Jump to content


Photo

Team Orders. What Does Rule 39.1 really mean?


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#1 Mandzipop

Mandzipop
  • RC Forum Host

  • 4,146 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 05 June 2010 - 19:55

After the Turkish GP, we have 2 situations that have brought to light the possibility of team orders being deployed.

39.1 Team orders which interfere with a race result are prohibited.

Now that is such a vague rule what does it really mean? I always thought it was really obvious. You cant order a driver to let another driver to pass, but according to Max that isn't always the case.

His comments on the Red Bull issue has left me a bit confused.

Mosley, said he does not believe Red Bull’s apparent desire to see Vettel ahead of Webber amounts to illegal team orders.

“I cannot see that,” said the Briton. “Vettel was under pressure from Lewis Hamilton, he was faster than Webber, and to shake off the McLaren he needed to pass the slower Webber.

“Even if this situation was declared to the drivers by radio, this would not be a team order or a manipulation of the drivers’ championship, but rather an explanation of a particular situation — (it is) necessary information for the drivers.”

Comparing the situation to Ferrari’s infamous place-swapping in Austria in 2002, Mosley said “one was a conscious manipulation of the world championship, the other is the legitimate explanation of a racing situation.”


http://www.yallaf1.c.....8YallaF1.com)

So what does it really mean? Does it mean that if it is to maintain as many team points as posssible then it is fine, but if it is just for the driver gains it is illegal? :confused:

I mean tbh, we see team orders every year for driver gains when it comes towards the end of the championship eg Massa/Kimi Brazil 2007 and the other way round China 2008.

Now I know this is being done to death in a couple of other threads, but it is a seperate legitimate question.

Advertisement

#2 Augurk

Augurk
  • Member

  • 1,932 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 05 June 2010 - 20:02

It's basically an open rule to allow FIA to make use of it whenever they want to. Seems a bit Mosleyish.

#3 Dragonfly

Dragonfly
  • Member

  • 4,496 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 05 June 2010 - 20:19

A typical FIA (Mosley) rule. They can take whatever decision they like and always be right. :)

#4 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 6,180 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 05 June 2010 - 20:22

Basically Max has no idea what he's on about :)

#5 Anomnader

Anomnader
  • Member

  • 8,616 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 05 June 2010 - 20:26

Basically Max has no idea what he's on about :)


or he does but it gives him another tool to wield when he needs it.

#6 Mandzipop

Mandzipop
  • RC Forum Host

  • 4,146 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 05 June 2010 - 20:33

A typical FIA (Mosley) rule. They can take whatever decision they like and always be right. :)


Ah but Mosley isn't in charge now.

It is just not as obvious as the wording. A lot of people say, well they cant tell them to do that because it would be team orders. It turns out that is not the case. Hypothetically Ferrari could have told Massa blatently on the team radio to let Alonso pass in Australia and according to Max that would have been fine, because he was being held up by a slower Massa and could have gotten overtaken by Hamilton because Massa was holding up. If the Red Bull situation would have been fine, then what was the difference with the Alonso/Massa situation in Australia?

#7 King Six

King Six
  • Member

  • 3,230 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 05 June 2010 - 20:34

to shake off the McLaren he needed to pass the slower Webber.

Alot of people seem to think this

If Schumacher/Sutil and such can hold their own against the McLarens.... I understand the principle of "offense is the best defence" regarding Vettel taking on the person infront rather than defending Hamilton, but when that person in front is your team mate things are different. He could have/should have defended against Hamilton instead of starting things with his team mate. Ah well, let history be history.

#8 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,389 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 05 June 2010 - 21:11

It is and always has been a badly thought out knee jerk reaction rule. Every single decision the team makes has a potential effect on the race result. It's one that should be wiped clean from the rule book and the teams should be allowed to run the team as they want. This means that sometimes our favourite driver is going to lose out, but I think it's highly unlikely we would see a repeat of Austria 02 as I don't believe any current driver would want to be forever associated with that sort of thing.

#9 Madras

Madras
  • Member

  • 3,911 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 05 June 2010 - 21:22

The rule is fine as it is. It prevents obvious team orders which is all you can do really.

#10 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,389 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 05 June 2010 - 21:25

The rule is fine as it is. It prevents obvious team orders which is all you can do really.


