The German Grand Prix at Hockenheim looked set to be a signal of a Ferrari revival, having as they did the top two cars on the circuit, and comfortably so. But by lap 49, the story was all about team order controversy.
Ferrari, in indicating to Felipe Massa that he was to let team-mate Fernando Alonso past, broke the FIA's Rule 39.1, in place since Ferrari ordered Rubens Barrichello to allow Michael Schumacher to pass him virtually on the finishing line in Austria, in 2002. That rule states:
"Team orders which interfere with a race result are prohibited".
Ferrari broke the rule, so were fined $100,000. A pathetic amount to a motoring superpower like Ferrari. The cynics who point to favouritism towards the Italian setup by the FIA have hardly been won over by that decision. And we now know that that punishment is final - no further sanctions are to be taken. Surely switching Alonso and Massa's points tallies would be appropriate, or taking those points away - either from this race or the next - would demonstrate much more effectively that no team can get away with a blatant breach of rules such as this.
That there is the rule is undisputed, but should it be there? Listening to David Coulthard after the race ended, I couldn't help but think he was making commendable points on the issue. F1 is a team sport just as it is about the individual driver. And often the lines are blurred. Ferrari will have looked at the performances of Alonso and Massa on the track and, crucially, their positions in the drivers' championship. Alonso has 123 points to Massa's 85. With eight races to go, Alonso is obviously in the better position to challenge Lewis Hamilton, Jenson Button, Mark Webber and Sebastian Vettel for the title.
To take an example from a sporting event just finished, the Tour de France - another sport combining team and individual contests - we often see similar goings-on. If Andy Schleck had had a team-mate with him when his chain came off on Stage 15, there is no doubt what would have happened. The lower-placed team-mate would hand Schleck his bike so he could go on and chase Contador. Who knows how the Tour might have finished then?
In this case, as at Hockenheim, it is a strategic decision made by the participants or team management. Management, in any sport, has the advantage of being able to see the 'bigger picture', so makes decisions accordingly. Is it unfair? Sometimes. Does it spoil the excitement? Sometimes. But to look at the 'bigger picture', perhaps Ferrari's albeit illegal decision is in the interests of this F1 season in the long run. Alonso's win moved him closer to his rivals in the championship - it is truly a five-man contest. Would we ever say that four competitors fighting for victory, no matter what sport, was better than five of them? There is the potential for more drama, more edge, more permutations.
What I wish to clarify at this point that Ferrari should not have done what they did - because it broke the rules which are just the same for a Ferrari, McLaren or Hispania; and it could have been handled much better. The handing of responsibility to a clearly unhappy race engineer is hardly going to promote understanding and good faith on Massa's part. F1 drivers have famously big egos - and their tantrums and sulks are often hugely damaging to the team effort. Look at Hamilton v Alonso in 2007; Raikkonen took full advantage, citing Ferrari's "perfect teamwork" as crucial. Not so rosy now, boys?
Ferrari, as bad as it sounds, have to tell Massa he is number two. For such a talented driver (he so nearly became world champion in 2008, after all), this would be very difficult to take. Massa has to accept that he has not scored enough points this season. The Ferraris have been decidedly off-colour, but Alonso has picked up 38 more points one way or another. He is, at the moment, the better driver. Indeed, he was catching Massa before the lap 49 incident. Would he have caught him? Probably. Then what? A more exciting battle to the finish, yes, but one that Ferrari were very keen to avoid.
The BBC spoke to Christian Horner, Red Bull Team Principal, at the conclusion of the race. He condemned the team order delivered, and said that his Red Bulls would always be allowed to race. And what happened in Turkey? Webber and Vettel, pulling away from the McLarens of Hamilton and Button, fought for first place. Vettel crashed out, Webber limped home behind the McLaren pair, who couldn't believe their luck. It's too early to say, but it might be a definitive turning-point in the season - the McLarens have been impressive ever since that one-two in Turkey, and the Red Bulls have been torn by internal strife.
