After a difficult start that saw him drop to fifth place, the hopes of British driver Lando Norris winning the race appeared to be all but lost. Yet, the decision to adopt a strategy that McLaren had originally ruled out as unviable ultimately became the winning choice. Let’s explore why and how this unfolded.
“The management of the race is my strong suit. During the first stint, we decided to go long on tyres to create an opportunity. This turned out to be one of my best races,” Norris said. While not one of the flashiest victories of his Formula 1 career so far, Norris described the Hungarian Grand Prix as one of his finest performances because he was able to make a strategy work that initially seemed impossible.
In fact, it was a tactic that even McLaren’s own engineers had initially doubted—not because it couldn’t work, but because technical calculations indicated that a two-stop strategy would deliver such a decisive advantage that there would be no doubt for the pit wall. This was the case for Charles Leclerc, who pushed hard from the start, and also for Oscar Piastri.
As explained by McLaren race director Andrea Stella, the original plan was to implement the same two-stop strategy for Norris, who started third on the grid but immediately fell to fifth after the opening lap. However, the Hungarian Grand Prix developed differently, proving more open and unpredictable than expected. Paradoxically, the positions Norris lost at the start made the bold tactical gamble even more sensible.
With cooler temperatures on Sunday, the gap between a single-stop and two-stop strategy—which Friday’s data had estimated to be around ten seconds—shrunk considerably, making the one-stop strategy a serious option. Several midfield teams adopted this approach, albeit at a slower pace. What surprised observers was how effective it was even after Norris had completed a first stint at a relatively high pace.
Certainly, the excellent tyre management of the McLaren MCL39 played an important role, but what impressed the most was that this strategy worked despite not being planned from the start. It became the only option to try to overturn the race, attempt to beat his teammate Oscar Piastri, and, most importantly, secure the win. In fact, the idea came from McLaren itself.
When McLaren switched to the one-stop strategy
Initially, the intention was to focus on the two-stop plan, creating a tyre gap over George Russell to simplify overtaking. However, when Norris began extending his first stint, McLaren realized that a single pit stop could become the winning move. There was little to lose, as Norris could always revert to the previous two-stop plan if needed, given his pace to catch up to Russell.
“When we kept Lando out, we didn’t think the one-stop strategy was possible. But credit must go to Lando: he managed to string together some very, very strong sectors and laps on quite worn tyres. So, in a way, we became convinced that the one-stop strategy was coming back into play as the first stint progressed. We expected the two-stop strategy to dominate,” Stella explained.
What gave Norris a genuine chance to win was the consistent pace he maintained during the extended stint. The British driver kept a steady and competitive rhythm with no significant drop-off, except in the final laps of the stint when Leclerc started to close the gap. Thanks to this constant pace, Norris was able to limit the time lost compared to Leclerc and Piastri, who had already pitted, keeping the deficit around one second per lap.
The roles reversed when Norris made his pit stop to fit the tyres intended to carry him to the checkered flag. He began to claw back roughly six tenths of a second per lap on Leclerc. It’s important to remember that Leclerc had pitted early to avoid a possible undercut by Piastri, so he hadn’t yet reached the phase of significant tyre degradation that he would have faced by following the “optimal” two-stop strategy.
Unable to cover Norris’s pit stop as well, Ferrari reacted by calling Piastri in early. The Australian was given two options: either pit early for a chance to undercut Leclerc, even if it meant deviating from the ideal plan, or extend the stint to create a tyre gap over his teammate and secure better chances of overtaking in the closing laps.
Why the second stint was crucial
Piastri chose to mark his teammate, but also because there was a genuine risk Norris could win. Pitting too early to pass Leclerc would have forced Piastri to recover several seconds with a smaller tyre advantage and no guarantee of victory, while also needing to overtake Norris on track.
By following the “ideal” strategy instead, Piastri aimed to keep the door open for victory but, at worst, to maintain a tyre gap large enough to try to beat Norris in the championship standings. It was a complex tactical decision, which Andrea Stella tried to clarify.
“If we had called Oscar in earlier, he would have come out behind Lando. But we wanted to give him a sufficient tyre advantage over Leclerc, while also giving him a real chance against Lando, as this meant an optimal two-stop strategy.”
“Even considering Leclerc, we didn’t want to deviate too much from the ideal two-stop plan because it would have been unfair to Oscar in his battle with Lando. We also checked with Oscar about his preference, and naturally, he wanted the chance to win the race. We believed that with a sufficient tyre gap, Oscar could have a chance,” added Stella, though it’s impossible to ignore Charles Leclerc’s influence on the McLaren duel.
Looking at the time references between Piastri’s two stops, an interesting fact emerges: although he could have pushed harder, overall he failed to gain a significant margin on Norris, achieving only just under three “virtual” seconds. This is even more crucial considering that Norris completed part of this phase at the same pace as earlier in the race, when the fuel load was much higher, placing greater stress on his tyres.
During this middle and tactically decisive phase of the race, Norris excelled at maintaining a steady, and paradoxically competitive, pace to contain the gap without collapsing. The same was true in the latter part of the race, where he kept enough speed to preserve his tyres with the aim of repelling Piastri’s late attacks and defending his victory.
Without a doubt, several factors played in Norris’s favor in a race that seemed lost after the opening corners. But Norris himself also contributed greatly, making effective the very strategy that McLaren had initially discarded.
Leave a Reply