2011 British GP **SPOILERS**

Posted by truecrysis 
Re: 2011 British GP **SPOILERS**
Date: July 11, 2011 05:00PM
Posted by: DaveEllis
So in Turkey 2009, when they told Vettel to park behind Mark and not challenge him whilst they were 2nd and 3rd, I take it the same argument applies? They shouldn't have given Mark the position, etc?

And I guess we'll just ignore that Mark got preference in the pit stops yesterday, despite the teams stance being first on track would get priority. But lets put it this way. Lets say Perez starts ahead of Kobayashi, but messes up the start. But Perez still gets advantages on the pit stops, and is allowed to fight Kobayashi right until the last 2 laps, but still is unable to beat him. Then he is told to hold position. Would we make a massive fuss out of that? Of course not - it's perfectly sensible. And that's what happened here today. Given Webber got priority in the pit stops, whilst being behind his team mate (which usually decides the pit stop orders), I don't think he's in position to moan about favouritism.

but Horner needs to at least show us why he believed they would crash/felt the need to restrain Webber.

I guess Turkey 2010 isn't a good enough example? And Australia 2010, Spa 2010, Valencia 2010, and Korea 2010? You guys are always quick to say Vettel can't overtake and how he's accident prone, then when Horner says there would have been an accident you cry for proof? You don't see the issue there?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com
Re: 2011 British GP **SPOILERS**
Date: July 11, 2011 05:01PM
Posted by: Morbid
While Red Bull were building themselves up, they prided themselves of being a more pure and authentic team, and viciously taunted the more established teams for their obvious self-serving methods that detracted from the sport and exposed their hypocrisies for all to see. It was so obvious in the way DC changed from the polished McLaren boy-product to the scruffy no nonsense punk attitude he developed at Red Bull. Now that they are holders of the WDC, it would seem they have forgotten that, and have started up on all those tricks they openly ridiculed just a few years back.



It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2011 05:02PM by Morbid.
Re: 2011 British GP **SPOILERS**
Date: July 11, 2011 05:04PM
Posted by: DaveEllis
It was so obvious in the way DC changed from the polish McLaren boy-product to the scruffy no nonsense punk attitude he developed at Red Bull.

I kinda agree with that, but some interviews that DC has given has suggested that if you don't play that way, you aren't allowed in McLaren. Brundle once made a little fun of his scruffy bearded look, and he said at McLaren you couldn't do that. You HAD to be clean shaven under Ron, and he even once sacked a mechanic who refused to do it. Whilst DC has become a little more aggressive in attitude, it also shows how oppressive (perhaps the wrong word, but you get what I mean) Ron Dennis at the head of McLaren. But that's a rather different conversation I suppose.

[/thread derail]

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com
Re: 2011 British GP **SPOILERS**
Date: July 11, 2011 05:30PM
Posted by: Morbid
That is exactly my point, and I don't think the word oppressive is in any way misplaced. It is totally apt!

My point about Red Bull is that they used to taunt all the other teams for being all about everything else than the racing. Now they employ team orders, to the detriment of the sport and show (their own words from last year!) to safeguard results. They have gone back on their own promises.

They said they needed 19% throttle to run their engines safely, when they found out that Mercedes had gotten a 10% exemption. Mercedes could prove that they ran 10% in 2009. Red Bull just wanted it, because they other guy had something. 19% was the conversion calculation they made on their type of throttle, which is grantedly is different from Mercedes, but they gain other advantages with standard operation with their system, but 19% being equivalent is dubious at best. We don't even know if they are running 19% (or Mercedes is running 10%), because it is all about how you program the electric motor that opens and closes the throttle. How is the FIA going to enforce that? They made the ECU so they didn't have to go through lines and lines of code every race weekend, that they don't have a chance of penetrating anyway.

When Mercedes needed half the valves open to control the crank case pressure (not 50% throttle mind you, just open valves), then they suddenly, in the middle of a practice session found out, that they TOO needed 50% throttle to reliably run their engines. The fact that this was pushed by Red Bull, and not Renault as the engine manufacturer, makes this highly suspect! Furthermore, how can they find out about this on the day of a practice session, the very same day they learn about the Mercedes exemptions? It wasn't clear in the engine specifications at the day of concept design or prototype production? Or just at least during the Valencia practice sessions where all the blown-diffuser teams tested these things?

