🔗 Share this article

The British racing team along with Formula One would benefit from anything decisive in the title fight involving Lando Norris & Piastri being decided on the track rather than without resorting to the pit wall as the championship finale kicks off this weekend at COTA on Friday.

Marina Bay race aftermath prompts internal strain

With the Marina Bay event’s doubtless extensive and tense post-race analyses dealt with, the Woking-based squad is aiming for a fresh start. The British driver was almost certainly more than aware of the historical context of his riposte to his aggrieved teammate at the last grand prix weekend. In a fiercely contested title fight with the Australian, 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 an inside move of a big gap then you should not be in F1,” Norris said regarding his first-lap move to pass that led to their vehicles making contact.

The remark seemed to echo Senna’s “If you no longer go an available gap that exists then you cease to be a racing driver” defence he provided to the racing knight after he ploughed into Alain Prost in Japan back in 1990, ensuring he took the championship.

Parallel mindset but different circumstances

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 at turn one whereas Norris did try to execute a clean overtake at the Marina Bay circuit. In fact, his maneuver was legitimate which received no penalty even with the glancing blow he had with his team colleague as he went through. This incident was a result of him clipping the Red Bull driven by Verstappen in front of him.

The Australian responded angrily and, notably, instantly stated that Norris gaining the place seemed unjust; the implication being the two teammates clashing was verboten under McLaren’s rules for racing and Norris should be instructed to return the position he gained. McLaren did not do so, but it was indicative that in any cases of contention, both will promptly appeal to the team to intervene in their favor.

Squad management and fairness under scrutiny

This comes naturally of McLaren’s laudable efforts to let their drivers race against each other and to try to be as scrupulously fair. Quite apart from tying some torturous knots when establishing rules over what constitutes fair or unfair – which, under these auspices, now includes bad luck, strategy and racing incidents like in Marina Bay – there remains the issue regarding opinions.

Of most import to the title race, with six meetings remaining, Piastri is ahead of Norris by twenty-two points, there is what each driver perceives on fairness and at what point their perspectives might split from the team's stance. That is when their friendly rapport among them could eventually – turn somewhat into the iconic rivalry.

“It will reach a point where a few points will matter,” said Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff post-race. “Then calculations will begin and re-calculations and I suppose aggression will increase a bit more. That’s when it starts to get interesting.”

Audience expectations and title consequences

For the audience, during this dual battle, increased excitement will probably be welcomed in the form of an on-track confrontation instead of a data-driven decision of circumstances. Not least because for F1 the alternative perception from these events is not particularly rousing.

Honestly speaking, McLaren are making the correct decisions for their interests with successful results. They clinched their tenth team championship in Singapore (though a great achievement overshadowed by the fuss prompted by their drivers' clash) and in Andrea Stella as team principal they have an ethical and principled leader who genuinely wants to do the right thing.

Racing purity against squad control

Yet having drivers in a championship fight appealing to the team for resolutions is unedifying. Their competition ought to be determined on track. Chance and fate will play their part, but better to let them simply go at it and see how fortune falls, rather than the sense that each contentious incident will be analyzed intensely by the team to determine if intervention is needed and subsequently resolved later in private.

The examination will intensify and each time it happens it is in danger of possibly affecting outcomes which might prove decisive. Already, after the team made for position swaps in Italy because Norris had endured a slow pit stop and Piastri believing he had been hard done by regarding tactics in Budapest, where Norris won, the spectre of a fear of favouritism also emerges.

Squad viewpoint and upcoming tests

No one wants to witness a championship constantly disputed over perceived that the efforts to be fair had not been balanced. Questioned whether he felt the team had acted correctly toward both racers, Piastri said he believed they had, but mentioned that it was an ever-evolving approach.

“There’s been some difficult situations and we’ve spoken about various aspects,” he said after Singapore. “But ultimately it’s a learning process for the entire squad.”

Six races stay. The team has minimal room for error to do their cramming, so it may be better to just stop analyzing and step back from the conflict.