2022 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team

[pipoloko]

Binotto this morning to an Italian journalist
Per noi la priorità continua a essere massimizzare il risultato di squadra.
to us (ferrari team) the priority is to maximize the team result
capice mate?

[ferkan]

IMO more worrying is Sainz complete lack of pace, even in qualifying, before Leclerc spin he was more then half a second of on average in every run. In race he couldn't keep up with Leclerc who had damaged FW, its just not enough if we are being realistic.

The median qualifying gap between the two is currently -0.21% Leclerc, which is exactly the gap they had at this point last year.

Median race pace gap is currently -0.19% Leclerc, compared to -0.39% Leclerc at this point last year.

He is slower than Leclerc, but your description of his pace, or lack thereof, is completely exaggerated.

I dont know where you are looking at median pace differences, but this year its double. Which is obvious to everyone with 2 set od eyes. There hasnt been a race where Sainz has been faster then Leclerc when they started in similar positions. Of course, Leclerc starting last in Canada and Sainz having 1.5s advantage at the front vs him through out the field is completely unrepresentative, yet you took it into calculation, which makes no sense.

[codetower]

The great sacrifice that never was.

after the instantaneous outburst and 2 days of cooling down i finally got may head right and for a change tried thinking what exactly ferrari tried to do last Sunday.

as much as i could read the situation im not defending then in anyways but this is what must have happened.

ocon stopped, SC car was brought in on Lap 40 , at this point Leclerc had pulled up 3s advantage on Sainz and 7s on Lewis.

ferrari thought they cant double stack hence can only pit one of them. in normal situation the car in front gets the priority and likewise Charles should have came in for new tyres but by doing that they thought Sainz would have suffered more ( not because he is a BTech but because he had far worse /older tyres then leclerc. ) insted they came up with a unconventional ( stipid ) plan to let Charles keep track position and pit sainz , then ask him to help leclerc with his bad tyres. *** important point to be noted here is ....the flawed notion of sainz supposed sacrifice is planted here....its not like sainz was winning/leading and he was asked to give it away. for Ferrari they were just trying to salvage a 1-2 finish just like it was before the SC incident. before the SC intervention Leclerc was 1st sainz was 2nd ...they wanted them finish similarly.

Now that plan may look stupid at first but it was not something undoable. We clearly saw Leclerc held off lewis so long even on old hard tyres ....so why couldn't Sainz that too with fresh tyres ? the worst case scenario was perez snicking in but even then 2 cars on podium was very much possible.

Sad reality is....they trusted Sainz too much, sainz was unexpectedly put in a advantageous position by this stupid strategy and sainz just ran away with it... leaving leclerc to fight his battle on his own ...

Now again , im nowhere saying Sainz is bound by any law to accept that stupid plan ... but then neither Charles is bound to trust a teammates who's sole Target is to beat him at all cost. this is going to fall apart soon. dont believe in their smily faces .

Also....its becoming a repeated occurrence now that... Ferrari with their limited sight try to work out something that can work for both ( just like they couldn't simply ask sainz to swap and kept on setting lap targets to push and keep his place , eventually pitting him to avoid swap in 1st phase ) but sainz just destroys their plan A and since they don't have much of B ...it cost them including leclerc. you can get these shades at Monaco GP too. Perez pitted , Ferrari thought it was a undercut on sainz and opted to pit him but sainz was singing his own song...he argued and this went on for 2 laps and leclerc was left hanging so much so that perez undercut both.

coming back to this race ... my mind tells me ... Ferrari was not asking any sacrifice from Sainz he was keeping his place , he was just being asked to compensate for the advantage he got by their wishful thinking. ..for me one more question arises after all that sh*t - Can Leclerc really trust sainz now ? if I was Leclerc i would not even 1%.

I mostly agree with all of this. Also after a couple of days to mull this over (yes, I am a bit too passionate about my teams... I'm still not over the Azzurri and the WC) I agree that Ferrari was not trying to prioritize Carlos, and intentionally leaving Charles out to dry. They simply made a mistake. But it bothers that these mistakes seem to be more common than they should be.

As far as trusting Carlos, I'm still a little on the fence about this. I don't blame him for wanting that win. It's been waaay too long without a win. Every driver comes into F1 believing they are capable of winning, and I'm sure Carlos just really wanted to get the first win off under his belt. 150 races is a long time waiting, he knows how difficult it is... especially when you have Leclerc as your teammate. So I don't truly believe it was him purely being anti-team. But I am curiously going to be watching how the rest of the season unfolds now that Carlos' first win is behind him, and how the Scuderia handles everything moving forward.

