🔗 Share this article

McLaren along with Formula One would benefit from any conclusive outcome during this championship battle between Norris & Piastri getting resolved through on-track action and without reference to team orders as the championship finale begins this weekend at Circuit of the Americas on Friday.

Marina Bay race fallout prompts internal strain

With the Singapore Grand Prix’s undoubtedly thorough and stressful post-race analyses concluded, McLaren is aiming for a reset. The British driver was likely fully conscious about the historical parallels regarding his retort toward his upset colleague at the last grand prix weekend. In a fiercely contested title fight against Piastri, his reference to one of Ayrton Senna’s most famous sentiments did not go unnoticed but the incident that provoked his comment was of an entirely different nature from incidents characterizing the Brazilian’s iconic battles.

“If you fault me for simply attempting on the inside of a big gap then you don't belong in Formula One,” stated Norris regarding his first-lap move to overtake that led to the cars colliding.

His comment appeared to paraphrase the Brazilian legend's “Should you stop attempting an available gap which is there you are no longer a true racer” justification he gave to the racing knight after he ploughed into the French champion at Suzuka back in 1990, ensuring he took the championship.

Parallel mindset yet distinct situations

While the spirit remains comparable, the wording marks where parallels stop. Senna later admitted he had no intent to allow Prost beat him through the first corner whereas Norris did try to make his pass cleanly at the Marina Bay circuit. In fact, it was a perfectly valid effort which received no penalty despite the minor contact he made against his McLaren teammate as he went through. This incident stemmed from him clipping the Red Bull of Max Verstappen in front of him.

The Australian responded angrily and, significantly, immediately declared that Norris's position gain seemed unjust; suggesting that their collision was verboten by team protocols of engagement and Norris should be instructed to return the position he gained. The team refused, yet it demonstrated that during disputes between them, each would quickly ask to the team to step in on his behalf.

Team dynamics and fairness being examined

This is part and parcel from McLaren's commendable approach to let their drivers race against each other and strive to be as scrupulously fair. Quite apart from creating complex dilemmas in setting precedents about what defines fair or unfair – under these conditions, now covers bad luck, strategy and on-track occurrences such as in Singapore – there is the question regarding opinions.

Of most import for the championship, with six meetings remaining, Piastri leads Norris by 22 points, each racer's view exists as fair and at what point their perspectives might split from the team's stance. Which is when their friendly rapport among them may – finally – turn somewhat into Senna-Prost.

“It will reach a point where a few points will matter,” commented Mercedes team principal Wolff post-race. “Then they’ll start to calculate and re-calculations and I guess the elbows are going to come out further. That's when it begins to get interesting.”

Viewer desires and championship implications

For spectators, during this dual battle, increased excitement will likely be appreciated in the form of an on-track confrontation rather than a data-driven decision regarding incidents. Especially since in Formula One the other impression from these events is not particularly rousing.

To be fair, McLaren are making appropriate choices for their interests with successful results. They clinched their tenth team championship in Singapore (albeit a brilliant success overshadowed by the fuss prompted by the Norris-Piastri moment) and in Andrea Stella as team principal they possess a moral and upright commander who genuinely wants to act correctly.

Racing purity versus squad control

Yet having drivers competing for the title appealing to the team for resolutions appears unsightly. Their contest ought to be determined through racing. Chance and fate will play their part, but better to let them simply go at it and observe outcomes naturally, than the impression that each contentious incident will be analyzed intensely by the squad to determine if intervention is needed and then cleared up later in private.

The scrutiny will increase with every occurrence it is in danger of potentially making a difference that could be critical. Already, after the team made for position swaps in Italy due to Norris experiencing a delayed stop and Piastri feeling he had been hard done by with the strategy call in Budapest, where Norris triumphed, the spectre of a fear about bias also looms.

Squad viewpoint and upcoming tests

No one wants to see a title endlessly debated over perceived that fairness attempts had not been balanced. When asked if he felt the team had managed to do right toward both racers, Piastri said he believed they had, but mentioned it's a developing process.

“We've had several challenging moments and we discussed a number of things,” he stated post-race. “But ultimately it’s a learning process with the whole team.”

Six meetings remain. The team has minimal room for error to do their cramming, thus perhaps wiser now to simply stop analyzing and step back from the conflict.