No driver orders at Mclaren?/McLaren under investigation

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Gt_R

AA, with all respect due, i'm guilty of dragging Ferrari in myself to clarify and answer issues posed by Andrew.

It was still funny though. It was just a little funny, your style of argument is the same as what you pulled someone else up about. Someone had to say because it is so obvious!

Originally Posted by Gt_R

And "To assert that the other teams did more", well i don't think i said Mclaren did more than Ferrari, if that's what you are trying to imply.

OK, poor choice of words, but surely you can see what I am saying (just scrub "more" and replace with "the same", or similar). I do not feel that read as the crux of my post.

My position is just that Mclaren, like Ferrari, and Renault are all teams who will resort to use team strategies/orders to maxximise their results. Frankly, playing "well" or not playing well doesn't mean that others don't do it.

*sigh* I am not saying others don't do it.

And please spare me the "Mclaren doesn't use team orders because...Spa 1999" type of logic.

*sigh again* I am not saying that they don't, although that was clearly a case of them not.

I am saying they don't use them in the same way.

I could have said "Michael is signed as a slave to Irvine because of Sepang 1999".

Please spare me this.

I do not deny that Mclaren has admirably allowed their drivers to race in certain conditions which may be negative on their WDC charge, which i applaud them, but Mclaren has their fair share of using team 'strategies', which is their prerogative, and should not be denied or swept away.

I am not saying that they don't use strategies. They did in Monaco.

Let's just say that a lawyer puts this question, did Mclaren ever use team orders/strategies to determine the race positions of their drivers in just yes and no, it is difficult for anybody to say no, and that applies to every other team on the grid.

I am not saying that McLaren have never used team orders.

However it highlights your problem, you are simply dealing in absolutes when challenging others. It aint just yes or no.

The earlier we recognise team orders as a part of F1, for good or bad, then we can overcome it and avoid the uproar we see in Melbourne 98, Austria 02, and especially the unneccessary one in Monaco 07.

Unneccessary? Standard practice to stop your drivers pushing too much.

*frankly, if not for the media and Hamilton and Ron saying what they did, i don't think anybody would have noticed that there were any calls from Ron at all. Mclaren is as good as playing the game as anyone.

Yes they are good at it, again I am not saying they don't have team instructions. But they do not do it in the same way as Ferrari. They just don't, and your discussion only ever points to a simple it is or it isn't, which makes me feel you are misunderstanding an intergral aspect of motorsport.

[Knowlesy]

Originally Posted by Gt_R

The earlier we recognise team orders as a part of F1, for good or bad, then we can overcome it and avoid the uproar we see in Melbourne 98, Austria 02, and especially the unneccessary one in Monaco 07.

Team orders, (or team strategy as it is being dubbed this past week ) I am fairly sure is recognised as part of motorsport. Indeed, always has been.

The key is how it is applied. How McLaren applied it on Sunday was fine, it was intelligent and thoughtfully implemented. Monaco is dangerous, so therefore it was best to hold station.

Furthermore, Ron has said they will be allowed to race on more suitable tracks. Which I assume means any track bar Monaco! Time will tell of course, but I believe him 100%. History backs me up.

Also the FIA have no problem with team orders deep down I don't think. We saw this in 2005 when McLaren and Renault were playing team games. It is still an accepted part of the championship and always will be.

Team orders won't be tolerated if they are performed in a cynical manner or make an absolute mockery of proceedings. I suppose this is open to interpretation to some (some thought Monaco was a mockery strangely) but is fairly obvious what it means if people use common sense.

There will be a lot more team orders to come this season alone, so hold onto your hats.

[Gt_R]

Quote:"avoid the uproar we see in Melbourne 98, Austria 02, and especially the unneccessary one in Monaco 07."

Unneccessary as in the uproar is unneccessary, not the orders. Perhaps if you take the context of my posts, since post-Monaco, you may realise that i'm very much accepting Mclaren's startegy.

Now that we have at least come to a common ground that Mclaren is using team orders, fine. I know you are aware that Mclaren uses team orders, but maybe you should realise that my posts were not directed at you, but rather to some others who really are not aware, or deny that Mclaren is actually capable of using team orders/strategy like other teams.

Of course every team is different in their approach. Ferrari did it in an open and clear way that everyone knows they does it. Many were offended, but some do prefer it as they know for example, that Rubens was really better than MS in Austria 2002.

Mclaren, and many other teams, take a more discrete approach. It doesnt ruffle feathers, but many a times, we may just pass it off as the driver behind was inferior (ie DC), even when team orders are implemented.

We don't know doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that it gives us a scope hoping that it didn't. Let me just give you one example (a sensitive one, but try to take it as neutral as possible). In early day BAR, JV had a no.1 status, and at occasional races, had a new evolution engine or par which Zonta/Panis doesn't have. Such information wasnt openly available, but just a minor mention in racing magazine tech sections. But to many fans, should JV outperform Panis/Zonta, they won't know it's because he had a better deal, but thought JV is just much better.

