So who's the boss of RBR?

[larkim]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/22106490

If Horner doesn't do something to fine or discipline Vettel after this, his authority as team boss is completely undermined.

Like it or not, an order is an order. Vettel has just about thrown down the gauntlet to Horner and said "don't give me any more team orders, because if you do I will publicly ignore them".

Like him or loathe him, I can't believe Vettel can be allowed to get away with this.

Matt

[News]

Let the fraggings continue... Roll those grenades, boys.

[Bobster]

Talking generally, what's any team boss supposed to do? Should Frank
Williams have fired Reutemann in 1981?

As regards Horner, it seems to me his ability to control drivers is
long gone, and it didn't disappear at Malaysia. Vettel is right...
there's a history here and not all the black marks are in his column.

Interesting that both drivers claimed, on different occasions, to not
understand a "multi..." order.

As regards disciplinary action, we've talked on this group before
about drivers and whether they are employees of the team and thus
bound by any disciplinary code or not. I think it possible that they
are not necessarily employees but just have a deal in place to drive a
car and do some promotional work. I have no knowledge of specific
cases, but I can see it being possible that, in terms of labour law,
you could drive for a team but not actually be an employee in the way
a mechanic might be.

But OK, what's Horner supposed to do? Give Vettel a written warning
(remember that he'd have to call a proper hearing to do this and give
Vettel the chance of testifying in his own defence and the right to
representation)? Dock his salary (same situation)? Fire him?

Unless there is an explicit stipulation in the contract that the
driver WILL obey instructions from the team principal and that failure
to do so may result in termination of contract or some other sanction
then no principal can force his drivers to play ball.

[AC]

Bobster wrote:
> On Apr 11, 12:10 pm, larkim <matthew.lar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/22106490
>>
>> If Horner doesn't do something to fine or discipline Vettel after this, his authority as team boss is completely undermined.
>>
>> Like it or not, an order is an order. Vettel has just about thrown down the gauntlet to Horner and said "don't give me any more team orders, because if you do I will publicly ignore them".
>>
>> Like him or loathe him, I can't believe Vettel can be allowed to get away with this.
>>
>> Matt
>
> Talking generally, what's any team boss supposed to do?

Be the fucking boss, for christs sake. Jezus, really?

> Should Frank
> Williams have fired Reutemann in 1981?

No idea. Dont know, don't care. 1981? Oh please, its not even the same
sport now.

>
> As regards Horner, it seems to me his ability to control drivers is
> long gone, and it didn't disappear at Malaysia. Vettel is right...
> there's a history here and not all the black marks are in his column.

No, Vettel think its one way. He is certainly not right.

>
> Interesting that both drivers claimed, on different occasions, to not
> understand a "multi..." order.

No its not.

>
> As regards disciplinary action, we've talked on this group before
> about drivers and whether they are employees of the team and thus
> bound by any disciplinary code or not. I think it possible that they
> are not necessarily employees but just have a deal in place to drive a
> car and do some promotional work. I have no knowledge of specific
> cases, but I can see it being possible that, in terms of labour law,
> you could drive for a team but not actually be an employee in the way
> a mechanic might be.
>
> But OK, what's Horner supposed to do? Give Vettel a written warning
> (remember that he'd have to call a proper hearing to do this and give
> Vettel the chance of testifying in his own defence and the right to
> representation)?

Sorry, what? Are you confusing Horner with the FIA?

Besides, there are a lot of underhand ways a team can punish a driver,
assuming you really want to get 1981 about it.

> Dock his salary (same situation)? Fire him?
>
> Unless there is an explicit stipulation in the contract that the
> driver WILL obey instructions from the team principal and that failure
> to do so may result in termination of contract or some other sanction
> then no principal can force his drivers to play ball.
>

You so, so miss the point.

This is no longer about team orders at all. Vettel did ignore his order,
and in the following days, weeks, it was supposed to have been resolved.
That bit was about team orders and was aparently done and dusted. That's
fine. Now, weeks later, just before the next GP, he is undermining all
of that publicly. His stupid arrogance is literally breath taking.

What is Horner supposed to do? Ban Vettel for one race, or tender his
resignation. Why? Because he literally has no weight of authority any
more. The driver now literally calls the shots, unless he is explicitly
told otherwise, and has that authority demonstrated to him. If I worked
in the team, I would have less and less respect for Horner and the team
as this goes on, and on. It will harm the team.

If you want to get official about it, Vettel can clearly be accused of
bringing the sport, team and sponsors in to disrepute. Frankly the FIA
could sanction the little entitled piece of arrogant shit.

Lastly, dunno how shit drink fans react to this, but it cant be good for
Red Bull's fun funky clean sporting x-games image.

But in the end, Horner right now looks a complete neutered limp dick. He
has been completely undermined. It it were me, I'd be quite prepared to
walk. He cant need the money, and his record, like it or not, means he
wont be short of decent offers. Either he is given the authority to do
his job, its frankly its a waste time.

--
AC

[Mark]

Bobster <mega...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Talking generally, what's any team boss supposed to do? Should Frank
> Williams have fired Reutemann in 1981?
>
> As regards Horner, it seems to me his ability to control drivers is
> long gone, and it didn't disappear at Malaysia. Vettel is right...
> there's a history here and not all the black marks are in his column.

True.

> Interesting that both drivers claimed, on different occasions, to not
> understand a "multi..." order.

Given that it's legal now, I don't understand why they don't just say
"Seb - take it easy on the car and stay behind Mark.". No chance of
confusion.

I _do_ understand how Mark could have been confused about multi-21 if it
was the first time it was used...but after that - particularly if Seb
was annoyed by Mark's confusion - neither have that excuse.

> As regards disciplinary action, we've talked on this group before
> about drivers and whether they are employees of the team and thus
> bound by any disciplinary code or not. I think it possible that they
> are not necessarily employees but just have a deal in place to drive a
> car and do some promotional work. I have no knowledge of specific
> cases, but I can see it being possible that, in terms of labour law,
> you could drive for a team but not actually be an employee in the way
> a mechanic might be.

They have other powers, though.

> But OK, what's Horner supposed to do? Give Vettel a written warning
> (remember that he'd have to call a proper hearing to do this and give
> Vettel the chance of testifying in his own defence and the right to
> representation)? Dock his salary (same situation)? Fire him?
>
> Unless there is an explicit stipulation in the contract that the
> driver WILL obey instructions from the team principal and that failure
> to do so may result in termination of contract or some other sanction
> then no principal can force his drivers to play ball.

I think the main power they have is over the rest of the team, and the
car itself. Without seeing the contract, it's not possible to know
what guarantees drivers have written in, but some possibilities might
include:

- Denying them access to data/other resources
- Lowering their priority for use of the pits

or more seriously (and likely to cause a lot of hurt and emotion):

- Substituting them as a driver for a race
- Deliberately underfuelling them
- Withholding developments
- Limiting practice time

There are a lot of things that a team can do without falling foul of the
contract...but you don't want that kind of unrest in the team. Look at
what happened in McLaren in 2007; no matter whose fault it was and who
did what (no, Edmund, we don't need your historical perspective here)
the in-fighting was very detrimental to the team, no matter _what_
happened about the spygate stuff.

[AC]

Also......

rant, rant,

I know I've gone soft on Schumacher over the years, but I think I
actually now dislike Vettel more. Didn't think that was possible, but,
there it is.

