Brawn: Team orders ‘against my sporting nature’

F1 Fanatic round-up

Nico Rosberg, Mercedes, Sepang, 2013In the round-up: Mercedes team principal Ross Brawn admits he didn’t enjoy enforcing team orders during the Malaysian Grand Prix.

Links

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

Brawn says team orders went against his nature (Reuters)

“I didn’t like having to give the orders I gave in Malaysia, it’s not in my sporting nature and I think the team have demonstrated many times in the past that we are very happy to let our drivers race each other.”

Jules Bianchi Q&A (Sky)

“Do you have any personal goals in 2013?
JB: ‘First of all I will try to finish every race – I know it will be something really difficult, so I will focus on that and try to gain more experience by finishing every race I can.'”

What it means to run Ferrari (Autosport, subscription required)

Stefano Domenicali: “Remember we started last year 1.6s behind and by July we had the best car. But it’s normal that you cannot keep that gradient of development. So the objective of this year is, for sure, to try to be more competitive.”

No doubting there will be a right time for wrong-time Webber (The Age)

“Red Bull has confirmed Vettel had more horsepower than his teammate in Malaysia after the technicians asked for the engines to be turned down on both cars. ‘[Sebastian Vettel's] engine was turned down, but not as much as Mark’s due to differing strategies and tyre wear,’ said a spokesperson.”

How did McLaren lose a Grand Prix by finishing first? (McLaren)

“At the same time Barrichello overtook Coulthard to retake the lead, and I well remember the thunderous cheer that immediately went up from the grandstands all around Interlagos, audible even above two competing noise sources: the fever-pitched wail of the high-revving 3.0-litre V10 engines in the 11 cars that still remained running by that point, and the rat-tat-tatting of the rain on the press room roof (or what remained of it, because the leak had now developed into a bloody great hole). Indeed, I remember blinking at the surreal sight of hapless hacks stoically hammering away at their laptops even as rainwater lapped at their ankles.”

Tweets

Comment of the day

@Lavine on the loss of FanVision:

Is the F1 app really all we are getting to replace this? I?m heading to Monza in September and hope to use a tablet on 3G to provide information.

Is there anything other than the F1 app worth investing in? If there?s nothing else then I might as well just pay the subscription for the F1 app now and get some decent use out of it instead of just subscribing for Monza in September.
@Lavine

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to MacLeod and Josie Maunders!

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

Jim Clark died 45 years ago today. The two-times world champion was competing in a Formula Two race at the Hockenheimring when his Lotus veered off the road and struck a tree.

Advert | Go Ad-free

135 comments on Brawn: Team orders ‘against my sporting nature’

  1. Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 7th April 2013, 0:39

    I have no sympathy for Brawn: team orders weren’t at all necessary I didn’t believe for either Red Bull or Mercedes, and so shouldn’t have been enforced – as long as they fight fairly, may the best man win.

    • Frost_Byte_94 (@frost_byte_94) said on 7th April 2013, 0:49

      Agreed 100%, he is contradicting himself by claiming that the team has no problems letting their drivers race each other after what happened in Malaysia – clearly the team were willing to give up the chance to score more points to keep their drivers from racing each other

      • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 7th April 2013, 0:56

        Mercedes in general and Rosberg in particular did not have the pace to catch Red Bull.

      • timi (@timi) said on 7th April 2013, 1:32

        @frost_byte_94 Well they were racing eachother initially. Nico overtook Lewis into the final hairpin twice, only to get re-passed in the second DRS zone down the start-finish straight. The radio conversation seemed to start after this. In which case, it seems that if Nico had made the move stick there would have been no problem. But constant passing and re-passing just heightens risk, and thus increases the chances of lost revenue.

        I say we all get over it already. Unless it’s going to stop you from watching the next race, or send in a formal complaint, give it a rest.

        • HoHum (@hohum) said on 7th April 2013, 14:05

          +1 @timi, it’s all part of the cost saving ” reliability” regulations plus tyre management, we can’t have team members racing each other all race long under this regime, so get used to it.

        • Antonio (@antoniocorleone) said on 7th April 2013, 16:28

          The overtaking done by Mercedes drivers at the two DRS zones was to make their lap times around 2 tenths faster, so that was a team order also.

      • Nick (@nick101) said on 7th April 2013, 10:28

        I’m so sick to death of the teams rolling out the old line about not wanting their drivers to race so that they don’t crash!

        Are they kidding?

        First of all, how often during a race to ANY drivers collide or crash when going wheel to wheel? Not very often.
        Second of all, they are team mates so naturally an extra air of caution will be used by both drivers instinctively.
        Thirdly, these are the highest paid drivers in the bloody world! Between Hamilton and Rosberg, Mercedes are paying out over 30M Euros PER SEASON for them to do exactly that – drive and RACE. If two team mates who are paid that amount of money can’t be trusted to do their job without cocking it up they deserve to be sacked!

        The same can be said about RedBull. Although, in their case, I can understand. After all, if they were allowed to race Vettel would be one of those drivers, hence the problem. We all know he’s arrogant, ignorant, spoiled, hot headed and not very spatially aware.

        I can recall no time at all that Mark Webber has EVER had an incident with any team mate barring two occasions – Fuji 2007 and Turkey 2010. Both times with Vettel and both times Vettel’s fault. OK, so in 2007 they weren’t team mates, but they all but were (same company).

        Webber is one of the best wheel to wheel racers on the grid. Just look at his MANY wheel to wheel battles with Alonso – superb! The only loose cannon and only reason they are not allowed to race is Vettel. The team know he is a liability in this situation.

        Webber screwed by Vettel yet again!

        • RAMBOII said on 7th April 2013, 11:49

          Webber has crashed multiple times in battle, with Kovalainen as most famous example but there were collisions with Raikkonen in 2009 Brazil, with Barrichello in 2009 Nurburgring (spatial awareness?) and a lot more in his Jaguar-period, but nobody remembers them as he was at the front. Not to mention that because he is not at the front, he got away with things where Schumacer, Maldonado or Grosjean would have been well and truly punished for.

          As for the Fuji 2007 incident, Hamilton got reprimanded or warned for that and the rules were clarified. Why would that have been?

        • David-A (@david-a) said on 7th April 2013, 12:34

          @nick101 – Ridiculous. Even in the 2010 season, Webber had more wheel-to-wheel crashes than Vettel. Like with Kovalainen, and at least twice with Hamilton.

        • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 7th April 2013, 13:41

          @nick101 – the very fact you have referred to incidents that were over two years ago rather screws your point: Vettel is perfectly capable of driving wheel-to-wheel now, as was the case in Malaysia. In fact, if you watch the Red Bull Racing story there is a specific mention of the Turkey incident and how they now exercise more caution when racing with each other.

          Good point on the Mercedes’ incident though.

