My biggest question is about how tyres are allocated for a team during the race. Riccardo was seemingly already put on a dead strategy from the start with a two stop. Adding a third stop and therefore a third set of tyres certainly is an extra cost. But if they had already spent that money and the rubber was getting shredded regardless, I see literally no foul in letting him have that even if it takes away from the title fight.
@@ronknox3376 They would of admitted that at the end of the grand prix along with actually giving him a proper send off, Ricciardo is too significant for Redbull to not even commemorate
The only thing that's controversial is that this "fastest lap in the race" point exists. The fastest lap is already decided in qualifying. In the race the only thing that counts is the driver/car that comes first.
Ricciardo could’ve done this as a last ditch effort to win favour, to genuinely just help Max (or to hurt Lando), or just for his own self satisfaction on his potential last outing. It’s also not just a Redbull 2 team issue. Having customer teams and driver academies, or even just big and small teams, means there’s always someone who’s got incentives outside of their own team
RB gets to run 2 teams, because RB bought 2 teams.. Jaguar and Minardi that were about to fall out of F1. F1 is money driven so we don't get the revolving door for teams of the past where teams popped up for a year or 2 then folded or were passed between different owners more than broke people sharing a cig. RB built up these 2 teams where at one point even the sister team was great, keep in mind. People were happy when RB jumped in to help out 2 teams, now people whine that RB has 2 teams they spent a fuckton of money on. Keep in mind that Haas is buying essentially everything it can from Ferrari and Williams is almost VCARD Merc Edition considering it's where Merc bounces their juniors off to to drive in F1 in a team that is supplied by Merc and led by Merc's previous Strategy Director who has been at Merc every since Merc came back to F1.
@@IAmStillNotMatthew To be fair, Williams haven't had a Mercedes junior since Russell (in fact he was their only junior) and have been very vocal in refusing to take anyone who Tonto is pushing
@@degenelatepeppeloni9854 because it was finacalwise a horrible move, McLaren and Ferrari (as top teams back then) wanted to split the empty seats between them and actually run 3 cars - of course nobody at McLaren talks about it nowadays… RB to a point saved F1 back in the day
okay some of you need to learn your history. Red Bull did F1 a favor by purchasing a collapsing Minardi team in 2005. No one else wanted it. You want 11 teams but there would only be 9 teams right now if not for Dietrich Mateschitz.
I just cannot listen to Brundle & Croft team anymore, especially Brundle. They waste no opportunity to shine 'anything british' shoes. This is becoming in its own right a breach of the sport ethics code.
Not really, it's just highlighting the advantages Red Bull have running 4 cars in a team sport when every one else gets 2. I think if this had happened in any championship race people would be re-evaluating this clearly ridiculous situation.
McLaren uses flexible wings : this is a very complicated topic that involves bending the laws of physics. Lando misses out on fastest lap : Is this really ethical and within the sportsmanship? Is this a scandal?
Exactly. I remember those Hamilton Verstappen fights in 2021 where it was the case . Every time Alphatauri had a chance to hinder Merc and Hamilton just to advantage Red Bull at the cost of their own race, they did it.
@@MxSheep Ah yes, which is why McLaren move aside for Mercedes all the time right. A customer team could never beat the factory team may be the washer women wisdom, but its bollocks. RB and Red Bull are owned by the same people, if you can't see the difference between a customer and an owner, i have some bridges to sell you
You do know denying points to a team higher up in the standings makes you closer to them in the standings? Going for the fastest lap outside of top 10, if possible, is always advantageous. The case might be there is not much to gain here, but the cost is zero and there is some net gain. I dont see anything controversial here.
Depends where you cut your cloth in terms of rules of fair play. Ultimately, it can be fair game, since others can just buy extra teams for themselves to do the same but then can they actually since other teams can veto it, especially RB. This is a problem teams created for themselves though, with the Concord agreement, so one can only have so much sympathy.
It's controversial because there's people arguing over it It *shouldn't* be controversial, it should be pretty obvious to everyone that it's unfair and collusion, and allowing this just opens the door to more incidents like it in the future
Denying another team a point when you’re not going to score is always worthwhile for any team, regardless of who’s fighting who in either championship.
