Grand Prix Rejects

http://www.oxfordshireguardian.co.uk/20 ... %E2%80%A6/

Just thought I'd post this seeing as I'm now the Formula 1 correspondent for the Oxfordshire Guardian (my name's not on it so you'll just have to trust me)

Wurz has added his two cents on the whole Red Bull / Vettel / Webber / Horner issue:

"In the end he has made his unofficial status as number 1 clear," said former driver Alex Wurz. "So this changes nothing."
http://paddocktalk.com/news/html/story-217838.html

F1 Adam wrote:http://www.oxfordshireguardian.co.uk/2013/03/philosophical-lotus-turn-attentions-to-shanghai%E2%80%A6/

Just thought I'd post this seeing as I'm now the Formula 1 correspondent for the Oxfordshire Guardian (my name's not on it so you'll just have to trust me)

Excellent (and you didn't even mention the top 5 finishers, never mind the post-race bustups) .....

No doubt "North Korea starts nuclear war" was on page 7




DG

ibsey wrote:Finally I would like to remind everyone of their respective ages. Vettel age is what... 25 years old? (IIRC) Whereas Webber age is 37 years old (again IIRC). So one would expect Webber to have had more life experience than Vettel & know better than to be a hypocrite. Also I eluded in my last post that I thought Webber might be more politically / PR minded than we give him credit for? Thinking about this a little more, His "not bad for a no. 2 driver" message after Sliverstone 2010 was certainly well timed to ensure maximum public sympathy for his cause. So indeed it does make you wonder about this?

I don't like to use Vettel's age as an excuse too much. But when I was 25 I don't think I would have handled this situation perfectly either as the politics are so intricate and fraught. Vettel's apology may have been a bit of a knee jerk reaction to seeing how much he'd upset people, before he actually considered properly whether he was in the right or not. Hell, I'm 32 and it's still hard to know for sure what the right thing to do is.

I allow Hamilton a bit of licence under this argument too but really now he is old enough to know better than some of the petulant outbursts last year.

ibsey wrote:In addition, I’ve read a few posts somewhere amongst most of the c##p contained within the Autosport threads which suggests that at Hungary 2010. It was in fact the team’s fault that Vettel got his drive through penalty at that race. Since they failed to notify / remind Vettel to stay within 10 car lengths of the SC when he was trying help Webber’s strategy in that race. However despite this, afterwards Vettel took all the blame for the incident & not said as he might have been entitled to, that the team were at fault. So I think Hungary 2010 shows us that perhaps Vettel is more of a team player than most people give him credit for. But also that Seb was initially prepared to follow Red Bull team orders (even if that meant helping one of his main WDC rivals... aka Webber). Until of course Mark disobeyed team orders in Sliverstone 2011.

I don't think this is quite correct, on multiple fronts. Firstly, whilst it is true the team didn't remind Vettel to stay within 10 car lengths, it was also Seb's own fault for not knowing the rules. Secondly, yes Seb was trying to aid Webber's strategy in the short-term, but it was for Vettel's own benefit in the long-term. Webber was on a different strategy and, if everything had played out normally, Vettel would have won easily. What Seb was trying to ensure was that Webber might break free in the short-tem but then ultimately slot in behind him and act as rear-gunner in the last part of the race. His ignorance of the rules meant that backfired spectacularly. There was no team order that Vettel complied with that day, nor was he trying to help Mark, but in fact he was thinking about himself.

I don't think anything can say Webber has been a saint, and he has undoubtedly been less than helpful on several occasions himself. Not that this excuses anything, but on both notable occasions (Silverstone 2011 and Brazil 2012) it didn't change the ultimate result that Red Bull were essentially asking for. If we're talking about hypocrisy, I still hold to my view that the whole history from Turkey 2010 onwards has to be seen in the context of the inherent hypocrisy within Red Bull. Equal treatment or Vettel no. 1? Which is it? Who's putting to put their foot down and declare one way or the other?

Related to this, I find it interesting how the narrative is starting to focus on the question, who is in charge at Red Bull? Mateschitz? Horner? Marko? Newey? Vettel? The arrangement worked OK when Red Bull were a midfield team selling energy drinks, breathing new life into the stuffy establishment for the LOLs. Even if you had two very competitive drivers on board, you weren't fighting for sheep stations. This lack of real hierarchy and meaningful structure is slowly unravelling after several years at the top, when everyone thinks they've got a bit of authority but it's not enough to really call the shots, and high stakes are now involved. Who sides with whom on what issue changes depending on the situation. But what's really needed is discipline, like a well-drilled military unit.

On the track this is only going to become acute as the current regulations/tyres mean that team control over what drivers do on the track is greater than ever. Off the track, an interesting article by Dieter Rencken on Autosport+ (for anyone who subscribes) suggests that this will hurt Red Bull politically as well because it's now clear that no-one's really in control.

Actually, just to continue on this theme, other teams would do well to take note as well, and sort out exactly whether one driver has priority or if it's constructor's points that matter more.

Take Ferrari, for example. Is Fernando still the no. 1 or is Felipe technically equal? Ever since Germany 2010 Ferrari hasn't had to confront this issue because Felipe has been so far off the pace, and by the time he got back onto the pace late last year he was so far out of the championship hunt and it was acceptable to do things like give him grid penalties to help Fernando.

But Felipe is competitive from the outset this year. The problem sorted itself out naturally in Australia because Fernando got the undercut at the pit stops. But after Alonso's Sepang mishap, Felipe in fact is now in front of Fernando in the championship ...

http://youtu.be/zIfob1mv1Oo

Christian Horner Interview with Ted Kravitz

"We gave him priority"

- and yet they pit Webber a lap later... okay!

madmark1974 wrote:James Allen's race report comes to an interesting conclusion :

At the final stop something very unusual happened; having been given the stop preference throughout the race, coming in a lap earlier than Vettel for the second and third stops, Webber was then disadvantaged at the final stop.

He was brought in a lap later than his team-mate who pitted on Lap 42. Prior to this Webber had enjoyed a 4.2 second lead. However after exiting the pits on new hard tyres on lap 43 he found that Vettel was now 0.5s behind him on the faster new mediums. If Webber had stopped first he would have increased his lead.

So by stopping Vettel first, the team artificially set up the circumstance for what then happened, with Vettel choosing to attack and pass.

The suggestion is that Red Bull gave Vettel every chance to get ahead of Webber during the last stops and take the win 'naturally', but then called him off when it didn't work out.

Thanks for that article madmark1974. Firstly Important to remember that the team have already stated that they allowed their two drivers to race up until the order was established after that final pitstop. Then of course there is no mention of who disadvantaged Mark at the final stop. So in the absence of further facts, can we rule out the possibility that it could well have been Mark’s own call to stay out that particular lap? I mean after all, we could equally say that Seb was disadvantage after his first stop when he pitted to soon for slicks. So we need to know who call it was to bring Mark & the reasoning behind it before we start jumping to any conclusions.

Furthermore I’d say a 4.2 second lead, would have perhaps seemed to be an extremely difficult margin to able to undercut in the space of just one lap. We know from Christian Horner interview kindly supplied by Jock1 at 2.20 minutes “he (Seb) had a new set of tyres available to him at that last stint & he wanted to make the most of it” So it sounds like that was always going to be Seb’s plan to try the undercut on that final stop before the Red Bull team then called the race off (iirespective of whichever one of their drivers were leading at that point).

Fact is even Seb (the guy who has won the last 3 WDC’s & had a brand new set of options at his disposal) ultimately failed to undercut Mark after the final stint. So I don’t think we can rule out the possibly that Mark felt secure with a 4.2 second lead, & was happy to react to Vettel’s stop. Rather than any possible implication, that this is yet another example of Red Bull’s underhand tactics in trying to ensure Vettel always finishes ahead of Mark. I mean, the fact is after Seb failed to get ahead of Mark intitally after the final stop. The team did ask Seb to stay behind Mark. When they were perfectly entitled not to do had they wanted Seb to win.

eytl wrote:Actually, just to continue on this theme, other teams would do well to take note as well, and sort out exactly whether one driver has priority or if it's constructor's points that matter more.

Take Ferrari, for example. Is Fernando still the no. 1 or is Felipe technically equal? Ever since Germany 2010 Ferrari hasn't had to confront this issue because Felipe has been so far off the pace, and by the time he got back onto the pace late last year he was so far out of the championship hunt and it was acceptable to do things like give him grid penalties to help Fernando.

But Felipe is competitive from the outset this year. The problem sorted itself out naturally in Australia because Fernando got the undercut at the pit stops. But after Alonso's Sepang mishap, Felipe in fact is now in front of Fernando in the championship ...

The situation at Ferrari is a little odd because the priority given to a particular driver can vary from race to race as well as over a season, depending on the circumstances.

In Australia, because Massa was ahead of Alonso at the first round of pit stops, he was given the option to pit first and took it (that seems to be the case at more than one team - Red Bull say they normally give the leading driver the option to pit first if he wants, as do McLaren), so in the earlier stages of that race it was Massa who was given priority.
The indication from Kravitz after that race was that Alonso forced the hand of the team during the second round of pit stops by declaring that he would pit first, although that was probably exacerbated by the fact that Massa sent a radio message to Smedley stating that he wanted to try going to a two stop strategy whereas Alonso seems to have been keener to go for a three stop strategy (which would have forced the team to pit Alonso earlier anyway).

There have also been a few times when Ferrari has overruled requests that might have favoured Alonso - in the 2011 Korean GP, Alonso asked if he could be let through by Massa because they were on different strategies and Alonso felt that Massa was compromising his strategy, but was turned down by the team. OK, in that instance Alonso did later pass Massa on strategy anyway, but it did suggest that the team do sometimes go against him if they feel it is better for their overall interests.

Now, although Massa does hold a slight lead over Alonso in the WDC, it is only a small lead (4 points) and it is probably not enough to drastically alter the dynamics of play within the team. If Massa were to continue extending that points advantage, though, then things might get interesting - Domenicali has stated, in the past, that ultimately the team will do what it considers best for both the drivers and the team, and Alonso has stated that, were it the case that he was out of the running for the WDC but Massa was still in it, then he would be prepared to yield to Massa.

OK, I would expect the likelihood of such a situation arising would be remote, but that is what the team claim would happen in such a situation, suggesting that Alonso's "No 1" status at Ferrari is conditional on him doing enough to earn it.

eytl wrote:

ibsey wrote:In addition, I’ve read a few posts somewhere amongst most of the c##p contained within the Autosport threads which suggests that at Hungary 2010. It was in fact the team’s fault that Vettel got his drive through penalty at that race. Since they failed to notify / remind Vettel to stay within 10 car lengths of the SC when he was trying help Webber’s strategy in that race. However despite this, afterwards Vettel took all the blame for the incident & not said as he might have been entitled to, that the team were at fault. So I think Hungary 2010 shows us that perhaps Vettel is more of a team player than most people give him credit for. But also that Seb was initially prepared to follow Red Bull team orders (even if that meant helping one of his main WDC rivals... aka Webber). Until of course Mark disobeyed team orders in Sliverstone 2011.

I don't think this is quite correct, on multiple fronts. Firstly, whilst it is true the team didn't remind Vettel to stay within 10 car lengths, it was also Seb's own fault for not knowing the rules.