As Ferrari favoured Alonso in Germany, so did Red Bull Vettel at Silverstone; giving him Webber's front wing infuriated the Australian, who remarked on his imperious victory there: "Not bad for a number two driver." Had Massa won at Hockenheim, he would have been justified in saying exactly the same. The front wing episode was essentially a team order just like Ferrari's yesterday. But because it happened before, not during, the race, it was deemed ok. Hardly fair, though - it wasn't exactly Webber's fault that Vettel needed a new front wing. But Horner decided that it was in the team's interests to risk alienating Webber to give Vettel a better chance of victory. It was a risk that couldn't have gone much less to plan for Red Bull.
So just as Red Bull were shaken by their driver split, Ferrari's imperious display appears to count for little. They might be just as fast in Hungary, but could the psychological impact of the German GP weigh them down? McLaren must be happy enough - they lead the constructors' and drivers' championships - but tensions bubbling within the team have not exploded in a race yet. Watch this space.
Team orders are illegal in F1, fact. But I argue that, while they might in some circumstances spoil the excitement of the moment, they could help promote it in the long run. F1 is just another team sport, where the team is considered above any individual concerns. Are we to stop football managers shouting instructions and advice from their dugouts? Is the cox to become a silent passenger in the rowing boat? Is radio communication between rider and team car in the Grand Tours to be outlawed (and this has been mooted)? Managers and principals are paid to grasp the bigger picture and exert their influence on subsequent play. Team orders are just one part of this, so are not the great crime against racing, or indeed any sport, we might be led to believe.
A lot of interesting stuff, and nice comparison with the Tour de France.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Ferrari issued team orders which benefited only Alonso, not Ferrari. They had a 1-2 and it could have been Massa/Alonso or Alonso/Massa. Exactly the same number of constructors points regardless of which driver came first. So these 'team orders' were in fact more like 'Alonso orders', especially since he whined on the radio 'this is ridiculous' because he felt he was faster than Massa and yet was stuck behind him. And lo and behold, a few corners later, Massa gets Smedley on the radio. If Alsono was faster, overtake. The sport is crying out for more overtaking and yet the rulemakers/breakers seem determined to do everything in their power to prevent it.
You could say that Massa was backing Alonso into Vettel which could have proved dangerous for Ferrari, hence the order, but Vettel didn't even catch Massa who was supposedly driving more slowly. So that argument doesn't rub with me.
You say that these team orders promote a potentially more exciting championship in the long run. But if the Red Bulls had followed team orders before their crash together they would be streaking ahead. As it was, they raced each other, cocked up and thus provided more excitement and ultimately a more exciting championship. (I'm not advocating crashes btw!)
The sad thing is this kind of thing happens all the time and it's one of my big problems with F1. It's too contradictory to have a team sport that is based around individuals (see England's world cup failure...). The drivers, as you say, are too egotistical and the drivers championship is far more prestigious than the constructors. So teams seem to be more concerned that one of their drivers wins the championship rather than that they as a team wins the constructors title.
Also, Ferrari were ridiculous in trying to defend their actions by denying they even did anything. That made matters worse. What they should have done was realise that it was almost a year to the day that Massa was almost killed driving one of their cars and instead urged him on to victory and to write one of the most sensational recovery stories in F1. That would have been a huge PR boost for them.
I'd love to see Ferrari get battered by the authorities for it and at the very least have their points taken away from them. But they won't. Jean Todt is president of the FIA and was president of Ferrari when they told Barrichello to let Schumacher win on the line. The sport is rank with hypocrisy.
F1 should be simple and exciting, but by creating and changing rules all the time, and teams trying to bend them as much as possible, the excitement of pure racing gets lost (in my view). My girlfriend's dad (who is a massive F1 fan) said that a friend of his told him that people complain about F1 being boring and too predictable. He said he doesn't get why because they spend a whole weekend trying to figure out who's the fastest car and then wonder why it's often a procession. I thought it was very apt! I like to follow F1 results and normally enjoy the first few laps of a race, but for me they have over complicated what in essence should be about talented men driving fast cars.