2025 McLaren F1 Team

[Matt2725]

The one stop was the only way to get Norris ahead of both Leclerc and Russell for certain in terms of track position. I doubt for a minute they assumed it would have been a great disadvantage to Piastri due to the tyre offset which should have given him a leg up on the intra-team on track battle.
But for whatever reason, Norris was able to keep the tyres alive long enough to maintain a good enough pace that Piastri was left with only a couple chances right at the end, which he wasn't able to execute.

We've seen what a tyre offset can do at Hungary (2019 springs to mind immediately) and Norris was able to make it work that he negated that. I noted at the start of his hard tyre stint behind Russell, he was actually slower than George for about 3-4 laps as he slowly brought the tyres in. Everyone else was bombing in round the track from the outlap whereas Norris sacrificed some lap time to bring them up slowly. Only then did he start to set purple sectors/laps.

[Seerix]

If courageous enough, one would even dare to commend Lando for keeping the tyre and the pace at such a level that he managed to keep the lead.
Some are obviously seeing it as position gifting.

[Lazy]

The fact is that Is that Oscar blew it by being too slow at the start. He needed to be right with Leclerc to make his strategy work.
Lando made his strategy work and Oscar didn't. Nobody was gifted anything.

[AR3-GP]

I am sure in the following races if Lando is ahead we will get Oscar going for alternate strategies. Some of them will work, some of them will not (just like with Lando). No one from top teams thought one stop is the best strategy and only one who opted for it was Lando who had to gamble. Why is that hard to accept? Same thing as in Spa where everyone was on mediums except Lando.

"No one from the top teams".... When you have to cut out half of the picture to prove your point, it's because you know it's a bad faith argument. Almost half the field did 1 stops so let's not say it was even a gamble. Alonso, Bortoleto, Stroll, Lawson, Hamilton, Ocon, Antonelli all stopped once. Most of the 2 stoppers lost position to 1 stoppers by the end of the race. The 1 stop is not the fluke hail mary strategy that some are trying to make it out to be. Lando was 6 seconds behind, lost tons of time to backmarkers in the last 15 laps, and still won the race...The advantage of the 1 stop was significant. Ocon managed 55+ laps on the hard tires in a Haas, so this is hardly anything exotic in what Lando managed considering the Mclaren has a lack of tire degradation compared to the rest. Oscar wasn't competing against a normal car. He was competing against a teammate in a car with very little tire degradation so of course he would never be fast enough with a 2 stopper. 2 stopper only works against cars that have degradation such that tire offset actually matters. The Mclaren does not.

[CjC]

If courageous enough, one would even dare to commend Lando for keeping the tyre and the pace at such a level that he managed to keep the lead.
Some are obviously seeing it as position gifting.

Don’t think we need to dare to commend Lando- we should be openly praising him.
I said it immediately after the race, his pace was electric on the old tyres. He looked ‘slow’ compared to the new hard on Oscar.

I’m very interested to see the average lap times of the race pace, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Lando near the top whilst using a set of tyres less.

Lando is going to be that driver I think who can never do the right thing for some of the fans. Haters will hate as they say. He does a 2 stop and would no doubt be mocked for finished 3rd-4th. Wins the race with a 1 stop- it was gifted to him….

[Macklaren]

"No one from the top teams".... When you have to cut out half of the picture to prove your point, it's because you know it's a bad faith argument. Almost half the field did 1 stops so let's not say it was even a gamble. Alonso, Bortoleto, Stroll, Lawson, Hamilton, Ocon, Antonelli all stopped once. Most of the 2 stoppers lost position to 1 stoppers by the end of the race.

Everyone that 1-stopped after P5 onward could only do so because they were stuck in the ALO DRS train from lap 3 onward. The only ones who perhaps truly were planning a one stop were the ones who started on Hard

[FittingMechanics]

He was in agreement with you. Piastri fans seem mad that Norris made a hail mary strategy work, instead calling for team to force the other car onto same strategy.

If directed to me since I brought this up, that is not at all what I am saying. Lando is free to do what he wants, always, or Piastri in a reverse position. But I think it is a fair discussion point of how to handle these things from now on, as the only thing that matters is the drivers championship at this stage.

The only reason I brought it up is because of the message to Oscar that he could apparently choose his fight, either Leclerc or Norris, implying he could give up a potential win just to cover Norris. Had they given the option to Oscar to see what Lando does and act on that in the first stint already, it is clear what choice he would have made, AND how the race would have panned out.

If you were in Oscars position leading the championship, knowing that your only rival is behind you and you had the option to secure that, wouldn’t you have taken that? I’m not pushing any conspiracy theory or some other crap like that, as I do believe they treat the drivers very fairly. But it’s clear from Oscar’s perspective that there was a ”championship strategy” up for choice as it turned out, or a ”race winning strategy” that he could choose from, and that is the whole point. What Lando chooses to do is entirely up to him and his choice, but Piastri’s side definitely had the option to wait for whatever Lando decided to do and react on that, no matter what choice Lando made.

And that is what Oscar should ask either team, or Tom Stallard or whoever he should pose it to. Next time, let’s focus on Lando all through the race IF that is an option. If the rules are that the best placed driver has an obligation to go for the win at all costs, then good! That is the playing field and then we know.

So let’s not simplify this to a fan rage matter, there is too much of that on this forum already. The matter has a bit more substance to it imho, and I am sure the same question would arise in a reverse situation.

