British Grand Prix 2011

[mikedc73]

It seems Webber was asked 4 or 5 times to stop trying to pass Vettel, and ignored all of the radio calls right up to the last half of the last lap.

Where is this info from?

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/93001

The Australian said he had received "probably four or five" messages from the team asking him not to attack Vettel, but declined to follow them.

Thanks

[mikedc73]

Im surprised theres nothing against Lewis... he did seem to lunge into Massa as felipe went round the outside... thats just my unbiased opinion.

In my opinion it was just a racing incident.

The same said Stefano Domenicali.

Yeah. Racing incident.

[iceman1]

Thanks Kevin for the pics

- Ferrai 216th win on the 60th anniversary of their first WC-qualifying F1 win in 1951.
- Ferrari's first win this season and their first since Korea 2010.
- Alonso's win marked the 475th time a ferrari driver has finished on a f1 Grand prix podium.
- Alonso scored is 27th GP to equal Jackie stewart's career total.
- Vettel equalled Alonso's 2006 record of finishing the first 9 races on a F1 season either 1st or 2nd.
- Mark webber finished the british GP on the podium for the 3rd year in a row.

[geewhiz14]

Photo of the Day (featuring Christian Horner and Mark Webber) + Haiku no. 17: Red Bull and The Art of Paraphrasing.
http://wp.me/p10DmM-d0

[cformula1]

Nice pics from this weekend Kevin

Hamilton v Massa was a racing incident, and it was great to watch too.

Red Bull team orders are a disgrace, and they should be fined.

[tderias]

Nice pics from this weekend Kevin

Hamilton v Massa was a racing incident, and it was great to watch too.

Red Bull team orders are a disgrace, and they should be fined.

Uhm team orders are allowed?

And I love how people use the term racing incident as a 'get-out-of-jail free card'. It seems that whenever there's some incident they want to ignore and hope it goes by unnoticed, they slap the term 'racing incident'. What on earth does it mean??? Aren't all drivers out there racing? And doesnt that make every incident a 'racing incident'?

I'm not saying Lewis was in the wrong with Massa at the end, I'm just talking about the term 'racing incident' in general, and the fact that everyone loves to use it when their favourite driver is involved.

[mikhailv]

See some compare it to germany last year, when its two completly different situations.

I agree with team orders. If one driver has a much better chance of winning the world championship, I agree with switching the cars around. In last years case, Alonso was 47 points behind, massa was what, 90+? It was the right decision, it enabled him to fight for the world championship. Alonso took 4 further, dominant wins whereas his teammate was nowhere.

However, redbull is a totally different ball game. It was akin to the stupidity of Austria 2002. Schumacher/Vettel has such a massive lead that team orders were not needed. If your behind, and you know you have a chance to win the championship, you do it. if your leading by the skin of your teeth, you will use team orders. EVERY SINGLE TEAM has used team orders to benefit one driver in their push to the world championship.

But there needs to be a specific ruling regarding it. Vettel right now is 80 points ahead of webber, who is only 10 points ahead of fernando. If redbull used their brains and let webber overtake, vettel would have 77 points over webber, but webber would have 13 points over fernando. Do they want a championship 1-2? No, they just want vettel to win. We saw last year how what, 3 points lost mark 2nd in the championship.

Redbull were wrong yesterday, they could have strengthened their grip on a 1-2 in the drivers championship. Instead they are happier to sacrifice mark webber, which is wrong.

[Omegablue]

Well last year Ferrari was massacred cause of team orders, unlike Red Bull whom most of the big critics have let slide.
As for Austria 2002, is no diffirent to the above two incidents. The driver in the best position for the world title was given/kept in the lead.

[mikhailv]

Well last year Ferrari was massacred cause of team orders, unlike Red Bull whom most of the big critics have let slide.
As for Austria 2002, is no diffirent to the above two incidents. The driver in the best position for the world title was given/kept in the lead.

there is a CLEAR difference between the two incidents.