True, Seb is also partly at fault for not knowing this particular rule. However given it was the team who were the ones who had indeed formulated the plan according to Wikipedia. Which for your ease I will quote below;

While most of the leaders pitted in the three laps the safety car was on the circuit, Webber remained a notable exception. Having passed Vettel when the German was in the pits, Webber was now the first on the road. Red Bull began formulating a strategy so that the Australian could pit and rejoin the circuit ahead of Alonso. Vettel was later issued a drive-through penalty after violating Article 40.9 of the Sporting Regulations.[6] Vettel fell more than ten car lengths behind the safety car, and he was penalised. Like the controversial penalty given to Lewis Hamilton in Valencia, the rule - designed to stop teams from manipulating the field for strategy purposes under safety car conditions - has rarely been broken in the modern era of the sport, and Vettel was visibly angry about being penalised for it, feeling that it had cost him certain victory. He rejoined the circuit behind Alonso in third, and would spend the rest of the race trying to find his way around the Ferrari.

At the front of the field, Webber introduced a very simple strategy of driving as fast as he could for as long as he could, intending to dial out enough of a lead over Alonso so that he could pit without risking his position. His strategy, originally designed to secure second place for him was now offering him the very real chance of victory.

Source; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Hunga ... _Prix#Race


Furthermore since, as Wikipedia states “the rule - designed to stop teams from manipulating the field for strategy purposes under safety car conditions - has rarely been broken in the modern era of the sport,”

Then I would argue that more blame should have been attached to the team for failing to remind Vettel of that rule. Since the very nature of having backing the pack up under the SC automatically puts you at risk of breaking the 10 car lengths rule. The team therefore left a relatively young and inexperienced driver, who presumably had never been given such a instruction before, to remember a fairly obscure rule during the middle of a GP (when teams usually leave nothing like this to chance even reminding drivers about hitting the pitlane speedlimiter button during every pitstop).

In a situation where Vettel was clearly leading the race & pretty much had it in the bag, he complied with the teams order to help Mark achieve a better result. And it subsequently became clear that he would have been much better off not to have done so. Yet Vettel took all the blame for that incident, despite clearly being very visibly angry about being penalised for it (IIRC when he took his penalty I vaguely recall him shaking his fists at the team as he when down the pitlane). Yet I can’t remember him bad mouthing the team about their part in that mistake afterwards. Now that is what I call a team player. Whereas history seems to show us that Mark tends to undermine the team publicly, whenever the opportunity is ripe to drum up public support for his own cause.

eytl wrote:Secondly, yes Seb was trying to aid Webber's strategy in the short-term, but it was for Vettel's own benefit in the long-term. Webber was on a different strategy and, if everything had played out normally, Vettel would have won easily. What Seb was trying to ensure was that Webber might break free in the short-tem but then ultimately slot in behind him and act as rear-gunner in the last part of the race. His ignorance of the rules meant that backfired spectacularly. There was no team order that Vettel complied with that day, nor was he trying to help Mark, but in fact he was thinking about himself.

Seb may have been thinking about himself in the longer term (as all F1 drivers would have done in that situation), but the fact remains he did help Mark in the short term. Which then screwed his own race. How many times has Webber done the same for Seb? Also did the team not therefore formulate that particular strategy (as stated in Wikipedia) & therefore order Seb to back the pack up under the SC to allow Mark to break free? Perhaps you could also kindly provide a source to support your statement that there was no team order that day.

I also read from another post contained in the Autosport forum that apparently at Turkey 2009 was another example of Seb complying with team orders (apparently) to let Mark through & help his race. Because they were on different strategies (Seb was on the 3 stops whilst Mark was on a 2 stop). Now I can’t recall if that is the case or not from my own recollection of that race. I did check Wikipedia, by there was no mention of Seb letting Mark through. Therefore I would very much appreciate it someone could either confirm or deny whether Seb did indeed allowed Mark through at some point during Turkey 2009?
Even in the case that Seb has not previously ever let Mark through in a race (excluding things like mechanical trouble etc). I could be wrong on this, but equally I can’t ever recall Seb having disobeyed team orders before Malaysia 2013.

eytl wrote:I don't think anything can say Webber has been a saint, and he has undoubtedly been less than helpful on several occasions himself. Not that this excuses anything, but on both notable occasions (Silverstone 2011 and Brazil 2012) it didn't change the ultimate result that Red Bull were essentially asking for.

Whislt I agree that Mark previously ignoring team orders, still does not excuse Seb actions in Malaysia. I said before how “two wrongs don’t make a right”, ironically when I was still defending Mark only a couple of days ago, before Webber’s apparent hypocrisy had been brought to my attention. So I think what has come to light here since then, does however make Vettel actions much more understandable. As far as I am aware, the precedent for disobeying team orders as an OK thing to do within Red Bull & how such action would not be punished. Had been set by Mark at Sliverstone 2011. Furthermore there appeared to be limited negative reaction either by the press or fans over what Mark did in Sliverstone that day. The power of savy PR me thinks?

As Christian Horner said in the interview kindly supplied by Jocke1 at 2.26 minutes (part 1)

“we all know there is a bit of history between the two of them (possibly referring to the times Mark has broken team orders himself prior to Malaysia 2013) and I’m sure that was in the back of his (Seb’) mind as well.”

So had Mark adhered to team orders in those previous occasions, IMO I tend to think Seb wouldn’t have done what he did therefore in Malaysia 2013. However that still doesn’t excuse what he did, as you correctly say. It just makes Seb’s point of view much more understandable.

In regards to the comment about Sliverstone 2011 & Brazil 2012 ultimately not changing the result that Red Bull had asked for. That was purely down to the fact that Mark failed to pull off an overtaking move. Which shouldn't come into it in my opinion. As stated in a previous post of mine, I consider Sliverstone 2011 & now Brazil 2012 equally as bad as Malaysia 2013. As the intention from Mark in both instances was exactly the same as Seb’s intentions. I.e. to trying his hardest to pass Vettel (judging from the last lap at Sliverstone 2011 & the way Webber was saving his KERS to attack Vettel out of Woodcote).

In additon to the above incidents. The BBC website also claim at the 2012 German Grand Prix -

Webber refused to move over in qualifying to let his team-mate pass

(which presumable was another case of Webber disobeying a team order) Source; http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/21967790

eytl wrote:If we're talking about hypocrisy, I still hold to my view that the whole history from Turkey 2010 onwards has to be seen in the context of the inherent hypocrisy within Red Bull. Equal treatment or Vettel no. 1? Which is it? Who's putting to put their foot down and declare one way or the other?

I am presuming you are saying that Red Bull are being hypocrites for saying they have equality within the team, whilst apparent favoring Vettel? Please correct me if I am wrong and perhaps you would be so kind as to clarify what you mean exactly?

If that is indeed what you mean, then I would respectfully like to point out the two following quotes to you;
As Christian Horner said in the interview kindly supplied by Jocke1 at 1.22 mintues (part two)

“...Mark knows the equipment at (his) disposal, he knows the lengths we go to ensure parity... ”

Also from a separate interview Chistian states;

"Mark's contract has been renewed for the last few years on an annual basis - he has continually chosen to drive for the team each year and the team has similarly wanted to continue working with him, as he is an excellent driver and a competitive racer."

Source; http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/21952769

I have to agree with the view that it is hard to have sympathy for Mark whenever he cries foul or claims preferential treatment for Seb. Why continue to sign for Red Bull then? Especially since IIRC either last year or the year before after Mark signed his new contract with Red Bull, IIRC he said something about how he is satisfied there is equality within the team & he won't be a no. 2, otherwise he wouldn't have renewed. I mean no-one is forcing a gun to Webber head to keep on signing with Red Bull. And I don’t think Mark is the sort of driver who would stick around if he felt, even the mildest hint that his teammate was getting preferential treatment.

Nor do I believe Red Bull is Seb’s team as some have suggested...yes Seb is obviously a massive part of it, but his apology to the Red Bull staff about his actions in Sepang shows ultimately he has to fall into line do what he is told. Furthermore is there actually any evidence of Red Bull actually doing anything to favor Vettel? Excluding the front wing gate at Sliverstone 2010...which IIRC has already adequately explained by the team (despite EJ’s very annoying persistence to keep asking the same question about it over & over again that particular weekend ). IIRC the explanation was had Mark been ahead of Seb the WDC coming into that race, then he would have been given the new front wing. Perfectly understandable allocation of limited resources IMO.

The way I see it, the Red Bull situation is similar to Mclaren in 1996 – 2001. Seb & Red Bull being comparable to Mika’s & Ron’s special relationship. And Mark a bit like DC was in that situation. At the end of the day, in both the Mclaren & Red Bull situation, both drivers were given exactly same equipment + equal opportunity to win the WDC. It’s just there is more fondness or emotional attachment around Seb (or Mika in Mclaren’s example) given those drivers have had a much longer relationship with certain people within the team. And they had both been through more together. But IMO it is only natural as thats the way humans work. There no way you can stop it. Furthermore I’m sure it occurs’ probably most work environments, i.e. some people just get on better with others. It a fact of life.

However I also believe that all those within those said teams, including the drivers, are / were all experienced & professional enough not to allow any personal feelings translate into any advantage for either Seb at Red Bull or Mika at Mclaren. I think this is illustrated clearly, when Mika was having a poor final season in 2001 & Mclaren were seemly happy to support DC’s title bid. Rather than ordering DC to play second fiddle to Mika that year. Despite Mika having that extra fondness or emotional attachment talked about earlier. So I’m sure that in the case that Vettel has a bad year in 2013, Red Bull would happy support Webber to the WDC. Rather than try to get him to support a Vettel title bid. At the end of the day, business is business (& personal relationships are not part of that equation).

P.s. Apologies for the length of this post (even by my standards )

ibsey wrote:P.s. Apologies for the length of this post (even by my standards )

Don't worry - the complexity of the subject does sometimes necessitate posts of that length (and it is well worth reading).

ibsey wrote:I also read from another post contained in the Autosport forum that apparently at Turkey 2009 was another example of Seb complying with team orders (apparently) to let Mark through & help his race. Because they were on different strategies (Seb was on the 3 stops whilst Mark was on a 2 stop). Now I can’t recall if that is the case or not from my own recollection of that race. I did check Wikipedia, by there was no mention of Seb letting Mark through. Therefore I would very much appreciate it someone could either confirm or deny whether Seb did indeed allowed Mark through at some point during Turkey 2009?

Although I cannot be certain, I do not think that Vettel did let Webber pass him for strategy reasons during that Turkish GP.

Using the data from F1fanatic on lap times and statsf1 on relative position, it looks like Vettel did not let Webber past him on track at any point. It looks more like Webber ended up ahead of Vettel partially because Button, who was also on a two stop strategy IIRC, held Vettel up for long enough at the start of the race for Webber to pass him through pit stop strategy (Webber pitted slightly later and, due to the low degradation of the tyres back in 2009, took advantage of being on low fuel to put in faster times than Vettel and leapfrogged him that way).
That, coupled with relatively poor pace for Vettel in his third stint (where, despite having fresher tyres, he was unable to match Webber's pace thanks to the slightly lower fuel load Webber had) seems to explain the situation, because the only changes in position of Webber and Vettel seem to have occurred during their respective pit stops (i.e. Vettel was only ahead of Webber when the latter stopped in the pits, before falling back behind Webber when he himself pitted).

ibsey wrote:

madmark1974 wrote:James Allen's race report comes to an interesting conclusion :

At the final stop something very unusual happened; having been given the stop preference throughout the race, coming in a lap earlier than Vettel for the second and third stops, Webber was then disadvantaged at the final stop.

He was brought in a lap later than his team-mate who pitted on Lap 42. Prior to this Webber had enjoyed a 4.2 second lead. However after exiting the pits on new hard tyres on lap 43 he found that Vettel was now 0.5s behind him on the faster new mediums. If Webber had stopped first he would have increased his lead.

