66 replies to this topic

[pkrash]

Did anyone notice that Twobens was faster but gave up with 10 laps to go?
There was a Team Radio transmission just before this on the SRC (French CBC) that I missed.
SpeedTV missed it all together.
Team orders again?

[JForce]

Any different to telling Jaun and Kimi to back off at Montreal?

[Scoop]

Originally posted by JForce
Any different to telling Jaun and Kimi to back off at Montreal?

yes...





Ferrari

[RiDE]

Originally posted by JForce
Any different to telling Jaun and Kimi to back off at Montreal?

Yes, this time it's Ferrari. Don't you hate Ferrari? Everyone hates Ferrari. Cmon get with the program.

[swaction]

I hate Ferrari - I think they are smug.

[LeD]

Thr first part of the radio message to RB said "bring the two cars home", at the moment that he was all over MS's ass. The second part of the message, which I think was RB's reply because of all the background noise, I couldn't hear.

Instantly, RB fell back. To the commentator of TSR (French Swiss TV), it was utterly blatant - as it was to me. I have no doubt that (coded) team orders were given to RB to allow MS to win. Up till then, the only redeeming factor I could find in this whole sorry mess of a race was that perhaps, just perhaps we would see the two Ferrari drivers race each other without restriction. And RB was driving in a classy and aggressive manner up till the radio call.

So we were denied even that small element of redemption.

[AyePirate]

Originally posted by JForce
Any different to telling Jaun and Kimi to back off at Montreal?

McLaren have this funny thing, when the team makes a mistake and it screws a driver out of position that try to rectify the mistake.
Ferrari just tells Rubens not to sweat Michael lest something resembling a motor race break out. I guess that's the same through tifosivison.;)

Besides had they taken each other out we would have witnessed awesome spectacle of Tiago the GP winner. Along with Paul Stoddart acting pissed about getting a podium. Imagine that and laugh. We need it after this one

[JForce]

Originally posted by AyePirate


McLaren have this funny thing, when the team makes a mistake and it screws a driver out of position that try to rectify the mistake.
Ferrari just tells Rubens not to sweat Michael lest something resembling a motor race break out. I guess that's the same through tifosivison.;)

Just imagine the awesome spectacle of Tiago the GP winner and have a laugh. We need it after this one

Holy ****, you're serious aren't you?

Juan is ahead. Kimi is threatening.

Juan is PROMISED that Kimi WON'T BE ALLOWED TO OVERTAKE HIM if he gets close.

And yet because Ferrari did THE SAME THING they're the bad guys?

Care to explain?

[rookie]

Ferrari have always raced only until the last pit stop for the last 7 or 8 years....

admittedly eddie didnt challange that often but MS v RB has always been decided by the running order after the last pitstop.

[xype]

Originally posted by JForce

And yet because Ferrari did THE SAME THING they're the bad guys?
Care to explain?

They're wearing red, they're the bad guys. It's simple.

[Slyder]

Originally posted by xype


They're wearing red, they're the bad guys. It's simple.

[100cc]

Originally posted by rookie
Ferrari have always raced only until the last pit stop for the last 7 or 8 years....

I wouldn't use the word always... in this case i think yes, certainly not always.

[LeD]

In this farce of a race, Ferrari should have allowed the two to race to the end. It was the only entertainment on offer. Even I was beginning to feel some stirrings of interest as I watched RB reeling in MS, after the near-shunt.

But I did hear the radio call, and I did see Rubens throw out the anchor instantly. Good grief, Monteiro was holding station with him all through to the end.

I am NOT a Ferrari-basher, not a bit of it. But I have to say, I was pretty unimpressed with that performance.

[Ultra150]

Originally posted by JForce
Holy ****, you're serious aren't you?

Juan is ahead. Kimi is threatening.

Holy ****, how serious are you?

Kimi was not threatening Juan at that point in the race. He was nursing home a car with problem steering.

Keep it real.

[JForce]

Originally posted by Ultra150




Holy ****, how serious are you?

Kimi was not threatening Juan at that point in the race. He was nursing home a car with problem steering.

