Nicoeddf wrote:

marcelh wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

Good for Perez. I just hope they don't keep treating him as a sidekick the whole time.

Huge exaggeration. Last year Perez was driving like “hit and miss” and most (almost all) races/qualifications slower than Verstappen. This year he has improved a lot -the new car suits him very well- but in most qualifications/races he was not just as fast as Verstappen, Monaco being the outlier. LikeIt or not, he’s the number 2 driver of RBR and he knows (and accepted) it. Just like Bottas when he was at Mercedes. I wonder if you felt the same for him as you are doing now for Perez…..

Huge exaggeration? Hit and miss?

Man, you are a little black and white in your thinking.

Callling Perez a “sidekick the whole time” is IMHO a huge exaggeration. Last year Perez showed sometimes great driving skills (last race fighting with Hamilton was great!), but his performance wasn’t exactly “consistent” in the season and sometimes just disappointing, compared to Verstappen.
Has nothing to do with “black and white”. - which also can be labeled as a huge exaggeration
Great to see Perez showing his quality this year with a outstanding result in Monaco.

Good race today in Baku and not as crazy as we have seen from this circuit in past years. I thought qualifying was superb yesterday and the race failed to match it.

- A flawless day for RedBull with yet another 1-2 and Max was just flying. No team orders needed here he was faster and won by 20 seconds.
- A good day for Mercedes but not so much for Hamilton's back, still a 3-4 gets them closer to Ferrari to be 2nd in the constructors. More on the latter later.
- Nice to see Danny Ric back in the points, Lando had the pace at the end but P8 and P9 is where that car is.
- Seb had a good day.
- The Canadians were terrible again. Hopefully some progress being at home next weekend for the first time since 2019. Who am I kidding, these two nincompoops' will probably bin it at home next weekend.

Now if you know any members of the Tifosi, please check on them to ensure they are alright. That was a total disaster for Ferrari, now this is a battle for 2nd between Mercedes and Ferrari.

On to Canada and while its at home for me, I like watching the races in the morning and a 2pm lights out in June is not preferable. Do those in North America also agree with this? I love having F1 as a Sunday morning activity and having the rest of the day.

StarAC17 wrote:

Good race today in Baku and not as crazy as we have seen from this circuit in past years. I thought qualifying was superb yesterday and the race failed to match it.

- A flawless day for RedBull with yet another 1-2 and Max was just flying. No team orders needed here he was faster and won by 20 seconds.
- A good day for Mercedes but not so much for Hamilton's back, still a 3-4 gets them closer to Ferrari to be 2nd in the constructors. More on the latter later.
- Nice to see Danny Ric back in the points, Lando had the pace at the end but P8 and P9 is where that car is.
- Seb had a good day.
- The Canadians were terrible again. Hopefully some progress being at home next weekend for the first time since 2019. Who am I kidding, these two nincompoops' will probably bin it at home next weekend.

Now if you know any members of the Tifosi, please check on them to ensure they are alright. That was a total disaster for Ferrari, now this is a battle for 2nd between Mercedes and Ferrari.

On to Canada and while its at home for me, I like watching the races in the morning and a 2pm lights out in June is not preferable. Do those in North America also agree with this? I love having F1 as a Sunday morning activity and having the rest of the day.

Sums it up nicely.

And goddamnit what’s with Latifi and Stroll. And Mick while we are at it. Ridiculous showing since month.

I expected an interesting race, but it was interesting in different ways than I expected.

1.  To win the race, you have to finish the race...  please check on your Ferrair fans, they are not ok. After the strategy blunder in Monaco and now a double DNF...
2.  Mercedes still hasn't fixed the porpoising problem, at least on Hamilton's car.  He looked like my grandfather climbing out of that car and limping away.  Whether he sustained a back injury, was just exhausted after a long hot race, or something else, it's not a good look for Mercedes.  Didn't seem to be affecting George's car as much, and he bounced out and onto the podium in fine form (I suspect a podium finish would have put a bit more spring in Hamilton's (or anyone else's) step too.)
3.  Very curious to see what the FIA has to say about the use of tape on Tsunoda's rear wing.  

StarAC17 wrote:

- A flawless day for RedBull with yet another 1-2 and Max was just flying. No team orders needed here he was faster and won by 20 seconds.

Not to sure about this though. That first pitstop for Checo looked a bit suspicious to me, to be honest. An extra 2 seconds stationary compared to Max?

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

StarAC17 wrote:

- A flawless day for RedBull with yet another 1-2 and Max was just flying. No team orders needed here he was faster and won by 20 seconds.

Not to sure about this though. That first pitstop for Checo looked a bit suspicious to me, to be honest. An extra 2 seconds stationary compared to Max?

Max won by 21 seconds at the end though. A 3 vs 5 second pitstop doesn't explain that gap. This coming from a Merc fanboy who would love RedBull to be implicated in a scandal like Ferrari got into in 2019. Granted I don't think they are cheating at all.

Once Max got by Checo and with both Ferrari's out they coasted. In fact Max's engineer told him to slow down, citing what happened last year.

TangoandCash wrote:

Mercedes still hasn't fixed the porpoising problem, at least on Hamilton's car.  He looked like my grandfather climbing out of that car and limping away.  Whether he sustained a back injury, was just exhausted after a long hot race, or something else, it's not a good look for Mercedes.  Didn't seem to be affecting George's car as much, and he bounced out and onto the podium in fine form (I suspect a podium finish would have put a bit more spring in Hamilton's (or anyone else's) step too.)

I wonder if Lewis is still not 100% post Covid. He has shown moments of physical struggle even last year. Hungary comes to mind, he could barely stand on the podium. He also is 37 and the second oldest on the grid.

George was in no man's land and didn't have to push as hard and could control it to some degree. Lewis was fighting for that result which means that he was going flat out to get to 4th. Also he is older and this affects someone far more at 37 than at 24.

Father time is undefeated.

