2023 - McLaren Formula 1 Team

[Peter Piper]

Think the team again showed the armchair experts they know what they are doing, the call was to pit Lando. Similar to Silverstone when people couldn't believe the choice of Hard tyres!

I don't undestand what you get from "I told you so" posts at all. They did not show armchair experts in Zandvoort. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. Nothing wrong in discussing options. Result based replies are useless.

The actual strategy on Lando's radio was - stay out if VSC, box if full SC. They were considering boxing after seeing both Mercs went it, but VCS ended meanwhile.

The strategy calls as you well say, sometimes work, sometimes they don’t… But the reactions here and comments when they make the calls are definitely “Armchair Experts”… If people don’t realize that:

A) They have more data than anyone here would dream of having
B) They have tools that allow them to simulate permutations of outcome depending on the decision
C) There is not one person looking at the strategy, there is an “strategy team”, who uses A) and B) to make this decisions.

But around here, people watching a race on TV think they can make a better decision than the team

Will they get it wrong some times? Absolutely… Zandvoort was a matter of amount of rain, the amount of rain and duration was expected to be lower than it was, if their expectations (based on the information they had) would have been accurate, they would have been called geniuses… It didn’t pan out, it happens.

Funny thing is, if they take a risky gamble and it doesn’t work, they get blasted… If they take the more cautious approach, they get blasted for never taking risks… People will never be pleased I guess.

Quite true, the teams have a vast amount of data to base their decisions on and in the majority of cases will make the right decision in hindsight.

I think the only thing that gets me sometimes is the reluctance to split strategies if the pit strategy decision isn't obvious. Like today, when it seemed like there was an argument for either strategy at the end Ferrari went all in on staying out while Mercedes went the opposite way with both cars.

[mwillems]

I don't undestand what you get from "I told you so" posts at all. They did not show armchair experts in Zandvoort. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. Nothing wrong in discussing options. Result based replies are useless.

The actual strategy on Lando's radio was - stay out if VSC, box if full SC. They were considering boxing after seeing both Mercs went it, but VCS ended meanwhile.

The strategy calls as you well say, sometimes work, sometimes they don’t… But the reactions here and comments when they make the calls are definitely “Armchair Experts”… If people don’t realize that:

A) They have more data than anyone here would dream of having
B) They have tools that allow them to simulate permutations of outcome depending on the decision
C) There is not one person looking at the strategy, there is an “strategy team”, who uses A) and B) to make this decisions.

But around here, people watching a race on TV think they can make a better decision than the team

Will they get it wrong some times? Absolutely… Zandvoort was a matter of amount of rain, the amount of rain and duration was expected to be lower than it was, if their expectations (based on the information they had) would have been accurate, they would have been called geniuses… It didn’t pan out, it happens.

Funny thing is, if they take a risky gamble and it doesn’t work, they get blasted… If they take the more cautious approach, they get blasted for never taking risks… People will never be pleased I guess.

true, it is a fine line, I was quite harsh on their Zandvoort one tho. I think there are still teething problems operationally that come with being at the front like we saw in Zandvoort but the team are improving, and like everything else about McLaren right now, looks on the up! Enjoy this one guys, Suzuka should be fun too.

Agreed they will sort it out. Today they had no real options.

[SmallSoldier]

I don't undestand what you get from "I told you so" posts at all. They did not show armchair experts in Zandvoort. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. Nothing wrong in discussing options. Result based replies are useless.

The actual strategy on Lando's radio was - stay out if VSC, box if full SC. They were considering boxing after seeing both Mercs went it, but VCS ended meanwhile.

The strategy calls as you well say, sometimes work, sometimes they don’t… But the reactions here and comments when they make the calls are definitely “Armchair Experts”… If people don’t realize that:

A) They have more data than anyone here would dream of having
B) They have tools that allow them to simulate permutations of outcome depending on the decision
C) There is not one person looking at the strategy, there is an “strategy team”, who uses A) and B) to make this decisions.

But around here, people watching a race on TV think they can make a better decision than the team

Will they get it wrong some times? Absolutely… Zandvoort was a matter of amount of rain, the amount of rain and duration was expected to be lower than it was, if their expectations (based on the information they had) would have been accurate, they would have been called geniuses… It didn’t pan out, it happens.