Keep it real.

Ok, on reflection that's fair.

So its:

Mac tell Juan to back off. The PROMISE him that Kimi won't be ALLOWED to fight him for the win.

Complain about that.

[int2str]

Originally posted by pkrash
Did anyone notice that Twobens was faster

Fastest Lap: M Schumacher 1:11.497

No, I didn't notice....

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by pkrash
Did anyone notice that Twobens was faster but gave up with 10 laps to go?
There was a Team Radio transmission just before this on the SRC (French CBC) that I missed.
SpeedTV missed it all together.
Team orders again?

I don't think either Ferrari driver was pushing it. And, why would they? For an extra two point? Not likely.

[indian]

Did they tell Micheal to "hold position" in Monaco?

[d_view7]

Originally posted by JForce



Holy ****, you're serious aren't you?

Juan is ahead. Kimi is threatening.

Juan is PROMISED that Kimi WON'T BE ALLOWED TO OVERTAKE HIM if he gets close.

And yet because Ferrari did THE SAME THING they're the bad guys?

Care to explain?

The difference ofcourse is that had it been Barrichello in front of MS, they would have been allowed to race.

[Fidgey]

Originally posted by LeD
In this farce of a race, Ferrari should have allowed the two to race to the end. It was the only entertainment on offer. Even I was beginning to feel some stirrings of interest as I watched RB reeling in MS, after the near-shunt.

But I did hear the radio call, and I did see Rubens throw out the anchor instantly. Good grief, Monteiro was holding station with him all through to the end.

I am NOT a Ferrari-basher, not a bit of it. But I have to say, I was pretty unimpressed with that performance.

My sentiments exactly. I hoped Rubens would just say f*** it and go for it. After the near collission I felt Rubens would react even though history told me it would not happen :

[Clatter]

As soon as I heard the transmission I thought of Monaco and wondered if they had said the same thing there. That would certainly account for why RB was so upset.

[Maldwyn]

Would it really have killed Ferrari to allow Rubens to race Michael just this once? The whole GP will be remembered as a farce but a scrap of legitimacy could have been salvaged from the wreck had Ross not made the call.

[se7en_24]

Originally posted by indian
Did they tell Micheal to "hold position" in Monaco?

They never seem to do it that way round, if Michael is ahead they aren't allowed to race but if he's behind then you can bet he'll be ahead of Rubens by the finish some way or another, be it a legitimate overtaking maneuver or by Rubens 'slowing'.

[vroom-vroom]

Originally posted by 30ft penguin


I mean, did Ross Brawn shag his girlfriend or what is his problem with Ferrari?

Those idiots at Ferrari - in the middle of all this mess - managed to give team orders to their drivers. I heard RossB tell both drivers to reduce RPM's, and that he wanted to see both cars at the end of the race, while Barrichello was in MS's tailpipes. As soon as the message was acknowledged, RB slowed down to being 2" off Ms's pace. If this was not a team order, what was it? I thought the least Ferrari could do is to provide us with some kind of a show between their drivers - for once! JUST THIS ONE TIME. But no, instead they choose the ugly way, and illegal I must add. Both Ferrari's should be DQ'd as a result, and the farce will be complete. They really asked for it, didn't they? Pathetic, pathetic.

[Martijn]

thats nonsense, Michael came second to Rubens twice in 2002, while he was all over the back of Rubens, clearly faster but no overtaking. Same in Monza 2004 i'd say.

[angst]

Originally posted by vroom-vroom
Those idiots at Ferrari - in the middle of all this mess - managed to give team orders to their drivers. I heard RossB tell both drivers to reduce RPM's, and that he wanted to see both cars at the end of the race, while Barrichello was in MS's tailpipes. As soon as the message was acknowledged, RB slowed down to being 2" off Ms's pace. If this was not a team order, what was it? I thought the least Ferrari could do is to provide us with some kind of a show between their drivers - for once! JUST THIS ONE TIME. But no, instead they choose the ugly way, and illegal I must add. Both Ferrari's should be DQ'd as a result, and the farce will be complete. They really asked for it, didn't they? Pathetic, pathetic.