StarAC17 wrote:

Max won by 21 seconds at the end though. A 3 vs 5 second pitstop doesn't explain that gap. This coming from a Merc fanboy who would love RedBull to be implicated in a scandal like Ferrari got into in 2019. Granted I don't think they are cheating at all.

True, but it just doesn't make sense that Checo's speed fell apart in the race given that he was quicker than Max all week long right up to qualifying. I don't know, may be I'm just a bit paranoid.

StarAC17 wrote:

I wonder if Lewis is still not 100% post Covid. He has shown moments of physical struggle even last year. Hungary comes to mind, he could barely stand on the podium. He also is 37 and the second oldest on the grid.

It could be Covid, but it could also him having to exert more in order to be in competition with George Russell who's definitely has the upper hand in the first 1/3 of the season.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

StarAC17 wrote:

Max won by 21 seconds at the end though. A 3 vs 5 second pitstop doesn't explain that gap. This coming from a Merc fanboy who would love RedBull to be implicated in a scandal like Ferrari got into in 2019. Granted I don't think they are cheating at all.

True, but it just doesn't make sense that Checo's speed fell apart in the race given that he was quicker than Max all week long right up to qualifying. I don't know, may be I'm just a bit paranoid.

StarAC17 wrote:

I wonder if Lewis is still not 100% post Covid. He has shown moments of physical struggle even last year. Hungary comes to mind, he could barely stand on the podium. He also is 37 and the second oldest on the grid.

It could be Covid, but it could also him having to exert more in order to be in competition with George Russell who's definitely has the upper hand in the first 1/3 of the season.

I can understand the suspicions. The explanation is that Checo fried his tires getting off the line and building a lead up against Leclerc. Also his setup was more focused on qualifying and not the race.
Once Max passed him there was no incentive by Redbull to let them race as both Ferraris were out.

I have been joking that "Checo, No Fighting" is the new "Valtteri, its James".

Regarding Lewis, he is 37 and George is 13 years his junior. I expect Lewis to have a harder time with the physical aspects of this sport.

This new FIA directive regarding poirposing which looks to be in place for Silverstone will make things interesting. I fully expect a minimum ride height for 2023 and as a fan it really doesn't matter if the cars are slower if they can race and these cars have shown that they can at least follow. It might seem unfair but if what the driver's association and many drivers are saying. Its an accident waiting to happen if a driver missies a braking point and hits a barrier.

https://the-race.com/formula-1/fias-new ... nadian-gp/

https://the-race.com/formula-1/video-wh ... -bouncing/

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... S4yGy.html

Nicoeddf wrote:

[

And goddamnit what’s with Latifi and Stroll. And Mick while we are at it. Ridiculous showing since month.

Was thinking about this. Who is worse? Mick or Latifi.

It's well known that Oscar Piastri is likely going to sign with Williams for 2023 and Williams might take a Renault Power Unit next year.

I am curious if Haas would take on Latifi who is a pay driver and his dad could bring money to Haas. Mick and Latifi are equally poor against their teammates. However Mick has been closer to points and gotten into Q3 this year, but has destroyed 2 cars.

Something to ponder.

StarAC17 wrote:

Was thinking about this. Who is worse? Mick or Latifi.

It's well known that Oscar Piastri is likely going to sign with Williams for 2023 and Williams might take a Renault Power Unit next year.

I am curious if Haas would take on Latifi who is a pay driver and his dad could bring money to Haas. Mick and Latifi are equally poor against their teammates. However Mick has been closer to points and gotten into Q3 this year, but has destroyed 2 cars.

Something to ponder.

As you've pointed out, Mick has gotten into Q3 so he has the speed, which makes him way better than Latifi. But thing is he's burdened by the shadow of Schumi on his shoulders that he has to prove too hard that he deserves a spot in F1, hence the crashes.

What I think he needs is a calming influence. Seb is one, but he needs more.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

StarAC17 wrote:

Was thinking about this. Who is worse? Mick or Latifi.

It's well known that Oscar Piastri is likely going to sign with Williams for 2023 and Williams might take a Renault Power Unit next year.

I am curious if Haas would take on Latifi who is a pay driver and his dad could bring money to Haas. Mick and Latifi are equally poor against their teammates. However Mick has been closer to points and gotten into Q3 this year, but has destroyed 2 cars.

Something to ponder.

As you've pointed out, Mick has gotten into Q3 so he has the speed, which makes him way better than Latifi. But thing is he's burdened by the shadow of Schumi on his shoulders that he has to prove too hard that he deserves a spot in F1, hence the crashes.

What I think he needs is a calming influence. Seb is one, but he needs more.

I am wondering though, if he only has the speed in F1 if overdriving the car. Since Monaco you can see he has tuned the risk down substantially. But is seemingly uncompetitive at this risk/reward level. I hope he can build confidence and trade some of the risk aversion against pace soon.
Not sure if he has what it needs, really as much as I would like to see him succeed.

Latifi is simply not good enough, same as with Stroll though the latter is definitely better. Pretty sure LAT is out of a seat next year and not coming back.
Stroll will stroll around the circus longer but at some point I am sure his father needs to get out everything of performance of the Aston Martin operation as he can. Stroll junior ain’t the one to extract that maximum, I believe.

StarAC17 wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

[

And goddamnit what’s with Latifi and Stroll. And Mick while we are at it. Ridiculous showing since month.

Was thinking about this. Who is worse? Mick or Latifi.

It's well known that Oscar Piastri is likely going to sign with Williams for 2023 and Williams might take a Renault Power Unit next year.

I am curious if Haas would take on Latifi who is a pay driver and his dad could bring money to Haas. Mick and Latifi are equally poor against their teammates. However Mick has been closer to points and gotten into Q3 this year, but has destroyed 2 cars.

Something to ponder.

Pretty sure Latifi is worse as he lacks general pace. Mick has shown the necessary pace at least rarely and should have scored in MIA. Rookie mistake there.

