2024 Mclaren Formula 1 Team

[Slahinki]

A nice summary that echos my sentiments almost in entirety.

• Overtake had no negative bearing on the race outcome
• Having the faster Mclaren as the lead car improved the chances of a Mclaren win
• Strategy won against the faster cars
• Norris lost himself the race at T2
• 1-2 Would have been locked down if Norris was told not to race Piastri when it was clear early on he didn’t have the pace, he was not going to get Piastri and killed his tyres in vanity

If it was the other way round, Oscar for sure would have been told to manage his tyres and the car behind. Norris was allowed to kill his and McLaren's race to chase a ghost.


https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/did- ... a-verdict/

You left out part where they say that Piastri pitted second time to cover of Norris second pitstop (stupid idea as they are teammates).

Not sure we can be confident that faster McLaren was the lead car. Clean air is king and Norris had to run in dirty air throughout the race. In the final stint he even had to fight through Verstappen and Sainz with older tires yet he kept a small gap to Piastri. I am willing to bet that if Norris stayed in the lead we would say he was the faster McLaren because he would have clean air. Kind of like Piastri was no where in Zaandvoort where Norris managed to clear Verstappen and run away in clean air.

I also cannot accept the idea that the T4 overtake had no negative bearing on the race outcome. Without Lando losing a position to Leclerc (let's ignore Piastri overtaking him), McLaren drivers are 1-2 and they extend the gap to Leclerc (as Piastri was able to do). This means that Leclerc cannot undercut McLaren as the gap is too big for it to work. This means that they don't stop early and that one stop race is much more obvious choice. This probably means that McLaren stick to one stop and get 1-2. With Leclerc finishing 2 seconds ahead how can anyone realistic say that getting in front of Norris did not affect the race?

I think we need to be honest to ourselves. The team (and drivers) screwed this up. This was not a Ferrari masterpiece, it was a race almost given to them by the McLaren drivers fighting each other, burning their tires and then ignoring strategic consequences of covering off Norris by Piastri.

Yeah, pretending the move had no bearing on the race is huffing insane amounts of copium. It was a massive blunder, as was pushing so hard for both drivers.

[mwillems]

A nice summary that echos my sentiments almost in entirety.

• Overtake had no negative bearing on the race outcome
• Having the faster Mclaren as the lead car improved the chances of a Mclaren win
• Strategy won against the faster cars
• Norris lost himself the race at T2
• 1-2 Would have been locked down if Norris was told not to race Piastri when it was clear early on he didn’t have the pace, he was not going to get Piastri and killed his tyres in vanity

If it was the other way round, Oscar for sure would have been told to manage his tyres and the car behind. Norris was allowed to kill his and McLaren's race to chase a ghost.


https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/did- ... a-verdict/

You left out part where they say that Piastri pitted second time to cover of Norris second pitstop (stupid idea as they are teammates).

Not sure we can be confident that faster McLaren was the lead car. Clean air is king and Norris had to run in dirty air throughout the race. In the final stint he even had to fight through Verstappen and Sainz with older tires yet he kept a small gap to Piastri. I am willing to bet that if Norris stayed in the lead we would say he was the faster McLaren because he would have clean air. Kind of like Piastri was no where in Zaandvoort where Norris managed to clear Verstappen and run away in clean air.

I also cannot accept the idea that the T4 overtake had no negative bearing on the race outcome. Without Lando losing a position to Leclerc (let's ignore Piastri overtaking him), McLaren drivers are 1-2 and they extend the gap to Leclerc (as Piastri was able to do). This means that Leclerc cannot undercut McLaren as the gap is too big for it to work. This means that they don't stop early and that one stop race is much more obvious choice. This probably means that McLaren stick to one stop and get 1-2. With Leclerc finishing 2 seconds ahead how can anyone realistic say that getting in front of Norris did not affect the race?

I think we need to be honest to ourselves. The team (and drivers) screwed this up. This was not a Ferrari masterpiece, it was a race almost given to them by the McLaren drivers fighting each other, burning their tires and then ignoring strategic consequences of covering off Norris by Piastri.

