2025 McLaren F1 Team

[AR3-GP]

The RB19 and the SF24 had good tire management but they had tradeoffs. They lacked pace in qualifying trim because the car was slow to put energy into the tires (which was good for the race)

The MCL-39 seems very different. They are always very fast in qualifying and never suffer from cold tires. It is like a thermostat system where they put energy into the tires very quickly, but the heat source appears to "shut-off" once the tire reaches optimum temperature.

I feel like this is a little bit disingenuous. SF24 had an inherent qualifying weakness, while being plagued with development problems throughout most of the season. Why is it even being compared to RB19 in any way? The RB19 had 14 poles. MCL39 has gone 4/6 at the moment and their biggest quali gap was Australia, the rest have been super close. In terms of ratio from the races we have seen so far, the MCL39 is not *very* different compared to the RB19, qualifying-wise. Racepace-wise it’s not even close, the RB19 made the rest of the grid look completely hopeless.

From comments like these, you get the impression that some people just look at the final standings and completely ignore the gaps.
Or maybe people forgot how dominant RB19 was. It’s literally the most dominant car of the sport, statistically.

I don’t know what you are referring to. I was talking about car characteristics, not outright performance. Both of the RB19 and the late season SF24 had incredible tire management. It was even present earlier in the year for the SF24 (Japan) which was before they put on the bad floor in Barcelona (which they recovered in Monza where Leclerc won on a…1 stop strategy) . Ferrari always had cold tires on their qualifying laps. That’s the “reason” that they were slow in qualifying. It was a similar situation with the RB19. Drivers always complained about it.

[Emag]

The RB19 and the SF24 had good tire management but they had tradeoffs. They lacked pace in qualifying trim because the car was slow to put energy into the tires (which was good for the race)

The MCL-39 seems very different. They are always very fast in qualifying and never suffer from cold tires. It is like a thermostat system where they put energy into the tires very quickly, but the heat source appears to "shut-off" once the tire reaches optimum temperature.

I feel like this is a little bit disingenuous. SF24 had an inherent qualifying weakness, while being plagued with development problems throughout most of the season. Why is it even being compared to RB19 in any way? The RB19 had 14 poles. MCL39 has gone 4/6 at the moment and their biggest quali gap was Australia, the rest have been super close. In terms of ratio from the races we have seen so far, the MCL39 is not *very* different compared to the RB19, qualifying-wise. Racepace-wise it’s not even close, the RB19 made the rest of the grid look completely hopeless.

From comments like these, you get the impression that some people just look at the final standings and completely ignore the gaps.
Or maybe people forgot how dominant RB19 was. It’s literally the most dominant car of the sport, statistically.

I don’t know what you are referring to. I was talking about car characteristics, not outright performance. Both of the RB19 and the late season SF24 had incredible tire management. It was even present earlier in the year for the SF24 (Japan) which was before they put on the bad floor in Barcelona (which they recovered in Monza where Leclerc won on a…1 stop strategy) . Ferrari always had cold tires on their qualifying laps. That’s the “reason” that they were slow in qualifying. It was a similar situation with the RB19. Drivers always complained about it.

The SF24 was a car that was somewhat on the “extreme” of tire temp balance. Issues that were exaggerated by aero issues that they spent most of 2024 trying to get on top off. That’s why it is not a valid comparison point against cars which were/are the benchmark of their respective fields.

And while the RB19 had a deliberate trade off for better race pace when it comes to difficulty in warming tires up in colder conditions (admitted by Newey himself), you don’t know that the same doesn’t apply to the MCL39. Nobody knows and nobody from McLaren has admitted anything in terms of strength or weakness from that perspective.

We know they’re exceptionally good (some might say too good) in managing tire temp on hotter conditions, but you do not know they’re not facing difficulties in warming tires up on cooler conditions.

Actually, by empirical evidence, you could make a claim for the opposite of what you’re saying, as their car loses a lot of pace against the competition when temps get lower.

[Darth-Piekus]

Are we now comparing this Mclaren with the Red Bull of 2023 which was the most dominant car in history to the point that Perez an average driver came second easily?

[AR3-GP]

I feel like this is a little bit disingenuous. SF24 had an inherent qualifying weakness, while being plagued with development problems throughout most of the season. Why is it even being compared to RB19 in any way? The RB19 had 14 poles. MCL39 has gone 4/6 at the moment and their biggest quali gap was Australia, the rest have been super close. In terms of ratio from the races we have seen so far, the MCL39 is not *very* different compared to the RB19, qualifying-wise. Racepace-wise it’s not even close, the RB19 made the rest of the grid look completely hopeless.

