Given that there are 'Team Orders' ....

Given that there are 'Team Orders' ....

Post by geof » Sat, 30 Mar 2013 05:21:04


.....  is there any meaning to the Drivers' Championship ?  Maybe should be
solely  the Team Champiuonship.
 
 
 

Given that there are 'Team Orders' ....

Post by zvon » Sat, 30 Mar 2013 07:14:12

Agreed! But since formula1 was initially drivers oriented competition, and
by majority of the fans is I beleive still considered as such, I propose
let's abolish the name formula1 itself too, and make up something else.


Quote:
> .....  is there any meaning to the Drivers' Championship ?  Maybe should
> be solely  the Team Champiuonship.


 
 
 

Given that there are 'Team Orders' ....

Post by Bruce Houl » Sat, 30 Mar 2013 07:37:30

Quote:

> Agreed! But since formula1 was initially drivers oriented competition, and

> by majority of the fans is I beleive still considered as such, I propose

> let's abolish the name formula1 itself too, and make up something else.



> > .....  is there any meaning to the Drivers' Championship ?  Maybe should

> > be solely  the Team Champiuonship.

Formula 1 has never been primarily a Driver's Championship, otherwise they'd all be driving the same cars. It's always been primarily a technological contest, to see what constructor can create the fastest car within the limitations of a "formula".

A good enough constructor can win using any competent driver (see: Brawn in 2009). It's only when constructors have found no real advantage that drivers matter.

It's the same in Americas Cup yachting. It's a tech race and the fact that you may know names such as Dennis Conner or Chris***son is incidental.

Speaking of which, this year's boats are looking ***ING SCARY if you haven't seen them.

http://SportToday.org/

 
 
 

Given that there are 'Team Orders' ....

Post by zvon » Sat, 30 Mar 2013 07:14:12

Agreed! But since formula1 was initially drivers oriented competition, and
by majority of the fans is I beleive still considered as such, I propose
let's abolish the name formula1 itself too, and make up something else.


Quote:
> .....  is there any meaning to the Drivers' Championship ?  Maybe should
> be solely  the Team Champiuonship.

 
 
 

Given that there are 'Team Orders' ....

Post by News » Sat, 30 Mar 2013 07:45:31


Quote:

>> Agreed! But since formula1 was initially drivers oriented competition, and

>> by majority of the fans is I beleive still considered as such, I propose

>> let's abolish the name formula1 itself too, and make up something else.



>>> .....  is there any meaning to the Drivers' Championship ?  Maybe should

>>> be solely  the Team Champiuonship.

> Formula 1 has never been primarily a Driver's Championship, otherwise they'd all be driving the same cars. It's always been primarily a technological contest, to see what constructor can create the fastest car within the limitations of a "formula".

> A good enough constructor can win using any competent driver (see: Brawn in 2009). It's only when constructors have found no real advantage that drivers matter.

> It's the same in Americas Cup yachting. It's a tech race and the fact that you may know names such as Dennis Conner or Chris***son is incidental.

> Speaking of which, this year's boats are looking ***ING SCARY if you haven't seen them.

> http://SportToday.org/

That's not "sailing"... it's liquid ice racing.
 
 
 

Given that there are 'Team Orders' ....

Post by Bruce Houl » Sat, 30 Mar 2013 08:27:00

Quote:



> >> Agreed! But since formula1 was initially drivers oriented competition, and

> >> by majority of the fans is I beleive still considered as such, I propose

> >> let's abolish the name formula1 itself too, and make up something else.



> >>> .....  is there any meaning to the Drivers' Championship ?  Maybe should

> >>> be solely  the Team Champiuonship.

> > Formula 1 has never been primarily a Driver's Championship, otherwise they'd all be driving the same cars. It's always been primarily a technological contest, to see what constructor can create the fastest car within the limitations of a "formula".

> > A good enough constructor can win using any competent driver (see: Brawn in 2009). It's only when constructors have found no real advantage that drivers matter.

