🔗 Share this article

The British racing team along with Formula One would benefit from anything decisive in the championship battle involving Norris and Oscar Piastri being decided through on-track action and without resorting to team orders with the championship finale begins this weekend at COTA on Friday.

Singapore Grand Prix fallout leads to internal strain

After the Marina Bay event’s doubtless extensive and tense post-race analyses dealt with, the Woking-based squad will be hoping for a reset. The British driver was almost certainly fully conscious of the historical context of his riposte to his aggrieved teammate at the last grand prix weekend. In a fiercely contested championship duel with the Australian, that Norris invoked a famous Senna well-known quotes was lost on no one yet the occurrence which triggered his statement differed completely from incidents characterizing Senna's iconic battles.

“Should you criticize me for simply attempting on the inside of a big gap then you don't belong in F1,” Norris said regarding his first-lap move to overtake that led to their vehicles making contact.

His comment appeared to paraphrase Senna’s “Should you stop attempting for a gap which is there then you cease to be a true racer” defence he provided to Sir Jackie Stewart following his collision with the French champion at Suzuka in 1990, securing him the championship.

Similar spirit yet distinct situations

While the spirit is similar, the wording is where the similarities end. The late champion confessed he had no intent of letting Prost to defeat him through the first corner while Norris attempted to execute a clean overtake at the Marina Bay circuit. Indeed, it was a perfectly valid effort which received no penalty despite the minor contact he made against his team colleague as he went through. This incident was a result of him touching the Red Bull of Max Verstappen ahead of him.

Piastri reacted furiously and, notably, instantly stated that Norris's position gain was “unfair”; suggesting that their collision was verboten by team protocols of engagement and Norris ought to be told to return the position he gained. The team refused, but it was indicative that in any cases between them, each would quickly ask the squad to intervene in their favor.

Squad management and fairness being examined

This comes naturally of McLaren’s laudable efforts to let their drivers race against each other and strive to maintain strict fairness. Quite apart from creating complex dilemmas in setting precedents about what defines fair or unfair – which, under these auspices, now includes misfortune, strategy and racing incidents such as in Singapore – there remains the issue regarding opinions.

Of most import to the title race, with six meetings remaining, Piastri is ahead of Norris by 22 points, each racer's view exists as fair and when their perspectives might split with that of the McLaren pitwall. Which is when the amicable relationship among them could eventually – turn somewhat into the iconic rivalry.

“It will reach to a situation where minor points count,” commented Mercedes team principal Wolff post-race. “Then they’ll start to calculate and back-calculate and I guess aggression will increase further. 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 as an on-track confrontation instead of a spreadsheet-based arbitration of circumstances. Especially since for F1 the alternative perception from these events isn't very inspiring.

To be fair, McLaren is taking appropriate choices for their interests with successful results. They clinched their 10th constructors’ title at Marina Bay (albeit a brilliant success diminished by the fuss prompted by the Norris-Piastri moment) and with Stella as team principal they have an ethical and upright commander who genuinely wants to do the right thing.

Sporting integrity versus team management

Yet having drivers competing for the title appealing to the team to decide matters appears unsightly. Their contest ought to be determined on track. Chance and fate will have roles, but better to let them just battle freely and observe outcomes naturally, than the impression that every disputed moment will be analyzed intensely by the team to determine if they need to intervene and subsequently resolved later in private.

The examination will intensify and each time it happens it risks possibly affecting outcomes that could be critical. Previously, after the team made their drivers swap places at Monza because Norris had endured a slow pit stop and Piastri believing he was treated unfairly with the strategy call in Budapest, where Norris won, the spectre of a fear about bias also emerges.

Squad viewpoint and future challenges

Nobody desires to witness a championship constantly disputed over perceived that fairness attempts were unequal. When asked if he believed the squad had acted correctly toward both racers, Piastri said he believed they had, but noted that it was an ever-evolving approach.

“We've had several difficult situations and we discussed a number of things,” he stated after Singapore. “But ultimately it's educational with the whole team.”

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