Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 2 votes

Team Orders - Surprised by Attitude Change


  • Please log in to reply
157 replies to this topic

#101 Astro

Astro
  • Member

  • 326 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 06 April 2013 - 18:38

Okay, Zool, you don't seem to have much time for team orders or Ferrari. What's your view on Ricciardo's driving in this clip from the Italian GP at Monza last year? He is passed for position by Massa, has a pop back at Massa at the 2nd chicane (36s), and as a result he inadvertedly impedes Vettel (who in turn has Alonso all over his rear wing) at the exit of the chicane (38s). Would you not agree that what he does next is blatantly lift on the straight to let Vettel through, before trying to chop Alonso into the first Lesmo.



Why is it that people who are all over Ferrari (and others, to be fair) when they have internal team orders, don't seem bothered about RBR and STR having inter-team orders, which are of course prohibited?

:up:

I find amazing that this is allowed every single race. It is really embarrassing to watch.

Advertisement

#102 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 2,545 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 06 April 2013 - 19:06

It's the same, I hate inter team orders too, but I can't blame RBR for copying Ferrari in cahoots with Sauber before RBR were even in the sport.

e.g. Sauber driver Fontana:
"In 2006, in the Argentinian Magazine Olé, Fontana claimed that Jean Todt visited the Sauber motorhome during the weekend, and told Peter Sauber that the Saubers must block if they were in a position to do so in order to help Michael Schumacher win the World Championship."

and Perez:
http://www.f1fanatic...-order-ferrari/
and then Perez speaking about it less than 30 days ago:
http://www.yallaf1.c...care-of-alonso/

Ferrari Sauber alliance started it in the modern era.

All RBR have done is copy Ferrari.


Ferrari pressure people, for sure, but they don't go anywhere near as far as demanding the kind of subservient driving you can see in that clip. And if they do collaborate with other teams they don't make it obvious. It wasn't obvious at Sepang last year, was it, when Perez all but threw it in the gravel trying to hussle Alonso for the win? So that's a non-story. The "look after Fernando" thing is just good intimidation; it carries no particular weight behind it and there's no evidence anyone ever acted on it. And the Fontana thing is ancient history - yes the Saubers moved out of the Ferraris' way, but it was in their interests to do so anyway so as not to lose time. They were never ahead of the Ferraris at any stage in that race (unlike in my Monza example) so although one of their drivers claims Todt had a word in his ear, it would only have been a reminder to move over when being lapped, so again there's no evidence that they did anything they wouldn't otherwise have done. They didn't impede Villeneuve, for example. And incidentally, if you're worried about collaboration between teams at Jerez 1997 you might want to ask why Villeneuve chucked away two posiions in the last three corners of that race to give McLaren a 1-2; the radio messages there are apparently quite interesting...

What strikes me about Monza 2012 is that unlike your examples it's not a case of somebody saying that somebody else had a quick word in their ear. It's a case of a driver who everybody knows is being potentially groomed for Webber's seat and who has the words of Helmut Marko in his ear all the time, blatantly performing an action on track that is clearly not in his own team's interests (because even if he was resigned to losing that position and just wanted to let Vettel past without losing time, he still wouldn't ever lift on the straight, he'd at least stay ahead through the Lesmos then let Vettel get him under braking for Ascari, lifting only cost him time). He liftd on the straight. It was as clear as day. That's not racing. Everybody saw it. Nobody can deny it. Why did the Monza stewards not at least call him in for a meeting without coffee, to ask him to explain why he lifted? What could he have possibly said to justify that?

Like Ferrari's team order in Germany 2010, it was a bit too obvious, and yu'd think they'd have at least suffered some heat over it, but no, nothing. I was watching on BBC and, funily enough, impartial summariser David Coulthard didn't seem to notice it at all... Weird, eh?

Edited by redreni, 06 April 2013 - 19:08.


#103 garoidb

garoidb
  • Member

  • 3,663 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 06 April 2013 - 19:38

There is a big difference between a team order to a driver to give up a clear race victory to a team mate examples: David Coulthard ordered to give away a massive lead to Mika Hakkenin or Rubens Barrachello to Michael Schumacher and a driver being told to hold position in the last few laps of a race.

The team orders from both the Red Bull and Mercedes were in the interest of the respective teams, Vettel's move on Webber was well out of order, Rosberg deserves respect.



There is no difference whatsoever.

Those who could win were denied their win. Unless you are of opinion that 10 last laps of the race are not part of the race.


Disclaimer: i have no problems with team orders if they were agreed by drivers and are a recognized team policy.


The only difference is the optics. There is no difference in terms of fairness. Either the team decides the finishing order at some point before or during the race, or they allow the drivers to race to the flag. Now, as I have posted before, the optics are relevant and have the potential to cause a lot of trouble. But we cannot consider, for example, the Mercedes decision to hold Rosberg behind Hamilton to be any more fair than if they had to instruct him to let Hamilton pass (be it for a podium, points or a win).

#104 bourbon

bourbon
  • Member

  • 6,580 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 06 April 2013 - 19:51

Vettel is a little ****.


There is a problem if that is the foundation for your opinion.

I don't like team orders ether but if you don't want to get team orders or you have no intention following any then you make your position clear from the start and not take advantage of team orders to get close to pass a guy that isn't going full speed or requesting for team orders for him to be removed in the middle of the race


Well impartially speaking, it would appear that you don't like them when it suits you not to like them. If they work against the "little ****" maybe you don't have such a problem with them - like in Brazil 12 or Silverstone 11.

How in the world do you figure a driver is going to make his intent to disobey the team clear from the start? Exactly how would they do that and what makes you think any team would go for a public announcement of same? Even the most blatant examples we've seen are surrounded by lies and dissembling. Never has or will happen.

In the latest instance, Mark wasn't going full speed due to his fuel/revs, but that was the same in Silverstone for Seb, who was suffering a wheel issue when Mark came up to challenge. Other times it is a poor pitstop or a gearbox or what have you - but in any of those cases, tough luck to the man with the problem. The only time that should be ignored is when only 1 teammate is in contention toward the end of the season.

Edited by bourbon, 06 April 2013 - 19:54.


#105 mattferg

mattferg
  • Member

  • 847 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 06 April 2013 - 20:54

Okay, Zool, you don't seem to have much time for team orders or Ferrari. What's your view on Ricciardo's driving in this clip from the Italian GP at Monza last year? He is passed for position by Massa, has a pop back at Massa at the 2nd chicane (36s), and as a result he inadvertedly impedes Vettel (who in turn has Alonso all over his rear wing) at the exit of the chicane (38s). Would you not agree that what he does next is blatantly lift on the straight to let Vettel through, before trying to chop Alonso into the first Lesmo.



Why is it that people who are all over Ferrari (and others, to be fair) when they have internal team orders, don't seem bothered about RBR and STR having inter-team orders, which are of course prohibited?


Because Ferrari have inter-team orders. "Ferrari often asked me to take care of Alonso" -Perez

When has an STR driver been told on the radio to let Vettel past? I've never heard it. Perhaps it's a driver decision because they know it'll make the man holding the keys for them to an RB9 happy?

Also, where does it say inter-team orders are prohibited? :p

Edited by mattferg, 06 April 2013 - 20:56.


#106 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 2,545 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 06 April 2013 - 21:52

Because Ferrari have inter-team orders. "Ferrari often asked me to take care of Alonso" -Perez

When has an STR driver been told on the radio to let Vettel past? I've never heard it. Perhaps it's a driver decision because they know it'll make the man holding the keys for them to an RB9 happy?

Also, where does it say inter-team orders are prohibited? :p


Well I'm sure it could come under the catch-all "bringing the sport into disrepute" regulation since it is fixing. Just as the earlier poster on this thread was wrong to suggest that a driver moving aside for his team-mate is a case of race-fixing, since they are racing for the team, so it is entirely correct to say that a driver moving aside for another competitor who is not his team-mate is guilty of fixing. The reason is quite clear - a punter who bets on Massa to win a race in the second half of the season when Alonso is better placed in the championship knows full well (or should do) that Ferrari might issue a team order that would prevent Massa from winning. It's not a secret. It's officially a team sport and that's how it goes sometimes. But the punter is not supposed to know (not officially, at least) that the same thing's gonna happen if Vettel comes up behind Ricciardo - they're not driving for the same team. So if our punter bets on Riccardo to finish on the podium, say, and then he doesn't because although he's running third late on in the race, Vettel arrives in his mirrors two laps from home and he has a massive lift on the straight to give the place away, then the punter has been deceived into thinking he's watching and betting on a straight fight when he isn't.

And by the way, if we're going to be serious about this, it would be better to look at what people do and not just what they say. I'm sure you're right, there's probably no need to give a radio message to an STR driver about jumping out of the big sister cars' way. Look at how they drive. They're so utterly subservient that such a message would serve no purpose. That doesn't make it not a team order.

