This is true. Remember how many DNFs he had before RBR because of the car?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Formula 1 2013 Season |OT| End of the Webber Era
- Thread starter Leunam
- Start date
Psychotext
Member
I see about 33 retirements over 5 years before Red Bull, 15 retirements over the first 5 years of Red Bull. I can't tell from a quick glance what caused them.
Do you have any detailed figures?
I think in both cases the faster drivers should have been allowed to pass. I don't see the logic in not letting them pass really. Sure, you could go "it's a long season" and what not, but points now are worth just as much as points at the end of the season. They could prove vital. Having them overtake (controlled of course) and finish the race.
I guess there's the emotion of "This guy really deserves a win", but come on, this is business, you let the faster guy win the race unless it's near the end of the season and the slower guy desperately needs the points to compete for the championship.
I guess there's the emotion of "This guy really deserves a win", but come on, this is business, you let the faster guy win the race unless it's near the end of the season and the slower guy desperately needs the points to compete for the championship.
I can see letting Nico past since he was clearly faster. If Webber had a car issue I would say the same thing in that case, but he didn't.
Edit: Team mates racing each other in late race stages is always frowned upon by team owners, it is one of the few ways you can really piss a principal off. I really don't see how that is so surprising to people, even if you disagree with it. Not saying that about you Aiii, just generally.
No, it isn´t. Sorry, should have worded it better.
Thank you!
It makes for good entertainment. And newspapers have something to write about now. Many viewers will tune in for the next race and see how everything plays out. PR stunt par excellence.
OK, I´ll remove my tinfoilhat now
Heh, with some of the team owners of the past, I could believe it.
Bernie sure is a happy camper right now, hmm?
In my opinion Vettel was faster though, I think the action he took was out of frustration because they didn't let him pass. Immature response, sure. He should've listened to his team.
But what I don't understand is the team not letting him pass earlier. Not saying they should let them race, saying they should've told Webber to let him pass.
Psychotext
Member
It was a little silly given they were on different tyres.
Vettel was faster because Mark, following orders, turned his engine down. Mark's pace was decided by RB and Seb's should've been just like it.
Agreed, it's not Webbers fault he was slower. Wether it was a different strategy putting him on different tires or changing his engine setup. Fact remains he was slower though.
Thing is, why sacrifice both your drivers? What if Webber stalled and Vettel had to make an extra stop? He would not have come out well ahead of Hamilton and Rosberg, that's for sure.
Psychotext
Member
One thing I find strange is that with all those radio messages we never actually got to hear one telling Mark to ease back on the settings etc. There must have been one given that they can't change car settings from the pits.
All we got were target lap times, and none of the ones we heard were particularly slow.
(Related, Vettel was actually told to increase the gap to Hamilton... and in doing so he caught his teammate)
We never hear them all. Teams only have to send a certain percentage open.
From the various interviews with Horner it seems like it was all pre determined before the race. Race until the last pitstop, then maintain position after that. As for the risk, looking at the race, everyone had pretty much the same idea. Take care of the tyres in the last stint and get the cars home. There was hardly any action at the top after the last round of pitstops by any team.
Bottas did a good job getting that Williams into 11th and Bianchi had a strong result in 13th.
Both Force Indias were doing really good actually until their retirement.
Even Horner has said he disobeyed orders, and that the instructions were clear.
http://www.planetf1.com/news/3213/8595956/-Vettel-Deliberately-Ignored-Team-Orders-
Still clearly will be no major repercussions for Seb, but he is not happy.
Yeah, given the car they did a more than competent job.
SUT comeback amazes me. For someone who only drove a bobbycar just a couple weeks ago... BTW, I heard Mallya is going to invest in the modernization of the FI wind tunnel.
Here is what I posted on the 'Reason American abandoned F1' thread.
It encompasses my feelings about team orders in general and what happened yesterday.
It encompasses my feelings about team orders in general and what happened yesterday.
Yeah, I still wouldn't trust him with a glass in his hand, but is certainly showing good pace.
Good post. Glad I missed that thread LOL
PdotMichael
Banned
If you hear and read some of Horner's statements.
