Formula 1

It’s often said that Max Verstappen needs a strong team-mate to back him up during the races. With McLaren having two drivers capable of fighting at the front, they should be able to simply outsmart Red Bull and its leader with strategy.

But that’s just theory. In practice, it doesn’t always work, as the Japanese GP proved: despite the pace advantage, Verstappen managed to hold on to his lead throughout the 53-lap race, turning his qualifying performance into the first victory in 2025.

Should McLaren have prevailed?

McLaren had two moments to be more aggressive

“This race was lost on Saturday,” was the main conclusion McLaren drew after the Japanese Grand Prix. And yes, the benefit of free air was a major factor in Max Verstappen’s victory, as overtaking proved almost impossible at Suzuka.

But as important as qualifying was, McLaren still had 53 laps on Sunday to put things right after missing out on pole. Andrea Stella pointed out that the papaya team had the edge over Verstappen by a couple of tenths in terms of pure race pace. That means McLaren had two options for this race: play it safe and accept the double podium behind Verstappen, or at least try something – not a gamble, but something that wouldn’t have hurt the constructors’ championship tally.

Max Verstappen, Red Bull Racing

Photo by: Sam Bagnall / Motorsport Images

The latter seemed possible in two ways. First, through strategy, as Norris suggested. Stella was right to say that an undercut would have been too risky, both because of the threat of a safety car and the loss of track position. But as Antonelli has shown, an overcut could have been a weapon, especially with McLaren’s speed. The post-race data suggests that even if it hadn’t worked, Norris would probably only have lost the position to Piastri – so no harm for the team.

The second chance was to switch positions towards the end to at least give Piastri a chance to overtake Verstappen. Yes, Stella mentioned the need for a seven- or eight-tenth delta and Piastri not having that much pace, but why not even try? Just give Piastri five or ten laps to attack with clear rules, and if it doesn’t work, swap them back. Even if the end result would have been the same, the feeling remains that McLaren could have been at least a bit more aggressive.

– Ronald Vording

There was only a narrow window to do something

Was Verstappen’s victory the crowning glory of a magical weekend, or a missed opportunity for McLaren with the fastest car on the grid? The truth lies somewhere in between, but the question opens the door to a broader consideration.

Opportunities for Max tend to emerge when McLaren’s drivers fail to unlock the full potential of the MCL39 and put it all together, as was the case in qualifying. To beat this McLaren requires flawless execution, and it’s no coincidence that Andrea Stella described Max’s pole lap as “near-perfect”. That’s where Verstappen laid the foundations for his victory.

Lando Norris, McLaren, Max Verstappen, Red Bull Racing

Photo by: Steven Tee / Motorsport Images

Did McLaren have a real chance to turn the race around and beat Max? A small one, but yes. At the end of lap 20, there was a narrow window to pit and try to undercut Verstappen. The margin was small, the execution had to be perfect, and even then success wasn’t guaranteed.

But that’s the point. Waiting just one more lap, as we have seen, effectively wiped out their chances. That moment was their only real chance to beat Verstappen on a track where overtaking is almost impossible unless you have a pace advantage of seven or eight tenths per lap. It was a gamble, a slim chance that could have changed the outcome.

But was it worth the risk? Yes, if the goal was to go all in for the win. No, if the priority was to remain “fair” to both drivers at this stage of the season and ensure equal opportunities in the title fight. That’s why Piastri was called up first, to minimize the risks and at least secure a podium finish, even though there was no immediate risk.

Did McLaren miss an opportunity? Could they have done anything differently? Probably yes. But that’s not the main point. What defined their strategy was their approach – and that made all the difference.

– Gianluca d’Alessandro

Only in hindsight

After the Japanese Grand Prix, Red Bull’s Christian Horner suggested the undercut was “reasonably powerful” at Suzuka, and that Lando Norris might have benefitted from pitting a lap earlier than Max Verstappen. Horner’s ‘hot take’ is that McLaren’s problem is its policy of giving equal treatment to both drivers: pitting third-placed Piastri first – the lap before Verstappen, Norris and Charles Leclerc stopped – prevented the undercut attempt.

