Riccardo Patrese waving the sister Williams of Nigel Mansell by at Magny-Cours in 1992. David Coulthard blending out of the throttle at Melbourne to let Mika Hakkinen win in the other McLaren. A chorus of boos at Austria in 2002 as Rubens Barrichello surrenders victory for Ferrari to team mate Michael Schumacher.
A driver giving up without a fight is an ugly sight that makes a mockery of Formula 1.
We’ve seen it again this year and inevitably it’s sparked a long-running argument. One which never really went away after what happened at Hockenheim, but has increased in volume since Fernando Alonso took over the top of the championship standings in Korea.
But while anti-Ferrari and Alonso vitriol has been in plentiful supply from some quarters, the greater concern is the damage the sport is voluntarily doing to its own image.
Since Hockenheim we’ve been watching a two-tier championship: two teams each backing two drivers versus one team supporting a single driver, and that does not reflect well on Formula 1.
The weak case for team orders
Various arguments are put forward in defence of the so-called “team orders” that have allowed this to happen and none of them are very convincing.
Let’s be clear: we’re not talking about a team having to choose which of its drivers get the only example of a new performance upgrade, we’re talking about a team ordering a driver to give up his chance of winning a race to help his team mate.
The retort that team orders have been around for a long time is no argument for keeping them. It’s hard to think of any comparable examples in mainstream sport where participants allow themselves to be beaten.
Damp-eyed nostalgics recall the days when Peter Collins surrendered his car and his championship hopes to Juan Manuel Fangio, saying “I have plenty of time to win the championship on my own.”
The bit they leave out is that Collins was killed two years later having never won the title.
Another, even more cynical explanation insists that Ferrari were only in the wrong at Hockenheim because what they did was “blatant”. As if it becomes less wrong when it’s made harder to detect.
The idea that you can sweep it all under the carpet and everything will be fine is flawed. Circumstances will inevitably arise where a team will wish to swap the running order of its drivers and there is no subtle means available to them – especially now that refuelling has been banned.
A team sport, a drivers’ sport, or both?
“Team orders have to be allowed because F1 is a team sport”, goes another defence.
The problem with saying “it’s a team sport” is it isn’t true. Nor is it an individual’s sport. Confusingly, it’s both. We have a drivers’ championship and a constructors’ championship.
And this is the root of the problem: while teams have a championship of their own to win it tends to be treated as a “consolation prize” while the real focus of their efforts is making sure one of their drivers wins the drivers’ championship.
One solution could be to scrap the drivers’ championship. But I doubt that would ever happen because more people tune in to see who will win the drivers’ championship than the constructors’.
Ask someone who won the 2009 F1 championship and they’ll answer “Jenson Button“, not “Brawn GP”.
Why a ban is essential
The only realistic solution therefore is to uphold the team orders ban.
The idea that the ban is not enforceable is palpable nonsense. The FIA has access to radio communications, extensive telemetry from the cars and hours of video replays from every race.
In September the World Motor Sport Council had no difficulty in concluding that Ferrari had used team orders and interfered with the race result in Hockenheim.
The only thing that’s missing is a willingness to enforce the rules with meaningful punishments rather than tokenistic fines. Regrettably, the FIA now seems set on scrapping the team orders ban.
This is a great shame. The kind of race manipulation, of which Hockenheim was only the most recent example, is widely and correctly perceived as unsporting.
Who can say a championship is not devalued if it is won by someone who had one fewer competitor than everyone else?
The advantage of not having to compete against the only other person who has the exact same equipment as you cannot be underestimated. This is why the early years of the 2000s were a turn-off for so many.
This brings us back to the distinction between the drivers’ and the constructors’ championship. The teams may spend the money and build the cars, but it’s the drivers who take the risk of driving them.
Felipe Massa knows this all too well – the German Grand Prix was the first anniversary of his horror crash at the Hungaroring.
Why, one might reasonably ask, should a driver like Massa be expected to risk his life to help Alonso win a world championship?
- IndyCar’s determination to complete every racing lap is an example to F1
- FIA’s sweeping changes vindicate Mercedes’ belief Hamilton was “robbed” of title
- F1’s sprint race rules change won’t end pole position confusion
- Call F1’s championship finale tainted, but not its deserving new champion
- For the sake of the title fight, F1 must get a grip on its track limits problem
Browse all comment articles
Thanks to Neil Davies of the Caricature Club for allowing me to use his excellent illustration. See more of Neil’s work on his blog.
