FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[spankyham]

Spanky I do hope you realise that every team tell their drivers to save fuel at stages during races this season? The same race you talk of, Webber was given the same order in which made it possible for Vettel to get close for his Kamikaze move!
End of the day the no team order rule was brought in to stop a team swapping positions like what we saw Rubens and Schumi do a couple of times. Did McLaren do that? No. Did Ferrari do it again with Alonso and Massa? yes.

End of.

If a guy is actually saving fuel his lap times will show it, the immediate next lap shouldn't be faster

You're right, the rule was brought in because of some media's uproar when Rubens was told to move over and let Michael pass. At the time it wasn't illegal but Ferrari were fined anyway - a million I think.

I see that you are trying to make a distinction on which way the rule is broken; it's ok to break the rule this way and nothing should be done about it, but breaking the rule the other way is a heinous crime. But both are breaking the same rule. I don't think it matters to a victim if he's shot with a rifle or a handgun, the crime was still done.

And, as I said above, someone has gone to great lengths to show that Jenson was actually in front when the team order was reiterated and Lewis then passed, so, if you accept his videos, then they did swap places - just like Rubens and Michael.

I'll end again by saying I think its a silly rule and I'd like to see F1 back to a real, not undercover, team sport.

[spankyham]

Peng, and anyone else interested, I finally found the link I used to download the WMSC Decision, here it is:-
http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressreleases/wmsc/2010/Documents/08092010a-wmsc-decision.pdf
You'll find my quotes are spot on

[bud]

If a guy is actually saving fuel his lap times will show it, the immediate next lap shouldn't be faster

Got proof of that? Lewis was told to save fuel why do you think Jenson was able to pass? Obviously once Jenson was ahead Lewis turned the wick up again.

But one thing you must realise about motor racing is a track is a living thing. Every lap more rubber goes down the track comes to the car as the car gets lighter. Lap times will continue to fall using less fuel.

[spankyham]

If a guy is actually saving fuel his lap times will show it, the immediate next lap shouldn't be faster

Got proof of that? Lewis was told to save fuel why do you think Jenson was able to pass? Obviously once Jenson was ahead Lewis turned the wick up again.

But one thing you must realise about motor racing is a track is a living thing. Every lap more rubber goes down the track comes to the car as the car gets lighter. Lap times will continue to fall using less fuel.

Fair comment, track and lighter car.
Still, your and my opinion don't count as much as the WMSC - and they have decided my way

[bud]

Ive never given much thought into their choices in the past as all thats happened is what has happened many times before. WMSC decision going the way of Ferrari.

[f1ea]

If a guy is actually saving fuel his lap times will show it, the immediate next lap shouldn't be faster

Got proof of that? Lewis was told to save fuel why do you think Jenson was able to pass? Obviously once Jenson was ahead Lewis turned the wick up again.

Which means, he didnt actually really have to conserve fuel. ie if he was told to conserve, yet didnt... and still finished the race with much more fuel than he finished Q in Canada...... how come fuel was so critical?? where's the proof?

[bud]

If a guy is actually saving fuel his lap times will show it, the immediate next lap shouldn't be faster

Got proof of that? Lewis was told to save fuel why do you think Jenson was able to pass? Obviously once Jenson was ahead Lewis turned the wick up again.

Which means, he didnt actually really have to conserve fuel. ie if he was told to conserve, yet didnt... and still finished the race with much more fuel than he finished Q in Canada...... how come fuel was so critical?? where's the proof?

turned the wick up for a pass

fuel is critical during a race not only for samples by the scrutineers but also to finish above the minimum weight.

[spankyham]

Ive never given much thought into their choices in the past as all thats happened is what has happened many times before. WMSC decision going the way of Ferrari.

A lot of Tifosi believe exactly the opposite.

[bud]

Ive never given much thought into their choices in the past as all thats happened is what has happened many times before. WMSC decision going the way of Ferrari.

A lot of Tifosi believe exactly the opposite.