Lando Norris, McLaren, Andrea Stella, McLaren

Photo by: Clive Rose / Getty Images

There’s more than a little gamesmanship here: Horner is enjoying trolling his rivals. In hindsight, McLaren could have split its strategy, pitting one driver relatively early to attempt an undercut on Verstappen, leaving the other to ‘go long’ and attempt an overcut.

But that assumes Red Bull would have followed – and, given that it didn’t bite when McLaren tried to bluff that it was bringing Norris in early, that is by no means a given. The early-stopping McLaren would likely have been snarled up in traffic, in effect burning their race.

Now that would definitely have caused a problem with diplomatic relations – and harmed McLaren’s constructors’ points haul. There was very little upside to balance against the greater risk.

Indeed, the data from Motorsport.com’s partner PACETEQ indicates the undercut wasn’t actually that potent. An overcut might have worked, but the definitive case for that was provided by Mercedes: George Russell and Andrea Kimi Antonelli pitted 12 laps apart and Antonelli was the faster of the two over the final stint. Extrapolations from Friday’s long runs indicate Norris could have run another 12 laps on his first set of tyres without the risk of being undercut by Leclerc or Russell.

But of course, a crystal ball isn’t standard equipment on the pitwall. When McLaren made its decision to pit Norris, that Mercedes test case lay in the future.

And of course, even if McLaren had taken a risk on an overcut, Norris would still have had to overtake Verstappen on track – difficult at Suzuka, even with a tyre offset. And even more challenging given Max’s penchant for physicality.

So what’s the point? With 21 grands prix and five sprints remaining, McLaren can afford to play the long game and ride races like this out.

– Stuart Codling

The luxury of gambling wasn’t available to McLaren

To be honest, I don’t even understand this debate. McLaren lost the Japanese Grand Prix in qualifying on Saturday. Partly because of a small mistake by Lando Norris in the chicane, but mainly because of the fact that Max Verstappen remains the outstanding driver on today’s Formula 1 grid.

Lando Norris, McLaren, Max Verstappen, Red Bull Racing

Photo by: Clive Mason/Getty Images

I don’t think Oscar Piastri was really faster than Norris, even though his radio messages may have suggested otherwise. And sure, they could have swapped positions for a while, just to see if he could really do it. But Piastri was never going to pass Verstappen, and in the end they would have switched back, with Norris finishing second anyway.

The debate about undercut or overcut strategies is also pointless. If McLaren had pitted Norris earlier for an undercut, it might have left Piastri exposed to attacks from Leclerc and Russell. This approach simply doesn’t fit with the team’s philosophy of prioritising the best possible result for the team before considering the drivers’ championship.

And just because Antonelli didn’t lose any positions with his overcut doesn’t mean it was the faster strategy. It wasn’t – it was the slower one. Mercedes could afford to gamble on it, hoping for rain or a safety car, because Antonelli had enough of a gap behind him to not lose track position. The McLaren duo simply didn’t have that luxury.

– Christian Nimmervoll

Being able to select five of the top six finishers of the Japanese Grand Prix was always going to yield a bucketload of points in Fantasy F1, and it proved to be enough to see Igor Dobron move to the head of the Motorsport: Race our Writers featured league.

Dobron’s ‘norrisica’ squad has amassed an impressive 845 points from the opening three rounds and, utilising the Limitless chip – allowing a player to spend as much as they want on their team rather than being constrained by the $100million cost cap – made all the difference.

Max Verstappen, Lando Norris and Oscar Piastri finished in the podium places at Suzuka and all three were in Dobron’s team – although using the DRS boost on Norris meant some points were left on the table.

Lando Norris, McLaren, Oscar Piastri, McLaren, Max Verstappen, Red Bull Racing

Photo by: Steven Tee / Motorsport Images

Team-mates George Russell and Andrea Kimi Antonelli were also selected, as well as the Mercedes squad itself, while McLaren also weighed in with 71 points.

Nour El Ghandour is just four points off the top spot, having the same team other than Charles Leclerc replacing Antonelli.

