GPWizard F1 Forum
F1 News & Discussions => General F1 Discussion => Topic started by: Dare on March 24, 2013, 02:54:39 PM
-
To me the big story is Red Bull allowing Vettel to
pass Webber.Vettel says it was a unintential [how do you
unintentially pass someone? ::)Horner tell Vettel to stop
attacking? >:( The pattern is set
http://www.planetf1.com/news/3213/8594188/Webber-Seb-Will-Be-Protected-As-Usual
-
I can understand the row but racing ain't racing if all the leaders hold station from team orders after the last pit stop. :nono:
Most of us frown on Ferrari's team orders because it skews the results and spectacle, yet now we're expected to sympathise with driver and team trying to impose team orders to fix a result. :swoon: I can understand Mark feeling aggrieved but come on it's been dog eat dog in the WDC since it's inception.
Maybe this just might breakdown the myth of no team orders at Red Bull, ::) and give us spectators more to cheer about because their drivers will really race each other. Last year we saw McLaren allowing Jens and Lewis to battle with each other, it's what we want to see surely - otherwise how do we know whose the best?
-
Good argument John except Webber was told to tune his
engine down and to cruise to save tires.Fairer would have
been to keep racing at race speed
-
The post race confab between Seb and Mark sure looked a little tense.
The little comment from Nico on the radio at the end of the race also seemed to set the tone for future team orders from Ross.
-
Good argument John except Webber was told to tune his
engine down and to cruise to save tires.Fairer would have
been to keep racing at race speed
Sure to let them both race on is the fairer way. My point is if followed team orders would have deprived us of the half a lap of action between the Red Bull cars. I don't like what Seb has done, but when team orders get in the way of a good dice between two sets of top drivers (RBR & Merc), so early in the season, something is very wrong.
Since all the teams constantly seek to bend, stretch and even break the rules over car design and operation, - oh and nearly all of us think that both healthy and acceptable, it just seems a bit hypocritical to really worry about a driver ignoring advice (not a rule) to secure a win.
Yes I know it was ungentlemanly, poor form and very selfish, but as I have already said if it now leads to proper head to head racing by Mark and Seb then bring it on. :D
-
The interview with Helmut Marko on BBC said it all.
Vettel's behaviour was extremely poor today. Yes, it would be better if they were racing for the win, but defying a direct team order is out of order, and displayed another unsavoury side to his character. Think of the number of times Webber has been told to sit behind Vettel and obeyed the team order. Vettel's radio message earlier in the race also told you all you need to know about his true thinking ('get him [Webber] out of the way, he's too slow').
He's becoming more and more like Schumacher in my opinion. Notice how much he was jumping for joy when he won, and then how he feigned being really sorry during his post race interviews. It won't wash with me, and he has sunk even lower in my eyes as result.
His continued childish naming of his car, and petulant outbursts also continue to underpin just how immature he is.
-
Well put Irisado,I wonder what Mark's liable to do next time
the situation is reserved.Canned or not I know what I'd do.
Vettel's moving up my F1 drivers I despise list faster
than a shooting star
-
Fancy paying Vettel a compliment by saying he's becoming more and more like Michael. :tease:
-
Yes I know it was ungentlemanly, poor form and very selfish, but as I have already said if it now leads to proper head to head racing by Mark and Seb then bring it on. :D
Only if it is fair. Mark had turned down his settings, obviously Seb had not. It wasn't head to head - Webber clearly had a disadvantage.
As it's been said, there have been at least a couple of times that Webber has held position on team orders. Vettel once again has shown that he has no respect for Webber and perhaps even for team management.
-
I think team orders are poor and drivers should be allowed to race....but FAIRLY. Webber was not expecting the move and had his car turned down to "cruise" to the finish.
When the tables are turned we will find out if Webber is a man or a mouse...watch this space. (or what his contract actually says ;) )
-
I'm really no fan of team orders but once they are issued should be followed. Knowing Mark was following orders it wasn't fair for Seb to take advantage. He claims he didn't do it deliberately but you can not pass someone by accident. I've always liked Seb, he's seemed to be a winner and a nice guy too. Today he went down in mine and many people's estimation. 31 years ago Didier Pironi did something to Gilles Villeneuve, and today isn't remembered for his wins, but is remembered for playing dirty. Fairly or unfairly thats the abiding memory most have of Pironi. Hopefully Seb isn't remembered in time to come as someone who couldn't be trusted.
-
To me today's race showed a lot that is wrong about F1 at the moment. Team orders stink, they should really be outlawed again (although I have no idea how to police them). There are racers and so should be treated as such, none of this rubbish about letting one car win etc. The spectacle at the end was ruined because Webber and Vettel were under team orders and the Mercs of Hamilton and Rosberg were in the same situation. Who wants to watch the last laps of a race with that going on?
Another thing that bothers me is linked to that. Why should Webber be in a race and have to switch his engine down? Why does Hamilton need to conserve fuel? Fill the things up to enable full on racing over the whole season. I liked Merecedes' attitude toward tyre usage- burn them out to get performance, but their fuel strategy was not good.
As a racing fan, I want to see the cars flat out and allowed to overtake.
-
To me today's race showed a lot that is wrong about F1 at the moment. Team orders stink, they should really be outlawed again (although I have no idea how to police them). Who wants to watch the last laps of a race with that going on?
Very true WF. Like you say, the biggest problem is policing them or - more simply - allowing one car per team. I don't like team orders, or artificial finishes. On the other hand, the problem today wasn't that there were team orders, it was just that one driver followed them and the other didn't. I guess Webber's radio will cease to work the rest of the season when the team suggest he stay in position or move over.
