Race study / Hungary 2019
The cost of a stop.
Sometimes the way forward begins by falling behind.
A pit stop spends track position to buy a different future. The interesting question is whether enough laps remain to earn that position back.
Enter the strategy deskReading tools / Understand & connect
A few ideas inside this story.
Open a concept to see its meaning here, then follow a related question into another field.
Constraints
A limit changes which choices are actually available. Start with the feasible set before looking for the most attractive answer.
In this story: A tyre advantage has to repay a stop before the laps run out.
- Three outlets. One Monday decision. One bounded Monday decision, rather than an unlimited wish list.
- Prepared, still uncertain. Preparation still has to meet the right opportunity window.
Evidence
Separate an observation from an interpretation and a model. Each can be useful, but they support different kinds of conclusions.
In this story: Check the race reports separately from the illustrative model.
- Three outlets. One Monday decision. Inspect the published prototype screens and their stated scope.
Uncertainty
A plausible outcome is not a guarantee. Distinguish randomness in an attempt from uncertainty about the assumptions you chose.
In this story: Test one decision against three conditions without inventing probabilities.
- Prepared, still uncertain. Explore cumulative chance under an explicit independence assumption.
Trade-offs
Improving one thing can cost another. Make the exchange visible before treating a choice as an improvement.
In this story: Exchange immediate track position for a different pace profile.
- Three outlets. One Monday decision. Keep priorities and constraints visible when choosing what to address.
Model boundaries
A model answers the question it represents. State what it leaves out before carrying its result into a real decision.
In this story: A projected catch is not a predicted pass or victory.
- Three outlets. One Monday decision. An academic prototype is not evidence of a deployed business result.
- Prepared, still uncertain. Hypothetical per-window inputs are not measured fish catch rates.
01 / The documented race
A change in the shape of the contest.
- LAP25
The long stint
Verstappen switches to hard tyres. Hamilton makes his first stop on lap 31. [1]
- LAP48
The second stop
Hamilton takes fresh mediums and rejoins about 19 seconds behind Verstappen. [1]
- LAP67
The lead changes
Hamilton passes Verstappen and goes on to win. [1]
The constraint was broader than tyre age: Hamilton described brake cooling and the difficulty of passing Verstappen after the race. [2] See sources ↓
My reading
Change the problem you are trying to solve.
Following closely had not delivered the lead. A second stop exchanged an immediate on-track problem for a time-budget problem: could a tyre advantage recover the deficit before the finish?
That does not make stopping a universal answer. The same choice can fail with less time, a smaller pace advantage, or traffic on the out-lap. A result tells us what happened; it does not reveal every alternative that could have happened.
The desk below isolates those trade-offs. It uses deliberately simplified, editable assumptions rather than reconstructing Hamilton’s lap times.
02 / An interactive thought experiment
Take the pit wall.
Trade position for pace. Change one assumption and watch the catch window move.
Illustrative assumptions · not a replay of Hungary 2019 or a race forecast.
JavaScript enables the controls. This fixed example assumes a 2 s gap, 20 s pit loss, and 22 laps remaining.
Compare the decisions
Initial gap and remaining laps are shared. A keeps its pit loss, pace, trend and traffic assumptions while you explore B.
- First modelled catch
- Lap 21
- Projected final gap
- 2.6 s ahead
- Time gained vs staying out
- 4.6 s gained
Sensitivity map / A field of possibilities
Where does the decision change?
Across: first-lap pace advantage. Down: pit loss. Gap, trend, traffic and remaining laps follow the current scenario. Each cell shows the final projected gap.
| s | 0.0 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 2.5 | 3.0 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | |||||||
| 15 | |||||||
| 20 | |||||||
| 25 | |||||||
| 30 | |||||||
| 35 |
Choose a cell to apply its inputs to B, or the current scenario if no comparison is pinned. Arrow keys inspect; Enter applies. This projects relative time, not an overtake or win probability.
Open the model & lap table
Staying out assumes equal pace to the leader: its gap stays constant. After stopping, pace advantage changes linearly each lap; a constant traffic cost is subtracted. Both positive and negative pace advantages are allowed as the stint evolves.
Gap after n laps = initial gap + pit loss − n × (first-lap advantage − traffic cost) − advantage change × n × (n − 1) / 2.
