Grand Prix Rejects

pablo_h wrote:

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.

Interesting point. Firstly can we really compare Ron with Helmut Marko? For a start I can’t ever recall Ron publicly slating Mclaren’s 2nd driver, Heikki in 2008? Nor can I ever recall any stories of Heikki saying that Lewis has protection within the team (referring to Ron), or indeed any stories suggesting a simliar type of dispute or rift between Ron & Hekki in 2008? However I can recall that Ron & Lewis were especially careful to welcome Heikki to the team in 2008. And ensure there was peace & harmony between those two teammates. Particularly after the whole Alonso/Hamilton & Mclaren situation in 2007.

Secondly Ron left the Mclaren team, after the Liegate affair at Australia 2009? (IIRC). So based on your theory, Heikki’s performances in comparison to Lewis, should have dramatically increased thereafter. Whereas I off the top of my head (i.e. without checking the results), it seems to me that in actually fact the opposite was true. Lewis won a few races whereas I am struggling to think of any races where Heikki got onto the podium in mid/late 2009? So based on this you have to assume Button would have performed equally well at Mclaren even if Ron was still there.

Whilst it is true that at Germany 2009, Heikki’s car was slightly inferior to Lewis. I believe this situation was comparable to RBR ‘front wing gate’ of Sliverstone 2010. In that it was a one off situation, where the team had only one set of updates available for the race. So it was a perfectly understandable allocation of resources, to give Lewis who had well & truly beaten Heikki in 2008 & probably up until that point in 2009 (again without having checked the stats) the slightly better package for that particular race. Had the roles had been reversed (i.e. Heikki was beating Lewis) then there is no doubt in my mind, Heikki would have gotten the updates instead.


Finally don't forget, Ron hasn't actually left Mclaren. As far as I am aware he has simply moved over to the Road car production side of the business. So I'm sure if he had started a culture of favouring Lewis at Mclaren over the 2nd driver, when Ron was running the race team. Then it seems likely to me, Ron would have ensured this would have stilled have continued even after Ron left the racing side of the business. So all of these facts are, unfortunately inconsistent with your theory.

In regards to the question of if Marko wasn’t at RBR how much happier & supported would Webber feel?

This is the 4th time I’ve posted this here now here but I am still of the opinion from my previous posts which is...

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.

If you are not in agreement with this opinion of my, therefore perhaps you could kindly explain why?

Interesting you continually refer to Heikki and Hamilton, when Heikki wasn't a threat, wasn't winning races, and ignore the period when Alonso was at Mclaren except saying it was a situation that maybe made them tread more carefully when Heikki came into the team.
How can you compare Heikki to Webber? One was happy to do OK, the other had a shot at WDC and wins a race every now and again which seems to annoy the team because it wasn't Vettel. One team has a championship winning car, the other didn't.
One man in a team of hundreds, yes Ron Dennis was that, but he set the scene and mood, and controlled the hundreds.
Of course I know Ron still is at McLaren and even is there on some race days, that's insulting to have someone thinking they have to remind me of that.

i just wondered how well Button would do in McLaren under Dennis when he was besting Hamilton. Maybe as hostile as enviroment as Webber at RB, but Button maybe would be stronger, less temper tantrums than Webber? Maybe not as good as he did end up in the Whitmarsh era because things would get to him, bad calls made in order to benefit Hamilton, who knows? Point was you can't compare Webber to Button as one team lost the guy who brought in their protege, the other team still has the guiy calling the shots.

ibsey wrote:Whilst it is true that at Germany 2009, Heikki’s car was slightly inferior to Lewis. I believe this situation was comparable to RBR ‘front wing gate’ of Sliverstone 2010. In that it was a one off situation, where the team had only one set of updates available for the race. So it was a perfectly understandable allocation of resources, to give Lewis who had well & truly beaten Heikki in 2008 & probably up until that point in 2009 (again without having checked the stats) the slightly better package for that particular race. Had the roles had been reversed (i.e. Heikki was beating Lewis) then there is no doubt in my mind, Heikki would have gotten the updates instead.

There was another situation of McLaren giving a different specification car to Hamilton than Heikki shortly after that race, which was at the European GP - McLaren modified the front suspension layout to increase the wheelbase slightly, with Hamilton getting the version with the revised wheelbase and Heikki the non modified version. That said, IIRC Heikki did say that he was actually happier using the older specification car rather than the new car, and IIRC Hamilton reverted back to the older specification fairly quickly, also saying that he preferred the handling of the older car, so in that instance the upgrade seems to have been more of a hindrance than a help.

pablo_h wrote:Interesting you continually refer to Heikki and Hamilton, when Heikki wasn't a threat, wasn't winning races, and ignore the period when Alonso was at Mclaren except saying it was a situation that maybe made them tread more carefully when Heikki came into the team.
How can you compare Heikki to Webber? One was happy to do OK, the other had a shot at WDC and wins a race every now and again which seems to annoy the team because it wasn't Vettel. One team has a championship winning car, the other didn't.
One man in a team of hundreds, yes Ron Dennis was that, but he set the scene and mood, and controlled the hundreds.
Of course I know Ron still is at McLaren and even is there on some race days, that's insulting to have someone thinking they have to remind me of that.

i just wondered how well Button would do in McLaren under Dennis when he was besting Hamilton. Maybe as hostile as enviroment as Webber at RB, but Button maybe would be stronger, less temper tantrums than Webber? Maybe not as good as he did end up in the Whitmarsh era because things would get to him, bad calls made in order to benefit Hamilton, who knows? Point was you can't compare Webber to Button as one team lost the guy who brought in their protege, the other team still has the guiy calling the shots.

