Why the team orders rule must stay

CommentPosted on | Author Keith Collantine

Fernando Alonso, Felipe Massa, Ferrari, Hockenheimring, 2010

“Team orders which interfere with a race result are prohibited”, says article 39.1 of the Sporting Regulations.

It’s had little use since it was introduced eight years ago, but on Sunday Ferrari were found to have broken it, given a $100,000 fine and ordered to appear before the World Motor Sports Council.

This has led to criticism of the rule but those who call for it to be scrapped have failed to understand why Sunday’s events were controversial and why a repeat must be prevented.

Massa’s position in the championship

Ferrari justified their decision to let Fernando Alonso past Felipe Massa in terms of what was going on the race – claiming the drivers were under pressure from Sebastian Vettel. But it’s inconceivable the decision would have been taken had the championship situation been reversed.

Here’s how the top half of the drivers’ standings looked before the race:

Position Driver Points
1 Lewis Hamilton 145
2 Jenson Button 133
3 Mark Webber 128
4 Sebastian Vettel 121
5 Fernando Alonso 98
6 Nico Rosberg 90
7 Robert Kubica 83
8 Felipe Massa 67

With a total of 225 points to be won Massa was still in contention for the championship.

The new championship points system makes it harder to compare this situation with what’s happened in years’ past. Because the points on offer has increased it makes Massa’s position appear worse than it is.

The current championship system is very much like last years, but with the points on offer for each position multiplied by 2.5. With that in mind, here’s how the situation would have looked under the 2009 points scheme:

Position Driver Points
1 Lewis Hamilton 65
2 Jenson Button 58
3 Sebastian Vettel 55
4 Mark Webber 53
5 Fernando Alonso 49
6 Nico Rosberg 36
7 Robert Kubica 35
8 Felipe Massa 34

That makes it a little easier to understand that Massa was actually not that far behind his team mate at all. Had Ferrari not taken his win off him, the pair would now be fifth and sixth in the drivers’ championship with a win apiece.

We could argue what point a driver is not “realistically” likely to win a championship until the cows come home. The fact of the matter is, no-one can ever say for sure until the championship is over.

Yes, Massa has been largely behind his team mate so far this year. But sometimes the balance of power shifts within a team – like it did at Brawn last year.

Just three years ago, Kimi R??ikk??nen overcame a deficit equal to 1.7 wins in two races to win the championship. In 1976, James Hunt clawed back a deficit of 3.88 wins over seven races to become champion (helped by rival Niki Lauda missing three races due to injury).

Massa was 3.1 wins behind with nine races left on Saturday evening. A long way behind, yes, but other drivers came from further behind to win the championship.

Why the championship situation matters

Ferrari also used team orders in two of the last three seasons – putting R??ikk??nen ahead of Massa in the 2007 Brazilian Grand Prix, and vice-versa at the 2008 Chinese Grand Prix.

On neither occasion did they attract anything like the kind of criticism they received last weekend.

Why? Because in both cases the driver who was giving up the place was no longer in a position to be able to win the world championship.

This is a crucial distinction. Part of the reason so many criticised Ferrari (77% in a poll of over 2,500 on this site) is because they expect drivers to be allowed to challenge for the championship as long as they are mathematically in the running.

That is an entirely reasonable expectation – people want the driver who wins the championship to have deserved it, and not just because his team mate was sacrificed.

F1 must understand this if it is to prevent repeats of the kind of criticism it attracted on Sunday.

How team radio played a role

Since article 39.1 was introduced in 2008 there have been other occasions where it seems very likely that team orders were used on drivers when both were in contention for the championship.

Lewis Hamilton charged past Heikki Kovalainen with little difficulty at the same circuit in 2008. Also that year Nick Heidfeld put up little resistance to Robert Kubica’s pass – which effectively put him in the lead of the race – in Canada.

It’s worth remembering that on both occasions the two pairs of drivers were on different strategies. Nor had the lead driver spent the entire race in front of the driver behind him.

But the most significant reason why these examples failed to attract criticism the same way Ferrari’s did was that on Sunday we were able to hear Ferrari’s thinly-veiled instructions to Massa as they were issued. This was not the case in 2008.

Now fans are able to hear the radio of all the teams future team orders will attract the same kind of criticism – if the FIA does not step in to prevent it.

A clear team order

When it came, Ferrari’s coded message to Massa was unmistakeably a team order.