[space wadet]

Binotto this morning to an Italian journalist
Per noi la priorità continua a essere massimizzare il risultato di squadra.
to us (ferrari team) the priority is to maximize the team result
capice mate?

How is turning a 1-2 into a 1-4 "maximizing the team result"?

Now that the dust has settled (a bit) and people could actually look at the data, it was clear they had time to pit and double stack both drivers. I can understand splitting your options if it's for one step difference in tire compounds, but softs vs hards is just indefensible. Ignoring the pace difference between the compounds, just the fact that hards take so much longer to heat up, there is no way it was a viable strategy.

It didn't even make sense from a team point of view because if it wasn't for Leclerc's defending against Perez and Hamilton, Sainz might not even have won. Coming out of the pits even 1-3, but with softs was not a more risky strategy.

Bottom line is the team yet again made a major strategy error, there is no way to defend it. And it doesn't make sense to blame either drivers, they're not at fault.

But I agree the one silver lining from all this is Sainz got his win finally, he might perform with more confidence and consistency moving forward. That will help the team. Whether it was worth throwing away another victory of the currently better performing driver, only time will tell.

[CMSMJ1]

avoiding the obvious bias in the last couple of posts... get off the fence guys

Do you guys really think Charles could have hung onto that and won it? I doubt it. Ferrari finally made the right call and gave Carlos the chance he needed (and deserved)

Charles is a phenomenal driver - probably outperforming the grid at the moment but don't be blinkered. He could not have held off the Merc and Redbull and I suspect a 1-4 was a decent result for the team. A win is a win, right?

[Andres125sx]

In my mind Ferrari just wanted to give Sainz a win, all the rest they say are mambo jumbo excuses. Lets see what will happen from now on.

Of course, we all know Ferrari has always been extremelly fair with their drivers, they never prioritize the one fighting for the title

They ordered Sainz to let pass Charles in this very same race, but who cares

[pipoloko]

Binotto this morning to an Italian journalist
Per noi la priorità continua a essere massimizzare il risultato di squadra.
to us (ferrari team) the priority is to maximize the team result
capice mate?

How is turning a 1-2 into a 1-4 "maximizing the team result"?
1-2 was not possible LH was faster at least than CS
SAI car had a different setup than LECs therefore was slower
SP was faster than SAI
FA and LN were faster (speed wise) than SAI
Ferrari knew that the risk was
1-6 LEC happy but less point
2022 Ferrari battle is with MB not with RB (that one is lost)
That is the only thing Binotto will not say in public , but is reality !!!!


Now that the dust has settled (a bit) and people could actually look at the data, it was clear they had time to pit and double stack both drivers. I can understand splitting your options if it's for one step difference in tire compounds, but softs vs hards is just indefensible. Ignoring the pace difference between the compounds, just the fact that hards take so much longer to heat up, there is no way it was a viable strategy.

It didn't even make sense from a team point of view because if it wasn't for Leclerc's defending against Perez and Hamilton, Sainz might not even have won. Coming out of the pits even 1-3, but with softs was not a more risky strategy.

Bottom line is the team yet again made a major strategy error, there is no way to defend it. And it doesn't make sense to blame either drivers, they're not at fault.

But I agree the one silver lining from all this is Sainz got his win finally, he might perform with more confidence and consistency moving forward. That will help the team. Whether it was worth throwing away another victory of the currently better performing driver, only time will tell.

[codetower]

avoiding the obvious bias in the last couple of posts... get off the fence guys

Do you guys really think Charles could have hung onto that and won it? I doubt it. Ferrari finally made the right call and gave Carlos the chance he needed (and deserved)

Charles is a phenomenal driver - probably outperforming the grid at the moment but don't be blinkered. He could not have held off the Merc and Redbull and I suspect a 1-4 was a decent result for the team. A win is a win, right?

Do you mean Leclerc holding on with his current tyres (old hards), or on a fresh set of softs? I think on softs he absolutely would have held off. Keep in mind, the RB would have had to pass not only the other Ferrari (also on softs if they would have double stacked) but Hamilton who had good pace as well.

The way I see it is that two possible scenarios if Ferrari double stack. Hamilton stay out on hards, in the lead, at restart with 2 Ferraris (LEC-1 SAI-2) and a RB on softs chasing him. HAM ends up 4th like Leclerc. Maybe Perez passes Carlos, but don't think he'd catch Charles after battling Hamilton and Carlos.

