2022 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team

[tpe]

But this is exactly why I would like to have a discussion like this!
In order to be flexible you need to have tools. If you stick to predefined plans (which is not necessarily a bad thing), it could imply that they lack those tools.

Remember, until very recently Ferrari was behind Merc/RB in other engineering related tools as well (like the simulator for example)

[Shal_Leg16]

All the pit wall clownery shouldn't excuse the fact that Sainz was slow AF again. Guy is Massa 2.0 but refuses to believe it yet.

I told you multiple times. This year there is a clear difference between Sainz and Leclerc in race trim and has been like that every single race.

nobody is talking about it. the very reason Max was able to clawback all the distance/gap deficit was because Sainz couldn't pass Russell and also held back Charles, its took them least for 4-5 laps to respond and pit him during this same period max was picking up places. that delay enabled max to gain position on Ferrari with pitstops.

Sainz clearly doesn't have race pace to beat Charles, Max ( unless he has a massive tyre delta advantage or has a specific suitable track) ( rarely any ) yet whenever situation arrives Ferrari takes least 5 laps to deside what todo. thats where RB make difference.

[gshevlin]

Yeah I don't blame charles if he took it easy in the last stint. He was really screwed this race and it seems that Sainz is the preferred driver at Ferrari. Not sure why, maybe he cooks a mean spaghetti or something.

He wasn't taking it easy as he was the fastest man on the track at that point. Leclerc is never going to be one to just slack during a race. Give him more credit than that.

The problem was that pace was still a good bit off Lewis's stint on the same tires even though he had less fuel.

To me, that's a car issue. The mediums were great for Leclerc but the other tires clearly weren't.

To me, that is the problem that Ferrari had. They had the car working well on the medium tyre, but not on the soft or the hard. Starting on the medium tyre boxed them in, so when Leclerc had to change tyres, they were too early for softs, so they put him on hards, which nobody could get to work effectively because of the low track temperatures.
As we saw later in the race, Sainz on softs was slower than Hamilton on mediums. Ditto Lerclerc.
Ferrari did not have the car sorted to run well enough on at least 2 types of tyre. That compromised race strategy.

[Shal_Leg16]

Yeah I don't blame charles if he took it easy in the last stint. He was really screwed this race and it seems that Sainz is the preferred driver at Ferrari. Not sure why, maybe he cooks a mean spaghetti or something.

He wasn't taking it easy as he was the fastest man on the track at that point. Leclerc is never going to be one to just slack during a race. Give him more credit than that.

The problem was that pace was still a good bit off Lewis's stint on the same tires even though he had less fuel.

To me, that's a car issue. The mediums were great for Leclerc but the other tires clearly weren't.

To me, that is the problem that Ferrari had. They had the car working well on the medium tyre, but not on the soft or the hard. Starting on the medium tyre boxed them in, so when Leclerc had to change tyres, they were too early for softs, so they put him on hards, which nobody could get to work effectively because of the low track temperatures.
As we saw later in the race, Sainz on softs was slower than Hamilton on mediums. Ditto Lerclerc.
Ferrari did not have the car sorted to run well enough on at least 2 types of tyre. That compromised race strategy.

why was there any need to pit leclerc for hards so early ? in fact he was the one with fresher tyres of the top 5 lot . he could have easily went 10 laps more and then pit for soft that would have at worst finished him 2nd insted of 6th.

[dialtone]

Yeah I don't blame charles if he took it easy in the last stint. He was really screwed this race and it seems that Sainz is the preferred driver at Ferrari. Not sure why, maybe he cooks a mean spaghetti or something.

He wasn't taking it easy as he was the fastest man on the track at that point. Leclerc is never going to be one to just slack during a race. Give him more credit than that.

The problem was that pace was still a good bit off Lewis's stint on the same tires even though he had less fuel.

To me, that's a car issue. The mediums were great for Leclerc but the other tires clearly weren't.

