Grand Prix Rejects

Debaser wrote:What are the odds on a Webber/Massa crash on the 1st lap??? Neither driver can overtake.

Surely you mean Vettel...

Him as well, but I see him legging it at the front. The McLarens may cause chaos at the hairpin with their straight line speed, could be a couple of accidents caused.

Oh, Ferrari team orders, what a shocker.

Guess it was too much to expect Massa to win.

Petrov being told to 'concentrate hard' on going into 7th gear a few revs earlier by Renault. Sort of like you'd tell a 2 year old not to play with scissors.

Fernando Alonso post-Valencia wrote:It's a shame, not for us because this is racing, but for all the fans who came here to watch a manipulated race,

What do you think now, Fernando?

Erm!!

Isn't team orders illegal!

Surely it means Ferrari have to be disqualified!!

Am I wrong!?

Enforcer wrote:Petrov being told to 'concentrate hard' on going into 7th gear a few revs earlier by Renault. Sort of like you'd tell a 2 year old not to play with scissors.

The driving lesson wasn't going well. Petrov couldn't shift, forgot the L plate.

GwilymJJames wrote:

Fernando Alonso post-Valencia wrote:It's a shame, not for us because this is racing, but for all the fans who came here to watch a manipulated race,

What do you think now, Fernando?

fernando is no stranger to manipulated races is he

bigslydoc wrote:Erm!!

Isn't team orders illegal!

Surely it means Ferrari have to be disqualified!!

Am I wrong!

I was expecting the message "Incident involving Car 7 and 8 under Investegation" to come up but it didnt.....

The "magnanimous" line pretty much covers it.

Expect to see some protests here. What a shame for Felipe Massa!

What is it with Ferrari that they find it impossible to allow their drivers challenge each other for the win!

What a bunch of arses!!

Yeah,

I don't mind the 'team order' stuff... At least Ferrari are honest enough to have a clear #1/#2 set-up....

Better that other teams who employ drivers with a clear 'talent gap' between them and hoping things natural sort themselves out - all the while claiming the drivers are 'equal'... (see Red Bull for what happens when one of them out-performs their expectations)

Somebody give Massa a hug. He looks like Alonso has just murdered his pet.

WeirdKerr wrote:

bigslydoc wrote:Erm!!

Isn't team orders illegal!

Surely it means Ferrari have to be disqualified!!

Am I wrong!

I was expecting the message "Incident involving Car 7 and 8 under Investegation" to come up but it didnt.....

The FIA only have to look at point 39.1 of the sporting code to see what they have to do here...

39.1 - Team orders which interfere with a race result are prohibited

http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/65EE8F15945D0941C12576C7005308AE/$FILE/1-2010%20SPORTING%20REGULATIONS%2023-06-2010.pdf

Felipe Massa was left in no doubt what he had to do and he and it's clear that yet again Ferrari manipulated the race result to give Alonso the win. Absolutely clear! What a farce!

For once I may have to go against public opinion on this forum.

But could someone please explain to me what the fuss is all about?

eytl wrote:For once I may have to go against public opinion on this forum.

But could someone please explain to me what the fuss is all about?

The sheer blatant nature of it, I don't think the fact team orders were used is the problem. Otherwise we'd get in a huff like this every second race.

Well im a Ferrari Fan 100% i cry when the win i cry when the loose.
But im now mad at ferrari yoy can't believe this ?

HOw the persconference was, look how Massa reacted he is just totally dunno how to say it normal.
And the Interview with Rob Smetley on BBC said enough.

I don't mind if they take those points away, or took all the points so far they socerd.

But great race for Petrov
He deserved that point and in my opinion he should stay in f1.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Debaser wrote:

eytl wrote:For once I may have to go against public opinion on this forum.

But could someone please explain to me what the fuss is all about?

The sheer blatant nature of it, I don't think the fact team orders were used is the problem. Otherwise we'd get in a huff like this every second race.

Yes but we have seen this before (even since the unpatrollable "no team orders" rule came in), and we will see it again. Massa benefited from an equally blatant position change in China in 2008 did he not? Even if that was not for the win. And I will have to do some digging, but I recall a similar position change in Turkey one year, involving the McLarens I think, with a very similar message.

Name me one team manager in pit lane who, in the same factual circumstances that Ferrari found themselves in, would not have done the same thing.

The Massa advantage given by Kimi in china 2008 was not for the win, disgusting that it was at the time.