Let’s look forward to another thriller in Zandvoort!

It wasn't directed to you.

But I think you are looking at this wrong. What Piastri and Stallard decided made perfect sense to them. The way they were going was about maximizing chance to win the race with Norris probably ending up in P3 or at best P2. The idea that Norris was going to one stop was not there, it was not the plan or an option. Norris was FORCED into it because Russell went to pits 1 lap after Piastri (and Norris didn't have the gap to pit into). This meant Norris stumbled into an overcut situation which evolved into a "we've got nothing to lose" one stopper.

I think it would be a losing mentality for Oscar to be so focused on Norris to drive so defensively that he only react to Norris. Let's imagine in Hungary, Oscar decides to not pit first and then Norris does so, which results in him undercutting Russell.

Piastri reacts and now Norris is 2s behind Piastri on same tires. They race to the second pitstop, if the gap is still at 2 second (or worse, if it is less), does Piastri allow Norris to pit first once again and undercut him? If he doesn't allow that, which would make perfect sense, can Norris then extend his stint and try to make it to the end? Or gamble on a lucky SC/late restart?

Oscar cannot drive just against Norris, he will leave himself open to attack and he will minimize his chances.

If Norris was not forced onto a overcut/one stop, what would have happened is that likely Oscar wins the race with Norris finishing in P3 (without Leclerc problems) or in P2. Maybe we even get a fluke Russell win (or P2) as he would probably be forced onto a overcut/one stop. This outcome was much more likely than Norris lucking into a one stop winning strategy.

[Ground Effect]

We won, but we lost! Four 1-2's in a row, but it kinda sucks! I honestly only found out in 2025 that some folks have a preference in which driver wins. Me, I'm just counting the poles, wins and 1-2 finishes! From the way it played out, I feel Lando's side were racing Leclerc and Russell for P2, I'm still surprised how little ground Oscar made with the undercut attempt. I thought he'd be at least on Leclerc's gearbox if not ahead, but Leclerc was quite comfortably ahead. Anybody have any info on his Outlap after his first pitstop?

[trinidefender]

Everyone seems to be stuck on this Piastri vs Norris and if it was fair etc. The bit that I haven’t really seen talked about is how would this race have panned out if Leclerc didn’t have plank wear problems. It would have been a very different race and could have easily fouled Norris one stop strategy.

The other point raised is that Piastri should have just been allowed to cover Norris the whole race. That isn’t really fair either and will lead to a situation where if Norris is ahead he will just do the same and will be the same situation till the end of the season, possibly losing the team a lot of potential wins and 1-2’s. That strategy of allowing the lead driver to cover the driver behind is what created the situation between Hamilton and Rosberg where drivers were going as far as spiting the team just to beat their teammate. McLaren knows this and wants to ensure they don’t fall into the trap that many teams before with two No.1 drivers have fallen into. To keep things open and fair they are essentially letting each driver drive their own race and let the chips fall where they may.

[AR3-GP]

But I think you are looking at this wrong. What Piastri and Stallard decided made perfect sense to them. The way they were going was about maximizing chance to win the race with Norris probably ending up in P3 or at best P2. The idea that Norris was going to one stop was not there, it was not the plan or an option. Norris was FORCED into it because Russell went to pits 1 lap after Piastri (and Norris didn't have the gap to pit into). This meant Norris stumbled into an overcut situation which evolved into a "we've got nothing to lose" one stopper.

"The idea that Norris was going to one stop was not there, it was not the plan or an option."

Mclaren on lap 13: "Oscar do you think you can 1-stop?"...

Why are we trying so hard to sell this 1 stop strategy as an impossible feat that no one ever considered and it just fell out of the sky. Piastri was asked by Mclaren about it and several cars behind also did a 1 stop. It was in Pirelli's strategy table.



Ocon managed 55+ laps on the hard tires. He pitted on lap 14 of 70. Lando pitted 16 laps later than Ocon. Ocon did 1.22.0 on lap 16 and did 1.22.0 on lap 60. He wasn't even driving a Mclaren.

[Slahinki]

Everyone seems to be stuck on this Piastri vs Norris and if it was fair etc. The bit that I haven’t really seen talked about is how would this race have panned out if Leclerc didn’t have plank wear problems. It would have been a very different race and could have easily fouled Norris one stop strategy.

The other point raised is that Piastri should have just been allowed to cover Norris the whole race. That isn’t really fair either and will lead to a situation where if Norris is ahead he will just do the same and will be the same situation till the end of the season, possibly losing the team a lot of potential wins and 1-2’s. That strategy of allowing the lead driver to cover the driver behind is what created the situation between Hamilton and Rosberg where drivers were going as far as spiting the team just to beat their teammate. McLaren knows this and wants to ensure they don’t fall into the trap that many teams before with two No.1 drivers have fallen into. To keep things open and fair they are essentially letting each driver drive their own race and let the chips fall where they may.

Completely agreed. I don’t want the team to miss out on wins because one of our drivers only cared about beating the other and just raced to stay ahead instead of pushing for the win. The win, and preferably the 1-2, should always be the target. Even if it comes at the expense of one of the driver's title bids.

[Seerix]

"analysis"

Interesting how you are in all threads criticizing everyone, Ferrari thread "watching TV it's obvious what's wrong", Merc thread "you are wrong, Kimi is slow", McLaren thread all this "analysis", race thread "Things that never happened for $500 Alex"
Weird that everyone else is always wrong and you need to show them what's right, huh?