McLaren's 'Multi-21' moment — echoes of when Vettel went rogue

Mark Webber wasn’t at the Hungaroring last Sunday to watch the driver he manages, Oscar Piastri, take his first grand prix victory. He was in London supporting his other charge, Mitch Evans, in the Formula E title showdown.

But it’s easy to imagine Webber would have had feelings of déjà-vu when for a time it looked like Lando Norris wasn’t going to hand the lead back to Piastri – as agreed – after McLaren had undercut him ahead to protect his second place from the threat of Lewis Hamilton.

There were certain parallels to the infamous ‘Multi 21’ situation Webber found himself in at Malaysia 2013 when his Red Bull team mate Sebastian Vettel drove against team orders to overtake after they’d been instructed to hold position to the end.

Both situations involved the pressure of a team running 1-2, the drivers racing to a pace which kept them just out of reach of the chasing pack – led on both occasions by Hamilton – but without overworking very delicate rubber. And with the team driver who is/was more usually ahead being behind and not liking it.

Just as with Piastri last weekend, Webber had got in front on merit, even if it wasn’t on raw pace. But then neither of these races were going to be decided by raw pace. They cannot be when the tyres demand you drive a couple of seconds off the pace. Webber had got ahead of Vettel by timing his move from the initial intermediates onto slicks better. Vettel’s lap seven stop from the lead was slightly too early and he lost a lot of time. Webber’s lap nine call from the lead Seb’s stop had given him was perfect – and it leapfrogged him past Vettel after rejoining. Piastri got ahead of Norris by a better getaway off the front row and a committed move to claim the inside of Turn 1.

But there were differences. The respective timings of the pitstops were made by the drivers judging the conditions at Malaysia whereas in Hungary it was about a pre-defined strategy in a totally dry race.

“Just remember every Sunday morning briefing,” Norris was reminded by his engineer Will Joseph, as Norris wrestled with his conscience about giving the place back. That’s when the rules of engagement are made plain for the race ahead. We don’t know, but it would be quite routine for a team which has qualified 1-2 to tell its drivers that whichever of them comes out of Turn 1 ahead gets strategic priority.

Priority does not necessarily mean the leader will always be pitted first, however; even when the heavy tyre degradation ensures that the undercut is powerful. It’s priority that is within the task of ensuring a 1-2. Not a level of priority to the lead driver which risks the second place of the guy behind. All of which is fine if the lead driver has a big enough gap over his team-mate that he’ll remain in front even after stopping a lap later. Which was the case here at the first stops. Piastri was ahead by 3.5sec as Norris was pulled in first, with one lap’s-worth of undercut here worth around 1sec.

So as they all got underway again after the stops, Piastri led Norris by 2.5sec, with Hamilton a further 2.5sec back – and Verstappen running longer, surrendering ground now to try to get a tyre advantage later on. Everything was running to plan at McLaren but Hamilton and Verstappen remained threats up to the second stops and beyond. McLaren seemed to have them under control for now but the tyres still needed to be managed. Things could still go wrong.

Back to 2013. After the stops for slicks Webber led Vettel routinely enough, but there were still three more stops to go. Including the stop for slicks, this was a four-stop race. That’s just how fast everyone’s tyres were degrading around Sepang. The next two stops went smoothly, with Webber remaining ahead, Vettel a couple of seconds behind. But as the final stops loomed, Webber’s pace began to drop off and Vettel was catching him. Which was a problem because if Vettel slowed down too, he faced a serious undercut threat from Hamilton.

This was Webber’s final season with the team. He’d already decided he was quitting F1 at the end of the year, though hadn’t yet informed them. The niggle with Vettel stretched back a long way but had infamously blown up at Istanbul 2010 when they’d collided as Vettel tried to pass. Back then, Vettel had felt that Webber had earlier deliberately tried to back him towards Hamilton. Now, he believed it was happening again. He still hadn’t forgotten either how Webber had eased him towards the pitwall in Brazil a few months earlier as Vettel was trying to seal the world championship. Which had played a part in him facing backwards with a damaged car a couple of corners later. So there was an edge to this niggle, one which was partly about Vettel’s favoured status within the organisation, in Helmut Marko’s quest to help create the youngest ever world champion despite Webber’s sometimes inconvenient speed.

You’ll have probably heard the radio discussion which ensued as Norris tried to find reasons why he should stay in front, having set a hard pace and pulled away from Piastri after the stops. He was clearly conflicted.

As was Vettel after taking the lead from Webber against team orders. In the immediate aftermath he said, “I think I did a big mistake today. We should have stayed in the positions we were. I see Mark is upset and I want to apologise to him. The difference in pace at the end wasn’t fair because he was trying to save the car and the tyres. I took a lot of risk to pass him. I f***ed up.”

A week later and he’d changed his position again and had reportedly got his lawyers involved, saying the team had issued ‘an unreasonable instruction’ and that he had no reason to apologise to Webber.

Norris and Piastri are on much better terms than were Vettel and Webber, but these things can test even the most benign partnerships.