Edited by redreni, 06 April 2013 - 21:56.


#107 bourbon

bourbon
  • Member

  • 6,580 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 06 April 2013 - 22:01

Well I'm sure it could come under the catch-all "bringing the sport into disrepute" regulation since it is fixing. Just as the earlier poster on this thread was wrong to suggest that a driver moving aside for his team-mate is a case of race-fixing, since they are racing for the team, so it is entirely correct to say that a driver moving aside for another competitor who is not his team-mate is guilty of fixing. The reason is quite clear - a punter who bets on Massa to win a race in the second half of the season when Alonso is better placed in the championship knows full well (or should do) that Ferrari might issue a team order that would prevent Massa from winning. It's not a secret. It's officially a team sport and that's how it goes sometimes. But the punter is not supposed to know (not officially, at least) that the same thing's gonna happen if Vettel comes up behind Ricciardo - they're not driving for the same team. So if our punter bets on Riccardo to finish on the podium, say, and then he doesn't because although he's running third late on in the race, Vettel arrives in his mirrors two laps from home and he has a massive lift on the straight to give the place away, then the punter has been deceived into thinking he's watching and betting on a straight fight when he isn't.


Then he is not an actual fan of the sport and those are the additional risks "punters" take when betting on things they don't have any knowledge of. I remember being in Vegas and doing the horses for a spell of about 3 hours - great stuff. But I hadn't kept up with horse racing at all, so while I had the odds and win/place history, I didn't know if some horse had come off a lame leg 3 weeks before, and while looking great at the start might start to fall off the pace late in the race. But I took it as it was, I was all in for the additional risk of being a dumbcluck punter and having a blast.

So I don't find that argument very persuasive. Study your bet or be prepared for unknown risks...

Edited by bourbon, 06 April 2013 - 22:02.


#108 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 2,545 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 06 April 2013 - 22:21

Study your bet or be prepared for unknown risks...


Unknown risks? Yes, absolutely. Driver carrying an undeclared injury? Fair enough, you wouldn't expect him to tip his opponents off. Team not bringing aero updates due to financial problems? Fair enough, stuff happens. Driver gifting a place to an opponent because his team has secretly collaberated with another team? That's not considered a fair hazard to expose punters to in any other sport as far as I'm aware.

Do you really not think it strikes at the integrity of the sport? Remembering that from next year two of the top teams plus Renault are going to control the engine supply, and everyone else will likely struggle to afford the new engines. Do we really want each title contender to have a clan of half a dozen backmarkers who are only there batting for them, jumping out of their way and impeding their rivals? Where will it end? There has to be some constraints on this, surely?

#109 mattferg

mattferg
  • Member

  • 847 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 07 April 2013 - 01:05

Well I'm sure it could come under the catch-all "bringing the sport into disrepute" regulation since it is fixing. Just as the earlier poster on this thread was wrong to suggest that a driver moving aside for his team-mate is a case of race-fixing, since they are racing for the team, so it is entirely correct to say that a driver moving aside for another competitor who is not his team-mate is guilty of fixing. The reason is quite clear - a punter who bets on Massa to win a race in the second half of the season when Alonso is better placed in the championship knows full well (or should do) that Ferrari might issue a team order that would prevent Massa from winning. It's not a secret. It's officially a team sport and that's how it goes sometimes. But the punter is not supposed to know (not officially, at least) that the same thing's gonna happen if Vettel comes up behind Ricciardo - they're not driving for the same team. So if our punter bets on Riccardo to finish on the podium, say, and then he doesn't because although he's running third late on in the race, Vettel arrives in his mirrors two laps from home and he has a massive lift on the straight to give the place away, then the punter has been deceived into thinking he's watching and betting on a straight fight when he isn't.

And by the way, if we're going to be serious about this, it would be better to look at what people do and not just what they say. I'm sure you're right, there's probably no need to give a radio message to an STR driver about jumping out of the big sister cars' way. Look at how they drive. They're so utterly subservient that such a message would serve no purpose. That doesn't make it not a team order.


You're kidding right? When one qualifies on pole and the other's out in Q2, and they both have Red Bull plastered on the side, I think it's pretty obvious to anyone betting who's going to finish ahead. You mentioned in an earlier post about Saubers letting Ferraris past so they didn't lose speed - it's a waste of time for a TR to fight an RBR, it's a faster car.

Seriously? Bringing the sport into disrepute because he let another car pass? And this counts as fixing? If a car has a bad stop like McLaren did last year and gets dropped behind a Caterham, they let them pass, resistance is futile. It doesn't bring the sport into disrepute, you're just using that because you realised inter-team orders isn't explicitly illegal.

Unknown risks? Yes, absolutely. Driver carrying an undeclared injury? Fair enough, you wouldn't expect him to tip his opponents off. Team not bringing aero updates due to financial problems? Fair enough, stuff happens. Driver gifting a place to an opponent because his team has secretly collaberated with another team? That's not considered a fair hazard to expose punters to in any other sport as far as I'm aware.

Do you really not think it strikes at the integrity of the sport? Remembering that from next year two of the top teams plus Renault are going to control the engine supply, and everyone else will likely struggle to afford the new engines. Do we really want each title contender to have a clan of half a dozen backmarkers who are only there batting for them, jumping out of their way and impeding their rivals? Where will it end? There has to be some constraints on this, surely?


I don't think there's any secret in the fact Toro Rosso and Red Bull are owned by the same guy. Perhaps you'd like to open a poll on it to check how many members know that...

As for the engine issue, they basically do now, Cosworth doesn't really count so it's clearly a non-issue. I don't remember Lotus helping Red Bull in Brazil last year or Mercedes and McLaren helping each other out, and Bruno Senna in that Williams-RENAULT was certainly no friend of Vettel's.

Backmarker teams have their own stuff to worry about. Engine suppliers need customer teams and they're not going to go and alienate them all by making them fight the works team battles. Caterham was busy fighting Marussia not holding up Ferrari for RBR, and they even get a drivetrain from MK.

Edited by mattferg, 07 April 2013 - 01:15.


#110 Velocifer

Velocifer
  • Member

  • 736 posts
  • Joined: January 02

Posted 07 April 2013 - 01:23

If you want to go through different scenarios and ask people on here what they would do as a team boss, assuming team orders were allowed, I guarantee you will get differing judgements all over the place. It's not a common sense issue, it's extremely complicated. It's certainly not a straight question of whether a driver has a mathematical chance of winning the title: what if it's six races to go and driver B is 149 points off the championship lead, with driver A 10 points off the lead? You don't think it's okay to order driver B to move over for driver A? Not many would agree with you, if so.

A team boss has to look at maximising his team's chances in the WCC and WDC, he has to think about the psychological effect on his drivers and their race engineers and mechanics, he must consider a vast number of different factors, and reasonable people will disagree. It's fundamentally not about what Jo Public is likely to regard as fair or not. Jo Public includes all sorts of people, including idiots. Team bosses will never make their judgements on that basis and the rule-makers can't force them to.

This is about the attitude toward team orders and the apparent change and I say it's very uncomplicated and there is no watershed change, it's the very simple premise that virtually everyone always accept fair team orders.

It's just as easy to understand for team bosses as well, and since they are no fools, when they hinder the faster car or help the slower when it is not called for, it is obvious they are doing it for reasons other than sport and no surprise people react.

The team orders we've had so far have been unfair to the point of being disgraceful as they were given in the first two races of the season. I hope drivers, fans, sponsors and team members never stop showing what they think about unsporting team orders.

#111 Astro

Astro
  • Member

  • 326 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 07 April 2013 - 02:56

Seriously? Bringing the sport into disrepute because he let another car pass? And this counts as fixing? If a car has a bad stop like McLaren did last year and gets dropped behind a Caterham, they let them pass, resistance is futile. It doesn't bring the sport into disrepute, you're just using that because you realised inter-team orders isn't explicitly illegal.


Resistance is futile?... So if they are the last two cars in the field, why bother right? Since racing is futile, let's go back to the pits and show the fans our mastery playing darts. Great argument.

Sometimes drivers don't want to spend time fighting with leading teams because they ARE racing to gain or maintain positions with other cars. Other times, most notably Petrov in Abu Dhabi 2010, they are fighting for position with one of the leading cars because they ARE racing for position. What STR does at the moment is not racing. It goes against their own interests as a team. It goes against the purpose of F1. They also help RBR by giving them valuable time against other leading teams when they are lapped. If they want to be seen as a mere promotional advert on wheels during the race, so be it, but they should make sure to get out of the way all the time in their path to irrelevance.

STR's position is indefensible.

#112 Juggles

Juggles
  • Member

  • 896 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 07 April 2013 - 03:02

Well impartially speaking, it would appear that you don't like them when it suits you not to like them. If they work against the "little ****" maybe you don't have such a problem with them - like in Brazil 12 or Silverstone 11.

