🔗 Share this article

The British racing team and F1 would benefit from any conclusive outcome in the championship battle involving Lando Norris and Piastri getting resolved on the track rather than without reference to team orders as the championship finale kicks off at the Circuit of the Americas starting Friday.

Singapore Grand Prix fallout prompts team tensions

After the Singapore Grand Prix’s doubtless extensive and stressful post-race analyses dealt with, the Woking-based squad will be hoping for a fresh start. The British driver was likely fully conscious about the historical parallels regarding his retort toward his upset colleague at the last grand prix weekend. In a fiercely contested championship duel against Piastri, his reference to one of Ayrton Senna’s most famous sentiments was lost on no one yet the occurrence which triggered his statement differed completely from incidents characterizing Senna's great rivalries.

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

The remark appeared to paraphrase Senna’s “Should you stop attempting an available gap which is there then you cease to be a racing driver” defence he gave to Sir Jackie Stewart following his collision with the French champion in Japan in 1990, ensuring he took the title.

Parallel mindset but different circumstances

While the spirit is similar, the wording marks where parallels stop. Senna later admitted he had no intent to allow Prost to defeat him at turn one whereas Norris attempted to make his pass cleanly in Singapore. Indeed, his maneuver was legitimate that went unpenalised even with the glancing blow he made against his McLaren teammate during the pass. This incident was a result of him touching the Red Bull driven by Verstappen ahead of him.

The Australian responded angrily and, significantly, instantly stated that Norris gaining the place was “unfair”; the implication being their collision was forbidden under McLaren’s rules of engagement and Norris should be instructed to give back the position he gained. The team refused, but it was indicative that in any cases between them, each would quickly ask to the team to step in in their favor.

Squad management and impartiality being examined

This is part and parcel from McLaren's commendable approach to let their drivers race one another and strive to maintain strict fairness. Quite apart from tying some torturous knots in setting precedents over what constitutes fair or unfair – which, under these auspices, now covers bad luck, strategy and racing incidents like in Marina Bay – there is the question of perception.

Most crucially for the championship, with six meetings remaining, Piastri is ahead of Norris by 22 points, there is what each driver perceives as fair and when their opinion may diverge with that of the McLaren pitwall. Which is when the amicable relationship among them may – finally – turn somewhat into Senna-Prost.

“It’s going to come a point where minor points count,” commented Mercedes boss Toto Wolff after Singapore. “Then calculations will begin and re-calculations and I suppose aggression will increase a bit more. That’s when it starts to become thrilling.”

Audience expectations and championship implications

For spectators, during this dual battle, increased excitement will probably be welcomed as an on-track confrontation instead of a data-driven decision regarding incidents. Especially since in Formula One the other impression from these events is not particularly rousing.

To be fair, McLaren is taking appropriate choices for themselves and it has paid off. They secured their 10th constructors’ title in Singapore (albeit a brilliant success diminished by the fuss prompted by the Norris-Piastri moment) and in Andrea Stella as squad leader they possess a moral and principled leader who genuinely wants to do the right thing.

Racing purity versus team management

Yet having drivers competing for the title looking to the pitwall to decide matters is unedifying. Their competition should be decided on track. Chance and fate will have roles, but better to let them simply go at it and see how fortune falls, than the impression that every disputed moment will be pored over by the team to ascertain whether intervention is needed and subsequently resolved afterwards behind closed doors.

The scrutiny will intensify with every occurrence it risks potentially making a difference that could be critical. Previously, following the team's decision for position swaps in Italy due to Norris experiencing a delayed stop and Piastri believing he had been hard done by with the strategy call in Budapest, where Norris won, the spectre of a fear about bias 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 were unequal. Questioned whether he felt the team had acted correctly toward both racers, Piastri responded he believed they had, but noted it's a developing process.

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

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