Funny thing is, if they take a risky gamble and it doesn’t work, they get blasted… If they take the more cautious approach, they get blasted for never taking risks… People will never be pleased I guess.

Quite true, the teams have a vast amount of data to base their decisions on and in the majority of cases will make the right decision in hindsight.

I think the only thing that gets me sometimes is the reluctance to split strategies if the pit strategy decision isn't obvious. Like today, when it seemed like there was an argument for either strategy at the end Ferrari went all in on staying out while Mercedes went the opposite way with both cars.

With Oscar not in the mix, they didn’t have that luxury… Having 2 drivers in contention, gives you more options in terms of what you can do… Today, they got it right and track position was more important than raw pace (which is usually the case in Singapore, btw)… If they would have pit, they would have been at least behind Russell and based on the pace, the maximum opportunity would have been 3rd (and potentially lower if Hamilton had more pace)… The other option was staying out, getting track position and holding on for dear life by the end of the race, which may have yielded a P4, but with a maximum potential of P2 (which was how it worked out at the end).

[mwillems]

I don't undestand what you get from "I told you so" posts at all. They did not show armchair experts in Zandvoort. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. Nothing wrong in discussing options. Result based replies are useless.

The actual strategy on Lando's radio was - stay out if VSC, box if full SC. They were considering boxing after seeing both Mercs went it, but VCS ended meanwhile.

The strategy calls as you well say, sometimes work, sometimes they don’t… But the reactions here and comments when they make the calls are definitely “Armchair Experts”… If people don’t realize that:

A) They have more data than anyone here would dream of having
B) They have tools that allow them to simulate permutations of outcome depending on the decision
C) There is not one person looking at the strategy, there is an “strategy team”, who uses A) and B) to make this decisions.

But around here, people watching a race on TV think they can make a better decision than the team

Will they get it wrong some times? Absolutely… Zandvoort was a matter of amount of rain, the amount of rain and duration was expected to be lower than it was, if their expectations (based on the information they had) would have been accurate, they would have been called geniuses… It didn’t pan out, it happens.

Funny thing is, if they take a risky gamble and it doesn’t work, they get blasted… If they take the more cautious approach, they get blasted for never taking risks… People will never be pleased I guess.

Quite true, the teams have a vast amount of data to base their decisions on and in the majority of cases will make the right decision in hindsight.

I think the only thing that gets me sometimes is the reluctance to split strategies if the pit strategy decision isn't obvious. Like today, when it seemed like there was an argument for either strategy at the end Ferrari went all in on staying out while Mercedes went the opposite way with both cars.

I don't think split strategy had any benefit here.


Different for Monza. They were always stuck behind Albon on track at Monza therefore covering no one so the ultimate.ate choice to pit the following driver didn't make sense and they could have sent one to attack Albon with an undercut. If they got ahead and needed a second stop they may well have had plenty of clean air to make the gap.

[SmallSoldier]

I don't undestand what you get from "I told you so" posts at all. They did not show armchair experts in Zandvoort. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. Nothing wrong in discussing options. Result based replies are useless.

The actual strategy on Lando's radio was - stay out if VSC, box if full SC. They were considering boxing after seeing both Mercs went it, but VCS ended meanwhile.

The strategy calls as you well say, sometimes work, sometimes they don’t… But the reactions here and comments when they make the calls are definitely “Armchair Experts”… If people don’t realize that:

A) They have more data than anyone here would dream of having
B) They have tools that allow them to simulate permutations of outcome depending on the decision
C) There is not one person looking at the strategy, there is an “strategy team”, who uses A) and B) to make this decisions.

But around here, people watching a race on TV think they can make a better decision than the team

Will they get it wrong some times? Absolutely… Zandvoort was a matter of amount of rain, the amount of rain and duration was expected to be lower than it was, if their expectations (based on the information they had) would have been accurate, they would have been called geniuses… It didn’t pan out, it happens.

Funny thing is, if they take a risky gamble and it doesn’t work, they get blasted… If they take the more cautious approach, they get blasted for never taking risks… People will never be pleased I guess.

true, it is a fine line, I was quite harsh on their Zandvoort one tho. I think there are still teething problems operationally that come with being at the front like we saw in Zandvoort but the team are improving, and like everything else about McLaren right now, looks on the up! Enjoy this one guys, Suzuka should be fun too.