2nd scenario, they all pit for softs, HAM possibly leapfrogs Carlos because of the double stack, but they all end up in the same positions. LEC, HAM/SAI, PER.

[JPower]

IMO more worrying is Sainz complete lack of pace, even in qualifying, before Leclerc spin he was more then half a second of on average in every run. In race he couldn't keep up with Leclerc who had damaged FW, its just not enough if we are being realistic.

The median qualifying gap between the two is currently -0.21% Leclerc, which is exactly the gap they had at this point last year.

Median race pace gap is currently -0.19% Leclerc, compared to -0.39% Leclerc at this point last year.

He is slower than Leclerc, but your description of his pace, or lack thereof, is completely exaggerated.

I dont know where you are looking at median pace differences, but this year its double. Which is obvious to everyone with 2 set od eyes. There hasnt been a race where Sainz has been faster then Leclerc when they started in similar positions. Of course, Leclerc starting last in Canada and Sainz having 1.5s advantage at the front vs him through out the field is completely unrepresentative, yet you took it into calculation, which makes no sense.

No, its not double through the first 10 races. The numbers are readily available on the F1 Teammate Comparison website.

Even without Canada, he is still closer in pace to Leclerc than he was at this point last year.

This isn’t about who is faster. The numbers tell that story. I’m correcting your opinion of the degree of difference with facts.

[CMSMJ1]

avoiding the obvious bias in the last couple of posts... get off the fence guys

Do you guys really think Charles could have hung onto that and won it? I doubt it. Ferrari finally made the right call and gave Carlos the chance he needed (and deserved)

Charles is a phenomenal driver - probably outperforming the grid at the moment but don't be blinkered. He could not have held off the Merc and Redbull and I suspect a 1-4 was a decent result for the team. A win is a win, right?

Do you mean Leclerc holding on with his current tyres (old hards), or on a fresh set of softs? I think on softs he absolutely would have held off. Keep in mind, the RB would have had to pass not only the other Ferrari (also on softs if they would have double stacked) but Hamilton who had good pace as well.

The way I see it is that two possible scenarios if Ferrari double stack. Hamilton stay out on hards, in the lead, at restart with 2 Ferraris (LEC-1 SAI-2) and a RB on softs chasing him. HAM ends up 4th like Leclerc. Maybe Perez passes Carlos, but don't think he'd catch Charles after battling Hamilton and Carlos.

2nd scenario, they all pit for softs, HAM possibly leapfrogs Carlos because of the double stack, but they all end up in the same positions. LEC, HAM/SAI, PER.

They failed to pit him for softs - so I was talking about the actual rather than the 'what if'

If he made the stop and was on equivalent tyres - I reckon Charles would have won it.

[pipoloko]

guys
do we understand that f1 is about engineering and science not about feelings/emotions?
do we understand /know , that more than 20 people are checking what every cars is doing on track during race? so called "strategy team"
that they have tons or more info/knowledge that we have?
do we undestand that SP/RB were last in race after3 laps?
and he was about to win the race?
(because SAI matched his lap times driving at his peak)
do we understand why? and what it means?
RB has the best car and the biggest chance to win 2022 championship!!!!
do we understand that LEC helped SAI to win the race holding HAM/PER for 2/3 laps
do we understand that SAI could not battle HAM/PER and then eventually even on reds LEC could lose the race?
hope we do and left the "feelings" behind and focus on the science and data

[ferkan]

The median qualifying gap between the two is currently -0.21% Leclerc, which is exactly the gap they had at this point last year.

Median race pace gap is currently -0.19% Leclerc, compared to -0.39% Leclerc at this point last year.

He is slower than Leclerc, but your description of his pace, or lack thereof, is completely exaggerated.

I dont know where you are looking at median pace differences, but this year its double. Which is obvious to everyone with 2 set od eyes. There hasnt been a race where Sainz has been faster then Leclerc when they started in similar positions. Of course, Leclerc starting last in Canada and Sainz having 1.5s advantage at the front vs him through out the field is completely unrepresentative, yet you took it into calculation, which makes no sense.

No, its not double through the first 10 races. The numbers are readily available on the F1 Teammate Comparison website.

Even without Canada, he is still closer in pace to Leclerc than he was at this point last year.

This isn’t about who is faster. The numbers tell that story. I’m correcting your opinion of the degree of difference with facts.

No, you are not talking facts and F1 Team Mate comparison does not have correct numbers.

