Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes, Paul Ricard, 2019

Hamilton beats Bottas to pole as Vettel struggles to seventh

2019 French Grand Prix qualifying

Posted on

| Written by

Valtteri Bottas headed Q1 and Q2 but Lewis Hamilton produced two superb laps in Q3 to claim his third pole position of the year.

Charles Leclerc put his Ferrari in third place but team mate Sebastian Vettel could only manage seventh, behind both McLarens, after a tricky end to the session.


The recently-repaired Paul Ricard track had been evolving quickly all weekend long and the rapid improvements in lap times nearly caught out some of the front-runners in qualifying. Chief among them was Max Verstappen, who only did a single run but slipped to 14th as the others improved.

Verstappen, who was eliminated in Q2 in Canada due to a red flag, avoided going one worse when Romain Grosjean aborted his last run after making a mistake at turn nine and Lance Stroll failed to get anywhere near his team mate’s lap time. While Sergio Perez sailed through to Q2 in sixth place Stroll continued his run of Q1 eliminations having lapped seven-tenths of a second slower than his rival.

They were joined by Daniil Kvyat, who will start last anyway due to his power unit, also failed to make the cut. He joined the Williams pair, George Russell ahead of Robert Kubica as usual, though he will start behind his team mate as he also has a power unit penalty.

Drivers eliminated in Q1

16Daniil KvyatToro Rosso-Honda1’31.564
17Romain GrosjeanHaas-Ferrari1’31.626
18Lance StrollRacing Point-Mercedes1’31.726
19George RussellWilliams-Mercedes1’32.789
20Robert KubicaWilliams-Mercedes1’33.205

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free


Having narrowly led Hamilton in Q1, Bottas was on top again in the second part of qualifying, but this time he had a Ferrari within range. Vettel get within a tenth of a second of him, as did Hamilton.

Eager not to lose any potential advantage, Ferrari were organising their drivers to give each other slipstreams. “I’m not trying to kill him so don’t worry,” Vettel reassured his team after being asked to keep a suitable distance ahead of Leclerc.

All four went through to Q3 on the medium compound tyres, the preferred rubber to start the race on. Verstappen did the same but team mate Pierre Gasly stuck with the soft rubber and only managed to scrape his way into Q3 with a last-gasp effort.

Nico Hulkenberg and Carlos Sainz Jnr began the session on medium tyres and after noting their progress their team mates joined them. Both McLaren drivers duly claimed places in Q3, but Hulkenberg slipped out as Daniel Ricciardo claimed his place in the final 10.

Along with Gasly, Antonio Giovinazzi was the only other driver to reach Q3 on soft tyres, leaving team mate Kimi Raikkonen behind.

Drivers eliminated in Q2

11Alexander AlbonToro Rosso-Honda1’30.461
12Kimi RaikkonenAlfa Romeo-Ferrari1’30.533
13Nico HulkenbergRenault1’30.544
14Sergio PerezRacing Point-Mercedes1’30.738
15Kevin MagnussenHaas-Ferrari1’31.440

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free


Bottas’s Mercedes appeared to emit a whiff of smoke as he headed out to begin his first run in Q3. It didn’t stop him completing his run, but he was pegged back by Hamilton, who set a 1’28.448 to lead the initial lap times.

Leclerc went third-quickest behind them, mystified as to why he lost so much time on the straight before being told the wind direction had changed. Vettel aborted his lap after reporting a missed up-shift.

The aborted lap came back to haunt Vettel. He only managed the seventh-fastest time with his final run, complaining that he couldn’t find as much grip from his tyres as he had before. He ended up the best part of eighth-tenths of a second slower than Leclerc.

The other Ferrari driver, who ran at the back of the queue on his final run, wasn’t able to get within range of the Mercedes. The silver cars headed the queue at the end of Q3, led by Bottas, meaning he had no slipstream. Behind him Hamilton put in a superb lap until the final two corners, where he lost some time, but still managed to knock another tenth of a second off his time.