So by stopping Vettel first, the team artificially set up the circumstance for what then happened, with Vettel choosing to attack and pass.

The suggestion is that Red Bull gave Vettel every chance to get ahead of Webber during the last stops and take the win 'naturally', but then called him off when it didn't work out.

Thanks for that article madmark1974. Firstly Important to remember that the team have already stated that they allowed their two drivers to race up until the order was established after that final pitstop. Then of course there is no mention of who disadvantaged Mark at the final stop. So in the absence of further facts, can we rule out the possibility that it could well have been Mark’s own call to stay out that particular lap? I mean after all, we could equally say that Seb was disadvantage after his first stop when he pitted to soon for slicks. So we need to know who call it was to bring Mark & the reasoning behind it before we start jumping to any conclusions.

Furthermore I’d say a 4.2 second lead, would have perhaps seemed to be an extremely difficult margin to able to undercut in the space of just one lap. We know from Christian Horner interview kindly supplied by Jock1 at 2.20 minutes “he (Seb) had a new set of tyres available to him at that last stint & he wanted to make the most of it” So it sounds like that was always going to be Seb’s plan to try the undercut on that final stop before the Red Bull team then called the race off (iirespective of whichever one of their drivers were leading at that point).

Fact is even Seb (the guy who has won the last 3 WDC’s & had a brand new set of options at his disposal) ultimately failed to undercut Mark after the final stint. So I don’t think we can rule out the possibly that Mark felt secure with a 4.2 second lead, & was happy to react to Vettel’s stop. Rather than any possible implication, that this is yet another example of Red Bull’s underhand tactics in trying to ensure Vettel always finishes ahead of Mark. I mean, the fact is after Seb failed to get ahead of Mark intitally after the final stop. The team did ask Seb to stay behind Mark. When they were perfectly entitled not to do had they wanted Seb to win.

But one more thing to take into account here is that when Webber pulled into the pit lane to make his final stop, the team weren't ready for him. It may have been their intention to leave him out an extra lap, which obviously would have given Vettel more than enough of an advantage to take the lead. But somebody made a late call - my hunch is that it may have been Mark himself - to pit and get him out in front of Vettel. It's not cut and dried but it's a plausible conspiracy theory.

Jocke1 wrote:http://youtu.be/zIfob1mv1Oo

Christian Horner Interview with Ted Kravitz

Props to Herr Kravitz for asking Horner the uncomfortable questions.

By the way, did anyone notice the last six characters of the link?
1mv1Oo

1st in the race was mark, vettel took 1st from him, O_o

Jocke1 wrote:

Jocke1 wrote:http://youtu.be/zIfob1mv1Oo

Christian Horner Interview with Ted Kravitz

Props to Herr Kravitz for asking Horner the uncomfortable questions.

By the way, did anyone notice the last six characters of the link?
1mv1Oo

1st in the race was mark, vettel took 1st from him, O_o

How do you find these things. That's just insane.

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:How do you find these things. That's just insane.

And Horner has the nerve to say that there is no conspiracy going on.

http://youtu.be/zIfob1mv1Oo
In fact, the entire link, zIfob1mv1Oo, could be short for:

zeb loses focus on backlash, 1 mark > vettel 1 .O_o

ibsey, I won't quote from your post otherwise this post itself would be too long, but to respond to some of the points you've made.

Firstly, re the 2010 Hungarian GP, my reference to Sebastian acting on his own accord comes from an article by Jonathan Noble on Autosport, where he says:

Back in 2010, Vettel was referring to one of the other times in his career that he did something for himself: backing up the field after a safety-car restart at that year's Hungarian Grand Prix to try to help Mark Webber get a bit of a head start.

The idea then was not to give Webber the win, but instead to help the Australian's strategy play out so he could follow Vettel home later on and act as a buffer to the Red Bull duo's main title rivals.

Vettel's actions in letting Webber get away meant he breached safety-car protocol by not following the leader closely enough. He got a drive-through penalty, had handed a win to Webber and left himself miserable on the podium. Yet he never preached about what happened; instead only confiding to team management later in the year.

That day's decision to do his own thing – just like him ignoring numerous orders over the past few years to back things off in the final laps rather than chase fastest laps – pales into insignificance compared with the stun grenade he threw into the Red Bull camp in Malaysia.

I note that the Wikipedia article suggesting that it was all Red Bull's idea is unsourced, and I'd always take anything on Wikipedia with a grain of salt. As we say here on the forum, Autosport or it's not true.

In qualifying at Hockenheim last year, I recall Seb was vociferous over the radio about wanting to be let ahead, but I'm not aware of any order for Mark to move over.

And as for Turkey 2009, that was a situation where Seb had stuck with a three-stop strategy whereas Mark had switched to a two-stop and got ahead of Seb as a result, but in the last stint Seb was essentially told not to challenge Mark via a "Mark is faster" message. He was at no stage told to let Mark past.

As for my reference to the hypocrisy within Red Bull, there's never been any real dispute (apart from the Silverstone 2010 front wing episode) about Webber getting essentially the same equipment as Seb. And that is why Mark does sign for them - particularly since Adrian Newey keeps coming up with what is almost certainly the fastest car in the field for the current set of regulations. And likewise who are Red Bull going to find who's better? But it's the very, very, very obvious affection that the team has for Sebastian, and their unambiguous view of him as their "golden boy" which means that technical and equipment parity is not matched by emotional parity. It goes far beyond the situation at McLaren between Ron Dennis, Mika Hakkinen and David Coulthard. Did you ever see anyone within McLaren during that time publicly slagging off Coulthard as Marko did in the Red Bulletin to Webber over the winter? I recall Abu Dhabi in 2011 when Seb had his first-lap puncture, and everyone from Horner to Marko to Bernie Ecclestone seemed intent on consoling him like the world had ended despite the fact that his winning had become monotonous throughout 2011. You don't have to give someone better equipment to show that they are favoured within the team.

Another example is the way the 2010 car was developed. Don't forget, right up to mid-season Mark was very much on par with Sebastian as his wins at Barcelona, Monaco and Silverstone testified, whilst Hungary was handed to him on a plate. From that point on Mark began to struggle and Vettel began his run that would lead him to the title at Yas Marina. Part of the reason for that was because the team was starting to go down the path of exhaust blowing which very much suited Seb's driving style but not Mark's.

Equal equipment for both, but to become Orwellian for a moment, some are more equal than others. That is the hypocrisy.

That inequality, not in terms of equipment but also in terms of all the other surrounding circumstances, also extends to how both drivers have ended up in this situation. Mark grafted his way having had to beg and borrow early in his career and work his way via his ill-fated Mercedes sports car stint, then F3000, then Minardi, Jaguar and a Williams on the slide, and then he helped build Red Bull up in 2007-08 when they were not as competitive. Compare that to Vettel who, notwithstanding his prodigious ability, has really had it easy thanks to Marko and Red Bull - although in saying that I appreciate that many, many, many other Red Bull junior drivers have fallen by the wayside, so the "easy ride" is not all it takes, but still, an easier ride it has been, along with a certain sense of entitlement and a feeling he's had a silver spoon. In that context Vettel's place within the team would grate against the Aussie psyche of the egalitarian "fair go" and "you get what you work for".

(As an aside, you look at all the drivers in the top teams, and Webber is one of the few who has not either had his career sponsored from early on (e.g. Hamilton, Vettel), or was picked up by a big team at an early age (e.g. Button, Alonso, Massa, Raikkonen), or has a big sponsor behind him (e.g. Perez). Rosberg is perhaps his only comparable.)

I think Mark is possibly naive to keep believing that the equipment parity, the Newey factor, and his own "Aussie Grit" can overcome the emotional bias within the team, and where else can he go where he could have as good a shot at the title? But there's no doubt he's been worn down by the dynamics within the team over the last few years. I do believe Mark will go down as the Gerhard Berger of this era, not a genuine number 2 driver, and capable of being a number 1 driver, but unfortunate to be driving in an era where several other champions were strutting their stuff. Berger had Prost, Senna, Mansell and Piquet to contend with (and ultimately Schumacher as well). Webber has faced Alonso, Hamilton, Vettel, Raikkonen and perhaps you can count Button in that list as well.

Firstly thanks for your reply eytl & especially for info regarding Hungary 2010. Having done a bit more investigation on the matter I now accept that Sebastian acted on his own accord in that instant. Since Horner confirms to EJ on the BBC immediately after the race, that no team order was issued to Seb. Which I still find amazing that Seb did such a thing. Even in the BBC commentary Martin Brundle also questioned whether ‘Seb really wanted Mark to finish second in the race (Assuming Seb winning) & whether Seb wanted to get a good break in the points over Mark, so that he was the favoured one for the 2010 drivers title bid within Red Bull’.

However one thing I still don’t get, is why then did Seb wave his hands so furiously at the team, when he was serving his drive through penalty? The only possible explanation I can think of is to he just needed to release some of that anger or frustration. Even though it wasn’t the team who had asked him to back off under the SC. Finally perhaps it is also worth mentioning the explanation Seb gave for falling foul of the 10 car behind the SC rule back was;

I had lost the radio and was waiting for an instruction of when the safety car would come in. I didn’t see the lights in my car. Mark was close to the safety car, so I thought we had another lap (because of the normal practice of bunching the pack up, just before a typical SC restart in F1). But then I saw the safety car come in and I was caught out. I lost a lot of momentum and then I got the drive-through.

Source; http://www.infiniti-redbullracing.com/c ... 2878540236

eytl wrote:And as for Turkey 2009, that was a situation where Seb had stuck with a three-stop strategy whereas Mark had switched to a two-stop and got ahead of Seb as a result, but in the last stint Seb was essentially told not to challenge Mark via a "Mark is faster" message. He was at no stage told to let Mark past.

Again thanks for the clarification on this matter as well as Hockenhiem 2012. Bearing in mind Seb appeared to obey the order not to challenge Mark at Turkey 2009. In addition to the way Seb never preached publicly about trying helping Mark (even if it was in the short term) at Hungary 2010. Therefore would it still be fair to say that Seb showed himself to be more of a team player than Mark prior to Malaysia 2013? And perhaps even now (given as far as we know Mark has disobeyed at least 2 team orders at Sliverstone 2011 & Brazil 2012, whereas Seb as only disobeyed team orders once, last weekend). Which was the point I was trying to make originally.

In regards to that last bit from the Autosport article you kindly posted:

That day's decision to do his own thing – just like him ignoring numerous orders over the past few years to back things off in the final laps rather than chase fastest laps – pales into insignificance compared with the stun grenade he threw into the Red Bull camp in Malaysia.

In the interests of ensuring we have the whole picture on these matters. In regards to the bold bit, didn’t Mark (and a few other drivers) also challenge Vettel for fastest lap towards the end of a certain races? Meaning certain other drivers are also equally as guilty as ignoring the teams instruction to back off towards the end of races . I ask this, because IIRC, I think it was at Suzuka 2011 where in the BBC commentary I think DC & Brundle were almost hyping up the end of the race to see who could get the fastest lap & possibly take some of the shine away from Vettel winning his 2nd WDC that day. Which I thought was actually kind of funny. However I can’t be certain on this without having checked the full race (the short BBC highlights on their website don’t show that final lap in question).

eytl wrote:As for my reference to the hypocrisy within Red Bull, there's never been any real dispute (apart from the Silverstone 2010 front wing episode) about Webber getting essentially the same equipment as Seb. And that is why Mark does sign for them - particularly since Adrian Newey keeps coming up with what is almost certainly the fastest car in the field for the current set of regulations. And likewise who are Red Bull going to find who's better? But it's the very, very, very obvious affection that the team has for Sebastian, and their unambiguous view of him as their "golden boy" which means that technical and equipment parity is not matched by emotional parity. It goes far beyond the situation at McLaren between Ron Dennis, Mika Hakkinen and David Coulthard. Did you ever see anyone within McLaren during that time publicly slagging off Coulthard as Marko did in the Red Bulletin to Webber over the winter?

