2022 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team

[pipoloko]

once HAM returned to the track 18 laps were missing
he shaved 17 secs to Sainz and gain a position ( while sainz lost 2)
the average shaved is almost 1 sec per lap
explain that
ham vs sai what you want to say -.3?
4 laps older reds .1?.2?
the difference was the car !!!!
finally someone agrees!!!
do you guys thinks that Binoto and Co dosent know that?
why are we discussing strategy, right or wrong calls?

Because it's the strategy calls that potentially ruined Leclerc's race. It's not about Sainz. Leclerc HAD the pace, he HAD the speed. And it was an obvious strategy blunder to box him early when he was still posting decent times, onto a tyre that no one thought would work. Charles was still doing in the 1.23's on the yellows when they pitted him. The teams that went hards were doing 1.25's, 1.26's... even a couple of 1.27 laps. Verstappen was less than 10s behind. Did they really think Lec was going to hold anyone at bay on the hards? Especially Verstappen or Hamilton? You leave him out there till the Mediums drop into the high 1.24s then jump in for Reds.

That's not the discussion for me I've never said Sainz has to be n°1. I'm just saying the way Ferrari handle the interaction is problematic because Sainz is losing important points too for the WCC (It would have been the case in Silverstone too without the SC).

Possibly, but they can't keep with this "we don't have a #1" driver because in the end, they are BOTH losing points. You cant sacrifice 4 points for your leading driver to get the other an extra 2.


(Edit to include new reply. To avoid 2 consecutive posts)

is not about SAI
SAI was in a similar strategy that LH and he only made P4
assume that it was a mistake LEC on whites (I am not sure) let's give him 2 sets of used reds only option available for him
would him won the race >>> not
would him get P3 >> not sure most probably P4 in stead of SAI
MBs were faster
what is the discussion?, even if ferrari gambled on whites for LEC the result would be almost the same for Ferarri not for Charles agree but
who cares about LEC ? his fans? for sure not Ferrari they sell cars, not heroes (and those that like him please don't forget his mistake in France and just in case I am not saying he is not one of the best, he is)
If ferrari gambled , was looking for some magic solution to a "lack of performance" a clear issue in cold weather and for some reason today is clear that Ferrari destroyed the yellows
in 20 laps in stead of 30 laps or at least is what SAI said.

[johnny comelately]

Re Charles, Ferrari (Binotto) are saying their more compliant suspension which doesnt work the tyres so much gave lower surface temperatures not in the working window and then the knock on effect on car balance.

[johnny comelately]

There is also talk of an illegal throttle on the Ferrari, being FBW any ideas how you would manage to be illegal?

[LM10]

Still shocked at what I saw yesterday.

I’m not concerned about the pace of the car. It should have been a walk in the park if not for the circumstances like going for the totally wrong setup and catastrophic strategy.

What I’m concerned about is the on track procedures, obviously strategy first of all. Last season Ferrari were giving the impression of having made a step forward in terms of strategy. In fact, I can’t remember any big blunders. But this season the decisive difference is that they’re in a title winning position. It’s a new thing and obviously they’re not capable of adapting to it.
Sadly not only that, but too many times they’ve done horrific strategical choices which simply can’t be excused by the argument of them being in a title fight. If every single amateur on here and in front of the TVs is able to tell just from watching the race that it’s the dumbest thing to pit for Hards, it’s done and dusted really. There is no excuse for that. Also for them having reacted to those who had started the race on Softs and consequently pitted earlier for new tyres - why on earth react to that by pitting too, if you’re on Mediums and on a different strategy? Don’t be afraid, stick to it and go longer. Their biggest fear seems to be to lose track position.

Before going into next season Binotto will have to make some critical choices. Either he will need to sack some people in the strategy department or he will need to be 100% sure that such mistakes won’t happen next season again. If it was me, I would go with option number one.

[codetower]

once HAM returned to the track 18 laps were missing
he shaved 17 secs to Sainz and gain a position ( while sainz lost 2)
the average shaved is almost 1 sec per lap
explain that
ham vs sai what you want to say -.3?
4 laps older reds .1?.2?
the difference was the car !!!!
finally someone agrees!!!
do you guys thinks that Binoto and Co dosent know that?
why are we discussing strategy, right or wrong calls?

Because it's the strategy calls that potentially ruined Leclerc's race. It's not about Sainz. Leclerc HAD the pace, he HAD the speed. And it was an obvious strategy blunder to box him early when he was still posting decent times, onto a tyre that no one thought would work. Charles was still doing in the 1.23's on the yellows when they pitted him. The teams that went hards were doing 1.25's, 1.26's... even a couple of 1.27 laps. Verstappen was less than 10s behind. Did they really think Lec was going to hold anyone at bay on the hards? Especially Verstappen or Hamilton? You leave him out there till the Mediums drop into the high 1.24s then jump in for Reds.

