105 replies to this topic

[A3]

So a quick poll on what happened sunday.

 

As far as I know Verstappen did not know the reason behind the team order, let's assume that this was indeed the case. Was he right to reply "NO!" to the request to swap positions with his team mate?

 

And, in general, do you feel team orders have a place in Formula 1?

 

The mods will delete this thread if it ends in a Max Verstappen topic, so please keep it on topic.

[Jon83]

He did the right thing IMO. The order should never have been given in the first place at that stage of the race.

 

As for team orders, they have a place in the sport IMO and have existed officially and unofficially for as long as I remember.

Edited by Jon83, 22 September 2015 - 11:14.

[Marklar]

For me team orders belongs to F1 if it has something to do with the championship standing or if the chasing driver is really faster (I mean really) and could improve the team result. Any other team order - like this one - should not belong to F1.

Edited by Marklar, 22 September 2015 - 11:17.

[A3]

For me team orders belongs to F1 if it has something to do with the championship standing or if the chasing driver is really faster (I mean really) and could improve the team result. Any other team order - like this one - should not belong to F1.

 

Yeah, I feel the same.

[RekF1]

He did nothing wrong with this. I thought he'd been let through by Sainz on Sunday but that wasn't the case. Sainz was very unlucky in the pits though, his team are so slow to react.

The only time I thought a driver was out of order was Seb n Malaysia. Not because of his actions, but because he didn't have the balls to own up after. Saying he didn't understand the message and apologising to Mark. Then he did a u-turn the next race and said it's because Mark didn't deserve it.

[Requiem84]

So a quick poll on what happened sunday.

As far as I know Verstappen did not know the reason behind the team order, let's assume that this was indeed the case. Was he right to reply "NO!" to the request to swap positions with his team mate?

And, in general, do you feel team orders have a place in Formula 1?

The mods will delete this thread if it ends in a Max Verstappen topic, so please keep it on topic.

Perfect. Thanks!

[SophieB]

For me team orders belongs to F1 if it has something to do with the championship standing or if the chasing driver is really faster (I mean really) and could improve the team result. Any other team order - like this one - should not belong to F1.

 

If you take that approach, where do you draw the line though? Williams took stick last season partly because people felt like that. That they never should have tried to apply them to Massa and Bottas so early in the championship, but I'm not sure that's fair. Points earned at the beginning of the season count towards the final tally just as much as those earned in the last race. (Now that double points has gone and sanity has been restored on that score anyway). Who can know how valuable a couple of points may be later on?

 

I think if you feel they are fair when it affects championship standings, it makes more sense to see them as fair game for every race. 

 

I think they should be legal, and left between the teams and their drivers to try and make it work... if they can.

[smitten]

Slightly biased poll. 'Fought hard' to be there or 'simply' do as he's told?

How about:

Yes, he's entitled to be selfish.
No, the team has a much better overall strategic picture.

Or how about just Yes or No?

[Gareth]

I have edited the poll.  People can expand on their reasons for choosing yes or no in their posts.

[pacificquay]

Yes and Yes

[Requiem84]

As a team you have alot to consider when using this strategic option you have. It not only affects the current race, but can affect many races to come.

For instance, after Germany 2010 the roles within Ferrari were absolute clear. I dare say Massa underperformed for a long time as a consequence.

In addition, it can cause a lot of tension between drivers and both sides of the garage.

There is an inherently dangerously destabilizing risk when using team orders. As such, I believe teams should only use it when the potential reward is equal to the risks.

This Sunday, there was 1 position to play for. And it was very unlikely CS could have done it. No upshot, but as the aftermath showed, a significant blow to the intra team dynamics.

So when to use it? Perhaps early in a race when driver a) has more speed and holding him up can cost several positions. And obviously in championship situations (Brazil '07).

Edited by Requiem84, 22 September 2015 - 11:51.

[MensRea]

I think this is a tricky one , can't help but think that the team should have told VES why at least ( unless he was and we never heard it). I don't think SAI would have passed PER anyway , but worth a try if they genuinely thought there was a chance of gaining an extra position. Besides , " Max just do it" ? How about " Max we want Carlos to have a go at Perez" ? It would have taken 2 seconds more for the engineer to say it and if VES then refused , you could definitely argue that he disobeyed. 

