planetf1.com

It is currently Sat Aug 18, 2018 4:14 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 8:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:42 pm
Posts: 1969
Has anyone been listening to these podcasts?

I've really gotten into podcasts just lately, so I've been very happy to hear proper in-depth interviews with drivers, very different to the PR-led interviews you often get at the track. So far they've all been 40 minutes to an hour long.

https://formula1.com/en/toolbar/beyond- ... dcast.html (also available on your favourite podcast app, I use Acast)

So far the lineup has been:
Ep 1: Lewis Hamilton
Ep 2: Robert Kubica
Ep 3: Mark Webber

If you have listened, what are your thoughts?

_________________
Top Three Team Champions 2017 (With Jezza13)
Group Pick 'Em 2016 Champion


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 9:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 1242
Location: Far side of Koozebane
I actually listened to the Mark Webber podcast yesterday and thoroughly enjoyed it.

Very insightful and as you said Herb, PR free.

Look forward to hearing the others

_________________
Question: If a compulsive liar tells you they're a compulsive liar, are they really a compulsive liar?

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 9:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:42 pm
Posts: 1969
I've got about 25 minutes left of the Webber one - can't believe he doesn't have a racing licence at all now!

_________________
Top Three Team Champions 2017 (With Jezza13)
Group Pick 'Em 2016 Champion


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 9:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 13764
Kubica's was great. Very insightful.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 3:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2014 11:52 am
Posts: 161
Jezza13 wrote:
I actually listened to the Mark Webber podcast yesterday and thoroughly enjoyed it.

Very insightful and as you said Herb, PR free.

Look forward to hearing the others



Bias aside, I did actually enjoy the Lewis one the most as it was more candid.

Mark's one was basically everything I've read in his autobiography. So it wasn't anything new...but still worth a listen and I like how he talks straight.

Sometimes, I think he has an inflated opinion of himself but only on certain topics.

_________________
F1 Fan: 26 years and counting...
Grand Prixs Attended:
British x3 * Hungary * Italy * USA * Spain * Belgium


Grand Prixs on bucket list...
Canada * Mexico * Japan * Germany *


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2018 9:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6274
Is Webber seriously saying at 6:25 that you can't take pole on Monaco when you are 43 years old??? He was there in 2012...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 9:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 10:32 pm
Posts: 938
So far I have listened to Hamilton, ocon , brundle

All have been excellent.

Hamilton’s interview was a nice glimpse of how he sees himself and how F1 has given him life. Ocons story I didn’t see that coming at all and it was great to hear brundles POV on his F1 career.

_________________
PF1 pick 10 2016: 7th (1 win, 4 podiums), 2017: 17th (3 podiums)
Awards: Sergio perez trophy & Podium specialist
PF1 pick 3 2015: constructors 2nd, singles 5th
Autosport Gp 2016/17 - 5th
F1 Oracle 2017: 2nd (6 wins), 2016:5th (2wins)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 1:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2177

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b_OIvylHEz0


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 1:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2177
Some interesting snippets from the Horner podcast:

- He suggests that Ricciardo may have left Red Bull because he was afraid of becoming number 2 to Max.

- Horner on Alonso: “I’ve got huge respect for Fernando, he’s a great, fantastic driver, but it would be very difficult to see. He’s tended to cause a bit of chaos wherever he’s gone.”

- He says Vettel is the best driver Red Bull have ever had. He also thinks the enormous pressure at Ferrari could be a reason why Vettel is making these mistakes.

- The multi-21 accident in Malaysia was revenge for what happened in Brazil 2012, just two races earlier. Mark squeezed Seb to the pitwall at the start when the WDC was on the line.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 3:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:09 am
Posts: 2750
Location: Perth, Australia
KingVoid wrote:
- The multi-21 accident in Malaysia was revenge for what happened in Brazil 2012, just two races earlier. Mark squeezed Seb to the pitwall at the start when the WDC was on the line.


That's been said before, which I thought at the time and continue to think is a load of rubbish. The footage is available, and it was hardly a squeeze. The point is especially so when we consider how much worse others have done it. Vettel got a poor start in Brazil, he had nobody to blame but himself.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 4:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 5563
Location: Michigan, USA
Toby. wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
- The multi-21 accident in Malaysia was revenge for what happened in Brazil 2012, just two races earlier. Mark squeezed Seb to the pitwall at the start when the WDC was on the line.


That's been said before, which I thought at the time and continue to think is a load of rubbish. The footage is available, and it was hardly a squeeze. The point is especially so when we consider how much worse others have done it. Vettel got a poor start in Brazil, he had nobody to blame but himself.

That's true enough, but all that matters for it to have been Seb's motivation is that he perceived it as an unfair squeeze. It doesn't matter if it really happened or not - even if it did, it doesn't justify taking revenge half a year later because you feel you were slighted in the past.

_________________
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: Fri Aug 10, 2018 5:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 13764
Webber made his bed RE multi 21 at Silverstone 2011 where he did the exact same thing and even said something to the effect of him being right to ignore team orders. I'm astonished nobody ever called him out on his hipocracy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23219
Toby. wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
- The multi-21 accident in Malaysia was revenge for what happened in Brazil 2012, just two races earlier. Mark squeezed Seb to the pitwall at the start when the WDC was on the line.


That's been said before, which I thought at the time and continue to think is a load of rubbish. The footage is available, and it was hardly a squeeze. The point is especially so when we consider how much worse others have done it. Vettel got a poor start in Brazil, he had nobody to blame but himself.

It's not a load of rubbish. The footage confirmed it was a squeeze. It's not like Webber punted him into the wall, but OTOH Vettel had to back off and lost positions. Horner explains in the podcast that prior to the race they'd had a briefing with the drivers and went through exactly this scenario and agreed that Webber shouldn't get involved with Seb at the start as he was out of the WDC fight but Vettel was still very much in it. Webber subsequently ignored that, which is why Vettel (and Horner) was furious with Mark. He nearly cost him a title by reneging on an agreement.

Interesting in the podcast Horner intimated that Webber played a number of silly games throughout their time together. He couldn't handle the fact that, as good as he was, Vettel was simply better


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:09 am
Posts: 2750
Location: Perth, Australia
While none of us were privy to that pre-race conversation, I just don't see how a) it could be considered an unreasonable place for Webber to have put his car entering T1, or b) a place where Webber would be expected to back out. There was a whole race ahead of them, and I expect he would have let Vettel by at any other place. On cold, slippery track, going early on the brakes from P4 at the first corner could have been more of a disaster for Red Bull than simply holding his line.

If he had squeezed him to the wall, or run him wide, I could see the point, but he was in the middle of the track and gave Vettel plenty of room.

