From: nuh-uh@nope.com   
      
   On 2025-12-02 10:43, Martin Harran wrote:   
   > On Mon, 1 Dec 2025 19:18:33 -0800, Alan  wrote:   
   >   
   > [...]   
   >   
   >> If McLaren hadn't screwed up on strategy...   
   >   
   > I struggle to understand how they did that. If you're in the lead and   
   > your main threat does something different, surely the reaction should   
   > be to cover it.   
      
   But it doesn't work that way.   
      
   Because they were in the lead, McLaren had to make their choice about   
   what to do behind the safety care BEFORE they could see what Verstappen   
   was going to do.   
      
   And because everyone else behind Verstappen then pitted, he got to keep   
   really good track position.   
      
   If the McLarens had then pitted on the subsequent lap, they would have   
   come out somewhere around 5 seconds ahead of where the only other car   
   not to pit at the first opportunity did.   
      
   That would be Ocon, whose stop was 5 seconds longer than normal for a   
   penalty.   
      
   Even accounting for that difference, pitting on the second lap behind   
   the safety would have put both McLarens pretty close to dead last   
   (except for Ocon of course).   
      
   No: once they decided not to pit on the first opportunity, pitting   
   behind the safety car was no longer an option; not at a track where   
   passing is as difficult as it was during this event.   
      
   The mistake was not having it in the game plan that if you got a safety   
   car after 7 laps were completed...   
      
   (i.e. When stopping with a 25 lap imposed maximum stint length would no   
   longer force you into a mandatory third stop)   
      
   ...you would always pit.   
      
   All that could have and should have been decided before the race even began.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)