Jump to content


Photo

Vergne letting Vettel through in Abu Dhabi


  • Please log in to reply
149 replies to this topic

#1 Jackmancer

Jackmancer
  • Member

  • 2,800 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 12 November 2012 - 08:53

Sorry if this is already discussed. I was wondering, does this count as a team order? Should this be legal?

Posted Image

I was a tad annoyed with it - it's a huge unfair advantage that Red Bull have, though perhaps, Ferrari is having a bit similar relation with Sauber (cause of the engines). Perez didn't go all out in Malysia on Alonso.



Anyhow, team orders are legal, within the team, as long as it's not for a race win, right? What do the rules say about this? Cause to me this was a team order.

Advertisement

#2 sofarapartguy

sofarapartguy
  • Member

  • 1,010 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 12 November 2012 - 08:56

Nothing new here - who cares.

#3 sergeym

sergeym
  • Member

  • 530 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:05

Torro Rosso was much slower than RBR. Holding up Vettel would have gained nothing for Verge, in fact he would even lose some time defending his positon.

#4 Cesc

Cesc
  • Member

  • 773 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:09

Torro Rosso was much slower than RBR. Holding up Vettel would have gained nothing for Verge, in fact he would even lose some time defending his positon.


Do you really believe what you are saying?
Anyway, who cares, we all know it is the second Red Bull team.

#5 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:12

Sorry if this is already discussed. I was wondering, does this count as a team order? Should this be legal?

Posted Image

I was a tad annoyed with it - it's a huge unfair advantage that Red Bull have, though perhaps, Ferrari is having a bit similar relation with Sauber (cause of the engines). Perez didn't go all out in Malysia on Alonso.



Anyhow, team orders are legal, within the team, as long as it's not for a race win, right? What do the rules say about this? Cause to me this was a team order.

I am annoyed as well with what I perceive as a conflict of interest and other sixty things that I do not like about one owner can have two teams in this series, and I was bitching about it a few times in the past, but remain a lonely voice in the forest; no too many are vocal or care. In terms of not inerfering with championship in closing stages of the season is quite common (unspoken) courtesy to either drivers involved by cars which are out of it, so I expect.

#6 sergeym

sergeym
  • Member

  • 530 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:24

Do you really believe what you are saying?
Anyway, who cares, we all know it is the second Red Bull team.


So what? Yes it is Red Bull second team, but what exactly would Vergne gain by holding up Vettel? Vettel would have got past anyway, just as he did with other driver in front of Vergne. There was no question of Vergne holding up Vettel for long.

#7 Black Widow

Black Widow
  • Member

  • 647 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:25

I am annoyed as well with what I perceive as a conflict of interest and other sixty things that I do not like about one owner can have two teams in this series, and I was bitching about it a few times in the past, but remain a lonely voice in the forest; no too many are vocal or care. In terms of not inerfering with championship in closing stages of the season is quite common (unspoken) courtesy to either drivers involved by cars which are out of it, so I expect.

The reality is it is not the team and/or teams, the one owner, or the drivers themselves.

It comes down to one individual, who wields a mighty sword.

#8 Jackmancer

Jackmancer
  • Member

  • 2,800 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:26

In terms of not inerfering with championship in closing stages of the season is quite common (unspoken) courtesy to either drivers involved by cars which are out of it, so I expect.


Yeah - I remember Fisichella cutting Schumacher's tyre in the title decider in 2006, Brasil. STR could easily do that to Alonso. Not saying they will, of course - but hinder him in some way is easy.

Nothing new here - who cares.


I care, else I wouldn't have made this topic. Why do you even come here saying this? -.-

#9 Trust

Trust
  • Member

  • 3,182 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:27

It's called team orders. What is the problem here?

#10 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 5,161 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:31

It's called team orders. What is the problem here?


That it's not called team orders, but inter-team orders. I doubt very much that those are legal.

But you have to be delusional to think anything will be done, RBR for example saved FIA's ass in rallying...

