Alonso and Hamilton ‘would have done the same as Vettel’ – Horner

2013 Malaysian Grand Prix

Sebastian Vettel, Red Bull, Sepang, 2013Christian Horner says Sebastian Vettel’s defiance of team orders during the Malaysian Grand Prix showed he has the competitive instincts of the F1 elite.

“He’s a very, very driven individual,” said Horner in an interview with Sky. “You don’t win the amount of events he’s won, the amount of grands prix he’s won, the amount of success he’s had in his career by being a driver that is submissive, that sits back.”

“If Fernando Alonso or Lewis Hamilton had been in that position they’d have done the same, if Mark Webber had been in that position we’ve seen him do the same. So let’s not kid ourselves that this is something unique to Sebastian, this is something that’s in any competitive, driven driver’s DNA.”

Horner admitted there had been previous occasions where he’d attempted to impose team orders on his drivers without success: “I think any race driver, any seriously competitive race driver, teams orders go against what they compete for.”

“We saw it with Mark in 2011 at Silverstone, we saw it on previous occasions with the team, the final in race in Brazil last year, only two races ago.

“It’s a tricky one because obviously the interest of the driver is different from the interests of the team. Team orders are permitted, they exist in Formula One. The constructors’ championship for the team has equal or more importance than the drivers’ championship. The constructors’ championships is where the funds are distributed.

“So of course there are different objectives going on within a Grand Prix: that of the driver and that of the teams.”

Red Bull ‘takes equality seriously’

However Horner added he believes Vettel genuinely regrets his actions: “Sebastian’s a very honest guy. I think he was shocked after the race I think he was surprised and then the feeling came over him, you could see that, that he felt he had done wrong.”

“I believe his apology was sincere and he repeated that apology in private in the briefing that we had later that evening.”

The Red Bull team principal insisted both his drivers will continue to be treated the same: “[Webber] will have equal opportunity to Sebastian as we’ve done our very best to do for both drivers at every Grand Prix that we compete at.”

“Mark knows the equipment that we make and the lengths we go to ensure parity. We even, from weekend to weekend, switch who going to go first in qualifying, who talks first in the debrief, it’s switched from weekend to weekend to ensure there is completely parity in the way we treat our drivers.

“It’s something we take very seriously within the team and I think Mark knows the support that he has.”

“I think we’re going to give up on that code”

Sebastian Vettel, Red Bull, Sepang, 2013Horner also gave further insight into the events during the final laps of Sunday’s Malaysian Grand Prix, pointing out that Webber had to run his engine on a lower setting because he had used more fuel:

“Mark and Seb were on opposing strategies they were running different tyres at different points in time. After that final stop of course fuel consumption between the two cars had been slightly different, Mark’s had been slightly higher than Sebastian’s so he was in a slightly more fuel saving mode than Sebastian.”

After the race Webber was heard pointing out to Vettel they had been given the instruction “multi 21″ during the race. “Multi 21 means car two ahead of car one,” Horner explained.

“Multi 12 means car one ahead of car two. It’s not complicated. It’s not that difficult to translate but both our drivers in the last three races have failed to understand both of those messages.”

“I think we’re going to give up on that code,” he added. “We need to probably try something else.”

2013 Malaysian Grand Prix

Browse all 2013 Malaysian Grand Prix articles

Images ?é?® Red Bull/Getty

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

Advert | Go Ad-free

238 comments on Alonso and Hamilton ‘would have done the same as Vettel’ – Horner

  1. Traverse (@) said on 29th March 2013, 12:06

    So, let me get this straight. If one driver chooses not to conserve fuel during the race (the consequence being that he’ll having to save fuel later on), But his teammate manages to keep a race winning pace whilst conserving fuel. The latter should be penalised for his superior driving sense…Okaaaaay

    Horner: “Mark’s had been slightly higher than Sebastian’s so he was in a slightly more fuel saving mode than Sebastian.”

    So the only real difference between Vettel and Rosberg, is Vet had the guts to take ownership of his destiny. You don’t become a 3-time WDC by helping your “teammate” win races.

