Red Bull's Max Verstappen dominated the Singapore Grand Prix weekend, winning the main race and the sprint.

His maximum total of 33 points from the event moved him up to fourth in the drivers' standings.

Ferrari's Charles Leclerc finished the race in second and championship leader Kimi Antonelli completed the podium.

After the last-lap incident in the sprint race in Singapore, are 'papaya rules' finally failing at McLaren, and with them the premise of running two number one drivers? - Alexandros

Norris went for a gap at Turn Five on the final lap. It was a legitimate move, in terms of the racing guidelines, but he tried to back out of it as he saw he was not being left sufficient space, and the two cars collided.

Both spun, Piastri into the barriers and retirement and Norris down from fifth place to eighth. What would have been nine points for the team from the sprint therefore became one.

There are two ways of looking at the move.

On a pure competitive level, between two rivals, Norris had the right to go for the move, and he complied with the driving-standards guidelines as to how far alongside he needed to be up to the point he started to back out.

But from a team perspective, it was all risk and no reward.

If Norris had pulled off the move, it would have meant one more point for him and one fewer for Piastri, but for the team collectively it would have made no difference.

What was interesting was that, despite having had initial talks with the team about it after the sprint, Norris was still pushing his point of view after qualifying.

"Really, it's still my fault," he said, "but I deserved to go for the space and I still believe I had the right for it."

That raised a few eyebrows, but the truth is both drivers could have handled themselves better.

While there is an argument Norris should not have tried the move, there is an equally powerful one that, once he had, Piastri should have given him more space, and carried the fight down the following straight.

Team boss Andrea Stella was asked later that evening whether he was concerned about the message about team play not getting through to his drivers, and he dealt with it with his usual diplomacy.

Stella maintained his usual calm, even demeanour, but words like "unacceptable", "disappointed" and "serious" made it abundantly clear how angry he was.

The following day, Norris had changed his tune. Not only did he offer to help out Piastri late in the race as the Australian was trying to pass Lewis Hamilton's fading Ferrari, but he also finally took full responsibility for the incident.

"I can't attempt what I did," he said. "I should never have attempted it in the first place, even if the move was on. I've simply got to think more of the team that I represent rather than myself. It was a mistake on my part and I let down the team."

Stella made it clear McLaren would not deviate from their policy of fairness and equal status between the drivers, even though he is well aware it will lead to issues such as this that test its limits from time to time.

"I classified it as unacceptable," he said, "which is a statement that comes from the team principal, but I was very encouraged by the fact that it's a statement that very rapidly came from our drivers as well.

"So we are aligned as to how we want to lead this team forward in a joint effort between the team and the drivers. The conversations that we are having, they are not finished, but it's not because we need to go back discussing if Lando was alongside Oscar. That's not the interesting bit.

"For me, the interesting bit is a reflection that all the stakeholders - the team, the drivers - will have to make around leading together the team, embracing constantly from inside the cockpit the interest of the team as something that is superior to any particular, singular, individual interest.

"And while the conversations from this point of view are not concluded, and there's more we can do to become a more united and even stronger team, I'm pleased that Lando at some stage in the race adopted this way of thinking.

"This is what I expect as a team principal, this is what the 1,000 people that work at McLaren expect from our drivers."

I am regularly baffled by teams' tyre strategies, but Ferrari's in Singapore was the worst in recent years. We know Lewis Hamilton is taking responsibility, fair enough, but it wasn't his decision to stay behind Charles Leclerc. Where does this sort of thinking come from? - Julie

Ferrari team principal Frederic Vasseur was especially sensitive about this topic after the race in Singapore, and it led to a particularly awkward news conference as reporters tried to get to the bottom of what had happened, and Vasseur kept cutting them off before they could finish questions.

You could see how hard Vasseur was trying to keep himself calm, and it's easy to understand his feelings.

The past few weeks, after all, have been a trying period for the team with lots of speculation about the future, which led to an unusual intervention from Ferrari after the Azerbaijan Grand Prix to make it clear Vasseur had the full support of chairman John Elkann.

In this case, though, while the strategy certainly looked bizarre from the outside during the race, the explanation was pretty straightforward.

Hamilton was on the back foot from the moment it became clear the medium tyres he was on for the first stint were the wrong ones for this race. The softs were much better.

The mediums did not last long on Hamilton's car, so he made an early pit stop for softs, and the timing of that meant it was always likely he would need an extra stop.

A virtual safety car shortly after half-distance gave Ferrari the perfect opportunity to lock in the second and third places Leclerc and Hamilton were holding at that point.

But Hamilton did not to heed the team's call to stop. He apologised over team radio on the slowing-down lap, referring to it as "my call". Vasseur said: "We asked them to pit. Charles pitted. Lewis didn't want to pit because he... I don't know why."

From then on, Hamilton was in a pickle because the team did not think his tyres would make the end, but if he stopped he would lose places to Lando Norris and Kimi Antonelli that he would not be able to get back.

So he tried to get to the end without another stop, only to discover that his tyres would not make it, and he lost out to Norris, Antonelli and Oscar Piastri.

The only questionable part of the strategy from Ferrari's side is why, when Leclerc was on mediums and Hamilton softs after their first pit stops and Hamilton felt he was quicker, they did not let the seven-time champion through to give the drivers the chance to optimise their own strategies.

Vasseur argued after the race that "the tyre advantage was for Charles, he pitted six laps later, I think it was the right call".

He justified this by saying "after two laps [Hamilton] was two seconds behind" - i.e., was dropping back.

But that's not the case. Hamilton stayed less than 1.5secs behind Leclerc from lap 25 until lap 32, before starting to drop back.

On that basis, it could be argued it might have made sense to let Hamilton have a go in front. On the other hand, swapping cars in itself costs time.

Why does Kimi Antonelli have so much trouble with track limits? He appears to be surprised when told. - John

It's not entirely clear, but it seems to be just the way he drives.

Antonelli is young and exuberant - it's one of the reasons he's in the situation he is in the championship and why his driving is so exciting. He plays with the limits and in the race this manifests itself as flirting with the white lines on the edge of the track.

The team are a little frustrated by this, even if they joke about it.

Team boss Toto Wolff said after the race: "I'm going to put a pillow from the hotel under his butt, so he can actually see the road, because I think it's like this, he can't see it."

In this case, Antonelli actually got a black-and-white flag, which is for more than three transgressions, and then exceeded track limits again.

But he escaped a five-second penalty because one of the transgressions was when he suffered a long brake pedal caused by heat soak after his pit stop, so he was excused.

The FIA says that some track limits count as a strike towards the three maximum allowed and some don't, such as when a driver is pushed off track, or suffers an obvious loss of control.

With just seven weeks until Qatar, followed by Abu Dhabi the week after, what are the chances both races will go ahead as planned? Could financial and insurance considerations explain the delay in making a decision, and how challenging is this uncertainty for teams and drivers given the championship implications? - Michael

F1 is pressing ahead with plans to run the races in Qatar and Abu Dhabi.

It's fair to say this is causing some disquiet in the paddock, even if few - if any - are voicing it publicly.

The argument to press on as planned is that the Qatar and Abu Dhabi governments are saying there is no reason for F1 not to go, there have been no attacks on civilian infrastructure since the spring, and the countries are operating on a business-as-usual basis.

On top of that, the UK Foreign Office is not advising against travel, instead warning that there is "a risk of more attacks and unforeseen escalation in the region", and that "British nationals currently in the Middle East should be prepared for possible flight cancellations, periodic airspace closures, and potential travel disruption".

As Mercedes team boss Toto Wolff put it on Sunday: "Whether Qatar and Abu Dhabi happens at the moment, everybody says so, and so we need to go the direction of this is six more races to go."

If there is an escalation in the Middle East, for example after the US mid-term elections on 3 November, and the races have to be cancelled at late notice, then Imola in Italy is being prepared as a back-up option for the weekend of Abu Dhabi.