brawn?
yeah right.
brawn?
yeah right.
what i meant was the team officials all appear to be acting as individuals rather than as a team
second half of last season, rubbens was able to put preasure on button without being stopped by team orders and the drivers didn't try and take each other off the track.
numerous times it was put into question during the season, Brawn isn't exactly known for equal treatment.
Numerous times it was brought into question by idiots that were incapable of looking at the facts. Brawn was very fair, and I have no reason to believe that he was the cause of Schumacher's treatment at Benetton and Ferrari. Flav, Schumi, Todt and Weber are much more likely to have been behind that.
I wouldn't hesitate in giving Vettel preferential treatment.
I wouldn't hesitate in giving Vettel preferential treatment.
considering the RB6 is designed around the driver who seems to be losing to hes 2nd rate team mate, im sure if the tables where reversed it would make Vettel look silly.
Fair after the point that it wasn't possible for a team mate to challenge.
Hopefully, this season is starting to get interesting.
That's easy to say from a competition standpoint but when you consider the picture which is RedBull F1's actual motivation then it's rather less simple. Unlike Ferrari, McLaren, Williams etc... who are in F1 to either sell cars or just because they like racing, RedBull is in F1 primarily for marketing purposes.
So obviously giving one driver preferential treatment is going to be detrimental to RedBull's F1 effort. At the end of the day Ferrari and McLaren want to win first and foremost. That's their DNA. RedBull however want to sell a sugary drink as well. That's why they are in F1 - brand/image.
While winning is core to their program, making themselves look like a bunch of dicks that no one wants to associate themselves is something they want to avoid at all costs hence today's weird "shit happens" press release.
You might need to have another go at that sentence, as it doesn't make sense to me.
1. Please cite a reference where you found that the RB6 is designed around Vettel?
2. Please cite where I said Webber was "second rate"
3. Which tables need to be reversed that would make Vettel look silly?
Bear in mind the championship table is clearly, this year, a poor barometer of driver/car/team performance or ability. Alonso in 4th? Both McLarens in the top 3 (although that is a bit more accurate as of late).
But it is nice to see all the Australians on forums stampeding through the Turkish GP threads. Especially when they're clearly upset about something (Webber not being as good as Vettel springs to mind).
You what? You've decided that Ross Brawn is to blame for the one-sided contracts of Schumacher at Ferrari and Benetton on the basis that Jenson and Rubens were free to race each other with equal equipment last year????
1. http://www.autoevolution.com/n ... s-driving-style-8602.html
2. Comparing him to noted 2nd drivers who never really challenge there soo called no. 1 drivers
3. I was talking about the car not a table??
I do understand that is true e.g.. Button getting big performances over hamilton in tricky conditions and strategies when in proper conditions hamilton is usually on his own, where as Webbers recent domination of Vettel hasn't been in tricky situations.
There are fair indications of bias and considering most of the Aussies here would go for mark i think its a fair argument.
Vettel hasn't shown in a while that hes better then Webber.
Not at all but to say he wasn't involved in it somehow is ludicrous you basically mention everyone other then the person who controls race management.
Many thanks. "Fortunately Mark has a similar style, which makes the development task substantially easier for the team"
They frequently challenged the No.1 drivers. No 'so called' about it though.
Yes, I got that bit. I can do metaphors. But I still don't get what table is turned.
You mean dry conditions when Button, who most openly admit isn't quite as outright fast as Hamilton, has been really quite close most of the time in recent races? It only took Vettel to have a damaged chassis and a broken anti-roll bar for Webber to beat him.
On the contrary - the performances Vettel has got out of handicapped cars has been pretty stunning actually.
Nothing wrong with bias though - that's my point.
Race STRATEGY! He wasn't in a managerial role at Ferrari (in terms of contracts, bias, preferences etc), and at Brawn he was clearly fair at all times.
Im pretty sure anyone can say that, however the car is still designed around one drivers style so it must be different enough for that to be said.
Back in the day of your next rival being a second slower then you.
This damaged chassis had no validation at all over what was actually damaged.
Good for you
Attention to detail always seemed to be lacking on Rubens side far to often.
