Grand Prix 2019 Russian Grand Prix Practice, Qualifying & Race Discussion

Onwards to Sochi in one of those frustrating season where we do have three teams in the mix for wins but somehow we have absolutely no title fight kicking off whatsoever. Hamilton has not even had to do his usual post summer blitz to get his massive title lead but has merely gone into Alain Prost mode where he just picks up podiums and consistant results whilst the others go up and down. His nearest rival is his own team mate and he is being anchored down by his own team from challenging Lewis because they are scared of their drivers getting in each others way and giving wins away to Red Bull and Ferrari. So Lewis is laughing and two and half race wins in front in the championship.

So no title fight but we are getting good racing for once. If Ferrari had not messed up so badly with set up and strategy at the begining of the season then it's clear they would have been in contention with Merc, certainly with LeClerc anyways. After Charlie boy was politically swindled out of his third win in a row last time out I'm fully expecting him to drive angry in Russia, which was something he did often in his GP3 and F3 days. It is impressively fast but often ends with a smash. His illustrious team mate has been a shadow of his former self all year but suddenly turned up when he hasn't all year at Singapore. If we ignore the strategy swindle you have to say Vettel had an impressive weekend and drove beautifully. The worrying thing for him was though that even on form he only beat his young team mate via strategy rather than pace. It's possible the win might inspire a revival though. I genuinely hope so as would love to see an on form Vettel mixing it with Hamilton, LeClerc and Verstappen.

Speaking of Max I'm giving his own paragraph to officially doth my cap to him. All year he has been consistently fast, he's had race craft, he's had guile and he has basically looked like the complete racing driver. This is something i've never seen before and often wondered if I would see. Don't get me wrong I always knew he was a fantastic driver on his day but now I see he can do it over a season. Respects to you sir.

Away from the main contenders I'm paying close attention to some of the midfield drivers at the moment as there is a change in the wind. The much maligned Antonio Giovanazzi has found a lot of pace since the summer break. Whilst he has a tendency to get into an accident and not get the results from it the old adage is that it's better to have a fast driver that crashes than a slow driver who plays it safe. Maybe it's time we reassessed him. Similarly we might need to have a look at Piere Gasly too. Before the season started the media decided the story was that Gasly was under pressure and might be dropped. Low and behold it happened! However he is now at Torro Rosso and has had some quality drives (Singapore was probably his best drive in F1) whilst his replacement at Red Bull Albon has not really got much better result than Piere did. Maybe Gasly is going to show he is a capable driver just that most people going head to head with Max Verstappen are going to look ordinary.

So that's the runners and riders but what of Sochi? Well unfortunately it's a pretty dull track with one really good corner. I think last year it may have had no overtakes at all. However it's very harsh to blame the circuit because some of the best GP2 and GP3 races I have ever seen have been held he where the cars were three wide going through turn 3 on nearly every lap. So will the racing improve with the front teams now closer? Maybe. Unfortunately we won't have the Singapore effect where the middle teams are brought close enough to the action to influence it but we may get a few fiesty moves.

Who is going to win? Well I'll let you guys debate that but how about this? Have the rubles been put down by the great Bear hunter? Will we suddenly see the track clear and a certain Dani Kvyat come to the front to complete one of greatest F1 comebacks of all time? I'd love to see that race so let's hope so!

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

It is my impression that Leclerc had extra speed and was just bidding his time following Vettel waiting for the exchange. Hard to say.

...

If Leclerc was faster than Vettel, then given clean air from lap 7 and on, I think he would have been able to stretch out his lead, which would have given him the margin he needed. I gather that was the plan and the "thinking," but of course, it was never tested.

If Leclerc was faster than Vettel he would have least kept close to him, sadly that didn't happen despite the fact that Leclerc pushed so hard that he had to pit when he did because he had destroyed his rear tyres (at that stage Vettel's tyres were still ok, to me that means that as it has been the case before during the season Vettel is at the moment better in combining a fast race pace with looking after the car).

