28 replies to this topic

[Fontainebleau]

Dear all, I wanted to know the forum opinion on the following matter. Let's assume that you are team principal; your driver A is running first, two laps to go and not too much under pressure from second placed driver. Your driver B is X positions behind; he has options to get WDC, driver A doesn't. How many positions should you ask driver A to give away in order to get driver B one place ahead? Obviously driver B has to be 11 or higher, otherwise the move does not make sense.

 

Obviously, the answer will depend on what his chances of winning WDC are. So let's assume two scenarios:

- it is the last race and that position will give him WDC

- it is the race before last, and that position would allow him to be in contention going into the final race.

 

I will try to make a poll (I have no idea of how to, so I may fail), but basically the answers are 1 to 10. Also, how would the team's WCC position influence your decision?

 

 

[Cliff]

Any amount of positions that are needed to drop behind Driver B

 

Although P11 won't give any points and driver B will only win 1 position by doing this. So in the hypothetical situation driver B needs to gain one position and driver A is ahead of driver B. Driver A would be told to drop behind driver B no matter what position they are in.

 

Also only to happen in the last race.

[Fontainebleau]

Any amount of positions that are needed to drop behind Driver B

 

Although P11 won't give any points and driver B will only win 1 position by doing this. So in the hypothetical situation driver B needs to gain one position and driver A is ahead of driver B. Driver A would be told to drop behind driver B no matter what position they are in.

 

Also only to happen in the last race.

And would you put a limit on not losing your WCC position?

[pdac]

The answer will depend entirely on the WCC. The team must maximise their points haul if there is a possibility of them moving in the WCC standing (either up or down). If their place in the WCC is settled, then driver A should do whatever it takes to get driver B the maximum number of WDC points.

[Beri]

Lets say Driver B is in 11th and Driver A is in 1st, but the competition of Driver B is better than 11th. Then it is of no use to fall back as the competition will also gain more points and thus setting Driver B on a bigger point deficit.

 

Edit: But lets keep it hypothetically, if such a situation would arise, I would always opt for the best chances on the WCC. The WDC is not where the real money is for my team. The WCC is.

Edited by Beri, 31 August 2022 - 13:48.

[F1matt]

Why not get driver A to wipe out the title rival of driver B? 

[Dolph]

I'd give up any number of positions that makes mathematical sense.

 

In 2021 Abu Dhabi Red Bull even retired Checo's car from 3rd place as a precaution, because his car was showing possibility of failure that would have denied Max the theoretical last lap opportunity.

[Dolph]

Why not get driver A to wipe out the title rival of driver B? 

 

Any obvious examples of this actually happening? DTM early nineties with certain Mr. S involved?

[F1matt]

Any obvious examples of this actually happening? DTM early nineties with certain Mr. S involved?

 

 

Early 90s BTCC involving a German manufacturer? 

[Cliff]

The top teams don’t really care about WCC money in the cost cap era. The sponsorship money they get already puts them way above the cost cap limit.

Being lower in the WCC is even preferential because you get more windtunnel/CFD runs.

 

If the choice is between a WDC or WCC I don't think it's hard these days.

Edited by Cliff, 31 August 2022 - 14:17.

[cpbell]

If I'm Team Principal with my real-world morals, I only switch them if driver A is directly behind driver B.  If I'm commenting on what would happen these days, I think anything and everything is fair game, including deliberately crashing into your team-mate's WDC rival.

[messy]

You'd do whatever needed doing surely. If driver A is leading the race but driver B is running fourth, needing third to take the World Title, driver A is in the pits and finishing fourth in a heartbeat. Quite possibly even if that loses the team WCC points overall. The driver's title is the one to win in practically every series everywhere. Who remembers that Ferrari were 1999 constructors champions or even Mercedes last year?

[pdac]

You'd do whatever needed doing surely. If driver A is leading the race but driver B is running fourth, needing third to take the World Title, driver A is in the pits and finishing fourth in a heartbeat. Quite possibly even if that loses the team WCC points overall. The driver's title is the one to win in practically every series everywhere. Who remembers that Ferrari were 1999 constructors champions or even Mercedes last year?

 

Not in F1. The WCC is everything.

[Dmitriy_Guller]

Any obvious examples of this actually happening? DTM early nineties with certain Mr. S involved?

The "masterclass of defending" by Perez last year was obviously not a wipe out, but it was akin to what Denny Hamlin did to Ross Chastain this year, which was still an incredibly dirty piece of driving.  The concept was the same:  you sabotage your own race in order to directly impede the progress of championship rival of your teammate.  It's just a difference of degree, the wipeout impedes totally and permanently, whereas the "masterclass of defending" just impedes to the tune of 5-10 seconds of lead over a lap.

Edited by Dmitriy_Guller, 31 August 2022 - 15:37.

[Beamer]

Whatever it takes to secure wdc provided it carries little to no risk of loosing out wcc (if still in contention) or the wdc after all.

[PlatenGlass]

At Monza in 1999, Salo was 3rd and Irvine 6th for Ferrari. They could have chosen to help Irvine a little bit in the WDC by dropping Salo down, but chose not to. It would have looked pretty insane to most viewers though.

[Cliff]

Not in F1. The WCC is everything.

It’s not, the fans don’t care, and the top teams don’t need the money. They get more development resources if the finish lower, there’s just no reason to throw away a WDC for a WCC.

