Your Reject of the Race - Bahrain

[TomWazzleshaw]

Toyota's exacution of the plan was so poor simply because they were actually planning to put both of them on 3 stoppers. Once they converted to the 2 stop plan and how after a few laps Trulli, Hamilton, Barrichello, Button, Vettel and even Raikkonen leapfrogged Glock and how Trulli was holding Vettel and Hamilton up in the middle stint it was effectivly race over. But in theory Toyota's race was over before the lights went out as Barrichello showed the 3 stopper was almost never going to work unless they started pulling away at the rate of knots... which they failed to do as Button was holding onto the back of them which forced them to change to the 2 stopper which with their early pitstop was always going to give them a loss anyway.

[Gary Shavit]

I have to go with what seems to be the majority opinion and vote for BMW as Reject of the Race. Toyota definitely deserves some credit for not fully exploiting millions of hours of testing at Bahrain, but at least they looked good on Saturday. BMW were pretty dismal all weekend long. Sutil messed up Webbers qualifying, but to give him ROTR just for that seems unfair. Driving for FIF1 is punishment enough.

[Dom]

I don't think you can really fault Toyota's way of thinking there. The theory was pretty obvious: get Trulli and Glock out on the harder compund early so that when they do their final stint, they're running the softer option when everyone else has to put up with the harder compound. After all, Kubica was armed with dfferent tyres to Vettel and Button in Melbourne during the final stint and damn near caught both of them; he may well have challenged for the lead if it weren't for his coming-together with Vettel.

True, but that only worked for Kubica because of the safety car, if it had been a clean race he'd have been much too far back to challenge. Gambling on a safety car at the tight, congested Melbourne circuit in a race which frequently resembles a demolition derby seems reasonable; gambling on a safety car at Sakhir much less so.

[CarlosFerreira]

I wouldn't give Toyota ROTR mention, but I was under the impression they lost the race not because of raw pace, but because of them not being a winning team. If you're departing in front and are confident, you don't make silly gambles; you just go for the most conservative strategy as possible, get your head down and run like hell. There's a reason most pilots use the option tyre in the end of the race: by then, the field is more spread, so there's a smaller possibility of losing places by being overtaken.

Toyota gambles because they were unsure of winning. They're not acting as a winning team.

[Jack O Malley]

Obviously BMW...

[Captain Hammer]

True, but that only worked for Kubica because of the safety car, if it had been a clean race he'd have been much too far back to challenge. Gambling on a safety car at the tight, congested Melbourne circuit in a race which frequently resembles a demolition derby seems reasonable; gambling on a safety car at Sakhir much less so.

Yeah, but you're not accounting for that fact that when Kubica made his gamble, he was well down in the order; the objective was to move him further up. Trulli was doing the same thing, but from much from higher up in the field.

If you're departing in front and are confident, you don't make silly gambles; you just go for the most conservative strategy as possible, get your head down and run like hell.

But Toyota weren't in front. When Jenson Button took Hamilton down at turn one, he put himself in a position to repeat his efforts in Sepang and leapfrog. With the Toyotas struggling for pace, they knew they'd have to change their strategy to peg back the difference to the Brawn.

[eytl]

I already have my comments in mind for the written review and the podcast, but no harm giving everyone an entree here.

Even if Toyota decided to switch Glock and Trulli from three-stops to two, the gap over Button at the first stops was, in my view, large enough for either or both Toyotas to stay in front. It's not like the Toyotas stopped for that long, nor were Button's extra laps on low fuel super-fast. Toyota's priority should have been to maintain P1. My thought on Toyota's tactics can be summarised thus: I would much rather be on the less-optimal tyre but with track position and defending a lead towards the end, rather than on the optimal tyre trying to chase and pass for the lead.

As the immortal Murray says, "Catching is one thing, passing is another."

One may point to how Kubica was closing on Vettel and Button in Melbourne but how did all that turn out, after all?

