FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[spankyham]

On the other hand, no half-way knowledgeable F1 fan would be surprised if HK had to move over for LH from race five on or so because it's just reality based on points, contract, etc. It would happen rarely enough during races anyway if indeed the difference between the drivers is so great - the 'designated' number two driver just doesn't get into a position where he's leading his main man w/o some third-party driver in between. And if it indeed happens (see RB vs. MS) then every rational F1 fan should expect a swap of positions for the good of the team spirit and driver championship.
If a team elects to hire two closely matched drivers, then the public would expect a different scenario and they virtually never get disappointed by such teams as they usually let them race for about half a season or so until a decision needs to be made based on point standings.

So, for McLaren its ok because they apply rigid team orders from the start of the season? Also, you've conveniently forgotten France and England where HK also moved over for Lewis in the same year.

Even if you leave that aside explain this:-
Lewis to Team "Will Jensen pass me"
Team to Lewis "No"
You may recognise this from Turkey this year. That is the radio conversation just before the infamous "fuel is critical Jensen, fuel is critical!!!"
How could the McLaren team know what Jensen would do if there wasn't a team order?
Unlike the the Ferrari incident at Germany which requires interpretation of what Rob Smedley meant in his communications, ie no concrete evidence. This is 100% proof. And although the British Race Director Charlie Whiting for some reason did not react to that, the WMSC, in their decision, stated they acknowledged that Team Orders had occurred in other races as per Ferrari's submission. (Ferrari had submitted Turkey 2010 as an example of Team Orders).

I'm not sure or entirely fail to see where and how we disagree here - please enlighten me as to what you're arguing here against my statement...

I took it that you were Team Orders sometimes, but not other times.
You seem to imply that if a team applies Team Orders from the start of the season by having one driver defined as a 2nd driver, that always moves over for his #1 driver then its ok. But if a team doesn't apply team orders, and their drivers race each other usually, then they try to apply team orders for one race that's not ok.
I'm also pointing out that, by use of the "fuel is critical" signal, and the Radio stating to Lewis that they know what Jensen will do (won't pass) that Jensen is, and always has been the #2 driver at McLaren

[bud]

This guy wants to talk logic? mate you made my day!

[spankyham]

P.S. I don't mind your personal attack on me, but, the swearing isn't good for the younger ones who see this forum.

True, but neither is the use of derogatory terms for drivers and teams. So, please, the both of you: keep it civil!

Yeah, already got the "heads-up" from one of the Moddys about no name-puns allowed and have tried to fall-in-line. Bit different to swearing though

[bud]

How dare you have the audacity to come on here fishing for a fight with your childish dimwitted comments yet complain about a little swear word that fittingly describes your dribble! What a joke you are!!

[spankyham]

How dare you have the audacity to come on here fishing for a fight with your childish dimwitted comments yet complain about a little swear word that fittingly describes your dribble! What a joke you are!!

Calm down mate, I'm happy to discuss the topic, but I won't respond to the rest

[bud]

How dare you have the audacity to come on here fishing for a fight with your childish dimwitted comments yet complain about a little swear word that fittingly describes your dribble! What a joke you are!!

Calm down mate, I'm happy to discuss the topic, but I won't respond to the rest

Don't worry I won't be responding to you anymore, you're blocked!

[darwin dali]

On the other hand, no half-way knowledgeable F1 fan would be surprised if HK had to move over for LH from race five on or so because it's just reality based on points, contract, etc. It would happen rarely enough during races anyway if indeed the difference between the drivers is so great - the 'designated' number two driver just doesn't get into a position where he's leading his main man w/o some third-party driver in between. And if it indeed happens (see RB vs. MS) then every rational F1 fan should expect a swap of positions for the good of the team spirit and driver championship.
If a team elects to hire two closely matched drivers, then the public would expect a different scenario and they virtually never get disappointed by such teams as they usually let them race for about half a season or so until a decision needs to be made based on point standings.

So, for McLaren its ok because they apply rigid team orders from the start of the season? Also, you've conveniently forgotten France and England where HK also moved over for Lewis in the same year.

Even if you leave that aside explain this:-
Lewis to Team "Will Jensen pass me"
Team to Lewis "No"
You may recognise this from Turkey this year. That is the radio conversation just before the infamous "fuel is critical Jensen, fuel is critical!!!"
How could the McLaren team know what Jensen would do if there wasn't a team order?
Unlike the the Ferrari incident at Germany which requires interpretation of what Rob Smedley meant in his communications, ie no concrete evidence. This is 100% proof. And although the British Race Director Charlie Whiting for some reason did not react to that, the WMSC, in their decision, stated they acknowledged that Team Orders had occurred in other races as per Ferrari's submission. (Ferrari had submitted Turkey 2010 as an example of Team Orders).

I'm not sure or entirely fail to see where and how we disagree here - please enlighten me as to what you're arguing here against my statement...

I took it that you were Team Orders sometimes, but not other times.
You seem to imply that if a team applies Team Orders from the start of the season by having one driver defined as a 2nd driver, that always moves over for his #1 driver then its ok. But if a team doesn't apply team orders, and their drivers race each other usually, then they try to apply team orders for one race that's not ok.
I'm also pointing out that, by use of the "fuel is critical" signal, and the Radio stating to Lewis that they know what Jensen will do (won't pass) that Jensen is, and always has been the #2 driver at McLaren

Nah, i'm ok with team orders if a team uses them or if they elect not to until some time. What I'm not ok with is to have either of the two approaches being judged as superior and then go about and whine.