It is bullshit, that is what it is. It is self-serving lies, that are made to defend a competitive advantage. I don't blame Charlie at all for deciding they are not credible and revoking their exemptions. Mercedes at least presented an argued and documented case in a timely fashion. That they all now have their exemptions pulled is probably a fair point too, at least from a sporting perspective. But this is not the team that DC and Webber drove for back in 2008. Something very essential has changed. It is not about the sport and the racing, come what may, any more... it is about winning at all costs.

They have become what they despised. They were the self proclaimed alternative. Now I ask, what is the alternative to the alternative?



It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2011 05:33PM by Morbid.
Re: 2011 British GP **SPOILERS**
Date: July 11, 2011 05:32PM
Posted by: chet
Mark has had pistop preference alllllll year. Simply because Vettel has made up such a lead that there is no major loss for Vettel. Thats simply logical.

As for previous incidents. You can not base your assumptions on only Turkey. It was a brainfade from Vettel yes but you would think they would learn from that and race each other fairly next time round.

Dave, you mention Australia, Valencia and Spa?

Australia, refresh my memory?

Valencia, I presume you mean Webber on Hiekki? In which case that's a complete different situation. That wasnt racing, that was confusion between both drivers. Spa? Vettel on Button? Again a brain fade from Vettel but it was a mistake you would think he would learn from. You mention mistakes from the drivers but you can just so easily mention awesome racing from each driver. You will find this year I have massively complimented Vettel's racing ability (especially after Barca).

As I said, my main concern about this all is Horner's lack of confidence for his drivers. Vettel raced Lewis fairly and has this year shown some amazing race craft. Likewise Webber has shown this year. With the tyres, KERS and DRS there is more chance of a successful overtake, and there are more instances of clean racing than incident prone racing involving these two guys.

Fact is Horners logic can be applied at every race with every battle and every driver. They are not in the sport to hold back. At this stage when the championship is still open, Webber should be allowed to fight. As I said, in a few races time when Vettel might have extended his lead over Mark then the situation could be different.

Situations reversed I would feel the same. Any driver, any team. If Whitmarsh came out and said he didn't want Button to attack Lewis because they end up in the wall I would be furious! In that respect I am completely fair and unbiased. I hate the fact that Horner felt the need to restrain his drivers. Its a complete joke at this stage in the fight.

In the end Dave, if Horner felt points right now are so critical then I am very disapointed. Vettel and Webber are not here to finish they are here to win. If it was Vettel behind adn the same call was made, I would be equally as disapointed in Horner. But I reiterate, my disapointment comes with Horners claims of it ending in the wall. But as I said, later in the season it is another matter, right now it is not.

edit - Summed up nice by DH on the forum. The drivers need to decide whether to race or not. NOT Horner.






"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2011 05:37PM by chet.
Re: 2011 British GP **SPOILERS**
Date: July 11, 2011 05:40PM
Posted by: DaveEllis
Mark has had pistop preference alllllll year. Simply because Vettel has made up such a lead that there is no major loss for Vettel. Thats simply logical.

No he hasn't. Mark generally pits earlier because he's losing time when his tyres go off first. That's pit stop preference through neccesity, rather than choice. At Silverstone he was given pit stop preference despite no tyre disadvantage. Horner said it himself - they gave Mark preference all race then told him to hold station for just 2 laps.

Australia, refresh my memory?

When Webber n00bed up in traffic and drove into the back of Lewis during a battle. All of the examples I gave were situations where Red Bull drivers screwed up in traffic. Something that everybody loves to make a massive deal out of. Then when Horner plays it safe, not to have an accident, suddenly they are all perfect and don't have accidents. So it's damned if you do and damned if you don't. You could say you've praised Vettel this year, but you only did when he passed 5 cars in a lap and gave you no choice. You spent the rest of the year saying he can't race. Now Horner tells them to calm down and don't have a chance for a crash, and suddenly he's the bad guy. What?

