Team Orders - Surprised by Attitude Change

It's possible to dislike team orders but still think drivers should follow them (within reason), as there is a balance between entertainment and the drivers fulfilling the wishes of the team that employ them. I don't think it's a good idea to put drivers on a pedestal from which they are allowed to totally disregard the team, but I still wish teams wouldn't use team orders at this stage.

Edited by Kerch, 31 March 2013 - 21:02.

and @Zil "The reason is pretty simple actually. The driver that was disobeying the "bad and unsporting" teamorders (pre Malaysia that is) is by far the most disliked driver around at the moment. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that if the roles were reversed, Webber would have been hailed as a "true" racer sticking it to evil RB while Vettel would have been called a little whining b*** that was getting preferred treatment"


Spot on both of you, I've been saying it since last Sunday

There's a certain amount of truth in that, but it doesn't have to be a conspiracy, and it doesn't have to be down to hatred of Seb.

Underdogs get the sympathy. That's how it usually works.

Exactly

When Grosjean was told last year "Kimi is faster than you" no one cared.

Great point, really...although maybe it was the fact that when Fernando was faster than Massa, team orders were technically illegal and they were so blatant in their disregard for the rules, combined with the fact that the result was allowed to stand and you can probably put your thinking cap on and see why people might have been a little more miffed at Ferrari.

I'm amazed at the number of sensible comments here!

Team orders have a place (quite a few places actually).

When a team 1-2 is preserved in the later stages so that the cars can be spared from 10/10 running and teammates taking each other out avoided. NOTE if Nico had been released and was homing in behind Seb then a "Seb is faster than you Mark" would be justified.

A similar type of scenario with the Merc 3-4 is justifiable. NOTE if management consider Nico is quick enough to possibly pressure 2nd place then "Lewis, Nico is faster than you" call would be justifiable.

If Mark leads Seb with a few rounds to go in the WDC and Mark is out of a reasonable chance of WDC then team orders is obvious.

These are a few of the justifiable scenarios.

If Ferrari think shuffling Reubens aside to make way for Michael early in the WDC is justifiable then they are dead wrong. As I have said in the past, the fans all expect teams to have two drivers competing, not one and his "wing man".

What Seb did was callously cheat on the accepted laws of combat and has nothing to do with team orders. Much like killing an opponent during a ceasefire is given the M word.

And he wouldv been called 'fingerboy'. They love to call him fingerboy. Dont leave that out ;)

Hey, I like Vettel and I still like calling him 'fingerboy'.

This all wrong, methinks, and we are debating a wrong issue IMO. Vettel's case is in the center of many conversations, yet tire issue is slipping under the radar. Focus should be on main attraction, which is why there was need (in view of RBR management at least) to issue those orders in the first place? It's a second race FFS, and we are stopping racing after a second pit stop? To me it's a disaster in making.

Yes man !!!!

no doubt whatsoever that if the roles were reversed, Webber would have been hailed as a "true" racer sticking it to evil RB while Vettel would have been called a little whining b*** that was getting preferred treatment"

Do you seriously believe that? Had Webber done the same he would have been hauled across the carpet by Marko and others, vilified on this forum and every other one and his head demanded on a silver platter by all and sundry. If you think otherwise then you are being naive.

Do you seriously believe that? Had Webber done the same he would have been hauled across the carpet by Marko and others, vilified on this forum and every other one and his head demanded on a silver platter by all and sundry. If you think otherwise then you are being naive.

I ask you, do you really believe what YOU wrote. Of course we would have hailed Webber for this. He would have shown that he is up to the game. Still waitin though...

Do you seriously believe that? Had Webber done the same he would have been hauled across the carpet by Marko and others, vilified on this forum and every other one and his head demanded on a silver platter by all and sundry. If you think otherwise then you are being naive.

Show me a thread in which that has been done in the last four seasons and 2 races.

I don't like TO. But I do think attitudes didn't really change. It's just allegiances and names that are different, and they do determine the outcome of those discussion.

To me hearing Rosberg to ask for permission to overtake Hamilton showed without a doubt what is wrong with F1 in that regards.

But it's nothing new. Back in 1979 and 1981, Williams was lucky to not have internet. Otherwise we'd have the same huge discussion, and Williams and Alan Jones made the vilains of those days. In 1979 Williams asked Regazzoni to let Jones by at the German GP. This just after Regazzoni won the British GP and was leading his teammate in points.

