planetf1.com

It is currently Wed Dec 13, 2017 6:40 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Mar 17, 2016 10:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6832
Location: Belgium
When a mention of "multi 21" caused a little digression in the thread on driver coaching, I was astounded to find so many people still believe that the call meant that driver 2 was to finish ahead of driver 1.

At the time, I was watching the world feed, with commentary by RTBF, a Belgian station. Watching the recording of that race again, it became clear to me why so many never worked out that a later 'explanation' by Horner was simply nonsense: the original "multi 21" call didn't make it onto the world feed.

The more this stupid episode was discussed, the less sense the so-called 'explanation' made to me, and the reason is simple: since team orders aren't illegal anymore, there is simply no need to disguise it in code. It did make sense as the transmission for an engine or electronics setting, though. Which is precisely what it was.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4OAy-bwvI

The truly baffling bit now is, why did so many commentators and fans chuck the two orders that were given, an engine setting and an order to hold position, together in a rather silly myth? The only explanation I can come up with is that many never heard what was really said, even after the race in a good enough time to report the race correctly, or they fell for Horner's childish 'explanation'. And "multi 21" started to lead its own life.

I'm glad SFMFer took the trouble to post his YouTube video. But I'm concerned that all those incorrect reports on the 2013 Malaysian Grand Prix will never be corrected.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 17, 2016 11:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21002
This proves nothing other than a desperate desire for a conspiracy theory. What is the motive for Horner to lie about the "true" meaning? There is nothing, absolutely nothing, to be gained from pretending it was an order to hold station instead of simply changing an engine setting. Motive?

The truly baffling bit is why you would still insist that it has nothing to do with holding station when the team principal has gone on record to say so.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 17, 2016 11:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6832
Location: Belgium
'Multi map 21, multi map 21." It says it all. :)

Years of listening to the "explanations" of people like Todt and Briatore make a fan wary. I'll ask Horner why he came out with his twaddle the next time I see him. Shell shock, perhaps?

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 17, 2016 11:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:57 am
Posts: 549
Location: Far North of Scotland
My understanding, and I haven't viewed any other thread or links in a long time, is Multi 2-1 was an instruction understood by the drivers to turn the engines down, hold position, and bring the cars home.

Webber did this, Vettel did not.

Either way, it wasn't Vettels proudest moment, but.... it was hardly Schumacher and Villeneuve, or Prost and Senna either.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 17, 2016 11:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 4:14 pm
Posts: 575
Location: Athens, Greece
Fiki wrote:
When a mention of "multi 21" caused a little digression in the thread on driver coaching, I was astounded to find so many people still believe that the call meant that driver 2 was to finish ahead of driver 1.

At the time, I was watching the world feed, with commentary by RTBF, a Belgian station. Watching the recording of that race again, it became clear to me why so many never worked out that a later 'explanation' by Horner was simply nonsense: the original "multi 21" call didn't make it onto the world feed.

The more this stupid episode was discussed, the less sense the so-called 'explanation' made to me, and the reason is simple: since team orders aren't illegal anymore, there is simply no need to disguise it in code. It did make sense as the transmission for an engine or electronics setting, though. Which is precisely what it was.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4OAy-bwvI

The truly baffling bit now is, why did so many commentators and fans chuck the two orders that were given, an engine setting and an order to hold position, together in a rather silly myth? The only explanation I can come up with is that many never heard what was really said, even after the race in a good enough time to report the race correctly, or they fell for Horner's childish 'explanation'. And "multi 21" started to lead its own life.

I'm glad SFMFer took the trouble to post his YouTube video. But I'm concerned that all those incorrect reports on the 2013 Malaysian Grand Prix will never be corrected.


I'm not entirely sure of the purpose of this thread but anyway all i know was that in 2011 and 2012 the "multi 12" or multi map 1-2 was also an order used by RBR. Also i can't see why this was bad for Seb but anyway...

_________________
Top 10 Competition
2016: 12th, Podiums: 2nd Great Britain

Top 3 Competition
2016: 5th, Wins in: Spain, 1st Great Britain

F1 Oracle 2016: 2nd, Wins in: Australia, Russia, Canada, Great Britain

Group Pick'em 6th, Podiums: 2nd Monaco


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2016 12:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 6752
The theory of it literally being a fuel/engine setting doesn't add up.

