Luca di Montezemolo on Team Order

[Project Four]

Very good comments from Luca di Montezemolo on team orders from the Autostop website, which I must say I agree with.

I must admit I did not agree with how Ferrari used team orders during the Austrian GP 2002 at the time, but in hindsight I can see why as you don't want to get to the end of the year and lose the championship by one or two points.

Beside F1 is a team sport and as he says , team work, in a team sport, is one of the best things and from the cycling perspective I can totally related to this as here the whole team works together to get their lead rider in a position to win and at times riders sacrifice their positions, energy and their ability to win for the common good of the team’s lead rider winning.

Ferrari president Luca di Montezemolo wants to speak with FIA president Max Mosley about changing the sport's rules on team orders.

After the furore caused by Ferrari switching Michael Schumacher and Rubens Barrichello on the final lap of the 2002 Austrian Grand Prix, team orders that influence the outcome of a race were outlawed by the sport's governing body.

The rule has been accepted for some time and caused little controversy since. However, the fact that Kimi Raikkonen and Felipe Massa's understandable decision to swap places in China was cause for post-race discussion, questions have again been raised about whether the rule needs a tweak to prevent teams being put in awkward positions.

And di Montezemolo has said that he will bring the matter up with Mosley when they next meet.

"I'll talk about it with Mosley, we need to get rid of this hypocrisy," di Montezemolo told Gazzetta dello Sport. "The important thing is not to damage others. Besides that, team work, in a team sport, is one of the best things. Think of a cyclist leading the sprint for another."

Di Montezemolo also acknowledges that there has perhaps been too many stewards' decisions affecting races this year - although thinks in part matters are not helped by the kinds of circuits being raced on.

"Perhaps they've been a bit too picky, but I agree with them, otherwise the grands prix become a mess," he explained. "But the problem is the new circuits - they don't allow for the spectacle. It's enough with one Monaco."

[DaveKillens]

It's absolutely pathetic how Monty now pleads for a change in the rule that Ferrari themselves instigated back in 2002. He goes on about team orders, but my chief concern is for the fans, who in my estimate are more relevant and worthy of consideration than anything else in F1 (apart from safety).
And what about the fans, especially the individuals who chose to personally attend a Formula One event? They invest considerable time and income towards this event, and for what? To see the outcome fixed, instead of witnessing the best driver and car winning?
But team orders have been around long before my time, and most likely will continue in it's present environment. Some say it's almost impossible to enforce a non-team-order situation, but there are always ways to do this. It may require a complete overhaul of the rules and other affairs, but it is possible. It just takes resolve from the people who make and enforce the regulations. For instance, how about forcing each individual car to carry distinct and separate sponsorship, apart from the other car on the team? That way, if there are any shenanigans on track, the team has to answer to a very angry sponsor.
Anyways, there have been instances where I have truly enjoyed watching team orders, especially back in the days when Ferrari was battling McLaren in an attempt to wrest the title away from Mika (Austria 2002 notwithstanding). Good stuff, back then. But I also the win and title is deserved by the quickest car and driver. Singular, not drivers. So I am conflicted, because I see valid arguments for each argument.
Then again, if a team does practice team orders to promote one driver to the top of the points standings, is that effort not diluted by assistance by his team-mate? In my mind, yes, and it should be reflected by changes in the Holy Grail. Yes, the World Driver's Championship, the highest individual award in motorsport. It can't very well be awarded to an individual when it took a team-mate to get there. So......(pause).... just eliminate the WDC, because in this world where team orders are practiced, no single individual deserves it.

[RH1300S]

Wooo - I think you got it in your final paragraph David =D>

Yes, team orders are inevitable and hard to avoid.

Yes, you are (of course) right - the WDC should be the best INDIVIDUAL driver out there

Of course if there was no WDC - then a team 1-2 may as well run line astern, swapping places not required as the pionts haul is the same.

Perhaps that simple change is the answer..............

Except - will it take away the driver centred excitement we have now? Will the idea of two drivers going head to head for the ultimate prize be lost? Or will the idea of two PAIRS of drivers going head to head as a team fill the gap?

[DaveKillens]

You see, I already believe that the WDC is diluted when team orders are used. Who really wins? The driver favored by the team, that's all. I never want to see the WDC gone, it's such a wonderful and supreme goal to attain. And I love to see hard racing. But cast an eye over at NA$CAR ... teammates can and do "assist" each other at times, but when it's time to fight for the finish, no one has any friends, and in the end, it's either the best car/driver combination, or best strategy that wins the day.
Food for thought.. Kimi sacrificed two valuable points for Massa, and now he finds himself six points behind Kubica. Not four.. but six. After Brasil we can observe if this had any effect, but we just may see those two valuable points to be the difference as to what gave Kubica third in the title.
Anyways my proposal is too radical, but we really need to examine the relevance and worth of the WDC when team orders are used.

