Lando Norris, McLaren, Singapore, 2024

F1’s rules need surgery as well as sticking plaster after fastest lap controversy

Formula 1

Posted on

| Written by

A widely-criticised change to Formula 1’s rules five years ago, combined with a long-standing quirk of team ownership, created a controversy last weekend which threatens to overshadow its championship fight.

Lando Norris’ championship destiny was in his hands heading into the Singapore Grand Prix. Prior to last weekend, if he took the best result available to him at every race, there was nothing Max Verstappen could do to stop him winning the title.

That is no longer the case, for reasons entirely unrelated to the performance of either driver. The fact that was possible points to a flaw in F1’s rules.

As the final laps counted down on Sunday, Norris was on course to score the bonus point for fastest lap. His lap of 1’34.925 on a 16-lap-old set of hard tyres was an impressive time, almost half a second quicker than the next-best effort of any other driver (Charles Leclerc, whose tyres were eight laps fresher). He took big risks to set it as well, brushing the barrier at turn 10 the lap before.

Daniel Ricciardo, RB, Singapore, 2024
Did RB use Ricciardo to help Red Bull?
But with so little to separate the performance of F1’s teams these days (Singapore was the closest race of the season among the top nine outfits), the quickest driver at the head of the field is unlikely to lap quicker than a driver at the back who has pitted to fit a set of soft tyres.

The bonus point is only awarded to drivers who finish in the top 10. Therefore a driver running at the back of the field has no incentive to forfeit their running position to stick on a set of soft tyres and go for the fastest lap, besides their own amusement. Unsurprisingly, it seldom happens.

Why Ricciardo apparently chose to do so therefore inspired much conjecture. He was running well out of the points in what is widely believed to be his final F1 race. He did not ask to make an attempt at the fastest lap, but was told to pit with three laps remaining.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Afterwards RB team principal Laurent Mekies, who had not previously indicated Ricciardo’s place at the team was in immediate danger, said: “Given this may have been Daniel’s last race, we wanted to give him the chance to savour it and go out with the fastest lap.”

Lewis Hamilton, GP2, Monza, 2006
The time a fastest lap bonus point won Hamilton a title
However others, notably McLaren Racing CEO Zak Brown, found it suspicious that the sister team to Verstappen’s Red Bull squad should use one of its drivers to make an attempt on the fastest lap which earned them nothing in the race.

Whatever the truth behind the situation, allowing a third party to interfere in the championship situation is obviously undesirable. It is exactly the kind of warning F1 ignored when it introduced the bonus point for fastest lap five years ago.

A cynic might say F1 is less interested in ensuring a fair fight for the drivers’ championship than provoking attention-grabbing controversy. It’s probably fairer to say those running F1 gave too little consideration to the likely unintended consequences of the bonus point for fastest lap when they introduced it.

One quote from Ross Brawn, F1’s managing director at the time, illustrates how the implications of the rule were not fully considered. On the possibility of a driver winning the championship by pitting for fresh tyres at the end of a race to set the fastest lap, Brawn admitted “it would be quite controversial, I don’t doubt that.”

“If you do that, should the guy who’s leading the championship come in and try and emulate what you’ve done?” he continued, unrealistically assuming that the driver in this example would leave enough time for their rival to react.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

F1 claimed fans who hated the bonus point “gimmick” soon said they “loved” it. Our surveys of RaceFans readers showed otherwise: the rule was opposed before it was introduced and afterwards too.

Zak Brown, McLaren, Silverstone, 2024
Brown has challenged F1’s ‘B team’ rules for years
F1 never needed the bonus point for fastest lap, it adds nothing to the intrigue of races and could easily be discarded. Doing so would help prevent a repeat of the kind of controversy we saw on Sunday, one which may already prove decisive for the championship, and may recur before the season is over.

But although that change is necessary, it would only serve as a sticking plaster for a deeper structural problem which would be far harder to address.

Given the current circumstances, it comes as no surprise that McLaren are most vocal among Red Bull’s rivals in questioning whether its owner should be allowed to run two teams. This objection long predates not only McLaren’s recent re-emergence as championship contenders, but even Red Bull’s return to the top. Brown was urging Liberty Media to address the issue of ‘B teams’ as long ago as 2018.