From comments like these, you get the impression that some people just look at the final standings and completely ignore the gaps.
Or maybe people forgot how dominant RB19 was. It’s literally the most dominant car of the sport, statistically.

I don’t know what you are referring to. I was talking about car characteristics, not outright performance. Both of the RB19 and the late season SF24 had incredible tire management. It was even present earlier in the year for the SF24 (Japan) which was before they put on the bad floor in Barcelona (which they recovered in Monza where Leclerc won on a…1 stop strategy) . Ferrari always had cold tires on their qualifying laps. That’s the “reason” that they were slow in qualifying. It was a similar situation with the RB19. Drivers always complained about it.

The SF24 was a car that was somewhat on the “extreme” of tire temp balance. Issues that were exaggerated by aero issues that they spent most of 2024 trying to get on top off. That’s why it is not a valid comparison point against cars which were/are the benchmark of their respective fields.

And while the RB19 had a deliberate trade off for better race pace when it comes to difficulty in warming tires up in colder conditions (admitted by Newey himself), you don’t know that the same doesn’t apply to the MCL39. Nobody knows and nobody from McLaren has admitted anything in terms of strength or weakness from that perspective.

We know they’re exceptionally good (some might say too good) in managing tire temp on hotter conditions, but you do not know they’re not facing difficulties in warming tires up on cooler conditions.

Actually, by empirical evidence, you could make a claim for the opposite of what you’re saying, as their car loses a lot of pace against the competition when temps get lower.

I don't understand your arguments against the SF24. It was a car with great tire management with a qualifying penalty due to the way they achieved it. The same characteristic as the RB19. Simple point. It doesn't matter how quick the cars were.

It's not the Mclaren that loses pace when the temps get lower. It's the others that gain pace that they have lost when the temp goes higher and their tires overheat and fall out of the window. This is perfectly demonstrated in Saudi Arabia where Mclaren didn't gain anything between FP3 and qualifying but the others did. You can't regain what you haven't lost. These differences we are talking about are only a handful of degrees centigrade but as long as Mclaren can keep the temperature of the tire where it needs to be, they don't lose anything other than the negligible downforce loss coming from a very insignificant rarefaction effect at hotter temps.

[Emag]

I don’t know what you are referring to. I was talking about car characteristics, not outright performance. Both of the RB19 and the late season SF24 had incredible tire management. It was even present earlier in the year for the SF24 (Japan) which was before they put on the bad floor in Barcelona (which they recovered in Monza where Leclerc won on a…1 stop strategy) . Ferrari always had cold tires on their qualifying laps. That’s the “reason” that they were slow in qualifying. It was a similar situation with the RB19. Drivers always complained about it.

The SF24 was a car that was somewhat on the “extreme” of tire temp balance. Issues that were exaggerated by aero issues that they spent most of 2024 trying to get on top off. That’s why it is not a valid comparison point against cars which were/are the benchmark of their respective fields.

And while the RB19 had a deliberate trade off for better race pace when it comes to difficulty in warming tires up in colder conditions (admitted by Newey himself), you don’t know that the same doesn’t apply to the MCL39. Nobody knows and nobody from McLaren has admitted anything in terms of strength or weakness from that perspective.

We know they’re exceptionally good (some might say too good) in managing tire temp on hotter conditions, but you do not know they’re not facing difficulties in warming tires up on cooler conditions.

Actually, by empirical evidence, you could make a claim for the opposite of what you’re saying, as their car loses a lot of pace against the competition when temps get lower.

I don't understand your arguments against the SF24. It was a car with great tire management with a qualifying penalty due to the way they achieved it. The same characteristic as the RB19. Simple point. It doesn't matter how quick the cars were.

It's not the Mclaren that loses pace when the temps get lower. It's the others that gain pace that they have lost when the temp goes higher and their tires overheat and fall out of the window. This is perfectly demonstrated in Saudi Arabia where Mclaren didn't gain anything between FP3 and qualifying but the others did. You can't regain what you haven't lost. These differences we are talking about are only a handful of degrees centigrade but as long as Mclaren can keep the temperature of the tire where it needs to be, they don't lose anything other than the negligible downforce loss coming from a very insignificant rarefaction effect at hotter temps.

- It is not a simple point, because the RB19 had a compromise that was calculated seemingly to perfection. SF24 had a weakness which seemed like a development oversight in comparison.

- They lose relative pace to the competition. Them gaining nothing when temps go down points to an inability of the MCL39 to get the same performance in the cooler conditions which can only be considered a tire-related problem. If everyone is gaining x amount of laptime when temps go down, but only one team doesn’t gain anything, it is that one team which should be considered the outlier and not the opposite …

[AR3-GP]

- It is not a simple point, because the RB19 had a compromise that was calculated seemingly to perfection. SF24 had a weakness which seemed like a development oversight in comparison.

