93 replies to this topic

[garoidb]

Its funny all last year Ferrari did this all the time everyone accepted it.

In the second half of the season.

[Deluxx]

You guys do realize Ferrari still ran Team orders even when it was illegal to do so, right?

[TT6]

I don't know which of these numerous threads to post this on, but a few points on team orders that I can tolerate:

1. To me it's completely ok that team mates stop racing in some late phase of the race to save equipment and to reduce the risk of them taking each other out.
2. However, they should both know beforehand when their race will be over, have a plan and respect it.
3. It's definately not ok to trick the guy in front to stop racing and then let the one behind to attack
4. When strategies differ I don't think a driver who's tactics is to save tires and attack at the end should be told not to pass unless it would be according with earlier discussed plan.

What I can't tolerate is that predetermined no1 driver will get a free overtake on his team mate in any case. That should be a no go.

[prty]

You guys do realize Ferrari still ran Team orders even when it was illegal to do so, right?

Ferrari? everyone!

[Atreiu]

No.

[y2cwr2005]

To me the outstanding issue today wasn't team orders but the fact the orders were only necessary as a result of conserving engines, fuel and tyre's. The sport has become mostly endurance and a bit of racing in between.

[Slartibartfast]

Ferrari? everyone!

Can you substantiate that?

[fatd]

Yeah I think banning team orders is not a solution as the teams won't stop doing it.. unless if they give more severe punishment that has immediate effect to the WDC/WCC points instead of just fine.

[Fontainebleau]

Can you substantiate that?

"Not bad for a number 2 driver" - I'd say that was enough of a hint!

[prty]

Can you substantiate that?

I think that if you watched the races and still come up with that question is a bit weird...
Anyway there was an old thread that I'm not going to look up talking about it, and today another one was created too: http://forums.autosp...howtopic=183366

Edited by prty, 24 March 2013 - 15:56.

[RealRacing]

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.

[Mr2s]

To me the outstanding issue today wasn't team orders but the fact the orders were only necessary as a result of conserving engines, fuel and tyre's. The sport has become mostly endurance and a bit of racing in between.

Spot on. Someone with the sense to realize the FIA arnt giving teams a lot of options for the balls out racing we used to see. Crippled tyres, no fuel stops, restricted engines.
This isnt traditional team orders that people normal cry about.

[Mr2s]

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.

|Good post.
They either need to have sprint races with no fuel stops, or proper unrestricted cars with free fuel. Schumacher is probably having more fun back in Karts.

[Slartibartfast]

"Not bad for a number 2 driver" - I'd say that was enough of a hint!

I think that if you watched the races and still come up with that question is a bit weird...
Anyway there was an old thread that I'm not going to look up talking about it, and today another one was created too: http://forums.autosp...howtopic=183366

Can you substantiate the everyone claim?

[prty]

Can you substantiate the everyone claim?

Red Bull, Ferrari, McLaren, Renault, Toyota... Or are you asking me to show if Spyker also did it, because you wanted to take the 'everyone' literally?

[Rob]

Well that's no solution to team orders when they can be made before the race as well.

They can be, but it stops the orders that are made during the race.

[SenorSjon]

Spot on. Someone with the sense to realize the FIA arnt giving teams a lot of options for the balls out racing we used to see. Crippled tyres, no fuel stops, restricted engines.
This isnt traditional team orders that people normal cry about.

Exactly

Team orders are part of the sport. It is a team game after all. During the ban you would see all kinds of wonderous things like 'brake problems', 'gear selection problems', 'bad set of tires' (more plausible now...), wonky pit stops etc. I'm glad it is done in the open.

It distracted from the four-stopper we needed today. When no-one has to drag his engine/gearbox etc around for multiple races, drivers could take more risk.

[jee]

very simple, just ban radio communication during the race by the team, only allowed by the FIA to announce penalties, cautions etc.

[PorcupineTroy]

It's completely pointless for team orders being banned. There is nothing stopping teams from sending coded messages to their drivers (hopefully something a little more discrete than Fernando being faster than you), and unless the FIA hook up microphones to all twenty-two drivers that must be worn from mid-March through November, there's no way to prevent teams from having a pre-race agreement (whoever leads after turn one will finish ahead, hold positions after the final stops, etc.).