--
AC

[Bobster]

On Apr 11, 1:52 pm, AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> Bobster wrote:
> > On Apr 11, 12:10 pm, larkim <matthew.lar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/22106490
>
> >> If Horner doesn't do something to fine or discipline Vettel after this, his authority as team boss is completely undermined.
>
> >> Like it or not, an order is an order.  Vettel has just about thrown down the gauntlet to Horner and said "don't give me any more team orders, because if you do  I will publicly ignore them".
>
> >> Like him or loathe him, I can't believe Vettel can be allowed to get away with this.
>
> >> Matt
>
> > Talking generally, what's any team boss supposed to do?
>
> Be the fucking boss, for christs sake. Jezus, really?

Sure. But how? What's he supposed to do if one of his drivers doesn't
take kindly to being told to hold fire? This, BTW, is why I went into
all the business about contracts and who is and isn't an employee,
because the team principal (and that stipulation is really to keep FIA
happy as they know who speaks for the team and who to crap on if they
are unhappy with the team) might not have any real power to discipline
drivers when push comes to shove. Not just Horner, but other team
bosses as well.

If a driver IS an employee then labour law comes into play. F1 will
not be the first sport to see this happen (if things come to that).
We've had it in cricket where, for example, Kevin Pietersen (or his
lawyers) argued that the relationship between KP and the ECB was
governed by labour law and so there were limits to the action the ECB
could take and there were responsibilities on both sides.

>
> > Should Frank
> > Williams have fired Reutemann in 1981?
>
> No idea. Dont know, don't care. 1981? Oh please, its not even the same
> sport now.

Yes. But how far back do we go? I think people want a piece of Vettel
because he's Vettel. We didn't see the media and the fans getting on
the high horse over Brazil last year when Webber had not only been
talking about how he wasn't going to help Webber but then impeded him
at the start, let Fred past (or at least seemed to) and then raced
Vettel for position when told not to. Now that was less than a year
ago.

>
>
>
> > As regards Horner, it seems to me his ability to control drivers is
> > long gone, and it didn't disappear at Malaysia. Vettel is right...
> > there's a history here and not all the black marks are in his column.
>
> No, Vettel think its one way. He is certainly not right.

No. There's history. Both of them can be accused of not putting the
team first and refusing to obey instructions. The only point of debate
is when exactly the war began and who fired the first shot.

>
>
>
> > Interesting that both drivers claimed, on different occasions, to not
> > understand a "multi..." order.
>
> No its not.

To me it was. YMMV.

>
>
>
> > As regards disciplinary action, we've talked on this group before
> > about drivers and whether they are employees of the team and thus
> > bound by any disciplinary code or not. I think it possible that they
> > are not necessarily employees but just have a deal in place to drive a
> > car and do some promotional work. I have no knowledge of specific
> > cases, but I can see it being possible that, in terms of labour law,
> > you could drive for a team but not actually be an employee in the way
> > a mechanic might be.
>
> > But OK, what's Horner supposed to do? Give Vettel a written warning
> > (remember that he'd have to call a proper hearing to do this and give
> > Vettel the chance of testifying in his own defence and the right to
> > representation)?
>
> Sorry, what? Are you confusing Horner with the FIA?

No. This a question for the people (like Eric Boullier) who want to
see Vettel disciplined. What exactly is Horned supposed to do? And can
he do it?

>
> Besides, there are a lot of underhand ways a team can punish a driver,
> assuming you really want to get 1981 about it.

Well in 1981 it didn't happen, but yes... the team can start finding
that they only have one of the wing that works for the track they're
about to race on - or something.

>
> > Dock his salary (same situation)? Fire him?
>
> > Unless there is an explicit stipulation in the contract that the
> > driver WILL obey instructions from the team principal and that failure
> > to do so may result in termination of contract or some other sanction
> > then no principal can force his drivers to play ball.
>
> You so, so miss the point.

Well... see above. I think you miss mine, or I didn't make mine very
clearly.
<snip>

> But in the end, Horner right now looks a complete neutered limp dick. He
> has been completely undermined. It it were me, I'd be quite prepared to
> walk. He cant need the money, and his record, like it or not, means he
> wont be short of decent offers. Either he is given the authority to do
> his job, its frankly its a waste time.

He's under contract, so he can't walk.

It strikes me that the real force undermining Horner is actually Marko
- or that's how it seems. Marko doesn't answer to Horner even though
Horner is the team principal, and he's always saying things that can't
be making Horner's job any easier. He's just said that RBR are not
applying team orders any more. Really? That's not his call, surely?
And it should be Horner's prerogative to break that news. There were
his pre-season remarks about Webber, things that Horner at the least
wants to stay diplomatically silent about.

[Bobster]

On Apr 11, 2:04 pm, Mark <mpco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Bobster <megap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Talking generally, what's any team boss supposed to do? Should Frank
> > Williams have fired Reutemann in 1981?
>
> > As regards Horner, it seems to me his ability to control drivers is
> > long gone, and it didn't disappear at Malaysia. Vettel is right...
> > there's a history here and not all the black marks are in his column.
>
> True.
>
> > Interesting that both drivers claimed, on different occasions, to not
> > understand a "multi..." order.
>
> Given that it's legal now, I don't understand why they don't just say
> "Seb - take it easy on the car and stay behind Mark.".  No chance of
> confusion.

Yeah. I've been wondering that. One report I read suggested that the
coded message is not given verbally but is displayed inside the
cockpit. So, and this is just my thinking, maybe because the two don't
trust each other and because of tight situations in the past they do
it electronically so that both of them get it at the same time and
there can be no making of excuses like "well I only heard it after
him."

I can think of things they could do, but too much of it and the other
teams will start screaming blue murder about bringing the sport into
disrepute and then FIA will have to get involved.

Until this latest set of comments I thought that possibly there was a
way for Vettel to square the account and show that he is genuinely
sorry, and that was by gifting a win (has to be a win) to Webber. But
now I don't think that's very likely.

[AC]

Mark wrote:
> Bobster <mega...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Talking generally, what's any team boss supposed to do? Should Frank
>> Williams have fired Reutemann in 1981?
>>
>> As regards Horner, it seems to me his ability to control drivers is
>> long gone, and it didn't disappear at Malaysia. Vettel is right...
>> there's a history here and not all the black marks are in his column.
>
> True.
>
>> Interesting that both drivers claimed, on different occasions, to not
>> understand a "multi..." order.
>
> Given that it's legal now, I don't understand why they don't just say
> "Seb - take it easy on the car and stay behind Mark.". No chance of
> confusion.
>

I do agree with that. It seems absurd to piss around with codes when
orders are perfectly legal.

> I _do_ understand how Mark could have been confused about multi-21 if it
> was the first time it was used...but after that - particularly if Seb
> was annoyed by Mark's confusion - neither have that excuse.

Quite. One has to accept a first mistake or confusion, unless there is
hard evidence to the contrary. Decency at least dictates that.

I think all you have to do with Vettel is simply make him feel very
uncomfortable and make him think or believe you are doing things to
hinder him. His head will happily do the rest.

