58 replies to this topic

[Sin]

I think it would be intresting to see how these votes will end up in comparison.

I personally don't know what was the right or wrong thing to do.... racing is racing in my opinion and things happen the way they do...

but I'm curious what you think.

The Questions and answers should be pretty self-explanatory...

Edited by Sin, 24 March 2013 - 20:27.

[eronrules]

why am i the only one with two 'yes' .... hmm

[Sin]

btw if you vote yes for one and no for the other would be cool if you could give a small explanation why you think that way.... don't have to would just be cool

[eronrules]

cause whatever we vote here, it wont change the situation. FIA can't take vettels win back, and in the long term, vettel had to do it, he has to establish his 'roosterness' . in any case, if both of them had hold station for say 5 laps, they'd be doing this at the end of the race anyway. besides, if vettel wins his 4th, no one will remember it anyway.

MGP is straight forward, posterboy has to win to save face. Marko said it clearly, mgp has a clear situation.

[rasul]

btw if you vote yes for one and no for the other would be cool if you could give a small explanation why you think that way.... don't have to would just be cool

I see some people already voted differently. Double standards at its finest. Team orders are team orders, no matter which way you spin it. And at this point of the season, they aren't okay. I watch F1 for racing, not for team orders to "hold positions" or whatever. In all honesty, despite supporting Lewis, I would have liked for Rosberg to do what Vettel did, and screw the team orders. If one of the drivers has little to no chances for WDC, then team orders are justified and must be followed. But in the 2nd race? "This is silly." ©

[Sin]

I see some people already voted differently. Double standards at its finest. Team orders are team orders, no matter which way you spin it. And at this point of the season, they aren't okay. I watch F1 for racing, not for team orders to "hold positions" or whatever. In all honesty, despite supporting Lewis, I would have liked for Rosberg to do what Vettel did, and screw the team orders. If one of the drivers has little to no chances for WDC, then team orders are justified and must be followed. But in the 2nd race? "This is silly." ©

the more I think of it I agree with that... couldn't say about the Vettel thing since till after the race I wasn't even aware there had been team orders.... but with Merc I really wanted Rosberg to overtake anyway...

[grandmastashi]

For me, no in both cases.

At this stage in a week-old season, let them race. You're not mathematically going for anything yet, so they hold no ultimate value unless to speculate on what might have been at a later date.

Let them race as long as they don't hit each other, then invoke team orders when it matters.

[alframsey]

I voted team orders for Merc; 'No'. This is because as far as I can see it was not something that had previously been agreed and was more a racing call. I voted yes for RBR as this was an agreement the drivers had in place before the race, this agreement was broken by one driver.

[Sakae]

No, and no mystery over what happened, despite declaration that Hamilton is not No. 1 contractually. Not so, Mr. Brawn.

No, and it is mystery, especially when RBR lead us to believe that until end of the season that they let drivers to freely race. Not so, Mr. Horner.


It's race No. 2 FFS.

[SUPRAF1]

Weren't they basically the same orders? Faster driver behind, team telling him to hold position.

[Nonesuch]

Was the Mercedes scheme to keep Hamilton in third and Rosberg in fourth okay? I'd say yes; if Mercedes can keep challenging for podiums Hamilton is their best shot at the title based on previous results, and you can add to that the DNF (and thus 0 points) for Rosberg in Australia.

Was Red Bull's decision to maintain the order Webber-Vettel okay? I'd say yes; the team was very vocal about problems with tyre-wear and it had been a tough race on the rubber. It made sense to keep things safe. Maintaining positions after the last pitstop is an old and reasonable tactic, especially in P1 and P2.

Was Red Bull's decision not to order Vettel to give back P1 to Webber after Vettel broke the previous order okay? I'd say yes to that as well; Vettel is their 3x WDC and most likely their best shot at the title this year again. Alonso and Ferrari blundered today, and allowing Vettel to win maximized that opportunity. It's a shame for Webber, but it could turn out to have been for the best. Let's not forget how close the WDC was in 2010 and 2012!

[Sin]

I voted team orders for Merc; 'No'. This is because as far as I can see it was not something that had previously been agreed and was more a racing call. I voted yes for RBR as this was an agreement the drivers had in place before the race, this agreement was broken by one driver.