[RealRacing]

At least when TOs were illegal teams were afraid of getting caught and penalized. As people are saying, it's very difficult to police TOs, but the ban must at least have reduced them. It was not perfect but better than this and there are ways in which a ban could be better enforced.

[pgj]

The WCC is the more important competition and drivers should remember that. Seb should be banned for one race, the team is more important than any driver.

Team orders allowed because it is impossible to ban them. Unless any team is stupid enough to spell out team orders, all that would be needed is a simple code word. In this case it would have been multi-21.

[smitten]

I think we should ban team orders until Ferrari need them again. It's the only way to be sure...

[ardbeg]

I dislike team orders when they are hurting a driver I favor. Of course, if my driver would be favored by team orders, I would accept them a lot easier. In the end though - team orders benefit the team. That's the idea anyway but there has been some team orders in the past that turned out to be a mistake. That happens, nobody is perfect.

Since there always will be team orders (and they did exist before the radios so banning them would not solve anything) I prefer the modern way, where they openly talk about them, than the silly games they had to play before. We all knew what was going on, they knew that we knew, FiA knew. Silly.

I think that the more honest F1 becomes, the more we will like it. Even if what they are honest about might look ugly. Take the tires for instance - if everyone would stay PC and say "Pirelli makes great tires", chances are tires would simply conmtinue to get worse and worse. Now drivers and teams speak about them openly, about the fact that F1 is turning into a tire nursery competition. Eventually Pirelli will have to react.

No, keep the sport honest, even if it means some less pleasant parts becomes visible to the public.

[choyothe]

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.

Excellent post, although to be fair #2 is almost solely because of the driver in question.

[RealRacing]

No, keep the sport honest, even if it means some less pleasant parts becomes visible to the public.

Ok, the other side of the coin would be, for example:

1. That the drivers, through their association, explicitly forbid No. 1, No. 2 contracts and provide protection to any of their members who asks for it in case of a dispute with a team. If we want things to be open, might as well be the contracts. Similarly, a driver should be able to report other forms of result fixing (TOs before a race, codes, etc.) and be protected by the Association. This is nothing new in sports as participants often even have syndicates, mostly to negotiate "fair" salaries, but also to protect in case of injury, unjust firing, etc.

2. If TOs are banned, increase policing efficiency by reducing leniency. Burden of proof is low (reasonable suspicion is enough to apply penalty), penalty is high. That way, even if they might still try, the increasing frequency and severity of penalties will make the TOs potential benefit not worth the risk.

3. A ban of radio comm. may not only make it more difficult to give TOs, but it would also bring other benefits such as reduce the annoying race-management from the pit. More responsibility for the driver but also more freedom to make choices, higher probability of mistakes and, possibly, better racing.

[ardbeg]

I am not sure you read my post right. I agree with team orders. I also think that teams can have different philosophies regarding team orders and I think that the way a team is managed and how it manages their drivers play a part in what I feel about the team. When team orders was banned the teams had to lie. The rules forced them to be dishonest because there is simply no way you pump in millions and millions of dollars and in the end you let the drivers decide what is the best way of profit from them.

Ok, the other side of the coin would be, for example:

1. That the drivers, through their association, explicitly forbid No. 1, No. 2 contracts and provide protection to any of their members who asks for it in case of a dispute with a team. If we want things to be open, might as well be the contracts. Similarly, a driver should be able to report other forms of result fixing (TOs before a race, codes, etc.) and be protected by the Association. This is nothing new in sports as participants often even have syndicates, mostly to negotiate "fair" salaries, but also to protect in case of injury, unjust firing, etc.

2. If TOs are banned, increase policing efficiency by reducing leniency. Burden of proof is low (reasonable suspicion is enough to apply penalty), penalty is high. That way, even if they might still try, the increasing frequency and severity of penalties will make the TOs potential benefit not worth the risk.

3. A ban of radio comm. may not only make it more difficult to give TOs, but it would also bring other benefits such as reduce the annoying race-management from the pit. More responsibility for the driver but also more freedom to make choices, higher probability of mistakes and, possibly, better racing.