A zero crossing means the model has recovered the time gap. It does not simulate an overtake. After crossing, the curve continues as a relative-time projection. Warm-up, fuel, tyre cliffs, rival stops, incidents and race rules are not modelled.
| Lap | Stop & chase | Stay out · equal pace | Time recovered |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 22.00 | 2.00 | 0.00 |
| 1 | 21.30 | 2.00 | 0.70 |
| 2 | 20.56 | 2.00 | 1.44 |
| 3 | 19.78 | 2.00 | 2.22 |
| 4 | 18.96 | 2.00 | 3.04 |
| 5 | 18.10 | 2.00 | 3.90 |
| 6 | 17.20 | 2.00 | 4.80 |
| 7 | 16.26 | 2.00 | 5.74 |
| 8 | 15.28 | 2.00 | 6.72 |
| 9 | 14.26 | 2.00 | 7.74 |
| 10 | 13.20 | 2.00 | 8.80 |
| 11 | 12.10 | 2.00 | 9.90 |
| 12 | 10.96 | 2.00 | 11.04 |
| 13 | 9.78 | 2.00 | 12.22 |
| 14 | 8.56 | 2.00 | 13.44 |
| 15 | 7.30 | 2.00 | 14.70 |
| 16 | 6.00 | 2.00 | 16.00 |
| 17 | 4.66 | 2.00 | 17.34 |
| 18 | 3.28 | 2.00 | 18.72 |
| 19 | 1.86 | 2.00 | 20.14 |
| 20 | 0.40 | 2.00 | 21.60 |
| 21 | -1.10 | 2.00 | 23.10 |
| 22 | -2.64 | 2.00 | 24.64 |
Decision room / Make the call. Then test it.
One call. Three possible futures.
You trail by 3 seconds. An extra stop costs 20 seconds, with a 1.1-second first-lap tyre advantage. Choose a horizon and make the call, then test it against three assumptions.
Make a call to inspect its resilience. The table always keeps both choices visible.
01 / STRESS CASE
Clear air, growing advantage
Traffic loss / lap: 0.0 s · Advantage trend: +0.03 s/lap
- Box
- 8.1 s ahead
- Stay
- 3.0 s behind
02 / STRESS CASE
Traffic limits the advantage
Traffic loss / lap: 0.4 s · Advantage trend: +0.03 s/lap
- Box
- 0.7 s behind
- Stay
- 3.0 s behind
03 / STRESS CASE
Clear air, fading tyre advantage
Traffic loss / lap: 0.0 s · Advantage trend: -0.03 s/lap
- Box
- 5.7 s behind
- Stay
- 3.0 s behind
Chart key: solid = box, dashed = stay; down means further behind. The cases have no assigned probabilities, so they do not produce a win rate. Staying out assumes equal pace to the rival. Boxing uses the desk’s model, without overtaking, rival responses or safety cars. This compares relative time, not race outcomes.
Three concepts, unpacked
- Pit loss
- The total time lost entering, travelling through and leaving the pit lane, including the stop, relative to staying on track.
- Clear air
- Running without a car immediately ahead and its disturbed airflow. The model approximates traffic through a per-lap cost, rather than simulating aerodynamics.
- Robustness
- Examining a choice when assumptions worsen, as well as when they work out. The worst case here covers only these three authored conditions.
NEW / LJL PIT WALL
Change the conditions. Revisit the call.
Three plans, three conditions. Follow the time differences, then compare which plan relies least on an ideal future.
Open the multi-scenario pit wall ↗03 / What the experiment teaches
A forecast is only as useful as its assumptions.
Pay now. Recover later.
The pit loss is immediate. The return accumulates over laps, so a shorter horizon can overturn an apparently attractive strategy.
Look at the shape, not just the average.
An advantage that grows as the rival’s tyres age behaves differently from one that fades as fresh tyres settle. Change the trend and compare.
Catching is not passing.
The graph measures relative time. DRS, defensive driving, dirty air, weather, safety cars, and a rival’s response are outside this model. A crossing is a catch condition, not a win prediction.
Sources & method
Race facts [1–2] are paraphrased from the reports below, both published 4 August 2019. The interpretation and illustrative model are my own. No official team data, telemetry, or affiliation is implied.
Pit-wall library / A little more context
Step beyond the timing line.
A source for what happened, and an introduction to how the pit lane shapes a decision. Read either, then return to test your own assumptions.
Links open in a new tab. The race report is historical; the desk on this page remains an independent illustrative model.Return to the race
The governing body’s report of the Hungarian Grand Prix used in this study.
Read the original report↗ (opens in a new tab)EN / FORMULA 1 / EXPLAINSInside the pit lane
An official F1 Explains episode with Bernie Collins on pit-lane layout and strategy.
Explore the pit lane↗ (opens in a new tab)
AFTER READING / THE CONVERSATION
What would you add?
Add an experience, ask a question or point out a correction. Both language editions share this article’s discussion.
Public comments are not open yet. Keep a draft on this device, or send your thoughts through the contact page.
Write a local draft
Only “Save on this device” stores the draft. Clear it on shared devices; it is not published automatically.
0 / 1600