58 replies to this topic

[Realyn]

This thread is not about Vettel overtaking Webber who has turned down his rev's. It's about teamorders.

because of this comment:

What he did was wrong. He ignored team orders.

by a 2004 member I thought it would be kinda funny to look up comments after the 2010 German grand prix:

quote name='krapmeister' date='Jul 25 2010, 14:37' post='4498249'




quote name='ensign14' date='Jul 25 2010, 14:37' post='4498262'
"Race"?



quote name='Pharazon' date='Jul 25 2010, 14:38' post='4498282'
joke


quote name='Absulute' date='Jul 25 2010, 14:39' post='4498294'
Sickening


quote name='Sausage' date='Jul 25 2010, 14:39' post='4498301'
Germany 2010 Post Farce Discussion more like



quote name='lokiman' date='Jul 25 2010, 14:39' post='4498319'
Why are you celebrating, Fernando? You 'won' the race because your team told your team mate to pull over for you, FFS!


quote name='Vilenova' date='Jul 25 2010, 14:40' post='4498339'
Bullshit race.

Not only was it a procession, blatant team orders by ferrari made a farce out of the sport.


ferrari sucks.



quote name='se7en_24' date='Jul 25 2010, 14:40' post='4498342'
Disgusting, Ferrari taking the piss out of the sport and their fans.



quote name='Les' date='Jul 25 2010, 14:42' post='4498384'
Joke.

Don't know why people are taking about the 'investigation' as there's been no announcement of any investigations as of yet.

That Santander 'trophy' is a fitting one to hand out, joke trophy for a joke race.


quote name='HoldenRT' date='Jul 25 2010, 14:43' post='4498445'
Congrats to Ferrari. They deserved to win.

*golf clap* For Alonso. Well done.

Horrible race. Regulations fail.

Silly sport. After a race like that.. it's hard to give anyone a good answer when they say "why do you bother with F1?"

This is only from page one of the post grand prix thread.

So, team orders are fine now then?

[tifosi]

So, team orders are fine now then?

You know the rules. If it's Ferrari they are evil monstors destroying the integrity of Formula One.

If its anyone else, they are smart teams doing what is right to win in Formula One.

[ensign14]

So, team orders are fine now then?

There is a fundamental difference.

At the German Grand Prix 2010, they were illegal.

At today's date, they are not.

[OO7]

This thread is not about Vettel overtaking Webber who has turned down his rev's. It's about teamorders.

because of this comment:



by a 2004 member I thought it would be kinda funny to look up comments after the 2010 German grand prix:



This is only from page one of the post grand prix thread.

So, team orders are fine now then?

To be fare, were team orders legal at that time?

[Realyn]

So you two guys think that the view of the fans(or atleast on this board) on team orders changed because they were illegal/legal? That the guys quoted would write something else today?

[rt99]

Comparing two different types of team order for different reasons, fail.

[tifosi]

So you two guys think that the view of the fans(or atleast on this board) on team orders changed because they were illegal/legal? That the guys quoted would write something else today?

Unfortunately, the answer is probably yes.

[rasul]

It doesn't matter whether team orders are legal or not. The opinions on their impact on racing should not have changed. No matter which way you spin it, team orders are team orders. The hypocrisy is staggering.

[ensign14]

So you two guys think that the view of the fans(or atleast on this board) on team orders changed because they were illegal/legal? That the guys quoted would write something else today?

There are different aspects to team orders.

I don't remember there being similar criticism when Ferrari had Massa move over for Raikkonen at Brazil 2007. That was because it was for the world title, and there is a long history of that sort of thing; Phil Hill for Hawthorn in 1958, Bandini for Surtees in 1964 (funnily enough all Ferrari), and occasional controversies when a team did not implement them (Peterson beating Fittipaldi in 1973).

Then there's the whole doing-someone-a-favour - the dying Trossi being given a GP win by Alfa Romeo, Senna moving aside for Berger, Fangio for Moss and so on.