No off the top of my head, can’t ever recall that happening. But equally, according to DC’s book “It is, what it is”, IIRC he did say stuff like how he would always see Ron Dennis (Mclaren Team Principle at the time) over at Mika’s side of the garage etc. And I'm not aware of any suggestions that the current Red Bull team principle Christian Horner spends more time over at Seb's side of the garage.

Thanks for clarifying what you mean regarding the possible lack of emotional parity within the Red Bull team. Probably the reason I have been wary of suggestions of it affecting Mark at Red Bull (& likewise DC at Mclaren), is I’ve always held the view that one should learn to control their mindset & emotions in these circumstances. Therefore be professional about these things & not let it adversely affect their performance. But perhaps I have a slightly warped view on these things, since I have a slightly older brother (only older by one & a half years). So when we were growing up, he always got massively spoilt, being the oldest man in the family which is important in my family culture. So my brother would always get new clothes & toys etc. Whereas I always had to make do with his 2nd hand (hand me down) clothes or toys etc, because my mum couldn’t afford new ones for me. But perhaps even more importantly than that, my brother also got more emotional support from my family than me (because he was naturally more of an attention seeker than me).

Similarly I have worked for property surveying firms such as Knight Frank within the Central London (UK) where, lets say your chances of getting promoted has more to do with your family background & contacts rather your actual ability at the role. Yet despite knowing I am always going to be unfairly disadvantage in this respect, I believe it has never adversely affected my performance at work. If anything its probably made me even more determined. A sort of i’ll show them attitude (which is what I mean when I say its important to control your mindset as well as your emotions). So that’s why I find it difficult to accept that a possible lack of emotional parity within Red Bull should adversely affect Mark’s performances in F1.

So it seems to me (at least) that these two situations I have mentioned above are not too dissimilar to the current situation at Red Bull with Mark (or DC at Mclaren). Obviously I acknowledge that being in a highly competitive, worldwide sport like F1 is going to have slightly different pressure from even the most competitive office environment etc. But surely has to be some similarities between Mark’s situation at Red Bull & my previous experiences. Perhaps because I have learnt the hard way not to feel angry or let it affect me when someone has either more emotional support or are better off than me. So therefore I (maybe unreasonably?) expect the same from others like Mark at Red Bull or DC at Mclaren. Since if I can learn to remove my anger in such instances & just deal with it, I believe other people are capable of doing so too.

I would also like to ask the question, did the same lack of emotional parity that you refer to exist at the start of 2009, when Seb first moved to Red Bull from Torro Rosso? Because one might assume that Mark having already been with the Red Bull team for two years by that point would have known the Red Bull team personnel possibly better than Seb (who course had been used to Torro Rosso team personnel). Yet despite this IIRC, Seb more often than not instantly started beating Mark by a margin which is not too dissimilar to the differences between the two Red Bull teammates today.

I believe that was the year Mark had sustained his broken leg preseason, so that may possibly distorted things in the early races a bit? I can’t recall exactly how race fit Mark was in early 2009 off the top of my head. According to Wikipedia (apologies I don’t have Autosport +, so Wikipedia is all I can provide you with)

“After sustaining a broken leg in a road accident during his charity event in Tasmania in the off-season, he returned to testing on 11 February with steel rods in his leg.”

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Webber#2009

However I don’t believe it would have affected him hugely, otherwise he wouldn’t have been in the car. Furthermore, would Mark’s legs have affected his quail performances, which is obviously much less demanding that a circa 2 hour race? Yet Mark was outqualified at every event up until China 2009 (when I stopped checking). Also since the 2009 Chinese GP was held in severe wet conditions, again it should have been too physically demanding for Mark’s legs, should he have still been recovering by then. Yet despite this Seb still beat him fair & square.

So for me these facts are not consistent with the idea that the lack of emotional parity within Red Bull is adversely affecting Mark’s performances. Furthermore I’ve always held the view that Mark is very well respected within the Red Bull team, because he does speak his mind etc. So any possible lack of emotional parity within Red Bull that there might be, has to be minimual in terms of its possible adverse affect towards Marks performance. Unfortunately being outside of the team, it’s difficult for us fans to truly quantify just how much of a possible affect it may have on Mark? Even in the case that it does (which I am still unsure of) my gut feeling suggests surely it can’t account for whole different in terms of results between Seb & Mark since they became teammates.

EDIT; Also as far as I remember DC never claiming a lack of emotional parity at Mclaren, when he was pretty evenly matched with Mika around 1996 - 1997. IIRC it was only after Mika was consistently beating him, when the claims started. So you can understand why one would be wary of such claims. And you only have to look at the Ridiculous excuse thread to see that DC is pretty hot on good excuses.

eytl wrote:Another example is the way the 2010 car was developed. Don't forget, right up to mid-season Mark was very much on par with Sebastian as his wins at Barcelona, Monaco and Silverstone testified, whilst Hungary was handed to him on a plate.

I was always under the impression that Seb had a problem with his car’s chassis (something like a hairline crack in Kate’s dirty sister) at Barcelona & Monaco? (and possibly even up until Canada / Valencia time) Which was only then identified & resolved sometime afterwards. Thereby handicapping Seb at those particular races. IIRC Seb even mentioned in his interviews around the time of those particular races how he felt there was something wrong in his car. So it wasn’t just an excuse made up by Vettel after the event. In regards to Sliverstone 2010 I actually tend to think Seb fractionally had the measure of Mark at that event. Seb had won in the previous year under equal circumstances (IIRC), and was slightly faster than Mark in FP3 (with the older spec front wing IIRC). Then Seb (now with the newer front wing IIRC?) out qualified Mark. Then for the race Seb pick up a puncture at the 1st corner which then ruined his race as Wikipedia states;

The race began with Sebastian Vettel attempting to force team-mate Webber into yielding on the approach to Copse corner, but the Australian prevailed and Vettel ran wide as he made contact with Lewis Hamilton in third. As the field passed through the Maggotts-Becketts corner, Vettel was seen to run wide, having picked up a puncture from the contact with Hamilton as Webber and the Briton escaped the rest of the field.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Briti ... e_practice

So even thought I accept this issue is debatable. Had Seb not had those aforementioned problems, then IMO I don’t think Webber would have been quite on par with Seb in reality around this time (even if Mark did win those races you mentioned). As the majority of results between the Red Bull teammates both before Spain 2010 & from well, I guess Valencia 2010 (the race before Sliverstone) onwards seems to also support my view. However I am happy to be proven wrong on this front.

eytl wrote:From that point on Mark began to struggle and Vettel began his run that would lead him to the title at Yas Marina. Part of the reason for that was because the team was starting to go down the path of exhaust blowing which very much suited Seb's driving style but not Mark's.

I’m sure I’ve said it before here, but I believe a fundamental part of a F1 driver is the ability to adapt to the car & technology like the exhaust blown diffuser (EBD) etc. In the commentary for FP2 for Malaysia 2013, IIRC Gary Anderson (now BBC technical expert) was saying how Seb had worked hard to learn how the EBD works and then adapted his style particularly to suit the EBD. Something about how Vettel identified it was more beneficial to arrive into a corner with a slight bit of understeer, hit to throttle hard, which then griped the rears & have faith the EBD did its magic on exit.

IIRC it was the same story when the new Pirelli tyres came into F1. IIRC Vettel was the only driver to have visited Pirelli during the winter of 2010/2011 to see how the new Pirellis might work. No doubt trying to understand how he would have to adapt his driving style to suit them. Don’t recall hearing any similar kind of stories about Mark working hard to adapt to the Pirelli tyres at the start of 2011. However I do recall how Mark struggled with them, certainly in the early part of the year. Possibly as a result?

So I would argue therefore that these things suited Vettel more, because he appeared to work harder in adapting to them, in comparison to Mark. Also I believe younger drivers can adapt to new things much easier than older drivers. In 2010 Vettel was what 22 where as Mark was 34? Finally IMO Mark is unfortunately simply not as good a driver as Seb. He appears harder on his tyres. Also appears to require more fuel during a race than Seb (based on something Christian Horner said in that interview kindly supplied by Jocke1 in this thread a couple of days ago).

So Mark’s best bet of beating Seb is to mess with his head, similar to Pironi v Villeneuve in 1982. Which is probably why Mark is working on things like enhancing his own PR image (IMO). Whislt at the same time apparently trying to damage Seb’s PR. So that fans therefore hate Seb. And its seems to be working very well, as I can vividly recall how much Seb was booed on the podium in Australia 2013. One might imagine things are only going to get worse for Seb in this respect following his actions in Malaysia 2013. Also as stated in detail above I am struggling to believe that the possible lack of emotional parity within Red Bull is adversely affecting Mark’s performances. Therefore to my mind, it seems like Mark appears to be the one trying to start all the tension & issues within the Red Bull team, etc. And as already discussed Mark appears to be the one starting uncertainly within the team via disobeying team orders whenever Seb is in front. Thereby confusing Seb on how he should therefore react in response.

EDIT; Just to add to this final point, lets also not forget Webber's two 'dirty' moves on Seb. Firstly squeezing him into the pitlane, then after the race at Malaysia 2013. Again possibly more evidence of Mark trying to play head games with Seb?

That just the way things seem to me at the moment. Anyway i’ll stop there. But I am really enjoying this very fascinating discussion with you Eytl. Finally last but by no means least. I’m assuming the forum is reaching its fourth anniversary (judging by the date you joined). So allow me to wish you happy fourth anniversary for that for that.

Wow, lots of words here, and conspiricy theories and way off/out of context quotes Re Horner.
The car is based around one lap qually runs, Vettel is better, but Webber is one of the top too, better than many in the top teams that aren't the 'prime driver', that's why RBR wanted Vettel and Webber and why they want to keep them.
There's a bit of history between Webber and Vettel, but it isn't the silver stone race people keep bringing up to prove a point just because Webber was so open and honest about it. It predates that. It's instanbul and marko, and the team sometimes overplaying Vettel wins, but then just barely accepting Webber wins. I won't even bring up when Vettel was in the TR, because I doubt even Webber bring that up against him.
The history is at one time the team said to both drivers who quals better gets first pit choice, then that was abandoned as sometimes Vettel end up worse if he pitted first, and Webber gets screwed the second stop to try reverse the order back.
Then they had some agreement that who ever leads into the first corner gets preference, then that was abandoned, as above, but also both drivers seemed to want to take eachother out on the first corner (on the days Webber got a good start that is LOL)
Now they had some agreement that whoever is leading after the last pitstop gets preference and the win if it's 1-2. IE save the engine/gearbox/tyres, each had their chance, too bad so sad, now you finish as you are, it's WCC points that matter now, do not crash into each other and give us 0 points cause you're competitive twats against each other and like to crash a lot) After the last race, now that is abandoned.

