How McLaren’s drivers answered the difficult questions after controversial F1 Italian GP swap

Language is like a river: it creates its own path. ‘Dilemma’ is one of those words, like ‘decimate’, which is losing its original meaning through misuse – which is a shame in this instance, since a dilemma is exactly what McLaren faced when ‘finger trouble’ reversed the position of its drivers late in the Italian Grand Prix at Monza.

That’s ‘dilemma’ as in the dictionary definition, “a choice between two equally disagreeable alternatives”.

Let us put it out there right now that fandom and the opinion thereof, whether at the toxic end of the spectrum or not, didn’t play a part in the decision-making on the McLaren pitwall. We and the denizens of sundry forums and comment sections can prattle about the optics as much as we want, but ultimately the decision came down to managing the mentality of two highly motivated racing drivers competing for the Formula 1 world championship.

Beneath the slightly absurd veneer of the ‘papaya rules’ – an unnecessarily cuddly attempt to frame the rules of engagement – lies the steel core of a commitment to fairness. But fairness is a question of degree when we consider the only optics that matter: how the drivers see it.

Leaving the positions untouched would have been unfavourable to Norris, ‘reverting’ them was unfavourable to Piastri, at least as far as the championship was concerned.

So with that in mind it was fascinating – at times toe-curling – to watch the post-race press conference unfold. Naturally the questions focused on the swap, to the point where the victorious driver appeared to take a nap at one point.

Naturally compere Tom Clarkson worked his way in softly, like David Frost in his prime, obeying the niceties of engaging with Max Verstappen about his win, and with the McLaren drivers about the opening laps, before ‘going there’ and allowing Max to assume an increasingly horizontal repose. Did Lando ever doubt that Oscar would let him back through again?

“No,” said Lando, “because it’s what we decided as a team and it’s what we all agreed upon.”

An easy out. Thence to Oscar – how much did he question the request to let Lando through?

We present Piastri’s response unexpurgated because the amount of verbal punctuation is unusual for him:

“It’s something that we’ll discuss, you know, we have discussed it before but, you know, I think today it was a fair request, you know, Lando qualified ahead, was ahead the whole race… and, you know, lost that spot through no fault of his own,” the championship leader said.

“So, you know, I said what I had to say on the radio and once I got the second request then, you know, I’m not going to go against the team so, you know, I think there’s a lot of people to protect and a culture to protect outside of just Lando and I. And ultimately that’s a very important thing going forward.”

For an individual whose middle name ought to be ‘Unflappable’, this quantity of word salad is unusual and can be taken as indicative of the effort he was deploying to follow the corporate line.

Naturally when the questions were put ‘to the floor’, there was a concerted effort to drill down into the decision-making process and the drivers’ response to the team order. It was fascinating to watch them attempt to maintain a united front.

Asked if it came as a shock, Piastri responded: “No, not really. We have had discussions about all kinds of scenarios and when you’re in the same team, when there are things outside a driver’s control, there’s a lot more ways you can rectify things.

Lando Norris, McLaren, Oscar Piastri, McLaren, Max Verstappen, Red Bull Racing

Photo by: Marco Bertorello / AFP via Getty Images

“So it is a discussion we’ve had. I’m sure we’ll review it and discuss more, but it wasn’t a situation that hadn’t been discussed before.”

You wonder if the ‘papaya rules’ actually take the form of a manual the size of an old-fashioned telephone directory, adumbrating every possible scenario via a flowchart. Or not – because Piastri, on the radio, had cavilled, saying, “We said a slow pitstop was part of racing, so I don’t know what has changed.”

Perhaps the manual is not so compendious as all that and Piastri was not expecting to be told to move over.

“I think the radio call kind of says enough,” he responded, opaquely. “I’m sure we’ll discuss it again.”

There followed a somewhat pointless diversion into hypothetical scenarios in which a similar pit snafu not only caused one of the McLaren drivers to lose position, but also for the two cars to be separated on track. An easy out again, since as Piastri pointed out, “if there had been more cars in between, then no, we wouldn’t have swapped back because at that point it does just become very unfortunate”.

“If there were four cars in between me and Oscar,” said Norris, “of course he’s not going to let me back past, and I don’t think it’s correct that he let me back past.

“But in a situation where we weren’t racing, in a situation where we can just be fair, then you’d expect to be fair, as a team. They don’t want to be the reason to upset one driver or another through no fault of their own, you know.

Lando Norris, McLaren, Oscar Piastri, McLaren

Photo by: Andy Hone/ LAT Images via Getty Images

“Today was not my fault. If I came flat-out into my box and I hit all my mechanics out the way, I also don’t expect to get the position back, but today was out of my control.

“In the end, I don’t want to win this way through getting given positions or anything like that. And the same thing with Oscar – we don’t want to lose or win like that. But we do what we think is correct as a team, no matter what you say or what your opinions are, and we stick to doing it our way.”

But this response rather glosses over all the horse trading that was going on before the critical pitstops. McLaren’s decision to extend the first stint of both drivers to fit softs at the end was failing at that point: Verstappen was clearly going to be so far ahead of them after their stops that they would likely run out of laps to catch him, even if they had a pace advantage; and Charles Leclerc was getting into a window where he might threaten Piastri if Oscar had a slow stop.

Accordingly, Piastri got the nod to go first, where normally the leading driver would take precedence. The condition was “no undercut” – but the reversal of position wasn’t the result of an undercut, but of ‘finger trouble’, which clearly occupies a different appendix in the papaya rules behemoth and requires some cross-referencing.

So the questioning turned to further hypotheticals: what if the championship were to boil down to fine enough margins for today’s result to have an effect?

“I wouldn’t regret it, no,” said Piastri. “I think today it was a fair decision. Lando was ahead the whole race and again it wasn’t through any fault of his own.

“For me, that’s fine. Ultimately, whoever wins the championship wants to have won it as much as they can through their own performances and things they can control. Today, that wasn’t one of those things.”

Lando Norris, McLaren, Oscar Piastri, McLaren

Photo by: Steven Tee / LAT Images via Getty Images

Piastri frankly sounded unconvinced, but his response to a follow-up question cuts to the heart of the long-term McLaren project: that maintaining harmony at this point, when the team has what is likely to be a fleeting advantage on the cusp of a massive rule change which could shake up the order, is vital for the future as well as the present.

“We’ve said many times that we don’t want the chance of success just for this year,” he said.

“There’s a big regulation change next year – we don’t know how competitive we’re going to be, and we don’t know how competitive anyone’s going to be. Ultimately, we want the best chance at winning championships for as long as we’re Formula 1 drivers, and we’re both at McLaren for a very long time.

“Protecting the people around us that give us this opportunity is a very important thing. It’s easy enough to put yourself second at times like that.

“If we were fighting very closely for the whole race, then it’s slightly different, but Lando was ahead by a few seconds the whole race, so there’s no concern for me with that. Again, we don’t just want this year to fight for a championship; we want it for as long as possible.

“Protecting the people, that includes the people doing the pitstops. It’s not a very nice feeling, I would imagine. It’s important to protect all the people that we have because that’s what gives us a championship hope for years to come.”

Little wonder that Norris, with a palpable air of relief that he had seen the proverbial light at the end of this particular tunnel, found the exit:

“That was beautiful,” he reckoned. “He [Piastri] said it well. I don’t need to add any more.”

For now, perhaps…