planetf1.com

It is currently Fri May 25, 2018 7:23 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic

Who was at fault?
Ricciardo mostly/completely at fault 2%  2%  [ 3 ]
Ricciardo at fault, but a racing incident 11%  11%  [ 15 ]
Verstappen mostly/completely at fault 69%  69%  [ 96 ]
Verstappen at fault, but a racing incident 19%  19%  [ 26 ]
Total votes : 140
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2018 3:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 11:39 am
Posts: 75
Location: Ålesund, Norway
Having watched the replays countless times now, I really can't understand why Ricciardo is accepting any of the blame. I have tried to have an open mind, give Verstappen the benefit of the doubt, but the double move is blatant - it doesn't look minor to me at all, particularly the move left. The PR machine really does seem to be in overdrive regarding this - Max had been overly aggressive all day. Maybe he could get away with some of his moves with an opponent from another team, but against your own team mate you have to give some leeway - exactly as Dan had been. Every time he passed he left room, only for Max to almost run him into the wall at one point. The stewards decision essentially says Max is to blame, but...well, something something Dan might have braked too late. Brawn and Lauda say pretty much the same. I don't see how Max is going to change anything if this is the reaction - and that will mean more such incidents, That's not exciting racing, it's just bloody minded stupidity. RBR have a decent car this year, they've been there or thereabouts in all the races so far. They have more than an outside chance at the title(s) in my opinion, given how open the season is looking. But if they don't take control of this situation they're going to lose a hell of a lot of points, and look very daft come November.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2018 3:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2014 8:26 pm
Posts: 191
Of course this is just my opinion but

Max is the first Karting Kid to make it to F1 with the Senna/Schumacher legacy imprinted in his driving DNA. As they did, he truly believes that he has a divine right to the piece of tarmac he wants to occupy and he has a total disregard of any other driver's right to that tarmac.

Like Senna & Schumacher he pulls off some breathtaking overtaking moves but he also, regularly, defends without respect for his opposition because, like them, he does not respect his opponents.

Unfortunately, formula from F3 and below are now packed with drivers who truly believe that what Verstappen does is the zenith of driving.

Forcing another driver to back off or collide is not good judgement, rather it is lack of imagination.

Verstappen MUST be PUBLICLY stopped, if the only solution is to receive race bans, so be it. Otherwise an entire generation of crash kids will eventually create enough bad publicity that racing itself will be externally regulated..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2018 3:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 4:05 am
Posts: 289
Atomicunderware wrote:
Having watched the replays countless times now, I really can't understand why Ricciardo is accepting any of the blame.


If you take a step back and take a look at the context of the race they were fighting for 4th and 5th with no hope of catching the cars in front unless a Safety car. There was really nothing to play for so Ricciardo taking a risk just for fourth place didn't make any sense to me. Even when he passed him earlier in the race it wasn't like he sprinted off. They were both evenly matched and the main reason for Daniel being able to overtake was the huge drafting advantage on the straight - looked like a 30kmh advantage at certain points on the straight. Every time this happened Daniel got fastest lap of the race up till that point. Red Bull could have tried to have both drivers alternate position (by drafting each other on the long straight) to gain on the front-runners - they were perfectly positioned to do that.

The other thing that is mind-boggling to me is that neither driver has any sense of damage control? They were outpaced by the Ferrari's and Mercs this weekend so barring incidents they were going to find themselves behind them. Consistency is going to win this championship - but I think they don't care about the championship and just are going race to race at this point. Even in the post-race interviews they did lament letting the team down and losing points, but I didn't see a frustration of potentially throwing a championship away this early in the season.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2018 4:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 5819
Atomicunderware wrote:
Having watched the replays countless times now, I really can't understand why Ricciardo is accepting any of the blame. I have tried to have an open mind, give Verstappen the benefit of the doubt, but the double move is blatant - it doesn't look minor to me at all, particularly the move left. The PR machine really does seem to be in overdrive regarding this - Max had been overly aggressive all day. Maybe he could get away with some of his moves with an opponent from another team, but against your own team mate you have to give some leeway - exactly as Dan had been. Every time he passed he left room, only for Max to almost run him into the wall at one point. The stewards decision essentially says Max is to blame, but...well, something something Dan might have braked too late. Brawn and Lauda say pretty much the same. I don't see how Max is going to change anything if this is the reaction - and that will mean more such incidents, That's not exciting racing, it's just bloody minded stupidity. RBR have a decent car this year, they've been there or thereabouts in all the races so far. They have more than an outside chance at the title(s) in my opinion, given how open the season is looking. But if they don't take control of this situation they're going to lose a hell of a lot of points, and look very daft come November.

In fairness Lauda said 70-30 Max's fault. He said that the guy was weaving leaving no choice to Ricci, so somewhat right I guess


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2018 5:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7078
Location: Belgium
shay550 wrote:
Atomicunderware wrote:
Having watched the replays countless times now, I really can't understand why Ricciardo is accepting any of the blame.


If you take a step back and take a look at the context of the race they were fighting for 4th and 5th with no hope of catching the cars in front unless a Safety car. There was really nothing to play for so Ricciardo taking a risk just for fourth place didn't make any sense to me. Even when he passed him earlier in the race it wasn't like he sprinted off. They were both evenly matched and the main reason for Daniel being able to overtake was the huge drafting advantage on the straight - looked like a 30kmh advantage at certain points on the straight. Every time this happened Daniel got fastest lap of the race up till that point. Red Bull could have tried to have both drivers alternate position (by drafting each other on the long straight) to gain on the front-runners - they were perfectly positioned to do that.

The other thing that is mind-boggling to me is that neither driver has any sense of damage control? They were outpaced by the Ferrari's and Mercs this weekend so barring incidents they were going to find themselves behind them. Consistency is going to win this championship - but I think they don't care about the championship and just are going race to race at this point. Even in the post-race interviews they did lament letting the team down and losing points, but I didn't see a frustration of potentially throwing a championship away this early in the season.
If you do take a step back, you will notice that Daniel Ricciardo is on the driver market. He has shown two races in a row that he, not his team-mate, is the driver to have. Accepting to stay behind a slower team-mate while being allowed to race him, would only impress Ferrari, not Mercedes.
I think co-operation might well have brought benefits for the team. But how to convince Max that there is another driver in his team? His own team don't seem convinced there is.