198 comments on “The problems with a two-tier championship”
5th November 2010, 7:45
That is an exceptionally god picture. Poor little Felipe.
5th November 2010, 11:26
Why do we keep harking back to Germany
Massa was laying third and was constantly slower than alonso
if vettle had not swiped accross at alonso massa would have been running third
As to team orders i dont have a problem with them and to be honest 2008 was a stupid champion ship as was 2009
lets be honest
button not won a race in nearly ten years but sudenly due to FIA rules wins because of car is so dame fast like the Red Bull of 2010
so do we really want another fake drivers champion winning in a super fast car that granny can win in or do we want the best racer to win
mark webber nice guy but not great driver
common last year due tocar and now this year is only wining because of car is so fast
I know what i want do you
5th November 2010, 11:29
I want you to go back to school and learn to spell, and after that to stay there and learn to punctuate. And then learn to form sentences.
5th November 2010, 14:11
That’s a funny response ha ha ha…
5th November 2010, 14:40
It would appear that English is not his native language and not deserving of your post. How many languages are you fluent in?
5th November 2010, 16:58
Yeah, but punctuation is common to most (all?) Western languages.
5th November 2010, 16:59
Oops, sorry if the link breaks the page for somebody.
5th November 2010, 22:18
REPLY TO PERF:
That is true. However, have your read any British authors? They’re among the worst for punctuation and clarity of writing—despite ‘inventing’ the language!
5th November 2010, 11:41
Please, if you are going to comment in such a confrontational manner, do take the time to make sure that someone may be able to read and even possibly understand it.
5th November 2010, 21:08
I understand you perfectly. By the way, this is my best English School. A lot of F1Fanatic teaching as English. English are the best teachers in the world. They teach us English, F1, Football, Tennis better than they know. Thanks. (this is not a joke)
5th November 2010, 7:48
Massa has no change of winning anything this year. He vows to help Alonso. Button has no change of winning anything this year, why does he not help Hamilton?
If either Webber or Vettel would have helped the other guy they both would have been 1-2 in the champsionship. When Alonso takes the title, that is because he has done the impossible in the second half of the season. Good strategy as well.
5th November 2010, 8:13
I think the question is formulated the wrong way around.
Think about it, why would any competitor in any sport support his rival in winning it? And why should that not be frowned upon?
Compare it to other sports with individuals competing from a supportive team.
Lets give it a try: ice skating and cross-country skying are a bit alike in that aspect, they have teams operated comercially, are dependant on the technical preparations and training schedule set out by the team, but compete directly on track between each other.
Can you imagine them giving up a victory in a race to help their stablemates win it or the championship? And would the sporting bodies tolerate such behaviour? In both cases I would seriously doubt it.
5th November 2010, 9:49
IT happens in the Tour de France. In fact, team orders are standard in that.
5th November 2010, 10:09
Absolutely. And it’s not boring to watch, is it ?
5th November 2010, 11:30
Errr, extremely boring in fact. But that has nothing to do with team orders…
5th November 2010, 11:05
But the team know before it starts who the lead rider is going to be, and there is no rule stating it’s illegal.
It’s like trying to argue you should be allowed to smoke joints in the UK because it’s legal in Holland.
5th November 2010, 11:21
That is a bad example. No matter how good you are a bike riders, you’d never win on your own due to the effort you save following your team mates.
A F1 championship can be won by an individual driver much more easily. Yes, they have a team but not so much when they are on the track!
5th November 2010, 12:12
Using the Tour de France as an example, is… Incredibly naive. The two sports are so far apart in this respect it’s not funny.
The Ice Skating and Horse racing comparisons are much better to use as examples. In the recent Melbourne cup, Bart Cummings (I think) ran two horses, and there is huge amounts of financial interest in horse racing. If the judges were to conclude that either one of his horses had been ordered to perform at a lower standard than possible. Both both of his horses would be disqualified and Bart banned from the sport.
5th November 2010, 14:08
You can’t use horse racing as an example, because it exists for betting!