To begin with, it was a dead giveaway that the team felt the need to tell Massa “Alonso is faster than you”. It clearly was not an attempt to help Massa go faster, the only possible positive interpretation of that comment, because it offered no indication of how he might find the lost time to Alonso.

Here’s an example of what a genuine message explaining the pace of other drivers looks like. During the same race Hamilton asked his team what the cars behind him (the first of which was his team mate) were doing. The reply came back:

Cars behind are matching our pace. Jenson slightly quicker in first sector, we’re slightly quicker in last sector.

Massa’s unhelpful instruction came with the pointed question “do you understand” added on the end, making it clear there was a subtext to the message.

Then, to cap it all, Massa’s race engineer Rob Smedley apologised to him. Some claimed this act gave the game away. But it had become obvious long before then what was really going on.

Why the team orders rules must stay

In reaction to the controversy some prominent figures including Bernie Ecclestone and Martin Brundle have called for the team orders ban to be scrapped.

This would be a grave mistake which would lead to worse controversies that would further damage the image of Formula One.

It would open the way for even more contentious acts of race-fixing, similar to those we saw at Suzuka and Jerez in 1997. Surely we don’t want a Formula One where half the drivers on the track are only there to hold up the other drivers for the benefit of their team mate?

Yes, team orders have always been a part of F1. And no, I don’t believe they can or should be eradicated completely.

But as increasing transparency in F1 put the teams’ every move under scrutiny those that try to manipulate the championship will only bring Formula One into disrepute.

It’s clear from the vehement reaction to Austria 2002 and Germany 2010, and the muted response to Brazil 2007 and China 2008, that fans have far less objection to team orders being used when one driver is out of the running for the championship.

But they expect teams to allow their drivers to compete for the championship as long as both are in contention. It’s clear F1 needs a rule to enforce that and I see no reason why the existing article 39.1 can’t be updated to do so.

That is the best way to prevent future rows over team orders and safeguard the integrity of the world championship.


Browse all comment articles

Image ?? Ferrari spa

343 comments on “Why the team orders rule must stay”

Jump to comment page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
  1. i read someplace in the last couple of days that TO are only there to stop this sort of thing happening until near the end of the season,
    once there is a definite gap between team mates and they have no chance of winning the Drivers championship that TO can be used.

    which makes scene, but opens the door for abuse as well i guess.

  2. Team orders rule should stay. And must be improved, if possible.

    Many things have been said in the last few days, in both directions. First thing I would like to point out is (IMHO) that TEAM ORDERS are not the same than DRIVERS EQUALITY POLICY, and I think in some occasions both concepts are mixed (or confused) by us.

    In fact is very difficult to be sure a team is practicing 100% Drivers Equality policy, because there are so many variables in action: mechanical parts, race strategy, hours of practicing both in simulator and on track, quality of Human resources available for each driver…

    Talking about Drivers Equality Policy could take much more time (and words) than available and I think we will see many different options, in which I think most of them could be justifiable for any of the parts.

    As an example, what RBR decided to do regarding the front wing available for one of his drivers, could be criticized or supported by any of us, but in any case that decision should be punishable.

    But related to team orders, I can see 4 different scenarios:

    1) Not allowing team drivers to fight to a point of risking their own cars (and points): One of them defending his position, the other one trying to improve it.

    2) Not allowing one driver to win or maintain his position in favour of the other team member, when both have mathematical options for the WDC.

    3) The same but when one of them doesn’t have mathematical options for winning the WDC.

    4) Asking a driver to crash or go against another competitor allowing the other to gain an advantage for the WDC.

    1 & 3 I think are acceptable. So, if are acceptable, there should not be any need for some kind of codes as “Saving Fuel”. And I say more, I would allow teams to punish the driver who will break this rule, creating, by his behaviour, a loss for his Teammate and/or Team. Maybe we (the fans) will not agree why & how or if that behaviour was morally acceptable or not, but in any case, that behaviour should not be punishable. (IMHO)

    2 & 4 clearly are not acceptable, by any condition and/or situation, so that should be punishable, and the penalty will depend on the situation.

    For the case of swapping positions (not creating any kind of risk for the rest of the drivers) the penalty could be:
    Drivers are the less guilty actors of this situation, just because they are not in the condition to order the other driver to let him pass. So for them, the punishment is just to return back the unfair advantage they have taken.

