Rule 39.1

Ross Prawn · Post by **Ross Prawn** » 25 Jul 2010, 18:09

I thought it might be worth a separate thread on this one.

As the German GP has demonstrated the 'no team orders' rule clearly does not work.

Ferrari have been fined $100,000 for breaching it, which is frankly cheap. Compare this with costs of car repairs that Red Bull incurred in Turkey, when the drivers took each other out because Red Bull elected not to give clear team orders.

And whilst we are all up in arms about Ferrari, we seem much more relaxed about the lack of racing between the two McClaren drivers, who were racing for the championship lead.

Lets face it, its a team sport and the teams are quite entitled to instruct their drivers how to drive. And if the rules try to stop them, then all we get is odd messages about 'saving fuel' etc..

In many cases team orders are needed, if say the two drivers are on different strategies, or to optimise points at the end of the championship.

So why don't we just let them get on with it, and stop the pretence that this rule can be, or should be, enforced.

If a team blatantly ruins a race, like in Austria, then there is still the bringing the sport into disrepute sanction.

And if you feel that team orders really should be banned then the best way to achieve this might be to remove radio links to the drivers.

Discuss, rant etc..

WeirdKerr · Post by **WeirdKerr** » 25 Jul 2010, 18:18

Coded team orders are still team orders... ferrari have broke the rules and must be punished

Post by **DemocalypseNow** » 25 Jul 2010, 18:22

Ross Prawn wrote:Ferrari have been fined $100,000 for breaching it, which is frankly cheap.

It's the maximum fine the stewards are allowed to hand out. The WMSC on the other hand can give fines into the milllions...

jackanderton · Post by **jackanderton** » 25 Jul 2010, 18:35

It's clearly not good for the sport, which is racing Formula 1 cars, and most fans expect the cars to be fundamentally attempting to finish the race ahead of one another.

I agree with team orders to help the constructors championship, but the driver's championship is down to the Driver to win, and thus it was Alonso's responsibility to try and pass Massa, not Ferrari's to collude to help him.

Post by **DemocalypseNow** » 25 Jul 2010, 18:36

You know how to fix this?

Restrict constructors to single car entries.

There, problem solved.

jackanderton · Post by **jackanderton** » 25 Jul 2010, 18:46

I assume that's sarcasm.

coops · Post by **coops** » 25 Jul 2010, 18:48

Ross Prawn wrote:As the German GP has demonstrated the 'no team orders' rule clearly does not work.

No, the German GP demonstrates that the rule works until someone decides to break it. :lol:

jackanderton · Post by **jackanderton** » 25 Jul 2010, 18:56

Keep the drivers points. Deduct the 1-2 from Ferrari's constructors points.

That seems a better punishment than 'Arbitrary 100K meaningless fine'.

patrick · Post by **patrick** » 25 Jul 2010, 19:12

now that i think about it, McLaren SEEM to have been quietly keeping jenson behind lewis during races. Turkey is the obvious one, Canada where jenson was gaining on lewis until he suddenly slowed, and today where they just seemed to not be allowed do anything other than hold position.

It's terrible to watch but aside from drastic measures like the aforementioned one car team proposal, I don't know what the answer is.
One thing is banning pit-to-car radio, but that would cause problems such as not being able to warn drivers of hazards etc. And i'm sure pit boards could quite easily deliver a coded message.

Jynister · Post by **Jynister** » 25 Jul 2010, 19:17

Since team orders happen all the time maybe the rule should just be scrapped altogether.

jackanderton · Post by **jackanderton** » 25 Jul 2010, 19:22

I disagree. Any arbitrary instance which prevents a driver who has broken no rule from having the chance to fairly defend his position on track is fundamentally against the purpose and spirit of motor racing.

dr-baker · Post by **dr-baker** » 25 Jul 2010, 19:33

This is the second time at least this year where we are discussing badly-worded rules, with Rule 40.13 coming in for criticism post-Monaco. At this rate, badly-written rules and/or bad interpretations of them are going to take ROTY... I'm bored and sick of it and think the only rules to concern the running of the sport should be the minimum neccessary for the safety of the sport and for the running order of each race weekend and leave the rest for the teams to fight out between themselves.

Yannick · Post by **Yannick** » 25 Jul 2010, 19:33

The fine is OK, but the stewards should have given a time penalty to Alonso that would have effectively put him back in P2.

