2024 Mclaren Formula 1 Team

[avantman]

Three races in a row Mclaren destroyed Lando's races by strategy calls. Mclaren has the worst strategy team by far amongst top 5 teams and for whatever reasons they make far better calls with Piastri.

[Xyz22]

I think Lando pushed too hard at the beginning of the second stint while the temps were still quite high, and that quickly damaged the tyres (his lap times even discounting the ones with traffic and on track battles were going up too much). Not his fault as this situation was generated by the lack of pace over the Ferraris in the first stint.
As a matter of fact, his first flying lap in the last stint was pretty much identical to the one he made at the start of the second stint. He knew he had to keep the tyres alive for way more laps and that he probably went a bit too fast before.

[FittingMechanics]

I think Lando pushed too hard at the beginning of the second stint while the temps were still quite high, and that quickly damaged the tyres (his lap times even discounting the ones with traffic and on track battles were going up too much). Not his fault because as this situation was generated by the lack of pace over the Ferraris in the first stint.
As a matter of fact, his first flying lap in the last stint was pretty much identical to the one he made at the start of the second stint. He knew he had to keep the tyres alive for way more laps and that he probably went a bit too fast before.

I agree. After first pitstop he was lapping 1-2 seconds faster than Perez and even faster than Verstappen. He quickly undercut Perez and was about to undercut Verstappen when he came across Hamilton who slowed him down. Then Verstappen pitted and came out 1-2 seconds ahead. This seems to have been too much for the tires. The car did not have that good of a pace the rest of the race and it is likely Lando overused them thinking that the undercut will be good enough to gain places.

In the end it is obvious McLaren was great on tire life. During the race they even asked Lando if he needs to pit for softs and informed him that in that case he will need to overtake three cars.

[avantman]

I think Lando pushed too hard at the beginning of the second stint while the temps were still quite high, and that quickly damaged the tyres (his lap times even discounting the ones with traffic and on track battles were going up too much). Not his fault because as this situation was generated by the lack of pace over the Ferraris in the first stint.
As a matter of fact, his first flying lap in the last stint was pretty much identical to the one he made at the start of the second stint. He knew he had to keep the tyres alive for way more laps and that he probably went a bit too fast before.

Just before 2nd stop, on lap 25, Lando lapped faster than Perez. Of course he was slower than Max( who drove in free air almost all the race) but his tires were not destroyed at all, there was still decent life, good 7-8 laps at least in them. to stop behind Leclerc (whom Ferrari would obviously ask to pit immediately after mistake), giving up basically on the advantages of 2-stop strategy, was just a braindead call by Mclaren, this was purely on them. That call made no sense at all, I was screaming in front of my TV "what are you doing again!?" when I saw that. Lando's driven a great race again, outdriving Leclerc in much faster Ferrari second weekend in a row.

[Xyz22]

I think Lando pushed too hard at the beginning of the second stint while the temps were still quite high, and that quickly damaged the tyres (his lap times even discounting the ones with traffic and on track battles were going up too much). Not his fault because as this situation was generated by the lack of pace over the Ferraris in the first stint.
As a matter of fact, his first flying lap in the last stint was pretty much identical to the one he made at the start of the second stint. He knew he had to keep the tyres alive for way more laps and that he probably went a bit too fast before.

Just before 2nd stop, on lap 25, Lando lapped faster than Perez. Of course he was slower than Max, but his tires were not destroyed at all, there was still decent life, good 7-8 laps at least in them. to stop behind Leclerc (whom Ferrari would obviously ask to pit immediately after mistake) was just a braindead call by Mclaren, this was purely on them. That call made no sense at all, I was screaming in front of my TV "what are you doing again!?" when I saw that. Lando's driven a great race again, outdriving Leclerc in much faster Ferrari second weekend in a row.

That's because Perez was stuck behind Leclerc. Norris laptime was less than 0.4s quicker compared to Charles that didn't stop yet and had 25 laps old mediums. After getting rid of Leclerc, Perez lapped over 0.7s quicker than Norris last 2nd stint lap.
His lap times were not good at all (relatively to Ferrari).

[FittingMechanics]

Just before 2nd stop, on lap 25, Lando lapped faster than Perez. Of course he was slower than Max( who drove in free air almost all the race) but his tires were not destroyed at all, there was still decent life, good 7-8 laps at least in them. to stop behind Leclerc (whom Ferrari would obviously ask to pit immediately after mistake), giving up basically on the advantages of 2-stop strategy, was just a braindead call by Mclaren, this was purely on them. That call made no sense at all, I was screaming in front of my TV "what are you doing again!?" when I saw that. Lando's driven a great race again, outdriving Leclerc in much faster Ferrari second weekend in a row.