Or maybe, just maybe, it was because it was Vettel's first year in Red Bull proper, so the 2010 car was the first opportunity to develop the car for him. They couldn't have developed the 2009 car for him because he was a Torro Rosso driver in 2008 (which I know are closely knit, but they still didn't have all the information about Vettel's style and requirements and feedback from Red Bulls programme).
The 1950s?
Sure about that?
You want to blame Ross Brawn for the failings of Ruben's race team in terms of preparation and strategy calls (note: Brawn wasn't the primary strategist last year), and use that as evidence that Jenson was given better equipment?
Its not a suggestion of developing his car for him but both cars for him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Australian_Grand_Prix
This is a usual thing to happen, somedays your rival is close some days your rivals car is slow enough to be lapped in the race.
http://www.themotorreport.com. ... chassis-named-randy-mandy
Nothing to suggest what this soo called ''chassis damage'' is.
Not suggesting better equipment as that would be nearly impossible to prove even if it was true. But Rubens retirements seemed to be happening far too often over Jenson to be a coincidence.
Well, you have to design the car around something, and it makes sense to design it around one of the hottest young talents in recent history rather than the 'never actually achieved anything after years of trying' teammate.
Yes, Irvine was a bit rubbish in 1998 wasn't he. How does that further your opinion that Vettel is getting preferential treatment 12 years later?
No, but all the teams regularly replace chassis for the fun of it... Or is it favourable to Vettel to make him drive 2 races in a dodgy car, replace his chassis and suddenly find he's once again quicker than Webber. If Mandy hadn't had a strop in qualifying it's unlikely Webber would have seen which way Vettel went.
You haven't been watching F1 for long, have you. Remember Kimi at McLaren breaking the car a lot. Worse equipment (although how the teams can tell which parts are going to fail sooner than others is beyond me), or the driver? Rubens had more failures, but that cannot be down to preferential treatment from Ross Brawn himself.
Vettel is pretty lucky to land in Redbull when they start winning races, something that hasn't happened to Webber in his entire career.
That most of the time those team mates could only come 2nd to there team mate as the speed differentials where large between the teams
Thats a matter of Opinion
Mclaren as a whole had dreadful reliability back then.
Especially in 04.
Vettel drove one race for BMW Sauber, the 2007 US GP to replace Kubica after his big crash at the previous race in Canada. 
Who said Torro Rosso's 2008 car was bad anyway?
I really wish we could stop this which driver is better pissing contest, relatively untalented drivers are a minority in F1 and it really is bad how quickly people are willing to brand drivers as overrated without proper consideration.
Who said Torro Rosso's 2008 car was bad anyway?
I really wish we could stop this which driver is better pissing contest, relatively untalented drivers are a minority in F1 and it really is bad how quickly people are willing to brand drivers as overrated without proper consideration.
The TR was pretty quick in the wet at Monza. It was basically a RedBull, but with a much better Ferrari engine.
Bourdais... BOURDAIS
... qualified in 4th place not too far off Vettel. If it wasn't for having to start from the back he woulda easily got a podium considering his race pace was pretty much the same as Vettel's.That car in the wet was fundamentally very good.
Fact is, Webber screwed the team by creating the enviroment and forcing the accident. Taking time for unnecessary slow laptimes at the totally wrong moment in the race.
This would be reason enough for the team to be 'mad'.
This would be reason enough for the team to be 'mad'.
That's not a fact at all, IMO.
Eh...not if the team told him to do "unnecessary slow laptimes" as some rumours say.
When did this forum become a Vettel fanboy zone.
Surprised at Tristan becoming a proper fanboy. Supporting a young driver who received support form a major company since his early racing day, who then continues to make naive amateurish errors and then throws little hissy fits. Vettel is like Lewis Hamilton, just without a WDC
I am talking about the overtake, that would have been done quicker if the next corner would be entered from the right side. Vettel had overlap, but Webber couldn't accept that.
Fact.
As soon as it was a Webber fanzone. The balance need to be kept
Then we have to disagree.
I would have said: Vettel wasn't completely past Webber yet but couldn't accept that and still turned right towards him.
2010 FORMULA 1 TURKISH GRAND PRIX (Istanbul)
(447 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG