planetf1.com

It is currently Sat Oct 20, 2018 9:19 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 1:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27945
Exediron wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
If it's something agreed before a race and is factored into race strategy which it clearly was then it's obviously race fixing.

:thumbup:

Red Bull have done it with Toro Rosso for some years, and have gotten a lot of flack (including from some Hamilton supporters I could name) for it. It's no better when Mercedes does it - it's arguably worse, since it's forcing a team they don't own to act like their junior squad just so they can get an engine.

Ocon is paid by Mercedes, you're just using semantics to make one thing worse than the other.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 2:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6446
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
If it's something agreed before a race and is factored into race strategy which it clearly was then it's obviously race fixing.

:thumbup:

Red Bull have done it with Toro Rosso for some years, and have gotten a lot of flack (including from some Hamilton supporters I could name) for it. It's no better when Mercedes does it - it's arguably worse, since it's forcing a team they don't own to act like their junior squad just so they can get an engine.

Ocon is paid by Mercedes, you're just using semantics to make one thing worse than the other.


You don't see how someone in a team is being paid by a direct competitor and has to move over as being bad????

The RB situation is different in that the TR is seen as the junior team of RB. This doesn't make it better, but the two teams are more unrelated than most people think. In terms of racing, they are conceding position, but I'm not sure if it is a team order or the drivers being nice in order to get promoted to the RB squad.

In Monaco we had a direct order from another team. Surely you can see the difference


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 3:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6381
Location: Nebraska, USA
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
If it's something agreed before a race and is factored into race strategy which it clearly was then it's obviously race fixing.

:thumbup:

Red Bull have done it with Toro Rosso for some years, and have gotten a lot of flack (including from some Hamilton supporters I could name) for it. It's no better when Mercedes does it - it's arguably worse, since it's forcing a team they don't own to act like their junior squad just so they can get an engine.

Ocon is paid by Mercedes, you're just using semantics to make one thing worse than the other.


You don't see how someone in a team is being paid by a direct competitor and has to move over as being bad????

The RB situation is different in that the TR is seen as the junior team of RB. This doesn't make it better, but the two teams are more unrelated than most people think. In terms of racing, they are conceding position, but I'm not sure if it is a team order or the drivers being nice in order to get promoted to the RB squad.

In Monaco we had a direct order from another team. Surely you can see the difference

sadly, I don't think he can, Saio. Had this been Ferrari ordering Haas or Sauber to let their driver to let a Ferrari past, likely, poker would have been going ballistic against Ferrari, he'd see it very well indeed!

The difference is that we actually have a driver (and team principle?) admitting the orders... And ,the orders then being followed, even though racing for position at the time! While we may suspect other examples of this happening, we have no irrefutable proof of it, so it is nothing more than suspicions. This simple truth is that we now have proof of one team in collusion with another to affect a race. That, no one can reasonably deny, despite their team/driver of preference.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Last edited by Blake on Tue Jun 05, 2018 3:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 3:29 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 7451
pokerman wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Lojik wrote:

Twice in one race and not a peep from the FIA/F1. Disappointing.

That was an actual pass for position and I already said that Hartley waved Verstappen past although I didn't bring forward the actual evidence, I think some of you guys must live in a bubble or is it only right to do that if you own both teams?

This was posted 3 days ago and no comment is made apart from still the disgusting collusion between Mercedes and Force India, well you can criticise me as much as you want for double standards but from what I can see the people that criticise me are no better.

Huh? I don't know if my post is appearing differently on my screen to yours but I think I quite clearly say that consider this and the Force India one to be the same. So your accusation of double standards is laughable.

No it's not alright if you own both teams. I'll reiterate: This happens twice in one race and nothing from the FIA, I find that to be very disappointing.

Sorry I missed that but still 1 post in 3 days as against all the posts condemning Mercedes.

It's not about who is doing it, that's irrelevant. I stated my position on this after the first instance we found out. I'm not going to repeat myself and make sure I make as many posts about each instance just to satisfy you.

You've made it pretty clear that your opinion on this matter is distorted by your biases but that doesn't mean everyone else's is.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 3:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27945
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
If it's something agreed before a race and is factored into race strategy which it clearly was then it's obviously race fixing.

:thumbup:

Red Bull have done it with Toro Rosso for some years, and have gotten a lot of flack (including from some Hamilton supporters I could name) for it. It's no better when Mercedes does it - it's arguably worse, since it's forcing a team they don't own to act like their junior squad just so they can get an engine.

Ocon is paid by Mercedes, you're just using semantics to make one thing worse than the other.


You don't see how someone in a team is being paid by a direct competitor and has to move over as being bad????

The RB situation is different in that the TR is seen as the junior team of RB. This doesn't make it better, but the two teams are more unrelated than most people think. In terms of racing, they are conceding position, but I'm not sure if it is a team order or the drivers being nice in order to get promoted to the RB squad.

In Monaco we had a direct order from another team. Surely you can see the difference

Well it's like I said before so long as you use plausible deniability or the 5th amendment then it's alright, we see what happens with the STR drivers but we can't conceive they might not be under orders, not a word was said before the race?

Also lets' not forget that was for actual race position, Hartley was not a pit stop behind.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 4:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27945
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Twice in one race and not a peep from the FIA/F1. Disappointing.

