McLaren\u2019s policy of supporting both its drivers\u2019 championship bids means either of them could be disadvantaged on occasions, team principal Andrea Stella acknowledged.<\/p>\n
The team\u2019s tactics in the Japanese Grand Prix were criticised by some after McLaren failed to get either Lando Norris<\/a> or Oscar Piastri in front of Max Verstappen, despite having a performance advantage over Red Bull.<\/p>\n During the race Piastri occasionally closed in on Norris and suggested the team order them to swap positions. No instruction came; Norris insisted Piastri only gained on him when he purposefully dropped back from Verstappen to allow his tyres to recover.<\/p>\n Stella said the team may have to back one driver at a later stage in the season if a clear favourite emerges, as it did with Norris last year. They have also accepted it is inevitable that their policy of supporting both drivers equally could cause some dissatisfaction between them on occasions.<\/p>\n \u201cThere are advantages to having two extremely competitive drivers. I think the advantage in the long-term is dominant \u2013 that\u2019s what you want, in my view.<\/p>\n \u201cBut there could be episodically some situations which may leave one of the two drivers a little upset because the team needed to make a decision, or because of how the race unfolded. So we are very, very aware of this.<\/p>\n \u201cInternally, we don\u2019t talk about \u2018if this happens\u2019, we talk about \u2018when this happens,\u2019 because we are aware it\u2019s a very difficult business. We are aware as a team \u2013 and Lando and Oscar are aware as well.\u201d<\/p>\n Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free<\/a><\/p>\n The team\u2019s post-race analysis of their tactics at Suzuka reinforced Stella\u2019s view that they had no means to attack Verstappen strategically which did not involve an unacceptable amount of risk to their overall result.<\/p>\n \u201cWe took a good look at where the opportunities could be to win the race,\u201d he said. \u201cI think the opportunities, if anything, were identified in the early phase of the race where we could have potentially been more aggressive in attempting to \u2018undercut\u2019 Max.<\/p>\n \u201cThis would not have been executed without a significant amount of risk \u2013 going in traffic at a circuit where you have low degradation and difficulties to overtake. It could have gone pretty wrong in case of a Safety Car, and in an attempt to win, you may lose a few positions.<\/p>\n \u201cSo it\u2019s the normal kind of trade-off that you have when you manage race strategy. But we need to be wary that Suzuka in 2025 wasn\u2019t the usual Suzuka. I think many people who make comments struggled to realise that it\u2019s a different context.\u201d<\/p>\n McLaren would not approach the same race differently at a later stage in the championship when fewer points are available, according to Stella. \u201cIf we use Suzuka as an example, I don\u2019t think we would have approached that race very differently if it was located in a different time of the season,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n \u201cUnless it\u2019s the last race of the season and the championships are decided, then you may go for a very aggressive one and say, \u2018okay, let\u2019s try to win. It can go very wrong.\u2019 Obviously, at the start of the season, you don\u2019t approach things like this.<\/p>\n \u201cBut in general, I would like to stress that the downsides of an aggressive strategy in that case could have been quite considerable. There\u2019s a bit of influence if you want, being at the start of the season and letting some races unfold, learn a bit more \u2013 but not substantial.\u201d<\/p>\n