Has Red Bull pissed away the WC?

[WhiteBlue]

Sorry but that's the weirdest line of thinking I've ever seen! In Turkey you were arguing that it was right that Red Bull let the 'demonstrably faster' Vettel past Webber by using team orders. In this race you feel that the team were right to call off the racing between the drivers, and then claim that not doing so would not have been fair racing!?

So which is it - the faster driver should be allowed to pass, or the faster driver should hold back?

In Turkey there were four drivers within a few seconds and permutations were possible that involved Red Bull loosing points by team order. Team order to keep station was risking loss of points. Team order to let Vettel pass could avoid loosing points. Letting them race was also carrying the risk that the Maccas would find a way around them. Red Bull managed to send split signals, to Vettel that he should pass and to Webber that he should race him. The worst possible solution.

In Canada the Red Bull drivers were essentially in their own race segment without other drivers involved. There was no creditable thread from behind and no opportunity ahead of them. So the situation was very different. Team order not to race each other made sense because the team could only loose points if Vettel's gear box broke due to unnecessary stress.

Let's not forget that Webber was demonstrably the faster driver all weekend and qualified ahead of Vettel. After all the latter was only ahead on track due to Webber having reliability issues after qualifying.

Frankly the switching between the two positions demonstrates to me that both you and the team favour Vettel regardless of circumstances, and that is not something I can respect.

May I direct your attention to the lap chart I posted and to the opening stint which both drivers did on the same tyres. Webber wasn't the faster driver all weekend because he was the slower of the two drivers in that stint with the same tyres. Vettel was on average 0.118 s faster than Webber per lap and moved 1.417 s ahead during that short 12 lap stint. It was the only comparable race stint they drove because they were on different tyre strategies.

I have demonstrated to you that there is no switch of positions on team order. The circumstances were simply too different. I hope you will re-evaluate your judgement there.

Back to the topic at hand, I feel Red Bull are letting the championship slip through their fingers. They started the season with a large car advantage, but have spectacularly failed to take advantage for a whole host of reasons - from numpty moments from both drivers, through reliability issues to operational cock-ups. The championship was never going to be the done deal that some reckoned, but it was clearly Red Bulls best chance to date.

+1

[Pup]

I think the point is that for the second race in a row, RB was hit by problems on multiple fronts. In Turkey, it was Vettel's suspension, communication breakdowns, and driver mistakes. This week, it was Webber's gearbox, Vettel's engine, and lousy strategies. It would appear that as the pressure mounts, more leaks are appearing in their structure.

And the pressure isn't going to fall anytime soon. They've got a good car, two good drivers, and I think a pretty good team behind them. Had they not had the mechanical problems and driver errors in the first few races, I think their early points buffer would have kept the pressure off and they'd have been in a much, much better position right now.

[myurr]

And the pressure isn't going to fall anytime soon.

If anything it's going to get a lot worse for them, if the pit lane stories are to be believed. With Ferrari expecting a huge upgrade for the next race and McLaren with one scheduled for the race after that, both updates expected to improve the cars by 0.5+ seconds per lap, that's really going to add to the pressure on Red Bull. Unlike Brawn last year they have failed to capitalise on their early season advantage, and instead risk being overtaken in the development race.

That is not to underestimate Red Bull, they have an exceptional design team and two solid drivers, but none of the elements of the team appear to be reacting particularly well to the pressures they are being placed under and mistakes and failures are systemic throughout the operation.

[myurr]

In Turkey there were four drivers within a few seconds and permutations were possible that involved Red Bull loosing points by team order. Team order to keep station was risking loss of points. Team order to let Vettel pass could avoid loosing points. Letting them race was also carrying the risk that the Maccas would find a way around them. Red Bull managed to send split signals, to Vettel that he should pass and to Webber that he should race him. The worst possible solution.

In Canada the Red Bull drivers were essentially in their own race segment without other drivers involved. There was no creditable thread from behind and no opportunity ahead of them. So the situation was very different. Team order not to race each other made sense because the team could only loose points if Vettel's gear box broke due to unnecessary stress.

I can see where you're coming from, but disagree with the conclusions. Certainly you explanation would only make sense if the team were indeed favouring Vettel over Webber - after all if Webber had the ability and car to be able to catch and pass Vettel then why deny him that opportunity and the points it entailed. Webber is ahead in the championship, and so letting him past would have strengthened his campaign, and the team would have received the same number of points in the constructors championship. Neither driver was under threat from elsewhere, so the only reason to artificially limit Webber's pace and keep him behind Vettel would be to bolster Vettel's campaign at the expense of Webber's.