Perez didn't go all out in Malysia on Alonso.


Oh, yes he did, to the point of going off. If in doubt, check Monza too.

Edited by prty, 12 November 2012 - 09:43.


#11 andrewf1

andrewf1
  • Member

  • 520 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:35

Sorry if this is already discussed. I was wondering, does this count as a team order? Should this be legal?

I was a tad annoyed with it - it's a huge unfair advantage that Red Bull have, though perhaps, Ferrari is having a bit similar relation with Sauber (cause of the engines). Perez didn't go all out in Malysia on Alonso.



Anyhow, team orders are legal, within the team, as long as it's not for a race win, right? What do the rules say about this? Cause to me this was a team order.


it would appear it's actually only Red Bull enjoying this advantage, because Sauber's Perez overtook both Massa and Alonso, for 2nd place, at Ferrari's home race in Monza.

and regarding the situation with Vettel and Vergne...well, the rules can't really do anything about it. especially because the drivers are of different teams. you're perfectly entitled to let other drivers past you, no matter if it's a call made by your superior or your own decision, nobody can argue with it.
and even if they are perceived as the same team, then it's simply a team order which is legal nowadays.

i know it's not fair but when was the last time Red Bull were fair in f1? :p

Edited by andrewf1, 12 November 2012 - 09:36.


#12 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,217 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:44

Yeah - I remember Fisichella cutting Schumacher's tyre in the title decider in 2006, Brasil.


That's pretty disingenious phrasing on at least two levels. First, no Fisi did not set out to deliberatly, nor does he or any driver got the skills to do it, cut the tyre of MS' Ferrari. It was a close overtake, and if anything MS was the one cutting it too close. Second, it wasn't even decisive for the championship, even IF MS had gone to win the race, Alonso would still have been champion.

#13 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,217 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:46

That it's not called team orders, but inter-team orders. I doubt very much that those are legal.

But you have to be delusional to think anything will be done, RBR for example saved FIA's ass in rallying...



Oh, yes he did, to the point of going off. If in doubt, check Monza too.


Prepare for an argument that Perez in Malaysia was going off on purpose, to avoid overtaking Alonso. :D

 ;)

#14 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 5,161 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:49

Prepare for an argument that Perez in Malaysia was going off on purpose, to avoid overtaking Alonso. :D

;)


I know, was getting ready for that one :D

#15 Jackmancer

Jackmancer
  • Member

  • 2,800 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:51

Prepare for an argument that Perez in Malaysia was going off on purpose, to avoid overtaking Alonso. :D

;)


Nah - but I think the Sauber team did call on radio for Perez to drive safer (not sure if before or after his trip off the track).

#16 D.M.N.

D.M.N.
  • RC Forum Host

  • 7,182 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 12 November 2012 - 10:03

I think the Ricciardo/Vettel incident earlier on had to do something with it probably given that it nearly eliminated Vettel from the race.

#17 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 12 November 2012 - 10:05

That's pretty disingenious phrasing on at least two levels. First, no Fisi did not set out to deliberatly, nor does he or any driver got the skills to do it, cut the tyre of MS' Ferrari. It was a close overtake, and if anything MS was the one cutting it too close. Second, it wasn't even decisive for the championship, even IF MS had gone to win the race, Alonso would still have been champion.


Fisico didn´t even cut MSC tyre. I know, many people think so as it definitely looks like that, but in fact MSC picked up some debris like in 98.

Edited by LiJu914, 12 November 2012 - 10:06.


#18 Baddoer

Baddoer
  • Member

  • 1,495 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 12 November 2012 - 10:05

No drama - Marco went to STR garage and asked to let them by, thats it.

#19 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 12 November 2012 - 10:07

That it's not called team orders, but inter-team orders. I doubt very much that those are legal.

But you have to be delusional to think anything will be done, RBR for example saved FIA's ass in rallying...


And which part of the sporting regulations makes you believe this?


Advertisement

#20 Black Widow

Black Widow
  • Member

  • 647 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 12 November 2012 - 10:44

And which part of the sporting regulations makes you believe this?

