Hubbry Logo
Team ordersTeam ordersMain
Open search
Team orders
Community hub
Team orders
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Team orders
Team orders
from Wikipedia
A team order at the 2002 Austrian GP. Rubens Barrichello's #2 status at Ferrari was made obvious after he moved over to let Michael Schumacher win just a few metres before the finish line.

In motor racing, team orders is 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. This can be accomplished either in advance, simply by establishing a pecking order between the drivers within the team, or by instructing a driver to let their teammate overtake or to hold position without the risk of collision.

This is generally done when one driver is behind in a particular race but ahead overall in a championship season. The team will then order their drivers to rearrange themselves on the track so as to give more championship points to a driver who is ahead in the championship. Team orders may also be given when multiple drivers are in a position far ahead of the field, being all but assured of the win. Team orders are issued to prevent drivers from racing each other, so that they conserve fuel, reduce the likelihood of mechanical failure, and avoid a collision. Such orders have been made on countless occasions in the history of motorsport, sometimes causing great acrimony between the team and the disadvantaged driver, and controversy in the media.[1]

Damon Hill: I'm going to put something to you here, and I think you'd better listen to this.
If we race, if we two race, we could end up with nothing, so it's up to Eddie (Jordan).
If we don't race each other, we've got an opportunity to get a first and second, it's your choice.

Hill's radio message to the Jordan pitwall[2]

Team orders in Formula One

[edit]

Early examples

[edit]

Such orders were legal and accepted 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 the latter's car had broken down. In 1955, the Mercedes team asked Juan Manuel Fangio to let his teammate Stirling Moss win his home Grand Prix at Aintree. Fangio obliged, refusing to attack Moss in the closing stages of the race, and came home in second place, less than a second behind Moss.[3]

The 1964 season saw a dramatic finale in which Lorenzo Bandini moved over for John Surtees during the Mexican Grand Prix, allowing Surtees to get the necessary points to beat Graham Hill to the World Championship.[4]

In the 1979 German Grand Prix Clay Regazzoni was instructed by the Williams pits not to attack his teammate Alan Jones for the lead, despite Regazzoni being ahead in the championship.[5] The status of Jones as number one driver at Williams lasted until 1981, when Carlos Reutemann deliberately ignored team orders at the 1981 Brazilian Grand Prix and did not allow him to pass. This resulted in a long feud between the two that eventually led to Jones' retirement at the end of the season, with Reutemann missing out on the World Championship for one single point.[6]

At the 1982 French Grand Prix, René Arnoux enraged Renault by refusing to give way to his teammate Alain Prost, who at the time was ahead in the championship.[7] However, those three points had no impact, as Prost finished fourth in the championship that year, ten points behind eventual champion Keke Rosberg.

During the 1983 South African Grand Prix, the Brabham-BMW team asked driver Riccardo Patrese to cede Nelson Piquet the race win if it ensured Piquet would win the driver's championship. However, this did not prove to be necessary as Patrese won the race while Piquet came third, enough to secure him the championship.[8]

At the 1991 Japanese Grand Prix, Ayrton Senna, who had already secured the championship title that year, conceded the race win to Gerhard Berger, saying after the race that he had done so because "he had been very helpful".[citation needed][clarification needed]

Riccardo Patrese found himself in a similar situation to what he did in 1983 again in 1992, when he waved his Williams teammate Nigel Mansell through during the 1992 French Grand Prix, which Mansell went on to win ahead of Patrese in second.[9]

Negative media reception

[edit]

In the late 1990s, incidents of team orders began to be reported more prominently by the media, and public reaction to the more blatant examples became extremely negative. At the 1997 European Grand Prix, Jacques Villeneuve, already with the title in the bag (after the controversial collision with Schumacher, which Villeneuve's Williams survived), was asked by his engineer via radio to let the McLaren cars pass as "They've been very helpful",[10] while at the 1998 Australian Grand Prix, the McLaren drivers David Coulthard and Mika Häkkinen caused a stir by switching position at the end of the race in order to respect a previous agreement.[11]

In contrast to prior examples, the 1997 Japanese Grand Prix saw a more sophisticated use of team orders, where Ferrari driver Eddie Irvine began the race light on fuel, allowing him to get ahead of the superior Williams cars and hold them up, to the benefit of teammate Michael Schumacher.[12]

At the 1998 Belgian Grand Prix, the two Jordans of Damon Hill and Ralf Schumacher found themselves unexpectedly in the lead after a collision between Michael Schumacher and David Coulthard. Ralf was subsequently ordered not to overtake Hill, to assure Jordan of a 1-2 finish.[2] Following this, Michael angrily bought out his brother's contract for £2 million and told Eddie Jordan that Ralf would never race for Jordan again.[13]

At the 1999 German Grand Prix, Mika Salo, driving for Ferrari in place of the injured Michael Schumacher, was leading the race when he was told to allow teammate Eddie Irvine to pass. Salo complied, giving up what would have been his only Formula One victory in 109 career races.[14] Irvine ultimately failed to win the championship that year, losing out to Mika Häkkinen.

Barrichello said "To win, it was very, very, very good.... I got to the last corner, I didn't know what to do and nothing has been said. Michael was just very kind to, you know, let us finish equally. I guess I pointed a little bit in front, but, you know, what can we say?"
Schumacher said "The end of the race was not planned. We tried to cross the line together but failed by a tiny bit and in fact we did not know who had won until we got out of the cars. I just felt Rubens deserved to win this race."

At the 2002 Austrian Grand Prix, Rubens Barrichello was ordered to allow Ferrari teammate Michael Schumacher to pass to obtain the win.[15] This received huge amounts of negative attention from the media, as the order was issued shortly before both drivers crossed the finish line. Both drivers were unhappy about the situation. Schumacher refused to take the top step of the podium and the centre seat, normally reserved to the winner, during the post-race press conference, and the team was punished for breach of podium procedure.[16] At the United States Grand Prix the same year, Schumacher appeared to have returned the favour by giving Barrichello the win by the record smallest margin of 0.011 seconds on the finishing line, though it is assumed Schumacher was trying to trigger a dead-heat finish.

