Should team orders be allowed?

[sportsman]

I think we all know that all the teams do have number one drivers. This driver gets the latest upgrades and so on over his team mate.From the practical point of view this makes a lot of sense.

But if we assume that the current points tally of the top teams drivers do not agree with the teams preferred driver status what does that mean.
In Ferarri's case on Sunday it was perfectly clear that Alonso is the number one driver, and Massa in whatever coded language Smedley used was clearly ordered to let Alonso past.
The fact that this was for the race win and so blatant made it so much worse.The fact that both Smedley and Massa made it so clear showed just how much they resented it.
What has never been mentioned and I find a bit strange was that on or about lap 30 something can't remember exactly, Smedley said on the radio "keep pushing, we can win this" hopefully someone else remembers this.
But my point is "I do go on,don't I" that if the teams number one drivers are leading their team mate, say 4/5 3/4 etc thats how they will stay.So effectively they stop racing and drive around in formation.

 

[Flood1]

Yeah Sportsman, I agree but for different reasons. Alonso's wing says Santander. So does Massa's. Who do you think the Spanish bank prefers? Yes, we both know the answer. How many racing decisions, team orders, etc. are based on pleasing the sponsors?

And how many here think the advertisers and sponsors should decide the outcome of an F1 race? No one who has true racing genes think that.

 

[Bullfrog]

That may be true, but only up to a point, I don't think ING were terribly keen to be associated with a team that got Alonso to win at all costs.

 

[Galahad]

After the pitstops we saw Alonso all over the back of Massa, and very nearly past when caught in some backmarkers.

Shortly after, Alonso's pace dropped off markedly, and a gap of some 4-odd seconds opened up. This was, however, closed up again to the point where Smedley made his order.

My best guess would be that Ferrari management told Alonso to drop back and use his supposedly superior pace to close the gap back up, thereby proving that he was indeed being held up. If he was unable to do so, then Massa would have earned a deserved victory. This is, I suspect, why Smedley was doing a bit of cheerleading - as sportsman refers in his post above.

As it turned out, Alonso was indeed decidedly (albeit not massively) quicker, and hence the position switch was justified internally at least.

Regarding the wording of the regulation, it is appropriately vague:

39.1 Team orders which interfere with a race result are prohibited.

It seems to me that that could be interpreted as including pre-race agreements, of the sort e.g. McLaren employed in Melbourne in 1998.

 

[sportsman]

Of course the FIA have this little chap from the International Sporting code which all teams have to agree to in the Concorde ageement.

151. Breach of rules
Any of the following offences in addition to any offences
specifically referred to previously, shall be deemed to be a breach
of these rules :
a) All bribery or attempt, directly or indirectly, to bribe any
person having official duties in relation to a competition or
being employed in any manner in connection with a
competition and the acceptance of, or offer to accept, any
bribe by such an official or employee.
b) Any action having as its object the entry or participation
in a competition of an automobile known to be ineligible
therefor.
c) Any fraudulent conduct or any act prejudicial to the
interests of any competition or to the interests of motor
sport generally.

That covers virtually anything

 

[TK421W]

whilst im not a fan of team orders, i have never agreed with the ban as i think it is completely unenforceable.

Their are many ways that a team could change the order, messed up pitstops and the like are just the start, whilst a quite word before the race works just as well.

I also agree 100% with team orders once it is mathematically impossible for the other driver to win the WDC and seeing as i support teams (Mclaren) first and foremost and drivers second (whoever i think deserves my support in any given race), i see F1 as a team sport and believe the team should think of the whole rather than the one.

That said, i think Germany, much like austria 2002, is a massive PR disaster for Ferrari. Surely they couldve just had a private word with Massa before the race? granted, they wouldnt have known he wouldve led, but surely they couldve planned for such an eventuality? Were talking the biggest team on the grid with nigh on limitless resources, surely they have the personnel to think of such scenarios?

 

[Chad Stewarthill]

TK421W said:
That said, i think Germany, much like austria 2002, is a massive PR disaster for Ferrari. Surely they couldve just had a private word with Massa before the race? granted, they wouldnt have known he wouldve led, but surely they couldve planned for such an eventuality? Were talking the biggest team on the grid with nigh on limitless resources, surely they have the personnel to think of such scenarios?

You know, I just don't think the scenario of Massa being in front of Alonso for 48 laps of Hockenheim entered their heads.

 

[F1Yorkshire]

My prob is that I didn't use a bookie. It's not legal to bet on F1 in the States, except in Vegas. I used an Italian named Vinnie. Vinnie doesn't have a business card. If you have a problem with a business associate, call Vinnie. I think I'll just give him the cash back and forget about it. Even Stevens as we say here. No winner, no loser.

But seriously, I hate team orders, but as a team owner or operator, I would understand exactly why they are employed, and if I were in their position, I would do the same.

I would definately pay him back otherwise you could be ending up with a new pair of concrete boots and a trip out to sea.

Team orders will always exist and everyone knows that but its Ferrari's total disregard for the regulations that has got us stirred up.

Would we be as bothered about the position swap if there was no rule against it?

 

[Brogan]

Would we be as bothered about the position swap if there was no rule against it?

Honestly? Yes.

I don't like artificial racing or results.

 

[Chad Stewarthill]

F1Yorkshire said:
Would we be as bothered about the position swap if there was no rule against it?

A lot of us we were in 2002, even though it wasn't against the rules at the time.