In 1981, 2nd race of the season, and it's Reutemann that refuses TO and doesn't let Jones by. Now interesting is this. Had Reutemann let Jones past, then Jones would have lost the WDC by one point to Nelson Piquet instead of Reutemann. Especially considering Reutemann and his fluctuations in form depending on his mood, without that TO, one of the Williams drivers might have won the championship, as it created some dissent within the team.

Even if history most likely doesn't repeat itself this year, I think we all know that TO create bigger problems for a team than it solves things.

A question that might need to be studied is the following: In modern F1 racing, was there a team that won a championship (WDC) clearly because of TO?

And well here is a recent article that IMO highlights the issue about TO.

http://www.f1fanatic...ng-team-orders/

Is that really necessary?

Edited by HP, 01 April 2013 - 01:17.

There's a certain amount of truth in that, but it doesn't have to be a conspiracy, and it doesn't have to be down to hatred of Seb.

Underdogs get the sympathy. That's how it usually works.

Hockenheim 2008: Blue team: Driver B, driver A is faster than you! Allround praise by the press, denial by team it was a team order, no action by the FIA.

Hockenheim 2010: Red team: Driver B, driver A is faster than you! Allround condemnation by the press even when the team admitted it was a team order, and a $100.000 fine from the FIA.

Conclusion: attitude shift has to do with biased opinions.

One of the bigger troll posts on this forum, well done. Team orders never were illegal, btw but you probably didn't know that. The only team orders that were illegal were those where there was nothing to gain from the team perspective. In Hock 2008., obviously - McLaren did what they have to to maximise their total points (altough Hamilton would pass Kova easily like he passed all other drivers afterwards) and therefore FIA didn't even look into it.

If you wanted to attack McLaren, Monaco 2007. would be better example (FIA did look into it), but still not good enough.

Edited by velgajski1, 01 April 2013 - 07:38.

From the thread title I'd assumed it was about posters attitude change (which I've noticed), not the sports.

I am not sure that RBR actually issued team orders in Malaysia. Or, yes they did, but not the orders we think. It seems more or less confirmed that Vettel did not get an order to turn down his engine, or at least not to turn it down to the same level as Webber. Why? If they had concerns, there was little reason to keep the second car faster than the first one. I also do not think that the turning of the knob to Safe Mode is irreversible. Why did Mark not switch on racing mode when he realized he was under attack? Or did he? Or was he not allowed to. The comments that leaks out from Bernie and the comments from Helmut seem to point in the direction that they just wanted Mark to slow down and the rest is just words.

I think the attitude towards team orders is different in each individual case. Some are sound and makes perfect sense. Other are a provocation.

Edited by ardbeg, 01 April 2013 - 08:33.

I ask you, do you really believe what YOU wrote. Of course we would have hailed Webber for this. He would have shown that he is up to the game. Still waitin though...

Bulls**t....I don't believe that for a second.

Show me a thread in which that has been done in the last four seasons and 2 races.

Show me a race where Webber has passed Vettel against the team's orders for the win.

The points raised in the OP are not necessarily mutually exclusive, at least as far as my own thoughts go.

I don't like team orders that much, I prefer when teams allow their drivers to race. Two teammates in a heated battle is one of the more exciting aspects of the sport. However, I also expect drivers to be team players and respect team orders when they are given.

I guess it's a chain of command thing. The drivers are not in charge. The decision at the top may seem a bit crappy, but you obey and then take it up with the team later.

Casual fans' attitude on team orders has never been coherent or consistent or defensible. Those who remember 1999 will know that, although there were a few mumblings about whether Ferrari's use of its second car (Schumacher) to impede the McLarens was justified, absolutely nobody objected to the principle that Ferrari should tell Schumacher to move aside for Irvine. No-one said it was leaving a bitter taste or compromising the integrity of the sport or anything like that. There was then a massive amount of hysteria over the Ferraris swapping places a few years later, leading to the ludicrous and unenforceable ban which, by the way, everybody who was serious recognised as unenforceable at the time it was introduced and said so. There was then pretty much what amounted to a conspiracy amongst the F1 media in the UK at least to deliberately not notice when teams had blatantly invoked de facto team orders in races, which of course they regularly did, usually by playing the stratgy game to reverse the order of their cars during the pitstops. I recall Ralf Schumacher in 2003, after a string of DNFs had put him out of contention for the title, being brought in for a pitstop late on in a race so the team could check his coolant levels. They never touched his car and he emerged behind Montoya. Nobody complained. In Brazil 2008 Ferrari plainly robbed Massa of the win using fuel srategy to allow Kimi to jump him, and when Kovaleinen saw the recovering Hamilton in his mirrors he jumped out of the way like he'd been rear-ended with a cattle-prod. Again, very little complaint. Then the Massa-Alonso incident got stoked up by FOM and the press into a story even though it was no worse than any of the incidents mentioned above, and was in fact completely justified (in the moral if not the regulatory sense) by the WDC points standings at the time. That turned into a sh!tstorm, but there's no objectively justifiable reason for that one case to have been picked on rather than any other.

