Button: Vettel’s move “will hurt him in the long run”

F1 Fanatic round-up

Jenson Button, McLaren, Melbourne, 2013In the round-up: Jenson Button says he is “surprised” by Sebastian Vettel’s defiance of team orders and said it will cause problems for him in future.


Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.

Seb will pay for selfishness (The Sun)

“I think that will hurt him in the long run. I am surprised he did that. I find team orders difficult but to disregard a team order is something different.”

Lauda questions Brawn’s team orders (ESPN)

“From a sporting perspective, that was wrong. They should have let [Rosberg] go. We need to talk to Ross, if this is the strategy to be used from now on.”

Get a grip: Sebastian Vettel and Mark Webber have shaken hands and moved on insist Red Bull (Daily Mirror)

Helmut Marko: “In the debrief afterwards there was the relevant discussions about the race and then there was a hand-shake between the two drivers.”v

Red Bull point to team mates’ record (BBC)

“‘We are two races into the current season and it’s far too early to be talking about 2014,’ the team said.”

Fernando Alonso: ??I think we could really fight for a win?? (Adam Cooper’s F1 Blog)

“In the back straight the front wing dropped and we started to see some sparks from the floor and more damage, and at that point we were five seconds before the pit entry and we didn?t make it, and then on the next straight the wing fall and it was underneath the car and it was not possible to turn.”

Hamilton: Mercedes now second best (Autosport)

“We are the second best team. To be that close – I was competing with the Red Bulls at some stages in the race ?ǣ and to be in that position is a great feeling.”

New York motor show: Jaguar race return “obligatory but not imminent” (Autocar)

“Jaguar boss Adrian Hallmark has described the return of the brand to racing as ‘obligatory but not imminent’.”

F1?s pit crews feeling the pressure (Go Car)

“With McLaren targeting a 2 second pit stop this season, the pressure is on for all of the pit crews to achieve astonishing results, and Force India paid a high price in trying.”

History explains the present and the future (Professor Mark Jenkins’ F1 Blog)

“What we have is a very different history that marks Red Bull Racing ultimately as a team constructed for Red Bull drivers to show their talent, not, like Ferrari, McLaren or Williams for the building of racing cars, and like most aspects of an organisation?s history, it is both a strength and a weakness.”

Bringing to order (Sky)

Martin Brundle: “One big question remained, why didn’t the team simply ask him to drop back behind Webber again? I asked Christian Horner this on the way home, and his answer was that ‘we had asked him to hold position and maintain a gap for three laps before he overtook, so there was little point in asking him to reverse the move’.”


Comment of the day

Yesterday’s poll indicated a significant group of people believe Red Bull were correct to apply team orders in Malaysia but Mercedes weren’t. Jon Sandor has a trenchant view on why that might be:

A lot of the people saying “Yes” to Red Bull and “No” for Mercedes seem to be basing their stance on the entirely fictitious belief that Webber was the victim of a “sneak attack” having “turned his engine down while Vettel did not” and in any case that he was “totally unaware that there was a race on”.

The clam that Webber was unaware that Vettel was racing him for the lead is simply nonsensical and the people making it must be among the sizeable proportion of fans who get their views of the races from live text feeds or after-the-fact news reports rather than by watching the races.

The allegation that Webber was in “fuel saving mode” while Vettel was in “race mode” is likewise bizarre. A lot of people are repeating this allegation on a lot of fan forums, but the claim is based on no hard facts. No media outlet is making this claim. Mark Webber is not making this claim. Christian Horner is not making this claim. The belief in it seems to be a form of wish?ǣfulfillment for many people. They?d like it to be true, so it must be true.
Jon Sandor (@Jonsan)

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Casanova, LazerFX, Macca and The Genuine Jim!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Ayrton Senna scored the second and final home win of his career 20 years ago today.

Alain Prost crashed out in heavy rain during the Brazilian Grand Prix and Senna easily passed the other Williams of Damon Hill to take the win.

Promoted content from around the web | Become an F1 Fanatic Supporter to hide this ad and others

Advert | Go Ad-free

157 comments on Button: Vettel’s move “will hurt him in the long run”

  1. BasCB (@bascb) said on 28th March 2013, 7:24

    A Thay race being a real proposition then?