Everyone says Red Bull have been doing the same thing in the last race, however wasn't that during qualifying? which if I'm not mistaken is not part of the race?

Team Orders before Sunday 2pm, and then outlawed for 2 hours.

From Autosport.com

Ferrari team bosses have been summoned to see the German Grand Prix stewards following the team orders controversy at Hockenheim.

Fernando Alonso won the race from team-mate Felipe Massa, but only after the Brazilian let him pass following a conversation on the radio, Massa having led the race from the start.

Massa was told by his race engineer Rob Smedley: "Fernando is faster than you. Can you confirm you understood that message?"

Moments later Massa slowed down and let Alonso take the lead.

After the race, the FIA stewards summoned Ferrari's team manager and team principal.

Team orders are banned in the sport.

You. Are. Kidding. Me.

Could we please now also review every not-so-subtle coded message in the sport over the last few years.

And while we're at it, please include "hold position" messages when the driver behind is actually faster.

Has the FIA turned from being "Ferrari International Assistance" to "Ferrari's Incessant Assassins"?

Austria 2002 obviously lives on. Shame.

eytl wrote:You. Are. Kidding. Me.

Could we please now also review every not-so-subtle coded message in the sport over the last few years.

And while we're at it, please include "hold position" messages when the driver behind is actually faster.

Has the FIA turned from being "Ferrari International Assistance" to "Ferrari's Incessant Assassins"?

Better analyse every use of 'we need to save fuel' too.

"Did you really need to save fuel there? Or were you telling your drivers to hold station?"

Its a tough one this. It was team orders and they did break the rules.

But I think it was also the right thing to do in the context of both the championship and the race.

In terms of the race: At that time Alonso was faster, he streaked away after the pass and Massa fell back into the clutches of Vettel. As it turned out Felipe was able to up his pace and Vettel perhaps hit some fuel issues, so he wasn't able to pass, but if Felipe had ended up backing 'Nando into Seb then they could have lost 2nd or even the win, Ferrari were making sure they won the race by getting the faster driver ahead.

In terms of the championship: Massa has no chance of winning the title, hes nearly 3 whole race wins off the lead and you simply cant make that kind of deficit up against 5 drivers. Alonso is an outsider, but with both the McLaren and Red Bull drivers taking points off each other, he might be able to take the title by stealth.

Its a different situation to Austria 2002, and more similar to 2008 where Kimi (who was out of the title race) moved aside to give Massa a fighting chance of the title.

I think i'm gonna have to call it favor of Ferrari.

eytl wrote:You. Are. Kidding. Me.

Could we please now also review every not-so-subtle coded message in the sport over the last few years.

And while we're at it, please include "hold position" messages when the driver behind is actually faster.

Has the FIA turned from being "Ferrari International Assistance" to "Ferrari's Incessant Assassins"?

The thing is, that was THE most blatant team order given in a long, long time.

besides, FIA actually getting on ferraris case is a welcome change. having kissed their arse for almost 10 years, its good that they are putting the idiots from maranello back in their place.

eytl wrote:Name me one team manager in pit lane who, in the same factual circumstances that Ferrari found themselves in, would not have done the same thing.

None, because that's the nature of Formula 1 and or European racing in general. The concept of team orders as Ferrari have played them is the ultimate taboo of all taboos in NASCAR (but certainly, the whole idea of a team favoring one driver by giving their car all the goodies in the late-60s-early-to-mid-70s-Lotus way is apparent in NASCAR), and was rarely seen in IndyCar and CART.

Basically, the idea is that team orders are a part of Formula 1 and always have. It really does bring into question how much of Formula 1 is actually racing and how much of it is team tactics. Team orders are Formula 1's WWE moments -- totally rigged and with officialdom turning a blind eye towards it.

Roger Penske was once quoted as saying that he would always give all of his drivers equal opportunity, because, if you do that, why bring the second car? The same Roger Penske that slashed a promising F1 program in order to focus on his CART program.

This kind of crap makes me remember why I love Rene Arnoux -- because he disobeyed team orders in order to ensure he won the 1982 French GP -- and then decided to crap all over Alain Prost every time Prost came to lap him!

If your team loses a 1-2 finish because the teammates were too busy racing each other... then so what? That's what they're SUPPOSED to do. Race each other, not make way for whichever driver is the team's favorite driver.

Enforcer wrote:"Did you really need to save fuel there? Or were you telling your drivers to hold station?"

