Strange going-ons at Red Bull

[WhiteBlue]

The wing was actually taken away after P3 to be nondestructively tested following the failure of the other wing on Seb's car. It should have been pretty easy for Pilbeam/Webber to confirm with factory sources that indeed this test was carried out. I don't see that this wing had to re allocated after the test to Webber.

So let me get this straight, you have a new component on each car. It breaks on A's car and a fault is found presumably. So it is taken off B's car to check it doesnt have similar fault. The part is found to not have the same fault but rather than put back on the B's car you give to A because of the new policy, just made up by way, that he is ahead in the championship and some convoluted allocations argument. And you still find B's anger and reaction strange?

Considering that they were re allocating the new spec wings constantly over the weekend to address availability issues it doesn't come as such a big surprise that it wasn't simply given back to Mark Webber. The team has taken the blame for the failure of the other wing on Vettel's car. So here we are having one tested wing and two cars for it to go on.

I have said it several times that Mark may have had an acceptable grievance until the thing was explained to him between 3 and 6 pm on Saturday. The facts didn't change and he admitted yesterday that he was fully informed by then. He still choose to continue making a big fuss for his very own reasons. I call this immature or malevolent whichever you think fits the situation better. As MW is a fairly experienced F1 driver the immaturity option should be pretty much out of consideration. So his apparent motive was probably his wish to punish Horner and play mind games with young Vettel.

[marcush.]

MysticF1 - Good shout out about Lotus. Funny thing was, that was a far more fundemental part of the car, it was the chassis! And neither driver wanted it, saying give it to Trulli, give it to Heikki. In the end the right decision was made. Trulli was underperforming so got a new chassis aka a confidence booster.

the two ar at the tail of the field so both know the team will not improve if they
are selfish in any ways...if it were that lotus would fight for podiums ...another
Trulli would emerge possibly...

It is like ...whats the point trying to destroy your teammate if your car is 5s slow?

[mcdenife]

I have said it several times that Mark may have had an acceptable grievance until the thing was explained to him between 3 and 6 pm on Saturday. The facts didn't change and he admitted yesterday that he was fully informed by then. He still choose to continue making a big fuss for his very own reasons. I call this immature or malevolent whichever you think fits the situation better.

Ok so to summarise, going by your arguments and according to you, Mark had a legitimate grievance right up till it was explained to him that:
a) Once a wing is has taken off your car to be tested, it is no longer yours but since there is now only one available and you are behind in the point, the wing is going to the 'prat' as this is the new policy, just put in place as we speak so that should be ok.
b) Also we need feedback from a variety of situation which it seems only the 'prat' is capable of giving.

So following this masterful and very very reasonable explanation, there should be no further reason for MW to have any grievances and is immature or malevolent if he does.

[WhiteBlue]

Ok so to summarise, going by your arguments and according to you, Mark had a legitimate grievance right up till it was explained to him that:
a) Once a wing is has taken off your car to be tested, it is no longer yours but since there is only one available and you are behind in the point, the wing is going to the 'prat' as this is the new policy, just put in place as we speak so that should be ok.
b) Also we need feedback from a variety of situation which it seems only the 'prat' is capable of giving.

So following this masterful and very very reasonable explanation, there should be no further reason for MW to have any grievances and is immature or malevolent if he does.

You are still not summarizing clearly.

a) The "prat" in this case was Mark Webber and not Sebastian Vettel who was remarkably restrained while Webber was conducting his grand opera.

b) The team never said that the feedback could not have come from Webber. The wing allocation was never argued with that point. Personably I think that Webber could indeed have given them less feedback as his driving style isn't as much supported by the wing as Vettel's. So the team probably profited in their development speed by Horner's decision. But this is only my view which we do not know if it was also shared by the team.

It is also interesting to have a look at how the WDC standing is influencing the championship odds of Vettel and Webber.



Here we see them swapping P3 and P4 as a result of the Silverstone race.



And here we see that Mark Webber is still not seen as the favorite Red Bull driver by the betting money. I share the view of the smart money in this case. Perhaps the teams has a similar perception but they promised to give any new components in short supply to Mark Webber for the next race based on the WDC leader rule. So I think they cannot be accused of favoritism.

If you look at Mark Webbers odds it is very obvious that he has spectaculatly good days but he has also very bad days in terms of his own performance and not of his luck. It is expressed in wildly varying expectations and odds while Vettel even more than Hamilton puts in solid performances that keep his odds on a very level course.

