[Official] Hungarian Grand Prix 2022: Grand Prix Weekend Thread - Round 13 of 22

[Tourer]

Not the most enthralling race but there was plenty going on from a strategy POV, with various teams rolling the dice differently to other teams - with the conditions being much cooler than Friday and drier than Saturday, clearly there was a lot of educated guessing going on.
It was a big gamble on RB's part to stop Max early they way they did but it paid off - kudos to them for sure but (with the benefit of hindsight) it really does feel like Ferrari blew it with the hard tyre call, particularly when Alpine had struggled so much with hards already.
It was definitely good to have three teams in the mix for the podium - feels like Merc isn't quite "there" yet on pace but they're not far off, might even be a race win or two in their future after the summer break?

[bathurst77]

Originally Posted by TrapezeArtist

Poor George. He must be feeling like he's been put firmly in his place by the old man. Still, I think it was a race where the out-of-position drivers on the grid (Hamilton, Verstappen, Perez) had better strategy options than the rest.

Well he is the New kid apprentice 2nd driver to a 7 times WDC still at his best. Yes he has to aver to the king
Anybody who thinks a newcomer who has yet to win a GP and has 1 pole to his name should be given equal or preference to (arguably) the GOAT. Really?
Yes he did very well at team W and so far this year, but he would have signed on knowing her was always going to be the 2nd as Long as Lewis chooses to stay.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

Does any one else think Ferrari has a wheel on the pit stand to make decisions? Cause they can't actually be trying to make some of the decisions they've made, the hard tire today was just the dumbest. Especially after seeing the hard tires be garbage

I said it years ago, Ferrari have confusion in their DNA and the only time it went away was when Todt and Brawn were in charge and a German was the driver. Combine a French driver and Italian team led by Binotto who seems to have no idea as a TP and you get what you see this weekend. A classic example of having a race winning car and simply blowing chance after chance. LeClerc is an excellent driver and Binotto an excellent designer, they simply need a TP who can run things.

[bathurst77]

Did i hear it said that Bernadette Collins, Aston Martins pit strategy chief, left the team as of Monday?
Ferrari should get her on the phone

[S griffin]

How did Max win that from 10th with a spin to boot? Great drive, but Ferrari just seemed to make it too easy for him. They had it in the bag and yet more strategy decisions ruined it for them. I feel cheated out of a close title battle as a result. Ferrari need to hope RBR's early season reliability problems return after the summer break

Great drive by both Mercedes, they are definitely back up there. They are surely going to start winning again soon

Nice to see Vettel in the points from the back, on the weekend he announced his retirement. Both Alpines did well again.

[steve_r]

I always thought that if you line up with your cars in 2nd and 3rd on the grid, and you had an inherent pace advantage of those immedialy behond you that it is a free pass to do a split stategy and put pressure on the car in front. I know that we are all piling on Ferrari at the moment, but the more I think about the way that they went about this race, the less it makes sense.

And that late stop as well for LeClerc. Did I miss sometihing? Did he have a puncture? If not, what was that all about - by then the damage was done and they compounded matters by stopping again with no chance of making up those 20 seconds even on better tyres.

I'm baffled.

[AndreasDavour]

I said at the beginning of the season that Ferrari would win the constructor's and Max would win the driver's, as I think Leclerc would not be as consistent as Max, and Ferrari have a solid points scorer in Sainz that would be hindered by team politics. It clearly has not happened.



I don't think Ferrari can do it any longer.



RBR has been silently delivering, and Mercedes has been digging into their fantastic skill. I am almost thinking Mercedes will take 2nd this year!

[AndreasDavour]

I was thinking a bit about Sainz. He was very quick in the interview pen to say that they were not quick enough. But, I noted his strategy was not as bafflingly bumbled as Leclerc. Is he more assertive towards the team? It have sounded like he has been the strategist in the team some times?

[steve_r]

Originally Posted by AndreasDavour

RBR has been silently delivering, and Mercedes has been digging into their fantastic skill. I am almost thinking Mercedes will take 2nd this year!

Agree.

It's been like this all year. Merc produced a dog of a car at first and Russell in particular maximised the results every single race. Now they have improved the car and Hamilton's luck has changed. But look at the WDC points!

1 Max Verstappen NED RED BULL RACING RBPT 258
2 Charles Leclerc MON FERRARI 178
3 Sergio Perez MEX RED BULL RACING RBPT 173
4 George Russell GBR MERCEDES 158
5 Carlos Sainz ESP FERRARI 156
6 Lewis Hamilton GBR MERCEDES 146

Verstappen is ambling along to another title.

Another couple of bad races, combined with Merc' finding a couple of tenths and LeClerc might not even get second, in what is arguably the fastest car on the grid.

Ferrari have been bumbling around fighting for 7th and 8th for so long, it's like they have forgotten how to put together a real sharp race strategy.

[Taxi645]

I too was confused by Ferrari choice for hards. On Dutch TV the point was made that Leclerc also has to look at himself. Verstappen and Perez ditched their hards going onto the grid telling the team that's not going to work. Should Leclerc have told the team no, we are not switching too hards? Of course Verstappen and Perez had the advantage of actually having driven the hards to the grid, but it seemed Leclerc wasn't told nor asked how others had performed on the hards. In the cold slight moist conditions there would seem to be every reason to.



If the strategy simulations produce something that doesn't make sense, someone needs to pull the handbrake and say, no we're not going to do that. Leclerc could've been one of the people doing so. There was a joke during the race on Dutch TV: Ferrari have a great strategist in their team, he's called Carlos Sainz.

[S griffin]

It’s easy to criticise from the outside, it’s a very tight title fight. But the problem is RBR aren’t making mistakes with their strategy, they are pretty much on the ball every time. So Ferrari only have themselves to blame

[gert]

I think Ferrari got a lot of things wrong but I don't think they could have won anyhow.
Just made themselves look less foolish.
But the result would have been not too dissimilar to what we have now.

Like Sainz said, the pace was not just there on Sunday.
He was on the same strategy as Hamilton, and it did work out for Hamilton, not for Sainz.

I don't think Medium-Medium-Soft or Medium-Medium-Soft-Soft would have helped Leclerc finish on the podium.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by gert

I don't think Medium-Medium-Soft or Medium-Medium-Soft-Soft would have helped Leclerc finish on the podium.

When you do the same amount of laps on the medium tyre as the others are doing on the soft, then it won't work, you're right. At one point Ferrari took their cars off the medium after 17 and 18 laps. Others made the softs last that long.

They could've won. They certainly would've been on the podium.

[AndreasDavour]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

If the strategy simulations produce something that doesn't make sense, someone needs to pull the handbrake and say, no we're not going to do that. Leclerc could've been one of the people doing so. There was a joke during the race on Dutch TV: Ferrari have a great strategist in their team, he's called Carlos Sainz.

I don't think it's too far off the truth. Carlos is a nice team player, but he is not afraid to speak his mind, and I'm thinking Leclerc is a bit like Ronnie Petersson was, insanely talented but not as good at technical feedback and asserting his view to the team.

[gert]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

When you do the same amount of laps on the medium tyre as the others are doing on the soft, then it won't work, you're right. At one point Ferrari took their cars off the medium after 17 and 18 laps. Others made the softs last that long.

They could've won. They certainly would've been on the podium.

I'm not convinced.
I think a win was impossible. A podium, maybe?


Sainz did Medium (1-17) - Medium (18-47) - Soft (48-finish)
Hamilton did (1-19) - Medium (20-51) - Soft (52-end)

That's twice just 2 laps difference on the mediums.
I think on Sunday, Hamilton/Mercedes was just faster.

Hamilton finished 8 seconds in front.
2 laps more or 2 less would not have changed that IMO, an neither would a better pit stop (1.1 seconds lost, and 1.4 at the 2nd stop).
The difference would maybe have been smaller, but I think the positions would have been the same.

[Richard C]

Given that Mercedes seems to have unlocked some performance, I can't help but to think this takes some wind out of the sails of the recently floated significant technical regulation changes. All to be pushed through via the "safety" catch all.

I haven't followed this heavily, but I believe they were looking to raise the floor edges by 25mm, adjust the underfloor diffuser throat dimensions, new/additional (more rigorous) measurement/process to detect floor deflection as well as the quantifying and setting a safe limit for impact of repetitive chassis oscillation on the drivers.

I can get behind the oscillation limits and the tougher measurement to stop "flexible floors", but the rest really seems to be focused on helping one team become more competitive (Mercedes?) as it would likely invalidate optimizations and R&D from Red Bull and Ferrari. I think teams such as Red Bull have been advocating for less changes. And an argument has been made that it seems teams are getting a handle on workable solutions within the current regulations.