Verstappen took fourth place ahead of two very quick McLarens – Norris was a mere nine-thousandths of a second slower than him. He and team mate Sainz pushed Vettel down to seventh, followed by Ricciardo, Gasly and Giovinazzi.

Top ten in Q3

1Lewis HamiltonMercedes1’28.319
2Valtteri BottasMercedes1’28.605
3Charles LeclercFerrari1’28.965
4Max VerstappenRed Bull-Honda1’29.409
5Lando NorrisMcLaren-Renault1’29.418
6Carlos Sainz JnrMcLaren-Renault1’29.522
7Sebastian VettelFerrari1’29.799
8Daniel RicciardoRenault1’29.918
9Pierre GaslyRed Bull-Honda1’30.184
10Antonio GiovinazziAlfa Romeo-Ferrari1’33.420

Go ad-free for just £1 per month

>> Find out more and sign up

2019 French Grand Prix

Browse all 2019 French Grand Prix articles

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

77 comments on “Hamilton beats Bottas to pole as Vettel struggles to seventh”

  1. A very happy Lewis/Mercedes Fan here. Valtteri looked untouchable for a bit.
    I see you McLaren.

    1. Did Hamilton get a tow from Bottas? I don’t know if the tow matters, but of so, why did Bottas have to go first. He was stronger until Q3.

      1. @slotopen If you’ve not already noticed…….. the Mercs alternate the qualifying running order every race and have done so since 2014 if not before.

  2. Looks like Mercedes found Ferrari’s party mode.


    1. What he s saying is, there is no apparent way that any team will be able to give mercedes a run for it s money let alone suprass them, they ve been on top of their game for 6 years now..

  3. is it me, or just that i don t like the run off areas in this circuit, it feels like this circuit is build and they didn t know what to do with the run off areas on the side, there should have been something different, as in grass, i like Magni cours layout much more than this one, it just feels out of place this much run off area btw corners

    1. It was refurbished to be used as a testing track. The run off is deliberate.

    2. The problem is it’s difficult to see the layout on TV from low-angle cameras as there are so few visual references (walls, banks, trees whatever), the overhead shots are better (you get a sense of the flow of the track, especially the fast corners).

    3. Miguel Bento
      22nd June 2019, 16:46

      I absolutely agree with you. These runoffs make me physically sick…

    4. I agree on the optics. But one benefit of the runoff may be that we are seeing drivers more on the edge since they seem to be making a lot of mistakes, even spins, even at the front. It could also be that the lack of landscape or physical features on the track make it hard to judge braking points and apexes.

    5. It is by far the most obscure track. No gravel.. No grass.. Nothing. Just these weird blue and red lines that could make viewers feel nauaeaus.

      I don’t know if it was cost cutting (no gravel /grass)
      or some weird new age track plans that were implemented.. But it’s definitely terrible.

  4. Vettel still in crying-mode.
    And what an awesome job by Mclaren, 5th and 6th on merit. Less than a tenth behind Max in a Redbull.

  5. Mercedes technical dominance is getting silly. Over the last seventy years, “dominance” was not unknown, but was most often a mix of brilliant driver plus good car. This is no longer the case; now it’s a car that can “be turned up” for various occasions, most spectacularly Q3. Grid position has become primordial (was meaningful but less relevant in the past) because of aero difficulties following a car less than one second ahead to attempt an overtake during the race.
    All in all, predictable, boring, and possibly the end of F1 as the best motor racing the world has ever seen.

    1. Totally disagree with every word.
      If you hate it so much, well, go ahead – try to say how it is different to Ferrari’s dominance in 2000s, then RBRs, and before that Williams’, McLaren’s…
      True, they might have been shorter, but that’s it, all other components are the same.

      1. I think he is not denying it, but this season looks like to be over by september.
        In fact, other than BOT it seems almost over. And BOT needs a win or two asap to keep this going.
        If HAM get two win before summer break, then we would only expect to see whether BOT lose 2nd in champ and who will be 3rd between VER/LEC/VET.

