Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Was Vettel right to ignore TOs in Russia 2019?


  • Please log in to reply
818 replies to this topic

Poll: Russia GP Ferrari TOs (421 member(s) have cast votes)

Was Vettel right to ignore team orders

  1. Yes (211 votes [50.12%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 50.12%

  2. No (134 votes [31.83%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 31.83%

  3. Don’t know/depends/it’s more complicated than that (76 votes [18.05%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 18.05%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#101 timmy bolt

timmy bolt
  • Member

  • 776 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 29 September 2019 - 13:33

Then he shouldn't have agreed for Charles to not defend to begin with.


Depends if he had been agreed voluntarily or was instructed by Ferrari.

I get the feeling that, with ham on mediums and the speed of the Ferrari, vet would have preferred before the race that no agreement was in place. That was his best opportunity for the win and the 2nd place was highly likely regardless.

Leclercs language was interesting in team radio,he always referred to what the team had told them to do, not what the 2 drivers had agreed together.

Advertisement

#102 Wolbo

Wolbo
  • Member

  • 9,001 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 29 September 2019 - 13:34

How unfair is it when you leave your team mate through because you agreed to get the place back, and then your team mare laughs at you and says: ‘Silly boy, did you really think I would give this place back?’

It is unfair to Vettel to give team orders that make it impossible for him to be ahead in the race after the start. Basically they guaranteed Leclerc he would stay ahead after the start no matter what. Such a dumb move by Ferrari and good to see that it backfired.



#103 pRy

pRy
  • Member

  • 16,095 posts
  • Joined: March 99

Posted 29 September 2019 - 13:35

LeClerc in the interview now said that they just delayed the TO, so maybe it should be "delay TOs" rather than "ignore TOs" in the title.

 

Delayed because Vettel didn't comply with the clear instruction given to him. And I very much doubt he'd have moved over later in the race by choice after refusing to at the start. 



#104 PlayboyRacer

PlayboyRacer
  • Member

  • 2,736 posts
  • Joined: March 16

Posted 29 September 2019 - 13:35

Leclerc was only ahead after the pits because Ferrari sabotaged Vettel by leaving him out for far too long in order to swap positions in the pits. With Merc just behind, that was mad.

My point is Charles knew that was coming. So why sit on Sebs gearbox for the first stint when there was no need? Whether that was stupid to all do with Mercedes so strong, well that's another matter. That I do agree with. But we know Ferrari like to complicate things.

#105 MikeV1987

MikeV1987
  • Member

  • 5,961 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 29 September 2019 - 13:35

How unfair is it when you leave your team mate through because you agreed to get the place back, and then your team mare laughs at you and says: ‘Silly boy, did you really think I would give this place back?’

You would be like ‘ok, no problem bro?’

I think the whole situation was stupid, nevermind unfair. Ferrari were always going to engineer a swap in the pits anyway, so again what is the logic is putting the faster driver behind at that point in the race? Especially when Merc were still close.

Edited by MikeV1987, 29 September 2019 - 13:36.


#106 Roadhouse

Roadhouse
  • Member

  • 517 posts
  • Joined: August 16

Posted 29 September 2019 - 13:36

Vettel was faster and would've overtaken Leclerc anyway, besides, Leclerc ignored their qualifying agreement in Monza so he shouldn't complain too much.

Funny to see Ferrari doesn't want to upset their golden boy, should feel familiar for Vettel.



#107 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 35,842 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 29 September 2019 - 13:36

Because it was agreed upon before the race, simple as that. They wanted to maximize their chances into the first corner and protect against Mercedes, so they decided Leclerc wouldn't defend against Vettel and would get the place back later if overtaken. People can disagree if it's good racing to do this, but it sure was a rational thing if it was agreed upon before the race.

 


They should have been clever enough to react to the situation and realised it wasn't sensible to put the slower driver in front.

#108 robefc

robefc
  • Member

  • 12,932 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 29 September 2019 - 13:38

Vettel was faster and would've overtaken Leclerc anyway, besides, Leclerc ignored their qualifying agreement in Monza so he shouldn't complain too much.

Funny to see Ferrari doesn't want to upset their golden boy, should feel familiar for Vettel.

 

Sure, F1 cars that are quicker always overtake the car in front.



#109 Requiem84

Requiem84
  • Member

  • 5,850 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 29 September 2019 - 13:38

I think the whole situation was stupid, nevermind unfair. Ferrari were always going to engineer a swap in the pits anyway, so again what is the logic is putting the faster driver behind at that point in the race? Especially when Merc were still close.


Sure, it sounds like a ridiculous agreement.

But it was an agreement.

Vettel seemed to agree, as he said he would let Charles past after building the gap to Merc. So vettel knew about the agreement and indicated he would adhere.

He didn. On purpose. He’s extremely dirty.

#110 septerra

septerra
  • Member

  • 400 posts
  • Joined: February 14

Posted 29 September 2019 - 13:38

It was pretty evident after Quali that Seb would lead the race no matter what. 

 

If I could see that sitting on my arm chair and sipping cola, I'm surprised given the circumstances, Ferrari came up with a 'strategy' for Seb to swap positions. 

 

What insanity is this.  :rotfl:

 

Incidentally, I for one haven't written Seb off yet.


Edited by septerra, 29 September 2019 - 13:39.


#111 Diablobb81

Diablobb81
  • Member

  • 6,687 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 29 September 2019 - 13:40

Sure, it sounds like a ridiculous agreement.

But it was an agreement.

Vettel seemed to agree, as he said he would let Charles past after building the gap to Merc. So vettel knew about the agreement and indicated he would adhere.

He didn. On purpose. He’s extremely dirty.

 

 

Because by that time Charles was 4 seconds behind.

 

And they could always do the swap in the pits. Which they did.



#112 peggle

peggle
  • Member

  • 442 posts
  • Joined: March 18

Posted 29 September 2019 - 13:40

Anyone who thought Vettel would honour team orders is deluded , hes proven time and again he will do whats best for him period



#113 Requiem84

Requiem84
  • Member

  • 5,850 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 29 September 2019 - 13:41

Because by that time Charles was 4 seconds behind.

And they could always do the swap in the pits. Which they did.


And why did you think Vettel waited so long..., to built the gap and to get an advantage on Leclerc as he knew he would now get behind on fresher tires.

#114 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 35,842 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 29 September 2019 - 13:41

Sure, it sounds like a ridiculous agreement.

But it was an agreement.

Vettel seemed to agree, as he said he would let Charles past after building the gap to Merc. So vettel knew about the agreement and indicated he would adhere.

He didn. On purpose. He’s extremely dirty.

 


Do you really think it would have been sensible to slow down and let him pass at any point? If he had been holding LeClerc up it would have been totally wrong, but they had the whole race to come in which to do a switch.

#115 timmy bolt

timmy bolt
  • Member

  • 776 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 29 September 2019 - 13:42

Sure, it sounds like a ridiculous agreement.

But it was an agreement.

Vettel seemed to agree, as he said he would let Charles past after building the gap to Merc. So vettel knew about the agreement and indicated he would adhere.

He didn. On purpose. He’s extremely dirty.


Agreement or team instruction? They're quite different and Vettel had to fight off Hamilton for it, i didn't see Leclerc doing much to give it.

It was unnecessary anyway and Ferrari was trying to be too clever

I mean, the mercs were

a) dirty side of the track.
b) on mediums
C) had much slower straigtline speed

#116 goldenboy

goldenboy
  • Member

  • 6,110 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 29 September 2019 - 13:42

Depends if he had been agreed voluntarily or was instructed by Ferrari.

That's true. I just assumed he agreed voluntarily. I do think that is likely the case though.

#117 Celloman

Celloman
  • Member

  • 844 posts
  • Joined: October 05

Posted 29 September 2019 - 13:43

Vettel was faster and would've overtaken Leclerc anyway, besides, Leclerc ignored their qualifying agreement in Monza so he shouldn't complain too much.

Funny to see Ferrari doesn't want to upset their golden boy, should feel familiar for Vettel.

I highly doubt it, Leclerc failed to overtake Bottas despite almost 20 laps of opportunity with fresher tires and faster straight line speed.



#118 DrArrow

DrArrow
  • Member

  • 48 posts
  • Joined: March 16

Posted 29 September 2019 - 13:44

This "agreement" whatever it was, was one of the most stupid I have ever seen watching F1. Putting the slower car ahead in-front of the faster one sacrificing 5 second gap when you are trying to beat a 5 years dominant team on a track where they've won all races is utterly ridiculous. Seb was absolutely right when he told on the radio that Charles needs to close the gap to prove that he has the pace, which he apparently didn't have as Seb was putting one fastest lap after another. 



