Formula 1 has once again surprised its global fanbase, this time with the quiet discontinuation of the fastest lap bonus point, a rule introduced with much fanfare just five years ago. What was initially touted as a dynamic addition to “improve the show” has now been unceremoniously dropped, leaving many questioning the series’ decision-making process and its engagement with its dedicated audience.
The official announcement from F1’s X account, directing followers to a “full story,” offered a stark contrast to the initial enthusiasm surrounding the rule’s introduction in 2019. Back then, Ross Brawn, then F1’s managing director for motorsport, proudly proclaimed that the bonus point would “improve the show whilst maintaining the integrity of our sport.” Yet, the series’ own report on its removal provided no tangible explanation for this abrupt reversal, a silence that speaks volumes about the rule’s true impact and reception.
Advert | Become a Supporter & go ad-free
F1 was quick to remind everyone of the historical precedent for such a rule, highlighting that a bonus point for fastest lap existed from 1950 to 1959. However, it conveniently overlooked the fact that this rule was deemed unnecessary and subsequently dropped for six decades, suggesting that its reintroduction was perhaps less a revival of a cherished tradition and more an experimental “gimmick” with a short shelf-life.
The Disconnect: F1’s Perception vs. Reality
After its inaugural season, Ross Brawn confidently stated that the bonus point had “generally been successful.” More controversially, the championship insisted that initial skeptics had been won over. Matt Roberts, F1’s global research director, even claimed in late 2019 that “avid fans were erupting like in an outcry, how dare we add a gimmick, we’re trying to be like NASCAR or whatever. Then, actually, after the first few races we did some surveys and everyone said they love it.”
This official narrative painted a picture of widespread acceptance and even adoration for the fastest lap bonus point. According to F1, it was a “tremendous addition,” beloved even by those who harbored initial doubts. The series’ current stance, dropping the rule for reasons “too trivial to deserve explanation,” stands in stark contradiction to this prior enthusiastic endorsement. This glaring inconsistency underscores a significant disconnect between F1’s internal assessment and the genuine sentiments of its diverse audience and, crucially, its drivers.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter andgo ad-free
Drivers and Fans: A Unified Voice of Skepticism
The reality on the ground was far different from F1’s rosy portrayal. Few fans genuinely seemed enthusiastic about the rule, and the drivers themselves were similarly skeptical from the outset. Rather than enhancing the competition, it often added little more than a perplexing layer of strategy, ultimately proving to be more trouble than it was worth. RaceFans readers, for example, consistently expressed their reservations. A significant majority of our audience opposed the rule’s introduction and remained unconvinced by its impact. When the bonus point became a focal point of debate after the recent Singapore Grand Prix, the preference for its removal, whether in its current or a modified form, was overwhelmingly clear.
The drivers, the very individuals competing under these regulations, voiced their doubts as soon as the rule was announced. Max Verstappen, a perennial contender for fastest laps, succinctly captured the sentiment: “I don’t see the benefit of it.” This concise statement perfectly encapsulated the inherent pointlessness of a rule that failed to genuinely reward raw pace or add meaningful strategic depth.
Drivers immediately recognized a critical flaw: the bonus point would often be arbitrarily handed to whoever had a large enough lead to make a “free pit stop” for fresh soft tyres near the end of a race. This strategy allowed a driver who wasn’t necessarily the fastest over a full race distance to secure the point, simply by leveraging a strategic advantage. Sure enough, this scenario played out numerous times, validating the drivers’ initial concerns and undermining the very premise of the rule.
When F1 finally decided to drop the regulation, few drivers had anything positive to say. Carlos Sainz Jnr eloquently articulated its flaws: “It’s not showing who is the fastest guy in the race – and he deserves one point for being the fastest guy – it’s just a point that goes to the guy that by chance, or by luck, or by race situation has a free pit stop at some point of the race.” Sainz’s analysis, mirroring sentiments expressed before the rule’s introduction, highlights the fundamental issue: it rewarded circumstance rather than pure merit. This begs the question: did F1 truly take nearly six years to accept what its competitors were saying from day one, or was there another, more immediate reason for its sudden demise?