Merely giving them a fine is like letting them get away with it.

Salamander · Post by **Salamander** » 25 Jul 2010, 20:07

Yannick wrote:The fine is OK, but the stewards should have given a time penalty to Alonso that would have effectively put him back in P2.

Merely giving them a fine is like letting them get away with it.

I agree, relegating Alonso to P2 behind Massa would've been the perfect penalty. It undoes the rule break without any other consequences.

IdeFan · Post by **IdeFan** » 25 Jul 2010, 20:11

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:
Yannick wrote:The fine is OK, but the stewards should have given a time penalty to Alonso that would have effectively put him back in P2.

Merely giving them a fine is like letting them get away with it.

I agree, relegating Alonso to P2 behind Massa would've been the perfect penalty. It undoes the rule break without any other consequences.

I disagree, a punishment should not be "revert to a situation where you hadn't broken the rules" because then there is effectively no penalty. Ferrari could look at the situation thinking "we could break the rules and either we'll gain or we'll end up back where we started, we can't lose!"

I personally don't feel a penalty is needed, for reasons I outlined in the other thread, but if a penalty is applied it should make you worse off than if you hadn't broken the rules, not the same.

eagleash · Post by **eagleash** » 25 Jul 2010, 20:27

You can't really penalise Alonso, because he didn't actually break any rules. The team did. He didn't. Merely passed another car which slowed to allow him to do so.

Ross Prawn · Post by **Ross Prawn** » 25 Jul 2010, 20:28

kostas22 wrote:You know how to fix this?

Restrict constructors to single car entries.

There, problem solved.

Of course you are right. Except of course for engine deals which might incline a Sauber to get out of the way of a Ferrari etc. etc..

But most of the teams could not afford to run single cars, so its not going to happen.

F1 has always been a team sport. Team orders have always been used. Why don't we just accept it, rather than have rules that can't be policed.

eagleash · Post by **eagleash** » 25 Jul 2010, 20:40

Ross Prawn wrote:
kostas22 wrote:You know how to fix this?

Restrict constructors to single car entries.

There, problem solved.

Of course you are right. Except of course for engine deals which might incline a Sauber to get out of the way of a Ferrari etc. etc..

But most of the teams could not afford to run single cars, so its not going to happen.

F1 has always been a team sport. Team orders have always been used. Why don't we just accept it, rather than have rules that can't be policed.

Very much agree.

jackanderton · Post by **jackanderton** » 25 Jul 2010, 20:48

How do you match that sentiment with the undeniable and overriding truism about the very principle of what motor racing is?

Any arbitrary instance which prevents a driver who has broken no rule from having the chance to fairly defend his position on track is fundamentally against the purpose and spirit of motor racing.

I am not completely anti-team order but that bit quoted up there rings true. I said it, after all!

Ross Prawn · Post by **Ross Prawn** » 25 Jul 2010, 20:53

jackanderton wrote:How do you match that sentiment with the undeniable and overriding truism about the very principle of what motor racing is?

Any arbitrary instance which prevents a driver who has broken no rule from having the chance to fairly defend his position on track is fundamentally against the purpose and spirit of motor racing.

I am not completely anti-team order but that bit quoted up there rings true. I said it, after all!

I think its more of an 'undeniable and overriding wishism' .

eagleash · Post by **eagleash** » 25 Jul 2010, 20:53

jackanderton wrote:How do you match that sentiment with the undeniable and overriding truism about the very principle of what motor racing is?

Any arbitrary instance which prevents a driver who has broken no rule from having the chance to fairly defend his position on track is fundamentally against the purpose and spirit of motor racing.

I am not completely anti-team order but that bit quoted up there rings true. I said it, after all!

Very true when racing against the opposition but perhaps not so much when it's your "comrade-in-arms" so to speak.

jackanderton · Post by **jackanderton** » 25 Jul 2010, 20:56

In that case let's set the clock for when, if ever we think Alonso return the favour.

Ferrim · Post by **Ferrim** » 25 Jul 2010, 21:10

eagleash wrote:You can't really penalise Alonso, because he didn't actually break any rules. The team did. He didn't. Merely passed another car which slowed to allow him to do so.

If the car were underweight he would have been disqualified and would have lose the points, but he wouldn't have actually broken any rules. He can be penalised.