That was an actual pass for position and I already said that Hartley waved Verstappen past although I didn't bring forward the actual evidence, I think some of you guys must live in a bubble or is it only right to do that if you own both teams?

This was posted 3 days ago and no comment is made apart from still the disgusting collusion between Mercedes and Force India, well you can criticise me as much as you want for double standards but from what I can see the people that criticise me are no better.

Huh? I don't know if my post is appearing differently on my screen to yours but I think I quite clearly say that consider this and the Force India one to be the same. So your accusation of double standards is laughable.

No it's not alright if you own both teams. I'll reiterate: This happens twice in one race and nothing from the FIA, I find that to be very disappointing.

Sorry I missed that but still 1 post in 3 days as against all the posts condemning Mercedes.

It's not about who is doing it, that's irrelevant. I stated my position on this after the first instance we found out. I'm not going to repeat myself and make sure I make as many posts about each instance just to satisfy you.

You've made it pretty clear that your opinion on this matter is distorted by your biases but that doesn't mean everyone else's is.

When I said one post I wasn't saying that you only made one post, I meant you were the only one to post condemning the Hartley pass, it seems everyone else gives it a free pass because unless you actually admit you were under orders it's perfectly alright, we can't ever imagine there was an instruction given before the race?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 4:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6446
Blake wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
If it's something agreed before a race and is factored into race strategy which it clearly was then it's obviously race fixing.

:thumbup:

Red Bull have done it with Toro Rosso for some years, and have gotten a lot of flack (including from some Hamilton supporters I could name) for it. It's no better when Mercedes does it - it's arguably worse, since it's forcing a team they don't own to act like their junior squad just so they can get an engine.

Ocon is paid by Mercedes, you're just using semantics to make one thing worse than the other.


You don't see how someone in a team is being paid by a direct competitor and has to move over as being bad????

The RB situation is different in that the TR is seen as the junior team of RB. This doesn't make it better, but the two teams are more unrelated than most people think. In terms of racing, they are conceding position, but I'm not sure if it is a team order or the drivers being nice in order to get promoted to the RB squad.

In Monaco we had a direct order from another team. Surely you can see the difference

sadly, I don't think he can, Saio. Had this been Ferrari ordering Haas or Sauber to let their driver to let a Ferrari past, likely, poker would have been going ballistic against Ferrari, he'd see it very well indeed!

The difference is that we actually have a driver (and team principle?) admitting the orders... And ,the orders then being followed, even though racing for position at the time! While we may suspect other examples of this happening, we have no irrefutable proof of it, so it is nothing more than suspicions. This simple truth is that we now have proof of one team in collusion with another to affect a race. That, no one can reasonably deny, despite their team/driver of preference.


To be fair, I think Max was racing Hartley for position at the time so it would make it similar situation. The difference is that we are not aware of team orders there, apart from the obvious move that could very well be down to the driver being nice to RB hoping for a future promotion.

I have heard of various rumours through the years, that TP are sending SMS's between them to ask for a driver to move, etc., but it is all hearsay in forums. The closest thing I remember from memory was Jean Todt going to another team's garage asking them not to interfere with the WDC duel back in the Ferrari days.


Here we had a TP admitting to the orders. It is a completely different thing


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 4:23 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 7451
pokerman wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
That was an actual pass for position and I already said that Hartley waved Verstappen past although I didn't bring forward the actual evidence, I think some of you guys must live in a bubble or is it only right to do that if you own both teams?

This was posted 3 days ago and no comment is made apart from still the disgusting collusion between Mercedes and Force India, well you can criticise me as much as you want for double standards but from what I can see the people that criticise me are no better.

Huh? I don't know if my post is appearing differently on my screen to yours but I think I quite clearly say that consider this and the Force India one to be the same. So your accusation of double standards is laughable.

No it's not alright if you own both teams. I'll reiterate: This happens twice in one race and nothing from the FIA, I find that to be very disappointing.

Sorry I missed that but still 1 post in 3 days as against all the posts condemning Mercedes.

It's not about who is doing it, that's irrelevant. I stated my position on this after the first instance we found out. I'm not going to repeat myself and make sure I make as many posts about each instance just to satisfy you.

You've made it pretty clear that your opinion on this matter is distorted by your biases but that doesn't mean everyone else's is.

When I said one post I wasn't saying that you only made one post, I meant you were the only one to post condemning the Hartley pass, it seems everyone else gives it a free pass because unless you actually admit you were under orders it's perfectly alright, we can't ever imagine there was an instruction given before the race?

Sorry for the misunderstanding poker.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 4:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6446
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
If it's something agreed before a race and is factored into race strategy which it clearly was then it's obviously race fixing.

:thumbup:

Red Bull have done it with Toro Rosso for some years, and have gotten a lot of flack (including from some Hamilton supporters I could name) for it. It's no better when Mercedes does it - it's arguably worse, since it's forcing a team they don't own to act like their junior squad just so they can get an engine.

Ocon is paid by Mercedes, you're just using semantics to make one thing worse than the other.


You don't see how someone in a team is being paid by a direct competitor and has to move over as being bad????