    The route agreed includes the main Ratchadamnoen Avenue, with the track using Din So Road to the Giant Swing and Wat Suthat Temple and then down to the Grand Palace and the Navy Club, with a run close to the Chao Phraya River. The paddock and grandstands would be located principally in the Sanam Luang park. The plan will be put to the Thai cabinet in the next few weeks.

  2. Jason (@jason12) said on 28th March 2013, 8:04

    Lauda is clearly a nutcase, and is going to destroy this team.
    Lewis should go to Redbull next season, Mercedes engines are overrated.

    • David not Coulthard (@) said on 28th March 2013, 9:59

      Mercedes engines are overrated.

      I’m quite sure that the engines were not the reason that Lewis moved to Neo-Merc/Tyrrell. If it was he might as well have stayed at McLaren, not knowing the speed of the MP4-28. He probably wanted something new, and that didn’t have to involve Renault engines, or the designer that last won McLaren the WCC.

      And it’s not like Red Bull’s got a vacant seat, anyway.

  3. puneeth Bharath (@puneethvb) said on 28th March 2013, 8:06

    I am still struggling to understand why Mark Webber is getting so much sympathy from most people… I can understand why Rdbull are not so happy .. afterall vettel did not obey a clear instruction to hold station… Whether that was the right or not is something that depends upon how you look at it.. I see no problem with that, he was faster and he took the opportunity..

    Coming back to Webber.. If he thinks he was cheated or something why did not he do anything about it? If he had the pace he should’ve fought back… he could nt do that so clearly he was not faster… He could also have been more agrresive while defending.. I am sure he would’ve been if it was nt his team mate trying to pass him..
    He could nt beat vettel on track and then played victim in the podium and to the media.. That is not Aussie Grit Mark…

    • David not Coulthard (@) said on 28th March 2013, 8:35

      I am still struggling to understand why Mark Webber is getting so much sympathy from most people

      I think it’s because he said that he was told to turn the engines down, and the fact that nobody denied it, at least among those whose denial of Mark’s statement would’ve been believed had they denied Mark’s statement.

  4. BradandCoffee said on 28th March 2013, 8:25

    Did the author of the comment of the day not listen to Mark Webber on the podium talking to Marting Brundle?

    Q. start, that’s not always your strongest suit but you were in good shape at the beginning of the race.

    Mark WEBBER: Yeah the first part of the grand prix went very well for us. I think very tricky conditions for all of us on the intermediates to start with. In the end, yeah I think we got the right strategy I think early in the race with the inters, getting the crossover quite nice. Then really it was just controlling the race and getting everything in place towards the back end of the race. Obviously I had to mark Lewis off a little bit in the middle there and then after the last stop obviously the team told me the race was over, we turned the engines down and we go to the end. I want to race as well, but in the end the team made a decision, which we always say before the race is probably how it’s going to be – we look after the tyres, get the car to the end and in the end Seb made his own decisions today and will have protection and that’s the way it goes.

    Q. So you were surprised when he went past you?

    MW: Yeah, well I turned my engine down and started cruising on the tyres and the fight was off. Anyway, we know he’s a quick peddler but I was disappointed with the outcome of today’s race. In the end the team did a good job, I had some good fans here from Australia, so thanks guys. I did my best.

  5. Jason (@jason12) said on 28th March 2013, 8:47

    Yeah its so lousy, it’s strange it made comment of the day.
    ‘fuel-saving-mode’ for Webber?? Maybe he’s confusing the Mercs and the Redbulls.