[ThisIsMischaW]

Teams should be able to do whatever they want. Fact is if you want the fastest drivers driving for you, you can't interfere with them too much anyway.

Edited by ThisIsMischaW, 22 September 2015 - 11:53.

[Rinehart]

Yes he was right to ignore it. They can fire him if they're they can find a equal, but more obedient driver to replace him...

 

Yes team orders are part of F1. In my dreams I'd prefer 24 x 1 car teams...

[RedBaron]

It's not a problem, Sainz just won't make it easy for him in the future.

 

He was the charger let through by his team-mate to attack the car ahead and gain more points for the team. He failed to do so. He gains nothing from keeping the position. He doesn't gain respect as a real racer because he failed at what was expected of him.

 

Edit: Just read he wasn't let through by Sainz, that contradicts what Sainz said and other statements from what I recall. Which is it?

Edited by RedBaron, 22 September 2015 - 11:57.

[Jon83]

I think this is a tricky one , can't help but think that the team should have told VES why at least ( unless he was and we never heard it). I don't think SAI would have passed PER anyway , but worth a try if they genuinely thought there was a chance of gaining an extra position. Besides , " Max just do it" ? How about " Max we want Carlos to have a go at Perez" ? It would have taken 2 seconds more for the engineer to say it and if VES then refused , you could definitely argue that he disobeyed. 

 

There may well have been a discussion which we didn't hear.

[rasul]

Sainz:

I don’t need to tell him [anything], I’m sure the team is the one who needs to talk with him. I had three times this year that they asked me to let him by [and] I did it three times. The team asked him three times this year to let me by [and] he has never done it yet.=

 

But STR would do nothing. Max must be the most obvious #1 driver on the grid. Champions don't enjoy the sort of treatment he gets 

 

Team orders have always been a part of F1. Sometimes they're okay, sometimes they aren't. But you need to become something and earn the privilege  to ignore  team orders.

Edited by rasul, 22 September 2015 - 12:01.

[taran]

I feel Verstappen was right on general principle. Drivers shouldn't be giving up positions. Team mates should be a bit more careful when racing each other but that's it.

While team orders have long been used in F1 racing, I feel they shouldn't. Let's say driver A uses his tyres hard to get to position 5 and then relies on strong defensive driving to get the car home in fifth. Should he then let driver B (his team mate) past because B used a different strategy to get to sixth and has fresher tyres?

 

It is a driver's responsibility to make his own race strategy work and every other driver on the track is a rival once the flag drops.

[Gareth]

I think they have a place in F1 if used appropriately.  It's a team sport.

 

I generally think teams do use them appropriately.  There aren't too many orders I've disagreed with.  I think it's also interesting that we (IMO) see about the same amount of use of team orders, whether they are banned or not (albeit the orders were less explicit during the ban) - which I think is further evidence that the teams use them appropriately.

 

 

Examples of where I think it's ok (and think most people have a similar view) would include:

 

1. WDC at stake, one driver mathematically out

2. Two drivers on a different strategy, driver on the "quicker" part of his strategy is behind, and other cars are being raced (ie the two aren't miles in front in a guaranteed 1/2)

3. One driver is very clearly, and significantly, quicker than the other (even though on the same strategy) and there are places ahead that the team could pick up

4. A result is in the bag, fighting between the 2 drivers only puts that at risk for no potential gain and "hold positions" is issued

 

I'm also ok with 2004 Austria and 2010 Germany style (team mate isn't out of the WDC, but it is absolutely clear based on past form which of the team's drivers is going to be their best chance of a WDC).

 

In this example, I didn't think TR were right to issue the order and I think Max was right to refuse it.  I think similarly for Hungary 14 between Hamilton and Rosberg and Malaysia 14 for Massa and Bottas.

 

I thought Vettel was right to refuse the Multi-21 order, but that was on the basis the other driver was Webber who had ignored the same order in the past when the roles were reversed, rather than because RBR were wrong to issue the order.

[Kev00]

In this instance i dont think a team order is required. There is no point in pissing off one of your drivers in the hope that maybe, if you are lucky, might just gain two more points, though probably not anyway. If you let them race then they cant complain. However, i do think that if the team gives you an order you should obey it and then argue about it later if you dont like it.

[TheRacingElf]

Personally I find team orders to be some kind of match-fixing, which doesn't belong in sports.