Cycling is a good example. In cycling you can use one of your riders to influence the pace of a competitor. You can do the same in car racing. In some cycling races you get time bonuses for being first to check points, so teams arrange themselves so their lead rider is in front. There is also the points race where it makes sense to try to get your team’s top rider in front (especially if they have lapped the field) every 5th lap when they score points. This is exactly the same as the team orders situation in F1.
If team orders are banned then punish the offenders properly, but if they’re not then it’s like cycling, I don’t mind either way.
If we ban team orders then does that include splitting the strategies of your drivers to give the team a better chance at victory, even though it might reduce the chance for one driver?
What do we do when two team mates are together on track and the driver behind is on a different strategy? Should the team mate ahead be forced to hold them up? Because letting them go would be a team order. You wouldn’t normally let a competitor go in that situation but it makes sense from a team’s point of view.
How about when one driver has an ailing car but is ahead? You’d probably still fight for position if it were a driver from another team, but McLaren did this recently and with Button being let go when he caught Hamilton with that gearbox problem and nobody blinked. That’s a team order.
If you say letting your team mate go when you have a problem is fine, then how bad does the problem have to be?
5th November 2010, 18:05
Did McLaren order Hamilton to let Button past? If yes, it is a team order. If not, then not really.
The logic likely was this:
-I’m driving a wounded duck.
-My teammate is behind me.
-He will eventually get past me.
-Why risk team points unnecessarily?
Would he do the same for another team? Probably not but there might be driver etiquette for it – similar to soccer when someone on the other team is actually hurt and you kick the ball out of bounds.
I would contend that a situation like Vettel in Turkey is more team orders than this. Having the driver behind revs up on his lead teammate who is still in conserve mode is much more manipulation than letting a healthy teammate pass.
5th November 2010, 22:54
Yeah, but this is my point, it’s only a question of degree. Where do you draw the line?
Also, the No. 2 driver is also a member of the team. What, really, is the difference between them deciding the No. 1 driver needs to be in front of them right now, and the guy on the pit wall doing it? The result is the same from our perspective.
7th November 2010, 13:11
Not really. Although team orders have been pretty common and still are, the organisers have been crashing down on them quite a bit lately (banning radio communication to the drivers etc.) to make the sport more pure.
5th November 2010, 7:55
5th November 2010, 11:43
I love the cartoon. Keith is there anywhere we could download it or even buy it? I would certainly buy it if it were in a poster form!
5th November 2010, 13:17
Keith, hope this doesn’t contravene the no advertising policy!
Neil the artist’s blog says: Very happy to supply A3 prints of the illustration, price would be £12.50 – anyone interested can e-mail me on email@example.com :)
5th November 2010, 7:59
I think the whole team orders debacle is flawed. It should be the choice of the driver to decide if comming second behind their team mate is a better outcome than winning.
The problem is enforcing this by law. How can you make a distinction between a driver making the choice or a team order, when the driver in question (e.g. Massa) says that it was his choice (even when we all know it wasn’t).
The unfortunate reality is that this is something that sometimes happens. We don’t like it, the FIA don’t like it, but the rule cannot be enforced.
5th November 2010, 10:37
how about driver to driver radio and if it comes about we can listen to the drivers not the team during the race……
5th November 2010, 11:47
Teams will just wield financial pressure to bear. Like conveniently not renewing their second drivers until the very end of the season… or structure the bonuses in such a way that both drivers are incentivised to make *one* of them the winner of the drivers’ championship.
5th November 2010, 8:05
Oy vey, we’ve been at this for a while. Certainly the only real way to fix the existing ambiguities is to either enforce the ban unrelentingly or rescind it and only the first option is desirable in my view. What I must point out though, Keith, is that lately you’ve often brought up other examples from recent years of drivers letting team mates past, arguing that it was OK because they were on different strategies or out of the championship. Surely, if the argument is that giving up position without a fight demeans the championship, it applies across the board, no matter particular circumstances – doesn’t it?
5th November 2010, 8:25
I agree completely with Maciek here. If a team order is banned that needs to be done irrespective of the timimg of it. So, if a Alonso win will be devaluated, than the same should be for all, like Raikennon in 2008 and not only “the early years of the 2000s”. But it is never said as Keith and many others here seem to justify here that the team orders are fine when the other driver is out of the chmpionship.
5th November 2010, 8:08
No one respects a winner who has been given a race or a title. And if they are truly a champion neither will they.
