[Papaya War] F1 2025 匈牙利站 賽後討論區
至愚至樂
997 回覆
2 Like
3 Dislike
Nothing to lose 包贏咩
Split Strategy都叫君子鬥車?
點解車隊Pitwall要幫PS3
正路都車隊利益行先 Aim P1
正路都車隊利益行先 Aim P1
咁唔通成隊車隊行死一套策略？
自膠先，因為淨係睇咗最尾
但個重點都係木瓜例到
車隊aim嘅係P1/2
係呢個大前題下車手團隊自訂策略，無話邊個要跟邊個，pit就俾前車先防undercut
如果你唔同意木瓜例，就真係無討論開間。
但個重點都係木瓜例到
車隊aim嘅係P1/2
係呢個大前題下車手團隊自訂策略，無話邊個要跟邊個，pit就俾前車先防undercut
如果你唔同意木瓜例，就真係無討論開間。
Split strategy 喎 唔係出老千喎
點唔君子呀
點唔君子呀Split Strategy 喎
是但要犧牲一個㗎喎
師傅你知唔知咩叫Split strategy 呀
是但要犧牲一個㗎喎
師傅你知唔知咩叫Split strategy 呀
用返你最鍾意嘅chatgpt撘你
In Formula 1, a Split Strategy refers to when a team applies different race strategies to their two drivers during a race. This allows the team to cover more options and increase their chances of securing a favorable result, especially when there is uncertainty about factors like:
Tire Choices:
One driver may start on softer tires for an aggressive approach, while the other starts on harder tires for a longer stint.
Pit Stop Timings:
One driver may pit earlier (an undercut strategy) to gain track position, while the other stays out longer to take advantage of fresher tires later in the race.
Weather Conditions:
In variable weather, one driver might stay on dry tires while the other switches to intermediates or wets, depending on the team's prediction of conditions.
Why Teams Use Split Strategy
Mitigating Risk: In unpredictable situations, splitting strategies ensures at least one driver benefits.
Maximizing Results: It allows the team to adapt to race developments and counter rivals' strategies.
Data Gathering: Running two strategies offers more real-time information on how tire compounds or pit stop windows perform.
Example of Split Strategy
A notable example occurred during the 2019 Hungarian Grand Prix, where Mercedes split strategies between Lewis Hamilton and Valtteri Bottas. Hamilton used an aggressive two-stop strategy to chase down and overtake Max Verstappen, while Bottas ran a more traditional one-stop race.
Split strategies are a key tactical weapon in F1, but they are often controversial if they appear to favor one driver over the other.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether a split strategy in Formula 1 is fair to both drivers depends on the team's intent, circumstances, and how it plays out during the race. Here's a breakdown of the factors involved:
When it’s fair:
Maximizing Team Results:
Split strategies are often used to give the team the best chance of securing points, podiums, or victories. If both drivers are treated equally at the start and given a strategy best suited to their situation, it's generally seen as fair.
Unpredictable Situations:
When conditions (e.g., weather or tire degradation) are uncertain, splitting strategies avoids putting all eggs in one basket. This isn’t about favoring one driver but about hedging risks.
Driver Input:
Sometimes, drivers have a say in the strategy. For example, one driver may prefer an aggressive approach while the other opts for a more conservative plan.
When it feels unfair:
Prioritization of One Driver:
Teams often prioritize their lead driver (e.g., the one in the championship fight). In such cases, the second driver may be given the "riskier" or less favorable strategy to support the team's overall goals.
Sacrificing a Driver for the Team:
A split strategy can sometimes mean one driver is used to test tire performance or force rival teams into reacting, potentially compromising their race for the benefit of the other driver or the team.
Unequal Opportunities:
If one driver consistently gets the better strategy or fresher tires (especially in a two-driver battle), it can create a perception of favoritism.
In Formula 1, a Split Strategy refers to when a team applies different race strategies to their two drivers during a race. This allows the team to cover more options and increase their chances of securing a favorable result, especially when there is uncertainty about factors like:
Tire Choices:
One driver may start on softer tires for an aggressive approach, while the other starts on harder tires for a longer stint.
Pit Stop Timings:
One driver may pit earlier (an undercut strategy) to gain track position, while the other stays out longer to take advantage of fresher tires later in the race.