Mick is getting another year by Ferraris support, I believe if he can deliver solidly and calmly the rest go the season. But points need to come soon, not hugs by Guenther, as Sky Germany has suggested…

Great qualifying with Alonso taking p2 well done. Max outstanding in the rain again.

Yeah, somehow Max is driving in his own league. Good for him.

And respect Mick, great Quali.

Nicoeddf wrote:

Yeah, somehow Max is driving in his own league. Good for him.

And respect Mick, great Quali.

Max could have the tile wrapped up by Monza if he keeps this pace up and he has no crash outs or reliability issues. He doesn't look like he makes mistakes and if he does have a tussle I don't see him being as aggressive as last year. He knows now (or should) that if he had let Lewis by at Silverstone last year and perhaps settled for a P2, he would have wrapped the WDC up after the US or Mexico in 2021.

I could see him winning 15-18 races this year if he can keep this up. The Redbull package is better than the Ferrari on much of the remaining circuits with that straight line speed.

As for Mick, terrible luck and another issue with a Ferrari Power Unit. Haas should have got double points yesterday. From a podcast I was listening to, K-Mag need to chill a bit on lap 1 as that front wing damage was preventable and it messed up their strategy.

Other notes.

- Sainz had a great race and kept the pressure on Max to the point that if Max locks up even the smallest amount he was going to win.
- Mercedes is still off the pace but can capitalize when something happens to card on the lead teams.
- The midfield is very close from Alpine down to Aston Martin with Williams being the slowest on pace at the moment. It will be very exciting if you aren't necessarily paying attention to first.

Awesome to see the race back in Montreal with 338,000 people in attendance over the weekend. Quebec was essentially in a lockdown in January so to see a turnout like this was awesome. I'm planning to go in 2023.

It was nice to see Max & Sainz going full out the last 15 rounds & rest of the pack disappearing except the old master Hamilton, who's been off the podium way too long. .

Gutted for Mick... As one of the Sky commenters aptly put it: What does this man have to do to score a point in F1?

Alonso still impresses with what he can achieve with a mid-field car (and an dodgy engine apparently), in his forties and after 20 seasons. I find his penalty unfair. It seems all the rules nowadays are designed to prevent slower cars from defending in a bid to encourage overtaking for the show.

That last sprint was epic. Major WTF moment from Yuki there, but at least it made for a great finale instead of watching Max crossing the line a lap before everyone else...

Silverstone has been red flagged at the start, firstly because of a massive crash, but also because apparently protesters managed to make their way onto the track!

Zhou had a bad crash, going inverted OVER the tyre barrier, ending behind the tyres leaning against a fence.
That fence might well have prevented Zhou from crashing into the stands!

Zhou’s live has been saved by the halo.

The top of Zhou’s car, basically everything above the halo, has snapped clean of. Including the roll-bar. This is part of the car’s safety structure and should have remained intact. That is no doubt going to lead to some hard questions. Possibly also changes in the regulations.


https://www.dumpert.nl/?selectedId=100034924_0f3c69e1
https://www.dumpert.nl/?selectedId=100034922_cd1a7c2b

Great race, lots of drama and finally Sainz got his first victory!
Also Ferrari doesn’t want Leclerc to become world champion. He was a sitting duck after the safety car with the cars behind him on new soft tyres. Why didn’t Ferrari let Leclerc also switch to softs, knowing Verstappen had aerodynamic issues and only 9th during the safety car?

petertenthije wrote:

The top of Zhou’s car, basically everything above the halo, has snapped clean of. Including the roll-bar. This is part of the car’s safety structure and should have remained intact. That is no doubt going to lead to some hard questions. Possibly also changes in the regulations.

It's the second time in one day that the Halo saved a driver. Hard to believe they got by without them for so long. That said, the safety features did their job and Zhou - incredibly - got out of it with hardly a scratch, so I'm not sure how the regulations could be changed.
A crash like this would have been fatal just a few years ago.
As you said, the main worry would have been to see the car jump the fence, which is the only thing that kept it from ending up on the spectators. The design of those may warrant a bit more study...

It's incredible how much energy these cars can pick up in such a short distance.

marcelh wrote:

Also Ferrari doesn’t want Leclerc to become world champion.

I really can't understand why they left him high and dry like that. Speechless. He was much faster than Sainz throughout the race.
How much of that is because they had no time to react and how much is down to Ferrari's eternally abysmal strategy, I don't know. Maybe they favored whoever qualified best. Either way, Leclerc has been let down by the team - through reliability issues or strategic errors - for the last 5 races now.

Francoflier wrote:

I really can't understand why they left him high and dry like that. Speechless. He was much faster than Sainz throughout the race.
How much of that is because they had no time to react and how much is down to Ferrari's eternally abysmal strategy, I don't know. Maybe they favored whoever qualified best. Either way, Leclerc has been let down by the team - through reliability issues or strategic errors - for the last 5 races now.

They did favour Leclerc in the first stint with team orders.
Binotto said he didn't think a double stack was possible.

Carlos took this into his own hands and that battle at the end between Alonso, Leclerc, Norris, Checo and Hamilton was epic.

Awesome day for Haas getting double points and Mick getting his first points. Well deserved.

I am a fan of the Silver Arrows but very happy with Sainz getting this win. Lewis could have won as well if the Safety car hadn't happened.

On to Austria with a sprint race next week!

Hamilton always unlucky with safety cars it seems, although this time it didn't cost him a championship...

About the accident, what got me worried was that gravel doesn't slow down an inverted car. The other thing that got me worried is the opposite thought, what if the car had dug in the gravel ? It mostly travelled backwards so that might have helped.

About Ferrari, they clearly favored Leclerc, but seemed to be conscious of what was at stake for Sainz. In the end it's their usual bad/slow strategy that doomed Leclerc. Also they had gone too conservative with downforce it seems, considering how Leclerc was faster with his torn off front wing...

