Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

That's not what happened though. Mark said himself that during the race he was wondering how the team would deal with the situation and was ready for a sprint to the finish - not something you would say if there was a standing agreement before the race about exactly how it was going to play out. They made the Multi21 call during the race. All Vettel did was the same Mark did at Silverstone - ignore team orders during the race to hold station. When Mark did it he was the little aussie battler showing some trueaussiegrit by sticking it to the man or some nonsense, Vettel returns the favour and everyone goes off....

Worse still, Mark did the same thing in Brazil last year witht he championship on the line for Vettel - he was a fool to think Vettel wouldn't do the same to him when the chance came!

I say good on him. It was an unsporting team order that served no actual point to the team or drivers. Until there is a clear championship contender to support, it should be best man wins, not some old blokes behind the pit wall calling the race off with a quarter of it still to run. Let them race. Stupid orders should be broken.

Well RedBull would have to be incompetent to not have discussed such a thing before the race. We will never know though, will we? The complication was Vettels strategy differed to Mark s which tends to indicate they didnt have their act together. There is more than enough history there for neither of the two of them to help each other. The difference between Malaysia and Silverstone was that in Silverstone neither of them had backed off under team orders. In Malaysia Webber had.

Anyway, the team order was not unsporting - it was sensible.

Interfering in the outcome of a sporting event for no conclusive benefit is unsporting in my book.

The team got the same points regardless of the finishing order.

$20million worth of drivers should be trusted to be able to race their team mates without crashing. If they can't be, you're paying them too much!

Engines only have to last two races, and they spend alot of the GrandPrix these days nursing tyres anyway, so they're not getting an absolute caning. A few laps of pushing hard shouldn't hurt them - they've proven to be very reliable in recent years anyway.

The concern about tyres not lasting to the finish was obviously not really a problem - Vettel made it home comfortably ahead of Webber.

They raced hard and clean. The fans got treated to a great dice. Everyone made it home intact. The best man on the day won. It's wins all-round from a sporting perspective. The alternative you want is that we would have watched another pair of drivers cruising the last quarter of the race in formation like the farcical Mercedes situation for 3rd and 4th. Wouldn't that have been exciting! They may as well have got the FIA to throw the chequered flag early to end the tedium if that had happened as planned...

And better yet, RBR have agreed to ditch these types of team order until they actually need to support one driver over the other, which is a massive win for the sport and the fans. If only Nico had the balls to do the same...

Edited by hrd-hr30

That's not what happened though. Mark said himself that during the race he was wondering how the team would deal with the situation and was ready for a sprint to the finish - not something you would say if there was a standing agreement before the race about exactly how it was going to play out. They made the Multi21 call during the race. All Vettel did was the same Mark did at Silverstone - ignore team orders during the race to hold station. When Mark did it he was the little aussie battler showing some trueaussiegrit by sticking it to the man or some nonsense, Vettel returns the favour and everyone goes off....

Worse still, Mark did the same thing in Brazil last year witht he championship on the line for Vettel - he was a fool to think Vettel wouldn't do the same to him when the chance came!

I say good on him. It was an unsporting team order that served no actual point to the team or drivers. Until there is a clear championship contender to support, it should be best man wins, not some old blokes behind the pit wall calling the race off with a quarter of it still to run. Let them race. Stupid orders should be broken.

Its funny that you read between the lines of Webbers comment which can be take two ways...but really can only be read one way when you read/hear Horner clearly say that there was an agreement before the race. Has been used and discussed before at places like Spa etc He said it live on tv! You just choose to ignore the fact that mark said it owudl be interesting as they gave him track position duer to Hamilton and Webber suffered even though he was the lead car who according to RBR practice lead cars gets preference. Only this time he didnt and of course he knew it woudl be on with Sebastian if given the same patch of blackstuff

Re the Brazil things...tis all trumped up. Go and watch the race again for gods sake. Mark is plenty of things...he didtn selecet reverse gear for Seb, but didnt mess with his race as others claim

The race start was a race start. He didnt move aside for him but he didn't do anything different to other start procedures. More could go wrong by doing something unusual..and with Alonso further back there was no need to do anything over then get off the line and when it was safe too let him by and let Seb get on with the race all whilst managing the cars behind him to make sure he didnt get jumped. Seb being tagged meant that never got the chance to happen on a later lap

The race re-start when he went around the outside... Kobayashi was behind Vettel and Webber behind Kobi. Vettel sseemed to get a poor re-start with Kobi having a dive on the inside and Webber was alongside Kobi and when Kobi dove up the inside Webber stayed wide. He was racing Kobi who dove up the inside of Vettel .

