planetf1.com

It is currently Sun Jul 21, 2019 2:39 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 11:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 1894
Laz_T800 wrote:
http://en.mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page=chart&gp=1020&graf=3&dr1=Charles%20Leclerc&dr2=Sebastian%20Vettel

Looking at the lap time comparison between LeClerc and Vettel, it's fairly plain to see that Vettel wasn't really any quicker than LeClerc.
In similar circumstances in the past the other teams have swapped the drivers around again.
Hamilton, Hungary 2017 springs to mind.

I think Ferrari are chucking all their eggs in the wrong basket.
Leclerc should now have 7 more points than he has and that's not including the 10 he lost in Bahrain.
He should be right up there in the fight for the WDC, Vettel on the other hand?


Lap times without context leads to people saying this, at the beginning of the race Leclerc was allowed to use a higher engine mode than Vettel hence why it seemed like he was on the same pace as Vettel, which was why Ferrari allowed Vettel through, the problem was they waited too long and by then Vettel's front tyres was done!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 11:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 1894
Zoue wrote:
kowen1208 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Kvyat ran into the side of Sainz I thought?

I thought it was Norris. If not then it was Norris and Kvyat who touched first. One of the McLarens, anyway

I think Kvyat's snap oversteer put his left rear into Sainz's front right, which then snapped Kvyat back the other way and hit Norris's right rear with his front left.

Thoughts about Ferrari's race:

I think the call to let Vettel through was fair; he was staying within ~1s the entire lap for multiple laps. You have to assume that there's at least a little extra pace in there, and you don't want Mercedes to build a sizeable gap. Unfortunately, the extra pace wasn't enough to make a difference, and the swapped places put Leclerc at risk of an undercut.

I feel Ferrari is often too reactive and not proactive enough, and there are many times that if you wait to react, you've waited too long. You know what the pit window is, you know what the tire drop-off is like, why wait until the car behind goes for the undercut? I would have pit Leclerc the same lap that Verstappen pitted. In which case, Verstappen likely would have stayed out. From there, you have a lot more flexibility to decide your own fate with a 1-stop vs. 2-stop.

I don't think they should have pitted Leclerc a second time. You have a 13s advantage over Verstappen on fresh rubber with ~15 laps to go, so you're definitely at risk of being caught. But why would you trade that situation for a 13s deficit on only slightly newer rubber? Even if you can catch Verstappen, your tires are going to be gone by the time you do, and you'll have nothing left to make a move with.

But since they did pit Leclerc and Leclerc couldn't catch Verstappen, they should have pitted after Gasly gave them the window to do so. Vettel's fastest time was 1:34.836 on new mediums on lap 37 of 56. Gasly's was 1:34.742 on new softs on lap 55 of 56. With a definite tire and fuel weight advantage, Gasly only bested Vettel by 0.094s. Surely Leclerc could have done better than that on new mediums or the used softs he had available. But who knows, maybe Leclerc didn't feel comfortable pitting again after whatever that little stutter was leaving his second stop.

I agree Ferrari made the right call and they've basically admitted that they had an eye on Mercedes and were hoping Vettel might have been able to do something that Leclerc cleasrly couldn't.

I'm also with you about pitting Leclerc a second time, although to be fair we don't know the condition of the tyres and they may have felt that in the last few laps they may have given up entirely.

I don't agree they should have pitted a 3rd time, though (mainly for the associated risk you alluded to). I think Leclerc should have been much quicker than he was. [b]If Vettel managed a 1:34.836 on lap 37, then with a lighter car and 7 laps' fresher rubber Leclerc should have blitzed that while chasing Verstappen. He was after all supposedly on a charge and his tyres only had to run for 13 laps or so. If he couldn't beat Vettel's time set with a heavier car earlier in the race, while going on a much, much shorter stint, then that suggests Ferrari were correct in getting Vettel in front as he was clearly quicker than Leclerc was. Leclerc should have had the fastest lap in the bag[/b]


Fuel and tyre life corrected he should have been 0.4s faster than Vettel when he set that lap, going by Vettel's time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 11:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
Rockie wrote:
Laz_T800 wrote:
http://en.mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page=chart&gp=1020&graf=3&dr1=Charles%20Leclerc&dr2=Sebastian%20Vettel

Looking at the lap time comparison between LeClerc and Vettel, it's fairly plain to see that Vettel wasn't really any quicker than LeClerc.
In similar circumstances in the past the other teams have swapped the drivers around again.
Hamilton, Hungary 2017 springs to mind.

I think Ferrari are chucking all their eggs in the wrong basket.
Leclerc should now have 7 more points than he has and that's not including the 10 he lost in Bahrain.
He should be right up there in the fight for the WDC, Vettel on the other hand?


Lap times without context leads to people saying this, at the beginning of the race Leclerc was allowed to use a higher engine mode than Vettel hence why it seemed like he was on the same pace as Vettel, which was why Ferrari allowed Vettel through, the problem was they waited too long and by then Vettel's front tyres was done!