At the 2002 French Grand Prix, the financially troubled Arrows team had failed to reach an agreement with its sponsors, thus the team ordered both its drivers, Heinz-Harald Frentzen and Enrique Bernoldi to deliberately fail to qualify by posting times slower than the 107% rule.[17]

Team orders ban

[edit]

After the 2002 season, FIA announced that "Team Orders that could influence the outcome of a race" were banned,[18] although they were sometimes still implemented discreetly.

Ferrari team orders at the 2010 German Grand Prix
[edit]

For example, this has sometimes been achieved as easily as a team getting on the radio to the slower driver and pointing out that his teammate is quicker. The slower driver then lets the quicker driver through without the need for an overt "directive" from the team.[19] This happened, for example, at the 2010 German Grand Prix, Felipe Massa's race engineer Rob Smedley was heard to say to his driver "Fernando [Alonso] is faster than you. Can you confirm you understand that message?". Moments later, Massa eased back and allowed Alonso past.[19]

Crashgate

[edit]

Perhaps the most controversial use of team orders, occurring during the period where team orders were explicitly banned, was the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix, where the Renault F1 team used team orders to cause Nelson Piquet Jr. to crash deliberately on the fourteenth lap of the race in order to bring out the safety car, allowing his team-mate Alonso (who was proven to know nothing about the scheme) to win the race. Subsequent investigation the following year resulted in Renault receiving a two-year suspended disqualification (expired in 2011) and Flavio Briatore and Pat Symonds, two major figures involved with the team, being banned from the sport, although this was later appealed and reversed under a settlement that forbade them from working in any FIA-sanctioned events for a time.

Ban repealed

[edit]

At the end of the 2010 season, the FIA conceded that the team orders rule was not working and needed to be reviewed. As of 2011, the team orders rule no longer appeared in the sporting regulations.[20]

At the 2012 United States Grand Prix, Ferrari broke the FIA seal on the gearbox of Felipe Massa's car in order to trigger a 5-place grid penalty. This moved him behind Fernando Alonso and shifted both cars onto the "clean" side of the race track, to ensure Alonso the fastest start possible on the slippery asphalt of the brand-new Circuit of the Americas.[21]

At the 2013 Malaysian Grand Prix, Red Bull Racing driver Sebastian Vettel was criticised for passing his team-mate Mark Webber to win the race against "Multi 21", an order from his team to hold position.[22]

At the 2017 Hungarian Grand Prix, the Mercedes team ordered Valtteri Bottas to yield his third position for Lewis Hamilton, who had a better chance to attack second-placed Kimi Räikkönen. When it was clear that Hamilton was not able to overcome Räikkönen, Hamilton gave back the position to Bottas in the last corner of the race, costing him three points in the Drivers' Championship. Those three points did not matter in the end, as Hamilton won the title by 46 points.

At the 2018 German Grand Prix, after Vettel crashed and brought out the safety car, Hamilton inherited the lead, with team-mate Bottas behind him on fresher tyres. When the safety car period ended, Bottas initially attacked Hamilton for the lead, before being told by Mercedes' team strategist James Vowles to hold his position, handing Hamilton the win.[23] Bottas continued to play second fiddle to Hamilton at the 2018 Russian Grand Prix, where he qualified on pole and subsequently led the race until being ordered to yield the lead to his teammate, who was ahead in the Drivers' Championship.[24]

At the 2019 Australian Grand Prix, Ferrari ordered Charles Leclerc to hold position after he attempted to overtake team-mate Vettel. Two races later, at the Chinese Grand Prix, Leclerc was ordered by Ferrari team principal Mattia Binotto to let Vettel pass him. Binotto later said the team made the “right choice” by making the call, as Vettel finished on the podium in third whilst Leclerc finished fifth.[25]

At the 2022 Spanish Grand Prix, Red Bull ordered Sergio Pérez to give up his lead to his teammate Max Verstappen. Pérez stated that he was happy with the team but at the same time he demanded an explanation from the team regarding the team orders given to him.[26] Red Bull would again be accused of using team orders during the 2022 Azerbaijan Grand Prix with the team radio telling Pérez not to fight his teammate Verstappen in the main straight, however Red Bull team principal Christian Horner denied the accusation of giving team orders and Pérez defended the team decision as he experienced tyre degradation in the main straight (where Verstappen had crashed out the previous year due to a tyre failure) while some speculated the order was given to avoid another 2018 Azerbaijan Grand Prix incident (where Verstappen and then-teammate Daniel Ricciardo collided entering turn 1).[27] Later, in the 2022 São Paulo Grand Prix, Max Verstappen controversially refused to obey team orders to let his teammate Sergio Pérez pass. With Pérez falling down the order after the second safety car restart, his Red Bull Racing teammate, Verstappen, was given permission to pass him in order to overtake Fernando Alonso's Alpine.[failed verification] After failing to overtake Alonso, Verstappen was told by his engineer, Gianpiero Lambiase, to give the position back to Pérez, to assist Pérez in taking second in the Drivers' Championship. Verstappen refused to comply with team orders and told Lambiase not to ask him to do such a thing again, stating that he had his "reasons" to defy such orders, and that he had discussed those reasons with the team before.[28]

At the 2024 Hungarian Grand Prix, McLaren driver Lando Norris was ordered to give up his lead to his teammate Oscar Piastri, after the team boxed Norris first, resulting in him undercutting the then-leading Piastri.[29] Norris initially was hesitant to give up his lead as he was looking to gain his second win in Formula One, as well as an advantage in the Drivers Championship. However with three laps remaining, Norris gave up his race-leading position to his teammate after much convincing from his race engineer William Joesph.[30] Norris finished second, while his teammate won his maiden Grand Prix. This decision by McLaren created quite a controversy as some believed that Piastri was handed the win by Norris and that Norris deserved to win as he was fighting for the drivers championship. However others believed that Piastri deserved the win as McLaren should have pitted Piastri first, avoiding the undercut altogether which would have most likely resulted in Piastri winning the race.[31] McLaren would again issue team orders at the sprint race for the 2024 São Paulo Grand Prix, where Piastri qualified on pole position, and Norris qualified in second. The cars were ordered to switch positions on lap 22, and Norris went on to win the sprint race. The decision was made in an effort to gain as many points as possible against Norris' championship rival, Max Verstappen.[32][33]

