2013 Petronas Malaysian Grand Prix

[Alex p.]

I approve of the use of Fifth Element jokes:

👍

WOW I really nearly pissed myself!

This is SO much gold!

 

[Jerwin]

I feel bad for Webber. Seb could have at least given that win to him. Worse, Seb swerved around at the checkered flag like he just broke another record! He clearly took advantage of Webber, and doing that little swerve thing at the end is just adding more insult.

As for Hamilton and Rosberg, I think Hamilton should have let Rosberg pass at some point. But at least Rosberg didn't take advantage of his team mate and Hamilton didn't rub it in.

 

[spyrrari]

I approve of the use of Fifth Element jokes:

👍

Spy.

 

[Wardez]

Team orders are team orders. Both chose to ignore them.

Major difference between the two. But I guess you're too comfortable in your conclusion to my hear me out, so I'll save us both time and agree to disagree.

 

[RACECAR]

Why the hell does that red hair actually fit his head well?


What I can't quite work out is Sebastian was clearly faster then Webber (faster then anything the last few years), yet he tells his team to have him move over. Why would you feel compelled to have the team tell the guy that you are miles faster then to "Move over" when you can handily get around him anyway, even if he does put up a fight (and when he clearly has no intention to bow down to you)? I have no bias, but am I the only one that feels like Vettel has sorta gotten a swollen head? Its kinda like how Hamilton turned into this spoiled baby after he won his first championship.

 

[Famine]

It wasn't stupid, it was evil. He should've ordered Hamilton to let Nico pass and chase the Red bulls. What's wrong with that?

Rosberg didn't have the fuel or tyres to do so. Mercedes (via Ross Brawn) stated they underfuelled because they thought there'd be a safety car. Without one, fuel consumption rates increase.

Both teams had the same order. Do not race each other, consolidate the position, save your tyres and fuel and bring the cars home. It's a fairly sensible request and seems to be nothing to do with orchestrating a driver finish order - they were allowed to race until the final stop then just get the cars back.

Rosberg chose not to risk his 12pt in the hope of getting 15pt - and he didn't know he couldn't get 18pt and wanted to try. As a result, he's better off (he has 12pt, not 0), his teammate is better off (he has 15pt, not 12 or 0 - had Hamilton fought back) and the team are better off (they have 27pt, not 0 or 15). It's galling, but that's racing. He's now got a thankful and humble teammate (and friend, let's not forget) and a GOOJF card with the team.

Vettel chose to risk his 18pt in the hope of getting 25pt, knowing that he'd been told not to. As a result, he's better off (he has 25pt, not 18), his teammate is worse off (he has 18pt, not 25) and the team are not only no better off on paper (they got the same 43pt) but they're worse off because one their drivers are now set against each other. After 2 races. Webber's talking about leaving, about Vettel's protection from Marko and Horner, Horner tried to blame Webber in part (again, like he did at Turkey in 2010)...

This won't play out well - thanks to one brat.

 

[Earth]

Well Golf doesn't have a constructor's (or team) championship does it. It's really every man for himself. There's not really many sports which would have this problem except motorsports (since there are 2 different championships). I guess the reason this doesn't happen in NASCAR and IndyCar is because there isn't a team championship, though there is a manufacturer's championship it doesn't really have the same impact as there are only around 3-4 manufacturers and they only get points from their highest placed car. The only solution to the problem of team orders, in my opinion, is to remove the constructor's championship and make it every driver for himself, but then there's really no point in teams then.

There wouldnt be no point in teams. As you've said, NASCAR, Indycar, and others do not have a team championship, yet they still have teams. And the teams arent useless as they share data etc etc. Besides, F1 teams care far more about the drivers championship then constructor. Thats why they have the #2 driver. Hes there to support the #1 driver, and in case the #1 driver fouls up big time or gets hurt, the #2 driver then becomes the focal point.