Quite. And the telling line in that radio conversation was Barrichello's "..message understood.." before slowing. Clearly, so very clearly, a case of team orders - the kind that Max Mosley promised to punish severely. Let's see shall we

[indian]

Originally posted by Martijn
thats nonsense, Michael came second to Rubens twice in 2002, while he was all over the back of Rubens, clearly faster but no overtaking. Same in Monza 2004 i'd say.

In 2002, both those instances came after Austria, so maybe they were a bit careful. Monza 2004, Micheal had the WDC in the bag by that time.

[kismet]

Whatever. Though I have to say that a bad-ass no-more-mr-nice-guy Rubens taking out Michael while battling for position would've been priceless.

[Gareth]

Originally posted by angst


Quite. And the telling line in that radio conversation was Barrichello's "..message understood.." before slowing. Clearly, so very clearly, a case of team orders - the kind that Max Mosley promised to punish severely. Let's see shall we

I think this kind of "team orders" (i.e. instructing both drivers to "conserve" the car towards the end of the race, a consequence (incidental or deliberate? - its impossible to tell) of which is that the drivers will "hold position") is accepted.

McLaren admitted to doing exactly the same thing with Monty and Kimi at Canada and received no punishment. Nor any rolleyes smilies.

[angst]

From the 2005 F1 Sporting Regulations.

147) Team orders which interfere with a race result are prohibited.

It is clear from the radio transmission, and in particular Ruben's response of "...message understood..", followed by him slowing and dropping off of MS that the result was set by team orders. In other words that orders were given that interfered with the race result. For the FIA to come out of this farce with any credibility (given that they were SO keen on upholding their regulations, even to the point of the 'race' that occured) they HAVE to take Ferrari to task on this issue.

The McLaren situation was different. Raikkonen was not threatening Montoya, the team requested that Montoya slowed so as to save his car and that if he did so it would not be an opportunity for Raikkonen to pounce. It would not, in other words, have interfered with the race result.

[indian]

Originally posted by angst
From the 2005 F1 Sporting Regulations.

147) Team orders which interfere with a race result are prohibited.

It is clear from the radio transmission, and in particular Ruben's response of "...message understood..", followed by him slowing and dropping off of MS that the result was set by team orders. In other words that orders were given that interfered with the race result. For the FIA to come out of this farce with any credibility (given that they were SO keen on upholding their regulations, even to the point of the 'race' that occured) they HAVE to take Ferrari to task on this issue.

The McLaren situation was different. Raikkonen was not threatening Montoya, the team requested that Montoya slowed so as to save his car and that if he did so it would not be an opportunity for Raikkonen to pounce. It would not, in other words, have interfered with the race result.

There is no guarantee that Rubens would've overtaken MS if he had been allowed to race. In other words, FIA cannot say with certainity that the race results would have been different, if the cars had been allowed to race. So I think, there is little or no ground for FIA to penalise Ferrari for what happened.

[angst]

Originally posted by indian
There is no guarantee that Rubens would've overtaken MS if he had been allowed to race. In other words, FIA cannot say with certainity that the race results would have been different, if the cars had been allowed to race. So I think, there is little or no ground for FIA to penalise Ferrari for what happened.

So it is in effect a rule that can never be proven?

The order SET the result, and so by nature interfered with it.

[angst]

Originally posted by Gareth

I think this kind of "team orders" (i.e. instructing both drivers to "conserve" the car towards the end of the race, a consequence (incidental or deliberate? - its impossible to tell) of which is that the drivers will "hold position") is accepted.

McLaren admitted to doing exactly the same thing with Monty and Kimi at Canada and received no punishment. Nor any rolleyes smilies.

Montoya and Raikkonen in Canada: Raikkonen was nursing his car and was not a threat to Montoya at all. The team requested that Montoya slow, and assured him it would not be an opportunity for Raikkonen to 'pounce'. It was a case of team orders that would inflict no affect upon the race result.

