Questionable move ? Not for me. If Ferrari want to start 5 places behind their Q result, to have an advantage on the race it's their problem and it's not questionable.
Of course it is, by the very fact that many people questioned it. That doesn´t necessarily mean it was "wrong" though.
I already said yesterday: I have no problem, that they disadvantaged Massa to help Fernando at this stage of the season. I have rather a problem with the side effects of the decision, as it did also directly influence drivers of other teams, who had to switch from the clean to the dirty side because of that and couldn´t do anything about that.
I was actually praising Alonso there, and I think Ferrari did the right thing. Just don't think other teams would do it because of the mentioned reasons.
You were praising him in a kind of backhanded way, but ok, maybe you weren't 'hating'. But plenty of others are and your comments fall in line with much of those who are doing that by suggesting that Alonso asked for this himself, that Massa is just some pawn, and implying that pushing the rules to the limit is something that only certain teams do. Not sure any of that was fair, so excuse me for getting the wrong impression.
No other team in that era switched drivers without one being out of the WDC or there being an "in-race" tactical reason to do so.
Oh, please! Let's be serious here, shall we?
In 2010 Massa was effectively out of the WDC, even if numerically you could still put him there by making assumptions of which the likelihood was close to zero. You are very welcome to think that at the beginning of the season HRT had chances to win the WDC or WCC; I am afraid that you will be part of a very tiny group of people, and that even less people would be willing to bet anything on that happening. And let's remember that teams do bet money, and a lot of it, on their drivers being able to win a title.
In 2008, McLaren switched Hamilton and Kovalainen in exactly the same way Ferrari did in 2010. The major difference was that Smedley made it clear he was unhappy about it, while as Dennis put it McLaren had the "joy to have two drivers who are not only super-competitive but also super-cooperative". Now don't give me the line that they did so because Hamilton could overtake other cars apart from his teammate - they would have done the same had Kovalainen been the only car to be overtaken, because Hamilton was fighting Massa for the WDC. And rightly so, in my view.
And finally, let me remind you of the reaction McLaren got when they switched Coulthard and Hakkinen in the 1998 Australian GP - first race of the season -, and the veredict of the World Motorsport Council: "any future act prejudicial to the interests of competition should be severely punished in accordance with article 151c of International Sporting Code."
So yes, some other teams have done the same as Ferrari. Nobody can hold the higher moral ground, even if some pretend to do so.
Edit: typos
Edited by Fontainebleau, 19 November 2012 - 15:27.
Of course it is, by the very fact that many people questioned it. That doesn´t necessarily mean it was "wrong" though.
I already said yesterday: I have no problem, that they disadvantaged Massa to help Fernando at this stage of the season. I have rather a problem with the side effects of the decision, as it did also directly influence drivers of other teams, who had to switch from the clean to the dirty side because of that and couldn´t do anything about that.
You are right. I was too focused on Ferrari. It's true that it's harsh for others driver who were on the right side. Like MW said, if i was one of them, i would be pissed of. I even think if Ferrari were a victim, they would have be very vocal about this. But this sport his like that, a team have to watch their own interest, they don't have to care about others teams.
I'm sure Domenicali regrets the agreement that he sign at Silverstone last year...
In 2010 Massa was effectively out of the WDC, even if numerically you could still put him there by making assumptions of which the likelihood was close to zero. You are very welcome to think that at the beginning of the season HRT had chances to win the WDC or WCC; I am afraid that you will be part of a very tiny group of people, and that even less people would be willing to bet anything on that happening. And let's remember that teams do bet money, and a lot of it, on their drivers being able to win a title.
In 2008, McLaren switched Hamilton and Kovalainen in exactly the same way Ferrari did in 2010. The major difference was that Smedley made it clear he was unhappy about it, while as Dennis put it McLaren had the "joy to have two drivers who are not only super-competitive but also super-cooperative". Now don't give me the line that they did so because Hamilton could overtake other cars apart from his teammate - they would have done the same had Kovalainen been the only car to be overtaken, because Hamilton was fighting Massa for the WDC. And rightly so, in my view.
And finally, let me remind you of the reaction McLaren got when they switched Coulthard and Hakkinen in the 1998 Australian GP - first race of the season -, and the veredict of the World Motorsport Council: "any future act prejudicial to the interests of competition should be severely punished in accordance with article 151c of International Sporting Code."
