How Ferrari's victories expose its biggest weakness

During the August break we all said Spa and Monza would be Ferrari's best chances of winning races this year - and that's exactly how it turned out (just).

But you have to wonder if the Italian Grand Prix will turn out to be the end of Ferrari's victory hopes for 2019, all other things being equal.

Ferrari has admitted its car concept focused too much on low drag and doesn't deliver enough downforce, specifically at the front end. But looking at the performance at Spa and Monza you can see very clearly the car's strengths there - and therefore what its weaknesses are on normal circuits.

While Monza effectively was a continuation of Ferrari's strength in the first and last sectors in Belgium, it's the performance pattern at Spa that best shows this. By analysing the performance not only of Ferrari but also the other nine teams, and explaining my reasons for the relative pace, hopefully it will help establish where they all stand.

All season long we have heard from Mercedes that the Ferrari power unit is exceptional, and rightly so. But when it comes to straightline speed, there is more than just one dimension to the equation. Horsepower and drag go together.

While Monza is much of a muchness, with long straights, three chicanes and a few proper corners, Spa is a circuit of two halves - which is why we're focusing on performance there. Sector one is all about straightline speed, sector two is about downforce, and sector three is back to straightline speed.

That makes it the perfect circuit to analyse the downforce and drag levels of the car. It's particularly interesting when you look at cars powered by the same engine supplier.

Taking the order as the ideal lap time from qualifying - a combination of each driver's three fastest sector times added together - is the first step. Then we look at the speed trap figures of the cars at the top of Raidillon and then at the end of the Kemmel Straight - which is a period of uninterrupted acceleration. In other words, the gain in speed from Raidillon to Les Combes is a pure measure of straightline performance.

To further analyse this, we need to look at the fastest sector times for each team. This is accompanied by a percentage figure showing the deficit to the fastest in each sector. If your lap time percentage matches your sector percentage then you have got the best compromise for your car. Here is how it breaks down.

Ferrari

Sector one - 29.894s (Datum)
Sector two - 44.319s (+0.79%)
Sector three - 28.193s (Datum)

A little more downforce wouldn't go amiss. But since the current regulations don't allow you to adjust the rear wing during or after qualifying, being that little bit better off in sectors one and three gives you a better chance to attack or defend in the race. Ferrari did get pole and just won the race, so this compromise was clearly about right.

Mercedes

Sector one - 30.498s (+1.99%)
Sector two - 43.970s (Datum)
Sector three - 28.586s (+1.39%)

This is the opposite to Ferrari, if a little bit more exaggerated. A little less downforce and therefore drag would have improved the pace in sectors one and three and top speed, but Mercedes does need to find that extra bit of power as well. I'm surprised how slow the Mercedes drivers were with that extra downforce through Eau Rouge, as a 6km/h deficit to Ferrari is a lot to be missing for a car that's supposed to be quick in the corners.

Red Bull

Sector one - 30.684s (+2.61%)
Sector two - 44.395s (+0.97%)
Sector three - 28.611s (+1.48%)

Like Mercedes, a little less downforce and drag might have balanced the sector performance better. Red Bull was slower than Ferrari through Eau Rouge but similar to Mercedes.

Renault

Sector one - 30.376s (+1.58%)
Sector two - 45.206s (+2.81%)
Sector three - 28.404s (+0.75%)

More downforce is needed. Renault was fairly quick in Canada, Belgium and Italy but must improve its aerodynamic package for tracks where grip is the dominant factor. On engine performance, Renault appears to be lagging, which is backed up by McLaren's pace - although we should note that the new specification engine, which is a step forward, was only used in practice at Spa then for the serious stuff at Monza.

Alfa Romeo

Sector one - 30.515s (+2.04%)
Sector two - 44.396s (+2.20%)
Sector three - 28.620s (+1.51%)

Not a bad balance across the sectors, so Alfa is making best use of what it has. A touch more downforce might just have helped a little, but the development direction should be just more downforce at a similar efficiency.

Racing Point

Sector one - 30.480s (+1.93%)
Sector two - 45.463s (+3.40%)
Sector three - 28.678s (+1.72%)

This suggests the Racing Point car really doesn't want to go around corners. It was a long way off in sector two, so either lacking lots of grip or balance on new tyres.

Haas

Sector one - 30.450s (+1.83%)
Sector two - 45.400s (+3.25%)
Sector three - 28.888s (+2.47%)

Haas also needs more grip or a better balance for the twisty stuff. The team has been struggling to get any consistency from the car so set-up changes to address this may have hurt it over one lap.

If these engines are knocking on the door of 1000bhp in qualifying then 5% is 50bhp. I don't think Mercedes is that far behind Ferrari, but it looks like it needs to find some grunt

McLaren

Sector one - 30.720s (+2.73%)
Sector two - 45.461s (+3.39%)
Sector three - 28.666s (+1.68%)

McLaren still needs more downforce and never really got the best out of its car until race day, so it was probably just one of those weekends where it never got into the sweet spot on new tyres.