Two racers that want to race, both only listen/ask for team orders if it suits them...
Like others have said, they want to race it, but they WILL crash if given a free for all because they have a history of it, BOTH of them.
So the team is trying to have control as regardless of the car, they have the drivers to suit them, both great qualifiers though Vettel is better Webber is good too. But they never will never control these drivers with crap management, they have no control over them, Vettel thinks he's untouchable as he's been groomed that way, Webber has had enough of the bullcrap, in fact never put up with it in the first place.
A remote Mateshitz, an interfering Marko, an ineffective Horner and a "right now don't give a crap Webber" is not going to help.
And that's why redbull is panicing, not because of Vettels win, but because Webber is on a year to year contract, and to have Vettel upset him means he will probably race Vettel wheel to wheel, possibly losing WCC points and not give a damn because he will retire at the end of this season and not need a job.
No conspricy theories need apply, two loose cannons that are needed by the team that just don't get along, and no clear chain of command due to Horners interest and redbull's interest and their handling of Vettel when bringing him up through the ranks. And the problem is now Webber probably won't be there next year, so won't care. It's Vettel they need to hit on the head to knock him down a peg or two for ignoring team orders.

Alex Rossi to get FP outing in the desert race chances of him beating the other regular driver by a margin (small or big)

S951 wrote:Alex Rossi to get FP outing in the desert race chances of him beating the other regular driver by a margin (small or big)

Zero.

ibsey, glad you're enjoying the discussion, and thanks for another detailed and well thought-out post. I look at many of your points and think, "Can't disagree with that!".

Coming back to Hungary 2010 and why Vettel seemed so upset at the team. I think it's fair to say that F1 is so competitive - it's so hard to get to F1 in the first place let alone get to the top of F1 - you have to be incredibly driven and frankly, a bit of a selfish so-and-so who thinks the world revolves around you. I don't think we can criticise the best drivers for being that way without being hypocritical ourselves, because on one hand we can think that that's just so prima-donna-ish and on the other hand these are also the megastars we admire. (Although maybe that's also one reason why this site is dedicated to the unsuccessful - because we're drawn to those who can look back on their F1 careers with a lot less pretence.) I've always read Vettel's anger that day as being looking for someone else to blame for his own error, which added to the "spoilt brat" image.

As for whether Seb is more of a team player than Mark, I wonder if you can simply look at the number of times they each disobeyed/obeyed. I guess given the obvious emotional bias within Red Bull whenever Mark takes umbrage with a team order it's seen as him "raging against the machine", whereas if Seb does it then it's seen as "you've got such an advantage over Mark already, why do you have to rub it in?". I'm not saying your point's not valid - I think it is - but I just wonder if, since Seb is "more equal" than Mark within Red Bull (to go back to my Animal Farm analogy), an instance of Seb's disobedience is also not equal to Mark's??? Hmmm, not sure I agree with that myself, but anyway ...

As for likening the Red Bull situation to a family or work situation, I take your point and it's a good one. I see it potentially arising in my own kids, and I see it in my office as well. Either you do as you suggest - i.e. prove yourself - or you take my approach to work, which is to not care as much about getting to the top. I guess the reality is that Mark is as much a selfish so-and-so as Seb is and neither option works for him. Head-to-head against Seb in completely equal situations and machinery to be honest I'd put my money on Seb because, frankly, he's genuinely better, there's no doubt about it. So Mark can't hope to just prove himself week in, week out. And on the other hand Mark's not going to settle for second best.

So Mark is really hoping for those days when the cards all fall his way and he might get a bit of help from the team as well. Those wins in 2010, even Spain and Monaco, if Seb really was hampered by his chassis then they were examples of the cards falling Mark's way. Malaysia last weekend was another. He'd done everything right, jumped Seb on the change to slicks, controlled the race from there (with the help of the team's target lap times), backed Seb into Hamilton, and then after the last stop fended off Sebastian. Add to that the agreed team order, and it was job done. On this day he'd proven himself over Seb and got the help from the team he needed. I guess that's part of what makes Seb's highway robbery seem so unjust ...

Without knowing for sure, I think the situation at the beginning of 2009 didn't help. Don't forget Mark had broadly-speaking dominated every team-mate he'd had in F1 before (even if he didn't necessarily outscore them for various reasons) - Yoong, Pizzonia, Wilson, Klien, Heidfeld, Rosberg, Coulthard. If you see my Pizzonia profile, there's a hint there that Mark wasn't averse to playing some mind games of his own. But then Vettel arrived at Red Bull as part of his ascension as Marko's golden child and immediately had a massive qualifying advantage - which was always Mark's forte. I'll speculate that from that moment on, Mark's mindset would have been, "This guy doesn't need any more help!" Over 2009 and 2010 he still had his share of days when Vettel's mistakes meant the cards did fall his way and he got satisfactory help from the team (e.g. Turkey 2009). But then have come the Turkey 2010, Silverstone 2010, exhaust blown diffuser, Silverstone 2011, Germany 2012, Brazil 2012 and now Malaysia 2013 flashpoints, plus Seb becoming more and more formidable over 2011-13 and cutting out his mistakes. I'm guessing Mark's mindset even more is, "This guy REALLY doesn't need any more help!".

(Interesting point you make about Vettel working harder to adjust to EBD and the Pirellis. I wasn't aware of that. But there's no doubt that Vettel is also supremely intelligent and that may be another example of it. In which case, credit where credit's due.)

Finally, I think Mark is - for all his straight-talking - a bit of a complex character himself. He does seem to like generating the "I'm the underdog" persona as if it drives him on to greater heights, especially when things aren't going his way. The right balance for Mark seems to be, he feeds off the underdog thing for a while, then puts in a great performance where he can overcome Seb, feed off that for a while, then once Seb gets the upper hand because of his greater ability he goes back to being the underdog, and lets that cycle start again. Well, Sepang might have been that "great performance" in his cycle, and to have it snatched off him is probably making him wonder if he can go back to underdog status and drive himself forward again.

ibsey wrote:

eytl wrote:From that point on Mark began to struggle and Vettel began his run that would lead him to the title at Yas Marina. Part of the reason for that was because the team was starting to go down the path of exhaust blowing which very much suited Seb's driving style but not Mark's.

I’m sure I’ve said it before here, but I believe a fundamental part of a F1 driver is the ability to adapt to the car & technology like the exhaust blown diffuser (EBD) etc. In the commentary for FP2 for Malaysia 2013, IIRC Gary Anderson (now BBC technical expert) was saying how Seb had worked hard to learn how the EBD works and then adapted his style particularly to suit the EBD. Something about how Vettel identified it was more beneficial to arrive into a corner with a slight bit of understeer, hit to throttle hard, which then griped the rears & have faith the EBD did its magic on exit.

IIRC it was the same story when the new Pirelli tyres came into F1. IIRC Vettel was the only driver to have visited Pirelli during the winter of 2010/2011 to see how the new Pirellis might work. No doubt trying to understand how he would have to adapt his driving style to suit them. Don’t recall hearing any similar kind of stories about Mark working hard to adapt to the Pirelli tyres at the start of 2011. However I do recall how Mark struggled with them, certainly in the early part of the year. Possibly as a result?

So I would argue therefore that these things suited Vettel more, because he appeared to work harder in adapting to them, in comparison to Mark. Also I believe younger drivers can adapt to new things much easier than older drivers. In 2010 Vettel was what 22 where as Mark was 34? Finally IMO Mark is unfortunately simply not as good a driver as Seb. He appears harder on his tyres. Also appears to require more fuel during a race than Seb (based on something Christian Horner said in that interview kindly supplied by Jocke1 in this thread a couple of days ago).

The comments about adapting his driving style around the exhaust blown diffuser are interesting, since Vettel has not always managed to do that.

In early 2012, when Red Bull developed their ducted exhaust system (the system they now use on the RB9), Vettel initially really struggled with that particular design as the effectiveness of the exhaust blowing was considerably reduced compared to the previous few years - it was his initial unhappiness with that design that lead to the team bringing the old specification of exhaust to China (and also, to a certain extent, as part of the teams demonstration to Vettel that the newer design was the one they thought would work best, as appears to have been the case later in the year when they were able to make it work effectively).

With the effectiveness of that exhaust blowing reduced, and the shift in the handling balance that it produced (which lead to a slightly more unpredictable rear end), it actually ended up favouring Webber's driving technique instead (he tends to be more progressive with his throttle application). Vettel probably did work quite hard to adapt his driving style to the new exhausts, but it has to be said that his performance was in part tied into the upgrades that Red Bull introduced later in the year - especially from the European and British GP's onwards. Red Bull introduced a series of major modifications to the exhausts and sidepods aimed at improving the airflow around the rear of the sidepods and enhancing the effectiveness of the exhausts - and around that time, Vettel's competitiveness did seem to sharply increase whilst Webber seemed to slip back slightly.
Overall, therefore, I would argue that whilst Vettel has shown a certain amount of adaptability in terms of his driving style around the cars, there have also been times when, just like Webber, he has been unable to adapt his driving style around a particular feature and tended to underperform a bit until a certain upgrade helped solve the problem.

Incidentally, yes, since you mention it Hembery did claim that Vettel was the only driver to have visited Pirelli's production facility that year to see how the tyres were being manufactured - mind you, at the same time Hembery said it was actually Schumacher who seemed to be the most interested in the technical debriefing sessions (so, if nothing else, it seems that Michael was working as hard as ever when it came to technical matters), although Vettel did come in a close second.

Speaking about the tyres and driving styles, it would probably explain why Webber has been increasingly outspoken about the current tyres Pirelli are bringing - the trend over the past few years does seem to have been for Pirelli to reduce the structural stiffness of the sidewalls (Brundle was commenting in Malaysia that the tyres were visibly deforming much more compared to last year, to the point where he almost thought that they were going to tear off the rims), and it does seem that those structural changes are hurting him badly. The lateral stiffness of the tyres is a lot lower than they were in 2012, although the vertical stiffness has also been reduced for most of the tyres too, and it does seem that, the more flexible the tyres are, the unhappier Webber seems to become (there were his comments about being unable to drive beyond eight tenths of what he felt the car was capable of because of those limitations).
That does seem to have been one reason why Webber favoured the harder compound in Malaysia - the hard tyre is the only one where the sidewall stiffness has actually been increased compared to last year IIRC, and given Webber's driving style that seems to have been why he went for that compound in the final stint.

eytl wrote:That inequality, not in terms of equipment but also in terms of all the other surrounding circumstances, also extends to how both drivers have ended up in this situation. Mark grafted his way having had to beg and borrow early in his career and work his way via his ill-fated Mercedes sports car stint, then F3000, then Minardi, Jaguar and a Williams on the slide, and then he helped build Red Bull up in 2007-08 when they were not as competitive. Compare that to Vettel who, notwithstanding his prodigious ability, has really had it easy thanks to Marko and Red Bull - although in saying that I appreciate that many, many, many other Red Bull junior drivers have fallen by the wayside, so the "easy ride" is not all it takes, but still, an easier ride it has been, along with a certain sense of entitlement and a feeling he's had a silver spoon. In that context Vettel's place within the team would grate against the Aussie psyche of the egalitarian "fair go" and "you get what you work for".

(As an aside, you look at all the drivers in the top teams, and Webber is one of the few who has not either had his career sponsored from early on (e.g. Hamilton, Vettel), or was picked up by a big team at an early age (e.g. Button, Alonso, Massa, Raikkonen), or has a big sponsor behind him (e.g. Perez). Rosberg is perhaps his only comparable.)

Just thought of another really interesting point regarding this. Could this theory, along with the idea of emotional inequality towards one driver within a team adversely affecting their performance (like Mark at Red Bull or DC at Mclaren) be disproven by how Jenson managed to overcome the ‘Lewis’ factor at Mclaren?

