2023 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team

[Vanja #66]

It's all well and good to take the Friday data you have into account, but it's not like they were defending a double podium and went conservative to protect from undercut. It was clear for a while their strategy decision making process is way too reliant on data and not on the "here and now" of the track. Hope this embarrassment prompts a big rethink of their algorithm.

[basti313]

It's all well and good to take the Friday data you have into account, but it's not like they were defending a double podium and went conservative to protect from undercut. It was clear for a while their strategy decision making process is way too reliant on data and not on the "here and now" of the track. Hope this embarrassment prompts a big rethink of their algorithm.

Well, I have a feeling that I remember this post...did you copy and paste it from another race?

As you say, it just looks like they have a plan and stick to it. I think they were just afraid of Russel doing an undercut...but then they just need to push on the tire instead of just going into the pits. There was not even a push on the inlap.
And that a switch to hards is not an undercut thread was quite obvious from Tsunoda. No pace at all on the new hards...they are not at all looking at what is happening around them on track.

[bluechris]

I think they simply didnt anticipated that the tyres will be fine. They didnt countermeasure the lower temperatures and they didnt asked the drivers for feedback (or they asked them but they didnt want the responsibility? i dont know).
The Russel case with so many laps with softs in a MB is totally irellevant for Ferrari because they know that MB is very kind with the tyres always.
So imo we have the above plus the unlucky SC timming and thats it. We must not crucified them i think....

[Dr. Acula]

It's all well and good to take the Friday data you have into account, but it's not like they were defending a double podium and went conservative to protect from undercut. It was clear for a while their strategy decision making process is way too reliant on data and not on the "here and now" of the track. Hope this embarrassment prompts a big rethink of their algorithm.

I would rather say, they need a big rethink about the people in their strategy department. Bad strategy calls is something Ferrari battles with for years now.
It isn't everytime as obvious as it was yesterday though. For instance in Austria last year, yes they won, but why on earth they didn't stretch one stint out, so Leclerc wouldn't have to overtake Verstappen on the track again and again? You lose time doing that and it's an unnessary risk. Austria this year, they ask Leclerc about his opinion about a 3 stopper...really?
Why was there even a discussion between Sainz and the pitwall on what to do during the SC Yesterday? The scenario of a SC should be pre calculated, there shouldn't be any discussion. You can go back to the times Vettel raced for Ferrari and will find example after example of bodged strategy calls. I don't think it's just a badly thought out algorithm. It goes on way to long for that.

[Vanja #66]

Well, I have a feeling that I remember this post...did you copy and paste it from another race?

I know, right...

I would rather say, they need a big rethink about the people in their strategy department. Bad strategy calls is something Ferrari battles with for years now.
It isn't everytime as obvious as it was yesterday though. For instance in Austria last year, yes they won, but why on earth they didn't stretch one stint out, so Leclerc wouldn't have to overtake Verstappen on the track again and again? You lose time doing that and it's an unnessary risk. Austria this year, they ask Leclerc about his opinion about a 3 stopper...really?
Why was there even a discussion between Sainz and the pitwall on what to do during the SC Yesterday? The scenario of a SC should be pre calculated, there shouldn't be any discussion. You can go back to the times Vettel raced for Ferrari and will find example after example of bodged strategy calls. I don't think it's just a badly thought out algorithm. It goes on way to long for that.

Last year in Austria they did stretch the first stint on Mediums, but they cut shorter the second stint on Hards since Max was slightly faster on new set and overall degradation seemed to be very high. It was the right call, with each new set Leclerc was a lot faster than Max. After Sainz' DNF he had to slow down due to some potential issue, so Max was catching up slightly.

Pitting Leclerc yesterday from Hards under VSC was a big mistake, he lost track positions and was never going to get them back realistically. No idea why they even considered that for Sainz, there was always gonna be a DRS train to help protect against attacks from behind. His mistake was of his own making (he left the door open for Perez and everything after that was a landslide), but it was the right call to keep him out.

I think they simply didnt anticipated that the tyres will be fine. They didnt countermeasure the lower temperatures and they didnt asked the drivers for feedback (or they asked them but they didnt want the responsibility? i dont know).
The Russel case with so many laps with softs in a MB is totally irellevant for Ferrari because they know that MB is very kind with the tyres always.
So imo we have the above plus the unlucky SC timming and thats it. We must not crucified them i think....

If no one is pitting and your preferred tyre choice for the following stint is not working well (Tsunoda as a clear example) you extend. They went for a slower pace to be able to extend and then they pit first well before there was any need, that was a clear mistake to everyone and it's good they are aware they made mistakes. Last year there were so many bs strategy excuses from Binotto, it was sickening and unsurprisingly they didn't make any improvements and still made mistakes at the end of the season as well.

