75 replies to this topic

[TheThirdTenor1]

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.

well not really, you could tell what was going on after Horner and Rocky's comments on the radio. Horner even explained what the coded messages meant afterwards. They only use those coded messages to make life easier for themselves.

[Skinnyguy]

Great explanation.

There´s no explanation needed. You present the fact as if it was in conflict with the teamplay, but it isn´t.

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?

Because:

1) You don´t hear every radio communication.
2) He did **** up the restart and he did fall asleep. Again, I don´t understand what are you on about this. He had a task to do and he failed to do it properly.

[TheThirdTenor1]

There´s no explanation needed. You present the fact as if it was in conflict with the teamplay, but it isn´t.

Erm saying the "I fell asleep at the restart" is not quite the same as saying "the team told me to hold back at the restart in order to help Webber pull a gap to Alonso". Of course it is in conflict.

1) You don´t hear every radio communication.

Sure, but usually FOM pick out the juicy bits which will interest the viewer. Nothing regarding a team order was broadcast in the race edit or the end of year review DVD.

2) He did **** up the restart and he did fall asleep. Again, I don´t understand what are you on about this. He had a task to do and he failed to do it properly.

How do you know he had a task to do (i assume you're referring to holding up Alonso)? do you have anything to back that statement up?

Edited by TheThirdTenor1, 09 May 2013 - 11:23.

[Skinnyguy]

Erm saying the "I fell asleep at the restart" is not quite the same as saying "the team told me to hold back at the restart in order to help Webber pull a gap to Alonso". Of course it is in conflict.

Not at all, that´s really stupid. You can be ordered/try yourself to do something and fail to do so. Sorry but that makes no sense at all. Zero. There´s no conflict at all. In fact Sebastian´s radio message is a perfect description of what he did: relax too much/not knowing something he should have known.

Sure, but usually FOM pick out the juicy bits which will interest the viewer. Nothing regarding a team order was broadcast in the race edit or the end of year review DVD.

It doesn´t even have to be a team order. Vettel knew perfectly the situation after several laps of SC. 2010 races were way easier to read, he would know why Webber was in front and that he could beat Alonso, he would know perfectly how to help, just as every single viewer paying attention then knew what was happening.

And if there was an instruction, remember that in 2010 team orders were banned, any sort of message would have been very discreet. Also, did you hear any message in the USA 2007 GP to cut the fight between the McLarens? Or in Monaco 2007 to lower the power? Well, those messages were given, and haven´t someone inside the team told us, we wouldn´t ever know. And think about Belgium 2005 GP. We have no radio communication telling Räikkönen to slow down into the pitlane... does that mean he wasn´t trying to slow the pack down and just felt like driving like a cucumber?

How do you know he had a task to do (i assume you're referring to holding up Alonso)? do you have anything to back that statement up?

It´s called common sense. Because it was the very first time in my life I saw such a gap between first and second in a restart without a bundle of backmarkers in the way, and unsurprisingly it happened just when it would help the two drivers involved in the maneuvre to fight their direct rival. It´s called common sense.

Just like, despite no radio evidence, I KNOW FOR A FACT this was coreographed and intentional instead of a driver conveniently falling asleep just when it would help him to do so:



And I have to add you´re totally lost in this discussion, asking for evidences when it´s you challenging the obvious explanation.

[karne]

And I have to add you´re totally lost in this discussion, asking for evidences when it´s you challenging the obvious explanation.

Given Vettel's past records with Safety Cars, I would say the obvious explanation is NOT some convoluted team plot.

[TheThirdTenor1]

Not at all, that´s really stupid. You can be ordered/try yourself to do something and fail to do so. Sorry but that makes no sense at all. Zero. There´s no conflict at all. In fact Sebastian´s radio message is a perfect description of what he did: relax too much/not knowing something he should have known.

There's a big difference between "falling asleep" behind the safety car and intentionally trying to back someone up. Nothing stupid about that at all.

It doesn´t even have to be a team order. Vettel knew perfectly the situation after several laps of SC. 2010 races were way easier to read, he would know why Webber was in front and that he could beat Alonso, he would know perfectly how to help, just as every single viewer paying attention then knew what was happening.

