The double McLaren disqualification shook Formula 1 just two races from the season’s end. Lando Norris had seemingly secured the championship fight, finishing second in Las Vegas, minimizing the damage on a track that did not suit the team, extending the gap over Oscar Piastri, and keeping Max Verstappen at a safe distance in the standings. It almost felt done. However, the sudden skid issue affecting both Woking cars reopened the battle. Even though the current 24-point lead over Verstappen is still significant, the pressure on Norris and McLaren skyrocketed with two races and a sprint still to come.
Where the McLaren error came from
The natural first question is: where did the McLaren mistake originate? The American weekend unfolded unusually. Andrea Stella’s team used Friday’s first session for a long run in poor track conditions to assess tyre graining—a kind of “stress test” to induce and understand the phenomenon before the race. This approach worked in that specific sense but was based on an unrepresentative track and a setup that still required optimization. A proper analysis of the car’s behaviour and skid wear should have been done in the second practice session, but a red flag caused by a manhole cover deprived all teams of a full race simulation. The third session was run on a mostly damp track while verifying setups for qualifying under expected rain. Much time was dedicated to single-lap pace, leaving full-race simulation with high fuel load aside. These are not excuses: Woking’s engineers chose this program because they felt confident about skid consumption, drawing on 21 races of historical data with this car. Yet something went wrong, including noticeable porpoising on both Lando Norris and Oscar Piastri’s cars.
Why porpoising is an important clue
Porpoising on the McLaren is not new: it was highly noticeable in previous races like Miami. In Florida, the reason was clear: a mechanical compromise setup with a soft rear for tight, twisty sections forced Woking’s engineers to raise the rear and soften the suspension to maintain straight-line efficiency while keeping decent mechanical grip in slow corners. The drawback was porpoising, but the MCL39’s aero package performed impressively, generating strong downforce even at higher ride heights. In Nevada, McLaren’s approach was similar, with minor struggles in the fast first sector, excellent traction, and a car compressing down the straights for aerodynamic efficiency and top speed—never a weakness for Lando Norris or Oscar Piastri over the weekend. The issue was not just ride height but rear suspension stiffness.
Lift and Coast reveals the problem
Data from Lando Norris’ late-race lap 48, when he performed extreme Lift and Coast on team request, compared to his fastest lap 41, shows significant differences. Lando Norris lifted the throttle unusually in several sections, including the long fast sequence from Turn 9 to Turn 12, and twice in the Strip during full acceleration at high speed. This indicates the main problem was an overly soft mechanical rear setup. In fast corners, the car rolled excessively, the skid touched the track and wore down, and traction compressed the rear suspension. Lando Norris lifting on the straights demonstrates he was likely trying to avoid “squat” movements. The pattern repeats exiting the chicane and the final high-speed corner before the line, confirming the diagnosis: the error was not ride height but a mechanically too-soft rear.
McLaren and Norris knew they were at risk
One final point: the team radio discussed fuel precautions, but this Lift and Coast behaviour had nothing to do with fuel. Listening to team radio after the race, there was no celebration of a crucial second-place finish. Instead, the engineers requested adjustments, and communication was tense. It seemed like a driver-engineer duo fully aware they were at high risk of failure.
Two races left, 24 points still in hand, but the margin for error just vanished completely under the Vegas lights.
Leave a Reply