🔗 Share this article

The British racing team along with Formula One would benefit from anything decisive in the championship battle between Norris and Oscar Piastri being decided through on-track action and without reference to team orders with the championship finale begins at the COTA starting Friday.

Singapore Grand Prix fallout leads to internal strain

With the Marina Bay event’s undoubtedly thorough and tense debriefs dealt with, the Woking-based squad is aiming for a fresh start. The British driver was likely more than aware about the historical parallels of his riposte toward his upset colleague during the previous grand prix weekend. During an intense title fight with the Australian, that Norris invoked one of Ayrton Senna’s most famous sentiments did not go unnoticed but the incident which triggered his statement differed completely to those that defined the Brazilian’s iconic battles.

“Should you criticize me for simply attempting on the inside of a big gap then you don't belong in F1,” Norris said of his opening-lap attempt to overtake which resulted in their vehicles making contact.

His comment seemed to echo the Brazilian legend's “If you no longer go for a gap which is there then you cease to be a racing driver” defence he provided to the racing knight following his collision with Alain Prost in Japan in 1990, securing him the title.

Parallel mindset yet distinct situations

Although the attitude remains comparable, the phrasing is where the similarities end. Senna later admitted he had no intent to allow Prost to defeat him at turn one while Norris attempted to execute a clean overtake in Singapore. Indeed, it was a perfectly valid effort which received no penalty even with the glancing blow he made against his team colleague during the pass. That itself was a result of him clipping the Red Bull driven by Verstappen in front of him.

Piastri reacted furiously and, significantly, instantly stated that Norris's position gain seemed unjust; suggesting that the two teammates clashing was forbidden under McLaren’s rules for racing and Norris should be instructed to return the position he gained. McLaren did not do so, yet it demonstrated that during disputes of contention, each would quickly ask the squad to intervene on his behalf.

Team dynamics and fairness under scrutiny

This is part and parcel of McLaren’s laudable efforts to allow their racers compete against each other and strive to be as scrupulously fair. Quite apart from tying some torturous knots in setting precedents about what defines fair or unfair – which, under these auspices, now covers misfortune, strategy and racing incidents like in Marina Bay – there remains the issue regarding opinions.

Most crucially to the title race, with six meetings remaining, Piastri is ahead of Norris by 22 points, each racer's view exists on fairness and at what point their perspectives might split with that of the McLaren pitwall. Which is when their friendly rapport among them could eventually – turn somewhat into Senna-Prost.

“It’s going to come to a situation where a few points will matter,” said Mercedes team principal Wolff after Singapore. “Then calculations will begin and back-calculate and I guess aggression will increase further. That’s when it starts to get interesting.”

Viewer desires and title consequences

For the audience, during this dual battle, getting interesting will probably be welcomed as a track duel rather than a data-driven decision of circumstances. Especially since for F1 the other impression from these events isn't very inspiring.

To be fair, McLaren are making the correct decisions for their interests with successful results. They secured their 10th constructors’ title in Singapore (though a great achievement overshadowed by the fuss prompted by the Norris-Piastri moment) and with Stella as team principal they have an ethical and upright commander who genuinely wants to act correctly.

Sporting integrity versus squad control

Yet having drivers competing for the title looking to the pitwall to decide matters is unedifying. Their competition ought to be determined through racing. Chance and fate will have roles, but better to let them just battle freely and observe outcomes naturally, than the impression that every disputed moment will be pored over by the team to ascertain whether intervention is needed and then cleared up later in private.

The scrutiny will increase and each time it happens it is in danger of potentially making a difference which might prove decisive. Previously, following the team's decision their drivers swap places at Monza due to Norris experiencing a delayed stop and Piastri believing he was treated unfairly with the strategy call in Budapest, where Norris triumphed, the spectre of a fear of favouritism also looms.

Team perspective and upcoming tests

Nobody desires to see a title endlessly debated because it may be considered that fairness attempts were unequal. Questioned whether he felt the team had acted correctly toward both racers, Piastri said he believed they had, but noted it's a developing process.

“There’s been some challenging moments and we’ve spoken about various aspects,” he said after Singapore. “However finally it’s a learning process for the entire squad.”

Six meetings remain. The team has minimal room for error to do their cramming, so it may be better now to simply close the books and withdraw from the conflict.