I was glad to see Mercedes performing better, no porpoising although no other car had any either so I guess the track is to thank for it.

And we saw some heart stopping action.

Excellent race, the new owners of F1 must be smiling.

Aesma wrote:

Hamilton always unlucky with safety cars it seems, although this time it didn't cost him a championship...

OTOH it was a copy of that race, leader with older tyres been overtaken by cars who went in for new tyres.

LEC was leading the race and was faster than SAI. With only 12 laps remaining and knowing your title opponent is having issues, there was no reason to let him become a sitting duck. He was -again- let down by his team to fight for the championship. He only won 6 points more than VER, instead of 19 (!).

marcelh wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Hamilton always unlucky with safety cars it seems, although this time it didn't cost him a championship...

OTOH it was a copy of that race, leader with older tyres been overtaken by cars who went in for new tyres.

LEC was leading the race and was faster than SAI. With only 12 laps remaining and knowing your title opponent is having issues, there was no reason to let him become a sitting duck. He was -again- let down by his team to fight for the championship. He only won 6 points more than VER, instead of 19 (!).

If the safety car doesn't happen I think Lewis wins. He had the fresher hards for those last 12 laps and the chase was on. The pace of that Mercedes is getting close to that of Ferrari

Ferrari tried to get Sainz to back everyone up but Sainz' is basically doing his own strategy to his benefit, same as in Monaco. He listens to Ferrari after the restart and Checo wins it going away.

Why Charles Leclerc can't trust Ferrari in the 2022 F1 title fight (YouTube)

One part of me feels the title is cringe-worthy click bait, another part feels the content is fair criticism from veteran journalists.

The clicky part is using the word "trust", as if the outcomes are signs of deviousness rather than poor decision making and poor teamwork.

At least that's how it comes across to me.

At the end the journalists say what we all know, LEC has no choice but to trust them, which totally destroys the premise of the piece.

Regardless, unless something unexpected happens, VER's lead in the driver's championship is pretty much insurmountable.

You can't count on VER running over debris in the track every week.

So, maybe Ferrari should make some changes sooner rather than later to try to get back the "ruthlessness" they once had.

Also LEC should be careful, whining about his teammate that is fairly in front of him lap after lap won't endear him to F1 fans. Sainz might never have another opportunity to win a F1 race, you can't expect him to give up easily.

Aesma wrote:

Also LEC should be careful, whining about his teammate that is fairly in front of him lap after lap won't endear him to F1 fans. Sainz might never have another opportunity to win a F1 race, you can't expect him to give up easily.

Your comments made the following thought pop into my head: SAI showed the kind of ruthlessness that these journalists are accusing the rest of his team of not showing! He saw his opportunity, he took it!

Revelation wrote:

Why Charles Leclerc can't trust Ferrari in the 2022 F1 title fight (YouTube)

One part of me feels the title is cringe-worthy click bait, another part feels the content is fair criticism from veteran journalists.

The clicky part is using the word "trust", as if the outcomes are signs of deviousness rather than poor decision making and poor teamwork.

At least that's how it comes across to me.

At the end the journalists say what we all know, LEC has no choice but to trust them, which totally destroys the premise of the piece.

Regardless, unless something unexpected happens, VER's lead in the driver's championship is pretty much insurmountable.

You can't count on VER running over debris in the track every week.

So, maybe Ferrari should make some changes sooner rather than later to try to get back the "ruthlessness" they once had.

I just watch this and unless someone tells me otherwise The Race is fairly competent F1 coverage and these guys have Paddock access and are serious journalists for the sport.

Revelation wrote:

Why Charles Leclerc can't trust Ferrari in the 2022 F1 title fight (YouTube)

One part of me feels the title is cringe-worthy click bait, another part feels the content is fair criticism from veteran journalists.

The clicky part is using the word "trust", as if the outcomes are signs of deviousness rather than poor decision making and poor teamwork.

At least that's how it comes across to me.

At the end the journalists say what we all know, LEC has no choice but to trust them, which totally destroys the premise of the piece.

Regardless, unless something unexpected happens, VER's lead in the driver's championship is pretty much insurmountable.

You can't count on VER running over debris in the track every week.

So, maybe Ferrari should make some changes sooner rather than later to try to get back the "ruthlessness" they once had.

They're far from the only ones among the Youtube F1 community to convey the same sort of message. Some go even as far as suspecting that this may not just be mismanagement, but that there may be deeper 'political' issues at play within the team. Whereas that's pure speculation, it's not hard to see how some would draw that conclusion after some of the calls Ferrari has made in the last few races... Missing out on this rare opportunity to make up 19 points on the championship leader is simply inexcusable.

I disagree when they say that Leclerc has to build trust with the team. He has done nothing but being faithful and unquestioning to them and their dubious calls since the start, and they have let him down repeatedly. If anything, he should be more like Sainz, make his own decisions and look after himself a bit more than blindly trust a team that may or may not be competent or interested in helping him.

Revelation wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Also LEC should be careful, whining about his teammate that is fairly in front of him lap after lap won't endear him to F1 fans. Sainz might never have another opportunity to win a F1 race, you can't expect him to give up easily.

Your comments made the following thought pop into my head: SAI showed the kind of ruthlessness that these journalists are accusing the rest of his team of not showing! He saw his opportunity, he took it!

Well, I didn’t consider it ruthless at all. Not leaving 10 car length to LEC was simply a realistic assessment of the situation. The moment LEC didn’t pit he couldn’t win anymore. Not with 10 car length, not with 20 at the restart.

Francoflier wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Why Charles Leclerc can't trust Ferrari in the 2022 F1 title fight (YouTube)

One part of me feels the title is cringe-worthy click bait, another part feels the content is fair criticism from veteran journalists.

The clicky part is using the word "trust", as if the outcomes are signs of deviousness rather than poor decision making and poor teamwork.

At least that's how it comes across to me.