So yes, some other teams have done the same as Ferrari. Nobody can hold the higher moral ground, even if some pretend to do so.
Edit: typos
Hamilton was some 2 secs per lap quicker. Given the nature of Hockenhiem - surely it wasn't a case of if, but when?
The Massa "gearbox change" can be justified because Massa is well out of WDC contention. I do not believe Alonso would ask for something similar from a teammate who spent the season on comparable points.
Sounds like Whitmarsh (who I have a lot of time for) is just having a little fun stirring things up a bit.
Of course, DC has made clear that it was not always an equal driver policy at McLaren, so it always amazes me how many people fall for the myth of absolute McLaren parity.
Here's an article for those who are under the impression McLaren would never stoop to team orders from none other than AtlasF1.... http://www.atlasf1.c...iew/tytler.html
" Ron Dennis's management of McLaren in 1997 and 1998 is very similar to Chapman's. Jerez 1997, David Coulthard was ordered to move over to let Mika Hakkinen have his first Grand Prix victory. Over the winter, McLaren designed and constructed the MP4-13, a supreme F1 car. Melbourne, 1998, Coulthard was again asked to move over to allow Hakkinen to win, after a mistake in the pits lost time for Hakkinen. It was later disclosed that there was a "gentleman's agreement" for the first man through the first corner to win, who was, of course, Hakkinen. The same agreement was to be held at Interlagos, where, once again, Hakkinen was the first through corner one.
David Coulthard was allowed to win at Imola, while Mika Hakkinen retired. At Magny-Cours, Coulthard was the pit-lane victim when the refueling rig failed. At the A-1 Ring, Coulthard came up from last to second, setting fastest lap. However, McLaren did not ask Hakkinen to slow down and move over to let Coulthard past to make up for the refueling fiasco at Magny-Cours. At Hockenheim, Coulthard stayed behind Hakkinen's obviously sick McLaren after again setting fastest lap. Mika Hakkinen seemed to be a bit embarrassed at the press conference.
There have been five McLaren 1-2 victories in 1998 and each time Hakkinen has been ahead of Coulthard. Of Mika Hakkinen's seven GP wins, four have been facilitated by David Coulthard. "
In 2010 Massa was effectively out of the WDC, even if numerically you could still put him there
I agree. That's still different to other examples of switches in the "team orders banned" era.
In 2008, McLaren switched Hamilton and Kovalainen in exactly the same way Ferrari did in 2010.
No - there was a big difference: there were positions ahead for Hamilton to chase down and he had the pace to do so. McLaren's switch gained the team points, Ferrari's didn't.
And finally, let me remind you of the reaction McLaren got when they switched Coulthard and Hakkinen in the 1998 Australian GP - first race of the season
When team orders were not banned.
Other teams have played the team orders game, no doubt. I have consistently said this is the case.
I maintain the position that Ferrari have done this to a greater extreme, with Schumacher and now with Alonso, than any other team. I think that's pretty obvious. I don't see a problem with it, in either era. Just because some (mistakenly, IMO - F1 is, and always has been, a team game) have a problem with it is no reason to deny what has, IMO, fairly obviously happened.
Hamilton was some 2 secs per lap quicker. Given the nature of Hockenhiem - surely it wasn't a case of if, but when?
Absolutely agreed. But the fact is that Kovalainen did to Hamilton pretty much what Vergne did to Vettel in Abu Dhabi, ie, he let his teammate by without fighting the position because it would have been stupid to risk a crash and the team needed Hamilton to get the points more than they needed Kovalainen to. Which is exactly what Ferrari felt and did.
I thought McLaren's move absolutely logical and valid, and the same goes for Ferrari. I think that only "anti-"s would criticise the teams for what they did, but I think it is absurd for either "pro-"s or one of the teams to pretend that they stand the higher moral ground here.
Well, McLaren would never put their second driver on inferior strategies 9 out of 10 times for two years, or make him move over for their no.1 whenever the need arises. So clearly from this position of moral superiority Whitmarsh is perfectly entitled to that statement.
Right?
Apples and oranges.
Whitmarsh is talking about deliberately damaging one of their racecars (Massa's gearbox) or shortfueling a competitive teammate (Hamilton, Hungary 2007).
