Following Max Verstappen`s unexpected win for Red Bull at the Emilia Romagna Grand Prix, McLaren`s strategic decisions are again facing questioning.
Verstappen overtook pole-position holder Oscar Piastri on the opening lap to take the lead. However, securing the win required further effort, especially as the other McLaren driver, Lando Norris, quickly moved into third place by passing George Russell.
While Verstappen`s pace exceeded many expectations at Imola, McLaren`s strategic choices arguably made the Dutchman`s path to victory somewhat easier.
One questionable decision was pitting championship leader Piastri, who was less than three seconds behind Verstappen, as early as lap 13. This committed him to a two-stop strategy.
This move proved disadvantageous when other front-runners, including Verstappen and Norris, stayed out longer, finding more life in their tyres and shifting to a one-stop plan, while Piastri had to navigate traffic.
McLaren later pitted Norris before Verstappen had stopped, at the conclusion of lap 28. Unfortunately for them, a Virtual Safety Car was deployed moments later due to Esteban Ocon stopping on track.
While undoubtedly unlucky and unpredictable, staying out longer generally increases a driver`s chance of benefiting from such interruptions.
Verstappen subsequently doubled his lead, extending his advantage from around 10 to 20 seconds, and appeared to be comfortably heading for victory with large gaps separating Norris and Piastri behind.
However, another incident – Kimi Antonelli of Mercedes stopping due to a technical problem – triggered a full Safety Car period, offering McLaren another opportunity to challenge Verstappen.
With a lead exceeding a pit-stop over Norris, Verstappen pitted from the front, and Norris followed suit. However, Piastri remained on track, emerging ahead of Norris but on hard tyres that were 16 laps older than his teammate`s fresh set.
It was highly improbable that Piastri, on older tyres, could challenge Verstappen, who also had fresh rubber. Furthermore, it seemed almost certain that Norris, with new tyres, would pass his teammate during the final 10 laps.
McLaren had the option to instruct Piastri to let Norris through to attempt an attack on Verstappen in the closing laps, but they chose not to.
Villeneuve: McLaren Exhibited Weakness
In the end, Norris overtook Piastri for second place, and Verstappen secured a comfortable victory. Former F1 world champion and pundit Jacques Villeneuve criticised McLaren`s decisions.
Villeneuve stated: “They displayed weakness. Essentially, they didn`t show the strength that Red Bull consistently demonstrates year after year.”
“It`s as if they are hesitant to be aggressive in pursuing the Drivers` Championship, and they`re reluctant to go against Piastri. It`s truly peculiar.”
“Piastri made an error in the first corner. He was caught unprepared. He should never have exited the corner in second place, and then he lacked pace, which was strange. Norris had better pace.”
“On the restart, McLaren knew that it was only a few laps before Norris would pass Piastri given the tyre difference; it was evident.”
“I was 100 percent sure he would get ahead, so why make him lose three laps instead of giving him a chance at Verstappen?”
The race result saw Norris narrow the gap to Piastri at the top of the drivers` standings, reducing Piastri`s lead to 13 points, while Verstappen closed to within 22 points of the lead in third place.
Villeneuve continued: “Because Verstappen is competing for the championship. You don`t want to hand wins to Verstappen. That gives him more points in the Drivers` Championship.”
“They seem content with second and third. McLaren has a car where a successful weekend means finishing first and second. Anything less is somewhat disappointing. First and third is quite acceptable, but they appear satisfied with second and third.”
“That sign of weakness. You can also observe it in their strategy. When Norris extended his stint, why pit him?”
“You decided to go long. You stay on track. Your pace is still good. So why pit slightly early? It`s as if you`re afraid to commit.”
“They didn`t capitalise on the virtual safety car. Ultimately, with the subsequent safety car, it didn`t change the outcome. But still, it indicates that lack of `let`s go for it` attitude.”
Norris, Stella Defend McLaren Choices
While allowing Norris to pass would have undoubtedly given McLaren a better chance at victory, the reality is that Piastri would have been highly reluctant to concede position and risk a 10-point swing in the standings if Norris had finished first and he had finished third.
Norris seemed to understand the team`s rationale and praised the pit wall for their “good job.”
“I was on better tyres, but I didn`t expect anything,” Norris commented. “It was still a tough battle. It was close into turn one. That`s how it should be, of course.”
“I lost time through that, and he lost time, but that`s what we have to do when competing for a championship.”
“If you try to satisfy one person, the other will be unhappy, so that`s the situation.”
“I believe we managed it well, and the team did a good job.”
McLaren team principal Andrea Stella revealed that he had considered ordering a driver switch before deciding against it.
“It was certainly a consideration,” he stated.
“We wanted Oscar to have his opportunity at the restart. So, we adopted the principle that if Lando could pass Max, he should be able to pass Oscar relatively easily, considering Oscar was on quite old tyres.”
“In practice, if the pace difference was sufficient, things would have resolved themselves naturally. We are pleased with how events unfolded.”
“Both drivers are happy, feel it was fair, and that`s how we approach racing.”
Chadwick: Too Early for Team Orders
Three-time W Series champion and pundit Jamie Chadwick believes it is too soon in the season for McLaren to impose team orders, as it could jeopardise team harmony.
She commented: “It`s a situation of having two number one drivers. This is because there isn`t one obvious standout. I think if Red Bull had another driver with equal talent to Max, they would likely face the same dilemma.”
“It`s a positive problem to have. We`ve discussed that. It`s not negative that they have two excellent drivers vying for a world championship, but they cannot start implementing those orders so early that one of the drivers becomes upset with the other.”
“It`s tricky. I anticipate there will be a conflict at some point. I think we can foresee that already. Even looking at today, it was close.”
“I believe when that occurs, that`s when McLaren will have to handle it. Until then, I think they are playing a good team game.”
“They are leading the Constructors` Championship. Max outraced them today – which we`ve come to expect – and I think that`s how it played out.”
Gilbert Pendleton