    • Guilherme (@guilherme) said on 29th March 2013, 15:51

      @hellotraverse +1. If Webber used more fuel up to the last stop, then he should have opened a gap sufficient to prevent any attacks from Vettel, but he couldn’t do it.

      • Tifoso1989 (@tifoso1989) said on 29th March 2013, 19:34

        then he should have opened a gap sufficient to prevent any attacks from Vettel

        He was 4s ahead before the last pit stop,
        http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2013/03/25/red-bull-mercedes-resorting-team-orders/

        • F1fanNL (@) said on 29th March 2013, 23:09

          @tifoso1989

          So? Vettel was catching Webber throughout the entire race. The only thing that kept Webber in front was the team allowing him to pit first up until the last pitstop.

          And if Red Bull had done a better job calculating where Vettel would end up after his first pitstop Webber wouldn’t have been in the lead to begin with.

          • Tifoso1989 (@tifoso1989) said on 30th March 2013, 10:57

            And if Red Bull had done a better job calculating where Vettel would end up after his first pitstop Webber wouldn’t have been in the lead to begin with.

            I don’t know what’s wrong with you , the call of the first pit stop was made by Vettel himself just like Alonso’s first pit stop call in Melbourne , in both cases their teams wasn’t involved at all

  2. AdrianMorse (@adrianmorse) said on 29th March 2013, 12:13

    I think it’s very strange that Horner says not only Hamilton and Alonso would do the same, but Mark Webber as well. That’s going to be just the message Mark needs when he returns to the RBR garage for the Chinese Grand Prix. “Sorry about the stolen victory, Mark, but we don’t really sympathize with you, as you would have done the same thing”. Horner should just have said “Sebastian was sorry and he has apologized”, and leave it at that, rather than excusing his behaviour (only proving Webber right that Vettel would be protected) and implicating other drivers for no good reason.

    And since this debate will drag on for the foreseeable future, let me put in my view on the difference between last weekend and Silverstone 2011. The “Multi 21″ code was agreed before the race, and so both drivers had agreed to it. When Vettel attacked Webber, he broke that agreement, and betrayed his team mate. When Webber was told to “maintain the gap” (I believe it was), Mark ignored his team principal – for one or two laps until he relented – but he did not betray Vettel.

    • MNM101 (@mnm101) said on 29th March 2013, 12:42

      @adrianmorse i have to diagree with you, I think this is exactly what Mark needs to hear, Because he is being very hypocritical, as your example of Silverstone shows: Mark by his owns admission said he ignored team orders, tried to overtake Sebastian and failed. his failure doesn’t show obedience to team orders (or lack thereof betrayal), it show’s he disobeyed and failed to capitalize on it, unlike Seb in Malaysia, and i didn’t hear Seb complain the least bit after Silverstone, nor Brazil 2012 for that matter, where the stakes were much higher.
      And as for Multi 21, Pre Race agreements and Mid Race orders are equal in power, breaking one is as serious as breaking the other, actually Pre-Race agreements are less powerful, because events during the race directly affect these decisions.
      and if any one is going to bring up Seb “sucker punching” Mark and gaining on him because the latter slowed down, I suggest looking at lap times for evidence.
      Up until the pit stops Mark and Seb were doing the same lap laptimes, then on lap 42 Seb pitted with a gap of 2.8-3 secs to Mark, He pitted for mediums and got out setting purple sectors, meanwhile Mark did another lap, obviously slower due to tyre deg.
      after Mark pitted he got out and the gap to Seb was gone.
      This is called the Undercut, you have all seen it many times before, and i don’t see any evidence of engine changes, at least no one sided ones

      • AdrianMorse (@adrianmorse) said on 29th March 2013, 13:49

        @mnm101, the thing about a pre-race arrangement is that both drivers agreed to it, but then during the race Vettel broke that agreement, hence the betrayal.

        And I know what the undercut is, thank you very much, and perhaps Christian Horner should have explained why the leading driver on track did not get pit stop priority, as it customary, instead giving the guy behind a chance to attack.

