Lando Norris compared to Ayrton Senna versus Oscar Piastri as Prost? Not exactly, but McLaren must hope championship is settled through racing

The British racing team along with Formula One would benefit from anything decisive during this championship battle involving Lando Norris & Piastri getting resolved through on-track action and without reference to the pit wall as the title run-in kicks off at the Circuit of the Americas starting Friday.

Singapore Grand Prix fallout leads to internal strain

With the Marina Bay event’s doubtless extensive and tense post-race analyses concluded, McLaren is aiming for a reset. Norris was likely more than aware of the historical context regarding his retort to his aggrieved teammate at the last race weekend. During an intense title fight with the Australian, that Norris invoked one of Ayrton Senna’s most famous sentiments did not go unnoticed yet the occurrence that provoked his comment was of an entirely different nature to those that defined the Brazilian’s great rivalries.

“If you fault me for just going 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 for a gap that exists you are no longer a true racer” defence he provided to the racing knight following his collision with Alain Prost at Suzuka back in 1990, securing him the title.

Parallel mindset yet distinct situations

Although the attitude is similar, the wording is where the similarities end. Senna later admitted he had no intent of letting 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 despite the minor contact he had with his team colleague during the pass. That itself stemmed from him touching the Red Bull driven by Verstappen in front of him.

The Australian responded angrily and, notably, immediately declared that Norris's position gain seemed unjust; the implication being their collision was forbidden under McLaren’s rules of engagement and Norris should be instructed to return the position he gained. The team refused, yet it demonstrated that during disputes between them, both will promptly appeal the squad to intervene on his behalf.

Team dynamics and fairness under scrutiny

This is part and parcel of McLaren’s laudable efforts to let their drivers race one another and strive to be as scrupulously fair. Aside from creating complex dilemmas when establishing rules over what constitutes just or unjust – which, under these auspices, now includes misfortune, tactical calls and on-track occurrences such as in Singapore – there is the question of perception.

Most crucially to the title race, six races left, Piastri leads Norris by twenty-two points, each racer's view exists on fairness and at what point their opinion may diverge from the team's stance. That is when their friendly rapport among them may – finally – turn somewhat into Senna-Prost.

“It will reach to a situation where a few points will matter,” commented Mercedes boss Wolff post-race. “Then they’ll start to calculate and re-calculations and I suppose the elbows are going to come out further. That's when it begins to get interesting.”

Viewer desires and title consequences

For spectators, in what is a two-horse race, getting interesting will likely be appreciated in the form of a track duel instead of a spreadsheet-based arbitration of circumstances. Especially since in Formula One the alternative perception from these events isn't very inspiring.

To be fair, McLaren are making appropriate choices for themselves and it has paid off. They clinched their 10th constructors’ title at Marina Bay (though a great achievement diminished by the controversy from their drivers' clash) and in Andrea Stella as team principal they have an ethical and principled leader who truly aims to act correctly.

Racing purity versus squad control

However, with racers competing for the title looking to the pitwall to decide matters is unedifying. Their competition should be decided on track. Chance and fate will have roles, but better to let them simply go at it and observe outcomes naturally, rather than the sense that every disputed moment will be pored over by the team to ascertain whether intervention is needed and subsequently resolved afterwards behind closed doors.

The scrutiny will intensify with every occurrence it is in danger of potentially making a difference that could be critical. Already, following the team's decision their drivers swap places in Italy due to Norris experiencing a delayed stop and Piastri feeling he was treated unfairly regarding tactics at Hungary, where Norris won, the spectre of a fear of favouritism also emerges.

Team perspective and future challenges

Nobody desires to see a title constantly disputed over perceived that fairness attempts had not been balanced. Questioned whether he believed the squad had managed to do right toward both racers, Piastri responded that they did, but noted it's a developing process.

“There’s been some challenging moments and we discussed various aspects,” he stated after Singapore. “But ultimately it's educational with the whole team.”

Six races stay. The team has minimal wriggle room left for last-minute adjustments, so it may be better to just close the books and withdraw from the fray.