Vergne letting Vettel through in Abu Dhabi
#1
Posted 12 November 2012 - 08:53
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.
#3
Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:05
#4
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
Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:12
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.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.
#6
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
Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:25
The reality is it is not the team and/or teams, the one owner, or the drivers themselves.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.
It comes down to one individual, who wields a mighty sword.
#8
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
Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:27
#10
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
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?
Edited by andrewf1, 12 November 2012 - 09:36.
#12
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
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.
#14
Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:49
Prepare for an argument that Perez in Malaysia was going off on purpose, to avoid overtaking Alonso.
;)
I know, was getting ready for that one
#15
Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:51
Prepare for an argument that Perez in Malaysia was going off on purpose, to avoid overtaking Alonso.
;)
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
Posted 12 November 2012 - 10:03
#17
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
Posted 12 November 2012 - 10:05
#19
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
Posted 12 November 2012 - 10:44
It's got nothing to do with sporting regulations.And which part of the sporting regulations makes you believe this?
You want a drive next year, then do as your told.
Simple as that!
#21
Posted 12 November 2012 - 10:46
#22
Posted 12 November 2012 - 10:49
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
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 **** 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
Posted 12 November 2012 - 11:02
My 2 cents on this subject even as someone who would like to see Vettel crowned 3X champ this year
#25
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!
#26
Posted 12 November 2012 - 11:44
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.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
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
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
Posted 12 November 2012 - 12:12
#29
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
Posted 12 November 2012 - 13:40
#31
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
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
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
Posted 12 November 2012 - 14:02
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.Ferrari is having a bit similar relation with Sauber (cause of the engines). Perez didn't go all out in Malysia on Alonso.
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
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
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
Posted 12 November 2012 - 14:12
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?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.
edit: apart from Monaco.
Edited by mnmracer, 12 November 2012 - 14:14.
#38
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
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
Posted 12 November 2012 - 14:38
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
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
Posted 12 November 2012 - 15:15
#43
Posted 12 November 2012 - 15:22
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
Posted 12 November 2012 - 15:32
I call bullshit. Many reports tell there was rubber present on the front wing of Fisico.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.
/factcheck.
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).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!
Hamilton on Kovalainen was way, way too obvious but logical.
Edited by Jejking, 12 November 2012 - 15:34.
#45
Posted 12 November 2012 - 15:34
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
Posted 12 November 2012 - 15:58
#47
Posted 12 November 2012 - 16:04
#48
Posted 12 November 2012 - 16:17
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
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.
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.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.
#50
Posted 12 November 2012 - 16:44
Edited by Cenotaph, 12 November 2012 - 16:44.