Pages

Search This Blog

Friday, December 10, 2010

F1 Team Orders Ban Is Lifted

Team Orders: in motor racing is a motorsport term for the practice of teams issuing instructions to drivers to deviate from the normal practice of racing against each other as they would against other teams' drivers. Prime examples of this are the team orders issued by Formula One teams to their drivers. This may involve instructing a driver to let his teammate overtake, or instructing both drivers to hold position in order to maintain a good position without the risk of collision.

Many team bosses predicted the ban on team orders would be dropped from the new sporting regulations after Ferrari caused an outcry by appearing to give Felipe Massa a coded message to allow Fernando Alonso through to win the German Grand Prix.

They argued the rule, which was introduced in 2002 after Rubens Barrichello gifted a win to then Ferrari team-mate Michael Schumacher, was difficult to enforce.

But following today's meeting of the World Motor Sport Council in Monaco, the body has confirmed the rule has now been "deleted".

Now the rule has been removed, the teams may tacitly agree not to use team orders as much as possible, while article 151.c, which refers to bringing the sport into disrepute, remains intact.

That article warns against: "any fraudulent conduct or any act prejudicial to the interests of any competition, or to the interests of motorsport generally".

Such orders were legal and expected historically in motor racing. In the early years of the Formula One World Championship it was even legal for a driver to give up his car during the race to the team leader if his car had broken down. 1957 British Grand Prix, for example. where the race was won by Stirling Moss and Tony Brooks, who shared driving duties in a Vanwall.

Many of the current teams in the paddock have made a 'gentleman's pact' as to the point that they will not use team orders unless completely necessary.  But what do they mean as 'completely necessary'?

1 comment:

  1. Very vague indeed...
    I guess we'll see some examples of 'completely necessary' next year ;)

    ReplyDelete