The 3 second rule

[mandzipop]

The suggestion is that Ferrari have an agrrement in place with the drivers. If 1 driver thinks he is faster then the other he has to prove it. Thereby they give a target mark of dropping back approx 3 seconds and then they have to make it up in a certain period of time (or laps). This is to avoid driver collision and allow the faster driver to win.

Is this fair? Does it make sense? It was mentioned in the race build up by Marc Gene on Spanish tv.

Has anyone else heard about it? What do you think about it if it is true?

[xpman]

well Rob told Massa he was 3 sec ahead and keep it up and go faster etc but Massa could not and Alonso closed the gap before the order came through

[mad_ani]

The suggestion is that Ferrari have an agrrement in place with the drivers. If 1 driver thinks he is faster then the other he has to prove it. Thereby they give a target mark of dropping back approx 3 seconds and then they have to make it up in a certain period of time (or laps). This is to avoid driver collision and allow the faster driver to win.

Is this fair? Does it make sense? It was mentioned in the race build up by Marc Gene on Spanish tv.

Has anyone else heard about it? What do you think about it if it is true?


Depends on a whole lot of factors... tire choices/race condition (safety cars etc)..Its definitely not true...and such decisions have to be made in a race and taken on the fly...

[Grillo]

Is this fair? Does it make sense? It was mentioned in the race build up by Marc Gene on Spanish tv.

Has anyone else heard about it? What do you think about it if it is true?
I don't know about that 3 sec. rule. At some stage of the race Alonso was 0.5-1 sec behind Massa when he tried to pass and we nearly suffered a hearth attack. Then he relaxed a bit so the gap increased up to 3.5 seconds. It was Rob who told Massa to keep the 3+ sec gap, it was on lap 27-29 (I would like to know what exactly (transcript) Rob said as English is not my mother tongue). Then Alonso closed the gap to roughly 1 second again, it was on lap 40-41 and both Lobato and Gené were saying that maybe Alonso wanted to show the team that he was faster and he stayed at Massa's tail for the rest of the race until lap 49. He finished 4+ seconds ahead of Massa.

If you ask me I'd say Alonso was told to not to push Massa when they nearly crashed after the pit-stop. It was a team decission and it would have been a disaster if both drivers end up out of the race, out of the WDC and out of the WCC.

[Brakefade]

If this 3 second rule is true, I have to say it's brilliant. It's like having a race within the team, but without the risk. It also makes Massa and Rob look bad if this was pre-agreed upon. I can also see why Massa and Rob were so angry. With a rule like that Alonso will win 90% of the time. Massa and Rob would much rather have a straight up race, because there's always a chance Massa will get lucky (like he did in Germany), and with the cars so evenly matched it will be almost impossible for Alonso to pass. Everything makes sense now. The three second radio call by Rob, and the "So, Alonso is quicker" radio call.

I wonder, if this 3 second rule is true, would this still count as team orders? If Ferrari have this down in writing they could just wiggle out of the FIA's grip.

[Agron]

Well, I think Smedly told Massa at the beginning of those 3 seconds some encouraging words, like you can still win this or something like that, don't quote me on that XD, but it gave me the impression that he was urging Massa to go faster as if that was a qualifying or something that started there and then, after that Alonso quickly closed the gap.
It feels to me like if it existed, it would be a rule to allow the championship leader to have a chance to pass his teammate without risking a crash, but only if he is faster in the race, to give the other driver a fighting chance. But the way Smedly and Massa behaved seemed like there was no such rule or agreement of any kind, so I have no idea.

[steelstallions]

................Massa and Rob would much rather have a straight up race, because there's always a chance Massa will get lucky (like he did in Germany), and with the cars so evenly matched it will be almost impossible for Alonso to pass. ..................