Leclerc is usually faster than him in qualy but over a race, if Vettel has a car that suits him, Vettel looks faster and more consistent than Leclerc.

I'm not saying that Vettel is perfect, far from it, I just can't quite understand why people here (because I looked at the press and despite the fact that at least in the Italian press Vettel has been trashed quite badly of recent the consensus was that Vettel was fastest and that Ferrari should have told Leclerc to keep his mouth shut) seem to criticise Vettel using arguments that IMHO don't stack up whereas no one seems to criticize him for what to me looks like his main weakness (I'm not going to say which one I'm referring to but I think that you could guess)

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

Finally: no one has anything positive to say about Hamilton?

I'm shocked, he was clearly the fastest, he kept close to Leclerc despite being on the slower tyres (something that seems to me everybody is overlooking), he was the obviuos favourite to win the race and only Ferrari's strategies could have stopped him. Luckily for him Ferrari's pit wall forgot how they managed to beat him at Spa

 

[F1Brits_90]

If Leclerc was faster than Vettel he would have least kept close to him, sadly that didn't happen despite the fact that Leclerc pushed so hard that he had to pit when he did because he had destroyed his rear tyres (at that stage Vettel's tyres were still ok, to me that means that as it has been the case before during the season Vettel is at the moment better in combining a fast race pace with looking after the car).

Leclerc is usually faster than him in qualy but over a race, if Vettel has a car that suits him, Vettel looks faster and more consistent than Leclerc.

I'm not saying that Vettel is perfect, far from it, I just can't quite understand why people here (because I looked at the press and despite the fact that at least in the Italian press Vettel has been trashed quite badly of recent the consensus was that Vettel was fastest and that Ferrari should have told Leclerc to keep his mouth shut) seem to criticise Vettel using arguments that IMHO don't stack up whereas no one seems to criticize him for what to me looks like his main weakness (I'm not going to say which one I'm referring to but I think that you could guess)

as i was saying this is a ferrari fault. ferrari were massively naive. as to believe a word that vettel say in racing situation after multi 21. more fool the management. because those fastest laps every lap werent coincidental. & in a way as much as you should follow the team rules but they should let them race & remember there are 18 other drivers in this. just let the drivers drive

on hamilton what do you say we had conversation post qualifying how great the lap was. on par or better than schumacher & how he's basically the 6 time world champion

 

[Izumi]

Vettel was always supportive oif Charles did a better job. Not today though. I do not know of any top rated driver who is willing to play a second fiddle.

Leclerc and Vettel had an agreement also at Monza but I didn't see anyone particularly worried for the ehics of the sport when one broke it. that's the nature of F1, the drivers are there for themselves

I also think that their agreement was on not giving a tow to Hamilton, the problem with yesterday's race was that since Vettel jumped Hamilton off the line there was no way for Leclerc to give a tow to Hamilton, Vettel was between the two.

Leclerc behaved professionally at the start ie. he didn't close the door to his team mate, that was good.

Expecting that Vettel was going to let him through despite the fact that he was slower (and Leclerc wasn't slower because he was waiting for Vettel to return the favour, he didn't have Vettel's pace, Leclerc pushed as hard as he could and in fact when he pitted his rear tyres were completely shot) is naive, especially since it would be interesting to know if the "agreement" containted any wording to the effect of "if the conditions allow it", which from what I have seen in the papers today seem to be the case. Leclerc didn't manage to build a gap to Hamilton and had Vettel lifted to let Leclerc through he would have likely lost 2nd to Hamilton (who IMHO in race trim was the fastest of them all yesterday).

I also think that you don't understand who drivers work: no self respecting driver would have given up the lead to his team mate after his team mate had taken advantage of him and broke their agreement (I'm referring to Monza). Now they are even.

BUT that is not all: both Vettel and Leclerc work for Ferrari, the say goes that Ferrari is bigger than his drivers, yesterday Ferrari had one and only chance of winning: doing what they did at Spa. All they could do to try and win the race was letting both drivers out a bit longer hoping that Leclerc could slow down Hamilton. they did that at Spa and won the race. Yesterday the trew the race away.

