Lando Norris as Ayrton Senna versus Oscar Piastri likened to Prost? Not exactly, however the team must hope championship gets decided through racing

McLaren and F1 would benefit from any conclusive outcome in the title fight involving Lando Norris and Piastri being decided on the track and without reference to team orders as the championship finale begins this weekend at COTA starting Friday.

Marina Bay race fallout leads to internal strain

After the Marina Bay event’s undoubtedly thorough and stressful debriefs dealt with, the Woking-based squad is aiming for a fresh start. The British driver was almost certainly fully conscious about the historical parallels regarding his retort toward his upset colleague at the last race weekend. During an intense championship duel against Piastri, his reference to one of Ayrton Senna’s most famous sentiments did not go unnoticed but the incident that provoked his comment was of an entirely different nature from incidents characterizing the Brazilian’s iconic battles.

“Should you criticize me for just going on the inside of a big gap then you should not be in Formula One,” Norris said regarding his first-lap move to overtake that led to their vehicles making contact.

The remark appeared to paraphrase the Brazilian legend's “If you no longer go for a gap that exists you are no longer a racing driver” defence he provided to Sir Jackie Stewart following his collision with Alain Prost at Suzuka in 1990, securing him the championship.

Parallel mindset but different circumstances

Although the attitude remains comparable, the wording marks where parallels stop. Senna later admitted he had no intent of letting Prost beat him through the first corner while Norris attempted to execute a clean overtake in Singapore. Indeed, his maneuver was legitimate that went unpenalised despite the minor contact he made against his McLaren teammate as he went through. That itself stemmed from him clipping the car driven by Verstappen in front of him.

The Australian responded angrily and, significantly, instantly stated that Norris gaining the place was “unfair”; the implication being their collision was verboten under McLaren’s rules of engagement and Norris should be instructed to return the place he had made. The team refused, yet it demonstrated that in any cases of contention, each would quickly ask to the team to intervene on his behalf.

Team dynamics and fairness under scrutiny

This comes naturally of McLaren’s laudable efforts to let their drivers race 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 covers bad luck, strategy and on-track occurrences like in Marina Bay – there remains the issue of perception.

Of most import for the championship, six races left, Piastri leads 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. Which is when the amicable relationship among them may – finally – become a little bit more the iconic rivalry.

“It will reach a point where a few points will matter,” commented Mercedes boss Toto Wolff after Singapore. “Then they’ll start to calculate and re-calculations and I suppose aggression will increase further. That’s when it starts to become thrilling.”

Viewer desires and title consequences

For spectators, in what is a two-horse race, getting interesting will likely be appreciated as a track duel instead of a data-driven decision of circumstances. Not least because in Formula One the alternative perception from all this is not particularly rousing.

Honestly speaking, McLaren are making appropriate choices for themselves and it has paid off. They secured their tenth team championship in Singapore (albeit a brilliant success diminished by the fuss prompted by their drivers' clash) and in Andrea Stella as team principal they have an ethical and upright commander who genuinely wants to act correctly.

Sporting integrity versus squad control

Yet having drivers in a championship fight looking to the pitwall to decide matters is unedifying. Their contest ought to be determined through racing. Chance and fate will have roles, 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 then cleared up afterwards behind closed doors.

The scrutiny will increase with every occurrence it risks potentially making a difference which might prove decisive. Already, following the team's decision for position swaps in Italy due to Norris experiencing a delayed stop and Piastri believing he was treated unfairly regarding tactics at Hungary, where Norris won, the spectre of a fear about bias also looms.

Team perspective and upcoming tests

Nobody desires to witness a championship constantly disputed 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 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. “But ultimately it's educational for the entire squad.”

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