A driver very rarely helps their team mate on their own accord, especially in a situation like this where they are both fighting for the championship.

And if there was an instruction, remember that in 2010 team orders were banned, any sort of message would have been very discreet.

Hence i mentioned coded message.

Also, did you hear any message in the USA 2007 GP to cut the fight between the McLarens? Or in Monaco 2007 to lower the power? Well, those messages were given, and haven´t someone inside the team told us, we wouldn´t ever know. And think about Belgium 2005 GP. We have no radio communication telling Räikkönen to slow down into the pitlane... does that mean he wasn´t trying to slow the pack down and just felt like driving like a cucumber?

Those were several years back - not as many radio communications were broadcast back then.

It´s called common sense. Because it was the very first time in my life I saw such a gap between first and second in a restart without a bundle of backmarkers in the way, and unsurprisingly it happened just when it would help the two drivers involved in the maneuvre to fight their direct rival. It´s called common sense.

Like i said, that was my initial reaction when it happened. But then, when you look into it, there is nothing to back it up.

Just like, despite no radio evidence, I KNOW FOR A FACT this was coreographed and intentional instead of a driver conveniently falling asleep just when it would help him to do so:

I don't really care what happened in Spa 2005. It's OT. This thread is for discussing Hungary 2010.

And I have to add you´re totally lost in this discussion, asking for evidences when it´s you challenging the obvious explanation.

The obvious explanation is that Vettel messed up and he fell asleep at the restart. This is what he said on the team radio and in an interview.

[robefc]

The obvious explanation is that Vettel messed up and he fell asleep at the restart. This is what he said on the team radio and in an interview.

I don't have sources etc to hand but I thought the commonly accepted explanation by journos etc was that it was deliberate, although I recall it being presented as a selfless act for the team rather than to help himself.

[TheThirdTenor1]

Couple of quotes from Vettel:

"I was so sure that the safety car would stay out a bit longer and the punishment i received for that lapse was quite severe."

"It's just stupid to believe that I trangressed the distance to the safety car on the purpose."

[bourbon]

Sure, but usually FOM pick out the juicy bits which will interest the viewer. Nothing regarding a team order was broadcast in the race edit or the end of year review DVD.

Did you watch the race? According to the team, they lost radio contact with Seb's car and communication throughout the race was spotty at best.

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).

Well your viewpoint paints Webber's win as heroic and brilliant - and Seb's actions as that of a bumbling idiot.

Bravo.

Edited by bourbon, 09 May 2013 - 15:21.

[TheThirdTenor1]

Did you watch the race?

Yes.

According to the team, they lost radio contact with Seb's car and communication throughout the race was spotty at best.

I've already stated that.

[robefc]

Couple of quotes from Vettel:

"I was so sure that the safety car would stay out a bit longer and the punishment i received for that lapse was quite severe."

"It's just stupid to believe that I trangressed the distance to the safety car on the purpose."

I'm fairly sure that Vettel subsequently referred to Hungary when talking about helping the team, although I may have dreamt it! Certainly none of this came out immediately after the race.

[TheThirdTenor1]

Red Bull team boss Christian Horner said Vettel dropped too far behind the safety car "for whatever reason".

"It's very clear in the briefings and the driver meetings what to do. Unfortunately he dropped too far back," the Briton said on the BBC.

[karne]

Did you watch the race? According to the team, they lost radio contact with Seb's car and communication throughout the race was spotty at best.

I would think this would make it LESS likely that there was some plot or order going on if they couldn't communicate with him properly.

[redreni]

Couple of quotes from Vettel:

"I was so sure that the safety car would stay out a bit longer and the punishment i received for that lapse was quite severe."

"It's just stupid to believe that I trangressed the distance to the safety car on the purpose."

Doesn't matter if it's on purpose or not, Seb, rules are rules. It's up to the driver to know the rules and to be switched on enough to follow them.