The SF24 was a reaction to the tire eating SF23. Not an oversight.

- They lose relative pace to the competition. Them gaining nothing when temps go down points to an inability of the MCL39 to get the same performance in the cooler conditions which can only be considered a tire-related problem. If everyone is gaining x amount of laptime when temps go down, but only one team doesn’t gain anything, it is that one team which should be considered the outlier and not the opposite …

Mclaren is the outlier because their car design is an outlier. It is a car which has much better control of the tire temperatures than the competition. That means they don't lose as much when the track gets hot. If you think Mclaren is struggling with cold tires, it is fiction. It's simply not what anyone is saying. Not the drivers, not the team, not any f1 journalist.

[Emag]

- It is not a simple point, because the RB19 had a compromise that was calculated seemingly to perfection. SF24 had a weakness which seemed like a development oversight in comparison.

The SF24 was a reaction to the tire eating SF23. Not an oversight.

- They lose relative pace to the competition. Them gaining nothing when temps go down points to an inability of the MCL39 to get the same performance in the cooler conditions which can only be considered a tire-related problem. If everyone is gaining x amount of laptime when temps go down, but only one team doesn’t gain anything, it is that one team which should be considered the outlier and not the opposite …

Mclaren is the outlier because their car design is an outlier. It is a car which has much better control of the tire temperatures than the competition. That means they don't lose as much when the track gets hot. If you think Mclaren is struggling with cold tires, it is fiction. It's simply not what anyone is saying. Not the drivers, not the team, not any f1 journalist.

And you assuming they don’t struggle is also fiction.

Absence of proof is not proof absence. Just because they haven’t admitted to any issues does not make your assumption true.

You’re claiming the MCL39 is braking all norms despite them specifically struggling more compared to others when temps are getting low. Your expectation is for a team to be beaten in case of struggles, hence your assumption, but that doesn’t have to hold true. A car which has a significant performance advantage in certain track conditions can still maintain an advantage while struggling to get the most out of the package on other track conditions.

You’re selling your assumptions as fact. These outlandish claims that somehow the MCL39 is breaking past trends are empty words when you have nothing to back it up.

[f1isgood]

- It is not a simple point, because the RB19 had a compromise that was calculated seemingly to perfection. SF24 had a weakness which seemed like a development oversight in comparison.

The SF24 was a reaction to the tire eating SF23. Not an oversight.

- They lose relative pace to the competition. Them gaining nothing when temps go down points to an inability of the MCL39 to get the same performance in the cooler conditions which can only be considered a tire-related problem. If everyone is gaining x amount of laptime when temps go down, but only one team doesn’t gain anything, it is that one team which should be considered the outlier and not the opposite …

Mclaren is the outlier because their car design is an outlier. It is a car which has much better control of the tire temperatures than the competition. That means they don't lose as much when the track gets hot. If you think Mclaren is struggling with cold tires, it is fiction. It's simply not what anyone is saying. Not the drivers, not the team, not any f1 journalist.

And you assuming they don’t struggle is also fiction.


Absence of proof is not proof absence. Just because they haven’t admitted to any issues does not make your assumption true.

You’re claiming the MCL39 is braking all norms despite them specifically struggling more compared to others when temps are getting low. Your expectation is for a team to be beaten in case of struggles, hence your assumption, but that doesn’t have to hold true. A car which has a significant performance advantage in certain track conditions can still maintain an advantage while struggling to get the most out of the package on other track conditions.

You’re selling your assumptions as fact. These outlandish claims that somehow the MCL39 is breaking past trends are empty words when you have nothing to back it up.

We can only go off what we have actually seen. So far, there’s absolutely no evidence that McLaren are struggling in lower temperatures. That hasn’t stopped people from inventing issues in their heads, but that doesn’t make them real. I’m not sure why some McLaren fans are getting so twisted over something so straightforward.

Right now, the facts are clear: the MCL39 switches on its tires well, is fast across race distances, and improves as track temperatures rise. It’s also had consistently better starts this year compared to last.

McLaren has something clever going on that can keep the tires always in the optimal window. Others can't do the same. So the relative advantage shrinks when temperatures go down since others also get into their optimal windows. When conditions are optimal for everyone, the McLaren still has a fine enough margin to win without driver errors. When conditions are not optimal for others, the McLaren dominates. It is simply the truth based on what we have seen so far.

