Is Vettel overrated? What do you think

[WhiteBlue]

Too many sources have reported the Pilbeam sabotage and none has said it wasn't true. So we can take that as fact. How much evidence do you need?

Surely all these 'sources' reporting this have been fed from just one source - the team. So it doesn't matter how many sources report it, they're all effectively the same source and an unreliable one at that.

The evidence I would need would be a full radio transcript, but we're unlikely to ever get that. We can follow the entire conversation that way and then interpret what happened in our own way instead of relying upon the a team that has been proven to be spreading misinformation and lies.

With the team colluding in this that would leave only the Webber camp able to deny the story. In their position would you rock the boat further and get into yet another war of words with your own team when you are trying to renegotiate your contract with said team? Also for all we know Webber may have agreed during his 'clear the air' meeting not to speak further about the incident to the media.

So no, we cannot take this as 'fact'.

Well, I cannot help it if you want to close your eyes. The team order was reported on German F1 TV channels while race was still going on and that was completely unfiltered. Marko has never changed his stance on that for one minute. So the credibility is there. You just deny it. Even Horner came out and blamed Webber in the first place. He could not openly say Webber went against team order so he used a dumb pretense to describe the case. The fact that Horner had to change his story and Marko kept telling the same for three days is a clear indication that Marko was telling the truth from the first moment of this controversy.

[WhiteBlue]

The footage is rather bad, but you can clearly see the following sequence of events:

1. Hamilton slipstreams Vettel with both following the racing line over the crest of the hill.
2. At roughly the peak of the hill, Vettel moves to the left to cover the inside line.
3. Hamilton decides to go around the outside.
4. Vettel moves a second time, swerving toward him.
5. Whilst they are alongside each other, Hamilton has to take avoiding action.

So two moves defending his position including a dangerous swerve similar to that he did to Webber a few laps later.

I actually can't see this on the tape. Please provide time stamps for your five points to allow me a review of your assessment.

Your story only makes sense if there is a premediated conspiracy to go against team orders within the Webber camp, and if the Red Bull team believes that at this early stage in the championship when its drivers are on identical points, that it is time to pick one driver over the other and decide which one gets a shot at the championship. Oh and presumes that Vettel was actually faster which is not as clear cut as you have made out.

Why does it make less sense that Vettel simply decided to pull the same move on Webber that he had tried earlier on in the race against Hamilton?

You are exaggerating the intentions and impact of the team order. It was by no means a decision who would get a shot at the championship because the Red Bull team management had every reason to believe they would come out of this with a 1-3 or even a 1-2 if Webber could unexpectedly defend against Hamilton.

There are still 300 points for the drivers up for grabs til the end of the season, two more or less makes no big deal.

[Chaparral]

You just deny it. Even Horner came out and blamed Webber in the first place. He could not openly say Webber went against team order so he used a dumb pretense to describe the case. The fact that Horner had to change his story and Marko kept telling the same for three days is a clear indication that Marko was telling the truth from the first moment of this controversy.

What a load of crap WB - you havent answered one of my questions you just continue with the usual diatribe (how unusual) - Webber didnt go against team orders if the 'so called orders' weren't passed onto him (as you also say ace) - so how about giving us the benefit of your knowledge with the other points I raised - or is your silence an agreement that my assumptions are correct - lets not just brush over it

[WhiteBlue]

What a load of crap WB - you havent answered one of my questions you just continue with the usual diatribe (how unusual) - Webber didnt go against team orders if the 'so called orders' weren't passed onto him (as you also say ace) - so how about giving us the benefit of your knowledge with the other points I raised - or is your silence an agreement that my assumptions are correct - lets not just brush over it

I don't know what other points you are referring to. It appears you have not read the main thread that dealt with the issue in the first place.

So read that and specify what your beef is. The team order was there! Pilbeam did not pass it on. Vettel thought Webber was told to not fight him. It perfectly explains what happened including why Vettel was livid after the crash.

[Chaparral]

I don't know what other points you are referring to. It appears you have not read the main thread that dealt with the issue in the first place.