Would this past weekend (Mercedes 1-2 on podium) indicate a trend that knee jerk dimensional changes should NOT be made? Protecting the drivers (oscillation measurement) is the only "safety" issue, enforce intent of the rules (more rigorous measurement methods), but lets hold off on taking away performance from the underbody wing just because some teams haven't figure out an optimal solution yet. Let the engineers figure this out. Isn't that the purpose of having a constructors championship?

Richard

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by AndreasDavour

I don't think it's too far off the truth. Carlos is a nice team player, but he is not afraid to speak his mind, and I'm thinking Leclerc is a bit like Ronnie Petersson was, insanely talented but not as good at technical feedback and asserting his view to the team.

Personally I suspect Leclerc has what it takes to say what's needed when it's needed, but the working relation does not seem to promote the development of the most constructive back and forth in practise.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by gert

I'm not convinced.
I think a win was impossible. A podium, maybe?


Sainz did Medium (1-17) - Medium (18-47) - Soft (48-finish)
Hamilton did (1-19) - Medium (20-51) - Soft (52-end)

That's twice just 2 laps difference on the mediums.
I think on Sunday, Hamilton/Mercedes was just faster.

Hamilton finished 8 seconds in front.
2 laps more or 2 less would not have changed that IMO, an neither would a better pit stop (1.1 seconds lost, and 1.4 at the 2nd stop).
The difference would maybe have been smaller, but I think the positions would have been the same.

I reckon a large part of Mercedes and RB pace compared to Ferrari was the fact Lewis and Max were largly in clean and not fighting with cars of simular pace. Especially Max was pulled in when stuck and mostly only had to fight significant slower cars costing him little time.

[AndreasDavour]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

Personally I suspect Leclerc has what it takes to say what's needed when it's needed, but the working relation does not seem to promote the development of the most constructive back and forth in practise.

That might very well be the case. I do feel Leclerc has been most often hosed, though. OTOH he has more often been up front...


But, the culture in Ferrari is not exactly known to be open for constructive criticism, no.

[greentrumpet]

Ferrari need to be very careful, talent like Leclerc's is a mercurial and vulnerable thing. They gave Vettel a car up to the job yet it didn't work out, Alonso bailed and he's no snowflake (to use an awful recent term). They should be leading both championships, yet they're not. Wagging a finger at a smaller, younger man is rarely supportive. Supporting your strategy guy after so many errors indicates poor priorities.
They need to get the right people in the right jobs. RBR are an exemplar at this, whether you like them or not.

[Akrapovic]

I believe Ferrari have switched strategy people a few times. The previous Strat gentleman is now one of the heads of ops. I think Ferrari have a more deep cultural issue which is allowing these mistakes to happen, regardless of who is in charge.

Remember this has been happening since the Alonso days. 2010 they lost a title by covering the wrong car and being stuck in traffic. In the Vettel days, seb regularly made strategy calls from the car that the team were getting wrong. Charles questions the strategy a lot - Carlos overrides it at times.

Ferrari have been like this since 2010 at least. The only difference now is neither Charles or Carlos have the experience Seb and Fernando did to override the pit wall effectively. Which isn't a criticism of Charles and Carlos - they've not been hired to make those calls.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by AndreasDavour

That might very well be the case. I do feel Leclerc has been most often hosed, though. OTOH he has more often been up front...

But, the culture in Ferrari is not exactly known to be open for constructive criticism, no.

Originally Posted by greentrumpet

Ferrari need to be very careful, talent like Leclerc's is a mercurial and vulnerable thing. They gave Vettel a car up to the job yet it didn't work out, Alonso bailed and he's no snowflake (to use an awful recent term). They should be leading both championships, yet they're not. Wagging a finger at a smaller, younger man is rarely supportive. Supporting your strategy guy after so many errors indicates poor priorities.
They need to get the right people in the right jobs. RBR are an exemplar at this, whether you like them or not.

I feel what we're seeing is Leclerc wanting to do the Ferrari thing, but frustrations about losing out on the title fight due to his own and Ferrari's errors sometimes boil over. This time around he seemed to over compensate by not being outspoken enough about the hard tires before that fatal stop.


I think Ferrari and Leclerc should do well to look into how to be getting the best out of each other. This season is written off for both championships, but you would want the errors and the working relation improved long before the next season starts. You don't want another wasted year and it would be a pity if the Leclerc/Ferrari combo would come to an underwhelming end.