Not that I'm in favour of it anyway.

eagleash · Post by **eagleash** » 25 Jul 2010, 21:16

jackanderton wrote:In that case let's set the clock for when, if ever we think Alonso return the favour.

Who knows what might happen? There are a No. of situations which could arise which might lead to him being asked by the team to move over. It's an unpredictable sport sometimes.

Or is it just anti-Alonso feeling?

jackanderton · Post by **jackanderton** » 25 Jul 2010, 21:23

It's always anti-Alonso feeling when I'm concerned.

To be fair, the main reason Alonso wouldn't ever be in a position to move over and help Massa win the Driver's title is because he'd never ever allow Massa to open up that sort of a lead as a teammate.

eagleash · Post by **eagleash** » 25 Jul 2010, 21:29

Ferrim wrote:
eagleash wrote:You can't really penalise Alonso, because he didn't actually break any rules. The team did. He didn't. Merely passed another car which slowed to allow him to do so.

If the car were underweight he would have been disqualified and would have lose the points, but he wouldn't have actually broken any rules. He can be penalised.

Not that I'm in favour of it anyway.

Not quite the same thing because by being (for example) underweight, he (the driver) had gained an advantage by having an illegal car. He would as you say rightly be penalised in these circumstances, as he had broken the rules by having an underweight car. Which affects the rest of the field not just his teammate. In the situation under discussion, although he certainly gained an advantage, he has done nothing wrong. The team broke the rules by asking Felipe to move over. Maybe Felipe is the one at fault as he moved over knowing that team orders are not acceptable.

eagleash · Post by **eagleash** » 25 Jul 2010, 21:33

jackanderton wrote:It's always anti-Alonso feeling when I'm concerned.

To be fair, the main reason Alonso wouldn't ever be in a position to move over and help Massa win the Driver's title is because he'd never ever allow Massa to open up that sort of a lead as a teammate.

Stranger things have happened!

eytl · Post by **eytl** » 25 Jul 2010, 21:34

I'm glad this thread has been started up. Because THIS is the real question.

If I can be brutally honest, I find it simplistic to say "Ferrari broke the rule and should be penalised". As I have raised in other posts on other threads, why should this be different from "hold position" orders or orders for drivers to swap positions mid-race in order to optimise their respective strategies? Applying the same logic, such orders also broke the rule and should also therefore be penalised. I don't hear anyone calling out for that.

And so arguments get raised about why what Ferrari did is more blatant or more deserving of punishment. Look beneath the veneer though and very quickly you get to the heart of the matter - people's views on this incident are driven by an emotional response, a sense of principle/morality.

I said exactly the same thing after Crashgate and, on that occasion as on this one, found myself on the minority opinion.

In my view, it's all well and good to say that you don't like what Ferrari did, and/or you don't like team orders, period. That's an emotional response, based on principle/morality. Fair enough. But one needs to distinguish between that and the question of whether Ferrari have broken the rules, based on the precedents which have already been set for these kinds of incidents.

And so therefore, what this incident has raised is a fundamental question of principle and morals. Team orders or no team orders in F1, of any kind. Should there be a rule in place to police it, and if so how would you word it and how would you monitor it? How does that sit alongside (the very well-made point) that this has been going on since the beginnings of motorsport (let alone the beginnings of the World Championship)? Why do we watch this so-called "sport" and what do we expect from it? Is the direction the sport is going in becoming further disconnected from what the "fans" (however you define that) want?

These are the real questions which emerge, and there are no obvious answers ...

Post by **mario** » 25 Jul 2010, 21:54

For those who missed the press conference, it seems that Massa and Alonso had a fairly tough time, as would be expected - and predictably enough, neither driver wanted to admit to what had happened. Over at F1 Fanatic, there is a transcript of the post race conference (here http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2010/07/25/f ... onference/ ) which shows that both drivers were pretty adamant that the team deserved the victory, and got the result that they feel was justified. I expect that back in the Ferrari press offices, they must be hunkering down for what is probably going to be a very severe media blitz...

