Sebastian Vettel

Sebastian Vettel

Author
Discussion

Siao

97 posts

6 months

Thursday 10th June
quotequote all
paulguitar said:
Siao said:
But that's it, he didn't fight Ralf for the lead, he asked for a TO. Mentioning possibly crashing otherwise. Pretty sure team mates can switch positions safely if they want. Plus, when the other car is 5 seconds faster, you really shouldn't be racing them
It was the sensible thing to do, under the circumstances, and the result gave the Jordan team the greatest day they ever had. with all of the resulting publicity for sponsors, etc.

Do you have a source for RS being 5 seconds faster?
After the 25second mark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykI39M27y10&t=...

It was sensible to preserve the result for the team, it just felt like Damon saying "if he tries to pass we'll crash, so let me win". Which sounds wrong, the team still gets a 1-2 with Ralf ahead.

Anyway, it's not worth arguing about it I guess.

paulguitar

11,512 posts

79 months

Thursday 10th June
quotequote all
Siao said:
After the 25second mark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykI39M27y10&t=...

It was sensible to preserve the result for the team, it just felt like Damon saying "if he tries to pass we'll crash, so let me win". Which sounds wrong, the team still gets a 1-2 with Ralf ahead.

Anyway, it's not worth arguing about it I guess.
Thanks. I'd imagine Hill was managing his pace somewhat, he'd obviously never have been 5 seconds per lap slower (than anyone) with all things being equal.


I also don't think he was threatening to crash, but it's quite true to point out that in those conditions it was definitely a possibility. I can understand it would have been frustrating for Ralph, but surely it was the right decision for the team on that day.







Siao

97 posts

6 months

Thursday 10th June
quotequote all
paulguitar said:
Siao said:
After the 25second mark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykI39M27y10&t=...

It was sensible to preserve the result for the team, it just felt like Damon saying "if he tries to pass we'll crash, so let me win". Which sounds wrong, the team still gets a 1-2 with Ralf ahead.

Anyway, it's not worth arguing about it I guess.
Thanks. I'd imagine Hill was managing his pace somewhat, he'd obviously never have been 5 seconds per lap slower (than anyone) with all things being equal.


I also don't think he was threatening to crash, but it's quite true to point out that in those conditions it was definitely a possibility. I can understand it would have been frustrating for Ralph, but surely it was the right decision for the team on that day.
Not sure if he was managing his pace, his engineer said "Ralf is about 5 secs faster than you", not "pick up the pace". It's also telling that Ralf's engineer is telling him that he can catch and overtake Damon for the win. It seems the team's intention was clearly to let them race, before Hill's message anyway.

angrymoby

1,472 posts

144 months

Thursday 10th June
quotequote all
Siao said:
paulguitar said:
Siao said:
After the 25second mark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykI39M27y10&t=...

It was sensible to preserve the result for the team, it just felt like Damon saying "if he tries to pass we'll crash, so let me win". Which sounds wrong, the team still gets a 1-2 with Ralf ahead.

Anyway, it's not worth arguing about it I guess.
Thanks. I'd imagine Hill was managing his pace somewhat, he'd obviously never have been 5 seconds per lap slower (than anyone) with all things being equal.


I also don't think he was threatening to crash, but it's quite true to point out that in those conditions it was definitely a possibility. I can understand it would have been frustrating for Ralph, but surely it was the right decision for the team on that day.
Not sure if he was managing his pace, his engineer said "Ralf is about 5 secs faster than you", not "pick up the pace". It's also telling that Ralf's engineer is telling him that he can catch and overtake Damon for the win. It seems the team's intention was clearly to let them race, before Hill's message anyway.
if Ralf was genuinely 5 seconds a lap faster then more fool him for listening to team orders ...as 5s a lap difference would mean you're not even in the same race as Hill (& especially as he was off at the end of the season anyways)

kiseca

9,112 posts

185 months

Thursday 10th June
quotequote all
Siao said:
paulguitar said:
Siao said:
After the 25second mark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykI39M27y10&t=...

