🔗 Share this article

McLaren along with Formula One would benefit from any conclusive outcome in the championship battle involving Norris and Oscar Piastri getting resolved through on-track action rather than without resorting to team orders as the championship finale kicks off this weekend at Circuit of the Americas starting Friday.

Singapore Grand Prix fallout prompts internal strain

With the Marina Bay event’s doubtless extensive and tense debriefs dealt with, the Woking-based squad will be hoping for a fresh start. The British driver was almost certainly more than aware about the historical parallels regarding his retort to his aggrieved teammate at the last race weekend. During an intense title fight against Piastri, that Norris invoked one of Ayrton Senna’s well-known quotes did not go unnoticed but the incident which triggered his statement differed completely from incidents characterizing Senna's iconic battles.

“If you fault me for just going an inside move of a big gap then you don't belong in F1,” Norris said regarding his first-lap move to pass which resulted in their vehicles making contact.

His comment seemed to echo the Brazilian legend's “Should you stop attempting an available gap that exists you are no longer a racing driver” justification he provided to Sir Jackie Stewart after he ploughed into the French champion at Suzuka in 1990, ensuring he took the title.

Similar spirit yet distinct situations

Although the attitude is similar, the phrasing is where the similarities end. Senna later admitted he never intended of letting Prost beat him at turn one whereas Norris attempted to execute a clean overtake at the Marina Bay circuit. Indeed, his maneuver was legitimate that went unpenalised even with the glancing blow he had with his McLaren teammate as he went through. That itself stemmed from him touching the car of Max Verstappen ahead of him.

Piastri reacted furiously and, significantly, immediately declared that Norris's position gain seemed unjust; the implication being their collision was forbidden under McLaren’s rules of engagement and Norris ought to be told to give back the place he had made. McLaren did not do so, yet it demonstrated that during disputes between them, both will promptly appeal the squad to step in in their favor.

Squad management and impartiality under scrutiny

This comes naturally of McLaren’s laudable efforts to let their drivers race against each other and to try to maintain strict fairness. Aside from tying some torturous knots in setting precedents over what constitutes just or unjust – which, under these auspices, now includes bad luck, strategy and on-track occurrences such as in Singapore – there is the question of perception.

Most crucially to the title race, with six meetings remaining, Piastri is ahead of Norris by twenty-two 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 between the two may – finally – become a little bit more the iconic rivalry.

“It’s going to come to a situation where a few points will matter,” said Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff post-race. “Then they’ll start to calculate and re-calculations and I suppose the elbows are going to come out further. That’s when it starts to become thrilling.”

Audience expectations and title consequences

For the audience, in what is a two-horse race, getting interesting will likely be appreciated as an on-track confrontation rather than a data-driven decision regarding incidents. Not least because for F1 the alternative perception from all this isn't very inspiring.

To be fair, McLaren is taking appropriate choices for their interests and it has paid off. They clinched their tenth team championship at Marina Bay (albeit a brilliant success diminished by the controversy from the Norris-Piastri moment) and in Andrea Stella as team principal they possess a moral and upright commander who genuinely wants to do the right thing.

Racing purity against squad control

Yet having drivers in a championship fight appealing to the team for resolutions is unedifying. Their competition ought to be determined on track. Luck and destiny will have roles, but better to let them just battle freely and observe outcomes naturally, rather than the sense that every disputed moment will be pored over by the squad to determine if intervention is needed and subsequently resolved later in private.

The scrutiny will increase with every occurrence it risks possibly affecting outcomes which might prove decisive. Already, 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 triumphed, the shadow of concern about bias also emerges.

Squad viewpoint and upcoming tests

Nobody desires to witness a championship constantly disputed over perceived that the efforts to be fair had not been balanced. When asked if he felt the team had acted correctly toward both racers, Piastri responded he believed they had, but noted that it was an ever-evolving approach.

“We've had several challenging moments and we discussed various aspects,” he stated post-race. “However finally it’s a learning process with the whole team.”

Six races stay. 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 fray.