It also doesn't address the issue I raised. Had this been any other team, there would have been no fuss. Hold Position orders are given every weekend, without a mention on forums afterwards. The issues we have are with swap position orders normally. So once again, I'll copy and paste what I said before -

If Perez starts ahead of Kobayashi, but messes up the start. But Perez still gets advantages on the pit stops, and is allowed to fight Kobayashi right until the last 2 laps, but still is unable to beat him. Then he is told to hold position. Would we make a massive fuss out of that? Of course not - it's perfectly sensible. And that's what happened here today. Given Webber got priority in the pit stops, whilst being behind his team mate (which usually decides the pit stop orders), I don't think he's in position to moan about favouritism.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com
Re: 2011 British GP **SPOILERS**
Date: July 11, 2011 05:51PM
Posted by: Morbid
DaveEllis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If Perez starts ahead of Kobayashi, but messes up
> the start. But Perez still gets advantages on the
> pit stops, and is allowed to fight Kobayashi right
> until the last 2 laps, but still is unable to beat
> him. Then he is told to hold position. Would we
> make a massive fuss out of that? Of course not -
> it's perfectly sensible. And that's what happened
> here today. Given Webber got priority in the pit
> stops, whilst being behind his team mate (which
> usually decides the pit stop orders), I don't
> think he's in position to moan about favouritism.


Horner claims it was the last 4 laps, so you are probably pushing the facts to make your point. However, I can live with that, and won't argue the point. I won't argue the point that your Sauber comparison is correct. I will grant you all of it. What I will argue, is that your points are apt.

Sauber never promised that they would not use team orders. Red Bull did on several occasions. Sauber never made themselves out to be better than the other teams. Red Bull did. Therefore that analogy is not apt. Sauber is not open to the accusation of hypocrisy. Red Bull most certainly is... they are open for accusation of YEARS of hypocrisy.



It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.
Re: 2011 British GP **SPOILERS**
Date: July 11, 2011 06:02PM
Posted by: DaveEllis
Horner claims it was the last 4 laps, so you are probably pushing the facts to make your point.

He said 2 laps on the BBC forum iirc. I said 2 because I thought it was 2. If he said 4 then I retract my comment and change it to 4.

That is a fair point of Red Bull I suppose. I think there is still a vast difference between the team orders which those like Ferrari have applied (swapping cars) and holding station, but I see your point. However of the top teams, I still place Red Bull significantly higher in the morality stakes than McLaren and Ferrari, given Ferraris take on team orders and McLarens inability to not lie about everything that crops up, whilst we watch it on TV. But that's just my take.

Edit: And Chet, let us not forget McLaren, Turkey 2010. The drivers were told to hold station (and this is when team orders were illegal, remember those days?), and only a miscommunication allowed them to battle it out before they went back to doing what they were told. I don't recall a huge hissy fit over that, but perhaps that's just because Red Bull had just taken themselves out of the lead through allowing the drivers to battle.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2011 06:03PM by DaveEllis.
Re: 2011 British GP **SPOILERS**
Date: July 11, 2011 06:16PM
Posted by: chet
If the Sauber instance was based on the same circumstances including championship then yes we would make a fuss.

The other drivers only have a finite time to beat Vettel. If a race is 70 laps long they should be given 70 laps to win. Just because the driver behind could not get ahead in either 68 of the previous laps who is decide whether he can or can not pass in the remaining laps. The whole point these guys are here is to see who is better after a specific number of laps, no less, no more. When the championship is open and so early on, Horner should not be allowed to dictate whether they race for 1, 50, or 70 laps.

The fact that Vettel extended his lead is why this is so important. Webber had the chance to close the gap (for the first time this year I believe?) yet Horner wanted to stop that.

We know Webber ignored it, and Vettel came out on top so that is pointless, but what isnt, is the fact that Horner tried to take time away from Webber to beat Vettel.

"The race is 50 laps long Mark, but you only have 40 to beat Seb, if not then give up" is pretty much what is going on. That being the case wtf is the point in racing if drivers are going to be told they can only race for so long?

If it were the final point position between HRT drivers I would feel the same providing it had the same relative significance.

This incident was important for the championship thats why there is fuss. As Ted suggested with his question to Horner, does this mean Webber can not beat Vettel this season at all?

edit - [www.jamesallenonf1.com]

according this Horners recent decision will not be welcomed by Mateschitz... F1 fans are fickle, but the guys involved in decision making are far worse.

edit - I mentioned Mclaren. It was poor, poor communication. Lewis was very angry because Jenson obviously did not understand the messages. Still Jenson believes he was allowed to race and believes that fuel was critical. I dont agree with it but the truth is we do not know the situation about fuel. Whether or not it was lies from Mclaren or not.






"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2011 06:26PM by chet.
Re: 2011 British GP **SPOILERS**
Date: July 11, 2011 06:25PM
Posted by: DaveEllis
If the Sauber instance was based on the same circumstances including championship then yes we would make a fuss.

