Did McLaren miss a chance to beat Verstappen? Japanese GP data analysed

27 comments on “Did McLaren miss a chance to beat Verstappen? Japanese GP data analysed”

1. 

   Nulla Pax (@nullapax)
   6th April 2025, 14:52

   If there had been any worthwhile racing today, then I might accept that strategy might have helped one or more teams.
   But nothing was ever going to happen, it was a conveyor belt of boredom from start to finish, and no miracles of hindsight could ever even suggest that it might have been any different to me.

   Next time at Suzuka, let’s give each driver a hand grenade that they can use at will.
   Then let’s discuss the different strategies employed by each team/driver ;P
   1. 

      Mooa42
      7th April 2025, 1:17

      It should have been more interesting, if McLaren had worked out how to attack as a team, it should have been 2 against 1.
      From lap 3, one of the McLaren’s should have been chewing up their tyres attacking Max and either forcing him to use his tyres or force him into a mistake, the remaining McLaren would then conserve tyres for a later attack.
      Oscar seemed to be able to get within .5 of Lando so I’m not sure why Lando couldn’t get close to Max, they were clearly faster.

      I would have switched Piastri on lap 3 and got him to attack Max while Lando saved tyres. Result might have been the same but at least it would have created some interest.

      Very conservative strategy for McLaren to hope for change during pitstops.
      1. 

         Esploratore (@esploratore1)
         7th April 2025, 11:05

         Yours seems like a better strategy, a bit what merc tried against leclerc at monza 2019.
      2. 

         Todfod (@todfod)
         8th April 2025, 10:47

         Agree. Not just having them attack at the start, but the could have attacked Max very differently during the pitstops as well. Oscar attempted the undercut, so pitting Lando on the same lap was a mistake.

         They could have kept Lando on mediums for a few more laps, so that even if joined back after the pit stops in P3 (behind Oscar), he would have a slight tyre advantage. Swap drivers and let Norris attack towards the end of the race. There was very little threat from behind from Charles or George, so Mclaren had nothing to lose by keeping Lando out for 4-5 more laps.

         This was an epic fail from Mclaren because they just didn’t try to win the race. They prioritised driver harmony over a better end result for the team. Quite disappointing if Papaya rules involve this unambitious and safe way of going racing.
2. 

   Alberto
   6th April 2025, 14:56

   It is only the third race of the season so I understand Mclaren trying to maximise the points by not risking too much. Let’s not forget Redbull’s second driver dilemma means Max is only racing Lando and Piastri this season however as a team, Mclaren is racing Redbull, Ferrari and Mercedes.
3. 

   Edvaldo
   6th April 2025, 15:24

   They did the only thing they should not have done with Norris, pitting on the same lap.

   Red Bull has been the team with the best pit stops for most of their existence, and you rely your hopes on beating them on pit stops? McLaren did work slightly better, and Norris was closer than ever to Max after the pit, then threw it all away with that brain-dead move to the grass.

   After that, it was over. For 53 laps, he wasn’t able to open his DRS on Max, not even once.
   1. 

      F1statsfan (@f1statsfan)
      7th April 2025, 11:26

      “After that, it was over. For 53 laps, he wasn’t able to open his DRS on Max, not even once.”

      That is not entirely true I think start lap 2, 3 or 4 Lando opened his DRS once but indeed never again.
4. 

   Badger74 (@badger74)
   6th April 2025, 15:49

   Ferrari pace in that second stint on hards was really poor
   1. 

      roadrunner (@roadrunner)
      6th April 2025, 16:47

      Indeed. As it was in China and to an extend at the end of last season too (Belgium, Mexico,Abu Dhabi for example). I hope it’s more of a coincide than a pattern
5. 

   Jon
   6th April 2025, 16:19

   It’s why we watch F1 to find out.

   Personal I think these car are most technically marvelous car but they are not very good racing car . Imagine if we did not have computers and drs did not exist
6. 

   Dusty
   6th April 2025, 17:31

   It’s not that complicated, really. There were 2 scenarios that would give McLaren a stronger chance:
   1- Pit Lando instead of Piastri. Set purple sectors 2 and 3 and hope for the best diving into turn 1 on the outside as Max leaves the pits to cover him on the following lap. The undercut strength was 1.0s-1.5s. McLaren’s pit stop was quicker. 80% chance Lando takes the lead of the race.
   2- Alternatively, pit Oscar 3-4 laps before the window, hope he can clear traffic and force Max to cover him. Go long with Lando, create tire performance delta. Marginal chance of Oscar successfully undercutting Max, some chance of Lando overtaking on track with new tires or gifted win due to VSC.

   But no! Option McLaren: follow Max the whole race and wait for him to make a mistake.
   1. 

      An Sionnach
      7th April 2025, 10:56

      Good ideas. Albon was a complication, but at least they should have had no difficulty passing him. Using Oscar to pit earlier or even at the same time as Max while giving Lando the undercut chance was the way to go. It isn’t hindsight that proves this, but races at Suzuka since at least 1989. I wonder was there some factor we have not considered. It seems everyone except the McLaren strategists knows this. Even Lando is scratching his head. It would be better if he dictated the strategy and demanded a lap to go for the undercut. He should have attacked more on his in laps, too. Unless he was pushing as much as possible and Max was able to respond, I just can’t understand what they were doing. The win is unlikely to fall into your lap at Suzuka. What did they expect? What was the plan?
7. 

