🔗 Share this article

McLaren along with Formula One could do with anything decisive during this title fight involving Norris & Piastri being decided through on-track action rather than without resorting to team orders with the championship finale begins this weekend at Circuit of the Americas starting Friday.

Singapore Grand Prix fallout leads to team tensions

After the Marina Bay event’s doubtless extensive and tense debriefs dealt with, the Woking-based squad is aiming for a reset. The British driver was almost certainly fully conscious of the historical context of his riposte to his aggrieved teammate during the previous race weekend. During an intense championship duel with the Australian, his reference to a famous Senna most famous sentiments was lost on no one yet the occurrence 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 on the inside through an opening then you should not be in F1,” Norris said of his opening-lap attempt to pass that led to 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” defence he provided to the racing knight 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 phrasing is where the similarities end. Senna later admitted he never intended to allow Prost to defeat him through the first corner whereas Norris attempted to make his pass cleanly in Singapore. Indeed, his maneuver was legitimate which received no penalty even with the glancing blow he made against his McLaren teammate as he went through. That itself was a result of him clipping the Red Bull driven by Verstappen in front of him.

The Australian responded angrily and, notably, instantly stated that Norris gaining the place seemed unjust; the implication being the two teammates clashing was verboten by team protocols for racing and Norris should be instructed to give back the position he gained. The team refused, but it was indicative that in any cases between them, both will promptly appeal to the team to step in in their favor.

Team dynamics and fairness being examined

This is part and parcel of McLaren’s laudable efforts to allow their racers compete one another and strive to maintain strict fairness. Aside from tying some torturous knots in setting precedents about what defines just or unjust – under these conditions, now includes bad luck, strategy and racing incidents 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, there is what each driver perceives on fairness and at what point their perspectives might split with that of the McLaren pitwall. Which is when the amicable relationship among them may – finally – turn somewhat into Senna-Prost.

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

Viewer desires and title consequences

For the audience, in what is a two-horse race, getting interesting will probably be welcomed as a track duel instead of a data-driven decision regarding incidents. Not least because in Formula One the other impression from these events is not particularly rousing.

To be fair, McLaren are making appropriate choices for themselves with successful results. They secured their 10th constructors’ title at Marina Bay (though a great achievement diminished by the controversy from the Norris-Piastri moment) and in Andrea Stella as team principal they possess a moral and principled leader who truly aims to do the right thing.

Sporting integrity against squad control

Yet having drivers in a championship fight appealing to the team to decide matters is unedifying. Their competition ought to be determined on track. Chance and fate will play their part, yet preferable to allow them just battle freely and observe outcomes naturally, than the impression that every disputed moment will be analyzed intensely by the squad to determine if they need to intervene and subsequently resolved afterwards behind closed doors.

The scrutiny will intensify with every occurrence it is in danger of possibly affecting outcomes that could be critical. Already, following the team's decision for position swaps in Italy because Norris had endured a slow pit stop and Piastri believing he had been hard done by with the strategy call at Hungary, where Norris triumphed, the shadow of concern of favouritism also looms.

Team perspective and upcoming tests

No one wants to see a title endlessly debated because it may be considered that fairness attempts were unequal. Questioned whether he believed the squad had managed to do right toward both racers, Piastri responded that they did, but noted that it was an ever-evolving approach.

“We've had several challenging moments and we discussed a number of things,” he stated after Singapore. “However finally it’s a learning process with the whole team.”

Six meetings remain. The team has minimal wriggle room left for last-minute adjustments, thus perhaps wiser to just close the books and withdraw from the conflict.