Another thing that bothers me is linked to that. Why should Webber be in a race and have to switch his engine down? Why does Hamilton need to conserve fuel? Fill the things up to enable full on racing over the whole season. I liked Merecedes' attitude toward tyre usage- burn them out to get performance, but their fuel strategy was not good.
The problem with RBR was different than Merc. RBR was concerned about tires and if both drivers toasted their tires with 10 laps left, the Merc's would hunt them down for the 1-2. I 100% agree with you on fuel though. They should perhaps move to enforcing minimum fuel levels in cars that are high enough for the cars to finish the race at full speed every lap. Merc were obviously banking on some SC time (and who wouldn't in Malaysia?).
-
It cannot be policed though, and this is why they have to allow it. Every time they try to police it, it causes teams to come up with elaborate smoke screens to disguise the need for team orders. I'm sure that some of you will remember Austria 1998 and 'spongy brakes', and 'Fernando is faster than you' from 2010.
At least the current team orders don't insult our intelligence on top of the racing spectacle.
-
What struck me about the whole thing was that very likely Vettel figured he would ignore Horner because Marko has his back (as Mark eluded to more than once - 'he's got protection'). But then even Marko said post race that Vettel had been a bad boy and that is likely the ONLY reason Vettel is so apologetic - I wonder if Marko has had a bit of a talking to by Dieter and Vettel no longer has him as an ally.
-
Certainly Mateschitz seems to like Webber and that can't hurt Mark. It was surprising to see the team so publicly call out Vettel though, maybe it is part of an exercise to keep him grounded somewhat?
Regarding my other post, I know, it is impossible to police which is a pity but I just want to see full on racing without interference of other things. Let the guys do what they're paid for and what we tune in to watch. Good point about the SC prediction though, that and more rain which usually happens could have meant Hamilton's strategy was genius!
-
What struck me about the whole thing was that very likely Vettel figured he would ignore Horner because Marko has his back (as Mark eluded to more than once - 'he's got protection'). But then even Marko said post race that Vettel had been a bad boy and that is likely the ONLY reason Vettel is so apologetic - I wonder if Marko has had a bit of a talking to by Dieter and Vettel no longer has him as an ally.
All That may be true but will Red Bull really sack Vettel even if he does it again? We all know that several other teams would make room for him if he is available - in fact uncle Bernie will make sure they do.
Just like Senna on Prost or Lewis & Nando at McLaren, when only the anointed son survived, this is a power play from Vettel. Mark must be doing a better job this year and Seb feels the need to make sure he is only facing a few drivers in other cars for a record breaking 4th straight championship. They always say first you must to beat your teamate to succeed in racing.
-
All That may be true but will Red Bull really sack Vettel even if he does it again?
I don't think I suggested that, but whatever has been said to Vettel in private seems to have made him pretty nervous. Certainly this year if he wants another title his teammate won't do him any favours. And if a team can't manage a driver, then there is no place for him on the team. Even a double WDC (look at your example - Nando at Mclaren).
-
I've been a fan of Vettel since his first F1 race at Indy in 2007. Now, I'm not so sure. What he did to Webber today was despicable.
Hopefully, some of the powers-that-be at RBR just decided that this would be a good year for Mark to win a WDC.
-
Im far from being a Vettel fan and think his actions today were disgusting but this is why i totally disagree with team orders. If he was faster than Webber then he should have been allowed to pass just like Rosberg should have been allowed to pass Hamilton ( i am actually a massive Hamilton fan ) . It wasnt Rosbergs fault Lewis was low on fuel so he should of been free to take 3rd place. Team order takes away genuine racing i know the team has to be careful to bring both cars home but lets be sensible and let the fastest driver get the result he deserves.
-
I was unimpressed by the team ordering from both Red Bull and Mercedes. Come on team principals, you have 4 winners and 2 champions between you. Surely they should be trustworthy enough to look after their cars and refrain from collisions while competing with each other? Drivers lower down the field do it all the time. I'm sure they'd love to have a prime seat if the more decorated members of F1 cannot do something so basic as race a team-mate without breaking any cars.
It felt babyish, and besides, Red Bull has 3 years' experience of knowing Seb doesn't follow team orders if they contradict his racing instinct. It was pointless for them to try!
-
I'm really no fan of team orders but once they are issued should be followed. Knowing Mark was following orders it wasn't fair for Seb to take advantage. He claims he didn't do it deliberately but you can not pass someone by accident. I've always liked Seb, he's seemed to be a winner and a nice guy too. Today he went down in mine and many people's estimation. 31 years ago Didier Pironi did something to Gilles Villeneuve, and today isn't remembered for his wins, but is remembered for playing dirty. Fairly or unfairly thats the abiding memory most have of Pironi. Hopefully Seb isn't remembered in time to come as someone who couldn't be trusted.
Ditto that.
On the point about Marko having Vettel's back - this is trotted out an awful lot as if it's something to be levelled at Seb as a Bad Thing. How dare you be closer to the boss than your team-mate?? Well if that is the case, is that Vettel's fault? Or just how Marko feels? Is it even such a bad thing to have a favourite in your team, or to be the favoured driver? If I was a driver I'd be happy to be favoured. Wouldn't use that situation to further my own ends, and I don't think Seb does either. He didn't think, 'Ok I'll get away with this because I'm the chosen one.'
On this point, Mark should not be whining in public. He has a great position in a great team, which isn't so bad for the old guy on the grid, and happens to be paired with a super-fast driver, who's simply quicker than him on nearly every occasion. In today's race I sympathise with Mark, of course he's annoyed - a race win has effectively been stolen from him. But his beef should be just with Vettel, not about any favouritism within the team.
-
I don't think that Marko was terribly critical of Vettel in the comments he made to the BBC at least. I feel that this is going to be swept under the carpet.