I suspect the incident with Senna at T3 was what really made it something Red Bull became angry about, when it looked like that could be his championship over. But that's looking at it in hindsight.

Edit: It's too far back for me to remember, but how much did Webber staying ahead of Alonso affect his pace during the race? If Webber had let Vettel by, and Alonso jumped ahead of both of them there, would that have drastically changed the situation for the championship?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23219
Toby. wrote:
While none of us were privy to that pre-race conversation, I just don't see how a) it could be considered an unreasonable place for Webber to have put his car entering T1, or b) a place where Webber would be expected to back out. There was a whole race ahead of them, and I expect he would have let Vettel by at any other place. On cold, slippery track, going early on the brakes from P4 at the first corner could have been more of a disaster for Red Bull than simply holding his line.

If he had squeezed him to the wall, or run him wide, I could see the point, but he was in the middle of the track and gave Vettel plenty of room.

I suspect the incident with Senna at T3 was what really made it something Red Bull became angry about, when it looked like that could be his championship over. But that's looking at it in hindsight.

Edit: It's too far back for me to remember, but how much did Webber staying ahead of Alonso affect his pace during the race? If Webber had let Vettel by, and Alonso jumped ahead of both of them there, would that have drastically changed the situation for the championship?

I agree it wasn't a terrible squeeze. But the effect of it was to force Vettel to take a really tight line and lose places. The significant point is that they discussed the start before the race and agreed a course of action, which Webber then ignored. He was supposed to stay out of Vettel's way because of the WDC fight, but instead he treated him like any other competitor and cost him a number of places as a result. That was the issue, not the severity of the squeeze itself


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:09 am
Posts: 2750
Location: Perth, Australia
Zoue wrote:
I agree it wasn't a terrible squeeze. But the effect of it was to force Vettel to take a really tight line and lose places. The significant point is that they discussed the start before the race and agreed a course of action, which Webber then ignored. He was supposed to stay out of Vettel's way because of the WDC fight, but instead he treated him like any other competitor and cost him a number of places as a result. That was the issue, not the severity of the squeeze itself


I guess we'll have to wait for the Sebastian Vettel autobiography - now that'd have a few juicy chapters from his Red Bull days! :o

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 1242
Location: Far side of Koozebane
mikeyg123 wrote:
Webber made his bed RE multi 21 at Silverstone 2011 where he did the exact same thing and even said something to the effect of him being right to ignore team orders. I'm astonished nobody ever called him out on his hipocracy.


Right, and what about RB's hypocrisy at this race? Does that count for nothing?

_________________
Question: If a compulsive liar tells you they're a compulsive liar, are they really a compulsive liar?

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23219
Jezza13 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Webber made his bed RE multi 21 at Silverstone 2011 where he did the exact same thing and even said something to the effect of him being right to ignore team orders. I'm astonished nobody ever called him out on his hipocracy.


Right, and what about RB's hypocrisy at this race? Does that count for nothing?

which race do you mean?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 1242
Location: Far side of Koozebane
Zoue wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Webber made his bed RE multi 21 at Silverstone 2011 where he did the exact same thing and even said something to the effect of him being right to ignore team orders. I'm astonished nobody ever called him out on his hipocracy.


Right, and what about RB's hypocrisy at this race? Does that count for nothing?

which race do you mean?


Silverstone 2011. The first time RB issued team orders and it came just 7 months after this statement by Deitrich Mateschitz in regard to team orders used by Ferrari at Hockenheim in 2010.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/mot ... 29448.html

That is in contrast to Ferrari's manipulation of the team orders rule for which they were found guilty after Felipe Massa allowed through Alonso to claim victory in the German Grand Prix in July.

Mateschitz is adamant his team will not sink to such depths as he said: "Let the two drivers race and whatever will be will be. If Alonso wins we will have been unlucky."

"We don't manipulate things like Ferrari do. The whole world condemned them after what they did in Hockenheim.

"But we have never even thought about it as long as both our drivers remain in the hunt for the championship.

"So a second place under correct circumstances might be better than a win on grounds of orders and confirmations."


These words were echoed by both Marko & Horner at the time of the Ferrari team orders.

_________________
Question: If a compulsive liar tells you they're a compulsive liar, are they really a compulsive liar?

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23219
Jezza13 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Webber made his bed RE multi 21 at Silverstone 2011 where he did the exact same thing and even said something to the effect of him being right to ignore team orders. I'm astonished nobody ever called him out on his hipocracy.


Right, and what about RB's hypocrisy at this race? Does that count for nothing?

which race do you mean?


Silverstone 2011. The first time RB issued team orders and it came just 7 months after this statement by Deitrich Mateschitz in regard to team orders used by Ferrari at Hockenheim in 2010.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/mot ... 29448.html

That is in contrast to Ferrari's manipulation of the team orders rule for which they were found guilty after Felipe Massa allowed through Alonso to claim victory in the German Grand Prix in July.

Mateschitz is adamant his team will not sink to such depths as he said: "Let the two drivers race and whatever will be will be. If Alonso wins we will have been unlucky."

"We don't manipulate things like Ferrari do. The whole world condemned them after what they did in Hockenheim.

"But we have never even thought about it as long as both our drivers remain in the hunt for the championship.

"So a second place under correct circumstances might be better than a win on grounds of orders and confirmations."


These words were echoed by both Marko & Horner at the time of the Ferrari team orders.

I see why you might think that, but I see an order to pull over as very different to one where they tell the drivers not to battle and risk throwing away all the points, as Horner said:

'we did not want to see our drivers in the fence in the last two laps, which is how it would have ended up' and stressing that 'we could not afford to risk losing points' since 'my responsibility is to ensure that the team optimises its results'

Webber never made it past anyway, despite ignoring the orders, so it could be argued all he was doing was putting them both at risk. But I think the point mikeyg123 was making was that Multi-21 was a virtually identical scenario to Silverstone 2011 and Webber making a song and dance about it seemed a bit rich when he had been guilty of doing exactly the same thing in the past, after which he had said:

"I am not fine with it. No. That's the answer to that," the Australian said when asked if he understood the team's decision.

"If Fernando retires on the last lap we are battling for the victory so I was fine until the end. Of course I ignored the team as I want to try and get another place. Seb was doing his best and I was doing my best.


http://edition.cnn.com/2011/SPORT/motorsport/07/11/motorsport.f1.webber.vettel/index.html

So for Webber it looked like he was OK with team orders when he was the beneficiary, but opposed when not?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 1242
Location: Far side of Koozebane
Zoue wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Webber made his bed RE multi 21 at Silverstone 2011 where he did the exact same thing and even said something to the effect of him being right to ignore team orders. I'm astonished nobody ever called him out on his hipocracy.


