Ferrari’s Hockenheim Controversy

There are a number of reasons why Ferrari shouldn’t have switched their drivers during the German Grand Prix. Their move has de-motivated Felipe Massa, given Fernando Alonso nothing but a hollow victory, and has turned millions of fans against the team.

Another more obvious reason is that team orders are strictly forbidden. Article 39.1 of the Sporting Regulations clearly states that “team orders which interfere with a race result are prohibited.”

The fact that Ferrari failed to observe this ruling proves that it’s ineffective.

In the aftermath of the German Grand Prix a number of senior F1 figures have suggested changing this particular aspect of the rulebook. Bernie Ecclestone has said the rule “needs to be discussed” which means it’s likely to be raised in the next meeting of the Sporting Working Group.

WHY ARE TEAM ORDERS BANNED IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Although team orders have been used by every front-running team on the grid at some point in Formula One history, there is a very good reason for banning them.

There have been a number of incidents in the past where team orders have seriously damaged the sport’s credibility. It is understandable to fans that a team should manipulate their drivers for the benefit of a championship, but to do so when the title is not at stake displays a blatant disregard for sporting morals.

Team orders were first banned in 1998 after a pair of controversial incidents.

1997 EUROPEAN GRAND PRIX

In the final race of the 1997 season Jacques Villeneuve was locked in a tense battle for the World Championship. In order to boost his chances, Williams asked McLaren management to instruct their drivers not to race Villeneuve at Jerez, and if they did so, Jacques would try to repay the favour.

McLaren agreed to the deal.

As it turned out, Villeneuve was leading both McLaren drivers at the end of the race and, as per the earlier agreement, he moved aside to let Coulthard and Hakkinen through. Following this, Coulthard also gave up his position to Hakkinen who ended up taking the win as part of another pre-arranged deal within McLaren.

Such collusion between teams borders on race fixing and is outright despicable. Both Williams and McLaren should consider themselves lucky that Michael Schumacher’s infamous crash in the race attracted most of the media coverage because it was a deplorable way to finish a Grand Prix.

The ban on team orders came into effect after another regrettable incident in the very next race.

1998 AUSTRALIAN GRAND PRIX

McLaren’s drivers were so fast at Albert Park in 1998 that only a mechanical problem could stop them. With this in mind, Hakkinen and Coulthard agreed that whoever made it to the first corner first would be allowed to win the race and that both drivers would take it easy. That was fair enough.

Hakkinen made the best start so, according to the agreement, Coulthard would not race him to the chequered flag. However, partway through the race Hakkinen mistakenly pulled into the pits when he was not due for a stop and lost the lead to his teammate. This appeared to hand victory to Coulthard until he was asked by McLaren to slow down and give up his position to Mika. The team told David that Mika should win the race because he had been leading into the first corner. Coulthard argued the idea of their deal was to stop them from racing, which had been achieved, but McLaren insisted that Hakkinen take the victory and DC reluctantly moved aside.

Again, such an arrangement borders on race fixing. The championship was not at stake and the team manipulated the Grand Prix as per a deal arranged before the start. There is nothing wrong with the drivers agreeing not to race each other after the first corner, but it was certainly not sporting for the team to stage-manage the final result in that manner.

TEAM ORDERS BANNED

The FIA promptly banned extreme team orders before the Brazilian Grand Prix in 1998 saying that it would penalise anyone who committed “any act prejudicial to the interests of any competition”. It was a very vague ruling and was poorly defined, but it ended up having the desired effect. It stopped teams from blatantly manipulating the race results, but still allowed them to adjust their driver’s positions in the name of the championship. It was a sensible balance and one that should still be in place today.

That balance was ruined in 2002.

AUSTRIAN GRAND PRIX 2002

Six rounds into the 2002 World Championship Michael Schumacher had a commanding points lead over his rivals. He was looking good for the title since Ferrari’s huge technical advantage meant it was going to take a long time for anyone to catch him.

