Mercedes deny Massa held up Schumacher for Alonso
Korean Grand Prix
Mercedes have denied reports Michael Schumacher was held up by Felipe Massa during the Korean Grand Prix.
Claims were made following the race that Ferrari ordered Massa to delay other cars following Fernando Alonso’s pit stop.
The next car behind Massa was Schumacher, but a spokesperson for the team told F1 Fanatic it was “not true” that Massa had held Schumacher up.
Alonso lost almost three seconds during his pit stop compared to Sebastian Vettel who came in with him on lap 33.
Because of the delay Alonso lost one place to Lewis Hamilton and came out of the pits in front of Massa.
Hamilton, Massa and Schumacher had all pitted before Alonso on lap 32. Prior to that they had been 4.8, 10.5 and 13.8 seconds behind Alonso respectively (see here for the full data).
Alonso had been at further risk of losing places because the safety car was deployed after he had passed the pits but early enough for Hamilton and his pursuers to pit right away.
Mercedes’ denial refutes speculation that Ferrari used team orders to benefit Alonso again as they did during the German Grand Prix.
2010 Korean Grand Prix
- Mercedes deny Massa held up Schumacher for Alonso
- Korea say 168,000 attended first F1 race
- Alonso not considering Brazil title win
- Hamilton: Alonso would have passed me
- Button: “I will fight until it’s impossible”
- Horner hits back over Webber criticism
- Korean International Circuit: your verdict
- Montezemolo: “We haven’t won yet”
- 2010 Korean Grand Prix: the complete F1 Fanatic race weekend review
- Who was the best driver of the Korean Grand Prix weekend? (Poll)
Image © Ferrari spa
CarsVsChildren said on 31st October 2010, 12:38
And let the conspiracy theories commence.
F1 is an inside job said on 31st October 2010, 16:26
I still think Webber could have prevented himself from hitting another competitor when he took himself out.
mikee said on 1st November 2010, 14:13
What conspiracy
a team driver is allowed to back the pack up if its reqiured
its up to the cars behind to overtake
its a none issue as a rear gunna for his team mate he is supposed to slow the chasing cars
how many times have we heard brundle mention this when webber was in lead and vettle was going slower
he was punnished because he did it with the pace car
so the second car is allowed to go try and keep the cars behind
what he must not do is block by weaving
get the facts correct before reporting a none story
PS CarsVsChildren this is not aimed at you
wasiF1 said on 31st October 2010, 12:41
I don’t think it’s true. As we saw in the race that Alonso had a big enough gap from Hamilton to the rest of the field before the safety car came out so despite making a slow pit stop he would have made it out before Massa, which I don’t see any reason for Massa to slow down.
DeadManWoking said on 31st October 2010, 12:49
Right wasiF1! See my comments here:
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2010/10/31/f1-fanatic-round-up-31102010/comment-page-1/#comment-464585
chimaw said on 31st October 2010, 12:45
did this emerge from Red bull corner? Mercedes say no holding up happened, ferrari wil certainly deny.
anyway if you look at fia data (laptimes per lap per driver) Massa was no slower than for instance Hamilton who pitted in the same lap as massa and schumi
Nixon said on 31st October 2010, 13:17
Wher did the rumour come from? I suppose its just to put Ferrari in further trouble.
ed24f1 (@ed24f1) said on 31st October 2010, 14:37
Mark Hughes made the claims in Autosport.
Cacarella said on 31st October 2010, 13:18
Does it really matter at this point?
Isn’t every other journalist, news agency, and team already discussing how Redbull and Maclaren should be backing a single driver, presumably by using team orders?
This is a non-story and I think the original source of the story should be ashamed (we know who you are). I’m very proud of F1Fanatic and many of the other on-line journalists for not covering this trash-story.
BigMSmallcBigL said on 31st October 2010, 13:42
*cough*
http://bigmsmallcbigl.com/
*friendly wink*
F1 is an inside job said on 31st October 2010, 16:27
I dont get it…
monsol said on 31st October 2010, 17:36
typo in previous comment
Casanova (@casanova) said on 31st October 2010, 20:59
Haha, nice :)
(comment long enough now?)
monsol said on 31st October 2010, 17:32
Quoting a denial by Merc is undoubtely a way of covering the story. And a lot more than its deserves anyway. The story is troll journalism and should be ignored, not denied.
fullthrottle said on 31st October 2010, 18:59
I’m glad Keith asked Mercedes. Good work IMO.
Daniel said on 31st October 2010, 13:35
I thought about this at the time, but then I realised that if Massa and Alonso were going to pit under the SC, then Massa had to slow right down so he could hold position, otherwise he’d be queued behind his team mate as the others behind him made their stops.
Daniel said on 31st October 2010, 13:39
It’s at about this point I wish I could delete a post.
RobertG said on 31st October 2010, 13:37
Schumacher helps his old friends :)
dianna said on 31st October 2010, 17:56
MSC is all for team orders,so he wouldn’t squeal to the stewards anyway (unlike a certain other driver RB,who loves to report offences and make a fuss about nothing)
Felipe Bomeny (@portugoose) said on 31st October 2010, 18:52
Rubens Barrichello not only was Schumacher’s number two, but he is presently chairman of the GPDA, so it’s his obligation to report any offence. If anyone should be an F1 ‘cop’, with his experience, it’s ought to be Rubens, so I don’t see why you are being so critical of him.
b hiam said on 1st November 2010, 16:01
dianna I agree. BUT, this whole thing is a non-issue. If Merc is not complaining, why does everyone else have to dive in with an unwanted opinion?
dianna said on 1st November 2010, 19:22
@Portusgoose. My opinion of RB used to be high,but judging by all the comments lately,most think he is a tad over active shall we say with his complaints.All the other drivers including Vettel,have to run after him now to clear the air.I think RB should finish before his complaints annoy too many.
