🔗 Share this article

McLaren and Formula One would benefit from anything decisive in the championship battle between Norris & Piastri being decided through on-track action rather than without reference to team orders as the title run-in kicks off at the Circuit of the Americas on Friday.

Marina Bay race fallout prompts team tensions

After the Singapore Grand Prix’s undoubtedly thorough and stressful debriefs dealt with, the Woking-based squad will be hoping for a fresh start. Norris was likely more than aware about the historical parallels of his riposte toward his upset colleague during the previous race weekend. In a fiercely contested championship duel against Piastri, that Norris invoked a famous Senna most famous sentiments did not go unnoticed but the incident which triggered his statement was of an entirely different nature to those that defined the Brazilian’s iconic battles.

“If you fault me for simply attempting on the inside through an opening then you should not be in F1,” Norris said regarding his first-lap move to overtake that led to their vehicles making contact.

The remark appeared to paraphrase 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 after he ploughed into Alain Prost at Suzuka in 1990, ensuring he took the title.

Similar spirit but different circumstances

While the spirit remains comparable, the wording marks where parallels stop. Senna later admitted he had no intent to allow Prost beat him at turn one while Norris did try to make his pass cleanly in Singapore. Indeed, his maneuver was legitimate which received no penalty even with the glancing blow he had with his team colleague during the pass. That itself stemmed from him touching the Red Bull of Max Verstappen in front of him.

Piastri reacted furiously and, notably, instantly stated that Norris's position gain seemed unjust; suggesting that their collision was verboten under McLaren’s rules for racing and Norris should be instructed to give back the position he gained. The team refused, yet it demonstrated that in any cases between them, both will promptly appeal to the team to intervene on his behalf.

Team dynamics and fairness being examined

This is part and parcel of McLaren’s laudable efforts to allow their racers compete against each other and to try to be as scrupulously fair. Quite apart from creating complex dilemmas when establishing rules over what constitutes just or unjust – which, under these auspices, now includes bad luck, strategy and on-track occurrences like in Marina Bay – there is the question regarding opinions.

Most crucially for the championship, with six meetings remaining, Piastri is ahead of Norris by 22 points, each racer's view exists on fairness and when their opinion may diverge with that of the McLaren pitwall. That is when the amicable relationship between the two could eventually – turn somewhat into Senna-Prost.

“It will reach to a situation where a few points will matter,” commented Mercedes boss Wolff post-race. “Then calculations will begin and back-calculate and I suppose the elbows are going to come out further. That’s when it starts to become thrilling.”

Audience expectations and championship implications

For spectators, during this dual battle, getting interesting will probably be welcomed in the form of an on-track confrontation rather than a data-driven decision of circumstances. Especially since in Formula One the other impression from these events isn't very inspiring.

To be fair, McLaren is taking the correct decisions for themselves with successful results. They secured their tenth team championship in Singapore (albeit a brilliant success diminished by the controversy from the Norris-Piastri moment) and with Stella as team principal they have an ethical and principled leader who genuinely wants to act correctly.

Sporting integrity versus squad control

However, with racers competing for the title looking to the pitwall to decide matters appears unsightly. Their competition should be decided on track. Chance and fate will play their part, but better to let them simply go at it and see how fortune falls, than the impression that each contentious incident will be analyzed intensely by the team to determine if they need to intervene and subsequently resolved afterwards behind closed doors.

The examination will intensify with every occurrence it is in danger of potentially making a difference which might prove decisive. Already, following the team's decision for position swaps at Monza due to Norris experiencing a slow pit stop and Piastri believing he was treated unfairly with the strategy call at Hungary, where Norris won, the spectre of a fear about bias also looms.

Team perspective and upcoming tests

No one wants to see a title endlessly debated because it may be considered that fairness attempts had not been balanced. Questioned whether he believed the squad had managed to do right toward both racers, Piastri responded he believed they had, but noted that it was an ever-evolving approach.

“There’s been some difficult situations and we’ve spoken about various aspects,” he said post-race. “However finally it's educational with the whole team.”

Six meetings remain. The team has minimal wriggle room left for last-minute adjustments, so it may be better now to simply stop analyzing and step back from the conflict.