Edited by ardbeg, 25 March 2013 - 22:44.

[RealRacing]

I am not sure you read my post right. I agree with team orders. I also think that teams can have different philosophies regarding team orders and I think that the way a team is managed and how it manages their drivers play a part in what I feel about the team. When team orders was banned the teams had to lie. The rules forced them to be dishonest because there is simply no way you pump in millions and millions of dollars and in the end you let the drivers decide what is the best way of profit from them.

I did understand your post. Part of my point was, if being honest about things means openly manipulating which driver of the team comes first, why not go one step further and force the teams to make their contracts available at least to the driver's association. Wouldn't that be the ultimate honesty? As things are now teams are still giving excuses as to why they favor a certain driver (fuel, saving tyres, fear of contact, etc.). If drivers and fans knew that, for example, FA had a No. 1 contract at Ferrari, or LH at Mercedes or Vettel at RBR, all the protests about letting them race would be silenced. Let's face it, teams are not being honest about this: before the explanation was: "we choose to support our driver with the best points chance of winning the WDC". Really? Have they already made the decision at the second race of the season? I'm sorry, if it's not clear beforehand and explicitly stated this is not fair to the drivers, especially if they believe they can race their teammates and have a chance at beating them. So yeah, TOs are allowed now, but does it mean things are honest?

Regarding what you write, "...the way a team is managed and how it manages their drivers play a part in what I feel about the team", we are increasingly seeing that there is no alternative in how teams can manage their drivers. If there is at least one team that chooses to support only one driver from the beginning, they are all practically forced to do the same. At least in one of the many interviews I read after Sunday's race, a TP said exactly this.

So no, I don't believe the elimination of the ban on TOs is making things really more honest. Actually it's going against the supposed "improved competitiveness" philosophy F1 was supposed to be adopting after the fan surveys prior to 2009. Ironically, many of the decisions made as a part of this whole 2009 change and afterwards have had the opposite effect of what they intended, including the TO allowance...

Edited by RealRacing, 26 March 2013 - 01:09.

[Aubwi]

Team orders are like adultery. The only thing worse than doing it is banning it.

Edited by Aubwi, 26 March 2013 - 02:11.

[gillesthegenius]

Team orders should not be banned. A team should only be awarded half their share of points for that particular race should they chose to employ it. This will make teams think twice before they employ such an order.

[SB]

very simple, just ban radio communication during the race by the team, only allowed by the FIA to announce penalties, cautions etc.

very simple, all the teams need is sending message via pit board like "SLOW", "HOLD" , "Cool Brake" etc , or slightly longer pit stop "by accident".

There is no such easy way to prevent team order ...

Edited by SB, 26 March 2013 - 03:17.

[DILLIGAF]

What... ban team orders and miss out on all the dramas?? No way man!! F1 is getting huge publicity worldwide because of what happened on the weekend. Bernie must be loving it.

[Slartibartfast]

Ok, the other side of the coin would be, for example:

1. That the drivers, through their association, explicitly forbid No. 1, No. 2 contracts and provide protection to any of their members who asks for it in case of a dispute with a team. If we want things to be open, might as well be the contracts. Similarly, a driver should be able to report other forms of result fixing (TOs before a race, codes, etc.) and be protected by the Association. This is nothing new in sports as participants often even have syndicates, mostly to negotiate "fair" salaries, but also to protect in case of injury, unjust firing, etc.

2. If TOs are banned, increase policing efficiency by reducing leniency. Burden of proof is low (reasonable suspicion is enough to apply penalty), penalty is high. That way, even if they might still try, the increasing frequency and severity of penalties will make the TOs potential benefit not worth the risk.

3. A ban of radio comm. may not only make it more difficult to give TOs, but it would also bring other benefits such as reduce the annoying race-management from the pit. More responsibility for the driver but also more freedom to make choices, higher probability of mistakes and, possibly, better racing.

Interesting suggestions.

[ardbeg]

Interesting suggestions.