        • MNM101 (@mnm101) said on 29th March 2013, 13:58

          @adrianmorse I wasn’t implying you didn’t know what an undercut is, sorry if u took offense to that.
          The lead driver always gets pits priority, so I’m guessing Mark was offered the chance to pit and chose otherwise..
          As for the betrayal, i have nothing to add on what i already said

        • celeste (@celeste) said on 29th March 2013, 17:14

          @adrianmorse And how do you know that this was a “pre race” agreement. If there was a pre race agreement there woulnd´t be any need of the code?

          Unless you really have acces to Red Bull meetings, in wich case tell us more about that secret world please?

          • AdrianMorse (@adrianmorse) said on 29th March 2013, 17:56

            @celeste, because they used the code Multi 21. The drivers must have been briefed on its meaning, and thereby at least implicitly agreeing to follow up on those orders. Also Mark Webber talks about it here in the post-race interviews: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oW_mdavfHTA

            So I’m not trying to conjure up any scenarios here, and I find it surprising that people defend Vettel so vigorously, given that he apologized on TV, in the written press conference, and in front of the entire workforce of Red Bull.

          • F1fanNL (@) said on 29th March 2013, 23:11

            @adrianmorse

            Yeah, Vettel really shouldn’t have apologized. He did what he should have done.
            As for pre race agreements. If Webber doesn’t respect them, who is he to expect Vettel to do so?

          • celeste (@celeste) said on 30th March 2013, 0:47

            @adrianmorse as you can see in the interview is a normal code that they use all the time (Horner says he has used in the las 3 races), so there was no need to pre race agreement for the drivers to know the code.

          • AdrianMorse (@adrianmorse) said on 30th March 2013, 6:12

            @celeste, does it matter when they agreed on the code? It could have been before this race, it could have been during winter testing, but at some point prior to this race the drivers discussed the Multi code.

          • celeste (@celeste) said on 30th March 2013, 8:20

            @celeste
            First at Silverstone, it wasn´t that Mark suddenly decided to follow team orders, he couldn´t pass, he said so himself:

            I chose to race as hard and as fair as I thought was possible, trying my best to beat Seb. I got pretty close a couple of times but couldn’t quite pull it off.

            And yes it does matter when they agree on the code, your argument since is that it was a pre race arregement Vettel shoud have stick to it, but since is a standard code for instruction it means that Webber had also disregard it knowing before the race what it means, and being in the same situation as Vettel; so why ask for Vettel´s head?

            And why Webber act like the biggest man, when he himself has done the exact same thing?

          • celeste (@celeste) said on 30th March 2013, 8:32

            Sorry the previous answer was mean to be for @adrianmorse

    • When Webber was told to “maintain the gap” (I believe it was), Mark ignored his team principal – for one or two laps until he relented

      He did not “relent”. At all.

      When Vettel attacked Webber, he broke that agreement, and betrayed his team mate.

      I don’t find your attempts at persuading yourself terribly convincing.

      • AdrianMorse (@adrianmorse) said on 29th March 2013, 18:07

        @jonsan

        I don’t exactly recall the finish of the 2011 British Grand Prix, so you may be right about that.

        I don’t find your attempts at persuading yourself terribly convincing.

        What sort of argument is this though? Perhaps you could up with something more constructive like pointing out any flaws in my reasoning.

  3. wigster (@wigster) said on 29th March 2013, 12:17

    It sounds like Christian Horner is struggling to control his drivers. If he knows his team orders will be ignored during a race, then why bother with them? To cover his own back perhaps he’s saying “If Seb and Mark crash its not my fault, I told them not to fight”, or does he genuinely want to them to do as he says but lacks the authority to make it happen, unlike Ross Brawn for example, who from the team radio I heard during the race sounded a lot more certain and authoritative than Christian Horner.

    • M Dickens (@sgt-pepper) said on 29th March 2013, 13:16

      Sounds like the latter really. Ross Brawn is abit of an F1 powerhouse, he’s been around for years and is well established, and for the most part well respected. Horner is basically just a glorified PR man – and I’ll hand it to him, he’s an absolutely master at it, better than many politicians. But he lacks authority completely.

  4. Rigi (@rigi) said on 29th March 2013, 12:26

    vettel has more power than his whole team..