At the end the journalists say what we all know, LEC has no choice but to trust them, which totally destroys the premise of the piece.

Regardless, unless something unexpected happens, VER's lead in the driver's championship is pretty much insurmountable.

You can't count on VER running over debris in the track every week.

So, maybe Ferrari should make some changes sooner rather than later to try to get back the "ruthlessness" they once had.

They're far from the only ones among the Youtube F1 community to convey the same sort of message. Some go even as far as suspecting that this may not just be mismanagement, but that there may be deeper 'political' issues at play within the team. Whereas that's pure speculation, it's not hard to see how some would draw that conclusion after some of the calls Ferrari has made in the last few races... Missing out on this rare opportunity to make up 19 points on the championship leader is simply inexcusable.

I disagree when they say that Leclerc has to build trust with the team. He has done nothing but being faithful and unquestioning to them and their dubious calls since the start, and they have let him down repeatedly. If anything, he should be more like Sainz, make his own decisions and look after himself a bit more than blindly trust a team that may or may not be competent or interested in helping him.

Too much drama and conspiracy for my liking. I consider Ferrari simply not operating on the level of their competitors when it comes to race strategy and execution. And they haven’t been there for years. It only shows so bitterly now that they actually built a quick car.

Aesma wrote:

Also LEC should be careful, whining about his teammate that is fairly in front of him lap after lap won't endear him to F1 fans. Sainz might never have another opportunity to win a F1 race, you can't expect him to give up easily.

Agree fully. And I mean, if you are quicker, show it. Overtake SAI, it is a car race after all.
For my liking LEC is not pushing hard enough to force the success. The greats all had their moments of ruthless and egoistic racing and decision making. LEC doesn’t seem to be there (yet?).

Nicoeddf wrote:

Too much drama and conspiracy for my liking. I consider Ferrari simply not operating on the level of their competitors when it comes to race strategy and execution. And they haven’t been there for years. It only shows so bitterly now that they actually built a quick car.

That's the main theory. Ferrari has forgotten what it's like to compete at the top.

Nicoeddf wrote:

Agree fully. And I mean, if you are quicker, show it. Overtake SAI, it is a car race after all.
For my liking LEC is not pushing hard enough to force the success. The greats all had their moments of ruthless and egoistic racing and decision making. LEC doesn’t seem to be there (yet?).

I don't quite agree with that. It's just not that easy.
Ferrari was looking to maintain P1/P2 for a while, under massive threat from a very competitive Hamilton who was closing in fast.
This would have been just about the worst possible time for the 2 Ferrari drivers to battle it out. Aggressive/defensive driving costs lap time, which Lewis would have been happy to take advantage of. It also creates the real danger of the team ending up losing both cars in a collision when they were holding the top spots. For the team, letting them have a go at each other would have been suicidal, and Charles would likely have been reprimanded for trying without a green light from the pit wall.
Additionally, even with DRS, overtaking usually requires the offensive driver to be a few tenths faster per lap. This is hard to achieve when you're driving the same car as the other guy, who's no slouch either.

Still, Leclerc was faster than Sainz and the team needed to do everything they could to maintain the 1/2 and defend from Hamilton and Perez. They once again failed to make the right strategy calls from Ferrari's point of view.

On the other hand, it makes for a better show and the show was certainly on last weekend, so as spectators, it's hard to complain.

Francoflier wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

Too much drama and conspiracy for my liking. I consider Ferrari simply not operating on the level of their competitors when it comes to race strategy and execution. And they haven’t been there for years. It only shows so bitterly now that they actually built a quick car.

That's the main theory. Ferrari has forgotten what it's like to compete at the top.

Nicoeddf wrote:

Agree fully. And I mean, if you are quicker, show it. Overtake SAI, it is a car race after all.
For my liking LEC is not pushing hard enough to force the success. The greats all had their moments of ruthless and egoistic racing and decision making. LEC doesn’t seem to be there (yet?).

I don't quite agree with that. It's just not that easy.
Ferrari was looking to maintain P1/P2 for a while, under massive threat from a very competitive Hamilton who was closing in fast.
This would have been just about the worst possible time for the 2 Ferrari drivers to battle it out. Aggressive/defensive driving costs lap time, which Lewis would have been happy to take advantage of. It also creates the real danger of the team ending up losing both cars in a collision when they were holding the top spots. For the team, letting them have a go at each other would have been suicidal, and Charles would likely have been reprimanded for trying without a green light from the pit wall.
Additionally, even with DRS, overtaking usually requires the offensive driver to be a few tenths faster per lap. This is hard to achieve when you're driving the same car as the other guy, who's no slouch either.

Still, Leclerc was faster than Sainz and the team needed to do everything they could to maintain the 1/2 and defend from Hamilton and Perez. They once again failed to make the right strategy calls from Ferrari's point of view.

On the other hand, it makes for a better show and the show was certainly on last weekend, so as spectators, it's hard to complain.

Absolutely not easy and I am with your line of thinking in general. However Charles was faster than Carlos in Silverstone and most of the season, really. He had at least two to three tenth on Carlos. And with the team bickering and dithering around, giving Carlos unachievable lap times just made it so much easier for a delightfully strong Lewis to catch up.
My point is, maybe Charles should have forced a Multi 21 type of scenario. Should have done what needed to be done, egoistically. Didn't hurt Vettel or all the other grand drivers doing so in the grand scheme of things. Success is hard to argue with.

Carlos had every right to be there, when Leclerc botched is Q3 run, taking out Max of contention with him. And the whining on the radio of LEC is neither making him a fan favourite (important in its own sense), nor will it bring the success possible.

With all that said, yes, Ferrari botched it once again. The pitwall could & should have taken all the above out of the equation with a team order at the earliest opportunity. Boring as a fan and I am happy they didn't, for Carlos and the spectacle that unfolded. But if they want to win championships again, they need to up their game tremendously.