The only reason why Vettel wasn't ordered ahead of Webber is because its still early in the season. The points could fall either way. Webber could have a string of 5 or 6 really good races while Vettel could have alot of DNFs and fall way behind. At that point the team would start to back Webber. This early in the season they want both to do equally well so they have 2 bullets in the gun for the title. Im quite sure the constructor championship is not the most important factor at the moment.

I'll try and look through all the smoke and mirrors and see whats really wrong with what happened. Red Bull was worried about tires. Mercedes was worried about fuel. Why should tires and fuel be such a big issue it prompts the teams to tell the drivers to stop racing? Its fundamental flaws in F1's rule book that hurt the racing and make for situations like this. Without a "cliff" for the tires to fall off the Red Bull cars could have fought for a win. Without the refueling ban the Mercedes cars could have fought each other.

Theres even the new points system that rewards consistency by decreasing the points percentage between each finishing position.

In the end, F1 just isnt for me. Whats "fair" or "sporting" is brushed aside in favor for cold, mathematic calculations that generate a scenario which gives the teams the highest chance to win the race or championship. Many seem to be OK with that, but Im not. If I paid money to watch a race and heard the top 4 cars were told not to battle at the end of the race, I'd be very upset. And I see no point in watching it on television either

 

[Samus]

Besides, F1 teams care far more about the drivers championship then constructor. Thats why they have the #2 driver. Hes there to support the #1 driver, and in case the #1 driver fouls up big time or gets hurt, the #2 driver then becomes the focal point.

Yeah, no. Please do some research about a sport before commenting on it.

Im quite sure the constructor championship is not the most important factor at the moment.

See above. It's ALWAYS the most important factor.

Without a "cliff" for the tires to fall off the Red Bull cars could have fought for a win.

They could have, they probably still would have been told not to, because of the above.

Without the refueling ban the Mercedes cars could have fought each other.

It was Mercedes gamble not putting enough fuel in, they could have put enough in quite easily. It's nothing to to do with a refueling ban.

Theres even the new points system that rewards consistency by decreasing the points percentage between each finishing position.

No actually it was changed so that there was a bigger gap between first and second to encourage drivers to go for the win. Points were added down to 10th instead of 6th (or 5th) simply so more teams/drivers would get points.

In the end, F1 just isnt for me.

Yeah I gathered that.

 

[DegenThought]

Yeah I gathered that.

Sorry for the worthless comment, but this made me chuckle

 

[Imari]

Whats "fair" or "sporting" is brushed aside in favor for cold, mathematic calculations that generate a scenario which gives the teams the highest chance to win the race or championship.

Welcome to professional sports. Winning is everything, and teams spend unbelievable amounts of time and money optimising every single decision to give themselves the best chance to win. Fairness and sportsmanship don't come into it.

See the technical innovations in F1 that while technically legal tromp all over the spirit of the rules. Double DRS? Flexible front wings? Floor slots?

If you're a professional sportsman, your job is to try and abuse the rules in the ways that give you the best chance to win. Your job is not to entertain, that is a byproduct of you trying to win. It's the job of the regulators to create a rule set in which the strategy that gives the best chance of winning is also the most entertaining.


As an aside, I just got around to watching Nico Rosberg's post race interview. Massive respect. The man is a hero. Took one for the team, and conveyed exactly the right amount of disappointment in his personal result yet happiness for the team. He's gotta be a joy for a team boss to work with.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Rosberg didn't have the fuel or tyres to do so. Mercedes (via Ross Brawn) stated they underfuelled because they thought there'd be a safety car. Without one, fuel consumption rates increase.

Ross Brawn lied. It's that simple. He didn't even say it directly. The only one from Mercedes that literally uttered the words "both cars" was Wolff and that's just to save their reputation. If you truly believe everything these people say something must be wrong with you.

Do I have to go through this again? Please get the transcripts for the team radio and both Lewis' and Rosberg's interviews. If both cars were under-fueled Rosberg wouldn't ask them to pass Lewis, Lewis wouldn't apologize and finally, Ross Brawn wouldn't say "Negative Nico he's saving fuel". Find me the transcripts and I'll mathematically prove to you that Rosberg didn't have to save fuel

 

[Third Reign]

No actually it was changed so that there was a bigger gap between first and second to encourage drivers to go for the win. Points were added down to 10th instead of 6th (or 5th) simply so more teams/drivers would get points.