Team orders involving McLaren, Piastri and Norris would again be invoked again the following season at the 2025 Italian Grand Prix. Team orders were invoked in this instance because Norris, who had been the ahead of Piastri in second place, suffered a slow pit stop having allowed Piastri, who had been running in third place behind to pit first to enable to avoid being undercut by the Ferrari of Charles Leclerc. Norris had agreed to allow Piastri to pit before Norris after McLaren promised Piastri would not undercut Norris through the stops. However, a slow pit stop for Norris meant he came out behind Piastri and team orders were invoked. Piastri was left unhappy with the order but reluctantly complied. The move to have Norris and Piastri swap positions was seen as particularly controversial by some fans as both Norris and Piastri were considered direct rivals competing for the 2025 drivers' championship.[34] However, team principal Andrea Stella said the decision for team orders was due to being Norris's own choice to pit second due to being guaranteed by the team that he would not be undercut by his team mate and that the decision made was consistent with the one made in Hungary the previous year where the roles of Norris and Piastri were reversed.[35][36]

Team orders in NASCAR

[edit]

In NASCAR, team orders occurs not only between drivers who drive for the same team, but also between drivers who drive for teams who happen to have the same manufacturer as the other involved parties. This form of team orders is called manufacturer orders.[37] Manufacturer orders can also be found in other motorsports (see below).

2013 Federated Auto Parts 400

[edit]

Team orders became a serious issue during the 2013 Federated Auto Parts 400 on 7 September 2013, when an elaborate scheme involving the last race of the regular season before the Chase for the Sprint Cup erupted, causing officials to make serious rule changes.

With five teams involved in the race for the final two regular and both wild card slots -- Richard Childress Racing satellite Furniture Row Racing, Hendrick Motorsports and its respective satellite Stewart–Haas Racing, Michael Waltrip Racing, and Penske Racing—for the ten-race playoff, an elaborate scheme erupted in the waning stages of the race.

Ryan Newman (Stewart-Haas) was leading the race with less than ten laps remaining, and the standings had Kurt Busch (Furniture Row) in ninth, Jeff Gordon (Hendrick) in tenth by two points, with the two wild cards being Kasey Kahne (Hendrick) and Newman, both of which would have two race wins. This would shut out Joey Logano (Penske), who was in the top ten prior to the race but struggling and now trailing Gordon by two points, and Martin Truex Jr. (Michael Waltrip), who also has one win.[38]

Logano, down two laps, talked with fellow Ford team Front Row Motorsports driver David Gilliland about allowing Logano to pass him to gain points, as he was two points behind Gordon for tenth place in the points. With Newman leading, Logano had to be in tenth or Logano would be out of a Chase position. Truex's teammate Clint Bowyer intentionally spun and caused a caution in an effort to assist his teammate. Ensuing pit stops knocked Newman to third. Logano, who was two laps behind, did not pit and was able to advance ahead one lap as the leader must be the first car on the restart.[39]

In order to allow the team orders for Michael Waltrip Racing to succeed, the elaborate scheme, which was independent of each other, took place. Bowyer pitted after the restart to go down laps in order to allow Logano to have one point, and teammate Brian Vickers did the same thing, and go very slow in the final lap, possibly below NASCAR's minimum speed requirement. This would allow Logano to pass Gordon, who without a win loses a tiebreaker to Logano. Logano then passes Gilliland. Truex races hard and ties Newman, tying Newman on the first count (most wins, one), and the second count (points), winning the third count (most second-place finishes).

"NASCAR requires its competitors to race at 100 percent of their ability with the goal of achieving their best possible finishing position in an event. Any competitor who takes action with the intent to artificially alter the finishing positions of the event or encourages, persuades or induces others to artificially alter the finishing position of the event shall be subject to a penalty from NASCAR. Such penalties may include but are limited to disqualification and/or loss of finishing points and/or fines and/or loss of points and/or suspension and/or probation to any and all members of the teams, including any beneficiaries of the prohibited actions. 'Artificially altered' shall be defined as actions by any competitor that show or suggest that the competitor did not race at 100 percent of their ability for the purpose of changing finishing positions in the event at NASCAR's sole discretion."

Section 12, Rule 4, Article L in the current NASCAR rule book

Immediately after the race, the ESPN television broadcast aired Bowyer's radio transmission in the laps leading to the safety car situation, before signing off the broadcast. This led to an immediate investigation where NASCAR uncovered via team radios the complex team orders scheme, suspending Michael Waltrip Racing officials, stripping Truex of his playoff position, a $100,000 fine per car on the team, and a 50-point penalty each on all three teams (driver and owner except the #55 of Vickers, a Nationwide Series driver ineligible for Sprint Cup points, which was penalised as owner only). Probations were assessed on Front Row and Penske teams after NASCAR uncovered the radio chatter for that team orders scheme. Gordon and Newman were each reinstated to the twelve-car playoff, which increased to thirteen after Gordon was added.[40]

A complex series of rules were announced on 14 September 2013 by NASCAR to prevent such team orders from taking place. Among the rules to prevent team orders include different teams on the spotter's stand brokering deals in exchange for the concession of a position, private team communication that cannot be detected by officials on digital radios (teams must use analog channels that can be accessed by spectators at the circuit, audio and visual media broadcasts, and officials - in previous years some teams had scrambled signals), and a limit of one spotter per spotter's stand at the circuit. At circuits where there are multiple spotters' stands used (mainly the road courses and Talladega Superspeedway), the rule will only limit one spotter to being in each post (there are often multiple posts at road courses and Talladega because it is impossible for the entire track to be seen by one spotter). NASCAR will also mandate a video camera on the stand, which will observe radio chatter among spotters (networks may also install a camera on the spotter's stand for broadcast positioning).

NASCAR also added Section 12, Rule 4, Article L in the NASCAR rule book, with the rule indirectly referencing a ban on team orders.

