FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[The Immortal Dragon]

That's new to me as well, thought the rival teams were gunning for punishment.

They are.
But they are also aware that they might find themselves in a similar position as the season finale approaches.
If they keep the rule as it is, surely it doesn't make difference if one of the 2 drivers is mathematically out of the WDC; you still manipulate the result.

[vaptin]

That's new to me as well, thought the rival teams were gunning for punishment.

They are.
But they are also aware that they might find themselves in a similar position as the season finale approaches.
If they keep the rule as it is, surely it doesn't make difference if one of the 2 drivers is mathematically out of the WDC; you still manipulate the result.

It doesn't, although of course if one driver is mathematically out he'd be switching anyway.

The problem is sometimes an individual drivers desire to win the race or something, conflicts with the teams interest in securing a WDC. I think we had a consensus on here for the wording of the old team orders rule: "if the team cannot justify it in terms of the championship".

Anyway, in light (I'll work pretentious A-level essays out of my system at Uni whilst deriving equations) of the charge against Ferrari being "breaching fair sporting play" or something, they might tear that one up, seeing as team orders are in in use in other motor-sports - ergo it isn't some unreasonable concept.

[The Immortal Dragon]

Yes, I think they should word it like that, too.

[Jensonb]

Jensonb - it isn't race fixing, did you see Bernie tear up (Jake or Eddie?) when they tried to question him on it in Germany. It's the teams right to tell their own drivers what to do to try and maximise their chances of securing both championships (its up to the teams themselves to judge on if its the best option or not), all team orders is, is blatantly obvious. But its the same idea as a driver who gets pole, drives off and wins the race, the team want to maximise their chances.

No, no it's not. They have been explicitly banned from manipulating the result of a race using team orders because it cheats the customers (Us, the viewing public) out of a race.

It amazes me that F1 has basically only one rule designed to protect the interests of the fans watching, and yet there is a vocal minority demanding to get it overturned.

[The Immortal Dragon]

Jensonb - it isn't race fixing, did you see Bernie tear up (Jake or Eddie?) when they tried to question him on it in Germany. It's the teams right to tell their own drivers what to do to try and maximise their chances of securing both championships (its up to the teams themselves to judge on if its the best option or not), all team orders is, is blatantly obvious. But its the same idea as a driver who gets pole, drives off and wins the race, the team want to maximise their chances.

No, no it's not. They have been explicitly banned from manipulating the result of a race using team orders because it cheats the customers (Us, the viewing public) out of a race.

It amazes me that F1 has basically only one rule designed to protect the interests of the fans watching, and yet there is a vocal minority demanding to get it overturned.

I think it's just because there are so many possible ways around it.

[vaptin]

Jensonb - it isn't race fixing, did you see Bernie tear up (Jake or Eddie?) when they tried to question him on it in Germany. It's the teams right to tell their own drivers what to do to try and maximise their chances of securing both championships (its up to the teams themselves to judge on if its the best option or not), all team orders is, is blatantly obvious. But its the same idea as a driver who gets pole, drives off and wins the race, the team want to maximise their chances.

No, no it's not. They have been explicitly banned from manipulating the result of a race using team orders because it cheats the customers (Us, the viewing public) out of a race.

It amazes me that F1 has basically only one rule designed to protect the interests of the fans watching, and yet there is a vocal minority demanding to get it overturned.

It's not ascetically pleasing, but nor is watching a driver on pole go on to win by 30seconds. The Schumacher - Rubens was when it started to limit the competition, Massa had his chance but now it was time (in Ferrari's opinion) to back one driver as Alonso was their only realistic hope of a WDC.

Massa wanted the race win, but Ferrari wanted Alonso to get it to maximise his chances of a WDC, think it was Luca who said: "the drivers interest does not come before the teams interest, it was in the teams interest to have Alonso win, Massa drives for the same team as Alonso: Ferrari.

[f1ea]

It amazes me that F1 has basically only one rule designed to protect the interests of the fans watching, and yet there is a vocal minority demanding to get it overturned.

The vocal minority were indeed the media and fans who called for it to be implemented in the first place.