        1. NeverElectric
          22nd June 2019, 16:07

          It’s called a championship for a reason – we want to see a champion constructor. Mercedes are doing their job. You can’t blame them for being good at it.
          If that’s boring – watch something else.

          1. @NeverElektric
            No one blames Mercedes for being to good; they blame the FIA, FOM and Pirelli.
            “If that’s boring – watch something else.” Most people are already doing this (noticed how the garndstands were basically empty in France), and if this trend continues Mercedes will be the most successful team, and Lewis the most succesful driver, in a sport no one cares about anymore.

      2. @Dallein
        It’s completely different from any of those era’s you mention: At no moment in time an F1 team has been able to take so many front rows and so many 1-2’s for so many consecutive seasons as we are having now.
        This is the sixth year in a row that we can predict the front row after qualifying and the first 2 finisher’s with a +60% chance of having it right.
        Mercedes dominance is unrivaled in history.

      3. OK, your right to disagree, but why? Ferrari dominated recently with Schumacher (plus Ascari, Fangio, Hawthorn, Hill and Lauda in older days); RBR with Vettel; Williams with Prost, Mansell, Villeneuve; McLaren with Senna, Lauda and Prost,; you missed Alonso with Renault… that’s what I was saying, but I’m not insisting that you learn the history of F1 — that’s your choice.

        And why do you think I “hate” F1? I was personally present at the 1950 British GP (maybe not F1); I was at Silverstone in 1953 (my opinion, the start of F1); I counted Trintignant, Rosier, Fangio, Gordini, Salvadori, Clark, Ligier, Schlesser amongst my friends (Patrick Depailler was a very close friend from my adoptive hometown); I met Stewart, Brabham, Amon, Moss, Prost, Graham Hill, more… ; I was an FIA “volunteer/steward” for thirty years; I held an FIA “License Internationale” (that was the top level in the 1960s) and motor raced (not F1) for more than twenty years.

        Modestly, I have loved F1 for seventy years; I understand, perhaps better than many others, how it started, how it developed, its “ups and downs”, and I hope you might agree that I have a potential right to my own opinion — which is not “hate”.

        P.S. You added “True, they might have been shorter, but that’s it, all other components are the same.” I assume that you are referring to wheelbase (some drivers are a bit shorter than others) which really “has nothing to do with the price of onions.” There was an Italian GP in the late 50s? early 60s? where cars swapped 6, 8 and 12 cylinder engines between practice, qualification and the race. But “components are the same” is an unhappy story for another day…

        1. Hat off to you, Sir. It must be one of the most unique experiences to witness the whole history of the sport. Honestly, if you could contact someone from the F1 circles, I’m sure they would make your experience into an amazing documentary. I’d be the first to watch it. Have a great evening.

      4. petebaldwin (@)
        22nd June 2019, 16:56

        @dallein Sure, I’ve got some time today. Before I start, out of interest, did you enjoy watching Vettel dominate F1 easily in the Red Bull and Schumi before him?

        Anyway, here’s some stats:

        Mercedes (2014-2019)
        Won 75% of races
        2014: Won 16 out of 19 (84%)
        2015: Won 16 out of 19 (84%)
        2016: Won 19 out of 21 (90%)
        2017: Won 12 out of 21 (57%)
        2018: Won 11 out of 21 (52%)
        2019: Won 7 out of 7 (100%)

        Red Bull (2010-2013)
        Won 52% of races
        2010: Won 9 out of 19 (47%)
        2011: Won 12 out of 19 (63%)
        2012: Won 7 out of 20 (35%)
        2013: Won 13 out of 19 (68%)

        Ferrari (2000-2004)
        Won 67% of races
        2000: Won 10 out of 17 (58%)
        2001: Won 9 out of 17 (52%)
        2002: Won 15 out of 17 (88%)
        2013: Won 8 out of 16 (50%)
        2004: Won 15 out of 18 (83%)

        (I’m sure there’s some errors in there as I’ve typed it all out!)

