Red Bull’s Helmut Marko says “Webber should have let Vettel pass” (Video)

Marko (right) believes Webber should have moved over for Vettel

Marko (right) believes Webber should have moved over for Vettel

Red Bull motorsport consultant Helmut Marko has reiterated his belief that Mark Webber was solely to blame for his collision with Sebastian Vettel which put both cars out of the lead of the Turkish Grand Prix.

Speaking to Speed TV Marko said:

Mark for whatever reason was slower. He was getting lap by lap slower, and Vettel was getting faster and was coming under enormous pressure from Hamilton. So if he would have stayed behind Mark, he would have been overtaken. So he had to do something. And Mark knew that he was slower, so he should have let him past.
Helmut Marko

Update: Red Bull have put out a video in which Mark Webber discusses the crash. See below.

Marko added that Vettel, who now trails Webber by 15 points in the drivers’ championship, had been “unlucky” not to score again:

It?s unbelievable how unlucky Vettel is. He showed so much speed, and if you have all these incidents it?s unbelievable how strong his morale and commitment still is. To make points in this new points system is the most important thing. And now Vettel has two zeroes.
Helmut Marko

Red Bull have come under criticism for their support of Vettel in the immediate aftermath of the crash. Team boss Christian Horner also said Webber should not have forced Vettel onto the dirty part of the track.

Most people outside the team appear to blame Vettel for the collision – including 74% in a poll of over 4,000 fans conducted by F1 Fanatic.

Webber discusses the collision rather cagily in this video for Red Bull. He said:

Unfortunately, Sebastien tried a move. For both of us, in the end, it didn’t work out for both of us and we made contact. And it’s a real shame for the team, obviously, because we lost a good opportunity to win the race. One of us could have won it and in the end we only got one third place.
Mark Webber

Vettel and Webber collide

Image (C) Red Bull/Getty images

Advert | Go Ad-free

372 comments on Red Bull’s Helmut Marko says “Webber should have let Vettel pass” (Video)

  1. Prisoner Monkeys said on 1st June 2010, 9:54

    I think everyone needs to take a minute here. Assuming Vettel was to blame for the accident, how exactly did the world fall apart? He caused the accident, and retired. Webber recovered and took third, which – given his speed relative to the McLarens – was about as much as he could hope for. How exactly has “justice” (or whatever you want to call it) been delivered unfaialy?

    • PM, this isn’t about the final race result, and how Webber came out on top with the points…

      It’s completely 100% about RBR managements handling of the situation.

      • Prisoner Monkeys said on 1st June 2010, 10:14

        Just because they disagee with you means they’re automaticlly in the wrong?

        • MouseNightshirt said on 1st June 2010, 10:29

          They disagree with the general consensus, the evidence available to the fans (which may be very different to the evidence the team has, but is irrelevant because they haven’t shared that), and thus people are questioning their reasons for marking Mark for crucifixion.

          • As MouseNightshirt says

          • Prisoner Monkeys said on 1st June 2010, 10:58

            They disagree with the general consensus

            Where is it written that they have to? The “general consensus” was estabilished within thirty seconds of the accident – Red Bull never had a chance to explain themselves, and so anything they say will always be taken the wrong way.

            the evidence available to the fans (which may be very different to the evidence the team has, but is irrelevant because they haven’t shared that)
            And where is it written that they are obligated to share their evidence?

          • PM

            Where does it say we should “shut up and be quiet” if we feel strongly about a situation?

          • TomD11 said on 1st June 2010, 11:15

            @PM: How have Red Bull not had a chance to explain themselves? And if they haven’t yet been able to come to a full concluson, why go making statements that put Mark Webber at fault. From the evidence available it certainly appears Vettels fault, so Red Bull have two options after making these sort of statements: provide evidence as to why it was Webber’s fault or keep quiet and receive all the bad PR coming their way.

          • MouseNightshirt said on 1st June 2010, 14:33

            Mr Monkeys:

            1: It isn’t written they have to agree with it, they just don’t, therefore it’s being questioned.

            2: I’ve not said they should share it at all. What I’m saying is that it’s irrelevant to the fans _unless_ they decide to share it, at which point we’d be able to take it into consideration.

