http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/me...ders-in-future
What a load.
Printable View
Mercedes are right in insisting that their drivers do as they are told. The drivers are employees like any other and should respect the wishes of their employer.
Having said that, they are digging a hole for themselves by saying on the one hand that Hamilton was right to defy them in Hungary but on the other the drivers must obey orders. That's the kind of muddled thinking that got Red Bull into trouble several times during the Vettel-Webber era. Ferrari never have this problem as the drivers seem to know that the team must be obeyed. The drivers don't always like it but they seem to do it anyway.
Mercedes need to pick a stance and stick to it. Either the drivers are free to race or they're not. A foot in either camp will only lead to trouble.
I don't see anything as really unclear here.
What Toto seems to be saying is that Hamilton didn't ignore the order; the order was to let Nico through, not to slow down. Hamilton's position (and I agree) is that Nico never made any attempt to pass, and was never close enough to make such an attempt, so a decision to obey or ignore the order never arose. I didn't see any instance of Hamilton making a defensive move at that point in the race.
Toto did also explicitly say that there would never be an order to lift off the gas. Let's hope so...
The whole "drivers/racers as employees" thing stinks like untreated sewerage. Granted, they get paid squillions to do this, and the team/manufacturer has marketing and image issues to manage, but this is racing ferchrissakes! If it wasn't for superego driving many of these pilots to excel, they wouldn't have a show in the first place.
Besides, ALL publicity is good publicity - and having two big names trading blows in front of millions of viewers (asuming F1 still draws millions of viewers, they seem to be doing their utmost to rain on their own parade) is pretty good TV. Merc have - barring any sudden zombie apocalypse - got the constructors crown in the bag. That's what pays the big bucks. The WDC is just a side show, so let them squabble and fight, er, race that is.
.....Or conversely Ferrari never have this problem as they pitifully rarely have a situation where both of their drivers are neck and neck with one of them being a dead cert for the WDCQuote:
Originally Posted by Hawkmoon
Ferrari would love to have Mercs problems!
For the last few years that's been true but for most of the team's history they have had a clear driver hierarchy and it's been rather successful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mifune
the success came from schumacher, a superior car ( borderline illegal at times) and a lot of assistance by the FIA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkmoon
It really didn't matter who was in that other car. Ferrari were going to win the WDC and WCC anyway. the team orders were put in place to ensure MSC dominance and success and had little to do with the overall team success. As left up to their own, Barrichello would have had more wins and a much tighter challenge to MSC. Especially from 2002-2004, what was the point of team orders? that car was beyond dominant. Therefore I say team orders rarely work or are effective and if you look at how they are employed that strategy, then it was never about benefitting the team ,but more about benefitting the one driver. Even if issuing them were patently ridiculous and meaningless.
And with ferrari it stretched far beyond race strategy, it was also the effort devoted to each car, what parts were being given and pretty much having the #2 as a test rabbit, often compromising their own weekend and race just so it could benefit MSC. that level of slant will thankfully never happen again. And as much as i respect the quality of Alonso's driving and skill, he is probably the only guy left on the grid who would wish for that kind of scenario and setup within the team. He certainly did in 2007 and was provided that 2009-2010, and had and implicit understanding of that during his alonso/massa pairing When massa was clearly a #2 and at times got some mysterious pit calls etc, that only served to help alonso and not maximizing the team points. Now vettel enjoyed those kind of benefits too for a number of years, but in a more subtle way.
Late in a season with no chance of success and a championship on the line for your teammate, then I can certainly see teams employing a few strategic calls, etc, which a teammate most often is more than happy to oblige. But i remember MSC not helping out irvine whatsoever, because he wanted to be the first to win the wDC with ferrari in that era, even if it meant compromising the team and teammate.
I for one hate team orders, and they should not be part of the sport. like i said if asked to help a teammate out here and there, then ok, but it should not be an order. And it is funny how only F1 teams think that it is a teamsport, when really it is an individual sport with 2 cars for each participating team. I partly blame it on the entire payout structure of F! which should be geared towards driver performance than team performance. By that same matrix, the top teams will still get most of the prize money and any kind of benefit from finishing higher than rivals, but the actually tethering of the cash windfall to the overall team performance is rather foolish. Establish a proper revenue sharing system and focus more on the drivers championship. That is what most people watch it for.
