The risk of zooming directly in the pseuds, Andrea Stella could be described as the response of the formula to Saint Francis of Assisi.
“Where there is an error, can I bring the truth, where there is a doubt, can I bring faith”, as the prayer of mystics says.
And there is no doubt that a major element of the reconstruction of McLaren in the past two years lies in the soothing influence of the Italian as director of the team (that is to say Stella, not Saint Francis).
It is a voice of reason. His words are measured. He carefully balances his judgments. He was scrupulously just last season to rule on Lando Norris and the internal competition of Oscar Piastri. “Papaya rules”, the road code of the team governing the way in which their two men rush against each other, was its creation.
His technical sense is another key ingredient. I remember that proving the most very well to me in a long trip by plane over a year ago.
We stood in the partition as he explained with such lucidity the requirements of the current generation of cars with ground effects that you could almost hear each bolt to twist.
A major element of the reconstruction of McLaren in the past two years lies in the soothing influence of Andrea Stella as team director
Under his direction, authorized by CEO Zak Brown, McLaren built the car which earned them their first title of builder of the century
It better understood the subtleties that maybe anyone else. This is why, under his direction, authorized by the CEO Zak Brown, McLaren built the car which earned them their first title as a builder of the century. There remains the exceptional machinery on the grid, despite the fact that Max Verstappen Intrusion on this assertion with Victoire in Japan last Sunday.
Which brings us to friction. Should Verstappen had to win this procession, ahead of Norris and Piastri? Well, Verstappen played a peak that no one else on the grid could have evolved by taking a sensational pole, then dominating the breed.
Fernando Alonso recognized the exceptionalism of Dutch by asserting this point. But, of course, Verstappen’s unique capacity has long been obvious to everyone.
But was Stella as ambitious as it would have been last weekend trying to thwart the demolition ball of a single man?
Why, for example, McLaren contented himself with the second and third instead of trying to deploy the strategy to their advantage? A counter-deport? Maybe better an extra? The first and third places were well within their reach, in particular since their car granted them two tenths the tour on Red Bull de Verstappen.
Even if the ploy had collapsed, they would probably not have lost anything in the manufacturers’ table. It was barely a bet.
A second chance arose closer to the end of the race. Wouldn’t McLaren have left Piastri, in third place, having a crack in Verstappen when it was clear that Norris, second, did not rise to his own challenge?
Admittedly, it is questionable that Piastri would have succeeded much better, because he was barely blowing the warmest of the neck of Norris. But, still, it was surely worth it, even if they later reversed the order if the pursuit of the Australian had failed.
Max Verstappen played a peak that no one else on the grid could have put on the scale
There were last campaign nuances when McLaren was slow to support Norris
The shyness, the instruction of stay in where you are an echo, was an echo from last season, when McLaren was surprisingly slow to support Norris for the title. He feels a team that is not yet as practiced in the ruthless arts of the cunning in race as they could be, as if they were caught by finding themselves at the head of the field earlier than they imagined.
Red Bull, on the other hand, would have thrown everything during the victory and in hell with any intra-loss sensitivity. They are the masters of the strategy, of pragmatism with a clear head under fire.
Think of their super-confusion of the first worldwide Verstappen title with an intelligent tire change in Abu Dhabi’s decision maker in 2021 (no matter what the race director did with the sacred safety car).
McLaren has never had a pure and simple driver n ° 1. It is not in their DNA.
There is no need to change this, and certainly not so early in the season. But a little more dexterity in mid-combat is not bad.
Carlos Sainz risks well
Carlos Sainz will see if the FIA media delegate refers to the question to the commissioners. This seems likely because the FIA is eager to eliminate bad language during press conferences
Carlos Sainz risked another fine after postponing her late arrival on Suzuka’s grid last weekend saying: “S *** takes place.”
It was the excuse of Spanish to miss the start of the Japanese national anthem because it was delayed in the toilet. He was sentenced to a fine of £ 17,000, half of which was suspended.
Sainz, 30, is now waiting to see if the FIA media delegate refers to the question for the commissioners. This seems likely because the FIA is eager to eliminate bad language during press conferences. Charles Leclerc was sentenced to a fine of £ 8,420 last year for having said that his Ferrari was “F **** d”. Speaking before the race for this weekend in Bahrain, Sainz said: “I am the biggest supporter of punctuality and to be, in a way, a gentleman, in particular for a national anthem with all the authorities there.
“I was the first to say:” I’m late, I’m sorry for that “. Then he added laughing: “I don’t know if I’m going to have another to say that, but S *** occurs. It’s like that.
