2024 Mclaren Formula 1 Team

[CjC]

Just like Ferrari taking a punt on strategy flattered them in Monza.
It's interesting that rivals thought Lando was pushing too hard at the start when he came on the radio and said he was "pace 6". Similarly when Charles put in the fastest lap, Lando said on the risk he couldn't match that only to go 1 sec faster on the next lap and take it back. I think he had plenty of pace in hand

The harder the tyre, the closer the performance. Mediums would still have seen the Mclaren drop the Ferrari. But even on hards, pace was comparable with the Ferrari, but Lando wasn't pushing. Quite the opposite, he'd been told just to bring the car home. Charles was trying to get a move on and had 6 lap fresher hards with a tyre delta and less laps to do in the race than on Lando's car. And yet still, he was only able to go a little faster than Lando.

Ferrari was indeed out of position at the start of the race, but was probably around the right position come the end.

I take this post from yooogurt in the Ferrari thread.

———

free air pace
Charles Lando
40 +0.29 1:37:194
41 1:36:166 +0.4
42 +0.86 1:36:404
43 1:35:849 +0.76
44 1:35:639 +0.64
45 1:35:716 +1.21
46 1:35:371 +0.58
47 1:35:758 +0.81
48 +0.87 1:34:925
49 +0.19 1:36:060
50 +1.22 1:36:311
51 1:36:424 +0.18
52 1:36:020 +0.17
53 1:36:099 +0.34
54 1:36:454 +0.3
55 1:36:560 +0.23
56 1:36:497 +0.7
57 1:36:802 +2.05
58 1:37:510 +0.22
59 +1.27 1:36:948
60 +1.53 1:36:631
61 +1.51 1:36:820
62 +0.8 1:37:922

48-50 and 59-62 - fighting mercs.
Lando ofk did not attack to the maximum, but clearly not a second slower than he could drive.
It's obvious to me that we should have fought for the win, and the expectations of the drivers are not random, but unfortunately we failed in Q3.

——

Is Lando a little slower?
He is actually a lot slower, taking into account only the laps of Leclerc in free air.
Lando’s tyres were older, but Leclerc had to battle cars so basically taking life out of the tyres; Lando himself said in the press conference that he pushed flat out almost in the whole race.

Also, how did you come to the conclusion that Mclaren would drop Ferrari on Medium tyres?
I don’t see any evidence in any data, as we don’t have any.

Medium
Lap 29 Lando 1:37.5
Oscar 1:37.7
Leclerc overtakes Hulkenberg

Lap 30 Lando brushes the wall
Oscar 1:37.9
Leclerc 1:38.3 for a PB

Lap 35 Lando on the hards now
Oscar 1:38.3
Leclerc 1:39.2

[DoctorRadio]

The harder the tyre, the closer the performance. Mediums would still have seen the Mclaren drop the Ferrari. But even on hards, pace was comparable with the Ferrari, but Lando wasn't pushing. Quite the opposite, he'd been told just to bring the car home. Charles was trying to get a move on and had 6 lap fresher hards with a tyre delta and less laps to do in the race than on Lando's car. And yet still, he was only able to go a little faster than Lando.

Ferrari was indeed out of position at the start of the race, but was probably around the right position come the end.

I take this post from yooogurt in the Ferrari thread.

———

free air pace
Charles Lando
40 +0.29 1:37:194
41 1:36:166 +0.4
42 +0.86 1:36:404
43 1:35:849 +0.76
44 1:35:639 +0.64
45 1:35:716 +1.21
46 1:35:371 +0.58
47 1:35:758 +0.81
48 +0.87 1:34:925
49 +0.19 1:36:060
50 +1.22 1:36:311
51 1:36:424 +0.18
52 1:36:020 +0.17
53 1:36:099 +0.34
54 1:36:454 +0.3
55 1:36:560 +0.23
56 1:36:497 +0.7
57 1:36:802 +2.05
58 1:37:510 +0.22
59 +1.27 1:36:948
60 +1.53 1:36:631
61 +1.51 1:36:820
62 +0.8 1:37:922

48-50 and 59-62 - fighting mercs.
Lando ofk did not attack to the maximum, but clearly not a second slower than he could drive.
It's obvious to me that we should have fought for the win, and the expectations of the drivers are not random, but unfortunately we failed in Q3.

