This forum contains threads to discuss teams themselves. Anything not technical about the cars, including restructuring, performances etc belongs here.
Nobody was catching him in Mexico either, yet 30 seconds. But I suppose that only happened because McLaren actually had a 2 seconds per lap of real advantage, but Lando was managing so it was half a second instead. Good guy Lando not lapping the entire grid twice.
It’s pointless to argue with someone who resorts to reductio ad absurdum everytime a point is made. I am giving you actual reasons and counter-arguments and you just say yeah, noo that doesn’t sound right while not giving anything back to support your claim either. There is literally zero proof that Lando could have pulled 20s on the field in Brazil. This is just some people looking at the gap and saying “meh, he probably could have double that if he tried harder”.
If you’re going to make these claims on car performances then you can’t have these double standards where one stat is viable to deem a car as the fastest in one race, but reject it for the other in another race.
Nobody was catching him in Mexico either, yet 30 seconds. But I suppose that only happened because McLaren actually had a 2 seconds per lap of real advantage, but Lando was managing so it was half a second instead. Good guy Lando not lapping the entire grid twice.
It’s pointless to argue with someone who resorts to reductio ad absurdum everytime a point is made. I am giving you actual reasons and counter-arguments and you just say yeah, noo that doesn’t sound right while not giving anything back to support your claim either. There is literally zero proof that Lando could have pulled 20s on the field in Brazil. This is just some people looking at the gap and saying “meh, he probably could have double that if he tried harder”.
If you’re going to make these claims on car performances then you can’t have these double standards where one stat is viable to deem a car as the fastest in one race, but reject it for the other in another race.
Lando was managing his medium tires, like you said. The team told him to manage wheel spin. Oscar drove flat out, and was able to lap around half a second a lap faster than Lando until he got into the dirty air of GR. Their tires were the same age as I have proven to you (then you claim I don't give counterarguments?). You are the one who invented this "tires in a different condition" narrative. Oscar Piastri showed Mclaren's pace on used medium tires. Lando Norris could have driven the same if he wanted to. He's been quicker than Oscar Piastri all weekend long.
Why didn't he pull 30 seconds like Mexico? I don't think he could have, but he also didn't need to. 20 seconds would have been the limit judging by Piastri's pace and the edge that LAndo Norris has had over Piastri all weekend. Verstappen wasn't catching him with the deg on the soft tires. That was proven when Verstappen didn't manage to pass Antonelli. If I could figure this out, then Mclaren's experts could also figure this out. Why would they tell Lando Norris to run and hide when Verstappen was 15 seconds back needing to overtake two cars and the claw all the way back to Lando, and then try and pass a third car on tires which were known to collapse on long runs. Mclaren also knew this. Lando Norris didn't need to react.
As an aside, I can see humor is not conveying well over written text. Apologies if something has been perceived as insulting.
Last edited by AR3-GP on 11 Nov 2025, 00:13, edited 1 time in total.
Nobody was catching him in Mexico either, yet 30 seconds. But I suppose that only happened because McLaren actually had a 2 seconds per lap of real advantage, but Lando was managing so it was half a second instead. Good guy Lando not lapping the entire grid twice.
It’s pointless to argue with someone who resorts to reductio ad absurdum everytime a point is made. I am giving you actual reasons and counter-arguments and you just say yeah, noo that doesn’t sound right while not giving anything back to support your claim either. There is literally zero proof that Lando could have pulled 20s on the field in Brazil. This is just some people looking at the gap and saying “meh, he probably could have double that if he tried harder”.
If you’re going to make these claims on car performances then you can’t have these double standards where one stat is viable to deem a car as the fastest in one race, but reject it for the other in another race.
Lando was managing his medium tires, like you said. The team told him to manage wheel spin. Oscar drove flat out, and was able to lap around half a second a lap faster than Lando until he got into the dirty air of GR. Their tires were the same age. You are the one who invented this "tires in a different condition" narrative. Oscar Piastri showed Mclaren's pace on used medium tires. Lando Norris could have driven the same if he wanted to. He's been quicker than Oscar Piastri all weekend long.
You're argument that why didn't he pull 30 seconds like Mexico? He didn't need to. Verstappen wasn't catching him with the deg on the soft tires. That was proven when Verstappen didn't manage to pass Antonelli. Mclaren also knew this. Lando Norris didn't need to react.
As an aside, I can see humor is not conveying well over written text. Apologies if something has been perceived as insulting.
