Montoya needs to be #1

[Damon]

Yep. At Silverston 2001 JPM was running a 2 stopper and Ralf was running a 1 stopper. Not letting your own team mate through so that he can take advantage of his strategy is just pig headed.

[Yoong Montoya]

Originally posted by Damon
Exactly, it's not like Barrichello was holding his team mate up in Austria, he even had to slow down towards the end so that Schu could catch him in time.

I'm not so sure about that. Are you talking about the way Rubens backed off on the last lap and let Michael close in before letting him by? Because I remember seeing Michael lap very quickly and close in a few laps before that, and I'm sure Rubens was lapping normally then.:confused: Anyway, I don't even know if Rubens and Michael were racing each other anyway. Didn't Brawn say they weren't racing each other in the post race interviews?

[Don K]

Originally posted by Yoong Montoya
I'm not so sure about that. Are you talking about the way Rubens backed off on the last lap and let Michael close in before letting him by? Because I remember seeing Michael lap very quickly and close in a few laps before that, and I'm sure Rubens was lapping normally then.:confused: Anyway, I don't even know if Rubens and Michael were racing each other anyway. Didn't Brawn say they weren't racing each other in the post race interviews?

Lap times lap 64 and later (after the Ferrari drivers had their last pit stops):
Rubens:
1:10.357, 1:09.815, 1:09.927, 1:09.839, 1:10.209, 1:10.313, 1:10.273, 1:13.004
Michel:
1:10.020, 1:09.860, 1:09.902, 1:09.487, 1:09.298, 1:09.490, 1:09.645, 1:11.722
Montoya:
1:10.550, 1:10.106, 1:10.036, 1:10.852, 1:09.996, 1:10.260, 1:09.853, 1:10.388
Ralf:
1:10.215, 1:10.036, 1:09.862, 1:10.306, 1:10.531, 1:09.968, 1:10.117, 1.09.868

During the first laps, the gap between the Ferrari-drivers is brought back from 4 seconds to 3.5 seconds.
After lap 67, Rubens slows down by half a second, enabling Michael to close the gap to 1 second.
During the last lap, both drivers slow down, deliberately enabling the public to see that a team order has been issued.

From lap 61 onwards, Ralf is faster than Montoya. The gap is slowly brought reduced from 2.2 seconds to 1.2 seconds at lap 66, and 0.7 seconds at lap 67.
As soon as the gap drops below 1 second, Montoya accelarates and Ralf slows down, resulting in a 1.3 s gap at lap 68.
Immediately, Montoya slows down and Ralf accelerates, resulting in a 1.0 s gap at lap 69.
As the gap has dropped back to 1 second, Montoya accelarates again and Ralf slows down again, resulting in a 1.3 s gap at lap 70.
Immediately, Montoya slows down again and Ralf accelerates again, resulting in a 1.0 s gap at lap 71 (end of race).
By cleverly maintaining a visual gap, the Williams drivers prevent the public from suspecting a "don't race each other" team order.

[Yoong Montoya]

Originally posted by Don K
Lap times lap 64 and later (after the Ferrari drivers had their last pit stops):
Rubens:
1:10.357, 1:09.815, 1:09.927, 1:09.839, 1:10.209, 1:10.313, 1:10.273, 1:13.004
Michel:
1:10.020, 1:09.860, 1:09.902, 1:09.487, 1:09.298, 1:09.490, 1:09.645, 1:11.722
Montoya:
1:10.550, 1:10.106, 1:10.036, 1:10.852, 1:09.996, 1:10.260, 1:09.853, 1:10.388
Ralf:
1:10.215, 1:10.036, 1:09.862, 1:10.306, 1:10.531, 1:09.968, 1:10.117, 1.09.868

During the first laps, the gap between the Ferrari-drivers is brought back from 4 seconds to 3.5 seconds.
After lap 67, Rubens slows down by half a second, enabling Michael to close the gap to 1 second.
During the last lap, both drivers slow down, deliberately enabling the public to see that a team order has been issued.