What are different are the scenarios where one driver is moved aside for another in clear breach of the rules (OK, a limited number of occurrences on the basis that the idiotic rule was impossible to police), where the team makes it obvious right from the off that there is no bona fide competition (Austria 2004 - there was no championship justification for that and it was in clear contradiction of everything that had been said in public about there not being a number 1 and number 2, we saw then that Rubens would never be allowed to beat Schumacher), and the situation at Malaysia, where only one driver was racing as the other had stopped. On the promise that his team-mate was not racing.

The latter is similar to Indy 1947 when Rose stole the win from Holland, or San Marino 1982, and is in a different moral sphere. Because it involves pretty much outright theft. If you tell Alonso to drive 3 minute laps on the basis that his team-mate e14 is not going to overtake, he does so, and e14 nicks it on the line, it's not much of a win, is it? Statistically it is but morally it isn't.

And when the Great Book of History is written it will be covered with total contempt. And will overshadow the other achievements of Vettel's career disproportionately.

There was a quote ascribed to a general of Napoleon that seems to sum it up. "It's not only wrong, it's stupid."

[mnmracer]

In 2011, when Mark Webber did the exact same thing, teamorders were also legal and also evil.
It is a hypocritical double standard that a large part of the so-called fans suffer from.

[Fungio]

It's not black and white. Just because a team order for a certain reason under certain circumstances is OK, it doesn't follow that another team order under different circumstances must also be OK. If in Austria 2002 Schumacher had been asked to hold position in order to secure a one-two for the team I doubt there would have been an outrage. And if Webber yesterday had been ordered to move over just so that his team mate could have an advantage in the championship, people would certainly have been quite pissed off. And rightly so.

[Realyn]

It's not black and white. Just because a team order for a certain reason under certain circumstances is OK, it doesn't follow that another team order under different circumstances must also be OK. If in Austria 2002 Schumacher had been asked to hold position in order to secure a one-two for the team I doubt there would have been an outrage. And if Webber yesterday had been ordered to move over just so that his team mate could have an advantage in the championship, people would certainly have been quite pissed off. And rightly so.

Well, quite fascinating how everybody is just looking at RedBull

What about Rosberg? He was the _clearly_ faster driver, easy able to take 3th on the last lap. So it's a bad thing if the guy ahead has to move over, but it's ok if the guy behind isn't allowed to overtake?

Besides, we don't even know if the whole rev turn down is completly true. Or let me put it in another way: If Vettel wouldn't had the ability to pass him either way. Which he got denied to do so, because pre race team orders in the second race of the season.

This.

Ferrari: early in the race to switch position
Red Bull: end of race to keep position, secure and bring home the 1-2, and safe the car. This is common practice for all teams since many years.

May I get your take on Mercedes too?

Edited by Realyn, 25 March 2013 - 09:58.

[F.M.]

Comparing two different types of team order for different reasons, fail.

This.

Ferrari: early in the race to switch position
Red Bull: end of race to keep position, secure and bring home the 1-2, and safe the car. This is common practice for all teams since many years.

[choyothe]

You know the rules. If it's Ferrari they are evil monstors destroying the integrity of Formula One.

If its anyone else, they are smart teams doing what is right to win in Formula One.

There is another rule for this nowadays. If team orders are used against Vettel it's okay, encouraged even.

There is a fundamental difference.

At the German Grand Prix 2010, they were illegal.

At today's date, they are not.

Please. Team orders have always been in F1 by one way or another, it makes no difference whether they're legal or not by name in any other than what the possible penalties are.

[ensign14]

Well, quite fascinating how everybody is just looking at RedBull

Perhaps because the last time something similar happened, Gilles Villeneuve died as a direct result. The thing is we're not talking about team orders here; we're talking about a driver gaining an unfair advantage by ignoring them. Vettel was the only one racing and he caught Webber napping.

What about Rosberg? He was the _clearly_ faster driver, easy able to take 3th on the last lap. So it's a bad thing if the guy ahead has to move over, but it's ok if the guy behind isn't allowed to overtake?

We'll come back and argue it if Rosberg is ordered to move aside for Hamilton in a race where Rosberg was told to thrash it early doors and where there is no championship issue at stake.