How in the world do you figure a driver is going to make his intent to disobey the team clear from the start? Exactly how would they do that and what makes you think any team would go for a public announcement of same? Even the most blatant examples we've seen are surrounded by lies and dissembling. Never has or will happen.

In the latest instance, Mark wasn't going full speed due to his fuel/revs, but that was the same in Silverstone for Seb, who was suffering a wheel issue when Mark came up to challenge. Other times it is a poor pitstop or a gearbox or what have you - but in any of those cases, tough luck to the man with the problem. The only time that should be ignored is when only 1 teammate is in contention toward the end of the season.


It's been said plenty of times but Silverstone 11 was a different situation to Malaysia 13. When Horner came on the radio in Silverstone telling Webber to "maintain the gap" it was the first time Red Bull had implemented team orders. Up to that point they had claimed to reject team orders and always let their drivers race. In Malaysia the "Multi 21" order showed that Red Bull had a code in place - that was clearly discussed, and presumably agreed to, by both drivers before the race - to hold position after the final round of pit stops, driven by fear of tyre drop off.

I hope you can see the difference between a driver thinking he is allowed to race his teammate and then being unexpectedly told in the heat of battle that he has to hold position, and a driver agreeing before the race that if his teammate is ahead after the last round of pit stops he will hold position for the good of the team.

Webber's actions in Silverstone 11 were hot-headed, Vettel's in Malaysia 13 were actively duplicitous.

#113 yoyogetfunky

yoyogetfunky
  • Member

  • 856 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 07 April 2013 - 03:53

Webber's actions in Silverstone 11 were hot-headed, Vettel's in Malaysia 13 were actively duplicitous.


Webbers words afterwards Sil 2011 were clear enough, though. He wasnt prepared to follow team orders, period.

#114 bourbon

bourbon
  • Member

  • 6,580 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 07 April 2013 - 04:59

It's been said plenty of times but Silverstone 11 was a different situation to Malaysia 13. When Horner came on the radio in Silverstone telling Webber to "maintain the gap" it was the first time Red Bull had implemented team orders. Up to that point they had claimed to reject team orders and always let their drivers race.


What do you mean? We were up to our ears in team orders by then. The season prior we'd had Turkey, Hungary, Canada, Malaysia, etc, and the year prior to that in Turkey 09. So this was not new. It wasn't only RBR denying team orders back then, they were illegal so everyone denied them. But we knew they were happening.

In Malaysia the "Multi 21" order showed that Red Bull had a code in place - that was clearly discussed, and presumably agreed to, by both drivers before the race - to hold position after the final round of pit stops, driven by fear of tyre drop off.

I hope you can see the difference between a driver thinking he is allowed to race his teammate and then being unexpectedly told in the heat of battle that he has to hold position, and a driver agreeing before the race that if his teammate is ahead after the last round of pit stops he will hold position for the good of the team.

Webber's actions in Silverstone 11 were hot-headed, Vettel's in Malaysia 13 were actively duplicitous.


I have to disagree. Webber wasn't being hotheaded - he knew very well that Vettel had a wheel issue and the team gave him laps of opportunity to hold position and maintain the gap. This was no 'sudden' "oh by the way, you can't race Vettel" once Mark caught up with Seb's off the pace car.

In any case, Webber never said anything of the sort. He said that he caught up and Vettel had an issue, but he should be allowed to pass because to do otherwise was clear bias by RBR. I completely disagreed with him that bias was involved - like in Malaysia, the team was just looking out for its WCC interests. However, I agreed with his decision to ignore the team order and raced Seb, because that is what they are out there to do. Seb had an issue - that is his problem. Same with Mark in Malaysia if he had one.

If you think ignoring team orders is duplicitous, so be it, but there is no distinction between Mark and Seb in that regard.

Edited by bourbon, 07 April 2013 - 05:24.


#115 Juggles

Juggles
  • Member

  • 896 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 07 April 2013 - 08:37

What do you mean? We were up to our ears in team orders by then. The season prior we'd had Turkey, Hungary, Canada, Malaysia, etc, and the year prior to that in Turkey 09. So this was not new. It wasn't only RBR denying team orders back then, they were illegal so everyone denied them. But we knew they were happening.


As far as I'm aware Silverstone 2011 was the first time Red Bull issued a team order to prevent the two drivers fighting each other. Hungary 2010 was a strategy to get Webber second place which backfired on Vettel because of his own lack of concentration; Webber certainly wasn't supposed to win that race. Feel free to elaborate on team orders in Turkey 09/10, Canada and Malaysia because I don't remember any of them. I certainly don't remember either driver being disadvantaged by a Red Bull team order before Silverstone 11.

I have to disagree. Webber wasn't being hotheaded - he knew very well that Vettel had a wheel issue and the team gave him laps of opportunity to hold position and maintain the gap. This was no 'sudden' "oh by the way, you can't race Vettel" once Mark caught up with Seb's off the pace car.

In any case, Webber never said anything of the sort. He said that he caught up and Vettel had an issue, but he should be allowed to pass because to do otherwise was clear bias by RBR. I completely disagreed with him that bias was involved - like in Malaysia, the team was just looking out for its WCC interests. However, I agreed with his decision to ignore the team order and raced Seb, because that is what they are out there to do. Seb had an issue - that is his problem. Same with Mark in Malaysia if he had one.

If you think ignoring team orders is duplicitous, so be it, but there is no distinction between Mark and Seb in that regard.


You've missed the point. Ignoring team orders to stay behind your teammate when there is no precedent for doing so is not duplicitous. Ignoring team orders having agreed before the race to obey team orders is duplicitous.

I understand why you are trying to equate Silverstone 11 to Malaysia 13: because it allows you to say "Webber just reaped what he sowed." However, there are key differences between the incidents no matter how hard you try to lump them together. Webber sowed a sword in the front but he reaped a knife in the back.

#116 bourbon

bourbon
  • Member

  • 6,580 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 07 April 2013 - 09:34

As far as I'm aware Silverstone 2011 was the first time Red Bull issued a team order to prevent the two drivers fighting each other. Hungary 2010 was a strategy to get Webber second place which backfired on Vettel because of his own lack of concentration; Webber certainly wasn't supposed to win that race. Feel free to elaborate on team orders in Turkey 09/10, Canada and Malaysia because I don't remember any of them. I certainly don't remember either driver being disadvantaged by a Red Bull team order before Silverstone 11.


Canada 10 - Mark told to hold position (he did); Malaysia, Both drivers told to stop racing one another at the start (eventually they did). I have to guess you are joking about Turkey 2010, lol - in 2009, Seb was hold to hold position (he did).

You've missed the point. Ignoring team orders to stay behind your teammate when there is no precedent for doing so is not duplicitous.


Well as I have shown above, there was tons of precedent prior to Silverstone.

I understand why you are trying to equate Silverstone 11 to Malaysia 13: because it allows you to say "Webber just reaped what he sowed."


That isn't true. As the archives will show, I supported Mark after Silverstone 11. I do not believe he had anything to "reap" because he didn't "sow" anything. Mark did nothing wrong, he was merely racing his teammate as he should have been. Vettel only became a sitting duck because of that wheel issue, but that wasn't Webber's problem, it was Seb's problem. I was 100% rooting for Seb to hold him back - and for RBR to shut up with their team order nonsense. They are there to race when both are in contention (extraordinary circumstances apart), and that is what they were doing.

However, there are key differences between the incidents no matter how hard you try to lump them together. Webber sowed a sword in the front but he reaped a knife in the back.


Well I can see why you feel that way, but as I see it, Webber didn't properly sow his sword at the front. He was on cruise control too much of the time (prior to the pitstop) and if that was because he wore out his tyres and was running low on fuel, that is his problem - not Seb's. In other words, if Webber got stabbed in the back, it is because he was moving so slow (not just in the last stint), that he basically presented his back for stabbing - i.e., he allowed his teammate to catch up. Like the comparably slow Sebastian did in Silverstone 11. When that happens, the race is on and the leader has to defend.

It was great racing, very exciting. I felt Mark's entire embittered attitude and rant took away from what was some of the most exciting and enduring wheel to wheel we've seen in some time. Silverstone was also exciting and he did the same thing, except he was compltely against team orders then, unlike in Malaysia where he became their biggest advocate. But the point is, the drivers in the presser should be building on the fan's excitement of the race - the details of that wheel to wheel through the drivers eyes would be awesome. But instead we have to listen to a disgruntled Mark. That was Highly disappointing.

Edited by bourbon, 07 April 2013 - 09:50.


#117 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 2,545 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 07 April 2013 - 09:39

You're kidding right? When one qualifies on pole and the other's out in Q2, and they both have Red Bull plastered on the side, I think it's pretty obvious to anyone betting who's going to finish ahead. You mentioned in an earlier post about Saubers letting Ferraris past so they didn't lose speed - it's a waste of time for a TR to fight an RBR, it's a faster car.