_________________
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 May 02, 2018 5:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 11:39 am
Posts: 75
Location: Ålesund, Norway
Siao7 wrote:
In fairness Lauda said 70-30 Max's fault. He said that the guy was weaving leaving no choice to Ricci, so somewhat right I guess


That's my point really - many pundits and 'experts' are essentially saying the same thing, apportioning some blame to Dan, whilst saying that if Max haven't done what he did, they likely wouldn't have made contact. Strange.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2018 6:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 10:07 pm
Posts: 171
I believe if this had been an indecent between teams instead of teammates the stewards would have ruled VER at fault. Because it was Redbull against Redbull they took a pass with a neutral ruling and let the team deal with them.

As far as the Redbull response, it seems to be clear VER has the contract for next year therefore they don't want to publicly antagonize him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2018 6:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 7:23 pm
Posts: 311
As the days pass, for me it is just clearer.

- Most of the drivers have sold the dummy at least once over their career. Almost everytime this was done, the move worked without incidents.

- This kind of move revolves around the fact that if you switch direction twice when defending, you will leave at least a cars width.

- Now, I think we can all agree that Ricciardo is a good overtaker. I can't say if he is the best or not, but certainly, it makes most of them stick.

- Max Verstappen is what everyone calls an aggressive defender. Sometimes fair sometimes less fair.



Considering all these aspects, and clearly seeing Max moving twice, what should one say? Selling the dummy looks spectacular but actually, it is a pretty basic move.

The defender can still block the driver selling the dummy. Any of the current drivers can. But none of them do it. Because they say that it might cause a monster crash.

Now, seeing everyone capable of blocking the track, but only one actually doing it, what should be my conclusion on the topic?

- Is Verstappen the only one capable of blocking the track? Of course not. Everyone in F1 has more or less the same reaction time.
- Are they bad drivers with no idea about defending? Actually no, they are all quite good?
- Why is no one doing this except for Max? Because they have a strong belief it is dangerous.

PS: The Redbull PR machine is horrible. To blame both drivers for aggressive driving during the race or not putting the team first is idiotic.

The only way all the incidents would not have happened, was if Ricciardo just drove behind Max all the race. Up to the point of the crash, there was nothing even remotely wrong that Dan did. There was just only one robust defensive move, but he left a cars width for Max, even though he could have easily kept his line and still be inline with the rules.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2018 9:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7078
Location: Belgium
paul_gmb wrote:
As the days pass, for me it is just clearer.

- Most of the drivers have sold the dummy at least once over their career. Almost everytime this was done, the move worked without incidents.

- This kind of move revolves around the fact that if you switch direction twice when defending, you will leave at least a cars width.

- Now, I think we can all agree that Ricciardo is a good overtaker. I can't say if he is the best or not, but certainly, it makes most of them stick.

- Max Verstappen is what everyone calls an aggressive defender. Sometimes fair sometimes less fair.



Considering all these aspects, and clearly seeing Max moving twice, what should one say? Selling the dummy looks spectacular but actually, it is a pretty basic move.

The defender can still block the driver selling the dummy. Any of the current drivers can. But none of them do it. Because they say that it might cause a monster crash.

Now, seeing everyone capable of blocking the track, but only one actually doing it, what should be my conclusion on the topic?

- Is Verstappen the only one capable of blocking the track? Of course not. Everyone in F1 has more or less the same reaction time.
- Are they bad drivers with no idea about defending? Actually no, they are all quite good?
- Why is no one doing this except for Max? Because they have a strong belief it is dangerous.

PS: The Redbull PR machine is horrible. To blame both drivers for aggressive driving during the race or not putting the team first is idiotic.

The only way all the incidents would not have happened, was if Ricciardo just drove behind Max all the race. Up to the point of the crash, there was nothing even remotely wrong that Dan did. There was just only one robust defensive move, but he left a cars width for Max, even though he could have easily kept his line and still be inline with the rules.
Your post has made me go back, once again, and re-read the rules. You wrote "This kind of move revolves around the fact that if you switch direction twice when defending, you will leave at least a cars width." Gary Anderson wrote something similar in his article "Has Vettel learned nothing?" He wrote:
Gary Anderson wrote:
I agree with both the team and the FIA stewards, it was probably a 50/50 incident. But Verstappen could have left a little more room on his left-hand side. I'm not completely sure there was the required car's width, and if he had done that Ricciardo wouldn't have had to try to switch back to the right-hand side.


My first thought reading your line was, why would you switch direction twice when defending, leaving a car's width, when moving twice isn't even allowed? Reading the rules again, it struck me once again how badly they are written. The two appropriate paragraphs as they appear in Appendix L are:
Appendix L wrote:
More than one change of direction to defend a position is not permitted.

Any driver moving back towards the racing line, having earlier defended his position off-line, should leave at least one car width between his own car and the edge of the track on the approach to the corner.
This second paragraph is what troubles me. First off, as far as I'm aware, this is the only time in the code of conduct for the drivers, that mentions the racing line. But it doesn't define what the racing line is. Taking last Sunday's crash as an example, I would think the racing line was on the right, but Max had remained on the left of the track, seemingly wishing to remain on the inside line for the upcoming lefthander. To me, that means he isn't on the racing line, and therefore, his earlier defence doesn't mean he has to leave a car's width on the left of his car, for Ricciardo to continue his overtake attempt. Am I right? Edit: Had he been on the racing line and moved left in defence, he would have had to leave a car's width to his right on approach to the corner, in my interpretation of that second paragraph.

It seemed to me that the second paragraph is confusing up to a point, as it seems to contradict the rule that restricts defending drivers to a single move. But it does allow a driver to move back, provided he leaves at least a car's width. To me, that is almost making sure there will be controversy. (Or worse.)

And just to make sure I remembered correctly what Gary Anderson wasn't sure of, I checked the F1 all angles video for the view from Ricciardo's car, and there wasn't a car's width of space between Max's left side and the edge of the track. So even if the racing line as mentioned in the second paragraph isn't the usual racing line on the right of the track, but simply Max's chosen initial defensive line towards the left, it was Max Verstappen who would be in the wrong. Completely! Because Ricciardo only started to switch to the right once Verstappen had reduced the gap to less than the required one car width.

