Oscar Piastri May Feel 'Favouritism' Towards Lando Norris at McLaren

Jolyon Palmer, a former F1 driver, suggests that Oscar Piastri might feel a "level of favouritism towards" his teammate Lando Norris, given Piastri's repeated disadvantage in McLaren's on-track decisions. This sentiment follows the Singapore Grand Prix, where Norris finished ahead of Piastri after an aggressive first-lap maneuver, and McLaren took no action despite team rules against inter-team collisions.

Why it matters:

McLaren's internal dynamics and perceived fairness are under scrutiny as the team navigates a competitive season with two highly-rated drivers. Any perception of bias could destabilize team harmony, impact driver morale, and potentially affect future championship campaigns, especially if the internal competition escalates into a genuine title fight.

The details:

• Singapore Incident: At the Singapore Grand Prix, Lando Norris made an aggressive move on the opening lap, colliding with Piastri's car while battling Max Verstappen. Piastri expressed dissatisfaction, expecting McLaren to intervene given their 'papaya rules' against teammate collisions, but no action was taken.
• Historical Disadvantages: Jolyon Palmer highlights several instances where Piastri has seemingly lost out in team decisions:
  • Silverstone: Piastri received a penalty, and despite his belief it was harsh, McLaren maintained the order, allowing Norris to win.
  • Hungary: Piastri, as the lead driver, was arguably disadvantaged by team strategy, which contributed to Norris winning the race.
  • Monza: Piastri was asked to concede a position during the race.
• Driver's Perspective: Palmer argues that from Piastri's viewpoint, these accumulating incidents could lead to a natural feeling of paranoia and questions of favoritism, particularly in a title fight scenario.
• McLaren's Stance: Rob Smedley, formerly of Ferrari and Williams, believes McLaren's attempts to manage fairness internally have created more problems. He suggests that trying to intervene in on-track incidents or strategic 'butterfly effects' only creates angst and sets precedents that can be exploited by drivers.
• Smedley's Recommendation: Smedley advocates for a 'get on with it' approach once the lights go out, allowing drivers to race hard and dealing with the natural order at the finish. He argues that interfering in isolated incidents creates more issues than it solves.

Between the lines:

McLaren's 'papaya rules' were designed to foster fair competition, but ironically, the team's non-intervention in incidents like Singapore could be interpreted as tacit approval of one driver's aggression over another, or simply a failure to enforce their own guidelines. This dilemma highlights the thin line F1 teams walk between promoting healthy competition and ensuring equitable treatment, especially when both drivers are potential winners.

What's next:

As the season progresses, all eyes will be on McLaren to see how they manage the intense rivalry between Piastri and Norris. Any future incidents or strategic decisions will be closely scrutinized for signs of bias or consistent patterns. The team's handling of this internal dynamic will be crucial for maintaining both drivers' performance and preserving team cohesion as they aim for championship success.