Vettel was going to sue after "multi 21"

[Emmcee]

For those who haven't read the book, Webber is actually very complimentary about SV and his main issue is with Horner & Marko.

He actually states that he believes Alonso & Vettel are the quickest drivers in F1 for a generation, and is very proud to have been teammate to both of them.

Exactly, he said its basically water under the bridge and now speaks to seb from time to time.

[Andres125sx]

Team orders are part of the sport, actually I could even say team orders are part of life, even in daily jobs.

You´ve never been told to do something in your job wich is not the best for you, but it´s the best for your company? I´ve been, many times (I´m project manager), and if I refuse I´d be fired instantly. The company pays your salary, and the company says what you must do. It is this simple

Into sports world it´s the same, but drivers are egomaniac kids wich sometimes feel so important they can ignore their bosses. It is this simple too. If a lawyer then found the way to stop the team from taking any measure, I applaud that lawyer because he did a great job. And RB people did a poor one writing that contract. But reality is what it is, team pay, team order.

And this is normal for most sports, not sure about the reason it´s discussed so frequently into F1 forums, have you seen any WRC championship? TOs are common, constantly. Let alone sports like cycling where 4-5 members race only for one team mate from first race. Paris-Dakar the same, drivers are asked to dismantle his own bike to give parts to his leader...

TOs are part of the sport

[aral]

Seems as if Webber still has a bee in his bonnet. Claims that Vettel could not accept that webber was faster than him. Exactly when? maybe on one or two ocassions, but Seb was far faster overall. After all, he then goes on to admit that seb and alonso WERE the fastest. 4 wdcs to nil proves that. What he does not say is whether or not Seb knew what his lawyers had reminded rbr about.

[Phil]

Lets remember here that Webber here is talking as an INSIDER. We are OUTSIDERS. Armchair specialists. Nothing more, nothing less. Well most of us anyway. Anyway, to us; it looks like Vettel was faster overall, but we don't know for certainty what kind of handicaps both drivers were facing, what internal politics played a role in each drivers ability to extract their maximum potential, and to what degree both cars were set up differently or had different updates, parts, engine modes etc. This isn't to say that Vettel wasn't the quicker overall. He clearly was. But the car also suited his driving perfectly too, just as the new Formula clearly didn't suit M. Schumacher at his comeback. I do remember quite a few races in 2010 and 2012 where Webber seemed clearly quicker than Seb, namely 2010 in Silverstone, Monaco and some others where he really drove brilliantly. Some of the team radios ("not bad for a No. 2") clearly also suggest that things at RedBull were clearly more complicated than meets the eye. I haven't read Webbers book, but from what I've seen quoted so far, it seems like a honest piece of reading from his part of the story. Nothing more, nothing less. But Webber was quick on his day, and every bit as quick as Seb at times. Lets not take some quotes of a quote, from a quote from some magazine that is quoting some sentence of the book without proper context out of proportion here. Lets just be happy that we do have a book that gives us a bit more insight over what we could only speculate 2 years ago.

[Phil]

Team orders are part of the sport, actually I could even say team orders are part of life, even in daily jobs.

I fully agree. But... the problematic thing here is that we as speculators are watching and want to see drivers battling it out. It's not like football, where we have a team with 11 players (sans reserve) and we want to see teams win or lose. For most of us, it's a DRIVERS CHAMPIONSHIP. Which is why some of these drivers earn crazy amount of money, because they are not only good at what they do, but also because they have a high marketing value to the team and the sport.

Team-orders are problematic here because we as fans don't want a faked result, we want genuine real racing and results. If it was different, we could be watching a scripted story, as in WW(F)E -> Wrestling. Thanks, but no thanks. It might not be scripted from the race director, but team-orders is when the team scripts the battle for us.

Sometimes team orders make sense; For instance when two team-mates find themselves on track on differing strategies and one or the other might hold each other up which would damage the teams final result. So team orders become a necessity in this situation.

Team-orders are sometimes necessary when the pit wall has more information than the driver, can tell that both drivers are damaging and compromising their race whilst battling each other. Malaysia 2013 when Mercedes needed that first podium in front of their main sponsor and both drivers were having a go until the team intervened. Not because of favoritism, but because they didn't want them to compromise their race. Canada 2014 should have been another one, when the high brake temperatures caught the team out that resulted from the close battle they fought. Another point in case; McLaren 2007 when it enabled Raikoennen to steal the title that never should have been his.

