Posts by Lisa Thomas3

Now that the government in Sweden has actually changed, we can finally start talking about immigrant-driven crime. The real question is whether it’s already too late to fix the mess left behind by the lunatics in power before them.

Roger Wright94 said:Red Bull had the advantage in SA and Miami given their car concept and the tracks. Those were races where Red Bull victories were predicted in advance.
If you want to believe Max won those races solely because of Leclerc's mistakes, go ahead.

In reality, Red Bull didn't have any advantage—that's what I'm talking about. Maybe in theory, sure, but in theory, many people didn't even suspect they'd get crushed like this in Austria.

So, you think the pre-race statements from analysts and experts saying a stronger Red Bull was EXPECTED are proof of Red Bull's dominance on that track? Okay, great argument, really top-tier stuff.🤦
Fine, let everyone weigh the strength of that logic themselves.
By the way, plenty of analysts and experts (not just forum users) were predicting Red Bull dominance before Austria, and Ferrari was right there with them. So much for pre-race predictions.
But hey, if that's the only argument you could come up with, there you go.
I’ll say this, just for those actually reading:
In that race (SA), Leclerc led most of the way ahead of Verstappen without Verstappen being able to put any real pressure on him or make a move. That lasted maybe 20 laps. Despite the fact that the track has a massive straight, where a significantly faster car—especially one with a huge straight-line advantage—would easily close the gap and stay glued to the back, nothing happened. Similarly, Perez was just cruising behind Sainz without any pressure or attacks. The gaps between all of them weren't particularly drastic, which tells us clearly enough that the car pace on that track was neck-and-neck. After the last VSC (about 10 laps from the end), Max attacks Leclerc, they battle for 5 laps, and finally, Leclerc makes a mistake and Verstappen passes. In the final 3-4 laps, Max can't even pull away despite having overtaken him, and the race ends with a 0.5-second gap. And let's not forget, Perez was just circling behind Sainz until the end, unable to do a thing.
It couldn't be ANY CLEARER that the car pace in that race was equal, and that if Leclerc had held his position for 30 laps—including those 5-6 laps after the VSC—he could have stayed ahead for another 3 if he hadn't messed up.
These are just the direct facts of what happened during the race, so let everyone judge the actual power balance of the cars. Clearly, some people have their own version of reality in their heads, but I'm writing this for everyone else. We have actual eyes on the ground on one side, and pre-race analyst quotes on the other.👍

And likewise, I'm challenging you and your buddy here who claims Red Bull is faster in pace: name the races where we actually saw that, and explain what you saw on track to support it. Because I've already laid out my thoughts on every single race, and I'm ready to present detailed facts for every one of them (just like I did above regarding SA) where it's plainly visible that Ferrari had better pace in the vast majority, with a few equals. You avoid doing this because it's obvious Ferrari has the better pace.

Roger Wright94 said:I can't even! I honestly don't recall a single race this year where Max was actually better than Leclerc when things got wet... 🤔

Maybe my memory is failing me, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall two races and three qualifying sessions held on wet tracks. Aside from that Monaco race, we had Italy, which was a pure masterclass in Max Verstappen's driving ability since both qualifying and the race were on a wet surface. It was total dominance; he left everyone else in his dust, while Leclerc struggled against Sergio Perez and kept hitting the walls. Qualifying in Italy was another display of power in the rain—he put Leclerc eight-tenths behind him and left Perez nearly two full seconds back. Then there was the dominance in Canada during qualifying, where his closest rival, Alonso, was seven-tenths back, and Carlos Sainz was even further behind (the same Sainz who later proved in the dry race that the car was actually faster). Leclerc didn't compete there due to an engine change, and Perez struggled just to make it into Q2 before eventually crashing into the wall. Finally, there was Silverstone qualifying where he finished second. He usually dominates most wet qualifying sessions, but Leclerc was brilliant in the rain there, pulling off some crazy maneuvers on track, leaving Max Verstappen to finish just a few thousandths behind Sainz by sheer bad luck...

So, when you really look at the numbers, here’s how Max Verstappen has fared in the rain this season...
Race results: 1st in Imola, 3rd in Monaco...
Qualifying results: 1st in Imola, 1st in Canada, 2nd at Silverstone...

Leclerc in the rain...
Race results: 7th in Imola, 4th in Monaco...
Qualifying results: 2nd in Italy, 3rd at Silverstone, and a total disaster in Canada... just as expected.

The facts speak for themselves, again. Out of five wet qualifying sessions and races, Charles Leclerc hasn't been able to touch Max Verstappen once. And let's not forget the actual FACT that during those qualifying rounds, Max absolutely demolished the field—leaving his closest competitors nearly a full second behind in both Italy and Canada. Those are easily the biggest gaps we've seen all season. It was just a pure masterclass in handling the rain...

It’s funny how you managed to forget everything else except Monaco—conveniently claiming you "don't recall" those moments—just so you could obsess over the idea that Ferrari's pit wall was solely to blame for Monaco. You conveniently skipped over the absolute disaster in Italy and those qualifying sessions in England. Not to mention Leclerc's own struggles in the wet and his mistakes during the race in Italy and at Silverstone. You just want to pin it all on Monaco, the Ferrari strategy, and Leclerc's car, while ignoring he's arguably the best driver out there when it rains... 🤦
I've laid out the facts again. Honestly, I'm doing it more for everyone else at this point; I don't have any illusions about convincing people who clearly have such short memories...

Roger Wright94 said:If I had even a shred of doubt left about Charles Leclerc, this year's Monaco race officially wiped it out...
All things considered, it was a brilliant performance by the guy from Monaco... 🙏Literally.
He hadn't finished a single race in Monaco until this year. Considering it's his home race, that kind of pressure is brutal...

