75 replies to this topic

[GreenMachine]

Jonathan Noble says :

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

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

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

The caption on an accompanying photo says this was a team strategy, so there is some inconsistency here, but this strikes me as unbelievable: giving Mark a head start so Mark could come home second? This was Mark's strategy, implying that it was his idea, or at least he had agreed to it? That neither Seb, Mark, nor anyone in the team were aware of the SC rule about following closely??

It smacks of someone recreating history to better serve himself, and a gullible someone else swallowing the story - hook, line and sinker - and printing it as fact, with no qualification at all.

[EthanM]

that was the race RB was on average 1.5 faster than the second fastest car.

Before the SC came out Vettel was pulling away at 1second/lap.

SC came out, Vettel + all the leaders pitted, Webber didn't pit. The idea was to back the pack up, give Webber a chance to cover Alonso's pitstop and overtake him and then Vettel could pretty easily break away. Obviously it didn't work out cause of the penalty.

[BenettonB192]

It was painted as a Vettel noob mistake at the time and he took all the heat for it. Only later it came to light that it actualy was the teams idea.

[EthanM]

it wasn't that much later, Horner pretty much said Vettel was running "Team" strategy at the post race forum on the bbc

[BenettonB192]

Yes it was their strategy to give Mark the headstart. But the long gap Vettel blamed on himself in the press conference, that he took a nap and didn't knew the rule. And that only later turned out to be the teams idea aswell. It's quite fascinating to read the post race thread from that day. Less has changed since then i thought.

[NotSoSilentBob]

It was team strategy to utilise the Safety Car period to get RBR a guaranteed one-two, with Vettel in the lead. Unfortunately there was apparently a communication breakdown somewhere along the line and Vettel fell foul of the obscure 'you cant back people up' rule.

If it had worked as designed, Vettel would have been the major beneficiary as he'd have taken 25 points instead of 15, so it's not Webber's fault. He couldn't hand the win back to Vettel even if he'd been asked because Alonso was between them.

[Cenotaph]

Really? Immediately when I was watching the race I got the impression it was meant to help Webber, so not exactly a shocking revelation.

[EthanM]

Vettel would have been the major beneficiary as he'd have taken 25 points instead of 15, so it's not Webber's fault. He couldn't hand the win back to Vettel even if he'd been asked because Alonso was between them.

Before the SC Vettel was 20 seconds ahead of Webber. In 15 laps. During the SC Vettel was on Webber's gearbox, except Vettel had pitted whereas Webber hadn't. Vettel wouldn't be the "main beneficiary", race was Vettel's to lose, he was that much faster than everybody else. He lost it in the team strategy kerfuffle to help Webber get ahead of Alonso.

[slideways]

Actually the team denied it was their strategy saying it was a mistake by Vettel. But at the red bull hangar 7 post championship interviews Vettel admitted that it was intentional and he had decided to try and help Mark. This race was coming off the Turkey clash, Silverstone wing drama and Valencia aerial crash giving public opinion to Webber, I think Vettel had a rare lapse of judgement and tried to do something nice for his teammate.

[NotSoSilentBob]

http://plus.autospor...d-bull-created/

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

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

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

[NotSoSilentBob]

Before the SC Vettel was 20 seconds ahead of Webber. In 15 laps. During the SC Vettel was on Webber's gearbox, except Vettel had pitted whereas Webber hadn't. Vettel wouldn't be the "main beneficiary", race was Vettel's to lose, he was that much faster than everybody else. He lost it in the team strategy kerfuffle to help Webber get ahead of Alonso.

Sorry, I meant that he'd have been the 'main beneficiary' in that if it had worked as intended he'd have taken at least an extra 3 points off Alonso (with Webber 2nd, Alonso 3rd instead of the other way round).

I should have clarified that better.

[gillesthegenius]

Really? Immediately when I was watching the race I got the impression it was meant to help Webber, so not exactly a shocking revelation.