Clearly, there is too much potential for collusion to allow two teams to share the same owner. The bonus point for fastest lap is only one example of this: RB’s drivers past and present, under their various disguises, have seldom disguised their willingness to put up more of a fight against Red Bull’s rivals.

RaceFans Formula 1 championship points calculator
Interactive: See how the F1 drivers’ title could be decided using the Points Calculator
Brown was not in charge at McLaren when Red Bull purchased its second F1 team, Minardi, in 2005. There was little opposition to that takeover, at a time when other teams were struggling and Red Bull’s investment ensured the Faenza team kept its doors open and staff employed.

F1 should not take that for granted. But that was almost two decades ago, and the sport has changed significantly since then.

It appears there is no appetite within F1 to address the problem of B teams. But if it fails to, controversies like this will repeat even if flawed rules like the bonus point for fastest lap are expunged.

Next to that, addressing the issue of ‘B teams’ will be far more difficult. But at a time when new entrants are clamouring to be allowed in, letting one company run two teams, to the detriment of the championship, has never been harder for it to justify.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Miss nothing from RaceFans

Get a daily email with all our latest stories - and nothing else. No marketing, no ads. Sign up here:

2024 Singapore Grand Prix

Browse all 2024 Singapore Grand Prix articles

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

65 comments on “F1’s rules need surgery as well as sticking plaster after fastest lap controversy”

  1. if he took the best result available to him at every race, there was nothing Max Verstappen could do to stop him winning the title.

    That’s crazy pipe dreams to suggest Lando was ever gonna win every Race (including Sprints), plus get every fastest lap. I genuinely can’t see 1 point lost here ultimately making the difference. There have been bigger points lost over the season.

    1. @eurobrun Yeah, I have to say while I do agree that something should be done about the current fastest lap point, I feel like this point about the championship now being out of Norris’ hands being brought up in every article even tangentially related to the topic is a bit much. Yes, it is technically true, and if we were just a couple of races from the end of the season it might be a fair point to emphasise, but Norris has never won two races in a row in his career, has won only three races this season, has never won a sprint race, and has received the maximum score of 26 points from a race once. The chances of him winning the remaining six races, three sprint races and getting six fastest laps are miniscule, and if he does that then he is as good as guaranteed to win the title anyway because there is no way Verstappen is coming second in all those races in those circumstances.

    2. Yeah I don’t see Lando winning all 6 races left, all three sprints and set the fastest lap in every one of them, even Max in last year dominant Red Bull could not, he did win the last 7 races, but couldn’t win all three sprints and only had the fastest lap in 3 races.

      Besides Lando has the fastest car/2nd fastest or joint fastest since Miami probably and of 13 races he has won 3, even if you only check the races post Red Bull slump, Lando dominant weekends are pretty rare (I mean he only had 2).

      Silverstone? Mclaren had some awful pitstops
      Hungaroring? lost the lead in lap 1 and paid for it with the whole swap controversy
      Spa? had an awful 1st lap and ended up behind Max who started 11th
      Zandvoort? dominant
      Monza? lost the lead in lap 1 again also Mclaren strat issue again
      Baku? awful q1, had great pace on the race but also lucked out that Max had a awful weekend and that Perez screwed up his ‘revival’ sunday pushing him up two places
      Singapore? dominant

      So to think Lando can sweep the rest of the championship even if he has a rocketship is hopium I say, he’s no Hamilton or Verstappen such that is a guarantee if they have such a fast car.

    3. Right? But I still don’t think five articles dedicated to the fast lap point in the past 36 hours is enough though. I mean we’ve never seen a back marker take a fast lap before or whoever is at the back of the leaders’ pack exploit the gap to the midfield to pit and take a FLAP…essentially getting rewarded for being the worst of the front runners.

      The FLAP was always ridiculous. Unless you were always against it, you can’t choose to only get angry now when it’s so often not been a reward for actually being the fastest driver.

