🔗 Share this article

McLaren and Formula One would benefit from anything decisive during this championship battle between Lando Norris & Piastri getting resolved on the track and without resorting to the pit wall as the championship finale kicks off this weekend at COTA on Friday.

Marina Bay race fallout prompts team tensions

After the Marina Bay event’s undoubtedly thorough and stressful post-race analyses concluded, the Woking-based squad is aiming for a reset. Norris was almost certainly fully conscious of the historical context regarding his retort to his aggrieved teammate at the last race weekend. In a fiercely contested title fight with the Australian, his reference to a famous Senna most famous sentiments was lost on no one yet the occurrence which triggered his statement differed completely to those that defined Senna's iconic battles.

“Should you criticize me for simply attempting an inside move of a big gap then you should not be in F1,” stated Norris of his opening-lap attempt to pass that led to the cars colliding.

The remark seemed to echo the Brazilian legend's “If you no longer go for a gap that exists then you cease to be a true racer” defence he provided to the racing knight after he ploughed into the French champion in Japan back in 1990, ensuring he took the title.

Parallel mindset but different circumstances

Although the attitude is similar, the wording is where the similarities end. The late champion confessed he never intended to allow Prost beat him through the first corner while Norris did try to make his pass cleanly in Singapore. In fact, it was a perfectly valid effort which received no penalty despite the minor contact he had with his McLaren teammate during the pass. That itself was a result of him touching the car of Max Verstappen ahead of him.

Piastri reacted furiously and, notably, immediately declared that Norris's position gain was “unfair”; suggesting that their collision was forbidden by team protocols of engagement and Norris should be instructed to give back the position he gained. The team refused, but it was indicative that in any cases between them, each would quickly ask to the team to step in in their favor.

Team dynamics and impartiality being examined

This comes naturally of McLaren’s laudable efforts to let their drivers race one another and strive to maintain strict fairness. Quite apart from creating complex dilemmas in setting precedents over what constitutes just or unjust – which, under these auspices, now covers misfortune, strategy and on-track occurrences like in Marina Bay – there is the question regarding opinions.

Most crucially for the championship, six races left, Piastri leads Norris by twenty-two points, each racer's view exists on fairness and when their perspectives might split with that of the McLaren pitwall. Which is when the amicable relationship 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 back-calculate and I guess the elbows are going to come out further. That’s when it starts to get interesting.”

Viewer desires 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 spreadsheet-based arbitration of circumstances. Not least because in Formula One the other impression from these events isn't very inspiring.

Honestly speaking, McLaren is taking appropriate choices for themselves with successful results. They secured their 10th constructors’ title in Singapore (albeit a brilliant success overshadowed by the fuss prompted by the Norris-Piastri moment) and in Andrea Stella as team principal they have an ethical and principled leader who truly aims to do the right thing.

Racing purity against team management

However, with racers competing for the title appealing to the team to decide matters is unedifying. Their contest should be decided on track. Chance and fate will have roles, 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 determine if they need to intervene and then cleared up later in private.

The examination will intensify with every occurrence it risks potentially making a difference which might prove decisive. Previously, following the team's decision for position swaps in Italy due to Norris experiencing a delayed stop and Piastri feeling he had been hard done by regarding tactics in Budapest, where Norris triumphed, the spectre of a fear about bias also looms.

Squad viewpoint and future challenges

Nobody desires to witness a championship endlessly debated 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 noted that it was an ever-evolving approach.

“We've had several difficult situations and we discussed various aspects,” he said post-race. “However finally it’s a learning process for the entire squad.”

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