Just As Cynical
5th November 2010, 18:57
Agreed. If Alonso wins by 7 points or less, then what will the fans think of his championship. It will be analogous (well, a bit of a stretch, I admit) to his win in Singapore.
Alonso a champion? Nah.
Magnificent Geoffrey (@magnificent-geoffrey)
5th November 2010, 8:12
I don’t have time to make a full response, which this article deserves – so I’ll just say this.
Had Kimi Raikkonen not moved out of the way for Felipe Massa in China 2008, Lewis passing Timo Glock on the final corner of the final lap of the Brazilian GP would not have decided the Championship like it did.
As a lifelong fan, I have no issue with team orders, as long as the situations in which they are enforced are justifiable. I honestly don’t care that ‘it’s not racing’ or that , but if you’re going to ban team orders full-stop, there’s no point having two ‘drivers’ in a single ‘team’. They may as well all run as individuals for their own purposes, like tennis players and golfers do, if that’s the case. That said, I believe Hockenheim was not a justifiable situation for telling a driver to surrender a win.
One more thing. After all this debate, I’ll bet you now that the ‘Felipe Factor’ will have as much impact on the championship this weekend as it has ever since Hockenheim – namely, none.
Magnificent Geoffrey (@magnificent-geoffrey)
5th November 2010, 8:16
Sorry, that should read: I honestly don’t care that ‘it’s not racing’ or that it may count as ‘fixing’ a race to Sau Paolo officials or betting shops.
5th November 2010, 12:28
I think a distinction needs to be made between team orders and drivers decision.
For example, Coulthard compared the Hock situation to one in which he had agreed with Hakkinen prior to a race, that whoever got to the first corner first gets to win the race.
I think this comparison is in error, as the team didn’t force him to give up the place, he chose to.
5th November 2010, 14:19
So, what? It’s ok for drivers to manipulate the results of a race but not teams?
Alianora La Canta
6th November 2010, 20:51
The regulations don’t ban drivers from manipulating the race. We may not be particularly appreciative of drivers who choose to relinquish a place, but a team ordering a driver to slow down to let another pass is considerably worse because it shows a lack of respect for the regulations as well as for the sport and of the disadvantaged part of the team.
Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
5th November 2010, 8:14
It’s difficult for me to articulate my thoughts on this subject without sounding like I’m rambling and repeating myself, but I’m all for the ban of team orders. People say that it’s impractical and impossible to police and that every team does it subversively, so Ferrari should be applauded for doing it so openly in Germany. It’s somehow become acceptable because everyone does it.
The pro-team orders argument seems to centre around the idea that Formula 1 is a team sport. And yes, it is – but at the same time, it’s the teams supporting an individual driver. It is the driver who becomes World Champion, the driver who carries the coveted number one on his car the next year. A driver can win the World Drivers’ Championship without his team winning the World Constructors’ Championship. Ask most people who they support in Formula 1, and they will probably answer with a driver’s name rather than a team’s.
Look at me: I’m a Jenson Button fan. I have been since 2000, when he joined the sport (I needed someone whose career I could follow). When he left Williams, I didn’t care too much. When he left Renault, it was the same. I didn’t keep supporting those teams after he left them. I am completely neutral towards Brawn/Mercedes now that Button is driving for McLaren. And I think most people will be the same: driver first, team second. If you liked Robert Kubica and Nick Heidfeld last year, would you still support BMW Sauber now that they’re gone?
Maybe this is just some romantic, idealised notion that I’ve come up with, but when I watch racing, I want to see racing. And one driver heroically moving over to let his team-mate through and let his championship challenge fade away is not racing. It’s a farce. It would be like going to watch the soccer, only to see everyone on one team take dramatic, over-acted dives at every opportunity, and then win the match by scoring penalty kicks. It’s not cool in soccer and that’s a team sport – so why is it suddenly okay in Formula 1?
I can’t really speak as to what happened in the WMSC prosecution of Ferrari, but we do know that the FIA decided not to prosecute because of a lack of evidence. Part of me suspects they were cowed by Ferrari, who have enjoyed a relationship with the FIA that has been too good for two long. They were deeply critical of Max Mosley and his plans for a budget cap because it would create a “two-tiered” championship, yet they’ve gone and created a two-tiered championship of their own.
