Horner hits back over Webber criticism

Korean Grand Prix

Red Bull team principal Christian Horner described claims that driver Mark Webber tried to take one of his championship rivals out during the Korean Grand Prix as “absurd”.

After crashing into a wall on lap 19 of the race Webber’s car swung into the path of Nico Rosberg.

The Mercedes driver was running fourth at the time in between Webber’s championship rivals Fernando Alonso and Lewis Hamilton.

Gerhard Berger was quoted saying it was “clear” Webber hoped to take another driver out after crashing during the Korean Grand Prix, adding “He took out Rosberg, but it was the wrong one. I think in his mind he would have preferred Alonso or Hamilton.”

Horner told the Daily Telegraph:

As with every incident in Formula One, opinions will always be made without all the facts. Just to be absolutely clear ?ǣ Mark?s intention was not to take out another driver after his crash in the Korean Grand Prix and it?s ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

After Mark?s impact with the wall, it was clear on the TV and from the data that his car was badly damaged. However, the natural and immediate instinct of any competitive driver is not to give up and to keep going.

In the atrocious conditions, Mark made the snap decision to continue as every driver would in that situation ?ǣ it?s absurd to suggest that Mark would ever deliberately take out another driver.
Christian Horner

Rosberg also questioned Webber’s actions during the crashsaying it was “crazy” of him to allow his car to roll back across the track.

2010 Korean Grand Prix

Browse all 2010 Korean Grand Prix articles

Advert | Go Ad-free

205 comments on Horner hits back over Webber criticism

1 2 3 4
  1. King Six said on 27th October 2010, 16:12

    My initial thought was that he was just trying to save his race, but that doesn’t excuse him for letting his car roll across the track like that. If it was someone else lower down the pecking order, shall we say, they would have been given a grid penalty or worse.

    Even if it was in the heat of the moment and all that other stuff people keep sayin

    • Alistair said on 27th October 2010, 16:37

      I agree that penalties should be consistent. If you’ve broken the rules, written or sporting, then you should be punished: whether you’re Ferrari or Force India.

    • goWebber said on 27th October 2010, 18:53

      His car was damaged when he hit the wall. His brakes were gone. He couldn’t have stopped if he really wanted too. These accusations are utterly ridiculous.

      • Really? All 4 brakes were gone? And I’m guessing the clutch was also stuck disengaged because of the damage?

        I personally didn’t see anything wrong with what he did, until I read this article, and now I think there was a quick lapse of moral judgement on his side.

        Either way, we will never know.

        Note: Buttons recovery after his spin was brilliant.

        • Dianna said on 27th October 2010, 21:04

          That is why Button is a World Champion :) abd Mark isn’t (yet?)

        • spectator said on 27th October 2010, 22:32

          horrible driver anyway

        • Alistair said on 29th October 2010, 18:47

          Several F1 drivers have questioned this incident. I think that that should be sufficient, at least, for a Stewards’ investigation. Let’s examine the telemetry and the situation in full. Red Bull’s opponents should insist on an investigation: to discover the truth; to unsettle Red Bull at a crucial moment in the season.

      • David BR said on 27th October 2010, 21:21

        Well, no, they’re not at all ridiculous: Horner has basically confirmed that Webber was in control of the car and tried to rejoin the track and the race. Minimally that shows a complete disregard of his safety and that of other drivers.

        Add to that the incident with Hamilton at Singapore and, yes, there are some grounds for people to be suspicious he was trying to take out a rival. Neither is provable, though, either way. Though Rosberg was undoubtedly bemused by his action, as was Button with Vettel’s ‘lack-of-control-in-his-direction’ at Spa. I know, I know, just an unfortunate coincidence too!

        • It was Rosberg who came around the corner and hit Webber. Not the other way round.

          • David BR said on 28th October 2010, 2:11

            If there was no input from Webber, that would be true. But there apparently was: read carefully, Horner is explaining what Webber was *trying to do*, continue racing, which implies input and a degree of control. As I’ve written elsewhere, my impression from looking at the YouTube clips posted here is that Webber accelerated into the path of the oncoming car – which he could see since he was facing the wrong way on the track. I’ve really nothing against Webber, just saying what I think I’m seeing. I guess the telemetry would clear this up.

          • bananarama said on 28th October 2010, 10:06

            But if he tried to continue racing, hitting another car wouldn’t make your car any better ……. so logically, that can’t have been his plan.

            I still believe that he tried to steer the car somewhere out of the racing line and probably just misjudged the situation.

    • spectator said on 27th October 2010, 22:34

      After tha crash you can see tha the car went really fast to the other side of the track we know that web is a good driver but not crazy my opinion is that he forgot to hit the brakes at the precise moment of the crash after that he couldnt brake if he had break he would just sit on the middle of the track since he had no steering

    • TommyC said on 27th October 2010, 22:55

      where he ended up against the wall was on the racing line too. so drivers whould have come around the relatively blind right hander and then move to the right (where webber would have been of he had stopped)to take the left hander. so for webber to roll to the left side of the track kinda makes sense. i just suspect rosberg saw the incident cause he was so close behind and so took the natural avoiding action from where the initial incident was. so by both of them trying to avoid further contact, they came together

      • Toby Bushby said on 28th October 2010, 6:31

        Spot on, TommyC.

        This is nonsense. Now we’re going to analyse how a person reacts after a CRASH?
        In a wet race? Next it’ll be Webber sabotaging Seb’s engine before the race…

        Seriously, if people are taking the word of Christian ‘foot-in-his-own-mouth’ Horner about Webber’s actions, you’re reading too many tabloids – and paying for them too.

        I think I’ll wait for Webber’s response to this before even thinking about it again, and I’m pretty sure there’ll be silence from him, which is frankly what Berger’s (and some on this blog’s) comments deserve.

        • zecks said on 28th October 2010, 8:21

          Very true, we should remember media outlets will go fishing for what they want to hear and will often (i want to to say always) take comments out of context. I am not fluent in German, but it could just have easily been that Berger only agreed with the possibility of a deliberate move by Webber. When taken in the context of when he was a driver that is entirely plausible (senna v prost)

        • colonhell said on 29th October 2010, 21:03

          this is the only sensible comment i’ve read so far.

      • Platine said on 28th October 2010, 16:10

        That just dosnt make sense.

        How come Rosberg was taken out if Webber had stayed off the racing line?

        He reversed right across it.

        • Rosberg was not taken out. Webber had a terminally damaged vehicle as a result of contact with a concrete wall. It then becomes the responsibilty of other drivers to avoid the resulting debris.

          This is not NASCAR, these are the worlds best drivers and none of them would be in the position that they are in if they had ever thought about conducting their behaviour in such a way as to deliberately cause a crash with another car. Just stop and think about what you are about to write Platine, before you commit.

      • Patrickl (@patrickl) said on 28th October 2010, 18:47

        Webber was sliding on all 4 tyres. If he’d kept his brake down he would have continued sliding along the wall (on the outside of the corner) towards the patch of grass.

        He was not on the racing line and he would not have ended up there if he simply had braked.

    • MondoL said on 29th October 2010, 9:13

      You all got it wrong: Mark tried to stop in the middle of the road so a Safety Car would be on track and Vettel could not escape from Alonso. Now that’s thinking on the championship and status quo at Red Bull!

      >:)

  2. Icthyes (@icthyes) said on 27th October 2010, 16:19

    Hopefully it’s the end of this non-story.

    Notice though on occasions like these involving Vettel, Horner will then sometimes go on to say Vettel was actually doing very well and something along the lines of being robbed by the other driver involved. Interesting he didn’t blame Nico for trying to dive onto the inside of Webber.

    Just had another look at the video, you can see Alonso notice Webber and then move in the opposite direction. Some keep talking about it being a blind corner but if anything it would have been spray that impaired his vision – less spray and more time to react than Alonso, though.

    • damonsmedley (@damonsmedley) said on 27th October 2010, 16:54

      Like Webber, Rosberg only reacted instinctively in the limited time he had. I don’t think it is worth blaming either driver.

      • Alistair said on 27th October 2010, 16:59

        I don’t think anyone’s blaming Rosberg!

        Webber, however, had several seconds in which to turn into the wall or away from the racing line – and brake! He did nothing constructive: quite the opposite. It was, therefore, either deliberate or incredibly stupid on his part. The more likely explanation is that it was deliberate.

        • Cacarella said on 27th October 2010, 17:22

          Okay, I watched it about fifteen times Here
          or here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi7Cifaby3k
          and although it was foolish for Webber to continue rolling, I think Rosberg tempted fate a little by not slowing down enough.
          He seemed to guess inside and guessed wrong.

          • Jarred Walmsley said on 27th October 2010, 19:38

            What I think happened was Webber was trying to get his car off the track as it would be a lot less dangerous on the side of the track (where it ended up) than stuck in the middle of the track where it would have been had he applied brakes.

            Also, I bet if he had applied his brakes and stopped on the track there’d be controversy over that as well. So Webber made a split-second decision of what he thought would be the safest thing to do in those circumstances.

          • macca77 said on 27th October 2010, 21:25

            Thanks for the video. Watching it a lot of times my opinion is that Webber thought of rejoin the race cause when he hits the wall his car is still with four wheels, pointing in the wrong direction but still in one piece, so he tries to do a spin or something and then he is hit by Rosberg and game over.

          • Jim N said on 27th October 2010, 23:34

            Looking again and again at the video I can see no sign of any driver input into the car after it hit the barriers. The front wheels turn but that’s caused by the impact. So I assume he did what all inteligent drivers do when about to crash into the barriers, take his hands off the wheel and move his feet as far back as possible and off the pedals.

            To me he Webber just looks like a passenger after the crash.

        • baracca said on 27th October 2010, 17:26

          I don’t think anyone’s blaming Rosberg!

          Yes of course, Nico rammed Webber on purpose and retrospectively caused his crash against the wall.

          Now seriously: is (big if) Mark Webber did in purpose, we’ll never know for sure unless he says so (and he won’t). And a penalty for the next race would cause a mighty uproar at this time in the season, I’m 99.9% sure they won’t dare even if they think they should (and they surely don’t).

          People should get over it. We’ll never know about Mark’s intentions and there will be no penalty. Besides he’s got plenty of damage as it is now.

          Although Seb Vettel and Lewis Hamilton (well, and Jenson too, but forget it) still have a slim chance, Mark Webber is by far the most serious rival for FA Diaz and a penalty now would ruin his chances. Even though I support FAD and the Scuderia, I would hate it, we’d miss a lot of excitement at Interlagos (and probably Yas Marina too).

          And FWIW, I don’t really believe that Mark is guilty anyway.

          • baracca said on 27th October 2010, 17:27

            did in purpose

            did it on purpose (sorry)

          • Toby Bushby said on 28th October 2010, 6:42

            Just rewatched the video again and again. How could Webber continue to “go”? Has anyone noticed how hard it is to get an F1 gearbox into reverse? The guy was going backwards, so for those who say he kept his foot in, please explain the physics of that to me. Otherwise, the silly camera angles FOM uses have made it seem like he sped up, when he was probably just a pure passenger by that stage, and also probably trying to steer the car off the track once he was halfway across it. Safer than braking, if you ask me. Pity for Rosberg for going to the left, as Webber has said himself.

          • Daniel said on 28th October 2010, 15:09

            Reminds me of when Murray used to say, “look at him accelerate as he hits the grass.” Which was plainly impossible given the lack of grip on the grass.

