Lando Norris as Ayrton Senna and Piastri likened to Alain Prost? No, however the team must hope title is settled through racing

McLaren and F1 could do with any conclusive outcome during this championship battle involving Norris and Oscar Piastri getting resolved through on-track action rather than without resorting to the pit wall with the championship finale kicks off at the Circuit of the Americas on Friday.

Singapore Grand Prix aftermath prompts internal strain

After the Marina Bay event’s doubtless extensive and tense post-race analyses concluded, McLaren is aiming for a reset. The British driver was almost certainly fully conscious about the historical parallels regarding his retort toward his upset colleague during the previous grand prix weekend. In a fiercely contested championship duel with the Australian, his reference to one of Ayrton Senna’s well-known quotes was lost on no one yet the occurrence that provoked his comment was of an entirely different nature to those that defined Senna's great rivalries.

“Should you criticize me for simply attempting on the inside of a big gap then you should not be in F1,” Norris said regarding his first-lap move to pass which resulted in their vehicles making contact.

The remark seemed to echo Senna’s “Should you stop attempting an available gap which is there then you cease to be a true racer” defence he provided to the racing knight following his collision with Alain Prost at Suzuka back in 1990, securing him the championship.

Parallel mindset but different circumstances

While the spirit remains comparable, the phrasing marks where parallels stop. Senna later admitted he never intended of letting Prost beat him through the first corner while Norris attempted to execute a clean overtake in Singapore. Indeed, it was a perfectly valid effort that went unpenalised even with the glancing blow he had with his team colleague as he went through. This incident was a result of him clipping the Red Bull of Max Verstappen in front of him.

Piastri reacted furiously and, significantly, instantly stated that Norris gaining the place was “unfair”; the implication being the two teammates clashing was verboten under McLaren’s rules of engagement and Norris ought to be told to return the place he had made. The team refused, but it was indicative that during disputes of contention, each would quickly ask the squad to intervene on his behalf.

Team dynamics and fairness being examined

This is part and parcel from McLaren's commendable approach to allow their racers compete against each other and strive to maintain strict fairness. Aside from tying some torturous knots in setting precedents about what defines just or unjust – under these conditions, now covers misfortune, strategy and racing incidents such as in Singapore – there remains the issue of perception.

Most crucially to the title race, six races left, Piastri leads Norris by twenty-two points, each racer's view exists as fair and at what point their perspectives might split from the team's stance. Which is when their friendly rapport between the two could eventually – become a little bit more Senna-Prost.

“It’s going to come a point where minor points count,” commented Mercedes boss Wolff post-race. “Then they’ll start to calculate and back-calculate and I suppose the elbows are going to come out a bit more. That’s when it starts to become thrilling.”

Viewer desires and title consequences

For the audience, in what is a two-horse race, increased excitement will probably be welcomed in the form of a track duel rather than a spreadsheet-based arbitration of circumstances. Not least because for F1 the alternative perception from all this isn't very inspiring.

To be fair, McLaren is taking appropriate choices for their interests with successful results. They clinched their tenth team championship in Singapore (though a great achievement overshadowed by the controversy from the Norris-Piastri moment) and in Andrea Stella as team principal they possess a moral and principled leader who genuinely wants to do the right thing.

Racing purity against squad control

However, with racers in a championship fight appealing to the team for resolutions appears unsightly. Their contest ought to be determined through racing. Chance and fate will have roles, yet preferable to allow them simply go at it and observe outcomes naturally, than the impression that every disputed moment will be analyzed intensely by the squad to determine if they need to intervene and subsequently resolved afterwards behind closed doors.

The examination will increase with every occurrence it risks potentially making a difference which might prove decisive. Previously, following the team's decision for position swaps at Monza because Norris had endured a slow pit stop and Piastri believing he was treated unfairly regarding tactics at Hungary, where Norris won, the spectre of a fear of favouritism also emerges.

Team perspective and upcoming tests

No one wants to see a title endlessly debated over perceived that fairness attempts were unequal. When asked if he felt the team had managed to do right toward both racers, Piastri responded that they did, but mentioned it's a developing process.

“We've had several difficult situations and we discussed various aspects,” he said after Singapore. “But ultimately it’s a learning process with the whole team.”

Six meetings remain. The team has minimal wriggle room left to do their cramming, thus perhaps wiser now to simply close the books and withdraw from the fray.