2019 Ford EcoBoost 400

[edit]

Team orders would also play a role in another controversy at the season-ending 2019 Ford EcoBoost 400 on 17 November 2019 amongst smaller teams without active Race Team Alliance charters, Premium Motorsports and Rick Ware Racing; the scheme also involved a small chartered team in Spire Motorsports.

The incident occurred as Premium Motorsports' No. 27 car (driven by Ross Chastain for the race) raced for the top-placed non-chartered team against Gaunt Brothers Racing's No. 96 (driven by Drew Herring); the top-placed non-chartered team (referred as Open teams by NASCAR) in the owner's points standings would earn higher bonuses. NASCAR's investigation, which involved access to team radio channels, was published on 27 November 2019, which revealed that the Nos. 27, 52 (Rick Ware Racing, driven by Josh Bilicki), 77 (Spire Motorsports, driven by Reed Sorenson) and 15 (Premium Motorsports, driven by Joe Nemechek) were found to have manipulated the outcome of the race, by means of inter-team exchanges asking the latter three cars to park (retire) out of the race within a 15-lap span for the benefit of No. 27 in the point standings.[41]

NASCAR subsequently fined crew members Scott Egglestone (Premium Motorsports) and Kenneth Evans (Rick Ware Racing) $25,000 each and suspended both indefinitely. All three team owners were fined $50,000, and all four cars were assessed a fifty-point penalty.[42] Spire Motorsports did not appeal their penalties, while Premium and RWR remained quiet on the incident.[43] Sorenson, who initially repeatedly refused to pit in according to radio communications, was the only driver to have points deducted from driver's point standings, as none of the other drivers were eligible to score points in the Cup series whilst mainly participating in lower NASCAR touring series; thus, the penalties primarily affected owner's point standings.

2020 Xfinity 500

[edit]

After the penultimate playoff race before the Championship 4 race, the 2020 Xfinity 500, Joe Gibbs Racing was subject of an investigation following a team order message directed to Erik Jones asking him not to pass Denny Hamlin in order to help Hamlin, who had been struggling during the late phases of the race, to advance to the Championship 4 race.[44] NASCAR ultimately did not issue penalties for Jones' or Hamlin's team,[45] and Hamlin ultimately advanced to the Championship 4 race, where he lost the championship to Chase Elliott.

2022 Bank of America Roval 400

[edit]

At the end of 2022 Bank of America Roval 400, Cole Custer's last lap behavior, in which he slowed down into the backstretch heading into the last chicane in order to allow Chase Briscoe to pass several drivers and thus increase his points gap over Kyle Larson (who suffered from a suspension damage from a wall contact), was subject of an investigation by NASCAR, although the organization assured that the Round of 8 grid would not change as a result of the investigation.[46] On October 11, NASCAR docked Custer 50 driver and owner points, suspended Custer's crew chief Mike Shiplett (who notified, instead of Custer's spotter, that he had a supposed flat tire) indefinitely, and fined both $100,000 each, on race manipulation charges, based on the "fullest ability" clause added after the 2013 Richmond incident.[47] On October 27, Stewart–Haas Racing lost the appeal against Custer's penalties.[48]

Team orders in MotoGP

[edit]

While not commonly used, team orders in MotoGP have gained some notoriety for last few seasons. In 2017, Ducati sent Jorge Lorenzo team orders on his dashboard and pitboards during the last 2 races of the season, to either stay behind his team-mate Andrea Dovizioso, or let him pass. Lorenzo claimed to have not seen them in Malaysia,[49] and chose to ignore them in Valencia.[50]

During the 2020 season, Suzuki was said to be playing team orders with their riders in order for Joan Mir to secure the 2020 championship.[51]

In 2022 season, Ducati was accused by rival teams of playing team orders to manipulate the championship during the San Marino, Malaysia and Valencia rounds of the season. However, team manager Davide Tardozzi denied using team orders in order to secure Francesco Bagnaia the championship and told the media that riders are free to race each other.[52]

Examples exist in earlier times. For instance, during the 1968 season finale. Yamaha riders Phil Read and Bill Ivy were contenders for 250cc title. Read had taken the 125cc title the race before, and Yamaha had decided before the start of the season that Read would have to let Ivy take the 250cc title. Read disrespected the agreement, won the final 250cc race at Monza in front of Ivy, and was awarded the 250cc world championship.[53]

Team orders in other motorsports

[edit]

The Rallye Sanremo in the 1976 World Rally Championship marked a rivalry between Lancia drivers, Björn Waldegård and Sandro Munari. Ahead of the last stage, Waldegård was in lead, four seconds ahead of Munari. To give Munari an equal chance at winning, Lancia team boss Cesare Fiorio ordered Waldegård to wait for another four seconds in the start. Waldegård followed the orders, but in the end, still won the rally overall by four seconds ahead of Munari.[54][55][56] He then left the Lancia team for Ford.[57]

The season finale of the 2021 Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters was noted for presence of manufacturer orders between several Mercedes-AMG teams in order to ensure Maximilian Götz would be the DTM champion that year, taking advantage of the first-corner collision between Kelvin van der Linde and Liam Lawson.[58]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
Team orders in refer to strategic instructions issued by a team to its drivers during a race, directing them to prioritize the team's overall championship objectives over individual competition, such as yielding position to a teammate to maximize points or conserve resources. This practice, while aimed at optimizing team performance in constructors' and drivers' championships, often involves one driver slowing down, avoiding aggressive maneuvers against a teammate, or adjusting pace to facilitate a position swap, and is particularly prominent in . While most prominent in , team orders are also employed and regulated in series such as and MotoGP. The use of team orders has been a contentious element of since the sport's early decades, with roots tracing back to the when teams occasionally shared cars or coordinated finishes to secure better results. Controversy intensified in modern F1 following the , where Ferrari instructed to cede victory to on the final straight, sparking fan booing and podium protests that embarrassed the sport. In response, the FIA introduced a ban on team orders in 2003 via Article 39.1 of the Sporting Regulations, which prohibited "Team orders which interfere with a race result are prohibited." Enforcement proved challenging, as teams often used coded language like "save fuel" or "box, box" to disguise instructions, exemplified by Ferrari's $100,000 fine in for the German Grand Prix incident where was told "Fernando is faster than you" to let pass. Recognizing the rule's ineffectiveness, the FIA repealed the ban at the end of , removing Article 39.1 effective for the season, while retaining provisions under the against actions bringing the sport into disrepute. As of 2025, team orders are legal and increasingly common in tight title battles, though they continue to provoke over fairness, driver autonomy, and entertainment value, with high-profile cases including McLaren's team orders in the 2024 where yielded position to teammate .