Right, and what about RB's hypocrisy at this race? Does that count for nothing?

which race do you mean?


Silverstone 2011. The first time RB issued team orders and it came just 7 months after this statement by Deitrich Mateschitz in regard to team orders used by Ferrari at Hockenheim in 2010.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/mot ... 29448.html

That is in contrast to Ferrari's manipulation of the team orders rule for which they were found guilty after Felipe Massa allowed through Alonso to claim victory in the German Grand Prix in July.

Mateschitz is adamant his team will not sink to such depths as he said: "Let the two drivers race and whatever will be will be. If Alonso wins we will have been unlucky."

"We don't manipulate things like Ferrari do. The whole world condemned them after what they did in Hockenheim.

"But we have never even thought about it as long as both our drivers remain in the hunt for the championship.

"So a second place under correct circumstances might be better than a win on grounds of orders and confirmations."


These words were echoed by both Marko & Horner at the time of the Ferrari team orders.

I see why you might think that, but I see an order to pull over as very different to one where they tell the drivers not to battle and risk throwing away all the points, as Horner said:

'we did not want to see our drivers in the fence in the last two laps, which is how it would have ended up' and stressing that 'we could not afford to risk losing points' since 'my responsibility is to ensure that the team optimises its results'

Webber never made it past anyway, despite ignoring the orders, so it could be argued all he was doing was putting them both at risk. But I think the point mikeyg123 was making was that Multi-21 was a virtually identical scenario to Silverstone 2011 and Webber making a song and dance about it seemed a bit rich when he had been guilty of doing exactly the same thing in the past, after which he had said:

"I am not fine with it. No. That's the answer to that," the Australian said when asked if he understood the team's decision.

"If Fernando retires on the last lap we are battling for the victory so I was fine until the end. Of course I ignored the team as I want to try and get another place. Seb was doing his best and I was doing my best.


http://edition.cnn.com/2011/SPORT/motorsport/07/11/motorsport.f1.webber.vettel/index.html

So for Webber it looked like he was OK with team orders when he was the beneficiary, but opposed when not?


While I concede there is a difference in the circumstances RB's comments at the time of the German GP were very clear. RB would rather lose than issue team orders. Team orders are not part of RB's DNA. We do not manipulate results.

RB issued team orders in Silverstone 2011 to avoid seeing their drivers end up in the fence and lose a few points when they were comfortably leading both championships and both drivers were still, in Webbers case admittedly only mathematically and not realistically, in with a chance of winning the WDC, but were seemingly ok to go without team orders in Abu Dhabi in 2010 and risk the very real chance of throwing away their first WDC ? Really? Come on. Doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to work out what was going on.

I'm not saying they should've issued team orders in 2010 but they took a hell of a risk not doing it. I;m saying they had no right to issue them at Silverstone based on what they did at Abu Dhabi in 2010 and what they said at after Hockenheim in 2011.

_________________
Question: If a compulsive liar tells you they're a compulsive liar, are they really a compulsive liar?

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23219
Jezza13 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
Right, and what about RB's hypocrisy at this race? Does that count for nothing?

which race do you mean?


Silverstone 2011. The first time RB issued team orders and it came just 7 months after this statement by Deitrich Mateschitz in regard to team orders used by Ferrari at Hockenheim in 2010.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/mot ... 29448.html

That is in contrast to Ferrari's manipulation of the team orders rule for which they were found guilty after Felipe Massa allowed through Alonso to claim victory in the German Grand Prix in July.

Mateschitz is adamant his team will not sink to such depths as he said: "Let the two drivers race and whatever will be will be. If Alonso wins we will have been unlucky."

"We don't manipulate things like Ferrari do. The whole world condemned them after what they did in Hockenheim.

"But we have never even thought about it as long as both our drivers remain in the hunt for the championship.

"So a second place under correct circumstances might be better than a win on grounds of orders and confirmations."


These words were echoed by both Marko & Horner at the time of the Ferrari team orders.

I see why you might think that, but I see an order to pull over as very different to one where they tell the drivers not to battle and risk throwing away all the points, as Horner said:

'we did not want to see our drivers in the fence in the last two laps, which is how it would have ended up' and stressing that 'we could not afford to risk losing points' since 'my responsibility is to ensure that the team optimises its results'

Webber never made it past anyway, despite ignoring the orders, so it could be argued all he was doing was putting them both at risk. But I think the point mikeyg123 was making was that Multi-21 was a virtually identical scenario to Silverstone 2011 and Webber making a song and dance about it seemed a bit rich when he had been guilty of doing exactly the same thing in the past, after which he had said:

"I am not fine with it. No. That's the answer to that," the Australian said when asked if he understood the team's decision.

"If Fernando retires on the last lap we are battling for the victory so I was fine until the end. Of course I ignored the team as I want to try and get another place. Seb was doing his best and I was doing my best.


http://edition.cnn.com/2011/SPORT/motorsport/07/11/motorsport.f1.webber.vettel/index.html

So for Webber it looked like he was OK with team orders when he was the beneficiary, but opposed when not?


While I concede there is a difference in the circumstances RB's comments at the time of the German GP were very clear. RB would rather lose than issue team orders. Team orders are not part of RB's DNA. We do not manipulate results.

RB issued team orders in Silverstone 2011 to avoid seeing their drivers end up in the fence and lose a few points when they were comfortably leading both championships and both drivers were still, in Webbers case admittedly only mathematically and not realistically, in with a chance of winning the WDC, but were seemingly ok to go without team orders in Abu Dhabi in 2010 and risk the very real chance of throwing away their first WDC ? Really? Come on. Doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to work out what was going on.

I'm not saying they should've issued team orders in 2010 but they took a hell of a risk not doing it. I;m saying they had no right to issue them at Silverstone based on what they did at Abu Dhabi in 2010 and what they said at after Hockenheim in 2011.

I don't think that's fair. In 2010 both drivers had a shot at the title. You can't seriously expect one to compromise his position in favour of the other at the very last race, when the title was in reach? That title was Mark's to lose and he managed that all on his own by crashing out in Korea, when under no pressure from behind. And in Abu Dhabi he then qualified poorly, by his own admission, while Vettel kept his title hopes alive by securing pole. Frankly it would have been massively controversial if RB had attempted team orders there to orchestrate a Webber win. At some point the driver has to take responsibility and it's not like they held him back in any way. What do you think Red Bull should have done at Abu Dhabi?

Red Bull were fairly consistent, as far as I can see. They told both drivers to hold station in 2011 when Vettel was ahead, and they told both drivers to hold station in Malaysia 2013 when Webber was ahead. Both times they wanted to avoid their drivers crashing into each other and I don't think it's fair to suggest they had enough points in hand not to worry about it. I think even a Rhodes scholar wouldn't engineer conspiracy theories from that one! To me it looks like Red Bull really give both of their drivers equal opportunity and the two examples above are consistent with that. But more to the point, Silverstone 2011 meant Webber didn't have any grounds to complain about Malaysia 2013. For the record, I think both chasing drivers were out of order on each occasion, but Webber really only has himself to blame for the way the second one turned out


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 1242
Location: Far side of Koozebane
Zoue wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:

Silverstone 2011. The first time RB issued team orders and it came just 7 months after this statement by Deitrich Mateschitz in regard to team orders used by Ferrari at Hockenheim in 2010.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/mot ... 29448.html

That is in contrast to Ferrari's manipulation of the team orders rule for which they were found guilty after Felipe Massa allowed through Alonso to claim victory in the German Grand Prix in July.

Mateschitz is adamant his team will not sink to such depths as he said: "Let the two drivers race and whatever will be will be. If Alonso wins we will have been unlucky."

"We don't manipulate things like Ferrari do. The whole world condemned them after what they did in Hockenheim.

"But we have never even thought about it as long as both our drivers remain in the hunt for the championship.

"So a second place under correct circumstances might be better than a win on grounds of orders and confirmations."


These words were echoed by both Marko & Horner at the time of the Ferrari team orders.

I see why you might think that, but I see an order to pull over as very different to one where they tell the drivers not to battle and risk throwing away all the points, as Horner said:

'we did not want to see our drivers in the fence in the last two laps, which is how it would have ended up' and stressing that 'we could not afford to risk losing points' since 'my responsibility is to ensure that the team optimises its results'

Webber never made it past anyway, despite ignoring the orders, so it could be argued all he was doing was putting them both at risk. But I think the point mikeyg123 was making was that Multi-21 was a virtually identical scenario to Silverstone 2011 and Webber making a song and dance about it seemed a bit rich when he had been guilty of doing exactly the same thing in the past, after which he had said:

"I am not fine with it. No. That's the answer to that," the Australian said when asked if he understood the team's decision.

"If Fernando retires on the last lap we are battling for the victory so I was fine until the end. Of course I ignored the team as I want to try and get another place. Seb was doing his best and I was doing my best.


http://edition.cnn.com/2011/SPORT/motorsport/07/11/motorsport.f1.webber.vettel/index.html

So for Webber it looked like he was OK with team orders when he was the beneficiary, but opposed when not?


While I concede there is a difference in the circumstances RB's comments at the time of the German GP were very clear. RB would rather lose than issue team orders. Team orders are not part of RB's DNA. We do not manipulate results.

RB issued team orders in Silverstone 2011 to avoid seeing their drivers end up in the fence and lose a few points when they were comfortably leading both championships and both drivers were still, in Webbers case admittedly only mathematically and not realistically, in with a chance of winning the WDC, but were seemingly ok to go without team orders in Abu Dhabi in 2010 and risk the very real chance of throwing away their first WDC ? Really? Come on. Doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to work out what was going on.

I'm not saying they should've issued team orders in 2010 but they took a hell of a risk not doing it. I;m saying they had no right to issue them at Silverstone based on what they did at Abu Dhabi in 2010 and what they said at after Hockenheim in 2011.

I don't think that's fair. In 2010 both drivers had a shot at the title. You can't seriously expect one to compromise his position in favour of the other at the very last race, when the title was in reach? That title was Mark's to lose and he managed that all on his own by crashing out in Korea, when under no pressure from behind. And in Abu Dhabi he then qualified poorly, by his own admission, while Vettel kept his title hopes alive by securing pole. Frankly it would have been massively controversial if RB had attempted team orders there to orchestrate a Webber win. At some point the driver has to take responsibility and it's not like they held him back in any way. What do you think Red Bull should have done at Abu Dhabi?

Red Bull were fairly consistent, as far as I can see. They told both drivers to hold station in 2011 when Vettel was ahead, and they told both drivers to hold station in Malaysia 2013 when Webber was ahead. Both times they wanted to avoid their drivers crashing into each other and I don't think it's fair to suggest they had enough points in hand not to worry about it. I think even a Rhodes scholar wouldn't engineer conspiracy theories from that one! To me it looks like Red Bull really give both of their drivers equal opportunity and the two examples above are consistent with that. But more to the point, Silverstone 2011 meant Webber didn't have any grounds to complain about Malaysia 2013. For the record, I think both chasing drivers were out of order on each occasion, but Webber really only has himself to blame for the way the second one turned out


I said I wasn't saying they should have issued T/O's in Abu Dhabi. I believe they did the right thing by not doing so & I agree with your comments on Webber but to then, 5 months or so later, issue the T/O's using the excuse they did, in the situation they were in, after saying what they said post Germany in 2010, was gross hypocrisy pure & simple.

They were a mile ahead in the WCC. They were running 1 - 2 in the WDC with Vettel's lead almost unassailable but with Webber under pressure to keep his 2nd place. There was no need to issue T/O's at that point. In fact, considering the circumstances, if T/O's were to be issued, it'd make more sense to let Webber past to allow him to extend his margin over Alonso, Hamilton & Button who were challenging him for that 2nd place in the WDC, although I wouldn't agree that this move would be justified either considering RB's supposed stance on T/O's at the time.

_________________
Question: If a compulsive liar tells you they're a compulsive liar, are they really a compulsive liar?

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6274
mikeyg123 wrote:
Webber made his bed RE multi 21 at Silverstone 2011 where he did the exact same thing and even said something to the effect of him being right to ignore team orders. I'm astonished nobody ever called him out on his hipocracy.


A lot of people did in this forum at the time mikeyg123, I remember this vividly. How Webber took pride in defying the team orders when it suited him, but then blasted Seb on camera when he did the same. Hypocrite was a word that was used a lot at the time. And rightly so


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23219
Jezza13 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:

Silverstone 2011. The first time RB issued team orders and it came just 7 months after this statement by Deitrich Mateschitz in regard to team orders used by Ferrari at Hockenheim in 2010.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/mot ... 29448.html

That is in contrast to Ferrari's manipulation of the team orders rule for which they were found guilty after Felipe Massa allowed through Alonso to claim victory in the German Grand Prix in July.

Mateschitz is adamant his team will not sink to such depths as he said: "Let the two drivers race and whatever will be will be. If Alonso wins we will have been unlucky."

"We don't manipulate things like Ferrari do. The whole world condemned them after what they did in Hockenheim.

"But we have never even thought about it as long as both our drivers remain in the hunt for the championship.

"So a second place under correct circumstances might be better than a win on grounds of orders and confirmations."


These words were echoed by both Marko & Horner at the time of the Ferrari team orders.