I always want what is best for the team and when team orders make the championship closer I can understand them. That said, Alonso or MS or whoever is driving for Ferrari has to earn that right, merely putting in fast laps does not make you number one driver as Kimi found out. Massa is no "lucky" driver when he wins. If Alonso (or any other driver for any other team) needs team orders to win a race then that's a race he lost and had gifted to him by the winner.
You make your own luck in F1, I find it distasteful anyone should mock our own drivers for having the skill to lead a race of Formula one and win it. More so to mock a driver who so deservedly should have been left alone to win a race that last year nearly killed him through no fault of his own.

[Kingdom Hearts]

If Alonso (or any other driver for any other team) needs team orders to win a race then that's a race he lost

I don't think Alonso need team orders to win, but you have to keep in mind that they are teammates and Felipe behavior closind the door was "too agressive", do we really want that kind of battle between teammates with the risk of 2 DNF?.

[Alessandra]

The suggestion is that Ferrari have an agrrement in place with the drivers. If 1 driver thinks he is faster then the other he has to prove it. Thereby they give a target mark of dropping back approx 3 seconds and then they have to make it up in a certain period of time (or laps). This is to avoid driver collision and allow the faster driver to win.

Is this fair? Does it make sense? It was mentioned in the race build up by Marc Gene on Spanish tv.



Has anyone else heard about it? What do you think about it if it is true?


On the face of it, it sounds a very interesting and reasonable method of coping with having two competetive team drivers, and would explain FA's actions in Germany, also the radio comments to FM. If true, and I can't imagine why Gene would invent it ahead of that race, and Ferrari gets this past the FIA in August I can see other teams , Red Bull and McLaren to name but two, who might look very carefully at it.
It's a bit complicated and would necessitate both drivers' teams agreeing that the 'make-up' times or laps had indeed been achieved and what happens when traffic comes into play slowing down one or other of the drivers?

[racingbradley]

. I can also see why Massa and Rob were so angry. With a rule like that Alonso will win 90% of the time. Massa and Rob would much rather have a straight up race, because there's always a chance Massa will get lucky (like he did in Germany), and with the cars so evenly matched it will be almost impossible for Alonso to pass. Everything makes sense now. The three second radio call by Rob, and the "So, Alonso is quicker" radio call.
.

Yes i get it now don't like it!!!!!! Just goes to show Massa is a very even match for Nando-------only he has had more bad luck this year eg Silverstone.

[Greig]

I don't know about that 3 sec. rule. At some stage of the race Alonso was 0.5-1 sec behind Massa when he tried to pass and we nearly suffered a hearth attack. Then he relaxed a bit so the gap increased up to 3.5 seconds. It was Rob who told Massa to keep the 3+ sec gap, it was on lap 27-29 (I would like to know what exactly (transcript) Rob said as English is not my mother tongue). Then Alonso closed the gap to roughly 1 second again, it was on lap 40-41 and both Lobato and Gené were saying that maybe Alonso wanted to show the team that he was faster and he stayed at Massa's tail for the rest of the race until lap 49. He finished 4+ seconds ahead of Massa.

If you ask me I'd say Alonso was told to not to push Massa when they nearly crashed after the pit-stop. It was a team decission and it would have been a disaster if both drivers end up out of the race, out of the WDC and out of the WCC.

It was a strange radio from Rob, off the top of my head he said to Massa that he was +3 ahead of Alonso and he was to keep pushing, he said that the gap is everything to keep pushing and he can win the race, which was a bit strange how he mentioned the gap is everything, which does lend itself to suggest this sort of idea could be true.

[Fiondella]

It was a strange radio from Rob, off the top of my head he said to Massa that he was +3 ahead of Alonso and he was to keep pushing, he said that the gap is everything to keep pushing and he can win the race, which was a bit strange how he mentioned the gap is everything, which does lend itself to suggest this sort of idea could be true.