General Concepts

Definition and Rationale

Team orders in motorsports refer to directives issued by a team to its drivers, instructing them to alter their on-track behavior relative to teammates in order to influence race outcomes, rather than competing freely against one another. These instructions typically involve actions such as maintaining a specific position, yielding the lead, or coordinating overall strategy to favor collective team interests over individual achievements. The primary rationale for team orders stems from the need to optimize team performance in championship standings, where points are awarded to both or teams. By preventing intra-team rivalries, these orders help maximize overall points haul, conserve critical resources like fuel and tires, minimize the risk of collisions between teammates, and safeguard mechanical components from excessive stress during aggressive maneuvers. This approach prioritizes the broader team's success, a principle rooted in early 20th-century racing when wealthy entrants and manufacturers, such as in , emphasized collective glory over individual driver autonomy to secure victories and prestige. Implementation methods vary but commonly include direct radio communications from the pit wall to drivers, often using coded phrases to convey instructions discreetly, such as "Multi-21" to denote maintaining predefined positions between teammates. Subtler tactics encompass varying timings to adjust relative positions or pre-race agreements on scenarios like position swaps or defensive blocking of external rivals to protect a teammate's lead. These approaches allow teams to execute orders without overt disruption to the race flow. The evolution of team orders traces from informal practices in the , where drivers might yield positions or even swap cars mid-race to share points under early scoring systems, to more structured strategies in contemporary series. This shift was propelled by the widespread of points-based championships in the , which incentivized teams to strategically allocate results among drivers for maximum cumulative gains, transforming ad-hoc decisions into integral components of race planning.

Ethical and Strategic Debates

Team orders in motorsports have sparked intense ethical debates, primarily centered on their potential to undermine the merit-based nature of racing by subordinating individual driver skill to collective team directives. Critics argue that such instructions prioritize strategic outcomes over pure competition, diminishing the sport's integrity and excitement for spectators who expect unscripted battles on the track. This tension was notably highlighted in Formula One's , where Ferrari's directive for to yield to ignited widespread scrutiny of team tactics as manipulative rather than sporting. Fan backlash against team orders has been pronounced, with incidents often leading to booing, protests, and discussions revealing opposition due to perceived reductions in race unpredictability and fairness. For instance, high-profile cases have prompted fans to view orders as robbing deserving drivers of victories, underscoring broader concerns that team orders erode the individualistic heroism central to motorsport's appeal. Strategically, proponents defend team orders as essential for maximizing constructors' points, enabling teams to consolidate resources and secure long-term financial benefits through enhanced sponsorship appeal. Analyses show that coordinated driver efforts can yield substantial points gains in multi-car lineups, bolstering overall team standings and stability. Such practices are seen as rational in a high-stakes environment where constructors' titles directly influence budgets and viability. Debates on fairness often revolve around the establishment of hierarchies, such as "number one" and "number two" designations, where lead s receive preferential treatment to protect leads. This dynamic can strain teammate relationships, fostering resentment and impacting driver morale, sometimes resulting in career-altering team switches as secondary drivers seek equitable opportunities. Examples illustrate how overt prioritization leads to interpersonal conflicts, potentially shortening careers for those consistently sidelined.

Team Orders in Formula One

Historical Development

Team orders in emerged in the sport's formative years as a practical for maximizing points in an era dominated by manufacturer-backed teams. In 1950, demonstrated early coordinated tactics during their sweeping dominance of the inaugural , with drivers , , and employing teamwork to secure all six race victories and the drivers' title for Farina, leveraging the superior 158 Alfetta's performance while conserving resources across the squad. This approach was facilitated by rules allowing mid-race driver-car swaps, a tactic exemplified in 1951 when teams like instructed teammates to exchange vehicles to optimize points allocation, as seen in the where Fangio and Fagioli switched to ensure the stronger driver finished higher, a practice permitted until banned in 1957. The 1960s and 1970s saw team orders evolve alongside the introduction of the Constructors' Championship in , which awarded points based on the finishing positions of teams' cars, with revisions in the early limiting it to the best five results per team and encouraging broader participation but also intensified internal rivalries. Ferrari epitomized this shift with their informal "number one" driver policy, notably in 1976 when the team favored over during the , instructing Regazzoni to yield position to help Lauda secure vital championship points amid his battle with . By the , such strategies became more implicit yet effective, as evidenced by McLaren's 1988 partnership between and , where the duo's coordinated efforts—despite on-track battles—delivered 15 wins from 16 races, clinching both the Drivers' and Constructors' titles through mutual support in key moments without overt directives. Entering the 1990s, team orders normalized further as constructors prioritized collective success under the evolving points system, which by then rewarded both cars' finishes to boost team standings. Williams exemplified this in , designating Senna as the lead driver over teammate to challenge for the title, with tactical decisions aimed at protecting Senna's position in early-season races despite the FW16's handling challenges. This period marked a cultural transition from the privateer-dominated eras of the , where orders were quietly accepted, to heightened public scrutiny in the as globalized through expanded television coverage and international races, amplifying fan expectations for uncompromised competition and sparking ethical debates over .

