The curious case of Sebastian Vettel

[ENGINE TUNER]

lap	gap	
1	1.599	SC
2	1.273	SC
3	0.888	SC
4	1.159	Flying lap.
5	1.350	Seb is being told to let Charles by
6	1.376	Charles is being told Seb will let him by that lap, after discussing with Seb it's supposed to happen the next lap
7	1.372	Seb is being told to let Charles by. Charles is being told that Seb will let him by next lap. Vettel says he should close the gap, LEC says it's too hard.
8	1.686	Vettel is told to let Charles by, ignores the message, Charles is told Seb will let him by that lap.
9	1.949	Charles is being told that they will swap later on.
10	2.164	Charles obviously drops back to get out of dirty air in the next few laps.
11	2.726	
12	3.159	
13	3.484	
14	3.672	
15	3.659	
16	3.986	
17	3.861	
18	3.908	
19	4.141	
20	4.387	
21	4.231	
22	9.244	Pitstop Charles.

So, being 'objective' ... here's the key facts:

Facts and objectivity, thank you very much.

[RZS10]

EDIT: https://www.racefans.net/2019/10/01/vet ... ranscript/

He was told on lap 2 that they will switch places later in the race. So Leclerc staying inside that dirty air from Vettel, and hence wearing down his tyres is Leclerc. Now, I will make the caviat he could not back down a lot all at once since Hamilton did follow rather closely, but there was room to drop to 2-2.5s.

I actually based my post on that transcript

The main issue is that their communication is rubbish and unprecise (which already was a major factor last year, Hockenheim for example).

"Later in the race" can mean A "at the pit stops" or B "not right away on restart" - you absolutely cannot blame Leclerc given that they kept telling both drivers they'd do the swap every single lap from lap five to eight.

5 Leclerc: Gap to behind is fine now.
5 To Leclerc: Copy, understood.

This essentially meant "aight stay with him we're swapping" so rather option B. If they had told him "Look after your tyres, we're doing it later" and he still would have pushed you could blame him, but with the communication they had it's not on either of the drivers but the fault of the team, really.

[turbof1]

EDIT: https://www.racefans.net/2019/10/01/vet ... ranscript/

He was told on lap 2 that they will switch places later in the race. So Leclerc staying inside that dirty air from Vettel, and hence wearing down his tyres is Leclerc. Now, I will make the caviat he could not back down a lot all at once since Hamilton did follow rather closely, but there was room to drop to 2-2.5s.

I actually based my post on that transcript

The main issue is that their communication is rubbish and unprecise (which already was a major factor last year, Hockenheim for example).

"Later in the race" can mean "at the pit stops" or "not right away on restart" - you absolutely cannot blame Leclerc given that they kept telling both drivers they'd do the swap every single lap from lap five to eight.

It's not on either of the drivers but the fault of the team, really.

Is it possible an error got into your table? In your table it says Leclerc got the message of doing the swap later after the SC, while Racefans is saying that happened before the SC.

I can certainly understand your reasoning, and the message was quite vague, but I'd argue Leclerc should have taken that "ok, let's back off now and wait for instruction to close up again, or after I asked myself for it". Certainly he kept himself within the turbulent wake of Vettel. Of course, the team did not exactly tell him to back off, and I partially follow you on the point the team should have been more clear (because they really were not). Leclerc however could have asked for clarification and could have backed off a bit more to keep his tyres healthy.

[ENGINE TUNER]

I have a job to do as moderator and taking action against gratuitous negativity,

There is no "gratuitous negativity" on my part only facts and a refusal to attribute "false positivity" to Vettel who in no way deserves it, especially since he has been receiving it his entire career.

Instead of incorrectly inferring "gratuitous negativity", why not just allow people to speak their mind? All I ever said was that VET did nothing special, which you actually repeated later on.

[bosyber]

I don't really want to go into this discussion, but I suppose I feel compelled, given someone's wrong on the internet!

Leclerc staying close to Vettel wasn't at all stupid as he was being told he was about to be let past by Vettel, on orders by the team. It is good to admit mistakes in fact, but at some point, one might admit that we have no clear sign either of the two Ferrari drivers had much pace on the other in the race. In actual fact it doesn't matter all that much, I think.

