FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[racechick]

The accusations of #1 and #2 drivers usually start with sour grapes from the #2 driver's fans. I believe every team gives their drivers equal chances, but when it's become clear over time that one driver is simply faster than the other, it only makes sense to give them the edge in certain situations. Although it is often also blown out of proportions, whether it's alleged team favoritism in pit stops with McLaren when it's a simple matter of who's in front, or switching front wings that one driver wasn't even happy with.

Not such a simple matter. McLaren kept forgetting the "driver in front" rule last weekend.

Ferrari have frequently and blatantly used one driver to help another even when the second driver could still win-decisions made early in the season.

Not just the wing issue with red bull, the treatment of the two drivers when they wanted them to switch places and Seb hit Webber.

Anyway, its legal now to not only give preference, but team orders to drivers. So we just have to put up with it.

You want to have a word with some of the numbertwo drivers about 'equal chances',I bet Barrichello could write you a book.

[vaptin]

Fundamentally though, Ruben's wasn't able to convince or negotiate better terms with Ferrari and it's not like their system didn't work out well.

Damn 3 week gap, what shall we talk about in the summer break?

[spankyham]

Having watched F1 since the 60's and read a little history, I find the Ferrari/Team-Orders thing interesting enough to always bring a smile to my face.

Historically, team orders was practiced in an extremely heavy-handed way by most teams. A simple example would be that the great Fangio won one of his WDC because the team took their other driver out of his car and let Fangio finish the race in his team-mates car. The points he gained were enough to gain him a WDC that year. That wasn't an isolated incident.

Around that era, Il Commendatore received constant and heavy criticism because Ferrari refused to name a #1 and #2 driver. In fact, some people ascribed (albeit partially and in an indirect way) the deaths of some great Ferrari drivers because of his refusal to name a #1 and #2. The claim was that he wanted his drivers to compete all the time and this pushed even the best of them over and beyond the limit. Ascari's death during an unnecessary practice session at Monza (a few days after a serious crash at Monaco) some put down to him feeling the pressure to prove himself faster than one of the test drivers testing a new model. He even went out without his blue helmet which was a great surprise because Ascari was known to be very superstitious about that head gear.

[mnmracer]

The accusations of #1 and #2 drivers usually start with sour grapes from the #2 driver's fans. I believe every team gives their drivers equal chances, but when it's become clear over time that one driver is simply faster than the other, it only makes sense to give them the edge in certain situations. Although it is often also blown out of proportions, whether it's alleged team favoritism in pit stops with McLaren when it's a simple matter of who's in front, or switching front wings that one driver wasn't even happy with.

Not such a simple matter. McLaren kept forgetting the "driver in front" rule last weekend.

Ferrari have frequently and blatantly used one driver to help another even when the second driver could still win-decisions made early in the season.

Not just the wing issue with red bull, the treatment of the two drivers when they wanted them to switch places and Seb hit Webber.

Anyway, its legal now to not only give preference, but team orders to drivers. So we just have to put up with it.

You want to have a word with some of the numbertwo drivers about 'equal chances',I bet Barrichello could write you a book.

Driver in front gets first choice. I didn't see any indication that Hamilton wanted to come in but was denied because Button was pitted first. If I'm wrong, do please tell me.

The case you're making about 'early in the season', depends on how you look at things. I believe that if one driver has shown to be the clear faster driver in a dozen races already (Schumacher/Barichello, Vettel/Webber, Alonso/Massa) it would be kind of silly to just reset it at the beginning of the season, assuming that "this will be the year". With drivers as close to eachother as Button and Hamilton, sure, look at the current situation, but when Vettel outqualified Webber 43:12 and outraced Webber 31:13 and Alonso outqualified Massa 30:8 and outraced Massa 26:6, it is safe for a team to assume that the other's not suddenly going to trump the faster driver.

[racechick]

Webber was outraced and outqualified last year, but not the year before, he was in with a shot at the title that year right up to the end, and that was the year where the favouritism was evident. They were easily as close as Button and Hamilton that year (and Hamilton usually otqualifies Button)

Hamilton wasnt given the information Button was to make the calls, but Dont start me on McLaren's current state ...its been discussed elsewhere.

Massa at the moment can expect nothin more than second picks at the strategies,new parts, etc etc. But it wasnt always like that. Perhaps asigning him too early to the role of 2nd driver contributed(amongst other things) to his current demise.

I think favouring one driver is/has been a lot more prevelant than I thought. I dont like it. But I guess it depends whether you're primarily a driver supporter or a team supporter.

[bud]

Racechick in wet races and changeable conditions drivers can choose to come in when they like!

Can you at least leave the conspiracy theories to the derailed Lewis thread. In which the title should be changed to Lewis Loonies club.

[andrew]

The accusations of #1 and #2 drivers usually start with sour grapes from the #2 driver's fans. I believe every team gives their drivers equal chances, but when it's become clear over time that one driver is simply faster than the other, it only makes sense to give them the edge in certain situations. Although it is often also blown out of proportions, whether it's alleged team favoritism in pit stops with McLaren when it's a simple matter of who's in front, or switching front wings that one driver wasn't even happy with.