Is that so? I don't think I've seem that anywhere?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 11:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 1894
Zoue wrote:
Rockie wrote:
Laz_T800 wrote:
http://en.mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page=chart&gp=1020&graf=3&dr1=Charles%20Leclerc&dr2=Sebastian%20Vettel

Looking at the lap time comparison between LeClerc and Vettel, it's fairly plain to see that Vettel wasn't really any quicker than LeClerc.
In similar circumstances in the past the other teams have swapped the drivers around again.
Hamilton, Hungary 2017 springs to mind.

I think Ferrari are chucking all their eggs in the wrong basket.
Leclerc should now have 7 more points than he has and that's not including the 10 he lost in Bahrain.
He should be right up there in the fight for the WDC, Vettel on the other hand?


Lap times without context leads to people saying this, at the beginning of the race Leclerc was allowed to use a higher engine mode than Vettel hence why it seemed like he was on the same pace as Vettel, which was why Ferrari allowed Vettel through, the problem was they waited too long and by then Vettel's front tyres was done!

Is that so? I don't think I've seem that anywhere?


Well it was from Mark Hughes race report below.

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/reports/f1/2019-chinese-grand-prix-report


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 12:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1371
Boring. Whichever Mercedes driver won the drag race into turn one was going to win the race. That is how Mercedes run their operation and control their drivers. That was obvious. So Ferrari order Leclerc to allow what was still the assigned number driver to give way? We saw Barrichello get screwed this way in Austria, and Massa at Hockenheim. Surprised?

Boring. I am glad I recorded that race and watched it when I had leisure time. Boring.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 12:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
Rockie wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Rockie wrote:
Laz_T800 wrote:
http://en.mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page=chart&gp=1020&graf=3&dr1=Charles%20Leclerc&dr2=Sebastian%20Vettel

Looking at the lap time comparison between LeClerc and Vettel, it's fairly plain to see that Vettel wasn't really any quicker than LeClerc.
In similar circumstances in the past the other teams have swapped the drivers around again.
Hamilton, Hungary 2017 springs to mind.

I think Ferrari are chucking all their eggs in the wrong basket.
Leclerc should now have 7 more points than he has and that's not including the 10 he lost in Bahrain.
He should be right up there in the fight for the WDC, Vettel on the other hand?


Lap times without context leads to people saying this, at the beginning of the race Leclerc was allowed to use a higher engine mode than Vettel hence why it seemed like he was on the same pace as Vettel, which was why Ferrari allowed Vettel through, the problem was they waited too long and by then Vettel's front tyres was done!

Is that so? I don't think I've seem that anywhere?


Well it was from Mark Hughes race report below.

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/reports/f1/2019-chinese-grand-prix-report

Cool, thanks


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 12:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 27, 2015 7:11 pm
Posts: 761
Rockie wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Rockie wrote:
Laz_T800 wrote:
http://en.mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page=chart&gp=1020&graf=3&dr1=Charles%20Leclerc&dr2=Sebastian%20Vettel

Looking at the lap time comparison between LeClerc and Vettel, it's fairly plain to see that Vettel wasn't really any quicker than LeClerc.
In similar circumstances in the past the other teams have swapped the drivers around again.
Hamilton, Hungary 2017 springs to mind.

I think Ferrari are chucking all their eggs in the wrong basket.
Leclerc should now have 7 more points than he has and that's not including the 10 he lost in Bahrain.
He should be right up there in the fight for the WDC, Vettel on the other hand?


Lap times without context leads to people saying this, at the beginning of the race Leclerc was allowed to use a higher engine mode than Vettel hence why it seemed like he was on the same pace as Vettel, which was why Ferrari allowed Vettel through, the problem was they waited too long and by then Vettel's front tyres was done!

Is that so? I don't think I've seem that anywhere?


Well it was from Mark Hughes race report below.

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/reports/f1/2019-chinese-grand-prix-report


Thanks for the article.
It does say though that Leclerc was allowed a little more ersK and turbo boost, after he'd been given the hurry up message. Not from the beginning of the race as you stated. The point I was trying to make was that once Vettel had shown he had no extra pace he should have given the place back. I honestly believe that Leclerc will be needing those points more than Seb.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:28 pm
Posts: 67
trento wrote:
how about pitting for the red soft tyre? could it last 13 laps?

Leclerc only had one set of softs that was used for a qualifying lap, so if the goal was to finish the race and set fastest lap on them, then doubtful.

Laz_T800 wrote:
http://en.mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page=chart&gp=1020&graf=3&dr1=Charles%20Leclerc&dr2=Sebastian%20Vettel

Looking at the lap time comparison between LeClerc and Vettel, it's fairly plain to see that Vettel wasn't really any quicker than LeClerc.
In similar circumstances in the past the other teams have swapped the drivers around again.
Hamilton, Hungary 2017 springs to mind.

I think Ferrari are chucking all their eggs in the wrong basket.
Leclerc should now have 7 more points than he has and that's not including the 10 he lost in Bahrain.
He should be right up there in the fight for the WDC, Vettel on the other hand?