  5. MB (@muralibhats) said on 29th March 2013, 12:49

    Then why was the team order given, if you knew Vettel wold try passing Webber?

  6. andae23 (@andae23) said on 29th March 2013, 13:24

    I was wondering what Webber meant with “Vettel will get protection from Red Bull as always”. I get it now.

    Basically Horner avoided the main question: was Vettel wrong to ignore the team order? He doesn’t say it’s right (would be strange if he did), but then he doesn’t say it’s wrong either. He elaborates on how Alonso, Hamilton and Webber would react in a similar scenario, he says it’s actually a good characteristic. But if it’s good or wrong what Vettel did, he only says that drivers and constructors have different interests, without actually giving his opinion.

    If I were Horner, I would have said that the team gives their drivers team orders for a reason, and that in a well oiled team a driver respects the team principal’s orders. Vettel didn’t do that, so he was wrong. Vettel then acknowledged his mistake, understands why he has to obey team orders and apologized during the debrief, and now he and Red Bull will move on. That would make a lot more sense, especially as this sort of thing has happened 4 times in 4 years now. Vettel is not a newbie: he knows what team orders are, he knows what it means to ignore them – so what insight has Vettel gained between the overtake on Webber and the podium ceremony that suddenly makes him see ignoring team orders is wrong? What is the value of his apology? And anyway, when Alonso, Hamilton and Webber would do the same in a similar situation, does that then imply it isn’t wrong? Summarized: Horner should step up to the plate and admit that what Vettel did was wrong instead of praising him for his ‘fighting spirit’ (if you can call it that).

    I think it is natural for Webber to question Horner’s policy of equality: Horner basically defended Vettel’s choice to ignore team orders instead of admitting this is not what the team wants to see. The step to thinking Vettel is a little bit more equal than Webber in the Red Bull team is not far-fetched at all.

    • I was wondering what Webber meant with “Vettel will get protection from Red Bull as always”. I get it now.

      I don’t, so maybe you can explain it to me. What punishment has Mark Webber ever received for his multiple violations of team orders over the years?

      Given that the answer is “None whatsoever”, what exactly is the basis for the claim that Vettel is “protected”? I’d really like to know.

      • andae23 (@andae23) said on 29th March 2013, 15:50

        @jonsan I understand why Webber may think that “Vettel will get protection from Red Bull as always” – it wasn’t my intention to write: I understand that Vettel always gets protection from Red Bull. Initially I didn’t understand it because, like you, I don’t see any events in the past that would support that claim. But now Horner practically defends Vettel’s decisions from Sunday, which is exactly what Webber said would happen. Therefore one may conclude that there are some things happening within the Red Bull team (which we of course don’t know about) that would lead to Webber saying such a thing.

      • Drezone said on 31st March 2013, 12:48

        Turkey 2010 was all the protection vettel has ever needed since

        Just ask helmut marko

        As for webber disobeying team orders which appears to be only silverstone 2011 and brazil 2012 from what people are bringing up I’m thinking they have not taken into consideration the million times he has obeyed orders

        Not to mention the slight help RBR has made for him with kers issues and pitstop advantages and front wings and starting procedures off the grid

        Nah maybe I’m looking to much into it

        • David-A (@david-a) said on 31st March 2013, 23:21

          As for webber disobeying team orders which appears to be only silverstone 2011 and brazil 2012 from what people are bringing up I’m thinking they have not taken into consideration the million times he has obeyed orders

          Vettel obeyed team orders in the past as well- Turkey 2009 and Brazil 2011 for instance. Webber, a) hasn’t been given team orders that many times aside from GBR 2011 (only the end of last year when he wasn’t fighting for the championship, actually), and b) doesn’t have a moral high ground here due to his own disobedience and previous stance on team orders, I’m afraid.

  7. TMF (@tmf42) said on 29th March 2013, 13:39

    my take away:
    “Multi 12 means car one ahead of car two. It’s not complicated. It’s not that difficult to translate but both our drivers in the last three races have failed to understand both of those messages.”
    “I think we’re going to give up on that code,” he added. “We need to probably try something else.”

