Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
Michael Schumacher wrote:I have been criticised in the past for exactly that and I have to say that I would do exactly the same if I was in their situation. At the end of the day, what are we here for? It's fighting for a championship and there is only one that can win it.
By the end of the year, if you think you would have lost the championship for exactly that point you will ask yourself, all the fans, the television, the journalists, why didn't you do so?
If you go back to other years, other teams and other situations, in the last race there were clear team orders and everybody accepts those. Whether it's the last race, second last race or even earlier, what's the point?
I can see that in the years when we did it, because we were leading so much, that people thought it was unnecessary and I can agree on that one in a way.
But in principle I cannot. I agree with what's going on. You have to do it in a way that is nice and maybe not too obvious - make it a nice fight. But there's only one target, and that's winning the championship.
Rubens Barrichello wrote:I just think that we should do something to stop this thing, because at the end of the day, it could get into a bit of drama here. When you are racing, you want to beat the other one, but I wouldn’t feel nice, I wouldn’t feel good if you tell me ‘I’ll give you this which makes you faster than the other one’ and then you win. I don’t like that, I never did and that’s why I had to make changes in my life and that’s why I changed teams and that’s why I moved on.
So I think it’s in the hands of the top people to change that because you should be allowed to race. What’s the problem? If you don’t win the championship by one point, so be it. You had your chance, you had to go, and then you win the championship by one point because somebody let you win? What’s the point? That’s my view.
If I have to be a bad guy to be World Champion, I don’t care for that. I will teach my boys the same way my father taught me and I’m happy with that.
Hooray for Rubens! (Sorry I initially attributed the quote to Massa.)
Last edited by jonathan189 on 29 Jul 2010, 19:34, edited 1 time in total.
If Rubens was so annoyed by the team orders at Ferrari in 2002, and since he actually says in that quote that this was why he moved on and changed teams why did it take him 4 bloody years to do that?
Money perhaps?
The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. H.P.Lovecraft
andartop wrote:If Rubens was so annoyed by the team orders at Ferrari in 2002, and since he actually says in that quote that this was why he moved on and changed teams why did it take him 4 bloody years to do that?
Money perhaps?
Or perhaps, as unbelievable as this may seem, to help his career. I don't think Rubens would have won any more races than he did in Ferrari from 2003 to 2005. Yes, he was the second driver and yes, he had to beat Michael Schumacher in the same car. But how many drivers won more races than he did in that period? Off the top of my head, only Montoya, Alonso and Kimi. And these two only in 2005.
I am not amazed by F1 cars in Monaco. I want to see them driving in the A8 highway: Variable radius corners, negative banking, and extreme narrowings that Tilke has never dreamed off. Oh, yes, and "beautiful" weather tops it all.
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future." Niels Bohr
Fair enough. So, he either did it for the money or the fame. Now, how do we call people who conveniently oversee their "moral values" for their personal interest?
The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. H.P.Lovecraft
andartop wrote:Fair enough. So, he either did it for the money or the fame. Now, how do we call people who conveniently oversee their "moral values" for their personal interest?
Bankers? Politicians? Unionists?
I am not amazed by F1 cars in Monaco. I want to see them driving in the A8 highway: Variable radius corners, negative banking, and extreme narrowings that Tilke has never dreamed off. Oh, yes, and "beautiful" weather tops it all.
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future." Niels Bohr
I'm with Rubens on this one. I see in much the same way as an exam - if the only way to pass is to look across at someone else's paper and then you just pass the exam by one mark then you haven't really passed. You've cheated. Not an exact analogy of course but it's get the general idea across.
Team orders are a reality and many titles are in the bag because of them over the years but it always seems a little bit of a shame that it has had to be that way.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.
Although I never shared Schumi's views on sportsmanship, he's got a point on this one. If your team mate is a team mate and not an opponent he'll what's best for the team. Teams that stage dogfights between their drivers don't win much.
Of course as a driver you'd want to win by beating everyone, including your team mate. But no team owner with a hint of reason would let the second driver hinder the team result. When both drivers are equal and have pretty similar chance to win WDC (like at Red Bull) then it's another matter.
ajams wrote:
myurr wrote:
ajams wrote:I know who I'd rather have driving for me.
Yup on current form it's Rubens without a doubt
Ha, yeah that did occur to me just after I posted it...
I think it depends on the season, the car and the drivers. Lets see:
*At the time Rubens and Michael where at Ferrari, I agree with Michael, even the part he says "I can see that in the years when we did it, because we were leading so much, that people thought it was unnecessary and I can agree on that one in a way."
*When Senna and Berger where at McLaren in 1991, Berger helped Senna in Spa. At that times there were no problems with that, as Berger was clearly slower and the Williams were the guys to beat.
*Of course that in the Senna-Prost battles, as a team manager you could only seat and watch. There would never be 2nd driver in those conditions.
*In 1998 Coulthard was helping Mika and it was not controversial, although it was the first race and David was not that slow compared to Mika...
*Williams 1986, Piquet and Mansell killing themselves to favour Prost... but what you could do there? They were both too competitive.
*Brawn GP 2009, Jenson was clearly the one to bet for. Rubens had good races but he is unstable and Brawn did the right thing using strategies to help Jens.
*2010 and the RedBull dilema: god help Horner. Everyone thought that Vettel would lead easily, but Webber is fighting hard there.
*2010 McLaren? I would like to see what happens if both drivers remain up in the champ standings together with one of the Red Bulls or Alonso. Damn, I also would like to see what happens if Hamilton stops scoring points and he has to favour Jenson at the final races.
See: sometimes you have to apply team orders and sometimes you have not... or you can not. That easy. Maquiavelo is the key to the win.
"You need great passion, because everything you do with great pleasure, you do well." -Juan Manuel Fangio
"I have no idols. I admire work, dedication and competence." -Ayrton Senna
I see what Barrichello's point, but I think it is also self serving in some ways.
The question we have to ask ourselves is this. In each case where a clear pecking order (ie. a #1 driver) exists at a team what determines outcomes? There are two hypotheses:
1. The #1 driver earns this position because he is clearly the faster of the two in the earlier stages of the championship. In rare instances where the #2 driver is in a position to assist the #1 driver he does so because its what's best for the team.
2. A driver is given unconditional #1 status. Such a driver need not prove their superiority in the early stages of the championship, and thus always enjoy an advantage over the #2 driver.
The question is which of these two circumstances existed at Ferrari during MS's reign? Was Michael #1 because he was faster, or was he faster because he was number #1? In reality it was probably a combination of the two, but I tend to think it was more of the former.
However this is why I have a problem with the ban on team orders. What’s wrong with teams having a clear, and concise policy that says they will treat their drivers as follows:
1. At the onset of the Championship both drivers receive identical treatment, where neither is favored or given precedence.
2. Define the point in the season, where if necessary*, you will begin to give one driver precedence over the other.
3. Define the criteria needed to receive #1 status. If drivers are very close it doesn't make sense to support one over the other as there positions can very easily change from race to race.
4. Objectively adhere to your guidelines.
While I'm probably simplifying the issue, I think this is a more realistic way to solve this dilemma. If teams are open and honest about this issue then it becomes transparent to the drivers and the fans. The end result is that no one can complain or cry foul.
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so" - Mark Twain