Notable Controversies

One of the most infamous instances of team orders in occurred at the , where Ferrari instructed to yield the lead to teammate on the final lap. Barrichello, who had led the race comfortably, slowed dramatically entering the final corner, allowing Schumacher to take the victory and secure crucial championship points. The move provoked immediate outrage from fans, who booed both drivers on the podium and pelted them with beer cans, while media coverage highlighted the perceived manipulation of the race result. Barrichello later expressed visible discomfort during the podium ceremony, refusing to accept the winner's and insisting Schumacher take it, underscoring the personal toll on drivers. The , dubbed "Crashgate," represented an even more egregious scandal when Renault directed to deliberately crash his car on lap 14 at Turn 17. The intentional incident deployed the , which benefited teammate by bunching the field and allowing him to pit for fresh tires under neutralized conditions, ultimately leading to his victory—the first night race in F1 history. Exposed in September 2009 by Piquet Jr. after his dismissal from the team, the plot involved team principal and engineer , prompting an FIA investigation that confirmed the orchestration. Consequences included a two-year suspended ban on from F1, a $500,000 fine, a lifetime ban for Briatore (later overturned by a French court), and a five-year ban for Symonds. In more recent years, team orders and strategic decisions perceived as favoring one driver have continued to stir controversy. At the , Mercedes opted for a strategy that kept on older tires during a late virtual period, aiming to maintain his lead over despite the risk of losing track position. Although not an explicit order between teammates, the decision was criticized as prioritizing Hamilton's title bid in the , contributing to the race's chaotic and disputed outcome where Verstappen overtook on fresh tires after a controversial restart. Similarly, during the 2024 Hungarian Grand Prix, instructed to relinquish the lead to in the final laps after a pit strategy swap positioned Norris ahead unfairly, allowing Piastri to secure his maiden win. Norris complied reluctantly after radio exchanges, but the episode drew scrutiny for overriding on-track racing. In the 2013 Malaysian Grand Prix, Red Bull's "Multi-21" strategy instructed Mark Webber to hold second position behind him for teammate to conserve tires, but Vettel ignored the order and overtook Webber late in the race to finish second, securing valuable points in the championship fight. The incident led to public team discord, with Webber accusing Vettel of betrayal, though no FIA penalties were imposed. Tensions escalated further at the 2025 in , where again invoked team orders amid intra-team rivalry between Norris and Piastri. After a slow dropped Norris behind Piastri during their final stops, the team directed Piastri to yield second place to restore the pre-pit order, a move Piastri initially resisted over radio before complying. The incident highlighted ongoing frictions, with Piastri later admitting the order lingered in his mind during subsequent races, exacerbating championship pressures and near-misses in positioning that risked collision. 's interventions, while aimed at fairness, fueled debates over driver autonomy. These controversies have profoundly impacted , eroding perceptions of race purity by prioritizing team strategy over individual merit and prompting driver protests, such as Barrichello's podium reluctance. Fan backlash, including boos and declining viewership in affected events, has underscored a love-hate dynamic with team orders, while FIA probes—like those into 2002's overt instruction and 2008's deliberate crash—have exposed ethical lapses and led to disciplinary actions. Overall, such incidents have intensified on intra-team dynamics, with drivers voicing frustration over lost opportunities and the sport grappling with balancing competition and constructor interests.

Regulatory Evolution

Following the controversial team orders employed by Ferrari at the , where was instructed to yield victory to , the FIA informally prohibited such practices that could compromise race results, leading to a formal ban in the 2003 Sporting Regulations under Article 39.1, which stated that teams must not "prearrange the finishing order of their cars." This rule aimed to preserve competitive integrity but was often circumvented through coded radio messages, such as ambiguous instructions about pace or position, allowing teams to subtly influence outcomes without explicit violations. The ban's enforcement intensified in 2010, when the maximum penalty for breaches was set at a $100,000 fine, as demonstrated by Ferrari's punishment after the , where a radio message—" is faster than you"—was interpreted as directing to let teammate pass, resulting in the full fine but no further sanctions after review. This incident, alongside the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix "Crashgate" scandal involving , where deliberate crashing aided Alonso's win and prompted lifetime bans for team principals, catalyzed stricter oversight on manipulative tactics. In response, the FIA repealed the explicit ban at the end of 2010, effective for the 2011 season, permitting overt team orders provided they did not mislead officials or spectators. Post-2011, team orders became explicitly allowed under the Sporting Regulations, though subject to scrutiny for actions deemed "manipulative" or contrary to fair play, as outlined in broader provisions against conduct bringing the sport into disrepute. The 2021 regulations reinforced this by emphasizing compliance with general driving standards in Article 27, prohibiting unnecessary interference while allowing strategic instructions, without reinstating a outright . Updates in 2023 and 2024 heightened focus on transparency, mandating that all radio communications be audible to the FIA for monitoring potential misleading tactics, with 2025 regulations maintaining this via Article 20 on communications to ensure accountability in real-time strategy calls. Enforcement has varied, with the 2013 Malaysian Grand Prix "Multi-21" incident at —where ignored instructions to hold position behind Mark Webber, securing victory—resulting in no FIA fine but internal team reprimands, highlighting that while orders are permissible, non-compliance alone does not trigger penalties unless it violates broader fairness rules. In 2024, the FIA closely monitored McLaren's strategic decisions, such as position swaps between and during the , but took no action, affirming the legality of such maneuvers when transparently executed. As of 2025, team orders remain legal in , provided they adhere to sporting principles, with the FIA conducting post-race reviews to assess impacts on championship fairness, particularly in scenarios affecting title contenders, to balance team with competitive equity.

