A sprint weekend always brings with it some unknowns, such as the use of the soft compound in qualifying, tested only once in free practice. If we were to stop taking the SQ2 ranking as a reference, we could undoubtedly expect a hard-fought final heat, perhaps even with some surprises. Yet, at the end of the day the timesheet tells a reality already seen in other events, with Max Verstappen also on pole in the Sprint Qualifying ahead of Charles Leclerc.
In an almost chaotic finale, with different track conditions compared to SQ2, talent and, above all, the ability to deliver in the decisive moment once again emerged. In short, in the end the usual two names emerged, namely the Dutchman and the Monegasque, capable of making the front row a reality, also taking advantage of the McLaren debacle.
After finishing in the lead in both the first and second heats, it was logical to expect an MCL38 capable of at least entering the fight for the front row, but the two cars from Woking then got lost in SQ3 due to errors and incorrect management of the soft , as also admitted by the team itself. These elements also gave rise to Verstappen’s words of semi-disbelief at the end of qualifying, surprised to be on pole despite a less than perfect lap.
Max Verstappen, Red Bull Racing RB20
Photo by: Andy Hone / Motorsport Images
Concreteness emerges among the errors
In fact, it is no coincidence that, as soon as he was informed about the pole via radio, Verstappen replied “but how is this possible? What happened to the others?”. The reigning world champion completed a good lap, but not without flaws, thanks to a feeling with the soft tire that was not exactly ideal, as he himself admitted. Undoubtedly having a competitive car represents an element of help in the search for time, as demonstrated by Sergio Perez’s third place, but it is also true when it is necessary to materialize, the Dutchman’s talent often emerges.
Despite the first position, however, the feeling and sensations are very different from those of Leclerc, second, a tenth from pole, but radiant in interviews. At the end of qualifying, the Cavallino driver said he was satisfied with what he showed, not only because he had missed almost the entire FP1, but also because he believes that today’s good performance can put to rest certain rumors about his state of form of him.
Although on sprint weekends we tend not to take big risks on the setup side given the little time available, relying on the settings designed in the factory, arriving in qualifying without preparation is certainly not ideal. In a traditional weekend, FP1 would be one of the least important sessions, but with the sprint the question changes: trying the soft on a single lap, especially on a track that even reached 50°C as regards the asphalt, would have been useful. Yet Leclerc put together a beautiful performance, taking the front row ahead of Saturday’s sprint race.
Looking at the data, we can see how much of the gap accumulated by the Monegasque originated in the first sector, more specifically in turn one. At the entrance, a few moments before reaching the apex, Leclerc lost the rear for a brief moment, but enough to make him miss the apex, widening the trajectory. In part, this also negatively influenced the exit, because in turn two the Cavallino standard bearer attempted to tighten the trajectory, losing the rear again. It is in this section of the track that a large part of the gap accumulated in the first half-time was created.
Telemetry comparison between Verstappen and Leclerc in Miami – Sprint Qualifying
Photo by: Gianluca D’Alessandro
It’s difficult to think that the smudge in turn one arose from a tire that wasn’t quite up to temperature as in other events, as demonstrated by Sainz’s excellent partial in that stretch of the track. Leclerc in fact relegated teammate Carlos Sainz by around three tenths, but it should be underlined that the split times between the two Red team riders were actually very similar. The Spaniard paid for both a mistake while going through turn eight and a lockup when braking at the last corner, with the latter costing him several positions on the grid. In this case, therefore, two elements made the difference for Leclerc: speed and the ability not to make any mistakes at the decisive moment.
Despite not being at the level of the Red Bull, the SF-24’s references in the medium-high speed corners that make up the opening sector are nevertheless positive, an indication that the Ferrari has nevertheless held up well in the comparison. The greatest signs of difficulty in that section arrive precisely where they were expected to materialize, that is, in the second part of the sequence, curve 6/7/8, where the reactivity and stability of the car counts, an element of which the RB20 also makes a real point of strength. However, it should be noted that this difference is more evident in the comparison with Verstappen than with that with Perez: it is in the rapid sequence of the first sector that the Dutchman was able to build a good part of the advantage over his teammate, separating the Mexican in what is one of the most technical sections of the track.