The RB situation is different in that the TR is seen as the junior team of RB. This doesn't make it better, but the two teams are more unrelated than most people think. In terms of racing, they are conceding position, but I'm not sure if it is a team order or the drivers being nice in order to get promoted to the RB squad.

In Monaco we had a direct order from another team. Surely you can see the difference

Well it's like I said before so long as you use plausible deniability or the 5th amendment then it's alright, we see what happens with the STR drivers but we can't conceive they might not be under orders, not a word was said before the race?

Also lets' not forget that was for actual race position, Hartley was not a pit stop behind.


I know it was for position, I just wrote it in another post. And I did not say anything about plausible deniability or anything, nor did I explicitly denied that there may be some agreement between TR and RB.

But this is completely different. A thread is opened regarding Wolf and Ocon admitting orders and you jump into the defence with - quite frankly - absurd remarks that if it was bad enough the FIA would have done something.

So let's get to yet another 360 turn with this to remind you that the thread is about a team (forget that it is your favourite team please) that is funding a driver of another team and orders him to jump out of the way.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 12:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27945
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Huh? I don't know if my post is appearing differently on my screen to yours but I think I quite clearly say that consider this and the Force India one to be the same. So your accusation of double standards is laughable.

No it's not alright if you own both teams. I'll reiterate: This happens twice in one race and nothing from the FIA, I find that to be very disappointing.

Sorry I missed that but still 1 post in 3 days as against all the posts condemning Mercedes.

It's not about who is doing it, that's irrelevant. I stated my position on this after the first instance we found out. I'm not going to repeat myself and make sure I make as many posts about each instance just to satisfy you.

You've made it pretty clear that your opinion on this matter is distorted by your biases but that doesn't mean everyone else's is.

When I said one post I wasn't saying that you only made one post, I meant you were the only one to post condemning the Hartley pass, it seems everyone else gives it a free pass because unless you actually admit you were under orders it's perfectly alright, we can't ever imagine there was an instruction given before the race?

Sorry for the misunderstanding poker.

Glad to get it sorted. :)

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 12:15 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3146
As far as I know the FIA are not investigating it so from that sense it would seem the matter is closed.

From a legal point of view, Mercedes ordering Force India is identical to Red Bull ordering Toro Rosso. While Toro Rosso may be part of the Red Bull company, from the FIA point of view it is a separate team, a separate entity. Obviously - from a fan's perspective, and from a corporate perspective - they are more close than Force India and Mercedes are but from a Formula One point of view they are equally distinct.

It's not great for the sport when either orders the other to let their drivers through. The argument that Mercedes could make Force India's life difficult by withholding engines can equally apply to the RB/TR situation. RB could tell the TR drivers they won't get promoted or the TR team bosses they'll be out of a job if they don't wave the RB drivers by.

Part of the reason this matter may have not raised eye brows is because the Toro Rosso / Red Bull situation over the years has effectively made it accepted. It may be Red Bull's "junior team" within their corporate structure but that's just a label given to it by them. There is no such thing as a 'junior team' with special privileges within the rules of the sport.

With Ferrari now having Haas and Alfa Romeo-Sauber, Merc having Force India, and Red Bull having Toro Rosso - all of the big teams now have 'junior teams' of some description, I'm just surprised it took Mercedes and Ferrari so long to catch up with the idea.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 12:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27945
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
:thumbup:

Red Bull have done it with Toro Rosso for some years, and have gotten a lot of flack (including from some Hamilton supporters I could name) for it. It's no better when Mercedes does it - it's arguably worse, since it's forcing a team they don't own to act like their junior squad just so they can get an engine.

Ocon is paid by Mercedes, you're just using semantics to make one thing worse than the other.


You don't see how someone in a team is being paid by a direct competitor and has to move over as being bad????

The RB situation is different in that the TR is seen as the junior team of RB. This doesn't make it better, but the two teams are more unrelated than most people think. In terms of racing, they are conceding position, but I'm not sure if it is a team order or the drivers being nice in order to get promoted to the RB squad.

In Monaco we had a direct order from another team. Surely you can see the difference

Well it's like I said before so long as you use plausible deniability or the 5th amendment then it's alright, we see what happens with the STR drivers but we can't conceive they might not be under orders, not a word was said before the race?

Also lets' not forget that was for actual race position, Hartley was not a pit stop behind.


I know it was for position, I just wrote it in another post. And I did not say anything about plausible deniability or anything, nor did I explicitly denied that there may be some agreement between TR and RB.

But this is completely different. A thread is opened regarding Wolf and Ocon admitting orders and you jump into the defence with - quite frankly - absurd remarks that if it was bad enough the FIA would have done something.

So let's get to yet another 360 turn with this to remind you that the thread is about a team (forget that it is your favourite team please) that is funding a driver of another team and orders him to jump out of the way.

Sorry I think that's a certain level of naievity here, the teams and the FIA obviously know this happens hence why it's seen as no big deal, the Hartley pass in context of the race itself was worse than the Ocon pass because it was for actual position, but yes let us believe they were no orders used and it wasn't as important because it was near the back of the field rather near the front hence we didn't have reporters asking Hartley why he let Verstappen past, but then again would they even bother because such a thing happens quite a lot.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 1:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6446
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Ocon is paid by Mercedes, you're just using semantics to make one thing worse than the other.