Yeah, pretending the move had no bearing on the race is huffing insane amounts of copium. It was a massive blunder, as was pushing so hard for both drivers.

It just didn't have any bearing on who won the race, you're unfortunately changing the language quite significantly but I'd like to think not intentionally. And it's not me that has an issue with the situation or needs to cope my friend...

[mwillems]

A nice summary that echos my sentiments almost in entirety.

• Overtake had no negative bearing on the race outcome
• Having the faster Mclaren as the lead car improved the chances of a Mclaren win
• Strategy won against the faster cars
• Norris lost himself the race at T2
• 1-2 Would have been locked down if Norris was told not to race Piastri when it was clear early on he didn’t have the pace, he was not going to get Piastri and killed his tyres in vanity

If it was the other way round, Oscar for sure would have been told to manage his tyres and the car behind. Norris was allowed to kill his and McLaren's race to chase a ghost.


https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/did- ... a-verdict/

You left out part where they say that Piastri pitted second time to cover of Norris second pitstop (stupid idea as they are teammates).

Not sure we can be confident that faster McLaren was the lead car. Clean air is king and Norris had to run in dirty air throughout the race. In the final stint he even had to fight through Verstappen and Sainz with older tires yet he kept a small gap to Piastri. I am willing to bet that if Norris stayed in the lead we would say he was the faster McLaren because he would have clean air. Kind of like Piastri was no where in Zaandvoort where Norris managed to clear Verstappen and run away in clean air.

I also cannot accept the idea that the T4 overtake had no negative bearing on the race outcome. Without Lando losing a position to Leclerc (let's ignore Piastri overtaking him), McLaren drivers are 1-2 and they extend the gap to Leclerc (as Piastri was able to do). This means that Leclerc cannot undercut McLaren as the gap is too big for it to work. This means that they don't stop early and that one stop race is much more obvious choice. This probably means that McLaren stick to one stop and get 1-2. With Leclerc finishing 2 seconds ahead how can anyone realistic say that getting in front of Norris did not affect the race?

I think we need to be honest to ourselves. The team (and drivers) screwed this up. This was not a Ferrari masterpiece, it was a race almost given to them by the McLaren drivers fighting each other, burning their tires and then ignoring strategic consequences of covering off Norris by Piastri.

Monza is a track where the slipstream will help you as much as you lose time being hurt in the corners. Leclerc also was following Lando in dirty air and Lando couldn't get away from him whilst Leclerc's tyres were fine because that constant slipstream was doing him tons of favours and he managed his tyres.

[bluechris]

What I am not reading about, in the internet, is "driving style influencing front graining". LeClerc was clever enough to restrain himself, but the McLaren drivers were naiive enough to burn them up. If not PIA, I expected NOR to be clever with his tyres, but alas he wasn't in this race, unlike the brilliance in this aspect that he has always shown. I am reading so many posts in this thread itself, where members are quoting team radio "left front is graining" as if that was a property of the car alone. It isn't !!! it also depends on the skill of the driver, how he takes care of the tyres. The McLaren had so much pace up it's sleeve, the drivers could've been cleverer with the usage of tyres. What's worse, the team just sat there, not warning them "enough" about the risk of not being gentle.

You think Norris is a monster in mind and when the pass happened and went behind Leclerc, had the mental ability to overcome this and think straight? i would had been completely pissed with my teammate and it was obvious of his driving with no tommorow and with no care for the tyres that this was the case.

About the overtake itself, what exactly happened ? NOR was too much inside the racing line towards the first chicane, and lost a lost of time rotating the car, even suffering an oversteer moment applying the throttle before the car was ready, at the exit of the chicane. This allowed PIA to get much closer behind than ideal. Then, through the 'large right hand curve' (can't recall the names) all the way until the 2nd chicane (the "crime scene") , NOR defended stupidly, by hugging the inside line to the chicane (predicting that PIA would divebomb on the inside and make him miss the chicane and force him to take the escape route). What he should have done, is to put the car in the 'middle' of the inside and outside lines to the chicane (how many lap1 defenses have we seen from HAM, VER, LEC and RUS like this, where they occupy the 'uncomfortable-for-the-guy-behind' line, causing indecision in his mind) .