        As you can see, Mercedes have been more dominant than either Red Bull or Ferrari. On top of that only 3 different teams have won during the Mercedes era compared to 6 different teams during Red Bull’s and 5 different teams during Ferrari’s.

        I think the worst thing is that after 3 years where Mercedes were absolutely untouchable, things got closer in 2017 and 2018 and there were signs that the other teams were catching up. Now we appear to be in the 2nd era of Mercedes domination as opposed to a continuation of the 1st – really it should be 2014-2016 as the first era and then 2019-onwards as I wouldn’t consider winning around 50% of the races as “dominating.”

        There are loads more stats that could be provided to highlight how Mercedes have been considerably more dominant than Red Bull or Ferrari were but my brain is hurting now so I’m going to go and sit in a beer garden.

        1. F1oSaurus (@)
          22nd June 2019, 17:30


          Mercedes have been more dominant

          The biggest problem is that for instance in 2018 Vettel would have easily won AZE, AUT, GER, ITA and USA if he didn’t blunder in those races. Same applies to 2017.

          It wasn’t so much that Mercedes were dominating with no opponents being able to come close, but Ferrari was backing only Vettel and Vettel was throwing away wins and points by the bucketload.

          We could have had very close fought championships and a better driver at Ferrari could have taken the title by quite a margin.

          In part in 2019 we see this pattern as well (Canada, Bahrein and Baku where Leclerc looked set for pole)

        2. I’d like to see what the percentages were for the Williams years, and earlier. There’s always been a dominant team, and often for years running. It’d be interesting to see how those other years stack up.

          1. @zapski

            Most F1 Constructors Championships Ferrari 16
            Most GP Wins Ferrari 221
            Most GP Wins (Season) Mercedes (2014, 2015) 16
            Most Consecutive GP Wins (Season) McLaren (1988) 11
            Ferrari (2002) 10
            Most World Championship Points Ferrari 7,182
            Most World Championship Points Mercedes (2015) (current scoring) 703
            Ferrari (2004) 262
            Most 1-2 Finishes Mercedes (2015) 12 (63.16%)
            Mercedes (2014) 11 (57.89%)
            McLaren (1988) 10 (62.50%)
            Most Pole Positions Ferrari 213
            Most Consecutive Pole Positions Williams (1992-93) 24
            Most Pole Positions (Season) Mercedes (2014, 2015) 18 (94.74%)
            Red Bull (2011) 18 (94.74%)
            McLaren (1988) 15 (93.75%)
            Most Consecutive Front Row Lockouts Mercedes (2014-15) 9
            Most Front Row Lockouts Mercedes (2014) 12
            Most Wins — One GP Ferrari (German GP) 20
            Most Wins — One Circuit Ferrari (Monza) 18
            Most Consecutive Constructors Ferrari (1999-2004) 6

        3. Interesting stats re percentage wins, thanks for that. With this dominance will Mercedes stay in F1 after 2020? They’ve done it all so there seems no reason to keep spending money. If I were them I’d say ‘job done’ and take the trophies home.

    2. Paul A – By definition, something cannot ‘become primordial’. “Primordial” means ‘existing at or from the beginning of time’. Did you intend ‘paramount’?

      1. Good point — I agree “paramount” is etymologically far, far better.
        However, my “turn of phrase” caught your attention, which subliminally might explain my aberration.

    3. F1oSaurus (@)
      22nd June 2019, 16:58

      @paul-a Did you actually watch some races this season?

      Grid position has become primordial

      Ehm, Baku and Monaco are the only races won by the polesitter this year. The other five weren’t!

