Should team orders be allowed?

[slickskid]

Yep, agree and understand all that Bro however the issue earlier this season where Lewis reacted with surprise that Jenson attempted to muscle his way past Lewis (which from a fan perspective was superb) was based on the fact that Lewis believed they were both supposed to be in fuel saving mode. Maybe I'm reading too much into the situation but I'm pretty sure that Lewis took it that they were going to hold station.

I'd agree with that the more curious thing for me was the teams almost immediate response to the short duel by putting Button into fuel saving mode thus preventing the battle ensuing, genuine or clever team orders? it certainately looked like the later to me.

 

[cider_and_toast]

I see a very distinct difference between asking drivers to hold station during a race (rather than run the risk running into one another, breaking the car due to pushing too hard or running out of fuel) and asking a driver in a healthy car, leading a race, to move over and let his teammate through.

One I believe to be acceptable team orders, the other not so I suppose I fall into the "sometimes" camp. I suppose both are manipulating the result to a greater or lesser extent though...

And that I think re-enforces my point that rule 39.1 should be dropped and team orders allowed because in my opinion only twice in the last 10 years (oh heck, I somehow think I'm going to proved wrong on this issue) has a team order been issued that to be honest has been ridiculous and unnecessary. Of course that was yesterday and Austria 02.

90 percent of team orders are quite legitimate to the running of the race or to the world championship as a whole. As you've pointed out there FB and others have said with regards to drivers who no longer have a mathematical chance of winning the title helping his team mate, you either have team orders or you don't. There can be no middle ground.

There is always 151.c. as a catch all for those moments when a team clearly extracts the urine.

 

[Speshal]

Smedley's comments to Massa could not be read in any other way than a team order no matter how much he later tried to explain them away. "Can you confirm you understood that message", "Good lad, just stick with him now. Sorry" and the "you've been very, very magnanimous" are hardly disguising the issue are they?

Agree 100% with ^ that

The bit that grinds my gears is it was so bloody obvious - what I would like is someone to please explain to me what happened before this.

Massa is leading, Alonso is right up his backside, Alonso comes over the radio with "This is ridiculous" - meaning he cannot pass, then Felipe starts posting purples every lap and eeks out 3 seconds on Alonso? What radio messages went on during that period?

And now we have to wait until September???? (what, why can't it be done sooner?) for the race result - I hope they get docked points for a breach of 151.c

 

[teabagyokel]

The point is they are not, and hence Ferrari should be punished.

I have no clue whether it should be. It depends if the Constructors or Drivers Championships are the important ones.

 

[F1Yorkshire]

And now we have to wait until September???? (what, why can't it be done sooner?) for the race result - I hope they get docked points for a breach of 151.c

I don't think docking points is a viable option, if it was decided that Massa and Alonso were disqualified from that race then all drivers then move up 2 places, due to the points allocation the drivers coming 3rd and 4th will gain an extra advantage over those finishing 5th and 6th, as well as the drivers finishing 11th and 12th who then gain points where they wouldn't have been able to before.

FIA should of given Alonso a time penalty after the race knocking him back to second and still have been fined for breaching the no team orders rule.

Going forward Ferrari should really be punished for lying to the stewards, nothing will be decided in time for next race but I'm hoping for a DSQ or a heavy grid penalty to be in place for the race after.

 

[Bullfrog]

Another point that just occurred to me.

Maybe we all should be thankful to Ferrari, after all, this was probably the best outcome from an entertainment perspective. So the rest of the season might be much more entertaining.

I'd dispute that, I was having a lovely time watching the race, it was a tense affair with several interesting battles throughout the field, perhaps not chock full of overtaking, but that's not the be all and of F1 for me. Until that is the orchestrated move for the lead was arranged, I lost interest after that because it was less of a competition more of a staged event, it was as if boxing had suddenly turned into wrestling and The Undertaker had killed Mike Tyson with a hammer.

 

[Feckless]

One thing I think I have to add is a response to those with arguments such as; -

Teams have always had No. 1 and No. 2 drivers
Team orders have been part of F1 for years
Everyone does this
etc etc

I cannot agree with this. Of course you can have a No. 1 and a No. 2 driver. Of course, if you want, you can give one driver a better car than another. You can change their strategies so one driver has a better chance of winning. You can do all these things, this is fine. What you cannot do is tell a driver, mid-race, to pull over and let someone else past.