I mean might it be fair to say Jenson is similar to Mark, in that he had to graft for the vast majority of his career. Certainly in comparison to the likes of drivers who have had their career sponsored from early on i.e. Vettel & Hamilton. Whilst it is true that Jenson was picked up by a big team (Williams) in 2000, however I’d argue that wasn’t an easy year for him. For a start Jenson was teammate to Murray Walker’s driver of the year in 1999 (R Schumi). Also Button was a really young driver completely thrown into the F1 spotlight (so many experts questioning him), with quite a bit of media / hype surrounding from fairly early on. Furthermore there was the whole situation on whether he was going to be replaced in 2001 by JPM or not, which must have added to all the usual pitfalls of a typically rookie F1 season (learning new tracks etc).

Then after this I think it is fair to say Jenson had to graft his way in F1, 2 years in the slowly improving Renualt only to then be replaced by Alonso (controversially at the time, since some felt Trulli should have been replaced instead of Button). Then those up & down BAR / Honda years, before the nightmare of Honda withdrawing, and then the pressure of winning a WDC at Brawn. Compare that to Hamilton, who might it be fair to say has had as easy a ride to F1 as Vettel did, thanks to Ron Dennis & Mclaren? Therefore one would expect in Hamilton, that same sense of entitlement & feeling he’s had a sliver spoon?

When Jenson joined Mclaren in 2010, Hamilton was clearly their “golden boy” meaning Jenson could never have expected to have received the same level of emotional support as Lewis. Yet despite this, In 2011 Jenson beat Lewis in the points table. And in 2012 the two Mclaren drivers finished only 2 points apart. Furthermore no-one made a fuss as far as I remember when the 2009 WDC Jenson was beaten in the points table by Lewis in 2010. As it was expected, because Mclaren was seen as Lewis’ team. Furthermore a fairly substantial fuss was made in 2011 when the roles were reserved at the end of the year and it was the 1st time Lewis had been beaten by his teammate in his team (Mclaren). Because it was perceived that Lewis would have benefit from that greater emotional support within the Mclaren team.

Furthermore I can recall a few post somewhere within this forum, just prior to Oz 2011, of people saying how Jenson will end up as Lewis’ no.2 by the end of the season etc. Which seemed to be the general consensus at the time. Yet not only did this not happen. But it was in fact Lewis who had the apparent emotional breakdown that year. And even though I’m sure he did have greater support within the Mclaren team. At the end of the day only Lewis himself was the one who could resolve matters. No one else. Having said all of this one must also take into consideration Lewis & Jenson’s respective ages as well (i.e. Lewis was still growing up, where as Jenson was probably at a settled point in his life).

Also one must consider there appeared to be a small difference between Mclaren fondness towards Hamilton and Red Bull’s fondness towards Seb. Mainly Helmut Marko at Red Bull, someone who does not hide his biased towards Vettel. And I can’t think of anyone similar at the moment within the Mclaren team. But then everyone outside of RBR seems to know Helmut is like that, and that is just one person in a team of many 100’s of people.

But the point I’m trying to make is Jenson beating Lewis illustrates that any emotional inequality within a team, can be overcome with a positive attitude or mindset (of course assuming the driver has sufficient talent in the first place to beat the team’s ‘golden boy’). As a quick aside I remember coming to a similar conclusion when discussing whether ‘proper’ no.2 drivers can go onto great things in the Ponderbox thread only a couple of weeks ago. Perhaps appropriate considering the points raised in the discussion you and Mario had in this thread regarding Massa & Ferrari. Like the question of can Massa really challenge for a WDC this year?

When I say it’s all about mindset, what I mean is if you carry a negative mindset such as “it’s not fair!!! My teammate has got more emotional support than me.”. Then it seems to me that you are already accepting defeat, mentally speaking. Whereas if you carry positive mindset, like Jenson seemed to have done at Mclaren (or even Webber when that "I'm the underdog" persona you mention takes him) “Ok my team mate has more emotional support than me. But I'm not going to let that affect me. Instead I’ll show them just how good I am”. That’s when you have a chance IMO.

Just so you know, I haven’t yet had the chance to properly consider all of the points in either yours or Mario’s latest post. Which I hope to do tomorrow after some much needed sleep (my brain is getting a serve workout from all these extremely interesting & enjoyable discussions).

Ibsey and Enoch. Two black belt conversationalists.



The rest of us dare not interrupt.

razta wrote:here's an interesting one from Autosport:

AUTOSPORT has learned that Webber was so infuriated by Vettel's actions that he initially did not wish to take part in the podium ceremony, but he was eventually convinced to do so.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/106372

I have just seen the race again, and just like last Sunday when it was live, I really thought Webber wouldn't show up in the "ready-room" where they
receive towels and water bottles etc.
Vettel, Newey & Hamilton were there for an eternity it seemed before Webber came and gave the 'Mulit 21, Seb. Multi 21' -quote.
Good or bad, it would certainly have been a statement by MW to not show up.

And did anyone else notice Hamilton saying "Get that camera out of my face", right before Mark entered?
It was barely audible, but that's what I heard.

eytl wrote:As for whether Seb is more of a team player than Mark, I wonder if you can simply look at the number of times they each disobeyed/obeyed. I guess given the obvious emotional bias within Red Bull whenever Mark takes umbrage with a team order it's seen as him "raging against the machine", whereas if Seb does it then it's seen as "you've got such an advantage over Mark already, why do you have to rub it in?". I'm not saying your point's not valid - I think it is - but I just wonder if, since Seb is "more equal" than Mark within Red Bull (to go back to my Animal Farm analogy), an instance of Seb's disobedience is also not equal to Mark's??? Hmmm, not sure I agree with that myself, but anyway ...

Perhaps, this view that Seb is “more equal” than Mark within the team. So an instance of Seb’s disobedience is not therefore equal to Mark’s. Is again down to Webber’s rather successful PR ability? As you say Mark does seem to like generating the "I'm the underdog" persona for himself. Which then seems especially useful when it comes to justifying his hypocrisy from Sliverstone 2011 to Malaysia 2013. Or indeed drumming up sympathy for his cause after situations like Sliverstone 2010. Let’s also remember that it was Seb who got the puncture at the start of the race as a result of Hamilton clipping his right rear. So leaving aside any personal favouritism we may have for Webber or Seb, for just a moment. If we were to just consider the cold hard facts, then might one actually consider Vettel to be unluckier than Mark at Sliverstone 2010?

As discussed in a previous post, it was Seb who appeared to have the slight edge over Mark that weekend (irrespective of whether he had the new front wing or not, as demonstrated by FP3). Yet arguably through no fault of Seb’s he lost a possible 19 points that day. Mark lost nothing in terms of points & very little if anything all that weekend, when you consider the bigger picture (i.e. ‘front wing gate’ was a one off incident). However despite this, it was Seb (& the RBR team) who came away from Sliverstone 2010 looking like the villains. Possibly owing to clever PR on Mark’s behalf, by making sure the world knew about the front wing affair not only after qualifying but also via his “not bad for a no. 2” message.

As am I am sure you are aware a good PR & propaganda campaign, can fool people into looking away from how the situation is in reality. For instance good PR / propaganda is essential what kept Hilter & the Nazi’s in power for so long. Even when around the end of 1943, it should have been obvious to the average German on the street that the Nazi’s were doing horrible things & were going to lose World War 2 (they were trying to fight off the closing allies on two fronts, whilst Germany was being bombed pretty much unopposed etc). IIRC Joseph Goebbels still managed to use PR/propaganda successfully, with his famous 'total war' speech, to keep Germany fighting until the bitter end in May 1945.

Even though using PR or mindgames isn’t personally my kind of thing. I have come to accept it is part of life. Being a massive Gilles Villeneuve fan, it was a very hard lesson to accept (Imola 1982). So I’m not trying to knock, Mark for using clever PR tactics / headgames in his battle with Seb. Because, as discussed before it seems one of the few ways that Mark can beat Seb. So I guess at the end of the day it is all part of the game. I am merely trying to highlight it to everyone’s attention. So with all this in mind, I guess the question is how much is Mark the “underdog” within RBR in reality?

Yes there is that emotional inequality within RBR which we have discussed in detail in previous posts. I acknowledge it does exist within RBR. However I still question whether it does adversely affect Mark’s performance in reality. An opinion which I have previously supported in detail, using facts (where applicable). Obviously if somebody can provide evidence to the contrary. Then I am more than happy to be proven wrong on this. Then there is Helmut Marko, who is obviously biased towards Vettel. Again I have previously stated how everyone outside of RBR seems to know Helmut is like that, and that is just one person in a team of many 100’s of people. So I don’t think this is going to have a massive negative effect on Mark’s performances within the car (especially given Mark’s apparent character of having a ‘thick skin’). It might give him one or two more headaches in having to react to most of the BS that comes out of Helmut’s mouth. But I believe this along with the emotional inequality issue is overcome able, with a positive mindset. In my experience, life isn’t straightforward in this respect, you just have to deal with these things as best you can & forget about how unfair it might be.

Age probably works against Mark (like his ability to adapt to new things as previously discussed). However in response to this, I would argue that most of what Mark does lose to Seb in because of his age, perhaps he picks up through his greater F1 experience. I believe JYS said something along the lines of; “With age comes experience. With experience comes wisdom.” So in theory Webber should be slightly wiser in certain race situations than Seb. As illustrated in the last race at Malaysia, when Seb pitted too soon for Slicks & Mark’s timing was ‘wiser’. Allowing Webber to take the lead off Seb. In any case I’ve always felt Mark was at his peak around 2010 with the whole age, experience & wisdom combination. Yet still failed to beat an even less experienced & thus more mistake prone Seb (in comparison to today).

Probably Mark doesn’t have as much raw ability or talent as Seb. Which I accept. However I am sure there are equally other personal characteristics which might compensate (at least in part) for this. Things like his Aussie grit & determination, technical or set up ability. Fitness etc. These are all the reasons, I can think of at the moment why Mark might consider himself an underdog in comparison to Seb.

However, at the same time we must also take into consideration any advantages Mark may have over Seb. For a start it does appear to me at least, that Mark has more support than Seb within the media judging by the differences reported from BBC of what I consider essentially the same incident. As DanielPT correctly points out:

DanielPT wrote:Spot the differences from BBC:

2011 wrote:Mark Webber frustrated by team orders

2013 wrote:Sebastian Vettel ignores team orders to beat Mark Webber

'Nuff said.

Given the huge influence the press has over the way most people form their own opinions. One therefore wonders whether Mark does indeed generate more fan support than Vettel as a result. Judging by the boo’s Vettel received on the podium at Australia 2013 (can’t recall Mark ever being booed to the same extent in Germany?). Then one can certainly believe this to be the case. Especially after Malaysia 2013. Also since it appears Mark knows has to play mindgames, such as the very interesting example, you eluded to in the Pizzonia article which I shall post below for the benefit of those who haven’t yet seen it;

Journalist David Cameron has also exclusively revealed to F1 Rejects: "Pizzonia was handily beating Webber's times [in testing]; what he didn't know was that Mark was sandbagging, as he usually does with a new teammate, to lull them into a false sense of security. First session in Melbourne 2003, Webber finally applied himself and blew Antonio out of the water; he didn't know what to do after that, because he thought he had Mark's pace under control." The facts bear that out.

