57 replies to this topic

[Seanspeed]

I've seen quite a bit of talk the past week or two about Mercedes and Ferrari and team orders and no.1/no.2 policies.  

 

I feel like many are confusing a couple basic things.  

 

Team orders do not mean there is a no.1/no.2 hierarchy.  At least not inherently.  Ordering one driver by or getting them ahead somehow is not necessarily an admission one driver is favored.  More often, it is simply a situational order based on what is best for the team in that specific scenario/race.  Seems more people who follow F1 are 'driver fans' rather than 'team fans' and so see things in a very driver-highlighted perspective.  This leads to a hyper focus on driver battles rather than seeing things from a team perspective.  And seeing things from a team perspective is really necessary to understand what is going on in these situations.  

 

Let's take China and the Ferrari situation.  It's a commonly accepted idea that Ferrari should have made Kimi move over for Vettel in the 2nd stint where both were being held back by the Red Bulls.  However, some people's arguments as to 'why' this should have happened seem to miss the point.  It shouldn't have been about favoring Vettel for the championship, it should have been about having the faster driver being held up and putting the optimum team result in jeopardy.  

 

A similar situation happened with Mercedes in Bahrain.  Bottas was clearly holding Lewis up when Vettel was out front and pulling away.  Mercedes arguably should have let Lewis by fairly early on, NOT because Lewis is their best shot for the WDC, but because the team result was potentially being compromised if they dont give the faster driver a chance to go after the car ahead.  

 

In other words - none of this has to do with the teams thinking about the WDC.  And in a reverse situation, where Bottas or Kimi were the ones being held back, the same thinking should and probably would be applied.  The only time I think this wouldn't be the case is later in the season and there's a very clear and undeniable championship favorite for the WDC and that competitor needs every edge they can get to win it.  But *even then*, there's the argument that a faster no.2 driver could move up and reduce the points haul of the competitors ahead.  In a system where there's a favoring of points for higher positions(15 vs 18 vs 25), this makes good sense.  If you lose 3 points by letting a teammate by, but your teammate goes on to win the race by passing a rival ahead, they've just reduced your rival's haul by 7 points.  Meaning your 'loss' from finishing behind is reduced from 7 points to 3 points.   

 

Personally, I dont think there's any strict no.1/no.2 policy at either team.  At least not this early in the season.  And letting a driver by in a specific instance isn't an inherent indication of that, either.  Both Mercedes and Ferrari hesitating for quite a while to implement any team order strongly supports this, in my opinion.  If there were *clear* no.1/no.2 roles, these orders would have been decisive and quick.  I think both teams want to let their drivers compete.  But they also know that in a close competition, sacrificing team results for the sake of driver equity is no good for them.  

Edited by Seanspeed, 21 April 2017 - 08:47.

[LuckyStrike1]

Rosberg was asked to let Hamilton pass in Monaco last year. 
Won the championship. 

[Seanspeed]

Rosberg was asked to let Hamilton pass in Monaco last year. 
Won the championship. 

A+ example, thank you. 

[Marklar]

Too much sense.

[chunder27]

Happened all the time in motorsport.  Riders in GP racing have ignored team orders to win world titles, Phil Read being one.

 

I think these days with strategy seemingly being the only way realistically a driver can make a huge difference rather than simply being better on track, orders make more of a difference.

 

The Bottas thing in Bahrain was rather unnecessary as Hammy was so much quicker he would likely have got past very rapidly anyway, but it is the thought behind that decision that are telling. They presumed Bottas would have no chance against Vettel and Hamilton would. I can see their point, but what does that do to Bottas's head?

 

The actual orders are irrelevant to me and these days are usually fair, it is what they say about the team.

 

Webber in Malaysia was a classic example, a clear team decision to hold station that Vettel ignored to the point of actually endangering the result.  Simply put, if it had been the other way round can you imagine Marko!!  It is insubordination really. Especially when you think about what happened in Turkey a bit before.

 

But some of these guys are so selfish, so petulant and self orientated they just cannot cope without thinking they have the right to do anything they want, even totally disobeying their employer.

 

Even bad cases like Pironi, Reutemann et al are not as bad as what Vettel did for me.  AS Seb actually raced hard and engaged in combat,

[Ferrari2183]

I've seen quite a bit of talk the past week or two about Mercedes and Ferrari and team orders and no.1/no.2 policies.  

 

I feel like many are confusing a couple basic things.  

 

Team orders do not mean there is a no.1/no.2 hierarchy.  At least not inherently.  Ordering one driver by or getting them ahead somehow is not necessarily an admission one driver is favored.  More often, it is simply a situational order based on what is best for the team in that specific scenario/race.  Seems more people who follow F1 are 'driver fans' rather than 'team fans' and so see things in a very driver-highlighted perspective.  This leads to a hyper focus on driver battles rather than seeing things from a team perspective.  And seeing things from a team perspective is really necessary to understand what is going on in these situations.  

 

Let's take China and the Ferrari situation.  It's a commonly accepted idea that Ferrari should have made Kimi move over for Vettel in the 2nd stint where both were being held back by the Red Bulls.  However, some people's arguments as to 'why' this should have happened seem to miss the point.  It shouldn't have been about favoring Vettel for the championship, it should have been about having the faster driver being held up and putting the optimum team result in jeopardy.  

 

A similar situation happened with Mercedes in Bahrain.  Bottas was clearly holding Lewis up when Vettel was out front and pulling away.  Mercedes arguably should have let Lewis by fairly early on, NOT because Lewis is their best shot for the WDC, but because the team result was potentially being compromised if they dont give the faster driver a chance to go after the car ahead.  