So the attitude change that surprises the OP doesn't surprise me in the least, it is one of a long series of dramatic and irrational attitudinal arse-about-faces on this issue which are and always have been driven by a combination of lazy and sensationalist reporting, lack of understanding, and lack of willingness to think the issues through.

As far as I'm concerned the Vettel/Webber case does raise the interesting supplementary question, once we've accepted the obvious principle that if you have teams then you will always have team orders whether you like it or not, which is the issue of whether a driver is morally obliged to follow team orders. In my view it's not so much of a moral obligation as something that's down to the team to manage and the buck in this case stops with Christian Horner, who is essentially a posh kid who's privileged background gave him every chance to succeed as a driver even though he had very little aptitude for it, and who's privileged background also helped to get him where he is now; completely out of his depth.

I don't think the "attitude" about team orders has ever changed.

Just wait for Ferrari to use team orders for hell to break loose once again.

There's a lot of betting on F1 these days and in any other sport it would be called race fixing. Get rid of the radio contact and let people race. This was round two of a championship and team orders belong at the end of the season and should not be given once a race has started.

There's a lot of betting on F1 these days and in any other sport it would be called race fixing. Get rid of the radio contact and let people race. This was round two of a championship and team orders belong at the end of the season and should not be given once a race has started.

Cycling? Oh, maybe that isnt a sport, but organised drug abuse ;)

There's a lot of betting on F1 these days and in any other sport it would be called race fixing. Get rid of the radio contact and let people race. This was round two of a championship and team orders belong at the end of the season and should not be given once a race has started.

If a footballer has a choice of shooting or laying the ball back for his teammate, is the player who chooses to pass the ball fixing the football match? Is he fixing any element of the match? People can bet on the identity of goalscorers, but they can't complain if they bet on a player to score and then he passes it when well placed. The players play for the team. F1 is like that. You can bet on an F1 team to win, you can bet on a driver to win, you can bet on a football team to win, you can bet on an individual player to score. If you bet on a driver or an individual player it's down to you to take into account that he is competing for a team and will likely behave accordingly in any given situation. To call that fixing shows a misunderstanding of what fixing is.

As a general question to those who have said team orders are okay in some situations but not others, can you give us an idea of how the sporting regulations would need to be drafted in order to cover all those situations and specify when a team order may be given and when not, and which type of order is okay and which not in any given scenario? Can you also say something about how those regulations could be reliably enforced?

Or maybe we could have it so if a team wants to impose an order they have to ask FOM, who could conduct a quick poll of the TV audience to see if it's okay for the order to be given? That would be fair and impartial, I'm sure...

Or, alternatively, perhaps someone will be prepared to be honest and say they simply preferred it when team orders were officially banned yet actually rife, because then, most of the time, they could delude themselves that it wasn't hapening?

Edited by redreni, 05 April 2013 - 16:32.

I think you are asking for a lot of trouble to permit team orders in some situations, and not others. It shall create inadvertently grey areas, disputes, and endless threads in here. Solutions is either you permit them because while not very sportive by some standards, these kind of restrictions are very difficult to effectively enforce it, or, alternatively you ban them, assuming you find the way how to control the race from that standpoint.

I would leave it up to each team.

My attitude has not changed. I still hate team orders but when Ferrari do what they do and you have pressure to compete what else can you do?

Aren't you considered a charitable team if you don't use TO? yes

Does it provide a strategic advantage to Ferrari that others don't use TO? yes, it makes their job easier to win.

You know the saying...if you can't beat them, join them.

I hate TO but the other teams like RBR have no choice because of the way Ferrari go racing.

Edited by ZooL, 05 April 2013 - 18:29.

