Ugliest team order move I have ever seen

[paulcrazy]

FIA must do something to Brawn GP if they had put an investiagtion on McLaren in Monaco 2007. This time is even worse, ugliest team order move I have ever seen, even worse than those old Ferrari's team orders, and sadly RB is involved... again.

[Daniel]

Huh?

[MrJan]

eh? Just look like Rubens dropped the ball from where I'm sitting. He couldn't put in the pace required and subsequently lost out.

[Dave B]

FIA must do something to Brawn GP if they had put an investiagtion on McLaren in Monaco 2007. This time is even worse, ugliest team order move I have ever seen, even worse than those old Ferrari's team orders, and sadly RB is involved... again.
If they'd asked Rubens to throw the race or switched him to a compromised strategy, then I'd agree. But it was Button who made the switch, took the risk, and reaped the reward.

[Daniel]

Rubens himself admitted that there was something wrong.

[VkmSpouge]

FIA must do something to Brawn GP if they had put an investiagtion on McLaren in Monaco 2007. This time is even worse, ugliest team order move I have ever seen, even worse than those old Ferrari's team orders, and sadly RB is involved... again.

Well first the three stop strategy was apparently the best one for Brawn and they decided to simply switch Button to the two stop as a bit of a gamble. Barrichello then seemed to have a bad set of tyres in his third stint so wasn't able to go as quick as he should have. By the end Button was in a class of his own on the harder tyres.

[markabilly]

my thoughts are that something is rotten in denmark.....huummmm
odd strategy to pull him in early from the lead with more fuel and short fill....
Good thing it weren't hamilton, he would have given an immediate interview and confession, then denied the whole thing, and later about a week from now, we would have another confession.....

[markabilly]

Rubens himself admitted that there was something wrong.
Yes, he is not hamilton....so team brawn is safe

[Daniel]

markasilly. Stop with the bs.

[markabilly]

Get real, Daniel, Brawn knows what he is doing, exactly, (unlike team ferrari's lates screw up, as in gee err, how much gas did we put in the car) and he knows ruben is not going to squeal

[truefan72]

FIA must do something to Brawn GP if they had put an investiagtion on McLaren in Monaco 2007. This time is even worse, ugliest team order move I have ever seen, even worse than those old Ferrari's team orders, and sadly RB is involved... again.

what did you expect, it is Brawn after all.
I too think that this was a classless move by Brawn.
i would hope to see some kind of action taken. Far worse than the lie gate incident where the lie was a bigger story than the actual event. In this case the event is a monumental issue of the integrity of the actual race.

We even have audio of Button apologizing to Rubens about the team orders

[Daniel]

Yes, Brawn does know what he's doing. Unlike some round here :)

[HenryM]

I don't see a team order, I see a bad decision of rubens and his race engineer!?

[veeten]

and now, it's the 'they're winning too much, so they must be cheating' segment of our program. :rolleyes:

Brawn only puts together the chassis, engine, and driving package for the new season and hits all the right buttons (no pun intended). Others, and their fans, seem to be all in a lather about how a small entry is whipping them like a disobedient child.

As was always said in past seasons... 'step up your game'.

[aryan]

Eh?

Which race where you watching?

The Brawns were on 3 stop strategies. Jensen took the risk and switched his to 2. Rubens needed to be that much faster than Jensen to make it work, but it didn't.

The 3 stop might have been the best strategy there. It worked for webber. It meant you got to stay longer on the soft tyre, and do a short final stint on the hard tyre.

So, Rubens was arguably on a better strategy. But after Jensen lost the lead into turn 1, he knew he couldn't pass an identical car in Barcelona, so he switched his strategy and it worked for him. Kudos to him.

Rubens lives to fight another day.

[markabilly]

Eh?

Which race where you watching?

The Brawns were on 3 stop strategies. Jensen took the risk and switched his to 2. Rubens needed to be that much faster than Jensen to make it work, but it didn't.

The 3 stop might have been the best strategy there. It worked for webber. It meant you got to stay longer on the soft tyre, and do a short final stint on the hard tyre.

So, Rubens was arguably on a better strategy. But after Jensen lost the lead into turn 1, he knew he couldn't pass an identical car in Barcelona, so he switched his strategy and it worked for him. Kudos to him.

Rubens lives to fight another day.
then why not let rubens stay out longer and build a better lead?
Instead it was Button pitting second after building up the lead, and that is why I say, I smell a rat!!!

Becuase if the pit order was reversed, then Button remains behind RB, and RB does not end up behind Button.............Oh yeah, that fact just pops out inescapably (indeed the race result would have been just like webber's except that ruben would have been number one, instead of number two)

[Roamy]

Lappus Doggas = Once you are branded you are branded !!

[paulcrazy]

Ok some of you believe that both Brawn's cars were suppose to be 3 stoppers, lets take a look at their pit stops

Timo Glock (17,47)
Jenson Button (18,48)
Fernando Alonso(18,44)
Rubens Barrichello(19,31,50)
Mark Webber(19,50)
Felipe Massa(20,43)
Sebastian Vettel(20,43)
Nelsinho Piquet(21,46)

When the rest of the above guys were, or able to be, 2 stoppers, give me a reason why RB was suppose to be 3 stopper.

Now take a look at their first stop time

Timo Glock (17,47) 25.458s 30 laps to 2nd stop
Jenson Button (18,48) 25.489s 30 laps to 2nd stop
Fernando Alonso(18,44) 25.316s 26 laps to 2nd stop
Rubens Barrichello(19,31,50) 23.332s 12 laps to 2nd stop
Mark Webber(19,50) 27.101s 31 laps to 2nd stop
Felipe Massa(20,43) 25.072s 23 laps to 2nd stop
Sebastian Vettel(20,43) 24.897s 23 laps to 2nd stop
Nelsinho Piquet(21,46) 23.402s 25 laps to 2nd stop

so what was the reason that RB only went 12 laps in the 2nd stage when the rest could went at least 23 laps?

Some sources mentioned that RB's car had problems after his first stop, right? And RB could actually pull the fastest lap of 1:22.762 in lap 28 with the 'damaged ' car.

Now you make your call.

[truefan72]

explain to me how Rubens, leading the race, pulling away from Button get's to sacrifice his race for Button. The decision to change strategies is not solely the choice of the particular race engineer,but one made as a team with brawn right there probably instigating the move. It was clearly done to benefit Button and to the detriment of Barrichelo.