The championship is still open, as we're only reaching the halfway point. The chance of Verstappen losing point is still very high (as we've seen last season), especially since Red Bull's reliability is still iffy. I for one appreciate the lack of team orders from Ferrari, because both drivers are still in the hunt.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

The championship is still open, as we're only reaching the halfway point. The chance of Verstappen losing point is still very high (as we've seen last season), especially since Red Bull's reliability is still iffy. I for one appreciate the lack of team orders from Ferrari, because both drivers are still in the hunt.

Yes to all.

As a sidenote: anybody playing F1 '22 by any chance?

Seems I have triggered a few comments!

StarAC17 wrote:

I just watch this and unless someone tells me otherwise The Race is fairly competent F1 coverage and these guys have Paddock access and are serious journalists for the sport.

I agree. What I often find is there is some editor/producer in the loop whose job it is to come up with the click bait titles.

Francoflier wrote:

They're far from the only ones among the Youtube F1 community to convey the same sort of message.

True, but the u2b community also consists of lads in their parent's basements who aren't as nuanced or balanced as the traveling journalists.

Francoflier wrote:

Some go even as far as suspecting that this may not just be mismanagement, but that there may be deeper 'political' issues at play within the team.

That's the problem: anyone can speculate anything they want from their parent's basements. Throw enough stuff against the wall, some's bound to stick.

Francoflier wrote:

Missing out on this rare opportunity to make up 19 points on the championship leader is simply inexcusable.

Indeed. These are hugely expensive operations, the team's prerogatives matter. At the same time, it's fascinating when the team's prerogatives clash with the driver's prerogatives, because at the end, it is the driver who is out there making things happen (or not). We'd all love the chance to ignore our boss's orders from time to time, even if that came with consequences.

Francoflier wrote:

I disagree when they say that Leclerc has to build trust with the team. He has done nothing but being faithful and unquestioning to them and their dubious calls since the start, and they have let him down repeatedly. If anything, he should be more like Sainz, make his own decisions and look after himself a bit more than blindly trust a team that may or may not be competent or interested in helping him.

Agree, and in the end, this is what the journalists were saying. For instance LEC should have made sure everyone was on agreement on what tires to put on in Monaco. It does no good to say after the race that he thought they were going to slicks instead of inters. That makes you look like a second guesser.

Nicoeddf wrote:

Well, I didn’t consider it ruthless at all. Not leaving 10 car length to LEC was simply a realistic assessment of the situation.

Not at all ruthless to ignore orders coming from team management in a way that serves your own interest?

Nicoeddf wrote:

I consider Ferrari simply not operating on the level of their competitors when it comes to race strategy and execution. And they haven’t been there for years. It only shows so bitterly now that they actually built a quick car.

Francoflier wrote:

I don't quite agree with that. It's just not that easy.
Ferrari was looking to maintain P1/P2 for a while, under massive threat from a very competitive Hamilton who was closing in fast.
This would have been just about the worst possible time for the 2 Ferrari drivers to battle it out. Aggressive/defensive driving costs lap time, which Lewis would have been happy to take advantage of. It also creates the real danger of the team ending up losing both cars in a collision when they were holding the top spots. For the team, letting them have a go at each other would have been suicidal, and Charles would likely have been reprimanded for trying without a green light from the pit wall.
Additionally, even with DRS, overtaking usually requires the offensive driver to be a few tenths faster per lap. This is hard to achieve when you're driving the same car as the other guy, who's no slouch either.

Aggressive racing also costs tire wear and increases thermal loading which could lead to breakdowns.

Francoflier wrote:

Still, Leclerc was faster than Sainz and the team needed to do everything they could to maintain the 1/2 and defend from Hamilton and Perez. They once again failed to make the right strategy calls from Ferrari's point of view.

On the other hand, it makes for a better show and the show was certainly on last weekend, so as spectators, it's hard to complain.

Yes, tension between a team's goals and the driver's goals is one of many things that make the sport interesting.

It'd be nice if we could ignore the money that it takes to compete in F1 and let the boys race, but we simply cannot. This isn't football where all it really takes to compete is gym clothes, cleats, and a ball.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

The championship is still open, as we're only reaching the halfway point. The chance of Verstappen losing point is still very high (as we've seen last season), especially since Red Bull's reliability is still iffy.

I wish I could agree, but I can't. IMO it would take something quite unexpected for VER to not be champion. If he and his team continue execute to the standard they have shown this season he will be champion and I don't see why we'd expect otherwise.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

I for one appreciate the lack of team orders from Ferrari, because both drivers are still in the hunt.

They are both competitive, but the mathematics doesn't support your point much at all. It's just so hard to see how either could make up the gap, which is why it was so important for Ferrari to try to put all the wood behind one arrow.

I do appreciate the fact that we did get some very interesting racing. The events following the last safety car led to the most interesting 10 laps of the season so far, IMO.

The pit stop is very quick at Silverstone. You see Ocon stop, you call your driver in, no need to think about it. The commentators on Sky had the thought right away. Sainz would have been the loser in this case, but "fairly".

I don't believe that Ferrari does bad on purpose, I don't think such a thing can really happen in a team that hasn't been on top for so long, everyone desperately needs the wins. But they fear the losses, and with that, mistakes come.

Aesma wrote:

The pit stop is very quick at Silverstone. You see Ocon stop, you call your driver in, no need to think about it. The commentators on Sky had the thought right away. Sainz would have been the loser in this case, but "fairly".

I don't believe that Ferrari does bad on purpose, I don't think such a thing can really happen in a team that hasn't been on top for so long, everyone desperately needs the wins. But they fear the losses, and with that, mistakes come.

They probably did not have the physical time to prepare a double pit stop.
There's something like 40s between the moment it's clear the issue Ocon have will make him stop on track and the moment LEC passes the pit entry. Even if the team strategist are planning all along the race in case of SC they naturaly loses a bit of time making decision and giving orders and then it becomes very risky with potential to ruin the result of both drivers if the double pit stop is not ready when first driver arrives.

