FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[AKR]

If I were a McLaren supporter I would personally think Whitmarh is an idiot for not using team orders because as a McLaren supporter (If I were one) I would want McLaren to have the best chance to win and it would be McLaren over everyone and screw the rest. As a Ferrari supporter I welcome Whitmarsh's logic as it may just mean the difference between McLaren losing both Championships.

[f1ea]

A driver can only measure themselves against their team mate. Ofcourse not every driver can win the title but that doesnt mean they dont go out there and have that racers instict. So yes Sutil Koby and Kubica arent in with a shot for the title but atleast they can race and arent having to pull aside for a team mate half way through a season!

Petrov moved over for Lewis at Hungary pretty much halfway through the season. The Maccas slowed down from the possibility of running out of fuel.

They can manage their instincts when they have to.

[bud]

all im seeing is it seems Ferrari fans can manage their choice in whats right and wrong when they have to...

[AKR]

all im seeing is it seems Ferrari fans can manage their choice in whats right and wrong when they have to...

Actually in reality there is no right or wrong. There is only that team orders are not wrong and despite what I said about Whitmarsh, it is a load of bull (from his own mouth) because he isn't stupid and he like a normal person who wants to win will use team orders if need be. Don't kid yourselves. And if he does use them, you wont see myself or any other Ferrari fan complain about it either.

[f1ea]

all im seeing is it seems Ferrari fans can manage their choice in whats right and wrong when they have to...

Not anymore than drivers and teams can.

But you are claming letting another driver by is wrong and it goes against their instincts; and i just gave you 2 examples of a similar situation where it was not considered wrong and they sent their instincts to bed for a greater interest.

[racechick]

I think it should be done regardless, leave the drivers to manage their own fuel loads and car settings rather than having all the intensely technical stuff basically done for them by the guys in the garage!

The very fact that there is team radio, pit boards, telemetry, etc., etc., is part of why F1 is a TEAM SPORT!
If you don't like that kind of high-tech communication and intervention from outside the car, then go watch Paris - Dakar or somtin'

Ok its a TEAM SPORT. Lets go from that premis despite the fact that there is a drivers championship involved and its more prestigious than the team championship. So primarily this F1 is a TEAM sport and the coveted trophy is the TEAM one. So priority is to get TEAM points. Why cant the rule be thus:-
A)Teams may use strategy to gain and to protect maximum points for the team.
B)At no point may a team give an order that penalises a driver and gains nothing for the team.

There we go. Under this rule the Hill/R. Schumacher team order to hold station-fine. The team were already on maximum points, they proteceted them and they did not penalise a driver.
Had Ferrari issued a 'hold stations' order, that would have been ok. The team were protecting their maximum points score and the team comes first. But they didnt just do that, they manipulated the DRIVERS championship, not the TEAM one. The TEAM did not gain from this action Fernando Alonso did.

[vaptin]

I think it should be done regardless, leave the drivers to manage their own fuel loads and car settings rather than having all the intensely technical stuff basically done for them by the guys in the garage!

The very fact that there is team radio, pit boards, telemetry, etc., etc., is part of why F1 is a TEAM SPORT!
If you don't like that kind of high-tech communication and intervention from outside the car, then go watch Paris - Dakar or somtin'

Ok its a TEAM SPORT. Lets go from that premis despite the fact that there is a drivers championship involved and its more prestigious than the team championship. So primarily this F1 is a TEAM sport and the coveted trophy is the TEAM one. So priority is to get TEAM points. Why cant the rule be thus:-
A)Teams may use strategy to gain and to protect maximum points for the team.
B)At no point may a team give an order that penalises a driver and gains nothing for the team.

There we go. Under this rule the Hill/R. Schumacher team order to hold station-fine. The team were already on maximum points, they proteceted them and they did not penalise a driver.
Had Ferrari issued a 'hold stations' order, that would have been ok. The team were protecting their maximum points score and the team comes first. But they didnt just do that, they manipulated the DRIVERS championship, not the TEAM one. The TEAM did not gain from this action Fernando Alonso did.

The fundamental problem is a team gains from the drivers championship, its in their interests to try and manipulate winning that.

