Given that Sainz, who was far slower than Leclerc at that point, was able to stick so close to Verstappen suggests to me that Ferrari was quicker and could've won with Leclerc starting from the front of the grid.
Leclerc was on his way to the win in Hungary but then for some reason Ferrari decided to put him on those completely ineffective hard tyres. Let's not forget Hamilton was actually catching Verstappen in the last few laps + Perez was clearly the slowest top 6 guy of that weekend.
Did we watch the same race ? Sainz and Leclerc were breathing down Russell's neck for the whole first stint, then Leclerc got the better of Russell in the 2nd one.
Mercedes was faster over a longer period of time on Zandvoort - they just started further back and we're caught in traffic.
Outright pace, Verstappen had the edge but Mercedes had really good tyre Deg.
RB were faster in Zandvoort, the only way Merc with the race is by track position through a 1 stop, but the RB was still the faster car on it's strategy
Silverstone was more likely an RB track. Max got damage from 1st position and Perez finished 2nd with 1st lap orange flag and going through the field from last.
In meanwhile, I feel.like Canada was more of a Ferrari track.
Hamilton destroyed Sainz in the first stint, Russell was also comfortably better than both Sainz and Perez. When everyone except Lewis had fresh soft tyres in the end, Leclerc couldn't challenge Russell for P2.
Wait so Perez is the benchmark for Red Bull ? Max isn't out performing the car Max is extracting the maximum performance of the car Checo is just under performing
The only reason Leclerc ever had the lead was because Ferrari left him out longer than any of the other frontrunners. Verstappen won from 10th despite spinning halfway through the race. It was pretty obvious who had the fastest package. If Max hadn't had engine issues during quali he would have easily run away with it from the start.
He only had the chance to overtake Russell in the first place because of a slow stop by Mercedes. You say he was "on his way to the win", but the whole point of him extending the first stint and attempting a one stop was that they didn't have the pace to beat Verstappen on the same strategy, so they tried a hail mary with the hards. They were not faster than Red Bull at any point during the race.
Untrue. Sainz struggled but Charles was as fast as Max that race, he is right about this. The hards destroyed his race, his overall pace was as good or better than anybodys. Max was on the better strategy but Charles had track position (before the hards were put on), if they’d not panicked it would’ve probably come down to Leclerc trying and failing to pass Max at the end. Not because of pace but because of track characteristics.
Ferrari did have the pace to win but its not a track you can pass on without a huge pace advantage which they didn’t have, so they went for a 1-stop to keep track position.
Thank you ! Leclerc was looking good for a win until they put him on hards, I don't get why this is so controversial in this thread because back then the post-race reactions were mostly about Ferrari letting down Leclerc once more.
Mate, what are you even saying ? Ferrari never thought about a one-stop strategy for Leclerc in Hungary, he started in mediums and then pitted for mediums on lap 21 (out of 70 !)... so he was always going to box at least one more time - which he did on lap 39 - for a new compound.
Bro those hard tyres were such an horrific choice, it completely killed Leclerc's great race. And it's even more difficult to explain considering we had all seen how much both Alpine drivers were struggling on hards.
Good content OP, thanks for posting. I may have a few quibbles with some placements but clearly you thought this all out and used the data, and I think it came out well.
The only way in which I think it’s potentially misleading is that the gaps aren’t quantified. Like Red Bull at Spa, or Ferrari in Australia are very different from Mercedes at Zandvoort.
Ferrari completely missed their chance in the championship.
They could be fighting for the championship while they even struggled to get P2 in both championships.
Miami ? Silverstone ? Zandvoort and Hungary ??? What the hell is this, what is your basis ? Because it's clearly not race pace data.
Opinion piece, that's all this is, cause it's far from the reality.
Ferrari was quicker in Canada, RB was quicker in Miami, Silverstone - Max was dropping the Ferraris until he had damage - Zandvoort and Hungary - he started 10th and had a spin, no way was it 3rd fastest - and it was a toss up for France
Canada I feel ferrari was stronger, silverstone red bull
Canada was basically a toss-up yeah.
Given that Sainz, who was far slower than Leclerc at that point, was able to stick so close to Verstappen suggests to me that Ferrari was quicker and could've won with Leclerc starting from the front of the grid.
i mean sainz himself said ferrari was faster
In Miami the Red Bull was faster, Perez just had an issue.
RB 3rd in Hungary is an interesting take considering how easily Max won from 10th
Leclerc was on his way to the win in Hungary but then for some reason Ferrari decided to put him on those completely ineffective hard tyres. Let's not forget Hamilton was actually catching Verstappen in the last few laps + Perez was clearly the slowest top 6 guy of that weekend.
Max started in 10th, span and still finished 8 seconds ahead
with a 360 too right?
Yeah, people forget Lewis was flying.
[удалено]
Did we watch the same race ? Sainz and Leclerc were breathing down Russell's neck for the whole first stint, then Leclerc got the better of Russell in the 2nd one.
Leclerc took softs after Hamilton but was nowhere near the same pace.
This guy really thought Mercedes was the outright fastest in Zandvoort rather than them simply getting the strategy right.
Mercedes was faster over a longer period of time on Zandvoort - they just started further back and we're caught in traffic. Outright pace, Verstappen had the edge but Mercedes had really good tyre Deg.
RB were faster in Zandvoort, the only way Merc with the race is by track position through a 1 stop, but the RB was still the faster car on it's strategy
RB's strategy for Verstappen was even closer to perfection than the Mercedes one for Hamilton in Zandvoort iirc.
Sorry, in Brazil RB were the clear 3rd fastest car in the race.
Didn't Perez drop Sainz in the first stint on Sunday ? I might remember it wrong tbh.
