Autosport magazine reports that the Toyota team did ask Jarno Trulli to move over and let Ralf Schumacher through in the Japanese Grand Prix. Apparently, this has caused some frustration to Toyota management since it may have resulted in the loss of points – there is some speculation that Ralf could have beaten both Button and Raikkonen (yeah, right) had Trulli done as he was told. Jarno is unrepentant, however:

Trulli said after the race that his pace was slow because of tyre issues, but that the team should have been happy for both cars to finish in the points.

“I had several problems and struggled with my last set of tyres – particularly for the first 10 laps,” he explained. “The most important thing is that we both scored points.”

This is all very interesting as regards the team’s harmony or lack of it, but isn’t something being missed? Have we all forgotten about the ban on team orders?

Autosport avoid implicating the Toyota team by stating that their information came from a “source” but, being a reputable magazine, I can’t see it publishing anything that did not come from someone who should know. And that means someone within the team, surely.

It should also be remembered that the TV commentators to the race fully expected that Trulli would have to let Ralf through – the German was obviously faster and it made perfect sense for the sake of the team that he be let loose. I think we must all have shared in the surprise that this did not happen and that the Toyotas circulated for the rest of the race at Trulli’s pace.

So, what of the ban on team orders? Would not Toyota’s request, repeated three times, have amounted to just that? If it had been Massa being asked to let Schumacher through into the lead, would not every other team be lodging protests? It seems to me that there are double standards at work here – one rule for when it really matters and another when no-one could care less.

In fact, the whole thing merely shows up the stupidity of the ban on team orders anyway. F1 is a team sport (there would be nothing for the stars to drive were it not for their teams) and sometimes things have to be arranged for the good of the team – or for the sake of a championship. Team orders have been a part of F1 from the very beginning and it is only recently that any comment, let alone protest, has been raised over them. And that is because the audience base has increased so rapidly that it includes many who have yet to learn all the nuances of the sport. Those who understand how it all works raise no eyebrows over such things.

The rule is impossible to police anyway. It is easy enough for the number two driver to pretend to fight for his position while letting the number one through. And these days number twos go into every race knowing what they must do if the situation arises (just ask Massa about that). There is no need for the team to get on the blower and issue instructions – that’s all taken care of beforehand.

In the end, it comes down to personal opinion on whether a driver is obeying team orders or not when his team leader passes him. And, as we saw at Monza, rules that depend upon personal interpretation are an open invitation to abuse.

The rules and regulations governing F1 are complicated enough without including such meddling in team affairs. I say the FIA should get rid of the ban and let things take their normal course. Yes, occasionally a crowd favorite might have to give way to a team leader for the sake of the championship; but that’s F1 – sometimes the team’s interests must come before an individual’s.

And another thing: who would bet on Jarno Trulli receiving 100% of the team’s efforts next year?

In previous posts in this blog, I have wondered just how good a driver Fernando Alonso is. New evidence as to his abilities emerges all the time, but the Renault team have now released some thoughts on the matter. Fernando’s race engineer, Rod Nelson, had this to say about Alonso’s battle with Schumacher in Turkey:

“Fernando knew that the only passing opportunities were on the back of the circuit after turn 8, and he was saving his high revs for the two straights between turns 8 and 12 – literally turning the engine up and back down around the lap.”

“His engine engineer (Remi Taffin) and I were discussing what revs he had available to use, when we saw he was managing the situation already. It was typical Fernando – always thinking ahead, working his way around problems and delivering the goods. He was calm in the car – but I was pretty stressed on the pit-wall!”

That is a very revealing indication, not only of Fernando’s racing brain, but also of how complex driving an F1 car is these days. There are innumerable settings within the car that can be tweaked during the race and, to be able to fiddle with these in the heat of competition, is some measure of a driver’s ability.

It was Ayrton Senna who first admitted to using a two-foot driving style through corners, staying on the accelerator and adjusting the car’s speed with dabs at the brake. It took time for the others to copy this (some never managed it) and it is a useful example of how small refinements of technique can make the difference between a competent driver and a gifted one.

These days, everything about a driver’s style can be known; so much telemetric information is fed back to the engineers in the pits that they can tell exactly where a driver hits the brake, how he handles the throttle and what adjustments he makes. There is nowhere to hide.

So, when a driver’s race engineers offer an opinion on his skills, we can be pretty certain that they know what they’re talking about. If Rod Nelson thinks Alonso is the business, he is almost definitely right. Loyalty may have an influence on such judgments but no-one enthuses unless they mean it from the heart – and Rod was enthusing when he made those remarks.

I was coming to the same conclusions (honest) even before the Renault team offered their opinion but now I am sure. McLaren are getting one excellent race driver for next season. And he will probably be World Champion too.