[myurr]

I have said it several times that Mark may have had an acceptable grievance until the thing was explained to him between 3 and 6 pm on Saturday. The facts didn't change and he admitted yesterday that he was fully informed by then. He still choose to continue making a big fuss for his very own reasons. I call this immature or malevolent whichever you think fits the situation better.

Ok so to summarise, going by your arguments and according to you, Mark had a legitimate grievance right up till it was explained to him that:
a) Once a wing is has taken off your car to be tested, it is no longer yours but since there is only one available and you are behind in the point, the wing is going to the 'prat' as this is the new policy, just put in place as we speak so that should be ok.
b) Also we need feedback from a variety of situation which it seems only the 'prat' is capable of giving.

So following this masterful and very very reasonable explanation, there should be no further reason for MW to have any grievances and is immature or malevolent if he does.

Couldn't have put it better myself. And lest we forget that the Turkish incident is still fresh in the mind where there was very public briefing by the team against their driver. Webber was given assurances at the time that he would be treated equally, this clearly was not the case.

[forty-two]

Perhaps the teams has a similar perception but they promised to give any new components in short supply to Mark Webber for the next race based on the WDC leader rule. So I think they cannot be accused of favoritism.

What's the betting that the team do indeed honour this, but the "new" parts they choose to put on Webber's car turn out to be either detrimental to performance OR simply un-finished?

It would not surprise me for example if at Hockenheim, Webber has a "new" component fail on him either during the Race or during Qualifying, leading to either a DNF or a compromised postition.

Let's see if Mr Horner's promises of equality turn out to be an excuse to put parts ONLY on Webber's car which are likely to fail?

Or am I being too cynical?

[Richard]

Webber was rightly angry about how things were playing out. He's a tough racing driver, they are driven by anger/passion. He's an Australian, they speak their minds and hold their ground.

'Nuff said.

[mcdenife]

You are still not summarizing clearly.

a) The "prat" in this case was Mark Webber and not Sebastian Vettel who was remarkably restrained while Webber was conducting his grand opera.

Of course the prat was remarkably restrained. He is the one being favoured.

The team never said that the feedback could not have come from Webber. The wing allocation was never argued with that point.

That why I said "going by your arguments and according to you". I dont know what the team said but I know what you said.

ersonably I think that Webber could indeed have given them less feedback as his driving style isn't as much supported by the wing as Vettel's.

Personally I dont know anything about any part of any car that suits any other drivers style but I am quite certain the teams data that will show or prove this one way or the other is not available to anyone on this forum to make this summation.

I am also quite sure no team in their right minds will ever use betting odds to determine who is their better/faster driver, which is most likely to win the championship or who gets which component when and why.

[WhiteBlue]

Let's see if Mr Horner's promises of equality turn out to be an excuse to put parts ONLY on Webber's car which are likely to fail

You mean like the failure of the new wing on Vettel's car on Saturday?

[WhiteBlue]

I am quite certain the teams data that will show or prove this one way or the other is not available to anyone on this forum to make this summation.

I am also quite sure no team in their right minds will ever use betting odds to determine who is their better/faster driver, which is most likely to win the championship or who gets which component when and why.

We do not need data to know that the wing was more suited to Vettel's driving style and that Vettel had endorsed the wing much stronger after P2. Horner told us so. That implies that his feedback could have been more valuable for Newey. I derive my opinion from this conclusion. But as you said this isn't factual, it is opinion and everybody can have one of his own.

On your second sentence I agree. No dispute there. The info was only shown to provide a bit more balance on how Vettel vs Webber is perceived in wider circles than this board.

[Mysticf1]

Anything the team say especially Horner needs to be taken with a grain of salt..F1 is full of spin and political rhetoric, every single team is guilty of that, the turkey incident proved that beyond doubt. The story always fits the agenda.

Webbers "opera" is nothing in comparison to the RB rubbish that came from the turkish incident.

Why wouldnt the betting odds be in Vettels favour? There is a strong public perception that he has the greater support within the team.

[forty-two]

Let's see if Mr Horner's promises of equality turn out to be an excuse to put parts ONLY on Webber's car which are likely to fail

You mean like the failure of the new wing on Vettel's car on Saturday?

I take your point, but no, that isn't what I meant. Vettel's failure happened during FP3. I was suggesting that perhaps a new part could "arrive" magically just after FP3, allowing the team to fit it to Webber's car in time for Q1.

I don't think the team would deliberately sabotage Webber's car, to do so would be foolish and would hurt the team as much if not more than it hurt Webber.

BUT to fit a "new" part which the team know is borderline, and MIGHT work, or MIGHT fail catastrophically, now that's different. I guess we won't have to wait long to find out if my worst fears are confirmed.

