Vettel was going to sue after "multi 21"

[Phil]

Andres, we're really spinning in circles here (and getting off-topic too btw). Fine, perhaps the Ferrari team-orders were exaggerated to some degree (I actually even hinted as much in the post). We don't have to go overboard about the 2010 results. I get it. I know why team-orders are used. You don't need to explain to me what is highly obvious. Still doesn't change the fact that I think it's wrong for the sport, as the spectators, who are essential to it even existing, are by a big majority fans of drivers first and only second to the team they are driving. Without the fans, you don't have spectators and with that a lot of revenue that the sport lives off goes out the window. So while the drivers are employees of their respective teams, the teams are living off the sport as a whole.

As I already said; if every team was employing team-orders to better the chances of one of their drivers, then this whole discussion would be sounding quite different. We should be all thankful that Mercedes (by reasons of PR and image) is letting their two drivers battle it out.

I'll say it again; some team-orders are borderline okay, some less, some more. It depends on context, hence why I'll come back to my last paragraph. I think if you re-read my post without concentrating too hard about that Hockenheim race and Massa, you'll see which team-orders I have a problem with. It's a fine line.


PS: About Hockenheim with Alonso being faster: Why are you asking me questions that are answered quite clearly in the blog I linked? Faster or not - I really couldn't care less, I think it was as wrong to issue those team-orders as it would have been for Williams to order Massa to wave by Bottas at Silverstone 2015.

[ChrisM40]

I seriously doubt the Mercs wouldnt have been 1-2 even if there were Williams team orders. At best Williams would have been 3 and 4 and even thats a stretch.

[Andres125sx]

So a team order that do not allow the faster driver fighting for victory is ok (multi 21), but a TO to let the faster driver passing is not ok (If williams force Massa to let pass Bottas)?

Sorry but to me that makes no sense at all

[Phil]

I didn't say Multi 21 was okay. I said it wasn't okay that Vettel used that as a means to pass Webber. In hindsight; no team-orders would have been better and let both drivers dice it out. But having the choice, I think telling your drivers to keep station (in order to avoid them both self-destructing their race) is the lesser of two evils than outright ordering one driver to wave the other passed after he could not get by himself. It's even worse if one driver needs to wave past another if he is quicker (Rubens?).

It's easier to argue "Driver A just wasn't quick enough [due to dirty air and all] to get passed Driver B", then to explain to the public why "Driver A who ended up ahead by terrific racing should give up his right to fight for his position so that Driver B can gain 7 points that may or may not be detrimental 9 races later".

The other question that is of interest, is how much should team-orders count when it's about a win or just a podium, or a points finish? I'd argue team-orders used to alter race wins to be worse, because winning in F1 is something special. It's called Grand Prix for a reason.

[FW17]

I think it is being looked at it out of context

1) Vettel clearly said that Weber did not deserve the benefit of that team order after what happened in 2012. Honest answer but since Vettel said it he is being crucified for it. Had Weber said the same he would have been awarded the sportsperson of the year by the bbc, sky, joe and james

2) Weber honestly thought he was in the lead because of what he had done through the race; Vettel thought he was 2nd because of pit strategy which was not favorable; so why should Weber have the benefit of a team order?

[ME4ME]

Weber

[Andres125sx]

It's easier to argue "Driver A just wasn't quick enough [due to dirty air and all] to get passed Driver B"

... when the team has specifically said they can´t fight each other

That´s my point, that´s a team order to compensate a previous team order. We´re not talking about a battle between two drivers who are free to attack as much as they want/can, and then the team force one of them to let pass the other one. That´s not the case Phil.

The sitation here is there are two drivers who are NOT free to attack each other, they have received a team order to not be aggresive with his team mate, so race result is modified because the faster driver is not allowed to try an overtake. Then the team, for fairness, provide a second team order to let the fastest driver pass. In this situation we fans only hear the second TO (let him pass) so everybody blames the team for that, but that´s the most fair thing to do.


I´d prefer no team orders at all, but since most teams do not allow their drivers to attack each other, when they find each other on the track the only fair thing to do is let the fastest one pass.

IMO obviously.

[Moxie]

One solution to this debate is single car teams. This will force the WDC will go hand in hand with WCC, barring mid season driver changes. Of course this solution is very unlikely, but it certainly put an end to this endless debate.

[ChrisF1]

Let's just put a Rossi-Lorenzo wall between the drivers and keep the info separate

[Webber2011]

I'm a huge Webber fan and have been since his days racing FF back home in Australia.

I'm sure he's not imagining the fact that Seb was favoured, but it's a bit hypocritical to complain about multi 21 when he had ignored team orders in the past.

The thing I find interesting is the whole contract situation and lawyers being called in.

I've got no legal experience but would that be because he had a clear #1 status written into it ?
Or would a "normal" contract give the lawyers reason to dispute team orders ?

[Andres125sx]

I think it is being looked at it out of context

1) Vettel clearly said that Weber did not deserve the benefit of that team order after what happened in 2012. Honest answer but since Vettel said it he is being crucified for it.

To judge if that´s a honest answer, or a biased excuse, we first should know how many TOs did Webber obey

It´s not the same if he ignored the only team order he has received, than if he´s followed 95% of the TOs he has received and only ignored one or two.


