🔗 Share this article

McLaren and Formula One would benefit from any conclusive outcome in the championship battle between Norris & Piastri being decided on the track and without resorting to team orders as the championship finale kicks off this weekend at COTA on Friday.

Singapore Grand Prix aftermath leads to internal strain

With the Singapore Grand Prix’s doubtless extensive and stressful debriefs concluded, McLaren will be hoping for a fresh start. Norris was almost certainly fully conscious of the historical context regarding his retort toward his upset colleague at the last race weekend. In a fiercely contested championship duel against Piastri, that Norris invoked a famous Senna most famous sentiments did not go unnoticed yet the occurrence that provoked his comment was of an entirely different nature to those that defined Senna's great rivalries.

“Should you criticize me for simply attempting an inside move through an opening then you should not be in F1,” Norris said regarding his first-lap move to overtake that led to the cars colliding.

His comment seemed to echo the Brazilian legend's “If you no longer go for a gap which is there you are no longer a racing driver” justification he gave to the racing knight after he ploughed into Alain Prost in Japan in 1990, ensuring he took the championship.

Similar spirit but different circumstances

While the spirit remains comparable, the phrasing is where the similarities end. The late champion confessed he had no intent to allow Prost beat him through the first corner while Norris did try to make his pass cleanly at the Marina Bay circuit. In fact, it was a perfectly valid effort which received no penalty even with the glancing blow he had with his team colleague as he went through. This incident was a result of him touching the car of Max Verstappen ahead 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 for racing and Norris ought to be told to return the place he had made. McLaren did not do so, but it was indicative that during disputes between them, both will promptly appeal the squad to step in on his behalf.

Team dynamics and impartiality under scrutiny

This is part and parcel of McLaren’s laudable efforts to let their drivers race against each other and to try to be as scrupulously fair. Quite apart from creating complex dilemmas when establishing rules over what constitutes fair or unfair – under these conditions, now covers misfortune, strategy and racing incidents such as in Singapore – there remains the issue regarding opinions.

Most crucially 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. That is when their friendly rapport between the two may – finally – turn somewhat into Senna-Prost.

“It will reach a point where a few points will matter,” commented Mercedes boss Toto Wolff after Singapore. “Then calculations will begin and re-calculations and I suppose the elbows are going to come out further. That’s when it starts to get interesting.”

Viewer desires and championship implications

For spectators, in what is a two-horse race, increased excitement will likely be appreciated in the form of an on-track confrontation rather than a spreadsheet-based arbitration of circumstances. Not least because in Formula One the other impression from all this isn't very inspiring.

To be fair, McLaren is taking appropriate choices for themselves with successful results. They secured their 10th constructors’ title in Singapore (though a great achievement overshadowed by the fuss prompted by the Norris-Piastri moment) and with Stella as squad leader they have an ethical and principled leader who genuinely wants to do the right thing.

Sporting integrity versus squad control

However, with racers competing for the title appealing to the team to decide matters appears unsightly. Their competition ought to be determined through racing. Chance and fate will play their part, but better to let them simply go at it and observe outcomes naturally, than the impression that each contentious incident will be analyzed intensely by the squad to ascertain whether intervention is needed and subsequently resolved later in private.

The scrutiny will intensify and each time it happens it is in danger of potentially making a difference that could be critical. Already, after the team made their drivers swap places at Monza because Norris had endured a slow pit stop and Piastri feeling he was treated unfairly with the strategy call at Hungary, where Norris won, the spectre of a fear about bias also looms.

Squad viewpoint and future challenges

Nobody desires to see a title endlessly debated because it may be considered that the efforts to be fair had not been balanced. When asked if he believed the squad had acted correctly by both drivers, Piastri responded that they did, but noted that it was an ever-evolving approach.

“There’s been some difficult situations and we discussed various aspects,” he said after Singapore. “But ultimately it's educational for the entire squad.”

Six races stay. The team has minimal wriggle room left for last-minute adjustments, thus perhaps wiser now to simply stop analyzing and step back from the conflict.