The highest score of the round was split between Danny Rowbotham, Samuel Weetch and Marti Costa, who all brought in a huge 293 points, all using their Limitless chip and having Verstappen as their DRS Boost.

In terms of the Motorsport.com writers themselves, F1 reporter Fil Cleeren was the big mover of the weekend, jumping up to second among his peers with a total for the round of 167 points.

However, Erwin Jaeggi remains the pick of the writers with ‘The Jaeggimeisters’ totalling 565 points, a lead of 22 points over Cleeren.

Japan was the first race of a triple-header and Bahrain is next up, check back on Motorsport.com from Wednesday where we will preview the next round of Race our Writers.

We will bring you ‘expert’ analysis from what two of our writers are doing with their respective teams and predict what alterations could improve your chances of progressing up the leaderboard.

Still yet to join our league? What are you waiting for? It is not too late! Join HERE.

Sunday’s Japanese Grand Prix will not be billed as one of Formula 1’s all-time classics as low tyre degradation largely left the field in its qualifying order by the chequered flag. The lack of passing opportunities during the race was also of significant note.

It has never been particularly easy to pass at Suzuka; in modern times, the nature of Turn 1 makes DRS generally ineffective, and the few straightline sections transitioning into hard stops means it is very difficult to slipstream a driver in front.

The other factor at play is the increasing dirty-air problem. F1’s current generation of cars was designed to make passing opportunities easier, as the reduced reliance on ‘overbody’ aerodynamics was supposed to a) ensure that cars lost less downforce when in turbulence, and b) produce less turbulence through the prescriptive approach to the aerodynamic design.

In previous generations, turbulent air produced by the ever-increasing desire to create outwashing air with the front wing, and from the increasing quantity of vortex-generating aero devices, made it difficult for cars to follow. F1 cars are generally designed to work in ‘clean’, laminar air; furthermore, turbulence is incredibly hard to model given its randomness. 

At the time of the new regulations’ introduction, it was estimated in F1’s research that a 2021-spec car could lose up to 47% downforce when around 10 metres behind, and around 35% at 20m. With the now outgoing rules, it stated that its models showed an 18% downforce reduction at the 10m mark, and 4% at 20m.

Reduced downforce while following also causes the chasing car to slide more, putting more energy through the tyres and resulting in higher degradation. It was hoped that the new rules could minimise this effect and allow cars to race closer.

Lando Norris, McLaren, Oscar Piastri, McLaren, Max Verstappen, Red Bull Racing

Photo by: Andy Hone / Motorsport Images

But Suzuka exposed how this has regressed, as it was apparent that closing to within a second of the car in front was incredibly difficult. Again, the low tyre wear contributed to this factor as drivers were generally able to push for the whole race, but that cars with clearly different performance characteristics remained separated by over a second showed that it was difficult to catch up.

As the current ruleset has matured, F1 teams have found loopholes to expand on the performance of their cars at the penalty of following F1’s intentions. Note the front wings, for example; although strictly governed to ensure the wing elements transition directly into the endplate, teams have found methods of exposing edges and tips to push more airflow away from the front tyres to glean further performance.

The edges of the floors have become much more complex, and the rear wings also now come with exposed wing tips on the upper element; the regulations intended to merge the top flap into the rear wing endplates but, again, teams have sidestepped this to increase the power of the wings. 

Each of these innovations over the past couple of seasons have generally contributed to greater levels of turbulent wake, making it incrementally more difficult to follow other cars.

“Ultimately we keep adding aerodynamic downforce, which means that the losses are even bigger,” McLaren team principal Andrea Stella explained. 

“So I think the dirty air is a problem – we have seen this even in China; if you see [Lewis] Hamilton when he was in the lead of the sprint, he could do pretty much whatever he wanted, even if the tyre was damaged.

Andrea Stella, McLaren

Photo by: Andy Hone / Motorsport Images

“Possibly this is one of the reasons why the 2026 regulations may introduce some reset from this point of view, because I think even if this generation of cars was conceived to actually improve following – that was what we were talking about in 2022 – there’s been so much aerodynamic development now.

“Again, [the cars] have become so much of an aerodynamic machine that as soon as you follow, you lose the performance.”