For Vettel, bc. he had that MGU-K failure. For Leclerc, he didn't lose time with the manoeuvre (or did he? I haven't seen any clear indication of that), and the MGU-K failure put him behind Hamilton anyway. Had that not happened, I do think that looking at the race, might have been to shrug off Leclerc's frustration and the deal gone wrong and just roll with it and try to get the win, maybe swap the drivers near the end if possible.

But, I do think the strategy was not about the race (they most likely would have had a 1-2 w/o that failure, or another unfortunately timed CS), but about the team, ie. this was very much about making clear to both drivers that neither is above the team (hi Vettel, seems you were right in Singapore, but maybe forgot?). Leclerc got the lid on the nose in Singapore already (though likely by accident), putting him down from possible naughties in Monza Q3, and now Vettel got it. Maybe not wise if you want to win the race to distract yourselves, but oh, well, it is Ferrari, right?

[turbof1]

I have a job to do as moderator and taking action against gratuitous negativity,

There is no "gratuitous negativity" on my part only facts and a refusal to attribute "false positivity" to Vettel who in no way deserves it, especially since he has been receiving it his entire career.

Instead of incorrectly inferring "gratuitous negativity", why not just allow people to speak their mind? All I ever said was that VET did nothing special, which you actually repeated later on.

I perceived it as that, and I already apologized for it as it was wrong. It's a bit of past experience with driver topics that always ended up like that.

So again, my apologies. I can certainly acknowledge when I got the picture, which I did here. I can argue why and how and what I saw as indicators, but fact remains I did not see the situation correctly. You'll get a voucher for a free "curse at turbof1 for a hour in private" session .

[turbof1]

I don't really want to go into this discussion, but I suppose I feel compelled, given someone's wrong on the internet!

Leclerc staying close to Vettel wasn't at all stupid as he was being told he was about to be let past by Vettel, on orders by the team. It is good to admit mistakes in fact, but at some point, one might admit that we have no clear sign either of the two Ferrari drivers had much pace on the other in the race. In actual fact it doesn't matter all that much, I think.

For Vettel, bc. he had that MGU-K failure. For Leclerc, he didn't lose time with the manoeuvre (or did he? I haven't seen any clear indication of that), and the MGU-K failure put him behind Hamilton anyway. Had that not happened, I do think that looking at the race, might have been to shrug off Leclerc's frustration and the deal gone wrong and just roll with it and try to get the win, maybe swap the drivers near the end if possible.

But, I do think the strategy was not about the race (they most likely would have had a 1-2 w/o that failure, or another unfortunately timed CS), but about the team, ie. this was very much about making clear to both drivers that neither is above the team (hi Vettel, seems you were right in Singapore, but maybe forgot?). Leclerc got the lid on the nose in Singapore already (though likely by accident), putting him down from possible naughties in Monza Q3, and now Vettel got it. Maybe not wise if you want to win the race to distract yourselves, but oh, well, it is Ferrari, right?

I'm getting conflicting messages here, so take what I say now under provision until we get a full rollout of the transcript. According to racefans, Leclerc was being told in lap 2, before the SC, the swap would happen later on in the race. If racefans got it right (and I want to emphasize IF), he should have backed off. If that was the case, you got a gap of several laps where Leclerc stayed inside dirty air while he was being told it would happen later.

If that was not the case and racefans got it wrong, then we'll have to see what's what when the full transcript gets released.

Regarding the issues of Ferrari not having its drivers under control: I fully agree and nor will they now be able to in the future. I think that's now out of the window. We saw that at Mercedes, we saw that at Force India (although they managed to get it relatively back under control by having very strict rules) and we saw that at HAAS. Once 2 drivers are fully antagonized against eachother, you can't get that out.

[RZS10]

Is it possible an error got into your table?

Nah no error i just did not add it ... did now ... the racefans transcript should be correct

The "he should have backed off and waited for instructions" argument somewhat falls apart when you consider that he only did one fast lap (lap 4) without any instructions in which he had to stay close anyways in order to open the gap to Lewis - from then onwards the instructions were very clear ["Sebastian will let you by (next lap)."].

