"This is racing" Is it?

Lewis Hamilton said today on the podium that he felt Rosberg should be there, but that "this is racing". Is it? Not in my book it isnt. What do you think?

Lewis didn't want to answer the question which is fair otherwise it could have been a massive PR disaster. Nothing to do with the racing at all well not much of it.

Today is a funny day. Many say Vettel should have obeyed team orders "for the sake of the sport" LMAO

Last time I checked team orders are exactly what's bad for the sport.

Today is a funny day. Many say Vettel should have obeyed team orders "for the sake of the sport" LMAO

Last time I checked team orders are exactly what's bad for the sport.

What Red Bull did today was also very stupid. I wonder what potential sponsors think when they saw what happened with the the top 2 finishing teams today. This isnt racing.

Who cares, these guys are irrelevant compared to the triple-WC apparently.

A lot of people bemoan NASCAR saying its boring until the last 30 laps.
At least the drivers fight balls-out to the checkers (checkers or wreckers anyone?). That is racing.

Here (F1) we have a race with 15 laps to go and the positions have already been determined by those commanding from pitwall.

Not racing. What a pissweak show.

A lot of people bemoan NASCAR saying its boring until the last 30 laps.
At least the drivers fight balls-out to the checkers (checkers or wreckers anyone?). That is racing.

Here (F1) we have a race with 15 laps to go and the positions have already been determined by those commanding from pitwall.

Not racing. What a pissweak show.

Indeed. The essence of racing is to get to finish it ahead of as much possible cars as you can? I dont buy Ross Brawns explanation that it was safer to hold station. On Monaco he might have had a point but on a wide track like this, no way.

Besides, if its safer to hold station...why didnt he tell Lewis to hold station when Rosberg went past? I think Rosberg got screwed.

Of course its not racing - get rid of Pirellis and get racing. Lewis got carried away and was going all out - only to forget the team calculated delta/tyres and decided Pirelli tyres are not supposed to be pushed therefore less fuel.

So yes not racing thanks to Pirelli!!

Oh and OP get over it!

Indeed. The essence of racing is to get to finish it ahead of as much possible cars as you can? I dont buy Ross Brawns explanation that it was safer to hold station. On Monaco he might have had a point but on a wide track like this, no way.

Besides, if its safer to hold station...why didnt he tell Lewis to hold station when Rosberg went past? I think Rosberg got screwed.

Lewis overtook him back within 2 seconds - its Nicos fault not knowing how to defend and being a poor driver. The difference is that once Lewis overtakes he makes it stick.

This is Formula One but not racing.

This is Formula One but not racing.

My thoughts exactly!

Here (F1) we have a race with 15 laps to go and the positions have already been determined by those commanding from pitwall.

Not racing. What a pissweak show.

Look on the bright side, at least the Red Bull pit wall doesn't have the capability to control its drivers.

As for Mercedes, that was straight out of Ross Brawn's Ferrari playbook. Afterwards, Hamilton acted as magnanimously as Michael Schumacher did after the Austrian GP steal in 2002.

Good on Martin Brundle for raising the suggestion during Sky's commentary that Hamilton may have a team no.1 clause in his contract, letting him/Mercedes pull such moves. Would've been easy for Brit TV to let that one go in the name of Supporting The Home Side.

Running around saving fuel, driving a second a lap slower tan you can to protect tyres, its not good on the face of it is it. I miss the days of refuelling, alternate strategies and the 'sprint' characteristic of a race.

Pirelli is lucky this happened. Otherwise it would have been talk of the day the hard tire lasted 10 laps and almost everyone needed five stints.

Lewis overtook him back within 2 seconds - its Nicos fault not knowing how to defend and being a poor driver. The difference is that once Lewis overtakes he makes it stick.

Still Lewis was on fuel saving mode for at least 10 laps at that moment, so he ignored a clear team order. And why not tell about it on the podium? "Nico overtook me but I wasnt prepared to let him take my position" wouldv been a lot more honest than "Nico shouldv been here instead of me".

Lewis overtook him back within 2 seconds - its Nicos fault not knowing how to defend and being a poor driver. The difference is that once Lewis overtakes he makes it stick.

No he didn't, Nico passed Lewis on the second DRS-zone and was ahead until they came again to the first DRS-zone.