    But for the team, they are who can make that happen, and making it they are defrauding all the fans, devaluating the show and getting rid of the spirit of the competition. I would impose the team a gross fine (no less than 5% of their annual income from TV rights, with a minimum of 1.000.000$).

    Teams have to pay for this kind of actions just to be sure every team understand the difference between Drivers Equality, Team play (options 1&2) and Cheating. (Options 3&4)

    What we saw last Sunday was a team instructing one of his drivers to give his position to a teammate when he still has options for winning the WDC. And that was made very public, not only with the comments during the race, but with the declarations made by Luca Cordero di Montezemolo the following days also.

    That kind of behaviour cannot be allowed, and is not the same than “saving fuel” orders, or preferential parts of the car to a preferential driver.

    At the end I feel very sorry about the drivers (both) and very angry having to watch a fraudulent race after all time (and money some of us) we spent last Weekend, just to testify an unnecessary (and despicable) action taken by Ferrari.

    Sorry for my English. I hope you understand what I’m trying to say. And thanks for your patient, reading such long comment. Is difficult to extract and summarize properly what one want to say in other language (when one is not quite skilled in it)

    1. IDR your English is excellent. If only I could type such a long comment without one error in it.
      However, I take issue with a couple of your points. This idea of a ‘mathmatical possibility’ causes me problems. As an earlier poster pointed out, Petrov still has a ‘mathmatical possibility’ of winning the WDC, as does Liuzzi and Kobayashi. Would it be likely? No. Possible? Yes.
      On the question of fines, I’m even less convinced.Consider why a team might be persuaded to give team orders; to win the WDC or WCC or to prevent a business rival from doing so. What would be the likely cash benefits for winning either the WDC or WCC? I would suggest they were far in excess of $1m. A fine of points in both Championships would be more effective.
      However, I’m still not convinced that Team Orders are a bad thing. I think each team should noiminate a Number One and a Number Two driver.
      Let’s take last Sunday. Supposing team orders were legal; we would now be congratulating Ferrari and their Number One driver Alonso, and also congratulating Massa for the superb work he did as Number Two driver. Nothing else would have changed, no one would have lost anything.
      Even the people who bet on the results of the race would not have lost anything because they mostly would have bet on Alonso instead of Massa, knowing that he was Number One.
      I’m still in favour of team orders and for the avoidance of subterfuge. What was wrong on Sunday was the pathetically inept way that Ferrari handled the situation.

      1. This idea of a ‘mathmatical possibility’ causes me problems. As an earlier poster pointed out, Petrov still has a ‘mathmatical possibility’ of winning the WDC, as does Liuzzi and Kobayashi. Would it be likely? No. Possible? Yes.

        I don’t have a problem with that, firstly because I think it’s the most logical and fair solution. It’s also pretty easy to understand.

        I would also point out that we have an unusually close and unusually long championship this year, which is partly why after 11 races the championship leader hasn’t got more points than the total points remaining. That will change in the next few races.

        I think each team should noiminate a Number One and a Number Two driver.

        If that happened, then any time one team had both cars in the lead they would arrange themselves in team order and the designated number two driver would drop back to hold everyone else up.

        There would be all manner of other scenarios where the number two driver would be called upon to hold up rival cars. Every race would end up like Suzuka 1997. Sounds like a terrible version of motor racing to me.

        1. If that happened, then any time one team had both cars in the lead they would arrange themselves in team order and the designated number two driver would drop back to hold everyone else up.

          And how would this be a problem? How would Driver B of leadng team versus Driver A of following team be any less exciting? Why would Driver B even think of dropping back if he had speed advantage over following team. The team manager would never permit it just in case Drive A went out of the race.

          1. “Why would Driver B even think of dropping back if he had speed advantage over following team. ”

            Errr… i think you don’t see the logic. If team orders were endorsed and #1 and #2 drivers designated, then teams would be inclined to use the #2 driver wherever possible to help the #1 driver. Simple and true.

            In this particular example, having both #2 and #1 drivers in the lead, the #2 driver would be asked to purposely fall back to hold up the 3rd place behind. This is especially possible if the #2 driver has a fast enough car. Because if you have a fast enough car then it is easy to slow the followers because it is easy to control the pace. How? – easy, you slow down where they can not pass, and speed up where they CAN pass. So this is what #2 driver would do. If driver #1 went out of the race, driver #2 would then speed up and race for the win. Where as ordinarily he would not do that.

