1985mb

Wait, are you talking about Alonso or Lewis?

1985mb

Maybe......it's all possible.

But last weekend's GP proved (yet again) that MM don't need explicit team orders to enable their #1 driver to pass their #2 - they just give one guy a much better engineered car

FThornton666

Touche.


Yet i have a problem with your comment about being a better egineered car. Bernie seems to have a woody for McLaren as of late and i dont think McLaren would be dumb enough to go againest any FIA rules after last years scandal. I think the FIA would be all over McLarens *** if there was even a hint of tomfoolery going on around there.

Im really excited about the 2010 season when alonso joins team red and ruins them with his *****ing and whining.

MB-BOB

...Except that Ron Dennis hasn't left. That hasn't changed. Nor has the philosophy about team orders. Last I heard, team orders had been banned in F1. (Even though Team Orders have always been a part of F1).

It is clear that Ron Dennis has had several hand-picked proteges through the years. But I think he has done a good job of making them justify his confidence rather than impose team orders to prove him right.

In any case it's all relative... compared to other teams, Dennis lets his pair of drivers duke it out more that others.

1985mb

What FIA rule would they be breaking? No one has to order one car being better-engineered than the other. But, as I said, there are only so many engineers and resources within a team, and only so much time between races. It's a zero-sum game between allocating resources and time between the two.

There's no tomfoolery here. That's just the way F1 (or most motorsport) works. No one has to order it to become the eventuality. The car with more engineers (or better engineers) will, more likely than not, have a better setup for that race. Does anyone doubt Lewis had a better setup for Hockenheim than Heikki?

There's a quote from Prost about coming to the realization that he could no longer remain at Mclaren-Honda. He said he was standing in the paddock area or in the garage, and he had one car and 6 engineers working on it. Senna (Honda's golden boy) had two cars and 20 engineers working on them.

So there's further complexity to the mix. It's not just the team principals deciding who gets what out of the finite resources of the team...the constructors, engine suppliers and sponsors often have a favored horse within the team.

Heck, forget allocating engineers, outside the top three drivers are often hired and fired based on which sponsors they can bring to the table. Pedro de la Rosa supposedly kept getting hired by the likes of Arrows because of the $ his family and their sponsor friends could bring in.

Heck, it's not just the backmarkers either. Michael Andretti - remember what an outright, catastrophic disaster he was? You don't think his hiring had anything to do with finally bringing some American sponsors back to F1 and to McLaren specifically?

1985mb

True, some things don't change. And Ron "No Team Orders" Dennis' hypocritical favoritism hasn't changed either.

He likes to get on a moral soapbox about not having team orders, but time and again, the races show team orders are not necessary to realize his desired results. Lewis didn't need team orders to pass Heikki like he was standing still - he simply had a car that was set up so much better than HK's.

Yes, it's relative, but with the exception of the Schumacher era at Ferrari, I don't see how he is that much better than anyone else. The difference is (and this is what makes him a hypocrite): No one else attempts to claim moral superiority on this issue, yet RD does; meanwhile sending his drivers out, a la Hockenheim 2008, one in an M3, one in a 335i

MB-BOB

It's clear you insist on having the last word on this, but let me put forward lots of examples where (from first hand experience) it appears that team orders were in play (but not really):

1) The Jimmy Clark days at Lotus were all about Jimmy Clark
2) After Clark's death, the Graham Hill days at Lotus were all about Graham Hill
3) The Jackie Stewart days at Tyrrell were all about Jackie Stewart
4) The Rene Arnoux days at Renault were all about Rene Arnoux
5) Until Alain Prost arrived in 1982, then Renault was all about Prost
6) Niki Lauda's days at Ferrari were all about Niki Lauda
7) Keke Rosberg's days at Williams were all about him, until
8) Nigel Mansell arrived, then it was all about Mansell, until...
9) Nelson Piquet arrived, then Williams was all about Piquet.
10) Fortunately for Mansell, Piquet soon left for Lotus... Reinsert Mansell as #1.
11) Alain Prost at McLaren was all about Alain Prost, until...
12) Senna arrived. Then it was all about Senna (I submit that Prost's fall had more to do with Prost's attitude than RD's preferences.)
13) Senna's departure post 1993 left McLaren to baby Mika Hakkinen for years. Senna's death at Williams in 1994 perversely helped Hakkinen (and everyone else)
14) Everyone took a back seat to Schumacher from 2000 forward, least of all anyone partnered with him.
15) Post Schumacher, the jury is out whether Raikkonen can dominate, or yield to to Hamilton... possibly Kubica. Their respective teams are more than willing to accomodate them within this context.

Massa and Alonso are putting forward good efforts, but IMO do not have the legs to compete long term. Massa is not consistent enough, nor has he demonstrated that "fire in the belly" neccessary to dominate. Alonso can't decide whether his talent drives the car... or his ego. At least he doesn't need side bolsters within the cockpit to keep his big head upright.

Returning to my point: Each of the drivers (#1-14) were not only "#1" within their respective teams, but #1 above all other drivers within their eras. Hence, I submit that driver talent plays more of a role in one's ascendency to "#1" status within a team -- long term -- compared with day-to-day imposition via team orders. Stated another way, it's no secret that the best drivers wind up at the best teams of the day, in the hands of the best team management -- with the most resources (money) -- willing to give them the best chance to win. But opinions and biases in the face of these statistical facts vary.

1985mb

Not sure how any of these count as "statistical facts".... your comments were neither statistical nor factual. "Driver X arrived at team Y, whereafter it was all about driver X at team Y" is your opinion. Some of your comments are spot on IMHO, but nonetheless you and me are just two outsiders drawing our own conclusions.

Returning to the topic, which was Lewis' ascendancy at MM over Heikki and benefiting from favoritism (with the just-concluded German GP as proof-positive). To describe Lewis as part of the "#1 above all other drivers within their eras" club would be ludicrous at this point in time. I suspect that's not what you meant, but the point above is irrelevant w.r.t. Lewis Hamilton.

Again, irrelevant with regard to LH. He's in the middle of his second season. As if that time span were not short enough, it's not like his first season proved beyond all doubt that he was a better driver than his teammate. As kchristos points out, even this year, presumably when Heikki was given the resources to find a great set-up, he's been equal if not better than Lewis.

So the favoritism circa 2008 at MM isn't a question of team orders per se, but to use my earlier analogy, if you send your two drivers out in a 335i and an M3, who do you think will win?

If you'd like to foster a debate about these F1-related topics, great! Otherwise, feel free to have the last word....and why not just close the thread? It's not like there's a whole lot going on here except the obligatory "Great race, [insert driver name]!" after each GP.

tthoang1

Great race Lewis Hamilton!