How soon will Vettel / RBR wrap up 2013?

[FoxHound]

So a puncture was something in the drivers control?

Also unlapping yourself means nothing if its out of sync.

Im sorry to say, but you are effectively saying the mclaren is a better car even with the misfortunes the driver suffered. All things arent equal in f1, had they been then I could concur.
In no way is this an accurate assessment.

[CHT]

So a puncture was something in the drivers control?

Also unlapping yourself means nothing if its out of sync.

Im sorry to say, but you are effectively saying the mclaren is a better car even with the misfortunes the driver suffered. All things arent equal in f1, had they been then I could concur.
In no way is this an accurate assessment.

this is the kind of stuff which I am trying to avoid in this thread. Now we are talking about Mclaren.

[LionKing]

So a puncture was something in the drivers control?
Im sorry to say, but you are effectively saying the mclaren is a better car even with the misfortunes the driver suffered. All things arent equal in f1, had they been then I could concur.
In no way is this an accurate assessment.

What I am saying is misfortunes like pitstops, punctures, accidents (main difference in DNFs between RBR and McLaren) have nothing to do with how good a certain car is. But car's reliability is...

[FoxHound]

So ill fortune via team conduct. This is outside of a drivers control.
May as well have been ill fortune while designing a front wing or something on the car...the driver is a passenger in these circumstances.

Baring driver error such as hamilton in monza.

[mnmracer]

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.

Since Red Bull statement is that they have no number 1 and number 2 driver, the burder of proof is on you.

FACT is that prior to the team swapped it's wing (not Webber's wing), Webber said he didn't care for it.
FACT is that Webber was not reprimanded by Red Bull for his actions in Silverstone or Brazil.
FACT is that Webber saving tires meant he could not go quicker.
FACT is that no team in the history of Formula One has ever given a team order favoring the alleged number 2 driver, let alone two team orders in one race.

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.

FACT is that you don't know the reasoning.
FACT is that it is ridiculous to claim that a team and a company like Red Bull would opt for sub-optimal results if they believed they could achieve better results with someone else than Vettel-Ricciardo, and you have supplied zero evidence why they would.

When your statements ignore so many facts, you should come with a lot better arguments.

[Juzh]

^ this basically. I couldn't be bothered to write it all up, so thank you mnmracer. Webber himself specifically said in silverstone 2010 he didn't notice any difference between old and new FW and only wanted to use it to screw up Vettel, who told team it's worth running it.

[FoxHound]

Facts mnm?

Can you list your sources to go with the FACTS?
Because when I checked, and I did so extensively, Red Bull told both drivers to save the tyres.

The front wing saga you claim to say Webber didnt care much for, which goes against every story I have read.
He was angry. He wanted it on his car, and red bull gave it to their number 1 driver who smashed his own in free practice. Do you think Webber said "not bad for a number 2 driver" because he felt cranky in the morning?
Be reasonable.

Then you claim that overlooking the likes of Raikkonen and Alonso in favour of Ricciardo is something to do with "optimal" results?
Optimal for whom? Vettel? Its no secret Horner and Newey wanted a big name. They where overridden from above.
Marko and mateschitz didn't want Vettel being challenged from within. So they got someone in who will do as he is told.

Oh and I'll source the links for the first couple of paragraphs just as soon as you do.

[raymondu999]

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.

[mnmracer]

Can you list your sources to go with the FACTS?

You are only challenging three facts (I take it you acknowledge you were wrong in regards to the other ones ?)

Red Bull told both drivers to save the tyres.

My bad for copying your incorrect initial statement.
CORRECTION: Webber was told to save fuel. And only Webber was told to save fuel.
Vettel had been running a leaner engine map, which would have allowed him the advantage to run a higher engine mapping later in the race. Webber had the same advantage, but used it earlier on in the race. That's why he couldn't any longer after the last pit stop.

The front wing saga ... their number 1 driver who smashed his own in free practice.

For someone claiming to have "checked ... extensively", it is peculiar you are making such a 100% false statement.
FACT: the front wing failure was mechanical, not a driver error.

For the other part, see Raymond's comment above.