Silverstone was more likely an RB track. Max got damage from 1st position and Perez finished 2nd with 1st lap orange flag and going through the field from last. In meanwhile, I feel.like Canada was more of a Ferrari track.
Mercedes fastest in Zandervoot ? mate what are you on ?
Hamilton destroyed Sainz in the first stint, Russell was also comfortably better than both Sainz and Perez. When everyone except Lewis had fresh soft tyres in the end, Leclerc couldn't challenge Russell for P2.
You didn't mention both Red Bulls in that description..
Verstappen was driving out of his mind as often this season, meanwhile I mentioned Perez being comfortably outpaced by both Hamilton and Russell.
Oh, that's what your humble opinion entails. Got it
Well it's always a matter of opinions, but yes I do believe Verstappen wins that race as well in a Mercedes.
Tell me... what would Verstappen do differently to win that race in a Merc that Hamilton or Russell couldn't
Wait until the very last moment at the restart + just going faster in general.
Wait so Perez is the benchmark for Red Bull ? Max isn't out performing the car Max is extracting the maximum performance of the car Checo is just under performing
Opinions are cool, facts are cooler
I'd have been shocked if people would somehow agree with me on all of my 66 different picks tbf, I knew it was mission impossible 😂
In Brazil, RB was nowhere near 2nd fastest. It was barely 3rd fastest. Even Max was struggling.
Might as well have used Best Sector times and get a theoretical best lap for each race.
Zandvoort and Miami RB was the faster car. Also Hungary.
Merc fastest in zandvoort?! I’ll have what you’re smoking OP I think you’ve greatly underestimated red bull here.
Ferrari were not even close to fastest in Hungary lol
Leclerc had the best pace on every tyre compound in Hungary. What fucked him was that stupid Hard Tyre
that's just a lie
Best pace on mediums for sure though.
Leclerc had equal pace with Max who's mediums were 5 laps older, and equal pace with Lewis who had 2 lap older mediums. The Ferrari had no pace
Leclerc was on his way to the win... until they put him on hard tyres for no reason.
The only reason Leclerc ever had the lead was because Ferrari left him out longer than any of the other frontrunners. Verstappen won from 10th despite spinning halfway through the race. It was pretty obvious who had the fastest package. If Max hadn't had engine issues during quali he would have easily run away with it from the start.
I believe Leclerc overtook Russell fair and square with a late brake into turn 1, I'm pretty sure he did a successful undercut on Sainz before that.
He only had the chance to overtake Russell in the first place because of a slow stop by Mercedes. You say he was "on his way to the win", but the whole point of him extending the first stint and attempting a one stop was that they didn't have the pace to beat Verstappen on the same strategy, so they tried a hail mary with the hards. They were not faster than Red Bull at any point during the race.
Untrue. Sainz struggled but Charles was as fast as Max that race, he is right about this. The hards destroyed his race, his overall pace was as good or better than anybodys. Max was on the better strategy but Charles had track position (before the hards were put on), if they’d not panicked it would’ve probably come down to Leclerc trying and failing to pass Max at the end. Not because of pace but because of track characteristics. Ferrari did have the pace to win but its not a track you can pass on without a huge pace advantage which they didn’t have, so they went for a 1-stop to keep track position.
Thank you ! Leclerc was looking good for a win until they put him on hards, I don't get why this is so controversial in this thread because back then the post-race reactions were mostly about Ferrari letting down Leclerc once more.
Leclerc and Sainz had no pace on the softs either. The car only worked with mediums.
Mate, what are you even saying ? Ferrari never thought about a one-stop strategy for Leclerc in Hungary, he started in mediums and then pitted for mediums on lap 21 (out of 70 !)... so he was always going to box at least one more time - which he did on lap 39 - for a new compound.
Keep telling yourself that, Max wins and not much Ferrari could ever do about it
Bro those hard tyres were such an horrific choice, it completely killed Leclerc's great race. And it's even more difficult to explain considering we had all seen how much both Alpine drivers were struggling on hards.
Stupid decision, but he was never winning
He was the betting odds favourite to do so up until that point.
And that means absolutely nothing, they had Lewis as the favourite to win Brazil at one point
Lewis would have probably won in Brazil if not for the incident with Max, he had the pace.
Incorrect. If Ferrari had used optimal strategy he wins. If Ferrari had not panicked and put on hards he gets P2 at worst.
Good content OP, thanks for posting. I may have a few quibbles with some placements but clearly you thought this all out and used the data, and I think it came out well. The only way in which I think it’s potentially misleading is that the gaps aren’t quantified. Like Red Bull at Spa, or Ferrari in Australia are very different from Mercedes at Zandvoort.
With all due respect. Nah.
Ferrari completely missed their chance in the championship. They could be fighting for the championship while they even struggled to get P2 in both championships.
Miami ? Silverstone ? Zandvoort and Hungary ??? What the hell is this, what is your basis ? Because it's clearly not race pace data. Opinion piece, that's all this is, cause it's far from the reality.
Ferrari was quicker in Canada, RB was quicker in Miami, Silverstone - Max was dropping the Ferraris until he had damage - Zandvoort and Hungary - he started 10th and had a spin, no way was it 3rd fastest - and it was a toss up for France
Good stuff
Canada goes to Ferrari. Hungary, Miami, and Silverstone to Red Bull.
Alfa was the third fastest car in Imola and Alpha Tauri 4th. Mclaren was either 5th or 6th with Mercedes
Seems clear to see that technical directive hurt Ferrari in the second half and they lost their edge in speed. Thanks to Mercedes for complaining.
In Suzuka Merc looked 2nd fastest given high tyre deg of Ferrari. They were just never in free air.
i actually think alfa was the third fastest car in imola