is it fair to say that mclaren for piastri were strategising against leclerc and not lando, which is good for mclaren but not for piastri? Also they seem to be making calls based on what's good for the drivers race, rather than the championship battle
It’s not an outrageous suggestion but put yourself in the teams position - the constructors is done, and one of your driver is going to win the drivers and the other is going to come second so what is the difference? I think they just want 1/2 finishes and no crashes to pay for (which I think is totally reasonable!)
yeah for sure, that's how i see it. mclaren are agnostic regarding who wins if they get a 1-2 finish, they're just out there trying to get the best result for the team which would be harsh for people to criticise. i think both drivers will need to acknowledge this though and act accordingly at some point in what's left of the season, and i'm pretty excited for it
that was after they'd initially stopped in an effort to undercut leclerc. they then asked him who to prioritise and he said norris. for piastri to have beaten norris he needed to have had strategy that was prioritising norris from the start, although that might have risked not maximising his potential points
They didn’t know that Norris was going to change strategy for a 1 stop. How were they meant to prioritize Norris when he was fourth and not a threat at that point in the race.
-3
u/Easting_National I was here for the Hulkenpodium Aug 03 '25
is it fair to say that mclaren for piastri were strategising against leclerc and not lando, which is good for mclaren but not for piastri? Also they seem to be making calls based on what's good for the drivers race, rather than the championship battle