-
I think Mark has had a number of occasions to see that Vettel is favored, leading with the wing incident at Silverstone. Truly, there is little RB can do about it and I think Seb knows it and takes advantage. BUT, most of you have jobs where you have to answer to a boss, what happens if you directly disobey your boss's instruction? If I were RB, I would tell Vettel that the next time he does it he will sit out a race. Given F1's realities, I know that won't happen. As for Merc, Both cars were low on fuel, it was as important for Nico to dial it back as for Lewis. I think they were looking for a wet race.
-
Dieter Mateschitz will right now be counting his losses in the millions from the damage that Vettel has done to the Red Bull brand. I wouldn’t mind betting his mobile phone came close to melting at the end of the race. To get an apology out of Vettel and for Marko to publicly criticise his boy is a measure of how serious this is.
I have no problem at all with team orders, they have always been a part of the sporting nature of F1 and always will be. Drivers can’t win races without a team behind them and at times the priorities of the team come before those of the driver. At the very least I am willing to concede that the likes of Ross Brawn and Christian Horner know better than I how to win in F1.
-
I understand that winning an F1 race means the culmination of work of hundreds of men and women. The man on the track is the one with the final say as to what the car does though.
An F1 driver is there to win races (unless they've signed a contract for Ferrari saying they'll pull over). It's that simple. That's Vettel's job. There are hundreds of people who support him in that effort, why should he be expected to pull back when he has the opportunity to win? For his teammate's feelings?
Mark might certainly be sore about the way things went down... but I believe he'd do the same to Seb if he wanted. I think anyone on the grid would, and rightly so.
Maybe it's the Canadian race fan in me. Is there any chance Gilles Villeneuve would cruise to victory like Mark was planning on? Or any of the greats?
-
Something not mentioned is that Mark kept Vettel at a gap behind him until they were both told to turn down their engines. Only at that point was Vettel able to close up and make the pass. Vettel was not faster than Mark yesterday, he simply took advantage of Mark voluntarily tuning down his engine as requested by the team. If there had been no team orders, very likely they both would have raced like banshees and if they had made it to the end, it is just as likely that Webber would have led across the line.
-
Why should he be expected to pull back when he has the opportunity to win?
Scott has beaten me to it, yours and 99% of everyone elses default assumption is that if they had pushed hard to the end then Vettel would have won, when in fact Mark had Vettel's measure for the majority of the race and more than likely would have maintained that to the end. Vettel had already tried to get the team to get Mark to let him past, why? because he could'nt get past on merit. Everyone makes it sound like Vettel was the only one being held back by the team.
-
Excellent point Scott/Cam. When Vettel first asked to be allowed through, Webber just turned up the heat and pulled away. I have no doubt he would have done the same again had he not dialled his engine down.
-
Vettel showed yesterday what he lacks and that is class. People dislike him and struggle to put a finger (probably not his pointy finger) on why and I think this is it. The will to win is strong but that humbleness and respect is not there. I watched Sky's coverage and thought Horner and Marko were far from critical at Vettel, if anything Marko was more critical than Horner. Horner even seemed to be trying to blame both of them which was crazy. Webber will never win, next time he will just do what Vettel always has done, and that is ignore team orders. Vettel has done it many time in the past and gotten away with it, how many times has he pushed for the fastest lap despite being told by the team to cool it? He is immature and has no respect for anyone but himself. I'd love to see him in the same car as Alonso or Hamilton so they could teach him a few lessons. Red Bull have a real problem on their hands as they have no control over their driver and no way of controlling him either. Basically it means that whatever Vettel wants Vettel will get. Mark should have went to Ferrari!
-
Why stay at Red Bull to have a seat in a winning car if your not
allowed to win.Any of the remaining first tier teams would have been
a better option for Mark.
-
Why stay at Red Bull to have a seat in a winning car if your not
allowed to win.Any of the remaining first tier teams would have been
a better option for Mark.
Would he have been able to win at Ferrari??
-
Why stay at Red Bull to have a seat in a winning car if your not
allowed to win.Any of the remaining first tier teams would have been
a better option for Mark.
Would he have been able to win at Ferrari??
Probably not but at Mclaren and Lotus yes.He may have
gotten a occasionally win at Ferrari and would have
fulfilled most drivers secrets desire to drive in that red car
-
Why stay at Red Bull to have a seat in a winning car if your not
allowed to win.Any of the remaining first tier teams would have been
a better option for Mark.
Would he have been able to win at Ferrari??
Probably not but at Mclaren and Lotus yes.He may have
gotten a occasionally win at Ferrari and would have
fulfilled most drivers secrets desire to drive in that red car
I think Kimi and Mark would make an excellent pair for Enstone! Neither is afraid to mince words, and I think that Lotus is in a phase that if the drivers want to mix it up a little, they'd let them. (How else to explain Grosjean remaining with the team?)
-
I'd love to see him in the same car as Alonso or Hamilton so they could teach him a few lessons. Red Bull have a real problem on their hands as they have no control over their driver and no way of controlling him either. Basically it means that whatever Vettel wants Vettel will get. Mark should have went to Ferrari!
I think Fernando and Hamilton would both show Vettel a thing or two in an equal setting. Lewis even managed it on Top Gear ;) I know he wouldn't but would love to see Fernando go round and beat them both ;)
-
I am afraid that Vettel really has decided to be the next Michael Schumacher. The problems are, I do not think he is actually the best driver out there (he has simply had the best car) and he hasn't earned any respect from peers or public which means he is rapidly making himself universally unpopular. This could hurt him in the PR stakes in the future and he might find that he loses support from sponsors and his employer.
-
I am afraid that Vettel really has decided to be the next Michael Schumacher. The problems are, I do not think he is actually the best driver out there (he has simply had the best car) and he hasn't earned any respect from peers or public which means he is rapidly making himself universally unpopular. This could hurt him in the PR stakes in the future and he might find that he loses support from sponsors and his employer.
