4456 posts shown.
Jacob Castillo70 said:Lewis Hamilton and Toto Wolff are out here losing it over fans cheering when unknown hit the wall on Friday...
Did they seriously forget what went down at the Silverstone Circuit last year? And hey, people were celebrating while Max Verstappen was being rushed to the hospital—exactly what Lewis is complaining about now regarding those Dutch fans being out of line.
Richard Walker38 said:Peak selectivity here. 👍
You totally skipped my post further down where I thought you were just twisting things because they didn't show the replay right away. 🙂
And don't give me that lecture on objectivity. We both know that old saying about "it takes one to know one."
Raymond Anderson4 said:To be honest, has Red Bull Racing even been this fast all season, or was Ferrari actually on another level today? 🙂
Richard Walker38 said:Sebastian Vettel should just go join Greenpeace already. He needs to leave Formula 1 behind; it’s long overdue, and now it’s finally happening.
Brian Garcia24 said:Blah blah blah, that's a description of your post, not mine. Ferrari clearly has the superior Race Pace; I've analyzed their performance race after race, and it shows up almost every single time. Those are actual arguments, not just your "it's obvious" nonsense.😵
Brian Garcia24 said:I honestly don't know what people are looking at if they have working eyes. Ferrari dominates qualifying, sure, but they’re better in the race too. Ferrari had the superior pace in practically every single race this season. If it weren't for mechanical failures, driver errors, or tactical blunders, Ferrari would have literally won EVERY race this season. In every race where Max took it, one of those three things—or a combo of them—handed him the win, while the car's raw pace was always on Ferrari's side. It's wild how anyone can miss that.
So, look: Sainz wins in the United Kingdom, then Leclerc takes Australia and Bahrain. In Canada, Sainz is breathing down Max's neck—obviously faster—but he just can't get past. Plus, a SC probably screwed him over. Leclerc isn't even in the conversation because of component changes (if he were, Max definitely wouldn't be able to hold off both of them). Azerbaijan was double engine failures for Ferrari, Monaco was a disaster of strategic calls and terrible communication, Spain was a botched call from the pit wall that cost Leclerc, Miami was Leclerc's mistake leading to Max overtaking, and Saudi Arabia was Max and Leclerc fighting it out with a few slips from Leclerc (that’s the race where Red Bull was closest). Then there's Italy, where Max does his usual thing in the rain, both Ferraris have a pathetic start, Sainz crashes, and Leclerc gets stuck behind a McLaren before being visibly faster than Perez but messing up and losing everything. That’s basically the whole season. Maybe one or two races where the pace was even or Red Bull was slightly quicker, but otherwise, Ferrari is faster in the vast majority of races.
Sam Clark75 said:Yeah, he got lucky. Whether it was pure grind, a stroke of luck, or just a fluke—whatever—he caught a break. How exactly it happened doesn't really matter. He definitely didn't have a crystal ball or any divine intervention.
ruggedcyclist56 said:We seriously need a separate thread just for Formula 1 conspiracy theories. Or maybe we should just move this whole discussion over to the Alternative sub-forum.
And you really think it was a coincidence that Max was significantly faster lap after lap than Checo?
What would they actually gain by having them fight on track, other than giving you a little thrill regardless of who wins? Because honestly, any of the three outcomes would lead to the same drama:
- If VER overtakes PER -> people will scream about how they told Checo to step aside before the race and how you can't expect anything better from a pathetic outfit like Red Bull.
- If PER keeps VER behind him -> the comments will be all about how VER is a total weakling and a complete fraud.
- If anything happens that causes a DNF for one or both drivers -> Red Bull are just idiots and nothing like a serious team like Mercedes because they're basically just a soda company with zero discipline, clearly shown by the fact they can't even manage their own drivers. And of course, Max gets labeled "Crashstappen" and an idiot just for good measure.
So, wasn't Max significantly faster lap after lap than Checo?
What would fighting on track actually achieve besides giving you a little thrill regardless of the result?
Lisa Thomas3 said:At the end of the day, Sergio Perez just doesn't have the depth to go toe-to-toe with Max Verstappen over a full season. He's not going to be a legitimate threat for the WDC...
The level of dominance Max Verstappen established over the last few seasons—where he was basically playing a different sport than everyone else—was never actually realistic. It’s something we’ve never seen before in the history of the sport. At the end of the day, you have to account for track conditions; some circuits just favor certain drivers more than others...