No worries, I didn’t take anything as offensive, and I don't want my words to be perceived as offensive towards you either. It just sometimes feels like I’m bouncing words off a wall when we keep circling the same points.
I didn’t want to “invent” the tire explanation, I’m just trying to make sense of the performance gap. Half a second per lap is a lot around Brazil, even with some tire management. Based on the team’s own comments, it sounded like Lando’s set might have been in a different condition, depending on how it was used earlier. I just don’t see a reason why a driver would purposely go that much slower unless there was something off.
And on the Mexico point, that’s literally my issue with all this. You’re saying he didn’t need to push in Brazil, but he actually did, given how close Kimi was with the potential risk of a safety car leaving him exposed. It was in Mexico where he really didn’t have to pull a massive gap, yet he did because the pace was there. That’s the contrast I am trying to make here. In Brazil, the pace wasn’t as strong, and it showed. If it was, Lando would have just driven to the pace which would have given him a comfortable gap. 5-6 seconds after the last pitstop is not a comfortable gap to P2.
Here we go again...
'the competition to say their favourite team/driver didn't have the fastest car'.
Is it going to make any difference ?
is the WDC going to be any less special if the winner wins it in the fastest car ? No. So why are we spending so much energy on which car was fastest on a particular track ?
I think it's best that we all agree to the simple fact that the McL39 is the 'car of the ground effect era' - super consistent, super robust, super fast, super reliable - an engineering masterpiece. Will some other car be fastest in a particular race or particular quali ? of course there will be some car, on some track. But how consistently throughout the season ? not much at all.
But that doesn't make Norris any less deserving of the title, even if he wins it in the fastest car on the grid (I don't understand the booing when he gets on the podium, it's disgraceful and infantile). Neither would Piastri be any less deserving, even if deficiencies in his technical & mindset side have shown up in the latter half of 2025, hitherto unseen over the past 1.5 years. That's fine, it's all part of how a driver matures. Look how many years it has taken Norris.
No matter who wins the WDC, Max is a better driver than Norris/Piastri, AT PRESENT. Max has had more experience being in the sport, he has had more 'battling at the front' seasons, he has more raw talent (which alone is not enough, it has to be chiselled with intellect/attitude) -- these are facts. Things like tactical ability, in cockpit game-reading ability, adapting to changing track conditions etc etc - don't even want to get into those topics.
None of this means Norris won't become a better driver in the future - he has just started with 2 seasons of 'fighting at the front'. Even Max hasn't stayed still, he has been improving over the years. Look what happened to Hamilton in the ground effect era, where his method of super-late super-aggressive braking in corner entry with steering lock, doesn't work because the venturi platform doesn't like to be 'disturbed' with as much pitch/roll variance as was prevalent in previous rule sets with the same driving style. He has been trying to get rid of instinct/muscle-memory formed from 20 yrs ago, but isn't able to. Hence, a driver is not an absolute entity, they evolve, usually for the better. Any driver who wins the WDC, no matter the pace advantage his car has, proves one thing about himself - consistency in driving, ability to handle pressure, talent to not just drive fast, but to also assess risk v/s reward. Pick any driver from any era who has won the WDC, you will see these traits in them.
The only bone-to-pick I have is if one of the McLaren drivers DON'T win the WDC - because from the engineering side they have been given the best car of this entire ground effect era. And they have had to deal with only one other real contender, who has an inconsistent and 'peaky' car at his disposal, no matter how talented he is. Nobody can drive a car beyond it's theoretical limit, so it's not like Max is achieving something his car can't achieve (the phrase 'outdriving the car' actually means driving at 99.xx% of the theoretical limit). The Mclaren drivers & McLaren race operations can't 'excuse' themselves off blaming the machinery they have (which is far more consistent, far more predictable, with a large window of 'base performance'). The McL39 in it's worst setup is easily faster than atleast 6-7 teams with their cars in the best setup for any given track. So even if we discount for the talent gap, the gap in the equipment far exceeds the deficiency in talent of Norris&Piastri w.r.t Max. When I say 'deficiency in talent' it's like 99 vs 98 v 97 etc. It takes some nepo kid who doesnt' deserve to be in F1, but has been trained in junior categories with dad's money, like Mazepin or Latifi ; to be counted as 85-90 on this scale. Otherwise they are all super-talented. Teams wouldn't give them a seat if they weren't.