Yeah the past decade or so Ferrari have been so hard done by the FIA Nothings ever gone their way!

[f1ea]

turned the wick up for a pass

fuel is critical during a race not only for samples by the scrutineers but also to finish above the minimum weight.

Exactly, how come Jenson didn't do the same? for just the same 1 pass?

Yes, i understand fuel is critical for various reasons........ still does not mean we know Mclaren didnt have enough to turn the wick up for an extra pass or two. What i'm saying is: we don't know.
Nobody asked for extra proof because nobody cared. The same with Vettel's brake issues... nobody cares if he actually allowed Webber by.

[spankyham]

Ive never given much thought into their choices in the past as all thats happened is what has happened many times before. WMSC decision going the way of Ferrari.

A lot of Tifosi believe exactly the opposite.

Yeah the past decade or so Ferrari have been so hard done by the FIA Nothings ever gone their way!

It's another story, and off topic for this thread, but yep, lets say there were a lot of Tifosi happy to see the end of Mr Mosley's reign.
Of course, if you want to start a thread on it, I'll be happy to throw my 2 cents worth in

[nish2280]

turned the wick up for a pass

fuel is critical during a race not only for samples by the scrutineers but also to finish above the minimum weight.

Exactly, how come Jenson didn't do the same? for just the same 1 pass?

Yes, i understand fuel is critical for various reasons........ still does not mean we know Mclaren didnt have enough to turn the wick up for an extra pass or two. What i'm saying is: we don't know.
Nobody asked for extra proof because nobody cared. The same with Vettel's brake issues... nobody cares if he actually allowed Webber by.

Yes but had it happened to Ferarri...the reaction would have been completely different.

[bud]

turned the wick up for a pass

fuel is critical during a race not only for samples by the scrutineers but also to finish above the minimum weight.

Exactly, how come Jenson didn't do the same? for just the same 1 pass?

Yes, i understand fuel is critical for various reasons........ still does not mean we know Mclaren didnt have enough to turn the wick up for an extra pass or two. What i'm saying is: we don't know.
Nobody asked for extra proof because nobody cared. The same with Vettel's brake issues... nobody cares if he actually allowed Webber by.

youre impossible to debate with.

[Jensonb]

The fact McLaren were brought into the discussion by Ferrari and the WMSC is rather weak. Both cases mentioned were in no way the same as what Ferrari did to Felipe. They had more to do with varying strategies rather than making one driver give way his chance at a race win.

Indeed. I can't comprehend why so many people are failing to recognise the difference between holding station (Fo whatever reason) and letting someone through to win.

With Jenson and Lewis in the spotlight suddenly the rules aren't so important? It's even a Ferrari bad for pointing the fact out? And probably a Ferrari bad for getting the WMSC to decide they were right?

How is it that I keep pointing out to you people that it would be me and not you who be the first to criticise McLaren for not giving Jenson a fair deal? I mean, seriously. How can it be that you all so frequently forget that the forum's resident Jenson Button fanboy is a Jenson Button fanboy? The only reason I gave McLaren the time of day is because Jenson went there. Last year (After that preposterous Melbourne fiasco was dealt with) I was blandly disinterested in them, I mean for crissakes, I was cheering for Kimi in 2007, and Massa in 2008. I don't owe McLaren anything, and I certainly haven't any pre-existing loyalty to them. What part of this is so hard to understand?

[f1ea]

Cause it has nothing to do with whether you like Mclaren or Ferrari. And more to do with whether you choose to be oblivious to the fact that the rule as it is makes no sense and that not only Ferrari or Mclaren use team orders, but eberyone does, and they do affect the outcome of races.

The WAY the team orders were used by Ferrari was upsetting, but this way has no meaning in regards to the rule itself. So, in order to be eloquent with what the majority of team order dislikers say, the rule should read something like:

"Team orders carried out in a way that it looks unpleasant to the fans of opposing teams and media, and that may or may not affect the final outcome of the race, are prohibited".