——

Is Lando a little slower?
He is actually a lot slower, taking into account only the laps of Leclerc in free air.
Lando’s tyres were older, but Leclerc had to battle cars so basically taking life out of the tyres; Lando himself said in the press conference that he pushed flat out almost in the whole race.

Also, how did you come to the conclusion that Mclaren would drop Ferrari on Medium tyres?
I don’t see any evidence in any data, as we don’t have any.

Right. But if you average those gaps then the difference is 5 hundredths of a second per lap in Charles favour during that period. Half a tenth. A little faster, but actually Charles was slower than I realised. I did a snapshot of some racefans data. Despite ample opportunity, including 5 laps on Mediums, Charles was not able to demonstrate in any way that he could make any meaningful inroads on the Mclaren that was not pushing for half of the duration of the hard stint, whereas Charles was clearly trying to get 4th. The Ferrari struggled to get past a slower car on Mediums. if there was any real pace on that car using that compound, he wouldn't have been stuck behind Alonso for the majority of the first stint and if he was saving tyres behind Alonso then he'd have been able to push on when Alonso pitted. Reality is, he was just not that fast on mediums. For reference, Alonso was between 2 and 3 seconds per lap slower than Charles on Hards.

https://i.ibb.co/pfVdzKK/Charles-Pace.jpg

You average the gaps, but that’s taking into account the time Leclerc lost with Alonso and the two Mercedes in second stint, right?
If so, it’s quite an unfair comparison.

Leclerc was stuck in a DRS train on mediums led by the Haas; good luck in passing cars at Singapore in a DRS train.
In fact, as soon Hulkenberg dropped Alonso, Leclerc immediately passed both.
He stayed in their dirty air, a few tenths behind Alonso, the whole first stint, that can’t have helped the tyres, he most probably cooked them.
On this, I don’t understand why he didn’t get a gap of 2-3s behind Alonso, as it was obvious from the outside that he wasn’t going to pass him DRSed by Hulk.
But maybe in the cockpit he had other feelings.

[DoctorRadio]

The harder the tyre, the closer the performance. Mediums would still have seen the Mclaren drop the Ferrari. But even on hards, pace was comparable with the Ferrari, but Lando wasn't pushing. Quite the opposite, he'd been told just to bring the car home. Charles was trying to get a move on and had 6 lap fresher hards with a tyre delta and less laps to do in the race than on Lando's car. And yet still, he was only able to go a little faster than Lando.

Ferrari was indeed out of position at the start of the race, but was probably around the right position come the end.

I take this post from yooogurt in the Ferrari thread.

———

free air pace
Charles Lando
40 +0.29 1:37:194
41 1:36:166 +0.4
42 +0.86 1:36:404
43 1:35:849 +0.76
44 1:35:639 +0.64
45 1:35:716 +1.21
46 1:35:371 +0.58
47 1:35:758 +0.81
48 +0.87 1:34:925
49 +0.19 1:36:060
50 +1.22 1:36:311
51 1:36:424 +0.18
52 1:36:020 +0.17
53 1:36:099 +0.34
54 1:36:454 +0.3
55 1:36:560 +0.23
56 1:36:497 +0.7
57 1:36:802 +2.05
58 1:37:510 +0.22
59 +1.27 1:36:948
60 +1.53 1:36:631
61 +1.51 1:36:820
62 +0.8 1:37:922

48-50 and 59-62 - fighting mercs.
Lando ofk did not attack to the maximum, but clearly not a second slower than he could drive.
It's obvious to me that we should have fought for the win, and the expectations of the drivers are not random, but unfortunately we failed in Q3.

——

Is Lando a little slower?
He is actually a lot slower, taking into account only the laps of Leclerc in free air.
Lando’s tyres were older, but Leclerc had to battle cars so basically taking life out of the tyres; Lando himself said in the press conference that he pushed flat out almost in the whole race.

Also, how did you come to the conclusion that Mclaren would drop Ferrari on Medium tyres?
I don’t see any evidence in any data, as we don’t have any.