Just look at gaps in Imola, where Q2 was taken where Leclerc didnt finish his 2nd run (and didnt have to), when Sainz crashed. Its 0.78s loss for Leclerc, yet he was faster throughout the qualifying.

Same with race pace, remove Canada where Leclerc was running through the pack and difference is on average 4 tenths (Im even taking British GP as "win" for Sainz but he had faster race pace duo to 1s advantage per lap in last stint on new S tires).

Sainz has been nowhere near Leclerc pace this year, in fact, there is a reason why people ask "what happened to him".

[Shal_Leg16]

The great sacrifice that never was.

after the instantaneous outburst and 2 days of cooling down i finally got may head right and for a change tried thinking what exactly ferrari tried to do last Sunday.

as much as i could read the situation im not defending then in anyways but this is what must have happened.

ocon stopped, SC car was brought in on Lap 40 , at this point Leclerc had pulled up 3s advantage on Sainz and 7s on Lewis.

ferrari thought they cant double stack hence can only pit one of them. in normal situation the car in front gets the priority and likewise Charles should have came in for new tyres but by doing that they thought Sainz would have suffered more ( not because he is a BTech but because he had far worse /older tyres then leclerc. ) insted they came up with a unconventional ( stipid ) plan to let Charles keep track position and pit sainz , then ask him to help leclerc with his bad tyres. *** important point to be noted here is ....the flawed notion of sainz supposed sacrifice is planted here....its not like sainz was winning/leading and he was asked to give it away. for Ferrari they were just trying to salvage a 1-2 finish just like it was before the SC incident. before the SC intervention Leclerc was 1st sainz was 2nd ...they wanted them finish similarly.

Now that plan may look stupid at first but it was not something undoable. We clearly saw Leclerc held off lewis so long even on old hard tyres ....so why couldn't Sainz that too with fresh tyres ? the worst case scenario was perez snicking in but even then 2 cars on podium was very much possible.

Sad reality is....they trusted Sainz too much, sainz was unexpectedly put in a advantageous position by this stupid strategy and sainz just ran away with it... leaving leclerc to fight his battle on his own ...

Now again , im nowhere saying Sainz is bound by any law to accept that stupid plan ... but then neither Charles is bound to trust a teammates who's sole Target is to beat him at all cost. this is going to fall apart soon. dont believe in their smily faces .

Also....its becoming a repeated occurrence now that... Ferrari with their limited sight try to work out something that can work for both ( just like they couldn't simply ask sainz to swap and kept on setting lap targets to push and keep his place , eventually pitting him to avoid swap in 1st phase ) but sainz just destroys their plan A and since they don't have much of B ...it cost them including leclerc. you can get these shades at Monaco GP too. Perez pitted , Ferrari thought it was a undercut on sainz and opted to pit him but sainz was singing his own song...he argued and this went on for 2 laps and leclerc was left hanging so much so that perez undercut both.

coming back to this race ... my mind tells me ... Ferrari was not asking any sacrifice from Sainz he was keeping his place , he was just being asked to compensate for the advantage he got by their wishful thinking. ..for me one more question arises after all that sh*t - Can Leclerc really trust sainz now ? if I was Leclerc i would not even 1%.

I mostly agree with all of this. Also after a couple of days to mull this over (yes, I am a bit too passionate about my teams... I'm still not over the Azzurri and the WC) I agree that Ferrari was not trying to prioritize Carlos, and intentionally leaving Charles out to dry. They simply made a mistake. But it bothers that these mistakes seem to be more common than they should be.

As far as trusting Carlos, I'm still a little on the fence about this. I don't blame him for wanting that win. It's been waaay too long without a win. Every driver comes into F1 believing they are capable of winning, and I'm sure Carlos just really wanted to get the first win off under his belt. 150 races is a long time waiting, he knows how difficult it is... especially when you have Leclerc as your teammate. So I don't truly believe it was him purely being anti-team. But I am curiously going to be watching how the rest of the season unfolds now that Carlos' first win is behind him, and how the Scuderia handles everything moving forward.

im not baiming Sainz for his desire to win either , but still that last 10 laps left a bad taste in my mouth.

for me fact is... Ferrari handed him a unfair advantage and sainz ran away with it leaving Charles hanging..it was like fu*k you guys im going for it.