Yes, it was so obvious to everyone except the ones who had an agenda against Seb.

[gillesthegenius]

Sorry, I meant that he'd have been the 'main beneficiary' in that if it had worked as intended he'd have taken at least an extra 3 points off Alonso (with Webber 2nd, Alonso 3rd instead of the other way round).

I should have clarified that better.

At that point Mark was a much bigger threat to his title aspirations than Alonso was. So I dont understand how you can say that Seb was the intended beneficiary of that flopped plan. It was a plan that was totally intended to help Mark and the team.

[Oho]

At that point Mark was a much bigger threat to his title aspirations than Alonso was. So I dont understand how you can say that Seb was the intended beneficiary of that flopped plan. It was a plan that was totally intended to help Mark and the team.

Does not make all that much sense. If Vettel was tasked to hold up the field to buffer Webber's impending stop surely he was meant to do it during the laps following safety car period not during the last lap of it, thought of course if it was tight every bit of time would help.

[NotSoSilentBob]

Read the bolded bit of my last post - the strategy was designed to help both Mark & Seb's title hopes, and by definition the team's too. Seb still would have got the lion's share of those points, as he was entitled to get.

[SpaMaster]

It always seemed like team strategy at that time, but Vettel took lot of heat because he did not want the team to get into trouble. Not many drivers would have helped their direct championship-challenging teammates for a 1-2.

[gillesthegenius]

Does not make all that much sense. If Vettel was tasked to hold up the field to buffer Webber's impending stop surely he was meant to do it during the laps following safety car period not during the last lap of it, thought of course if it was tight every bit of time would help.

By doing that Seb would have run the risk of being overtaken by Fernando, meaning curtains to any hopes of a race win that he truly deserved. RBR knew Webber could open up a gap of about a second a lap on Fernando, and calculations probably revealed that the few seconds gained by holding Fernando up at the restart was probably going to be the diference between beating him and not as it actually turned out at the end. It was a small favour that was asked from sebastian and he probably did it for the team inspite of knowing that it could lose him the title to Webber if it was very close between them (at that stage both were on 136 points each) till the end.

[Atreiu]

He also let Webber through at Monza 2010, or was it really some sort of self fixed mechanical glitch?

Edited by Atreiu, 27 March 2013 - 14:29.

[andrewf1]

i haven't read the autosport article but what does this situation have to do with anything?

if the morale of this story is that 'look, vettel didn't cry over smth the team made him do', then it's a wrong conclusion. i'm pretty sure the team's idea was to slow down a reasonable amount behind the safety car, not slow down so much that it would get you a penalty.
that was vettel's mistake to make. why would he complain about a mistake he was solely responsible of?

[vone]

i haven't read the autosport article but what does this situation have to do with anything?

if the morale of this story is that 'look, vettel didn't cry over smth the team made him do', then it's a wrong conclusion. i'm pretty sure the team's idea was to slow down a reasonable amount behind the safety car, not slow down so much that it would get you a penalty.
that was vettel's mistake to make. why would he complain about a mistake he was solely responsible of?

The team's idea was to get Seb's help in getting Mark to second place, Seb was 1st then and Mark 3rd. Seb would have been unaware of that safety car rule, and that's why he made that mistake which lead to the penalty. It was a mistake, which occurred due to Seb trying to help out Mark. If Seb hadn't tried to help Mark, he wouldn't have made this mistake and would probably have won the race.

Seb was angry when he got the penalty, maybe he thought that the team should have warned him of the safety car rule when they asked him to do what he did (which they should have). But he had calmed down and was really mature about it at the end of the race and took all the blame, and didn't say a word against the team.

[vone]

It always seemed like team strategy at that time, but Vettel took lot of heat because he did not want the team to get into trouble. Not many drivers would have helped their direct championship-challenging teammates for a 1-2.

Exactly! It is a shame that many seem to overlook these types of actions from Seb.

