The "Team Orders" Dilemma

[Wrex]

We all have our thoughts on Austria, and what we think the FIA should do. And as the following story suggests, maybe there is no good answer.

The "Team Orders" Dilemma from grandprix.com

What do you think?

[Red]

I believe that the following paragraph illustrates the entire article:

The incident at Melbourne in 1998 when David Coulthard let Mika Hakkinen through was nothing like this. There was some grudging understanding of McLaren's point - it was the first race of the year, the cars' reliability was unknown. To allow the drivers to race each other when they were clearly superior to the rest of the field, and thus risk breakdowns, was not sensible.

According to their logic, David shold not concede place and Mika should not attack him. Quite indeed, it "was nothing like" Austria, but I'm quite sure that Mr. TREUTHARDT had something else in mind when he wrote it.

[Valve Bounce]

Cars can be adjusted from the pits these days, cars can have an extra 10 kilos of fuel, the whole problem can be addressed in a number of ways that nobody knows anything about.
There is an avenue of adjusting hte speed of cars from the pits without having to give team orders anymore.

Valve[img]http://www.**************************/smilies/bouncy.gif[/img]

[Gt_R]

But at Austria, Ferrari din't choose that route.

[Red]

Next time when they'll do it (my guess, after Schumacher wins the title) they'll put up a show with Rubens and Michael overtaking each other 20 times during the last laps and everyone will fall off the chairs in screams of delight and applauses. Now THAT's increased entertainment!. Err I mean SPORT. Overtaking! Yes!

[Wrex]

Where are the sarcasim police when you neeed them?

[Red]

I'm clean officer! It was not me!

[Jukebox]

Yeah lets have a fiesta between Schummi and Rubens with lotsa overtaking manouvres just for the sake of satisfying everybody. Or maybe we can get the Williams and Mclarens to participate as well

[Jukebox]

er am i busted?

[paulzinho]

Errr wasn't the melbourne 98 a decision between the drivers, NOT the team? Or have I got it wrong?

If thats so then that was nothing like the Ferrari incident.

[Wrex]

Why does it matter Paul? Is it the actual decision or the the fact that Ferrari made that decision thats the problem?

[Red]

Paul-Paul! Anyway, the point of :[...]it was the first race of the year, the cars' reliability was unknown. To allow the drivers to race each other when they were clearly superior to the rest of the field, and thus risk breakdowns, was not sensible[...] was...? I did not want to dissect that, I was questioning the unbiased article.

[Jordi]

Mika and David decided the first that would arrive at the first corner would win the race. At least, there was COMPETITION between the two for a few yards, that's more than the competition Schumacher suffers from Barrichello.

[Red]

Indeed. And the definition of "race fixing" is "...decided the first that..."

[Gt_R]

THAT article...its only worth a read while in e toilet poo-ing... but...wait a minute...i don't put my computer in the toilet!

But anyway, i think the following quote from DC is quite note-worthy.

Canadian Post Race Conference:
...
Q: People have been characterising the Ferrari dominance as being just that, dominance, but over the last couple of races we have seen that one or both can certainly be beaten. Is that uncertainty a reason that team orders should be a part of Formula One?

DC: Well, I think that it shows that, in certain circumstances, a dominant team can still be beaten and I recall back to when McLaren were a lot more competitive than they are now, and there was the odd race where we were comprehensively beaten where in other races we were very strong. So I think it just shows that nothing can be taken for granted in a Grand Prix season. Lots of things can go on at different tracks and the whole team order thing, nothing has changed there for many, many years, so it is more about the public being educated about what is allowed rather than anything the team should be doing. That's down, I guess, to the governing body to inform people what the rules are and for you all to inform the public what they are watching."
...

That basically says it all....
BUT WAIT...doesn't DC saying that join the ranks of "blind TGF fans"?!!

[paul-collins]

Well, even JV thought that Team Orders weren't a problem.

I agree with his position, though. Don't act embarrassed. Be a man, take the abuse that goes with your position and decision. If TGF had've been as unrepentant as the Toad, at least we'd know that he bought into the team marketing concept. As it is, he's looked self-absorbed and whiny. In short, a half-man.

He should be able to say to racing fans, "look, I'm trying to win the championship, not individual races, and I've earned this respect from the team. Take the long view." Instead he cowers behind Brawn and Todt, and suggests it won't happen again (ppffft!).

[BBKing]

Originally posted by Gt_R
But at Austria, Ferrari din't choose that route.

They did it in Brazil though....LOL

[Damon]

The main thing from the incident that detracted from michael was that he openly blamed everyone but himself for the decision...and the team let him get away with it! That, beyond anything else, demonstrated how much clout schu yeilds within Ferrari and thats not good for the sport.

[Mania]

Originally posted by paul-collins
Well, even JV thought that Team Orders weren't a problem.

I agree with his position, though. Don't act embarrassed. Be a man, take the abuse that goes with your position and decision.

Jacques would say anything that would be opposite to Schumacher's point of view. For that matter, Jacques is no angel either. He claims he never asked for team orders but he still managed to destroy Frentzen's Williams career by playing little back-biting mind games in the Williams garage and then proceeded to make Zonta feel like a second class citizen at BAR.

I like Jacques, but I dont pay attention to what he says anymore - his track record isent as bright as he would like us to believe.

[paulzinho]

Some drivers are talking about educating the public, but wasn't the Austria reaction our way of saying that we disagree STRONGLY about those actions?

[EERO]

Well put Paul.

I want to see a Sport. Fairly raced and may the best Driver/Car combination win. Each race should be a flat-out contest and the WDC should be awarded to the man who who at the end of the season consistently WAS BETTER than the others. Its a simple concept really, but the clarity of it has been blurred by commercial influences and the legitimacey of the engineered result.

Maybe it is a bit naive to want to see racing, but surely the blatant and cynical way that orders were imposed in Austria was detrimental to the notion of "Sport".

[kwd]

Originally posted by EERO
Well put Paul.

I want to see a Sport. Fairly raced and may the best Driver/Car combination win. Each race should be a flat-out contest and the WDC should be awarded to the man who who at the end of the season consistently WAS BETTER than the others. Its a simple concept really, but the clarity of it has been blurred by commercial influences and the legitimacey of the engineered result.

That's precisely it Eero, but the engineered result would not allow in some instances for even a glimse of competition, {the Honda/Mclarens proved that} so I think in some cases the Fia should allow team orders, some kind of graduated scale where if one team's dominance threatened a runaway they would be allowed. To some point I enjoy the team tactics like in 97 when Irvine did the jackrabbit on the field at the beginning of the race and allowed Michael a chance at the WDC{Jerez or Suzuka?}Without Irv the race was probably over from the start.

[kwd, I've only edited your post to separate Eero's words from yours. R. ]