🔗 Share this article

McLaren along with F1 would benefit from anything decisive during this championship battle involving Norris & Piastri being decided through on-track action rather than without reference to team orders with the title run-in begins this weekend at COTA starting Friday.

Singapore Grand Prix fallout leads to team tensions

After the Singapore Grand Prix’s undoubtedly thorough and stressful post-race analyses dealt with, the Woking-based squad will be hoping for a fresh start. The British driver was almost certainly more than aware of the historical context of his riposte toward his upset colleague 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 from incidents characterizing the Brazilian’s great rivalries.

“If you fault me for simply attempting on the inside of a big gap then you don't belong in Formula One,” stated Norris of his opening-lap attempt to overtake that led to their vehicles making contact.

His comment appeared to paraphrase the Brazilian legend's “If you no longer go an available gap that exists then you cease to be 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 is similar, the wording is where the similarities end. Senna later admitted he had no intent of letting Prost to defeat him at turn one while Norris did try to execute a clean overtake in Singapore. In fact, his maneuver was legitimate 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, immediately declared that Norris gaining the place was “unfair”; the implication being the two teammates clashing was forbidden by team protocols of engagement and Norris ought to be told to give back the position he gained. McLaren did not do so, yet it demonstrated that during disputes between them, each would quickly ask 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 creating complex dilemmas in setting precedents about what defines just or unjust – which, under these auspices, now covers bad luck, tactical calls and on-track occurrences such as in Singapore – there remains the issue regarding opinions.

Of most import to the title race, with six meetings remaining, Piastri leads Norris by 22 points, each racer's view exists as fair and at what point their opinion may diverge from the team's stance. Which is when the amicable relationship 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 Wolff post-race. “Then calculations will begin and back-calculate and I guess the elbows are going to come out a bit more. That’s when it starts to become thrilling.”

Viewer desires and title consequences

For spectators, during this dual battle, increased excitement will probably be welcomed as an on-track confrontation instead of a data-driven decision of circumstances. Especially since in Formula One the alternative perception from these events is not particularly rousing.

Honestly speaking, McLaren is taking appropriate choices for their interests and it has paid off. They clinched their tenth team championship at Marina Bay (though a great achievement overshadowed by the controversy from the Norris-Piastri moment) and in Andrea Stella as squad leader they have an ethical and principled leader who truly aims to do the right thing.

Sporting integrity against team management

Yet having drivers in a championship fight appealing to the team for resolutions appears unsightly. Their contest ought to be determined on track. Chance and fate will have roles, 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 team to ascertain whether intervention is needed and subsequently resolved afterwards behind closed doors.

The examination will increase and each time it happens it risks possibly affecting outcomes that could be critical. Already, after the team made their drivers swap places at Monza due to Norris experiencing a slow pit stop and Piastri feeling he had been hard done by regarding tactics in Budapest, where Norris won, the shadow of concern of favouritism also emerges.

Team perspective and upcoming tests

No one wants to see a title endlessly debated because it may be considered that the efforts to be fair were unequal. When asked if he felt the team had acted correctly toward both racers, Piastri said that they did, but mentioned that it was an ever-evolving approach.

“There’s been some challenging moments and we discussed a number of things,” he stated post-race. “However finally it’s a learning process for the entire squad.”

Six meetings remain. McLaren have little room for error for last-minute adjustments, thus perhaps wiser to just stop analyzing and withdraw from the conflict.