I see why you might think that, but I see an order to pull over as very different to one where they tell the drivers not to battle and risk throwing away all the points, as Horner said:

'we did not want to see our drivers in the fence in the last two laps, which is how it would have ended up' and stressing that 'we could not afford to risk losing points' since 'my responsibility is to ensure that the team optimises its results'

Webber never made it past anyway, despite ignoring the orders, so it could be argued all he was doing was putting them both at risk. But I think the point mikeyg123 was making was that Multi-21 was a virtually identical scenario to Silverstone 2011 and Webber making a song and dance about it seemed a bit rich when he had been guilty of doing exactly the same thing in the past, after which he had said:

"I am not fine with it. No. That's the answer to that," the Australian said when asked if he understood the team's decision.

"If Fernando retires on the last lap we are battling for the victory so I was fine until the end. Of course I ignored the team as I want to try and get another place. Seb was doing his best and I was doing my best.


http://edition.cnn.com/2011/SPORT/motorsport/07/11/motorsport.f1.webber.vettel/index.html

So for Webber it looked like he was OK with team orders when he was the beneficiary, but opposed when not?


While I concede there is a difference in the circumstances RB's comments at the time of the German GP were very clear. RB would rather lose than issue team orders. Team orders are not part of RB's DNA. We do not manipulate results.

RB issued team orders in Silverstone 2011 to avoid seeing their drivers end up in the fence and lose a few points when they were comfortably leading both championships and both drivers were still, in Webbers case admittedly only mathematically and not realistically, in with a chance of winning the WDC, but were seemingly ok to go without team orders in Abu Dhabi in 2010 and risk the very real chance of throwing away their first WDC ? Really? Come on. Doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to work out what was going on.

I'm not saying they should've issued team orders in 2010 but they took a hell of a risk not doing it. I;m saying they had no right to issue them at Silverstone based on what they did at Abu Dhabi in 2010 and what they said at after Hockenheim in 2011.

I don't think that's fair. In 2010 both drivers had a shot at the title. You can't seriously expect one to compromise his position in favour of the other at the very last race, when the title was in reach? That title was Mark's to lose and he managed that all on his own by crashing out in Korea, when under no pressure from behind. And in Abu Dhabi he then qualified poorly, by his own admission, while Vettel kept his title hopes alive by securing pole. Frankly it would have been massively controversial if RB had attempted team orders there to orchestrate a Webber win. At some point the driver has to take responsibility and it's not like they held him back in any way. What do you think Red Bull should have done at Abu Dhabi?

Red Bull were fairly consistent, as far as I can see. They told both drivers to hold station in 2011 when Vettel was ahead, and they told both drivers to hold station in Malaysia 2013 when Webber was ahead. Both times they wanted to avoid their drivers crashing into each other and I don't think it's fair to suggest they had enough points in hand not to worry about it. I think even a Rhodes scholar wouldn't engineer conspiracy theories from that one! To me it looks like Red Bull really give both of their drivers equal opportunity and the two examples above are consistent with that. But more to the point, Silverstone 2011 meant Webber didn't have any grounds to complain about Malaysia 2013. For the record, I think both chasing drivers were out of order on each occasion, but Webber really only has himself to blame for the way the second one turned out


I said I wasn't saying they should have issued T/O's in Abu Dhabi. I believe they did the right thing by not doing so & I agree with your comments on Webber but to then, 5 months or so later, issue the T/O's using the excuse they did, in the situation they were in, after saying what they said post Germany in 2010, was gross hypocrisy pure & simple.

They were a mile ahead in the WCC. They were running 1 - 2 in the WDC with Vettel's lead almost unassailable but with Webber under pressure to keep his 2nd place. There was no need to issue T/O's at that point. In fact, considering the circumstances, if T/O's were to be issued, it'd make more sense to let Webber past to allow him to extend his margin over Alonso, Hamilton & Button who were challenging him for that 2nd place in the WDC, although I wouldn't agree that this move would be justified either considering RB's supposed stance on T/O's at the time.

Fair enough, I think we just have a different view on team orders. For me, holding station seems practical and non-controversial (since there is no guarantee that one driver will pass another, as 2011 showed, and the risk of accident to compromise the team is high), while one driver pulling over is more directly orchestrating results and raises the bar somewhat. One is just saying "don't fight," while the other is saying "orchestrate a position change." I can see you view it differently, which is fine, but given our definitions are far apart I guess we won't ever view the two in the same way!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 10:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 13764
Jezza13 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Webber made his bed RE multi 21 at Silverstone 2011 where he did the exact same thing and even said something to the effect of him being right to ignore team orders. I'm astonished nobody ever called him out on his hipocracy.


Right, and what about RB's hypocrisy at this race? Does that count for nothing?


Not good but not really relevant. Webber took pride in ignoring team orders but couldn't handle it when the boot was on the other foot. I was astonished neither Red Bull or Seb pointed it out in the media.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 10:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 1242
Location: Far side of Koozebane
Zoue wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I see why you might think that, but I see an order to pull over as very different to one where they tell the drivers not to battle and risk throwing away all the points, as Horner said:

'we did not want to see our drivers in the fence in the last two laps, which is how it would have ended up' and stressing that 'we could not afford to risk losing points' since 'my responsibility is to ensure that the team optimises its results'

Webber never made it past anyway, despite ignoring the orders, so it could be argued all he was doing was putting them both at risk. But I think the point mikeyg123 was making was that Multi-21 was a virtually identical scenario to Silverstone 2011 and Webber making a song and dance about it seemed a bit rich when he had been guilty of doing exactly the same thing in the past, after which he had said:

"I am not fine with it. No. That's the answer to that," the Australian said when asked if he understood the team's decision.

"If Fernando retires on the last lap we are battling for the victory so I was fine until the end. Of course I ignored the team as I want to try and get another place. Seb was doing his best and I was doing my best.


http://edition.cnn.com/2011/SPORT/motorsport/07/11/motorsport.f1.webber.vettel/index.html

So for Webber it looked like he was OK with team orders when he was the beneficiary, but opposed when not?


While I concede there is a difference in the circumstances RB's comments at the time of the German GP were very clear. RB would rather lose than issue team orders. Team orders are not part of RB's DNA. We do not manipulate results.

RB issued team orders in Silverstone 2011 to avoid seeing their drivers end up in the fence and lose a few points when they were comfortably leading both championships and both drivers were still, in Webbers case admittedly only mathematically and not realistically, in with a chance of winning the WDC, but were seemingly ok to go without team orders in Abu Dhabi in 2010 and risk the very real chance of throwing away their first WDC ? Really? Come on. Doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to work out what was going on.

