运气不佳？诺里斯西班牙大奖赛失利原因分析
Jon Noble分析指出，兰多·诺里斯在西班牙大奖赛因虚拟安全车的时机而错失胜利，问题在于这是否纯属注定，还是迈凯伦本可挽救。就连冠军安东内利也承认诺里斯运气极差。
即使最终获胜的基米·安东内利也几乎没有疑问，如果不是虚拟安全车出现得“极其不走运”，兰多·诺里斯本会赢得西班牙大奖赛。
当领先车手们跑完57圈中的第14圈时，兰斯·斯特罗尔的阿斯顿·马丁在20号弯的缓冲区停车，而这位卫冕世界冠军当时已经在马德里赛道的领先位置上建立起了相当可观的优势。
当赛事控制中心出动虚拟安全车以便回收斯特罗尔的赛车时，诺里斯已经过了维修区入口大约五秒钟，并且早已通过了最后一个弯道。
在那个时候，诺里斯再进维修区换胎已经太晚了，无法利用虚拟安全车让全场减速、进站损失时间减少的机会获利。与此同时，落后6.5秒的安东内利则正处于绝佳位置，可以立即驶入维修区。
在虚拟安全车持续出动、诺里斯缓慢绕行的同时，他已决定在下一圈结束时进站。
但就在他进入21号弯——进站入口前最后一个右弯——之前，虚拟安全车结束了。这意味着诺里斯在进站时损失了大约25秒的最大停站时间，而缓慢的换胎让情况雪上加霜。
这使他掉到第五位，落在乔治·拉塞尔之后。尽管诺里斯在比赛早段展现出明显的速度优势，但两个因素注定了他的命运：硬胎的衰退几乎可以忽略不计，而且除非轮胎差距很大，否则超车几乎不可能。
如果超车可行，那么迈凯伦领队安德里亚·斯特拉毫不怀疑比赛结果将会如何。
"我认为如果今天超车是可行的，诺里斯就会再次领跑，因为速度优势非常明显,"他说。
最终，诺里斯以第三名完赛，落后于安东内利（他承认自己很幸运）和马克斯·维斯塔潘。
尽管虚拟安全车出现的时机对诺里斯的伤害再糟糕不过了——出现得太晚以至于他无法做出反应，结束得太早以至于他无法从中受益——迈凯伦仍会分析自己是否本可以更好地处理这一局面。
而在接下来的几天里，车队将寻求两个关键问题的答案。
事后来看，很明显迈凯伦想要保住诺里斯的西班牙大奖赛冠军，最好的办法就是在斯特罗尔的状况正在发展时就立刻进站。
诚然，迈凯伦当时无法对虚拟安全车（VSC）的触发做出更快的反应，因为虚拟安全车出动时诺里斯早已驶过维修区入口，但车队确实想弄明白的一点是，是否有办法预判事态的发展方向。
因此，当车队回到沃金坐下来梳理细节时，它会想弄清楚，从斯特罗尔赛车的状态和位置所提供的信息来看，是否足以预先判断局势即将从双黄旗切换为虚拟安全车。
斯特罗尔的赛车因刹车故障停了下来，车头朝向护栏的一个缺口——但并没有完全穿过它。
在诺里斯即将到达之前，车队通过无线电警告他前方有黄旗，但似乎没有任何迹象表明这会是一起严重事故。
斯特罗尔一旦跳出赛车，赛事控制中心便确认 赛事干事（赛道工作人员）已经准备好回收这辆阿斯顿·马丁，并将它从缺口处推走。
只有当赛道官员暴露在护栏另一侧时，双黄旗事故才会升级为虚拟安全车（VSC）。
那么，从双黄旗升级为虚拟安全车（VSC）这一步骤，迈凯伦是否本可以预见呢？
从斯特罗尔赛车的位置来看，恐怕不会。
没有严重的损坏，也没有碎片散落一地，而且AMR26距离安全区只有几米。
因此，迈凯伦在得知斯特罗尔停车之后、到必须做出进站呼叫决定之间只有不到20秒，这段时间内掌握的信息是否足以让他们确信会引发安全车警示，是值得商榷的。
如果迈凯伦选择进站，而赛会最终只是用双黄旗处理了斯特罗尔的赛车，那么迈凯伦就会因为把一场胜利拱手让出而遭到猛烈批评。
正如斯特拉后来解释的那样：“如果判断错误，代价会极其惨重。从领跑位置看，你不必要地进了站，现在胜利就丢了。
“我认为一个好的原则是依据事实来应对，也就是赛道当时的真实状况。
“但我们肯定会回顾一下，看看在这种条件下，最终出动虚拟安全车是不是显而易见的结果。目前我无法回答。
但当时迈凯伦所不知道的是，赛事控制选择虚拟安全车方案的决定，还受到一个因素的影响，那就是希望清理五号弯赛道上的碎片。
弯道处留在赛道上的碳纤维碎片，极有可能来自第12圈阿隆索与塞恩斯的碰撞，明显有导致爆胎的风险，因此赛会有意将其清除——而这需要虚拟安全车。
所以，考虑到斯特罗尔的赛车所处的位置，出动虚拟安全车的决定是基于阿斯顿·马丁与赛道另一侧碎片的双重影响。
这也解释了为什么从斯特罗尔的赛车停在护栏后到虚拟安全车结束之间有将近一分钟的间隔。
虽然提前预判虚拟安全车显然才是正确的做法，但迈凯伦根本不可能知道赛会在决策时所考虑的全部因素——尤其是5号弯的碎片。
当虚拟安全车出动、诺里斯已驶过维修区入口时，迈凯伦在他再次绕回来之前无能为力。
车队在那圈叫他进站，显然是希望虚拟安全车继续下去，从而追平与上一圈已经进站的车手之间的差距。
