🔗 Share this article

The British racing team and Formula One would benefit from anything decisive in the title fight between Norris & Oscar Piastri being decided through on-track action rather than without reference to team orders as the title run-in begins this weekend at Circuit of the Americas starting Friday.

Marina Bay race fallout prompts internal strain

With the Singapore Grand Prix’s undoubtedly thorough and stressful debriefs concluded, McLaren is aiming for a fresh start. The British driver was likely more than aware of the historical context 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 most famous sentiments did not go unnoticed yet the occurrence which triggered his statement was of an entirely different nature to those that defined the Brazilian’s great rivalries.

“Should you criticize me for just going on the inside of a big gap then you should not be in F1,” Norris said of his opening-lap attempt to overtake which resulted in their vehicles making contact.

The remark seemed to echo 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 Sir Jackie Stewart following his collision with Alain Prost at Suzuka in 1990, securing him the title.

Similar spirit yet distinct situations

Although the attitude remains comparable, the wording marks where parallels stop. The late champion confessed he never intended to allow Prost to defeat him through the first corner whereas Norris did try to execute a clean overtake at the Marina Bay circuit. Indeed, his maneuver was legitimate which received no penalty even with the glancing blow he had with his team colleague during the pass. This incident was a result of him clipping the car driven by Verstappen in front of him.

Piastri reacted furiously and, significantly, immediately declared that Norris's position gain was “unfair”; suggesting that the two teammates clashing was verboten under McLaren’s rules for racing and Norris ought to be told to return the place he had made. The team refused, yet it demonstrated that during disputes between them, both will promptly appeal the squad 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 against each other and to try to maintain strict fairness. Aside from tying some torturous knots in setting precedents over what constitutes just or unjust – under these conditions, now covers bad luck, strategy and racing incidents such as in Singapore – there remains the issue of perception.

Most crucially for the championship, with six meetings remaining, Piastri is ahead of Norris by twenty-two points, there is what each driver perceives on fairness and when their perspectives might split with that of the McLaren pitwall. Which is when the amicable relationship among them may – finally – become a little bit more the iconic rivalry.

“It will reach a point where a few points will matter,” said Mercedes boss Toto Wolff post-race. “Then they’ll start to calculate and re-calculations and I suppose aggression will increase a bit more. That’s when it starts to get interesting.”

Audience expectations and championship implications

For the audience, in what is a two-horse race, increased excitement will likely be appreciated as a track duel rather than a data-driven decision of circumstances. Not least because in Formula One the alternative perception from all this is not particularly rousing.

To be fair, McLaren are making appropriate choices for themselves and it has paid off. They clinched their tenth team championship in Singapore (though a great achievement overshadowed by the fuss prompted by their drivers' clash) and in Andrea Stella as team principal they possess a moral and upright commander who truly aims to do the right thing.

Sporting integrity versus squad control

However, with racers competing for the title looking to the pitwall to decide matters is unedifying. Their contest should be decided through racing. Luck and destiny will have roles, but better to let them just battle freely and observe outcomes naturally, than the impression that each contentious incident will be pored over by the team to determine if intervention is needed and then cleared up afterwards behind closed doors.

The scrutiny will increase and each time it happens it is in danger of possibly affecting outcomes which might prove decisive. Already, after the team made for position swaps at Monza because Norris had endured a slow pit stop and Piastri believing he was treated unfairly with the strategy call at Hungary, where Norris won, the spectre of a fear about bias also emerges.

Squad viewpoint and upcoming tests

No one wants to witness a championship endlessly debated because it may be considered that the efforts to be fair were unequal. Questioned whether he believed the squad had acted correctly toward both racers, Piastri said he believed they had, but noted it's a developing process.

“We've had several difficult situations and we discussed various aspects,” he stated post-race. “But ultimately it’s a learning process with the whole team.”

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