[SpaMaster]

i haven't read the autosport article but what does this situation have to do with anything?

if the morale of this story is that 'look, vettel didn't cry over smth the team made him do', then it's a wrong conclusion. i'm pretty sure the team's idea was to slow down a reasonable amount behind the safety car, not slow down so much that it would get you a penalty.
that was vettel's mistake to make. why would he complain about a mistake he was solely responsible of?

I am sure you would feel a lot better after reading vone's reply. This kind of cynicism is really tiring.

[TheThirdTenor1]

The team's idea was to get Seb's help in getting Mark to second place, Seb was 1st then and Mark 3rd. Seb would have been unaware of that safety car rule, and that's why he made that mistake which lead to the penalty. It was a mistake, which occurred due to Seb trying to help out Mark. If Seb hadn't tried to help Mark, he wouldn't have made this mistake and would probably have won the race.

Seb was angry when he got the penalty, maybe he thought that the team should have warned him of the safety car rule when they asked him to do what he did (which they should have). But he had calmed down and was really mature about it at the end of the race and took all the blame, and didn't say a word against the team.

This was my initial reaction when i first watched the race.

However, when Vettel was asked to explain this, he said he fell asleep at the restart. Also judging from his times, he made no attempt to hold up Alonso after the restart (though i could be wrong on this).

[karne]

Oh puh-lease. No-one actually believes this rubbish do they? The "helping Mark" theory was an excuse concocted by Red Bull well after the fact in an attempt to cover up that Mark was better on the day and took advantage of Vettel napping. Vettel's first response when asked about it was that he fell asleep. When all else fails, trust the first response. He'd had no time to talk to anyone, no time to look at replays, no time to come up with some half-baked whiny excuse about why Mark beat him.

Mind you, I was extremely glad about it for another reason at the time. I still do not trust Vettel under Safety Cars and I cringe everytime he's anywhere near Mark when one comes out. Hungary sure wasn't the first time he'd been napping under a safety car.

[MarileneRiddle]

Like others, I agree that it was obvious the strategy was for Sebastian to help Webber to 2nd place therefore aiding the WCC cause, (and indirectly helping Webber's fight for WDC). I dare say if you asked some other drivers on the grid to do so, they wouldn't bother to *coughWebbercough*. What stands out is the risk Sebastian took - he could have easily not backed up the group and gotten his win, but chose to risk a quick start from the rest of the pack (and offending that obscure rule), to give Webber the chance for 2nd. Of course Sebastian meant for himself to win, but to aid Webber in anyway when they are direct competitors is admirable.

There has been more than once that Sebastian took the heat for the team when it is very easy to blame them otherwise. But one I found very interesting is Monaco 2011. It was obvious the team messed up with the pit stop and the tyres, but Sebastian changed that into a 1-stop strategy. And at the end of the day? Sebastian is said to be 'lucky' to get his win. I think it was far more 'lucky' that Red Bull has a driver like Sebastian who can think on the fly.

[karne]

But one I found very interesting is Monaco 2011. It was obvious the team messed up with the pit stop and the tyres, but Sebastian changed that into a 1-stop strategy. And at the end of the day? Sebastian is said to be 'lucky' to get his win. I think it was far more 'lucky' that Red Bull has a driver like Sebastian who can think on the fly.

Vettel at Monaco 2011? PAH! What about his teammate, forced to queue in the pits behind him because of RBR's screw-up, forced to spend over thirty seconds stationary, his strategy screwed and buried down in the pack? Made his way from 14th to 4th he did, at a track not exactly known for overtaking, with little if any help from strategy.

It irks me greatly that Vettel was treated like the messiah for that day, and yet Mark's far greater drive was completely overlooked.

