3281 replies to this topic

[zergutmikael]

Really? wow your quality is just getting better and better here....

In one sentence you have just eliminated every single ovetaking manouvre where drivers come off the racing line to dive down inside another car to take the corner...

That's impressive... we must clealry make it known to all race drivers...'YOU MAY NOT PASS OFF THE RACING LINE AS IT WILL RUIN YOUR NEXT CORNER'....

Good boy, but poor imagination. Once again in the first corner at the start drivers jinks all over the place. If someone close to you - keep the distance. If someone would cut on freeway - your reaction? Holding your line? Driver.

[RedBaron]

Vettel was desperate, that's why he was willing to put his car in a desperate position. According to Horner he had 1 lap of 'full power' left, one more lap than Webber who was already in fuel saving mode. So that was his only real chance of taking the lead.

He was a desperate man and desperate men take risks, Vettel took a risk and lost. If he had won the last 2 races he would not have made that move, there was too much risk and not enough reward.

Edited by RedBaron, 31 May 2010 - 16:22.

[inox]

If you look very closely the slow motion, you will notice that Webber turns away from Vettel twice (although marginally) to make room, while Seb is alongside. So Webber is not really driving straight ahead as claimed everywhere. I'm sure he was just about to swap the right side of the track anyway. Its just that Seb was too hasty and expected Mark to move over.

This doesn't really have to be anyones fault, both drivers just expected different actions from each other.

[NightProwler]

That's probably true, so call it unreasonable rather than unfair. When racing a team mate you have to leave more margin for error. The consequences of a small misjudgement are too large, as we saw. Simple risk/benefit analysis IMO.

Like Button / Hamilton at turn one? This leaving more space for a team mate is rubbish. Nice policy but very rarely happens.

[imaginesix]

I left this stooopid debate yesterday at pg 31 and now it's on pg 47!

you people need a life

Got it. So 31 pages is the limit for people with a life. Everyone else is a loser even if the debate was already stooopid at 31.

[Bunchies]

He was also stationary in the pit for 15 seconds, losing optimum temperature of the engine meaning higher fuel consumption and was obviously keeping a pretty good pace for the rest of the race. I don't buy this fuel-story one, single, bit.

Not to call you out, but you do know that engine temperatures generally rise when a car is sitting stationary? Unless you mean that Webber lost the "optimum temperature," which of course would be correct. But still, water temps rise when sitting stationary. I think anyone who has sat behind the wheel with a helmet on can tell you that. That's why they have cooldown laps at open track days and whatnot.

[Mandzipop]

I think one point that has to be considered is what is Red Bulls policy on the drivers overtaking each other? I mean for instance we know that the Ferrari drivers can race up until the last round of pitstops and then after that it is hold station. Obviously the Red Bull policy is different and they can race each other. Horner says that if one driver gets a run on the other then the other driver must concede. Which in this case didn't happen. I disagree with the Red Bull policy because it could be very misleading to the drivers. However, it could also lead to team orders and an easy way of manufacturing team orders without actually directly giving them. Yes Ferrari have a type of team orders, but they cant manufacture a result because the fuel saving mode cant be given in the early laps of the race. The situation at Mclaren was similar but the drivers handled it better. It appears that Lewis got his call earlier because he'd been pushing harder, hence Jenson got the run on Lewis. Now I think the liklihood of team preference at Mclaren is lower than Red Bull, in fact I'd say it is non-existant. Red Bull is questionable. If the incident had happened the other way round and Vettel had been blamed then I think this thread would not have been so long simply because of the perception of Vettel being the favoured one.

If Red Bull have that policy and it does not favour either driver, then that is fine and I can see that maybe they felt what happened went against their policy, and their reasoning of apportioning more blame to Webber than Vettel (regardless of whether we like it or not), as with regards to their policy he should have conceded. It is a different matter if it is only in favour of one of their drivers. That I dont like. That way they could more easily manufacture the outcome of the race.

[bond]

This has to be one of the funniest threads around...
Some guys are trying really hard to make us believe it was webber's fault.
Hilarious
Keep them coming guys...