So I'm still at a loss to find anything Ricciardo was supposed to have done wrong. And I dare say, if he looked at the incident a few times more on getting home, he may well wonder why he made the statement to the stewards that he apparently did. Puzzling.

Edit: Source for the Gary Anderson article: https://www.autosport.com/f1/feature/8167/has-vettel-learned-nothing?utm_source=Autosport+Newsletter&utm_campaign=0e6bbb3d9b-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_05_02&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_37b525b20e-0e6bbb3d9b-106512971

_________________
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 May 03, 2018 7:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 7:23 pm
Posts: 311
For me it is clear enough. As a driver, to understand why it was written seems pretty obvious. If you don't want to understand it, well, you can ask Max how it works :)

I guess everyone knows who was at fault. It's pretty much clear cut.

Redbull can't say it was Max, because they are paying him top dollars. They can't say he is at fault as Mateschitz would suddenly ask why the hell did we sign this guy and not the other.

Everyone saw the race. Even taking into account the fight between them from the begining, what should have Daniel done differently to be more carefull, besides holding his position ?

It was the first time I saw Daniel resigned after a race. They guy is smiley and nice, but he can also put on a PR attitude. My guess is that after this he will do everything to leave the team, maybe even for Renault.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2018 8:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 5819
Fiki wrote:
paul_gmb wrote:
As the days pass, for me it is just clearer.

- Most of the drivers have sold the dummy at least once over their career. Almost everytime this was done, the move worked without incidents.

- This kind of move revolves around the fact that if you switch direction twice when defending, you will leave at least a cars width.

- Now, I think we can all agree that Ricciardo is a good overtaker. I can't say if he is the best or not, but certainly, it makes most of them stick.

- Max Verstappen is what everyone calls an aggressive defender. Sometimes fair sometimes less fair.



Considering all these aspects, and clearly seeing Max moving twice, what should one say? Selling the dummy looks spectacular but actually, it is a pretty basic move.

The defender can still block the driver selling the dummy. Any of the current drivers can. But none of them do it. Because they say that it might cause a monster crash.

Now, seeing everyone capable of blocking the track, but only one actually doing it, what should be my conclusion on the topic?

- Is Verstappen the only one capable of blocking the track? Of course not. Everyone in F1 has more or less the same reaction time.
- Are they bad drivers with no idea about defending? Actually no, they are all quite good?
- Why is no one doing this except for Max? Because they have a strong belief it is dangerous.

PS: The Redbull PR machine is horrible. To blame both drivers for aggressive driving during the race or not putting the team first is idiotic.

The only way all the incidents would not have happened, was if Ricciardo just drove behind Max all the race. Up to the point of the crash, there was nothing even remotely wrong that Dan did. There was just only one robust defensive move, but he left a cars width for Max, even though he could have easily kept his line and still be inline with the rules.
Your post has made me go back, once again, and re-read the rules. You wrote "This kind of move revolves around the fact that if you switch direction twice when defending, you will leave at least a cars width." Gary Anderson wrote something similar in his article "Has Vettel learned nothing?" He wrote:
Gary Anderson wrote:
I agree with both the team and the FIA stewards, it was probably a 50/50 incident. But Verstappen could have left a little more room on his left-hand side. I'm not completely sure there was the required car's width, and if he had done that Ricciardo wouldn't have had to try to switch back to the right-hand side.


My first thought reading your line was, why would you switch direction twice when defending, leaving a car's width, when moving twice isn't even allowed? Reading the rules again, it struck me once again how badly they are written. The two appropriate paragraphs as they appear in Appendix L are:
Appendix L wrote:
More than one change of direction to defend a position is not permitted.

Any driver moving back towards the racing line, having earlier defended his position off-line, should leave at least one car width between his own car and the edge of the track on the approach to the corner.
This second paragraph is what troubles me. First off, as far as I'm aware, this is the only time in the code of conduct for the drivers, that mentions the racing line. But it doesn't define what the racing line is. Taking last Sunday's crash as an example, I would think the racing line was on the right, but Max had remained on the left of the track, seemingly wishing to remain on the inside line for the upcoming lefthander. To me, that means he isn't on the racing line, and therefore, his earlier defence doesn't mean he has to leave a car's width on the left of his car, for Ricciardo to continue his overtake attempt. Am I right? Edit: Had he been on the racing line and moved left in defence, he would have had to leave a car's width to his right on approach to the corner, in my interpretation of that second paragraph.

It seemed to me that the second paragraph is confusing up to a point, as it seems to contradict the rule that restricts defending drivers to a single move. But it does allow a driver to move back, provided he leaves at least a car's width. To me, that is almost making sure there will be controversy. (Or worse.)

And just to make sure I remembered correctly what Gary Anderson wasn't sure of, I checked the F1 all angles video for the view from Ricciardo's car, and there wasn't a car's width of space between Max's left side and the edge of the track. So even if the racing line as mentioned in the second paragraph isn't the usual racing line on the right of the track, but simply Max's chosen initial defensive line towards the left, it was Max Verstappen who would be in the wrong. Completely! Because Ricciardo only started to switch to the right once Verstappen had reduced the gap to less than the required one car width.

So I'm still at a loss to find anything Ricciardo was supposed to have done wrong. And I dare say, if he looked at the incident a few times more on getting home, he may well wonder why he made the statement to the stewards that he apparently did. Puzzling.

Edit: Source for the Gary Anderson article: https://www.autosport.com/f1/feature/8167/has-vettel-learned-nothing?utm_source=Autosport+Newsletter&utm_campaign=0e6bbb3d9b-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_05_02&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_37b525b20e-0e6bbb3d9b-106512971


Absolutely agreed Fiki, this is the interpretation that I also get. The most baffling thing is that both drivers declined to apportion blame, which is down to the RB PR machine I guess and suited Max fine to just brush it off. But I'd expect Daniel to be furious with his team mate, absolutely furious. He stood there just saying exactly the same line, no point into what happened, we need to apologise to the team. Where's the grit Dan?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2018 8:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7078
Location: Belgium
Siao7 wrote:
The most baffling thing is that both drivers declined to apportion blame, which is down to the RB PR machine I guess and suited Max fine to just brush it off. But I'd expect Daniel to be furious with his team mate, absolutely furious. He stood there just saying exactly the same line, no point into what happened, we need to apologise to the team. Where's the grit Dan?
It is Ricciardo's cowering down that makes me think he already knows he's not going to Mercedes or Ferrari, and needs a contract at Red Bull. But that, to me, isn't what is most troubling. Seeing experts declare him to be part responsible for the accident without explaining why they think so, is in danger of turning fans away from the sport. Not to mention the repercussions in the lower categories.