Note, "hold station" does not apply when talking about "affecting the race result". This has been made clear by the FIA in the "case" Hamilton vs. McLaren after the Monaco Grand Prix. So, while telling your driver to not attack his teammate is okay within the rules, forcing him to let the partner pass is illegal. And for that, it does not matter if the rules make sense or not. If you do something forbidden you will get punished. I also believe it's stupid that it is not allowed for cars to roll out after the end of the race to save fuel for the sample taken by the FIA, but it's a rule and if you do not have enough, you get punished. So, Ferrari did wrong, and they ought to get a penalty. If other teams do it and it can be shown (and seriously, anyone trying to tell something, either Alonso being much faster (he was not, he did drop a bit so he could do some good times, but when they compared against each other in "close combat" Alonso was never fast enough to actually get past Massa - they were working at levels where even Sato can barely overtake), or Massa making a gear mistake, is only making himself look poor) they should be punished as well. It's as simple as that.

Cynon wrote:If your team loses a 1-2 finish because the teammates were too busy racing each other... then so what? That's what they're SUPPOSED to do. Race each other, not make way for whichever driver is the team's favorite driver.

When you've sunk tens of millions of pounds into your F1 team your perspective is probably quite a bit diffrent.

DonTirri wrote:

eytl wrote:You. Are. Kidding. Me.

Could we please now also review every not-so-subtle coded message in the sport over the last few years.

And while we're at it, please include "hold position" messages when the driver behind is actually faster.

Has the FIA turned from being "Ferrari International Assistance" to "Ferrari's Incessant Assassins"?

The thing is, that was THE most blatant team order given in a long, long time.

besides, FIA actually getting on ferraris case is a welcome change. having kissed their arse for almost 10 years, its good that they are putting the idiots from maranello back in their place.

Sorry mate, have to disagree on both fronts.

In my view, this was no more blatant than what we have seen many times in the last few years. Coded messages which lead to position changes or drivers holding position are so common. The more I think about it, where do you draw the line? If a team has two drivers on different strategies, but track position so plays out that the slower driver is in front mid-race, and an order comes through to let the faster driver past, how is that not a team order that ultimately affects the result of the race? If you take the "just let them race" suggestion literally, well tough luck for the driver behind who's faster, who has his strategy compromised by his team-mate.

I don't see anyone ever complaining about that.

And as for it being welcome that someone is on Ferrari's case, well ... two wrongs don't make a right. Simple as that.

Cynon wrote:

eytl wrote:Name me one team manager in pit lane who, in the same factual circumstances that Ferrari found themselves in, would not have done the same thing.

None, because that's the nature of Formula 1 and or European racing in general. The concept of team orders as Ferrari have played them is the ultimate taboo of all taboos in NASCAR (but certainly, the whole idea of a team favoring one driver by giving their car all the goodies in the late-60s-early-to-mid-70s-Lotus way is apparent in NASCAR), and was rarely seen in IndyCar and CART.

Basically, the idea is that team orders are a part of Formula 1 and always have. It really does bring into question how much of Formula 1 is actually racing and how much of it is team tactics. Team orders are Formula 1's WWE moments -- totally rigged and with officialdom turning a blind eye towards it.

Roger Penske was once quoted as saying that he would always give all of his drivers equal opportunity, because, if you do that, why bring the second car? The same Roger Penske that slashed a promising F1 program in order to focus on his CART program.

This kind of crap makes me remember why I love Rene Arnoux -- because he disobeyed team orders in order to ensure he won the 1982 French GP -- and then decided to crap all over Alain Prost every time Prost came to lap him!

If your team loses a 1-2 finish because the teammates were too busy racing each other... then so what? That's what they're SUPPOSED to do. Race each other, not make way for whichever driver is the team's favorite driver.

I take your point completely. But if you watch F1, you know what you're in for. And in some ways that's what I'm arguing for here. Leaving aside how one FEELS about this, at the end of the day, what do you expect?

P.S. Love the reference to Arnoux.

Klon wrote:

Enforcer wrote:"Did you really need to save fuel there? Or were you telling your drivers to hold station?"

Note, "hold station" does not apply when talking about "affecting the race result". This has been made clear by the FIA in the "case" Hamilton vs. McLaren after the Monaco Grand Prix. So, while telling your driver to not attack his teammate is okay within the rules, forcing him to let the partner pass is illegal. And for that, it does not matter if the rules make sense or not. If you do something forbidden you will get punished. I also believe it's stupid that it is not allowed for cars to roll out after the end of the race to save fuel for the sample taken by the FIA, but it's a rule and if you do not have enough, you get punished. So, Ferrari did wrong, and they ought to get a penalty. If other teams do it and it can be shown (and seriously, anyone trying to tell something, either Alonso being much faster (he was not, he did drop a bit so he could do some good times, but when they compared against each other in "close combat" Alonso was never fast enough to actually get past Massa - they were working at levels where even Sato can barely overtake), or Massa making a gear mistake, is only making himself look poor) they should be punished as well. It's as simple as that.

