Charles Leclerc, Sebastian Vettel, Ferrari, Singapore, 2019

Vettel lights up Singapore again as Ferrari keep Leclerc in the dark

2019 Singapore Grand Prix review

Posted on

| Written by

There was no explosion of joy, no repeated cries of “yes”. For a driver who had been waiting over 12 months to win a race, Sebastian Vettel was not exactly ecstatic.

If he didn’t feel fully satisfied by his fifth Singapore Grand Prix victory, it wasn’t hard to imagine why. This wasn’t a weekend where Vettel had taken the car by the scruffy of the neck and stamped his authority on proceedings.

He qualified behind his team mate – for the eighth time in a row – and would have finished there had Ferrari’s strategy not got him ahead. Why did the team do it, and why didn’t they reverse it? More to the point, were they fully in control of where their strategy took them?

Slowly does it

Ferrari were not supposed to be this quick. The car which had languished half a second off the pace in Hungary, another maximum-downforce track, came alive on Saturday in Singapore. Leclerc stunned his rivals by taking his third consecutive pole position.

Lewis Hamilton just barely split the two Ferraris, edging Vettel off the front row by two-hundredths of a second. How had Ferrari achieved this incredible turnaround?

Start, Singapore, 2019
The leaders kept their order at the start
On Saturday evening Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff ventured the theory Ferrari had heavily biased their set-up towards single-lap pace, and would struggle in the race. But, he admitted, he would trade pole position for a weaker can for second place with a stronger one. The combination of turbulence and Singapore’s tight track layout makes overtaking difficult, and the leader can dictate a slow pace to avoid coming under threat from behind.

That is exactly what Ferrari set out to do and they achieved it. Hamilton had to fend off Vettel at the start and dropped immediately 1.7s behind Leclerc. But Leclerc had backed off his pace before the first lap began and Hamilton started lap two within a second of him.

Reducing he pace had two advantages for Ferrari at this stage. It prolonged the life of their tyres and ensured the field could not spread out behind, leaving no gaps in the traffic into which their rivals could pit and press on in clear air. “We can’t really go much slower,” Hamilton complained, as behind them first Nico Hulkenberg, then Daniil Kvyat, then Sergio Perez took turns to set the fastest lap of the race.

These were among the first drivers to pit: Hulkenberg damaged his car and Carlos Sainz Jnr’s by lunging into the McLaren at turn five on the first lap. Kvyat and Perez took their chances to pit and run to the end.

Now those midfielders had made their mandatory stops and were capable of running to the end, the front runners increasingly had to think about stops of their own. So how did Vettel, who ran third at the time, end up in the lead?

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Vettel jumps ahead

Sebastian Vettel, Ferrari, Singapore, 2019
Vettel jumped ahead of Leclerc through the pit stops
Having held the lap times in the mid 1’48s for several laps, Leclerc gradually began to increase his speed from lap 14. By lap 17 he was down to a 1’47.8, but Hamilton behind was still able to lap slightly quicker.

The call to pit still hadn’t come, and on the next lap Leclerc eased off again. His lap time rose by over a second, to a 1’49.0. He continued the steady pace on the next lap. Despite Hamilton’s show of speed Mercedes declined to bring him in at this point. According to Hamilton, he urged them before the race to take advantage of the opportunity to ‘undercut’ Leclerc if it arose.

Instead, is was Vettel’s crew who brought him in. He got the call at turn 20, a few hundred metres from the pit lane entrance, too late for either of the cars ahead of him to respond. This looked like a smart call from his team: Max Verstappen had slipped back from him and would obviously need to pit soon, particularly as Hulkenberg had just passed Romain Grosjean and was threatening to get into the Red Bull driver’s pit window.

Leclerc’s crew did not tell him Vettel had pitted. This was highly significant as he had clearly backed off his pace after lap 17 and if he had been warned his team mate had pitted he would have understood the need to keep the pace up, and likely found the few tenths of a second he needed to prevent Vettel getting ahead of him.

Afterwards several team bosses referred to being ‘surprised’ by how powerful the undercut was. This was in part due to the fact Leclerc was still managing the pace at the front of the field when the pit stops began, as Hamilton pointed out after the race.

Once Leclerc rejoined the circuit behind Vettel he asked the team whether they intended to switch their cars back around. After all, Ferrari had done exactly that under similar circumstances in Hungary, where Vettel also used the power of the undercut to get in front of Leclerc. Ferrari told him that matter wouldn’t be addressed until after Hamilton pitted.