And the punishment is not especially severe given the detrimental effect of leaving such a gap on the cars behind him. It's not as harsh as, say, the penalty that put Rosberg out of contention for points when he was leading at Singapore when his crime was to inadvertedly cross the blend line at pit exit, even though he re-crossed the blend line again thus slowing himself down and making sure he gained no net advantage. I've never understood why, provided you're not battling for position, you can run off the track and miss out whole corners without penalty as long as you don't set a green sector, whereas if it's the pit lane blend line not gaining an advantage is no defence. I know the rule is there for safety but Rosberg didn't even make it as far as the racing line for cars out on track, so there was no danger element to the incident.

However, since the rule about keeping within a set distance of the car ahead under the SC is specifically there to stop teams playing tactics, it might be argued that it's wrong to penalise the car that commits the offence. Perhaps better to penalise the other car. Very much like in 1991 when Patrese was sometimes badly off the pace and used to sit in front of Prost for lap after lap not letting the Frenchman lap him. Williams wouldn't have cared if the stewards had penalised Patrese for blocking. The only way to stop it happening would have been to penalise Mansell. Similarly if a team is running 1-2 and the gap between the two cars exceeds 12 car-lengths at the restart, it's the leader who benefits so arguably the team should be punished by way of a drive-through for the leader, even though it's the second-placed car that has committed the offence.

[Skinnyguy]

There's a big difference between "falling asleep" behind the safety car and intentionally trying to back someone up. Nothing stupid about that at all.

Yes, that´s what I´m trying to tell you. If you lose 1 second, you got caught napping. If you lose several, you´re doing something on purpose.

A driver very rarely helps their team mate on their own accord, especially in a situation like this where they are both fighting for the championship.

What series are you watching? There were 2 blue cars and a red one fighting for a title. Of course the blue cars are going to work together to hurt the red one. A head to head in the final stage is a different story. No mercy there.

Hence i mentioned coded message.

A message that could have happened without us knowing, just as in the examples I mentioned.

Like i said, that was my initial reaction when it happened. But then, when you look into it, there is nothing to back it up.

Then it was youy who was asleep that day There are 15 years of watching restarts to back it up in my case. More than enough to realize when someone just doesn´t want to get on with it. Hope one day you´ll arrive there too.

I don't really care what happened in Spa 2005. It's OT. This thread is for discussing Hungary 2010.

It´s exactly the same story. Something obvious can be deduced from a certain driver actions, yet you don´t get it because there´s no blatant radio to confirm it. It´s like doubting if what you have in front is **** or chocolate because there´s no little cardboard saying what it is. Or doubting if the moon is a big piece of cheese because no scientist ever said it wasn´t.

The obvious explanation is that Vettel messed up and he fell asleep at the restart. This is what he said on the team radio and in an interview.

That´s ridiculous. It really is. You really have to be totally naive/unfamiliar to the series to think so. A driver with a good car, not paying enough attention, will fall 1/1.5 behind in the two three corners done full speed.

[TheThirdTenor1]

Yes, that´s what I´m trying to tell you. If you lose 1 second, you got caught napping. If you lose several, you´re doing something on purpose.

Vettel didn't do it on purpose - "It's just stupid to believe that I trangressed the distance to the safety car on the purpose."

What series are you watching? There were 2 blue cars and a red one fighting for a title. Of course the blue cars are going to work together to hurt the red one. A head to head in the final stage is a different story. No mercy there.

At the time, Alonso was some what of an outsider for the title. It was more between Vettel, Webber and Hamilton. But still, i seriously doubt Vettel was willing to voluntarily help Webber after what happened earlier in the season and given that he was still one of his main rivals for the title.

A message that could have happened without us knowing, just as in the examples I mentioned.

Possibly, but usually FOM are quite quick to broadcast that kind of stuff.

Then it was youy who was asleep that day There are 15 years of watching restarts to back it up in my case. More than enough to realize when someone just doesn´t want to get on with it. Hope one day you´ll arrive there too.

I was perfectly awake. Vettel said he fell asleep, he thought the safety car was going around another lap and he expected Webber to drop back if the safety car was coming in that lap. He actually transgressed twice because he fell more than 10 car lengths back when he was going down the pit straight, as well as the end of the lap where the safety car was coming in.