OK then, in which case I repeat my point two posts above re ordering team-mates to let each other pass to optimise strategy.

So optimising strategy for a race result is OK, but optimising strategy for a championship result is not? Sorry, but that does not make sense.

eytl wrote:For once I may have to go against public opinion on this forum.

But could someone please explain to me what the fuss is all about?

Here's a left-fielder - after the knee-jerk reaction to Austria 2002, when team orders were forbidden, this became an issue. It shouldn't be. Much as I feel for Felipe - and I do - Ferrari did The Right Thing,

As far as I am aware, there have always been team orders one way or another in F1 and so I side with Coulthard on the BBC coverage - that the rule is wrong, but as Eddie Jordan also stated, the rule exists, and Ferrari broke it. My opinion? This should be motor RACING and until one driver is mathematically out of it, only tell the drivers not to crash. If Massa gets several podiums and Alonso has a few bad races, Ferrari are going to look a bit silly. Think Ferrari and 1999 - could Irvine have won the championship if he had been favoured over Schumacher prior to the British GP? Schumacher would only have needed mover over once or twice for Eddie before Silverstone for Hakkinen not to have won the title...

Well I think the fuss is this high due to a few things. Firstly, its Ferrari. Secondly, its Massa - most people already have sympathy for him due to his accident, his behaviour after Brazil 2008 and the associated circumstances etc. Thirdly, while other recent team orders (e.g. China 2008) have been at the end of a championship - there are still 8 (?) races to go, and Massa wasn't really that far behind if you look at the old points system. He was also hardly slower on pace, and lost a large chunk of his time in traffic.

It reeks of desperation from Ferrari, especially after they criticised a race as being a manipulated scandal a few weeks ago.

CarlosFerreira wrote:

eytl wrote:For once I may have to go against public opinion on this forum.

But could someone please explain to me what the fuss is all about?

Here's a left-fielder - after the knee-jerk reaction to Austria 2002, when team orders were forbidden, this became an issue. It shouldn't be. Much as I feel for Felipe - and I do - Ferrari did The Right Thing,

I reckon it's a combination of the latent unpoularlity of Ferrari (and possibly Alonso being less popular than Massa), the impression (sometimes correct) that they got away with things before and mostly the blatant, spectacle destroying nature of the order.

Although on the latter point, since a driver that's a couple of tenths a lap faster than the guy in front can't actually get close enough to him to pass unless the guy in front makes a mistake, I don't think we were robbed of much of a spectacle.

You know what we need?

One car teams. 24 teams in F1. More reject teams potentially. No team orders.

Nice. Simple. Sorted.

It's 1.30am in Oz and I'm going to catch some sleep before finding out tomorrow morning that Ferrari has been disqualified, Vettel inherits the win on home soil, and instead of being level on points with Webber but behind the Aussie on countback, he'll now be ahead on points. Then I really will let how I feel replace all semblance of logic!

A point is being missed in this discussion.
In 2002, there was a strong reaction from the public outcry after the Austrian disgrace. In the end, F-1 is an entertainment business. Although there have been presented some good justifications for what Ferrari did in 2002 and now, the bottomline is what they did does not please too much the viewers.

Yes, McLaren, Renault, Williams and BMW Sauber have also given team orders, but Ferrari has gone beyond them. This is the kind of attitude that maculates even more the image of F-1, causing some occasional viewers to watch something else during the weekends.

eytl wrote:You know what we need?

One car teams. 24 teams in F1. More reject teams potentially. No team orders.

Nice. Simple. Sorted. !

I was actually thinking the same thing but you could wind up with a Hendrick/Stewart-Haas situation where one team effectively runs many teams just under different names... ... ... damnit, that's what Toro Rosso are doing... hmm, well, crap.

If you follow Sir Stirling Moss' tweeter feed, he's asking a relevant question. Is F1 a sport or a business?

It is a business. Ergo, Ferrari would have done the right thing.

Problem is the qualifier: F1 is entertainment business. As a result, if the clients is always right, Ferrari screwed this one up.