#119 ThadGreen

ThadGreen
  • Member

  • 2,105 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 29 September 2019 - 13:45

My personal view is I get that TOs are way too powerful to leave them alone but oh my goodness, the trouble they seem to cause. Context: it appears that Ferrari had a pre-race agreement to allow Vettel the slipstream at the start to protect the lead from Hamilton. Vettel’s position appears to be that as his start was so good, he didn’t need the protection and therefore won the place on its own merit.

 
And were Ferrari correct to retaliate by swapping them in the pits? (Presuming that this was part of the intent).

 

Discuss.

 

What evidence is there of this "pre-race agreement"?

 

I would be curious to know if it exists what format was it, was it a direct order from the management or was it some informal verbal discussion full of "ifs", "buts" and "maybes".



Advertisement

#120 Requiem84

Requiem84
  • Member

  • 5,850 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 29 September 2019 - 13:45


Do you really think it would have been sensible to slow down and let him pass at any point? If he had been holding LeClerc up it would have been totally wrong, but they had the whole race to come in which to do a switch.


Ferrari thought it was sensible. They instructed Vettel twice.

#121 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 35,842 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 29 September 2019 - 13:46

I highly doubt it, Leclerc failed to overtake Bottas despite almost 20 laps of opportunity with fresher tires and faster straight line speed.

 


The tyres were not that much fresher. And yes Vettel was much faster and I think he would have made it past Bottas. Catching and passing Hamilton would have been a different matter.

#122 Chillimeister

Chillimeister
  • New Member

  • 15 posts
  • Joined: June 19

Posted 29 September 2019 - 13:46

Klauzer has it about right, I believe. Leclerc didn't have the pace to stay with Vettel at the start and then the team engineered a really dumb swap by leaving Vettel out too long when the Mercs were lapping faster, despite the very recent example of Merc doing the same with Hamilton in Singapore. As another poster said, completely demented. 

 

And after the VSC, Leclerc didn't even have the pace to pass Bottas (no disrespect to him).


Edited by Chillimeister, 29 September 2019 - 13:48.


#123 robefc

robefc
  • Member

  • 12,932 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 29 September 2019 - 13:47

What evidence is there of this "pre-race agreement"?
 
I would be curious to know if it exists what format was it, was it a direct order from the management or was it some informal verbal discussion full of "ifs", "buts" and "maybes".


You might want to watch some post race interviews...!

#124 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 35,842 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 29 September 2019 - 13:47

Ferrari thought it was sensible. They instructed Vettel twice.

 


That wasn't being sensible though.

#125 pRy

pRy
  • Member

  • 16,095 posts
  • Joined: March 99

Posted 29 September 2019 - 13:47

What evidence is there of this "pre-race agreement"?

 

It was discussed between Charles and the pit wall during the race. 



#126 jamin

jamin
  • New Member

  • 29 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 29 September 2019 - 13:48

Welcome to Vettel's team, Charles.



#127 Requiem84

Requiem84
  • Member

  • 5,850 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 29 September 2019 - 13:50


That wasn't being sensible though.


Thats not for Vettel to decide.

#128 pRy

pRy
  • Member

  • 16,095 posts
  • Joined: March 99

Posted 29 September 2019 - 13:50

That wasn't being sensible though.

 

Well we don't know if Charles was pacing himself because he expected Vettel to move over and saw no reason to get into the dirty air of Seb. It was Seb who then made it about the gap, which we all know is the classic "I don't want to give the position up" language.



#129 dissident

dissident
  • Member

  • 109 posts
  • Joined: June 19

Posted 29 September 2019 - 13:51

Klauzer has it about right, I believe. Leclerc didn't have the pace to stay with Vettel at the start and then the team engineered a really dumb swap by leaving Vettel out too long when the Mercs were lapping faster, despite the very recent example of Merc doing the same with Hamilton in Singapore. As another poster said, completely demented. 

 

And after the VSC, Leclerc didn't even have the pace to pass Bottas (no disrespect to him).

 

Ignoring the whole TO story, leaving Vettel out longer wasn't dumb at all, he still had a very confortable gap to Hamilton and this way you can offset the tyre delta on the second stint a little bit.