Whilst the emotional ties that Ron had with Hamilton would probably cloud the situation, at the same time that would be counterbalanced by his affection for the team and what would be best for it. Button has worked hard to integrate himself within the team, and Ron does seem to take the attitude that, if you are loyal to the team, then the team will in turn be loyal to you - there were the comments he made to the Financial Times that he asked of his team members that “You cut yourself, you bleed McLaren", which came very shortly after Hamilton had departed for Mercedes.

Maybe it would take much longer, but I think that, given enough time, Button would probably have found a way to ingratiate himself with Ron - perhaps he'd still be in Hamilton's shade a little, but I think that he'd have found a way of generating support for himself within the team.

pablo_h wrote:Interesting you continually refer to Heikki and Hamilton, when Heikki wasn't a threat, wasn't winning races, and ignore the period when Alonso was at Mclaren except saying it was a situation that maybe made them tread more carefully when Heikki came into the team.

The reason I did so, was because 2007 was an extremely unusual year for Mclaren (or indeed any team), the way the team self imploded. So to use that year as an example I though would be wrong and unscientific. I thought that was obvious. Where as 2008 was much more of a typically year for Mclaren. However If you do want to go down the route of looking into 2007, then way I see things, it only provides further evidence against your claims. Firstly in the final race, the FIA appointed a steward to ensure driver equality within Mclaren. Since they were both fighting for the WDC. Yet that FIA appointed steward failed to find any hint of driver inequality (either equipment or otherwise) as far as I am aware.

Then if Ron favoured Lewis over Alonso in 2007, as you imply. Then perhaps you would like to explain to me, why then did Mclaren pit Lewis early in Monaco 2007, thus ensuring that Lewis finished 2nd behind his teammate Alonso. Rather than allowing Lewis to put in those extra few laps on low fuel & possibly challenge Alonso for the victory?

After the race, FIA launched an investigation of the McLaren team for giving out team orders, to the effect of asking Hamilton not to attempt to race or overtake Alonso.[5] Ecclestone said McLaren "could be excluded from the championship or they could have points deducted".[6] McLaren were later cleared of any wrongdoing by the FIA.[7]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Monaco_Grand_Prix


EDIT; Equally please can you also explain why Hamilton was given teamorders to let Alonso pass in Q3 at Hungary 2007. Which Hamilton then ignore which then led to 'pitlane gate'

Controversy hit the qualifying sessions when Alonso held Hamilton up in the pit lane, denying Hamilton a chance to record a final lap time. Stewards later dropped Alonso five places down the starting grid of the race, putting him in sixth while Hamilton started in pole position. McLaren were also told they would lose any Constructor's Championship points they win in the race and wouldn't be presented with a winning constructor's trophy on the podium if one of their drivers were to win the race. The team stated Hamilton's hold-up was not Alonso's fault (although Alonso gave the stewards a different explanation, that he was inquiring about his tyres[3]), and that Hamilton had disobeyed team orders to let Alonso pass him, which put the two drivers out of sequence for their pit stops.[4] McLaren had initially expressed their intent to appeal the Constructor's points penalty but ultimately withdrew their appeal after subsequently losing all their Constructor's points as penalty for the espionage scandal.

Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Hungarian_Grand_Prix

pablo_h wrote:How can you compare Heikki to Webber?

I would say very easily in actual fact. Take 2007 for instance. Both Hekki & Webber had Renualt powered cars. Heikki finished the year on 30 points 9 points ahead of his teammate Fisico. So Heikki managed to outscore Fisico by 30%. Where as Webber finished the year on 10 points, 4 points behind his teammate DC. So DC outscored Webber by 29%. So Heikki in his rookie season, massively outscored his teammate. Whereas DC massively outscored Webber. Those are the facts.

Would you still suggest that Webber is vastly superior to Heikki?

pablo_h wrote:One was happy to do OK, the other had a shot at WDC and wins a race every now and again which seems to annoy the team because it wasn't Vettel. One team has a championship winning car, the other didn't.

In the an interview on the BBC F1 forum after Brazil 2011, Heikki admitted that during his time at Mclaren he thought it was better to accept the engineers advice on car setup, rather than work on developing his own. Thats the reason he didn’t perform at Mclaren. Obviously since leaving Mclaren, he has developed hugely as a driver in this regard. Can you point me towards an interview or indeed any further evidence that prove Heikki was ‘just happy to do OK’ at Mclaren? Also Heikki had a championship winning car in 2008.

As for the comment referring to Webber. Again can you provide any evidence to back your claim up that the team seems annoyed when Webber wins? I mean you only have to look at the last race to see that the RBR team gave team orders to allow Mark to win that race. Care to comment why they might do that if they are "annoyed" when Webber wins?

Just to remind you for the 4th time 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... ”

pablo_h wrote:One man in a team of hundreds, yes Ron Dennis was that, but he set the scene and mood, and controlled the hundreds.

Whereas does Helmut Marko do that, when Christian Horner is team principle?

pablo_h wrote:Of course I know Ron still is at McLaren and even is there on some race days, that's insulting to have someone thinking they have to remind me of that.