Ferrari did everything they could , in those Shoe years , to win .
They did not relent until they had it won , and Rubens , despite being derided constantly , should instead be lauded for his loyalty to the team , at least when he wasn't whining about it .
They took their best shot , which they felt was with a one-two scenario .
They were ruthless , and took a lot of stick as such , but they were very successful .
It looks cruel to most people , but that true loyalty and self-sacrifice just isn't lauded in today's society .
But then , there wasn't necessarily a lot of real "sacrifice" in Hamilton letting his team mate by , as there would still have been a battle at the end .
Lewis did manage to keep Nico well behind , but he would have likely been better off to have managed his tires instead . He might have had a chance against both Alonso and Ricciardo .
If he got them between himself and Nico , they could have mounted most of his defense for the win .
That's the scenario I was hoping for in those last few laps .
It goes beyond the Schumacher era. Villeneuve was told to hold station behind Scheckter at Monza in '79 because Scheckter was the team's number one. Collins gave up his car so Fangio could win the title in '56 because the Argentinian was number 1. Driver hierarchies are a part of F1's DNA and Ferrari have embraced that method more than most teams.Quote:
Originally Posted by truefan72
Ferrari felt the best way to win was to backup Schumacher with a 'lesser' driver. The results speak for themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by truefan72
Schumacher came back from injury in Malaysia in '99 and put it on pole by almost a second. He then let Irvine past in the early laps and proceeded to make life hell for Coulthard who was third. After the pit stops Schumacher was again ahead of Irvine and again let him past. Irvine won. How is that not helping Irvine whatsoever?Quote:
Originally Posted by truefan72
I have no problems with team orders and I think F1 is a team sport. Golf is an individual sport. F1 takes hundreds of people behind the scenes and dozens on race day to achieve success. It's the very definition of a team sport.Quote:
Originally Posted by truefan72
I just wish the teams were honest about it and were not telling us how the drivers were allowed to race while privately telling one to move over for the other.
There was a time team orders were specifically banned. I remember when Coulthard moved over for Mika at Australia one year the FIA was ready for a tribunal, but it was diffused by the drivers saying it was an agreement between the two men and the team had nothing to do with it.
If one of your drivers is a not in the championship hunt and the other is, I believe the low man's main job should be to get out of his teammate's way and the race the hell out of everyone else,
Either have team orders or don't. Just stop jacking us around.
F1 isn't a team sport and for that fact almost every racing series worldwide, isnt; a teamsport.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkmoon
I do not consider the support staff as part of "the team" anymore than I consider the trainer, waterboy, press secretary, pr manager, massage specialist and team doctor part of the football team.
In fact in my opinion there is only one type of racing structure that I consider a team and that is the shared drive series like LeMans, and a few others.
Every other series is about the driver and the car, and if it takes 100 people to setup the car or 10, that doesn't change the nature of the sport.
car A doing well doesn't depend on car B, and if Car A retires from the race, doesn't mean car B does. they are not a team by any definition.
In fact, come P1 on Friday, both sides of the garage can actually not need to talk to each other until the chequered flag on Sunday and it would not adversely impact either car.
It has been and always will be about the drivers. with (what used to be a somewhat irrelevant) Constructors trophy, which F1 teams take way too seriously. The only thing they need to tell their drivers is not to take each other out. It assumes that 2 professional drivers would not be capable of minding each pther when they have to do so for 20 other competitors. SMH
Like I said, the individual efforts of the drivers is what ultimately earns the trophy and not some sort of strategy.
And even the term "team orders" is slightly misused. because in 99% of the situations it is not about helping the team but more about aiding a particular driver, usually to the detriment of the other. Giving up your car for the designated #1 driver is not helping the team. it is helping Ascari. or Schumacher, and all those strategies were to benefit MSC and not necessarily Ferrari.
It has been proven several times over that a team can succeed without team orders if they have a solid car and decent drivers. Senna/Prost Alonso/Hamilton Rosberg/Hamilton Hill/Villeneuve Prost/Hill...etc
just by default they will win the WCC.