Not such a simple matter. McLaren kept forgetting the "driver in front" rule last weekend.

Ferrari have frequently and blatantly used one driver to help another even when the second driver could still win-decisions made early in the season.

Not just the wing issue with red bull, the treatment of the two drivers when they wanted them to switch places and Seb hit Webber.

Anyway, its legal now to not only give preference, but team orders to drivers. So we just have to put up with it.

You want to have a word with some of the numbertwo drivers about 'equal chances',I bet Barrichello could write you a book.

So what, it's a team sport.

[mnmracer]

Webber was outraced and outqualified last year, but not the year before, he was in with a shot at the title that year right up to the end, and that was the year where the favouritism was evident. They were easily as close as Button and Hamilton that year (and Hamilton usually otqualifies Button)

Hamilton wasnt given the information Button was to make the calls, but Dont start me on McLaren's current state ...its been discussed elsewhere.

Massa at the moment can expect nothin more than second picks at the strategies,new parts, etc etc. But it wasnt always like that. Perhaps asigning him too early to the role of 2nd driver contributed(amongst other things) to his current demise.

I think favouring one driver is/has been a lot more prevelant than I thought. I dont like it. But I guess it depends whether you're primarily a driver supporter or a team supporter.

From the very beginning in 2009, Vettel was outqualifying and outracing Webber. Webber was closer in qualifying in 2010, but the race results there are greatly distorted by mechanical faillures. If not for that, Vettel would have ended the season 70 points ahead of Webber. Nothing against Webber, but he simply can't hold his own to Vettel, from the moment they became team mates.

Anyway, there's a thing between liking and understanding. Do I like when a team favores one driver? No. Do I understand it and thus accept it as their right in an effort to achieve the best? Yes.

[What's Burning?]

No problem with orders either way, as long as it's within the rules. The problem with Germany wasn't that it happened since we all know it does. But that it was blatant, in your face, and legally against the rules at the time.

There's also a difference between a team having a numero uno and a numero dos driver, and letting those drivers race amongst themselves for position.

[LewEngBridewell]

No problem with orders either way, as long as it's within the rules. The problem with Germany wasn't that it happened since we all know it does. But that it was blatant, in your face, and legally against the rules at the time.

Even more problematic was the way that the Scuderia tried to DENY that it has happened. I don't know who they thought we are, but the fans aren't that stupid.

The whole thing was a mess, and it really needn't have been.

[andrew]

Ferrari in Germany was just as blatant as Coulthard pulling over for Hakinnen in the 1998 Australian GP. It's gone on for years and is as much a part of the sport as teams moaning about and trying to ban the fancy toys that someone else thought of.

[racechick]

Racechick in wet races and changeable conditions drivers can choose to come in when they like!

Can you at least leave the conspiracy theories to the derailed Lewis thread. In which the title should be changed to Lewis Loonies club.

Conspiracy? You think so? I wouldnt say so. But yes lets leave it to the lewis thread, which was what I just suggested

Ferrari in Germany was just as blatant as Coulthard pulling over for Hakinnen in the 1998 Australian GP. It's gone on for years and is as much a part of the sport as teams moaning about and trying to ban the fancy toys that someone else thought of.

I have to agree with you about it having gone on for years, with varying degrees of blatentness. Doesnt mean I have to like it though, and whilst I can see it suits a team, there is also a large element of individual competition in F1. And the biggest prize is still the drivers championship.

[What's Burning?]

Hey didn't Lewis win China last year?

[racechick]

Hey didn't Lewis win China last year?

Yes In a spectacular overtaking fashion, to become the first driver to win that GP twice. He should have won in 07 but for being left out too long on worn tyres and he did win in 08 with a masterful race from the front. In 09 he didnt have the car but still made it to 6th. 2010 he was 2nd and bearing down on Button after some more amazing overtakes to get back in position after loosing places with pitstops and tyres.
So yes, he goes well here, but who knows what fate has in store.

[Hammer278]

Team orders are prevalent when it comes to achieving ultimate results within a team. What confuses Ferr...people is the spirit of racing where each and every driver on the grid is free to race each other. Ferrari is a team which employs drivers based on no.1 and no.2....when have you seen two great drivers in Ferrari together? I've started watching only from 1998 though but never have I seen this.

By 'great' I mean drivers who were at their top of the game in the previous season and brought into 1 team to compete against each other as well as the rest of the field.

McLaren as an example have had:

Senna - Prost
Kimi - JPM
Ham - Button

As for Ferrari, their strongest drivers Michael, Kimi and Alonso have never had a worthwhile teammate. Except that 1 year in 2007 where Kimi fell asleep and Massa showed unexpected pace.

Don't say, oh, I just started watching F1 in 1998 and have never seen, blah blah blah - but then you list Senna and Prost, thereby opening up the past beyond 1998. You go back further and you'll find all kinds of competitive pairings at Ferrari (see scotty's post, e.g.).

Ooh you caught me.

It wasn't deliberate though. The pairing was considered larger than life in F1, thus I accidentally included it. Which serves as an example by itself, as I've never heard of any legendary pairings in Ferrari.

You're having to go back to before the modern era to claw out a couple of pairings....which helps my point actually.