[imaginesix]

This has to be one of the funniest threads around...
Some guys are trying really hard to make us believe it was webber's fault.
Hilarious
Keep them coming guys...

Good point. Oh wait you don't have one.


Good uhmmmm.... smugness.

[FlatOverCrest]

Good boy, but poor imagination. Once again in the first corner at the start drivers jinks all over the place. If someone close to you - keep the distance. If someone would cut on freeway - your reaction? Holding your line? Driver.

Contradict yourslf much? so its perfectly OK for a driver on a freeway to jink around..and its the responsibility of the cars around to get out of the way of the 'jinker'???? Seriously? Did you even think about this before you posted it?

These are your words:

That's why drivers using racing line, because it's not about to be first in the corner. Because after this this corner it's another and if your racing line was compromised your next corners would be compromised too

Your racing 'knowledge' is highlighted here...

While I appreciate you may be using your 'imagination' here to prove a point... the point has no validity, because you have no idea that the majority of overtaking manourves actually occur 'offline'.... but you do provide some much needed amusement so carry on...

Edited by FlatOverCrest, 31 May 2010 - 16:48.

[RedBaron]

Can't wait to see Vettel try a move like that on Hamilton, Alonso or Kubica. Someone who isn't his team-mate is going to give him an even harder time, he's going to get a wake up call.

[EvilPhil II]

Red Bull clearly favour Vettel, says Brundle

http://f1.gpupdate.n...l-says-brundle/

[RedBaron]

Red Bull clearly favour Vettel, says Brundle

http://f1.gpupdate.n...l-says-brundle/

This has been touched on already, but with nearly 50 pages can't blame you for missing it!

[Juan Kerr]

Vettel caused the accident but Webber started it and had control over it, I wish they'd all stop squeezing each other at stupid speeds especially in open wheel cars.

[Lights]

Red Bull clearly favour Vettel, says Brundle

http://f1.gpupdate.n...l-says-brundle/

As usual, Martin makes a lot of sense.

"They asked how I called it on TV and I told them I said it was 100 percent Vettel's fault for swerving into Webber. They clearly disagreed and said that Webber should never have been squeezing his team-mate onto the dirty part of the race track....

I can't believe they blame Webber for squeezing Vettel onto the dirty part of the race track, while it was Vettel's decision to go left while there wasn't much space available at all.

[H2H]

If Red Bull have that policy and it does not favour either driver, then that is fine and I can see that maybe they felt what happened went against their policy, and their reasoning of apportioning more blame to Webber than Vettel (regardless of whether we like it or not), as with regards to their policy he should have conceded.

Finally some sense.

This is my perception on what is going on in the team, and IMHO the only sensible way to explain certain statements and reactions. Basically they seem to think that Mark more than Seb did go against the internal ruleset which worked fine so far. In short Seb might have thought "I'm ahead on the inside and I have the right to go first into the turn, so Mark will give me the space and I can focus on the breaking side (worked in Malaysia)". Mark on the other hand might have thought "We are still side to side, if I keep my line and Seb on the dirt I will rightly keep my position (worked in China IRRC)". So Seb could have put too much faith in the internal ruleset and was too naive, while Mark might just have raced against him as he would have done also against an McLaren.

Personally I have seen no malice in the action of both drivers, I neither think that Seb wanted to ram off Mark or that Mark wanted to lure him into a trap. It was a difficult situation which happened quickly.

H2H

Edited by H2H, 31 May 2010 - 16:57.

[Dragonfly]

But if MW has every right to take SV to the white line while he's ahead, which he did legitimately IMO, SV has that same right once he's ahead which he did legitimately IMO. That's the racing convention isn't it? Get ahead and then ease your oponent to where you want them, that's the way it's always been.

If MW was right to move over on SV, which he did and noone has contested, then SV has the same right surely?

Yes. This is a very important question.
At what moment the overtaker is entitled to choose his line while at the same time the overtaken is no longer entitled to block.
The answer to this question IMO will settle many issues.

[Sakae]

As usual, Martin makes a lot of sense.

As usual Martin makes very little sense to me.

