28 replies to this topic

[benzine]

sorry another topic about teamorders
but i need to know an answer to this question , force india did it last race ,RB and mercedes did it this race . is this the normal for all the teams in all races ?

Edited by benzine, 25 March 2013 - 12:12.

[Ben Wilson]

When the team has a limited amount of engines and gearboxes,it makes sense to conserve them.

I'd say that unless there is a serious chance for more points, most teams order their drivers to back off at the end of the race.

[KnucklesAgain]

When the team has a limited amount of engines and gearboxes,it makes sense to conserve them.

I'd say that unless there is a serious chance for more points, most teams order their drivers to back off at the end of the race.

Not only the engines and gearboxes, but also tyres (if marginal - they don't want to hit the Pirelli cliff a few laps from the finish). And maybe most importantly, they don't want the two drivers to take each other out due to a knife-between-teeth battle to the finish line.

[pdac]

sorry another topic about teamorders
but i need to know an answer to this question , force india did it last race ,RB and mercedes did it this race . is this the normal for all the teams in all races ?

I the team feel that they can gain another place from another team, then they will probably try to get their fastest driver to go for it. If this is not the situation, though, the TEAM will end up with exactly the same amount of points, so there's no sense in taking any risks with either that race or (in terms of engine and gearbox limitations) future races. Of course, from the drivers point of view they want to maximise their own points tally, not just the teams.

Having said that, towards the end of the season, teams will also look at how the drivers standings are in the WDC and may choose a different strategy.

[mnmracer]

The real question is, why did Red Bull give teamorders to Vettel not to overtake Mark when he was faster halfway through the race, and then AGAIN at the end? At least give him a chance to challenge for the win.

[learningtobelost]

It's incredibly common. It makes sense that if there's no chance of catching the guys in front of you then you manage the pace to protect the equipment. Now if you have two drivers running line astern then the only way to achieve this is to tell them to hold station.

I started a thread yesterday to see if we could collectively find an example of team orders in every GP that has ever taken place. Now obviously that's a bit of a ridiculous undertaking, but the thread did throw up some examples of "holding station" as far back as the 1930's.

Which really does beg the question... Why are people so upset about it all of a sudden? Because Vettel and Hamilton are involved? remember Hockenheim 2010? No-one cared last weekend when DiResta was told to hold station. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions

[choyothe]

Because they're cowards.

[Fontainebleau]

sorry another topic about teamorders
but i need to know an answer to this question , force india did it last race ,RB and mercedes did it this race . is this the normal for all the teams in all races ?

Not for all teams in all races, no. In fact, Malaysia was a peculiar one for the two leading teams; Ross Brawn stated it very clearly in one of his conversations with Rosberg: "a massive gap to the front and a massive gap to the back". Or, in other words, the RB and Merc drivers found themselves in a situation in which they were not under threat from any other team, just racing their teammate. At this point, a team director has two options: let his drivers race each other, and in the process risk an incident of some sort (or, as stated above, just putting additional wear on the engines and other mechanical parts), or call it a day and ask his two cars to come back home safe and relaxed.

If you focus just on the WCC, the second option makes 100% sense. Obviously, when you look at the WDC it is a different story. I'd say that it being so soon in the season, it is likely that the team directors thought that it was too soon to decide which of his drivers would be better placed for WDC towards year end, and that the WCC points were far more important. If you want to look at it in a different way, the team directors would be taking the stance that his two drivers had two-thirds of the GP to see who performed better, and that the risk of the additional fight was not worth it for the team.

[LiJu914]

Partially habit, i guess.

A few years ago due to the absence of DRS (and cheese-tyres) all positions were pretty much settled after the last round of pit-stops. So there was usually little need to have a no holds barred fight between teammates, as it normally wouldn´t lead to a different result anyway - except for a collision perhaps.

Today however, the closing stages of the race are often enough a crucial part for the overall results of the race.

That´s the main reason, why i think today´s "hold position"-orders, with still a whole stint to go, are much more questionable than in the past.

Edited by LiJu914, 25 March 2013 - 13:09.