Medium
Lap 29 Lando 1:37.5
Oscar 1:37.7
Leclerc overtakes Hulkenberg

Lap 30 Lando brushes the wall
Oscar 1:37.9
Leclerc 1:38.3 for a PB

Lap 35 Lando on the hards now
Oscar 1:38.3
Leclerc 1:39.2

Flawed comparison.

Leclerc cooked his Mediums trying to pass cars in a DRS train, while Piastri managed his tyres just waiting the Mercedes to pit and pushing only after that.

[CjC]

You asked- I provided.
It’s a bit of a flawed conversation as a whole really trying to compare a driver coming through the field towards a driver dominating the field.

Fact of the matter is Verstappen and Lando produced laps within their absolute ultimate pace in Q3 to score a front row between them, what happened to Leclerc in P9?

[mwillems]

Right. But if you average those gaps then the difference is 5 hundredths of a second per lap in Charles favour during that period. Half a tenth. A little faster, but actually Charles was slower than I realised. I did a snapshot of some racefans data. Despite ample opportunity, including 5 laps on Mediums, Charles was not able to demonstrate in any way that he could make any meaningful inroads on the Mclaren that was not pushing for half of the duration of the hard stint, whereas Charles was clearly trying to get 4th. The Ferrari struggled to get past a slower car on Mediums. if there was any real pace on that car using that compound, he wouldn't have been stuck behind Alonso for the majority of the first stint and if he was saving tyres behind Alonso then he'd have been able to push on when Alonso pitted. Reality is, he was just not that fast on mediums. For reference, Alonso was between 2 and 3 seconds per lap slower than Charles on Hards.

https://i.ibb.co/pfVdzKK/Charles-Pace.jpg

You average the gaps, but that’s taking into account the time Leclerc lost with Alonso and the two Mercedes in second stint, right?
If so, it’s quite an unfair comparison.

Leclerc was stuck in a DRS train on mediums led by the Haas; good luck in passing cars at Singapore in a DRS train.
In fact, as soon Hulkenberg dropped Alonso, Leclerc immediately passed both.
He stayed in their dirty air, a few tenths behind Alonso, the whole first stint, that can’t have helped the tyres, he most probably cooked them.
On this, I don’t understand why he didn’t get a gap of 2-3s behind Alonso, as it was obvious from the outside that he wasn’t going to pass him DRSed by Hulk.
But maybe in the cockpit he had other feelings.

It was an average of the hard only, if I include mediums then it would be unfair, as you say.

But you can see that even on hards in clean air with a 6 lap delta, he's barely faster, despite pushing for position when Lando is bringing it home, that's why that visualisation is quite useful.

There was plenty of free air to gauge Charles pace, and Alonsos delta to charles on hards provides useful context.

[DoctorRadio]

You asked- I provided.
It’s a bit of a flawed conversation as a whole really trying to compare a driver coming through the field towards a driver dominating the field.

Fact of the matter is Verstappen and Lando produced laps within their absolute ultimate pace in Q3 to score a front row between them, what happened to Leclerc in P9?

I never asked you to intervene in this flawed conversation

[DoctorRadio]

Right. But if you average those gaps then the difference is 5 hundredths of a second per lap in Charles favour during that period. Half a tenth. A little faster, but actually Charles was slower than I realised. I did a snapshot of some racefans data. Despite ample opportunity, including 5 laps on Mediums, Charles was not able to demonstrate in any way that he could make any meaningful inroads on the Mclaren that was not pushing for half of the duration of the hard stint, whereas Charles was clearly trying to get 4th. The Ferrari struggled to get past a slower car on Mediums. if there was any real pace on that car using that compound, he wouldn't have been stuck behind Alonso for the majority of the first stint and if he was saving tyres behind Alonso then he'd have been able to push on when Alonso pitted. Reality is, he was just not that fast on mediums. For reference, Alonso was between 2 and 3 seconds per lap slower than Charles on Hards.

https://i.ibb.co/pfVdzKK/Charles-Pace.jpg

You average the gaps, but that’s taking into account the time Leclerc lost with Alonso and the two Mercedes in second stint, right?
If so, it’s quite an unfair comparison.