It was sensible to preserve the result for the team, it just felt like Damon saying "if he tries to pass we'll crash, so let me win". Which sounds wrong, the team still gets a 1-2 with Ralf ahead.

Anyway, it's not worth arguing about it I guess.
Thanks. I'd imagine Hill was managing his pace somewhat, he'd obviously never have been 5 seconds per lap slower (than anyone) with all things being equal.


I also don't think he was threatening to crash, but it's quite true to point out that in those conditions it was definitely a possibility. I can understand it would have been frustrating for Ralph, but surely it was the right decision for the team on that day.
Not sure if he was managing his pace, his engineer said "Ralf is about 5 secs faster than you", not "pick up the pace". It's also telling that Ralf's engineer is telling him that he can catch and overtake Damon for the win. It seems the team's intention was clearly to let them race, before Hill's message anyway.
Ralf was definitely quick enough to catch Damon before the race ended. Damon didn't threaten to crash. He said he's not going to move over for Ralf and he will fight for position - he uses the term "we will race" to mean he's going to defend or attack depending on the context. He's done that a lot on the radio and he also uses that term when he writes. "We will race" or "I will race" means he's going to fight for the position.

He played the team game just fine in suggesting they ensure the 1-2. He didn't take anything away from the team by saying he wasn't going to gift the win to Ralf, he just took an opportunity away from Ralf.

The team wanted a Jordan to win, and another one to come second. They got that. If they specifically wanted Ralf's Jordan to be the one that won, well, they didn't get that but I think the only person who really cares about that is Ralf.

But you're making it sound like he held them to ransom and issued a threat. He didn't. He just said we can preserve the finishing order if I win, or you can let Ralf and I fight for the win, in which case we might crash and thow it all away. He did not say, suggest, or insinuate that he was going to collide with Ralf to prevent him passing.

Siao

97 posts

6 months

Thursday 10th June
quotequote all
angrymoby said:
Siao said:
paulguitar said:
Siao said:
After the 25second mark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykI39M27y10&t=...

It was sensible to preserve the result for the team, it just felt like Damon saying "if he tries to pass we'll crash, so let me win". Which sounds wrong, the team still gets a 1-2 with Ralf ahead.

Anyway, it's not worth arguing about it I guess.
Thanks. I'd imagine Hill was managing his pace somewhat, he'd obviously never have been 5 seconds per lap slower (than anyone) with all things being equal.


I also don't think he was threatening to crash, but it's quite true to point out that in those conditions it was definitely a possibility. I can understand it would have been frustrating for Ralph, but surely it was the right decision for the team on that day.
Not sure if he was managing his pace, his engineer said "Ralf is about 5 secs faster than you", not "pick up the pace". It's also telling that Ralf's engineer is telling him that he can catch and overtake Damon for the win. It seems the team's intention was clearly to let them race, before Hill's message anyway.
if Ralf was genuinely 5 seconds a lap faster then more fool him for listening to team orders ...as 5s a lap difference would mean you're not even in the same race as Hill (& especially as he was off at the end of the season anyways)
I agree. He very nearly didn't listen anyway...

Muzzer79

4,884 posts

153 months

Thursday 10th June
quotequote all
Siao said:
Muzzer79 said:
Siao said:
ajprice said:
Siao said:
Ok, just for the sake of it, we do know about Vettel and Hamilton disobeying orders, but can you help with which orders did MSC, Alo and Senna ignore? Any examples? I honestly can't recall
Damon Hill and Ralf Schumacher at Jordan? Wet race, Damon was leading, Ralf was P2 and faster. Damon got the 'Ralf is faster than you' message, and replied telling them to keep things as they are with him in P1, because Ralf overtaking in the wet would risk them both going out and losing the 1-2.