As to the regulation itself - now, that is more difficult. The flippant remark by Kostas22 about how to solve team orders (by only running one car teams) is one method of solving team orders, but on a more serious note, there are always going to be times when a team ultimately believes that they have to put their eggs into one basket and give one driver an advantage, however slim it may be, in order to support their title bid, unless it is absolutely clear cut (e.g. Berger and Senna, where Senna often had the upper hand over Berger even without the team intervening).
In this scenario, we can see Ferrari are doing the same, perhaps because they are hoping that they can take the title by stealth. It seems that Ferrari have caught Red Bull, who may have effectively squandered their car advantage at the start of the season, and will probably have an advantage over Ferrari for a few races whilst Mclaren adapt and fine tune their diffuser. With the two Red Bull drivers seemingly unable to establish themselves, and fighting each other, whilst Mclaren are on the back foot, they need to strike now whilst the iron is hot, so to speak.

OK, to set the backgroundso Alonso is currently 5th in the World Drivers Championship as things stand, with 123 points, Vettel and Webber are on 136, Button on 143 and Hamilton leads the way on 157. Massa, by comparison, currently sits in 8th, on 85 points. In that context, Ferrari's decision is logical - by swapping Alonso and Massa around, Alonso has made up 10 points on Vettel today, 13 on Hamilton and 15 on Button. That is a fairly sizeable swing, and if Ferrari have strong pace, it is not improbable that the gap may reduce over the next few races if Alonso takes a few more wins.
Cynically speaking, from the sponsors point of view, Alonso's win isn't a bad thing - after all, Santander, who sponsor both Ferrari and Alonso, would have loved to see their driver in front of their logo on the podium (although in considerably less acrimonious settings).

However, those considerations are worthless if there are no sponsors - and we can see how badly their actions have gone down. To top that off, so far they have tried to pretend that nothing untoward has happened when we all know that they asked Massa to let Alonso through. Of course, they can't admit it was a team order, because this very rule would come into play, but so far they have not handled the outrage of the media all that well.

Team orders have always been an open secret for years - from the very beginning, when teams would hand over cars from one driver to the other, to the modern era. Kimi only won his title because Massa handed over his position in 2007 in Brazil, and going back, we know of several times when team orders were used - at Mclaren, when Coulthard had to move over for Hakkinen, or Montoya letting Kimi past. Kubica only got his maiden win because Heidfeld let him through during the 2008 Canadian GP, Schumacher both passed others through team order and was asked to move over (Austria 2002, but also Malaysia 1999 for Irvine) - the list goes on. In fact, it is fair to say that a number of Champions - even a few of the greats, like Fangio - would probably not have been champions without team orders (Surtees, for example, only won his title because Bandini first collided with Hill, and took him out - it is still debatable whether he deliberately blocked Hill off so he would crash - before pulling over to let Surtees through to take 2nd place, and the title).
About the only time when team orders were distinctly not used was Canada 2005, when Alonso complained to his team that Fisichella was slowing him down:

Alonso : I am much quicker
Pit Wall: OK Fernando, pass if you're faster, maintain position for the moment mate

Now, I guess this comes down to an issue of trust. If you are a member of the paying public, team orders undermine your trust that the winner won because he was there on merit. If it feels like the winner only got there because he was handed the position, it makes everything seem too fixed, too pre-arranged if you know what I mean. It may be good for the teams in the long run, because it maximises their chances, but it tarnishes the image of the sport. It always feels awkward, because it is tricky when a driver is deprived of a result he deserves and merits, but on the other hand, the teams will always want to take every possible measure to win, and to a certain extent the competition is just as fierce, if not even more so, between the teams (especially when old rivals are concerned, like Ferrari and Mclaren).

Ultimately, the rule is difficult to enforce because the teams have been cunning about the way they switch drivers - coded instructions, a "minor technical issue", all sorts of things can be used to cover your tracks, and it is only because Ferrari were so hopelessly blunt, and the fact it was for the race victory, that we have such a fuss. The rule is there, and should stay there as a reminder that people do not like being deceived, but it is going to be rare when a case is brought, even if the practise is widespread. Unfortunately, what to replace the rule with, if it is to be replaced, is something that I cannot easily resolve.

fjackdaw · Post by **fjackdaw** » 25 Jul 2010, 22:12

Although the rule's wording itself is vague, I'd have thought its intention is pretty clear. Holding station or moving aside for strategic reasons are not manipulating an existing race order - moving aside for position is. It's as simple as that.