        • Toro Stevo (@toro-stevo) said on 7th April 2013, 17:02

          Strictly Vettel and Webber weren’t team mates in 2007.

          But I can think of 3 accidents between Webber and a team mate, all at Brazil:
          2004: where in Jaguar’s last ever race he collided with Klien, putting himself out and relegating Klien to a low spot. More Webber’s fault than Klien’s, turned into him while trying to overtake.
          2005: With Pizzonia, but can’t remember more than that
          2006: The origin of the Rosberg’s Britney nickname – Rosberg’s fault from memory, ran up his backside.

        • Jon Sandor (@jonsan) said on 7th April 2013, 19:22

          Webber is one of the best wheel to wheel racers on the grid. Just look at his MANY wheel to wheel battles with Alonso – superb!

          Webber has been involved in far more accidents and has crashed out of more races over the last few years than Vettel has. Just last season Webber crashed out at Monza and Abu Dhabi. He’s a rather crash-prone driver.

      • hawkii (@hawkii) said on 7th April 2013, 13:17

        The counter-argument to that is Hamilton obviously wasn’t going to just let him past, as was evidenced, so think of it in these terms: Rosberg *eventually* passes Hamilton, gains no places because nothing happened with the RBR drivers, and Hamilton ended up using so much fuel that he couldn’t finish the race. A Mercedes 3/4 has now become a 3/DNF, losing them points. So the only option there is to give Hamilton the order to let Rosberg through, which is still a team order. At this point in the season, for a constructor, an almost guaranteed 3/4 finish is a good result.

        • Frost_Byte_94 (@frost_byte_94) said on 7th April 2013, 18:52

          I disagree that, had they been allowed to race, Hamilton would’ve run out of fuel and not finished. The man is one of the best racing drivers in the world and even though he wears his emotions on his sleeve he had the discipline to realize that he could not realistically match his teammates pace as soon as he got out of the car.
          I would be very surprised to see any driver run his car empty to hold one position at the risk of a DNF.

          Rosberg’s chance of catching the Red Bulls is completely subjective – nobody knows what kind of pace he was harbouring while following Hamilton, and nobody knows how much the Red Bulls held off after the multi-21 call went out. The argument is more about Mercedes denying their driver a better opportunity to capitalize on any problems up the road.

    • JP (@jonathanproc) said on 7th April 2013, 1:39

      @vettel1 You say “may the best man win” however this may not have been the case if team orders were not present two weeks ago.

      Hamilton was going visually slower towards the end of the race as the fuel situation became so critical. You could see him lifting off ages before the braking zones and coasting before putting the brakes on. If Brawn allowed them to race (which I’m not saying wouldn’t have been the right thing) then Rosberg would have easily passed due to the fact the he didn’t have to conserve fuel. So in that case we don’t really know if the best man would have won. I personally believe (not just because I’m a fan of Lewis) that the best man would have lost out.

      The same scenario may have occurred at Red Bull. How do we know the best man would have won when one was at a disadvantage?

      Other than that I agree that orders were not necessary from a motorsport fan’s perspective, but from a team principles perspective I can see the logic behind them.

      • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 7th April 2013, 13:49

        @jonathanproc – this is true, but I class “best man” as “fastest man”, so from that standpoint Rosberg should not have been handicapped because there was a mistake on Hamilton’s side of the garage.

        The same scenario may have occurred at Red Bull. How do we know the best man would have won when one was at a disadvantage?

        Well in that situation I think the best man did win: Webber had used more fuel in the opening part of the race whilst Vettel was able to keep some in reserve for a late attack, as well as tyres which he had saved from qualifying. So in that case I think team orders were completely unnecessary, even more so than in the case of Mercedes.

        from a team principles perspective I can see the logic behind them

        As can I, but if we were to always look at it from a team perspective the racing would be incredibly boring and we’d likely see far more Ferrari-like team orders! Besides, I think around half a billion fan’s opinions hold more value than one team principal’s honestly.

        • JP (@jonathanproc) said on 7th April 2013, 14:07

          @vettel1

          I class “best man” as “fastest man”, so from that standpoint Rosberg should not have been handicapped because there was a mistake on Hamilton’s side of the garage.

          But the situation was that the fastest man was potentially in the slower car. Rosberg was in the fastest car but that doesn’t mean he was the fastest man.

          Webber had used more fuel in the opening part of the race whilst Vettel was able to keep some in reserve for a late attack, as well as tyres which he had saved from qualifying.

          What evidence do you have which shows Webber “used more fuel” during the first half of the race? I’m not saying it’s not true – I’d just like this to be confirmed by a source! One fact you seem to have glossed over is that Vettel made a mistake in switching to the dry tyres too early. This mistake gave the lead to Webber because he read the conditions better. His engine was then turned down more than Vettel’s – and you say in your first comment “as long as they fight fairly” – which clearly resulted in an unfair battle.

          I think around half a billion fan’s opinions hold more value than one team principal’s honestly.

          Well it just so happens to be the case that we have that single team principle being the one in charge of making the calls, not “half a billion fan’s!” as you say! So we’ll just have to live with what we’ve got.

          • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 7th April 2013, 14:21

            @jonathanproc

            Rosberg was in the fastest car but that doesn’t mean he was the fastest man.

            The way I see it, the two are intrinsically linked: Vettel in his Red Bull is faster than Van der Garde in his Caterham. I see where you’re coming from, but the reality is that Rosberg in his W04 was faster than Hamilton in his W04, so from my standpoint as a fan I think the faster pairing shouldn’t have been reigned in.

            I’d just like this to be confirmed by a source!

            here you go, and I believe that article is based on one from Auto Motor und Sport, who are fairly reliable!

            One fact you seem to have glossed over is that Vettel made a mistake in switching to the dry tyres too early.

            That is true, it was a mistake on Vettel’s side of the garage (not necessarily just Vettel), which was then rectified in the final stint when Vettel pitted first and slashed the gap to Webber. You could interpret that as a mistake on Webber’s side of the garage!

            His engine was then turned down more than Vettel’s – and you say in your first comment “as long as they fight fairly” – which clearly resulted in an unfair battle.

            Was it though? If indeed Webber used more fuel than Vettel initially – hence allowing Vettel to keep his engine turned up later on the race – it was very much fair, and just good strategic play by Vettel. Webber could always have just turned his engine back up anyway had he the fuel.

    • latina (@latina) said on 7th April 2013, 3:03

      ” team orders weren’t at all necessary …..may the best man win.”
      It’s been said so many times and if you had read the article, you’ld see that inadequate fuel was the issue. Both drivers dueling could have ended in both using up their fuels before the finish line. Now, who does that favour?
      On the 2 occasions that Rosberg passed Hamilton, Hamilton regained both positions easily meaning that he could go faster than Rosberg if he so wished. And up till then Brawn had not mentioned to Nico to stay behind Lewis.
      While I don’t support team orders at all, I think the call made by Brawn was the right call considering the circumstances.

