Sebastian Vettel, Ferrari, Bahrain International Circuit, 2015

Vettel expects equal treatment for Raikkonen

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

Sebastian Vettel, Ferrari, Bahrain International Circuit, 2015In the round-up: Sebastian Vettel says Ferrari should bring an example of each of their upgrades for both their drivers at least until only one of them is able to win the championship.

Links

Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.

Vettel not expecting priority Ferrari status (Crash)

"If you make a new part, you do it two times at least, that's the way it has to be. I think if you're racing for the championship and at some point later in the season it is clear that only one car is racing for the championship, then it is clear what you have to do."

Ferrari denies academy under threat (Autosport)

"Recent rumours suggested Ferrari was poised to pull the plug on the academy, but team boss Maurizio Arrivabene described this suggestion as 'bullshit'."

Coulthard: Vettel was right to rant; Ramirez: Vettel should apologise (Motorsport)

"The words of Vettel about Pirelli were very harsh, but then Pirelli’s spokesman said he did not blame him – said he could say what he wanted – but if I was the chief (of Pirelli) I’d say to Mr. Vettel that he’d have to offer an apology for his words after the race."

New doors opening in F1 (F1i)

Kevin Magnussen: "I hope that if everything for some reason falls through and I don’t get a Formula One drive, then I would wish to go and do something else like Le Mans or DTM or IndyCar, but I’m not focused on it right now."

Hulkenberg's busy visit to the WEC paddock (WEC)

"The (Le Mans-winning) Porsche, nicknamed ‘Heidi’, was on display in the Nurburgring’s Ring Boulevard, in exactly the same state it finished the 24-hour race in June."

Tweets

Then and now, Father and son, JB and JB….

A photo posted by Jenson Button (@jenson_ichiban) on

Comment of the day

Kevin Magnussen, McLaren, Albert Park, 2015With lots of pressure on McLaren’s driver line-up, something’s got to give, and it could be Kevin Magnussen:

Magnussen seems to be a in very unenviable position. There’s Alonso, who’s obviously staying. Button is good enough to stay. Vandoorne is far, far too good to not have a race seat somewhere next year and I think McLaren would pick him ahead of Magnussen.

And the midfield teams, once a haven for drivers ditched from top teams, can’t afford to take drivers without a big pile of money.

I would love to see him given another shot and I think he deserves it, but I can’t honestly see it happening.
Neil (@Neilosjames)

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Mg and Galzo33!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

On this day five years ago the organisers of the first ever South Korean Grand Prix announced their track was “90% complete”. Unfortunately the venue was not exactly 100% complete when the F1 teams arrived there a few weeks later:

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

Posted on Categories F1 Fanatic round-upTags

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 44 comments on “Vettel expects equal treatment for Raikkonen”

    1. Hard to believe that a driver who finished 2nd on his Grand Prix debut would likely race for just one year in F1. Hate to say it, but COTD is almost certainly right.

      1. @jackysteeg I think everyone, including McLaren would concede that was a lucky accident, what with the technical failures (Hamilton), disqualifications (Ricciardo), Magnussen’s over-steer moment on the way down to turn one and (by their admittance) McLaren’s adept handling of the ERS systems compared to their rivals.

        1. @optimaximal I suppose so. Hamilton’s debut podium was only the blossoming of a wonderful season. Magnussen’s was easily the peak of his, and otherwise KM was in the shade of Button.

        2. I have to agree that Magnussen’s podium in Australia owed a lot to good fortune at a venue that has had a habit of throwing up unusual results – anybody remember Vitaly Petrov being on the podium there in 2011 for example?

          The problem is, that event created an expectation of performance that he failed to live up to over the rest of the year (that one race accounted for a third of his overall points total in 2014).