The actual problem is the nature of running the race. Each driver has a
separate team, and his team wont want to play silly buggers. If nothing
else, I assume they are on performance related bonuses. And that is
where it can get very nasty. We hear team orders at RBR are scrapped. I
read, OK, gloves off for both drivers. That becomes true of each
driver's team. So, then they start hiding data, etc. Which is apparently
what happened at McLaren. As I understand it, long after that,
Hamilton's reputation was permanently damaged with a lot of McLaren's
team. I could be very wrong, but I think I remember Dave Baker saying
that some in McLaren were not that keen on Lewis.

In short, all this is very damaging. Hell, if RBR still see Vettel as
their long term leader, and they want "peace" quickly, I'd even consider
ditching Webber right now so Vettel can have his lacky. Might as well be
done with it, much better than putting the team through the mill. Not
like their jobs aren't hard enough already.

Heh, you would have thought Horner would have learnt something from
McLaren in 2007.

Still, potentially bloody good for us fans. Best bit is, that as far as
I can tell, Red Bull, Horner, Vettel are all things no one actually
cares about, apart from the fact that they beat the people we do care
about. So, pretty much all of us can round on them and give them shit
with out the usual Ferrari/Britpac thing!!!!!

--
AC

[Sir Tim]

On 11/04/2013 12:52, AC wrote:

<snip intemperate response to reasoned post>

> This is no longer about team orders at all. Vettel did ignore his order,
> and in the following days, weeks, it was supposed to have been resolved.

> That bit was about team orders and was apparently done and dusted. That's

> fine. Now, weeks later, just before the next GP, he is undermining all
> of that publicly. His stupid arrogance is literally breath taking.

I agree that this now seems to have developed into a power struggle.
Vettel, having previously made cringing apologies, is now attempting to
exploit the situation in order to establish number one status by the
back door with Helmut Marko pushing from behind. Vettel may be arrogant
but he is certainly not stupid, and, let's face it, he's got Horner by
the short and curlies.
Whether he has Mateschitz in the same position is another matter altogether

--
Henry Birkin, Bt.

[larkim]

Whatever the internal diplomacy or shenanigans going on, saying what Vettel has just said in public is either a well calculated move to assert superiority over someone (Webber, Horner?) or crass stupidity not really worthy of someone who wants to be recognised as a great F1 champion.

When Schumacher had done something controversial, he was wise enough to keep quiet about it rather than shooting his mouth off all over the place. It just serves to reinforce a perception that Vettel is very immature, despite his clear driving capabilities.

I had little respect for the "man" Vettel prior to this, nonexistant now.

Mat

[AC]

Oh god, labour laws? Its is trivial to suspend an employee or contractor.

>>
>>> Should Frank
>>> Williams have fired Reutemann in 1981?
>>
>> No idea. Dont know, don't care. 1981? Oh please, its not even the same
>> sport now.
>
> Yes. But how far back do we go? I think people want a piece of Vettel
> because he's Vettel. We didn't see the media and the fans getting on
> the high horse over Brazil last year when Webber had not only been
> talking about how he wasn't going to help Webber but then impeded him
> at the start, let Fred past (or at least seemed to) and then raced
> Vettel for position when told not to. Now that was less than a year
> ago.

He is displaying something further than others have before, and in a
very different way. Never before have I seen such an entitled disrespect
for the entire sport, not just the team.

>>
>>
>>
>>> As regards Horner, it seems to me his ability to control drivers is
>>> long gone, and it didn't disappear at Malaysia. Vettel is right...
>>> there's a history here and not all the black marks are in his column.
>>
>> No, Vettel think its one way. He is certainly not right.
> No. There's history. Both of them can be accused of not putting the
> team first and refusing to obey instructions. The only point of debate
> is when exactly the war began and who fired the first shot.

Again, just look has how Vettel goes about it.

>>
>>
>>
>>> Interesting that both drivers claimed, on different occasions, to not
>>> understand a "multi..." order.
>>
>> No its not.
>
> To me it was. YMMV.

Why? Dont we accept that the first time it might be a mistake? Second
time, in a useful position might not be?

>>
>>
>>
>>> As regards disciplinary action, we've talked on this group before
>>> about drivers and whether they are employees of the team and thus
>>> bound by any disciplinary code or not. I think it possible that they
>>> are not necessarily employees but just have a deal in place to drive a
>>> car and do some promotional work. I have no knowledge of specific
>>> cases, but I can see it being possible that, in terms of labour law,
>>> you could drive for a team but not actually be an employee in the way
>>> a mechanic might be.
>>
>>> But OK, what's Horner supposed to do? Give Vettel a written warning
>>> (remember that he'd have to call a proper hearing to do this and give
>>> Vettel the chance of testifying in his own defence and the right to
>>> representation)?
>>
>> Sorry, what? Are you confusing Horner with the FIA?
> No. This a question for the people (like Eric Boullier) who want to
> see Vettel disciplined. What exactly is Horned supposed to do? And can
> he do it?

Covered that. I don't understand they you think it is so hard.

>>
>> Besides, there are a lot of underhand ways a team can punish a driver,
>> assuming you really want to get 1981 about it.
> Well in 1981 it didn't happen, but yes... the team can start finding
> that they only have one of the wing that works for the track they're
> about to race on - or something.

For starters.

>>
>>> Dock his salary (same situation)? Fire him?
>>
>>> Unless there is an explicit stipulation in the contract that the
>>> driver WILL obey instructions from the team principal and that failure
>>> to do so may result in termination of contract or some other sanction
>>> then no principal can force his drivers to play ball.
>>
>> You so, so miss the point.
>
> Well... see above. I think you miss mine, or I didn't make mine very
> clearly.

No. Its just covering a non issue that had now passed.

> <snip>
>
>> But in the end, Horner right now looks a complete neutered limp dick. He
>> has been completely undermined. It it were me, I'd be quite prepared to
>> walk. He cant need the money, and his record, like it or not, means he
>> wont be short of decent offers. Either he is given the authority to do
>> his job, its frankly its a waste time.
> He's under contract, so he can't walk.

Yes he can. Fuck me, he could pull a sicky if he wanted.

>
> It strikes me that the real force undermining Horner is actually Marko
> - or that's how it seems. Marko doesn't answer to Horner even though
> Horner is the team principal, and he's always saying things that can't
> be making Horner's job any easier. He's just said that RBR are not
> applying team orders any more. Really? That's not his call, surely?
> And it should be Horner's prerogative to break that news. There were
> his pre-season remarks about Webber, things that Horner at the least
> wants to stay diplomatically silent about.
>
>

Are you suggesting that Marko is partly using Vettel to do his dirty work?

Hey, do you reckon Marko think he should have Horner's job? Or has some
one else in mind?

--
AC

[WrongWayWade]

Bobster wrote:
> On Apr 11, 12:10 pm, larkim <matthew.lar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/22106490
>>
>> If Horner doesn't do something to fine or discipline Vettel after
>> this, his authority as team boss is completely undermined.
>>
>> Like it or not, an order is an order. Vettel has just about thrown
>> down the gauntlet to Horner and said "don't give me any more team
>> orders, because if you do I will publicly ignore them".
>>
>> Like him or loathe him, I can't believe Vettel can be allowed to get
>> away with this.
>>
>> Matt
>
> Talking generally, what's any team boss supposed to do? Should Frank
> Williams have fired Reutemann in 1981?
>
> As regards Horner, it seems to me his ability to control drivers is
> long gone, and it didn't disappear at Malaysia. Vettel is right...
> there's a history here and not all the black marks are in his column.
>
> Interesting that both drivers claimed, on different occasions, to not
> understand a "multi..." order.