i get your point about his 1st win , but i feel this is not just one singular incident there are many hints so far that ... every time Ferrari builts a strategy involving both....sainz always tries to maneuver it to his sole benifit even if that screws leclerc he doesnt care. fine lets just throw all fairness and teamplayer stuff in dustbin im all ok with that, im not that naive , i perfectly understand cruality of the sport ..for every Rubins there is a Schumacher ..but then ffs you have to be Schumacher, you can't be rubins and always expect favorable strategy . fact is you cant beat leclerc even with his car brocken but you expect or least try to maneuver every strategical step to benifit only your average a$$. Add to that the lack of balls shown by Ferrari and all this results in mess. imagine them recing for Redbull last sunday and we all know within a lap or 2 there would have been " you are on different strategy " message. There was no chance in hell that in similar SC situation RB would pit perez for fresh tyres and leave Max on old rubber..no chance in hell.

at Ferrari with all this mess its not gonna work for long, They can't let the rubins of the team dectate the strategy and screw everything else ...if so in the end neither Ferrari will win anything nor will Leclerc ...and sainz we all know his realistic target so he may come out as the only winner here.

[f1316]

In other news, looks like it will be raining Friday and Sunday.

Should be dry for the sprint race though.

I expect Red Bull to be as quick as ever. Would be nice to steal a race at their home track though.

What’s kinda weird is that we don’t really know the race pace of both cars since Spain. Think about it:

- in Spain, it appeared Charles had the race pace advantage, although max going off track had skewed that a little (Charles had just started opening the gap before that though). [Unclear]
- Monaco is Monaco so hard to tell. Seemingly Ferrari had good race pace comparatively but hard to know [Unclear]
- Baku, Max seemed to have a race pace advantage. Charles was fast enough not to be overtaken and had stabilised the gap to Checo in the first stint but Max had more in hand (evidenced after he pulled away from Checo). [advantage Red Bull]
- Canada, no representative pace from Charles but Carlos was faster than Max so safe to say Ferrari were faster (some suggestion from Marko that RB had some kind of problem but very vague and Marko-ish) [advantage Ferrari]
- Britain, while Max was clearly faster than Carlos, so were others (Eg Lewis) and Charles was significantly faster despite damage. No direct comparison of what Charles’ pace would have been without damage or really any good indication of Max’s pace in clear air. [Unclear]


So in short “Red Bull as quick as ever” - I mean, yeah, they’re always there but it’s really hard to know which car is actually faster at the moment. Ferrari still seem to have a small quali advantage (albeit, I personally think that’s as much Charles just being Senna-esque in quali) and for all the above reasons the race pace post upgrades is super unclear.

Fwiw I think Austria, despite the top speed component and prevailing narrative about RB on fast tracks, will play to Ferrari’s strengths in traction - a bit like Canada.

[AR3-GP]

In other news, looks like it will be raining Friday and Sunday.

Should be dry for the sprint race though.

I expect Red Bull to be as quick as ever. Would be nice to steal a race at their home track though.

What’s kinda weird is that we don’t really know the race pace of both cars since Spain. Think about it:

- in Spain, it appeared Charles had the race pace advantage, although max going off track had skewed that a little (Charles had just started opening the gap before that though). [Unclear]
- Monaco is Monaco so hard to tell. Seemingly Ferrari had good race pace comparatively but hard to know [Unclear]
- Baku, Max seemed to have a race pace advantage. Charles was fast enough not to be overtaken and had stabilised the gap to Checo in the first stint but Max had more in hand (evidenced after he pulled away from Checo). [advantage Red Bull]
- Canada, no representative pace from Charles but Carlos was faster than Max so safe to say Ferrari were faster (some suggestion from Marko that RB had some kind of problem but very vague and Marko-ish) [advantage Ferrari]
- Britain, while Max was clearly faster than Carlos, so were others (Eg Lewis) and Charles was significantly faster despite damage. No direct comparison of what Charles’ pace would have been without damage or really any good indication of Max’s pace in clear air. [Unclear]


So in short “Red Bull as quick as ever” - I mean, yeah, they’re always there but it’s really hard to know which car is actually faster at the moment. Ferrari still seem to have a small quali advantage (albeit, I personally think that’s as much Charles just being Senna-esque in quali) and for all the above reasons the race pace post upgrades is super unclear.

Fwiw I think Austria, despite the top speed component and prevailing narrative about RB on fast tracks, will play to Ferrari’s strengths in traction - a bit like Canada.

Rb are the ones who have appeared to have better traction based on Miami and Canada but these types of qualitative musings are marginal and really just depend on how the car has been setup on the day.