It is worth remembering that Massa also ignored team orders in Malaysia.
As the saying goes, drivers have to obey orders, because they are employees. And even if the call doesn't make sense, they still have to obey like in army - you don't start discussing whether the decision is good, you just go for it.
But we have seen lots of times (not only in top teams, but even in midfield) that drivers take the matters into their own hands if they feel the call doesn't make sense. We may discuss whether this is right or wrong, but that's what they do. And this is interesting psychology. Driver also has got a message - "hey I am racing for a result and I don't want to get my race compromised by a strange call".
From the top of my head even my personal favourite Jarno Trulli disobeyed a team order at Suzuka 2006, because he wanted to finish ahead of Ralf, while Ralf was considered to have a shot at beating someone else too, who eventually finished ahead of the pair.
I think there are many-many instances we even don't remember or don't know about. But that's life. Teams may make the calls, but in the end drivers decide, how much sense the call makes. A bit of democracy.:)
Drivers may back down if they feel they put the intra-team harmony at great risk or are even their job is at risk. IIRC Barrichello in Austria 2002 was told that they might need to review his contract if he disobeyes - this was told over the radio. As a result he gave up. Also Rosberg may have thought in Malaysia 2013 that perhaps for in-team harmony he needed to give up now for the long-term benefit. Because Hamilton was still new to the team and Rosberg didn't want to alienate from the team so quickly. But as by now Rosberg has established much better himself in the team and a real competitor to Hamilton in WDC, I think he is more likely to disobey in the future.
which leads me right back to team orders being useless and unnecessary IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by jens
this whole talk of driver's being an "employee" is also a false narrative as tot her status.'Drivers have always been the most important factor in the team ,save the cars themselves. Their status with the team is a pretty unique situation.
They are not employees in any conventional sense and stating as much give folks the false relation to their own employee status at work.
Especially with the bigger teams. Those drivers are more like partners to their team than purely another employee subject to the same rules. They command the most astounding contracts for a reason.
Alonso is as important to Ferrari as ferrari is to him. and some might argue that he is more important to their fortunes than what they provide him. Alonso, like every other top driver in a top team is there for one reason. Win the WDC and cement their names in the halls of glory. Same with kimi, vettel at RBR, and Hamilton at mercedes. most top drivers are not at an outfit to be a dutiful employee but more like an ambitious and hired gun, so instrumental, in fact, that the entire car is built around their needs and strong input. Drivers, who are there to win races and championships provided solid machinery.
and that is what makes the barricello situation so sad. and at least 2 of the MSC WDc's rather hollow as he was unchallenged. To me that's what made the senna/prost rivalries fascinating, and why the rosberg/hamilton championship intriguing. the introduction of foolish team orders threatens to ruin it. Especially when it was done to favor one driver at the detriment to his closest rival, who drove a better race to that point and was asked to effectively slow down and allow a slower driver past him who had shown no ability to overtake vergne or hamilton.
Like I said, team orders are always to the benefit of one driver rather than the actual team in 95% of the incidents.
lets take massa/alonso incident form germany.
there were pretty good odds that massa was going tow in that race and alonso was not going to pass him. given clean air and the lead, massa is a pretty good lights to flag winner.
If it were a matter about the team and WCC then massa was already in the elad and Ferrari was going to maximize their points haul anyway.
But it was about helping alonso, and nothing else. And the massa was clear to massa for the rest of the season.
In this era of the DRS and fuel rationing why would any team bother with team orders. All they can serve to do is p*ss off drivers and fans.
They have enough tricks in their toolbox to slow a driver with a simple radio message. Fuel maps, tyre temps, battery chargers.
Once the faster team mate is within the DRS range the pass is impossible to defend against and predictably dull.
F1 is its own worst enemy sometimes. It should ban team orders outright with a nod and a wink given to a pit controlled "slow" button... :p
A terrible essay from truefan. A complete misunderstanding of motorsport/F1. So many holes, I cbf picking at them all (at least, atm). With the possible exception of Hamilton, I'm not sure what he's a "truefan" of.
No personal attacks please. Truefan made some good points.
He made no good points at all.