Same senario at Renault in Trulli/Alonso's final season. Trulli suddenly lost form after having the edge on Alonso for the early part of the season, but because of Flavio's words against Trulli, and nobody else shedding light, we don't know if Renault uses team orders/treatment during that period. But Flavio has shown, as with Michael-Benetton days, that he isn't a stranger to that.

The point is, while we can say if a team employed a method, who are we to really judge which is the best method? Who are we to judge who has a misunderstanding of the sports?

I'm not good at arguments, try hard as i may. I just present my thoughts, with exxamples, and i'm sure a person as learned and knowledgable as you can easily find loopholes to tear it down. And i won't pretend to know more than others. It may be simple to you with "it is, it isn't", but let me assure you that there are many who still thinks that team orders only ever occurred in MS/Ferrari era, or even in Austria 2002.

And all we can do is to establish a fair guide, and certain parameters, to try see if certain "strategies" are FUNDAMENTALLY jusifable and reasonable.

[Gt_R]

Knowlesy, i agree with you that team orders will always be around, especially championship contenders.

All i think is that once we accept that team orders are a part of the game, we won't find it a mockery when it's implemented. Because whether it is implemented subtly or blatantly, to effect the results is in a way a mockery on it's own. But once you accept this influence of results, then i believe it would save us and the teams many trouble.

I am all too aware of what Gilles had encountered, and would be angered if Hamilton had tried to disobey orders and risk overtaking Alonso. What we should recognise is that to hide it behind a series of facade doesn't make team orders more tasteful, or tasteless, than it is.

[Knowlesy]

It is a tough one though and depends on the situation.

The "holding station" one is an easy situation. Ask your drivers to slow down, that simple. Apart from the egos!

When you have to swap your drivers positions it is tougher and easier to appear hamfisted. Ferrari in Austria 2001 and 2002 was extremely embarrassing, most notably because the position swap happened on the finish line.

McLaren in Spa 2005 was quite bad in the sense that McLaren were trying to hide what they were doing when it really wasn't necessary. Raikkonen needed the points and Montoya would have to move over. But the way they did it was cringeworthy. McLaren didn't want to swap their drivers in the conventional sense so all of a sudden we had Montoya slowing prior to his stop to allow Kimi to catch so he could pass in the pitstops.

So it is important, for me, if the teams are both open and implement the orders in a correct fashion. But that is very difficult of course.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Gt_R

Unneccessary as in the uproar is unneccessary, not the orders.

Ah, thank you for clarifying my misunderstanding.

Perhaps if you take the context of my posts, since post-Monaco, you may realise that i'm very much accepting Mclaren's startegy.

I know, I never meant to suggest you didn't.

Of course every team is different in their approach.

It is not just the "openness" that is the different between the teams.

It doesnt ruffle feathers, but many a times, we may just pass it off as the driver behind was inferior (ie DC), even when team orders are implemented.

I am trying not to talk about specifics, something you seemed to advocate above, but I have to respond here. DC was generally inferior to Mika. Hence Mika generally beat him. Sometimes DC was quicker than Mika and hence he occassionally beat Mika. Sometimes McLaren gave Mika the advantage in the pits, or similar, because he was their best race (or championship) hope. I think it is clear that they would not have swapped them over in an Austria situation. I am not making a point about either situation being worse, I am just stating that here there is a difference between how some teams do it.

The point is, while we can say if a team employed a method, who are we to really judge which is the best method?

10-10ths best shut up shop!
My point has never gone as far as judging the best method, or judging anything; it is just to promote an understanding that every team does things differently. That the argument "they all do it" falls short of understanding the situation.

Who are we to judge who has a misunderstanding of the sports?

Ah, when you seemed to be saying that all teams did the same thing, then I did make a judgement that you missed the differences. I see that this is probably not the case.

However, if we accept that teams do employ these orders differently, then I find it natural that some people prefer one way to another. Hence they may prefer one team's method to another. As Ferrari is at an extreme it is not surprising that some may not like this approach.

I just present my thoughts, with exxamples,

Could I suggest that you stop the "please spare me the..." when someone else does the same. This what I was making a joke about at the begining of this post

and i'm sure a person as learned and knowledgable

you as you can easily find loopholes to tear it down.

I'm not looking for loopholes, quite the opposite. I'm not picking on wrong words or things like that, just a general feeling that I got that you seemed to be saying all teams would act in the same way.

It may be simple to you with "it is, it isn't",

I think you are saying this, but my point is exactly that it isn't simple and it isn't "it is, it isn't". (lots of 'its' and 'isn't' there )

but let me assure you that there are many who still thinks that team orders only ever occurred in MS/Ferrari era, or even in Austria 2002.

Yes, some do this, some who haven't got far into F1. However I am sure that most fans here know that other non-Ferrari/MS orders occur and have occurred. And no doubt some don't like them because they are Ferrari/MS rules. Let us leave them out of it.

However some fans see that there are different kinds (styles?) of team orders and prefer some over the other.

I think this may be were the FIA got it wrong with their introduction of that team order rule. It seemed to suggest that it was all or nothing. Or maybe they got it right, as we see from the latest judgement. Whatever I would scrap that rule and let the teams do what they want.