Then there are other examples where team-orders are wrong; Hamilton and Rosberg in Hungary 2014. Hamilton got himself ahead Rosberg and on the same race, same strategy, yet the team wanted him to let Rosberg by because they wanted to switch him to a different strategy, although they could have done the same with Hamilton at that point. Hamilton refused under the premise that he felt his team-mate wasn't close enough anyway, and if he could pull off a pass, he was free to do so. As a result, he protected his position relative to Rosbergs and the team later admitted it was wrong of them to ask Hamilton to move over in light of the championship.

Rubens and Michael in what ever year was also a beautiful example of where team orders can bring the sport into disrepute - hence why team-orders were banned as a result.

IMO - we don't want MULTI 21 situations. Just look at this topic to see how badly it reflects on the sport and to its fans. While I don't thin you should outright ban team orders, I do think they should ban team-radio for good (or limit the amount of information the teams have from the pitwall) to ensure we have more unpredictable but legit "real" racing where the focus shifts back to the driver and his ability to make the right call at the right time. Or lose because of it.

[Andres125sx]

Agree with most of that Phil, but it´s still the team who pay, and it´s the team who decide.

We fans always want fair battles, but we can´t ask a team to do something wich harm their own interest, and that´s what people do with F1. What drives me nuts is the reason you only see/read complain about team orders with F1...

What about Paris-Dakar where some drivers are forced to retire from a race that tough to give some part of their vehicles to the team leader if he broke his?

What about WRC where drivers are not allowed to beat his team leader?

What about DTM?


Any motorsport wich is not a spec series have team orders, and will always have. That´s fair like it or not. I agree some team orders are easier to understand than others, but teams play his cards.

For example, IMO Williams did it completely wrong in Silverstone, with the correct team order (Bottas keep a gap with Massa, or Massa let Bottas pass and keep a gap), they could have opted for a victory. Instead of that they allowed for a battle, and they lost the victory allowing Hamilton to undercut them both. Are they more fair because of that? IMO they are more stupid because of that, we´ll see how much time it takes for them to have any other chance to win a race


Another past example, the famous "Felipe, Alonso is faster than you". People talk a lot about that, what they usually don´t take into account is at that point Felipe was more than 3 races behind the leader at that point while Alonso was less than two, and thanks to that team order Alonso went to the final race of that season as the favourite driver to win the championship. Perfect decision, now people can blame Ferrari for decades if they want, but they did it great and I´m sure none into the team regret that decision.

[Phil]

Ah... but perhaps if the team had not forced Massa to give up that place; he might have got his confidence back to a level that he would have performed overall better and would still be driving at Ferrari instead of Kimi? There's lots of discussion about the morality of team-orders. What I find more problematic is that there are actual betting institutions, as there is in any sport - but how can this work, if the team have the power to artificially alter the outcome?

I agree, the team is the team and any driver should and needs to respect that - especially considering that the team is much larger than what we get to see (300+ employees in the background). The team result is important for them too. Which is why I think the best solution would be to limit the amount that the team can actually talk to their drivers. Make them more a passenger, so it's up to them to instruct the drivers accordingly before the race or rely on old-fashioned boards at the side of the track to communicate with their driver. Or make it a one car team (but then we need more teams!). Most fans unfortunately aren't interested in the team effort, they want to see their drivers win fair and square.

A brilliant example: Hamilton in Bahrain 2014 vs Hamilton in Malaysia 2013. In the former, it was the best win ever because it was hard fought against all odds - the latter being one of the worst podiums since he knew the team took the fight away from the drivers, hence the gloomy Hamilton we got to see on stage and knowing it should have perhaps been Rosberg standing there. Or Michael when the team gave him the win over Rubens.

That's exactly what brings the sport into disrepute. We don't want that and the teams should respect that when handing out orders, not to race, or to swap / manipulate the order of their drivers.