He was marginally quicker, but it's hard to know that when he's stuck behind the other car. Mercedes was pulling away and Verstappen was closing in. They may have held on to 4th place had they not swapped Leclerc and Vettel, but in the moment, I think it was definitely the right call to make. Swapping them back after Vettel wasn't able to pull a significant gap was out of the question. The swap did likely cost the team 4th, and swapping back likely would have cost them 3rd as well.

Ferrari are sticking with how they said they would handle driver preference so far, IMO. It's only three races in, and Leclerc performing roundabout on par with Vettel twice and definitely outperforming him once is not enough for a second year driver to gain favor over a 4x WDC at Ferrari. It may happen this year, but Leclerc is going to need a few more Bahrain-esque performances.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6573
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
Boring. Whichever Mercedes driver won the drag race into turn one was going to win the race. That is how Mercedes run their operation and control their drivers. That was obvious. So Ferrari order Leclerc to allow what was still the assigned number driver to give way? We saw Barrichello get screwed this way in Austria, and Massa at Hockenheim. Surprised?

Boring. I am glad I recorded that race and watched it when I had leisure time. Boring.

Not sure what you're talking about here to be honest. There was absolutely no element of Mercedes controlling anything in this race. Hamilton beat Bottas off the line and then had more pace than him throughout the race. Likewise in both Australia and Bahrain, there was nothing from the pit wall whatsoever to "control the drivers". What's obvious is that they are free to race.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:26 am
Posts: 733
kowen1208 wrote:
He was marginally quicker, but it's hard to know that when he's stuck behind the other car. Mercedes was pulling away and Verstappen was closing in. They may have held on to 4th place had they not swapped Leclerc and Vettel, but in the moment, I think it was definitely the right call to make. Swapping them back after Vettel wasn't able to pull a significant gap was out of the question. The swap did likely cost the team 4th, and swapping back likely would have cost them 3rd as well.

Ferrari are sticking with how they said they would handle driver preference so far, IMO. It's only three races in, and Leclerc performing roundabout on par with Vettel twice and definitely outperforming him once is not enough for a second year driver to gain favor over a 4x WDC at Ferrari. It may happen this year, but Leclerc is going to need a few more Bahrain-esque performances.


Even someone with a brain of four would have wondered if he was marginally quicker just because of the DRS ? The reality is that Ferrari are mechanically applying (and will mechanically apply) the "50/50" rule in favour of Vettel. Which they could possibly rename the "100/0" rule, judging by the first 3 races.
As for the 4xWDC, all he is doing at Ferrari is just add more question marks about his 4 WDC

_________________
As my brother said : "I've got the brain of a four year old. I'll bet he was glad to be rid of it".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 4:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:17 pm
Posts: 627
Location: illinois
ferrari has much more to be concerned with than team orders.
at the moment it doesn't really matter who they apply too. they are behind in aero and it seems they can't run the pu at full power during the race.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 5:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:03 pm
Posts: 1371
Vettel spent a long time behind Leclerc within DRS range. Within a few laps of being ahead he broke DRS from Leclerc, despite probably having damaged his tires following so closely for so long.

...And then when Vettel pits he is very marginally ahead of Verstappen.

I think while it wasn't night and day, Vettel did have a pace advantage over Leclerc and if Ferrari didn't make the switch they would likely both end up behind Verstappen. So it made sense and it worked.

I get people being ideologically opposed to team orders, it's just this weird controversy generating case by case grey area I find more difficulty with.

_________________
===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶===


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 6:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 3711
When Vettel was behind Leclerc, Verstappen was able to stay around 2 seconds behind them. But afterwards when Vettel got clear air after VErstappen failed to pass him at the hair pin, he pulled away from Verstappen easily. Another clue that Vettel was just plain quicker than Leclerc in China. The only blip was after he got the team order, he locked up twice and failed to pull away, but he had more pace. You don't stay within DRS range of someone for that long unless you are quicker.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 6:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 31555
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Of course he would. What's he going to say? I'm too slow don't let me by?!

1 or 2 tenths doesn't justify it.

Relevance to discussion?

He wasn't going to catch the Mercs at that pace so it was basically giving Vettel the podium in respect to Leclerc, of course Vettel will always imply he could go so much faster?

And the pace was only confirmed after he passed Leclerc. You're applying hindsight to a decision but based on the facts at the time Vettel was faster. How much faster is always going to be an estimate

I think it will look bad if Ferrari keep doing this when Vettel is hardly any quicker?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 21st

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 6:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 31555
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
er, if that's what you thought why did you question when I said Kvyat and Sainz touched first? :?

It was implied that Sainz hit Kvyat, it was the other way around.

Sainz I think, although it was arguable that Kvyat drifted into him.

Kvyat hit both McLarens, hence the penalty.

You asked who hit who first, not what happened after!