I can't believe they blame Webber for squeezing Vettel onto the dirty part of the race track, while it was Vettel's decision to go left while there wasn't much space available at all.

I am with them, although we have one problem; some posters claim Vettel had enough space, some did measure it and decided it was 1.5 with of the car, yet others talking about "not much space". I wish we would make our mind how much space Seb actually had.

I vote for enough space to enter overtaking move, but in relationship to the next turn, once a driver is committed, one has to manage car positions with some inteliggence; and that was lacking, in bad way. Travelling 80 km/hr is one thing, travelling 300 km+ is perhaps another.

Edited by Sakae, 31 May 2010 - 17:05.

[Dragonfly]

That's fair enough. But you can't just move onto a better line if another car is there, can you?

Vettel made a mistake, so it's his fault the 2 collided.

I think you can once you don't see that car from your cockpit - i.e. you've moved in front and the roles are changed.

[Mandzipop]

Yes. This is a very important question.
At what moment the overtaker is entitled to choose his line while at the same time the overtaken is no longer entitled to block.
The answer to this question IMO will settle many issues.

According to Horner, the team policy is as soon as you can see your teammate has got a run on you, you concede.

[bourbon]

Mark said this:

" Vettel had a bit of a top-speed advantage and I could see him coming down my inside as we approached turn 12. We were fighting for the lead, so I stayed tight to ensure he'd be on the dirty side of the track as we approached the braking area."

That is how he thinks. And he has never and will never give an inch - that is how he drives. Sebastian now understands it applies to HIM as a teammate as well. He should have understood this. I think Mark has always understood that the reverse is true as well.

My take on it? They do not like one another, imo. Mark is a condescending old fart, who thinks he knows it all, from Sebastian's perspective; and Sebastian is a immature, half fake, prototype, who undeservingly lucked into certain advantages from Mark's perspective. The truth isn't as harsh to either - and sometimes both even realize that.

Edited by bourbon, 31 May 2010 - 17:18.

[imaginesix]

Yes. This is a very important question.
At what moment the overtaker is entitled to choose his line while at the same time the overtaken is no longer entitled to block.
The answer to this question IMO will settle many issues.

That would only matter if Vettel gradually tried to squeeze Webber back to the right and he resisted by holding his line. As it happened, Seb moved over sharply so Webber had no chance to respond even if he wanted to.

[Dragonfly]

That would only matter if Vettel gradually tried to squeeze Webber back to the right and he resisted by holding his line. As it happened, Seb moved over sharply so Webber had no chance to respond even if he wanted to.

That's exactly what Vettel did, and even more he made at least 2 slight moves right-left to indicate his intentions. You are totally wrong because what you regard as a chop was the result of wheel banging and Vettel losing conrol going into a right spin.
The one who drove blindly in a straight line was Webber. But it is not the first time he shows a lack of mental agility and thinking in advance about the consequences.

Edited by Dragonfly, 31 May 2010 - 17:13.

[rye&ginger]

50/50

but as team mates, I think Weber should concede at that point as Vettel had him on the inside. Both of them took a big risk. If Webber thinks its OK for him to go into a turn with a car on the dirty line on the inside of him, then sure, there could be problems.

You CANNOT look at video and say this and that, since they are team mates. They are under orders to act differently when racing each other.

[EvilPhil II]

F1 Turkish Grand Prix: Mark Webber hints at Red Bull favouritism

http://www.telegraph...avouritism.html

[Number62]

Webber was fair, unfair would have been to close the door completely. He left enough room for Vettel and a bit more.

If this is true, you have to admit just by pure logic alone that Vettel also left Webber enough room (tons of it in fact) and by extension that he was also fair.

[Sakae]

F1 Turkish Grand Prix: Mark Webber hints at Red Bull favouritism

http://www.telegraph...avouritism.html

Maybe Mark has to make his mind if he wants to work for RBR, or he does not, but if he continues in this tone, we can soon start a thread "For which team Webber will drive in 2011"?