  6. Hamilfan (@hamilfan) said on 28th March 2013, 8:59

    My GOD the video of the day is fantastic ………….. Prost aqua planing the hell off the track senna and a young Schumacher …..what action !!!!!!!!! I completely disagree with the COTD .. Where is the evidence ? Webber said so himself and moreover you want Horner to say it aloud himself when his team relationship is in tatters. That would mean shooting his own foot . He is surely more clever than that . Besides , if you feel there is not enough information to judge , then you should probably choose “can’t say ” in the voting

  7. If teams are going to use team orders at least they have to stop lying to their drivers. Rosberg was lied to by Ross Brawn when he was told Hamilton could go faster, he couldn`t. Rosberg was punished for taking care of his tyres and car.
    Vettel was told something that stretched the truth a bit too, and he knew it. Vettel was told in his last stint that they were marginal on tyres, that was not true and Vettel knew it. His last stint was 13 laps on new medium tyres. In his second stint he had done 17 laps on the medium tyre with a much heavier car, how could Red Bull be marginal on tyres considering this? The answer is they were not, and Vettel knew it.

    How do teams expect drivers to do what they ask of them when the drivers know that much of the information given to them is incorrect?

    Vettel probably felt robbed in the latter stages of the race. First he was brought in too early for dry tyres, and that cost him the lead. Then he was held up by Webber when ha was fast, he was told “it`s only half race”. Then he was passed by Hamilton on the undercut because he had been held up by Webber and had to pit after Webber. He fought his way back to second place and started chasing down Webber, went for the undercut and was alongside Webber when Webber came back out. And here comes the crucial part, Vettel had saved a brand new set of medium tyres for that last stint and was thus faster than everybody around him. This combined with the fact that he and Webber were side by side after the last pitstop was enough to bring out the “red mist”. Vettel was beyond control by then, instinct and will to win completely took over. the fight was allready on.

    The moral of the story is: If you are going to use team orders you have to have a number 1 driver and a number 2 driver. The drivers that in their heart truly consider themselves to be the best in the world will not accept to be subject to team orders unless the situation dictates it (Schumacher “help-rider” for Irvine Malaysia 99`).

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 28th March 2013, 9:52

      How do teams expect drivers to do what they ask of them when the drivers know that much of the information given to them is incorrect?

      A very well made point @kimiwillbeback

    • Theoddkiwi (@theoddkiwi) said on 28th March 2013, 10:18

      I think your missing point of Ross Brawns comment. Lewis could go faster but he would run out of fuel. So it was not a lie. He told Rosberg Hamilton was driving to a set lap time. He also told him the bulls were too far down the road to catch and risk breaking the car, running out of fuel or burning the tyres.
      The was going to be no advantage to let Rosberg past other than his own drivers points gain, but that was going to add unnecessary stress on the car. So apart from Rosbergs ego there was no point of swapping.

    • Vettel was told in his last stint that they were marginal on tyres, that was not true and Vettel knew it.

      I found this argument from Red Bull stupid: the drivers are the best placed to judge the state of their tyres as they are the ones driving the car, not some technician on the pit wall with a laptop.

      • Churaragi (@churaragi) said on 28th March 2013, 14:09

        Your comment is slightly naive. The guy on the pit wall with the lap top also has dozens of sensors to monitor the car and tyres. They can predict with reasonable accuracy by what lap the tyres are going to hit the cliff, so it is no surprise that they tell drivers to save the tyres.

        Are they often wrong? Sure, but I doubt a driver could do better with no help in avoiding the cliff. By the time he notices the grip is gone, he will be losing time, while the team could instead just pit him early safely and not lose any time.

        • @churaragi – sure they have sensors and the like, but the driver is the best sensor of all when it comes to tyre conserving. They know how much grip there is because they can feel it – they are paid millions of pounds for a reason you know!

          • bag0 (@bag0) said on 29th March 2013, 0:03

            @vettel1 @churaragi
            Sorry, but I have to jump in. You are both right, BUT the driver is only capable of judging the current/actual state of the tyres and track conditions, while the engineers can predict the tyrelife with the help of the gathered data on the compunds, and the continous telemetry connection. The engineers have the ability to give drivers a delta time, so that their tyres will last enough to make the strategy work, while the driver gives them feedback about the state of the tyres, so they can take steps accordingly.

            All in all, they have to work together, because on their own they could not make good decisions.

