Careful What You Wish For

[Quiet One 15]

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2011/07/red-bull-let-the-drivers-race-or-do-they/

Couldn't (and didn't) have put it better myself.

[Caesar 0]

http://www.jamesalle...ace-or-do-they/

Couldn't (and didn't) have put it better myself.

what do you say about this, from 'objective' Seb-V worshiper :was-mark-webber-correct-to-ignore-team-orders-at-british , especially this part :On the other side of the fence, what is “racing for the win” all about? Historically, it’s about out-qualifying your team-mate and dominating him for most of the race. The closing laps – if your two drivers have been running one-two – are ideally for holding position and conserving fuel and tyres. That being so, were RBR’s radio messages so drastic? Mark did take the pole at Silverstone, so there’s no doubt that he is being given pretty decent equipment. Equally, Seb won the start and the first phase of the race. Seb had a problem – but Mark, who also had a troubled middle-phase – was unable to take up the slack.

[AleHop 0]

I didn't like team orders last year and I don't like it now, although I understand a Team Director has to do it sometimes for the team. Probably Horner, Marko, Mateschitz... Red Bull changed their mind last summer together with a lot of fans that saw it unacceptable what Ferrari did last year from an ethical point of view and now they seem to have completely changed their minds too.

[Quiet One 15]

what do you say about this, from 'objective' Seb-V worshiper :was-mark-webber-correct-to-ignore-team-orders-at-british , especially this part :On the other side of the fence, what is “racing for the win” all about? Historically, it’s about out-qualifying your team-mate and dominating him for most of the race. The closing laps – if your two drivers have been running one-two – are ideally for holding position and conserving fuel and tyres. That being so, were RBR’s radio messages so drastic? Mark did take the pole at Silverstone, so there’s no doubt that he is being given pretty decent equipment. Equally, Seb won the start and the first phase of the race. Seb had a problem – but Mark, who also had a troubled middle-phase – was unable to take up the slack.

For the record, my criticism isn't aimed at the orders themselves but against RBR hypocrisy for acting like aped nuns last year and then doing exactly what they said they would never do. Even if the orders are legal (which they are), even if the orders make sense (debatable), the fact that they claimed the ownership of some moral ground has become laughable.

However if you want to talk about the orders themselves then here are my thoughts:

1) RBR had every right to issue them.

2) It is logical for you not to have both your cars wrecked. Makes you look stupid and costs you money.

3) The "logical" team order should have been issued to Vettel, not to Mark if they did it "for the greater good of the team". MArk had clearly a better pace to react in case something happened to Nando. If they were really thinking in terms of the team benefit they should have said something along the lines of...I don't know..."Seb, Mark is faster than you"....something like that

4) Other than the hypotethical situation of a crash, the team had nothing to gain from telling Mark to maintain the gap except risking this PR mess to happen. Vettel could have easily have taken 3rd with no loss to his lead, RBR would have avoided looking like a bunch of pseudo "non-stereotypical" F1 team hypocrites and Mark would have been a hapier man now. They made everything wrong.

5) as last year's Ferrari orders saga (and most of these minor F1 controversies) there's only one beffiting quote: "It was worse than a crime, it was a blunder"

[KoolMonkey 0]

Here's my 3 cents on the matter.

I'm not going to get into the whole spirit of the sport, Ferrari this, RBR that. Rather from a logical standpoint here's how I see it.

If anyone thinks Webber being told to maintain his distance behind Vettel is Vettel favoritism, then you need to see things from other peoples perspective. Webber being told to maintain his distance does not equate or equal Ferrari telling Massa let Alonso past. Yes it's a team order, but so is being told to change to X engine mapping, look after your tyres, come in on this lap for a pitstop. They are all "team orders" as well. But by now I'm sure a few skim readers on here will go, oh noes, ... Vettel... team orders... Webber being screwed. They are not the same situations, even if you remove the other element of team orders being banned vs now being legal.