Here's Vettel at Spa 12:


Quote:
Vettel: Multi map 1-2, Multi map 1-2
Rocky: don't worry Sebastian, don't worry, just be patient we are working on this

Why would the call be going the other way if it was to change a fuel setting? If the pit wall can do it then why do they usually request the driver to do it?



Admittedly with the above message there is room for misinterpretation but with this one it's pretty clear.

Webber at Brazil 2012:


Quote:
Engineer: Multi 12, Multi 12
Webber: which switch is that mate? Which switch? Where's the button?
Engineer: Let Sebastian go please Mark


It's pretty clear that referring it to a map is simply their code (the reason for the code obviously being to avoid adverse publicity for using team orders) which was mocked by Mark in that second clip.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2016 1:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:21 am
Posts: 3033
Given that the answer given by Black_Flag_11 has been given to Fiki now in three seperate places, I'm locking this before any further repetition is necessary. Any further debate is just ignoring the mass of evidence shown here and we have a new season to debate which we should focus on until Monday at least.

_________________
AlienTurnedHuman wrote:
Eurytus probably thought he was God. At least until he was banned. Which means if he was God, it makes me very scared of PF1-Mod.

Yes, we have a swear filter now. No, it doesn't change coffin to 'place of rest'.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2016 1:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6832
Location: Belgium
A big thank you to the moderator for unlocking this thread.

Thank you, Black Flag 11 for those two videos!

The first one, at Francorchamps 2012, shows that the "Multi"-call has nothing to do with the order in which the two Red Bull drivers will cross the finish line. Webber finished a wopping 4 places behind Vettel. Hardly a 1-2 finish, and far from an obvious situation in which to use coded team orders, since these had been allowed for more than 2 years by then. The call was for an engine setting.

The second video is suprising at first, as Webber's reply is open to interpretation. I see four possibilities.
1. Webber is genuinely (momentarily) unaware which button to apply the setting on. This shouldn't happen, but may point to insufficient simulator preparation on the part of Webber, for whatever reason.
2. Webber is trying to stall for time, time which he would like to use to keep Vettel behind him. (I assume this video pertains to a point early in the race, when Vettel is trying to make up for time lost after his spin?)
3. Webber and Vettel may have been using personal variants of the Red Bull steering wheel. But even if this was true, Webber should know which button controls his engine mapping, and it again points to insufficient preparation on his part, for whatever reason.
(Pictures of the Red Bull steering wheels for 2012 and 2013 are available on the internet, and show that the rotary switch near the driver's right thumb is the "multi" one. It also shows that this switch was already in place in 2012, though the settings and combinations to be used might have been different on the two cars.)
4. Webber genuinely needed a little help with the buttons, being a bit overloaded at the moment of the "multi 12" call. Slightly embarrassing, but possible.
But again, the finishing order itself doesn't show that "Multi 12" meant that Vettel was supposed to finish ahead of Webber; he didn't, and the finishing order wasn't brought up afterwards, while misunderstanding the call was...

The reason I still don't believe the call meant anything other than an engine/car setting is clear in the second video itself, just as it is in the radio calls at the race which made the engine setting infamous: Malaysia 2013. This is further reinforced by the fact that immediately after the engine setting, a second order comes to take away any doubt Webber might have had about why he was supposed to turn his engine down: he had to let Vettel through, who was fighting for the title. Although I am against team orders in general, in that particular case Webber shouldn't even have to be ordered to assist his team-mate.
I believe that the use of the call in Brazil may well be the reason why Horner claimed that it had been misunderstood when used before Malaysia. So that part of his later "explanation" would be correct.

Mikeyg123 in one post on this thread also pointed out the fact that not one, but two orders were given in Malaysia. That is correct; first an order to turn the engine down, followed by a different order to stay behind Webber.
This is also reflected in the article on the Red Bull RB9, on the Racecar Engineering website. Source: http://www.racecar-engineering.com/cars/red-bull-rb9/#
Apart from two pictures of the Red Bull steering wheel, it also states that:
Racecar Engineering wrote:
A hugely controversial race result at Sepang was all down to team orders. Both Vettel and Webber were told to switch the multi map to setting 21 “multi 21″, Webber did so but Vettel did not. The multi-map is a pre-programmable, driver selectable feature of the MES std ECU, on the RB9 the adjustment is on the right hand side of the steering wheel.


