Would the one-stop strategy Leclerc wanted have paid off? Canadian GP data

13 comments on “Would the one-stop strategy Leclerc wanted have paid off? Canadian GP data”

1. 

   pcxmac (@pcxmac)
   16th June 2025, 4:40

   comparing Ham’s and Leclerc’s data, its pretty clear Hamilton’s pace only drops off after hes pitted late, stuck behind traffic and then his car goes no where, just like last race. It’s only around lap30, after Leclerc undercuts Lewis that Ham’s pace drops off a cliff.

   Did the small animal damage his car around lap 12 ? Thats not what that data shows, the data shows the same thing that happened last race where Hamilton gives up mid race because hes in no man’s land, and able to move forward or backward.

   Ferrari really don’t care about winning, unless it’s with Leclerc, and they ain’t gonna win anything of much. Its so sad to see a team ruthlessly screw themselves over and over again.
   1. 

      Ivan Vinitskyy (@ivan-vinitskyy)
      16th June 2025, 8:41

      Think it looks like it drops off because Lec is on old hards the whole 28 laps. In that time Ham is on new hards and is still marginally slower. He should have been significantly faster from pit stop on lap 14, even with traffic. If anything midfield runners on old hards should have had no chance of staying in front of a heathy Ferrari on new tyres.
      1. 

         pcxmac (@pcxmac)
         17th June 2025, 2:44

         Hamilton lost most of the time fighting back markers being pitted behind at least 3 of them who had the right of way. The commentator on F1.tv I believe DC said Hamilton was losing at least 2 seconds a lap to the leaders being stuck behind those guys.

         Hamilton was kept out too long, but long enough to try and block Norris for Leclerc. Then Hamilton was pit behind people long enough for Leclerc to undercut him by a few seconds and then take off with a better tire strategy in that instant. Leclerc was never going to be allowed to go 1 stop, the strategy guys used HAM as a backstop and through him under the bus just like last race, not unlike how Mercedes would throw him under the bus even if the team would finish 7/8th last year.

         After that, Ham probably had residual effects of the floor hampering his rear tires, and he might have had a performance defecit, but after Ferrari pit him behind those backmarkers Leclerc was always going to jump him and Hamilton was always going to sit behind Leclerc, and Leclerc would finish however high up they could get him.
         1. 

            pcxmac (@pcxmac)
            17th June 2025, 2:50

            And yes, Leclerc was kept out a little longer to ensure he undercut Hamilton. Ferrari screwed Hamilton that race, probably like what happened last race. And then he was stuck with a dog of a car again.

            Ferrari deserves to lose every race for the rest of the year. They literally favor a guy who has a car built around, him ample opportunity, and boofs it in qualifying, so they throw Lewis’ race away just so Leclerc and the team can feel better about themselves. Laughable and pathetic. Shades of Mercedes/Wolff if you ask me. Just garbage teamwork.

            Ferrari should have let Lewis run his best race, but they didn’t and his race engineer is seriously doing him wrong every race. Its pretty pathetic to watch the commentators and staff run their mouthes and pretend how the people at home are clueless as to what they are doing.

            At the end of the day Ferrari is only about Leclerc, just like RBR is only about Max. The big difference is RBR+Max can win races, Ferrari and Leclerc cannot… And this kind of ludicrous thinking has been going on for YEARS. and there are a lot of people who are comfortable with this arrangement, and it really (this theory) does answer to the reason why Ferrari look so entitled and comfortable with losing.
2. 

   MG1982 (@mg1982)
   16th June 2025, 6:22

   Don’t think so. I’m with the team’s strategy in this case. He was nowhere on Mediums, the gap to the car in front (NOR) just kept getting bigger.
   1. 

      F1 in Figures (@f1infigures)
      16th June 2025, 7:00

      @mg1982 With no pressure from behind Ferrari could have tried a 1-stop. It probably wouldn’t have made much of a difference, though, as he would have been passed or undercut by the leaders anyway. The odd thing is that according to Leclerc the medium tire was a good race tire, when it clearly wasn’t.
   2. 

      Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
      16th June 2025, 7:01

      @mg1982 Leclerc kept a consistent gap behind him to Hamilton of around one pit stop – so consistent it looked like that had become the target. This would only make sense if the strategy called for him to preserve his car in case of a late race Safety Car (as it happened, the Safety Car was a couple of laps too late to help).
   3. 

      Pflite
      16th June 2025, 8:31

      @mg1982 I agree, medium tyres weren’t good for Charles, he was supposed to gain a bit of time to Norris but the gap constantly grew. He also didn’t have a shot to the fastest lap.
3. 

   Mog
   16th June 2025, 7:58

   Without reading the article, I’m guessing it could have paid off simple because Ferrari chose not to do it
   1. 

      Steven Williamson
      17th June 2025, 5:48

      Kubica just won Le Mans in a Ferrari! So a Ferrari can win, as long as a Ferrari team is not running it! lol
4. 

   slowmo (@slowmo)
   16th June 2025, 12:49

   Whether or not he would have been better off with a one stop it felt to me like the way they want about the 2 stop was completely wrong anyway. If they were going for a 2 stop it arguably would have been better had they put the Medium tyre on for the middle stint.

   I get the reason for putting the Medium last might be they could mitigate the degradation due to a lighter fuel load but what putting the hard on meant was they were locked into a pit stop strategy where they would only want to goto the Mediums with less than 20 laps left.

   Had they put the Medium on for the middle stint (like McLaren did for Norris) then they would have had the option to pit to the hard at any point after that to make it to the end in the event of a safety car which was always likely on that track in the event of an accident or failure. Now as it happens, that incident didn’t transpire but had a safety car come out on lap 40 they would have struggled to make the end switching tyres to mediums for 30 laps while meanwhile their rivals could all have made a “free” final stop to their last Hard stint.

   To me it felt like even the strategy they chose in the end had the fewest possible upsides. All in all it felt a hopeless risk averse strategy with no possible chance to benefit other than if there had been a safety car after the 2 stoppers made a last stop of Hards and he made his final stop for Medium. That would be a very small window of opportunity to actually occur though where as the alternate switch would have had a 20 lap window for potential pit saving benefit and zero cost in potential race time.

   It’s a moot point I feel though as the Ferrari did just seem not in the same race as McLaren, Red Bull and Mercedes today. No matter the strategy they were clearly slower than the top 4 cars.
   1. 

      pcxmac (@pcxmac)
      17th June 2025, 2:58

      the appearance of a 1 stop was only to undercut HAM.

      it’s just a good thing LeClerc was given the better tires for the first stint so he could ‘overcut’ Lewis after his team through him behind the midpack guys.

      My only question is Leclerc lying on the radio or is he really that oblivious to what his guys were trying to achieve. And if he is oblivious, man Ferrari must really think high of themselves, like super high as a kite high.
   2. 

      roadrunner (@roadrunner)
      17th June 2025, 12:17

      Exactly. I also think it’s almost always beneficial to keep the best tyre for the last stint if possible, because you can stop whenever you want. Regarding the one stopper: I think the problem was track position. Before the first stop they were in amongst the leaders and beeing passed costs you an incredible amount of time so they decided to bail out. Up to that point the speed was good so they could hope to catch the pack back up as Norris did. So far so good, but by fitting hards again they had to wait quite a long time before they could pit again, the leading 5 used the undercut to good effect and Leclerc ended up nowhere without a slipstream and possible dejected. Then the pace was poor on the mediums too.
      Maybe they should have gone for the Hail Mary and let Leclerc run on hards as long as he could, but as yous said the pace wasn’t really there except for the first stint when everyone was managing.

Comments are closed.