🔗 Share this article

The British racing team and Formula One could do with any conclusive outcome in the championship battle between Lando Norris and Oscar Piastri being decided through on-track action rather than without reference to team orders as the title run-in kicks off at the COTA starting Friday.

Singapore Grand Prix aftermath leads to team tensions

After the Singapore Grand Prix’s undoubtedly thorough and stressful debriefs concluded, McLaren will be hoping for a reset. Norris was almost certainly fully conscious about the historical parallels of his riposte to his aggrieved teammate during the previous race weekend. During an intense championship duel against Piastri, his reference to one of Ayrton Senna’s most famous sentiments did not go unnoticed yet the occurrence which triggered his statement differed completely from incidents characterizing Senna's iconic battles.

“If you fault 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 overtake which resulted in the cars colliding.

His comment appeared to paraphrase Senna’s “If you no longer go an available gap which is there then you cease to be a racing driver” justification he provided to Sir Jackie Stewart following his collision with Alain Prost at Suzuka back in 1990, ensuring he took the title.

Similar spirit yet distinct situations

Although the attitude is similar, the wording is where the similarities end. Senna later admitted he never intended of letting Prost to defeat him through the first corner whereas Norris did try to execute a clean overtake at the Marina Bay circuit. In fact, it was a perfectly valid effort which received no penalty even with the glancing blow he had with his team colleague during the pass. That itself was a result of him touching the Red Bull of Max Verstappen in front of him.

The Australian responded angrily and, notably, instantly stated that Norris's position gain seemed unjust; the implication being their collision was forbidden under McLaren’s rules for racing and Norris ought to be told 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.

Squad management and fairness under scrutiny

This comes naturally of McLaren’s laudable efforts to let their drivers race one another and to try to be as scrupulously fair. Quite apart from tying some torturous knots in setting precedents about what defines just or unjust – which, under these auspices, now includes bad luck, strategy and on-track occurrences like in Marina Bay – there remains the issue regarding opinions.

Most crucially to the title race, six races left, Piastri leads Norris by twenty-two points, there is what each driver perceives on fairness and at what point their perspectives might split with that of the McLaren pitwall. That is when the amicable relationship among them may – finally – turn somewhat into Senna-Prost.

“It’s going to come to a situation where minor points count,” said Mercedes boss Wolff post-race. “Then they’ll start to calculate and re-calculations and I suppose the elbows are going to come out further. That’s when it starts to become thrilling.”

Viewer desires 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 regarding incidents. Especially since in Formula One the alternative perception from all this is not particularly rousing.

To be fair, McLaren are making appropriate choices for themselves with successful results. They secured their tenth team championship in Singapore (though a great achievement overshadowed by the controversy from the Norris-Piastri moment) and in Andrea Stella as team principal they possess a moral and principled leader who truly aims to do the right thing.

Sporting integrity versus team management

However, with racers in a championship fight looking to the pitwall to decide matters is unedifying. Their competition should be decided through racing. Chance and fate will play their part, yet preferable to allow them simply go at it and observe outcomes naturally, than the impression that every disputed moment will be pored over by the team to ascertain whether they need to intervene and subsequently resolved afterwards behind closed doors.

The examination will increase with every occurrence it is in danger of possibly affecting outcomes which might prove decisive. Previously, following the team's decision for position swaps at Monza because Norris had endured a delayed stop and Piastri feeling he was treated unfairly with the strategy call in Budapest, where Norris won, the spectre of a fear of favouritism also emerges.

Squad viewpoint and future challenges

Nobody desires to witness a championship constantly disputed because it may be considered that fairness attempts had not been balanced. When asked if he believed the squad had managed to do right toward both racers, Piastri responded that they did, but noted that it was an ever-evolving approach.

“There’s been some difficult situations and we discussed various aspects,” he stated after Singapore. “But ultimately it’s a learning process with the whole team.”

Six races stay. The team has minimal room for error for last-minute adjustments, thus perhaps wiser to just close the books and step back from the fray.