 

People are focusing too much on the circus around the "swap": no VSC/SC and this is a Ferrari 1-2



#130 Diablobb81

Diablobb81
  • Member

  • 6,687 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 29 September 2019 - 13:51

Welcome to Vettel's team, Charles.

 

The team that made sure Charles would stay P1 after the start and engineered a pitstop swap for the slower driver. :rotfl:



#131 Celloman

Celloman
  • Member

  • 844 posts
  • Joined: October 05

Posted 29 September 2019 - 13:52

What evidence is there of this "pre-race agreement"?

 

I would be curious to know if it exists what format was it, was it a direct order from the management or was it some informal verbal discussion full of "ifs", "buts" and "maybes".

The evidence is Leclerc not protecting for turn one. Even an amateur GP3 driver would know he has to protect the inside and move at least once to defend the position. If Leclerc didn't know this, he is either an idiot or completely unaware of his surroundings, neither of which I think he is.


Edited by Celloman, 29 September 2019 - 13:54.


#132 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 35,842 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 29 September 2019 - 13:53

Well we don't know if Charles was pacing himself because he expected Vettel to move over and saw no reason to get into the dirty air of Seb. It was Seb who then made it about the gap, which we all know is the classic "I don't want to give the position up" language.

 


If he had the pace he would have used it to make a point, just as Vettel did. He was losing the whole time and just putting himself into the clutches of the Mercs. Even in clear air he used his tyres up first.

#133 1Devil1

1Devil1
  • Member

  • 5,060 posts
  • Joined: May 12

Posted 29 September 2019 - 13:56

Welcome to Vettel's team, Charles.

 

:lol:  the other way around



#134 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 16,033 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 29 September 2019 - 13:56

Ferrari tied themselves in knots with trying to over-manage the race. They had the better tyre in the first stint, so all they had to worry about was clearing off into the distance. That they even contemplated the switch was only going to bring Hamilton closer to them, who was beginning to stay on terms with Leclerc and Vettel. And then at the stops they did a reverse of Singapore by giving Leclerc the lead, yet he wasn't that much quicker than Hamilton, and they really were in danger of allowing Hamilton to split them, and then go charging at CL with the faster tyre at the end.

The difficulty of managing two drivers with pace to win and wanting to win.

#135 jamin

jamin
  • New Member

  • 29 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 29 September 2019 - 13:57

The team that made sure Charles would stay P1 after the start and engineered a pitstop swap for the slower driver. :rotfl:

 

The slower driver? Who qualified P1 for the last four races? It's clear who the "slower driver" is.



#136 PlayboyRacer

PlayboyRacer
  • Member

  • 2,736 posts
  • Joined: March 16

Posted 29 September 2019 - 13:58

Well we don't know if Charles was pacing himself because he expected Vettel to move over and saw no reason to get into the dirty air of Seb. It was Seb who then made it about the gap, which we all know is the classic "I don't want to give the position up" language.

Leaning towards this. Charles had zero incentive (was always ending up ahead and did) while Seb was on a mission to change a growing perception within the team. He maybe needed to cast his mind back to last week, just to stay grounded somewhat.

Edited by PlayboyRacer, 29 September 2019 - 14:00.


#137 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 35,842 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 29 September 2019 - 13:59

Thats not for Vettel to decide.

 


If the team are not seeing the bigger picture then it's right he should make the point. At no time did he say he wouldn't give up the place, just that it was not sensible at that time. Everyone else could see that, why the team couldn't is worrying.

#138 1Devil1

1Devil1
  • Member

  • 5,060 posts
  • Joined: May 12

Posted 29 September 2019 - 14:00

The slower driver? Who qualified P1 for the last four races? It's clear who the "slower driver" is.

 

Sorry to tell you that points are given on Sunday and race pace most of the time is more important than qualifying pace. 



#139 Diablobb81

Diablobb81
  • Member

  • 6,687 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 29 September 2019 - 14:00

The slower driver? Who qualified P1 for the last four races? It's clear who the "slower driver" is.

 

Yes, the one who was 4 second behind and couldn't lose Lewis.



Advertisement

#140 robefc

robefc
  • Member

  • 12,932 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 29 September 2019 - 14:00

Sorry to tell you that points are given on Sunday and race pace most of the time is more important than qualifying pace.