[Andres125sx]

Ah... but perhaps if the team had not forced Massa to give up that place; he might have got his confidence back to a level that he would have performed overall better and would still be driving at Ferrari instead of Kimi?

1- If any driver lost his confidence because his team mate is faster than him at some particular race, he shouldn´t be a racing driver.

2- If you really think he underperformed from that point due to the lack of confidence the team order supposed, then explain me the reason he was scoring few more points than a half of Alonso before that race, because before that race there was no TOs at all.

I´ve seen this excuse often, togheter with that about he´s not been the same since the accident. Reality is he was not a rival for Alonso, that´s what ruined his confidence, not team orders or the accident. Ask Fisicho, Trulli, Grosjean or Kimi, they know what I´m talking about

I agree, the team is the team and any driver should and needs to respect that - especially considering that the team is much larger than what we get to see (300+ employees in the background). The team result is important for them too. Which is why I think the best solution would be to limit the amount that the team can actually talk to their drivers. Make them more a passenger, so it's up to them to instruct the drivers accordingly before the race or rely on old-fashioned boards at the side of the track to communicate with their driver.

Agree with this, I think it´s a good idea

[Phil]

Ah... but perhaps if the team had not forced Massa to give up that place; he might have got his confidence back to a level that he would have performed overall better and would still be driving at Ferrari instead of Kimi?

1- If any driver lost his confidence because his team mate is faster than him at some particular race, he shouldn´t be a racing driver.

2- If you really think he underperformed from that point due to the lack of confidence the team order supposed, then explain me the reason he was scoring few more points than a half of Alonso before that race, because before that race there was no TOs at all.

I think the situation is more complicated than that; I think Ferrari tends to favor one driver more so than the other; It was the case back when Schumacher was their prince, then Alonso (together with the huge financial backing of Santander that he brought along), and now it seems to be Vettel who is reaped with flowers and roses and can't do anything wrong (even if his results are helping immensely - and it's indisputable that Kimi has had some rotten luck as well, helping in the downward spiral). And I'm not talking about the team as a whole here, but generally the way the upper management are handling themselves.

While this isn't wrong, it can be detrimental to a drivers confidence. And I'm quite confident that Massa is a driver that suffered from all the Alonso-loving at Ferrari, and was also dealing with his accident and comeback from 2009 (as well as perhaps the loss of the championship in 2008). The win that was taken away from him must have been a painful experience, not only because it marked the race after exactly a year after his horrific accident, but it was one of the first signs that he could very well be competitive against Alonso. That win being taken away, wasn't only a win stripped away; it was more importantly a hard-realization that Alonso was the team-favorite and that the team would stop at nothing to make sure that their WDC leader (at that point, by a measly ~30 points only) would finish ahead of him if it was in the teams control, irregardless if he can beat him fair and square on track.

If you don't believe me - just read this piece by Joe Saward at the time about the importance of that stripped win:

https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2010/07 ... -the-road/

I'd love to quote the entire article, because it is a brilliant piece of writing IMO, but that would not be right. I really recommend you (and others) reading it though. Here's a rather small extract (but the rest just as relevant):

There are two ways of winning: one can win in a functional sense and one can win in style. This is why I believe Massa is more popular than Alonso, because while Fernando has had all manner of scrapes and question marks during his F1 career, the drive to win has always been a functional one. Winning was the goal and the route taken to get there was not important to him. Massa, on the other hand, has shown that one can be a champion without actually being the World Champion. He showed that in Brazil in 2008. The hard-bitten F1 folks would argue that losing with grace is still losing, but they miss the point that one can win in defeat and lose in victory. What Massa did on Sunday is going to hurt his image in Brazil a great deal, just as Rubens Barrichello was badly damaged by helping Ferrari (and by extension Michael Schumacher) in the old days. Felipe made a huge sacrifice on Sunday and one wonders whether it really will be repaid.

On the other side of the coin, Ferrari blew a great opportunity on Sunday. It would have been the perfect human interest story to have Massa win a race a year to the day after he was nearly killed in Hungary. It would have been a fairytale, and people like fairytales. They like happy endings. This is why film makers for generations have used them. They sell. They make people feel warm and wonderful.