      So, the issue of FLAP and one owner with two teams cannot be conflated. So, either

      -You think now is the time to ban any entity from having two teams and penalize an owner for keeping a team alive and giving tons of young drivers a chance and once in a while getting a fringe benefit. Then we’ll see how we can police smaller teams from subtly being utilized by their PU supplier. I’m sure it’ll work out great and the rules will be totally simple.

      or

      -This is just about banning the FLAP or, worse yet, modifying the rules for FLAP.

      1. Nick, “the issue of FLAP and one owner with two teams cannot be conflated”

        I think the problem is, for me anyway, that I’ve always thought a point for fastest lap was ridiculous and wrong, and I’ve thought that it was great that Red Bull saved Minardi when it did, but it was only supposed to be a temporary situation, just like it was when Merc provided tech assistance to Force India, to get them competitive, for example, and it is just wrong that two teams can continue to be so closely linked. So yes, they are two separate issues, shouldn’t be confused, but the circumstances of this story is pushing two buttons at once.

    4. I genuinely can’t see 1 point lost here ultimately making the difference. There have been bigger points lost over the season.

      Yes, interestingly seeing this being all blown up, even though it’s well known part of the points system (if you agree or not).

      McLaren (and Norris himself) cost Norris a lot more points with their decisions so far this season. But that of course wouldn’t create such a nice bedtime/pyjama story.

    5. Coventry Climax
      24th September 2024, 21:18

      Lando Norris’ championship destiny was in his hands heading into the Singapore Grand Prix. Prior to last weekend, if he took the best result available to him at every race, there was nothing Max Verstappen could do to stop him winning the title.

      Those are really brilliant sentences:

      His -and anyone elses for that matter- destiny was in his hands as of race 1 already. Norris and team squandered their opportunities in the first part of the season.
      Anyone taking “the best results available at every race” wins the title, with noone being able to help that. That almost happened last season.

    6. No surgery needed. Other teams can also acquire a B team if they want. Also the new engine rules of 2026 would be best developed using B teams. So I expect some engine customer teams to become B teams.

      Lando is going to need an new ICE before season is out. Red Bull has already banked one for Max. So the championship will not be close at the end, I think.

    7. if he took the best result available to him at every race, there was nothing Max Verstappen could do to stop him winning the title.
      That is no longer the case, for reasons entirely unrelated to the performance of either driver.

      The last bit is the point here: a third driver completely out of the championship fight shouldn’t be able to influence it.
      I don’t think Keith believes in the scenario where Norris takes maximum points either, especially as he also mentions how close the field has been this season – he’s just trying to make a point here.

      On the other hand, everyone seems to be forgetting about Piastri who’s just won two races, and Ferrari. If Norris wins a race and all those three finish between him and Max – which is no more unrealistic an assumption than Norris winning all the races – , then Lando could gain 16 points in a single race.

      I’m just saying there are still billions of permutations out there (including a few for sure where Max wins the title easily), so why couldn’t there be one where a single point makes a difference?

      1. “The last bit is the point here: a third driver completely out of the championship fight shouldn’t be able to influence it.”

        What if Hamilton decides he wants to take away fastest lap from Verstappen out of spite? I think he’d be justified.
        What if Verstappen’s (sister)teammate holds up their rival in a tight track section? Part of the game.

        There’s no way to prevent outside influence during the race. In my opinion the fairest fastest lap of the weekend is the pole lap in qualifying. Race fastest lap has no meaning, it is just a gimmick, fun or dull, but for sure a gimmick that has way less influence on the championship fight than many other gimmicks in the sport.

  2. I like the point for fastest lap. Controversial or not, it adds an extra talking point and quirk to mix up the order and add extra tension towards the end of the race to see if anyone will go for it. Which was very welcome following the relatively boring grand prix and lack of post-race alaysis worth talking about.

    If Lando happens to lose the championship by 1 point, so be it…

    1. I don’t really understand why the point is restricted to the top ten though. Surely having a bunch of lower placed drivers pitting for soft tires towards the end of the race and going for banzai laps would be great fun? Plus it would give a chance for those outside the top four teams to score some points that they might ordinarily not get.