[pdac]

Not for all teams in all races, no. In fact, Malaysia was a peculiar one for the two leading teams; Ross Brawn stated it very clearly in one of his conversations with Rosberg: "a massive gap to the front and a massive gap to the back". Or, in other words, the RB and Merc drivers found themselves in a situation in which they were not under threat from any other team, just racing their teammate. At this point, a team director has two options: let his drivers race each other, and in the process risk an incident of some sort (or, as stated above, just putting additional wear on the engines and other mechanical parts), or call it a day and ask his two cars to come back home safe and relaxed.

If you focus just on the WCC, the second option makes 100% sense. Obviously, when you look at the WDC it is a different story. I'd say that it being so soon in the season, it is likely that the team directors thought that it was too soon to decide which of his drivers would be better placed for WDC towards year end, and that the WCC points were far more important. If you want to look at it in a different way, the team directors would be taking the stance that his two drivers had two-thirds of the GP to see who performed better, and that the risk of the additional fight was not worth it for the team.

I'm not convinced. I do think that, given the particular circumstances where the TEAM will not gain anything by letting drivers race, all teams now will make it clear to their drivers that they cannot race each other the final stop. All teams are focused on the WCC because that's where the money is.

[benzine]

Because they're cowards.

i am convinvced

end thread

[Fontainebleau]

I'm not convinced. I do think that, given the particular circumstances where the TEAM will not gain anything by letting drivers race, all teams now will make it clear to their drivers that they cannot race each other the final stop. All teams are focused on the WCC because that's where the money is.

Even if the money is on the WCC, teams do care about the WDC too, even if only because it tends to get even more visibility (and sponsors like that). You will see how in future races drivers will not be asked to hold positions if under pressure from a third driver (for example, had Alonso been catching up on the two RB or the two Mercs), and even how they will be asked to support their teammates if the team believes that it is the right bet for the WDC.

But at this point in the season, I agree that the WCC points are far more attractive.

[pdac]

Because they're cowards.

i am convinvced

end thread

I guess that does sum up team stragegy quite neatly.

[jerriy]

Because nowadays thanks to FIA the sport is a tyre management ritual rather than a sport.

The more tyre management there is, the more team orders are needed.

[Skinnyguy]

It´s a reminiscense from the time when every try to pass a car on a similar pace was a huge risk.Nowadays if your drivers give each other some basic respect this agreement is not necesary at all.

It doesn´t make sense any more, but it keeps being done. A bit like the Q3 guys having to start on the tyres they qualified on.

[KnucklesAgain]

It´s a reminiscense from the time when every try to pass a car on a similar pace was a huge risk.Nowadays if your drivers give each other some basic respect this agreement is not necesary at all.

It doesn´t make sense any more, but it keeps being done. A bit like the Q3 guys having to start on the tyres they qualified on.

The problem right there. Teams, even those who claim they let their drivers race, do not want to see Turkey 2010.

[Skinnyguy]

The problem right there. Teams, even those who claim they let their drivers race, do not want to see Turkey 2010.

Sure, but current F1 gives a perfectly fair chance to fight for position with a car slightly slower without having to expect anything bad happening. I don´t think this is necesary anymore, as I said, if you have two guys who can race wheel to wheel giving each other some room. Webber is a reckless defender and Vettel has made some mistakes in the past racing closely, but even this pair should be OK to go racing. Yesterday they were as hard on each other as you´ll see, and both scaped unhurt.

[KnucklesAgain]

Sure, but current F1 gives a perfectly fair chance to fight for position with a car slightly slower without having to expect anything bad happening. I don´t think this is necesary anymore, as I said, if you have two guys who can race wheel to wheel giving each other some room. Webber is a reckless defender and Vettel has made some mistakes in the past racing closely, but even this pair should be OK to go racing. Yesterday they were as hard on each other as you´ll see, and both scaped unhurt.

Yesterday they did, at other times they didn't. I still think it's a considerable risk to the team, one incident per season is enough to lose both championships.
Edit: And while team orders have the potential to cause unrest in the team (and opponents of team orders continually remind us of this fact), drivers crashing into each other has at least the same potential (which often gets ignored)

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 25 March 2013 - 14:46.