Is it disobeying orders when you reply with better orders that the team agree with? hehe
I know the race and that's not what happened. Hill didn't get the "Ralf is faster than you", Ralf was faster behind him catching him up, to the tune of up to 5 sec or something per lap faster. Hill then asked the team for orders: "let me put something to you here and you better listen" or something like that... It was a thinly vailed insinuation that they'd crash, it was disgusting from Hill frankly. I get his point, but he could have let Ralf by, he was muuuuuch faster. Or he should have got the "Ralf is faster than you", but you see Ralf was leaving the team that year so they didn't really care much about him. I believe even MSC went around to Jordan, told him off and bought off the rest of Ralf's contract. The Schumachers were not happy that day.

But I was interested in the other three drivers, I don't think there are any examples (that I know of). Maybe the poster who wrote this had in mind the tough racing they did at times, rather than disobeying actual team orders.
1. Don't be ridiculous: It's not "disgusting" from Hill. Quite the opposite - It's a mature racing driver's approach because a) he's in the lead and isn't about to give it up or fight for it unnecessarily and b) he wants the team to deliver a good result rather than both ending up in the barriers (which, incidentally, would have meant a 2nd GP win for Jean Alesi)

2. I've given you an example for Alonso - Qualifying at the 2007 Hungarian GP.
1. Not ridiculous, thank you. Maybe disgusting was a strong word, but I didn't want to use a swear word... If he was so considerate about the team he should have let Ralf pass, 1-2 for the team still, no? He didn't HAVE to race his much faster team mate.

2. Team orders??? Hamilton ignored the TOs to let Alonso past in Q3. Did Alonso ignore a team order? Was Alonso ordered by the team? Don't mistake sh*tty behaviour (well, revenge) for disobeying team orders, that was not the case. What about Senna & MSC?
So you're suggesting that Hill, a racing driver at the pinnacle of the sport, should just have offered to move over?

It's a fairly simple equation - another car catches you up, you fight for position = potential to have crash. If you're both in the same team, less than 20 laps to go and with the team about to win their first ever race and have their first ever 1-2, it seems fairly prudent to just keep the status quo.


In regard to Alonso, he was instructed to pit and then vacate the pit box. He ignored that instruction and stayed there to hold Hamilton up. Seems like ignoring team orders to me. smile

Siao

97 posts

6 months

Thursday 10th June
quotequote all
kiseca said:
Ralf was definitely quick enough to catch Damon before the race ended. Damon didn't threaten to crash. He said he's not going to move over for Ralf and he will fight for position - he uses the term "we will race" to mean he's going to defend or attack depending on the context. He's done that a lot on the radio and he also uses that term when he writes. "We will race" or "I will race" means he's going to fight for the position.

He played the team game just fine in suggesting they ensure the 1-2. He didn't take anything away from the team by saying he wasn't going to gift the win to Ralf, he just took an opportunity away from Ralf.

The team wanted a Jordan to win, and another one to come second. They got that. If they specifically wanted Ralf's Jordan to be the one that won, well, they didn't get that but I think the only person who really cares about that is Ralf.

But you're making it sound like he held them to ransom and issued a threat. He didn't. He just said we can preserve the finishing order if I win, or you can let Ralf and I fight for the win, in which case we might crash and thow it all away. He did not say, suggest, or insinuate that he was going to collide with Ralf to prevent him passing.
My intention wasn't to say that he held them for ransom, sorry if it came across that way. But the way it was worded "you better listen to me" makes it sound a bit dodgy.

Out of curiosity, would you be happy if he got the "Damon, Ralf is faster than you" order? I think that Damon was just cleverer and asked for the TO before he got the message himself. But the way he pressed for it was a bit off for my taste. Two F1 drivers should know how not to crash, especially team mates, it was just bragging rights of who gets the chequered flag first. I would just be happier if it wasn't for the TOs. And again, I do not think that you should race someone who is 5 or 3 secs faster than you, it's practically a different race.

Kudos to Hill for the quick thinking though. And crap situation for Jordan for having to TO within a couple of laps before the end.