I'm not saying they should've issued team orders in 2010 but they took a hell of a risk not doing it. I;m saying they had no right to issue them at Silverstone based on what they did at Abu Dhabi in 2010 and what they said at after Hockenheim in 2011.

I don't think that's fair. In 2010 both drivers had a shot at the title. You can't seriously expect one to compromise his position in favour of the other at the very last race, when the title was in reach? That title was Mark's to lose and he managed that all on his own by crashing out in Korea, when under no pressure from behind. And in Abu Dhabi he then qualified poorly, by his own admission, while Vettel kept his title hopes alive by securing pole. Frankly it would have been massively controversial if RB had attempted team orders there to orchestrate a Webber win. At some point the driver has to take responsibility and it's not like they held him back in any way. What do you think Red Bull should have done at Abu Dhabi?

Red Bull were fairly consistent, as far as I can see. They told both drivers to hold station in 2011 when Vettel was ahead, and they told both drivers to hold station in Malaysia 2013 when Webber was ahead. Both times they wanted to avoid their drivers crashing into each other and I don't think it's fair to suggest they had enough points in hand not to worry about it. I think even a Rhodes scholar wouldn't engineer conspiracy theories from that one! To me it looks like Red Bull really give both of their drivers equal opportunity and the two examples above are consistent with that. But more to the point, Silverstone 2011 meant Webber didn't have any grounds to complain about Malaysia 2013. For the record, I think both chasing drivers were out of order on each occasion, but Webber really only has himself to blame for the way the second one turned out


I said I wasn't saying they should have issued T/O's in Abu Dhabi. I believe they did the right thing by not doing so & I agree with your comments on Webber but to then, 5 months or so later, issue the T/O's using the excuse they did, in the situation they were in, after saying what they said post Germany in 2010, was gross hypocrisy pure & simple.

They were a mile ahead in the WCC. They were running 1 - 2 in the WDC with Vettel's lead almost unassailable but with Webber under pressure to keep his 2nd place. There was no need to issue T/O's at that point. In fact, considering the circumstances, if T/O's were to be issued, it'd make more sense to let Webber past to allow him to extend his margin over Alonso, Hamilton & Button who were challenging him for that 2nd place in the WDC, although I wouldn't agree that this move would be justified either considering RB's supposed stance on T/O's at the time.

Fair enough, I think we just have a different view on team orders. For me, holding station seems practical and non-controversial (since there is no guarantee that one driver will pass another, as 2011 showed, and the risk of accident to compromise the team is high), while one driver pulling over is more directly orchestrating results and raises the bar somewhat. One is just saying "don't fight," while the other is saying "orchestrate a position change." I can see you view it differently, which is fine, but given our definitions are far apart I guess we won't ever view the two in the same way!


Both examples constitute a manipulation of results Zoue as they both instruct drivers to digress from their normal racing characteristics via orders issued by team management. Both examples are also commonly referred to as T/O's in commentary but yeah, I suppose people can see things differently sometimes.

_________________
Question: If a compulsive liar tells you they're a compulsive liar, are they really a compulsive liar?

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 10:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6274
Jezza13 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:

Right, and what about RB's hypocrisy at this race? Does that count for nothing?

which race do you mean?


Silverstone 2011. The first time RB issued team orders and it came just 7 months after this statement by Deitrich Mateschitz in regard to team orders used by Ferrari at Hockenheim in 2010.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/mot ... 29448.html

That is in contrast to Ferrari's manipulation of the team orders rule for which they were found guilty after Felipe Massa allowed through Alonso to claim victory in the German Grand Prix in July.

Mateschitz is adamant his team will not sink to such depths as he said: "Let the two drivers race and whatever will be will be. If Alonso wins we will have been unlucky."

"We don't manipulate things like Ferrari do. The whole world condemned them after what they did in Hockenheim.

"But we have never even thought about it as long as both our drivers remain in the hunt for the championship.

"So a second place under correct circumstances might be better than a win on grounds of orders and confirmations."


These words were echoed by both Marko & Horner at the time of the Ferrari team orders.

I see why you might think that, but I see an order to pull over as very different to one where they tell the drivers not to battle and risk throwing away all the points, as Horner said:

'we did not want to see our drivers in the fence in the last two laps, which is how it would have ended up' and stressing that 'we could not afford to risk losing points' since 'my responsibility is to ensure that the team optimises its results'

Webber never made it past anyway, despite ignoring the orders, so it could be argued all he was doing was putting them both at risk. But I think the point mikeyg123 was making was that Multi-21 was a virtually identical scenario to Silverstone 2011 and Webber making a song and dance about it seemed a bit rich when he had been guilty of doing exactly the same thing in the past, after which he had said:

"I am not fine with it. No. That's the answer to that," the Australian said when asked if he understood the team's decision.

"If Fernando retires on the last lap we are battling for the victory so I was fine until the end. Of course I ignored the team as I want to try and get another place. Seb was doing his best and I was doing my best.


http://edition.cnn.com/2011/SPORT/motorsport/07/11/motorsport.f1.webber.vettel/index.html

So for Webber it looked like he was OK with team orders when he was the beneficiary, but opposed when not?


While I concede there is a difference in the circumstances RB's comments at the time of the German GP were very clear. RB would rather lose than issue team orders. Team orders are not part of RB's DNA. We do not manipulate results.

RB issued team orders in Silverstone 2011 to avoid seeing their drivers end up in the fence and lose a few points when they were comfortably leading both championships and both drivers were still, in Webbers case admittedly only mathematically and not realistically, in with a chance of winning the WDC, but were seemingly ok to go without team orders in Abu Dhabi in 2010 and risk the very real chance of throwing away their first WDC ? Really? Come on. Doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to work out what was going on.

I'm not saying they should've issued team orders in 2010 but they took a hell of a risk not doing it. I;m saying they had no right to issue them at Silverstone based on what they did at Abu Dhabi in 2010 and what they said at after Hockenheim in 2011.


Jezza13, what T/O were you expecting in 2010? 4 drivers with a chance to win the WDC, out of which Webber had the worst Q3 session, ending in 5th place while Vettel was on pole. Would you want them to order Vettel to somehow let Webber through? What kind of T/O would help Webber? I don't get it


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 10:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 1242
Location: Far side of Koozebane
mikeyg123 wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Webber made his bed RE multi 21 at Silverstone 2011 where he did the exact same thing and even said something to the effect of him being right to ignore team orders. I'm astonished nobody ever called him out on his hipocracy.


Right, and what about RB's hypocrisy at this race? Does that count for nothing?


Not good but not really relevant. Webber took pride in ignoring team orders but couldn't handle it when the boot was on the other foot. I was astonished neither Red Bull or Seb pointed it out in the media.