This is going to sound really horrible, but I hope the stories about the prosecutor threatening Felipe Massa with an arrest are true. And I hope Massa does it and gets himself arrested on conspiracy to commit fraud. And because the legal definition of conspiracy is that more than one person has collaborated to commit a crime. I daresay they could get Massa, Alonso, Domenicalli and di Montezemolo (if he’s there) at the very least. If I were a judge presiding over such a case, I know I wouldn’t release them on bail, knowing full well that they’ll probably do it again a week later in Abu Dhabi.
Sure, that might ruin the championship – but team orders are never acceptable. One driver should not have to give up something he has worked towards for the sake of another who simply cannot match him. Alonso might have been faster than Massa in Germany, but he clearly wasn’t that much faster if he needed team orders to win. To me, the World Champion is the best driver in the world. And if a driver cannot win a race or get a podium or whatever without his team-mate moving over to assist him, then he is clearly not the best driver in the world and he never deserved the title in the first place. But I’m willing to bet the FIA will revoke the team orders ban just to appease Ferrari.
I hope Alonso’s engine goes in the race an he has to take a grid penalty in Abu Dhabi.
Magnificent Geoffrey (@magnificent-geoffrey)
5th November 2010, 8:26
I hope he doesn’t win, but I’d disagree with you that ‘team orders are never acceptable’. If I was leading the final Grand Prix of the season and I was out of the Championship mathematically and my team mate who could win the title by winning was second, I would have no hesitation to move out of the way. My team-mate and my team winning a World Championship is much more important than my winning one single race and it would be selfish in the extreme to not yield and let my team win the big one.
If you really want each Grand Prix to be an all-out race for the win everytime, the answer is simple. Get rid of the World Championship. Team orders only exist because teams are trying to capture the ultimate prize and the Championship is what really brings the team dynamic into the sport in the first place. Eliminate the Championship, eliminate the team orders issue.
I’d rather that not happen however. I watch a Grand Prix for the excitement of racing, I watch an entire season for moments like the final lap of Brazil ’08.
5th November 2010, 9:06
Well said Magnificent Geoffrey.
Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
5th November 2010, 9:44
I have no problem with that. But Felipe Massa was still a championship contender in Germany – for all we know, a victory on the anniversary of his accident would have buoyed him and he could have won the next three races, becoming a title contender in his own right. I don’t see why one driver should be made to sacrifice his own title ambitions for the sake of his team-mate, especially when that team-mate is already a championship contender and would continue to be so, even without the extra seven points he got for winning.
Magnificent Geoffrey (@magnificent-geoffrey)
5th November 2010, 10:02
I should clarify. I fully agree with you that Hockenheim was an unjustifiable use of team-orders. Felipe deserved and probably needed that win to help him recapture his rare but brilliant top-form and to have him win one year from the accident is something I’d have been thrilled to see even though I can’t stand Ferrari.
What I reject is this idea that team-orders should be banned outright, with a universal ban under any and all circumstances. In my opinion, banning teams from pulling a China 2008 in order to prevent another situation like Hockenheim is an unnecessary overkill response.
I also believe that Hockenheim was a very peculiar and unique situation and it’s actually quite unlikely we’ll see such a unjustifiable instances of team-orders again any time soon.
5th November 2010, 17:05
And this is exactly why it is impossible to enforce. There are circumstances where most people would agree that team orders are the right course of action (e.g., last race, team-mate out of contention). But, if it’s okay in one circumstance, how do you penalize it in another? There’s just too much gray area. I’d rather see races decided on the track (even if it is affected by team orders) than litigated at the WMSC.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m no fan of team orders. I just think it’s impossible to police. Subtle vs. blatant? It doesn’t really matter. Subtle somehow makes the fan feel like they weren’t cheated, whereas blatant raises peoples’ ire. If I’m going to get hit upside the head, I guess I’d just as soon have it straight, rather than getting a kiss on the cheek at the same time.
5th November 2010, 10:00
“If I was leading the final Grand Prix of the season and I was out of the Championship mathematically and my team mate who could win the title by winning was second, I would have no hesitation to move out of the way.”
But this isn’t team orders, its a noble gesture by a gentleman racer (and an act that would have you hailed the saviour by the team and give you boasting rights).