This is such BS. First, of course, they both know what 'multi-XX' means.
Second, is he claiming he didn't HEAR the message? No. Third, is he
claiming he doesn't 'understand' WHY Horner would issue the order? Don't'
know.

There wasn't anything about not 'understanding' the order. He wanted to
win, he wanted to cememt his points lead so he'll get the #1 driver
treatment the rest of the season, and his recent comments shown at
F1planet.com show he has no remorse about any of it.

[brafield]

Mister Big Shot Vettel will need a car to drive on Sunday, in order to
defy team orders and win a race.
Where does his car come from? Doesn't he ask himself that sometimes?
He thinks he is the boss, but ----

Old New York street tale about who's boss: a mafioso strides into
small barber shop and demands a free shave, perfect and no scratches
or else. Two young assistants turn pale and flee. Old barber says
"Sure", and starts the old fashioned shave. In the middle of the
shave, the mafia boss is puzzled: "How come you no frightened?" Old
guy smiles "Why I be frighten'? I'm the one holding a razor to your
throat, capisce?"

If Vettel can be naughty about orders, RBR can be naughty too.

[Bobster]

On Apr 11, 4:32 pm, AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
<snip>

> Are you suggesting that Marko is partly using Vettel to do his dirty work?

No. But if I were Horner, or somebody in a position of similar
supposed superiority in a high profile company I'd be pretty pissed
off if the owner's "advisor", who has no official standing, went
around shooting off his mouth about what should be internal matters
and giving different versions than I do.

>
> Hey, do you reckon Marko think he should have Horner's job? Or has some
> one else in mind?

Dunno. Horner has done a good job in many regards, so if Marko has any
smarts and that much influence he'll think long and hard about it.

But it's interesting. The team principal is on a contract. In how many
other teams does that happen? Or am I making too much of it?

[John Briggs]

On 11/04/2013 12:52, AC wrote:

> Bobster wrote:
>> On Apr 11, 12:10 pm, larkim <matthew.lar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/22106490
>>>
>>> If Horner doesn't do something to fine or discipline Vettel after
>>> this, his authority as team boss is completely undermined.
>>>
>>> Like it or not, an order is an order. Vettel has just about thrown
>>> down the gauntlet to Horner and said "don't give me any more team
>>> orders, because if you do I will publicly ignore them".
>>>
>>> Like him or loathe him, I can't believe Vettel can be allowed to get
>>> away with this.
>>>
>>> Matt
>>
>> Talking generally, what's any team boss supposed to do?
>
> Be the fucking boss, for christs sake. Jezus, really?

But he's not the boss. Both Dietrich Mateschitz and Helmut Marko can
overrule him, especially if they work together.
--
John Briggs

[John Briggs]

Probably. The "team principal" is really a figurehead role. He has as
much power as the owner wants him to have.
--
John Briggs

[John Briggs]

I'd say that Dietrich Mateschitz is a weak boss who prefers to have his
subordinates fighting each other (rather than him) so as to maximise his
own control. He will sometimes favour Webber, sometimes Vettel,
sometimes Marko, sometimes Horner.
--
John Briggs

[Sir Tim]

brafield <spra...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> If Vettel can be naughty about orders, RBR can be naughty too.

That's what I'm banking on in the pool :-)

--
Henry Birkin, Bt.

[Mike Fleming]

In article
<69718b3e-dfa5-422e...@cd3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

Bobster <mega...@gmail.com> writes:

> No. This a question for the people (like Eric Boullier) who want to
> see Vettel disciplined. What exactly is Horned supposed to do? And can
> he do it?

Presumably he could leave Vettel out of the car for a race.

--
Mike Fleming

[John Briggs]

He doesn't have the authority to do that.
--
John Briggs

[AC]

That I guess depends on ownership. I have no idea if Red Bull owns the
team 100% or if Horner has a share. Clearly those with shares have more
power as it were.

Ultimately I don't understand an owner who doesn't back his manager,
unless there is more at play.

--
AC

[AC]

Yeah, but often the team principle is an owner or share holder. Or it
was. Not sure how that works out across the team we now have.

--
AC

[AC]

In what way? Snidey assumption that Red Bull is god, or some thing actual?

I cant believe a team manager cant manage the team, unless it is an
explicit Red Bull order as it were. If so, Horner is frankly letting
himself down by putting up with that. Fine up till now, but this latest
outburst, IMHO, puts it over the edge.

--
AC

[AC]

I would suggest not, but its not a bad idea. You might well be right.

--
AC

[WebSlave]

larkim wrote:

> If Horner doesn't do something to fine or discipline Vettel after
> this, his authority as team boss is completely undermined.

It appears it already is. Then again, he's not the one sitting on the
wallet, and Helmut Marko is the representative of Red Bull in the
team, and also the guy most responsible of the driver decisions. And
he's known to favour Vettel.

Of course there are several actions that could be used to discipline
the drivers:
- replace them with Buemi
- choosing weaker tactics
- in case of disobediance change the wrong tyres
etc.

But it's a tough choice to sit out a triple world champion.

> Like it or not, an order is an order.  Vettel has just about thrown
> down the gauntlet to Horner and said "don't give me any more
> team orders, because if you do  I will publicly ignore them".

Well, perhaps the more significant consequence is that Webber won't
trust Vettels loyalty to obey any orders any more, so he won't easily
help his team mate in the title fight. So in a bigger picture Vettel
is just hurting his own chances.

> Like him or loathe him, I can't believe Vettel can be allowed to
> get away with this.

I believe he can and will. Despite what Horner might think, Vettel is
the teams number one driver and will not be hindered in any way,
except with words. Which, as we have already read, mean nothing to
him.

-Webs-

[AC]

Well, if that is actually the case, some one needs to say so.

--
AC

[John Briggs]

On 11/04/2013 22:10, AC wrote:
> John Briggs wrote:
>> On 11/04/2013 20:19, Mike Fleming wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <69718b3e-dfa5-422e...@cd3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Bobster <mega...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> No. This a question for the people (like Eric Boullier) who want to
>>>> see Vettel disciplined. What exactly is Horned supposed to do? And can
>>>> he do it?
>>>
>>> Presumably he could leave Vettel out of the car for a race.
>>
>> He doesn't have the authority to do that.
>
> In what way? Snidey assumption that Red Bull is god, or some thing actual?

He isn't the team owner.

> I cant believe a team manager cant manage the team, unless it is an
> explicit Red Bull order as it were. If so, Horner is frankly letting
> himself down by putting up with that. Fine up till now, but this latest
> outburst, IMHO, puts it over the edge.

He's paid to put up with that.
--
John Briggs

[John Briggs]

On 11/04/2013 22:10, AC wrote:

I didn't make up the bit about him favouring different parties at
different times: we already know that.
--
John Briggs

[AC]

>>
>> Given that it's legal now, I don't understand why they don't just say
>> "Seb - take it easy on the car and stay behind Mark.". No chance of
>> confusion.
>
> Yeah. I've been wondering that. One report I read suggested that the
> coded message is not given verbally but is displayed inside the
> cockpit. So, and this is just my thinking, maybe because the two don't
> trust each other and because of tight situations in the past they do
> it electronically so that both of them get it at the same time and
> there can be no making of excuses like "well I only heard it after
> him."