From lap 61 onwards, Ralf is faster than Montoya. The gap is slowly brought reduced from 2.2 seconds to 1.2 seconds at lap 66, and 0.7 seconds at lap 67.
As soon as the gap drops below 1 second, Montoya accelarates and Ralf slows down, resulting in a 1.3 s gap at lap 68.
Immediately, Montoya slows down and Ralf accelerates, resulting in a 1.0 s gap at lap 69.
As the gap has dropped back to 1 second, Montoya accelarates again and Ralf slows down again, resulting in a 1.3 s gap at lap 70.
Immediately, Montoya slows down again and Ralf accelerates again, resulting in a 1.0 s gap at lap 71 (end of race).
By cleverly maintaining a visual gap, the Williams drivers prevent the public from suspecting a "don't race each other" team order.

I suspect that this is the sort of thing we will see next year, and not just from Ferrari. Especially because teams can control the cars from the pitlane now. Maybe the two-way telemetry explains those different lap times between the teammates.

I always suspected that Rubens AND Michael both backed off on the last lap on the start/finish straight, and the Ferrari team turned Rubens RPM down or something when they realised what was going on, which may explain why Rubens appeared to suddenly slow even further before the line, which would actually support MS's "few meters" theory. And I also believe they were not racing each other. Of course, the rest of you may see things differently. This is just what I think.

[Damon]

Of course they weren't racing each other, it's always been Ferrari team policy. As for Williams, even though they may have been told to hold steady I doubt the gap changes were for the public. More likely Ralf and JPM were playing cat and mouce with each other regardless.

[Valve Bounce]

Originally posted by mr v
fairness for each individual driver, thats all.

I agree with mr v on this point. There are quite a few of us who were incensed by the Ferrari "Move Over" tactics at Austria.

[Gt_R]

Quote Damon:"At Silverston 2001 JPM was running a 2 stopper and Ralf was running a 1 stopper. Not letting your own team mate through so that he can take advantage of his strategy is just pig headed."

I'm kind of amused... Damon, you think that Rubens ought to have a fair shot and win the race in Austria, but you think it is pig headed for Ralf in Silverstone?

I understand your argument that in Silverstone, JPM is on a lighter strategy and hence, it is silly for Ralf to hold him back, as it hinders a better result for the team.

But by your collective stance of "fairness for each individual driver, thats all", you'd realise that by letting JPM through, Ralf would essentially be giving up points FOR JPM. Which in all foundations is the SAME as Austria where Rubens gave up points FOR MS.

I don't like team orders, Austria and Silverstone. But i also understand the reason behind which that both is set to maximise the team's result. Hence i can't condemn it as wholeheartedly as the rest of you. But to hear many condemn Austria, yet try find excuses to defend and differentiate similar incidents by other drivers (not surprisingly defending a driver that you like) is the most misleading. Especially when you're all on the bed together fighting for "fairness for each individual driver, thats all."

[Valve Bounce]

Strange that when anyone offers an explanation to certain people, they try to misinterpret these explanations.
Let me try to make it simple as possible: when two drivers are on a different pit stop strategy, it is only common sense for the driver who is on the, say 3 stopper, to be allowed to move through to establish a lead so that it would make the 3 stopper work. That was where ralf pretended his radio wasn't working when asked to let JPM past. You will notice that when Rubens is on a three stopper, and SchM is on a two stopper, SchM will let Rubens move past and go off if Rubens is faster.

Austria was different!! I won't go into the details.

As for the comment: Especially when you're all on the bed together fighting for "fairness for each individual driver, thats all, this is obviously a flame, which is not worth an explanation. I do reserve the right to agree with anyone I wish to, as well as ignore anyone I choose to.

[senna12]

Originally posted by Gt_R
But by your collective stance of "fairness for each individual driver, thats all", you'd realise that by letting JPM through, Ralf would essentially be giving up points FOR JPM. Which in all foundations is the SAME as Austria where Rubens gave up points FOR MS.