    So we will see some more racing between Mark and Seb or RBR will destroy the race with strategy calls of the one who should come in behind the other.

  8. HiPn0tIc (@hipn0tic) said on 29th March 2013, 13:54

    After said and done, i just realize that Horner is the only guy losing from this situation, because shows weakness, and lack of leading skills for a guy in his position, if not let’s see:

    – RBR has won the same points 1-2 or 2-1, yes the Vettel-Webber relationship isn’t the best but none of them will not try to get the 1st place
    – Vettel has shown that winning is everything for him, wich team doesn’t want thar? Please…Yes some of the public opinion is against him, but also was agains Prost, Senna, Schumacher and so and so…
    – Webber, yes he lost the 1st place but gained the public opinion and a free pass for attacking whenever he feels like Vettel without pointing him fingers. He has nothing to lose

    – Horner, i’m sorry but looks like a puppet, he’s in a critical position, can not defende Vettel but can’t attack him, he’s the person on the spot….

  9. AndrewT (@andrewt) said on 29th March 2013, 14:05

    what happened on the track is one thing. trying to (mis)communicate it to the public is another thing, and this side is becoming disgusting, at least for me. who exactly are they trying to fool?

    • Joe Papp (@joepa) said on 29th March 2013, 17:10

      Exactly, @andrewt. Although it’s also getting really nauseating and annoying to listen to the endless attempts to defend Vettel’s behavior by citing other examples of poor sportsmanship. Pffft! If Vettel had done nothing wrong, then he wouldn’t have (been forced to?) apologize(d)!? How can some people defend behavior that Vettel himself has said was wrong/dishonest/treacherous/etc? Cognitive dissonance…

  10. Webber would have done the same thing. In fact, he has done the same thing.

    Separate topic, but is Alonso going to escape without penalty for not pitting but continuing to race with his front wing dragging on the ground? That was reckless and dangerous on his part.

    • andae23 (@andae23) said on 29th March 2013, 14:54

      A drive is allowed to continue with damage. Only when the stewards have notified the team and the driver that the damage is too severe to continue (black and orange flag), he is forced to pit.

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 30th March 2013, 16:22

      @jonsan – yes, that is a completely different topic, best discussed in a completely different comments section.

      Let me add, that come the end of the season, I am sure Alonso will look back on this race and feel he was punished a lot by not bringing the car home in the points already.

  11. karter22 (@karter22) said on 29th March 2013, 14:31

    Horner admitted there had been previous occasions where he’d attempted to impose team orders on his drivers without success

    If that is true, then he really isn´t in charge of the team is he?
    BTW, will the news of them justifying Vettel´s move ever stop? It´s getting to be a drag already!

    • If that is true, then he really isn´t in charge of the team is he?

      This is the reality of team orders in F1.

      1) All teams try to employ them fairly frequently.
      2) About 50% of the time all drivers ignore them.

      In spite of the best efforts of some fans and members of the press to pretend otherwise, nothing particularly unusual happened between Vettel, Webber, and Horner last Sunday. Keith did a roundup of some of the other team orders issued by various teams at Sepang – in some cases the orders were obeyed, in other cases they were not.

  12. I don’t like the way Horner has delivered this interview, but I think the point he is trying to get across has been misinterpreted: he is not defending Vettel’s actions, rather trying to dispel this notion that Webber was defenceless to Vettel and that Vettel has no morality whereas every other driver, particularly Webber, does.

    What I would have preferred he do though is make a point of highlighting why Red Bull imposed team orders at all – that was the root cause of the uproar after all.

  13. tmax (@tmax) said on 29th March 2013, 14:41

    The Tale of 2 Drivers :

    2 Drivers are conserving fuel through conservative driving in the final stint of the race. Their team mates who are better on fuel are chasing them down to the chequered flag. 2 Team principals sensing the fuel shortage, Tire wear and the potential of a team mates crash order the chasers to back down and hold position. One Driver says okay I dont like it but fine i will do as you say. The other says ofcourse I don’t like it but I am going to take that position.

    So now the driver who held his position is called a loser and his team mate embarrassed, the driver who went on to take the position is a villian and his team mate angry. Eventually there are 4 unhappy drivers , 2 unhappy Team principals and Drama All around.