It can't prevent "non-obvious" ones and there are too many exceptions to the rule therefore it is failing. The only way to prevent team orders is to have one driver teams. I would far rather have obvious team orders than the did they/didnt they fuss that we currently have.

Edited by Clatter, 05 June 2010 - 21:27.


#11 Jay

Jay
  • Member

  • 957 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 05 June 2010 - 21:31

It is quite clear to me, anyways.

RedBull instruct Webber of the situation:

Vettel is faster than you... Hamilton is catching him...

It is then up to Webber if he:

a) Acts in the best interests of his team and gives Kettle room to pass

or

b) Sticks to his guns and shoots for the 25 points

This is what Mosley is saying. I happen to agree with him.

Drivers are part of a team, so they need to be given the full and frank information about what is going on in the team race as well as their own.

Nobody can be told WHAT to do.. but they can be given a full update on how the team is shaping up in the race.

Then it is up to the driver.



#12 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,389 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 05 June 2010 - 21:37

It is quite clear to me, anyways.

RedBull instruct Webber of the situation:

Vettel is faster than you... Hamilton is catching him...

It is then up to Webber if he:

a) Acts in the best interests of his team and gives Kettle room to pass

or

b) Sticks to his guns and shoots for the 25 points

This is what Mosley is saying. I happen to agree with him.

Drivers are part of a team, so they need to be given the full and frank information about what is going on in the team race as well as their own.

Nobody can be told WHAT to do.. but they can be given a full update on how the team is shaping up in the race.

Then it is up to the driver.


And if that was what the team were expecting then they would not have tried to lay all the blame on Webber.

#13 Wouter

Wouter
  • Member

  • 5,778 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 05 June 2010 - 22:10

The rule is fine as it is. It prevents obvious team orders which is all you can do really.

Wha this rule really means is that teams can do team orders as much as they wish, but they can't do so openly and have to (at least) thinly veil them. "Fuel saving" will do, as will "suggestions" to a driver or even moves that have been discussed before the race (think Raikkonen/Massa China 2008). What this rule wants to prevent is another Austria 2002; this was so blatant that too many viewers got outraged. Teamorders have always been part of F1 however, and every team will continue to use them, just not openly.

#14 Mandzipop

Mandzipop
  • RC Forum Host

  • 4,146 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 05 June 2010 - 22:26

The way I read the rule, after what Max has said is, the results can be manipulated if it is only for the team points and for no other reason.

It would be nice for them to clarify it a bit.

eg

39) THE RACE
39.1 Team orders which interfere with a race result are prohibited unless

39.1.1 Teams are forced into a driver changing positions for WCC reasons due to race conditions
39.1.2 Only one driver in the team is in contention for the WDC
39.1.3 A driver has technical issues

I think the teams are in fear of using team orders when they are sometimes needed. If they were clarified to something along the lines of the above, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. In fact it is what I expect teams to do.

#15 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,743 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 05 June 2010 - 22:33

I think Mosley is sort-of right. He makes a pretty clear distinction between the two situations, which is that Austria '02 just wasn't a race in which either Ferrari was under serious pressure from another driver. Schumacher wasn't genuinely faster than Barrichello for most of the weekend, let alone the race and Barrichello was required to get out of the way.

For Webber to have received the message 'Vettel is faster than you and Hamilton is closing' and then been expected to do the 'right thing' seems to me very different. It's not at all the same as arranging a photo finish with the 'right' car in front, but altering team strategy to ensure the best possible finish for both drivers because of pressure from another team.

However....

The rule doesn't make this distinction - it can't. It's a blanket knee-jerk creation that bulldozes its way through situations like Monaco '07 where the FIA was able to investigate even though it is exactly what Mosley refers to as being 'ok'. It's a punishment tool to be employed when the FIA doesn't like you.

#16 Jay

Jay
  • Member

  • 957 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 05 June 2010 - 22:36

I think Mosley is sort-of right. He makes a pretty clear distinction between the two situations, which is that Austria '02 just wasn't a race in which either Ferrari was under serious pressure from another driver. Schumacher wasn't genuinely faster than Barrichello for most of the weekend, let alone the race and Barrichello was required to get out of the way.