[donskar]

It's absolutely pathetic how Monty now pleads for a change in the rule that Ferrari themselves instigated back in 2002. He goes on about team orders, but my chief concern is for the fans, who in my estimate are more relevant and worthy of consideration than anything else in F1 (apart from safety).
And what about the fans, especially the individuals who chose to personally attend a Formula One event? They invest considerable time and income towards this event, and for what? To see the outcome fixed, instead of witnessing the best driver and car winning?
But team orders have been around long before my time, and most likely will continue in it's present environment. Some say it's almost impossible to enforce a non-team-order situation, but there are always ways to do this. It may require a complete overhaul of the rules and other affairs, but it is possible. It just takes resolve from the people who make and enforce the regulations. For instance, how about forcing each individual car to carry distinct and separate sponsorship, apart from the other car on the team? That way, if there are any shenanigans on track, the team has to answer to a very angry sponsor.
Anyways, there have been instances where I have truly enjoyed watching team orders, especially back in the days when Ferrari was battling McLaren in an attempt to wrest the title away from Mika (Austria 2002 notwithstanding). Good stuff, back then. But I also the win and title is deserved by the quickest car and driver. Singular, not drivers. So I am conflicted, because I see valid arguments for each argument.
Then again, if a team does practice team orders to promote one driver to the top of the points standings, is that effort not diluted by assistance by his team-mate? In my mind, yes, and it should be reflected by changes in the Holy Grail. Yes, the World Driver's Championship, the highest individual award in motorsport. It can't very well be awarded to an individual when it took a team-mate to get there. So......(pause).... just eliminate the WDC, because in this world where team orders are practiced, no single individual deserves it.

A bit over the top, Dave. And I don't accept naming Ferrari as the only guilty party. Members who have a better memory than I do will recall the early season South American race a few years back where the McLaren team were so dominant that they decided that whichever driver got to turn one first would be left unopposed to win the race. I think that is about as bad an instance of "fixing" a race as any other you might name.

Drop the WDC? . . . Not without something to replace it. And the "team sport" idea does not fly, because in every team there are one or more stars who stand above the rest. Fans want to cheer on their team, but they also realize that a small minority of that team are far superior to their teammates.

[DaveKillens]

My apologies donkstar, I never intended in any way to slam Ferrari. But they were the culprets in the Austria 2002 and I do hold them accountable. In this same post, I also commented on how much I enjoyed when McLaren and Ferrari fought great battles back around 2002. And yes, McLaren are just as guilty in the use/abuse of team orders. I was not and still am opposed to a "gentleman's agreement" such as what existed between Coulthard and Hakkinen.
Over the top, yes, that was my intention to spark dialogue on this topic. But please, I do apologize for my appearing to place only Ferrari in a bad light.

[oj1983]

Sorry to be picky but I thought the race was Aus 98. Weren't McLaren using the extra brake pedal for the early part of that season until it got banned and hence they were so fast?

I may however be completely wrong!

Owen

[Michiba]

I can at least understand the furure regarding the michael/rubens team order, but why now? I'd have to agree with Luca to an extent where he compares F1 to cycling, where you have a whole team (4-5 riders) who help the main guy and really have no chance of winning. Now do you see cycling fans going up in arms regarding the poor 'worker' rider who's pushing the main rider whilst he takes a piss?

My best guess is that the team orders in this case is between two drives who were both capable of winning the championship and have equal billing in the team, however, this move came about when Kimi had no chance of winning the championship, and he was more or less just returning the favour.

My other guess is that there are a few red car haters out there who just want to vent.

[donskar]

Davekillens, no apology necessary. I enjoy your posts very much - always among the best. My fault for responding during a VERY bad day at work!

[Conceptual]

Maybe it would just be better for Kimi to crash into Hamilton and Kovalainen, so there is no need to swap places later?

I don't like team orders. I remember watching WRC the year that Loeb could have crushed Solberg, but they made him take it easy just to win the WCC at the expense of his first WDC, then with about 4 stages left, they told him to go for it, but it was too late. Solberg won, and Loeb had to eat it that he could have won both, but the team orders stopped his pursuit.

But, If teammates are simply swapping places, then I dont see where that hurts anyone else. It is not like they are ending anyone elses race by doing so.

And the best #1 drivers in the world have the best #2 teammate. To steal points from the other drivers, and to do what is necessary to win championships. Felipe did it last year, Kimi will do it this year.

Maybe, if McLaren can get Heikki into position, he could spoil the chances of it working.

The only way to beat team orders is with strategy, and to me that is a large part of the spectacle.

Don't hate it simply because you don't like who is doing it. IF the roles were reversed, McLaren would be doing the same thing, and rightly so.

Its like who plays white in chess, they start first, and black has to follow, and take advantage of strategy and tendencies.

I think that the FIA allows it in WRC, so not F1?