planetf1.com

This just hit me... It's never happened before, and barring an insane miracle, this decade is the first ever where Ferrari wins NO title of any sort.

But from those who have seen the 80s and 60s, were those decades overall worse for Ferrari, or this one? My guess would be this, since only in 2 years has Ferrari even taken the fight till the last race, and the credit for those also might go to Alonso. And that too only in the beginning of the decade. Unbelievable.

It's becoming close to the barren run they had between 1984 and 1998. Not strictly a barren decade but a 15-year streak nonetheless.

Amazing stat. This decade (assuming we all count it from 2010) began with a Ferrari 1-2. I like many felt that Alonso and Ferrari was a recipe for a lot of success.

Like previous droughts, I think the crux of the issue here is culture. They have allowed a very back-stabby corporate culture to fester within their racing team. It just seems like a group of people who don't really have each other's backs. This creates a palpable tension and pressure that is above and beyond what would ordinarily be there. Everyone is trying to avoid blame. It's just not a winning culture.

Ferrari should appoint a no BS boss from outside the organisation.

On the plus side, Blake doesn't have to update his signature very often.

It's already been a decade, has it not?

Invade wrote:It's already been a decade, has it not?

The OP is saying this will be the first decade that doesn't have a Ferrari championship in it, not that it's been more than a decade (which it has). If you look at the decades as 1950-1959, 1960-1969, etc. and ending with 2010-2019, this is the first time a stacked 10-year segment of the championship has not included a Ferrari WDC or WCC. It could be as long as 19 years between the two and still satisfy the criteria of at least once in each decade.

cmberry20 wrote:On the plus side, Blake doesn't have to update his signature very often.

true enough.

However, the numbers in the signature are still superior despite this slump...and no one close(ie McLaren & Williams) has gained in them either. Gotta give it to a great Red Bull stretch of years and an incredible run of dominate/superior years of Mrecs. Such is the world of sports.

Exediron wrote:

Invade wrote:It's already been a decade, has it not?

The OP is saying this will be the first decade that doesn't have a Ferrari championship in it, not that it's been more than a decade (which it has). If you look at the decades as 1950-1959, 1960-1969, etc. and ending with 2010-2019, this is the first time a stacked 10-year segment of the championship has not included a Ferrari WDC or WCC. It could be as long as 19 years between the two and still satisfy the criteria of at least once in each decade.

Ye I know that. But it isn't the first decade that doesn't have a Ferrari championship in it. I was being a pedant.


At least the 0 vs 1 debate hasn't started yet -- ooops what did I just say.

10-year segments aren't limited to the myopic and largely arbitrary convention of decades starting from X. Especially irritating when it comes to awards such as "Sportsman of the decade" seeing as athletes don't choose when they were born.

Invade wrote:

Exediron wrote:

Invade wrote:It's already been a decade, has it not?

The OP is saying this will be the first decade that doesn't have a Ferrari championship in it, not that it's been more than a decade (which it has). If you look at the decades as 1950-1959, 1960-1969, etc. and ending with 2010-2019, this is the first time a stacked 10-year segment of the championship has not included a Ferrari WDC or WCC. It could be as long as 19 years between the two and still satisfy the criteria of at least once in each decade.

Ye I know that. But it isn't the first decade that doesn't have a Ferrari championship in it. I was being a pedant.


At least the 0 vs 1 debate hasn't started yet -- ooops what did I just say.

10-year segments aren't limited to the myopic and largely arbitrary convention of decades starting from X. Especially irritating when it comes to awards such as "Sportsman of the decade" seeing as athletes don't choose when they were born.

I'm pretty sure that those who conceived the TV game-show Sale Of The Century weren't too fussy about the criteria for the title.

Invade wrote:

Exediron wrote:

Invade wrote:It's already been a decade, has it not?

The OP is saying this will be the first decade that doesn't have a Ferrari championship in it, not that it's been more than a decade (which it has). If you look at the decades as 1950-1959, 1960-1969, etc. and ending with 2010-2019, this is the first time a stacked 10-year segment of the championship has not included a Ferrari WDC or WCC. It could be as long as 19 years between the two and still satisfy the criteria of at least once in each decade.

Ye I know that. But it isn't the first decade that doesn't have a Ferrari championship in it. I was being a pedant.

At least the 0 vs 1 debate hasn't started yet -- ooops what did I just say.

10-year segments aren't limited to the myopic and largely arbitrary convention of decades starting from X. Especially irritating when it comes to awards such as "Sportsman of the decade" seeing as athletes don't choose when they were born.

In the case of Formula 1 specifically, it makes sense - 1950 was the first year of the championship, and it was a 0-ending year. But in general I do agree - it's an entirely arbitrary way of measuring time that just happens to be something people do a lot.

I'm not a Ferrari fan for one reason, team orders. Most teams do not use that strategy, but Ferrari well????!!!.... However, my full support goes to Leclerc as he's doing very well indeed.

Vettel is going no where right now.

Noni wrote:I'm not a Ferrari fan for one reason, team orders. Most teams do not use that strategy, but Ferrari well????!!!....

As someone who is pretty neutral on Ferrari, I've never agreed with this particular slam against them. Ferrari uses team orders, sure - but so has every other team when they reach a championship situation. Name a team, and if they've competed for a title, I can pretty much guarantee they used team orders during that time.

Somehow, a handful of high publicity incidents involving Ferrari team orders have become this myth that Ferrari is a corrupt team that manipulates every result for their drivers. It's just not true. Their strategy is at times bafflingly incompetent of late, but I honestly don't believe they're trying to screw Leclerc with the options they give him - they're simply incapable of focusing on more than one driver at a time.

In terms of actually intentionally manipulating results, they're no worse than Mercedes, Renault, Haas, or any of the other teams that have given an order for one driver to hold station or yield to the other within the past year. Which is probably all of them, if you look closely enough.

Exediron wrote:

Noni wrote:I'm not a Ferrari fan for one reason, team orders. Most teams do not use that strategy, but Ferrari well????!!!....

As someone who is pretty neutral on Ferrari, I've never agreed with this particular slam against them. Ferrari uses team orders, sure - but so has every other team when they reach a championship situation. Name a team, and if they've competed for a title, I can pretty much guarantee they used team orders during that time.