Ferrari’s choice to go down the pragmatic route rather than indulge in a little romance is a sign that the firm is run by people who do what is best for the company, put who at the same time put Ferrari before the sport as a whole. Jean Todt was like that when he was running things at Maranello, but he now has a new job and he has a different attitude. His job now is to protect the sport and I feel that Ferrari’s punishment is not over yet. If one is given a job, one does the best one possibly can in that role. Alonso said that himself on Sunday. So Ferrari should expect Todt to do his FIA job as it should be done.

On the topic of morality; Imagine if Mercedes had opted to put all eggs in one single basket, last year this time in Rosbergs favour because he was the defacto WDC leader, or now in Lewis's because he is the 2 time world champion and probably the bigger marketing magnet. Wouldn't that make Hamiltons last year victory and WDC title a hollow one? It certainly would be for me; yet due to the way 2014 unfolded in that spectacular, tense way, I regard it as one of the best WDC wins of a decade. One fought to the limit, in equal machinery with little to no boundaries. Similar to the 2007 intra-team battle between Lewis and Fernando. That's the way it should be.

So, while I do think that the team has the right to make certain decisions as F1 is more than just the driver with hundreds of employees in the background, I also think the teams are under a moral obligation to the sport and its fans not to go too far with some decisions, namely then when it puts the team above the sport as a whole. It's a fine line for sure, one that needs to be tread carefully.

[Andres125sx]

I think the situation is more complicated than that; I think Ferrari tends to favor one driver more so than the other; It was the case back when Schumacher was their prince, then Alonso (together with the huge financial backing of Santander that he brought along), and now it seems to be Vettel

Ferrari only favour one of his drivers when the second lost his title oportunities. Fact. If you disagree show me some evidence. Mine is in that same season, Massa finished 3rd with Alonso 4th less than 2 seconds behind in the second race, and nobody asked him to let Alonso pass him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Aust ... Grand_Prix

While this isn't wrong, it can be detrimental to a drivers confidence. And I'm quite confident that Massa is a driver that suffered from all the Alonso-loving at Ferrari, and was also dealing with his accident and comeback from 2009 (as well as perhaps the loss of the championship in 2008). The win that was taken away from him must have been a painful experience, not only because it marked the race after exactly a year after his horrific accident, but it was one of the first signs that he could very well be competitive against Alonso.

If first signs that he could very well be competitive against Alonso come at half of the season, when he´s 78 point down the leader, sorry but that´s too late, way too late actually.

Try again next season, but from first GP please.

That win being taken away, wasn't only a win stripped away; it was more importantly a hard-realization that Alonso was the team-favorite and that the team would stop at nothing to make sure that their WDC leader (at that point, by a measly ~30 points only) would finish ahead of him if it was in the teams control, irregardless if he can beat him fair and square on track.

As proven, no, they only did that when Massa had effectively lost his chances to fight for the title. Saying he only was 30 points behind is showing only half of the picture. This was the WDC standing at that point

1st Hamilton 145 points
.
.
5th Alonso 98 points (-47)
.
.
8th Massa 67 points (-78)

So yes, he only was 31 points behind, but he had less than a half the championship leader points, and was more than 3 races behind . OTOH Alonso was also quite far, but still less than 2 races behind, so they did the only reasonable thing to do, put all the efforts on the only chance they had to fight for the championship.

And they did it great, because Alonso was the favourite to win the title before the last race of the season thanks to that decision =D>

If you don't believe me - just read this piece by Joe Saward at the time about the importance of that stripped win:

https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2010/07 ... -the-road/

Nice read, but biased from a fan point of view.

Ask any team if they prefer to win in defeat or lose in victory, or about moral obligations, or about moral of winning this way or the other... You know what will happen right? Some good laughts.

F1 is about winning, that´s all. If Massa was affected by that decision it was only HIS responsability. If he wouldn´t have been 78 points behind the leader, that decisions would have never been taken. It was his poor perfomance what caused it, nothing more, nothing less.

