F1 News & Discussions > General F1 Discussion

Should Russell bow to Wolff's view to race Merc cars differently to rest?

(1/2) > >>

John S:
Hell no is my view!  >:(

Just where does Toto get off with this crazy idea that the car in front is not a competitor like any other.  :DntKnw:

Sure teams can expect their own 2 pilots to perhaps play nice, but when drivers from differing teams are expected to defer to either their engine supplier, manager or future employer then it's going to far.  :nono:

Then we get to the question of should a driver go for a risky overtake in F1? - Well at Imola, with few to no chances to get past, when an opportunity presents itself it's absolutely got to be taken. Look at others bottled up for most of race behind one or more others.
Would Senna, Mansel or Michael, even in their early days, have thought twice about going for the gap? 

Well, what does anyone else think?

Jericoke:
I agree that it's wrong.  If you want Williams to at like a 'B' team, then at least pay them to act like a 'B' team, don't bully their drivers.

It is a little different with Russell and Wolf, as Wolf is Russell's manager, so they have a professional relationship.  It's not just a matter of Wolf having a prize that Russell wants, but also having a direct hand in Russell's future career at ANY team.

If I was Russell, I'd find new management, and see about taking Perez's place at RBR.

Scott:
The ethical questions are huge.  Personally I can’t stand that a Team Principal can also be a driver manager.  Time for new rules, you shouldn’t be able to play both sides of the field.  And why not share the wealth?  Does Toto really need a part time job?

cosworth151:
I wonder what the reaction would be if it was Max instead of George who made that move.

Alianora La Canta:
If this is not a misinterpretation (which, as I cannot access The Race's content, I instinctively think is the most likely thing), Toto needs to step careful. This is inter-team collusion (the regulations consider drivers to be part of their team's entries), which by tradition is a breach of Article 151c (the "disrepute to motorsports" rule). It may not have had a penalty issued since 1997 (where McLaren and Williams were fined for it), but talking about this sort of thing in public is a good way to invite it happening again. (No, paying Williams to be a B-team would not help from a regulatory standpoint).

Toto is entitled to expect George to play as nicely as anyone else up or down the grid. No more and no less. I can imagine why he's angry at George being involved in both his drivers having mishaps in the space of 30 seconds, but this approach will only make things worse.

The question for Russell is not whether a driver should take a risky move (short of detail, the answer must be "yes" as the alternative is not to join the grid in the first place), but whether to take that specific risky move. If Valtteri had interpreted conditions the same way as George, I think the move would have worked. However, Valtteri didn't know George had a reason to avoid that specific puddle (he appeared to think all of it was bad and by moving a bit to the right, he was doing his rival the favour of hinting he should tuck in behind and spare his - i.e. George's - race). That's why it went haywire.

Both were partially correct in their analysis, both would benefit from improving their racecraft - and neither will do so if it's all hidden in the smoke haze of a team leader breaking the rules as an alternative to helping fix the problem.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page