Ferrari team order at Germany - What should be the penalty?

[dave kumar]

....If F1 is only about the team then scrap the drivers world championship. If you want a drivers championship where the drivers are ranked according to ability (not according to who has the best manager, throws the biggest strop, is sleeping with the title sponsor, etc.) then let the drivers all race on an equal footing...

May be we should simplify this discussion. Firstly we have views on what should be done about such a blatant infingement of a rule regarding the manipulation of the race result. When it is this blatant it does tend to polarise people in to the 'what do you expect' or the 'it is a disgrace' camps. But are we saying that it is OK to break this rule as long as you are more subtle about it and keep the fans 'believing' that they are seeing a real race? I personally don't want to be reassured that Father Christmas is real (don't panic our younger contributers, he is real).

Secondly, how many people think Ferrari manipulated the race result to keep sponsors happy and how many think that they are backing their best hope for the drivers championship this year?

[szlaszlo84]

Personally, I feel like that it was a team order. Looking at how Massa was reacting at the interview anyways.
On the other hand WMSC will have a much harder time to prove it and Ferrari will bank their defence on the fact that Massa believed that he is out of contention for the WDC so he made a reasonable decision by letting Alonso pass. Meaning it wasn't a team order per say but one racer helping a fellow teammate - to ensure good team mechanics/atmosphere for the next season as well.
Any other way they will end up being found guilty. The question is only the punishment, but this is a repeat offender case, so I can't imagine WMSC taking it lightly.

[vall]

....If F1 is only about the team then scrap the drivers world championship. If you want a drivers championship where the drivers are ranked according to ability (not according to who has the best manager, throws the biggest strop, is sleeping with the title sponsor, etc.) then let the drivers all race on an equal footing...

May be we should simplify this discussion. Firstly we have views on what should be done about such a blatant infingement of a rule regarding the manipulation of the race result. When it is this blatant it does tend to polarise people in to the 'what do you expect' or the 'it is a disgrace' camps. But are we saying that it is OK to break this rule as long as you are more subtle about it and keep the fans 'believing' that they are seeing a real race? I personally don't want to be reassured that Father Christmas is real (don't panic our younger contributers, he is real).

Secondly, how many people think Ferrari manipulated the race result to keep sponsors happy and how many think that they are backing their best hope for the drivers championship this year?

I think they back their only hope to with a WDC. Massa was 30+ point behind Alonso and ~80 behind LH? Does anyone realistically think Massa could do it? I don't.

I also have the feeling that this scenario was discussed before the race (with the 2 Ferrari's starting 2&3rd) and the whole position swap think was engineered in advance.

[Miguel]

I think they back their only hope to with a WDC. Massa was 30+ point behind Alonso and ~80 behind LH? Does anyone realistically think Massa could do it? I don't.

I also have the feeling that this scenario was discussed before the race (with the 2 Ferrari's starting 2&3rd) and the whole position swap think was engineered in advance.

Being 78 points behind Hamilton was bad. Being 78 points behind Hamilton, 65 behind Button, 60 Behind Webber and 55 Behind Webber (numbers here are approximate) is horrible. There are so many rivals ahead of both Ferraris that Massa's points rift is unlikely to overcome with anything less than an F2002, F2004 or an MP/4-4. Come on, even Alonso has a bloody slim chance.

BTW: Ferrari robbed us the chance to see a fight for the win as much as McLaren robbed us the chance to see a fight for the win in Istambul. As soon as Button did something unexpected (trying to overtake Hamilton), his engineer went ballistic with "save fuel! save fuel!" messages. The difference is that in the latest case there was a position swap, closely followed by the fact that this actually helps Ferrari's chances in the WDC.

Anyway, what I cannot understand is why the media have done such a big fuss about this while not doing the same about identical situations we've had in the past few years. I understand the people that say this should be punished. I understand the other side of the argument. I don't understand the press' holier than thou attitude when condoning this and not previous team orders. Don't tell me it made more sense back then, because else I'll have to work out the probabilities.


PS: A certain Contador helped Vinokourov win the Liege Bastogne Liege this year. I doubt Alberto's contract says he has to help Vino at all.

PPS: Is "hold station" a punishable team order for those screaming bloody murder? Is telling your driver to conserve his engine another punishable team order? Someone said that the way to avoid team orders was abolishing the WCC.

Actually, abolishing the WDC (but keeping the winners' names) would have avoided yesterday's pass... but might have ended with Alonso slowing his pace in order to deny Vettel a shot for the win (not unlike Schumacher in Malaysia 99). Actually, didn't Alonso do something similar in Melbourne this year?

[ecapox]

I think they back their only hope to with a WDC. Massa was 30+ point behind Alonso and ~80 behind LH? Does anyone realistically think Massa could do it? I don't.

I also have the feeling that this scenario was discussed before the race (with the 2 Ferrari's starting 2&3rd) and the whole position swap think was engineered in advance.

I am almost certain this was the case. Massa just didnt think he'd even have to worry about it and when it was obvious that he had to worry about it, he was unhappy, rightfully so, but it's a team game. The coach says you sit out, you sit out.