So team orders are only bad if it's for front running positions? We should only be out raged of the conduct of the front running cars, and let the teams at the back have free reign on what they do? Does that apply to only legal (but immoral) situations like Red Bulls, or are they allowed to bend the rules too? Is it also acceptable that McLaren gave this exact same order to the drivers, whilst they were battling for 1 position higher than Red Bull, during a time when team orders were technically outlawed? Isn't that worse because it's a more important position, and was against the sporting regulations at the time?

Webber had the chance to close the gap (for the first time this year I believe?)

Webber has had a chance to close the gap at every race this year. But of the twice he has outqualified Sebastian he hasn't even beaten him to turn 1. Should he need the teams help to beat him? Is that what is being suggested? Getting preference during the pit stops seems pretty important to me.

As Ted suggested with his question to Horner, does this mean Webber can not beat Vettel this season at all?

That's an unreasonable and loaded question, and you know it. If Webber is ahead, and Vettel is behind in the closing stages, when time is running out and moves will get more desperate, I can see the same situation arising. However the question is worded in such a way that it is really asking if they'll move Webber out of the way to help Seb.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com
Re: 2011 British GP **SPOILERS**
Date: July 11, 2011 06:28PM
Posted by: Morbid
DaveEllis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Horner claims it was the last 4 laps, so you are
> probably pushing the facts to make your point.
>
> He said 2 laps on the BBC forum iirc. I said 2
> because I thought it was 2. If he said 4 then I
> retract my comment and change it to 4.

I said I could live with it. I can, so I won't argue the point. And if I am in the wrong, it wouldn't be the first time, nor would it be the last.

> That is a fair point of Red Bull I suppose. I
> think there is still a vast difference between the
> team orders which those like Ferrari have applied
> (swapping cars) and holding station, but I see
> your point. However of the top teams, I still
> place Red Bull significantly higher in the
> morality stakes than McLaren and Ferrari, given
> Ferraris take on team orders and McLarens
> inability to not lie about everything that crops
> up, whilst we watch it on TV. But that's just my
> take.

So now we are talking, not the pure versus the tainted, but degrees of rot? I don't think so. I think it is so easy, to talk the talk as long as it is irrelevant to what you are doing, but once push comes to shove, reality sets in, and then it is damned tempting to be one doing the shoving.

And just for clarity, Williams proved in 2004 that they would rather lose their star driver, than use team orders. This where the real racers are. They are the pure bloods, and they don't need to plaster it into everybody's face to make sure they sell more cans of goo.

Awesome link chet (Y)

[www.jamesallenonf1.com]



It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2011 06:33PM by Morbid.
Re: 2011 British GP **SPOILERS**
Date: July 11, 2011 06:33PM
Posted by: DaveEllis
I said I could live with it. I can, so I won't argue the point. And if I am in the wrong, it wouldn't be the first time, nor would it be the last.

Oh I know, I wasn't meaning to argue, more saying that if he said 4 then I'm wrong. :P I only said 2 because I actually thought that. But knowing my hearing he could have said 22 and I'd have been none the wiser. :P

Williams are in support of team orders:

[news.bbc.co.uk]

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com
Re: 2011 British GP **SPOILERS**
Date: July 11, 2011 06:43PM
Posted by: Morbid
DaveEllis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Williams are in support of team orders:
>
> [news.bbc.co.uk]
> _one/8987717.stm

That is really stretching it. Frank sums up their position:

Quote
Frank Williams
We supported, not necessarily Ferrari's particular move, but the principle of team orders being permitted. We are no friends of Ferrari, we just thought a total ban on team orders is not necessary.

That does not mean, they are going to use team orders. That just means that they don't think they should be illegal. The closest thing you will get from this article, is Patrick Head stating when they would consider it:

Quote

It's not often, it's most rare, you have two drivers of equal performance in the same team, but we have paid a heavy price, as we found out with Mansell-Piquet [in 1986]. It cost us.

Looking at the standings in the Championship, I don't think it is a fair comparison. Webber is way behind Vettel. 1986 had Piquet and Mansell going neck to neck with Prost as a clear challenger. How is that even close to the current championship?