迈凯伦直到最后一秒都以为虚拟安全车延长是因为赛道上有工作人员，但当诺里斯驶入21号弯时，警告期结束了。
此时诺里斯距离维修区入口还有10秒，但车队坚持执行进站的决定——尽管这意味着它将损失整整25秒，外加换胎所花的时间。
随后缓慢的进站又损失了更多时间，但最终也改变不了什么，因为迈凯伦认为诺里斯即便如此回到赛道后仍会排在拉塞尔身后。
这里最明显的问题是，迈凯伦是否本应放弃这次进站，继续推进以拉开更大的差距——然后在几圈之后再换胎。
从早段的节奏来看，这个理论听起来很美好，但现实是比赛中的轮胎状况意味着这种做法永远不会带来好处。
后面许多赛车换上的硬胎被证明是一款非常耐用的轮胎，磨损极小，也不需要太多的管理。
英文原文
There is little doubt, even from eventual winner Kimi Antonelli, that without the "insanely unlucky" timing of the virtual safety car, Lando Norris would have won the Spanish Grand Prix.
The reigning Formula 1 world champion had built up a comfortable advantage at the head of the Madring field when Lance Stroll’s Aston Martin stopped in the run off at Turn 20 as the leaders were on lap 14 of 57.
Norris was around five seconds past the pitlane entry, and well around the final corner, when race control called for a VSC to allow Stroll’s car to be recovered.
At that point it was too late for Norris to get into the pits for a change of tyres and capitalise on the reduced time loss of doing so while the field was slowed by the VSC. Meanwhile 6.5-seconds further back, Antonelli was perfectly positioned to dive in.
With the VSC remaining out as Norris toured around slowly, committed to going for his stop at the end of the following lap.
But just before he entered Turn 21, the final right hander before the pit entry, the VSC ended. It meant that, in taking his stop, Norris lost the maximum stop time of around 25 seconds – hampered further by a slow tyre change.
That dropped him to fifth behind George Russell. Despite the clear pace advantage he showed early on, Norris’s fate was sealed by two factors: tyre degradation on the hard was negligible and overtaking was nearly impossible unless there was a big tyre offset.
Had passing been on, then McLaren team principal Andrea Stella was in no doubt about what the race outcome would have been.
"I think if overtaking was possible today, we would have had Lando again in the lead because the pace advantage was significant," he said.