Somehow, a handful of high publicity incidents involving Ferrari team orders have become this myth that Ferrari is a corrupt team that manipulates every result for their drivers. It's just not true. Their strategy is at times bafflingly incompetent of late, but I honestly don't believe they're trying to screw Leclerc with the options they give him - they're simply incapable of focusing on more than one driver at a time.

In terms of actually intentionally manipulating results, they're no worse than Mercedes, Renault, Haas, or any of the other teams that have given an order for one driver to hold station or yield to the other within the past year. Which is probably all of them, if you look closely enough.

Austria 2001 and 2002 have hung like a spectre over them unfortunately. We haven't seen that by a team since if I remember rightly? A situation where a driver moves over for his team mate in the last lap to give him championship points so early on in the year?

I mean Merc will use team orders on occasion but could you imagine them asking Bottas to move aside for Hamilton in the last lap in Baku?

I agree in recent times they have used team orders the same way as everyone else.

The only thing I would add to that is that they seem incapable of managing two strategies and have been for a long time. When it was Alonso/Massa it always seemed like Massa's strategy was an after thought. Not to be considered until Alonso was sorted. Same with Kimi and Vettel.

Exediron wrote:

Noni wrote:I'm not a Ferrari fan for one reason, team orders. Most teams do not use that strategy, but Ferrari well????!!!....

As someone who is pretty neutral on Ferrari, I've never agreed with this particular slam against them. Ferrari uses team orders, sure - but so has every other team when they reach a championship situation. Name a team, and if they've competed for a title, I can pretty much guarantee they used team orders during that time.

Somehow, a handful of high publicity incidents involving Ferrari team orders have become this myth that Ferrari is a corrupt team that manipulates every result for their drivers. It's just not true. Their strategy is at times bafflingly incompetent of late, but I honestly don't believe they're trying to screw Leclerc with the options they give him - they're simply incapable of focusing on more than one driver at a time.

In terms of actually intentionally manipulating results, they're no worse than Mercedes, Renault, Haas, or any of the other teams that have given an order for one driver to hold station or yield to the other within the past year. Which is probably all of them, if you look closely enough.

Objectively you are correct, and I agree with you, however Ferrari - due to many reasons, it's history in the sport, the perceived character of it being a very passionate and emotionally driven team has often led to poor timing and execution of the team orders - and consequently, then holding off when team orders were unquestionably the correct thing to do to avoid the previous backlash.

Austria 2002 and Hockenheim 2010 are the two big examples. Both were the correct tactical decision - Schumacher and Alonso were the team's championship driver - but both were poor PR moves. In the case of Barrichello - Schumacher was on a roll to that championship, everyone knew Ferrari would be unchallenged for the rest of the year - just like we know this season is going to be a Merc championship - but after two seasons of being the clear number 2, Barrichello had turned up that weekend and owned Schumacher. He unquestionably deserved the victory and the crowd, the fans, the tifosi - everyone wanted him to win it. So the controversy about the team order wasn't really anything to do with team orders, it was because it felt like someone who had put in the performance of his career was having it taken away from him. Ironically - the team order controversy has made that second place bigger than any other point of career, everyone now remembers that Rubens had Michael beat that weekend, whereas without the order we probably wouldn't.

Hockenheim 2010 was more clear cut as a correct team order, Ferrari were massively behind and Alonso their closest and best performing driver. However, there was one important detail. Massa was the loyal servant of Ferrari, the servant who had returned after his head injury the previous year - and this was all fresh in everyone's mind. While he hadn't beaten Alonso in the same way Rubens beat Michael in 2002, he had got the jump at the start and had legitimately got himself in front. In this case, the negative narrative wasn't about taking about a key achievement from someone, it was about pushing a Ferrari driver who have come back from injuring himself in the line of duty the previous year. It didn't play well as a story, just like Austria 2002.

And this is the key difference. F1 is littered with team orders (I mean, no one really moans about Ferrari ordering Salo to give Irvine a win) but these are the two team orders everyone remembers, and in both cases, it happened to be Ferrari who issued them. If it had been McLaren, would the reaction have been any different? Maybe, as McLaren is seen more as a robotic, technology driven organisation. However, Merc got a fair bit of stick for the Bottas order in Russia last year - and it sits somewhere between Hockenheim and Austria in terms of how tactically necessary it was at the time (obviously, in hindsight, none of the team orders impacted the championship result) - and Mercedes has a similar image as McLaren.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Exediron wrote:

Noni wrote:I'm not a Ferrari fan for one reason, team orders. Most teams do not use that strategy, but Ferrari well????!!!....

As someone who is pretty neutral on Ferrari, I've never agreed with this particular slam against them. Ferrari uses team orders, sure - but so has every other team when they reach a championship situation. Name a team, and if they've competed for a title, I can pretty much guarantee they used team orders during that time.

Somehow, a handful of high publicity incidents involving Ferrari team orders have become this myth that Ferrari is a corrupt team that manipulates every result for their drivers. It's just not true. Their strategy is at times bafflingly incompetent of late, but I honestly don't believe they're trying to screw Leclerc with the options they give him - they're simply incapable of focusing on more than one driver at a time.

In terms of actually intentionally manipulating results, they're no worse than Mercedes, Renault, Haas, or any of the other teams that have given an order for one driver to hold station or yield to the other within the past year. Which is probably all of them, if you look closely enough.

Objectively you are correct, and I agree with you, however Ferrari - due to many reasons, it's history in the sport, the perceived character of it being a very passionate and emotionally driven team has often led to poor timing and execution of the team orders - and consequently, then holding off when team orders were unquestionably the correct thing to do to avoid the previous backlash.

Austria 2002 and Hockenheim 2010 are the two big examples. Both were the correct tactical decision - Schumacher and Alonso were the team's championship driver - but both were poor PR moves. In the case of Barrichello - Schumacher was on a roll to that championship, everyone knew Ferrari would be unchallenged for the rest of the year - just like we know this season is going to be a Merc championship - but after two seasons of being the clear number 2, Barrichello had turned up that weekend and owned Schumacher. He unquestionably deserved the victory and the crowd, the fans, the tifosi - everyone wanted him to win it. So the controversy about the team order wasn't really anything to do with team orders, it was because it felt like someone who had put in the performance of his career was having it taken away from him. Ironically - the team order controversy has made that second place bigger than any other point of career, everyone now remembers that Rubens had Michael beat that weekend, whereas without the order we probably wouldn't.