Why is so difficult to understand that Norris defence was not a defence? till this moment i still dont believe that for one moment he thought that Piastri will attack him. Norris its to naive some times but i believe this days are over.

The commentators called it 'overtake of the season' etc - it was just a regulation opportunistic move, which looked really brave, because it was into a chicane and not a regular corner. It was more of a mistake by the guy defending his position, rather than anything great by the guy trying to gain a position. We have to call a spade a spade. It was poor from NOR, it was 'good job' from PIA. It wasn't 'spectacular move' from PIA. And what's more, it really didn't do anything to the outcome of the race, people are giving more importance to it than it deserves. When NOR decided to blink first and pit from his 'not destroyed yet' M, LEC was less than 1s ahead, PIA was 3s ahead. Sorry, but that is not a gap that I would call "race lost already" on a track with plenty of straights and DRS opportunities. Not by a long shot.

It was a very good overtake with an opponent that was completely unaware that his teammate will pass in there... it is simple as that, if he thought of this he would had done what you explain, he is not stupid but there wasnt a scenario where the 2 teammates need to fight in the 4th corner of the race. How difficult is for some people to understand that. Norris had other things in his mind, mainly the team result, Piastri was thinking on his own..

In my opinion, this much discussed 'overtake' had no relevance to the race. What was relevant was 'how the fresh H stint by both Mclaren drivers, prematurely took life out of their tyres and killed the opportunity for a 1 stop'.

You dont believe that had relevance to the race, but what Piastri did helped a ton Leclerc and Norris was in dirty air for many many laps, thats why they pitted him so early also. The problem started in 1st lap where the 2 drivers and the whole team went 90% to two pitstop thinking and their delta was higher than normal. Just think if they were stayed 1-2 how more far ahead could had been because from the start of the race Ferrari had thoughts of 1 pitstop either way, meaning Leclerc would had slowest laps to save the mediums and go longer (OK MCLaren didnt knew that but after 4-5 laps they could had seen how Leclerc and Ferrari behaves). Also this change of positions made them to fight more completely destroying anything planned before.

[mwillems]

Of course he knew he was being attacked, Oscar had drawn himself up alongside Lando's car along Curva Grande
in advance of the corner and was slightly ahead when the brakes were applied, it's an attack, he wasn't trying to wave hello

[bluechris]

Of course he knew he was being attacked, Oscar had drawn himself up alongside Lando's car along Parabolica in advance of the corner and was slightly ahead when the breaks were applied, it's an attack, he wasn't trying to wave hello

That moment offcourse but till then you expect a team play to hold Leclerc and the others.. not to attack and throw you the "Lion" as Alonso says

[FittingMechanics]

Monza is a track where the slipstream will help you as much as you lose time being hurt in the corners. Leclerc also was following Lando in dirty air and Lando couldn't get away from him whilst Leclerc's tyres were fine because that constant slipstream was doing him tons of favours and he managed his tyres.

It will help you with laptime but not with tire preservation. Lando pit on Lap 33, ending up 24 seconds behind Leclerc. Piastri pit on lap 38, ending up 19 seconds behind Leclerc. In the end they were 2.6 and 6.1 seconds behind Leclerc. Looking at the numbers, Lando ran a slightly faster last stint with 5 more laps (this should be harder to do). This also doesn't take into account that Verstappen tried to slow down Lando so if things were equal (Piastri didn't have to overtake Verstappen) his stint would be even better.

It is unfair to say that Piastri was the faster driver in Monza. If we remember Hungary, in that race Norris fell behind Piastri and didn't seem stellar until he was released in clean air. From that time he just built the gap against Piastri. Maybe we can say they were similar on pace but there is not enough data to say one or the other was faster as depending on which stint and situation you look at, you get a different result.

But it doesn't really matter who was the fastest driver, I frankly don't care, I'm here for the team, I just cannot accept that pundits (or you) take things out of context to build a narrative.