Team orders to catch up or if your leading by the skin of your teeth is understandable. But if your 77 points ahead, you should not be allowed to benefit from team orders. infact, in my opinion, if you have a race in hand IE 25 point lead, you are not allowed to benefit from team orders. If you a more than 50 points away from the lead in the championship, you should not be allowed to use team orders either.

That way, you can use team orders, but not stupidly. If youve got 2 drivers within the 50 points IE Jenson or Lewis, and you have to make the choice to choose which one will give up their position, will make it very interesting. Ive youve got a race in hand, then I dont believe you should benefit from team orders no matter what driver you are.

[Eric_Cartman]

Well last year Ferrari was massacred cause of team orders, unlike Red Bull whom most of the big critics have let slide.
As for Austria 2002, is no diffirent to the above two incidents. The driver in the best position for the world title was given/kept in the lead.

there is a CLEAR difference between the two incidents.

Team orders to catch up or if your leading by the skin of your teeth is understandable. But if your 77 points ahead, you should not be allowed to benefit from team orders. infact, in my opinion, if you have a race in hand IE 25 point lead, you are not allowed to benefit from team orders. If you a more than 50 points away from the lead in the championship, you should not be allowed to use team orders either.

That way, you can use team orders, but not stupidly. If youve got 2 drivers within the 50 points IE Jenson or Lewis, and you have to make the choice to choose which one will give up their position, will make it very interesting. Ive youve got a race in hand, then I dont believe you should benefit from team orders no matter what driver you are.

the team order yesterday had absolutely nothing to do with Austria 2002 and Hockenheim 2010. Those two team orders were arranged because of the championship. Yesterday Red Bull just wanted to secure P2 and P3 and they have the right to that considering the Istanbul incident in 2010. Why should they put 33 points on the line in the last 3 laps? Every other team would do the same in that situation. Just look at Mclaren in Istanbul 2010

You could only compare those team orders if Vettel had been 3rd and the team said to Mark to let him pass...

[JoostLamers]

Hamilton v Massa was a racing incident, and it was great to watch too.

That fight will surely make it into the highlights clips of the 2011 season.

[Eric_Cartman]

it's the third time that Massa had such a beautiful fight in the last lap after Montreal 2011 and Fuji 2007. He seems to like those situations.

[iceman1]

I talked to Perez on the phone. He was really happy

[Omegablue]

Well last year Ferrari was massacred cause of team orders, unlike Red Bull whom most of the big critics have let slide.
As for Austria 2002, is no diffirent to the above two incidents. The driver in the best position for the world title was given/kept in the lead.

there is a CLEAR difference between the two incidents.

Team orders to catch up or if your leading by the skin of your teeth is understandable. But if your 77 points ahead, you should not be allowed to benefit from team orders. infact, in my opinion, if you have a race in hand IE 25 point lead, you are not allowed to benefit from team orders. If you a more than 50 points away from the lead in the championship, you should not be allowed to use team orders either.

That way, you can use team orders, but not stupidly. If youve got 2 drivers within the 50 points IE Jenson or Lewis, and you have to make the choice to choose which one will give up their position, will make it very interesting. Ive youve got a race in hand, then I dont believe you should benefit from team orders no matter what driver you are.

the team order yesterday had absolutely nothing to do with Austria 2002 and Hockenheim 2010. Those two team orders were arranged because of the championship. Yesterday Red Bull just wanted to secure P2 and P3 and they have the right to that considering the Istanbul incident in 2010. Why should they put 33 points on the line in the last 3 laps? Every other team would do the same in that situation. Just look at Mclaren in Istanbul 2010

You could only compare those team orders if Vettel had been 3rd and the team said to Mark to let him pass...

Well the same could be said that Ferrari last year didn't want to risk both cars challenging each other till the very end.

Put aside all the maths, at the end the team still favoured the one leading the championship with team orders.
It's all the same thing.

[alex1369]

I talked to Perez on the phone. He was really happy

Are you his manager/friend????