 

In other words - none of this has to do with the teams thinking about the WDC.  And in a reverse situation, where Bottas or Kimi were the ones being held back, the same thinking should and probably would be applied.  The only time I think this wouldn't be the case is later in the season and there's a very clear and undeniable championship favorite for the WDC and that competitor needs every edge they can get to win it.  But *even then*, there's the argument that a faster no.2 driver could move up and reduce the points haul of the competitors ahead.  In a system where there's a favoring of points for higher positions(15 vs 18 vs 25), this makes good sense.  If you lose 3 points by letting a teammate by, but your teammate goes on to win the race by passing a rival ahead, they've just reduced your rival's haul by 7 points.  Meaning your 'loss' from finishing behind is reduced from 7 points to 3 points.   

 

Personally, I dont think there's any strict no.1/no.2 policy at either team.  At least not this early in the season.  And letting a driver by in a specific instance isn't an inherent indication of that, either.  Both Mercedes and Ferrari hesitating for quite a while to implement any team order strongly supports this, in my opinion.  If there were *clear* no.1/no.2 roles, these orders would have been decisive and quick.  I think both teams want to let their drivers compete.  But they also know that in a close competition, sacrificing team results for the sake of driver equity is no good for them.  

I applaud your sensibility but your position is based on the premise that the teams are only in it for the constructors championship. The drivers championship brings with it all sorts of benefits as well.

 

Surely the objective should be to win both from the off set.

 

Engineering or ordering a swap of positions is also only possible when they're running one behind the other so in terms of team strategy and points collected it in all likelihood would end up making no difference unless the car being held up can chase down and overtake like Vettel did in China. Had there been a clear policy Vettel wouldn't have been held up and his race would have been an order of magnitude easier, so would Hamilton's Bahrain race. If Vettel/Hamilton (number 1's) would be slower for whatever reason (which can of course happen but I don't expect it often) then the faster driver should be allowed to try and make things happen for the team but should they later find themselves line astern then the number 1 should be allowed to collect the additional points in terms of the drivers championship if not then the team did right.

 

In a championship when cars are as close as we've seen thus far and the balance shifting from track to track I believe a number 1 should be selected. Had Hamilton or Vettel won all three races (which was possible) and teammates got in the way the second placed driver would be a race win back already.

 

The team, plain and simply, should back the driver whom is most likely to deliver the goods over a season. 

[Marklar]

The team, plain and simply, should back the driver whom is most likely to deliver the goods over a season.

This tends to backfire though, because often the driver who looks promising in the first 3-4 races can be stil beaten byhis team mate over the course of the season, thus you are backing the wrong driver.

Of course after some time and if an certain gap is already in place or if a driver was always the very likely winner of this battle and starts well (which could apply to Ferrari or Mercedes, particulary because they are in a H2H battle) it is reasonable to back one driver, though I dont like it, but it didnt happened yet anyway. As others said the team orders were clearly based on speed differences and at best just secondary for the championship.

[spacekid]

Good post Sean. I agree.

As much as I enjoy the drivers and understand the focus on the human element, I have long felt that F1 in particular has been projecting a false image to fans that leads to much unnecessary frustration. It's sold as a competition amongst the top drivers in the world, whereas really F1 is an engineering competition with drivers being well paid (or sometimes not so well paid) employees.

I didn't like the ban on team orders and am glad teams can once again organise their employees as they see fit. After all, the team are paying for the cars and running costs and pay the drivers for the privilege of driving them. The teams should be able to maximise the return on their investment (cos points mean prizes) as they see fit.

[MattK9]

I agree with some of the OP post but not all of it.

 

For this season it is very clear that Vet/Ham are the No1 drivers and Bot/Rai are the No2 drivers. Even after 3 races Kimi has underperformed in all 3 races. After 3 races Bottas has underperformed in 2 out of 3 (China & Bahrain)

 

Merc are only in F1 because it meets there current globel marketing strategy. In this case they may favour the driver championship over this constructors because the casual fans (i.e. their market/target audience) only really remeber the drivers champion. The team champion is largely forgotten about/deemed not as important as the WDC in the eyes of the generally public. As soon as F1 doesnt meet the needs of the Merc marketing strategy they will be gone from the Sport (I would give it 10 years maybe).

 

Ferrari are F1 and F1 is Ferrari. They will be in F1 no matter what and i expect them to take the WCC more seriously.

 

Lets not forget that the No1 drivers are No1 because they are consistently quicker than their No2s. I cant imagine Ham or Vet moving out of the way for their teammate even if they are clearly slower, and i also cant imagine such a situation arriving based on current form. Both have proven before not to follow such team orders anyway.

[ch103]

hate to disagree but dedicated No 1 and No 2 drivers have existed for years. 

 

Schumacher and Barrichello at Ferrari is obviously the most clear cut example.

 

Vettel and Webber at Red Bull too.  As much as Red Bull tried to hide it, Seb was the chosen one.  Webber was leading the 2010 WDC and Red Bull didn't prioritize his title fight.  Why?  He was the designated No 2 driver.  He even said as much as Silverstone!

[Samspade]

It will happen in motorsport form now until the end of time teams have to protect there investment 

[Lotus53B]

I have a fairly basic view on team orders/instructions/whatever - the drivers are employed by the team to optimise the results for the team, and if the team instruct them to do something for the benefit of the team then it should be done.