I do think that with hindsight, we can say they shouldn't have pit with LEC. They were worried about Russel who ended up being non factor as his pace was much worse. Norris would surely clear him easily with better tires 7-8 laps later. However at the moment, it was a completely acceptable call but maybe a little bit on cautious side (maybe they should have went opposite of LEC).

However the big question is was a one stopper a better strategy? LEC did a M-H one stopper while McLaren did a very short stint 1, but M-H-H. If they could have extended each of their hard stints by 4-5laps would they lose 20 seconds? I doubt it.

I wish if they at least tried to split strategies. In my opinion team is risk averse with strategy.

Thinking about it, maybe they would have if Piastri was better with tire management. Kept Lando on a conservative, play safe strategy, and put Piastri on a riskier one stop.

[Xyz22]

Just before 2nd stop, on lap 25, Lando lapped faster than Perez. Of course he was slower than Max( who drove in free air almost all the race) but his tires were not destroyed at all, there was still decent life, good 7-8 laps at least in them. to stop behind Leclerc (whom Ferrari would obviously ask to pit immediately after mistake), giving up basically on the advantages of 2-stop strategy, was just a braindead call by Mclaren, this was purely on them. That call made no sense at all, I was screaming in front of my TV "what are you doing again!?" when I saw that. Lando's driven a great race again, outdriving Leclerc in much faster Ferrari second weekend in a row.

I do think that with hindsight, we can say they shouldn't have pit with LEC. They were worried about Russel who ended up being non factor as his pace was much worse. Norris would surely clear him easily with better tires 7-8 laps later. However at the moment, it was a completely acceptable call but maybe a little bit on cautious side (maybe they should have went opposite of LEC).

However the big question is was a one stopper a better strategy? LEC did a M-H one stopper while McLaren did a very short stint 1, but M-H-H. If they could have extended each of their hard stints by 4-5laps would they lose 20 seconds? I doubt it.

I wish if they at least tried to split strategies. In my opinion team is risk averse with strategy.

Thinking about it, maybe they would have if Piastri was better with tire management. Kept Lando on a conservative, play safe strategy, and put Piastri on a riskier one stop.

Absolutely not. Mercedes had to rectify it and also Piastri was massively surprised that Leclerc did a one-stop saying it's highly likely they couldn't make it work.



Even Ferrari was extremely skeptical about the one-stop (Vasseur confirmed the 2 stops was the best strat). Pirelli didn't even include it in the possible race strategies
They went for it because overtaking was tough, pace didn't drop and there is always the possibility of a SC.

[Ben1980]

The best way of beating Leclerc was to pit before him when close enough for undercut and a similar tyre life and hope they match each other. If staying put for 5 laps leclerc is probably within 10 seconds? When Lando pits, maybe 10 seconds back on a ferrari showing no real deg.

Lose lose. But Lec only one to make a one stop work. So fair play to him.

[Waz]

A one stop at Suzuka is really high risk though, and something that you need a car really kind on tires and a driver who can manage them really well for every lap of the race.

Tires are a weird thing this year. They can't be pushed aggressively to do something like a fast 3 stop, because they don't have the pace to be around 1 second a lap faster for at least 20 laps, nor do they hold on well enough for 1 stopping to be a viable option for just any driver.

[avantman]

I do think that with hindsight, we can say they shouldn't have pit with LEC. They were worried about Russel.

That's the point and the main problem at the same time - they are worrying about wrong targets. and how can a clearly slower, 2nd driver get better strategies week in week out? This is another problem I see.

Norris would surely clear him easily with better tires 7-8 laps later.

I agree think, he would've cleared Leclerc at the end, but even if not, at least he'd have tried and had few goes at him. But on the same strategy he didn't even had a look once till the end. The fact he stayed with him at the end, having a car with quite clearly worse tire deg all year, just showed the quality on Lando's today's drive.

However at the moment, it was a completely acceptable call but maybe a little bit on cautious side (maybe they should have went opposite of LEC).

Strongly disagree, it was completely unacceptable call at that moment in time. Just emotional overreaction, not thought through at all. I can only assume someone at Mclaren thought Leclerc whould stay on track and they will have a chance to undercut him. If true, it sadly only makes things even worse. I dunno about you, but for me it was obvious Leclerc will be in the pits no matter what at the end of that lap he made a mistake on, almost letting Lando passed by him. Ferrari now are amongst the best in the pits, so trying to jump him in the pistop was a bad idea either.
That call would've been acceptable only if Mclaren knew they had proved comfortable pace advantage on Ferrari. But all the data(both from practices and the first two stints) showed they were significantly slower and had more deg.