Toro Rosso

Sector one - 31.305s (+4.68%)
Sector two - 45.661s (+3.85%)
Sector three - 29.469s (+4.53%)

It's interesting to see how the majority of the midfield teams performed compared with Ferrari, Mercedes and Red Bull. They all start to drop away more in the middle sector, but Toro Rosso is the exception. The percentage balance across the three sectors isn't too varied, but a little less downforce might have helped.

Williams

Sector one - 31.465s (+5.22%)
Sector two - 46.600s (+5.98%)
Sector three - 29.483s (+4.58%)

George Russell did the best he could with a package that is lacking downforce and efficiency. I think that most of this lap would have been a bit of a white knuckle ride and a little more downforce wouldn't have hurt. But in general, team and driver got more or less the best from what they have and will be learning lots.

If we now look at the delta speeds from that marker at the top of Raidillon to the end of the Kemmel Straight order of the power units in different chassis and compare different power units, it tells us more.

The figures in the lists below show how much speed each car gained on the flat-out acceleration run between those two points, with the percentages in brackets the difference between that car and the benchmark using the same engine.

Ferrari and Mercedes engines:

Ferrari 26.0km/h
Alfa Romeo 24.8km/h (4.62%)
Haas 21.4km/h (13.71%)

Mercedes 24.6km/h
Racing Point 23.2km/h (5.69%)
Williams 28.9km/h (-24.57%)

Mercedes to Ferrari deficit: 5.38%

From this, it looks like Mercedes needs to find a bit more grunt. If these engines are knocking on the door of 1000bhp in qualifying then 5% is 50bhp. I don't think Mercedes is that far behind, but it is in that direction.

Honda engines:

Red Bull 22.3km/h
Toro Rosso 24.1km/h (-8.07%)

Red Bull to Ferrari deficit: 14.23%

If we use the same factors as above relative to Ferrari, then Honda is short of something in the region of 150bhp. Again, I would be surprised if it was this much but it needs to keep on pushing with developments.

Renault engines:

Renault 18.1km/h
McLaren 16.6km/h (8.29%)

Renault to Ferrari deficit: 30.38%

It's not just about horsepower - drag and downforce come into play as well. But with Renault being a works team creating the power unit and chassis, this deficit is alarming - and worse still it is backed up by the McLaren speed figures. So there's a lot of work to do in both areas, although the latest engine's performance at Monza is more encouraging.

The teams will have much more data than I have to analyse this, and will have spent a lot of time finding out where they really stand and where the development direction needs to focus. But this does confirm that the Mercedes advantage is in slow- and medium-speed corners.

After Monza, we have a bunch of circuits that will suit Mercedes. We can only hope Ferrari, Red Bull and everyone one else have something in the pipeline.

Leclerc's lesson

When Max Verstappen nipped inside of Charles Leclerc to take the lead at the Red Bull Ring in July, banging into him and pushing him off the track, he did the Ferrari driver a big favour. That day Leclerc learned F1 is hard and sometimes you need to get your elbows out.

At Monza on race day that's exactly what Leclerc did. He led from pole position and to withstand the pressure of Hamilton from lap one until more or less lap 42, when Hamilton locked up and lost second to his team-mate Valtteri Bottas (who was on fresher medium tyres and then took over the attack), just shows how mature this young man is. He has taken lessons from the might and youth of Verstappen.

When Hamilton says only a crash will stop such showings and even the stewards request a rapid fix, it shows how stupid F1 has become

He made a couple of mistakes on the way to that win that he needs to tidy up. But the thing about Leclerc is he is the first to speak about his weakness and he knows he needs to reduce those mistakes - and he will.

To win at Monza in a Ferrari is the ultimate in F1 and the packed pit straight all supporting Leclerc when he was on the rostrum suggests he will have an open pass to the Vatican - and in fact any other place in Italy he wants to go.

While that was all going on, team-mate Sebastian Vettel should have been hanging his head in shame. The spin and dangerous recovery was an amateurish mistake for the four-time world champion and he will be feeling the pressure of his team-mate's success.

As for what happened at the end of Q3, I would say it was shambolic, amateurish and, more importantly, downright dangerous.

Shambolic because the drivers really made a mess of it: stopping at the pit exit to pretend to do practice starts; driving through the run-off areas to try to outfox the others; and generally slowing down far too much in an attempt to get a tow.

Amateurish because the teams and drivers tripped over themselves - seven of the nine didn't get around in time before the chequered flag.

And dangerous because cars at this speed on a live track is basically just asking for trouble. If someone with a brain had been trying to get through the pack and hit another car as they jockeyed for position, I wonder who the stewards would have apportioned blame to.

No team earned any brownie points, the viewers and spectators didn't get what they paid for, and F1 showed it just doesn't give a damn for its supporters - or for safety.

When five-time world champion Lewis Hamilton says only a crash will stop such displays and even the stewards who work for the FIA request a rapid fix, it just shows how stupid F1 has become.

But at least the Ferrari victory gave F1 a good story on Sunday. We can look forward to many more wins for Leclerc, but given the strengths and weaknesses of the car, it might be difficult for him to add to his tally in the remaining seven races of the season on tracks that don't favour straightline speed so strongly.