He was the faster car and deserved to be afforded the premium strategy.
Listen we all know it was team strategy, clever yes, but team strategy absolutely. let's not kid ourselves or come up with elaborate explanations of why it wasn't.

[truefan72]

Ok some of you believe that both Brawn's cars were suppose to be 3 stoppers, lets take a look at their pit stops

Timo Glock (17,47)
Jenson Button (18,48)
Fernando Alonso(18,44)
Rubens Barrichello(19,31,50)
Mark Webber(19,50)
Felipe Massa(20,43)
Sebastian Vettel(20,43)
Nelsinho Piquet(21,46)

When the rest of the above guys were, or able to be, 2 stoppers, give me a reason why RB was suppose to be 3 stopper.

Now take a look at their first stop time

Timo Glock (17,47) 25.458s 30 laps to 2nd stop
Jenson Button (18,48) 25.489s 30 laps to 2nd stop
Fernando Alonso(18,44) 25.316s 26 laps to 2nd stop
Rubens Barrichello(19,31,50) 23.332s 12 laps to 2nd stop
Mark Webber(19,50) 27.101s 31 laps to 2nd stop
Felipe Massa(20,43) 25.072s 23 laps to 2nd stop
Sebastian Vettel(20,43) 24.897s 23 laps to 2nd stop
Nelsinho Piquet(21,46) 23.402s 25 laps to 2nd stop

so what was the reason that RB only went 12 laps in the 2nd stage when the rest could went at least 23 laps?

Some sources mentioned that RB's car had problems after his first stop, right? And RB could actually pull the fastest lap of 1:22.762 in lap 28 with the 'damaged ' car.

Now you make your call.


excellent analysis good job,

and it is joke for the team to call him up and tell him to pull, out 30 seconds on button in 12 laps, what utter nonsense. even if he managed to come out just behind button, I wonder if he would have been allowed to pass him.

Rubens,basically coasted to 2nd place after the 3rd stop with no real motivation to push anymore than he had to. so his 3rd stint really isn't any indication to me about his performance,. His comments afterwards were pure teamspeak.

[woody2goody]

It was after Rubens SECOND stop that he said the tyres weren't working, not after the first, so get your facts straight on that one. He said the THIRD set of tyres, his second set of 'soft' ones.

At first I thought they were giving Rubens a disadvantage, but everyone said a three stopper should have been faster. I don't believe they would do that to Rubens, as they are not Ferrari or McLaren.

However I think that it was a simple lack of common sense on the part of Brawn. Rubens was in the lead pretty comfortably, there was no real threat from Massa, none from Vettel or Webber while they were behind the Ferrari, so they should have switched them both to a two stop.

To me in this situation, you have the lead, so keep your track position. Button was never going to be overtaken on the track, so surely it was a needless risk to remain on a three for Barrichello.

[UltimateDanGTR]

If they'd asked Rubens to throw the race or switched him to a compromised strategy, then I'd agree. But it was Button who made the switch, took the risk, and reaped the reward.

I totally agree. Buttons engineering team took the risk, and they just won. simple as. well done them.

[woody2goody]

I totally agree. Buttons engineering team took the risk, and they just won. simple as. well done them.

Maybe they wanted to be safe in case there was another safety car. One of those would have killed both of them on a three-stop.

[F1boat]

Team orders were and always will be part of F1, but in this case I simply think that Button risked new strategy when they (Brawn GP) saw that Seb is behind Massa and going nowhere. Rubens suffered, but I don't think that it was classic team orders, rather Brawn risked with the guy who scored the previous three wins.

[jens]

I was really hoping to see Barrichello to win, but unfortunately didn't happen. It all looked a bit suspicious to me too. Barrichello was leading Button in the first stint with heavier fuel load - the race should have been his, surely? Barrichello had basically no strategy advantage at all - he made his last stop almost right after Button's. The goal of a 3-stopper is to stay out way longer than others before last pitstop and build a gap, but he didn't get the chance to do it.

You shouldn't underestimate Brawn, he is a great strategist and this also applies to team orders. ;) Anyway, it's quite funny to think that many people, who once were against Brawn & MS, are now supporting Brawn & Button - and the reverse.




The 3 stop might have been the best strategy there. It worked for webber. It meant you got to stay longer on the soft tyre, and do a short final stint on the hard tyre.


Sorry, but Webber was on a 2-stop strategy.

[markabilly]

Ok some of you believe that both Brawn's cars were suppose to be 3 stoppers, lets take a look at their pit stops

Timo Glock (17,47)
Jenson Button (18,48)
Fernando Alonso(18,44)
Rubens Barrichello(19,31,50)
Mark Webber(19,50)
Felipe Massa(20,43)
Sebastian Vettel(20,43)
Nelsinho Piquet(21,46)

When the rest of the above guys were, or able to be, 2 stoppers, give me a reason why RB was suppose to be 3 stopper.

Now take a look at their first stop time

Timo Glock (17,47) 25.458s 30 laps to 2nd stop
Jenson Button (18,48) 25.489s 30 laps to 2nd stop
Fernando Alonso(18,44) 25.316s 26 laps to 2nd stop
Rubens Barrichello(19,31,50) 23.332s 12 laps to 2nd stop
Mark Webber(19,50) 27.101s 31 laps to 2nd stop
Felipe Massa(20,43) 25.072s 23 laps to 2nd stop
Sebastian Vettel(20,43) 24.897s 23 laps to 2nd stop
Nelsinho Piquet(21,46) 23.402s 25 laps to 2nd stop

so what was the reason that RB only went 12 laps in the 2nd stage when the rest could went at least 23 laps?

Some sources mentioned that RB's car had problems after his first stop, right? And RB could actually pull the fastest lap of 1:22.762 in lap 28 with the 'damaged ' car.

Now you make your call.
Already did, but I would add "bingo"
Unfortunately for the team there seems to be word of a certain apology by Button to rubens.... :(

[Tazio]

.

Rubens overheard saying after the race :mark: :




l0waNRaz6wU

:p :

[Zico]

Team orders? maybe.. As F1boat says, team orders will always be apart of F1 and I believe there is a place for them at some level.. but only when combined team performance is being adversely affected.


