Team orders

Have read the thread on Didier Pironi with interest, and it has made me think about how episodes involving team orders are viewed so differently.

In order not to go over Imola '82 again, think Peterson and Andretti in Holland 1978, or Reutemann and Jones in Brazil 1980. Or, of course, the more recent cases of Schumacher and Barrichello - no, sorry, make that Salo and Irvine in Germany 1999.

Who is the "blameworthy" party, among the drivers. He who obeys orders (Barrichello, Salo, Peterson) or he who does not (Reutemann) ?

Normally, the British press celebrate teams like Williams and McLaren where either driver is "allowed" to win - and quite happily condemned both Reutemann and Barrichello. Please do not tell me that this was only due to Jones "losing" or Schumacher "winning".

Certainly nobody but the French cared when Arnoux forgot team orders to let Prost win in 1982.

Peterson and Reutemann SIGNED a contract that they had to let the N.1 to win the race.
Barrichello (and Schumacher, and Salo and Irvine) signed a contract in which he (they)had to obey the Ferrari Team orders. At the time of Pironi-Villeneuve (and Regazzoni-Lauda-Scheckter-Reutemann)(what I understand) in Ferrari there was the internal agreement that, in case of 1-2 whoever was in front was not going to be challenged by the second.

Well, yes. I have heard that explanation too, but I do not think that Ferrari team management forgets to take Schumacher's point of view into account. Can see no difference in the actual situations.

Perhaps the most "blameworthy" driver is the one who insists on these conditions being imposed ? and then exercises them, or tries to ?

Andretti, Jones and Schumacher come to mind. And then we have the ultimate team order, as in Senna stopping Team Lotus from hiring Warwick for the second car - making them take Johnny Dumfries instead...

Originally posted by Mohican
Normally, the British press celebrate teams like Williams and McLaren where either driver is "allowed" to win - and quite happily condemned both Reutemann and Barrichello. Please do not tell me that this was only due to Jones "losing" or Schumacher "winning".

Do I sense that the secret purpose of your thread is to determine the consistency with which the British press passes judgement on the issue of team orders? ;)

It's not quite black and white - Carlos has reasons for not letting AJ through, they are on another thread (I think); whether you accept the reasons or not there is something to consider. Personally if Jonesy were that great he would have been ahead of Carlos at the time anyway.

What is abhorrent is where they deny team orders exist and then implement them...hypocritical.

I don't think team orders are particularly 'nice' but they are (and always have been) an element in the sport.

I don't blame Senna or Schumi M for getting what they want, it's up to the team whether to go with it or the number 2 driver to challenge it or whatever.

I always disliked the feeling that the outcome of a particular race was fixed. For me the hole point of racing is that the best driver & car wins. In that respect I dislike all blattant forms of team orders, but I accept them as a natural element of the sport.

But maybe the 'reverse' is even worse: was it the Japan GP of 1991 when Senna gave the win to Berger? In my opinion, by doing that Senna degraded the value of a GP win and embarrassed Berger. I remember I turned off the tv because I didn't want to watch the podium...

Hey, You're forgetting the instance at USGP when Barrichelo 'did Pironi' on Schumacher-stealing a hard earned and deserved win from a teammate who was just letting him catch up in order not to look to bad... I think this team-orders bussiness is not good, but when people say 'team-orders' in negative sense they often think Schumacher, without taking into regard that he often rode shotgun for his teammates, gifting a few wins to Barrichelo and Irvine. I think that in retrospect Ferrari policy of tem orders has cost MS as much wins as it has earned him, but this 'ballancing-out' doesn't make it more appealing to me.

I really think far too much time is wasted on this endless whining and sniveling about team orders and bemoaning that the teams can actually require their drivers to act in concert with what the team owner wishes to happen.

When there are teams, there are team orders -- in some form, shape or fashion. Not inferring with the drivers as they jockey for position to punt each other off the track and into the barriers is a form of team orders.

Team orders are like aging and dying: not necessarily good or bad in some instances, but also inevitable. In some series, team orders take one form and in another series team orders take another form. Even disorderly teams have team orders even if it is the absense of stated team orders.