This took some time, as Mercedes had now exhausted their strategic options and could only resort to leaving Hamilton out as long as possible in the hope that giving him fresher tyres for the end of the race would help him attack over the closing stages. It was a vain hope to begin with, and it was trashed when a series of incidents caused three separate Safety Car periods in the second half of the race.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Different policies

Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes, Singapore, 2019
Bottas had to back off for Hamilton
The two teams’ tactics revealed a sharp difference in how they manage the strategies of two cars which can be in competition and co-operation at the same time. Mercedes took the view that they should not rob their own driver of his advantage over his team mate. As a result, Bottas was told by Mercedes strategist James Vowles to slow his pace at one point to ensure Hamilton stayed in front of him (and Alexander Albon, who was closing on Bottas).

Ferrari, however, saw no need to give Leclerc back the position they had cost him. This was an even more curious call in light of the fact Leclerc is their leading driver in the championship.

Leclerc repeatedly complained on the radio about the team’s strategy. “During the Safety Car I made my thoughts clear,” he said afterwards. “After that I just got back to work.” Leclerc’s mood did not improve when the team repeatedly reminded him to be careful at restarts and not use their higher engine modes.

As in Italy, on the cool-down lap Leclerc had a telling exchange with team principal Mattia Binotto which hinted at the behind-the-scenes tensions. Given Leclerc’s obvious dissatisfaction, Binotto’s congratulations were ill-judged. When Leclerc shrugged them off, Binotto responded “punto”, meaning ‘full stop’, meaning ‘no more’. No doubt both had rather more to say away from the microphones.

Leclerc wasn’t the only one unhappy with his strategy. According to Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff, Vowles took responsibility for the team’s failure to even reach the podium. “James, the wide shoulders, took on his chin,” said Wolff. “The first thing he said was ‘I fucked it up’.”

Go ad-free for just £1 per month

>> Find out more and sign up

‘Class win’ for Norris

Lando Norris, McLaren, Singapore, 2019
Lando Norris, McLaren, Singapore, 2019
Behind the Ferraris, Verstappen had Hamilton all over him at the flag, though never close enough to try a move. Bottas lost more ground in the championship with fifth place, and Albon found the slow pace a relief in his first race around Singapore.

The McLaren-versus-Renault contest for ‘best of the rest’ was incident-packed. A furious Daniel Ricciardo was kicked from eighth place to the back of the grid for a technical infringement (one which, according to Renault, was almost imperceptibly minor). Then Sainz and Hulkenberg tangled, and so the waves parted for Lando Norris, who took the ‘class win’ with seventh.

Pierre Gasly made a wholly creditable rise to eighth, aided by a gutsy pass on Lance Stroll after the first Safety Car period. Hulkenberg limited Renault’s damage with ninth.

For the first time in four years, someone other than a Mercedes, Ferrari or Red Bull driver led a race. That someone was Antonio Giovinazzi, who started 10th and finished there, despite a 10-second penalty for getting too close to a crane during the first Safety Car period.

Giovinazzi finished far enough ahead of Romain Grosjean not to lose his point to the Haas driver. Grosjean had been delayed by a collision with George Russell, which caused Williams’ first retirement of the season, and triggered the first Safety Car period.

It was a miserable day for Racing Point. Sergio Perez and Stroll did fine work to pass Daniil Kvyat early on, but when the team detected an oil leak on Perez’s car he had to be ordered to stop, which triggered Safety Car number two. Meanwhile Stroll collected damage and finished out of the points, despite passing Ricciardo on the last lap.

Kevin Magnussen was out of luck as well: He might have bagged the final point, and Haas’s first for two months, if a plastic bag hadn’t got stuck to his front wing.

The final Safety Car period was caused when Kimi Raikkonen failed to notice Daniil Kvyat lunging up the inside of him at turn one. The Alfa Romeo driver swung in and took damage which ended his race, while Kvyat limped home 15th.

Ferrari comes first

Sebastian Vettel, Ferrari, Singapore, 2019
Vettel claimed his fifth Singapore win
Ferrari secured their first one-two finish for more than two years. But the circumstances under which it was achieved only served to underline some uncomfortable truths for the team. This was not the vindication Vettel needed, nor the victory Leclerc deserved.

