Team Orders/#1 driver - The only way to win championships

[donskar]

Of c'mon "FIA deemed them legal". Organization that had "concentration camp sex games make me horny" nazi pervert on top (the one that succeeded ex-French Waffen SS volunteer on top) currently with ex-Ferrari team boss on top.

How legitimate and unbiased that must be! Why would anyone respect decisions of some self proclaimed interest group that has no moral and authority at all?

Feel better now? Venting is healthy, but if you want to add something of substance, try disengaging your emotion before you post.

[donskar]

Brawn - No orders, WDC and WCC winners.
Mclaren - No team orders, many championships.
Williams - No team orders, some championships.
Ferrari - Team orders, and many hollow feeling championships.

You are wrong about Mclaren. I believe you are wrong about Williams (someone else posted a link, but I'm at work and our Internet access is severely limited so I can not follow that link).

And Ferrari has many "hollow feeling" championships? Well, you are entitled to your opinion . . . But here's a fact -- not an opinion: team orders in F1 go back to the very beginning of the sport.

[mx_tifoso]

And in fact Brawn did use team orders. They screwed Barrichello over when they made him pit an extra time to give Button the lead or a position, don't remember which.

Everyone uses team orders, especially at the top. Don't be naive people.

[Miguel]

And in fact Brawn did use team orders. They screwed Barrichello over when they made him pit an extra time to give Button the lead or a position, don't remember which.

Everyone uses team orders, especially at the top. Don't be naive people.

That was in Barcelona, mx_tifosi. The strategy they used for Rubens in the Nürburgring was also far from ideal.

[Giblet]

You are wrong about Mclaren. I believe you are wrong about Williams

Senna beat Prost when both had the exact same car, so no, not wrong.

Villeneuve beat Hill, fair and square, identical equipment.

Why am I wrong that these two teams have given their drivers equal opportunity?

Kovy told us all how he had lesser equipment than Hamilton, which was true, but he was also obviously slower and kept driving straight off the track on the first lap.

And these hollow Ferrari WDC's, like I had said, is my opinion but is shared by many other people beside myself.

I've told why I am not wrong, you just said 'wrong'.

[andartop]

Kovy told us all how he had lesser equipment than Hamilton, which was true, but he was also obviously slower and kept driving straight off the track on the first lap.

Well, Rubens was also slower than Schumi, as Massa was slower this year than Alonso. Wasn't it Kovy who took a Torro Rosso out of the race while trying too hard to get out of the way of McLaren's No 1 driver Lewis? And wasn't Coulthard referring to his McLaren days with Hakkinen when he was saying on BBC that he had to take team orders?
There you go, proven wrong.

[imightbewrong]

You are wrong about Mclaren. I believe you are wrong about Williams

Senna beat Prost when both had the exact same car, so no, not wrong.

Villeneuve beat Hill, fair and square, identical equipment.

Why am I wrong that these two teams have given their drivers equal opportunity?

Kovy told us all how he had lesser equipment than Hamilton, which was true, but he was also obviously slower and kept driving straight off the track on the first lap.

And these hollow Ferrari WDC's, like I had said, is my opinion but is shared by many other people beside myself.

I've told why I am not wrong, you just said 'wrong'.

Did you even read what i posted? Lets try again with quotes of the important parts.

Regarding Williams:

Such arrangements began to break down in the 1980s when Carlos Reutemann ignored team orders in Brazil and beat Williams World Champion Alan Jones. The team was split and Nelson Piquet pipped them both to the World Championship in the final race at Las Vegas. Thereafter Williams decided not to use team orders unless it was absolutely essential. In 1985 this resulted in Piquet and Nigel Mansell taking points from one another, which allowed Alain Prost to sneak ahead and win the title for McLaren. It was real sport but it hurt Williams.

At Monza in 1994 Williams used team orders to help Damon Hill's championship challenge, with David Coulthard moving out of the way for him and in Australia in 1996 Williams again imposed team orders with Jacques Villeneuve moving over to help Hill to win the race.

Regarding McLaren:

At the start of 1998 there was a furor in Melbourne when David Coulthard moved over to led Mika Hakkinen win. This caused the FIA to point out that "any act prejudicial to the interests of any competition" should in future be penalized severely. Later that year there was a clarification which said that there had been "considerable misunderstanding" about team orders and that they were not prohibited.

I know, these are way old. But to say that those teams haven't won with team orders is just plain absurd. Even in modern times we have the Heikki-Hamilton situation, no matter how slow Heikki was, he got older equipment and had to move over for Hamilton.

And wasn't it Williams that wrote a letter supporting Ferrari in court just a few months back? Yes it was.

[Mysticf1]

and in Australia in 1996 Williams again imposed team orders with Jacques Villeneuve moving over to help Hill to win the race.

Thats a touch inaccurate, Villeneuve moved over because of an oil leak, Hill's Williams was covered in Villeneuve's oil so its hard to dispute the reasoning...

i remember because i was there, i was also disappointed not to see Villeneuve be the first rookie to take pole and win in his first F1 race. Something the Villeneuve haters tend to forget. Williams/Newey superiority aside thats still quite a situation to be in first time out.