_________________
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 May 03, 2018 9:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 12:49 am
Posts: 252
Fiki wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
The most baffling thing is that both drivers declined to apportion blame, which is down to the RB PR machine I guess and suited Max fine to just brush it off. But I'd expect Daniel to be furious with his team mate, absolutely furious. He stood there just saying exactly the same line, no point into what happened, we need to apologise to the team. Where's the grit Dan?
It is Ricciardo's cowering down that makes me think he already knows he's not going to Mercedes or Ferrari, and needs a contract at Red Bull. But that, to me, isn't what is most troubling. Seeing experts declare him to be part responsible for the accident without explaining why they think so, is in danger of turning fans away from the sport. Not to mention the repercussions in the lower categories.


If it suggests he is not going to Ferrari or Mercedes, it also suggests the reason he is not going is because he has not been offered a drive. From Hamilton's comments about Bottas, Hamilton supports him staying. Wonder what the Ferrari plan is?

Not having another options also means Ricciardo is not in a great negotiation position, and will not get a contract with the same pay as Max, who Red Bull believed was being courted by other teams.

So if true, it also means Ricciardo is now a clear #2 - as a team will generally support the driver they paid more in order to justify their agreeing to the contract.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2018 10:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2014 2:10 am
Posts: 80
iano wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
The most baffling thing is that both drivers declined to apportion blame, which is down to the RB PR machine I guess and suited Max fine to just brush it off. But I'd expect Daniel to be furious with his team mate, absolutely furious. He stood there just saying exactly the same line, no point into what happened, we need to apologise to the team. Where's the grit Dan?
It is Ricciardo's cowering down that makes me think he already knows he's not going to Mercedes or Ferrari, and needs a contract at Red Bull. But that, to me, isn't what is most troubling. Seeing experts declare him to be part responsible for the accident without explaining why they think so, is in danger of turning fans away from the sport. Not to mention the repercussions in the lower categories.


If it suggests he is not going to Ferrari or Mercedes, it also suggests the reason he is not going is because he has not been offered a drive. From Hamilton's comments about Bottas, Hamilton supports him staying. Wonder what the Ferrari plan is?

Not having another options also means Ricciardo is not in a great negotiation position, and will not get a contract with the same pay as Max, who Red Bull believed was being courted by other teams.

So if true, it also means Ricciardo is now a clear #2 - as a team will generally support the driver they paid more in order to justify their agreeing to the contract.


It's starting to look like Danny may have tried to be too clever for his own good by waiting around and playing the long game with a new contract.

If he doesn't get a drive at Merc and Ferrari aren't interested .. If I was him Id sooner roll te dice with Renault and usurp Hulk for nimber 1 status rather the be Webbered at RBR and get stuck being Verstappens whipping boy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2018 11:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 22168
Glasnost wrote:
iano wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
The most baffling thing is that both drivers declined to apportion blame, which is down to the RB PR machine I guess and suited Max fine to just brush it off. But I'd expect Daniel to be furious with his team mate, absolutely furious. He stood there just saying exactly the same line, no point into what happened, we need to apologise to the team. Where's the grit Dan?
It is Ricciardo's cowering down that makes me think he already knows he's not going to Mercedes or Ferrari, and needs a contract at Red Bull. But that, to me, isn't what is most troubling. Seeing experts declare him to be part responsible for the accident without explaining why they think so, is in danger of turning fans away from the sport. Not to mention the repercussions in the lower categories.


If it suggests he is not going to Ferrari or Mercedes, it also suggests the reason he is not going is because he has not been offered a drive. From Hamilton's comments about Bottas, Hamilton supports him staying. Wonder what the Ferrari plan is?

Not having another options also means Ricciardo is not in a great negotiation position, and will not get a contract with the same pay as Max, who Red Bull believed was being courted by other teams.

So if true, it also means Ricciardo is now a clear #2 - as a team will generally support the driver they paid more in order to justify their agreeing to the contract.


It's starting to look like Danny may have tried to be too clever for his own good by waiting around and playing the long game with a new contract.

If he doesn't get a drive at Merc and Ferrari aren't interested .. If I was him Id sooner roll te dice with Renault and usurp Hulk for nimber 1 status rather the be Webbered at RBR and get stuck being Verstappens whipping boy.

Number one status won't mean a thing if the car isn't capable of challenging for anything. How has number one status helped Alonso these last few years?

And there is zero evidence that Ric is being anybody's whipping boy. The reason for the Baku fallout is that team orders weren't imposed. Which means that there is no number one or number two, or at least that they haven't done anything to enforce that. So why would Ric prefer to go to a midfield team to be number one over staying at a front runner and getting chances for wins and podiums? How does that make any sense?

Finally, even Webber didn't get Webbered. He just wasn't good enough but he had plenty of opportunity to do better. It's entirely in Ric's hands how well he does at Red Bull and at least he has the chance to compete


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2018 11:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7078
Location: Belgium
My worry is that Red Bull have gone the route that Ferrari took with Barrichello; he was never equal number 1, just 1B.

John Watson has given his views, which I found only in Dutch on https://racingnews365.nl/red-bull-heeft-een-monster-gemaakt-van-max-verstappen
I have looked for an English version, but seem unable to find one.

I won't translate the whole article, but according to Watson, "Red Bull have created a monster. After signing a multi-million £/$ contract, Max believes he is the absolute number 1. In all honesty, he drives like a Formula 3 driver."
His most incisive comment is this: "If I were running the team, I would switch him with Pièrre Gasly, and put him back in the Toro Rosso. There he can learn to become a Formula 1 driver."