You were praising him in a kind of backhanded way, but ok, maybe you weren't 'hating'. But plenty of others are and your comments fall in line with much of those who are doing that by suggesting that Alonso asked for this himself, that Massa is just some pawn, and implying that pushing the rules to the limit is something that only certain teams do. Not sure any of that was fair, so excuse me for getting the wrong impression.
Well, surprise surprise indeed. Or not really. Seems Ferrari and Fernando are a perfect match. I know Fernandos followers will argue that they dont see any problem with it. But it only once again highlights the shady nature of Alonso. One thing is to win on merit. Another thing is to completely use and extrapolate your teammate to an inch of his dignity and then shrug your shoulders afterwards. And use the rules to gain what I think is an unfair advantage. What about those people that were on the clean side and suddenly found themselves on the dirty side.
To me, that is not sporting, nor deserving, nor honorful or commendable. But perhaps those things dont matter to some people anymore. They do to me. And that is why I could never support a person like Alonso. No matter how great a driver he is. He is great, yes. But he is seriously sticky.
The use of words like sporting, honorful, commendable... is quite telling tbh, they only appear next to Alonso or Ferrari. Weren't Brawn or Newey using the rules to gain an unfair advantage by going against their spirit (DDD, EBD...)? What about those teams that respected that spirit and were seriously handicapped for the rest of the season? Were Brawn or Newey considered sticky? Or genius? Could you ever support them? Why is there a excuse for team orders from teams like McLaren or RBR but Ferrari and Alonso are depicted like pure evil? Do you have any problem supporting those teams and the drivers that got and advantage from that behaviour? I remember radio messages telling Webber to maintain the gap, not to fight if Vettel made a move and finally pit him to clear the path, use him as a decoy, leave him without a new part that he didn't break... I have to say all you moral speech stinks of double standards. Haters gonna hate and that's fine, everyone is entitled to like or dislike whoever he wants but please, don't try to play the sporting car when we are talking about F1.
After reading this, I was thinking how disgusting it's to say something like that:
"[I'm] proud of this decision but more proud of this decision to say the truth, sometimes when teams take decisions not many people say the truth."
I can as well say I'm proud of speeding while driving a car and more proud to tell it here as some people wouldn't tell that. Any person who wants to win on merit wouldn't say to be proud of getting helped, more tactful would be to say I'm grateful, or Kimi would've proabably said "I don't give a s**t". And I was thinking it's no wonder Alonso-Macca partnership didn't work out, Brits are gentleman racers, Alonso quite the opposite. And seems that I guessed right.
I don't know if you are sarcastic but it's the true. Williams and Mclaren have an agreement before the race, if Schumacher was DNF, and a Williams car was in front, the Williams car have to let a Mclaren driver pass to win the race.
At lap 65, Coulthard was behind Villeneuve and in front of Hakkinen, Ron Dennis said at Coulthard to let pass Hakkinen, and then at the last lap, Villeneuve let pass both Mclaren drivers.
This race was degusting. Because Schumacher tried to push Villeneuve off road, and then the Williams - Mclaren agreement.
McLaren once switched places between Hakkinen and Coulthard for no apparent reason. Just in case...I´m talking about Jerez 97, not Melbourne 98
Indy 2000 was also funny: DC took the lead thanks to a Jump-Start. After McLaren had been informed, that DC had to serve his penalty soon, they used him as a roadblock in order to allow Hakkinen to overtake 2nd placed Schumacher (which failed as MSC overtook DC instead ).
But they were always good in pretending, that they´re morally above the rest.
"Its not cricket" and all that. In F1 there's no question of "walking" even if the umpire doesn't raise his finger. Or, like in tennis, apologizing if the ball hits the net and creates an unintended drop shot.
I wonder if the "golden days" of racing had little rules of etiquette like that.
PS: I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the rest of your post.
After reading this, I was thinking how disgusting it's to say something like that:
I can as well say I'm proud of speeding while driving a car and more proud to tell it here as some people wouldn't tell that. Any person who wants to win on merit wouldn't say to be proud of getting helped, more tactful would be to say I'm grateful, or Kimi would've proabably said "I don't give a s**t". And I was thinking it's no wonder Alonso-Macca partnership didn't work out, Brits are gentleman racers, Alonso quite the opposite. And seems that I guessed right.