MS & RB at Indy: RB is catching MS and clearly up for a 'fight'. The radio transmission comes through, Rubens responds "message understood" and slows down and drops off from MS. Clearly a team order designed to affect the outcome of the race.

Just for clarification.

2005 F1 Sporting Regulations

147) Team orders which interfere with a race result are prohibited.

[Umpire]

Originally posted by angst




So it is in effect a rule that can never be proven?

The order SET the result, and so by nature interfered with it.

It is so if you also agree that Renault/McLaren instructions in Montreal were of the same nature. Else it's a case of double standards. The fact that McLaren/Renault car(s) did not actually finish and hence the net effect of a 'team order' was not shown is slightly irrelevant.

[black magic]

well I could see that 1st corner after pitstop coming for some time.

in case you missed it reubens had a goa t beating michael today and ms had to be bloody firm about showing him the door. couldn't believe that race director went to slo mo's of jordan when ms was trying to put in the laps to leap frog reubens. the only real interest of the entire fiasco

I think ms was keeping his tyres in check and would have been watching with real interest what reubens was up to on the last coupla laps just in case he tried to return the monaco favour

[LeD]

We don't need to get legalistic over this. It seems totally obvious to anyone listening and watching that RB was going to have a real go at passing, and we will never know whether he would have succeeded. My money would have been on him. But that is not the issue.

It is equally obvious to anyone listening and watching, that RB was ordered by the team to back off. And I am sure the team is wearing cast-iron knickers, where any formal accusation of breach of the rules is concerned.

I just think it is very very sad indeed, that the one spark of interest in this depressing fiasco - a genuine RB/MS battle for position - was snuffed out by a team that for ONCE had nothing to lose.

I don't think that the real Asterix and Obelix would have behaved this way, as compared to their Ferrari counterparts. (Todt and Brawn, for those that haven't enjoyed the comic books)

[indian]

Originally posted by angst




So it is in effect a rule that can never be proven?

The order SET the result, and so by nature interfered with it.

Austria 2002 - An example of a teamorder that interfered with race result. Ferrari got penalised.

[angst]

Originally posted by Umpire


It is so if you also agree that Renault/McLaren instructions in Montreal were of the same nature. Else it's a case of double standards. The fact that McLaren/Renault car(s) did not actually finish and hence the net effect of a 'team order' was not shown is slightly irrelevant.

The McLaren situation I have already covered. It was not aimed at making a difference to the race result. Renault? "If you're faster then overtake him mate"- can't see much wrong with that particular 'team-order'.

[angst]

Originally posted by LeD
We don't need to get legalistic over this. It seems totally obvious to anyone listening and watching that RB was going to have a real go at passing, and we will never know whether he would have succeeded. My money would have been on him. But that is not the issue.

It is equally obvious to anyone listening and watching, that RB was ordered by the team to back off. And I am sure the team is wearing cast-iron knickers, where any formal accusation of breach of the rules is concerned.

I just think it is very very sad indeed, that the one spark of interest in this depressing fiasco - a genuine RB/MS battle for position - was snuffed out by a team that for ONCE had nothing to lose.

I don't think that the real Asterix and Obelix would have behaved this way, as compared to their Ferrari counterparts. (Todt and Brawn, for those that haven't enjoyed the comic books)

Absolutely on the button.

[indian]

Originally posted by LeD
We don't need to get legalistic over this. It seems totally obvious to anyone listening and watching that RB was going to have a real go at passing, and we will never know whether he would have succeeded. My money would have been on him. But that is not the issue.

It is equally obvious to anyone listening and watching, that RB was ordered by the team to back off. And I am sure the team is wearing cast-iron knickers, where any formal accusation of breach of the rules is concerned.

I just think it is very very sad indeed, that the one spark of interest in this depressing fiasco - a genuine RB/MS battle for position - was snuffed out by a team that for ONCE had nothing to lose.

I don't think that the real Asterix and Obelix would have behaved this way, as compared to their Ferrari counterparts. (Todt and Brawn, for those that haven't enjoyed the comic books)

I agree that MS and RB should've been allowed to fight for positions.

