Formula 1

[Stan the caddy]

Great convo here.

Catsfanbgky I understand now why you’re having such an issue with this. I didn’t know what an undercut or overcut was either the first time I watched a race.

I’ll also point out that Piastri DID pass Norris on the track - with a much better start. Hence Oscar controlled the race from the start and that’s why things turned out the way they did.

 

[catsfanbgky]

Well if Piastri was a half second slower in the pits (was behind 2 seconds before pitting, came out he was 2.5 seconds behind), it seems like to me he lost ground in the pits. Not Lando's fault his crew didn't get him out quicker. I just do not understand why pitting sooner helped Lando at the END. Did Piastri not have fresher tires ? He should have been faster on fresher tires (pitting after Lando). I mean how does one racer (Lando) pitting sooner (why didn't Piastri pit with him ?) cause a situation where he should "give" a lead back ? I mean both had to pit eventually. If it is a big deal, why doesn't NASCAR make teammates give up leads if he pits sooner ? All I know is, after both pitted, Lando was running away from Piastri and Piastri had fresher tires. I do not see why he should give up the lead for pitting sooner. Also, IF Piastri was that much better than Lando (he wasn't or he would have ran him down), why didn't McLaren have Lando protect Piastri ? Bottom line is this, Lando has a shot at winning the championship (is that not racing is all about ?), costing him 7 points by giving the teammate a win is NOT how racing is suppose to work. NASCAR teams pit early all the time and you see the leader fade when his tires wear out because he had more laps on them. Piastri should have been faster than Lando and he simply was NOT or he would not have needed the gift. Bottom line, he GAVE him the win, the fastest car at the END didn't win because he slowed down and gave the lead to a teammate. After the race, several media members said it was very controversial, I am not the only one with a problem with it. Last post on this topic, but "protecting" a guy and letting him pit sooner should not be a valid reason to have a guy give up a win. How many races in NASCAR do you see a racer dominate for over half of the race, but fade in the end ? Track conditions, cars, temperatures all change during a race, so saying Piastri letting Lando pit first is not a valid claim that Piastri was the best car at the end. I do not think pitting sooner or Piastri "protecting" Lando was the reason, I think Lando's car simply got better as the race wore on. NOBODY can convince me any different. The BEST car at the end of the race, did not win. It is not about who has the best car for the first half / 3/4 of the race, it is the guy who is the fastest at the end that matters. I see no advantage Lando gained, they BOTH had the same distance lost on the track when they pitted. Was Hamilton really that much of a threat in the end ? Maybe he was at the time Lando pitted, but at the end of the race, he was nowhere close to challenging for the win, neither was Piastri. How come Verstappen never needs "protecting" ? Because most races, he has the faster car, makes the best adjustments during the race.

 

[catsfanbgky]

"The team asked Norris to let Piastri pass because the team had previously effectively asked Piastri to let Norris pass during the second pit stops. They were just undoing what they did earlier. If Norris wanted to push for the win, he should’ve either gotten a better race start instead of letting Piastri overtake him, or he should have let Piastri pass him sooner in the final stint and then raced Piastri to the checkered flag."

If that is the case, why couldn't Piastri catch up to Lando ? He had fresher tires, supposedly the best car. Simple explanation is Lando's car got better as the race wore on. IF Piastri was that fast, he shouldn't have needed help catching Lando. His car was NOT as good in the end. Thus, Lando had to slow down and let him pass. You would think the best car would be gaining ground in the last laps of the race, not losing ground. No matter when either pitted, at the end, Lando had the best car, If he didn't he would not have had to slow down, and he really had a problem "giving" the win to the slower car, I would have loved to see him keep running away. All I want answered is this, IF Piastri had the better car, why was he not gaining ground at the end ?

Reactions:Stan the caddy

 

[UKnCincy]

Well if Piastri was a half second slower in the pits (was behind 2 seconds before pitting, came out he was 2.5 seconds behind), it seems like to me he lost ground in the pits. Not Lando's fault his crew didn't get him out quicker. I just do not understand why pitting sooner helped Lando at the END. Did Piastri not have fresher tires ? He should have been faster on fresher tires (pitting after Lando). I mean how does one racer (Lando) pitting sooner (why didn't Piastri pit with him ?) cause a situation where he should "give" a lead back ? I mean both had to pit eventually. If it is a big deal, why doesn't NASCAR make teammates give up leads if he pits sooner ? All I know is, after both pitted, Lando was running away from Piastri and Piastri had fresher tires. I do not see why he should give up the lead for pitting sooner. Also, IF Piastri was that much better than Lando (he wasn't or he would have ran him down), why didn't McLaren have Lando protect Piastri ? Bottom line is this, Lando has a shot at winning the championship (is that not racing is all about ?), costing him 7 points by giving the teammate a win is NOT how racing is suppose to work. NASCAR teams pit early all the time and you see the leader fade when his tires wear out because he had more laps on them. Piastri should have been faster than Lando and he simply was NOT or he would not have needed the gift. Bottom line, he GAVE him the win, the fastest car at the END didn't win because he slowed down and gave the lead to a teammate. After the race, several media members said it was very controversial, I am not the only one with a problem with it. Last post on this topic, but "protecting" a guy and letting him pit sooner should not be a valid reason to have a guy give up a win. How many races in NASCAR do you see a racer dominate for over half of the race, but fade in the end ? Track conditions, cars, temperatures all change during a race, so saying Piastri letting Lando pit first is not a valid claim that Piastri was the best car at the end. I do not think pitting sooner or Piastri "protecting" Lando was the reason, I think Lando's car simply got better as the race wore on. NOBODY can convince me any different. The BEST car at the end of the race, did not win. It is not about who has the best car for the first half / 3/4 of the race, it is the guy who is the fastest at the end that matters. I see no advantage Lando gained, they BOTH had the same distance lost on the track when they pitted. Was Hamilton really that much of a threat in the end ? Maybe he was at the time Lando pitted, but at the end of the race, he was nowhere close to challenging for the win, neither was Piastri. How come Verstappen never needs "protecting" ? Because most races, he has the faster car, makes the best adjustments during the race.