It´s exactly the same story. Something obvious can be deduced from a certain driver actions, yet you don´t get it because there´s no blatant radio to confirm it. It´s like doubting if what you have in front is **** or chocolate because there´s no little cardboard saying what it is. Or doubting if the moon is a big piece of cheese because no scientist ever said it wasn´t.

Strawman argument doesn't work.

That´s ridiculous. It really is. You really have to be totally naive/unfamiliar to the series to think so. A driver with a good car, not paying enough attention, will fall 1/1.5 behind in the two three corners done full speed.

It's not ridiculous. It is what he said.

What is ridiculous is to completely ignore all the quotes and evidence and provided and claim your theory is right because it was "obvious" what was going on.

[Skinnyguy]

Even more naive are people buying the standard lame excuses trying to imply the penalty was harsh/not deserved.

It´s like believing the "I wasn´t holding anyone, I was just waiting for a team countdown" from the Hungary ´07 quali mess.

[TheThirdTenor1]

Again with the strawman.

[Skinnyguy]

Vettel didn't do it on purpose - "It's just stupid to believe that I trangressed the distance to the safety car on the purpose."

Fernando Alonso: "I was just waiting for a countdown to avoid traffic". I guess that settled it. Oh wait it didn´t.
Lewis Hamilton: "This is what happened after Trulli went off".

First time someone says something to avoid a penalty/make it look unfair.

At the time, Alonso was some what of an outsider for the title. It was more between Vettel, Webber and Hamilton. But still, i seriously doubt Vettel was willing to voluntarily help Webber after what happened earlier in the season and given that he was still one of his main rivals for the title.

Outsider my ass. They´d just dominated Germany easily, and the gap was small. It was the team on the move.

I was perfectly awake. Vettel said he fell asleep, he thought the safety car was going around another lap and he expected Webber to drop back if the safety car was coming in that lap. He actually transgressed twice because he fell more than 10 car lengths back when he was going down the pit straight, as well as the end of the lap where the safety car was coming in.

If you want to buy that crap it´s your problem. FFS, do you even know safety car has LIGHTS on top to signal when it´s last lap, and that the signal is given with a lot of anticipation to the actual restart?

It's not ridiculous. It is what he said.

It´s both. What he said is ridiculous. He must be:

1) Not mentally fit for motorsport.
2) Blind to not see the lights from P2.

to not realize it´s last lap of a SC period. And Seb is not any of these. It´s the very first time I see someone saying that, just like it´s the first restart like that I see. You really have to be naive to buy it.

What is ridiculous is to completely ignore all the quotes and evidence and provided and claim your theory is right because it was "obvious" what was going on.

Ridiculous is to buy these excuses because they fit your agenda. But you don´t need to play that fanboy game with me: I like Seb, and I´m saying too he messed up big time. So no need to play ridiculous games to make him look stupid.

[TheThirdTenor1]

Fernando Alonso: "I was just waiting for a countdown to avoid traffic". I guess that settled it. Oh wait it didn´t.
Lewis Hamilton: "This is what happened after Trulli went off".

First time someone says something to avoid a penalty/make it look unfair.

strawman...

Outsider my ass. They´d just dominated Germany easily, and the gap was small. It was the team on the move.

Look at the championship standings before that race.

If you want to buy that crap it´s your problem. FFS, do you even know safety car has LIGHTS on top to signal when it´s last lap, and that the signal is given with a lot of anticipation to the actual restart?

Yes i know how the safety car works, though the lights don't go out immediately once it starts the last lap before the safety car comes in, but it will happen at some stage on that lap.

You can not simply dismiss the evidence as "crap".

It´s both. What he said is ridiculous. He must be:

1) Not mentally fit for motorsport.
2) Blind to not see the lights from P2.

He was dropping back all the time. Easy thing to miss.

to not realize it´s last lap of a SC period. And Seb is not any of these. It´s the very first time I see someone saying that, just like it´s the first restart like that I see. You really have to be naive to buy it.

