🔗 Share this article

The British racing team along with F1 would benefit from any conclusive outcome during this championship battle involving Lando Norris and Oscar Piastri getting resolved through on-track action rather than without reference to team orders as the title run-in kicks off this weekend at Circuit of the Americas on Friday.

Marina Bay race aftermath leads to team tensions

After the Marina Bay event’s undoubtedly thorough and tense post-race analyses concluded, McLaren is aiming for a fresh start. The British driver was almost certainly fully conscious about the historical parallels regarding his retort toward his upset colleague at the last race weekend. During an intense championship duel against Piastri, his reference to one of Ayrton Senna’s well-known quotes did not go unnoticed but the incident which triggered his statement differed completely from incidents characterizing the Brazilian’s great rivalries.

“Should you criticize me for simply attempting an inside move of a big gap then you should not be in Formula One,” stated Norris regarding his first-lap move to pass which resulted in the cars colliding.

The remark appeared to paraphrase the Brazilian legend's “If you no longer go for a gap that exists you are no longer a racing driver” justification he provided to the racing knight after he ploughed into the French champion in Japan in 1990, ensuring he took the title.

Similar spirit yet distinct situations

While the spirit remains comparable, the phrasing is where the similarities end. Senna later admitted he never intended of letting Prost beat him through the first corner while Norris attempted to execute a clean overtake at the Marina Bay circuit. In fact, his maneuver was legitimate which received no penalty despite the minor contact he made against his McLaren teammate during the pass. That itself was a result of him clipping the car of Max Verstappen in front of him.

The Australian responded angrily and, notably, immediately declared that Norris's position gain was “unfair”; suggesting that their collision was forbidden under McLaren’s rules for racing and Norris should be instructed to return the place he had made. McLaren did not do so, but it was indicative that during disputes of contention, both will promptly appeal the squad to intervene on his behalf.

Team dynamics and fairness under scrutiny

This is part and parcel of McLaren’s laudable efforts to let their drivers race against each other and to try to maintain strict fairness. Aside from creating complex dilemmas when establishing rules about what defines just or unjust – under these conditions, now includes bad luck, strategy and racing incidents like in Marina Bay – there remains the issue regarding opinions.

Of most import for the championship, six races left, Piastri is ahead of Norris by 22 points, there is what each driver perceives as fair and when their perspectives might split from the team's stance. Which is when their friendly rapport among them may – finally – turn somewhat into the iconic rivalry.

“It’s going to come a point where a few points will matter,” commented Mercedes boss Wolff after Singapore. “Then they’ll start to calculate and re-calculations and I guess aggression will increase a bit more. That’s when it starts to get interesting.”

Audience expectations and title consequences

For spectators, in what is a two-horse race, increased excitement will probably be welcomed as an on-track confrontation rather than a spreadsheet-based arbitration of circumstances. Not least because for F1 the alternative perception from all this isn't very inspiring.

Honestly speaking, McLaren is taking appropriate choices for their interests with successful results. They secured their tenth team championship in Singapore (albeit a brilliant success diminished by the fuss prompted by the Norris-Piastri moment) and with Stella as team principal they have an ethical and upright commander who truly aims to act correctly.

Sporting integrity versus team management

Yet having drivers competing for the title looking to the pitwall to decide matters is unedifying. Their competition should be decided on track. Luck and destiny will play their part, yet preferable to allow them simply go at it and observe outcomes naturally, rather than the sense that every disputed moment will be analyzed intensely by the squad to determine if intervention is needed and subsequently resolved later in private.

The examination will increase and each time it happens it is in danger of possibly affecting outcomes which might prove decisive. Already, following the team's decision for position swaps in Italy because Norris had endured a slow pit stop and Piastri believing he was treated unfairly with the strategy call at Hungary, where Norris triumphed, the spectre of a fear about bias also looms.

Team perspective and future challenges

Nobody desires to see a title constantly disputed because it may be considered that fairness attempts had not been balanced. When asked if he felt the team had acted correctly toward both racers, Piastri responded he believed they had, but mentioned that it was an ever-evolving approach.

“We've had several challenging moments and we’ve spoken about various aspects,” he stated post-race. “But ultimately it's educational with the whole team.”

Six meetings remain. The team has minimal wriggle room left for last-minute adjustments, thus perhaps wiser now to simply close the books and withdraw from the conflict.