Possibly, but IMO difficult to equate Rob's tone with that of this alleged agreement. Unless of course Rob's tone was that of resigned indignation from his side of the garage, doubt it though. My feeling is that they weren't at all prepared for a 1 2 scenario with Massa leading because of their form over the weekend

[vcs316]

by James Allen

The German Grand Prix at Hockenheim didn’t turn out the way many people expected for many reasons and there were some big decisions taken, which we will be talking about for some time.

The two widely different tyres behaved far better than expected, leaving few tactical options to the teams, while Ferrari were more competitive than many had expected and were the centre of attention. They took a one-two finish, but not in the same order in which they ran for most of the race.

But what was the mechanism by which this crucial decision was taken?

If it had been agreed before the race that Alonso was the driver Ferrari wished to take maximum points from the race, then there would have been an arrangement in place to switch the cars around if Massa found himself ahead. It doesn’t appear to be the case here and anyway I doubt whether Massa would have agreed to that.

However he would have agreed to a system for establishing who is the faster driver. It seems that there was an agreement in place about the size of lead and a mechanism for showing who is faster, as a basis for Ferrari to make a decision. This may be a legacy of incidents earlier in the season, such as Australia, where Alonso was held up by Massa and the team took no action.

Judging from the messages to Massa from his engineer Rob Smedley, it seems that the notion of a three second lead was important, Smedley pointed out to Massa that he had three seconds in hand over his team mate at one point and described that as important.

But Alonso soon ate into that lead, getting it down to below a second, which was his way of proving that he was faster. Faced with Massa’s inability to match the pace and having lost the three second lead, the team had the evidence it needed to tell Massa that Alonso was faster than him, which was clearly the agreed etiquette.

I’ve been researching this a bit over the last few days and this kind of arrangement is quite common within teams. There has to be some way for teams to assess which driver is faster on the day and if the driver who is following can prove that he can close up a gap then it shows that he is faster.

This tipped the balance in Alonso’s favour in Germany.

We saw it last year in Germany when Jenson Button was behind Rubens Barrichello and Ross Brawn radioed the Brazilian to say that they were losing time to Rosberg and that if Barrichello couldn’t keep the pace up then he “should let Jenson have a go”.

So it was last weekend; with a threat from Vettel in third place and mindful of the championship situation, Ferrari formed its decision.

On a wider theme, the much discussed three step gap between the super soft and hard tyres didn’t create the tactical variations many had hoped for. Both tyres were just too good and a repeat of the chaos of the Montreal race was never on the cards from the early practice sessions onwards.

Hockenheim is a track which improves quickly once some rubber goes down and despite the rain over the weekend, it rubbered in and this meant that the supersoft lasted well in the opening stages of the race.

This caught out Mark Webber, who pitted on lap 15 and lost a place to Jenson Button, who pitted on lap 24. Webber had done a run on Friday on supersoft, where he had quite a lot of graining and this might have spooked him a bit into deciding not to run too long on that tyre in the race, even though he knew he was racing Button, who was likely to run longer.

Conversely it was another example of Button’s smooth driving style giving him the ability to make a set of option tyres last longer than his opposition. He did the same in Silverstone where he gained two places by staying out longer. Here he jumped Webber and picked up a vital position.

Button was helped in this by the new tyre pace on the hard, which wasn’t great. Although the track temperature of 25 degrees meant that the hard tyre didn’t struggle to warm up, neither did the new tyres give an injection of pace, so a well managed set of used supersofts was still faster than a new set of hards. The situation was tailor made for Button.

The experiment of the three step gap revealed that the four tyres in the Bridgestone range are too close together to make much of a difference. What made Montreal so enthralling was that both tyres were suffering from high degradation.

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/

[Greig]

So if this deal is indeed in place, and Massa agreed to it, then the anger from some fans aimed at Ferrari is now null and void? :-) and then we are left with the question why Rob was so unhappy about it when he knew the deal?