That's not the discussion for me I've never said Sainz has to be n°1. I'm just saying the way Ferrari handle the interaction is problematic because Sainz is losing important points too for the WCC (It would have been the case in Silverstone too without the SC).

Possibly, but they can't keep with this "we don't have a #1" driver because in the end, they are BOTH losing points. You cant sacrifice 4 points for your leading driver to get the other an extra 2.


(Edit to include new reply. To avoid 2 consecutive posts)

is not about SAI
SAI was in a similar strategy that LH and he only made P4
assume that it was a mistake LEC on whites (I am not sure) let's give him 2 sets of used reds only option available for him
would him won the race >>> not
would him get P3 >> not sure most probably P4 in stead of SAI
MBs were faster
what is the discussion?, even if ferrari gambled on whites for LEC the result would be almost the same for Ferarri not for Charles agree but
who cares about LEC ? his fans? for sure not Ferrari they sell cars, not heroes (and those that like him please don't forget his mistake in France and just in case I am not saying he is not one of the best, he is)
If ferrari gambled , was looking for some magic solution to a "lack of performance" a clear issue in cold weather and for some reason today is clear that Ferrari destroyed the yellows
in 20 laps in stead of 30 laps or at least is what SAI said.

And Lec said the opposite. His yellows were doing just fine. If they would have extended Lecs yellow stint, and go with the same strategy as Sainz (MMS), he would have probably won, or at worst finished 2nd. A 2-4 is better than a 4-6.

Lec was almost a full second per lap faster on his 2nd stint on the Yellows than Sainz was on his 2nd stint yellows. And this is looking at only Sainz' first 17 laps to keep it comparable to Leclerc since they pitted him after 17 laps.

Hamilton and Russel were faster than Sainz, not Lec.

[chrisc90]

There is also talk of an illegal throttle on the Ferrari, being FBW any ideas how you would manage to be illegal?

Any sources to this or links to rumours?

Im not sure how you can 'cheat' a fly by wire throttle in all honesty. Its a fairly 'basic' system with 2 potentiometers in the pedal which operate a flap on a throttle body. Of course, there is loads you can do with throttle mapping in terms of 10% pedal input gives 10% on the throttle plate, or mapping to say at lower rpms/speeds you get a bit more throttle plate angle. (a bit like road cars). I dont know whether F1 cars use a linear 1:1 ratio on the accelerator and the throttle plate or whether there is any regulation surrounding it.

From being involved in remapping of road cars (mainly VAG stuff) I cant see how you would make any 'gains illegally' by doing anything along those lines. Of course you could make the throttle hold on say 30% when the driver lifts off fully, which would keep things moving pretty well.

Only other option is if you can combine said throttle plate angles with say variable camshafts and fuel in order to keep the turbo spooled up, effectively a bit like a rolling antilag where the combustion cycle takes place later in the revolution of the engine. That would be very simple to implement and would probably produce enough exhaust gases in order to keep turbo shaft speeds high, whilst not giving any meaningful torque output on the engine.

It would be interesting to know how much/fast the turbo shaft speed reduces when the driver comes off the throttle in different corners. I guess even if you can keep it 10-20,000 rpm faster, thats 10-20k rpm less you need to worry about when coming onto the throttle.

[johnny comelately]

There is also talk of an illegal throttle on the Ferrari, being FBW any ideas how you would manage to be illegal?

Any sources to this or links to rumours?

Im not sure how you can 'cheat' a fly by wire throttle in all honesty. Its a fairly 'basic' system with 2 potentiometers in the pedal which operate a flap on a throttle body. Of course, there is loads you can do with throttle mapping in terms of 10% pedal input gives 10% on the throttle plate, or mapping to say at lower rpms/speeds you get a bit more throttle plate angle. (a bit like road cars). I dont know whether F1 cars use a linear 1:1 ratio on the accelerator and the throttle plate or whether there is any regulation surrounding it.

From being involved in remapping of road cars (mainly VAG stuff) I cant see how you would make any 'gains illegally' by doing anything along those lines. Of course you could make the throttle hold on say 30% when the driver lifts off fully, which would keep things moving pretty well.

Only other option is if you can combine said throttle plate angles with say variable camshafts and fuel in order to keep the turbo spooled up, effectively a bit like a rolling antilag where the combustion cycle takes place later in the revolution of the engine. That would be very simple to implement and would probably produce enough exhaust gases in order to keep turbo shaft speeds high, whilst not giving any meaningful torque output on the engine.