If a driver himself decides to let his teammate pass I don't really have problem with it but I just can't stand the fact the pitwall deciding the end result of a race, that isn't sports in my opinion..

[A3]

I have edited the poll.  People can expand on their reasons for choosing yes or no in their posts.

Fair enough!

[ANF]

No/Yes. He would have been right had he managed to overtake Pérez, but he obviously didn't have the rear grip to do that.

 

The Red Bulls switched positions in Monaco, Ricciardo being given the chance to attack on fresher tyres, and when he failed to gain any positions he was told to let Kvyat through again. Toro Rosso had probably done the same thing in Singapore. I don't have a problem with that kind of team orders.

Edited by ANF, 22 September 2015 - 12:52.

[MensRea]

Personally I find team orders to be some kind of match-fixing, which doesn't belong in sports.

If a driver himself decides to let his teammate pass I don't really have problem with it but I just can't stand the fact the pitwall deciding the end result of a race, that isn't sports in my opinion..

 

 In general I agree with you , but maybe at the same time there's a valid point that we have teams in F1 . Can we really blame teams trying to maximize results , especially in light of the (absurd) money difference given for the final standings in the constructors'? There's a big fight ongoing between FI , Lotus and TR in the constructors...unfortunately there is big money involved (too much).

[A3]

Edit: Just read he wasn't let through by Sainz, that contradicts what Sainz said and other statements from what I recall. Which is it?

 

As far as I'm aware Verstappen got ahead of Sainz when Sainz had his extra stop to change to supersofts as well.

[Requiem84]

Personally I find team orders to be some kind of match-fixing, which doesn't belong in sports.

If a driver himself decides to let his teammate pass I don't really have problem with it but I just can't stand the fact the pitwall deciding the end result of a race, that isn't sports in my opinion..

 

What about a football player that get's substituted? Or a beachvollyeball team that isn't allowed to go to the olympics because another couple was deemed to be better? 

 

We are watching two championships

- Drivers championship

- Team championship

 

Historically, the team championship has been valued more by the F1 teams... It makes sense, it's an accomplishment for what they achieved as a whole, and not the result of an individual driver. From that perspective, I believe the team should protect its interests in some way by making these kind of choices. 

 

Let's say Sainz would have been MUCH faster than VES, than I think VES should have let him past. The 2 points up for grabs could make the difference between P5 or P6 in the constructors championship. Which is a difference of quite a few milions of money..

[Marklar]

If you take that approach, where do you draw the line though? Williams took stick last season partly because people felt like that. That they never should have tried to apply them to Massa and Bottas so early in the championship, but I'm not sure that's fair. Points earned at the beginning of the season count towards the final tally just as much as those earned in the last race. (Now that double points has gone and sanity has been restored on that score anyway). Who can know how valuable a couple of points may be later on?

I think if you feel they are fair when it affects championship standings, it makes more sense to see them as fair game for every race.

I think they should be legal, and left between the teams and their drivers to try and make it work... if they can.

Thats the difficult point imo. Imagine driver A is in an race at the season start slower than driver B and let him pass. In the end of the year driver A loses the championship by 1 point. But you cant predict that. Its in the end the teams decision. Eventhough I think that this twists are more an problem for top teams in the end. The twists for other teams is more the relationship/trust/confidence of their drivers.

Regarding the championship it is for me understandable at certain points: for me Ferrari has reached this point for example now (and for me Mercedes not by the way). But that differs of course.

[Kao18]

It's not a problem, Sainz just won't make it easy for him in the future.

 

He was the charger let through by his team-mate to attack the car ahead and gain more points for the team. He failed to do so. He gains nothing from keeping the position. He doesn't gain respect as a real racer because he failed at what was expected of him.

 

Edit: Just read he wasn't let through by Sainz, that contradicts what Sainz said and other statements from what I recall. Which is it?

 

I guess Sainz meant an other race in which he let Verstappen trough.

[CurbPainter]

Max was right this time.

 

Perez was too fast to overtake anyway, unless his tyres would have worn out at the end too much and he made a lock up, both drivers could not have passed him. So why give Carlos the chance to do so in the last couple of laps and not Max beats me ?

 

In Monaco Kvyat-Ricciardo did something similar, but Ricciardo was on faster (different) fresher tyres that time, but this time that wasn't even the case, they were both on the same tyres (only Max his tyres had done one qualifying lap with it, and seeing Max is normally a bit easier on his tyres with his driving style, both their tyres would have been in the same condition at that time).

