Following his sensational lap in Saturday's qualifying which saw Charles Leclerc claim a shock pole position for Ferrari, the Monegasque endured a heartbreaking result at the Hungarian Grand Prix despite his impressive pace during his first two stints of the race. F1Technical's senior writer Balazs Szabo delivers his latest analysis in his column branded as F1MATHS.
I would only add the small detail that he recruited them, retained them for over a decade, and won 14 championships with them before they eventually left to pursue other opportunities. These details may seem unimportant relative to the otherworldly success Ferrari has enjoyed in the same time period as this was happening, but I just wanted to add some unimportant nuance to your completely balanced take.
Welcome back.
that's what Italian media are saying https://www.corriere.it/sport/formula-1 ... refresh_ce
The issue is the performance from the car, every other area needs to improve but it never will with a car that doesn’t excel.Sergej wrote: ↑13 Oct 2025, 11:26that's what Italian media are saying https://www.corriere.it/sport/formula-1 ... refresh_ce
Ferrari not learning from their mistakes, track team under accusation (particularly Matteo Togninalli), tense relationships within the team, inability to adapt to evolving situations, apparently FIA doing intensive checks on the car, more people to leave the team
for whom has known Ferrari for long time, the classic menu when things go bad.
Certainly yes. Ferrari is at its most successful when it has a very strong driver (both in driving and willpower) leading the team. For whatever reason that seems to work best to focus the team. Maybe the ego and stubbornness of the driver must match that of Ferrari itself, to bring balance to the team. Anyways, Lauda had it, Schumacher had it, and Max has it. I would also give an honourable mention to Alonso, though he never won the chip he came darn close a couple of times, and he had a lot of those personal qualities.
It doesn’t work like this anymore, F1 teams are 1000+ people complex companies now. You are referring to what it was in the past until early 2000.Badger wrote: ↑13 Oct 2025, 12:23Certainly yes. Ferrari is at its most successful when it has a very strong driver (both in driving and willpower) leading the team. For whatever reason that seems to work best to focus the team. Maybe the ego and stubbornness of the driver must match that of Ferrari itself, to bring balance to the team. Anyways, Lauda had it, Schumacher had it, and Max has it. I would also give an honourable mention to Alonso, though he never won the chip he came darn close a couple of times, and he had a lot of those personal qualities.
The current situation reminds of that scene from Rush. The car is a “shitbox” and Niki wasn’t afraid to say it, but Leclerc can’t say it, and neither can Hamilton. That brand worship that stands in the way of forthright objectivity seems to be back. You also see it in Vasseur’s delusional post-race analysis.
I’m talking about having leadership. In that sense one man can absolutely make a difference. They’re not going to do all the work but if they can get those 1000+ people on the same page and motivated, that’s worth a lot.MattLightBlue wrote: ↑13 Oct 2025, 13:35It doesn’t work like this anymore, F1 teams are 1000+ people complex companies now. You are referring to what it was in the past until early 2000.Badger wrote: ↑13 Oct 2025, 12:23Certainly yes. Ferrari is at its most successful when it has a very strong driver (both in driving and willpower) leading the team. For whatever reason that seems to work best to focus the team. Maybe the ego and stubbornness of the driver must match that of Ferrari itself, to bring balance to the team. Anyways, Lauda had it, Schumacher had it, and Max has it. I would also give an honourable mention to Alonso, though he never won the chip he came darn close a couple of times, and he had a lot of those personal qualities.
The current situation reminds of that scene from Rush. The car is a “shitbox” and Niki wasn’t afraid to say it, but Leclerc can’t say it, and neither can Hamilton. That brand worship that stands in the way of forthright objectivity seems to be back. You also see it in Vasseur’s delusional post-race analysis.
If you take out from what you say the engine that had tailored made the rules long before they came reality, how many titles Toto would had?Wynters wrote: ↑13 Oct 2025, 11:47If you give Horner Adrian Newey, a four car team (and the funding and wind tunnel time to go with it), multiple regulation changes, two great drivers and twenty years as a TP...then he'll win substantial less than Toto Wolff did in half the time.
The truth of Horner's brilliant management style is that his drivers publicly ignore his orders. If even they can't be bothered to even pretend to show him the most basic respect, why should anyone else? Let alone that, despite being in an astounding dominant position during these regulations, they've since utterly fumbled them and Newey left to go to Aston Martin (Aston Martin!) rather than hang around under Horner.
Give Vasseur some time. Maybe he will be a success, maybe he won't. But changing TP every other race is not going to magically solve things that can take years to resolve.
I get the feeling Leclerc has said it, just not publicly.Badger wrote: ↑13 Oct 2025, 12:23Certainly yes. Ferrari is at its most successful when it has a very strong driver (both in driving and willpower) leading the team. For whatever reason that seems to work best to focus the team. Maybe the ego and stubbornness of the driver must match that of Ferrari itself, to bring balance to the team. Anyways, Lauda had it, Schumacher had it, and Max has it. I would also give an honourable mention to Alonso, though he never won the chip he came darn close a couple of times, and he had a lot of those personal qualities.
The current situation reminds of that scene from Rush. The car is a “shitbox” and Niki wasn’t afraid to say it, but Leclerc can’t say it, and neither can Hamilton. That brand worship that stands in the way of forthright objectivity seems to be back. You also see it in Vasseur’s delusional post-race analysis.
