How soon will Vettel / RBR wrap up 2013?

[CHT]

Thread title: How soon will Vettel/RBR wrap up 2013?

RBR=Vettel and Webber.

Unless you would like to start a thread titled: How soon will Vettel and the Red Bull Racing team including Webber, wrap up 2013?

There is already a thread dedicated for RBR right HERE. http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... &start=195

I am sure that will be the best place to share your insights about how Webber career and race were compromised by the team who pay him to drive and his car is being sandbagged by his team to not perform.

[FoxHound]

What 2/3 races??? McLaren was clearly the superior car in 2012.

Even in the second half where RBR is told to have a surge: McLaren had 6 poles and 5 wins and RBR had 4 poles and 4 wins. That is with the 2 McLaren wins lost to mechanical issues in that period. Otherwise Mclaren would have won 7 of 10 races in second.

In 2012 on average, McLaren was a tad over 2 tenths quicker than RBR in dry qualifying sessions as well.

Halving a season and deducing entirety? Why halve it?
The facts for 2012 are....

8 poles for both McLaren and Red Bull.
7 victories for McLaren and 7 for Red Bull.
Podiums 13 for McLaren 14 for Red Bull.
9 retirements for McLaren 5 retirements for Red Bull.

Of these McLaren notably lost out on Red Bull due to reliability. Did Hamilton not suffer whilst leading?

So you are left with the deduction then that Red Bull had a car at least as fast as the McLaren, that was able to finish races with a higher reliability percentage of around 40% that of McLaren.

Furthermore deducing speed over a season is not accurate.It's an anomolous statisitic as it bears out nothing relevant over a season....look at Rosberg out-qualifying Schumacher 12-8 but is still 0,200 seconds slower.....
1 race only gives 25 points, regardless of the speed difference between yourself and the competition.
The better indicator is grid position, of which Hamiltons was 4.3 to Vettel's 5.0.

However, Hamilton failed to finish on 6 occasions compared to Vettel's 2.
And, We need to look at how many points was lost in these retirements. To make things even more accurate, we need to look at how many points each gained from the others failure.

I read on F1 fantatic that in total, Hamilton lost around 108 points all things considered (like a swing calculation)due to reliability when also taking into consideration Vettel's failure rate.
The difference at the end of the season was 91 points....

So this is where I'm basing my opinion. I hope this clarifies it, and I hope also to engage constructively further on-topic

[FoxHound]

There is already a thread dedicated for RBR right HERE. http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... &start=195

I am sure that will be the best place to share your insights about how Webber career and race were compromised by the team who pay him to drive and his car is being sandbagged by his team to not perform.

I'm sorry, can you quote me as to where I was alleged to have said Webber was being "sandbagged not to perform" or being "compromised" intentionally by RBR?
And thanks for the link. The team thread right...Why not migrate the whole thread over to that as it still involves Vettel, RBR and Webber??

[turbof1]

As the topic is about RBR's dominance, and because we are analysing why it is so dominant, I find the subtopic "management" very relevant here. I took Webber as a case example, which is still relevant. Nothing wrong here, CHT.

[Juzh]

Red Bull operate a number 1 and number 2 car policy, especially in terms of given resources at race weekends.
That's not to say the equipment is different, but like two identical Steinway piano's one that is set up and tuned to perfection will sound and perform to a different level.

Which top team doesn't? We effectively have team alonso (most obvious), team raikkonen (gets all the upgrades and has grosejan moving aside for him literally every other race) and team hamilton ("nico hold station...nico let lewis past"). Webber and Vettel are most equal teammates in that regard.

I would also add that I think Webber is in no way comparable to Vettel

You don't say?


And just to add. Mclaren was the fastest car overall last year no matter how you spin it. Even if the points don't say it. Just like red bull was in 2010, but almost lost WDC. If you followed the season and watched all races this is clear as a day.

[CHT]

As the topic is about RBR's dominance, and because we are analysing why it is so dominant, I find the subtopic "management" very relevant here. I took Webber as a case example, which is still relevant. Nothing wrong here, CHT.

For now

[CBeck113]

As the topic is about RBR's dominance, and because we are analysing why it is so dominant, I find the subtopic "management" very relevant here. I took Webber as a case example, which is still relevant. Nothing wrong here, CHT.