This should clear up what the call "Multi 21" really was, and what it wasn't. Why Horner went along with the conspiracy fans believing it was some sort of code for a team order is something we should be asking him. I'm rather certain Horner was aware team orders had been legal for 2 years already, which is why they were also issued. (And ignored.)

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2016 3:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21002
I'm really struggling to understand the delusion on this. You haven't answered the rather basic question as to what Horner would have to gain by lying about the meaning of the instruction. He gave a perfectly logical explanation, which should have put the whole thing to bed, yet you are still trying to make it into something bigger than it is. The mind boggles


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2016 4:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6832
Location: Belgium
Zoue wrote:
I'm really struggling to understand the delusion on this. You haven't answered the rather basic question as to what Horner would have to gain by lying about the meaning of the instruction. He gave a perfectly logical explanation, which should have put the whole thing to bed, yet you are still trying to make it into something bigger than it is. The mind boggles

Not bigger, Zoue. That's what Horner was doing. You should ask him for his reasons, I can't imagine why he thought nobody would remember it was perfectly legal to tell Vettel he was to stay behind Webber.

The only thing that is missing in your argument is the logic. Had Vettel turned his engine down as ordered, he still had the advantage of better tyres than Webber, though it might be argued that in itself wasn't sufficient to pass Webber. Which is why he refused to obey the order. But neither Webber, nor Vettel misunderstood what Multi 21 meant.

I've been simply saying what "Multi 21" meant and what it did not mean. What Horner thought he had to gain by telling us porkies is really a question for his PR-department. Perhaps he/they felt it was the path of least resistance to go along with a popular myth doing the rounds on the internet by then. Sort of getting the more gullible fans back on board.

It's a very strange animal, is PR. Luckily Racecar Engineering deals with facts, not perceptions.

I hope this unboggled your mind?

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2016 4:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2010 5:05 pm
Posts: 2539
Location: Helsinki, Finland
I think it's funny that people are still talking about this. It was 3 years ago.

Although, this was also my initial theory in the original thread 3 years ago, but nobody listened. :lol:

froze wrote:
On what basis did they come up with that?

Here's a picture of the Red Bull (2012) steering wheel: http://f1grandprix.motorionline.com/dow ... di_140.jpg
In the middle is the engine multimap setting labelled "multi", which is set to "9" in that picture. I'm pretty sure Mark was referring to that, with "multi 21" most probably meaning some kind of lean mode, to tell Vettel which mode he was in.


I have to say I doubt it now, but who knows...

_________________
“Suddenly the steering wheel was in my hands. I tried to put it back on, but it was too late. I was just wondering where I was going to end up.”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2016 4:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 6752
froze wrote:
I think it's funny that people are still talking about this. It was 3 years ago.

That day is still the point of highest activity on the forum according to the index page, not even beaten by the Mercedes tyre test hearing and it seemed like everyone was on then. I wonder how long it will hold that record :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2016 5:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21002
Fiki wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I'm really struggling to understand the delusion on this. You haven't answered the rather basic question as to what Horner would have to gain by lying about the meaning of the instruction. He gave a perfectly logical explanation, which should have put the whole thing to bed, yet you are still trying to make it into something bigger than it is. The mind boggles

Not bigger, Zoue. That's what Horner was doing. You should ask him for his reasons, I can't imagine why he thought nobody would remember it was perfectly legal to tell Vettel he was to stay behind Webber.

The only thing that is missing in your argument is the logic. Had Vettel turned his engine down as ordered, he still had the advantage of better tyres than Webber, though it might be argued that in itself wasn't sufficient to pass Webber. Which is why he refused to obey the order. But neither Webber, nor Vettel misunderstood what Multi 21 meant.

I've been simply saying what "Multi 21" meant and what it did not mean. What Horner thought he had to gain by telling us porkies is really a question for his PR-department. Perhaps he/they felt it was the path of least resistance to go along with a popular myth doing the rounds on the internet by then. Sort of getting the more gullible fans back on board.

It's a very strange animal, is PR. Luckily Racecar Engineering deals with facts, not perceptions.

I hope this unboggled your mind?

that's just ridiculous. The logic is very simple. It's only because you appear desperate to create a conspiracy theory that it becomes complicated.