I’m sorry you find that insulting, but how can I possibly know how much F1 knowledge you have or not?

pablo_h wrote:i just wondered how well Button would do in McLaren under Dennis when he was besting Hamilton. Maybe as hostile as enviroment as Webber at RB, but Button maybe would be stronger, less temper tantrums than Webber?

I agree with you in that Button would be stronger & less temper tantrums than Webber. As I have previously stated;

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.

And I think this is not only the reason why Button has succeeded in overcoming the Lewis factor at Mclaren. But also perhaps this is part of the reason why Button has won a WDC & Webber has not. As I am sure you are aware, Button & Webber were considered to be of broadly equal ability prior to 2009 (& possibly even afterwards depending on some peoples views?). However since then, Webber has had more cars capable of winning a WDC than Button. Yet it is Button who has a WDC to his name & beaten (and the following year even equalled) their respective team’s golden child. I would largely put that down to a more positive mindset on Jenson’s behalf.

pablo_h wrote:Maybe not as good as he did end up in the Whitmarsh era because things would get to him, bad calls made in order to benefit Hamilton, who knows? Point was you can't compare Webber to Button as one team lost the guy who brought in their protege, the other team still has the guiy calling the shots.

Again I would ask the question does Helmut Marko call things like the RBR team strategy during races? So does he really call the shots? Also perhaps you would be so kind as to enlighten me into an example where Lewis teammate had had to endure a bad call purely to benefit Hamilton (excluding those perfectly understandable times when it was late in a season & Hamilton was in the title hunt whereas his teammate wasn't...as this would happen in any team as I am sure you are aware).

Given all of these questions & and the lack of facts you have provided to support your claims. Broadly speaking I still feel the Webber / Button comparison is a valid one. Obviously not every single detail is going to be exact, nevertheless still seems comparable. You are more than welcome to prove me wrong provided you back you claims up with facts or supporting evidence. As I have done above. BTW I completely agree (as usual) with Mario’s last comment on Button in a Ron Dennis Mclaren. And would suggest that any possible emotional inequality would have easily been overcome able by Button’s positive mindset. Just as he has shown in a post Ron Dennis Mclaren.

...It was around Lap 26/27 that Vettel uttered his dismissive "Mark is too slow, get him out of the way," which sounded exactly like the kind of thing that a 'protected' spoilt boy would say. But the lap times show that Mark was only five laps into his stint on the mediums, could have gone faster, and was backing Vettel up into the two Mercedes. If his intent was to try and run as slowly as possible on a faster tyre than Vettel, then the logical thing would have been to let Vettel through as their strategies were different. Vettel had proved in the first stint that he could make the medium tyre last longer, so why wasn't he let through?

Autosport's Mark Hughes believes that Webber was backing Vettel into the cars behind, just as he had been before their infamous clash in Turkey in 2010. Vettel was irate at not being allowed to run his true pace - because his engineer was soon on the radio telling him not to follow too close in the fast corners - and also aware that the two cars behind him were running on his pace and not Webber's....

...As a result of dropping back close to the Mercedes, Vettel fell behind Lewis Hamilton at the next round of pit-stops. Webber didn't. As we subsequently found out, Lewis Hamilton was hugely overdrawn on his fuel balance to be in that position and had to go into serious fuel-saving mode, but Webber didn't know that. Webber may have thought that he'd successfully pushed his team-mate back a place.

Mark says he was asked to turn the engine down after the final pit-stop, so when did he do it? Probably not between the exit of the pitlane and the apex of Turn 1. In interviews after the race Mark seemed to be suggesting that his engine was turned down and he was cruising, but he wasn't cruising until Vettel had passed him. If that had been the case, what would be the point of veering across in front of Vettel and trying to pin him against the pitwall down the straight if he knew Vettel had DRS and Webber's engine was turned down...?

As other people have suggested - a lot of this goes back to the World Championship conclusion of 2012 when Webber acted anything but a team-mate - as Andrew Davies noted in the Winners and Losers column after the Brazilian GP.

Christian Horner must have been on auto-pilot/auto-quote after the race when he called Mark Webber a great team player. It's hard to know what help he was at the start when he moved across and blocked Vettel's line, forcing him to give up places to Alonso and Hulkenberg. That was the one thing he had to do, make sure Seb got a clean get away and he blocked him. It's not like he didn't know Vettel was going to be there.

Then on the re-start after the Safety Car he attacked his team-mate into Turn 1 and put him under the kind of pressure he really didn't need...
Horner smiled for the cameras, but the full force of anger at Webber's behaviour that day was stored up by Red Bull's special advisor Helmut Marko and unleashed in his withering appraisal of Webber's ability to withstand pressure in the Red Bull house magazine.

Webber himself isn't immune to ignoring team orders either. At Silverstone in 2011 Fernando Alonso was cruising to an easy win, followed home by Vettel and a closing-fast Mark Webber (who had just overtaken a fuel-saving Lewis Hamilton). The team told him to hold P3 and he ignored their instruction and went for the second place. Vettel held him off.

This is just some of the background to Vettel's decision to ignore team orders and snatch a win from his team-mate. Had the two collided then it would have been Vettel's fault. On the surface it looked like the action of an arrogant driver who is above the rules set down by the team. In reality it's a lot more complex and there may have been provocations that - without access to the Red Bull strategy for the Malaysian GP - gave Vettel the sense of entitlement that he clearly felt. There is no question that he was in the wrong and that he shouldn't have risked so much so early in the season. But it looks like there were extenuating circumstances.