In the end, the safe bet is to pit one driver only. And choose Sainz because he had older tyres, therefore hoping a better overall result for the team if Leclerc is not attacked by Sainz too quickly and followers loses time fighting each others...

I think it's tough for Leclerc driver ambitions of title, but IF they knew a double pit was too risky to set up I don't see this as a team strategy mistake.

Grizzly410 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

The pit stop is very quick at Silverstone. You see Ocon stop, you call your driver in, no need to think about it. The commentators on Sky had the thought right away. Sainz would have been the loser in this case, but "fairly".

I don't believe that Ferrari does bad on purpose, I don't think such a thing can really happen in a team that hasn't been on top for so long, everyone desperately needs the wins. But they fear the losses, and with that, mistakes come.

They probably did not have the physical time to prepare a double pit stop.
There's something like 40s between the moment it's clear the issue Ocon have will make him stop on track and the moment LEC passes the pit entry. Even if the team strategist are planning all along the race in case of SC they naturaly loses a bit of time making decision and giving orders and then it becomes very risky with potential to ruin the result of both drivers if the double pit stop is not ready when first driver arrives.

In the end, the safe bet is to pit one driver only. And choose Sainz because he had older tyres, therefore hoping a better overall result for the team if Leclerc is not attacked by Sainz too quickly and followers loses time fighting each others...

I think it's tough for Leclerc driver ambitions of title, but IF they knew a double pit was too risky to set up I don't see this as a team strategy mistake.

I’m sorry but 40 seconds must be enough to make the decision, call both cars in and prepare a double pit stop. When you see a car driving slow/stop at the track, a team has to be prepared for a (virtual) safety car situation and act accordingly. Mercedes and Red Bull Racing can, Ferrari showed they can’t.

marcelh wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

The pit stop is very quick at Silverstone. You see Ocon stop, you call your driver in, no need to think about it. The commentators on Sky had the thought right away. Sainz would have been the loser in this case, but "fairly".

I don't believe that Ferrari does bad on purpose, I don't think such a thing can really happen in a team that hasn't been on top for so long, everyone desperately needs the wins. But they fear the losses, and with that, mistakes come.

They probably did not have the physical time to prepare a double pit stop.
There's something like 40s between the moment it's clear the issue Ocon have will make him stop on track and the moment LEC passes the pit entry. Even if the team strategist are planning all along the race in case of SC they naturaly loses a bit of time making decision and giving orders and then it becomes very risky with potential to ruin the result of both drivers if the double pit stop is not ready when first driver arrives.

In the end, the safe bet is to pit one driver only. And choose Sainz because he had older tyres, therefore hoping a better overall result for the team if Leclerc is not attacked by Sainz too quickly and followers loses time fighting each others...

I think it's tough for Leclerc driver ambitions of title, but IF they knew a double pit was too risky to set up I don't see this as a team strategy mistake.

I’m sorry but 40 seconds must be enough to make the decision, call both cars in and prepare a double pit stop. When you see a car driving slow/stop at the track, a team has to be prepared for a (virtual) safety car situation and act accordingly. Mercedes and Red Bull Racing can, Ferrari showed they can’t.

I can't access the replay of the race so I don't know if they had more time but not only Ferrari can double stack pit but they already did this season during Arabia Saudi GP.

And browsing Youtube I don't find much of these realised under SC, most were planned pit stops.

Even if Binotto says the issue was the gap between the two drivers I still believe the timeframe to organise was probably too short.
https://www.racefans.net/2022/07/03/double-stacking-fears-behind-call-not-to-pit-leclerc-says-binotto/

edit : Found Arabia Saudi pit stop, LEC enters the pit lane 55s after Latifi's crash, 15s more is not negligeable. And the gap between the two was more than 7s there, and less than 5s in Silverstone.

There is no doubt the second driver will lose some, however with the stop happening when the SC has just been called in, there are only a couple cars behind him that can overtake him. The end result would have probably been the same, with the Ferrari drivers reversed, LEC win and SAIN 4th. And an angry Sainz.

A spectator's head-on view of the Zhou crash:

https://twitter.com/manonapanel/status/ ... 2783525889

TBH while still an awful crash, he had slowed down a lot more than I thought by the time he hit the fence.

Glad he walked away uninjured, and that the fence did its job.

Grizzly410 wrote:

marcelh wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

They probably did not have the physical time to prepare a double pit stop.
There's something like 40s between the moment it's clear the issue Ocon have will make him stop on track and the moment LEC passes the pit entry. Even if the team strategist are planning all along the race in case of SC they naturaly loses a bit of time making decision and giving orders and then it becomes very risky with potential to ruin the result of both drivers if the double pit stop is not ready when first driver arrives.

In the end, the safe bet is to pit one driver only. And choose Sainz because he had older tyres, therefore hoping a better overall result for the team if Leclerc is not attacked by Sainz too quickly and followers loses time fighting each others...

I think it's tough for Leclerc driver ambitions of title, but IF they knew a double pit was too risky to set up I don't see this as a team strategy mistake.

I’m sorry but 40 seconds must be enough to make the decision, call both cars in and prepare a double pit stop. When you see a car driving slow/stop at the track, a team has to be prepared for a (virtual) safety car situation and act accordingly. Mercedes and Red Bull Racing can, Ferrari showed they can’t.

I can't access the replay of the race so I don't know if they had more time but not only Ferrari can double stack pit but they already did this season during Arabia Saudi GP.

And browsing Youtube I don't find much of these realised under SC, most were planned pit stops.

Even if Binotto says the issue was the gap between the two drivers I still believe the timeframe to organise was probably too short.
https://www.racefans.net/2022/07/03/double-stacking-fears-behind-call-not-to-pit-leclerc-says-binotto/

edit : Found Arabia Saudi pit stop, LEC enters the pit lane 55s after Latifi's crash, 15s more is not negligeable. And the gap between the two was more than 7s there, and less than 5s in Silverstone.

