Ferrari – Charles Leclerc: in Baku, both team and driver share responsibility for outcome. The SF24 could have won, but the errors were on two fronts in Baku.

Oscar Piastri’s consecration and Ferrari’s regret

The Azerbaijan Grand Prix was one of the most intense and hard-fought races of a 2024 Formula 1 season that continues to deliver surprises and emotions. Out of the battle emerged a more determined Oscar Piastri, who is showing hunger and talent at every Grand Prix, along with the desire to secure the first driver position at McLaren. Oscar Piastri’s driving, without making the slightest mistake even under constant pressure from Charles Leclerc through the narrow streets of Baku, is a true consecration for the Australian, whose talent adds to an already phenomenal grid.

Oscar Piastri and McLaren were able to capitalize on a great opportunity that their rivals gave them, considering that Ferrari overall was not inferior to McLaren in Baku. Once again, the circuit wasn’t particularly challenging from an aerodynamic perspective, but the SF-24 is sending very positive signals after the updates introduced in the Italian Grand Prix at the Monza circuit. Also considering that apart from Oscar Piastri’s McLaren, Mercedes never really bothered Carlos Sainz or Charles Leclerc, and Red Bull is currently so “untranslatable” that Sergio Perez was significantly faster than Max Verstappen all weekend.

The reality is that, overall, McLaren and Ferrari were very similar in terms of performance, even though the reds had a clear edge on the medium tires in the first stint. However, the tire management advantage didn’t show by the end of the race because, as Alex Albon’s and Lando Norris’s stints also showed, the hard tire, if managed correctly, could cover almost the entire duration of the Grand Prix. Therefore, Charles Leclerc, who was expecting Oscar Piastri to fall off at the end, as happened in the first stint (and as was simulated during the free practice sessions), ended up suffering the so-called “cliff” of the tires himself. After the endless series of laps following Oscar Piastri’s McLaren MCL38 at a very close distance, between dirty air and traction efforts to attempt an overtaking move, the Monegasque driver ended up wearing out his rear tires significantly. That being said, Ferrari and Charles Leclerc had the opportunity to win in Azerbaijan, and the victory did not come also due to their own mistakes. The online fanbase immediately activated to unequivocally determine whether the fault was solely with the team or the driver, but the truth (in our opinion at least) is that both made a single significant error, and the defeat came from the combination of the two mistakes.

The strategic error of Ferrari’s pit wall.

Starting with the Maranello team, the impression when cautiously analyzing all the data is that the Ferrari strategists found themselves in a situation that could have caused some confusion and struggled to read the situation correctly during a highly frantic moment of the race. If we observe the pace of Charles Leclerc and Oscar Piastri during the first stint, we notice an important detail: by the eleventh lap, both Charles Leclerc’s and Oscar Piastri’s times start to increase. Many drivers were already pitting because the medium tire was reaching the end of its life for almost everyone. The initial good news for Ferrari was that Oscar Piastri’s drop-off was worse than Charles Leclerc’s, so the approach naturally became to keep the Monegasque on track as long as he was gaining on his direct rival. Another consideration came into play, which had been highlighted several times by the Ferrari team during the Baku weekend: the hard tire’s warm-up phase was particularly tricky, and this should have reduced, if not completely canceled out, the effectiveness of the undercut. The idea was that the driver returning to the track on fresh hard tires would have so much trouble getting the compound up to temperature that they would gain little or nothing over the driver staying on track with medium tires for an extra lap.

Ferrari’s problem was that, by not stopping Oscar Piastri even after the first signs of a drop-off, the on-track performance was becoming increasingly slower, with lap times rising almost exponentially lap after lap in such situations. There came a moment when the time lost on track by Charles Leclerc, who was losing 2 seconds per lap over 4 laps, significantly slowed his race, and, more importantly, at that point, the undercut for those pitting became highly effective, given how slowly those remaining on track were driving. Therefore, the decision not to take the initiative and pit Charles Leclerc, regardless of what McLaren did, despite the tire’s sharp degradation, meant that the extra lap the Ferrari driver completed consumed almost all the 6-second advantage he had built up in the first stint. This put the Monegasque back on track just ahead of Alex Albon but not in a position to manage the tire warm-up phase effectively. As Charles Leclerc tried to ease the tire introduction, he found McLaren’s number 81 in his mirrors in the drag reduction system zone.

Charles Leclerc’s mistake

At this point, the driver’s responsibility comes into play. Charles Leclerc clearly underestimated the importance of track position, making a braking move at the first corner that was a bit too conservative compared to Oscar Piastri, who found another incredibly deep and effective braking point, a bit like Daniel Ricciardo in his prime, after his move on Lando Norris at Monza’s Roggia corner. It seems plausible that Charles Leclerc was caught off guard by Oscar Piastri’s highly effective attack, but, by his own admission, he didn’t fight too hard for the position, convinced that he could later take advantage of the expected tire drop-off or the long straight in Baku to regain the lead. This clearly had an impact on the final result, because the impression, also given Carlos Sainz’s recovery, is that if Charles Leclerc had managed to defend his position from Oscar Piastri’s initial attacks, the Australian would have had fewer chances as the race progressed. Clean air and optimal tire management on the SF24 could have led Charles Leclerc to a victory, if not an easy one, then at least highly probable. Additionally, Ferrari’s failure to correctly assess the medium tire’s “cliff” stemmed from not being able to test race pace with two drivers during Friday practice, due to Charles Leclerc’s crash in the first free practice session. It was a small mistake, but one that probably impacted the final result, given how tight this Formula 1 season is, where every tiny detail makes a significant difference.

Leclerc’s defense against Perez saved his race

Lastly, the chaotic incident between Carlos Sainz and Sergio Perez secured Charles Leclerc’s second place, as he entered the final laps with his rear tires extremely worn. Charles Leclerc was about to be caught by Sergio Perez at the first corner, but in this case, a fierce defense of his position triggered everything that followed, with Carlos Sainz first overtaking Sergio Perez and then the crash between the Spaniard and the Mexican. According to us, the responsibility for this crash falls more on the Red Bull driver, as, being behind and with plenty of track space to his left, he could have taken much more room. In conclusion, Ferrari had the pace to win in the Azerbaijan Grand Prix, and this is good news for the fans, but at the same time, a combination of two errors, not particularly major but still important, by both the team and the driver cost Maranello’s team the top spot at the Baku City circuit. In our view, it would be unfair to place more blame on one than the other.

— see video above —