In the back of the mind was the events at Monza two weeks ago, when Vettel expressed his dissatisfaction with Leclerc’s qualifying tactics. Was Ferrari’s denial of restitution to Leclerc in Singapore rooted in a belief he had wronged his team mate in Italy? Or, as Vettel indicated, was this a case of ‘the team comes first’?

“I think you are very misled if you ever think that you are bigger than this team,” he said. “I don’t think any individual can be bigger than this team.”

“I was very down after Monza for myself but up for the team,” he added. “Obviously today I’m a bit more up for myself but still very up for the team because it was also a very positive surprise how we were able to be more competitive here.”

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.

61 comments on “Vettel lights up Singapore again as Ferrari keep Leclerc in the dark”

  1. Spill the beans, Keith. How much time did you spend on that combination of image selection and writing that headline? :)
    Nice pairing!

  2. I don’t care who won, a red F1 car crossed the checkered line. That’s what being a Ferrari fan is all about

    1. As if. This was as planned as Ham having a bad strategy. Leclerc almost came out in front as it should have been.

    2. Agreed. Forza Ferrari!!!!

    3. In other words you are not a real racer. You would rather see dubious team orders and shenanigans to manipulate results rather than watch real racing. Fair enough. Personally, I love real racing. So I was disappointed by both the tactics of Ferrari in deliberately slowing down Leclerc to give the victory to Vettel, and Mercedes deliberately slowing down Bottas to give track position to Hamilton. However, Mercedes were transparent about it, to the world and to Bottas. Ferrari on the other hand, once again engaged in secretive and shady tricks to both Leclerc and the media.

      1. In other words you are not a real racer. You would rather see dubious team orders and shenanigans to manipulate results rather than watch real racing. Fair enough. Personally, I love real racing. So I was disappointed by both the tactics of Ferrari in deliberately slowing down Leclerc to give the victory to Vettel, and Mercedes deliberately slowing down Bottas to give track position to Hamilton. However, Mercedes were transparent about it, to the world and to Bottas. Ferrari on the other hand, once again engaged in secretive and shady tricks to both Leclerc and the media.

        This. When you have trolls like hamiledon +1’ing you then you know you’re definitely in the wrong.

        1. I just ignore him, it gets me off starving them of attention
          Forza Ferrari!!!

  3. Even though Leclerc’s talent was clear, Ferrari have to be at least a bit surprised at just how fast and fiesty he is in his first season. He was supposed to be the apprentice but he is desperate to be the master! it’s all good stuff!

    1. Too bad this website becomes more and more like dailymail…clickbait titles and editorial bias. Prefered more the old F1 fanatics. Oh well…

  4. All this talk about Ferrari having cost Leclerc his position is getting out of proportion. He had a good 30+ laps to overtake Vettel on-track. He didn’t; he didn’t even really try. That’s how you come in second instead of first.

    1. The TV pundits reckoned that a driver needed to be 2 seconds a lap faster in order to overtake; that’s a tall order.

      1. And in this case lec even lost time.

      2. The TV pundits could be wrong though, couldn’t they? There were quite a number of overtakes during the race, clearly not all of them would fall into that 2 seconds per lap assumption.

    2. All this talk about Ferrari having cost Leclerc his position is getting out of proportion. He had a good 30+ laps to overtake Vettel on-track. He didn’t; he didn’t even really try. That’s how you come in second instead of first.

      Spoken like a true casual viewer wathching his first ever F1 race, or a 5 year old. Or both.

      1. Oh, it’s you again. Sorry to see that you still lack the proper culture to present any kind of arguement.

  5. The strategy chosen for this track and tracks like monaco leads to these types of mistakes. I remember vettel winning in monaco and ricciardo jumping max because the strategy ended up favouring the driver behind, that year somehow the overcut worked.
    Ferrari made the same mistake mercedes did with Lewis, being too safe.
    The reason why they didn’t revert it? The mistake was on Ferrari as Binotto apologised over the radio. Ferrari made a mistake that hurt Charles, Charles did nothing wrong but and asking vettel to give the position back would have been unfair on vettel as he did nothing wrong either, Ferrari was the one at faul.
    Really, Sainz jr had nothing to do with his puncture…

    1. Very true on the point of giving Charles the spot back, no matter the strategy or what we think about the bs call by Ferrari, Seb had his foot down and didn’t make the call and making him pull over for Leclerc would have been an even worse mistake than the undercut call. Although I absolutely cannot stand the seeming toxic almost dictatorship rule that Ferrari carry with them, I must admit it’s nice seeing them at the front again with a fast car.