@ Bhiam ..Don’t know,I am just like you,Merc are not complaining so I agree.MSC promotes team orders anyway.
Icthyes (@icthyes) said on 31st October 2010, 14:20
Good. That’s the end of that.
sato113 (@sato113) said on 31st October 2010, 14:41
someone answer me this: how come Alonso and Vettel were allowed past the safety car after buemi’s crash? I was expecting Hamilton to lead as he had pitted just as the safety car came out. right?
Icthyes (@icthyes) said on 31st October 2010, 15:06
I’m still puzzled myself over this. I’d assumed the SC came out after Alonso and Vettel came by but then I kept hearing about how it came out before them but let the two past.
Red Andy (@red-andy) said on 31st October 2010, 17:19
I think the safety car was deployed when Vettel and Alonso had passed the pit entrance. Hamilton reached the pit entrance just after it was deployed and so was able to pit. Therefore in accordance with the procedural change after Valencia, Vettel and Alonso were allowed to go through and the safety car picked up the leader on the next lap.
BBQ2 said on 1st November 2010, 9:10
Ehmmmm, Wrong! As Vettel/Alonso passed before the SC could get them and LH /Massa pitted because they were back. Vettel/Alonso BEFORE reaching where the SC was standing had to pit and so remained in the lead …. quite simple methinks
silencer said on 31st October 2010, 14:42
wow.. when I watch the race it doesn’t seem that way
yeap, I agree that this latest accusation on Ferrari is simply useless and pointless to debate.
MW said on 31st October 2010, 15:11
No doubt someone will suspect that Ferrari also caused Webber to crash, Vettel’s engine to blow and the recent spell of bad weather we have been having.
Luib said on 2nd November 2010, 8:33
Yes, and don’t forget that Ferrari is in winning form because they stole all the tech info from RBR and injected phenerol into Webber coffee before the race that caused him to crash and so on and on…..
lol
Faraz said on 31st October 2010, 15:13
Here we go lets all have another knock at Ferrari.
3,2,1………..
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 31st October 2010, 18:06
How is this article in any way having a go at Ferrari? It’s pointing out they didn’t do something they were accused of.
Steve said on 31st October 2010, 19:37
The fact that they were accused in the first place…
Mike said on 31st October 2010, 23:43
Not the only team to be accused of something they probably shouldn’t be hounded about.
Look at the Webber hit Rosberg on purpose theme, I find it very hard to believe, but that’s not how some others see it.
IDR said on 1st November 2010, 7:07
So, the news is… there is no news.
Keith, you’re doing a great job with this blog and most of us appreciate it, sincerely, but sometimes you should sit down, take some time and think a little bit about what to publish.
I know, it’s difficult became editor & journalist at the same time.
Daffid said on 1st November 2010, 10:39
How is that not news? Other sites are filled with reports of malpractice, and Keith reports a statement from Mercedes that there was none. How is that not news? God knows I hate the endless anticipation of news we see in the media, the reports that today somebody might say something, but this a real event, a significant report of a significant statement.
“I know, it’s difficult became editor & journalist at the same time.”
Perhaps you should take some time to check your comments before being so critical
dianna said on 1st November 2010, 23:24
IDR Are you a relation to Eddie Jordan?
verstappen said on 31st October 2010, 15:58
I am still not entirely convinced. When I rethink of the issue at hand, maybe it’s a bit simpler: If you know as a team that your driver has to save his enigine / fuell / tyres, would you choose a timing which could have positive consequences on his championshipfighting teammate, or just another moment? In the end it didn’t matter as Mercedes is now confirming, but why wouldn’t they just ask Felipe to save his fuell when the timing was optimal for Fernando.. ‘Save fuell, do you understand Felipe?’
The whole story to me makes it clear that fighting (hidden) teamorders is a very difficult thing. I would love them to be forbidden, but how can you prevent these scenario’s?
Eggry (@eggry) said on 31st October 2010, 16:41
I’ve never thought it would be tru, but it seems little weird. Denial from Mercedes not from Ferrari? Anyway as a Ferrari fan and under premise that conspiracy is not true, I’m glad to hear the statement from Mercedes. I don’t want any more controversy.
Red Andy (@red-andy) said on 31st October 2010, 17:20
Looking at the wording of the article it seems as though Keith contacted them directly to ask whether it was true, and they denied it. It’s not as if they came out and denied the story without being asked, which would be a bit strange.
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 31st October 2010, 18:04
Yep that’s right.
BasCB said on 1st November 2010, 8:18
Good idea to close another chapter of unending debate this way Keith!
Eggry (@eggry) said on 1st November 2010, 12:04
wow. sorry for misreading. thank you Keith!
Carol said on 31st October 2010, 18:29
Can’t understand why we are even discussing this. There is a war of boulevard journalism going on between british and spanish media right now which just brings the sport into disrepute. Ferrari did nothing in the last race so why should they even bother with this crap.
And if there was any suspicion then surely Macca as the team nearest in line would have been the first to comment or protest.
It seems like a pitiful attempt to get Hamilton and Button at whatever cost back into the championship- forget it- this is not their year. End of.
Now it seems Marca are getting their own back and Autosport is getting upset- well they should not have started the crap in the first place- and one would have expected better from a respected website like autosport.
I for one am not impressed and am sad they stoop this far.
Mike said on 31st October 2010, 23:47
… I don’t see it…
Is there actually a war between publications?
Or do they just have views differing from each others and yours?