      1. I agree 100%… plus ditch blue flags. I know some tracks and all but it isnt my fault the cars are too big now.

      2. Because then the F-lap point would 99% go to someone in the back half of the field as the leaders and anyone in the top 10 would lose more points by pitting for new rubber, than gain and would also promote just dawdling along at the end of the race by anyone in the top 10, thus not taking the risk and showing their true pace if there’s nothing to gain out of it.

        And perhaps more importantly, imagine everyone outside the top 10, including all the Latifis and Logan Sargeants of F1, pitting the last few laps for a shootout for the F-lap point. We’d end most every race under a yellow or a safetycar. And thus negating any battle for the lead or position.

        1. That would be much more interesting than the present situation, though. For viewers and competitors alike.
          And it wouldn’t exclude those in the top 10 from trying it anyway.

          F1’s points system is all kinds of wrong – changing who can get a single point for fastest lap does not make it any worse.

  3. I like the point for fastest lap too, it could be done differently but it is nice that the fastest lap of the race counts for something.

    On the other hand, I have always hated that two teams can have the same owner. It is the kind of thing that is so blatantly unfair that the teams benefiting it are very careful about abusing it just little enough for the scandal to be kept within bounds. Otherwise it would have been gone long ago.

  4. I wish the FIA stops making silly rules and certain doesn’t need sticking plaster DURING a season. Let them think on stupid swearing and manned-up deciding serious things.

  5. Widely criticized? I hate the FLAP and I hear people b*tching about it now and then. But this seems to be a liberal use of what is basically the “royal we.” It’s widely criticized just now when there’s a driver most of the media wants to win being negatively effected.

    I dislike Max and RBR, but I genuinely don’t believe RBR got on the horn and asked them to do that. Maybe Helmut. However, the scenario of wanting to give Daniel something fun in his final race rings true AND I’m sure Meeks did think about the benefit to Max.

    ps – I’ve never seen a mid-season driver swap handled so badly or with so little regard for a driver who finished 3rd in the WDC for you twice. I have no problem with them dropping, but the way it’s been done is a joke. It’s clear Daniel wasn’t sure if he was being dropped or not, but felt like he would be dropped, especially when RB/RBR never pushed back on the rampant speculation. It’s why he had like a halfway farewell ceremony from RB, Sky/F1, etc.

    The only excuse I can see for how this went down is Marko wanted DR gone, but Horner wanted him to stay and was hoping DR would do something great in Singapore to justify keeping him until the end of the season, but after quali CH knew that ship had sailed.

  6. The best fix is simple. Do not limit to top 10. RIC getting that point…fine.

    The back half of the field adding all kinds of strategic chaos to the end of a race. Fine.

    Compared to IndyCar, F1 racing is too contrived. Long form drama and less passing is completely fine, and arguably an upside to F1, but it is spoiled with contrived passing (DRS) and contrived rules (top 10 for fast lap, etc). Long form drama with some fast lap climax doesn’t sound bad to me.

    1. Not limiting the fastest lap point to the top 10 sounds fine to me. That way those who aren’t in the point-scoring positions can still try to get one point.

      1. As I said in another thread about this, that could lead to weird scenarios like the teams unlikely to be scoring a top 10 finish going all out to score fastest lap, rather than trying to get their best race result. For example, they could save all their soft tyres from qualifying and just do qualifying simulation runs throughout the grand prix, then just do enough laps in total to ensure they are classified (if that is even needed to score fastest lap point). That would be a bit of a farcical outcome, and would require further rules to be implemented to prevent it.

        Personally, I’d do the opposite – prevent the non-top 10 finishers from denying a point to a driver who got the fastest lap while still genuinely competing for position in the race. That way the fastest lap point always gets awarded, and nobody has overly contrived incentives which could be detrimental to the race itself. It’s also much less likely that a B team like RB could be used to steal a point from a championship rival, because they will almost never be in a position where they can take an extra pit stop and still finish in the top 10.

        1. Chris (@austin-healey)
          25th September 2024, 1:18

          One solution would be to give the fastest lap point to the fastest lap of a top 10 finisher.
          Not necessarily the fastest lap of the race, but the fastest lap of the top 10 finishers.
          No incentive for position 11-20. They can all do late soft laps, but the only laps considered are those done by the top 10 finishers.

