[Multi 21] Are Team Orders Racing?

[stripedcat]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Yes, there are team orders. But there are also teams that let their team mates race, and others that don't. Are we to expect that whenever two team mates are together on track that one is automatically given priority over the other? How many of us, whilst watching that race, were relishing the prospect of team mates racing one another? Be honest now. Certainly the commentators that I were listening to, fully expected it. Never once did they ever say that the racing was now all done and that it was likely that the teams would ask their drivers to hold station. Quite the opposite, in fact. I wonder how they will deal with that scenario again? Not just the commentators, but the people at FOM that are pointing TV cameras at the track.

Yeah, looking at it now, part of me wonders why Red Bull didn't allow both their drivers to race towards the end of the race. After all, they weren't low on fuel like the Mercedes. I know that you counterbalance that argument by saying they wanted to maximise the points and were worried about their drivers taking each other off, but it was still very early in the season.

Other teams, namely McLaren and Williams, have allowed their two drivers to race - with a couple of exceptions(e.g. Patrese having to give Mansell the win in France in 1992 as we he was leading the championship; Coulthard pulling over for Mika in Australia in 1998 - but that time it was perhaps a little more questionable).

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by stripedcat

Yeah, looking at it now, part of me wonders why Red Bull didn't allow both their drivers to race towards the end of the race.

I wasn't really suggesting that should be the case, I was suggesting that FOM might want to consider pointing their cameras at something else.

[Tal Aras]

Originally Posted by stripedcat

Other teams, namely McLaren and Williams, have allowed their two drivers to race .

As far as I can remember the convention has always been, where the teams do allow racing, that they were allowed to race until after the last pit stop. After that the drivers were expected to bring the cars home for the points. That looked to be what Red Bull were doing. At a guess the Multi 21 instruction went out after Webber had held off Vetel when he came out the pits.

[Taprobane]

Ian Botham ran Geoff Boycott out on his captain's orders. And sometimes teams give their opponents runs (and ruining the bowlers figures) to force a result. Sometimes you just have to do what is necessary for the good of the team when they pay your wages...

[stripedcat]

Originally Posted by Marbot

I wasn't really suggesting that should be the case, I was suggesting that FOM might want to consider pointing their cameras at something else.

Whoops. My mistake. Sorry.

[Hawkwood]

Vettel didn't break the rules, neither did Bed Bull or Mercedes. No-one did. No problem really with anything that happened yesterday in that regard.

Having said that:
I know orders have been part of F1 since its inception, but I don't like them.
Good on Vettel for showing Webber the way to drive fast.
If only Rosberg had had the balls to do the same.

[Rennen]

Is Team Orders...Racing? ...Yes it is!

A better question would be...Is driving 9 Tenths to Preserve Tyres & Save Fuel...Formula One Racing?

[Gingers4Justice]

Analogies don't really work with F1 (or motorsport as a whole) and other sports.

It's a team sport and an invidivual sport at the same time. It is impossible to strike a perfect balance in the sport between the two. And that's part of the wonderful, disfunctional and fascinating world of motor racing.

Team orders make sense to me. If a team wishes to let its cars race, like Audi always has done in the WEC or Le Mans, it's up to them, but surely the people that make these cars and spend all those hours have a right not to have that time wasted by one driver thinking he's above it all...and by the same token, they have the right to decide if that's acceptable for them.

"Racing" implies a race to the line, but a "team" looks for the best possible result for its members. The bosses are in charge of that so I don't see how you can effectively ban team orders from the sport.

[Gingers4Justice]

Originally Posted by Rennen

Is Team Orders...Racing? ...Yes it is!

A better question would be...Is driving 9 Tenths to Preserve Tyres & Save Fuel...Formula One Racing?

A Grand Prix is neither a pure sprint or pure endurance. I think it's always been the case that if a driver is careless with tires, or fuel, he gets some form of punishment.

Right now, though, it's getting a little ridiculous. When Sutil had his race ruined by tires made of marshmellow at the Oz GP, I really wondered what Pirelli were trying to achieve.

[courageous]

As I recall it, the huge blow up over team orders back when Ferrari did it wasn't so much that they did it but that they weren't open about it.

I am sure there used to be a rule that communication to the car could not use code words.