I never seen any link to where they talk about an agreement before race... from what I heard it was always about a basic plan and strategy and I'm pretty sure Merc does have that too

[stanga]

Another thread on this?

[Longtimefan]

When the first 4 places in a race are decided by team orders, thats a joke.

[alframsey]

I never seen any link to where they talk about an agreement before race... from what I heard it was always about a basic plan and strategy and I'm pretty sure Merc does have that too

Maybe I am mistaken then but it's something I seem to remember Horner and Webber saying?

[The Kanisteri]

No
No

I was tempted to reply maybe, maybe, but no such options.

Both teams got best possible results as team 1-2, 3-4. Those cars are expensive toys and lot of people put lot of sweat and time on those cars and drivers are just tools to bring succes. I can understand teams frozing positions for last laps so those drivers won't fool around and crash themselves out.

What Vettel did, was stealing Webber's candy. Mercedes was having one candy and it was given to Lewis and Nico didn't seek opportunity to steal it away - (though he wanted it).

[RoryF1]

LOL double standards

[choyothe]

NO

NO

[halifaxf1fan]

No - It is fairly obvious that the Mercedes TO is based on a contractual agreement with Lewis.

Yes - The theory behind the Red Bull TO was to protect the teams one - two finish by bringing the cars home without the additional stress of racing each other.

[drag]

absolute disgrace,this was worse than Ferrari Schumi era, I m not keen to watch another similar race.

no excuses they can all piss off

[JRizzle86]

It doesn't matter which team applies them, team orders lead to terrible racing in any situation. Let team mates race to the chequered flag.

[Wander]

I don't like team orders, but I understand why teams issue them. Simple as that.

It kind of depends on whether you think the benefit of the driver is more important that the benefit of his team or the other way around.

There are also some subtle differences depending on the situation. These two situations, for example, are slightly different. Maybe not different enough to vote differently for most, but different enough for some.

But I would personally prefer if the team never interfered. This is obviously not realistic, not even if team orders were "banned", so this is what you get with multiple cars in the same team. It can't be helped.

Edited by Wander, 24 March 2013 - 21:08.

[PorcupineTroy]

They were both absolutely fine. From Austria 2002 through 2010, they would have been illegal, but at any other point in the history of the World Driver's Championship, team orders have been allowed.

Honestly, with the fallout from todays race on these forums, I really wonder whether the majority of posters only began watching F1 this year. I know that sounds very arrogant, but it was merely three races ago when Ferrari purposely gave Massa a five place grid drop to let Alonso start on the clean side of the track. Surely that isn't worse than what Red Bull and Mercedes did this weekend?

[RealRacing]

For me, no in both cases.

At this stage in a week-old season, let them race. You're not mathematically going for anything yet, so they hold no ultimate value unless to speculate on what might have been at a later date.

Let them race as long as they don't hit each other, then invoke team orders when it matters.

Agreed. However, I saw in one of the million threads opened for this purpose that these days, with TOs allowed and clear perceived No. 1 and 2 status at other world champion candidate teams, they have no other alternative. So either it's a level playing field for everyone or everyone has to follow the same strategy. Given this and how close the WDC went last year, I was surprised they didn't ask MW to let Vettel pass.

[Wolf]

OK, Sin- here's why I voted differently (RB OK, MB not). RB team had drivers on similar pace and told both of them to conserve their cars and finish as they were- team orders were not deployed to put any of their drivers to disadvantage. Mercedes issued team orders to prevent clearly faster driver from overtaking the slower one- team orders were issued to the benefit of one driver against the other one. RB has more or less obvious driver #1 policy, and those team orders did not favour their #1 driver, whereas Mercedes has allegedly no #1 driver policy but the team orders seemed to favour one of their drivers at the expense of the other one... In a nutshell, RB were putting a muzzle on both of their drivers in order to prevent **** from happening, whereas Merc tied hands on the back of only one of their drivers (I support Nico, yet I would feel exactly the same if he was in front in ailing car and Ham was prevented from overtaking him.)