Stop and think for a moment. What did Webber do? He disregarded his employers instructions. Not once, not twice but 4-5 times. You normally get the sack for that kind of behaviour. Yet we get the usual BS of poor Webber, he's been hard done by, Vettel this, Marko that. The blame lies with Webber to be honest. If he was a more skilled driver and didn't have that element to him where he's been in countless incidents of either turning into someone, or being crashed into, RBR might have had more faith in his abilities. But RBR had every right to tell him to maintain his position. Webber clearly doesn't have all his marbles at the moment, and thus is a potential danger, hothead or unpredictable driver. He I feel has almost gone rogue. Can anyone here now honestly tell me you would want Webber driving for your team!? A F1 driver isn't just there for himself, he is also there for his team. And more importantly, must adhere to the team management requests. There isn't a team director on the pitwall who would have thought or done differently. Something is going on at RBR concerning Webber and it's not team favoritism, but I belive his perception he's been hard done by. Less professional people would then take the frame of mind, well FU then you! I'm going to do what I want.

Unless anyone has forgotten, earlier in the year an almost identical situation occured with Button vs Hamilton. Hamilton was told to go into fuel save mode, Button got right on his tail and almost put a move on him. I don't recall the race, but I do recall Hamilton asking what was going on over the radio, and then Button falling back into line afterwards.

I don't think I'm biased here. Rather like many, I have the drivers I like to see do well, those I don't care much for (neither love nor hate), and those few who rub me the wrong way.

I personally have never loved Webber. I grew to like him and saw his struggles in Williams. But as time has gone by, I now look forward to the day he's no longer in F1. I'm pretty sure we're going to see a more positive sport, with less of his whinging and whines (cloaked in his supposed, just telling it like it is, he's an Aussie... a stright shooter baloney). FYI I'm an Australian, so I'm supposed to like him right. Truth is I can't stand him anymore. I'm sick of this underdog, being hard done by, screwed the pooch behaviour he's displayed these past few years. Many drivers would kill for the 2nd seat at RBR. He clearly has a very short memory, because I remember his days at Jaguar, at Williams etc.

[dribbler 6]

In Formula One, there are three agendas;

1. Those of the team Principal

2. Those of the fans

3. Those of the drivers

Horner made a sound and intelligent decision based on his agenda. Was it a poular decision with the fans or for Mark Webber? No.

Any fan or driver in his position would have done the same. If this were the last race of the season, Mark in front of Sebastian and ahead of him on points, would he have wanted Sebastian to have the freedom to race him? Of course not.

This whole situation was about the deeper issue of Mark not feeling that he has equal treatment within the team and that he is being outperformed. It was the only time this season that he might have had a chance to finish ahead of Sebastian. If he were closer on points and had a realistic chance of finishing ahead, it would be more understandable for him to feel aggrieved. As it is, the reality is that he has not matched Sebastian yet. That might be a tough reality for Mark, but once he faces that and asks himself what he would have done in Christian's position, he will come to terms with the decision and move on.

It was to his detriment as a team player that he ignored the request to stop racing Sebabstian. He's not a hero for doing that.

On Andres's point of maybe allowing Mark through and instructing Seb to let him past; Horner implied after the race that they had already tried to optimise Mark's trategy by bringing him in before Seb. In other words, bearing in mind Seb had alreay been impeded by the botched pit stop and Mark was given an advantage,he still did not have the outright pace to beat Sebastian. Christian was in no mood, rightly to hand the position to Mark on a plate. He had the window of opportunity to get past him and he missed it. That's just tough luck.

[yurp 0]

For the record, my criticism isn't aimed at the orders themselves but against RBR hypocrisy for acting like aped nuns last year and then doing exactly what they said they would never do. Even if the orders are legal (which they are), even if the orders make sense (debatable), the fact that they claimed the ownership of some moral ground has become laughable.

Exactly my feelings...

Team boss Christian Horner said that they had done so because they feared the drivers might take each other off.“I’m surprised at what he (Webber) did, so it’s something he and I will talk about in private,” Horner said.

“At the end of the day, the team is the biggest thing. No individual is bigger than the team. I can understand Mark’s frustration in that, but had it been the other way round, it would have been exactly the same.

RB are all in favor of letting their drivers race each other except when they get close enough to race each other. Utter stupidity from Horner and he deserves to be hit repeatedly with the hypocrite stick.

The Macca drivers have had a few good ding-dong battles last year and this. One ended in tears a few weeks ago, but that's a team that really lets it's drivers race. Horner has shown himself to be all talk and no trousers on this issue.

As for the actual call - I probably would have told Mark to go easy myself too, but I wasn't all hyperbolic about Ferrari's fiddlings last year (as you can read in my posts after that race) - so I would have at least been consistent and not craving approval for whinging about 'unsportsmanlike conduct'.

Poo poo RB.