There are nebulous areas, the idea of a "Number 1" driver, as happened with Michael Schumacher, but then there are abstract concepts of value,e.g. in that Michael winning was seen as good for the team in terms of sponsorship and so on.

It may appear harsh at times, but F1 is a business, and sometimes hard decisions have to be made for the benefit of the team.

[Enzoluis]

This tends to backfire though, because often the driver who looks promising in the first 3-4 races can be stil beaten byhis team mate over the course of the season, thus you are backing the wrong driver.

Of course after some time and if an certain gap is already in place or if a driver was always the very likely winner of this battle and starts well (which could apply to Ferrari or Mercedes, particulary because they are in a H2H battle) it is reasonable to back one driver, though I dont like it, but it didnt happened yet anyway. As others said the team orders were clearly based on speed differences and at best just secondary for the championship.

 

There is only one example where that happened is France 1999. Irvine was told do not pass Schumacher very slow with car problems. Irvine were chasing if I remember well Ralf Schumacher. Irvine could pass both Schumachers and at the end of the year won the WDC. Well that if in that case Schumacher would come back and help Irvine winning.

[Ferrari2183]

This tends to backfire though, because often the driver who looks promising in the first 3-4 races can be stil beaten byhis team mate over the course of the season, thus you are backing the wrong driver.

Of course after some time and if an certain gap is already in place or if a driver was always the very likely winner of this battle and starts well (which could apply to Ferrari or Mercedes, particulary because they are in a H2H battle) it is reasonable to back one driver, though I dont like it, but it didnt happened yet anyway. As others said the team orders were clearly based on speed differences and at best just secondary for the championship.

The only time I can think when this has backfired was in '99 with the Schumacher injury but Irvine was there or thereabouts in the races. Not choosing a number 1 backfired spectacularly in 2007 for McLaren. 

 

In fact 2007 and 2008 are clear examples of why number 1's should be chosen in tight seasons.

 

In terms of Bottas and Raikkonen, the latter in particular, they're quite a distance away in terms of points in any event. 

Edited by Ferrari2183, 21 April 2017 - 10:53.

[Afterburner]

Webber in Malaysia was a classic example, a clear team decision to hold station that Vettel ignored to the point of actually endangering the result. Simply put, if it had been the other way round can you imagine Marko!! It is insubordination really. Especially when you think about what happened in Turkey a bit before.

But some of these guys are so selfish, so petulant and self orientated they just cannot cope without thinking they have the right to do anything they want, even totally disobeying their employer.

Even bad cases like Pironi, Reutemann et al are not as bad as what Vettel did for me. AS Seb actually raced hard and engaged in combat,

Don't want to turn this into a Multi 21 thread, but I do think it's important to remember that there were at least two races in which Webber ignored team orders to attack Vettel, too. One of them was Silverstone 2011 but I can't remember the other. He was unsuccessful in passing Vettel both times so that's probably why nobody remembers.

In all three cases I was fine with it, though, "because 2016 Rolex 24".

[Marklar]

Merc are only in F1 because it meets there current globel marketing strategy. In this case they may favour the driver championship over this constructors because the casual fans (i.e. their market/target audience) only really remeber the drivers champion. The team champion is largely forgotten about/deemed not as important as the WDC in the eyes of the generally public. As soon as F1 doesnt meet the needs of the Merc marketing strategy they will be gone from the Sport (I would give it 10 years maybe).

 

Ferrari are F1 and F1 is Ferrari. They will be in F1 no matter what and i expect them to take the WCC more seriously.

While I get your reasoning I have the impression that Ferrari is more likely to focus on the drivers championship than Mercedes. Mercedes winning the WCC proves that the car is the best, this is exactly what they want for their marketing strategy, the driver winning the title without the WCC would be in that sense even bad.

 

I agree about Ferrari, but they have a record of a clear number 1 and number 2 strategy, thus they are more likely to take the WDC more seriously than Mercedes, who are anyway stil stuck in 2014-16

 

 

There is only one example where that happened is France 1999. Irvine was told do not pass Schumacher very slow with car problems. Irvine were chasing if I remember well Ralf Schumacher. Irvine could pass both Schumachers and at the end of the year won the WDC. Well that if in that case Schumacher would come back and help Irvine winning.

 

The only time I can think when this has backfired was in '99 with the Schumacher injury but Irvine was there or thereabouts in the races. Not choosing a number 1 backfired spectacularly in 2007 for McLaren. 

 

In fact 2007 and 2008 are clear examples of why number 1's should be chosen in tight seasons.

 

In terms of Bottas and Raikkonen, the latter in particular, they're quite a distance away in terms of points in any event. 

Raikkonen was ahead of Massa in 2008 after a few races, had they chosen Raikkonen then Hamilton would have won the title with ease instead of just the last corner.

 

Had Red Bull focused on Webber after Korea 2010 they wouldnt have won the title.

 

You can even draw a few scenarios out of the last few years if you igore the Mercedes dominance (Rosberg was 43 points ahead after 4 races, a few races later he was 19 points behind).

 

Point is it doesnt always make sense: Yes, in this particular scenario it might because hardly anyone believed anyway that Kimi will beat Seb this year (and to an lesser extend Bottas Hamilton), but it's not always as clear cut in the end.

Edited by Marklar, 21 April 2017 - 11:01.

[Seanspeed]

I applaud your sensibility but your position is based on the premise that the teams are only in it for the constructors championship. The drivers championship brings with it all sorts of benefits as well.

 

Surely the objective should be to win both from the off set.