    • “He fought his way back to second place and started chasing down Webber, went for the undercut and was alongside Webber when Webber came back out. And here comes the crucial part, Vettel had saved a brand new set of medium tyres for that last stint and was thus faster than everybody around him. This combined with the fact that he and Webber were side by side after the last pitstop was enough to bring out the “red mist” ”

      Interesting point. Question is, if roles were reversed, would Webber have done the same thing?

    • Churaragi (@churaragi) said on 28th March 2013, 14:11

      Easily my vote for comment of the day. Well done, the misinformation and lies the teams tell the drivers is a point nobody has considered so far it seems.

  8. Force Maikel (@force-maikel) said on 28th March 2013, 9:57

    I’ve given myself a couple of days to reflect upon this incident after I wrote an furious comment here in the Vettel wins Malaysian Grand Prix thread. I like to see drivers bash it out for the win (even more when it is between teammates) and I am not a big fan of Team orders either. But for me an agreement is an agreement if two drivers make a decision with the team before the race that in the last stint both cars will turn down their engines and hold station regardless if the no.1 driver is in front or not, the agreement has to be respected.

    But as I have said before I’ve had some time to reflect and although I’m completely on Webbers side of the matter, you cannot deny Vettels relentless desire to win is a trait some great champions of the past have also possessed. It’s not the nicest thing to do but I can understand the motivation behind it.

    In short : No to team orders, Yes to free fighting an Yes to gentlemen agreements

  9. David not Coulthard (@) said on 28th March 2013, 10:29

    No media outlet is making this claim.Mark Webber is not making this claim.Christian Horner is not making this claim.

    You do make a good point: they’re not making the claim – they already made it a few days ago!

    fans who get their views of the races from live text feeds or after-the-fact news reports rather than by watching the races.

    I didn’t get that from my text feed (though it did tell me about Brawn’s order to Rosberg), I got them from other sites, including YouTube.

  10. Fantastic COTD @jonsan! I too refuse to believe Webber – the same driver who has never failed to ignore team orders in the past – would just let himself be a sitting duck to Vettel, who had to close on him first; it’s not as if he just appeared on Webber’s rear wing. So I don’t accept the moral argument, but fair enough if certain people dislike disobediance (although personally I would support any driver to screw team orders, particularly at such an early stage)!

    • juan fanger (@juan-fanger) said on 28th March 2013, 12:43

      It’s not disobeying team orders that leaves a bad taste, it’s sneaking up on your team mate after you’ve already agreed that you’re going to hold position. It’s a sucker punch and it’s disgusting.
      You should be ashamed of Vettel and his deceitful, treacherous way of winning.

      • David-A (@david-a) said on 28th March 2013, 14:04


        But the fact that Vettel disobeyed the team order showes that he did not agree to hold his position. In addition, Webber had a marginal lead over Vettel (they were wheel to wheel) after MW’s final stop. The fact that Vettel would dare to overtake is hardly “sneaking up” is it? Especially given that Vettel saved a set of mediums from qualifying to use in that final stint. This may point to controversy in some sense, but definitely not “deceit” or “treachery”.

        • HoHum (@hohum) said on 28th March 2013, 14:18

          @david-a, Vettel may only have agreed to hold position in the belief that he would be in the lead and it would be good not to have Mark to worry about, but either he agreed, or he pretended to agree in order to gain an advantage, either way he stole the win.

          • David-A (@david-a) said on 28th March 2013, 14:35

            @hohum – Did SV respond on the radio to indicate that he agreed with the team order? If he didn’t, then all we have to go on is the fact that he set those fast laps through the final pitstop phase (one could at least argue that RBR shouldn’t have pitted Vettel first), and then raced Webber as he came out of the pits.

          • HoHum (@hohum) said on 28th March 2013, 14:50

            @david-a, team order is not the right word, the right word is team tactical agreement, ie “after the last pit stop there will be no racing between team mates, the pace will be reduced to conserve the cars for the next race”.
            Team orders were not suddenly introduced over the radio, although that is what Vettel wanted mid-race.

          • Mads (@mads) said on 28th March 2013, 16:43

            How do you know that Vettel had agreed on doing so?

    • HoHum (@hohum) said on 28th March 2013, 14:12

      @vettel1, yes, fantastic is the correct word, it is literally a fantasy.

      • @hohum – do you actually believe Webber would just sit there and do nothing? This wasn’t a sneak attack like the pearl harbour anecdote you previously used; it had been in the making for several laps. I have yet to hear any footage/recordings of Vettel saying he agreed to maintaining position, so Webber will undoubtably have been en-garde.

        • BasCB (@bascb) said on 28th March 2013, 18:45

          This wasn’t a sneak attack like the pearl harbour anecdote you previously used; it had been in the making for several laps.

          Actually a pearl harbour analogy might be pretty correct then @vettel1, because while it came as a surprise when the Japanese did it, it had been coming (and media had talked about it too), but the US in general felt it was save from attacks.

          • @bascb

            the US in general felt it was save from attacks.

            I highly doubt Webber thought the same though, which is my point! If a driver is closing in you must assume every time he is going to attack – it is after all the point of motor racing! I would say it’s more like the grasslands of Africa: if the grass rustles, you must every time assume that it is a lion lurking in the grass, not just merely the wind blowing. You get complacent and you die.

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 29th March 2013, 7:04

            No Max – @vettel1, I meant to say that while the general public might have been sussed (the team telling Webber that Vettel is not supposed to overtake him), the people in the know/making the decisions – And I definitely count Mark as the one in that position – knew of the risks and likeliness of such an attack very well, he could see Vettel behind him and it was clear what he was doing.
            That is to say, we agree that Webber is not the fool people make of him when they say he did not see it coming and could not react.

          • @bascb I see, sorry for the misunderstanding!

  11. Rodney said on 28th March 2013, 13:36

    Worst Comment of the Day I’ve ever seen from this site. The standards are falling here Keith. If you look at the poster’s posting history, you can see that he is a big Vettel fan and would say anything to defend Vettel, just take a look if you don’t believe me. Add to the fact that his claims in his comment are mostly false, like how NO ONE or MEDIA has reported that the engine was turned down.

    DAMN! This site is becoming like another site which shall not be named. Promoting comments that are so ridiculous so people will feel the need to respond, such as me.

    • I disagree: in fact, that commenter always has reason to back up his points. Sure, as I am, he is a Vettel fan, but that is no crime. If we look at the evidence, there is nothing to say Vettel agreed conclusively to maintaing his position, and equally nothing to say Webber was unaware of Vettel’s closing. In fact, both of those suggestions are based on nothing more than “multi 21″.

      • Klaas (@klaas) said on 28th March 2013, 16:51

        @vettel1 Mark’s comments to Vettel immediately after the race (“Multi-21 heh, Seb?) confirm that both drivers knew what the code stood for and since the matter couldn’t be discussed between them during the race it’s safe to assume it was a case of pre-race agreement. Not folowing team-orders that are made during a race is one thing – it’s more of a matter between the driver and the team’s bosses. But when you agree on something with your team-mate during a pre-race briefing but do the opposite in the race – this is dishonourable. And the worst thing is that Vettel kept b*itching about having no intentions to overtake and other nonsense like that.
        If Mark knew about Vet’s intentions? The fact that he was closing in didn’t necesarily mean that he was going to attack. Just look how Rosberg finished right on Ham’s tail, so did the McLarens in Instanbul 2010.

        • @klaas I believe “multi-21″ is an engine map setting, not a team order. That means that they could very well have been told during the race to turn the engines down, which Vettel obviously didn’t do. So it was a simple issue of Webber returning to the normal engine setting to defend.

          If Mark knew about Vet’s intentions? The fact that he was closing in didn’t necesarily mean that he was going to attack.

          What? By definition, closing in means he is getting ready to attack. That is how F1 works, and how all racing works! Rosberg made it clear he was wishing to do the same as Vettel did as otherwise he wouldn’t have closed on his teammate!

      • BasCB (@bascb) said on 28th March 2013, 18:53

        While we obviously have no defenitive confirmation of either Red Bull driver explicitly agreeing to the team tactics of using the multi 21 setting and holding station and cruise to the finish, to speculate on either of them being unaware of that does nothing to support your argument @vettel1.
        The team has done the same regularly during the years, and from Vettels reaction to what Webber said, it was clear that he was aware of the setting being an order. Other teams, principals and ex team members from several teams have confirmed that they have the same sort of procedure, even if its called differently.
        That the team and Webber have repeated that he did in fact turn down the engine is not disputed @klaas, Roger and the rest saying the COTD is nonsense for this reason, the point is that Webber is not subservient enough to then keep it there while Vettel passes him. Indeed the speed of the cars, and the fact that Vettel still had to fight for the spot should be a strong indication Mark was no complete sitting duck there, even if he did get caught off guard and might have expected Vettel to relent in the end.
        I do agree that its tough to believe Webber did not get the wick up a bit as soon as he realised that Vettel was racing him, he would be stupid not to (which he is not)

        • @bascb – I’m not disputing that, I’m disputing the actual meaning of “multi 21″: I don’t believe it is a pre-arranged team order as such, rather a setting on the cars with the implication that therefore the drivers should just coast until the end. So of course Vettel knew what he was doing was against the team’s interests (hence “this is silly Seb” from Horner) but can we really blame him for wanting to win? That is the point here: drivers obviously all want to win, so they shouldn’t be denied that opportunity whilst there is still a chance (so really I’d only support team orders if the other driver was out of title contention).

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 29th March 2013, 6:57

            Why are you disputing that @vettel1?

            As I wrote above, its perfectly normal for teams to have this kind of setting, which is used by all teams in a case where they want their driver(s) to cruise home. It is ALWAYS combined with staying put, either because they give up on improving AND feel they are not under threat (with two of them running together the idea is to do that telling both to do the same).

            I do not blame Vettel for going for the win, its a sport and they should be doing all they can (within the rules) to do that. Attacking the car in front because you feel you can should be applauded. I do not like the fact that teams want to take that away to limit risk.
            But it does also mean that what Vettel did ultimately was not nice towards Webber, as he knew full well what he was doing there. Vettel probably did not realise how the team would react in the moment of action, and now he has to deal with it.
            He is no more a nice guy on track than his idol Michael Schumacher (see interview with FOM yesterday), nor is Alonso, and Button, Hamilton etc. Or for that matter guys like Senna, Prost, and others. Schumacher took it over the limit too often though, which tainted his legacy.

          • @bascb – because what it means is that simply Webber could’ve turned his engine back up to defend or mount a counter-attack, which a lot of people seem to think he was unable to do and that he was a “sitting duck”, which I believe is far from the truth.

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 30th March 2013, 10:22

            but surely its pretty much irrelevant if its either a team order, or a setting, or a setting combined with a default team order @vettel1, because Its pretty much a certainty that Webber would have turned up the engine in either case.

          • Klaas (@klaas) said on 2nd April 2013, 11:17

            Read the thread above and you’ll see what multi-21 actually means:

          • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 2nd April 2013, 12:32

            @klaas – yes, I was speculating this from before Christian made public the actual meaning of the code, which became known to me from an article here after I’d posted those comments so it’s best just to ignore it now!

    • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 28th March 2013, 23:44

      Just because you don’t agree with it doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

      I think a lot of people are jumping to the conclusion that because Webber (like Vettel) was required to use a lower engine setting, or because he did use it at one point, that means he continued to do so throughout the battle with Vettel and afterwards.

      I’m not making the case that he did or he didn’t. But unlike some people instead of assuming the worst about Vettel and the best about Webber I prefer to be sceptical until the facts are in. What we do know, for example, is they both set their fastest laps of the race so far on the lap before Vettel passed Webber.

      Whether you think Webber turned his engine down and kept it down even as Vettel attacked him, or turned his engine back up in retaliation to try to defend his position, is up to you.

    • + 1.000.000

      I was thinking the exact same thing! That “comment of the day” significant lowered the sites normally high credibility in my opinion.

      The comment basically states that everybody else are wrong because I know better which I regarded as one of the most immature comments I had seen in a while already before it was “rewarded”. What makes matters worse is the “hard fact” that in order to believe this you have to regard Webber as completely dishonest for making his apparently bizarre claims.

