How Ferrari's most convincing win escaped its clutches

The Russian Grand Prix should not only have been Ferrari's fourth consecutive victory, but perhaps the most convincing in the run of races since the August break. Instead, it descended into what the Italians like to refer to as a "grande casino", with early leader Sebastian Vettel refusing to heed team orders and let his team-mate past, and Charles Leclerc quietly fuming about that instruction being disregarded.

Unfortunately for Ferrari, that was the best bit of its race as Vettel's subsequent MGU-K failure triggered a virtual safety car that cost Leclerc victory and - compounded by a failed strategic gamble - handed arch-rival Mercedes a one-two. The repercussions could yet stretch far beyond the loss of a victory, with the relationship between two drivers who will be at the team together for at least another 18 months at best compromised. That went well...

In a parallel universe somewhere, this was surely an easy win for Ferrari. The team was delighted on Friday by the performance of its car, which confirmed that the aerodynamic upgrades introduced in Singapore a week earlier really have made the SF90 stronger into the corners. That, plus an advantage on the straights that Mercedes estimated at just over 0.7 seconds in qualifying, ensured Ferrari had enough speed where it counted to maintain track position with relative ease.

Even in the early seconds of the race, things went exactly as planned, with Vettel quickly jumping ahead of Lewis Hamilton's Mercedes. Ferrari had prepared for the start, with an agreement for the pair not to contest the first corner and risk letting anyone else break their hegemony at the front. As agreed, Leclerc towed Vettel up to Turn 2 rather than covering the inside and risking letting a Mercedes gain that advantage, with the latter able to take the lead up the inside of the right-hander with relative ease.

"We agreed that the best way was not to give any slipstream to Hamilton first, and therefore Charles would have given the slipstream to Seb," said team boss Mattia Binotto of the start strategy. "By giving the slipstream to Seb and not defending the position he would give an advantage to Seb, which later on in the race we would give back by swapping the cars. So that was the deal.

"They got a good start, Charles stayed on the left, Sebastian jumped Hamilton, and was in the slipstream of Charles."

Behind, Hamilton held off the racy Carlos Sainz Jr. The McLaren driver jumped from fifth on the grid - assisted by Max Verstappen starting ninth thanks to a five-place grid penalty for a V6 engine change and the other Red Bull of Alex Albon starting from the pits after backing into the Turn 13 wall in Q1 - to pass Valtteri Bottas and even briefly hassled Hamilton into Turn 2.

But the field couldn't even complete the first lap before the safety car was deployed thanks to Romain Grosjean being pitched into the barrier at Turn 4. Grosjean, running 11th after dropping three places off the line on a weekend where he was extremely quick by midfield standards, was holding the outside line at the right-hander to give room on the inside for Daniel Ricciardo's Renault. Unfortunately for him, Antonio Giovinazzi had been running side-by side with Ricciardo through the long, fast left-hander before Turn 4, having been given a nudge by the Racing Point of Lance Stroll at the exit of Turn 2. Seemingly solely focused on the car to his right, Giovinazzi didn't factor in that his attempt to pass Ricciardo around the outside into Turn 4 would put him in the middle of three cars and Grosjean was the frustrated victim. But once the track action was paused, the Ferrari drama began.

Sporting director Laurent Mekies decided Ferrari had spent quite enough time demonstrating it had little control over its drivers and intervened

"Just for me to understand, the situation was pretty clear right," asked Leclerc over the radio in reference to what happened at the start. Initially, he was told the pitwall would get back to him but he then received a message that confirms the complexity of the pre-race agreement. To allow for the potential of Vettel simply getting a much better start and earning the lead rather than it being solely a function of getting the tow, Ferrari had scrutinised the starts of its two drivers and found them to be the same. The clear implication was that this meant the swap was on.

"So Charles, start performance was the same and we are looking into doing the swap further into the race," he was told. Leclerc, at this stage, was happy. "No problems, understand," he responded.

The pause in hostilities only lasted to the end of lap three, with Vettel crossing the line 0.9s ahead of Leclerc and Hamilton a further 0.7s back. Bottas, meanwhile lost touch with the top three during this phase of the race as he spent just over three laps following the restart behind fourth-placed Sainz's McLaren before dispatching him effortlessly up the inside into Turn 2 having benefited from the help of the DRS. By then, Bottas was 5.7s behind Hamilton and almost 10 seconds off the lead.