As I've been trying to say, maybe he ignored the T/O, and I stress this is only speculation, because up until that lap RB had taken great pride in saying T/O's were not part of RB's racing philosophy.

Also both championship positions were as such there was no real benefit in issuing the T/O's anyway at that point. Both RB & Vettel were running away with their respective championships and at the time if RB had to issue T/O's it would've made more sense to instruct Vettel to move over and let Webber past to help him maintain his 2nd position in the WDC, which incidentally he ultimately lost out to Button by 12 pts.

_________________
Question: If a compulsive liar tells you they're a compulsive liar, are they really a compulsive liar?

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 10:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 1242
Location: Far side of Koozebane
Siao7 wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
Zoue wrote:

Silverstone 2011. The first time RB issued team orders and it came just 7 months after this statement by Deitrich Mateschitz in regard to team orders used by Ferrari at Hockenheim in 2010.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/mot ... 29448.html

That is in contrast to Ferrari's manipulation of the team orders rule for which they were found guilty after Felipe Massa allowed through Alonso to claim victory in the German Grand Prix in July.

Mateschitz is adamant his team will not sink to such depths as he said: "Let the two drivers race and whatever will be will be. If Alonso wins we will have been unlucky."

"We don't manipulate things like Ferrari do. The whole world condemned them after what they did in Hockenheim.

"But we have never even thought about it as long as both our drivers remain in the hunt for the championship.

"So a second place under correct circumstances might be better than a win on grounds of orders and confirmations."


These words were echoed by both Marko & Horner at the time of the Ferrari team orders.

I see why you might think that, but I see an order to pull over as very different to one where they tell the drivers not to battle and risk throwing away all the points, as Horner said:

'we did not want to see our drivers in the fence in the last two laps, which is how it would have ended up' and stressing that 'we could not afford to risk losing points' since 'my responsibility is to ensure that the team optimises its results'

Webber never made it past anyway, despite ignoring the orders, so it could be argued all he was doing was putting them both at risk. But I think the point mikeyg123 was making was that Multi-21 was a virtually identical scenario to Silverstone 2011 and Webber making a song and dance about it seemed a bit rich when he had been guilty of doing exactly the same thing in the past, after which he had said:

"I am not fine with it. No. That's the answer to that," the Australian said when asked if he understood the team's decision.

"If Fernando retires on the last lap we are battling for the victory so I was fine until the end. Of course I ignored the team as I want to try and get another place. Seb was doing his best and I was doing my best.


http://edition.cnn.com/2011/SPORT/motorsport/07/11/motorsport.f1.webber.vettel/index.html

So for Webber it looked like he was OK with team orders when he was the beneficiary, but opposed when not?


While I concede there is a difference in the circumstances RB's comments at the time of the German GP were very clear. RB would rather lose than issue team orders. Team orders are not part of RB's DNA. We do not manipulate results.

RB issued team orders in Silverstone 2011 to avoid seeing their drivers end up in the fence and lose a few points when they were comfortably leading both championships and both drivers were still, in Webbers case admittedly only mathematically and not realistically, in with a chance of winning the WDC, but were seemingly ok to go without team orders in Abu Dhabi in 2010 and risk the very real chance of throwing away their first WDC ? Really? Come on. Doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to work out what was going on.

I'm not saying they should've issued team orders in 2010 but they took a hell of a risk not doing it. I;m saying they had no right to issue them at Silverstone based on what they did at Abu Dhabi in 2010 and what they said at after Hockenheim in 2011.


Jezza13, what T/O were you expecting in 2010? 4 drivers with a chance to win the WDC, out of which Webber had the worst Q3 session, ending in 5th place while Vettel was on pole. Would you want them to order Vettel to somehow let Webber through? What kind of T/O would help Webber? I don't get it


I expected no team orders during the final races in 2010.

I've already alluded to that position a couple of times during this thread.

_________________
Question: If a compulsive liar tells you they're a compulsive liar, are they really a compulsive liar?

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 10:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23219
Jezza13 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I see why you might think that, but I see an order to pull over as very different to one where they tell the drivers not to battle and risk throwing away all the points, as Horner said:

'we did not want to see our drivers in the fence in the last two laps, which is how it would have ended up' and stressing that 'we could not afford to risk losing points' since 'my responsibility is to ensure that the team optimises its results'

Webber never made it past anyway, despite ignoring the orders, so it could be argued all he was doing was putting them both at risk. But I think the point mikeyg123 was making was that Multi-21 was a virtually identical scenario to Silverstone 2011 and Webber making a song and dance about it seemed a bit rich when he had been guilty of doing exactly the same thing in the past, after which he had said:

"I am not fine with it. No. That's the answer to that," the Australian said when asked if he understood the team's decision.

"If Fernando retires on the last lap we are battling for the victory so I was fine until the end. Of course I ignored the team as I want to try and get another place. Seb was doing his best and I was doing my best.


http://edition.cnn.com/2011/SPORT/motorsport/07/11/motorsport.f1.webber.vettel/index.html

So for Webber it looked like he was OK with team orders when he was the beneficiary, but opposed when not?


While I concede there is a difference in the circumstances RB's comments at the time of the German GP were very clear. RB would rather lose than issue team orders. Team orders are not part of RB's DNA. We do not manipulate results.

RB issued team orders in Silverstone 2011 to avoid seeing their drivers end up in the fence and lose a few points when they were comfortably leading both championships and both drivers were still, in Webbers case admittedly only mathematically and not realistically, in with a chance of winning the WDC, but were seemingly ok to go without team orders in Abu Dhabi in 2010 and risk the very real chance of throwing away their first WDC ? Really? Come on. Doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to work out what was going on.

I'm not saying they should've issued team orders in 2010 but they took a hell of a risk not doing it. I;m saying they had no right to issue them at Silverstone based on what they did at Abu Dhabi in 2010 and what they said at after Hockenheim in 2011.


Jezza13, what T/O were you expecting in 2010? 4 drivers with a chance to win the WDC, out of which Webber had the worst Q3 session, ending in 5th place while Vettel was on pole. Would you want them to order Vettel to somehow let Webber through? What kind of T/O would help Webber? I don't get it


I expected no team orders during the final races in 2010.

I've already alluded to that position a couple of times during this thread.

I think the confusion stems from when you wrote:

...but were seemingly ok to go without team orders in Abu Dhabi in 2010 and risk the very real chance of throwing away their first WDC ? Really? Come on. Doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to work out what was going on.

I know I'm a bit confused by that, as I don't see how team orders could have been implemented in the first place, so having difficulty understanding the reasoning behind the point!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 10:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6274
Jezza13 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:

While I concede there is a difference in the circumstances RB's comments at the time of the German GP were very clear. RB would rather lose than issue team orders. Team orders are not part of RB's DNA. We do not manipulate results.