      1. Yes — I watched them all, Montreal trackside, the others on TV (Sky via TSN.) My original comment was about Mercedes technical dominance. All GPs this year have been won by Mercedes. In fact Mercedes have had “one-twos” five out of seven times (except for Monaco and Canada.)
        I did not mention “polesitter”. So let’s look? Bahrain — Lerclerc had pole, lost after an engine problem. Canada — Vettel had pole, lost after a “controversial” lawyer ^hhh steward ^hhh FIA ^hhh Liberty decision.

        1. @paul-a

          “Vettel had pole, lost after a “controversial” lawyer ^hhh steward ^hhh FIA ^hhh Liberty decision.” Are you sure you are saying this honestly? and not out of your frustration for mercedes’ dominance?

          There was nothing “controversial” in the decision, or have you missed Vettel’s past races? or forgot his track loads of mistakes under pressure?

          If you wanna use the word primordial, it was FIA’s love affair with Ferrari and their “controversial” decisions that were favoring Ferrari until recent years!

          If you want a “controversial” decision, can you provide your humble opinion about Spa 2008? i didnt have chance to watch F1 primordially due to laws of nature, hats off to you on that lottery…

          1. Yes, I wrote “controversial.” When I heard the stewards’ decision, I was in the “paddock club” (some sort of VIP area at the Montreal GP) and thought instantly “scandal”, said instantly “scandal” and heard instantly “scandal”, “mistake”, “that’s wrong”, “what on earth” (or words to that effect.) I did not hear anybody say “that’s a great idea.”
            On today’s “Sky” — two weeks later — I heard Brundle (sometimes wishy-washy), Herbert, Hill (the younger) and various others quote half a dozen drivers saying the stewards were wrong, or at least their decision was dubious.
            I am not a lawyer. I believe that drivers should race. I believe that motor racing is dangerous (you can’t drive at nearly 200 mph within inches of another car and think you are on your living room couch.) I believe that driver safety can be improved, but not by bureaucracy.
            [Side-track: I had conversations with Jackie Stewart on exactly this subject at the 1965 French GP at Charade, the local press (La Montagne) recorded it. My old friend JC won the race totally impressively, but with the most massive hangover I have ever seen. I had been racing a GT/prototype race as a warm-up, but was a marshall (now steward) for the F1 event. Charade was a driver’s track, gonads to the wall, no room for error, it sorted the men from the boys; it was later shut in favour of Tilke tracks. End side-track]
            I’m not an F1 politician — I knew Mr Ecclestone when he was a used car salesman, I helped Jean Todt prepare one of his Mini Coopers in the 1960s — but disagree that F1 is a “spectacle”, that it is “entertainment” which implies dishonesty worthy of mediatic fairy-land.
            F1 is motor sport. Cars driven as fast as possible. “Man and machine” should not be denigrated to some back-seat drivers who work indirectly for a commercial TV company.
            So, I’ll stick to my opinion that Mr Vettel and Mr Hamilton were racing, that no advantage was taken, that I’m happy that nobody was hurt, and that the stewards’ decision to artificially modify the Canadian GP results was a scandal. I’ll also recognize that you have the right to disagree.

          2. Apologies — I did not answer your question about Spa 2008. But you can probably guess, and I can confirm, that I have never been happy with stewards acting as “back-seat drivers.” Mr Räikkönen did not finish. Mr Hamilton won. Mr Massa was popular, but did not win. In the end, I seem to remember that Mr Hamilton won the WDC despite bureaucratic meddling.

        2. F1oSaurus (@)
          22nd June 2019, 22:14

          @paul-a Vettel was also ahead of Hamilton in Bahrain. Yet he clumsily spun off and lost to Hamilton. Vettel was ahead in Canada, cracked under the pressure from Hamilton, went off (spot the pattern?) came back with an illegal block and lost himself the race. Either way, the guy in the fastest car didn’t win and even the second driver in the fastest guy didn’t win in Bahrain.

          Anyway you literally said:

          Grid position has become primordial

          And that’s clearly nonsense since only two out of seven races were sort of decided by Q3.

          Not to mention the fact that “primordial” is not a word that makes sense at all in this context, but I’s assuming you meant to say something like “paramount”.