Source; http://www.f1rejects.com/drivers/pizzon ... raphy.html

Similarly I think is fair to say that Mark’s comments about how Seb has ‘protection’ within the Red Bull team, following Malaysia. To my mind only seem to fuel that idea within the public that Seb is a “spolit brat”. It certainly does nothing to dismiss it. So more mindgames perhaps? Since Mark appears to be good at playing mindgames, therefore one would probably expect Mark also to know how to react to them as well. Certainly much better than Vettel. Also IMO Mark’s character appears to have a thicker skin, thus able to be more resilient to such things as mindgames. Where as Seb seems to be more affected & confused by them. Maybe its an age thing, but I tend to think it is also part of their character makeup as well.

Again these are all of things I can think of off the top of my head, where Mark does have a slight advantage over Seb. So considering everything, IMO Mark does makes out he is a bit more of an “underdog” within the Redbull team then he is in actual reality. Perhaps thanks in no small part to his savy PR ability. By the way just let me know if I am going over the top with the length or detail in some of these posts here. And I will stop. However I’m kind of getting into an enjoyable flow or ‘zone’ when writing some of them.

Jocke1 wrote:
Ibsey and Enoch. Two black belt conversationalists.



The rest of us dare not interrupt.

Thanks for the compliment Jocke1. Since I am also extremely interested in reading the views of others. So would very much welcome other people to contribute to these discussions.

If I may interrupt just one second ibsey, just to point out the fact that even though Vettel doesn't really play mind games, I'm pretty sure Helmut Marko does that for him already through his criticism of Mark.

Oh, and I think Godwin's Law is now well and truly shattered.

You may carry on.

ibsey wrote: Thanks for the compliment Jocke1. Since I am also extremely interested in reading the views of others. So would very much welcome other people to contribute to these discussions.

Yes, it was nothing but a compliment. Glad you didn't take it the wrong way.
I was only wanting to point out the unusual abscence of other posters, except you two (for the most part).
It is an interesting subject, though.

http://youtu.be/5y4-RH7eBr0
Malaysian GP Sebastian Vettel vs Mark Webber (Team radio extra).


http://youtu.be/PrVaADyuAWM
Vettel vs Webber battle onboard Sepang.
Really good onboard footage. My god it was close.
At 1:49 Webber gives Vettel the middle finger.

mario wrote:With the effectiveness of that exhaust blowing reduced, and the shift in the handling balance that it produced (which lead to a slightly more unpredictable rear end), it actually ended up favouring Webber's driving technique instead (he tends to be more progressive with his throttle application). Vettel probably did work quite hard to adapt his driving style to the new exhausts, but it has to be said that his performance was in part tied into the upgrades that Red Bull introduced later in the year - especially from the European and British GP's onwards. Red Bull introduced a series of major modifications to the exhausts and sidepods aimed at improving the airflow around the rear of the sidepods and enhancing the effectiveness of the exhausts - and around that time, Vettel's competitiveness did seem to sharply increase whilst Webber seemed to slip back slightly.

Really fascinating stuff Mario. If I was to speculate as to the reason why Vettel struggled with the early 2012 spec EBD. Perhaps it was because Vettel had tailored his driving especially towards the previous year’s EBD driving technique of applying the throttle hard mid corner. To a much greater degree than Mark. Therefore he perhaps had more difficulties in coming back from that (as required for the early 2012 EBD) as a result. In other words, the practice of applying the throttle harder than you might otherwise do, might have been too ingrained into Seb’s driving which he therefore had difficulty shaking off. I mean we are only talking about small fractions. But they make the difference nonetheless.

Whereas possibly Mark, didn’t have to change his driving style, particularly his application of the throttle, as much as Seb to suit the early 2012 spec EBD. Simply because he hadn’t adapted to such an extremely level as Seb in regards to the 2011 spec EBD. Possibly because it took Mark longer to get used to the Pirellis in 2011 (in comparison to Seb), so that was his initial priority that year. Before then trying to adapt to the 2011 spec EBD. So although Mark was at a disadvantage in 2011, because of the effectiveness of the exhaust blowing was reduced as you say for 2012. That then automatically played more into the way Mark was already driving (i.e. his more progressive throttle application).

This is why I believe, generally speaking, the older drivers struggle more with adapting to new technology. Because their greater experience means, they have more habits or practices ingrained (either consciously or sub consciously) within their driving. So in effect they have more to unlearn. Before they can then start to adapt to those new technologies. Where as a young driver tends not to have to unlearn things, because they don’t have that experience. But instead younger drivers can solely focus just on the learning bit. Obviously Mark with the 2011 & 2012 EBD is an exception to this rule. Perhaps because he didn’t need to adapt as much as Seb. In effect the 2012 spec EBD had suited the way Mark had already been driving in 2011.

Perhaps also this same theory, not only applied to RBR drivers driving technique, but also the way they set their cars up as well. For instance because Seb had been setting his car up especially to suit the 2011 EBD. Again maybe this proved to be a hindrance rather than a help with the early 2012 spec EBD. So not only did Seb had to come back from this extereme. But also perhaps he then had to find & adapt to a new car setup especially tailored for the early 2012 EBD. Whereas Mark, because he hadn’t been taking his car setup to such extremes, in an effort to tailor it to the 2011 spec EBD. He therefore could use a similar car setup for the early 2012 spec EBD as well (thus meaning no having to adapt to a new car setup especially tailored towards the 2012 spec EBD).

mario wrote:Overall, therefore, I would argue that whilst Vettel has shown a certain amount of adaptability in terms of his driving style around the cars, there have also been times when, just like Webber, he has been unable to adapt his driving style around a particular feature and tended to underperform a bit until a certain upgrade helped solve the problem.

Assuming my theory above is correct, then yes although Vettel did struggle to adapt his driving style around the early 2012 spec EBD. Seb had more work to do in adapting to the new 2012 EBD’s than Mark. Perhaps regulation / technical changes do sometimes favour certain drivers over others. Whether that is by design (i.e. to disadvantage a particularly dominate driver/team...thus equalling things out a bit) or effect is perhaps a debatable matter? I do tend to think the former given, the regulation changes with came into effect in 2003. Which IIRC were specifically aimed at disadvantaging M Schumi & Ferrari, who had been fairly dominate since 2000.

I’m sure you already know this Mario, but just in case there is anyone new to this thread. I would like to point out that any suggestion that Redbull themselves have favoured their 2012 EBD updates purely to help Seb, to the disadvantage of Mark, I believe is inaccurate. Since it has already been established that RBR do provide their drivers with equal equipment and opportunities for the WDC. Just to remind you of what Christian Horner said in the interview kindly supplied by Jocke1 at 1.22 mintues (part two) a few days ago;

“...Mark knows the equipment at (his) disposal, he knows the lengths we go to ensure parity... ”

Furthermore there certainly seems to be a few examples of drivers (almost all of whom are ex WDC) all struggling to adapt their driving style initially around a either a particular feature or a new car. Here a few examples of the top of my head;

IIRC Kimi initially struggling to get used to the Bridgestone tyres when he moved to Ferrari in 2007. Yet he still when on to win that years WDC.

Also Hamilton & especially Button at Sliverstone 2010 (IIRC), I believed struggled to get used to their Mclarens new EBD initially.

Then there was JV really struggling to get use to his new Sauber (IIRC the brakes in particular) in 2005.

Damon Hill couldn’t get used to the Hand Clutch in his 1996 Williams. So preferred to use a foot clutch instead. Hence why he kept making poor starts around mid season.

How long did it take Rubens to get used to his Honda in 2006. A fairly long time IIRC.

Finally the background before the 1998 Brazilian GP;

Before the race there was a furore surrounding McLaren as Ferrari had protested about its braking system - which enabled the drivers to apply the brakes on the rear wheels independently, and thus assist both turn in to corners and traction out of them. Effectively meaning that the system was a four wheel steering device, which was banned by the FIA. McLaren announced that they would not appeal the decision. Drivers including Jacques Villeneuve and Damon Hill disliked how the device performed.[1] As a result of Ferrari's protest the team agreed not to use the system at any stage over the weekend. However team boss Ron Dennis was livid that the system had been approved on four occasions by the FIA technical delegate, Charlie Whiting, and was being declared illegal by the three stewards in office for the Brazilian Grand Prix.

Source; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Brazi ... ite_note-1

(in regards to the underlined sentence, IIRC both JV & Hill had tried a similar braking system to that of Mclaren's in testing prior to the race & simply couldn't get use to it)

I believe, generally speaking, the drivers who are able to adapt more quickly to new technology / cars tends to be the more talented drivers. So I always look upon major regulation changes like the ones coming into effect next year, as a good opportunity to assess certain driver’s true ability.

tommykl wrote:If I may interrupt just one second ibsey, just to point out the fact that even though Vettel doesn't really play mind games, I'm pretty sure Helmut Marko does that for him already through his criticism of Mark.

Oh, and I think Godwin's Law is now well and truly shattered.

You may carry on.

I did already make reference to Helmut Marko, in my last post. Although I can see it was right in the heart of my (very lengthy) post. So I appreciate it didn’t stand out. For your ease I will quote what I have said about him in my last post;

ibsey wrote:Then there is Helmut Marko, who is obviously biased towards Vettel. Again I have previously stated how everyone outside of RBR seems to know Helmut is like that, and that is just one person in a team of many 100’s of people. So I don’t think this is going to have a massive negative effect on Mark’s performances within the car (especially given Mark’s apparent character of having a ‘thick skin’). It might give him one or two more headaches in having to react to most of the BS that comes out of Helmut’s mouth. But I believe this along with the emotional inequality issue is overcome able, with a positive mindset. In my experience, life isn’t straightforward in this respect, you just have to deal with these things as best you can & forget about how unfair it might be.

I didn’t know about Godwin’s law until you mentioned it just now. Looks like I am going to lose quite a few discussions then since I often make references to WW2 (where appropriate of course). As I think it is surprising just how much one can still learn from it, like the point I was making about PR / propaganda.

ibsey wrote:I didn’t know about Godwin’s law until you mentioned it just now. Looks like I am going to lose quite a few discussions then since I often make references to WW2 (where appropriate of course). As I think it is surprising just how much one can still learn from it, like the point I was making about PR / propaganda.

The point of Godwin's Law is to illustrate that you can make points without referring to World War 2. Invoking Hitler is just so extreme that the entire point will get distorted. For example, your point about driver propaganda really gets lost when you refer to Nazi Germany since the basic underlying facts and motivations are so very different. Whether Mark Webber plays mind games or not, he's definitely not trying to kill Jews and conquer Europe; to associate Webber's alleged mind games with Nazi propaganda is to try to ascribe an evil to his actions that definitely does not exist. Godwin's Law is there to prevent people from going off the deep end in making analogies. Comparing most things in life to Nazi Germany is like trying to cut cake with a sledgehammer; it's just not appropriate.

ibsey wrote:How long did it take Rubens to get used to his Honda in 2006. A fairly long time IIRC.

I don't know about that, but I remember reading an interview in F1 Racing with Barrichello, where he talked about his early Jordan years as teammate with Irvine.
He mentioned that for the longest time he struggled with which foot he was going to brake with. He never got it right and I think I remember reading it took him around 1½- 2 seasons, before he finally decided on the correct foot and stuck to it. And that during that time he lost out hugely on lap times versus Irvine.
So I guess we can at least assume Barrichello was a slow learner?

And I think Barrichello's first year at Ferrari in 2000 was when he was mostly further behind Schumacher than he was in later years. Except when it was mixed conditions like Silverstone, Canada and Germany. There were other races like Nurburgring, Monaco, Spain, France, Japan, Belgium where he wasn't even in the same country as Schumacher.

ibsey wrote:Then there was JV really
struggling to get use to his new
Sauber (IIRC the brakes in
particular) in 2005.