And why not? Schumi was probably his hero growing up! We don't get a lot of F1 gossip in Canada, but as near as I can tell, Michael Schumacher has all the money he'll ever need. A loving, stable family, dream place to live, celebrity status when he wishes it, and quiet solitude when he needs it.
Who wouldn't want to follow in Schumacher's path?
I'm willing to bet that most of Schumi's rivals have even learned to forgive him. (Obviously not DC though)
-
I am afraid that Vettel really has decided to be the next Michael Schumacher. The problems are, I do not think he is actually the best driver out there (he has simply had the best car) and he hasn't earned any respect from peers or public which means he is rapidly making himself universally unpopular. This could hurt him in the PR stakes in the future and he might find that he loses support from sponsors and his employer.
And why not? Schumi was probably his hero growing up! We don't get a lot of F1 gossip in Canada, but as near as I can tell, Michael Schumacher has all the money he'll ever need. A loving, stable family, dream place to live, celebrity status when he wishes it, and quiet solitude when he needs it.
Who wouldn't want to follow in Schumacher's path?
I'm willing to bet that most of Schumi's rivals have even learned to forgive him. (Obviously not DC though)
I think deep down Jeri that Monty sheds a tear or two
at the start of race when seeing that Michael is no longer
driving.
If MS wants solitude all he has to do is come to the US aand
probably any other F1 driver as well
-
Why should he be expected to pull back when he has the opportunity to win?
Scott has beaten me to it, yours and 99% of everyone elses default assumption is that if they had pushed hard to the end then Vettel would have won, when in fact Mark had Vettel's measure for the majority of the race and more than likely would have maintained that to the end. Vettel had already tried to get the team to get Mark to let him past, why? because he couldn't get past on merit. Everyone makes it sound like Vettel was the only one being held back by the team.
I can't possibly see how you can claim we all assume Vettel would win in a free for all. :nono: Most of us who don't see it as all bad that Vettel made the move would simply like to see a proper fight for the position, we did get a bit of wheel to wheel excitement but it could have been a better spectacle if they were free to race each other.
-
One engine tuned down vs the other at full power isn't a proper fight for position. The point I made wasn't that I wouldn't have rather seen them battle to the end, but if the team decided it was better to bring home a 1-2, it wasn't Vettel's place, or job, to counter that order. He isn't team principal and should remember he's an employee. Coulthard pointed out as much in his take on it.
-
Vettel's not good enough to be the next Schumi monty. :tease:
-
Most of us who don't see it as all bad that Vettel made the move would simply like to see a proper fight for the position.
We did see a proper fight for position. What do you think Webber was doing going from fifth to second at the start, staying out on intermediates for an extra two laps to get past Vettel, backing Vettel up so Hamilton could get past him (which worked), lapping immediately 0.3s faster when Vettel started whining.
As for what Vettel did being "not that bad", in a sporting sense I have never seen a bigger "f&^%k you" to ones team. I think he's blotted his copybook irreparably, it may seem ok to the the fans, but I would imaging the entire pitlane (let alone the hand tha feeds him) will be looking sideways at him for the rest of his career.
-
I am afraid that Vettel really has decided to be the next Michael Schumacher. The problems are, I do not think he is actually the best driver out there (he has simply had the best car) and he hasn't earned any respect from peers or public which means he is rapidly making himself universally unpopular. This could hurt him in the PR stakes in the future and he might find that he loses support from sponsors and his employer.
Next Schumi?no way.Schumi had class which is something
Vettel doesn't nor never willhave
-
Never observed any class in Schumi on the track. Away from the track sure but so does Vettel. The team has control of the ECU, so all they have to do is dial him down. If his max HP is less than Mark's from the git go let's see him win. As I said before, 3 time WDC or not I'd tell him if it happened again, he'd watch the next race from home. He is, in the end, an employee.
-
Never observed any class in Schumi on the track. Away from the track sure but so does Vettel. The team has control of the ECU, so all they have to do is dial him down. If his max HP is less than Mark's from the git go let's see him win. As I said before, 3 time WDC or not I'd tell him if it happened again, he'd watch the next race from home. He is, in the end, an employee.
I agree although if it was me I'd ban him for the next race. It's not the first time he has disobeyed team orders and done whatever he liked. If they do not show support for their other driver and the teams viewpoint he will know he can get away with it with a simple 'Oops I'm sorry, honest' every time!
-
Except that if the whole point of the team order was to gain maximum points, then they suspend him a race, get only points for Mark (assuming the new guy doesn't get any with no experience) and they lose the WCC or WDC by 15-20 points, would all be a bit counter-productive. No, if it was me as team principal, I'd suspend him from all meetings for the next couple of races (make him sit on a chair in the hallway ::) ), yank his travel budget for the rest of the year (or book him in at motels and force him to take a taxi to the track instead of a helicopter) and fine him as much as they can get away with contractually.
-
Never observed any class in Schumi on the track Lonny. :DD :DD :DD
-
Hey maybe they'll do what Football(soccer) managers do with naughty boys, put him on the transfer list. ;) Wonder which team would offer a driver swap? :D
-
Hey maybe they'll do what Football(soccer) managers do with naughty boys, put him on the transfer list. ;) Wonder which team would offer a driver swap? :D
Possibly Marussia or Caterham but he would have to bring in some hefty sponsorship money ;)
-
I can't help but notice that something is missing from our discussion.
WHY was Mark ordered to run a dialed back finish? WHY was Vettel similarly ordered?
My guess, since it hasn't come up, is that RBR knows that there are penalties for changing engines/gearboxes, so why use them harder than you have to?
