2025 McLaren F1 Team

[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

[FittingMechanics]

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

They wouldn't.

[Ben1980]

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

They wouldn't.

I think this is the crux of many issues people have raised about the Lando/Oscar issues.

Almost all would work the exact same if the other way round.

[Watto]

I don't think whey would have.


I think if there was a bigger gap between Lando and Oscar well outside any double stack disadvantage they would have.

I think its also who Lando couldn't follow Max in the Papaya rules Oscar had first call on strategy and the team made it for him/them both so Oscar would have been screwed.

[mwillems]

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

Government mandated communist bodies also centralise decisions to a small number further highlighting the silliness and innacuracy of this conversation. It really has no place here.

[Badger]

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 way you use the term equal opportunity makes it seem like a rookie should walk into a team and hold as much sway as a world champion. It’s a nice thought in principle but sometimes the world doesn’t treat people equally because they aren’t equal in ability, or haven’t proven themselves to be yet. We invest more in the people that we think can give us a competitive advantage. That’s what teams to, that’s what companies do, that’s what countries do (well smart ones).

Oscar didn’t get the full smorgasbord of benefits for a good while either. He got upgrades later than Lando for a couple of years, he was asked to move aside when needed. But as his performance level steadily improved he got more and more equal treatment. It is earned, it’s not an entitlement.

[FittingMechanics]

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

They wouldn't.

I think this is the crux of many issues people have raised about the Lando/Oscar issues.

Almost all would work the exact same if the other way round.

Yeah, if you think there is a conspiracy to hurt Piastri then everything looks like one.

McLaren showed that they have subpar strategy team unwilling to take any kind of risk to the detriment of the team result. This is one constant these last two years and now we are supposed to be surprised they messed up another strategy?

Zak Brown (and Stella) are aware this is a weakness and they went and signed Will Courtenay (Head of Race Strategy at Red Bull Racing) in September 2024. https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... lJlupxTNSp

Red Bull smartly chose to block him joining McLaren as late as possible (he is still at Red Bull) and from latest reports I saw will start working at McLaren mid 2026.