Watson thinks that "as long as he is driving recklessly, which is no good to anybody, he is just a dangerous driver".

I'm happy at least one expert goes along with what I think, though I wish he had explained in detail what he thought of the Baku debacle.

I came across Watson's views while trying to find how Dutch experts and fans reacted, but that seems a lot more difficult than after Austin last year.

_________________
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 May 03, 2018 11:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 22168
Fiki wrote:
My worry is that Red Bull have gone the route that Ferrari took with Barrichello; he was never equal number 1, just 1B.

John Watson has given his views, which I found only in Dutch on https://racingnews365.nl/red-bull-heeft-een-monster-gemaakt-van-max-verstappen
I have looked for an English version, but seem unable to find one.

I won't translate the whole article, but according to Watson, "Red Bull have created a monster. After signing a multi-million £/$ contract, Max believes he is the absolute number 1. In all honesty, he drives like a Formula 3 driver."
His most incisive comment is this: "If I were running the team, I would switch him with Pièrre Gasly, and put him back in the Toro Rosso. There he can learn to become a Formula 1 driver."

Watson thinks that "as long as he is driving recklessly, which is no good to anybody, he is just a dangerous driver".

I'm happy at least one expert goes along with what I think, though I wish he had explained in detail what he thought of the Baku debacle.

I came across Watson's views while trying to find how Dutch experts and fans reacted, but that seems a lot more difficult than after Austin last year.

On Dutch TV all the panelists placed the blame on Ricciardo, even suggesting that Ricciardo should apologise to Max. I am not making this up


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2018 11:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 4:09 pm
Posts: 4210
Location: LONDON...!
Zoue wrote:
Fiki wrote:
My worry is that Red Bull have gone the route that Ferrari took with Barrichello; he was never equal number 1, just 1B.

John Watson has given his views, which I found only in Dutch on https://racingnews365.nl/red-bull-heeft-een-monster-gemaakt-van-max-verstappen
I have looked for an English version, but seem unable to find one.

I won't translate the whole article, but according to Watson, "Red Bull have created a monster. After signing a multi-million £/$ contract, Max believes he is the absolute number 1. In all honesty, he drives like a Formula 3 driver."
His most incisive comment is this: "If I were running the team, I would switch him with Pièrre Gasly, and put him back in the Toro Rosso. There he can learn to become a Formula 1 driver."

Watson thinks that "as long as he is driving recklessly, which is no good to anybody, he is just a dangerous driver".

I'm happy at least one expert goes along with what I think, though I wish he had explained in detail what he thought of the Baku debacle.

I came across Watson's views while trying to find how Dutch experts and fans reacted, but that seems a lot more difficult than after Austin last year.

On Dutch TV all the panelists placed the blame on Ricciardo, even suggesting that Ricciardo should apologise to Max. I am not making this up

Not the first time and wont be the last.

Max can do no wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2018 11:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7078
Location: Belgium
Zoue wrote:
On Dutch TV all the panelists placed the blame on Ricciardo, even suggesting that Ricciardo should apologise to Max. I am not making this up
I'm not surprised. Do you have any links? After the "mongol" statement, I found interviews on YouTube, but nothing now.

_________________
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 May 03, 2018 1:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 22168
Fiki wrote:
Zoue wrote:
On Dutch TV all the panelists placed the blame on Ricciardo, even suggesting that Ricciardo should apologise to Max. I am not making this up
I'm not surprised. Do you have any links? After the "mongol" statement, I found interviews on YouTube, but nothing now.

Unfortunately not, sorry. It was post race on TV and a few days later they did a review and the panel basically said the same. Don't have anything written


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2018 2:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 5819
Fiki wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
The most baffling thing is that both drivers declined to apportion blame, which is down to the RB PR machine I guess and suited Max fine to just brush it off. But I'd expect Daniel to be furious with his team mate, absolutely furious. He stood there just saying exactly the same line, no point into what happened, we need to apologise to the team. Where's the grit Dan?
It is Ricciardo's cowering down that makes me think he already knows he's not going to Mercedes or Ferrari, and needs a contract at Red Bull. But that, to me, isn't what is most troubling. Seeing experts declare him to be part responsible for the accident without explaining why they think so, is in danger of turning fans away from the sport. Not to mention the repercussions in the lower categories.

I'd love to see what Webber would have to say about this...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2018 9:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7078
Location: Belgium
Siao7 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
The most baffling thing is that both drivers declined to apportion blame, which is down to the RB PR machine I guess and suited Max fine to just brush it off. But I'd expect Daniel to be furious with his team mate, absolutely furious. He stood there just saying exactly the same line, no point into what happened, we need to apologise to the team. Where's the grit Dan?
It is Ricciardo's cowering down that makes me think he already knows he's not going to Mercedes or Ferrari, and needs a contract at Red Bull. But that, to me, isn't what is most troubling. Seeing experts declare him to be part responsible for the accident without explaining why they think so, is in danger of turning fans away from the sport. Not to mention the repercussions in the lower categories.

I'd love to see what Webber would have to say about this...
So would I.

_________________
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 May 03, 2018 9:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 11:39 am
Posts: 75
Location: Ålesund, Norway
I hope they do implement team orders just so we can hear 'Multi 333' over the radio and watch chaos reign.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2018 9:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 5114
Location: Michigan, USA
Fiki wrote:
His most incisive comment is this: "If I were running the team, I would switch him with Pièrre Gasly, and put him back in the Toro Rosso. There he can learn to become a Formula 1 driver."

In all seriousness, he's made more mistakes in the same number of races than Kvyat did before he got dropped. The only difference is that Max's theoretical pace is much higher, but that matters very little if he's not realizing it because of constant errors.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (3 wins, 12 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #2)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2018 10:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 4:59 pm
Posts: 290
To be fair I think red bull were most at fault. Dan was stuck behind Max for ages, got past and red bull failed to realise the overcut would stick him behind again....
Had the pit stops favoured the lead car this would have most likely been avoided!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2018 5:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 15, 2016 12:56 am
Posts: 17
Siao7 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
The most baffling thing is that both drivers declined to apportion blame, which is down to the RB PR machine I guess and suited Max fine to just brush it off. But I'd expect Daniel to be furious with his team mate, absolutely furious. He stood there just saying exactly the same line, no point into what happened, we need to apologise to the team. Where's the grit Dan?
It is Ricciardo's cowering down that makes me think he already knows he's not going to Mercedes or Ferrari, and needs a contract at Red Bull. But that, to me, isn't what is most troubling. Seeing experts declare him to be part responsible for the accident without explaining why they think so, is in danger of turning fans away from the sport. Not to mention the repercussions in the lower categories.