In fact, in the other two sectors, the performance gap between Ferrari and Red Bull is not particularly wide. On the contrary, the Red team proved to be particularly competitive in the central sector, which is made up of a long straight and a very slow area. On the draw, a fact that has already been seen on other occasions emerges, namely the ability of the RB20 to detach opponents with open DRS. In the first part of the straight the SF-24 manages to excel by exploiting a good phase of traction coming out of turn eight but, when it is possible to exploit the mobile wing, the car from Milton Keynes returns to dictate the pace, recording speed peak speeds approximately 2 km/h higher than the Red.
The feeling is that, also looking at the wings chosen, the Italian single-seater is slightly more energetic also from a race perspective, but on the other hand it clashes with the efficiency of the RB20, both in general terms and with open DRS. The only stretch where Ferrari seems to have something more in terms of performance is the slowest one, where both Leclerc and Sainz were able to catch up on the Dutchman. However, it should be mentioned that in these low-traffic corners Verstappen made a small mistake: by forcing himself onto the second curb of the chicane, the car immediately broke down, losing the ideal line, an aspect which also compromised the setting of the curve next, the one that leads onto the second straight.
Charles Leclerc, Ferrari SF-24
Photo by: Alexander Trienitz
McLaren paid for the management of the soft
However, Verstappen’s pole takes on an even more interesting connotation if the comparison shifts to McLaren, which seemed among the favorites at the end of SQ2 after finishing the first two heats in the lead.
In SQ3, only five of the ten drivers were able to improve their time obtained in the central phase of qualifying, demonstrating how complicated it was to manage both the evolution of the track and a soft one that was very sensitive to high temperatures. With almost 50°C of asphalt, it was easy to overheat the softer compound, as Verstappen himself understood in FP1, when a lap driven at low speed wasn’t enough for him to cool the tires sufficiently after having aborted the first attempt.
Jumping to the last qualifying heat, the two Red Bulls were among the first to go out, an aspect that allowed them to manage the pace on the outgoing lap with great serenity. In fact, there is more than ten seconds between Verstappen and Norris, demonstrating how the Milton Keynes team has well prepared for the decisive lap, maintaining a slower pace to avoid overheating the tire excessively.
It is no coincidence that, during interviews, Zak Brown admitted that McLaren was not able to manage the soft as best as possible, paying for a lack of grip which was evident from the first corners compared to the time obtained with the medium, a compound which is easier to manage in these situations. Although Norris actually highlighted his mistakes, it is also true that there are several elements that contributed negatively to the performance in SQ3.
Norris telemetry comparison between SQ2 and SQ3 in Miami in Sprint Qualifying
Photo by: Gianluca D’Alessandro
Observing the telemetry references between his best lap in SQ2, which was also sufficient to conquer pole position, and that in SQ3, it can be seen that a large part of the deficit derives from the difference in grip in the corners of the first sector. The fact that he experienced a large amount of oversteer already in turn three is perhaps a sign that the tires were overheated, widening the difficulties later encountered in the fast sequence. In fact, once the critical temperature threshold is exceeded, despite the two long straights, it is difficult to get the tires back into a good thermal range.
In turn 5-6-7, in fact, Norris even had a gap of 14 km/h on himself, too large to hope to fight for the front row. Piastri, who does not have all the updates and completed only one lap on the soft tires in FP1, managed to achieve a sixth position which he said he was satisfied with, given that the sensations during the session were far from ideal: l The Australian made fewer mistakes and put his teammate behind him, but it is clear that in Saturday’s qualifying there will be elements to review in the preparation of the softer compound.
The short time in FP1, also dedicated to studying the updates in depth, may have had an influence, but from here the Woking team can learn and react, realizing a potential that seems to be there, a theme of which even McLaren itself is aware.
#Data #Red #Bull #stable #fast #Ferrari #concrete #slow