[Fubar1979]

Im sure a lot of people are forgetting that vettel could have easly passed webber from the right side and not the left, there was tonns of room on the right and if you look at the run up he nearly did go right but changed his mind just after getting close to his rear end. im amused by some of the comments here regarding vettel doing nothign wrong, the head on footage clearly shows he moved into mark and it also clearly shows just how much room he had on the right hand side if he had choosen to go that side....

[Bunchies]

At this point, it doesn't really matter who is at fault for the collision. For making this into a huge issue, Red Bull itself is most at fault. They need to get their communication down such that things are crystal clear. This way, miscommunications won't happen. As for MW hinting at favoritism. That's all good for him, but I seem to recall a high percentage of drivers who talked about favoritism left the team at the end of the season. Webber is a great driver, but I think that without Newey and the RB5, he would not be in as strong a position as he is now. Those wins are really, really helping.

[ensign14]

Of course he is allowed to attack he is allowed to defend. But with the extra safety margins that you automatically add for a team mate. That is not double standards, it's common sense.

So, which extra safety margins did Vettel allow for Webber?

[Bunchies]

Im sure a lot of people are forgetting that vettel could have easly passed webber from the right side and not the left, there was tonns of room on the right and if you look at the run up he nearly did go right but changed his mind just after getting close to his rear end. im amused by some of the comments here regarding vettel doing nothign wrong, the head on footage clearly shows he moved into mark and it also clearly shows just how much room he had on the right hand side if he had choosen to go that side....

Hindsight really doesn't help anything. The fact is that he went left, instead of right. At that point, both drivers need to react to THAT situation, rather than thinking about what they shoulda, coulda, woulda done.

[Sakae]

50/50

but as team mates, I think Weber should concede at that point as Vettel had him on the inside. Both of them took a big risk. If Webber thinks its OK for him to go into a turn with a car on the dirty line on the inside of him, then sure, there could be problems.

You CANNOT look at video and say this and that, since they are team mates. They are under orders to act differently when racing each other.

Marco actually had a point, with which some may or may not agree, but can you safely break on skidish ground (at 300 km/hr without fishtail, taking them both out of the race)?

[Bunchies]

So, which extra safety margins did Vettel allow for Webber?

Not much, he could either move left onto the grass or sidle on to the right, where his teammate had both a moveable car, and a lot of tarmac.

Vettel did not allow safety margins for himself. Neither did Webber.

[Bunchies]

Marco actually had a point, with which some may or may not agree, but can you safely break on skidish ground (at 300 km/hr without fishtail, taking them both out of the race)?

It depends on a lot of things, including bump damping, brake bias, spring rate, tire condition, etc etc etc.

So, yes and no.

[Fubar1979]

Hindsight really doesn't help anything. The fact is that he went left, instead of right. At that point, both drivers need to react to THAT situation, rather than thinking about what they shoulda, coulda, woulda done.

Surely that just shows how in experianced vettel is then because he really did try squeeze his car through the tightest of spots where there was clearly no need to. mistakes like that are surely rookie mistakes?

[imaginesix]

That's exactly what Vettel did, and even more he made at least 2 slight moves right-left to indicate his intentions. You are totally wrong because what you regard as a chop was the result of wheel banging and Vettel losing conrol going into a right spin.

I'm not sure that's the case but you may be right, so I'll see if I can answer the question given your scenario.

There are the team rules and then there is common racing practice. I don't know the if there were any team rules in effect here but in a straight line the idea in racing is pretty simple; the leader chooses the line he wants, as long as he's not swerving. Keeping in mind Seb was ahead for maybe only a second, any change in his line would have only just begun and being sensitive to Webber's presence he'd have to take a measured approach. In my mind he intended to do both (I am certain neither one of them even remotely contemplated risking a crash with the other). But his car was perhaps a bit choppy over some bumps, maybe his last view of Webber was that his car was moving away from him. Ultimately though it is Vettel's responsibility to maintain control of his car and be aware of his surroundings, so the fact that his move towards Webber was sharp enough to cause contact (who absolutely would have avoided him if he could), he has some responsibility for the crash even though he was leading for that second.

[Sakae]

Not much, he could either move left onto the grass or sidle on to the right, where his teammate had both a moveable car, and a lot of tarmac.