Perez is a solid driver, but he’s up against the toughest competition out there. He knows it, and anyone with half a brain—including the folks over at Red Bull Racing—knows it too...
Even this season proves it. The fact that Perez is trailing by "only" 15 points despite having fewer DNFs than Max—and considering the team handed him the win in Monaco instead of giving it to Max—isn't an argument for them being equals. If anything, it proves the exact opposite...😁
So, sure, if his strategy relies on Max picking up five more DNFs when he hasn't had a single one, then fine—maybe he can still dream about the title. But I’m not convinced that’s exactly brilliant math. And what does playing second fiddle at Red Bull actually get him? Getting kicked out of the team (with or without a contract)? What, is Ferrari going to swoop in and hire him just to spite their own roster of jokers? Even that doesn't seem like a solid plan; as much as Ferrari might be fed up with their current drivers, they aren't about to poach a number two driver from a direct rival... 😁
Honestly, he’d be an idiot to do anything other than play ball. He should just take whatever wins the circumstances throw his way—like right now in Monaco—and call it a day. There’s zero chance he lands a seat as the number one driver at another top-tier team at his age, and he simply can't compete with Max Verstappen. Maybe, if he stays in line, Max decides to move on eventually, leaving Perez to inherit the number one spot along with a much weaker teammate. If Red Bull Racing stays strong, that’s his only shot at a title. If we're talking about any realistic scenario where Perez actually wins a championship, that's the only one...
I usually avoid arguing with this troll, but I can't just let this nonsense sit there unrefuted. If someone doesn't set the record straight, people end up swallowing these ridiculous claims and passing them around like truth.
Look, at the moment those "team orders" were supposedly happening, Max was nearly a second and a half faster than Sergio Perez on track. It’s a safe bet he would have shaken him off quite easily, so all this math regarding point gaps is complete nonsense.
In reality, it wasn't even a classic team order situation. It was just about efficiency—avoiding wasting precious seconds on an internal battle that had a predictable outcome anyway, especially since they were on totally different strategies and running at completely different paces.
For anyone peddling this stupidity, the ultimate proof is this: Red Bull didn't pull Max into the pits for a fastest lap right after Sergio Perez, even though they easily could have. Everything about this is clear and logical.
It's about as logical as assuming Max Verstappen would have stayed ahead of Sergio Perez in Monaco qualifying if things had just stayed clean until the end. But hey, if some people want to act dense and argue over nothing, more power to them...
graniteharbor502 said:I find myself wondering, quite sincerely, whether you will all feel even the slightest bit of embarrassment when the season finally draws to a close and you look back upon what you are writing right now?
Lisa Thomas3 said:I can't have a serious conversation with someone who thinks throwing an FP session at me as "proof" that a driver is actually faster during the weekend is a valid argument...🤦
It’s roughly the same level of logic as looking at preseason testing times and pretending you actually know what the order is going to look like. Are we going to have a serious conversation here, or are we just going to keep throwing around these childish arguments?...
Are we actually watching Formula 1 or what?
How many times in the last few seasons has Bottas actually clocked better times in FP1, FP2, or FP3—sometimes even through Q1 and Q2—only to have Hamilton absolutely smoke him in Q3 like he was nothing? Honestly, using that as an argument is just unbelievably stupid...
Even during Q1 and Q2, the top guys aren't exactly driving at their absolute limit. When you get to Q3—which is really the only part that matters—was Perez actually faster by that 0.037 in the first sector? Meanwhile, Max was putting down much faster times during those first two stints of the second round...
I'm saying it again: my common-sense takeaway is that in a pure qualifying session, Max would have ended up out front. People can draw their own conclusions. If you want to believe he would’ve cooked his tires in the third stint or slammed into a wall, go ahead—that's your business. I’ve stated my position: the most likely and logical scenario is that Max finishes ahead. That's it. I think we've exhausted this topic...
Just a quick summary: in the first stint, Perez was glued to Sainz's gearbox, and Max was stuck right behind Perez. Only Leclerc managed to pull away a bit. As for how fast the Red Bulls actually were, it's hard to say, but we know Perez was complaining over the radio about Sainz holding him up. We also saw evidence earlier in this thread that once Max pitted, he was driving faster than Leclerc during those crucial laps...