[Silent Bob]

I always want what is best for the team and when team orders make the championship closer I can understand them. That said, Alonso or MS or whoever is driving for Ferrari has to earn that right, merely putting in fast laps does not make you number one driver as Kimi found out. Massa is no "lucky" driver when he wins. If Alonso (or any other driver for any other team) needs team orders to win a race then that's a race he lost and had gifted to him by the winner.You make your own luck in F1, I find it distasteful anyone should mock our own drivers for having the skill to lead a race of Formula one and win it. More so to mock a driver who so deservedly should have been left alone to win a race that last year nearly killed him through no fault of his own.


Or perhaps they are told by the team to not be too aggressive with their passing moves so as to not take each other out and lose all the points. Or perhaps, if the 3 sec rule is true, Alonso probably didn't expect Massa to shut the door on him, and probably expected him to honour the agreement.. hence the "this is ridiculous" quote. I'm sure if it was Vetel in front of him, Alonso would have tried to overtake a few more times

[mandzipop]

It is breifly touched upon in the Autosport print version as well. Ted Kravitz is hinting to it on the BBC website that there is something about 3 seconds being important. So there is a significance about 3 seconds within Ferrari.

[diablos123]

Or perhaps they are told by the team to not be too aggressive with their passing moves so as to not take each other out and lose all the points. Or perhaps, if the 3 sec rule is true, Alonso probably didn't expect Massa to shut the door on him, and probably expected him to honour the agreement.. hence the "this is ridiculous" quote. I'm sure if it was Vetel in front of him, Alonso would have tried to overtake a few more times

Didn't Massa pull out the 3 sec lead after the "this is ridiculous" quote?
Just another view... what if Rob's 3 sec radio transmission was the start of that team order, cos after that alonso reeled him in. What if Massa slowed down from that point.

[WS6TransAm01]

The three second rule seams possible. To me, if it is in fact in place, Massa was trying to ignrore it and got Alonso upset. The tone of Rob's voice could have been frustration with his driver for not listening or not adhearing to the agreement.

Who knows how many times Rob came ont he comms and told Massa the same thing before the radio call that we heard. It could have been the 5th time Rob told him and Massa's lack of responce clearly shows that he was ignoring it.

If there is a "3 second rule" my oppinion is that Massa just said ", Im in the lead and I am not letting Alonso by" Untill he got yelled at multiple times and then gave up the spot remaining quiet like a spoiled brat who was told he did wrong.

[rob-nyc]

hi there mandzipop,
I also read this in the same forum you picked this up. About the 3 seconds, I think that was all Alonso trying to demonstrate to the team that he was the fastest driver and being held up by Massa. I think Gene did not mention the actual 3 second rule but that after T1 the positions were set "unless" the driver who is sitting behind can prove that he is faster. This is exactly what happened in the race

[Stormsearcher]

Am curious. How come Rob hasnt been interviewed about this at all? Or have i missed something.
Everything seems to be quiet on his front.
Is there atleast an insider explanation to what transpired those few laps and perhaps afterwards in the motor home?

[epiclyaddicted]

I think this is true. Because a few laps soon after Alonso's failed overtake attempt on Massa, Alonso was within a second behind his team mate. Then suddenly, Massa pulled out a whole second on the next lap, and then another 1.5 seconds on the lap after. Then Alonso closed that gap down over the next few laps, and then the switch happened.

So yeah, I think it adds up.

[Grillo]

So if this deal is indeed in place, and Massa agreed to it, then the anger from some fans aimed at Ferrari is now null and void? :-) and then we are left with the question why Rob was so unhappy about it when he knew the deal?
I understand him being a bit unhappy even if they knew the deal was in place but he should have told Massa "Alonso is faster than you" full-stop, the last part of the message together with the "sorry" and "magnanimous" comments is what gave ammo to the stewards.

The anger against Ferrari is quite silly and they'll realise that soon, the anger against Alonso will stay with us for years to come. And hopefully it is a good sign of success.