If I was placed in the same situation as RB I'd be telling the race engineers I wanted a strategy change with 1st option going to the leading driver in the championship to avoid the lighter car being held up by the heavier.. which is a lot fairer than just telling Rubbens to let Jenson past.
Would you just let them race at the risk of slowing both drivers down and affecting the overall team performance due to the leader having to drive defensively?


Ross Brawns comment on the situation when queried was that it was each drivers race engineers, decision.

[christophulus]

Looks to me simply like Button and his engineers made the right call, Barrichello didn't think of changing or made the wrong decision. Shame for Barrichello but that's just how it goes sometimes.

[AndyL]

Barrichello had basically no strategy advantage at all - he made his last stop almost right after Button's. The goal of a 3-stopper is to stay out way longer than others before last pitstop and build a gap, but he didn't get the chance to do it.

I don't think this is entirely correct. Even with a completely even 3-stop vs 2 stop split, the 3 stopper would have only stopped 5 laps later for his last pit stop. You can't build a pit stop's worth of gap in 5 laps. Surely the point is to eke out your 30 seconds or whatever over the entire first three-quarters of the race, when you will be lighter on average than the 2-stopper who's carrying more fuel, as well as spending more of the time on fresh tyres. As indeed Rubens did in the first half of the race, especially after the first stops when he was a second a lap quicker than Button. Rubens' problem was that he couldn't maintain the pace after his second stop, for whatever reason.

[UltimateDanGTR]

Maybe they wanted to be safe in case there was another safety car. One of those would have killed both of them on a three-stop.


whatever the reasoning, the strategy change worked. simple as. I do feel sorry for old Barry mind, but he wasnt fast enough when he needed to be so Id say its 6 of 1 half a dosen of the other between buttons engineers and barry's pace :)

[Dave B]

Rubens certainly doesn't sound as if he's blaming anybody but himself. This from the press conference:

Q. (Paulo Ianieri – La Gazzetta dello Sport) Rubens, I remember the Austrian race a few years with Michael (Schumacher), early in the season, and you were stopped to allow him to win. Are you afraid that this could happen again, seeing that Jenson is winning so much and you are trying to score points and probably looking for a championship, that this might happen again with the team pushing more for Jenson and you covering his shoulders?

RB: Well, I'm very experienced with that, and if that happens, I won't follow any team orders any more. I'm making it clear now, so everybody knows.

JB: I'm going to answer this a bit as well because this affects me. Our strategy said that a three stop was quicker, full stop.

RB: It's true, it's much more different than it used to be at Ferrari. We have a much more friendly situation, so I'm not sitting down on the side blaming this or that. The race was finished half an hour ago and that's the way it went. There's no way I'm going to be crying here and saying I should have done this or that. It's in the best interests of myself to learn what went wrong today because I had the ability to win the race but I didn't and this is a full stop. Jenson is on a flyer and he's doing very well. I think this weekend was really good for me because I worked quite hard on all the set-up and everything.

Source: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/75240

[BDunnell]

Some of the synthetic anger in this thread amazes me. 'Ugliest team order move I have ever seen'? Give me a break.

[AndyL]

OK so I was just sitting in the bath and a picture started to form in my mind of how this might have played out... I certainly couldn't claim to know what goes on in the giant brains of Ross Brawn, Jock Clear and Andrew Shovlin of course, but see what you think of this.

Both Brawns started on a 3 stop strategy, we know that, right? So they must have believed that to be the faster strategy. But it is risky, because you might lose track position to someone on a longer strategy, and lose all your advantage stuck behind them. Someone like, for example, Nico Rosberg. So Jock Clear calls for Rubens to be short-filled, to guarantee he maintains track position over Nico, thus keeping the preferred 3-stop strategy on track. And Rubens did indeed come out in front of Nico. Fairly comfortably as it happened, but how fine do you want to cut it? Unfortunately for Jenson, he's a few seconds further back, and also has to pit a lap earlier, so no matter what they do he will lose position to Nico. So his 3-stop strategy is already ruined at this point, and Andrew Shovlin switches him to a 2-stopper. Sure enough Jenson comes out a few seconds behind Nico.

So which is more likely, what I described above, or the theory that Brawn deliberately sabotaged Rubens' race because they secretly hate him? :crazy:

I find I have all my best ideas in the bath, I think I'm going to suggest that Ferrari get one installed on the pit wall.

[Daniel]

Some of the synthetic anger in this thread amazes me. 'Ugliest team order move I have ever seen'? Give me a break.
Ugliest comment on this thread so far :p

[woody2goody]

OK so I was just sitting in the bath and a picture started to form in my mind of how this might have played out... I certainly couldn't claim to know what goes on in the giant brains of Ross Brawn, Jock Clear and Andrew Shovlin of course, but see what you think of this.

Both Brawns started on a 3 stop strategy, we know that, right? So they must have believed that to be the faster strategy. But it is risky, because you might lose track position to someone on a longer strategy, and lose all your advantage stuck behind them. Someone like, for example, Nico Rosberg. So Jock Clear calls for Rubens to be short-filled, to guarantee he maintains track position over Nico, thus keeping the preferred 3-stop strategy on track. And Rubens did indeed come out in front of Nico. Fairly comfortably as it happened, but how fine do you want to cut it? Unfortunately for Jenson, he's a few seconds further back, and also has to pit a lap earlier, so no matter what they do he will lose position to Nico. So his 3-stop strategy is already ruined at this point, and Andrew Shovlin switches him to a 2-stopper. Sure enough Jenson comes out a few seconds behind Nico.

So which is more likely, what I described above, or the theory that Brawn deliberately sabotaged Rubens' race because they secretly hate him? :crazy:

I find I have all my best ideas in the bath, I think I'm going to suggest that Ferrari get one installed on the pit wall.

That's exactly what Ross Brawn said. He didn't want Jenson to end up behind Nico.

[jens]

If both had continued with a 2-stop strategy, Rubens would have probably won. If both had remained on 3 stops, Rubens would have probably won. Button's strategy was changed and Barrichello's not - the result was Button's win. Why wasn't Barrichello's strategy changed to a 2-stopper? Why wasn't he given such option? The win would have been quite probable after getting the information that JB has opted for a two-stopper. It would have only been logical to follow his steps and not risk to lose your advantage with a 'different risky strategy'. Something sounds odd here. ;)

[woody2goody]

If both had continued with a 2-stop strategy, Rubens would have probably won. If both had remained on 3 stops, Rubens would have probably won. Button's strategy was changed and Barrichello's not - the result was Button's win. Why wasn't Barrichello's strategy changed to a 2-stopper? Why wasn't he given such option? The win would have been quite probable after getting the information that JB has opted for a two-stopper. It would have only been logical to follow his steps and not risk to lose your advantage with a 'different risky strategy'. Something sounds odd here. ;)

It does a bit, but Rubens said today that if he was given team orders he would ignore them.