If you ask drivers to hold position, you're merely maintaining the current status quo - it's not very exiting, granted, but nor is anything being fundamentally altered. More often than not it's not a cynical ploy to manipulate championship standings either, but an attempt to prevent a team's drivers from colliding. There's nothing to say that the driver behind would ever have passed the driver in front. We may have been denied an on-track battle, which is never much fun, but we're also not being cheated out of an existing potential result, only a potential potential result.

If you ask drivers to swap for strategic pitstop reasons, you're only massaging a temporary 'false' position. The drivers are not in the same race, and it's not a manoeuvre for true position.

On the other hand, swapping an existing position - particularly for the lead - is most certainly actively interfering with the race outcome. It's not a passive neutralising of a battle, annoying as that is, or oiling the gears of a strategy - it's allowing one car to take a higher position artificially. This is not racing.

The German fans had paid (if the fees are anything like British entrance fees) upwards of a hundred pounds to watch a live motor race. For many of them, this will have been something that they had looked forward to for many months and would be intended to be the highlight of their summer. Certainly, for most people it's not an amount of money to be tossed aside lightly. Now, I've never been to an event where the result was manipulated, but even investing as little as 90 minutes TV viewing time into the race, I felt pretty cheated. I can only imagine the bitter taste left in the mouth for those having travelling across Europe and paid the large entrance fee to attend. As I mentioned in a different thread, points are one thing, but most people invest in a race because they're interested in who will be the winner - and in those terms, we didn't see a race today.

eagleash · Post by **eagleash** » 25 Jul 2010, 22:30

I must have seen dozens of races at all levels where team orders have come into play. Anyone who goes to watch a race without realising that it is a possibility is being somewhat naive.

fjackdaw · Post by **fjackdaw** » 25 Jul 2010, 22:48

eagleash wrote:I must have seen dozens of races at all levels where team orders have come into play. Anyone who goes to watch a race without realising that it is a possibility is being somewhat naive.

This is my point. They need to be clearer about which specific team orders they're outlawing... though, like I say, I would have thought it would have been obvious to those of us commenting on the incident. Can we take it for read now that they don't mean every single team order across the board?

TimmyB · Post by **TimmyB** » 25 Jul 2010, 23:00

Here's what Ferrari should have done:

DURING THE RACE:
Pit Wall: "OK Felipe Baby, Alonso is faster than you, if he tries to pass then make sure you don't run into him."

Massa lets Alonso through in the braking zone of 6 in what looks like a regulation overtaking move.

POST-RACE:
Massa: "I knew Fernando was quicker and I didn't want to damage our cars in a big fight so I didn't try to defend my position heavily. It was my decision."

Even if the above still smells of team orders, this series of events would muddy the waters enough that they probably wouldn't get a fine. If it looks like it was the drivers decision rather than the teams then maybe people will get less emotional about it.

As it was, I bet Massa knew Ferrari would be punished in some way if he let Alonso through in an obvious way like he did. It seemed to be his way of 'punishing' them...

eytl · Post by **eytl** » 25 Jul 2010, 23:53

fjackdaw wrote:Although the rule's wording itself is vague, I'd have thought its intention is pretty clear. Holding station or moving aside for strategic reasons are not manipulating an existing race order - moving aside for position is. It's as simple as that.

If you ask drivers to hold position, you're merely maintaining the current status quo - it's not very exiting, granted, but nor is anything being fundamentally altered. More often than not it's not a cynical ploy to manipulate championship standings either, but an attempt to prevent a team's drivers from colliding. There's nothing to say that the driver behind would ever have passed the driver in front. We may have been denied an on-track battle, which is never much fun, but we're also not being cheated out of an existing potential result, only a potential potential result.

If you ask drivers to swap for strategic pitstop reasons, you're only massaging a temporary 'false' position. The drivers are not in the same race, and it's not a manoeuvre for true position.

On the other hand, swapping an existing position - particularly for the lead - is most certainly actively interfering with the race outcome. It's not a passive neutralising of a battle, annoying as that is, or oiling the gears of a strategy - it's allowing one car to take a higher position artificially. This is not racing.

See, this is an argument I have difficulty with. Who has said that that intention is clear? If it were clear the rule would have said so!