It wasn't simply about getting maximum points in one particular race, but also making sure that 2 notoriously delicate cars have enough spare parts to finish the season without taking grid penalties.
Justice would be best served if Vettel loses the championship by 8 points because of a blown gear box in the last race...
Assuming this is the issue, why didn't anyone bother telling Vettel that on the radio? Surely even in the heat of the moment he's capable of losing a race now so he can win the championship later.
If it's not the issue, then I still don't see what Vettel did wrong (as a race fan, I want to see racing)
-
You might be right Jeri - we can't see the engine diagnostics that the team can over telemetry, but I thought they said the main reason for tuning things down was to prevent the tires from going away because the RBR had bad wear issues with the tires. But the hold station was because they wanted both cars to finish and perhaps knew that if Mark was forced to defend Vettel, he would make it as difficult as possible, maybe even catastrophically so.
There were so many possibilities to have things go wrong at the end between those two - and supposedly the agreement was that after the last pit stop if they were 1-2, then they were to remain that way, in that order.
But I still think if Mark was allowed to race Vettel, he would have remained in front. Might have been more fun to watch if they were both allowed to.
-
I like your thinking Jeri, especially the part about him losing by the margin of a penalty caused by a gearbox change :D
-
An F1 driver is there to win races (unless they've signed a contract for Ferrari saying they'll pull over). It's that simple. That's Vettel's job. There are hundreds of people who support him in that effort, why should he be expected to pull back when he has the opportunity to win? For his teammate's feelings?
No, because the team told him to. Whether you like that, and think it's right, is something that I'm happy to debate, but the fact is that the team told him not to pass Webber, and his disobeyed a direct order from the team. That is wrong in my opinion.
Mark might certainly be sore about the way things went down... but I believe he'd do the same to Seb if he wanted. I think anyone on the grid would, and rightly so.
He hasn't though Jeri, that's the issue. He has been told in the past not to overtake Vettel, and has followed the instruction.
Maybe it's the Canadian race fan in me. Is there any chance Gilles Villeneuve would cruise to victory like Mark was planning on? Or any of the greats?
You do remember the Pironi/Villeneuve incident at Imola in 1982 don't you ;)?
-
An F1 driver is there to win races (unless they've signed a contract for Ferrari saying they'll pull over). It's that simple. That's Vettel's job. There are hundreds of people who support him in that effort, why should he be expected to pull back when he has the opportunity to win? For his teammate's feelings?
No, because the team told him to. Whether you like that, and think it's right, is something that I'm happy to debate, but the fact is that the team told him not to pass Webber, and his disobeyed a direct order from the team. That is wrong in my opinion.
I think the debate is more complicated than that.
1) We all know that 'just following orders' is never a valid excuse for anything... right?
2) Why would anyone ask a triple world champion to lose on purpose?
3) Is the team there to support the driver, or is the driver there to support the team?
Mark might certainly be sore about the way things went down... but I believe he'd do the same to Seb if he wanted. I think anyone on the grid would, and rightly so.
He hasn't though Jeri, that's the issue. He has been told in the past not to overtake Vettel, and has followed the instruction.
At the point that Vettel passed Webber, Mark wasn't going race pace any more. Outside of championship battles, where has a faster teammate ever been asked to hold back?
The only incident I can think of was Indy 2002, and the FIA made it quite clear that was not acceptable. (At least Schumi had the class to be embarassed about it.)
-
Happened in Austria 2002 as well with Schumacher and Barrichello, Barrichello waited until the last corner to let him past, even a hardened Schumacher fan like me was disgusted with that. I always thought Schumacher had enough clout in the team to refuse to take the lead.
-
I am afraid that Vettel really has decided to be the next Michael Schumacher. The problems are, I do not think he is actually the best driver out there (he has simply had the best car) and he hasn't earned any respect from peers or public which means he is rapidly making himself universally unpopular. This could hurt him in the PR stakes in the future and he might find that he loses support from sponsors and his employer.
And why not? Schumi was probably his hero growing up! We don't get a lot of F1 gossip in Canada, but as near as I can tell, Michael Schumacher has all the money he'll ever need. A loving, stable family, dream place to live, celebrity status when he wishes it, and quiet solitude when he needs it.
Who wouldn't want to follow in Schumacher's path?
I haven't let-on but I never liked Schumacher. However, I do acknowledge that he had established himself as a winner in more than one team before his evil excesses really became apparent. In my opinion Vettel has not established himself. He has been in the fortunate position to be in a team capable of building the fastest car and then due to the protection afforded to him from Helmut Marko he has had the car and strategy targeted specifically for him. In Malaysia he ignored team rules, made Horner look a fool and even embarrassed Marko. With actions like this he could really disenfranchise hiself from the team and the main sponsor.
-
No, if it was me as team principal, I'd suspend him from all meetings for the next couple of races (make him sit on a chair in the hallway ::) ), yank his travel budget for the rest of the year (or book him in at motels and force him to take a taxi to the track instead of a helicopter) and fine him as much as they can get away with contractually.
Frank Williams thought along similar lines in early 1981. Carlos Reutmann overtook Alan Jones against team orders to win a race (I think it was Argentina). Frank refused to pay Carlos any bonus money (or, depending on the account, he only paid him the bonus money for 2nd). Carlos showed much class by never even speaking of the punishment - journalists only found out by talking to Frank and other highly-placed Williams contacts.