All this team orders business seems to be a relatively recent bowel disturber. Deal with it. Then again, we have all become pundits since The Yellow Press discovered the value of, well, being the yellow press....

I could go on, but I don't wish to influence those wishing to waste their time beating this dead mule for another miniscule gram of glue.....

Originally posted by Marcel Visbeen
But maybe the 'reverse' is even worse: was it the Japan GP of 1991 when Senna gave the win to Berger? In my opinion, by doing that Senna degraded the value of a GP win and embarrassed Berger. I remember I turned off the tv because I didn't want to watch the podium...

Marcel- then whad would You think of British GP in '55? I mean, Moss himself isn't sure if it was gifted or not...;)

Thank you, Mohican, for starting this thread. I considered starting a similar thread a few weeks ago (but didn't, because there are already a few threads which touch on this issue). Now I can air my views anyway!

I always find it interesting that drivers of the past are often applauded for respecting team orders (I'm thinking Peterson in 1978, G.Villeneuve in 1979 here), but current drivers (Barrichello) are often criticised for doing the same thing.

ISTR that a journalist once put it to Mario Andretti that 1978 must have been "easy" for him because his major competitor (Peterson) was under orders not to pass him. IIRC, Mario replied that 1978 was one of the hardest seasons of his career, because Ronnie was not under orders not to pass him, he was under orders to let him win. Ronnie's objective at every race, apparently, was to lead the whole race and then slow right down in front of the grandstand on the last lap, allowing Mario past to win.

Let's reminisce about Austria 2002 (thereby qualifying as "nostalgia" ) Did people seriously expect Barrichello to defy team orders and take the win? Historically, doing that tends to have a somewhat negative impact on a driver's relationship with the team... And regardless of whose idea it was to ask Rubens to step aside to let Michael take the win (personally I believe it was probably a team management decision, rather than a request/demand from Michael, but I don't know for sure, and I suspect that nobody really does know for sure except those who were directly involved), once the order had been issued, did people seriously expect Schumacher to defy team orders and not take the win? What if he broke his leg (again) at the next race and lost the title by 1 point? [I can't remember - maybe that's a moot point, maybe only Rubens could beat him by that stage of the season]

Interesting though that Ferrari chose to employ team orders at a time when they were so superior to the opposition. Contrast with McLaren in 1988 or Williams in 1987. I guess the status of the drivers within the team was a little different though. With McLaren/1988 and Williams/1987 we supposedly had two "equal number one" drivers, whereas we are led to believe that within Ferrari, Michael is #1 and Rubens is #2 (either de facto, or contractually). Plus, would you want to be the one radioing Senna to ask him to move over to let Prost win, or Mansell for Piquet?

And in response to those who suggest that Barrichello should leave Ferrari rather than continue to serve as Michael's #2, it's a bit of a rock and a hard place, isn't it? Being "Number 2" driver at Ferrari possibly/probably gives you just as good a chance to win races as being "Number 1" in any other team, and Irvine nearly won the title from that position (albeit under unusual circumstances). I'll always wonder just how hard Schumacher tried to win that final race of 1999, which would have given Irvine the title. Would/could he have tried harder if it had been his own title at stake? I guess only he will ever know for sure ... just like Fangio at Aintree in '55....

Imposing team orders might not always win a team brownie points with the punters (or the FIA!) but not enforcing team orders doesn't always work out perfectly either: consider Williams in 1986. Team orders would probably have seen Mansell or Piquet crowned as WDC (but then again, we are led to believe that it's the constructors title that matters most to Sir Frank and Patrick).

And strange how some people who would violently object an "arranged result" in the middle of the season will quite happily accept a driver who is out of the running for the championship letting his team-mate who is still in title contention through, towards the end of the year.

Finally, even if I think that team orders are generally OK (and to be honest, does it really matter what I think, they're a fact of life whether I like them or not!), I must admit that one driver moving over just before the start-finish line to allow another to win does always feel a bit "disappointing"...

How about a game of "what if"? i.e. what would have been different if various drivers had not obeyed team orders at various times? For example, if Bandini hadn't let Surtees through in the Mexican GP in 1964, then Hill(G.) would have been WDC instead of Surtees.