Last edited by venkyhere on 11 Nov 2025, 00:28, edited 2 times in total.
I didn’t want to “invent” the tire explanation, I’m just trying to make sense of the performance gap. Half a second per lap is a lot around Brazil, even with some tire management. Based on the team’s own comments, it sounded like Lando’s set might have been in a different condition, depending on how it was used earlier. I just don’t see a reason why a driver would purposely go that much slower unless there was something off.
Even if we allow for a "tire condition" variable, what does this prove? Oscar Piastri (the slower driver of late) still showed that a Mclaren had the potential to lap much quicker and that's ultimately what this conversation is about. If we say Lando just had a poorer set of tires (despite being same age and no one at Mclaren claiming it), then if he had been given Oscar's tires in some alternate universe, he would have been able to go much quicker. The potential was there. That's ultimately what we use to predict the future races. That is what Mclaren said after COTA. What is wrong with saying this?
I didn’t want to “invent” the tire explanation, I’m just trying to make sense of the performance gap. Half a second per lap is a lot around Brazil, even with some tire management. Based on the team’s own comments, it sounded like Lando’s set might have been in a different condition, depending on how it was used earlier. I just don’t see a reason why a driver would purposely go that much slower unless there was something off.
Even if we allow for a "tire condition" variable, what does this prove? Oscar Piastri (the slower driver of late) still showed that a Mclaren had the potential to lap much quicker and that's ultimately what this conversation is about. If we say Lando just had a poorer set of tires, then if he had been given Oscar's tires in some alternate universe, he would have been able to go much quicker. The potential was there. What is wrong in saying this?
We can say that, but it wouldn't have changed much in an alternate universe where Max starts higher up in the grid. Those were the sets available. I think they were compromised by the Softs not being good enough on their car. Lando in particular didn't like those tires and it was evident in the sprint. He couldn't shake Kimi off. And it wasn't an easy race either, by his own admission. I know the guy is the king of underdogs, but even he isn't exactly shy to admit when he gets easy races.
And there's another problem combining best performances from both drivers to evaluate ultimate performance too, because although the cars are the same, the drivers do not drive the car the same and it's likely their setups are not the same either. So one of them could have a car that is faster (for them) early on, but can suffer on sustained pace in lower fuel. Now you combine those two, you probably get an untouchable car, but it's not possible to get the best of both worlds like that, because each driver makes compromises according to their strength and weaknesses.
In any case, the ultimate point is that McLaren often gets flogged for playing the underdog gimmick, but it's not like this is exclusive to them. RedBull does it all the time too. Everyone wants to set themselves up for success. They keep saying impossible this, unattainable that and they just go on and do exactly those things the next day. They have the best driver, possibly ever, driving for them, I agree, but the best driver in a Haas can maybe get a podium on a good day throughout the season. They can't challenge for wins and the title without a good car.
And there's another problem combining best performances from both drivers to evaluate ultimate performance too, because although the cars are the same, the drivers do not drive the car the same and it's likely their setups are not the same either. So one of them could have a car that is faster (for them) early on, but can suffer on sustained pace in lower fuel. Now you combine those two, you probably get an untouchable car, but it's not possible to get the best of both worlds like that, because each driver makes compromises according to their strength and weaknesses.
I don't get it. You've already established that Lando was being told to manage and Oscar was not. Why are we searching for alternative explanations for a gap of near half a second a lap like tire condition, or setups, or anything else when Lando Norris was under no threat whatsoever and the race proved that Lando Norris didn't need to go any faster than he did. We've now had a string of I've lost count races where Lando Norris has had Oscar Piastri covered on pace from start to finish so I don't think I'm inventing anything to think Lando could have matched Oscar. It is at worst, a good hunch.
In any case, the ultimate point is that McLaren often gets flogged for playing the underdog gimmick, but it's not like this is exclusive to them. RedBull does it all the time too. Everyone wants to set themselves up for success. They keep saying impossible this, unattainable that and they just go on and do exactly those things the next day.
Red Bull is like Mercedes. It is a car that across the full season could not be counted upon nor could one reliably predict where they would be on any given weekend. They have proven that they are unreliable. They have every right to talk like underdogs time and time again. On the other hand Mclaren have had a package to fight for a win at almost every single GP this year. So with that I don't agree with this complaint. They are not and will never be an "underdog" this year. If you want me to call them an underdog, it won't happen because they are not!
