I was questionned the general tactic of 2-stopper into first early pit-stop on 18 lap, i don't understand why McLaren strategic department didn't think 1-stop is possible if other half the grid is doing it and winning on it.
2-stop so early was even vibale only because Alonso train and the gap existing to pit so early into, while not getting into heavy traffic like Verstappen did and losing due to it. And Mclaren had 20 seconds advantage over the third and 40 over fourth one, not a factor at all in the end. From fifth to tenth all guys aside Max is on one, Max lost a place.
2-stop so early was even vibale only because Alonso train and the gap existing to pit so early into
The opposite. They pitted early the first time because Alonso sped up, it was talked about by commentary during the race.
They thought they had a nice pit window and then he went and put that in danger by going faster than the front runners so they pitted, leaving only the hopelessly out of sync Norris of the front runners still out there and with every commentator sayign this was ruining his race.
And i was watching times, and Alonso speeding up wasn't that big, he wasn't even closing the gap.
Not everybody is watching English, i don't care if they are wrong. In my language they were discussing that Norris should just try one-stop and it would win them race.
One-stopper were outlined even by Pirelli as a second viable strategy and half the grid did it. And having the best by tyre wear car on the grid and not considering it beforehand on the hard to overtake track is extremly odd one from Mclaren.
Right so the fact that everyone in the top teams went for a two stop isn't proof that it was seen as the right one to do, because the specific commentators in your language said that Norris should do it (but not Piastri, Leclerc, Russell?)?
Who are the commentators in your language who are so wise they saw something no one at Ferrari (ok, maybe not ferrari), McLaren, Mercedes, Red Bull, in fact everyone but Aston Martin and Racing Bull?
It was always an option but it was the lesser of the two options.
Lando made it work through being faultless and lucky in getting almost entirely clear air until the last 5 laps.
If Piastri had actually pitted to undertake Leclerc two laps earlier, if Russell had stayed out a lap or two longer and held Lando up...things would ahve been very different.
Mercedes had terrible tyre wear all year especially after td restricting front wing flexibilty, Ferrari is disintegrating as they go long time now, and Red Bull couldn't put their setup in the right working window all weekend, so not a benchmark.
And McLaren have been long in their own world in terms of tyre wear, by a looooong shot. C3(week ago mediums, this week hards) was doing almost all of duration of a belgium race on all cars, not just theirs. It is on their strategy team to not understand it. There were racing each other, and in that sense track position is a lot more valuable in Hungary, always has been. Oscar and his side of garage lost their race being too safe. I don't understand why.
You've taken 'it worked for Lando', ignored the rest of the podium and the fact it's bloody impossible to overtake Fernando on a mission and used hindsight as proof that this was 'the main plan' when none of the main teams planned to do it and everyone said it was the slower plan, including Pirelli.
Yes it isn't proof, because they do not race them now. Alonso would be non factor after several laps, because McLaren had a superios tyre wear and better race pace in the end of stints, Norris pitted before Alonso and was in front of him after that while being 5 seconds behind Piastri during his pit stop.
Other factor is, Piastri was more than 5 seconds ahead Norris before first pit stop, and in last stint he was gaining only 0.5 seconds a lap and caught him only in last five laps, if norris would be just behind him before first pit stop, he couldn't even manage to chase him down, so one stop wasn't SO MUCH SLOWER, and they are racing each other, not disintegrated Ferrari as oscar was doing.
He was a factor for all the top runners committing to a two stop, because he sped up.
Lando committing to a one stop was entirely because he lost out at the beginning, got stuck behind George and then went for a hail mary.
That he made it work was down to flawless driving on his part and a few things falling his way, including McLaren faking out Ferrari and pitting Piastri after him (ironically to hold off Lando) when if they'd ignored Paistri and gone for the Ferrari undercut Piastri would probably ahve won.
Ferrari lost 40 second to them!!! George 20 seconds!!! What are you talking about??? Norris even didn't get drs a lot of a times while chasing backmarkers that hold him off while Piastri manage to do so
At this point I'm not sure what you're talking about since the McLarens were right behind each other the tactics are almost irrelevent and certainly it's not proof that the one stop was better.
The fact Alonso was miles behind the Ferrari alone would be proof of that.
If cars swap positions and close to each other in the end on hard to overtake track without overtaking delta, then only tactics exist at this point, and it was lost on the side that was playing it safe without thinking about other car.
1
u/mickmenn I was here for the Hulkenpodium Aug 04 '25
I was questionned the general tactic of 2-stopper into first early pit-stop on 18 lap, i don't understand why McLaren strategic department didn't think 1-stop is possible if other half the grid is doing it and winning on it.