Indeed. The essence of racing is to get to finish it ahead of as much possible cars as you can? I dont buy Ross Brawns explanation that it was safer to hold station. On Monaco he might have had a point but on a wide track like this, no way.

Besides, if its safer to hold station...why didnt he tell Lewis to hold station when Rosberg went past? I think Rosberg got screwed.

Rosberg got screwed, Ross Brawn was never into team equality and it was blatantly obvious that Hamilton will be #1 Mercedes driver (as he should be in case of #1/#2 policy with Rosberg).

However, Rosberg also had a choice, and is his own fault he chose to play along with RB.

Edited by velgajski1, 24 March 2013 - 11:39.

In all fairness, "This is racing" is an overused meaningless catchphrase nowadays.

"I lapped the whole field but then the engine had blown so obviously I'm very disappointed, but that's racing"

Lewis overtook him back within 2 seconds - its Nicos fault not knowing how to defend and being a poor driver. The difference is that once Lewis overtakes he makes it stick.

It's called DRS, not not knowing how to defend. DRS was overpowered today, again. So no, this isnot racing.

This is an industry where the stakes are measured in the hundreds of millions. This is not a race at your local go-kart track.

This is an industry where the stakes are measured in the hundreds of millions. This is not a race at your local go-kart track.

...Meaning?

Lewis Hamilton said today on the podium that he felt Rosberg should be there, but that "this is racing". Is it? Not in my book it isnt. What do you think?

This is business.

In pure racing there would be no team orders or other politics.

But this isn't "pure racing", it's "F1 racing" and that this certainly was.

...Meaning?

It's a meaningless question.

Racing is a sport but F1 is a business. A single point can potentially be worth championships, sponsors and customers. To ask if team orders count as racing is superfluous, the team principals have bigger things to worry about appeasing fans by abiding by some supposed racing etiquette..

It's a meaningless question.

Racing is a sport but F1 is a business. A single point can potentially be worth championships, sponsors and customers. To ask if team orders count as racing is superfluous, the team principals have bigger things to worry about appeasing fans by abiding by some supposed racing etiquette..

Last time I checked, Red Bull and Mercedes stood to gain or lose zero points, whichever order their drivers finished in. I have sympathy for Red Bull's management in this case -- turning down your engines and conserving tyres is absolutely standard practice when you're cruising to an easy one-two, especially at a track like Sepang. But Vettel wasn't interested in that, or even in a fair fight. G. Villeneuve/Pironi springs to mind.

I suppose you could make the argument that the Drivers' Championship is hugely important from a marketing/brand image point of view, and teams need to secure maximum points for their Chosen Ones. But that's not what Red Bull were trying to do, and Mercedes shouldn't be trying to alienate one of their drivers until they're racing for the championship. Rosberg was having to go ridiculously slow on the final lap. The risk of being seen as race-fixers outweighs the couple of points you're redistributing among your drivers.

And it should go without saying that those hundred-million stakes are only so high because the viewing audience believes that what they're watching is a sport. That's the truthiest truth of the situation.

But again, this wasn't the Serious Breach that Austria 2002 or even Germany 2010 were. In the Red Bull situation Vettel is entirely to blame. But he was only trying to win, so I doubt anyone's faith in anything except the gentlemanliness -- some fans and indeed some cultures recognise this more than others, shall we say -- of one driver (and the suitability of F1's rules for providing hard racing) has been shaken.

For Mercedes, it was only for third and fourth. Nobody cares except the mavens.

Edited by Risil, 24 March 2013 - 13:10.

It's a throwaway statement. I can see why people without English as their first language would not see it that way though.

What Red Bull did today was also very stupid. I wonder what potential sponsors think when they saw what happened with the the top 2 finishing teams today. This isnt racing.

Interestingly enough, this is the first time Vettel is behind... the result was the same result as usual when the two RBR drivers are one behind the other: the guy from behind ignores the request from the team and attacks very viciously to his teammate. The difference is that, unlike when Webber does the attacks, Vettel managed to get past...

In fact, it looked quite ridiculous from Webber to complain about the other guy not holding station when he has been the one doing the same more often than not... I guess that the sucky part is that this teammate went through...

Last time I checked, Red Bull and Mercedes stood to gain or lose zero points, whichever order their drivers finished in. I have sympathy for Red Bull's management in this case -- turning down your engines and conserving tyres is absolutely standard practice when you're cruising to an easy one-two, especially at a track like Sepang. But Vettel wasn't interested in that, or even in a fair fight. G. Villeneuve/Pironi springs to mind.

