Why is everyone so angry at McLaren after Monza?

By the time the Azerbaijan Grand Prix has been and gone, commenters in Formula 1 will have found something else to poke fun at, or become incensed by, as the Monza affair fades into obscurity.

McLaren's enforced swap between Lando Norris and Oscar Piastri became the subject of memes, ire, and light mockery as the team restored the order between its drivers to what it was before its pitstops, as Norris lost time with a slow stop. It felt reasonably obvious that McLaren would do that and, despite Piastri's protestations that slow stops counted as racing, he duly acquiesced to the command.

Quite a few people lost their minds about it, even if - as team principal Andrea Stella maintained - the team felt it was fair.

Much of the uproariousness over the swap seemed to hinge on the idea that, actually, it was inherently unfair; it was disadvantaging Piastri for reasons outside of his control. But one might argue that, if the team wants to provide an absolutely fair and equal environment, it should do so to cancel out disadvantaging Norris as well. But is the literal interpretation of fair...actually fair?

It depends on your point of view, and McLaren's seemed to be that a mistake from its pitcrew was less fair on one driver than the other.

The 2024 Hungarian Grand Prix had played out somewhat similarly in that Piastri took the lead from Norris, Norris reclaimed it from an unexpected undercut, having pitted to cover off Lewis Hamilton, and was reluctant to give it up. Eventually, he let Piastri pass for his maiden F1 win.

Lando Norris, McLaren, Oscar Piastri, McLaren

Photo by: Andy Hone/ LAT Images via Getty Images

This could even be viewed as slightly more of a tenuous situation but, in that race, McLaren defined its principles. Monza was a continuation thereof, just in the other direction; Piastri's stop was timed to ensure Charles Leclerc was covered off completely, Norris came in after and the pitcrew snatched at his front-left wheel, and ended up emerging behind.

McLaren, of course, didn't intend that and wanted to revert positions. Afterwards the situation was the same as it was prior to the stops - but now with an intermission where Piastri had briefly run in second. This brought about a debate over object permanence, re-bottling genies, and re-canning worms - it was almost existentialist in nature.

Situations like that also precipitate debate over what's "right" in the world of motorsport. Did the situation of two wrongs make things right? Or was it a case of McLaren fighting against nature or chance to reverse the order?

There is something philosophical here: like opening Pandora's Box, perhaps, or finding that Schrodinger's cat was dead and had started to pong a bit. Does one open the box on team orders, contest moments construed to be unfair, and potentially leave the door open to consequence? Or do you let them play out naturally, and hope karmic justice is meted out by the cosmos?

To be honest, either is good. When you think about it in terms of the greatest philosophical theories, it all seems a bit insignificant.

Toto Wolff suggested that McLaren had set a 'dangerous precedent' with the team orders call, but actually, it had already done so in Hungary last year.

Weirdly, this year's Hungary race very much seemed like a free-for-all - perhaps the team really didn't think that Norris' strategy would work, although strategic variations have not been entirely uncommon at the team. The pack-shuffling only seems to extend to situations where the team intended to do something, and it didn't happen that way.

Oscar Piastri, McLaren

Photo by: Mark Thompson / Getty Images

It juxtaposes with F1's reputation for being a cut-throat environment - where people are stabbed in the back nine times before they've even had their morning coffee, and where scrupulousness very much pales in comparison to winning and success.

When McLaren comes in and decides it wants to build a culture of 'fairness and transparency', people view it with suspicion. It's not what people have in mind when they think of the dynamics of an F1 team; surely the ultra-competitive nature of the championship is not miscible with that sort of philosophy?

As such, many see that as McLaren trying to control the title race. Naturally, there will be certain fans on either side who claim that the team favours one driver over the other, and others who think McLaren is trying to engineer a final title showdown.

Given how both drivers are valued within the team, this is surely not the case. But further to that, Piastri is 31 points ahead, and surely the safe bet to win the title. As much as the memes decree it, McLaren isn't going to force Piastri to retire from a race to make up for Zandvoort...

But as we've already said, we'll have forgotten about it this time next week. We'll be angry about something else instead, because we're fickle humans.