The British racing team along with Formula One could do with anything decisive during this title fight between Norris & Piastri being decided through on-track action and without reference to the pit wall with the title run-in kicks off this weekend at COTA on Friday.
With the Singapore Grand Prix’s doubtless extensive and tense post-race analyses dealt with, the Woking-based squad will be hoping for a fresh start. The British driver was likely fully conscious of the historical context of his riposte toward his upset colleague during the previous race weekend. In a fiercely contested title fight against Piastri, his reference to a famous Senna well-known quotes was lost on no one yet the occurrence which triggered his statement was of an entirely different nature to those that defined Senna's great rivalries.
“If you fault me for simply attempting on the inside of a big gap then you should not be in F1,” Norris said of his opening-lap attempt to overtake that led to the cars colliding.
The remark seemed to echo Senna’s “Should you stop attempting an available gap which is there then you cease to be a racing driver” defence he provided to Sir Jackie Stewart after he ploughed into the French champion at Suzuka in 1990, securing him the title.
Although the attitude is similar, the wording is where the similarities end. Senna later admitted he had no intent to allow Prost to defeat him through the first corner while Norris did try to make his pass cleanly in Singapore. In fact, his maneuver was legitimate that went unpenalised even with the glancing blow he had with his McLaren teammate during the pass. 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; suggesting that the two teammates clashing was verboten by team protocols for racing and Norris should be instructed to give back the position he gained. McLaren did not do so, yet it demonstrated that during disputes between them, both will promptly appeal to the team to intervene in their favor.
This is part and parcel of McLaren’s laudable efforts to let their drivers race against each other and strive to maintain strict fairness. Aside from creating complex dilemmas when establishing rules about what defines just or unjust – under these conditions, now includes bad luck, tactical calls and racing incidents such as in Singapore – there is the question regarding opinions.
Of most import for the championship, with six meetings remaining, Piastri leads Norris by twenty-two points, each racer's view exists as fair and when their opinion may diverge with that of the McLaren pitwall. Which is when their friendly rapport among them could eventually – turn somewhat into the iconic rivalry.
“It’s going to come to a situation where a few points will matter,” commented Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff post-race. “Then calculations will begin and re-calculations and I suppose the elbows are going to come out a bit more. That's when it begins to get interesting.”
For spectators, in what is a two-horse race, getting interesting will probably be welcomed as a track duel instead of a spreadsheet-based arbitration of circumstances. Not least because in Formula One the alternative perception from these events is not particularly rousing.
Honestly speaking, McLaren are making the correct decisions for their interests and it has paid off. They clinched their 10th constructors’ title in Singapore (albeit a brilliant success diminished by the controversy from the Norris-Piastri moment) and with Stella as squad leader they have an ethical and upright commander who genuinely wants to do the right thing.
However, with racers in a championship fight looking to the pitwall to decide matters is unedifying. Their competition should be decided through racing. Luck and destiny will play their part, yet preferable to allow them simply go at it and see how fortune falls, than the impression that each contentious incident will be analyzed intensely by the squad to determine if intervention is needed and subsequently resolved later in private.
The examination will intensify with every occurrence it risks potentially making a difference which might prove decisive. Previously, after the team made their drivers swap places in Italy because Norris had endured a slow pit stop and Piastri feeling he had been hard done by regarding tactics at Hungary, where Norris won, the shadow of concern of favouritism also emerges.
Nobody desires to witness a championship endlessly debated over perceived that the efforts to be fair were unequal. When asked if he believed the squad had acted correctly toward both racers, Piastri said that they did, but mentioned that it was an ever-evolving approach.
“There’s been some difficult situations and we’ve spoken about various aspects,” he stated post-race. “However finally it’s a learning process for the entire squad.”
Six races stay. The team has minimal wriggle room left for last-minute adjustments, so it may be better to just stop analyzing and step back from the conflict.
Aria Vance is a seasoned gaming expert and content creator specializing in casino reviews and strategies for high-rollers.