The Monaco race was one of the weaker outings for Charles Leclerc this season—though honestly, saying that feels a bit silly when you consider how many other drivers have struggled just as much...
But honestly, he drove way too conservatively. His key laps were a mess—which everyone here has been pointing out for a while now—and that’s exactly why he lost out to Max Verstappen. His coordination with the pit wall was non-existent; he just sat there assuming the crew would handle everything perfectly. In a chaotic race like that, where some guys went straight to hards on a soaking wet track, he really should have been much more engaged...
Once again, you’re just dumping all the blame on the pit wall, while Carlos Sainz showed way more grit and intelligence—he knew exactly what he wanted, and that’s why he nearly pulled off the win.
You keep dodging these facts by focusing exclusively on the team's mistakes.
I get where Charles Leclerc is coming from, given his history at this track, the home crowd pressure, and how much he struggles when it rains (which we’ve already proven with the other examples above). The guy was probably driving the whole race just trying not to slam into a wall and embarrass himself again. In a way, I get it, and I don't blame him too much, but those are the standards for an average driver on an average team. He needed to show some teeth during the critical moments.

I have no idea why you’re quoting heavy hitters from the forums; obviously, this place is full of terrible predictions. Honestly, most of what you cited were just trivial half-guesses about someone crashing, and the odds of that actually happening are usually pretty slim.
My only issue was with the guy predicting Red Bull dominance at Indianapolis, mainly because that same person is dead serious—as far as I can tell—about claiming Red Bull has better pace this season. So, I mocked that ridiculous prediction, which also seemed to be made with total sincerity, hoping they’d realize what a fantasy world they’re living in. They didn't. And since I won't have time to go back and forth later, let me just say: I wasn't asking for an apology for a wrong prediction. You don't apologize for that; you just admit you completely missed the mark...

Roger Wright94 said:The rain in Monaco is beside the point.
In Monaco, Leclerc outclassed Max Verstappen in every single timed session. We're talking 3, 4, or 7 tenths ahead, whether it was dry or wet.

It’s funny how you and graniteharbor502 look at all that and conclude that three poorly driven laps by Leclerc are the sole reason for his bad result.
Did it ever occur to you that there might be a reason?
But I see the logic. It feels "normal" to you because it's Leclerc (not Max). To you, it’s perfectly expected that a driver who is overwhelmingly dominant for 200 laps would suddenly mess up three vital ones.

There is a reason and an explanation for those three laps. A rational, realistic reason involving external factors.
I don't know what it is (I'm just guessing), but I know it definitely isn't Leclerc's driving. That would be absurd and nonsensical.

You don't know the reason, but you're certain one exists??🤣
Fine, so you'll justify every mistake Leclerc makes. Because clearly, he never drives slow or messes up; it must always be an "external factor." Why are we even debating this?

As for the rest, I've told you multiple times: I don't care about Free Practice. Those sessions don't matter. Only qualifying and the races count toward the points. I’m surprised that since you lack any real arguments, you didn't try pulling 1,500 laps from pre-season testing out of thin air. 🤣 Not enough from the 200 Monaco FP laps?🤣

Roger Wright94 said:He was popping off like popcorn... happened more than once.
Statements like that honestly make me feel sick. How am I supposed to have a serious conversation with anyone after hearing stuff like this...

Yeah, popped like popcorn...
It's all just speculation at this point. Who knows? Maybe Max Verstappen would have pulled ahead anyway, or maybe he would've ended up slamming into a wall out of pure frustration, just like we've seen Leclerc do before...
We don't know! All we know is that Leclerc made a mistake that gave Max an opening—an opening that, naturally, he exploited. Instead of making excuses for him, we should be calling him out and holding him responsible for what he actually did...
They really need to step up and get their act together...

I've given at least two examples. Deny that if you can...
We all know you can't pull it off, so all you've got left is banging your head against the wall...

Roger Wright94 said:What a pathetic myth. It wasn't exactly like that in the USA or Miami, where Max just cruised right past Leclerc on the long straights. Simple, painless, and without breaking a sweat...

Ferrari rolled out a rear wing upgrade specifically designed to boost straight-line speed and finally catch up to Red Bull. They debuted it in Canada, but only on Leclerc's car. Since they only had two units ready and didn't want to risk any damage, they played it safe by sticking it on just one car so it could be easily fixed if something went wrong. Honestly, if they had put it on Sainz instead, he might have actually had a real shot at chasing down Max in those final laps...
Does that upgrade actually work?...
You decide. Personally, I’d say yes. Though after that race in Canada, I wouldn't be so sure...

🤣
That's exactly my point. You're pointing to Miami and the USA as proof of Red Bull's straight-line speed, but in both instances, it was Leclerc's own mistake that opened the door for the overtake. In both races, Max Verstappen was sitting right on Leclerc's gearbox during those stretches, and wouldn't you know it, the passes only happened after Leclerc messed up...
Leclerc messes up, and suddenly Red Bull is lightning fast on the straights. What a coincidence...🙏

We all know what a mistake of just a few tenths in the corner before the DRS zone actually means. If that same thing had happened to Max Verstappen in Canada, suddenly Sainz would have flown right past him on the straight...
But they aren't. That's exactly the point—mistakes and pure driving skill are what actually make the difference...
Aside from those two instances where Charles Leclerc basically handed it over with a mistake, I don't see any other examples of Red Bull absolutely dominating on the straights...

Roger Wright94 said:I just don't get it—were you trying to make a point with those seven-tenths? Maybe highlighting Max Verstappen's superiority in the rain...
During the first part of that wet race in Monaco, Leclerc was calling out his seven-tenths gap to Max on every single lap. Every single one...

This is a total joke. You’re trying to justify Max's absolute dominance in the wet during basically every qualifying session this season by pointing out that Leclerc was faster in Monaco—where he drove like he owned the track while Verstappen was stuck in a little train...🤣

The fanboyism is getting truly shameless at this point. I really hope nobody is actually trying to claim that Leclerc and Verstappen can go toe-to-toe in the rain, especially after all the evidence we've seen this season proving just how much better Verstappen is...

graniteharbor502 said:Look, it’s not like Charles Leclerc failed to hold his own in the US or Miami right before Max Verstappen made that pass. He didn't trail by more than seven-tenths on a wet track at Imola, nor did he slam into the barrier during the race. He wasn't just coasting through those critical moments at Monaco, and he wasn't sitting there dead in the water with a blown engine in Canada. He didn't pull some wild stunt during the final lap of qualifying at Silverstone that cost him his starting position and ultimately the win. And he certainly didn't choke during qualifying or the sprint race in Austria...
It’s all on Ferrari's strategy and their pit wall...
My God, what absolute nonsense... claiming that the drivers themselves are somehow responsible for the championship deficit...

