The 'oh no it wasn't', 'oh yes it was' fair/unfair team orders and contract clauses thread

[Sonic]

Got to love Happy Enfield Sonic..

Damn straight!

[Hondo]

Again, having followed F1 since the days of Jimmy Clark, I have never seen or had a chance to read any drivers contract. I am deeply impressed with the number of people that claim to know the specifics of those contracts.
This has been hashed and rehashed but for the team, their money comes from winning the constructor's championship. Yes they'd like to win both, but their real pay off is with the constructor's and they are in it to make money. Look at it this way, a driver wins the WDC and it's going to cost more money to keep him because he thinks he's worth more now. Maybe he is, but we all know the car had a role in winning that championship and there will be more than a few capable drivers willing to drive that car for less money. The obivious solution is to have each team only field one car and one driver. There, you've ended the entire argument. But thats not going to happen so as long as each team is required to field 2 drivers, I have no problem with the team favoring whichever driver they think will bring them the most success. It's their money and they have the right to invest it where they think it will get the most return. Rubens had his moments with both Button and schumacher but couldn't lock it down and put it away. Irvine had his chance when Schumacher broke his leg and didn't get it done. I don't think Schumacher needs any thing in a contract that stipulates him as number 1 driver. I think his consistancy, resolve, and crew relationships make it a natural position for him.

Dangerous driving. It is being said it is impossible to pass in F1 nowadays. But it's not immpossible. It's damned difficult and dangerous. Unless you held the pole position and can lead from there, you're going to have to pass people to win. That risks a collision but thats racing. Sometimes it depends on who is trying to pass who and the experience levels involved. On the flip side, we have all seen a pair of drivers go though 4 or more turns side by side without a bobble.

It's a dangerous game.

[ArrowsFA1]

By Austria 2002, MS had 44 points to RB's 6, and that had nothing to do with team orders: it was the result of what had happened at the track in the first 5 races.

I agree.

To state that such a difference was the result of Ferrari deliberately blocking RB, is ridiculous.

I, nor anyone else as far as I know, has said that was the case.

RB could not challenge for the title because of his own limitations not because Ferrari didn't let him. In fact, many races that MS won RB could not finish second.

I agree that RB was never likely to challenge MS for the title. In a straight fight I think we all know who would have come out on top.

And you really not being logical, because you "save" Williams from the shame of 1981 using the fact that Reutemann was able to challenge for the title. That happened simply because Jones had a crappy season, not because the team was fair to Reutemann.

Jones's season was not that crappy. He finished third in the title race, just three points behind his team-mate, and they had the same number of wins each (2).

p.s. reading the "Williams" further I see that Reutemann's contract stated a gap of 7secs (according to Peter Windsor) not 6, a figure I was stating from memory.

[Valve Bounce]

Knock yourselves out......

No thanks! been there, done that, and bought the T-shirt!!

[wedge]

The team orders by Ferrari weren't executed well in Austria 2001. Mid-race pass would've been more digestable than on the last lap on the last corner. Reminds me of Senna and Mansell giving their victories away to Berger and Patrese respectively - why make all that effort for 99% of the race?

In 2002 Rubens made the team sweat. I'm sure he's proud with his actions.

[D-Type]

Why do people get so het up about the question of team orders? they have been part of racing since the first time a team entered.

I agree that some recent examples have been, shall we say, a little lacking in subtlety, but that doesn't make them wrong. Apart of course from Singapore.

[Rollo]

I think that Moss winning the '55 British GP was disgusting and that Fangio could have easily beaten him, if it wasn't for... not team orders, what's that other thing?

[Valve Bounce]

I think that Moss winning the '55 British GP was disgusting and that Fangio could have easily beaten him, if it wasn't for... not team orders, what's that other thing?

Good sportsmanship on Fangio's part.

[V12]

Good sportsmanship on Fangio's part.

I agree, that was more of a Fangio-order than a team-order. Well allegedly anyway, JMF took it to his grave.

As for Austria '02, I think what got people was just how unnecessary it was. If those extra 4 points benefitted Schumacher towards the end of a tightly-fought championship battle, I for one wouldn't have batted an eyelid.

I still think the FIA's completely unenforceable "no team orders" knee-jerk ruling that followed was even more of a farce though.

And regarding Jones/Reutemann, well I was minus two years old when that was going on, but for me the major difference was Reutemann giving the team orders the metaphorical double-fingers in Brazil, without any major repercussions (i.e. he stayed with the team and came within a rubbish Las Vegas performance of winning the title that year) had Rubens kept going to the flag in Austria, what would have been the fallout? I guess we'll never know.

[Valve Bounce]

............ had Rubens kept going to the flag in Austria, what would have been the fallout? I guess we'll never know.

Well, he wouldn't have got the big salary rise and contract renewal for a start. He might even have gotten himself fired.