      • latina (@latina) said on 7th April 2013, 3:04

        ..using up their *fuel.

      • bull mello (@bullmello) said on 7th April 2013, 5:45

        As mentioned, Ross Brawn said it was a fuel issue with both cars being the reason. He has taken complete responsibility for the call and said he wished not to have to do it. I would give him the benefit of the doubt this time. Actions will speak loudly whether these words ring true before the season is over. It’s really great to see the performance of the car the Mercedes team has brought to the track so far this season. It will be better still to see how both drivers are able to compete the rest of the season.

      • MJ4 said on 7th April 2013, 10:09

        Both drivers dueling could have ended in both using up their fuels

        Spot the more likely summary:

        A.

        Both drivers had been under-fuelled, both had been told the situation about it, and were asked to slow down. However, Rosberg is dumb as hell or he doesn’t understand plain English, so he kept going on his radio to convince Brawn he’s faster.

        B.

        Only Hamilton was critically low on fuel, so no frightening prospect of them duelling till the end. However, for some reason (of non-sporting nature) Brawn wanted him to finish in front. So he kept embellishing and re-configuring his story, from a curt “Negative” to the inadequate explanation “Lewis could go just as fast” to the more defensible tale “Both were under-fuelled”.

        Well?

        People in general like to put a self-justifying spin on their actions, but people in position of authority are best placed to actually manufacture the story that backs it up.

        I might also mention Toto Wolff’s similarly insincere attempt at explaining the controversy away (“they could have crashed” … oh yeah, obvious speed difference + easy track to overtake + team mates on friendly terms = it could only end in a crash); or all the extra info generated by Red Bull since the GP weekend with the thinly disguised intent of mitigating the controversial aspects of their own team order issue.

        • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 7th April 2013, 10:17

          From what was played on the pit radio channel, Hamilton received far more ‘low fuel’ warnings than Rosberg. He was being told to ‘lift and coast’ from the early stages of the race.

        • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 7th April 2013, 13:52

          I think option B is far more likely, so why then should Rosberg have been punished for somebody on Hamilton’s side of the garage **** up? That is what I don’t quite understand.

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 7th April 2013, 8:44

      I fully agree with that, they were neither suitable at Mercedes, nor at Red Bull and certainly not for Williams etc. More comfortable for the teams, possibly, but that is not much of an excuse.

      Its well possible that Rosberg could have challenged Webber (who apparently did have to save fuel, unlike Vettel – german source) and had made the race even better.

      On the other hand I do think that Brawn is right here

      “Somebody has to make those decisions. What you can’t do is have those decisions made by a group or a committee. There’s no time.”

      – Both Toto and Niki speaking about it were only good for supporting the rumours of Brawn being replaced. And at Red Bull, I still think it will have the whole management spurning PR as much because of the drivers as in trying to take away the very strong impression Horner is not much in that position at all.

    • kowalsky is back said on 7th April 2013, 10:01

      he has sort memory, as the f1 fanatic followers. He was a senior member of the evil empire. Schumacher, todt, brawn etc. I would say if i look at his background that he loves team orders, and even worse, at the start of the season when the only thing they achieve is peace of mind on top of the fans that payed big bucks to watch a fake show.
      So thanks Vettel, you made all the wrongs right disobeying team orders. The only mistake was to act oposite to what schumacher used to do when he was caught doing something wrong. Not accepting his mistake, i imagine for all the pain he had to suffer from the media and fans. Wrong call this time. Even if i think there was not right call after the action was done.

    • Do we know the reason why Mercedes used team orders? I don’t think so, therefore I can’t understand where your opinion comes from. They are still somewhat secretive of the true nature they didn’t let Rosberg past.

  2. craig-o (@craig-o) said on 7th April 2013, 0:41

    Remember we started last year 1.6s behind and by July we had the best car.

    If I remember rightly, both him and Alonso kept going on about how slow their car is in comparison to Red Bull and McLaren at pretty much every single race last year.

  3. JCost (@jcost) said on 7th April 2013, 0:48

    Well, Bianchi knows his car is sub-par and finishing races is a good goal. He needs mileage and solid drives to impress Ferrari and eventually someone running a mid-field team.

    • George (@george) said on 7th April 2013, 3:43

      His aim should be to score points, obviously not entirely in his control but it’ll probably mean beating 3 other guys at least…

      • K0V4LA1NEN said on 7th April 2013, 7:12

        if he wants to score points his first aim would be to finish every race, both caterham and marussia can’t (at the moment) score points on their speed, therefore if all four drivers including bianchi aim to finish every race there is always the chance of them stealing a point due to a big crash or a teams facing many mechanical problems

      • BasCB (@bascb) said on 7th April 2013, 8:50

        I think that his only chance to ever get a point with Marussia is to finish even in races that have a lot of cars crashing out, regardless of how many cars finish behind him @george. So then wanting to finish every race is exactly the right way to go at it.

        • George (@george) said on 7th April 2013, 13:33

          @bascb
          Well, when was the last time less than 10 cars finished a race? I just think having your aim as ‘finishing every race’ is a very low bar to set, especially considering how the first two races have gone. Also, shouldn’t his aims echo those of the team? Although I admit I haven’t heard as much from them as Caterham on this topic, I’m sure their aim is to get into the points too.

          What’s the point in racing just to finish?

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 8th April 2013, 8:18

            The point is, that you have to finish in the first case, to be able to be one of those 10.
            If the car is not fast enough by far to get in front of so many others on pace, what better thing to do than to limit mistakes and hope to capitalize when others do make mistakes and do not finish @george?

    • bull mello (@bullmello) said on 7th April 2013, 4:26

      As Mario Andretti said, to finish first, first you must finish. I think Bianchi definitely has the right idea. If you finish any race, you may have a chance for points. I like his spirit.

      • Palle (@palle) said on 7th April 2013, 22:02

        Bianchi will fade away if he don’t change that goal-setting. To finish as many races as possible will make him content with just finishing, and he will avoid risk-taking and confrontations with competitors. Look at polite Heidfeld, who has a record of finishing most races vs top aggressive drivers. As if You only learn from finishing races, just the opposite, You learn even more from Your failures. Look at how much Grosjean learned last year. Not that I suggest Bianchi should make a “Grosjean” just to learn, but to develop he must also seek out the battle and the action that sooner or later leads to DNF’s due to crashes or run-offs. He just has to choose the battles carefully.

  4. Jon Sandor (@jonsan) said on 7th April 2013, 1:09

    Yes, we all remember Brawn’s “sporting nature” and his deep abhorrence for team orders from his time with Schumacher and Barrichello at Ferrari!

    Un. Believable.

    • Yes, I like Ross Brawn a lot, but these comments from him are…um, surprising.