Well summarized...👍

cosmicmoose2 said:I’m going to pick out the specific races from that list that best illustrate just how biased you are, ranking them from the absolute worst examples down to the slightly less embarrassing ones...

He won at Indianapolis despite a broken car and after being overtaken three times on track, so claiming that was due to poor driving is a massive stretch, even for you. He only lost one point in the Sprint, and that happened because Sainz isn't exactly a team player—something I'm sure Max doesn't have to deal with at Red Bull. Qualifying doesn't award points anyway, and by that logic, Max "failed" every single time he was outpaced by Leclerc in qualifying. I don't see where you ever called those driver errors before...

He started in 19th in Canada and managed to claw his way up to 5th, sitting just 15 seconds back—honestly, that’s a hell of a result. He wasted a ton of time stuck behind that Alpine, which had incredible top speed, and trying to fight through that traffic obviously chewed up his tires, which you'd expect. If I recall correctly, the pit crew also botched the stop; if they hadn't, he would've finished ahead of Mercedes. At the end of the day, it was the penalty, the track circumstances, and a messy pit stop that held him back, not his driving...
The simple fact that you’re using this race as an example to claim the car is championship-worthy—especially since he only started from the back because of the car itself!—doesn't prove bias or trolling. As a moderator, you really shouldn't be letting that slide...

We already know Monaco was a total meltdown for Ferrari, and once again, we’re looking at a mess caused by poor strategy—twice, no less. If you're trying to argue that Max was faster on intermediates for a few laps, just remember that Leclerc was significantly quicker than Max on the wets, so those points just cancel each other out. All that leaves us with is the gap created by strategy and execution. For God's sake, Leclerc lost massive amounts of time in the pits because they called him in way too early. He was literally sitting there waiting for Sainz for several seconds, yet you're over here obsessing over tenths of a second on the intermediates. Honestly, you're embarrassing yourself if you try to use this race as proof that the car is championship material but the driver isn't...

In the USA, Red Bull had a much stronger pace, and since it’s a high-speed track, Red Bull was dominant in that regard back then. That rear-end instability might have sped up the overtaking process, but Max would've finished ahead of Charles Leclerc regardless. The driver wasn't the main issue here; it was the car—specifically Red Bull's advantage in race pace.

"Won with a damaged car." 🤣 Actually, the damage happened toward the end of the race, and it wasn't significant enough that Max Verstappen didn't even manage to pull away from him by the finish. I'm surprised nobody has commented on a "brilliant drive with a damaged car" at Silverstone, especially since the damage didn't affect his performance at all. 🤣

Leclerc's driving in Canada was generally poor. He was totally off his game. His teammate was battling Max Verstappen, while he couldn't even attack an Alpine. He was struggling against plenty of other extremely slow cars too.

I've said it multiple times regarding Monaco: Leclerc needed to react better to the strategy (just like Sainz did!), and he also drove those key laps poorly.

But this stuff about the USA is just the peak...🤣
Max overtook Charles Leclerc with 4 laps to go, yet he couldn't pull away for the rest of the race; Leclerc stayed right on his tail the whole time, threatening him, until it ended with just a half-second gap.
Yeah, that just shows Red Bull had dominant pace and Verstappen would've won anyway.🤣
What kind of twisted logic is that? Dominant pace, yet you can't pull away from your opponent after overtaking them...🙏
Actually, the fight lasted for several laps; Verstappen made his first move near the end of lap 42 and finally managed to overtake on lap 47. Driving skill was the deciding factor. The cars were evenly matched, and the undeniable proof is that after overtaking, Verstappen couldn't pull away even slightly, let alone escape the DRS zone.
But hey, "dominant pace" according to our expert...

By that logic, Red Bull had dominant pace in Austria too, right?
A boring race and an easy win for Max Verstappen because of a super dominant car in Austria, just like you predicted before the race, wasn't it?
I thought after that embarrassment and shame, you'd at least hide in a hole instead of trying to honestly admit you have no clue what you're talking about, but here he is again, rambling about Red Bull's dominant pace...

Roger Wright94 said:Spain—Charles Leclerc leads by a massive margin, only to DNF halfway through due to turbo and General Motors issues. A guaranteed win, gone...
Monaco—Charles Leclerc is driving like an absolute beast, just pure dominance on track. But thanks to a messy mix of circumstances and some questionable calls from the Ferrari pit wall, he’s looking at 4th place...
Baku—Charles Leclerc finishes in 4th place after his engine gives out just when he was looking like a sure thing for the podium...
Silverstone—Charles Leclerc was leading right before the SC came out, but the pit wall completely misread the situation and called Carlos Sainz in for a stop instead. Now Charles ends up in 4th...

Out of those four races, Charles Leclerc would have definitely taken three if things hadn't gone sideways, and honestly, he could've easily swept all four...
Ferrari definitely has a championship contender in Charles Leclerc...

You need to show this list to the people claiming Red Bull has better pace than Ferrari. They’re insisting these races weren't lost due to mechanical failures or mistakes, but because Red Bull simply dominated the pace...🤣

I’ve already listed a mountain of mistakes from Charles Leclerc this season—from Silverstone to Miami and Imola—and I honestly see a huge chunk of the blame for Monaco resting on his shoulders too, so I won't bore you by repeating myself...
The question is, what does "headline material" actually mean? Anyone can look like a star when they're sitting in a fast car, but when things get chaotic out there, you really need to have that extra edge...
Given Sainz's accident and his current standing within the team, I don't see him escaping the title fight this season. But then again, it’s entirely possible that nothing but his own late-race mistakes will end up costing him the championship...

Lawrence Garcia5 said:You’re still living in some parallel universe where Ferrari actually has the faster, better car...

Which races do you think Red Bull actually dominated? And what's the logic behind that?
I've already made my position crystal clear on this: for most of these races, Ferrari had the superior car, barring a few instances that were a toss-up at best...
I can't believe that even after what we saw in Austria, people are still out here pushing the nonsense that Ferrari isn't the fastest...
Of course, none of you parrots repeating that same line have ever actually tried to explain it... which makes perfect sense.

cosmicotter9 said:The cars are basically on a level playing field. Red Bull has insane straight-line speed, while Ferrari handles the corners better...

