F1

[gorrie]

I dislike Ferrari.. but team orders happen, whether blatant or coded.. they happen. The order may not be to switch positions, but just for the 2nd car to turn the wick down & follow your team-mate home... but it's still a team order that may affect what the outcome of the race would have been had the racers been left to race (ie, when Button & Hamilton were told to calm it down after having a little play immediately after the Vettel/Webber incident).

The only thing that surprised me about the "Alonso is faster than you" call... was that it didn't happen sooner.

Early on in the race, Alonso was right up Massa's chuff... and at that point you could see clearly that Alonso was being held up, and at one point lifting mid corner to avoid losing his nose. I think that's what prompted the "This is ridiculous" comment over Alonso's radio.
If they had made the call right at that point in the race (perhaps with better chosen words), I don't think there would have been such a fuss made about it... as it would have been seen as the team taking action to make sure there wasn't an incident involving their 2 cars.
Brundle even said at that stage "I think we are close to hearing some coded messages"... yet nothing came until around 15 laps from the end??

I'm sure if it hadn't been his team mate in front, Alonso would have tried a few daring moves... but he's unlikley to want to 'do a Vettel'... so by dropping back for a few laps & then catching up again, I think that was probably his way of showing the team that he had the speed but was being stifled by the pace Massa was setting.
If Massa was the quicker car, he would have gapped Alonso... but he didn't.

[j2 lot]

I think the timing of the incident is indicative of the feeling of Rob Smedley about it. Let's not forget they could have told Massa to back of to save fuel. But Smedley chose to be as obvious about it as he could and made the call to let alonso past in a way that left everyone in no doubt that it was a team order. I suspect they held on as long as they could and the order was a reluctant one that was forced on the Massa camp by senior Ferrari management.

[GregR]

A $100k fine is a joke in terms of a sanction to an F1 team.

However, I prefer Alonso to Massa and in a previous race Alonso was stuck behind his team-mate for a long period. Obviously he will have had words, played the double-world-champion card and what we saw at Hockenheim was the result.

All this, "if he was faster, he should pass him by overtaking" stuff is all a bit nonsense really, he's in the same effing car and if his pace until he got the the back of Massa was better then he simply was faster. The decision for the team is .. one driver holding up the other .. should we allow them to do a Webber/Vettell as the 'quicker' driver tries to pass or do we allow them a 'safe' pass?

Personally I think the no team orders rule is a joke really - how can there be no team orders on track position, yet there can be team orders on who gets what updates to their car (a la Vettel's new nose cone) etc? They're a team - its up to them surely to do what they see fit. There's no 'I' in team and drivers forget that.

However, there is a rule about no team orders on track position - if that's broken, then there should be a sanction metered out. There was.

Playing Devil's advocate, all that Rocky said was, "fernando is faster." Obvious implication is that he should be allowed past - but is than an instruction? If there's been a word in a team bus about that being the code for 'team orders' then best of luck to the FIA to prove it. As it stands the objective observer could be forgiven to say Felipe took it for the team by slowing down, rather than doing as he was told.

[campbell]

My view is that when two cars from the same team are next to each other on the circuit they can finish in whatever order they want and no rules will prevent that; they could simply have told Massa to push, then told him to save fuel; that would have had the same effect. Massa elected to let Alonso pass because it was the right thing for the team - his choice and makes sod all difference to anybody else.

I think this is a big part of the latest stooshie...surely there are many, many scenarios that occur under "team orders" which are orchestrated in a much more professional (or call it subtle?) way and thus the viewing, money-paying fans are blissfully unaware. People are narked on this occasion - as they have been on previous blatant occasions - because of the bare-faced way it was done. And in some cases because of a sentimentality that Massa should have been allowed his hard-fought win on the race anniversary of his near-fatal crash in Hungary last year.

My particular frustration is that Alonso had a couple of attempts at Massa very shortly before the "pass", and listening to Martin Brundle, Alonso made mistakes with his attempts. Had he held on and harried Massa a little longer, he'd have made a genuine overtake...we all know he would, he is a very good driver indeed...and Ferrari would still have the result they feel they wanted "for the team". OK so they may have taken each other out but hey, that's racing!