For Webber to have received the message 'Vettel is faster than you and Hamilton is closing' and then been expected to do the 'right thing' seems to me very different. It's not at all the same as arranging a photo finish with the 'right' car in front, but altering team strategy to ensure the best possible finish for both drivers because of pressure from another team.


Yeah.

This is what I meant....

Drivers given the full info about the team race is required.

#17 mclarensmps

mclarensmps
  • Member

  • 3,784 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 05 June 2010 - 22:52

After Turkey....?
:lol:


#18 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,743 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 05 June 2010 - 23:13

Think of it as an aspiration then, TBG.

#19 Mandzipop

Mandzipop
  • RC Forum Host

  • 4,146 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 05 June 2010 - 23:21

After Turkey....?
:lol:


This is the first time we have literally heard team orders being used on the radio. Well partially used, and it would have been legal. The thread is about what are the actual legalities of team orders. It has now come to light that there are certain situations where team orders are allowed to be ordered over the radio. I mean that in the sense of saying let your teammate pass. That we didn't know that under certain situations it was actually allowed. This is new information and clarification of an 8 year old rule, where teams have been reluctant to issue team orders and have given them in code.

Will that change from now on if the team have the right set of circumstances?

Max has basically said there is leeway. Has that always been the case? Does that mean that the teams can be a bit more open with us when team orders are required? I would hope so. trust me I dont want to see team orders in the way of Austria 2002, but if a team has no option, or it is in the interest of the team but not the driver (until it is solely down to WDC reasons), then i think the rule needs some clarification. For fans at least. I want to know exactly what team orders are allowed. It will prevent the suggestions of drivers being classed as favourites by the teams, when it might actually not be the case if it is within the rules and regs.

Advertisement

#20 Dunder

Dunder
  • Member

  • 6,784 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 05 June 2010 - 23:22

It was a dumb rule when it was implemented and it is a dumb rule now.

The reaction of fans to Austria 2002 was understandable (I did not mind it personally) but team tactics have always been part of F1. The type of advice/instructions we have heard about from McLaren and Red Bull in Turkey occur frequently without there being any suggestion of penalty or sanction, not to mention Ferrari drivers swapping positions in China and Brazil.

The problem with the rule as it is written is that nobody knows where the line is that would constitute crossing it.

Edited by Dunder, 05 June 2010 - 23:29.


#21 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,743 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 05 June 2010 - 23:30

It has now come to light that there are certain situations where team orders are allowed to be ordered over the radio.

I don't agree. Max has no say now anyway, but he's expressed his opinion on how the rule should be read but there is nothing in them which say that. There is no purposive statement at the start of the rules explaining the spirit or intent. Simply, team orders are illegal. What Max has said here is that, in his opinion, the rules should be interpreted in a certain way. But there's no doubt the rule is crap, as is any law which can be read and enforced flexibly.

#22 Mandzipop

Mandzipop
  • RC Forum Host

  • 4,146 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 05 June 2010 - 23:40

I don't agree. Max has no say now anyway, but he's expressed his opinion on how the rule should be read but there is nothing in them which say that. There is no purposive statement at the start of the rules explaining the spirit or intent. Simply, team orders are illegal. What Max has said here is that, in his opinion, the rules should be interpreted in a certain way. But there's no doubt the rule is crap, as is any law which can be read and enforced flexibly.


Yes but Red Bull were supposed to tell Webber to move over, his race engineer didn't. Was it because it was illegal or was it because he didn't want to tell him?

Max doesn't rule the roost anymore, but he put this rule into place. He knows how it is to be interpreted. On top of that the most blatent advocator of team orders is his successor.

Why cant the teams be allowed to be honest? As long as it is not to specifically favour a driver, but to favour the team by maximising points. I think it is fair to make it blatently obvious. Because that is how that rule now reads to me, however it doesn't actually say that.

#23 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,389 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 05 June 2010 - 23:44

Yes but Red Bull were supposed to tell Webber to move over, his race engineer didn't. Was it because it was illegal or was it because he didn't want to tell him?

Max doesn't rule the roost anymore, but he put this rule into place. He knows how it is to be interpreted. On top of that the most blatent advocator of team orders is his successor.

