🔗 Share this article

McLaren along with Formula One would benefit from anything decisive in the title fight between Lando Norris and Oscar Piastri getting resolved on the track and without resorting to the pit wall with the title run-in kicks off this weekend at Circuit of the Americas starting Friday.

Marina Bay race fallout prompts team tensions

With the Marina Bay event’s doubtless extensive and tense debriefs dealt with, the Woking-based squad is aiming for a fresh start. Norris was almost certainly more than aware about the historical parallels of his riposte to his aggrieved teammate during the previous grand prix weekend. During an intense championship duel against Piastri, his reference to one of Ayrton Senna’s most famous sentiments did not go unnoticed but the incident which triggered his statement was of an entirely different nature to those that defined the Brazilian’s iconic battles.

“If you fault me for simply attempting on the inside of a big gap then you should not be in F1,” Norris said of his opening-lap attempt to overtake that led to their vehicles making contact.

The remark seemed to echo the Brazilian legend's “Should you stop attempting an available gap that exists you are no longer a racing driver” defence he provided to the racing knight after he ploughed into Alain Prost at Suzuka in 1990, ensuring he took the title.

Similar spirit yet distinct situations

Although the attitude is similar, the phrasing marks where parallels stop. Senna later admitted he never intended to allow Prost to defeat him through the first corner while Norris attempted to make his pass cleanly in Singapore. In fact, it was a perfectly valid effort that went unpenalised despite the minor contact he had with his McLaren teammate during the pass. That itself stemmed from him clipping the car of Max Verstappen ahead of him.

The Australian responded angrily and, notably, immediately declared that Norris's position gain was “unfair”; the implication being the two teammates clashing was verboten under McLaren’s rules of engagement and Norris ought to be told to give back the place he had made. McLaren did not do so, but it was indicative that during disputes of contention, both will promptly appeal to the team to intervene in their favor.

Team dynamics and impartiality under scrutiny

This is part and parcel from McLaren's commendable approach to let their drivers race one another and to try to maintain strict fairness. Aside from tying some torturous knots when establishing rules over what constitutes just or unjust – under these conditions, now includes bad luck, strategy and on-track occurrences such as in Singapore – there remains the issue of perception.

Most crucially for the championship, six races left, Piastri is ahead of Norris by 22 points, each racer's view exists as fair and at what point their opinion may diverge from the team's stance. Which is when the amicable relationship among them may – finally – become a little bit more the iconic rivalry.

“It’s going to come a point where minor points count,” commented Mercedes team principal Wolff post-race. “Then they’ll start to calculate and back-calculate and I suppose the elbows are going to come out a bit more. That’s when it starts to get interesting.”

Viewer desires and championship implications

For the audience, in what is a two-horse race, increased excitement will likely be appreciated in the form of a track duel instead of a data-driven decision regarding incidents. Not least because in Formula One the other impression from all this isn't very inspiring.

Honestly speaking, McLaren are making the correct decisions for their interests with successful results. They secured their 10th constructors’ title at Marina Bay (though a great achievement diminished by the controversy from the Norris-Piastri moment) and with Stella as team principal they have an ethical and principled leader who genuinely wants to act correctly.

Racing purity against team management

Yet having drivers competing for the title looking to the pitwall for resolutions appears unsightly. Their competition ought to be determined through racing. Chance and fate will play their part, but better to let them just battle freely and see how fortune falls, than the impression that every disputed moment will be pored over by the squad to determine if they need to intervene and then cleared up later in private.

The scrutiny will increase and each time it happens it risks potentially making a difference which might prove decisive. Already, following the team's decision their drivers swap places at Monza because Norris had endured a slow pit stop and Piastri feeling he had been hard done by 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 because it may be considered that fairness attempts were unequal. When asked if he felt the team had managed to do right by both drivers, Piastri said that they did, but mentioned that it was an ever-evolving approach.

“There’s been some difficult situations and we discussed a number of things,” he said after Singapore. “However finally it’s a learning process for the entire squad.”

Six meetings remain. The team has minimal room for error to do their cramming, thus perhaps wiser now to simply stop analyzing and withdraw from the conflict.