2019 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne, March 15-17

[Just_a_fan]

However, I don't understand why some people seem to desperately try to put him ahead of Vettel already.

Some people simply don't like / rate Vettel very much, I'd guess. They like / rate Leclerc because he isn't Vettel.

"My enemy's enemy is my friend".

[carisi2k]

Leclerc is the future and vettel is the present. Leclerc made mistakes which put him behind and vettel was suffering from something mechanical.

[BwajSF]

Leclerc is the future and vettel is the present. Leclerc made mistakes which put him behind and vettel was suffering from something mechanical.

Engine issues coupled with worn out tyres.... Really really worried for Ferrari this yr.. not the kin of start we wanted.

[carisi2k]

I think a lot of drivers and teams were struggling with tyres and the track at Albert Park. Lets wait to see what happens at Bahrain and China before condemning Ferrari.

[Godius]

source

Williams still hasn't finished :')

[Wynters]

Leclerc pitted way later, got Hards and thus had much better tyres when approaching Vettel. You should know that drivers don't really choose the speed on their own. All information and calls are being given by the team.

I was being lazy. I didn't fancy writing out the name of the individual driver-specific team members and the the overall team strategist every time I referred to actions that impacted either Vettel's or Leclerc's car. Much in the same way that I don't list the chassis numbers when referring to the different cars. Demonstrably it was clear as to what I was referring to but if people want to be pathetically pedantic then I will bear that in mind going forward.

Vettel was on a massive nursing mode as his tyres needed it way too early. His engine also was at a quite low mode almost all the time. Whatever the problems Ferrari had were, it seems to have been a combination of PU and (probably also related to that) setup issues.

So his car was travelling slower than Leclerc's car?

You should also know that they aren't Vettel's tyres or engine, they are Pirelli's and Ferrari's. The driver's don't actually own the hardware they race in.*

Leclerc shows great potential, but he clearly was slower than his teammate in Melbourne, both in qualifying and race.

Definitely slower in Quali (where did I claim he wasn't? Why introduce a strawman into this?), but this repeated banging on about Vettel being faster in the race is demonstrably untrue. Leclerc, due to the different car conditions and strategy (as I have said repeatedly), was undeniably half-a-second a lap faster than Vettel when he caught him and would've easily passed him and gone on to finish the race ahead, due to being on better tyres.

How you (and others) think Vettel was quicker than Leclerc when Leclerc caught him hand over fist and had fresher and harder tyres is mindboggling to me. Speed = Distance / Time, right? Or has Vettel found someway to transcend basic physics?

The cognitive dissonance is right up there with 'We were hit by Ericsson' and 'Maybe he forgot to steer.'

However, I don't understand why some people seem to desperately try to put him ahead of Vettel already.

Christ on a crutch. I've been incredibly clear in saying that Leclerc was faster by circumstance rather than due to driver skill. But. He. Was. Faster.

Perhaps we should write into the FIA and tell them that, sure, Verstappen finished in front of Vettel but he wasn't actually 'faster' so he shouldn't have been on the podium?

Perhaps you can explain how Car A, which completed a legal lap in a shorter period of time than Car B, was actually slower than Car B that lap?

*Hmm, weird. Pointless pedantry seems to add nothing to the dialogue? Who could've guessed?

[Phil]

How you (and others) think Vettel was quicker than Leclerc when Leclerc caught him hand over fist and had fresher and harder tyres is mindboggling to me.

Because we are not looking at only the 2nd stint, we're looking at the big picture; that being that Vettel was comfortably ahead and Ferrari gambled and used Vettel to force Mercedes into an early pit stop, probably because the thinking was that maybe they could jump both with Leclerc or that they could undercut Mercedes if they didn't also pit.

Either way, it compromised both Hamiltons and Vettels race, which is why they were significantly slower than their team-mates in that second stint. The question then is, should Vettel pay the price for his teams strategy gamble to his team-mate who only got into contention for that 4th place because of it? Had both been on identical strategies, Leclerc wouldn't have had the pace to threaten Vettel.

Now I'm all in the Leclerc camp and unfortunately, it does seem that Ferrari are already protecting Vettel somewhat (a logical move, given they feel that across the season Vettel will be better), but if Leclerc doesn't want that to happen; he has to show on Saturdays that he is the quicker driver.

[TAG]

How you (and others) think Vettel was quicker than Leclerc when Leclerc caught him hand over fist and had fresher and harder tyres is mindboggling to me.

Because we are not looking at only the 2nd stint, we're looking at the big picture; that being that Vettel was comfortably ahead and Ferrari gambled and used Vettel to force Mercedes into an early pit stop, probably because the thinking was that maybe they could jump both with Leclerc or that they could undercut Mercedes if they didn't also pit.

Vettel himself has said in post race interviews that once he switched to the mediums the pace went away from the car. Not sure what that means to people whose minds are made up but back in the real world it says that for the majority of his race, he struggled for pace.

EDIT: in the same way that Bottas was faster than his teammate.

[Mandrake]

Leclerc shows great potential, but he clearly was slower than his teammate in Melbourne, both in qualifying and race.

Definitely slower in Quali (where did I claim he wasn't? Why introduce a strawman into this?), but this repeated banging on about Vettel being faster in the race is demonstrably untrue. Leclerc, due to the different car conditions and strategy (as I have said repeatedly), was undeniably half-a-second a lap faster than Vettel when he caught him and would've easily passed him and gone on to finish the race ahead, due to being on better tyres.

How you (and others) think Vettel was quicker than Leclerc when Leclerc caught him hand over fist and had fresher and harder tyres is mindboggling to me. Speed = Distance / Time, right? Or has Vettel found someway to transcend basic physics?