It would be interesting to know how much/fast the turbo shaft speed reduces when the driver comes off the throttle in different corners. I guess even if you can keep it 10-20,000 rpm faster, thats 10-20k rpm less you need to worry about when coming onto the throttle.

1. I posted this in the wrong thread and could not delete it, so I doubled up in the car thread
2. very doubtful source but the possibility made me curious - https://www.gpblog.com/en/news/122034/m ... rator.html
3. Turbo spooling is taken care of by the M in the MGUH

[pipoloko]

Because it's the strategy calls that potentially ruined Leclerc's race. It's not about Sainz. Leclerc HAD the pace, he HAD the speed. And it was an obvious strategy blunder to box him early when he was still posting decent times, onto a tyre that no one thought would work. Charles was still doing in the 1.23's on the yellows when they pitted him. The teams that went hards were doing 1.25's, 1.26's... even a couple of 1.27 laps. Verstappen was less than 10s behind. Did they really think Lec was going to hold anyone at bay on the hards? Especially Verstappen or Hamilton? You leave him out there till the Mediums drop into the high 1.24s then jump in for Reds.




Possibly, but they can't keep with this "we don't have a #1" driver because in the end, they are BOTH losing points. You cant sacrifice 4 points for your leading driver to get the other an extra 2.


(Edit to include new reply. To avoid 2 consecutive posts)

is not about SAI
SAI was in a similar strategy that LH and he only made P4
assume that it was a mistake LEC on whites (I am not sure) let's give him 2 sets of used reds only option available for him
would him won the race >>> not
would him get P3 >> not sure most probably P4 in stead of SAI
MBs were faster
what is the discussion?, even if ferrari gambled on whites for LEC the result would be almost the same for Ferarri not for Charles agree but
who cares about LEC ? his fans? for sure not Ferrari they sell cars, not heroes (and those that like him please don't forget his mistake in France and just in case I am not saying he is not one of the best, he is)
If ferrari gambled , was looking for some magic solution to a "lack of performance" a clear issue in cold weather and for some reason today is clear that Ferrari destroyed the yellows
in 20 laps in stead of 30 laps or at least is what SAI said.

And Lec said the opposite. His yellows were doing just fine. If they would have extended Lecs yellow stint, and go with the same strategy as Sainz (MMS), he would have probably won, or at worst finished 2nd. A 2-4 is better than a 4-6.

Lec was almost a full second per lap faster on his 2nd stint on the Yellows than Sainz was on his 2nd stint yellows. And this is looking at only Sainz' first 17 laps to keep it comparable to Leclerc since they pitted him after 17 laps.

Hamilton and Russel were faster than Sainz, not Lec.

not sure what you try to say
HAM was fater than LEC
lec ham
57 lap P61:21.622 P41:21.386

both on reds Ham 2/3 laps older than lec's same lap in same lap 57

[pipoloko]

if these were LEC words (source "the race") I can forecast a short life for him at Ferrari

Charles Leclerc says Ferrari must be “better at putting a weekend together” and needs to take “another step” if it wants to challenge for the Formula 1 world championships after an erroneous strategy at the Hungarian Grand Prix.

Leclerc labelled the second half of the grand prix a “disaster” as his Ferrari team’s decision to fit the hard tyres at his second stop dropped him from victory contention to sixth place. [??????/b]

“I said I wanted to stay on the mediums as long as possible, so yeah we need to understand why we went on the hards because I made it clear that I wanted to keep the medium as long as possible so need to understand why,” Leclerc said after the race.

“A race like this is frustrating, and we need to get better as a whole, it always feels like there’s something going on, whatever it is, reliability, mistakes or whatever, we need to be better at putting a weekend together.

[Andres125sx]

While Ferrari has does a lot of f*** ups, this one is Sainz's problem. He simply didn't show any intent of overtaking Russell. That's the root of all problems to begin with.

Maybe it was because Russell was on softs, and Sainz on mediums

Sainz didn't need to pass Russell on track, he only needed to do a longer stint and pass him on strategy, so taking care of the medium tires was the sensible thing to do, instead of destroy them trying to pass a car with faster tires

But then Ferrari called him to pits on next lap to Russell, ruining Sainz tire advantage and compromising his race.... Even before the 4.7 seconds pitstop, which ruined Sainz race definitely.

