2023 - McLaren Formula 1 Team

[Ben1980]

Just because driver A is ahead of Driver B on the track, if the team think that by pitting A first Driver B may fall behind Driver C, from another team, then clearly the best option is to pit Driver B first, as worse case they still have both drivers in the same positions overall.

That's the team game, just saying person in the lead puts first, is just short-sighted nonsense.

Team comes first.

[mwillems]

Just because driver A is ahead of Driver B on the track, if the team think that by pitting A first Driver B may fall behind Driver C, from another team, then clearly the best option is to pit Driver B first, as worse case they still have both drivers in the same positions overall.

That's the team game, just saying person in the lead puts first, is just short-sighted nonsense.

Team comes first.

If it isn't the same when Lando loses time to help Oscar then it's not a decision for the team so much as a driver.

It also isn't helpful if we were clearly never going to keep ahead of those drivers with that strategy so that the only real consequence is a driver swap.

Our strategy has not been very clever on several occasions this year.

Giving Piastri the undercut vs Ham instead of Norris would have given Piastri a chance to be within 5s of ham and more points for the team, or to be ahead on Merit. Giving thr lead driver the ability to go forth and get the bigger points is also important as trying to make sure the driver behind can keep 1 point more.

[djos]

Just because driver A is ahead of Driver B on the track, if the team think that by pitting A first Driver B may fall behind Driver C, from another team, then clearly the best option is to pit Driver B first, as worse case they still have both drivers in the same positions overall.

That's the team game, just saying person in the lead puts first, is just short-sighted nonsense.

Team comes first.

You clearly haven't been around F1 for very long, have you! The undercut works at most tracks, I recommend you look up how it works.

[Ben1980]

Just because driver A is ahead of Driver B on the track, if the team think that by pitting A first Driver B may fall behind Driver C, from another team, then clearly the best option is to pit Driver B first, as worse case they still have both drivers in the same positions overall.

That's the team game, just saying person in the lead puts first, is just short-sighted nonsense.

Team comes first.

You clearly haven't been around F1 for very long, have you! The undercut works at most tracks, I recommend you look up how it works.

Well yes, if the undercut works, you risk the driver in 2nd being undercut by the driver behind him. Therefore losing a place. If the undercut works from driver B to driver A, its no real loss, as both the same team. The important thing is keeping both cars ahead of the 3rd driver.

Surely, that's really obvious.

[mwillems]

Just because driver A is ahead of Driver B on the track, if the team think that by pitting A first Driver B may fall behind Driver C, from another team, then clearly the best option is to pit Driver B first, as worse case they still have both drivers in the same positions overall.

That's the team game, just saying person in the lead puts first, is just short-sighted nonsense.

Team comes first.

You clearly haven't been around F1 for very long, have you! The undercut works at most tracks, I recommend you look up how it works.

Well yes, if the undercut works, you risk the driver in 2nd being undercut by the driver behind him. Therefore losing a place. If the undercut works from driver B to driver A, its no real loss, as both the same team. The important thing is keeping both cars ahead of the 3rd driver.

Surely, that's really obvious.

It's obvious that the second drive had 1 point to lose, max.

It's also obvious that we could have overcut Albon and been miles ahead and had 2 positions more, with a much bigger points gain as we'd likely have built a big enough gap to protect from Hamilton even without his penalty. We could have finished 6th in this race and not 8th. SO the second driver fights between 9th and tenth, for one point.

Is that really the target here? This years strategy has been markedly poor at times.

Like Norris was pissed at Zandvoort, Piastri had every right to be pissed here, he was sacrificed plain and simple through either intention or stupidity.

[djos]

It's obvious that the second drive had 1 point to lose, max.

It's also obvious that we could have undercut Albon and been miles ahead and had 2 positions more, with a much bigger points gain as we'd likely have built a big enough gap to protect from Hamilton.

This exactly.