Ok, but then how can Vettel claim to have misunderstood?

>>
>> There are a lot of things that a team can do without falling foul of the
>> contract...but you don't want that kind of unrest in the team. Look at
>> what happened in McLaren in 2007; no matter whose fault it was and who
>> did what (no, Edmund, we don't need your historical perspective here)
>> the in-fighting was very detrimental to the team, no matter _what_
>> happened about the spygate stuff.
>
> I can think of things they could do, but too much of it and the other
> teams will start screaming blue murder about bringing the sport into
> disrepute and then FIA will have to get involved.

Right now, I still dont see why Horner cant suspend him. If he cant,
then, as the subject suggests, Horner doesnt run the team.

>
> Until this latest set of comments I thought that possibly there was a
> way for Vettel to square the account and show that he is genuinely
> sorry, and that was by gifting a win (has to be a win) to Webber. But
> now I don't think that's very likely.
>

LOL. The idea that Vettel would gift a win to say sorry is hysterical!!!

--
AC

[AC]

John Briggs wrote:
> On 11/04/2013 22:10, AC wrote:
>> John Briggs wrote:
>>> On 11/04/2013 20:19, Mike Fleming wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> <69718b3e-dfa5-422e...@cd3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> Bobster <mega...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> No. This a question for the people (like Eric Boullier) who want to
>>>>> see Vettel disciplined. What exactly is Horned supposed to do? And can
>>>>> he do it?
>>>>
>>>> Presumably he could leave Vettel out of the car for a race.
>>>
>>> He doesn't have the authority to do that.
>>
>> In what way? Snidey assumption that Red Bull is god, or some thing
>> actual?
>
> He isn't the team owner.

No, but his is paid to run and manage the team.

>
>> I cant believe a team manager cant manage the team, unless it is an
>> explicit Red Bull order as it were. If so, Horner is frankly letting
>> himself down by putting up with that. Fine up till now, but this latest
>> outburst, IMHO, puts it over the edge.
>
> He's paid to put up with that.

Is he? Maybe. If so, then he might as well be a rent boy.


--
AC

[Zeppo Marx]

On 11.04.13 23:11, WebSlave wrote:
> larkim wrote:
>
>> If Horner doesn't do something to fine or discipline Vettel after
>> this, his authority as team boss is completely undermined.
>
> It appears it already is. Then again, he's not the one sitting on the
> wallet, and Helmut Marko is the representative of Red Bull in the
> team, and also the guy most responsible of the driver decisions. And
> he's known to favour Vettel.
>
> Of course there are several actions that could be used to discipline
> the drivers:
> - replace them with Buemi
> - choosing weaker tactics
> - in case of disobediance change the wrong tyres
> etc.

Nothing of those things would ever happen. With any of those options RBR
would hurt SV for sure. But they would hurt RBR as well. I don't think
they want that.

>
> But it's a tough choice to sit out a triple world champion.

Yup, true.

>
>> Like it or not, an order is an order. Vettel has just about thrown
>> down the gauntlet to Horner and said "don't give me any more
>> team orders, because if you do I will publicly ignore them".
>
> Well, perhaps the more significant consequence is that Webber won't
> trust Vettels loyalty to obey any orders any more, so he won't easily
> help his team mate in the title fight. So in a bigger picture Vettel
> is just hurting his own chances.

Can you mention one, only single one occasion where MW really helped SV?
Remember Brazil 2012? I think you do. So, nothing really changes for SV.
He will need to fight MW as he needed to fight him in the past.

>
>> Like him or loathe him, I can't believe Vettel can be allowed to
>> get away with this.
>
> I believe he can and will. Despite what Horner might think, Vettel is
> the teams number one driver and will not be hindered in any way,
> except with words. Which, as we have already read, mean nothing to
> him.
>
> -Webs-
>

Well, I already stated in another thread: I never bought into his
apologies. He did it because he was asked to. But never meant it. Now,
my point of view is: why the hack NOT?!
I am a contractor, working in different projects for different
customers. If I would be such a crack in my business arena (which,
unfortunately, I am not) and my customers would accept me dictating the
rules of my engagement, I certainly would do it. Honestly: I would!
Even if I do not endorse what SV is doing, I completely understand where
he is coming from.

[Sir Tim]

Why? If that's the way RBR care to run the team it's their affair shirley?

[Bobster]

On Apr 11, 8:06 pm, John Briggs <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> I'd say that Dietrich Mateschitz is a weak boss who prefers to have his
> subordinates fighting each other (rather than him) so as to maximise his
> own control. He will sometimes favour Webber, sometimes Vettel,
> sometimes Marko, sometimes Horner.

In business it's always prudent to pair responsibility and authority.
IE if you appoint somebody to do a job you let them do it. We see this
at McLaren when Ron Dennis is still in charge of the McLaren group and
so Whitmarsh is his subordinate. But Dennis doesn't interfere in the
running of the team - that's the job he gave to Whitmarsh and he lets
Whitmarsh do it (or will replace him if Whitmarsh is inadequate and a
suitable replacement is available). So Mateschitz staying out of day
to day running of the team is not necessarily a bad thing or a sign of
anything other than him letting Horner do Horner's job.

That said
a) We don't know really how Horner's responsibilities are defined.
b) Mateschitz isn't entirely hands off - he negotiated with Webber for
example, so we know that Horner isn't in total control of the team.
c) Mateschitz has this "advisor" (Marko) who seems to have a lot to
say about the team and its operations and at least gives the
impression that he has some say.

I think Horner might not be as powerful within RBR as, say, Whitmarsh
is within the McLaren team.

Which is not necessarily bad or wrong. "Team Principal" doesn't
necessarily mean "owner" or "majority share holder" or "top of the
corporate tree". It's really an appointment that FIA insist on.

[Bobster]

On Apr 12, 12:55 am, Sir Tim <bent...@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
> AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> > John Briggs wrote:
> >> On 11/04/2013 12:52, AC wrote:
> >>> Bobster wrote:

<snip>

> >>>> Talking generally, what's any team boss supposed to do?
>
> >>> Be the fucking boss, for christs sake. Jezus, really?
>
> >> But he's not the boss. Both Dietrich Mateschitz and Helmut Marko can
> >> overrule him, especially if they work together.
>
> > Well, if that is actually the case, some one needs to say so.
>
> Why? If that's the way RBR care to run the team it's their affair shirley?

Exactly. There is more than one case of the team principle not being
the actual ultimate boss. All F1 teams are also a business, and each
business may well be structured differently. And there is no
imperative to make details of structures, responsibility and so on
public unless they are a public company. They MUST appoint a Team
Principal for purposes of dealing with FIA and for taking important
decisions at the race (or, at least, to be held responsible to FIA for
decisions that are made).

Ross Brawn is TP at AMG Mercedes, but isn't the head honcho or the
owner or majority share holder. Same with Eric Boullier at Lotus.
Martin Whitmarsh has a boss within the McLaren group (Ron Dennis).
There are two co-chairmen and a CEO at Caterham, and the team
principle is none of those people (that information is available on
the team's web site).

The Team Principal has to go to the race. Sir Frank Williams is
nominal TP at Williams, but doesn't go to every race and so must
appoint a stand in at races he's not present at.