  6. Nobody talks about the merit of the outlap of Vettel? His pitstop was 3.0s, Leclerc 2.4s. This website is becoming just a tabloid.

    1. It was a few tenths quicker than Verstappen’s, and the Red Bull was clearly not as quick as the Ferrari.

      1. @keithcollantine What about the delta between their respective pre-in laps? From the graph there seems to be a pretty big difference on lap 18 at least between Verstappen and Vettel. Asking because since the Y axis is unlabelled there’s no way to tell how fast exactly.

        1. One other variable that makes a crucial difference here is that Vettel came out in front of Hulkenberg with 13 seconds clear air up the road and Verstappen came out behind him.

    2. Agreed. The bias and sloppy reporting on this site (aside from Dieter’s excellent contributions) is becoming more obvious and embarrassing by the race. It has gotten to the point where you can guess in advance what the articles will say.

      1. Indeed, this used to be one of my favorite sites. Now it is just a Mercedes/Hamilton propoganda machine. Sad to watch.

    3. That’s why I refuse to join in anymore on this site it’s a joke and blind to anything but what they want things to be. I used to love it here when it was balanced and full of race fans not just fans blinded by one sided hate

    4. Nobody talks about the merit of the outlap of Vettel? His pitstop was 3.0s, Leclerc 2.4s. This website is becoming just a tabloid.

      lmao, did you seriously just compare a couple laps on fresh tyres to 0.6 seconds in the pits. You Seb fans are really grasping at any straw possible aren’t you. Leclerc battered Seb in qually and earned his win, this was as gifted as Austria 2002 except Seb didn’t have the grace to acknowledge the gifted win in any way shape or form as Michael did.

      1. RB13 is correct. However it is more like Malaysia 1999, where Michael Schumacher slowed Mika Hakkinen down, and that allowed Eddie Irvine the victory, even though Schumacher was the faster driver. Eddie acknowledged Michael and understood he had been gifted the race. Seb has shown he has no grace. The multi-21 incident was one of the most disgraceful pieces of driving ever seen. Where Webber had his car turned down and was cruising to victory based on multiple meetings with the team and his teammate about the protocols of the race, however Vettel decided to turn up his car and overtake, and keep Webber in the dark by launching an underhanded attack.

  7. “For the first time in four years, someone other than a Mercedes, Ferrari or Red Bull driver won a race.” Perhaps you’ll want to change this to “For the first time in four years, someone other than a Mercedes, Ferrari or Red Bull driver LED a race.”, Keith?

    }

  8. No transcript of Binotto and Leclerc’s exchange?
    Didn’t this site used to have full race transcripts? It did, I just found a bookmark for 2017 Azerbaijan.

    1. Why would they put that it don’t go with the blind narrative

  9. Alexander Nicklisch
    23rd September 2019, 22:49

    Leclerc’s crew did not tell him Vettel had pitted. This was highly significant as he had clearly backed off his pace after lap 17 and if he had been warned his team mate had pitted he would have understood the need to keep the pace up, and likely found the few tenths of a second he needed to prevent Vettel getting ahead of him.

    Keith, it seems that you ignore Leclerc’s own assessment that he could not have done any better because his tires were dead for the sake of sensationalised headlines, and making insinuations based on apparent favoritism. Your lap times chart indicates Charles hitting a cliff, not “easing off”. Later, Hamilton’s in lap was also in the 1:49s when his tyres had dropped off. In any case, it would be hard to understand why Leclerc would “ease off” just when the race was coming alive and after he had started to push. If he did then he has no one to blame but himself.

    Also, not “telling” Leclerc is not the same as hiding it from him as your headline implies. Its quite clear from the radio transcript that they thought Vettel was racing Hamilton not Leclerc. So, it would have seemed to them that there was no need to tell Leclerc, just like they didn’t tell him Verstappen had pitted. (It would also seem that Leclerc would have noticed that the red car 3.5 seconds behind was no longer there without being notified.)

    1. Alexander Nicklisch
      23rd September 2019, 22:55

      though i do appreciate that making use of such juxtaposition for the headline along with the perfect photo to mirror it, would have been too tempting to resist…

  10. After giving what happened in this race some more thought, I have to believe that Ferrari is shocked by how stupid LEC’s complaints are and they are probably embarrassed that they will need to explain it to a top 10 F1 driver.