 

Engineering or ordering a swap of positions is also only possible when they're running one behind the other so in terms of team strategy and points collected it in all likelihood would end up making no difference unless the car being held up can chase down and overtake like Vettel did in China. Had there been a clear policy Vettel wouldn't have been held up and his race would have been an order of magnitude easier, so would Hamilton's Bahrain race. If Vettel/Hamilton (number 1's) would be slower for whatever reason (which can of course happen but I don't expect it often) then the faster driver should be allowed to try and make things happen for the team but should they later find themselves line astern then the number 1 should be allowed to collect the additional points in terms of the drivers championship if not then the team did right.

 

In a championship when cars are as close as we've seen thus far and the balance shifting from track to track I believe a number 1 should be selected. Had Hamilton or Vettel won all three races (which was possible) and teammates got in the way the second placed driver would be a race win back already.

 

The team, plain and simply, should back the driver whom is most likely to deliver the goods over a season. 

As I've said before and as Marklar added - this can backfire.  Somebody in the Ferrari thread previously brought up 2008 as an example of why a team should employ a 'default' no.1 situation.  Which is a hilarious example because Kimi was actually leading Massa after the first few races but eventually went on to get comprehensively beaten.  

 

And nowhere am I saying that WCC takes priority over WDC.  It's just that teams can employ orders to ensure the best WCC results at ANY point in the season, while maximizing WDC results aren't a certain thing til later.  

 

Obviously there have been times in the past where this wasn't the case and teams have definitely employed default no.1 roles.  Also not my point to suggest otherwise.  I'm just saying that THIS YEAR, this does not seem to be the case at all.  And that people shouldn't interpret a team order to imply there is any kind of no.1/no.2 situation going on.  Cuz I think the evidence would suggest there isn't and it's also very sensible by the teams to do so. 

 

Lastly, I think if any team was employing a strict no.1/no.2 hierarchy from the get-go, fans would be very unhappy about it.  It would very likely lead to revisiting the allowance of team orders in general.  

[Enzoluis]

While I get your reasoning I have the impression that Ferrari is more likely to focus on the drivers championship than Mercedes. Mercedes winning the WCC proves that the car is the best, this is exactly what they want for their marketing strategy, the driver winning the title without the WCC would be in that sense even bad.

 

I agree about Ferrari, but they have a record of a clear number 1 and number 2 strategy, thus they are more likely to take the WDC more seriously than Mercedes, who are anyway stil stuck in 2014-16

 

 

 

Raikkonen was ahead of Massa in 2008 after a few races, had they chosen Raikkonen then Hamilton would have won the title with ease instead of just the last corner.

 

Had Red Bull focused on Webber after Korea 2010 they wouldnt have won the title.

 

You can even draw a few scenarios out of the last few years if you igore the Mercedes dominance (Rosberg was 43 points ahead after 4 races, a few races later he was 19 points behind).

 

Point is it doesnt always make sense: Yes, in this particular scenario it might because hardly anyone believed anyway that Kimi will beat Seb this year (and to an lesser extend Bottas Hamilton), but it's not always as clear cut in the end.

 

IMHO the best thing is make the decisions race by race. If the faster car of the team is behind the slower use the team orders to reverse unless there is a real chance for the championship for the slower and not for the faster. 

[Jovanotti]

Raikkonen was ahead of Massa in 2008 after a few races, had they chosen Raikkonen then Hamilton would have won the title with ease instead of just the last corner.

Or not, afaik Brundle is on record thinking that if Ferrari focused on Kimi's needs, he would have won it.

OT, it should be common sense for any team to act like Sean describes (i.e. always maximising the team's result by letting the faster driver pass). In reality I think in many teams, one driver is given priority in stuff like personnel allocation (can you imagine getting Vettel strategy calls like Kimi in the last races for example?), seat time, etc. - and happens most of the time for a reason (said driver being or perceived the faster one).

[PlatenGlass]

The team, plain and simply, should back the driver whom is most likely to deliver the goods over a season.

It's really bad from a PR point of view to be ordering your drivers to swap positions - see Austria 2002.

That's why I found it odd that commentators were saying that perhaps Mercedes should now back Hamilton for the title. Because that can really only mean one thing - if Bottas is ahead in the race, he has to let Hamilton through (and not for reasons based on that one race as a standalone). And other than Ferrari in the Schumacher years, or when it's very late in the season, when was the last time a team has actually done that? It's not a normal thing for a team to do at all. Certainly not these days.

Edited by PlatenGlass, 21 April 2017 - 12:06.

[Ferrari2183]

While I get your reasoning I have the impression that Ferrari is more likely to focus on the drivers championship than Mercedes. Mercedes winning the WCC proves that the car is the best, this is exactly what they want for their marketing strategy, the driver winning the title without the WCC would be in that sense even bad.

 

I agree about Ferrari, but they have a record of a clear number 1 and number 2 strategy, thus they are more likely to take the WDC more seriously than Mercedes, who are anyway stil stuck in 2014-16

 

 

 

Raikkonen was ahead of Massa in 2008 after a few races, had they chosen Raikkonen then Hamilton would have won the title with ease instead of just the last corner.

 

Had Red Bull focused on Webber after Korea 2010 they wouldnt have won the title.

 

You can even draw a few scenarios out of the last few years if you igore the Mercedes dominance (Rosberg was 43 points ahead after 4 races, a few races later he was 19 points behind).

 

Point is it doesnt always make sense: Yes, in this particular scenario it might because hardly anyone believed anyway that Kimi will beat Seb this year (and to an lesser extend Bottas Hamilton), but it's not always as clear cut in the end.