[mwillems]

Of course he knew he was being attacked, Oscar had drawn himself up alongside Lando's car along Parabolica in advance of the corner and was slightly ahead when the breaks were applied, it's an attack, he wasn't trying to wave hello

That moment offcourse but till then you expect a team play to hold Leclerc and the others.. not to attack and throw you the "Lion" as Alonso says

Of course is going to cover his embarrassment a little, it's expected. He did try to be a bit more cautious so he didn't force Oscar off the road. The thing is, Oscar did the same with the overtake, he made sure there was enough room for Lando. It was very close, and I'd rather it didn't happen as I said at the time, but you can't let that distract you from the fact that if it isn't Oscar, then it will be someone else. Lando has only himself to blame for it.

[bananapeel23]

No matter if Piastri had overtaken Norris or not, Leclerc would still have won. Norris was destroying his tyres even in clean air and was genuinely slower than Piastri. As long as Ferrari keeps their cards close to their chest regarding their one stop they win. McLaren was pushing on the hards because they were dead set on a two stop from the beginning.

Nothing would have changed if Norris was first into T4 because the starategy choices that ultimately led to the Ferrari win would have been the same. Ferrari had the upper hand on tyre wear and strategy and won because of it, not because Piastri overtook Norris. Even after Piastri overtook Norris they had the option to split strategies and force Ferrari into a difficult position. They didn’t.

The strategy blunder was purely on McLaren, not the drivers.

[FittingMechanics]

No matter whether or not Piastri had overtaken Norris, Ferrari would still have won. Norris was destroying his tyres even in clean air and was genuinely slower than Piastri. As long as Ferrari keeps their cards close to their chest regarding their one stop they win. McLaren was pushing on the hards because they were dead set on a two stop from the beginning.

Nothing would have changed if Norris was first into T4 because the starategy choices that ultimately led to the Ferrari win would have been the same.

But there is no proof Piastris tires were falling off? He was matching Leclerc on his stint and had a 5 second gap. Everyone had graining but it would clear up like it did for Leclerc. Piastri went to pits just as he was about to be undercut by Norris so I am pretty sure the decision was to cover off Norris not because his tires were gone.

If you think Ferrari win was inevitable then you will not learn anything from this race. I hope team doesn't take that view because this race was winnable.

If you are locked into two stop, why does Piastri do 24 laps on one set of hards and then 15 on the second set? It would be more logical to do a similar number of laps on each. Norris for example did 18 and 20.

Would Piastri win if he went to pits 4 laps earlier? His gap was stable to Leclerc and it would have given him more laps. We just don't know but I am sure that the answer is not "Ferrari was unbeatable".

[mwillems]

Monza is a track where the slipstream will help you as much as you lose time being hurt in the corners. Leclerc also was following Lando in dirty air and Lando couldn't get away from him whilst Leclerc's tyres were fine because that constant slipstream was doing him tons of favours and he managed his tyres.

It will help you with laptime but not with tire preservation. Lando pit on Lap 33, ending up 24 seconds behind Leclerc. Piastri pit on lap 38, ending up 19 seconds behind Leclerc. In the end they were 2.6 and 6.1 seconds behind Leclerc. Looking at the numbers, Lando ran a slightly faster last stint with 5 more laps (this should be harder to do). This also doesn't take into account that Verstappen tried to slow down Lando so if things were equal (Piastri didn't have to overtake Verstappen) his stint would be even better.

It is unfair to say that Piastri was the faster driver in Monza. If we remember Hungary, in that race Norris fell behind Piastri and didn't seem stellar until he was released in clean air. From that time he just built the gap against Piastri. Maybe we can say they were similar on pace but there is not enough data to say one or the other was faster as depending on which stint and situation you look at, you get a different result.

But it doesn't really matter who was the fastest driver, I frankly don't care, I'm here for the team, I just cannot accept that pundits (or you) take things out of context to build a narrative.

Is it a Narrative if Leclerc can follow Lando within a second for 17 laps and then maintain that pace for the rest of the race? Seems fairly clear that Lando was the blocker.