I give up. Discussions with you are surreal sometimes

No I originally asked who hit Kvyat from behind as was suggested, when I got told it was Sainz I said that was not the case, why is this a problem for you it's not even that important?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 21st

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 6:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 31555
Johnson wrote:
Lt. Drebin wrote:
1000th race has fully shown why F1 is not anymore what it was. It has several unofficial categories, it is hard t overtake except on the 1km straight, starts are deciding the outcome. And that's just the top of the hill.

Ferrari obviously has a car problem, it looks so unsettled. Also, since Vettel pulled away from Leclerc, the decision of the team was justified. However, they can kiss the world title goodbye.
Merc looks like glued on the tarmac, not a single wobble. Masters.
Hat's down to Albon, some persistent race and first point after starting from the pit. But, it just shows how to important pit strategy has become.


Rose tinted glasses,there were probably more overtakes for podium positions in the last race than the entire 2006,2007 and 2008 seasons combined.

All of the bolded part has been true for about 15 years, baring a few early DRS seasons.

Indeed but me personally after Bahrain I hoped that Australia would be the outlier, I'm also disappointed in the difficulty in overtaking especially given all the long straights, could they have done more with the DRS zones?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 21st

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 6:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
1 or 2 tenths doesn't justify it.

Relevance to discussion?

He wasn't going to catch the Mercs at that pace so it was basically giving Vettel the podium in respect to Leclerc, of course Vettel will always imply he could go so much faster?

And the pace was only confirmed after he passed Leclerc. You're applying hindsight to a decision but based on the facts at the time Vettel was faster. How much faster is always going to be an estimate

I think it will look bad if Ferrari keep doing this when Vettel is hardly any quicker?

If they keep having to do it it will be bad regardless.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 6:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 31555
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
It ended up being an easy day for Lewis. Rocket start and then he was really never troubled at all. Mercedes clearly had the stronger package on the weekend and I think they just have their act together much more than Ferrari. Bottas is performing at a level where any thought of replacing him with Ocon will be chucked out the window. Why replace him? He's perfect for them.

Ferrari are starting to look like a mess again. Hindsight is 20/20 but them moving Leclerc out of Vettel's way and then sitting on their hands while Red Bull tried the undercut was embarrassing. Honestly, how did they not anticipate that and pit Leclerc first once it became obvious that Vettel was no faster than him? They seemed to alternate between indecision and poor decision throughout the course of the race. Charles should be livid IMO. That's two races out of three where they have simply handed Vettel an advantage over him. In the other race; he blew by Vettel and was on for a win for most fo the gp. Ferrari need to just back off and let them race at this point. They are not capable of managing this situation with team orders and they are bound to make even more of a mess of things. Let the kid race.

Good quiet day from Daniel. He needed a day like today. Also Kimi has my vote for best of the rest so far. He has been quick and consistent in that midfield scrap. Alex Albon is the second best Red Bull driver IMO. I'd look for him to replace Gasly at Red Bull in 2020 if things continue like this. he makes some mistakes but he's quick and racy. I think his potential in F1 is actually fairly high.

When Vettel pitted in response to Max he almost lost the place and had to fight hard to keep it. If Leclerc had pitted first he would have lost the place and then so would Vettel the lap after. That strategy makes no sense.

Ultimately, Vettel was faster than Leclerc this weekend, which effectively justifies their decision. Having said that, keeping Leclerc out as a moving chicane to try and block Bottas after that did compromise his race vs Verstappen and that I think Leclerc could feel aggrieved at. He lost a possible 4th place, but there again could have mitigated that a little by chasing fastest lao when he had so much fresher tyres. I think both team and driver need to reflect tbh

By "first" I meant before Red Bull. So long as they were in a position of reacting they were always going to end up losing a position. Having swapped them on track and then seen that Vettel wasn't going any faster than Charles; they should have given Charles pit stop preference and looked to pit him FIRST; not as a reaction from someone else trying the undercut. Considering the fact that it was a two-stopper with the hard tires for the second stint; there was no reason to try to draw out the stint any further.

Being a devil's advocate here, pitting Leclerc first would have put him back in front of Vettel, is that what Ferrari really wanted?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 21st

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 6:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:03 pm
Posts: 1371
pokerman wrote:
Indeed but me personally after Bahrain I hoped that Australia would be the outlier, I'm also disappointed in the difficulty in overtaking especially given all the long straights, could they have done more with the DRS zones?

The long sweeping corners and relative lack of mechanical grip seemed to seriously hurt the front tires when following closely in China. I do think things are generally better.

_________________
===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶===


Last edited by wolfticket on Mon Apr 15, 2019 7:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 7:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 31555
UnlikeUday wrote:

I would say Alonso like. :)

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 21st

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 7:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 31555
Laz_T800 wrote:
http://en.mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page=chart&gp=1020&graf=3&dr1=Charles%20Leclerc&dr2=Sebastian%20Vettel

Looking at the lap time comparison between LeClerc and Vettel, it's fairly plain to see that Vettel wasn't really any quicker than LeClerc.
In similar circumstances in the past the other teams have swapped the drivers around again.
Hamilton, Hungary 2017 springs to mind.

