Sebastian Vettel's decision to ignore his boss's orders during the Malaysian Grand Prix may have more obscure repercussions than just a disappointed team, argues Dieter Rencken
Although the sporting and intra-team ramifications of Sebastian Vettel's decision to race for his own account on Sunday in Malaysia run indelibly deep, Red Bull has been equally wounded at the political level, for rival team bosses have had their suspicions confirmed that no single person calls the shots save, perhaps, for Red Bull founder Dietrich Mateschitz.
Red Bull has long been a political thorn in the side of Formula 1, having been the first team to publicly break ranks over the Resource Restriction Agreement...
Horner is close to Ecclestone as evidenced by the fact that he was F1's sole representative at the F1 tsar's wedding last August and team bosses long suspected that he fed the sport's promoter with inside information from FOTA and team principal meetings.
In fact, at one point team bosses colluded in taking 'dummy' decisions simply to create smokescreens, then sat back and waited for the inevitable reaction.
If Horner was, indeed, FOTA's so-called 'mole', it served RBR well: apart from being offered said preferential terms, when Ecclestone in October flew a kite about budget caps, the figure proposed was $250m a year, excluding marketing costs virtually to the penny RBR's spend during the previous season.
It cannot be coincidental, either, that Red Bull is one of F1's biggest marketers.
All this led rival team bosses to make increasingly snide comments about Red Bull's management, with some referring to Horner as 'Mini Bernie'. Game-playing was very much in evidence: for example, in Malaysia a group of team principals met in full view of RBR's hospitality in the belief that they would be spotted and the absent Ecclestone informed.
According to one it took all of two minutes before Horner was seen on the telephone. "He could, of course, have been calling home" said one with a wink.
... Horner's unpopularity set new standards, for not even former Ferrari boss Jean Todt's hit such lows during the Scuderia's early noughties hegemony...
Yes, the Frenchman was oft derided, but respect, albeit at times grudging, was omnipresent and, above all, Todt managed to keep Ferrari's drivers in check through thick and thin. Therein lies the rub: respect, or rather lack thereof, whether for Red Bull's management, or the team as a whole.
The paddock has long wondered who called the shots at RBR, whether Horner, Dr Helmut Marko (the Austrian jurist/former F1 driver appointed by Mateschitz as Red Bull's motor racing consultant), Newey, or indeed Mateschitz himself. Since Sunday a further name has been added to the list: Sebastian Vettel. In other operations there remains little doubt as to exactly who is boss.
Here Red Bull has only itself to blame, for its actions suggest that within the team overall responsibility is an elastic term. During Max Mosley's reign as FIA president he and Mateschitz went snowboarding, framing the takeover of Minardi (Toro Rosso). Vettel regularly plays backgammon against Ecclestone, who is known to be extremely fond of Sebastian, and certainly came out in his favour in The Sun.
"I don't think [Vettel] undermined Christian's authority at all because Christian knows exactly what should have happened and didn't happen," Ecclestone is quoted as saying. "Put yourself in Christian's position what should he now do? Did he give orders in the first place and, if he did, how could he then give more orders?
Yet, as outlined above, Horner enjoys the closest of relationships with Ecclestone
Apart from Turkey 2010, they had run-ins at Silverstone that year, in Brazil last year (Webber's jostling almost cost Vettel his third title) and again last weekend at Sepang. On Sunday, in a post-race statement, Red Bull said: "It's worth noting that this is not an entirely new situation for us. Each incident has been managed in our own way behind closed doors and this will be no different."
However, Sunday's evidence suggests that the Red Bull 'way' is simply not working which points to a team that operates well when able to call the shots, yet less so when its authority is questioned. Consider Horner's comment when questioned as to why he had not repeated the team instruction for a 'Multi 21' finish in favour of Webber
"Do you honestly think that if we had told him 'slow down and give the place back', he would have given it back? There was no point. He had made it quite clear what his intention was by making the move. He knew what the communication was. He had had the communication. He chose to ignore it."
Which neatly introduces the political angle. With Red Bull's authority clearly in decline and Concorde Agreement negotiations in full swing the weekend in Malaysia saw numerous talks between teams, including a teleconference between finance officers and further budget-cap discussions in the offing, team bosses are relishing the prospect of exploiting the obvious dissention within Red Bull's ranks, between team and driver, between team and commercial rights holder.
"After all," said one, "if the team boss cannot keep his 25-year-old driver in check, why should we take him seriously?" Asked another: "Who is actually the boss?"
Vettel's selfish actions on Sunday may have damaged a lot more than merely his relationship with the team, and for that alone he should be sanctioned beyond a mere talking to.
Read more:
http://www.markwebberforum.com/index.cgi?action=recent#ixzz2P6FEo0k0