"But there is a respect and a real respect between the two of them. If you think of Brazil at the last race, Mark was told to hold position and started racing him. Now, these things happen.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/106372
It's more about that the two drivers ignore team orders on a regulary base.
Actually, a "You broke it, you bought it" policy might be reasonable punishment; give him that engine for the next few races. If he makes it last, fair play.
Yeah I wish I had ignored it in retrospect.
Who knows what really happened. *shrugs*
gutterboy44
Member
I think the most upsetting thing to come away with from that race is that we had two top teams issuing team orders on the second GP of the season! My guess is we would have had three teams issuing orders if Alonso pitted and eventually caught Massa toward the end. The majority of the points paying positions could have been a pre-arranged parade for a dozen laps. I understand it was in the best interest of each team to try to maximize points, but this is also a 2 hours F1 race and not an endurance race. Having cars 1-4 coasting to a an pre determined finish for then entire last stint of a race is an affront to the sport and in no sense "racing".
It seems what we can expect going forward is that the more top teams that are at the front of the pack toward the end of a race, look for less racing opposed to the logical expectation of more racing. This whole weekend also shines a light on the absolute joke of a notion that there are "no number one drivers at the teams" Hahahaha. Yeah sure. The guy who brought you three world championships is not the favorite and the driver with one championship that you poached from a top team is not a big deal with the silver lads. In the same way Vettel is a little prick for back peddling on his actions, RBR should have admitted what we have known for years, Vettel is the #1 driver there in every sense of the word. Merc also just needs to admit they are backing Hamilton for the championship.
Edit: This should also be a wake up call for Pirelli and the FIA that perhaps they have gone too far in the intentional tire degradation direction if teams are terrified to even push toward the end of a race. It was the same thing that plagued qualifying for a breif period. Teams were just giving Vettel the pole and pitting to save tires without contesting the top spot.
It seems what we can expect going forward is that the more top teams that are at the front of the pack toward the end of a race, look for less racing opposed to the logical expectation of more racing. This whole weekend also shines a light on the absolute joke of a notion that there are "no number one drivers at the teams" Hahahaha. Yeah sure. The guy who brought you three world championships is not the favorite and the driver with one championship that you poached from a top team is not a big deal with the silver lads. In the same way Vettel is a little prick for back peddling on his actions, RBR should have admitted what we have known for years, Vettel is the #1 driver there in every sense of the word. Merc also just needs to admit they are backing Hamilton for the championship.
Edit: This should also be a wake up call for Pirelli and the FIA that perhaps they have gone too far in the intentional tire degradation direction if teams are terrified to even push toward the end of a race. It was the same thing that plagued qualifying for a breif period. Teams were just giving Vettel the pole and pitting to save tires without contesting the top spot.
Hold position is not the same as team orders. They are the same instruction every team has given to its drivers for all time when running next to each other. Team orders change the order in which the cars finish to favour one driver or the other.
Edit: I also don't think at this point in the season Merc is backing either driver.
It's true that having 'slow down and play nice' orders in the second GP sucks, but I blame it on the tyre degradation. Most practices and qualis have been in the wet, the teams still aren't sure and confident about what they've found and looking back at last year when we were in pretty much the same scenario we had drivers (like Alonso) who hit the cliff at the last few laps of a race with dramatic effects, losing 4-5 positions before the chequered flag.
I'm sure everyone was being cautious.
I'm sure everyone was being cautious.
I would have agreed, if you had written "Ross Brawn". Mercedes is definitely not backing a single driver. And as I said, it´ll ultimately cost Brawns head.
Pirelli wants to have teams to decide between two and three pitstops in every race. They already said, that if its not possible with this years mixtures, they´ll go back to the 2012 models. Malaysia is an outlier, weather wise, but after China they´ll change if necessary.
I think the teams just need to get used to them a bit more.
bobnowhere
Member
Along with limited engines per season, gearboxes having to last 4? races along with limits on other parts, teams just can't sprint the entire race. It would be nice if they could, but it would probably put all the teams at the back out of business.
As I think it was Moss who said: The object is to win at the slowest possible speed.
Pirelli wants to have teams to decide between two or three pitstops in every race. Thats how they develop them, thats how they decide what types to bring to what race.
If that aim is not met, they´ll change the compounds.