            I can think of another 100 scenarios where by officially designating #1 and #2 drivers would drastically change F1 as a sport.

      2. HounslowBusGarage,

        Thanks but I assure you my English is far from excellency. I have to use “long ways” to go to my point and even though, I fail in many occasions!

        Regarding your Issues:


        What I said (or tried to) was a driver can give his position to his teammate only when he has no any possibilities to win the championship.

        As I told, I’m not against team orders. I’m against certain kind of team orders (points 2&4 of my comments.) In fact, I agree with you there is nothing wrong in having Driver Nr. One and driver Nr. Two but that is something related to Equality Policy than Team orders that can change the course of a competition.

        To be more concrete, I would have not any problem if Ferrari declares ALO has Nr.1 status and MAS Nr.2 status… since that doesn’t mean MAS cannot ever win in front of his Nr.1 driver. Nr1 or Nr.2 should be something more related to who of them has preferential treatment talking about parts, strategy, tests… but not when both drivers are competing on the track.


        The example I gave was punish the team not only with money but reversing the final positions of the drivers involved on it. So the team will not take any of the theoretical advantages they were looking for a nd they will take a loss of a good figure. But the penalties could be both, not just the money. And that was the penalty just for the less serious offense of the possibilities of what I said in point 4).

        In any case, I agree with Ferrari was seen as Pathetically inept in a giving this order to Masa. Honestly talking I think Robert Smeadly did that way to be sure everybody could know that represented a Team Order.

        But on the other hand, what I find worse is Luca Cordero declarations. He just ignore current rules, and has not any problem to say it publicly.

        And to be honest, as I said previously, one thing is give a driver preferential treatment, tell your drivers stay cool enough for not throwing all team efforts just because one of them wants to overtake and the other doesn’t want even risking a crash (as we saw some weeks ago with RBR), and other very different is to ask a driver to let his teammate win a race just because he is Nr 1 driver.

        Like in any other sport, one thing is giving to a third party a premium for a win than giving a bonus for losing a match.

        (Sorry again, quite long answer!!!)

        1. I will reply in greater length snd detail in the morning, IDR. I’m not sure where you are, but it’s just after midnight here and I have to be up early. Let’s continue tomorrow.

  3. Don´t you watch DTM or WTCC? Or WRC?
    DTM is Audi against Mercedes and WTCC is BMW against Seat or Chevy. F1 is Williams, Ferrari, Maclaren, RBR and so on fighting each other.
    If you wont real racing driver battles try indycars, nascar or superleague.
    I watch them all and i can tell you F1 isn´t the best when it comes to provide a good show and i watch F1 for more than 30 years

    1. Charles Carroll
      27th July 2010, 17:57


      With all due respect, as you have been a fan far longer than myself, you do realize that if the “big three” or “four” teams had it their way, they would race as many cars as they wanted and eliminate Williams, Sauber, and the host of revolving new teams all together.

      Luca’s rants this year all but said he would prefer a Ferrari v. McLaren F1 or simply Ferrari v. Ferrari.

      If you live and die by the teams, this sport is dead. Its the drivers.

      1. Actually i wouldn´t mind if each team has only 1 driver. In this case the rules issues simply would disappear. As you can see i don´t
        agree when he says that or when he wonts 3 F1 for each team, it would be even worse.

        1. Charles Carroll
          27th July 2010, 18:33

          Well, THAT we can agree upon. Well said!

  4. Excellent article Keith, very well argued and fair.

  5. I got no trouble in team orders if they are like China 08, but I will hate the race & the team if they are like Austria 02 & Germany 10.

  6. After some thinking I realized that the only why to get rid of team orders is getting rid of the two-car teams. Make it one car. A team gives 100% to one man, all clear. No written rule will really work to prevent what is unpreventable.

    1. fully agreed on that

      1. Or we could do something really silly and have two drivers in the same car Le Mans style :D

    2. HewisLamilton
      27th July 2010, 18:50

      Not quite so clear.

      What about another team running the same engine package? Slowing a rival to help a team with the same engine…

      1. Is there a World Engine Supplier Championship?

        1. HewisLamilton
          27th July 2010, 19:14

          No, there is not a World Supplier title.

          But I can say that without a doubt a team supplied with an engine by another engine manufacturer has been told to hold up a rival team for the sake of that team supplying them their engine. 100% fact.