    • Todfod (@todfod) said on 7th April 2013, 7:24

      Completely agree.

      Being a Hypocrite seems like a trend for team principals right now (Horner and Brawn are prime examples) . Brawn always used team order,s and had a number 1 driver philisophy ever since he entered the sport. In his Ferrari and Brawn Gp days it was obvious that there was one driver that had more support, and I feel it might be the same at Mercedes

    • montreal95 (@montreal95) said on 7th April 2013, 9:06

      @jonsan Not to mention his time with the Schum at Bennetton VS Brundle/Patrese/Herbert and also Irvine at Ferrari. I mean why? Why do they need to lie? Do they think we’re all stupid?

    • matt88 (@matt88) said on 7th April 2013, 9:09

      and also at Brawn GP there were some strange situations, when Rubens was penalised with dubious strategies.

    • Palle (@palle) said on 7th April 2013, 22:11

      @jonsan, @aka-robyn, @todfod, @montreal95, @matt88: +1. My first thought was that Brawn, of all, should have kept his mouth firmly shut about this issue.

      • Robbie (@robbie) said on 8th April 2013, 14:15

        Yup, have to agree with the above comments. I guess it goes against Brawn’s nature to call a team order….which is why MS/Ferrari had their subservient under contract to be subservient…hence no team orders needed…it was taken care of in the boardroom before the season(s) even began.

  5. Jon Sandor (@jonsan) said on 7th April 2013, 1:29

    A situation will arise when Sebastian Vettel needs a co-operative teammate. When it does, I trust Webber will vividly remember Malaysia and respond accordingly.

    Golly! You mean Mark won’t be as unselfish and cooperative as he was last year at Abu Dhabi and Brazil? Yikes, Seb’s really in trouble now!

    Who’s kidding who here? Webber has been much more of a hindrance than a help to Vettel throughout their time together. Not that Seb has done Mark any favors either, but this belief in some quarters that Seb’s success has been built on a foundation of Mark’s Barrichello-like assistance is simply laughable.

    • Toro Stevo (@toro-stevo) said on 7th April 2013, 2:00

      True, except for the fact that if Vettel had a different team mate that never beat Alonso, then Alonso would be a 4-time world champion, and Vettel champion just the once.

      Seb’s success, like every champion in F1 history, is built on the fastest/most reliable car in the paddock. But I wouldn’t say Webber has been more of a hindrance than a help, like almost every F1 champion, he’s been a competitive team mate has kept points off other teams and helped in car development.

      • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 7th April 2013, 14:00

        @toro-stevo – you’ve omitted to mention though that Massa rarely finishes ahead of Alonso though and is much more complacent with team orders, in contrast to Webber who regularly ignores orders and is actually fairly competitive against his teammate.

        I would say that Webber has cost more points to his teammate than he has to Alonso honestly. So you can’t say with confidence that Alonso would be a four-time world champion had they switched teammates.

        Better to argue with the actual events than to fantasise with what might have been.

        • Toro Stevo (@toro-stevo) said on 7th April 2013, 16:24

          Yes, although I assume you mean complicit?

          But there is a critical difference, every time Webber signs a contract with Red Bull, there is an agreement that there is no number 2 driver situation. Massa has effectively had the number 2 driver position with Ferrari for almost 3 years now. It’s apples and oranges. Would Webber have accepted taking a 5 place grid penalty so that Vettel could get the rubbered side of the track for the start of a race?

          As for facts, I had done the number crunching and I think I had used it in a thread last week, but didn’t refer to it. In detail:

          2010 changes:
          Vettel: Spain 2nd (+3), Monaco 1st (+7), Britain 6th (+2), Hungary 2nd (+3)
          Alonso: Spain 1st (+7), Monaco 5th (+2), Turkey 7th (+2), Hungary 1st (+7), Japan 2nd (+3), Brazil 2nd (+3).
          So that’s +15 for Vettel, +24 for Alonso. Alonso up by 5 points.

          2012 changes:
          Vettel: Malaysia 10th (+1), China 4th (+2), Monaco 3rd (+3), Britain 2nd (+3), Brazil 5th (+2)
          Alonso: Australia 4th (+2), China 8th (+2), Bahrain 6th (+2), Monaco 2nd (+3), Britain 1st (+7), Korea 2nd (+3).
          So that’s +11 for Vettel, +19 for Alonso.

          • Toro Stevo (@toro-stevo) said on 7th April 2013, 16:27

            Edit: Ignore complicit, not that either.

          • crr917 (@crr917) said on 7th April 2013, 18:02

            @toro-stevo
            Vettel could have won Monaco GP so +13 pts from this race makes it 24:16.
            As Vettel stayed longer with he old tires, he was gaining around 1 sec/lap until Webber went in 1:18s. The moment Vettel changed tires Webber start lapping in 1:20.

          • crr917 (@crr917) said on 7th April 2013, 18:09

            I meant 2012 Monaco GP. I have no doubt that Ferrari would have made it 1-2 if they were in that position but RBR themselves will never be able to do it with their current driver pair :)

          • Jon Sandor (@jonsan) said on 7th April 2013, 18:28

            there is a critical difference, every time Webber signs a contract with Red Bull, there is an agreement that there is no number 2 driver situation. Massa has effectively had the number 2 driver position with Ferrari for almost 3 years now.

            You’re saying that Massa’s contract at Ferrari specifies that he finish behind Alonso in almost every race? I don’t believe a word of that.

          • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 7th April 2013, 21:12

            @toro-stevo – fair enough then, but again it is still better to argue with what actually happened. Alonso could have been a four-time world champion, but he isn’t.

          • Toro Stevo (@toro-stevo) said on 7th April 2013, 23:29

            You’re saying that Massa’s contract at Ferrari specifies that he finish behind Alonso in almost every race? I don’t believe a word of that.

            No more than I am saying that Webber being an equal driver is written into his contract. Of course it’s not written down, you’d be begging for solicitors to get involved there.
            But nobody who watches F1 could argue Massa has been anything other than the number 2 driver since Germany 2010. He has signed a contract extension since then, so he is obviously happy enough to continue with the situation.
            For Red Bull, they have stated they are equal drivers every time Webber signs another one year contract, in name if not in principle. So from the get go, if Massa in any way takes points/time off Alonso he is in trouble, it’s against the de facto agreement. Webber has supposedly equal billing, so by going fast and beating his team mate he isn’t actually doing anything wrong. Hence apples and oranges.

            @crr917
            I was only working on finishing positions. But I think this example would actually be worse for Vettel, before Vettel’s pit stop Webber was holding up Rosberg, Hamilton and Alonso (maybe Massa too?), to the point that other teams accused him of deliberately driving slowly. Webber not being there may have brought Vettel out in 6th after his last pit stop.

    • verstappen (@verstappen) said on 7th April 2013, 2:22

      BAM!

    • montreal95 (@montreal95) said on 7th April 2013, 9:13

      @jonsan Well imagine if MW didn’t wave SV through as he did on lap 15(IIRC?). And that he would try to make the corner on the outside of turn 1 instead of running wide so that not to risk running into Seb, who together with Kobayashi was slow on restart? Apart from the start, when it’s notoriously difficult to concentrate on anything but yourself with losing a bunch of positions, you have nothing really. But hey, it seems that re-writing history is the favorite exercise of Vettel apologists

      • David-A (@david-a) said on 7th April 2013, 12:39

        @montreal95 – More like “re-writing history is the favorite exercise of Vettel bashers”. History doesn’t need to be re-written to boost a driver who has technically made history, rather it has to be re-written to diminish.

        • montreal95 (@montreal95) said on 7th April 2013, 13:48

          @david-a Don’t have anything to reply to what I said above regarding Brazil? And yes I’m a proud Vettel basher for what he did in Malaysia. He’s also my 3rd favorite driver after Webber and Raikkonen(now that Koba’s gone). Criticizing his actions doesn’t mean I diminish his career achievements(except the one in Malaysia, but the way I see it there was no achievement there, the way it was done). Hell, I never even diminished my least favorite driver of all time(the Scum) achievements, even though I criticized his actions countless times and always said I respect him as one of the all time greats, even though I hate him and his conduct(sportive, fan’s hate of course). Again, criticizing=/=diminishing achievements.

          • David-A (@david-a) said on 7th April 2013, 16:26

            @montreal95

            Don’t have anything to reply to what I said above regarding Brazil?

            Well, not in particular, because my main issue was with your criticism of “Vettel apologists” in general (when to be frank, you ought to stick to the term “Vettel fan”), based on the opinion of a solitary fan, whose opinion isn’t particularly accurate.

          • montreal95 (@montreal95) said on 7th April 2013, 19:36

            @david-a But I don’t have any problems with Vettel fans. You can consider me one such after a fashion. By “apologists” I mean those who will never even think that he’s been wrong in something and will try whatever to explain his actions favorably no matter what, like this poster.

            For example, as you can see by my name here, I’m a huge Alesi fan. However, when he ran out of fuel in Australia ’97 because he wasn’t paying attention I was furious with him! There were however Alesi apologists who said whatever just not to admit that he had messed up. That’s not a fan, some combination of a “fan” and a “boy” comes to mind. Every driver has them. SV is no exception

          • David-A (@david-a) said on 7th April 2013, 19:47

            @montreal95
            Alright then, fair enough.

            For example, as you can see by my name here, I’m a huge Alesi fan. However, when he ran out of fuel in Australia ’97 because he wasn’t paying attention I was furious with him!

            Similarly, I remember what I thought and even posted back at Spa 2010 about Vettel!

          • Jon Sandor (@jonsan) said on 7th April 2013, 22:32

            By “apologists” I mean those who will never even think that he’s been wrong in something and will try whatever to explain his actions favorably no matter what, like this poster.

            I’m not a “Vettel apologist”. Truth be told Vettel is not my first or second choice to win the 2013 WDC. I get stuck defending him because large numbers of people around here keep telling outrageous whoppers about this one driver. I’m talking lies of a “The Sahara Desert is the wettest place on Earth” sort. If I see people telling similar lies about some other driver, I’ll defend that other driver as well.

            The quality (or lack of it) of his detractors is the principle reason why, if Vettel wins the WDC again this year, I’ll be pleased.

            On this very thread there’s somebody repeating the tired old canard about Vettel being crash prone. This is not actually a matter of debate – he’s not crash prone, not compared to Alonso, Webber, or Hamilton. That’s just reality. The facts are what they are.

          • montreal95 (@montreal95) said on 8th April 2013, 13:46

            @jonsan I agree with you, that some things that were said to criticize SV were outrageous, blatant lies. However, by responding the way you did you’re only making things worse. As I proved above some things you’d said were also factually incorrect. I understand that you feel the need to defend a driver under a savage attack but there’s no need to resort to this

            For my part I believe that SV was in the wrong in Malaysia and that it’ll hurt him in the future. Nowhere did I say he was an evil child-eating monster.

          • Jon Sandor (@jonsan) said on 8th April 2013, 22:34

            As I proved above some things you’d said were also factually incorrect.

            Remind me where you did that again? I scoffed at the claim that Webber was a (and I quote) “cooperative teammate”. You responded with the true but irrelevant observation that Webber sometimes takes points off Alonso. Not the same thing at all.

            I’m quite certain the threat that Webber would not be “cooperative” did NOT mean that Webber would deliberately finish behind Alonso for the rest of the season. You’re doing battle with a strawman there, not with anything I’ve said.

      • Pandaslap (@pandaslap) said on 7th April 2013, 18:16

        @montreal95

        “Remember we started last year 1.6s behind and by July we had the best car.” That’s how you rewrite history…

      • Jon Sandor (@jonsan) said on 7th April 2013, 18:24

        it seems that re-writing history is the favorite exercise of Vettel apologists

        History is on the side of “Vettel apologists”. History records his 38 poles, 27 wins, 48 podiums, 3 WDC’s and all the rest. It’s the Vettel-bashers who have to resort to re-writing history.

        Well imagine if MW didn’t wave SV through as he did on lap 15(IIRC?)

        You don’t recall correctly.

        • montreal95 (@montreal95) said on 7th April 2013, 19:21

          @jonsan “You don’t recall correctly”. But I did! It was on lap 12 not lap 15 but it happened definitely(I have the race recorded so could check the lap). So it’s either YOU don’t remember correctly or you’re re-writing history again

          And you also clearly don’t understand the concept of history. As I’d mentioned in a reply to @david-a above, If you think that SV achievements allow him to do whatever unsporting acts he wants without being bashed for it, then you need to go back to school again

          • Jon Sandor (@jonsan) said on 7th April 2013, 22:05

            It was on lap 12 not lap 15 but it happened definitely(I have the race recorded so could check the lap).

            And you see Webber stick his hand out of his cockpit and wave Vettel past? Really? I think you need to check it again.

          • Jon Sandor (@jonsan) said on 7th April 2013, 22:14

            If you think that SV achievements allow him to do whatever unsporting acts he wants

            I don’t see a driver passing another driver on the race track as an “unsporting act”.

            Alonso parking his car at the pit exit so Hamilton could not get out? That’s an unsporting act. Schumacher crashing into Hill or Senna into Prost? Those were unsporting acts. There is nothing unsporting about passing a slower driver on the race track.

          • montreal95 (@montreal95) said on 8th April 2013, 14:06

            @jonsan Hitting someone with one hand tied behind his back is an unsporting act you think? If yes, then how is passing a driver who turned his engine down because of pre-race agreed(by both) team orders is a sporting act? SV should have said before the race that he doesn’t agree to any such non-sense. That would earn him the admiration and respect of many millions of fans instead of the scorn he’s getting now.