I'll stick with what the man himself said. He messed up the restart and fell asleep.

Ridiculous is to buy these excuses because they fit your agenda. But you don´t need to play that fanboy game with me: I like Seb, and I´m saying too he messed up big time. So no need to play ridiculous games to make him look stupid.

I have no agenda so please don't accuse me of having one.

[Skinnyguy]

OK this went far enough. That "it´s possible to miss the lights from P2" is the perfect indicator there´s no point discussing this with you.

You want to buy the standard after-penalty PR yada yada (that´s all you have) instead of thinking about the actual events during the race. Fair enough. Your choice.

Just one last thing before leaving this pointless discussion. All these "strawman" responses are only doing one thing for you: showing you have double standards. This time you´ll buy some PR yada-yada lines because they fit your agenda, instead of trusting the blatant evidences the actual events during the race are. Yet when I point out examples about how you CAN´T trust these PR stuff as evidences of anything, replying "strawman" is the best you can do. Sad.

[TheThirdTenor1]

OK this went far enough. That "it´s possible to miss the lights from P2" is the perfect indicator there´s no point discussing this with you.

Why? if he drops back so far he won't be able to see the lights on the safety car.

You want to buy the standard after-penalty PR yada yada (that´s all you have)

What about Vettel getting on the radio saying he f***ed up the restart? this was before the penalty so not exactly post penalty PR speak.

instead of thinking about the actual events during the race. Fair enough. Your choice.

I did think about the actual events in the race - what he said in the race, how he transgressed the rule more than once under the safety car and how he didn't try to hold up Alonso once the safety car had gone into the pits.

Just one last thing before leaving this pointless discussion. All these "strawman" responses are only doing one thing for you: showing you have double standards. This time you´ll buy some PR yada-yada lines because they fit your agenda, instead of trusting the blatant evidences the actual events during the race are. Yet when I point out examples about how you CAN´T trust these PR stuff as evidences of anything, replying "strawman" is the best you can do. Sad.

Look, you can not simply point to an event like Spa 2005 and say "look, what happened here is obvious" and therefore conclude that the same applies to a different event such as Hungary 2010. No double standards. And like i said before, i would appreciate if you didn't accuse me of having an agenda (because i don't).

[Zava]

What about Vettel getting on the radio saying he f***ed up the restart? this was before the penalty so not exactly post penalty PR speak.

that is actually an argument against what you're saying, if he said that before he was penalized, he obviously didn't say that to excuse himself for the penalty, it could well be that he said that to cover the team strategy stuff. I mean, "hey guys, sorry I messed up, and left this big advantage for Mark, wink, wink"

[Skinnyguy]

that is actually an argument against what you're saying, if he said that before he was penalized, he obviously didn't say that to excuse himself for the penalty, it could well be that he said that to cover the team strategy stuff. I mean, "hey guys, sorry I messed up, and left this big advantage for Mark, wink, wink"

The guy just keeps missing obvious stuff. It´s useless. He doesn´t even know the safety car lights (lack of) start signaling the restart somewhere around the middle of the last SC lap instead of in the very last moment.

Ah, if everyone was that naive... "Oh no, I slipped and had to grab that beatiful lady´s butt to keep my vertical".

[TheThirdTenor1]

that is actually an argument against what you're saying, if he said that before he was penalized, he obviously didn't say that to excuse himself for the penalty, it could well be that he said that to cover the team strategy stuff. I mean, "hey guys, sorry I messed up, and left this big advantage for Mark, wink, wink"

It's not against what i'm saying. The only way it is against what i'm saying is if you interpret his comments in the way you have instead of taking them at face value. Your interpretation relies on speculation and conjecture.

[TheThirdTenor1]

The guy just keeps missing obvious stuff.

No, i don't.

He doesn´t even know the safety car lights (lack of) start signaling the restart somewhere around the middle of the last SC lap instead of in the very last moment.

Nope, i never said that.

Ah, if everyone was that naive... "Oh no, I slipped and had to grab that beatiful lady´s butt to keep my vertical".

Strawman, and your worst one yet.