Same with Barrichello, same with Raikonnen. It could be they underperformed, or it could be they had too strong team mates (Schumacher, Alonso and Vettel, none other!), but it actually doesn´t matter, their perfomance was clearly lower than his team mate so they put #2 on their cars theirselves

This is F1, not some sort of moral support group, if you can´t cope with this you´re in the wrong place

[Phil]

I sincerely disagree. Which is why IMO, I'm glad Vettel won the championship in 2010 (I was actually rooting for Webber). And 2012 to a degree. Because from my eyes, Ferrari had put their weight in one basket and was effectively a one-man team vs. RedBull and McLaren that weren't. Both RedBull drivers were taking points off each other. Any fan can be thankful that this was the case; if they had done the same as Ferrari (well on the same level and as ruthless), Vettel had already been champion 2/3rds throughout the season and then no one would have cared what Ferrari did in Hockenheim because the WDC would have been effectively over. Yet because they didn't, Hockenheim became a topic. Or just imagine if McLaren had done what Ferrari did; The McLarens in 2010 had 3 wins each (if I'm not mistaken), if those had all gone to one driver, it's likely a McLaren would have won the WDC that year.

As I said, if every team played like that, the fans would be upset and it would be damaging for the sport. Right now, it's a more of a non-issue since it only seems to be Ferrari who is doing it.

Trust me, I'm pissed that Hamilton didn't get more support in 2007, as I'm sure are Alonso fans throughout the same year. While I wouldn't have wanted to see team-orders switching around drivers, I do think the team massively stuffed up in handling their drivers in getting the best out of them. That year should have seen a McLaren victor, period. But seeing how Hamilton was gloomy on the podium 2013 Malaysia, I'm quite confident there are drivers who want to win through their own ability, not the teams favoritism. Anything other than is a shallow victory, and even if some drivers will never admit to it, they will know it.

Also, about the points at Hockenheim 2010:

1st Hamilton 145 points
5th Alonso 98 points (-47)
8th Massa 67 points (-78)

While this is true; neither of these 3 drivers won it. Because as the season progressed, it showed nicely that *anything* can happen. 3 races before the final race, Webber was in the lead. And to cause such bad PR by switching their drivers to gain what - 7 points? No way. It's a pitty that down to the last race; everyone had forgotten about those 7 points that Alonso benefited from purely through the team order at Hockenheim.

Personally, I think we're only having this discussion because it's precisely only one team (Ferrari) who is engaging in public favoritism [and Ferrari of new has become a lot better in that regard]. If all teams were doing it, people would gain a better understanding why this is bad for the sport. I'm actually willing to predict, if this was the case, no one besides Hamilton fans would be watching F1 right now.

[Andres125sx]

Phil, I usually agree with you, but here I can´t

First, you´re assuming, for example, that Alonso won Hockenheim because of the TOs, as if he was unable to overtake Massa himself.

We all know it´s very difficult to overtake in F1, but that order came because of a previous order, be careful with your team mate, do not risk crashing each other. That´s something obvious to me, you can´t risk your drivers crashing each other, that´s completely absurd and embarrasing. So to overtake Massa he needed to be allowed to fight, what was NOT the case. With completely free drivers, he would have overtaken, IMO, with a probability of 70% more or less, and a 30% probability to see a Turkey 10 scenario, but this time with both Ferraris crashing each other instead of the RBs

So yes, Massa was forced to be overtaken, but previously Alonso was forced to not attack It works both ways Phil. Alonso was much much faster than Massa, but this is F1, if it´s difficult to overtake imagine if your team does not allow you to attack your team mate. Imposible. That´s the reason for Hockenheim TO, not any special favouritism. It´s not fair to force one of your drivers to get stuck behind the other because he´s not allowed to assume any risk overtaking. Massa took it bad? Solution is pretty simple, be faster. If Alonso wouldn´t be faster than him, he would have never receive that TO. IMHO it´s a lot more fair to let the faster driver pass. That or allow them to fight for position, but if the team does not want to risk a double DNF, the most fair thing to do is let the faster driver pass.


Second, you said only Ferrari do this things. Are you serious Phil?

Williams: "Bottas, overtake only if you can do it without any risk". That´s a TO wich do not allow a fair fight
Mercedes: "Keep the gap". TO wich do not allow a fair fight
McLaren: check 2008 season, that actually in the ONLY case I know when a team has provided TOs before any driver was discarded for the title fight. Kova was forced to let Hamilton pass in first races of the season, something no team has ever done before
Red Bull: "Multi 21" (what IMO proves Multi 12 was ordered previously) TO wich do not allow a fair fight

EVERY team has provided TOs that do not allow a fair fight Phil, not only Ferrari, that´s a myth like saying McLaren never provide TO´s, ask Kovalainen...