[imightbewrong]

and in Australia in 1996 Williams again imposed team orders with Jacques Villeneuve moving over to help Hill to win the race.

Thats a touch inaccurate, Villeneuve moved over because of an oil leak, Hill's Williams was covered in Villeneuve's oil so its hard to dispute the reasoning...

i remember because i was there, i was also disappointed not to see Villeneuve be the first rookie to take pole and win in his first F1 race. Something the Villeneuve haters tend to forget. Williams/Newey superiority aside thats still quite a situation to be in first time out.

Ok, did not know that. Thanks for correcting the article.

[lolzi]

I feel many of Schumachers championships, while completely legit, are slightly tarnished, and this opinion is not one I carry alone. The stats wont change, but it's not like he had Kimi or Alonso or Hamilton as a teammate. I would feel his titles would be equal to someone like Senna who had to beat the best in the game at the time in order to rise to the top.

No one is questioning other greats, statistically Schumacher is the most succesfull driver ever. This does not mean he is the best driver ever.
But it still doesnt take away from his achievemnt.

There are many if's and buts, Senna arguably would have won in 94, 95, and 96, making him a 6 time champ and Schumacher would have lost out to 2.
My opinion there, and I can accept others may think otherwise.

You have to commend Schumacher on being there, remaining hungry and smashing all f1 records. He was at the right place at the right time, but he was a reason for it. A perfect F1 storm. Team, Team boss, Driver and technical prowess all came together to achieve those amazing stats.

I prefer to call Schumacher F1's most succesful F1 driver, and Senna it's best.

I don't think it's clear-cut that he would have won in 94, but it would certainly have been possible. In 1995, however, I don't think it would be possible, even for Senna, to beat Schumacher in the Benetton. But if Senna had kept winning, I don't think he would have stopped after 96 - he could have won 97. That would make him 5 or 6 (depending on 94) times WDC, with Schumacher on 6 or 7.

[feni_remmen]

All these teams head into the championship with the same policy. That is to throw their weight behind the better performing driver as the championship progresses. This year it has been an easy decision for only 1 team, Ferrari.

At RedBull, Seb has generally been faster, but MW has been more consistent.
For McLaren, Lewis has been faster, but Jens has still been accumulating points. + he is the current WC.

If you look back through the history books (at least from the 70's), teams generally let things develop before imposing team orders, to do otherwise is fool hardy. This is why people were so appalled in 2002.

If Red Bull had put all it's eggs with Vettel at the beginning of this year, the only race where they could have imposed a result change was Monaco. So Seb gets an extra 7 points and MW loses 7. And if they had've swapped at Monaco, first of all they would have looked more foolish than Ferrari did in Germany + they would now have 2 drivers further away from Sweet FA. I am sure if Seb dominated MW, then this would be a no brainer for RedBull. Also much easier to impose orders if Webber was out qualifying Vettel.

Team orders should be allowed in Formula 1. It should be up to the teams, how and when they choose to impose them. And they should suffer the consequences (if any) of their decisions.

[zeph]

@ Zeph - Yes this is a multi billion dollar business, but it is still a -sport-, and believe it or not, many people in that sport are sportsmen, and place that value very high on the ladder.

Webber, an athlete and sportsman in many disciplines, would rather win a championship on his own mettle.

I am wholly supporting Webber's bid for the title this year for exactly those reasons. To me he embodies the spirit of sportsmanship.

But if you think that sponsors with billions of $$$ on the line are going to leave everything to chance, sorry mate, but that's just not how it works.

Alonso recently said (I actually think it was early this year) that F1 is not a sport but a spectacle, or something to that effect. He is pretty much in the middle of it.

Some five or maybe six years ago, a magazine (can't remember which) did a feature on the most powerful men in F1. Michael Schumacher was no.1, before Bernie Ecclestone on no.2: and BE owns the franchise!

[Rob01]

F1 will ALWAYS have team orders.. There is only ONE pit box. Until F1 issues both drivers a pitbox you will always have team orders.

[donskar]

You are wrong about Mclaren. I believe you are wrong about Williams

Senna beat Prost when both had the exact same car, so no, not wrong.

Villeneuve beat Hill, fair and square, identical equipment.

Why am I wrong that these two teams have given their drivers equal opportunity?

Kovy told us all how he had lesser equipment than Hamilton, which was true, but he was also obviously slower and kept driving straight off the track on the first lap.

And these hollow Ferrari WDC's, like I had said, is my opinion but is shared by many other people beside myself.

I've told why I am not wrong, you just said 'wrong'.

See imightbewrong's post about Mclaren team orders.. Yes, you are wrong.

[BMW_F1]

DC
"....People are sure to bang on about the seven points he won in Germany when Felipe Massa pulled over for him. Get over it.

I have said it before and I will say it again. Every team has imposed team orders and will do so again to one extent or another.

Do you notice any team principals bleating about those seven points? No, people in glass houses don't throw stones."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/motors ... nship.html