Including situations where one driver is instructed to let his team-mate past (Mexico 64, Austria 2002) and those where they took the decision of their own accord (e.g. Coulthard/Hakkinen Australia '98 and even Collins handing over to Fangio at Monza in '56).

But not including Imola 1982 (or any possible "flowon" effects thereof) - that topic has already been well covered in way too many threads both here and in RC (and is a good recipe for having a thread locked!)

For the sake of the exercise, let's assume that drivers who disobeyed team orders weren't immediately sacked!

the key man is reutemann and the brasilian gp of 81.
was he sacked. no.
he was still in contention for wdc at the last race and pole it.
and was the main driver in 82 till he pulled out of competition.
that's the spirit. disalow a team order.

what about barichello. if he done the same as reutemann mos t problably he would not be so 'sucessfull', money and winner side.

personaly i prefer reutemann's atitude.
and prefer the no team order atitude.
andretti in 78 was really a victim of team orders. he won. but even today people are asking themselves what if...

David Hyland's first post made me think of Surtees and Bandini in 1964, but David himself then made the point before I got round to it.

But the reference to Collins and Fangio in 1956 lead me to another what-if question:

What if the rule allowing drivers to take over their team-mate's car was still valid ? (Disregarding the technical difficulties of fitting driver A in to driver B's seat, etc.)

Just one example. Hakkinen's engine blows up at Indy in 2001, ending his title chances. What if he had taken over Coulthard's car at the previous pit stop ?

Or, at a tangent but even better: Carlos Sainz loses the 1998 WRC 200 yards from the finish line when his Toyota breaks down. What if he had started that last stage in his team mate's rally car ?

However, back on topic. What if it were still possible to change cars between drivers during a GP ?

Alan Jones:

"I have my contract and he has his. There are things which I can't do in a team and the same applies for him. The contracts says that if whe are within seven seconds of each other and if we have a clear advantage form the driver in third position, then, as I am the N.1 driver, I have to win the GP. It is not because Frank likes me to win or these kind of things. It is simly because the contract we have signed says that. I like to think that when you shake hands with somebody in a cold december day and you sign a contract, you don't pretend a few months later to modify it. You should have thought before signing."

Maybe it was this kind of thing that made Williams do away with team orders ever since ?

I suspect that there was rather more to it than AJ lets on; how come that those provisions - if they existed - were there in the first place ? Because the good Mr Jones had insisted on them, and Frank Williams had at that time not yet got round to his drivers-are-mere-employees stance. The whole world knows that Jones was very much against Reutemann joining Williams in the first place.

Well, I think it is Mr Frank Williams that runs his team and not Mr. Jones.

At that time Frank Williams thought that
"I am absolutely convinced that you can't have two Number one drivers, at equal terms"
Autosprint n.41, 1980.

Yes, well.
"I am consistent in my opinions. I have one opinion until I change it."

This is a good sub-thread: when did Frank change his opinion on this ?

80-81 Jones/Reutemann
82 Reutemann/Rosberg > Rosberg/Daly
83-84 Rosberg/Lafitte
85 Rosberg/Mansell
86-87 Piquet/Mansell
88-90 Patrese/Boutsen
91-92 Mansell/Patrese
93 Prost/Hill
94 Senna/Hill > Hill/Coulthard > Hill/Mansell
95 Hill/Coulthard
96 Hill/Villeneuve
97-98 Villeneuve/Frentzen
99 Zanardi/Schumacher
00 Schumacher/Button
01-04 Schumacher/Montoya

I would say about the time Mansell started matching, or beating, Piquet who was paid rather more than him.
Again, i think it could well be argued that Mansell was definitely no 1 in '92 (but not in '91), and the same goes for Prost in '93, Senna in '94 and Schumacher in 2000.

Originally posted by Mohican
However, back on topic. What if it were still possible to change cars between drivers during a GP ?

Would it be physically possible? Single seaters seem to be much more moulded for an individual and it seems to take an age to swap settings between drivers in practice if necessary. Well, 10 minutes or whatever, but enough to destroy a race. They cannot do a sportscar and pop into the existing seat with padding where applicable.