You've got things back to front. In order for you to believe Horner was lying, you have to be convinced that there is something he's covering up. But you have absolutely nothing. His explanation is not only plausible but backed up by the evidence already provided.

still boggled and frankly astounded at the bizarre mental gymnastics needed to believe this ridiculous theory of yours


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2016 6:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2559
Location: UK
Fiki wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I'm really struggling to understand the delusion on this. You haven't answered the rather basic question as to what Horner would have to gain by lying about the meaning of the instruction. He gave a perfectly logical explanation, which should have put the whole thing to bed, yet you are still trying to make it into something bigger than it is. The mind boggles

Not bigger, Zoue. That's what Horner was doing. You should ask him for his reasons, I can't imagine why he thought nobody would remember it was perfectly legal to tell Vettel he was to stay behind Webber.

The only thing that is missing in your argument is the logic. Had Vettel turned his engine down as ordered, he still had the advantage of better tyres than Webber, though it might be argued that in itself wasn't sufficient to pass Webber. Which is why he refused to obey the order. But neither Webber, nor Vettel misunderstood what Multi 21 meant.

I've been simply saying what "Multi 21" meant and what it did not mean. What Horner thought he had to gain by telling us porkies is really a question for his PR-department. Perhaps he/they felt it was the path of least resistance to go along with a popular myth doing the rounds on the internet by then. Sort of getting the more gullible fans back on board.

It's a very strange animal, is PR. Luckily Racecar Engineering deals with facts, not perceptions.

I hope this unboggled your mind?

In the original video posted at the top, Horner even unambiguously gives the 'hold position' order when it became clear that Vettel was ignoring the Multi 21 order.

I cannot believe that even with the overwhelming mass of evidence posted on this thread you still deny the obvious conclusion here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2016 7:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6832
Location: Belgium
froze wrote:
I think it's funny that people are still talking about this. It was 3 years ago.

Although, this was also my initial theory in the original thread 3 years ago, but nobody listened. :lol:

froze wrote:
On what basis did they come up with that?

Here's a picture of the Red Bull (2012) steering wheel: http://f1grandprix.motorionline.com/dow ... di_140.jpg
In the middle is the engine multimap setting labelled "multi", which is set to "9" in that picture. I'm pretty sure Mark was referring to that, with "multi 21" most probably meaning some kind of lean mode, to tell Vettel which mode he was in.


I have to say I doubt it now, but who knows...
On the contrary, Froze, I well remember not only the comment, but also the picture! In fact, the difference between the steering wheels with the rotary multi switch on the right side of the wheel, and the centrally mounted one in your picture, may well explain why Webber asked his question.
Without your picture, I would probably never have wondered why Horner was pulling our leg. Thanks for digging it back up!

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2016 8:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:54 am
Posts: 255
For me, Webber at 1:15 conveys what 'multi 21' means :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-U5KpPGZvo


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2016 9:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6832
Location: Belgium
jiminwatford wrote:
For me, Webber at 1:15 conveys what 'multi 21' means :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-U5KpPGZvo
Of course, had Vettel turned his engine down as ordered, Webber would have won.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2016 9:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 3:22 am
Posts: 3846
Fiki wrote:
jiminwatford wrote:
For me, Webber at 1:15 conveys what 'multi 21' means :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-U5KpPGZvo
Of course, had Vettel turned his engine down as ordered, Webber would have won.

I can't see that the actual meaning of 'Multi 21' makes any difference.

It's obvious that RBR were basically telling their drivers to hold station and Seb refused - hence the extremely funny podium Malaysia '13 (when it was combined with the Nico/Lewis Fiasco)! :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2016 9:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:54 am
Posts: 255
I guess you're gonna believe what you believe

Good luck either way :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2016 10:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21002
LKS1 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
jiminwatford wrote:
For me, Webber at 1:15 conveys what 'multi 21' means :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-U5KpPGZvo
Of course, had Vettel turned his engine down as ordered, Webber would have won.

I can't see that the actual meaning of 'Multi 21' makes any difference.