If Webber had not mentioned "multi 21" in the pre-podium room, would Red Bull have let everyone know what happened or would they have left it looking like a fairly fought great overtaking move?

[Flavio Galtieri]

The way I see it is Vettel is a three time world champion, Webber is the No 2 driver and he knows it. I think Vettel saw it as his right to win, that's just what he does, it's in his nature.

Might not have won him any more fans and given Newey and Horner a headache but what are they going to do? Sack him? I doubt it!

And as for the other talking point, Hamilton and Rosberg, that just convinces me that Hamilton went to Mercedes as a number one driver. It'll be in his contract somewhere, secured with a non disclosure agreement or something. All the crocodile tears for Nico being ordered to stay behind was pure BS.

Can you really imagine Hamilton accepting "equal status" with a teammate who has won just a single GP?

The good news for F1 is that it will add millions of new viewers as we and the media have three weeks to argue about it before China.

[Armco Bender]

WWF1....."Hulk Vettell" vs "The Aussie Battler Webber".

[Bononi]

I guess the only guy in F1 who's ****ed about that is one called Mark Webber.

[Lancsbreaker]

Originally Posted by redesp

To ask a naive question. Is there any benefit / advantage to the team by slowing up and saving tyres / engines. Don't the teams have an endless amount of rubber at thier disposal and wouldn't the engine be changed / rebuilt after each race... or are they just being environmentally frienly by not burnign up resources

As no-one has answered your question....No, the teams don't have an endless supply of rubber - they are given a set number of each tyre per driver at the start of the weekend, and that's it. (That's one reason why Red Bull went out very late in Q1, to save tyres - and they nearly shot themselves in the foot with that. Its also why on his last pitstop, Hamilton (and I think Rosberg) had to change to scrubbed rather than brand new mediums......Equally the teams are allowed 8 (IIRC) engines per driver per year - using more incurs penalties. So when leading in a 1-2 situation it makes sense to win as slowly as possible - so, keep the third place man at bay, but don't go any faster than that.

Now many will argue that this doesn't promote "pure" racing...and I would probably agree...but for years the organisers have been trying to keep F1 speeds down (partially for safety reasons, partly for cost reasons, allegedly) and the teams have been trying to do the exact opposite. We have therefore ended with all manner of contrived regulations, and team orders are in some way a response to the enforced compromises to meet those regs.

[MikeManNZ]

Well the reason that Mark was aggrieved (and I do not blame him) was the team had him turn the car down and to go to max engine conserve making Vettal's pass easy.

If those orders had not been issued would Vettal have made the pass?, I am not sure as I did not catch the race but if Webber had been in front for 30ish laps there is no reason to suggest he would not have stayed there if not ordered to slow down.

I would be ****ed as well if I was Mark.

[chillibowl]

i am curious to know how much of his anger was directed at himself for trusting someone he really should have stopped trusting a long time ago. since before they were even team mates Vettel's been punting him of track.

not trying to take a dig on either of them but not much in their history to suggest that they have each others backs. part of me want to say that MW should have known better and that he is also in the unique position to have known better

also no problems with team orders btw. in fact im sort of scared if those that hate them find out about all the other 'secret choices' made in unison behind closed doors they are really going to be angry!

[JeremySmith]

Are team orders racing ?

Well not strictly speaking, however they are allowed and the drivers must obey the team principal..

Me Vettel that goes for you as well as everyone else..

Two race ban..

[F1Pete]

I don't mind team orders when it is late in the season and one guy is closer to the championship than the other. This is only the second race! Total BS!!!!

[redesp]

@ Lancsbreaker

Thanks for the response

[wnut]

Originally Posted by F1Pete

I don't mind team orders when it is late in the season and one guy is closer to the championship than the other. This is only the second race! Total BS!!!!

The problem is, how many championships have been won by less than 5 points, plenty.

Red Bull Racing are probably to blame for not designating number one and two status.

Rosberg should have at least been given a shot at reeling in the two RBR cars. He may have pushed them into running out of fuel, and if he couldn't get one of them in between himself and Hamilton then he would have to drop back behind the "designated" team leader. Ugly but it was ugly anyway.

[Bononi]

Originally Posted by F1Pete

I don't mind team orders when it is late in the season and one guy is closer to the championship than the other. This is only the second race! Total BS!!!!