[TheThirdTenor1]

Oh puh-lease. No-one actually believes this rubbish do they? The "helping Mark" theory was an excuse concocted by Red Bull well after the fact in an attempt to cover up that Mark was better on the day and took advantage of Vettel napping. Vettel's first response when asked about it was that he fell asleep. When all else fails, trust the first response. He'd had no time to talk to anyone, no time to look at replays, no time to come up with some half-baked whiny excuse about why Mark beat him.

Mind you, I was extremely glad about it for another reason at the time. I still do not trust Vettel under Safety Cars and I cringe everytime he's anywhere near Mark when one comes out. Hungary sure wasn't the first time he'd been napping under a safety car.

I also seem to remember on the 2010 season review DVD, Vettel was on the radio saying "Sorry guys, I f***ed up the restart". That would be a strange thing for him to say if dropping back behind the safety car was what he had planned to do after receiving orders from the team.

[ashley313]

I also seem to remember on the 2010 season review DVD, Vettel was on the radio saying "Sorry guys, I f***ed up the restart". That would be a strange thing for him to say if dropping back behind the safety car was what he had planned to do after receiving orders from the team.

Not if he was told to back up some and hold them up and instead backed up a lot and got a penalty.

[TheThirdTenor1]

Like others, I agree that it was obvious the strategy was for Sebastian to help Webber to 2nd place therefore aiding the WCC cause, (and indirectly helping Webber's fight for WDC). I dare say if you asked some other drivers on the grid to do so, they wouldn't bother to *coughWebbercough*. What stands out is the risk Sebastian took - he could have easily not backed up the group and gotten his win, but chose to risk a quick start from the rest of the pack (and offending that obscure rule), to give Webber the chance for 2nd. Of course Sebastian meant for himself to win, but to aid Webber in anyway when they are direct competitors is admirable.

Alot of conjecture and speculation here but very little to back it up.

[TheThirdTenor1]

Not if he was told to back up some and hold them up and instead backed up a lot and got a penalty.

Doubt it since he was bemused as to why he got a drive through penalty in the first place.

[scheivlak]

Not if that was a deliberate ploy to mask the team's intentions - or alternatively, if he felt he did it a bit too obvious.

Edited by scheivlak, 07 May 2013 - 15:09.

[karne]

Not if that was a deliberate ploy to mask the team's intentions - or alternatively, if he felt he did it a bit too obvious.

Now you're trying to suggest that his little temper tantrum in the pitlane while driving through was all a carefully-rehearsed ploy to hide their secret plot?

[TheThirdTenor1]

Not if that was a deliberate ploy to mask the team's intentions - or alternatively, if he felt he did it a bit too obvious.

Judging from his post race comments, it didn't seem he was aware of what he did wrong. - "I didn't understand what was going on and why I was penalised. I still don't,"

But i suppose these comments were also part of his acting routine.

[Zava]

Judging from his post race comments, it didn't seem he was aware of what he did wrong. - "I didn't understand what was going on and why I was penalised. I still don't,"

But i suppose these comments were also part of his acting routine.

he could be holding the pack up and still don't understand why he was being penalized, the two things don't rule each other out.

also, gotta love the karnage

[TheThirdTenor1]

he could be holding the pack up and still don't understand why he was being penalized, the two things don't rule each other out.

No. scheivlak said "if he felt he did it a bit too obvious." which, to me, implies he knew he was doing something wrong/illegal.

Edited by TheThirdTenor1, 07 May 2013 - 15:49.

[SpaMaster]

Oh puh-lease. No-one actually believes this rubbish do they? The "helping Mark" theory was an excuse concocted by Red Bull well after the fact in an attempt to cover up that Mark was better on the day and took advantage of Vettel napping. Vettel's first response when asked about it was that he fell asleep. When all else fails, trust the first response. He'd had no time to talk to anyone, no time to look at replays, no time to come up with some half-baked whiny excuse about why Mark beat him.

Mind you, I was extremely glad about it for another reason at the time. I still do not trust Vettel under Safety Cars and I cringe everytime he's anywhere near Mark when one comes out. Hungary sure wasn't the first time he'd been napping under a safety car.