Basically, if Max had gone into the pits instead of Perez and everything else played out the same way, he would've easily stayed ahead of Perez and likely at least second—maybe even first depending on his pace. Sure, in that scenario, maybe Ferrari reacts differently or the whole thing shifts, but the point remains: it was obvious the inters were the better call right then, and whoever jumped on them first would come out on top. And Red Bull was pretty fair about calling Perez in first...
Bottom line: if Red Bull was strictly playing for Max, they definitely would've pulled him in first if they weren't already committed to the hard tire strategy. But Perez was ahead on track and got the pit priority. It’s fair game...
Just like in the US, where you dodged the question again about why Red Bull didn't give Max an extra point instead of Perez if he's really their guy. They had the chance, right?
But sure, let's keep ignoring that and stick to the fairy tales about what happened in the US...
Lisa Thomas3 said:I can't have a serious conversation with someone who thinks throwing an FP session at me as "proof" that a driver is actually faster during the weekend is a valid argument...🤦
It’s roughly the same level of logic as looking at preseason testing times and pretending you actually know what the order is going to look like. Are we going to have a serious conversation here, or are we just going to keep throwing around these childish arguments?...
Are we actually watching Formula 1 or what?
How many times in the last few seasons has Bottas actually clocked better times in FP1, FP2, or FP3—sometimes even through Q1 and Q2—only to have Hamilton absolutely smoke him in Q3 like he was nothing? Honestly, using that as an argument is just unbelievably stupid...
Even during Q1 and Q2, the top guys aren't exactly driving at their absolute limit. When you get to Q3—which is really the only part that matters—was Perez actually faster by that 0.037 in the first sector? Meanwhile, Max was putting down much faster times during those first two stints of the second round...
I'm saying it again: my common-sense takeaway is that in a pure qualifying session, Max would have ended up out front. People can draw their own conclusions. If you want to believe he would’ve cooked his tires in the third stint or slammed into a wall, go ahead—that's your business. I’ve stated my position: the most likely and logical scenario is that Max finishes ahead. That's it. I think we've exhausted this topic...
Just a quick summary: in the first stint, Perez was glued to Sainz's gearbox, and Max was stuck right behind Perez. Only Leclerc managed to pull away a bit. As for how fast the Red Bulls actually were, it's hard to say, but we know Perez was complaining over the radio about Sainz holding him up. We also saw evidence earlier in this thread that once Max pitted, he was driving faster than Leclerc during those crucial laps...
Basically, if Max had gone into the pits instead of Perez and everything else played out the same way, he would've easily stayed ahead of Perez and likely at least second—maybe even first depending on his pace. Sure, in that scenario, maybe Ferrari reacts differently or the whole thing shifts, but the point remains: it was obvious the inters were the better call right then, and whoever jumped on them first would come out on top. And Red Bull was pretty fair about calling Perez in first...
Bottom line: if Red Bull was strictly playing for Max, they definitely would've pulled him in first if they weren't already committed to the hard tire strategy. But Perez was ahead on track and got the pit priority. It’s fair game...
Just like in the US, where you dodged the question again about why Red Bull didn't give Max an extra point instead of Perez if he's really their guy. They had the chance, right?
But sure, let's keep ignoring that and stick to the fairy tales about what happened in the US...
Lisa Thomas3 said:I can't have a serious conversation with someone who thinks throwing an FP session at me as "proof" that a driver is actually faster during the weekend is a valid argument...🤦
It’s roughly the same level of logic as looking at preseason testing times and pretending you actually know what the order is going to look like. Are we going to have a serious conversation here, or are we just going to keep throwing around these childish arguments?...
Are we actually watching Formula 1 or what?
How many times in the last few seasons has Bottas actually clocked better times in FP1, FP2, or FP3—sometimes even through Q1 and Q2—only to have Hamilton absolutely smoke him in Q3 like he was nothing? Honestly, using that as an argument is just unbelievably stupid...
Even during Q1 and Q2, the top guys aren't exactly driving at their absolute limit. When you get to Q3—which is really the only part that matters—was Perez actually faster by that 0.037 in the first sector? Meanwhile, Max was putting down much faster times during those first two stints of the second round...
I'm saying it again: my common-sense takeaway is that in a pure qualifying session, Max would have ended up out front. People can draw their own conclusions. If you want to believe he would’ve cooked his tires in the third stint or slammed into a wall, go ahead—that's your business. I’ve stated my position: the most likely and logical scenario is that Max finishes ahead. That's it. I think we've exhausted this topic...