WTF thats your opinion - do you live on cloud cuckoo - how about letting other people on this forum have an opinion (possibly even an informed opinion) instead of flooding the threads with your diatribe - do you know what I'm saying (probably not I'd guess)

[Chaparral]

I asked the questions highlighted below WB youve dodged everyone of them because they dont suit your agenda.............again how unusual

It all points in one direction: Red Bull had a RoE or team order and Pilbeam/Webber went against it out of desperation.

if and its a big if - how was Mark involved in the incident if he had no knowledge of what was 'suppposedly' sent down the line of communication - thats just bollocks and you know it.................

Gehard came out on Monday or Tuesday saying that according to team RoE Webber should have yielded the racing line and he put the blame for the accident on Webber.

why should Webber have yielded (because he's not Austian or German and doesn't conform) give me break ace - he as a driver is entitled to keep his line - Vettel came down the inside which is the dirty side of the track and Mark didnt squeeze him - it was the wrong tactic from a racing pov with the current cars and he had absolutely no chance of pulling off a pass - Vettel screwed up........tell me Im wrong (and you will thats your nature).

BTW I tend to think Hughes was the first journo on the case - so we disagree (how unusual)

It all fits perfectly with Vettel's anger which is hard to explain by other circumstances

well not really he's Marko's find isnt he so the golden child in Marko's eyes and justification for Marko's position nothing more - mind you the boy does have some talent but he needs to engage the brain instead of believing the hype....................

[myurr]

I actually can't see this on the tape. Please provide time stamps for your five points to allow me a review of your assessment.

Well I did that earlier but never mind. Here's a handy pictorial guide.



Both cars on the left following the racing line.



Still following the racing line.



Vettel now straightening up and starting to head left to cover the inside line, with Hamilton keeping to the racing line to move to his right.



Vettel heading left, Hamilton moving right out of the slip stream.



We see Hamilton drawing alongside with his wheel dead straight. Vettel also heading parallel to the side of the track.



Here we see Vettel turn to the right, angled towards Hamilton. Note the change in the angle of the car from the last shot.



Hamilton has to swerve right to avoid Vettel - look at the angle of his steering wheel.



You can clearly see Hamilton angling his car away from Vettel.



Hamilton having to steer back to the left completing his swerve, proving he wasn't just turning right to follow the racing line.

[WhiteBlue]

I asked the questions highlighted below WB youve dodged everyone of them because they dont suit your agenda.............again how unusual

sigh... most of it was answered and the proper discussion was done in another thread anyway. I will repeat it for your benefit and fix your crappy use of the quotation function which makes it very difficult to discuss with you.

It all points in one direction: Red Bull had a RoE or team order and Pilbeam/Webber went against it out of desperation.

if and its a big if - how was Mark involved in the incident if he had no knowledge of what was 'suppposedly' sent down the line of communication - thats just bollocks and you know it.................

Pilbeam knew it and that was enough to do the damage. Mark was involved by making the first demand for a team order. He asked the team to order Vettel back which triggered the team order in first place. By getting the "push the overtaking button" message from Pilbeam he knew exactly what was going to happen. We will not know if Webber arranged the suppression of team order pre race but it is possible. I have given him the benefit of doubt on that issue before.

Gehard came out on Monday or Tuesday saying that according to team RoE Webber should have yielded the racing line and he put the blame for the accident on Webber.

why should Webber have yielded (because he's not Austian or German and doesn't conform) give me break ace - he as a driver is entitled to keep his line - Vettel came down the inside which is the dirty side of the track and Mark didnt squeeze him - it was the wrong tactic from a racing pov with the current cars and he had absolutely no chance of pulling off a pass - Vettel screwed up........tell me Im wrong (and you will thats your nature).

This isn't a clear cut case. One can have a different view on this depending of how the rules of engagement were at Red Bull. If indeed there was the rule that the faster man always had the right to the racing line Webber was at fault to deny it to Vettel. If such a rule did not exist Webber was doing ok. In that case we had a racing accident that was triggered by Pilbeam not passing on the message. If Webber was in conspiracy he shares the blame with Pilbeam but I have previously said that we have no testimony for this.

I tend to think Hughes was the first journo on the case - so we disagree (how unusual)

I have answered that issue.