Then the Massa-Alonso incident got stoked up by FOM and the press into a story even though it was no worse than any of the incidents mentioned above, and was in fact completely justified (in the moral if not the regulatory sense) by the WDC points standings at the time. That turned into a sh!tstorm, but there's no objectively justifiable reason for that one case to have been picked on rather than any other.

As you have mentioned, several teams, including Ferrari, had been able to have their cars switch places at various races prior to Hockenheim 2010. The problem with 2010 was that it was too obvious. I would like to know why. One possible reason is that they had not discussed this with Felipe in advance, hoping the situation would not arise. Therefore, there was no subtle signal they could give (such as multi21). Worse than that, Felipe made it quite clear that he would risk, or cause, contact if Alonso tried to overtake. The way Felipe relinquished the place was also much too obvious. That kind of messing was fine when team orders were legal, but much too obvious in this context. In fact, the ban came about due to similar shenanigans from Rubens. Both of them dropped Ferrari in hot water through making the moves too obvious, probably through resentment. The way to do it is the way Ferrari did it in both 2007 and 2008 the Brazilian GPs.

My attitude has not changed. I still hate team orders but when Ferrari do what they do and you have pressure to compete what else can you do?

Aren't you considered a charitable team if you don't use TO? yes

Does it provide a strategic advantage to Ferrari that others don't use TO? yes, it makes their job easier to win.

You know the saying...if you can't beat them, join them.

I hate TO but the other teams like RBR have no choice because of the way Ferrari go racing.

They have no choice because the rules allow it, and because any ban would be unenforceable in a two-car team scenario. It has nothing to do with Ferrari (who seem to be allowing their drivers to race, by the way).

They have no choice because the rules allow it, and because any ban would be unenforceable in a two-car team scenario. It has nothing to do with Ferrari (who seem to be allowing their drivers to race, by the way).

Ferrari did it covertly even when TO was banned, thats why the ban was removed in the first place. Ferrari used TO to devasting effect along with a clear #1 #2 driver policy. Horner has simply copied that working policy at RBR and has himself used it to devastating effect. It therefore nullified Ferrari's advantage. It's what helps Vettel win the WDC by 3 close points. It's why having someone like Hamilton in the sister RBR car does not help because HAM easily would have taken those 3 vital points away from VET in a 20 race season, in which Alonso would have been WDC.

(I don't think Ferrari let them race tbh, Massa got shafted the other race because they let Alonso have the undercut).

Edited by ZooL, 05 April 2013 - 18:54.

It's pretty simple really;

Team Order given by Ferrari is disgusting and totally cheapens the sport.

Team Order given by any other team dating back to the 1920s, a stunning example of great teamwork and a brilliant tactic!

You're probably right! I thought it a politically motivated decision by RB to prevent Rosberg from taking his team mate, one that likely re asserts his authority within the team and ensures his new star signing knows he has his complete support. Post race talk of both cars being marginal on fuel were an obvious smokescreen that simply highlights Ross Brawns experience at dealing with the press. Remember this guy is the same team principle who called the shots at Ferrari. As Team orders are now legal in the sport then he had every right to call it as he did.

I won't comment on Vettel/ Webber because that topic has been exhausted already.

Ferrari did it covertly even when TO was banned, thats why the ban was removed in the first place.

Several other teams also implemented TO covertly during that period, as redreni explained above. Ferrari implemented them OVERTLY, and that is why the ban was removed.

Edited by garoidb, 05 April 2013 - 18:59.

Several other teams also implemented TO covertly during that period, as redreni explained above. Ferrari implemented them OVERTLY, and that is why the ban was removed.

Just as a matter of interest was Renaults team order to Piquet jnr to stick it in the wall at Singapore allowing Alonso to "innocently" win the race covert or overt?

Just as a matter of interest was Renaults team order to Piquet jnr to stick it in the wall at Singapore allowing Alonso to "innocently" win the race covert or overt?

What do you think?

Ferrari did it covertly even when TO was banned, thats why the ban was removed in the first place. Ferrari used TO to devasting effect along with a clear #1 #2 driver policy. Horner has simply copied that working policy at RBR and has himself used it to devastating effect. It therefore nullified Ferrari's advantage. It's what helps Vettel win the WDC by 3 close points. It's why having someone like Hamilton in the sister RBR car does not help because HAM easily would have taken those 3 vital points away from VET in a 20 race season, in which Alonso would have been WDC.

(I don't think Ferrari let them race tbh, Massa got shafted the other race because they let Alonso have the undercut).

