The ethical questions raised by Ricciardo's fastest lap in Singapore

When Daniel Ricciardo made his third late pit stop on soft tyres at the Singapore Grand Prix – possibly his last race in Formula 1 – and the situation was already hopeless, it was obvious to the watching world that he was trying to help Max Verstappen defend his title.

Despite all the rumours in the run-up to the season that the RB team wanted to be less of a Red Bull B team and create its own identity within Formula 1, it remains de facto a Red Bull B team, whose identity – and more importantly, its ownership – is directly linked to the reigning world champion team.

We will probably never know if this was a spontaneous hunch from RB team management, a pre-arranged thing that always happens when the situation allows it, or simply a happy byproduct of the team's desire to give Ricciardo a memory of his (perhaps last) race – which was Christian Horner's comment on this when he suggested to reporters that they should ask RB rather than expect a straight answer from him.

Ricciardo has certainly joked (more than once) that this would guarantee him a “nice Christmas present”, and he has heard “something about a $3.5 million bonus for the fastest lap” from Red Bull, the company that ultimately employs him as a racing driver (or was, until he was replaced by Liam Lawson).

Maybe this is not the best solution in terms of pure sporting ethics, but when has that ever been Formula 1's top priority? The aim is to do everything within the rules to win.

McLaren, which has been the centre of attention this weekend thanks to its agile, low-drag ‘Mini-DRS’ rear wing, knows this as well as anyone.

Zak Brown could well raise the matter with the FIA, as it is a clear example of the collusion between A/B teams that he so detests – and which he has long railed against.

However, there is no rule (yet) that prohibits two teams from being owned by a single company, just as there is no rule that prohibits one of the two teams from deliberately aiming for the fastest lap to help the other team win the championship.

McLaren team boss Andrea Stella said afterwards: “We just have to work harder to make sure that this [title race] it doesn’t come down to one point.”

He said he “didn't see it coming” and was “a little surprised that Racing Bulls' top priority in Singapore was to set the fastest lap of the race”. However, a cynic might say he probably knew that was exactly what would happen when it became clear to Red Bull and RB that Ricciardo's race was lost and Norris was on the fastest lap of the race unless someone did something about it.

“At the same time,” added Stella, “I have so much sympathy, support and friendship with Daniel that I am just happy that he can add this fastest lap to his track record.”

When asked by Edd Straw of The Race about the ethics of the sport and whether such tactics might violate the FIA ​​code, Stella declined to commit himself. He simply referred to the facts of the matter and said: “Talking about sportsmanship would be out of place.”

At the same time, he stressed that it was a “constructors' championship, a drivers' championship and not a coalition championship” and said that the issue of all ten F1 teams behaving “completely autonomously” “must be addressed”.

Essentially, Stella has admitted that McLaren has no evidence of deliberate collusion (although Ricciardo's own post-race comments show he clearly had it in mind, and Verstappen was not exactly subtle in expressing his gratitude to Ricciardo when told after the race who had set the fastest lap), and we understand that the FIA ​​​​weren't unhappy with what happened anyway. But McLaren's previously stated position that Red Bull owns two teams remains – and this is the latest reason why the company believes it should be reviewed.

“At no point do I have any evidence that Racing Bulls were aiming for the fastest lap to support Red Bull,” added Stella.

“I just find it a bit strange.”

Such tactics are part of the DNA of Formula 1

Josh Suttill

This is the kind of lovable nonsense that is in F1's DNA.

Just as McLaren found a clever technical loophole with the “Mini-DRS”, Red Bull exploited a sporting loophole to minimise the loss of points.

Neither is dangerous and Red Bull has not even come close to crossing that limit.

If Red Bull uses a lapped RB driver to directly block or collide with a leading McLaren driver, that is obviously problematic.

But Red Bull simply cleverly exploited the stupidity with which bonus points are awarded for the fastest lap.

Let's not forget that it was only the deletion of one lap due to track limits that prevented Haas' Kevin Magnussen from taking away the bonus point for the fastest lap.

This would not be meaningful in terms of who was fastest on a lap, nor would it have the same impact on the championship.

It is a mistake in the fastest lap rules and not in the shared ownership.

Red Bull's ownership of two teams gives it a better chance of taking advantage of this rule, but that's because 18 years ago the company saved Minardi's F1 team from extinction, not realizing that nearly two decades later it could come in handy to make a small contribution to the title.

This can be prevented by better wording the rules or, even better, by dropping a rule that is so open to artificial late pit stops and the combination of fastest race lap.

Otherwise, this must be added to the glorious pantheon of sensible team tactics.

It is up to the FIA ​​to ensure that there are no loopholes that can be exploited.

One of them does not necessarily have to be the one who has owned two F1 teams for almost two decades.