It's got nothing to do with sporting regulations.

You want a drive next year, then do as your told.

Simple as that!





#21 mnmracer

mnmracer
  • Member

  • 1,972 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 12 November 2012 - 10:46

I can't believe people are so quickly dismissing the fact that -regardless of aleged orders or not- Vergne had nothing to gain. Why would you ruin your own race just so you can say "look, I held up the world champion"?

#22 BackOnTop

BackOnTop
  • Member

  • 870 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 12 November 2012 - 10:49

Well, Fernando Alonso is reaping what he sowed!!

He made sure to open a can of worms for selfish reasons, but somehow forget in his haste that their are other teams on the grid too. And that he & Ferrari forcefully made it LEGAL for ALL teams to comply & apply team orders where they seem fit.

Yes, it technically allows sister/other teams to strategies and do what's best for them.... as Alonso & Ferrari so aptly put forth in their argument. So, now when Frank Tost tells Vergne to let Sebastian pass "because Vergne needs to take care of his tyres & not fight faster cars".... who are we say to it's wrong.

Nice job Alonso, who was not good enough to overtake Massa in Germany 2010. So we have the current situation where everyone is merrily using it to their advantage.

Edited by BackOnTop, 12 November 2012 - 10:56.


#23 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 12 November 2012 - 10:53

I think the Ricciardo/Vettel incident earlier on had to do something with it probably given that it nearly eliminated Vettel from the race.


Irrespective of the Ricciardo incident Vergne has 0 to gain by holding Vettel up and pissing RB off. It's not dissimilar to Coulthard jumping off all the way to the grandstand to let the championship leaders through back in 08. Coulthard didn't want the bad press, Vergne didn't want to shit where he eats. All that assuming there wasn't an order from the team, as far as I know there wasn't one but you can never be sure

#24 sailor

sailor
  • Member

  • 585 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 12 November 2012 - 11:02

Inter team orders arent explicitly legal (or illegal for that matter) but they are definitely against any sort of moral sporting code. They present an opportunity for wealthier teams owning sub-teams like RBR / engine maker teams like Ferrari (Sauber) and Merc (FI/Macca ) to benefit unfairly when required.

My 2 cents on this subject even as someone who would like to see Vettel crowned 3X champ this year

#25 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,217 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 12 November 2012 - 11:36

Well, Fernando Alonso is reaping what he sowed!!

He made sure to open a can of worms for selfish reasons, but somehow forget in his haste that their are other teams on the grid too. And that he & Ferrari forcefully made it LEGAL for ALL teams to comply & apply team orders where they seem fit.

Yes, it technically allows sister/other teams to strategies and do what's best for them.... as Alonso & Ferrari so aptly put forth in their argument. So, now when Frank Tost tells Vergne to let Sebastian pass "because Vergne needs to take care of his tyres & not fight faster cars".... who are we say to it's wrong.

Nice job Alonso, who was not good enough to overtake Massa in Germany 2010. So we have the current situation where everyone is merrily using it to their advantage.


If that's the BS level this thread shall go to, I claim it's all Raikönnens fault for being let through by Massa in Brazil 2007. Or Hamiltons, for the same thing with Kova in Hockenheim '08.

Take your pick! :drunk:

#26 One

One
  • Member

  • 6,527 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 12 November 2012 - 11:44

Inter team orders arent explicitly legal (or illegal for that matter) but they are definitely against any sort of moral sporting code. They present an opportunity for wealthier teams owning sub-teams like RBR / engine maker teams like Ferrari (Sauber) and Merc (FI/Macca ) to benefit unfairly when required.

My 2 cents on this subject even as someone who would like to see Vettel crowned 3X champ this year

What moralistic means in F1 is that Alonso, if he were placed in 24th position start has to race two STR's, that can be nasty.
On the other hands, Alonso may not have to race two Sauber, if he were to race some years a go.
Now Sauber in form Alonso is in the position to race Sauber as well,... or not?

