In Mexico, Ferrari was the absolute protagonist with Carlos Sainz, but unlike in the United States Grand Prix at the Austin circuit, it failed to achieve a 1-2 finish.
Charles Leclerc finished the race in third place, losing out to Lando Norris at the end. However, the Monegasque’s race was affected by a problem and a mistake: which one, in particular, prevented him from finishing second? Let’s see what the telemetry data reveals.
The mistake makes little difference, the problem instead…
To say that the significant error made by Charles Leclerc on lap 62 did not change the outcome of the race seems heretical, but it is exactly so.
Lando Norris’s McLaren had a significantly faster race pace, and frankly, the overtake was only a matter of time.
On the other hand, the problem of high temperatures with the car—caused by the 2,200 meters altitude of the Mexican circuit—was impactful: for a total of 13 laps (from the 18th to the 30th), Charles was on average 5 tenths of a second slower than Carlos Sainz; an eternity in Formula 1.
The race pace trend of Leclerc (white line) and Sainz (red line). Source: formula1.it
To demonstrate the great lift and coast technique (a technique where the throttle is released just before braking, rather than simultaneously at the start of it) used by Charles Leclerc, we present another graph.
In the two trends, the throttle input is shown at the top, while the brake input is at the bottom. In the yellow rectangle overlay, it is clearly noticeable how Charles (white line) releases the throttle earlier than Carlos Sainz (white line), even though they brake at the exact same point.
Source: formula1.it
Ferrari too conservative?
Ferrari’s team principal, Frédéric Vasseur, revealed after the Mexican Grand Prix that the Maranello team adopted a conservative strategy with car number 16, solely to avoid a retirement due to reliability issues.
In hindsight, which is always a factor to consider, the Maranello team was too “scared” by some signs of abnormal temperatures, thereby allowing Lando Norris to stay in contention for second place until the end. Probably, by implementing a slightly more aggressive plan, truly “race animals,” the result would have changed.
In short, the fear of the Ferrari finishing the race with only one car crossing the line prevailed over the possibility of achieving a second consecutive 1-2 finish.
With “ifs” and “buts,” nothing can be achieved, but a spontaneous question arises: will this conservative choice be decisive for the Constructors’ Championship? The future will tell.
Leave a Reply