[KoolMonkey 0]

Wow that didn't take long. Have you read anything in this post snorrisstrags? Somehow I doubt it. The Massa incident and Webber being told to hold his position aren't the same thing. Sorry mate but 1+1 will always equal 2 no matter how much you want, or believe or feel it actually equals 3.

You criticize RBR, then go on to say if you were the team manager you'd have made the same call. I'd suggest you read this... http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns23402.html. Since I know you won't bother, I'll go ahead and paste it here for you.

With the off-throttle blown diffuser row dominating Silverstone off the track and a resurgent Ferrari on it, the last thing Red Bull Racing team principal Christian Horner needed was another team orders controversy, but that's what he got. Horner gave his post-race views to the media and Tony Dodgins was there.

Q: What happened at Sebastian's slow pit stop?

At the second stop the rear jack broke, which dropped the car on the floor and by the time we'd engaged the spare rear jack, he'd lost time and unfortunately conceded track position to Fernando and was also behind Lewis Hamilton. So in the next stint he was fighting Lewis and we had to go for the undercut to make it work, which obviously meant a lengthy stint for that final section.

Q: How much of the Ferrari victory and you not winning was down to the whole blown diffuser saga?

I think for sure we've been... I need to be careful what I say, but I think this weekend obviously the way the engine regulations have been set, and that we've adhered, arguably put Renault at a disadvantage to others, in our opinion. We've accepted that on the basis of having it addressed in time for Germany and I now sincerely hope we've found a solution.

Q: Mark lost time at his first stop as well. What happened there?

It was a sticking nut on the front left. We gave Mark the undercut on the first and second stops obviously to try to assist but unfortunately there was a sticking issue with the nut, which again dropped him track position to Fernando and Lewis at that point.

Q: At what point was the first radio message to Mark telling him to hold position?

About four laps from the end we felt it had gone far enough from a team point of view. There was a big haul of points on the table today and it made absolutely no sense to risk seeing both cars in the fence. So at that point we said okay, that's enough, it's time to consolidate those points.

Q: Are you surprised Mark ignored the orders?

Erm... yes. At the end of the day the team is the biggest thing. No individual is bigger than the team. I can understand Mark's frustration but had it been the other way around it would have been exactly the same. It happened in Turkey, where exactly the same happened with Sebastian, so it makes no sense to risk both your cars. It was obvious that neither was going to concede and, as we saw with Massa and Hamilton at the last corner, when they made contact, it made absolutely no sense from a team's point of view to allow them to continue to fight over that last couple of laps. Mark obviously chose to ignore that and didn't make the pass in any event, but that is the team's position.

Q: For all that, it's only race nine, Sebastian is almost 100 points clear, it's a big race and 120,000 people want entertainment?

At the end of the day the team championship is every bit as important as the drivers' championship to us and we risked giving away 33 points in the last three laps by allowing our drivers to fight it out. As we've seen previously, that can have dire consequences. We said okay, we've allowed them to race up to that point and with three laps to go, rather than risk both of them being in the fence, it's the right decision. As a team it absolutely was. As we see in other sports, sometimes substitutions are made for a team point of view and we weren't going to risk 33 points. The drivers are now first and second in the world championship and we we're going to do nothing to jeopardise it.

Q: Was the decision influenced at all by Ferrari's pace?

Yes. Ferrari was very quick this weekend. Their pace in the second half of the grand prix was impressive by Fernando. We feel we've carried a disadvantage this weekend and have come out with a big haul of points for the team and both drivers. And with the incidents we endured during the race I think we have to be content with the points we've come away with. Both drivers on the podium on a day when one of our main championship rivals (Button) didn't score and Lewis was further down the pecking order.

Q: You've said that contract negotiations (2012) with Mark will be straightforward. Will this change that?

I sincerely hope not. At the end of the day it's about the team. I can understand sometimes a driver will be frustrated with an instruction but my responsibility is to ensure that the team optimised its result, and there would have been absolutely no benefit in both cars coming back on a tow truck.

Q: How much discussion before you said 'maintain the gap'?

Mark's engineer had asked him to maintain the gap a lap or two before and it was very clear that Mark had chosen to ignore it.

Q: You said you'd allowed them to race up to that point. You mean until Mark caught Seb?

