webber FED UP!

[AllonFS]

Thanks for that Splatz, it was really interesting and informative. Quite a bit of the detail I didn't know there. I do remember though the real stink in the motorsport press after the race, Mercedes got a real caning.

This is primarily of interest to me for the Le Mans connection as that year was my first time there. I do think though that even if Haug was to go that Mercedes probably wouldn't want Webber driving for them. Maybe not as much because of what happened in 1999, but because if and when he was signed and then every big crash afterwards would would inevitably lead to those pictures of the CLK being rehashed. And Mercedes really, really doesn't want to be reminded of big crashes at Le Mans, (it took 30 years for them to properly return to motorsport after 1955).

[johnh875]

Splatz, my recollection is similar to yours. My memory is that the finger was very much pointed at Webber until it happened to the other car.

[Adam43]

Splatz thanks for that. It seems that we are talking about is a dispute between two people. Something which is open to individual POV.

The main quote here from Mark about never getting into the car again is fair enough and was a jsutifiable thing to say whatever the condiitons.

There may well be a clash between Haug and Webber. However a Webber return to Mercedes has more things against it than just that (to return to this thread and what he may do aboutbeing "fed up"). He is at Williams now, Renault has been suggested because of Flav and McLaren has drivers coming out of its ears. The only other way to return to Mercedes would be DTM, but he has already turned down this it seems and is clearly commited to F1. Which brings us back to your post. If if there was a clash at Le Mans Mercedes still offered Mark (according to above) a drive in DTM or CART. A very generous offer, which Mark was quite entitled to reject if he had F1 dreams. And my assertion that he was not mistreated by Mercedes is based on this and that they gave him a drive in the Sportscar team. A great opportunity.

[avsfan733]

my way of looking at it is that if what splatz posted is how it went down (not saying hes lieing just saying interpretation is often lost in text) than MB should be ashamed. There job is to not only make the car faster but the driver safer...AND more comfortable driving the car. They put their drivers at significant risk by not investigating that matter further and I can't blame Webber for wanting nothing to do with them. Especially given their current reliability problems (we shall see how this year progresses). Over winter testign Renault had a single wing failure and stopped testing to solve the problem. Similar scenario different outcome

[Adam43]

This is why interpretation and the if thing are so dangerous as you say. Your example of the Renault wing there gives the impression that you are saying if Mercedes had such a problem they would just send the driver out and not care if he died. Which is clearly not the case by any means.

The Le Mans issue was a very different situation. There was an increased danger from sending the cars out again. We know that because it crashed again. However the suggestion that the team chose to risk the lives of the other drivers is frankly ridiculous. And yoy have to view what happen in light of the information available at the time, not in retrospect. And also in light of the situation. There may well have been an error of judgement, but the suggestion here is made out to be something more. In addition Mercedes has had a lot of other drivers on their books before and after and inclusing those involved.

Webber may turn down the chance to drive for Mercedes again (assuming he would get the chance), but I maintain that they weren't all bad to him. And I refer back to my post above and the clash between Haug and Webber.

[avsfan733]

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

Your example of the Renault wing there gives the impression that you are saying if Mercedes had such a problem they would just send the driver out and not care if he died. Which is clearly not the case by any means.

The Le Mans issue was a very different situation. There was an increased danger from sending the cars out again. We know that because it crashed again. However the suggestion that the team chose to risk the lives of the other drivers is frankly ridiculous. And yoy have to view what happen in light of the information available at the time, not in retrospect.

Couldn't disagree more! They had the same thing happen twice and then choose to send the drivers back out. The firt time maybe you send them back out. But you should be figuring out why it happened and "he was following to closely" isn't a solution at least it never should have been. The driver is the ultimate computer on the car. An accident like that doesn't happen randomly or with no reason. It happens because something is wrong. Even if it did happen randomly the risk of a driver getting seriously injured in a case like that is so severe it needs to be treated with due respect not blamed on him.

[rocketracer]

spot on there avsfan.

to say that the car flipped the first time because the webber was following too close to the car in front (hardly a peculiar instance in car racing!) is rediculous. If they couldn't isolate the cause of the crash as being some freak circumstance that would have miniscule chance of recurring (if it was caused by another car on the track, then the fact that these other cars would still be out there says there's a reasonable risk that the accident could happen again - what would you tell the drivers - don't follow or pass other cars?)...

