Photo credit: www.autosport.com
The difference between Oscar Piastri’s initial and subsequent Q3 runs was marked at 0.392 seconds, clearly highlighting the advantages gained from new tires. Had Lando Norris matched this improvement, the time gap would have narrowed to less than 0.2 seconds, suggesting that subtle adjustments in throttle and steering could have influenced their positions significantly.
However, the analysis presents a contrasting picture, as Norris fell short of replicating his teammate’s performance. His first lap revealed early instances of hesitation and errors, particularly noticeable as he approached Turn 1. The disparity only widened from that point onward.
Norris attributes the final gap of 0.426 seconds to his own performance, stating, “The car’s amazing, as good as it’s been all season, but I’ve been less than optimal all weekend. I don’t understand why; I just need a major reset.” His admission reflects his struggles throughout the qualifying session.
Turn 1-2: Norris’ Lock-Up Leads to Time Loss
As he approached the first corner, Norris initially recorded a 0.075-second advantage, indicating a solid launch from the final corner. However, he misjudged his braking point and overshot into the corner—which the F1 broadcast estimated cost him approximately 0.14 seconds compared to Piastri. A detailed analysis reveals the time loss may have actually been closer to 0.18 seconds, accounting for more than a third of the total gap to his teammate.
Piastri’s more controlled approach allowed him to exit Turn 2 with better speed. Unlike Norris, he avoided overdriving into the corner, enabling an efficient transition onto the straight.
Comparison: Piastri and Norris at Turn 1
Photo by: Autosport
This improved pace from Piastri transferred into Turn 4, where the time difference grew to around 0.22 seconds. Norris stabilized his performance by maintaining slightly higher speed into Turn 4, thus keeping the gap from expanding further, at least temporarily.
Turn 8-9-10: Piastri’s Calmness vs. Norris’ Pressure
Attempting to regain lost time, Norris pushed harder into Turn 8 briefly closing the gap, but his aggressive strategy required him to lift off the throttle sooner due to a loss of traction, which cost him additional time. Piastri, maintaining composure, could accelerate earlier out of the corner.
In the Turn 9-10 complex, Norris sought to brake later but faced challenges with throttle application. The turn’s demanding nature adds complexity, as the front-left tire can easily lock up. Piastri’s smoother entry enabled him to regain speed early, widening the gap between him and Norris, now approximately 0.36-0.37 seconds.
Turn 13: Further Complications for Norris
By the time Norris exited Turn 11, it seemed he had resigned himself to a disappointing lap, as indicated by the delta on his display. Although he braked earlier for Turn 13—a slight change that momentarily helped him carry more speed through Turn 12—the benefits were minimal, yielding perhaps 0.01 seconds in a lap where time was crucial. His aggressive braking in Turn 13, however, counteracted these small gains.
Norris’ performance raised concerns regarding his braking technique; too often, he appeared to miscalculate his approach, leading to difficulties when transitioning to throttle application. By the time he entered Turn 13, he trailed Piastri by 0.37 seconds. While Norris managed to generate better straight-line speed, Piastri capitalized on a stronger upper speed through more efficient gear shifts.
Reflecting on the qualifying session, it appears Norris may have been trapped in a cycle of self-doubt regarding his compatibility with the McLaren MCL39. This self-imposed pressure could hinder his adaptability to the car’s dynamics. Previously, in Australia, his ability to acknowledge the car’s limitations provided him an edge, but now, in pursuit of lap-time improvements, he may have over-complicated his driving and inadvertently exacerbated the time gap.
Source
www.autosport.com