   MG1982 (@mg1982)
   6th April 2025, 17:46

   Hard to tell for sure, but the impression is that of a missed opportunity. Both McLaren drivers were VER’ shadow for the entire race, so the potential of the car seemed real. Maybe it’s the drivers too…
8. 

   Ryan
   6th April 2025, 18:01

   The tire strategy graphic above isn’t potentially correct, Sainz and Lawson were shown on the feed to both be on soft tires at the end….
9. 

   Sumedh
   6th April 2025, 18:36

   Lets not try to create excuses for Mclaren. They made multiple mistakes
   1) Pitting Piastri instead of Norris on lap 20 to cover off a threat from Russell: When Russell pitted at end of lap 19, he was 4.6s behind Russell which is large enough gap for 2 laps worth of undercut. Even Leclerc, who was directly ahead of Russell waited for 2 laps before putting. Mclaren clearly overestimated the threat of Russell and made this mistake.
   2) Pitting Norris immediately after : Once it was clear that a mistake was made, the strategy for Norris should have been to do opposite Verstappen in order to get either clean air with undercut or clean air with overcut. This overcut strategy would require cooperation from Piastri. Mclaren weren’t prepared to give such instructions to Piastri and hence self-blocked the overcut route. And the undercut route was difficult to implement as Verstappen was pretty much dead certain to pit on lap 21 or lap 22 else he would have been jumped by Piastri.

   The 2nd mistake can be attributed to a team focused on 2 drivers and not just 1 (like Red Bull). But there was no excuse for the 1st mistake. That was a plain gaffe.
   1. 

      Sumedh
      6th April 2025, 18:40

      *Russell was 4.6s behind Piastri, (not Russell)
10. 

    Alesici
    6th April 2025, 20:39

    Normally when a team has 2 quick teammates fighting for the title, they suffer the problem of the relationship breaking down and the drivers taking points away from each other. It seems that Mclaraen are instead giving away championship points to the competitors in order to prioritise the safeguarding of the relationship. This is pretty unusual in F1 history.
    1. 

       Alonso (@alonshow)
       8th April 2025, 12:52

       I vote this one for comment of the day.
11. 

    Bullfrog (@bullfrog)
    6th April 2025, 22:41

    If only there were no other pesky cars on the track to interfere with the perfect strategy that all 20 of them were running.
12. 

    Jim from US (@jimfromus)
    7th April 2025, 2:38

    Playing not to win ensures not winning. S
13. 

    F1statsfan (@f1statsfan)
    7th April 2025, 10:36

    “their race engineers give them the instruction to “box opposite” their rival: i.e. “If they pit, stay out, and vice-versa.”
    That didn’t happen when Verstappen and Norris approached the pit lane entrance at the end of lap”

    It did actually happen – there was Team radio calling Norris in a lap earlier as a dummy trying to fool Red Bull – obviously Red Bull didn’t bit (there was even a board radio on it) mainly because they saw that if Lando pitted he would come in traffic rather than free air.

    Then 1 or 2 laps later McLaren brought in Piastri to cover Russell – which was not needed – but that obviously meant that Red Bull knew Lando would be coming in the next lap resulting in Red Bull calling Max in.

    To an extend George pitting early might have helped Red Bull as it created some extra factor/complexity for McLaren.
    1. 

       An Sionnach
       7th April 2025, 11:00

       They dummied the correct strategy, but were not likely to go for that!
14. 

    F1statsfan (@f1statsfan)
    7th April 2025, 10:57

    “As constructors’ champions, they held the prime spot next to the pit lane exit allowing their drivers a cleaner run back onto the circuit.”

    If McLaren were not in the last pit box – it would have been an unsaved release right? You are not allowed to leave your pit box if another car is passing your pit box.

    Question: why do the constructor champions at some track choose the first pit box and at other tracks the last pit box.
    Also do the rest of the teams have a choice as well or once the constructor champion has chosen the rest must fall in line based on last year constructors standings either from 1st to last pit box or last to 1st.

    I remember in 2023 the Dutch race that Max didn’t immediate pit at the end of lap 1 when rain fell hard but a lap later as they assumed a high risk of Max having to wait to leave his pit box with loads of cars pitting and driving by Red Bull pitbox which was the first that race.
    1. 

       Esploratore (@esploratore1)
       7th April 2025, 11:54

       I think in the dutch gp the ability to drive in the wet was taken into account: perez was bad in the wet and pitted first in both occasions, verstappen is great in the wet and can easily survive 1 more lap if rain intensifies.
    2. 

       Esploratore (@esploratore1)
       7th April 2025, 11:54

       Perez was often the first to crash when rain intensified, for example in canada q2, around those years.
15. 

    DB-C90 (@dbradock)
    7th April 2025, 11:47

    I can’t fault McLaren for playing it a bit safe.

    Better to maximise your points safely than to do something rash. Plenty of season to go.
    1. 

       baasbas
       8th April 2025, 11:27

       @dbradock
       In general, yes, you’re right. But this specific example, the answer is no, I feel. A 2-3 was what they had and falling down to 4 was highly unlikely. Meaning they had a really low risk chance to try do something. Add to that they already had the information that the undercut was not on the table, but an overcut was likely… it’s just weird why they brought in Norris. And it was at almost no risk

Comments are closed.