Red Bull is like Mercedes. It is a car that across the full season could not be counted upon nor could one reliably predict where they would be on any given weekend. They have proven that they are unreliable. They have every right to talk like underdogs time and time again. On the other hand Mclaren have had a package to fight for a win at almost every single GP this year. So with that I don't agree with this complaint. Mclaren have a track record that supports being favorites almost anywhere with 1 or 2 exceptions. They are not and will never be an "underdog" this year. If you want me to call them an underdog, it won't happen because they aren't!
We can agree to disagree on the Brazil potential, because that's not going to end it seems. I really think Max would have been able to win if he started further up ahead. The pace was good enough (you need to account for the compromised first stint in traffic). Even if they were equal in pace, he would have taken it with better racecraft (or by using the apex rule to push Lando out of the way).
But I think you missunderstood me on that second bit. I am not claiming McLaren are underdogs. But, they're not wrong to be cautious ahead of certain tracks either. People generally go on the attack every time they say that. They've been right in their expectations more often than not. Even on the races they won.
But I think you missunderstood me on that second bit. I am not claiming McLaren are underdogs. But, they're not wrong to be cautious ahead of certain tracks either. People generally go on the attack every time they say that. They've been right in their expectations more often than not. Even on the races they won.
This could make sense earlier in the season, but I started out by saying Mclaren isn't fighting RBR anymore given the current points situation. The championship is in Lando's hands even if Max wins everything from here. So therefore, there's nothing to think about. Nothing to caution. In fact, the mistake now would be focusing on Max who has nothing to lose. They can win the title even more efficiently by avoiding him.
We can agree to disagree on the Brazil potential, because that's not going to end it seems.
If your argument is that Mclaren is actually a slower car because they didn't look quicker than Red Bull (while you knew that Mclaren had used tires in the last stint), but then I'm not sure who is arguing in bad faith. Ultimately we want to understand potential, and it's still in this Mclaren.
Last edited by AR3-GP on 11 Nov 2025, 00:53, edited 1 time in total.
But I think you missunderstood me on that second bit. I am not claiming McLaren are underdogs. But, they're not wrong to be cautious ahead of certain tracks either. People generally go on the attack every time they say that. They've been right in their expectations more often than not. Even on the races they won.
This could make sense earlier in the season, but I started out by saying Mclaren isn't fighting RBR anymore given the current points situation. The championship is in Lando's hands even if Max wins everything from here. So therefore, there's nothing to think about. Nothing to caution. In fact, the mistake now would be focusing on Max who has nothing to lose. They can win the title by avoiding him.
How can you ignore Max though, he starts from the pitlane and you end up meeting him on the podium regardless
You can't ignore Max until he is mathematically out of the running. It would be a mistake to ignore him.
How can you ignore Max though, he starts from the pitlane and you end up meeting him on the podium regardless
You can't ignore Max until he is mathematically out of the running. It would be a mistake to ignore him.
This sounds more like a distraction than useful advice for Mclaren. The championship doesn't depend on Max. He can win every single session remaining, and it won't change anything for Lando.
What does matter for Lando and Mclaren is perfect reliability and not making any mistakes. As long as they deliver that, the championship doesn't depend on anybody but Lando.
I would look back at 2016 again and the way Rosberg drove the last few races. He no longer needed to beat Hamilton, so he settled for P2 in the last 4 weekends and won the title. Lando Norris can settle for a podium for the rest of the year.
How can you ignore Max though, he starts from the pitlane and you end up meeting him on the podium regardless
You can't ignore Max until he is mathematically out of the running. It would be a mistake to ignore him.
This sounds more like a distraction than useful advice for Mclaren. The championship doesn't depend on Max. He can win every single session remaining, and it won't change anything for Lando.
What does matter for Lando and Mclaren is perfect reliability and not making any mistakes. As long as they deliver that, the championship doesn't depend on anybody but Lando.
I would look back at 2016 again and the way Rosberg drove the last few races. He no longer needed to beat Hamilton, so he settled for P2 in the last 4 weekends and won the title. Lando Norris can settle for a podium for the rest of the year.
In hindsight, surely you agree that was a mistake though. He relaxed "too much" and suddenly, it all came down to the wire in Abu Dhabi. Poor guy was mortified when he heard it was critical for the championship to pass Max Verstappen and he went for it, props for that, but it could have turned ugly. Imagine losing that title in the final race.