[pdac]

It’s not, the fans don’t care, and the top teams don’t need the money. They get more development resources if the finish lower, there’s just no reason to throw away a WDC for a WCC.

 

The fans don't care, but ever single team on the grid is 100% focused on the WCC. I don't believe even the top teams would throw away a WCC position just to get one of their drivers a better chance at the WDC. If there were no loss of WCC points then, sure, they would swap drivers around, but the priority is always to max out WCC points.

[PlatenGlass]

If it's the lap of the last race and your cars are first and third and on for the WCC, but you could swap that for a 2-3 and the WDC (but no WCC), what would the teams do? What would you do? A straight choice between WDC and WCC. Not a hypothetical six races before the end but right here, right now.

Personally, I'd prefer the WDC...

[Atreiu]

Do whatever it takes; nothing matters, in the real world, more than a WDC.

[NewMrMe]

Surely you would do it, even if it was only to move your no. 1 driver up from 11th to 10th if that one point would be the difference between winning and losing the championship. Obviously you would only do something that drastic in the last race though. Actually if such a scenario ever did occur, I wonder if the race leader would develop a "technical problem" in the last couple of laps.

 

A more interesting team orders scenario to me is the one that Ferrari faced at Monza 1979.

 

In the closing stages Jody Scheckter led with Ferrari teammate Gilles Villeneuve behind him. If Scheckter wins the race he secures the title with 2 races to go. A Villeneuve win with Scheckter second would mean that Gilles could still take the title. The additional twist though is that it would be a 3 way battle going into the final two races as Ligier's Jacques Laffite could still win the championship.

 

In that situation, would you ask your drivers to hold station, guaranteeing the championship for your team but knowing that you are telling one of them to give up their title hopes, or would you let them race knowing there is a possibility that neither of your drivers may end up as champion?

[Sterzo]

I can see it now... The team makes an urgent call to their No 2 driver who is leading a GP, and about to have his first win, telling him to park it. The number one simultaneously suffers hydraulics failure and  rolls to a halt...

[Dolph]

Not in F1. The WCC is everything.

 

Errmmm... NO

[Dolph]

At Monza in 1999, Salo was 3rd and Irvine 6th for Ferrari. They could have chosen to help Irvine a little bit in the WDC by dropping Salo down, but chose not to. It would have looked pretty insane to most viewers though.

 

That was race 13 out of 16. A bit early, to be honest to be making these moves. Would have given Irvine the title though, in the end and also kept the WCC, but that's all in hindsight. 

[absinthedude]

I'd be considering the WCC as well as the WDC...and also how bad it would look if I made Driver A drop multiple positions to aid Driver B....so it depends somewhat on the value of X. 

 

If X>=3 then it really looks terrible. "Driver A, fall back a couple of places" isn't so bad....."We need you to lose 60 seconds in this next lap and 8 places to aid Driver B" looks horrible and might actually pose a danger to cars travelling at full speed. 

 

Also....how did they end up that way? Has B just had a poor race and isn't on it. I am actually not going to help them. Driver B is returning after an illness and isn't 100%...I am more inclined to help....Driver B got hit by another car early in the race and has charged up from 20th position to 8th and needs 7th for the title? OK I might be up for that. Team messed up and Driver B's wings needed adjusting at his pit stop and he lost a bucket of time....and so on.

 

It's not simple. 

[Dan333SP]

That was race 13 out of 16. A bit early, to be honest to be making these moves. Would have given Irvine the title though, in the end and also kept the WCC, but that's all in hindsight. 

 

That may well be the most interesting what if example for this question. It really wasn't a bit early in terms of the WDC, as Salo was a stand-in and had no shot, so all their WDC eggs were in the Irvine basket. If they'd dropped Salo back, he could potentially also have held up DC who finished ahead of Eddie, allowed Eddie past both, and had a net gain for WDC and WCC even though like you said if they simply dropped Mika to 6th and promoted Eddie to 5th, it still would have been enough for both titles given that MSC could have swapped places in Japan and Eddie would have won. I'd bet the tifosi at the track would not have been fond of the team throwing away a podium, though. Interesting. 

[FortiFord]

At what point do these decisions become illegal, ala Singapore 2008?

[NewMrMe]

I think the closest there has been in F1 to the scenario the OP describes would be Japan 2003, which was a last race decider between Michael Schumacher and Kimi Raikkonen. To take the title Raikkonen needed to win with Schumacher out of the points (the top 8 as it was back then).

 

The race was won by Schumacher's teammate Rubens Barrichello with Raikkonen second. Schumacher finished only 8th after having to have his front wing replaced after an early collision.

 

What if though in the closing stages Raikkonen was ahead of Barrichello and Schumacher was 9th instead of 8th? Would Ferrari have asked Barrichello to drop back so Schumacher could have scored the 8th place he would have needed?

Edited by NewMrMe, 01 September 2022 - 18:11.

[prty]

The answer will depend entirely on the WCC. The team must maximise their points haul if there is a possibility of them moving in the WCC standing (either up or down). If their place in the WCC is settled, then driver A should do whatever it takes to get driver B the maximum number of WDC points.

I think nobody would care about the WCC. The teams that care about WCC are those who really need the money, and are not in contention for the WDC.