Just a quick summary: in the first stint, Perez was glued to Sainz's gearbox, and Max was stuck right behind Perez. Only Leclerc managed to pull away a bit. As for how fast the Red Bulls actually were, it's hard to say, but we know Perez was complaining over the radio about Sainz holding him up. We also saw evidence earlier in this thread that once Max pitted, he was driving faster than Leclerc during those crucial laps...
Basically, if Max had gone into the pits instead of Perez and everything else played out the same way, he would've easily stayed ahead of Perez and likely at least second—maybe even first depending on his pace. Sure, in that scenario, maybe Ferrari reacts differently or the whole thing shifts, but the point remains: it was obvious the inters were the better call right then, and whoever jumped on them first would come out on top. And Red Bull was pretty fair about calling Perez in first...
Bottom line: if Red Bull was strictly playing for Max, they definitely would've pulled him in first if they weren't already committed to the hard tire strategy. But Perez was ahead on track and got the pit priority. It’s fair game...
Just like in the US, where you dodged the question again about why Red Bull didn't give Max an extra point instead of Perez if he's really their guy. They had the chance, right?
But sure, let's keep ignoring that and stick to the fairy tales about what happened in the US...
Lisa Thomas3 said:I can't have a serious conversation with someone who thinks throwing an FP session at me as "proof" that a driver is actually faster during the weekend is a valid argument...🤦
It’s roughly the same level of logic as looking at preseason testing times and pretending you actually know what the order is going to look like. Are we going to have a serious conversation here, or are we just going to keep throwing around these childish arguments?...
Are we actually watching Formula 1 or what?
How many times in the last few seasons has Bottas actually clocked better times in FP1, FP2, or FP3—sometimes even through Q1 and Q2—only to have Hamilton absolutely smoke him in Q3 like he was nothing? Honestly, using that as an argument is just unbelievably stupid...
Even during Q1 and Q2, the top guys aren't exactly driving at their absolute limit. When you get to Q3—which is really the only part that matters—was Perez actually faster by that 0.037 in the first sector? Meanwhile, Max was putting down much faster times during those first two stints of the second round...
I'm saying it again: my common-sense takeaway is that in a pure qualifying session, Max would have ended up out front. People can draw their own conclusions. If you want to believe he would’ve cooked his tires in the third stint or slammed into a wall, go ahead—that's your business. I’ve stated my position: the most likely and logical scenario is that Max finishes ahead. That's it. I think we've exhausted this topic...
Just a quick summary: in the first stint, Perez was glued to Sainz's gearbox, and Max was stuck right behind Perez. Only Leclerc managed to pull away a bit. As for how fast the Red Bulls actually were, it's hard to say, but we know Perez was complaining over the radio about Sainz holding him up. We also saw evidence earlier in this thread that once Max pitted, he was driving faster than Leclerc during those crucial laps...
Basically, if Max had gone into the pits instead of Perez and everything else played out the same way, he would've easily stayed ahead of Perez and likely at least second—maybe even first depending on his pace. Sure, in that scenario, maybe Ferrari reacts differently or the whole thing shifts, but the point remains: it was obvious the inters were the better call right then, and whoever jumped on them first would come out on top. And Red Bull was pretty fair about calling Perez in first...
Bottom line: if Red Bull was strictly playing for Max, they definitely would've pulled him in first if they weren't already committed to the hard tire strategy. But Perez was ahead on track and got the pit priority. It’s fair game...
Just like in the US, where you dodged the question again about why Red Bull didn't give Max an extra point instead of Perez if he's really their guy. They had the chance, right?
But sure, let's keep ignoring that and stick to the fairy tales about what happened in the US...
Lisa Thomas3 said:At the end of the day, Sergio Perez just doesn't have the depth to go toe-to-toe with Max Verstappen over a full season. He's not going to be a legitimate threat for the WDC...
The level of dominance Max Verstappen established over the last few seasons—where he was basically playing a different sport than everyone else—was never actually realistic. It’s something we’ve never seen before in the history of the sport. At the end of the day, you have to account for track conditions; some circuits just favor certain drivers more than others...
Perez is a solid driver, but he’s up against the toughest competition out there. He knows it, and anyone with half a brain—including the folks over at Red Bull Racing—knows it too...