Seriously? Bringing the sport into disrepute because he let another car pass? And this counts as fixing? If a car has a bad stop like McLaren did last year and gets dropped behind a Caterham, they let them pass, resistance is futile. It doesn't bring the sport into disrepute, you're just using that because you realised inter-team orders isn't explicitly illegal.

I don't think there's any secret in the fact Toro Rosso and Red Bull are owned by the same guy. Perhaps you'd like to open a poll on it to check how many members know that...

As for the engine issue, they basically do now, Cosworth doesn't really count so it's clearly a non-issue. I don't remember Lotus helping Red Bull in Brazil last year or Mercedes and McLaren helping each other out, and Bruno Senna in that Williams-RENAULT was certainly no friend of Vettel's.

Backmarker teams have their own stuff to worry about. Engine suppliers need customer teams and they're not going to go and alienate them all by making them fight the works team battles. Caterham was busy fighting Marussia not holding up Ferrari for RBR, and they even get a drivetrain from MK.


Of course everybody knows STR and RBR are owned by the same guy. And of course people know STR isn't ever going to race RBR even if, and this is the crucial point, even if they were in a position to do so. It's not a case of what people have managed to work out. If a journalist asked Christian Horner if STR are under instructions to jump out of the way of the Red Bulls and impede Ferrari, he would unquestionably deny it. He could not possibly admit it because everybody except you realises it isn't on. If he could admit it, presumably the other top teams would say, right, well if that's legitimate we'll have to start buying out the smaller teams, otherwise we will be at a disadvantage, and this takes us down a road nobody wants to go down.

Customer teams were supposedly banned at the end of 2009. RBR at that stage promised to stop sharing its IP with STR and very few people believe that happened either; most people think they just started giving them older stuff. But that doesn't mean that if STR were to be caught receiving IP from RBR and putting it on their car that they shouldn't be punished. The other purpse of banning customer teams was to stop top teams issuing team orders to their customer teams. All I'm saying is the FIA should keep an eye on this, and if it finds that STR is behaving like a customer team in this respect, it should do something.

You're right that normally, if say a Red Bull or a Ferrari has a nose change and falls to the back early on, there's no point STR fighting it when it comes back through. Just let it by without losing time. You also know that's not quite what STR do; they let the Red Bull through in such a way that the Red Bull doesn't lose time, without caring about any time loss for themselves. Hence lifting on the straight. And if there's a Ferrari there, too, they aggressively turn in on it and try to impede it as much as possible, again not caring about their own time loss to their direct competitors. Furthermore you say resistance is futile when you're a slower car being overtaken by a faster one, but that depends on circumstances. Fast cars can experience problems and find themselves running behind slower cars late on. If there's only a lap left in the race it's got to be worth fighting, right? Is anybody on here convinced that STR would fight a Red Bull in those circumstances? I agree with you that most people, assuming they're not wet behind the ears, don't think they would, although they don't officially know that they wouldn't. It isn't conceded. How can this be good for the sport?

On the engine point (a) Cosworth does count and (b) the engines are as cheap as they've ever been in the modern era of the sport. Because there's no development there's comparatively little cost and the small teams are able to pay their way. Next year the cost for the engine manufacterers will go up massively and the manufacturers won't be able to pass the full cost onto the small teams without bankrupting them. So they will have to sell engines to the small teams at a loss, which is why they will be increasingly doing what Ferrari tried to do with Force India (as part of their 2014 engine deal which fell through) i.e. adding non-cash elements to the deal such as placing drivers from their young driver programme in the smaller team's car. Always a good way of ensuring cooperation...

All this is bound to go on in secret, but to the extent that collaboration between teams affects race results, yes I am dead serious that I regard it as fixing, I think it's fundamental to any sport that each separate competitor is actually competing with all the others (in F1 that means each team, since it's a team sport) and when collusion between teams is done so obviously that you can't miss it I think it's something the FIA should slam down on. If a car lifts on the straight to let a competitor past when ostensibly fighting for position, the stewards are entitled to ask why, and in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, to investigate further.

Edited by redreni, 07 April 2013 - 09:47.


#118 TailG

TailG
  • Member

  • 927 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 07 April 2013 - 11:27

There is a big difference between a team order to a driver to give up a clear race victory to a team mate examples: David Coulthard ordered to give away a massive lead to Mika Hakkenin or Rubens Barrachello to Michael Schumacher and a driver being told to hold position in the last few laps of a race.

The team orders from both the Red Bull and Mercedes were in the interest of the respective teams, Vettel's move on Webber was well out of order, Rosberg deserves respect.


Coulthard was ordered to give position back to Häkkinen only because of miscommunication between the team and the driver in Australia '98. Before that, Häkkinen was ahead of Coulthard.

#119 Mario5

Mario5
  • Member

  • 283 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 07 April 2013 - 11:47

I'm not sure if I'm alone in this, but I am very surprised by the tone of the rhetoric I am seeing in the aftermath of the Malaysia team orders row. As recently as 2010, team orders were illegal, and were sneered at as the sort of "illegal unsporting behaviour practised only by those naughty Machiavellian boys at Ferrari" and would of course never be undertaken by any right-thinking race team. Now, only a few years into the era of legalisation, obedience to team orders has become the very highest sacred duty of the race driver. Why the attitude shift? Is it real, or just something stirred up by the press?


If Lewis Hamilton benefits from team orders, then many here will defend team orders. If he doesn't (like the past few years), then they are the harshest critics against team orders. Hypocrisy knows thy name, and it's Lewis Hamilton Fans.

Advertisement

#120 yoyogetfunky

yoyogetfunky
  • Member

  • 856 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 07 April 2013 - 12:35

Coulthard was ordered to give position back to Häkkinen only because of miscommunication between the team and the driver in Australia '98. Before that, Häkkinen was ahead of Coulthard.


You raise a good point. Its because of spineless guys like DC that make team orders possible in the first place. I never liked the guy since.

#121 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 2,545 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 07 April 2013 - 15:13

This is about the attitude toward team orders and the apparent change and I say it's very uncomplicated and there is no watershed change, it's the very simple premise that virtually everyone always accept fair team orders.

It's just as easy to understand for team bosses as well, and since they are no fools, when they hinder the faster car or help the slower when it is not called for, it is obvious they are doing it for reasons other than sport and no surprise people react.

The team orders we've had so far have been unfair to the point of being disgraceful as they were given in the first two races of the season. I hope drivers, fans, sponsors and team members never stop showing what they think about unsporting team orders.


I agree entirely, as long as people aren't saying they want team orders banned or expecting teams to care about anything but winning and scoring well in both championships. It's fine to say you think a team order is dumb. Personally if I'd been Christian Horner in Malaysia I'd have seen we had a safe 1-2 before the last pit stop and I'd have given Webber's pit crew a target time of 6s to change Webber's tyres. That would have brought Webber out behind Vettel, then I'd have given the "Multi 12" order. Why? Because you can't trust those two to race cleanly, and if you've been paying attention over the last three years you'll realise that Vettel is better than Webber and therefore much more likely to win the championship, so you're better off maximising his WDC points. If the Multi 21 order had been followed it would only have limited Alonso's damage as he'd only have only lost 18 points to Vettel rather than 25. He's not so bothered about Webber. That's my opinion. You've got your opinion which is different. Christian Horner's opinion was different again. As I say, there's room for reasonable disagreement about it. I'm all for debate but it's not Christian Horner's job to worry about what you or I think or say..

#122 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 07 April 2013 - 15:23

There is a big difference between a team order to a driver to give up a clear race victory to a team mate examples: David Coulthard ordered to give away a massive lead to Mika Hakkenin or Rubens Barrachello to Michael Schumacher and a driver being told to hold position in the last few laps of a race.

The team orders from both the Red Bull and Mercedes were in the interest of the respective teams, Vettel's move on Webber was well out of order, Rosberg deserves respect.

Why don't you critique also Webber, or your critique is reserved for some drivers only? Horner actually came out now, claiming that in last three races neither of drivers did not understand these Multi xx codes. Strangely rocket like noise is only about the last one.

Edited by Sakae, 07 April 2013 - 15:23.


#123 study

study
  • Member

  • 2,452 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 07 April 2013 - 15:36

You saying the drivers don't understand Multi 21 or Multi 12?

Really horner needs to stop speaking to stop himself looking less of a leader then he already does.

#124 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 07 April 2013 - 15:47

You saying the drivers don't understand Multi 21 or Multi 12?

Really horner needs to stop speaking to stop himself looking less of a leader then he already does.

Sakae, a poster, is merely quoting Horner, who has sarcastically revealed to Sky, that neither of drivers responded and obeyed those orders in last three races; Vettel in the last race is not the only one. (Perhaps reading whole article could help to understand it).

