Ferrari, Michael, team orders and the truth

[neilap]

After watching the F1 year in review and the Round-table discussion on Speed I have come to realize that Ferrari may not be "as bad" as I thought.

The Ferrari team is built around Michael for one main reason; he was a key factor in rebuilding the team. After building a team there is no way another driver would/should get equal status with him. Firstly there is hardly anyone in the world that can beat him consistently and secondly he did the grunt labor so he deserves the rewards. Many or most believe that Ferrari would not be the dominant force that they are now without MS. Its not only his driving skills but also his business sense that has made him essentially "Ferrari".

Team orders have always been a part of the sport. Someone in the Ferrari team made it their point to make it seem that they were being unjustly treated so they made the "let Michael pass for the championship" order seem a bigger deal than it was. In all honesty RB did not have to wait till the last minute to let MS by. It was reiterated that teams spend huge amounts of money in the sport. F1 has become an exception to the rule in racing. It is almost unrealistic to expect to win titles in this day and age without a lead or number one driver.

The truth is Ferrari lacks morals and may not always be fair in the treatment of their drivers. However, they have invested too much in the sport to please the cynics and critics. The rule book is the culprit, not Ferrari. They don't do anything illegal, (well they have not been caught) but they will bend the rules the way anyone else would.

[Wrex]

There were two main reasons Austria got more attention than it really deserved.

Firsty, Michael and Ferrari were involved. Replace these names with Williams and Montoya, or BAR and Villenueve and the fuss would have been negligable. Some will come here and dispute this, but it's true. Not all of it unjustified though, Michael and Ferrari have made mistakes in the past that bring more eyes on them than most.

Secondly, the timing of the event. Not just because it was meters from the finish (not the brightest move Rubins) but also in the championship. History now tells us it was without benefit, but the wisdom of hindsight is a wonderful thing.

As for the rules Neilap, your right. I'm against the current ban on team orders as they are part of the sport and always have been. However, a clarification or adjustment of those rules is required. Why can't a ban on team orders only take effect for the first 12 races?

As for special treatment, I concur. When a teams asks for something special from a driver, and/or he delivers it, he should get something it return.

Michael has givin more than he received and will continue to so so. He deserves that special treatment. As does Jacques, who took a huge risk going to BAR. He too deserves number 1 status. Even Eddie Irvine when he moved to Jaguar.

Lets face it, these 3 had to risk alot more with their career choices than Sato, Webber or McNish.

[golem]

But in the same sentance you deny that Sato, Webber and McNish (and, Rubens) haven't worked their togs of just to get where they were by racing hard?

I believe the Press attention on Austria was uncalled for. Booyah, what, this hasn't happened before? I have absolutely no qualms with Rubens moving over last minute. It made quite clear who was the real winner and Michael got his points. No biggie.

Yet personally, I would have preffered Rubens to have won it. Why? I don't think the guys a half bad driver in his own right and denying his place in the history book for his hard work there, on that day is pretty screwed up.

'But it's a business!' - That's why people are getting quite frankly bored with it. When it stops being about wheel to wheel racing, people switch off and when they do, your business isn't a business. It's handed over to liquidators.

'It's professional!' - yes. Professional sport. And you fix a race in horse racing and get caught, you get strung up by your genitals. Or something similar anyhow.

'They invest money!' - Uhuh. So? I don't believe them investing money just to leave the customers (us) feeling shortchanged constitutes a good investment. Sounds like a dumb idea actually. -_-

When the combo of TV and Sponsorship happened, they brought about the downfall of racing for racing's sake and turned it into a spectacle for spectacle sake to keep viewers interested.

[Wrex]

Originally posted by golem
But in the same sentance you deny that Sato, Webber and McNish (and, Rubens) haven't worked their togs of just to get where they were by racing hard?

Not at all! I know how hard Webber worked and have no doubt the every driver in F1 made massive sacrifices for their careers. However Rubins, Sato's and Webbers choices were all steps up from where they were. They did'nt have to give up top line drives for their new seats.

The three I names (and I'm sure their are others) did take a calculated risk moving to their new homes. And because of this, they made certain demands (or the teams made certain offers) to offset some of this risk.