(FWIW I'd have liked to have seen both teams letting them race and Vettel and Nico finishing in front- yet, I understand Nico's decision and was disappointed by Vettel's brattish behaviour.)

Edited by Wolf, 24 March 2013 - 21:29.

[F1EC]

Yes and Yes.

Team orders are legal. Drivers who don't like the current rules, or who don't like working in a team where strategic decisions are made by other people, should look for a different job. One where they're either the one giving the orders, or where they're working for themselves. Just like the rest of the human race.
Of course that may mean they end up earning a little bit less than the millions a year they currently earn, under contracts that presumably make it very clear who their boss is.

Sheesh. I can't believe this is even being discussed.

[Group B]

I'm no LH fan, but I totally agree with what he said, this is no longer racing and no longer fun.

[rolf123]

They were both OK in the sense that both teams have a car that is especially hard on tyres and they could catastrophically fall apart if they were not looked after properly.

Actually, I think Merc's decision was wrong. They should have ordered Hamilton to wave Rosberg through. Instead, they tried to "right a wrong" which is something you shouldn't do in F1. The last time I saw that happen was when Coulthard was forced to move over for Hakinnen due to the team's mistake.

If the team make a mistake, you suffer for it, it's part of the luck of the draw. Team orders should not be used for some perverse kind of justice.

[Group B]

Yes and Yes.

Team orders are legal. Drivers who don't like the current rules, or who don't like working in a team where strategic decisions are made by other people, should look for a different job. One where they're either the one giving the orders, or where they're working for themselves. Just like the rest of the human race.
Of course that may mean they end up earning a little bit less than the millions a year they currently earn, under contracts that presumably make it very clear who their boss is.

Sheesh. I can't believe this is even being discussed.

So why not play uber safe and enforce team orders from the first lap? In fact, best be even safer and say you're not allowed to race anyone else either - that should save the tyres and avoid incidents

[fum3s]

RBR: Straightforward common sense
Merc: The situation highlights the problems we all have in triangular relationships - you can't always be fair toward both of your partners. The team had short-filled LH, so they felt it fair to allow him to keep the position he had earned during the race, BUT
that meant asking Rosberg to carry the weight of something that wasn't his fault. Hamilton could have let Nico past, knowing that he himself was compromised due to what the team had done. Rosberg could have pulled a Vettel. Real-life ethical decisions in a silly little motor race!

[Krugler]

The fastest man should always win.

[PorcupineTroy]

So why not play uber safe and enforce team orders from the first lap? In fact, best be even safer and say you're not allowed to race anyone else either - that should save the tyres and avoid incidents

I think team orders were implemented today (as they so often are) to benefit the team using them. If teams are not allowed to race other teams, then some teams would have no choice but to lose - they wouldn't benefit from that, would they?

[LiJu914]

Tbh i would´ve expected that the Merc-teamorder would get more "Yes"-votes than Red Bull.

At least they ordered Nico to hold postion in the last few laps, whereas Red Bull did that with still a whole stint ahead.

[Wolf]

RBR: Straightforward common sense
Merc: The situation highlights the problems we all have in triangular relationships - you can't always be fair toward both of your partners. The team had short-filled LH, so they felt it fair to allow him to keep the position he had earned during the race, BUT
that meant asking Rosberg to carry the weight of something that wasn't his fault. Hamilton could have let Nico past, knowing that he himself was compromised due to what the team had done. Rosberg could have pulled a Vettel. Real-life ethical decisions in a silly little motor race!

I have yet to see a quote from the team or Ham about underfuelling, until then I consider this a myth (Brawn would've gladly used it to justify his decision if that was the case). If it was so, it would mean Nico caught him and was trying to overtake despite driving the whole race with a heavier car (more fuel onboard), which would make team orders even sillier.;)

[Zoony]

I voted YES to both. It is a team sport, the drivers are employees of the team. They should do what they're told.

If you don't like F1 being a team sport, well, go watch something else.

[sosidge]

Team orders are OK. But the team needs to be prepared for the consequences.

Ignoring them is also OK. But the driver needs to be prepared for the consequences.

[RealRacing]

I voted YES to both. It is a team sport, the drivers are employees of the team. They should do what they're told.