Ferrari's mistake in handling their drivers IMHO is a much bigger problem than what happened between their drivers

Excellent expert summary, as usual, Publius. Fair and balanced. I want only add, that some people still talking about incident with Webber long time ago, despite Horner's later admission about it, that resistance (revenge) from Vettel was nothing more but payback for Webber's indiscretion in earlier race, despite pre-race agreement they allegedly had. This incident I guess will be the same, and people for rest of Seb's life now will be with straight face talking one sided story, and no one will be convinced otherwise. I must also admit that, as you, I think Ferrari's handling of strategies and drivers seems questionable, to say at least. Vettel's race engineer should be probably replaced with someone more apt at his job. Lastly, what's with the slow pit stops for Vettel in contrast what is Leclerc having?

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

an intersting interview by Binotto where he explains that the agreement was that if possible Leclerc would give a tow to Vettel to help him overtake Hamilton.

Binotto says "we had asked Charles to give a tow to Seb because it was the best chance of being ahead on lap 1, but it was a "natural" tow because Seb had already overtaken Hamilton and all he could do was to take Charles' tow, but maybe we had to be clearer before the race".

The agreement that is so upsetting some was to pass Hamilton, once Vettel passed Hamilton on his own merit the agreement was gone, vanished, irrelevant since it never came into play.

That doesn't mean that Leclerc didn't deserve to be praised for not slamming the door on his team mate down to turn 2 but that is a totally different matter, Leclerc wasn't instrumental in Vettel being able to overtake Hamilton.

For the argument's sake I'd also love to understand why, if the ethics of the sport are so important to some who are turned blind by fury for the (supposed) breach of an agreement between two team mates, I can't see any message on what happened only a few weeks ago between these two... I'm sure that it's not double standards but I'd love if someone could elaborate on that

 

[Izumi]

an intersting interview by Binotto where he explains that the agreement was that if possible Leclerc would give a tow to Vettel to help him overtake Hamilton.

Binotto says "we had asked Charles to give a tow to Seb because it was the best chance of being ahead on lap 1, but it was a "natural" tow because Seb had already overtaken Hamilton and all he could do was to take Charles' tow, but maybe we had to be clearer before the race".

The agreement that is so upsetting some was to pass Hamilton, once Vettel passed Hamilton on his own merit the agreement was gone, vanished, irrelevant since it never came into play.

That doesn't mean that Leclerc didn't deserve to be praised for not slamming the door on his team mate down to turn 2 but that is a totally different matter, Leclerc wasn't instrumental in Vettel being able to overtake Hamilton.

For the argument's sake I'd also love to understand why, if the ethics of the sport are so important to some who are turned blind by fury for the (supposed) breach of an agreement between two team mates, I can't see any message on what happened only a few weeks ago between these two... I'm sure that it's not double standards but I'd love if someone could elaborate on that

In that link, Binotto looks dejected. To some extend, he is not a first TP who has problem with managing two Alpha drivers. From any team on the grid today, Ferrari has no doubt most competitive lineup.
Also was not much talk about car setup. It seems, that Vettel had it setup for the race, and it paid off (to displeasure to some).

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

I have found a very intersting article by Alberto Antonini, ex Ferrari PR, pity it's only in Italian, if you guys have a chance to trasnlate it I think that it's worth the effort.

Antonini explains Vettel's boost failure and why it happened after the pit stop.

He then wonders why if Ferrari wants Leclerc to be their #1 they didn't ask Vettel to swap position in Singapore.

He also talks about Leclerc's manager, Todt jnr, and how tough he is (Vettel, to my knowledge, looks after his interests on his own, and that doesn't seem to help him much, IMHO another unreasonable choice by Vettel)

it's a very intersting article, I only briefly summed up its contents, if you have a chance to read I strongly suggest that you do

 

[Izumi]

"...the litmus test will be in Japan". Google is you friend. I had it translated. Good (with spec of humorous) reading.
Thanks Publius.