Mark Webber may have lost the race but very craftily - he's won the aftermath.

Source: http://www.planetf1.com/editorial/86096 ... ng-Vettel-

Here is not only yet further evidence that Webber likes to play head games with Seb (i.e. backing him up into the Mercs). But given the way Mark’s has been playing the press in the aftermath of the race, i.e. like making out he is the 'underdog' within the team since how Seb has ‘protection’ (which actually has proven not to be the case, since Seb had to apologise to the whole team). Thus seemly fueling the idea within the public that Seb is a “spolit brat”. Whislt Mark appears to ignore his own hypocrisy from Sliverstone 2011 when interviewed by Lee Mckenzie on the BBC. Or as the above article said, 'in interviews after the race Mark seemed to be suggesting that his engine was turned down and he was cruising, but he wasn't cruising until Vettel had passed him'. etc.

All of this PR spin by Mark initially after Malaysia 2013, meant most people (including myself I am happy to admit) were so consumed with anger towards what Vettel had done, perhaps some of these "extenuating circumstances" had been overlooked. Exactly the point I was have been eluding to, about how good PR can fool people into looking away from how the situation is in reality.

I mean just look at the way Vettel has been scolded for his outburst of "get him out of the way, he is too slow.". From the above article, it appears Seb was well within his right to say that comment during the race. Then there was the small matter of Seb trying to apologise immediately after the race. Which most people thought was fake because they were perhaps slightly blinded by Seb's appartent 'spolit brat' image. As I previously said, I'm sure it was genuine. Perhaps it appeared fake because Seb was so confused over the reaction he recieved in Malaysia 2013, in comparison to the reaction (or lack of it!) Mark had previously recieved when disobeying teamorders in Sliverstone 2011 or Brazil 2012.

It is an interesting suggestion from Hughes, although at the same time I have a little reservation about his assumption that Webber was intentionally backing Vettel up into the two Mercedes drivers and trying to put Vettel back a place given the problems Mercedes had with their fuel strategy.

Most of the teams do tap into the race commentary feeds because radio messages have to go out unencrypted, and there is the option on Sky to get access to more radio traffic than normal (Kravitz noted that Red Bull actually have a button on their pit wall specifically for that purpose), so to a certain extent the teams would have an idea of how the races of other drivers were panning out.
From that, Red Bull probably would have been aware quite early on that both Mercedes drivers, and Hamilton in particular, were in trouble with their fuel usage - Hamilton was being asked to try to save fuel very early on in the race (I think that the first message went out to Hamilton as early as lap 15, with Rosberg getting a similar fuel consumption warning a lap or two later), and I think that Ross Brawn sent another message to Hamilton a few laps later advising him to try lifting and coasting in certain sections of the track to save more fuel.

Now, it is unlikely that Red Bull would not have told their drivers about that, as it would indicate to them that Hamilton and Rosberg would probably fall back during the latter stages of the race. Webber might have hoped to back Vettel up behind Hamilton, true, but he would have also probably known that he would be unlikely to stay there for long given the amount of radio traffic from Mercedes to its drivers to moderate their pace.

Still, though, I do agree that there is an argument that could be made that, in hindsight and with more details emerging, that the picture is more complex and perhaps not quite so favourable towards Mark when the context of some of his actions are considered. As you say, in some ways Mark is perhaps more adept at utilising the press than some might have given him credit for, so the picture that is emerging is perhaps more favourable towards him than is the case.

mario wrote:Now, it is unlikely that Red Bull would not have told their drivers about that, as it would indicate to them that Hamilton and Rosberg would probably fall back during the latter stages of the race. Webber might have hoped to back Vettel up behind Hamilton, true, but he would have also probably known that he would be unlikely to stay there for long given the amount of radio traffic from Mercedes to its drivers to moderate their pace.

Am I correct in thinking that the RBR team order of, which ever driver was ahead in the final stint, would be allowed to stay there via team orders (at least in theory). Was actually decided before the race? If so, Mark probably had this thought largely occupying his mind also when he was apparently backing Seb into the Mercs. Anything he could to distrupt Seb's race before that crucial final pitstop. Would obviously therefore mean RBR team orders would then come into play in his favour.

During the race, when Seb made that comment of "Mark is too, slow get him out of the way". IIRC Rocky (Seb's race engineer) replied with something along the lines of "only half race distance, Seb". Seemly in an effort to calm Seb down. I might be reading too much into this, but Rocky's reply does seem to suggest both RBR drivers were more than aware that team orders would kick in during that final stint.

Also when Mark was backing up Seb (for whatever reason) could Red Bull have anticipated just how critical the Mercedes fuel situation was going to be? So might it have been possible RBR felt that Mercedes were saving fuel in the mid part of the race, in order to attack during the latter stages. When I believe it was widely felt that RBR would be in trouble with their tyres?

Of course we can only speculate on these things until further evidence emerges. Nevertheless I just thought I’d put these ideas out there as well.

A bit earlier in the thread it was mentioned that Mark might leave RB.

Probably very unlikely, but i also wonder if he'd really ever want to leave. Yes Vettel gets the calls that almost ensure Mark can not finish higher than 2nd in the championship, but that doesn't mean he cannot win or even push Vettel very hard in the WDC.