Well, no. If you look, we gave Mark the undercut at the first two stops and didn't stop them racing each other at the start. There just comes a point in a race, with a couple of laps to go, when you've got a lot of points, both cars on the podium and it's absolute stupidity to allow them to jeopardise that. We saw it get very close between the two of them and we'd have looked pretty stupid if they'd both ended up in the fence.

Q: How are you going to respond to Mark ignoring the team orders?

It's something we'll talk about in private.

Q: Have you done it before this year?

No. We've never been in a situation on the last lap with both drivers going at it hammer and tongs with a lot of points up for grabs.

Q: But (Red Bull boss) Dietrich Mateschitz has said there will be no team orders at Red Bull?

Mr Mateschitz wouldn't have thanked us for having both cars in the fence on the last lap.

Q: Going forward, is Mark free to race for wins or is he playing the No2 role?

He put it on pole position and he had the opportunity to win this race but it didn't pan out for him. We will continue to give him every chance but from a team perspective I made it quite clear to both in the drivers' briefing, in front of the engineers, that the biggest thing about Silverstone was getting a team result in front of all the staff that put in so much effort to both of those cars. And the drivers have come away with Sebastian having extended his lead in the championship, Mark having moved into second place and the team having increased its lead in the constructors' championship.

Q: How concerned are you about Ferrari's pace?

It was a race of two halves. On the intermediate tyre we seemed to be very strong. And through the middle of the race we were okay, but then the balance seemed to shift during the second half, as the fuel load lightened or the circuit rubbered in and Ferrari's pace picked up. Fernando was obviously very strong and as we see with these tyres, there is a sweet spot, but we've also been running in a configuration that we've not previously been in.

Q: Are the rules that have been agreed to go back to Valencia?

Yes, to draw a line under this. One obviously has to have sympathy for Charlie Whiting trying to pick his way through this. It's impossible to have equivalence because somebody was always going to feel aggrieved, so the best compromise is to go back to where we were at Valencia, so the maps go in before qualifying and then that's it for the weekend.

Q: Why was there not agreement initially, on Sunday morning?

I think two teams (Ferrari and Sauber - ed) just wanted a bit more time to think about it.

[Caesar 0]

For the record, my criticism isn't aimed at the orders themselves but against RBR hypocrisy for acting like aped nuns last year and then doing exactly what they said they would never do. Even if the orders are legal (which they are), even if the orders make sense (debatable), the fact that they claimed the ownership of some moral ground has become laughable.

However if you want to talk about the orders themselves then here are my thoughts:

1) RBR had every right to issue them.

2) It is logical for you not to have both your cars wrecked. Makes you look stupid and costs you money.

3) The "logical" team order should have been issued to Vettel, not to Mark if they did it "for the greater good of the team". MArk had clearly a better pace to react in case something happened to Nando. If they were really thinking in terms of the team benefit they should have said something along the lines of...I don't know..."Seb, Mark is faster than you"....something like that

4) Other than the hypotethical situation of a crash, the team had nothing to gain from telling Mark to maintain the gap except risking this PR mess to happen. Vettel could have easily have taken 3rd with no loss to his lead, RBR would have avoided looking like a bunch of pseudo "non-stereotypical" F1 team hypocrites and Mark would have been a hapier man now. They made everything wrong.

5) as last year's Ferrari orders saga (and most of these minor F1 controversies) there's only one beffiting quote: "It was worse than a crime, it was a blunder"

sorry cause i didn't expressed myself very well- i agree with everything you said. i was talking about Peter Winsdor's blog and his articles in which he praises Vettel and his every act as move of genius incomprehensible to us, plain people. very biased for someone calling himself a journalist, therefore through his eyes this situation looks totally different. i think James Allen is much more unbiased and more serious journalist.

[HandyNZL 1]

Meh.

[pabloh20 1]

Wow that didn't take long. Have you read anything in this post snorrisstrags? Somehow I doubt it. The Massa incident and Webber being told to hold his position aren't the same thing. Sorry mate but 1+1 will always equal 2 no matter how much you want, or believe or feel it actually equals 3.

You criticize RBR, then go on to say if you were the team manager you'd have made the same call. I'd suggest you read this... http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns23402.html. Since I know you won't bother, I'll go ahead and paste it here for you.

Errmmm to be honest, it sounds like you didn't read the original post. The criticism is not about RB using team orders, I think if you read people's posts, they pretty much say that. The criticism is about RB saying last year something along the lines of we will never do a Ferrari and use team orders, we will let our drivers race to the end.

