Team orders? (merged)

[Adam43]

Originally posted by Gt_R
Quote AA:"Why this last GP has prompted such a debate I don't know. It was nothing most teams wouldn't do (depending on situation)However it is equally clear that Ferrari do have more drastic team orders than other teams. Their choice."

Well, i would have agreed with you. BUT just one point - looking at this race and this race alone, Ferrari did nothing "more drastic" than other teams would.

That is exactly what I mean. It is this race alone that prompted this thread was not unusual for any team.

However Ferrari do have a stronger line when it comes to team orders. Notice I don't say it is wrong, but it is different and more extreme to other teams.

I think there is a merging and forgetting what is being argued here. For me it is clear that:

• In the USGP did nothing more than most teams would have done with respect to team orders.
• Ferrari has (and probbaly will again) impliment team orders that other teams wouldn't (and this doesn't happen that often)
• Each situation is different and it becomes almost futile to compare

Now whether it is right or wrong is a different matter. And this is where the boundaries get blurred. I think people want to argue that, but we argue about team orders and whether they are the same as what other teams do.

(personally I accept that Ferrari have different team orders. I also say Ferrari can use team orders how they like, although I respect a team that doesn't).

I think it is as foolish to argue that Ferrari just do the same as other teams citing the USGP the proof as it is to claim that Ferrari did something different to other teams citing the USGP as proof.

[Don K]

Originally posted by garcon
Of course, we don't know that, because only Ferrari have ever been in that position in the past few years (or "living memory" to most of you )...

There have been 1-2 finishes by other teams less than a year ago ...

[Knowlesy]

I'm not saying ferrari are doing something illegal, because they aren't. But it does go against a lot of peoples beliefs.

I was a Ferrari fan for a while, yet I was always rather dissapointed when they employed such orders and kicked up an equal stink. Magny Cours 1999 was an extreme case, Irvine having to hold station behind Schueys ailing car. This cost them constructors points and cost Eddie crucial points as he would have been ahead of Ralfs Williams as well as Michael......as I say, I was a fan of Ferrari at this time and it was extremely sad and led to me eventually not bothering to support anyone at all because of the sheer dissapointment.

It eventually cost them the drivers title and came perilously close to losing them the constructors title too. Who would have looked silly then I wonder?

Yesterday was a lot less extreme than that of course, but it does suggest that nothing at Ferrari has changed at all and it is starting to get a little tedious. Quite how Rubens can forsake his career for this I really don't know. I guess he wants to be known as 'the man who ran second to Schumacher in the golden era.' Sad.

If any other team employed this kind of thing I would be just as unhappy. The only reason I've kicked up a bigger fuss about this is because it happens so often and is a hell of a lot more cynical.

Well I must say I can't wait until Schuey sews up the title and we get the "pleasure" of watching Rubens drive to wins whilst Michael sits behind him trying to make it look as if he is slower than Rubens on the day. Yet he'll still pop up with by far the fastest lap of the race on the penultimate lap just to show us how incredibly quicker he could have been.

What would Enzo think of all this. Probably turning in his grave as we speak.

[ASCII Man]

Enzo wouldn't have cared, as long as they were winning.

[Knowlesy]

I doubt he would have liked to see them win like this. From what I gather he liked his drivers to RACE each other and sometimes tried to set them against each other. Unless I'm thinking of someone else.

[alesi95]

When the FIA means team orders they mean something glaringly obvious that the corporate bosses can't fail to miss. (Like a car pulling over in the last 100 yards.)

[z2252314]

Originally posted by knowlesy


What would Enzo think of all this. Probably turning in his grave as we speak.

For a former Ferrari fan, you dont know much about the founder of the team.

[Gt_R]

Sigh..why do people always like to think on Enzo's behalf?

I'm pretty sure team orders in Ferrari were around even when Enzo's around, so i don't see why he'd be "turning in his grave". Even if he does, he'd be probably doing it out of joy seeing how the rivals look like rubbish besides Ferrari.

I won't complain if this uproar is started after an incident like Austrian GP a couple years back... BUT for people to start over little evidence of team orders is really amusing.