      What bothers me the most about the entire case is that only very few people seem to get the actual point: there is no other possible way to avoid team orders than having only single car teams. Why do you want our beloved sport to be based on artificial rules that doesn’t work? It is sad and disgraceful, now that FIA is finally doing something good for the sport.

      Of course I prefer racing over ordered results but banning team orders will do absolutely nothing to promote that. And THAT is a hard fact learned from experience.

      The discussion of which team was right or wrong about their orders is so pointless that I refuse to take part and didn’t vote. Only the TEAMS have all the information it takes to make the right calls. They do it throughout every race and we know very little about their motivation for each call.

  12. Churaragi (@churaragi) said on 28th March 2013, 14:00

    May I suggest something, why doesn’t Red Bull just man up, and accept not using team orders?

    This incident has proved that team orders are a liability, they don’t prevent accidents, they simply delay them, via the form of inside the team fighting, and in Ferrari’s case, the completely bizarre and unjustifiable thing they did with the Massa gearbox fiasco.

    The F1 fan inside me tells that if teams simply decided to not give team orders anymore(doable if all drivers agreed not to follow them), then I think this would be done and no such problem would exist again.

    Would someone do what Schumacher did in Brazil by letting Vettel pass? Probably.
    Just as I think you would never see Hamilton do the same with Alonso for example.

    That inter driver battle is what still brings me to the sport, and if team orders are taken to the extreme, I am not sure I am ready or willing to watch another Schumarcher and Barrichello period(specialy stupid as a Brazilian but hey…).

    • Klaas (@klaas) said on 28th March 2013, 16:58

      Just as I think you would never see Hamilton do the same with Alonso for example.

      We alreday saw this example in life. Had Petrov been such a nice guy in Abu Dhabi 2010 like Schumi was with Vettel maybe we’d had someone else as triple world champion.

  13. Tango (@tango) said on 28th March 2013, 15:38

    Everybody is talking of team orders, but this round up reminds me of a form of intrateam skewing of results which is just as annoying : not giving the same car to both drivers. Grosjean has had to race with an older version of the Lotus than Raikkonen. From a big team with ressources, I find that just as insulting to the second driver than excusing driver n°1 for misbeheaving and than keeping driver n°1 in front when he clealy can’t stay in front on his own.

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 28th March 2013, 19:19

      The consequence of making both cars equal would mean that both would have them later. And it would mean a bigger risk for the team (what if during the weekend they find out the new bits are no improvement, after all) @tango, its something wholly different.

  14. John H (@john-h) said on 28th March 2013, 23:42

    fictitious belief that Webber was the victim of a “sneak attack” having “turned his engine down while Vettel did not”

    I guess Webber was just angry because he lost the race then was he? Come on, this COTD is ridiculous. If it wasn’t the engine then it was just as likely they were preserving tyres. Note Vettel’s comment about finishing 8th and 9th here.

    Multi-21 anyone? Seriously, it’s clear as day that Webber was stabbed in the back.

    • David-A (@david-a) said on 29th March 2013, 0:58


      Multi-21 anyone? Seriously, it’s clear as day that Webber was stabbed in the back.

      To quote the creator of this site who picked that COTD:

      What we do know, for example, is they both set their fastest laps of the race so far on the lap before Vettel passed Webber.

      To label the COTD, which doubts the “sneak attack” theory, as ridiculous is a stretch. As is the claim that it was “clear as day” that MW was “stabbed in the back”. Webber somehow set his personal best laptime, while defending during a battle, all whilst saving fuel or tyres?

  15. Metrium (@metrium) said on 29th March 2013, 1:07

    “Claire Williams new Deputy Team Principal of @WilliamsF1Team. Brilliant news. Who ever said F1 is a man’s world?!” says the wife of the former Executive Director of the team about the daughter of the founder and team principal of the team :D

  16. BaKano (@bakano) said on 29th March 2013, 7:36

    Ferrari need to get their eyes fixed! Or I have (and my memory as well) because I’m sure that sparks were visible and showed in live television way before the back straight!

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.

Skip to toolbar