[spankyham]

Nah, i'm ok with team orders if a team uses them or if they elect not to until some time. What I'm not ok with is to have either of the two approaches being judged as superior and then go about and whine.

Ah, ok.
I personally think it's a ridiculous rule, put in place for ridiculous reasons and the sooner they get rid of it the better.

[McHare]

Nah, i'm ok with team orders if a team uses them or if they elect not to until some time. What I'm not ok with is to have either of the two approaches being judged as superior and then go about and whine.

Ah, ok.
I personally think it's a ridiculous rule, put in place for ridiculous reasons and the sooner they get rid of it the better.

Seem to remember Ferrari's Monti zimm moler?? (you know who I mean) wanting to allow teams to race with 3 cars in preference to the 3 new teams coming in. Faced with a prospect of running 2 cars in a team that would pull on to the gravel at the sight of team leader behind would signal a huge television switch off throughout the world on a Sunday afternoon. The power surge as viewers reach for their remote control would cause national grids to fall over and an international disaster would ensue with countless people unable to boil a kettle for a cup of tea. Seriously, and I'm not getting at any team in particular, but do we want to see a dozen pointless No2's on the grid who's sole reason for turning up on a Sunday afternoon is to provide a buffer to his number one driver? Us hard core fans would stick about sure but you would loose a massive audience that the sponsors would find totally unacceptable.
While I agree that teams could find a way around it by using coded messages, any number 2 with half an ounce of self pride will always have the excuse to ignore it by claiming that team orders are not allowed. So, he might find he's out of job at the end of the year but at least he could walk away with head held high.

[myownalias]

My single sentence round up of my feelings on team orders
I agree with the team orders ban but I don't agree with the FIA stewards inconsistent judgement and punishment of team orders, you cant have one without the other, so the team orders ban needs to go!

Sidenote: I wonder if we retroactively went back through the years to 2003 when the ban came into place; how many world championships would have changed hands because of team orders punishments!

[spankyham]

Nah, i'm ok with team orders if a team uses them or if they elect not to until some time. What I'm not ok with is to have either of the two approaches being judged as superior and then go about and whine.

Ah, ok.
I personally think it's a ridiculous rule, put in place for ridiculous reasons and the sooner they get rid of it the better.

Seem to remember Ferrari's Monti zimm moler?? (you know who I mean) wanting to allow teams to race with 3 cars in preference to the 3 new teams coming in. Faced with a prospect of running 2 cars in a team that would pull on to the gravel at the sight of team leader behind would signal a huge television switch off throughout the world on a Sunday afternoon. The power surge as viewers reach for their remote control would cause national grids to fall over and an international disaster would ensue with countless people unable to boil a kettle for a cup of tea. Seriously, and I'm not getting at any team in particular, but do we want to see a dozen pointless No2's on the grid who's sole reason for turning up on a Sunday afternoon is to provide a buffer to his number one driver? Us hard core fans would stick about sure but you would loose a massive audience that the sponsors would find totally unacceptable.
While I agree that teams could find a way around it by using coded messages, any number 2 with half an ounce of self pride will always have the excuse to ignore it by claiming that team orders are not allowed. So, he might find he's out of job at the end of the year but at least he could walk away with head held high.

I think you mean Luca Cordero di Montezemolo - although you did bring a smile to my face with your spelling
I'm constantly amazed at how some people just can't grasp the concept of Team in F1. If you listened to your argument and tried to apply it to any other team sport you would laugh.
A few facts, F1 is a team sport. Driver's in the same team are teammates.
The prime goal in F1 at each race event is for the team to win.
So why do you think viewers can't watch opposing players compete while teammates assist each other?
Did Liverpool supporters turn off their TV's or leave Anfield when Kuyt (who had the ball in the box and could have had a shot) passed the ball Torres? Are you suggesting that Kuyt should have tried to shoot and Torres should have gone over and fought his own teammate for the ball?
Can you imagine if someone told Sir Alex that he wasn't allowed to send messages out to his players telling them what to do? Lol.
Just eliminate the Team Order rule completely.

And, incidentally, I do also think LDM has been proven entirely correct about the teams. We would have been far better off with 3 Ferrari and perhaps 3 McLaren than any of the 3 new teams who are proving to be not much more than mobile chicanes and not much faster than some GP2's.

[spankyham]

Sidenote: I wonder if we retroactively went back through the years to 2003 when the ban came into place; how many world championships would have changed hands because of team orders punishments![/size]

Actually not that difficult to answer, if the rule, as it's written, was strictly implemented every team would have been disqualified from every race

[myownalias]

Sidenote: I wonder if we retroactively went back through the years to 2003 when the ban came into place; how many world championships would have changed hands because of team orders punishments!

Actually not that difficult to answer, if the rule, as it's written, was strictly implemented every team would have been disqualified from every race

Guess that means that Bernd Mayländer is a 10 time F1 world champion! Which also means that Mercedes are 10 time constructors champions too

[spankyham]

Sidenote: I wonder if we retroactively went back through the years to 2003 when the ban came into place; how many world championships would have changed hands because of team orders punishments!

Actually not that difficult to answer, if the rule, as it's written, was strictly implemented every team would have been disqualified from every race

Guess that means that Bernd Mayländer is a 10 time F1 world champion! Which also means that Mercedes are 10 time constructors champions too

Na, they would have been the first to fall foul of the rule. Perhaps one of the pre-race track walkers?

And, you need to improve your math 2003 to now is 7 championships

[maverick7]

I am quite puzzled,how can Alonso ever call himself champion ?I thought that accolade was bestowed upon the best driver,but it will always be remembered
that he wasn't good enough to pass his team mate,who had to slow down to let him pass.