[Bobster]

On Apr 11, 11:15 pm, AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> >> Given that it's legal now, I don't understand why they don't just say
> >> "Seb - take it easy on the car and stay behind Mark.".  No chance of
> >> confusion.
>
> > Yeah. I've been wondering that. One report I read suggested that the
> > coded message is not given verbally but is displayed inside the
> > cockpit. So, and this is just my thinking, maybe because the two don't
> > trust each other and because of tight situations in the past they do
> > it electronically so that both of them get it at the same time and
> > there can be no making of excuses like "well I only heard it after
> > him."
>
> Ok, but then how can Vettel claim to have misunderstood?

Dunno. I'm just entering into conjecture about how the instruction may
be given and why the code is necessary. You'd think that drivers don't
just see some weird message on their displays and think "WTF", that
they'd been told beforehand that when you see THIS signal it means
THAT. However we know that both drivers, on different occasions, have
both claimed to have had a different idea of the what the signal meant
than Horner did.

>
>
>
> >> There are a lot of things that a team can do without falling foul of the
> >> contract...but you don't want that kind of unrest in the team.  Look at
> >> what happened in McLaren in 2007; no matter whose fault it was and who
> >> did what (no, Edmund, we don't need your historical perspective here)
> >> the in-fighting was very detrimental to the team, no matter _what_
> >> happened about the spygate stuff.
>
> > I can think of things they could do, but too much of it and the other
> > teams will start screaming blue murder about bringing the sport into
> > disrepute and then FIA will have to get involved.
>
> Right now, I still dont see why Horner cant suspend him. If he cant,
> then, as the subject suggests, Horner doesnt run the team.

Sure. But who says he does? We know that he makes certain decisions,
but as Webber negotiated with Mateschitz we know that Horner doesn't
make every decision. We don't know the exact bounds of his
responsibility, but we know that he doesn't have the same power that,
for example, Whitmarsh has at McLaren.

As I've said elsewhere in this thread, this may not be unusual.

>
>
>
> > Until this latest set of comments I thought that possibly there was a
> > way for Vettel to square the account and show that he is genuinely
> > sorry, and that was by gifting a win (has to be a win) to Webber. But
> > now I don't think that's very likely.
>
> LOL. The idea that Vettel would gift a win to say sorry is hysterical!!!

I suppose so. For me that was the one way that Vettel could ease his
conscience if it was troubled and he wanted to make amends. But recent
statements suggests that he doesn't want to make amends.

[larkim]

On Thursday, 11 April 2013 23:07:04 UTC+1, Zeppo Marx wrote:
> I am a contractor, working in different projects for different
> customers. If I would be such a crack in my business arena (which,
> unfortunately, I am not) and my customers would accept me dictating the
> rules of my engagement, I certainly would do it. Honestly: I would!
> Even if I do not endorse what SV is doing, I completely understand where
> he is coming from.

I think this might be the issue. If you are the reigning DWC, in a team which is the reigning WCC, and you are clearly the faster driver within your team, you are in a position of almost untouchable authority within your team. Your team simply cannot afford to do without you, and you have sufficient money that any token fine will not affect you materially.

Vettel has realised what a powerful position he is in AT THE MOMENT. What he might be forgetting is that if next year Newey can't design his way out of a crisp packet his power and strength will have gone, and the team will be able to crap all over him as much as they want.

Vettel's game is entirely understandable today, but the position it puts him in in the future is the one that might be heavily compromised.

Drivers that are difficult to manage are considered a risk by new teams, unless they are insanely quick in whichever car they are given (c.f. Alonso, Senna, perhaps Hamilton). Vettel, it seems to me, shines in a Newey-designed blown diffuser car. But put him in last year's Ferrari, and I suspect (conjecture) that he would not have reached Alonso's heights.

If I had the choice as a team boss who to recruit out of Vettel and Alonso, particularly if I wanted a disciplined driver, it would be Alonso every time, despite his flaws.

Matt

[~misfit~]

Somewhere on teh intarwebs Bobster wrote:
> On Apr 11, 1:52 pm, AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
[snips]
>> Sorry, what? Are you confusing Horner with the FIA?

> No. This a question for the people (like Eric Boullier) who want to
> see Vettel disciplined. What exactly is Horned supposed to do? And can
> he do it?

Absolutely nothing:

http://www.formula1.com/news/features/2013/4/14436.html

"He (SV) also said that he would almost certainly not have handed the lead
back in Sepang had he been instructed to by team principal Christian Horner.
"I would have thought about it and would probably have done the same thing
because Mark doesn't deserve that," he said trenchantly.
--
/Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)

[~misfit~]

Somewhere on teh intarwebs Bobster wrote:

> On Apr 11, 2:04 pm, Mark <mpco...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snips]

>> Given that it's legal now, I don't understand why they don't just say
>> "Seb - take it easy on the car and stay behind Mark.". No chance of
>> confusion.
>
> Yeah. I've been wondering that. One report I read suggested that the
> coded message is not given verbally but is displayed inside the
> cockpit.

I've thought about that too but wondered if there was a rule saying that,
during a race nothing in the car could be under direct (remote) control of
the pit crew?

Otherwise it's be easiest and best to just have a flashing LED on the wheel
when the team want drivers to hold position (not race each other). Have it
flash annoyingly brightly until an acknowledgement button is pressed, when
it would dim - that was my solution to it and keeping it off the radio. The
team would have 'proof' that the order was received by the button push.

[Bobster]

On Apr 13, 4:12 am, "~misfit~" <shaun.at.pukek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Bobster wrote:
>
> > On Apr 11, 1:52 pm, AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> [snips]
> >> Sorry, what? Are you confusing Horner with the FIA?
> > No. This a question for the people (like Eric Boullier) who want to
> > see Vettel disciplined. What exactly is Horned supposed to do? And can
> > he do it?
>
> Absolutely nothing:
>
> http://www.formula1.com/news/features/2013/4/14436.html
>
> "He (SV) also said that he would almost certainly not have handed the lead
> back in Sepang had he been instructed to by team principal Christian Horner.
> "I would have thought about it and would probably have done the same thing
> because Mark doesn't deserve that," he said trenchantly.

Errrmmmm.... what's this got to do with the price of eggs?

What happened and what's been said are matters of record. The matter
now is if Horner can discipline Vettel and how.

I'd also add that that I think the concern is mostly not about
Christian Horner and how difficult his job must be because he has two
drivers who, despite PR waffle, are not team players and do not trust
each other. No, it's about wanting to see Vettel publicly slapped down
because he's Vettel and folks don't like him. And if Horner won't
deliver us Vettel's head on a plate then he's weak, a whore etc.

The real interest, I'd think, is that RBR are clearly a team divided
with all the problems that can bring and every other team must be
licking their lips at the prospect and hoping that RBR will tear
itself apart.

[~misfit~]

Somewhere on teh intarwebs Zeppo Marx wrote:
[snips]

> Can you mention one, only single one occasion where MW really helped
> SV?

Canada 2010.

MW came out of the pits on fresh tyres in 5th place after leading the race
before his stop. Unfortuntaely he was behind SV who was nursing a sick
gearbox. MW was much faster and could have easilly passed SV but was told
not to as the team knew that SV wouldn't let him past easilly. The team knew
that SV would fight MW and destroy his gearbox in the process and get a DNF.

MW did as he was asked and stayed behind his team mate, losing any chance of
threatening the front three and consequently coming away with less points
than he might / could have got. SVs car was so crook that it was parked as
soon as he crossed the finish line. In light of today's situation you might
think this was nothing but that weekend MW was quicker than SV having
qualified ahead of him in second place (then getting demoted five places for
a gearbox change).