 

[Bernoulli]

Binotto's problem is that he wants to please both drivers. It isn't possible. Had it not been for Vettel's MGU-K failure and the SC, I think Hamilton would have overtaken Vettel and maybe even Leclerc. It would have made Ferrari look like utter fools because despite being a lot faster (4 sec gap), they let Vettel hang out to dry on fading softs only to let Leclerc pass him. In which case Vettel should have just slotted in behind Hamilton during the start phase and held his position.

Some post are so absurd here that I might as well say that Leclerc might want to think about where he qualifies on pole next time, had he started 3rd, he might have left T1 as the leader.

 

[Bernoulli]

I have found a very intersting article by Alberto Antonini, ex Ferrari PR, pity it's only in Italian, if you guys have a chance to trasnlate it I think that it's worth the effort.

Just about my level of Italian but I think I need to work on it again.

 

[F1Brits_90]

Izumi as much as you like to whitewash history you cant, multi 21 happened & is 1 of the most controversial moments in recent F1. & Im sorry vettel doesn't come across like a gentlemen In it but that's his fault. you cant argue with video evidence

 

[Bernoulli]

Izumi as much as you like to whitewash history you cant, multi 21 happened & is 1 of the most controversial moments in recent F1. & Im sorry vettel doesn't come across like a gentlemen In it but that's his fault. you cant argue with video evidence

I think he means it was revenge for Brazil 2012, when Webber blocked him going into T1 despite having an agreement that he should let Vettel pass 'for the championship'. It nearly cost him his race back then.
I don't really car about drivers ignoring team orders at the end of the day they're there to be judged by their results which justify their position within a team. They need to stand up for themselves because the teams don't really care about them.

Welcome to the Pirahna club - Ron Dennis.

 

[Izumi]

Izumi as much as you like to whitewash history you cant, multi 21 happened & is 1 of the most controversial moments in recent F1. & Im sorry vettel doesn't come across like a gentlemen In it but that's his fault. you cant argue with video evidence

It is not my intent to surprise you with admission, that I gave up on trying to convince anybody of anything on the internet, and even more so on a bulletin board such as CTA. I was a such fool about yr. 2003 at another place, and at the end it got me banned for life from there. It is of course your prerogative to judge Vettel anyway you want, and I will do the same.

 

[Izumi]

I think he means it was revenge for Brazil 2012, when Webber blocked him going into T1 despite having an agreement that he should let Vettel pass 'for the championship'. It nearly cost him his race back then.
I don't really car about drivers ignoring team orders at the end of the day they're there to be judged by their results which justify their position within a team. They need to stand up for themselves because the teams don't really care about them.

Welcome to the Pirahna club - Ron Dennis.

Here...

 

[Ruslan]

If Leclerc was faster than Vettel he would have least kept close to him, sadly that didn't happen despite the fact that Leclerc pushed so hard that he had to pit when he did because he had destroyed his rear tyres (at that stage Vettel's tyres were still ok, to me that means that as it has been the case before during the season Vettel is at the moment better in combining a fast race pace with looking after the car).

To quote from a grandprix.com article (about the fight for third):
Race Analysis - Double whammy

Leclerc: "We definitely had the pace to finish in front of Valtteri but it was quite tricky to follow. As soon as I was getting around 1.5 second behind him everything would overheat and it would be quite a difficult time for us."

You could see him in the last 10 laps of the race Leclerc making several attempts to push up and then we would fall back.

I think that was also the case early in the race, when he was waiting for Vettel to give him his position back. Vettel was ordered on lap six to give the position to Leclerc in lap seven.

I don't think we saw a single pass on track among the top positions after the first lap.

Leclerc is usually faster than him in qualy but over a race, if Vettel has a car that suits him, Vettel looks faster and more consistent than Leclerc.

That is sometimes the case, but I do not think that was the case yesterday. Vettel did not run long enough after his pit stop for us to gauge his pace on new tires. But if he MGU didn't give out, I don't think he would have closed on and passed Leclerc.

I do think Ferrari managed to loose the race with the quicker car. To quote Bottas: "Ferrari had a quick car all weekend long. I think they were quicker as well today....."

