🔗 Share this article

The British racing team along with F1 could do with anything decisive in the title fight involving Norris & Piastri being decided through on-track action rather than without resorting to the pit wall with the title run-in kicks off at the COTA on Friday.

Singapore Grand Prix fallout leads to internal strain

With the Marina Bay event’s doubtless extensive and stressful post-race analyses dealt with, McLaren will be hoping for a fresh start. The British driver was almost certainly more than aware of the historical context regarding his retort toward his upset colleague during the previous grand prix weekend. In a fiercely contested championship duel with the Australian, his reference to one of Ayrton Senna’s 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 the Brazilian’s iconic battles.

“Should you criticize me for just going on the inside of a big gap then you don't belong in Formula One,” Norris said regarding his first-lap move to pass which resulted in their vehicles making contact.

The remark appeared to paraphrase Senna’s “If you no longer go for a gap that exists then you cease to be a true racer” defence he gave to the racing knight following his collision with the French champion at Suzuka in 1990, ensuring he took the championship.

Parallel mindset yet distinct situations

Although the attitude remains comparable, the wording is where the similarities end. Senna later admitted he had no intent of letting Prost to defeat him through the first corner while Norris attempted to execute a clean overtake in Singapore. Indeed, his maneuver was legitimate that went unpenalised even with the glancing blow he made against his McLaren teammate as he went through. This incident stemmed from him touching the Red Bull of Max Verstappen in front of him.

Piastri reacted furiously and, notably, instantly stated that Norris gaining the place seemed unjust; suggesting that their collision was verboten by team protocols for racing and Norris ought to be told to give back the place he had made. The team refused, yet it demonstrated that in any cases between them, each would quickly ask to the team to intervene on his behalf.

Squad management and fairness under scrutiny

This is part and parcel from McLaren's commendable approach to let their drivers race one another and to try to maintain strict fairness. Quite apart from tying some torturous knots in setting precedents over what constitutes fair or unfair – under these conditions, now includes misfortune, tactical calls and racing incidents like in Marina Bay – there is the question regarding opinions.

Of most import for the championship, six races left, Piastri leads Norris by 22 points, each racer's view exists on fairness and at what point their perspectives might split from the team's stance. That is when their friendly rapport between the two could eventually – turn somewhat into Senna-Prost.

“It will reach a point where a few points will matter,” commented Mercedes boss Wolff after Singapore. “Then they’ll start to calculate and back-calculate and I guess aggression will increase a bit more. That's when it begins to become thrilling.”

Viewer desires and championship implications

For spectators, in what is a two-horse race, getting interesting will probably be welcomed in the form of a track duel rather than a spreadsheet-based arbitration of circumstances. Especially since for F1 the alternative perception from all this isn't very inspiring.

To be fair, McLaren are making the correct decisions for themselves and it has paid off. They clinched their tenth team championship at Marina Bay (though a great achievement diminished by the fuss prompted by the Norris-Piastri moment) and with Stella as team principal they possess a moral and upright commander who genuinely wants to do the right thing.

Sporting integrity against team management

Yet having drivers in a championship fight appealing to the team to decide matters is unedifying. Their contest should be decided 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 team to ascertain whether intervention is needed and subsequently resolved afterwards behind closed doors.

The scrutiny will increase and each time it happens it is in danger of potentially making a difference that could be critical. Previously, following the team's decision their drivers swap places at Monza because Norris had endured a slow pit stop and Piastri believing he was treated unfairly regarding tactics in Budapest, where Norris triumphed, the spectre of a fear of favouritism also looms.

Squad viewpoint and future challenges

Nobody desires to witness a championship endlessly debated because it may be considered that fairness attempts were unequal. When asked if he believed the squad had acted correctly by both drivers, Piastri said that they did, but mentioned that it was an ever-evolving approach.

“There’s been some challenging moments and we’ve spoken about various aspects,” he stated post-race. “However finally it's educational for the entire squad.”

Six races stay. The team has minimal room for error to do their cramming, so it may be better now to simply stop analyzing and withdraw from the conflict.