#27 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 5,161 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 12 November 2012 - 11:53

And which part of the sporting regulations makes you believe this?


I don't know the regulations by heart as I have better things to do, but from what I know, 151c would surely apply.

#28 stillOrange

stillOrange
  • Member

  • 925 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 12 November 2012 - 12:12

I would have to go and watch the race again but as far as I remember Vergne didn't only let Vettel through during that race. I'm pretty sure it was shown during the race that he also let Schumacher by as easily as Vettel. Or maybe it was the other TR, I'm not sure.


#29 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 12 November 2012 - 13:25

I don't know the regulations by heart as I have better things to do, but from what I know, 151c would surely apply.


You mean that?

c) Any fraudulent conduct or any act prejudicial to the interests of any competition or to the interests of motor sport generally.


By the same standards team orders would still be illegal too.

And i don´t see the whole media or the public in outrage because of this "incident". It´s not even really mentioned. So it didn´t seem to hurt F1´s reputation at all.





#30 BackmarkerUK

BackmarkerUK
  • Member

  • 344 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 12 November 2012 - 13:40

Does anyone else remember Norberto Fontana blocking Jacques Villeneuve at the 1997 European Grand Prix? If you believe Fontana, that was at the behest of Ferrari, engine supplier to the team in 1997.

#31 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 12 November 2012 - 13:45

Does anyone else remember Norberto Fontana blocking Jacques Villeneuve at the 1997 European Grand Prix? If you believe Fontana, that was at the behest of Ferrari, engine supplier to the team in 1997.


In Jerez pretty much the whole grid formed two seperate alliances lead by Ferrari & Williams.

#32 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 5,161 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 12 November 2012 - 13:59

You mean that?



By the same standards team orders would still be illegal too.

And i don´t see the whole media or the public in outrage because of this "incident". It´s not even really mentioned. So it didn´t seem to hurt F1´s reputation at all.


It's prejudicial to the interests of a competition though. If you cannot see the implications of having several teams, and how that gives an unfair advantage in relation to the other teams, nothing much that I can do.

#33 baggio10

baggio10
  • Member

  • 59 posts
  • Joined: October 02

Posted 12 November 2012 - 13:59

I can't believe people are so quickly dismissing the fact that -regardless of aleged orders or not- Vergne had nothing to gain. Why would you ruin your own race just so you can say "look, I held up the world champion"?



Torro Rosso was much slower than RBR. Holding up Vettel would have gained nothing for Verge, in fact he would even lose some time defending his positon.


Redbull is much faster than almost all the teams not just STR. So using your logic, the whole field should open the door to Vettel the same way as STR because it is futile to fight him, and he would have caught the leading pack by the end of lap 1.

#34 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,391 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 12 November 2012 - 14:02

Ferrari is having a bit similar relation with Sauber (cause of the engines). Perez didn't go all out in Malysia on Alonso.

Looked to me like he was. Not to mention Canada and Monza, two examples where if any inter-team order thing existed, they would have been exercised.

It does seem like a conflict of interest and a slight advantage for Red Bull, but I cant feel too upset about it. It'd be hard to police as well, if the FIA wanted to try and put a stop to it. Most situations could be discussed beforehand and Toro Rosso drivers would probably know before they've ever even turned a wheel that they're to let Red Bulls by if they're coming through. And who would get punished for it?

#35 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 12 November 2012 - 14:05

It's prejudicial to the interests of a competition though. If you cannot see the implications of having several teams, and how that gives an unfair advantage in relation to the other teams, nothing much that I can do.


So you also complained, when Ferrari told Massa to stay away from Alonso in Korea, right?

Edited by LiJu914, 12 November 2012 - 14:06.


#36 Buckethead

Buckethead
  • Member

  • 705 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 12 November 2012 - 14:09

Vergne had nothing to gain. Why would you ruin your own race just so you can say "look, I held up the world champion"?


Why didn't everyone then let SV go by as easily? Are they stupid or what?