[JohnSSC]

These threads are hugely amusing to me! It is like taking every conspiracy theory ever invented, throwing them all in a box and then extracting the random bits to create an arguement.

My personal favorite here was the suggestion that Jean Todt needs a "British Brain." He has one. His name is Ross Brawn! And by the way, can we call a halt to the rather poor imitations of someone speaking in a German or whatever accent? I daresay that many drivers on the grid are far more fluent in English than many English speakers are in their chosen second language, if they even have one (as to my shame, I do not). Making fun of them is insulting to people like myself whose family members emigrated and learned to speak English making it "their" language despite the accent.

The double-standard imposed by some of the anti-Ferrari posters is so glaring it is almost not worth pointing out (but being intellectually somewhat lazy, I will). It amazes me that for years - and by that I mean going back to pre Video Game days like the '50's, '60's and '70's team orders were the word of the day. In the '50's, Fangio's second had to turn over his car to Fangio when his own (Fangio's) broke leaving him completely without a drive that day, let alone the ability to "race" Fangio.

In the '60's and '70's there were "Clear Number Ones" and the job of the Number Two was to cover the arse of the Top Guy. This was routinely used even by the very sporting , take off the leash and let 'em rip, British Teams. Some of the posters here need to realize that F1 was not invented by Sega, began before 1986 and that not even those close to Enzo Ferrari would DARE to assume/presume what he was thinking!

Other than that, carry on as this is free, and very amusing!

[Gt_R]

I agree with John..

Although whatever happen in the past won't excuse whatever happens now or in the future, it's a crying shame at the very blatant hobby of some to bash. If that's the reason why we are in the forum, it is very disappointing.

Remember Gilles? What happened at the race before he was killed? He knew about a 1-2 formation finish...but for somebody to so cruelly stole a victory from him.

Did people blast GV for following team orders? The world is all jumping at his teammate for NOT following team orders... sigh..did anybody praise him for having the guts to defy team orders

I can't remember the same level of bashing at any other individuals nor team. It's ok if the criticism is valid, but its so glaring that its targetted at a team/driver more than it is targetted at the issue at hand. And until people can sort out the difference, there will hardly be any useful discussion around...

And its almost laughable when those people who critic MS/Ferrari try so hard to defend/excuse/differentiate other team's blatant "mistakes"

Back to topic, there's obviously NO TEAM ORDERS from the start to lap 53. Those who accuse Ferrari of compromising RB can obviously see that Ferrari tried their best in support and strategy to give RB a realistic chance. It's evident when looking at how Ferrari changed RB's strategy, and how quick RB's last stop is. Even Ross concede and came out supporting RB saying that Rubens should have won on the press. If Ross is all cosy with MS, you think he'd make such open statements?

As for whether team orders were used after the close incident..it is debatable. Theres no concrete evidence besides "obvious" speculations (but everything negative about Ferrari is always "obvious"), but even if there is team orders, it is perfectly acceptable and common among teams to hold 1-2 position with less than 20 laps left (so for people who try to use this and condemn Ferrari only, really should try a less personal approach).

The only thing that i can feel sorry for is that once again, Ferrari did too good a job which caused so many red faces and red eyes

We don't ask for changed opinions, we're not wanting everyone to love Ferrari. But it won't hurt if people can be more objective and fair in their arguments against Ferrari.

[Andrew2001]

Originally posted by z2252314
Michael won the US GP fair and square. He may have been lucky with the safety car, but thats F1. If you have any problems with teams telling their drivers to hold station after the last stop, then I suggest you switch off.