Yeah right. Webber was irresistibly better that day that RB had to cover up the face that he was better and Webber like a sniper pounced on the fact that Vettel was sleeping.

[ashley313]

No. scheivlak said "if he felt he did it a bit too obvious." which, to me, implies he knew he was doing something wrong/illegal.

Something doesn't have to be illegal for you to want to hide it. Think of the Multi 21 affair...team orders are completely legal and yet the team still uses a coded message to convey them.

[TheThirdTenor1]

Something doesn't have to be illegal for you to want to hide it. Think of the Multi 21 affair...team orders are completely legal and yet the team still uses a coded message to convey them.

Terrible example - Red Bull didn't make any attempt to hide what was going on.

[redreni]

Judging from his post race comments, it didn't seem he was aware of what he did wrong. - "I didn't understand what was going on and why I was penalised. I still don't,"

But i suppose these comments were also part of his acting routine.

Well he's either a good actor or he didn't know a rule that I, along with the majority of people on this board, was perfectly well aware of. It's common sense. If you could back the pack up under the SC teams would do it routinely whenever it was advantageous to them. Where would it end? P2 could give P1 a half-minute head start on a restart, and P1 could then make a pitstop and rejoin in the lead. It would be ridiculous.

He was probably told to back the pack up meaning let Webber pull a gap after the SC has pitted, which is allowed. In those circumstances he would obviously want to be as far away from Webber at the restart as the rules permit, but he cocked it up and failed to keep sufficiently close. It's purely and simply a case of a driver trying to follow the team's instructions but making a pretty basic driving error that showed that he wasn't on top of the sporting regulations. He was still quite inexperienced in 2010 and made a fair few mistakes, this being one of them.

It is interesting that he was willing to help Webber, but I don't think relations at Red Bull had broken down then to the extent they have now. Webber was regularly beating Vettel, Vettel was yet to win a title, and basically he wasn't such an arrogant prick as he is now. If he was given a team order he would follow it even if it meant helping his main title rival - his team mate - to score more points than he otherwise would. As a no-time world champion you don't really have the same freedom to pick and choose what instructions you're going to follow as you do when you've won three titles on the bounce. Accordingly, if you told Vettel to do that now you might find he'd be significantly less accommodating...

[TheThirdTenor1]

He was probably told to back the pack up meaning let Webber pull a gap after the SC has pitted, which is allowed. In those circumstances he would obviously want to be as far away from Webber at the restart as the rules permit, but he cocked it up and failed to keep sufficiently close. It's purely and simply a case of a driver trying to follow the team's instructions but making a pretty basic driving error that showed that he wasn't on top of the sporting regulations. He was still quite inexperienced in 2010 and made a fair few mistakes, this being one of them.

All sounds plausible, but like i said earlier there is little to back this up. No radio communication, or interview where they talk about any sort of team orders. In addition, after the safety car had pitted, as far as i can recall, he made no attempt to hold up Alonso (though my recollection of the race is vague, so i could be wrong here - would be useful if we had the lap times). I agree with your conclusion though, that in the end it looks like it was a Vettel error rather than a team error.

[Skinnyguy]

All sounds plausible, but like i said earlier there is little to back this up.

Oh come on, anyone who didn´t realize what the move was meant to achieve live is watching the wrong series.

[goingthedistance]

I really, really don't think this was Vettel being "nice". It makes no sense in the context of the period and the strained relationship between the two. They were both vying for the WDC at that point, Vettel is not the sort to give his team-mate a leg-up. His comments later were a re-framing of history to enhance his image. No one can ever prove him right or wrong as the team clearly weren't in on it.

To be honest watching it live I presumed Vettel had essentially mentally discarded the fact Webber was in front of him, as he believed himself the rightful leader of the race at that point and was conducting himself in the way he would if he was managing the restart as the leader of the pack. Indeed, Webber knows that Vettel loves to slow the pack right down before a restart and may have capitalised on that knowledge himself, choosing to tear off into the distance.