@@footballnerd277Not letting other teams on the grid like Andretti. We have teams like Kick on the grid and I fail to see how Andretti could do a worse job.
@@footballnerd277 There's been dozens of instances of racing bulls/torro roso/alpha tauri drivers blocking RB's rivals more aggressively while waving Max and Perez by. Are you blind?
No. It's absolutely controversial. Riccardo had nothing to gain from this move except to execute team orders from the mother ship to help Max's title defence....another asterisk season for Max incoming
Different times and lack of foresight. It was allowed then for the same reason it is allowed today, Rb had the money and the influence and they can't be bothered. It is what it is
It's one thing to save a team from bankruptcy and run it for yourself It's another to still own it and use it to advance your own chances in a competition when nobody else has that much influence, not even Mercedes on Williams
Multiple teams have closer relationships to some other teams like Williams and Mercedes .... and Haas and Ferrari so people only see controvercy when it fits to their own story
@@whiteboy7thstfreak HAAS was literally battling Ferrari on Sunday and Williams have had no pace in the last 5 years to hold up cars for Mercedes or did so in the past
Lol no Reb Bull and RB is by far the closest relationship between two teams in F1 currently. I understand why it was allowed at the time due to the risk of a team going bust and any other team would do the same thing. It's just with Andretti knocking on the door and the advantage it gives Rd Bull, they have to consider a change in regs?
Haas didn't do it for the FL, but because of a puncture. The FL was a happy 'side effect' of getting fresh tires. Irrelevant of this incident, the fact that ALL drivers are actually employed by RBR and then loaned to VCARB creates an unfair advantage. RBR can essentially 'test' 4 drivers in full racing conditions at any time and, as we have seen in the past, move them around between the 2 teams on demands. Other teams have to 'risk' loaning their car to their academy drivers or new talent at FP sessions (which do not really capture the full race), loan their cars when one of their drivers is out (e.g. Bearman for Haas) , or going all in with new contracts (e.g. Williams with Colapinto for the rest of 2024). RBR instead can monitor and 'promote' drivers to RBR from VCARB at their leisure. Also, even if VCARB is in theory a different team, it is not one expected of winning championships and its drivers know that. Their goal is to demonstrate sufficient skill to join RBR and that may also influence how 'loyal' they feel they need to act to RBR even on a subconscious level.
Yeah but either way, it's still their prerogative to race any competitor, however. It's also questionable when Pierre is instructed to get out of Max way in Qatar for example. If they're not a homogeny, this is something that shouldn't happen.
@@ashitkotian2396 AT would have instructed him to move out the way if it was max. Just like they did with gasly multiple times that year. You're not getting the point are you
@@Lianpe98 It would create a rush to the pits to create a mini qualifying session and then the concept of fastest lap as we know it would end for good.
It would be dangerous, as 8 odd cars, usually the most unreliable and poorly driven, peel off into the pits for a miracle dash. You're pretty much saying you want final lap safety cars every 3rd race or so.
I think the biggest issue/advantage the second team gives RB is on recruitment. Sure Ferrari and Merc each can sometimes use Haas or Williams as a junior seat Red bull has a full 2 extra seats that they fully control. It's how they ended up signing Verstappen over Merc. Until the last few years they've used those 2 junior seats for cultivating new talent, an advantage no other team has.
So anyone who can afford two teams can have the second team help the main team? Sounds like the cost cap is meaningless to me. How would you feel if Merc bought Williams and used Williams to only slow down Red Bull drivers, and pit on the last lap to take fastest lap when Max is ahead?
@@meikgeik But how is that different from a team leaving a second driver out to create an overcurrent? Or putting a driver early to undercut another driver? Sounds like someone is just upset against who is using the strategies used vs the strategies themselves.
@meikgeik If 8 other teams could do the exact same thing, and it just be a coincidence and RB does it and it's premeditated, then the people complaining about it need to take a hard look at themselves.
@@mysticvetenks Max regularly pitted for fastest lap after building a significant gap to P2. But that doesn't fit your narrative, so you just ignore it.
