Mandrake wrote:Both in Bahrain and Spain Rosberg was the faster guy, but Hamilton got the win. So by your logic you should be worried that in the end it might be Rosberg who is best but not WDC...
I still don't agree, as the differing strategy taints the picture. I think it's fair to say that in Bahrain, Nico was only "clearly quicker" because the safety car had closed the gap that otherwise hadn't been. That Rosberg was on an alternative strategy isn't his fault, but a gamble his side of the team took and was what was discussed before the race. Nico never critized his team, neither did he do that in Barcelona, so I think it's safe to assume he was happy and confident in the strategy the team gave him.
In Bahrain, Rosberg was only quicker because he was on the option tyre when Lewis was on the prime with 10 laps to go and a safety car that neutralized what would have been a close to, if I remember correctly, 9 seconds gap.
In Barcelona - the race was closer and without a safety car, we can see that Rosbergs 'alternative strategy' worked out brilliantly in that he was effectively able to close the gap. On the other hand though, we can't say for absolute certainty that the speed differential Nico seemed to have on Lewis in the 2nd half of the race wasn't due to the strategy he was on. If you look at his second stint when Lewis was on options and Nico on primes, you will see that Nico had very competitive times. This could have been due to Nico working the tyres brilliantly and/or that the difference between option and primes on that fuel load and track surface condition were quite similar in pace, with little between them with the difference that the prime potentially the stronger race tyre. This isn't unheard of - it proved to be the same in Canada as well where the prime tyre was the stronger of the two (stronger in the context that the speed differential that the softer tyre offers is little over the extended period of the stint that prime can deliver).
Accoarding to the team; the practice sessions showed that the OOP strategy and the OPO (that Nico was on) were quite similar, with a slight advantage on the OOP (based off simulation runs they did two days before, in a different state on the track mind you).
Let me illustrate:
This roughly shows (please ignore my rather basic photoshop skills) two different tyre strategies, one OOP and one OPO that end up being exactly idential pace wise over the entirety of the race. If the race were 1 lap shorter, the OOP would be quicker, if it were 1 lap longer, the OPO would be quicker. This basic graph is of course a rather basic illustration as it lacks that over the duration of a GP, the stints are not straight lines, but rather curves, because the tyres lose grip and their performance and then of course the fact that the cars become light towards the end of a GP. Still, it rather illustrates nicely how two differing strategies could be exactly identical over the course of a GP, but given how the strategy unfolds, the car on the OPO strategy will always look quicker. It looks quicker, because you are pitting the faster tyre against the slower one on the last stint.
Now back to Barcelona or a typical race - this would only be exagerated because the cars have less weight towards the end of the GP - where as in the middle stint, you may still be playing the "long game". As such, the driver on the Option tyre in the middle stint might pushing less, trying to extend his tyres to deal with any risks (safety car or tyres losing grip) as well as fuel savings etc. At the end of the race, this might be less of a factor because you are already on your last stint, less laps to go and by then, with the car being at its lightest, fuel might be less of a factor too. This can potentially open up the gap between two differing strategies. One other factor is, the "hunting driver" (that being Nico in this case) can always be slightly more agressive as the leading driver sets the pace. The worst that could happen, if for example the tyres fall short, would be an earlier pit with little down side. Given the pure pace advantage of the Mercedes in those GPs, 2nd spot might never have been in jeopardy. The leading driver needs to ensure he doesn't take any unnecessary risks, so its important he sets a good pace with fewer risks.
Anyway, this is just to cover the angle
was Nico the faster driver in Bahrain and especially Barcelona. At the very least, I'd say he was identical and likely, assuming he'd been on an identical strategy, perhaps a little quicker pace wise in Barcelona. In Bahrain, I don't see it as clear cut - first stint on similar tyres showed that Hamilton could pull a gap initially, but the load he took off his tyres caused Nico to close the gap towards the end of the stint, which is where they had their battle for pit-stop priority. After that, they were on different stints and there, yes, I think the OOP was clearly the prefered and quicker strategy. Given that Nico couldn't pass Lewis at the end with 10 laps to go on options vs primes, I still think it would have made less of a difference if the team had put him under the identical strategy. He would have basically followed Lewis "home". The alternative strategy gave hope to beat his team mate on strategy - something that didn't work in Bahrain, but was closer and nearly worked in Barcelona.
This is all very different to Canada. They were both on the same strategy from start to finish and Lewis, especially on the soft tyre, clearly showed he had better pace - and I'm convinced, without any car problems, would have ended up in front of Rosberg - just as he already did through the pits when problems struck. To some degree, this might also have been the case in Monaco, when Lewis remained quite close to his team-mate, before the safety car ruined any potential he had to pass him in the pits and it was clear that he wouldn't get passed on that track.
If some of us feel the WDC points don't represent the fair picture, it isn't because at some phase of a race, one of the two was quicker, but at least that Hamilton is extremely hard done by the 2 DNFs he suffered, compared to his team-mate who has had none - one being a race where he should have won (Canada) and assuming he didn't have any car problems in Australia, could have as well, if not at the very least coming in 2nd. That's a deficit of 43 points, best case being 57. This might all change to the end of the season when Nico might be struck with his overdue DNF, but statistically, this could very well strike Hamilton again. Every race starts from zero after all. Then there is the mental aspect, which I think should not be underestimated. These two drivers are neck at neck - qualifying shows how close they are. If you knew you had to do it all again by doing 3 consecutive wins to beat the deficit your last DNF just caused... only to suffer another at a race you should have won as well, well... at some point, you start to drive differently. You push more, because you know the importance of winning and closing the gap. And this is, what could IMO cause more frustration with the team and potentially another DNF or lost points, less concentration.
If I were to bet money on the WDC, I probably would bet my money on Rosberg. Even if I do believe that so far this season, Hamilton has shown the stronger racing and ability so far.
