Mercedes too clever by half with team orders

The Lewis Hamilton vs. Nico Rosberg fight for 2014 F1 supremacy is the gift that keeps on giving. And even though the goings-on of the Hungarian Grand Prix qualifying session couldn't have done more to keep the pair apart for last Sunday's race, it still managed to provide another dollop of intrigue. But it wasn't really either driver at fault this time, rather Mercedes the team - which has spent just about the entire season making all the right moves on letting the drivers race and stressing equity, despite facing on occasion rather lurid claims to the contrary - in Hungary rather blew a giant hole in its own foot.

In Hungary last Sunday it was Lewis Hamilton,
not Nico Rosberg, on the podium
Photo: Octane Photography

Why? Well the team that doesn't do team orders, did team orders. And rather clumsily. At around two-thirds distance as Nico got up somewhere near Lewis's tail - either on divergent strategies - the Merc pit wall told Lewis to let Nico through. Lewis didn't, and the consensus was that he was absolutely right in his stance. In the end he finished third to Nico's fourth, and Lewis's bewilderment at the matter afterwards was tangible. Merc boss Toto Wolff gently stoked matters by saying something not long after the chequered flag to the effect that Nico could have won had Lewis complied. But the management backtracked eventually.

So, how exactly did the previously imperious Merc get into such a fine mess? For me the most likely explanation is that Mercedes got too clever by half. We still these days often hear talk of strategy being decided by 'the guy on the pit wall', but these times are in fact long gone. Now it's churned out by vast armies equipped with all sorts of extrapolations, algorithms and game theory, many of them back at the factory. But sometimes it can be a curse as much as a blessing, as we on occasion witness times on which its outputs have been rather over-used, perhaps at the expense of what might loosely be termed as human savvy. A little reminiscent of the Little Britain 'computer says no' sketch. Indeed, we saw something in a similar ilk in last Sunday's race with McLaren at the first safety car; the team deciding to take on more inters for both cars when all others were putting on slicks, as a radar of its said some rain was on the way (wrongly). Human savvy might have told them they should have waited for an umbrella or two to go up at least before making that call...

What is right and what is wrong on team orders?

It was possibly the most glum podium in F1 history. Red Bull had claimed a one-two finish on a day it was expected to struggle, after an exciting wheel-to-wheel battle for supremacy. Winner Sebastian Vettel in so doing put clear points over those he's expected to be in a title fight with this year. While Lewis Hamilton finished in third, his new team's car showing that it has potency on race day and is much more competitive than many had thought/feared in advance. Yet, you'd never know it. Of the three drivers' faces two were sheepish and the other angry.

Sebastian Vettel won today, but that
was only the beginning of the story
Credit: Alex Comerford / CC

It was team orders what did it. Both Red Bull and Mercedes, whose cars had ran in close formation at the front for most of the Malaysian Grand Prix's duration, chose to enact a 'hold station' order from the pitwall after their final stops. This should have meant that Mark Webber finished ahead of Vettel to win and that Hamilton finished ahead of Nico Rosberg in third and fourth. Rosberg chose (however reluctantly) to obey the order; Seb didn't and won the race.

So, Vettel did wrong? It seems so. He confirmed after the race that he heard the instruction as well as apologised for making a 'mistake' in taking the lead to win. But it's hard to believe that Seb didn't know what he was doing. It appears most likely that his competitive instincts took over and he couldn't resist seizing the extra seven points on offer, regardless of everything else.

Further thoughts on the Korean Grand Prix

Tyred out

Are teams getting their
heads around the Pirellis
Credit: Rich Jones / CC

In F1, as in many things, history has a tendency to repeat itself. The broad pattern of 2012 is a lot like that of 2011. We start the year with apparently 'gumball' Pirelli tyres giving the teams plenty of headaches, providing a large random element to F1 races and even resulting in some complaining that such a 'lottery' is bad for the sport. But eventually teams get their heads around the rubber by the latter part of the season, thus giving us much more 'standard' fare.

That we've just had three rather sedate races in a row (in comparison to those earlier in the year) is evidence of this, as is that the championship battle has become a technical development war, the sort that we've grown used to, with the behaviour of the Pirellis hardly mentioned in the analysis of it. That the Red Bulls and Ferrari finished two-by-two at the front in Korea is also evidence of the establishment of some sort of order.

