Comments on: Outrage over McLaren ‘team orders’

By: Iaa

Iaa — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 15:21:02 +0000

Well, the fastest way to eliminate team orders is allowing one only car per team. But strategy is part of the game, pit stops, refueling, etc. as well. Strategy allows to win a different team from that one that is the fastest, and I find that interesting. Also I like to guess what the strategy of a team will be when watching a race.

I don’t like team orders such as slown down to let your partner win, but they are in the same team. When they are compiting against others, of course they must help each other (like trying to hold others cars), but when they are compiting against each other (like Alonso & Hamilton last season) they should give it all.

Sorry to say this but car race is a sport; F1 is a giant business.Like football is a sport when u play with ur friends in the backyard, but it’s business if u r playing in the Spanish League fo example.

By: Tuzes Katai Tamas

Tuzes Katai Tamas — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 18:03:38 +0000

I’am a 15 years old boy. i have a GREAT idea for a better brake and to reduse the brake distance.it’s serious, not joke.

By: Number 38

Number 38 — Wed, 30 May 2007 14:37:25 +0000

Re-fueling goes on another thread, the subject hear is the team orders………Doctorvee (above) has inserted what looks like a clipping from the all important MadMax variable rulebook:

â€œTeam orders which interfere with a race result are prohibited.â€

I’m going to reduce that to “orders which interfere with a race result”……..and suggest that is exactly what the FIA does to EVERY race……a drive-through penalty, a grid placement penalty, even a blue flag can change a result! And now comes word that Bernie is suggesting suspension
of McLaren for the Monaco ‘team orders’ flap. Isn’t that “interfering with the Championship results?

By: Keith Collantine

Keith Collantine — Tue, 29 May 2007 21:26:37 +0000

I’m tempted to dive into the refuelling debate and write a long comment on it now – but I’ve got something coming on that fairly soon so I’ll save it for that…

By: Jack

Jack — Tue, 29 May 2007 21:19:03 +0000

Sorry, ban refueling!? Nobody likes strategy??

I do. And I do not look forward to a time when the procession around tracks continues from start to finish, rather than having refueling stops which enable people to pass and also add an aditional element.

If you don’t like refueling why not just watch gp2 and be done with it? Why wreck something that many people are reasonably happy with?

By: Clive

Clive — Tue, 29 May 2007 20:42:37 +0000

The one good thing that might (and I say “might”) come from this farce is that the FIA will be forced to define the stupid rule regarding team orders a bit more clearly. That the tabloid hacks should not understand the difference between race strategy and race fixing is only to be expected; but that the FIA is obviously in a similar position would be laughable were it not so frightening that they are in charge of a sport that we love.

By: Keith Collantine

Keith Collantine — Tue, 29 May 2007 20:12:13 +0000

I think the ‘monkeys’ thing has been blown out of proportion by a few people. I’d far rather hear drivers speak their minds than be turned into PR robots.

If that means they occasionally get misinterpreted or cause mild offence it’s not the end of the world.

By: John

John — Tue, 29 May 2007 19:39:52 +0000

I was really enthusiastic with Lewis Hamilton`s appearance in F1
and pleased to see him on the front row and spectacularly on the podium so often. However, I am now sadly disappointed following his disparaging remarks at the weekend about his fellow drivers.
I am sure that if anyone else had called their fellow competitors `monkeys` as he did in his interview with Steve Rider, there would have been uproar. This I feel shows a previously unseen chink in his armour.

By: Evil

Evil — Tue, 29 May 2007 17:29:54 +0000

Alonso (allegedly) saved 2 laps worth of fuel in the first stint as he hadn’t needed to drive fast. According to the Press, Hamilton was fuelled for 6 more laps than Alonso, but came in only three laps later. Could he not have also saved 2 laps of fuel (he admitted to fronts graining in the first few laps, but that doesn’t cost fuel, just time)? And Alonso’s first stop (lap 26) was 7.5 seconds to fuel him till lap 51 (25 laps) whilst Hamilton’s, on lap 29 took 8.9 seconds to fuel him to lap 53 (a mere 24 laps). So is it the fuel rigs that are influencing the results of the race? (Stop times and laps are the Team’s press release, not ITV’s)

By: Alianora La Canta

Alianora La Canta — Tue, 29 May 2007 15:58:32 +0000

Lewis wasn’t fast enough to pass Fernando at any stage of the race, bearing in mind that this is Monaco and passing places do not exactly grow on trees there. McLaren probably didn’t even need team orders – if they did implement any, it was for the purposes sidepodcast.com, doctorvee and others have suggested – to avoid an embarrassing and costly collision. Every team boss forbids collisions because that’s common sense. If the FIA wants to ban common sense, then that’s their lookout. But I for one will not support them in the action.

By: Number 38

Number 38 — Tue, 29 May 2007 13:43:33 +0000

Read my last response again, esspecially the last line. If the FIA recinded Alonso and Hamilton’s points as a penalty,
wouldn’t that be “Interfering with a race result” !!!!! The FIA infracting their own rules. Food for thought.

p.s. The “regs” don’t apply to the FIA, only the participants.

