Mercedes drivers told to obey team orders in future

[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.

F1 isn't a team sport and for that fact almost every racing series worldwide, isnt; a teamsport.
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.

[jens]

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.

[truefan72]

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.
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.

[Whyzars]

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...

[journeyman racer]

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.

[Mark]

No personal attacks please. Truefan made some good points.

[journeyman racer]

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.

"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.

[jens]

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.

[jens]

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.

[Hawkmoon]

F1 isn't a team sport and for that fact almost every racing series worldwide, isnt; a teamsport.
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.

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.

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.