So when somebody actually does that, we flame him to no end? I kind of see a double standard here if the mind doesn't actually focus on hating Vettel...

As far as I'm aware, motorsports is a survival of the fittest, not a sharing=caring event. For a driver, the constructor's championship is on secondary to the drivers championship.

I find it quite amusing that everyone jumps on the Vettel bashing train, yet if you were in the same situation, wouldn't you have the incentive to act the same way and win the GP?

 

[Diabolik_za]

Horner tried to blame Webber in part (again, like he did at Turkey in 2010)...

When did he blame Webber?

 

[Tired Tyres]

Ross Brawn lied. It's that simple. He didn't even say it directly. The only one from Mercedes that literally uttered the words "both cars" was Wolff and that's just to save their reputation. If you truly believe everything these people say something must be wrong with you.

Do I have to go through this again? Please get the transcripts for the team radio and both Lewis' and Rosberg's interviews. If both cars were under-fueled Rosberg wouldn't ask them to pass Lewis, Lewis wouldn't apologize and finally, Ross Brawn wouldn't say "Negative Nico he's saving fuel". Find me the transcripts and I'll mathematically prove to you that Rosberg didn't have to save fuel

What is your problem?

You have asserted that Rosberg could catch the Red Bulls! Based on what? TWO snatches of radio communication!!!

Where is YOUR complete auto transcript to support this assertion?

YOU are saying that Ross (multiple championship winner with multiple teams) Brawn, sat in front of a bank of monitors that give him all the data on his cars that he needs to make any decision, somehow knows LESS that you?

 

[DegenThought]

I find it quite amusing that everyone jumps on the Vettel bashing train, yet if you were in the same situation, wouldn't you have the incentive to act the same way and win the GP?

There are different kinds of people in the world. To some the satisfaction of top of the podium comes first.
To others winning with honor and dignity is a greater satisfaction.

There will always be plenty in each camp.

 

[Famine]

Ross Brawn lied. It's that simple. He didn't even say it directly.

He did when interviewed by the BBC immediately after the race. And Autosport:

"Nico may have got past Lewis, but on the fuel management programme that both drivers were running, there was no opportunity to progress further or challenge the front two cars.

A third and fourth place finish was an excellent result for the team and I was not prepared to risk it."

Brawn said that both Hamilton and Rosberg had been on the edge with fuel throughout the race because the team had been bold with its strategy.

"Both drivers were fuelled aggressively for the race as part of our calculations to achieve the overall shortest race time," he said.

"It's always a balancing act between the time lost in the early stages by carrying more fuel weight and the driving style compromises that have to be made to reach the finish.

As each driver's race evolves, we have to react accordingly.

Whilst the profile of Lewis and Nico's races were slightly different, both drivers had to make similar adjustments to reach our fuel targets.

Ross Brawn wouldn't say "Negative Nico he's saving fuel". Find me the transcripts and I'll mathematically prove to you that Rosberg didn't have to save fuel

So which Ross Brawn was telling the truth, the one interviewed by the BBC live or the one giving the instructions over the open radio channel (time-delayed and edited for TV)?

You can't cite the statements of someone you've stated - unsupported - made false statements as your own evidence as you've given precedent of their statements being false...

Incidentally, where are you getting the full, unedited transcripts of all the teams' pit radio? It'd be a nice resource to have.

When did he blame Webber?

He didn't. He implicated Webber, when interviewed by the BBC immediately after the race on the pit wall, by referring to the drivers' joint behaviour and not the one who disobeyed the order. By refusing to put the blame where it belongs, he refused to exonerate the driver who did what he was told - thus blaming Webber in part.

