🔗 Share this article

The British racing team along with F1 would benefit from any conclusive outcome in the title fight between Lando Norris and Oscar Piastri getting resolved on the track rather than without reference to team orders as the championship finale begins at the Circuit of the Americas starting Friday.

Marina Bay race aftermath prompts internal strain

After the Singapore Grand Prix’s doubtless extensive and stressful post-race analyses concluded, McLaren is aiming for a fresh start. Norris was almost certainly fully conscious of the historical context regarding his retort to his aggrieved teammate at the last race weekend. In a fiercely contested championship duel with the Australian, that Norris invoked a famous Senna well-known quotes did not go unnoticed but the incident that provoked his comment was of an entirely different nature to those that defined Senna's great rivalries.

“Should you criticize me for just going an inside move of a big gap then you should not be in F1,” stated Norris of his opening-lap attempt to pass which resulted in their vehicles making contact.

The remark appeared to paraphrase Senna’s “If you no longer go an available gap which is there then you cease to be a racing driver” justification he provided to Sir Jackie Stewart following his collision with the French champion at Suzuka back in 1990, ensuring he took the title.

Parallel mindset but different circumstances

While the spirit remains comparable, the wording is where the similarities end. The late champion confessed he never intended of letting Prost to defeat him at turn one whereas Norris did try to make his pass cleanly at the Marina Bay circuit. In fact, it was a perfectly valid effort that went unpenalised even with the glancing blow he made against his team colleague during the pass. This incident stemmed from him clipping the car of Max Verstappen ahead of him.

The Australian responded angrily and, significantly, immediately declared that Norris gaining the place seemed unjust; suggesting that their collision was forbidden under McLaren’s rules of engagement and Norris should be instructed to return the position he gained. The team refused, but it was indicative that during disputes between them, each would quickly ask the squad to intervene on his behalf.

Squad management and impartiality under scrutiny

This comes naturally of McLaren’s laudable efforts to let their drivers race one another and to try to maintain strict fairness. Quite apart from creating complex dilemmas when establishing rules about what defines just or unjust – under these conditions, now includes misfortune, strategy and on-track occurrences such as in Singapore – there is the question regarding opinions.

Most crucially for the championship, six races left, Piastri is ahead of Norris by 22 points, each racer's view exists on fairness and when their opinion may diverge from the team's stance. That is when their friendly rapport among them may – finally – turn somewhat into Senna-Prost.

“It will reach to a situation where minor points count,” said Mercedes boss Wolff after Singapore. “Then calculations will begin and back-calculate and I suppose aggression will increase further. That's when it begins to become thrilling.”

Viewer desires and title consequences

For spectators, during this dual battle, increased excitement will likely be appreciated as an on-track confrontation instead of a data-driven decision regarding incidents. Not least because in Formula One the other impression from these events isn't very inspiring.

To be fair, McLaren is taking the correct decisions for their interests and it has paid off. They secured their tenth team championship in Singapore (albeit a brilliant success diminished by the fuss prompted by the Norris-Piastri moment) and with Stella as squad leader they possess a moral and upright commander who truly aims to act correctly.

Racing purity versus team management

Yet having drivers in a championship fight looking to the pitwall for resolutions appears unsightly. Their contest should be decided through racing. Chance and fate will have roles, but better to let them simply go at it and observe outcomes naturally, rather than the sense that each contentious incident will be analyzed intensely by the squad to determine if intervention is needed and subsequently resolved afterwards behind closed doors.

The examination will increase and each time it happens it risks potentially making a difference which might prove decisive. Previously, after the team made for position swaps in Italy due to Norris experiencing a delayed stop and Piastri believing he had been hard done by with the strategy call in Budapest, where Norris won, the spectre of a fear of favouritism also looms.

Squad viewpoint and upcoming tests

No one wants to witness a championship endlessly debated over perceived that the efforts to be fair had not been balanced. Questioned whether he felt the team had managed to do right toward both racers, Piastri said he believed they had, but noted it's a developing process.

“There’s been some difficult situations and we’ve spoken about various aspects,” he stated post-race. “However finally it’s a learning process for the entire squad.”

Six meetings remain. The team has minimal room for error to do their cramming, so it may be better to just close the books and withdraw from the conflict.