[ensign14]

Please. Team orders have always been in F1 by one way or another, it makes no difference whether they're legal or not by name in any other than what the possible penalties are.

I know that. And they've been around in other forms of racing way back. The point is though that in 2010 they were illegal and Ferrari deliberately, pre-meditatedly and ostentatiously flouted the sport's rules, to the disadvantage of a driver who had earned his place. And, as so often happens with Ferrari, they were not punished appropriately.

[Fungio]

Well, quite fascinating how everybody is just looking at RedBull

What about Rosberg? He was the _clearly_ faster driver, easy able to take 3th on the last lap. So it's a bad thing if the guy ahead has to move over, but it's ok if the guy behind isn't allowed to overtake?

Besides, we don't even know if the whole rev turn down is completly true. Or let me put it in another way: If Vettel wouldn't had the ability to pass him either way. Which he got denied to do so, because pre race team orders in the second race of the season.


May I get your take on Mercedes too?

Sure
If the guy behind is clearly faster and would be able to take the position anyway without too much difficulty, then (in my opinion) there is no need for a team order. But if they are evenly matched and on the limit it might be riskier, so I can understand the "hold position" order in such cases. And as you said, there was some differences between Mercedes and Red Bull in this regard, due to Hamilton's fuel problems. So yes, the Mercedes thing was more in the grey area, even felt a bit unnecessary to me.

[Realyn]

The thing is we're not talking about team orders here; we're talking about a driver gaining an unfair advantage by ignoring them. Vettel was the only one racing and he caught Webber napping.

Which I asked you not to do in the opening line of the OP.

And as you said, there was some differences between Mercedes and Red Bull in this regard, due to Hamilton's fuel problems. So yes, the Mercedes thing was more in the grey area, even felt a bit unnecessary to me.

I'll agree with that it was completly unnecessary. They should have let Ham move over and let Ros get 3th. I'm not even against this kind of teamorders. I'm just wondering where is the outburst against Mercedes teamorders? Why don't people care like they did with Ferrari?

Edited by Realyn, 25 March 2013 - 10:16.

[Group B]

There is a fundamental difference.

At the German Grand Prix 2010, they were illegal.

At today's date, they are not.

That's hardly the be-all and end-all, Mr E. If it were suddenly made legal to run people over on Wednesdays or rape anyone wearing high heels that wouldn't mean it was ethically correct or justified. There is undoubtedly a healthy dose of hypocrisy flying around in the last 24hrs, but for once I don't blame the fans or even the drivers; the rule makers, Pirelli, and to an extent the teams, have created a situation where we could well see formation cruising for half the the race or more at numerous events this season. I totally agree with LH, this is not racing and it's not fun.

[sock22]

I think there's a big difference between ordering two drivers to hold station and ordering one driver to let another pass. In the situation yesterday, Webber was in front fair and square and it seems to be becoming common practice to order the drivers to hold station due to managing tyres, engines and gearboxes.

There's also a difference between disapproving of a team order and advocating the ignorance of a team order. For example, given how slow Hamilton had to drive at the end of the race, I thought it was silly to order Rosberg to stay behind, but Rosberg did the right thing in obeying the team order.

[Gareth]

In 2010 they were illegal. In 2013 they are not.

One order was "pull over", the other was "hold position".

Apples and oranges.

[ensign14]

Which I asked you not to do in the opening line of the OP.

And which was rendered impossible in practice by the last line of the OP.

I'll agree with that it was completly unnecessary. They should have let Ham move over and let Ros get 3th. I'm not even against this kind of teamorders. I'm just wondering where is the outburst against Mercedes teamorders? Why don't people care like they did with Ferrari?

There are hundreds of instances of hold station orders. There was one in Australia when di Resta was ordered to stay behind Sutil and that was ignored on the BB. Why would someone single out Mercedes at Malaysia? Perhaps because Hamilton was involved?

Edited by ensign14, 25 March 2013 - 10:26.