I suppose you could make the argument that the Drivers' Championship is hugely important from a marketing/brand image point of view, and teams need to secure maximum points for their Chosen Ones. But that's not what Red Bull were trying to do, and Mercedes shouldn't be trying to alienate one of their drivers until they're racing for the championship. Rosberg was having to go ridiculously slow on the final lap. The risk of being seen as race-fixers outweighs the couple of points you're redistributing among your drivers.

And it should go without saying that those hundred-million stakes are only so high because the viewing audience believes that what they're watching is a sport. That's the truthiest truth of the situation.

I think you're right about Mercedes who probably would agree that team orders were mishandled and unnecessary - unless there's something shady in a certain drivers' contract which we don't know about. I'm purely speculating here that Hamilton would probably have been assured by Brawn that Rosberg would cease and desist after their couple of scraps in the DRS zone which later left Ross between a rock and a hard place as Hamilton went into critical fuel saving mode. The message to Rosberg to leave a gap sounded to me like an attempt to reduce the constant TV coverage of the Mercs in flying formation which always leaves a bitter taste when there's still 4 laps left!

Red Bull's team orders are not only justified but are almost expected towards the end of the race; Silverstone 2011 also comes to mind when Webber was all over Vettel before being warded off by the team. If anything the fact Red Bull told Vettel to let Webber win shows that they are intending to be fair to both sides of the garage this year, however no one appears to have given that memo to Sebastian..

And for me the inter and intra team politics and rivalry is as bitter and entertaining as ever; for me it's the drama of war I like as much as it is the racing itself

Edited by Snic, 24 March 2013 - 13:37.

It's a meaningless question.

Racing is a sport but F1 is a business. A single point can potentially be worth championships, sponsors and customers. To ask if team orders count as racing is superfluous, the team principals have bigger things to worry about appeasing fans by abiding by some supposed racing etiquette..

That wasnt the question. The question was holding back your teammate for 25 laps because you spilled your fuel early in the race, is that racing? According to Lewis it is. My definition is really different.

Interestingly enough, this is the first time Vettel is behind... the result was the same result as usual when the two RBR drivers are one behind the other: the guy from behind ignores the request from the team and attacks very viciously to his teammate. The difference is that, unlike when Webber does the attacks, Vettel managed to get past...

In fact, it looked quite ridiculous from Webber to complain about the other guy not holding station when he has been the one doing the same more often than not... I guess that the sucky part is that this teammate went through...

The sucky part is that Vettel showed there was no need to hold back at all. The tyres survived, there was enough fuel. And it provided for a damn great spectacle, for once. It showed that teams are prepared to deny us all that great racing wich attracts fans and in turn: sponsors. This farce can only do the opposite.

Edited by yoyogetfunky, 24 March 2013 - 16:54.

Team orders are such a difficult conundrum to solve. If you ban them, they are done illegally. If you don't ban them, you have incidents like today's Vettel v Webber incident occurring. Both, in my eyes, are not racing, and really, I was just disappointed that the race ended in this controversy, rather than us applauding the great on track battle between Vettel and Webber. There are lots of factors to take in, that would have played a part in whom would have emerged on top, if there were no team orders at all, but we will never know about that. Meanwhile, I can't help but feel that Rosberg was robbed of a podium place, because team orders WERE obeyed there... 2nd race into the season (some would argue that it happened with Ferrari in the first race of the season).

Something needs to be done, and I'm not smart enough to come up with a solution to this problem. The only thing I can think of is having 1 car teams to avoid this whole team order business altogether hehe

It's not racing, its a farce. F1 is becoming a joke.

..and people wonder why I watch races from the 70's,80's,90's every day.

It's not racing, it's F1!

Team orders are such a difficult conundrum to solve. If you ban them, they are done illegally. If you don't ban them, you have incidents like today's Vettel v Webber incident occurring. Both, in my eyes, are not racing, and really, I was just disappointed that the race ended in this controversy, rather than us applauding the great on track battle between Vettel and Webber. There are lots of factors to take in, that would have played a part in whom would have emerged on top, if there were no team orders at all, but we will never know about that. Meanwhile, I can't help but feel that Rosberg was robbed of a podium place, because team orders WERE obeyed there... 2nd race into the season (some would argue that it happened with Ferrari in the first race of the season).