Hockenheim 2010 was more clear cut as a correct team order, Ferrari were massively behind and Alonso their closest and best performing driver. However, there was one important detail. Massa was the loyal servant of Ferrari, the servant who had returned after his head injury the previous year - and this was all fresh in everyone's mind. While he hadn't beaten Alonso in the same way Rubens beat Michael in 2002, he had got the jump at the start and had legitimately got himself in front. In this case, the negative narrative wasn't about taking about a key achievement from someone, it was about pushing a Ferrari driver who have come back from injuring himself in the line of duty the previous year. It didn't play well as a story, just like Austria 2002.

And this is the key difference. F1 is littered with team orders (I mean, no one really moans about Ferrari ordering Salo to give Irvine a win) but these are the two team orders everyone remembers, and in both cases, it happened to be Ferrari who issued them. If it had been McLaren, would the reaction have been any different? Maybe, as McLaren is seen more as a robotic, technology driven organisation. However, Merc got a fair bit of stick for the Bottas order in Russia last year - and it sits somewhere between Hockenheim and Austria in terms of how tactically necessary it was at the time (obviously, in hindsight, none of the team orders impacted the championship result) - and Mercedes has a similar image as McLaren.

2010 is only really remembered because Ferrari broke the rules by issuing the order.

It was a sensible thing to do in itself. If it happened during a time it was legal nobody would really remember it.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

Noni wrote:I'm not a Ferrari fan for one reason, team orders. Most teams do not use that strategy, but Ferrari well????!!!....

As someone who is pretty neutral on Ferrari, I've never agreed with this particular slam against them. Ferrari uses team orders, sure - but so has every other team when they reach a championship situation. Name a team, and if they've competed for a title, I can pretty much guarantee they used team orders during that time.

Somehow, a handful of high publicity incidents involving Ferrari team orders have become this myth that Ferrari is a corrupt team that manipulates every result for their drivers. It's just not true. Their strategy is at times bafflingly incompetent of late, but I honestly don't believe they're trying to screw Leclerc with the options they give him - they're simply incapable of focusing on more than one driver at a time.

In terms of actually intentionally manipulating results, they're no worse than Mercedes, Renault, Haas, or any of the other teams that have given an order for one driver to hold station or yield to the other within the past year. Which is probably all of them, if you look closely enough.

Austria 2001 and 2002 have hung like a spectre over them unfortunately. We haven't seen that by a team since if I remember rightly? A situation where a driver moves over for his team mate in the last lap to give him championship points so early on in the year?

I mean Merc will use team orders on occasion but could you imagine them asking Bottas to move aside for Hamilton in the last lap in Baku?

I agree in recent times they have used team orders the same way as everyone else.

The only thing I would add to that is that they seem incapable of managing two strategies and have been for a long time. When it was Alonso/Massa it always seemed like Massa's strategy was an after thought. Not to be considered until Alonso was sorted. Same with Kimi and Vettel.

Austria wasn't in the last lap, that's when Rubens chose to do it to protest.

It is unfortunate that these incidents reflected so badly on Ferrari. Especially when the T.O.s were legal back then, they could use them as they pleased. I'd expect them to be hurt worse by the infamous "Nando is faster than you" shenanigans, which blatantly made fun of the FIA in their face. At a time that they were banned. Otherwise T.O.s happened all the time throughout the history of F1, some of them pretty tasteless like Jordan in Spa in 1998. I'm sure that, technically, you can probably consider it as far back as when team mates were called into the pits and had to give their car to the other driver.

But overall the sentiment is the same, they did not use the team orders in a worse manner than anyone else in recent years. In fact we had situations that probably called for T.O.s and they failed to act, like in Bacu this year (if memory serves right).

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Exediron wrote:

Noni wrote:I'm not a Ferrari fan for one reason, team orders. Most teams do not use that strategy, but Ferrari well????!!!....

As someone who is pretty neutral on Ferrari, I've never agreed with this particular slam against them. Ferrari uses team orders, sure - but so has every other team when they reach a championship situation. Name a team, and if they've competed for a title, I can pretty much guarantee they used team orders during that time.

Somehow, a handful of high publicity incidents involving Ferrari team orders have become this myth that Ferrari is a corrupt team that manipulates every result for their drivers. It's just not true. Their strategy is at times bafflingly incompetent of late, but I honestly don't believe they're trying to screw Leclerc with the options they give him - they're simply incapable of focusing on more than one driver at a time.

In terms of actually intentionally manipulating results, they're no worse than Mercedes, Renault, Haas, or any of the other teams that have given an order for one driver to hold station or yield to the other within the past year. Which is probably all of them, if you look closely enough.

Objectively you are correct, and I agree with you, however Ferrari - due to many reasons, it's history in the sport, the perceived character of it being a very passionate and emotionally driven team has often led to poor timing and execution of the team orders - and consequently, then holding off when team orders were unquestionably the correct thing to do to avoid the previous backlash.

Austria 2002 and Hockenheim 2010 are the two big examples. Both were the correct tactical decision - Schumacher and Alonso were the team's championship driver - but both were poor PR moves. In the case of Barrichello - Schumacher was on a roll to that championship, everyone knew Ferrari would be unchallenged for the rest of the year - just like we know this season is going to be a Merc championship - but after two seasons of being the clear number 2, Barrichello had turned up that weekend and owned Schumacher. He unquestionably deserved the victory and the crowd, the fans, the tifosi - everyone wanted him to win it. So the controversy about the team order wasn't really anything to do with team orders, it was because it felt like someone who had put in the performance of his career was having it taken away from him. Ironically - the team order controversy has made that second place bigger than any other point of career, everyone now remembers that Rubens had Michael beat that weekend, whereas without the order we probably wouldn't.

Hockenheim 2010 was more clear cut as a correct team order, Ferrari were massively behind and Alonso their closest and best performing driver. However, there was one important detail. Massa was the loyal servant of Ferrari, the servant who had returned after his head injury the previous year - and this was all fresh in everyone's mind. While he hadn't beaten Alonso in the same way Rubens beat Michael in 2002, he had got the jump at the start and had legitimately got himself in front. In this case, the negative narrative wasn't about taking about a key achievement from someone, it was about pushing a Ferrari driver who have come back from injuring himself in the line of duty the previous year. It didn't play well as a story, just like Austria 2002.

And this is the key difference. F1 is littered with team orders (I mean, no one really moans about Ferrari ordering Salo to give Irvine a win) but these are the two team orders everyone remembers, and in both cases, it happened to be Ferrari who issued them. If it had been McLaren, would the reaction have been any different? Maybe, as McLaren is seen more as a robotic, technology driven organisation. However, Merc got a fair bit of stick for the Bottas order in Russia last year - and it sits somewhere between Hockenheim and Austria in terms of how tactically necessary it was at the time (obviously, in hindsight, none of the team orders impacted the championship result) - and Mercedes has a similar image as McLaren.

Yeah, for a team that prides on letting their drivers race, they have issued their fare share of team orders.

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

Noni wrote:I'm not a Ferrari fan for one reason, team orders. Most teams do not use that strategy, but Ferrari well????!!!....

As someone who is pretty neutral on Ferrari, I've never agreed with this particular slam against them. Ferrari uses team orders, sure - but so has every other team when they reach a championship situation. Name a team, and if they've competed for a title, I can pretty much guarantee they used team orders during that time.

Somehow, a handful of high publicity incidents involving Ferrari team orders have become this myth that Ferrari is a corrupt team that manipulates every result for their drivers. It's just not true. Their strategy is at times bafflingly incompetent of late, but I honestly don't believe they're trying to screw Leclerc with the options they give him - they're simply incapable of focusing on more than one driver at a time.

In terms of actually intentionally manipulating results, they're no worse than Mercedes, Renault, Haas, or any of the other teams that have given an order for one driver to hold station or yield to the other within the past year. Which is probably all of them, if you look closely enough.

Austria 2001 and 2002 have hung like a spectre over them unfortunately. We haven't seen that by a team since if I remember rightly? A situation where a driver moves over for his team mate in the last lap to give him championship points so early on in the year?

I mean Merc will use team orders on occasion but could you imagine them asking Bottas to move aside for Hamilton in the last lap in Baku?

I agree in recent times they have used team orders the same way as everyone else.

The only thing I would add to that is that they seem incapable of managing two strategies and have been for a long time. When it was Alonso/Massa it always seemed like Massa's strategy was an after thought. Not to be considered until Alonso was sorted. Same with Kimi and Vettel.

Austria wasn't in the last lap, that's when Rubens chose to do it to protest.

It is unfortunate that these incidents reflected so badly on Ferrari. Especially when the T.O.s were legal back then, they could use them as they pleased. I'd expect them to be hurt worse by the infamous "Nando is faster than you" shenanigans, which blatantly made fun of the FIA in their face. At a time that they were banned. Otherwise T.O.s happened all the time throughout the history of F1, some of them pretty tasteless like Jordan in Spa in 1998. I'm sure that, technically, you can probably consider it as far back as when team mates were called into the pits and had to give their car to the other driver.

But overall the sentiment is the same, they did not use the team orders in a worse manner than anyone else in recent years. In fact we had situations that probably called for T.O.s and they failed to act, like in Bacu this year (if memory serves right).

Has anyone since ordered their number 2 driver to give up a win so early in the season?

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

Noni wrote:I'm not a Ferrari fan for one reason, team orders. Most teams do not use that strategy, but Ferrari well????!!!....

As someone who is pretty neutral on Ferrari, I've never agreed with this particular slam against them. Ferrari uses team orders, sure - but so has every other team when they reach a championship situation. Name a team, and if they've competed for a title, I can pretty much guarantee they used team orders during that time.

Somehow, a handful of high publicity incidents involving Ferrari team orders have become this myth that Ferrari is a corrupt team that manipulates every result for their drivers. It's just not true. Their strategy is at times bafflingly incompetent of late, but I honestly don't believe they're trying to screw Leclerc with the options they give him - they're simply incapable of focusing on more than one driver at a time.

In terms of actually intentionally manipulating results, they're no worse than Mercedes, Renault, Haas, or any of the other teams that have given an order for one driver to hold station or yield to the other within the past year. Which is probably all of them, if you look closely enough.

Austria 2001 and 2002 have hung like a spectre over them unfortunately. We haven't seen that by a team since if I remember rightly? A situation where a driver moves over for his team mate in the last lap to give him championship points so early on in the year?

I mean Merc will use team orders on occasion but could you imagine them asking Bottas to move aside for Hamilton in the last lap in Baku?

I agree in recent times they have used team orders the same way as everyone else.

The only thing I would add to that is that they seem incapable of managing two strategies and have been for a long time. When it was Alonso/Massa it always seemed like Massa's strategy was an after thought. Not to be considered until Alonso was sorted. Same with Kimi and Vettel.

Austria wasn't in the last lap, that's when Rubens chose to do it to protest.

It is unfortunate that these incidents reflected so badly on Ferrari. Especially when the T.O.s were legal back then, they could use them as they pleased. I'd expect them to be hurt worse by the infamous "Nando is faster than you" shenanigans, which blatantly made fun of the FIA in their face. At a time that they were banned. Otherwise T.O.s happened all the time throughout the history of F1, some of them pretty tasteless like Jordan in Spa in 1998. I'm sure that, technically, you can probably consider it as far back as when team mates were called into the pits and had to give their car to the other driver.

But overall the sentiment is the same, they did not use the team orders in a worse manner than anyone else in recent years. In fact we had situations that probably called for T.O.s and they failed to act, like in Bacu this year (if memory serves right).

Has anyone since ordered their number 2 driver to give up a win so early in the season?

Not to my recollection, but if you read the sentence I am talking about recent years, not 20 seasons ago.

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Exediron wrote: As someone who is pretty neutral on Ferrari, I've never agreed with this particular slam against them. Ferrari uses team orders, sure - but so has every other team when they reach a championship situation. Name a team, and if they've competed for a title, I can pretty much guarantee they used team orders during that time.

Somehow, a handful of high publicity incidents involving Ferrari team orders have become this myth that Ferrari is a corrupt team that manipulates every result for their drivers. It's just not true. Their strategy is at times bafflingly incompetent of late, but I honestly don't believe they're trying to screw Leclerc with the options they give him - they're simply incapable of focusing on more than one driver at a time.

In terms of actually intentionally manipulating results, they're no worse than Mercedes, Renault, Haas, or any of the other teams that have given an order for one driver to hold station or yield to the other within the past year. Which is probably all of them, if you look closely enough.

Austria 2001 and 2002 have hung like a spectre over them unfortunately. We haven't seen that by a team since if I remember rightly? A situation where a driver moves over for his team mate in the last lap to give him championship points so early on in the year?

I mean Merc will use team orders on occasion but could you imagine them asking Bottas to move aside for Hamilton in the last lap in Baku?

I agree in recent times they have used team orders the same way as everyone else.

The only thing I would add to that is that they seem incapable of managing two strategies and have been for a long time. When it was Alonso/Massa it always seemed like Massa's strategy was an after thought. Not to be considered until Alonso was sorted. Same with Kimi and Vettel.

Austria wasn't in the last lap, that's when Rubens chose to do it to protest.

It is unfortunate that these incidents reflected so badly on Ferrari. Especially when the T.O.s were legal back then, they could use them as they pleased. I'd expect them to be hurt worse by the infamous "Nando is faster than you" shenanigans, which blatantly made fun of the FIA in their face. At a time that they were banned. Otherwise T.O.s happened all the time throughout the history of F1, some of them pretty tasteless like Jordan in Spa in 1998. I'm sure that, technically, you can probably consider it as far back as when team mates were called into the pits and had to give their car to the other driver.

But overall the sentiment is the same, they did not use the team orders in a worse manner than anyone else in recent years. In fact we had situations that probably called for T.O.s and they failed to act, like in Bacu this year (if memory serves right).

Has anyone since ordered their number 2 driver to give up a win so early in the season?

Not to my recollection, but if you read the sentence I am talking about recent years, not 20 seasons ago.

I'm old, I considered 20 seasons recent

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:
Austria 2001 and 2002 have hung like a spectre over them unfortunately. We haven't seen that by a team since if I remember rightly? A situation where a driver moves over for his team mate in the last lap to give him championship points so early on in the year?

I mean Merc will use team orders on occasion but could you imagine them asking Bottas to move aside for Hamilton in the last lap in Baku?

I agree in recent times they have used team orders the same way as everyone else.

The only thing I would add to that is that they seem incapable of managing two strategies and have been for a long time. When it was Alonso/Massa it always seemed like Massa's strategy was an after thought. Not to be considered until Alonso was sorted. Same with Kimi and Vettel.

Austria wasn't in the last lap, that's when Rubens chose to do it to protest.

It is unfortunate that these incidents reflected so badly on Ferrari. Especially when the T.O.s were legal back then, they could use them as they pleased. I'd expect them to be hurt worse by the infamous "Nando is faster than you" shenanigans, which blatantly made fun of the FIA in their face. At a time that they were banned. Otherwise T.O.s happened all the time throughout the history of F1, some of them pretty tasteless like Jordan in Spa in 1998. I'm sure that, technically, you can probably consider it as far back as when team mates were called into the pits and had to give their car to the other driver.

But overall the sentiment is the same, they did not use the team orders in a worse manner than anyone else in recent years. In fact we had situations that probably called for T.O.s and they failed to act, like in Bacu this year (if memory serves right).

Has anyone since ordered their number 2 driver to give up a win so early in the season?

Not to my recollection, but if you read the sentence I am talking about recent years, not 20 seasons ago.

I'm old, I considered 20 seasons recent

Hahaha, fair enough!

About that T.O., I did not like it, I do not excuse it, but I think I get why they did it. They lost '98 and '99 by a hairline ('97 was also going down to the wire if you ignore the collision with JV), they just about won the '00 one, so it is easy to see why Todt wanted to maximise every little point he could salvage. In hindsight '02 turned out to be a great season for them, but they would not know how it would pan out from the first 5 races. Think that prior to Austria Rubens had only finished one out of 5 races (3 out of the 4 down to car issues) and Williams was breathing down their neck, just 3 points behind them.

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote: Austria wasn't in the last lap, that's when Rubens chose to do it to protest.

It is unfortunate that these incidents reflected so badly on Ferrari. Especially when the T.O.s were legal back then, they could use them as they pleased. I'd expect them to be hurt worse by the infamous "Nando is faster than you" shenanigans, which blatantly made fun of the FIA in their face. At a time that they were banned. Otherwise T.O.s happened all the time throughout the history of F1, some of them pretty tasteless like Jordan in Spa in 1998. I'm sure that, technically, you can probably consider it as far back as when team mates were called into the pits and had to give their car to the other driver.

But overall the sentiment is the same, they did not use the team orders in a worse manner than anyone else in recent years. In fact we had situations that probably called for T.O.s and they failed to act, like in Bacu this year (if memory serves right).

Has anyone since ordered their number 2 driver to give up a win so early in the season?

Not to my recollection, but if you read the sentence I am talking about recent years, not 20 seasons ago.

I'm old, I considered 20 seasons recent

Hahaha, fair enough!

About that T.O., I did not like it, I do not excuse it, but I think I get why they did it. They lost '98 and '99 by a hairline ('97 was also going down to the wire if you ignore the collision with JV), they just about won the '00 one, so it is easy to see why Todt wanted to maximise every little point he could salvage. In hindsight '02 turned out to be a great season for them, but they would not know how it would pan out from the first 5 races. Think that prior to Austria Rubens had only finished one out of 5 races (3 out of the 4 down to car issues) and Williams was breathing down their neck, just 3 points behind them.

Schumacher was 21 points clear going into Austria and had won four out of five races. Finishing second to Barrichello who was already miles behind due not finishing in four races wasn't going to make or break his season and he was still extending his lead over the two Williams drivers. It was hardly close.

Williams were only 7 points behind which isn't a lot but Ferrari were still getting a 1-2 and extending that in the best way possible.

JN23 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:
Has anyone since ordered their number 2 driver to give up a win so early in the season?

Not to my recollection, but if you read the sentence I am talking about recent years, not 20 seasons ago.

I'm old, I considered 20 seasons recent

Hahaha, fair enough!

About that T.O., I did not like it, I do not excuse it, but I think I get why they did it. They lost '98 and '99 by a hairline ('97 was also going down to the wire if you ignore the collision with JV), they just about won the '00 one, so it is easy to see why Todt wanted to maximise every little point he could salvage. In hindsight '02 turned out to be a great season for them, but they would not know how it would pan out from the first 5 races. Think that prior to Austria Rubens had only finished one out of 5 races (3 out of the 4 down to car issues) and Williams was breathing down their neck, just 3 points behind them.

Schumacher was 21 points clear going into Austria and had won four out of five races. Finishing second to Barrichello who was already miles behind due not finishing in four races wasn't going to make or break his season and he was still extending his lead over the two Williams drivers. It was hardly close.

Williams were only 7 points behind which isn't a lot but Ferrari were still getting a 1-2 and extending that in the best way possible.

Yes indeed. I think you need to read my post carefully and see that I agree that it was a silly decision, but I can see why they did it

[quote="Siao7"][quote="JN23"][quote="Siao7"][quote="mikeyg123"][quote="Siao7"][quote="mikeyg123"]

Has anyone since ordered their number 2 driver to give up a win so early in the season?[/quote]

Not to my recollection, but if you read the sentence I am talking about recent years, not 20 seasons ago.[/quote]

I'm old, I considered 20 seasons recent :lol: :lol:[/quote]

Hahaha, fair enough!

About that T.O., I did not like it, I do not excuse it, but I think I get why they did it. They lost '98 and '99 by a hairline ('97 was also going down to the wire if you ignore the collision with JV), they just about won the '00 one, so it is easy to see why Todt wanted to maximise every little point he could salvage. In hindsight '02 turned out to be a great season for them, but they would not know how it would pan out from the first 5 races. Think that prior to Austria Rubens had only finished one out of 5 races (3 out of the 4 down to car issues) and Williams was breathing down their neck, just 3 points behind them.[/quote]

Schumacher was 21 points clear going into Austria and had won four out of five races. Finishing second to Barrichello who was already miles behind due not finishing in four races wasn't going to make or break his season and he was still extending his lead over the two Williams drivers. It was hardly close.

Williams were only 7 points behind which isn't a lot but Ferrari were still getting a 1-2 and extending that in the best way possible.[/quote]
Yes indeed. I think you need to read my post carefully and see that I agree that it was a silly decision, but I can see why they did it[/quote]

At the time I thought that the main reason why they orchestrated this stupidity was that Austria was the only track on the calendar where Schumacher had never won an F1 race, despite having won numerous times at the other tracks. I still think it's the main reason...

Until I see any other team do something similar to what ferrari did to Massa at cota 2012 I will always regard them as the team orders champs. Yes every team uses orders but ferrari seems to invent new ways to apply them and rarely let you feel that their drivers are on equal footing. To me it is the ferrari way. I always expect it and never am I surprised by it.

Siao7 wrote:

JN23 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:
Not to my recollection, but if you read the sentence I am talking about recent years, not 20 seasons ago.

I'm old, I considered 20 seasons recent

Hahaha, fair enough!

About that T.O., I did not like it, I do not excuse it, but I think I get why they did it. They lost '98 and '99 by a hairline ('97 was also going down to the wire if you ignore the collision with JV), they just about won the '00 one, so it is easy to see why Todt wanted to maximise every little point he could salvage. In hindsight '02 turned out to be a great season for them, but they would not know how it would pan out from the first 5 races. Think that prior to Austria Rubens had only finished one out of 5 races (3 out of the 4 down to car issues) and Williams was breathing down their neck, just 3 points behind them.

Schumacher was 21 points clear going into Austria and had won four out of five races. Finishing second to Barrichello who was already miles behind due not finishing in four races wasn't going to make or break his season and he was still extending his lead over the two Williams drivers. It was hardly close.

Williams were only 7 points behind which isn't a lot but Ferrari were still getting a 1-2 and extending that in the best way possible.

Yes indeed. I think you need to read my post carefully and see that I agree that it was a silly decision, but I can see why they did it

I noticed that you said that. My point of view is that I just can't see or understand why they did it.

kleefton wrote:Until I see any other team do something similar to what ferrari did to Massa at cota 2012 I will always regard them as the team orders champs. Yes every team uses orders but ferrari seems to invent new ways to apply them and rarely let you feel that their drivers are on equal footing. To me it is the ferrari way. I always expect it and never am I surprised by it.

Of course they are your TO champs.

At least, to my knowledge they haven't conspired with another team to manipulate a resort.

JN23 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

JN23 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:
I'm old, I considered 20 seasons recent

Hahaha, fair enough!

About that T.O., I did not like it, I do not excuse it, but I think I get why they did it. They lost '98 and '99 by a hairline ('97 was also going down to the wire if you ignore the collision with JV), they just about won the '00 one, so it is easy to see why Todt wanted to maximise every little point he could salvage. In hindsight '02 turned out to be a great season for them, but they would not know how it would pan out from the first 5 races. Think that prior to Austria Rubens had only finished one out of 5 races (3 out of the 4 down to car issues) and Williams was breathing down their neck, just 3 points behind them.

Schumacher was 21 points clear going into Austria and had won four out of five races. Finishing second to Barrichello who was already miles behind due not finishing in four races wasn't going to make or break his season and he was still extending his lead over the two Williams drivers. It was hardly close.

Williams were only 7 points behind which isn't a lot but Ferrari were still getting a 1-2 and extending that in the best way possible.

Yes indeed. I think you need to read my post carefully and see that I agree that it was a silly decision, but I can see why they did it

I noticed that you said that. My point of view is that I just can't see or understand why they did it.

Again, they lost 3 seasons by a handful of points. One of their cars had problems pretty much every race up until Austria. I'm sure you can see why if you try.

From my side, I do not understand the view of "he's 20 points clear". So? A points difference can be wiped out so fast, especially when you have another 13 races to go. Two DNF are enough, especially with car problems. They stood there with an egg on their face in the late 90's, so Todt wanted to make sure that wouldn't happen. Again, hindsight gives you a nice cushion, but try to see it from their view at that time. It leaves a bad taste and it angered me too when I revisited the incidents afterwards, but I can definitely see why they would do it.

At least it wasn't cheating; only cheating the faster driver of a win. But that is no different from ordering drivers to change cars like they used to.

Siao7 wrote:

JN23 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

JN23 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:
Hahaha, fair enough!

About that T.O., I did not like it, I do not excuse it, but I think I get why they did it. They lost '98 and '99 by a hairline ('97 was also going down to the wire if you ignore the collision with JV), they just about won the '00 one, so it is easy to see why Todt wanted to maximise every little point he could salvage. In hindsight '02 turned out to be a great season for them, but they would not know how it would pan out from the first 5 races. Think that prior to Austria Rubens had only finished one out of 5 races (3 out of the 4 down to car issues) and Williams was breathing down their neck, just 3 points behind them.

Schumacher was 21 points clear going into Austria and had won four out of five races. Finishing second to Barrichello who was already miles behind due not finishing in four races wasn't going to make or break his season and he was still extending his lead over the two Williams drivers. It was hardly close.

Williams were only 7 points behind which isn't a lot but Ferrari were still getting a 1-2 and extending that in the best way possible.

Yes indeed. I think you need to read my post carefully and see that I agree that it was a silly decision, but I can see why they did it

I noticed that you said that. My point of view is that I just can't see or understand why they did it.

Again, they lost 3 seasons by a handful of points. One of their cars had problems pretty much every race up until Austria. I'm sure you can see why if you try.

From my side, I do not understand the view of "he's 20 points clear". So? A points difference can be wiped out so fast, especially when you have another 13 races to go. Two DNF are enough, especially with car problems. They stood there with an egg on their face in the late 90's, so Todt wanted to make sure that wouldn't happen. Again, hindsight gives you a nice cushion, but try to see it from their view at that time. It leaves a bad taste and it angered me too when I revisited the incidents afterwards, but I can definitely see why they would do it.

At least it wasn't cheating; only cheating the faster driver of a win. But that is no different from ordering drivers to change cars like they used to.

It was a bit different in 2002. They had a 20 point lead after 6 races and a car way quicker than anyone elses. Having the lead wiped out would only have delayed the coronation by a couple of races. All the issues had occurred on Barrichello's car as well which they knew full well was never as reliable as Schumacher's.

The true illustration of how unnecessary it was is that Schumacher left Austria, round 6 of the championship, with more points than the best non Ferrari driver would accumulate for the entire season.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

JN23 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

JN23 wrote:
Schumacher was 21 points clear going into Austria and had won four out of five races. Finishing second to Barrichello who was already miles behind due not finishing in four races wasn't going to make or break his season and he was still extending his lead over the two Williams drivers. It was hardly close.

Williams were only 7 points behind which isn't a lot but Ferrari were still getting a 1-2 and extending that in the best way possible.

Yes indeed. I think you need to read my post carefully and see that I agree that it was a silly decision, but I can see why they did it

I noticed that you said that. My point of view is that I just can't see or understand why they did it.

Again, they lost 3 seasons by a handful of points. One of their cars had problems pretty much every race up until Austria. I'm sure you can see why if you try.

From my side, I do not understand the view of "he's 20 points clear". So? A points difference can be wiped out so fast, especially when you have another 13 races to go. Two DNF are enough, especially with car problems. They stood there with an egg on their face in the late 90's, so Todt wanted to make sure that wouldn't happen. Again, hindsight gives you a nice cushion, but try to see it from their view at that time. It leaves a bad taste and it angered me too when I revisited the incidents afterwards, but I can definitely see why they would do it.

At least it wasn't cheating; only cheating the faster driver of a win. But that is no different from ordering drivers to change cars like they used to.

It was a bit different in 2002. They had a 20 point lead after 6 races and a car way quicker than anyone elses. Having the lead wiped out would only have delayed the coronation by a couple of races. All the issues had occurred on Barrichello's car as well which they knew full well was never as reliable as Schumacher's.

In hindsight, yes.

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

JN23 wrote:

Siao7 wrote: Yes indeed. I think you need to read my post carefully and see that I agree that it was a silly decision, but I can see why they did it

I noticed that you said that. My point of view is that I just can't see or understand why they did it.

Again, they lost 3 seasons by a handful of points. One of their cars had problems pretty much every race up until Austria. I'm sure you can see why if you try.

From my side, I do not understand the view of "he's 20 points clear". So? A points difference can be wiped out so fast, especially when you have another 13 races to go. Two DNF are enough, especially with car problems. They stood there with an egg on their face in the late 90's, so Todt wanted to make sure that wouldn't happen. Again, hindsight gives you a nice cushion, but try to see it from their view at that time. It leaves a bad taste and it angered me too when I revisited the incidents afterwards, but I can definitely see why they would do it.

At least it wasn't cheating; only cheating the faster driver of a win. But that is no different from ordering drivers to change cars like they used to.

It was a bit different in 2002. They had a 20 point lead after 6 races and a car way quicker than anyone elses. Having the lead wiped out would only have delayed the coronation by a couple of races. All the issues had occurred on Barrichello's car as well which they knew full well was never as reliable as Schumacher's.

In hindsight, yes.

I think the reaction at the time showed just how unnecessary everyone found it without the need for hindsight.

Nobody complained a few years earlier when Irvine got wins handed to him from Salo and Schumacher.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

JN23 wrote:
I noticed that you said that. My point of view is that I just can't see or understand why they did it.

Again, they lost 3 seasons by a handful of points. One of their cars had problems pretty much every race up until Austria. I'm sure you can see why if you try.

From my side, I do not understand the view of "he's 20 points clear". So? A points difference can be wiped out so fast, especially when you have another 13 races to go. Two DNF are enough, especially with car problems. They stood there with an egg on their face in the late 90's, so Todt wanted to make sure that wouldn't happen. Again, hindsight gives you a nice cushion, but try to see it from their view at that time. It leaves a bad taste and it angered me too when I revisited the incidents afterwards, but I can definitely see why they would do it.

At least it wasn't cheating; only cheating the faster driver of a win. But that is no different from ordering drivers to change cars like they used to.

It was a bit different in 2002. They had a 20 point lead after 6 races and a car way quicker than anyone elses. Having the lead wiped out would only have delayed the coronation by a couple of races. All the issues had occurred on Barrichello's car as well which they knew full well was never as reliable as Schumacher's.

In hindsight, yes.

I think the reaction at the time showed just how unnecessary everyone found it without the need for hindsight.

Nobody complained a few years earlier when Irvine got wins handed to him from Salo and Schumacher.

I meant in hindsight it would have delayed the WDC for a couple of races. But it was unknown at the time.

And again, I wasn't agreeing with the whole thing, it was very bad taste.

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote: Again, they lost 3 seasons by a handful of points. One of their cars had problems pretty much every race up until Austria. I'm sure you can see why if you try.

From my side, I do not understand the view of "he's 20 points clear". So? A points difference can be wiped out so fast, especially when you have another 13 races to go. Two DNF are enough, especially with car problems. They stood there with an egg on their face in the late 90's, so Todt wanted to make sure that wouldn't happen. Again, hindsight gives you a nice cushion, but try to see it from their view at that time. It leaves a bad taste and it angered me too when I revisited the incidents afterwards, but I can definitely see why they would do it.

At least it wasn't cheating; only cheating the faster driver of a win. But that is no different from ordering drivers to change cars like they used to.

It was a bit different in 2002. They had a 20 point lead after 6 races and a car way quicker than anyone elses. Having the lead wiped out would only have delayed the coronation by a couple of races. All the issues had occurred on Barrichello's car as well which they knew full well was never as reliable as Schumacher's.

In hindsight, yes.

I think the reaction at the time showed just how unnecessary everyone found it without the need for hindsight.

Nobody complained a few years earlier when Irvine got wins handed to him from Salo and Schumacher.

I meant in hindsight it would have delayed the WDC for a couple of races. But it was unknown at the time.

And again, I wasn't agreeing with the whole thing, it was very bad taste.

Yes my point was even in its own time it was viewed as unnecessary because of the dominance Ferrari were enjoying at the time. As evidenced by the negative reaction to that particular case.

mikeyg123 wrote:Yes my point was even in its own time it was viewed as unnecessary because of the dominance Ferrari were enjoying at the time. As evidenced by the negative reaction to that particular case.

The reaction was quite similar to the Bottas/Hamilton incident in Russia. In both cases, there was no benefit of hindsight needed for the vast majority of fans to see it for being totally unnecessary.

kleefton wrote:Until I see any other team do something similar to what ferrari did to Massa at cota 2012 I will always regard them as the team orders champs. Yes every team uses orders but ferrari seems to invent new ways to apply them and rarely let you feel that their drivers are on equal footing. To me it is the ferrari way. I always expect it and never am I surprised by it.

The chances we see another COTA have to be pretty remote considering what we would need to happen for it to arise,we need...

A new track
A totally green track with no grip
Mass fear of losing up to 4 rows worth of places at the start based on RB's projection for the dirty side
Car without the pace to get itself out of trouble but has lead driver in the title fight and the No.2 not being involved
Gearbox penalty for another driver pushing the lead driver of your car onto that dirty side of the grid overnight
Lead driver being outqualified by the Number 2 in the first place so he's in a position to benefit
Rules that allow a penalty to be exploited in the first place



I don't think we'll ever see it again and its got nothing to do with other teams having some superior sense of sportsmanship, its because it needed so many random variables to become an option for Ferrari that morning in the first place.

Lotus49 wrote:

kleefton wrote:Until I see any other team do something similar to what ferrari did to Massa at cota 2012 I will always regard them as the team orders champs. Yes every team uses orders but ferrari seems to invent new ways to apply them and rarely let you feel that their drivers are on equal footing. To me it is the ferrari way. I always expect it and never am I surprised by it.

The chances we see another COTA have to be pretty remote considering what we would need to happen for it to arise,we need...

A new track
A totally green track with no grip
Mass fear of losing up to 4 rows worth of places at the start based on RB's projection for the dirty side
Car without the pace to get itself out of trouble but has lead driver in the title fight and the No.2 not being involved
Gearbox penalty for another driver pushing the lead driver of your car onto that dirty side of the grid overnight
Lead driver being outqualified by the Number 2 in the first place so he's in a position to benefit
Rules that allow a penalty to be exploited in the first place



I don't think we'll ever see it again and its got nothing to do with other teams having some superior sense of sportsmanship, its because it needed so many random variables to become an option for Ferrari that morning in the first place.

This. I have little doubt that another team, in the same scenario, would have taken the same course of action.

Lotus49 wrote:

kleefton wrote:Until I see any other team do something similar to what ferrari did to Massa at cota 2012 I will always regard them as the team orders champs. Yes every team uses orders but ferrari seems to invent new ways to apply them and rarely let you feel that their drivers are on equal footing. To me it is the ferrari way. I always expect it and never am I surprised by it.

The chances we see another COTA have to be pretty remote considering what we would need to happen for it to arise,we need...

A new track
A totally green track with no grip
Mass fear of losing up to 4 rows worth of places at the start based on RB's projection for the dirty side
Car without the pace to get itself out of trouble but has lead driver in the title fight and the No.2 not being involved
Gearbox penalty for another driver pushing the lead driver of your car onto that dirty side of the grid overnight
Lead driver being outqualified by the Number 2 in the first place so he's in a position to benefit
Rules that allow a penalty to be exploited in the first place



I don't think we'll ever see it again and its got nothing to do with other teams having some superior sense of sportsmanship, its because it needed so many random variables to become an option for Ferrari that morning in the first place.

Jeez... “something similar” does not mean that it has to be copy and paste does it?
Basically Ferrari deliberately “broke” something on Massa’s car so that Alonso can get a better starting position. If that’s not the ultimate show of favoritism then I don’t know what is.

IDrinkYourMilkshake wrote:This just hit me... It's never happened before, and barring an insane miracle, this decade is the first ever where Ferrari wins NO title of any sort.

But from those who have seen the 80s and 60s, were those decades overall worse for Ferrari, or this one? My guess would be this, since only in 2 years has Ferrari even taken the fight till the last race, and the credit for those also might go to Alonso. And that too only in the beginning of the decade. Unbelievable.

I'm not really getting the importance of this stat. It just so happened to fall within the decade as opposed to across decades. But a decade of time is a decade of time...