Vettel did not allow safety margins for himself. Neither did Webber.

They were heading into next turn, with breaking zone just ahead of them; not too much time for miracles to happen.

Edited by Sakae, 31 May 2010 - 17:30.

[imaginesix]

Surely that just shows how in experianced vettel is then because he really did try squeeze his car through the tightest of spots where there was clearly no need to. mistakes like that are surely rookie mistakes?

That wasn't a mistake, it was a very viable strategy. It works all the time in racing but this time it was poorly executed.

Edited by imaginesix, 31 May 2010 - 17:42.

[Sakae]

It depends on a lot of things, including bump damping, brake bias, spring rate, tire condition, etc etc etc.

So, yes and no.

Yes and no? If you aren't sure, than what you do, other than mitigate the risk, and NOT TRY TO DO STUPID EXPERIMENTS, especially when guy next to you is your team mate; perhaps precisely the point why the team was expecting Webber to act more inteligently.

Edited by Sakae, 31 May 2010 - 17:29.

[fastlegs]

They need to get their communication down such that things are crystal clear.

Can you say "team orders"?

Someone has to protect poor little Sebastian "The Chosen One" Vettel from "Big Bad" Mark Webber.

[rye&ginger]

Can you say "team orders"?

Someone has to protect poor little Sebastian "The Chosen One" Vettel from "Big Bad" Mark Webber.

or "So the team doesn't look like a bunch of amateurs and crash out because of a racing incident , if you are passed by your team mate you will do _______________."

What _______________ is, we may never know.

[imaginesix]

Can you say "team orders"?

Someone has to protect poor little Sebastian "The Chosen One" Vettel from "Big Bad" Mark Webber.

LOL, Seb does have quite a baby face, and Webbo has the face of a wolf!

Will somebody please think of the children!

[Bunchies]

Surely that just shows how in experianced vettel is then because he really did try squeeze his car through the tightest of spots where there was clearly no need to. mistakes like that are surely rookie mistakes?

Yes, he probably should not have gone on what was a tightening, disadvantageous line.

To be perfectly fair, Webber was headed towards the right side of the track (where the racing line is) already. From Seb's onboard, you can see that the gap on the right was closing, so he decided to go to the left. Fine, nobody has done anything stupid yet. The problem comes when they are alongside, and neither of them do anything to really avoid an incident. The thing with Webber is that he actually had an appreciable amount of room to move around.

To me, this situation is like two new drivers putting around on the freeway. One driver decides to sit in the other car's blind spot. You know, to "be daring" and "have fun." Unfortunately, the driver he was edging close to either hits a bump, or doesnt see the car in his blind spot and moves to the right. I'm sure it was all fun and games up to the contact. Contact that both of them could have prevented, but that Webber had the power to prevent more, due to his more advantageous track positioning.

What happened here is that the new driver didn't mean to wipe out his buddy by getting to close in his blindspot on the freeway. But it happened anyway and I'm sure the both of them feel like a couple of boobies at this point.

[Lazarus II]

Got it. So 31 pages is the limit for people with a life. Everyone else is a loser even if the debate was already stooopid at 31.

No, 31 pgs is the limit for a "wasted day". Unfortunately I know from experience

[hansmann]

Yes and no? If you aren't sure, than what you do, other than mitigate the risk, and NOT TRY TO DO STUPID EXPERIMENTS, especially when guy next to you is your team mate; perhaps precisely the point why the team was expecting Webber to act more inteligently.

Beg your pardon, but this is utterly ignorant .
I didn't read the entire 48 page thread, but I assume people who actually watched the race have already explained how Webber defended his position in a passive fashion.
He didn't try shyte, he was just holding it together at silly high speed, when some young lad lost control over his automobile .

How clear does it have to be for some people - Seb firing a gun at Marc or such ?

[Slartibartfast]

For the record once more: I think Vettel was "more" wrong than Webber, but the blame must be shared. Webber put Sebastian in a very tough spot, he pushed the situation to the extreme and you do not do that with a team mate.