Something needs to be done, and I'm not smart enough to come up with a solution to this problem. The only thing I can think of is having 1 car teams to avoid this whole team order business altogether hehe

Well, team orders should be free, but only up to a point. Say, only to aid the remaining title candidate or in extreme difficult situations at tracks where overtaking is plain dangerous like Monaco.

This track is wide enough for 5 cars abreast, 2 long straights and then it should simply be forbidden for teams to hold back another car because of fuel problems. If it was only to guard the driver who gets to do the sailor walk in the days after the race.

Edited by yoyogetfunky, 24 March 2013 - 17:08.

Team orders, even the most confusing, are a part of racing as well.

It's not racing, its a farce. F1 is becoming a joke.

..and people wonder why I watch races from the 70's,80's,90's every day.

No one wonders that. Certainly no one here cares.

....I dont buy Ross Brawns explanation that it was safer to hold station.....

Then don't take Brawns word for it, ask Horner. It just so happens they both agreed it was too dangerous to fight on, and Vettel (their three time WDC) was the one behind.

You can push your agenda all you want, fact is it was team orders for the safety of the team. You gotta just look at McLaren and Perez to see what can happen if you misjudge the tyres. (he pitted with two laps to go btw)

Edited by thesham01, 24 March 2013 - 17:10.

As for is it racing? Then no it's not racing. It's awful.

However it is competitive racing at the top level. And always will be. Better to take the points than risk none.

Then don't take Brawns word for it, ask Horner. It just so happens they both agreed it was too dangerous to fight on, and Vettel (their three time WDC) was the one behind.

You can push your agenda all you want, fact is it was team orders for the safety of the team. You gotta just look at McLaren and Perez to see what can happen if you misjudge the tyres. (he pitted with two laps to go btw)

Agenda? lol. The topic was Lewis said this was racing. Do you agree? Or was he very cruel to the true meaning of that word.

save engines on the warm down lap not during the race. So voted no.

its part of the game, hence "thats racing"

i think in the merc case, yes nico could pass lewis, but he almost certainly couldnt catch webber, so lets just cruise to the end, in the positions as they are now

rb had a similier idea

This is an industry where the stakes are measured in the hundreds of millions. This is not a race at your local go-kart track.

precisely, and they pay their drivers umpteen millions of that budget, if they can't trust the drivers to race each other on the track safely, then why do they trust them with racing others?
Team orders suck, fastest guys wins, and if they take each other out, then one of the millionaire drivers suck, and shouldn't be on the track at all

It's a throwaway statement. I can see why people without English as their first language would not see it that way though.

How dare you be so rational when there's fake outrage to be shown!!!!!

its part of the game, hence "thats racing"

i think in the merc case, yes nico could pass lewis, but he almost certainly couldnt catch webber, so lets just cruise to the end, in the positions as they are now

rb had a similier idea

Haha, yeah but didnt execute it and Vettel and Webber nearly took eachother off the track with fighting.

Since the run off areas are the size of an airfield that would probably only costed a second or 8-10 before theyd rejoined the track. Exactly the time Rosberg couldv used to gain time.

In the end it wouldnt have costed Merc one iota to let Rosberg past and only increased the chances to score more if such a scenario would arise.

No, Rosberg got a lesson today in being the designated number 2. If he a man, he wont do that again in similar situations.

To answer the OP, nope NASCAR is racing. Bumping is fine, the things are virtually indestructible. There are never any team orders, heck people don't even get penalities for deliberatly causing accidents! Boogity indeed.

In F1 overtaking is too hard and team doesn not want to risk it between their own carbon fibre fragile cars.

Although it is not new, wow, what a perfect sample today's race was of how f....d up F1 is:

1. Have you read the driver interviews? From what I read, MW, SV, NR and LH were talking about driving to 80% and constantly being "administered" from the pit. Furthermore, all those pit stops are reducing the probability of there being battles on the track and when these battles are more likely, the end of the race, drivers are told to "hold station" (see below).

2. A driver has to apologize for passing another? I know, I know, he apologized for not following a TO, but still, doesn't it seem extremely twisted? As a contrast, and maybe more of a contribution to the specific subject of this thread, how many of you would have liked Massa to disobey at HH 2010?