[Ben1980]

Undercut Albon? Didn't he pit much earlier than anticipated? With many thinking it was due to an issue?

Just found it, he did 35 laps in his second stint. Not sure many were calling us to pit on lap 15 or earlier for a long stint on hard tyres.

[Ben1980]

And Piastri wasn't sacrificed at all, unless the belief is that the half a second lost on the pit stop was intentional.

In Hungary, Lando was used to cover off Lewis, which worked. It was the correct move at tge time. He also smashed his out lap.

[mwillems]

Undercut Albon? Didn't he pit much earlier than anticipated? With many thinking it was due to an issue?

yes i just changed my tex, Point stands though. Poor strategy and a net points loss.

[mwillems]

And Piastri wasn't sacrificed at all, unless the belief is that the half a second lost on the pit stop was intentional.

In Hungary, Lando was used to cover off Lewis, which worked. It was the correct move at tge time. He also smashed his out lap.

Half a second on the pit wasn't the problem. He needed to be ahead of Albon as if we fell behind we had no chance of getting by. Piastri was 3s behind when he came out. Not fighting to be ahead of the slower car retarded both drivers race and lost way more points than watching our asses.

[Seerix]

Take Monza as an example.
Oscar is leading McL pair by 0.7s. HAM is irrelevanat on hard tyre and different strategy.
Team decides to pit Lando in fear of ALO (what Stella said).
Lando comes from the pits 5s ahead of ALO. That means if Oscar pitted 1st, he would come back 5.7s ahead of ALO.
Was the team was worried that ALO would undercut Lando by 5s in 1 lap? If that is the case, pitting any McL driver would leave the other one losing position to ALO (because he would lose 10s to ALO over 2 laps) and the pit order did not matter.
If ALO would be able to undercut 5s a lap, the outcome would always be 1 McL driver losing position to him and they decided it would be Oscar even though he was the leading car.

This of course did not happen, 5s undercut would be huge. Both drivers came from pit well ahead of ALO. The only difference was Lando undercutting Oscar (with slower pit).
Either way, Lando got preferential treatment.

I don't really have a strong opinion on this. It's up to the team to manage this as they see fit. I am not saying they are wrong. Just showing the real world situation that happened.

[geogate]

yes they are currently biased towards Lando - this year. One of the great things about Oscar is how mature beyond his years he is. He knew very well that in his first year his job is to learn and develop his skills - he knows he isnt there to fight Lando. Next year, if they show a bias then it would be of concern - but i dont believe that will happen.

[mwillems]

I personally want to see these decisions stop. As soon as you dig under the explanation just a little you realise it made no sense and Oscar has every right to be unhappy.

If this was a decision to help the team then it was the wrong decision.

[mwillems]

yes they are currently biased towards Lando - this year. One of the great things about Oscar is how mature beyond his years he is. He knew very well that in his first year his job is to learn and develop his skills - he knows he isnt there to fight Lando. Next year, if they show a bias then it would be of concern - but i dont believe that will happen.

It wont be a problem unless it keeps happening. My conern is that we treat Oscar right and make sure this is his home. Because even if it was right and we saved one point, this season is over in the standings and making Oscar feel like he is at home here is more important to me than a pointless point. Worse for it to be a point that never existed in any strategy.

[djos]

yes they are currently biased towards Lando - this year. One of the great things about Oscar is how mature beyond his years he is. He knew very well that in his first year his job is to learn and develop his skills - he knows he isnt there to fight Lando. Next year, if they show a bias then it would be of concern - but i dont believe that will happen.

It wont be a problem unless it keeps happening. My conern is that we treat Oscar right and make sure this is his home. Because even if it was right and we saved one point, this season is over in the standings and making Oscar feel like he is at home here is more important to me than a pointless point. Worse for it to be a point that never existed in any strategy.

Exactly, making him the sacrificial rookie is a dumb move long term - they should be playing it fair with both drivers and sticking to established norms.