#125 plumtree

plumtree
  • Member

  • 712 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 07 April 2013 - 16:13

All those articles and quotes are based on the Sky interview that Horner gave two weeks ago. With "both our drivers in the last three races have failed to understand both of those messages" he was referring to Webber's in Brazil and Vettel's in Malaysia. 'Failed to understand' was clearly meant to be tongue-in-cheek, as Horner was explaining it with a chuckle on his face. You'd notice these, if you watch the interview closely. Unfortunately YT clips have been deleted now.

CH "Multi 21 means car two ahead of car one. Multi 12 means car one ahead of car two. It’s not complicated. It’s not that difficult to translate but both our drivers in the last three races have failed to understand both of those messages. So I think we’re going to give up on that code, we need to probably try something else."

#126 mattferg

mattferg
  • Member

  • 847 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 07 April 2013 - 21:18

Resistance is futile?... So if they are the last two cars in the field, why bother right? Since racing is futile, let's go back to the pits and show the fans our mastery playing darts. Great argument.

Sometimes drivers don't want to spend time fighting with leading teams because they ARE racing to gain or maintain positions with other cars. Other times, most notably Petrov in Abu Dhabi 2010, they are fighting for position with one of the leading cars because they ARE racing for position. What STR does at the moment is not racing. It goes against their own interests as a team. It goes against the purpose of F1. They also help RBR by giving them valuable time against other leading teams when they are lapped. If they want to be seen as a mere promotional advert on wheels during the race, so be it, but they should make sure to get out of the way all the time in their path to irrelevance.

STR's position is indefensible.


If you're the backmarkers you fight OTHER backmarkers. You don't challenge the leaders because you're gonna have to drive defensively and lose time... to the guys you ARE fighting, THE OTHER BACK MARKERS.

Petrov in Abu Dhabi was in a car that finished only 2 spots behind Ferrari in the constructors - in Petrov's eyes, Ferrari was a car he could challenge, so he had every right to battle hin. This doesn't compare to McLaren vs Caterham at all.

#127 Astro

Astro
  • Member

  • 326 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 08 April 2013 - 02:08

If you're the backmarkers you fight OTHER backmarkers. You don't challenge the leaders because you're gonna have to drive defensively and lose time... to the guys you ARE fighting, THE OTHER BACK MARKERS.

Petrov in Abu Dhabi was in a car that finished only 2 spots behind Ferrari in the constructors - in Petrov's eyes, Ferrari was a car he could challenge, so he had every right to battle hin. This doesn't compare to McLaren vs Caterham at all.


You are basically explaining better what I said: There is no justification for STR to give way to RBR, let that be because they are fighting other back markers, or because it is not their interests to do so (construction points, driver points, etc.). You only try to justify it by saying it is futile because they are not competitive enough, and that's bollocks.

They certainly do fight for position with all other cars, front, middle, and back, except RBR. Of course they put little resistance against leading teams, but they still race them. They don't get out the racing line and bring out a red carpet as they do with RBR. The last time a STR driver impeded a RBR (Alguersuari doing his own lap during practice), he got scolded by Marko for not screwing his own lap. It is so embarrassing that you have to laugh.

Edited by Astro, 08 April 2013 - 02:17.


#128 mattferg

mattferg
  • Member

  • 847 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 08 April 2013 - 03:09

You are basically explaining better what I said: There is no justification for STR to give way to RBR, let that be because they are fighting other back markers, or because it is not their interests to do so (construction points, driver points, etc.). You only try to justify it by saying it is futile because they are not competitive enough, and that's bollocks.

They certainly do fight for position with all other cars, front, middle, and back, except RBR. Of course they put little resistance against leading teams, but they still race them. They don't get out the racing line and bring out a red carpet as they do with RBR. The last time a STR driver impeded a RBR (Alguersuari doing his own lap during practice), he got scolded by Marko for not screwing his own lap. It is so embarrassing that you have to laugh.


There's every justification. Back markers fighting top teams is pointless, and it isn't just RB who benefits from this. Caterham and Marussia never fight anyone but each other for the most part, maybe STR and Williams too.

You know what's more embarrassing? Saying something as a fact that's completely wrong. I believe if you watch Abu Dhabi back (the rave most complained about STR letting RBR through) they do the same thing to Mercedes. Also Webber was battling with Riccardo for P10 last year, when STR were at a competitive track... Guess the Alguersuari thing was wrong too. Awkward.

Jealousy - envious resentment against a rival, a person enjoying success, or against another's success itself

Edited by mattferg, 08 April 2013 - 03:11.


#129 Astro

Astro
  • Member

  • 326 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 08 April 2013 - 04:22

There's every justification. Back markers fighting top teams is pointless, and it isn't just RB who benefits from this. Caterham and Marussia never fight anyone but each other for the most part, maybe STR and Williams too.

You know what's more embarrassing? Saying something as a fact that's completely wrong. I believe if you watch Abu Dhabi back (the rave most complained about STR letting RBR through) they do the same thing to Mercedes. Also Webber was battling with Riccardo for P10 last year, when STR were at a competitive track... Guess the Alguersuari thing was wrong too. Awkward.

Jealousy - envious resentment against a rival, a person enjoying success, or against another's success itself


I am calling it as I see it, just like you. If you find embarrassing discussing in a forum, you are in the wrong place.

According to you, back markers must get out of their way to let other cars go. They are not even allow to keep the racing line.

Let's make the example with another team that you many not like as much as RBR: Alonso is behind Ricciardo, they are racing for position. According to you, Ricciardo should step aside, lift and let Alonso overtake, right? No. I still think it sucks. The minimum you could expect is for Ricciardo to keep his racing line, maintain his speed, and let Alonso do what he must to overtake. If Ricciardo doesn't want to defend too hard, that's fine. What is not fine is to step aside and bring the red carpet because, you know, resistance is futile.

Jealousy, yeah... that must be it. :rolleyes:







#130 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 2,545 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 08 April 2013 - 07:27

I am calling it as I see it, just like you. If you find embarrassing discussing in a forum, you are in the wrong place.

According to you, back markers must get out of their way to let other cars go. They are not even allow to keep the racing line.

Let's make the example with another team that you many not like as much as RBR: Alonso is behind Ricciardo, they are racing for position. According to you, Ricciardo should step aside, lift and let Alonso overtake, right? No. I still think it sucks. The minimum you could expect is for Ricciardo to keep his racing line, maintain his speed, and let Alonso do what he must to overtake. If Ricciardo doesn't want to defend too hard, that's fine. What is not fine is to step aside and bring the red carpet because, you know, resistance is futile.

Jealousy, yeah... that must be it. :rolleyes:


Spot on. You have to work pretty hard not to see the difference between a slow car being lapped by a fast car, where you have to do it before you pass three marshall's posts and you may well have to lift or move over to get it done and avoid a penalty, and a slow car being passed for position by a fast car. In the latter case, if you judge that, in the circumstances, you can't realistically race the fast car, you avoid losing time by driving on the racing line. When the fast car puts himself alongside you, maybe you blend out of the throttle a touch early before the next corner so you can tuck in behind and get back on line. But you absolutely do not lift at the beginning of a straight to allow the fast car past without costing it time (and to ensure it doesn't lose a place to another fast car), as Ricciardo does in the clip posted. You only do that if you're in the race for the benefit of a team other than your own.

And we still haven't had an answer from mattferg to the point that driving for the benefit of a team other than your own isn't automatically okay just because the point isn't covered in the sporting regulations. The sporting regulations don't say you can't bribe the stewards either, but that doesn't mean you can. Either the top teams are going to openly operate with smaller, backmarker subsidiary teams that are going to be allowed to drive subserviently to the big sister team's interests and where it's publicly conceded that that's what's going on, which is not the situation now nor a situation that anybody would want, or else secret (i.e. not openly declared) collusion betwen teams has to be interpreted as anti-competitive behaviour at best and race fixing at worst which is, by implication and on a point of very basic principle, banned.

#131 mymemoryfails

mymemoryfails
  • Member

  • 298 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 08 April 2013 - 07:46

And Schumacher letting Vettel past in Brazil? ...because......

mymemoryfails

#132 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 2,545 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 08 April 2013 - 09:47

And Schumacher letting Vettel past in Brazil? ...because......

mymemoryfails


That was absolutely disgraceful too and I couldn't believe how little comment it generated. When Kobayashi caught Schumi he didn't get such lenient treatment, in fact he was stuck behind Schumi for ages and then fell off the road trying to get past. Would have been an interesting three-way battle to say the least if Schumacher was driving properly and trying to keep both Vettel and Kobayashi behind.

But I think it would be a stretch to say that it was collusion or a secret agreement between the parties or anything likle that; more a case of an arrogant man showing his contempt for the fans one last time.

#133 Tenmantaylor

Tenmantaylor
  • Member

  • 8,314 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 08 April 2013 - 10:36

Why don't you critique also Webber, or your critique is reserved for some drivers only? Horner actually came out now, claiming that in last three races neither of drivers did not understand these Multi xx codes. Strangely rocket like noise is only about the last one.