          1. Or simply award points for all finishing positions, the incentives will be the same for everyone and even P11+ have something to fight for instead of driving around hoping for some crashes ahead or just collecting data. With the differences being 1 point between the finishing positions at the lower end, it could be a worthwhile decision to give up 1 position for fresh tyres if you can take fastest lap away from a rival team (if that is not the car directly behind).

    2. The best fix is simple. Do not limit to top 10. RIC getting that point…fine.

      But that could lead to the positions 11 through 19 or however many are left all going for a late race stop. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain. It sounds like a recipe for late race safety cars and finishing many races under yellow.

      1. I don’t see all 10 non scoring cars going for it specially around the same lap, you are gonna have plenty of cars that will stay put either because there’s isn’t a gap to actually get the fastest lap, the fastest lap is actually very fast because of weather or a top car having a late stop or for strategic reasons like past sunday Colapinto would probably stay put in the chance of Perez crashing or anything but Albon certainly would pit for the fastest lap.

        I don’t see this safety car chaos that many say it will happen and this would give the backmarkers something to do, in practice there’s little benefit to keep driving around when you are lapped once or twice, See Magnussen last race and plenty of more “Retire the car” situations.

        They should try it out with F2/F3 or F1 academy even and see if you get this chaotic all cars crashing issue.

        1. Probably true, but there’s an obvious problem with giving a point to drivers who don’t score points, in that it creates weird incentives. It wouldn’t have mattered in the pre-Pirelli era, but it’s now quite easy to bolt on new tyres and go much quicker than even the race winner because race laps are often seconds off the pace “thanks” to Pirelli.

    1. The ‘Wolff orders Ocon aside’ was a very much criticized situation at the time, and had Russell not been so eager to eat crow after his collision with Bottas a few years later, more might have been made of Wolff criticizing his “Mercedes driver” who, to the rest of the world, seemed like a Williams driver out to score an often elusive point.

      Wolff and Horner are very much of the same type in this sense.

  7. I’d kill the fastest lap point. Allowing anyone or any entity to own 2 teams simply gives you the feeling of collusion whether it exists or not. In the latest case, it seems painfully obvious that it was to help the other team. As Keith mentioned, how easily the junior team lets an RB driver pass compared to anyone else is embarrassing the sport.

    1. I’d kill the fastest lap point.

      Or give one to each driver who sets a personal fastest lap.
      And a sticker

      1. Or give one to each driver who sets a personal fastest lap.
        And a sticker

        Cheapskate.
        You could at least spring for one of those mugs where the “I’m a fastest-lapper” (c) decal appears when they have a hot drink in it.

  8. Either ditch it completely, or award the bonus point to whichever of the top X drivers set the fastest lap (where X = 3 or X = 10) so that stopping for fresh tires solely to take it is more costly than it’s worth.

    1. If Liberty want a gimmick, ditch the FLAP and give a point for pole.

      Or, better still, just get rid of the extra point altogether.

  9. Whether or not Lando was ever going to win the championship is irrelevant.

    The fact that a team owned by the same people who own the car in the championship fight, but has nothing to benefit itself, can do this is not something that F1 should allow. It’s no different to allowing it to deliberately prevent a competitor from finishing 10th.

    The FLAP point has always been a gimmick, and I’m against it, but if it is only going to benefit the top 10 then the point should go to the whoever in the top 10 set the quickest lap – the record can still show the actual fastest lap in the case it’s set by someone else.
    But in my view, just get rid of the extra point altogether.

  10. The problem is that getting the fastest lap is not a matter of being the quickest during the race!
    In the era of no refuelling, you can only achieve it at the end of the race when you are lowest on fuel. And then you need fresh tyres to go with that too.
    So it’s a matter of a deliberate attempt – and compromising your race – for the sole purpose of getting that fastest lap by switching to fresh new tyres at the end of the race when the car is at its lightest.
    And 99% of the time, it is the backmarkers that can afford such move as they have nothing else to gain from the race finishing outside of points.

