Analysing the strategies used, how the factors played out, the difference between the two rounds and much more including Eriksson’s performance!
Formula E was back after a long mid – season break and the venue was a new track but in a very well known nation for Formula E. Two races, One weekend and all at the track at Puebla, in Mexico. Two races. And the two races weren’t just two races on a track where teams went racing and came back with similar results, it was a weekend in which there were teams who had similar results on both days and teams who either had a better or a worse second race. Strategies were different, other factors and conditions were different and most interestingly, the results were completely different.
THE STRATEGIES
A circuit which isn’t very friendly to the tyres and an Attack Mode activation zone, which is on a different part of the circuit, a change in layout with drivers losing as much as 5 seconds. Strategy was key to a good result. And as teams learned the track better during each and every session and with a change in how the grid was laid out in the two races, several different strategies were seen over the two days with many teams adopting new strategies in the second race. The other strategical factors such as energy management also played out differently in the two races as evidently in race 1, as the pack in the points but out of podium contention was closer together, having better energy management benefitted drivers like Sims who made up a handful of positions towards the end.
Mercedes – the championship leaders – needed atleast a podium finish in order to keep a good lead ahead of the rest in the championship but failed to do so in the two races. There were two factors that played in here. The first being Qualifying woes and the second being some racing woes. Mercedes did not qualify well once again and this time energy management wasn’t there to get them a victory but their energy management still is very good and they are able to conserve a lot of energy which does come to use in indirect manners as well. Mercedes were one team who weren’t with expected strategy – a strategy that they have been using again and again and is a safe strategy in many ways but maybe requires a bit of a change. That strategy mainly is with regards to Vandoorne. When they start towards the back, Vandoorne is one of the first to take Attack Mode and then based on his progress upon using Attack Mode, the next Attack Mode is either taken very soon or towards the end of the race(generally towards the end of the race). A possible change to this strategy could be to mix it up a bit. Such a predictable strategy can be easily countered by the others, especially on tracks like the one seen in Puebla.
Teams like Mahindra Racing chose different strategies in the two races mainly because they had to race differently. In the first Race, for example Mahindra Racing had Sims starting in the 7th position and then climbing up whereas Lynn was climbing from a position out of the points and they went for different strategies for both of them. The strategy for Sims was to ensure that does not fall back too much from those ahead of him and for Lynn, it was to ensure that he is able to make overtakes using the Attack Mode and he went with two early attack modes whereas Sims went for two Attack Modes around the halfway mark. In race 2, both of their drivers were closer together and in the points, and the plan was different again. It was two quick Attack Modes but around the halfway mark and both drivers following the ones ahead of them. This helped Mahindra as they were showing some good energy management in Puebla. Hence, what was striking was Mahindra Racing’s understanding of how they could use other racing factors to gain positions whereas use the Attack Mode to not be disadvantaged in the second race whereas in the first race they had a different outlook as they had more challenging race to undertake as they weren’t showing that good pace.
Then there are the likes of Cassidy who time it so perfectly. They wait and they build a gap, first take advantage of others taking ATTACK MODE and falling down in position, then pushing to build a bigger gap and then take ATTACK MODE at such a time that he will have more ATTACK MODE time remaining when other drivers’ ATTACK MODE finishes and as he had build a gap and had not lost much places, they can not only easily climb back to there place from which they took ATTACK MODE but also use that extra power to make up more positions. Cassidy separated himself from the crowd and the strategies were such that they were risk – proof and not so conventional, meaning that it also tricked some others.
MORTARA AND WEHRLEIN
The two drivers who took the chequered flag, i.e. lead the race and were the first to cross the finish line. But one won the race, the other was disqualified. Irrespective of the final results, there was one similarity between the performance of Mortara and Wehrlein in Race 2 and Race 1 respectively. Both led the second half of the race and won by a good margin. Wehrlein was leading almost all of the laps, after starting on pole position whereas Mortara played a game of strategy to take the lead and the go on to win the race. Both of them showed good speeds as they seperated themselves well from the others, their ATTACK MODE activations did not harm them as such in terms of positions lost while taking it, infact in Race 2, Mortara took the Attack Mode while in the lead and stayed in the lead. The only difference being that Wehrlein who had express throughout both the races, with no such prominent reason except the fact that he had good control over his car for most of the race and the rest were either entangled in battles or messed up strategy a bit at times in the race which helped Wherein a bit, was someone who had a comfortable Race 1 whereas Mortara was challenged by Wehrlein in Race 2. It was Mortara’s pressure handling skills and good cornering skills that kept him ahead for most of time until he could get more comfortable as Wehrlien made that one mistake at Turn 17 where he lost control of his car a bit. So, Wehrlein was the fastest in the race throughout although he did not take the fastest lap by far, but his pace was his consistency and his control on the car over a long period of time
JOY OF JOEL ERIKSSON
Joel Eriksson, who was racing for the first time in Formula E, while replacing the unavailable Nico Mueller showed two good performances over two days. Even though he was driving in a Formula E race for the first time, and that also in track conditions and a layout which were tough to deal with sue to the nature of the surface of the track, the rain on the first day, the slippery nature of the track and the tight corners on the track, he managed to safely finish both races, and even finish ahead of his teammate Sérgio SETTE CÂMARA in Race 2. He was not involved in any major incidents and drove a good race. He was smooth in overtaking as he picked the few opportunities he got and he ensured he was not making any moves that could damage his or someone else’s car. He had a good race weekend and is a young and bright future prospect. He wasn’t driving slowly around the track, was doing well with energy management and was still ensuring that he did not lose control of his car.
All in all, it was a weekend of interesting strategies and outcomes with similarities, differences and a lot to learn about. Formula E’s Mexico tour was another success in many ways.
|ELECTRIC RACING KEEPS GETTING ELECTRICAL|
spielens 