Isn't it obvious? Horner is merely bring up those past non-events in an attempt to justify Seb's actions in Malaysia, nothing else.

#134 mattferg

mattferg
  • Member

  • 847 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 08 April 2013 - 15:45

I am calling it as I see it, just like you. If you find embarrassing discussing in a forum, you are in the wrong place.

According to you, back markers must get out of their way to let other cars go. They are not even allow to keep the racing line.

Let's make the example with another team that you many not like as much as RBR: Alonso is behind Ricciardo, they are racing for position. According to you, Ricciardo should step aside, lift and let Alonso overtake, right? No. I still think it sucks. The minimum you could expect is for Ricciardo to keep his racing line, maintain his speed, and let Alonso do what he must to overtake. If Ricciardo doesn't want to defend too hard, that's fine. What is not fine is to step aside and bring the red carpet because, you know, resistance is futile.

Jealousy, yeah... that must be it. :rolleyes:


If Riccardo's at a track where STR is competitive, let him race him... just like Riccardo/Verne raced Webber for P10. If not, let him past... just like STR did for both RBR and Mercedes in Abu Dhabi. Literally you're missing this point entirely - it all depends how competitive the team is on a track. RBR aren't the only ones let past when STR can't compete with faster cars. Sigh. Jealousy.

Spot on. You have to work pretty hard not to see the difference between a slow car being lapped by a fast car, where you have to do it before you pass three marshall's posts and you may well have to lift or move over to get it done and avoid a penalty, and a slow car being passed for position by a fast car. In the latter case, if you judge that, in the circumstances, you can't realistically race the fast car, you avoid losing time by driving on the racing line. When the fast car puts himself alongside you, maybe you blend out of the throttle a touch early before the next corner so you can tuck in behind and get back on line. But you absolutely do not lift at the beginning of a straight to allow the fast car past without costing it time (and to ensure it doesn't lose a place to another fast car), as Ricciardo does in the clip posted. You only do that if you're in the race for the benefit of a team other than your own.

And we still haven't had an answer from mattferg to the point that driving for the benefit of a team other than your own isn't automatically okay just because the point isn't covered in the sporting regulations. The sporting regulations don't say you can't bribe the stewards either, but that doesn't mean you can. Either the top teams are going to openly operate with smaller, backmarker subsidiary teams that are going to be allowed to drive subserviently to the big sister team's interests and where it's publicly conceded that that's what's going on, which is not the situation now nor a situation that anybody would want, or else secret (i.e. not openly declared) collusion betwen teams has to be interpreted as anti-competitive behaviour at best and race fixing at worst which is, by implication and on a point of very basic principle, banned.


Err they're driving for their own benefit, LOL. If they compete with RBR, Mercedes or Ferrari, they'll lose time to Williams or Caterham and it'll affect their race. It's beneficial to let them past. n00b. Plus, if they let the car past before the straight, they get a slipstream speed advantage. REDreni, do you even know about F1 or are you just here to champion Ferrari's cause?

Edited by mattferg, 08 April 2013 - 15:49.


#135 Astro

Astro
  • Member

  • 326 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 08 April 2013 - 15:55

If Riccardo's at a track where STR is competitive, let him race him... just like Riccardo/Verne raced Webber for P10. If not, let him past... just like STR did for both RBR and Mercedes in Abu Dhabi. Literally you're missing this point entirely - it all depends how competitive the team is on a track. RBR aren't the only ones let past when STR can't compete with faster cars. Sigh. Jealousy.


Nah, I am not missing anything. It is difficult to chew it much more for you. You are just pretending to be thicker than butter.

#136 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 2,545 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 08 April 2013 - 16:52

Err they're driving for their own benefit, LOL. If they compete with RBR, Mercedes or Ferrari, they'll lose time to Williams or Caterham and it'll affect their race. It's beneficial to let them past. n00b. Plus, if they let the car past before the straight, they get a slipstream speed advantage. REDreni, do you even know about F1 or are you just here to champion Ferrari's cause?


Look at the youtube clip posted earlier. You can't say Ricciardo's driving in his own interests by letting faster cars past when he is racing gung-ho with every car in sight that isn't blue! Use your eyes, man!

It's not difficult to understand. First, Massa gets a run on Ricciardo at the first chicane. What should Ricciardo do? According to you, he should lift on the straight because apparently that's the best way to let a faster car past without losing time (it's been interesting learning the finer points of F1 driving from you, by the way). According to me, he should keep his foot in and keep his line but not waste time fighting if Massa attacks him on the inside. What does he actually do? He resists as hard as he can by braking desperately late into the first chicane thereby preventing Massa from getting him on the inside line. As a result, he runs too deep into the corner and Massa gets him on traction on the way out. He is then behind Massa through Curva Grande. What should he do? According to you, there is no point fighting faster cars and he should already be lifting to let Vettel through, again lifting because that's not going to cost him any time in your world. According to me, he should drive his line but not waste time getting into a battle with a much faster car. What does he do? He attacks the Ferrari and tries to re-pass it with a bold outside-line move at the second chicane. Can you see a pattern emerging here?

As a result of his failed attempt to re-pass Massa he is dog slow in the middle of the second chicane and Vettel has to brake at corner exit to avoid ramming him. There's no way he intended that. Because of Vettel's avoiding action, Ricciardo is on the throttle before Vettel and is also on a better line, so what should he do? According to you, lift on the straight, which this time he does. Notice this is the only time in the whole clip where Ricciardo does what you claim he does all the time, and it is a pretty marked change in behaviour compared to when he was dicing with Massa, no? According to me, he should keep his foot in, drive his line and leave it up to Vettel and/or Alonso to make a move on him (which they certainly wouldn't have been able to do before Ascari), but not flight any move they make. But if he did that, of course, Vettel would have had to pull in behind him to get the slipstream and Alonso, with his superior line and traction off the second chicane, would have been well placed to make a move on Vettel on the inside. Or if Vettel stayed on the inside, because Ricciardo would have pulled away from Vettel that would have left the racing line clear for Alonso to drive past.

Are you beginning to see why people started to become suspicious at this sequence of events? Or do facts such as these not interest you? Are you just going to continue to deny there's anything up, here?

#137 mattferg

mattferg
  • Member

  • 847 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 08 April 2013 - 18:09

Nah, I am not missing anything. It is difficult to chew it much more for you. You are just pretending to be thicker than butter.


I'm so glad you proved you don't get my point. Thanks!

Look at the youtube clip posted earlier. You can't say Ricciardo's driving in his own interests by letting faster cars past when he is racing gung-ho with every car in sight that isn't blue! Use your eyes, man!

It's not difficult to understand. First, Massa gets a run on Ricciardo at the first chicane. What should Ricciardo do? According to you, he should lift on the straight because apparently that's the best way to let a faster car past without losing time (it's been interesting learning the finer points of F1 driving from you, by the way). According to me, he should keep his foot in and keep his line but not waste time fighting if Massa attacks him on the inside. What does he actually do? He resists as hard as he can by braking desperately late into the first chicane thereby preventing Massa from getting him on the inside line. As a result, he runs too deep into the corner and Massa gets him on traction on the way out. He is then behind Massa through Curva Grande. What should he do? According to you, there is no point fighting faster cars and he should already be lifting to let Vettel through, again lifting because that's not going to cost him any time in your world. According to me, he should drive his line but not waste time getting into a battle with a much faster car. What does he do? He attacks the Ferrari and tries to re-pass it with a bold outside-line move at the second chicane. Can you see a pattern emerging here?

As a result of his failed attempt to re-pass Massa he is dog slow in the middle of the second chicane and Vettel has to brake at corner exit to avoid ramming him. There's no way he intended that. Because of Vettel's avoiding action, Ricciardo is on the throttle before Vettel and is also on a better line, so what should he do? According to you, lift on the straight, which this time he does. Notice this is the only time in the whole clip where Ricciardo does what you claim he does all the time, and it is a pretty marked change in behaviour compared to when he was dicing with Massa, no? According to me, he should keep his foot in, drive his line and leave it up to Vettel and/or Alonso to make a move on him (which they certainly wouldn't have been able to do before Ascari), but not flight any move they make. But if he did that, of course, Vettel would have had to pull in behind him to get the slipstream and Alonso, with his superior line and traction off the second chicane, would have been well placed to make a move on Vettel on the inside. Or if Vettel stayed on the inside, because Ricciardo would have pulled away from Vettel that would have left the racing line clear for Alonso to drive past.

Are you beginning to see why people started to become suspicious at this sequence of events? Or do facts such as these not interest you? Are you just going to continue to deny there's anything up, here?