We also have to consider that your strategy options depend a lot on your car potential… It is easier for Red Bull for example to make “riskier” strategy calls, since their car potential allows them to recover from a mistake, they just have that massive pace advantage (except Singapore clearly)… When your car doesn’t allow you to make many overtakes on track (pre-Singapore MCL60), your strategy options are reduced considerably.

The MCL60 was (and I say was because we still need to find out the real impact of the upgrade, hopefully next week) a car with very good pace on free air, whenever the car was 3 or more seconds behind someone else, the pace and tire management improved considerably, it wasn’t a car that enjoyed been in dirty air and couldn’t exploit it’s strengths in those situations either (for example S2 in Spa)… So, your strategy has to consider those limitations also, further reducing your options.

[SmallSoldier]

The strategy calls as you well say, sometimes work, sometimes they don’t… But the reactions here and comments when they make the calls are definitely “Armchair Experts”… If people don’t realize that:

A) They have more data than anyone here would dream of having
B) They have tools that allow them to simulate permutations of outcome depending on the decision
C) There is not one person looking at the strategy, there is an “strategy team”, who uses A) and B) to make this decisions.

But around here, people watching a race on TV think they can make a better decision than the team

Will they get it wrong some times? Absolutely… Zandvoort was a matter of amount of rain, the amount of rain and duration was expected to be lower than it was, if their expectations (based on the information they had) would have been accurate, they would have been called geniuses… It didn’t pan out, it happens.

Funny thing is, if they take a risky gamble and it doesn’t work, they get blasted… If they take the more cautious approach, they get blasted for never taking risks… People will never be pleased I guess.

Quite true, the teams have a vast amount of data to base their decisions on and in the majority of cases will make the right decision in hindsight.

I think the only thing that gets me sometimes is the reluctance to split strategies if the pit strategy decision isn't obvious. Like today, when it seemed like there was an argument for either strategy at the end Ferrari went all in on staying out while Mercedes went the opposite way with both cars.

I don't think split strategy had any benefit here.


Different for Monza. They were always stuck behind Albon on track at Monza therefore covering no one so the ultimate.ate choice to pit the following driver didn't make sense and they could have sent one to attack Albon with an undercut. If they got ahead and needed a second stop they may well have had plenty of clean air to make the gap.

Not if after pitting you get stuck in a DRS train, with a car that didn’t had enough top speed to overtake on track… They could have ended up even further back, specially if a second pit stop would have been needed… But it’s a would have, could have that we will never really have an answer for

PS. I haven’t rewatched the race yet

[mwillems]

Quite true, the teams have a vast amount of data to base their decisions on and in the majority of cases will make the right decision in hindsight.

I think the only thing that gets me sometimes is the reluctance to split strategies if the pit strategy decision isn't obvious. Like today, when it seemed like there was an argument for either strategy at the end Ferrari went all in on staying out while Mercedes went the opposite way with both cars.

I don't think split strategy had any benefit here.


Different for Monza. They were always stuck behind Albon on track at Monza therefore covering no one so the ultimate.ate choice to pit the following driver didn't make sense and they could have sent one to attack Albon with an undercut. If they got ahead and needed a second stop they may well have had plenty of clean air to make the gap.

Not if after pitting you get stuck in a DRS train, with a car that didn’t had enough top speed to overtake on track… They could have ended up even further back, specially if a second pit stop would have been needed… But it’s a would have, could have that we will never really have an answer for

PS. I haven’t rewatched the race yet

Albon was back up to position very quickly so on that basis I think it was good. That DRS train would pit and he'd be back behind Albon in good time if it didn't work but if it did the reward was much bigger than the risk.

But point remains they were covering no one, that much is cut and dry

Anyway, today they did nothing wrong. I wanted to call them but realised my mistake and it was on the back of frustration.

[Ben1980]

[mwillems]

I'm guessing plenty of fans wish Japan weekend started tomorrow

[Ben1980]

On another note, interesting to hear an undrivable from Alonso

[trinidefender]

Think the team again showed the armchair experts they know what they are doing, the call was to pit Lando. Similar to Silverstone when people couldn't believe the choice of Hard tyres!

No this was different, Sainz saved the situation but the team didn't really have options.

Nobody foresaw Carlos brilliance and we have a lot to thank him for. I was ready to call them out for disappointments at the previous two races, but their hands were tied here.

