2025 McLaren F1 Team

[Farnborough]

There's another element too, in relation to pressure - a big one.

The tyre (any tyre) is a huge spring, and substantially undamped in its action. Try bouncing a car spare wheel with low psi inside, then vs setting it at 25psi. There's massive difference between the two in returned kinetic.

This, particularly rear, interacts with aero load+GF+chassis spring/damper control as the tyre has it's own frequency that may conflict or complement the chassis dynamic and track surface height variable in use.

Changing the pressure WILL change the frequency of response. This may be helpful or destructive for different chassis & GF concept running in each team's car.
When we hear "bouncing" that characteristic "chuff, chuff, chuff" is very similar in each car, indicating that it's derived from the dynamic excitement of the tyre (reasonable projection as that being common denominator) in producing sympathetic response within the tyre structure. Observe the tyre "squelch" in 2022 at first test phase of that season to give visual representation.
If McL have this sorted in control of their own bouncing (it seems that way) they can logically run the car lower at rear to leverage better GF load, that without excitement of the tyre into uncontrolled oscillation.

Within engineering solution to vibration/frequency, is the action of moving one component's frequency out of range of the latent frequency occupied by other hardware. This can prevent it being a problem that destroys an equilibrium.
Equally, if another team has not got on top of this aspect (some still go into this phase) but that shift upward in pressure results in untangling that frequency conflict, then that could also allow the "poorly" performing chassis to advance into the same performance arena as McL 39.
It's a compounding gain too, reduced sensitivity and onset of bouncing, then allows that "corrected" chassis to be run lower and still not breach critical frequency, moving it further forwards in performance terms .... all the while the pressure increase cause no tangible gain for the 39 as it was already effective in its management of this aspect.

Then we can see these relationships pull and push on different track types, while team personnel expressed mystery as to what happened.

[venkyhere]

Apparently, F1's Tom Clarkson interviewed Brown & Stella in a beyond-the-grid podcast (I guess because they won the constructors). This is what a website has quoted about what was said :

Stella said: “If Max is the champion at the end of the year for us, the important thing is that we can say we have done our best, and we have done our best according to the way we go racing. If Max wins this year, we say we’re going to win next year. We’re going to be there, and we are going to be there, united as we are.”

For Brown it was more a matter of the style of the loss more than the defeat itself. He added: “I’d shake his hand and say ‘job well done’.I want to make sure if we don’t win, he beats us, we don’t beat ourselves. That’s important. And we’re well aware of 2007, two drivers tie on points, one [Raikkonen] gets in the front. But, we’ve got two drivers who want to win the world championship. We’re playing offence, we’re not playing defence. I’d rather go ‘we did the best we can, and our drivers tied in points, and the other guy beat us by one’ than the alternative, which is telling one of our drivers right now when they’re one point away from each other: ‘I know you have a dream to win the world championship, but we flipped a coin, and you don’t get to do it this year.’ Forget it. That’s not how we go racing.
“In the event 2007 happens again? I’d rather have that outcome than all the other outcomes by playing favourites. We won’t do it. We’re racers. We’re going racing,”

While I am indifferent/opinionless about how they run their team (honestly, it's their team, and they have proven themselves to be successful, so they don't need unsolicited 'advice') , I am surprised that the governing principle seems to be 'control everything' , even human emotions. Why do they need to disclose internal matters to the public ? Why don't they say 'we are not thinking about it, one of our drivers will win the WDC' when the interviewer asks 'what happens if Max wins WDC?'. Worse, what will the drivers think, when they come to know that internal matters are being shared in public ?
Somehow the PR strategy of this team (what the drivers and bosses say in public) seems to be 'we need to drop excuse hints as insurance, in case we fail'.
Why ? What if the public finds out that you have failed at something, which you were confident about beforehand. So what ? That's sport. I think this is where 'papaya rules' originated - fear of 'looking bad'.

[CjC]

Surely you’ve read the Verstappen fans comments haven’t you? Most already think that the fact Verstappen is still in the title fight is a disgrace to McLaren.
It’s just a natural self defence mechanism.