Telling a driver behind that he must hold position and can't even attempt to pass the man in front goes against a racing driver's natural instincts. One could say that this is not racing. I used this example when discussing Crashgate last year, and I will use it again ... and how ironic it is. Turkey last year - Vettel is told exactly the same kind of message: "Webber is faster." Complete bulldust (compared to the fact that, at Hockenheim, Alonso was actually faster) and code for "hold position". You bet Vettel was riled that his strategy had been blown by his mistake on the first lap, Button's stonking drive, and Webber making better use of his one-less-stop strategy, and you can presume Vettel would have loved to have a go at Mark. You could argue, how is telling him that he couldn't attack a form of "motor racing" instead of "motor procession"?

To say that two drivers from the same team who are on different strategies are not in the same race denies the fact that they are in the same Grand Prix and racing against the same 22-odd other drivers out there. If as luck and circumstances would have it the driver who is faster is behind, or a team wasn't smart enough to make sure that drivers on different strategies are in optimal track positions, then why should the other teams and drivers out there be disadvantaged by the faster driver being given a leg-up? One could say that this is not true racing either, because on one view, true racing means accepting every roll of the dice. On that view, if the faster driver is getting his race screwed, well tough luck! That's racing.

I would say, any attempt to draw a line between what kind of result or positional manipulation/assurance is and is not acceptable, is a case of interposing what one thinks is "fair" and "unfair", what is racing and what is not. That will be a matter of purely personal opinion, over which there won't be universal agreement. The legislators left that ambiguity and room for differing opinions open.

(One could also argue that this is classic FIA, if one were cynical about it. Leave the rules vague so the governing body can interpret them however they like, however it suits them at a particular time. I read a great article once about how, in comparison, the international anti-doping agency tries to define every specific banned substance in order to be precise, but someone will always find a way around it. So the FIA does the opposite, and leaves a rule simplistic and open to convenient interpretation.)

LionZoo · Post by **LionZoo** » 26 Jul 2010, 01:09

Have to agree with everything eytl says. One point I'd add is that these regulations would never pass mustard in most places as they're so vague as to be meaningless. In fact, I can make an argument that giving drivers unequal equipment (and trust me, the cars are ALWAYS unequal) would be a breach of these regulations and thus fine every team on the grid. It's pointless to try to fight it. The entire point of having a team is to employ strategy. If you really want to eliminate it, the one car team is the correct way to go.

coops · Post by **coops** » 26 Jul 2010, 06:37

As I understand it, team orders were not allowed even before Austria 2002 but the wording was quite vague which allowed, er, team orders. I think Austria was the straw that broke the camels back in some ways, there had been several examples of teams pulling the old switcheroo before that. The headlines will tell us that it was the red cars again but thats only because they were the ones at the front in the spotlight, how many smaller teams swapped cars round to secure a better championship position and boost TV revenues away from the same spotlight? MSC hit the nail on the head yesterday, the problem was that Ferrari did it when they didnt really need to which upset people. Nobody objected earlier on when Irvine made way for MSC and even when MSC made way for Irvine because the championships (which they didnt win anyway) were on a knife edge.

I foresee a rule clarification which should inject a bit of reality into the situation and the teams can stop pretending they dont have favourites.

fjackdaw · Post by **fjackdaw** » 26 Jul 2010, 08:50

eytl wrote:
fjackdaw wrote:Although the rule's wording itself is vague, I'd have thought its intention is pretty clear. Holding station or moving aside for strategic reasons are not manipulating an existing race order - moving aside for position is. It's as simple as that.

If you ask drivers to hold position, you're merely maintaining the current status quo - it's not very exiting, granted, but nor is anything being fundamentally altered. More often than not it's not a cynical ploy to manipulate championship standings either, but an attempt to prevent a team's drivers from colliding. There's nothing to say that the driver behind would ever have passed the driver in front. We may have been denied an on-track battle, which is never much fun, but we're also not being cheated out of an existing potential result, only a potential potential result.

If you ask drivers to swap for strategic pitstop reasons, you're only massaging a temporary 'false' position. The drivers are not in the same race, and it's not a manoeuvre for true position.

On the other hand, swapping an existing position - particularly for the lead - is most certainly actively interfering with the race outcome. It's not a passive neutralising of a battle, annoying as that is, or oiling the gears of a strategy - it's allowing one car to take a higher position artificially. This is not racing.

