2025 São Paulo Grand Prix - Interlagos, Nov 07 - 09

[Szabi1112]

If Max didnt have a puncture he might have won this race because he wouldnt have had to box for those softs at the end, new tyres were a big advantge today.

No. Those hards were sh*ts. He should have changed it after 10-20 laps.

[erikejw]

[
quote=Szabi1112 post_id=1309179 time=1762712495 user_id=38876]
Pirelly is full of idiots. Why do they bring garbage hard compound since races?
[/quote]

To create less boring 1-stop races with more strategy options available. Seems to work well.

[Vettel165]

If Max didnt have a puncture he might have won this race because he wouldnt have had to box for those softs at the end, new tyres were a big advantge today.

No. Those hards were sh*ts. He should have changed it after 10-20 laps.

Indeed they had no grip.

[pantherxxx]

Verstappen could have won without the puncture.

[Vettel165]

Verstappen could have won without the puncture.

Negative he would struggle on the bad hard tyres in the DRS train for some time after.

[Artur Craft]

Oscar is very lucky with Lando´s car failure on Holland. Otherwise it would be almost on Norris´hands by now

[venkyhere]

For all the weather forecasts , the inter was not used at all this weekend, in any session.
And Piastri's penalty was fully justified - he (the aggressor) did NOT get beyond the mirrors of Antonelli (the defender) at the apex - those are the rules whether you like it or not - and caused a collision by losing control (brake lockup) of his car. Those are the rules/guidelines, whether you like it or not.

[Dee]

Verstappen could have won without the puncture.

Negative he would struggle on the bad hard tyres in the DRS train for some time after.

I actually don't think he would have, he had gone from pit lane to P13 on hards, it was the puncture that stopped him from going further. He would have gone up to P4/P5 as others would have pit and then he had the two mediums to go flat out until the end.

[basti313]

Verstappen could have won without the puncture.

Negative he would struggle on the bad hard tyres in the DRS train for some time after.

I actually don't think he would have, he had gone from pit lane to P13 on hards, it was the puncture that stopped him from going further. He would have gone up to P4/P5 as others would have pit and then he had the two mediums to go flat out until the end.

If we look at the timing this is not really what we can expect. The hard tire for Alo cost him around 0.5sec to Tsu who went at a similar time on new mediums. So it is sensible to say, that Verstappen would have got stuck somewhere at Sainz or Albon until these two pit...which was actually the same on the Medium, some 15-17sec behind Norris. From that point it would have always been two pit stops and I doubt the chewed up hard would have been better than the mediums to follow the front and to do the overcut on the cars stopping.

[venkyhere]

My take is :

1) no matter what could be tried, without SC, there was no way for Max to get to P1. Norris was too fast, and he was managing throughout the race, never went full tilt - as that's what the lead driver always does - being fast and preserve tyres - because any SC means giving up track position and giving up the time gap that's built up - both. So Norris catching up 8 seconds with 20 laps to go - that was a given anyway. He was easily more than 0.4s/lap faster, with a 13 lap tyre delta advantage, on top of the natural tyre deg advantage the Mclaren has.

2) the puncture for Max during VSC was luck - hard tyre would have meant a H-M one stop with lots of management driving. The 10s that were lost, was nothing - he was gaining 1s/lap on the Mercs during certain phases of his M and S stints.

3) the only Question that really calls for a debate is - was the final stop for S 'wasteful' and could the 2nd M set have been preserved for more than half the race distance and given Max P2 ?
It all boils down to :
plan A - full push (no management) on the 2nd M set for 20 laps, throw away +20s, full push on fresh S for 18 laps
versus
plan B - manage pace on 2nd M set for 38 laps until the end and 'defend' against the Mercs and Piastri with tyres that were 'double-age'.

it all depends on how much 'management' would have been needed for planB to workout. And looking at the latime chart below, I would think 'a lot'. Because the way the 2nd M stint and the final S stint looks, it's madMax mode pushing. In my estimate this 'a lot' would be :
15 x 0.8/lap + 8 x 0.5/lap = 16s (the boxed phases in the chart)
20s-16s = 4s nett lost on rivals, by driving planA
The 'management that would have been needed in planB shouldn't have sacrificed more than 4s over a 38 lap stint, if B was to have been faster. This is ignoring the fact that a lot of tyre life wasting would happen 'defending' the chasing pack of 2 Mercs and one McLaren. 4s over 38 laps ? That's driving only 0.1s/lap slower than what he did with planA. I think planB would have spectacularly failed. It's a crudely formed 'loose-data' opinion, not an ironclad one, though.