 

Carlos also didn't let Max go by earlier. Carlos got overtaken by Max during the second SC, and right after the restart tried to overtake Max but Max defended it.

 

Carlos came out saying last week there was no favouritism at Toro Rosso for Max, but after that wants to be favoured over Max immediately the next race ?

 

http://www.inautonew...ring-verstappen

 

Big mistake of the team to listen and go along with Carlos asking to be let through. It luckily hasn't hurt Max's chances to go to the Red Bull main team in any way...

 

http://www.theguardi...ll-f1-singapore

Edited by CurbPainter, 22 September 2015 - 13:22.

[DESCHAIN]

Yes, & Yes.

 

Versttappen was right, if Sainz is faster, make the pass stick. Same situation as Massa vs Bottas last year, Massa was right in dismissing the T.O.

 

Now VES has to live with the consecuences thought, in that Sainz will not comply if the fortunes are reversed.

 

But essencially i'm OK with TO's, as demostrated by Red Bull with Kvyat and Ricciardo swapping back positions succesfully once the intended try at passing a rival team didn't came off.

 

It is a team sport after all, there's a Constructor Championship at stake, and that championship is the one paying the bills...just make sure your drivers have clear understanding of the situation.

Edited by DESCHAIN, 22 September 2015 - 13:11.

[Spillage]

They wanted him to let Sainz through to have a go at Perez and then, if he failed, reverse the positions on the line, no? If that is the case then I don't think he did the right thing in disobeying the order. I don't like team orders generally, but if they're needed to best maximise the team's results then I can't see a problem with that team using them.

[CurbPainter]

They wanted him to let Sainz through to have a go at Perez and then, if he failed, reverse the positions on the line, no? If that is the case then I don't think he did the right thing in disobeying the order. I don't like team orders generally, but if they're needed to best maximise the team's results then I can't see a problem with that team using them.

 

Both of them had the same chance, maybe Max an even better chance if you think he's the better overtaker.

 

In the last few laps Perez's tyres would have been worn out more which could have resulted in a lock up and a chance to overtake. So why Carlos has to be favoured over Max to have a go at Perez when Perez's tyres would have worn tyres in the last few laps?

Edited by CurbPainter, 22 September 2015 - 13:28.

[scheivlak]

 

I'm also ok with 2004 Austria 

Austria 2002, I guess - otherwise pretty good post.

[Kao18]

Sainz: I don’t need to tell him [anything], I’m sure the team is the one who needs to talk with him. I had three times this year that they asked me to let him by [and] I did it three times. The team asked him three times this year to let me by [and] he has never done it yet.=

But STR would do nothing. Max must be the most obvious #1 driver on the grid. Champions don't enjoy the sort of treatment he gets 

 

Team orders have always been a part of F1. Sometimes they're okay, sometimes they aren't. But you need to become something and earn the privilege  to ignore  team orders.

 

I wonder what those other two times are as we have never heard about it. Unless Sainz means they asked Max three times this race.

 

Even though I believe Sainz when he says he would have given the place back to Max had he not been able to overtake Perez it was not the right race and the right time for the team to ask Max to let Sainz pass. Just a couple laps from the finish after such a hard fought race and Sainz not showing to be really faster or overtaking more easily (Lotus). For me Max did the right thing. Yes and yes.

[SophieB]

Thats the difficult point imo. Imagine driver A is in an race at the season start slower than driver B and let him pass. In the end of the year driver A loses the championship by 1 point. But you cant predict that. Its in the end the teams decision. Eventhough I think that this twists are more an problem for top teams in the end. The twists for other teams is more the relationship/trust/confidence of their drivers.

Regarding the championship it is for me understandable at certain points: for me Ferrari has reached this point for example now (and for me Mercedes not by the way). But that differs of course.

 

The same difficulty applies for the smaller teams, though - maybe even more so. Even if a team knows they have no realistic hope of landing that big silver trophy thing that looks a bit like an ashtray from the lobby of the local cinema in a given season, points can still be very, very precious. A single point can be enough to mean the difference of millions of pounds in the final WCC rankings, and enough to affect the financial stability of the team's future. As you say, who knows when how significant 'lost' points at the start of the season might be at the end?