At the end of the day, if teams want to come out with holier than thou sweeping statements, then either stick by it, or take the flack when you contravene your own holier than thou rule.

[yurp 0]

Wow that didn't take long. Have you read anything in this post snorrisstrags? Somehow I doubt it. The Massa incident and Webber being told to hold his position aren't the same thing.

Did I say they were?

Who's not reading properly?

Is that you Cav?

To clarify - I am talking (as was Andres) about the hypocrisy of saying "we'll never use team orders" and then giving a team order to your driver not to try to overtake his team mate. At no point did I say those team orders were the same as Ferrari's or equal in dastardliness - I agree that if we're talking sportsmanship Ferrari's crime was worse - but then I'm one of those people who thinks a team should be able to run their operation however they wish. If drivers are happy to take team orders, then so be it - I don't think it's the purview of the FIA to micro manage this sort of thing. Anyway - I covered that stance when Massa-gate happened.

I actually have no issue with Horner telling Webber to back off. As I said - I would have done the same myself. My issue is with him claiming moral superiority in order to stupidly garner some praise from last years furore only to get egg on his face when he feels the need to protect (quite sensibly) a good 2nd & 3rd place for his team. He deserves our derision for that, not for using team orders, which (I'll say again), I don't really have a problem with no matter if they're obvious, evil, nasty and despicable (a la Ferrari) or nice, fluffy and logical (a la RB). (That's irony before you get in a huff.)

You need to read my post a little more carefully next time - I'm a man for the grey areas - they set off my jaw line nicely.

Errmmm to be honest, it sounds like you didn't read the original post. The criticism is not about RB using team orders, I think if you read people's posts, they pretty much say that. The criticism is about RB saying last year something along the lines of we will never do a Ferrari and use team orders, we will let our drivers race to the end.

At the end of the day, if teams want to come out with holier than thou sweeping statements, then either stick by it, or take the flack when you contravene your own holier than thou rule.

Thank you Mr Pants.

[Quiet One 15]

I can't belive I am even bothering with you guys, bunch of losers.

You don't know how to read my posts properly, do you? What I meant is that Alonso jumped the start. I have no clue what made you think otherwise. You are obviously too blind or too ignorant to understand that. Let me spell that for you: A-l-o-n-?-*-$%#&$-jum-argfsdfs-start

See?

@Adam: no, I never said cabbages are the solution.

@Paul: Adamantium underwear? Now that's a thought.

@Craig: Ok, Mister, that was really insulting!

@Steve: A velocirraptor? Really? And you did what???

Being the only one with common sense around these parts is such a drag...

[BradSpeedMan 6]

Maybe this was one of the many reasons Markie Mark did'nt obey "team orders"...

July 2011 – Mark Webber was emphatic about it on Saturday evening: “Either Fernando or me will win this one. Ferrari are strong; they’ve got the pace.” Thus Mark’s comments about the likely two winners. He didn’t include Seb Vettel, of course, because Aussie Grit was not going to finish behind Seb at Silverstone in 2011; that was about as clear as the upcoming weather forecasts for raceday showers.

Except that Mark Alan Webber had a different perspective: he had won the pole and he had had his fair share of dramas. Now, in these dying stages, he could see that he was catching Seb with relative ease. Who knew what could happen? Maybe Fernando would have a problem. Maybe the race with Seb would be for the lead….

He quickly closed a four-second gap, oblivious to frequent radio instructions to “hold position”. Seb knew only of the diminishing margin; he imagined that Mark would catch him but would then hold station.

It erupted as Mark began to dart off-line over the last two laps. Seb suddenly realized that he was racing Mark – just as Gilles Villeneuve appreciated too late at Imola, 1982, that Didier Pironi was not playing games. And it made uncomfortable viewing from the RBR garage. On neither car were the Pirelli options in great shape. Mistakes could be made – just as Seb made an error on the last lap in Canada. Seb defended beautifully on this occasion; Mark attacked creatively – and like that they finished. It could, though, have been ugly. Hours afterwards, the drivers and the RBR management were still behind locked doors, hammering away at an issue that has been around since they day RBR decided to sign the two quickest drivers they could find.

www.theracedriver.com

Damnit, this comes from Peter Windsor!!! Which means we must ignore it because of his Vettel favouritism!!! damn!

