Austrian GP (Red Bull Ring) | July 8–10, 2022

I’m a huge Ferrari fan, but I honestly feel for Charles Leclerc. These Italian amateurs are going to cost him the championship.

Lawrence Garcia5 said:You're still living in some alternate reality where Ferrari actually has the faster, superior package.

The cars are pretty much on par. Red Bull has incredible straight-line speed, while Ferrari handles the corners better.

It’s just not even level anymore.

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.

Brian Garcia24 said:... On the flip side, Charles Leclerc has completely crumbled more than a few times this season whenever Max was breathing down his neck. He made those critical mistakes in the corners before the straights in both the USA and Saudi Arabia...

Em's lost his cool more than once. 😵
Honestly, reading stuff like this just makes me feel sick. How are you even supposed to have a serious conversation with someone like this?

Brian Garcia24 said:... This is somewhat of a myth too. Sure, Red Bull might be strong on the straights, but if you have overall pace, you just tear through the straights and call it a day...

What a pathetic myth. It certainly didn't look that way in Saudi Arabia or Miami, where Max just cruised right past Charles on the long straights. Simple, painless, zero effort required.

Ferrari rolled out a rear wing upgrade specifically designed to boost straight-line speed—basically trying to catch up to Red Bull in that department. They debuted it in Canada on one car, Charles Leclerc's. They only had two units and didn't want to risk the damage, so they stuck it on just one car (which would at least be fixable). If they’d put it on Carlos Sainz, he might have actually stood a fighting chance at catching Max in the closing laps.
Does the upgrade actually work?
Judge for yourselves. I’d say yes. Though, looking at the race in Canada, I wouldn't.

graniteharbor502 said:Bottom line: Ferrari’s drivers just have a knack for throwing away a win, no matter how you slice it.

You can only reach a conclusion like that if you haven't actually watched a single race or if you're just being incredibly biased.
I mean, you personally claimed Ferrari was only 40 thousandths behind Red Bull Racing during the first half of the season.
And honestly, anyone with even an ounce of objectivity can see that Ferrari's drivers have lost way more points due to car unreliability than the Red Bull drivers have. You have to factor in the DNFs and the penalties too... and those penalties were already piling up by race 9.
Just looking at those two facts alone, saying Ferrari is losing in the Constructors' Championship because of their drivers is just ridiculous.

Then, if you throw in Ferrari's massive strategic blunders—and I think we can all agree Red Bull handles that side of things way better—your argument becomes even more laughable and unprofessional.

The Ferrari car is fast and just as reliable as the others, yet other teams, who clearly have way more data than we do, somehow prefer to copy Red Bull's solutions...
Either all those engineers are clueless hacks, or the people on this forum claiming Ferrari is strong enough to lose the championship solely because of the drivers are just talking nonsense. I'd bet my life savings on the latter.

Lawrence Garcia5 said:It seems you are still residing in some sort of parallel universe where Ferrari possesses a faster and superior package, isn't that just the most fascinating notion?

One really must approach this discussion with a certain level of analytical depth, wouldn't you agree? If we look closely at the data, it becomes quite evident that while Ferrari possesses a faster car in terms of raw pace, speed alone does not necessarily constitute a superior overall package. Is a fast car truly "better" if it lacks consistency? In my estimation, the Red Bull package remains the superior entity, simply because Max Verstappen is such an exceptional driver that he can overcome the fact that the Red Bull car might be slightly slower than the Ferrari. One has to wonder, though, where the balance between machine and man truly lies?

Roger Wright94 said:What a pitiful myth that turned out to be! It certainly didn't look that way during the races in the USA or Miami, did it? There, Max Verstappen simply cruised right past Charles Leclerc on those massive straightaways. It was quite straightforward and entirely painless, requiring almost no extra effort at all.