 

 

As I've said before and as Marklar added - this can backfire.  Somebody in the Ferrari thread previously brought up 2008 as an example of why a team should employ a 'default' no.1 situation.  Which is a hilarious example because Kimi was actually leading Massa after the first few races but eventually went on to get comprehensively beaten.  

 

And nowhere am I saying that WCC takes priority over WDC.  It's just that teams can employ orders to ensure the best WCC results at ANY point in the season, while maximizing WDC results aren't a certain thing til later.  

 

Obviously there have been times in the past where this wasn't the case and teams have definitely employed default no.1 roles.  Also not my point to suggest otherwise.  I'm just saying that THIS YEAR, this does not seem to be the case at all.  And that people shouldn't interpret a team order to imply there is any kind of no.1/no.2 situation going on.  Cuz I think the evidence would suggest there isn't and it's also very sensible by the teams to do so. 

 

Lastly, I think if any team was employing a strict no.1/no.2 hierarchy from the get-go, fans would be very unhappy about it.  It would very likely lead to revisiting the allowance of team orders in general.  

I get that not all team orders imply a definite number 1 scenario but rather, for lack of a better term, team strategy. That said, in my opinion this decision should be taken sooner rather than later this year.

 

As far as 2008 goes and how that season played out at Ferrari was rather the drivers being poor in general. I strongly believe that the F2008 was the class of the field by some margin but driver sensitivities, particularly to the front end, made that season closer than it actually should have been. When it was hot and the drivers could generate the necessary tyre temps the Ferrari scampered off into the distance without fail. In any event, if Raikkonen was the chosen one development wouldn't have taken the car out of his comfort zone.

 

Clear number 1 policies also come with a lot of benefits like development mostly being centered around the chosen driver, roles within the team are clearly defined, the better engineers are assigned to only 1 garage to avoid potential reliability issues and testing responsibilities can given to the chosen one. 

 

Casual fans will be casual fans but those who've followed the sport for any length of time know the deal. There is also absolutely no way a ban on team orders will be revisited... It just cannot be policed. In a clear number 1 policy orders are not even necessary because the subordinate will move of his own volition how are the FIA supposed to police that?

 

@Marklar

 

The 2010 scenario is basically what I'm talking about. Backing should be given to the driver most likely to win you the championship.

[kevinracefan]

 

  Webber was leading the 2010 WDC and Red Bull didn't prioritize his title fight.  Why?  He was the designated No 2 driver. 

rubbish..

[taran]

Teams need not only consider the results in a particular race but also the psychological aspects of team orders. Drivers being made a #2, especially when they didn't sign up for it, suffer morale issues and lose speed. For example, Bottas is showing he can be almost as fast as Hamilton. And he made it clear after the race he didn't like being asked to move over twice. If he has to do it again, he might well become much slower.

 

Let's face it, if your boss favours a co-worker, do you work harder to show your boss is wrong? Or do you lose motivation and consider another job and/or just go through the motions......

[spacekid]

Teams need not only consider the results in a particular race but also the psychological aspects of team orders. Drivers being made a #2, especially when they didn't sign up for it, suffer morale issues and lose speed. For example, Bottas is showing he can be almost as fast as Hamilton. And he made it clear after the race he didn't like being asked to move over twice. If he has to do it again, he might well become much slower.

Let's face it, if your boss favours a co-worker, do you work harder to show your boss is wrong? Or do you lose motivation and consider another job and/or just go through the motions......

I know it sounds harsh, but my view is if a driver responds like that he hasn't got what it takes.

In this specific example, Valteri was asked to move over as he was holding Lewis up and F1 cars are hard to overtake. The quickest race for both Mercedes cars was to move Lewis ahead of Valteri as quickly and easily as possible. The way for Valteri to avoid this in the future is to be faster than Lewis.

I agree it's not good to have demotivated employees, but drivers are replaceable and Mercs best bet for success this year is with their fastest driver, Lewis. Ferrari are too close for Mercedes to mollycoddle a secondary driver.

I know it sounds harsh but F1 is a competitive business, and for a lot of good drivers it can really suck. If Merc end up breaking Valteri this year they have options for next year. If he can rise to the challenge, he'll be a great.

[taran]

I know it sounds harsh, but my view is if a driver responds like that he hasn't got what it takes.

In this specific example, Valteri was asked to move over as he was holding Lewis up and F1 cars are hard to overtake. The quickest race for both Mercedes cars was to move Lewis ahead of Valteri as quickly and easily as possible. The way for Valteri to avoid this in the future is to be faster than Lewis.

I agree it's not good to have demotivated employees, but drivers are replaceable and Mercs best bet for success this year is with their fastest driver, Lewis. Ferrari are too close for Mercedes to mollycoddle a secondary driver.

I know it sounds harsh but F1 is a competitive business, and for a lot of good drivers it can really suck. If Merc end up breaking Valteri this year they have options for next year. If he can rise to the challenge, he'll be a great.

 

In a perfect world you'd be right but F1 has shown that teams seldom score 1-2.It is rare for a reason. It takes a huge car advantage (Lotus 78, McLaren 88/89, Mercedes 14-16 etc.) to achieve that. And you usually have to have two equal drivers, Ferrari's Schumacher years being the exception.

 

Otherwise, the #2 driver is often beaten by other cars, cars who really shouldn't be beating the superior car.