> > It's the same in Americas Cup yachting. It's a tech race and the fact that you may know names such as Dennis Conner or Chris***son is incidental.

> > Speaking of which, this year's boats are looking ***ING SCARY if you haven't seen them.

> > http://SportToday.org/

> That's not "sailing"... it's liquid ice racing.

It's going to be very interesting seeing them racing in anger. It seems to me a bit like the ground effects cars in F1 in the late 70s/early 80s. Very fast, but when it goes wrong it's going to be a very big mess.
 
 
 

Given that there are 'Team Orders' ....

Post by News » Sat, 30 Mar 2013 09:29:07


Quote:



>>>> Agreed! But since formula1 was initially drivers oriented competition, and

>>>> by majority of the fans is I beleive still considered as such, I propose

>>>> let's abolish the name formula1 itself too, and make up something else.



>>>>> .....  is there any meaning to the Drivers' Championship ?  Maybe should

>>>>> be solely  the Team Champiuonship.

>>> Formula 1 has never been primarily a Driver's Championship, otherwise they'd all be driving the same cars. It's always been primarily a technological contest, to see what constructor can create the fastest car within the limitations of a "formula".

>>> A good enough constructor can win using any competent driver (see: Brawn in 2009). It's only when constructors have found no real advantage that drivers matter.

>>> It's the same in Americas Cup yachting. It's a tech race and the fact that you may know names such as Dennis Conner or Chris***son is incidental.

>>> Speaking of which, this year's boats are looking ***ING SCARY if you haven't seen them.

>>> http://SportToday.org/

>> That's not "sailing"... it's liquid ice racing.

> It's going to be very interesting seeing them racing in anger. It seems to me a bit like the ground effects cars in F1 in the late 70s/early 80s. Very fast, but when it goes wrong it's going to be a very big mess.

Exactly.  Pitch and roll sensitivity leading to uncontrollability.
 
 
 

Given that there are 'Team Orders' ....

Post by AC » Sat, 30 Mar 2013 12:06:14

Quote:

> .....  is there any meaning to the Drivers' Championship ?  Maybe should be
> solely  the Team Champiuonship.

Well, Im gonna trot out my usual: F1 is a team sport.

Which is why I 100% support team orders, no matter what they are, as
long as they are "legal" and safe. The Piquet incident being a prime
example of illegal.

The problem for people like me is that most F1 fans identify with
drivers, so the driver championship has primacy. And to be honest, I get
all e***d by the WDC too. Im not saying that the WDC is unimportant or
irrelevant.

So, there is a duality there. But I say the team comes first, so team
orders make perfect sense to me.

Funny though, no one seems bother by the team aspect in cycling, while
one rider get to win.

--
AC

 
 
 

Given that there are 'Team Orders' ....

Post by AC » Sat, 30 Mar 2013 12:11:23

Quote:


>> Agreed! But since formula1 was initially drivers oriented competition, and

>> by majority of the fans is I beleive still considered as such, I propose

>> let's abolish the name formula1 itself too, and make up something else.



>>> .....  is there any meaning to the Drivers' Championship ?  Maybe should

>>> be solely  the Team Champiuonship.

> Formula 1 has never been primarily a Driver's Championship, otherwise they'd all be driving the same cars. It's always been primarily a technological contest, to see what constructor can create the fastest car within the limitations of a "formula".

> A good enough constructor can win using any competent driver (see: Brawn in 2009

Oi, steady on there!!!!!

Quote:
> ). It's only when constructors have found no real advantage that drivers matter.

> It's the same in Americas Cup yachting. It's a tech race and the fact that you may know names such as Dennis Conner or Chris***son is incidental.

> Speaking of which, this year's boats are looking ***ING SCARY if you haven't seen them.

> http://SportToday.org/

Wow. That is incredible. The bloke at the end makes the scary point.
Imagine one of those foils failing at top speed.