thats the god damn problem, he DIDN'T. Ferrari are GOING TO WIN BOTH titles, WE KNOW THAT, FERRARI know that, so why should we be robbed of exciting team mate VS team mate action? we were never robbed @ Williams, or McLaren or Lotus over the years, or even FErrari when Enzo was around. but this modern Ferrari F1 team is delivering just that, manipulated, unsporting results where one driver is allowed to win so that even when they are utterly dominating the championship with both cars, hence 2004, and 2002, we are still denied the opportunity to see them at it hammer and tongs, even when as in this case, Rubens is ALSO in the running for the title. He is NOT allowed to win, that ist he point, Ferrari is the problem here, nothing else.
When McLaren were dominant, they allowed both drivers the opportunity to race whenever where ever. Mika was not happy about Spa 1999, but did Ron sympathise with him? No, he got beaten cos he wasn't fast enough. we have got used to seeisng McLaren and therefore Williams' over the years that we expect to see RACING, between team mates especially if the title is up for grabs, and god forbid between te TWO drivers within the team, how bloody great would that be?
That's two races in a row where Michael and his team mate to deal with, but he got out ease because the pitwall told his team mate to back off. Did McLaren ever tell DC to back off when Mika was hounding him, or vice versa? NO, unless you count a driver agreement team orders (Aus 98), which as we all know was a bet between Mika and DC which DC subsequently lost.

Alas, Austria '98, 01, 02, DO I NEED TO SAY ANYMORE?

I quote Frank Williams in this months F1 racing: "It would be a big help to F1 if Ferrari allowed Rubens to race Michael."
Seriously, what more do you want to know? It's plain and obvious how they run things. And if this is their decision, their way, what THEY want to do then so be it, we can't change that, but we can almost certainly critise it, and curse them.
I have no problem with Ferrari dominating F1, frustrating it is, yes, but if barrichello was not held back like this I would have no issues whatsoever. In fact, I would rather see Rubens win GPs than Kimi, and that is saying alot for me because I want to see Schumacher get beaten. And it is more than possible, if only he wasn't fondled like this by Jean Toad we wouldn't have this problem. If Barrichello can exert even this amount of pressure on MS, just imagine what Kimi would be able to do, or perhaps a Hakkinen or a JPM.
This is the problem folks, this is what we are missing today in F1. The very thing that we had aplenty when Frank was on top or when Ron had all four wheels turning in his many fine hours.

[garcon]

Andrew, shouting doesn't make your point any more plausible.

JohnSSC, I have to admit that all this nonsense has been getting to me a little of late, so may I thank you from the bottom of my heart for putting it all in perspective and making me laugh out loud in the process. I can't add anything else, you said it all my friend!

[Andrew2001]

The point is, at the end of the day, GTr, that they are both going for the title here, both the Ferrari drivers have a chance, Rubens, beacuse of his consistancy, and MS, cos he has won most of them this year. But, we alrady know MS is going to win. Why? How do we know that, they are only 16 points apart or so. Because we know that Ferrari will continue to stop their two drivers racing, thus, forming a forgone conclusion which we can all predict.
Who cares what Ferrari did throughout the race which may have "supported" rubens, I mean, what are they going to do, actually have a cup of coffee in the pits before they change his tyres while he is sitting there, of course they went as fast as possible, but MS will always have right of way over Rubens, everytime. That, is @!#^!#^ wrong. And THAT is the issue on the big picture.
Schumacher will never ever beat his team mate in a straight fight where its a close race because every time that situation arises it is stopped immediately by the pitwall, even when they have the best car, even when they are dominating with both cars miles ahead of the rest - its ridiculous.
Thus, Schumacher will never be a Senna, or a Prost, or a Fangio, or a Clarke.

[garcon]

Has it ever actually occurred to anyone that maybe, just maybe, Ferrari have allowed Rubens and Michael to race each other all season (at least to the last round of stops) and that Michael has simply won?

[Super Tourer]

To berate Ferrari is to miss the point of F1 really IMO. They are 2 of 20 cars on the grid, the opposition, such as it is, have made it so easy for Ferrari.

We know that MS and Ferrari will make mistakes under pressure, we have seen Michael particularly make errors. But, without any consistent competition, they are simply able to run the races as they wish - they have cruised to every win and controlled every race. Imagine the luxury of having the time and track position to debate which driver should win, or be able to engineer a race result.

If JPM were on Rubens gearbox race after race - for the whole race - and Rubens was leading, Ferrari wouldn't have the luxury of being able to pull him over to let Michael past or vice versa.