-
Martin Whitmarsh brings up another point. Vettel most likely has it in his contract to do what he is told:
"The driver is putting himself presumably in breach of contract and the team is bigger than any driver, isn't it? At any team. With a team having 600-700 people in it, you have really got to remind them"
http://www.racer.com/red-bull-must-lay-down-law-say-rivals/article/286030/?DCMP=EMC-RACER_DAILY&spMailingID=5848733&spUserID=MjMyNjk2NjU2MQS2&spJobID=69624733&spReportId=Njk2MjQ3MzMS1
-
Whether he's a 3 time WDC or a rookie, a hard core competitor or a fill in, the real bottom line is, he's an employee. If I disobeyed a direct order from my supervisor I'd be in serious trouble. If they can't find a way to make Seb see he's lucky to drive for RB, then they have no control and I never met a boss who willingly gave up power.
-
I guess we have now. Sebastian has been disobeying team orders since at least the start of 2010 (mostly minor ones like "don't go for that fastest lap at the end of the race") and Christian doesn't seem to have done anything meaningful about it. Seems like Christian is quite content to give up power in this situation - or he was until last weekend.
-
I think the debate is more complicated than that.
1) We all know that 'just following orders' is never a valid excuse for anything... right?
2) Why would anyone ask a triple world champion to lose on purpose?
3) Is the team there to support the driver, or is the driver there to support the team?
That's all for debate about whether team orders are valid in the first place, I agree, but in terms of what actually happened, the team gave him a direct order, he didn't follow it, end of story. Whether it was right, and whether all those factors you list come into play are sound discussion points, but it is not right to disobey a direct order from the team, even if you don't like it.
At the point that Vettel passed Webber, Mark wasn't going race pace any more. Outside of championship battles, where has a faster teammate ever been asked to hold back?
The only incident I can think of was Indy 2002, and the FIA made it quite clear that was not acceptable. (At least Schumi had the class to be embarassed about it.)
Barrichello was also asked to move over for Schumacher in the Austrian Grand Prix in both 2001 and 2002, despite leading on merit, and Schumacher having a dominant lead in the championship. Schumacher reacted, in the 2002 race, in his usual victorious manner, and only looked sheepish on the podium when he realised that the crowd were booing, so let's not get carried way with giving him credit ;).
Webber had been asked to slow down by the team as far as I understood it, and Red Bull have a policy that the team mates don't race each other after the last pit stop. Webber is normally behind Vettel after the last pit stop, so this situation hasn't arisen before, and Vettel clearly didn't like it.
The policy is, in my view, a bad policy, but if those are the team rules you have to respect them. Vettel was wrong, his behaviour has disgusted me, first for the on track manoeuvre, second for celebrating in such glorious style when he did win, and then third having the temerity to think that we (the viewing public) are stupid enough to fall for his lame apology act. He's a disgrace, and I hope that he never wins the championship ever again.
-
Sorry, but a bad policy cannot be respected, especially if following it is likely to put the company in a worse position in the long run than not following it would.
If Red Bull hadn't given the bad policy out in the first place, Vettel wouldn't have been put in an impossible situation. Holding station through team orders would have resulted in even fewer viewers tuning in to future races and less money going to Red Bull in TV, sponsorship and merchandising (assuming it remained champion through that act). Unless the payment gap between 1st and 2nd is more than 28%, it looks like the behaviour of teams in the first 2 races (at least 5 have been spotted using team orders, for various reasons) is costing more money than losing the championship would even as it is. More team order compliance would have caused an even worse reaction.
Therefore, complying with team orders would have resulted in a slower 2014 car, which would have made getting that title harder for whoever drives a Red Bull at that point. At some stage, team loyalty has to take precedence over complying with a self-destructive request - no matter who made it.
-
Some have said the controversial finish to Malaysia has resulted in massive media attention. Rarely is a race still being talked about by so many a week after it took place.
I'm not sure there is a direct correlation to next year's revenues. Especially as this is only the second race of the season. Who is to say the next race won't be the best one in years, or millions more viewers might tune in to watch Vettel sit on the 'bench' so to speak and see what happens with the rest (many fans are turned off by Vettel's boring pole Saturday, win Sunday routine - like many were turned off by Schumacher doing the same a few years ago).
Either way, I am on the side of those who think team orders should be obeyed, however daft they are. If a driver doesn't like driving under team orders, maybe he should move to a different team, or keep it in mind when he is negotiating a contract renewal (to have them written in to the contract in a way that suits the driver).
-
There's no such thing as a 'boring pole' (no puns please, you know what I mean ;) ). I'm not a Schumacher fan and never was, but it wasn't boring - I still watched, it was galling, annoying, frustrating etc, but never boring. Apologies if this is just semantics, I know what you mean. But I just want to make the point – during Schumacher's time the Ferrari fans certainly weren't bored.
It would be boring if every other race we had to watch the first few cars trundle in without racing, because of team orders. Viva the driver, viva individuality, down with team orders, down with convention!
-
Rarely is a race still being talked about by so many a week after it took place.
I'm not sure there is a direct correlation to next year's revenues. Especially as this is only the second race of the season. Who is to say the next race won't be the best one in years, or millions more viewers might tune in to watch Vettel sit on the 'bench' so to speak and see what happens with the rest (many fans are turned off by Vettel's boring pole Saturday, win Sunday routine - like many were turned off by Schumacher doing the same a few years ago).
Many fans were turned off by the "boring" routine, but the orchestration seems to have turned off more people than the routine did. The fact the press are still discussing it is more to do with there not being a race immediately following Malaysia (as there was for Australia) and the particularly large and mostly negative consequences of the affair causing debate. Not all bad publicity produces viewers.
-
If team orders, which are now oh so legal, ::) are so B important to the championship then the FIA should mandate punishments if they are breached, Q.E.D. :P
WOT????......might reveal races are fixed.....will give fans the wrong impression......impossible to police. - H'mmm, :confused: - now where have I heard that before :swoon: :D
-
Sorry, but a bad policy cannot be respected, especially if following it is likely to put the company in a worse position in the long run than not following it would.