I also think this article is very descriptive of the sort of inter driver fighting Williams are willing to accept, rather than use team orders:

[www.f1network.net]

Quote

Juan Pablo would use several examples of Ralf's driving to make his point. At the United States Grand Prix Ralf would challenge Juan Pablo's late braking move which would see him spin and hit the back of the Colombians FW24. Juan Pablo believes that this incident cost the team a podium finish.

Quote

Montoya also discussed the use of team orders. He felt that the WilliamsF1 team does little to help its own cause by sticking to its stance against team orders. It has always been the case that WilliamsF1 prefer to see their drivers race and will only use team orders if their is no alternative.



It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2011 06:54PM by Morbid.
Re: 2011 British GP **SPOILERS**
Date: July 11, 2011 06:58PM
Posted by: chet
DaveEllis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So team orders are only bad if it's for front
> running positions? We should only be out raged of
> the conduct of the front running cars, and let the
> teams at the back have free reign on what they do?
> Does that apply to only legal (but immoral)
> situations like Red Bulls, or are they allowed to
> bend the rules too?

Team orders are bad either way but worse if they contribute to the outcome of the championship or a race when both drivers involved can win either one.

> Is it also acceptable that
> McLaren gave this exact same order to the drivers,
> whilst they were battling for 1 position higher
> than Red Bull, during a time when team orders were
> technically outlawed? Isn't that worse because
> it's a more important position, and was against
> the sporting regulations at the time?

Turkey was interesting. As I said if the cars were critical on fuel then the requests from the pits were reasonable. If the cars were not critical and it was a coded message not to race thne that is disapointing. Jenson obviously did not understand because he went for the lead. Thing is, we do not know the situation on fuel do we? All we know is that Jenson went for the lead, lost and left it at that. Aside from Brazil 2010 Mclaren have been fair with their drivers. Brazil being the race where Lewis was short pitted to counter Button's pace.

> Webber has had a chance to close the gap at every
> race this year. But of the twice he has
> outqualified Sebastian he hasn't even beaten him
> to turn 1. Should he need the teams help to beat
> him? Is that what is being suggested? Getting
> preference during the pit stops seems pretty
> important to me.

He should not need the teams help no, but nor should the team discourage racing when there is two whole laps left. Webber has been given the chance to win/beat Vettel yes but only in this instance has he been denied. For the sole reason of Horner not trusting his drivers. He has been given preferential pit treatment against Sebastian so he can race the guys around him. Sebastian has been so quick in races that a lap longer out would not have cost him the lead. Whereas pitting Webber might have gained RBR places. You'd make the same decision. Maintain the lead, and gain places with the other driver rather than increase lead and lose positions with the other driver. Simples.

>
> That's an unreasonable and loaded question, and
> you know it. If Webber is ahead, and Vettel is
> behind in the closing stages, when time is running
> out and moves will get more desperate, I can see
> the same situation arising. However the question
> is worded in such a way that it is really asking
> if they'll move Webber out of the way to help Seb.

I believe the same. If Webber was ahead and Vettel behind it would no different, but again Horner has no right to stop a race before the flag and that is the issue.

If both drivers can win the title, all I want to see is them given a fair fight for all of the available laps. Horner tried to deny us of that thankfully Webber is awesome. If Horner is scared of losing points due to racing then he is really in the wrong sport. It's that simple. If he can not trust his drivers to race fairly then he should get new drivers or change his position within the team. He is in an influential position where employee trust is crucial. If I did not trust someone under me, then I would get rid of him. I just find it impossible to accept Horners claims of the battle ending in the wall. That is the issue.






"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL
Re: 2011 British GP **SPOILERS**
Date: July 11, 2011 07:21PM
Posted by: truecrysis
Having just watched the race ive decided that some of my previous opinions my well have changed :D
personally i think we pretty much need to get rid of the stewards and their overprotective decisions, giving schumacher a penalty when he quite clearly just lost grip on a wet track and it was an accident is silly, this pretty much extends to the hamilton incidents. Penalties arent always needed, let the drivers have it out like coulthard and schumacher, let them have rivalries so they actually fight to overtake and not have gentlemens agreements to not touch, like at the start of every single race so far this season...

Red bull: Team orders is always going to recieve hate, and i am part of the group of people that am not impressed by it, let race drivers race, thats what they are there for. If needs be make it 1 driver teams like formula renault or something, then they would sure as hell compete.

Button: Oh dear...