        • TommyC said on 1st June 2010, 10:59

          well it’s very much like disciplining a child as a parent. if your child does something wrong, you make it clear to them that it’s unacceptable. you don’t pat them on the back and tell them it’s ok and that it was the other person’s fault. vettel needs to learn to take responsibility and stand on his own. how would you feel if you were mark? taken out of the lead by your team mate and then blamed for it. how could he not get a sense of bias?
          at least he’s shown the maturity to handle the situaion professionally

        • Maciek said on 1st June 2010, 12:15

          PM – do you seriously belive that RedBull didn’t have an opportunity to explain themselves? I don’t think people are over-reacting at all. There’s nothing wrong with a team having a no.1 whom they favour, implicitly or implicitly – but what RedBull are doing here is basically mud-slinging at Webber in an attempt to take the blame for the accident off Vettel. And that’s a pretty crappy thing to do.

        • PM, try & take Mark Webber and your dislike of him (forgive me, but it doth have shades of tall poppy syndrome about it) out of the equation. Pretend it was another driver & team. Then after having done that, tell me if you still think ‘the team’ are justified with their carry on?

    • Simon said on 1st June 2010, 10:09

      It is the revelation of clear bias towards Vettel and the ramifications that may have for the rest of the year, not the crash itself. How is that difficult to understand??

    • The Nude Wizard said on 1st June 2010, 10:21

      hahaha

      “given his speed relative to the McLarens – was about as much as he could hope for.”

      Just gotta have a dig at Webber while you’re at it. He was leading the race, made it thought the pit stops. Being setup by your team and made to turn down your engine and passed in lieu of team orders which are illegal is one thing, but Webber was being given curry by Hamilton for a long time and as Webber said, he’d have never got past without me making a mistake and he’d know a little bit more than you I reckon ;)

      Marko said Seb needed to get past or he would be taken by Hamilton, his gap was steady the 7 laps previous to his overtake.

      An outright lie

      Horner said Vettel had 1 more litre of fuel than Webber at that point so could be on the high revs longer, I think i read here some place it takes about 3 litres per lap.. On top of that lap times would indicate Webber was forced to turn down his engine a couple of laps earlier, not one..

      Are you starting to get how what they say and the reality arent quite matching up here?

      That’s why people are a little annoyed, not just because Vettels a mong and stuck his car into his team mate.

      • TommyC said on 1st June 2010, 11:02

        “Marko said Seb needed to get past or he would be taken by Hamilton, his gap was steady the 7 laps previous to his overtake.”

        well if webber can hold of hamilton for 30 odd laps but vettel can’t take 7 laps, this must be red bull’s way of admitting webber is simply a better driver than vettel.

    • Michael said on 1st June 2010, 11:52

      PM, it is always fun playing devil’s advocate but generally I live by Occam’s Razor. In this case the simplest fact is that Vettel turned in to Webber, Vettel was allowed to pit before Webber (even though the team is supposed to allow the leader the right to pit first), Vettel started quali in behind Webber (even though it was Webber’s turn, look at the post-quali press conference) and management is blaming Webber. Vettel also had extra opportunity to drive with new parts this weekend over Webber before they were added to his car.

      The world didn’t fall apart but the actions of Vettel cost the team points, Webber points and forced Vettel to retire. To imply it wasn’t his fault if he went over a bump and the car jumped right on the dirty line is plausible, not stating that and blaming Webber simply isn’t! The team is clearly favouring a driver over the other even though it has constantly stated it wouldn’t at this stage and they were free to race each other. It isn’t racing if one has to move out of the way of the other

    • BasCB said on 1st June 2010, 14:11

      That is a great relieve, their plot with team orders back fired making it even harder for them to do it in the future with Mark ahead.

      McLaren drivers must be happy the fastest cars are fighting it out like this. Not to mention Alonso, who is still within reach because of all opportunities lost.
      Still a PR blunder, they should have made Vettel apologize for the way he acted after getting out of the car and admit he did lose the move, not Mark.

    • Brake Bias said on 2nd June 2010, 3:15

      PM, why was Webber able to reel off a succession of fastest laps after the accident and still finish the race if he was meant to be on fuel conserve as per the instruction from the pit lane? To me, this part of the saga needs to be investigated. Even in the laps leading up to Vettels idiotic move, both were comfortably ahead of the McLarens & had the reserve speed to counter any move by the McLarens ie turn the wick up again.

      What most people are aggrieved about is the line taken by the RBR management in their “protect vettel at all costs attitude” and also vettels immature hand signals (twice) indicating Webber was the driver at fault.