[WhiteBlue]

Webbers "opera" is nothing in comparison to the RB rubbish that came from the turkish incident.

I thought it was actually quite entertaining to watch Horner trying to stuff the cat back into the bag while Marko had let it out and kept showing it to the public.

Contrary to popular perception I think that Red Bull was right to favor their faster driver by a team order in Turkey. They would have had an advantage if Vettel would have opened a gap to Webber. IMO team mates should not fight when the opposition is in immediate striking distance behind them. The team needs every advantage that it can gain in such circumstances. Unfortunately Horner was too much afraid of the FiA to tell the truth and Pilbeam was very boldface in his sabotage of the team order.

Similarly I think that the way Vettel and Webber drove for the first corner in Silverstone is madness for the team. Vettel should not be allowed to impede Webber's line on the pit straight and Webber should not be allowed to drive Vettel off track in Copse exit. The fact that the lunatics are now ruling the asylum is largely owed to Webber's media manipulations. Red Bull are going to loose the WDC if they continue to have the tail wag the dog.

Re reliability and team favors I recommend Helmut Marko's words:

Wenn Mark sich einbildet, dass es da eine Verschwörung zwischen uns und Vettel gegen ihn gibt, dann ist er auf dem Holzweg. Wäre ich Vettel, dann müsste ich den umgekehrten Verdacht haben. An welchem Auto ging denn dauernd etwas kaputt? Hat Mark die defekte Zündkerze in Bahrain vergessen, das lose Rad in Australien, den nicht richtig justierten Stabi und die gebrochene Bremsscheibe in Barcelona, das defekte Chassis in Monte Carlo, die Getriebeprobleme in Montreal und jetzt die abgefallene Nase in Silverstone? Dagegen ist Webber mit einem blauen Auge davon gekommen.

If Mark imagines a conspiracy between us and Vettel to disadvantage him he is barking up the wrong tree. If I were Vettel I would have the contrary impression. Which driver's car was always breaking down? Did Mark forget the broken spark plug in Bahrain, the loose wheel in Australia, the incorrectly adjusted damper and the broken brake disk in Barcelona, the defect chassis in Monaco, the leaking gear box in Montreal and the collapsed nose box in Silverstone? Compared with that (list of failures) Mark has been extremely lucky.

I have to agree with Helmut that any driver could construe a team sabotaging his WDC chances with that list of mechanical failures. Have we heard something along those lines from Vettel? No, we havn't.

[forty-two]

Red Bull are going to loose the WDC if they continue to have the tail wag the dog.

While I agree that the drivers are employees of the team, and should do what they're told. I do feel that recent events all point to significant bias toward Vettel's side of the garage, and I really don't like to see that sort of thing happen.

I'm sure that this has always been an issue in F1, but that doesn't make it right.

[WhiteBlue]

Perhaps something to consider

The real loser from the Red Bull row

While Mark Webber complained about what he felt was unfair treatment, Jonathan Noble explains why the supposedly-favoured Sebastian Vettel is coming off worse.

A glance through the media cuttings after the British Grand Prix weekend, or a quick stop off at Red Bull Racing's official website for comments from the fans, left you in no doubt what the majority of the world felt about the wing-swapping controversy that dominated paddock talk at Silverstone.

News story after story, rant after rant, suggested that Red Bull's favouritism tactics were a disgrace - and that Mark Webber's 'appointment with Karma' on Sunday was the most righteous outcome possible.

But as the dust settles on an amazing weekend, and Red Bull makes moves to calm its choppy waters, the most intriguing aspect of the favouritism shenanigans is that the one being hurt the most by it is not Webber - it is actually the 'chosen one', Vettel himself.

When Vettel arrived on the F1 scene, as BMW Sauber test driver, he quickly established himself as the media's golden boy. He was funny, approachable, interesting and a big hit with everyone who worked with him.

I remember having a long sit down interview with him back at the Japanese Grand Prix in 2006 - chewing the fat over his career, schooling, F1 - and even Little Britain. Rarely had I been as entertained and laughed as much doing an interview.

Vettel was not just about being a fun driver off track though, because he proved that he had exceptional talent on it. He helped turn Toro Rosso into a race winner with that brilliant drive at Monza in 2008 and, with a switch to Red Bull Racing, he has emerged as a genuine world championship contender and one of the very best drivers in the world.

With double diffusers, the odd mistake and reliability issues costing him his chance of the world title last season, 2010 was supposed to be his year - and with the form he showed early on there looked every chance that the German was going to end up as world champion.