[Fungio]

I'll agree with that it was completly unnecessary. They should have let Ham move over and let Ros get 3th. I'm not even against this kind of teamorders. I'm just wondering where is the outburst against Mercedes teamorders? Why don't people care like they did with Ferrari?

I guess some teams or drivers generate more emotion than others. Also more fans = bigger reaction in discussion forums.

[LiJu914]

... (Austria 2004 - there was no championship justification for that and it was in clear contradiction of everything that had been said in public about there not being a number 1 and number 2, we saw then that Rubens would never be allowed to beat Schumacher), and the situation at Malaysia, where only one driver was racing as the other had stopped. On the promise that his team-mate was not racing...

You mean 2002, i guess.

There was no championship justification in hindsight perhaps. Ferrari were overanxious, but probably remembered their own role in 97 and especially 98, when they caught up throughout the season after they had started with a big disadvantage. Mclaren had a very similar start to the 1998 season than Ferrari in 2002: All poles out of the first 6 races and 5 wins and look how that season developed after these first races. Before Austria 2002 Williams could´ve won 2 races compared to Ferrari´s 3 (only Montoya´s and MSC´s first lap clash in Brazil shifted it to a 1-4) so they couldn´t really expect to dominate the rest of the season, especially since there was also a tyre war going on, which could´ve changed the order quite quickly. Due to Rubens bad luck (only 6 points until that point) it was already clear, that he had virtually already lost all chances to be in the hunt - that´s why Ferrari took action so early in the season.

I was annoyed by it myself as i´m not a fan of team orders in general until it´s crystal clear, that´s its A. very likely necessary and B. the "victim" bascially already lost his own chance to win.
But that doesn´t change the fact, that Ferrari swapped places at Austria not because of favouring MSC for self purpose but because of their championship ambitions.

Edited by LiJu914, 25 March 2013 - 10:54.

[Fontainebleau]

I have always been in favour of team orders; this is a team sport, the team decides. I was fine with Germany 2010, with Germany 2008, with Brazil 2007 and so on and so forth.

I find it unfair to ask both of your drivers to slow down, and for one of them to take advantage of his teammate complying with the team order to overtake. I did not like it when it happened to Hamilton in Turkey (if I am not mistaken), and I did not like it when it happened to Webber on Sunday.

If you want to race your teammate, fine: ask your team, because it is their car and not yours. But regardless what your team says, if you take advantage of a situation in which said teammate is at a disadvantage because the team has asked him to rev down, don't pretend that you were racing fair - you were not, and you knew it.

[Realyn]

There are hundreds of instances of hold station orders. There was one in Australia when di Resta was ordered to stay behind Sutil and that was ignored on the BB. Why would someone single out Mercedes at Malaysia? Perhaps because Hamilton was involved?

Wait, what? I seriously don't understand why it should have anything to do with Ham? Did he cry just one time about wanting his teammate out of the way? It's about Brawn and Wolff if anything.

[ensign14]

Wait, what? I seriously don't understand why it should have anything to do with Ham? Did he cry just one time about wanting his teammate out of the way? It's about Brawn and Wolff if anything.

And therefore every other team that has ever applied a hold station, which would probably be all of them. Which is why people are not picking up on Mercedes. It would be like accusing them of running a car with an engine at the back.

[Realyn]

And therefore every other team that has ever applied a hold station, which would probably be all of them. Which is why people are not picking up on Mercedes. It would be like accusing them of running a car with an engine at the back.

So "holding station" for 1,2 - 3,4 -7,8 and 14,15 is exactly the same thing?

[LiJu914]

There are hundreds of instances of hold station orders. There was one in Australia when di Resta was ordered to stay behind Sutil and that was ignored on the BB. Why would someone single out Mercedes at Malaysia? Perhaps because Hamilton was involved?

Why not?
Red Bull was also singled out after Silverstone 2011 for some reason and the vast majority additionally backed the driver, who disobeyed the team orders (which suddenly changed yesterday for whatever reason...or to use your words...maybe because Vettel is involved?)