If it were still allowed, teams may have to choose drivers that are the same size as each other to assist with that...

I think the last change over in a major single seater race was at Indy in circa 1977, when Salt Walther hopped into someone's car (Bob Harkey?).

Actually, oddly enough, it is possible to change cars during a GP, but...

19) Points will not be awarded for the Championship unless the driver has driven the same car throughout the race in the Event in question.

This is from the FIA Rules and Regulations, Sporting Regulations, whatever...
But I can not get the point - why changing cars is allowed if it will not count towards the championship? Free practice during a race? Block other racers?

The full text can be found here, just click the 'FIA Regulations' button on the bottom.

As long as more than one driver will race for a team, teamorders will exist.
And I dont really mind that, but I would like to make a differentiation between the overt and the covert orders.

I do not mind it, like Barrichello, when it is obvious who should have been the winner.
After a great race the winner is clear to all. We all remember the real winners in those circumstances.
But it has also happened in ways not really visible. That way a driver can never get the respect he deserves. Banning teamorders will only shift it to this direction, and that is an even worse scenario.

At the end of a season team orders are more easy to accept. But F1 is not really a game, it is a multi million dollar team effort to be WC. In that perspective I don't mind what happened in Austria.
Barrichello won! (like in all the other examples)


Frank.

Team orders is a so complex issue. Personally I don't like them, whether it concerns a ferrari, Williams, Mclaren or a Minardi or Jordan. It doesn't matter. The fastest one should win. For one situation I'd like to make an exception. Drivers from the same team can battle for position, but I don't like seeing them driving each other of the track. And although some people claim that Williams lets the drivers race till the end, it hasn't always been the case.
Fact is that team orders have been and always will be part of racing. And as the sponsors and big chiefs of the constructors get more influence, it won't get any better.

Originally posted by Mohican
Maybe it was this kind of thing that made Williams do away with team orders ever since ?

Williams never did away with team orders. In 1993 Damon hill was repeatedly on the receiving end of orders "not to pass Alain" and at the French GP when he tried to overtake Alain he was radiod and told to back off. At the German GP when he was in the lead he HAD to radio the pits and ask if he was allowed to win.

Same in 1997, Frank Williams ordered HHF to hold up Schumacher to allow JV to build up a lead several times. Team orders are very real at Williams and Mclaren (who could forget Melbourne 1998?).

Team orders have been part of motor racing since the year dot. The only problem is that in some recent examples a certain lack of finesse has been apparent.

Given that this is TNF, can anybody give the first example of team orders / team tactics. To set the ball rolling I'll nominate the 1914 Grand Prix with the Mercedes team vs Boillot's Peugot.

Originally posted by panzani

But I can not get the point - why changing cars is allowed if it will not count towards the championship? Free practice during a race? Block other racers?

Sort of - imagine if Kimi needs to win for the title, and leads, so Ferrari bring in the 2nd placed Rubens (struggling with injury) and put the already-retired MS in the car...Schumi can go for the win, no points, Kimi finishes 2nd, 8 points and no title.

My suggestion to deal with team orders:

If there is a 1 - 2 finish (or 3 - 4 or whatever you want) let the driver in front take his win, but let the team decide who gets the points.

It´s a team sport anyway.

This thread reminded me of a brief conversation I had with Sheridan Thynne in March 1992 on the subject of team orders as it affected Williams in 1991/2. Most of what he said reflected those particular circumstances but he did say "the public are thirty years behind the times with the concept of number one/two drivers".

This thread reminded me of that conversation. I didn't ask what he meant at the time because I was more interested in the Williams situation, and was a very poor questioner!!

Did he mean we judge team orders on the basis of 50/60's standards which cannot apply to modern F1?

I'm really getting tired of all this 'team orders' discussion.

Anybody over the mental age of 11 should surely accept that the majestic circuit-racing gasoline speed sports - unlike almost any other class of human competition - did not develop MERELY to pit one man (or woman) against each other in solo combat.