[racechick]

I think it should be done regardless, leave the drivers to manage their own fuel loads and car settings rather than having all the intensely technical stuff basically done for them by the guys in the garage!

The very fact that there is team radio, pit boards, telemetry, etc., etc., is part of why F1 is a TEAM SPORT!
If you don't like that kind of high-tech communication and intervention from outside the car, then go watch Paris - Dakar or somtin'

Ok its a TEAM SPORT. Lets go from that premis despite the fact that there is a drivers championship involved and its more prestigious than the team championship. So primarily this F1 is a TEAM sport and the coveted trophy is the TEAM one. So priority is to get TEAM points. Why cant the rule be thus:-
A)Teams may use strategy to gain and to protect maximum points for the team.
B)At no point may a team give an order that penalises a driver and gains nothing for the team.

There we go. Under this rule the Hill/R. Schumacher team order to hold station-fine. The team were already on maximum points, they proteceted them and they did not penalise a driver.
Had Ferrari issued a 'hold stations' order, that would have been ok. The team were protecting their maximum points score and the team comes first. But they didnt just do that, they manipulated the DRIVERS championship, not the TEAM one. The TEAM did not gain from this action Fernando Alonso did.

The fundamental problem is a team gains from the drivers championship, its in their interests to try and manipulate winning that.

But therein lies the problem . There are two championships and the driver, if he is to fight for his ,needs some protection from the team. Make the team one the priority (its not mine!) but protect the driver from unnecessary penalty and give them all a fair chance.

[scotty]

Ok its a TEAM SPORT. Lets go from that premis despite the fact that there is a drivers championship involved and its more prestigious than the team championship. So primarily this F1 is a TEAM sport and the coveted trophy is the TEAM one. So priority is to get TEAM points. Why cant the rule be thus:-
A)Teams may use strategy to gain and to protect maximum points for the team.
B)At no point may a team give an order that penalises a driver and gains nothing for the team.

There we go. Under this rule the Hill/R. Schumacher team order to hold station-fine. The team were already on maximum points, they proteceted them and they did not penalise a driver.
Had Ferrari issued a 'hold stations' order, that would have been ok. The team were protecting their maximum points score and the team comes first. But they didnt just do that, they manipulated the DRIVERS championship, not the TEAM one. The TEAM did not gain from this action Fernando Alonso did.

Instructing drivers not to race is still a team order and is still unfair on one driver, in this case the following driver who is effectively being denied any opportunity to win by his own team (in that respect exactly the same as asking someone to move over then!). You can't pick or choose which team orders are permissible and which are not, surely.

[What's Burning?]

Ok its a TEAM SPORT. Lets go from that premis despite the fact that there is a drivers championship involved and its more prestigious than the team championship. So primarily this F1 is a TEAM sport and the coveted trophy is the TEAM one. So priority is to get TEAM points. Why cant the rule be thus:-
A)Teams may use strategy to gain and to protect maximum points for the team.
B)At no point may a team give an order that penalises a driver and gains nothing for the team.

There we go. Under this rule the Hill/R. Schumacher team order to hold station-fine. The team were already on maximum points, they proteceted them and they did not penalise a driver.
Had Ferrari issued a 'hold stations' order, that would have been ok. The team were protecting their maximum points score and the team comes first. But they didnt just do that, they manipulated the DRIVERS championship, not the TEAM one. The TEAM did not gain from this action Fernando Alonso did.

Instructing drivers not to race is still a team order and is still unfair on one driver, in this case the following driver who is effectively being denied any opportunity to win by his own team (in that respect exactly the same as asking someone to move over then!). You can't pick or choose which team orders are permissible and which are not, surely.

Hmmm... I see your argument, but in my opinion it's a lot of gray and not as black and white as you put it. The driver in front is still the driver in front, so being asked to give a position (the lead) up is more egregious than being asked to hold, although both team orders.

[scotty]

Hmmm... I see your argument, but in my opinion it's a lot of gray and not as black and white as you put it. The driver in front is still the driver in front, so being asked to give a position (the lead) up is more egregious than being asked to hold, although both team orders.