Just in case Sainz still had some option, second pitstop was also well over 4 seconds


But let's ignore facts and blame Sainz

So you want everyone to ignore the fact that, Ferrari currently has a car that is miles ahead of Mercedes and it was Russell who needed to baby sit the tyres to get a decent stint? Besides, on a full load of fuel, the Soft is only going to be a couple of tenths faster than Medium on cars of equal performance, but that advantage could last only a handful of laps. If Sainz would have pushed Russell harder, may be his tyres would have been dead faster and then Sainz could have overtaken Russell. Those are facts that you are ignoring or unaware. I understand you are spanish and hence have such adulation for your countryman. Unlike Alonso, Sainz doesn't deserve such unwavering support, not on merit. Lastly, I am not going to compete with you on those emojis.

I can only say one thing... Stop inventing!

Drivers with harder tires do not push drivers with faster tires, that´s not how things work mate, when you have a harder tire you just need to wait, not to push your rival

If you can´t admit something this obvious to keep stuck on your initial opinion instead of admitting Sainz didn´t need to pass Russel on track, I can only say... Stop inventing!

[Vanja #66]

not sure what you try to say
HAM was fater than LEC
lec ham
57 lap P61:21.622 P41:21.386

both on reds Ham 2/3 laps older than lec's same lap in same lap 57

Let's keep things simple. If Leclerc extended his stint 2 for 10 more laps and took softs, he would have had 1 pit stop less, so at least 21s faster race time - not even counting how much faster he would have been on those tyres instead of the hards he took. His gap to Max was 16s, so he would have finished P1 with 5s ahead - at least. Easy victory, 25p in the bag. He would likely have pushed harder in that case on those softs and taken FL point.

[Andres125sx]

Again not true.

2.3
1.9
1.3
1.2
1.3

These were gaps to Russell that Sainz bad before Russel pitted.

1.1
1.1
0.9
0.7
0.6

These were gaps Leclerc had with Sainz before he pitted. Leclerc was gaining more on Sainz, then Sainz has gained on Russell, even though Russell had soft tires that degraded more at that point.

We saw how quickly Leclerc hunted Russell on 4 laps newer mediums, so difference should have been similar in Sainz vs Russell case but Sainz made no impression on him either 1st or 2nd time.

They are trying yo claim that...the reason leclerc was fast was because he was in sainz DRS, credit goes to sainz.

Not at all I'm just saying Charles was marginally faster than Carlos on the medium, but anyway the Merc was pretty fast on the soft.
You are speaking about the 2nd stint but the tyres were the same, and ofc we know Charkes has more aggression in wheel to wheel than Carlos.

All I'm saying is Ferrari should've keep Sainz on the best strategy (longer 1st stint and not covering Russell because he had to stop with tyre deg on the soft), by extenting if he was still a bit slower than Charles they should've inverted position. That's it. By doing this Sainz could've been on the podium to collect precious points for the WCC.

Indeed, but it was not obvious that Lecrerc was faster on first stint, actually he wasn´t at all, he only managed to be on Sainz DRS at the end of the stint. He was faster on next stint, but because he had the tire advantage (5 laps fresher tires) wich is the tire advantage Sainz should have had on Russell. But Ferrari ruined Sainz advantage to promote Lecrerc.

I´m not saying they shouldn´t prioritize Lecrerc, as he was the only one with real options for the title, but people can´t accept this and recognize Ferrari ruined Sainz race to favour Lecrerc, instead they need to claim Sainz was slower, even if he wasn´t in equal conditions (same tire with same laps, wich only happened in first stint)

[basti313]

not sure what you try to say
HAM was fater than LEC
lec ham
57 lap P61:21.622 P41:21.386

both on reds Ham 2/3 laps older than lec's same lap in same lap 57

Let's keep things simple. If Leclerc extended his stint 2 for 10 more laps and took softs, he would have had 1 pit stop less, so at least 21s faster race time - not even counting how much faster he would have been on those tyres instead of the hards he took. His gap to Max was 16s, so he would have finished P1 with 5s ahead - at least. Easy victory, 25p in the bag. He would likely have pushed harder in that case on those softs and taken FL point.

I think this is purely based on Ferrari not looking at others, besides trying to cover Ver. They had their predefined points in the strategy book and did not change them until Lec said the tires are crap and lost over 3 sec on the outlap.
The core issue with what you say is, that in any case Lec would have fallen behind Ver. And the startegy book told Ferrari from the beginning, that track position is king and you can not overtake. This was proven wrong over the full race, but, as said, Ferrari was keeping it strictly to the book. With the undercut from Ver they were in danger to fall behind him within 3 laps. As they had bad stops a little bit of buffer you are at stopping immediately.

Another wrong expectation was that the Softs are only good for 10 laps, the Mediums for 20 laps. This was already proven wrong after lap 15, but Ferrari was keeping this plan and was switching the tires on Lec exactly to this plan.