For now

I'd go one step further: the lobbying of their management took a great car design and eliminated the last weakness of that vehicle: the tires. There may have been a safety issue, but that did not force them to use the 2012 construction as the solution, RB and Mercedes did. (And it was the cheapest too.)

They did everything right this year, which is why the rest of the races will be rather boring. But, to answer the title of this thread, it will be both titles in Austin, and at least one technical DNF before that. "Everything's big in Texas!", the party too, which would be very good for the American viewers and casual fans.

[FoxHound]

Which top team doesn't? We effectively have team alonso (most obvious), team raikkonen (gets all the upgrades and has grosejan moving aside for him literally every other race) and team hamilton ("nico hold station...nico let lewis past"). Webber and Vettel are most equal teammates in that regard.

CHT pointed out this is the RBR Vettel thread. So Perhaps you can start a thread and we can parlais there?
However, I've bolded a bit of your statement that I find incorrect. We can talk about this if you can expand further on it?

You don't say?
And just to add. Mclaren was the fastest car overall last year no matter how you spin it. Even if the points don't say it. Just like red bull was in 2010, but almost lost WDC. If you followed the season and watched all races this is clear as a day.

I thought I would point it out to avoid this sort of response.
McLaren was not the best car, as I have pointed out. You can argue about who had the fastest, it's irrelevant if it does not finish races. If McLaren and Red Bull had equal reliability records in 2012, you could proceed with your argument.
But they don't, so you can't make a fair assessment.

But as for the method....

I'll make this very simple so nothing gets lost.

If car A is 1 second a lap faster than car B at 1 venue but then 0.5 seconds behind car B at 2 venues it is deemed to be equal over three venues.

This is using the aggregate mathematical measuring method, which is flawed if you haven't already noticed.

At 1 venue there is 25 points up for grabs. So car A, the supposed equal car will have an "all things being equal" chance of 1st 2nd 2nd at these venues(1st 3rd and 3rd also probable).
Car B would be 2nd(3rd also probable) then 1st and 1st.

Therefore, using the methodology of aggregating the speed over a season, after these 3 races the figures would stand like this:

Car A 61 points
Car B 68 points

Yet, both cars have the same speed according to the above method.

Can you now see why this is flawed?

[Juzh]

Which top team doesn't? We effectively have team alonso (most obvious), team raikkonen (gets all the upgrades and has grosejan moving aside for him literally every other race) and team hamilton ("nico hold station...nico let lewis past"). Webber and Vettel are most equal teammates in that regard.

CHT pointed out this is the RBR Vettel thread. So Perhaps you can start a thread and we can parlais there?
However, I've bolded a bit of your statement that I find incorrect. We can talk about this if you can expand further on it?

What I meant is that among those 4 teams, red bull treats it's drivers most equally. We have zero evidence to the contrary. In fact red bull told Vettel to sit behind webbo in malaysia.
Now you can list your reasons why you find that statement incorrect.

on the mclarens in 2012:
I said mclaren was fastest, not the best. It surely wasn't the best as it broke down a lot. It was very similar to mclarens kimi drove in the past, especially 2005. Undoubtedly the fastest, but very unreliable.

[WhiteBlue]

I think a great ending to the season will be for Vettel and RBR to help Webber win one final GP before this retirement from f1

Why would they do that? Webber has been a pain in the backside. If he were true to his own PR he would refuse to take such gifts if they were possible at all. In order for Vettel to gift a win to Webber they need to be running in 1-2 order which hasn't been possible for Webber recently.

[LionKing]

Vettel also lost 25 points in Valencia, 12 in Monza and another 12 in Malaysia as well...

I mentioned 2nd half of 2012, as RBR has improved relatively compared to competition. Whether 1st half or 2nd half McLaren was better car.

McLaren had 4 DNFs due to accidents alone. Another 2 more when they chose to retire Lewis in Germany when he was a lap down and Button on the penultimate lap @ Bahrain. when he was out of points. What does accidents and strategic retirements have anything to do the car being best or not?

Webber had an accident in 1 race and another they chose to retire the car 2 laps to go in Monza.

Both had 3 real mechanical DNFs each:
RBR (Bahrain, Monza for Vettel and USA for Webber) vs McLaren (Singapore, Abu Dhabi for Lewis and Monza for Button )

PS: Rosberg - Schumi in qualifying was 10-10 last year not 12-8.