In the end, Norris came home third, behind Antonelli (who acknowledged he was lucky) and Max Verstappen.
While the timing of the VSC could not have been crueller in hurting Norris to the max – coming out too late for him to respond and finishing too early for him to benefit – McLaren will still analyse if it could have handled the situation better.
And there are two key questions that it will seek answers to over the coming days.
With the benefit of hindsight, it is obvious to say that the best way for McLaren to have saved Norris’s Spanish GP win would have been to stop the moment the Stroll situation was developing.
While it is true that there was nothing McLaren could have done to react quicker to the VSC being triggered, as Norris was well past the pit entry when it was called, an element it does want to understand better is if there was a way to predict where things were heading.
So when it sits down at Woking to dig through the details, it will want to understand if there was enough information from the state and location of Stroll’s car to pre-empt that the situation was going to switch from a double yellow to VSC imminently.
Stroll’s car, having suffered a brake problem, had come to a halt pointing towards a gap in the barriers – but had not gone all the way through it.
Norris had been warned over the radio shortly before arriving about there being a yellow flag, but there did not seem to be any indication that this would be a serious incident.
Once Stroll had jumped out the car, race control was happy that the marshals were ready to retrieve the Aston Martin and push it through the gap.
It is when track officials are exposed on the other side of the barriers that triggers a double yellow incident being escalated to VSC.
So was this step from a double yellow to a VSC something that McLaren could have predicted?
Based on the positioning of Stroll’s car, probably not.
There was no major damage, no debris scattered everywhere and the AMR26 was only a few metres from safety.
So it is debatable if there was enough information in the less than 20 seconds McLaren had between being aware Stroll had stopped and the chance to make a pitstop call to be convinced that this was going to trigger a caution period.
Had it opted to go for a stop, and then race control managed to deal with Stroll’s car under double yellows, McLaren would have been lambasted for throwing a win away.
As Stella later explained: "If you get it wrong, it would be extremely penalising. From the lead, you pit unnecessarily and now you lost the victory.
"I think a good rule is to respond to what is a fact, to what is the real condition of the circuit.
"But we will definitely take a look as to whether in these conditions it was just simply obvious that it would end up in a virtual safety car. I cannot answer at the moment."
But what was not known to McLaren at the time as well was that race control’s decisions about going for the VSC option was influenced by a desire to clear up debris on the track at Turn 5 as well.
Parts of carbon fibre left on the circuit at the chicane, most likely from the collision between Fernando Alonso and Carlos Sainz on lap 12, posed a clear risk of causing punctures and there was a desire to remove it – which would require a VSC.
So with Stroll’s car in the position it was, the decision to go for the caution was based on the double influence of the Aston Martin and the track debris at the other side of the circuit.
This also explains why there was nearly one minute between Stroll's car being behind the barriers and the VSC ending.
While pre-empting the VSC would obviously have been the right thing to do, there would have been no way for McLaren to know about all the influences race control had in its decisions – especially the Turn 5 debris.
With the VSC out and Norris past the pitlane entry, there was nothing McLaren could do before he came around again.
It made a call to bring him in that lap, obviously in the hope that the VSC continued so the deficit to those who had stopped on the previous lap was equalised.
McLaren thought until the last second that the extended VSC was due to marshals being on the track, but as Norris rolled into Turn 21 the caution period ended.
Norris was 10 seconds from the pitlane entry at this point but the team committed to seeing through on its decision to stop – even though it meant it would lose the full 25s plus what it took for a tyre change.
The subsequent slow stop, which cost more time, ultimately changed little as McLaren thinks Norris would still have returned to the track behind Russell.
The obvious question to be asked here is whether McLaren should have abandoned the stop and pushed on to build up more of a gap – and then changed tyres a few laps later.
The theory is nice based on the pace early on, but the reality was that the tyre situation in the race meant it was never going to prove beneficial.
The hard that many of the cars behind had switched to had proved to be a very robust tyre, with minimal degradation and not needing too much management.
The Race ·
内容来自公开信源，聚合内容版权归原作者与来源所有。