Leclerc was stuck in a DRS train on mediums led by the Haas; good luck in passing cars at Singapore in a DRS train.
In fact, as soon Hulkenberg dropped Alonso, Leclerc immediately passed both.
He stayed in their dirty air, a few tenths behind Alonso, the whole first stint, that can’t have helped the tyres, he most probably cooked them.
On this, I don’t understand why he didn’t get a gap of 2-3s behind Alonso, as it was obvious from the outside that he wasn’t going to pass him DRSed by Hulk.
But maybe in the cockpit he had other feelings.

It was an average of the hard only, if I include mediums then it would be unfair, as you say.

But you can see that even on hards in clean air with a 6 lap delta, he's barely faster, despite pushing for position when Lando is bringing it home, that's why that visualisation is quite useful.

Is that average considering the traffic of Leclerc with Alonso and the two Mercedes?

[mwillems]

You average the gaps, but that’s taking into account the time Leclerc lost with Alonso and the two Mercedes in second stint, right?
If so, it’s quite an unfair comparison.

Leclerc was stuck in a DRS train on mediums led by the Haas; good luck in passing cars at Singapore in a DRS train.
In fact, as soon Hulkenberg dropped Alonso, Leclerc immediately passed both.
He stayed in their dirty air, a few tenths behind Alonso, the whole first stint, that can’t have helped the tyres, he most probably cooked them.
On this, I don’t understand why he didn’t get a gap of 2-3s behind Alonso, as it was obvious from the outside that he wasn’t going to pass him DRSed by Hulk.
But maybe in the cockpit he had other feelings.

It was an average of the hard only, if I include mediums then it would be unfair, as you say.

But you can see that even on hards in clean air with a 6 lap delta, he's barely faster, despite pushing for position when Lando is bringing it home, that's why that visualisation is quite useful.

Is that average considering the traffic of Leclerc with Alonso and the two Mercedes?

Hamilton didn't slow him down, as I showed. Alonso was only behind on mediums.

But look at the visualisation, you can see when Charles is in clean air on hards and running to a similar but slightly faster pace. Around .2s as Organic already stated. Tyre delta was likely worth a lot more than that.

[DoctorRadio]

It was an average of the hard only, if I include mediums then it would be unfair, as you say.

But you can see that even on hards in clean air with a 6 lap delta, he's barely faster, despite pushing for position when Lando is bringing it home, that's why that visualisation is quite useful.

Is that average considering the traffic of Leclerc with Alonso and the two Mercedes?

Hamilton didn't slow him down, as I showed. Alonso was only behind on mediums.

But look at the visualisation, you can see when Charles is in clean air on hards and running to a similar but slightly faster pace.

The history chart I posted above did tell he lost time passing Alonso (as Alonso undercut him) and also Hamilton (from the times it’s clear to see) and lost seconds of race time behind Russell.

[mwillems]

It seems fairly clear to me that Charles found his natural position in the race. Probably getting Russel was the best he could hope for.

The lap chart you posted backs this up. It's also hard to read which is why it's easy to see some big numbers for Charles and think he was fast

I didn't include Alonso in my numbers. But purely in clean air Charles was about .2s faster than Lando on hards with a six lap delta and chasing position. Appreciate that doesn't sit nicely with you, but it's fact.

[DoctorRadio]

It seems fairly clear to me that Charles found his natural position in the race. Probably getting Russel was the best he could hope for.

The lap chart you posted backs this up. It's also hard to read which is why it's easy to see some big numbers for Charles and think he was fast

I didn't include Alonso in my numbers. But purely in clean air Charles was about .2s faster than Lando on hards with a six lap delta and chasing position. Appreciate that doesn't sit nicely with you, but it's fact.

A fact that doesn’t include the time Leclerc lost in the traffic is cherry picking, so it’s not a fact; his final position has nothing to do with the discussion.

In this thread it’s only possible to post that Mclaren is 1+ seconds faster than anyone else and no other discussion, right?
Come on.

[mwillems]

It seems fairly clear to me that Charles found his natural position in the race. Probably getting Russel was the best he could hope for.

The lap chart you posted backs this up. It's also hard to read which is why it's easy to see some big numbers for Charles and think he was fast

I didn't include Alonso in my numbers. But purely in clean air Charles was about .2s faster than Lando on hards with a six lap delta and chasing position. Appreciate that doesn't sit nicely with you, but it's fact.

