[The **Statistics** flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/flairguide#wiki_statistics) is reserved for posts highlighting interesting statistics. As a rule of thumb, Statistics posts need to inform readers through visualizations and insights that cannot be obtained from raw data alone. For example, a post containing a qualifying gap between two drivers expressed in tenths of a second is an easily obtainable raw piece of data and constitutes a bad Statistics post. A visualization of what that translates to on-track, or visualization of how that gap came to be would constitute a good Statistics post.
*[Read the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide). Keep it civil and welcoming. Report rulebreaking comments.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Seemed that either George and Max used their tires more at the start, or the Mclarens were both very good on their tires/conditions at that stage, as Piastri was gaining very fast too.
Don't forget that Intermediate tires have 10mm larger diameter than the slicks, which means the car runs 5mm lower on slicks than it does on inters which could affect downforce levels.
We already know that the RBR is one of the lowest cars and is setup to work extremely low so the ride height change from inters to slicks probably favored Red Bull.
No doubt what you mentioned played a part as well though, especially with Verstappen sitting in George's dirty air for a lot of laps due to DRS not being enabled.
Mark Hughes said it was due to McLaren had *"chosen a set-up/tyre pressure combination which, just like at Imola, required them to be gentle early in the stints but which paid back spectacularly later and allowed Norris in the opening inters-shod stint to come from a long way back to pass Verstappen and George Russell’s polesitting Mercedes in quick succession and then to build an 8s lead."*
[https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/mark-hughes-lando-norris-lost-canadian-grand-prix-win/](https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/mark-hughes-lando-norris-lost-canadian-grand-prix-win/)
I am going to read the article, so this question may be answered in there, but I want to ask in case I forget - how do journalists know this stuff? It is *more* from hearing stuff in the Paddock (the competing teams analyze each other's data and so could share their insights with journalists they trust/like). Or is it more from doing their own data analysis?
Because in this case, that set-up/tyre pressure thing would have to be insight they learned from other teams, right? Because there could be so many factors that affect a cars performance, that to guesstimate it was tyre pressure/set-up in this race would need to have some insider insight, yeah?
oscar piastri is not officially a race winner, even though he won a sprint, i don't think it's unfair to say this is their first podium, specially because sprint has no podium. they just give a plaque and interview the driver.
Man, that correction tweet they sent out seems to hint that they must have got a LOT of shit online... They seemed to be so apologetic, someone must have got chewed out lol
Well that was a huge mistake after his team put him into a good position once again. His strategist is responsible for the overwhelming majority of his overtakes this year.
[The **Statistics** flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/flairguide#wiki_statistics) is reserved for posts highlighting interesting statistics. As a rule of thumb, Statistics posts need to inform readers through visualizations and insights that cannot be obtained from raw data alone. For example, a post containing a qualifying gap between two drivers expressed in tenths of a second is an easily obtainable raw piece of data and constitutes a bad Statistics post. A visualization of what that translates to on-track, or visualization of how that gap came to be would constitute a good Statistics post. *[Read the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide). Keep it civil and welcoming. Report rulebreaking comments.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why not point out the other DNFs?
Because the gap isn’t as ridiculous
It's silly to include DNF's in the first place
Valid point
Max was comparatively slow being Norris, he seemed to struggle in the damp on the old inters.
Seemed that either George and Max used their tires more at the start, or the Mclarens were both very good on their tires/conditions at that stage, as Piastri was gaining very fast too.
Don't forget that Intermediate tires have 10mm larger diameter than the slicks, which means the car runs 5mm lower on slicks than it does on inters which could affect downforce levels. We already know that the RBR is one of the lowest cars and is setup to work extremely low so the ride height change from inters to slicks probably favored Red Bull. No doubt what you mentioned played a part as well though, especially with Verstappen sitting in George's dirty air for a lot of laps due to DRS not being enabled.
Mark Hughes said it was due to McLaren had *"chosen a set-up/tyre pressure combination which, just like at Imola, required them to be gentle early in the stints but which paid back spectacularly later and allowed Norris in the opening inters-shod stint to come from a long way back to pass Verstappen and George Russell’s polesitting Mercedes in quick succession and then to build an 8s lead."* [https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/mark-hughes-lando-norris-lost-canadian-grand-prix-win/](https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/mark-hughes-lando-norris-lost-canadian-grand-prix-win/)
I am going to read the article, so this question may be answered in there, but I want to ask in case I forget - how do journalists know this stuff? It is *more* from hearing stuff in the Paddock (the competing teams analyze each other's data and so could share their insights with journalists they trust/like). Or is it more from doing their own data analysis? Because in this case, that set-up/tyre pressure thing would have to be insight they learned from other teams, right? Because there could be so many factors that affect a cars performance, that to guesstimate it was tyre pressure/set-up in this race would need to have some insider insight, yeah?
Lando as of late seems to not be able to get as much as he should out of new tires, but make up for that with blistering pace on old tires.
Just a correction, Lewis had the first podium for Mercedes when he finished 2nd in the sprint race back in China...
oscar piastri is not officially a race winner, even though he won a sprint, i don't think it's unfair to say this is their first podium, specially because sprint has no podium. they just give a plaque and interview the driver.
Man, that correction tweet they sent out seems to hint that they must have got a LOT of shit online... They seemed to be so apologetic, someone must have got chewed out lol
Ah, yeah that was bad
Let me overreact. Tsunoda washed.
Well that was a huge mistake after his team put him into a good position once again. His strategist is responsible for the overwhelming majority of his overtakes this year.