We can debate team orders all day long and as John SCC pointed out , in one form or another they have existed in F1 for years.

Ferrari will always run their team as they see fit, and if results and profile are the measure of success in F1, then you have to say thay have done a good job in recent years.

The issue is that the other teams have allowed them to become so dominant that they can run the entire race weekend at will. If we had 2 of each Renault, Williams, McLaren and BAR right on their tail week in week out, they simply wouldn't have the luxury of being able to engineer any results.

We can't expect a team to fight itself to give us something to watch on a Sunday afternoon, that's the job of the rest of the grid and so far no one has consistently, or even fleetingly, stepped up to the plate and given Ferrari a REAL race.

As for the Indy race, RB lost a lot of pace in the middle section of the race, who know's if Ferrari were engineering the result, the trouble is that their track record will always see suspicion linger. But to repeat, taking away their opportunity to do that is what is required.

I am not a particular Ferrari fan BTW.

[Marlboro man]

I think some people have to stop seeing things that aren't there. Since 2002 I haven't seen one teamorder at Ferrari, at least, not one any other team wouldn't make.
That towards the end of the race the team takes the points would be done by every team in that position and Rubens definitely wasn't faster than Michael.
He had his chance during the last pitstop and he blew it. Simple as that.

[z2252314]

Originally posted by Andrew2001
of course they went as fast as possible, but MS will always have right of way over Rubens, everytime. That, is @!#^!#^ wrong.

So you expect Ferrari to pit 2nd man Rubens before race leader Michael

I dont get it Andrew, you have no problems with two racers agreeing not to race after the first corner, but you find it deplorable that two teammates are told to hold station after the last stop of the race. At least at Indy, the race wasnt over after the first corner like Australia 98!

Andrew, why didnt you criticise your beloved Williams team when they imposed the exact same team order on their drivers after the last stop of the French GP ???

Andrew, ill make a deal with you. If I can provide 10 examples of non-ferrari teams telling their drivers to hold station at the closing stages of a GP will you admit that its a normal part of F1???

[Knowlesy]

Originally posted by garcon
Has it ever actually occurred to anyone that maybe, just maybe, Ferrari have allowed Rubens and Michael to race each other all season (at least to the last round of stops) and that Michael has simply won?

Of his eight victories this year, he has beaten Rubens comprehensively six times. So I have no complaints on that count!

But it just makes it more annoying when Rubens' rare threats to Michaels obvious supremacy are nipped in the bud. I mean, it's not like Rubens is battling with Michael all the time, he's usually traipsing round in fourth or something! And that is what makes it hard to take, that when Rubens finally gets on the same wavelength as Michael, he can't really attack all race.

Also, the fact that the Ferraris are seemingly only allowed to overtake during pitstops sums up what is wrong with F1 in a way. Ban refuelling and stick to simple tyre changes. Sure, the gap between Michael and Rubens would widen, but I'd rather see that than Rubens champing at the bit to get past Michael knowing full well he can't!

I apologise for some of the things I have said which may have been wrong and utterly unjustified but I still feel Ferrari could improve their policy and let Rubens race Michael to the flag, seeing as the championship situation is so one sided. I mean, what have they to lose?

I'd full well understand all this shenanigans if they were in a down to the wire situation with another team but they aren't.

McLaren in 1998 and 1999 let their guys race each other until it was pretty much mathematically impossible for one of them to win the title. It could well have cost them, but in the grand scheme of things it didn't did it? I have always admired this policy, despite never really liking McLaren that much!

All I ask is for Rubens to be allowed to have an even bigger crack of things, I mean he's only on Michaels tail three times a year!

I do think Ferrari have improved. Two years ago, they wouldn't even have been allowed to battle until the first stop, but things have improved ever so slightly. They just need to improve that final part and they are there. Hell, I'd probably like them again!

And to clarify, it's not Michael Schumacher I have a problem with. My only problem with him is that he is so damn good and spoils the show with his perfection!

