Vettel wins Webber doesn't

[Irisado]

I think the debate is more complicated than that.
1)  We all know that 'just following orders' is never a valid excuse for anything... right? 
2)  Why would anyone ask a triple world champion to lose on purpose?
3)  Is the team there to support the driver, or is the driver there to support the team?

That's all for debate about whether team orders are valid in the first place, I agree, but in terms of what actually happened, the team gave him a direct order, he didn't follow it, end of story.  Whether it was right, and whether all those factors you list come into play are sound discussion points, but it is not right to disobey a direct order from the team, even if you don't like it.

At the point that Vettel passed Webber, Mark wasn't going race pace any more.  Outside of championship battles, where has a faster teammate ever been asked to hold back?

The only incident I can think of was Indy 2002, and the FIA made it quite clear that was not acceptable.  (At least Schumi had the class to be embarassed about it.)

Barrichello was also asked to move over for Schumacher in the Austrian Grand Prix in both 2001 and 2002, despite leading on merit, and Schumacher having a dominant lead in the championship.  Schumacher reacted, in the 2002 race, in his usual victorious manner, and only looked sheepish on the podium when he realised that the crowd were booing, so let's not get carried way with giving him credit .

Webber had been asked to slow down by the team as far as I understood it, and Red Bull have a policy that the team mates don't race each other after the last pit stop.  Webber is normally behind Vettel after the last pit stop, so this situation hasn't arisen before, and Vettel clearly didn't like it.

The policy is, in my view, a bad policy, but if those are the team rules you have to respect them. Vettel was wrong, his behaviour has disgusted me, first for the on track manoeuvre, second for celebrating in such glorious style when he did win, and then third having the temerity to think that we (the viewing public) are stupid enough to fall for his lame apology act.  He's a disgrace, and I hope that he never wins the championship ever again.

[Alianora La Canta]

Sorry, but a bad policy cannot be respected, especially if following it is likely to put the company in a worse position in the long run than not following it would.

If Red Bull hadn't given the bad policy out in the first place, Vettel wouldn't have been put in an impossible situation. Holding station through team orders would have resulted in even fewer viewers tuning in to future races and less money going to Red Bull in TV, sponsorship and merchandising (assuming it remained champion through that act). Unless the payment gap between 1st and 2nd is more than 28%, it looks like the behaviour of teams in the first 2 races (at least 5 have been spotted using team orders, for various reasons) is costing more money than losing the championship would even as it is. More team order compliance would have caused an even worse reaction.

Therefore, complying with team orders would have resulted in a slower 2014 car, which would have made getting that title harder for whoever drives a Red Bull at that point. At some stage, team loyalty has to take precedence over complying with a self-destructive request - no matter who made it.

[Scott]

Some have said the controversial finish to Malaysia has resulted in massive media attention.  Rarely is a race still being talked about by so many a week after it took place. 

I'm not sure there is a direct correlation to next year's revenues.  Especially as this is only the second race of the season.  Who is to say the next race won't be the best one in years, or millions more viewers might tune in to watch Vettel sit on the 'bench' so to speak and see what happens with the rest (many fans are turned off by Vettel's boring pole Saturday, win Sunday routine - like many were turned off by Schumacher doing the same a few years ago). 

Either way, I am on the side of those who think team orders should be obeyed, however daft they are.  If a driver doesn't like driving under team orders, maybe he should move to a different team, or keep it in mind when he is negotiating a contract renewal (to have them written in to the contract in a way that suits the driver).

[vintly]

There's no such thing as a 'boring pole' (no puns please, you know what I mean ). I'm not a Schumacher fan and never was, but it wasn't boring - I still watched, it was galling, annoying, frustrating etc, but never boring. Apologies if this is just semantics, I know what you mean. But I just want to make the point – during Schumacher's time the Ferrari fans certainly weren't bored.

It would be boring if every other race we had to watch the first few cars trundle in without racing, because of team orders. Viva the driver, viva individuality, down with team orders, down with convention!

[Alianora La Canta]

Rarely is a race still being talked about by so many a week after it took place. 

I'm not sure there is a direct correlation to next year's revenues.  Especially as this is only the second race of the season.  Who is to say the next race won't be the best one in years, or millions more viewers might tune in to watch Vettel sit on the 'bench' so to speak and see what happens with the rest (many fans are turned off by Vettel's boring pole Saturday, win Sunday routine - like many were turned off by Schumacher doing the same a few years ago). 

Many fans were turned off by the "boring" routine, but the orchestration seems to have turned off more people than the routine did. The fact the press are still discussing it is more to do with there not being a race immediately following Malaysia (as there was for Australia) and the particularly large and mostly negative consequences of the affair causing debate. Not all bad publicity produces viewers.