[bananapeel23]

But there is no proof Piastris tires were falling off? He was matching Leclerc on his stint and had a 5 second gap. Everyone had graining but it would clear up like it did for Leclerc. Piastri went to pits just as he was about to be undercut by Norris so I am pretty sure the decision was to cover off Norris not because his tires were gone.

If you think Ferrari win was inevitable then you will not learn anything from this race. I hope team doesn't take that view because this race was winnable.

If you are locked into two stop, why does Piastri do 24 laps on one set of hards and then 15 on the second set? It would be more logical to do a similar number of laps on each. Norris for example did 18 and 20.

Would Piastri win if he went to pits 4 laps earlier? His gap was stable to Leclerc and it would have given him more laps. We just don't know but I am sure that the answer is not "Ferrari was unbeatable".

I wasn’t saying the race was unwinnable. I was saying that they sealed their fate with a strategy blunder that they would have made no matter what. They clearly didn’t consider Leclerc a factor, either because they expected him to two-stop or because they thought they could easily make up the gap on fresh rubber.

Piastri also said he didn’t believe the tyres would make it on a one-stopper. He was pushing hard in stint 2 to build a gap and while he was maintaining his gap to Leclerc, he was doing so by taking life out of his tyres and setting fastest lap after fastest lap in the early stages, while Leclerc was posting times in the mid-1:23s every single lap.

They were also very obviously struggling on the hards. Norris started dropping off and making mistakes before pitting, Piastris gap stopped increasing and he had severe graining.

There is a world where Piastri or Norris go for metronomic laps like Leclerc and their tyres survive, but that would require McLaren to actually pursue that strategy. They didn’t, and thus sealed their fate. Piastri overtaking Norris did not significantly alter their strategy options, and thus the loss came down to a strategy blunder, not Piastri overtaking Norris.

[FittingMechanics]

But there is no proof Piastris tires were falling off? He was matching Leclerc on his stint and had a 5 second gap. Everyone had graining but it would clear up like it did for Leclerc. Piastri went to pits just as he was about to be undercut by Norris so I am pretty sure the decision was to cover off Norris not because his tires were gone.

If you think Ferrari win was inevitable then you will not learn anything from this race. I hope team doesn't take that view because this race was winnable.

If you are locked into two stop, why does Piastri do 24 laps on one set of hards and then 15 on the second set? It would be more logical to do a similar number of laps on each. Norris for example did 18 and 20.

Would Piastri win if he went to pits 4 laps earlier? His gap was stable to Leclerc and it would have given him more laps. We just don't know but I am sure that the answer is not "Ferrari was unbeatable".

I wasn’t saying the race was unwinnable. I was saying that they sealed their fate with a strategy blunder that they would have made no matter what. They clearly didn’t consider Leclerc a factor, either because they expected him to two-stop or because they thought they could easily make up the gap on fresh rubber.

Piastri also said he didn’t believe the tyres would make it on a one-stopper. He was pushing hard in stint 2 to build a gap and while he was maintaining his gap to Leclerc, he was doing so by taking life out of his tyres and setting fastest lap after fastest lap in the early stages, while Leclerc was posting times in the mid-1:23s every single lap.

They were also very obviously struggling on the hards. Norris started dropping off and making mistakes before pitting, Piastris gap stopped increasing and he had severe graining.

There is a world where Piastri or Norris go for metronomic laps like Leclerc and their tyres survive, but that would require McLaren to actually pursue that strategy. They didn’t, and thus sealed their fate. Piastri overtaking Norris did not significantly alter their strategy options, and thus the loss came down to a strategy blunder, not Piastri overtaking Norris.

Fair point but overtaking Norris did change things.

If McLaren is 1-2 in the first medium stint, they are increasing the gap to Leclerc as happened in reality. This gap was 4 seconds (Piastri to Leclerc) before Norris started the pitstops. In that time, was dropping back and seemed to have worse tire life than McLarens. If McLaren is 1-2, they have 4-5 seconds gap to Leclerc and Leclerc can't go for an undercut. This means all three would extend their stints which would then make a one stop much much more obvious choice.