I think Ferrari are chucking all their eggs in the wrong basket.
Leclerc should now have 7 more points than he has and that's not including the 10 he lost in Bahrain.
He should be right up there in the fight for the WDC, Vettel on the other hand?

So Vettel made half a second in 6 laps, he wasn't even a full tenth quicker.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 21st

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 7:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 31555
Rockie wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Rockie wrote:
Laz_T800 wrote:
http://en.mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page=chart&gp=1020&graf=3&dr1=Charles%20Leclerc&dr2=Sebastian%20Vettel

Looking at the lap time comparison between LeClerc and Vettel, it's fairly plain to see that Vettel wasn't really any quicker than LeClerc.
In similar circumstances in the past the other teams have swapped the drivers around again.
Hamilton, Hungary 2017 springs to mind.

I think Ferrari are chucking all their eggs in the wrong basket.
Leclerc should now have 7 more points than he has and that's not including the 10 he lost in Bahrain.
He should be right up there in the fight for the WDC, Vettel on the other hand?


Lap times without context leads to people saying this, at the beginning of the race Leclerc was allowed to use a higher engine mode than Vettel hence why it seemed like he was on the same pace as Vettel, which was why Ferrari allowed Vettel through, the problem was they waited too long and by then Vettel's front tyres was done!

Is that so? I don't think I've seem that anywhere?


Well it was from Mark Hughes race report below.

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/reports/f1/2019-chinese-grand-prix-report

Interesting that you missed out some things that were being said like when Leclerc was asked to go quicker he was actually tyre saving, and when Vettel was let passed Leclerc he said he was losing time being held up by Vettel.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 21st

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 7:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 257
bonecrasher wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
Altair wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
Altair wrote:
Yawn.

So glad I record this so I can watch the race on fast forward and not feel like I've wasted my time.


Even watching it on fast forward will be wasting some of your time though.

True.

Only 10 minutes though.


Hopefully Liberty Media's proposed changes for 2021 will sort the sport out in this area, (a severe lack of entertainment, unpredictability and close racing). It's a long time to wait though. :(

The sport of Formula 1 hasn’t changed since forever really. This, as you put it, severe lack of entertainment (hyperbole) has always existed. Have you recently gone back to rewatch some of the races from the past? I assure you modern f1 is quite healthy. Or have we already forgot about Bahrain only 2 weeks ago? The difference is in the way we consume content compared to back then. Nowadays if it’s not shock and awe it’s not worth bothering about. China was a very very typical F1 race, more of the norm in a dry race. We only think the past was better because the brain only chooses to remember the good moments. It’s like a highlights package where we only cherry pick the memorable drives but if you really look objectively enough you will find that 2016, 2017 and 2018 had some pretty amazing races in them. 2016 and 2018 more so for the title battles. 2012 was incredible as well. The only season recently that’s not memorable was 2015, and in itself is a typical F1 season with 1 driver running away with the championship. As long as F1 does not become a spec series it’s DNA will always ensure that 1 team does better than the rest. No 2 teams are ever going to produce the exact same car so even in 2021 we are going to see 1 team do better than the rest and the cycle starts all over again. Who knows it could even still be Mercedes at the front.


The problem with your response is that you assume that I don't realise that this has always existed, (at least for the last 30 years or so since I've been watching in any case). I am well aware that F1 has been a fairly dull product entertainment-wise for a long, long time, however that doesn't mean that it's acceptable for it to be so, nor also should I believe that it's not possible for F1 to have close, non-DRS style, unpredictable racing that other racing series can regularly produce. For example a similar style of close racing to what the BTCC used to produce with many teams back in the 90's is a great model of what can be possible for any given racing series.

One of the main reasons for F1 being stale like it has been is due to the Bernie era, and we are still in that due to the concorde agreements etc. that have locked the regulations in, so Liberty Media have not been able to do a full proper reboot yet. If for example we were still in the Bernie era, and he was making these promises of radical change, then there would be good reason to ignore it as he failed many times before, but a new owner of F1 allows reason to be optimistic. These regulation changes will hopefully do away with the aerodynamics reliance and the way that it is such a detriment to the entertainment, plus some kind of cost/budget cut will hopefully get more teams involved. Of course it may not happen this way, but at least I can hope. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 7:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 31555
wolfticket wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Indeed but me personally after Bahrain I hoped that Australia would be the outlier, I'm also disappointed in the difficulty in overtaking especially given all the long straights, could they have done more with the DRS zones?

The long sweeping corners and relative lack of mechanical grip seemed to seriously hurt the front tires when following closely in China. I do think things are generally better.

Yes I did wonder about that whilst wasn't Bahrain rear limited?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 21st

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 7:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
pokerman wrote:
Rockie wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Rockie wrote:
Laz_T800 wrote:
http://en.mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page=chart&gp=1020&graf=3&dr1=Charles%20Leclerc&dr2=Sebastian%20Vettel

Looking at the lap time comparison between LeClerc and Vettel, it's fairly plain to see that Vettel wasn't really any quicker than LeClerc.
In similar circumstances in the past the other teams have swapped the drivers around again.
Hamilton, Hungary 2017 springs to mind.