[John S]

If team orders, which are now oh so legal, are so B important to the championship then the FIA should mandate punishments if they are breached, Q.E.D.   

WOT????......might reveal races are fixed.....will give fans the wrong impression......impossible to police. - H'mmm,  - now where have I heard that before   

[Irisado]

Sorry, but a bad policy cannot be respected, especially if following it is likely to put the company in a worse position in the long run than not following it would.

Red Bull clearly don't think that not racing after the final pit stop is bad policy, otherwise they wouldn't have been employing this order for the past number of years.

If Red Bull hadn't given the bad policy out in the first place, Vettel wouldn't have been put in an impossible situation.

He wasn't in an impossible position.  He could simply have held station as per the instruction.  There was no threat from behind, so he had no need to quicken his pace.

He broke the order because he has no respect for Mark Webber, and no respect for certain elements within the team.  He's very selfish, and extremely immature, and that is now clear for the whole F1 world to see.

Holding station through team orders would have resulted in even fewer viewers tuning in to future races and less money going to Red Bull in TV, sponsorship and merchandising (assuming it remained champion through that act).

These are hypothetical figures, so you cannot say that with any degree of certainty.  Formula 1 survived the Schumacher/Ferrari era, and the competition is a lot closer now, even if the racing is blighted by artificial overtaking, so I don't think that what you're saying would have come to pass.

[Alianora La Canta]

Viewing figures have dropped substantially over the last few years - that much has been statistically proven. Global viewing figures were 600 million in 2008 and fell to 502 million in 2012. In fact, F1 is no longer the world's most popular motorsport, as world touring cars (WTCC) surpassed F1's viewing figures last year.

As an example of how much things have got worse recently, the Malaysian GP figures for 2013 was 722,000 for Sky. In 2012 that figure was 910,000. This represents a fall of 188,000 people. That is a lot fewer people willing to shell out for F1 than even 12 months ago. F1 has become increasingly dependent on the pay TV deals for survival, and the indications coming from Sky was that 1 million paying subscribers were needed each year to make F1 break even (something it has never managed to get, if the combination of freebie HD/already-had-Sky-Sport viewers and viewing figures barely hitting 1 million at the best of times was anything to go by).

What I am talking about is already coming to pass. Which is why I referred to Vettel's position as impossible. He was asked to choose between the Red Bull team's short-term (relatively minor) benefit and its long-term viability. I imagine Red Bull will catch on too late to mend the damage it has done to the wider health of F1 (I've encountered several small companies make the same mistake, then have to call me in to clean up the mess) with its actions, so someone else in power will have to work out how to restrict team orders successfully if F1 is going to get through this.

[Alianora La Canta]

Viewing figures have dropped substantially over the last few years - that much has been statistically proven. Global viewing figures were 600 million in 2008 and fell to 502 million in 2012. In fact, F1 is no longer the world's most popular motorsport, as world touring cars (WTCC) surpassed F1's viewing figures last year.

As an example of how much things have got worse recently, the Malaysian GP figures for 2013 was 722,000 for Sky. In 2012 that figure was 910,000. This represents a fall of 188,000 people. That is a lot fewer people willing to shell out for F1 than even 12 months ago. F1 has become increasingly dependent on the pay TV deals for survival, and the indications coming from Sky was that 1 million paying subscribers were needed each year to make F1 break even (something it has never managed to get, if the combination of freebie HD/already-had-Sky-Sport viewers and viewing figures barely hitting 1 million at the best of times was anything to go by).

What I am talking about is already coming to pass. Which is why I referred to Vettel's position as impossible. He was asked to choose between the Red Bull team's short-term (relatively minor) benefit and its long-term viability. I imagine Red Bull will catch on too late to mend the damage it has done to the wider health of F1 (I've encountered several small companies make the same category of mistake, then have to call me in to clean up the mess) with its actions, so someone else in power will have to work out how to restrict team orders successfully if F1 is going to get through this.

[cosworth151]

How much of the drop in attendance and viewership is due to an increasingly poor assortment of tracks, like Sepang? How much of it is due to the fact that many of the races are now in the middle of the night for the largest portion of the fan base?

Vettel wasn't able to get past Webber in a equal fight. He had to wait until the team told them both to save their cars to take advantage. In fact, Red Bull's lack of action against Vettel has spawned conspiracy theories. I've read blogs that suggest that the whole thing was an inside job. The team knew that Vettel couldn't catch Mark but they didn't want a "Vettel is faster than you" message. So, they told both drivers to save their cars with a wink to Vettel.

The cost caps and lack of refueling make "slow down" orders a necessity. Merc did it, too. McLaren told Button to park the car in the late stages to allow a free gearbox change. There is a real culprit in the Case of the Disappearing Fans.