You don't see how someone in a team is being paid by a direct competitor and has to move over as being bad????

The RB situation is different in that the TR is seen as the junior team of RB. This doesn't make it better, but the two teams are more unrelated than most people think. In terms of racing, they are conceding position, but I'm not sure if it is a team order or the drivers being nice in order to get promoted to the RB squad.

In Monaco we had a direct order from another team. Surely you can see the difference

Well it's like I said before so long as you use plausible deniability or the 5th amendment then it's alright, we see what happens with the STR drivers but we can't conceive they might not be under orders, not a word was said before the race?

Also lets' not forget that was for actual race position, Hartley was not a pit stop behind.


I know it was for position, I just wrote it in another post. And I did not say anything about plausible deniability or anything, nor did I explicitly denied that there may be some agreement between TR and RB.

But this is completely different. A thread is opened regarding Wolf and Ocon admitting orders and you jump into the defence with - quite frankly - absurd remarks that if it was bad enough the FIA would have done something.

So let's get to yet another 360 turn with this to remind you that the thread is about a team (forget that it is your favourite team please) that is funding a driver of another team and orders him to jump out of the way.

Sorry I think that's a certain level of naievity here, the teams and the FIA obviously know this happens hence why it's seen as no big deal, the Hartley pass in context of the race itself was worse than the Ocon pass because it was for actual position, but yes let us believe they were no orders used and it wasn't as important because it was near the back of the field rather near the front hence we didn't have reporters asking Hartley why he let Verstappen past, but then again would they even bother because such a thing happens quite a lot.


So we can expect you to be outraged next race when Ocon concedes the position for Hamilton or are you just going to point fingers to RB?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 1:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6446
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
As far as I know the FIA are not investigating it so from that sense it would seem the matter is closed.

From a legal point of view, Mercedes ordering Force India is identical to Red Bull ordering Toro Rosso. While Toro Rosso may be part of the Red Bull company, from the FIA point of view it is a separate team, a separate entity. Obviously - from a fan's perspective, and from a corporate perspective - they are more close than Force India and Mercedes are but from a Formula One point of view they are equally distinct.

It's not great for the sport when either orders the other to let their drivers through. The argument that Mercedes could make Force India's life difficult by withholding engines can equally apply to the RB/TR situation. RB could tell the TR drivers they won't get promoted or the TR team bosses they'll be out of a job if they don't wave the RB drivers by.

Part of the reason this matter may have not raised eye brows is because the Toro Rosso / Red Bull situation over the years has effectively made it accepted. It may be Red Bull's "junior team" within their corporate structure but that's just a label given to it by them. There is no such thing as a 'junior team' with special privileges within the rules of the sport.

With Ferrari now having Haas and Alfa Romeo-Sauber, Merc having Force India, and Red Bull having Toro Rosso - all of the big teams now have 'junior teams' of some description, I'm just surprised it took Mercedes and Ferrari so long to catch up with the idea.


What do you mean Ferrari having Haas? What are they having, can you elaborate? I don't remember Haas jumping out of the way of Ferrari (it doesn't mean that it hasn't happened, just that I don't remember it).

The RB-TR position is unique. They have the same parent company, but they are different entities nowadays. They don't even share the same engines to give each other data anymore. They used to in the early years, then they separated completely. The biggest thing is the driver situation, but this is again dictated by RBR and not RB. This means that the two teams are separate, but the drivers are all contracted as Red Bull Racing drivers. Because of that they can swap around drivers between the teams, they are not the "sister" teams that they used to be.

In terms of racing of course we can expect them to do something like that, it is not nice but if the drivers want to please their bosses, then so be it. For me orders are orders, even if it is in the same team. They can be used in good effect, say when the two drivers are on different strategies or when for example Hamilton recently asked if he could have a crack at overtaking the other car and if not then he would give his place back (can't remember which race though). But when they are manipulated then it just leaves a bad taste.

I don't remember before a team not being affiliated with another but paying their driver directly. It is a bit absurd. They are not under the same ownership, just straight paid from the competitor.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 2:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:37 am
Posts: 209
Wow, didn't think the thread would go to four pages :D

One of my original thoughts while starting the thread was also the effect this may have on the championship battle - imagine a similar situation in Hungary where it's Vettel/Grosjean in place of Hamilton/Ocon, and Vettel effectively pulls off the undercut because the Haas moves out of his way (or conversely, holds up the Merc/RBR cars allowing the Ferrari to overcut).

The outrage here would be massive (and justifiably so IMO) - the fact that RBR/TR situation concerns fewer people is because they aren't really in a position to affect the race outcome up front. As the OP, I want to say that I was also super upset when (in Abu Dhabi 2010 IIRC) the Toro Rosso moved out of Webber's way ASAP, but then proceeded to hold up Alonso (something like that - my memory is a bit hazy around it).