I think the worst aspect of last Sunday was the fact that both drivers were clearly still capable, with a rapidly improving car and almost half the season still to go, of getting back into the title fight; yet still Ferrari brazenly favoured one over the other. I wonder, if Massa had been one point ahead going into Hockenheim, would they still have made him pull over? I think they would have.

 

[Speshal]

I wonder, if Massa had been one point ahead going into Hockenheim, would they still have made him pull over? I think they would have.

Sadly I agree with you.

 

[Muddytalker]

I suspect his contract, though not directly saying so, may imply it. Something along the lines of "The driver will be expected to carry out any request made by the company, that is in the collective interests of the team."

This clause may be missing from Alonso's contract.

 

[F1Yorkshire]

I suspect his contract, though not directly saying so, may imply it. Something along the lines of "The driver will be expected to carry out any request made by the company, that is in the collective interests of the team."

This clause may be missing from Alonso's contract.

Would Alonso's read:

"The team will be expected to carry out any request made by the sponsor, that is in the collective interests of the driver."

 

[Muddytalker]

I suspect his contract, though not directly saying so, may imply it. Something along the lines of "The driver will be expected to carry out any request made by the company, that is in the collective interests of the team."

This clause may be missing from Alonso's contract.

Would Alonso's read:

"The team will be expected to carry out any request made by the sponsor, that is in the collective interests of the driver."

Well, you might think that; I couldn't possibly comment (Abso-Santander-lutely!)

 

[Wombcat]

A lot of us we were in 2002, even though it wasn't against the rules at the time.

I think the worst aspect of last Sunday was the fact that both drivers were clearly still capable, with a rapidly improving car and almost half the season still to go, of getting back into the title fight; yet still Ferrari brazenly favoured one over the other. I wonder, if Massa had been one point ahead going into Hockenheim, would they still have made him pull over? I think they would have.

Even with the extra points for the win Massa wouldn't really be back into the title fight. Before Hockenheim he was 8th, with 67 points. The McLaren boys had 145 and 133, the RBRs' 128 en 121, Alonso 98 and Rosberg 90.

If Massa had won, he would have had 90 instead of the 85 he has now. Alonso would have had 116. But still the McLaren guys have 157 and 143, the RBRs' 136 and Rosberg 90.

Its hard to imagine that the McLarens and RBRs all lose so many points that Massa can get WDC. It's not impossible, but his chances would be very slim anyway. He would have needed to win several races, while the McLarens and RBRs score no or just a few points. Which would mean that they suddenly would have to be very unreliable and not finish or suddenly be outperformed by Mercedes and Renault. I don't see either of that happening. If it was just one team ahead of them (Ferrari), it'd be realistic, but with both the McLaren and RBR drivers so far ahead it's just not realistisc imo.
Best chance for Ferrari to get a WDC is to Alonso to take the points.

 

[Galahad]

Wombcat: I agree, but Ferrari did that 11 years ago and suddenly the number one driver broke his leg. Even the best laid plans can go awry.

 

[Wombcat]

Wombcat: I agree, but Ferrari did that 11 years ago and suddenly the number one driver broke his leg. Even the best laid plans can go awry.

Even if Alonso would break his leg, Massa's chances are very slim. At this moment the only Ferrari driver with a reasonable chance to become WDC is Alonso.
From a betting site:
Sebastian Vettel (GER/Red Bull) 3.20
Lewis Hamilton (GBR/McLaren) 3.30
Fernando Alonso (ESP/Ferrari) 3.50
Mark Webber (AUS/Red Bull) 8.50
Jenson Button (GBR/McLaren) 12.00
Felipe Massa (BRA/Ferrari) 101.00
Odds are not in Massa's favour. And I doubt they were a lot better before the german grand prix.

 

[Chad Stewarthill]

Wombcat:

I think that maybe you are being distracted by the apparent points gap under the new rules.

Actually, by my calculation Massa, if he had won at Hockenheim, would now be on 92 points to Alonso's 116. That's 24 points, or less than one win, behind with eight races (or 200 points) to go. Remember, Alonso had been bragging pre-Germany that he would win the WDC, from a position then of two wins behind the leader.

So, say at Hungary Alonso clashes with a Red Bull, or has an engine failure, resulting in a DNF, and say Massa wins that race. He would now be the leading Ferrari driver. Say Hamilton finishes second to Massa, he would still lead the championship with 175 points to Massa's 117. That may sound like a lot, but it's still only two wins and one 6th place, with 7 races left to run. And as good old Murray once said, "Anything can happen in Formula One and usually does".

Don't forget, Lewis was 17 points (in old money) ahead in 2007 with two races left, yet was still overhauled by Raikkonen at the last race, who won the WDC by one point.

 

[Brogan]

yet was still overhauled by Raikkonen at the last race, who won the WDC by one point.

Ironically, thanks to team orders involving one Felipe Massa.

 

[Flood1]

I prefer to do away with the orders ban because I am a realist. It can't be policed unless a driver like Rubens or Massa go out of their way to make them obvious.

I think it is against my view of true sportsmanship, but F1 is as much as buisness as it is anything else. Did any of you see the indy car race last Sunday. Two teamates racing each other to the death, the points leader in the front being passed by the 7th place guy in the championship. The 7th place guy getting by, only to be penalized for blocking his teamate later. No team orders. It doesn't happen much in the USA.

However, most teams have multiple sponsors so they would never allow that. Have Massa in RBS sponsorship, and FA in Santander sponsorship, and that would not have happened on Sunday.


Edit: Can someome move this to the team orders thread? I have made an idiots mistake!