[BradSpeedMan 6]

oh, and further on, MORE VETTEL FAVOURITISM... I'm pasting because some won't bother to read...

Was Mark Webber Correct To Ignore Team Orders At British GP?

July 11, 2011 – To answer this, we need first to ask another question: was Mark correct to want to race Seb Vettel in the closing stages?

As big a fan as I am of Aussie Grit, I have to confess that I was initially a little surprised to see him do this. Racing your team-mate hard is great if you’re fighting for the lead, or if you’re under pressure from behind and you’re team-mate is slower – but on this occasion none of those factors were in play. Mark was under no real threat from Lewis Hamilton (who he had comprehensively passed under braking after a DRS tow) and Seb Vettel was quite obviously signing off from a difficult day (coloured by a very long second pit stop) with a cruise home to finish second. Fernando was 14sec seconds ahead of him with 10 laps to go and Seb had naturally decided that there was no way he was going to catch him. Mark, in third place, was a full 20 sec behind the Ferrari.

Mark’s thinking, I’m sure, was that he (and presumably Seb) could possibly have forced Fernando into a mistake if they’d pushed him hard and closed the gap – or that they would be racing for the lead if Fernando ran into any sort of problem. In his mind, Mark was racing Fernando; that’s for sure. To race Fernando, though, he first had to pass Seb – and that was always going to be fraught with problems. First, Seb wasn’t going to allow himself to be passed – not when he was backing off and cruising home to P2 after a relatively difficult day. Second, the team was never in a million years going to tell Seb to slow down and to wave Mark through – not so long as Seb’s car was healthy (which it was): if there was a difference between the two cars it was in front wing settings and tyre life: Mark’s (used) Pirelli options were two laps younger. Of course, it would have been different if Fernando had been only three to four seconds ahead – but then Seb wouldn’t have been cruising at that point, either.

Mark was irritated that the team saw fit to give him instructions to “hold position”. I think the team felt obliged to say what they said because they were surprised that he wasn’t “holding position”. Mark needed to catch Seb (which he did) and then sit neatly on his tail, awaiting a possible Fernando problem.

The big question is what would have happened if Fernando had run into trouble with, say, two laps to go. Would Red Bull have ordered Mark to “hold position”? Probably yes. And that, there, is what Mark’s ire is all about. He tested the team – and they responded in the way he feared they would. That’s why I say I was “initially” a little surprised by Mark’s driving. There was some medium-term logic to it all.

On the other side of the fence, what is “racing for the win” all about? Historically, it’s about out-qualifying your team-mate and dominating him for most of the race. The closing laps – if your two drivers have been running one-two – are ideally for holding position and conserving fuel and tyres. That being so, were RBR’s radio messages so drastic? Mark did take the pole at Silverstone, so there’s no doubt that he is being given pretty decent equipment. Equally, Seb won the start and the first phase of the race. Seb had a problem – but Mark, who also had a troubled middle-phase – was unable to take up the slack.

My feeling is that RBR do not have problem with Mark taking the pole and beating Seb (if that is what happens) but that they do have an issue (probably correctly so) with the two of them racing, regardless of whether they’re on full tanks, empty tanks, old tyres or new. It’s very easy for two very fast team-mates to make contact (RBR in Turkey ’09; McLaren in Canada this year) and so the job on the RBR pit wall is to ensure that that doesn’t happen again. Mark was not planning to take Seb out at Silverstone (he would have done so if that was the case!) but I think the RBR management was unsure how Seb was going to react (bearing in mind his mistake under pressure in Canada). Thus the team orders.

If Mark learned from all this (ie that team orders would be issued), then it should also be noted that RBR additionally learned that Mark, on occasions, can be very hard of hearing….

www.theracedriver.com

damn

[BradSpeedMan 6]

Does this make sense???... reading James Allen's blog and this is what a reader posted...

(Joris Fioriti – Agence France Presse) Mark, you were one of the few drivers who actually defended Fernando Alonso last year, saying that it was normal that there were team orders. Have you changed your mind about that or was your track behaviour the answer to my question?

MW: No, I stick by what I said last year. Obviously, they had one guy trying to stay in the championship fight – Fernando. Felipe was not having the season that he’s having this year. He’s doing a bit better job. Fernando was much, much quicker, it was in the middle of a grand prix and he (Massa) released him, so this is pretty straightforward stuff.

[Patrik 0]

Horner wanted a 2-3 for RBR?