    The Fastest Lap award made much more sense in the era of re-fuelling, when the cars where at their fastest (lowest fuel x freshest tyres) several times during a race. And back when they were actually pushing it… Whilst today every race is a tyre management session.


    I would propose something completely different:
    Make a full seperate Fastest Lap Championship and award the field based on fastest laps with a full points system, e.g. the good old 10-8-6-4-3-2-1 or sth like it. We could make only the top-10 eligible for those points or maybe the entire field? I would love to see a simulation of this to see how that would impact how drivers behave.
    Obviously, drivers who fight for race wins wouldn’t need to compromise their races to get those points… unless they chose to. And that is the intruguing part.

    1. And 99% of the time, it is the backmarkers that can afford such move as they have nothing else to gain from the race finishing outside of points.

      Well, they might attempt it, but are rarely successful. Of the 18 races in 2024, 15 fastest laps have gone to the ‘big four’ teams of McLaren, Redbull, Ferrari and Mercedes, 2 have gone to Aston Martin, and 1 to RB. On 3 occasions the fastest lap has been taken by someone finishing outside the top 10; Piastri in Miami, Alonso in Austria, and Ricciardo in Singapore. So really, only twice this season has a backmarker with nothing to play for taken the fastest lap just for the statistic or to take a point from a rival, though there have been other unsuccessful attempts.

  11. Jaikrishnan Ramesan
    24th September 2024, 15:53

    MacLaren shud be talking why they made Norris give up his place at the Hungoring . If Norris had win he would have not just this one point but 6 more points less to cover for Championship , when you can’t protect your own points , don’t complain about someone else trying to protect their team and their championship

  12. If you got rid of the point for fastest lap, would Norris have been able to catch Max? Are you counting those 6 (or 7 before Singapore) points?

  13. I’d just scrap the point for fastest lap completely as I just don’t think it’s worthy of awarding an extra point, Never have & never will. It’s just a completely irrelevant stat that is completely meaningless & tell’s you nothing about who actually had the best car in the race.

    It add’s nothing to the race & most of the time isn’t even discussed on the broadcast unless you get these occasions where a driver with a big enough gap to the car behind pits late for fresh tyres & gets it by default which just renders it an even more meaningless stat & even less worthy of awarding a point.

    Points should be earned & should be a recognition of achievement rather than something you can get simply because you find yourself in a situation to be able to pit, maintain position & on fresh tyres be able to go a few seconds faster than those around you. And extending it beyond the top 10 would make it even more silly as then your just opening up a situation where drivers who couldn’t get into the points on merit can get a point by just pitting late on for fresh tyres & getting a point which over the entirety of the race they simply hadn’t earned.

    Not to mention how allowing the entire field to be eligible opens up situation where a close title decider can be turned into a farce as happened in Formula E when the 2 title rivals crashed at the start & then spent the rest of the race in a time trial against each other rather than actually racing. Something which took the attention away from the actual race that was going on as we were constantly cutting away to see cars laps down do a hot lap rather than the cars actually racing for the win.

  14. Even as a Ferrari fan, I would remind that the ‘B’ team controversy is at least as old as Norberto Fontana in a Ferrari-engined Sauber trying to block JV at Jerez ’97. Peter Sauber denied that even during his ‘BMW’ era, however the doubt still remains.

  15. “…allowing a third party to interfere in the championship situation is obviously undesirable…”
    I don’t understand this bit, does this mean nobody but McLaren or Red Bull should go for the FLAP?

    1. It means that ricciardo had no reason to go for fastest lap, other than to take it away from McLaren.

      1. That’s BS as we’ve seen this happen multiple times with cars outside the top 10.

  16. controversy last weekend which threatens to overshadow its championship fight.

    The only controversy is the opportunistic British media that shows their most nationalistic side again.

    The fact that was possible points to a flaw in F1’s rules.

    The flaws in F1 rules are the addition of silly gimmicks to add constructed tension, like sprint races and fastest lap points.

    A cynic might say F1 is less interested in ensuring a fair fight for the drivers’ championship than provoking attention-grabbing controversy. It’s probably fairer to say those running F1 gave too little consideration to the likely unintended consequences of the bonus point for fastest lap when they introduced it.