Piastri didnt lose position because he lost time in the pits. Lando’s pit stop was 21.823 seconds and Piastri’s was 21.249, so Piastri’s pit stop was only 0.574 seconds longer due to a slow tire change. Piastri lost position because the undercut the team gave Norris was worth ~4 seconds. Piastri was 2 seconds AHEAD of Norris when McLaren started pitting Norris. When Piastri exited the pits he was then 2.5 seconds BEHIND. That’s a 4.5 second swing.

Whoever McLaren decided to pit first was going to be in the lead, even if they had equal pit stop lengths. If Norris pitted first, he would be 2 seconds ahead. If Piastri would’ve pitted first, then that would’ve increased Piastri’s lead over Norris to 6 seconds. As the lead driver who had been controlling the race, Piastri should’ve pitted first but McLaren decided to pit Norris because they were worried about how quickly Hamilton was closing in on Norris.

Again, you don’t seem to understand how the undercut works. It is an indisputable fact that the only reason Norris took the lead is because McLaren gifted it to him by pitting him first instead of Piastri. If Piastri pits first, Piastri’s lead over Norris would’ve gotten bigger.

 

[catsfanbgky]

Well why didn't Piastri run down Lando if he had the better car ? Was Lando not over 6 seconds ahead of Piastri when he had to slow down and give up the lead ? Simple question, IF he had the best car, then why, while on fresher tires, having the faster car, could he not make up ground on Lando ? Also answer me this, IF Piastri pitted first, had the lead, do you not think that Lando could have caught up with him by having fresher tires and a LOT faster car ? It all cycled thru, Piastri pitted second, he should have been faster, he wasn't. Flip the script, I guarantee you Lando would have caught him, BECAUSE HIS CAR WAS BETTER at the end of the race. Piastri's car, while on fresher tires, fell off, thus he lost ground that if reversed, Lando would have made up the ground Piastri "gave" him. The best car did not win, it was OBVIOUS to anyone who watched, at the end of the race, Lando had the better / faster car, thus the letting him pit first would not have mattered, he would have caught Piastri and won. The better car did NOT win the race, and the slower one didn't either, he was gifted the win.

LANDO ON OLDER TIRES WAS PULLING FARTHER AND FARTHER AWAY FROM THE SUPPOSEDLY FASTER CAR. Explain how if he had the better car, he did not make up ground, he lost ground ? Explain that, and I will concede the debate. But without doing so, I will keep the belief that a driver should NEVER have to let another driver win by slowing down so he could pass. Why did they not let him catch up, get side by side, and let the best car decide the winner ???? It was a stupid decision and is NOT what racing is about, IDGAF what type of racing you consider.

 

[UKnCincy]

Well why didn't Piastri run down Lando if he had the better car ? Was Lando not over 6 seconds ahead of Piastri when he had to slow down and give up the lead ? Simple question, IF he had the best car, then why, while on fresher tires, having the faster car, could he not make up ground on Lando ? Also answer me this, IF Piastri pitted first, had the lead, do you not think that Lando could have caught up with him by having fresher tires and a LOT faster car ? It all cycled thru, Piastri pitted second, he should have been faster, he wasn't. Flip the script, I guarantee you Lando would have caught him, BECAUSE HIS CAR WAS BETTER at the end of the race. Piastri's car, while on fresher tires, fell off, thus he lost ground that if reversed, Lando would have made up the ground Piastri "gave" him. The best car did not win, it was OBVIOUS to anyone who watched, at the end of the race, Lando had the better / faster car, thus the letting him pit first would not have mattered, he would have caught Piastri and won. The better car did NOT win the race, and the slower one didn't either, he was gifted the win.

LANDO ON OLDER TIRES WAS PULLING FARTHER AND FARTHER AWAY FROM THE SUPPOSEDLY FASTER CAR. Explain how if he had the better car, he did not make up ground, he lost ground ? Explain that, and I will concede the debate. But without doing so, I will keep the belief that a driver should NEVER have to let another driver win by slowing down so he could pass. Why did they not let him catch up, get side by side, and let the best car decide the winner ???? It was a stupid decision and is NOT what racing is about, IDGAF what type of racing you consider.

Piastri didn’t run Norris down because he was given a target lap time to manage his tires and he stuck to it. Norris was also told to manage his tires and he completely ignored that. Norris’ engineer was repeatedly on the radio asking Norris to watch how hard he was pushing the tires, especially in T4 and T11.

Norris wasn’t pulling away because he was faster. Norris was pulling away because he was pushing and Piastri wasn’t pushing.

Norris got selfish and tried to take advantage of an undercut he didn’t deserve and kept pushing. Piastri assumed Norris would do the right thing and listened to the team direction to manage his tires. That’s why their lap times were different.

Are you not familiar with things like how race pace is managed, or how lap times are impacted by the degree to which a driver is pushing?