I suppose one ought to sit down and properly review the races in South Africa and Miami, specifically focusing on that moment when Charles Leclerc lost control and slid off the track onto the straight right after being overtaken by Max Verstappen. Once you have analyzed those sequences in full, perhaps then one could offer a reasoned opinion on whether his execution could have been handled with more finesse?

cosmicmoose2 said:One can only arrive at such a conclusion if they have either completely failed to watch the races or if they are being profoundly biased.
Would you not agree that you were the only one who actually bothered to point out the specific data suggesting that Ferrari was merely forty thousandths of a second faster than Red Bull during the opening stretch of the season?
It should be indisputably clear, at least to anyone attempting to maintain a sense of objectivity, that Ferrari's drivers have surrendered far more points due to the inherent unreliability of their car than the drivers at Red Bull have. One simply cannot ignore the impact of those frustrating DNFs, nor can we overlook the various penalties incurred, especially considering these issues have been manifesting consistently since the ninth race of the season.
When one pauses to reflect upon just those two specific data points, does it not become somewhat absurd to maintain the argument that Ferrari is currently trailing in the Constructors' Championship due to their drivers?

If we take into account the strategic blunders made by Ferrari—and I truly believe we can at least find common ground on the fact that Red Bull handles those decisions with far greater precision—then your conclusion becomes even more farcical and lacks any semblance of seriousness, wouldn't you agree?

It seems to me that while Ferrari possesses a car that is arguably swifter and maintains an equal level of reliability, we find ourselves in a curious position where other teams—those who possess a vast abundance of data far exceeding our own—seem to prefer copying Red Bull's solutions instead. Is it not a peculiar phenomenon to witness? One wonders why, if our performance is truly there, the rest of the grid looks toward Red Bull Racing for their blueprints rather than studying our own progress.
Is it possible that we are witnessing a collective lapse in judgment, whether it stems from engineers who lack fundamental competence or those forum enthusiasts who insist that Ferrari is inherently superior and only losing the championship due to driver error? One has to wonder if such claims aren't simply baseless nonsense. If I were to wager my own money on which side of this argument holds any actual truth, I would be willing to bet everything on the latter.

What exactly constitutes bias? One might point out that both Charles Leclerc and Max Verstappen share the same number of DNFs resulting from technical failures, yet we find ourselves staring at a massive 38-point gap in the championship standings. This is particularly striking when you consider that Max suffered a misfortune Charles hasn't even encountered yet—specifically, leading the race only to pick up debris from another car on the track and damage his own machine, effectively handing over yet another victory. Even after such an incident, he still maintains a commanding 38-point lead. It isn't a mere five points, is it? No, it is a margin equivalent to an entire race and a half, all achieved while driving a slower car.
If I were to pose a little wager, perhaps worth a mere two dollars, I might ask myself this: do the Ferrari drivers truly possess a car capable of contending for the championship? In my estimation, they absolutely do. But will they actually manage to secure that title? No, I suspect they will not.
Everything else is nothing more than empty rhetoric and desperate attempts to justify drivers who simply lack the caliber required to stand on the top step of the podium, don't you think?

They aren't even in the conversation for the title because they’re only 40 thousandths faster than the main rivals, and at the same time, they're way less reliable. Plus, those 40 thousandths? They only got them by pushing the engine to its absolute limit...
So, yeah, it's nothing like how Mercedes was running at the end of last season. They were also cranking that engine to the max, but they had a much bigger cushion than just 40 thousandths. Ferrari is only doing this just to stay competitive against Red Bull.