SV elected to keep his questionable g/box and start P2 while MW elected to
take the 5 place hit and race for the win - yet obeyed when asked not to
pass SV after the final stops. That showed commitent to the team when MW
himself was on fresh tyres, a new gearbox and was on a charge.

There ya go, the example you asked for. Also, that was right after the
infamous Turkey incident. Funny how folks only remember the bad stuff.....

[~misfit~]

+1

In fact if I were in such a position there are at least half-a-dozen current
drivers I'd pick over SV - and that's leaving aside my prejudice (as much as
one can).

[Bobster]

On Apr 13, 4:21 am, "~misfit~" <shaun.at.pukek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Bobster wrote:
>
> > On Apr 11, 2:04 pm, Mark <mpco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [snips]
> >> Given that it's legal now, I don't understand why they don't just say
> >> "Seb - take it easy on the car and stay behind Mark.". No chance of
> >> confusion.
>
> > Yeah. I've been wondering that. One report I read suggested that the
> > coded message is not given verbally but is displayed inside the
> > cockpit.
>
> I've thought about that too but wondered if there was a rule saying that,
> during a race nothing in the car could be under direct (remote) control of
> the pit crew?
>
> Otherwise it's be easiest and best to just have a flashing LED on the wheel
> when the team want drivers to hold position (not race each other). Have it
> flash annoyingly brightly until an acknowledgement button is pressed, when
> it would dim - that was my solution to it and keeping it off the radio. The
> team would have 'proof' that the order was received by the button push.

In 1993 Benetton had a system in their car that would warn the driver
if certain conditions occured inside one of the active systems, at
which point the driver was expected to slow down and bring the car to
the pits.

Patrese just had one of his mechanics put a piece of insulation tape
over the warning light.

That's how easily that sort of system would be defeated. Besides, if
they're both claiming to not understand the signal, then what's to
stop them "not understanding" that they're supposed to press some
button to acknowledge the little flashing light, especially if they're
going at it hammer and tongs and trying to drive a racing car at high
speed?

As for the legality, it'd be interesting to check. AIUI systems that
allow the pits to adjust things on the car are verboden. Which is why
the teams tell the drivers to select such and such a setting. For a
while there was this sort of remote set up feature, famously used by
McLaren one year at Monaco to change parameters on the management
system of DC's smoking engine. That's been legislated out of bounds,
but it's also easily enforced now by controlling the connections to
the SECU and the functionality of that device.

A system that tells a driver it's his birthday or that his horse in
the 3:15 won is NOT adjusting anything on the car, and I can't see why
it should be illegal.

Indeed, it would come in very handy, as I said, if there's a chance
that one driver is going to bellyache because he thinks he got told
about team orders before the other one. With the electronics you hit
the button and bingo! Both drivers get the order at the same time and
can start not understanding it at the same time.

[Bobster]

On Apr 11, 2:26 pm, Bobster <megap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 2:04 pm, Mark <mpco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > Bobster <megap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Talking generally, what's any team boss supposed to do? Should Frank
> > > Williams have fired Reutemann in 1981?
>
> > > As regards Horner, it seems to me his ability to control drivers is
> > > long gone, and it didn't disappear at Malaysia. Vettel is right...
> > > there's a history here and not all the black marks are in his column.
>
> > True.
>
> > > Interesting that both drivers claimed, on different occasions, to not
> > > understand a "multi..." order.

>
> > Given that it's legal now, I don't understand why they don't just say
> > "Seb - take it easy on the car and stay behind Mark.".  No chance of
> > confusion.
>
> Yeah. I've been wondering that. One report I read suggested that the
> coded message is not given verbally but is displayed inside the
> cockpit.

But it seems not.
Q: You’ve explained that you didn’t understand the ‘Multi 21’ message
over the team radio…
SV: The fact is that I heard that over the team radio but didn’t
connect it with the situation - whether you believe that or not. I was
doing my race and concentrating on winning - and have won. After the
race it dawned on me that I interpreted the team radio wrong - and I
have apologised.

http://www.formula1.com/news/interviews/2013/4/14434.html

[~misfit~]

I remember that. However it's my understanding that the light was triggered
locally - i.e. In-car. Also rules were different.

> That's how easily that sort of system would be defeated. Besides, if
> they're both claiming to not understand the signal, then what's to
> stop them "not understanding" that they're supposed to press some
> button to acknowledge the little flashing light, especially if they're
> going at it hammer and tongs and trying to drive a racing car at high
> speed?

Sure, just a suggestion that I thought might be better than the current
one - what with radio noise etc.

> As for the legality, it'd be interesting to check. AIUI systems that
> allow the pits to adjust things on the car are verboden. Which is why
> the teams tell the drivers to select such and such a setting. For a
> while there was this sort of remote set up feature, famously used by
> McLaren one year at Monaco to change parameters on the management
> system of DC's smoking engine. That's been legislated out of bounds,
> but it's also easily enforced now by controlling the connections to
> the SECU and the functionality of that device.
>
> A system that tells a driver it's his birthday or that his horse in
> the 3:15 won is NOT adjusting anything on the car, and I can't see why
> it should be illegal.

It's my understanding that they'd have to tell him those things via the
radio - that nothing in the car can be controlled remotely.... I've been
wrong before. <shrug>

> Indeed, it would come in very handy, as I said, if there's a chance
> that one driver is going to bellyache because he thinks he got told
> about team orders before the other one. With the electronics you hit
> the button and bingo! Both drivers get the order at the same time and
> can start not understanding it at the same time.

That was rather my point - better transparency amongst other benefits.

Cheers,

[~misfit~]

Somewhere on teh intarwebs Bobster wrote:
> On Apr 13, 4:12 am, "~misfit~" <shaun.at.pukek...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Bobster wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 11, 1:52 pm, AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>> [snips]
>>>> Sorry, what? Are you confusing Horner with the FIA?
>>> No. This a question for the people (like Eric Boullier) who want to
>>> see Vettel disciplined. What exactly is Horned supposed to do? And
>>> can he do it?
>>
>> Absolutely nothing:
>>
>> http://www.formula1.com/news/features/2013/4/14436.html
>>
>> "He (SV) also said that he would almost certainly not have handed
>> the lead back in Sepang had he been instructed to by team principal
>> Christian Horner. "I would have thought about it and would probably
>> have done the same thing because Mark doesn't deserve that," he said
>> trenchantly.
>
> Errrmmmm.... what's this got to do with the price of eggs?

This thead's about eggs now? <g>

My post and cited interview was concerning the subject matter m'lud and is,
I think relevant to 'who's the boss of RBR'.

Methinks the inmates are running the asylum.

> What happened and what's been said are matters of record. The matter
> now is if Horner can discipline Vettel and how.

Okay, probably start a new thread then? Yeah? ;)

Horner can't. Vettel knows / thinks he's more valuable (higher paid) to the
team than Horner so he's not going to be 'disciplined'. Seems to me that,
after his spurt of apologies he may have had a day or two feeling down.
Realising, or being told (Marko anyone?) that's not good for his head as a
racing driver he's decided that from now on he's not going to apologise or
mince words. Au contraire, he's going on the offensive (LOL, being himself)
and boosting himself up by being deliberately agressive.