I'd love to see what Webber would have to say about this...


Me too. Below is my theory on what Webber would say.

Quote from Mark:
Quote:
.... behaviour was down to his youthfulness, but the team’s executive management repeatedly allowed him to get away with it. No one was ever big enough to pull him into line, tell him that kind of behaviour wasn’t acceptable. He was treated like a favourite son, which meant he would throw his toys out of the pram from time to time when he didn’t get his own way.[snip] ...Essentially he was a good kid at heart but the team allowed him to behave like a spoilt brat.


That quote was from Mark's book, about his time with Vettel at RBR, and I wouldn't be surprised if he might be having some deja vú while looking at the Max/Dan situation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2018 7:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 12:49 am
Posts: 252
Zoue wrote:
Glasnost wrote:
iano wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
The most baffling thing is that both drivers declined to apportion blame, which is down to the RB PR machine I guess and suited Max fine to just brush it off. But I'd expect Daniel to be furious with his team mate, absolutely furious. He stood there just saying exactly the same line, no point into what happened, we need to apologise to the team. Where's the grit Dan?
It is Ricciardo's cowering down that makes me think he already knows he's not going to Mercedes or Ferrari, and needs a contract at Red Bull. But that, to me, isn't what is most troubling. Seeing experts declare him to be part responsible for the accident without explaining why they think so, is in danger of turning fans away from the sport. Not to mention the repercussions in the lower categories.


If it suggests he is not going to Ferrari or Mercedes, it also suggests the reason he is not going is because he has not been offered a drive. From Hamilton's comments about Bottas, Hamilton supports him staying. Wonder what the Ferrari plan is?

Not having another options also means Ricciardo is not in a great negotiation position, and will not get a contract with the same pay as Max, who Red Bull believed was being courted by other teams.

So if true, it also means Ricciardo is now a clear #2 - as a team will generally support the driver they paid more in order to justify their agreeing to the contract.


It's starting to look like Danny may have tried to be too clever for his own good by waiting around and playing the long game with a new contract.

If he doesn't get a drive at Merc and Ferrari aren't interested .. If I was him Id sooner roll te dice with Renault and usurp Hulk for nimber 1 status rather the be Webbered at RBR and get stuck being Verstappens whipping boy.

Number one status won't mean a thing if the car isn't capable of challenging for anything. How has number one status helped Alonso these last few years?

And there is zero evidence that Ric is being anybody's whipping boy. The reason for the Baku fallout is that team orders weren't imposed. Which means that there is no number one or number two, or at least that they haven't done anything to enforce that. So why would Ric prefer to go to a midfield team to be number one over staying at a front runner and getting chances for wins and podiums? How does that make any sense?

Finally, even Webber didn't get Webbered. He just wasn't good enough but he had plenty of opportunity to do better. It's entirely in Ric's hands how well he does at Red Bull and at least he has the chance to compete


There is no solid evidence the Ricciardo 'is anybody's whipping boy'.

Given the team seeming to apportioning the blame equally, and several outsiders feeling Verstappen was more to blame does lead some to feel Ricciardo is getting some of the #2 treatment, but is speculation, not evidence.

The reality will become clear if Ricciardo enters into a contract that does not deliver equal pay per annum to the contract of Verstappen. There is no clearer "you are #2", then being paid less.

Exediron wrote:
Fiki wrote:
His most incisive comment is this: "If I were running the team, I would switch him with Pièrre Gasly, and put him back in the Toro Rosso. There he can learn to become a Formula 1 driver."

In all seriousness, he's made more mistakes in the same number of races than Kvyat did before he got dropped. The only difference is that Max's theoretical pace is much higher, but that matters very little if he's not realizing it because of constant errors.

Trouble is, the situation is different. Kvyat did not have a contract like the one Max Verstappen now has. Kvyat was like a Red Bull intern, gaining experience in the top team but without yet the pay from being in the top team. They graduated Verstappen with his contract. Given the pay Verstappen is now getting, quite difficult no matter what he does to drop him to Torro Rosso. It is easier for them to face losing, or even killing the spirit of, Ricciardo.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2018 8:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7078
Location: Belgium
Just as there is no evidence Ricciardo is treated as a whipping boy (I had to look up that expression), there is no evidence it would be difficult for Red Bull to demote Verstappen to Toro Rosso. We don't know what's in contracts, as people kept telling me when I dared to say Schumacher was the designated number 1 at Ferrari.
Your remark about Kvyat's contract is interesting, however. But it does raise the question what Red Bull (or whoever the contract is with) did to promote Verstappen away from Toro Rosso. I suppose they could leave his contract as it is, and still race him in the other team. I doubt John Watson would make the suggestion without considering that particular point.

_________________
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: Fri May 04, 2018 11:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 22168
iano wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Glasnost wrote:
iano wrote:
Fiki wrote:
If it suggests he is not going to Ferrari or Mercedes, it also suggests the reason he is not going is because he has not been offered a drive. From Hamilton's comments about Bottas, Hamilton supports him staying. Wonder what the Ferrari plan is?

Not having another options also means Ricciardo is not in a great negotiation position, and will not get a contract with the same pay as Max, who Red Bull believed was being courted by other teams.

So if true, it also means Ricciardo is now a clear #2 - as a team will generally support the driver they paid more in order to justify their agreeing to the contract.


It's starting to look like Danny may have tried to be too clever for his own good by waiting around and playing the long game with a new contract.

If he doesn't get a drive at Merc and Ferrari aren't interested .. If I was him Id sooner roll te dice with Renault and usurp Hulk for nimber 1 status rather the be Webbered at RBR and get stuck being Verstappens whipping boy.

Number one status won't mean a thing if the car isn't capable of challenging for anything. How has number one status helped Alonso these last few years?