Red Bull allowed their driver to fight because they had the best car, same as Mercedes today, they can enjoy that luxury. And even so they´ve provided TOs more than once. But when your car is around half a second slower (F10), if you want to have some chance to win the title, you can´t enjoy that sort of luxury. You said if RB would have done the same they´d have win the title 2/3rds throughout the season, and that´s right...But what if Ferrari wouldn´t have maximized their chances with Alonso? The same, we wouldn´t have seen that awesome fight, specially in 2012, so TO can ruin the spectacle, or provide spectacle, this also work both ways.


About the outcome of 2010 season, sorry but saying that TO was useless because they finally didn´t win the championship is opportunist. They were the favourites before last race, something wich was unimaginable at Hockenheim when they were 47 points down. They didn´t win because Alonso got stuck behind a car with better traction and top speed so he couldn´t overtake, and because Ferrari did it all wrong copying Webber strategy, but they were fighting for the title in the last race thanks to that decision. Yes, 7 points are that important, two seasons after they lost another title because of 3 points, imagine how important are 7


And I´ll avoid replying about 2007 and the supposed lack of favouritism with Hamilton, because that really hurt me Phil, lack of favouritism? OMG...

[Phil]

I think you didn't understand me correctly Andres; I'm not putting all team-orders into a single buckets. There's a clear distinction that I am making:

Team-Orders that...
1.) avoid team-mates holding each other up on different strategies
2.) are pre-discussed and for the good of the team and the drivers; E.g.: to hold station and 'bring it home'
3.) are purely for the WDCs/teams benefit and include swapping around drivers, irregardless which driver is faster; E.g.: artificially altering the result

There are probably more, but those are the 3 main differentiations *I am* making. It's hard to put those orders into context and apply them to every situation because most often, every situation and circumstance is different. For example; the 2008 example you brought up was during the "re-fueling" era; so I'm quite certain that McLaren team-order was nothing more but explained that the lighter-car (Hamilton) was stuck behind their own heavier-longer-stint-car (Kovalainen) and to have their drivers hold each other up would be daft if both are on differing strategies. So I'm happy to ignore that one.

Multi 21 was one that most obviously had some pre-race agreement; like that the drivers are to race each other up to the last stop. The multi 21 order was also, as I remember, down to the team not wanting their drivers to damage both their races by engaging in a self-destructive battle that would see them lose more positions and points to the opposition. This happens not only in Turkey-2010-situations, but also when drivers both drive more aggressively; the leading car by driving defensive (and thus losing time) and the following car by driving in the others dirty air. This can lead to a situation where the cars behind might catch up and make both battling cars vulnerable to an attack, undercut etc. So a team might ask both their drivers to hold station and bring it home. This IMO makes sense when the threat from behind is real and when both drivers have a similar pace. On Multi 21; I feel the team had good enough reasons to ask this of their drivers and I find this sort of "team-order" a lot less damaging than what Ferrari have been doing time and time again.

No, they weren't the only ones, but they've always been the most obvious, the ones with a very clear number 1 driver and number 2. Lets also not forget that Ferrari is also the only team to have ordered one of their drivers to enable the other one to slip-stream on the straights to gain a top-speed and thus lap-time advantage. For the life of me I can't ever recall any other team going these lengths to gain such an advantage. Strategic brilliance? Maybe. But what if all teams did that? Then we'd only be interested in half of the grid, because the "no. 2s" don't matter. Which again, is damaging to the sport.