Team Orders in

Regulatory Framework

's regulatory framework on team orders is primarily governed by rules prohibiting race manipulation rather than an explicit ban on all forms of intra-team or alliance coordination. This approach reflects the series' emphasis on manufacturer alliances, where teams affiliated with the same (OEM)—such as Chevrolet, Ford, or —may collaborate on strategies like drafting assistance at superspeedways to enhance safety and competitiveness, provided it does not alter race outcomes unfairly. The alliance system structures teams into OEM groups, facilitating permissible "" such as positioning for aerodynamic aid during pack , which is particularly prevalent at restrictor-plate tracks like Daytona and Talladega. A 2019 post-season review following the Ford EcoBoost 400 led to penalties for four teams accused of manipulating the championship finale but also clarified that legitimate alliance-based cooperation, like non-aggressive blocking of non-allied competitors, would not be penalized if it prioritized on-track competition over contrived results. The agreement, signed in 2023 and effective from 2025 through 2031, incorporates provisions limiting aggressive orders outside alliances, tying compliance to guaranteed race entries and to maintain competitive balance. As of November 2025, the agreement faces challenges from an ongoing antitrust lawsuit filed by and , though a has allowed them to compete as chartered teams for the 2025 season. Penalties for violations focus on "manipulative" actions that compromise race integrity, with sanctions including fines up to $100,000, point deductions of 50 to 100 for drivers and owners, and potential suspensions for crew chiefs. For instance, in the 2022 , Stewart-Haas Racing's No. 41 team was fined $100,000 and docked 50 points for intentionally slowing to influence finishing positions, underscoring NASCAR's prioritization of safety and fair play over absolute competitive purity in high-stakes scenarios. Updates in 2024 and 2025 have intensified enforcement through enhanced radio monitoring during playoff races to detect coded instructions that could facilitate manipulation, prompted by controversies like suspicious communications at the 2025 Charlotte Roval. These measures integrate with Next Gen car regulations, which promote closer pack racing and strategic OEM cooperation while explicitly warning against actions that endanger participants or distort results. This permissive yet monitored stance on alliances contrasts with stricter individual-team prohibitions in series like Formula One, influenced by broader motorsport debates on ethics versus strategy.

Notable Incidents

A prominent example of race manipulation occurred during the at Richmond International Raceway, the regular-season finale. Michael Waltrip Racing teams, including drivers and , intentionally spun their cars to bring out a caution and alter the finishing order, aiming to secure a Chase spot for teammate . This led to penalties for MWR, including 50-point deductions and fines, and NASCAR expanding the Chase field to 13 drivers by adding , who was disadvantaged by the chaos. The incident drew widespread criticism for undermining race integrity. The 2020 at featured a team orders controversy during the playoff elimination race. instructed (#20) not to pass teammate (#11) in the closing laps, ensuring Hamlin's advancement to the 4 via despite finishing 10th. This occurred amid a tight battle for spots, with crashing while trying to advance from 10th, ultimately finishing 17th and eliminated despite leading the points standings entering the race. reviewed the radio communications but issued no penalties, citing insufficient evidence of manipulation, though the incident reignited discussions on enforcing stricter guidelines for intra-team assistance in . During the 2022 Bank of America Roval 400 at , a playoff Round of 12 elimination event, executed a broader strategy where Austin Cindric's positioning aided against drivers. Cindric, running mid-pack, used his No. 2 Ford to disrupt passing attempts by Hendrick's William Byron and others in the section, helping Logano maintain track position and finish second behind winner to advance to the Round of 8. This tactical support underscored Penske's playoff emphasis on collective manufacturer alliances, with no infractions noted by officials despite post-race scrutiny from rival teams. As of 2024-2025, no major team orders scandals have emerged in , but superspeedway races continue to showcase informal alliances, such as the 2025 where Chevrolet-affiliated drivers, including those from and , protected William Byron during the final-lap chaos. Byron advanced from ninth to first amid a multi-car incident, benefiting from blocking by Chevy teammates that shielded him from Ford and challengers, securing his second consecutive Daytona victory without prompting official investigations. These ongoing tactics reflect 's regulatory allowances for manufacturer-based cooperation at restrictor-plate tracks, where pack racing inherently encourages such strategies.

Team Orders in MotoGP

Historical Examples

In the formative years of from 1949 to 1972, team orders emerged as essential tactics in intense manufacturer rivalries, notably between and Yamaha, where factory teams coordinated rider efforts, bike setups, and race strategies to outmaneuver European competitors like and in the quest for championships across classes including the 500cc category. During the 1950s, MV Agusta's factory team in the 500cc Grand Prix exemplified coordinated multi-rider efforts, with riders such as , Umberto Masetti, and Gilera defectors strategically managed to deliver 18 world titles through the era, leveraging shared data on and track positioning to dominate against rivals like Norton and Gilera. A pivotal controversy arose in 1968 within the Yamaha factory team, where Phil Read was instructed to focus on securing the 125cc title while allowing teammate Bill Ivy to claim the 250cc ; however, after clinching the 125cc crown, Read disregarded these orders and aggressively challenged Ivy at the Nations Grand Prix in , winning the race by 1 minute and 50 seconds to tie the points standings. The 250cc title was ultimately awarded to Read via an FIM tie-breaker rule based on cumulative finishing times across the season, giving him a 2 minutes and 5 seconds advantage—a decision that strained team relations and underscored the perils of intra-team competition—Ivy tragically perished in a testing crash at the following year. In the and , Honda's approach highlighted favoritism within its ranks, particularly in 1983 when the factory prioritized over other riders by channeling advanced NS500 development and testing resources toward his bid for the 500cc title amid a fierce duel with Yamaha's , enabling Spencer to secure Honda's first premier-class championship with eight victories. The saw a pronounced evolution in team orders under Repsol Honda, where strategies were devised to shield Mick Doohan's championship leads in the fuel-thirsty two-stroke 500cc era, including directives for second riders like Alex Crivillé to conserve energy and block rivals during key races; this tactical framework, emphasizing positioning and , propelled Doohan to five straight titles from to 1998, amassing 54 Grand Prix wins.

