This is not defining. It's lazy.ME4ME wrote:Soon you are going to suggest that Mercedes sabotaged their own starts at Silverstone so that Williams could take the lead for a while until the end of the race to create some excitement just before stealing the win back and look like heroes?
There have been mighty long discussions in the past about reliability and team failures happening to Vettel and Webber and the consensus always was that they both were victims on quite and equal basis.
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/groups/f1/fo ... -red-bull/
To make a point the entire scope needs to be factored in.
If Webber/Vettel suffered KERS issues, you need to compare what position they were in when it occurred and what it cost them.
Phil's point regards the focus of the red bull garage is to my mind, the best explanation. It's not a conspiracy theory to suggest that Vettel was the main focus of the team. It stands to reason that had Vettel disobeyed a team order, and had legal grounds to gag Red Bull... he was a clear contractual number one.
It could also be extended to equipment for the car, the wing debacle at Silverstone the most evident.
My surmising view here is that Webber would still not quite match Vettel in an absolute equal pairing.
But Webber at Red Bull did have merits that may not be so obvious.
His experience helped the team, he was an old stooge for referencing car performance with greater experience than Vettel.
It's not a unique ability, but in a team of 2 cars you need someone who can regularly be that reference point.