And there is zero evidence that Ric is being anybody's whipping boy. The reason for the Baku fallout is that team orders weren't imposed. Which means that there is no number one or number two, or at least that they haven't done anything to enforce that. So why would Ric prefer to go to a midfield team to be number one over staying at a front runner and getting chances for wins and podiums? How does that make any sense?

Finally, even Webber didn't get Webbered. He just wasn't good enough but he had plenty of opportunity to do better. It's entirely in Ric's hands how well he does at Red Bull and at least he has the chance to compete


There is no solid evidence the Ricciardo 'is anybody's whipping boy'.

Given the team seeming to apportioning the blame equally, and several outsiders feeling Verstappen was more to blame does lead some to feel Ricciardo is getting some of the #2 treatment, but is speculation, not evidence.

The reality will become clear if Ricciardo enters into a contract that does not deliver equal pay per annum to the contract of Verstappen. There is no clearer "you are #2", then being paid less.

Exediron wrote:
Fiki wrote:
His most incisive comment is this: "If I were running the team, I would switch him with Pièrre Gasly, and put him back in the Toro Rosso. There he can learn to become a Formula 1 driver."

In all seriousness, he's made more mistakes in the same number of races than Kvyat did before he got dropped. The only difference is that Max's theoretical pace is much higher, but that matters very little if he's not realizing it because of constant errors.

Trouble is, the situation is different. Kvyat did not have a contract like the one Max Verstappen now has. Kvyat was like a Red Bull intern, gaining experience in the top team but without yet the pay from being in the top team. They graduated Verstappen with his contract. Given the pay Verstappen is now getting, quite difficult no matter what he does to drop him to Torro Rosso. It is easier for them to face losing, or even killing the spirit of, Ricciardo.

BIB: strongly disagree. If that's the case, then every team on the grid likely has a #1 and #2 driver.

Being paid more might mean the team values a driver more, or it might simply be market forces at work at the time of signing. Or just that one driver ha a better manager than the other. But it doesn't have to mean a team will treat either driver any differently and you can't draw any inferences from a driver's pay packet in that regard.

Kimi was paid significantly more than Massa in 2007. But I don't recall any evidence to suggest he was given favourable treatment


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2018 11:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 22168
Fiki wrote:
Just as there is no evidence Ricciardo is treated as a whipping boy (I had to look up that expression), there is no evidence it would be difficult for Red Bull to demote Verstappen to Toro Rosso. We don't know what's in contracts, as people kept telling me when I dared to say Schumacher was the designated number 1 at Ferrari.
Your remark about Kvyat's contract is interesting, however. But it does raise the question what Red Bull (or whoever the contract is with) did to promote Verstappen away from Toro Rosso. I suppose they could leave his contract as it is, and still race him in the other team. I doubt John Watson would make the suggestion without considering that particular point.

Hope you didn't do that at work :lol: :lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2018 1:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:36 pm
Posts: 6
Well, this seems off message.

https://www.express.co.uk/sport/f1-auto ... lmut-Marko


Quote:
"We got Max because of his speed and his aggressiveness. Then you have to live with the fact that sometimes sparks fly.
For me that is 70 percent the fault of Verstappen" Marko added.
He drives there zig-zag, that's completely pointless. He does not learn."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2018 1:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 2:54 pm
Posts: 971
Battle Far wrote:
Of course this is just my opinion but

Max is the first Karting Kid to make it to F1 with the Senna/Schumacher legacy imprinted in his driving DNA. As they did, he truly believes that he has a divine right to the piece of tarmac he wants to occupy and he has a total disregard of any other driver's right to that tarmac.

Like Senna & Schumacher he pulls off some breathtaking overtaking moves but he also, regularly, defends without respect for his opposition because, like them, he does not respect his opponents.

Unfortunately, formula from F3 and below are now packed with drivers who truly believe that what Verstappen does is the zenith of driving.

Forcing another driver to back off or collide is not good judgement, rather it is lack of imagination.

Verstappen MUST be PUBLICLY stopped, if the only solution is to receive race bans, so be it. Otherwise an entire generation of crash kids will eventually create enough bad publicity that racing itself will be externally regulated..


Think you find 99% of drivers have that DNA 'imprinted'. They are think every accident is not their fault and that the piece of tarmac is their's... not sure why are you even attempting to act like he's the first 'karting kid' to come in to F1... he's not.. Vettel/Lewis are prime examples. Albeit they are not rookies in their early seasons no more but believe it or not... they were once upon a time....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2018 2:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 2:54 pm
Posts: 971
shay550 wrote:
Atomicunderware wrote:
Having watched the replays countless times now, I really can't understand why Ricciardo is accepting any of the blame.


If you take a step back and take a look at the context of the race they were fighting for 4th and 5th with no hope of catching the cars in front unless a Safety car. There was really nothing to play for so Ricciardo taking a risk just for fourth place didn't make any sense to me.


They are racing drivers. The same could be said about Max taking risks on defending his position. It's called racing. When you attack, you are taking a risk. When you defend, you are taking a risk.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2018 2:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2506
Teddy007 wrote:
shay550 wrote:
Atomicunderware wrote:
Having watched the replays countless times now, I really can't understand why Ricciardo is accepting any of the blame.


If you take a step back and take a look at the context of the race they were fighting for 4th and 5th with no hope of catching the cars in front unless a Safety car. There was really nothing to play for so Ricciardo taking a risk just for fourth place didn't make any sense to me.


They are racing drivers. The same could be said about Max taking risks on defending his position. It's called racing. When you attack, you are taking a risk. When you defend, you are taking a risk.


11 laps to go and Ricciardo had just struggled on his tyres for a lap, the same was going to happen to Verstappen and it was the best time to attack but for some it doesn't make sense to attack :? Might aswell ask him to sit behind for the whole race and be done with it.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place

Wins: Spain 2016, Canada 2017, Malaysia 2017
Podiums: 2nd Germany 2016, 3rd Mexico 2016


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2018 8:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2015 3:45 am
Posts: 559
Location: Michigan, USA
Verstappen was at fault. He was weaving back and forth even before Ricciardo made the move, and then he changed direction more than once. So long as he keeps getting away with it, I expect he'll keep doing it. At some point a message needs to be sent that it's not acceptable.