The thing that really needles me is that Wolff (and the Brit media) is quick to get on the high horse and talk about fairness, except when it concerns their own team/drivers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 2:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:37 am
Posts: 209
RE: Ferrari/Haas - does anyone recall any instances where the Haas team made life easy for the Ferraris, but not for any of the other front-runners? I can recall quite a few instances of Force India making life difficult for the Red Bulls (and sometimes Ferrari) with their straightline speed, but not any of this happening with Haas (might also be because of their terrible drivers :)).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 2:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6446
A.J. wrote:
Wow, didn't think the thread would go to four pages :D

One of my original thoughts while starting the thread was also the effect this may have on the championship battle - imagine a similar situation in Hungary where it's Vettel/Grosjean in place of Hamilton/Ocon, and Vettel effectively pulls off the undercut because the Haas moves out of his way (or conversely, holds up the Merc/RBR cars allowing the Ferrari to overcut).

The outrage here would be massive (and justifiably so IMO) - the fact that RBR/TR situation concerns fewer people is because they aren't really in a position to affect the race outcome up front. As the OP, I want to say that I was also super upset when (in Abu Dhabi 2010 IIRC) the Toro Rosso moved out of Webber's way ASAP, but then proceeded to hold up Alonso (something like that - my memory is a bit hazy around it).

The thing that really needles me is that Wolff (and the Brit media) is quick to get on the high horse and talk about fairness, except when it concerns their own team/drivers.


Agreed A.J.

I also think that the RB/TR deal does not include any team orders. Because they don't have to, they know what they should do... It is sad, but it is technically not a team order I guess. The difference with this was that we had a TP agreeing that a team order was given. Shall we applaud his straight-forwardness or be annoyed with the whole thing?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6381
Location: Nebraska, USA
Siao7 wrote:
A.J. wrote:
Wow, didn't think the thread would go to four pages :D

One of my original thoughts while starting the thread was also the effect this may have on the championship battle - imagine a similar situation in Hungary where it's Vettel/Grosjean in place of Hamilton/Ocon, and Vettel effectively pulls off the undercut because the Haas moves out of his way (or conversely, holds up the Merc/RBR cars allowing the Ferrari to overcut).

The outrage here would be massive (and justifiably so IMO) - the fact that RBR/TR situation concerns fewer people is because they aren't really in a position to affect the race outcome up front. As the OP, I want to say that I was also super upset when (in Abu Dhabi 2010 IIRC) the Toro Rosso moved out of Webber's way ASAP, but then proceeded to hold up Alonso (something like that - my memory is a bit hazy around it).

The thing that really needles me is that Wolff (and the Brit media) is quick to get on the high horse and talk about fairness, except when it concerns their own team/drivers.


Agreed A.J.

I also think that the RB/TR deal does not include any team orders. Because they don't have to, they know what they should do... It is sad, but it is technically not a team order I guess. The difference with this was that we had a TP agreeing that a team order was given. Shall we applaud his straight-forwardness or be annoyed with the whole thing?


+2

BTW A.J., were it the Vettel/Haas scenario you described, the 4 pages would have been reached within two hours of the race end, I suspect.
;)

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:58 pm
Posts: 1338
Location: London
Siao7 wrote:
Agreed A.J.

I also think that the RB/TR deal does not include any team orders. Because they don't have to, they know what they should do... It is sad, but it is technically not a team order I guess. The difference with this was that we had a TP agreeing that a team order was given. Shall we applaud his straight-forwardness or be annoyed with the whole thing?


Call me thick but I am still struggling to see how one is worse than the other. It's not like some random mechanic in TR suggested to their drivers over a friendly pint that they might like to let RBR cars past, if they feel like it. This is clearly a permanent request/instruction from on high to be standard practise. The fact that Wolf felt the need to apparently get on the phone in a particular race suggests if anything, that no such general arrangment is in place between Merc & FI. I'd be surpised if there wasn't, but I just struggle to see how this particular case is such a heinous crime in comparison.

Ultimately none of them should be doing it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6446
Lojik wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Agreed A.J.

I also think that the RB/TR deal does not include any team orders. Because they don't have to, they know what they should do... It is sad, but it is technically not a team order I guess. The difference with this was that we had a TP agreeing that a team order was given. Shall we applaud his straight-forwardness or be annoyed with the whole thing?


Call me thick but I am still struggling to see how one is worse than the other. It's not like some random mechanic in TR suggested to their drivers over a friendly pint that they might like to let RBR cars past, if they feel like it. This is clearly a permanent request/instruction from on high to be standard practise. The fact that Wolf felt the need to apparently get on the phone in a particular race suggests if anything, that no such general arrangment is in place between Merc & FI. I'd be surpised if there wasn't, but I just struggle to see how this particular case is such a heinous crime in comparison.

Ultimately none of them should be doing it.


Why would I do that? hehe

Look, I agree that the RB/TR situation is a bit silly. No one is saying the opposite, so I'm not sure why Poker gets his undergarments twisted about it. But lets get real, we all know they are closely related and the drivers are all owned by Red Bull Racing. It is probably not right and I do not think that many people are condoning it. We do not, however, know without a doubt that they have an agreement. It is very well known that the drivers want to "graduate" to RB and they want to please them by letting the RB boys through. We've seen dropping the drivers without a second thought, so playing the good boys may get them kudos with the bosses. I can understand this and it is technically not wrong.