Therefore, the decision to send the cars out after the first accident (let alone after the second accident!) without gauranteeing you've solved the cars inherent problem, was simply irresponsible management. just crossing fingers and presuming it was an inexperienced driver that had caused the crash, and hoping that it would be solved was negligence to the highest degree, and i don't see how you could say it was any different, hindsight or not. We can all understand it was a tough decision, but when the cars are doing that kinda thing, then they should have just bitten the bullet, pulled the plug and copped the embarrassment.

Haug most likely decided to continue on because they had invested so much money and time into their CLR program that it would be highly embarrassing for their Le Mans team to go back and tell the executive board that they firked up and couldnt race these very expensive gallery ornaments. The cars were obviously not designed to handle impacts caused by crashed of this type, so the consequences could be pretty confidently described as immensely dangerous. If the second or third accident had caused serious injury or death to either driver, i'm pretty sure a court of law would have hung drawn and quatered Haug or other MB management for putting their corporate face above the priority of the safety of their drivers...

[Adam43]

They were completely wrong to send them out and they definitely made the wrong decision. However that is not to say they choice they made was specifically to risk the drivers.

avsfan733 when you say that you completely disagree wityh my post, but I presume you do not mean that if Mercedes had such a problem with the wing they would just send the driver out and not care if he died. Such a suggestion is very serious indeed, as is your post rocketracer, where you are suggesting corporate manslaughter.

My point here is that in motorsport mistakes at all levels are made at all levels and they can have a terrible consequence. However I suggest at no point did anyone at Mercedes take a decision that dismissed the any danger to drivers. That is the only thing I am disputing here, not that the wrong choice was made, because with hindsight, it was shown to be the wrong choice.

[ASCII Man]

It's just common sense to withdraw your entries when something happens to the cars which you do not know the cause of.
To say that the driver was at fault was bizarre at the very least, even without the benefit of hindsight.

If you're going to enter at Le Mans but can't produce a car that can handle the bumpy straights, can't follow other cars and even takes flight, then, to say it bluntly, you don't deserve to be competing there.

They should have pulled the plug after the first incident.

[Splatz the Cow]

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

This is why interpretation and the if thing are so dangerous as you say. Your example of the Renault wing there gives the impression that you are saying if Mercedes had such a problem they would just send the driver out and not care if he died. Which is clearly not the case by any means.

The Le Mans issue was a very different situation. There was an increased danger from sending the cars out again. We know that because it crashed again. However the suggestion that the team chose to risk the lives of the other drivers is frankly ridiculous. And yoy have to view what happen in light of the information available at the time, not in retrospect. And also in light of the situation. There may well have been an error of judgement, but the suggestion here is made out to be something more. In addition Mercedes has had a lot of other drivers on their books before and after and inclusing those involved.

Webber may turn down the chance to drive for Mercedes again (assuming he would get the chance), but I maintain that they weren't all bad to him. And I refer back to my post above and the clash between Haug and Webber.

I agree with you a lot here Adam.

I also add that many of these situations of major failures are unique and it is erroneous to start comparing different mechanical failures that are years apart, and between GT and F1. The 1999 Le Mans situation is unique I think, and should be treated as such.

I strongly emphasise that I cannot agree with a statement that, Mercedes knowingly risked the lives of their drivers.

Analysis from people such as Mulsanne Mike, aerodynamicists and others, as well as comments from Webber, and journalists at the time and since, seem to indicate an unfortunate collection of things being not right that weekend.

Had the crashes happened in a different order; the bad one first; there is no doubt in my mind that Mercedes would have pulled the program, and had only the driver's welfare in mind.

Wings falling off F1 cars is a weird situation, in that I remember Michael Schumacher losing his Ferrari front wing, (Sepang I think,) and returned to the pits at 3/4 race pace!

Back at Le Mans though, it is worth remembering that when faced with problems on the 1998 BMW LMR, the factory team pulled every car in on the Saturday, or Sunday, I forget which, and went home. They returned the next year to win a 1-2, and dominate the 1999 ALMS series.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by Splatz the Cow

I strongly emphasise that I cannot agree with a statement that, Mercedes knowingly risked the lives of their drivers.

I agree. They were worried enough to call Adrian Newey in the middle of the night (whilst he was in Canada) and seek his advice.