This would just make every driver from p11 to p20 make a pitstop near the end of the race. No p1 to p10 driver would ever get fastest lap again. Unless they can solve this problem, it doesn't seem that smart.
@@gamefan56 what's wrong in that. It might push back teams to improve themselves and have opportunity at championship points. At least it would make races interesting.
So the fact that only the top 10 drivers can actually get a point for the fastest lap is a result of the 2015/2016 formula E championship. Sebastian Buemi secured the championship by getting the fastest lap (2 points in Formula E) even though he retired from the race. As I recall (could be mistaken) the car was in the pits for ages getting a repair, then emerged on new tires and got the lap done, then returned to the pits and retired. I think F1 wanted to avoid this sort of controversy hence the top 10 finishers rule.
Has anyone asked why Yuki is always so frustrated? His job is always to help Perez. When he's ahead, he has to back up top teams that pitted, go long on tires so Perez can come back out. Then F1 announcers just say "hur dur Yuki so dumb going so long on tires" (he certainly wants to pit and be with top 10)
People are naive. There is not a single team boss on the grid that would have done anything differently. It was a tactical decision that was completely fair.
If McLaren hadn't told Lando to ease off, he would have been a pitstop ahead of Max and been able to pit for softs. If McLaren want to win this championship they can't afford to chill just because they have a decent lead.
If there was any proof that RedBull specifically asked Daniel to go for fastest lap, I don't see this as controversial at all. It's ridiculous to think that RedBull would jeopardise their own title hopes. This video just goes to show that F1 journalists will do anything they can to get engagement. Blow things out of proportion just for views.
It is the job of Journalists to bring news to light and ask questions where there may be a controversy, if you want to pretend that a competitor, potentially acting in the interests of an entity that is supposed to be an independent, is not news worthy then that's your prerogative, but you're only fooling yourself.
If the drivers champion comes down to one point McLaren should remember when they told Norris to let Oscar by after they set up an undercut on themselves.
@@RANDOMZBOSSMAN1I'm sure if Russel had been promoted on 2021 Lewis would've won the championship as Russel would've cannibalised more points from Verstappen
@@quigglyz no he wasn't EVERY decision went in his favour, Belgium he got a win, he didn't get DSQ in Saudi or Brazil for his antics. And despite everything, it took a stewarding decision to gift him the championship anyway. Lewis took it to the final race despite having a slower car for 2/3 rds of the season No amount of Fake D2S fan pseudo arguments can change that. And before you go "bUT sILVErsTOne" Max was equally to blame for that. Just came off worse.
So a team, not consistently finishing in the points, pitting for fastest lap is unethical? As a brit I've got to say I'm disappointed in the British media's coverage of this
I don't think anyone outside of the top 10 should be able to take that point away since they also can't GAIN the point. If they can't get the reward, why are they allowed to take it away? It just causes controversy exactly like what is going on RIGHT NOW!
I see the idiots are still out who failed to notice Magnusson pitting around lap 55, getting fastest lap only for it to be deleted and then getting a puncture 5 laps later. I'm not surprised, F1 "fans" are generally blind
He did literally at after the race that he did it with red bull in mind and if the championship was won by a point he’d be hoping for a nice Christmas present. For those who said it had nothing to do with it (not to mention it was the team’s call), and I’m not sure what sort of glory is taking from pitting onto much better tires than the rest of the field and finishing 30 seconds off last place
He said he was hoping for a christmas present from Max if he does win it by 1 point. Nothing to do with Red Bull. Pay attention next time before chatting nonsense
You'd be surprised what F1 drivers consider an achievement Having a terrible race, but seeing your name by fastest lap can brighten your mood quite a bit, but I guess armchair drivers will never understand
@@gizzyguzzi any car on the grid can put quali tires on and whack in a fastest lap when everyone else is on knackered hards. It’s not really a level playing field and he’d know that
this is just stirring up some controversy. besides teams drivers themselves also prefer some drivers to win a championship (or not). Alonso and Hamilton have some history of preferring not to see the other win, but there are also others. I'm not against standing up against potential conflict of interest, but this feels a bit like a witch hunt. I also think there are also other unfair advantages with F1 that needs solving. the Ferrari subsidies for example, or barring Andretti from joining F1. In the end it's also simple if you want the point for fastest lap, drive the fastest lap.