Muzzer79

4,884 posts

153 months

Thursday 10th June
quotequote all
Siao said:
Out of curiosity, would you be happy if he got the "Damon, Ralf is faster than you" order? I think that Damon was just cleverer and asked for the TO before he got the message himself. But the way he pressed for it was a bit off for my taste. Two F1 drivers should know how not to crash, especially team mates, it was just bragging rights of who gets the chequered flag first. I would just be happier if it wasn't for the TOs. And again, I do not think that you should race someone who is 5 or 3 secs faster than you, it's practically a different race.

Kudos to Hill for the quick thinking though. And crap situation for Jordan for having to TO within a couple of laps before the end.
These are racing drivers - they want to win, they're programmed to win.

If they're leading a race and someone racing behind them is even 10 seconds a lap faster, they're not going to "not race" and just move over to let them win.

They should know how not to crash but these are two humans operating with adrenaline and competitive instinct. We've seen time and again how that can go wrong for the team.



Siao

97 posts

6 months

Thursday 10th June
quotequote all
Muzzer79 said:
So you're suggesting that Hill, a racing driver at the pinnacle of the sport, should just have offered to move over?

It's a fairly simple equation - another car catches you up, you fight for position = potential to have crash. If you're both in the same team, less than 20 laps to go and with the team about to win their first ever race and have their first ever 1-2, it seems fairly prudent to just keep the status quo.


In regard to Alonso, he was instructed to pit and then vacate the pit box. He ignored that instruction and stayed there to hold Hamilton up. Seems like ignoring team orders to me. smile
So you're suggesting, a WDC at the pinnacle of the sport, cannot drive without crashing out his team mate? Let's put it this way, would you be happy if you were Ralf catching your team mate like a sitting duck and being told that you can catch and overtake only to then be given the TO? I certainly wouldn't be. Hill did very well for himself, sure.

TO = team orders, not pitting instructions. They are not ordered to leave the pits, just given the all clear. It would be good if you could provide the team radio with the team order. Sounds like splitting hair, but the whole conversation was about Multi 21 and team orders and who would defy them. As in the race. Alonso staying in his pit box doesn't sound like a team order

kiseca

9,112 posts

185 months

Thursday 10th June
quotequote all
Siao said:
My intention wasn't to say that he held them for ransom, sorry if it came across that way. But the way it was worded "you better listen to me" makes it sound a bit dodgy.

Out of curiosity, would you be happy if he got the "Damon, Ralf is faster than you" order? I think that Damon was just cleverer and asked for the TO before he got the message himself. But the way he pressed for it was a bit off for my taste. Two F1 drivers should know how not to crash, especially team mates, it was just bragging rights of who gets the chequered flag first. I would just be happier if it wasn't for the TOs. And again, I do not think that you should race someone who is 5 or 3 secs faster than you, it's practically a different race.

Kudos to Hill for the quick thinking though. And crap situation for Jordan for having to TO within a couple of laps before the end.
I think Damon was quite selfish in a racing car, but not ruthless. I remember Coulthard saying when they were team mates that Damon was quite distant and aloof and protective of any advantage he could get. He liked to win and he'd happily use a political advantage to do it. I think his radio message reflects that drive as does his language.

I'm agnostic about team orders because I think formula 1 is a team sport. The driver doesn't win on their own, and the team doesn't win without the driver. In this case, my opinion is Damon was selfishly protecting a win, I can't say, had I been in the car, whether I'd have done the same thing or not had I thought of it. I've seen the "move over" order a few times and been happy with it. If Damon had got it on that day I'd have wished he'd sped up, because I liked him more than Ralf, but no, I wouldn't have thought it was a crap deal for him to be told to move over. I'd have thought it was a bad sign on his position in the team, but what I'm saying is I wouldn't have thought the team shouldn't give the order, I'd instead be a bit sad that Damon wasn't fast enough to avoid it. I do like Damon. I was really happy when he won his championship, but I think his success was more hard work and perseverence than talent or experience. And that's partly why I liked seeing him do well. I felt like he worked for everything he got. Similar to how I felt about Rosberg when he beat Hamilton, though I was less happy with some of the moves that season.



kiseca

9,112 posts

185 months

Thursday 10th June
quotequote all
Siao said:
Muzzer79 said:
So you're suggesting that Hill, a racing driver at the pinnacle of the sport, should just have offered to move over?