This is somewhat of a myth. Sure, Red Bull might have that straight-line advantage, but when you actually have superior overall pace, you just blow past them on the straights and call it a day. In Austria, the Ferraris were just slicing right through Red Bull on the straights like they weren't even there... nothing else really matters then.
Red Bull's straight-line speed just isn't showing up lately. It feels like all that hype from the start of the season has completely evaporated, and honestly, they're struggling to find it again...
There’s also the issue of driver composure and execution, which people tend to overlook. Take Sainz, for instance—during Canada, he was actually putting significant pressure on Max Verstappen, clearly showing more raw pace. But Max just stayed surgically precise, nailing those crucial corners leading into the straight without a single slip-up, leaving Sainz with zero openings. Yet, everyone just casually chalks it up to Red Bull's top speed on the straights.
On the flip side, Charles Leclerc has been cracking under pressure multiple times this season whenever Max is breathing down his neck, making critical mistakes in the turns before the straights in both the USA and Saudi Arabia. And once again, people just blame the car's straight-line speed.
I highly doubt we'd see the same logic applied if the roles were reversed.

It’s a shame for young Sainz. The guy clearly has zero luck. And in almost any sport, luck is a deciding factor. So, I’ll probably just jump on the Leclerc bandwagon myself—you can't succeed in sports without a bit of luck.

Setting Sainz's breakdown aside, watching this race in Austria was a tough one. From a fan's perspective, of course, though it probably wasn't much better for the neutral viewers either. 😁
But this was pure dominance. It reached a point where the strategy didn't even matter because every single plan was a winning one. You knew from the start that the only thing that could stop a 1-2 finish was a mechanical failure (which, unfortunately, hit Sainz).
This was likely the most dominant performance of the season, or at least one of them. We haven't seen anything like this from Ferrari in nearly 20 years. For those of us who have been waiting since the early 2000s for someone to build a beast of a car like this, it’s paradise. So, definitely a season worth enjoying so far.
And honestly, it’s worth enduring a few breakdowns in exchange for this kind of dominance, especially when your closest rival (Red Bull Racing) isn't significantly more reliable anyway.

I won't sit here and mock the people who were arguing with me before the race that Ferrari isn't dominant this year. Some of those same "experts" were writing before Austria that the race was already decided, that it would be boring, and that Max Verstappen would cruise to victory because "Red Bull Racing has too much pace." 🤣
Yeah, they are the exact same "specialists" claiming Ferrari isn't dominant this season. 😁 Everyone saw what they wrote, and everyone has eyes; there's really no point in taking people like that seriously.

What I’ve been saying all season is that I’m not afraid of anything as long as the car is this good. The standings look the way they do, but given the current power balance, it’s only a matter of time before that shifts.
We shouldn't dodge the fact that Ferrari has a weaker driver lineup (compared to Red Bull Racing) and tragic strategists (again, compared to Red Bull Racing), but none of those factors can bridge the gap created by the car itself.

During this half of the season, everything that could go wrong, has gone wrong. Everything happened at the worst possible moments, while your opponent has someone who simply doesn't make mistakes—neither driving nor strategic—or if they do, it's incredibly rare.
Those disastrous strategic blunders happened exactly where they shouldn't have. For instance, if that strategic disaster had happened at Monaco instead, it wouldn't have mattered as much because Ferrari could have easily made up the time with their pace and won anyway.
The mechanical failures also tended to happen right on the tracks where they held the most dominance (including here in Austria), rather than on tracks where Red Bull Racing was closer and more competitive.
Add a few unforced driving errors to that, and you end up with a result where Max Verstappen is leading, and he probably doesn't even know how he did it, regardless of how well he drives.

I got a little spooked at Silverstone, but Austria proved that the technical advantage is still massive. After half a season, there's no reason to expect the balance of power to shift significantly in the second half.
There's no way such a string of bad luck will align again in the latter part of the season. The assumption is that the car will be more reliable, and I'm expecting slightly better driving performances. I don't see any way Ferrari doesn't take both titles.

cosmicmoose2 said:I doubt you're actually a Ferrari fan. You were rooting for Max before.
Which is totally fine, so I don't see why you're hiding it.
And if someone claims Ferrari has the second-best car in terms of Race Pace, it’s hard to interpret that as an insult to the car or the people who designed and built it.
That car really was the strongest at the start, but Red Bull has done way more upgrades, and you can definitely see that in the last six or seven races.

Once again, you're just repeating the same mantra without offering a single coherent argument or example.😵
Where exactly have we seen Red Bull being better over the last 6-7 races? Maybe in Azerbaijan and Spain where Charles Leclerc takes pole only to retire while leading? Or in Canada where Carlos Sainz is hounding Max? Or in Monaco where Ferrari completely dominates until tragic decisions ruin the race?
Get real. We're talking about pace, and it's crystal clear that Ferrari had the faster car in all those races.
And yeah, saying they have the second-best car is absolutely insulting because it isn't true, and it shifts the blame for poor performances away from the strategists and drivers—who are the actual culprits—and onto the engineers, who are honestly the strongest part of the team.

And now you're trying to tell ME who I root for?!🤣
One minute it's Red Bull, now it's Max. Fine, you clearly know more than I do.
I'm not reading any more of this nonsense when there's zero substance behind it...😵

cosmicmoose2 said:Ferrari had the upper hand at the start of the season. Their last race where they actually held a significant advantage was Australia. Though, before that, there was Saudi Arabia, where straight-line speed is the deciding factor—and back then, Red Bull was miles ahead of Ferrari in terms of top speed.

Since then, every single race (not qualifying, but actual races) has gone to Red Bull, so you're dead wrong if you claim Ferrari has been stronger all season. It’s actually the exact opposite. Max is an incredible driver, no doubt about that. But the car accounts for at least 60% of the success.
When you throw strategy and pit stop speed into the mix (as some others have mentioned), plus the fact that Ferrari has dealt with more reliability issues, that explains the massive gap in the points standings.

It feels to me like some Red Bull fans, like yourself, aren't satisfied just having their driver win; they only value a victory if it fits this "David vs. Goliath" narrative. That's why every single season you push this story that Max is winning in an inferior car.

