Accepting the unacceptable

Posted on 10/12/2010

Nothing technically illegal but ... the Ferraris of Michael Schumacher and Rubens Barrichello cross the line together at the 2002 USA Grand Prix © Getty Images

The FIA’s decision to end its own pathetically inept attempts to control the issuing of team orders should not been seen as a surrender to Ferrari, as some have claimed, as much an acceptance it was trying to police the unpoliceable.

For more than five decades team orders were an accepted part of the sport and while they provoked a few moans, nobody got too upset. But it was the complete dominance of Ferrari and Michael Schumacher which had those running the sport desperately looking for ways to curb them. In Austria in 2002 Rubens Barrichello was ordered to allow Schumacher past to take the win – so dominant was Schumacher anyway that it was hardly needed but it angered sponsors and spectators, and so the FIA who saw the last chance of something resembling a competitive drivers’ championship disappear.

So team orders were banned as a knee-jerk reaction, only it soon became clear that enforcing the rule was impossible. So a murky world of coded messages and limp-wristed enforcement followed.

In Germany this year Felipe Massa was ordered to allow team-mate Fernando Alonso past for the win, wrecking the clearly disheartened Massa’s season and turning opinion against Ferrari and Alonso. The FIA was almost powerless to act and fined Ferrari the derisory sum of $100,000.

By scrapping the rule at least the FIA has admitted what everyone else knew for years. Team orders have always happened and will continue to do so. Anyone who pretended otherwise was a blinkered fool.

Corporate squabbles tarnish a memory

Posted on 10/12/2010

At the moment there is every possibility that next season there will be two Malaysian-backed Lotus teams on the grid, fielding four similar cars all powered by Renault engines. However, not only will the teams be unconnected, they may well be at war with each other.

The near-farcical situation has come about because Malaysian car manufacturer Proton, which owns Group Lotus, has switched backing from the Tony Fernandes-run team it supported in 2010 to RenaultF1. It also claims it has the right to the Lotus name, but Fernandes, and others, disagree.

The shambles all goes back to the 1970s when Colin Chapman, the founder and inspiration behind Lotus, split his company into the manufacturing and racing divisions. Eventually, Lotus went broke and in 1996 Proton picked up the pieces but, crucially, the rights to the racing name were bought by David Hunt, the younger brother of former world champion James.

In 2009 Fernandes launched his team and brought Proton on board as a major backer, and with it came the rights to the Lotus name. It was not so much about heritage and commercialism. While sponsors might baulk at funding a back-of-the-grid newcomer, the iconic Lotus name and livery struck an emotional cord, a link to the golden years of British motor racing.

Subsequently, Fernandes bought the rights to the racing name from Hunt. At the time it seemed a neat bringing together of the racing and manufacturing names.

Now Proton have jumped ship and ploughed $150 million over the next seven years into Renault, allowing the French company to withdraw from the sport and concentrate on supplying engines.

However, Proton thinks it has the rights to the Lotus name courtesy of its 1996 buyout, while many racing enthusiasts counter it does not and Fernandes' team has the moral and linear right, albeit a dubious one.

The FIA and Ecclestone have accepted Fernandes' application to race under the name Team Lotus in 2011; alongside it, as things stand, will be Lotus Renault in the black-and-gold livery of the Lotus JPS car from the 1970s - the colours Fernandes had been planning to use himself before he was outflanked by his former partners.

The two parties are set to meet in court in London early next year to thrash out the rights to the name. Whoever wins, the only issue at stake is the marketability of the Lotus name, whatever emotional arguments their lawyers trot out.