--
AC

 
 
 

Given that there are 'Team Orders' ....

Post by Bobste » Sat, 30 Mar 2013 12:48:18


Quote:
> ..... ?is there any meaning to the Drivers' Championship ? ?Maybe should be
> solely ?the Team Champiuonship.

Do team orders have that great an influence? I think it's arguable.

A good case for the prosecution would be '64 when, in the very last
race and towards the end of that race Ferrari signalled Bandini to
move over and let Surtees through. Surtees won the WDC by one point.

But Surtees was a credible champion that year. One of three drivers
still in the WDC in the last race of a season though, not for the only
time in his career, Clark might have dominated if this car was more
reliable, but to finish first first you must finish.

In 1956 Fangio was leading the WDC by 8 points going into the last
round. In that season a win was worth 9 points. Fangio's car broke
down with a steering problem. In that season it was legal for drivers
to share a car and the points that car scored. Ferrari tried to call
in Musso so that Fangio could take his car over. Musso, who was
leading a GP for the first time, refused. So they called in Peter
Collins (who had been lying second in the WDC). Fangio got the car
across the line 2nd behind Moss (Musso having retired) and secured the
WDC from race winner Moss.

Team orders may settle a close championship when several drivers are
in the running towards the end, but they don't make a champion out of
a driver who wouldn't otherwise have been in the running.

But team orders aren't always about championships. In 1967 Clark and
Hill flipped a coin at the US Grand Prix to decide which of them
should win if they were able to run 1-2. Neither man could win the
championship. This was probably about securing a 1-2 result for Ford
who had put up the money for the Cosworth engine that was in the Lotus
cars that year. The Lotus had been fast but unreliable all year, and
with the cars 1-2 on the grid there was a possibility of a good result
for Ford in their own backyard if the cars weren't  pushed too hard.

The infamous example, I suppose, would be Schumacher who was clearly
number 1 and mostly prioritised in his time at Ferrari. It was
prudent, but usually unnecessary - Schumacher would have got the
championships anyway.

Drivers do get number 1 status in a teams, but usually they've earned
it. It's not a thing that becomes an issue unless the team are front-
runners and the drivers are both capable of winning the WDC. Team
bosses are usually not fools, and if the team decides to prioritise A
over B then usually they will have decided that A has earned the
status on performance up to that time or that he represents their best
chance of winning championships.

 
 
 

Given that there are 'Team Orders' ....

Post by Noj » Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:59:05

AC wrote ...

Quote:


> > .....  is there any meaning to the Drivers' Championship ?  Maybe should be
> > solely  the Team Champiuonship.

> Well, Im gonna trot out my usual: F1 is a team sport.

> Which is why I 100% support team orders, no matter what they are, as
> long as they are "legal" and safe. The Piquet incident being a prime
> example of illegal.

> The problem for people like me is that most F1 fans identify with
> drivers, so the driver championship has primacy. And to be honest, I get
> all e***d by the WDC too. Im not saying that the WDC is unimportant or
> irrelevant.

> So, there is a duality there. But I say the team comes first, so team
> orders make perfect sense to me.

> Funny though, no one seems bother by the team aspect in cycling, while
> one rider get to win.

A cyclist has to prove he's better than his team mates to become the
designated No 1.  Each race or stage might have a different No 1
depending upon the coarse.  Teams like Sky are running 3 race teams, so
they have 3 or more No 1's.  This year they have 3 top riders.
 
 
 

Given that there are 'Team Orders' ....

Post by zvon » Sat, 30 Mar 2013 18:21:12


Quote:

>> Agreed! But since formula1 was initially drivers oriented competition,
>> and

>> by majority of the fans is I beleive still considered as such, I propose

>> let's abolish the name formula1 itself too, and make up something else.



>> > .....  is there any meaning to the Drivers' Championship ?  Maybe
>> > should

>> > be solely  the Team Champiuonship.