By: Number 38

Number 38 — Tue, 29 May 2007 13:27:45 +0000

There’s no shortage of opinion on this subject, I’m not interested in taking sides as I think Hamilton KNEW he couldn’t get past Alonso, he did the right thing staying as close as possible, ‘just in case’ the Champ made an error but there should be no surprise in the outcome. The GREATER concern which so many seem to overlook……in the 2002 incident Jean Todt ordered Barrichello to allow Schumacher to pass. In last Sundays race Ron
Dennis may have manipulated Hamilton to follow Alonso, but I say “So what?” They are EMPLOYEES working for an EMPLOYER. This is NOT sport, it is BUSINESS !!! Constructors points are worth money, drivers count for little. Drivers, (employees) can be replaced at any time and we have seen that so many times recently. How one can apply a “sporting rule” to a business decision is the real subject. The FIA will huff and puff as they do so often. Don’t expect Alonso or Hamilton to lose their points although that would allow Ferrari and Kimi to “catch up” and hold interest a few races longer!

By: Journeyer

Journeyer — Tue, 29 May 2007 11:06:41 +0000

Well, I think Alonso would be smart enough in that case to “voluntarily help” Lewis. Otherwise, Fernando would not hear the end of it.

This rule was meant to be skirted around, to be ignored when needed. But, its vagueness means how it will be “interpreted” or applied completely depends on the FIA.

By: Nathan Jones

Nathan Jones — Tue, 29 May 2007 07:57:59 +0000

the thing that gets me here is,
every team would have done the same, also how stupid would they look if they had faught and taken each other out? considering they were miles in front.
they need to use these engines in canada so y push them harder than required.
if hamilton had have won and alonso 2nd in same circumstances then the british press would not have written anything about it!
simple as that
we have schumacher and ferrari to thank for this stupid rule in the 1st place!
what if, say at the end of the yr alonso needs to win n overtake hamilton on the last lap to win the title by a point over say massa or raikkonen?
how stupid of them to not let him through as after all the $ spent during the yr they lose th title in that way
it’s simply rediculous!

By: Journeyer

Journeyer — Tue, 29 May 2007 05:43:30 +0000

Chunter, I think the article meant to ban refuelling, but not necessarily tire changes. A good number of people thought they liked F1 with the tire changes when it was removed in 2005.

As for overtaking, yes, it’s hard to think of a good solution. But I think one must impede the speed of finding new technology, because that is what’s allowing teams to do more complex (and expensive) solutions, which, while effective for their car, creates more dirty air, making it harder for the car behind.

By: chunter

chunter — Tue, 29 May 2007 03:59:30 +0000

It must be hard to move tabloid papers this time of year after all, because frankly, I didn’t perceive team orders either, though I don’t really understand Formula 1’s fuss about them either. If they don’t expect the teams to connect at some kind of level, why do they have only one garage, or why let teams race two cars?

The only reasons I can think of relate to the design of the car (it’s not like GT or stock cars that can shunt each other and still run) and to keep people from nagging that the season is all about McLaren and Ferrari… except of course, that it is…

I completely understand the notion of banning refueling. I’ve seen enough efforts ruined by untightened lugnuts and pitlane collisions to know that pitstops are anticompetitive and stupid.

I’m not sure I gather how to promote overtaking without the use of contrivances like penalty weight, or making rather grave changes in the sport, like, banning aerodynamic development or forcing all the circuits to become wider, and therefore, easier to drive.

Be careful what you wish for.

By: Keith Collantine

Keith Collantine — Mon, 28 May 2007 22:40:27 +0000

Various drafts of this post were chucked before it went up but I think I should have kept in the bit about Hamilton being the tabloid’s meal ticket at the moment.

Especially as the Premiership’s just finished and it’s hard to sell papers on bank holiday Monday.

By: doctorvee

doctorvee — Mon, 28 May 2007 21:57:35 +0000

I am not too keen on the rather silly ban on ‘team orders’. But whatever, the rule was brought in to stop something ridiculous like Austria 2002 happening again. What McLaren did at Monaco was nothing like as bad as that.

The rule says:

â€œTeam orders which interfere with a race result are prohibited.â€

In Austria 2002, Ferrari interfered with the race result by swapping 1st and 2nd place. In Monaco yesterday, McLaren didn’t interfere with the race result by keeping 1st in 1st and 2nd in 2nd.

As ought to be obvious to even the most pathetic of British tabloids, any other course of action would have been suicide. As I pointed out on my blog, if the McLarens crashed out of the race yesterday, Ferrari would be leading the championship instead of trailing by 20 points.

By: sidepodcast.com

sidepodcast.com — Mon, 28 May 2007 21:35:35 +0000

“They should turn their attention to their own rulebook instead.”

never a truer word spoken. i can’t see that the team put a foot wrong.

let’s be honest, lewis banged the barriers several times in the closing stages while not racing. given a free reign, he’d have buried it in a tyre wall for sure.

lewis should be happy that ron did what he did. as should the pathetic british tabloids.

By: Nikos Darzentas

Nikos Darzentas — Mon, 28 May 2007 21:27:14 +0000

“Team strategy is what you bring to bear to win a Grand Prix; team orders are what you bring to bear to manipulate a Grand Prix.”
Ron Dennis

The fact is that what happened was against competition and racing. Couldn’t Ferrari say that what happened in Austria back then was team strategy as well?

Anyway, I agree that what happened at Monaco with McLaren is hardly THE problem in F1 nowadays, but I’m a bit upset that Ron Dennis is trying to massage the facts.

Let’s hope Ferrari and BMW and whoever else catch up fast, so that Ron doesn’t get another chance like that…