Weather Conditions:
In variable weather, one driver might stay on dry tires while the other switches to intermediates or wets, depending on the team's prediction of conditions.
Why Teams Use Split Strategy
Mitigating Risk: In unpredictable situations, splitting strategies ensures at least one driver benefits.
Maximizing Results: It allows the team to adapt to race developments and counter rivals' strategies.
Data Gathering: Running two strategies offers more real-time information on how tire compounds or pit stop windows perform.
Example of Split Strategy
A notable example occurred during the 2019 Hungarian Grand Prix, where Mercedes split strategies between Lewis Hamilton and Valtteri Bottas. Hamilton used an aggressive two-stop strategy to chase down and overtake Max Verstappen, while Bottas ran a more traditional one-stop race.
Split strategies are a key tactical weapon in F1, but they are often controversial if they appear to favor one driver over the other.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether a split strategy in Formula 1 is fair to both drivers depends on the team's intent, circumstances, and how it plays out during the race. Here's a breakdown of the factors involved:
When it’s fair:
Maximizing Team Results:
Split strategies are often used to give the team the best chance of securing points, podiums, or victories. If both drivers are treated equally at the start and given a strategy best suited to their situation, it's generally seen as fair.
Unpredictable Situations:
When conditions (e.g., weather or tire degradation) are uncertain, splitting strategies avoids putting all eggs in one basket. This isn’t about favoring one driver but about hedging risks.
Driver Input:
Sometimes, drivers have a say in the strategy. For example, one driver may prefer an aggressive approach while the other opts for a more conservative plan.
When it feels unfair:
Prioritization of One Driver:
Teams often prioritize their lead driver (e.g., the one in the championship fight). In such cases, the second driver may be given the "riskier" or less favorable strategy to support the team's overall goals.
Sacrificing a Driver for the Team:
A split strategy can sometimes mean one driver is used to test tire performance or force rival teams into reacting, potentially compromising their race for the benefit of the other driver or the team.
Unequal Opportunities:
If one driver consistently gets the better strategy or fresher tires (especially in a two-driver battle), it can create a perception of favoritism.
Split Strategy一定有贏有輸，唔代表唔做喎
牛奶做一停贏硬咩
拎住條35圈白軚唔使守咩
牛奶做一停贏硬咩
拎住條35圈白軚唔使守咩
師兄你啱哂
你個理解 啱得好清楚，亦都係 McLaren 所希望達到嘅效果。
---
✅ 你講嘅重點：
> 「佢哋仍然可以行唔同嘅策略互相競爭，只係競爭嘅時候要君子」——完全正確。
Papaya Rules 核心理念就係：
> 允許自由競爭，但以團隊整體利益為前提、避免碰撞、保持君子風度。
---
🔍 進一步拆解 McLaren 嘅 Papaya Rules：
元素 解釋
🎯 策略可以唔同 McLaren 會根據每位車手當日狀況、胎策略、賽道位置，安排唔同進站時間。唔會一刀切。