Now compare this with a team that pays directly another team's driver and admits that they give them orders. I may be the thick one here, but I find this worse. Especially when Wolf is so blase about it, it leaves a bad taste as if he is rubbing it in.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:37 am
Posts: 209
Lojik wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Agreed A.J.

I also think that the RB/TR deal does not include any team orders. Because they don't have to, they know what they should do... It is sad, but it is technically not a team order I guess. The difference with this was that we had a TP agreeing that a team order was given. Shall we applaud his straight-forwardness or be annoyed with the whole thing?


Call me thick but I am still struggling to see how one is worse than the other. It's not like some random mechanic in TR suggested to their drivers over a friendly pint that they might like to let RBR cars past, if they feel like it. This is clearly a permanent request/instruction from on high to be standard practise. The fact that Wolf felt the need to apparently get on the phone in a particular race suggests if anything, that no such general arrangment is in place between Merc & FI. I'd be surpised if there wasn't, but I just struggle to see how this particular case is such a heinous crime in comparison.

Ultimately none of them should be doing it.


I think it's similar - the only difference being that Red Bull finances both teams, so they can do whatever they please. Doesn't make it any better - though I think Toro Rosso have hardly ever been in a situation where the could impact the races for RBR's competitors (except the aforementioned Abu Dhabi 2010 race perhaps).

Force India are not connected to Mercedes in any way except them paying for their engines - to obey an instruction from another team's TP (or even the order in the first place) is what leaves a bad taste in the mouth (especially when you hear Toto/Sky talking about "fairness" - the implied message always being that they do things "the right way", and others don't). At worst this is inter-team collusion, at best it allows people to see the hypocrisy the next time they climb on the high horse (and I'm sure they will).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 4:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27945
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
You don't see how someone in a team is being paid by a direct competitor and has to move over as being bad????

The RB situation is different in that the TR is seen as the junior team of RB. This doesn't make it better, but the two teams are more unrelated than most people think. In terms of racing, they are conceding position, but I'm not sure if it is a team order or the drivers being nice in order to get promoted to the RB squad.

In Monaco we had a direct order from another team. Surely you can see the difference

Well it's like I said before so long as you use plausible deniability or the 5th amendment then it's alright, we see what happens with the STR drivers but we can't conceive they might not be under orders, not a word was said before the race?

Also lets' not forget that was for actual race position, Hartley was not a pit stop behind.


I know it was for position, I just wrote it in another post. And I did not say anything about plausible deniability or anything, nor did I explicitly denied that there may be some agreement between TR and RB.

But this is completely different. A thread is opened regarding Wolf and Ocon admitting orders and you jump into the defence with - quite frankly - absurd remarks that if it was bad enough the FIA would have done something.

So let's get to yet another 360 turn with this to remind you that the thread is about a team (forget that it is your favourite team please) that is funding a driver of another team and orders him to jump out of the way.

Sorry I think that's a certain level of naievity here, the teams and the FIA obviously know this happens hence why it's seen as no big deal, the Hartley pass in context of the race itself was worse than the Ocon pass because it was for actual position, but yes let us believe they were no orders used and it wasn't as important because it was near the back of the field rather near the front hence we didn't have reporters asking Hartley why he let Verstappen past, but then again would they even bother because such a thing happens quite a lot.


So we can expect you to be outraged next race when Ocon concedes the position for Hamilton or are you just going to point fingers to RB?

I'm only outraged at the double standards I see on here.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 4:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:37 am
Posts: 209
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
So we can expect you to be outraged next race when Ocon concedes the position for Hamilton or are you just going to point fingers to RB?

I'm only outraged at the double standards I see on here.


You seem to be a fairly big contributor to it ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 4:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27945
A.J. wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
So we can expect you to be outraged next race when Ocon concedes the position for Hamilton or are you just going to point fingers to RB?

I'm only outraged at the double standards I see on here.


You seem to be a fairly big contributor to it ;)

Why because I put forward other instances of drivers getting free passes?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 4:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:37 am
Posts: 209
pokerman wrote:
A.J. wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
So we can expect you to be outraged next race when Ocon concedes the position for Hamilton or are you just going to point fingers to RB?

I'm only outraged at the double standards I see on here.


You seem to be a fairly big contributor to it ;)

Why because I put forward other instances of drivers getting free passes?


No, because in your eyes Hamilton (and by extension his team) can do no wrong. Surely your posting history makes it obvious to you?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 4:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27945
A.J. wrote:
pokerman wrote:
A.J. wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
So we can expect you to be outraged next race when Ocon concedes the position for Hamilton or are you just going to point fingers to RB?

I'm only outraged at the double standards I see on here.


You seem to be a fairly big contributor to it ;)

Why because I put forward other instances of drivers getting free passes?


No, because in your eyes Hamilton (and by extension his team) can do no wrong. Surely your posting history makes it obvious to you?

In the same race Verstappen got a free pass on Hartley but this seems to be alright, like I say double standards.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 4:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:37 am
Posts: 209
pokerman wrote:
In the same race Verstappen got a free pass on Hartley but this seems to be alright, like I say double standards.


To whom?

Does this mean you agree FI should have not let Hamilton and Bottas pass?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 4:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6381
Location: Nebraska, USA
pokerman wrote:
I'm only outraged at the double standards I see on here.