Or perhaps they are told by the team to not be too aggressive with their passing moves so as to not take each other out and lose all the points. Or perhaps, if the 3 sec rule is true, Alonso probably didn't expect Massa to shut the door on him, and probably expected him to honour the agreement.. hence the "this is ridiculous" quote. I'm sure if it was Vetel in front of him, Alonso would have tried to overtake a few more times
No team want their drivers to race each other, I think we can agree on that. The 3 sec agreement is quite understandable to be in place. Massa didn't just close the door if we bear in mind they're teammates and another ZERO would destroy both them and the team. I think Alonso was thinking of the WDC title while Massa was thinking of his pride.


Didn't Massa pull out the 3 sec lead after the "this is ridiculous" quote?
Just another view... what if Rob's 3 sec radio transmission was the start of that team order, cos after that alonso reeled him in. What if Massa slowed down from that point.
I had live timing in front of me and I didn't see that.

[shostak]

So Massa was trying to ignore this agreement only because it didnt benefit him, like Hamilton in GP Hungary 2007 (the famous extralap). What a teamplayer he is!

[Greig]

Where do you get he was ignoring it from? don't know why you have to attack Massa over it, firstly there is no proof any agreement was made, secondly there is no evidence to say he ignored any orders or agreements.

[shostak]

Where do you get he was ignoring it from? don't know why you have to attack Massa over it, firstly there is no proof any agreement was made, secondly there is no evidence to say he ignored any orders or agreements.

I can say anything i want while i dont break any forum rule. Am i right?

It's my opinion, that's all.

[mandzipop]

Where do you get he was ignoring it from? don't know why you have to attack Massa over it, firstly there is no proof any agreement was made, secondly there is no evidence to say he ignored any orders or agreements.

Mark Webber also seems to be under the impression that there is an agreement in place.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/85638

[Greig]

Mark Webber also seems to be under the impression that there is an agreement in place.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/85638

Good for him :-)

[rob-nyc]

I liked what he says at the end. If people think this is the first time this has happened since 02, they are dreaming. Other teams simply hide it and those who critizice Ferrari are hypocrites.

[Brakefade]

I always want what is best for the team and when team orders make the championship closer I can understand them. That said, Alonso or MS or whoever is driving for Ferrari has to earn that right, merely putting in fast laps does not make you number one driver as Kimi found out. Massa is no "lucky" driver when he wins. If Alonso (or any other driver for any other team) needs team orders to win a race then that's a race he lost and had gifted to him by the winner.
You make your own luck in F1, I find it distasteful anyone should mock our own drivers for having the skill to lead a race of Formula one and win it. More so to mock a driver who so deservedly should have been left alone to win a race that last year nearly killed him through no fault of his own.

I'm sorry I can't sugar coat things for some of you. I just call them like I see them. I don't hate Massa, in fact, if he starts picking up his game next year, you can your entire fortune I will cheer for him. Although, I can't say the same thing about a lot of you this year when it comes to Alonso. So, who is really biased?

You say you want what's best for the team, but are willing to let Alonso lose out on 7 points, and risk our drivers taking each other out, giving Vettel another victory, because you feel sorry for what happened to Massa last year?

[Tifosi]

I'm sorry I can't sugar coat things for some of you. I just call them like I see them. I don't hate Massa, in fact, if he starts picking up his game next year, you can your entire fortune I will cheer for him. Although, I can't say the same thing about a lot of you this year when it comes to Alonso. So, who is really biased?

You say you want what's best for the team, but are willing to let Alonso lose out on 7 points, and risk our drivers taking each other out, giving Vettel another victory, because you feel sorry for what happened to Massa last year?

I don't think there is any anti-Alonso agenda going on for 99% of Ferrari fans tbh. Most are intelligent enough to know that it's not Alonso that decides how Ferrari deports itself in 2010 (although some might have a doubt about the influence of a certain Spanish bank right now to be honest).