I stand firm that Ferrari gets away with it (or used to), because they are the only ones that went to these lengths. And because they've been the underdog in the last 10 seasons with the "cheating RedBull with flexy wings and what not" pulling away etc. And maybe because they are Ferrari with perhaps the largest following of any F1 team. And because Alonso is TEH BEST111, so of course it's only logical to have the team favor him and role the red carpet for him... [/exaggerating-mode-end]

And back to the Massa/Alonso in Hockenheim situation: I think the blog post I just linked to posts further up by Joe Saward pretty much refutes your claim that Alonso was that much quicker. He wasn't. Anyway, it's a moot point anyway - Ferrari put their weight behind Alonso and as a result Massa never found back to his self there anymore. As a result, their politics cost Ferrari way more than just the WDC (which they hadn't won anyway, fair or not), but probably substantial money here and there since he underperformed and lost the team more points in the end than if he had performed stronger. What goes around comes around. Despite that, perhaps due to feeling guilty, they kept him on the team for much longer than they perhaps should have until they finally pulled the plug on him.

Anyway, I guess I agree that a team is the employer, so they are within their rights to do and run the team as they see fit. This is a competition though, and one that is driven by the majority of fans following the drivers, the WDC and not specifically the teams. Which is why we have a seperate WDC and WCC championship. So IMO - there must be certain lines that shouldn't be crossed where team-orders are concerned. I'm fine by teams telling drivers to hold station if it was for their own good [the drivers good], but here too; it's a fine line that needs to be tread carefully. Swapping drivers around, or ordering one to move over so that a driver that isn't fast enough to complete the move himself can get by and while they are on the same strategy, battling each other for track position and WDC points? Not a chance in hell (IMO). The only exception I see is if perhaps it was down to the last race and detrimental to the WDC vs the contender another team, but there too, it's a very fine line. For example; I wouldn't want to see a last race unfold in a way that would see a driver artificially having to slow down immensely just to allow his (slower) team-mate-but-WDC-contender to get past and gain the points to win over the other driver who is racing without the aid of his team or team-mate. As I said, it's a fine line. Better just to ban team-orders for good - or better; as per my above suggestion, allow it (since it can't be banned effectively) but limit the means of how a team can communicate with their driver. If all they could do is send morse code or predetermined signals / number codes for predetermined messages, you could easily limit if and how team-orders can influence and artificially alter race results. Or ditch the second cars and run single car teams.

[Andres125sx]

Phil, IMHO you don´t like Ferrari, and you see TOs very different if they come from Ferrari or from any other team. Let me show you the reason I´m saying this:

First thing IMO you´re not fair about Ferrari, different opinion depending on the team providing TOs:

For example; the 2008 example you brought up was during the "re-fueling" era; so I'm quite certain that McLaren team-order was nothing more but explained that the lighter-car (Hamilton) was stuck behind their own heavier-longer-stint-car (Kovalainen) and to have their drivers hold each other up would be daft if both are on differing strategies. So I'm happy to ignore that one.

[...]

The multi 21 order was also, as I remember, down to the team not wanting their drivers to damage both their races by engaging in a self-destructive battle that would see them lose more positions and points to the opposition. This happens not only in Turkey-2010-situations, but also when drivers both drive more aggressively; the leading car by driving defensive (and thus losing time) and the following car by driving in the others dirty air. This can lead to a situation where the cars behind might catch up and make both battling cars vulnerable to an attack

So if it´s McLaren or Red Bull who provide TOs to preserve their postions, that´s fine, but if it´s Ferrari who do the same because Vettel was catching up, then that´s not ok.

Hockenheim 2010 results

1st- Alonso
2nd- Massa +4.196
3th- Vettel +0.925

If they´d have engage on a self-destructive battle as you say, with Alonso attacking and Massa defending with both loosing time, Vettel would have catch them up even sooner than he did with Massa, so their positions and victory would have been vulnerable. Exactly the same Red Bull and McLaren did but then you justified them.

Second thing IMO you´re not fair about Ferrari, assuming a myth wich is not true:

No, they weren't the only ones, but they've always been the most obvious, the ones with a very clear number 1 driver and number 2.

As I previously explained and posted race results to prove, that´s not true, they only have number 1 and 2 when number 2 is out of the fight for the championship. You can check 2010 results below to confirm Massa beated Alonso three times before Germany. Ferrari never provide TOs when both drivers can fight for the championship. Fact.