Horner didn't want to risk both cars crashing in the final lap?

His team order should have been: "Sebastian, Mark is a full second faster than you. We don't want you both crashing for a mistake, so if he makes a clear move to overtake, don't fight back"

It's a win-win-win-win situation. F1 fans happy that Vettel isn't making F1 boring. Webber fans happy Mark can kick a##. RBR happy because they got their 2-3. Everyone in F1 happy that Vettel isn't getting favoritism. The only resulting difference? 3 freaking points for each driver.

[Argento Reloaded 1]

I´m old and not wise... but I think team orders are right -because is a "team" and i think driving flat out all the race is not proper racing. F1 is a very comlplex sport and startegy and team work is part of it. If you want falt out from start to chequered flag with no team order go to watch dragsters!!!!!!!

[Caesar 0]

I´m old and not wise... but I think team orders are right -because is a "team" and i think driving flat out all the race is not proper racing. F1 is a very comlplex sport and startegy and team work is part of it. If you want falt out from start to chequered flag with no team order go to watch dragsters!!!!!!!

nobody is against team orders, but last year's rant against Ferrari by RBR , and then Vettels winning WDC because RBR "let their drivers race each other till the end cause they are there for sport and fans" , even if Mark had more points at last race, was just RBR's choosing Vettel's side, therefore bull sh!t. this year in the midle of the season , when Vettel has plenty of points of advantage, they openly show that they prefer Vettel over Webber. so their image of new-open-young-fair-honest....team is bull sh!t.

[Quiet One 15]

@Patrik, my sentiments, exactly. But (and this is in reply to Koolmonkey's post as well) in the end I think that it is the team's prerrogative whether to assert their position that Webber is a Nr.2 driver and thus tell him to stay put or to go for the win-win scenario you depicted. The problem is not on their decisions, and I don't think it is either on whether Webber should comply or not with the team. To accuse Mark of not being a good team player is, at least, unfair when he is not being treated as part of a team but as a slave in a plantation...something most people mixes up when comparing drivers, employees and such.

The team has every right to be unfair to Mark, or fair according to their own criteria without giving any explanation to Mark, if you wish. Mark has also every right to protest, scream, squeal and poo in the RBR d#ckpit if he wants to. What ultimately they have to understand is that every one of them have to pay the consequences for their actions. RBR can give any team order they want. But then it is only fair to expect that people will slaughter you after you pointed your accusing finger at everybody else for doing so. Mark can throw his toys in public as much as he wants, but he must accept the fact that it might not be the best course to gain any sympathy inside the team and might even trigger a prompt signal towards the door of the RBR motorhome. I think Mark is fully aware that tellling to the world that he was ordered 4 or 5 times to hold station behind Seb would cause an outrage and not sit very well with Marko and Co. Yet he chose to do so. Horner, on the other side, seemed surprised that everybody felt outraged to use almost the same arguments Ferrari used last year to explain his actions this years, after self appointing themselves as the kings of fair play.

@Caesar: funnily, part of what I wrote about the drivers applies to Peter as well. Most (if not all) the journalists are biased in some way or another. Ditto for us forum members, by the way In that respect, I don't rate highly Windsor's comments on Vettel too much. You probably would not take any race report from a Spanish source when it comes to Alonso, or Hamilton, and ditto from Britain when it goes the other way around. Germans are underrepresented in this forum which means that there is less controversy around them, but if they were then probably the same issues would arise with Vettel and German media. Anyways, you are right, more respect (at least IMHO) comes not from the amount of bias, but from how conscious you are of your own bias and how you try to offset it. In that respect, Allen, after displaying an almost obscene love for Hamilton on TV, has become a highly respected journalist in my eyes with his blog, which is a lot more impartial (although you can still notice his, bias, which is natural and forgiveable)

From PW I enjoy reading his technical explanations (although I am not sure if he is as accurate in his highly lyrical descriptions of each manoeuvre) but I rate him less than James, definitely.

[AleHop 0]

Oh, I don't want to have look at what you all said about Ferrari and Alonso last year.

I suspect we would find very different comments from a couple of fans.

Of course now Red Bull and Vettel can do no bad.

[HandyNZL 1]

Meh meh meh meh meh

[HandyNZL 1]

The only thing I read into this is that Horner thought Sebastian would hit Mark when he overtook him. Afterall, Mr Vettel has a propensity for making passing moves look like dodgem's.