However the big question is was a one stopper a better strategy?

Is it really? How can it be that only 1 driver of 20 took a better strategy? Are all the teams in F1 that stupid you reckon? Proper, optimal 2 stop strategy was undoubtedly superior and faster today. Thing is Lando had to accept something in between, it was worst possible two stop strategy, and in his case, to do the same thing as Leclerc would've been better than what they did at the end. Stopping 2nd time on the same lap as your direct competitor on 1-stopper makes literally no sense at all.

[FittingMechanics]

Absolutely not. Mercedes had to rectify it and also Piastri was massively surprised that Leclerc did a one-stop saying it's highly likely they couldn't make it work.



Even Ferrari was extremely skeptical about the one-stop (Vasseur confirmed the 2 stops was the best strat). Pirelli didn't even include it in the possible race strategies
They went for it because overtaking was tough, pace didn't drop and there is always the possibility of a SC.

Absolutely is a very strong word.

Norris pit on lap 12 (3 laps were lost due to red flag). So that is 9 laps that need to be put on two sets of Hards.

Norris made his second pitstop lap 27 - he put 15 laps on his first set of hards.
Second set did 26 laps.

So let's say - he instead did 21 laps on his first hard set and 29 on his second set? I seriously doubt this plan would lose 22 seconds that you lose by doing a pitstop.

LEC did 24 on his mediums and 26 on his hards.

[FittingMechanics]

Is it really? How can it be that only 1 driver of 20 took a better strategy? Are all the teams in F1 that stupid you reckon? Proper, optimal 2 stop strategy was undoubtedly superior and faster today. Thing is Lando had to accept something in between, it was worst possible two stop strategy, and in his case, to do the same thing as Leclerc would've been better than what they did at the end. Stopping 2nd time on the same lap as your direct competitor on 1-stopper makes literally no sense at all.

Yes. McLaren (and Mercedes) were in a unique spot where they had two sets of new hards. No one else had them. Mercedes went with that strategy and couldn't make it work but they are no where this season. Only other driver who tried it is Leclerc who had to make do with a medium. And he ended up ahead of us even though he started P8 (behind both McLaren drivers).

I fully accept that the strategy the team chose was fine, it's not a mistake really - in my opinion what they did was sensible but they had the opportunity to do something different to the others and in my opinion, at least one of the cars should have tried it. Maybe they would have if Lando was P7 and not P3. It is possible that they can't go "tire preservation" strategies with Oscar as at the moment he can't make them work as well as Lando.

I'd love to hear from the team if they had similar ideas.

In the end, I think the team is quite risk averse as they are trying to maximize points haul, and not maximize potential results. There is a difference if it is not clear, for example going for a risky strategy that has a chance of victory but if it doesn't work out gets you 0 points is that type of strategy, while the other would be a conservative strategy that probably guarantees P5. Not saying that they had a chance to win today but just trying to make a point.

As a fan I would always go for more risky strategy as for me the payoff is victories, poles and podiums. Not points haul.

[avantman]

The best way of beating Leclerc was to pit before him when close enough for undercut and a similar tyre life and hope they match each other.

Unrealistic. He only got close into the undercut range on the lap when Leclerc made that mistake, losing 2-3s. Of course it was more than obvious Ferrari will ask him to stop immediately to get rid of dirty tires, he would've been overtaken immediately into T1, had he stayed out. No Idea really, what were Mclaren thinking. How could they confuse their real battle (Leclerc) with the wrong one again, second weekend in a row.

[AR3-GP]

Piastri had zero chance of 1 stopping. He hasn't been very good with tire management in F1. It would be more relevant if Norris said the same thing. The drivers drive to their strategy so it's hard to use the 2 stop pace to make a conclusion about 1 stopping.

[Xyz22]

Piastri had zero chance of 1 stopping. He hasn't been very good with tire management in F1. It would be more relevant if Norris said the same thing. The drivers drive to their strategy so it's hard to use the 2 stop pace to make a conclusion about 1 stopping.

Vasseur also said the 2 stop strategy was the best. Verstappen as well in the cooldown room.
Maybe due to the fact that McL had two set of hards which supposedly were worse than expected could have made it the best option, but you also need a car capable of keeping them alive. If you fail with the medium tyres the 1 stop strat is busted, and you also get undercut by other cars behind, so difficult call.