It's obvious that RBR were basically telling their drivers to hold station and Seb refused - hence the extremely funny podium Malaysia '13 (when it was combined with the Nico/Lewis Fiasco)! :lol:

This. The whole gist is that the intent was to stop racing each other. Whether the instruction itself contained multiple levels (e.g. turn the engine down to a specific setting and continue in current race order until further notice) is irrelevant. The point is that it was a message not to race each other any further. The fact that it's been used in the past to similar effect reinforces this. The fact that drivers may have misunderstood is a communication issue and does not in any way detract from the message itself. The fact that Horner went on public record to explain this in a very simple and logical way makes it even more bizarre that someone would accuse him of lying and want to believe that there's some kind of nefarious cover up going on, to what end has never been made clear. It's all very strange


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2016 11:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:01 pm
Posts: 78
not that im sure many peoples minds will be changed - but im sure the 'multi' meant 'multiple finish, 2 followed by 1'

if it were a setting, - how would webber have known before the podium he wasn't in 'multi 21' mode, and simply was able to pass him fairly...

would also explain the sheepish demeanour of vettel post race...

_________________
Official


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2016 11:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 11:29 am
Posts: 178
I think any interpretation other than "multi 21" or "multi 12" is a massive stretch and simply hard to believe.

It's clear they were disguised as engine settings or similar so competitors wouldn't immediately catch on to the plan (although it's not unlikely their competitors knew what was happening). Maybe it was also so their fans wouldn't be put-off by blatant team orders. Whatever their reason, it was clearly a coded call for an instruction agreed to prior to the race.

There is no doubt RBR was instructing Seb not to pass Mark at Malaysia 2013. After the coded radio call, there were also many calls to Seb directly asking him to hold position and subsequent communications expressing their unhappiness with his decision to pass.

It's obvious what the coded call was about, I don't see what the motivation is to try to prove otherwise... it's hardly like RBR are hiding a big secret given they openly and publicly explained what it was about.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2016 11:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21002
Beanhead wrote:
not that im sure many peoples minds will be changed - but im sure the 'multi' meant 'multiple finish, 2 followed by 1'

if it were a setting, - how would webber have known before the podium he wasn't in 'multi 21' mode, and simply was able to pass him fairly...

would also explain the sheepish demeanour of vettel post race...

I agree, but it was possible that it was a layered instruction: e.g. hold positions and turn the settings down to a prearranged level. Either way it's pretty irrelevant as the entire purpose was to get them both to ease off and hold station, as confirmed by Horner


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2016 12:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:46 pm
Posts: 840
I guess Webber misunderstood the whole situation for his autobiography then.


.

_________________
Me Like - Button, Hamilton, Webber, Rosberg
Over rated, over paid - Räikkönen, Alonso, Vettel. Schumacher
Disappointing - Massa, Kobayashi
I may be wrong about - Alonso


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2016 12:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:01 pm
Posts: 78
Chunky wrote:
I guess Webber misunderstood the whole situation for his autobiography then.


.


what does he say - I didnt read it?

_________________
Official


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2016 6:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:46 pm
Posts: 840
Beanhead wrote:
what does he say - I didnt read it?

Treat yourself. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Aussie-Grit-For ... ark+webber

In fairness to those involved, most of us at the time assumed Vettel remained unpunished because he was protected by Uncle Marko and Horner. Webber reveals in the book that Seb got the lawyers in. A real team player.


.

_________________
Me Like - Button, Hamilton, Webber, Rosberg
Over rated, over paid - Räikkönen, Alonso, Vettel. Schumacher
Disappointing - Massa, Kobayashi
I may be wrong about - Alonso


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2016 6:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 5:19 pm
Posts: 1168
Location: Los Angeles, California
Beanhead wrote:
Chunky wrote:
I guess Webber misunderstood the whole situation for his autobiography then.


.


what does he say - I didnt read it?


This is some of it.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/breaking-ne ... 365f89e915

_________________
"No, there is no terrible way to win. There is only winning."
Jean-Pierre Sarti


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2016 7:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12375
Chunky wrote:
Beanhead wrote:
what does he say - I didnt read it?

Treat yourself. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Aussie-Grit-For ... ark+webber

In fairness to those involved, most of us at the time assumed Vettel remained unpunished because he was protected by Uncle Marko and Horner. Webber reveals in the book that Seb got the lawyers in. A real team player.


.