Even this season proves it. The fact that Perez is trailing by "only" 15 points despite having fewer DNFs than Max—and considering the team handed him the win in Monaco instead of giving it to Max—isn't an argument for them being equals. If anything, it proves the exact opposite...😁
So, sure, if his strategy relies on Max picking up five more DNFs when he hasn't had a single one, then fine—maybe he can still dream about the title. But I’m not convinced that’s exactly brilliant math. And what does playing second fiddle at Red Bull actually get him? Getting kicked out of the team (with or without a contract)? What, is Ferrari going to swoop in and hire him just to spite their own roster of jokers? Even that doesn't seem like a solid plan; as much as Ferrari might be fed up with their current drivers, they aren't about to poach a number two driver from a direct rival... 😁
Honestly, he’d be an idiot to do anything other than play ball. He should just take whatever wins the circumstances throw his way—like right now in Monaco—and call it a day. There’s zero chance he lands a seat as the number one driver at another top-tier team at his age, and he simply can't compete with Max Verstappen. Maybe, if he stays in line, Max decides to move on eventually, leaving Perez to inherit the number one spot along with a much weaker teammate. If Red Bull Racing stays strong, that’s his only shot at a title. If we're talking about any realistic scenario where Perez actually wins a championship, that's the only one...
I usually avoid arguing with this troll, but I can't just let this nonsense sit there unrefuted. If someone doesn't set the record straight, people end up swallowing these ridiculous claims and passing them around like truth.
Look, at the moment those "team orders" were supposedly happening, Max was nearly a second and a half faster than Sergio Perez on track. It’s a safe bet he would have shaken him off quite easily, so all this math regarding point gaps is complete nonsense.
In reality, it wasn't even a classic team order situation. It was just about efficiency—avoiding wasting precious seconds on an internal battle that had a predictable outcome anyway, especially since they were on totally different strategies and running at completely different paces.
For anyone peddling this stupidity, the ultimate proof is this: Red Bull didn't pull Max into the pits for a fastest lap right after Sergio Perez, even though they easily could have. Everything about this is clear and logical.
It's about as logical as assuming Max Verstappen would have stayed ahead of Sergio Perez in Monaco qualifying if things had just stayed clean until the end. But hey, if some people want to act dense and argue over nothing, more power to them...
Even this season proves it. I mean, the fact that Perez is trailing by "only" 15 points despite having fewer DNFs than Max says it all. And they even handed him the win in Monaco instead of Max.Actually, that isn't even an argument for equality—it’s an argument against it.😁
Lisa Thomas3 said:At the end of the day, Sergio Perez just doesn't have the depth to go toe-to-toe with Max Verstappen over a full season. He's not going to be a legitimate threat for the WDC...
The level of dominance Max Verstappen established over the last few seasons—where he was basically playing a different sport than everyone else—was never actually realistic. It’s something we’ve never seen before in the history of the sport. At the end of the day, you have to account for track conditions; some circuits just favor certain drivers more than others...
Perez is a solid driver, but he’s up against the toughest competition out there. He knows it, and anyone with half a brain—including the folks over at Red Bull Racing—knows it too...
Even this season proves it. The fact that Perez is trailing by "only" 15 points despite having fewer DNFs than Max—and considering the team handed him the win in Monaco instead of giving it to Max—isn't an argument for them being equals. If anything, it proves the exact opposite...😁
So, sure, if his strategy relies on Max picking up five more DNFs when he hasn't had a single one, then fine—maybe he can still dream about the title. But I’m not convinced that’s exactly brilliant math. And what does playing second fiddle at Red Bull actually get him? Getting kicked out of the team (with or without a contract)? What, is Ferrari going to swoop in and hire him just to spite their own roster of jokers? Even that doesn't seem like a solid plan; as much as Ferrari might be fed up with their current drivers, they aren't about to poach a number two driver from a direct rival... 😁
Honestly, he’d be an idiot to do anything other than play ball. He should just take whatever wins the circumstances throw his way—like right now in Monaco—and call it a day. There’s zero chance he lands a seat as the number one driver at another top-tier team at his age, and he simply can't compete with Max Verstappen. Maybe, if he stays in line, Max decides to move on eventually, leaving Perez to inherit the number one spot along with a much weaker teammate. If Red Bull Racing stays strong, that’s his only shot at a title. If we're talking about any realistic scenario where Perez actually wins a championship, that's the only one...