#37 mnmracer

mnmracer
  • Member

  • 1,972 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 12 November 2012 - 14:12

Redbull is much faster than almost all the teams not just STR. So using your logic, the whole field should open the door to Vettel the same way as STR because it is futile to fight him, and he would have caught the leading pack by the end of lap 1.

When's the last time you've seen any of the backmarkers, who are at that point also actual backmarkers (not those having a good day, like Sato on Alonso), try to take a real fight to the front runners?

edit: apart from Monaco.

Edited by mnmracer, 12 November 2012 - 14:14.


#38 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 5,161 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 12 November 2012 - 14:21

So you also complained, when Ferrari told Massa to stay away from Alonso in Korea, right?


Why don't you reply to the rest of my post? I think you are refusing to address it. So again:

A F1 entry consists in a team of two cars. A F1 team can run it in whichever way is wanted, and this applies for every single team. Which makes team orders perfectly OK.
If there's a company that owns more than two cars, they are not playing in equal ground to the rest anymore. Which makes inter-team orders not acceptable, and it's what Red Bull is doing. Plus things like promoting the FIA rallying competition. It's a conflict of interests that shouldn't be allowed.

#39 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 12 November 2012 - 14:30

Why don't you reply to the rest of my post? I think you are refusing to address it. So again:

A F1 entry consists in a team of two cars. A F1 team can run it in whichever way is wanted, and this applies for every single team. Which makes team orders perfectly OK.
If there's a company that owns more than two cars, they are not playing in equal ground to the rest anymore. Which makes inter-team orders not acceptable, and it's what Red Bull is doing. Plus things like promoting the FIA rallying competition. It's a conflict of interests that shouldn't be allowed.


Obviously you don´t get it.
The term "prejudicial to the interests of a competition" doesn´t exclude teammates. The Driver´s World Championship is not a competition between drivers of different teams, but all drivers.

So in short: If you think, Vergne yielding to Vettel was violating "the interests of competition" then the same would be true for Alonso/Massa in Korea or other similar incidents.

The FIA made clear after 2010 that they don´t consider this stuff as a violation of the sporting regulations anymore and therefore didn´t prosecute neither the one nor the other.

Your demands on the other hand are just a result of double standards.

Edited by LiJu914, 12 November 2012 - 14:32.


Advertisement

#40 Alfisti

Alfisti
  • Member

  • 26,431 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 12 November 2012 - 14:38

Let's be honest, right now only 7 corporations and / individuals deem F1 worth the investment. The three bottom teams are laughable and STR is owned by RBR.

So that leaves us 7 of which FI and lotus are under constant financial stress. My point? If it wasn't so expensive we could complain about owners running two teams, until then ..... such is life.


#41 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 5,161 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 12 November 2012 - 14:49

Obviously you don´t get it.
The term "prejudicial to the interests of a competition" doesn´t exclude teammates. The Driver´s World Championship is not a competition between drivers of different teams, but all drivers.

So in short: If you think, Vergne yielding to Vettel was violating "the interests of competition" then the same would be true for Alonso/Massa in Korea or other similar incidents.

The FIA made clear after 2010 that they don´t consider this stuff as a violation of the sporting regulations anymore and therefore didn´t prosecute neither the one nor the other.

Your demands on the other hand are just a result of double standards.


I desist.

Let's be honest, right now only 7 corporations and / individuals deem F1 worth the investment. The three bottom teams are laughable and STR is owned by RBR.

So that leaves us 7 of which FI and lotus are under constant financial stress. My point? If it wasn't so expensive we could complain about owners running two teams, until then ..... such is life.


Then make 3 car teams, but that doesn't justify the unbalance.

Edited by prty, 12 November 2012 - 15:06.


#42 MP422

MP422
  • Member

  • 1,804 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 12 November 2012 - 15:15

I dunno, Inter team orders is kinda weak. I'm not surprised by it... but if that's how RBR want to win then that's on them and Vettel.