That’s often not true though, is it? Particularly in competition with a teammate

#141 GrumpyYoungMan

GrumpyYoungMan
  • Member

  • 5,814 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 29 September 2019 - 14:01

No - and karma came and found him.

He works for the team - not the other way around!

#142 1Devil1

1Devil1
  • Member

  • 5,060 posts
  • Joined: May 12

Posted 29 September 2019 - 14:02

That’s often not true though, is it? Particularly in competition with a teammate

 

Rosberg was fast as Lewis in 2014 in qualifying and had no chance in the race most of the time. 



#143 jamin

jamin
  • New Member

  • 29 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 29 September 2019 - 14:02

Sorry to tell you that points are given on Sunday and race pace most of the time is more important than qualifying pace. 

 

If Charles defends the inside Vettel doesn't get a sniff at the lead. Team orders gave Vettel the lead and team orders dictated they swap because of it. 



#144 peggle

peggle
  • Member

  • 442 posts
  • Joined: March 18

Posted 29 September 2019 - 14:02

Yes, the one who was 4 second behind and couldn't lose Lewis.

That might have somewhat to do with Hamilton being a bloody quick pilot



#145 ANF

ANF
  • Member

  • 10,216 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 29 September 2019 - 14:03

I highly doubt it, Leclerc failed to overtake Bottas despite almost 20 laps of opportunity with fresher tires and faster straight line speed.

Leclerc seemed to struggle in the last sector, but their tyre life was roughly the same: Bottas pitted during VSC on L28 and I think Leclerc pitted during the SC on L30.

#146 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 35,842 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 29 September 2019 - 14:03

That’s often not true though, is it? Particularly in competition with a teammate

 


No, it's always true. The fact that teams might try to engineer who gets the points doesn't change when they are awarded.

#147 Wolbo

Wolbo
  • Member

  • 9,001 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 29 September 2019 - 14:05

Ferrari thought it was sensible. They instructed Vettel twice.

It is not the first time there is a gap between what is sensible and what Ferrari thinks is sensible. Today was another classic example.



#148 thefinalapex

thefinalapex
  • Member

  • 940 posts
  • Joined: July 16

Posted 29 September 2019 - 14:05

The slower driver? Who qualified P1 for the last four races? It's clear who the "slower driver" is.

 

Race pace and qualifying are two very different things mate..

Otherwise whats the point in racing really? just do qualifying and stop from there?


Edited by thefinalapex, 29 September 2019 - 14:05.


#149 Vesuvius

Vesuvius
  • Member

  • 12,148 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 29 September 2019 - 14:05

The slower driver? Who qualified P1 for the last four races? It's clear who the "slower driver" is.


Today Vettel was the faster one.

#150 Lights

Lights
  • Member

  • 16,685 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 29 September 2019 - 14:06

This "agreement" whatever it was, was one of the most stupid I have ever seen watching F1. Putting the slower car ahead in-front of the faster one sacrificing 5 second gap when you are trying to beat a 5 years dominant team on a track where they've won all races is utterly ridiculous. Seb was absolutely right when he told on the radio that Charles needs to close the gap to prove that he has the pace, which he apparently didn't have as Seb was putting one fastest lap after another. 

 

Then again those are dumb circumstances to force the switch in. 

 

It's easy for Vettel to say "Let's wait a bit longer" and later "Leclerc should be closer for the swap to happen" while pushing in clean air. And just try to delay that as long as possible, because during that situation Leclerc was always going to destroy his own tires in the dirty air trying to prove he can be close enough, which eventually he did.

 

If Vettel wanted to swap, just swap right away when Ferrari asked. It could have safely been done in lap 6,7 or 8 when Hamilton was 2+ seconds behind Leclerc.

 

But Vettel simply didn't want to swap and by arguing on the radio with excuses about it not being safe and that Leclerc should close up, that all just helped his own case because every extra lap Leclerc was behind him ruining his tires, helped Vettel.

 

Even if Leclerc had managed to close up, it could have been like in China earlier this year where Vettel pushed Leclerc hard to prove he was quicker, called for a swap, and then when they finally swapped Vettel had no tires left and both cars were slow as a result. What's the point of that? Vettel must've known that playing that game wasn't beneficial for the team either.