Lets take this back to basics. F1 is about the WDC. That means at root of the sport all drivers are competing against all other drivers. The way the sport has evolved means there are teams with 2 drivers each. But the essence of the competition is about everyone racing everyone else.

Me. I'd throw the book at Ferrari.
Remember Briatore was banned for life for manipulating a race result with team tactics.

 

[Brogan]

Lets take this back to basics. F1 is about the WDC.

For the fans perhaps.

For the teams it's very much about the WCC.

 

[Wombcat]

I think it's pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain* that when you are faced with a situation where it is mathematically impossible to win a championship with one driver and you have a chance where it is quite possible with the other, you're always, always going to have to favour the one with a chance. Even the driver who subsides must realise the logic in that there is no point ruining your team-mate's chance of winning a WDC when you have no chance at all.

The difference from today is that we have no idea which of Massa or Alonso will go to the last few races with a mathematical chance of winning the WDC. There is nothing to account for what may happen in the future, and it is not (or, should not be) Ferrari's right to decide what happens on the track between two drivers.

If they want to screw their own driver by giving him a front wing that is 1 second slower before the race, I don't have a problem with that, that's their prerogative and if they want to lose a WCC, that's up to them. There's nothing in the rulebook that says they have to give equal equipment to their drivers. But when you deliberately call a driver to move over, that is just sickening.



* Note to mods : This is not an insult to McZR, but a wider point.

But on the other hand anyone with half a brain can see that Massa has a mathematical chance on becoming WDC, but realistically his chances are really really slim, because he so many points behind the top 4. So it makes quite a lot of sense for Ferrari to have Alonso in front.

Only thing is that they should have made it absolutely clear to Massa beforehand, so they wouldn't have to do it during the race. Or found a different solution and everybody would have been perfectly happy.

 

[Wombcat]

Lets take this back to basics. F1 is about the WDC.

For the fans perhaps.

For the teams it's very much about the WCC.

I doubt that.

 

[Galahad]

Lets take this back to basics. F1 is about the WDC.

For the fans perhaps.

For the teams it's very much about the WCC.

I doubt that.

Prize money for winning the WCC: $100m (approx.)

Prize money for winning the WDC: $0


Obviously sponsor bonuses and commercial tie-ins mean that a driver's champion has some commercial benefit, but money-wise the teams really are focused on the constructors, absolutely.

 

[Wombcat]

Prize money for winning the WCC: $100m (approx.)

Prize money for winning the WDC: $0


Obviously sponsor bonuses and commercial tie-ins mean that a driver's champion has some commercial benefit, but money-wise the teams really are focused on the constructors, absolutely.

It's not all about the prize money, but the marketing value. The marketing value of the WDC is much bigger than that for the WCC, even for the teams.

 

[Speshal]

I cannot agree with this. Of course you can have a No. 1 and a No. 2 driver. Of course, if you want, you can give one driver a better car than another. You can change their strategies so one driver has a better chance of winning. You can do all these things, this is fine. What you cannot do is tell a driver, mid-race, to pull over and let someone else past.

Well said that man.

@ Bro you could argue that now but these days it's often the best drive (wdc) drives for the best team?

 

[DOF_power]

Lets take this back to basics. F1 is about the WDC.

For the fans perhaps.

For the teams it's very much about the WCC.

*Mod Comment* Please do not use that term, it looks as though you are looking for an argument. Fat Jez

 

[GeoffP]

This seems to be going the distance.

Thing is, no-one disputes that as of yesterday team orders were against the rules. After the race the entire Ferrari team tried to imply that there was no instruction to follow team orders, but their claims were rejected. As of today Luca di Montezemolo appears to have said that of course there was an instruction to follow team orders, you'd be a fool to believe otherwise.