[noisebox]

Even if Toyota decided to switch Glock and Trulli from three-stops to two, the gap over Button at the first stops was, in my view, large enough for either or both Toyotas to stay in front. It's not like the Toyotas stopped for that long, nor were Button's extra laps on low fuel super-fast. Toyota's priority should have been to maintain P1. My thought on Toyota's tactics can be summarised thus: I would much rather be on the less-optimal tyre but with track position and defending a lead towards the end, rather than on the optimal tyre trying to chase and pass for the lead.

Agreed - Brawn had a great strategy, but they were really helped by cock ups from Toyota and Vettel's poor start. If Vettel got away well and Toyota had a more sensible strategy by a) having more fuel in qulaifying and b) getting the tyres in the race right it would've been very close.

[noshpit]

rotr should go to the germans ( bmw, toyata (based there) and sutil bujt not vettel (is it possible to select a certain region of german that doesnt include vettel)

[CarlosFerreira]

Even if Toyota decided to switch Glock and Trulli from three-stops to two, the gap over Button at the first stops was, in my view, large enough for either or both Toyotas to stay in front. It's not like the Toyotas stopped for that long, nor were Button's extra laps on low fuel super-fast. Toyota's priority should have been to maintain P1. My thought on Toyota's tactics can be summarised thus: I would much rather be on the less-optimal tyre but with track position and defending a lead towards the end, rather than on the optimal tyre trying to chase and pass for the lead.

Agreed - Brawn had a great strategy, but they were really helped by cock ups from Toyota and Vettel's poor start. If Vettel got away well and Toyota had a more sensible strategy by a) having more fuel in qulaifying and b) getting the tyres in the race right it would've been very close.

It was a race where KERS had a real influence, I reckon. I Hamilton didn't have KERS, he probably wouldn't have been able to pass Vettel on the start, or mightn't have been able to hold him for the duration of the first stint. Without that, Vettel could have brought the fight to Button.

[noisebox]

I'd like to put a mention in for the BBC TV commentary team (Martin Brundle included) who took an age to realise that Button had jumped both Toyotas at the first pit stop, and for confusing the prime/option conversation Lewis Hamilton had on the radio which meant they didn't spot Toyota's error until all the rest put the option tyre on for the second stints. It really compromised their coverage in my view.

I was actually listening to the race live on BBC radio 5 live where Ant Davidson read the race perfectly and got all the key moments right way before the TV crew.

[Dom]

I'd like to put a mention in for the BBC TV commentary team (Martin Brundle included) who took an age to realise that Button had jumped both Toyotas at the first pit stop, and for confusing the prime/option conversation Lewis Hamilton had on the radio which meant they didn't spot Toyota's error until all the rest put the option tyre on for the second stints. It really compromised their coverage in my view.

I didn't think this was one of Brundle's stronger races but the tyre comment was extremely confusing. It was only natural to assume that the super-soft tyre, which was much quicker, was the prime and the medium was the option, when in fact the opposite was true.

[DP-Future F1 Reject]

I will have to eat my shoe as I had predicted Nelsinho was due for catostrphe and he actually managed quite well.

BMW on the other hand...

[CarlosFerreira]

I will have to eat my shoe as I had predicted Nelsinho was due for catostrphe and he actually managed quite well.

BMW on the other hand...

Will you be eating the prime or the option shoe?

[Nuppiz]

BMW Sauber, although Nakajima and Williams came close by being the only DNF in the entire field.

[hclw]

I will have to eat my shoe as I had predicted Nelsinho was due for catostrphe and he actually managed quite well.

I, like many people, am angry and disappointed at Piquet's competent drive. He's not in formula one to drive well, he's in the sport to provide the comedy element. If Piquet isn't going to crash and spin, who is? Bernie needs to have a word with him and remind him of his entertainment obligations.

regarding the reject of the race, at least BMW have a new car on the way. Williams however, don't. This was supposed to be their year, they have their double diffuser, yet both the driving and strategy of the team is a disaster. This race is a portent of the season to come for williams.....more dismal mediocrity