Ferrari’s Las Vegas GP result “should have been even better” – Sainz

RaceFans Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Ferrari closed to within four points of Mercedes in the constructors championship in Las Vegas but Carlos Sainz Jnr says their result should have been even better.

In brief

We should have been in the fight – Sainz

Sainz should have started the Las Vegas Grand Prix from the front row of the grid alongside his pole-winning team mate Charles Leclerc. However a 10-place grid penalty dropped the second Ferrari to 12th.

Ferrari incurred the penalty when they replaced the energy store on Sainz’s car, a step they had to take when his power unit was wrecked by his collision with a loose water valve cover on Thursday. The stewards turned down the team’s request not to apply the penalty, saying they did not have the power to do so.

Sainz was infuriated by the decision, and said it detracted from the fight between the two teams. “You saw what happened up front and the pace Charles had,” he said. “With two Ferraris up there. I think we would have had a very good, fun race for the podium or for the win.

“So we missed out a bit on that. Although it was a good day for a team in terms of the constructors, it should have been even better.”

Practice tyre runs key to Las Vegas success – Krack

Teams who used their hard tyres early in practice at the Las Vegas Grand Prix put themselves at a disadvantage, says Aston Martin team principal Mike Krack. While most teams had two fresh sets for the race, others ran the hard tyres in practice, which meant they couldn’t run an optimal strategy.

“The key today was to have a good understanding of the tyres and the strategy,” said Krack. “It was always the plan to do them something, what we did there. And obviously there was a little bit of luck involved in the beginning, to make a lot of positions.

“But I think all in all, the key today when you look at who has how many hards left and we didn’t, I think you see the ranking that the ones that did not – I think with the exception of Esteban – I think everybody who did not have two went out of the points.”

Vesti returns for Mercedes

Mercedes junior driver Frederik Vesti will reappear for the team this weekend in first practice for the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix. The Formula 2 driver, who arrives at Yas Marina with a slim chance of beating Theo Pourchaire to the title, will replace Lewis Hamilton for the opening practice session.

He previously took over George Russell’s car at the Mexican Grand Prix and will satisfy Mercedes’ obligation to run junior drivers in two practice sessions under the regulations. He will also appear for the team in the post-race Young Drivers’ Test a week from today.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Social media

Notable posts from X (formerly Twitter), TikTok and more:

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Comment of the day

Oscar Piastri’s dislike of the rule which forces drivers to use two different tyre compounds struck a chord with some:

I really don’t see any problem with drivers running to the end if they think they can make the tyres last.

I would like to scrap these (in my opinion) rather pointless rules about tyre changes and let teams pick whichever compound they want, at any time.

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Polishboy808, Piyush Arya and Square Route!

On this day in motorsport

  • Born today in 1943: Jacques Laffite, who went on to win six F1 races, all with Ligier, and led the world championship points standings at the start of 1979.

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.

13 comments on “Ferrari’s Las Vegas GP result “should have been even better” – Sainz”

  1. I’ve never had an issue with the minimum two-compound requirement, but I wouldn’t mind dropping that either.

  2. Why was the two-compound rule introduced in the first place? To prevent no stop no passing races? That’s no longer relevant. Since we have these high deg tyres, no stop would be a surprise strategic element.
    Reminds me of races like Kobayashi in Valencia or more recently Albon in Australia. There’s of course a security concern with potential blowouts that needs to be addressed. F1 doesn’t have to stop for fuel like IndyCar does so it makes little sense to enforce stops for other reasons.

    1. The idea was cars would be slower and faster at different points of the race and this would increase the average number of “overtakes”.
      Has it ever worked, well yes maybe… Pethaps Ferrari at Hungary 2022?
      A “0.4s” compund performance delta exists when driving on the limit. A) that’s not enough to overtake in F1 B) no one drives at the limit. At the end drivers are a little more careful to protect the soft tires and the relative performance of cars is stable through the race with minor variation due to set up adaptability.
      I would rather see this dropped and watch teams figure out what works for them.

      1. Tbf mediums were quite stronger than hards on Mexico 23. But the two compounds rule didn’t seem like the biggest reason cars chose different tires.

      2. I seem to recall that the idea was actually to keep the tyres (and Bridgestone as the tyre supplier) a talking point after the tyre wars ended in 2007. Bridgestone became the sole tyre supplier and were worried that tyres would simply not be discussed if they continued with the single compound. They introduced multiple compounds and the two compound rule to keep them relevant.

      3. As Asanator mentions it IS one of the parameters that tyre suppliers insist on in the contracts. Given that they deliver the tyres they want them to DO something (and not just when they blow or go bad!) so they insist on having something like this.
        It was first put in when refuelling disappeared and the tyres could easily last a race under Bridgestone (they were really hard so probably a chunk slower than the pirellis max performance, but that did mean they could last that long) and Pirelli has insisted on the same thing – if they are to bring different compounds, there has to be some use of them. This is also part of the reason why they keep fiddling with “alternative” tyre regimes during qualifying, to get drivers to have to use different compounds to keep tyres a talking point.

  3. “With two Ferraris up there. I think we would have had a very good, fun race for the podium or for the win.

    The problem for Sainz is that he touched the car starting in front of him when he spun, and even when starting second on the grid there is still a car in front.

    1. Had he not had the manhole cover carving up his car it would have been an all Ferrari pole. That would certainly have given them a decent shot at getting both on the podium and a far better shot at defending the win from Max since he would have had to get past 2 cars and would not have done Leclerc at the start.

      1. @bascb an all Ferrari pole? They’ve finally legalized double-seaters!

  4. If the two compounds rule were to be dropped, I’m not sure it would improve racing. Wouldn’t that push everyone to just pick the same strategy? Though that’d also mean more passes on track rather than in the pitlane…

    1. Almost certainly, yes.

  5. Bring back tyre wars. The argument it could lead to dominant seasons by one team can now be laid to rest.

    1. Either that or make them irrelevant. That’s what most other series have done. Nobody really cares about the tyres in THE WEC because they “just work”. Pirelli and their spec-parts have been dominating the talking points for far too long.

Comments are closed.