Hamilton/massa: see above for point on racing incidents, but to be fair it was poor strategy and a not great last corner that lost him 4th, not the collision

Ok now go back to your debate :)


Highest position: 2nd - Belgian GP, British GP S8

Highest position: 1st x2 - British GP S1, Austrian GP S2
Re: 2011 British GP **SPOILERS**
Date: July 11, 2011 08:15PM
Posted by: DaveEllis
Turkey was interesting. As I said if the cars were critical on fuel then the requests from the pits were reasonable. If the cars were not critical and it was a coded message not to race thne that is disapointing. Jenson obviously did not understand because he went for the lead. Thing is, we do not know the situation on fuel do we? All we know is that Jenson went for the lead, lost and left it at that.

So are you saying team orders are OK if one driver isn't good enough at saving fuel? So would Webber being told to back off for Seb to save fuel be OK because that's what McLaren did?

Webber has been given the chance to win/beat Vettel yes but only in this instance has he been denied. For the sole reason of Horner not trusting his drivers.

And that's an unreasonable stance? The last time they let the drivers battle wheel to wheel, they ended up with nothing. Granted you could agree with Morbids stance that RBR have said team orders are bad, therefore they shouldn't be using them (and I mostly do agree with that), however your stance seems to be based on the drivers ability, which is an odd stance to take (but perhaps caused by the inability to take a full stance against team orders because you'd look hypocritical in your support of McLarens orders). Especially since of all the teams, Red Bull have the most reason to play it safe when it comes to there drivers racing each other.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com
Re: 2011 British GP **SPOILERS**
Date: July 11, 2011 08:29PM
Posted by: mitadumapaga
i think webber and vettel dont get teh same treatment in the team (from technological point of view)
and i think the same about massa and alonso as well.

i cant give you arguments, it is just impossible for me that webber was soo of the pace in the beggining of the season and then all of a sudden when vettel has 77 points lead, webber starts performing just like he used to the last season. both were virtually neck in neck the whole season long and then in abu dhabi just like that, when red bull had the constr. tittle secured, webber is more than .5 behind vettel. This season the same, he is constantly very slow just because of some reason, and all of asudden he finds the pace to challenge vettel both in qualy and in the race. and if you say this is because silverstone is webbers favourite track because he won here last year, well he won in monaco and spain too in 2010, but was miiiles behind vettel this year. Now this is the kind of team influence i DONT want to see.
Re: 2011 British GP **SPOILERS**
Date: July 11, 2011 08:50PM
Posted by: marcl
Williams are a fine team to talk after the stunts they pulled in 1993 lol. How many times did Hill let Prost by? How many times did he not try and pass him? They were no better than Ferrari. Williams were one of the worst teams for it and I did not know about team orders tbh until 1993 I just remember being really fed up with it in Spain, Canada and France. A lot of that was Prost's contract but what Ferrari done was no worse than them.
Re: 2011 British GP **SPOILERS**
Date: July 11, 2011 10:20PM
Posted by: Morbid
I wasn't aware of the 1993 situation. Most likely because I didn't have a TV since I was homeless, destitute and underage. I was kind of busy, and obviously never caught up. Nevertheless, what do you prefer? Doing something 18 years ago, and then saying something different later, OR, promising something 9 months back and doing a complete flip-flop in the present? I know where I stand.



It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.
Re: 2011 British GP **SPOILERS**
Date: July 11, 2011 11:53PM
Posted by: EC83
DaveEllis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When Webber n00bed up in traffic and drove into
> the back of Lewis during a battle. All of the
> examples I gave were situations where Red Bull
> drivers screwed up in traffic. Something that
> everybody loves to make a massive deal out of.
> Then when Horner plays it safe, not to have an
> accident, suddenly they are all perfect and don't
> have accidents. So it's damned if you do and
> damned if you don't. You could say you've praised
> Vettel this year, but you only did when he passed
> 5 cars in a lap and gave you no choice. You spent
> the rest of the year saying he can't race. Now
> Horner tells them to calm down and don't have a
> chance for a crash, and suddenly he's the bad guy.
> What?

The exact point I was trying to make, only worded much more nicely. +1

And yeah, Williams were notable for their use of team orders in the early 90s - worst in 1993, but also in '92, the best example being Magny Cours. It was what first made me aware of how team orders worked in F1.



Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Maintainer: mortal, stephan | Design: stephan, Lo2k | Moderatoren: mortal, Vader, stephan | Downloads: Lo2k | Forum-Archiv | Forum Rules | Policy