Following Max Verstappen`s victory for Red Bull at the Emilia Romagna Grand Prix, McLaren`s strategic choices are once again under scrutiny.
Verstappen took the lead from pole-sitter Oscar Piastri on the first lap. However, securing the win still required considerable effort, especially as the other McLaren driver, Lando Norris, soon overtook George Russell for third place.
While Verstappen`s speed at Imola was undoubtedly faster than most anticipated, McLaren arguably made the Dutchman`s race easier through several decisions during the event.
One significant choice was pitting championship leader Piastri, who was less than three seconds behind Verstappen at the time, as early as lap 13. This move effectively committed him to a two-stop strategy.
This proved disadvantageous as several front-running competitors, including Verstappen and Norris who were ahead, stayed out longer. They found sufficient life in their tires to adopt a one-stop strategy, while Piastri had to fight his way through traffic.
McLaren then brought Norris into the pits at the end of lap 28, before Verstappen had stopped. Mere moments later, a Virtual Safety Car was deployed when Esteban Ocon`s car stopped on track.
This was undeniably unfortunate for McLaren, as such an incident was unpredictable. However, a driver who stays out longer increases their chances of benefiting from such race interruptions.
Consequently, Verstappen`s lead doubled from about 10 to 20 seconds, and he appeared to be cruising to victory with large gaps forming between himself, Norris, and Piastri.
Nonetheless, another incident – Kimi Antonelli of Mercedes stopping with a technical failure – triggered a full Safety Car period. This provided McLaren with a renewed opportunity to pressure Verstappen.
With more than a pit-stop`s advantage over Norris, Verstappen pitted from the lead, with Norris following suit immediately behind.
However, Piastri remained on track and emerged ahead of Norris. He was now in front of his teammate but on hard compound tires that were 16 laps older than Norris`s fresh set.
It was unrealistic to expect Piastri to challenge Verstappen, especially since the Red Bull also had new tires. Furthermore, it seemed highly likely that Norris, on much fresher rubber, would overtake his teammate during the final 10 laps.
McLaren therefore had the option to instruct Piastri to allow Norris through, giving Norris a chance to attack Verstappen in the closing stages. They did not issue such an order.
Villeneuve: McLaren Showed Weakness
In the end, Norris did pass Piastri for second place, and Verstappen secured a comfortable victory. This outcome led former F1 world champion and pundit Jacques Villeneuve to question McLaren`s decisions.
Villeneuve stated: “They show weakness. Basically, they don`t demonstrate the sort of strength that Red Bull consistently shows year after year.”
He added, “It`s as if they`re afraid to be aggressive in trying to win the Drivers` Championship, and they`re afraid to make decisions that might affect Piastri. It`s genuinely peculiar.”
“Piastri messed up that first corner. He was caught off guard. He should never have come out of the corner in second, and then his pace was surprisingly lacking, which was odd. Norris clearly had more pace.”
“At the restart,” Villeneuve continued, “McLaren knew that with the tire difference, it was only a matter of laps before Norris would pass Piastri; it was obvious.”
“It was 100% certain he would get ahead,” he argued, “so why make him waste three laps instead of giving him an immediate chance to challenge Verstappen?”
The race result saw Norris reduce his gap to Piastri in the drivers` standings to 13 points. Verstappen, in third, closed within 22 points of the championship lead.
Villeneuve further elaborated: “Because Verstappen is a championship contender. You don`t want to give wins to Verstappen; that simply gives him more points for the Drivers` Championship.”
“They appear content with second and third places,” he observed. “McLaren possesses a car capable of achieving first and second on a good weekend. Anything less is slightly disappointing. First and third is acceptable, but they seem satisfied with second and third.”
“That element of weakness,” Villeneuve remarked, “is also evident in their strategy. When Norris extended his stint, why did they pit him?”
“You made the decision to run a long stint,” he reasoned. “You should stay on track. Your pace is still strong. So why pit slightly early? It`s as if you`re afraid to fully commit.”
“They didn`t take advantage of the Virtual Safety Car,” he concluded. “Ultimately, the full Safety Car later negated the impact, but it still reveals a lack of that `go for it` mentality.”
Norris, Stella Defend McLaren Decisions
While allowing Norris past might have theoretically improved McLaren`s chances of victory, the reality is that Piastri would likely have been unwilling to freely surrender a position that could cause a 10-point swing in the standings if Norris had gone on to win and Piastri finished third.
Norris himself seemed to understand the team`s perspective and praised the pit wall for doing “a good job.”
“I had better tires, but I didn`t expect anything easy,” Norris told reporters. “It was still a challenging battle. It was close into Turn 1. That`s how it should be, naturally.”
“I lose time during that process, and he loses time, but that`s what`s necessary when you`re competing for a championship.”
“If you try to keep one person happy, the other will likely be unhappy, so that`s just the reality,” he added.
“I believe we handled the situation effectively, and the team did a good job overall.”
McLaren Team Principal Andrea Stella confirmed he had considered a team order before deciding against it.
“It definitely crossed my mind,” he stated.
“We wanted Oscar to have his own opportunity at the restart,” Stella explained. “Our principle was that if Lando could overtake Max, he should be able to pass Oscar relatively easily, given Oscar was on quite old tires.”
“In practice, if the pace difference was significant enough, the situation would have resolved itself naturally,” he added. “We are satisfied with how things turned out.”
“Both drivers are content and feel it was fair, and that`s how we approach racing,” Stella concluded.
Chadwick: Too Soon for Team Orders
Jamie Chadwick, a three-time W Series champion and F1 analyst, believes it`s too early in the season for McLaren to implement team orders, arguing it could damage team morale and relationships.
“It`s a situation of having two top drivers,” Chadwick commented. “This is because neither is the clear leader. If Red Bull had another driver as talented as Max, they would likely face the same dilemma.”
“It`s a positive challenge to have,” she noted. “It`s good that they have two excellent drivers contending for the championship. However, they cannot implement team orders so early in the season that one driver becomes resentful towards the other.”
“It`s difficult,” Chadwick observed. “I anticipate there will be a conflict at some point. We can foresee that already; today`s race showed how close they are.”
“I believe when that conflict occurs, McLaren will need to manage it,” she stated. “Until then, they seem to be maintaining good teamwork.”
“They are currently leading the Constructors` Championship. Max outperformed them today – which we`ve come to expect – and I think that`s how the situation played out,” Chadwick concluded.