Last year Max won both titles (pilot and constructor) almost by himself. Nobody cared that RedBull "had" four cars. This year, because Lando is english and he has a chance to become a champion, one single point lost because of VCARB is unethical...it's a real tragedy. But the fact that they use flexible wings and gain an unfair advantage, it's very ethycal 😂
This rule would also have to penalise teams who supply engines not allowing other teams to access the same engines for fear they would become more competitive... as has happened numerous times!
😆😆😆😆 If McLaren makes such a stink of Ricciardo's fastest lap losing Norris that one single point, they must now REALLY regret all the points Norris lost because McLaren allowed Piastri to finish ahead of Norris. If Norris does not win the championship, it's not bc of RB and RB2 being 'secretly one team', it's because McLaren failed so often at strategy for no apparent reason.
The debate is that, should Red Bull junior team, be allowed to act in the interests of Red Bull main, when both teams are supposed to be an independent. Ultimately if there's no rule against it then Red Bull should crack on, but this has been a sticking point that has been brought up by some (most notably Zak Brown) for some time now.
@@ua697 Unrelated, with the comment related to the video, The Race Is just Looking to post anything to keep the algorithm happy, even like this one where they will make a video about something it's not that deep.
No, positive would have been getting out of the way for Max. This was taking away points from Norris, which is identical to crashing him, although crashing him would result in all points taken away, this resulted only 1.
@@F1ll1nTh3Blanks I don't don't think there could be a rule which states that RB cannot help Red Bull Racing, although Hulk or Haas or anyone else can. Also: RB (or any team from the bottom half) needs that 1 point, because it means $M at the end of the year.
Honestly I like having the fastest lap but maybe instead of giving it to the fastest overall and only getting it if you are in the top 10 just give it to the fastest lap of the top ten. Could this type of situation still happen? Sure, but the risk is that you could fall out of your current position or out of the top 10 all together. This would also make sure that the point would be awarded every race because if you get it but fall to 11th then it's awarded to someone else in the top 10 and it's not wasted like it has been quite often.
Or maybe a fastest average measured over a stint or the race distance? Since good race pace is more about consistency. I don’t think it needs to exist though to be honest.
Alpha Tauri or RB whatever bs you want to call them, are a sister team to Red Bull. Like that is the main issue here, so whatever rule change you want about fastest lap, is irrelevant when there is a team that is incentivized to support the main. There's too much conflict in those types of relationships.
I am just a casual fan, can someone explain to why they couldn't just distribute the points wider across the weekend? For example, 1 points for FL in Q1, 2 points for Q2, 3 points for Q3. 1 point for the FL on hard, medium and soft. 1 point on the fastest pit stop. then 20 points for the race winner. It's a potential 30 points week and actually more fun and competitive across the entire weekend.
The problem is that having a second team you are running as a finishing school - a sort of a formula 1.5 - is incongruous with the top tier of motorsport. There is no room for a ‘junior’ team when you have a limited number of spaces on the grid.
But RB rookies don’t have superior skill sets when they arrive or benefit from superior experiences throughout their early career than a rookie at any other team. Say Lawson is Yuki’s teammate next year, he isn’t going to have a better development path to be a superior prospective Red bull driver because the team is ultimately owned by red Bull than a rookie like Bearman starting at Haas would do with the view to being a Ferrari driver.
A simple fix would be to say that a driver outside the top 10 cannot set fastest lap - in other words, you cannot gain a point or take a point away for fastest lap unless you’re in the points paying positions. It’s silly that someone in P18 isn’t able to get that fastest lap point but can still take it away from someone who can, it’s too easy to do and just shouldn’t count either way.
The RB second team shouldnt exist there are so many teams that want to get into the sport and we have this totally unfair situtation that should never have been allowed
i remember one time verstappen got mad at one of the rbs for racing hard, asked why is the sister team racing me so hard? If youre any other team fighting for postion ferrari, mclaren, merc, and a rb is holding u up for the postion they rightfully can is what the sport is about. But moving out the way because u are the sister team is just unfair. this shouldnt exist in ANY SPORT. like telling a a basketball team that is owned by the same owner to lose to the superior team.