Williams have announced that they will have Toyota engines from next year. While this seems the best option available to them, it does make me wonder whether there is more to this than meets the eye. Teams rarely do well with engines from manufacturers that already run teams in F1. Such an arrangement works well for teams that are just starting out and pose no threat to the works outfit; but Williams have an outstanding record and are well capable of beating the Toyotas. How embarrassing will it be for the works team if Williams regularly finish ahead of them?

It may be that Toyota’s managers feel that any races won by their engines will be good publicity, regardless of which particular team achieves them. But, in that case, why risk one’s reputation as a chassis builder at all? It would make more sense to supply the engines to a reputable team in the same way that Mercedes does. That way you can always blame the chassis for poor race performances.

Is it possible that Toyota are tired of pouring money into their team without seeing race wins as a result? The deal with Williams could be a useful pointer for them, pitting their car designers against some of the best in the business and showing just how much more they have to learn. And, if it turns out that Williams builds a better car, they have an easy way to exit F1 without losing too much face – citing costs as the reason but continuing to supply engines. Or they could arrange a judicious merger à la BMW Sauber.

Of course, this is all conjecture. But it does make a lot of sense, especially when you remember that Toyota’s recent competitiveness has been largely due to Bridgestone getting the jump on Michelin in the tire race. It’s not as if Toyota don’t know that. In fact, they would be best placed to understand exactly how much difference the tires have made. And they’re still not beating Renault…

It is my guess that the Toyota management have given their team one more year to come good. If they don’t, well, we could be looking at a Toyota-Williams in 2008.

And that might not be a bad thing. The problem with manufacturer teams in F1 is that they skew the whole business. They have to win within a certain time-frame for PR purposes and so they throw money around like water in the first few years. Then, when their bean counters have all had heart attacks, they realize that it’s costing too much and they get out. But not before they’ve upped the ante for everyone, forcing costs to spiral and the FIA to get their knickers in a knot.

The Cosworth and Mercedes strategy is far better for manufacturers. Supply the engines and blame the teams when you don’t win. And it will be even more to the point once Michelin have departed. You can hardly blame the tires when everyone’s on the same rubber!

At Silverstone, Max Mosley talked about the possibility of changing the rules yet again by reducing the final qualifying session from 20 minutes to 15. This is what he had to say: “It would be 15 minutes of non-stop action. But whether the teams want to do that, I don’t know.”

To my mind, this illustrates the condescending attitude of the FIA towards the fans. The assumption is that all we are interested in is “non-stop action”, like teenagers with attention deficit disorder. Well, I have news for Mr Mosley: F1 fans have to be amongst the most knowledgeable of all sports fans. The sport is extremely complicated, even without the constant rule changes introduced by the FIA, and yet every F1 fan understands and appreciates it. They wouldn’t be fans otherwise.

It is about time that the FIA ate some humble pie by rescinding some of the most ridiculous rule changes ever made by a governing body. So the one-lap qualifying rule was a complete flop? If he’d listened to anyone who knew the sport, Max would have understood that we don’t want a lottery – we want to see drivers getting the utmost from their cars in a battle for grid positions. And we don’t think it’s fair that one blown engine can ruin a driver’s chances for the GP. Let them battle it out over two days of qualifying as they used to, swap engines when necessary and recover from momentary mistakes.

Yes, it’s true that, in those bad old days, we had to sit and watch an empty track for three quarters of an hour before the cars came out to give it everything. But here’s the thing, Max – we didn’t mind. We understood what was happening and were prepared to wait for those incredible final minutes when the best drivers in the world showed us just how fast they really were.

You can say to me that the last three minutes of qualifying at Silverstone were as tense and involving as one could hope for. Three minutes? You mean all those rule changes boil down to this – three minutes of real competition? It sounds very familiar.

And let us not forget that there were two very capable drivers who were excluded from those minutes by bad luck in the first session. Does it not occur to anyone that Button’s and Trulli’s fans might be a bit disgruntled that their drivers were given no chance of a realistic grid spot through a silly rule that reduces F1 to a lottery?

Many of the rule changes of recent years have been made to make F1 more of a “spectacle” for the benefit of TV audiences. Time and again, the FIA introduces changes in an attempt to make things more competitive and exciting. Yet the net result is confusion to the casual viewer and irritation to the real fans. We really don’t need this constant meddling that merely makes things worse.

This is what Ferrari’s Ross Brawn had to say on the matter: “Too many changes confuse the public and are bad for F1.” How true. Let’s have one more rule change to put things back the way they were and then never touch them again. And let the FIA get back to its real business of designing an engine and chassis formula that makes sense and attracts the greatest number of competitors.

F1 is the pinnacle of motor sport; it was gripping before anyone had ever heard of Mr Mosely and it will remain so only if we allow the drivers a decent chance to prove themselves. And that means qualifying sessions that give everyone a fair crack of the whip.