8O

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 4:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27945
A.J. wrote:
pokerman wrote:
In the same race Verstappen got a free pass on Hartley but this seems to be alright, like I say double standards.


To whom?

Does this mean you agree FI should have not let Hamilton and Bottas pass?

If that's a rule then yes but it's not a rule as we have seen in the past and earlier in the race.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 4:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27945
Blake wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I'm only outraged at the double standards I see on here.


8O

Well outraged would be an exaggeration as such I was just using the posters own terminology, for me it's more like politics.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 4:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:37 am
Posts: 209
pokerman wrote:
A.J. wrote:
pokerman wrote:
In the same race Verstappen got a free pass on Hartley but this seems to be alright, like I say double standards.


To whom?

Does this mean you agree FI should have not let Hamilton and Bottas pass?

If that's a rule then yes but it's not a rule as we have seen in the past and earlier in the race.


So then you see no issues with either of the inter-team orders? What's your position?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 6:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14191
It's hardly double standards. STR and Red Bull are owned by the same person. If you accept that you accept a certain amount of collusion between them.

What is different is a team who is merely a customer of another team in cahoots with them and not permitted to fight for themselves. Considering we only have four engine suppliers, one of which is in the back of a known junior team, that is a really disappointing situation to be in.

In my view it's totally anti sporting to have teams agreeing pre race deals of any kind. That includes STR and Red Bull. But with them it's not news because we know it's the case.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 2033
mikeyg123 wrote:
It's hardly double standards. STR and Red Bull are owned by the same person. If you accept that you accept a certain amount of collusion between them.

What is different is a team who is merely a customer of another team in cahoots with them and not permitted to fight for themselves. Considering we only have four engine suppliers, one of which is in the back of a known junior team, that is a really disappointing situation to be in.

In my view it's totally anti sporting to have teams agreeing pre race deals of any kind. That includes STR and Red Bull. But with them it's not news because we know it's the case.


So, in one case both teams have contracts to the same person (the owner) and thus they collude. In the other case, the teams collude with each other without having a contract to the same third person (the owner). A huge difference, really? I can either buy a competitor or make a cartel-like contract with him - the result is the same: collusion instead of competition. And IMO it is the result that counts.

Anyway, I find it disturbing that the FIA does not seem to be worried by any of this at all. Perhaps, because Jean Todt is said to be an early adopter of the collusion strategy (Fontana, Sauber)?
I fear it will get more if FIA does not make clear to intervene in the future. And yes, that includes clearing up the ownership structures at RBR/STR as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14191
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
It's hardly double standards. STR and Red Bull are owned by the same person. If you accept that you accept a certain amount of collusion between them.

What is different is a team who is merely a customer of another team in cahoots with them and not permitted to fight for themselves. Considering we only have four engine suppliers, one of which is in the back of a known junior team, that is a really disappointing situation to be in.

In my view it's totally anti sporting to have teams agreeing pre race deals of any kind. That includes STR and Red Bull. But with them it's not news because we know it's the case.


So, in one case both teams have contracts to the same person (the owner) and thus they collude. In the other case, the teams collude with each other without having a contract to the same third person (the owner). A huge difference, really? I can either buy a competitor or make a cartel-like contract with him - the result is the same: collusion instead of competition. And IMO it is the result that counts.

Anyway, I find it disturbing that the FIA does not seem to be worried by any of this at all. Perhaps, because Jean Todt is said to be an early adopter of the collusion strategy (Fontana, Sauber)?
I fear it will get more if FIA does not make clear to intervene in the future. And yes, that includes clearing up the ownership structures at RBR/STR as well.


TBF i said it was a difference not hugely different. I don't really see what the FIA can do TBH.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 11:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 5924
Location: Michigan, USA
mikeyg123 wrote:
TBF i said it was a difference not hugely different. I don't really see what the FIA can do TBH.

They could give all the involved parties a $100m fine for race fixing. That would probably stop it.

It would probably also make RBR and Mercedes quit, but hey, Macca took one of those and they're still here...

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #2)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 6:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14191
Exediron wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
TBF i said it was a difference not hugely different. I don't really see what the FIA can do TBH.

They could give all the involved parties a $100m fine for race fixing. That would probably stop it.

It would probably also make RBR and Mercedes quit, but hey, Macca took one of those and they're still here...


It would stop them doing it obviously. You would just find it was Ocon times time to come in to a pitstop instead.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 6:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1316
jl267 wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
The sad part is that this is now common practice. When a team depends on another team or manufacturer, a quiet whisper between team principles happens. It wasn't just Ocon and Mercedes, it was also McLaren and Renault/Red Bull. In the latter stages a McLaren miraculously came out of the pits and split Ricciardo and Vettel. McLaren have a Renault engine, just like the Red Bull. Dooh.

Personally I have always opposed team orders, and I hope others understand the cancer this is to the sport.


I'm not sure why Mclaren would do this? Sure, they share engines but it's a pretty big and random ask of Renault to say "Hey, can you spoil the race of your only remaining car to make sure that our other customer can win, even though it doesn't look like he needs assistance?". If anything it's embarrasing that Red Bull are winning races whilst Mclaren basically only have points because of Alonso's amazing feats. This is all coming from a Mclaren fan btw!

