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.

Links

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’.”

Tweets

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.

Advert | Go Ad-free

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

  1. Shreyas Mohanty (@) said on 28th March 2013, 4:22

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

    What does Button mean to say here? That other teams may be reluctant to offer Vettel a contract in the future – because we all know his RBR stint will end some day. Or he may get into an adventurous mood like Hamilton.

  2. Sergio Perez (@sergio-perez) said on 28th March 2013, 5:39

    Love the video of the day, Keith. Epic race.

  3. Martin Brundle may have been in relative grounds an average F1 driver, but he is a top journalist.

  4. IDR (@idr) said on 28th March 2013, 6:22

    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.

    I heard Mark Webber during the interview in the podium talking specifically about that. He just said it, in plain english: “After the last stop the team told me the race was over and we turned the engine down to go to the end,” said Webber. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/106337

    I found also funny the comment of “no media outlet has told anything about that…” Well, have you read all media available (worldwide)? Or just talking about the media you read.

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 28th March 2013, 7:11

      Its clear Webber did turn down the engine, and surely he did not push as much as he would have otherwise done on the pit exit. But I seriously doubt that he would not have turned up the engine a bit again during that battle with Vettel while defending.
      Fact is, no one who does know this (i.e. in the team) is telling us, so we can only speculate.

    • IDR (@idr) said on 28th March 2013, 10:18

      @bascb
      We don’t know why WEB did not turn up the engine, and who knows, he could not be 100% sure VET had all the power from the engine, and in any case, I have a strong feeling WEB is not in the position of contradict team orders in any situation. If the team has already told him to turn the engine down, he turn it down and period.

    • It’s also since came out after the race (posted in Keiths article a couple of days ago) that Vettels engineer told him not to KEEP his KERS in OVERTAKE mode AFTER he’d already made the pass on Webber because it may fail. Proving that not only was he using everything at dispolsal to get passed but then to stay there one he was infront. I’m sure if Webber was too, his engineer would have gave him the same warning, which he never.

  5. AdrianMorse (@adrianmorse) said on 28th March 2013, 6:36

    I find it strange that Alonso is still defending their decision to stay out with the broken wing. Of course, they couldn’t know at that time that the crossover point would be something like lap 7 rather than lap 3/4, but to say they would have won 20 to 30 seconds by staying out sounds like a bit of an exaggeration, as he wasn’t able to go at full speed with a broken wing. In addition, with a new wing he would have the option of staying on the inters longer, thereby jumping people who changed too early.

    Still, I don’t mind he didn’t finish the race; I think it will be good for the championship.

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 28th March 2013, 7:21

      I agree, it looks as being a bit in a state of denial, because the wing was horribly damaged all along, and on the straight naturally downforce pulled it down further. But the team had a new nose prepared, so its not quite as he says it is there (both the statement that it only came loose on the first straight and that they did not manage to react to that).
      To me it seems the team, and Alonso himself, might have started to believe in him doing magic a bit too much for their own good after he managed to achieve almost unbelievable results in a sub par car last year. Or its just that he is getting his cage rattled by Massa being right there with him on speed.

      • q85 said on 28th March 2013, 7:28

        The quote was after the race. I dont know why its being repackaged here.

        • BasCB (@bascb) said on 28th March 2013, 9:26

          what quote was after the race? You mean Alonso’s?

          • yes, it was from sunday i think

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 28th March 2013, 18:38

            Not sure what you are getting at though, he could hardly have made that statement before the race, could he?
            This interview from Adam Cooper certainly was after the race, and Alonso had had almost 1,5 hours of watching footage and looking at the whole situation by then, so its not as if he was defending himself/the team only minutes after crashing out.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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

  12. 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.

  13. 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

  14. 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.

  15. 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

        @juan-fanger -

        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

            @hohum
            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!

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.