[Mr V]

Originally posted by Wrex

Secondly, the timing of the event. Not just because it was meters from the finish (not the brightest move Rubins)

Just out of interest Wrex, do you think he should have done it at another part of the track on a different lap? If yes, then why?. As i understood it, Ferrari gave Rubens the option of where he wanted to "switch", so that he could say to everybody that this was his race, why do you think he should have done different?

[Wrex]

I'm glad it was blatently obvious that he won, I would hate for it to have been covered up some other way, thats why I'm against the new rule.

By going right to the end, he got the crowds hopes up. We all watched waiting for the move (for about 5 laps). The longer he held position, the more hope we had that he was going to win. For a brief moment I (and many others I suspect) believed he was going to.

So in my opinion (as humble and misinformed as it is ) a blatent slow down earlier in the lap (or even previous lap) would have been more appropriate. We all would have still known he won, without that little build up of hope towards the end.

Don't get me wrong though, I don't blame Rubins.

[z2252314]

Rubens was 40 odd points down on Michael going into Austria. It was clear Ferrari's best chances lied with Michael. In hindsight, the switch was not needed becuase Williams never ended up making a run at Ferrari. While it seems hard for the new F1 fan to understand, team orders have always been part of F1. Whenever you have a team spending nearly half a billion dollars on a championship campaign, the championship will always take precedence over public considerations. Jean Todt doesnt answer to us fans, he answers to Luca (who answers to FIAT). For those that think Jean Todt's decision was Evil and that Enzo would be turning in his grave, I suggest you pick up a biography on Enzo. Team orders and politics where there much a part of Enzo's Ferrari team. He would of approved of the use of team orders, but perhaps not the way they were implemented in Austria. Ruben relinquishing the lead at the last second did make Ferrari(particularly Michael and Todt) look very stupid indeed.

[f1manoz]

I'm glad Rubens did what he did. Everyone knows he deserved the victory - even his team-mate - yet Ferrari STILL made him move over, for no reason whatsoever. Austria 2002 will be a talking point for years to come just for that very reason.

Frankly, I don't care anymore about the whole team orders issue. But that one incident, for me, just epitomised TGF and HIS Ferrari team...

[z2252314]

yet Ferrari STILL made him move over, for no reason whatsoever

There was a reason, to increase Michaels lead in the championship.

[Aysedasi]

Originally posted by f1manoz


Frankly, I don't care anymore about the whole team orders issue.

Hey, I agree with that........

[f1manoz]

What a crock of **** that is. TGF had the title wrapped up after the first race. There was absolutely NO REASON for Ferrari to make Rubens move over.

[Wrex]

Originally posted by f1manoz
What a crock of **** that is. TGF had the title wrapped up after the first race.

They must teach maths differently in Sydney

[Aysedasi]

Originally posted by Wrex
They must teach maths differently in Sydney

I think what he meant was that TGF had the title wrapped up before the first race.....

[BootsOntheSide]

If you don't win something through your own hard work, dedication, tactics and ability, what's the point in winning it? Schumacher was outplayed by Rubens all weekend in Austria, and should have taken it like a man and accepted his 6 points, and been happy for and impressed by Rubens' splendid drive. Team orders like this can't be justified. I don't give two hoots about Ferrari's corporate responsibilities, tehy fulfill that with their road cars.

[Bononi]

Good points, after all. Rubens made it clear it was a team order. By 4 laps earlier, he was slowing down and the TV was showing Todt and Brawn speaking on the radio. He could switch places even 3 laps before the finish and everybody would call it a farse.
I guess the only ones who learned a lesson were the team bosses... from now on, they'll switch a button instead of asking the driver...

[JohnSSC]

But that is just the point here: F1 has become, like it or not, a high-stakes enterprise. Yes it is clear to us all NOW that Michael had the WDC locked-up. At that point in the season who knew for sure? He might wreck, become injured or worse, suffer a reliability problem during a Williams-McLaren resurgence. Had Michael lost the WDC by 3 points the debate here would revolve around how stupid Ferrari were in "letting" RB win thereby forfeiting the WDC and WCC.

The days of the "Racing for Racing's sake" are long gone, if they ever really existed. Sponsorship became king many years ago and prior to that cultivating a rich patron was of the utmost importance. I think we need to separate the romance from the reality.