> Formula 1 has never been primarily a Driver's Championship, otherwise
> they'd all be driving the same cars. It's always been primarily a
> technological contest, to see what constructor can create the fastest car
> within the limitations of a "formula".

Matter of perspective, I'd say. For instance, for the first eight years of
F1 WCC wasn't even there. Nonexisting quality. And for many years afterwards
it was clear for the team owners and managers they pull their recognition
and money mostly through what drivers achive on the track. It did not
diminish importance of the team work and technological breakthroughs. Just,
priorities were set in diferent order and drivers were much more important
then today. For me F1 without healthy balance of driver-car equation is not
F1 at all. And that balance went on the technological side too many years
ago. In fact I would not be surprised tpo see one day F1UAV with drivers
sitting in the box.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
> A good enough constructor can win using any competent driver (see: Brawn
> in 2009). It's only when constructors have found no real advantage that
> drivers matter.

> It's the same in Americas Cup yachting. It's a tech race and the fact that
> you may know names such as Dennis Conner or Chris***son is incidental.

> Speaking of which, this year's boats are looking ***ING SCARY if you
> haven't seen them.

> http://SportToday.org/

 
 
 

Given that there are 'Team Orders' ....

Post by Brian Lawrenc » Sat, 30 Mar 2013 18:42:26


Quote:

>> .....  is there any meaning to the Drivers' Championship ?  Maybe
>> should be
>> solely  the Team Champiuonship.

> Well, Im gonna trot out my usual: F1 is a team sport.

> Which is why I 100% support team orders, no matter what they are, as
> long as they are "legal" and safe. The Piquet incident being a prime
> example of illegal.

> The problem for people like me is that most F1 fans identify with
> drivers, so the driver championship has primacy.

Yes, but drivers are replaceable/interchangeable, the team endures (if
its good enough).

  And to be honest, I get

Quote:
> all e***d by the WDC too. Im not saying that the WDC is unimportant or
> irrelevant.

> So, there is a duality there. But I say the team comes first, so team
> orders make perfect sense to me.
> Funny though, no one seems bother by the team aspect in cycling, while
> one rider get to win.

--

Brian W Lawrence
Wantage
Oxfordshire

 
 
 

Given that there are 'Team Orders' ....

Post by Brian Lawrenc » Sat, 30 Mar 2013 18:45:02


Quote:
> In 1956 Fangio was leading the WDC by 8 points going into the last
> round. In that season a win was worth 9 points.

Nitpick - it was still only worth 8, BUT drivers did get a point for
fastest lap, so potentially they could get 9. OTOH some races were
hand-timed to the nearest second only, so several drivers could, and
did share that point.

--

Brian W Lawrence
Wantage
Oxfordshire

 
 
 

Given that there are 'Team Orders' ....

Post by AC » Sat, 30 Mar 2013 18:57:01

Quote:

> AC wrote ...


>>> .....  is there any meaning to the Drivers' Championship ?  Maybe should be
>>> solely  the Team Champiuonship.

>> Well, Im gonna trot out my usual: F1 is a team sport.

>> Which is why I 100% support team orders, no matter what they are, as
>> long as they are "legal" and safe. The Piquet incident being a prime
>> example of illegal.

>> The problem for people like me is that most F1 fans identify with
>> drivers, so the driver championship has primacy. And to be honest, I get
>> all e***d by the WDC too. Im not saying that the WDC is unimportant or
>> irrelevant.

>> So, there is a duality there. But I say the team comes first, so team
>> orders make perfect sense to me.

>> Funny though, no one seems bother by the team aspect in cycling, while
>> one rider get to win.

> A cyclist has to prove he's better than his team mates to become the
> designated No 1.  Each race or stage might have a different No 1
> depending upon the coarse.  Teams like Sky are running 3 race teams, so
> they have 3 or more No 1's.  This year they have 3 top riders.

Same with F1. Might be less formal, but I dont recall a less able driver
being given No1 status over a clearly more talented driver.

--
AC