It's a fairly simple equation - another car catches you up, you fight for position = potential to have crash. If you're both in the same team, less than 20 laps to go and with the team about to win their first ever race and have their first ever 1-2, it seems fairly prudent to just keep the status quo.


In regard to Alonso, he was instructed to pit and then vacate the pit box. He ignored that instruction and stayed there to hold Hamilton up. Seems like ignoring team orders to me. smile
So you're suggesting, a WDC at the pinnacle of the sport, cannot drive without crashing out his team mate?
Noone is saying that, because that is very different from saying that if two drivers battle for position, a crash is possible.

One driver, Senna, a man for whom a crash was more possible than average when he was involved in a fight for position, was asked about his record for collisions by Jackie Stewart, and very famously responded when you no longer go for a gap that exists, you are no longer a racing driver.

Personally I was on Jackie Stewart's side on that one. It was perfectly possible to race eachother and collide less often than Senna managed. But you're dealing with two extremes here. You're suggesting that two racing drivers are capable of fighting for position without risking a crash. That's patently not what happens. We see collisions reasonably frequently. However, when countered, you went to the other extreme and said they cannot avoid crashing.

The answer, and reality, is neither of the positions you've put forward. The reality is that when two drivers are fighting for position, they are taking the risk of a collision and sometimes it will, and does, happen. If they aren't taking that risk, then they go nowhere like Bottas (who still can't avoid collisions all the time). If you go to the other extreme, you have a LeClerc, a Vettel, a Verstappen (version 1...), or a Senna, who are having an relatively good day if they manage to fight their way up through the field without losing at least one piece of bodywork somewhere or other.

Damon, if he wanted to guarantee that he and Ralf swapped places without colliding only had one choice, and that was to move over and let him through. Even that isn't guaranteed to be incident free. If he chose instead to try defend, he chooses to risk a collision because these drivers aren't leaving two second gaps to eachother. They aren't leaving big safety margins.



vaud

40,749 posts

121 months

Thursday 10th June
quotequote all
kiseca said:
One driver, Senna, a man for whom a crash was more possible than average when he was involved in a fight for position, was asked about his record for collisions by Jackie Stewart, and very famously responded when you no longer go for a gap that exists, you are no longer a racing driver.

Personally I was on Jackie Stewart's side on that one. It was perfectly possible to race eachother and collide less often than Senna managed. But you're dealing with two extremes here. You're suggesting that two racing drivers are capable of fighting for position without risking a crash. That's patently not what happens. We see collisions reasonably frequently. However, when countered, you went to the other extreme and said they cannot avoid crashing.
Senna would possibly have driven differently with regards to deliberate crashes if the mortality rate had been the same as Stewart's era of racing. By the time Senna was in F1 it was much safer.

kiseca

9,112 posts

185 months

Thursday 10th June
quotequote all
vaud said:
kiseca said:
One driver, Senna, a man for whom a crash was more possible than average when he was involved in a fight for position, was asked about his record for collisions by Jackie Stewart, and very famously responded when you no longer go for a gap that exists, you are no longer a racing driver.

Personally I was on Jackie Stewart's side on that one. It was perfectly possible to race eachother and collide less often than Senna managed. But you're dealing with two extremes here. You're suggesting that two racing drivers are capable of fighting for position without risking a crash. That's patently not what happens. We see collisions reasonably frequently. However, when countered, you went to the other extreme and said they cannot avoid crashing.
Senna would possibly have driven differently with regards to deliberate crashes if the mortality rate had been the same as Stewart's era of racing. By the time Senna was in F1 it was much safer.
Prost believes that was a big difference between him and Senna, and I think Jo Ramirez said the same thing but that could be my memory messing with me again.