    3. It will not work,because drivers an teams will work out plans for each other (Nascar)Team orders will be around ,even if there is a rule,What needs fixing is the Aero package on F1 cars so Faster drivers can pass slower drivers

  7. HewisLamilton
    27th July 2010, 18:43

    There have always been team orders in F1. This is not new.

    We just were not privy to the conversations until they made all team radio traffic public.

    If you think team orders aren’t exercised regularly, you are living a pipe dream. The key here is that Massa made it obvious. (He made sure it was obviously on purpose to be sure the world knew he was letting his team mate pass)

    I guarantee, the next time they issue team orders, it will be in the form of a botched tire change that costs Massa 5 extra seconds on his stop versus Alonso’s stop.

    Sorry all, but team orders are embedded into F1 Constructor philosephy.

    1. it will be in the form of a botched tire change that costs Massa 5 extra seconds on his stop versus Alonso’s stop.

      Which presumably would involve getting at least one of Massa’s mechanics to sabotage his race, do it convincingly and keep quiet about it. And orchestrate some means of doing it without costing the driver too much time – after all, if Massa’s pit stop had taken five seconds longer on Sunday he’d have come out behind Vettel.

      Doesn’t sound that likely.

      1. HewisLamilton
        27th July 2010, 20:57

        Why does it have to be one of Massa’s mechanics on the pit stop that “sabotage” his race? Aren’t all of the mechanics on hand for the pit stop? Aren’t they working for the same Team and Team Manager? I would think they all have the same boss and must follow instructions. I don’t mean a rogue mechanic, I mean a mechanic would be following orders or he wouldn’t be on a pit stop the next time the car pits. The team pay the mechanics, not Massa or Alonso. The mechanics follow orders issued by the team just like the driver.

        I find the word sabotage hard to accept though, it is a team effort. It always has been in F1.

        I’m just trying to say that if team orders are issued, we may not know exactly how this was carried out. I merely used a pit stop as an example of an easy way to give the advantage to the TEAM driver with the better position in the Driver’s Championship.

        1. “Okay Felipe baby, the front left mechanic bloke is going to bounce the replacement wheel away to his right for a couple of seconds so that Fernando can pass us when we’re in the pits. Next, the jack man is going to sneeze violently three times and delay your getaway, please confirm that you have understood?”
          “Yes, understood.”

  8. Now wouldn’t it be funny if Alonso had a bad run of results and some DNF’s while Massa had a perfect run but lost out on the Championship to a McLaren or a Red Bull by 7 points :0)

  9. The example of Kimi two years ago is a poor one. Massa let him through for the race win that won him the championship.

    The reverse happened in 2008 with Kimi letting Massa through.

    The 2007 WDC was decided by this and the 2008 WDC was made artificially closer by this. Each the result of Ferrari teammates yielding positions to each other.

  10. One of the things that’s lost here is that Massa hasn’t had a win since his injury, and in fact since 08. They took away his first potential win in what was a massive comeback and certainly cheapened it when it finally does come.

  11. I actually think that team orders should be legal again, but only if the driver who is giving up the place is mathematicly uncapable of winning the title.

  12. I think the team order rule should stay, but it has to be amended to make it fair to the teams, the drivers and the fans (who indirectly pay for the show, and want a sporting event).

    1st: The order to swap 1-2 makes absolute sense from a team’s perspective, FA has the best chance of winning the WDC (which is more important to the marketing department than the WCC), however, FM still had a chance, and fans that are not fanboyish about a team/driver, love the underdog (when Toro Rosso won with Vettel, F1 fans were static).

    2nd: FM obviously thought he had a chance a winning WDC, and didn’t want to do it, hence the obvious message (repeated and forced) and the wave-through “pass”

    3rd: F1 fans (fanboys would be upset if another team did it) want racing for the WDC, not a gifted WDC, it doesn’t seem fair

    How to make it fair?

    How about this:
    -team orders are allowed (teams should tell their drivers to not fight foolishly in order to preserve points, to save fuel, etc) with this exception:

    1) the lead driver cannot be *ordered* to swap a 1-2 finish unless the driver is mathematically out of WDC contention. It’s fair for the drivers who want a WDC and fans that want an honest winner. Everybody knows when a driver is mathematically out of contention, so as fans we would expect it if a swap is needed an accept it.