      But then again, you have previously stated that you are not a fan of Webber. I think you are suffering from the all to common Australian affliction of “tall poppy syndrome”

      • MarkC said on 2nd June 2010, 8:07

        Did Webber take on new tyres as well as a fresh nose? – I cannot fathom why the team wouldn’t do that during a pitstop for a new nose, in any event if he and they did add fresh tyres, that would certainly explain faster laptimes.

        • The Nude Wizard said on 2nd June 2010, 8:59

          Don’t you mean a new nose and fresh tyres? haha but yes, he did and you’re right it does explain the faster lap times.

        • Brake Bias said on 3rd June 2010, 6:18

          @ MarkC, Webber did indeed take on new tyres – but why before the accident was he told to tune down the engine to conserve fuel when afterwards he was told to turn it up & push hard at the McLarens. Very inconsistent instructions to the driver here. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I can’t equate how new tyres equals turning the motor up.

  2. pgj said on 1st June 2010, 9:56

    Seb screwed a 1-2 for the team. Some team player.

    Give a place away, what a load of rubbish. Mark has already shown this season that he will give up a place to preserve his car. Seb tried it on and should be called for what he is, a hot-head through a red mist. Telling Seb that he was right will only create more problems further down the line.

  3. Kate said on 1st June 2010, 9:57

    RBR are really shooting themselves in the foot with this. Screencaps have clearly shown that Vettel chose to go down that side, he wasn’t “forced” at all. Webber left room, if he had moved over more he would have been conceeding the place without any fight, and as Brundle pointed out, he can’t do that if he wants to fight for the title. So Vettel is allowed to overtake, but Webber isn’t allowed to defend? Do they wonder why they’re now being accused of bias?

    And none of what Marko says changes the fact that his “unlucky” protege was the one who caused the crash. He could be leading the championship now if he hadn’t swerved right, so my heart doesn’t exactly bleed for him.

    The laptime charts really don’t back up that Vettel was under pressure of Lewis, and as for “Mark for whatever reason was slower. He was getting lap by lap slower”…um, would that have anything to do with a turned down engine that he’s conveniently not mentioned? They seem to have problems getting their story straight over that one…

  4. “Mark for whatever reason was slower.”

    Read… we told him to turn his engine down, while simultaneously telling Vettel to turn his up.

    “And Mark knew that he was slower, so he should have let him past.”

    Read… team manipulating the results in favour of their protegy.

    “Team boss Christian Horner also said Webber should not have forced Vettel onto the dirty part of the track.”

    Actually, Christian, Mark did *not* force Vettel onto the dirty side of the track… Mark, gave your lovely Sebastian a choice, and he *chose* the dirty inside line rather than the clean outside line that Button used to pass Hamilton. Once there, Mark was very professional and supplied him enough room.

    • Simon said on 1st June 2010, 10:12

      100% agree F1droid. Well summed up!

    • TommyC said on 1st June 2010, 11:07

      button also passed schumacher on the outside there early in the race, very good point. vettel made 2 wrong decisions. the line and then the right turn

    • Rob Roy said on 1st June 2010, 11:29

      well put, Team orders are no longer allowed since an infamous race in Austria (say no more). Mark Webber knows this and he’s probably smart enough to play the political game. They can say whatever they like but they can’t say that they told Mark to let Seb past.

      In that case Mark already knows who’s the team favourite, could that be the motivation behind his great form of late?

  5. Todfod said on 1st June 2010, 10:08

    This clearly shows the inexperience of the Red Bull Management.

    Helmut Marko was a failure as an F1 driver, and has never done anything substantial in F1, other than running a driver training program ,to be connected with a top tier F1 racing team.

    Christian Horner stepped up from managing GP2 teams to Red Bull, and this is his first time managing a team that is the favourite to win the title in F1. Other than having that stupid smug smile on his face, Christian clearly doesn’t have anything that a top team manager should have.

    Clearly these two morons have no idea on how to handle the press at the highest level of motorsport. These statements should never have been made public, and all the issues should have been thrashed out before the media was involved.

    However, I think Mark should not give a crap about what they have to say about him, and just race his heart out to get the title this year. I think it will be a good idea for Mark to look at other teams such as Ferrari, etc.

    • MouseNightshirt said on 1st June 2010, 10:38

      “Christian clearly doesn’t have anything that a top team manager should have.”