May I direct your attention to the lap chart I posted and to the opening stint which both drivers did on the same tyres. Webber wasn't the faster driver all weekend because he was the slower of the two drivers in that stint with the same tyres. Vettel was on average 0.118 s faster than Webber per lap and moved 1.417 s ahead during that short 12 lap stint. It was the only comparable race stint they drove because they were on different tyre strategies.

The two drivers were stuck in traffic in the first stint so they're not as comparable as you would like. Webber qualified significantly ahead of Vettel when it mattered, and only ended up so far behind due to reliability and an even worse strategy. Webber's one truly clear lap (by the looks of it) when he got past Button was also faster than any of Vettel's laps through that stint. It looks like he then caught the car in front, presumably Vettel where he would then hold station staying just outside the worst of the wake.

[kalinka]

I think ( I can't write anything else since none of us had more than impressions ) RB are indeed loosing the battle. Ever since the winter tests I had an impression of RB having reliability issues more than other top teams. I think the current reliability issues that we are seeing is just the top of the iceberg, and they are in fact having more issues, but not so obvious to see from outside. We're just seeing the worst issues, and when they are having minor issues, we just sit and think "oh, why is that RB now so different/slow".
Writing down this right now, maybe these issues have some influence on good qualy/bad race issue of RB. Maybe they can turn everything on to the max for some qualy laps, but they just fear to do that in races. Beside, I'm not a RB fan, so it's just a side-view of things. Impressions.

[vall]

I think they will be back, sooner than many think.... This "poor" weekend was down to poor tire/strategy decisions. Otherwise the pare was there.

[Just_a_fan]

So which is it - the faster driver should be allowed to pass, or the faster driver should hold back?

The most German should be allowed to pass at all times?

And before WB throws the nationalistic card at me again, this is just a bit of humour based on a German fan supporting a German driver. By all means pay back the same to me in similar British circumstances in the future.

[WhiteBlue]

In Turkey there were four drivers within a few seconds and permutations were possible that involved Red Bull loosing points by team order. Team order to keep station was risking loss of points. Team order to let Vettel pass could avoid loosing points. Letting them race was also carrying the risk that the Maccas would find a way around them. Red Bull managed to send split signals, to Vettel that he should pass and to Webber that he should race him. The worst possible solution.

In Canada the Red Bull drivers were essentially in their own race segment without other drivers involved. There was no creditable thread from behind and no opportunity ahead of them. So the situation was very different. Team order not to race each other made sense because the team could only loose points if Vettel's gear box broke due to unnecessary stress.

I can see where you're coming from, but disagree with the conclusions. Certainly you explanation would only make sense if the team were indeed favouring Vettel over Webber - after all if Webber had the ability and car to be able to catch and pass Vettel then why deny him that opportunity and the points it entailed. Webber is ahead in the championship, and so letting him past would have strengthened his campaign, and the team would have received the same number of points in the constructors championship. Neither driver was under threat from elsewhere, so the only reason to artificially limit Webber's pace and keep him behind Vettel would be to bolster Vettel's campaign at the expense of Webber's.

Why should the team bolster Webber's campaign by a team order at this time that would not secure any more points for the team. The season is still not half way run. So it makes no sense to finish Vettel's challenge and order him to support Webber. The only team order with sense was to hold station to avoid more points loss due to reliability failures, particularly as the risk of a gearbox failure on Vettel's car was already being managed. You seem to have a blind spot for an obvious team interest that everybody should understand. The team had an important reason to not let the drivers race. Had Webber attacked Vettel, Vettel would also have increased his pace and probably broken the box.

May I direct your attention to the lap chart I posted and to the opening stint which both drivers did on the same tyres. Webber wasn't the faster driver all weekend because he was the slower of the two drivers in that stint with the same tyres. Vettel was on average 0.118 s faster than Webber per lap and moved 1.417 s ahead during that short 12 lap stint. It was the only comparable race stint they drove because they were on different tyre strategies.

The two drivers were stuck in traffic in the first stint so they're not as comparable as you would like. Webber qualified significantly ahead of Vettel when it mattered, and only ended up so far behind due to reliability and an even worse strategy. Webber's one truly clear lap (by the looks of it) when he got past Button was also faster than any of Vettel's laps through that stint. It looks like he then caught the car in front, presumably Vettel where he would then hold station staying just outside the worst of the wake.