          Plus, again, Ferrrari could have won in Bahrain, Canada and Baku. If Ferrrari hdn’t insisted on sending Lecercl out for no goo dreason again in Q2 on medium tyres. Or if Leclerc had the sense to no put his car in the wall. Vettel clearly wasn’t able to do a proper qualifying there (just like during today’s Q).

          Then it would have been 4 wins for Mercedes and 3 for Ferrari. You can’t blame Mercedes for “technical dominance” when it’s Ferrari and it’s drivers who’s keep tripping up.

    4. Agreed! And even when we did have some dominance the cars and drivers were loud, exciting and on the edge. You really felt that Senna, Prost, Mansell, Schumacher, even Vettel were still pushing hard.

      Now you could probably get any of the top 10 drivers to parade that Merc around at the slowest speed possible.

    5. Agree 100% Paul and I’ve been saying that here for a year. It’s destroying the sport.

      1. This is the 24,605th day in a row that someone has declared that Formula one is dying

    6. @paul-a

      Might be predictable and boring. But don’t blame it on Mercedes… Blame on a rubbish Ferrari with a disappointing #1 driver and a silly Red bull with a horrendous power unit.

      1. +1.000.000

        everyone has the same ingredients to work with, it is the chefs who made it work… if everyone knew how to cook good cookies, we would not know what a good cookie really tasted nor we would talk about it because everyone would be the same…

        look at your hands, you got 5 fingers all of them are different size shapes! thats natural selection right before your eyes…

        things that are getting more technical and edgy, this was bound to happen! because there is always one clever student in every school that pays attention to every details!

      2. F1oSaurus (@)
        22nd June 2019, 22:17

        @todfod Lol yes exactly.

        Remember when Lauda went to Mateschitz to offer them the Mercedes engine in an effort to attract a younger audience for their cars. Instead of accepting that offer, Mateschitz first went to Ferrari to see if he could get a better deal. Ferrari rejected and by then Mercedes knew there was nothing to gain by supplying that bunch of … with their engines.

    7. “Turned up” for Q3? Well apart from not actually having a Q3 in the “good old days” they didn’t need to turn up the engine, the just wheeled out the special ultra tuned qualifying engine pushing 1000+ hour didn’t. The problem with your whinge is that it makes clear you weren’t watching F1 for the last four decades,or if you were you weten’t paying attention.

    8. Lol red bull domination was way worse only a red bull could win the championship and only vettel could win it was literally a one man fight for a championship. Red bull put all their support on their younger driver trying to make a star erricson would have won just as many championships in that car

  6. Time to go Gasly? Has done nothing this year….

  7. bring back alonso

    1. I wont be surprised if this happens. The only place he has a realistic chance of winning next season is Ferrari, considering his contract with Mclaren, not sure how this can work.

    2. …and put him in a Mercedes, so he can apply his team destroying powers and level the playing field.

      1. brilliant

      2. As long as Vettel is around…. It won’t change much

    3. RocketTankski
      22nd June 2019, 17:13

      McLaren is finally starting to recover, why would they want Alonso back at this point? Norris is their future champion.

      1. I wouldn t be too sure, remember their performance in canada, abismal to say the least about their race pace

      2. Isn’t it the other way around currently? No doubt McLaren would die for Alonso to come back. I mean, on a day like today he’d probably be in front of Verstappen. He’s just on another level.

    4. Lol ferrari would rather throw away another championship trying to recreate the glory years with discount Michael

  8. As anticipated, the end result of Ferrari and Vettel dragging Canada into this weekend was a subpar performance from Vettel that undid the good work he’d achieved in Canada, along with the resurgence of Leclerc. The same happened after Ferrari/Vettel’s aggressive start to 2017, which culminated in the Baku flare up, after which it was downhill. I’m really surprised Ferrari management haven’t noticed this psychology, it should be part of their job.