Originally Posted by wnut

The problem is, how many championships have been won by less than 5 points, plenty.

Red Bull Racing are probably to blame for not designating number one and two status.

Rosberg should have at least been given a shot at reeling in the two RBR cars. He may have pushed them into running out of fuel, and if he couldn't get one of them in between himself and Hamilton then he would have to drop back behind the "designated" team leader. Ugly but it was ugly anyway.

Exactly.


About the question, unfortunately, team orders are part of the racing culture and that's all about it really.

[TrapezeArtist]

F1 is a team sport.

There have always been team orders in F1.

These hoary old chestnuts come out every time. Yes, there is a team element in F1 but the principal championship is an individual championship for drivers, the races are primarily to determine which driver wins, not which team, and the millions of fans around the world are largely muc more interested in which driver won than which tema.

Just because there is a long history of team orders in F1 doesn't make it right now. It used to be acceptable for several drivers per year to be killed, but times have changed.

I thoroughly dislike team orders because it is a gross distortion of the sport. It was much better when team orders were banned, even though we have to be pragmatic and recognise that it still went on. But it was kept under control, and teams that attempted to manipulate results knew that they were in danger of being penalised (a few more actual penalties would have helped).

Having said that, we are where we are. Team orders are allowed, and the disobeying of team orders by a driver are a matter of team discipline. This is where Red Bull seem to have really fallen down, and Christian Horner must lose a lot of credibility as a result. He didn't even try to tell Vettel to give the place back because he says he knew it would be ignored!

Whereas Red Bull's ineffective team orders would seem to have been a sensible plan from the team's point of view (cruising to a 1-2 finish), I find Mercedes successful application of team orders more perplexing. I entirely understand why Hamilton was obliged to go so slowly (fuel and tyres) but so far as we know Rosberg didn't have the same problems. He could have charged forward, put a bit of pressure on Red Bull and maybe pinched a place or two if something had gone awry for Red Bull in the last few laps. What's more, if Button had not had his pitstop problem he would have been threatening Mercedes from behind.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

If anything, racing each other hard is the equivalent of tackling a teammate for the ball.

Which is all well and good as long as the ball is passed to the other player on occasion. I'm sure that Rosberg/Webber see it that way. We shall see.

[dsg]

Originally Posted by dirtymacca

With the latest sports debacles and the use of terms such as "bringing the sport into disrepute"... "match fixing" etc. Do team orders fall into any of these categories ?

The comparison you are making isn't the same as what happened in Malaysia. If RedBull, Ferrari and Mercedes colluded to finish the race in a certain order it would be “match fixing”.

Originally Posted by dirtymacca

Surely team orders affect the final outcome, then does it fall into a similar category as "match fixing" which caused the game of cricket to fall into the disrepute category. Is it illegal? It is in cricket and criminal charges are laid.

A team arranging for their cars to finish in a certain position could also be compared to a cricket team changing the batting order.

Originally Posted by dirtymacca

I am sure there are many views on this..... cars can be manipulated from the pits, it is not a bat or ball sport etc. No one financially benefits from team orders....or do they? I am sure people do as sports betting covers F1. Drivers contract negotiations could be affected based on performance.

It’s also possible that a cricket team declaring before a batsman gets bat may also have an effect on that batsman’s career but this is secondary to the success of the team.

Originally Posted by dirtymacca

Are the paying public getting a "fair" race.... That is the best and fastest car/team combination wins.

I think the team are trying to get the best result for the team rather than individual driver much the same as cricket team tries to get the best result for the team rather than for any individual player.

[AussieTimmeh]

Originally Posted by Lancsbreaker

Equally the teams are allowed 8 (IIRC) engines per driver per year - using more incurs penalties. So when leading in a 1-2 situation it makes sense to win as slowly as possible - so, keep the third place man at bay, but don't go any faster than that.

This is what I hate about the 'cost-saving' limited engines rule.

1. It brings these team orders into it, and
2. Forces the engine manufacturers to spend lots of money trying to design the smallest lightest most powerful engine AND make it last.

They have restricted using components made of unobtainium to keep the physical cost of materials down, so what's the big deal about stamping out a few more blocks and let them use their engines each race. You won't see any team orders to conserve engines, although I am sure you'd still see them for fuel and 'OMG don't crash into each other you idiots' moments.