Okay, Zool, you don't seem to have much time for team orders or Ferrari. What's your view on Ricciardo's driving in this clip from the Italian GP at Monza last year? He is passed for position by Massa, has a pop back at Massa at the 2nd chicane (36s), and as a result he inadvertedly impedes Vettel (who in turn has Alonso all over his rear wing) at the exit of the chicane (38s). Would you not agree that what he does next is blatantly lift on the straight to let Vettel through, before trying to chop Alonso into the first Lesmo.



Why is it that people who are all over Ferrari (and others, to be fair) when they have internal team orders, don't seem bothered about RBR and STR having inter-team orders, which are of course prohibited?

Edited by redreni, 05 April 2013 - 20:50.

What do you think?

It was so overtly covertly they got caught..

When Räikkönen moved over for Massa in China 2008 it was 1) obvious and 2) done by Ferrari. Yet today it seems rarely mentioned, and I can't remember the reaction at the time being comparable to something like Austria 2002. Maybe people actually understand the different circumstances?

And no, the rules can't be written such that they would cover every possible situation. This also applies to things like "causing a collision". But would it really be a good idea to adopt a black and white view on these things just so the rules could be interpreted without having to use good judgement?

And isn't the bit about "bringing the sport into disrepute" still somewhere in the rulebook? That would allow penalising for unsportsmanlike team orders, wouldn't it?

Edited by Fungio, 06 April 2013 - 05:21.

Well I for one am happy vettel stuck two fingers up andwent screw you im winning. I wish barrichello did too.

Vettel is a little ****. I don't like team orders ether but if you don't want to get team orders or you have no intention following any then you make your position clear from the start and not take advantage of team orders to get close to pass a guy that isn't going full speed or requesting for team orders for him to be removed in the middle of the race.

When Räikkönen moved over for Massa in China 2008 it was 1) obvious and 2) done by Ferrari. Yet today it seems rarely mentioned, and I can't remember the reaction at the time being comparable to something like Austria 2002. Maybe people actually understand the different circumstances?

Yes we do. I am not a Ferrari fan cause they always get on my nerves with their primadonna attitude and their number 1 driver policies but still i don't criticize them for something like Brazil cause it was completely on the line for the championship. In that case is understable. Austria was completely unnecessary and a psychological beat down to a driver that had won a race on merit

Edited by Siperoth, 06 April 2013 - 07:23.

There is a big difference between a team order to a driver to give up a clear race victory to a team mate examples: David Coulthard ordered to give away a massive lead to Mika Hakkenin or Rubens Barrachello to Michael Schumacher and a driver being told to hold position in the last few laps of a race.

The team orders from both the Red Bull and Mercedes were in the interest of the respective teams, Vettel's move on Webber was well out of order, Rosberg deserves respect.

There is a big difference between a team order to a driver to give up a clear race victory to a team mate examples: David Coulthard ordered to give away a massive lead to Mika Hakkenin or Rubens Barrachello to Michael Schumacher and a driver being told to hold position in the last few laps of a race.

The team orders from both the Red Bull and Mercedes were in the interest of the respective teams, Vettel's move on Webber was well out of order, Rosberg deserves respect.

^This!

I'm not sure if I'm alone in this, but I am very surprised by the tone of the rhetoric I am seeing in the aftermath of the Malaysia team orders row. As recently as 2010, team orders were illegal, and were sneered at as the sort of "illegal unsporting behaviour practised only by those naughty Machiavellian boys at Ferrari" and would of course never be undertaken by any right-thinking race team. Now, only a few years into the era of legalisation, obedience to team orders has become the very highest sacred duty of the race driver. Why the attitude shift? Is it real, or just something stirred up by the press?

The attitude has always been the same, just as it was Austria 2002 and Germany 2010: Fair team orders are Ok, unfair team orders are not. This obviously means reaction to team orders can be hugely different.

What surprises me is that this remains a topic of debate and confusion with everyone, including the teams, as common sense should easily tell you that any team order must follow this simple line: The faster car must be in front. A child can understand this is how it should be, yet this is not followed and then everyone is upset at angry drivers, fans and maybe even sponsors and team members.

Only at the end of the championship when points mathematics has eliminated one driver out of a position but when the other still has the chance, can the slower car to be advantaged to secure a position as that would only be fair.

It's not rocket science, it is just basic stuff.

