Horner Defends & Explains RBR's Team Orders During The British Grand Prix

[cider_and_toast]

Bro, I agree with what you're saying to some extent but at the end of the day, as I've said above, I'm sure that things would have been different had Mark been in a better position 10 laps earlier.

Mark qualified on pole but didn't have the best of starts and it was all about getting back on terms from there on in.

I'm pretty sure that any team manager would have balked at the thought of both their cars going off with just a few laps to go. Both Mclaren this season and Red Bull last year have experienced that feeling.

I'm not so sure that RBR would really give a hoot about where their second (in terms of points of course) driver ends up in the championship so long as the WCC (and the WDC) end up in their trophy cabinet. Take a look at championships past and it's not all that often that the team who takes the titles has a 1-2 in the drivers championhip.

 

[RayInTorontoCanada]

Ferrari used to have an unwritten rule: No fighting on the last lap....or with 10 laps to go...or after 2/3rds distance. Heck, some teams even had verbal rules of no fighting after the first corner! [Recall Imola 1989 where Prost-Senna fell out at McLaren].

McLaren called off Button/Hamilton with several laps left in Turkey last year. McLaren also had two occassions with Coulthard and Hakkinen in the late 90s...one of them at Round 1 of the WDC!!!

How anyone can be critical of Horner is beyond me. Having said that, I would have done the same as Webber...and I would have done the same as Vettel. It's the teams responsibility to ensure the points...but it's also a racing driver's responsibility to himself and his country to go all out without tangling...but then accept on the final lap that they had plenty of opportunity (51 laps in this case) to get ahead.

I hate to say this...but i'm siding with both Horner and Webber on this specific issue.

 

[Jen]

I hate to say this...but i'm siding with both Horner and Webber on this specific issue.

I think that's called "sitting on the fence", Ray!

 

[RayInTorontoCanada]

I think that's called "sitting on the fence", Ray!

Yes but I think they're both right from their own perspective. I'd have done it differently. I'd have said before the start of every race that, under such a scenario, you have until the last lap or 'the best overtaking spot' on the second last lap to "race" ... but then call it off thereafter. It would be my responsibility as a team manager to 100s of employees and to my sponsors to do that...to ensure my cars didn't DNF.

 

[Jen]

But, equally, to maintain some semblance of team spirit, you could have boosted Mark's race by telling Seb to let him past - if you are a team boss your first job is to create harmony within your team. Seb didn't need the points Mark did and, by denying him that chance, RB could end up with a 1/3 instead of a 1/2 in the WDC.

 

[RayInTorontoCanada]

But, equally, to maintain some semblance of team spirit, you could have boosted Mark's race by telling Seb to let him past - if you are a team boss your first job is to create harmony within your team. Seb didn't need the points Mark did and, by denying him that chance, RB could end up with a 1/3 instead of a 1/2 in the WDC.

All due respect, jenov...but i'll have to disagree. Ferrari are on top of the calibration issue they had with the wind tunnel and were the fastest cars through Sector 2 at Silverstone. That's the fastest sector at the circuit. This bodes very well for Ferrari. Alonso is a real threat and your 1-3 risk in the WDC could end up as a 2-3 in the WDC with the big prize going to Ferrari.

Besides, why should Vettel simply move over? He's fought tooth and nail during the GP as well with a poor pitstop that cost him 2 positions. He's totally entitled to stay ahead instead of being instructed to wave Webber by. Look what happened in 1976. Lauda had an equally massive lead over Hunt mid way but he lost the title through extraordinary circumstances. Stuff happens.

In addition, Webber - in my opinion - had his opportunity to be ahead of Vettel. Webber was on Pole...and had about 49 out of 52 laps to be well ahead of Vettel. So, I do feel Webber had a fair crack at it...but he didn't take advantage enough. Especially of Pole.

Lastly, I don't agree that Horner's job of creating harmony should be subjugated to his job of ensuring both cars get to the finish in tact.

 

[teabagyokel]

Look what happened in 1976. Lauda had an equally massive lead over Hunt mid way but he lost the title through extraordinary circumstances. Stuff happens.

I think we (and Red Bull) are, quite reasonably, working on the assumption that Seb isn't going to suffer a horrible injury such as that. He should take as many points as possible until he wins the title, but I don't think its fair to bring that up!

 

[RayInTorontoCanada]

TBY:

Fair enough. But what if Vettel gets a penalty like Schumacher got in 1994 for some reason...or Honda got in 2004 (or was it 05) for an infringement where they had to forgo Monaco...or if Vettel gets a virus and is too sick to contest 2 GPs?

We never know....Coulthard was in a plane crash where the pilot was killed. He could have been injured. Drivers have been injured off-track before. Montoya in 2005.

What if Ferrari - as shown by how fast they were in S2 at Silverstone - are now the fastest race car? How do we know Alonso won't win 5 or 6 races and that Vettel won't have 2 or 3 DNFs?

We don't. Call me paranoid but anything can happen. We can't assume anything. The championship is far from won for Vettel.