[Inigo Montoya]

And besides, the lap-dog was allowed his bone in subsequent races...

[Sato san]

im sorry , but can someone clariy what WORLD DRIVERS CHAMPION really means ?...........It isnt just there for Micheal or anyone else to win it by default because he took a gamble on a team that wasnt at their peek when he went there !.....if Micheal had of crashed and broke his leg , then someone else would have been entitiled to win it .......its not for others to give up their hard efforts just so Michael carry wrap it all up early ........

So , what does WORLD DRIVERS CHAMPION mean ????

[NGS]

Ok, somebody's going to disagree with this, but here goes. The World Driver's Champion is the person on the team with the power to tell everybody else to stay behind him, or they won't have a job. Personally, I think that the whole deal is fixed. You never know what that Bernie is up to...

[Peter Mallett]

Originally posted by NGS
Ok, somebody's going to disagree with this, but here goes. The World Driver's Champion is the person on the team with the power to tell everybody else to stay behind him, or they won't have a job. Personally, I think that the whole deal is fixed. .........................

Well it may be now but it was when Enzo was alive and will continue to be "fixed" until something else comes along.

Its a team sport and whether we like it or not the team will always come first. The sight of team mates racing is always great to see but at the end the team owners (Sir Frank included) want to win and if they see a chance they'll implement team orders to do so.

I just hope it isn't as blatant as those we've seen recently.

I remember Ronnie P dutifully following Mario A in the Lotus 1978. That was a driver capable of beating his team mate on a regular basis.

Then there was Gilles V in 1979. He could have blown Schekter into the weeds but he was told to support Jody until such time as Jody had no chance of the championship. As we know Schekter raised his game and took the title.

Even in Macaroon they had orders. When it became apparent that Senna had the best chance of the championship in '88 Prost was asked to ease off. It was a close run thing. The next year Prost took the championship although Senna tried to keep him from it at Suzuka.

So team orders have their place and in the case of teams like Macaroon and Williams can lead to some interesting races.

[neilap]

I was in no way agreeing with what Ferrari did or does. However, what else are they to do now. They have the biggest investment in F1 of all the teams. MS does the most work (politically) of all the drivers.

We and the FIA have decisions to make. Its the way the sport is designed that allow this malfeasence. It ruins the idea of racing but if a team wants to win and dominate doing so they may have to go the route Ferrari did. MS promised a championship and delivered triple fold. I dont know that RB had MS in Austria. Lets say that Ferrari had William's attitude towards racing. I think MS and RB would have taken each other out quite a few times. We all know the MS does not take lightly to coming in 2nd. Maybe MS knew from the start of the race that RB would be told to move over. That would explain him not hounding RB. RB has never dominated MS. It just does not happen. I think that was just a poorly executed plan. The problem is no one with RB's abilities want his job!!

A response to "RACING FOR RACING'S SAKE"

I would gladly pay a months wages to see all the F1 drivers race identical 100cc karts around a car park. It would just be down to driver ability, no team, no sponsors, no politics, slick tyres, no downforce, no electronics.

After the event ordinary members of the public could try and beat the F1 laptimes, or race the F1 drivers. If someone set a time better than the slowest F1 driver, they would then replace that driver. This way we would eventually end up with a full grid of the best drivers in the world !

[Yoong Montoya]

Originally posted by Wrex
By going right to the end, he got the crowds hopes up. We all watched waiting for the move (for about 5 laps). The longer he held position, the more hope we had that he was going to win. For a brief moment I (and many others I suspect) believed he was going to.

When was that 'brief moment'? The last corner?

[JonesF1]

Wasnt Austria 2002 a big deal because at Austria 2001 the same thing happened (but for 2nd)?

[avsfan733]

I think that Wrex is on to something. Does anyone else notice that this is all that is remembered of that race. Without looking it up tell me who finished third! This was the entertainment of the race. For that last few laps Wrex, I was exactly like you. I was hanging on the edge of my seat and definitely not because it was a close race. Just like JV and Eddy, MS took a gigantic, probably even bigger, risk by going to Ferrari. Right know he is Ferrari and has been since his move. Even after all of that did he hesitate for an instant t move over for Irvine a few years back. Would JV have done the same thing for Panis et al?