It did seem silly to lose his track position and advantage over everyone, on a track where it's hard to pass. Maybe at Turkey or Shanghai it would work, but it didn't in Bahrain or Spain.

[OutRun]

I thought they were trying to dodge Rosberg with the short fill. If Rubens stopped any later he may have ended up behind Webber and Rosberg. Even with the short fill he was almost beaten to the corner by Rosberg.

[jens]

It does a bit, but Rubens said today that if he was given team orders he would ignore them.


Well, by changing and 'playing' with strategy clear 'team-orders' aren't needed, and even less so can they be ignored. Wasn't Rubens surprised to hear over the radio that Jenson's strategy had been changed?

[woody2goody]

Well, by changing and 'playing' with strategy clear 'team-orders' aren't needed, and even less so can they be ignored. Wasn't Rubens surprised to hear over the radio that Jenson's strategy had been changed?

I think he was, however Schumacher beat him with 3 stops in 04, when Rubens went for the heavier strategy a la Button. That may have contributed to the perceived notion that 3 stops is faster.

[rickos]

Rubens himself admitted that there was something wrong.

Rubens foot has now been extracted and his explanation is now clear; the accelerator is very difficult to actuate when the vital appendage is firmly affixed inside one's oratorical passage.

[jens]

I think he was, however Schumacher beat him with 3 stops in 04, when Rubens went for the heavier strategy a la Button. That may have contributed to the perceived notion that 3 stops is faster.

Although I'm afraid a direct comparison between 2004 and 2009 can't be drawn as back then we had grooved tyres, also tyre-war, hence softer tyres than now. Also only one compulsory tyre compound per race. 3-stop-strategies were quite a norm back in 2004 and MS even won with a 4-stopper at Magny-Cours.

[woody2goody]

Although I'm afraid a direct comparison between 2004 and 2009 can't be drawn as back then we had grooved tyres, also tyre-war, hence softer tyres than now. Also only one compulsory tyre compound per race. 3-stop-strategies were quite a norm back in 2004 and MS even won with a 4-stopper at Magny-Cours.

That was ridiculous. I doubt we'll see anything like that in a normal race for a long long time.

4 Stops!

I think the hard tyres were so slow today that you could have almost got away with making an extra stop, just to go back to the softs.

[SGWilko]

I find I have all my best ideas in the bath.

Eureka! ;)

[MrJan]

I like the idea that today's alleged orders are apparently the ugliest :D Anyone remember the Indy debacle when Ferrari well and truly dropped the ball and the wrong man won? :D Far, far uglier.

[airshifter]

Today was a prime example of why team orders should be allowed, as much as I hated seeing it happen.

Button and his engineer admitted to thinking the 3 stopper was the quickest race, so they decided to go to a 2 stopper instead. Yeah, teams intentionally switch to slower strategies all the time! :laugh:


Poor Rubens, faster with a heavier car after a great start and not allowed to take it home. I can him having nightmares of being told to yeild to MS as in years past.

[markabilly]

More comments from RB

"It [the race] wasnt the way we thought, after a weekend when my setup was good" said RB. "Jenson copied my setup, I got a better start, I made the thing work, and at the end I didnt get the points I wished. I was sure that winning the race was obvious."

The driver said he went into the garage to said to the boss "exactly what I wanted to say, which was: if he did something for Jenson to win the race, I'd hang my boots [Brazilian expression for retiring] and go home". "I dont need this, I'm better than that, that's what I said to him, and his answer was clear: he won by concidence."

RB also said that, because he was stopping 1 lap after Jenson, wanted to know about the [switch]. "I wasnt given a choice. I had 1 lap to decide if I wanted or not to make 2 stops. Stopping twice was was never considered an option in our mettings."

[stevie_gerrard]

The simple fact is that at the start of the race, Barichello was the faster car. He was up to 0.8 secs a lap faster than Button on a 3 stop strategy, and quite frankly i didnt see anything wrong with it. I think he just struggled with the 3rd set of tires, which unfortunately cost him. It could have been a lot worse had he not stayed out on the soft tyres for an extra 6-7 laps.

[AndyL]

Button and his engineer admitted to thinking the 3 stopper was the quickest race, so they decided to go to a 2 stopper instead. Yeah, teams intentionally switch to slower strategies all the time! :laugh:


They do when the faster strategy has to be abandoned because they are about to lose track position, thus ruining the strategy.

[Knock-on]

My word, you are a creative lot :laugh:

The facts are:

Jenson pitted first and his strategy team decided to switch him to a 2 stopper.

Rubins had the pace to make a 3 stopper work but couldn't pull it out when he needed to.

Jenson drove the best out of all the field on hard tyres and brought the win home.

Rubens says there is no team orders like he had at Ferrari and if there were, he would ignore them.

So, the obvious conclusion we can reach is that Brawn issued team orders to disadvantage Rubens. :laugh:

[EuroTroll]

Rubins

Old habits are hard to brake, eh? ;)

I do agree, though. For the time being, there's not much to suggest favouritism. It'll be interesting to see if Barrichello comments on this further, though. After having done the post-race analysis with his engineers.

[Knock-on]

Oh gawd! Daniel will be down throwing his panties out the window if he see's that one :laugh:

[Hondo]

I think part of the problem is Brawn is used to working with a driver he can radio and say "we need you to pick up "x" amount of time per lap" and having the driver do it. I suspect, based on Rubens telementry, Brawn thought Rubens should have been able to open his lead more than he did.

Some drivers are good at finding ways to deliver, Rubens has always been good at having reasons for not delivering. He is a good, solid, number 2 driver but not a champion.

[Knock-on]

I think part of the problem is Brawn is used to working with a driver he can radio and say "we need you to pick up "x" amount of time per lap" and having the driver do it. I suspect, based on Rubens telementry, Brawn thought Rubens should have been able to open his lead more than he did.

Some drivers are good at finding ways to deliver, Rubens has always been good at having reasons for not delivering. He is a good, solid, number 2 driver but not a champion.

