🔗 Share this article

McLaren along with Formula One would benefit from any conclusive outcome during this championship battle between Norris and Oscar Piastri being decided through on-track action and without resorting to team orders as the title run-in kicks off this weekend at Circuit of the Americas starting Friday.

Singapore Grand Prix fallout prompts internal strain

With the Marina Bay event’s undoubtedly thorough and stressful debriefs concluded, McLaren is aiming for a reset. Norris was almost certainly more than aware about the historical parallels regarding his retort to his aggrieved teammate during the previous grand prix weekend. In a fiercely contested championship duel against Piastri, his reference to a famous Senna well-known quotes did not go unnoticed yet the occurrence that provoked his comment was of an entirely different nature to those that defined the Brazilian’s great rivalries.

“If you fault me for simply attempting an inside move through an opening then you should not be in Formula One,” stated Norris of his opening-lap attempt to pass which resulted in their vehicles making contact.

The remark seemed to echo the Brazilian legend's “If you no longer go an available gap which is there you are no longer a true racer” defence he provided to Sir Jackie Stewart following his collision with the French champion 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 never intended to allow Prost to defeat him at turn one whereas Norris attempted to execute a clean overtake at the Marina Bay circuit. Indeed, his maneuver was legitimate that went unpenalised despite the minor contact he had with his team colleague as he went through. That itself stemmed from him clipping the car of Max Verstappen in front of him.

Piastri reacted furiously and, notably, immediately declared that Norris's position gain seemed unjust; suggesting that their collision was verboten by team protocols of engagement and Norris ought to be told to give back the place he had made. McLaren did not do so, yet it demonstrated that in any cases of contention, both will promptly appeal the squad to step in on his behalf.

Squad management and impartiality under scrutiny

This is part and parcel of McLaren’s laudable efforts to allow their racers compete one another and strive to be as scrupulously fair. Quite apart from tying some torturous knots in setting precedents about what defines fair or unfair – under these conditions, now includes misfortune, tactical calls and on-track occurrences like in Marina Bay – there is the question 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 on fairness and at what point their opinion may diverge from the team's stance. Which is when the amicable relationship among them could eventually – become a little bit more the iconic rivalry.

“It’s going to come to a situation where minor points count,” said Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff after Singapore. “Then calculations will begin and back-calculate and I suppose the elbows are going to come out further. That’s when it starts to get interesting.”

Audience expectations and championship implications

For the audience, in what is a two-horse race, getting interesting will probably be welcomed as an on-track confrontation rather than a spreadsheet-based arbitration of circumstances. Not least because for F1 the other impression from all this isn't very inspiring.

To be fair, McLaren are making appropriate choices for themselves with successful results. They secured their 10th constructors’ title at Marina Bay (though a great achievement overshadowed by the fuss prompted by the Norris-Piastri moment) and with Stella as team principal they possess a moral and upright commander who truly aims to do the right thing.

Sporting integrity versus team management

However, with racers in a championship fight appealing to the team to decide matters appears unsightly. Their contest ought to be determined through racing. Chance and fate will play their part, but better to let them simply go at it and observe outcomes naturally, rather than the sense that each contentious incident will be analyzed intensely by the team to determine if they need to intervene and subsequently resolved later in private.

The examination will intensify with every occurrence it risks possibly affecting outcomes that could be critical. Already, following the team's decision for position swaps at Monza due to Norris experiencing a delayed stop and Piastri feeling he had been hard done by with the strategy call at Hungary, where Norris triumphed, the shadow of concern of favouritism also looms.

Team perspective and future challenges

No one wants to witness a championship endlessly debated because it may be considered that the efforts to be fair had not been balanced. When asked if he felt the team had managed to do right toward both racers, Piastri said he believed they had, but mentioned that it was an ever-evolving approach.

“There’s been some challenging moments and we’ve spoken about a number of things,” he stated after Singapore. “But ultimately it’s a learning process with the whole team.”

Six races stay. The team has minimal wriggle room left for last-minute adjustments, thus perhaps wiser to just close the books and step back from the conflict.