Applying logic and maths in Monte Carlo. When to pit at the Monaco Grand Prix?
26 May 2024Formula One is a sport made almost entirely of maths, but the commentators rarely use the full toolkit of logic while talking viewers through the races. Maybe they think it won’t be exciting to examine the competition in this way? Regardless, let’s throw some logic at today’s grand prix and see what bounces back.
Max Verstappen’s Red Bull car, photo from my own archive.
If you haven’t seen the 2024 Monaco Grand Prix but you’re planning to catch up, do that and then come back to this article.
Background to the 2024 Monaco Grand Prix
As tradition dictates, it’s the last Sunday in May and I’ve just watched the Monaco Grand Prix and I’m having a bite before the Indy 500, but mostly I’m chewing over the difference between the expectations of the Sky F1 commentators and the decisions of the team strategists.
No team is anywhere near challenging Max Verstappen and Red Bull in the points, but Monaco is a very historic race and one where a lot of important sponsorship deals are done. A win at Monaco is particularly prized by the more established teams, Ferrari and McLaren.
Monaco is a circuit where it is notoriously difficult to overtake, in fact virtually impossible in 2024. Ferrari and their polesitter driver Leclerc are still seeking redemption for the 2021 race.
What was happening?
Let’s jump to around halfway through the race. Here was the order (of the top seven, cars behind these are not relevant to this article)
- Charles Leclerc, Ferrari
- Oscar Piastri, McLaren
- Carlos Sainz Jr, Ferrari
- Lando Norris, McLaren
- George Russell, Mercedes
- Max Verstappen, Red Bull
- Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes
Current F1 rules require each car to use two different types of tyre in a dry race. The first four of these started on the medium tyre and the other three took the hard tyre for the start, but a first lap incident meant that they were all able to change their tyres. Therefore they all took the opposite choice and none have any mandatory pit stops for the remainder of the race. The Ferrari and McLaren cars are now on the durable but slower hard tyres and the Mercedes and Red Bull cars are on the grippier medium tyres.
You can imagine that Russell, Verstappen, and Hamilton are all now becoming concerned about the remaining lifespan of their tyres, while those ahead are more worried that they could be vulnerable to a car on quicker rubber in the event of a caution period.
Leclerc was trying to slow the pace of the race for the frontrunners. George Russell was also focusing on extending the life of his tyres through keeping his corner speeds down. A substantial gap had developed behind Lewis Hamilton.
Lewis stops, does Max?
Lewis Hamilton was called to the pits and would change to hard tyres, I think the same set that he had used for the first lap. There was a 45 second gap behind, so there was no risk of losing a position.
Max Verstappen followed this with a stop on the next lap. He emerged ahead of Lewis Hamilton but within sight of the Mercedes driver. Lewis felt that he should have been told that there could be an opportunity to pass Max, saying so over the team radio, and the Sky commentators agreed.
Benetton F1 car, a B190 I think. I snapped this at the Thruxton Historic. I didn’t have any more relevant photos I owned to hand.
Maths tells us that this is just not the case though. Lewis Hamilton had a a small gap between himself and Max before the stops, about four seconds, which would have been too much to overcome in one lap without teammate George Russell deliberately slowing Max Verstappen on the lap between.
But that doesn’t matter, because remember Max Verstappen (and indeed all of the drivers) did not need to stop. If Lewis Hamilton managed a fast enough lap time (or Max Verstappen was sufficiently slowed) then the Red Bull team would just have decided to stay on track and make the best of the tyres Max had. Lewis taking new tyres was a no-brainer because there was no substantial risk of losing the position either way, also there was no likely scenario of improving under normal circumstances, so they might as well make their life easier en route to that 7th place finish.
The strategy team at Red Bull Racing had made the same calculation. There was no probable route to an improved position, but no likely consequence for taking new tyres at this point, so they did so.
Sorry Lewis Hamilton, sorry Sky F1, but in this case you were incorrect.
Did Lewis cause problems for George?
A lap later, George Russell did not stop and take new tyres. Max Verstappen was a lot faster on his new tyres and had been very close to George beforehand. He quickly reduced the deficit to the extent that George Russell did not have the free pit stop option. I shouted at the television that this proved my point, but David Croft and Martin Brundle couldn’t hear me.