    Ferrari’s strategy worked perfectly giving the team a 1-2 finish. They not only undercut HAM and Mercedes, they undercut VER and Red Bull. Before the undercut they were 1-4 and some possible scenarios were a 3-4 finish if Mercedes and Red Bull managed to undercut or overcut LEC. On a track where passing is difficult, the strategy took Ferrari from 1-4 to 1-2 which is a phenomenal result this season for them. Based on LEC’s comments, he either doesn’t understand the brilliant strategy or more likely, is so selfish he doesn’t care if Ferrari finishes every race 1-20 as long as he is 1.

    1. @jimfromus – for now, I’ll give Charles the benefit of the doubt, aiming it was the heat of the moment, and him not having the bigger picture. That said, I’d be keenly waiting to see his reaction in a week’s time, to see if he still harbours suspicions or not.

    2. The evidence for the underlying plan to give Vettel the victory stems back to the many times Ferrari have screwed over Leclerc to give Vettel the advantage while leaving Leclerc in the dark. Think Canada 2019 when they appeared to have deliberately not told Leclerc about the 5 second penalty to Vettel. Think about China where they forced Leclerc to move over for Vettel even though Leclerc was faster. Think Bahrain where they told Leclerc to not overtake Vettel even though Leclerc was on another planet in terms of speed. Think Melbourne, where Leclerc was not allowed to overtake Vettel even though he was more than a second a lap faster. Think Baku where they left Leclerc out on old tyres. Think Austria where they brought Leclerc in early for no reason. Think Canada where they left Leclerc out on old tyres. No sufficiently good explanations for these unless they were designed to give Vettel the edge – and to be fair Ferrari did state clearly at the start of the season that they would definitely be favoring Vettel.

      And now think Italy qualifying. Where Leclerc did not benefit from a Vettel tow despite even the official F1 site claiming as such. Leclerc got the tow from one of the Renaults (Hulk I think) – didn’t anyone watch the qualifying? How come all the media is reporting such inaccuracies? Vettel even tried shenanigans of taking to the first chicane escape road to avoid having to run first in the first run of qualifying there in Q3. Leclerc got stuck behind a Renault and used the Renault for the tow – not Vettel! In the second run he was right to hold station behind the cars in front of him. He emerged from the pits in 3rd or 4th place. It was not on Leclerc to lead the entire field out. Yet Ferrari blamed him. It was outrageous. It was these same silly team politics and ridiculous explanations by Christian Horner that led Ricciardo to leave Red Bull. Now Mattia Binotto is the new Christian Horner and Ross Brawn (think about the silly explanations Ross Brawn gave to Rubens Barrichello in 2009 when he was screwed over continually by the team which favoured Jenson Button).

      1. @alexroy Thank you for this synopsis of the ridiculous behavior by Ferrari this season. (no sarcasm)

        I can semi-understand the call they made in Australia. They assume Vettel is the best chance to fight Hamilton, it is the first race of the season, they need to maximize points. But everything after that has been destructive. They need Leclerc long-term, not Vettel. And given performances this season, they need Leclerc short-term more than Vettel. Why they continue to burn Leclerc is beyond me. Unless they have told him that Vettel is on his way out and soon he will get all the benefits that Vettel currently gets, if I were Leclerc, I would be talking to Mercedes about that seat in 2021.

        1. The posts above seem to show that Ferrari’s “ridiculous” behavior is warranted. If the kid, LEC, gets caught up in the heat of the moment after the race when he learns about all of the stuff that happens, surely Ferrari is right not to tell him what is going on during the race, less he have a meltdown whilst driving. It is best to keep him in the dark until he can grasp what the team is doing during the race.

  11. Leclerc’s crew did not tell him Vettel had pitted. This was highly significant as he had clearly backed off his pace after lap 17 and if he had been warned his team mate had pitted he would have understood the need to keep the pace up, and likely found the few tenths of a second he needed to prevent Vettel getting ahead of him.

    What is perhaps more significant is the question of why Leclerc had backed off his pace after being told to push on lap 14-15 in order to build a gap to Hamilton. Had Ferrari countermanded their previous instruction only two laps later? If so, why? Did Leclerc decide to back off on his own, or had he lost so much grip it wasn’t a choice? We might be able to answer these questions with the full transcript, but all we have is laps 18 through 20, and only between Ferrari and their drivers.