But the real intrigue was at the front. Vettel and Leclerc started to pull away from Hamilton's Mercedes, with Vettel edging clear of Leclerc by almost three tenths on the first full lap of racing. Early on lap five, with Hamilton two seconds behind, Leclerc reported that "the gap behind is enough now", which led to him being told shortly after that Vettel would let him by next lap. Vettel did not let him by.

Vettel's approach hinted he was not happy with the deal, and the fact both drivers were irritated suggested Ferrari had over-managed the start and created more problems than it solved

On lap six, Leclerc was told it would happen on the next lap. Vettel did not let him by, despite being told to do so just before he started the lap. Vettel argued that he would have "got him anyways" at the start even without Leclerc's co-operation, but suggested that for now they should keep pulling away. On lap seven, Vettel did not let him by and Leclerc was again told next lap - and to "close the gap". By now, Vettel was requesting that Leclerc needed to close up if there was to be a switch, not easy considering how difficult it was to follow.

After initially backing out of what appeared to be his first complaint later on lap seven, perhaps mindful of his pledge early in the weekend to say less about such matters over the radio, Leclerc then made his position very clear.

"You put me behind, I respected everything," said Leclerc. "We will speak later but now it is difficult to close the gap, obviously."

Vettel, who argued he wanted the two Ferraris to keep pulling away rather than messing about swapping places with Hamilton not far behind, did not let Leclerc past on lap eight either. Again, Leclerc was told to close the gap because Vettel - just over 1.5s ahead - felt it was too big. With Vettel again not letting Leclerc by at the start of the ninth lap, Leclerc was again told to close the gap. At this point, sporting director Laurent Mekies decided his team had spent quite enough time demonstrating it had little control over its drivers and intervened. He told Leclerc that the swap would be deferred to later because of the proximity of Hamilton - then still within five seconds.

"I completely understand, the only thing is I respected... I gave him the slipstream," responded Leclerc - then adding a heavily loaded request to "manage the situation".

While Ferrari's eagerness to make the swap so early was hasty - Vettel was right about that - it was clear that the four-time world champion was playing a risky game. He knew that the longer he stayed ahead, the better his hopes of staying there were and there was surely more to this than the desire to ensure Ferrari was out of range before swapping.

Vettel wasn't keen to explain himself in public after the race beyond insisting he respected the agreement, and the team was clearly unhappy he had disregarded multiple instructions to cede the position, but Vettel was adamant he had followed the terms of the start agreement. What was obvious was that it suited him to do so as late as possible given the advantage of track position.

Intriguingly, Vettel also claimed over the radio that he would have passed Leclerc anyway, suggesting he felt he had earned the lead on merit. Vettel's approach hinted he was not happy with the deal from the start - why would he be, given it would disadvantage him in most circumstances - and the fact both drivers were irritated suggested Ferrari had over-managed the start and created far more problems than it solved.

Unexpectedly, the insubordinate Vettel did have a slight pace advantage over Leclerc. In fact, from the restart on lap four to the end of lap 21 - just before Leclerc pitted to change from softs to mediums - Vettel was, on average, 0.186s per lap quicker. If Vettel's plan was simply to prove he was faster and therefore either be allowed to win or be considered too far ahead for a swap, he was executing it brilliantly.

Leclerc was 4.7s behind when he peeled into the pits, with Hamilton a couple of seconds back. He was a little ragged during that stint, possibly because he was justifiably frustrated by Vettel's very obvious refusal to cede position - or perhaps he was just slower on the day.

Ferrari let Vettel run four laps longer, conveniently enough to give Leclerc enough of an undercut to take the lead and redress the balance despite Binotto claiming it was just the right strategy for the two drivers.

"The undercut was not for the reason of giving back the position to Charles, the undercut was because Charles stopped because his left rear was starting to be worn so it was the right time to pit," said Binotto. "We knew as well that if we would have stopped both of our cars then we would have been vulnerable on safety cars and giving the lead to Hamilton so we stayed out as long as we could with Seb."

But if the safety car was such a concern, why pit Leclerc when they did? It is true that he reported the left-rear was a problem, but his lap times had only dropped by 0.237s on average on the final three laps before pitting compared to the previous three so staying out a little longer would have been perfectly feasible. Given Vettel's lack of co-operation early on, could Ferrari really risk not taking this out of his hands? If the undercut was to swap them, and it stands to reason that it was, it was the correct move and represented Ferrari fixing the problem.