Had the roles been reversed and Webber had ignored one of the many, many orders he's had over the years to allow Vettel the lead, he'd be being dragged through the mud by Horner and Marko right now. In fact they did just that in Turkey in 2010 when Webber was blameless...

 

[daan]

I dislike Horner, (after Abu Dhabi last year when he said he didn't know why Vettel stopped and that it was Renault had told them to stop the engine. He must have known.) but I'm pleased that they seem to be taking a stand against Vettel this time.

Although Vettel still has the win. It's so very easy for him to apologise in this situation as he can't lose anything that matters to him, ie the win and driver's points...

 

[Solo]

 

[Hun200kmh]

So which Ross Brawn was telling the truth, the one interviewed by the BBC live or the one giving the instructions over the open radio channel (time-delayed and edited for TV)?

That one is easy. It's part of my job to detect lies and one general simple rule about it is that if a person has contradictory statements the one you dismiss right at the start is the one that suits that person's interests better.

Other general rule is that what is said in the thick of the action is probably more truthful than what is said after the fact and also after due preparation.

In short ... Nico might not have the fuel or the speed to catch the RBR guys. (Kudos for him to keep a fighting spirit though). But he sure had both the fuel and the speed to catch and pass Hamilton. And he should have done it.

Unless Hamilton is regarded as some sport of british-spoiled-kid-like-Vettel and can't be trusted to get the car home because he is unable to sustain his own team mate passing him. If that's the case, then Brawn was right in being afraid of the situation. But it also would speak volumes about how he perceives Hamilton.

 

[Famine]

That one is easy. It's part of my job to detect lies and one general simple rule about it is that if a person has contradictory statements the one you dismiss right at the start is the one that suits that person's interests better.

Though it's worth pointing out we've not seen any contradictory statements.

Brawn was telling Nico not to pass Lewis. Nico thought he could catch up the Red Bulls and wanted to pass Lewis to have a crack at it, but Brawn said not to - not giving any specific reason we've heard. Later Brawn said both cars were fuelled short because they thought there'd be a safety car and both cars had to preserve fuel (and tyres).

Seems rather consistent to me.

In short ... Nico might not have the fuel or the speed to catch the RBR guys. (Kudos for him to keep a fighting spirit though)

I'd be disappointed if he didn't.

But he sure had both the fuel and the speed to catch and pass Hamilton. And he should have done it.

Unless Hamilton is regarded as some sport of british-spoiled-kid-like-Vettel and can't be trusted to get the car home because he is unable to sustain his own team mate passing him. If that's the case, then Brawn was right in being afraid of the situation. But it also would speak volumes about how he perceives Hamilton.

I think there's a measure of that - and after so many non-finishes from their world champion last year, you can't blame him - but also a measure of Rosberg using up his tyres (and fuel) chasing Hamilton and Rosberg getting the mist with the clear track and using up his tyres and fuel, fruitlessly chasing Webber.

Of course the net result has been positive for everyone at Mercedes.

 

[Wardez]

I wouldn't trust what Mercedes was saying fully either, they could easily be saying what they're saying to save a bit of face. And it could also be a half-truth. They keep saying they both had low fuel, but not who had lower fuel. I think Nico had more, and Hamilton was on fumes due to him battling so much more than hist teammate.

Here's a good onboard of the battle between the bulls, watch it before FOM takes it down hurry:

 

[Centura]

I feel bad for Webber. Seb could have at least given that win to him. Worse, Seb swerved around at the checkered flag like he just broke another record! He clearly took advantage of Webber, and doing that little swerve thing at the end is just adding more insult.

I like that Webber went to the other side of the track in protest.*

* I'm not being sarcastic.

Major difference between the two. But I guess you're too comfortable in your conclusion to my hear me out, so I'll save us both time and agree to disagree.

Not at all. If you want to, feel free to elaborate.

Ross Brawn lied. It's that simple. He didn't even say it directly. The only one from Mercedes that literally uttered the words "both cars" was Wolff and that's just to save their reputation. If you truly believe everything these people say something must be wrong with you.