I agree Webber was still out racing for himself with the lottery dip conditions anything was going to be possible...but I think the problems he caused Vettel are overstated.

Silverstone...? Like Herbert recently said, Webber just stuck his nose in there to prove he had the pace and was quicker...he then backed off. The charade was he wanted to show he could have done the job...and the proof was he palyed the game by coming home behind him.

The thing is, it distinctly looked like mark didnt fight back at the end, he was in position to give vetel heaps and he backed off. You can see team favoritism to one driver over another all over the place. Look at when jb was racing hamo, even though he was leading hamo for a great many races, jb had a fair few pit lane problems that dropped him down the order until he was behind hamo, then they just stopped happening.

Why does webber always have shit starts? Has he ever said anything about why, don't know? You have to wonder why he's so shit race in and race out except when vetel has already won a championship, then he is on par for the course. He could just be shit like everyone says but being an f1 driver with as much experience and oportunities to practice, it doesnt make much sense. I get it about the priority into the one box and maybe even pushing one driver over the other when its gone 3/4 season and there is a clear choice on champ points but the rest is just stupid.

yeah yeah ill go put my tin hat back on or whatever.

Edited by gts-4 dreamer

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Yeah, all the crude is used for fuels and petrochem feedstocks (pesticides, many other chemicals, etc etc). But increasingly over the last few decades, much of the petrochem synthessis has started with methane because NG has been cheaper than oil, cleaner and easier and more consistent to work with, etc etc etc. So it's really had to say what the fraction either way is. Suffice to say - the direct fuels fraction is not insigificant. Heavy transport uses excruciatingly large amounts. Diesel is wasted in jet heaters in North American garages and workshops, thrown down drill holes in quarries, pissed all over the wall to provide electricity to certain outback communities, etc etc. Obviously road transport, and our pet project, recreational consumption camouflaged as road transport, is a smaller fraction of the total liquid HC consumption again. If you're talking aboust Aussie cars' contribution to the absolute total CO2 production of the country, then of course our share of the cubic mile of coal that is used for power generation, metallurgy, etc adds up to a big chunk. Then there is the consumption of timber. Did you know that the production of silicon metal, for example, is done in Australia by using hardwood? And f**king lots and lots and lots of hardwood at that. Until recently, it was f**king jarrah! There are many such sneaky contributors to CO2 production in industry and farming. NG is used in massive quantities in Australia, for power gen, for running huge water pumps (like, 1-2MW sized caterpillar V16 engines running flat out pumping water) for places like mine sites and minerals/metals refineries. And there are just a huge number of those sort of things going on quietly in the background. So NG use is a big fraction of total CO2 production here. I mean, shit, I personally design burners that are used in furnaces here in Oz that use multiple MW of gas all day every day. The largest such that I've done (not here in Oz) was rated to 150MW. One. Single. Gas burner. In a cement clinker kiln. There are thousands of such things out there in the world. There are double digits of them just here in Oz. (OK< just barely double digits now that a lot of them have shut - and they are all <100MW). But it's all the same to me. People in the car world (like this forum's users) would like to think that you only have to create an industrial capability to replace the fuel that they will be using in 10 years time, and imagine that everyone else will be driving EVs. And while the latter part of that is largely true, the liquid HC fuel industry as a whole is so much more massive than the bit used for cars, that there will be no commercial pressure to produce "renewable" "synthetic" fuels just for cars, when 100x that much would still be being burnt straight from the well. You have to replace it all, or you're not doing what is required. And then you get back to my massive numbers. People don't handle massive numbers at all well. Once you get past about 7 or 8 zeros, it becomes meaningless for most people.
    • @GTSBoy out of the cubic mile of crude oil we burn each year, I wonder how much of that is actually used for providing petrol and diesel.   From memory the figure for cars in Australia, is that they only add up to about 2 to 3% of our CO2 production. Which means something else here is burning a shit tonne of stuff to make CO2, and we're not really straight up burning oil everywhere, so our CO2 production is coming from elsewhere too.   Also we should totally just run thermal energy from deep in the ground. That way we can start to cool the inside of the planet and reverse global warming (PS, this last paragraph is a total piss take)
    • As somebody who works in the energy sector and lives in a subzero climate, i'm convinced EV's will never be the bulk of our transport.  EV battery and vehicle companies over here have been going bankrupt on a weekly basis the last year. 
    • With all the rust on those R32s, how can it even support all the extra weight requirements. Probably end up handling as well as a 1990s Ford Falcon Taxi.
    • Yes...but look at the numbers. There is a tiny tiny fraction of the number of Joules available, compared to what is used/needed. Just because things are "possible" doesn't make them meaningful.
×
×
  • Create New...