I'd agree with that.

Of all the drivers not in that Championship league, I would suggest he's the strongest. On the sort of form we saw yesterday, he would leave Schumacher scratching his head but as you said, he just couldn't find that extra tenth when he needed it.

[N. Jones]

Seems to me that Rubens goofed a good strategy to win the race. I don't see any controversy here.

[Knock-on]

Well, either Rubens is a complete liar or there is no substance to the allergation Brawn is favouring Button :D

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/8043243.stm


"If I get the slightest sniff of the fact that they have favoured Jenson, I will hang up my helmet tomorrow," he told United States channel SpeedTV.

"But I know Ross wouldn't do that. He asked me to drive for him and he knows I want to race fairly with Jenson."

[Knock-on]

I like Brawns take on it to.


"Absolutely not," he insisted. "The strategy change was my decision. The engineers and the drivers pool their information and make their recommendations but I make the call in the pit lane and, good or bad, we stand by it.

If Rubens hadn't had his problem, it would have been incredibly close.

If you look at the lap times on the tyres and the fuel, there was a period of the race where Rubens was a lot slower than expected.

And that's what cost him the race because Jenson on more fuel was quicker."

Speaking on Monday, Brawn also felt that Barrichello's anxiety after the Spain race was a good sign.

"Rubens' unhappiness is natural," he said. "But then any driver who gets beaten and is happy is not a driver I want in the team.

So the fact Rubens is unhappy is a healthy sign because I would see it as very strange if he was quite content to finish second behind Jenson."

[Bagwan]

Well, either Rubens is a complete liar or there is no substance to the allergation Brawn is favouring Button :D

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/8043243.stm

It was simply a warning shot over the bow , saying clearly that he won't stand for team orders .

And , that's how Ross sees it , too .

[woody2goody]

I wonder if Ross is trying to rile Rubens up a little bit with his comments. In a good way though, thinking it will make him go faster. We saw how determined he was this weekend, and this loss will only make him better IMO.

He was in such a groove before his second stop that it had to be the tyres if there was an issue, and not the driver.

[jens]

"But I know Ross wouldn't do that. He asked me to drive for him and he knows I want to race fairly with Jenson."

Contradiction. Based on Ferrari years he should know that Ross would favour a driver if he feels it's needed - and it doesn't matter whether Rubens "wants" to race fairly with his team-mate in this case or not. ;)

People, don't think that team orders haven't existed since Austria '02. Just because they haven't been executed in such clearly visible way since then, doesn't mean they don't exist. And Brawn with his smartness knows fully well, how to 'organize' the "right" race order without too much suspicion.

[woody2goody]

Contradiction. Based on Ferrari years he should know that Ross would favour a driver if he feels it's needed - and it doesn't matter whether Rubens "wants" to race fairly with his team-mate in this case or not. ;)

People, don't think that team orders haven't existed since Austria '02. Just because they haven't been executed in such clearly visible way since then, doesn't mean they don't exist. And Brawn with his smartness knows fully well, how to 'organize' the "right" race order without too much suspicion.

Ah but based on what you said, surely he would know if Ross was favouring Jenson. :D

This is all conspiracy theories by the media. Asking him questions like that after the race is just trying to get a story. they've got one, but not the one they wanted no doubt.

[Hondo]

There is a difference between team orders and team strategy. Key word here being "team". I don't know who provided your race coverage, but on Speedvision I heard the Ferrari pit tell Ruben's at least twice on the radio he needed to pick up the pace and go faster. I never heard them tell him to slow down or move over. A guy like Brawn is constantly looking at the data will make whatever adjustments he needs to make for a one-two finish for his cars. The rest is up to the drivers. If one isn't capable of nailing down the win, maybe the other one can. In Spain, Rubens' best wasn't good enough to deliver the win. If Rubens wants to quit the team, that's his business, but the fact that he'd even make the statement is indicative of the fact he isn't consistantly championship material.

[Garry Walker]

Putting Rubens on a 12 lap stint, as they did for 2nd stint, was either idiotic to the extreme or handing the victory to Button.
The reality is also that with the amount of fuel RB had in 3rd stint compared to JB, he could only go a few laps longer and because FM and SV were in the way of RB, then even if he had had the superb pace, he would have been too far away from JB to make a difference once JB pitted.

Clearly Brawn gave this one to button.

[CNR]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/8044994.stm




Ross Brawn has insisted his Brawn team does not operate a "favouritism" policy following Rubens Barrichello's outburst at the weekend's Spanish Grand Prix. Barrichello threatened to "hang up his helmet" if he found championship leader Jenson Button was being favoured.
Brazilian Barrichello lost Sunday's race in Barcelona to Button after boss Brawn changed Button's strategy.
"We don't have a one and a two driver," Brawn told BBC Radio 5 Live. "They're both on equal terms and conditions."
Team orders are a sensitive subject for the veteran Brazilian, who left Ferrari in 2005 a year before the end of his contract because he was fed up with not being allowed to race team-mate Michael Schumacher.

:burn: :burn: :burn: :burn:

[Valve Bounce]

I think that Rubens is sailing very close to the wind here. He now has a good car to drive and if he wants to throw a dummy spit, Brawn has someone waiting to take over.

By the way, did Brawn ever give a really solid reason for changing bunsen's race strategy to two pit stops?

[truefan72]

I think that Rubens is sailing very close to the wind here. He now has a good car to drive and if he wants to throw a dummy spit, Brawn has someone waiting to take over.

By the way, did Brawn ever give a really solid reason for changing bunsen's race strategy to two pit stops?


precisely why rubens is towing the company line.

it was team orders to favor button and rubens has to live with it if he, at 37, wants to maintain his seat. It is easy for me to say he should take a bold stand, as he gets paid handsomely, but being at the end of his f1 career anyway, i would rather leave according to my own terms, dignity intact , than go through my final season acquiescing to my teammate, who I could equal if not outperform on race day

[Roamy]

Bow Wow what part of lap dog does he not get?? Plus he was stoning in front of Button and holding up the race like he was trying to keep Massa in the deal.
He is lucky Button didn't pull a JV and drive up there a punt him off the track.

[aryan]

I think that Rubens is sailing very close to the wind here. He now has a good car to drive and if he wants to throw a dummy spit, Brawn has someone waiting to take over.

