2025 McLaren F1 Team

[FittingMechanics]

It's such a no brainer, I repeat what I said yesterday, I believe they "kept it equal" by vetoing both stops because 1 driver would have had risk of getting stuck in his pit box. I firmly believe that yesterdays decision was to protect Lando at the cost of Oscars win. I don't buy into the nonsense earlier in the season, but I think they thought they had the pace for a 1-2 so they rolled the dice to protect Lando in that instant.

That may have been a big factor as well.

But I think that is a mistake. Lando should have preferred Oscar to win the race. Oscar is driving the same car and if McLaren is off pace in Abu Dhabi then both cars are off pace and the title is probably his.

Right now he is quite exposed if Red Bull has great pace and McLaren struggles in Abu Dhabi.

This is why I was so frustrated that they were so focused on each other earlier in the season. They missed out on total points by focusing on covering each other. I felt that is a mistake that may come to hurt them and here we are. Hoping for a strong Abu Dhabi to seal the title like last year.

[venkyhere]

System of regimented market forces ensuring equality in outcome = kills human instinct that yearns for meritorious recognition.

System of free market forces ensuring equality in opportunity = encourages human instinct that yearns for meritorious recognition.

The forner is communism, the latter is capitalism. We know which of them has failed in the world.

which of them is closest to the philosophy behind "papaya rules" ?

This is hilariously muddled overreach and the analogy totally out of place.

It was either favouritism or it was hubris, but your post has almost as much drama as the safety car. Bar some one off moments which outside of optics weren't that contentious, the two drivers have been left to fight it out.

No, I was not being facetious or making a joke or attempting mockery..
I was serious about the difference between the two perspectives, because in one case there is an attempt to manipulate as many 'chance variables' as possible and guarantee 'outcome' (price fixing on raw materials, price fixing on finished goods) ; whereas in the other case, chance variables are left to chance and there is guarantee only on 'opportunity', the outcome is free to be influenced by merit/luck/environment etc, expecting nature's law of averages to 'even out' chance variables.
Now, depending on one's interpretation of what exactly 'chance variables' are, papaya rules can mean 'equality in outcome' or 'equality in opportunity' - both can be argued to be valid. I am interested to know how many serious followers of F1 hold one view vs the other.

[Farnborough]

In this interview Zak notes about the hard tyres, essentially to confirm they didn't have data enough about them to see the pace/possibility available



Which likely skewed their decision making clarity.

Notable, and before the GP, Helmet Marko specifically noted their evaluation and improvement by running them that the RB team had made.

In that light, the question (in strategy planning) of "what's the earliest lap we can react to a SC by stopping" will be viewed differently for risk.

[TimW]

No, I was not being facetious or making a joke or attempting mockery..
I was serious about the difference between the two perspectives, because in one case there is an attempt to manipulate as many 'chance variables' as possible and guarantee 'outcome' (price fixing on raw materials, price fixing on finished goods) ; whereas in the other case, chance variables are left to chance and there is guarantee only on 'opportunity', the outcome is free to be influenced by merit/luck/environment etc, expecting nature's law of averages to 'even out' chance variables.
Now, depending on one's interpretation of what exactly 'chance variables' are, papaya rules can mean 'equality in outcome' or 'equality in opportunity' - both can be argued to be valid. I am interested to know how many serious followers of F1 hold one view vs the other.

Capitalism isn't equal opportunity. Pure capitalism is the situation at Red Bull, where one driver earned an advantage in the past, that is now baked in so that he controls the environment for the internal competition.

As a team you should hit the middle ground, that is where the happiest people in the world live. McLaren is doing well.

[johnny vee]

Here's a question. Would Mclaren have done the pit stop on lap 7 if Norris was ahead of Piastri?

[search]

In this interview Zak notes about the hard tyres, essentially to confirm they didn't have data enough about them to see the pace/possibility available

Even we have enough data to see that the hard was a good tire, so if they don't, there's a bigger problem than thought



Of course, we don't know exact fuel loads, but the difference was maximum 10 laps of fuel, and likely less, as I doubt they run the car empty in free practice.