A fact that doesn’t include the time Leclerc lost in the traffic is cherry picking, so it’s not a fact; his final position has nothing to do with the discussion.

In this thread it’s only possible to post that Mclaren is 1+ seconds faster than anyone else and no other discussion, right?
Come on.

How many times! I've specifically given you a number of when both were in clean air on hards!

[CjC]

It seems fairly clear to me that Charles found his natural position in the race. Probably getting Russel was the best he could hope for.

The lap chart you posted backs this up. It's also hard to read which is why it's easy to see some big numbers for Charles and think he was fast

I didn't include Alonso in my numbers. But purely in clean air Charles was about .2s faster than Lando on hards with a six lap delta and chasing position. Appreciate that doesn't sit nicely with you, but it's fact.

A fact that doesn’t include the time Leclerc lost in the traffic is cherry picking, so it’s not a fact; his final position has nothing to do with the discussion.

In this thread it’s only possible to post that Mclaren is 1+ seconds faster than anyone else and no other discussion, right?
Come on.

Nah come on, give us a break.
First season in 12 years Mclaren has had a car capable of winning multiple races in a season. This is the first race probably in 12 years for McLaren to win in such a dominating fashion- Lando lapped up to P7?
So instead of enjoying the result we have what seems to be Ferrari fans a tad upset about such a poor weekend trying to prove to themselves Ferrari was the fastest car in the McLaren thread?
Doesn’t make much sense to me.
Sorry if you’ve had to endure any Mclaren fans in the Ferrari thread after Monza claiming McLaren were faster.

For the record i believe McLaren was faster in Monza but I shared my thoughts in the Mclaren thread.

[DoctorRadio]

It seems fairly clear to me that Charles found his natural position in the race. Probably getting Russel was the best he could hope for.

The lap chart you posted backs this up. It's also hard to read which is why it's easy to see some big numbers for Charles and think he was fast

I didn't include Alonso in my numbers. But purely in clean air Charles was about .2s faster than Lando on hards with a six lap delta and chasing position. Appreciate that doesn't sit nicely with you, but it's fact.

A fact that doesn’t include the time Leclerc lost in the traffic is cherry picking, so it’s not a fact; his final position has nothing to do with the discussion.

In this thread it’s only possible to post that Mclaren is 1+ seconds faster than anyone else and no other discussion, right?
Come on.

Nah come on, give us a break.
First season in 12 years Mclaren has had a car capable of winning multiple races in a season. This is the first race probably in 12 years for McLaren to win in such a dominating fashion- Lando lapped up to P7?
So instead of enjoying the result we have what seems to be Ferrari fans a tad upset about such a poor weekend trying to prove to themselves Ferrari was the fastest car in the McLaren thread?
Doesn’t make much sense to me.
Sorry if you’ve had to endure any Mclaren fans in the Ferrari thread after Monza claiming McLaren were faster.

For the record i believe McLaren was faster in Monza but I shared my thoughts in the Mclaren thread.

I came here because it was said that Mclaren would drop Ferrari on Mediums and there is no relevant data to support that.
Because it was said that Piastri was faster than Leclerc on Hards and there is no relevant data to support that.
Because it was said that Leclerc was a little faster than Norris on Hards when the relevant data say otherwise.

When I did say that Ferrari is fastest, go and find my quote; if anything, from my reasoning you can deduce that it would have been close without the screw up of Ferrari in qualifying.

Last but not least, the team threads are not some kind of private clubs that it needs to be asked the permission to post; I guess you need courage to post what goes against the dominant thoughts of said team threads, that you didn’t have, otherwise you would have expressed (rightly so) your thoughts on Monza in the Ferrari thread.

Enjoy your time at the top in F1.

[mwillems]

No one said it was a private club or that you can't post, no one is being rude to you.

Leclerc was indeed just .2 faster on newer tyres when in clean air.

Leclerc did not have the delta on mediums to make real headway against cars that on hards were much slower and that he would have turned over quite quickly.

The hard stint in particular is painfully obvious, but it seems to be more a case that you don't want to see it.