Vettel “definitely affected” by gearbox problem – Webber

2011 Brazilian Grand Prix

Mark Webber, Red Bull, Interlagos, 2011

Mark Webber, Red Bull, Interlagos, 2011

Mark Webber has no doubt Sebastian Vettel’s gearbox problem in Brazil was real.

Vettel slowed and let Webber past to win after the team detected a gearbox problem on his car, prompting speculation Red Bull had contrived to hand Webber victory in the final race.

Writing in his column for the BBC Webber said: “[Sebastian] started getting a gearbox problem as we approached the first pit stops.

“I was closing in on him a bit but I don’t know how much time it was costing him at that point. But I do know it was a reasonably minor issue then, getting more serious as the race went on.

“He was definitely affected in the middle and towards the back part of the race. In the end, he let me by on lap 30 because the team knew the only way he would last all 70 laps and make the finish was by slowing down.”

Webber admitted he would have preferred to beat Vettel in a straight fight: “It was a bit disappointing in a way. I was feeling pretty good and it would have been nice to have a flat-out run to the flag against him.”

2011 Brazilian Grand Prix

Browse all 2011 Brazilian Grand Prix articles

Image ?é?® Red Bull/Getty images

Advert | Go Ad-free

92 comments on Vettel “definitely affected” by gearbox problem – Webber

  1. d3v0 (@d3v0) said on 1st December 2011, 16:33

    It was a bit disappointing in a way. I was feeling pretty good and it would have been nice to have a flat-out run to the flag against him.

    Mark, I get this. But wasnt he pulling away in his typical Vettel style at a rate of ~1s per lap?

  2. StefMeister said on 1st December 2011, 18:42

    Something I noticed last night while going through the BBC OnBoard channel was that the lap before Mark passed Seb when he was running close behind him, Mark’s OnBoard camera was getting some fluid on it & the plastic strip had to be moved to keep the view clear.

    Once Mark got by the camera stopped getting the fluid on it, This seems to support Red Bull’s claims that it was some form of oil leak.

    • StefMeister said on 1st December 2011, 18:57

      BTW here is the OnBoard from the lap before Mark was let by. You can see spots of fluid hitting the camera & that the plastic strip infront of the lens is moved a few times to keep the view clear.

      http://dai.ly/vAfRBE

  3. Jonathan_Byron said on 1st December 2011, 18:46

    “Nick88 said on 1st December 2011″

    “In response to jonathon byron. Conspiracy theory will stay at just that; a theory.”

    *********************************************************

    Trying to rebut an argument not of taste itself and label it as “conspiracy theory” is only an attempt to refute foregoing exposed placing a label “non credible.”

    Besides an attempt to ridicule what is written and who writes it.

    This is a technique from fascistĀ“s handbook,remember this…

    1 –
    2 –
    3 –
    4 –

    If we leave to Stalinist manual is most direct,skip directly the first three steps.

    There is intelligent life out there or only weĀ“re able a digest what that the press and tv gives pre-cooked by so we donĀ“t thinking. We know how made a burger or just simply eat it.

  4. Jonathan_Byron said on 1st December 2011, 18:48

    “Nick88 said on 1st December 2011″

    “In response to jonathon byron. Conspiracy theory will stay at just that; a theory.”

    *********************************************************

    Trying to rebut an argument not of taste itself and label it as “conspiracy theory” is only an attempt to refute foregoing exposed placing a label “non credible.”

    Besides an attempt to ridicule what is written and who writes it.

    This is a technique from fascistĀ“s handbook,remember this…

    1 – trying to convince the subject so coacctiva to change their arguments.
    2 – if you donĀ“t attends to reasons, get a campaign to discredit his arguments first.
    3 – in case it this fails, directly discredit the subject ticking it of mental imbalance.
    4 – physical disappearance of the person.

    If we leave to Stalinist manual is most direct,skip directly the first three steps.

    There is intelligent life out there or only weĀ“re able a digest what that the press and tv gives pre-cooked by so we donĀ“t thinking. We know how made a burger or just simply eat it.

  5. Mouse_Nightshirt (@mouse_nightshirt) said on 1st December 2011, 19:04

    A work colleague of mine sees Mark regularly through a mutual friend. They discussed this and away from the media he actually does think this. Good to know he’s not just taking the party line.

  6. Big D. said on 1st December 2011, 20:59

    And if you believe Vettel’s gearbox ‘problem’ was genuine, you also believe in Santa Claus. I saw this coming, that RBR was going to give the race win to Webber via some sort of a car ‘problem’ for Vettel, and put money to work (on Web). The gearbox problem was just enough to not allow Vet to win, but to still have him not only finish the race, but retain 2nd place ! Who are we kidding here ?

