🔗 Share this article

The British racing team along with F1 could do with any conclusive outcome in the championship battle involving Norris and Oscar Piastri getting resolved through on-track action and without reference to the pit wall with the championship finale kicks off this weekend at Circuit of the Americas on Friday.

Singapore Grand Prix aftermath leads to internal strain

With the Singapore Grand Prix’s doubtless extensive and stressful post-race analyses dealt with, McLaren will be hoping for a fresh start. Norris was almost certainly more than aware of the historical context of his riposte toward his upset colleague during the previous grand prix weekend. In a fiercely contested title fight with the Australian, that Norris invoked 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 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,” stated Norris of his opening-lap attempt to overtake that led to the cars colliding.

His comment seemed to echo Senna’s “If you no longer go for a gap that exists you are no longer a racing driver” justification he gave to Sir Jackie Stewart after he ploughed into Alain Prost in Japan back in 1990, ensuring he took the championship.

Similar spirit but different circumstances

Although the attitude is similar, the wording marks where parallels stop. The late champion confessed he never intended to allow Prost beat him at turn one whereas Norris did try 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. That itself was a result of him touching the Red Bull of Max Verstappen in front of him.

The Australian responded angrily and, notably, instantly stated that Norris's position gain seemed unjust; the implication being their collision was verboten under McLaren’s rules for racing 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 between them, each would quickly ask the squad to intervene on his behalf.

Team dynamics and impartiality being examined

This comes naturally from McLaren's commendable approach to allow their racers compete against each other and strive to maintain strict fairness. Quite apart from creating complex dilemmas when establishing rules over what constitutes fair or unfair – under these conditions, now includes bad luck, strategy and racing incidents such as in Singapore – there is the question regarding opinions.

Of most import to the title race, six races left, Piastri is ahead of Norris by 22 points, each racer's view exists as fair and at what point their perspectives might split from the team's stance. That is when the amicable relationship among them could eventually – turn somewhat into the iconic rivalry.

“It’s going to come a point where minor points count,” commented Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff post-race. “Then calculations will begin and re-calculations and I guess the elbows are going to come out a bit more. That's when it begins to get interesting.”

Audience expectations and title consequences

For the audience, in what is a two-horse race, getting interesting will probably be welcomed as an on-track confrontation instead of a data-driven decision regarding incidents. Especially since for F1 the alternative perception from all this is not particularly rousing.

To be fair, McLaren is taking the correct decisions for their interests with successful results. They clinched 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 squad leader they have an ethical and upright commander who truly aims to act correctly.

Sporting integrity versus team management

Yet having drivers in a championship fight appealing to the team for resolutions is unedifying. Their competition ought to be determined through racing. Chance and fate will play their part, but better to let them just battle freely and see how fortune falls, than the impression that every disputed moment will be pored over by the squad to ascertain whether intervention is needed and then cleared up later in private.

The scrutiny will increase and each time it happens it risks potentially making a difference that could be critical. Previously, following the team's decision for position swaps in Italy because Norris had endured a slow pit 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 emerges.

Squad viewpoint and future challenges

No one wants to see a title constantly disputed over perceived that the efforts to be fair had not been balanced. Questioned whether he felt the team had acted correctly by both drivers, Piastri responded that they did, but mentioned it's a developing process.

“There’s been some difficult situations and we discussed a number of things,” he stated post-race. “However finally it’s a learning process with the whole team.”

Six meetings remain. The team has minimal room for error for last-minute adjustments, thus perhaps wiser to just close the books and withdraw from the conflict.