I think Ferrari are chucking all their eggs in the wrong basket.
Leclerc should now have 7 more points than he has and that's not including the 10 he lost in Bahrain.
He should be right up there in the fight for the WDC, Vettel on the other hand?


Lap times without context leads to people saying this, at the beginning of the race Leclerc was allowed to use a higher engine mode than Vettel hence why it seemed like he was on the same pace as Vettel, which was why Ferrari allowed Vettel through, the problem was they waited too long and by then Vettel's front tyres was done!

Is that so? I don't think I've seem that anywhere?


Well it was from Mark Hughes race report below.

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/reports/f1/2019-chinese-grand-prix-report

Interesting that you missed out some things that were being said like when Leclerc was asked to go quicker he was actually tyre saving, and when Vettel was let passed Leclerc he said he was losing time being held up by Vettel.

you expect him to quote the entire article?

I think it's relevant that Leclerc was in a higher engine mode. Vetel was still all over the back of him so was clearly quicker. As you're so hot on leaving things out I'm surprised you didn't mention that Vettel hurt his tyres while being held up behind Leclerc so long.

But really the only relevant bits are that Vettel was quicker than Leclerc and they were losing ground to Mercedes. That's what prompted Ferrari to make the switch, as they have since confirmed. Anything around that is just filling, really. It's easy to make armchair judgements with all the info after the fact but at the time it looked like a pragmatic decision


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 8:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:03 pm
Posts: 1371
pokerman wrote:
wolfticket wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Indeed but me personally after Bahrain I hoped that Australia would be the outlier, I'm also disappointed in the difficulty in overtaking especially given all the long straights, could they have done more with the DRS zones?

The long sweeping corners and relative lack of mechanical grip seemed to seriously hurt the front tires when following closely in China. I do think things are generally better.

Yes I did wonder about that whilst wasn't Bahrain rear limited?

Yup.
So of the three races we've had so far: Aus is just difficult to overtake generally (and always has been) and China seemed a bit unusual regarding wind and track conditions, along with the track layout generally tending to exacerbate front tyre wear when downforce is compromised at all.
I think it's still possible that Bahrain is the most generally representative race we've seen regarding the new regs so far. Judging by the race and the positive noises from drivers, I think things have probably generally improved when it comes to following closely. By how much? Time will tell.

_________________
===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶===


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 2145
So, we are in the third race of the season, Leclerc is ahead in the race and in the wdc, but is ordered to let Vettel past because he may have been marginally quicker.

I am actually cool with defending this. I am just surprised to see some guys defending it who take every opportunity to condemn Hockenheim 2010. :lol:
We can clearly say that Alonso never enjoyed such preferential treatment at Ferrari so early in the season!
;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:28 pm
Posts: 67
Harpo wrote:
kowen1208 wrote:
He was marginally quicker, but it's hard to know that when he's stuck behind the other car. Mercedes was pulling away and Verstappen was closing in. They may have held on to 4th place had they not swapped Leclerc and Vettel, but in the moment, I think it was definitely the right call to make. Swapping them back after Vettel wasn't able to pull a significant gap was out of the question. The swap did likely cost the team 4th, and swapping back likely would have cost them 3rd as well.

Ferrari are sticking with how they said they would handle driver preference so far, IMO. It's only three races in, and Leclerc performing roundabout on par with Vettel twice and definitely outperforming him once is not enough for a second year driver to gain favor over a 4x WDC at Ferrari. It may happen this year, but Leclerc is going to need a few more Bahrain-esque performances.


Even someone with a brain of four would have wondered if he was marginally quicker just because of the DRS ? The reality is that Ferrari are mechanically applying (and will mechanically apply) the "50/50" rule in favour of Vettel. Which they could possibly rename the "100/0" rule, judging by the first 3 races.
As for the 4xWDC, all he is doing at Ferrari is just add more question marks about his 4 WDC

No need to be rude.

Yes, DRS helped Vettel on the straights, but he also stayed in touch through the rest of the lap. If you're going to question Vettel's WDCs, then you may as well question every other driver who's ever won one. It doesn't necessarily mean he was the absolute best driver those years. It's a combination of car, driver, and some luck. In any case, it's going to take Leclerc solidly outclassing Vettel more than once to gain preference. (And I don't interpret anything that's come out of Ferrari to mean Vettel and Leclerc would get completely equal treatment.)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 31555
wolfticket wrote:
pokerman wrote:
wolfticket wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Indeed but me personally after Bahrain I hoped that Australia would be the outlier, I'm also disappointed in the difficulty in overtaking especially given all the long straights, could they have done more with the DRS zones?

The long sweeping corners and relative lack of mechanical grip seemed to seriously hurt the front tires when following closely in China. I do think things are generally better.

Yes I did wonder about that whilst wasn't Bahrain rear limited?