 

[Ruslan]

Finally: no one has anything positive to say about Hamilton?

From my first post on the race: "1. Hamilton: Another great race. Won by his own driving and Ferrari's failed "strategy". Probably driver of the race."

Hard to argue when you win the race with the slightly slower car.

 

[Izumi]

Is it possible that Ferrari management's anger boiled over and Binotto was ordered to take Vettel out of the race, discreetly and with plausible deniability as punitive measure for Seb to realize who is the boss? When Adami didn't succeed to persuade Seb to slow down, Mekies got involved, which indicates pit wall was overheating, and who knows who else was on the phone asking for Vettel's head. I know it sounds crazy, but Ferrari had nothing to lose.

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

I think that was also the case early in the race, when he was waiting for Vettel to give him his position back. Vettel was ordered on lap six to give the position to Leclerc in lap seven.

If Leclerc had the pace to match Vettel he would have kept close to him but he didn't. Leclerc had no good reason to lose time as Hamilton was clser to him than he was close to Vettel, and Hamilton was on the harder compound and so, without SC, it is rerasonable to expect that Hamilton would have been quicker than the Ferraris during the second half of the race (as was the case). For that reason Leclerc had to push as hard as he could (and he did so, the proof is in his tyres), saying that he slowed down given that he was told that the sawp would happen anyway didn't make much sense as he was racing Hamilton as well as Vettel and had to increase his gap to Hamilton as much as he could before the pit stop. That's why I said that IMHO Ferrari had only one chance to win the race: keep Vettel in front and use Leclerc to slow down Hamilton, exactly as they did at Spa (Vettel, the bad guy, accepcted to help his team mate).

Please consider that Leclerc couldn't get close enough to Bottas because in the last 3 corners before the finish line he was losing some ground, his Ferrari was faster on the straight, but Hamilton's Mercedes would have allowed him to keep close to any Ferrari in the last sector of the track and therefore would have enabled him to try and pass going into turn 2.

I don't normally let what I read on the papers influence me but if you consider that every single journalist or pundit in the Italian papers believe that Vettel had earned the right to lead the race and that it was crazy for Ferrari to ask them to swap position then I feel as if my view of the race is not completely odd. And in that list I include people who have consistently been extremely critical of Vettel, like Alberto Antonini (a chap who while he was working for Autosprint was very often quoted as a respected and reliable source by the English speaking media, including some of the media that I have seen linked to in this thread) or Leo Turrini (a chap who is regarded as very close to Ferrari and an admirer of Leclerc, you can find his view of the race here and here)

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

From my first post on the race: "1. Hamilton: Another great race. Won by his own driving and Ferrari's failed "strategy". Probably driver of the race."

Hard to argue when you win the race with the slightly slower car.

you're right, I overlooked that.

Let me rephrase my thoughts: is it possible that no one other than good old Ruslan realise what a sterling job Hamilton did? If I remember corectly after the pit stops he was lapping in 1:35 while Leclerc was doing 1:37... and I think that Vettel could have been a bit faster than Leclerc (based on their respective pace during the first half of the race), but only a couple of tenths per lap, not even close to Hamilton's times

 

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

Is it possible that Ferrari management's anger boiled over and Binotto was ordered to take Vettel out of the race, discreetly and with plausible deniability as punitive measure for Seb to realize who is the boss?

I really don't think so, I think that as Bernoulli correctly pointed out Binotto was trying to please both sides: he let Vettel prove beyond any reasonable doubt that he was faster, and he then pleased Leclerc/Todt by ruining Vettel's chances by keeping him out for 3 laps longer than necessary. It's the same for Binotto's narrative post race: he said that the drivers had an agreement and so he had them swap position, and then he said that they had an agreement whereby Leclerc would give Vettel a tow but that Leclerc didn't really do anything to give Vettel a tow as Vettel managed to get into Leclerc's slipstream on his own merit.

I'm sure that Binotto is a nice chap but to me he looks worryingly out of his depth