🔗 Share this article

McLaren along with F1 could do with any conclusive outcome in the title fight involving Lando Norris & Piastri getting resolved through on-track action rather than without resorting to team orders with the title run-in begins at the COTA on Friday.

Singapore Grand Prix fallout prompts team tensions

With the Marina Bay event’s doubtless extensive and stressful post-race analyses concluded, the Woking-based squad is aiming for a fresh start. Norris was almost certainly more than aware of the historical context of his riposte toward his upset colleague during the previous race weekend. In a fiercely contested championship duel against Piastri, that Norris invoked one of Ayrton Senna’s well-known quotes was lost on no one but the incident which triggered his statement differed completely to those that defined the Brazilian’s iconic battles.

“If you fault me for just going an inside move of a big gap then you should not be in F1,” Norris said of his opening-lap attempt to pass that led to the cars colliding.

His comment seemed to echo the Brazilian legend's “Should you stop attempting for a gap that exists then you cease to be a true racer” justification he gave to the racing knight after he ploughed into the French champion at Suzuka in 1990, ensuring he took the title.

Parallel mindset but different circumstances

Although the attitude remains comparable, the phrasing is where the similarities end. Senna later admitted he had no intent of letting Prost to defeat him through the first corner whereas Norris attempted to make his pass cleanly in Singapore. Indeed, it was a perfectly valid effort that went unpenalised even with the glancing blow he had with his team colleague as he went through. That itself stemmed from him clipping the car of Max Verstappen in front of him.

The Australian responded angrily and, significantly, immediately declared that Norris gaining the place seemed unjust; the implication being their collision was verboten under McLaren’s rules of engagement and Norris should be instructed to give back the position he gained. McLaren did not do so, yet it demonstrated that during disputes between them, each would quickly ask to the team to intervene in their favor.

Team dynamics and impartiality under scrutiny

This comes naturally 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 about what defines just or unjust – under these conditions, now covers bad luck, strategy and on-track occurrences such as in Singapore – there remains the issue regarding opinions.

Most crucially for the championship, with six meetings remaining, Piastri is ahead of Norris by twenty-two points, each racer's view exists as fair and at what point their opinion may diverge with that of the McLaren pitwall. That is when the amicable relationship between the two could eventually – become a little bit more the iconic rivalry.

“It’s going to come to a situation where minor points count,” commented Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff post-race. “Then calculations will begin and re-calculations and I guess aggression will increase further. That’s when it starts to get interesting.”

Audience expectations and championship implications

For spectators, during this dual battle, getting interesting will likely be appreciated in the form of an on-track confrontation rather than a data-driven decision regarding incidents. Not least because in Formula One the alternative perception from all this is not particularly rousing.

Honestly speaking, McLaren is taking appropriate choices for their interests and it has paid off. They secured their 10th constructors’ title in Singapore (albeit a brilliant success diminished by the controversy from their drivers' clash) and in Andrea Stella as team principal they have an ethical and principled leader who truly aims to do the right thing.

Racing purity versus team management

Yet having drivers competing for the title appealing to the team to decide matters appears unsightly. Their competition should be decided through racing. Chance and fate will have roles, but better to let them simply go at it and observe outcomes naturally, rather than the sense that each contentious incident will be analyzed intensely by the squad to determine if they need to intervene and then cleared up later in private.

The scrutiny will intensify with every occurrence it risks potentially making a difference 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 triumphed, the shadow of concern of favouritism also emerges.

Squad viewpoint and upcoming tests

Nobody desires to see a title constantly disputed because it may be considered that fairness attempts were unequal. Questioned whether he felt the team had acted correctly by both drivers, Piastri said that they did, but mentioned it's a developing process.

“We've had several challenging moments and we discussed various aspects,” he stated after Singapore. “However finally it's educational with the whole team.”

Six meetings remain. The team has minimal room for error to do their cramming, thus perhaps wiser to just close the books and step back from the conflict.