[FoxHound]

What I meant is that among those 4 teams, red bull treats it's drivers most equally. We have zero evidence to the contrary. In fact red bull told Vettel to sit behind webbo in malaysia.
Now you can list your reasons why you find that statement incorrect.

Front wing saga at silverstone? Webber's own statement over the radio publicly stating "not bad for a number 2 driver".
Red Bull failing to reprimand Vettel for his actions in Malaysia. Webber could have gone quicker but was obeying team orders to save tyres.
I cannot as you cannot prove definitively that there is no number 1 or 2. We can go by what we see, and if you have seen fair play between Webber and Vettel then I can say categorically that I have seen unfair play between the 2.

Also we can see Red Bull not going for the best driver on the market. Raikkonen, Alonso and a couple of others would all be easily better than Webber. Yet we see Red Bull chose Ricciardo who may not even be the best driver at Torro Rosso. What does this tell you? Red Bull will not be putting a winning driver in that car as it will threaten the other side of the garage in my view. We will see of course.

Ferrari I agree operate a 1-2 policy as do Lotus. But Mercedes? According to who? Marko ?
If Rosberg had 1 sniff of being number 2 he would be off to one of the other top 4 teams.

on the mclarens in 2012:
I said mclaren was fastest, not the best. It surely wasn't the best as it broke down a lot. It was very similar to mclarens kimi drove in the past, especially 2005. Undoubtedly the fastest, but very unreliable.

Therefore we are in agreement that the Red Bull was clearly the car to have in 2012.

[CHT]

As the topic is about RBR's dominance, and because we are analysing why it is so dominant, I find the subtopic "management" very relevant here. I took Webber as a case example, which is still relevant. Nothing wrong here, CHT.

For now

I'd go one step further: the lobbying of their management took a great car design and eliminated the last weakness of that vehicle: the tires. There may have been a safety issue, but that did not force them to use the 2012 construction as the solution, RB and Mercedes did. (And it was the cheapest too.)

They did everything right this year, which is why the rest of the races will be rather boring. But, to answer the title of this thread, it will be both titles in Austin, and at least one technical DNF before that. "Everything's big in Texas!", the party too, which would be very good for the American viewers and casual fans.

Texas will be great as Vettel hasnt won at the track before. Also DNF looks possible, they seem to be having some issue with the gearbox of late. But thats provided Alonso have solid finish for the remaining races.

[FoxHound]

Vettel also lost 25 points in Valencia, 12 in Monza and another 12 in Malaysia as well...

I mentioned 2nd half of 2012, as RBR has improved relatively compared to competition. Whether 1st half or 2nd half McLaren was better car.

McLaren had 4 DNFs due to accidents alone. Another 2 more when they chose to retire Lewis in Germany when he was a lap down and Button on the penultimate lap @ Bahrain. when he was out of points. What does accidents and strategic retirements have anything to do the car being best or not?

Webber had an accident in 1 race and another they chose to retire the car 2 laps to go in Monza.

Both had 3 real mechanical DNFs each:
RBR (Bahrain, Monza for Vettel and USA for Webber) vs McLaren (Singapore, Abu Dhabi for Lewis and Monza for Button )

PS: Rosberg - Schumi in qualifying was 10-10 last year not 12-8.

So a mechanic messing a drivers race is not part of the equation?
A strategic call by the team is also not deemed admissible? The team act as a team. Whether that is providing the car, designing it or running it in the race IMO.
It is common knowledge McLaren shot themselves in the foot, but to intimate that the McLaren car was superior to the the Red Bull is for me, wrong.
But I accept you may disagree, so maybe spare the thread and IM and we can continue further?

As for the qualy stats betwixt Ros and MSC
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/statistics/2 ... ying-data/

I got it from the above link.

[LionKing]

For MSC - Rosberg those are grid positions!
For instance MSC outqualified Rosberg at Monaco but started behind or at Suzuka where he outqualified Rosberg but got 10 grid penalty.

4 accidents and two those strategic retirements have nothing to do with mechanics, should notenter into picture when cars are evaluated. Lewis got a puncture in the first lap and fell a lap down. Mid race he even unlapped himself from Vettel for a while and almost from Alonso as well. There was no point to finish the race a lap down, better get a new gearbox next race...

Those cars had very comparable reliability last year.

McLaren and RBR had exactly one quali DSQ due to fuel issue. I think McLaren had 2 more pistop issues over the year.