That’s not the fault of the teams, as their target is to build the fastest car – not satisfy an overtaking metric intended by the rules. But it’s not going to get any better through the year as development continues.

The inclusion of active aerodynamics may potentially help the situation next year, as could the implementation of the power unit override to give the drivers more power at their fingertips.

But, even with the close field that currently defines 2025, certain circuits are going to make passing very difficult – so expect to be hearing more about dirty air until the end of the season.

Sunday’s Japanese Grand Prix will not be billed as one of Formula 1’s all-time classics as low tyre degradation largely left the field in its qualifying order by the chequered flag. The lack of passing opportunities during the race was also of significant note.

It has never been particularly easy to pass at Suzuka; in modern times, the nature of Turn 1 makes DRS generally ineffective, and the few straightline sections transitioning into hard stops means it is very difficult to slipstream a driver in front.

The other factor at play is the increasing dirty air problem. F1’s current generation of cars was designed to make passing opportunities easier, as the reduced reliance on ‘overbody’ aerodynamics was supposed to, a) ensure that cars lost less downforce when in turbulence, and, b) produce less turbulence through the prescriptive approach to the aerodynamic design.

In previous generations, turbulent air produced by the ever-increasing desire to create outwashing air with the front wing, and from the increasing quantity of vortex-generating aero devices, made it difficult for cars to follow. F1 cars are generally designed to work in ‘clean’, laminar air; furthermore, turbulence is incredibly hard to model given its randomness. 

At the time of the new regulations’ introduction, it was estimated in F1’s research that a 2021-spec car could lose up to 47% downforce when around 10 metres behind, and around 35% at 20m. With the now out-going rules, it stated that its models showed an 18% downforce reduction at the 10m mark, and 4% at 20m.

Reduced downforce while following also causes the chasing car to slide more, putting more energy through the tyres and resulting in higher degradation. It was hoped that the new rules could minimise this effect and allow cars to race closer.

Lando Norris, McLaren, Oscar Piastri, McLaren

Photo by: Zak Mauger / Motorsport Images

But Suzuka exposed how this has regressed, as it was apparent that closing to within a second of the car in front was incredibly difficult. Again, the low tyre wear contributed to this factor as drivers were generally able to push for the whole race, but that cars with clearly different performance characteristics remained separated by over a second showed that it was difficult to catch up.

As the current ruleset has matured, F1 teams have found loopholes to expand on the performance of their cars at the penalty of following F1’s intentions. Note the front wings, for example; although strictly governed to ensure the wing elements transition directly into the endplate, teams have found methods of exposing edges and tips to push more airflow away from the front tyres to glean further performance.

The edges of the floors have become much more complex, and the rear wings also now come with exposed wing tips on the upper element; the regulations intended to merge the top flap into the rear wing endplates but, again, teams have sidestepped this to increase the power of the wings. 

Each of these innovations over the past couple of seasons have generally contributed to greater levels of turbulent wake, making it incrementally more difficult to follow other cars.

“Ultimately we keep adding aerodynamic downforce, which means that the losses are even bigger,” McLaren team principal Andrea Stella explained. 

“So I think the dirty air is a problem – we have seen this even in China; if you see [Lewis] Hamilton when he was in the lead of the sprint, he could do pretty much whatever he wanted, even if the tyre was damaged.

Andrea Stella, McLaren

Photo by: Andy Hone / Motorsport Images

“Possibly this is one of the reasons why the 2026 regulations may introduce some reset from this point of view, because I think even if this generation of cars was conceived to actually improve following, that was what we were talking about in 2022, there’s been so much aerodynamic development now.

“Again, [the cars] have become so much of an aerodynamic machine that as soon as you follow, you lose the performance.”

That’s not the fault of the teams, as their target is to build the fastest car – not satisfy an overtaking metric intended by the rules. But it’s not going to get any better through the year as development continues.

The inclusion of active aerodynamics may potentially help the situation next year, as could the implementation of the power unit override to give the drivers more power at their fingertips.

But, even with the close field that currently defines 2025, certain circuits are going to make passing very difficult – so expect to be hearing more about dirty air until the end of the season.