There's a lot of talk going around about Max's comments that he would have won the championship sooner if he was in the McLaren or even the Ferrari. Lando of course says it isn't true, I don't blame him for saying that. Charles Leclerc seems to be feel the same as Lando. Naturally drivers need a self confidence to believe they can beat Max, so we can't fault that. As an outside follower, is there merit to what Max said?... When Max had a dominant car for the first 5 races, he dominated (aside from a DNF due to brake failure in Australia). From Miami to present there have been 17 races and Mclaren have overall been the best car, sometimes a dominant car. Ferrari and Mercedes have had times of being the best at certain tracks. Red Bull however have been 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th in this same stretch. Max scored 293 pts, 3 poles and 4 wins. Lando scored 282 pts, 7 poles and 3 wins. Charles scored 243 pts, 3 poles and 3 wins. So we know when Max has the best car, he wins. Seems like a no brainer that if Max drove the McLaren, which was the best car, he would have won the championship much sooner. In the Ferrari, it would have been more difficult but yeah I could see him winning in that car too.
Absolutely 0% chance Verstappen would have won in the Ferrari, just drunk rambling from him. In the McLaren yes, like many others not named bottler Norris would have.
Charles is only 21 points behind Norris. Absolutely zero chance? Hmmm...No I'd think Max would've stood a very good chance of beating Norris in the Ferrari.
This is so apples and oranges Bas; so we would basically erase Red Bull and turn Max's car into Ferrari? That would change all the results of the season; and are we erasing Leclerc too? I don't follow what hypothetical universe we are using here. The pace dominance Red Bull had at the start of the season gave Max that win run and the points buffer for WDC; with the Ferrari car he would not have won all 7 out of the first 10 races that he did.
The Red Bull was only fastest until Miami. After that it was equal (in Max's hand) for a couple of races before trailing off further and further. I have no doubt that Leclerc would've won at least 60% of the races Max did in those races before Miami. But I have sincere doubts, if not utter belief that NO ONE in the existing grid would be capable of replicating Max's results since miami. None of them. Yes RB was fastest at the very start of the season but this fell off so quickly, you are forgetting that it wasn't fastest since RACE 5 OF THE SEASON!! So whoever would be driving that Red Bull at the start of the season their championship ambitions would soon fall away with Max driving either the Mclaren or Ferrari. Would Max have won the title by now in the Ferrari vs Norris in the Mclaren? No. But Max would've taken it to Abu Dhabi and have a decent chance of winning it. Max's adaptability has yet again, proven to be out of this world and he's steps above anyone else in F1. Sorry, hard to swallow for some but it's just fact. People can excuse it and say that the RB20 was build "for Max" but if you look at how that car behaves there is one thing I can absolutely guarantee you and that this is not a car that Max or anyone else would enjoy driving. A car so unwilling to respond to inputs is just completely unintuitive to drive. Was the Ferrari fastest all season? No. But Charles has show that you can be 21 points behind the number 2 in the standings at this stage. I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that Max A) could've matched Leclerc (and with 2 races + a sprint race to go, still be in the running for the championship) B) be closer to Norris or even ahead of Norris at this stage
Those moaning that the only reason Max won the title was because of the ''huge advantage in the first races". Had the season started in Miami (where Mclaren became the fastest car): Max Verstappen: 319 points Lando Norris: 291 points Max 5 wins (more than anyone) He'd have won the title yesterday.
The Mclaren is no where near as strong now than the RB was when Newey was there. Max would build a huge gap and just cruise afterwards. Max had a good year. But accept he had a dominant car at the start. Be a real fan. Perez is making the RB look worse than it is. Put Piastri in the 2nd RB and you have a different picture.
It's not a playbook when you've once again demonstrated your utter inability to read. But I'll explain it to you, once more. Max's title apparently isn't impressive because he had a dominant car early in the season and that's where he racked up all the points that allowed him to become WDC. So if we reset ALL points and assume the season started in Miami (therefore, the early season advantage goes away), and this is the race where the Mclaren became the fastest car and the RBR started to slip from 2nd and 3rd to even 4th at times, Max still would've won the title yesterday. Do you understand now?
You basically said the same thing. I'm saying the Mclaren was not as dominant as RB, even though you say they were the fastest after Miami. Would Max have won the title if Mclaren had RB/Newey dominance after Miami? And you still didn't refute the fact Perez make the RB look worse, the WHOLE season, not just after Miami. So yeah if you want me to flex my reading skills, you have to do the same.
What you say makes zero sense, that's the problem with your statement. Norris/Mclaren threw away a huge amount of points, Max did not. That's the difference. The Mclaren was just as dominant as the RB was early in the season several times, and it was a quicker car than the Red Bull just about any race except for Vegas since Miami.
If you think Mclaren was dominant as RB/ Newey was, this conversation is done. Both Merc and Ferrari were stronger at times than Mclaren.