Booting Massa out of the way mid-year against his wishes was a team order.
Magnificent Geoffrey (@magnificent-geoffrey)
5th November 2010, 10:06
Correct. However, you could say Kimi moving for Felipe in China ’08 was a noble and gentlemanly gesture and not a team-order, but an all-out ban on team-orders would not make that distinction. That’s why I believe that blanket enforcement of the ‘no team-orders rule’ would be a bad thing.
5th November 2010, 10:22
Personally I can’t see why they would not be able to make the distinction.
5th November 2010, 10:16
If I was leading the final Grand Prix of the season and I was out of the Championship mathematically and my team mate who could win the title by winning was second, I would have no hesitation to move out of the way.
But that’s not a team order, that’s your decision as a driver, so it’s not even against the current rules.
5th November 2010, 13:32
Allways is a driver decision, don’t forget it.
Massa could avoid the order as he did before in the same GP.
I think Webber and Button received team orders in Instambul but they decided not to obbey.
And I repeat again what I told then: In Spanish TV, before Hockenheim race, marc Gené, ferrari test driver, said that both drivers (and the team) had an agreement that if some driver was faster that the other this one will allow the overtaking. Thet’s strategy.
I really will be allways misunderstanding why you talk about Team orders then, and now everybody is asking for them to RBR.
What I really see is that there is something dark and deep with Alonso. If he hadn’t won that race in that manner now many people would be looking for new excuses to say he doesn’t deserve the title. i.e: Alonso only won 2 races because the rest were given by RBR, the flex wings (Extrange that noone go on complaining about that issue in RBR, but I’m sure in Ferrari would be another thing)… English press asking massa today about it but noone asking about it to RBR who for sure will do it on sunday or in abu-dabi. Shame…
Guys, I think that many people had a real personal problem with Alonso. And it doesn’t make any sense to me…
5th November 2010, 14:24
So what if the team asks you to make a noble gesture instead of telling you? Is that a team order?
5th November 2010, 18:22
I think this is partially a problem though too.
Suppose you’re in the situation Daniel with Nick behind you. Before the race I, as your boss, tell you that you are expected to make a noble gesture if it is needed and your employment would end if not.
Is that a team order? Technically I have given an order that would affect the outcome of a race. Can you enforce such a conversation? I highly doubt that.
I strongly dislike team orders but the more I think about it, the more I think the ban is just not effective as written. Hopefully we can get sufficient clarification in the offseason.
5th November 2010, 10:16
But this is not a team order at all, it is your own decision.
5th November 2010, 10:16
Damn Nick beat me to it!
7th November 2010, 12:48
Although I largely agree with Prisoner Monkeys on this, I do feel there is place for thinking about allowing team orders at situations like in 2007 or 2008 between the Ferrari team mates.
But on your point about happily moving over for your team mate to win, I am not that sure I would.
Fine, you move over, your a gentleman, team player and so on. BUT you might never win a race, and you will be judged to have been a loser because you did not have that winning instinct.
That is where I think Massa should have called Ferrari’s bluf here and just made it to the finish and face the consequences. Would they have fired him? Would we see a inner team fight like we saw with McLaren in 2007? Maybe, or even quite likely.
But if Massa would have been fired up by it and would have won the championship or even came close he would have made a huge impression on the world.
Alex Bkk (@alex-bkk)
5th November 2010, 11:05
I’m liking this… Ferrari seems to have touched a nerve. :)
5th November 2010, 11:53
“It would be like going to watch the soccer, only to see everyone on one team take dramatic, over-acted dives at every opportunity, and then win the match by scoring penalty kicks. It’s not cool in soccer and that’s a team sport – so why is it suddenly okay in Formula 1?”
Although I agree with much of your comment, I feel that I should just be slightly pedantic about this, because unfortunately if you did watch much football (sorry I’m english!) you would see the irony here; they do all try to dive the whole time, in order to gain penalties or free kicks or to penalise the opposition. In fact since football still refuses to use video replays to help with referee decisions, this has affected matches, championships, even the world cups. Footballers do cheat. but. at least most people will agree that it is cheating! whereas in our beloved F1 no one really will go so far as to say that dirty word!
5th November 2010, 15:19
That prosecutor is just seeking media attention.
The law he talks about is only applicable on NATIONAL sporting events, which is not the case with F1.