The team, the technology, the commercial considerations behind top level motor sport have - ever since its inception at the tail end of the 19th century - always produced occasions upon which it is PERFECTLY proper for team directors to direct their drivers.

The fun starts when the drivers ignore such direction.

Even that is then all part of the rich fabric of a game which is being so greatly demeaned today.

It's being demeaned not only by unenforceable fig-leaf regulations, but also by nitwit fans hotly arguing the merits of team actions which might handicap their favourites.

Team orders are really completely and utterly a normal, everyday part of the game, and nearly always have been. Inconvenient for punters and the bookies? You can't legislate for naive ignorance...

Anybody who thinks this isn't so - and anybody who imagines yet another petty regulation really will prevent team orders being issued - is plainly dreaming. It IS at heart a team sport. Get a grip...

DCN

Agreed, Doug. There've been domestiques in cycling forever, why not in motor racing?;)

Another example was the '67 USGP. Before the race, Clark and Hill were called to Walter Hayes' room for a coin toss. The winner would, if circumstances allowed, win, while the loser would be allowed to win the following GP in Mexico. Hill won the coin toss but had some mech trouble, Clark was signaled to overtake him and did before himself suffering with trouble on his right rear suspension (I think). Clark held on to win but Hill, who finished behind him was miffed that he had not been informed that Clark was experiencing trouble and felt, had he been so informed, he could've overtaken Clark. Clark then won the concluding GP in Mexico. As someone pointed out, it's a team sport.

Have to agree with Doug and Don.

Team tactics can be as much part of the game as choosing the right tyre compound.

Like DCN, I am also baffled by those who carp at team orders.

After all, what else can they expect? (Of course as a TNF-er, I do, like D-Type, deplore the lack of finesse that has been displayed at times).

I have a strong suspicion that those who bleat about team orders/instructions are those who defend their "star" driver with the classic " well of course, if he had had a better car, then things would be different." In other words they also forget that this is still motor racing i.e. not driver racing - personally I thnk overall that I would prefer that there were no drivers' championship.

In the days when championships were less prominent, the likes of Nuvolari, Caracciola, etc., had no problem achieving the recognition that they richly deserved.

PdeRL

Originally posted by Doug Nye
I'm really getting tired of all this 'team orders' discussion.

Anybody over the mental age of 11 should surely accept that the majestic circuit-racing gasoline speed sports - unlike almost any other class of human competition - did not develop MERELY to pit one man (or woman) against each other in solo combat.

The team, the technology, the commercial considerations behind top level motor sport have - ever since its inception at the tail end of the 19th century - always produced occasions upon which it is PERFECTLY proper for team directors to direct their drivers.

The fun starts when the drivers ignore such direction.

Even that is then all part of the rich fabric of a game which is being so greatly demeaned today.

It's being demeaned not only by unenforceable fig-leaf regulations, but also by nitwit fans hotly arguing the merits of team actions which might handicap their favourites.

Team orders are really completely and utterly a normal, everyday part of the game, and nearly always have been. Inconvenient for punters and the bookies? You can't legislate for naive ignorance...

Anybody who thinks this isn't so - and anybody who imagines yet another petty regulation really will prevent team orders being issued - is plainly dreaming. It IS at heart a team sport. Get a grip...

DCN

Originally posted by Doug Nye, post-Austria 2002



I'm just popping out for a while to have a quiet word with Fiat...

DCN

I'm sure that Doug can reconcile these two posts for us . . .

well, team orders are banned, fortunately, today.

the only ones who defend them were old people, not because they are old, but because they have saw a era where drivers could change cars and so on. and miguel's schumacher's fan's. for obvious reasons.

if you don't agree with this, please bring one team car!

- nice one Tim! What happened in Austria absolutely transcended anything I had ever before witnessed or even heard about involving 'team orders'. The combination of blatant disregard for proper values not only by the team but also by both its drivers that Sunday was almost unprecedented. In fact my interest has never fully recovered from that weekend. Hitherto loyal Ferrari fans burning their flags behind the grandstand expressed it most eloquently...but what happened then was not just 'team orders' - it was something far, far, far more unacceptable and is - I believe - unique.