If it was a team-order gone wrong I don't understand why Red Bull allowed Mark to win the race, they would have sought to correct it, surely. And if it was a team-order it was a dumb one as it was hard to co-ordinate (Vettel ground to a halt, Webber just flew off).

Edited by goingthedistance, 08 May 2013 - 17:39.

[Skinnyguy]

I really, really don't think this was Vettel being "nice".

No, it was a team trying to get maximum points and hurt their direct rival, and a driver overdoing it.

[sv401]

To be honest watching it live I presumed Vettel had essentially mentally discarded the fact Webber was in front of him

Does not sound believable after having to stare at Webber's gearbox at only a few car lengths away for minutes. Nor is it realistic for a driver to "fall asleep" at a restart so much that he drops back by something like 6 seconds. When was the last time you saw another incident like this happen ? Really, it was either a deliberate (albeit botched) attempt at backing up the field to help Webber, or Vettel is mentally not fit for F1 racing. Take your pick.

If it was a team-order gone wrong I don't understand why Red Bull allowed Mark to win the race, they would have sought to correct it

They could not because Alonso's car was splitting the Red Bulls after the penalty. Webber would also have had to let Alonso past. On the other hand, without the penalty Webber would have lost the lead when pitting.

Edited by sv401, 08 May 2013 - 17:56.

[TheThirdTenor1]

Oh come on, anyone who didn´t realize what the move was meant to achieve live is watching the wrong series.

So why did Vettel get on the radio and say "sorry guys, I f***ed up the restart"?

[TheThirdTenor1]

Does not sound believable after having to stare at Webber's gearbox at only a few car lengths away for minutes. Nor is it realistic for a driver to "fall asleep" at a restart so much that he drops back by something like 6 seconds. When was the last time you saw another incident like this happen ? Really, it was either a deliberate (albeit botched) attempt at backing up the field to help Webber, or Vettel is mentally not fit for F1 racing. Take your pick.

According to Vettel, he lost radio contact and assumed the safety car wasn't going in that lap.

If it was indeed a team order, it is strange that there was no coded message broadcast from the team instructing Vettel to hold up Alonso.

Edited by TheThirdTenor1, 08 May 2013 - 18:44.

[Skinnyguy]

So why did Vettel get on the radio and say "sorry guys, I f***ed up the restart"?

Because he did. I don´t get it, what´s not to understand??

[ashley313]

Terrible example - Red Bull didn't make any attempt to hide what was going on.

Mark pretty much eliminated any chance to hide it after the fact. But using a coded message in the first place is evidence enough that a team may still want to conceal something, even if it is legal. Just like every time part of a car is covered up and hidden from prying eyes and lenses.

[v@sh]

Not sure why everyone is reading into it so much. The only thing Vettel did wrong was to leave such a gap that he was penalized, otherwise it would have finished in a RB 1-2 with Vettel leading them home. Vettel was just playing the team strategy, something he didn't do in Malaysia.

- Vettel hold up Alonso slightly to give Webber a bigger buffer to come out in front in the pitstops
- Vettel was never in danger of being overtaken by Alonso given the RB's race pace advantage on the day, especially on a track like Hungary as well
- RB care as much for the WCC as they do the WDC, they've always tried get the drivers to race to the final pitstop and then hold station
- Vettel's radio message re Webber being in front was because he expected to be leading the RB home first and probably not expecting Webber to pull off the strategy as he did to get out in front

[TheThirdTenor1]

Because he did.

Great explanation.

I don´t get it, what´s not to understand??

So if it was indeed the team instructing Vettel to hold up Alonso under the safety car, why did we not hear any message (coded or otherwise) instructing Vettel what to do? and why did Vettel then say he f***ed up the restart? and why did he say he fell asleep at the restart?