    Ferrari, however, saw no need to give Leclerc back the position they had cost him. This was an even more curious call in light of the fact Leclerc is their leading driver in the championship.

    Curious indeed! Except that to keep second place in the constructor’s championship from Red Bull, it makes more sense to get 1-2s than it does to focus all efforts on a single driver who has very little chance of catching Hamilton.

    I realize it’s quite unfashionable these days to give Vettel credit for anything positive that he does (unless it’s helping Leclerc win), but I’ve never been one who’s much for fashion. It is kind of necessary, however, to discuss what Vettel did do with this strategy call once it was made if one is actually curious about Ferrari’s decision. He throws down a 1.45.4 during the out lap, making up around 4 seconds on Hamilton and Leclerc (five if you also count his in lap). He goes a second faster than Verstappen on the first laps following the first two safety car restarts. It can’t be said he was holding up or backing Leclerc into Max, but rather leading them both away. And finally on the third restart, he leaves them all sleeping for the first sector by going two corners earlier than the previous two restarts. These are all actually things Vettel is well known for in his glory days.

    Gee, how curious they didn’t make him hand back the lead.

    1. @lunaslide – reading your descriptions of the restarts makes me want to go catch a replay of the race (I missed this weekend). Nice one :)

      1. @phylyp Thanks. You should definitely find a replay. It’s a race only a nerd could love for the first part of it, to be honest. A chess game waiting for the first big move to be made. But once the dominoes start to fall, the strategy gets interesting fast. The only part of that sequence of events that didn’t seem inevitable was Mercedes keeping Hamilton out so long, which seemed bonkers to me. I also recommend the Autosport video that went up today that explains the Ferrari strategy decisions.

  12. “Mercedes took the view that they should not rob their own driver of his advantage over his team mate. ” In Silverstone they didn’t care, LMAO. Oh right Lewis and ONLY Lewis knew the hards could make a one stop there, I forgot. No one in the Mercedes team had the faintest idea that was possible, and no one discussed it beforehand im sure. Toto was really careful in Singapore to “not unconsciously bias one driver” since it was their true #1 who suffered there.

  13. So let’s see if I have the summary right …
    On the technical side:
    Mercedes has been shamed on strategy and pace. Pace on a track where they expected to shine. What’s next.?
    Ferrari has finally found some upgrades that work. End result, combined with their power advantage, look out.
    Red Bull were conspicuous by their rather silent non participation in the proceedings. 3rd and 6th, not bad, but not what wins races or championships.
    From the driver’s perspective:
    The Mercedes drivers will not be thrilled at missing even the lowest podium step. This sounds motivational to me.
    Over at the Red Car Team, there is going to be a Battle Royal. Do they have the diplomacy skills to handle it … ??
    At the Fizzy Drinks tent, sounds like frustration is bubbling up.
    Should to be fun to watch. Heck, it is going to be awesome.

    Any thoughts on a Ferrari B-team stealing Fastest Lap point from the A-Team.? Cue the fire-works.
    Was the race exciting …. maybe no so much, but the fall-out is looking promising.

    1. To me it looks like mercedes > ferrari > red bull in race pace here, they lost because of strategy and qualifying.

    2. The ferarri b team stole the point from Bottas.

  14. LeClerc got taught a lesson.
    He pulled a fast shady on the team in Italy; The team pulled one on him this weekend.
    Let’s hope he takes the lesson well.

  15. This joke of Leclerc not knowing to push is a joke. They told him laps before Vettel was coming in to push and he didn’t and couldn’t. A team is not going to announce their pit lap over the radio so other teams can react. The blindness by fans on here is crazy. How come we arnt talking about the fact Amex told Bottas to slow don’t do Hamilton would come out in front? I forgot where I was for a moment. No one can give credit for a great out lap. There was no underlying plan to have Vettel win here

    1. This article could have been written by Andrew Benson.

      Can’t believe the bias of some journalists: the one bad call on this race was the one Merc did on Bottas to slow him down. Yet we are talking about Ferrari…

      1. Don’t you knock Andrew Benson. He’s like Lewis’ bestie ever.

      2. Jokers. Ferrari undercut their slower driver to hand him a win and Mercedes kept the guy that earned the spot ahead and you clowns are crying the latter is unfair lmao

        Just tifosi things.