Since they were on different strategies, how could you assume that Ralf would be giving away points? The strategies would have to play out before you would know.
This bears no resemblance to Rubens being told to give way, under any circumstances, until Michael secures the championship.

[Red]

Originally posted by senna12
Since they were on different strategies, how could you assume that Ralf would be giving away points? The strategies would have to play out before you would know.

How could you tell that he wouldn't give away points? Either they knew before the start that actually Montoya's strategy would bring him behind Ralf and in that case Williams fixed the finishing order of a race, or they didn't know. And in that case Montoya could actually finish the race "ahead" of Ralf and in that case Ralf was whithin his very normal rights to defend position and Williams issued an team order.

It doesn't go that way guys. Either you "fairness for each driver that's all" but "mathematical chances", "different strategies" or whatever are NOT excuses or you do agree or at least understand and accept team's strategies.

[Valve Bounce]

JPM was on one more pit stop than Ralf - you work it out.

[Red]

Yeah, I know. So?

[R]

I can't believe some of the things I'm reading here. How can you compare what happened in Austria to team mates helping each other out and making both their respective strategies work as much as possible? In the example above, it isn't just "Ralf vs. Montoya", it's also Williams vs. the rest of the field, and in letting Montoya maximize his strategy (which Ralf didn't), he would aid him also in beating the rest of the field, to get both Williams drivers as high up the finishing order as possible.

But Ralf has IMO proven that he's not a team player, he's out there for himself, and for his brother, and that's it.

[Red]

Originally posted by R
[...] team mates helping each other out[...]

At Williams? :confused: Are you sure?

"Team" word I believe is used much too often and much too wrongly. Are the 2 drivers supposed to race each other hard or to help each other as in "team" vs the rest of the field to get both drivers as high up the finishing order as possible?

Considering that the 2 Ferrari drivers finished on first 2 places in WDC I believe that the word team and teammates suit them better.

[R]

Originally posted by Red
At Williams? :confused: Are you sure?

In the example, that was what didn't happen - as Ralf developed "radio problems" and didn't give way to Montoya. But we're discussing the difference in principle between the Ferrari team order in Austria 2002 and the Williams team order (which Ralf didn't obey) at Silverstone 2001. So that was why I made the comparison, and used the words "team mates helping each other out" to describe the principle behind such a team order, and also what ought to have happened between Ralf and Montoya in that incident.

They are supposed to race each other hard, but when they're on different strategies, they're not supposed to sabotage each other's races. It really isn't that difficult to see the principles of this logic. They're also supposed to avoid taking each other out.

[Gt_R]

Woah woah woah...Hold it!

Quote VB:"Strange that when anyone offers an explanation to certain people, they try to misinterpret these explanations...Let me try to make it simple as possible."

Don't worry. I fully understand what Silverstone is about. And if you have digested my thread, i'm NOT against what happened in Silverstone.

Ralf held back JPM who is quicker. He hindered JPM's, who is his team mate, strategy. In short, what Ralf did in Silverstone destroyed Williams and JPM's chance of maximising their strategy. Right?

Head have stated his displeasure after the race saying that should Ralf NOT do what he did, JPM MAY be able to finish in a BETTER position and thus help in Williams team result.

So, i understand William's call (team orders) to ask Ralf to move over. It makes sense for the TEAM.

I have no problem with that, just like Damon, VB, and the rest.

What i'm trying to say is that, in Silverstone, Ralf is selfish. But like Mr V said, "fairness for each individual driver, thats all", while the Williams TEAM ORDERS would benefit the team through maximising their OVERALL results (just like Ferrari's austria call maximise their OVERALL result), it does NOT benefit Ralf. By letting JPM through, he would effectively let JPM finish ahead of him in terms of points/position for the WDC in that race. The Williams team orders do not result in "fairness" for Ralf.(i believe Head let out just as much, and being one who is involved with the strategies, he should know) Point noted?