        • Todfod (@todfod) said on 27th October 2010, 17:33

          I completely agree. I have seen onboard video and other angles over a dozen times, and there wasn’t the slightest effort made by Webber to keep it off the track.

          Additionally, for Horner to come and say that the natural instinct of every f1 driver, after an accident, is to steer back on track and continue racing, is just ABSURD! I haven’t seen any crashes other than Schumacher in Adelaide 94 that prove Horner’s theory right.

          I think the FIA should at least look at the telemetry and investigate the issue.

        • macahan said on 27th October 2010, 18:20

          VirginRacing posted the following on twitter.

          @formula1blog If you tear front right and left right calipers off an F1 car and hit the brakes, would you expect pedal pressure? #justSayin

          @formula1blog Front/rears are obviously completely separate, but I think it’s quite possible that the rear circuit was u/s too. Will ask ;-)

          Only thing that could/would prove if he did or didn’t is telemetry if he tried to break.

          But further my person opinion here is if he had hit the breaks after the wall hit he would have more then likely ended up stopped on the race line which would been far worse potentially then what now happened.

          I feel for Nico and shame what happened happened for him. But it’s racing. After a crash the car generally are out of control and what normally would work might not work.

          So far this year the ONLY penalties that been issued is where a in control driver have caused a accident. By the comments by some that think Webber should been penalized here then the same goes for example for Kamui Kobayashi at Sauber whom for starters crashed out both Nico Hulkenberg AND Sebastien Buemi in Austrlia, then again in China crashed out Sebastien Buemi. Never as far as I recall or remember seeing was there talks about giving Kamui a penalty at either of these cases.

          I don’t see much difference with the crash of Webber. It’s a post race crash Nico was innocent bystander that tried to squeeze past.

          It’s about as absurd to call for penalty on Webber as it was for people to call for a penalty for Kimi Rikkonen for loosing control and crashing into the back of Sutils Force India at Monaco which there was also very mixed feelings about. If people want to recall Kimi had by the time he hit Sutil already lost control of his car and was just a passenger at the time he hit Sutil. On the video replay you can see when he looses the car around the point of expected breaking point and is skidding out of control into Sutil and clips him from the rear.

          We could compare this to the Vettle issue this year in Spa, which was a avoidable crash, he just tried to hard to overtake Button in slippery conditions but before he attempted the fatal overtake he was in complete control of the car but lost the control when he got close to Button but instead of backing off he continued on with the result that Button was taken out of the race which for he got a penalty. That penalty was very harsh because after all don’t we want overtaking in F1 and I think penalizing for this incident could been detrimental to people want to overtake but also when they do they need to do it safely without taking others out so it was justified.

          • baracca said on 27th October 2010, 18:38

            Don’t forget about the Spa bus stop this year. The track was mostly dry but there it was still quite wet. Almost everybody went off track except for FDA that got it right… only to get hammered by Rubens.

            RB got no penalty, and rightly so of course. By the he was just a passenger in his skidding car. But no doubt it was all his fauilt.

          • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 27th October 2010, 22:19

            FDA

            I presume you mean Alonso?

          • baracca said on 27th October 2010, 22:21

            Yep it should be FAD, Fernando Alonso Diaz. I’m just not good with the keyboard

          • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 27th October 2010, 22:52

            Or you could just write ‘Alonso’ it would be a lot less confusing.

          • Patrickl (@patrickl) said on 27th October 2010, 22:54

            Or if you must use shorthand, use ALO as everyone else in F1 does.

        • spectator said on 27th October 2010, 22:29

          he couldnt turn the wheel but he could had brake

    • because it’s a story when is a ferrari involved. if it’s somebody else is a non-story.

      • baracca said on 27th October 2010, 17:52

        Well, MSC in Adelaide was driving a Benneton, And still it was a story.

        • Toby Bushby said on 28th October 2010, 6:46

          Don’t forget about the Spa bus stop this year. The track was mostly dry but there it was still quite wet. Almost everybody went off track except for FDA that got it right… only to get hammered by Rubens.

          RB got no penalty, and rightly so of course. By the he was just a passenger in his skidding car. But no doubt it was all his fauilt.

          But you just said Webber did it on purpose…. He himself has admitted fault, but claiming he did it on purpose is a whole different animal.

      • Icthyes (@icthyes) said on 27th October 2010, 20:28

        Hey, if Ferrari insist on being controversial, no wonder ;)

  3. Yes he tried to safe the car, but it ruined Rosberg’s race completely. When there is other cars on track it is very very stupid to let the car roll across. That shouldn’t really come as a surprise.

    • Alistair said on 27th October 2010, 16:34

      Yes; it’s either incredibly stupid (in not braking and in fact turning your car back onto the racing line on a race track with very poor visiability making a collision highly likely) or it’s a deliberate and most unsporting attempt to take out a competitor. Either way, it reflects most poorly on Webber.

      I think that it’s so stupid, it must be deliberate: I can’t imagine that Webber, or anyone, could be that dumb; I can imagine, however, that a driver would want to save his WDC, even through unsporting means.

      • Mark Hitchcock (@mark-hitchcock) said on 27th October 2010, 16:52

        Really? You think it’s more stupid to want to keep on driving than it is to deliberately take out a competitor?

        Some people are so desperate to see a conspiracy or controversy in everything that they ignore logic and common sense and jump to the most ridiculous conclusion possible.

        • baracca said on 27th October 2010, 17:31

          “Never attribute to malice anything than can be adequately explained by sheer stupidity”

          (who said that?)

          • Alistair said on 27th October 2010, 17:50

            The person who didn’t realise that, in this case, Occam’s razor dictates that Webber’s move can only be adequately explained through ‘malice'; though,’desperation’ and ‘panic’ are better words which I would substitute here.

            P.S. If Webber does have the ‘Schumi instinct’, that might actually make him a better driver. So I might actually be paying him a compliment.

          • Jared404 said on 28th October 2010, 11:26

            I agree with Alistair that Webber is either a ‘bit of a dill’ who made an embarrassing basic mistake (and was thinking “how am I going to keep going with only 2 wheels on the ground”) OR he is a cunning evil genius with a split second ‘Schumi instinct’.

            I’m going with the ‘bit of a dill myself’.

          • Daniel said on 28th October 2010, 15:14

            It would have to be a misfiring shumi innstince because apparently he wanted to hit Hamilton or Alonso?!

          • MondoL said on 29th October 2010, 9:20

            Hanlon’s Razor:
            Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

        • Todfod (@todfod) said on 27th October 2010, 17:37

          @Hitchcock. I’m sure Singapore 2008 took a lot of people by surprise, and this incident, actually seems a whole lot more blatant. We do not see people jumping at conspiracy theories at every crash, but this one just looked debatable enough.

          • So you’re suggesting Mark Webber purposely crashed whilst in second place meaning he’d get no points, in order to stop either Alonso or Hamilton from getting points? Even though had Webber not crashed he would have beat Alonso and Hamilton, and still be leading the championship anyway. Really clutching a straws there.

          • Todfod (@todfod) said on 28th October 2010, 6:27

            @Pinball. Im suggesting he crashed unintentionally, and then made a split second decision to steer back on track and take someone else out.

        • Alistair said on 27th October 2010, 17:42

          I think it’s stupid to turn (or allow your car to turn, through your nigh constant contact with your wheel) so that it returns from a heavy impact with a wall, onto the racing line of a soggy track, with terrible visibility around, and with cars that you know and can SEE are going to be where your car is drifting. I think it’s stupid, moreover, not to brake! Yes; I think that’s pretty stupid. Stupid, that is, if simply unintended and unintentional. Then, it’s just bad driving: it can be nothing more.

          If Webber had wanted simply to ‘keep on driving’, the sensible thing to do would have been to have braked, turned away from the oncoming traffic and waited until it was safe to rejoin the race. He did none of this.

          But, of course, to simply ‘keep on driving’ would have ended any hope of his scoring any points in the race – or his keeping right in touch with his main competitors in the WDC! Webber would have been right at the back of the pack with a damaged car needing a lengthy pit stop: if, indeed, the damage could be fixed. Alonso & co. would be up front.

          So, once you’ve hit the wall and are effectively out of the race, it’s clever, not sporting (best not to conflate the terms) to try and take one or more of your main championship opponents out with you. If Webber had got Hamilton, Hamilton would have been (effectively) eliminated from the championship hunt. Moreover, some people can’t see logic and common sense, and so would not ever think to find him guilty of a deliberate move! He got away with it: that’s clever.

          In summary, if the move (his ‘reversing’ onto the racing line with his wheel input and his not braking) was accidental, it was so stupid that no competent driver could have made it: it required said driver to react entirely the wrong way, for several whole seconds, to his interest of ‘keep on driving’. I’m sure we would agree that Webber is, at least, a ‘competent’ driver. Ergo, it wasn’t accidental: he had a different interest: he tried to take out an opponent: it was deliberate.

          • Mark Hitchcock (@mark-hitchcock) said on 27th October 2010, 19:17

            That’s ridiculous logic. He did something stupid, he’s not usually stupid, therefore it was deliberate. Of course.

            Like you said, he’s in the title fight and desperate for points. He obviously didn’t realise the extent of the damage to the car so he wanted to try to continue with the race.
            In doing so I agree he pulled off an extremely stupid and dangerous move, but to accuse him of risking his life and the lives of his fellow competitors in the name of a few points is incredibly crass and insulting.

          • Totally agree with M. HITCHCOCK.
            @Alistair
            That’s a nonsense logic. You’ll never know what happened in his head. So don’t say that it was intentional. Maybe he broke under pressure and didn’t realize what he was doing ? Maybe his mind was in the championship ? Anyway, I’m just speculating but the way you’re thinking is just wrong. It’s not because it is not “this” that it has to be “that”.

            He did a mistake (and a stupid one) but don’t be like that stupid Berger by trying to say what was going through his head.

          • Patrickl (@patrickl) said on 27th October 2010, 22:53

            Actually I’d say that in Webber’s defense, he usually IS stupid. Look at how he ran into the back of Hamilton in Australie. or tha back of Kovalainen in Valencia and then how he’d imagined to ever take the corner in Singapore without running into Hamilton.

            Somehowe he just does not seem to factor in that other cars are on the road.

          • Alistair said on 29th October 2010, 18:17

            It’s First Class logic, Hitchcock ;) ……Don’t set up a straw man by grossly misrepresenting my argument. If you’re going to report an argument, you need to accurately describe the premises; otherwise, your putative ‘refutation’ has fallen at the first hurdle. Here’s my argument:

            If Webber’s move (his ‘reversing’ onto the racing line of a sodden track with terrible visibility through his wheel input and his not braking, whilst he’s facing the oncoming traffic, after hitting a wall, which would end his race: a manoeuvre, in toto, which took several whole seconds) was accidental, it was so stupid that no competent driver could have made it: it required said driver to react entirely the wrong way, for several whole seconds, to his interest of ‘keep on driving’. If it were accidental, his super-license should be taken away, just until he has mastered how to steer and brake. I’m sure we would agree that Webber is, at least, a ‘competent’ driver; one fully deserving of his super-license. Ergo, it wasn’t accidental: he had a different interest: he tried to take out an opponent: it was deliberate.

            My argument is deductively valid. You should follow the former and current F1 drivers Berger and Rosberg, no strangers to the race track, and have the good grace to admit it, Hitchcock! Once Webber hit the wall, he knew his race was over; so he had to end someone else’s. He probably thought something like this: ‘that silver car approaching me, it looks like a McLaren. Ah; my old friend, Hamilton! Do you know the klingon proverb which says that revenge is a dish best serve cold? Well, it’s very cold…in Korea!’

            You also offer yet more red herrings: no one’s suggesting that Webber risked his or anyone else’s life: F1 is now so safe, thankfully, that that is most highly unlikely to happen. Using emotive language like this is nothing but a diversionary tactic. Webber and his competitors were traveling too slowly for a serious impact, anyway: another reason to deliberately crash?

      • Dianna said on 27th October 2010, 21:08

        Webber isn’t dumb at all,but he sure gets away with murder!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ask Lewis.

  4. Alistair said on 27th October 2010, 16:27

    I said it looked to me that Webber tried to engineer a collision with Hamilton right after the race; in fact, I thought it as soon as it happened. It looked dodgy; and Webber has a history of taking Hamilton out of races.

    After the impact with the wall, why did Webber deliberately turn his wheel so that he’d go backwards onto the racing line – where he was very likely to meet another car? Why didn’t he hit the brakes? Horner’s ‘explanation’ that Webber was simply trying to continue is not very plausible. Once more, doing what Webber did made a collision highly likely: there was poor visibility and very little track in which another car could avoid a collision. If Webber was simply trying to rejoin the race, he should have waited until the pack had passed. But, surely, he knew that his car was damaged and that any points – even if he could continue – were well gone. Hence the Schumi Survival Instinct crept in and he tried to take out Hamilton. If it had worked and Alonso had won, this would have pretty much elimitated Hamilton from the WDC challenge. It didn’t work: he hit Rosberg, who had overtaken Hamilton.

    • CapeFear said on 27th October 2010, 16:35

      He didn’t turn his wheel, he let go of it when he hit the wall, the wheel spun when he made contact which made his car turn that way which can be seen onboard shot.

      However, why he didn’t hit the brakes is a question I think all of us would like to know did they fail did he not use them what? I think it should be investigated.

      • Alistair said on 27th October 2010, 16:42

        No; Webber lets go of the wheel only for a second, no longer, at the moment of impact with the wall. Thereafter, he keeps his hands on the wheel in a position that would return him, backwards, onto the soggy track. He, seemingly, makes no attempt to brake, either.

        See below (before Bernie removes it)

        youtube.com/watch?v=HtmHJEghlUk

        • baracca said on 27th October 2010, 17:41

          Wow Alonso had it real close!! the way he manages to change course in a split second on such a slippery track is worth seeing. Some people may say he got the win on pure luck, but there you go, that was more than luck.

          Nico really had a lot more time to avoid Mark and he didn’t, he turned to the wrong side. Well, nobody blames him if he didn’t get a win last Sunday maybe it’s because he just wasn’t good enough. Not yet at least.

          • baracca said on 27th October 2010, 17:54

            Well, nobody blames him if he didn’t get a win last Sunday

            Well, nobody blames him, but if he didn’t get a win last Sunday…

        • Firebreather said on 27th October 2010, 17:42

          From this you can see that when he grabs the steering wheel again the wheel has spun around so is actually upside down. This means that the direction he is steering it (at 8 seconds) is opposite to the way the wheels are turning. He is trying to turn the other direction away from the oncoming cars, but because its upside down, is inadvertantly turning into the cars.

          • Alistair said on 27th October 2010, 17:53

            ‘He is trying to turn the other direction away from the oncoming cars, but because its upside down, is inadvertantly turning into the cars’. (Firebreather)

            Webber is an F1 driver. Don’t you think he knows how to operate his steering wheel with the desired result!? If he does, it’s deliberate. If he doesn’t, he has no business in F1.

          • macahan said on 27th October 2010, 18:26

            with the damage to the front tires it is not implausible that the steering is not functional.

            Further VirginRacing tweeted the following

            @formula1blog If you tear front right and left right calipers off an F1 car and hit the brakes, would you expect pedal pressure? #justSayin

            @formula1blog Front/rears are obviously completely separate, but I think it’s quite possible that the rear circuit was u/s too. Will ask ;-)

            so who knows if he tried or not tried to break. Might have tried but the breaks might been completely nonfunctional.

            Also I believe the way the car rebounded and how slick the track was if he had hit the breaks and they worked his car might ended up stopped in the middle of the track. Which is worse car completely stopped on racing line or a car rolling across racing line out to the side of the track?

          • bigredbears10 (@bigredbears10) said on 27th October 2010, 20:00

            From this you can see that when he grabs the steering wheel again the wheel has spun around so is actually upside down. This means that the direction he is steering it (at 8 seconds) is opposite to the way the wheels are turning. He is trying to turn the other direction away from the oncoming cars, but because its upside down, is inadvertantly turning into the cars.

            I completely agree 100%. This completely ends any conspiracy in my mind.

            Webber is an F1 driver. Don’t you think he knows how to operate his steering wheel with the desired result!? If he does, it’s deliberate. If he doesn’t, he has no business in F1.

            So let me get this straight. In that instant of say 1/2 a second, he let go of the wheel, hit the wall, had his brain slosh around a little, grabbed the wheel, figured out where he was on the track, realized his steering wheel was upside down (which would be harder because there is no LED display on the red bull steering wheel), went against instinct and turned the wheel the opposite direction because he had already processed his previous thought that the wheel was upside down, and actively thought lets not hit the brakes because I want to take out Fernando or Lewis because it would be best for my title chances. Oh in addition to no doubt letting out a huge swear.

            i knew f1 drivers were talented, but thats quite a lot for an split-second.

          • Daniel said on 28th October 2010, 15:20

            @Alastair: Yeah, too right. And how stupid was that Massa guy to drive straight into that wall last year. His car wasn’t even broken, how could Ferrari have given him a drive again. /sarcasm.

        • David BR said on 28th October 2010, 1:38

          Around 29-30 sec of this clip, after hitting the wall, Webber’s car actually appears to accelerate backwards, just as Rosberg is approaching, suggesting he actually drove into his path. Is that right?