 

[ExtremeNinja]

Ferrari used to have an unwritten rule: No fighting on the last lap....or with 10 laps to go...or after 2/3rds distance. Heck, some teams even had verbal rules of no fighting after the first corner! [Recall Imola 1989 where Prost-Senna fell out at McLaren].

McLaren called off Button/Hamilton with several laps left in Turkey last year. McLaren also had two occassions with Coulthard and Hakkinen in the late 90s...one of them at Round 1 of the WDC!!!

How anyone can be critical of Horner is beyond me. Having said that, I would have done the same as Webber...and I would have done the same as Vettel. It's the teams responsibility to ensure the points...but it's also a racing driver's responsibility to himself and his country to go all out without tangling...but then accept on the final lap that they had plenty of opportunity (51 laps in this case) to get ahead.

I hate to say this...but i'm siding with both Horner and Webber on this specific issue.

I think the reason people are upset with Horner is that he has done everything he said that he wouldn't. Brundle put it well in the forum when he talked about what Red Bull stand for as a brand and that this approach to racing was not in keeping with that. you would expect this of some of the other teams but Red bull are supposed to be offering us something different.

 

[teabagyokel]

TBY:

Fair enough. But what if Vettel gets a penalty like Schumacher got in 1994 for some reason...or Honda got in 2004 (or was it 05) for an infringement where they had to forgo Monaco...or if Vettel gets a virus and is too sick to contest 2 GPs?

I'm not saying it won't, I feel two things:

1. It is a little unfair to bring up Lauda in 1976 with regard to Vettel in 2010
2. Vettel's job is to take as many points as possible, and if he can't do that due to circumstances beyond his control, no-one is going to think any less of him.

 

[Slyboogy]

Yesterday's team orders from Red Bull have been fairly standard for many teams over the years. I guess one question is whether they can be so easily justified in this new, more overtaking friendly, era. The big issue with them is the answer to the question we will probably never learn. Would they apply this rule equally if the roles were reversed? If the answer to that is yes then what they did was perfectly reasonable. - which they did back in 2009 Turkey when they told Vettel to back off. To be fair it made very little difference in overall terms. Either way Vettel would have increased his lead, and Webber moved ahead of Button. The real issue is the impact it will have on Webber.

Team orders like this happens in every single team, usually after the last stint if two team-mates are fighting they are told to back off. I see nothing different here, Webber had his chance, on top of that he disobeyed the order and still went charging after Vettel.

 

[Slyboogy]

Team orders are fine (if you like that sort of thing), it's just the lying that pisses a lot of people off.

Red Bull have had a clear number 1 driver for some time. They just persist with this ridiculous stance that both drivers have an equal chance of competing against each other, when quite clearly they don't.

How clear is it? They let Webber race for the title until the end in 2009 and 2010, if there was a clear number 1 "for some time" Webber wouldn't have been fighting for either championship back then, instead they let them race and both took points off of each other.

I don't see what the problem is, teams always tell their drivers near the end to back off, Turkey 2010 for the McLaren drivers. We have seen how ruthless Webber usually is, and during the closing stages of races when he is behind someone he usually tends to make a do or die move, and it usually ends in a collision.

If he was told not to fight Vettel from the start and give Vettel the position easily, then you could definitely say there is "favouritism" and "a clear number 1 driver".

 

[Jen]

All due respect, jenov...but i'll have to disagree. Ferrari are on top of the calibration issue they had with the wind tunnel and were the fastest cars through Sector 2 at Silverstone. That's the fastest sector at the circuit. This bodes very well for Ferrari. Alonso is a real threat and your 1-3 risk in the WDC could end up as a 2-3 in the WDC with the big prize going to Ferrari.

Besides, why should Vettel simply move over? He's fought tooth and nail during the GP as well with a poor pitstop that cost him 2 positions. He's totally entitled to stay ahead instead of being instructed to wave Webber by. Look what happened in 1976. Lauda had an equally massive lead over Hunt mid way but he lost the title through extraordinary circumstances. Stuff happens.

In addition, Webber - in my opinion - had his opportunity to be ahead of Vettel. Webber was on Pole...and had about 49 out of 52 laps to be well ahead of Vettel. So, I do feel Webber had a fair crack at it...but he didn't take advantage enough. Especially of Pole.

Lastly, I don't agree that Horner's job of creating harmony should be subjugated to his job of ensuring both cars get to the finish in tact.

I wouldn't expect you to do other than disagree Ray but your opening paragraph is irrelevant to the argument - this is about Seb and Mark.

This is now that was then. I'm not saying anyone should move over - what I am saying is, for team harmony, it wouldn't have hurt to ask Seb not to defend too forcefully.

Pole seems to be as irrelevant as a lot of of other strategy, as we now have 3 or 4 short sprints, each governed by the ability of the strategists and the pit crew to get things right.

