FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[McLaren Fan]

The Mclaren camp, I hope you recognize how I always say 'camp' and not 'lambs', is alway's defending the notion that they have NO team order's but now you seem to be justifying it's merit's strictly for the benefit of your team? I'm confused by your mentality regarding this subject but I will keep an open mind if offered a reasonable explanation.

Oh, for f*** sake.

McLaren has not team orders at the start of the season and does not use team orders unless: a) both drivers are messing up one another's strategy at certain parts of the race and b) one driver is not in the title hunt any longer. That is not the same thing that Michael Schumacher and Ferrari did from 1996 to 2006.

[McLaren Fan]

I should also mention the aftermath of the 1999 Belgian Grand Prix. Hakkinen was outclassed by Coulthard in the race and McLaren did not order Coulthard to let Hakkinen win, despite it making Hakkinen's title bid more tricky than it needed to be, something about which he was not too chuffed. After the Grand Prix, all the clowns on the day were declaring that McLaren should have used team orders, it was the only sensible thing to do etc. McLaren are damned if they and damned if they don't.

[Mikep99]

"damned if they and damned if they don't."

I have heard that one before.



Swordfish

[McLaren Fan]

"damned if they and damned if they don't."

I have heard that one before.



Swordfish

[Mikep99]

"damned if they and damned if they don't."

I have heard that one before.



Swordfish

[bud]

i wouldnt worry McLaren fan its obvious what you and i have been saying for god knows how long is too hard for Ferrari lambs to fathom, they just dont get the difference between the Schumi era and say the Kimi Felipe era in regard to team orders.

[Denthúl]

To solve yet another silly conflict, team orders should be a no regardless of circumstances.

[McLaren Fan]

To solve yet another silly conflict, team orders should be a no regardless of circumstances.

Not having team orders is wrong because they have been a part of Grand Prix racing since the beginning and laws against them would well nigh impossible to police. Ferrari and Schumacher continued to use team orders after they were banned, for instance.

[cap-dude]

Massa has become more consistent but i'm going to go out on a limb and say this car suits him way more than it does Raikkonen - a (deserving) world champion doesn't suddenly become crap in the space of a year.

So does Massa's form make him deserve to win the title? Questionably. Any driver truly worthy of being champion should be able to win at least one 'epic' race in their time - something Massa is yet to do, and something i can't really see him doing. Has he even won having not started on the front row?

I think he did. But don't underestimate his ability to get the pole...that's one of his best skills.

He's won a race or two whilst not being on pole position. Stunning stuff. In terms of how he achieves his pole positions, he just runs lighter than most people, so pole position is not an indicator of how fast you are any more.

True, but not always. Massa ran a lap heavier at Bahrain and Spa. Both times he beat Kimi by about 4 tenths. Thats a lot when you think about it.
He also ran a lap or two heavier at Monaco, again, his qualifying pace is no doubt brilliant. Personally, I think Ferrari are just right to fuel him lighter. It would pretty much be waste to fuel Kimi lighter if he can't take pole. No offensive to Kimi.

Really, either Kimi's race pace is at standard that no F1 driver today can compare with, or Massa's race pace is his weak point. Really I think its a mix between the two. But still, he's shown great pace from the back, australia, silverstone 2007 anyone. Also, Canada 2008 as well.

Really, every driver has their strong points, as well as their weak points. Its how you take advantage of them that counts.

[Denthúl]

To solve yet another silly conflict, team orders should be a no regardless of circumstances.

Not having team orders is wrong because they have been a part of Grand Prix racing since the beginning and laws against them would well nigh impossible to police. Ferrari and Schumacher continued to use team orders after they were banned, for instance.

All or nothing, in my own opinion. Teams and drivers picking and choosing when they are acceptable and when they are not is wrong, because there's so much scope for rule-bending.

Personally, I think that if the guy can't pass his team-mate on merit, and as a result of which not be able to take the title, then he obviously didn't do enough in the first place. Personally, I always wondered if Schumacher would even have come close to Hakkinen in 1998 if Irvine hadn't been told to shift out of the way, and if perhaps Mika would have successfully defended his title in 2000 if Rubens hadn't been brough in to play exactly the same game.

I was quite miffed that they had to exchange Massa and Kimi's pit stops in order for Kimi to take his title. I felt he should've passed him on his own merit or not at all.

[7UpJordan]

To be honest I think team orders are ok, not the "Eddie/Rubens get out of Michael's way and surrender your win/podium" molarchy we had in the Schumi era. It's ok if the team-mate is massively slower and is holding up his team-mate like at Valencia where Fisi was holding up Sutil and Sutil came on the radio yelling at Mike Gascoyne. I remember Brundle in one of his commentaries last year some time saying that this was some kind of trick Bellof used to play on him during their time at Tyrrell together.

[McLaren Fan]

To solve yet another silly conflict, team orders should be a no regardless of circumstances.

Not having team orders is wrong because they have been a part of Grand Prix racing since the beginning and laws against them would well nigh impossible to police. Ferrari and Schumacher continued to use team orders after they were banned, for instance.

All or nothing, in my own opinion. Teams and drivers picking and choosing when they are acceptable and when they are not is wrong, because there's so much scope for rule-bending.

Personally, I think that if the guy can't pass his team-mate on merit, and as a result of which not be able to take the title, then he obviously didn't do enough in the first place. Personally, I always wondered if Schumacher would even have come close to Hakkinen in 1998 if Irvine hadn't been told to shift out of the way, and if perhaps Mika would have successfully defended his title in 2000 if Rubens hadn't been brough in to play exactly the same game.

I was quite miffed that they had to exchange Massa and Kimi's pit stops in order for Kimi to take his title. I felt he should've passed him on his own merit or not at all.

I agree with most of that, but, again, it's impossible to police team orders, so they as may as well be fully legalised. Teams don't even have to use team orders anyway to sort a lot of situations out. They could just call whichever driver they need out of the way into the pits, ostensibly claiming the fuel rig was faulty, so the car had insufficient fuel to finish the race.

For me, team orders represent another one of Formula One's many contradictions. On one hand, the world's finest drivers are meant to battle things out for the title, and, on the other hand, Formula One is meant to be a team sport, so team work is can be legitimately used in order to win titles.

My own view on team orders is that they should be used as a last resort, as it were. Both of a team's drivers should be allowed to compete for the title from the start. When one drops out of contention, he should then support his teammate's title aspirations.

[texasmr2]

[Denthúl]

But then, if a guy is winning a race and his opponent in third, with his opponent's team-mate in second, it's a little unfair that he's raced his arse off all Sunday afternoon to take the title only for the guy in third, who did not stand a chance of passing his team-mate on merit, to be allowed the quick ride through to take the title, isn't it?

People always seem to make the point that others didn't really deserve the win because the guy in front dropped out with mechanical issues (Massa at Hungary, for example) or because they had a slow pit stop (I know people don't actually say "so and so didn't deserve that win because the other guy had problems" but they do say things like "he only won because suchabody dropped out" which is practically the same, in my view) but never do they bring up the fact that a guy may have been told to move over to aid a guy who, otherwise, had no chance of winning. :/

[McLaren Fan]

There's no perfect solution. Formula One is both a team sport and a driver's sport, so, for as long as this paradoxical situation remains, this debate will never end.