He got that message on laps 5, 6, 7 and 8.

Of course he could have ignored that but wouldn't it look really silly if Vettel waited for him but he would have dropped back?

Kinda feels like this discussion belongs more and more into the team or race thread with every single post, eh?

[turbof1]

Is it possible an error got into your table?

Nah no error i just did not add it ... did now ... the racefans transcript should be correct

The "he should have backed off and waited for instructions" argument somewhat falls apart when you consider that he only did one fast lap (lap 4) without any instructions in which he had to stay close anyways in order to open the gap to Lewis - from then onwards the instructions were very clear ["Sebastian will let you by (next lap)."].

He got that message on laps 5, 6, 7 and 8.

Of course he could have ignored that but wouldn't it look really silly if Vettel waited for him but he would have dropped back?

Kinda feels like this discussion belongs more and more into the team or race thread with every single post, eh?

I see what is going on here. Racefans split the table with an advertisement banner and I thought that'd be all of it .

So in summary
-Turbof1 is not having a good day
-Turbof1 is taking a break after this
-Leclerc got told on lap 2 they'd swap later. Gets told on lap 6 they'd be swapping, then gets told on the same lap they'd be swapping a lap later. Gets told on lap 7 Vettel will allow to let him by on turn one (which did not happen) and then gets told it'll happen the next lap.

Yeah, ok. Thanks everybody for bearing with me! Basically Ferrari screwed that one up.

[bosyber]

Well, bad days happen I suppose, take care, hope you are up to your usual level soon

I think Ferrari were possibly disbelieving that Vettel would go on and not comply, lol. Maybe they should have checked his, and other WDC drivers' takes on that through F1 history. Though then again, perhaps instinct is to think they, being Ferrari, are above that?

[NathanOlder]

Agreed,

Nico won for 2 main reasons.

1. Lewis's ICE failure in Sepang
2. Lewis did not getting on top of his starts (AUS, BHR, ITA, JAP).

Nico had his share, about equal actually, of poor starts. It was more to do with the clutch than either of the drivers.

The real difference maker was the multiple PU failures for Hamilton, specifically in Sapang.

ROS and VET were virtual clones, same strengths and weaknesses. Both fairly strong qualifyers and good out front with a lead. Neither very adaptable, especially in the wet, both poor under pressure and terrible in wheel to wheel battles/racecraft.

vettel has a few good results in the wet. and normally he is fairly rapid in such conditons even if he does stuff it into a wall. germany and canada 11 come to mind

Why did he stick it in the wall.....

Hamilton was catching hand over fist.

[NathanOlder]

Vettel drove away (and no, I don't care if that took 3 laps or 9 laps. Fact is he did) from Leclerc to the point Leclerc was in fresh air himself, and Leclerc overcooking his tyres is still Leclerc's responsibility.

He did a good race. No not a special race, not a legendary race, just a good race. But he did have the necessary pace. Criticism is fine, but also has to be appropiate. For your reminder:

.

You don't care if it took 3 or 9 laps, but you are asking me to "stay objective and reasonable". Hypocrisy at its finest.

Anyone will cook their tires if remaining within 2s for 9 laps trying to stay close to a driver that is supposed to give you the position back aND is on the radios saYing "get closer". That is reasonable and objective. VET did not show better pace, just the willingness to go back on a pre race agreement.

Yes, because he got away all the same. It's a strawman's argument to say "he took 9 laps to do it" (which for the record you have been told by an other person is factually wrong and I will verify that later on) when he created a gap of 4plus seconds by the time Charles pitted. There's no hypocrisy involved in ignoring irrelevant arguments. He got away all the same. Charles overcooked his tyres at a 2s interval which is outside the turbulent wake and thus outside the leading car's influence. Charles got told to be closer yes, he also got quickly told to back off again. Looking after the tyres is ultimately the driver's responsibility. Nobody else's. He has a brain, he certainly has the feel for the car. Would he drive off the road if the team told him that? No of course not. Would he insist on driving closer to Vettel when his tyres starting to loose grip due putting too much heat in it? If he did, then he made the wrong call. I certainly don't see how this would account for an argument that undermines Vettel effort of being faster than Leclerc in that stint.