Actually, it was the Sauber engineers way of setting the car up, and the cars management system that JV had trouble getting to grips with, in particular the fact that the suspension travel and brake bias would change from corner to corner, to optimise the cars handling. However, this caught out Villeneuve, who up until then was never in a car that had such a system

Jacques Villeneuve, at the Bahrain GP 2005 wrote:The car does not react to what I do but to the electronics. ... I have to try and remember how it's going to behave in each corner and after 10 laps I'm completely at sea. What's more the engineers change the settings without even telling us. The system is so complex that even they don't always know what's going on."

Tangential to the main topic I know, but just felt I'd correct ibsey there

LionZoo wrote:The point of Godwin's Law is to illustrate that you can make points without referring to World War 2. Invoking Hitler is just so extreme that the entire point will get distorted. For example, your point about driver propaganda really gets lost when you refer to Nazi Germany since the basic underlying facts and motivations are so very different. Whether Mark Webber plays mind games or not, he's definitely not trying to kill Jews and conquer Europe; to associate Webber's alleged mind games with Nazi propaganda is to try to ascribe an evil to his actions that definitely does not exist. Godwin's Law is there to prevent people from going off the deep end in making analogies. Comparing most things in life to Nazi Germany is like trying to cut cake with a sledgehammer; it's just not appropriate.

In regards to the underlined sentence, I fear you may have misunderstood me. Firstly let me make it absolutely clear that it was not my intention to associate Webber’s possible mind games with Nazi propaganda. Nor was I trying to ascribe an evil to his actions. I’m sure if you read my post again, you will see that. Instead I had included the WW2 example, as I was quite innocently trying to highlight just how powerful PR / propaganda tactics can be in fooling people into looking away from how a situation is in reality. I even said later on in my post how I wasn’t trying to knock Webber for using clever PR tactics in his battle with Seb. In fact I think it is a very wise thing to do, as realistically it the only hope he has of beating Seb IMO.

Despite being someone, who tries to always identify PR spin or propaganda, before letting them influence my own opinions. I would happily admit I was fooled up until a couple of days ago, by sympathising with Mark’s apparent “Underdog” plight within RBR (hence why I am now questioning it!). I think this is clearly proven by my previous posts within this thread (see the ones made on 28 Mar 2013, 04:12 & then on 28 Mar 2013, 07:38). For your ease, here is a couple of quotes from them;

1st post wrote:...Also by disobeying team orders now, it will ruin the reputation Mark has previously built for himself, over the last 10 years as an honest driver & team player. (obviously I said this when I had initially misunderstood Mark’s BBC article after Sliverstone 2011)...

2nd post wrote:...My Bad. Only just glanced at it & assumed it was about Webber sticking to team orders. So I had gotten completely the wrong end of the stick...In that case I take back what I said. Particularly about Webber being an honest driver & team player.

In fact part of the reason I had “gotten completely the wrong end of the stick” over that particular BBC article then was, because I was still unwittingly influenced by Mark’s "I'm the underdog" persona. So I just naturally assumed he had obeyed teamorders in that race (as was my impression at the time). But was then wronged by Seb at Malaysia 2013. There is a perfect example right there over the power of PR spin and propaganda blinding me to how the situation was in reality. Exactly the point I was trying to illustrate, in my reference to the WW2 example I previously gave. So, with this in mind it appears to me at least that particular WW2 reference was entirely appropriate. However I am happy to be proven wrong, if you feel I have missed something in all of this?

Godwin's law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Nazis...

...I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust", Godwin has written...

...Whether it applies to humorous use or references to oneself is open to interpretation, since this would not be a fallacious attack against a debate opponent....

...While falling afoul of Godwin's law tends to cause the individual making the comparison to lose their argument or credibility, Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate.[9] Similar criticisms of the "law" (or "at least the distorted version which purports to prohibit all comparisons to German crimes") have been made by Glenn Greenwald.[10]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law#cite_note-9

Just to remind you, I have not compared Mark PR tactics to the Nazi propaganda. Merely given the WW2 example to ILLUSTRATE a point I was making.

Furthermore can you think of another example (especially an F1 example) off the top of your head where PR / propaganda has fooled people into looking away from how the situation is in reality? As I couldn’t when making my last post. Sure I didn’t have to include that WW2 example at all. But I feel it was important, to illustrated the point I was trying to make, with an example, for the benefit of those who perhaps couldn’t quite grasp what I was trying to get at.

Obviously I take your point, that “Invoking Hitler is just so extreme that the entire point will get distorted”. Which I hadn’t previously considered. And in instances where WW2 examples are not appropriate then I can definitively see how Godwin Law would be applicable. However in my defence, not only did I not know about Godwin’s Law when giving that WW2 example. And in light of knowing about Godwin Law I still maintain my WW2 reference was not used inappropriately. It is fair to say that after F1/motorracing my main passion is discovering 'secrets' from WW2. In case you think I am just saying to defend myself, please see my post dated 05 Mar 2012, 09:31 within the Favorite Racing Book? Thread where I said exactly the same thing.

For your ease here is both that comment & the link from over a year ago;

Honestly. I have the book to thank, for kick starting this journey of learning about WW2 & its many hidden secrets. It is fair to say that after F1/motorracing my main passion is discovering 'secrets' from WW2. Thanks in no small part to Grand Prix Sabotuers.

Source: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4796


So asking me not to talk about WW2 ( STRICTLY when it is appropriate to do so of course) is a bit like asking me not to talk about F1. And you can see from the length of some of my posts how much I enjoy talking about F1. Furthermore as previously eluded to, I feel it is not only amazing how much we can still learn from WW2 (like learning just how easily PR / propaganda can influence your opinion & learning to identify instances when that does happen). But I also feel is it important not to forget about WW2, out of respect for those who bravely gave up their lives so we can enjoy certain things like freedom of speech. Things that can easily be taken for granted today.

However I think, purely in the interests of not wishing to offend, or be taken out of context, or invoke strong negative feelings within people here. As you suggest, perhaps it is just better to make points over the internet without referring to World War 2. Since it can easily be taken the wrong way by people who do know you or your innocent intentions. Which I feel is a massive shame, but I guess that’s the sort of world we live in today. At the risk of going way off-topic with this. I would like to refer you to a few quotes which explain the reason I feel it is a massive shame, much better than I ever could;

it’s “time to repeal Godwin’s Law” — at least the distorted version which purports to prohibit all comparisons to German crimes

Kevin (Drum) adds: ”WWII analogies are extremely useful because they’re familiar to almost everyone.” I (Glenn Greenwald) agree: the very notion that a major 20th Century event like German aggression is off-limits in political discussions is both arbitrary and anti-intellectual in the extreme... There simply are instances where such comparisons uniquely illuminate important truths... To demand that German crimes be treated as sacred and unmentionable is to deprive our discourse of critical truths.

It’s not hyperbole to say that “Godwin’s Law” — at least as neocon ideologues have come to distort it — negates the central purpose of what was done at Nuremberg. We were supposed to learn from and apply those principles to ourselves, not adopt a Code of Silence with regard to them.

Source: http://www.salon.com/2010/07/01/godwin/

...Why are Nazi metaphors always out of bounds?
It wasn't always thus....

...Although "Godwin's Law" was initially conceived as a physical constant rather than a guide to good behavior, it was quickly adopted as a social rule, with general agreement that the guy who fell back on a Hitler analogy had lost the argument....

...The rules of snippy online debates, though, are nothing compared to public discourse...

Source: http://reason.com/archives/2005/07/14/hands-off-hitler



Finally last but by no means least, the inappropriate application of Godwin Law appears to me, to be undoing one of the key things all those brave WW2 allied soilders & personnel fought to maintain. Freedom of speech.

ibsey wrote:I didn’t know about Godwin’s law until you mentioned it just now. Looks like I am going to lose quite a few discussions then since I often make references to WW2 (where appropriate of course).

I hope this attempt at a joke hasn’t offended anyone. Since I made it around 2am in the morning, when I was REALLY tired, just before going to bed. So I accept I didn’t perhaps think of every implication this attempt at a joke may have, particularly on those who might be easily offended.

Jocke1 wrote:

ibsey wrote:How long did it take Rubens to get used to his Honda in 2006. A fairly long time IIRC.

I don't know about that, but I remember reading an interview in F1 Racing with Barrichello, where he talked about his early Jordan years as teammate with Irvine.
He mentioned that for the longest time he struggled with which foot he was going to brake with. He never got it right and I think I remember reading it took him around 1½- 2 seasons, before he finally decided on the correct foot and stuck to it. And that during that time he lost out hugely on lap times versus Irvine.
So I guess we can at least assume Barrichello was a slow learner?

Thanks for that info Jocke1. Yes I also vaguely recall a story like this as well. To which I mentioned within the Ridiculous Excuses thread (see my post dated 08 Oct 2012, 14:53) For your ease I will quote what I said below;

Barrichello around 1995 was finding F1 more of a struggle than his teammate Eddie Irvine. Obviously part of the problem was the death of his mentor & friend Senna. However I believe Barrichello later said (around 1996 IIRC) that sometimes when driving he was accidentally resting his left foot on the brake pedal. Makes you wonder in the races where he spun out because of a ‘soft’ brake pedal like Brazil 1996, whether it was self inflicted or not?

Source: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4030&p=210045&hilit=ridiculous+excuses#p210045

Since that story came purely from a very hazy recollection of something I heard at the time, It may or may not be correctly. But it certainly sounds like something was iffy with Barrichello's braking around this time?

Jocke1 wrote:

(BTW I love this Seb picture at the top of this page. It still makes me laugh. Even after seing it a few times)

takagi_for_the_win wrote:

ibsey wrote:Then there was JV really
struggling to get use to his new
Sauber (IIRC the brakes in
particular) in 2005.

Actually, it was the Sauber engineers way of setting the car up, and the cars management system that JV had trouble getting to grips with, in particular the fact that the suspension travel and brake bias would change from corner to corner, to optimise the cars handling. However, this caught out Villeneuve, who up until then was never in a car that had such a system

Jacques Villeneuve, at the Bahrain GP 2005 wrote:The car does not react to what I do but to the electronics. ... I have to try and remember how it's going to behave in each corner and after 10 laps I'm completely at sea. What's more the engineers change the settings without even telling us. The system is so complex that even they don't always know what's going on."

Tangential to the main topic I know, but just felt I'd correct ibsey there

Once again thanks for the clarification. You learn something new every day as they say. The reason I thought it was something to do with the brakes was because in the 2005 F1 season review DVD, when JV spun out of one of the early races (IIRC I think it might have been Malaysia) he said something about having trouble 'locking the rears' if he pushed too hard when it came to braking. Again this is all from memory.

ibsey wrote:Just thought of another really interesting point regarding this. Could this theory, along with the idea of emotional inequality towards one driver within a team adversely affecting their performance (like Mark at Red Bull or DC at Mclaren) be disproven by how Jenson managed to overcome the ‘Lewis’ factor at Mclaren?

Hard to say, consider how Jenson may have done under Ron Dennis with his man Lewis as favourite.
Ron has gone and it seemed like the team was very happy with Jenson, so much so that Lewis left.
Now if Marko wasn't at red bull, how much happier and supported would Webber feel? Would Button have performed worse or the same if Dennis was still running the show favouring Hamilton?
Dennis brought Lewis into the team, but Dennis left. Marko brought Vettel into the team, and Marko is still there. You can't compare Button and Webber in that regard.