I actually appreciate Ferrari&Alonso to be honest and upfront with the decision. I don't like the decision, just personally don't like it, but it's a very logical and understandable decision to be taken in such situation. Therefore I think the situation is not the same as speeding while driving a car. Had it happened at the start of the season, of course that's an issue. But the way it happened, however it seems unsporting, it is really the way to go.
Looks like Martin has taken over the "I forgot to shut my mouth" disease from Lewis. The good point is that considering next years drivers, it is highly unlikely that his words will haunt him soon...
The use of words like sporting, honorful, commendable... is quite telling tbh, they only appear next to Alonso or Ferrari. Weren't Brawn or Newey using the rules to gain an unfair advantage by going against their spirit (DDD, EBD...)? What about those teams that respected that spirit and were seriously handicapped for the rest of the season? Were Brawn or Newey considered sticky? Or genius? Could you ever support them? Why is there a excuse for team orders from teams like McLaren or RBR but Ferrari and Alonso are depicted like pure evil? Do you have any problem supporting those teams and the drivers that got and advantage from that behaviour? I remember radio messages telling Webber to maintain the gap, not to fight if Vettel made a move and finally pit him to clear the path, use him as a decoy, leave him without a new part that he didn't break... I have to say all you moral speech stinks of double standards. Haters gonna hate and that's fine, everyone is entitled to like or dislike whoever he wants but please, don't try to play the sporting car when we are talking about F1.
The fact remains that it is somehow always Alonsos name that pops up in these instances. In the last 5 years of Formula 1, we have seen probably the 2 biggest scandals ever in Formula 1. (Spygate and Crashgate) And another instance who may not classify as a scandal but at least a major controversy (Germany 2010). And Alonso is right in the middle of all of them. That is not and cannot be called a coincidence. And what happened on Sunday strongly underlines this fact once again.
Looks like Martin has taken over the "I forgot to shut my mouth" disease from Lewis. The good point is that considering next years drivers, it is highly unlikely that his words will haunt him soon...
Maybe Lewis could forget that again and tell us a bit more about why he left McLaren, something i thought was never going to happen. And maybe Fernando should forget about the mutual agreement as well since Whitmarsh seems to have forgotten about it, i'm dying to hear his side of the story since all we hear is the same thing over and over again from only one side.
I don't care what any team principal says, in the same position they would have done the same. Whitmarsh may be the exception, but that's because he's an idiot.
I don't care what any team principal says, in the same position they would have done the same. Whitmarsh may be the exception, but that's because he's an idiot.
And yet it's the first time it's ever been done (that we know of).
I think the Massa's gear box decision made by the team was just right. On the contrary, if media rumor is correct, diffuser choice on Fernando's car was incorrect. If Fernando raced on the same car as Massa did... Technical team of Ferrari disappoints me, the most....
...and that would have nothing to do with Alonso himself?
No - there was a big difference: there were positions ahead for Hamilton to chase down and he had the pace to do so. McLaren's switch gained the team points, Ferrari's didn't.
So? You may be of the opinion that teams should not care about WDC points, but teams actually do. Given that there was no way Ferrari could win WCC in 2010, WDC became even more important. And just to make this absolutely clear, are you saying that, had Hamilton not had the opportunity to overtake other cars, McLaren would have told Kovalainen to race his teammate despite him being tied on WDC points with Massa? I certainly don't think that would have been the case.
When team orders were not banned.
Team orders were not banned in 2002, either. And the reaction of the WMC to McLaren's actions seem to indicate that they thought team orders did not fully cover for what they had done, don't you think?
Edited by Fontainebleau, 19 November 2012 - 16:33.
You may be of the opinion that teams should not care about WDC points.
No, I'm not of that opinion. What on earth have I said to give you that impression? I've mentioned a couple of times that I would run a team in the manner Ferrari do, were I in charge.
And just to make this absolutely clear, are you saying that, had Hamilton not had the opportunity to overtake other cars, McLaren would have told Kovalainen to race his teammate despite him being tied on WDC points with Massa? I certainly don't think that would have been the case.
I wouldn't have been surprised to hear a "if he gets a run, don't make it hard for him" order. I would have been surprised to hear a "let him pass" order. But regardless, that wasn't the situation so who knows? Maybe Ferrari have had poor luck to be the only team to find themselves in situations that lend themselves to such extreme solutions, but I doubt that.
The fact remains that it is somehow always Alonsos name that pops up in these instances. In the last 5 years of Formula 1, we have seen probably the 2 biggest scandals ever in Formula 1. (Spygate and Crashgate) And another instance who may not classify as a scandal but at least a major controversy (Germany 2010). And Alonso is right in the middle of all of them. That is not and cannot be called a coincidence. And what happened on Sunday strongly underlines this fact once again.
I suppose that it is pointless to remind you that 1) Alonso never put his hands on that fateful dossier, and 2) he was cleared of any involvement in Crashgate by everybody who either investigated it or was involved in it. Also, I suppose that it is pointless to remind you that we have had other scandals/controversies that never got even close to Alonso: Liegate, Wing-gate, Double diffuser, Turkey-crash-gate, "Mark-hold-the-gap"-gate...
Maybe Lewis could forget that again and tell us a bit more about why he left McLaren, something i thought was never going to happen. And maybe Fernando should forget about the mutual agreement as well since Whitmarsh seems to have forgotten about it, i'm dying to hear his side of the story since all we hear is the same thing over and over again from only one side.
I don't really see Whitmarsh particularly criticising Alonso here, he's just stating (rightly or wrongly) that they race a different way to ferrari and it's a way that suits alonso.
Personally I don't blame Ferrari at all but I do think it's a complete shambles when you can manipulate grid positions by inducing a penalty that is designed for something completely different, it's an embarrassment for the sport in my view, albeit one that I don't blame the rulemakers for being unprepared for.
Well, at least we've established that every team would try to favour their one driver remaining in the WDC fight.
The "extreme" in this case was more how Ferrari handled this openly, me thinks. That's what I don't see other teams doing - and I'm by no means saying it's due to Ferrari's culture, far from it, I rather reckon it's Domenicalis way, he ultimately isn't as ruthless as most of his peers, a weakness I think.
I'm pretty sure they could have faked a genuine failure, even fooling Massa, if they wanted too.
I always find it sad when honesty is seen as a weakness
You can shut holes on Alonso all day long.
But now that Hamilton is leaving too maybe the drivers are not the problem.
Kovalainen has not forgotten Germany 2008 or most of that season.
That was were Heikki sacrificed his 4th place finish so Hamilton could go on and win the race, i guess the other drivers must have moved over as well?
They weren't open about Hockenheim 2010 because the rules didn't allow them to be open about it, not because of PR. They just did what every other team had done in the forbidden team orders era, but being Ferrari and especially Alonso, there was a huge uproar. This time the rules allowed them to be open, and they were. I cannot see for example Red Bull racing doing this, just see the "front wing troubles" in Silverstone 2010. But don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that being open about it is the right way to go in F1, in the light of a few years watching.
Yes i would say that in this instance Ferrari were more open than Red Bull have been in the recent past
Like Domenicali said after the race, if one team in the choose of Ferrari this weekend said they will not do the same, they are liar. It's why Red Bull and Mclaren say nothing, it's just because they know they would have done the same. I even think these both teams would fake an gearbox failure, at least Ferrari were open with this.
You realise you are in a thread that started with a quote from the mclaren TP right?
Because by their driving they had earned the right to be on the clean side, Alonso hadn't - Or is that too simple for you to understand...
Not really, the guy in 9th has not earned a better starting position than the guy in 8th for example.
I do agree that it shouldn't happen and would be veryy p1ssed off if I had been moved...although I guess it's hard to complain about being moved forwards!
I also get really annoyed when one side of the grid has an advantage, there's no way lewis's quali performance should have been rewarded with a worse starting spot than webber's. Not sure there's anything that can be done though other than forcing people to use the non racing line in practice!
McLaren team principal Martin Whitmarsh suggested that Ferrari's tactic was exactly the kind of policy that his outfit's reluctance to get involved had displeased Alonso during their ill-fated 2007 partnership.
"it was not doing those things that meant that Fernando left us."
I don't really see Whitmarsh particularly criticising Alonso here, he's just stating (rightly or wrongly) that they race a different way to ferrari and it's a way that suits alonso.