So basically according to you, he fought Massa, lost time, saw it was pointless and so didn't fight Vettel. Thanks for proving my point! Literally your bias towards Ferrari is funny :)

#138 Astro

Astro
  • Member

  • 326 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 08 April 2013 - 18:33

I'm so glad you proved you don't get my point. Thanks!


You already answered that STR should bring the red carpet to race day, so your only point is that you don't care as much about racing as seeing your favorite team winning.




#139 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 2,545 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 08 April 2013 - 19:29

So basically according to you, he fought Massa, lost time, saw it was pointless and so didn't fight Vettel. Thanks for proving my point! Literally your bias towards Ferrari is funny :)


:rotfl:

So the professional race car driver Daniel Ricciardo didn't realise fighting for position costs you time until Monza 2012; somehow worked it out somewhere between the entry to the second chicane and the exit, and then, presumably, forgot it again by the time he got to Lesmo, when he tried to chop across in front of Alonso when Alonso was clean up the inside of him? :drunk:

I see it all now, that's much more plausible than my rather simplistic explanation that he was just helping Red Bull and impeding Ferrari, an idea, by the way, that you seemed to be on the point of conceding and were arguing was legitimate in your earlier posts.

Advertisement

#140 mattferg

mattferg
  • Member

  • 847 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 08 April 2013 - 22:22

You already answered that STR should bring the red carpet to race day, so your only point is that you don't care as much about racing as seeing your favorite team winning.


:rotfl:

So the professional race car driver Daniel Ricciardo didn't realise fighting for position costs you time until Monza 2012; somehow worked it out somewhere between the entry to the second chicane and the exit, and then, presumably, forgot it again by the time he got to Lesmo, when he tried to chop across in front of Alonso when Alonso was clean up the inside of him? :drunk:

I see it all now, that's much more plausible than my rather simplistic explanation that he was just helping Red Bull and impeding Ferrari, an idea, by the way, that you seemed to be on the point of conceding and were arguing was legitimate in your earlier posts.


Yeah okay... Sure... Because STR hast admitted they've had races where the car was competitive and successful, and races where the car was a real dog, and because it was hard to set up they had this huge variability. It's not like this was a main focus of their launch or anything.

Yes, STR should bring the best to race day, but last year only some races could they be competitive with top leading teams. Not every race. If you fail to understand this please leave the thread. Especially as you actually want to argue a complicated 'simplistic' explanation which proves some big conspiracy to stop Ferrari.... Hahahahaha. And then accuse me of agreeing with you.

Edited by mattferg, 08 April 2013 - 22:23.


#141 RealRacing

RealRacing
  • Member

  • 1,753 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 09 April 2013 - 00:38

I don't believe team orders really bothers people when it is to win a Championship but when it happens in the 2nd race by not only one but two teams it is a kind of annoying.

JMHO


Of course, and that has always been the case. As long as one of the teammates is out of it, team orders are the logical thing to do. But it doesn't really matter if they are legal or not, fans will get pissed if they interfere with racing (i.e., the possibility for a fan to witness some on-track battle between two cars). I believe the allowance of TOs has opened a pandora box of sorts: maybe the fans expected things to be handled more openly in case TOs were really needed (as when one of the drivers was out of the WDC), but they didn't expect teams to kill racing from the second GP already...This "casual" fan of the sport for 27 years thinks F1 can do better than avoiding racing from the second GP of the season and does not give a s**t who the order was given to or who disobeyed, but he is pissed that he lost the chance to see cars racing, nothing more, nothing less. Not even the fallacious argument that TOs have always been part of the sport can explain the lengths to which this TO allowance has been taken to.

#142 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 2,545 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 09 April 2013 - 07:42

Of course, and that has always been the case. As long as one of the teammates is out of it, team orders are the logical thing to do. But it doesn't really matter if they are legal or not, fans will get pissed if they interfere with racing (i.e., the possibility for a fan to witness some on-track battle between two cars). I believe the allowance of TOs has opened a pandora box of sorts: maybe the fans expected things to be handled more openly in case TOs were really needed (as when one of the drivers was out of the WDC), but they didn't expect teams to kill racing from the second GP already...This "casual" fan of the sport for 27 years thinks F1 can do better than avoiding racing from the second GP of the season and does not give a s**t who the order was given to or who disobeyed, but he is pissed that he lost the chance to see cars racing, nothing more, nothing less. Not even the fallacious argument that TOs have always been part of the sport can explain the lengths to which this TO allowance has been taken to.

Well I agree with most of that but it`s just a lament. When the ban was in place the same thing would have happened, except the public would have been expected to believe Merc and RBR were going as fast as they could, and the battles between Hamilton and Rosberg and between Webber and Vettel would have been presented as genuine. Vettel`s dice with Webber was no more genuine than Pironi`s with Villeneuve in 1982 - only one driver was racing. At least the coverage is good enough these days that we got to see that. Personally I prefer to know what`s really going on.

The only way you`ll ever guarantee genuine racing all the time is if you limit constructors to one car each. But you`d need some pretty effective cost controls if you wanted to attract a full field...

#143 Mauseri

Mauseri
  • Member

  • 7,509 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 09 April 2013 - 09:29

depends who you ask in germany you will get the result of people being in majority against teamorders, while here you seem to have a 50% 50% poll about stuff like that

I thought germans were all pro-team-order. At least in Schumacher time. And propably also if Vettel could benefit from them?

I'm all for racing, but I can accept teamorders to 'hold position' or to 'swap positions' if one is holding the another. But having to give position to your teammate, when both drivers are racing for championship, and you have beat your teammate fair and square, like Barrichello in Austria 2002, was simply plain wrong. Ok, I don't know if Schumacher was just cruising behind, but that's his problem.

What Vettel did was ok in my opinion. He took the position by himself, and Webber seemed like doing everything to defend. I don't get the fuss, except maybe for those who manage the team. It's never a problem for me to see the faster driver winning without team orders.

Edited by Mauseri, 09 April 2013 - 09:32.


#144 Sin

Sin
  • Member

  • 1,952 posts
  • Joined: December 12

Posted 09 April 2013 - 09:37

I thought germans were all pro-team-order. At least in Schumacher time. And propably also if Vettel could benefit from them?

I'm all for racing, but I can accept teamorders to 'hold position' or to 'swap positions' if one is holding the another. But having to give position to your teammate, when both drivers are racing for championship, and you have beat your teammate fair and square, like Barrichello in Austria 2002, was simply plain wrong. Ok, I don't know if Schumacher was just cruising behind, but that's his problem.

What Vettel did was ok in my opinion. He took the position by himself, and Webber seemed like doing everything to defend. I don't get the fuss, except maybe for those who manage the team. It's never a problem for me to see the faster driver winning without team orders.


yeah isn't that typical cliche thinking... when Schumacher was racing with Ferrari I couldn't stand him and I didn't like teamorders then either... my favorite driver back then was... as some people know Heinz Harald Frentzen (who is THE GOD DAMN BEST EVER AND DON'T DARE TO SAY ANY DIFFERENT OR I KILL YOU BY MY MENTAL POWER OF AWESOMENESS VERY VERY VERY SLOWLY!)

Edited by Sin, 09 April 2013 - 09:38.


#145 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 2,545 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 09 April 2013 - 10:41

Yeah okay... Sure... Because STR hast admitted they've had races where the car was competitive and successful, and races where the car was a real dog, and because it was hard to set up they had this huge variability. It's not like this was a main focus of their launch or anything.

Yes, STR should bring the best to race day, but last year only some races could they be competitive with top leading teams. Not every race. If you fail to understand this please leave the thread. Especially as you actually want to argue a complicated 'simplistic' explanation which proves some big conspiracy to stop Ferrari.... Hahahahaha. And then accuse me of agreeing with you.


Well, I certainly understand that STR's competitveness last year was variable (although that's not the least bit relevant to this thread), so I hope you won't be offended if I stick around?

The idea that RBR and STR conspire to try to defeat Ferrari is about as controversial as the idea that Adrian Newey and Sebastian Vettel conspire to try to beat Ferrari. Of course they do; it's their job. The conspiracy is neither complicated nor big nor sinister nor surprising nor particularly well hidden. But it's definitely there.

Mateschitz doesn't fund STR for the glory of having them finish 8th occasionally. He funds them for young driver development to prep drivers for RBR primarily, but their actions show they are also required to obstruct Ferrari on track and aid RBR when they have the chance. I'm saying if that's all they're there for the sport could do without them, and I'm also saying that because customer teams are supposed to be banned and each team is supposed to be an independent constructor, then when STR are caught blatantly driving for Red Bull's interests rather than their own, action should be taken by the FIA. I realise that that last part puts me out on a bit of a limb and not everybody will agree, but you are surely the only person left who still disputes the first part - that STR are only there for Red Bull's benefit.