All IMO and speculation above, of course.

> I'd also add that that I think the concern is mostly not about
> Christian Horner and how difficult his job must be because he has two
> drivers who, despite PR waffle, are not team players and do not trust
> each other. No, it's about wanting to see Vettel publicly slapped down
> because he's Vettel and folks don't like him. And if Horner won't
> deliver us Vettel's head on a plate then he's weak, a whore etc.

OK. I sometimes express what I think is motivating others too.

I'm content to let things lie personally (as you were talking about what
'people', likely people in this group as much as any, want). Vettel has
hoisted the Jolly Roger, shown that he'll 'take no prisoners' and there's
nothing much that anyone can do about it (other than DM - who's doesn't get
involved within the team anyway).

Some people will think 'what a wanker' and hope that it comes back to bite
him. Others will think 'good for him, a driver needs to be ruthless'. He
seems to care what the public think of him and frankly I expected this
volte-face after he subjugated himself in front of anyone who would listen a
couple of weeks ago. That wasn't a good look, made him seem even more slimy.
Image rebuilding then became a priority and really this was his best option.
Hope that his (hopefully) perceived strength now erases his apparent
wamkerishness he displayed at and immediately after the last race.

> The real interest, I'd think, is that RBR are clearly a team divided
> with all the problems that can bring and every other team must be
> licking their lips at the prospect and hoping that RBR will tear
> itself apart.

It won't. MW is a pragmatists, as is CH. It's obvious to the world now what
was obvious to informed F1 followers two years ago - RBR is a team of
factions.

IMO that's a result of DM employing friends (Helmut Marko, Mark Webber) who
are almost polar opposites - at least in their aims. HM is solely focused on
SV, MW would have liked a shot at WDC but I think realises that's not an
option with RBR now and CH is basically left to not only run the team (as a
whole) but also to be a PR man, thinking on his feet.

I think that, if anything, RBR will be stronger for everyone having put
their cards on the table. I expect MW to race for himself (but not put the
team as a whole in jeopardy - as in when he pulled out of the fight last
race). Heck! He might even surprise most people and defer to SV if it's
needed later in the season. It's my opinion that he's done some meditating
and has come to (mostly) accept the realities of the team politics. If he
*does* defer to SV though it'll be out of respect to DM and CH (don't forget
that, outside of F1 MW and CH co-own MW Arden), certainly not SV himself.

[Bobster]

On Apr 14, 3:58 am, "~misfit~" <shaun.at.pukek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Bobster wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 13, 4:12 am, "~misfit~" <shaun.at.pukek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Bobster wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 11, 1:52 pm, AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> >> [snips]
> >>>> Sorry, what? Are you confusing Horner with the FIA?
> >>> No. This a question for the people (like Eric Boullier) who want to
> >>> see Vettel disciplined. What exactly is Horned supposed to do? And
> >>> can he do it?
>
> >> Absolutely nothing:
>
> >>http://www.formula1.com/news/features/2013/4/14436.html
>
> >> "He (SV) also said that he would almost certainly not have handed
> >> the lead back in Sepang had he been instructed to by team principal
> >> Christian Horner. "I would have thought about it and would probably
> >> have done the same thing because Mark doesn't deserve that," he said
> >> trenchantly.
>
> > Errrmmmm.... what's this got to do with the price of eggs?
>
> This thead's about eggs now? <g>
>
> My post and cited interview was concerning the subject matter m'lud and is,
> I think relevant to 'who's the boss of RBR'.

The question that you were posting in answer to was "what should
Horner have done" not "what would Vettel have done".

>
> Methinks the inmates are running the asylum.
>
> > What happened and what's been said are matters of record. The matter
> > now is if Horner can discipline Vettel and how.
>
> Okay, probably start a new thread then? Yeah? ;)
>
> Horner can't. Vettel knows / thinks he's more valuable (higher paid) to the
> team than Horner so he's not going to be 'disciplined'. Seems to me that,
> after his spurt of apologies he may have had a day or two feeling down.
> Realising, or being told (Marko anyone?) that's not good for his head as a
> racing driver he's decided that from now on he's not going to apologise or
> mince words. Au contraire, he's going on the offensive (LOL, being himself)
> and boosting himself up by being deliberately agressive.

OK. Usual mind-reading bollocks. No point in trying to have a
discussion.

[~misfit~]

Somewhere on teh intarwebs Bobster wrote:
> On Apr 14, 3:58 am, "~misfit~" <shaun.at.pukek...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Bobster wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 13, 4:12 am, "~misfit~" <shaun.at.pukek...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Bobster wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 11, 1:52 pm, AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>>>> [snips]
>>>>>> Sorry, what? Are you confusing Horner with the FIA?
>>>>> No. This a question for the people (like Eric Boullier) who want
>>>>> to see Vettel disciplined. What exactly is Horned supposed to do?
>>>>> And can he do it?
>>
>>>> Absolutely nothing:
>>
>>>> http://www.formula1.com/news/features/2013/4/14436.html
>>
>>>> "He (SV) also said that he would almost certainly not have handed
>>>> the lead back in Sepang had he been instructed to by team principal
>>>> Christian Horner. "I would have thought about it and would probably
>>>> have done the same thing because Mark doesn't deserve that," he
>>>> said trenchantly.
>>
>>> Errrmmmm.... what's this got to do with the price of eggs?
>>
>> This thead's about eggs now? <g>
>>
>> My post and cited interview was concerning the subject matter m'lud
>> and is, I think relevant to 'who's the boss of RBR'.
> The question that you were posting in answer to was "what should
> Horner have done" not "what would Vettel have done".

So you're upset because I steered the thread back towards it's subject?

I'll keep this brief 'cause I know a person who loves talking and twisting
things so subtly that, unless you *really* keep track of what's said she
'wins' - and that's all she cares about.

My reply to *your* question was an attempt to point out that, with Vettel's
demonstrated current mindset there's jack shit that CH *can* do.

Got it? Or do you want to get more twisty?

>> Methinks the inmates are running the asylum.
>>
>>> What happened and what's been said are matters of record. The matter
>>> now is if Horner can discipline Vettel and how.
>>
>> Okay, probably start a new thread then? Yeah? ;)
>>
>> Horner can't. Vettel knows / thinks he's more valuable (higher paid)
>> to the team than Horner so he's not going to be 'disciplined'. Seems
>> to me that, after his spurt of apologies he may have had a day or
>> two feeling down. Realising, or being told (Marko anyone?) that's
>> not good for his head as a racing driver he's decided that from now
>> on he's not going to apologise or mince words. Au contraire, he's
>> going on the offensive (LOL, being himself) and boosting himself up
>> by being deliberately agressive.
>
> OK. Usual mind-reading bollocks. No point in trying to have a
> discussion.

LOL! Reminds me of a night drinking with some folks and this one 'real man'
in a conversation across the room spat the dummy. I didn't get the first bit
but, after he raised his voice (to a woman) everyone got the end of it.

He said something like "Why do you keep talking such fucking nonsense? It's
all I ever hear from women and I'm sick of it. 'How do you feel about this?'
'How do you feel about that?' Who gives a shit about how people feel! You
wanna know how I feel? I feel with my fucking hands - like this..." He
proceeded to grab her nether regions and a couple of other guys decked him
and threw him out.

This isn't the first time reading one of your posts has reminded me of that
night.