" team orders being useless and unnecessary" - Wrong. Team orders are a not useless. They enable the team/constructor/manufacturer to maximise their results.
"Those drivers are more like partners to their team " - Wrong. They are not partners, unless they have a stake in the team. Drivers are there for their own benefit, and the team/constructor/manufacturer's take advantage of this notion for their own benefit. They are employees, but are not subject to typical conditions of employment.
"at least 2 of the MSC WDc's rather hollow as he was unchallenged" - Laughable
"Especially when it was done to favor one driver at the detriment to his closest rival, who drove a better race to that point and was asked to effectively slow down" - Was not asked to slow down. Hamilton tinfoil hat brigade at full bore. :rolleyes:
"team orders are always to the benefit of one driver rather than the actual team in 95% of the incidents." - Wrong. Team orders do benefit one driver, so that the team benefits, 100% of the time.
"lets take massa/alonso incident form Germany" - Fair dinkum, imagine bringing this up? Even a person who has no interest in F1, could understand that scenario. Alonso was still a chance to win the WDC. Massa was not. However, Alonso was sufficiently far enough behind, that he needed everything to go his way til the end of the season. It was clear. Massa as a little fortunate to be in front in the first place, due to the awkward positioning of Alonso and Vettel in the first corner. Ferrari had gone overboard with team orders in Austria 02, but it was a fair and reasonable moment to ask for team orders to be implemented in Germany 10.
In the absence of any serious chance Ferrari had of winning the WCC, it was to their benefit that they kept Alonso's chances of winning the WDC. Even a person who has no interest in motorsport, can understand that. But apparently "the fans" don't get it.
Just a complete failure to understand that it's the team/constructor/manufacturer, the entrant, that participates in a "motor race". The drivers is there for the car/team, not the car/team is there for the driver.
Some people just don't get it. I suspect because it interferes with their romantic, theatrical notion of motorsport. There's a grey area with team orders. There are grey areas just with motorsport. The fact that it has to be explained, is further proof of people just not having the understanding of the higher/est levels of motorsport. It's because the "theatregoing" F1 fan exists, that F1 gets more and more cheapened. It's ridiculous.
The driver is there for the car. Not the car is there for the driver.
I personally do think drivers are "employees" as such and have to listen to the employer. However, drivers as employees are of very high importance (not only driving, but also marketing) and their relationship means the employer must be quite flexible to make their relationship work well.
You can imagine this with any business if there was a very high caliber specialist, whose wisdom and skills have significantly contributed to the success of the company. If the employer/owner deems said employer valuable, he must be more flexible to follow his wishes not to push him away and let the company lose an important asset.
I think in any business it is important to understand psychology and egos - how to motivate and get most out of the people rather than create bad feelings and friction.
That's why it is easier to impose team orders on a clear #2 driver, because they are more easily replacable and team can more easily say "hey you obey or we sack you". And driver has no other option, because if he wants to remain in a good team, he will have to be a good team player.
However, you have to be more cautious with your lead drivers if you don't want to lose them. And due to success they have greater egos too... and greater negotiating position.
Team principal may have power to impose orders, but basically he has to be wise in regards to when and why to do these, because employees are also human beings with feelings and strange calls can create complications. You wouldn't want that. So wise calls are needed.:)
One of the most curious/strangest team orders I can remember, was Jerez 1997. Basically like with Barrichello in 2002, Coulthard was threatened over the radio that he had to let Häkkinen past or his "contract would be reviewed", which meant the possibility of a sack. It was a call that didn't make sense to many - they weren't driving for the championship and Häkkinen wasn't on a different strategy.
The only reason for the call was that Ron Dennis wanted to "boost Häkkinen's confidence" so that the Finn would finally have a Grand Prix win. Usually team orders are used for practical reasons - either to make a strategy work (BMW Sauber Canada 2008) or for the championship fight (many cases). But in this case it was just to make a driver feel good and better. Obviously Coulthard didn't want to risk his position within McLaren as the car was coming good and he obeyed.