Yup.
So of the three races we've had so far: Aus is just difficult to overtake generally (and always has been) and China seemed a bit unusual regarding wind and track conditions, along with the track layout generally tending to exacerbate front tyre wear when downforce is compromised at all.
I think it's still possible that Bahrain is the most generally representative race we've seen regarding the new regs so far. Judging by the race and the positive noises from drivers, I think things have probably generally improved when it comes to following closely. By how much? Time will tell.

Well here's hoping. :)

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 21st

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 31555
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
So, we are in the third race of the season, Leclerc is ahead in the race and in the wdc, but is ordered to let Vettel past because he may have been marginally quicker.

I am actually cool with defending this. I am just surprised to see some guys defending it who take every opportunity to condemn Hockenheim 2010. :lol:
We can clearly say that Alonso never enjoyed such preferential treatment at Ferrari so early in the season!
;)

I think i might disagree there after Hockenheim 2010 when was Massa ever allowed to race Alonso?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 21st

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2019 4:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 7014
Location: Michigan, USA
pokerman wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
So, we are in the third race of the season, Leclerc is ahead in the race and in the wdc, but is ordered to let Vettel past because he may have been marginally quicker.

I am actually cool with defending this. I am just surprised to see some guys defending it who take every opportunity to condemn Hockenheim 2010. :lol:
We can clearly say that Alonso never enjoyed such preferential treatment at Ferrari so early in the season!
;)

I think i might disagree there after Hockenheim 2010 when was Massa ever allowed to race Alonso?

I can remember at the first race of 2013, Massa was ahead and instead of ordering him out of the way they let him stay ahead and pitted him ahead of Alonso. I'm sure there are plenty of others. This is the most aggressive and clear-cut favoritism policy Ferrari has employed in quite some time, and it seems very ill-conceived to institute it as soon as they have a driver who might be as quick or quicker than their nominal #1.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 15 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2019 7:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 9:02 pm
Posts: 36
Ferrari sure add a lot of comedy relief. What a bunch of clowns they are :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2019 7:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:26 am
Posts: 733
kowen1208 wrote:
Harpo wrote:

Even someone with a brain of four would have wondered if he was marginally quicker just because of the DRS ? The reality is that Ferrari are mechanically applying (and will mechanically apply) the "50/50" rule in favour of Vettel. Which they could possibly rename the "100/0" rule, judging by the first 3 races.
As for the 4xWDC, all he is doing at Ferrari is just add more question marks about his 4 WDC

No need to be rude.


Look at my signature... The brain of four is mine.

_________________
As my brother said : "I've got the brain of a four year old. I'll bet he was glad to be rid of it".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2019 9:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7701
Location: Belgium
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
So, we are in the third race of the season, Leclerc is ahead in the race and in the wdc, but is ordered to let Vettel past because he may have been marginally quicker.

I am actually cool with defending this. I am just surprised to see some guys defending it who take every opportunity to condemn Hockenheim 2010. :lol:
We can clearly say that Alonso never enjoyed such preferential treatment at Ferrari so early in the season!
;)
Defending it now, while condemning it then may seem odd, but the main thing to remember is that it was actually against the rules in 2010.
The reason why I wasn't surprised it happened last Sunday was that it was announced Ferrari would be treating Vettel as their preferred driver, at least in the early part of the season. Not that I find that reason enough to defend their action. It cost them points this time, unfortunately again for the wrong driver.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2019 9:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15278
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
So, we are in the third race of the season, Leclerc is ahead in the race and in the wdc, but is ordered to let Vettel past because he may have been marginally quicker.

I am actually cool with defending this. I am just surprised to see some guys defending it who take every opportunity to condemn Hockenheim 2010. :lol:
We can clearly say that Alonso never enjoyed such preferential treatment at Ferrari so early in the season!
;)


In 2010 it was cheating.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 31555
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
So, we are in the third race of the season, Leclerc is ahead in the race and in the wdc, but is ordered to let Vettel past because he may have been marginally quicker.

I am actually cool with defending this. I am just surprised to see some guys defending it who take every opportunity to condemn Hockenheim 2010. :lol:
We can clearly say that Alonso never enjoyed such preferential treatment at Ferrari so early in the season!
;)

I think i might disagree there after Hockenheim 2010 when was Massa ever allowed to race Alonso?

I can remember at the first race of 2013, Massa was ahead and instead of ordering him out of the way they let him stay ahead and pitted him ahead of Alonso. I'm sure there are plenty of others. This is the most aggressive and clear-cut favoritism policy Ferrari has employed in quite some time, and it seems very ill-conceived to institute it as soon as they have a driver who might be as quick or quicker than their nominal #1.

Fair enough

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 21st

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:49 am
Posts: 889
Rockie wrote:
Zoue wrote:
kowen1208 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Kvyat ran into the side of Sainz I thought?

I thought it was Norris. If not then it was Norris and Kvyat who touched first. One of the McLarens, anyway

I think Kvyat's snap oversteer put his left rear into Sainz's front right, which then snapped Kvyat back the other way and hit Norris's right rear with his front left.

