Mark Hughes: When first's the worst. Why F1 drivers lose to slower team-mates

F1

When you're falling behind, there's less risk in trying something different. Which is why F1 drivers can ace grands prix and still get beaten by a slower team-mate — as Oscar Piastri and Lewis Hamilton know too well

Lewis Hamilton and Lando Norris sit straight-faced after being beaten by their F1 team-mates

Lewis Hamilton and Oscar Piastri could feel hard done-by after doing everything right and finishing behind their winning team-mates

Getty Images

As McLaren endeavours to allow each of its drivers an equal and fair shot at the sport’s biggest prize, so it’s coming up against the phenomenon of random events punishing the strategy of the guy who has the fight won. Some days the bear will eat you, some days you’ll eat the bear. It’s not really in your control which way around, just external circumstances.

Oscar Piastri can feel hard done-by over the last three races, in each of which he has been leading team-mate Lando Norris in the race’s early stages and looking very much in control, only to then have external circumstances offer Norris a lifeline. On two of those three occasions (Silverstone and Hungary) Norris was able to grab that line and use it to defeat his rival. But the greater merit was with the other guy. They were days when the bear ate Piastri. On the other occasion – at Spa – Piastri was able to slacken Norris’s lifeline and stay ahead.

There’s a skill in pouncing upon the opportunities provided, though. Those are the days when Norris got to eat the bear. But at Budapest he needed to roll off a great sequence of laps once he was in clear air while keeping his tyres in good enough shape to fend off an attacking Piastri on tyres that were 14 laps newer near the end. It’s a tricky tightrope to walk and you could sense from the radio conversation that his race engineer Will Joseph was a little concerned he might have been pushing a little too hard in that crucial mid-phase of the race once the two-stoppers had pitted out of his way to reveal the lovely clear air. But he’d got it spot on. Good enough to overturn Piastri’s greater intrinsic pace on the day.

George Russell – a distant third behind the McLarens – joined Oscar and Lando in the green room and upon seeing on screen how close Piastri had come to taking both McLarens out with a dive-bomb into T1 two laps from the end, jokingly commented to Piastri: “Why didn’t you T-bone him? That would’ve been great.”

Russell would have been very aware of how his friend Norris was feeling about a race which had come to him unexpectedly while trailing his team-mate for outright pace. For it had happened to Russell exactly like this at Spa last year. It was one of those occasions (rare in ’24) when Lewis Hamilton had a decisive edge in pace over Russell. It was one of those days, just like Hungary last Sunday, when everyone was certain that two-stopping was the fastest way. But when a ‘why not let’s try it, there’s nothing to lose’ decision to switch to a one-stop proved a winning call.

On that day a year ago, as the two-stopping Hamilton, Charles Leclerc and Piastri had pitted and left Russell – with no undercut pressure from behind as he was last of the fast cars – in an out-of-sequence lead, he got a feeling. “It was weird,” he reported. “Suddenly the tyres and the car felt so good. I got into this groove. Once I was in the lead, no backmarkers or other cars in front, it kind of felt like you were driving in the simulator. I was watching the gap to Lewis and the rate he was catching me and I just thought, ‘there’s no reason why we can’t stay out and try to make it work.’”

George Russell leads Lewis Hamilton in the 2024 F1 Belgian Grand Prix

One-stopping Russell leads Hamilton at Spa, '24

Mercedes

Oscar Piastri locks a wheel as he tries to overtake Lando Norris in the 2025 F1 Hungarian Grand Prix

Piastri's lunge almost collects Norris in Hungary this year

McLaren

Ironically, Piastri had felt it too at Spa last year when he’d been leading Russell before his second stop. But he had a lot to lose in surrendering a two-stop which was believed to be faster and which looked set to have him fighting Hamilton for the win. In that position, at that time, it would have been a crazy gamble to switch to the one-stop. But from Russell’s perspective, the live numbers were saying he’d finish fifth with either strategy. So why not try the different one? That’s the strategic freedom being behind can give you – and sometimes that is exactly what can win you the race. It’s just how it can develop on something as organic and ever-changing as a tyre’s interaction with an evolving track surface. Sometimes, ‘yeah, why not?’ is the winning strategy.

Of course, as we all know, the bear still ate Russell on that day because he was disqualified for being 1.5kg underweight, as a result of the extra tyre wear of old one-stop tyres no-one had planned around.

From the archive

Before that happened Hamilton was just as hacked off at Spa as Piastri was on Sunday, having been the quicker team driver and done everything right but still been beaten. So they will both have had very pointed questions to ask of their teams in the post-race debrief. But for the McLaren guys, it carries much more weight with a world title at stake.

That’s just one of the challenges the McLaren pitwall faces as it plays chess against itself. Each driver’s engineer is in a fight against the other, but within very tightly defined terms. The lead car’s engineer gets to play the first move strategically, but the second car’s engineer can then react to that move in any way they see fit. There is no requirement for them to be on the same strategy and separated only by a lap, as McLaren has opened the fight up now that it’s clear they are not in competition with any non-McLaren drivers. That possibility of diverging from a safe standard strategy puts in place potential conflict, depending upon how the bear of luck plays the game.