          Whilst Button finished quite regularly within the top six and came close on a few occasions to taking another podium (such as in the British GP), Magnussen rarely beat Button in the races, only made it into the top six again on one other occasion (in Russia, and even there he was still comprehensively beaten by Button) and was routinely criticised for his behaviour on track by the other drivers (the GPDA sent a formal complaint to Charlie Whiting about his behaviour). Even in qualifying trim Magnussen ended the season slightly behind Button, and that is an area where Button is acknowledged to be slightly weak compared to his rivals.

          It’s not to say that Magnussen couldn’t compete again in F1 and prove to be more competitive, but overall his performance in his first season was relatively average.

      2. That was a shooting star I think, after that he collided on the opening laps for like 5 races in a row and wasn’t any special for the rest of the season was he. I don’t see him in F1 but who knows!

      3. Kmag suffered badly from lack of experience IMO, and the overblown expectations from McLaren trying to make out they hadn’t really lost anything in Hamilton leaving.

        It was unfortunate that JB had been so thoroughly blown away the previous year so that the benchmark was regarded as low, while at the same time Jenson is pretty quick.

        I think Mac liked Magnussen, and rated him ‘decent’, at least enough to take him with sponsorship. He didn’t help himself when he got his chance again in Oz this year and binned it in FP. So I fear the ‘other interest’ is just that he’s one of the ten Haas has talked to.

    2. Vettel must have changed his views over the years. When he was at Red Bull he was quite happy to take Webber’s front wing when he damaged his own.

      1. That’s because it was Webber. No one really cared about Webber.

        1. That’s a very unpolite and untrue thing to say…

      2. Amazing how people seem to constantly forget it was Webber who didn´t like his front-wing and took it off in the first place, going back to old-spec. It was in the garage when Vettel damaged his new wing, and he took the one which was in the garage. Only after Vettel than was faster than Webber in FP3, Webber wanted that front wing, while there was no practice time anymore to adjust his cars balance to the new or Vettels car to the old wing. Probably making that media-spin out of it was Webbers whole purpose.

      3. Firstly Vettel did not damage his own wing, the mounting failed which is nothing to do with the driver.

        When the drivers left the garage after P3 the team intended not to run the new wing on either car in qualifying because they were concerned about cracks they had discovered. Adrian Newey though was keen to run the new wing and this was a surprise to both drivers when they returned to the garage for qualifying as they had not been informed of the change in plan.

        The team, not the drivers, decided whether to run their last remaining new wing or not and which driver got it, they did say they took in to account the drivers preference or not for the new wing. Webber said himself (although he left it until around the middle of the week after the race so it wasn’t widely reported) that it wasn’t Vettel he was angry with as he knew it was nothing to do with him.

        I have also read that Vettel did question the decision but was told to do get in the car for qualifying and they would discuss it later. This was the teams big mistake in not involving the drivers in the decision or at least explaining their reasoning to them.

      4. I think Dan can explain it all much better than I can. Here:
        Asked what is the main thing he’s learned from Vettel in 2014, Ricciardo said: “The way he brings the people that work with him close to him. Basically the way he demands and gets what he wants. We’re always never happy with our cars; we always want something better from it and I think the way he approaches that. He’s quite ruthless but also quite fair at the same time. He’s got a good balance of being serious and looking the team in the eye and saying ‘I need this’, but I think at the same time he earns their respect by acting that way. He doesn’t rest, he’s not going to be happy being behind. I think the way he goes about it is pretty good.”
        AND in an interview he said Vettel is the best team mate he’s had and respects him: “I could feel it was pretty genuine. He was happy for me, I got along with him pretty well. I know all the Mark Webber fans probably were hoping for me to say something else.”
        Hahaha :D

      5. I find that statement very hard to believe. When the going gets tough, Vettel wants the team behind Vettel.

        1. Would agree.

          When there is no shot at the championship, Vettel will play perfect team mate and be all smiles and talk about equality and what not. If he was fighting for the championship, with his teammate as his arch rival, then he will do anything and everything to get that preferential treatment.

          1. I am amazed there are people on the Internet who think they know “anything” about the people they follow on TV and the Internet :D

            1. agreed. But Todfod certainly must be the exception – knowing EXACTLY what’s in SV’s head.

          2. @todfod

            then he will do anything and everything to get that preferential treatment

            Except trying to blackmail the team director (and fail miserably at it basically ruining his chances of a couple of wdc’s). That’s still the exclusive trademark of another driver :-)

    3. Vettel needs to apologize to no one at Pirelli

      1. Pirelli have already forgiven him for his outburst. I’m sure he has learned his lesson.

        Maybe he’ll take a page out of Hamilton’s book and just give reporters the cold shoulder or one line answers when they try to bait him into saying something provocative or controversial.

        1. Vettel doesn’t require any ‘forgiveness’. And @sudd, you’re sure he’s ‘learned his lesson’ are you? What a joke

        2. The modern media is full of vultures that will spin “I had cornflakes for breakfast” against someone if they think it’ll sell papers. Quite frankly, Vettel (and the other drivers) should speak their mind and not care what nonsense the media twists it into.

    4. KMag needs to race somewhere and win, I think we see with Hulkenberg he’s been outscored by Perez in more GPs (ok, overall it’s only 1 point though) but this year will be more known for the fact Nico won in LMP1.

    5. Longtime McLaren team co-ordinator Ramirez (now retired) told Motorsport.com that he thinks Vettel should apologise to Pirelli for his post-race rant, and that it was all Ferrari’s fault for gambling on a one-stop strategy.

      Misinformed people often sprout terrible opinions and then are often stubborn enough to see they are wrong when evidence is show.

    6. Tires fail all the time in motorsports. Its always happened in F1.

      Some of you might find this read interesting:

      http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2008/oct/29/formula-one-motor-sport-mansell-1986

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIX-JmmmonY

    7. Ramirez seems to be incredibly misinformed on three accounts. First, the exact reasons Vettel was so angry (the 40 laps-life estimate), the circumstances the tyre failed under (not enough degradation) and third, the fact that Pirelli is in no position to demand an apology from anyone.

      1. To be honest, I don’t fully agree with Coulthard, and the drivers might be frustrated, but that frustration shouldn’t firstly go to Pirelli, but to the FIA, as it is the principle of what they want the tires to be that is the main source of frustration.

        Pirelli do seem to have problems implementing that fully well though, and you are right that Ramirez didn’t seem all too informed in what was quoted; Pirelli seemed to be in defensive PR mode, and not quite on top of things after Spa, and if the answer is ‘wear’, then the how and why needs to be explained to the teams differently than it seemingly has been so far.

        But, tires can fail, and Spa is a harsh track, while Pirelli has very little room for testing that their tires are up to everything. I agree with what Will Buxton wrote on that earlier this week: that’s for the FIA to check, and then decide whether their current rules are adequate; maybe tires made to not last are inherently risky after all, when coupled with too little testing, and perhaps track limits should be enforced – that’s not Pirelli’s fault.

        1. @bosyber While I agree that the FIA’s tyre testing rules are terrible, that doesn’t excuse Pirelli in Spa. If you can’t test your tyres, you spend a lot more in simulation models and are more conservative with your estimates. I don’t expect Pirelli to know everything, but tyres failing by explosion twice on a single weekend, one with 12 laps less than the estimate, is terrible.

          Of course, everything would be better if we had decent tyres and appropiate test times.

          1. A good point, and one I agree with, but I feel I have to point out that even the best simulator in the world can’t get everything right. Devil’s avocado and all that ;)

            1. @raceprouk Absolutely true. That’s why engineers work with generous safety and error margins to make sure their estimates are reliable.

      2. I´m not sure wether it´s about Ramirez being misinformed or just a bit out of time. After all, for the most part of his career Tyres failing was a normal and acceptable thing, and the question of pitting for new tyres or not was more about gambling/playing it safe with the risk of a tyre failing rather than the tyre getting that much slower with age.