Where as I just stop reading that rubbish and get on with my life/ job, Andrea and Zak have to answer the questions because it’s their life/ job

[Emag]

It's not a self-defense mechanism. It's literally what PR is all about. Painting situations in a certain light that makes you look better. The problem with PR is that it cannot change people's mind/sentiment for you. So these statements are not really directed to people who dislike McLaren as a team, because for them, nothing they say will change that opinion. These are statements directed to the others. More so the neutrals who are "open to being swayed", rather than diehard fans, who are the other end of the spectrum and will like the team no matter what they say. But honestly this is literally the same thing going on all across the paddock. It's not some unique McLaren thing, McLaren is just on the spotlight more nowadays.

And just to give some examples of other teams doing the same :

RedBull -> Continuous statements of the sort "if we lose, we were never supposed to be in the fight anyway so it's no big deal". Clear example of "dropping excuse hints as insurance, in case we fail" to quote the previous comment
Ferrari -> Mess up their quali, does somewhat well on the race, Fred immediately jumps the gun and says, ah but you see the car is not that bad actually but we couldn't maximize it this weekend.
Mercedes -> Russell often likes to paint himself as "Mr Fairplay" of racing, which is ironic considering the crap he pulls off on track sometimes, with that ridiculous divebomb in Texas being the latest example.

The point is, PR is just PR. If you dislike the team it's coming from, the statement was not meant for you and likewise, If you like the team it's coming from, it probably wasn't for you either, because you will agree with their stance on (almost) everything.

[venkyhere]

Surely you’ve read the Verstappen fans comments haven’t you? Most already think that the fact Verstappen is still in the title fight is a disgrace to McLaren.
It’s just a natural self defence mechanism.

Where as I just stop reading that rubbish and get on with my life/ job, Andrea and Zak have to answer the questions because it’s their life/ job

No, my observation has nothing to do with Verstappen/Redbull, the sky is not going to fall down if McLaren don't win WDC, they have alraedy won the one that actually matters - the WCC, and by a mega mega margin.
The CEO and TP talking about a possible event isn't 'rubbish', FYI.

It's not a self-defense mechanism. It's literally what PR is all about. Painting situations in a certain light that makes you look better. The problem with PR is that it cannot change people's mind/sentiment for you. So these statements are not really directed to people who dislike McLaren as a team, because for them, nothing they say will change that opinion. These are statements directed to the others. More so the neutrals who are "open to being swayed", rather than diehard fans, who are the other end of the spectrum and will like the team no matter what they say. But honestly this is literally the same thing going on all across the paddock. It's not some unique McLaren thing, McLaren is just on the spotlight more nowadays.

And just to give some examples of other teams doing the same :

RedBull -> Continuous statements of the sort "if we lose, we were never supposed to be in the fight anyway so it's no big deal". Clear example of "dropping excuse hints as insurance, in case we fail" to quote the previous comment
Ferrari -> Mess up their quali, does somewhat well on the race, Fred immediately jumps the gun and says, ah but you see the car is not that bad actually but we couldn't maximize it this weekend.
Mercedes -> Russell often likes to paint himself as "Mr Fairplay" of racing, which is ironic considering the crap he pulls off on track sometimes, with that ridiculous divebomb in Texas being the latest example.

The point is, PR is just PR. If you dislike the team it's coming from, the statement was not meant for you and likewise, If you like the team it's coming from, it probably wasn't for you either, because you will agree with their stance on (almost) everything.

You guys are completely missing my point.
My Q really is, why 'explain' everything and shoot themselves in the foot ? Would it have mattered if the answer was 'we don't think that will happen, and if it happens, we will take it on the chin'. That's all the Q deserved. I don't particularly 'like' or 'dislike' this team, I respect the team, particularly the engg team (race operations and drivers are not yet upto the standard of the engg team), and I am shocked to see them being so naive to the media.
Thinking that it's good PR, they end up having bad PR.

[Ben1980]

Not really sure what's wrong with what they said. All seems pretty bland.

If someone else wins, so be it. We move on. The reality for them is they have given both drivers the opportunity to win the title. It's on either of them to go and win it.

[Emag]

You guys are completely missing my point.
My Q really is, why 'explain' everything and shoot themselves in the foot ? Would it have mattered if the answer was 'we don't think that will happen, and if it happens, we will take it on the chin'. That's all the Q deserved. I don't particularly 'like' or 'dislike' this team, I respect the team, particularly the engg team (race operations and drivers are not yet upto the standard of the engg team), and I am shocked to see them being so naive to the media.
Thinking that it's good PR, they end up having bad PR.