My first thought was that they were doing the old school "our car was right behind the winners car" for the end of race photo. I'm sure they used to do that at races like Le Mans? Or maybe they knew the race was over and wanted to run the hypers again.


McLaren did not lose position or spoil their results by placing their car between Ricciardo and Vettel. Additionally, Ricciardo definitely was struggling and a helping hand may have made a difference. Did you watch the race? Were you aware that early in the race (lap 17) Ricciardo's MGU-k died an ugly death and he was down 160 HP? Are you aware that the tech nuts are still going over what happened, because Ricciardo and his team had to work miracles to bring home the win? To state "it doesn't look like he needs assistance" is just plain untrue.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 6:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14191
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
jl267 wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
The sad part is that this is now common practice. When a team depends on another team or manufacturer, a quiet whisper between team principles happens. It wasn't just Ocon and Mercedes, it was also McLaren and Renault/Red Bull. In the latter stages a McLaren miraculously came out of the pits and split Ricciardo and Vettel. McLaren have a Renault engine, just like the Red Bull. Dooh.

Personally I have always opposed team orders, and I hope others understand the cancer this is to the sport.


I'm not sure why Mclaren would do this? Sure, they share engines but it's a pretty big and random ask of Renault to say "Hey, can you spoil the race of your only remaining car to make sure that our other customer can win, even though it doesn't look like he needs assistance?". If anything it's embarrasing that Red Bull are winning races whilst Mclaren basically only have points because of Alonso's amazing feats. This is all coming from a Mclaren fan btw!

My first thought was that they were doing the old school "our car was right behind the winners car" for the end of race photo. I'm sure they used to do that at races like Le Mans? Or maybe they knew the race was over and wanted to run the hypers again.


McLaren did not lose position or spoil their results by placing their car between Ricciardo and Vettel. Additionally, Ricciardo definitely was struggling and a helping hand may have made a difference. Did you watch the race? Were you aware that early in the race (lap 17) Ricciardo's MGU-k died an ugly death and he was down 160 HP? Are you aware that the tech nuts are still going over what happened, because Ricciardo and his team had to work miracles to bring home the win? To state "it doesn't look like he needs assistance" is just plain untrue.


I don't think that was collusion. I see no reason why Mclaren and Red Bull would want to help each other. Not impossible but I think unlikely.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 7:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1316
mikeyg123 wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
It's hardly double standards. STR and Red Bull are owned by the same person. If you accept that you accept a certain amount of collusion between them.

What is different is a team who is merely a customer of another team in cahoots with them and not permitted to fight for themselves. Considering we only have four engine suppliers, one of which is in the back of a known junior team, that is a really disappointing situation to be in.

In my view it's totally anti sporting to have teams agreeing pre race deals of any kind. That includes STR and Red Bull. But with them it's not news because we know it's the case.


So, in one case both teams have contracts to the same person (the owner) and thus they collude. In the other case, the teams collude with each other without having a contract to the same third person (the owner). A huge difference, really? I can either buy a competitor or make a cartel-like contract with him - the result is the same: collusion instead of competition. And IMO it is the result that counts.

Anyway, I find it disturbing that the FIA does not seem to be worried by any of this at all. Perhaps, because Jean Todt is said to be an early adopter of the collusion strategy (Fontana, Sauber)?
I fear it will get more if FIA does not make clear to intervene in the future. And yes, that includes clearing up the ownership structures at RBR/STR as well.


TBF i said it was a difference not hugely different. I don't really see what the FIA can do TBH.


How about change the livery rules so that each car must carry different sponsorship than the other car? That way, the people that sponsor the teams would make sure that any collusion stops at the front door. If I sponsored a team for 100 million a year, I would not allow anyone an easy pass.

Personally I desire to see 20 cars battling each other for the entire race. And I mean intense, give-no-quarters, fight-to-the-last-breath stuff.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 7:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6381
Location: Nebraska, USA
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
So, in one case both teams have contracts to the same person (the owner) and thus they collude. In the other case, the teams collude with each other without having a contract to the same third person (the owner). A huge difference, really? I can either buy a competitor or make a cartel-like contract with him - the result is the same: collusion instead of competition. And IMO it is the result that counts.

Anyway, I find it disturbing that the FIA does not seem to be worried by any of this at all. Perhaps, because Jean Todt is said to be an early adopter of the collusion strategy (Fontana, Sauber)?
I fear it will get more if FIA does not make clear to intervene in the future. And yes, that includes clearing up the ownership structures at RBR/STR as well.


TBF i said it was a difference not hugely different. I don't really see what the FIA can do TBH.


How about change the livery rules so that each car must carry different sponsorship than the other car? That way, the people that sponsor the teams would make sure that any collusion stops at the front door. If I sponsored a team for 100 million a year, I would not allow anyone an easy pass.

Personally I desire to see 20 cars battling each other for the entire race. And I mean intense, give-no-quarters, fight-to-the-last-breath stuff.

This is a suggestion that I have made for years in here, Blinky. That might work for inner team orders, but I don't see that it would have stopped the blatant Mercedes/Force India collusion to affect a race.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bam 14, Black_Flag_11, Greenman, jiminwatford, JN23, lucifers, TheGiantHogweed and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group