[campbell]

All this, "if he was faster, he should pass him by overtaking" stuff is all a bit nonsense really, he's in the same effing car and if his pace until he got the the back of Massa was better then he simply was faster

Similar machinery is only half the story, though, isn't it. The driver makes up the other 50% (say), and if one driver harrying another in front can outwit the guy in front through a forced error - surely one of the most common ways of ever seeing a pass in F1 these days - then bravo and let's bring it on.

And yes I know people will say "ah but they might both crash", well DIDDUMS, this is a $mult-million sport, the drivers are paid truckloads (in the top teams about whom we are bitching just now, at least), so let them earn their fecking crusts.

[gorrie]

And yes I know people will say "ah but they might both crash", well DIDDUMS, this is a $mult-million sport, the drivers are paid truckloads (in the top teams about whom we are bitching just now, at least), so let them earn their fecking crusts.

But Campbell, I'm pretty sure the drivers would be more than happy to earn their crusts. As drivers though, they are between a rock & a hard place when it comes to passing their team mate. As you say, it's an X$billion sport/business and the teams priority is to ensure they are at the top of both Driver & Constructor championships... to secure more sponsorship money etc etc.
The drivers will know just how much grief they will get if they take out both cars on such a manouvre & how costly it is to the team.

Damned if you don't, damned if you do.

I'd imagine Rocky has been on the receiving end of a few words today... to brush up on how not to make a radio tranmission sound like an order...

[Stevoraith]

It's a tricky situation for all involved. Do you allow team orders since it's a team sport, or do you ban them to try and preserve the integrity of the individual prize? I don't know whats best, but as we've seen, it's almost impossible to police a ban so they may as well just allow it.

Can anyone else think of a 'sport' where there is a team prize and an individual prize based on the same result? I can't.

[campbell]

I would commend anyone interested in this from a non-sensationalist point of view, to enjoy the BBC F1 Forum programme from this weekend (goes out on red button immediately after the race and available online on iPlayer at the moment).

Rightly or wrongly it's dominated by this latest "scandal", and the collection of EJ, MB, DC and indeed Jakey who is a quality anchorman, makes it almost more worth a watch than the race itself

Their own interviews with a couple of people "in the know"...as well as Vettell's comedy moments in the background...fair livened up my evening!

Additionally, Brundle's column is worth a read too:

Clumsy Ferrari expose flawed rule

[RobW]

I like Joe Saward's take on this http://joesaward.wordpress.com/.

Main point being that if F1 is a business then it is about making your customers (aka fans) feel better about the brand, not sure that Ferrari did that at the weekend. A case of understanding that just winning isn't enough.

Then again - if F1 is a sport then the boys should be let to get on with some good ole have at it racing

[RobW]

Funny enough, an interview with the team Sky boss ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/ju ... our-france ) makes a similar point about doing things the right way in sport.

[tut]

Surely the bottom line is the same as you breaking the speed limit, you may not agree with it, but it is Law, and if you are caught then you are punished. However in most cases the punishment is laid down so you know what you are going to get.

The "no team orders ruling" is laid down by the FIA, break it and you will be punished. The difference in this case is that the punishment is not laid down beforehand, more made up as they go along.

tut

[DavieK]

As mentioned it may be a daft rule but it is a rule. One easy way to punish the teams caught would be to change the points given, in this case give Massa his 25 and Alonso 18.

[tonyg]

F1 is a business, but the customers aren't the fans - they're the team sponsors !

[jason]

F1 is a business, but the customers aren't the fans - they're the team sponsors !

And who do the sponsors want exposure to, Tony?

[The Hoff]

I wouldn't care if there are team orders are not, as long as we (fans) are not aware of their implementation during or before a race and don't have to rely on the pundits to make F1 entertaining!
Things are improving in F1 but still, I'd hate to have paid good money to see last Sundays race.

My 2p worth

Cowan