I convinced that the more rules there is that meddles with the internal team business, the more effort the teams would need to make to get around them. And they would. We must remember that F1 is primarily a business although some involved also have a motorsport interest.. Only thing I would do to make things more open would be to force the teams to communicate with their drivers on an open channel. Sure, they could use code language, but if they do, and specially if there is a disagreement, we would know most of the times. Apart from that - it would add to the show if we could click into a teams communication feed. The delayed excerpts we get are not really useful.

[Slartibartfast]

I convinced that the more rules there is that meddles with the internal team business, the more effort the teams would need to make to get around them. And they would. We must remember that F1 is primarily a business although some involved also have a motorsport interest.. Only thing I would do to make things more open would be to force the teams to communicate with their drivers on an open channel. Sure, they could use code language, but if they do, and specially if there is a disagreement, we would know most of the times. Apart from that - it would add to the show if we could click into a teams communication feed. The delayed excerpts we get are not really useful.

They already do use unencrypted radio, and, if you are at the circuit, you can listen in. The additional benefits of banning radio communications during the race are too strong to dismiss simply because the teams could find other ways of issuing team orders.

[ardbeg]

They already do use unencrypted radio, and, if you are at the circuit, you can listen in.

Really? I didn't know that. Strange that those broadcasts never find their way into youtube, for instance.

[Atreiu]

Of course not. Not only is it a typical shortsighted kneejerk reaction, it's impractical and will nver be taken seriously. Just change multi 21 for any other dubious expression and the order is given.

[RealRacing]

Team orders should not be banned. A team should only be awarded half their share of points for that particular race should they chose to employ it. This will make teams think twice before they employ such an order.

But then they will try to hide that as well and we would be back to square 1. And it would not fix the worst problem of TOs which is not allowing on-track racing.

[Tenmantaylor]

The teams don't benefit financially from the WDC anywhere near as much as the WCC so if they are primarily a business then why interfere with something which has little direct financial effect on them? For those unable to detect I am playing devils advocate here to those who say F1 is a business not a sport. Maybe the teams just need to deduct their own drivers wages if they crash into each other to dissuade them from racing each other too keenly then just let them get on with it.

[ardbeg]

The teams don't benefit financially from the WDC anywhere near as much as the WCC so if they are primarily a business then why interfere with something which has little direct financial effect on them?

Not sure if that is entirely true anymore, it seems like the rules of how the money is split nowadays does not consider the WCC standing so much and a WDC is much easier to use for PR and advertising.

Edited by ardbeg, 07 April 2013 - 23:30.

[packapoo]

No it's not.
It is time to ban pit/car broadcasts. Keep what goes on in team, in team.

[Szoelloe]

Time to re-ban??? Definitely not. It would be foolish and lead to more controversy. The sneaky, weasel-like Red Bull way of operating would become the standard.

[August]

The teams don't benefit financially from the WDC anywhere near as much as the WCC so if they are primarily a business then why interfere with something which has little direct financial effect on them? For those unable to detect I am playing devils advocate here to those who say F1 is a business not a sport. Maybe the teams just need to deduct their own drivers wages if they crash into each other to dissuade them from racing each other too keenly then just let them get on with it.

WDC is better for PR. It's not just a coincidence we're talking about Merc and RBR team orders plus we can remember Ferrari team orders. Merc and Ferrari are primarily car manufacturers and RB an energy drink manufacturer. Compare them to Macca, Williams, and Lotus, all three primarily racing teams. So, Merc, RBR, and Ferrari are more like marketing departments, Macca, Willy, and Lotus teams in itself are more of businesses than those other three. Of course, WDC brings more sponsors but WCC money is safe money, you get it automatically from your WCC position whereas you don't get automatically sposors even of you win WDC. And Merc, RBR, and Ferrari don't have to rely on sponsors as much, they have rich corporations as owners.

[prty]

Not news, but a reality check for some, Massa admits that there were team orders in Brazil 2007:

"I have helped many drivers, even Kimi to help him win the championship"

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/106632

[prty]

And again, Alguersuari apparently had said it clearly too:



During the ban of team orders:
"you can't make them [team orders], but in the end we make them a bit, all the teams"

After seeing the beginning that video by the way, you can clearly see the hypocrisy of McLaren too:

Edited by prty, 13 April 2013 - 17:06.