I don't agree that Ferrari had nothing to lose. With them struggling in both championships, it was a great chance to score a full 18 points when their closest competitors were out of the way.

[Ria]

Originally posted by LeD


I just think it is very very sad indeed, that the one spark of interest in this depressing fiasco - a genuine RB/MS battle for position - was snuffed out by a team that for ONCE had nothing to lose.

They had 18 points to lose. I most definately would not call that nothing. If they can improve their game they might still be in WC battle thanks to those points.

[LeD]

indian -

They would still have had their 18 points. Actually it was MS that almost brought them 0 points with his wild exit from the pits.

That having been said, I would have adored to have seen Monteiro's antics had he been declared the Champion ;)

Seriously, other teams trust their drivers to race each other, even when their are 18 other cars swarming around them. Why couldn't Ferrari trust Rubens to make a clean pass on an empty track?

Sorry, I just don't buy it.

[Johny Bravo]

Originally posted by angst


Just for clarification.

2005 F1 Sporting Regulations

147) Team orders which interfere with a race result are prohibited.

Oh thank You.

So actually not pitting race leader Montoya in Montreal - which heavily interfered with the race result... - was a prohibited team order?

[Maldwyn]

Originally posted by angst
It is clear from the radio transmission, and in particular Ruben's response of "...message understood..", followed by him slowing and dropping off of MS that the result was set by team orders. In other words that orders were given that interfered with the race result. For the FIA to come out of this farce with any credibility (given that they were SO keen on upholding their regulations, even to the point of the 'race' that occured) they HAVE to take Ferrari to task on this issue.

This was about as clear a breach as you can get, given that the rule is worded so as to be almost impossible to enforce. However, having written the rule, it would seem that the FIA have no intention of enforcing it in any circumstances.

Originally posted by LeD
I just think it is very very sad indeed, that the one spark of interest in this depressing fiasco - a genuine RB/MS battle for position - was snuffed out by a team that for ONCE had nothing to lose.

Absolutely Regardless of everthing else this weekend I think Ferrari owed the US public something after the sham of the 'dead-heat'. They had the opportunity to show that it only takes 2 cars for there to be a race. Sadly, but unsurprisingly, they reverted to type.

[indian]

Originally posted by LeD
indian -

They would still have had their 18 points. Actually it was MS that almost brought them 0 points with his wild exit from the pits.

Seriously, other teams trust their drivers to race each other, even when their are 18 other cars swarming around them. Why couldn't Ferrari trust Rubens to make a clean pass on an empty track?

After seeing MS's wild exit from the pits, maybe Ferrari thought he won't let RB make a "clean" pass. It's MS they don't trust, not Rubens ;)

[SeanValen]

Originally posted by rookie
Ferrari have always raced only until the last pit stop for the last 7 or 8 years....

admittedly eddie didnt challange that often but MS v RB has always been decided by the running order after the last pitstop.

Both Indy 2004 and Indy 2005, Michael and Rubens fought each other very well, and were entertainment when the rest were in the background, it's the type of circuit where teamates are more closer, it's one of the gps where Rubens gets close to Michael, they were racing to and after the 2nd pitstop, just like the Renaults last year at Spain, when Trulli got ahead of Alonso at Spain, that was it, job done.


The Renaults last year also raced to 2nd pitstop-Spain Trulli -Alonso, this year,because of qualifying and fisi's reliability, we haven't seen them doing racing, when Fisi got ahead of Alonso in Spain, he had a problem.