Hence, while i have NO problem with Silverstone, the thing i'm highlighting is that Damon is against Austria as it is UNFAIR to Rubens (which i FULLY agree), but he see's no problem with Silverstone in which it is UNFAIR to Ralf in the same manner.(that, by the way IS the resemblance) That's the thing i'm trying to question. And seeing MrV and VB agreeing with him, this question can be posted to you too.

And no, it's not taking pot-shots at you guys. But to clarify, to point out any loop holes in the arguments.

And i'd like to assure VB, i have no problem what so ever with who you choose to agree or ignore. But instead of agreeing with people, i prefer to agree with the points/issues raised...irregardless of people.

And i'd like to reiterate...i think in Silverstone, from a team's point of view, Ralf is selfish. No doubt, as he cost his team a better result. But if what you guys are fighting for is "fairness for each individual driver", you shouldn't have any problem with what Ralf did, and should be displeased with William's team orders.

[Red]

Originally posted by R
when they're on different strategies, they're not supposed to sabotage each other's races. It really isn't that difficult to see the principles of this logic.

It isn't difficult; actually that's also what I usually say. But it is obvious that my opinion is in minority, at least in this forumand I just try to understand where I might go wrong: what exactly does "race each other hard" mean? Ok, we already agreed on "not taking each other out". But racing hard? Racing hard when they're both on the same strategy? So actually when one of them adopts a different one the other driver should do everything in his power to help him? Am I getting close? But that brings another obvious question: "why were they on different strategies in the first place?"

[Mr V]

With regard to Silverstone 2001, the order was given to Rafe to move over to allow a faster Juan Pablo the oppertunity at having a go at Rubens, once again, Rafe was happy to just sit the behind the Ferrari where as JPM was behind the Williams behind the Ferrari and faster than both, this order had it been carried out by Rafe, whilst obviously benefitting JPM was to benefit the team more.

[Mr V]

Oh, and before we have the arguement that it was no different from Austria 2001 and 2002, yes it was, Silverstone 2001 wasn't to aid one driver over his team mate.

[R]

Thank you, mr. v, you've hit the nail on the head.

[Red]

Originally posted by mr v
Oh, and before we have the arguement that it was no different from Austria 2001 and 2002, yes it was, Silverstone 2001 wasn't to aid one driver over his team mate.

What makes you say that it is different? It was an attempt to "artificially alter the result of a race". Is this good or is it bad? Who cares that in 1994 Coulthard had no mathematic chances to go for the title? Was that his position and did he deserve to keep it or play for the "best team's interests"?

[Mr V]

Originally posted by Red
Was that his position and did he deserve to keep it or play for the "best team's interests"?

Austria 2001 and 2002 anyone?

[Red]

? :confused:
Just a quick note: my opinion is that what Ralf did was wrong. And the difference between Austria's and Silverstone 2001 is only the fact that Frank and Patrick are unable to impose discipline in that team.

[Gt_R]

mrV, you don't seem to get the point?

In Austria, Ferrari used team orders to benefit their WDC hopes. They used it in a bid to maximise their OVERALL result.

In Silverstone, Williams used team orders to benefit their race-results, hence their championship results. They used it in a bid to maximise their OVERALL results too.

In Austria, the result of the successful implementation of team orders would have MS finish the race ahead of Rubens.

In Silverstone, the result of the successful implementation of team orders would have JPM finish the race ahead of Ralf.

Unless the day comes when Rubens is by mid-season having a huge WDC lead over MS, yet Ferrari implement team orders that benefit MS at Rubens expense, it's nonsensical to insist that Ferrari's team orders were issued purely out of preference to Michael.

[Mr V]

GT_R, no,i obviously don't get the point.

As we all know, all the time that Michael is at Ferrari then Rubens is never going to have that huge points lead.

Originally posted by Gt_R

it's nonsensical to insist that Ferrari's team orders were issued purely out of preference to Michael.

so when Michael was behind Rubens then the team orders weren't in preference to Michael? :confused: :confused: