Aussie GP

[F310B]

They certainly would...its intheir best interests to give the most support for the champion contender in the team. Look at McLaren, they would have probably been champions more in the late 90's early 2000's if theyd properly suported the leading driver which at some points was not mika. But because Ron Dennis was so blinkered and loyal to Hakinnen it cost them the championship.

If Mika had moved over for David at every race in 2000, David would still not have been champion. If David had moved over for Mika, Mika would still not have been champion.

 

[[FPV]Rusty]

personally, i would not race for the team boss who thinks that way & will not sacrifice their favoured driver for hte other, but in F1 sometimes you have to be like that, and I would think that the best line of thoughts are the team, wehter it be one driver or the other, they should give their team the best possible chance of winning, no matter what (within the rules of course ).

 

[jenson09]

But still, blatent favouritism as seen in ferrari cant be deemed to be good for the sport by any stretch of the imagination. If you had MS and Rubens 1st and second, say only 2 tenths between them and Rubens lapping faster than Michael. Would Ferrari (if MS was leading the championship but hadnt won it) still order MICHAEL to let Rubens past? No, because hes the 'chosen one'. He's special. And if any other team performed such a charade the FIA ouldcome down on them like a ton of bricks. Lets hope Rubens does well and shows Ferrari that no matter how hard they try theres more skill in winning with a deficient car than with one thats lovingly cared for 24/7