Max didn't even have an inferior car last year (maybe towards the end when Mercedes really pushed their engines to the limit), and he definitely doesn't have an inferior car this year.

This year, his path to the title is the easiest it's ever been. Between the car itself and the state of Ferrari, it's a cakewalk. If he somehow loses the championship, that's on him.

Now you're doing the same thing as stormybadger8, claiming Red Bull is the best without providing any actual arguments.😵 I've analyzed this race by race, and I've clearly laid out how Ferrari had the better Race Pace in most instances, give or take an exception or two. Tell me specifically what's wrong or what you disagree with. And that's just regarding the races; in qualifying, Ferrari's dominance is even more pronounced. Overall, it is hands down the best car on the grid.

And you've completely missed the mark—I'm not a Red Bull fan at all. Quite the opposite, I've always rooted for Ferrari. The fact that you've projected this onto me shows that you view everything through a biased lens, assuming everyone else is just writing fanboy nonsense.
As a Ferrari supporter, it honestly gets under my skin when people try to discredit the work of the people who built this car. They did a damn good job. Alongside Mercedes-AMG and Red Bull Racing, they built the objectively best car on the grid. Hats off to them. Yet now, people are tearing them down, which is obviously the worst part of the whole Ferrari situation. If those people had stayed with the team at that level, Ferrari would be cruising to the championship. But they didn't. So now people bash this fantastic car... why? Just because they're fanboys of a certain driver and need to justify him? Or are they just Max haters? I don't know, but either way, it's ridiculous.

stormybadger8 said:blah blah blah...
Red Bull is hands down a better package than Ferrari, and not even by much...
They were clearly better than The Bear last year too, so Max barely scraped the title regardless...

Another thing is how the FIA basically looked the other way for Hamilton and Mercedes almost every single race last year. They were blatantly favoring Mercedes and Hamilton right up until the final race of the season,
then they tried to claim they were just cleaning up the mess because of angry fans, acting like they weren't favoring Red Bull all along. 🤣

But this season, Red Bull is a far superior package in every aspect except driver talent and qualifying pace, where they’re pretty much on par with Ferrari, but in everything else, they’re miles ahead...
Since Max = Leclerc and Perez = Sainz, the driver quality is about the same—it's just nuances...

Ferrari usually has the edge in qualifying, but you have to wonder how much that's the car versus tires/drivers and whether they just happen to have a good day...
Race pace is undeniably on Red Bull's side.
As for strategy? Don't even get me started. There's a massive gap there; Ferrari can't even compete with Red Bull when it comes to tactics...
Pit stop speed? Again, Red Bull is miles ahead.
Team management and making big calls, like which driver gets priority and when, is a category where Red Bull and Ferrari aren't even in the same conversation...
When it comes to tire management during the race, Red Bull has the advantage, even if they struggle more in qualifying...

All in all, Red Bull is the better package. It wouldn't matter which driver was in the Ferrari and which was in the Red Bull; the result would be the same... because at the end of the day, it's the race results that count, not qualifying...
Even if you put Max and Leclerc in the Ferrari and Sainz and Perez in the Red Bull, Red Bull would still lead both championships...

"Blah blah blah"—that's the only way to describe your post, not mine. Race pace is clearly on Ferrari's side; I've analyzed this race by race, and you could see it practically every single time. Those are actual arguments, not just your "hands down" opinions.😵
Look, I'm talking about the raw pace of the car itself. When you factor in the drivers, strategists, team management, the pits, etc., then sure, Red Bull is a "better package," which is why they're at the top. But the car itself is faster for Ferrari.
Your comparisons of the drivers are ridiculous. Max is in a different league, while those three are probably within a hair's breadth of each other. You're comparing Max, Leclerc, and Sainz, yet Max leads Perez by over 40 points despite having more bad luck overall, while Leclerc and Sainz are within 10 points with similar luck—maybe even slightly more for Sainz. And look at last season, where Max tore Perez apart while Leclerc and Sainz were neck and neck. Sometimes I really don't know what you people are looking at.
Besides, rain has always been, and will always be, the true test of driver skill, and we've had plenty of it this year. If you can't see Max absolutely dominating the competition, then there's no point in me saying anything else. No use explaining things to the blind.

This sprint format is just garbage. First off, it ruins the entire weekend, and second, it serves zero purpose other than rearranging the grid by raw speed, which just makes the actual race less interesting.🤦

James Harris34 said:What are you talking about? Lewis absolutely schooled him. that Maximilian is never going to see a title, not even this year, he's just not smart enough for it.

Alright, it looks like some people literally started following F1 yesterday. 🤣

Jack Kelly5 said:Ferrari has a great car, but they don't have Max.
Red Bull has both.
Last season, he outclassed Lewis, who was driving a Space Shuttle toward the end of the season. Yeah, that Merc was a Space Shuttle compared to everyone else on the grid, and he still got left in the dust.

Mercedes' dominance at the end of last season was unreal. They were better all season, but the way they surged in those last 5-6 races was unprecedented.
I've seen drivers win titles in cars that weren't the fastest, but I've never seen someone pull off a championship in a car that slow by the end of the season.

Jeffrey Brooks2 said:And that’s not even the worst part—how much a guy sinks after anything that isn't perfect is just awful.

Mental game. It's such an underrated factor in all sports, including F1.

Richard Walker38 said:Losers

The guy makes too many mistakes.

Compared to Max, he’s slower. Compared to Sainz, Leclerc's issues are his mistakes and his mental state. If he made fewer errors, Sainz wouldn't be serious competition. But he'll never be faster than Verstappen; the guy is just in a different league when it comes to pure speed.

northerncobra31 said:Red Bull has had the best car on the grid for the last two seasons.

Ferrari this season reminds me of Mercedes 2013. Fast in qualifying, but the race pace is terrible, plus you’ve got the Ferrari pit wall messing things up too.

That is some rare stupidity. Honestly, the only thing dumber than claiming Ferrari doesn't have the fastest car this year is claiming Mercedes didn't have it last year.