Sure, they had the same number of DNFs, but Max isn't even anywhere near a grid penalty yet, whereas Leclerc has already served one. Every single time he swaps out components that count toward a penalty, he’s right back in the doghouse again.
At best, these engines are designed to last eight races, but when they're clearly unreliable—based on what we've seen—they obviously don't even last that long. So, mathematically and statistically speaking, it's a certainty that Leclerc is going to face at least one more penalty if things go well... and in a worst-case scenario? He gets a DNF in one race due to a failure, followed immediately by a penalty in the next one for fresh parts.
Because of all that, you can't talk about this championship battle as if Ferrari built the best car and will only lose if the drivers mess up.
Honestly, that claim is so wrong and just plain stupid that it's not even worth responding to anymore...

cosmicmoose2 said:They don't actually have a championship-winning car because they are only a mere 0.040 seconds faster than their main rivals, all while being significantly less reliable. And let’s not forget that those tiny margins were only achieved by pushing the engine to its absolute breaking point.
Consequently, this isn't even comparable to what Mercedes was doing at the end of last season. They also pushed their power units to the limit, yet they maintained a much more substantial advantage than just 0.040 seconds. It seems Ferrari is simply operating at that level just to stay within striking distance of Red Bull.

True, their DNF counts might look similar on paper, but Max hasn't even come close to facing a grid penalty yet, whereas Charles Leclerc has already served one, and every subsequent component change risks triggering another penalty.
In a best-case scenario, these engines are engineered to last eight races, but when they prove to be unreliable—as we have clearly seen—they obviously fail even sooner. Therefore, from both a mathematical and statistical standpoint, it is almost certain that Leclerc will face at least one more penalty, if not worse: a potential DNF in one race followed immediately by a penalty in the next due to necessary component replacements.
So, this whole notion that Ferrari has built the superior car—implying the championship will only be lost if the drivers fail to deliver—is fundamentally flawed.
To be honest, such an inaccurate and nonsensical claim hardly warrants a response at all.

If we look at the reality of the situation, Charles Leclerc didn't lose ground in the USA or Miami right before Max Verstappen made his move; he wasn't trailing by more than seven-tenths during the wet qualifying session at Imola; he didn't crash into the barriers during the race; he wasn't passively drifting through the decisive moments of the Monaco Grand Prix; he wasn't caught lacking with a struggling engine in Canada; he didn't perform a sudden pirouette during the final lap of qualifying at Silverstone, which ultimately cost him his starting position and the victory; and he certainly didn't falter during qualifying and the sprint race in Austria.
The responsibility for all of this lies squarely with Ferrari's strategy and the Ferrari pit wall.
Goodness, how can anyone make such foolish assertions that the drivers themselves are partially responsible for the deficit in the championship standings...

graniteharbor502 said:So, Leclerc didn't miss his braking point in the USA or Miami right before Max made the pass...

Missing the apex right before being overtaken is a mistake, sure—maybe by a tenth of a second.
Even if it had been worse, say three or five tenths, the overtake was going to happen regardless.
That pass was predictable before the lights even went out. But no, you really want to argue that the whole move happened because of a Leclerc error and Max's perfection, don't you!?
Look, yeah, there was a mistake. In my opinion. But it’s irrelevant. That error doesn't prove anything to me. But hey, feel free to keep tallying every little slip-up if it makes you feel better.

graniteharbor502 said:he wasn't trailing by more than seven tenths in the wet at Imola during qualifying, and he didn't hit the wall during the race...

That's an interesting list of facts, provided you ignore the bigger picture.
In wet qualifying sessions where conditions are constantly shifting, every single lap brings a massive advantage or disadvantage.
Once Max set his fastest lap, a red flag came out, so Leclerc never even got the chance to attempt a better run under improved conditions.

And during the race, Leclerc pushed a bit too hard into the chicane trying to catch the Red Bull cars. He damaged his endplate, and if I recall correctly, they had to change his nose too... Even Leclerc admitted later that he was consciously pushing on the ragged edge. It wasn't the smartest move, but catching up was tempting.
As far as I'm concerned, credit to Leclerc for Imola 👍. But go ahead, keep counting mistakes and adding up your little tallies.
It's all relative. Some people will excuse it, others won't. An experienced, smarter driver might have kept their cool, while someone else just keeps charging. It's hardly worth getting worked up over.