 

Of course, teams often find out that they have to pay in other ways for points achieved that way, as you say, in terms of loss of trust/motivation for the drivers and potential loss of face/authority for the Team Principal. 

[A3]

They wanted him to let Sainz through to have a go at Perez and then, if he failed, reverse the positions on the line, no?

Correct.

 

 

 

If that is the case then I don't think he did the right thing in disobeying the order.

Problem is, they didn't tell Max why they wanted him to swap positions. In a post race interview they asked him if he knew why he was asked to move over and he said "No, I haven't spoken to the team yet."

Edited by A3, 22 September 2015 - 13:38.

[lars75]

Well I voted Yes and Yes in this case.

 

But:

First of all I think there are many good reasons to give a TO in the first place for teams at their drivers. If there are points for the grab and one of them has a better shot at them it could be valid. Second, if the one still has a shot a the tittle and needs that place to keep the chance alive or benefit highly by it, that could be a valid reason as well. Third, if the team has a chance to gain or strenghten a positions in the WCC, it might be a valid reason.

 

But:

A driver, driving his ass of and working his way back from almost two laps down in to 8th position and than ask him to give up on it is unfair and disrespectfull at any point although there could be a valid reason for it. The fact that such driver worked his way up like that demands some respect and credits from the team no matter what is on stake. Denying that driver this position for a higher corse is unfair to that driver in every way possible, and a true sportsteam would never give such a call after such effort imo.

 

Al this wasn't the case:

1. Sainz wasn't faster at any given point during the race.

2. Sainz wasn't capable of overtaking Perez, and the way he overtook Maldonado and Grosjean would give reason to think

3. Verstappens tyres were older, but only by a little margin of 4 laps

4. The team wouldn't have won anything with it so there was no higher goal to achieve

5. After where Max came from he had every right in every possible way to claim that spot as his own no matter what reason there would be for the team

[A3]

I wonder what those other two times are as we have never heard about it.

 

I guess Sainz counts Monaco as well?

[Cloxxki]

It's to me fascinating how the team came to the order. Their reasoning was expecting better pace from Carlos because his tires were 3 laps newer. And part of the deal, he'd have a better shot at overtaking Perex by the time they'd reach him. Those assumptions might come from a team that'd been in coma all season and woke up in the middle of this race, but seriously, have they seen the difference in these driver's race crafts? Carlos certainly knows how to drive his laps, but overtaking Perez on form in a car he likes with Merc power? In which alternate universe does Carlos have a better shot at grabbing 7th?

Only reality-bound explanation I see would be for Carlos to basically do to Perez what he did to the Lotuses. Or really crash him out. Carlos is lost or a good season total points anyway, ram Perez off and let Max catch the next car up the track. We've had crash gates before. But for 7th place?

By the time Carlos would reach Perez his supersofts would have lost most of their edge anyway, both on Max and Perez. Perez would be the best car/driver Carlos would ever attempt to overtake. Max is comfortable with Williams and better cars when they block his passage. Carlos knows more about McLaren's diffuser than the car's  design team. But overtaking a Merc powered Force India should be a walk in the park.

[Kao18]

I guess Sainz counts Monaco as well?

 

That was the other way around though right?

 

Or did they ask Max at any point in Monaco to let Sainz pass?

 

Carlos says they asked Max three times this year and three times he did not do it. 

[lars75]

It's not a problem, Sainz just won't make it easy for him in the future.

 

He was the charger let through by his team-mate to attack the car ahead and gain more points for the team. He failed to do so. He gains nothing from keeping the position. He doesn't gain respect as a real racer because he failed at what was expected of him.

 

Edit: Just read he wasn't let through by Sainz, that contradicts what Sainz said and other statements from what I recall. Which is it?

 

Euhm I'm losing you a bit here!!!

 

First of all, to do so for Sainz he needs to be in a equal position at equal circumstances. They weren't at any point before this year! Sainz claiming he did it several times for Verstappen in that case is no valid. Even besides the fact that I really don't know in wich races this has been the case. (Equal circumstances like)

[A3]

That was the other way around though right?

Sorry, read it wrong.

[CurbPainter]

Al this wasn't the case:

3. Verstappens tyres were older, but only by a little margin of 4 laps

 

...only one fast lap, and seeing Max's driving style is less hard on the tyres, I will bet his tyres were in the same condition in the last few laps. But after reading around the internet the word is the call already came when Max was behind Grosjean and taking a few laps to see where he could do a clean overtake, which makes it even more odd.

