Did Formula E's London finale go too far with team orders and personal vendettas?

Jaguar and Porsche. Formula E’s two heavyweights. Going head-to-head in the title decider. It doesn’t get better than that. Does it?

Formula E has delivered some epic title battles over the years. London itself has been the scene of multiple championship deciders. And what happened at ExCeL over the course of the weekend will certainly go down as one of the defining moments in the history of the championship - for both the right and the wrong reasons.

Coming into the weekend, the biggest talking point was how wide open the championship was, with as many as nine drivers in mathematical contention for the title. As it turned out, far more than nine people were at play, as Jaguar and Porsche got their entire teams - and sometimes even their customer squads - involved in the battle.

On Saturday, Porsche set the tone for the rest of the weekend, with Nico Muller and even Cupra Kiro driver Dan Ticktum coming to Pascal Wehrlein’s aid. One has to wonder how necessary such team tactics were, given that Wehrlein had the pace to win on his own. But Porsche’s actions forced Evans into a different strategy, which left him severely compromised when the VSC was deployed. For Porsche, this was a job well done.

Jaguar was aggrieved by Porsche’s tactics and determined to take revenge on Sunday, even if that meant upping the ante. It would be fair to say Antonio Felix da Costa’s defence was far more robust - if not over the limit - compared to Muller’s. But ultimately, both teams had the same intent, so it would be wrong to suggest what Jaguar did was worse than Porsche or vice versa. 

The result was a race that felt more like a DTM contest, where manufacturers have historically been used to strategic manipulation to influence the outcome. It wasn’t quite on par with the series' controversial 2021 finale at the Norisring, but nevertheless left a sour taste in the mouth.

Antonio Felix Da Costa, Jaguar TCS Racing

Photo by: Simon Galloway / LAT Images via Getty Images

It is fair to ask if it was hypocritical of Wehrlein to say on Friday that he is not a fan of team tactics, only to benefit from those very tactics in his run to a second Formula E title. But ultimately, these decisions are made by the teams, and the drivers are required to oblige. In some cases, following such instructions is written into their contracts, and there have already been instances this season where Muller came to Wehrlein’s aid. Jaguar too hasn’t shied from using team orders in the past.

But in the case of Wehrlein and Da Costa, there was far more at stake. While it started off as a battle to help their respective teams, it certainly got personal as the race progressed. The pair had a fraught relationship as team-mates at Porsche, and not much has changed since Da Costa left the garage to join rival Jaguar. In London, beating the other driver just wasn’t about winning the championship; it had become a matter of personal pride and ego.

If anything, purists should appreciate such a personal battle, as this is what’s been missing in the increasingly sanitised motorsport world. If the two could produce so many fireworks now, imagine if they go head-to-head for the title next season. Formula E may have found its own version of the Max Verstappen-Lewis Hamilton rivalry. 

If Sunday’s race only came down to a battle of team orders, the London finale may not have been so contentious. But in typical Formula E fashion, there was more drama in store. Wehrlein and Dennis came to blows on lap 31, stuck behind the Envision of Joel Eriksson that Wehrlein had sent into a spin. Suddenly, both championship contenders were out of points - and in Dennis’ case, left with a punctured tyre and a missing nose.

There was an uncomfortable irony in Dennis paying the biggest price when he had spent the weekend outside the tactical war between Jaguar and Porsche. His Andretti team was contesting its final race with Porsche powertrains, and the Briton was left feeling that his own team’s supplier had effectively wrecked his race. 

Wehrlein was only handed a three-place grid penalty for his collision with Eriksson, while stewards cleared him of any wrongdoing for the clash with Dennis. That actually opens up a wider debate. If both Muller and Da Costa were never penalised for their robust defence, how could Wehrlein have been sanctioned for leaving Dennis no room?

Even after the chequered flag fell, the battle wasn’t over. Porsche, Jaguar and Dennis engaged in a war of words, with all seemingly putting the blame on the other for the way the events unfolded. That said a lot about how ruthless those in the business can be. Some of those drivers may quietly believe that their actions went too far. They are all racers at heart, but they were also being asked to put the interests of their employers ahead of their own instincts. But ultimately, they have to do what’s in the best interests of their employers, and that means getting their elbows out and pushing the limits of the regulations.

Should the FIA and Formula E draw a line on what qualifies as a “fair” team order and what can be considered as a complete manipulation of the race? In an ideal world, yes. In fact, if Formula E were hosting the finale on a much wider track, this debate would have never taken place.

But ultimately, Formula E has always focused on entertainment. London produced precisely the kind of unpredictable, chaotic, emotionally-charged racing that has defined the championship since its inception. Even next season, the FIA will only clamp down on teams colluding with each other in Formula E, with drivers still being allowed to assist their team-mates.

Maybe that’s a turn-off for some fans. Maybe it is precisely what gets people talking about Formula E. But given Formula E’s own stance and its dependence on manufacturer involvement, this style of racing is unlikely to disappear.