I'm just not sure what you're trying to make a point with those seven tenths. Maybe Max's superiority in the wet? 🤔
During the first part of the wet race in Monaco, Leclerc was fighting Max for those seven tenths on every single lap. Every. Single. One.

graniteharbor502 said:So, Charles Leclerc didn't lose ground in the USA or Miami right before Max Verstappen overtook him, he wasn't trailing by more than seven tenths on a wet Imola during qualifying, and he didn't slam into the barrier during the race. He didn't get passively dragged around the track during those crucial moments in Monaco, and he wasn't just sitting there with a blown engine in Canada. He didn't pull a stunt during his final lap in qualifying at Silverstone that cost him his starting spot and ultimately the win. And he didn't choke during qualifying or the sprint in Austria.
The blame lies entirely with Ferrari's strategy and the Ferrari pit wall.
My God, what ridiculous claims—suggesting the drivers themselves are partly responsible for the championship deficit...

I forgot.
I told you recently that Max has made plenty of mistakes lately, in Free Practice, in Qualifying...
And you basically told me it doesn't matter because you're only looking at race pace.
You talk about race pace, yet here (when discussing Leclerc) you list half a dozen errors that happened outside of the actual race.
Double standard.

I’m going to pick out from your list the races where your bias shows through most clearly, ranking them from the absolute worst example to the slightly less embarrassing ones...

In Austria, he won even with a broken car after three overtakes on track, so trying to cite that as an example of poor driving is just way too much, even for you. He lost a single point in the sprint, and honestly, that only 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, and by that logic, Max "failed" every single time he was beaten to Leclerc in qualifying. I don't see you ever calling those driver errors...

In Canada, he started 19th and fought his way up to 5th, trailing by 15 seconds, which was actually a massive result. He lost a ton of time stuck behind an Alpine that had insane top speed, and pushing to get past them absolutely shredded his tires, which is just how it works. And if I remember correctly, the pit stop wasn't exactly flawless either; otherwise, he would've finished ahead of Mercedes. So, it was primarily the penalty, track circumstances, and a bad pit stop—not driver skill...
The very fact that you're using that race as proof that the car is championship-ready while the drivers aren't—even though he started at the back specifically because of the car!—just screams bias or trolling. As a moderator, you really shouldn't be letting this slide...

As for Monaco, we all know Ferrari's system completely fell apart there, and once again, the damage was mostly due to strategy blunders—twice, no less. If you're going to claim Max was faster for a few laps on intermediates, then you have to admit Leclerc was significantly faster than Max on wets, so those points just cancel each other out. All that's left is the difference in strategy and execution. For crying out loud, Leclerc lost time in the pits because they called him in too early! He literally sat there waiting for Sainz for several seconds, yet here you are, obsessing over tenths of a second on intermediates. Once again, you look ridiculous using that race to argue the car is great 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. That gap at the back might have made overtaking a bit easier, but Max would've finished ahead of Leclerc regardless. Again, the main factor wasn't the driver, it was the car—specifically Red Bull's superior race pace...

cosmicmoose2 said:He won at Indianapolis Motor Speedway despite having a broken car.

One more lap and he would have lost.

coastalwolf6 said:If there had been just one more lap, he would've lost.

The whole argument started from this "conclusion" that "Ferrari has drivers capable of throwing away a title." And as one example where they lost points because of the driver (not the car), someone brought up the Indianapolis Motor Speedway race, where Charles Leclerc managed to win even though the Ferrari wasn't performing right...

So, for this debate, all the "what ifs" don't matter at all. It's only about what actually happened on the track.

Is anyone here actually planning to start a thread for the French Grand Prix, or are we just going to keep obsessing over Max Verstappen and Charles Leclerc?

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...

Brian Garcia24 said:...Leclerc messes up and suddenly Red Bull is lightning fast on the straights, what a coincidence🙏 ...

Red Bull had the edge in the USA and Miami because of their car concept and the track layouts. Those were races where Red Bull wins were basically expected from the jump.
If you want to believe Max won those just because of Leclerc's mistakes, go ahead. Believe whatever helps you sleep.