These situations are rarely 100%-0%, and there are definitely differences between what Webber could have done, should have done and was obliged by the rules or racing etiquette to do. But if one is ultimately going to define one driver as perpetrator of the collision and the other as victim, then I think Webber is the latter.
(I trust that you realise that my earlier comments weren't aimed at your arguments in this thread, but at those of others.)

[Bunchies]

Yes and no? If you aren't sure, than what you do, other than mitigate the risk, and NOT TRY TO DO STUPID EXPERIMENTS, especially when guy next to you is your team mate; perhaps precisely the point why the team was expecting Webber to act more inteligently.

Mmm, I'm not sure exactly who you are arguing for/againt, but I am of the opinion that, while both rushed in too fast, Webber had the initiative to do a little more to prevent the incident.

I don't think any racing driver is going to second guess himself WHILE making the move. That sort of thing ends in a failed move at best, and death at worst. But I do think that when a racing driver pulls a move, they actually believe that it will stick.

They were heading into next turn, with breaking zone just ahead of them; not too much time for miracles to happen.

No, I understand, I am just trying to give both points of view a little credit. I don't think this situation is as black and white as it's made out to be.

Edited by Bunchies, 31 May 2010 - 17:43.

[Sakae]

Can you say "team orders"?

Someone has to protect poor little Sebastian "The Chosen One" Vettel from "Big Bad" Mark Webber.

Instead writing silly and childish posts, why don't you try to take on adults shoes, and think like a manager. Lay out the track, car positions, race positions, surface condition, risk, speeds cars travelling, distance to braking zone and angle of entry to the next turn, and then, after you put all this together, as a thinking adult you tell me how smart Webber was under those conditions. His pride ahead of loosing another car, maybe hurt second driver or maybe both, had Vettel gotten fish tail? If you are short sighted and you think only about an inch or so ahead of your face, than you might have a case, but otherwise you take Webber into shed, and have a word with him. There is not much to be add to this.

[JSDSKI]

... Basically they seem to think that Mark more than Seb did go against the internal ruleset which worked fine so far....

The internal ruleset only works while the team is provides equal opportunity. In this instance, the press has uncovered the technical reason for Vettel's attack - he had a fuel mapping (full hp vs fuel saving) advantage on lap 40. At that point in the race, Horner should have called for a position hold while both drivers moved to their fuel saving mapping and to defend their 1, 2. Instead, Horner said nothing. Vettel decided to make the most of his one lap advantage and misjudged it. That's really all there is.

It's not like Webber isn't recognized as a tough, but fair, guy to pass. It's not as if (to repeat Brundle's point) Webber hasn't dominated the last three races and Red Bull could truly expect him to suddenly turn meek at the sight of Vettel's nose. It's not as if Vettel hasn't run into people in the past trying F3 type lunges.

It's ironic that two drivers, Webber and Button, previously described as talented "journeymen" until they got good cars, are as fast and determined as their younger superstar team mates. They are unwilling to just fade away like the guys Vettel and Hamilton just brushed aside in lower formula. Every driver in F1 goes through this experience. When they suddenly they realize that 50% of the drivers on the grid are capable of winning a WDC given the right car. Most of these guys were dominant in lower formula and were used to lesser drivers giving way. That is no longer true for any of them.

[Sakae]

Mmm, I'm not sure exactly who you are arguing for/againt, but I am of the opinion that, while both rushed in too fast, Webber had the initiative to do a little more to prevent the incident.

I don't think any racing driver is going to second guess himself WHILE making the move. That sort of thing ends in a failed move at best, and death at worst. But I do think that when a racing driver pulls a move, they actually believe that it will stick.



No, I understand, I am just trying to give both points of view a little credit. I don't think this situation is as black and white as it's made out to be.

You are correct; I do not have quarell with you. I think you made a valid point, that Vettel was in ambiguous position in terms of consequences, had he applied brakes. My point was, that F1 insiders should have recognized precarious position both drivers were in once the attack commenced, and I personaly would expect Webber to accomodate the situation before his own personal interest, because consequences were really unpredictable for both of them.

Edited by Sakae, 31 May 2010 - 17:49.