[basti313]

So imo we have the above plus the unlucky SC timming and thats it. We must not crucified them i think....

Hmmm....ok, for Leclerc the discussion is to some degree possible. BUT, if we look at the race situation before the SC...Lec was doing his 33.5 laps, catching the Russel and Albon train, while Per was closing in at 31.5 and Ham was doing 33.0. Lec just had 3-4sec against Hamilton if Ham would have stopped at racing speed not even counting the time loss behind Albon. So the position he would have ended at best with this early stop is P8. Hard not to criticise or point at the SC...

For Sainz: I think it was stupid not to pit under the full SC. They would have lost two positions. That was also clear if they stick on the old hards.

[Vanja #66]

This delusional and toxic attitude will soon be felt on track, upcoming collision on track seems to be inevitable... God forbid he focuses on his own mistakes in the races that keep losing him and the team valuable points.

https://www-formulapassion-it.translate ... r_pto=wapp

More than this episode, however, the words spoken by Sainz were other and destined to cause discussion. In fact, the #55 went back to talking about his internal duel with Charles Leclerc , once again giving the impression that he doesn't like the circumstances in which the Monegasque ends the race in front of him at all. Speaking to the Spanish colleagues of DAZN, in fact, the Spanish son of a family was keen to remark that “ without the Safety Car I could have overtaken Charles Leclerc , because I was much faster. But that's the way things are ."

Sainz's observation is relevant because it fits into the wake of the post Austrian GP controversy - when the Spaniard asked to be able to duel freely with the #16, instead receiving a clear "no" from the pit wall - and above all it follows the stinging exchange of views over the radio in Saturday's qualifying . So it seems yet another confirmation of how – at least on the part of the Spaniard – the top priority right now is to win the internal duel in the Cavallino box.

[chrisc90]

Did Ferrari do the tyre test before these new blend of tyres was run?

[Andres125sx]

This delusional and toxic attitude will soon be felt on track, upcoming collision on track seems to be inevitable...

An F1 driver trying to beat his teammate? Holly Lord, he should be banned from F1 permanently


Luckily 99% of F1 drivers, teams, and even fans, understand the teammate is the first and even main rival, as he´s the only F1 driver with same car, so comparisons are inevitable. Any F1 driver perfomance will be rated based on his intra-team battle first

That obviously does not mean they should fight hard as a collision between teammates is the worst thing any F1 driver can do, but that´s not been the case in Ferrari (unlike other teams), Sainz has been extremelly compliant of any TO, and has never fight Leclerc hard, so no reason to insinuate an upcoming collision on track is coming, not at all.

F1 drivers are supposed to race hard, respect the teammate, and obey TOs. Sainz is doing all of that, so no reason for your continuous defamations about Sainz, he´s a true teamplayer even if he tries to beat Leclerc, as any other F1 driver will do, and get´s angry when his own team do not allow him to race

[Andres125sx]

What is deceiving about Ferrar is it´s becoming a pattern that they start the race with harder compounds than some rivals, but do first pitstop before those rivals, so they do not take advantage of the harder compound. Here in Silverstone they repeated this mistake with Leclerc.

Ok, maybe they were not sure about tire wear, but after pitting Leclerc and noticing medium tires were almost perfect (said by theirselves)... how on earth someone asked Sainz to pit on lap 27 from 52 to switch from mediums to hards when more than half the race was done with medium tires.

Rusell doing also more than half the race with soft tires was not an evidence of the softs being the better tire for last stint? Ok different cars, but if Rusell did more than half the race, at first half of the race (full tanks), with a greener track, and constantly on dirty air, any other team will do some fewer laps with lighter tanks and more rubbered track, period.


Sincerely, the only reason to pit Sainz on lap 27/52 for a switch from medium to hards, apart from utter incompetence, is they noticed they messed it up with Leclerc, and repeated same mistake with Sainz, consciously, to avoid Sainz beating Leclerc. If someone have some other theory please I´ll be glad to hear it, because Ferrari favouring the driver with less points in the table is becoming a norm. We all know Leclerc is Ferrari golden boy, but he should prove it on track, if he really is that good he does not need this preferential treatment and favouritism, neither Sainz deserves his own team sabotaging him

[Sevach]

It's all well and good to take the Friday data you have into account, but it's not like they were defending a double podium and went conservative to protect from undercut. It was clear for a while their strategy decision making process is way too reliant on data and not on the "here and now" of the track. Hope this embarrassment prompts a big rethink of their algorithm.

Ferrari's inability to call an audible is what really hurts them, too painful to see.
They also totally disregard driver's feel, Leclerc calling for softs and getting hards in Barcelona comes to mind.

This over dependence on (often flawed) data, is why they so often look stupid.

