🔗 Share this article

The British racing team and F1 would benefit from any conclusive outcome during this championship battle between Lando Norris and Piastri being decided through on-track action and without reference to the pit wall as the title run-in begins this weekend at Circuit of the Americas starting Friday.

Singapore Grand Prix fallout prompts team tensions

After the Marina Bay event’s doubtless extensive and tense debriefs concluded, the Woking-based squad is aiming for a fresh start. Norris was likely more than aware of the historical context regarding his retort toward his upset colleague at the last grand prix weekend. In a fiercely contested championship duel with the Australian, that Norris invoked a famous Senna most famous sentiments was lost on no one but the incident which triggered his statement differed completely from incidents characterizing Senna's iconic battles.

“Should you criticize me for just going on the inside through an opening then you should not be in F1,” stated Norris of his opening-lap attempt to pass which resulted in their vehicles making contact.

His comment appeared to paraphrase Senna’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 after he ploughed into Alain Prost in Japan in 1990, ensuring he took the championship.

Parallel mindset yet distinct situations

While the spirit remains comparable, the wording marks where parallels stop. Senna later admitted he had no intent to allow Prost to defeat him through the first corner while Norris attempted to execute a clean overtake at the Marina Bay circuit. In fact, it was a perfectly valid effort which received no penalty even with the glancing blow he made against his team colleague as he went through. This incident was a result of him touching the car driven by Verstappen in front of him.

The Australian responded angrily and, significantly, immediately declared that Norris gaining the place seemed unjust; the implication being the two teammates clashing was verboten under McLaren’s rules of engagement and Norris ought to be told to return the place he had made. The team refused, but it was indicative that in any cases of contention, each would quickly ask to the team to step in on his behalf.

Squad management and impartiality being examined

This is part and parcel from McLaren's commendable approach to let their drivers race against each other and to try to maintain strict fairness. Quite apart from tying some torturous knots in setting precedents about what defines fair or unfair – which, under these auspices, now covers misfortune, tactical calls and on-track occurrences such as in Singapore – there is the question regarding opinions.

Most crucially for the championship, with six meetings remaining, Piastri leads Norris by 22 points, each racer's view exists as fair and at what point their opinion may diverge with that of the McLaren pitwall. Which is when their friendly rapport among them may – finally – turn somewhat into the iconic rivalry.

“It will reach a point where a few points will matter,” said Mercedes boss Toto Wolff after Singapore. “Then calculations will begin and re-calculations and I guess aggression will increase a bit more. That’s when it starts to become thrilling.”

Viewer desires and championship implications

For the audience, during this dual battle, increased excitement will probably be welcomed as a track duel rather than a data-driven decision regarding incidents. 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 with successful results. They secured their tenth team championship in Singapore (albeit a brilliant success overshadowed by the controversy from the Norris-Piastri moment) and in Andrea Stella as squad leader they have an ethical and upright commander who truly aims to act correctly.

Racing purity against team management

However, with racers competing for the title appealing to the team to decide matters is unedifying. Their competition should be decided on track. Luck and destiny will play their part, but better to let them just battle freely and observe outcomes naturally, rather than the sense that each contentious incident will be pored over by the team to ascertain whether they need to intervene and subsequently resolved later in private.

The scrutiny will increase and each time it happens it is in danger of potentially making a difference that could be critical. Already, after the team made for position swaps in Italy because Norris had endured a delayed stop and Piastri believing he was treated unfairly with the strategy call in Budapest, where Norris triumphed, 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 fairness attempts were unequal. Questioned whether he believed the squad had acted correctly toward both racers, Piastri said that they did, but noted that it was an ever-evolving approach.

“We've had several difficult situations and we’ve spoken about various aspects,” he stated post-race. “But ultimately it's educational for the entire squad.”

Six races stay. The team has minimal room for error for last-minute adjustments, thus perhaps wiser to just stop analyzing and withdraw from the conflict.