Personally I don't blame Ferrari at all but I do think it's a complete shambles when you can manipulate grid positions by inducing a penalty that is designed for something completely different, it's an embarrassment for the sport in my view, albeit one that I don't blame the rulemakers for being unprepared for.
'Criticising' and having a 'dig' two completely different things mate!...Whitmarsh is having 'dig' at Telfonso of that I have no doubt!
I was actually praising Alonso there, and I think Ferrari did the right thing. Just don't think other teams would do it because of the mentioned reasons.
Well for starters i could never see Button doing that if Hamilton had not fallen out of the running
No, I'm not of that opinion. What on earth have I said to give you that impression? I've mentioned a couple of times that I would run a team in the manner Ferrari do, were I in charge.
Well, you were using it as a key factor to justify 2008 vs 2010, so I understood you thought it was a valid point. But if you don't think that's the case, then where is the difference for the team? They are still trying to maximise the results for the team, aren't they?
I wouldn't have been surprised to hear a "if he gets a run, don't make it hard for him" order. I would have been surprised to hear a "let him pass" order. But regardless, that wasn't the situation so who knows? Maybe Ferrari have had poor luck to be the only team to find themselves in situations that lend themselves to such extreme solutions, but I doubt that.
So the only difference is the wording of the message, and that you can put down solely to Smedley, because I very much doubt that Domenically asked him to relay those specific words to Massa. By the way, Massa had heard worse (Sauber: "Felipe, let Nick pass. Immediately!" ) and Grosjean heard just the same this year ("Romain, Kimi is faster than you"), so apparently that wording is nothing extraordinary.
And no, Ferrari is not the only team to be in that situation and react that way: again, review the Hakkinen-Coulthard years, during which the team was heavily criticised for hampering their British driver vs their Finnish one.
Drivers of teams other than Ferrari have stated how they had a number one-number two policy which was absolutely clear; from the top of my head, both McLaren and RBR have been described as such by former drivers. People also refer to Renault, and I remember a lot of comments about Brawn in 2009. The funny thing is that those teams, including Ferrari, are the ones who have been winning in recent years - does that give us a hint?
Or in other words, Gareth, history says that you are right in wanting to run your team in that manner ;)
Edited by Fontainebleau, 19 November 2012 - 16:55.
McLaren team principal Martin Whitmarsh suggested that Ferrari's tactic was exactly the kind of policy that his outfit's reluctance to get involved had displeased Alonso during their ill-fated 2007 partnership. "it was not doing those things that meant that Fernando left us."
It's also why neither of their driver won the WDC in 2007. So, congratulations Martin - I guess.
What Ferrari did yesterday was perhaps cheeky, dubious and unfair to a few others - but it was also absolutely the right thing to do from their perspective.
This is the reason why i'm not a fan of Alonso nor do I buy into the hype surrounding him being the best driver of the season. Everything at Ferrari is slanted towards his benefit.
Massa outqualified him. Period. So Ferrari decide to feign injury, cheat or what have you to bump him up one place - to the clean side of the grid. They could have used team orders to swap the positions during the race but they figured Alonso would lose out by being on the dirty side
Alonso's approach to F1 is unethical. He has very little class and no shame. His win at all costs approach to F1 is no different to Lance Armstrong IMO
This is the reason why i'm not a fan of Alonso nor do I buy into the hype surrounding him being the best driver of the season. Everything at Ferrari is slanted towards his benefit.
Massa outqualified him. Period. So Ferrari decide to feign injury, cheat or what have you to bump him up one place - to the clean side of the grid. They could have used team orders to swap the positions during the race but they figured Alonso would lose out by being on the dirty side
Alonso's approach to F1 is unethical. He has very little class and no shame. His win at all costs approach to F1 is no different to Lance Armstrong IMO
It's very low to associate Alonso with a cheater.
You said " everything is slanted towards his benefit ". It's true. But all drivers wants that. Senna wanted that, Prost the same, Vettel wants that, Hamilton have that in 2008. Raikkonen have that after Monza 2007, Massa in 2008, Kubica wants that in 2008, BMW didn't do this and watch the end of season of BMW that year... They were wore worried about Heidfeld while they had a driver who could be WDC.