Thoughts about Ferrari's race:

I think the call to let Vettel through was fair; he was staying within ~1s the entire lap for multiple laps. You have to assume that there's at least a little extra pace in there, and you don't want Mercedes to build a sizeable gap. Unfortunately, the extra pace wasn't enough to make a difference, and the swapped places put Leclerc at risk of an undercut.

I feel Ferrari is often too reactive and not proactive enough, and there are many times that if you wait to react, you've waited too long. You know what the pit window is, you know what the tire drop-off is like, why wait until the car behind goes for the undercut? I would have pit Leclerc the same lap that Verstappen pitted. In which case, Verstappen likely would have stayed out. From there, you have a lot more flexibility to decide your own fate with a 1-stop vs. 2-stop.

I don't think they should have pitted Leclerc a second time. You have a 13s advantage over Verstappen on fresh rubber with ~15 laps to go, so you're definitely at risk of being caught. But why would you trade that situation for a 13s deficit on only slightly newer rubber? Even if you can catch Verstappen, your tires are going to be gone by the time you do, and you'll have nothing left to make a move with.

But since they did pit Leclerc and Leclerc couldn't catch Verstappen, they should have pitted after Gasly gave them the window to do so. Vettel's fastest time was 1:34.836 on new mediums on lap 37 of 56. Gasly's was 1:34.742 on new softs on lap 55 of 56. With a definite tire and fuel weight advantage, Gasly only bested Vettel by 0.094s. Surely Leclerc could have done better than that on new mediums or the used softs he had available. But who knows, maybe Leclerc didn't feel comfortable pitting again after whatever that little stutter was leaving his second stop.

I agree Ferrari made the right call and they've basically admitted that they had an eye on Mercedes and were hoping Vettel might have been able to do something that Leclerc cleasrly couldn't.

I'm also with you about pitting Leclerc a second time, although to be fair we don't know the condition of the tyres and they may have felt that in the last few laps they may have given up entirely.

I don't agree they should have pitted a 3rd time, though (mainly for the associated risk you alluded to). I think Leclerc should have been much quicker than he was. [b]If Vettel managed a 1:34.836 on lap 37, then with a lighter car and 7 laps' fresher rubber Leclerc should have blitzed that while chasing Verstappen. He was after all supposedly on a charge and his tyres only had to run for 13 laps or so. If he couldn't beat Vettel's time set with a heavier car earlier in the race, while going on a much, much shorter stint, then that suggests Ferrari were correct in getting Vettel in front as he was clearly quicker than Leclerc was. Leclerc should have had the fastest lap in the bag[/b]


Fuel and tyre life corrected he should have been 0.4s faster than Vettel when he set that lap, going by Vettel's time.


The problem is that LeClerk had some sort of gear selection issues for a number of laps which cost him time and performance - although this did seem to resolve - based on team radio and some commentator chat


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:49 am
Posts: 889
I also remember Ferrari in 1999 favouring Schumacher over Irvine - costing Irvine a number of points - ultimately that cost Irvine and Ferrari the WDC (leaving aside the botched pitstop that also cost EI the WDC - ok and leaving aside the illegal Ferrari that got off on a technicality (causing a change in the scrutineering rules for cars allegedly in breach of the regs)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 1894
F1Oz wrote:
Rockie wrote:

Fuel and tyre life corrected he should have been 0.4s faster than Vettel when he set that lap, going by Vettel's time.


The problem is that LeClerk had some sort of gear selection issues for a number of laps which cost him time and performance - although this did seem to resolve - based on team radio and some commentator chat


Even when they said nothing is wrong and all good.

Vettel was faster than Leclerc this weekend and it was just a sluggish start from Bottas and Ferrari being a little too indecisive and waiting too long to make the call that got them in the silly position.

Even Brundle was like they should make the call but they made it 5 laps too late.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:49 am
Posts: 889
Rockie wrote:
F1Oz wrote:
Rockie wrote:

Fuel and tyre life corrected he should have been 0.4s faster than Vettel when he set that lap, going by Vettel's time.


The problem is that LeClerk had some sort of gear selection issues for a number of laps which cost him time and performance - although this did seem to resolve - based on team radio and some commentator chat


Even when they said nothing is wrong and all good.

Vettel was faster than Leclerc this weekend and it was just a sluggish start from Bottas and Ferrari being a little too indecisive and waiting too long to make the call that got them in the silly position.

Even Brundle was like they should make the call but they made it 5 laps too late.


Rockie - I don't disagree that Vettel should at least have had a chance to close the gap on the Mercs - but when he didn't - perhaps they should have given the place back (particularly when LeC was starting to expand the gap to Vettel before the call came out - it was up to 1.9+ secs - and the other issue is that LeC wasn't pitted the lap after Vettel - which might have still put him ahead of Max - or at worst right behind - whereas they lost 14 seconds by the strategy they used - and LeC may well have been able to overtake Max on engine power - Ferrari have been abysmal in terms of strategy for some years


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Lotus49 and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group