Carlos Sainz had “no fun at all” at Imola because he struggled with his SF-24 – The Ferrari driver does damage limitation with fifth place
While team-mate Charles Leclerc finishes third on the podium, Carlos Sainz has to settle for fifth place at the Emilia-Romagna Grand Prix (result). “I think we simply lacked a lot of pace today,” said the Ferrari driver, drawing a disappointing conclusion.
It was clear from qualifying on Saturday that something was wrong. “After yesterday’s qualifying session, I saw something on the car that perhaps didn’t work as expected,” revealed the Spaniard, without giving any further details about the mysterious problems.
The difficulties for the Ferrari driver also continued in the race, so that “today was a race of damage limitation for me,” Sainz sums up. “Throughout the race there were some problems [with the supply of electrical power] that slowed me down, especially in the first stint. “
Sainz: “It wasn’t fun at all “
“On a weekend like this, where five or six cars are within two tenths, every little bit you can have, but also every single problem you can have, is crucial,” says team boss Frederic Vasseur, defending his driver.
“But I think everyone had problems,” says the Frenchman. “I don’t think anyone said after the qualifying lap: ‘I had the lap of my life, I had no problems and the balance was perfect’.” Nevertheless, it is “not good to have problems, but it is good to understand what happened and what we need to work on,” explains Vasseur. “And that’s what we’ll do next week. “
Sainz, however, rules out the possibility that the problems are related to the new monster update at Ferrari. “I think it’s more something else, but I can’t go into more detail,” Sainz remains secretive. “[It was] a difficult race that I didn’t enjoy at all, with the inconsistencies on the car, and I struggled a lot.”
“To be honest, I’m not happy because we were a few tenths off all weekend. We were a few tenths too slow,” says Sainz, for whom “apart from fifth place and the way the race went, not much happened.”
Late pit stop costs one position
The Ferrari driver, who started the race from fourth on the grid, had to concede defeat to Oscar Piastri (McLaren), who slipped past with an undercut. Sainz stayed out much longer and lost time as a result, which he was unable to make up.
“We thought about it, that was originally the plan,” reveals Vasseur, who recalls, however, that Mercedes driver George Russell was also in the pits. “And it would have been difficult to keep him behind for a while. If you then lose a position on a track like this, it’s even difficult to overtake the Mercedes with the same tires. “
“It was quite easy to overtake Perez and Stroll when we had the advantage of the tires because they still had the first set,” says the Ferrari team boss. “But when you’re behind someone, even if they’re four or five tenths slower, you can spend your life behind them.”
Ferrari therefore opted for a later stop, as a result of which Sainz fell behind Piastri. Nevertheless, the Ferrari driver was delighted for his team-mate Leclerc, who finished third on the podium. “Charles showed good pace today and that means we were in the race and could fight with these guys. “
“This is something we need to look into and continue to improve because there will be tracks where you can’t do anything with strategy or overtaking,” said Sainz, who knows that the race at Imola was actually lost in qualifying. “We need to improve our pace on one lap. It’s encouraging to see that in the race pace. We remain strong. “
Sainz has little hope for Monaco
However, Sainz does not believe that things will go much better at the next race in Monte-Carlo. “This package is not optimized for Monaco,” the Spaniard warns that the latest update will not have a major impact. “It’s more suited to tracks with medium and high speeds.”
“So I’m not expecting anything big,” the Ferrari driver urges his tifosi to be prudent. “What we need to make sure on our side is that we take a close look at what we saw yesterday on my side of the garage and see exactly what would have been possible. “