Red Bull clearly don't think that not racing after the final pit stop is bad policy, otherwise they wouldn't have been employing this order for the past number of years.
If Red Bull hadn't given the bad policy out in the first place, Vettel wouldn't have been put in an impossible situation.
He wasn't in an impossible position. He could simply have held station as per the instruction. There was no threat from behind, so he had no need to quicken his pace.
He broke the order because he has no respect for Mark Webber, and no respect for certain elements within the team. He's very selfish, and extremely immature, and that is now clear for the whole F1 world to see.
Holding station through team orders would have resulted in even fewer viewers tuning in to future races and less money going to Red Bull in TV, sponsorship and merchandising (assuming it remained champion through that act).
These are hypothetical figures, so you cannot say that with any degree of certainty. Formula 1 survived the Schumacher/Ferrari era, and the competition is a lot closer now, even if the racing is blighted by artificial overtaking, so I don't think that what you're saying would have come to pass.
-
Viewing figures have dropped substantially over the last few years - that much has been statistically proven. Global viewing figures were 600 million in 2008 and fell to 502 million in 2012. In fact, F1 is no longer the world's most popular motorsport, as world touring cars (WTCC) surpassed F1's viewing figures last year.
As an example of how much things have got worse recently, the Malaysian GP figures for 2013 (http://twitter.com/mrjakehumphrey/status/316152940761079808) was 722,000 for Sky. In 2012 that figure was 910,000 (http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2012/09/06/uk-f1-tv-figures-bbc-sky-2012/). This represents a fall of 188,000 people. That is a lot fewer people willing to shell out for F1 than even 12 months ago. F1 has become increasingly dependent on the pay TV deals for survival, and the indications coming from Sky was that 1 million paying subscribers were needed each year to make F1 break even (something it has never managed to get, if the combination of freebie HD/already-had-Sky-Sport viewers and viewing figures barely hitting 1 million at the best of times was anything to go by).
What I am talking about is already coming to pass. Which is why I referred to Vettel's position as impossible. He was asked to choose between the Red Bull team's short-term (relatively minor) benefit and its long-term viability. I imagine Red Bull will catch on too late to mend the damage it has done to the wider health of F1 (I've encountered several small companies make the same mistake, then have to call me in to clean up the mess) with its actions, so someone else in power will have to work out how to restrict team orders successfully if F1 is going to get through this.
-
Viewing figures have dropped substantially over the last few years - that much has been statistically proven. Global viewing figures were 600 million in 2008 and fell to 502 million in 2012. In fact, F1 is no longer the world's most popular motorsport, as world touring cars (WTCC) surpassed F1's viewing figures last year.
As an example of how much things have got worse recently, the Malaysian GP figures for 2013 (http://twitter.com/mrjakehumphrey/status/316152940761079808) was 722,000 for Sky. In 2012 that figure was 910,000 (http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2012/09/06/uk-f1-tv-figures-bbc-sky-2012/). This represents a fall of 188,000 people. That is a lot fewer people willing to shell out for F1 than even 12 months ago. F1 has become increasingly dependent on the pay TV deals for survival, and the indications coming from Sky was that 1 million paying subscribers were needed each year to make F1 break even (something it has never managed to get, if the combination of freebie HD/already-had-Sky-Sport viewers and viewing figures barely hitting 1 million at the best of times was anything to go by).
What I am talking about is already coming to pass. Which is why I referred to Vettel's position as impossible. He was asked to choose between the Red Bull team's short-term (relatively minor) benefit and its long-term viability. I imagine Red Bull will catch on too late to mend the damage it has done to the wider health of F1 (I've encountered several small companies make the same category of mistake, then have to call me in to clean up the mess) with its actions, so someone else in power will have to work out how to restrict team orders successfully if F1 is going to get through this.
-
How much of the drop in attendance and viewership is due to an increasingly poor assortment of tracks, like Sepang? How much of it is due to the fact that many of the races are now in the middle of the night for the largest portion of the fan base?
Vettel wasn't able to get past Webber in a equal fight. He had to wait until the team told them both to save their cars to take advantage. In fact, Red Bull's lack of action against Vettel has spawned conspiracy theories. I've read blogs that suggest that the whole thing was an inside job. The team knew that Vettel couldn't catch Mark but they didn't want a "Vettel is faster than you" message. So, they told both drivers to save their cars with a wink to Vettel.
The cost caps and lack of refueling make "slow down" orders a necessity. Merc did it, too. McLaren told Button to park the car in the late stages to allow a free gearbox change. There is a real culprit in the Case of the Disappearing Fans.
-
This makes for some interesting reading:
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2012/09/06/uk-f1-tv-figures-bbc-sky-2012/
-
How much of the drop in attendance and viewership is due to an increasingly poor assortment of tracks, like Sepang? How much of it is due to the fact that many of the races are now in the middle of the night for the largest portion of the fan base?
For the Sky statistics I showed, none of it. They were the same track, at the same time of early morning.
Sepang for me is a decent track - certainly no worse than Barcelona or the new version of the Nurburgring. It's tracks like Shanghai, Bahrain and Abu Dhabi that reduce the quality of the calendar, but in any case, the decline started several years after Sepang, Shanghai and Bahrain joined.
The biggest known percentage drop in global audience last year was in China, where there have been an increasingly large number of daylight races. They lost 33% of their audience last year - and no, they didn't lose it by going pay TV or dropping live coverage. They lost it because the races were constantly on the wrong weeks for the punters, and the messing-about on track was less interesting than the events which clashed. So I suspect the time of day is not the deciding factor.
Also, if Red Bull were planning to avoid a "Alonso is faster than you", they failed. The fans weren't born yesterday and can easily tell when the wool is being pulled over their eyes, no matter what coding is used. After all, many of them have had practice with the 1-2 arrangements at Renault and the attempt by BMW to order Robert Kubica to not win Bahrain 2008. Both featured far less radio information with which to work out what was going on, and both were deciphered by fans long before journalists admitted to knowing what was going on.