[Jackmancer]

Opening-poster

[sv401]

Vettel was the only one racing and he caught Webber napping.

This is a lie. The fight for the lead lasted several minutes, and the gap at some points was more than 7 tenths. That should have been plenty enough time for the Australian (who was apparently also so busy napping that he almost squeezed his team-mate into a wall) to turn up the engine and properly defend his position if he was actually capable of doing so. The "engine was turned down" is just a lame excuse by Webber to discredit Vettel and pose as a martyr, as usual.

[Realyn]

This is a lie. The fight for the lead lasted several minutes, and the gap at some points was more than 7 tenths. That should have been plenty enough time for the Australian (who was apparently also so busy napping that he almost squeezed his team-mate into a wall) to turn up the engine and properly defend his position if he was actually capable of doing so. The "engine was turned down" is just a lame excuse by Webber to discredit Vettel and pose as a martyr, as usual.

To back this off:

http://www.f1fanatic...s-fastest-laps/

Webber did his fastest time after pitting.

[ensign14]

Webber went faster on fresh rubbber with less fuel? You amaze me.

As for a lie, Mr-or-Ms Someone-With-Sebastian-Vettel's-Initials-As-Their-User-Name-Who-Mysteriously-Seeks-To-Defend-Sebastian-Vettel, ask his employer. The same one who is so biased against Vettel that it thought Webber was in the wrong before when Vettel drove into him. Or even ask St Sebastian why he apologized.

[F1EC]

There is a fundamental difference.

At the German Grand Prix 2010, they were illegal.

At today's date, they are not.

[CrucialXtreme]

In 2010 they were illegal. In 2013 they are not.

One order was "pull over", the other was "hold position".

Apples and oranges.

This is rubbish, pure rubbish. There was no pull over order. They told him Fernando was faster. Of course we all know what it meant(let him pass), but it wasn't pull over.

Just like in the same way that Vettel fans have mentioned so much lately, Seb ignoring TO's was the exact same as Mark doing it whether Mark passed him or not.


Exactly the same way that many of these fans who are screaming about Team Order's have absolutely zero problem with Sebastian requesting Team Orders for Mark to let him by. You can damn well guarantee had the team orders to hold station came across the radio(and not been discovered after the race) Vettel fans would have been rioting in the streets yesterday. The same fans who have no problem with him requesting team orders, but would have one against him. Hypocrisy at it's finest.



More to your point, whether it's pull over or hold position, effectively you're ruining one drivers chance at achieving their best so in fact it's far from apple & oranges and it's the exact same thing.

Edit: It must also be said if we are to be fair here that many fans of a particular driver criticized Mercedes for making Rosberg hold position while still ignoring the team orders he requested to let him go by his teammate.

Team Orders have their place in F1 IMHO but it's a real gray area. I would say towards the end of the season when a Championship is on the line, or when the team has the teams bottom line at stake and not a favoured driver. But you're either with em or against em. You can't support them only when they favour your driver and you can't criticize other teams when they do it. That's my point.

Edited by CrucialXtreme, 25 March 2013 - 17:32.

[mnmracer]

The same fans who have no problem with him requesting team orders, but would have one against him. Hypocrisy at it's finest.

Almost, but not quite.
If Webber is fine with breaking teamorders on multiple occasions, and then another teamorder is not given, what reason is there left for Vettel to suddenly comply to teamorders his team-mate wipes his ass with?

The 'score' of disobeying teamorders is 3:1, and the Australian is w(h)inning.
Until the score is settled, Webber has nothing to complain about.

Edited by mnmracer, 25 March 2013 - 17:32.

[CrucialXtreme]

Almost, but not quite.
If Webber is fine with breaking teamorders on multiple occasions, and then another teamorder is not given, what reason is there left for Vettel to suddenly comply to teamorders his team-mate wipes his ass with?

The 'score' of disobeying teamorders is 3:1, and the Australian is w(h)inning.
Until the score is settled, Webber has nothing to complain about.

Dude I'm not slugging any drivers here. Only their fans, no matter who they support, RB, Ferrari, Mercedes, hell even marussia.