            Moreover, instead of moaning over a team radio at half-distance he could’ve tried to overtake Webber. Instead he moaned for a team order when that suited him. When it didn’t suit him any longer, suddenly team orders are not ok for him. It’s this aspect that angers me most about this:either you’re for team orders or you are against team orders Seb. You cannot have your cake and eat it

        • Jon Sandor (@jonsan) said on 8th April 2013, 23:00

          Hitting someone with one hand tied behind his back is an unsporting act you think?

          That’s an utterly absurd analogy. Really, why not just liken Vettel to somebody who sneaks up behind you and bashes you with a club? For somebody trying to pose as the Voice of Reason here, you come out with some remarkably inflammatory remarks.

          how is passing a driver who turned his engine down

          Webber did not “turn his engine down”. If he did, he did so AFTER Vettel passed him. I’m tired of pointing out that Webber cut by far his fastest lap of the entire race while battling Vettel for the lead, but it seems I must keep reminding people of it.

          he moaned for a team order when that suited him. When it didn’t suit him any longer, suddenly team orders are not ok for him.

          Sounds exactly like every other driver in F1, very much including a certain Mark Webber, doesn’t it? Actually, I don’t recall Vettel pouting and moaning after the various instances where Webber defied team orders. After Slverstone, Seb defended Mark.

          either you’re for team orders or you are against team orders Seb

          If you have said the same thing to Mark than a least you’re consistent. Wrong, but consistent. Have you said the same about Webber, who has been very vocally on both sides of the team orders issue?

    • Pandaslap (@pandaslap) said on 7th April 2013, 18:09

      +1,000,000

      You’ve restored my faith in humanity.

      • M Dickens (@sgt-pepper) said on 8th April 2013, 10:52

        (@jonsan)

        Alonso parking his car at the pit exit so Hamilton could not get out? That’s an unsporting act. Schumacher crashing into Hill or Senna into Prost

        Although it’s not as bad at this, Vettel’s passing of Webber was unsporting – he could have comfortably maintained the gap, but was following team orders to slow down and preserve the engines. Whether you like team orders or not (and I don’t), simply saying “there is nothing unsporting about passing a slower driver on the race track” completely overlooks the fact that Mark has been asked to slow – he fully had the wherewithal to speed up again, and had gotten out in front by virtue of superior tyre selection.

        • Palle (@palle) said on 8th April 2013, 15:03

          @sgt-pepper: But they raced for it about 2 laps. If Webber had the tires and fuel left for it, he could have kept Vettel behind. Vettel didn’t reel in the gap because Webber had slowed down. Vettel pushed up to the last pit-stop and his side of the garage used the stop to try to get him out in front of Webber. It almost happened, and because of the disappointment of that near miss, Vettel didn’t stick to the pre-race agreement. I understand how that can happen – like Schumachers fake accident in Monaco Qualifying etc.. Because of the race strategies and the length of a race, of course this kind of pre-race agreements shouldn’t be made. I hope Vettels action has made more of the field aware of this. At the end of 2013 the points table will prove Vettel’s instinct right and RB Team orders wrong. I strongly respect any racer with that instinct – it is Formula 1 after all. Remember no 2 is just the first of the losers.

          • M Dickens (@sgt-pepper) said on 11th April 2013, 14:46

            (@palle)

            I strongly respect any racer with that instinct – it is Formula 1 after all. Remember no 2 is just the first of the losers.

            What an utterly unpleasant view of racing. I feel that racing is more than merely ‘victory at all costs,’ and call me old-fashioned but I respect drivers like Coulthard and Prost, those who know that there’s more to life than simply winning. To me instances like Australia (’98 I think) are signs of true men, they had agreed whoever got to the first corner first would win the race so they didn’t have to race each other for the entire grand prix and put their cars under pressure etc. Coulthard respected this agreement, and even when Hakkinen accidentally ended up behind, he was true to his word.

            Even tales like the pact between Villeneuve and Zonta to do Eau Rouge flat out, or I think it was Alesi and Berger shaking hands/hugging after a great, race long battle are to me what F1 is truly about. It saddens me that drivers like Webber now appears abit of a Dinosaur compared to this new cutthroat, Schumacher type attitude that’s been brought in. The era of gentleman racers seems truly dead.

        • Jon Sandor (@jonsan) said on 8th April 2013, 23:28

          (Webber) fully had the wherewithal to speed up again

          Not only did he have the wherewithal to speed up again, he did in fact speed up again. He recorded by far his fastest lap of the race while fighting Vettel for the lead. I realize that this fact is very inconvenient for those people who wish to believe that Webber was “fighting with one hand tied behind his back”, but reality can’t be wished away just because you don’t like it.

          the fact that Mark has been asked to slow

          Vettel was “asked to slow” repeatedly in the earlier sections of the race and told that there was still half the race to go and that he should be patient.. Contra what some people seem to believe, Vettel and Webber were not racing freely prior to the last pit stops. The belief that Webber was “ahead on merit” before Vettel “double-crossed him” can’t withstand even a casual acquaintanceship with the facts.

          The people who made complete fools of themselves in this instance were Red Bull management, who kept telling Vettel to maintain a 3 second gap behind Webber – while Hamilton was less than 3 seconds behind Webber!

  6. Jon Sandor (@jonsan) said on 7th April 2013, 2:29

    if Vettel had a different team mate that never beat Alonso, then Alonso would be a 4-time world champion

    You’re making some big assumptions there. Perhaps if Vettel had a Massa-like or Barrichello-like teammate who doesn’t take points from him he is already a 4-time champion and chasing his 5th this year?

    That’s obviously highly debatable and ultimately unknowable. We do know for a fact that Webber has been an uncooperative teammate up until now, and that threats of his becoming more uncooperative seem faintly ridiculous.

    I wouldn’t say Webber has been more of a hindrance than a help

    I’d say you’d have to go back to Hamilton and Alonso in 2007 to find two drivers who hindered one another more. In their case it was somewhat more understandable, as they were both in contention for the WDC throughout the year.

    I can’t recall EVER seeing a driver, himself out of contention for the WDC, pull the stunts Webber pulled against his teammate last year. If you know of any such happenings in the history of F1 then feel free to share them.

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 7th April 2013, 3:35

      Despite all the arguments that Webber isn’t a team player and that he has no right to complain about Vettel failing to respect the order in Malaysia because he doesn’t respect orders that are given to him, I am consistently bemused that everyone criticising him has totally ignored the way Red Bull have gotten the outcomes they wanted in the races where Webber ignored orders. He was told to maintain the gap to Vettel at Silverstone in 2011, and ignored the instruction – but Vettel still finished ahead of him. That’s a far cry from Vettel being told to maintain his position in Malaysia, but ignoring the order and passing him.