Webber can't talk. I wish someone would remind him of his actions and what he said afterwards in Silverstone 2011.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2016 10:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6832
Location: Belgium
mikeyg123 wrote:
Chunky wrote:
Beanhead wrote:
what does he say - I didnt read it?

Treat yourself. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Aussie-Grit-For ... ark+webber

In fairness to those involved, most of us at the time assumed Vettel remained unpunished because he was protected by Uncle Marko and Horner. Webber reveals in the book that Seb got the lawyers in. A real team player.


.


Webber can't talk. I wish someone would remind him of his actions and what he said afterwards in Silverstone 2011.
Feel free to be that someone yourself. I haven't read his book, but I don't feel his own previous actions disqualify him from telling us about what happened at Red Bull. The reaction at the team after Vettel crashed into him in Turkey 2010 made it very clear he was not exactly the favoured son.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 7:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 10781
Fiki wrote:
The reaction at the team after Vettel crashed into him in Turkey 2010 made it very clear he was not exactly the favoured son.


I think you should not confuse Marko's reaction with the team reaction. If I'm not mistaken Mateschitz, clearly ranking higher than Marko, was as much on Webber's side as on Vettel's, if not more. Marko had double motives, as the leader of the RBJT, which would always have made him partial to Vettel.

I mean, you're talking about Webber not being the favoured son in a thread about Multi 21. Don't you think that is rather ironic? I'm not saying he was, but the multi 21 call showed that he wasn't the disadvantaged one some make him out to be. He got his chances.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 8:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:45 am
Posts: 636
Location: Australia
mds wrote:
Fiki wrote:
The reaction at the team after Vettel crashed into him in Turkey 2010 made it very clear he was not exactly the favoured son.


I think you should not confuse Marko's reaction with the team reaction. If I'm not mistaken Mateschitz, clearly ranking higher than Marko, was as much on Webber's side as on Vettel's, if not more. Marko had double motives, as the leader of the RBJT, which would always have made him partial to Vettel.

I mean, you're talking about Webber not being the favoured son in a thread about Multi 21. Don't you think that is rather ironic? I'm not saying he was, but the multi 21 call showed that he wasn't the disadvantaged one some make him out to be. He got his chances.


I agree Mateschitz was neutral throughout, however the influence of Marko on the team was I believe and Mark has said as much in his autobiography quite a significant factor. And let's face it, we both know who's side he was always going to be on.

In all honesty Webber got the same equipment, it was just that he was psychologically impaired due to managements actions, whether rightly or wrongly.

_________________
#Keep Fighting Michael


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2246
"When Ann [Neal, Webber's partner] later pressed [Red Bull boss Christian Horner] about why the team had never reprimanded Seb or issued any punishment for the 'Multi 21' incident, he admitted that the team had received a two-page letter from Seb's lawyer a few days after the Malaysian race stating that they were in breach of his contract by giving him an 'unreasonable instruction/team order'.

Could an engine map setting be considered an unreasonable instruction?

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 11:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 8893
ALESI wrote:
"When Ann [Neal, Webber's partner] later pressed [Red Bull boss Christian Horner] about why the team had never reprimanded Seb or issued any punishment for the 'Multi 21' incident, he admitted that the team had received a two-page letter from Seb's lawyer a few days after the Malaysian race stating that they were in breach of his contract by giving him an 'unreasonable instruction/team order'.

Could an engine map setting be considered an unreasonable instruction?

Why not?

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 2:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:41 pm
Posts: 4156
For me, this is all pretty clear cut. Is there a possibility it wasn't a coded message? Of course. Is it likely? In my mind no.

The Malaysia messages and the pre-podium room aftermath.
The many comments by many experts.
The Spa video.

Even with legal team orders, I still think there is a bit of a stigma to ordering a change in position if you are in the lead. If 9th and 10th switch so they can maybe get 8th and 10th then I'm fine with it. When you have two guys in the lead, the PR is a bit harder. They were going to 1-2 barring collision or failure, if you switch it looks bad. It also looks bad if you tell them not to fight. A coded message serves to reduce some of this, assuming it all goes to plan and we don't end up in a situation where we are still discussing it years later.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 2:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6832
Location: Belgium
mac_d wrote:
For me, this is all pretty clear cut. Is there a possibility it wasn't a coded message? Of course. Is it likely? In my mind no.

The Malaysia messages and the pre-podium room aftermath.
The many comments by many experts.
The Spa video.

