Ferrari should have won the Russian Grand Prix on Sunday but instead a mechanical failure triggered its downfall, having already boxed itself into a team orders saga amid raised tension between its drivers, as Motorsport Week explains.
On nine occasions out of 10 Ferrari would have taken an emphatic victory at Formula 1’s Russian Grand Prix, continuing its fine second half of the campaign.
Instead it departed Sochi with only 15 points to its name as it became wrapped up in a team orders saga of its own making that indirectly contributed to its defeat when one of its own cars failed.
But how did Ferrari get to that stage?
There is never one straightforward answer and this was a case of a series of events conspiring to serve Ferrari with a platter of defeat.
It had the pace to secure a front-row lockout but while Charles Leclerc was untouchable in Q3 Sebastian Vettel had a scruffy lap which, when combined with Lewis Hamilton’s excellent effort, left the reigning champion 0.023s up on his opponent.
By this stage the tone had already been set for the race in the previous Q2 session, with Mercedes opting to diverge their strategy and take the Medium as their starting compound, leaving the Ferrari drivers on Softs.
Ferrari regarded it as a minor victory in itself as its sheer pace had prompted Mercedes into the alternative strategy, while knowing that off-the-line it would have an instant grip advantage.
This is where its first tactic came into play.
.jpg)
The run down to the first braking point at Sochi is around 880 metres, making it the longest full-throttle drag after the starting procedure of the campaign.
Even accounting for Hamilton’s use of Medium tyres and its own superior straight-line speed advantage it was wary that the slipstream effect could hamper its prospects from the very outset.
Indeed, two years ago Valtteri Bottas rocketed from third place into the lead by Turn 2, outmanoeuvring the Ferrari drivers, and thus cementing in their respective positions through to the flag.
Ferrari had a plan in place but the exact details remain slightly uncertain due to the nature in which the usually open team shut up shop when quizzed by the media post-race.
From what can be understood the plan involved Leclerc giving Vettel a slipstream on the run to Turn 2, while staying to the left, to ensure Vettel would jump Hamilton and himself not be challenged, and the positions would then be switched shortly afterwards.
The first stage of the plan was executed in near-perfect fashion as the two Scarlet Ferraris bolted clear of Hamilton, with Leclerc not challenging Vettel as they rounded the right-hander.
“Being first and second was the key objective,” said team boss Mattia Binotto post-race. “How can you do that when you start first and third, and certainly protecting the first position but as well make sure that you gain a position being second, we agreed together that the best way was not to give any slipstream to Hamilton at first, because giving a slipstream to Hamilton would give him some advantage, at least some possibility.
“And therefore Charles would give the slipstream to Seb, that was what we agreed and discussed. But by giving the slipstream to Seb and not giving the position, it would give an advantage to Seb which later on in the race we could give back by swapping the cars. So that was the deal.”
.jpg)
But the deal that was meant to last but a few minutes played out across the opening half of the first stint amid a sequence of increasingly intriguing radio chatter. Vettel denied repeated requests to allow Leclerc through, citing the advantage (around two seconds) that he had built and the proximity of Hamilton behind. It was not an unwise suggestion but at that stage of the race it went against what had been agreed. An increasingly assertive Vettel remained in the lead while Leclerc – who could not directly follow his team-mate at a track where the impact of the dirty air is more pronounced than at other venues – expressed surprise over the radio waves. It was nonetheless a more measured approach from Leclerc in the wake of his Singapore Grand Prix messages, which prompted him to accept that he would be more careful in choosing his words.
“Charles, we will do the swap a bit later on. Lewis is a bit close. We will do the stop a bit later on,” Leclerc was told. Leclerc was understanding but his words came with meaning, as he began to doubt whether his team-mate would abide by the plan. “The only thing is that I respected, and I gave him the slipstream no problems. Then I tried to push at the beginning of the race. No problem. Manage the situation.”
The lead trio circulated around the former Winter Olympics venue each split by a few seconds, and on lap 22 Ferrari stuck to its initiative, bringing in Leclerc for Medium tyres. A few laps later came the message from Vettel. “My rears are falling off now.” Ferrari did not respond. Vettel was kept out until the end of lap 26, by which time Leclerc had entered Vettel’s window. As expected, Vettel emerged from the pit lane narrowly behind his team-mate. Two laps later Vettel suffered the hybrid failure that left his car unsafe and ultimately triggered the Virtual Safety Car period that cost Leclerc the victory. But all was still not as it seemed.
“The undercut was not for the reason for giving back the position to Charles,” Binotto asserted. “The undercut was as well because Charles stopped because he had worn tyres, his left-rear was starting to be worn, so it was the right moment for him to pit. We knew as well that if we had stopped both our cars there, we would have been vulnerable on Safety Cars by giving the lead to Hamilton, so we tried to stay out as much as we could with Seb, simply to protect in case of Safety Cars later in the race. Again, Seb, his tyres were worn, it was the right moment to pit. As a matter of fact, Charles was ahead, Seb was behind, but the race was still not over and there would have been plenty of opportunity to decide with them what would have been the best option later on.”
.jpg)
With the benefit of hindsight the entire team orders and strategy developments were irrelevant – given Vettel’s retirement – but it is another layer in an intriguing driver dynamic that has been bubbling for much of the year and is now at risk of being uncontained. Post-race Leclerc was initially more open about their start strategy but Vettel was more coy, while in the media session held a couple of hours afterwards neither was willing to divulge substantial details as Binotto conducted most of the explanations.
One tantalising question is where Ferrari goes from here, not just for the remainder of the 2019 campaign, but for the 2020 season.
On Friday Binotto claimed that having two drivers of the calibre of Vettel and Leclerc was a gift for Ferrari, and post-race he asserted “I still believe it is a luxury. I still believe it is a luxury because we have two fantastic drivers.”
But this latest chapter cannot be viewed in isolation due to the nature of a season in which the young protégé, crafted and developed within the doors of Maranello, is regularly threatening – and beating – the four-time World Champion whose ambition is to emulate childhood hero Michael Schumacher.
Pre-season Ferrari stressed that it would treat its drivers equally but that in a 50-50 scenario it would be more inclined to lean towards Vettel, rather than Leclerc. It was an entirely understandable move given that Leclerc was still an unknown factor as a front-runner. Vettel was favoured as strategies converged in Australia, while radio transmissions in Bahrain and China also appeared to back the more experienced driver.
But since Leclerc changed his approach for qualifying post-Canada the tables have turned. A 5-1 one-lap deficit has been transformed into a 9-0 advantage, as it has been the youngster who has extracted the maximum from the SF90. Leclerc delivered victories for Ferrari in Belgium and Italy, the first of those partially assisted by Vettel as his different tyre strategy meant he relinquished the lead to his team-mate and then kept Hamilton behind for a useful spell. But in Italy Vettel was furious at Leclerc for not giving him the tow on the second Q3 runs; Leclerc claimed it was a misunderstanding amid the go-slow saga but words were exchanged behind closed doors, with Leclerc held accountable by Ferrari. There were suggestions on Sunday that Vettel’s defiance in staying out in the lead was a form of retribution for that incident.
Leclerc nonetheless stressed that “the trust doesn’t change and we need to trust each other, Seb and myself, because I think it’s hugely important for the benefit of the team in some situations to know that you can count on the other car and vice-versa. In both ways. I think it’s very important but yes the trust is still here.”
Will the trust still be there if Ferrari has more situations such as in Sochi?
.jpg)