The argument can be made that if Ferrari let Leclerc through as soon as it was determined that he has better pace then there would have been enough of a gap the allow for the double stack without a loss of track position. I think without the SC, Hamilton catches them both as he has tyres that are 10-15 laps younger then the Ferrari's.

Aesma wrote:

There is no doubt the second driver will lose some, however with the stop happening when the SC has just been called in, there are only a couple cars behind him that can overtake him. The end result would have probably been the same, with the Ferrari drivers reversed, LEC win and SAIN 4th. And an angry Sainz.

I am happy Sainz won this race and he put himself into P2 at Monaco because he took the strategy into his own hands. To take an alternate take I hope this is tactical by Ferrari to give him his win and then for the remainder of the season he can play the team game going forward. However IIRC there is 12 points between them if Leclerc has any more bad luck then this flips to favouring Sainz.

What sets Redbull and Mercedes apart is they have these orders built in and will command the drivers quickly. Very few times they get it wrong (Merc did in France last year and RB in Spain). However if you look at Russia last year Mercedes was very firm with Lewis and McLaren dilly dallied with Lando. RB and Mercedes make the decision swiftly.

There are times to let them race and times for strategy. Had Lewis been 10 seconds back and not a threat I would say to Sainz and Leclerc let them race but in this race Lewis was gaining and within the overcut window. That is when you use orders.

Revelation wrote:

A spectator's head-on view of the Zhou crash:

https://twitter.com/manonapanel/status/ ... 2783525889

TBH while still an awful crash, he had slowed down a lot more than I thought by the time he hit the fence.

Glad he walked away uninjured, and that the fence did its job.

Albon's crash which was missed initially was worse in terms of G-Force.
Thank the heavens there wasn't a fire on Zhou's car as that would have been likely fatal.

Revelation wrote:

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

The championship is still open, as we're only reaching the halfway point. The chance of Verstappen losing point is still very high (as we've seen last season), especially since Red Bull's reliability is still iffy.

I wish I could agree, but I can't. IMO it would take something quite unexpected for VER to not be champion. If he and his team continue execute to the standard they have shown this season he will be champion and I don't see why we'd expect otherwise.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

I for one appreciate the lack of team orders from Ferrari, because both drivers are still in the hunt.

They are both competitive, but the mathematics doesn't support your point much at all. It's just so hard to see how either could make up the gap, which is why it was so important for Ferrari to try to put all the wood behind one arrow.

Stranger things have happened before. Let's not forget, Verstappen arrived in Silverstone in 2021 with a healthly lead and ended up losing it going into the summer break. The lead then ding donged up and down until the last race, when the title contenders ended up equal on points going into the race. So it ain't over till the fat lady sings to be honest.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

Revelation wrote:

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

The championship is still open, as we're only reaching the halfway point. The chance of Verstappen losing point is still very high (as we've seen last season), especially since Red Bull's reliability is still iffy.

I wish I could agree, but I can't. IMO it would take something quite unexpected for VER to not be champion. If he and his team continue execute to the standard they have shown this season he will be champion and I don't see why we'd expect otherwise.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

I for one appreciate the lack of team orders from Ferrari, because both drivers are still in the hunt.

They are both competitive, but the mathematics doesn't support your point much at all. It's just so hard to see how either could make up the gap, which is why it was so important for Ferrari to try to put all the wood behind one arrow.

Stranger things have happened before. Let's not forget, Verstappen arrived in Silverstone in 2021 with a healthly lead and ended up losing it going into the summer break. The lead then ding donged up and down until the last race, when the title contenders ended up equal on points going into the race. So it ain't over till the fat lady sings to be honest.

I hope Max learned his lesson in that crash (even though it was Lewis's fault on a racing incident) and he seems less aggressive this year.
Had he been P2 in Silverstone he would have been in hand 18 points last year and would have all have wrapped up the title after Mexico.

The fans certainly haven't forgotten last year. Max was booed last week in Silverstone and the fans today cheered Lewis and George crashing out in Q3.

petertenthije wrote:

The top of Zhou’s car, basically everything above the halo, has snapped clean of. Including the roll-bar. This is part of the car’s safety structure and should have remained intact. That is no doubt going to lead to some hard questions. Possibly also changes in the regulations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpNO1wgUfmY provides detailed coverage of this.

My (potentially inaccurate) summation follows.

The roll bar element is bonded (or, as some may prefer, glued) onto the CFRP behind the driver.

Evidence shows shredded CFRP is still bonded to the bottom of the roll-bar element, so it seems the bonds held and the fibers ripped.

Evidence also shows the car passed all the roll bar tests that are in place.

The tests are pretty stringent (see linked video for details) but now we have evidence that perhaps they aren't stringent enough.

Revelation wrote:

petertenthije wrote:

The top of Zhou’s car, basically everything above the halo, has snapped clean of. Including the roll-bar. This is part of the car’s safety structure and should have remained intact. That is no doubt going to lead to some hard questions. Possibly also changes in the regulations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpNO1wgUfmY provides detailed coverage of this.

My (potentially inaccurate) summation follows.

The roll bar element is bonded (or, as some may prefer, glued) onto the CFRP behind the driver.

Evidence shows shredded CFRP is still bonded to the bottom of the roll-bar element, so it seems the bonds held and the fibers ripped.

Evidence also shows the car passed all the roll bar tests that are in place.

The tests are pretty stringent (see linked video for details) but now we have evidence that perhaps they aren't stringent enough.

Can't find the link anymore but I've read this afternoon Vasseur said the roll bar experienced loads twice as what it have to suffer to pass for certification...
In which case no surprise it failed.
It will be interesting to see if and how FIA will change the requirements in the future. I think it may not change much, or even not at all, and be acceptable/justified. as the Halo did the job.