By the way, did Brawn ever give a really solid reason for changing bunsen's race strategy to two pit stops?

Yes, if they had done a short stop, he would have still come behind Rosberg, who was running very heavy, and that would have ruind Button's race.

So instead they decided to fuel him heavy, knowing that he would come behind Rosberg anyway. He did, but because he was heavy himself, his strategy wasn't hampered by being stuck behind Rosberg.

Makes perfect sense to me.

The 3 stop was still the faster strategy. Computer simulation showed 3 stops to be faster. Webber showed 3 stops to be faster. Rubens could have easily won, but he was just too slow in the third stint. He was lighter than button, and was lapping around a second slower than him, with no traffic in sight.

Rubens has said that he wasn't comfortable and fast enough in the third stint himself. He believes there was something wrong with the car. The team hasn't commented on that. Either there was something wrong with the car on the 3rd stint, or Rubens was tired/slow on that stint. Either way that cost him the race win. Strategy didn't.

[Valve Bounce]

Rubens has said that he wasn't comfortable and fast enough in the third stint himself. He believes there was something wrong with the car. The team hasn't commented on that. Either there was something wrong with the car on the 3rd stint, or Rubens was tired/slow on that stint. Either way that cost him the race win. Strategy didn't.

OK, there is a column in autosport by Tony Dodgens : How Barrichello lost in Spain

This is an analysis on how he lost when he had it won. However, you have to be an autosport subscriber to read it amd I am no a subscriber. :(

But as aryan says, he was going slow, and fousto said so also. I wasn't following this on F1.com's live coverage unfortunately.

[Valve Bounce]

OK. I just found this and the plot of the two lap times in the final stint explains everything: http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/05/10/did-brawn-deliberately-give-barrichello-a-poor-strategy-to-let-button-win/barr_butt_spanishgp_times/

[555-04Q2]

Rubens baby, you are one of the nicest guys to enter F1, ever. It dont count for nothing, but hey, its nice to be known as the nice guy. The problem is, you just aint fast enough at the moment. Take that great car and beat your teamate in Monaco and stop making excuses. Blaming others just aint gonna cut it.

[ozrevhead]

anyone who doesnt think that Jenson is favored and Rubens is the lap dog are kidding themselves

Brawn is just trying to cover his backside

[leopard]

Teams can deny no favoritism implemented to their drivers, but ship only allows one captain.

[Valve Bounce]

Teams can deny no favoritism implemented to their drivers, but ship only allows one captain.
.............Brawn!

[ozrevhead]

Teams can deny no favoritism implemented to their drivers, but ship only allows one captain.
EXACLTY

they can dismiss it all they like but F1 fans arent that stupid surely

[ArrowsFA1]

Rubens baby, you are one of the nicest guys to enter F1, ever. It dont count for nothing, but hey, its nice to be known as the nice guy. The problem is, you just aint fast enough at the moment. Take that great car and beat your teamate in Monaco and stop making excuses. Blaming others just aint gonna cut it.
:up:

The impression I've had since the start of the season is that JB is ingrained in the team, and he's worked to put himself in that position. In every interview Button is very much the team man. Rubens, on the other hand, has talked a lot about himself, what he can do, and his days at Ferrari when he worked with Ross Brawn and, of course, Michael Schumacher.

It seems as if history is repeating itself but not because the team is built around Button but simply because Button is making better use of a great car.

[52Paddy]

I think Rubens, having been down the favouritism road before, is concerned that history is repeating itself. Its not a nice position to be in, really.

[SGWilko]

So, to pacify all the folk on this thread who are crying fowl, should JB have been kept on a three stopper, get stuck behind a slower car while running a lighter fuel load and ruin his race?

Or, was the switch to a two stopper the right thing to do seeing as JB was out of position - i.e. 2nd and not first?

[CNR]

you would think they would ask the one who was leading the race first

[SGWilko]

Putting Rubens on a 12 lap stint, as they did for 2nd stint, was either idiotic to the extreme or handing the victory to Button.
The reality is also that with the amount of fuel RB had in 3rd stint compared to JB, he could only go a few laps longer and because FM and SV were in the way of RB, then even if he had had the superb pace, he would have been too far away from JB to make a difference once JB pitted.

Clearly Brawn gave this one to button.

Hold it, wasn't rubens in clear air for most of his third stint? ANd yet he was still slower than Button who was, by now, on the harder tyre?

[Valve Bounce]

Hold it, wasn't rubens in clear air for most of his third stint? ANd yet he was still slower than Button who was, by now, on the harder tyre?

Yeah! I posted a link on the other thread for reference.

[Valve Bounce]

If you just bothered to read my post above and check the link, Rubens was painfully slow in his last stint.

[555-04Q2]

you would think they would ask the one who was leading the race first

Rubens wasnt being held up by his teamate, JB was, hence, IMO, the strategy switch. Rubens getting the jump on JB at the first corner caused a rethink on strategy. Brawn used to do this at Ferrari with MS and RB to perfection, it is nothing new to you, me or F1. Brawn is a &^%$#^ genius, smarter than the other 19 team principals put together, and even then he still has some spare change to scratch his ar$e with.

[Knock-on]

OK. I just found this and the plot of the two lap times in the final stint explains everything: http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/05/10/did-brawn-deliberately-give-barrichello-a-poor-strategy-to-let-button-win/barr_butt_spanishgp_times/

Thanks VB. Great stats.

Rubens was just slow in that 3rd stint. Jenson matched him on his worn tyres when Rubens had new ones with similar fuel.

As for that last session, Jenson pulled out something very special to maintain those sorts of lap times..

Perhaps all the appologists might comment on the facts rather than astound us with opinions that contradict every piece of evidence. :rolleyes:

[ArrowsFA1]

Rubens:
"On the third set I just didn't have the pace, I was locking wheels everywhere. I hope the guys come back to me and say there was a small problem somewhere."
That's where he lost the race. Not because JB switched strategy. Rubens did not have the pace when he needed it. It's a shame that "team orders" are used as an excuse when IMHO Button simply did a better job on the day.

[Dave B]

I think for some casual fans the situation is confusing. To the layman, you simply race as fast as you can - to be beaten in an identical car there must be some shenanigans going on.

If you follow the story of the race; look at the lap times; take into account the tyres, fuel loads, traffic; the situation becomes far more complicated. I genuinely think some people have difficulty comprehending such a complex sport.