Are you honestly going to sit here and tell me that if we knew what Multi 21 was when it was given which meant Seb was ordered not to pass Vettel fans wouldn't have went crazy?? You know they would have. But the same ones who went crazy didn't have a problem with him asking for team orders to get mark out of the way. That's a double standard mate. And any Vettel fan who says they wouldn't have minded is lying..

Most know I'm a Ferrari/Alonso fan, so I can't sit here and criticize any team for using team orders. I'm only criticizing fans of all sides that are fine with it when it favours their driver but raise hell when it goes against them or criticize another team for using them when their team does the same. That's all mate.

[Gareth]

This is rubbish, pure rubbish. There was no pull over order. They told him Fernando was faster. Of course we all know what it meant(let him pass), but it wasn't pull over.

Are you serious? It was a pull over order, just in code (and you know it). Makes no difference to the point.

More to your point, whether it's pull over or hold position [...] it's the exact same thing.

It may be to you. To me, there's a big difference between the two - and I think that's the case for most drivers, too (who would be much more understanding of a hold position order than a swap positions order).

And you didn't address the illegal/legal point, which makes a further difference.

[rt99]

This.

Ferrari: early in the race to switch position
Red Bull: end of race to keep position, secure and bring home the 1-2, and safe the car. This is common practice for all teams since many years.

so has asking a slower team 'mate' holding up the proven faster one (for the third time that season) been common practice, not just many years, since it began.

The team orders on Sunday were down to the stupid rules and shouldn't be mixed up with the long accepted drivers sacrificing one place to help another win the world championship

[rt99]

There is a fundamental difference.

At the German Grand Prix 2010, they were illegal.

At today's date, they are not.

Of all the illegal things F1 teams have been caught and rumoured to have been doing during the history of the sport. Asking a slower driver not to hold up his team-mate is the last thing I'd expect motorsport fans to get upset about.

[charly0418]

I don't care wheter team orders are fair play or not, just go by how the rules dictate they should be

What I do care is how drivers react to them. That's why I have even more respect for Rosberg now, he got pissed but tried to talk the team into letting him pass Hamilton, he didnt curse or anything and at the end respected the teams decision. Even at the end, when interviewd he said "I'm a Mercedes employee" Freaking Vettel should get a clue

[CrucialXtreme]

Are you serious? It was a pull over order, just in code (and you know it). Makes no difference to the point.


It may be to you. To me, there's a big difference between the two - and I think that's the case for most drivers, too (who would be much more understanding of a hold position order than a swap positions order).

And you didn't address the illegal/legal point, which makes a further difference.

My rubbish comment wasn't directed at Ferrari's use of words in 2010, it was that you say they're not the same thing. You think Nico wasn't pissed that he was the quicker driver and was told not to pass? He was effectively told to swap positions because he was certainly going to pass Lewis. What about Mark in 2010 when he was told to hold position? He ignored it and was irate. What about Seb who was told to hold position? He said screw that, I'm passing him. Seb was effectively being asked to swap positions because as you see he passed Mark.

99% of the time a driver isn't told to hold position because he's the slower car. If the driver behind who's being told to hold position couldn't pass the car ahead, there wouldn't be a need to be told to stay where he's at. Which is effectively being told to swap places because if the order wasn't given they would be in front of the car they're being told not to pass.

Being told not to pass(hold position) is the same thing as being told to let someone pass.

To your last sentence, yes team orders were illegal in 2010. Legality wasn't the issue then and it's not the issue now. They're legal now yet there were still plenty of pissed off fans & drivers Sunday no?

[ensign14]

Of all the illegal things F1 teams have been caught and rumoured to have been doing during the history of the sport. Asking a slower driver not to hold up his team-mate is the last thing I'd expect motorsport fans to get upset about.

Normally illegal things tend to be from pushing that bit too close to the regulations. Twin chassis, flexible wings and so on. Nobody would be sympathetic if someone stuck a turbo on.

Ferrari's was of the latter ilk - a blatant snook cocked at the regulations. Plus everyone knew they'd get away with it.

