🔗 Share this article

The British racing team along with Formula One could do with anything decisive in the championship battle involving Lando Norris & Oscar Piastri being decided through on-track action rather than without reference to team orders with the championship finale begins at the Circuit of the Americas on Friday.

Marina Bay race fallout leads to internal strain

After the Singapore Grand Prix’s undoubtedly thorough and stressful debriefs concluded, McLaren is aiming for a reset. The British driver was almost certainly more than aware about the historical parallels regarding his retort to his aggrieved teammate during the previous grand prix weekend. During an intense championship duel against Piastri, that Norris invoked one of Ayrton Senna’s well-known quotes did not go unnoticed but the incident which triggered his statement differed completely from incidents characterizing Senna's iconic battles.

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

The remark appeared to paraphrase the Brazilian legend's “If you no longer go for a gap that exists then you cease to be a true racer” defence he provided to the racing knight after he ploughed into the French champion at Suzuka back in 1990, ensuring he took the championship.

Parallel mindset yet distinct situations

Although the attitude remains comparable, the wording marks where parallels stop. The late champion confessed he never intended to allow Prost beat him at turn one while Norris attempted to make his pass cleanly at the Marina Bay circuit. Indeed, it was a perfectly valid effort which received no penalty despite the minor contact he made against his team colleague as he went through. That itself stemmed from him clipping 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; the implication being their collision was forbidden under McLaren’s rules of engagement and Norris should be instructed to give back the place he had made. McLaren did not do so, but it was indicative that during disputes between them, each would quickly ask to the team to intervene in their favor.

Squad management and impartiality under scrutiny

This is part and parcel of McLaren’s laudable efforts to let their drivers race one another and to try to be as scrupulously fair. Aside from creating complex dilemmas when establishing rules about what defines fair or unfair – which, under these auspices, now includes bad luck, tactical calls and on-track occurrences like in Marina Bay – there remains the issue of perception.

Of most import to the title race, six races left, Piastri is ahead of Norris by twenty-two points, each racer's view exists as fair and when their perspectives might split with that of the McLaren pitwall. That is when the amicable relationship among them may – finally – turn somewhat into the iconic rivalry.

“It’s going to come a point where minor points count,” said Mercedes team principal Wolff post-race. “Then they’ll start to calculate and re-calculations and I guess aggression will increase a bit more. That's when it begins to get interesting.”

Audience expectations and championship implications

For spectators, in what is a two-horse race, getting interesting will probably be welcomed as a track duel instead of a spreadsheet-based arbitration regarding incidents. Not least because for F1 the other impression from all this isn't very inspiring.

Honestly speaking, McLaren are making the correct decisions for themselves with successful results. They secured their 10th constructors’ title in Singapore (albeit a brilliant success overshadowed by the controversy from their drivers' clash) and with Stella as squad leader they possess a moral and upright commander who truly aims to do the right thing.

Racing purity versus team management

Yet having drivers in a championship fight appealing to the team to decide matters is unedifying. Their competition should be decided through racing. Luck and destiny will play their part, yet preferable to allow them just battle freely and see how fortune falls, than the impression that each contentious incident will be pored over by the team to determine if they need to intervene and subsequently resolved later in private.

The examination will intensify and each time it happens it is in danger of potentially making a difference which might prove decisive. 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 in Budapest, where Norris triumphed, the shadow of concern of favouritism also looms.

Team perspective and future challenges

No one wants to witness a championship constantly disputed because it may be considered that the efforts to be fair were unequal. When asked if he felt the team had managed to do right toward both racers, Piastri said that they did, but noted it's a developing process.

“There’s been some challenging moments 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 to do their cramming, so it may be better now to simply stop analyzing and withdraw from the conflict.