Surely you just disproved your own point. How can owning a sister team be unfair for the risk of fraternisation when example you give has RB not getting out of Verstappen’s way?
Every team would have done the same...McLaren and Lando have thrown away tens of points since Imola, they should fix their strategy first and then start whinning..
Yes but it wasn’t McLaren doing themselves. It was one team doing on behalf of another. It’s sketchy since McLaren doesn’t have a 2nd team on the grid.
For me, you just need to ask whether they would have still pit Ric for softs if it was Max who had fastest lap. If the answer is anything other than yes, this whole sister team debacle needs to end.
Aside from the sporting regs, F1 is a business and it was the best option for the entirert of the Red Bull company, to minimize the points the Red Bull racing team would lose to McLaren, under all the veils of it was just something the RB team wanted to do for Ricciardo, or as part of common practice, they were serving the purposes of the hand that is feeding both mouths.
The fastest lap rule is fine, but just needs to be amended further that only fastest laps for drivers in the points are considered. Therefore a team can’t purposely screw its number 2 driver out of the points to get rid of the extra FL point for a championship rival. And B teams outside or inside the points have absolutely no way of influencing a championship.
And what happens when driver number 2 is around 6-8 and has enough gap until 11? Oh yeah, nothing changes, they can still "screw its number 2" and do the other opponents Congratulations, you solved nothing
@@MrSniperfox29 well the team loses a lot of points and it’s a bigger trade off which put their CC at risk. This situation is only useful for drivers like Perez stuck outside the points or in P9/P10 when they have relatively nothing to lose. But teams are always allowed to use their number 2s to hold off a competitor, and it’s better than now. Either way it prohibits a B team from doing the same thing because points are way more valuable to them, and they don’t have a big enough gap to the midfield for an extra stop.
I guess the core of this problem is that F1 is letting two teams with the same owners (and thus shared interests) compete. I think it's unfair. Still happy Daniel could get the fastest lap on his potentially last race in F1.
The fastest lap extra point should be awarded from first to last. Imagine everyone outside of the top ten pitting again and doing a qualy lap. That means also teams that are struggling have the chance for a point. That gives every team at least a reason to push a bit harder from time to time because as of now if you are 14th and 10 seconds behind there is no reason to even be driving. With the potential of an extra point there is something to look forward to.
Exactly this. A fastest lap is an achievement whatever way you look at it. And it will allow the bottom teams to get off that frustrating 0, especially in seasons where the positions 1 through 10 go to 'the usual suspects' from 5 teams, and the others rarely get a chance at a point....
Either this, or they should not be able to STOP the people in the top 10 from getting the point. If someone with nothing to lose pits and takes a point (just barely I might add) from someone who set the fastest lap on the HARD TIRE, who cares? Why are we taking away that accomplishment. I don't care who's point it is, but someone with nothing to lose and also nothing to gain stopping someone from getting a point just looks bad. I love DR and I thought this was petty and shitty of him. Fuck McLaren, but also fuck RB for this crap.
Its gonna be crazy. Its like the teams at back of the grid will be all getting into the pits for soft tires during the last few laps of the race to get ready for qualifying runs and others are still running a race. 😂😂😂😂😅😅😅
@@randomdude8877 you’re gonna create chaos and potential danger needlessly with how many pitstops teams from 11-20th would do in the last 5-10 laps of a race This is before them trundling around and charging up their batteries causing there to various various slow moving cars on a fast track
Red Bull having 2 teams in F1 is something that shouldn't be allowed and leaves and endless amount of room for speculation with moments like this. That said, this much controversy over letting Daniel rip it out for one last lap of glory is insane, regardless of who it helps or hinders. They're only 3 points ahead of Haas ffs. So many times we've seen teams throw on the softs at the ass end of the grid to try and squeak out a point, and that point has always helped someone and hurt somebody else.
Everyone else can, no one else just ever bothered to actually buy a 2nd team. Reminder that Ferrari, Mclaren etc. was just as capable of buying Minardi back in 2005 as what Red Bull did, yet they chose not to take option, that´s on them.