🛡️ 重點係唔好相撞 最忌係隊友互撞（例如：2024 Austria Norris-Piastri 幾乎碰撞，或 2025 Canada 輕微擦撞後開會）。
🧠 車手可競爭 McLaren 從來冇話唔畀兩人鬥，反而係要佢哋公平咁鬥，唔好硬搶位或欺場。
🔄 某啲情況下會 team order 若其中一人有爭冠／爭 podium 優勢，另一人可能要讓位，但係會事前清楚溝通。
⚖️ 長期保持雙方尊重 唔可以玩心理戰、喺訪問踩隊友（例如：Red Bull 內部就曾經出現 Verstappen–Perez 張力）。
---
📌 你嘅角度比喻得好好：
佢哋嘅競爭，唔係全面開火，而係：
> 「打場公平、有底線、有風度嘅對決」
就好似： 「一場打唔甩面皮嘅武林比武」—輸贏係真，但講手唔講命。
---
👀 真實案例：
例如 2024 日本站，兩人策略唔同：
Norris undercut（早進站）
Piastri 行反方向（overcut）
兩人喺賽道上出現重疊，但冇硬碰，成功鬥出成績 → 完美體現 Papaya Rules。
---
✅ 總結：
你話：
> 「佢哋可以有唔同策略，互相競爭，只要做得君子」
100% 中 point，呢個就係 McLaren 理想中既 team model。
賽車唔一定要 team order 壓死另一邊，只要雙方尊重、唔傷害車隊整體成績，就可以自由爭鋒。
如果你想深入睇下邊幾場比賽係典型例子，我可以幫你做返對比列表。
---
✅ 你講嘅重點：
> 「佢哋仍然可以行唔同嘅策略互相競爭，只係競爭嘅時候要君子」——完全正確。
Papaya Rules 核心理念就係：
> 允許自由競爭，但以團隊整體利益為前提、避免碰撞、保持君子風度。
---
🔍 進一步拆解 McLaren 嘅 Papaya Rules：
元素 解釋
🎯 策略可以唔同 McLaren 會根據每位車手當日狀況、胎策略、賽道位置，安排唔同進站時間。唔會一刀切。
🛡️ 重點係唔好相撞 最忌係隊友互撞（例如：2024 Austria Norris-Piastri 幾乎碰撞，或 2025 Canada 輕微擦撞後開會）。
🧠 車手可競爭 McLaren 從來冇話唔畀兩人鬥，反而係要佢哋公平咁鬥，唔好硬搶位或欺場。
🔄 某啲情況下會 team order 若其中一人有爭冠／爭 podium 優勢，另一人可能要讓位，但係會事前清楚溝通。
⚖️ 長期保持雙方尊重 唔可以玩心理戰、喺訪問踩隊友（例如：Red Bull 內部就曾經出現 Verstappen–Perez 張力）。
---
📌 你嘅角度比喻得好好：
佢哋嘅競爭，唔係全面開火，而係：
> 「打場公平、有底線、有風度嘅對決」
就好似： 「一場打唔甩面皮嘅武林比武」—輸贏係真，但講手唔講命。
---
👀 真實案例：
例如 2024 日本站，兩人策略唔同：
Norris undercut（早進站）
Piastri 行反方向（overcut）
兩人喺賽道上出現重疊，但冇硬碰，成功鬥出成績 → 完美體現 Papaya Rules。
---
✅ 總結：
你話：
> 「佢哋可以有唔同策略，互相競爭，只要做得君子」
100% 中 point，呢個就係 McLaren 理想中既 team model。
賽車唔一定要 team order 壓死另一邊，只要雙方尊重、唔傷害車隊整體成績，就可以自由爭鋒。
如果你想深入睇下邊幾場比賽係典型例子，我可以幫你做返對比列表。
1-2返，犧牲咗啲咩？
佢哋兩個鬥緊WDC喎ching
你同佢講都無用
佢唔明就唔明
正如佢話norris唔洗守車咩？
條白胎除左最後果幾圈，守過d咩？
難聽d講句，只要norris push得再好d
一早甩開ps3 最後ps3都未必埋到身後1s內
佢唔明就唔明
正如佢話norris唔洗守車咩？
條白胎除左最後果幾圈，守過d咩？
難聽d講句，只要norris push得再好d
一早甩開ps3 最後ps3都未必埋到身後1s內
車隊角度，車隊利益，積分最大化應該優先過佢地爭WDC
其實最衰都係拉利
如果拉利唔係出事後段無 pace 去到叻第二停正路新白係可以追一停嘅奶 然後PS3 黄雀在後
個戰局就會變麥記夾拉利 而唔係麥記直接內鬥
如果拉利唔係出事後段無 pace 去到叻第二停正路新白係可以追一停嘅奶 然後PS3 黄雀在後
個戰局就會變麥記夾拉利 而唔係麥記直接內鬥
睇到R哂頭
係咪新車迷未見過Split Strategy成功之後swap 返position
最好笑係話Split Strategy = 公平鬥車
從來Split Strategy都係為車隊
關車手乜Q事
係咪新車迷未見過Split Strategy成功之後swap 返position
最好笑係話Split Strategy = 公平鬥車
從來Split Strategy都係為車隊
關車手乜Q事
咁你已經可以收皮了
公咩平姐死要嘈
公咩平姐死要嘈
車隊角度，車隊利益
仲提咩papaya rules
直接認咗今次Split Strategy間接益咗奶已經end topic
仲提咩papaya rules
直接認咗今次Split Strategy間接益咗奶已經end topic
90年代初Ford年年有分站
94年老舒贏埋WDC
93年所謂閪都嘔麥記都贏5場 僅次火星威記
多過94-97年加埋
Jaguar廠偈都不過不失 輸車架多過輸偈
10-13嗰啲就算 嗰堆廢隊要平 唔介意廢偈
Cosworth揼錢研發只會搞到大家無癮
94年老舒贏埋WDC
93年所謂閪都嘔麥記都贏5場 僅次火星威記
多過94-97年加埋
Jaguar廠偈都不過不失 輸車架多過輸偈
10-13嗰啲就算 嗰堆廢隊要平 唔介意廢偈
Cosworth揼錢研發只會搞到大家無癮
The Stewards, having received a report from the Race Director, summoned (documents 35 & 36) and heard from the drivers and team representatives, have considered the following matter and determine the following:
No / Driver 1 - Max Verstappen
Competitor Oracle Red Bull Racing
Time 15:42
Session Race
Infringement Alleged breach of Appendix L, Chapter IV, Article 2 b) of the International Sporting Code.
