🔗 Share this article

McLaren and Formula One could do with anything decisive in the championship battle between Lando Norris and Oscar Piastri getting resolved through on-track action and without reference to the pit wall as the title run-in kicks off at the COTA on Friday.

Singapore Grand Prix fallout prompts internal strain

After the Singapore Grand Prix’s doubtless extensive and tense debriefs dealt with, the Woking-based squad will be hoping for a fresh start. Norris was almost certainly more than aware about the historical parallels of his riposte toward his upset colleague at the last race weekend. In a fiercely contested championship duel against Piastri, his reference to a famous Senna most famous sentiments was lost on no one yet the occurrence which triggered his statement differed completely to those that defined the Brazilian’s iconic battles.

“Should you criticize me for just going an inside move through an opening then you don't belong in Formula One,” stated Norris regarding his first-lap move to pass that led to their vehicles making contact.

His comment seemed to echo the Brazilian legend's “If you no longer go for a gap that exists then you cease to be a racing driver” defence he provided to the racing knight after he ploughed into Alain Prost in Japan in 1990, securing him the championship.

Parallel mindset yet distinct situations

Although the attitude remains comparable, the phrasing is where the similarities end. The late champion confessed he had no intent of letting Prost to defeat him through the first corner whereas Norris did try to execute a clean overtake at the Marina Bay circuit. Indeed, it was a perfectly valid effort that went unpenalised despite the minor contact he had with his McLaren teammate during the pass. This incident was a result of him touching the Red Bull driven by Verstappen in front of him.

The Australian responded angrily and, notably, immediately declared that Norris gaining the place seemed unjust; suggesting that their collision was verboten under McLaren’s rules for racing and Norris should be instructed to give back the place he had made. McLaren did not do so, yet it demonstrated that in any cases of contention, each would quickly ask to the team to step in in their favor.

Team dynamics and fairness being examined

This comes naturally from McLaren's commendable approach to allow their racers compete against each other and to try to be as scrupulously fair. Aside from creating complex dilemmas when establishing rules about what defines fair or unfair – under these conditions, now includes bad luck, tactical calls and on-track occurrences like in Marina Bay – there is the question 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 when their perspectives might split from the team's stance. Which is when their friendly rapport among them may – finally – turn somewhat into Senna-Prost.

“It will reach to a situation where a few points will matter,” commented Mercedes boss Toto Wolff post-race. “Then they’ll start to calculate and re-calculations and I suppose the elbows are going to come out a bit more. That’s when it starts to get interesting.”

Audience expectations and title consequences

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

Honestly speaking, McLaren is taking appropriate choices for themselves with successful results. They secured their 10th constructors’ title in Singapore (albeit a brilliant success overshadowed by the fuss prompted by the Norris-Piastri moment) and in Andrea Stella as squad leader they have an ethical and upright commander 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 should be decided through racing. Luck and destiny will have roles, yet preferable to allow them simply go at it and see how fortune falls, rather than the sense that every disputed moment will be analyzed intensely by the team to ascertain whether they need to intervene and then cleared up afterwards behind closed doors.

The scrutiny will intensify with every occurrence it is in danger of potentially making a difference that could be critical. Already, following the team's decision for position swaps in Italy due to Norris experiencing a delayed stop and Piastri believing he had been hard done by with the strategy call at Hungary, where Norris triumphed, the spectre of a fear of favouritism also emerges.

Squad viewpoint and upcoming tests

No one wants to see a title endlessly debated over perceived that fairness attempts had not been balanced. 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 difficult situations and we’ve spoken about a number of things,” he stated post-race. “But ultimately it's educational with the whole team.”

Six meetings remain. The team has minimal room for error for last-minute adjustments, so it may be better to just stop analyzing and step back from the fray.