[Wizzo]

This makes for some interesting reading:

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2012/09/06/uk-f1-tv-figures-bbc-sky-2012/

[Alianora La Canta]

How much of the drop in attendance and viewership is due to an increasingly poor assortment of tracks, like Sepang? How much of it is due to the fact that many of the races are now in the middle of the night for the largest portion of the fan base?

For the Sky statistics I showed, none of it. They were the same track, at the same time of early morning.

Sepang for me is a decent track - certainly no worse than Barcelona or the new version of the Nurburgring. It's tracks like Shanghai, Bahrain and Abu Dhabi that reduce the quality of the calendar, but in any case, the decline started several years after Sepang, Shanghai and Bahrain joined.

The biggest known percentage drop in global audience last year was in China, where there have been an increasingly large number of daylight races. They lost 33% of their audience last year - and no, they didn't lose it by going pay TV or dropping live coverage. They lost it because the races were constantly on the wrong weeks for the punters, and the messing-about on track was less interesting than the events which clashed. So I suspect the time of day is not the deciding factor.

Also, if Red Bull were planning to avoid a "Alonso is faster than you", they failed. The fans weren't born yesterday and can easily tell when the wool is being pulled over their eyes, no matter what coding is used. After all, many of them have had practice with the 1-2 arrangements at Renault and the attempt by BMW to order Robert Kubica to not win Bahrain 2008. Both featured far less radio information with which to work out what was going on, and both were deciphered by fans long before journalists admitted to knowing what was going on.

[Irisado]

What I am talking about is already coming to pass. Which is why I referred to Vettel's position as impossible. He was asked to choose between the Red Bull team's short-term (relatively minor) benefit and its long-term viability. I imagine Red Bull will catch on too late to mend the damage it has done to the wider health of F1 (I've encountered several small companies make the same mistake, then have to call me in to clean up the mess) with its actions, so someone else in power will have to work out how to restrict team orders successfully if F1 is going to get through this.

Okay, taking account of the statistics you've presented I still don't agree with the conclusion that you're implying.  How can you conclude that falling viewing figures has anything to do with team orders?  The correlation is, at best, weak, and you can't show any causation, so you're not persuading me to alter my position about Vettel.

Where I do agree with you is regarding the poor quality new tracks the teams are forced to race at.  Again though, trying to draw a conclusion about viewing figures from this is very difficult.

[F1fanaticBD]

The track in question

Sepang - Petronas will ensure there is race in this track

Abu Dhabi - Ferrari will use its veto power, if there is in any chance of pulling this off the calender

Bahrain - After all the debates last year, the race was still on because both McLaren and Mercedes has investments from this country, and they will pursue within their limits to make sure that it remains in their.

China - I don't need to stress how important this market is for almost all the brands that endorses F1 carnival.

My point is that as all these tracks are put in the calender, due to their might of economic power, and these will ensure that CVC will be economically benefit holding races in this venues, no matter how much you debate about their presence they will exist.

Another point is that I think F1 uses the number of Audience to attract the companies for endorsements, other than that it is hardly a figure that CVC at this moment can ignore, because it is making profits this way or the other, and that what matters to them now. Is it a good thing? Absolutely not, as I have mentioned in somewhere else in this forum, I would not have been a fan of F1 if my family had to pay any money to attain TV viewership. The drop of TV viewership has long term effect, and will certainly show them in the long run. Perhaps CVC think when they will reach that moment, they would have made enough, and left the sports.

[Alianora La Canta]

The track in question

Sepang - Petronas will ensure there is race in this track

Abu Dhabi - Ferrari will use its veto power, if there is in any chance of pulling this off the calender

Bahrain - After all the debates last year, the race was still on because both McLaren and Mercedes has investments from this country, and they will pursue within their limits to make sure that it remains in their.

China - I don't need to stress how important this market is for almost all the brands that endorses F1 carnival.

My point is that as all these tracks are put in the calender, due to their might of economic power, and these will ensure that CVC will be economically benefit holding races in this venues, no matter how much you debate about their presence they will exist.

Another point is that I think F1 uses the number of Audience to attract the companies for endorsements, other than that it is hardly a figure that CVC at this moment can ignore, because it is making profits this way or the other, and that what matters to them now. Is it a good thing? Absolutely not, as I have mentioned in somewhere else in this forum, I would not have been a fan of F1 if my family had to pay any money to attain TV viewership. The drop of TV viewership has long term effect, and will certainly show them in the long run. Perhaps CVC think when they will reach that moment, they would have made enough, and left the sports.

Audience figures directly or indirectly influence every method CVC has of making money. This is why it is important to track - it may influence when CVC decides it can't make more money from the franchise.