Actually only signing two World Champions should discard this myth, thinking Ferrari will pay around $20Millions to someone to be #2 IMHO is absurd

Third one, reinterpreting facts:

Lets also not forget that Ferrari is also the only team to have ordered one of their drivers to enable the other one to slip-stream on the straights to gain a top-speed and thus lap-time advantage. For the life of me I can't ever recall any other team going these lengths to gain such an advantage.

Sorry phil, but that´s not what happened in Monza. It was not one of their drivers receiving the order to enable the other one to slip-stream on the straights, it was a team strategy they both did trying to minimize their qualifying disadvantage, performed by both drivers, not only one.

BTW, Alonso did it perfectly so Massa took advantage of the slip-stream, while Massa didn´t do it correctly and Alonso couldn´t take advantage of the slip-stream

Fourth one, taking as a proof someones´opinion:

And back to the Massa/Alonso in Hockenheim situation: I think the blog post I just linked to posts further up by Joe Saward pretty much refutes your claim that Alonso was that much quicker. He wasn't.

Sorry but no blog can change facts, no matter how argued it is. Massa was in front, Alonso behind, Alonso catched up Massa because he was faster, this is not only obvious but a must, if not then Massa would have maintained the gap. After the TOs Alonso moved away more than 4 seconds in very little laps. Another fact. How´s this posible if Alonso was not faster?

Fifth, assuming more unproved facts:

Anyway, it's a moot point anyway - Ferrari put their weight behind Alonso and as a result Massa never found back to his self there anymore.

2010 season:

GP: Alonso-Massa

Bahrein: 1-2
Australia: 4-3
Malaysia: dnf-7
China: 4-9
Spain: 2-6
Monaco: 6-4
Turkey: 8-7
Canada: 3-15
Valencia: 8-11
UK: 14-15 (Alonso penalized because of Kubica´s overtaking)
Germany: 1-2
Hungary: 2-4
Belgium: dnf-4
Italy: 1-3
Singapore: 1-8
Japan: 3-dnf
Korea: 1-3
Brazil: 5-9
Abu Dhabi: 7-10

So Massa did 2 podiums before Hockenheim, and 2 podiums after Hockenheim. Missed points 2 times before and 1 time after. Considering there was 10 races before and 8 after, I can´t see that supposed lack of confidence after Germany... To the the results are pretty consistent before and after Germany.

IMHO there are many people trying to convide public opinion about Ferrari being the team providing most team orders, and the most unfair, also using the absurd argument of how affected Massa is because of this...

May someone show me some proof about this? Because I can´t find anything

Despite that, perhaps due to feeling guilty, they kept him on the team for much longer than they perhaps should have until they finally pulled the plug on him.

More assumptions to support your pov.

Maybe they should have signed Kimi much sooner, he did it much better compared to Massa, didn´t he? Oh wait...


It´s easier for the public opinion to assume Massa was affected by that single TO (one in four years!!) and he never was the same again...

Sorry but no, I know coming from someone who support Alonso this looks biased, but reality is what it is, Alonso is so good his team mates always looks like underperforming, it is this simple. But many people who will never accept this will look for any weird reasoning he can find... it´s all due to TOs... a profesional driver being morally affected by a single TO... he was affected by an accident he can´t remind... a World Champion who can´t drive a car because it´s not up to his liking...

All this weird things have the same answer, and a lot more reasonable, his team mate is Alonso.

And Ferrari provide same TOs as any other team. Actually I´ve seen more TOs from many other teams (Red Bull and Mercedes) than from Ferrari, probably because Ferrari drivers have not been togheter in race too often, but it´s Ferrari the only one to be blamed about TOs because that´s what happened some decades ago... and some people will not need to accept Alonso has been whipping the floor with all his team mates

IMO these are the reasons you´re not fair at all with Ferrari, not saying that you don´t accept how good is Alonso, but you take advantage of the excuses these people use to blame a team you don´t like. And I´ve provided 5 points to support it, not a bold statement.

[Mr. Fahrenheit]

Fascinating that this debate should light up after the Silverstone weekend, one where positive team-orders would have given us - "the fans" - more of a race. I truly hope there wasn't too much sentimentality clogging up the brain-pipes on the Williams' pit-wall... "Felipe, Valteri is faster than you", would have been brutal to hear but it'd have offered a race where the two Mercedes didn't just vanish at the first opportunity.