Notes

One for all or all for 1?
As Rosberg began to inch into Lewis Hamilton’s wing mirrors, we began to in unison to the edge of our couches; we would finally see who would win this hierarchical war which has gripped us all season. Behind closed doors (or the pit wall) the teams and drivers were playing a relentless game of tactics, and Mercedes had to act. Looking around sheepishly, Toto Wolf slid the team orders card over the table in full view of every sofa in the country. These sofas sagged in unison as they waited for the inevitable pass and awkward wave over the shoulder. But our champion Lewis was not having any of this, his team mate had begun on pole and he had fought hard for this position, he simply and politely chose not to obey. Our hearts swelled with defiance, but in hindsight were our sentiments valid. This incident undoubtedly lost Mercedes the race, but does that matter when, we enjoyed such good racing.
With this incident comes the inevitable baggage of whether team orders should be banned again. Of course we all know the argumen
As poker is a game of bluff, Formula 1 is about the racing. We don’t switch on for the parade lap. (except for ??????)
So why do these incidents happen? Is it just caused by favouritism within teams, or is it due to something more fundamental about the current nature of the sport?
There are two main arguments for the legalisation of team orders. The ban proving unenforceable, and F1 being a team sport. The former is of course true, as David Coulthard, who has had more than a few experiences of being the underdog driver puts it, “The team order is simply unenforceable because all the way through the decisions that teams make, whether it’s the building of the car, the engines that go in the various cars, what developments are tested first by different drivers, who gets to drive the new car first. All of those things influence one driver over the other.” So what constitutes a team order? Coulthard defines it as “any instruction from the management that would in some way influence that driver’s race result beyond the normal result that they would be destined to have.” At first glance this seems pretty definitive, but let’s take a moment to analyse what comes under this bracket. This could include anything from the small preferential treatment of one driver over another to the extreme of Alfa Romeo ordering Fagioli to give his team mate Fangio his car in France 1951 (although car swaps are now banned). You can begin to see that this lack of clarity is a real issue. One which became increasingly relevant in the later years of the ban - although whichever way you look at it, “Fernando is faster than you” still doesn’t come under the not-team-orders bracket (Germany 2010).
Part of the issue is that Austria 2002 was just about the worst case scenario of team orders the FIA could think of. Especially their use so early on in the season. So as Barrichello having his second race win taken away from him just for seven points in favour of Schumacher was so prominent in the creation of article 39.1, surely the slight preferential treatment of one driver over another has nothing to do with article 39.1
Part of the issue is that big team order incidents such as Austria 2002 get bad press for the sport. However the press argument against team orders leaves the small incidents that go under the radar as Not-Team-Orders. Because does it really matter to Bernie if these things happen behind closed doors. He certainly wouldn’t want to drag the sport in the mud by making a fuss over favouritism. And indeed Formula 1 is a team sport. At least that is what’s drilled into us. “It was for the good of the team” seems to run off the tongue around the paddock very easily.
We are prone to picturing the 2 drivers with the whole team behind them, but Professor Mark Jenkins, researcher of business strategy and management puts across a different approach "Team principals sit at the top of every Formula 1 organization ... All team principals are passionate about the sport and work long hours relative to anyone else on their teams.". This is where the problem lies; we care more about whether Lewis is winning a race than Toto Wolf (sorry Toto). Whereas the rest of Mercedes are more bothered about winning the Constructors'. In this case we are more interested in who's won man of the match, than which team scored more goals.
There’s no spraying of champagne atop the podium for winning the match. So if we are more interested in the Drivers' championship but the teams are working for the constructors', the fans don’t want team orders, but can see the arguments for them, and the teams do want team orders.
But surely Formula 1 is for the fans anyway. It is undoubtedly a business which is providing a product, the sport, to the customers, the fans. And we would like to dial the free phone and make a complaint.
We never want to see drivers such as Schumacher saying “I am not very happy. I take no joy from this victory.” We want the glory of the hard fought win every race.
So if these conflicting opinions over team orders are caused by having the World Drivers' championship and the Constructors', why don't we just get rid of one of them?
In a press conference in July 2010, 4 team principals were asked why they have the Drivers' championship. This question had been previously put to Barrichello and Schumacher in 2002 and they were unable to give an answer. Colin Kolles (team principal or HRT) gave a team perspective: "You don't gain anything out of the Drivers' Championship. You gain, of course a lot of reputation and maybe indirect sponsorship or whatever, the fact is that the Constructors' championship is more valuable for a team than the Drivers' championship." So why do they have both? The constructors' was originally introduced as an extra incentive to teams. But has it out-raced its use now that team orders have become such a prominent issue? Perhaps the prize money should be transferred to the Drivers' Championship, or is this unique conflict what makes the sport more gripping than any other?
So amongst this angst over whether team orders should be legal or not, we should be looking to the more imperative question of what the sport we love is all about. Is it one for all or all for 1? Only once this has been answered by fans, drivers and teams can these team order controversies stand any chance of being resolved. It all starts with the fans.