What other team could give Webber a car that is capable of that? He may hate the atmosphere sometimes, but only sometimes. Leaving RB also means saying goodbye to what is very much a Newey rocket that he and Vettel are can usually score 1-2 in. He's not that young anymore but is still very much capable (and as if on queue, once Vettel moaned that he's too slow, Webber promptly opened up a gap), problem is no cars nearly as competitive are available.

Mercedes is on/off and they have Lewis and Rosberg, neither of which would leave the team. Rosberg is doing well there and grabbed that first win, plus he's German and that would probably be desirable to the team.
McLaren is usually good enough to come close but not close enough, so it's not an improvement. They also have a veteran and young gun pair there, so it's unlikely that Webber could replace either.
Ferrari pretty much consistantly show that they have no clue how a rocketship is built anymore. Besides, that's Fernando's patch. Alonso/Webber would be an interesting pairing, as they both seem to do well when up against it. That would shove Felipe aside, and i think that there's something about that driver that Ferrari need as a team. And he can threaten Alonso just enough.
Lotus then. Well, that's Kimi's turf, and even though Grosjean is probably incurable the same way that Pastor is, i still don't see Webber fitting there. Besides, the car may be good on a given day, but probably not good enough.

Is there any team i missed? Where would Mark want to go? If he wants to stay in F1, then his Red Bull is the best car to have, even if it can't beat Vettel's. Fair enough i think, because Vettel is just about the better driver anyway, though he may not be winning any popularity contests right now.

Webber's also effectively been in that team ever since 2003, but for his Williams sojourn.

So, following the Hamilton logic, Webber will never be a real champion's number 2 until he's been a champion's number 2 at more than one team.

Sublime_FA11C wrote:Leaving RB also means saying goodbye to what is very much a Newey rocket that he and Vettel are can usually score 1-2 in.

That reminds me of Barrichello, and what according to him was the reason he stayed at Ferrari for so long.

I agree that driving the best car is, naturally, desirable. But ..if you can't beat the sister car. Coming home in 2nd place is really enough? or is it better to try and sometimes beat a better driver when your car is faster on a given weekend?
I think I'd rather go for the second option... Though that means admitting the other guy is in fact better than you.

Coming back to Barrichello, back then had he gone to Williams or McLaren, he might've beaten Schumacher more often than staying at Ferrari.

I'd still argue that it's the car he can achieve most in. That's why it's not a good idea to leave, if the reason is that he can't go higher than 2nd because Vettel gets all the breaks (startegy calls are really the worst, because Webber seemingly has to win twice in one race). No other car can cosistently match the Red Bull and even if occasionally one could, Webber would have to aclimatise to the new team first, assuming he could get in.

Honestly, that "sister car" is the best one he can have. And for all the RB favouritism... well, they do back the right driver afterall, sorry Mark. In 2010, they gave him as much as they were ever going to, and he didn't quite make it. It's not right that i write this about him, but ...

As for Rubinho... well he just couldn't accept his fate. Schumacher got all the backing, testing time, luck (quite a lot of it) and gave the team direction in development. Again, Ferrari backed the right driver, or does anyone think Rubens would ever collect all those points/wins/records if he got Schumi's treatment?

Sublime_FA11C wrote:Again, Ferrari backed the right driver, or does anyone think Rubens would ever collect all those points/wins/records if he got Schumi's treatment?

I reckon that any competant driver, given that sort of treatment, would be capable of decent results.

Sublime_FA11C wrote:Again, Ferrari backed the right driver, or does anyone think Rubens would ever collect all those points/wins/records if he got Schumi's treatment?

Rubens was number 2 for a reason. He was simply not as good as Schumacher, and there are few drivers that have ever lived that could say they are/were.

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:

Sublime_FA11C wrote:Again, Ferrari backed the right driver, or does anyone think Rubens would ever collect all those points/wins/records if he got Schumi's treatment?

Rubens was number 2 for a reason. He was simply not as good as Schumacher, and there are few drivers that have ever lived that could say they are/were.

But if Schumacher was always being asked to move aside for Rubens... Would be an interesting alternative championship if every race where Schumi and Rubens finished in consecutive positions, how the championship would be affected if Rubens was always ahead?

Sublime_FA11C wrote: Yes Vettel gets the calls that almost ensure Mark can not finish higher than 2nd in the championship, but that doesn't mean he cannot win or even push Vettel very hard in the WDC.

Sublime_FA11C wrote:That's why it's not a good idea to leave, if the reason is that he can't go higher than 2nd because Vettel gets all the breaks (startegy calls are really the worst, because Webber seemingly has to win twice in one race).

I still don’t subscribe to this view that somehow Webber is handicapped at RBR through unfair breaks or strategy calls which favour Seb etc. I mean if Mark is supposedly as good as Seb, however it is just unfair breaks or strategy hampering Mark in the races. Then perhaps you could kindly explain to me why isn’t Mark outqualifying Seb more often then? Since in qualifying strategy doesn’t usually come into play (expect for exceptional circumstances like those rare wet/dry quail sessions etc).

If you read my numerous previous posts on the matter over the last week or so, you will see that whilst I acknowledge there is a lack of emotional parity within Red Bull, in Seb’s favour (as I said before it’s the way humans work). I struggle to believe that this however translates into any unfair breaks or strategy calls favouring Seb over Mark within races. Furthermore I have put forward numerous arguments, facts & evidence all showing Mark is getting equal treatment within the RBR team. Just to remind you, things like the fact that Seb started beating Mark as soon as he joined RBR in early 2009. When Mark had already been with the team for 2 years prior. So Seb should have been considered the new boy within the RBR team in early 2009 (just like Perez is currently within Mclaren). And therefore was unlikely to have been given any preferential treatment over Mark that early on. Yet Seb beat Mark consistently, by a margin which is not dissimilar to the same margin today.