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter andgo ad-free
The Singapore Catalyst: Team Tactics and Controversy
Indeed, there was a specific, controversial incident that appears to have precipitated the rule’s unexpected removal. There was no indication that F1 was about to abandon the bonus point prior to the recent Singapore Grand Prix. It was there that race winner Lando Norris controversially lost the bonus point. Daniel Ricciardo, driving for RB, managed to claim the fastest lap at the very end of the race, despite finishing 18th and therefore being ineligible to score the bonus point himself (as only top-10 finishers could earn it). This unusual tactic immediately sparked claims that Ricciardo’s RB team had brought him in for a late “flying lap” on soft tyres specifically to deny Norris the point and, by extension, to aid championship leader Max Verstappen of their sister team, Red Bull Racing.
While Norris admirably avoided a public fuss at the time, he made a point of expressing his concerns to the media in Austin, carefully laying down a marker for the future. He highlighted how “suspicious” it would appear if RB drivers continued to make unrewarded late bids for fastest lap throughout the season. This incident brought to the forefront long-standing concerns voiced by figures like Zak Brown, CEO of Norris’ team McLaren, regarding the potential conflicts of interest arising from multiple teams sharing the same owner. The Singapore controversy was a direct consequence of this structural issue.
However, as has been previously discussed, eliminating the bonus point for fastest lap offers a far simpler and more immediate solution than attempting to implement a complex rule that would ultimately compel Red Bull to divest one of its two teams. This pragmatic approach suggests that while the issue of multi-team ownership remains, the fastest lap rule was an easy target for removal in the face of unwanted controversy.
A Pattern of Disregard? F1, Fans, and Future Rule Changes
The push to introduce the bonus point for fastest lap originated from F1 itself, despite the FIA being the sport’s regulator. While F1 officials insisted that most fans were eventually won over, it’s difficult to ascertain how generously their internal data was interpreted. Feedback from independent sources, such as our own audience, consistently indicated negative sentiment towards the rule.
This pattern is not new. When F1 introduced sprint races three years ago, it justified them in a remarkably similar fashion, selectively highlighting data that indicated “weak support among fans” and trumpeting it as “very, very encouraging.” Again, our readers have consistently expressed their desire for F1 to reconsider the sprint race format. Such examples raise questions about F1’s approach to fan engagement and whether its rule changes are genuinely driven by a desire to improve the sport or by other, perhaps commercial, motivations.
The sudden disappearance of the bonus point for fastest lap, regardless of the precise motivation, at least offers a glimmer of hope. It suggests that Liberty Media, F1’s commercial rights holder, might be willing to acknowledge and rectify past mistakes. This willingness to reverse a recent rule, even if it took a controversial incident to trigger it, could set a precedent for a more responsive and fan-centric approach to future rule changes. It underscores the importance of rules that genuinely enhance the spectacle and fairness of racing, rather than adding artificial layers that complicate strategy or, worse, invite controversy.
Moving forward, F1 must strive for greater transparency and genuine consultation when considering new regulations. The goal should always be to foster pure, unadulterated racing excitement, free from “gimmicks” that detract from the sport’s integrity. By listening more intently to the voices of drivers and fans, F1 can ensure that its evolution truly serves the best interests of motorsport.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter andgo 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:
Comment
- The shadow of motorsport’s worst tragedy hangs over F1’s latest safety debate
- F1 got lucky three ways. But now it has a difficult and urgent problem to solve
- Verstappen’s overreaction shows he knows he cost himself the 2025 title
- F1’s sticking-plaster fix for Qatar tyre failures is an embarrassment
- The FIA’s stewards grabbed the chance to correct their mistake – unlike last time
Browse all comment articles