I really don't know what people are looking at, besides maybe having vision problems. Ferrari dominates qualifying, but they're better in the race too. Ferrari has had better pace in practically every single race this season. Seriously, if it weren't for reliability issues, driver errors, or strategic blunders, Ferrari would have literally won EVERY race this season. In every race Max won, one of those three things—or a combo of them—is what handed him the victory, while the car's raw pace was always on Ferrari's side. It's incredible how anyone can miss that.
So, we had Sainz winning in the United Kingdom, then Leclerc taking wins in Australia and Bahrain. In Canada, Sainz was squeezing Max, clearly faster, but just couldn't get past. Plus, the SC probably screwed him over. Leclerc was out of the running due to component changes (if he'd been in, Max definitely wouldn't have been able to hold off both of them). Then there was Azerbaijan with both Ferraris breaking down, Monaco with tragic strategic calls and bad communication, and Spain where Leclerc's component failed (thanks to team management). Miami saw a Leclerc error and Max overtaking, followed by Saudi Arabia where Max and Leclerc fought it out with a few mistakes from Leclerc (that was the race where Red Bull was closest). And finally, Italy, where Max predictably dominates in the rain, both Ferraris had desperate starts, Sainz had his mishap, and Leclerc got stuck behind a McLaren before being visibly faster than Perez, only to mess up and lose it all. That's basically the whole season. Maybe one or two races where the pace was equal or Red Bull was slightly faster, but Ferrari was faster in the vast majority of them.

Max🙏 is quite the driver🙏
He left Sergio Perez half a second behind again, and on a track this short at that🙏

Raymond Anderson4 said:Why did it fail so spectacularly?
It was a decent weekend. Things didn't exactly go according to plan, but if it hadn't been for that SC, he would've taken the win. And honestly, he would have dominated, because his pace was just on another level compared to everyone else...

If this was actually a good weekend behind the wheel, then the standard is honestly rock bottom...
If there hadn't been an SC, he would have "easily won," but not because his pace was actually superior to the field. It’s more that his main rival dropped out due to track debris, the second contender—Perez—got taken out because Leclerc went on a suicide mission trying to pass him (of course, Leclerc escaped unscathed while Perez ended up at the back), and the third guy, Sainz, was forced off by Ferrari team orders. Basically, you knock two RB cars out of the race, clear your own path, and then act like it was all thanks to "unbeatable pace"... 🙏
It looks like you've got some temporary amnesia if you're forgetting that the only reason he was even in first place was because Sainz let him through on Ferrari's orders...

Basically, you screw up qualifying, you screw up the standing start, and the only reason you aren't buried in the pack is because a red flag saved your skin and reset the order. Then you collide with Perez and somehow luck out again by getting a free pass. To top it all off, the team lets you ahead of your teammate even though you can't actually overtake him on track. So, you drive like an absolute maniac at the end, convinced you earned the win, when really, the only thing that truly screwed you over was your own team...🙏

The End As I was saying:
He was 0.315 behind the leader, and that’s with the rain coming down...
So he didn't take pole, but what's the big deal? Even Max wasn't leading every single qualifying session, and he still managed to walk away with the wins anyway...

You’re supposed to squeeze everything out of the car. It’s obvious Ferrari has had the fastest car on the grid during qualifying all season long, but the second it starts raining, Max suddenly becomes the undisputed favorite. We all know why that is; it’s like the Ferrari drivers are cursed or something. He was only 0.315 behind the leader, even after messing up his final lap—and that’s considered "good enough"? When you're driving the fastest car on the track? To me, that's just a decent showing for some mid-field driver...
He’s crying about it later just because he’s faster. He had his shot in qualifying. Now he either needs to pass him on track properly or just shut up...

Raymond Anderson4 said:Personally, I wasn't bothered that he didn't move out of the way. The thing is, when Ferrari goes wheel-to-wheel, their top speeds are basically identical. Leclerc could have been sitting right on his gearbox for another 20 laps and still wouldn't have had the pace to get past him. He was faster, sure—he’s always faster—but just not enough to actually make the move...

You could tell Leclerc was faster the second they swapped positions; he pulled a 4.2-second gap in just eight laps.

Why didn't Sainz pull a 4.2-second gap when Leclerc was sitting right behind him?

That tactic was pure nonsense. They completely screwed over Leclerc.

Binotto claims they weren't sure a double stack was doable, fine, but then what?

If they had gone for the double stack, Sainz would have lost maybe a second or two at most, putting him behind Hamilton.
Basically, they would've had a 1-3 for Ferrari on the SC restart, both on softs. How is that worse than having one Ferrari on fresh softs and another stuck on hards, destined to drop back? Leclerc was already looking vulnerable to losing spots to Alonso...
So their choice was basically:
1. Let Sainz lose a position max, but keep him on new tires.
2. Leave Leclerc on old tires and risk him sliding down to 5th or 6th.

They picked option 2.

How is that anything other than favoring Sainz's strategy?

Look, I never denied Leclerc looked slightly quicker there. He did have fresher rubber, granted.
But that’s hardly a valid reason for Sainz to just let him through. If there were a 2-second gap making a fight pointless, or if they were on totally different strategies, or if we were at the final three races and Leclerc was the only one with a shot at the title—then yeah, it would make sense.
But we aren't even halfway through the season. They're on practically identical strategies, the points gap between them is minimal, and they're fighting for position on equal footing—so where does Ferrari get the idea to prioritize Leclerc? Especially since this isn't even their first year together; we already have enough data to know what both drivers can actually deliver.

Also, nobody’s disputing that Ferrari botched the finish and Leclerc should have pitted. But that wasn't an error caused by "favoring Sainz"—it was just pure incompetence. In those few seconds they had to bring Leclerc in, they simply couldn't make up their minds.
However, their other calls during this race—from telling Sainz to yield to Leclerc, to that insane idea at the end where Sainz was supposed to protect Leclerc (if he'd actually listened, they probably would've finished 3rd and 4th, if not worse)—those are the real signs of favoritism toward Leclerc.

Raymond Anderson4 said:Can you even list his mistakes this season?
Imola?
That contact with Perez the other day?
What else?