Prost had seen lots of bad accidents up close and personal. He stopped on circuit and saw the wreckage from Villeneuve's crash. Another driver, I think Rosberg but could be wrong, told him to just not go and look. Prost also witnessed directly the aftermath of Peroni's accident - he saw the accident itself, obviously because Peroni hit him, and then he saw the state of Peroni's legs, saw him getting extracted from the car, kept in touch and saw the aftermath. He considered quitting after that. I think he saw fatalities directly prior to F1 too, but I can't remember if he did or if I'm just confusing him with Damon Hill on that one.

Senna never really seems to have encountered death on a race track, though I've seen someone say he was present at Elio's crash, so hard to say. But he certainly drove like the car was an unvulnerable suit of armour, while Prost drove like he knew he could die in the car at any moment and as much as he enjoyed racing, he'd rather carry on living than throw it all away for a win.

I've suggested the differences there were down to experience, but that's just a thought. It might have nothing to do with it. All the drivers have to put the risk to the back of their mind to some extent, but Senna seemed capable of burying it deeper than most.

On balance though I agree. Senna in the 1960s would have likely been more cautious than 1980s Senna, but I expect he'd have been less cautious than his 1960s contemporaries. I'd say the same for Gilles Villeneuve.

Siao

97 posts

6 months

Thursday 10th June
quotequote all
kiseca said:
Siao said:
Muzzer79 said:
So you're suggesting that Hill, a racing driver at the pinnacle of the sport, should just have offered to move over?

It's a fairly simple equation - another car catches you up, you fight for position = potential to have crash. If you're both in the same team, less than 20 laps to go and with the team about to win their first ever race and have their first ever 1-2, it seems fairly prudent to just keep the status quo.


In regard to Alonso, he was instructed to pit and then vacate the pit box. He ignored that instruction and stayed there to hold Hamilton up. Seems like ignoring team orders to me. smile
So you're suggesting, a WDC at the pinnacle of the sport, cannot drive without crashing out his team mate?
Noone is saying that, because that is very different from saying that if two drivers battle for position, a crash is possible.

One driver, Senna, a man for whom a crash was more possible than average when he was involved in a fight for position, was asked about his record for collisions by Jackie Stewart, and very famously responded when you no longer go for a gap that exists, you are no longer a racing driver.

Personally I was on Jackie Stewart's side on that one. It was perfectly possible to race eachother and collide less often than Senna managed. But you're dealing with two extremes here. You're suggesting that two racing drivers are capable of fighting for position without risking a crash. That's patently not what happens. We see collisions reasonably frequently. However, when countered, you went to the other extreme and said they cannot avoid crashing.

The answer, and reality, is neither of the positions you've put forward. The reality is that when two drivers are fighting for position, they are taking the risk of a collision and sometimes it will, and does, happen. If they aren't taking that risk, then they go nowhere like Bottas (who still can't avoid collisions all the time). If you go to the other extreme, you have a LeClerc, a Vettel, a Verstappen (version 1...), or a Senna, who are having an relatively good day if they manage to fight their way up through the field without losing at least one piece of bodywork somewhere or other.

Damon, if he wanted to guarantee that he and Ralf swapped places without colliding only had one choice, and that was to move over and let him through. Even that isn't guaranteed to be incident free. If he chose instead to try defend, he chooses to risk a collision because these drivers aren't leaving two second gaps to eachother. They aren't leaving big safety margins.
I mostly agree with your post, although there are plenty of opportunities for a driver to pass safely at Spa. What I find wrong is the wording. It wasn't something like "guys can we hold positions?", it was "I'll put something out there, you better listen to me". We probably disagree, I may even be reading too much into it, but it sounded almost like a "reminder" of what can happen... The team knows what can happen, everyone does.

Anyway, 23 year old horse, maybe enough beating in a Seb thread.

Siao

97 posts

6 months

Thursday 10th June
quotequote all
kiseca said:
Prost believes that was a big difference between him and Senna, and I think Jo Ramirez said the same thing but that could be my memory messing with me again.