If you don't like F1 being a team sport, well, go watch something else.

F1 teams are not Procter & Gamble and drivers are certainly not your average marketing manager...

[fum3s]

I have yet to see a quote from the team or Ham about underfuelling, until then I consider this a myth

Yeah, I didn't mean to specify that it was underfueling or excessive consumption or faulty readings or just the heebie-jeebies that caused them to ask him to conserve fuel - just that they did ask him to do so.

[sosidge]

Yeah, I didn't mean to specify that it was underfueling or excessive consumption or faulty readings or just the heebie-jeebies that caused them to ask him to conserve fuel - just that they did ask him to do so.

Ross Brawn said post race that both cars were under-fuelled because the race was drier than they expected.

[F1EC]

So why not play uber safe and enforce team orders from the first lap? In fact, best be even safer and say you're not allowed to race anyone else either - that should save the tyres and avoid incidents

Silly question. They're creating entertainment, in order to earn money, in order to keep their businesses going and in order to maintain their chosen lifestyles.
But ... they also have other issues that need to be managed in order to maximise income. One of them is conserving engines and other car components. If they conserve engines, they avoid future grid penalties and they reduce their chances of not finishing races. This increases their chances in the constructors championship, and helps attract sponsorship.

I'm not sure if it was Horner, Brawn or Marko (?) who said today that drivers have a conflict of interest to the teams. The drivers want their adrenaline rush and they want to win the driver's championship. They want to make sure they're marketable and show off their skills. The teams have to try to manage that conflict, so that everyone (including the fanbase) gets a little of what they want. This is what we saw today.

[weston]

May the best man win.
World champions didn’t get medals for following rules and orders from pit walls.

Edited by weston, 24 March 2013 - 22:11.

[midgrid]

I really don't understand how anyone could vote "yes" in one poll and "no" in the other, considering that both situations were more-or-less identical...

(Yes/Yes)

[Freung]

Agreed. However, I saw in one of the million threads opened for this purpose that these days, with TOs allowed and clear perceived No. 1 and 2 status at other world champion candidate teams, they have no other alternative. So either it's a level playing field for everyone or everyone has to follow the same strategy. Given this and how close the WDC went last year, I was surprised they didn't ask MW to let Vettel pass.

Most opinions expressed on forum such as these are heavily biased ones..hence the 'not-making-sense shade to them.
Forums such as these live for and because of the current moment..

[sv401]

I really don't understand how anyone could vote "yes" in one poll and "no" in the other, considering that both situations were more-or-less identical...

It obviously has to do something with the popularity of the drivers involved. Indeed, I knew the what the results will be already before opening the thread If there was a similar poll for Silverstone 2011, then the results (which I would expect to be mostly "no") of that should be shown, too, for comparison.

Edited by sv401, 24 March 2013 - 22:18.

[arrysen]

The RBR team orders made sense - they have had tyre degradation issues and with a final stint of 14 or so laps to the finish, needed to make sure they got there. Mark had been in front through most of the race & had pulled away from Seb when he needed to, was leading after the last stops, made perfect sense from the team point of view - they needed to make sure that they got both cars home. It IS disappointing from a pure racing point of view but they are all struggling to get their heads around the new tyres and going flat out to the finish was probably not achievable.

Mercedes call makes sense as well due to tyres and low fuel but I struggle with it to a certain extent. Lewis & Nico weren't all THAT far behind the bulls and if Nico could had been allowed to pass and put on pressure in the RBR pair, Mercedes could have been looking at P2 or even a win if the red bulls hit tyre issues etc - all based on IF I know but seemed a shame to not push the team in front a little more.

I'm fine with both calls but just feel that the Mercedes team call was not so well judged.

[RealRacing]

Silly question. They're creating entertainment, in order to earn money, in order to keep their businesses going and in order to maintain their chosen lifestyles.
But ... they also have other issues that need to be managed in order to maximise income. One of them is conserving engines and other car components. If they conserve engines, they avoid future grid penalties and they reduce their chances of not finishing races. This increases their chances in the constructors championship, and helps attract sponsorship.