If Horner were a little wiser, he could have handled this a lot better - his job is to make sure both cars finish AND to ensure that there is a degree of team spirit - you do not attain the latter by telling a driver to "maintain the gap"

 

[RayInTorontoCanada]

I'd like to say I could do a better job than Horner...but, honestly, I don't think I could. Domenicalli is hardly any better...and McLaren seem to shoot themselves in the foot regularly. That leaves Ross Brawn...unless you want a guy like Flavio Briatore back!

Who would you hire to replace a guy who has helped a no-where squad (Jaguar/Ford, nee Stewart) gel into champions in very short order indeed?

 

[ExtremeNinja]

How clear is it? They let Webber race for the title until the end in 2009 and 2010, if there was a clear number 1 "for some time" Webber wouldn't have been fighting for either championship back then, instead they let them race and both took points off of each other.

I don't see what the problem is, teams always tell their drivers near the end to back off, Turkey 2010 for the McLaren drivers. We have seen how ruthless Webber usually is, and during the closing stages of races when he is behind someone he usually tends to make a do or die move, and it usually ends in a collision.

If he was told not to fight Vettel from the start and give Vettel the position easily, then you could definitely say there is "favouritism" and "a clear number 1 driver".

This is a different conversation but since you brought it up... I still maintain that the reason the McLaren drivers were told to conserve fuel in Turkey was that they needed to conserve fuel. They had both been driving full wick all over the back of the Red Bulls for most of the race. If they had continued to race each other at that point they would have been parked at the side of the road on the last lap with empty tanks, let alone wearing each other's bodywork. I think it just suited people to talk about team orders in this case and a few people got a bit tangled up with the notion. Not least because it was quite a handy bit of ammo in defence of another team's actions in the same year. Both drivers were asked to save fuel a long way before they started racing each other. In fact, it was thier differing interpretations and reactions to this message that put them together on track in the first place.

 

[Slyboogy]

Their laptimes did not seem to drop off as much, and as soon as Button was told to save fuel after countless of times he mysteriously backed off, although out of the two of them he saved the most fuel out of the two of them at that point.

 

[ExtremeNinja]

Their laptimes did not seem to drop off as much, and as soon as Button was told to save fuel after countless of times he mysteriously backed off, although out of the two of them he saved the most fuel out of the two of them at that point.

Well that's not really true. They were both told to save fuel. Lewis turned his engine right down and went into cruise mode, Jenson tried to do a sneaky on him and put his foot down, caught him and and dashed past him. Obviously he didnt have any of it. That's why Hamilton looked so angry even whilst he was on the top step of the podium. The race was called off by the team. It was called off before they were even racing each other or even in close proximity. It was called off because they were under fuelled as they had not expected to be fighting the Red Bulls for the majority of the race.

 

[RayInTorontoCanada]

Back to the thread....

CRISTIAN HORNER:

"If you look we also gave Mark an undercut at the first two stops. We did not stop them racing each other at the start. But there comes a point in a race, with two or three laps to go, when you have a lot of points, and both cars on the podium, that it would be absolute stupidity to allow them to keep fighting."

 

[Slyboogy]

If it was called off before, why was Button closing in on Hamilton?

Surely they must have thought when Button was at least a second behind that they should tell him to back off?

Instead they didn't, they saw the action, then after the fiasco they told them both to save fuel again, even though Button who saved much more fuel before hand when he was trailing Hamilton and both Red Bull's didn't need to go into cruise mode.

Why? So both cars wouldn't touch again and risk a collision which would take at least one of their cars out, same applies to the Red Bull situation here, we have seen it countless of times teams telling thier drivers when they are - in Martin Brundle's words "line astern" to back off near the end to avoid incidents with each other.

 

[ExtremeNinja]

If it was called off before, why was Button closing in on Hamilton?

Surely they must have thought when Button was at least a second behind that they should tell him to back off?

Instead they didn't, they saw the action, then after the fiasco they told them both to save fuel again, even though Button who saved much more fuel before hand when he was trailing Hamilton and both Red Bull's didn't need to go into cruise mode.

Why? So both cars wouldn't touch again and risk a collision which would take at least one of their cars out, same applies to the Red Bull situation here, we have seen it countless of times teams telling thier drivers when they are - in Martin Brundle's words "line astern" to back off near the end to avoid incidents with each other.

This is old ground. Watch the race again. You will find that they did. Jenson's interview post race he said that they had both been told to back off and save fuel to get the finish. He backed off a bit bit but not as much as Hamilton and was surprised how much Hamilton had backed off so closed in and went for a pass. Hamilton, in the knowledge that they had both been told to save fuel and so were no longer racing was shocked by this and took the place immediately back. As soon as this happened the radio activity doubled and the team were a lot more forceful about the whole thing. Once again it was a long time before Jenson ignored the teams directions and took a race to Hamilton thet they were both told that fuel was critical. The reason they were told that fuel was critical was because fuel was critical. It was as plain as the beak on a pelicans face. But don't take my word for it. Watch the race again. It's all very obvious.

Anyway, old ground. We've both said our bit.