    Mr Eccolstone must be loving this. No amount of money can buy this publicity for F1 :)

  14. WilliamB (@william-brierty) said on 29th March 2013, 14:45

    Utter codswallop. In China 2010, Hamilton was faster than the struggling Button, but Hamilton held position in accordance with his team’s wishes. In Australia the same year, Alonso was faster than Massa for the entire race, but was unable to overtake; until the finals laps when Massa’s tyres were gone. Alonso was all over him but obeyed team orders and stayed behind. Now whilst Alonso and Hamilton are of course extremely determined and motivated racing drivers, they don’t share Vettel’s irrational desperation to win. Alonso and Hamilton don’t feel quite so bloody entitled to win, so whilst they fight hard for the win every weekend, they don’t come out the other end all miserable if they don’t win. And here’s another difference, both Alonso and Hamilton would, and have, said that their teammates have out-performed them on merit, however if Vettel attempted to do the same he would have a nose-bleed. Alonso and Hamilton know the value of a united team, however Vettel clearly feels he is running the show, and this attitude will, and has, caused damage to his career.

    • +100. Well said

    • F1fanNL (@) said on 29th March 2013, 23:14

      @william-brierty

      Shall I remind you of Hungary 2007? Or have you remembered Hamilton’s disobedience towards Ron Dennis on your own.

      Hypocrites will remain hypocrites.

      • WilliamB (@william-brierty) said on 1st April 2013, 11:10

        @f1fannl So you are comparing a contextually sensible decision to hold ground and minimize tyre wear with a poorly justified order from the dictatorial Ron Dennis aimed at merely appeasing the frankly disenfranchised Alonso? Hamilton was flying, and there was no need for him to pull over and let Alonso pass, so he was completely right to ignore a non-official decision that had probably been suggested by Alonso himself. These orders need to put into context before you can compare them. On the one hand Red Bull had some of the worst tyre wear seen in the Pirelli era, but faced no threat from the grossly under-fueled Mercedes of Hamilton, so sensibly sought to neutralize the race and get the cars home. Let’s not forget the fact that the first laps of the race were wet, when cars use less fuel anyway, so had the race been completely dry, Hamilton may not have finished the race at all. However the Mercedes weren’t struggling like Red Bulls on tyres so would have been able to pressurize them in the final laps had Hamilton been fueled up properly. Contrast that with a factional plea that simply aimed at restoring the status of Alonso in a paddock that was very much doubting his abilities at the time, and you can see that Hamilton’s decision was perfectly justified and was therefore not resented in the least by the team, the paddock, the media or the world. Frankly, it seems rather hypocritical of you to suggest that that is remotely similar to a desperate and irrational move by a man that clearly feels that his status as the youngest triple world champion entitles him to the win every time he sits in the car.

  15. “We saw it with Mark in 2011 at Silverstone, we saw it on previous occasions with the team, the final in race in Brazil last year, only two races ago.”

    Did anyone follow up with questions about Brazil? It’s obvious that Webber defied team orders there, but for some reason it seems that no F1 reporter wants to know about it.

  16. Joe Papp (@joepa) said on 29th March 2013, 15:14

    @keithcollantine — “Little Christian Horner sat on the corner (of his stool), and watched greedy Sebastian defy; Mark gave Seb’ the finger, for his resentment did linger, ’cause Christian swallowed all the twerp’s lies. The sports world did wonder, who would allow such a blunder, ’cause surely they’d have to be dumb; then Horner did speak, and prove just how weak, he’d become when he sits on his thumbs!”

  17. Mark Webbers former opinion of team orders: they are rough guidelines, suggestions, to be followed or not as the driver sees fit.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/14145893

    • MNM101 (@mnm101) said on 29th March 2013, 16:34

      Someone should have handed him a copy of this when he got out of the car

    • Earlier in the race, there is still plenty to go on, and you are helping a guy who at that point of the race is quicker because of strategy or whatever.
      But when you are coming to the line and you’ve only got five laps to go, there is no more strategy to be played out. It’s just a straight fight.
      In that case, any driver is going to be a little bit less inclined to accept a request like that, because they know that is what the result is going to be.