Your assumption is that Vettel pitted early because he used up his tires. In fact he did so to undercut Hamilton. We will never know how long he could have gone this pace on those tires. Given how long others were able to go on the first set of tires we should assume for now that Vettel would have been able to do roughly the same.

So the gap to LeClerc would have become bigger and the tire advantage he had in later stages would not have been there.

A lot of ifs and woulds, but we will never know. Only fact is that the Medium tires did not work on Vettels car while LeClerc had a lot newer tires when he caught Vettel on his compromised strategy.

[GPR-A duplicate2]

"We have too little downforce, but that's born of the philosophy of the last five years, where we constantly had to compensate for lack of performance. We have always looked at the straights as little air resistance as possible. That's why we did not have any big wings in Melbourne. They do not exist in our imagination. "
"We try to solve this as soon as possible. As fast as we bring it through CFD development and production. "

Red Bull estimates that 10 rather than 20 hp missing on Mercedes. This gap should be closed as soon as possible.

[Jambier]

"We have too little downforce, but that's born of the philosophy of the last five years, where we constantly had to compensate for lack of performance. We have always looked at the straights as little air resistance as possible. That's why we did not have any big wings in Melbourne. They do not exist in our imagination. "
"We try to solve this as soon as possible. As fast as we bring it through CFD development and production. "

Red Bull estimates that 10 rather than 20 hp missing on Mercedes. This gap should be closed as soon as possible.

That's why they win Monaco, or were quick on tracks like Singapore, Hungary
This good old Marko, still telling stories and lies.

But I understand that it is difficult to find excuses when you say " We have the best chassis ever, GPS and figures don't lie"

In 2018 it brings some humility to McLaren, realizing their chassis was just crap
In 2019 maybe RB will learn that their chassis is not the best...

[foxmulder_ms]

Yeah, that is why Redbull sits higher at the back than my road car. Hand stand redbull.. lol.

[NathanOlder]

How you (and others) think Vettel was quicker than Leclerc when Leclerc caught him hand over fist and had fresher and harder tyres is mindboggling to me.

Because we are not looking at only the 2nd stint, we're looking at the big picture; that being that Vettel was comfortably ahead and Ferrari gambled and used Vettel to force Mercedes into an early pit stop, probably because the thinking was that maybe they could jump both with Leclerc or that they could undercut Mercedes if they didn't also pit.

Either way, it compromised both Hamiltons and Vettels race, which is why they were significantly slower than their team-mates in that second stint. The question then is, should Vettel pay the price for his teams strategy gamble to his team-mate who only got into contention for that 4th place because of it? Had both been on identical strategies, Leclerc wouldn't have had the pace to threaten Vettel.

Now I'm all in the Leclerc camp and unfortunately, it does seem that Ferrari are already protecting Vettel somewhat (a logical move, given they feel that across the season Vettel will be better), but if Leclerc doesn't want that to happen; he has to show on Saturdays that he is the quicker driver.

So what IF Leclerc was clearly slower in the first stint because he knew he was going long and looking after his tyres ?

[Phil]

Then i’d find it quite weird that he went off into T1.

[GrandAxe]

Leclerc pitted way later, got Hards and thus had much better tyres when approaching Vettel. You should know that drivers don't really choose the speed on their own. All information and calls are being given by the team.

I was being lazy. I didn't fancy writing out the name of the individual driver-specific team members and the the overall team strategist every time I referred to actions that impacted either Vettel's or Leclerc's car. Much in the same way that I don't list the chassis numbers when referring to the different cars. Demonstrably it was clear as to what I was referring to but if people want to be pathetically pedantic then I will bear that in mind going forward.

Vettel was on a massive nursing mode as his tyres needed it way too early. His engine also was at a quite low mode almost all the time. Whatever the problems Ferrari had were, it seems to have been a combination of PU and (probably also related to that) setup issues.

So his car was travelling slower than Leclerc's car?

You should also know that they aren't Vettel's tyres or engine, they are Pirelli's and Ferrari's. The driver's don't actually own the hardware they race in.*

Leclerc shows great potential, but he clearly was slower than his teammate in Melbourne, both in qualifying and race.

Definitely slower in Quali (where did I claim he wasn't? Why introduce a strawman into this?), but this repeated banging on about Vettel being faster in the race is demonstrably untrue. Leclerc, due to the different car conditions and strategy (as I have said repeatedly), was undeniably half-a-second a lap faster than Vettel when he caught him and would've easily passed him and gone on to finish the race ahead, due to being on better tyres.

How you (and others) think Vettel was quicker than Leclerc when Leclerc caught him hand over fist and had fresher and harder tyres is mindboggling to me. Speed = Distance / Time, right? Or has Vettel found someway to transcend basic physics?

The cognitive dissonance is right up there with 'We were hit by Ericsson' and 'Maybe he forgot to steer.'

However, I don't understand why some people seem to desperately try to put him ahead of Vettel already.

Christ on a crutch. I've been incredibly clear in saying that Leclerc was faster by circumstance rather than due to driver skill. But. He. Was. Faster.

Perhaps we should write into the FIA and tell them that, sure, Verstappen finished in front of Vettel but he wasn't actually 'faster' so he shouldn't have been on the podium?

Perhaps you can explain how Car A, which completed a legal lap in a shorter period of time than Car B, was actually slower than Car B that lap?

*Hmm, weird. Pointless pedantry seems to add nothing to the dialogue? Who could've guessed?

Drivers do not choose strategy. Period. There's a whole team of boffins whose job is to analyse data and permute strategy.
When your premise is crap, your argument is also crap.