Why did Ron Dennis feel it to be so important for Häkkinen to win a random race and risk losing in-team harmony and good working co-operation with DC? Especially before the great years that were to follow? After all, at that time (by 1997) Häkkinen hadn't proven to be better than Coulthard yet, and they were pretty close. So there was no clear case for preference. Häkkinen had lost 3 race wins due to car failures during 1997 though and maybe Dennis sentimentally felt he owed a win for the Finn, who had already lost so many due to misfortune.
F1 is very much a team sport. The only difference between F1 and football is that there is inter-team competition between drivers in F1, something not present in football. To suggest that the support staff aren't part of the team is ridiculous. If that were the case then Newey, Byrne, Brawn, Barnard, Chapman, Murray and all the rest of the great engineers in the sport's history have meant nothing. Without a competitive car the driver is almost powerless. How many times has a pitstop decided the outcome of a race? Too many to mention. The pit crew have a direct impact on the result of a race. How can they not be considered part of the team? There may only be two members of the team on the track but the rest of the team's personnel have more input into the result than the non-competing staff of any other sport. As I said, F1 is the epitome of a team sport.Quote:
Originally Posted by truefan72
Do the teams not share in the glory of a WDC win? Do they not covet that prize more than the WCC? Why were Ferrari so disappointed in 2008 despite having won the WCC? Why were McLaren so jubilant despite having lost the WCC? Winning the WDC is not just a prize for the driver so ensuring your driver wins the WDC benefits the team as much as it does the driver, a point on which I think you'll agree.
Your last point about teams not needing team orders is fair enough. However, in each of your examples (bar Alonso/Hamilton) the team had a dominant car. They could afford to let their drivers compete. A case can be made that McLaren would have won the 2007 championship if they had used team orders. Letting Alonso and Hamilton take points off each other let Raikkonen and Ferrari steal the WDC from under their noses.
So is it being done as Mercedes want Rosberg to become World Champion this year ?
Or what other reason can they be thinking of?
We want to see a true RACE ,not a manufactured race decided by the owners of the team ,how is Hamilton supposed to feel if he is catching Alonso by 1 second a lap and stands a chance of leading the race ,to be told to slow and let his team mate past ,who cannot even run at the same pace? He let's his team mate past ,then his team mate is running a second a lap slower than he himself was ,Is he allowed to re overtake his team mate who is now hindering or sit behind and be overtaken by faster cars catching them both up
The only answer to that question I can come up with is that Ron Dennis moves in mysterious ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by jens
I suppose it doesn't matter how any times you tell someone...Quote:
Originally Posted by driveace
Jerez in 97 was a last grasp attempt at getting Hakkinen a win, before a long off-season. You take a win any way you can, particularly when you haven't yet won, or it's infrequent. Nobody knew, at the time, Hakkinen was going to win the next two titles.
Why did Hakkinen deserve the win more than Coulthard?Quote:
Originally Posted by journeyman racer
This situation was more complex than it seemed. I have a book with many statements from Ron Dennis that contradict what became known as the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by jens
The gifted win is mostly true, and Dennis states that it was simply a confidence booster as Mika had raced hard but never scored a win yet. But part of it was also staying out of the way of the championship fight, as they had told Frank Williams they would do so. Mika was scheduled to pit first due to qually. But Coulthard ended up running in between MS and Jacques, so they pitted DC early to get him out of the way of Jacques. This disadvantaged Mika, so in the second round of stops they switched strategy back to sort of even the field.
In the book I have, Dennis makes it very clear that he did not threaten to sack DC if he didn't move. The only mention he claims to have made about contracts was that the McLaren contracts stated no team orders would be given when a driver still has a mathematical change of winning the title. Since that chance was out the window for both drivers, team orders were within their contracts.
Unless I have my years mixed up, Coulthard had to move over for Mika at the very next race, the following year at Melbourne. Of course the circumstances were different because it was the result of an agreement between Mika and David, but Coulthard's gall bladder was probably ready to explode by then.
Dumb.
Hamilton is trying to win the Driver's championship. Him moving over to allow his team and Championship Leader, is just plain stupid.
^
Great post. I agree. When a team has a clear leader then team orders are admissible (and so Germany 2010 or similar is perfectly acceptable). But when a championship battle is still going on, it's baffling to me that the team can give orders. Stupid team order, just like Red Bull's order last year in Malaysia.