      So When Mark does this he can sleep well but when his Team mate does the same. He can’t and cry in front of Media.

      • MNM101 (@mnm101) said on 29th March 2013, 16:51

        @harsha my thoughts exactly

      • Palle (@palle) said on 29th March 2013, 20:26

        After reading this I simply can’t understand how on Earth Mark can look himself in the mirror, putting on that act after the recent race? HYPOCRITE, what a jerk. Now I feel he needs to apologize, before I can regain some respect for him again.
        But again RBR management made a complete ass of themselves issuing Team-orders like that, knowing that often the drivers don’t follow them. The blatant loss of face is probably also what upset RBR the most. Seb did the only right thing, and in the aftermath of this both drivers should agree that when they are driving on track, they are in control and the teams role is down to servicing and recommendations.

    • F1fanNL (@) said on 29th March 2013, 23:20

      @jonsan

      COTD

  18. Rodney said on 29th March 2013, 18:05

    Sadly, what many people here don’t get is why the team orders are implemented in the first place, its because of the current regulations surrounding this sport. Yes they do promote ‘racing’ and overtaking in some situations, but are clearly failing in some regards.

    You can’t say this was about protecting their number 1 driver, since the team wanted Mark to win. So team orders here clearly arent for that reason. Whats the reason then?

    My take is its the tyres fault. Why? I shall attempt to explain it simply. With tyres that wear so quickly, the teams do not want an inter team battle that could cost both drivers tyres to wear quickly at the same time. This will give other teams an advantage if an extra pitstop is required.

    Why would they wear more quickly? Simply because the tyres are so ridiculous that you cannot drive the car to its full potential, as have been mentioned by many drivers such as Webber and Hamilton. When you are battling with another driver, you ahve to push the car closer to the edge than what team would like, and the tyres wear more quickly. All the drivers are now driving to a delta lap time, set by the engineers and strategists, and are not driving the car anywhere near its potential.

    What does all of this have to do with the events that happened that day, I hear you ask… Well, think about it this way, why do teams deliberately under fuel their car for the race? Are engineers that stupid they can’t even calculate the fuel needed?

    NO. Its because since the tyres do not allow a car to be driven closer to its full potential, the drivers use less fuel as they are pushing less, leading engineers to calculate the fuel needed based on those delta lap times. As we saw with Webber and Hamilton, any time in the race they tried to go faster, they paid for it through the tyres and fuel at a later stage.

    Is this what we want? The Bridgestones were equally ridiculous in the sense they never wore out, but these Pirellis are on the other end of the spectrum, wearing out too quickly. Surely a compromise between the two can be found?

    We already have DRS to aid racing, which so far in the first two tracks proved that its beginning to work as intended, making passing easier but not too easy. But what have these tyres done? They stopped the racing because no team would risk it.

    Think about it – these tyres are destroying racing. And that’s my take on it.

    • HoHum (@hohum) said on 29th March 2013, 19:14

      Apart from still disliking DRS I agree with you entirely but would also add that the engine and gearbox longevity rules also create a disincentive to allow intra-team racing, I am hoping for an early gearbox change for SV. but realise the odds are long.

    • Although it’s too early in the seasson (let’s not forget that Kimi won Australia with 2 stops “only”) your statement is an accurate reflection of what happened in Malasia and if this will be the norm in the next GPs I can only repeat your last sentence. Well put

  19. Jimmy Clark said on 29th March 2013, 20:54

    There is so much debate about Red Bouls “these” and “thats” and that is Vettel’s fault. He sould have just said “leave me alone, l know what I’m doing”,so we would have a comedy now and not a controversy.

  20. foleyger (@foleyger) said on 29th March 2013, 22:24

    Webber] will have equal opportunity to Sebastian as we’ve done our very best to do for both drivers at every Grand Prix that we compete at.” ehm, what about taking the new front off wing off Webber in Silverstone 2010 when Vettel’s wing failed? u can see why Webber was upset when he was blamed for Turkey when it wasn’t his fault. No wonder he didn’t respect team orders in Silverstone 2011 when he was being mistreated. surprised Webber has stayed this long at Red Bull to be honest. Whoever comes into Red Bull next year will be in as bad as position as Alonso’s teammate at Ferrari

    • David-A (@david-a) said on 29th March 2013, 23:14

      @foleyger

      what about taking the new front off wing off Webber in Silverstone 2010 when Vettel’s wing failed?