Or the comparable example of Button overcoming the ‘Lewis factor’ at Mclaren. Thus showing us that if a ‘supposedly No.2’ driver within a team, has the correct mindset & is capable enough then any emotional inequality within a team, should not hamper that driver from beating the team’s ‘golden boy’. Or the Christian Horner quote in the last week, which I have repeated 4 times already now in my previous posts. Yet those who say Mark is being unfairly disadvantage at RBR continently seem to want to ignore. What does you suggestions therefore imply about Mark then? Is he two faced for saying one thing to the team... Or even the way the RBR team allowed Mark to fight for the WDC in 2010, even though it could have cost RBR their first drivers championship. Surely they wouldn’t have done that if Seb was / is given preferential treatment over Mark? I even remember the BBC commentators & interviewers question the logic of letting the two RBR drivers (especially Mark) go for the WDC in Brazil 2010. I say especially Mark because IIRC, even though Webber was leading the WDC at Brazil 2010 his WDC form was fading in comparison to Alonso & certainly Seb.

I ask the question; can you provide any evidence to back your claim up that the RBR team are giving ‘Vettel the calls or breaks, that almost ensure Mark can not finish higher than 2nd in the WDC?’ I mean you only have to look at the last race to see that the RBR team gave team orders to allow Mark to win that race. Care to comment why they might do that if Seb is supposed to get all the calls & breaks?

I am sure you are aware that team orders are now allowed in F1. So if RBR did indeed want to favour Seb over Mark, as you seem to suggest. Then there is absolutely no reason RBR should want to hide it whatsoever. At the end of the day they pay the drivers, so they can demand (at least in theory) what order they finish in. Furthermore, the RBR team could have quite easily have gotten Seb out in front of Mark, much more discreetly during that final stint. Than they did in reality, should they have wanted to (as you seem to imply). Simply by delaying Mark’s final pitstop, only by 1 second or so, meaning Mark would have re-joined the race just behind Seb in that final stint. Therefore ensuring none of the on track fighting between RBR teammates would have therefore occurred subsequently. Thereby with the added benefit of avoiding a massive potential risk for the RBR team in the process. Instead and to the RBR team’s credit, they gave Mark IIRC the 2nd fastest pitstop of that race, meaning Mark got out just in front of Seb & should have benefited from team orders as a result.

So for me these facts are not consistent with the idea that the lack of emotional parity within Red Bull means Mark is treated like a no.2 within RBR racing.

Sublime_FA11C wrote:If he wants to stay in F1, then his Red Bull is the best car to have, even if it can't beat Vettel's. Fair enough i think, because Vettel is just about the better driver anyway, though he may not be winning any popularity contests right now.

I agree with you on this. Again if you read through my previous posts you should find I had already given my thoughts on this matter already. Which to remind you, is Mark’s best bet of beating Seb is to continue to play mindgames, similar to Pironi v Villeneuve in 1982. Since I believe Mark cannot compete with Seb in terms of pure speed (expect for maybe at certain tracks like Brazil & possibly Monaco). Instead Webber should do whatever it takes to try & destabilise Vettel so Seb can’t utilise his natural speed advantage. So in addition to the mindgames, Mark should keep trying to spin PR in his favour as he his currently doing. Like trying to make out that he is the underdog, and that RBR favour Seb & that Seb is a ‘Spolit brat’ etc. BTW none of which I actually believe, but the majority of the public seem to have fallen for Mark’s PR spin, hook line & sinker. Furthermore Mark should look towards things like implementing better strategy calls at races than Seb (which should have won him Malaysia). Especially since Mark has greater F1 experience than Seb. And the current RBR tyre situation.

Furthermore Mark should try to score points more consistently then Vettel (the way Jody beat Gilles to the 1979 WDC), although this will be tough since Vettel tends to be much less error prone than he was 3/4 years ago. Maybe also Mark can work harder than Seb to adapt to new RBR updates & developments. But again this will be tough, not least because Seb is younger than Mark (again read my previous posts for a full explanation).

Honestly the likelyhood of Mark beating Vettel seems quite remote to me, but staying with RBR defiantly seems like his best chance nevertheless. I mentioned in the Ponderbox thread I do think this is Mark’s final season in F1, which I still stand by. So perhaps this is Marks last shot at a WDC. Can’t see Mark wanting to step down from a ‘Newey rocket’ as you put it. Nor can I see another top team wanting to invest a seat in a good (but not amazing) 37 year old driver. Just my 2 cents on the matter though.

IceG wrote:So, following the Hamilton logic, Webber will never be a real champion's number 2 until he's been a champion's number 2 at more than one team.

Please could you kindly clarify what you mean?

I was being ironic. The suggestion that a driver would prefer to be a definite number two in a team because it has the best change of him coming second in the championship seems the antithesis of Webber. He may not be as fast as Hamilton, as able to drive a poor car as Alonso or as single-minded as Vettel but he surely hasn't written off his desire to be WDC. As the teams get closer at the top and the rules even out the cars' performances he surely would be a contender in any of the other top four teams.