3. People, drivers, team principals talking about holding station after the last stops as if it was the most normal thing in the world? Sadly, it's normal in today's F1, but, isn't that contrary to what most see as a sport? Aren't the last parts of a sporting event supposed to be the best and most exciting (OT, last rounds, last legs, last innings, etc., etc.).

4. Wouldn't it be in the best interest of most drivers (notice "most") to solve this via the Driver's Association? Do you think it would be possible for them to agree not to abide by TOs as a group? That way they could at least make their position vis a vis the teams contracting them stronger and give them more bargaining power. Then we could really see if the drivers benefiting the most from TOs live up to their words of "my teammate should have won". What this sport needs is more power given to the real starts of the show, not the political, paid-by-results, corporate muppet bench warmers that are the team principals.


Still, at the end of the day it is in the hands of F1 fans to stop this farce or encourage it. It will stop being good business when people stop watching. However, the new fan base probably doesn't know better and that's what they are aiming for because it's what's going to bring in the $$ in the future. In any case, this may be the year when I finally put my money where my mouth is and stop watching F1 after 28 years.

Guys, F1 is a team sport, why can people not GRASP that? Just like football and any other team sports, F1 is actually about the teams.

And I also see people are doing the usual boring and historically inaccurate trick of putting on the rose tinted specs - looking back on seasons in previous decades as the "good old days" of racing. Lol, do you even know what you're talking about?

In the 50s, there were always lead drivers and second/third/even forth drivers. If the lead/number 1 driver had a retirement, then his team-mate would often drive to the pits and hand over their car. It cost some drivers race wins.

So before this crap goes any further, maybe some people want to go out and buy an F1 history book, before talking about "what is racing".

Guys, F1 is a team sport, why can people not GRASP that? Just like football and any other team sports, F1 is actually about the teams.

And I also see people are doing the usual boring and historically inaccurate trick of putting on the rose tinted specs - looking back on seasons in previous decades as the "good old days" of racing. Lol, do you even know what you're talking about?

In the 50s, there were always lead drivers and second/third/even forth drivers. If the lead/number 1 driver had a retirement, then his team-mate would often drive to the pits and hand over their car. It cost some drivers race wins.

So before this crap goes any further, maybe some people want to go out and buy an F1 history book, before talking about "what is racing".

Despite what the history showed us in the past, this topic is about Lewis Hamilton describing a non-racing team order as 'that is racing'. You either agree with that or you dont.

@realracing: I share some of your points. I remember Schumacher saying last year these tyres are like walking on eggs. Webber said last week this isnt exactly racing. Both implied that holding back isnt part of racing. Lewis apparently is of a different opinion.

Guys, F1 is a team sport, why can people not GRASP that? Just like football and any other team sports, F1 is actually about the teams.

And I also see people are doing the usual boring and historically inaccurate trick of putting on the rose tinted specs - looking back on seasons in previous decades as the "good old days" of racing. Lol, do you even know what you're talking about?

In the 50s, there were always lead drivers and second/third/even forth drivers. If the lead/number 1 driver had a retirement, then his team-mate would often drive to the pits and hand over their car. It cost some drivers race wins.

So before this crap goes any further, maybe some people want to go out and buy an F1 history book, before talking about "what is racing".

This has been debated extensively all over. To me F1 should be about racing first and foremost. I mean, is there any reason to put a bunch of cars together on a closed circuit other than to see who crosses the line first? To see which driver is faster? To see passing? If F1 was a team sport before a race, why don't we have the cars doing laps separately, add up the times, lowest combined time wins? That won't incur the risk of one team car crashing into another. Or let's propose something to the worldwide F1 audience: replace the drivers with computers. Would you give a s..t then if Ferrari, Red Bull, Mercedes or McLaren won?

And the "it's always been like that argument" is a fallacy. Why can't it change? Everything should evolve, supposedly, to be better and more fair. If whoever in the 50s climbed out of their car to give it to their teammate, should we have the same happen now?

Despite what the history showed us in the past, this topic is about Lewis Hamilton describing a non-racing team order as 'that is racing'. You either agree with that or you dont.

@realracing: I share some of your points. I remember Schumacher saying last year these tyres are like walking on eggs. Webber said last week this isnt exactly racing. Both implied that holding back isnt part of racing. Lewis apparently is of a different opinion.

Yes, to answer the question of the title: if Hamilton really believed Rosberg should have been there, why didn't he let him through?

A team order is as much a part of racing as a doping case is a part of cycling.