Yeah, yesterday in the race and in qualifying.
Imola too, just a rookie mistake.
I also remember Miami, where he gifted Max the win by messing up his exit from a corner.
And Saudi Arabia, where he struggled in battles with Verstappen and had some weak qualifying sessions.
That’s just off the top of my head; I haven't been counting, so I might have missed something.
Regardless, it's plenty. Compare that to Verstappen, who's actually fighting for the championship.
And then there's Monaco. I've said this before, but people always blame the team, as if Leclerc was driving blindfolded. Sainz made it crystal clear what he wanted, and he didn't blame the team for once. It's on the driver to read the track conditions and speak up. Racing intelligence is just as vital as raw speed in Formula 1, and Sainz is miles ahead of Leclerc in that regard. Even at Indianapolis, nobody complained when he asked for softs, though like I said, they had very little time to decide, so I won't pin too much on him or the crew there. But Monaco? He could have handled that much better, and we all know it.

In a crisis, a driver has to show clear intent and decisiveness. Take Max, for example—the second he felt something was off with the car, he immediately barked over the radio, "possible tire failure, pitting now." Honestly, I don't even know if the tire was actually blown; he might have pitted for nothing because the issue was actually the chassis, not the rubber. But that’s what a champion does. No hesitation, no second-guessing... If I imagine that happening to Leclerc, he’d probably just stay out in that same position, crying to the team over the radio for the next lap about how slow they are or demanding a tire check, only for the crew to respond, "we don't see any issues with the tire." He’d end up losing an entire lap while everyone else flies past him, and then the fans would spend the whole post-race cycle screaming at the team for being clueless.

Charles Leclerc failed miserably again this weekend, regardless of how much some people insist on praising him (I’m seeing ridiculous articles about it, like the one over at GP1)

The funniest part is how everyone keeps emphasizing that he was fast despite having a broken wing, as if that broken wing wasn't HIS fault—specifically, his stupid, insanely risky move on Sergio Perez. If it had been Max Verstappen, maybe I wouldn't complain, but risking everything just because of Perez? That's just insanity. Though, maybe he realized that Perez is the only driver who actually poses a threat to him. 😁
In any case, he got incredibly lucky that it didn't cost him the whole race, though he could have easily destroyed his entire weekend. Pure luck.
Secondly, all his issues this weekend—the fact that he's stuck behind Carlos Sainz—are once again his own doing, thanks to his poor qualifying and that mistake in Q3. Apparently, everyone forgot that pretty quickly.
And now they think Sainz should just back off because he might be a tiny bit slower right now, even though he earned that first place fair and square?! It’s not like Charles Leclerc is on a different strategy or is a full second faster, where you could say fighting is pointless and just a waste of time. No, he's just marginally faster; there is zero chance he overtakes him on track, leaving him with nothing to do but cry over the radio.
Worst of all, Ferrari clearly showed they are favoring Charles Leclerc, and they even had Carlos Sainz let him through at the end. Honestly, thank God universal justice stepped in and gave it back to him, even if it happened by accident.
At the end of the day, Charles Leclerc looks faster to superficial fans because he always drives on the absolute limit. But that kind of driving leads to a mountain of mistakes, which have been hard to count this season alone. He already had two this weekend, and he luckily escaped major damage from one of them.
Carlos Sainz is a far more stable driver, even if he seems slower sometimes because he doesn't take the same reckless risks as Charles Leclerc.
We saw at the start of the season that the car didn't suit him, and he dealt with an incredible amount of bad luck—probably still more than Charles Leclerc if you tally it all up.
They are roughly equal on points, and ever since that Charles Leclerc blunder in Italy, I've said that Carlos Sainz is the real choice for Ferrari this season, even though he was nowhere to be found then due to two straight DNFs. But Sainz has finally found his rhythm with the car, and the result is that the last time Charles Leclerc was ahead of him was in Miami, which was six races ago.

There is absolutely no reason for Ferrari to favor Charles Leclerc. Let's be real: without a car that is at least half a second faster than Red Bull, neither of them has anything to hunt for against Max Verstappen, and it feels like things aren't going well in that department. This year, the car has been noticeably faster in qualifying and generally quicker in race pace, but those are margins of a few tenths that Max's class, driver errors, car unreliability, and sloppy pit stops can easily overcome.
The worst takeaway from this race is that, for the first time since Italy, it felt like Red Bull had the better race pace. Before Max Verstappen's mishap, the impression was that he would cruise to an easy win, and even Sergio Perez was solid throughout. I stayed somewhat optimistic because, despite Max's dominant wins, it usually felt like the result of a driver error, a strategic blunder, or a mechanical failure. The car looked great in terms of pace the whole time. Here, that optimism died; Red Bull clearly brought an upgrade, and hey, even Mercedes is starting to join the fight.

darkmarlin16 said:I still don't get why idiots think Carlos Sainz should be a number two driver.

Last year he actually outscored Charles Leclerc and landed more podiums than him...

k

👍
I guess some people just started watching F1 this season.

Solid drive by Sainz. He keeps stepping it up. If he can just stay out of trouble, I wouldn't be surprised if he overtakes Leclerc soon.

Richard Walker38 said:Leclerc screws up at the worst possible moments again. It’s happened way too many times to be a coincidence.

Unfortunately, that's just how he drives. We all saw this coming. He's never going to change. He lacks that raw, insane pace, so he tries to make up for it by taking massive risks. That just leads to endless mistakes...

Looking back, I’m actually glad New York City went with Eric Adams. I didn't vote for him initially—I have a built-in radar for shady characters and bad actors—but realistically, this is a win for America as a whole.
Think about it: if he hadn't won those elections, and if the massive wave of support we saw in New York City—people seeing him as an honest, competent choice—had happened during the national congressional elections instead? The chaos at the federal level would have been unreal.
The way it stands, he’s stepped into a role under enough public scrutiny that all the dishonesty, incompetence, and blatant ideology of the old guard is being dragged into the light. They won't be able to build any more momentum. Not to mention, they can't pull a fast one on the moderate and center-right voters anymore (who make up the majority and were already swept up in the last cycle); from here on out, they're stuck relying solely on the radical left.

I know this logic probably won't sit well with New Yorkers, who feel like they're the ones being used as guinea pigs in this scenario, but for those of us outside the city, it’s actually a great outcome, you have to admit...

Amanda Kelly said:Just the exact opposite.
If you look at the data from almost every session leading up to that final lap in Q3, Sergio Perez was actually outpacing Max Verstappen in Monaco. And that’s even when they were running in nearly identical track conditions.
If you actually look at the data and use a little common sense, the logical conclusion is pretty simple: Perez should be ahead of Max Verstappen in qualifying at Monaco.