And all we can do is to establish a fair guide, and certain parameters, to try see if certain "strategies" are FUNDAMENTALLY jusifable and reasonable.

That is what people are doing and most think Monaco was fine. As both you and I do.

[Paulc]

Originally Posted by Mr V

Thank goodness for that, saves us reading your posts bad F1 is. Simple thing is, if you don't like it, don't watch it, but if you don't like/watch it, don't come on here moaning about it either.

Moaning about it lol,I started this thread 4 days ago it has had 5,500 views and 250 replys which is pretty much a record for this forum in this short space of time,Starting a debate of some interest from yourself MrV some day would be nice .

[Andrew2001]

Yeah understood, the key is that some teams do it differently, more blatantly than others, perhaps it is that that frustrates me so much. I am not being anti-Ferrari as if they were dominating F1 with two competitive drivers and two competitive cars I wouldn't have complained one bit. It was the frustrating nature of knowing exactly which car was going to win every race beacuse the other one was simply second fiddle, from lap 1 of race 1, to the final lap of the final race of the Championship.
Back to the point, the two McLarens are level on points, as they constantly go after two competitive drivers, Montoya and Raikkonen was a cocktail on it's own, this is going to be truly breathtaking.

To sum up, I would rather see two cars from teh same team winning races, than just one from the same team.

By the way, has anyone noticed when I joined this damn place? I have been here the longest by some margin unless I am very much mistaken. '99, I had barely flown solo for the first time the day after my 16th birthday, now I own a russian aerobatic plane with some other fellow pilots and am on the way to competing at the top of Aerobatic competition and being an airshow pilot, crikey, I feel old!
Mind you I may have been here ages but I have posted barely a sniff of what some of teh other fellows have posted, still, a close fought championship, I can hardly wait.

Post of rubbish finished.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Paulc

Moaning about it lol,I started this thread 4 days ago it has had 5,500 views and 250 replys which is pretty much a record for this forum in this short space of time,

So a lot of moaning

Starting a debate of some interest from yourself MrV some day would be nice .

Which, over his time here Mr V has done a lot of and he has kept those already started interesting too.

[gcalvert]

Originally Posted by Frank_White

The team orders are clear from the following points:

1. Lewis was fuelled five or six laps more than Alonso for qualifying. To much for him to have a realistic run for pole and too little to run a one stop. Besides the option tire degraded too much on a heavy fuel load and Lewis could not realistically run 51 laps with the option tyre. Ron's explanation about Lewis being initially on a one stop is BS. Moreover, any fool knows that pole is important to win in Monaco.

2. Lewis was called in 2 to 3 laps early for his first stop negating any possibility of him passing Alonso.

3. Lewis was called in about 6 laps early in the second stop.

If the strategies were reversed Lewis would have won easily in Monaco.

If we assume that Ron is not stupid (fair assumption I reckon).

Then I doubt he had 6 laps more fuel. His qualifiying performance would have have shown a greater difference than it did. Why would Ron do it.

He stoped when he had to as he had only that much fuel (still had a pit stop advantage).

He failed to show early in the race the ability to hound Alonso and put himself in the position he needed to to genuinely threaten Alonso at the first stop even if he had a 6 lap fuel advantage.

He was fueled and therefore stopped when he had to on the second stop.

Lewis is managing the media for his own purposes, drivers all do, why not it is a proffession remember. The British press in particular need it, what else have they got at the moment as Button is nowhere (thank Honda for that), David close to retirement (in more ways than one driving a Red Bull).

Lewis is a great driver, so is Alonso. Alonso did what he had to to beat him (importantly incuding getting pole). Roll on the next race. The whole arguement is a farce.

[Adam43]

I think you have missed the conclusion to this from the FIA.

Originally Posted by gcalvert

Then I doubt he had 6 laps more fuel. His qualifiying performance would have have shown a greater difference than it did. Why would Ron do it.

He had five more laps at the start, although that didn't mean he could have gone five more laps.

He stoped when he had to as he had only that much fuel (still had a pit stop advantage).

He stopped early:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/59282

Think safety car more than the above.

[Alan Raine]

I think DC sums it up

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/59334

and I totally agree with him

[Knowlesy]

http://www.autosport.com/journal/article.php/id/1062

[Adam43]

On the subject of that last cartoon. Are there calls to investigate McLaren over potentially holding Alonso back at the end of the USGP?

[Dutton]

I hope not.

[Bononi]

Only if there's a spanish side in McLaren...

[Knowlesy]

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

On the subject of that last cartoon. Are there calls to investigate McLaren over potentially holding Alonso back at the end of the USGP?

This did cross my mind a number of times!

Ironically, it is all very quiet!

[Dutton]

Shocker. Never would've guessed it.

The dedication of the mainstream media (both general and niche genres) to truth rather than manipualtion in the name of sales...That is not to say we shouldn't acknowledge the individuals who shae the same mentality in their personal lives.

It is awe inspiring in both cases.

Honest.