      As much as I’m against the smearing of Webber by Red Bull, that point is simply not true. Red Bull is where it is today because of Christian managing to get a hold of Newey and build an efficient, driven team.

      What he doesn’t have experience of yet is being manager of a front running F1 team undergoing scrutiny. Last year, all the attention was on Brawn, now this year the limelight is on him, he can’t deal with it.

      • James_mc said on 1st June 2010, 11:32

        I actually think that Horner is doing a great job. I also don’t think that Horner is biased towards either driver.

        I believe that the root cause of the perceived injustices in the RBR team stem from the aforementioned Marko. He’s been in charge of a lot of Mateschitz’s money for the young driver programme. I’m sure Mr Mateschitz is more than happy to put money into the team, but a driver programme is a whole different kettle of fish. Therefore if Marko’s grand plan and star pupil is not finishing as highly as an older driver who came with a batch of Renault engines, he is going to be going for Marko’s head (and Horner and any other high-heid-yin who are unlucky enough to be caught in the firing line).

        As I’ve said previously, Horner and Webber are in cahoots for their MW-Arden GP3 team, so I think that Horner is playing the “Severus Snape” in the RBR garage to Marko’s Voldemort, with Webber Harry Potter and Sebastian Vettel rapidly becoming Draco Malfoy.

    • BasCB said on 1st June 2010, 14:15

      Actually, i get the feeling Horner is doing what he can.
      In the firs interview he was covering up nice, saying the cars “were running the same as far as he was aware”.

      After hearing from Marko (and the telephone call from big Dieter) he changed that to a stance with more emphasis on Mark being to blame.
      The team bosses are 100% behind Vettel winning it, but Horner knows he needs Mark as well to do it.
      what a mess and blundering, this team still has a lot to learn.

    • Tim said on 1st June 2010, 15:04

      “Helmut Marko was a failure as an F1 driver”

      Er, do you know why Helmet Marko’s F1 career never came to anything? Because a stone flipped up by Emerson Fittipaldi’s Lotus at the 1972 French GP pierced Marko’s visor and hit him in the eye, partially blinding him. That kind of thing tends to hamper a career as a racing driver.

      Just weeks before his accident, Marko set the all time lap record at the Targa Florio and won Le Mans the previous year. He wasn’t bad driver by any measure – 10 GP starts in a third BRM wasn’t exactly a fair crack at the whip.

      • Jared404 said on 2nd June 2010, 6:03

        Now we see that Marko and the Red Bull sponsors are just a one eyed Vettel fans.

        I don’t know what all the fuss is – Webber let Vettel through, and refused to be intimidated by some aggressive driving.

  6. Big-El said on 1st June 2010, 10:09

    I reckon that if the situation was reversed, Webber would’ve copped an earfull, and he would’ve owned up to it like a man and apologised directly.

    In James Allen’s article, he wrote that Hamilton was no closer than 1.2 sec to Vettel over the last 7 laps before the incident. Over this time Webber was told to turn the engine down…
    You can also see in the replay of the incident Horner’s saying “MOVE”.
    Sounds to me like they wanted to take the opportunity to ‘give’ the win to Seb.

    • TommyC said on 1st June 2010, 11:12

      i really want to ask vettel what he would have done if he was in webber’s shoes (well, car). i find it incredibly hard to believe he’d have just opened the door to let him through. then again, webber wouldn’t be stupid enough to run one up the inside of his team mate knowing full well the gap was going to close at the apex of the corner.

  7. PJA said on 1st June 2010, 10:16

    I think it is bad management to criticize either driver in public like this, yes give them a dressing down in private but they have handled it badly.

    Most people are blaming Vettel for the incident, maybe Red Bull have some information they are not making public which shows that Webber was to blame, but I think it is a case of Red Bull favouring Vettel.

    • MouseNightshirt said on 1st June 2010, 10:40

      I agree that Red Bull may be holding back some info, but none of it would exonerate Vettel anyway.

      Even if you were to whip out a contract saying “Mark is obliged to give way for Seb”, it doesn’t change the fact Vettel turned into Mark.

  8. These comments from Red Bull management are dissapointing. Helmut Marko’s comments are in my opinion are the most deranged. I think Horner is just saying what he’s been told to say.