      Mark Webber is very, very good at getting the media and the public to side with him. It’s probably not that difficult, given some of the personalities in the team, and so it wouldn’t surprise me if his actions on track are often a clever ruse. He ignores team orders just enough to give the apperance of independence, but knows precisely what he can get away with, and thus does not go so far as to totally defy an order, which keeps him in good standing with the team.

      • Jon Sandor (@jonsan) said on 7th April 2013, 17:48

        He was told to maintain the gap to Vettel at Silverstone in 2011, and ignored the instruction – but Vettel still finished ahead of him. That’s a far cry from Vettel being told to maintain his position in Malaysia, but ignoring the order and passing him.

        I’m not sure what point you are trying to make there. Is it that Vettel is a faster driver than Webber? I think we can take that as a given, considering their respective results over the last few years. Or are you implying that Red Bull “got the outcome they wanted” in Sepang – in which case you must think that that team orders to Vettel to hold station were a ruse intended to fool Webber? I mean it – I don’t know what you’re trying to say here.

        Mark Webber is very, very good at getting the media and the public to side with him. It’s probably not that difficult ..

        .. given the proclivities of the English-speaking media, which has consistently failed to inform casual fans of Webbers own actions and words with respect to team orders. For instance –

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

        He ignores team orders just enough to give the apperance of independence, but knows precisely what he can get away with, and thus does not go so far as to totally defy an order

        Then you think Mark Webber is a conniving liar? Sounds like you have a much worse opinion of him than I do.

    • MJ4 said on 7th April 2013, 10:22

      Perhaps if Vettel had a Massa-like or Barrichello-like teammate who doesn’t take points from him he is already a 4-time champion and chasing his 5th this year?

      Isn’t this the biggest assumption of them all?

      The year you’re talking about (2009) saw the following team mate results:

      Button 95 pts : Barrichello 77 pts
      Vettel 84 pts : Webber 69.5 pts
      Alonso 26 pts : Massa 22 pts

      Doesn’t look like Barrichello’s or Massa’s relative performance was that much different from Webber’s.

      It would also be interesting to actually calculate how many points Alonso lost these last three years by having Webber in front of him; and how many did Vettel lose by having Massa beating him.

      • andae23 (@andae23) said on 7th April 2013, 10:36

        Alonso 26 pts : Massa 22 pts

        2009? Wasn’t Alonso driving a Renault and wasn’t Massa injured for 50% of the races?

        But regarding your last sentence: I calculated that if Massa would have finished one place behind Alonso in every race both of them finished, Alonso would have won the championship in 2010 and 2012.

      • Jon Sandor (@jonsan) said on 7th April 2013, 17:53

        Isn’t this the biggest assumption of them all?

        I’m not making that assumption, I’m merely pointing out the futility of trying to imagine these “what if such-and-such a driver had a different team-mate” scenarios.

        I repeat – I don’t recall EVER seeing a driver, himself out of the WDC, pull the stunts against his WDC chasing teammate which Webber pulled last year. And I’m still waiting for you to cite examples to prove me wrong.

    • Toro Stevo (@toro-stevo) said on 7th April 2013, 16:03

      Perhaps if Vettel had a Massa-like or Barrichello-like teammate who doesn’t take points from him he is already a 4-time champion and chasing his 5th this year?

      Well yes, except you would have to ignore Brawn cleaning up 6 of the first 7 races of 2009 for that to happen. Unless team orders extend to Webber playing Piquet Jnr every race, in which case perhaps…

      But for 2010 and 2012 which are the two years I’m referring to, I was illustrating a point simply through positional changes as to the effectiveness of a competitive team mate.
      2010: assuming Webber always finishes lower than both Vettel and Alonso, then Alonso gets 276 points to Vettel’s 271.
      2012, same again, Alonso 297 vs Vettel 292.

      Now of course there are other things which such a scenario would change (i.e. Turkey 2010) but that’s beyond what I’m showing here. All I’m showing here, is that there is a tangible benefit having a team mate who took points off Alonso 6 times each in 2010 in 2012, even if he takes points off you 4 times in each of those years.

      I’d say you’d have to go back to Hamilton and Alonso in 2007 to find two drivers who hindered one another more. In their case it was somewhat more understandable, as they were both in contention for the WDC throughout the year.

      In 2010, Vettel was never in the lead of the drivers championship until right at the end, whereas Webber led after a number of races. If you were to apply team orders purely on championship position, then Webber would have been given the rub more often than Seb. Vettel was therefore the hindrance to Webber yes?

      But there’s very little I can think to attribute to Webber alone which has been a direct hindrance to Vettel, unless the increasingly occasional better drive or fatest quali lap counts? The hard line in corner 1 Brazil last year, albeit it a huge moment, is about all I can really think of.

      • Jon Sandor (@jonsan) said on 7th April 2013, 18:05

        In 2010, Vettel was never in the lead of the drivers championship until right at the end, whereas Webber led after a number of races. If you were to apply team orders purely on championship position, then Webber would have been given the rub more often than Seb.

        And that is precisely what the so-called “favoritism” towards Vettel amounts to – that Red Bull did not order Vettel to finish behind Webber in 2010!

        The media put words to that effect in Webbers mouth and then reported them as fact.

        http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsport/formula_one/9161758.stm


        Webber’s remarks came in a news conference in which he was quizzed on the team’s unwillingness to put their weight behind him as their best way of beating Alonso.

        After a number of responses in which he was clearly searching for the right way to respond to the line of questioning, it was suggested to him that he still seemed to think the team were not fully behind him.

        .. when it was then suggested that he did not feel the team were emotionally behind him, he replied: “It’s obvious, isn’t it?

        This is the “favoritism towards Vettel” which so many fans and members of the press are wound up about – the failure of Red Bull to employ team orders to benefit Webber. Never mind that RB have not employed such orders to benefit Vettel either.

  7. andae23 (@andae23) said on 7th April 2013, 6:11

    45 years ago, Formula 1 lost one of its legends. Aside from being one of the best drivers in F1 history, arguably the best, he is imo one of the most admirable characters in Formula 1.

    It’s just amazing to see how far Formula 1 has come in 45 years: at the time of Clark’s accident, the sport was in shock: if Clark could get killed, then any driver could potentially get killed as well. Death was almost an aspect of Formula 1 back in those days. Thankfully a driver fatility in F1 hasn’t happened in 19 years and the last time a marshall died was also a long time ago (can’t remember the exact year). I think a lot of people are taking safety in F1 for granted – well, we’ve come pretty close in the last five years (Massa 2009 Hungary, Liuzzi/Schumacher Abu Dhabi 2010, Trulli/Chandhok 2010 Monaco, Alonso/Grosjean 2013 Spa) and a fatality in F1 will undoubtebly happen again. But for now, let’s just be greatful of the effort many people have put into making F1 as safe as it is today.

