Lando Norris is racing under a cloud of ‘repercussions’ following his Singapore Grand Prix bump with McLaren teammate Oscar Piastri.
It’s a topic that has dominated headlines over the United States Grand Prix, with the team remaining tight-lipped on exactly his punishment may be.
A marginal error with marginal consequences
Nothing in Formula 1 stays secret for long, and it quickly emerged that Norris’ punishment is likely related to car priority in qualifying for the remainder of the season.
McLaren has gone to great lengths this year in its efforts to afford both its drivers a fair shot at the Drivers’ Championship.
Speaking with PlanetF1.com in May, Zak Brown first revealed that he’d rather lose the drivers’ title than deny Norris or Piastri a shot at it by introducing team orders.
While a laudable stance, it has created a headache for Brown and team principal Andrea Stella as they work to balance the team’s priorities alongside the overarching ethos of fairness in a sport that is inherently unfair.
The key for Brown and Stella is fairness. But that doesn’t necessarily mean equality. For example, if only one development part is available, it might go to Norris, with Piastri compensated through other means such as pit priority. The key is that whatever one driver receives, the other is proportionally boosted.
Of course, that leads quickly into grey areas; how does one discern the value of a new front wing versus a sporting advantage such as being the second car in qualifying?
It’s those elements that discussions on ‘papaya rules’ centre more so than what happens on track – that side of it is really comparatively simple. In the heat of battle, there really is only one rule: don’t hit the other orange car.
In Singapore, Norris broke that rule. His charge at the start of the race saw him dive into the Turn 3 apex, tag the back of Max Verstappen’s Red Bull and give Piastri a hip and shoulder as he claimed third place. Had that been between rival teams, it’s a case of good, hard racing.
But because it happened between teammates, it broke the underlying rule of ‘no contact’. It wasn’t an egregious or deliberate act, as Brown has pointed out: it was marginal. However, it still happened and therefore had to be addressed.
Those conversations have since taken place and, while the team isn’t saying as much, it’s believed Piastri will be treated as the primary car through qualifying for the remainder of the season.
It’s a small advantage, one you might even describe as marginal. Importantly too is it doesn’t penalise the team – one of its cars has to be the primary in a qualifying scenario, after all.
By being the preferred car, Piastri presumably has the choice if he wants to be the first or second McLaren on the road. That can potentially afford him a slipstream (think about Las Vegas’ long blast down the Strip) or the opportunity to head out early and be one car further up the queue (covering off instances like Yuki Tsunoda experienced on Friday where he missed the cut to start his final laps due to traffic).
More on McLaren’s title efforts
👉 New leading theory emerges on Lando Norris ‘repercussions’ at McLaren
👉 Martin Brundle drops huge hint on when Lando Norris faces McLaren ‘repercussions’
Fairness does not necessarily mean equality, and it certainly doesn’t mean like for like, as far as McLaren goes.
By offering qualifying priority to Piastri as recompense to Norris’ Singapore shove is a subtle way of dealing with the situation without going overboard. Norris’ chances are not unduly damaged by the decision and he remains free to race while given a mild slap on the wrist of sorts.
Is it ideal? Of course not. No team wants to penalise one of its drivers, no matter how seemingly insignificant, and certainly not when they’re chasing a world championship, but that is the route McLaren has chosen.
McLaren will face criticism for its efforts to remain impartial, but given the team’s stated aim, what’s the alternative?
Allowing its drivers to race freely without consequence incentivises behaviour contrary to the team’s broader goals. And while the Constructors’ Championship is wrapped up for another year, both Norris and Piastri have to share a garage next year. Allowing the seeds of animosity to be planted now would only lead to far bigger problems down the line.
The whole saga is unusual, even unprecedented; hence it is both foreign and confusing at times as we look in from the outside. The key is that McLaren’s efforts at fairness do not overstep in the eyes of its drivers. The perception externally is irrelevant.
Read next: McLaren delivers blunt ‘Max is Max’ warning as Verstappen threatens 1-2 title quest