In short, it's all about the money. Wouldn't it be great though if someone (I'm thinking Webber and Massa are candidates right now) said, "Fukc them, I'm going to ignore these bsatards" and did not obey the team (at least until they are fired?) After all, these are very wealthy individuals by most standards...might as well go out with some honor.

[Sin]

the way (and rate) the yes is all of a sudden rising for RB I wonder if people would be able to manipulate these polls... if not people just don't have the courage to write why they vote yes on one and no on the other

Edited by Sin, 24 March 2013 - 22:24.

[fum3s]

the way (and rate) the yes is all of a sudden rising for RB I wonder if people would be able to manipulate these polls... if not people just don't have the courage to write why they vote yes on one and no on the other

maybe they're reading the posts here ... words are great for manipulating opinions

[scheivlak]

Team orders are OK. But the team needs to be prepared for the consequences.

Ignoring them is also OK. But the driver needs to be prepared for the consequences.

I voted 2x ''No'' but could have voted 2x ''Yes'' as well

Red Bull: team orders were in itself of course complete nonsense, remember also what Horner said around Brazil and Abu Dhabi 2010 - and those were the last races of the year!
That said, I feel Seb shouldn't have whinged during the race. And after that, Mark shouldn't whinge. He can't say that he didn't see that coming, come on! But he didn't bow, he was beaten, but he fought valiantly. Nothing wrong with that.
And after that, Seb shouldn't have apologised, at least not in awkward way he did. He did what he did and should have said: "OK, sometimes I'm a bastard, that's just me" (grin).
Or as an alternative should have apologised more in a true Machiavellian way. IMHO his artistic performance left a lot to be desired. He might e.g. need some lessons from Fernando

Mercedes: it looks like the team gambled on more rain or SC, at least for Lewis. Why not? But neither of it happened. As a result, Lewis was left out hanging in the dry. So it was the team's fault that they got into this situation. Team orders were essentially a face saving operation here. Understandable as such, because the result gave both Lewis and Nico a reason to say: "Look, I could have scored better and I'll show it next time."
That said, I'd really liked to know what would have happened if Lewis would have let Nico through immediately. He seemed to have the best genuine pace of the top 4 for that crucial last part - I find it difficult to believe in Ross Brawn's blabla about nothing to gain etc. and an all out attack on Mark in the later stages could have some interesting effects on the wobbly Red Bull inter team dynamics as well - as Lewis' threat on Seb had earlier in the race.

Just my thoughts for this moment

Edited by scheivlak, 24 March 2013 - 22:31.

[sosidge]

I voted 2x ''No'' but could have voted 2x ''Yes'' as well

Red Bull: team orders were in itself of course complete nonsense, remember also what Horner said around Brazil and Abu Dhabi 2010 - and those were the last races of the year!
That said, I feel Seb shouldn't have whinged during the race. And after that, Mark shouldn't whinge. He can't say that he didn't see that coming, come on! But he didn't bow, he was beaten, but he fought valiantly. Nothing wrong with that.
And after that, Seb shouldn't have apologised, at least not in awkward way he did. He did what he did and should have said: "OK, sometimes I'm a bastard, that's just me" (grin).
Or as an alternative should have apologised more in a true Machiavellian way. IMHO his artistic performance left a lot to be desired. He might e.g. need some lessons from Fernando

Mercedes: it looks like the team gambled on more rain or SC. Why not? But neither of it happened. As a result, Lewis was left out hanging in the dry. So it was the team's fault that they got into this situation. Team orders were essentially a face saving operation here. Understandable as such, because the result gave both Lewis and Nico a reason to say: "Look, I could have scored better and I'll show it next time."
That said, I'd really liked to know what would have happened if Lewis would have let Nico through immediately. He seemed to have the best genuine pace of the top 4 for that crucial last part - I find it difficult to believe in Ross Brawn's blabla about nothing to gain etc. and an all out attack on Mark in the later stages could have some interesting effects on the wobbly Red Bull inter team dynamics as well - as Lewis' threat on Seb had earlier in the race.

Just my thoughts for this moment

Couldn't agree more on the bolded points.

Seb is a sincere person but that apology was completely unconvincing.

And yes, the Mercedes team orders did rob of us of a possible battle for second between Webber and Rosberg.