[Dave B]

Yeah! I posted a link on the other thread for reference.
There are 2 threads covering basically the same subject, perhaps they could be merged? :)

[555-04Q2]

I genuinely think some people have difficulty comprehending such a complex sport.

Not me, I know for a fact that the two stroke engines in F1 cars rev up to 18000 rpm and use special diesel fuel with NOS gas for extra boost :p :

[SGWilko]

Not me, I know for a fact that the two stroke engines in F1 cars rev up to 18000 rpm and use special diesel fuel with NOS gas for extra boost :p :

Indeed, and the ecectric motory things are old washing machine motors powered by original NEC mobile phone batteries that are located in the tyres....

[555-04Q2]

original NEC mobile phone batteries that are located in the tyres....

Aaaaahhh, so that explains Hamiltons rear tyre wear in Spain. Thanks for clearing that up for me :p :

[AndyL]

two stroke engines in F1 cars :p :

Now there's an idea. I can smell it now!

[555-04Q2]

Now there's an idea. I can smell it now!

I wouldnt put it past Bernie and Mad Max though. They may just vote it in as a good idea :crazy:

[AndyL]

Putting Rubens on a 12 lap stint, as they did for 2nd stint, was either idiotic to the extreme or handing the victory to Button.

You need to read the thread you're replying to. Rubens was short-filled to ensure he got out ahead of Rosberg.

[Knock-on]

But the smell of Mobile 1 down the straight :kiss:

[pino]

There are 2 threads covering basically the same subject, perhaps they could be merged? :)

Done :)

[Dave B]

The service round here is excellent! :)

[555-04Q2]

pino, Italian efficiency at its best :)

[Knock-on]

pino, Italian efficiency at its best :)

I surprised he didn't get most of the way to merging them and run out of fuel :D

[wedge]

Me thinks Rubens is paranoid.

It's not unusual for team mates to run different strategies.

[555-04Q2]

I surprised he didn't get most of the way to merging them and run out of fuel :D

Smart ar$e :p :

[Ranger]

Rubens:
That's where he lost the race. Not because JB switched strategy. Rubens did not have the pace when he needed it. It's a shame that "team orders" are used as an excuse when IMHO Button simply did a better job on the day.

The final stint on hard tyres had nothing to do with the outcome. It is the extra pit stop time that cost him.

Had Rubens been on the same strategy as Button he would have been several seconds in front of JB after the final stop.

If you are going to stretch it and say Button would have made an on-track pass on his team-mate for the win you can say that.


Putting Rubens on a 12 lap stint, as they did for 2nd stint, was either idiotic to the extreme or handing the victory to Button.
The reality is also that with the amount of fuel RB had in 3rd stint compared to JB, he could only go a few laps longer and because FM and SV were in the way of RB, then even if he had had the superb pace, he would have been too far away from JB to make a difference once JB pitted.

Clearly Brawn gave this one to button.

I agree with most of that.

Three-stopping barely ever works these days though.

[Knock-on]

The final stint on hard tyres had nothing to do with the outcome. It is the extra pit stop time that cost him.

Had Rubens been on the same strategy as Button he would have been several seconds in front of JB after the final stop.

If you are going to stretch it and say Button would have made an on-track pass on his team-mate for the win you can say that.

Rubens was on the optimal strategy. If he continued on the pace of that first session, he would have walked it.


I agree with most of that.

Three-stopping barely ever works these days though.

But it was the fastest strategy. If Rubens had of continued with the same pace in the 3rd stint, he would have come out in front.

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/barr_butt_spanishgp_gaps.gif

[aryan]

EXACLTY

they can dismiss it all they like but F1 fans arent that stupid surely

Yes.

We are perfectly capable of looking at lap times ourselves to see if a driver is being slow.

[Cooper_S]

I do believe that his past experience has made Rubens rather paranoid about team favoritism and it cannot help matters that once again it is at the hands of the master Ross Brawn that he leads from the start but still ends up second...

Now personally I'd love if it was true as I have no time for Rubino, but sadly I believe this time it was just coincidence

[Valve Bounce]

Why can't some people look at the facts and acceppt that Rubens was slow compared to bunsen in the second half of the race.

In that link given above, there is another graph comparing individual lap times and it is clear Rubens was slower. Now, if we want to trot out a conspiracy theory, then we will have to look at how Brawn made Rubens car slower - maybe they put the wrong tyre pressures on his tyres (his own team) or used a remote system to bugger up the spark timing or fuel feed? or maybe it was Ferrari who did it.

After all, we must blame Ferrari for something!.

[markabilly]

pino, Italian efficiency at its best :)
maybe he should be put in charge of ferrari race strategy, since he can probably speak Italain, but having required the IQ of under 60, well....????? :(

[wmcot]

EXACLTY

they can dismiss it all they like but F1 fans arent that stupid surely

Actually, there seem to be quite a few who are! :)

[wmcot]

So if you're changing one driver's strategy, you go on the other driver's radio and tell him, "we're switching to plan B?" Sure, makes a lot of sense to me. :(

[wmcot]

However, now that Jenson has a decent lead in the WDC, I expect to see RB win occasionally now due to some "miraculous drive."

[Dave B]

So if you're changing one driver's strategy, you go on the other driver's radio and tell him, "we're switching to plan B?" Sure, makes a lot of sense to me. :(
Why wouldn't you? Don't forget that it's not just two drivers racing, it's two teams of engineers and strategists competing within the garage. Ross Brawn would be overseeing everything and making sure they don't do anything stupid, but until such time as the championship mathematics dictate it the two "sub-teams" are rivals.

Look no further than Ron Dennis' oft-misinterpreted statement, "we [this side of the garage] were racing Alonso". The likes of Andy Shovlin and Rob Smedley play a role just as important as their respective drivers.

Telling Barrichello that Jenson had switched strategy was the call to get the hammer down and pull out some quick laps to ensure he had enough margin for the extra pit stop. Sadly, as Rubens himself has explained, he wasn't able to do that and accordingly "his side of the garage" lost the race.

Simples.

[wmcot]

Interesting...I have the highlight video of the 2000 season going on in the background. Melbourne, Lap 45, and Barrichello passes Schumacher for the lead - any guess who just "happened" to decide to change Rubens' strategy giving MS the win? I'll give you a hint - he has the same initials as Rubens. :)

Old habits die hard.