Brian Garcia24 said:... Leclerc was faster in Monaco, leading the pack, while Verstappen was stuck in a little train.🤣

That's a 10-second gap over 14 laps. You do the math.
A "little train" in Monaco means cars are within a few tenths, maybe a second max.

Brian Garcia24 said:This is getting ridiculous with the fanboying. I hope you aren't trying to claim Leclerc and Verstappen can go toe-to-toe in the rain,

Well, they can't! I don't recall a single race this year where Max was actually better than Leclerc when it started raining. 🤔

Brian Garcia24 said:... so you're justifying it by saying Leclerc was faster in Monaco since he led and Verstappen was just part of the little train.🤣

If I had even a shred of doubt about Leclerc, Monaco this year wiped it out.
All things considered, the Monacan put on a brilliant performance 🙏. Seriously.
Before this year, he hadn't even finished a race in Monaco. And that's his home race. That kind of pressure is brutal.
And while some people were calling it garbage

graniteharbor502 said:Prediction
Rain is coming Sunday.
Max Verstappen will put on a clinic.
Charles Leclerc will be mourning his fate against a wall.

Robert Cox46 said:One Ferrari hitting a wall? If it rains, I’m betting on two of them ending up there.

graniteharbor502 said:Nobody hits a wall faster than him. 🤣

Sam Clark75 said:I'm also calling this scenario. Whatever, history just keeps repeating itself.

Then there were those with much better—or more realistic—predictions:

Roger Wright94 said:I'm expecting a win for the Monacan.
It's his home turf; nobody is faster than him there.

mellowtiger83 said:Charles Leclerc will push Max right under him in Monaco

After qualifying:

Anthony Baker84 said:anyway, Leclerc is a different beast compared to everyone else

hiddensailor7 said:Leclerc is in a league of his own, 🙏

The whole story about rain in Monaco is irrelevant.
In Monaco, Leclerc absolutely outclassed Max Verstappen in every single timed session. We're talking 3, 4, or even 7 tenths ahead, whether it was dry or wet. It didn't matter.

It's funny how you and your buddy graniteharbor502 take all of that and somehow boil it down to three laps, stubbornly insisting those three bad laps from Leclerc were the sole reason for his result.
Did it ever cross your mind that there might be an actual reason for it?
But I get the vibe. To you, this is just business as usual because we're talking about Leclerc (not Max). You find it perfectly normal that a driver who dominates over 200 laps would suddenly mess up three crucial ones.

There is a reason and an explanation for those three laps. A rational, real reason involving external factors.
I don't know what it is (just guessing), but I'm certain it wasn't Leclerc's driving. That would be pure absurdity.

Brian Garcia24 said:"He actually won with a damaged car." 🤣 The damage actually happened right toward the end of the race, and... It just wasn't enough to matter. ... 🤣

It's pretty obvious you don't have a clue how car dynamics or physics actually work.
Braking from 200...186 milesHonestly, hitting a corner with the throttle already at 25-30% instead of just sitting there at 0-5% completely changes how the car handles. It’s a massive shift in behavior.
You’d need some seriously impressive driving skills and raw talent to pull off something like that.
I'm not saying Charles Leclerc is the only one who could actually pull this off.
Leclerc actually handled that situation perfectly. He managed to pull it off and hold onto the lead, staying right ahead of the great Max Verstappen. As for everyone else, who knows.

Brian Garcia24 said:It wasn't even close to being significant enough that Max Verstappen could actually catch him by the end.

This really sums up your whole vibe.
You seem to think Max is the gold standard for everything. In your eyes, if Max didn't close the gap enough, then whatever issue Leclerc was dealing with just wasn't that big of a deal.
What a massive misconception!

Brian Garcia24 said:I’m honestly surprised nobody has said anything yet about that brilliant drive with a damaged car at Silverstone, especially since the damage didn't even touch his performance. 🤣

Charles Leclerc pulled off a hell of a drive at this year's Silverstone, wrestling that damaged car through the final laps like a total pro.

