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. 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

            @vettel1
            Read the thread above and you’ll see what multi-21 actually means:
            http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns25107.html

          • 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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

      @john-h

      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?

  5. 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

  6. 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.