Prost had seen lots of bad accidents up close and personal. He stopped on circuit and saw the wreckage from Villeneuve's crash. Another driver, I think Rosberg but could be wrong, told him to just not go and look. Prost also witnessed directly the aftermath of Peroni's accident - he saw the accident itself, obviously because Peroni hit him, and then he saw the state of Peroni's legs, saw him getting extracted from the car, kept in touch and saw the aftermath. He considered quitting after that. I think he saw fatalities directly prior to F1 too, but I can't remember if he did or if I'm just confusing him with Damon Hill on that one.

Senna never really seems to have encountered death on a race track, though I've seen someone say he was present at Elio's crash, so hard to say. But he certainly drove like the car was an unvulnerable suit of armour, while Prost drove like he knew he could die in the car at any moment and as much as he enjoyed racing, he'd rather carry on living than throw it all away for a win.

I've suggested the differences there were down to experience, but that's just a thought. It might have nothing to do with it. All the drivers have to put the risk to the back of their mind to some extent, but Senna seemed capable of burying it deeper than most.

On balance though I agree. Senna in the 1960s would have likely been more cautious than 1980s Senna, but I expect he'd have been less cautious than his 1960s contemporaries. I'd say the same for Gilles Villeneuve.
I believe De Andelis was the only driver on track when it happened.

Muzzer79

4,884 posts

153 months

Thursday 10th June
quotequote all
Siao said:
kiseca said:
Siao said:
Muzzer79 said:
So you're suggesting that Hill, a racing driver at the pinnacle of the sport, should just have offered to move over?

It's a fairly simple equation - another car catches you up, you fight for position = potential to have crash. If you're both in the same team, less than 20 laps to go and with the team about to win their first ever race and have their first ever 1-2, it seems fairly prudent to just keep the status quo.


In regard to Alonso, he was instructed to pit and then vacate the pit box. He ignored that instruction and stayed there to hold Hamilton up. Seems like ignoring team orders to me. smile
So you're suggesting, a WDC at the pinnacle of the sport, cannot drive without crashing out his team mate?
Noone is saying that, because that is very different from saying that if two drivers battle for position, a crash is possible.

One driver, Senna, a man for whom a crash was more possible than average when he was involved in a fight for position, was asked about his record for collisions by Jackie Stewart, and very famously responded when you no longer go for a gap that exists, you are no longer a racing driver.

Personally I was on Jackie Stewart's side on that one. It was perfectly possible to race eachother and collide less often than Senna managed. But you're dealing with two extremes here. You're suggesting that two racing drivers are capable of fighting for position without risking a crash. That's patently not what happens. We see collisions reasonably frequently. However, when countered, you went to the other extreme and said they cannot avoid crashing.

The answer, and reality, is neither of the positions you've put forward. The reality is that when two drivers are fighting for position, they are taking the risk of a collision and sometimes it will, and does, happen. If they aren't taking that risk, then they go nowhere like Bottas (who still can't avoid collisions all the time). If you go to the other extreme, you have a LeClerc, a Vettel, a Verstappen (version 1...), or a Senna, who are having an relatively good day if they manage to fight their way up through the field without losing at least one piece of bodywork somewhere or other.

Damon, if he wanted to guarantee that he and Ralf swapped places without colliding only had one choice, and that was to move over and let him through. Even that isn't guaranteed to be incident free. If he chose instead to try defend, he chooses to risk a collision because these drivers aren't leaving two second gaps to eachother. They aren't leaving big safety margins.
I mostly agree with your post, although there are plenty of opportunities for a driver to pass safely at Spa. What I find wrong is the wording. It wasn't something like "guys can we hold positions?", it was "I'll put something out there, you better listen to me". We probably disagree, I may even be reading too much into it, but it sounded almost like a "reminder" of what can happen... The team knows what can happen, everyone does.

Anyway, 23 year old horse, maybe enough beating in a Seb thread.
Damon Hill said:
I'm going to put something to you here, and I think you'd better listen to this.
If we race, if we two race, we could end up with nothing, so it's up to Eddie (Jordan).
If we don't race each other, we've got an opportunity to get a first and second, it's your choice.
No-one's suggesting that people can't drive without hitting each other.