I don't think that you can make the traffic argument stick. Vettel was stuck behind Hamilton for 7 laps until Lewis pitted together with Alonso. Webber was behind Button for one lap (lap 4) but passed him in lap 5 which gave him a free run from lap 5 to lap 11 when he pitted. So if any of the drivers were held up by traffic it was Vettel. They were within 0.3 seconds of each other on lap 7 but Vettel continued faster and opened the gap until Webber pitted. Vettel pitted one lap later. It is a fact that Vettel was faster in the only race stint they were on the same strategy and he had a bigger handicap by traffic. So your assertion that Webber was faster all weekend is not true. If you do not believe me watch the replay, I did to check your point about traffic.

[BreezyRacer]

Why should the team bolster Webber's campaign by a team order at this time that would not secure any more points for the team. The season is still not half way run. So it makes no sense to finish Vettel's challenge and order him to support Webber. The only team order with sense was to hold station to avoid more points loss due to reliability failures, particularly as the risk of a gearbox failure on Vettel's car was already being managed. You seem to have a blind spot for an obvious team interest that everybody should understand. The team had an important reason to not let the drivers race. Had Webber attacked Vettel, Vettel would also have increased his pace and probably broken the box.

Webber didn't need team "policy" (I cannot call it an order .. those are illegal) to pass Vettel .. quite the opposite .. Webber needed team "policy" to NOT pass Vettel.

As for pace of Webber vs Vettel check out this articlehttp://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2010/06/14/w ... ce-review/, and interactive lap chart of the race, wherein you can easily see the reduced pace of Vettel and Webber in the last 7 laps of the race. During this period, had Vettel's car been of another team, Webber would have surely mounted a pass, easily down the back straight. Thus the team's point leader (Webber) would have successfully secured more points and may have kept the points lead. I agree it would have not changed the constructor's points, however. One can only draw one conclusion from this behavior .. Vettel is always to finish ahead of Webber whenever possible at Webber's expense, for the sake of the team. This is not even close to what RBR have been promising the fans and media ..

[WhiteBlue]

Why should the team bolster Webber's campaign by a team order at this time that would not secure any more points for the team. The season is still not half way run. So it makes no sense to finish Vettel's challenge and order him to support Webber. The only team order with sense was to hold station to avoid more points loss due to reliability failures, particularly as the risk of a gearbox failure on Vettel's car was already being managed. You seem to have a blind spot for an obvious team interest that everybody should understand. The team had an important reason to not let the drivers race. Had Webber attacked Vettel, Vettel would also have increased his pace and probably broken the box.

Webber didn't need team "policy" (I cannot call it an order .. those are illegal) to pass Vettel .. quite the opposite .. Webber needed team "policy" to NOT pass Vettel.

As for pace of Webber vs Vettel check out this articlehttp://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2010/06/14/w ... ce-review/, and interactive lap chart of the race, wherein you can easily see the reduced pace of Vettel and Webber in the last 7 laps of the race. During this period, had Vettel's car been of another team, Webber would have surely mounted a pass, easily down the back straight.

It appears that you did not read the previous posts. I have clearly acknowledged the lap chart facts. Vettel had no problem to drive faster. He didn't have a problem with power. The team told him to go slower due to a gearbox problem they were managing. The gearbox was marginal and prudence called for avoiding unnecessary stress. But that consideration would not have stopped Vettel to defend his position. Obviously the team understood that. Perhaps they asked him if he wanted to give his position to Webber? Do you think he would have agreed? What do you think had happened if they had told only Vettel to go slow and Webber that he was free to race Vettel? They would have both raced and points could have been lost! Vettel had no reason to give any gifts to Webber. If Webber had attacked him he would have increased his pace and defended his position. It isn't very difficult to understand why the team ordered both drivers to conserve the car.

[mr moda]

If webber was faster do you believe that Vettel should let him through WB?

[myurr]

I have the feeling that we're going to go round in circles if I reply to your whole post, so instead I'd like to pick out one quote that highlights all that I find wrong with your position:

The only team order with sense was to hold station to avoid more points loss due to reliability failures, particularly as the risk of a gearbox failure on Vettel's car was already being managed. You seem to have a blind spot for an obvious team interest that everybody should understand. The team had an important reason to not let the drivers race. Had Webber attacked Vettel, Vettel would also have increased his pace and probably broken the box.