Many Alonso fans however don't seem to understand the points that have been made regarding Ferrari using team orders in race 11 though - regardless of which driver benefits and what the reasoning is or even the circumstances relating to Massa. They wouldn't though because they are Alonso fans. They assume it's against Alonso and it's not.

[Greig]

Well sounds more like it was a driver agreement rather than a team order now :-) And it sounds like it was not a backing of Alonso for the title, and if Massa is in the same position this weekend he can win :-)

[rob-nyc]

Many Alonso fans however don't seem to understand the points that have been made regarding Ferrari using team orders in race 11 though - regardless of which driver benefits and what the reasoning is or even the circumstances relating to Massa.
like for example.. ?
IMO, team orders are bad but I have come to the realization that every team uses them one way or another and that it is the most effective way to accomplish the WDC, specially in this case where both Ferrari drivers are way behind on points to the leaders..
The only reasonable way to circumvent this in F1 is for the two cars to operate as two separate teams within the same organization, without sharing any data, pit strategy... etc.. effectively abolishing the WCC title.. F1 can still continue being a team sport but a team would not longer expand to two cars ..

[Ferrarichamp]

Massa kept locking up with the harder tyres, it was obvious he was struggling more than Alonso. The 3 second rule may exist, but in this case it wasn't needed.

[Shahid]

I mentioned something along those lines in the race thread soon after the 'pass' - there was definitely something in the way Rob told Massa about the gap and how to keep pushing and he could win the race :Hmm

[Rob]

It was a strange radio from Rob, off the top of my head he said to Massa that he was +3 ahead of Alonso and he was to keep pushing, he said that the gap is everything to keep pushing and he can win the race, which was a bit strange how he mentioned the gap is everything, which does lend itself to suggest this sort of idea could be true.

yeah that sabout right mate. I have heard about this 3 second understanding before, but wasnt totaly convinced it was true. (have to apologise to a Mcscum fan).

Its great rule (understanding) that the team has put in place.

[Greig]

I mentioned something along those lines in the race thread soon after the 'pass' - there was definitely something in the way Rob told Massa about the gap and how to keep pushing and he could win the race :Hmm

One step ahead of the press you are :-)

[REDARMYSOJA]

yeah that sabout right mate. I have heard about this 3 second understanding before, but wasnt totaly convinced it was true. (have to apologise to a Mcscum fan).

Its great rule (understanding) that the team has put in place.

Something else to remember, according to James Allen, it's not just Ferrari that have the rule.


JA- I’ve been researching this a bit over the last few days and this kind of arrangement is quite common within teams

[Rob]

yeah that would make sense for all teams to have in place. Wouldnt want a RBR Turkey fiasco.

It alot fairer than team orders aswell. But i but the Brit press will not be running this 1 bit :roll

[Ste]

Quite like this rule if it's correct. Still though, seems a bit silly to switch positions based on speed in one race unless one person is essentially out of the title race (as was the case in Hockenheim).

[Tifosi]

Quite like this rule if it's correct. Still though, seems a bit silly to switch positions based on speed in one race unless one person is essentially out of the title race (as was the case in Hockenheim).

i think the word "essentially" has a different meaning in this context

[Suzie]

Only a fool breaks the er... 3 second rule.




:lou

[Tifosi]

Only a fool breaks the er... 3 second rule.




:lou

Wasn't that the one about mixing cross-ply's with radials?

[killer]

Well sounds more like it was a driver agreement rather than a team order now :-) And it sounds like it was not a backing of Alonso for the title, and if Massa is in the same position this weekend he can win :-)

Yeah supposing there is such an agreement, then there'd have been no team orders. Wonder why they did not bring this up with the FIA?

[flam147]

Quite like this rule if it's correct. Still though, seems a bit silly to switch positions based on speed in one race unless one person is essentially out of the title race (as was the case in Hockenheim).

the not being silly bit is to stop the faster car knocking both cars out :thumb