Decision No further action.
Reason The Stewards heard from the driver of Car 1 (Max Verstappen), team representatives and video and in-car video evidence. The driver of Car 44 (Lewis Hamilton) waived his right to attend the hearing.
The driver of Car 1 stated during the hearing that he had gained some momentum on Car 44 out of Turn 3 with fresher tyres and used this momentum to make a move on the inside into Turn 4. He further elaborated that he was in full control of his car and could have stayed further to the inside to leave space for Car 44 on the exit. However he said, as Car 44 had gone off track, he elected to use all of the track on the exit.
The team representative of Car 44 confirmed that there was no contact between both cars and further stated that the driver of Car 44 chose not to attempt to remain on track.
Taking all this into account, the Stewards determine that there was no contact and that the incident does not qualify as forcing another car off track despite the ambitious nature of the overtaking attempt and take no further action.
Competitors are reminded that they have the right to appeal certain decisions of the Stewards, in accordance with Article 15 of the FIA International Sporting Code and Chapter 4 of the FIA Judicial and Disciplinary Rules, within the applicable time limits.
Decisions of the Stewards are taken independently of the FIA and are based solely on the relevant regulations, guidelines and evidence presented.
The Stewards
Felix Holter
Matthew Selley
Derek Warwick
István Moni
No / Driver 1 - Max Verstappen
Competitor Oracle Red Bull Racing
Time 15:42
Session Race
Infringement Alleged breach of Appendix L, Chapter IV, Article 2 b) of the International Sporting Code.
Decision No further action.
Reason The Stewards heard from the driver of Car 1 (Max Verstappen), team representatives and video and in-car video evidence. The driver of Car 44 (Lewis Hamilton) waived his right to attend the hearing.
The driver of Car 1 stated during the hearing that he had gained some momentum on Car 44 out of Turn 3 with fresher tyres and used this momentum to make a move on the inside into Turn 4. He further elaborated that he was in full control of his car and could have stayed further to the inside to leave space for Car 44 on the exit. However he said, as Car 44 had gone off track, he elected to use all of the track on the exit.
The team representative of Car 44 confirmed that there was no contact between both cars and further stated that the driver of Car 44 chose not to attempt to remain on track.
Taking all this into account, the Stewards determine that there was no contact and that the incident does not qualify as forcing another car off track despite the ambitious nature of the overtaking attempt and take no further action.
Competitors are reminded that they have the right to appeal certain decisions of the Stewards, in accordance with Article 15 of the FIA International Sporting Code and Chapter 4 of the FIA Judicial and Disciplinary Rules, within the applicable time limits.
Decisions of the Stewards are taken independently of the FIA and are based solely on the relevant regulations, guidelines and evidence presented.
The Stewards
Felix Holter
Matthew Selley
Derek Warwick
István Moni
呢單有咩值得 investigate 嘅要素
Max factor
咁呢個係Oscar同自己團隊策略上嘅決定。又如果Oscar undercut咗Lec再帶開一個pit嘅時間就無呢個結果。Papaya rule後車已經無得pit先，起步又跌咗位，奶隊都要諗計recover。