      Because Webber was happier with the older specification. But of course, he’s always the victim, even when the team use team orders to favour him…

      • foleyger (@foleyger) said on 30th March 2013, 11:26

        if u remember,Red Bull have an upgrade to their front wings for that Grand Prix. Both were given a new front wing in practice. Vettel’s one failed and Webber’s worked fine. Red Bull then decided to give the 1 new front wing to Vettel which Webber wasn’t happy as you could hear when he won the race. ‘not bad for a number 2 driver’ is what Webber said. Webber was the victim in Malaysia when you consider there was a team order and he was reassured twice about it. Vettel must be really proud of passing a teammate who had his engine turned down. If Vettel and Webber were racing without team orders and had the same engine settings then fair enough. Vettel comes out after and says he didn’t hear the teamorders. Horner would want to manage his team as this has been escalating since Turkey 2010.

        • David-A (@david-a) said on 30th March 2013, 18:37

          @foleyger – Except that the front wing was only available for use because Webber preferred the old spec. “It went to Sebastian based on Championship position, his performance in P3 and the drivers’ feedback on the different front wings from yesterday.“- Horner.

          Webber was only a victim if somehow, coming out of the pits wheel to wheel wasn’t a sufficient sign to him that they were still racing. All from the same person that insists on “battling to the end”.

          Vettel must be really proud of passing a teammate who had his engine turned down.

          And MW must be proud of failing to pass a teammate with his engine turned down and KERS failing.

          • M Dickens (@sgt-pepper) said on 31st March 2013, 20:35

            (@david-a) So you’re comparing Webber’s blatant anger at Silverstone 2010 to the words of Christian Horner? The man’s a snake oil salesman.

            And MW must be proud of failing to pass a teammate with his engine turned down and KERS failing.

            He gave it a half-hearted attempt on a track renowned for its difficulty to pass, Vettel attacked an unsuspecting Webber on one of the ludicrous mile-wide tilke dromes.

            And blaming Webber for Vettel’s usual overtaking clumsiness in Turkey was disgusting, though to answer (@foleyger)’s question, Webber’s stayed there due to RB spending three years (and sadly it’s starting to look like a fourth) with far-and-away the best car on the grid. He’s clearly weighed up the benefits of having the best car, to being in a team where he has the best machinery, so you can’t really blame him for staying at RB.

          • M Dickens (@sgt-pepper) said on 31st March 2013, 20:36

            Woops, meant having the best machinery vs. being treated as a number 2 (even when he’s ahead in the championship).

          • David-A (@david-a) said on 31st March 2013, 23:03

            @sgt-pepper

            So you’re comparing Webber’s blatant anger at Silverstone 2010 to the words of Christian Horner? The man’s a snake oil salesman.

            Yes, given that it was established that Webber hadn’t used the front wing in Satuday practice, because he preferred the original spec.

            He gave it a half-hearted attempt on a track renowned for its difficulty to pass

            “There was a lot of traffic coming to me, but I was still trying to do my best to pass the guy in front” – Mark Webber.

            Vettel attacked an unsuspecting Webber on one of the ludicrous mile-wide tilke dromes.

            Webber exited the pits next to Vettel. If he was “unsuspecting”, then he couldn’t be a particularly intelligent racing driver. You’re just insulting the Aussie.

            And blaming Webber for Vettel’s usual overtaking clumsiness in Turkey was disgusting

            Usual? Since when has he been clumsy in overtaking? Because he had a whole two incidents in 2010? Is Hamilton usually clumsy because he had a mare in 2011?

            Webber’s stayed there due to RB spending three years (and sadly it’s starting to look like a fourth) with far-and-away the best car on the grid.

            Far and away? Red Bull didn’t even have the fastest car in 2012.

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