See, this is an argument I have difficulty with. Who has said that that intention is clear? If it were clear the rule would have said so!

Telling a driver behind that he must hold position and can't even attempt to pass the man in front goes against a racing driver's natural instincts. One could say that this is not racing. I used this example when discussing Crashgate last year, and I will use it again ... and how ironic it is. Turkey last year - Vettel is told exactly the same kind of message: "Webber is faster." Complete bulldust (compared to the fact that, at Hockenheim, Alonso was actually faster) and code for "hold position". You bet Vettel was riled that his strategy had been blown by his mistake on the first lap, Button's stonking drive, and Webber making better use of his one-less-stop strategy, and you can presume Vettel would have loved to have a go at Mark. You could argue, how is telling him that he couldn't attack a form of "motor racing" instead of "motor procession"?

To say that two drivers from the same team who are on different strategies are not in the same race denies the fact that they are in the same Grand Prix and racing against the same 22-odd other drivers out there. If as luck and circumstances would have it the driver who is faster is behind, or a team wasn't smart enough to make sure that drivers on different strategies are in optimal track positions, then why should the other teams and drivers out there be disadvantaged by the faster driver being given a leg-up? One could say that this is not true racing either, because on one view, true racing means accepting every roll of the dice. On that view, if the faster driver is getting his race screwed, well tough luck! That's racing.

I would say, any attempt to draw a line between what kind of result or positional manipulation/assurance is and is not acceptable, is a case of interposing what one thinks is "fair" and "unfair", what is racing and what is not. That will be a matter of purely personal opinion, over which there won't be universal agreement. The legislators left that ambiguity and room for differing opinions open.

(One could also argue that this is classic FIA, if one were cynical about it. Leave the rules vague so the governing body can interpret them however they like, however it suits them at a particular time. I read a great article once about how, in comparison, the international anti-doping agency tries to define every specific banned substance in order to be precise, but someone will always find a way around it. So the FIA does the opposite, and leaves a rule simplistic and open to convenient interpretation.)

I'm not saying the rule isn't fuzzily worded and that as rule-writers the FIA notoriously suck (Lewis Hamilton getting penalised for briefly handing the place back, even though the rule said he had to hand the place back, for example) and that it shouldn't be clarified, but we should stop pretending we don't know what it's supposed to mean. If you want to be stubborn about the exact meaning of the phrase "team orders which interfere with a race result are prohibited", then actually until the race is finished there is no race result, and therefore anything goes. Or, at the other end of the spectrum, since every action on the track has an affect on the potential race result, then simple team orders like "pick up your pace" or "save tyres" or "be careful not to collide with your team mate" should be met with a fine and disqualification.

But, since the instances which have specifically drawn the FIA's ire are the instances in which teams have actively swapped position on track, for the sake of argument we can be pretty clear that what the FIA means is that teams actively swapping their cars' positions on track is banned. This is, after all (as I mentioned above), the only example which interferes with the actual current race order rather than a potential race order that might play out sometime in the future of the event. Surely I'm not the only person who can recognise that difference?

But they do need to word the rules to make that clear from a legal standpoint.

Myrvold · Post by **Myrvold** » 26 Jul 2010, 10:23

fjackdaw: The rule is about gaining an advantage by cutting (or driving outside) the track. The stewards surely felt that Hamilton had an advantage from it. They might've decided that he couldn't be that close if he had kept on the track.

fjackdaw · Post by **fjackdaw** » 26 Jul 2010, 14:24

I'm sure that's probably the case - my point is, though, that the rule only specified that the place had to be handed back, it didn't specify how for for how long. I don't want to open up that can of worms again, anyway, I'm just illustrating how the FIA's method of wording rules is extremely vague.

Henrique · Post by **Henrique** » 26 Jul 2010, 15:40

I think Ferrari's move was despicable and bad for the sport... but there's not much anyone can do to stop team orders. This time, they said that "Alonso is quicker than you." Next time, they can use some sort of coded message, involving coffee or fruit or something.
If the FIA decides to put an end to team radio, they'll just put some kind of symbol on that board they show at the finish line.
One-driver teams would cause too much trouble right now, especially when some teams want three-driver teams. The only thing that can be done, by the FIA and the fans, is to show their thumbs down when these things happen. And to have some drivers go NASCAR and just say "no" when they're asked to let their teammate pass.