What you are basically saying is that Vettel as a driver would rather defend his position than bring an obviously crippled car home and therefore needed to be protected from a challenge by his team mate through the use of team orders.

I would put it to you that this, along with him wanting to go for fastest lap, highlights just how immature he is and that this immaturity is very likely to hamper his long term challenge for the championship. I also believe that instead of this being 'the only team order with sense' that it is clear favouritism on behalf of Red Bull, and that the sensible team would have let both drivers run at whatever pace their cars were capable of. What if Webber suddenly developed a problem (such as a puncture or flat spot) and had to pit again? In your scenario both he and the team would have lost points, whereas if his running wasn't impeded by team orders to protect Vettel then he would have been more likely to have had a large enough cushion to have made that stop.

What if one of the cars in front had developed an issue that slowed them down or caused them to pit. Had Webber been free to run then maybe he would have been close enough to challenge. I would deplore any team that issued orders to hold station in those circumstances, until maybe the last couple of races where one of the drivers was mathematically out of the championship race. What Red Bull effectively chose to do was cripple both cars in order to protect their favoured driver. You are defending this because their actions align with your support for Vettel.

[Mysticf1]

hahaha theres endless justification for Vettel to pass Webber in Turkey when the constructors points would have been the same either way, come to Canada and theres endless justification for Webber not to pass Vettel where the constructors points would have been the same either way...it boggles the mind.

Redbull really are showing their inexperience and inability to mount a fight for the championship.

[RH1300S]

The sad thing about the way these discussions go is that people end up in one driver camp or the other.

Let's not forget that Vettel is an absolute star driver and will be WDC one day - he's a huge talent. In the other camp I have to say that Webber is living up to the promise that many have seen in him for years - he has had a very impressive season and deserves his position in the championship.

A strong pairing

[WhiteBlue]

If webber was faster do you believe that Vettel should let him through WB?

Your question is not clear. You assume a situation and do not give a full set of circumstances. Webber was not faster. If he had been faster what would have been the reasons in your hypothetical question for being faster? Team order? Loss of power by Vettel? Concern for a failure? It is impossible to answer that without a given set of circumstances.

What you are basically saying is that Vettel as a driver would rather defend his position than bring an obviously crippled car home and therefore needed to be protected from a challenge by his team mate through the use of team orders.

Please don't paraphrase me. That is not what I say but what you say. Feel free to quote me any time but don't put words in my mouth. I never accept this. It is always manipulative.

I would put it to you that this, along with him wanting to go for fastest lap, highlights just how immature he is and that this immaturity is very likely to hamper his long term challenge for the championship. I also believe that instead of this being 'the only team order with sense' that it is clear favouritism on behalf of Red Bull, and that the sensible team would have let both drivers run at whatever pace their cars were capable of.

You are entitled to any opinion that you may want to hold. But do not expect me to share it.

What if Webber suddenly developed a problem (such as a puncture or flat spot) and had to pit again? In your scenario both he and the team would have lost points, whereas if his running wasn't impeded by team orders to protect Vettel then he would have been more likely to have had a large enough cushion to have made that stop.

A rather hypothetical question. We already make a lot of assumptions without knowledge what is the agreed operative mode at Red Bull for team order. I'm not in the team. So I don't know what they agreed to do in that situation. They had their clear up talk and have supposedly agreed how to operate. I have not heard about a complaint from Webber, so I assume that they all have done what they were supposed to do.

What if one of the cars in front had developed an issue that slowed them down or caused them to pit. Had Webber been free to run then maybe he would have been close enough to challenge. I would deplore any team that issued orders to hold station in those circumstances, until maybe the last couple of races where one of the drivers was mathematically out of the championship race.

I assume that this would have changed the situation. Team order always depends of the potential loss or gain of points for the team. You can ask me what I think should have happened if five laps from the flag all things being equal Alonso suddenly would have come into reach for Webber. As a team I would order Vettel to swap place with Webber and Webber to go for Alonso. But again the question is hypothetical. That scenario did not happen.

What Red Bull effectively chose to do was cripple both cars in order to protect their favoured driver. You are defending this because their actions align with your support for Vettel.

I obviously do not agree with your view. They have supposedly agreed how to operate. I have not heard about a complaint from Webber, so I assume that they all have done what they were supposed to do.

I have a what if for you here.

What if they agreed to not attack each other when there were no points for the team? That could have easily been a point of the deal they did after Turkey. So what do you think if they all just did what they were supposed to do?