    Since when should a team mate sacrifice the lead to protect the guy in second place from slipping back to third place? Especially when both drivers are equal on points going into the race. If anything Vettel should have been doing his best to defend against Hamilton giving the team the best possible chance of scoring another win. Instead it seems management decided that Mark should drop back to second, defend against Hamilton and hand Vettel the win. What a joke. If that’s the case their plan backfired big time.

    • TommyC said on 1st June 2010, 11:14

      i completely agree. why should mark be the rear gunner when he’s leading the championshop?
      again, i wonder what would have happened if it was the other way around

  9. Some time ago Kovalainen pulled over to let his faster teammate Hamilton by. We discussed it, but I can’t find the thread, nor even remember the race. (Anyone?)

    I recall few, if any, people at that time saying that Kovalainen should have held his position. Instead he was applauded for his team spirit. (It would also be interesting to see what McLaren said about it at the time.) Why is it so different now? Just because Heikki pulled over and Mark didn’t?

    I know there are a lot of Hamilton and McLaren fans here, but don’t get carried away with partisanship.

    For the record, though, I also think Vettel was wrong in this case.

    • Simon said on 1st June 2010, 10:36

      Kovalainen was a slave to hamilton and new that from the outset. Webber has battled away for years, finally gets a car capable of winning the championship, is leading the championship and they treat him like a dill. thats the difference. It is not about the crash at all. It’s about the managements ill timed bias.

      • BasCB said on 1st June 2010, 14:18

        And the RBR team here repeatedly stated they are treating both drivers equal.

        McLaren was not even asked to do that with Heikki, as he was clearly behind Lewis.

    • Kate said on 1st June 2010, 10:38

      I’m pretty sure they weren’t equally leading the WDC though. And was it this early in the season? Probably not, though I confess that I don’t remember what precise race this happened.

    • I don’t recall this, but lets assume the context is different. Maybe, and very likely, Heikki was not equal on points with Hamilton at the top of the table, in fact I would imagine Heikki was not even looking at any chance of taking the championship that year… I also doubt they were swapping places to give Lewis the win over Heikki.

      If the situation was identical to the RBR farce, and Heikki was leading Hamilton for a McLaren 1-2 with them both leading the championship, and this situation was manufactured by the McLaren team… then I think the resulting Public Opinion would also match what we have here.

    • MouseNightshirt said on 1st June 2010, 10:43

      One of the differences is that Lewis didn’t cut across and wipe out the pair of them.

      On a side note, it’s brilliant to see Heikki so happy this year. Those years at McLaren really must have been depressing.

      • graigchq said on 1st June 2010, 13:06

        agreed… heikki may not be able to match 100% of hamilton’s skill, but he definitely deserves to be in F1.. and the Lotus team is a good place for him, and in turn he is now a no.1 driver like i’m guessing all F1 drivers wish to be.

    • TommyC said on 1st June 2010, 11:16

      remember fuel loads though. hamilton may have had more potential speed before a pit stop. makes it really hard to compare. those situations happened all the time with varying strategies.

    • Here we go. 2008 German Grand Prix. (I wasted way too much time looking for this.)

      http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2008/07/20/lewis-hamilton-wins-despite-strategy-blunder-2008-german-gp-review/

      Check out the comments.

    • stubie said on 1st June 2010, 11:33

      If memory serves me, I believe it was Hockenheim 2008. I think in that race LH had a 1.2 or 1.5 second lap-time advantage over HK and was chasing the field (Piquet & Massa) down after the botched pit-stop call during the safety car. It kinda looked like Massa and Piquet “moved aside” to let LH pass as well!

    • OEL said on 1st June 2010, 12:43

      It was in Hockenheim 2008. Hamilton had dominated the race, but didn’t make his pitstop when the safety car came out, as everyone else did. Therefore he had to pit later and lost a lot of positions and were behind Kovalainen. Heikki didn’t have the pace and Lewis was fighting for the championship, so Lewis was let passed, and then he passed Felipe and Nelsinho to win.

    • Patrickl said on 1st June 2010, 16:24

      Hamilton was a second a lap faster and he overtook Kovalainen hardly any easier than he breezed past Massa and later Piquet jr.

      The difference is that Hamilton is actually able to overtake cars and Vettel is not.

  10. Whitty 123 said on 1st June 2010, 10:50

    I think the reason this is so bad, is the fact that it is so clear that high up management favour Vettel. I don’t think any other team would acknowledge thier preference to either driver. Even Ferrari who clearly favoured Schumacher didn’t actually admit it. I really see this turning quite ugly in the next few races if Webber continues to beat Vettel. What ever happened to teams being impartial, all drivers treated equally?