Do I have to go through this again? Please get the transcripts for the team radio and both Lewis' and Rosberg's interviews. If both cars were under-fueled Rosberg wouldn't ask them to pass Lewis, Lewis wouldn't apologize and finally, Ross Brawn wouldn't say "Negative Nico he's saving fuel". Find me the transcripts and I'll mathematically prove to you that Rosberg didn't have to save fuel

The first thing I heard out of Ross Brawn was that they didn't realize they how competitive they would be in the race.

Here's a good onboard of the battle between the bulls, watch it before FOM takes it down hurry:

Honestly, after looking at that, was it not fair for Vettel to have a go? He was so close to getting him with the undercut.

 

[Infinital-NG]

Guess you guys saw this.



Edit: I didn't see it at the end of the above clip, my bad.

 

[Famine]

I wouldn't trust what Mercedes was saying fully either

Nor anyone else in the F1 circus. It's all PR.

 

[tezster]

I have a slightly different perspective to add to the discussion. Instead of helping his chances of winning the title, Vettel's decision to overtake Webber may prove to be more harmful than helpful from a strategic standpoint. Sure, he gained 7 points from placing 1st instead of 2nd, but at the cost of added tension and distrust within the team, and further lack of co-operation between the two drivers. I think it's very likely that this discord will translate to riskier on-track interaction between the two drivers should a similar situation arise. How accommodating will Webber be to follow any future team orders? Both drivers will have Malaysia on in the back of their minds for rest of the season.

I can easily envision a future racing 'incident' between the two going badly, at the cost of a lot more lost points than the difference between 1st and 2nd.

 

[MUSC4EVER]

So, has anyone seen what happened on the slowing down lap after the race..they are showing it on sky sports news, it was just after Vettel crossed the line as winner and we was near the pit wall with his hands of of the car celebrating and then Webber roars past him and cuts him off!...

 

[Samus]

So when somebody actually does that, we flame him to no end? I kind of see a double standard here if the mind doesn't actually focus on hating Vettel...

Well the flaming is because he ignored a team order.

As far as I'm aware, motorsports is a survival of the fittest, not a sharing=caring event. For a driver, the constructor's championship is on secondary to the drivers championship.

Correct, however it's the team that pays him his wages and puts his bum in the seat.

I find it quite amusing that everyone jumps on the Vettel bashing train, yet if you were in the same situation, wouldn't you have the incentive to act the same way and win the GP?

It would depend if you're a team player or not wouldn't it?

 

[Hun200kmh]

So, has anyone seen what happened on the slowing down lap after the race..they are showing it on sky sports news, it was just after Vettel crossed the line as winner and we was near the pit wall with his hands of of the car celebrating and then Webber roars past him and cuts him off!...

If I get any satisfaction from that litle video it is not from Mark's "fly by", it is instead from not seeing any RBR team member greeting/celebrating Vettel's win over the pit wall.

 

[Seismica]

Honestly, after looking at that, was it not fair for Vettel to have a go? He was so close to getting him with the undercut.

I read something relevant about this recently.

Normal practice is to pit the guy infront, so that they can get the advantage of the fresh rubber sooner, and so that rival cars don't get the undercut.

In this instance Vettel was vulnerable to the undercut from Hamilton who pitted a lap earlier, so the team decided to pit him first instead of Webber. Being stuck behind Hamilton (Bearing in mind that the Mercedes is quicker on the straights and would have been difficult to pass) would have also made Vettel vulnerable to Rosberg.

It was because of this that Vettel was so close to Webber when he emerged from the pits a lap later. Vettel was given an advantage over Webber by the team in order to defend his position from Hamilton. He then used that advantage to fight Webber for first place, when if it wasn't for the team order to let him pit before Webber, he might not have even finished on the podium.

 

[zzz_pt]

^ Yes he would. Lewis was out of fuel and has a driving style that damages the tires a bit faster.

But that is a very interesting point of view. I still think that IF the times of Vettel's pit stops have been as fast as Webber's he would be in first position at the end of the last pit stop round.