The attitude has always been the same, just as it was Austria 2002 and Germany 2010: Fair team orders are Ok, unfair team orders are not.This obviously means reaction to team orders can be hugely different.

What surprises me is that this remains a topic of debate and confusion with everyone, including the teams, as common sense should easily tell you that any team order must follow this simple line: The faster car must be in front. A child can understand this is how it should be, yet this is not followed and then everyone is upset at angry drivers, fans and maybe even sponsors and team members.

Only at the end of the championship when points mathematics has eliminated one driver out of a position but when the other still has the chance, can the slower car to be advantaged to secure a position as that would only be fair.

It's not rocket science, it is just basic stuff.

This to me is too narrow a window. The team usually can't wait to the very end of the season to make that decision. I think that the decision should be made by the final quarter or even the final third of the season based on a review of their drivers scoring trend. A driver may be still mathematically 'in' but realistically isn't in the race for the wdc.

Edited by halifaxf1fan, 06 April 2013 - 19:18.

2010 showed that that would have been a mistake on tactical grounds as well.

There was a poll conducted by f1fanatic website, and the results to-date are as follow :-

Were RBR right to order Vettel not to pass Webber?
YES 49% NO 46% NO OPINION 5%

Were Mercedes right to order Rosberg not to pass Hamilton?
YES 24% NO 73% NO OPINION 3%

http://www.f1fanatic...es-team-orders/

Maybe you can get Autosport very own poll up and running in this thread to gauge the readers' sentiment...

These polls clearly show the anti-Vettel bias of some Formula-1 "fans" and also show their double standards disguised in fake reasonings to justify their Vettel hate.

Vettel had a great race in Sepang, it was his best win despite all of the team's and his loser teammate's antics.

The attitude has always been the same, just as it was Austria 2002 and Germany 2010: Fair team orders are Ok, unfair team orders are not. This obviously means reaction to team orders can be hugely different.

Whether something is fair or not is a highly subjective question.

Only at the end of the championship when points mathematics has eliminated one driver out of a position but when the other still has the chance, can the slower car to be advantaged to secure a position as that would only be fair.

It's not rocket science, it is just basic stuff.

I agree with halifaxf1fan that waiting until mathematical elimination this is too restrictive. It basically requires the team to assume that the WDC leader will score no more points, and that the less well positioned of their two drivers will start scoring maximum points at each race. A driver's realistic chance of winning the WDC disappears long before he is mathmatically eliminated.

Edited by garoidb, 06 April 2013 - 17:18.

There is a big difference between a team order to a driver to give up a clear race victory to a team mate examples: David Coulthard ordered to give away a massive lead to Mika Hakkenin or Rubens Barrachello to Michael Schumacher and a driver being told to hold position in the last few laps of a race.

There is no difference whatsoever.

Those who could win were denied their win. Unless you are of opinion that 10 last laps of the race are not part of the race.


Disclaimer: i have no problems with team orders if they were agreed by drivers and are a recognized team policy.

I'm not sure if I'm alone in this, but I am very surprised by the tone of the rhetoric I am seeing in the aftermath of the Malaysia team orders row. As recently as 2010, team orders were illegal, and were sneered at as the sort of "illegal unsporting behaviour practised only by those naughty Machiavellian boys at Ferrari" and would of course never be undertaken by any right-thinking race team. Now, only a few years into the era of legalisation, obedience to team orders has become the very highest sacred duty of the race driver. Why the attitude shift? Is it real, or just something stirred up by the press?

Actually nothing has changed. It's always been the driver's duty to do what the team tell him. It was only certain fans/ media that 'sneered'. Now that TO's are legal once again, they have to suck it up.

Long ago when races were shown on TV they never used to play radio calls for the audience. But Im sure there were many instances before where T.O. where not followed which we never got to know. Then they started playing them. So when T.O. was banned and a team did give out orders, the media blew it out of proportion, the driver was booed potrayed as the baddest guy ever to live. Case closed. And now the T.O. are legal, but if someone doesnt follow them, the guy is still booed and potrayed and the baddest guy whose ever lived. Double standards by the media?? Aye

2010 showed that that would have been a mistake on tactical grounds as well.

This annoys me very much. Ferrari missed an open goal in 2010. The fact that Ferrari missed it does not mean RBR were correct or smart to give them the opportunity. There is the greatest difference between being lucky and good. If they'd backed Webber from 6 races out they could (subject to Webber's performances being up to scratch) have wrapped up the title well before the final race. It's true Webber didn't help his own cause towards the end of that season, but he was having to fight against his own team, and it's a stretch to imagine he's have performed that badly if he'd had the support from the team that his championship position merited.