Why cant the teams be allowed to be honest? As long as it is not to specifically favour a driver, but to favour the team by maximising points. I think it is fair to make it blatently obvious. Because that is how that rule now reads to me, however it doesn't actually say that.


Why not allow the teams to be honest even if it does favour a driver?

#24 Hairpin

Hairpin
  • Member

  • 4,468 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 06 June 2010 - 00:11

Is "hold station" not a team order? It obviously prevents The Driver to change race result. If a driver wants to, and think he can, overtake, surely it must be a 39.1 offense to tell him not to?

#25 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,348 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 06 June 2010 - 00:32

Why not allow the teams to be honest even if it does favour a driver?


Yep. Obviously the rule as it is is just unrealistic crap. If anything, it should be turned upside-down, requiring that every orchestrated change of position or indeed every order to hold station must be communicated to race control and ultimately to the viewer. Only failure to properly declare a team order should be punishable.

#26 Stormsky68

Stormsky68
  • Member

  • 1,623 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 06 June 2010 - 08:41

Austria should have resulted in a 'bringing the sport into disrepute' and losing all that weekends points, both drivers and team, the message would have been received by the teams loud and clear.

Instead we got a stupid knee jerk reaction Mosley rule. The damage that guy did to the sport was unbelievable. Get rid of it. F1 managed the subject quite well for many decades prior to Austria, and can do so again.

Edited by Stormsky68, 06 June 2010 - 08:42.


#27 velgajski1

velgajski1
  • Member

  • 3,619 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 06 June 2010 - 10:54

I don't agree. Max has no say now anyway, but he's expressed his opinion on how the rule should be read but there is nothing in them which say that. There is no purposive statement at the start of the rules explaining the spirit or intent. Simply, team orders are illegal. What Max has said here is that, in his opinion, the rules should be interpreted in a certain way. But there's no doubt the rule is crap, as is any law which can be read and enforced flexibly.


I don't think its just Max interpretation, teams / stewards are also following that logic. What happens when you have Massa/Kimi situation like in last race of 2007.? Isn't that too manipulating the championship in a certian way?

Or Hamilton / Kovalainen situation from Hockenheim 2008 (IIRC). Where they were on different strategies and for team to maximise the result for both drivers one driver 'shouldn't cause trouble'? Teams always did that, and they will - but those situations - where title is at stake, or maximum points for both drivers and team... do you ban those too?

As far as I understand, rule is very badly written. They wanted to somehow prevent Austria 2002., but not they got a new rule that's not being enforced. You can't ban team orders because teams will find a way to make them happen. Instead, situations like Austria 2002. should simply be judged by the same rule Lewis was punished for liegate.

Yes, it would leave room for unclear interpretations, but historically it was not an issue. All they needed to do is DSQ Ferrari from Austria 2002. race and clarify to teams how to behave.

Edited by velgajski1, 06 June 2010 - 11:03.


#28 Dancing_Donkey

Dancing_Donkey
  • Member

  • 100 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 06 June 2010 - 11:14

Possibly worth a new thread.

I believe there is a big difference between a "hold station it is the latter stages of the race" team order, a "let your team mate past because he is faster than you and could challenge those ahead" order and a "give up your position to our preferred driver", but the current wording lumps all together.

#29 BenettonB192

BenettonB192
  • Member

  • 851 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 06 June 2010 - 11:31

You cannot eliminate team order because it is just strategy and strategy is encouraged in F1. Imo this rule is only there to prevent teams to make blatant messages on the radio like "let Michael pass for the championship" that will piss off the spectators and could harm the sport financialy.

#30 sportzgal82

sportzgal82
  • Member

  • 465 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 06 June 2010 - 11:34

The rule is fine as it is. It prevents obvious team orders which is all you can do really.

The team rules at RB were obvious and yet they had no punishment handed to them

The rule is irrelevent if its not going to be inforced and Id rather the team just come out and say it as apposed to treating the other driver and the fans like fools

Edited by sportzgal82, 06 June 2010 - 11:36.


#31 Wouter

Wouter
  • Member

  • 5,778 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 06 June 2010 - 13:45

Is "hold station" not a team order? It obviously prevents The Driver to change race result. If a driver wants to, and think he can, overtake, surely it must be a 39.1 offense to tell him not to?