[agip]

The public isn't dumb. They know that a team works as a team. Say the second car is getting blue flags to let the leader lap through... he can take a few extra corners to do it and then he can move over immediately when his teammate laps him. The gain can be several seconds and affect the results. Team tactics.

I think the rule is stupid and unenforceable. It only rewards those shrewd enough to mask it. "Save fuel" messages, a "jammed wheel nut" or some other reason for a slow stop... there are several ways to mask results manipulation. It is best that everything be out in the open like it is in bicycle racing. I remember McLaren openly using one car to create an aerodynamic "tow" down the straight during quali at Indy in 2000 and 2001. Is this against the individual spirit of mano-y-mano racing also?

And what about customer teams... say a Toro Rosso delays Hamilton for a lap of blue flags to allow Fernando to close in on Lewis... say STR even gets penalized... all Ferrari has to do is let them have a free engine or something and it is worth it for STR to be "buddies" on the track.

100% agree. I think is a bit hipocrital to complain about this. If you ban team orders, there're tons of ways to "mask" them. It doesn't make any sense.

If everyone accept this, and change their minds. We would enjoy this more. Maybe we would new teamwork strategies involving the 2 drivers.

This NOT goes against racing, they race against the OTHER teams. And this doesn't mean also, that team members would never race against each other again.

[jwielage]

Anyway, what I cannot understand is why the media have done such a big fuss about this while not doing the same about identical situations we've had in the past few years. I understand the people that say this should be punished. I understand the other side of the argument. I don't understand the press' holier than thou attitude when condoning this and not previous team orders. Don't tell me it made more sense back then, because else I'll have to work out the probabilities.

Because drama sells, and Alonso is the vilian of the British media.

Comence scathing responses now....

[nipo]

Please, you intelligent people, stop making references to other sports. Compare F1 to, what, cycling? Come on! In cycling you consider human endurance, attack plans and defence formations. If you've ever watched, say, Tour de France, you'll understand that you have exactly zero chance to win if you don't employ teamwork. It is an INTEGRAL PART of the sport.

In F1, "teamwork" is a very different thing:
#1 It is not an integral part of the sport. If your drivers were not in consecutive places would you bring them together for some "teamwork"? You won't! You would in cycling, as a comparison. In F1, the fight on the track is mostly a per driver/race team effort.
#2 Consider the costs and benefits: You take away the glory of a win or a podium finish of a driver at the current race for a possible (but far from definite) scenario of the WDC being won by specifically a few points at the end. Is that appropriate? A matter of opinion, perhaps, but for sure no definite answer for that.
#3 Favoured drivers tend to remain that way, so are unfavoured ones. You get inferior support and consequently you perform worse and this is something you can't really get around as a driver. Careers are crippled that way. As an athlete, on the other hand, you could train hard and fight for the No. 1 spot, so it is not so much the end of the world if you started in a support role.

There, you can see the difference in nature between F1 and cycling (and many other sports people here have referenced). So if we want to continue this topic let's just focus on whether personal glory and career prospects should give way to team WDC interests, and if so, under what circumstances. A new rule specifying the morally acceptible (and hence legal) situations where you can swap drivers' places? Allow contractual agreements specifying a driver to be the No. 2 in the team? Whatever. Just DON'T continue comparing F1 to other sports. It is totally irrelevant.

[vall]

I agree a comparison with other sports is not very appropriate. However, this whole situation is too much hypocratic, isn't it? Every team does team orders/strategies/whatever but now they point the finger to Ferrari. Recent examples are abundant, no?

I expected this sort of reaction from the Macca boys:

http://totalf1.com/full_story/view/3482 ... am_orders/

it is hilarious how they take advantage of the situation and dig at Ferrari. It is so hypocratic....

[dave kumar]

...Being 78 points behind Hamilton was bad. Being 78 points behind Hamilton, 65 behind Button, 60 Behind Webber and 55 Behind Webber (numbers here are approximate) is horrible. There are so many rivals ahead of both Ferraris that Massa's points rift is unlikely to overcome with anything less than an F2002, F2004 or an MP/4-4. Come on, even Alonso has a bloody slim chance....

Actually, abolishing the WDC (but keeping the winners' names) would have avoided yesterday's pass... but might have ended with Alonso slowing his pace in order to deny Vettel a shot for the win (not unlike Schumacher in Malaysia 99). Actually, didn't Alonso do something similar in Melbourne this year?

I think this is a good point. The Constructors Title is obviously not affected by swapping places within the team. If we remove the incentive of WDC points, then the only remaining reasons for manipulating the result are ego or sponsors (both quite possible but much less easily justifiable in the mind of the driver that is asked to cede position).