    2. @racerdude7730

      Daniil Kyvat’s outlap on lap 13 was fuel adjusted not much slower than Vettel’s. Once you control for the pace of cars and fuel load, it was faster than Vettel’s. The evidence for the underlying plan to give Vettel the victory stems back to the many times Ferrari have screwed over Raikkonen and Leclerc to give Vettel the advantage while leaving them in the dark. Think Monaco 2017, think Canada 2019 to name just a couple of the numerous times this has happened. Therefore I think your claims such as – “The blindness by fans on here is crazy” are unwarranted.

  16. @palagyi. GnosticBrian is correct. You would need to be around 2 seconds per lap faster, and faster at the correct parts of the circuit. Leclerc only had newer tyres by 1 lap and was in the same car. His only hope was if he was able to manage his tyres better (which would have been very difficult as Vettel would have clear air and Leclerc would have dirty air). But even that chance was taken away with the three safety car periods.

    Anyhow, I understand you would only make a comment like you have if you are new to formula one and do not understand the nuances associated with it. So welcome to formula one.

    1. Then explain the number of successful overtakes in the field throughout the race. It was possible to overtake this time around, and lap time difference didn’t have to be anywhere near 2 full seconds for that to happen. But this misses my point. What I meant to say that Leclerc didn’t show any signs of considering going for a pass; he only seemed to be waiting for the team to make way for him.

      And I’m terribly sorry, but I don’t have to take cheek from you. I’ve been following Formula-1 from 1998. So welcome to the scary world where people hold different views and opinions.

      1. @palagyi
        Many people hold different views and opinions. Many people believe the earth is only 6000 years old. I am open to having a discussion on those issues, but the evidence from radioactive isotope dating to continental drift to sedimentary rock layering cannot be adequately explained by these people.

        You are correct in “What I meant to say that Leclerc didn’t show any signs of considering going for a pass; he only seemed to be waiting for the team to make way for him.”

        The number of successful overtakes was due to the performance differential between the cars based on the car and tyres. Something Leclerc did not have in relation to Vettel – same car, same age and compound of tyres. My apologies, I would have expected a person watching over 20 years of F1 to have a better understanding, however you are asking questions and appear willing to learn.

        1. Your concern about my understanding is touching.

          However, your arguement about overtakes happening between cars that had clear performance and tyre advantage over the other is not entirely valid. Even the race summary video shows 4 different successful overtakes between roughly equivalent cars on same tyres with same tyre wear (Kvy vs. Ric, both on mediums, Kvy vs. Stroll, both on mediums, Gio vs. Ric, both on mediums, Ric vs. Gro, the former on mediums, the latter on hards). So that’s that.

          Lesson to be learned here is you don’t neccessarily have to get personal the moment you see something that you don’t agree with. Because some might not be willing to be this patient to elaborate on their point.

          1. There were significant differences between the performance of the cars there and differences in the tyre wear. Whereas there was no difference in the car performance and little difference in the tyre wear between Leclerc & Vettel.

            The lesson for is for you to keep on learning. By offering up additional information and supporting your contention, I believe you are indeed doing this. So well done

  17. “This was highly significant as he had clearly backed off his pace after lap 17….”

    Yet Ferrari told him to pick up the pace two laps earlier. I cant help but to think if Vet was 1st and Lec 3rd and the same happened, you would write an endless article of how Vet threw a victory away once again.

    Get rid of your biased pen mate….

  18. For the first time in four years, someone other than a Mercedes, Ferrari or Red Bull driver led a race. That someone was Antonio Giovinazzi

    Didn’t Stroll lead in Germany? Not a full lap?

  19. Leclerc: great driver, still a child.

  20. This article is pretty biased. Like I get hating Vettel seems to be a popular thing but the narrative written here paints some sort of conspiracy to the ‘wronged’ Leclerc and I wouldn’t say that was a fair representation of what happened.

  21. I understand that they wanted Vettel to win to pick himself up again but ferrari made a mistake, the ferrari drivers are taking points off eachother, Leclerc should have been prioritised in this “50/50″situation. He is closing in on second and if, let’s say, Hamiton had an engine failure followed by a spin or a crash then he could be in the championship hunt. They should be behind Leclerc and should have done it earlier in the season.

Comments are closed.