How soon will Vettel / RBR wrap up 2013?

[iotar__]

He was angry.

Don't forget he took it off before FP2. When Seb's wing failed, Mark had already reverted to the old wing. Source being rewatching FP1, 2 and 3 in Silverstone.

Chris Horner's quotes on the Saturday read, "It went to Sebastian based on Championship position, his performance in P3 and the drivers’ feedback on the different front wings from yesterday."

Let's look past the "based on championship position and performance in P3" bit first. "based on the drivers' feedback on the different front wings"

Logically, it seems more likely that he was angry that it was put on Seb's car, not angry that it got taken off his.

Short version: decision to run old wing for Webber wasn't made by him nor was it made on Friday, he wasn't even included just given result. That's why they needed fake decision making process on Saturday including fake reasons like championship standings etc. next to "feedback". Watch press conference and mechanics reaction (wing waving) for further evidence of foul play and preferential treatment.

Long version : Oh, not Silverstone again. There's a contradiction and you are brushing it aside with "let's look past", it's really important what Horner is saying. If it was based on driver's feedback all this nonsense about WDC position isn't necessary. Performance in FP?! Like they race each other in FP1,2 for new updates (Marko's Vettel was "faster") .Why mention it if, as you say, they took it off anyway? Lies - same as championship position, small meaningless number, it's making up the "rules" of updates distribution to explain preferential treatment of Vettel. Not to Webber, but marketing type of "explanation" to the drinking RB audience. See: it's based on hard data - he was faster, he is in front on points, not because we like him better. Not Red Bull cool.

I see it differently. They (team) didn't "revert" to anything, drivers are not picking and choosing what they do in FP, they drive according to programs team prepares for them, relying on their feedback of course, "let's run older wing longer then" for example. They had second car, too. There's no evidence for Webber "choosing" old wing and then being angry only because Vettel got his as you claim. Do you think that without Vettel damaging his they'd be running two different wings in the race? OK it can happen but didn't because leaving everything else aside that would be the first and only thing Marko/Horner would need to say. That's why they needed all this other fake reasons (WDC pos., times) AND driver's feedback.

So, they're running their own programs, Vettel damages his own, it's standard data comparison time, gets Webber's because he's their chosen driver, they don't bother to inform Webber, Webber's pissed and vocal about it, something they didn't expect, Horner and co. are using any feedback ("feedback" - not "decision" to use either wing) he had in FP against him, working backwards from wing decision, and are making up rules about WDC points etc.

Remember also sides of garage competition and tension with wing waving(?), strong indication of foul play. Drivers' reactions are also telling at infamous press conference, similar to Malaysia pre-podium , Vettel knew it was a foul and it showed. Mechanics and drivers wouldn't act like that if it was fair, professional decision. It's not hard data but you watch it and know what happened, then marketing bullshit dilutes and twists everything.

[Phil]

At least have the decency to admit defeat. Now it just looks like a cheap bail-out.

I don't really want to get involved in this argument, but I do see a valid case in both arguments. You seem to take on the stance "as long as there is no evidence, there's no space to make an argument", where as Fox's stance is rather, "judging by the way Webber has reacted and from certain events that unfolded, the logical conclusion is..............."

While I agree with you that a lot of it is speculation, logical reasoning (that not everyone might agree with), I also agree with Fox that something there has been going rather wrong and that something, eventhough not all the facts might be out in public domain or provable in a messageboard, is not as it seems.

I would say a reasonable guess is that the truth would be somewhere in the middle of both arguments.

Even if we assume that RedBull hasn't, contrary to what they've been telling the press, been giving both drivers an equal playing field or outrightly disadvantaging one driver over the other - them soon holding 4 WDCs in a row perhaps shows that they've been doing something right, even if it has come at the expense of an angry driver [Webber] going against the team.

A team giving equal opportunities to both drivers IMO doesn't result in both drivers having a fall-out as has been the case with Webber and Vettel. If anything, the whole saga that started in 2010 shows that there is something going on - at the very least favoritism. I also think it's rather telling how Vettel is coached during the race ("Seb save your tyres", "visualize the restart after the safety car" etc) or how he is treated in the team (Turkey 2010 comes to mind) - makes you sometimes think he's driving in a 1 driver-team. Ferrari and Lotus might be doing that too, but that really isn't the argument here. Redbull is a drinks company - and I would think such a company (or its owners) are at the very least concerned about their marketing exposure and image. At least more than a team with actual a racing history where its goals are simply in winning. In that sense, I see a clear motivation to play the card that they're equal to both drivers to the press and the world because officially backing one driver over another might not go well with their perceived image of sporting and fairness - especially if that 2nd driver is as direct and open as Webber.

At the end of the day; I agree with most people that Vettel is the quicker driver of the two. With the amount of failures that Webber seems to endure, I can't blame him (or anyone) to mistrust his team. I also think that the difference between the two is smaller than the results seem to suggest - in a Formula where the best of the best are seperated by tenths, every detail counts. Even if a car is somewhat better set-up (or designed) to fullfill a drivers preference could make that difference. And considering that RedBull like to set-up their car for cornering rather than straight-line performance might be another indication that it's easier for Vettel out in front to drive to the potential of the car rather than Webber who finds himself in trafic and is somewhat limited by the cars that end up in front.

Sure there are also arguments of 'why would Redbull limit one of their own drivers if it only costs them a shot at the WCC' is valid - but despite the problems (clutch, kers etc) Webber seems to endure during races, he is still driving in the points necessary to secure the WCC. Either Webber is really that bit slower than Vettel or someone at Redbull is rather masterful in limiting one driver just enough to make that difference. Conspiracy theory? Maybe - but if you were a team and had the prospect of winning WDC and WCC year after year in the most prestigous racing formula, what would you do if you were presented with such a team and these two drivers and had the option to influence it to some degree? IMO, I'd rather have the dominance at the expense of one of the drivers than the 2010 season (or the 2007 season at McLaren). The kind of dominance they are displaying now IMO is only really possible if you either have two drivers with a bigger gap between them or closer matched drivers but on a not quite level playing field.

If you simply have two evenly matched drivers, you'll likely end up in a situation where you have 2007 (or even 2010) all over again where both drivers share and lose a lot of points between each other. Good for the WCC, but probably less good for the WDC, depending on how strong and consistent your opposition is.

Regardless what is going on behind the scenes, I have absolutely no doubt that RedBull is extremely happy with the way the past 4 years have turned out and have no reason to change that 'formula' - however influenced or not it is.

[Richard]

As ever, a thread with a driver's name in the title ends up bickering.

Game over.