-
What I am talking about is already coming to pass. Which is why I referred to Vettel's position as impossible. He was asked to choose between the Red Bull team's short-term (relatively minor) benefit and its long-term viability. I imagine Red Bull will catch on too late to mend the damage it has done to the wider health of F1 (I've encountered several small companies make the same mistake, then have to call me in to clean up the mess) with its actions, so someone else in power will have to work out how to restrict team orders successfully if F1 is going to get through this.
Okay, taking account of the statistics you've presented I still don't agree with the conclusion that you're implying. How can you conclude that falling viewing figures has anything to do with team orders? The correlation is, at best, weak, and you can't show any causation, so you're not persuading me to alter my position about Vettel.
Where I do agree with you is regarding the poor quality new tracks the teams are forced to race at. Again though, trying to draw a conclusion about viewing figures from this is very difficult.
-
The track in question
Sepang - Petronas will ensure there is race in this track
Abu Dhabi - Ferrari will use its veto power, if there is in any chance of pulling this off the calender
Bahrain - After all the debates last year, the race was still on because both McLaren and Mercedes has investments from this country, and they will pursue within their limits to make sure that it remains in their.
China - I don't need to stress how important this market is for almost all the brands that endorses F1 carnival.
My point is that as all these tracks are put in the calender, due to their might of economic power, and these will ensure that CVC will be economically benefit holding races in this venues, no matter how much you debate about their presence they will exist.
Another point is that I think F1 uses the number of Audience to attract the companies for endorsements, other than that it is hardly a figure that CVC at this moment can ignore, because it is making profits this way or the other, and that what matters to them now. Is it a good thing? Absolutely not, as I have mentioned in somewhere else in this forum, I would not have been a fan of F1 if my family had to pay any money to attain TV viewership. The drop of TV viewership has long term effect, and will certainly show them in the long run. Perhaps CVC think when they will reach that moment, they would have made enough, and left the sports.
-
The track in question
Sepang - Petronas will ensure there is race in this track
Abu Dhabi - Ferrari will use its veto power, if there is in any chance of pulling this off the calender
Bahrain - After all the debates last year, the race was still on because both McLaren and Mercedes has investments from this country, and they will pursue within their limits to make sure that it remains in their.
China - I don't need to stress how important this market is for almost all the brands that endorses F1 carnival.
My point is that as all these tracks are put in the calender, due to their might of economic power, and these will ensure that CVC will be economically benefit holding races in this venues, no matter how much you debate about their presence they will exist.
Another point is that I think F1 uses the number of Audience to attract the companies for endorsements, other than that it is hardly a figure that CVC at this moment can ignore, because it is making profits this way or the other, and that what matters to them now. Is it a good thing? Absolutely not, as I have mentioned in somewhere else in this forum, I would not have been a fan of F1 if my family had to pay any money to attain TV viewership. The drop of TV viewership has long term effect, and will certainly show them in the long run. Perhaps CVC think when they will reach that moment, they would have made enough, and left the sports.
Audience figures directly or indirectly influence every method CVC has of making money. This is why it is important to track - it may influence when CVC decides it can't make more money from the franchise.
-
I love Sky's comment 'we don’t measure our success by viewing figures' :DD :DD :DD :DD
-
They never got any success in my house anyway.
-
The tracks in question
Sepang - Petronas will ensure there is race in this track
Abu Dhabi - Ferrari will use its veto power, if there is in any chance of pulling this off the calender
Bahrain - After all the debates last year, the race was still on because both McLaren and Mercedes has investments from this country, and they will pursue within their limits to make sure that it remains in their.
China - I don't need to stress how important this market is for almost all the brands that endorses F1 carnival.
My point is that as all these tracks are put in the calender, due to their might of economic power, and these will ensure that CVC will be economically benefit holding races in this venues, no matter how much you debate about their presence they will exist.
Another point is that I think F1 uses the number of Audience to attract the companies for endorsements, other than that it is hardly a figure that CVC at this moment can ignore, because it is making profits this way or the other, and that what matters to them now. Is it a good thing? Absolutely not, as I have mentioned in somewhere else in this forum, I would not have been a fan of F1 if my family had to pay any money to attain TV viewership. The drop of TV viewership has long term effect, and will certainly show them in the long run. Perhaps CVC think when they will reach that moment, they would have made enough, and left the sports.
Audience figures directly or indirectly influence every method CVC has of making money. This is why it is important to track - it may influence when CVC decides it can't make more money from the franchise.
I think the only time they will be leaving, when their earning will hit a dip. Yes TV viewers number will have a significant influence, but I think revenues from the TV will play a more important role. I think CVC is pushing it hard as because any significant drop of revenue will hit the TV channel first, and thus it may give CVC enough time to get out.
-
I think the only time they will be leaving, when their earning will hit a dip. Yes TV viewers number will have a significant influence, but I think revenues from the TV will play a more important role. I think CVC is pushing it hard as because any significant drop of revenue will hit the TV channel first, and thus it may give CVC enough time to get out.
Even when free-to-air was the predominant broadcast mode for F1, audience figures influenced how much TV companies were willing to pay. With the increase in pay TV, that link becomes direct - only through TV subscriptions (which people need to see pay TV) and advertising (which not only requires subscriptions, but people seeing them in order to buy the product to justify the ads) can the TV companies justify paying the Bernie fees. Without high audience figures, pay TV companies don't break even, so CVC takes a fairly immediate hit from people abandoning F1. Especially since it's emerging that the only thing most of the F1 fans who can pay for pay TV have in common is a love of F1.