After Charles Leclerc’s failure to win at Silverstone, public opinion was thrown against Ferrari, although still victorious in England, or rather against Mattia Binotto. In fact, it should be remembered how the Cavallino Team Principal has on several occasions acted as a shield to the team, taking on all the responsibilities during times of difficulty, above all the difficult two-year period 2020-2021. Therefore, the strategic decisions were automatically attributed to the number one of Maranello, passing over possible competitions of responsibility of other key figures of the wall in synergy with whom the decisions were made during the final frenzy at Silverstone. In such a climate of widespread disappointment, in order to allow the reality of the facts to emerge, it would however be necessary a comprehensive debate that takes into account the versions of both sides. It could be objected that Binotto had the opportunity to express his opinion during the meetings with the journalists in the post-race, but it is likely that this could not fully emerge, due to the omission of the fears of the wall during the phases race criticism or the impossibility of adopting a direct communication style in front of the microphones. As in any aspect of everyday life, it would therefore be advisable to temporarily put aside one’s opinions, reverse one’s vision of what happened and question one’s deepest beliefs. Only at that point, the conclusions reached will be able to refute or corroborate the previous position.
The judgment on the work of the Scuderia at Silverstone can only be elaborated by taking into consideration the intention of the decisions taken, since their consequences were revealed only afterwards. The idea that the top, or the top, of the team can deliberately sacrifice the driver with the best chance of winning the World Championship is rather unlikely. Already during the race, the radio request to reverse positions by forcing one of their drivers to potentially renounce his first career victory is an indication of the championship ambitions. In fact, in addition to purely sporting motivations, more than anyone else in Maranello, Binotto himself would enjoy a world championship victory, essential for driving away company pressure from above. We can therefore start from the awareness that Ferrari and Binottowhile failing to realize the good things built up to the Safety Car, have acted in the best of intentions for the good of Ferrari and Binotto themselves.
Entering the merits of the race finale, it has already been demonstrated on the pages of FormulaPassion how at the entrance to the Ferrari Safety Car he had enough time to stop both drivers without the second, Sainz, having to waste time waiting at the entrance to the pitch. At this point, the choice to stop only one of the cars betrays an error of assessment or rather other reflections of the wall not disclosed to cameras.
If Leclerc had returned to the pits together with his teammate, it is likely that both would have lost track position. Lewis Hamilton, in fact, without stopping would have found himself from third to first with very little to lose, as even if he had been overtaken by the Reds, he probably would not have fallen beyond fourth place, only one position behind the one held at the moment. Binotto also recognized in the post-race the wrong forecast of a high degradation of the soft rubber. Starting from such erroneous information, it is likely that Ferrari put itself in Mercedes’ shoes and thinking that she too expected a high degradation of the red, she would have been even more encouraged not to stop, also enjoying fresh hard tires fitted by just six laps.
Any scenario in the event of a double stop by the Ferrari drivers therefore seems to lead to the loss of the track position and to a restart that would have seen Hamilton, Leclerc, Sainz and above all Perez in order. We could therefore ask ourselves why at that point the Scuderia di Maranello did not believe in the possibility of overtaking and regaining the top of the race. The answer to this question betrays what could have been two potential fears for the Ferrari wall in England. Throughout the English weekend, the F1-75 was slower on the straight than the competition, including Mercedes and Red Bull, as evidenced by the time measurements in the first and third sectors of the track. It is therefore possible that the Scuderia was not convinced that the chances of overtaking Leclerc on Hamilton would have been those that were then seen in reverse. Similarly, the hypothesis of fear of being overtaken by Perez should not be excluded, as he can take advantage of both the speed of the RB18 and any battles between the top three. Among the fears just hypothesized, one does not exclude the other.
Therefore, faced with similar considerations and with the need to defend a victory expected for almost three months, the safest scenario was to stop just one pilot, so as to maintain the track position with one car and cover the stops of the competition with the other. There is only one question mark left, namely why the choice to stay on the track fell precisely to Charles Leclerc. The explanation provided by Mattia Binotto in the post-race is that Sainz had more worn tires and therefore was the least suited to defend the lead.
After trying to reconstruct the considerations of the vertices of the wall in Silverstone, faced with a similar reversal of scenario and trying to ignore the information available only in retrospect, it will be up to the individuals to decide whether to review or confirm their positions on the work of the Scuderia. With the awareness, however, that nothing can change a written outcome.
#Defense #lawyers #FormulaPassion.it