Well in the past two races we've had teams reach the finish line with different number of pit stops which means that theoretically they've achieved their goal.
gutterboy44
Member
If the team is fixing the outcome of a race with their radio orders and not the drivers with their hands and feet, it is team orders all day every day. Denying a swapping of spots is no different than demanding the swapping of spots. The team is ordering their drivers to drive to their demands and not the limit of their and the car's ability. It is just arguing semantics at this point.
The teams don't get to have their cake and eat it too. Either you actually "let your drivers race" or you say the team is the only "driver" that matters and you obey above all. Those two notions are at conflict with each other and we saw what it looks like in action this weekend. Don't pretend to be this progressive team that isn't like those fascist red people who were such a disgrace to the sport with their team orders. Funny how when your team is actually successful or on the cusp of success that team orders seem like a pretty good idea. There never has and never will be room for two #1 drivers at a top team. I don't think that has ever worked out in the history of F1. It is either a shit show or one driver getting the behind the scenes #1 spot and just pretending it is otherwise to the public.
But Pirelli don't actually care. they were asked by the teams to make those tyres for the sport.
It has to be better for Pirelli as a brand to be able to produce a tyre that can run 150 laps at full tilt rather than ones that can run for 20 laps at 90%.
The teams asked for degrading tyres, Pirelli made degrading tyres, the teams said "well, not these degrading tyres, bring us others"
brotkasten
Member
I wish the teams wouldn't be so stingy and ask for a set of tyres for qualifying.
Jesus. You should probably follow a different form of racing with only one car per team.
Yes, as long its between two and three. Four or more is unwanted - but with rain and the special circumstances in Malaysia, its an outlier.
Its exactly as you say, a balancing act for the manufacturer to bring a product seen as "making the sport exciting" and not "don´t buy goes kaput after a few kilometers".
Erm, no...
http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/rules_and_regulations/sporting_regulations/8680/
The FIA chooses the tyres for all teams. Everyone has exactly the same tyres. FIA wants them to degrade over a certain temperature because that will force racers to do pits and to have the aerodynamics put less stress on the tyres.
Why would a team purposefully choose a degrading tyres if they had had the choice?
gutterboy44
Member
Jesus, way to miss the point. All it takes is Hamilton at Maca, Alonso at Ferrari. Then let the racing actually happen. If Webber would finally fuck off to another team and be their #1 driver, we may be seeing some of the best racing in the sport's history with him and Vettel. But instead, this "they are both equal" crap results in this drama. I am just saying that because it is a team sport, and once a team is in a position to win both championships, you will need a #1 and #2 driver. There is nothing wrong with that. I just hate this circus act of pretending it is otherwise. I have no problems with the team setting up to maximize points. But the best drivers should always be allowed to race each other. If you truly want two #1's at a team, then you have to accept the end result which is going to occasionally be them taking each other out.
You don't seem to grasp this concept of teams and not favouring either driver but making sure they don't crash into each other. It's not about two number 1's, it about letting them race to a point, and then calling it. It is quite possible to have two equal drivers and a policy of holding position after point x in every race.
You seem offended by the team nature of the sport, with your claims that you must have a clear number 1.
F1 will not be changing in that regard anytime soon, sorry.
What are you talking about? I never said the teams can use different tyres. The teams (FOTA) and the FIA asked Pirelli to make a specific type of tyre, one that degraded, one that wouldn't last too long, one that has differences between compounds in speed and durability. They did exactly that, which is what I wrote. They asked for that tyre to improve the spectacle, which is exactly what they did.
You made it seem like the change of tyres was at the whim of the teams, when really the teams have very little say about the matter, compared to the FIA.
What a joke of a thread in the OT. Probably should not have replied.
Probably. And with good reason.
Didn't there used to be qualifying specific tires? Might be misremembering that.
Probably. And with good reason.
Didn't there used to be qualifying specific tires? Might be misremembering that.
Massa? I´d say not really. With ALO out he´d have had to get way more points out of this race to change his status within the team.
My money would be on GRO, beating out the team mate, who won the first race with him nowhere to be seen.
No, there were. They genuinely only last 2-3 laps. They used them back in the old qualy format of 12 laps in the hour for all drivers.