    The teams have to realize that it is a business AND a sporting event and as such, fans (who indirectly pay for the show) want and demand fair play and real racing, and a blatant gift of a win will alienate the fans and drive them away from the sport (I am very close to quitting F1 but I want to see how they handle this team order thing).

    If a lead driver *wants* to switch because *he* feels that even though he is not mathematically out of it his chances are slim, i think he will do it, or at least not defend as hard as with another team… but that would be his decision to help the other driver and team, and fans would accept that (I would). What ****** me off was that FM didn’t want to do it, he worked for his win and wanted it… the reaction in the podium and press conference tells it like it is.

    This change also means that a team can order a 2-3 swap, which they would probably want if they think the guy in 3rd can challenge the leader for a win (I think this happened with Hamilton and Kovi, and Hamilton eventually won the race), thereby maximizing team points. This gives teams more flexibility and strategy options during a race, without having to hide the fact that what they want to do.

    I hope FIA and the teams clear up this rule to make it fair for the drivers, fans and teams.

  13. How can they possibly fix the race for Formula 1 since there are so many teams out there, like the Honda, Toyota, Ferrari, etc??

    You can fix a fight for boxing cause you only need to talk to one person or team but for Formula 1, there’s so many organization and their reputation are on the line. Besides, if there was a leak of race being fixed then that rumor will spread like wildfire.

    1. Ummmm. Honda and Toyota are no longer in F1. But I think I understand what you are saying.
      It’s not that the race itself is fixed, but rather a team decides that swopping the position of its drivers will give it greater advantage in the long run. Is it legal, is it ethical?
      Let’s take a hypothetical example; my team has two drivers and Driver A has six wins and no other points and Driver B has one win and no other points.
      In the race, Driver B is in front of Driver A. To increase the chances of my team becoming world champions, it would be better for me if Driver A took victory and increased his points advantage over Driver C from another team.
      If I let Driver B win over Driver A, the team still earns the same number of points, but the advantage that Driver A has over Driver C is decreased.
      What happened on Sunday is that Driver B was universally revealed as Massa, and Driver A was confirmed as Alonso. Lots of people have a problem with that and the maximisation of points towards the World Drivers Championship. I don’t.

  14. Keith, I totally agree with you. 39.1 should be re written to only allow team orders when it is mathematically impossible for a driver to win the championship – end of

    As a racing fan, a race was not seen on sunday. If I had paid good money to be at the event I would have been even more furious and disillusioned than I am now.

    I personally believe ferrari should lose all driver & constructor points from the german event as punishment and the rule should be changed ( and aggressively investigated in the future )

    If anything we fans want more radio communication especially if teams cannot be trusted.

    I await the WM Councils ruling and hope they restore order…

  15. To Dalily Mirror, Byron Young: Who is Hypocrite? Kovalainen was going faster than Lewis … watch here …. Last sunday, Massa was going slower than Alonso! The English press, do not know how to lose !! Always passionat criticizing, always offending to the Spaniard pilot. Alonso is back … Byron shut up!

    1. He doesn’t work for me. You might like to take it up with the Daily Mirror.

  16. if massa had a problem then fair enough but he did’nt seem to have been slower in fact the grapics shown that massa had the fastest lap time and thier previous lap times shown massa faster. a rule is a rule if its broke then no points should be won

  17. Villa Maravilla
    27th July 2010, 21:33

    Hamilton and Kovalainen, the same circuit, thanks to an order of equipment Lewis won, this year were orders nice? English hypocrites

  18. Mike "the bike" Schumacher
    27th July 2010, 21:38

    Its a disgrace.
    Massa was only 31 points behind alonso. That sounds a lot but as a percentage of points for a race win this is equivalent to just 12 points in last years championship with 8 races left this is totally unjustified.

  19. here’s an idea:

    ban radios

    no, really.

    1. Team orders existed before radios were used. Ferrari implemented them at Imola in 1982, but even then it didn’t go to plan as their two drivers sadly didn’t have the same understanding of what was being asked of them.

      1. the implications of banning radios would reach a lot farther than team orders. it would be a fundamental change in how the race is run. in lieu of a stick shift and clutch pedal, i can’t think of a greater challenge today’s drivers could face.

    2. Yep, ban radios, And pit boards.
      Keep the drivers guessing.
      And racing.

Jump to comment page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.