          The point is Webber was up to something and presumably the telemetry shows driver input (and some control) after the crash, which is why Horner is defending him with the explanation/excuse that he was trying to continue racing.

        • How can anyone tell whether he tried to brake? Can you see his feet in the video? No! Can you be sure the brakes were still working? No!

          • Alistair said on 29th October 2010, 18:32

            A comment worthy of Hitchcock, Daniel! Massa was unconscious as soon as he had his impact. Webber wasn’t. Massa couldn’t consciously brake; apparently, he managed to brake a little, unconsciously. Webber didn’t brake: consciously or unconsciously.

            It’s a shame that some people simply can’t follow an argument.

          • Alistair said on 29th October 2010, 18:39

            We can tell that he didn’t brake because he didn’t slow down! If his brakes were faulty, don’t you think Christian, Webber, and Red Bull would have said so by now; especially as Christian has already postulated a ‘defence’ for Mark, one which made no mention of the rather salient point of whether Webber had any brakes! No: this was deliberate, obviously.

      • Alistair said on 27th October 2010, 16:47

        Also, after hitting the wall, Mark is actually facing the oncoming traffic: he can SEE one or more cars approaching – whether he can identify them in the time and spray, who knows.

        Have a look at this replay, the key bit is at 13 seconds onwards.

        youtube.com/watch?v=rl12WLsuCbI

    • TommyC said on 27th October 2010, 23:11

      “why did Webber deliberately turn his wheel so that he’d go backwards onto the racing line ”

      you do realise he reversed off the racing line. if he braked and stayed where he was, he’s have remained on the racing line which would have been more dangerous.

  5. AgBNYC said on 27th October 2010, 16:48

    Wow – while I don’t really believe he intended to knock anyone out, it is pretty shocking that they are saying he tried to continue the race and could have applied the brakes etc. Very strange… Don’t know why they felt the need to say that.

    • Mark Hitchcock (@mark-hitchcock) said on 27th October 2010, 16:56

      Agreed. He obviously didn’t try to take anyone out, but if he rolled back across the track in order to try to carry on in the race then that’s still a very dangerous and stupid thing to do.
      Deserves some sort of punishment in my opinion.

  6. DaveW said on 27th October 2010, 16:49

    I can’t believe we are still talking about Webber trying to take out someone. If anyone happened to have watched what happened, they would observe that Webber’s left front suspension was collapsed, and the right front wheel was sticking straight up in the air. He thus had no steering. And if he did slam on the brakes, assuming the rear brakes circuits were intact, and assuming they could have arrested the car before it left the track, he would have more likely ended up in the middle of the road with no way to move the car from that position, sitting there like a crash-test dummy.

    People like Berger should be ashamed to suggest that a F1 driver willfully would try on have a head on collision with another driver. Not even Senna or Schumacher in their most ruthless moments would have contemplated that kind of madness.

    • Alonso did that in the first corner in Turkey when he spun the car. He just slammed the brakes and then let the other drivers go around him and then he turned the car back in the right direction. A car that is stationary is easier to get around then a car that is rolling uncontrolled across the track.

      • DaveW said on 27th October 2010, 19:20

        And how did Alonso turn his car at Turkey? I’m going to say it was by using the front wheels. You might recall that Webber did not have the use of his front wheels. And it might now become apparent that this discussion about waiting to turn the car around is thus similarly unconvincing. More broadly, the suggestion that he somehow aimed or steered for someone, which would require controlling both speed and direction, is thus also completely incoherent.

        Obviously a die hard [blank] fan and all that. Really boring. I have my favorites; but Webber does not happen to be among them. But even Webber or soda pop firm fanatics would get to point to facts.

        As for Senna and Suzuka, don’t agree these incidents are the same by degree or form (not least because the primary proof we have of Senna’s state of mind is what he said before and afterward), but it’s neither here nor there, because Webber was not able to do what Senna did of what he’s accussed of.

        • Actually the way they all turn their car they hardly need the front wheels to turn, they shall just grip and then a dap on the throttle and they are around.
          But if he braked he would have realized that his front suspension was all smashed up and there would be no need for him to turn it around, then the marshall’s should just come and move it for him anyway.
          I don’t think he steered after someone, i just think that it was stupid that he didn’t hit the brakes to stop the car from ramming Rosberg off the track.

        • Anagh said on 28th October 2010, 4:45

          M not saying he did all that to drive into another driver. But itz obvious. When in a crash the first thing u do is stop. u dont try to get the car back on track in reverse.
          What Horner said isnt very convincing. It sounds a lot like he’s trying to make up a fair explanation. Hence the conspiracy.

    • Anagh said on 27th October 2010, 17:16

      You’re probably a die hard webber fan, hence the outrage. Had Alonso done the same, n I am not saying that webber actually did that, but had Alonso done that, and probably even you would’ve been in the list of conspiracy theorists.
      It’s like the Lewis Hamilton crashing into Kimi in the pitlane incident.

    • baracca said on 27th October 2010, 17:47

      Sorry but Ayrton Senna da Silva did it. And it’s not an opinion. He said he was going to do it before the fact, he did it, and afterwards he declared he had done it on purpose.

      He’s the best that ever was, but still…

  7. F1WithMySon said on 27th October 2010, 16:59

    So, is this Horner admitting that Webber did not brake after hitting the wall?

    I am rooting for Webber to win the championship. Having said that, I don’t understand why his car rolled across the track like that. Without seeing the telemetry, we have to give him the benefit of the doubt, but there are certainly a lot of questions about the path of his car.

    Watching it live, I couldn’t believe he rolled backwards like that without the front wheels locked. Then for a moment I thought that perhaps he was seriously injured and unable to brake. It is puzzling and it was dangerous, and a terrible shame for Rosberg who deserved a podium.

