FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[Robert12010]

i think that the teams consider the constructors championship as equally important, but us fans are more worried about the drivers championship, which is fair enough really

[vaptin]

It's still glorious to win one with team orders than without.

Now team orders are legalised (I try to insist on this to stop us repeating the past discussions) why shouldn't a team use them? It's a strategic decision undertaken by the team., that is intended to effect only themselves, a team should have the right to tell its drivers what to do.

[vaptin]

It's still glorious to win one with team orders than without.

Now team orders are legalised (I try to insist on this to stop us repeating the past discussions) why shouldn't a team use them? It's a strategic decision undertaken by the team., that is intended to effect only themselves, a team should have the right to tell its drivers what to do.

i think that the teams consider the constructors championship as equally important, but us fans are more worried about the drivers championship, which is fair enough really

Full agreement, not sure about fair enough but I agree with your assessment of the value placed on them.

[Robert12010]

well they are legal to use now, but is it not morally incorrect, i think that the mclaren boys saying that they would rather not win a championship through team orders is magmanimous, but if the situation arose i wonder what would happen then

[zurich_allan]

I have to say, I'm pretty torn on this topic as I can sympathise with both sides of the argument. What I'd like to add as a possible contribution is that it can be very difficult to truly stamp out team orders even if they are illegal at any given time. Sure, blatant issues such as coded messages and pulling over abnormally to allow a team mate to pass is out of order in my opinion, but then how far does it go down the line before it's ok?

What about when Senna went to Lotus in '85 and strategically through the season manipulated the team in all areas, eventually demotivating and breaking De Angelis? Or in '86 when he, now established vetoed Warwick as his team mate and openly ensured that all developments went to him, with very little to nothing going to Dumfries? Is that team orders? Or is that ensuring that with tight resources there is a focus to maximise potential success?

If you'd say it's not team orders, then would it then be ok now for say HRT, Virgin or even Williams to do the same under the same pretence? And in which case, are team orders only allowed if you don't have a large budget, but banned for those that have worked hard and wise through the years to give themselves a financial advantage over their competitors?

My view is that in a perfect world we wouldn't have team orders. But that would be a world of unlimited finance, equal team resources, yet still different levels and identities of teams. That would also be a world where everybody is equally (in a positive way) as honest as each other and never seeking a competitive advantage through even the mildest of 'bending' of the rules.

The thing is, we don't live in this perfect world - we never have, and we never will. Team orders have always existed on some level or another, and all of them (blatant or otherwise) have some bearing on the WDC, whether in a one off situation or behind closed doors over the course of the season. These orders will always continue to exist no matter what anybody ever tries to do, so better that it's out in the open and able to be regulated rather than behind closed doord or underground.

I suppose how I'd conclude would be to say - ok, allow them - because there is no other option, but set some strong regulations simply to avoid the intelligence of the viewer from being insulted as it unquestionably was in the Ferrari situation this year.

[killem2]

Until I started watching f1, I always thought that teams had two drivers not because they both get a chance at the title, but rather I was thinking it was more like a tag team match up where the they would work together to keep the rest of the field away. I was shocked with my first f1 season when I found out that team drivers compete with each other. Its the american in me going


Bwah? derka derka what you say willis?

[F1er]

Ok! Team Orders are allowed

Now hypothetically.............................race 1 of f1 season...........Webber is leading but RBR feel that Seb is the best fit for WDC and tell Web to let him by........race 2 Button 1st but Macca tells him Lewis needs a free pass........during the same race Massa is told that Alonso is waving his fist again so he needs to pass..................10 laps later Ross tells Rosberg that it's best for the team that Michael is ahead....................... and so forth

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ALL LEGAL^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The pinnacle of racing decided by men with headsets

[vaptin]

Your being foolish with that post, and it took great restraint for me to stop there.

It's quite self policing, fans and sponsors won't stand for constant swapping around of drivers (and didn't with Schumacher Austria), they will when its clear and necessary(Massa Kimi 08), Alonso- Massa Germany 10 was somewhere in between.

At anyrate, there are still plenty of other teams out there for the driver to race.

Pitwall calls are made all the time.

I think the expected top 4 teams have all said they'll initially give their drivers equal treatment.

[F1er]

But my foolish post is all Legal though,which is my point!!!

So it's ok if it's done here and there but not ok if all do it in the same race??? hmmmmmmm

[vaptin]

But my foolish post is all Legal though,which is my point!!!