[Gt_R]

They are only a few who harps on it under the pretence of "exciting racing"

Quote A2001:"we were never robbed @ Williams, or McLaren or Lotus over the years, or even FErrari when Enzo was around."

Frankly, take a history crash course... And making such statements only open yourself to the possibility of being made to look silly..so it's not advisable.

I find it really impressive how the critics can actually fault Ferrari's Indy performance.. it must have taken much effort.

I hope you take up zzz-number's deal. And calling other people insulting names and playing with their surnames doesn't help win arguments.

Quote A2001:"Rubens, beacuse of his consistancy, and MS, cos he has won most of them this year."

I think MS really lack consistency this year...7 out of 8 wins, running 1st (potentially finishing 2nd) until being taken out... i think that's called consistent. And admit it..MS would have left everyone for dead if not FIA decides to change the point system to stop MS.

And again, from a mclaren fan, trying to question Ferrari's way of working out the pits for their drivers is very very very amazing...obviously again overlooking the many occasions dear DC is made a fool waiting for his teammates Mika and Kimi.

But of course, only Ferrari gets the mud

MS overtook RB on merit at the restart. THEN, in case you overlook the simple fact that MS is in front, that's why he managed to pit first. And i think Ferrari is consistent in that the first guy pits first (unless in rare circumstances), unlike other teams which occasionally run one of their driver on the wrong tires in the wrong conditions just to "gain data" for their chosen one.

And of course, it also escaped your notice that MS managed to be just quick enough to be ahead of RB when he exited the pitlane.

And of course, they aren't allowed to race... the almost coming together of RB/MS at lap 53 is a carefully staged act.... they practiced it many times at Fiorano

Ross must be quite glad that practice pays off..for it's convincing

[KaiserSose]

If I were him, I'd be terrified to show my face in public.

Yeah I'm sure he's really embarassed about getting paid seven figures to drive for Ferrari F1. The shame..........

[Marlboro man]

If I was allowed to do it, I'll wash MS' car each Saturday to.

[deeks6]

I'm glad someone brought this up because it really gets my gander up...
Like everybody else I've known for years that Rubens is CLEARLY a better and FASTER driver than MS. Those damn Ferrari mechanics have always (except for 5 or 6 occaisions out of 100) tuned RB's car to go about 3 or 4 tenths slower than Michael in qualifying so that he has to start behind him. It's just not fair. He's a better passer and has smart race strategy too - he's just not allowed to do it. And thay always make sure that he can't go faster on his in laps and out laps near the pit stops by applying telemetry to his car from the pits...they have radio control over his revs.

And lets not spare McLaren either...lets face it, David Coulthard is also a far superior driver to that hack, Hakkinen and he was robbed of those WDC's by the cheats at McLaren because they liked Mika more.

It's been happening for years - Damon Hill, Nigel Mansell, Keke Rosberg, Stefan Johansson, Eddie Cheever, Derek Warwick and Rene Arnoux were all wayyy better than Alain Prost but who was allowed to win all the GP's?

And it is an indisputable fact that Berger, Dumfries and de Angelis were better than Senna. Why, Senna even blocked Warwick coming to Lotus because he had seen that he was superior to Prost.

I just can't work out why these drivers have the god-given right to clear favouritism from the teams and the stewards and get to win races when they clearly don't deserve it. And thats just the last 20 years or so...about 200 Gp's won by the WRONG blokes! Not fair

[Kicking-back]

Shocking!

[JohnSSC]

deeks6: What a post! My God! You have uncovered the vast conspiracy and shed the light of truth!

Clay Regazzoni was contractually obligated to follow Niki!The Whole House of Cards will collapse now!

[Panzer]

Boy o boy, some of you people amaze me , me thinks you have too much time on your hands! Get a life! This is the first GP this year where Rubens came even close to Michael, and he still couldn't get it done! He is not in the same league as Michael Schumacher. I have watched the likes of Clarke,Stewart,Lauda,ect:- MS is special RB is not. So enough of this **** about Rubens not being allowed to win, even when he has a faster car Michael still outdrives him.