I personally don't approve of team orders on the track, if Ferrari want to give Alonso 50% more power and the best aero kit ahead of the race, unfair, but at least we'll see both drivers racing, so crack on. However, currently team orders are against the rules, Ferrari have effectively confessed to breaking the rules. If the rules need to be changed, that's one thing, but with the rules in effect it's the job of the Stewards and the FIA to enforce them without exception, they are officials and not Gods, so the decision regarding their action seems to be in stone, now it's as to the appropriate nature of the punishment.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/8856761.stm

 

[Porceliamone]

And so the 'F' word reaches CTA. Nice one... :-/

*Mod comment* This has been dealt with. Fat Jez

 

[bogaTYR]

Hence why Lewis was told to use G8 yesterday after being in front of Mark and Jenson for 20 odd laps.

without trying to be rude, how sure are we G8 isnt a team order as well?

 

[Brogan]

Hence why Lewis was told to use G8 yesterday after being in front of Mark and Jenson for 20 odd laps.

without trying to be rude, how sure are we G8 isnt a team order as well?

We don't really Boga but we are 99.9% sure that G8 is a fuel saving mode and the order was given to Lewis not Jenson.

 

[MajorDanby]

Lewis was told to save fuel to avoid entering G8 towards the end of the race, hence I'm in complete agreement that it is a fuel saving engine setting, and an extreme one at that.

On a tangent Montezemolo has all but admitted (the first person in Ferrari to do so) that team orders were in effect during the race in Hockenheim.

Surely this confirms many peoples opinions that the drivers, team principle, and whoever else was called into the Stewards office are therefore guilty of misleading the Stewards and the public.

Are we going to see any action taken on this front now that the truth has come out? I doubt it, and it will be mightily unfair, particularly on Lewis Hamilton if this proves to be the case.

Edit: Geoff, apologies didn't see that post of yours above mine. Can't be bothered to rewrite my post so I'll leave it, but suffice it to say I am in complete agreement with you

 

[cosicave]

[[ This is a direct response to Brogan's original question and takes no account of any of the responses so far, since I have not yet read them ]]
___________________________________________________________________________________
Should team orders be allowed? - Absolutely not!: What we saw today was a DISGRACE, but I want to explain why:

*1. Formula 1 is 'sold' as entertainment.
*2. Those who are being 'entertained' are largely a relatively ignorant lot who simply enjoy the spectacle of motor-racing and for the most part, pay little heed to its intricacies.
*3. This means that it is inevitable that some things may go on behind closed doors, out of the public eye, just as when one visits a theatre, one does not expect to find the actors changing into their clothes on stage in full view.
*4. The 'No Team-Orders' rule is essential for Bernie's show to remain credible with his audience.
*5. What happened today, was effectively showing the customer that he/she had bought soiled goods, well past their sell-by date.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Conclusions
It is essential that this rule remains in place, and is seen to be policed properly, consistently and thoroughly, since without it, F1 loses its credibilty and ultimately its 'fan-base'.

If any team decides to do a bit of work 'behind-the-scenes', so be it; after all, we accept it in the theatre. - But to show it to the world in the manner we saw today, was as disgraceful as a dirty old man exposing himself to children.

-Utterly disgraceful and completely unacceptable…

Your point 2 is wrong…

Point *2 is correct bogaTYR: I was not restricting the audience to those who attend events. Clearly they are much more likely to be what one might call 'enthusiasts', and amongst this relative minority, I agree with you. But this is a very small minority, and not THE most important sector of the market which Formula 1 reaches out to.

People who attend races make an important contribution to individual events - particularly those who receive no Government help (sponsorship) such as our own British Grand Prix, but Formula 1 relies upon a far larger audience; namely, that reached through TV. And in general, the TV audience is not particularly well informed, and hence far less likely to accept the intricate justifications we may have for rules (or a lack of them) which reduce their entertainment. They see something they don't fully understand, so they tend to lose interest.

For that reason, it is vital that the actions of supposedly 'racing' drivers, are as simple as possible to understand. The most obvious (if ignorant) question is, "Why did that guy not keep racing that other guy?"

bogaTYR: Relatively speaking, you are an expert. At the very least, you are a very keen enthusiast. Most of F1's audience is far less well-informed than you, and it is these people who we must bear in mind when considering the spectacle they are provided with.