 1st, overtaking VER).
At the time of ALO's pitstop, Max was leading 13sec. If ALO made the right call, going to slicks, for sure Max would have taken the same call as he would be pitting later and having seen more of the weather developping. He'd either go to softs or hards. But what is the chance, that in that 1 or 2 laps, ALO could gain 13sec over VER?
That's over twice the time with a right (and same) decision, compared to the ~5sec safety margin he had of taking the wrong call (thus 2 pitstops) to what he had over the 2 cars behind him (RUS/OCO).
So all in all a risky move. Chances of winning would be very very slim, but loosing a position could be a realistic scenario, if something went wrong (which is always a possiblility with a pitstop, let alone 2 pitstops).

[Artemis]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

It's not hindsight 20/20.
It's what we felt when we saw that pitstop. Because that decision (going to slicks or inters) was already in the air for quite a few laps. That's why they pitted that late.
And all the commentors on tv yelling noooo.... that's also not hindsight. It was in the moment.
It's only a 50/50 shot in therms that there are 2 outcomes, the right call and the wrong call.
But everyone made the right call, except ALO. To me that doesn't characterizes a 50/50 shot.

What for me is the strangest fluke: did ALO make that call or did AMR make that call?
And why was STR already out on inters? And did that influence the call on ALO's stop?

I also don't understand why ALO pitted first in such a critical stage of the race. I'm sure he could've waited a lap. Also, they didn't wait what RUS and OCO's move would be, being the 1st 2 drivers behind ALO, also on hards. At that time he had 25 sec on RUS, so that's a free stop, but it's cutting it very close if you have to use that time for a 2nd stop, especially it this chaotic part of the race.

If you look at it realistically what they could gain, I think the chance of loosing a position (so 2nd place) was more likely than to gain a position (getting 1st, overtaking VER).
At the time of ALO's pitstop, Max was leading 13sec. If ALO made the right call, going to slicks, for sure Max would have taken the same call as he would be pitting later and having seen more of the weather developping. He'd either go to softs or hards. But what is the chance, that in that 1 or 2 laps, ALO could gain 13sec over VER?
That's over twice the time with a right (and same) decision, compared to the ~5sec safety margin he had of taking the wrong call (thus 2 pitstops) to what he had over the 2 cars behind him (RUS/OCO).
So all in all a risky move. Chances of winning would be very very slim, but loosing a position could be a realistic scenario, if something went wrong (which is always a possiblility with a pitstop, let alone 2 pitstops).

Must have been part of the equation, and IMHO undoubtedly a scenario discussed before the race down at Aston Martin: "rain in Monaco" equals "substantial chance of a safety car".

Under a safety car Alonso (P2) with fresh mediums would have been heavily breathing into Verstappen's neck (P1). Of course Verstappen would have pitted under the safety car.

[Artemis]

Originally Posted by Autobacs

I was specifically referring to the weather information for that race. I don't have access to it and neither does anyone on this board. In any case it was a 50/50 shot. Hindsight is always 20/20 is it not? I certainly can form opinions on some aspects of F1.

If you refer to the situation hours before the race: OK. Although the chance of rain was announced in weather forecasts.

During the race (which started around 3pm) I posted shortly after 3:30pm a weather forecast announcing rain after 4pm in Monaco. And rain fell indeed after 4pm.

Even TV showed so now and then the menacing skies approaching + screens of weather radars on the pit wall showing rain approaching: would the mountains stop the clouds from reaching the track / sea ? Also onboard radio messages of drivers reported rain. You could also spot that some sections of the track became humid. It was obvious for spectators that rain was in the vicinity. Teams are on site: they just needed to lift their heads to the skies to see clouds approaching.

Lap 52 of 78: camera shot right after the onboard message was played of Russell reporting "Yeah it's raining more and more". Alonso pitted for mediums in lap 55.


My comment posted at 03:39pm:

Originally Posted by Artemis

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by Artemis

Of course Verstappen would have pitted under the safety car.

Extending his chances to win. Not in time, but in fresher tyres and maybe better choice in tyres (because later in the race). VER wouldn't have lost a place under SC as his lead whas then about 35 sec or so (13 sec plus boxtime from ALO).