[Roamy]

Brawn is in this deal to win a championship. He best chance is with Button and I guarantee you he does give a rats ass if RB packs it in. He won't have any trouble fillling the seat - So RB just needs to keep he butt behind button and bark. If RB was leading in points Brawn would have done the same to button. It is a team deal and Brawn may prefer button win but at the end of the day he wants to WIN.

[paulcrazy]

You need to read the thread you're replying to. Rubens was short-filled to ensure he got out ahead of Rosberg.

This is the biggest doubt you just mentioned

Rubens Barrichello(19,31,50) 23.332s 12 laps to 2nd stop
Nelsinho Piquet(21,46) 23.402s 25 laps to 2nd stop

Their time spent in the pit was almost the same. NP went 25 laps but RB only went 12 laps. If Brawn really wanted to short fill RB, the time he spent in the pit should be at least 2 seconds less to go just 12 laps.

[AndyL]

This is the biggest doubt you just mentioned

Rubens Barrichello(19,31,50) 23.332s 12 laps to 2nd stop
Nelsinho Piquet(21,46) 23.402s 25 laps to 2nd stop

Their time spent in the pit was almost the same. NP went 25 laps but RB only went 12 laps. If Brawn really wanted to short fill RB, the time he spent in the pit should be at least 2 seconds less to go just 12 laps.

Not quite sure what you're suggesting here - that Brawn made the pit stop longer than it should have been, or that they really did put 25 laps of fuel in rather than 12? If the former, then what could they have possibly gained by that? Button did not win the race by 2 seconds. And if the latter, wouldn't Rubens have been able to tell? His lap times in the second stint clearly did not suggest a heavy car.

[paulcrazy]

Not quite sure what you're suggesting here - that Brawn made the pit stop longer than it should have been, or that they really did put 25 laps of fuel in rather than 12? If the former, then what could they have possibly gained by that? Button did not win the race by 2 seconds. And if the latter, wouldn't Rubens have been able to tell? His lap times in the second stint clearly did not suggest a heavy car.

I watched live race, watched RB's first stop and I didn't see anything wrong with that stop and we have not heard anything that Brawn made any mistake in that stop. RB's second stop on lap 31 was 23.063s(even shorter than his first stop)and he was able to go 19 laps to lap 50. Be honest when I saw RB making his second stop after just 12 laps, I started to doubt that there was a team order.

True or not we would never know, R Brawn had made enough explanation on that strategy, it just didn't make sense to me.

[Bagwan]

I watched live race, watched RB's first stop and I didn't see anything wrong with that stop and we have not heard anything that Brawn made any mistake in that stop. RB's second stop on lap 31 was 23.063s(even shorter than his first stop)and he was able to go 19 laps to lap 50. Be honest when I saw RB making his second stop after just 12 laps, I started to doubt that there was a team order.

True or not we would never know, R Brawn had made enough explanation on that strategy, it just didn't make sense to me.

That's crazy , Paul .

How do you fool a driver into thinking he has the strategy to win , and cripple him for the victory , whilst remaining in control of whether he can fight for second ?
You let him believe he is fuelled for less laps than he really is . That way , if he is pressured , you can run him longer .
Brawn really is brilliant .

He's got the plausable explanation that Jensen needed the 2 stopper to fend off attackers , and a poor set of skins excuse for the driver with the artificially heavy car .

And , a stop-gap "damned malfunctioning fuel rig" explanation , if the heavy guy should figure it out .

Ferrari got it wrong , as they put in too little fuel , and the strategy back-fired . Just like they could have listened better when Ross mentioned the diffuser loophole , they should have listened better to him as strategist and they might have seen it coming .

[Nikki Katz]

I don't think that they intentionally messed up Barrichello's race, and he was quite slow in the second phase, when he was not expected to be. Having said that, with the medals system being introduced next year, there'll be a huge gap between 1st and 2nd, and there will probably be team orders most races.

[Bagwan]

OK , time to spill the beans .

The plan is , to do this again , and have Rubens quit , so the Jacques can move in and push Jensen onto the podium as the others gain strength .

Ross will have all the Button fan base to back his response that it was an equal fight .
Remember , Ross was there for all the time when Rubens was at Ferrari , and the expose Rubinho has threatened to bring out post-career , will un-doubtedly mention Ross .
And , remember , Jock was there at BAR/Honda with Jacques , and has been encouraging a look in .
It's the perfect time to have Rubens complain his way out of Honda , and Jock knows the car , and Jacques's set-up will not only fit , but be closer to Button's style .
Ross gets experience , but also another , perhaps more important element .

He gets a former WDC who most have written off as a has-been , for no money , and highly motivated to show Honda it was foolish to let such a developer go .
It's a no-lose scenario for Ross .
If Jacques fails , it's down to him .
If he does well , he shows Rubens to be the nearly man Ferrari hired , never capable of mounting the real challenge . He leaves pouting , just as he did from Ferrari , and will be less likely to be taken seriously when the book comes .

Threatening to write a book about how badly you were treated by your employer , when you work for one of the same men , is not very clever .

Ross won't bother writing a book about Rubens , but he just might get another chapter written about him .
I'll read it . Rubinho will need the income .

[Nikki Katz]

Jacques? Villeneuve? Wasn't he beaten by Giovanni Lavaggi in Speedcar recently?

[Dave B]

OK , time to spill the beans .

The plan is , to do this again , and have Rubens quit , so the Jacques can move in and push Jensen onto the podium as the others gain strength .

I admire the faith you show in your countryman, but really? This has to be a late April fool!

[Bagwan]

I admire the faith you show in your countryman, but really? This has to be a late April fool!

I didn't come up with the idea , Dave .
I just saw the writing on the wall .

Jock thinks he'd do just fine in one of these cars , and he should know .
Rubens has his record . It's time to go .

[ShiftingGears]

I didn't come up with the idea , Dave .
I just saw the writing on the wall .

Jock thinks he'd do just fine in one of these cars , and he should know .
Rubens has his record . It's time to go .

Rubens is doing fine. JV isn't coming back, deal with it.

[Bagwan]

Rubens is doing fine. JV isn't coming back, deal with it.

Yeah , you're right , ug .
Rubens and his spanked-bottom face are doing fine . It's in Jensen's contract that he has to sit on the couch and pet the dog , even when he's growling .

JV said he wouldn't come back .
Jock said he should .

I guess you should deal with that .