And the radio call, ferrari letting their radio to the public, how many times have this sort of radio talk gone on for teamorders, the fact they are letting you hear it, means it's standard procedure, mclaren have said they are prepared to use team orders this season-martin whitmash-interview posted on atlas, , blame Montoya for not being closer to kimi in races, last season for renaults-trulli and alonso racing to 2nd pitstops, or Mclaren at Suzuka 2003-DC letting Kimi go, the teams all are prepared to do it, I see a bunch of cry babies in this thread to always focus on ferrari, team orders that are not done on the last lap of the race are seen acceptable by the fia, so what's the problem, grow up everyone!!!it's getting boring!!!how many teams would risk their reliability after the 2nd pitstop, renault and ferrari for example don't, this thing about racing to the 2nd pitstop then saving the reliability seems perfectly happy with the fia, if the FIA say race to the final lap, and monitor radio calls, then that's a different rule, team orders are banned rule only referes to blatent team orders where fans who are dumb realise a car has passed another clearly on a straight or something without attempting to race or block, all teams are guilty and can use it in different ways that are not visable, racing to the 2nd pitstop is standard procedure, was for renault last season, blame renault for not giving fisi a reliable car to race alonso with this year, doesn't help the racing, the only other team racing was probabley williams this year, good reliablity for their drivers

Because it was just Ferrari out there, as the main top team, don't treat it any differently as you would when another team does it, one of the things on the fia voting thing was, it didn't have any votes as to improving team orders, like banning them properly, you can argue, after the 2nd pitstop, saving the engines and maintaining position is a team order for the good of their cars, if the fia doesn't want the teams saving engines and stuff, and wanna tell them to risk their engines and tyres, why isn't this under the banned team order rule? as long as it isn't, no team has too, and don't give me for the good of the sport crap, all the michelin teams, showed yesterday their good for the spot stuff, there wasn't any, ferrari, williams, mclaren, bar, all the teams at one point or another do whats good for them , when ferrari can be guilty, so can the others, none of them are perfect, they are guilty for crossing the line of whats good for them, and whats good for the sport.

DEAL WITH ITTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

[Umpire]

Originally posted by angst


The McLaren situation I have already covered. It was not aimed at making a difference to the race result. Renault? "If you're faster then overtake him mate"- can't see much wrong with that particular 'team-order'.

Well, when Fisi started having the problems, they told Alonso to hold position...

[Gareth]

Originally posted by angst
Montoya and Raikkonen in Canada: Raikkonen was nursing his car and was not a threat to Montoya at all. The team requested that Montoya slow, and assured him it would not be an opportunity for Raikkonen to 'pounce'. It was a case of team orders that would inflict no affect upon the race result.

From the BBC web site: "McLaren boss Ron Dennis said he had already ordered his drivers to hold position for the rest of the race, but the order to pit was not given to Montoya until he had passed the pit lane entrance."

Originally posted by angst
MS & RB at Indy: RB is catching MS and clearly up for a 'fight'. The radio transmission comes through, Rubens responds "message understood" and slows down and drops off from MS. Clearly a team order designed to affect the outcome of the race.

So the Mac situation is different because you "know" that Kimi was no threat to JPM and you "know" that Rubens was a threat to MS? Well, I "know" that Rubens was no threat to MS because he isn't a good enough driver to overtake him. There we go, no team orders.

Originally posted by angst
Just for clarification.

2005 F1 Sporting Regulations

147) Team orders which interfere with a race result are prohibited.

If it read "which may interfere" then I would agree with you. An order to drivers to switch position interferes with a race result. An order to nurse cars home may have interfered with the result, but no one knows.

[vroom-vroom]

Originally posted by Gareth
From the BBC web site: "McLaren boss Ron Dennis said he had already ordered his drivers to hold position for the rest of the race, but the order to pit was not given to Montoya until he had passed the pit lane entrance."

Problem is, Ferrari forgot to scramble their signal, so we all heard the team order, we all heard the acknowledgement, and we all saw what happened on the track; If you assume those guys were doing their jobs for which they're paid big bucks and were actually racing, you're darn right it affected the outcome of the race. The order and the events immediately following are so obvious, I wonder why there's even a debate. And sorry, but the argument "Mom, Mc Laren did it too and got away with it" is for kindergarden kids.

[Garagiste]

Originally posted by indian
Austria 2002 - An example of a teamorder that interfered with race result. Ferrari got penalised.

Um, no - team orders that affect the race were not banned until after then. The only penalties were for breach of podium procedures.

As the rule states that the team orders are bad if they effect the outcome of the race, it's pretty clear that they mean Swap positions = illegal, hold positions = OK.
Nothing to see here then.