But, honestly....meh.

Meh meh meh meh meh.

FFS.

Meh.

And that interview Koolmonkey posted was obviously fake. I mean, who the feck uses the word "erm"? FFS.

Meh.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

[HandyNZL 1]

oh, and further on, MORE VETTEL FAVOURITISM... I'm pasting because some won't bother to read...

Was Mark Webber Correct To Ignore Team Orders At British GP?

July 11, 2011 – To answer this, we need first to ask another question: was Mark correct to want to race Seb Vettel in the closing stages?

As big a fan as I am of Aussie Grit, I have to confess that I was initially a little surprised to see him do this. Racing your team-mate hard is great if you’re fighting for the lead, or if you’re under pressure from behind and you’re team-mate is slower – but on this occasion none of those factors were in play. Mark was under no real threat from Lewis Hamilton (who he had comprehensively passed under braking after a DRS tow) and Seb Vettel was quite obviously signing off from a difficult day (coloured by a very long second pit stop) with a cruise home to finish second. Fernando was 14sec seconds ahead of him with 10 laps to go and Seb had naturally decided that there was no way he was going to catch him. Mark, in third place, was a full 20 sec behind the Ferrari.

Mark’s thinking, I’m sure, was that he (and presumably Seb) could possibly have forced Fernando into a mistake if they’d pushed him hard and closed the gap – or that they would be racing for the lead if Fernando ran into any sort of problem. In his mind, Mark was racing Fernando; that’s for sure. To race Fernando, though, he first had to pass Seb – and that was always going to be fraught with problems. First, Seb wasn’t going to allow himself to be passed – not when he was backing off and cruising home to P2 after a relatively difficult day. Second, the team was never in a million years going to tell Seb to slow down and to wave Mark through – not so long as Seb’s car was healthy (which it was): if there was a difference between the two cars it was in front wing settings and tyre life: Mark’s (used) Pirelli options were two laps younger. Of course, it would have been different if Fernando had been only three to four seconds ahead – but then Seb wouldn’t have been cruising at that point, either.

Mark was irritated that the team saw fit to give him instructions to “hold position”. I think the team felt obliged to say what they said because they were surprised that he wasn’t “holding position”. Mark needed to catch Seb (which he did) and then sit neatly on his tail, awaiting a possible Fernando problem.

The big question is what would have happened if Fernando had run into trouble with, say, two laps to go. Would Red Bull have ordered Mark to “hold position”? Probably yes. And that, there, is what Mark’s ire is all about. He tested the team – and they responded in the way he feared they would. That’s why I say I was “initially” a little surprised by Mark’s driving. There was some medium-term logic to it all.

On the other side of the fence, what is “racing for the win” all about? Historically, it’s about out-qualifying your team-mate and dominating him for most of the race. The closing laps – if your two drivers have been running one-two – are ideally for holding position and conserving fuel and tyres. That being so, were RBR’s radio messages so drastic? Mark did take the pole at Silverstone, so there’s no doubt that he is being given pretty decent equipment. Equally, Seb won the start and the first phase of the race. Seb had a problem – but Mark, who also had a troubled middle-phase – was unable to take up the slack.

My feeling is that RBR do not have problem with Mark taking the pole and beating Seb (if that is what happens) but that they do have an issue (probably correctly so) with the two of them racing, regardless of whether they’re on full tanks, empty tanks, old tyres or new. It’s very easy for two very fast team-mates to make contact (RBR in Turkey ’09; McLaren in Canada this year) and so the job on the RBR pit wall is to ensure that that doesn’t happen again. Mark was not planning to take Seb out at Silverstone (he would have done so if that was the case!) but I think the RBR management was unsure how Seb was going to react (bearing in mind his mistake under pressure in Canada). Thus the team orders.

If Mark learned from all this (ie that team orders would be issued), then it should also be noted that RBR additionally learned that Mark, on occasions, can be very hard of hearing….

www.theracedriver.com

damn

Who would read this garbage.....FFS.

[HandyNZL 1]

Actually the funny part in all this is everyone going along saying "oh, they could have hit each other" oh boo FFS hoo. They didn't.

All these things in life that people look at only in the sense it could go wrong, from politics, to health, to sport. Give it a crack, Nigel. Everything in life is 50/50. Sick of all this crap.

FFS.

Rant over, FFS.

Did someone mention velociraptors?