With order restored at Ferrari and Leclerc the de facto leader, the only thing that could derail things was the intervention of the safety car. The Mercedes drivers had started on mediums having used that compound in Q2, with everyone else using softs, so could run longer. So when Vettel's MGU-K gave out on his out-lap and he was ordered to stop the car, the race was handed to Hamilton.

Vettel pulled over by Turn 15, under strict instructions from the pitwall. With the car live, for safety reasons the desire was to stop it on track rather than bring it back to the pits but this would bite Ferrari badly. Vettel parked the car as well as he could, but there was no way to avoid the virtual safety car.

With Bottas 13s behind Hamilton, the one consolation for Ferrari was that Leclerc at least retained second position. But once the VSC was upgraded to a real safety car after something in his Williams's front-left corner caused George Russell to pile into the wall - it wasn't a brake failure, but the exact cause had yet to be determined at the time of writing - Ferrari called Leclerc in for a big gamble. He took softs and sacrificed a place to Bottas. Verstappen, back in fourth place, was too far behind having lost ground early in the race making his way past the leading midfielders - Sainz, Lando Norris and Sergio Perez, having initially jumped Grosjean at the start.

What happened in Russia must surely ramp up that tension to the next level and potentially gives Ferrari a situation that's too hot to handle

The hope was that having fresh softs rather than chasing Hamilton using mediums would make it easier to pass. But to get back to where he was, Leclerc needed to overtake Bottas. Over the remaining 21 laps following the restart, even with the assistance of the DRS, he never got close enough even to make an attempt. A couple of half-baked dummies to the inside line at Turn 2 were as good as it got.

"It was a tricky situation," said Leclerc. "Staying on the mediums that already had five or six laps compared to softs that were new [would have been a disadvantage]. We made the right choice.

"We definitely had the pace to finish in front of Valtteri, but it was quite tricky to follow. As soon as I was getting around 1.5s behind him, everything would overheat and it would be quite a difficult time. Third was the best we could have done with the safety car."

Behind, Verstappen had an uneventful run to the end to take fourth ahead of Albon, who completed his recovery from the pits by passing Lance Stroll, Kevin Magnussen, Nico Hulkenberg, Perez, Norris, and Sainz - with the latter four all having lost time advantages over the Red Bull driver thanks to the safety car - to take fifth.

Hamilton, meanwhile, reeled off the laps to take his 82nd grand prix victory. While he needed the VSC Ferrari inflicted on itself to get the lead, he had got what he could out of the car on pace and didn't put a foot wrong. He also had reason to thank Bottas, who did a great job to remain as the buffer in second place, holding Leclerc at bay.

But the real key was the Q2 tyre decision, which allowed Mercedes to start on the medium compound and potentially go longer in the first stint than soft-shod Ferrari in the hope of a safety car. It also gave Mercedes a choice of soft or hard for the final stint. This was the best chance of winning on a weekend where Mercedes was second-best on pace.

"I don't think we were particularly confident," said Hamilton. "We put ourselves on a slightly different strategy and I was hoping that was going to give us an opportunity to dice and fight with them at some stage of the race. Ultimately I think they were right because the soft was much stronger than we anticipated.

"Obviously there was that difference between the compounds so keeping up with the softs, with their consistency and speed - oh god, it was so hard. There was that tail-off towards the end where I was able to start closing the gap but it wasn't massive chunks. Then we were able to extend and the safety car and all those things came into it."

The wider question now is how what happened will impact the relationship of the Ferrari drivers. Already this rivalry has been simmering, with old stager Vettel clearly as desperate to reassert himself over Leclerc as the young charger has been to make Ferrari 'his' team. Leclerc's hesitancy in repassing Vettel on the hilarious Monza out-lap in Q3 that almost nobody completed in time to start a lap had caused problems, as did the inadvertent switch of the pair in Vettel's favour in Singapore.

What happened in Russia must surely ramp up that tension to the next level and potentially gives Ferrari a situation that's too hot to handle. And while it was obvious what Vettel was trying to do by delaying ceding position until Ferrari took the decision out of his hands, it showed that the four-time world champion still has the determination and the ruthlessness to do everything he can - even to go too far - to stay in the game rather than folding. Compelling stuff.

"The trust doesn't change and we need to trust each other, Seb and myself, because it's usually important for the benefit of the team in some situations to know that you can count on the other car and vice versa. Yes, the trust is still here."

Sure it is, Charles...