You're missing the point of the statement if you think being bullish would somehow make it better PR. If they said what you’re suggesting and then lost, that would make them look far worse. You’re calling it bad PR only because you’re looking at it through the lens of the “underdog challenger” that Red Bull happens to be this year. It’s easy to say “why is this dominant team acting so cautious?” when they’ve been winning so much, but that's irrelevant when there's a slim but realistic chance they lose the "war" in the end.

The sport isn’t decided by feelings or bravado. The odds are still with them, but Max is close enough that making the kind of statement you’re proposing would be PR suicide. They haven’t sealed anything yet, and Red Bull doesn’t have the same car they did earlier in the season to the point where you can just cruise the final races with no fear of RedBull being competitive in any of them.

Like objectively speaking, any team being in McLaren's position right now, if they made the statement you think they should make, it's bad PR and none of them would do it.

[CjC]

Surely you’ve read the Verstappen fans comments haven’t you? Most already think that the fact Verstappen is still in the title fight is a disgrace to McLaren.
It’s just a natural self defence mechanism.

Where as I just stop reading that rubbish and get on with my life/ job, Andrea and Zak have to answer the questions because it’s their life/ job

No, my observation has nothing to do with Verstappen/Redbull, the sky is not going to fall down if McLaren don't win WDC, they have alraedy won the one that actually matters - the WCC, and by a mega mega margin.
The CEO and TP talking about a possible event isn't 'rubbish', FYI.

It's not a self-defense mechanism. It's literally what PR is all about. Painting situations in a certain light that makes you look better. The problem with PR is that it cannot change people's mind/sentiment for you. So these statements are not really directed to people who dislike McLaren as a team, because for them, nothing they say will change that opinion. These are statements directed to the others. More so the neutrals who are "open to being swayed", rather than diehard fans, who are the other end of the spectrum and will like the team no matter what they say. But honestly this is literally the same thing going on all across the paddock. It's not some unique McLaren thing, McLaren is just on the spotlight more nowadays.

And just to give some examples of other teams doing the same :

RedBull -> Continuous statements of the sort "if we lose, we were never supposed to be in the fight anyway so it's no big deal". Clear example of "dropping excuse hints as insurance, in case we fail" to quote the previous comment
Ferrari -> Mess up their quali, does somewhat well on the race, Fred immediately jumps the gun and says, ah but you see the car is not that bad actually but we couldn't maximize it this weekend.
Mercedes -> Russell often likes to paint himself as "Mr Fairplay" of racing, which is ironic considering the crap he pulls off on track sometimes, with that ridiculous divebomb in Texas being the latest example.

The point is, PR is just PR. If you dislike the team it's coming from, the statement was not meant for you and likewise, If you like the team it's coming from, it probably wasn't for you either, because you will agree with their stance on (almost) everything.

You guys are completely missing my point.
My Q really is, why 'explain' everything and shoot themselves in the foot ? Would it have mattered if the answer was 'we don't think that will happen, and if it happens, we will take it on the chin'. That's all the Q deserved. I don't particularly 'like' or 'dislike' this team, I respect the team, particularly the engg team (race operations and drivers are not yet upto the standard of the engg team), and I am shocked to see them being so naive to the media.
Thinking that it's good PR, they end up having bad PR.

The ‘rubbish’ I was referring to are the comments from rival fans. I can shake my head and turn away but the Mclaren CEO and TP have to answer to some of those comments from time to time.

[Badger]

Whatever they say someone will claim it's the wrong thing to say. The entire topic of micro-analyzing management is tired. They have adopted the policy that makes sense when you have two drivers neck and neck fighting for a title. How transparent they are about it, how much they talk about it in the media, that's totally irrelevant. This is in the hands of the drivers now, they have everything they need to get the job done without receiving preferential treatment. If they fail, much like in 2007, it will come down to them making fatal mistakes at the worst time.

[CjC]

Right on cue!!
Undoubtedly Verstappens biggest fan!

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/verst ... /10774037/

[Mansell89]

Love Zachs honesty, let two great young drivers chase their dream and go racing.

If you can’t do that, why does the sport exist.

Let’s go win a WDC the best way boys - hard and fair.

[Darth-Piekus]

The car is fast enough to win 3 out of 4 of the remaining Grand Prix and maybe all 4 of them. If we win the WDC with papara rules and playing fair till the end without having a car as dominant as various Mercedes cars or the Red Bull of 22 and 23 we can prove to the world that it can be done even with two No.1 drivers battling to the end without needing to screw one driver over the other or create a car absolutely for just one driver.