#146 Mauseri

Mauseri
  • Member

  • 7,509 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 09 April 2013 - 12:17

yeah isn't that typical cliche thinking... when Schumacher was racing with Ferrari I couldn't stand him and I didn't like teamorders then either... my favorite driver back then was... as some people know Heinz Harald Frentzen

Yeah, my impression is propably the one you would get from reading german media quotes and opinions of schumacher fanatics at that time.

#147 RealRacing

RealRacing
  • Member

  • 1,753 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 09 April 2013 - 12:28

When the ban was in place the same thing would have happened, except the public would have been expected to believe Merc and RBR were going as fast as they could, and the battles between Hamilton and Rosberg and between Webber and Vettel would have been presented as genuine.


I don´t think that the same thing would necessarily have happened with the TO ban. Remember that if teams were caught, they received fines and their drivers were penalized, so it would have been too risky to do it from the beginning of the season. If anything, the ban made them think a little before giving the TO and us fans could watch some more racing.

The only way you`ll ever guarantee genuine racing all the time is if you limit constructors to one car each. But you`d need some pretty effective cost controls if you wanted to attract a full field...


I don't think this would be the only way. Elsewhere in the forum I have proposed some alternatives. Of course, there's always a way around rules and bans, but it's just a matter of managing it properly and have the will to do it. As it stands now, apparently neither teams, nor fans, not even drivers themselves (go figure!) want to re-implement the ban. This is rather pathetic, most of all in the case of the last two, but hey, it is what it is until it starts interfering with viewing figures...

#148 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 2,545 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 09 April 2013 - 14:33

Remember that if teams were caught, they received fines and their drivers were penalized.


As I recall it took about half a decade of constant and regular and sometimes blatant use of team orders by many teams before anybody was fined, and that was only after a massive global media
sh!tstorm and, if I remember rightly, the fine was given under the "bringing the sport into disrepute" regulation rather than the team orders one. If any driver was ever penalised I must have missed it. Have you got any examples of what you mean?

And when you say that it would be possible to police a ban if there was the will to do it, do you mean a total ban or just a ban on "bad" team orders?

Because if you want a total ban then I'd have to disagree with you both on practical grounds and on principle - why have a team sport where as a team owner you can spend $500 million dollars trying to win a championship for the whole team only to have to face the prospect of one member of the team ruining it for you by refusing to move over for his teammate, and there's a rule that says you can't even ask him to do the right thing by the team and his colleagues? That would be intolerable to me if I were a team owner. As you yourself admit, there are circumstances where team orders are only right and proper and to ban them in those circumstances would be ridiculous (I know it's been done before but it was ridiculous then and would still be equally ridiculous if done again now).

And if you only want a partial ban I'd have to say that would be a minefield. There are plenty of cases where reasonable people will disagree over whether team orders are right and proper or not. For example, you say two races in is too early for RBR to give a team order. I say it isn't because if you look at their two drivers' past records you can see which one is more likely to challenge for the championship, and therefore the driver who has been beaten three seasons in a row by the same guy can't legitimately complain if he then gets second-rate treatment, so I would have given a team order in that situation, albeit a different one to the one that was actually given. Yet I agree with you that two races in is too early for Mercedes to have team orders because for all they know Rosberg might be their better driver. But anyway, the rules wouldn't be able to distinguish "good" team orders from "bad" team orders, largely because there is no single, coherent and widely agreed set of principles according to which you can make such a distinction. I don't mean to denegrate your proposals, by the way, it's just that however coherent and logical they may be, they are not widely agreed, because mob opinion in F1 is such that any coherent and consistent position on this would, as a matter of logical necessity, have to go against the grain of public opinion a good proportion of the time.

Edited by redreni, 09 April 2013 - 17:11.


#149 RealRacing

RealRacing
  • Member

  • 1,753 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 11 April 2013 - 15:33

As I recall it took about half a decade of constant and regular and sometimes blatant use of team orders by many teams before anybody was fined, and that was only after a massive global media
sh!tstorm and, if I remember rightly, the fine was given under the "bringing the sport into disrepute" regulation rather than the team orders one. If any driver was ever penalised I must have missed it. Have you got any examples of what you mean?

And when you say that it would be possible to police a ban if there was the will to do it, do you mean a total ban or just a ban on "bad" team orders?

Because if you want a total ban then I'd have to disagree with you both on practical grounds and on principle - why have a team sport where as a team owner you can spend $500 million dollars trying to win a championship for the whole team only to have to face the prospect of one member of the team ruining it for you by refusing to move over for his teammate, and there's a rule that says you can't even ask him to do the right thing by the team and his colleagues? That would be intolerable to me if I were a team owner. As you yourself admit, there are circumstances where team orders are only right and proper and to ban them in those circumstances would be ridiculous (I know it's been done before but it was ridiculous then and would still be equally ridiculous if done again now).

And if you only want a partial ban I'd have to say that would be a minefield. There are plenty of cases where reasonable people will disagree over whether team orders are right and proper or not. For example, you say two races in is too early for RBR to give a team order. I say it isn't because if you look at their two drivers' past records you can see which one is more likely to challenge for the championship, and therefore the driver who has been beaten three seasons in a row by the same guy can't legitimately complain if he then gets second-rate treatment, so I would have given a team order in that situation, albeit a different one to the one that was actually given. Yet I agree with you that two races in is too early for Mercedes to have team orders because for all they know Rosberg might be their better driver. But anyway, the rules wouldn't be able to distinguish "good" team orders from "bad" team orders, largely because there is no single, coherent and widely agreed set of principles according to which you can make such a distinction. I don't mean to denegrate your proposals, by the way, it's just that however coherent and logical they may be, they are not widely agreed, because mob opinion in F1 is such that any coherent and consistent position on this would, as a matter of logical necessity, have to go against the grain of public opinion a good proportion of the time.


If there was the will to improve racing (banning TOs being just one of the factors that would have to be addressed), there are many ways the rules could be written regarding TOs. And yeah, maybe banning them until one of the teammates is mathematically out of it would be a possibility. I am surprised as to why the Driver's Association hasn't addressed this, but another measure could be to contractually ban TOs: it would have to be on all driver contracts and they would be protected (at least they could protest) if the TOs were
given secretly. My point is that there are ways to do anything they want if they really wanted to, but in F1 the interests of certain individuals and teams count for more than that of fans.

As far as F1 being a team sport above all, there are differing opinions on this. Some people believe that the drivers are just employees of corporations and, as such, F1 could function with any drivers. To make a point, would you rather watch a series with Ferrari, RBR, McLAren, etc. cars driven by Domenicalli, Horner and Whitmarsh or one with Lola chassis and Chevy engines driven by SV, LH, FA and KR?

#150 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 11 April 2013 - 16:29

As I recall it took about half a decade of constant and regular and sometimes blatant use of team orders by many teams before anybody was fined, and that was only after a massive global media
sh!tstorm and, if I remember rightly, the fine was given under the "bringing the sport into disrepute" regulation rather than the team orders one. If any driver was ever penalised I must have missed it. Have you got any examples of what you mean?

And when you say that it would be possible to police a ban if there was the will to do it, do you mean a total ban or just a ban on "bad" team orders?

Because if you want a total ban then I'd have to disagree with you both on practical grounds and on principle - why have a team sport where as a team owner you can spend $500 million dollars trying to win a championship for the whole team only to have to face the prospect of one member of the team ruining it for you by refusing to move over for his teammate, and there's a rule that says you can't even ask him to do the right thing by the team and his colleagues? That would be intolerable to me if I were a team owner. As you yourself admit, there are circumstances where team orders are only right and proper and to ban them in those circumstances would be ridiculous (I know it's been done before but it was ridiculous then and would still be equally ridiculous if done again now).

And if you only want a partial ban I'd have to say that would be a minefield. There are plenty of cases where reasonable people will disagree over whether team orders are right and proper or not. For example, you say two races in is too early for RBR to give a team order. I say it isn't because if you look at their two drivers' past records you can see which one is more likely to challenge for the championship, and therefore the driver who has been beaten three seasons in a row by the same guy can't legitimately complain if he then gets second-rate treatment, so I would have given a team order in that situation, albeit a different one to the one that was actually given. Yet I agree with you that two races in is too early for Mercedes to have team orders because for all they know Rosberg might be their better driver. But anyway, the rules wouldn't be able to distinguish "good" team orders from "bad" team orders, largely because there is no single, coherent and widely agreed set of principles according to which you can make such a distinction. I don't mean to denegrate your proposals, by the way, it's just that however coherent and logical they may be, they are not widely agreed, because mob opinion in F1 is such that any coherent and consistent position on this would, as a matter of logical necessity, have to go against the grain of public opinion a good proportion of the time.

Makes one wonder about morality of the piranha club. An act deemed to bring a sport into disrepute one day, but OK next day. Not as much noise about that in media as a family squabble in closing stages of the last race. (Maybe Vettel provides more fun than an authority that can remove your access to paddock).

Edited by Sakae, 11 April 2013 - 16:31.