[Jimisgod]

Because drivers could go huehuehue I'm going to overtake my teammate, and teammate goes na-ah and they either crash or they destroy their tyres and get reeled in by the guy behind. Then they are laughed at for losing a 1-2 or whatever.

[Skinnyguy]

Yesterday they did, at other times they didn't. I still think it's a considerable risk to the team, one incident per season is enough to lose both championships.

No problem, we´ll agree to disagree here.

I think current F1 gives a perfect background to let your guys race if they´re not mad dogs. Sure, for me it made sense when the 1 second dirty air wall made any attempt suicidal, but not anymore. Anyway actual teams will know better and they seem to be with you in this one.

[KnucklesAgain]

@Skinnyguy: I totally see your point

[One]

Well get back to the original question, in team's point of view it loses advantage that they hold in respect to other teams.
In driver's point of view, either one may fall off the track and lose points, big time, sometime ending up in DNF.

But from Fan's point of view, it should be welcomed.

It is exciting and it does create true racing. I actually like a lot more than What Michael Schumacher did to Rubens, that he slowed down at the last corner to act like they were performing dead heating. It was fake, false.

Yesterday so far was true racing, but I just think at this point there should be nothing stopping either of them from throughing out the other out of the track.

The answer which Vettel gave to the team stated that Vettel as the racing driver decides whatever he wants to do. He is sporting. Then the answer I should expect from Webber will be the same, ion such extent that the both will go on till the race ends, if necessary, through one out.

This should be bloody exciting for the fans on TV. The championship permutation is something that team should make counting afterwards.

[boldhakka]

Fighting for position at the end of a race is different from fighting for position at the beginning. At the beginning they don't take as many risks because they know and tell themselves that it's a long race and they will have other opportunities later. At the end of the race, every lap starts to feel like "this may be my last chance to go for that gap" and therefore they take bigger risks near the end.

Teams know this and therefore tighten the leash closer to the end than in the beginning.

Also tyres, engines, etc. as the others have said.

[gurney]

A championship point is worth a lot of money. An F1 team is not there to stroke the ego's of there drivers but to make money and continue racing.

[mnmracer]

A championship point is worth a lot of money. An F1 team is not there to stroke the ego's of there drivers but to make money and continue racing.

Even setting the babying aside, and consider the worst case scenario, Vettel has made them a multitude of 43 points more money than Webber.

[black magic]

do we seriously have to ask this question? is it not self evident?

[Dolph]

Even setting the babying aside, and consider the worst case scenario, Vettel has made them a multitude of 43 points more money than Webber.

So he should be allowed to throw them away?

You are confusing things big time. It is by choice that Red Bull have the driver pairing that they have and not for example Vettel-Hamilton. If they wanted a lot more points they probably would have gone with Hamilton. So if Vettel has more points or Webber is really not important at all.

[Claudius]

Partially habit, i guess.

A few years ago due to the absence of DRS (and cheese-tyres) all positions were pretty much settled after the last round of pit-stops. So there was usually little need to have a no holds barred fight between teammates, as it normally wouldn´t lead to a different result anyway - except for a collision perhaps.

Today however, the closing stages of the race are often enough a crucial part for the overall results of the race.

That´s the main reason, why i think today´s "hold position"-orders, with still a whole stint to go, are much more questionable than in the past.

You have a point, hadn't thought of that.

Today, with tires that needs managing, the end of the race has become more uncertain. Add to that DRS to facilitate overtakings and the risk for the teams to lose points are lower than it used to be.
So maybe the teams should let them race to the finnish.
I doubt it will happen though, teams won't jepardize losing points even if the possibility for that is much lower today.

[Sausage]

A championship point is worth a lot of money. An F1 team is not there to stroke the ego's of there drivers but to make money and continue racing.

This here. Teams employ hundreds of people and you get no garantuees, so as safe and easy as possible if a good result is basicly in the bag.