🔗 Share this article

The British racing team and F1 would benefit from anything decisive in the championship battle between Lando Norris and Oscar Piastri getting resolved on the track and without resorting to team orders with the championship finale begins at the COTA on Friday.

Marina Bay race aftermath leads to team tensions

With the Singapore Grand Prix’s undoubtedly thorough and stressful debriefs concluded, McLaren is aiming for a reset. Norris was likely fully conscious about the historical parallels of his riposte to his aggrieved teammate at the last grand prix weekend. During an intense championship duel with the Australian, his reference to one of Ayrton Senna’s most famous sentiments did not go unnoticed but the incident which triggered his statement differed completely to those that defined Senna's iconic battles.

“Should you criticize me for simply attempting an inside move through an opening then you don't belong in F1,” stated Norris of his opening-lap attempt to pass which resulted in their vehicles making contact.

The remark seemed to echo the Brazilian legend's “If you no longer go an available gap that exists then you cease to be a racing driver” justification he gave to the racing knight after he ploughed into Alain Prost at Suzuka in 1990, ensuring he took the title.

Parallel mindset yet distinct situations

Although the attitude is similar, the phrasing is where the similarities end. Senna later admitted he never intended to allow Prost beat him at turn one while Norris did try to make his pass cleanly in Singapore. In fact, his maneuver was legitimate that went unpenalised even with the glancing blow he had with his McLaren teammate during the pass. That itself was a result of him touching the Red Bull driven by Verstappen ahead of him.

The Australian responded angrily and, notably, instantly stated that Norris gaining the place was “unfair”; the implication being the two teammates clashing was verboten under McLaren’s rules for racing and Norris ought to be told to give back the position he gained. The team refused, but it was indicative that during disputes of contention, each would quickly ask to the team to step in in their favor.

Team dynamics and fairness being examined

This is part and parcel of McLaren’s laudable efforts to allow their racers compete one another and strive to be as scrupulously fair. Aside from creating complex dilemmas when establishing rules about what defines fair or unfair – which, under these auspices, now covers 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 twenty-two points, each racer's view exists on fairness and when their opinion may diverge from the team's stance. Which is when their friendly rapport among them may – finally – become a little bit more Senna-Prost.

“It’s going to come a point where a few points will matter,” said Mercedes boss Wolff post-race. “Then calculations will begin and back-calculate and I suppose aggression will increase a bit more. That’s when it starts to become thrilling.”

Audience expectations and championship implications

For the audience, in what is a two-horse race, increased excitement will probably be welcomed as a track duel instead of a data-driven decision regarding incidents. Especially since for F1 the other impression from these events is not particularly rousing.

Honestly speaking, McLaren is taking appropriate choices for their interests with successful results. They clinched their tenth team championship in Singapore (albeit a brilliant success diminished by the controversy from their drivers' clash) and in Andrea Stella as squad leader they possess a moral and principled leader who genuinely wants to act correctly.

Sporting integrity against squad control

Yet having drivers in a championship fight appealing to the team to decide matters is unedifying. Their contest ought to be determined through racing. Chance and fate 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 team to ascertain whether they need to intervene and then cleared up afterwards behind closed doors.

The scrutiny will intensify with every occurrence it risks possibly affecting outcomes that could be critical. Previously, after the team made their drivers swap places in Italy due to Norris experiencing a slow pit stop and Piastri feeling he was treated unfairly with the strategy call at Hungary, where Norris triumphed, the spectre of a fear about bias also emerges.

Team perspective and future challenges

Nobody desires to see a title constantly disputed over perceived that fairness attempts had not been balanced. Questioned whether he believed the squad had acted correctly toward both racers, Piastri said he believed they had, but noted that it was an ever-evolving approach.

“We've had several challenging moments and we’ve spoken about various aspects,” he stated after Singapore. “But ultimately it's educational for the entire squad.”

Six meetings remain. McLaren have little wriggle room left for last-minute adjustments, so it may be better to just close the books and step back from the fray.