[Vettel165]

My take is :

1) no matter what could be tried, without SC, there was no way for Max to get to P1. Norris was too fast, and he was managing throughout the race, never went full tilt - as that's what the lead driver always does - being fast and preserve tyres - because any SC means giving up track position and giving up the time gap that's built up - both. So Norris catching up 8 seconds with 20 laps to go - that was a given anyway. He was easily more than 0.4s/lap faster, with a 13 lap tyre delta advantage, on top of the natural tyre deg advantage the Mclaren has.

2) the puncture for Max during VSC was luck - hard tyre would have meant a H-M one stop with lots of management driving. The 10s that were lost, was nothing - he was gaining 1s/lap on the Mercs during certain phases of his M and S stints.

3) the only Question that really calls for a debate is - was the final stop for S 'wasteful' and could the 2nd M set have been preserved for more than half the race distance and given Max P2 ?
It all boils down to :
plan A - full push (no management) on the 2nd M set for 20 laps, throw away +20s, full push on fresh S for 18 laps
versus
plan B - manage pace on 2nd M set for 38 laps until the end and 'defend' against the Mercs and Piastri with tyres that were 'double-age'.

it all depends on how much 'management' would have been needed for planB to workout. And looking at the latime chart below, I would think 'a lot'. Because the way the 2nd M stint and the final S stint looks, it's madMax mode pushing. In my estimate this 'a lot' would be :
15 x 0.8/lap + 8 x 0.5/lap = 16s (the boxed phases in the chart)
20s-16s = 4s nett lost on rivals, by driving planA
The 'management that would have been needed in planB shouldn't have sacrificed more than 4s over a 38 lap stint, if B was to have been faster. This is ignoring the fact that a lot of tyre life wasting would happen 'defending' the chasing pack of 2 Mercs and one McLaren. 4s over 38 laps ? That's driving only 0.1s/lap slower than what he did with planA. I think planB would have spectacularly failed. It's a crudely formed 'loose-data' opinion, not an ironclad one, though.


https://i.ibb.co/0ySP1N2s/Brazil-2025-race-chart.png

Mega work, I agree 100%.

[basti313]

He had thread new Softs...the question is rather if a Soft instead of the Medium in the middle would not have worked better....the chart suggests this in my point of view.

[Cassius]

He had thread new Softs...the question is rather if a Soft instead of the Medium in the middle would not have worked better....the chart suggests this in my point of view.

That limits your option set as it would then likely not be possible to go till the end while on 2x mediums that was still an option until his tyres started to degrade into the 1.14s.

[MattWellsyWells]

How big an advantage do you think it is to change the setup after qualifying to a setup that is totally focused on the race? Presumably most cars were set up with the best compromise of qualifying pace and race pace. I'm sure he still would have come through the field, but interesting to wonder how far Verstappen would have got if the other cars were set up purely for the race as well.

[vorticism]

Leclerc thought Piastri didn't deserve the penalty in the post race interview. He called it 50/50 between Piastri & Antonelli. Racing inchident. Which might explain why Leclerc held to the outside, expecting Antonelli to move more to the right to avoid Piastri.

It might point to the 'ol Stewards Guide again. Had Piastri been ~1 m further forward he'd have been sufficiently alongside (i.e. min ~1 m behind) and given no penalty, and the burden of penalty would move to Antonelli. So the guide seems to influence both scenarios: Encourages the "bump outside guy" move but also "bump inside guy" if you know he's not far enough alongside. Which you could say is what happened. The difference is: Bump Inside Guy apparently gets Bumped Guy a penalty, while Bump Outside Guy has yet to yield any penalties to Bumped Guy.

Furthermore, the Guide might be forcing extra defensiveness to avoid Bump Outside Guy, as we saw Leclerc was surprised that Antonelli closed the door in the way that he did, which may have contributed to Piastri's lock up.