 

These drivers aren't racing to pay for their mortgage, they are seeking professional achievements. Letting their teammate by is contrary to their every fibre. Doing it knowing it will be reciprocated is one thing, letting someone by because the team favours that driver is something else.

 

Take Riccardo Patrese in 1991. He was actually faster than newly returned superstar and #1 driver Nigel Mansell. Until told he had to support Nigel. He never was the same driver again. Even Raikkonen was only willing to support Massa back in 2008 after he got a new contract. I'd also argue that Red Bulls' blatant favouritism broke Webber after 2010, except for some races where he was exceptionally motivated.

 

Like it or not, #2 drivers don't perform at 100%. And teams need to consider that, especially in a tight WCC battle. Not saying you are wrong, but in this scenario, favouring Hamilton might get them the WDC and lose them the WCC. So its not just a matter of valuing Mercedes' interests over Bottas and then getting rid of him. There will be immediate consequences too, consequences they might not like such as losing the WCC or perhaps not having Bottas to help Hamilton at the sharp end of the grid against Vettel and subsequently also losing the WDC.

 

Its not black and white....

Edited by taran, 21 April 2017 - 13:57.

[spacekid]

In a perfect world you'd be right but F1 has shown that teams seldom score 1-2 all the time. Or even quite often for that matter. It takes a huge car advantage (Lotus 78, McLaren 88/89, Mercedes 14-16 etc.) to achieve that.

Otherwise, the #2 driver is often beaten by other cars, cars who really shouldn't be beating the superior car.

These drivers aren't racing to pay for their mortgage, they are seeking professional achievements. Letting their teammate by is contrary to their every fibre. Doing it knowing it will be reciprocated is one thing, letting someone by because the team favours that driver is something else.

Take Riccardo Patrese in 1991. He was actually faster than newly returned superstar and #1 driver Nigel Mansell. Until told he had to support Nigel. He never was the same driver again. Even Raikkonen was only willing to support Massa back in 2008 after he got a new contract.

Like it or not, #2 drivers don't perform at 100%. And teams need to consider that, especially in a tight WCC battle.

True enough, and fair point about Patrese. I would counter with a Gehard Berger, who knew and accepted that he wasn't on Sennas level, but was still able to have a good career and win races after he partnered with him. Although to be fair I don't recall any times he had to actually get out of the way of Senna, that situation sort of took care of itself...

I see the WDC this year as a straight fight between Lewis and Seb, and I'm guessing that Toto and Niki will want to secure that and hope the WCC comes with it. I don't think Bottas will be taking points off Seb, and think he will still take enough points off Kimi whatever happens in the races (sorry Kimi fans). I feel the Red Bulls are too far back right now to worry about. It would take a big drop off in performance unbecoming of a top flight professional racing driver to start losing over half a second a lap.

That's why this year I'd always maximise Lewis' race times, and if Bottas reacts negatively replace him next year.

I've gone a bit specific on a general topic, so to bring things round - I think it's right and proper that teams should instruct their employees to achieve their goals as they see fit. They pony up the money, and it's up to the drivers to earn their spot and enjoy the benefits.

[THEWALL]

It depends. If you see F1 as a driver sport, TOs should not exist until one of the drivers is mathematically out of WDC contention. You, as a fan, want to see racing, period. If a fight between teammates does not suit the team's agenda, too bad; as a fan of racing, you are not paying or tuning in to watch a marketing strategy but a showcase of driving talent.

 

If you see F1 as a team sport, then you have to watch whatever it is that the teams and their marketing and PR departments decide to feed you. In a sense, you are a witness of a corporate marketing strategy taking place live before your eyes. Basically, they'll feed you whatever it is they want and is best for their interests (not unlike many "food" corporations). Tonto's desperation last year at the last race was a pathetic proof of that.

 

Having said that, of course there are instances where they can spare a driver the work of passing. These instances would be generally related with the driver in front having some sort of problem that inhabilitates him from attempting to race.

[kevinracefan]

GO FASTER... is always the answer to the problem...

[spacekid]

It depends. If you see F1 as a driver sport, TOs should not exist until one of the drivers is mathematically out of WDC contention. You, as a fan, want to see racing, period. If a fight between teammates does not suit the team's agenda, too bad; as a fan of racing, you are not paying or tuning in to watch a marketing strategy but a showcase of driving talent.

If you see F1 as a team sport, then you have to watch whatever it is that the teams and their marketing and PR departments decide to feed you. In a sense, you are a witness of a corporate marketing strategy taking place live before your eyes. Basically, they'll feed you whatever it is they want and is best for their interests (not unlike many "food" corporations). Tonto's desperation last year at the last race was a pathetic proof of that.

Having said that, of course there are instances where they can spare a driver the work of passing. These instances would be generally related with the driver in front having some sort of problem that inhabilitates him from attempting to race.

I see F1 as a competition between companies. The drivers are the marketing bit of it, to give us a hook. There are plenty of people able and willing to drive the cars. Some even pay for the privilege! The sport can survive drivers coming and going.

But individuals/companies willing to put up the huge sums and take the risks to run a racing team? Without them it just wouldn't work.

I don't see F1 as being a sport run for the benefit of the drivers, and don't enjoy it on that level par se. The point of racing drivers for me isn't the inter team battles. Mercedes won both titles last year, and would have with any competent pairing. The point is when Ferrari have built a great car and have employed Seb Vettel to drive it. That's when you employ a Lewis Hamilton, because he's the best man to get a return on your investment as a team owner. And it's fun to watch, too.

[LuckyStrike1]

A+ example, thank you. 