Be careful what you wish for, as the saying goes. This may not be a thought shared by purists, but I rather miss the gumball Pirelli lotteries.

Woking woes

McLaren - something fundamentally amiss?
Credit: Morio / CC

Perhaps uniquely for an F1 race after this year's summer break, the Korean Grand Prix result did not fundamentally change the picture of the championship battle, merely continued previous momentum. What's more, it seemed to give us something close to clarity in that battle, it now apparently boiling down to one for two players: Sebastian Vettel's Red Bull and Fernando Alonso's Ferrari.

Yet one team is conspicuous by its absence from all of this. Indeed, it was the very team that at the season's outset looked set to dominate the year; the team that's probably had the most effective and consistently competitive car of the season; the team that is one of the best-resourced squads in the sport and has been so for decades. Yet a team that's managed to (presumably) fritter all this away in the hunt for titles this year. Both drivers have conceded that their championship chances are over, and prospect of the constructors' title now also looks remote. Indeed, it's just sank behind Ferrari, not a team geared to the constructors' title, into third place in the standings. And it's not a new thing, the team has only won one of the last 20 constructors' championships (and just three drivers' titles in that time).

Further thoughts on the Italian Grand Prix

Kicking the boos
Controversy on some level seems to follow Lewis Hamilton. But in the latest case we can say unequivocally that he was the innocent party. The latest case being that when he was being interviewed as Italian Grand Prix winner on the Monza podium on Sunday there was rather a lot of booing from the assembled tifosi, that is the hordes of Ferrari fans, below.

The tifosi: good and bad

Of course there is a lot that is very good about the tifosi. The intensity and passion of Monza crowd, unparalleled elsewhere, is a key part of F1's appeal and we'd never want to lose that. And on plenty of occasions they display considerable honour and sportsmanship, indeed we saw that on Sunday with the reception Jenson Button received after parking with a stricken car (and there are ample other examples from history of similar). But there is a unpleasant flip side to the tifosi, and we heard that on Sunday. And it's not a new thing: going back some years the Ferraristi have appointed a 'prince of darkness', usually the driver from a rival team who represents the greatest threat to the supremacy of the red cars. For years it was Alain Prost (until he resolved the situation by joining the Scuderia), and then for a long time it was Ayrton Senna. I have to say I've never approved of this side of things, from the tifosi or from anyone else. One of the things that compels me be about this sport is that all F1 drivers, indeed many of those in F1 teams, are much better than the rest of us. And for that reason they are worthy of a lot of respect. And indeed generally I believe that all who take part in sporting contests, including those we might view as 'opponents', should be respected.

Korean GP Report: Vettel's perfect 10

So, was Sebastian Vettel going to ease up with his second title in the pocket, and four races remaining? Not a bit of it.

Sebastian Vettel won in fine style, clinching
the constructors' title for Red Bull as he did so
Credit: Morio / CC

It never was going to happen. Seb, more than most drivers, knows his place in history, and is a big fan of records. But more than all that he loves to race. He won again today - his 10th victory of the season (only Michael Schumacher has won more in a single year) and 20th ever (and it's sobering to think that Schumi at Vettel's age had only won once).

But today wasn't a shoo-in. Vettel really had to go out and win this one, and his performance was a masterful display of controlling a race from the front. Unusually, he didn't claim pole, and for much of the weekend the McLarens looked the class of the field, over a single lap in any case. But Seb managed to outbrake Hamilton into turn four on the opening tour after nice use of his loaf in KERS usage and forcing Hamilton into a sub-optimum line at the previous corner, and Seb employed his usual strategy from there. He scampered out of the DRS zone, didn't put a wheel wrong, and eased clear while letting those behind squabble. This has to be one of the best of his score of wins, even by their high standards. And not for the first time this season Red Bull had the confidence to commit to an unorthodox strategy from early in the weekend and make it work. It wraps up their second constructors' championship: richly deserved for an operation that has been as sweet as a nut this year and absolutely on top of their game.

British GP Report: Nando's Red Revival

Some things are just meant to be. On the 60th anniversary of Ferrari's first ever F1 win, also at Silverstone, Fernando Alonso brought it home for Ferrari in fine style to win the British Grand Prix today. And this followed on from him, just before the race, doing a demonstration run around Silverstone, that he clearly enjoyed, in the car José Froilán González used to win all those years ago. Alonso was right to call it a 'very special day', for more than one reason.