Modern Applications and Challenges

In the 2000s, team orders in MotoGP gained prominence as manufacturers fielded competitive two-rider factory teams, with strategies often favoring the lead rider to secure championships. Ducati's 2007 campaign exemplified this approach, where the factory team prioritized support for rookie , enabling him to clinch the constructors' title with 10 wins while teammate provided developmental and strategic backing in a less competitive role. Similarly, Yamaha's handling of and rookie from 2008 to 2010 involved managing intense intra-team rivalries without explicit directives, though Rossi's veteran status positioned him as the de facto leader, leading to tense battles like the 2009 Catalunya clash and 2010 Motegi duel where no favoritism was enforced. Entering the 2010s and 2020s, manufacturer strategies increasingly emphasized hierarchy, particularly at , where received clear favoritism from 2013 to 2019. focused development and resources on Márquez's championship bids, sidelining input from teammate and test rider to prioritize Márquez's six consecutive titles. By 2024, faced acute enforcement challenges with eight riders across its factory and satellite squads, culminating in the Valencia Grand Prix finale where , trailing by 19 points, received no coordinated support from teammates like or Pramac's Martín, allowing Martín to secure the riders' title. team manager explicitly refused team orders within the factory lineup, citing the difficulty of coordinating across multiple teams. These incidents highlight persistent challenges in MotoGP, where riders' independent contractor status—often with personal sponsorships and multi-year deals tied to performance clauses—renders compliance with team directives voluntary rather than mandatory. For instance, Pramac rider publicly stated he would ignore any Ducati-issued orders during his 2023 title fight, prioritizing individual results over manufacturer loyalty. This autonomy was exacerbated in 2024-2025 by the Pramac-Ducati split, announced in June 2024 after 20 years of partnership; as Pramac transitioned to a Yamaha satellite role for 2025, its riders reportedly disregarded late-season directives, contributing to Bagnaia's unsupported effort and underscoring fractured alliances. In 2025, with Pramac now operating as a Yamaha satellite team, manufacturer strategies continue to evolve amid the ongoing season. Regulatory oversight adds further complexity, as MotoGP imposes no formal ban on team orders, unlike Formula 1's historical prohibitions, allowing manufacturers discretion while , the series promoter, emphasizes "clean racing" through rider codes of conduct to prevent dangerous interference. Controversies like the 2015 Sepang clash between Rossi and —where Rossi accused of aiding rival Lorenzo, indirectly implicating team influences—illustrate how such strategies can fuel ethical debates on hierarchy in two-rider teams, balancing manufacturer goals against fair competition.

Team Orders in Other Motorsports

IndyCar Series

In the IndyCar Series, team orders have historically been infrequent, particularly before 2000, when the sport was dominated by independent and single-car entries during the CART era, limiting opportunities for intra-team coordination to maximize championship points in a single-series format. The 2008 merger of Champ Car and the Indy Racing League consolidated the field, enabling multi-car teams like Chip Ganassi Racing and Team Penske to employ strategic team orders more effectively, as seen in instances where teammates positioned to support the points leader without overt interference. For example, in the 2010 Honda Indy Edmonton, Ganassi's Scott Dixon secured victory amid a controversial penalty on a rival, allowing teammate Dario Franchitti to finish third and bolster the team's championship standing. In modern racing, team orders remain strategic but subtle, often focused on oval and road course events to protect title contenders. During the 2024 250s doubleheader, Palou's mechanical issues in —an electrical failure that left him 29 laps down—rendered explicit orders unnecessary, with the team emphasizing clean racing to maintain points. -saving directives in the exemplify coordinated team tactics, where trailing teammates lift and coast to conserve for the leader, enabling fewer stops and position gains, as demonstrated in multiple editions where such strategies decided the outcome. IndyCar regulations prohibit team orders under Rule 9.3.4 of the NTT Rulebook if they involve "actions or omissions by one or more Members to artificially influence, affect, alter or manipulate the outcome of a race or event," with penalties assessed for unnatural conduct such as deliberate yielding. A notable enforcement occurred in 2025, when teams including were fined $100,000 each for technical violations under related rules, underscoring the series' balance between strategic cooperation and fair competition. The 2025 hybrid era, featuring full-season deployment of the energy recovery system since its 2024 debut, amplifies strategic coordination by adding layers of and deployment, potentially increasing reliance on team orders for optimal across multi-car entries—such as observed in and tactics at the 2025 Indianapolis 500. Challenges in implementing team orders persist due to IndyCar's spec chassis design, which standardizes all vehicles and reduces performance disparities between teammates, resulting in lower frequency compared to Formula 1's bespoke machinery. Multi-car teams like , which fielded up to four entries in recent seasons, must navigate conflicting individual sponsorship obligations that prioritize driver-specific branding over collective team goals, complicating directives in high-stakes scenarios.

Endurance Racing and Rally

In endurance racing and rally series, team orders emphasize strategic over direct on-track yielding, given the prolonged formats that demand reliability, , and multi-driver coordination. Unlike sprint events, these disciplines allow teams to issue instructions for , pit strategy synchronization, and position protection to maximize championship points for manufacturers and drivers alike. This approach is particularly prevalent in hybrid-powered categories, where (BoP) adjustments by the FIA help equalize capabilities across prototypes, indirectly supporting tactical decisions without compromising fairness. In the World Endurance Championship (WEC), team orders are integral to hybrid class management, focusing on optimizing energy deployment and avoiding mechanical strain during races up to 24 hours. A prime example is Porsche's 2015-2017 dominance, exemplified at the 2015 , where the team coordinated pit stops across its #19 and #18 919 Hybrids to secure a 1-2 finish; the #18 car adjusted its strategy to support the leaders, minimizing time loss through synchronized refueling and driver changes totaling 90 stops across the fleet. The FIA's WEC regulations permit such orders for safety, fuel efficiency, and reliability, with no blanket prohibition as long as they adhere to fair play principles; 2025 updates for (LMH) vehicles further refine BoP to balance hybrid systems, ensuring strategic maneuvers do not unfairly advantage one team. The (WRC) employs stage-specific team orders to safeguard points in variable-terrain events, often prioritizing manufacturer titles amid unpredictable conditions. In 1998, strategically allowed to pursue victory in over teammates Freddy Loix and Carlos Sainz, despite considerations to prioritize points consolidation, which helped secure key results amid internal tensions. More contemporarily, at the 2024 , weighed orders for and to support ' title challenge by maintaining close proximity to rivals, potentially blocking advances after Evans' early setback. Hyundai faced notable 2022 conflicts, as at the when was instructed to hold station behind for a 1-2 finish, prompting Tänak's public criticism of the "unfair" directive that denied him a fair fight for victory. WRC regulations, governed by the FIA and a 2022 promoter , ban aggressive intra-team —such as deliberate collisions—but explicitly permit strategic orders to protect overall team interests, reflecting the series' emphasis on over . These formats distinguish themselves by their duration and structure: WEC's continuous circuits demand holistic strategies like driver rotations and fuel mapping across hours or days, fostering high acceptance of orders to prevent attrition; in contrast, WRC's discrete stages enable reactive, event-specific directives for points optimization, yet both prioritize team survival in high-stakes, reliability-focused environments over individual spectacle.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.