I understand the complaints about Schumi's sometimes questionable ethics, infact I agree with them. I still haven't fully forgiven him for the collision with Villeneuve in the 97 European GP.
But why the fuss over team orders? That's just a part of F1.
Teams, if there is enough pressure from the rest of the grid, naturally should want to get the best equipment and choose the optimum strategy for the driver most likely to make the most of it. And it doesn't make sense to keep a driver bottled up and and lapping well below his potential when all it takes to remove the roadblock is a quick word on the radio. Get the fast one up the road and remove any risk of having both your drivers jumped in the pits by someone fueled farther.
If it came down to it at season end, where the winning constructor missed taking the drivers championship as well by something like 1 or 2 points because they were too proud to use team orders to move their number 1 past his out-of-contention team mate, how stupid would they look to their sponsors, or the larger F1 community?
There is still some negativity out there with regards to Hakkinen's championship in 98 and the role team orders had in it, but nowhere near what I see directed towards Schumi. In my opinion Hakkinen/McLaren is just as deserving if not more deserving of the same sort of criticism, but somehow this is forgotten whenever I see his career being reflected on... I don't get it.
If I were to go out on a bit of a limb, I'd say the last to win the drivers championship and beat his team mate squarely in the process was Damon Hill in 96 - and that is only because the rest of the grid was so woefully unreliable that Williams could afford to let his drivers race. I think they had the constructors championship clinched by maybe 11th or 12th rd, but it was totally clear by the 5th round that they weren't going to be touched.
I'm obviously not bothered about team orders themselves as they have always been a part of motorsport. I am however bothered about teams deciding that even though they are not even fighting for the championship yet, they feel they need to order one driver to lose on purpose (Austria 2002).
At least with examples like Belgium 1998 they were ensuring they would finish 1-2 rather than being in dominant cars and making sure one person won despite not even being at a critical stage of a championship.
I do believe that Raikkonen won his championship with little/no team orders and Alonso was simply faster than Fisichella from the start. Hill's championship was indeed the last one with teammates of somewhat equal skills (though nowadays I rate Massa equal to or above Kimi).
Preferential treatment is usually based on the "A" driver's chance of winning the whole banana.
Mclaren have publicly shunned the "A" driver route in recent years, and when they had two drivers of arguably similar talent, look where that led them...
Of course, as Schumi's career went on and on... the case for preferential treatment for political reasons rather than for reasons of him being faster became more and more apparent.
RBR are definitely going to have to figure out which driver is going to be driver "A" for the next half of the season if they're to have any hope of claiming victory. At this point, with the scramble for points amongst newly reinvigorated teams, Jenson just needs to score points in as many races as possible to claim his championship.
Yes it secured McLaren the constructors championship and almost the drivers championship, its just they also had a spy scandal
As a team, you want 2 dominating drivers, it means you secure almost all the wins and the constructors is easy. The only danger is allowing other drivers to catch up in points. But it worked with Hamilton and Alonso and it worked with Senna and Prost.
If you go for the number 1 and number 2 driver pairing, ok, so you have better chances of a drivers championship for 1 driver but it overall makes your team weaker in the long run. Look at Renault or current McLaren. 1 driver scoring points, the other lagging behind. When your number 1 driver is out of the race or out of points, the number 2 driver may not be good enough to stop number 1's rivals from scoring.
I'm not really bothered by number 1 and 2 teams, but I am bothered that Schumacher had contracts defining him as the dominant driver and taking fake race wins.
In my opinion, Red Bull are doing fine with no preferrences, they are catching Brawn and putting on a spectacular show. Ok, so if Jenson manages to win some more races, they will find it harder but overall I think the chances for 2 drivers to win are better than 1
.
And besides, who would you pick? Its too close to choose and you don't want to ruin the drivers relationship with the team.