I strongly disagree. I posted a few pages back that Carlos was backing up the pack to protect from the undercut (any driver going for the undercut would be put into traffic and a drs train).

Carlos' strong suit has always been race management. He's smart and always thinking ahead similar to Alonso.

Towards the end you could tell from looking at the lap times, gaps behind and radio calls he was going just fast enough to make Lando work to stay in DRS but not able to overtake but as slow as possible to keep his tyres alive. You could see the gap of the mercs coming down sector to sector and understand that his only option was to keep LN in that DRS gap to protect himself.

Side point....nice to see Carlando again

[mwillems]

Think the team again showed the armchair experts they know what they are doing, the call was to pit Lando. Similar to Silverstone when people couldn't believe the choice of Hard tyres!

No this was different, Sainz saved the situation but the team didn't really have options.

Nobody foresaw Carlos brilliance and we have a lot to thank him for. I was ready to call them out for disappointments at the previous two races, but their hands were tied here.

I strongly disagree. I posted a few pages back that Carlos was backing up the pack to protect from the undercut (any driver going for the undercut would be put into traffic and a drs train).

Carlos' strong suit has always been race management. He's smart and always thinking ahead similar to Alonso.

Towards the end you could tell from looking at the lap times, gaps behind and radio calls he was going just fast enough to make Lando work to stay in DRS but not able to overtake but as slow as possible to keep his tyres alive. You could see the gap of the mercs coming down sector to sector and understand that his only option was to keep LN in that DRS gap to protect himself.

Side point....nice to see Carlando again

Backing the pack up to prevent an undercut is not the same as pulling Lando along in his slipstream. He was trying slow everyone in the first instance and then help lando go faster in the second. Unless Ferrari had a quiet word with Mclaren I think it was highly unlikely it was strategists for.. the poi t you could see he was pulling Lando was after the Merc stop. He quickly demanded to know the gap to Lando on every lap. But the idea that we knew he'd tow Lando was not an obvious one I think.

We had no.options and Carlos using us as a buffer and giving us DRS to form one superdriver Carlandooooooo!

[mwillems]

Bear in mind that this call was after Merc pitted and before Carlos was slowing to collect Lando. The idea that it was easy to predict Carlos behaviour at that point I think is lit with Hindsight. By doing so, Carlos put his head into the Lions mouth. If Lando made one mistake when the Mercs caught or if he just didn't have the pace then it was game over for Carlos as he'd not pulled a gap and instead got in touch with the Mercs when their tyres were at their freshest. He walked a very fine line and played it brilliantly. But it was anything but obvious and came with a lot of inherent risk.

[mwillems]

And without a doubt it helped that Russell felt the need to also defend from his own team mate to give Lando a half lap break.

[Peter Piper]

The strategy calls as you well say, sometimes work, sometimes they don’t… But the reactions here and comments when they make the calls are definitely “Armchair Experts”… If people don’t realize that:

A) They have more data than anyone here would dream of having
B) They have tools that allow them to simulate permutations of outcome depending on the decision
C) There is not one person looking at the strategy, there is an “strategy team”, who uses A) and B) to make this decisions.

But around here, people watching a race on TV think they can make a better decision than the team

Will they get it wrong some times? Absolutely… Zandvoort was a matter of amount of rain, the amount of rain and duration was expected to be lower than it was, if their expectations (based on the information they had) would have been accurate, they would have been called geniuses… It didn’t pan out, it happens.

Funny thing is, if they take a risky gamble and it doesn’t work, they get blasted… If they take the more cautious approach, they get blasted for never taking risks… People will never be pleased I guess.

Quite true, the teams have a vast amount of data to base their decisions on and in the majority of cases will make the right decision in hindsight.

I think the only thing that gets me sometimes is the reluctance to split strategies if the pit strategy decision isn't obvious. Like today, when it seemed like there was an argument for either strategy at the end Ferrari went all in on staying out while Mercedes went the opposite way with both cars.

I don't think split strategy had any benefit here.


Different for Monza. They were always stuck behind Albon on track at Monza therefore covering no one so the ultimate.ate choice to pit the following driver didn't make sense and they could have sent one to attack Albon with an undercut. If they got ahead and needed a second stop they may well have had plenty of clean air to make the gap.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant a split strategy for either Ferrari or Mercedes. You're right that the McLaren's were far enough apart for that to make no sense.