[Waz]

Here's a question. Would Mclaren have done the pit stop on lap 7 if Norris was ahead of Piastri?

Based on similar incidents this season, they would unquestionably have pitted if Norris was in front.

[venkyhere]

No, I was not being facetious or making a joke or attempting mockery..
I was serious about the difference between the two perspectives, because in one case there is an attempt to manipulate as many 'chance variables' as possible and guarantee 'outcome' (price fixing on raw materials, price fixing on finished goods) ; whereas in the other case, chance variables are left to chance and there is guarantee only on 'opportunity', the outcome is free to be influenced by merit/luck/environment etc, expecting nature's law of averages to 'even out' chance variables.
Now, depending on one's interpretation of what exactly 'chance variables' are, papaya rules can mean 'equality in outcome' or 'equality in opportunity' - both can be argued to be valid. I am interested to know how many serious followers of F1 hold one view vs the other.

Capitalism isn't equal opportunity. Pure capitalism is the situation at Red Bull, where one driver earned an advantage in the past, that is now baked in so that he controls the environment for the internal competition.

As a team you should hit the middle ground, that is where the happiest people in the world live. McLaren is doing well.

The situation at Redbull is monopoly/dictatorship. It isn't capitalism, pure or otherwise.

[johnny vee]

Here's a question. Would Mclaren have done the pit stop on lap 7 if Norris was ahead of Piastri?

Based on similar incidents this season, they would unquestionably have pitted if Norris was in front.

Agreed

[mwillems]

System of regimented market forces ensuring equality in outcome = kills human instinct that yearns for meritorious recognition.

System of free market forces ensuring equality in opportunity = encourages human instinct that yearns for meritorious recognition.

The forner is communism, the latter is capitalism. We know which of them has failed in the world.

which of them is closest to the philosophy behind "papaya rules" ?

This is hilariously muddled overreach and the analogy totally out of place.

It was either favouritism or it was hubris, but your post has almost as much drama as the safety car. Bar some one off moments which outside of optics weren't that contentious, the two drivers have been left to fight it out.

No, I was not being facetious or making a joke or attempting mockery..
I was serious about the difference between the two perspectives, because in one case there is an attempt to manipulate as many 'chance variables' as possible and guarantee 'outcome' (price fixing on raw materials, price fixing on finished goods) ; whereas in the other case, chance variables are left to chance and there is guarantee only on 'opportunity', the outcome is free to be influenced by merit/luck/environment etc, expecting nature's law of averages to 'even out' chance variables.
Now, depending on one's interpretation of what exactly 'chance variables' are, papaya rules can mean 'equality in outcome' or 'equality in opportunity' - both can be argued to be valid. I am interested to know how many serious followers of F1 hold one view vs the other.

Every team has rules, the boys have been mainly left to fight, with incidents, near incidents and warnings through the season. The orders were about keeping certain moments fair, other than waiting to make gaps, they have got stuck in.

I also dont have much time for polemics as they are rarely representative, they just tend to create argument.

[TimW]

No, I was not being facetious or making a joke or attempting mockery..
I was serious about the difference between the two perspectives, because in one case there is an attempt to manipulate as many 'chance variables' as possible and guarantee 'outcome' (price fixing on raw materials, price fixing on finished goods) ; whereas in the other case, chance variables are left to chance and there is guarantee only on 'opportunity', the outcome is free to be influenced by merit/luck/environment etc, expecting nature's law of averages to 'even out' chance variables.
Now, depending on one's interpretation of what exactly 'chance variables' are, papaya rules can mean 'equality in outcome' or 'equality in opportunity' - both can be argued to be valid. I am interested to know how many serious followers of F1 hold one view vs the other.

Capitalism isn't equal opportunity. Pure capitalism is the situation at Red Bull, where one driver earned an advantage in the past, that is now baked in so that he controls the environment for the internal competition.

As a team you should hit the middle ground, that is where the happiest people in the world live. McLaren is doing well.

The situation at Redbull is monopoly/dictatorship. It isn't capitalism, pure or otherwise.

Pure capitalism is very likely to lead to monopolies, so that only reinforced my point