    Given that F1 is 75% politics with some racing on the side and the controversial history of the FIA and it’s Presidents in when which rules are applied and to whom over the past decades, it is fairer to say the “cynic” is making the fair observation. It’s the inherent risk of a jury sport, where people with power can abuse that power. The Stanford prison experiment has shown how power corrupts reasonable and rational human beings.

    Clearly, there is too much potential for collusion to allow two teams to share the same owner.

    There is no need for a conspiracy when interests converge.
    There is much potential for collusion between teams that have a similar owner as there is between teams that have the same engine supplier or as has been seen in MotoGP the same nationality, same junior career paths etc.

    when new entrants are clamouring to be allowed in, letting one company run two teams, to the detriment of the championship, has never been harder for it to justify

    The only reason why new entrants are clamouring is the converged interests of Liberty Media and the F1 teams not to have new teams “lower the value” of F1 or F1 Teams.
    FIA’s rules allow another 2 teams to be added to the roster.
    Other than that there is no more detriment to the championship than Engine suppliers colluding with their customer teams, and cherry picking and gatekeeping their customers.

    1. The only controversy is the opportunistic British…

      Yawn. Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.

    2. Yup. I’ve never seen the media make a fuss so much over a point, pretending it could ruin the entire WDC and then just forgetting Norris has been choking the entire season while having had the best car for a lot more of the season than Max now has.

      There are a 100 different scenarios in which it could be beneficial for a team not owned to help out another driver or team in doing something like this. And it has happened many times before. So, it’s fairly ludicrous to act like this is some new, urgent issue.

  17. Brown knows what the rules are. They have been there all year so why didn’t he tell his driver to put his foot down a little more to get the fastest lap. Or even changed to soft tires on car #2. Yeah, I know, that would have cost points for that car but he has to make up his mind on what he wants.
    How I miss the early days where the car crossing the line first was the winner and if you wanted to have multiple cars, so be it. May the best win

    1. Brown knows what the rules are. They have been there all year so why didn’t he tell his driver to put his foot down a little more to get the fastest lap.

      Those rules have been there for a number of years, it really isn’t vaguely new.

      The question is, how many teams bothered to take an opportunity to deprive Max, Lewis, Sebastian in previous years?
      I can’t be bothered to check, but I’m pretty sure the instances exist.

      1. On a quick search both Red Bull and Mercedes used Bottas/Perez to take away the fastest lap back in 2021, on Mexico and UK both outside the points too so they’re not allergic to do it at all.

        How many more are there? too many races to check, maybe this site can make an article about it.

        1. And probably many times no one even picked up on and/or weren’t high profile enough to be news.

  18. I don’t really care what points are awarded for as long as they relate to the driver’s performance. Race position, fastest lap, pole position, hell even “total number of overtakes”: personally I’d go along with any of these with minimal moaning because they to some extent reflect how well the driver, well, drove. Naturally there are many complicating factors that make evaluating “performance” complicated and no two people watching a race would give each participant the same score (witness the comments on each race’s driver ratings right here!) So the points can’t be perfect, but that’s sport, right?

    But imperfect as any points system may be, the things that I really don’t like are those that tilt the sporting playing-field so that participants (here the teams and drivers) don’t have equal chances to perform (I am of course ignoring the differences between cars and budgets, forgive me). Having effectively four cars to everyone else’s two is one of those things. Anyone might have some bad luck in a race and get taken out by a n00b or a groundhog or some flying carbon; anyone might luck into a point when, say, a podium contender crashes out on the penultimate lap. And anyone might gain or lose a point through coordinating with their teammate somehow (well, not the 2024 Saubers it would seem). But these things could happen to any team or driver, in theory at least. What most drivers don’t have available to them are three potential collaborators on track rather than one.

    Being honest, I think plenty of good has come from/through/out of the junior RB team over the years, at least over the early years, and perhaps RB’s ownership saved the sport from dropping down nine teams. So credit to them in many ways. I also remember we’ve seen some pretty close collaborations with other partnerships that one sometimes suspected were spilling onto the track. But B teams are a bad thing from a sporting point of view and as Keith says, with F1 blocking other entries for their spurious reasons, there’s no reason for them to exist at all.