RB issued team orders in Silverstone 2011 to avoid seeing their drivers end up in the fence and lose a few points when they were comfortably leading both championships and both drivers were still, in Webbers case admittedly only mathematically and not realistically, in with a chance of winning the WDC, but were seemingly ok to go without team orders in Abu Dhabi in 2010 and risk the very real chance of throwing away their first WDC ? Really? Come on. Doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to work out what was going on.

I'm not saying they should've issued team orders in 2010 but they took a hell of a risk not doing it. I;m saying they had no right to issue them at Silverstone based on what they did at Abu Dhabi in 2010 and what they said at after Hockenheim in 2011.


Jezza13, what T/O were you expecting in 2010? 4 drivers with a chance to win the WDC, out of which Webber had the worst Q3 session, ending in 5th place while Vettel was on pole. Would you want them to order Vettel to somehow let Webber through? What kind of T/O would help Webber? I don't get it


I expected no team orders during the final races in 2010.

I've already alluded to that position a couple of times during this thread.


I'm sorry Jezza, I may have not been clear in my post. You mentioned that they were seemingly ok without T/O in the last race of 2010 but ok with T/O in 2011.

I beg to differ, in the last race of 2010 there was no need, no chance was presented for giving the drivers a T/O. Even one as small as "don't crash/hold stations". It is not that they were ok without giving one and suddenly changed their mind the year after. With their qualifying positions what T/O could they have given?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 11:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 1242
Location: Far side of Koozebane
Zoue wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I see why you might think that, but I see an order to pull over as very different to one where they tell the drivers not to battle and risk throwing away all the points, as Horner said:

'we did not want to see our drivers in the fence in the last two laps, which is how it would have ended up' and stressing that 'we could not afford to risk losing points' since 'my responsibility is to ensure that the team optimises its results'

Webber never made it past anyway, despite ignoring the orders, so it could be argued all he was doing was putting them both at risk. But I think the point mikeyg123 was making was that Multi-21 was a virtually identical scenario to Silverstone 2011 and Webber making a song and dance about it seemed a bit rich when he had been guilty of doing exactly the same thing in the past, after which he had said:

"I am not fine with it. No. That's the answer to that," the Australian said when asked if he understood the team's decision.

"If Fernando retires on the last lap we are battling for the victory so I was fine until the end. Of course I ignored the team as I want to try and get another place. Seb was doing his best and I was doing my best.


http://edition.cnn.com/2011/SPORT/motorsport/07/11/motorsport.f1.webber.vettel/index.html

So for Webber it looked like he was OK with team orders when he was the beneficiary, but opposed when not?


While I concede there is a difference in the circumstances RB's comments at the time of the German GP were very clear. RB would rather lose than issue team orders. Team orders are not part of RB's DNA. We do not manipulate results.

RB issued team orders in Silverstone 2011 to avoid seeing their drivers end up in the fence and lose a few points when they were comfortably leading both championships and both drivers were still, in Webbers case admittedly only mathematically and not realistically, in with a chance of winning the WDC, but were seemingly ok to go without team orders in Abu Dhabi in 2010 and risk the very real chance of throwing away their first WDC ? Really? Come on. Doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to work out what was going on.

I'm not saying they should've issued team orders in 2010 but they took a hell of a risk not doing it. I;m saying they had no right to issue them at Silverstone based on what they did at Abu Dhabi in 2010 and what they said at after Hockenheim in 2011.


Jezza13, what T/O were you expecting in 2010? 4 drivers with a chance to win the WDC, out of which Webber had the worst Q3 session, ending in 5th place while Vettel was on pole. Would you want them to order Vettel to somehow let Webber through? What kind of T/O would help Webber? I don't get it


I expected no team orders during the final races in 2010.

I've already alluded to that position a couple of times during this thread.

I think the confusion stems from when you wrote:

...but were seemingly ok to go without team orders in Abu Dhabi in 2010 and risk the very real chance of throwing away their first WDC ? Really? Come on. Doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to work out what was going on.

I know I'm a bit confused by that, as I don't see how team orders could have been implemented in the first place, so having difficulty understanding the reasoning behind the point!


Rightio maybe I need to clarify my position.

I would not have been in favour of RB issuing T/O's at any time based on what they said after Germany 2010, including AD.

RB had made it clear, prior to AD, that no T/O's would be imposed at that race. They made that perfectly clear. Now, considering the WCC positions prior to AD and the fact that RB were chasing their first WCC, the percentage bet, not necessarily the right bet, but the smart bet, would've been to say they'll back Webber if and where the opportunity arose. I think we all agree that the odds of Vettel winning the WCC that night were slim to say the least.

Now, despite the percentages stating Webber was clearly the best bet, prior to AD, to bring home the WDC, RB quite rightly maintained a neutral position but, had RB said that as it's their first chance at the WDC, they'll back Webber if the opportunity arose as he was only 8 pts behind Alonso, whereas Vettel was 15, while most would've said it wasn't right, it'd at least be slightly understandable.

So keeping all that in mind, and recalling their comments post Germany, it makes no sense for RB to issue the teams first ever T/O in a season where RB & Vettel were clearly, even at that point of the season and baring any cataclysmic anomaly, going to romp away with both championships, in a race where it wasn't for the win, in a situation where it ultimately made more sense, that if T/O's were to be issued, the logical order would've been for Vettel to move over and let Webber past to help him maintain 2nd in the WDC.

That's why i'll maintain RB's decision that day to issue to T/O's was hypocrisy as clear as day.

I hope that adds some clarity to my position................. but probably not.

Also another point. Regarding Horners comments as to why he issued the T/O's at Silverstone, I wonder if T/O's would have been issued in AD if Vettel & Webber were running 1 & 2 nose to tail, in that order, fighting hard with Alonso in 7th with 5 laps to go.

Finishing in that order would've seen both Vettel & Webber finish equal on 256 points with Vettel winning 1 extra race.

All hypothetical I know but just a thought.

_________________
Question: If a compulsive liar tells you they're a compulsive liar, are they really a compulsive liar?

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 1:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6274
It is true that Mateschitz was never fan of T/O, however RB never denied that they had to use them. In fact, only after the multi 21 incident did RB decide to cut back on the T/O, after a discussion between Horner and Mateschitz. As it was reported at the time "Mateschitz understood the complications in F1, where teams are often managing problems such as rapidly degrading tyres, or concerns over reliability". So in principle he didn't like T/O, but he accepted them as part of the game.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/22109935

He never wanted to see another incident like that though, so they had that chat with Horner.

You want to call it hypocrisy? Maybe, a little bit. But I don't think they ever explicitly banned T/O after Germany


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: Kev627 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