Verstappen and Hamilton continued to put decent times in (at least compared to the rest of the field) and soon Russell was coming under some pressure from Max Verstappen. It was starting to look like the actions of Hamilton’s crew had adversely affected his teammate, who would now have to continue on the worn-out medium tyres until the chequered flag while the World Champion looks for an opportunity to muscle through.
Could Mercedes have planned for this? There were two options. Either they needed to prevent the Verstappen pit stop or they needed to enable one for George Russell.
The way to prevent Max having the option of a stop was to ensure the space between George and Lewis was minimised at all times. Red Bull are fast and consistent with tyre changes but they aren’t looking to risk throwing away points for no reason. Lewis needed to speed up on his in and out laps and George needed to hold up Max as far as possible on those same two laps.
It is definitely plausible that Lewis Hamilton could have pushed harder (he did say so!) and I’m sure George Russell could have gone slower without risking a rash move from Max Verstappen. Therefore Lewis actually should have been told to push (perhaps even telling him there was a chance to beat Max, even though there was not) just to protect his teammate.
In any case, it made no difference to the eventual result.
To enable a stop for George Russell, he would have needed to gain time relative to Max Verstappen over the three laps in question. If the timing showed 21-22 seconds gap by the time George Russell reached the Piscine (swimming pool) section on the lap following Max Verstappen’s stop then that would have done the job. This was never likely to be the case unless Red Bull made a mistake with the tyre change, with no way for Mercedes to show Verstappen.
Okay so what about the lead four?
It may at this point in the article be evident that the Indy 500 has been delayed and the curry hasn’t yet arrived and I had more time than I expected to write this article.
The front four were pretty much nose to tail for lap after lap. On the Sky coverage, ex racers Anthony Davidson and Martin Brundle agreed that the Ferrari and McLaren teams would need to make pitstops themselves. This made no sense, and I’m surprised that everyone couldn’t see that.
Remember that there’s really no way to pass a racer at Monaco if they don’t make a major error. In 2018, Daniel Ricciardo won the Monaco Grand Prix despite the failure of his engine’s hybrid system and a faltering gearbox with two shattered cogs. I realise this must sound insane to people who don’t watch F1. Be assured that you are completely right.
Lando Norris, in fourth, would have nothing to gain by taking fresh tyres unless he knew in advance that the cars ahead of him would also stop. He would also need a gap of at least 21 seconds behind him to George Russell to be assured of retaining his position. I don’t think he ever quite had sufficient gap and there was no way Ferrari would surrender track position even if they were down to the rims.
This is not how Monaco went today.
If the gap had developed then it seems reasonable to assume that McLaren would take the precaution of mounting fresh Pirellis on the car of Norris. This would not have triggered the same chain reaction we saw with Verstappen responding to Hamilton, because the four leaders were always so close together and new tyres would have been faster. Even if Norris built the space behind to take fresh tyres, Sainz would always have stayed out to maintain track position. There was never a chance of a positive outcome.
Even if the Norris crew could see the future and predict a safety car (though there wasn’t one) then Ferrari could always beat McLaren by just doing nothing and staying ahead. In fact, even the Singapore 2008 scenario wasn’t possible today.
Brundle and Davidson focused on the fact that stopping earlier would benefit Norris if all of the lead pack pitted (or at least one of the Ferraris) but this required McLaren to be sure that Ferrari would decide to stop for tyres. Instead, it was obvious that they would not decide to do that. The proposed strategy only wins in the scenario where you already know your opponent’s next move.
Alright, so what is your point?
I don’t think Davidson and Brundle have any interest in misleading viewers, in trying to create tension where there really isn’t any. Martin Brundle has always been a straight-shooter as a broadcaster. He had for years warned about the specific danger of the scenario which led to the death of Jules Bianchi, for example. Davidson also has nothing to gain from any kind of chicanery.
Bernie Collins has been a part of the Sky team at some races recently. Bernie is a strategy engineer with F1 experience, who brings a good dose of sense to the broadcast. I definitely notice the difference when she isn’t available to bring her insights.
Monaco is always an impressive spectacle. There’s nowhere else you can see cars this fast competing around such tight streets. Don’t tune in to the Monaco Grand Prix in future years expecting to see plenty of wheel to wheel action and don’t assume that the commentators know what they are talking about!