I usually avoid arguing with this troll, but I can't just let this nonsense sit there unrefuted. If someone doesn't set the record straight, people end up swallowing these ridiculous claims and passing them around like truth.
Look, at the moment those "team orders" were supposedly happening, Max was nearly a second and a half faster than Sergio Perez on track. It’s a safe bet he would have shaken him off quite easily, so all this math regarding point gaps is complete nonsense.
In reality, it wasn't even a classic team order situation. It was just about efficiency—avoiding wasting precious seconds on an internal battle that had a predictable outcome anyway, especially since they were on totally different strategies and running at completely different paces.
For anyone peddling this stupidity, the ultimate proof is this: Red Bull didn't pull Max into the pits for a fastest lap right after Sergio Perez, even though they easily could have. Everything about this is clear and logical.
It's about as logical as assuming Max Verstappen would have stayed ahead of Sergio Perez in Monaco qualifying if things had just stayed clean until the end. But hey, if some people want to act dense and argue over nothing, more power to them...
It's a totally reasonable assumption based on data, logic, and common sense that Verstappen would have been ahead of Perez in qualifying in Monaco if the session had stayed clean. But hey, if you want to act stupid and argue about it, go right ahead.
graniteharbor502 said:Is it not truly fascinating how we have reached a point where the data from the practice sessions actually carries weight? One might wonder if we haven't drifted into an era where those initial laps on the track hold more significance than they once did. Does anyone else feel that the relevance of the practice sessions has shifted so fundamentally in recent times? 🤣
It didn’t feel like he was any slower during qualifying, really; if that unfortunate incident hadn't occurred, I truly believe he was on the verge of pulling ahead of Perez. When you look closely at the data, he actually clocked faster times in both the first and second sectors compared to Perez, wouldn't you agree?🙄
You seem to be operating under the assumption that I ever actually claimed Verstappen was the fastest during qualifying. If you truly believe that is what I said, then all I ask is that you point out exactly where that statement was made. I have no interest in engaging in petty bickering or mindless whining.
🤦
I feel as though you have begun to lose your way in this discussion. We are speaking specifically about the reality of whether they managed to pull off a full lap to the finish, which they simply did not. The results stand exactly as they are. This isn't some unprecedented occurrence either, as we have seen similar struggles before in Monaco.
He wasn't even slower in qualifying; he was actually on track to beat Perez if things hadn't gone sideways. His first and second sectors were both faster than Perez's.🙄
You’re claiming I said Max Verstappen was the fastest in qualifying. All you've got is to actually show me where I said that. I don't have time for the whining.
graniteharbor502 said:The session began behind the safety car at 16:05—there was an announcement during the broadcast—and, as we know, the decision regarding when the SC clears the track rests entirely with the race directors.
That occurred on lap 20. The reason that Williams didn't move is simply because Charles Leclerc was being remarkably sluggish in his attack. He was driving that lap like a complete amateur, if I may say so. Anyone with access to F1TV can verify that for themselves.
Both Charles Leclerc and Max Verstappen switched to intermediates on the exact same lap. Max was faster during that initial entry lap by 1.7 seconds. We all know now that they really ought to have been on the hard tires. Even Carlos Sainz knew it. Honestly, who is to blame—the pit wall or Charles Leclerc—for the fact that they were left in the dark?
Not quite, though. Sergio Perez clocked a 1:32.1 during his first full lap on the intermediates on lap 17.
By the 21st lap, Max found himself stuck behind two backmarkers, whereas if one looks at the cumulative data, Charles Leclerc actually dealt with fewer backmarkers during that specific window. It seems to me that he simply drove worse, both when the track was clear and when he was navigating traffic.
Nine seconds? Where on earth did that number come from? When Charles Leclerc entered the pits, his lead over Max was only 7.6 seconds, and just one lap prior, when Sergio Perez pitted, the gap ahead of him was merely 8.2 seconds.
When racing under such chaotic circumstances, isn't it true that the smallest details become paramount? One must consider how effectively a driver manages their in-laps and out-laps; had Charles Leclerc executed those more precisely, he likely would have finished ahead of Max. Instead, Max secured the position once again, and quite frankly, he earned it through his own merit.
To clarify, Max wasn't actually slower in qualifying; rather, he was forced to abandon his fastest lap because Sergio Perez went off into the barrier.