I would still want a WDC though. The only solution I can see is to allow a team to transfer WDC points between drivers IF AND ONLY IF they both finish the race in concecutive positions - eg. 1 and 2, 2 and 3 etc. What difference will this make? Well, the driver with his name on the winners trophy and standing on the top step of the podium would have been Massa on Sunday and Rubens in 2002. But the team can still have its cake by allotting those points in a way that best suits it in terms of the WDC - to Alonso and Schumacher respectively. The record books will then be more credible in terms of race wins without hurting the teams effort of acheiving both WDC and WCC titles. It isn't perfect as it still denies one driver the chance of going for the WDC but at least it is transparent, no more sudden loss of power that fixes itself the lap after or an extra pit stop.

Well I can dream can't I.

[gridwalker]

I agree a comparison with other sports is not very appropriate. However, this whole situation is too much hypocratic, isn't it? Every team does team orders/strategies/whatever but now they point the finger to Ferrari. Recent examples are abundant, no?

I expected this sort of reaction from the Macca boys:

http://totalf1.com/full_story/view/3482 ... am_orders/

it is hilarious how they take advantage of the situation and dig at Ferrari. It is so hypocratic....

I think you mean Hypocritical : you appear to be getting it confused with the Hippocratic oath, which prevents doctors from intentionally doing harm ...

So, a bunch of team managers are hypocrites, HOLD THE PRESS!

I would like to know why this kind of furore always seems to surround Ferrari if everyone is up to the same game ...

[WhiteBlue]

I would like to know why this kind of furore always seems to surround Ferrari if everyone is up to the same game ...

Ferrari have the highest brand recognition and brand value of all teams involved in F1 due to their history and achievements. They have always used this commercial muscle to influence the rule making. I believe that their special status with FOM contributes to the hubris and the megalomaniac thinking that Luca Condero di Montezemolo has shown lately.

Ferrari are clearly courted again by Ecclestone and the FiA at the moment because they will use their leverage in the up coming discussions of the 2013 Concord Agreement. To a certain degree the FiA and FOTA are natural allies against FOM in the talks about the money distribution. Ferrari can split FOTA and destroy the opposition against FOM.

This means that nobody can afford to piss off Montezemolo at the moment because Ferrari is needed by all sides. Red Bull with Mateschitz's money are relatively independent of the politics but McLaren will try very hard to keep FOTA intact because they have no other leverage to get more money from FOM and they need it.

This situation will have an influence on the outcome of the WMSC hearing. It seems unlikely that there will be any brash penalties against Ferrari. I think that the MWSC will just take away the illegally gained advantage from Alonso, issue a bigger fine and probation to Ferrari and will abolish the team oder rule to appease Ferrari.

[vall]

This situation will have an influence on the outcome of the WMSC hearing. It seems unlikely that there will be any brash penalties against Ferrari. I think that the MWSC will just take away the illegally gained advantage from Alonso, issue a bigger fine and probation to Ferrari and will abolish the team oder rule to appease Ferrari.

wouldn't they first need to prove that it was a team order? That is hard to do even if it was obvious to everyone, no?

[vall]

I agree a comparison with other sports is not very appropriate. However, this whole situation is too much hypocratic, isn't it? Every team does team orders/strategies/whatever but now they point the finger to Ferrari. Recent examples are abundant, no?

I expected this sort of reaction from the Macca boys:

http://totalf1.com/full_story/view/3482 ... am_orders/

it is hilarious how they take advantage of the situation and dig at Ferrari. It is so hypocratic....

I think you mean Hypocritical : you appear to be getting it confused with the Hippocratic oath, which prevents doctors from intentionally doing harm ...

So, a bunch of team managers are hypocrites, HOLD THE PRESS!

yeah, it seems I messed it up

I would like to know why this kind of furore always seems to surround Ferrari if everyone is up to the same game ...

I would like to know too? For me orders lie "Hold position, do not try to overtake (your teammate)" (coded as "save fuel","conserve tires", etc.) are no better than an order to swap positions! I wonder why FIA did not look at the telemetry (and full radio) to check if it was indeed necessary to save fuel? After all there were open discussions and suspicion that these were indeed team orders....

[myurr]

I would like to know why this kind of furore always seems to surround Ferrari if everyone is up to the same game ...

I would like to know too? For me orders lie "Hold position, do not try to overtake (your teammate)" (coded as "save fuel","conserve tires", etc.) are no better than an order to swap positions! I wonder why FIA did not look at the telemetry (and full radio) to check if it was indeed necessary to save fuel? After all there were open discussions and suspicion that these were indeed team orders....

I personally feel that holding station once the GP is well underway isn't as bad as swapping positions, but I can see where you're coming from.

I wonder if part of the problem is that F1 has become more of an endurance race - no refuelling (which I prefer), tyres that can do the whole race distance (which I don't like), long life parts, etc. Coupled with the fact that the points system still rewards consistent finishes rather than pushing to the limit with do or die moves and each and every pont becomes critical as does just making the finish even in only an okay position.

Maybe we should look at only counting the best 80% or so of the results like used to happen in the Senna / Prost era, and if we have to have long life parts then at least make the tyres so they fall apart after 1/3rd race distance. Ideally we'd see it so that a two stop strategy would just about be optimal with a one stop strategy being only narrowly behind so that drivers can make a difference and make different strategies work.