Thank YOU for all your work!

Agreed, this has been a great replacement for reddit's formula1, without all of the "redditness" of it. Thanks for your efforts.

Yes, let's hope. The only way I can take another season of utter RB domination is if they ditch Perez for someone more capable of challenging Max.

@Dmian This was still a pretty competitive season, based on what I’ve been told by longtime fans.

Unreal car control, those doughnuts were Vettelesque.

Tbh, that was a risky proposition from Charles. Had Russell passed him, it would’ve look really bad for him. That’s the kind of move that only comes from the driver, as the team won’t risk putting him in such a vulnerable position.

Ehehe whoops, updated

It was not that dirty. Charles could have blocked him in the apexes of the final 3-4 turns to ensure perez gains 5 seconds on him. What Charles did was more tactical than dirty

That's not what George said, he said Charles could have backed him up as well as letting Perez past, which would have been dirty. He thanked Charles for not doing that.

My thinking is the opposite: with no major rules changes I don't see a reason why RB should lose any of their advantage. They've had the luxury of being able to switch focus to next year since May already and by now we're past the period where they were hit with the overspend development penalty.

I would love Ferrari or McLaren or Mercedes or Aston to be able to challenge next year, but I'm honestly assuming the next time we can hope to see a fight for the championship is '26.

Keep in mind that Max is so good that for a battle for first place to happen he either needs to have a teammate that is almost equal (not going to happen) or a car that is actually not equal but slightly slower than his challenger.

I can't imagine that happening without a major rules shakeup (and even then it would require Newey to get things wrong which - let's be honest - is also unlikely).

It's not unrealistic to think this dynasty will last until Max decides he's had enough of F1.

I think the problem was not strategy, it was the car. It was just slow (and no, Sainz is not that slow. Remember he’s the only non-Red Bull winner this year, and he’s been really close to Charles all year, Charles being one of the fastest drivers on the grid).

They even had to retire the car at the end, so, something was clearly not working. Maybe they expected to go faster, but realized there was something wrong, and eventually gave up with it. It was a sad end of season for Sainz, who, other than the last two races, has had a really consistent season so far.

Can I blame AR for bottas' strategy? I mean the AR didn't have the speed for points but jfc that one stopper was rough to look at, even if the "sc strat" -brainrot was behind it

The problem was his qualifying yesterday. He would have been in the points if he started near to Charles. Like a lot of teams there were a lot of team mates with big qualifying gaps going on, so something odd happened on Saturday.

Gasly locked up, if he hadn't Lewis wouldn't have hit him. As Gasly lost control of his car first it's a racing incident. If Gasly hadn't first locked up Lewis would be looking at a penalty.

Hamilton and Gasly is pretty clear cut. Gasly locked up and Hamilton couldn't respond in time which is why Hamilton hit Gasly, that's a pretty clear racing incident. Norris and Perez isn't that clear cut.

I can absolutely understanding arguing that it was just a racing incident because Perez didn't expect Norris to turn in and Norris didn't expect Perez to run wide. But at the same time there's an argument to be made that Perez could've turned into the apex but decided to go wide (and watching it back it does seem like he doesn't really commit to the apex which makes him go wide).

The stewards seemed to have gone for the latter explanation and given him a penalty, which seems like a consistent ruling considering Max got the same penalty for a similar situation in Las Vegas (and there Max had a bigger case for it being a racing incident).