  8. Massonen said on 7th April 2013, 6:18

    “Team orders against my sporting nature”

    Yeah right. I’m sure Barrichello will have something to say about that.

  9. F1Ray said on 7th April 2013, 6:20

    Initially, only Hamilton was marginal on fuel, but now it is being stated that Rosberg was also marginal on fuel. Whether this is just PR to cover themselves, we’ll never know. I do however wonder, why Hamilton saw fit to re-pass Rosberg twice, if he was supposed to be on fuel saving mode. Seems to me that Rosberg was told to hold station because Hamilton wouldn’t settle for letting him get in front, thus Brawn’s instructions. If Hamilton was set on beating Rosberg, come what may, then Brawn had a driver instruction problem with Hamilton.

  10. bull mello (@bullmello) said on 7th April 2013, 6:53

    Clark was best. Almost never do I utter or type such words, but Clark was best. On the race track and off there are seldom a better race car driver or gentleman. Jim Clark is the reason i became interested in Formula One. As a young boy in America who followed the Indy 500 every year I became fascinated with Jim Clark and interested in what other races he drove in. Viewing F1 then was usually done some time after the race in the form of highlights. Still became fascinated with F1 and over the years viewing got better. Would I be a fan of F1 had it not been for the accomplishments of the likes of Jim Clark, Mario Andretti, Dan Gurney and others with their race anywhere anytime attitudes? Who knows. 45 years later I still thank you, Jim Clark. Clark was best.

    @keithcollantine – Thanks for the reminder.

  11. MattB (@mattb) said on 7th April 2013, 7:14

    If Brawn had any sense, surely he should have ordered his drivers to make a pass each on DRS on each straight, using it as a tool to lower each car’s fuel consumption whilst maintaining position and pace. Both drivers would then have to really work together as a team, but surely this is what we have been told all along- no driver is bigger than the team. The two DRS with two detection points would have allowed this nicely…

    • Dizzy said on 7th April 2013, 11:56

      Doing the DRS Passing/Repassing would mean both cars using More Revs & More speed which = more fuel consumption.

      Best way of saving fuel in a racing car when your as critical as Merc seemed to be is turning fuel-mixture down, reducing revs/speed & lifting off/coasting into the corners to reduce how much braking is required.

      • MattB (@mattb) said on 7th April 2013, 16:18

        Yes, agreed, BUT… Only if racing. It is surely more economical to engage DRS even if they don’t go to top speed? If HAM was struggling that much, it might even have been better for ROS to overtake just before the DRS detection, then have HAM follow using DRS. It is only a theory of mine, but I think there’s some mileage in it (no pun intended!)

  12. q85 said on 7th April 2013, 8:59

    Brazil 2003 was a great race. I remember all the commentators saying yes kimi has won on count back(thats the bit the article gets wrong). But i was furious as the count back should be on fully completed laps. Kimi had crossed the line but no one else really had. I was convinced Fisi won the race. Then i remember reading teletext later in the week saying they had given him the win!

    Madness that they got it wrong.

    • GT_Racer said on 7th April 2013, 12:07

      Biggest reason that happened is that the race stewards ignored the timing system & did a count-back manually despite the fact the timing system had already done it automatically. They didn’t believe Fisichella had started another lap before the red flag came out so ignored that lap & did the count-back manually from the previous lap.

      Actually a part of what caused that was the closure of the F1 Digital+ PPV TV service because For 2003 we were back to a fairly standard & basic timing system based only on the timing points you see on the TV coverage.

      On F1 Digital+ we had a lot of additional timing/tracking systems & were running the timing systems. With the additional stuff we had in 2002 (And provided to teams as well as the stewards & FIA race control) we would have immediately flagged up exactly where each car was the very second the red flag came out as part of the tracking system & this would also have given current lap number & shown that the lap count-back was done automatically.

      • q85 said on 7th April 2013, 15:46

        thanks for the info. still madness that i could work it out at home and they couldnt lol

        The digital coverage was good. Tho at £12 a go it was extremely expensive!

        • GT_Racer said on 7th April 2013, 17:40

          Tho at £12 a go it was extremely expensive!

          Indeed, I remember saying at the time we should have had it priced closer to £5 a race.

          In other country’s that took the service it was offered as part of the broadcasters sports package rather than as a PPV service like it was in the UK for 2002. In the country’s where it was available like this it did better & Germany & Italy continued to offer multi-channel services after F1 Digital+ closed down.

          Only reason it ended up been PPV in the UK was because FOM were running it ourselfs from the FOM buildings at Biggin Hill. Had Sky got involved & brought the service it almost certainly would have ended up on one of there existing sports channels as part of there sports package.

  13. Wow so Brawn has been going against his sporting nature all throughout his sporting career?!

  14. Harry Westwood (@sirspuddington) said on 7th April 2013, 10:15

    When I saw the title I thought of one word. ********. He did it all the time t Ferrari, and if he’s let the 2 drivers race before, why not now?

  15. nemo87 (@nemo87) said on 7th April 2013, 11:22

    I’m sure i heard somewhere during race weekend that the main reason Lewis was under fueled for the race was more a mistake from the garage side than him pushing to hard early on.
    So I guess from that point of view you can really blame Ross for not letting Nico pass.. why should lewis have to lose out on a position he earned during the 1st two stints because of a balls up by his team right?

    • nemo87 (@nemo87) said on 7th April 2013, 11:24

      you can’t* really blame..

    • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 7th April 2013, 15:04

      @nemo87 – then again, why should Nico have to lose out on a podium because of a balls-up on Lewis’ side of the garage? I think that’s more unjust than if he’d been allowed to overtake.

      • nemo87 (@nemo87) said on 7th April 2013, 16:26

        Fair shout. It’s tit-for-tat I guess :/

        • Robbie (@robbie) said on 8th April 2013, 14:51

          Yeah the way I think of it, because I see both sides you two are pointing out, is that I’d rather see NR have to hold station because they didn’t want to punish LH for the team deciding on one strategy of LH and another slightly different one for NR, when it is race 2 of the season and they are still learning about their cars and the relationship between the car and this year’s tires.

          They learned that in the long run NR’s strategy was better, so I expect that this shouldn’t happen again. They know more now than they did before the start of the Malaysian GP. Particularly about their fuel economy.

          Bottom line for me…whatever the reason for the Merc team order, I was not left with the impression that this means they are going to favour LH for the rest of the season, nor that this was hugely political. LH was very humble about it, and NR very sporting. I think this was something the team is already past, and they are probably, post-Malaysia, just stoked that they were as competitive as they were in spite of their fuel issues. I feel there is likely no negative atmosphere on the team as a result of Malaysian events, especially as opposed to the atmosphere that SV has now created at Red Bull.

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.