IceG wrote:I was being ironic. The suggestion that a driver would prefer to be a definite number two in a team because it has the best change of him coming second in the championship seems the antithesis of Webber. He may not be as fast as Hamilton, as able to drive a poor car as Alonso or as single-minded as Vettel but he surely hasn't written off his desire to be WDC. As the teams get closer at the top and the rules even out the cars' performances he surely would be a contender in any of the other top four teams.

I think I understand you. Thanks for the clarification IceG nonetheless .

ibsey wrote:

Sublime_FA11C wrote: Yes Vettel gets the calls that almost ensure Mark can not finish higher than 2nd in the championship, but that doesn't mean he cannot win or even push Vettel very hard in the WDC.

Sublime_FA11C wrote:That's why it's not a good idea to leave, if the reason is that he can't go higher than 2nd because Vettel gets all the breaks (startegy calls are really the worst, because Webber seemingly has to win twice in one race).

I still don’t subscribe to this view that somehow Webber is handicapped at RBR through unfair breaks or strategy calls which favour Seb etc. I mean if Mark is supposedly as good as Seb, however it is just unfair breaks or strategy hampering Mark in the races. Then perhaps you could kindly explain to me why isn’t Mark outqualifying Seb more often then? Since in qualifying strategy doesn’t usually come into play (expect for exceptional circumstances like those rare wet/dry quail sessions etc).

I think i forgot to add an if up there. I do not really belive Webber is that much disadvantaged, except when RB clearly backs Vettel the same way Ferrari would back Alonso or Schumacher, or any other team once one of their drivers gets a good shot at the championship. If there's anything odd it's the way Vettel will get the more advantageous pit calls regardless of who's in front. And even that may not be odd. Schumacher, Alonso or any other "better" (or frankly more likely) driver would get the benefit even before race 1 i think. It seems logical.

I also think Vettel is overall the better driver, but the way i wrote the above quote was meant to reflect Webber's perceived disillusions or dissapointment in the team. It was about why he would leave the team, and followed by why i still belive that even if he feels wronged, there's no better seat in F1. He's also perfect for Red Bull and the team needs him. No other driver comes to mind atm, who could easily replace Webber right away and perform as well. Red Bull wants the WCC.

I agree the machinery is equal.

ibsey wrote:Or the comparable example of Button overcoming the ‘Lewis factor’ at Mclaren. Thus showing us that if a ‘supposedly No.2’ driver within a team, has the correct mindset & is capable enough then any emotional inequality within a team, should not hamper that driver from beating the team’s ‘golden boy’. Or the Christian Horner quote in the last week, which I have repeated 4 times already now in my previous posts. Yet those who say Mark is being unfairly disadvantage at RBR continently seem to want to ignore. What does you suggestions therefore imply about Mark then? Is he two faced for saying one thing to the team... Or even the way the RBR team allowed Mark to fight for the WDC in 2010, even though it could have cost RBR their first drivers championship. Surely they wouldn’t have done that if Seb was / is given preferential treatment over Mark? I even remember the BBC commentators & interviewers question the logic of letting the two RBR drivers (especially Mark) go for the WDC in Brazil 2010. I say especially Mark because IIRC, even though Webber was leading the WDC at Brazil 2010 his WDC form was fading in comparison to Alonso & certainly Seb.

Webber may be right to feel frustrated when on a day when he has Vettel's measure, he is asked to move over, or the team employs a tactic that maximises Vettel's result at the expense of Webber or anything else that makes these accusations popup. Unfortunately for him, form my memory it usually happens when Vettel has a better overal chance in the championship. In 2010 Webber had a good chance but he dropped it (as did many others). Vettel creates more chances more often, and is more likely to deliver.

I don't honestly know why Button is relaxed at McLaren. But he does seem to fit there nicely. He just doesn't seem like he would be badly affected by any teammate. Hamilton maybe had some friction with the team but i doubt Button had anything to do with that. In the end i think he left becaue he wanted a more competitive car. He approached Ecclestone and tried to get into Red Bull afterall, and settled for Merc beliving that it's future is bright. And they can pay him :D

ibsey wrote:I ask the question; can you provide any evidence to back your claim up that the RBR team are giving ‘Vettel the calls or breaks, that almost ensure Mark can not finish higher than 2nd in the WDC?’ I mean you only have to look at the last race to see that the RBR team gave team orders to allow Mark to win that race. Care to comment why they might do that if Seb is supposed to get all the calls & breaks?

I don't claim that to be honest. Again a case of if. If Webber feels that way and want's to leave...

I was wondering though, why Vettel was pitted earlier and given scrubbed options on the last stop. That gave him one last chance to push hard and overtake Webber before Multi-21 came into effect. Now Webber for all his rightfull frustration did lie about turning his engine down. He sure as hell did not turn the engine down coming out of the pits, knowing the attack was coming, and he tried hard to defend. Even going so far as to push Vettel against a wall later on.

ibsey wrote:...they gave Mark IIRC the 2nd fastest pitstop of that race, meaning Mark got out just in front of Seb & should have benefited from team orders as a result.

He didn't quite benefit though. Maybe it was a case of Vettel aggresively trying to establish himself early on. He's entitled to that but it causes a problem in the WCC effort. Even Helmut Marko refused to condone it and was unhappy.

In the end i think Webber was pissed off more than playing mind games. Having seen the reaction in the room before the interviews, it definetly did not seem calculated, but simply honest. Webber was mad because Vettel stole a win from him despite the team having a hold station scenario planned for the last stint and Webber (allegedly) getting assurances via radio that Vettel would not overtake.

Two other important things shaped the final stint. First was Vettel own early call for slicks where he lost time. Red Bull showed Webber 100% support and made the right call to stay out for an extra lap even though most of the field was coming in for slicks. Webber changed tyres at the perfect time as a result. That's quite a lot of conspiracy theories shot down right there, because the team did not use Webber as a guinea pig, and it gave him the best call, and by extension, the lead.

Another one was the case where Webber backed Vettel into the charging Mercs. The aggresive calls to not save tyres but close the gap were repeated several times to both drivers and Hamilton responded with gusto. Mercedes was the most formidable challenge of the race. Red Bull could not have known that eventually the fuel and tyre situation would eliminate the threat, and were probably worried mid race. And yet Webber was slow enough to bait the Mercedes' onto Vettel, prompting Vettel to unlfatteringly moan over the radio that "Mark's too slow, get him out of the way." Webber immediatly dissapeared into the distance. I belive he was inviting pressure onto his teammate hoping it would cause him to use more fuel and his tyres in battle. It was designed to maximise his own result as he had clear track ahead of him.

In the end Webber did not do enough to seal the win, but just how fair or unfair Vettel's attack was, i guess we just can't know. Both drivers tried very hard to make sure the top step was theirs. The team equally supported them both. Vettel got first dibs on the first pit, but he was leading at the time. His last stop was odd, but could be argued either way. So, early in the season, the team had no clear favourites in this race, and in fact had a hold station scenario ready for whichever was leading at the time.

Well this turned out to be quite a long post, when all i meant to say was, that Webber gets equal shots, but misses more often so inevitably Vettel becomes the likelier driver to push. And if that gets under Webber's skin well... he had his share of trouncing teammates :D

Thanks for your reply Sublime_FA11C. Just about to go to bed, so haven’t really got time to fully consider & reply to all of your post as I would normally like to. But I will quickly help answer your query of;

Sublime_FA11C wrote:I was wondering though, why Vettel was pitted earlier and given scrubbed options on the last stop. That gave him one last chance to push hard and overtake Webber before Multi-21 came into effect.

See my post dated 29 Mar 2013, 20:18 where this subject had already been covered. Also see Warren Hughes' additional comments on the matter from his excellent post dated 30 Mar 2013, 03:34.

By the sounds of things IMO, Webber had first choice to pit for his final stop But declined on lap 42. So Vettel took full advantage, knowing he had saved a brand new set of options from Q2 (Seb had reused his Q1 options in Q2), solely with the intention to push as hard as he could on that outlap of his final stint. Presumably with Seb knowing teamorders would kick in during that final stint thus the two RBR drivers would be in effect crusing to the flag. Thus saving their tyres their after. Also knowing by that stage the Mercs were out of the equation. Therefore Seb probably knew he could push as hard as he wanted on that outlap in an effort to undercut Mark before Webber pitted himself. Hence the reason he was able to close the majority of a 4.2 second lead down in the space of just one lap (IIRC).

Given the way Webber pitted so late, Mark probably wasn’t expecting Seb to close in on him so quickly. So once he realised Seb’s was flying in the middle sector Mark himself probably decided to make a late dash into the pits on lap 43. To ensure he maintained track position & the lead from Seb (and therefore the advantage in respect of teamorders) in that final stint. Hence the reason Mark caught his team by surprise. Hope this clears up your query & hopefully all makes sense. Since as I say I am off to bed now, so kind of typing this all in a bit of a hurry & not fully awake either.

ibsey wrote:...Webber had first choice to pit for his final stop But declined on lap 42...

Thanks for the reply an explanation. I did not know about that call... interesting. From the race itself, i had heard the radio calls asking Vettel to mind his tyres and pace himself, and during the battle with Webber his team was cautioning him against pushing to hard during what turned out to be a battle for the lead before the "Multi-21" order kicked in. In the ready-room before the interviews Mark was dejected, refusing to talk to Vettel and slamming his water bottle on the table. His comments during the interviews turned out to be a bit of a stretch, but he did belive Vettel would stay behind. The final radio call to Vettel also included that he'll have some explaining to do.

Does Webber have something to feel upset about in the end? Well to me it seems that Red Bull drivers were equally treated to the point of being allowed to race each other until cruising home during the final stint. Both drivers did what they could to ensure they had position at that point. Vettel came close enough to attack into turn 1 and went for it, despite the team and Webber prefering to keep positions as they were. It could be argued that Vettel should have backed off as he was repeatedly urged to do, but if he can come within striking distance, surely he would at least try.

I guess Webber can feel angry about one thing then. Vettel did cross the line (after coming to within inches of that line fair and square). But OTOH most of the sympathy for Webber comes from the notion of unequal treatment, which was very much disproved in this race. It's not that Webber benefited or was supposed to benefit, but that he was given equal opportunity to make the best of the race. Overall though, Vettel was again the faster one, and but for his decision to jump onto slicks too soon, would have controlled the race from the front.

The hold station order in particular is not one that is unfair on it's own. It benefits either driver, and Brawn said as much when asked about Rosberg's unhappy radio calls.

In the end, the race was a good one, and the lead battle was good until the (bitter) end. Previously i though Webber was insulted by the result, but now it seems he was beaten again. Or 99% beaten, but whatever.