By being overtaken by Leclerc at the start, McLaren used an early undercut to overtake Leclerc which coupled with high pace they were pushing by fighting led to them thinking only viable strategy is a two stopper.

[Jurgen von Diaz]

Of course he knew he was being attacked, Oscar had drawn himself up alongside Lando's car along Parabolica in advance of the corner and was slightly ahead when the breaks were applied, it's an attack, he wasn't trying to wave hello

That moment offcourse but till then you expect a team play to hold Leclerc and the others.. not to attack and throw you the "Lion" as Alonso says

What would Senna have done in Piastri's shoes? Full attack. If Piastri had backed down, it would have been submission. Piastri made a statement that he will be a big name. So many number two drivers have regretted their team player actions after their careers. You either hunt or be hunted. This was 100% the right thing to do for Piastri's future, and the team didn't even bother to switch positions.

[mwillems]

But there is no proof Piastris tires were falling off? He was matching Leclerc on his stint and had a 5 second gap. Everyone had graining but it would clear up like it did for Leclerc. Piastri went to pits just as he was about to be undercut by Norris so I am pretty sure the decision was to cover off Norris not because his tires were gone.

If you think Ferrari win was inevitable then you will not learn anything from this race. I hope team doesn't take that view because this race was winnable.

If you are locked into two stop, why does Piastri do 24 laps on one set of hards and then 15 on the second set? It would be more logical to do a similar number of laps on each. Norris for example did 18 and 20.

Would Piastri win if he went to pits 4 laps earlier? His gap was stable to Leclerc and it would have given him more laps. We just don't know but I am sure that the answer is not "Ferrari was unbeatable".

I wasn’t saying the race was unwinnable. I was saying that they sealed their fate with a strategy blunder that they would have made no matter what. They clearly didn’t consider Leclerc a factor, either because they expected him to two-stop or because they thought they could easily make up the gap on fresh rubber.

Piastri also said he didn’t believe the tyres would make it on a one-stopper. He was pushing hard in stint 2 to build a gap and while he was maintaining his gap to Leclerc, he was doing so by taking life out of his tyres and setting fastest lap after fastest lap in the early stages, while Leclerc was posting times in the mid-1:23s every single lap.

They were also very obviously struggling on the hards. Norris started dropping off and making mistakes before pitting, Piastris gap stopped increasing and he had severe graining.

There is a world where Piastri or Norris go for metronomic laps like Leclerc and their tyres survive, but that would require McLaren to actually pursue that strategy. They didn’t, and thus sealed their fate. Piastri overtaking Norris did not significantly alter their strategy options, and thus the loss came down to a strategy blunder, not Piastri overtaking Norris.

Fair point but overtaking Norris did change things.

If McLaren is 1-2 in the first medium stint, they are increasing the gap to Leclerc as happened in reality. This gap was 4 seconds (Piastri to Leclerc) before Norris started the pitstops. In that time, was dropping back and seemed to have worse tire life than McLarens. If McLaren is 1-2, they have 4-5 seconds gap to Leclerc and Leclerc can't go for an undercut. This means all three would extend their stints which would then make a one stop much much more obvious choice.

By being overtaken by Leclerc at the start, McLaren used an early undercut to overtake Leclerc which coupled with high pace they were pushing by fighting led to them thinking only viable strategy is a two stopper.

It didn't happen so there is no reality, it's an opinion around what would have happened, which runs counter to the fact that Lando couldn't get rid of Leclerc who was in his dirty air, right behind Lando, for 14 laps, despite Lando pushing. The only evidence we have is that Lando was neither fast enough after the overtake to catch Oscar or Shake Charles and his race was run. Sensible thing would have been to accept that and Lando help secure the 1-2, but the team gave him different instructions because of the championship.

Edit: In fact looking again at the laps and gaps, Lando's first hards were going and he was losing time to Oscar and Charles was getting close to the overtake when he pitted, most likely from trying to keep up with Oscar.