Now you can make the argument that driver errors are a byproduct of the car being difficult to drive etc, but we can only judge based on what we see and not what we think we see. We can only judge based on what the best driver can do and so far, it seems the best driver in the team has had the potential to win every race.

[mwillems]

Exactly. And if you choose to look at the Qualifying in Australia, it isn't hard to see that other drivers didn't put in their bast laps. Russell had the capability to get to within 2 tenths of pole. Mclaren the only drivers to put in their 3 best sectors across Q on the same lap.

The car was fully pushed in 4 races so far, lost in Japan - because the car isn't good enough that you can get away with a mistake - and only won in Saudi because of a poor start from Max. Even then, RB were as fast as us. Australia the car's edginess helped our drivers go off track, pick up damage, lose time.

Both drivers blew their banker laps in Q3 in Australia resulting in no representative time on the board. Maybe that’s why the 2nd lap has their best sectors…1.5 months and we have already forgotten?

They went off track in the race because it was wet and they went too fast…

I cannot take you seriously with all this revisionism. I won’t even discuss your inaccuracies in the description of later races.

Ahh yes, because anything that isn't your opinion is incorrect

You are right. Russell left time on the board and the Mclaren was hard to drive at that first race in the dry but still managed to find more time from Q2 to Q3 than any other front runner, even harder to drive in the wet. Of course, your take is that the car has nothing to do with it, the fact that the setup was immature and the car was very peaky all are immaterial because it could be fast, therefore, it's the drivers fault and they should be dominating.

My facts on the other races are correct. You just seem hell bent on a narrative that you can't let go of in the face of mounting evidence. Except none of the subsequent evidence can be valid because of upgrades and that explains why the car might not now be dominant... ?

Or it just wasn't. It showed some signs and you got over excited a bit early on the Mclaren and just can't let go. So yeah, better we just wait and see. No doubt when this pattern of you being wrong continues it wall all be false news again.



The car is faster, by a small margin. It is by no means dominant and it will continue to not be dominant no matter how much you need it to be. It will continue to be pushed hard in races and it will continue to be pushed in Q as it has been already.

[Emag]

We can only go off what we have actually seen. So far, there’s absolutely no evidence that McLaren are struggling in lower temperatures. That hasn’t stopped people from inventing issues in their heads, but that doesn’t make them real. I’m not sure why some McLaren fans are getting so twisted over something so straightforward.

Right now, the facts are clear: the MCL39 switches on its tires well, is fast across race distances, and improves as track temperatures rise. It’s also had consistently better starts this year compared to last.

McLaren has something clever going on that can keep the tires always in the optimal window. Others can't do the same. So the relative advantage shrinks when temperatures go down since others also get into their optimal windows. When conditions are optimal for everyone, the McLaren still has a fine enough margin to win without driver errors. When conditions are not optimal for others, the McLaren dominates. It is simply the truth based on what we have seen so far.

Now you can make the argument that driver errors are a byproduct of the car being difficult to drive etc, but we can only judge based on what we see and not what we think we see. We can only judge based on what the best driver can do and so far, it seems the best driver in the team has had the potential to win every race.

I have no problem will calling out anything for what it is, as long as there are actual proofs for your claims. I only have a problem when people state things as outright truths when there is no factual basis for those claims. It's been a while that this forum has been overrun with biased comments that serve no technical purpose that fall on borderline homerism. It was the same with the TD that came out for China. Miss-information everywhere, with people calling out flexing which wasn't even the target of the TD. But that's a different matter.

You say there is no evidence that McLaren is struggling in low temps. I tell you, define what exactly is struggling to you? In any case, forget about it. Because I am also not claiming they do. I simply brought up a counter point to the original claim. A direct quote of which is this :

The MCL-39 seems very different. They are always very fast in qualifying and never suffer from cold tires. It is like a thermostat system where they put energy into the tires very quickly, but the heat source appears to "shut-off" once the tire reaches optimum temperature.

A claim which has been made with zero proof and contradicts actual track performance. McLaren was only beaten (or close to beaten) on lower track temps. How does one conclude that the car is like a "thermostat" and never suffers from cold tires when their weakest (relative*) performances came on colder temps?

And it's also quite annoying when people poison the well by calling anyone who makes any statement that contradicts their comments as "fans of x team". I don't like being labelled. This is supposedly a technical forum, therefore the expectation is that the things that are said here, need to have some basis behind them.

The only factually-based "truth" at the moment is that McLaren has a car which works significantly* better than the others on higher temps. And I say significantly with an asterisk, because we haven't even had a true competitive session on >=40c track temps yet to confirm. People are making all these claims based on FP performance alone. But we'll have Miami this week as a proper data point to better judge the advantage (assuming it will have high temps)