    Poor Danny Ric doesn’t even get a rubbish mini-tyre for FLAP. I bet he’d rather it had been pole.

    1. +1

      This is furor forgets how much Red Bull has helped the sport while obsessing over this single point. It’s absolutely ludicrous.

  19. Coventry Climax
    24th September 2024, 21:08

    Fastest lap point is
    – nonsense in the first place:
    Being fastest over the distance is already the goal of motorracing. The reason the distance is on a circuit is for practicality only, but that’s what create laps – at different lengths per circuit. This results in you winning when your average laptime is fastest, which is deliberately upset by awarding points for fastest lap.
    – counterproductive to F1 using less tyres: It is an incentive to pit and use an extra set.

    Ditch the fastest lap point, ditch the current tyre rules and award extra points for each position when achieved with less tyres. (And best of all, ditch Pirelli in the process, or give them one final chance to finally produce something we could actually call a tyre.)

    Might make for some interesting strategy choices, and actually serves a purpose.

    1. – nonsense in the first place:

      We all have opinions…

      – counterproductive to F1 using less tyres: It is an incentive to pit and use an extra set.

      But it isn’t. Not only are those tyres almost always used already in qualifying for a timed lap, they are always destroyed and recycled afterwards anyway.

  20. I dislike it and don’t recall ever having a positive view of it.

    Partly because there’s nothing special about setting a fastest lap, given how easy it is for a random midfielder to make an extra stop and get it. For example, Ricciardo in Singapore.

    And partly because it’s open to cheating via the use of second teams to benefit the main team. And as long as there’s no recording/paper trail, it’s cheating that can’t be proven. Again, for example, Ricciardo in Singapore.

    If you’re going to give a cheap point, give it for an actual achievement like pole position. But ideally, don’t give it at all.

  21. I don’t get the righteous indignation. It’s as if Lando has already been anointed WDC and people are trying to take it from him by beating , taking fastest lap or even not being far enough behind him.

    1. He’s far too inconsistent and I’m not sure the (British) media would be hyping him up to such a degree as they were if it were a non British driver such as Sainz or Leclerc.
      Or imagine if Max and Norris positions were reversed; they’d definitely be saying there’s no way Max would catch him up.

  22. How many more articles will this website write about this?
    I can also see the famous British bias coming through too as Norris seems to be their new golden boy to replace TeamLH.

    1. I can also see the famous British bias

      Yawn, Zzzzzzzzzzz…

  23. letting one company run two teams, to the detriment of the championship, has never been harder for it to justify.

    I thinks its to the benefit of the competition. No justification is required at all.

    However if the collude, expel and collude bloc want it their way I hope the Saudi sovereign wealth fund buy them, and have a ding dong battle with the Bahrain Sovereign Wealth Fund owned team (McLaren) for supremacy.

    1. and exclude not collude again

  24. I missed the complaints in Austria where Alonso (out of the points, Mercedes powered, just like McLaren) took the point from Verstappen. So in that regard, the universe is back in balance now.

    It is easy for RB to use Perez as a FL runner to prevent Norris from getting those 6 extra points. His WDC is lost anyway and getting 3rd in the WCC isn’t too bad with CFD/windtunnel time.

    1. The difference is that Mercedes does NOT own either McLaren or Aston Martin, while Red Bull DO own RB.

  25. So if Max wins this year’s championship, that will be the second he’s won by Red Bull acting in a way that any ordinary fan, other than the Max aficionados, will consider cheating.

  26. “It’s just one point!”
    Sure, but what if this repeats? Norris has a very good chance of setting FLAP in future races. Are RB going to do the same again? What’s to stop them?
    As for the Red Bull B-team, what if we get to see, say, Tsunoda do a ‘Abu Dhabi Pérez’ and hold Norris up for around 10 seconds in a race? All fine? Red Bull pushed their luck with the Ricciardo FLAP and got away with it. I’d expect more.

Comments are closed.