What is deceiving about Ferrar is it´s becoming a pattern that they start the race with harder compounds than some rivals, but do first pitstop before those rivals, so they do not take advantage of the harder compound. Here in Silverstone they repeated this mistake with Leclerc.

Ok, maybe they were not sure about tire wear, but after pitting Leclerc and noticing medium tires were almost perfect (said by theirselves)... how on earth someone asked Sainz to pit on lap 27 from 52 to switch from mediums to hards when more than half the race was done with medium tires.

Rusell doing also more than half the race with soft tires was not an evidence of the softs being the better tire for last stint? Ok different cars, but if Rusell did more than half the race, at first half of the race (full tanks), with a greener track, and constantly on dirty air, any other team will do some fewer laps with lighter tanks and more rubbered track, period.


Sincerely, the only reason to pit Sainz on lap 27/52 for a switch from medium to hards, apart from utter incompetence, is they noticed they messed it up with Leclerc, and repeated same mistake with Sainz, consciously, to avoid Sainz beating Leclerc. If someone have some other theory please I´ll be glad to hear it, because Ferrari favouring the driver with less points in the table is becoming a norm. We all know Leclerc is Ferrari golden boy, but he should prove it on track, if he really is that good he does not need this preferential treatment and favouritism, neither Sainz deserves his own team sabotaging him

Absolutely, even without the SC Sainz would be toast vs Hamilton with older hard tires vs Hamilton on softs (regardless of SC that's what Mercedes was going to do).

[codetower]

Did Ferrari do the tyre test before these new blend of tyres was run?

Yes they did, which makes this all the more frustrating. Ferrari's strategy team is trying to "outsmart" the other teams but they just aren't very good. Seems they were anticipating RUS to pit so they tried to cover the undercut. Why when they were on a harder tyre, and Russel wasn't losing much time and didn't look like he was coming in any time soon... who knows.

This delusional and toxic attitude will soon be felt on track, upcoming collision on track seems to be inevitable... God forbid he focuses on his own mistakes in the races that keep losing him and the team valuable points.

...

This is the attitude of a #2 driver... #1 wants to beat everyone on the grid, #2 wants to beat his teammate.

[Xyz22]

You saw that during lap 5 Leclerc almost lost the car in turn 3?

Pushing with the SF 23, especially in the first few laps, looks super dangerous.

[JPower]

This delusional and toxic attitude will soon be felt on track, upcoming collision on track seems to be inevitable...

An F1 driver trying to beat his teammate? Holly Lord, he should be banned from F1 permanently


Luckily 99% of F1 drivers, teams, and even fans, understand the teammate is the first and even main rival, as he´s the only F1 driver with same car, so comparisons are inevitable. Any F1 driver perfomance will be rated based on his intra-team battle first

That obviously does not mean they should fight hard as a collision between teammates is the worst thing any F1 driver can do, but that´s not been the case in Ferrari (unlike other teams), Sainz has been extremelly compliant of any TO, and has never fight Leclerc hard, so no reason to insinuate an upcoming collision on track is coming, not at all.

F1 drivers are supposed to race hard, respect the teammate, and obey TOs. Sainz is doing all of that, so no reason for your continuous defamations about Sainz, he´s a true teamplayer even if he tries to beat Leclerc, as any other F1 driver will do, and get´s angry when his own team do not allow him to race

Agreed. As was stated from the outset, Sainz did not sign to be a pushover. He should be pushing his teammate but many in this thread seem to much rather a Verstappen/Perez - Alonso/Stroll type performance gap, which considering the results of the past 55 races they've completed as teammates, we know just isn't going to happen.

[Vanja #66]

Ferrari's inability to call an audible is what really hurts them, too painful to see.
They also totally disregard driver's feel, Leclerc calling for softs and getting hards in Barcelona comes to mind.

This over dependence on (often flawed) data, is why they so often look stupid.

Indeed

You saw that during lap 5 Leclerc almost lost the car in turn 3?

Pushing with the SF 23, especially in the first few laps, looks super dangerous.

Let's not overly dramatise, loose rear end in slow speed corners is common at the start of the race.

Sincerely, the only reason to pit Sainz on lap 27/52 for a switch from medium to hards, apart from utter incompetence, is they noticed they messed it up with Leclerc, and repeated same mistake with Sainz, consciously, to avoid Sainz beating Leclerc.

What a load of nonsense, he had two laps that showed drop off and they pulled him in. Leclerc was faster than him in any case, even if only slightly, so the gap would have only gotten bigger. He got better track position than Leclerc after SC and should have had 6 points yesterday, not 1. He needs to stop making mistakes during races, he needs to stop making excuses and delusional what-ifs in his head, he's got only himself to blame for 10th place yesterday. With his luck, Leclerc would have won the title last year.