Fernando Alonso was untouchable at Silverstone
Credit: formulasantander.com / CC

Further, today seemed to represent a genuine red revival for Ferrari, as for the first time in a long time the Red Bulls, including Sebatian Vettel, were left breathless on pace during normal running (I reckon Monza last year was the last time it happened, and that could be explained by Monza being an unusual track). Yes, Alonso's taking of the lead was down to Red Bull botching one of Seb's pit stops, but he almost certainly had him on pure pace anyway. He took over a second out of Vettel lap by lap in the dry conditions in the second half of the race, even when Seb was in clean air, and was twenty seconds up the road on the start of the last lap. And all this at a track that was supposed to be Red Bull country.

Why does Fernando Alonso get such hate?

It's not very often that I pay much attention to what The Sun newspaper are saying, but yesterday was a partial exception. I had my attention drawn to their article published that day about Fernando Alonso, wherein they reported with considerable vitriol how Tom Bowers' recent book on Bernie Ecclestone contains 'shocking claims' of how the 'spiteful Spaniard' practiced 'treachery' towards his then team-mate Lewis Hamilton in 2007. I couldn't see anything new in the article (just regurgitated three-and-a-half year old talk about blackmail of Ron Dennis and the like) and can only guess it must have been the slowest of all slow news days in the tabloid's Sports Department. But the fact that the article, and its tone, existed at all got me wondering, and not for the first time, quite why Fernando Alonso inspires the level of hate that he does?

Before I go any further, I ought to declare an interest (which regular readers of the blog may have worked out already): I'm a Fernando Alonso fan. Hopefully not a slavish one, or one that does not always give other drivers respect and admiration, or credit when they deserve it, or one that does not criticise Alonso when he deserves it. But I'm definitely a Fernando Alonso sympathiser, and it's for these reasons that I find the malevolence Alonso seems to inspire rather hard to stomach.

Granted, one should take the tabloids' F1 coverage with several truckloads of salt. It's clear they have their own needs, and accurate reporting that will be appreciated by F1 enthusiasts isn't a priority. Instead, they seek to appeal to the 'mass market' or casual F1 observer, whose interest in the sport probably doesn't extend far beyond supporting the British drivers, and appealing to such readers' sense of moral outrage makes good copy. Yesterday's Sun article ticks those boxes. But it's not just in the tabloids that contempt for Alonso can be found: fans' forums have plenty, as does the specialist motor sport media (I won't name names). As Nigel Roebuck has commented: 'anti-Alonso sentiment...seems rife in this country'.

FIA get it right on Ferrari and team orders

This may come as a surprise to you, but the FIA got it right today in their ruling on Ferrari's team orders in the German race earlier this year.

The World Motor Sports Council decided not to add further punishment to the stewards' $100,000 fine handed to Ferrari at the event itself. Better still, they announced that the team order ban will be reviewed. Let's hope that this is the beginning of the end of the drawn out 'team order ban era' of F1.

Don't get me wrong, if I could wave a magic wand and make team orders disappear from F1 then I would. I'd much rather see team mates battle on the track than have the outcome decided by their pit wall. I also appreciate that to the uninitiated (and the pure) it would seem tremendously unfair for a team to ask a driver to give up a position. But team orders have always been part of the sport. As has been documented, it used to be not uncommon back in the 'golden age' of racing when men were men etc etc for drivers to go so far as to give up their cars for team mates who had broken down. Indeed, Peter Collins in the final race of the 1956 season even went so far as to give up on a chance of winning the championship himself so that team mate Juan Manuel Fangio could take over his car.

The team order ban was only brought in as a knee-jerk reaction to an egregious case in Austria 2002, and it owed more to pandering to public opinion than to the sport. Team orders are an inescapable part of F1. Teams invest lots of money and time to win championships, and winning comes higher in their list of priorities than the 'show' alone, which is the way it should be in a competitive endeavour. In the pursuit of this, teams will occasionally feel it necessary to swap the positions of their cars out on track. One has to accept team orders as part of F1 or find something else to do with their Sunday afternoons. Further, any attempt to ban team orders is unenforceable, and forces teams into various charades when team orders are applied, as was seen at Hockenheim.