Sainz was in the end screwed by Mercedes, he was under thread of the undercut from Ham and had to stop....then Merc used Russel, who was put on a 23.0 delta to slow him down. You can nicely see in the data how Russel was just driving to the delta and once it looked like Sainz could come into the 2sec range they tested the speed with two fast laps. Nicely executed by Merc, but this is the point if you have two cars to play.

[timbo]

Let's keep things simple. If Leclerc extended his stint 2 for 10 more laps and took softs, he would have had 1 pit stop less, so at least 21s faster race time - not even counting how much faster he would have been on those tyres instead of the hards he took. His gap to Max was 16s, so he would have finished P1 with 5s ahead - at least. Easy victory, 25p in the bag. He would likely have pushed harder in that case on those softs and taken FL point.

Indeed.
Also, with a looming rain threat a wiser tactic would have been to extend the stint, so if rain came, he could have gone for inters or wets immediately.
It seems they blindly followed pattern that served them well in Austria and also were hell bent on covering Mercs. Both wrong calls.

[codetower]

Maybe it was because Russell was on softs, and Sainz on mediums

Sainz didn't need to pass Russell on track, he only needed to do a longer stint and pass him on strategy, so taking care of the medium tires was the sensible thing to do, instead of destroy them trying to pass a car with faster tires

But then Ferrari called him to pits on next lap to Russell, ruining Sainz tire advantage and compromising his race.... Even before the 4.7 seconds pitstop, which ruined Sainz race definitely.

Just in case Sainz still had some option, second pitstop was also well over 4 seconds


But let's ignore facts and blame Sainz

So you want everyone to ignore the fact that, Ferrari currently has a car that is miles ahead of Mercedes and it was Russell who needed to baby sit the tyres to get a decent stint? Besides, on a full load of fuel, the Soft is only going to be a couple of tenths faster than Medium on cars of equal performance, but that advantage could last only a handful of laps. If Sainz would have pushed Russell harder, may be his tyres would have been dead faster and then Sainz could have overtaken Russell. Those are facts that you are ignoring or unaware. I understand you are spanish and hence have such adulation for your countryman. Unlike Alonso, Sainz doesn't deserve such unwavering support, not on merit. Lastly, I am not going to compete with you on those emojis.

I can only say one thing... Stop inventing!

Drivers with harder tires do not push drivers with faster tires, that´s not how things work mate, when you have a harder tire you just need to wait, not to push your rival

If you can´t admit something this obvious to keep stuck on your initial opinion instead of admitting Sainz didn´t need to pass Russel on track, I can only say... Stop inventing!

If you are faster, or can keep up the pace, yes you do. You get THEM to push to run their tyres and force them into an early pit. The Ferrari had the faster pace to push Russel after about 6-7 laps. What you DON'T want to do is play into THEIR game and let them dictate the tyre strategy. From lap 10 on, Leclerc was running 2,3,4+ tenths faster than RUS (on the "slower" yellow tyre) which probably forced Russel to box.

Indeed, but it was not obvious that Lecrerc was faster on first stint, actually he wasn´t at all, he only managed to be on Sainz DRS at the end of the stint. He was faster on next stint, but because he had the tire advantage (5 laps fresher tires) wich is the tire advantage Sainz should have had on Russell. But Ferrari ruined Sainz advantage to promote Lecrerc.

I´m not saying they shouldn´t prioritize Lecrerc, as he was the only one with real options for the title, but people can´t accept this and recognize Ferrari ruined Sainz race to favour Lecrerc, instead they need to claim Sainz was slower, even if he wasn´t in equal conditions (same tire with same laps, wich only happened in first stint)

OK OK, my mistake. Leclerc was NOT Faster than Sainz on the first stint; Sainz was just slower than LEC. Did it ever occur that someone needs to be faster in order to get into the DRS zone in the first place? Also, is it possible that for the first 7-10 laps Charles, instead of racing each other, was just running the "team" race and letting (waiting) for Carlos to push, and when he realized he wasn't or couldn't he decided to push himself?

And since you're stuck on this SAI vs LEC first stint, Here are the first stint numbers for you:

Carlos ran an average 26.77 during his first stint (yellow, 16 laps not including the pit lap)
Charles ran an average 26.26 on first stint (Yellow 20 Laps... yes, more laps, not including pit lap)

That's a half second "slower" with "fresher" tyres. Charles was faster than Sainz, and faster from Lap 7 on, not just at the "end of the stint". Nothing invented... no magic... no smoke and mirrors.

And if that was favoring Leclerc by putting him on the slower MMH strategy as opposed to the faster MMS, then this is some crazy bizarro world we are living in.