 

Somehow I get the feeling they wanted to show Max wasn't favoured by favouring Carlos, and when Carlos started to ask to let go by the team strategist caved in (maybe Carlos's entourage has been pressuring the team in the background because they see Carlos gets overshadowed and they are getting a bit desperate...?)

[rasul]

I wonder what those other two times are as we have never heard about it. Unless Sainz means they asked Max three times this race.

 

Even though I believe Sainz when he says he would have given the place back to Max had he not been able to overtake Perez it was not the right race and the right time for the team to ask Max to let Sainz pass. Just a couple laps from the finish after such a hard fought race and Sainz not showing to be really faster or overtaking more easily (Lotus). For me Max did the right thing. Yes and yes.

Maybe he means the undercut STR gave Max in Hungary and ultimately track position.. Either way, STR shows blatant favouritism toward Max and it's undeniable.Max now thinks he can do no wrog.  In Sainz's place I would be quite upset too.

[lars75]

 

Let's say Sainz would have been MUCH faster than VES, than I think VES should have let him past. The 2 points up for grabs could make the difference between P5 or P6 in the constructors championship. Which is a difference of quite a few milions of money..

 

Yes, under normal circumstances, but in this case it would be a bitchslap in the face of Verstappen!

 

Let go of the names and circumstances:

We all did some kind of sport in our own league of talent. Now think that you where (for ever reason why) held down to others at the start. For example with swimming 200mtrs, and you must start 30 meters after all others to start your race. You are swimming like crazy and you come in reach of a top 3 spot. Suddenly somebody is shouting at you that you have to ease down a bit because your teammate could grap a medal in the worldcup with a top 3 spot and he/she is behind you at this point. How do you feel and what would you do after all the effort you gave to be where you are?

 

I sure as Hell would tell them to **** off after clinching what is rightfully mine! 

 

Would it be a normal competition and nothing strange happend and I can help my teammate to come in fourth instead of third, I would do it. But under the given circumstances I surely would not!

[CurbPainter]

Either way, STR shows blatant favouritism toward Max and it's undeniable.Max now thinks he can do no wrong.

 

I don't think so.

 

Max didn't understand it, he would have understood if Carlos would have been faster, because then it would have given the team possibly more WDC points...only this was no more as favouring Carlos for no apparent reason to have a go at Perez when Perez's tyres were at their worst.

 

In Hungary on the other side, the decision gave the team more WDC points (Max never would have gotten 4th without the undercut).

[Atreiu]

I have no problem with team orders. However drivers react to them doesn't bother me as well.

[Kao18]

Maybe he means the undercut STR gave Max in Hungary and ultimately track position.. Either way, STR shows blatant favouritism toward Max and it's undeniable.Max now thinks he can do no wrog.  In Sainz's place I would be quite upset too.

 

No, again I mean when did they ask Max to let Sainz pass other then this race?

 

You quoted Sainz as saying:

 

Sainz: I don’t need to tell him [anything], I’m sure the team is the one who needs to talk with him. I had three times this year that they asked me to let him by [and] I did it three times. The team asked him three times this year to let me by [and] he has never done it yet.=

 

Edited by Kao18, 22 September 2015 - 14:07.

[lars75]

Personally I find team orders to be some kind of match-fixing, which doesn't belong in sports.

If a driver himself decides to let his teammate pass I don't really have problem with it but I just can't stand the fact the pitwall deciding the end result of a race, that isn't sports in my opinion..

 

I share your point of view, but in the heat of the game I don;t think a driver could overlook all the championship standings who is where and what does it mean for the championship. I think they can for themselfes, but not for all. So in that case a team overlooking the picture and trying to get the best possible result isn't that strange to me.

[zanquis]

If there is a gain for the team, then orders are fine. And people should be informed properly.

If the team said let CS try his tires are (slightly) newer if not he will give it back, maybe MV would have listened. Context is important.

CS has not let MV pass under similar conditions a pass midrace when on different conditions is not the same as a pass wiyh just laps to go on similar tires, but I think he would be more willing to oblige as unlike MV his career depends on redbull for a full 100% and he already learned to follow their orders long ago.