F1 | McLaren: Papaya rules are not clear even in the team

McLaren leaves Monza eight points behind Red Bull in the Constructors’ standings, eight points like those that Lando Norris earned on Max Verstappen in the drivers’ standings. Put like that, it might seem like a positive stage haul, but the faces of the two drivers at the end of the race were anything but smiling. While waiting for Charles Leclerc to arrive, the two sat on the sofa set up for the press conference without exchanging a word. McLaren is there, but there is also always a reason not to capitalize on what is actually within its reach.

Qualifying at Monza was flawless, with the two drivers on the front row creating the perfect scenario to take the reins of the race. There was fear of the first corner, a practice that was perfectly filed away, then at Roggia came the first ‘trouble’, with a great overtaking move by Piastri that took Norris by surprise, costing Lando also second place in favor of Leclerc. This was a crucial moment in Norris’ race, because it prevented the team (if they had wanted to) from being able to give the position back.

After the race, team principal Andrea Stella commented on this passage. “There is a lot of talk about driver number 1 and number 2, it works well as a title, but I am not sure it works as well in the real world. What does it mean? At the fourth corner (Roggia) Lando simply braked too early and Oscar had the chance to take the lead, so what should we have done? Change the positions? It is very difficult to implement this definition in the real world”.

Monza has made the world aware that McLaren has instituted a ‘papaya’ regulation, meaning Piastri and Norris are free to race as long as they do not put the team’s spoils at risk. The impression is that McLaren does not consider the drivers’ championship a possible objective, and confirmation did not come only from the ‘papaya’ mode. In the final lap of the race Piastri could have given up second place to Norris, who would have benefited from three more points in the drivers’ standings, but there were no signals from the pit wall.

After the race Lando cut short: “Oscar? He helps me, but I’m not here to beg someone to let me pass, that’s not why I’m on the track. I’m here to race, Oscar had a better race than me, I finished third and that’s where I deserved to finish”.

Lando had his chance after the first pit stop, when he found himself just over a second behind his teammate and with the freedom to attack him. From lap 25 to lap 32 it was Piastri who pulled away, with Norris losing ground and pushing the tyres too hard.

Oscar Piastri, McLaren MCL38, at one of the two pit stops

Photo by: Sam Bloxham / Motorsport Images

The two-stop strategy that McLaren opted for with both drivers is a different story. “In hindsight, especially with Oscar, if we had set the pace for a single stop without worrying too much about graining, the win would have been possible. But it’s a complex issue, our car is very good on the rear tyres, but when we deal with graining at the front we tend to have problems. This made us a bit nervous, especially after Lando had locked up the front left a couple of laps earlier, a symptom that the tyres were starting to struggle. But in the end I think Leclerc’s controlled degradation made it very difficult to beat him with a two-stop, of course, it’s still a question mark whether we could have won the race or not”.

McLaren was conditioned by its own (excellent) performance seen in the first half of the race. Perhaps an excess of confidence combined with the fears that strike those who feel they have a lot to lose, and the team has a lot to lose at the moment. They went for the least risky route, leaving the gamble to a Ferrari that seized it on the fly. Things have changed, not long ago the team, and Norris himself, were looking for the gamble to try to seize an opportunity, today they know that the ordinary is of absolute value, and risk has gone from being a potential resource to a variable to be avoided.