Lando Norris compared to Ayrton Senna and Piastri as Prost? Not exactly, however McLaren needs to pray championship gets decided through racing

The British racing team and F1 could do with any conclusive outcome in the championship battle involving Lando Norris and Oscar Piastri being decided through on-track action rather than without resorting to the pit wall as the title run-in begins this weekend at COTA starting Friday.

Singapore Grand Prix fallout prompts team tensions

With the Singapore Grand Prix’s doubtless extensive and stressful debriefs concluded, the Woking-based squad is aiming for a reset. The British driver was almost certainly more than aware of the historical context regarding his retort toward his upset colleague during the previous grand prix weekend. In a fiercely contested title fight against Piastri, his reference to one of Ayrton Senna’s most famous sentiments did not go unnoticed yet the occurrence that provoked his comment differed completely to those that defined the Brazilian’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 pass that led to the cars colliding.

The remark seemed to echo the Brazilian legend's “If you no longer go an available gap which is there you are no longer a true racer” defence he gave to the racing knight following his collision with Alain Prost at Suzuka back in 1990, ensuring he took the title.

Parallel mindset yet distinct situations

Although the attitude remains comparable, the wording is where the similarities end. Senna later admitted he had no intent of letting Prost to defeat him at turn one whereas Norris attempted to execute a clean overtake at the Marina Bay circuit. In fact, his maneuver was legitimate that went unpenalised even with the glancing blow he made against his McLaren teammate as he went through. This incident was a result of him clipping the Red Bull of Max Verstappen ahead of him.

The Australian responded angrily and, notably, immediately declared that Norris's position gain was “unfair”; suggesting that their collision was forbidden under McLaren’s rules for racing and Norris ought to be told to give back the place he had made. The team refused, yet it demonstrated that in any cases between them, both will promptly appeal the squad to intervene in their favor.

Team dynamics and impartiality being examined

This comes naturally of McLaren’s laudable efforts to allow their racers compete against each other and strive to maintain strict fairness. Aside from creating complex dilemmas when establishing rules over what constitutes just or unjust – under these conditions, now covers bad luck, tactical calls and on-track occurrences such as in Singapore – there is the question regarding opinions.

Of most import for the championship, six races left, Piastri is ahead of Norris by twenty-two points, there is what each driver perceives on fairness and when their opinion may diverge with that of the McLaren pitwall. Which is when the amicable relationship between the two may – finally – become a little bit more Senna-Prost.

“It will reach to a situation where minor points count,” said Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff after Singapore. “Then they’ll start to calculate and re-calculations and I suppose the elbows are going to come out further. That’s when it starts to get interesting.”

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 spreadsheet-based arbitration of circumstances. Not least because for F1 the other impression from all this is not particularly rousing.

Honestly speaking, McLaren is taking appropriate choices for themselves and it has paid off. They clinched their 10th constructors’ title in Singapore (though a great achievement diminished by the fuss prompted by their drivers' clash) and in Andrea Stella as squad leader they have an ethical and upright commander who genuinely wants to act correctly.

Racing purity against team management

Yet having drivers competing for the title looking to the pitwall for resolutions appears unsightly. 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 ascertain whether intervention is needed and subsequently resolved later in private.

The examination will increase and each time it happens it is in danger of possibly affecting outcomes which might prove decisive. Already, following the team's decision their drivers swap places at Monza because Norris had endured a delayed stop and Piastri believing he was treated unfairly regarding tactics at Hungary, where Norris triumphed, the shadow of concern about bias also looms.

Team perspective and future challenges

No one wants to witness a championship constantly disputed over perceived that fairness attempts had not been balanced. When asked if he believed the squad had acted correctly by both drivers, Piastri responded that they did, but noted that it was an ever-evolving approach.

“There’s been some difficult situations and we discussed various aspects,” he said post-race. “But ultimately it’s a learning process for the entire squad.”

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