So it's ok if it's done here and there but not ok if all do it in the same race??? hmmmmmmm

Call it comprise, its better than the complete ban, I did quite like the pre 02 wording though "only when justified in terms of the championship" or something.

It's perfectly legal, for one team to get 1-2 qualis and race results for everyrace of the season, another to get 2-3 in quali and the race. . . wouldn't stop me being bored.

Maybe a better example is its legal for a team to replace its race drivers mid season, when Pedro de la Rosa gets replaced by Heidfeld no one really minds, but when Chandock is replaced by Yammonoto we're not happy.

[racechick]

Your being foolish with that post, and it took great restraint for me to stop there.

It's quite self policing, fans and sponsors won't stand for constant swapping around of drivers (and didn't with Schumacher Austria), they will when its clear and necessary(Massa Kimi 08), Alonso- Massa Germany 10 was somewhere in between.

At anyrate, there are still plenty of other teams out there for the driver to race.

Pitwall calls are made all the time.

I think the expected top 4 teams have all said they'll initially give their drivers equal treatment.

I dont think that post foolish at all. That could easily happen if all teams took the same stance as Ferrari.

The top four teams have said they'll 'initially' give their drivers equal treatment have they? And what does 'initially' mean? Until Alonso starts waving his arms about in the first race? If they're prepared to give equal treatment why the fuss to reinstate team orders, the banning of which guaranteed (well should have!!) exactly that.

[What's Burning?]

groan.... the first time it's used this year in a controversial situation.

[spankyham]

Your being foolish with that post, and it took great restraint for me to stop there.

It's quite self policing, fans and sponsors won't stand for constant swapping around of drivers (and didn't with Schumacher Austria), they will when its clear and necessary(Massa Kimi 08), Alonso- Massa Germany 10 was somewhere in between.

At anyrate, there are still plenty of other teams out there for the driver to race.

Pitwall calls are made all the time.

I think the expected top 4 teams have all said they'll initially give their drivers equal treatment.

I dont think that post foolish at all. That could easily happen if all teams took the same stance as Ferrari.

The top four teams have said they'll 'initially' give their drivers equal treatment have they? And what does 'initially' mean? Until Alonso starts waving his arms about in the first race? If they're prepared to give equal treatment why the fuss to reinstate team orders, the banning of which guaranteed (well should have!!) exactly that.

I agree with Vaptin. It's not going to happen simply to let a driver past. The reason it won't happen is because that would not be in a teams interest.

It's a pity you can't see the other side to this discussion.

[racechick]

Your being foolish with that post, and it took great restraint for me to stop there.

It's quite self policing, fans and sponsors won't stand for constant swapping around of drivers (and didn't with Schumacher Austria), they will when its clear and necessary(Massa Kimi 08), Alonso- Massa Germany 10 was somewhere in between.

At anyrate, there are still plenty of other teams out there for the driver to race.

Pitwall calls are made all the time.

I think the expected top 4 teams have all said they'll initially give their drivers equal treatment.

I dont think that post foolish at all. That could easily happen if all teams took the same stance as Ferrari.

The top four teams have said they'll 'initially' give their drivers equal treatment have they? And what does 'initially' mean? Until Alonso starts waving his arms about in the first race? If they're prepared to give equal treatment why the fuss to reinstate team orders, the banning of which guaranteed (well should have!!) exactly that.

I agree with Vaptin. It's not going to happen simply to let a driver past. The reason it won't happen is because that would not be in a teams interest.

It's a pity you can't see the other side to this discussion.

Its' something i feel really strongly about. But I can see your point of view. The fact that you believe one driver can be selected as the prime racer for that team and everyone has to help that driver. I can see it but i dont like it or think its fair.
Why isnt it going to be in a teams interest? It happened last year when it was banned so why should it not happen this year when its legal?

[What's Burning?]

I've always maintained that I have no preference for what the rule is as long as it's consistent and enforced in the same fashion. I think there is not just a generational divide as Spanky points out but a more complex cultural divide and it's clear to each individual fan which side they fall on. So it either feels right or it doesn't feel right. Thankfully we've got teams to choose on both sides of the given fence, even thought there's a lot of shades of gray between the black and white.

I think each team know when to employ and order and when it would be pointless... there is a certain amount of backwash that all teams will be held accountable by the fans if it's frivolously used and yet we all know the yardstick used in June is going to be different than the one we use in October.