But spark plugs, wheel nuts, bad weather and controversial collisions have meant he is still playing catch-up to the McLaren boys.

Talent wise, the paddock's views on Vettel are just as good as they were when the season started. He remains as fast as he ever was and his battles with team-mate Mark Webber are pushing both to the edge as they fight tooth and nail for glory. It's fantastic.

What has changed, however, is the perception of who Vettel is - and this where it gets hard to separate the 'favouritism' aspect from the man himself.

Take this example from the Daily Mirror's post-British Grand Prix coverage: "The racer who began the year as Formula 1's rising superstar has overnight become its darkest villain.

"And Red Bull slid ever closer to civil war with Vettel and his team on one side, and Webber and the world on the other. Dubbed "Baby Schu" by his own German media, Vettel seems to have plenty in common with the legendary racer with a reputation for questionable ethics and dubious tactics."

The darkest villain? I think not.

Vettel may be brutally tough on track, as his swerve across Mark Webber in Turkey that caused their collision, and his first corner defence against the Australian at Silverstone showed. But, has he yet deliberately driven into someone for his own benefit? Nope.

Yet Vettel is taking a hammering on the image front. And that's because he is perceived to be the favoured one - and a majority of people often have a problem dealing with people who they feel have a sense of entitlement.

When Red Bull Racing chiefs so quickly jumped to Vettel's defence after Istanbul, when clearly it had been him that had driven into Webber, it showed an underlying benefit of the doubt for the German.

When Christian Horner took the decision to take the front wing off Webber's car and put it on Vettel's at Silverstone - again that was viewed as out and out bias.

Yet despite these two incidents, evidence of blatant favouritism is hard to find. I am pretty sure that 99 out of 100 times he and Mark Webber are sent into battle with totally equal machinery - and the one time it may occur is because of freak circumstances than nefarious intentions.

In fact, the efforts that the team has done to give Webber lightweight parts because of his extra physical bulk shows how hard it is pushing to keep things on the even keel.

Whether the existence of emotional favouritism on the other hand is there or not - and only those at the top level of the team know for real - the perception that it exists is definitely around. And, in an F1 world where perception all too often becomes reality, it's that which is hurting.

Webber ultimately has lost very little from the two 'favouritism' flashpoints. In Turkey, he turned what would have been an eight point deficit to Vettel into a 15-point win. And at Silverstone, he took 19 points out of his team-mate when he could have faced losing ground.

The Australian's nature of wearing his heart on his sleeve has also brought his frustrations out into the public - and made it well known that all has not been equal from his viewpoint. It is his post-race reactions in Turkey and at Silverstone that turned both events into such big stories.

Webber is a super canny operator, and good on him for speaking out - because if he accepted what he felt was happening and kept his mouth shut in public, then that would simply secure his position as a clear number two. We know, and he knows, he's better than that - and only by venting his frustration can he ensure it doesn't happen again.

And that's why Vettel has been the big loser in all this. Championship-wise he lost all the big points in Turkey and at Silverstone - and he has now also started to lose the support and good will that has long existed for him in the paddock.

While some drivers might not care if they are perceived as the 'darkest villain' in F1, Vettel is probably one of those that does. Furthermore, it is no help in a title battle when you have the world criticising you and labelling you as the paddock's enemy number one. And for what? Doing nothing more than simply wanting to be the best.


It's not for him to turn around to Horner 25 minutes before qualifying and say he does not want the latest front wing on his car. He's a racing driver. No driver fighting for a title would willingly turn down a competitive advantage if it was offered to him.

It is the sense of being the favoured one that surrounds Vettel that needs shaking off though. Had he won on Sunday, for example - the general perception would have been that he only triumphed because he was gifted the new front wing, rather than because of anything he did in the car. That is just as unfair as the team swapping wings in the first place.

Yet no amount of claims and quotes from Red Bull chiefs that there is no favouritism inside the team is going to change this new perception of Vettel. Instead, the solution has to come from the German himself

He should knock on Christian Horner's door, sit down and demand total equality with Webber - and that there can be no situations in the future where either driver feels as though he was second choice.

He should lay down a code of conduct for the team and drivers over the rest of the season that can allow no-one to perceive he has any 'entitlement' behind him.

He also needs the team to promise to be totally transparent in public too - to lay it bear where any differences are with updates, and not put Vettel into a position where he has to defend himself for something he had no direct control over in the first place.

Even Webber himself would agree to all that. Both men want to win not because they've had a behind-the-scenes leg-up, but because they were the best on the day. No one loses from that.

It's exactly what we all want too.