Then you claim that overlooking the likes of Raikkonen and Alonso in favour of Ricciardo is something to do with "optimal" results?
Optimal for whom? Vettel? Its no secret Horner and Newey wanted a big name. They where overridden from above.
Marko and mateschitz didn't want Vettel being challenged from within. So they got someone in who will do as he is told.

Take one step back there buddy. YOU are the one making claims that Red Bull would not go for optimal results.
For all your speculation there, you have failed to provide even a SINGLE argument why a company like Red Bull would sacrifice optimal results for a driver.

FACT is that we don't know the reasoning behind the driver choices.
FACT is that you don't know it is to allegedly 'protect' Vettel.
FACT is that a company like Red Bull did not become a company like Red Bull by acting like you are suggesting.

It is up to you to prove these facts wrong.

[turbof1]

Ok can we get back on topic please? I hate to interrupt this little bromance of the 2 of you, but please show your love for eachother in a nice pink PM.

[FoxHound]

Can you list your sources to go with the FACTS?

You are only challenging three facts (I take it you acknowledge you were wrong in regards to the other ones ?)

Honestly? No, I just can't deal with all of your post in one single swoop. Time constraint.

Myth charaded as FACT 1: Webber didn't care for the Front wing.
Here is one of hundreds of sources readily available online.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/formul ... glory.html

Now after reading this, and you still think the above is kosher and Mark was happy....watch this video.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLNMDrQ_56U[/youtube]


After watching this, and you still think Mark is chuffed, then read this....
http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2010/07/v ... ng-change/

So the reality is Red Bull where conducting back to back tests on the wing on BOTH cars. Vettel would have had to take his new one off to run the old version too, something Webber did but is being used as a reason for him not loving the new wing.
As we can see, and read he wanted that wing on his car in the race.

@Raymondu this is also a valid response to your post I think.

[FoxHound]

Myth charaded as fact 2:

FACT is that no team in the history of Formula One has ever given a team order favoring the alleged number 2 driver, let alone two team orders in one race.

Eddie Irvine 1999 championship.


Myth charaded as fact 3:

Red Bull told both drivers to save the tyres.

My bad for copying your incorrect initial statement.
CORRECTION: Webber was told to save fuel. And only Webber was told to save fuel.
Vettel had been running a leaner engine map, which would have allowed him the advantage to run a higher engine mapping later in the race. Webber had the same advantage, but used it earlier on in the race. That's why he couldn't any longer after the last pit stop.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxRyWn7k9EU[/youtube]

From Red Bull: We told the drivers to stay in their position because we worried about their tyre wear.


Do you have evidence to contradict Marko? A Red Bull head honcho?

[FoxHound]

The front wing saga ... their number 1 driver who smashed his own in free practice.

For someone claiming to have "checked ... extensively", it is peculiar you are making such a 100% false statement.
FACT: the front wing failure was mechanical, not a driver error..

My mistake that he smashed his own front wing.
Next time I will say that Red Bull smashed the wing for Vettel. The difference it makes? Not a jot.
But he did have an accident yes? He did get the number 2 cars wing yes?
So let's move on.

[FoxHound]

FACT is that Webber was not reprimanded by Red Bull for his actions in Silverstone or Brazil.

Expand on this.

[mnmracer]

Myth charaded as FACT 1: Webber didn't care for the Front wing.

You can keep supplying 'Webber is angry' posts as long as you want, all it re-inforces was that he was angry. It DOES NOT prove that

1. he had not told the team he didn't care much for one or the other
2. he did not say in the press conference "I don’t think there’s a huge amount in them"

All it proves is that Webber started caring AFTER Vettel got it.

Eddie Irvine 1999 championship.

Yes, because he was the no. 2 driver at that point...
Don't play dumb.

From Red Bull: We told the drivers to stay in their position because we worried about their tyre wear.

Whose tire wear?
FACT was that Vettel on the type of tires he was at, had previously done 17 laps on them, with 13 laps to go.
FACT was that Webber on the type of tires he was at, had previously done 12 laps on them, with 13 laps to go.
FACT is that there is no indication they had anything to worry about with Vettel's tire wear.