It all fits perfectly with Vettel's anger which is hard to explain by other circumstances

well not really he's Marko's find isnt he so the golden child in Marko's eyes and justification for Marko's position nothing more - mind you the boy does have some talent but he needs to engage the brain instead of believing the hype....................

I have explained this before. Marko needs no justification for his position. He has been the Red Bull overlord of motor racing for more than twelve years. He kept the job through serious rifts with Peter Sauber and Gerhard Berger. So there is no reason to think that Mateschitz will ever take it away from him.

Contrary to your view I believe that Vettel is highly intelligent and would not have displayed that anger unless he thought that he was getting the racing line due to team oder.

[Mysticf1]

or even a 1-2 if Webber could unexpectedly defend against Hamilton.

He was quite capable of defending against Hamilton in the first stint of the race when they were fighting for the lead and was able to maintain a gap....what changed later in the race? Webber turned down his engine? well so did Mclaren.

What i dont understand is that Vettel turned into the side of Webber, totally ignoring possible team orders, or expectations thats still a serious error of judgement and entirely his own fault, he changed his line...how can it not be? If he hadnt there would not have been any contact end of story.

[Mysticf1]

Sorry but how did Webber asking the team to slow Vettel trigger the team order?, meaning Vettel being told to pass him...or am interpreting what u've said wrong?

[marcush.]

so we can conclude:
Vettel can drive quickly ,maybe quicker than Webber but his car seems to yield under the extra strain coming from this.
Webber has the bigger balls.
Vettels infights tend to be dodgy with deliberate moves into the opponent as a means of intimidating or what have you.

[Chaparral]

I will repeat it for your benefit and fix your crappy use of the quotation function which makes it very difficult to discuss with you

dont be such an arrogant pr**k

One can have a different view on this depending of how the rules of engagement were at Red Bull.

what rules of engagement - can you specify them for everyone (you have inside F1 info just like your profile at GP.com used to specify i.e. F1 engineer oh and you like skinny dipping ) - Webber's a racer nothing else (how strange in this day and age) - a racing incident well maybe but in that case Vettel is a novice moving right into his team mate - Webber was entitled to stay exactly where he was - he didnt crowd Vettel its just a case that Vettel was on the 'dirty' side of the track and hadnt a hope in hell of pulling off a passing move - --- happens drivers make mistakes whats new - there was no conspiracy (only in your mind Gunther)

Marko needs no justification for his position. He has been the Red Bull overlord of motor racing for more than twelve years.

what a load of rubbish - would you like me to go find your posts on Marko to the contrary that'd be interesting you swing with the breeze

[ringo]

I actually can't see this on the tape. Please provide time stamps for your five points to allow me a review of your assessment.

Well I did that earlier but never mind. Here's a handy pictorial guide.



Both cars on the left following the racing line.



Still following the racing line.



Vettel now straightening up and starting to head left to cover the inside line, with Hamilton keeping to the racing line to move to his right.



Vettel heading left, Hamilton moving right out of the slip stream.



We see Hamilton drawing alongside with his wheel dead straight. Vettel also heading parallel to the side of the track.



Here we see Vettel turn to the right, angled towards Hamilton. Note the change in the angle of the car from the last shot.



Hamilton has to swerve right to avoid Vettel - look at the angle of his steering wheel.



You can clearly see Hamilton angling his car away from Vettel.



Hamilton having to steer back to the left completing his swerve, proving he wasn't just turning right to follow the racing line.

White Blue,i notice you are dodging this situation involving Vettel and Hamilton.
Also take note that Hamilton radioed in and said the move was dangerous from Vettel.
What is your explanation for all of this?

[strad]

What's the matter W/B?
I've never agreed with you and I probably never will...You're wrong about this as you are most things with your tortured logic and twisted BS

[andrew]

I don't see why folk are complaining about Vettel's driving. It's called racing and that is what you do when you race. You drive defensivley. If you want to watch a procession with no passing, go to your local A road at rush hour and leave F1 for racing fans.

All this complaining about Vettel reminds me of the Schumacher v Hill battle at Spa in 95. Schumacher made a firm but fair pass and so called "fans" were outraged.

As fot the forum question, is Vettel over-rated? Definately not.
Is he young and lacking in experience in some areas? Yes.