However, a SC due to the rain (crashing cars) and ALO already have pitted for slicks would have been a big risk for ALO, as lots of cars then already been in inters (OCO, RUS, HAM).

So also in this scenario, I think ALO had more of a strategic disadvantage than an advantage because if rain causes cars to crash, slicks are likely the wrong choice.

I think ALO had more to loose looking at who was behind him and on what tyres, than to win looking at who was in front.
Also, ALO is in the race for the championship. Sure a win is nice, but a finish is more important.
If it would have been OCO and in 2nd place, I would have understood the risk. Whether OCO finishes 2nd or 3rd is all great, and finish 3rd to risk 2nd place but having a tiny chance to win is maybe a deal to consider.
But ALO currently has a real chance to finish 2nd in the WDC, or at least 3rd. I think that is more important than a slight chance to win Monaco. Also there was a risk of ALO crashing, as he was also on slicks in the rain for a moment (a longer moment than Max).

I think ALO pitting for slicks, and either not wait a lap to see what the weather would do or directly go for inters (like almost half the field already did at that moment) only gave strategic disadvantages, both for a scenario with SC as a scenario without SC.
I can't see him making up 13sec due to making the undercut if he chooses the right tyre, there's a chance of choosing the wrong tyre, and if there's a SC due to cars crashing in the rain, then you're already on the wrong tyre if you chose slicks.
So I think here RB/VER not only showed superior driving/superior car, but also superior strategy.

[M5Rick]

Horner also mentioned that even if ALO had taken on Inters instead of the Mediums Max would have still come out leading all being well with the stop. That ALO came in for a second time blew a huge sigh of relief in the RB box knowing if there was a problem like a jammed wheel nut on Max's 19 then the extra time to sort it would be a bonus.

[G30M]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

At exactly the same time ALO came in and got mediums, a bunch of other cars came in and went to intermediates. (I think at the time that AM was putting on the mediums, already 5 cars had put on inters)
I think ALO said that the team handled on the information they had at the time, but they didn't look at what other teams did. They obviously had different information.

Max came in 1 lap after ALO.

during Quali the commentators said he looked at 3 weather forecasters

the prediction for rain from the 3 forecasters were 4%, 40%, 85%.

AM must using the one that said 4%

that was the strangest call of the entire race, but did not change the result

[Killed by Death]

10 laps that changed Monaco ?

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by g21

AM must using the one that said 4%

Especially at the time it was already raining on parts of the circuit and only for ALO, as STR was already out on inters....

[Artemis]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

Especially at the time it was already raining on parts of the circuit and only for ALO, as STR was already out on inters....

You can hear Alonso hesitating in onboard radio communication with his team in the video posted by Killed by Death (post #321).

It was a joint decision.

Verstappen was firm, insisting to get inters + advising his team to keep the inters till the end (instead of pitting for a faster tire in the final laps to try to set the fastest lap).

[G30M]

Originally Posted by Artemis

"if it dries, he'll win, but he needs to stay on track now". .

if they used that train of thought i'd put on softs not mediums but then i've not been tire testing in the 2023 season ...

someone said maybe they thought they'd pull out the safety car as they have always done up till now, these cars don't seem to be drivable in the wet regardless of tires - but even then i'd still go softs

[Killed by Death]

[Artemis]

"Our writers look back on 2023 so far and predict what's to come in the second half of the season
09 August 2023
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/a...zD3ziPsh1.html

"What was your favourite on-track moment of the first half of the season?

Will Buxton (F1 Digital Presenter): Qualifying for the Monaco Grand Prix was hands down not only my favourite on track moment of the first half of the season, but one of my favourite moments of the decade so far. The crescendo towards the end of the session as lap after lap the drivers wrestled for top spot, the risks taken, the perfection exhibited, the ability of those rare few to dig deep and find something magical and in that rarest one to overcome the seemingly insurmountable in a matter of a few corners. It was one of the most exhilarating qualifying sessions I've ever seen and an absolute driving masterclass. Esteban Ocon, Charles Leclerc, Fernando Alonso, they were all magnificent. But Verstappen just found that something even more special. I'm getting goosebumps just remembering it."