🔗 Share this article

The British racing team along with Formula One could do with any conclusive outcome in the title fight involving Lando Norris and Piastri being decided through on-track action and without resorting to the pit wall as the title run-in kicks off at the COTA starting Friday.

Singapore Grand Prix aftermath leads to internal strain

After the Singapore Grand Prix’s undoubtedly thorough and tense debriefs concluded, McLaren will be hoping for a reset. Norris was likely more than aware about the historical parallels of his riposte toward his upset colleague at the last grand prix weekend. In a fiercely contested title fight with the Australian, his reference to a famous Senna most famous sentiments was lost on no one yet the occurrence which triggered his statement was of an entirely different nature to those that defined Senna's iconic battles.

“If you fault me for simply attempting on the inside of a big gap then you should not be in Formula One,” stated Norris regarding his first-lap move to pass which resulted in the cars colliding.

His comment appeared to paraphrase the Brazilian legend's “If you no longer go for a gap which is there you are no longer a racing driver” justification he provided to the racing knight after he ploughed into the French champion at Suzuka back in 1990, ensuring he took the title.

Similar spirit but different circumstances

Although the attitude remains comparable, the wording marks where parallels stop. The late champion confessed he had no intent to allow Prost to defeat him at turn one whereas Norris did try to execute a clean overtake in Singapore. In fact, it was a perfectly valid effort that went unpenalised despite the minor contact he had with his team colleague during the pass. That itself was a result of him clipping the Red Bull of Max Verstappen in front of him.

Piastri reacted furiously and, significantly, instantly stated that Norris gaining the place was “unfair”; the implication being the two teammates clashing was verboten under McLaren’s rules for racing and Norris ought to be told to return the position he gained. The team refused, yet it demonstrated that in any cases between them, each would quickly ask to the team to intervene on his behalf.

Team dynamics and impartiality under scrutiny

This is part and parcel from McLaren's commendable approach to let their drivers race one another and strive to maintain strict fairness. Aside from creating complex dilemmas when establishing rules about what defines just or unjust – which, under these auspices, now includes misfortune, tactical calls and on-track occurrences such as in Singapore – there remains the issue of perception.

Of most import for the championship, with six meetings remaining, Piastri is ahead of Norris by 22 points, each racer's view exists as fair and when their perspectives might split from the team's stance. Which is when the amicable relationship between the two could eventually – become a little bit more Senna-Prost.

“It will reach a point where minor points count,” said Mercedes boss Wolff post-race. “Then they’ll start to calculate and back-calculate and I guess the elbows are going to come out a bit more. That's when it begins to become thrilling.”

Audience expectations and championship implications

For the audience, in what is a two-horse race, increased excitement will likely be appreciated in the form of an on-track confrontation rather than a data-driven decision of circumstances. Especially since for F1 the other impression from these events is not particularly rousing.

Honestly speaking, McLaren are making appropriate choices for their interests and it has paid off. They clinched their 10th constructors’ title in Singapore (though a great achievement diminished by the controversy from the Norris-Piastri moment) and in Andrea Stella as squad leader they have an ethical and principled leader who genuinely wants to do the right thing.

Racing purity versus squad control

Yet having drivers competing for the title looking to the pitwall to decide matters is unedifying. Their competition should be decided through racing. Chance and fate will have roles, but better to let them just battle freely and see how fortune falls, rather than the sense that every disputed moment will be analyzed intensely by the team to determine if they need to intervene and then cleared up later in private.

The scrutiny will intensify with every occurrence it is in danger of potentially making a difference that could be critical. Already, after the team made their drivers swap places at Monza because Norris had endured a slow pit stop and Piastri feeling he had been hard done by with the strategy call at Hungary, where Norris triumphed, the spectre of a fear about bias also emerges.

Squad viewpoint and future challenges

Nobody desires to see a title constantly disputed over perceived that fairness attempts had not been balanced. When asked if he felt the team had acted correctly toward both racers, Piastri said he believed they had, but noted that it was an ever-evolving approach.

“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 races stay. The team has minimal wriggle room left for last-minute adjustments, so it may be better to just stop analyzing and withdraw from the fray.