As I have already demonstrated, Charles Leclerc was the one who lacked pace during those critical moments.
Ha, so now he’s leading because of your fault?🙄
You're losing the plot. We're talking about whether they actually managed to pull off that final lap. They didn't. The results speak for themselves. And honestly? It’s not like this is the first time this happened in Monaco.
graniteharbor502 said:In the opening round at the start of Q3, Perez was faster than Max by 0.088 seconds in the first sector, but by the end of the lap, he was trailing by 0.037 seconds. Consequently, Max was faster through the remainder of the track and had to compensate for the deficit incurred in that first sector, which, as we observed, he successfully did.
What strikes me as particularly ironic in this entire narrative is the notion that Perez committed an error and was somehow rewarded for it. It is highly probable, based on all available indicators, that Max would have driven a faster lap than Perez regardless. Of course, one could argue that aliens might have descended from the heavens to abduct the Formula 1 drivers, but when one draws the final line, the most likely scenario is that Max would have finished ahead of Perez.
cosmicmoose2 said:So, I just read today that Red Bull extended Perez's contract through 2024. Combine that with the fact that he's only 15 points behind Max, and you could potentially see a massive internal battle brewing. If that happens, it’ll be wild to see if Perez actually follows team orders blindly or goes rogue...
I honestly get the feeling this is the year for Red Bull, but also for Ferrari to snag both the constructors' and drivers' titles. Mercedes took a hit with that little stumble, but there's zero chance they stay weak next season.
What am I getting at here? Basically, this might be the best shot Perez—and maybe (sadly) Leclerc and Sainz too—has ever had at becoming world champion. In a setup like this, the team shouldn't just push Perez aside to help Max unless the gap becomes huge.
And being only 15 points down after just 9 races? That is definitely not a situation where you just sit back and follow orders...
graniteharbor502 said:A gap of 37 thousandths is a massive difference in this sport. 🤦
Where on earth was I ever singing about Max Verstappen being the fastest in the Monaco qualifying? 🙄
Where on earth did I say Max was the fastest in qualifying here in Monaco? 🙄
graniteharbor502 said:The session began behind the safety car at 16:05—there was an announcement during the broadcast—and, as we know, the decision regarding when the SC clears the track rests entirely with the race directors.
That occurred on lap 20. The reason that Williams didn't move is simply because Charles Leclerc was being remarkably sluggish in his attack. He was driving that lap like a complete amateur, if I may say so. Anyone with access to F1TV can verify that for themselves.
Both Charles Leclerc and Max Verstappen switched to intermediates on the exact same lap. Max was faster during that initial entry lap by 1.7 seconds. We all know now that they really ought to have been on the hard tires. Even Carlos Sainz knew it. Honestly, who is to blame—the pit wall or Charles Leclerc—for the fact that they were left in the dark?
Not quite, though. Sergio Perez clocked a 1:32.1 during his first full lap on the intermediates on lap 17.
By the 21st lap, Max found himself stuck behind two backmarkers, whereas if one looks at the cumulative data, Charles Leclerc actually dealt with fewer backmarkers during that specific window. It seems to me that he simply drove worse, both when the track was clear and when he was navigating traffic.
Nine seconds? Where on earth did that number come from? When Charles Leclerc entered the pits, his lead over Max was only 7.6 seconds, and just one lap prior, when Sergio Perez pitted, the gap ahead of him was merely 8.2 seconds.
When racing under such chaotic circumstances, isn't it true that the smallest details become paramount? One must consider how effectively a driver manages their in-laps and out-laps; had Charles Leclerc executed those more precisely, he likely would have finished ahead of Max. Instead, Max secured the position once again, and quite frankly, he earned it through his own merit.
To clarify, Max wasn't actually slower in qualifying; rather, he was forced to abandon his fastest lap because Sergio Perez went off into the barrier.
As I have already demonstrated, Charles Leclerc was the one who lacked pace during those critical moments.
Ha, so now he’s leading because of your fault?🙄
Lisa Thomas3 said:The situation was pretty messy. As much as I hate making excuses for Ferrari and their incompetence, it’s just not true to say they single-handedly cost Leclerc three spots and leave it at that.
For starters, I listened to the team radio. Unlike Sainz, Leclerc didn't make his tire preferences clear. When asked about switching straight to hards, he just mumbled, "maybe, but not now," and then went silent. I wouldn't completely rule out his own responsibility here.
