Has Red Bull pissed away the WC?

[Chaparral]

Moda Mystic and Myuur your all on the money - RBRs big mistake was not running the option tyre in Q3 - as for team politics yes its most likely happening - in my opinion its Vettel being the favoured son to likely win a WDC (which may be true over time we have to wait and see) but I believe Webber is probably the more centred driver in the team but its not halfway in the season so probably too early to make a call on a particular driver support

[WhiteBlue]

RBRs big mistake was not running the option tyre in Q3

Yep, agree with that and have said it earlier. The option would have probably taken one of the Red Bull drivers to pole.

But even given the situation as it was with the primes Red Bull could have reacted immediately when it became clear that the used primes were no match for the new primes of the McLaren drivers. They should have known that and changed the tyres in lap 7 with McLaren and Ferrari.

[Richard]

Red Bull could have reacted immediately when it became clear that the used primes were no match for the new primes of the McLaren drivers. They should have known that and changed the tyres in lap 7 with McLaren and Ferrari.

I'm not sure that would have been possible. It would mean a very long stint on the softs at the end. The other option would be longer middle stint on the hards. Either way, they would lose position.

[WhiteBlue]

Red Bull could have reacted immediately when it became clear that the used primes were no match for the new primes of the McLaren drivers. They should have known that and changed the tyres in lap 7 with McLaren and Ferrari.

I'm not sure that would have been possible. It would mean a very long stint on the softs at the end. The other option would be longer middle stint on the hards. Either way, they would lose position.

They changed seven laps later when it became obvious that the situation was intolerable. To run five more laps on the next set of primes and two more laps on the options would not have changed much. But the point was Red Bull did not expect that performance difference. They were not prepared well enough.

[BreezyRacer]

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

No. No one should let the the other through. But if Webber is faster he should be allowed to pass.

It's a bit different, as far as we know, from Turkey, where Webber was told to to conserve fuel and Vettel was turned lose to charge him, while the cars were running 1 and 2.

In this case, where Vettel is in an injured car, Webber was told to hold station. You cannot, with an objective mind, conclude that there are not team orders and that those team orders are to promote Vettel at the expense of Webber.

Anyway the whole point of this thread was whether these team antics and favoritism are damaging RBR's chance to win the WC.

[WhiteBlue]

In this case, where Vettel is in an injured car, Webber was told to hold station. You cannot .. conclude ... that those team orders are to promote Vettel at the expense of Webber.

Totally agree with you there, although you probably meant to say the opposite of what you said.

I thought only Germans love convoluted sentences.

[Just_a_fan]

In this case, where Vettel is in an injured car, Webber was told to hold station. You cannot .. conclude ... that those team orders are to promote Vettel at the expense of Webber.

Totally agree with you there, although you probably meant to say the opposite of what you said.

I thought only Germans love convoluted sentences.

Naughty WB. Quoting someone and altering the quote to say what you want it to say.

The original reads, to me, as saying that teams orders are there and they favour Vettel. Am I right in thinking you don't believe team orders exist in favour of Vettel?

[Mysticf1]

LOL the quote was completely changed...what are you up to WB? That be the trademarks of a troll.

[WhiteBlue]

In this case, where Vettel is in an injured car, Webber was told to hold station. You cannot .. conclude ... that those team orders are to promote Vettel at the expense of Webber.

Totally agree with you there, although you probably meant to say the opposite of what you said.

I thought only Germans love convoluted sentences.

Naughty WB. Quoting someone and altering the quote to say what you want it to say.

The original reads, to me, as saying that teams orders are there and they favour Vettel. Am I right in thinking you don't believe team orders exist in favour of Vettel?

Just_a_fan, you are in error accusing me to change BreezyRacer's original sentence. I would never do this. I regard such practice as highly confrontative and bad discussion style. It can even be considered to be abusive. I strictly follow the rules of quotation in scientific writing although few people here seem to care about that. You can abbreviate within a sentence and may insert dots for words that you left out. You may also leave out complete sentences to focus on a point that you want to comment about. In that case you also insert dots to indicate where you have cut.

I have abbreviated the original sentence to make the faulty grammar obvious that was employed by the author. If you pile a bunch of negations on you can end up spinning off your track, you see.

I believe both drivers were on reduced power. The most likely reason for this was advise from the team to cut power. I also think that both drivers were told that the other driver was also reducing power. I have no idea how much Red Bull used their radio to communicate the reason behind the power cut. They probably wanted that to remain secret.

LOL the quote was completely changed...what are you up to WB? That be the trademarks of a troll.

I think you are going a bit over the top my friend. I only showed him his erroneous grammar and added that he probably did not mean to say what he said. That is a bit of humor IMO and not trolling. Suggesting trolling is the naughty thing if anything on this page was naughty.

[Mysticf1]

No you completely changed the meaning and you know it!

Breezy was saying you CANNOT conclude there was NO team orders.

[WhiteBlue]

No you completely changed the meaning and you know it!

Breezy was saying you CANNOT conclude there was NO team orders.

You are objectively wrong! He made two statements in one sentence. The first statement with double negation, which you quotetd was ok. The second had a single negation, exactly as I quoted. I can go into analysing the grammar for you, but I see no point in that. Ask a language expert and he will tell you, that I have not distorted his second statement that I quoted.

[Just_a_fan]

No you completely changed the meaning and you know it!

Breezy was saying you CANNOT conclude there was NO team orders.

You are objectively wrong! He made two statements in one sentence. The first statement with double negation which you quotetd was ok. The second had a single negation, exactly as I quoted. I can go into analysing the grammar for you, but I see no point in that. Ask a language expert and he will tell you that I have not distorted his second statement which I quoted.

If the audience perceive a difference then you are wrong to carry out the abbreviation.

You have, in the eyes of at least two in here, totally changed the meaning of the original wording. Perhaps you should just edit your post to fully quote the original correctly. That would seem to be the best course of action to prevent further misunderstanding.

[WhiteBlue]

If the audience perceive a difference then you are wrong to carry out the abbreviation.

You have, in the eyes of at least two in here, totally changed the meaning of the original wording. Perhaps you should just edit your post to fully quote the original correctly. That would seem to be the best course of action to prevent further misunderstanding.

Grammar rules are objective. Everybody can use correct grammar and will find that BR said: You cannot conclude that those team orders are to promote Vettel at the expense of Webber. This is what you get when you strip away his first independent statement. I cannot be responsible if some of the esteemed members wish to deviate from the English grammar rules. As conciliation I agree to decompose BR's original sentence for you.

You cannot, with an objective mind, conclude that there are not team orders and that those team orders are to promote Vettel at the expense of Webber.

This is equal to two sentences:

Statement #1: You cannot [, with an objective mind,] conclude that there are not team orders.

Statement #2:You cannot [, with an objective mind,] conclude that those team orders are to promote Vettel at the expense of Webber.

By studying this decomposition you will find that I have by no means changed what the author said. I just used his second statement, left the bit about the objective mind out and indicated the abbreviation. That is common practice.

I suggest that we go back to the topic. If you want to continue the linguistic debate I will be happy to do it in another topic or by PM.

[Richard]

Lets put this spat down to lost in translation.

In a strict grammar sense, I agree with WB. However these forums move so quickly that the occasional "not" gets missed out. We do need to give people the benefit of the doubt.

[Richard]

Back to topic.

I think RB have had two bad races, one due to messed up team work, the other due to missed call on the strategy. Although perhaps RB realised the car wasn't suited to Montreal so took a gamble with a radical strategy - they had nothing to lose.

Valencia is another strange circuit.

So we'll not see RB have a chance to get back to their good form until we get back to "normal" cicuits.