I´d say Webber have received a lot more TOs than Seb

[Phil]

I think it is being looked at it out of context

1) Vettel clearly said that Weber did not deserve the benefit of that team order after what happened in 2012. Honest answer but since Vettel said it he is being crucified for it. Had Weber said the same he would have been awarded the sportsperson of the year by the bbc, sky, joe and james

2) Weber honestly thought he was in the lead because of what he had done through the race; Vettel thought he was 2nd because of pit strategy which was not favorable; so why should Weber have the benefit of a team order?

This is true. But I'd argue that 2012 was a complex year, not just the Brazil race. And there was probably a lot more going on that already started way back in 2010, namely Silverstone with the wing, then the famous coming together in Turkey and what felt like a clear lack of support towards the end of the year when Webber was leading the intra team-battle with a 7 points lead over Vettel and was Alonso as the WDC leader. I'd argue that Webber was not happy at all with whatever politics were playing a role at RedBull - and the fact that the rivalry between those two had reached rock bottom a long time ago. I'm also going to stress that we have no evidence what kind of team-orders were issued at Brazil 2012; the 'battle' on track was in the beginning stages of the GP (right after the start), so to some point, you can argue that it was hectic phase and anything can happen. It's not like he shunted Vettel off the track, though he didn't wave him passed either. We also don't know what 'orders' were issued before the race and if Webber, as direct and honest as he usually is, simply refused them openly or not.

It's not much different than what Hamilton and Rosberg went through leading up from Monaco to Spa 2014. The difference about Multi21 is that the team made a decision that the drivers should hold station to save-fuel and tires; one driver followed that order, the other used it as an advantage to then pass. Webber from his point, IMO rightly, is mad at the team because Vettel ignored a direct team order and as a result made him vulnerable - something that could have been avoided if the team had not issued the team-order in the first place and both would have been aware that it's a gloves-off battle to the flag. If then Webber had been beaten by Vettel, it would have been a 'okay, fair enough, you beat me fair and square' rather than 'gained an advantage by ignoring a clear team-order'. Webber's fury wasn't only directed at Vettel, it was also directed at the team for 1.) shafting him once again 2.) not taking appropriate measures against Vettel for using the situation to his advantage.

Now, as per my above posts; I don't necessarily agree with Multi21. I am willing to accept that the team issued it, not to upset their drivers, but because they were looking at the big picture from the data they had, and the unpredictability that some races have, especially at the beginning of a season when teams are still figuring out the exact impact of tire wear and other influences. They didn't do it for favoritism, or politics. They felt the drivers had an honest chance to fight for the lead and one of them came out on top - and in order to preserve the important team-result and win, felt it would be best to bring the cars home. On the podium, Webber explicitly said he would have preferred to fight but had followed the order not to, which cost him the win.

A good example of a very similar situation in the same race: Mercedes ordered their drivers to hold station too, after Nico had already tried to pass Hamilton and make the move stick. He then asked the team to "let him by" - trying to say that he could challenge the RedBulls, but Ross maintained that position should be held, "because Lewis could drive faster too, but was ordered to dial it down to preserve the important podium & team-result" -> implying that if Lewis were to drive at the pace he could, Rosberg perhaps wouldn't be the 'quicker' one and the resulting battle between the both of them would only result in the tires perhaps going off and neither car achieving the podium.

[FW17]

At this point I would like to point out the Anglo bias in the paddock and race control

MW after the chequered flag cut across SV with such violence, his rear missing the front by mere inches and massive difference in speed. This case of rage was not investigated or reprimanded. WHY?

Hamilton Maldanado incident in Spa was a equal to a baby tripping when compared to this one.

[Emmcee]

I think it is being looked at it out of context

1) Vettel clearly said that Weber did not deserve the benefit of that team order after what happened in 2012. Honest answer but since Vettel said it he is being crucified for it. Had Weber said the same he would have been awarded the sportsperson of the year by the bbc, sky, joe and james

2) Weber honestly thought he was in the lead because of what he had done through the race; Vettel thought he was 2nd because of pit strategy which was not favorable; so why should Weber have the benefit of a team order?

Everyone seems to forget that all this started with seb and webber colliding in turkey and webber getting the blame for just taking his natural line out of the corner and slightly defending. If roles were reversed, seb would have defended ten times more harder and to make matters worse, marko backs seb, now anyone with common f1 knowledge would know that it was all sebs fault on that occasion. Then to add fuel to the fire a new wing is developed for silverstone and goes straight to Vettel even though mark was the main man in hunt for the title at the time. Heck if I was hard done by like that I would feel recentful to help Vettel at any point. But people fail to see that and only see mark not obeying team orders in 2012. How many times was seb asked if he would help mark towards the end of 2010? More times than I can remember and all he said was "we will see what happens" he already had his own agenda and wants to cry foul after mark doesn't help him. 2013 in Malaysia prooved to me that seb only cares about himself and no one else, mark was faster through majority of that race aswell. Mark did as he was told and turned down the rpm and seb went at him like an animal going after wounded prey.

[Emmcee]

At this point I would like to point out the Anglo bias in the paddock and race control

MW after the chequered flag cut across SV with such violence, his rear missing the front by mere inches and massive difference in speed. This case of rage was not investigated or reprimanded. WHY?

Hamilton Maldanado incident in Spa was a equal to a baby tripping when compared to this one.

Yeah I see where your coming from and this prooves the sport is more worried over its public image than safety. They probably didnt want to stir the pot anymore but fair point you made there.