 

You're welcome. I actually made a point using very few words. So I'm amazed 

[V8 Fireworks]

Ferrari could have signed Nasr, and Mercedes Wehrlein if they wanted to have  a clear number two driver. 

[Tardis40]

As I've said before and as Marklar added - this can backfire.  Somebody in the Ferrari thread previously brought up 2008 as an example of why a team should employ a 'default' no.1 situation.  Which is a hilarious example because Kimi was actually leading Massa after the first few races but eventually went on to get comprehensively beaten.  

 

And nowhere am I saying that WCC takes priority over WDC.  It's just that teams can employ orders to ensure the best WCC results at ANY point in the season, while maximizing WDC results aren't a certain thing til later.  

 

Obviously there have been times in the past where this wasn't the case and teams have definitely employed default no.1 roles.  Also not my point to suggest otherwise.  I'm just saying that THIS YEAR, this does not seem to be the case at all.  And that people shouldn't interpret a team order to imply there is any kind of no.1/no.2 situation going on.  Cuz I think the evidence would suggest there isn't and it's also very sensible by the teams to do so. 

 

Lastly, I think if any team was employing a strict no.1/no.2 hierarchy from the get-go, fans would be very unhappy about it.  It would very likely lead to revisiting the allowance of team orders in general.  

If you're going to quote me do so accurately please.  What I said so "hiliarously" was that Raikkonnen refused to help Massa late in the season because he was still mathematically in it although Massa was ahead of him.  One point would have made the difference and it would have been Massa's title instead of Hamilton's.

[HeadFirst]

Ferrari could have signed Nasr, and Mercedes Wehrlein if they wanted to have  a clear number two driver. 

Perhaps they wanted the best possible #2 driver. A driver who could steal points from the opposition and score wins when the #1 falters, while being relatively nonthreatening to the leader and willing to follow team orders when necessary is more valuable than one who is merely less talented.

[sennafan24]

If you're going to quote me do so accurately please.  What I said so "hiliarously" was that Raikkonnen refused to help Massa late in the season because he was still mathematically in it although Massa was ahead of him.  One point would have made the difference and it would have been Massa's title instead of Hamilton's.

Kimi did help Massa late in the season. He moved over for him at China, to give Massa an additional 2 points. If you look at the races elsewhere in the latter stages of 2008, it's hard to see where Kimi could have made life any easier by complying with team orders.

 

Kimi ran behind Massa at Italy, Singapore, and Brazil. Plus, he was way ahead of Massa at Japan, due to Massa tangling up with Lewis on lap 2. Short of Ferrari feigning a mechanical issue, and pulling Kimi into the pits to allow Massa to improve his position, the situation was helpless on that occasion. 

[BuddyHolly]

I don't like team orders and I've never liked it.   I hated it in the Schumi/Rubens days, the Webber/Vettel days, the Lewis/Nico days and heck yes, even the Stewart/Cevert days.

 

But it's not against the rules so I have to shrug and accept it.

[HoldenRT]

There IS a number 1 and number 2 hierarchy, and if there isn't there should be.

 

This isn't a Nico/Lewis situation.  This is a Michael/Rubens and Lewis/Heiki situation.

[HoldenRT]

Ferrari could have signed Nasr, and Mercedes Wehrlein if they wanted to have  a clear number two driver. 

 

The teammates need to be good enough to win on their day, and good enough to steal points off of opposing teams drivers when the car suits the track.  But not be so fast that they are constantly beating the number 1.  That's how Turkey 2010 situations occur.

 

It's been fine for the last few years because one team dominated, now the WDC battle is between two different teams, and you can't control the other team, like you can control your own.

[kevinracefan]

the only times I've ever seen team orders used early was when a car was noticeably off the pace.. or mathematically eliminated already..

 

usually, if the #2 can get out front through the pit cycles he can stay there.. (usually)

[HoldenRT]

It's the same thing with Mercedes dominating the last few years.  It's a really unpopular thing to say.. to say "yeah, we are too good, Ferrari and Redbull can't compete".. so instead Toto says.. "Ferrari are soo close.. Redbull push us hard.. each weekend, we worry about our advantage".  To minimise it via PR and minimise the complaing and the negative comments about it.

 

It's also a really unpopular thing to have a clear number one driver.

 

But this year especially, it's clearly Lewis vs Seb for the title.  The 3rd race or the 6th race has the same amount of points as the 20th race.  Every point is valuable in the WDC fight.  But it makes juggling team chemistry hard in terms of both drivers in the team being motivated and happy.  And also the PR.  Ferrari indirectly have given a type of team orders for many years, because they focus so much on the strategy for the lead car, that the second car always gets a dodgy strategy.

 

It used to happen with Massa and Alonso all the time.  It still happens even the last few years with Kimi and Seb.  With Merc, it's a new situation to be fighting the WDC with only one car instead of two, but they seem like they will handle it similar to Redbull with Max/Seb/Ricciardo.  In that the driver is faster, can you let him go.. etc.  And they expect it to go both ways.  If Bottas is faster than Lewis, he will be allowed to win the race, but it will be rare.. and Lewis will do everything in his power to manage the perception that Bottas is holding him up.  It won't be an issue very often, because most of the time Lewis and Seb should have track position over their teammates.  My main point above.. was that the sooner that the team puts focus on the lead driver, and sooner they avoid losing points.. because in tight battles against other teams.. it can be small amounts of points that decide everything.