Leclerc is leading on track, but behind him, Sainz is dead set on jumping straight to hards, Perez blinked first and pitted for inters, and Verstappen is his main threat whose strategy is still anyone's guess. So what is Ferrari supposed to do? If they cover Perez immediately, they likely lose out to both Sainz and Verstappen (since he'll probably go straight to hards too). If they wait for Verstappen, they lose to Perez and probably Sainz as well. No matter who they try to cover, they’re likely a lap behind the action...
It isn't that simple. Even with Leclerc in the lead, everyone behind him is playing their own game, so he was likely losing two positions regardless. Sure, they lost everything in the end because of indecision, but that's beside the point.
The only way Leclerc could have held onto first place was if he had his own plan and dictated the pace.
He should have just said, "I want this and that, I'm making the move first," and called it a day. That’s the only way to take that kind of risk. But he didn't show that level of decisiveness.
If Ferrari had put him straight on hards without him confirming the track conditions were ready, the media would have absolutely torn them apart.
The best way to defend a position is to think ahead and build a gap before the pit stops. Why wasn't there better communication from the team? Why didn't they tell him to push harder? Or maybe he just didn't have the pace—that might be the real root of the problem.
👍
I thought it would take a few weeks for the "geniuses" to come out with the theory that "Perez was faster than Verstappen in Monaco qualifying," but apparently, one day was enough. 🙏
Perez is the reason RB finished 3rd and 4th in qualifying. Based on his pace during that fast lap, Verstappen would have been P2. They likely would have taken 2nd and 3rd. Instead, Perez crashed and ruined the lap for both himself and Max, right when Ferrari were sitting pretty in 1st and 2nd.
Then you get the idiots counting qualifying gaps and claiming Perez was faster in Monaco just because he crashed. It's just people who don't even watch the races talking nonsense...
graniteharbor502 said:The session began behind the safety car at 16:05—there was an announcement during the broadcast—and, as we know, the decision regarding when the SC clears the track rests entirely with the race directors.
That occurred on lap 20. The reason that Williams didn't move is simply because Charles Leclerc was being remarkably sluggish in his attack. He was driving that lap like a complete amateur, if I may say so. Anyone with access to F1TV can verify that for themselves.
Both Charles Leclerc and Max Verstappen switched to intermediates on the exact same lap. Max was faster during that initial entry lap by 1.7 seconds. We all know now that they really ought to have been on the hard tires. Even Carlos Sainz knew it. Honestly, who is to blame—the pit wall or Charles Leclerc—for the fact that they were left in the dark?
Not quite, though. Sergio Perez clocked a 1:32.1 during his first full lap on the intermediates on lap 17.
By the 21st lap, Max found himself stuck behind two backmarkers, whereas if one looks at the cumulative data, Charles Leclerc actually dealt with fewer backmarkers during that specific window. It seems to me that he simply drove worse, both when the track was clear and when he was navigating traffic.
Nine seconds? Where on earth did that number come from? When Charles Leclerc entered the pits, his lead over Max was only 7.6 seconds, and just one lap prior, when Sergio Perez pitted, the gap ahead of him was merely 8.2 seconds.
When racing under such chaotic circumstances, isn't it true that the smallest details become paramount? One must consider how effectively a driver manages their in-laps and out-laps; had Charles Leclerc executed those more precisely, he likely would have finished ahead of Max. Instead, Max secured the position once again, and quite frankly, he earned it through his own merit.
To clarify, Max wasn't actually slower in qualifying; rather, he was forced to abandon his fastest lap because Sergio Perez went off into the barrier.
As I have already demonstrated, Charles Leclerc was the one who lacked pace during those critical moments.
Ha, so now he’s leading because of your fault?🙄
Lawrence Garcia5 said:Eight years later and they've finally thrown in the towel😵
If Mercedes-Benz actually had a car worth fighting with, Lewis Hamilton would be the one leading the charge.
That’s not even a debate at this point...
gentlecobra23 said:Way to go, Pérez.
But honestly, Ferrari’s strategy deserves nothing less than an immediate firing. Leclerc didn't mess up or lose his lead because of anything he did... it was just that absolutely disastrous pit call.
And I have to ask, what’s the deal with Verstappen ignoring the racing line? Are the stewards just blind or what?...