That said, I'm not too worried about Ferrari long term. They seemed to be pretty well positioned to do well next year. They just need to get their operation in order though.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Given that Mercedes seems to have unlocked some performance, I can't help but to think this takes some wind out of the sails of the recently floated significant technical regulation changes. All to be pushed through via the "safety" catch all.

I haven't followed this heavily, but I believe they were looking to raise the floor edges by 25mm, adjust the underfloor diffuser throat dimensions, new/additional (more rigorous) measurement/process to detect floor deflection as well as the quantifying and setting a safe limit for impact of repetitive chassis oscillation on the drivers.

I can get behind the oscillation limits and the tougher measurement to stop "flexible floors", but the rest really seems to be focused on helping one team become more competitive (Mercedes?) as it would likely invalidate optimizations and R&D from Red Bull and Ferrari. I think teams such as Red Bull have been advocating for less changes. And an argument has been made that it seems teams are getting a handle on workable solutions within the current regulations.

Would this past weekend (Mercedes 1-2 on podium) indicate a trend that knee jerk dimensional changes should NOT be made? Protecting the drivers (oscillation measurement) is the only "safety" issue, enforce intent of the rules (more rigorous measurement methods), but lets hold off on taking away performance from the underbody wing just because some teams haven't figure out an optimal solution yet. Let the engineers figure this out. Isn't that the purpose of having a constructors championship?

Richard

Yes, why do anything on top of the already proposed vertical movement metric? Like you say, let the engineers figure that one out if the core safety problem is fixed by the metric? It did smell like trying to help out a team that was struggling earlier in the season (especially after the second stay saga). Feels a bit like the bone RB was thrown with the rear end changes after the simplified front wing hampered them the year before. Perhaps the FIA felt it needed to return the favour after last year.


I do think some comments about the metric were unfounded. Some team managers saying there were no oscillation problems in recent grand prix. Well then you wouldn't have to fear any restriction from the metric anyway, so what's the concern?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

It did smell like trying to help out a team that was struggling earlier in the season (especially after the second stay saga). Feels a bit like the bone RB was thrown with the rear end changes after the simplified front wing hampered them the year before. Perhaps the FIA felt it needed to return the favour after last year.

I think (and not a criticism directed at you) that the comments about changes 'favouring a team' underline how tribal the views of F1 are. (Has it always been this way?)

The focus on who benefits about a regulation change is regularly boiled down the team that gains. I think it is more about balancing the field.

How often do we see complaints (about any team) having too much of an advantage? Yes, they have done well, and deserve the plaudits and success. But long term, F1 benefits from the field being brought back closer.

So if a team has got the edge - let them have early success, but balance the field later. At this stage of the season, RBR have already got so far ahead that it would not harm the championship to see their advantage eroded.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I think (and not a criticism directed at you) that the comments about changes 'favouring a team' underline how tribal the views of F1 are. (Has it always been this way?)

The focus on who benefits about a regulation change is regularly boiled down the team that gains. I think it is more about balancing the field.


How often do we see complaints (about any team) having too much of an advantage? Yes, they have done well, and deserve the plaudits and success. But long term, F1 benefits from the field being brought back closer.


So if a team has got the edge - let them have early success, but balance the field later. At this stage of the season, RBR have already got so far ahead that it would not harm the championship to see their advantage eroded.

I'm always on two minds about this. My base response as more of a purist is, let the rest do a better job. On the other side, as you say, everyone enjoys a closer field. I think an argument for the latter is when you have two alternative car concepts and one concept is struggling more with regulations or a regulation change than the other. I think we all like to have different looking cars and cars with different working principles fighting each other. By helping out a team with a concept that's struggling a bit with the regulations (or a regulation change), you close the field directly but also longer term because that team doesn't have to swap over their whole concept and needing to invest lots of resources and time to get the other concept working on their own car. In turn you are preserving some diversity in the look and workings of the cars.

This is I think was the thinking about the front wing and subsequent end plate changes in the low rake/high rake era and what we are now seeing with Mercedes' zero pod concept vs. the other teams.

The tricky bit is then to prevent:

a) It being too obvious you're helping one team or concept.
b) Helping that team/concept too much because the concept was either underperforming up till that point and a regulation change is not necessary and/or you make the regulation change too big so you overshoot what you're aiming for and the field gets torn apart in the other direction.