It may not be the most spectacular bit of racing.. but seriously, it is not a bit less pleasing than 2 teammates taking eachother out or losing their silly huge front wing because one of them wanted to have his ego satisfied.

[Jensonb]

It amazes me that F1 has basically only one rule designed to protect the interests of the fans watching, and yet there is a vocal minority demanding to get it overturned.

The vocal minority were indeed the media and fans who called for it to be implemented in the first place.

It may not be the most spectacular bit of racing.. but seriously, it is not a bit less pleasing than 2 teammates taking eachother out or losing their silly huge front wing because one of them wanted to have his ego satisfied.

I think that given the choice, 90% of people would rather they crashed than having to watch the leader deliberately slow down and let his teammate win. These are racing drivers in racing teams in a motor race. All this rule does is demand they, like, do that.

[billindenver]

The thing I find odd about all of the experts who say that Ferrari certainly gave team orders is this. If they wanted Alonso in front so badly...why were they telling Massa to pick up his pace and get a gap for the majority of the race? I don't get it....if they had a team order in place...why not put Alonso out front early and let him run away with Massa guarding his back so to speak?

It seems to me that those who are touting the certainty of Ferrari's guilt are the same ones who are always up in arms about Ferrari. McLaren had a radio call to a certain wunderkind's team mate not long ago that was nearly word for word what Ferrari's was to Massa...with the same result, the driver yielded to his faster team mate...yet where was the uproar then? This whole thing is just the typical fan hatred of a rival team and jumping on whatever bandwagon presents itself to vent that hatred. I dislike the red cars as much as the next guy, but I've never really liked the view from inside the bandwagon. When they do something worth getting all emotional over, perhaps I'll join in. On this one though....there was a suspicious change in positions, no doubt, but there is no evidence that the team made Massa do it, and I'm very certain there IS evidence that he made his own decision. Massa will certainly say so at the hearing.

There are always suspicions of wrong doing in racing. Suspicion, however, means nothing. I suspect Red Bulls design may be circumventing the wing height rule...but can't prove it...and there are MANY who are trying. Yet, they are still racing. Suspicions are certainly not uncommon, but if the FIA starts handing out penalties based on nothing but suspicions..then what they really are doing is throwing out the rulebook and instituting a system in which opinion and not fact rules. Corruption is the enemy in a system like that. If opinion is the ruling force, then Jean Todt could disqualify Red Bull for wing flex....without proof that they broke any rules. That would be a great thing for Ferrari, and I'm sure that nobody in here would complain about corruption then would they? They wouldn't be yelling "Where is the proof...Todt is a Ferrari puppet" in that case would they? No...just like the team orders thing...they would be just fine with the FIA deciding that suspicions is more than enough to constitute guilt. Well...until Jean Todt's eye focused on McLaren...then he would need proof beyond any doubt, naturally.

[racechick]

It amazes me that F1 has basically only one rule designed to protect the interests of the fans watching, and yet there is a vocal minority demanding to get it overturned.

The vocal minority were indeed the media and fans who called for it to be implemented in the first place.

It may not be the most spectacular bit of racing.. but seriously, it is not a bit less pleasing than 2 teammates taking eachother out or losing their silly huge front wing because one of them wanted to have his ego satisfied.

I think that given the choice, 90% of people would rather they crashed than having to watch the leader deliberately slow down and let his teammate win. These are racing drivers in racing teams in a motor race. All this rule does is demand they, like, do that.

[vaptin]

Massa was being urged on some time before the order, he had his chance. That introduces doubt that all Ferrari were doing were making sure Alonso got in front cleanly.

Jensonb - lets say Massa was out of the WDC mathematically Alonso wasn't, he still had a outside chance, would you still disagree with the order and rather see them race?

[billindenver]

It amazes me that F1 has basically only one rule designed to protect the interests of the fans watching, and yet there is a vocal minority demanding to get it overturned.

The vocal minority were indeed the media and fans who called for it to be implemented in the first place.

It may not be the most spectacular bit of racing.. but seriously, it is not a bit less pleasing than 2 teammates taking eachother out or losing their silly huge front wing because one of them wanted to have his ego satisfied.