Even with legal team orders, I still think there is a bit of a stigma to ordering a change in position if you are in the lead. If 9th and 10th switch so they can maybe get 8th and 10th then I'm fine with it. When you have two guys in the lead, the PR is a bit harder. They were going to 1-2 barring collision or failure, if you switch it looks bad. It also looks bad if you tell them not to fight. A coded message serves to reduce some of this, assuming it all goes to plan and we don't end up in a situation where we are still discussing it years later.
Do you have any experts in mind, who believed that Multi 21 meant what Horner wanted us to believe? I know that most experts are targets for ridicule amongst fans, but I don't consider Gary Andersen a dimwit. He was one of the first to point out that an engine setting is not a coded message for an order that can be given in the clear.

I'm not sure why you speak of a switch, the order, given in the clear, was to hold station. While I have never liked team orders, I don't see the stigma to using them, especially when just about everybody felt that Ferrari were right in using them even when forbidden.

You should be careful in considering the Malaysia messages themselves. During the race, we never heard the "Multi 21" engine order. This is why so many people believed (and still do) that when Mark mentioned it, it was somehow a coded position order. In the link I posted in in the opening post, it becomes clear it never was.
What Webber threw Vettel in the face, was the order itself: "turn down your engine". Vettel didn't, and showed remorse initally. Until he had spoken to the most important people in his entourage: his lawyers. So by the following race, all remorse was gone. And quite a bit of respect for him as well.

Would you mind explaining how you see the Spa video as a position order, rather than an engine setting?

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 3:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 947
I can't for the life of me understand why this thread was re-opened, should have stayed locked


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 3:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6832
Location: Belgium
Rockie wrote:
I can't for the life of me understand why this thread was re-opened, should have stayed locked
Don't you like finding out new evidence about what you thought you knew? :? To me, that is one of the reasons I like this forum. Why would you like to stifle discussion?

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 4:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:46 pm
Posts: 840
Fiki wrote:
Don't you like finding out new evidence about what you thought you knew? :? To me, that is one of the reasons I like this forum. Why would you like to stifle discussion?

It seems to me that discussion is best stifled by the multiple quote, ten part back and forward debate by two protagonists arguing about how many angels will fit on the head of a pin. Two completely entrenched, impervious and modification-proof views, with ever more irrelevant and self-contradictory arguments offered to justify their own little corner of sophistry. Both of them locked in a death embrace of ASCII characters, certain that their overwhelming logic will win over the other but of course, it won't.

You'd think some people like the sound of their own keystrokes so much they must have a musical keyboard. This thread will get there eventually if it doesn't get locked again.

There are two prevailing views about an old, old event. They're not going to change. Just let it go people and move on to 2016.


.

_________________
Me Like - Button, Hamilton, Webber, Rosberg
Over rated, over paid - Räikkönen, Alonso, Vettel. Schumacher
Disappointing - Massa, Kobayashi
I may be wrong about - Alonso


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2016 5:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6832
Location: Belgium
Chunky wrote:
There are two prevailing views about an old, old event. They're not going to change. Just let it go people and move on to 2016.
Feel free to let it go, I can't help but be amazed.
I think it is fine if people have no wish to study a different (or for some entirely new) angle on a story of only 3 years ago.

But I do find it odd that people would want discussion of it to be made impossible. Just today, somebody came up with an alternative for DRS, apparently not knowing that such a system was in use a whopping 7 years ago... Let that go? Why would we, it made sense.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2016 5:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 3:22 am
Posts: 3846
Fiki wrote:
Chunky wrote:
There are two prevailing views about an old, old event. They're not going to change. Just let it go people and move on to 2016.
Feel free to let it go, I can't help but be amazed.
I think it is fine if people have no wish to study a different (or for some entirely new) angle on a story of only 3 years ago.

But I do find it odd that people would want discussion of it to be made impossible. Just today, somebody came up with an alternative for DRS, apparently not knowing that such a system was in use a whopping 7 years ago... Let that go? Why would we, it made sense.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - what difference does it make?

Regardless of the actual meaning/interpretation of 'Multi 21', it's obvious that the intention was to stop Seb overtaking Mark - and both drivers knew this.

Seb ignored the order and the fallout ensued.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Lotus49 and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group