🔗 Share this article

The British racing team and Formula One would benefit from any conclusive outcome in the title fight involving Norris and Oscar Piastri getting resolved through on-track action rather than without resorting to the pit wall as the title run-in kicks off this weekend at Circuit of the Americas on Friday.

Singapore Grand Prix aftermath prompts internal strain

With the Singapore Grand Prix’s undoubtedly thorough and tense post-race analyses concluded, the Woking-based squad is aiming for a reset. Norris was almost certainly fully conscious about the historical parallels of his riposte toward his upset colleague at the last grand prix weekend. During an intense title fight with the Australian, his reference to a famous Senna most famous sentiments 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 just going on the inside of a big gap then you don't belong in F1,” stated Norris regarding his first-lap move to pass which resulted in the cars colliding.

The remark seemed to echo the Brazilian legend's “Should you stop attempting for a gap which is there you are no longer a true racer” justification he provided to the racing knight following his collision with Alain Prost in Japan back in 1990, ensuring he took the title.

Parallel mindset yet distinct situations

Although the attitude remains comparable, the wording is where the similarities end. Senna later admitted he never intended of letting Prost to defeat him at turn one whereas Norris attempted to make his pass cleanly in Singapore. In fact, his maneuver was legitimate that went unpenalised despite the minor contact he had with his team colleague during the pass. This incident stemmed from him touching the Red Bull of Max Verstappen in front of him.

The Australian responded angrily and, notably, immediately declared that Norris gaining the place seemed unjust; suggesting that their collision was verboten by team protocols for racing and Norris ought to be told to give back the place he had made. McLaren did not do so, yet it demonstrated that during disputes between them, each would quickly ask to the team to intervene in their favor.

Team dynamics and impartiality being examined

This comes naturally of McLaren’s laudable efforts to allow their racers compete one another and strive to maintain strict fairness. Quite apart from creating complex dilemmas in setting precedents over what constitutes fair or unfair – which, under these auspices, now includes bad luck, tactical calls and on-track occurrences such as in Singapore – there is the question of perception.

Most crucially for the championship, six races left, Piastri leads Norris by twenty-two points, each racer's view exists as fair and when their opinion may diverge from the team's stance. That is when the amicable relationship between the two may – finally – turn somewhat into Senna-Prost.

“It’s going to come to a situation where a few points will matter,” commented Mercedes boss Toto Wolff post-race. “Then they’ll start to calculate and re-calculations and I guess the elbows are going to come out 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, getting interesting will likely be appreciated as a track duel rather than a data-driven decision of circumstances. Especially since in Formula One the other impression from all this is not particularly rousing.

To be fair, McLaren is taking the correct decisions for their interests with successful results. They secured their 10th constructors’ title in Singapore (though a great achievement overshadowed by the controversy from the Norris-Piastri moment) and with Stella as squad leader they have an ethical and principled leader who truly aims to do the right thing.

Sporting integrity versus squad control

Yet having drivers competing for the title looking to the pitwall for resolutions appears unsightly. Their competition should be decided through racing. Chance and fate will have roles, but better to let them just battle freely 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 then cleared up later in private.

The examination will increase with every occurrence it risks potentially making a difference that could be critical. Already, following the team's decision for position swaps at Monza because Norris had endured a delayed stop and Piastri believing he was treated unfairly regarding tactics at Hungary, where Norris won, the shadow of concern of favouritism also emerges.

Squad viewpoint and upcoming tests

Nobody desires to see a title endlessly debated because it may be considered that the efforts to be fair were unequal. Questioned whether he believed the squad had acted correctly by both drivers, Piastri said that they did, but mentioned that it was an ever-evolving approach.

“We've had several difficult situations and we’ve spoken about a number of things,” he stated after Singapore. “However finally it’s a learning process with the whole team.”

Six meetings remain. McLaren have little room for error to do their cramming, so it may be better now to simply stop analyzing and step back from the conflict.