58 replies to this topic

[drag]

I disagree with that decision by Ferrari but this is far worse , it was second race of the season....even rubens move away for schumi in the fifth or sixth race in Austria.

[EthanM]

Hold position was a legal team order even at the time when team orders were banned. That was established in Monaco 2007 by the FIA themselves

It is standard procedure for a team to tell its drivers to slow down when they have a substantial lead. This is in order to minimise the risk of technical or other problems. It is also standard practice and entirely reasonable to ask the drivers not to put each other at risk.

They did nothing which could be described as interfering with the race result.

[CrucialXtreme]

Here's a great "older quote" about team orders..

Red Bull made a big deal last season of allowing their drivers to race, of winning “the Red Bull way”. Ahead of the final-day showdown in Abu Dhabi, Red Bull owner Dietrich Mateschitz famously had a pop at Ferrari. "Let the two drivers race and what will be will be," he said. "We don't manipulate things like Ferrari do."

[vone]

Here's a great "older quote" about team orders..

Red Bull made a big deal last season of allowing their drivers to race, of winning “the Red Bull way”. Ahead of the final-day showdown in Abu Dhabi, Red Bull owner Dietrich Mateschitz famously had a pop at Ferrari. "Let the two drivers race and what will be will be," he said. "We don't manipulate things like Ferrari do."

[LuckyStrike1]

I hate Vettel. I really do. I hate the little prick for his smiling, his finger and his winning. He just touch that nerve.

I hate team orders. I really do. I hate engineers controlling the race and stopping team mates from racing each other in the finla thirds of races. The whole "Hold position, don't risk it and do not race each other" just touches that nerve. I love racers who race and always go for the win, looking for the unfair advantage.

So now I am very puzzled. I think this BB needs another topic on this to be honest.

But I say it here and now - I have decided I hate Vettel so much that I love team orders whne the option is to think Vettel did the right thing so I now turn 180 degrees and state clearly that drivers should always obey team orders and accept when the team tell them not to race.

Of course there's always an exception to any rule and so it is here. So therefore I say to you:

Drivers should always obey team orders and stop racing for position when the team asks them to do and never ever ignore team orders. As long as their name is Sebastian Vettel or is someone I don't want to win. Otherwise I love drivers that ignore team orders and race anyway, especially when their name is Mark Webber.

That's a fact! Until I turn 180 degrees again.

[Number62]

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.

If you want to get score keepery about it Vettel habitually disobeys team orders at the end of most races when he's ordered to slow down and chases off after fastest laps.

Seems petty but it's a principle that he's established over some time, team order for the benefit of the team, Vettel disobeys for selfish reasons (he likes the fastest laps in the record books).

Nevertheless I quite like Vettel and don't like team orders. Still think he shouldnt have done it though.

[Murl]

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."

You nailed it.

A great champion is also a champion of sport in general. Vettel has ruled himself out, not a sportsman.

[mnmracer]

You nailed it.

A great champion is also a champion of sport in general. Vettel has ruled himself out, not a sportsman.

So what does that make of Senna's "sorry Prost, restart, so I don't have to keep our agreement?"
Or his fight with Irvine for having the audacity to overtake him?

Edited by mnmracer, 28 March 2013 - 10:02.

[ensign14]

So what does that make of Senna's "sorry Prost, restart, so I don't have to keep our agreement?"

You know something? Senna was 100% correct on that.

Because it wasn't a re-start. It was a second start.

And back then when a race was re-started after 3 laps the result was an aggregate of the two parts of the race.

So, when they lined up on the grid, Senna was actually 2.7 seconds ahead of Prost. Senna could have stayed on Prost's gearbox the entire race and he still would have won.

Therefore Senna was not overtaking Prost. He was already past. All he did was get ahead of him on the road.

There are other reasons to damage Senna's place in the pantheon, but San Marino 1989 is not one of them.