 

That's what should make this season so fun to watch.  Everyone will be under a lot more pressure than they have been in the last few seasons.  And you can't control the other team, or know their setup and strategy.  There are clear number one's IMO, but it's unpopular to say so in the press, so it needs management and finesse to juggle these things.

[eibyyz]

I really don't think Valtteri has any room to whinge, and for all I know it's being amplified by the media anyhow.  Santa Claus came early for him and he'd best be served by being appreciative.  Do that, and he'll get his wins.  Don't do that, and hello Sauber.

I read somewhere (might have even been here) that Jones had no problem with Reut in Brasil.  I can't remember if Frank/Patrick did or not.

[apoka]

Ferrari could have signed Nasr, and Mercedes Wehrlein if they wanted to have a clear number two driver.

Except that Wehrlein isn't really a #2 driver from what I gathered - at least no more than Bottas.

[Szoelloe]

This tends to backfire though, because often the driver who looks promising in the first 3-4 races can be stil beaten byhis team mate over the course of the season, thus you are backing the wrong driver.

Of course after some time and if an certain gap is already in place or if a driver was always the very likely winner of this battle and starts well (which could apply to Ferrari or Mercedes, particulary because they are in a H2H battle) it is reasonable to back one driver, though I dont like it, but it didnt happened yet anyway. As others said the team orders were clearly based on speed differences and at best just secondary for the championship.

 

I seem to remember that the rule of thumb used to be at Ferrari that whoever was ahead by half-season gets preferential treatment. I think team order/No.1 status  is a Ferrari area of expertise.

 

There is only one example where that happened is France 1999. Irvine was told do not pass Schumacher very slow with car problems. Irvine were chasing if I remember well Ralf Schumacher. Irvine could pass both Schumachers and at the end of the year won the WDC. Well that if in that case Schumacher would come back and help Irvine winning.

 

MS came back and helped Irvine as a No. 2(he hated it, but was told to) and Irvine botched his only gold opportunity to win the WDC.MS was the sole reason he came so close, Salo was pretty underwhelming.

[HeadFirst]

Except that Wehrlein isn't really a #2 driver from what I gathered - at least no more than Bottas.

 

It has often been said that Pascal is a future F1 star, and some even agree with him.

[kevinracefan]

It has often been said that Pascal is a future F1 star, and some even agree with him.

nyuk nyuk nyuk nyuk.. good one..

[Tardis40]

Kimi did help Massa late in the season. He moved over for him at China, to give Massa an additional 2 points. If you look at the races elsewhere in the latter stages of 2008, it's hard to see where Kimi could have made life any easier by complying with team orders.

 

Kimi ran behind Massa at Italy, Singapore, and Brazil. Plus, he was way ahead of Massa at Japan, due to Massa tangling up with Lewis on lap 2. Short of Ferrari feigning a mechanical issue, and pulling Kimi into the pits to allow Massa to improve his position, the situation was helpless on that occasion. 

China was the penultimate race.  Raikkonnen was out of it by then.

Whether or not it worked out that he could have helped Massa earlier, he did publicly announce that he would not do so.  Massa also announced that he didn't expect any help from him.  This a year after Massa helped him to the title.

[HairyScalextrix]

GO FASTER... is always the answer to the problem...

Unless its the last race of 2016 and you happen to be Lewis Hamilton. The team did suggest your idea and Lewis gave his somewhat petulant response.

[abc]

Its strange, those who are here because of drivers (any driver) dont want TO, while the fans of teams prefer it? Why? - you should be more into WCC and not care about WDC. 

 

Someone has to say it, **** off to TO at this stage, I would be really fed up, if teams do it now, and those who calls for it, they suck.

[THEWALL]

I see F1 as a competition between companies. The drivers are the marketing bit of it, to give us a hook. There are plenty of people able and willing to drive the cars. Some even pay for the privilege! The sport can survive drivers coming and going.

But individuals/companies willing to put up the huge sums and take the risks to run a racing team? Without them it just wouldn't work.

I don't see F1 as being a sport run for the benefit of the drivers, and don't enjoy it on that level par se. The point of racing drivers for me isn't the inter team battles. Mercedes won both titles last year, and would have with any competent pairing. The point is when Ferrari have built a great car and have employed Seb Vettel to drive it. That's when you employ a Lewis Hamilton, because he's the best man to get a return on your investment as a team owner. And it's fun to watch, too.

Let's put it this way: what do you think people remember more: Senna or Mclaren, Lotus or Toleman, Prost or Renault, Mclaren or Williams, Schumi or Benetton or Ferrari? Without the drivers this sport would be nothing. It's them that create the memorable moments. In reality, it's teams that come and go. Some drivers are immortal...

[RacingGreen]

I was at Albert Park for the first race of the 1998 year, the one that David Coultard gave to Mika Hakkinen at the death. I tried to explain to some spectators what had just happened and how it was historically part of motor racing. I met people in town who left early to catch an early tram who thought Coultard won. Let me tell you there was a very bad reception from the stands for "race fixing." The next year of course there was the start of a ban on team orders because of what had happened. If F1 wants to attract new viewers it has to eliminate the appearance of being "a rigged sport."  To the new, casual or occasional viewer (i.e. the people not on this forum) then F1 is a sport between drivers. So in the interest of growing F1's fan base, the sport has to promote drivers as personalities and allow competition between them. 

[PayasYouRace]

While true to some extent, F1 shouldn't have to dumb itself down to appease newbies. It is a team sport, so team play is to be expected.

I've always felt that finding that balance between team play and individual competition sets F1 (or similar racing series) apart in a way that makes it extra fascinating.