Stating that Vettel had the upperhand pace wise is the logic conclusion, unless you want to argue next that Leclerc was upset by having a red car in front of him and could not emotionally process that. Or maybe you want argue Leclerc had the upperhand for the first 50 meters of the race. Maybe you'd like to argue Vettel did not put his car as centered in his pit parking space like Leclerc did. Do you find me unreasonable for bringing up those suggestions? Good, because that is exactly what an argument "he took x laps to do it" entitles. I absolutely hate to bring up Vin Diesel quotes, but this is appropiate regarding this weird debate about how long it takes to carve out a pace-supremacy-indicating pace:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGZa-yf8vMU
(of course you can laugh at the fact Vettel did not win and had to give up due a technical failure, and thereby ignore the underlining point I am trying to make)

I'm not getting into an argument about Vettel ignoring a direct order. Again, I already acknowledged that. The point was race pace and it will remain race pace.

If you want to look at it in a strange odd way thats fine,

So if I look at it in a strange way also I see it like this.

Both cars start the race on same tyres,
Both cars pit once.
Both cars change to same tyres.
One car fails.

go back to the point the driver who's car failed said that it started to fail and Leclerc was IN FRONT.

Who had the better pace..... Leclerc. He was ahead of Vettel.

Case closed.

[Scorpaguy]

IMHO...all this "Vettel-gate" is utter rubbish. Letting Lec pass would have been nonsensical with the gaps involved. Was Lec upset at the time...sure. Was Lec upset after he reviewed the footage...doubtful. Aside from the routine intra-team rivalry that is ubiquitous with all prima dona F1 drivers, all is well within Big Red.

Seb is fast and experienced. Lec is very fast and gaining experience. Bino is finally looking like a Team Principal. Ferrari lost Russia in Quali 2...looking at Toto before the flag drop, he knew it.

[Jolle]

IMHO...all this "Vettel-gate" is utter rubbish. Letting Lec pass would have been nonsensical with the gaps involved. Was Lec upset at the time...sure. Was Lec upset after he reviewed the footage...doubtful. Aside from the routine intra-team rivalry that is ubiquitous with all prima dona F1 drivers, all is well within Big Red.

Seb is fast and experienced. Lec is very fast and gaining experience. Bino is finally looking like a Team Principal. Ferrari lost Russia in Quali 2...looking at Toto before the flag drop, he knew it.

Even is Leclerc was driving backwards on three wheels, when you disobey direct team orders, there is something wrong with your attitude. Once again Ferrari didn't loose because Mercedes had a better strategy, they lost because they are busy trying to keep their drivers sticking to agreements instead of winning the race.

[Andres125sx]

I´ve read people arguing Lecrerc didn´t have any more pace to Vettel... disagree. As Hamilton said himself:

The actual 'safe' distance is more towards 3 to 3.5 seconds, not 2 (post race press conference - Hamilton: "When you're towing at two seconds it's quite hard to follow, ehm, so yea i dropped back to around three ... three point three or three point five seconds")

This means Lecrerc keeping under 2 seconds gap in first 10 laps is an evidence of better race pace, wich btw is not surprising at all as he was faster than Seb in FP1, FP2, FP3, Q2 and Q3



About people complaining about Ferrari TOs, Ferrari has always prioritized team points over any driver points, at least if neither of them is fighting for the title. These are Toni Cuquerella words, current comentator for spanish TV, and former Ferrari engineer. In Sochi letting Vettel pass taking advantage of the tow was best strategy for the team to secure 1-2, but as forcing Lecrerc to let him pass without defending was not fair for him, it´s obvious they agreed to switch positions again later in the race.

Vettel took advantage of TOs to take the lead, and then ignored TOs when he should have let Charles pass, and that was selfish and harmful for the team. Lecrerc had better pace and he could have opened a gap to prevent Lewis lead after the VSC. Or maybe not, we can´t know for sure, but there are several evidences pointing he was faster than Seb