I'll say it again:
Sergio Perez; Just get Max out of my way so I can make this pass..
Bird; Yeah copy Checo.
Look, just focus on building that margin on the tire temps for the time being.
Brakes are running a little hot.
Look, let's just hold steady at two seconds for the moment. We aren't even running the same race as those guys.
Sergio Perez; Why won't you just let me through? My tires are practically brand new. I could make the pass in a heartbeat.
Bird; Build the margin on the tyre temps, build the margin on the brakes, we’ll get our chance.
Sergio Perez. We’re going to end up screwing over our own race at this rate, man.
Bird: We've got Leclerc slow in turn 10.
...

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...

stormybadger8 said:That’s actually spot on...

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.😁

Get lost. 🤦
There was zero chance for Max in Monaco. He was simply slower than Leclerc, Sainz, and Perez.
I’d actually love to hear exactly what kind of insane scenario you’re picturing here. 🙂

Don't worry, if Red Bull could have shoved Max ahead of Perez without accidentally handing the win or the points to Sainz or Leclerc, they would've done it in a heartbeat.
They didn't stand a chance. Max was just too slow, regardless of all the nonsense his fans were blathering on about.

Look, second point: Perez is just the guy Red Bull used to snatch victory in Barcelona and hand it over to Max. There’s absolutely no talk of them gifting anything to Perez here—it’s strictly a heist to make sure Max gets the win.
Is that robbery justified or not? Honestly, it's up for debate, but I really think it is. At the end of the day, it’s still a robbery at Perez's expense just to hand Max a win, no matter how much people try to spin it otherwise.

If Red Bull hadn't stepped in today, Max and Checo might have been splitting a single point between them. But let's be real—it’s obvious that on any given good day, Max is the one with the much better shot at grabbing the title over Perez.
And that's even if the points situation were flipped, let alone how it stands right now...
That’s exactly why Red Bull handed Max the win in Barcelona. They would've handed him the win in Monaco too if they could, but they couldn't. There was no way around it—Max was easily the slowest of the top four from Red Bull and Ferrari.
Honestly, they’d just be throwing away their own Constructors' points with a move like that. Even if things played out differently, Max was still winning—unless Sainz somehow snatched it from him.
And honestly, Perez might have just lost his mind and gone after Leclerc out of pure rage, so that definitely wasn't an option. ☕

That all sounds lovely, but Red Bull did issue a team order in Barcelona, so feel free to lie through your teeth until Judgment Day about how they didn't, shouldn't have, or whatever else...
So, would Max have overtaken Perez in a heartbeat or not? I think he would, you think he would, the whole planet could be convinced he would...
but we don't actually know if it would've happened, because Red Bull decided there wouldn't be a fight.☕
And for that matter, Perez could've just held Max up until the finish regardless of whether Max was running a second or two faster per lap before that.
They could've collided, leaving Perez to take the win and Max with a DNF, which would've made the gap to Perez way larger...
Or they could've crashed and Perez gets a DNF while Max takes the win, putting Perez way behind, or they both crash and get DNFs...

Anything could have happened, and we'll never know for sure because we didn't see the duel.
And honestly, all this talk about being a second faster is pretty hollow. I mean, damn, even Hamilton was over three seconds faster than Alonso and he was still stuck behind him...
Because in Formula 1, one thing is easy, but another is hard... always has been and always will be.
It's tougher on some tracks and easier on others, but nowhere is it as easy as overtaking once the car in front clears out.🙂

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.

Reasonable my ass. A guy who couldn't be faster than Perez all weekend suddenly becoming faster on that one specific lap? Yeah, right.
🙂
Of course, that's assuming the faster Perez doesn't slam into the wall and fail to finish the lap. And assuming there's no red flag,
assuming Sainz doesn't plow into Perez and ruin his lap without a red flag appearing, and assuming there's no red flag even if Alonso hits the barrier,
plus assuming Leclerc loses his way somewhere or heads off to a local pub for a beer, then maybe—just maybe—Max could miraculously grab pole.
But even then, it's a massive question mark whether he'd actually beat anyone or just slightly improve his already mediocre time.🙂

I love this little fantasy where Max is finally faster than Perez, and Sainz too, and obviously Leclerc. Because if those three all disappear off the track, then clearly nobody is faster than Max, because, well, he's Max...

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...

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...

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...

stormybadger8 said:If Perez hadn't moved for Max in Barcelona—basically, if he hadn't played nice and followed those team orders—he’d only be one point behind Max right now (Max 118, Perez 117, Leclerc 116). But hey, then he wouldn't have that shiny new contract through 2024, would he?🙂

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...

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.

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?🙄

👍
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...

Fernando Alonso pulls off the fastest lap🙏🙏🙏🙏

Raymond Anderson4 said:Max just can't seem to keep pace with Carlos Sainz... and honestly, Sergio Perez isn't falling too far behind him either.

Ferrari is looking incredibly fast... they completely blew the pit stops on the one track where they couldn't afford to... at any other circuit, with this kind of pace, they'd be running 1-2 even with those strategic disasters

darkmarlin16 said:Carlos Sainz basically had that win in his pocket if they’d just listened to him for once

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy A12 using Reddit

True. I don't know what the whole comms situation was with Ferrari, but if they'd just listened to Sainz, he would've been leading...

James Collins said:It’s pretty obvious now that Red Bull pulled a total low blow at the last race. They basically just tossed Sergio Perez out of the running for the title. I mean, let's just wait until the season wraps up to see who's actually driving the heavy machinery and who's just there to open the gates, but man, this is brutal. I hope the fans don't ever try to compare this mess to the Lewis Hamilton/Valtteri Bottas situation again.

If they had called Max Verstappen into the pits first instead of Sergio Perez—since he was right on his tail anyway—Max would probably be P1 and Perez would be P3 by now. That’s it.
That gap matters more than whatever pit strategy change happened last race.

And honestly, if you can't see that Verstappen is miles ahead of Perez, and that he's the only real title threat, then you're clueless. Perez isn't an equal just because Max had one extra DNF. If people didn't realize that, they wouldn't even have a job at Red Bull Racing in the first place...
😁