I wasn't trying to make out that it was black and white, but my point is as you said, they are both forms of team order regardless of the fact that one is arguably more harsh than the other. Why tolerate one and not the other, when it is team orders that are banned, not simply 'moving over to let your team mate win'.

[Bubbie]

It's Ferrari's preposterous legal defense (We didn't do it, except we did, but so did everyone else, except they didn't, so it's okay)

Don't misrepresent Ferrari's defense. Firstly, read it so you know what you are talking about. I have already posted the link, but here is its again http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressreleases/wmsc/2010/Documents/08092010a-wmsc-decision.pdf
To correct your misrepresentation to summarize Ferrari's defense was as follows:-
1) No mandatory order was given
2) Information was provided to Felipe
3) Felipe made a personal (not team decision) to allow Fernando to pass
Ferrari made another submission to the hearing in that the penalty applied by the stewards was not equitable in that Team Orders had previously been given and the perpetrators received no penalty. Here Ferrari provided the examples of Germany 08 and Turkey 10.

So let me get you on record with this. It is your belief (I am assuming based on your using the Ferrari defense given to the WMSC to support your position) that Felipe made his own decision to move aside and let Fernando through?

If so, please explain the following...

1) The arguments that were reported to have happened in the pits (as per the BBC telecast as it happened) shortly before the "you... are... slower" transmission.
2) The apology from the race engineer to the racer and telling him he is a good lad immediately following the pass in question.
3) The clear lack of enthusiasm from Felipe following a 1-2 victory for the team.

If you cannot explain these items, then obviously Ferrari is also guilty of lying to the stewards and the World Motor Sports Council.

Also, although Ferrari gave examples of where THEY FELT team orders had been used (including Turkey 2010 / Germany 2008) in the brief I read the WMSC did not judge on each of their examples as having been (or not been) team orders, so please refrain from putting forth the assertion that the WMSC said that was or was not team orders for those races.

Like I said, I support the decision of the WMSC to get us back to racing as the focus, instead of a long drawn out legal battle. But please do not try to rewrite history.

[vaptin]

I'm pretty sure I heard/read something about the WMSC accepting that team orders have been used in the past without punishment.

Second of all, the WMSC can't convict Ferrari, it's too dodgy from a legal perspective (Jean Todt's comments after the race were to that effect), all they can do is uphold the stewards decision as Ferrari aren't bothered about challenging that legally (or the rules are different for Stewards judgements).

[racechick]

Ok its a TEAM SPORT. Lets go from that premis despite the fact that there is a drivers championship involved and its more prestigious than the team championship. So primarily this F1 is a TEAM sport and the coveted trophy is the TEAM one. So priority is to get TEAM points. Why cant the rule be thus:-
A)Teams may use strategy to gain and to protect maximum points for the team.
B)At no point may a team give an order that penalises a driver and gains nothing for the team.

There we go. Under this rule the Hill/R. Schumacher team order to hold station-fine. The team were already on maximum points, they proteceted them and they did not penalise a driver.
Had Ferrari issued a 'hold stations' order, that would have been ok. The team were protecting their maximum points score and the team comes first. But they didnt just do that, they manipulated the DRIVERS championship, not the TEAM one. The TEAM did not gain from this action Fernando Alonso did.

Instructing drivers not to race is still a team order and is still unfair on one driver, in this case the following driver who is effectively being denied any opportunity to win by his own team (in that respect exactly the same as asking someone to move over then!). You can't pick or choose which team orders are permissible and which are not, surely.

I dont think it is the same because at the outset of the race each driver has the same opportunity and only when optimum position has been achieved and dangerous situations(pitstops) passed are the 'hold' orders issued to protect the teams position. Up to that time each driver has every opportunity to race. To make it even fairer these 'hold' orders could be issued only after the race is three quarters through. Up till then the fight is on.

[scotty]

I didn't say the scenario was the same (only the being denied victory part is), but that it was still an unfair situation. Drivers should have the opportunity to race throughout. If the guy in front is quicker near the end of the race then he should have no problems anyway. If he is slower then that is his problem, we should not be denied potential action because teams want a nice formation finish. I find that mentality utterly infuriating as a fan. Look at Turkey, where the drivers were (albeit mistakenly) put in a position whereby they could actually have a go at each other! How exciting was that?!