The team doesn't give a flying expletive about that. Team interests come first as they are the ones who sign the paycheque. That's what people used as an argument to blast Massa in Malaysia and Vettel last year at the same location.Quote:
Originally Posted by N. Jones
No teamorder = the driver can do all strategi and planning by himself. In Lewis case this is maybe true, who am I to tell.
IN Mercedes' view it wasn't a team order to change the result to a more favourable one. Lewis was on a two-stopper, ROS on a three-stopper, so all Lewis had to do was to stay within 20 secs of Nico. There had been a clear agreement at Merc - when the cars are on different strategies, they don't interfer with each other, and Lewis broke that agreement and cost ROS unneccessary time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mia 01
Where was that stated,that when they are on different strategies they don't interfere with each other ?Who told you about "The Clear Strategy" ? Paddy told Lewis to let Nico past,at no time did Lewis refuse to let him past at that point in the race .Lewis said "When he is near enough he can come past" But Nico was never near enough to take that advantage so really in that part of the race Nico was not held up .When Nico pitted and came out with new tyres,it was then a race to the finish ,and at this point there were NO team orders or requests to Lewis,and he defended his position to the end of the race as any RACING driver would have done in his position.
Nico,s problem seemed to be with Charlie bringing the safety car out ,in Nico,s eyes at the wrong time .But Charlie can see all the race on cameras where as Nico only see,s what's happening around him !
I totally agree , dj , and fully believe Lewis was being a wee touch too paranoid .Quote:
Originally Posted by dj_bytedisaster
They told him plainly that he'd destroy his tires racing Nico , yet he made sure he stayed ahead .
Even ol' one ear said they shouldn't have asked him to slow down to let his team mate past , when slowing down is exactly what they wanted , so he would have enough tires to battle near the end .
A little less wear and he might have been able to keep Ricciardo behind him , and have a stab at Fred for the win .
He clearly held his team mate behind to destroy his strategy , and destroyed his own at the same time , costing points , likely from both cars , for his team .
He pi$$ed off the team , and the team mate , for third .
But , he beat his team mate , so it was all worth it .
Sure it was . I'm tellin' ya .
By the way , dj , I think our Mia was trying to(maybe just a touch sarcastically) suggest that perhaps Lewis doesn't think he needs strategists , and can do it all himself .
But how were team interests threatened here? Lets say Hamilton gives way and Rosberg moves up but has to stop again - most likely ends up behing LH again after his stop. so no change for the team points there - infact Hamilton might well have moved up a place by then.Quote:
Originally Posted by dj_bytedisaster
Considering Rosberg made the final stop and was hounding Hamilton at the end suggests Lewis made the right call. He kept his team mate behind him and prevented him from winning the race. Of course it was worth it. He closed the gap slightly in the championship and the team agreed he was right to stop Nico passing and they admitted they shouldn't have asked. Paranoid fans rather than paranoid drivers. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
No , henners , they didn't say he was right .Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
They said they weren't happy with what he did , but understood why he did it .
Then , they explained to both guys that orders are to now be obeyed , though , only one guy really needed to be reminded .
They didn't word it by saying they were wrong directly , but they said they shouldn't have asked it. Interpret that how you will.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
Toto Wolf: "We cannot expect the drivers in the second half of the season to move over for their main competitor."
Spin it all against Hamilton all you like, you usually do.
Zetsche says this :
"It is true, however, that Rosberg and Hamilton are not to impede each other with different strategies -- for example two stops versus three stops ."
I couldn't find you the "not happy" quote , but that's a good one , isn't it ?
By the way , it's Lewis that spun , not me .
He's the one who caused this controversy by following only the orders that suited him .
And , that was a cheap shot , by the way , as you know full well that I will rail against anyone not following team orders .
They told him three times to move over .
It wasn't a cheap shot and there is no controversy. Things didn't work out for Nico and he was unhappy initially. They have moved on and the points gap closed a little. I hope they continue to fight for the championship without the team trying to manipulate the finishing positions. We want to see racing, not drivers waving each other through to give away points.
End of fabricated saga, onto Spa.