  8. judo chop said on 27th October 2010, 17:24

    Horner’s been spouting the same rubbish as Berger all year.

  9. King Six said on 27th October 2010, 17:33

    It’s unfortunate that the actual act of having the car roll across the track, something highly dangerous and illegal in itself, is being overlooked by the question of Webber’s intention to roll across the track.

    Don’t people understand that what he did was wrong, dangerous and should be punished, no matter what his intentions were?

    • Red Andy (@red-andy) said on 27th October 2010, 17:40

      It would be very unfair to punish him if he was no longer in control of the car when it rolled across the track. It had taken a hell of a whack against the wall, after all.

      • It should be recognized and a fine (at least) should be handed to him so that it does not happen again. There is a legal way to rejoin the track. I don’t think a racing penalty is appropriate because there will not be enough proof that his car was ‘too broken’ to control….

      • Todfod (@todfod) said on 27th October 2010, 17:51

        The telemetry should be analysed to see Webber’s steering input and whether he hit the brakes or not. If he is proved innocent after the analyisis, then all is good and well, but the telemetry should definitely be analysed . Just because he was leading the championship, and has a lot of fans supporting him this year, should make him no exception to the rule.

      • Vettel was also punished for ramming into Button even though he at the time he hit Button he were just a passenger, but he had made the mistake that made his car slide away underneath him.

  10. I don’t think the point of this issue is that Webber deliberately tried to take another driver out (forget about Berger’s comment).

    The point is that he did not try to stop his car to let the others by and instead chose to attempt to keep his race alive by rolling backwards.

    If this is the case ((and it seems obvious based on the video evidence and what Horner said “However, the natural and immediate instinct of any competitive driver is not to give up and to keep going”)) then what Webber did was absolutely outrageous and should be penalized.

    That said, he will not (and should not) receive any type of racing penalty (i.e. a drop in grid position). the race is over, it will not happen. A fine is unfortunately the appropriate thing to do.

    The funny thing is that Webber has always been at the forefront of safety in F1, but his judgment got the better of him in this case and he made a massive and very dangerous mistake.

    • baracca said on 27th October 2010, 17:49

      Yep, I think that most people would accept a fine, a serious one I mean. But not a racing penalty at this time.

      • Alistair said on 27th October 2010, 18:10

        Well, ‘the punishment should fit the crime’. IF the move was deliberate, Webber has intentionally tried to ruin at least one driver’s race. And Webber did ruin at least one driver’s race (Rosberg’s). Considering that Rosberg was on for a podium, it was a heavy blow for him. Webber retired from the race; but that doesn’t and cannot negate the damage he inflicted. So Webber needs a penalty for the subsequent race. I think that a grid penalty of 5-10 places would be sufficient. It would be draconian to throw him out of the championship a la Schumi in 97. (N.B., IF the move was accidental, perhaps Webber’s super-license should be revoked, just till he learns how to steer and brake.)

        • baracca said on 27th October 2010, 18:45

          Well, I’m not a Webber tifoso, but I find it a bit too hard. If they revoke MW’s superlicense and are consistent about it, soon there will be nodody left to race.

          And let’s get real, a grid penalty could have been feasible earlier and the season, but not now. Well, ok, justice is justice and ought not to depend on the circunstances. But in the real world it very much does.

        • I will never be possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was Mark’s intention to take another driver out. He will say (and likely it is true) that he was just trying to spin around to get back on track not knowing his car was dead. However, that action should be punished….

        • I will never be possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was Mark’s intention to take another driver out. He will say (and likely it is true) that he was just trying to spin around to get back on track not knowing his car was dead. However, the dangerous move of sliding across track to rejoin should probably be punished….

        • HewisLamilton said on 28th October 2010, 16:19

          Just out of curiosity, how many open wheel race cars have you raced?
          And of all of those race cars, how many have you ever had to deal with your front suspension being torn apart and possibly your brakes losing pressure? And then had to deal with traffic around you after a crash?

          It sounds like you should take over Webber’s drive as obviously you are a FAR better driver than he is.

  11. Joey-Poey said on 27th October 2010, 18:03

    has anyone ever considered the idea that the racing line at the point he hit the wall was toward that side of the track and he was trying to get it out of the way? Especially if he was trying to carry on like was said. For all we know he was facing backwards and couldn’t tell that’s where the turn started, thus inadvertently throwing himself into the line where he thought it wasn’t.

    All in all, this seems a bit silly to me since I don’t think he’d WANT to take someone out who could be barreling towards him at full speed with next to no visibility due to spray and completely t-bone the cockpit. And as has been said, we’ll never REALLY know. If it was on purpose, he’d probably take that secret to his grave. Schumacher never admitted if his moves in ’94, ’97 and ’06 were intentional, Prost never admitted if ’89 was intentional and in fact, the only case I can think of where this sort of move was admitted to be intentional, was Senna in ’90. If you know of any time a driver said “yep, I tried to hit him on purpose,” then please correct me.

    • Alistair said on 27th October 2010, 18:23

      ‘For all we know he was facing backwards and couldn’t tell that’s where the turn started, thus inadvertently throwing himself into the line where he thought it wasn’t’. (Joey-Poey)

      We can’t accept this. Webber didn’t even spin completely around once: he went 180 degrees on way and back. He’s an F1 driver: he knew which way he was facing. Helped by his SEEING the approaching cars on the racing line. Moreover, the left and right side of the tracks look completely different: one has a big wall; the other, green grass.

      youtube.com/watch?v=rl12WLsuCbI

      ‘If it was on purpose, he’d probably take that secret to his grave. Schumacher never admitted if his moves in ’94, ’97 and ’06 were intentional, Prost never admitted if ’89 was intentional and in fact, the only case I can think of where this sort of move was admitted to be intentional, was Senna in ’90′. (Ibid)

      I think Schumi has admitted to taking Hill out (to Clarkson and in Autosport). But he denies deliberately taking Villeneuve out at Jerez. I think that Prost has admitted to 89, as well.