DCN

Originally posted by lukywill
well, team orders are banned, fortunately, today.

the only ones who defend them were old people, not because they are old, but because they have saw a era where drivers could change cars and so on. and miguel's schumacher's fan's. for obvious reasons.

if you don't agree with this, please bring one team car!

First, if you believe that banning teams orders could actually be accomplished, be subject to some form of metrics, or would actually have any effect on the racing, there is a wonderful bridge between NYC and Brooklyn that I would to offer you a wonderful deal on....cheap....

Second, short of dropping the "team championship," how would eliminate "team orders?"

Third, "old people".....OLD PEOPLE??? OLD PEOPLE??

Where is my Banning Wand......

Originally posted by Doug Nye
What happened in Austria absolutely transcended anything I had ever before witnessed or even heard about involving 'team orders'. The combination of blatant disregard for proper values not only by the team but also by both its drivers that Sunday was almost unprecedented. In fact my interest has never fully recovered from that weekend. Hitherto loyal Ferrari fans burning their flags behind the grandstand expressed it most eloquently...but what happened then was not just 'team orders' - it was something far, far, far more unacceptable and is - I believe - unique.

DCN

I knew you would have an answer, Doug.

Like Doug I deplored what went on at Austria 2002, particularly as it indicated that the dominant team was not prepared to let its drivers race each other (unlike, say, McLaren in '88/'89 or Williams in '86/'87). This made 2002 the most boring F1 season ever IMHO.

However, I cannot see why Austria 2002 was any different to, say, Senna and Berger at Japan '91, Schumi and Rubens in Austria 2001, or Stuck and Varzi at Tripoli '36 (plus all the others I can't currently think of). IIRC, these aroused far less vituperation, but why?

capps,
ahahahah
your smile is careless contagiuos!
(of cource i didn´t really understand the bridge between brooklin and nyc. but connot understand at all how team orders improves or has no effect on racing)

should we have one single driver winning the 24 h of lemans, lol
things have change. this days you disalow drivers to change cars whitin races.

In the 1930 Belgian Grand Prix Guy Bouriat had a huge lead in the closing stages, but was under orders to let team leader Chiron win. He parked just short of the finish-line on the last lap and waited - some two minutes, IIRC - for Chiron to catch up, then calmly drove across the line to take second place. He knew he should have won, and his action showed the spectators the true situation.
Is that so different from what Barrichello did in Austria last year? If he'd had a late pitstop, or slowed mysteriously on the last lap, we would be left wondering. His action, like Bouriat's, showed us he should have won, yet respected the team order.
Of course the question remains whether the team should have had such an order, under those circumstances, but I am sure no-one was left in any doubt what was happening.

Luckywill you wrote things have changed. Personnaly I agree with Doug and Don: nothing changed in fact. We have to admit we are not in a sport like athletism or Olympic games and that's all.
About team orders. In 1946 ,I know we are old blocks always referring to the past, so in 1946 Alfa Corse had Farina, Sanesi, Varzi, Trossi, and Wimille as drivers. GP del Valentino, Torino: Alfa decided Varzi was to win. Wimille, who was their best driver was furious and led the race with a comfortable gap. In the last lap he eased up very ostentively till Varzi passed him and won. For Circuito di Milano at the end of the month Wimille was not entered! The story was narred me by Maurice Trintignant, a great friend and admirer of Wimille.

sorry my friends.
if it is a team work (wich i don´t agree at all in racing cars)
then there´s no need for team orders on track. it´s 1-2 regardless if it is regazzoni or lauda the first).
if it´s driver championship, then it´s not a team work.
it is racing between drivers even if they belong to the same scuderia.
if not, it´s ridicoulous manouvers to get atention to a driver that does not deserve it.

and i don't think racing is about playing with drivers to achive a driver title.

RAC GP 1927, Divo leads from Benoist and Bourlier, Delage 1-2-3, suddenly Divo pulls into the pits for a long pit stop as his exhaust was examined. Problems? Apparently not - they were seeking an excuse to put Robert in the lead so he could have a Grand Prix clean sweep for the year. Waiting for this one to be dug up now that team orders are banned.