I think that given the choice, 90% of people would rather they crashed than having to watch the leader deliberately slow down and let his teammate win. These are racing drivers in racing teams in a motor race. All this rule does is demand they, like, do that.

The same can be said of the "save fuel" race though. Button proved that he had the means to challenge, but the save fuel orders were given so that he would not do so. We were all collectively cheated of the same competition that you are complaining about here, only it was more blatant in the McLaren case because the team told the drivers over the radio that there would be no moves made. That is as blatant a case of team orders as has ever been broadcast. The thing is...the team was right in doing so. It can't be demanded that they risk hundreds of thousands in damaged cars by letting their own cars go wheel to wheel. McLaren did the right thing....and so has Ferrari. If you disagree...then that is your right of course. But you have to disagree with both actions because even if you split hairs and try to make them seem different...they are not. They teams controlled their drivers actions and controlled the outcome of the race. If you are only against that when Ferrari does it, then your judgment is flawed.

[myownalias]

Whether you agree with the team orders rule or not; it is a FIA sanctioned rule, Ferrari appear to have broken that rule and have been deemed guilty as they have already been punished by way of a token fine (although it was the maximum fine that could be imposed by the stewards). If following the letter of the rule; points are irrelevant as interfering with the outcome of the race is prohibited. Bring back the old rule and everyone will be happy, no team orders without good reason. Then it's upto the FIA to decide if the team had "good reason" for the team order. What really needs to happen is the whole F1 rulebook needs to be re-written to be more transparent; the current rules have too much ambiguity attached, clear rules and clear punishments for infringing those rules is what is needed!

[racechick]

It amazes me that F1 has basically only one rule designed to protect the interests of the fans watching, and yet there is a vocal minority demanding to get it overturned.

The vocal minority were indeed the media and fans who called for it to be implemented in the first place.

It may not be the most spectacular bit of racing.. but seriously, it is not a bit less pleasing than 2 teammates taking eachother out or losing their silly huge front wing because one of them wanted to have his ego satisfied.

I think that given the choice, 90% of people would rather they crashed than having to watch the leader deliberately slow down and let his teammate win. These are racing drivers in racing teams in a motor race. All this rule does is demand they, like, do that.

The same can be said of the "save fuel" race though. Button proved that he had the means to challenge, but the save fuel orders were given so that he would not do so. We were all collectively cheated of the same competition that you are complaining about here, only it was more blatant in the McLaren case because the team told the drivers over the radio that there would be no moves made. That is as blatant a case of team orders as has ever been broadcast. The thing is...the team was right in doing so. It can't be demanded that they risk hundreds of thousands in damaged cars by letting their own cars go wheel to wheel. McLaren did the right thing....and so has Ferrari. If you disagree...then that is your right of course. But you have to disagree with both actions because even if you split hairs and try to make them seem different...they are not. They teams controlled their drivers actions and controlled the outcome of the race. If you are only against that when Ferrari does it, then your judgment is flawed.

No they didnt because the guys still raced. If there were team orders(and I dont believe there were) then they were ignored or misunderstood. the fans wernt cheated, we saew some great racing.

[What's Burning?]

Massa was being urged on some time before the order, he had his chance. That introduces doubt that all Ferrari were doing were making sure Alonso got in front cleanly.

Jensonb - lets say Massa was out of the WDC mathematically Alonso wasn't, he still had a outside chance, would you still disagree with the order and rather see them race?

I'm leaning more and more to the side of apathy on this. I want to see racing, but if a team and their drivers would take away that racing enjoyment from me, I have no reason whatsoever to support them.

I can take the rule or leave the rule, I simply want something CLEAR and ENFORCEABLE so I know which team to support, Red Bull ended in tragedy, but I respect them allowing their drivers to race more than I can respect Ferrari's hand manipulating anything with the color red on it.

It's Ferrari's right to do with their team and their drivers what they wish... they actually have a history of treating driver like property (meaning treating them like $hit) but it's their right to do it. There is such a stigma surrounding Ferrari that drivers are willing to become their property just so they can say they drove for the best.

I as a fan will always support teams that race for a victory instead of teams that manipulate for a race victory.