To me, that is the problem that Ferrari had. They had the car working well on the medium tyre, but not on the soft or the hard. Starting on the medium tyre boxed them in, so when Leclerc had to change tyres, they were too early for softs, so they put him on hards, which nobody could get to work effectively because of the low track temperatures.
As we saw later in the race, Sainz on softs was slower than Hamilton on mediums. Ditto Lerclerc.
Ferrari did not have the car sorted to run well enough on at least 2 types of tyre. That compromised race strategy.

The car wasn’t sorted out but the pace on softs from Charles was in line with Ham.

[JPower]

Ferrari did not have the car sorted to run well enough on at least 2 types of tyre. That compromised race strategy.

Correct.

I'm convinced they just went the wrong direction on setup.

However, the main point is Leclerc probably was still good for at least a P3 or better. That's what this really comes down to. Should've left him out on the tires he had real pace on.

[Shal_Leg16]

He wasn't taking it easy as he was the fastest man on the track at that point. Leclerc is never going to be one to just slack during a race. Give him more credit than that.

The problem was that pace was still a good bit off Lewis's stint on the same tires even though he had less fuel.

To me, that's a car issue. The mediums were great for Leclerc but the other tires clearly weren't.

To me, that is the problem that Ferrari had. They had the car working well on the medium tyre, but not on the soft or the hard. Starting on the medium tyre boxed them in, so when Leclerc had to change tyres, they were too early for softs, so they put him on hards, which nobody could get to work effectively because of the low track temperatures.
As we saw later in the race, Sainz on softs was slower than Hamilton on mediums. Ditto Lerclerc.
Ferrari did not have the car sorted to run well enough on at least 2 types of tyre. That compromised race strategy.

The car wasn’t sorted out but the pace on softs from Charles was in line with Ham.

1st mistake was to let Sainz held back both which allowed Max to close the gap/position.
2nd was putting leclerc on hard.

for all who are saying Ferrari didnt had car ffs....Max started 10th on grid, he was not on front row that Ferrari couldn't stop him.

whatever performance advantage RB had for Max to come down from 10th to 1st and that too without any radical Safty car or rain incident means clearly Ferrari mismanaged the race. Leclerc would have won it with proper strategy.

[dialtone]

To me, that is the problem that Ferrari had. They had the car working well on the medium tyre, but not on the soft or the hard. Starting on the medium tyre boxed them in, so when Leclerc had to change tyres, they were too early for softs, so they put him on hards, which nobody could get to work effectively because of the low track temperatures.
As we saw later in the race, Sainz on softs was slower than Hamilton on mediums. Ditto Lerclerc.
Ferrari did not have the car sorted to run well enough on at least 2 types of tyre. That compromised race strategy.

The car wasn’t sorted out but the pace on softs from Charles was in line with Ham.

1st mistake was to let Sainz held back both which allowed Max to close the gap/position.
2nd was putting leclerc on hard.

for all who are saying Ferrari didnt had car ffs....Max started 10th on grid, he was not on front row that Ferrari couldn't stop him.

whatever performance advantage RB had for Max to come down from 10th to 1st and that too without any radical Safty car or rain incident means clearly Ferrari mismanaged the race. Leclerc would have won it with proper strategy.

Max didn’t have a performance advantage, they just didn’t implode, executed a great strategy. Perez and Max just lapped at the same speed through the race while Russell was getting lost in tire deg, Ham was somewhat faster in the middle of his 2nd stint and 3rd stint until the end and the Ferraris had what they had, but Charles was faster through the race except when they gave up 30 seconds

[JPower]

The car wasn’t sorted out but the pace on softs from Charles was in line with Ham.

Maybe Charles' side of the garage saw something the other didn't.

Sainz was a good 1-1.5 seconds off Hamilton at the beginning of their soft stint.

He might not be the absolute quickest driver, but that type of gap doesn't make sense. It seems like 10 laps in to every stint, his tires were dead.

[NL_Fer]

Charles on an early first stop with MSM or SMM so he could jump Saintz at the start.