    1. @david-br I think you are spot on. I’ve long thought that Vettel (being the precise person he appears) needs the whole team to be functioning well in order to create a platform for him to be at his best. When that’s not there I suspect he gets caught up off track matters and get distracted, leading to mistakes. This weekend appears to be another example of an ‘exercise in futility’ – their energy may have been better spent on moving on, taking the positives from Montreal and having laser focus on this race

      1. @neilsalton I agree, that’s what they should have done. It’s still interesting, though, from an outside, to see the dynamic between the two Ferrari drivers. Leclerc had been subdued but this was a big comeback, 8 tenths ahead of Vettel’s time and once again looking the senior driver.

        1. Yes, that’s another interesting sub-story, the beginning of the new order … in the context of what we discussed before, I don’t hold out much hope for Leclerc realising his potential while wearing a red race suit. I hope his contact is well timed, and that less to do with cars than management culture

      2. @neilsalton

        Oh, not the engine issues that caused the upshift?

        Its the talk about the penalty, the things you read on the internet lol.

        1. F1oSaurus (@)
          22nd June 2019, 22:19

          @rockie Ah yes and his second attempt was much better? Oh wait, it wasn’t.

        2. I notice at the point in question coming out of turn 9 Vettel took a lot of kerb and probably had all four wheels on it. From the audio it sounds like the car was unsettled by this, and this is when the upshift is missed, however Vettel continues down the straight before announcing under braking for the next corner that he will pit due to a missed upshift.

        3. @rockie I was talking more generally, not about any particular race or indeed the penalty

  9. Be another boring Mercedes dominated race tomorrow. Winner decided in turn 1 of lap 1. Hopefully they take each other out and we somehow get a competitive race.

    1. Yea hopefully. And given the dominance over the others the Ferrari should get a one two. With a bit of luck Seb can stumble, spin and collide his way to a win; whilst his teammate is told to hold station. That’ll be exciting for you.
      The last thing F1 needs is a winning driver/team at the top of their game reaching new levels of excellence.

  10. I’m super pleased to see Mclaren up where they should be (position wise). I know their pace is still miles off of winning or even seeing a podium but it’s still nice to see a team go from an absolute top team to a bottom team, struggle and struggle and never give up and then find their way back. I’m pleased. I can’t help but wander what Alonso could do in this package. I don’t believe he’s light years faster than Carlos but he is a bit more polished overall and he would definitely eek a tad more out of the package imo.

    1. I think its more than a coincidence that mclaren have improved since Alonsos departure. Check mclaren 08, check Ferrari 15, check mclaren 19. Great driver, no doubt, but its a bit fishy teams seem to improve when he leaves.

  11. So that’s this season pretty much settled then. I’m watching to see how well McLaren has recovered, and how well Leclerc does overall.

  12. Panagiotis Papatheodorou (@panagiotism-papatheodorou)
    22nd June 2019, 17:47

    Apparently Vettel had engine issues in Q3.

    1. F1oSaurus (@)
      22nd June 2019, 22:23

      @panagiotism-papatheodorou Amazing how Vettel didn’t know this when he said things like:

      I didn’t get the best out of the car, which is not satisfying

      I don’t know why but I didn’t have the grip that I seemed to have the runs before.

  13. Is it Renault engine more powerful than Honda?

    1. You seem surprised. The last time Honda had a respectable power unit was 30 years ago.

  14. Looks like vettel has given up on the 2019 season, Mercedes are unbeatable.

    1. He had engine issues!

      1. Or the engine had driver issues.

        1. But but but he has 4!!!! Championships theres no way he can be a bad driver

      2. Was that after he screwed up the chicane and then ran completely off track? Because the engine sounded fine enough from the onboards.

      3. F1oSaurus (@)
        22nd June 2019, 22:24

        @rockie No he didn’t. Vettel himself admitted he simply didn’t get it together.

  15. Ferrari failed to take advantage of their dominant part of the season. Looks like Merc has surpassed them now.

Comments are closed.