Brian Garcia24 said:... even though the damage didn't really touch his performance at all. 🤣

Pure gold! 🙏

Brian Garcia24 said:He actually pulled it off... even with that trashed car! 🤣 The damage happened right toward the end of the race, too... and honestly? It was bad enough that Max Verstappen couldn't even close the gap by the finish line. Just wasn't enough...

Are you kidding me right now? You’re telling me that for a machine as incredibly sensitive as a Formula 1 car, it doesn't matter if you can't hit your braking points before a corner... or if you can't fully control the throttle mid-turn... or if downshifting to the right gear feels like a total nightmare? Seriously? Like those are all just "minor inconveniences" when they literally dictate how the car handles through every single turn... Give me a break... 🤦
Seriously, this absolute hatred you have for Leclerc is completely blinding you...
If Max were in that spot, he’d be doing two things: 1) acting like he was basically wrestling a wild animal just to keep that car on the track, and 2) blaming Leclerc for another "rookie mistake" because he couldn't catch Max while the guy was driving with one hand tied behind his back... typical.

Brian Garcia24 said:I honestly thought after that absolute disaster and total embarrassment you pulled, you’d at least have the decency to crawl into a hole and stay there. Or maybe just admit you don't have a clue what you're talking about... but nope, here he is again, still yapping away about how dominant Red Bull Racing's pace is...

So, we’re really doing this? We're actually talking about race predictions now? Especially for a race that followed a sprint... a perfect little example of a weekend where Max Verstappen just cruised through without even breaking a sweat against Ferrari. A race where everyone—including Max himself—was totally blindsided by how much Red Bull struggled on those hard tires. He was literally complaining over the radio about how difficult the car was to handle... it was a mess!

Yeah, yeah... I totally embarrassed myself with that prediction. I really stepped in it this time. Honestly, I owe everyone a massive apology for that one...

What kind of nonsense are you even talking about? Seriously, that’s just plain crazy...😁🙏

And don't even get me started on that absolute nonsense about losing downforce not affecting the performance of the 2022 cars... since those things are basically built entirely on downforce... Seriously, you're a real genius, aren't you...

Roger Wright94 said:And while some people were calling for a total disaster...

Look, I can't speak for everyone else, but my "doom and gloom" prediction was just based on the fact that Leclerc hadn't actually finished a single race in Monaco before this. It didn't end that way for him, and honestly, I'm glad.

Please don't drag me into the whole Red Bull vs Ferrari—which car is better, who's the superior driver—nonsense debate because I'm just not feeling it. 🙂

Roger Wright94 said:That was a hell of a drive from Charles Leclerc. Managing a damaged car during those final laps at Silverstone? Honestly, brilliant.

Slip of the tongue at Silverstone.

Brian Garcia24 said:I’m honestly surprised nobody has said anything about that brilliant drive at Silverstone. Driving a damaged car like that and still maintaining that kind of pace—especially when the damage didn't even touch his performance—was something else. 🤣

You can try to compare Max's Silverstone performance to Leclerc's run in Austria, but there are some massive factual gaps you really need to keep in mind.

The damage to Max Verstappen's car at Silverstone was actually the result of a smart call. He had to decide exactly where and how to navigate around that carbon debris. Obviously, he wanted to clear it without any issues, but things just didn't go his way. The scrap was sitting right there on the track, and he wasn't the first driver to deal with it.
By graniteharbor502's standards, that would be considered a driver error.

There’s just no real evidence to support the idea that his driving was anything short of brilliant despite the damaged floor. The truth is, Max was fighting tooth and nail—and probably a few elbows—against a driver who actually scored his first career points in that exact race.
And honestly, it’s anyone's guess whether Max would have even walked away with any points if that VSC hadn't popped up.

Max survived the race—maybe even drove an absolute masterclass—but trying to draw any kind of comparison between Leclerc fighting the World Champion and Max battling some guy who hasn't even scored a single point in his life? That’s just embarrassing.