Despite that, Rubens Barrichello was forced to concede victory in the Austrian Grand Prix to his teammate. Rubens had dominated the race but effectively parked his car on the finish line and waved Schumacher through for the win. It was as subtle as a brick to the face and it left a bitter taste in the mouth of many F1 fans. The team was booed on the podium and heavily criticised in the media.

There was nothing wrong with Ferrari choosing to switch their drivers, but they did so when it was completely unnecessary and when they were within sight of the chequered flag. The switch itself wasn’t wrong, but the timing and method of its execution was. At best, it represented a serious lack of judgement.

In response to Ferrari’s actions in Austria, the FIA introduced a new stricter rule that stated “team orders which interfere with a race result are prohibited”.

In hindsight, it might have been wiser to maintain the existing regulations.

THE BAN ON TEAM ORDERS IN 2010

The German Grand Prix highlighted two problems with the ban on team orders as it currently stands.

The first problem is that it did nothing to stop Ferrari at Hockenheim. Their decision to implement team orders on Sunday was always going to be controversial, and was very obvious, yet even under those circumstances the ban didn’t stop them. In fact, since 2002 teams fighting for the championship have consistently used team orders. It’s a highly ineffective ruling.

The second problem with the rule is that it forced Ferrari to misrepresent the truth after the race. The team had to deny that orders had ever taken or else they would have admitted to breaking the regulations. This means that team management were unable to explain or justify their decision, and that Alonso was unable to publicly thank Massa.

Rob Smedley, Felipe’s engineer, told reporters after the race that “Massa made a small mistake when shifting up three gears at once”. Not only is that a blatant lie, but it contradicts statements made by Felipe himself who confirmed that he moved over. This deceit is doing more damage to the sport than the switch itself because Ferrari is effectively treating fans like idiots. The team is being pushed into that charade because any honest explanation would admit a breach of the sporting regulations.

If teams are going to switch their drivers in defiance of the Sporting Regulations, and are then going to lie to fans about it, there is some weight to argument for removing the ban on team orders.

THE IMPACT OF LIFTING THE BAN

There are some concerns that lifting the ban on team orders would result in more controversial races like the one we saw at Hockenheim.

That would be highly unlikely.

Team orders have been used almost every year since 2002. In general, they have been reasonable decisions made in the heat of the championship battle, and there’s nothing wrong with that at all since Formula One is a team sport. The number of controversial incidents is very small.

The German Grand Prix provided the first example of team orders that have caused significant controversy in eight years. During that same there have been all sorts of more frequent and more serious issues that have plagued the sport. Team orders are a big scandal in F1 this week but are not such a problem in the overall scheme of things.

It’s also worth noting that a number of specific factors made Ferrari’s Hockenheim switch look worse than it really was.

1. It was for the lead of the race and not for a lowly position such as third or fourth.

2. Alonso’s comments on the radio made it look as if the team were responding to his whinging.

3. The sport was robbed of the ultimate feel-good story on the anniversary of Massa’s accident.

4. Alonso is immensely unpopular whilst Massa is very likeable. Had the drivers been in opposite roles it might not have caused such a fuss.

Changing the ban on team orders won’t turn the F1 world upside down.

ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS

It might not be a good idea to lift the ban altogether completely because it exists to protect the sport from disasters like Jerez ‘97. However, the regulations should be tweaked to make them a bit more realistic.

One idea is to ban team orders until mid season at which point the championship situation is clear. This would take care of scenarios similar to those in Melbourne and Austria (two of the original incidents that resulted in the ban) but would still allow teams to switch their drivers for the championship without having to lie about it.

Alternatively, the rule could be changed so that team orders are only allowed if the team can produce evidence that it directly benefits their championship position. Any other form of manipulation should remain strictly prohibited.

MOVING FORWARD

The ban on team orders exists for the right reasons but it might be time to make it more practical. Teams are ignoring the current ruling, it pushes them to lie to fans, and it won’t make a big impact on the racing if it’s removed.

If karma is any guide, a revised set of regulations could one day help Felipe Massa.