      • Dianna said on 27th October 2010, 21:16

        Don’t tell Rubens, or he will report it AGAIN :) :) :)

      • Joey-Poey said on 27th October 2010, 23:48

        I’m not saying he didn’t know which way he was facing, I meant how close to the turn he was. Obviously he was aware which way he was facing, but in that situation it seems feasible that he might have thought he was still on the short straight and that it was wiser to move toward the inside of the straight since most cars will be weaving toward the outside before entering the turn.

        Helped by his SEEING the approaching cars on the racing line.

        By that alone, wouldn’t he have seen the car coming wasn’t Alonso or Hamilton and not swung into Rosberg in the first place? You have to assume he could not see the cars coming regardless of intent because if he could see Rosberg coming, he wouldn’t have swerved into him whether or not he wanted to take out one of the other championship leaders.

        I think Schumi has admitted to taking Hill out (to Clarkson and in Autosport). But he denies deliberately taking Villeneuve out at Jerez. I think that Prost has admitted to 89, as well.

        Huh. I did not know. I’ll have to check these out now.

  12. SPIDERman said on 27th October 2010, 18:20

    i have not forgotten that bbc interview whereby mark told jake humphreys that he is prepared to do anything to win the championship.
    can some one find that clip please?…
    And soon after he took Hamilton out when hamilton overtook him in singapore and the whole media passed it off as a racing incident.
    There is no reason why HE LET his car rolL onto the face of on coming traffic unless he intentionally wanted the race to be stopped for any MORE reasons if more cars crushed into his knowing that in that mix Hamilton might be in it if it happened.
    mark webber is not really being straight here.

    • Alistair said on 27th October 2010, 18:28

      Talking about singapore, that was another moment of brain fade from Webber. He braked far too late on the off-line slippery bit and simply ran into Hamilton who actually did give him some room on the inside – even though the corner was his and he was hit from behind as a ‘thank you’. I think that Webber’s move there was deliberate, also. It deserved a drive-through.

      • Robert said on 27th October 2010, 22:42

        You can add his brain fade in Melbourne to that list.

        • Alistair said on 29th October 2010, 18:56

          Yes; Webber tried to take Hamilton out of that race twice – and sucseeded once. Webber is a danger to the other drivers, especially Lewis, to whom he seems drawn somehow…

  13. And even if Webber did it cause he wanted to crash with fernando or lewis, so what? Its F1

    • baracca said on 27th October 2010, 18:59

      It certainly has happened plenty of times before. And almost everyone involved has got away with it. Jerez 97 was the exception.

      Suzuka 90 would probably not have gone unpunished if the FIA didn’t have their hands tied for not having punished Suzuka 89.

  14. goWebber said on 27th October 2010, 18:59

    These accusations are absurd. Would you rather have him brake and stop right in the middle of the racing line? Total rubbish!

    • I agree with you..

      if he break and stop in the middle of racing line it would be more disaster and perhaps more than one car will hit webber.

      when I look at the replays I don’t understand why rosberg didn’t slow a bit when he saw webber’s car spin, hit the wall and rolls back into the circuit.

      but it pointless to point fingers at who is to blame and Gerhard Berger maybe having too much beer while making those accusation

    • F1WithMySon said on 27th October 2010, 19:38

      Yes actually. A stationary car (even on the racing line) would have been easier to avoid than one moving across the track like that.

      • macahan said on 27th October 2010, 19:52

        moving across the line might cause risk for crash with one or two cars tops. Stopped in the middle of a race line after a fast corner and in spray from his position on the grid and you now have 22 chances of getting hit. Consider his “lead” spray for the first two was minimal but further back they where at that point fairly closely packed. Stopped on race line I could see 2 or 3 cars taken out of the race and double or triple chance of webber or another driver getting seriously injured. Now that would been a good reason to penalize for. Any sane driver will try to get his car of track and off race line in any crash/accident/failure.

        • They should not try to move their car off the track if it means rolling across the entire track. Also the spray should not be a problem because the drivers behind has a team which has a lot of monitors showing things like that and they could just get on the radio and say “car in the middle of the road just after turn …. ” And there would be deployed yellow flags anyway.

          • Robert said on 27th October 2010, 22:53

            No, your assessment is ridiculous. Have you not watched the incident back? If Webber had braked immediately he would have stopped near the wall on the far side of the track from the racing line.

            Even if he had stopped in the middle of the track he’d still have been well away from the racing line.

            I cannot understand at all why he wouldn’t have braked instinctively as he was rolling backwards, actually looking at the fast approaching cars and must have known he was about to cross the racing line. I think anyone who was rolling into fast approaching traffic would slam the brakes on, so I do wonder if they somehow failed.

  15. ElliottB said on 27th October 2010, 19:17

    This whole argument is hysterical. Watching the replay and seeing it in the race, I didn’t once think Webber intentionally let the car go back across the track. If you see the reply footage showing the right side of Webber’s car, you can see after he hits the wall, the damage to the rear right suspension is so severe (as it really was) that the front right is in the air. Also watching the replay, only two seconds really pass from impact to Rosberg and him colliding. You’re telling me that in that short time after experiencing a rapid deceleration from an impact, spun completely around, that Webber made the conscious decision to make it hit Rosberg? Honestly, get off it. It was a racing incident.

    • Yeap, he certainly did let the car travel across the track, not to take Rosberg out though most likely Alonso he would not have known Alonso was already clear.

      But really who cares, no one will prove it one way or the other… move on.

    • Patrickl (@patrickl) said on 28th October 2010, 18:50

      Horner has said that Webber did indeed roll across the track on purpose. He tried to continue his race.

1 2 3 4

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.