    • TommyC said on 1st June 2010, 11:20

      is it just me or is this 2007 all over again? a debutant driver ferrari wins the first round, then goes wandering for a bit. meanwhile the fastest team’s drivers take points from each other and escalate tensions. then come europe phase 2, ferrari dominates….fastest team falls to pieces and pipped in the final round.
      WDC for alonso by 1 point in abu dhabi.

      • David BR said on 1st June 2010, 13:40

        very possible Tommy, except Hamilton by 1 point in Abu Dhabi! think there’s absolutely no way Ferrari can win this championship now, they’ll be lucky to keep ahead of Renault.

  11. Helmut’s reasoning is contradictory.

    1) He says that the most important thing for the Red Bull team as a whole was to secure a 1-2 result.
    2) He says that at the time of the incident, Vettel was going faster than Webber.
    3) He says that had Webber not let Vettel through, Vettel would have been passed by Hamilton.

    But if Webber was going slower than Vettel, he would surely have been even more vulnerable to attack by Hamilton. So Red Bull would have been more likely to secure their 1-2 finish by instructing Vettel to hold station and protect Webber from Hamilton.

    • steph said on 1st June 2010, 11:35

      I was thinking along those lines too. Surely Hamilton would have had a crack at picking off Webber. The gap with Hamilton and Seb was pretty constant as it was shown on the F1 forum so if Seb had got held up the situation may have became more urgent but at that moment it wasn’t. Unless they think Seb just can’t defend :P

    • Rob Roy said on 1st June 2010, 11:47

      yup

      it stinks

    • BasCB said on 1st June 2010, 14:22

      Exactly on the point! If Lewis would really have been such a threath, they should have had the faster car as rear guard.

      If not, this is just b******t, covering a team order blunder.

    • Patrickl said on 1st June 2010, 16:26

      The thing is though, Marko lied that Webber was going slower and that Hamilton was putting more and mroe pressure on Vettel.

      Hamilton and Webber were driving the same laptimes for about 9 laps. The gap between them was virtually a constant.

      Indeed Vettel was lapping 3 tenths a lap faster all of a sudden. He closed 8 tenths on Vettel in those few laps. he also enlarged his gap to Hamilton by the same amount.

      So all Marko’s scenario’s simply fall apart because his whole premise is a lie.

  12. antonyob said on 1st June 2010, 11:11

    The shortest suicide note in history from Dr Helmut. Too much vodka in his redbull perhaps. Just like their ghastly drink the whole thing leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. Theyve blown championships already through poor decision making despite having the fastest car but this time they’re going to look foolish and thats not good brand building. Horner may be sitting in a corner by next season.

  13. carl said on 1st June 2010, 11:19

    i would have thought that when one driver was ahead of another driver from the same team that room would be given….that’s all that is being asked of from management…after all they run the team.

    • Rob Roy said on 1st June 2010, 11:49

      “Ahead”

      for Seb’s back wheel to hit Mark’s front wheel he couldn’t be that far in front.

      • Seb’s back wheel actually first struck Marks car in the sidepod and then spun round into the front wheel.

        So he was even less “ahead” than he thought.

        • Brake Bias said on 2nd June 2010, 3:39

          yes, there seems to be intersting interpretations of what “being ahead” actually means.

          First point of contact of vettels car On Webber was on the side pod & not the front wing, If it had of been the front wing first, then yes a lot of the criticism aimed at Webber for not yeilding would be justified. To me, vettel had not passed Webber, but still beside him. vettels mistake in my opinion

  14. John H said on 1st June 2010, 11:23

    Teams lose trust when they say to the public on the one hand “we give equal opportunities to both drivers” and “we allow them to race,” and then do what appears to be the exact opposite.

    That’s why there is such strong reaction here PM. People don’t like to be taken as fools and the RBR management, whether rightly or wrongly, ‘appear’ to be doing just that.

  15. James Brickles said on 1st June 2010, 11:24

    Webber was on the verge of extending his contract for Red Bull before the Turkish Grand Prix. I wouldn’t bet against Webber leaving Red Bull at the end of the year now. Comments that hint favouritism towards Vettel from within his own team are bound to unsettle the Aussie and affect his concentration.

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.