Red Bull probably should also have ordered him out of the way at some point, given that Ricciardo's pace seemed better, and there's a chance that the move wouldn't have worked -- but that fact that it ended in a crash was completely on Verstappen's switching back.

_________________
Top Three: 5 wins, 19 podiums | 2016: 9th [6th] | 2017: 16th [6th] | 2018: -6th [8th]
Pick 10: 1 win, 5 podiums | 2016: 22nd | 2017: 21st | 2018: 8th
Group Pick'em: 2 wins, 7 podiums | 2016: 14th | 2017: 10th | 2018: 10th


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2018 10:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7078
Location: Belgium
Zoue wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Just as there is no evidence Ricciardo is treated as a whipping boy (I had to look up that expression), there is no evidence it would be difficult for Red Bull to demote Verstappen to Toro Rosso. We don't know what's in contracts, as people kept telling me when I dared to say Schumacher was the designated number 1 at Ferrari.
Your remark about Kvyat's contract is interesting, however. But it does raise the question what Red Bull (or whoever the contract is with) did to promote Verstappen away from Toro Rosso. I suppose they could leave his contract as it is, and still race him in the other team. I doubt John Watson would make the suggestion without considering that particular point.

Hope you didn't do that at work :lol: :lol: :lol:
Why not? I look up words in the Oxford Dictionary all the time. Should I have used a slang dictionary? 8O

_________________
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: Sat May 05, 2018 9:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2017 9:39 pm
Posts: 2
Has this comment from Marko been missed (apologies if it's already been discussed)? I haven't seen it quoted anywhere else, but apparently he said:

"For me that is 70 percent the fault of Verstappen,” Marko added.

“He drives there zig-zag, that's completely pointless. He does not learn. "

This was quoted at Express https://www.express.co.uk/sport/f1-auto ... lmut-Marko

If true it shows that the initial public stance by Red Bull may be different behind closed doors and may explain why Ricciardo was willing to take some blame: maybe RB have put the fault on Verstappen in private.

Edit: sorry Geckko65 I see you already posted this


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2018 6:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 12:49 am
Posts: 252
SpeedTurtle wrote:
Has this comment from Marko been missed (apologies if it's already been discussed)? I haven't seen it quoted anywhere else, but apparently he said:

"For me that is 70 percent the fault of Verstappen,” Marko added.

“He drives there zig-zag, that's completely pointless. He does not learn. "

This was quoted at Express https://www.express.co.uk/sport/f1-auto ... lmut-Marko

If true it shows that the initial public stance by Red Bull may be different behind closed doors and may explain why Ricciardo was willing to take some blame: maybe RB have put the fault on Verstappen in private.

Edit: sorry Geckko65 I see you already posted this


It was not 100% clear to me from the original post that is was also Marko with the '70% Verstappen' comment. It is surprising.... and even worth pointing out a second time


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2018 7:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 7:23 pm
Posts: 311
iano wrote:
SpeedTurtle wrote:
Has this comment from Marko been missed (apologies if it's already been discussed)? I haven't seen it quoted anywhere else, but apparently he said:

"For me that is 70 percent the fault of Verstappen,” Marko added.

“He drives there zig-zag, that's completely pointless. He does not learn. "

This was quoted at Express https://www.express.co.uk/sport/f1-auto ... lmut-Marko

If true it shows that the initial public stance by Red Bull may be different behind closed doors and may explain why Ricciardo was willing to take some blame: maybe RB have put the fault on Verstappen in private.

Edit: sorry Geckko65 I see you already posted this




It was not 100% clear to me from the original post that is was also Marko with the '70% Verstappen' comment. It is surprising.... and even worth pointing out a second time


I think we can all agree that behind closed doors they blame Verstappen. That was not the point of what we discussed.

If some viewers still believed that Ver was not at fault, they are delusional.

The problem is different. The RBR management have to turn this around, as they must justify why they signed Ver. He has to deliver, and to deliver he needs time, and Marko and Horner are willing to do that.

They will tell him in private that he is at fault, but not publically.

Ricciardo is not signed yet, so they don't have to give him time or understanding. And they never will.

Sometimes in business, when you make a mistake, it is better to hold on to your mistake for a while and see if you can turn it around. You don't just run to the next thing. See Mclaren and Honda. They held on for a while. Let's see how long Redbull holds on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2018 7:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 22168
paul_gmb wrote:
iano wrote:
SpeedTurtle wrote:
Has this comment from Marko been missed (apologies if it's already been discussed)? I haven't seen it quoted anywhere else, but apparently he said:

"For me that is 70 percent the fault of Verstappen,” Marko added.

“He drives there zig-zag, that's completely pointless. He does not learn. "

This was quoted at Express https://www.express.co.uk/sport/f1-auto ... lmut-Marko

If true it shows that the initial public stance by Red Bull may be different behind closed doors and may explain why Ricciardo was willing to take some blame: maybe RB have put the fault on Verstappen in private.

Edit: sorry Geckko65 I see you already posted this




It was not 100% clear to me from the original post that is was also Marko with the '70% Verstappen' comment. It is surprising.... and even worth pointing out a second time


I think we can all agree that behind closed doors they blame Verstappen. That was not the point of what we discussed.

If some viewers still believed that Ver was not at fault, they are delusional.

The problem is different. The RBR management have to turn this around, as they must justify why they signed Ver. He has to deliver, and to deliver he needs time, and Marko and Horner are willing to do that.

They will tell him in private that he is at fault, but not publically.

Ricciardo is not signed yet, so they don't have to give him time or understanding. And they never will.

Sometimes in business, when you make a mistake, it is better to hold on to your mistake for a while and see if you can turn it around. You don't just run to the next thing. See Mclaren and Honda. They held on for a while. Let's see how long Redbull holds on.

I would argue that it's the other way around. Verstappen has already signed, so they don't have to risk upsetting him by telling him how it is. Ricciardo has yet to sign, so there's an argument to say they don't want to upset or antagonise him while that's the case, in order to keep him on side.

It's a very strange one, tbh. It's clear to just about everybody that it was Max weaving that caused the accident. I don't really understand why neither the stewards nor Red Bull management are willing to state that officially


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], Covalent, Google Adsense [Bot] 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