F1’s 2025 paradox: Closer racing, fewer battles
- Kavi Khandelwal
- 14 minutes ago
- 4 min read
Written by Kavi Khandelwal, Edited by Dhara Dave
Formula One delivered on their long-held promise in 2025: grid convergence.
Saturday qualifying sessions became nail-biting affairs with teams separated by mere hundredths of a second. The championship fight, with three drivers from two different teams locked in an intense battle, and each hundredth could be life-changing for them.
On paper, this is the F1 dream: close competitions and unpredictable outcomes. However, in practice, a curious paradox emerges. The thrilling proximity on Saturdays fall into a predictable strategy pattern on Sunday races. It lacks the divergence and excitement of such close performance that should theoretically be fostered.
This convergence has been meticulously engineered, paradoxically stifling the strategic variance. While the performance gaps were minimal, the fear of losing track position became paramount.
It amplifies the power of the undercut, which forces the leading teams into conservative, mirrored strategies. Sundays become strategically sterile, which is a stark contrast to the qualifying battles that preceded them.
Undercut dominance
Undercut, or pitting earlier than a rival for fresh tyres to gain time on the ‘in’ and ‘out’ laps, is a powerful weapon in the 2025 season.
This power has become almost absolute in 2025’s converged field, especially among the leading pack. The cars are separated by less than a second per lap, successfully executing an undercut which almost guarantees the track position.
It transforms the strategy into a proactive pursuit of advantage into a reactive, defensive necessity. The leader is forced to shadow their rival's pit stop to prevent an 'undercut'.
Consider the 2025 Japanese Grand Prix, where, despite McLaren's pace being on par with Max Verstappen's Red Bull, they were strategically trapped. In P2, Lando Norris couldn't initiate an undercut because the data showed that he would emerge from the pits in traffic, negating the tyre advantage. The team were then forced to pit Oscar Piastri first, preventing any split strategy for their leading cars.
Verstappen pitted the following lap, easily covering Norris. The threat of the undercut, magnified by tiny performance margins and the importance of track position at Suzuka, dictated the entire pit sequence. This took away the opportunity for any real strategic gambles.
Strategic stagnation
With the undercut dictating the timings, the incentive to attempt a significantly different or ‘offset’ strategy is diminished. In a hyper-converged field, the potential reward of a strategic gamble is outweighed by the immense risk of losing position.
Teams attempt a longer first stint, hoping for a tyre advantage later. However, the smallest miscalculation of the tyres' degradation or getting caught by traffic or even an ill-timed safety car can lead to severe consequences.
The driver won’t just lose a few seconds, but risks dropping behind multiple cars with near-identical pace where recovery is impossible without any significant tyre deltas.
The Circuit de Barcelona-Catalunya for the Spanish Grand Prix is quite a demanding track that requires careful tyre management and strategic variation. Despite four teams being in the mix for the win, the race saw the leaders converge on similar two-stop strategies.
Verstappen attempted a three-stop, which seemed to be more reactive than a planned optimal strategy. However, he wouldn’t have challenged the dominant McLarens without a late safety car intervention.
The primary battle was executing the same baseline strategy slightly better by nailing pit stop timing for micro-undercuts instead of attempting fundamentally different approaches.
The risk of trying a one-stop or incorporating the hard tyres was too high compared to sticking with the known optimum.
Tyre consistency
Pirelli’s 2025 tyre compounds have been durable and consistent all season long. While the tyres aren’t the sole cause of the strategic stalemate, they are a crucial enabler.
The durability of the tyres makes an optimal one-stop strategy overwhelmingly viable at many circuits. While the two-stop is quicker, the low degradation minimises the time difference between the two approaches.
It reduces the reward for taking the risk of an extra pit stop and reinforces the power of track position gained via undercut or qualifying position. The wide operating window and predictable wear patterns give less reason to deviate from the safest, most obvious plan.
Risk vs. reward
At the 2025 Austrian Grand Prix, Piastri was running second behind teammate Norris. The Australian driver attempted to create an offset by staying out longer after Norris made the first pit stop, but the low degradation at Red Bull Ring proved minimal tyre advantage, a gain for Piastri.
After Norris’ second stop, Piastri was forced to pit next lap to cover him, emerging just behind. The attempt at strategic difference was effectively neutralised by close performance and tyre stability. The safest play is to mirror the leader.
The defensive “do not lose” mindset is amplified by the intensity of the title fight between the McLaren teammates. Risk a divergent strategy for a win, or play it safe for points: the classic dilemma.
Failed fixes
Pirelli attempted to force variety in Mexico City by skipping a tyre compound. They went for a much harder C2 alongside the C4 and C5. This led to more tyre compound usage as the soft C5 held on surprisingly well, making the leader engage in largely reactive strategies based on covering rivals.
The Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA) mandated a two-stop strategy for the Monaco Grand Prix in the 2025 rules, which was an explicit admission that organic strategic interest was lacking on that historic street circuit. However, this change did not work as it brought back the cycle of undercutting and mirroring the leader.
These interventions, while well-intentioned, feel like treating symptoms rather than the underlying cause.
