I didn't say anywhere that Ferrari showed their hand. By pushing it too far I was referring to the luck argument.LM10 wrote: ↑27 Jul 2019, 16:12I’m sure Leclerc would easily have been in a position to beat Hamilton’s time. I don’t know how you know that Ferrari pushed it too far or even showed their hands before Q3? Leclerc did a 1:12.2 in Q1 already.Sierra117 wrote: ↑27 Jul 2019, 16:05Sure, except in this case it's pushing it too far. This is Ferrari's problem. They let themselves down. Saying Lec would have beaten Hamilton had it not been for whatever issue there was, is conjecture because Hamilton just posted a monster time himself. I certainly wasn't expecting him to hit that, maybe others did.
It's a perspective, yes, but one based on a big if. Facts are that Ferrari's reliability came up, which is a mechanical, mathematical issue (not external like rain, meteor etc.).
Trust me I didn't want to see Lec or Vet out. But that's just how it is.
If you hung around for the post-quali stuff, interviews and discussions, then what Karun said nailed it. You can only blame luck so far. There is some, but at the end it's still a mechanical issue that can be improved upon (and they hopefully will).
Leclerc and Hamilton would have been close. But I never make these arguments that one would have beaten the other because they are silly and pointless.