@@gamefan56 The business case for Ferrari and McLaren as sports car manufacturers or racing families, however you want to look at the brands/companies, is very different than for Red Bull in the beverage industry. It is quite possible that all the teams you mention made the right decision overall with the knowledge available at the time.
@@gamefan56 No team had the financial meanings of running two different teams back then other than Red Bull. And how is it fair that the same owner is allowed to operate two teams while we are in the era of budget cap?
Pick your poison, fastest lap for some, Hungary swap for others…. The true loss or win will be down to moments Max & Lando could control themselves & didn’t. Anything else is just excuses.
It seems rather simple to me. If you change tyres in the last 10% of the race your times don't count towards the fastest lap for points or getting the fastest lap. Unless it's a red flag situation. That will stop someone at the back bolting on a pair of tires and just going for it
Seems like a sensible approach but does it just offset the same issue to 11%. Bearing in mind they don't get a point, this example has shown how the two teams are in cahoots.
There's a simple solution to all of this. Award the FL point to the driver with the fastest lap WITHIN the top 10, so laptimes of those who finished 11th or below are not taken into account.
This is also good. Tangential, but good. And when there are many seconds between the front-running cars, there are always some fight in the back. Let that mean something: Points.
I genuinely think this would promote more last place runner snipes than anything. the farther down the field you go the more time they have to consider if chasing the someome for a difficult f1 overtake is better than an almost automatic point for a set of rubber. Dropping down to last running like Riccardo would mean effectively doubling the points on the day.
@@syaieya Everybody but last place would stand to lose points by trying this. Until last place goes for it. Then second last place should go for it. Etc... The slowest cars running flat out just as they are being lapped. Exciting/dangerous! I say give points to all who finish and just a honorable mention for the fastest lap.
@@JoeVer-d6v yes it’s more entertaining and gives the back markers something to do other than just snailing along. Which also gives p11,p12 something to think about, will something happen up ahead and bump em into points or risk losing that chance for a shot at the fastest lap.
2 things: 1. Fastest lap should only be awarded to a driver who finishes inside the top 10 2. The FIA has no one to blame but themselves for the RB scenario. They are who let RB own two teams. Vcarb, or whatever they call themselves this week, should be sold to the highest and most qualified bidder that currently does not hold a stake in another team in F1.
@@F1ll1nTh3Blanks People losing their jobs can indeed lead to that I guess you people are fine with people being unemployed because you hate Red Bull that much
Now we discussing this? It was never ethical to have two allies teams in the first place, any time a RB had to overtook a ToroRosso was a free overtake, but whenever a TR met a RB rival then they fight even if that was not their planA
Maybe the amateurs at McLaren should've just pit Norris to secure the fastest lap. Red Bull was intelligent enough to do just that in the exact same situation on numerous occasions. But McLaren has shown time and time again that they aren't a top team, all they have is a fast car.
@@RANDOMZBOSSMAN1probably because lando was lacking concentration and almost ended his race multiple times therefore he couldnt pull the gap to verstappen and piastri like in zandvoort, was nowhere near to help him.
Sporting ethics are broken every time a team switches car order. This is no different. I say get rid of the fast lap or put rules such as: It only goes to a top 10 driver with at least 10 lap old tires.
Love British commentators making a whole video to vent about stealing a point from a British driver. This video would not have been made if they took a point away from verstappen this way
Wahhh wahhh British smth british that i swear to god you whataboutism crybabies are insufferable beyond belief. If anything it's harder being British in this sport than anything else
In this case it is just grossly pathetic. That British driver won in dominant fashion, instead of praising thát, this channel choses to whine about others being faster over 1 lap. Sadness.
@@kusanagi0 No they weren’t 🤣🤣🤣 McLaren and Mercedes don’t have a relationship outside of engines Between 1995-2009 they used to be closely linked as the McLaren effort was partially being funded and owned by Mercedes but those shares were sold in 2010 when Mercedes became their own manufacturer Let’s not be creating lies here
Hmmm...now I'm questioning the Yuki Tsunoda safety car that lead to a 'fortunate' cheap pitstop for Max Verstappen to win the race at Zandvoort in 2022.
