From Newsgroup: rec.autos.sport.f1
On 2025-12-02 10:43, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2025 19:18:33 -0800, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
[...]
If McLaren hadn't screwed up on strategy...
I struggle to understand how they did that. If you're in the lead and
your main threat does something different, surely the reaction should
be to cover it.
But it doesn't work that way.
Because they were in the lead, McLaren had to make their choice about
what to do behind the safety care BEFORE they could see what Verstappen
was going to do.
And because everyone else behind Verstappen then pitted, he got to keep
really good track position.
If the McLarens had then pitted on the subsequent lap, they would have
come out somewhere around 5 seconds ahead of where the only other car
not to pit at the first opportunity did.
That would be Ocon, whose stop was 5 seconds longer than normal for a
penalty.
Even accounting for that difference, pitting on the second lap behind
the safety would have put both McLarens pretty close to dead last
(except for Ocon of course).
No: once they decided not to pit on the first opportunity, pitting
behind the safety car was no longer an option; not at a track where
passing is as difficult as it was during this event.
The mistake was not having it in the game plan that if you got a safety
car after 7 laps were completed...
(i.e. When stopping with a 25 lap imposed maximum stint length would no
longer force you into a mandatory third stop)
...you would always pit.
All that could have and should have been decided before the race even began. --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2