And the implication that Red Bull didn't have team orders in 2010 is even more pernicious: in the final race they used the WDC points leader as a sacrificial lamb to lure Alonso into the pits, destroying Webber's race and forfieting his crack at the title. It's not only a team order if you tell someone to move over; it's also a team order if you bring him into the pits because it will benefit his team-mate rather than him. Red Bull had team orders alright, it's just that they were only interested in winning with their driver, the one who came through their young driver development programme. That's up to them, of course, and I'm not saying it's wrong or that it should be illegal (although it was technically illegal in 2010, of course). But this is my point, you can't have team orders banned when there's an obvious radio message and not banned when you have to have an awareness of race strategy to spot it. That would be insulting to the fans who are actually paying attention.

These polls clearly show the anti-Vettel bias of some Formula-1 "fans" and also show their double standards disguised in fake reasonings to justify their Vettel hate.

Vettel had a great race in Sepang, it was his best win despite all of the team's and his loser teammate's antics.

Not really. This poll asks if people agree with two specific judgement calls made by two teams, not about whether team orders are right or wrong or should be allowed or not. There's a clear difference between RBR's position, where they couldn't gain anything further since they were already 1-2 and they faced no threat from the extremely slow Hamilton, and Mercedes' position where they could have got considerably nearer to the Red Bulls if they would have let their faster car go.

Okay, Zool, you don't seem to have much time for team orders or Ferrari. What's your view on Ricciardo's driving in this clip from the Italian GP at Monza last year? He is passed for position by Massa, has a pop back at Massa at the 2nd chicane (36s), and as a result he inadvertedly impedes Vettel (who in turn has Alonso all over his rear wing) at the exit of the chicane (38s). Would you not agree that what he does next is blatantly lift on the straight to let Vettel through, before trying to chop Alonso into the first Lesmo.



Why is it that people who are all over Ferrari (and others, to be fair) when they have internal team orders, don't seem bothered about RBR and STR having inter-team orders, which are of course prohibited?

It's the same, I hate inter team orders too, but I can't blame RBR for copying Ferrari in cahoots with Sauber before RBR were even in the sport.

e.g. Sauber driver Fontana:
"In 2006, in the Argentinian Magazine Olé, Fontana claimed that Jean Todt visited the Sauber motorhome during the weekend, and told Peter Sauber that the Saubers must block if they were in a position to do so in order to help Michael Schumacher win the World Championship."

and Perez:
http://www.f1fanatic...-order-ferrari/
and then Perez speaking about it less than 30 days ago:
http://www.yallaf1.c...care-of-alonso/

Ferrari Sauber alliance started it in the modern era.

All RBR have done is copy Ferrari.

Edited by ZooL, 06 April 2013 - 18:24.

The attitude has always been the same, just as it was Austria 2002 and Germany 2010: Fair team orders are Ok, unfair team orders are not. This obviously means reaction to team orders can be hugely different.

What surprises me is that this remains a topic of debate and confusion with everyone, including the teams, as common sense should easily tell you that any team order must follow this simple line: The faster car must be in front. A child can understand this is how it should be, yet this is not followed and then everyone is upset at angry drivers, fans and maybe even sponsors and team members.

Only at the end of the championship when points mathematics has eliminated one driver out of a position but when the other still has the chance, can the slower car to be advantaged to secure a position as that would only be fair.

It's not rocket science, it is just basic stuff.

If you want to go through different scenarios and ask people on here what they would do as a team boss, assuming team orders were allowed, I guarantee you will get differing judgements all over the place. It's not a common sense issue, it's extremely complicated. It's certainly not a straight question of whether a driver has a mathematical chance of winning the title: what if it's six races to go and driver B is 149 points off the championship lead, with driver A 10 points off the lead? You don't think it's okay to order driver B to move over for driver A? Not many would agree with you, if so.

A team boss has to look at maximising his team's chances in the WCC and WDC, he has to think about the psychological effect on his drivers and their race engineers and mechanics, he must consider a vast number of different factors, and reasonable people will disagree. It's fundamentally not about what Jo Public is likely to regard as fair or not. Jo Public includes all sorts of people, including idiots. Team bosses will never make their judgements on that basis and the rule-makers can't force them to.