[Gareth]

If the driver behind who's being told to hold position couldn't pass the car ahead, there wouldn't be a need to be told to stay where he's at. Which is effectively being told to swap places because if the order wasn't given they would be in front of the car they're being told not to pass.

No true - for the bold bit, the need comes from preventing risk to the cars. From there, the remaining logic fails

Being told not to pass(hold position) is the same thing as being told to let someone pass.

Fine. I think they're fundamentally different.

Legality wasn't the issue then

It was an issue for a large number of people.

[CrucialXtreme]

No true - for the bold bit, the need comes from preventing risk to the cars. From there, the remaining logic fails


Fine. I think they're fundamentally different.

It was an issue for a large number of people.

Preventing risk from the cars is usually the reason given by the teams for PR spin, although I agree there are times when that's the real reason albeit few and far between.

We'll agree to disagree.

I'm sure it was for some then but I think it's evident people have issues with team orders whether they're legal or not.

Cheers.

Edited by CrucialXtreme, 25 March 2013 - 19:00.

[rt99]

Are you serious? It was a pull over order, just in code (and you know it). Makes no difference to the point.


It may be to you. To me, there's a big difference between the two - and I think that's the case for most drivers, too (who would be much more understanding of a hold position order than a swap positions order).

And you didn't address the illegal/legal point, which makes a further difference.

I'll side with Christian Horner who said that F1 drivers are ultra competitive animals who just want to race and win. I don't think they are understanding or care for that matter the difference between the two team orders. Massa and Alonso get on quite well, yet Massa was still distraught at having to give up a position to help his team-'mate' in a situation that made sense to everyone but Alonso haters.
Massa unimpressive yet again on Sunday, made no impact on the main contenders, yet will still be distraught the next time Ferrari ask him to let Alonso by, under whatever circumstances.

And the 2 team mates finishing the higher on Sunday weren't smiling either. There's no difference, none of them like the situation of not being able to race.

Take Spa 98 for example. Ralf was only given a sniff due to a safety car, Damon had earnt the win, been impressive in all but the full down pour conditions yet Ralf suddenly thought he had the right to win with Damon still looking up for the fight. Ralf (and his brother for that matter) were totally distraught at what Jordan decided for the sake of the team having a no worries finish.

the illegal/legal point is one of those petty image things that pales in comparison to what teams have got up to in the past.

[rt99]

Normally illegal things tend to be from pushing that bit too close to the regulations. Twin chassis, flexible wings and so on. Nobody would be sympathetic if someone stuck a turbo on.

Ferrari's was of the latter ilk - a blatant snook cocked at the regulations. Plus everyone knew they'd get away with it.

What bothers me about the Germany 2010 incident, are the claims from certain fans and media that it was damaging for the sport and insult to fans. Yet the race took place with many empty areas in the grandstands.
F1 was broken and damaged way before Ferrari, illegally asked the slower Massa to stop holding his mate up during that race.
Ironically, a few seasons before, Massa and Brawn claimed the Renault of Alonso's turbulent air 100 meteres away held him up during qualifying with Alonso stating "this is no longer a sport". Words that rang true on Sunday.

[black magic]

perhaps its just me but when did instructing drivers to hold station become the same as ordering the faster car to move aside for the favoured driver?

it has not been established whether vettel was indeed quicker or simply by ignoring instructions and running at a higher delta he made it look like he was quicker than webber.

[Sausage]

Ah we are passionate fans, we're allowed to change opinions

[ardbeg]

So you two guys think that the view of the fans(or atleast on this board) on team orders changed because they were illegal/legal? That the guys quoted would write something else today?

I remember being upset because they got away with it while being very clumsy and obvious. Team orders were illegal, everybody knew that team orders was given, still there was no penalty. We all knew there was team orders, but most of us believed that if you get caught, you have to take some spanking. I also think that many, me included I must admit, thought that had those orders, those words and actions, been performed by another team, for instance McLaren, then the aftermath would have been different. We will never know.

Edited by ardbeg, 26 March 2013 - 13:45.