But anyone blessed with a lack of naivety will understand that, in the heat of the moment, you can end up in a position where neither driver will yield or there's a genuine misunderstanding about who is going for what and where.

Damon was clearly protecting his own interests. If he'd been the car behind in second, there's no way he'd have made that radio call.

But any mature driver with half a racing brain would have made the same call at that stage of the race, no matter what the pace of their team mate was.

These drivers are there to win, not to make the show better or to help other drivers.


kiseca

9,112 posts

185 months

Thursday 10th June
quotequote all
Siao said:
I mostly agree with your post, although there are plenty of opportunities for a driver to pass safely at Spa. What I find wrong is the wording. It wasn't something like "guys can we hold positions?", it was "I'll put something out there, you better listen to me". We probably disagree, I may even be reading too much into it, but it sounded almost like a "reminder" of what can happen... The team knows what can happen, everyone does.

Anyway, 23 year old horse, maybe enough beating in a Seb thread.
I do get your point, he was trying to be persuasive and say the only options are I win or we fight, he wasn't making a suggestion for his boss to consider and then committing to honour whatever order the boss gives. Quite the opposite. He was laying down his terms and adding a degree of inflexibility.

He did something a bit similar when asked to slow down to let Prost catch him once. He didn't, and he said to team "Tell Alain I will race."

And there was definitely a reminder in what he said to Eddie, put there to try encourage Eddie to agree with him I'm sure.

It sits OK with me, as part of his character as much as anything else, and as I say, I can't put my hand on my heart and say if I was fortunate enough to be in his position that I'd have been open to letting Ralf steam past unchallenged either, nor that if I had thought of it, I'd have dismissed the option to try get team orders invoked. So I can't hold Damon to a higher standard than I'd hold myself to when there is a grand prix win at stake. I can accept that it may not sit so comfortably with you and there's no right or wrong answer so I'm not trying to change your mind because it's not the kind of thing, in my opinion, where one answer has more validity than another. So yep, happy to let this horse rest too beer


Edited by kiseca on Thursday 10th June 14:27

Siao

97 posts

6 months

Thursday 10th June
quotequote all
kiseca said:
I do get your point, he was trying to be persuasive and say the only options are I win or we fight, he wasn't making a suggestion for his boss to consider and then committing to honour whatever order the boss gives. Quite the opposite. He was laying down his terms and adding a degree of inflexibility.

He did something a bit similar when asked to slow down to let Prost catch him once. He didn't, and he said to team "Tell Alain I will race."

And there was definitely a reminder in what he said to Eddie, put there to try encourage Eddie to agree with him I'm sure.

It sits OK with me, as part of his character as much as anything else, and as I say, I can't put my hand on my heart and say if I was fortunate enough to be in his position that I'd have been open to letting Ralf steam past unchallenged either, nor that if I had thought of it, I'd have dismissed the option to try get team orders invoked. So I can't hold Damon to a higher standard than I'd hold myself to when there is a grand prix win at stake. I can accept that it may not sit so comfortably with you and there's no right or wrong answer so I'm not trying to change your mind because it's not the kind of thing, in my opinion, where one answer has more validity than another. So yep, happy to let this horse rest too beer


Edited by kiseca on Thursday 10th June 14:27
Fully agreed!

Siao

97 posts

6 months

Thursday 10th June
quotequote all
Muzzer79 said:
No-one's suggesting that people can't drive without hitting each other.

But anyone blessed with a lack of naivety will understand that, in the heat of the moment, you can end up in a position where neither driver will yield or there's a genuine misunderstanding about who is going for what and where.

Damon was clearly protecting his own interests. If he'd been the car behind in second, there's no way he'd have made that radio call.

But any mature driver with half a racing brain would have made the same call at that stage of the race, no matter what the pace of their team mate was.

These drivers are there to win, not to make the show better or to help other drivers.
Glad we sorted this out. In the meantime I'll be waiting for some Schumacher, Senna and Alonso examples driving