#43 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,023 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 12 November 2012 - 15:22

I agree with 'fisti on the practical realities. Still, I don't like it. Having an easier ride because you have a "sister" team (whether through common ownership, engine deal or otherwise) isn't a good thing for F1 IMO. The difficulty is in proving that any inter-team orders occurred, and who you p*ss off when you punish them.

I'd hope the FIA would, at least, have a quiet word to RB to let them know that whilst they may have gotten away with it this time, it won't be tolerated in future.

#44 Jejking

Jejking
  • Member

  • 2,371 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 12 November 2012 - 15:32

What if Red Bull owned eight places on the grid, next to the Red Bulls itself? That's a potential eight team orders in one race. Sorry, I don't think inter-team orders aren't that much fun. In fact, the way Vergne jumped out of the way was an embarassment to F1. It wasn't his fault, of course, but it sets a dangerous precedent. Ferrari-Sauber, etc.

Fisico didn´t even cut MSC tyre. I know, many people think so as it definitely looks like that, but in fact MSC picked up some debris like in 98.

I call bullshit. Many reports tell there was rubber present on the front wing of Fisico.

/factcheck.

If that's the BS level this thread shall go to, I claim it's all Raikönnens fault for being let through by Massa in Brazil 2007. Or Hamiltons, for the same thing with Kova in Hockenheim '08.

Take your pick! :drunk:

A bit offtopic maybe, but I think Massa was beat fair and square by Raikkonen. He was pushing like crazy to stay ahead (I think he would be more pleased if he could let Kimi pass at the finish line, which of course he would have done. It's a pride thing really).

Hamilton on Kovalainen was way, way too obvious but logical.

Edited by Jejking, 12 November 2012 - 15:34.


#45 EvanRainer

EvanRainer
  • Member

  • 1,364 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 12 November 2012 - 15:34

LMAO yeah THAT was an embarassment for F1.

So Vernge chose to move out of the way before the straight instead of being DRSed 5 seconds later, big freaking deal. Torro Rosso has been in the championship for how many years now and there has been absolutely no problem whatsoever.

Talk about trying desperately to make something out of nothing.

Edited by EvanRainer, 12 November 2012 - 15:35.


#46 bub

bub
  • Member

  • 2,170 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 12 November 2012 - 15:58

I don't really care about this incident. I've seen plenty of cars not bother fighting faster cars.

#47 Absulute

Absulute
  • Member

  • 872 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 12 November 2012 - 16:04

I don't think there's much drama in this particular incident, but I do think that one person having a controlling interest in more than one team is a huge conflict of interest and shouldn't be allowed.

#48 Cenotaph

Cenotaph
  • Member

  • 2,317 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 12 November 2012 - 16:17

Is this something we could control? Forget it's a STR vs RBR, have you never ever seen another driver letting other by easily because he saw no point in fighting with him at that stage? What do you suppose should be done about that?

This thread is laughable for that very reason, it's completely a product of bias, any other similar situation involving different teams wouldn't be looked at twice, the fact we are discussing this more than a week after the fact is telling me that Austin couldn't come soon enough.

#49 Jejking

Jejking
  • Member

  • 2,371 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 12 November 2012 - 16:21

LMAO yeah THAT was an embarassment for F1.

So Vernge chose to move out of the way before the straight instead of being DRSed 5 seconds later, big freaking deal. Torro Rosso has been in the championship for how many years now and there has been absolutely no problem whatsoever.

Talk about trying desperately to make something out of nothing.

I don't think there's much drama in this particular incident, but I do think that one person having a controlling interest in more than one team is a huge conflict of interest and shouldn't be allowed.

That. Learn to read please. It's a circus between TEAMS really, and not in one team itself, and that's something that shouldn't be tolerated.

#50 Cenotaph

Cenotaph
  • Member

  • 2,317 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 12 November 2012 - 16:44

The possibility of conflicts of interest between teams needs a much broader discussion, tbh, and this overtake would not even touch the tip of the iceberg.

Edited by Cenotaph, 12 November 2012 - 16:44.