Not as long as the team is merely "making a suggestion", or anything like that. Remember, the rule is only meant to stop a very public display of teamorders, not to actually really stop teamorders. This is about appearances only.

#32 Hairpin

Hairpin
  • Member

  • 4,468 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 06 June 2010 - 13:56

Not as long as the team is merely "making a suggestion", or anything like that. Remember, the rule is only meant to stop a very public display of teamorders, not to actually really stop teamorders. This is about appearances only.

I know, and that is my point. For some reason we think that one of the look better than another although it is different sides of the same coin.

#33 Mandzipop

Mandzipop
  • RC Forum Host

  • 4,146 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 06 June 2010 - 14:16

I know, and that is my point. For some reason we think that one of the look better than another although it is different sides of the same coin.


I know, that is the problem. Turkey was the first race where we had blatent team orders that were to be put over the radio (but it didn't end up happening) and then being told this is actually fine, when all of these years we've been under the impression that it was not allowed. Drivers in press conferences not daring to say that they will let their teammate pass as when it is clear that they will (if the said teammate is the only one in the team in contention for the WDC).

It now throws up a lot of possibilities. Would it have been illegal for Ferrari to have let Alonso pass Massa in Australia to see if he could get past Kubica? If he couldn't do it by the last lap then they switch back so that Massa didn't lose out on points. Would that have been manipulating the championship, or was the racing conditions there for Ferrari to try and maximise their points potential for the team? Then say get Alonso to try and slow Kubica down so Massa could pass and then Alonso let Massa pass him as Massa was in front of him in the first place. That is a hypothetical situation based on an event. But it would have been fun to watch teammates working together in unison for team purposes.

#34 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,389 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 06 June 2010 - 20:36

Possibly worth a new thread.

I believe there is a big difference between a "hold station it is the latter stages of the race" team order, a "let your team mate past because he is faster than you and could challenge those ahead" order and a "give up your position to our preferred driver", but the current wording lumps all together.


Personally I don't see much difference in those. They all have an influence on the race result.

#35 One

One
  • Member

  • 6,527 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 06 June 2010 - 21:06

I think Mosley is sort-of right. He makes a pretty clear distinction between the two situations, which is that Austria '02 just wasn't a race in which either Ferrari was under serious pressure from another driver. Schumacher wasn't genuinely faster than Barrichello for most of the weekend, let alone the race and Barrichello was required to get out of the way.

For Webber to have received the message 'Vettel is faster than you and Hamilton is closing' and then been expected to do the 'right thing' seems to me very different. It's not at all the same as arranging a photo finish with the 'right' car in front, but altering team strategy to ensure the best possible finish for both drivers because of pressure from another team.

However....

The rule doesn't make this distinction - it can't. It's a blanket knee-jerk creation that bulldozes its way through situations like Monaco '07 where the FIA was able to investigate even though it is exactly what Mosley refers to as being 'ok'. It's a punishment tool to be employed when the FIA doesn't like you.



BS


At the moment you bring in this kind of rhetorical distinction, any rule of any games do not work anymore.

If a team orders a driver to do something, that is clearly the implementation of a team order.

If such a message is not a team oder, then any behavior of any driver which neglecting the message should be accepted, which was clearly not the case at Turky.



Max is a big loser in this case.

#36 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,743 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 06 June 2010 - 22:22

BS


At the moment you bring in this kind of rhetorical distinction, any rule of any games do not work anymore.

If a team orders a driver to do something, that is clearly the implementation of a team order.

If such a message is not a team oder, then any behavior of any driver which neglecting the message should be accepted, which was clearly not the case at Turky.



Max is a big loser in this case.

:rolleyes:

No, Max is right. Whether you like it or not the rule is not interpreted strictly. So there IS a rhetorical distinction, and it is working. Sorry to disappoint you.

#37 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 06 June 2010 - 23:02

Does anyone actually has an access to full time sequence analysis with transcript of all radio comunications between pitwall and both drivers as it pertains to this segment of the race? (My guess is we are talking about for duration of three or four laps prior and including impact). What is the story with Weber? What were his problems?

Edited by Sakae, 06 June 2010 - 23:03.