      3. I’d have more sympathy for Vettel if I hadn’t watched him slam his right tires across the curbs on the left-hand side of Radillon right before his tire exploded.

        If you’re trying for a long stint on tires, you don’t abuse them… Something Vettel has frequently had problems with.

    8. Well, I do think it is good Vettel makes clear he doesn’t want preferential treatment – Kimi freshly re-signed, in the expectation of all parties that the future should be brighter. Vettel is right that this season neither Ferrari is really in contention, and he’s there to build the team to where they are, and that’s where all their efforts should go.

      No doubt he will believe that when they are there, he’s still faster than Kimi (and kimi might think himself the faster one …), but that’s not relevant yet. Good team building, well done.

      1. And just like that, Ferrari becomes Vettel’s team. I don’t mean that Ferrari will favor him over Kimi, just that he will become the face of the brand/team.

        Kimi has been at Ferrari how long? Some would argue that he looks like the one that just joined the outfit. And he can’t use the argument that his results do the talking because he has no interest in playing politics. The problem with that is his results just aren’t there. At best inconsistent. Vettel’s trajectory is going to be like Hamilton’s. Next year he will have even more presence in the team and dominance over Kimi.

    9. Speaking of Ferrari upgrades, I’m very curious (and hopeful) about the PU improvements for Monza. Last time they brought some (was it Canada?) they weren’t particularly impressive.

      Though I’ve been impresses this year by the abbility to get good performances even when the tracks seem to be terrible for the car. Silverstone with a great pot-stop and wet drive and Spa with the unorthodox strategy and great defending with old tyres.

      1. +1 Their strategies and driver are working very well.

    10. These tyres were introduced as designed to degrade with performance falling off a cliff to create large
      relative speed in cars for overtaking. Hence when Kimi pushed it to far in China in one of the first races, he
      dropped about 7 places in a couple of laps.

      That is what was intended, asked for and designed in. The rubber compound used was supposed vary in composition with depth such that deeper rubber had less grip. But it was and is still supposed to stay attached to both the upper layers and the inner wall whatever Hembery says as PR….

      In spa Vettel pushed it too far, and rather than falling off a performance cliff he ran a risk of being killed
      by the tyres delaminating before there was any performance drop. Further, these delaminations are really dangerous to others, and not just the occupant — last time in Silverstone there were pointers to youtube to someone in a convertible having been decapitated by a truck tyre delimitation on the freeway.

      In a week where open cockpits are being discussed we should think about what would have happened to Grosjean if he got a 200MPH sheath of rubber wrapping round his helmet in addition to the obvious danger to vettel.

      Grip level falling off cliff != russian roulette

      1. So how do you suppose we fix this ?

        1. Don’t insist on designing the tyres to be multi-layered to enhance the show.
          distinct layers have a tendency to separate. Bring back tyres that can last and open
          up the teams to choosing the best part (i.e. tyre) for their car. Require that ALL tyres
          be available at reasonable cost to all teams to prevent a bridgestone/michelin/pirelli/ whoever lockout on the best tyres.
          On the “show” front — go for floor driven down force, minimise wings and the rest will take care of itself.

    11. I think its nice to have articles about what drivers do between races. Give us some insight of drivers in their real life. But why its always about Button and Lewis? What about Will Stevens?

      1. They probably want to keep that private. Some have small children. Others don’t want to get judged by fans. Some are just boring or don’t have international appeal so they get most coverage in their home countries.

      2. @ruliemaulana, to be fair today Hulkenberg is being mentioned (visiting his WEC team), some day ago it was Max Verstappen playing some racing game and prepping for SPA/Monza. Other times its Danny Ric etc. Not all drivers are on twitter/facebook, so the one’s who are, are being featured more regularly.

        1. You were right about Hulk & Max, both news are refreshing. I just like to have more of it from other drivers.

    12. Vettel could’ve also put some pressure in Ferrari to keep Raikonen.It is the safe thing for him because there is a possibility that Bottas will do another Ricardo.

    Comments are closed.