Saintz on MH playing smooth operator.

But is it fair to start speculating on a new Ferrari team principal? Like Mr Todt as interim?

[Shal_Leg16]

The car wasn’t sorted out but the pace on softs from Charles was in line with Ham.

1st mistake was to let Sainz held back both which allowed Max to close the gap/position.
2nd was putting leclerc on hard.

for all who are saying Ferrari didnt had car ffs....Max started 10th on grid, he was not on front row that Ferrari couldn't stop him.

whatever performance advantage RB had for Max to come down from 10th to 1st and that too without any radical Safty car or rain incident means clearly Ferrari mismanaged the race. Leclerc would have won it with proper strategy.

Max didn’t have a performance advantage, they just didn’t implode, executed a great strategy. Perez and Max just lapped at the same speed through the race while Russell was getting lost in tire deg, Ham was somewhat faster in the middle of his 2nd stint and 3rd stint until the end and the Ferraris had what they had, but Charles was faster through the race except when they gave up 30 seconds

i know leclerc clearly showed good pace but i said advantage since everybody here is claiming that Ferrari had wrong setup and car was overall slow.

[Spoutnik]

Yeah I don't blame charles if he took it easy in the last stint. He was really screwed this race and it seems that Sainz is the preferred driver at Ferrari. Not sure why, maybe he cooks a mean spaghetti or something.

He wasn't taking it easy as he was the fastest man on the track at that point. Leclerc is never going to be one to just slack during a race. Give him more credit than that.

The problem was that pace was still a good bit off Lewis's stint on the same tires even though he had less fuel.

To me, that's a car issue. The mediums were great for Leclerc but the other tires clearly weren't.

To me, that is the problem that Ferrari had. They had the car working well on the medium tyre, but not on the soft or the hard. Starting on the medium tyre boxed them in, so when Leclerc had to change tyres, they were too early for softs, so they put him on hards, which nobody could get to work effectively because of the low track temperatures.
As we saw later in the race, Sainz on softs was slower than Hamilton on mediums. Ditto Lerclerc.
Ferrari did not have the car sorted to run well enough on at least 2 types of tyre. That compromised race strategy.

Pretty much agree with you. It was not an easy call they're not good on both mandatory tyres.
There's no escape I mean even if Sainz was P3 and Leclerc P2 I don't think Leclerc would've fly passed Russell before the very end of the stint, actually he came back in the DRS zone of Sainz at the very end of the first stint.
If Leclerc would've been on the strategy of Sainz I think both Merc would've probably got him, because Sainz even if as some said is Massa 2.0 he's not 1.5 second slower than Charles on the same tyres...

[Xyz22]

The car wasn’t sorted out but the pace on softs from Charles was in line with Ham.

Maybe Charles' side of the garage saw something the other didn't.

Sainz was a good 1-1.5 seconds off Hamilton at the beginning of their soft stint.

He might not be the absolute quickest driver, but that type of gap doesn't make sense. It seems like 10 laps in to every stint, his tires were dead.

Sainz had awful deg in all 3 stints. His pace difference compared to Leclerc was massive already on the mediums. Leclerc could have extended both stints way longer than Sainz and of course he would have been able to manage the soft tyres better. Winning was difficult today but the M - M - S strategy was still okay.

[dialtone]

Average pace laps 1-38.



Average pace laps 54-70.

Obviously Max was managing but he also had old AF tires so he couldn't really push too much. The important part is that LEC was the fastest on track (faster than HAM with softs, faster than everyone else on mediums).

Laps 38-54 didn't happen.

EDIT: Have replaced the graphs because the data in the graphs was off, although the average lap pace was correct.

[Xyz22]

Dialtone just highlighted that Leclerc drove another incredible race, like he did all season outside Imola and France. Once again, the team let him down.

Winning was very difficult because overtaking Max on track without a massive delta in a track like Hungary is almost a mission impossible. The car was far from perfect (and was already clear in quali) but a P2 would have been easy to get.