  7. Jonathan_Byron said on 1st December 2011, 22:24

    http://dai.ly/vAfRBE

    This video doesnĀ“t prove anything, is more confirms the opposite if you have problems in the lower gears you canĀ“t pull so well in the rise corners ,in that you need more rpm by engine only be leave so blatant overtake at final of the finish straight.The fluid that seen in video could be gearbox oil, could also be to burn a bit motor oil or even what most probably is
    Vettel’s engine condense some water that is thrown up by the exhaust of his RedBull

  8. LoneFanMX said on 1st December 2011, 22:31

    I know it’s not a good idea to pass judgment on the basis of poor information but during the race it just seemed so convenient that all circumstances played in to red bulls hands. then again thats exactly what’s been going on this entire year. I think this is the cherry on the pie for red bull, the last stroke of luck of what was an incredible season for them.

  9. Jonathan_Byron said on 2nd December 2011, 11:46

    David A said on 2nd December 2011

    In case you hadnā€™t realised, this isnā€™t MotoGP, its F1. Your point is clouded in nonsense- there is no loophole used to claim they have the same car- apart from setup, which all drivers choose, people in the same team have the same machine, and Vettel used that machine a lot better than Webber this year.

    Parable literary figure (from Latin parabola, and this Ļ€Ī±ĻĪ±Ī²ĪæĪ»Ī® Greek)
    refers to a literary form consisting of a figurative narrative which, by analogy or similarity, we derive a teaching about a subject that isnĀ“t explicit. ItĀ“s essentially a symbolic story or a comparison based on a credible observation. The parable has a didactic purpose and we can find an example of it in the Christian gospels, where Jesus tells many parables and teachings to the people.

    Do you know this literary form?

    rather it seems not.

    This is what happens when only think of a plane of understanding instead of multiple planes.

    Can you tell me where I say that donĀ“t have the same car?

    They donĀ“t have the same software in their electronic control units. It is obvious,but to reach that conclusion you have to be observant.The problem of seeing a race car solely for looking at an idol is that it only sees the idol but not see the race car.

    Turn off the sound of TV and watch the races objectively.

    I guess for you donĀ“t have a “common sense” is equal to donĀ“t opine as you.Throughout case I prefer donĀ“t have a “common sense” to think like you.

    Thanks and bye.

    • Mads (@mads) said on 2nd December 2011, 16:41

      @Jonathan_Byron

      They donĀ“t have the same software in their electronic control units. It is obvious,…..

      Can you prove that, or is it just a desperate attempt to make Vettel look bad?

    • David-A (@david-a) said on 2nd December 2011, 23:11

      Can you tell me where I say that donĀ“t have the same car?

      Webber simply doesnĀ“t have this extreme mapping in your engine and therefore doesnĀ“t qualify well at begining, he has a same or similar rhythm to that of other top drivers, this is the legal loophole for saying later they have the same car.

      Then again, your posts are so hard to decipher, there is no point telling you, since you’ll write another essay that you won’t be able to back up.

      I guess for you donĀ“t have a ā€œcommon senseā€ is equal to donĀ“t opine as you.Throughout case I prefer donĀ“t have a ā€œcommon senseā€ to think like you.

      I’ve disagreed with plenty of people on this website, but I can still see their points, and respectfully disagree.

      Funny how you come on here, claim that the Bulls have different software (which has nothing to do with the article and in essence, accuse them of cheating), fail to back it up with anything at all, and when people disagree with you, you hide behind a claim that I don’t value other’s opinions.

      Unbelievable.

      • Jonathan_Byron said on 3rd December 2011, 1:32

        It makes me laugh with all due respect in my first comment ,your reply:

        “Mostly nonsense.”

        -is this an opinion or just a way to annoy?
        -is this your sense of respect?

        But is that after still in your line tried to detract my intelligence one two three , continue counting?…Know what is your problem be called syndrome librarian, every book on your shelf ah! and this book ,where is the place of this book.Think you can decipher this idea?..instead of trying to stick to what is written you try to interpret what I put..incredible.

        In formula 1 everything not forbidden is allowed,if you want to call it cheating
        call it what you want.Is there any regulation that requires Red Bull Racing to give the same software to its two riders?… violate any rules?, essentially no, so they are not cheating,cars are statutorily equal, yes…then do not cheat.What you you think “nonsense” is standard operating common in F1,all are cheating in the sense that they are loopholes that be allow them,another thing is that the gentlemen who have to ensure compliance by the rules to do their job or not,that other topic if the two cars are not the same the team in question may be disqualified from the competition.

        Now if have done demonstrates you how have done the teams have better progamer than stewards that always are one step behind .As it is very difficult to prove but all the paddock knows
        next year will banned engine maps, the exhaust must exit through the upper part and probably also Flexible wings will be banned by the FIA.

        and when people disagree with you, you hide behind a claim that I donā€™t value otherā€™s opinions.

        You started your first to respect my opinions?…Or is do I have no right to defend my opinion as I think necessary?…or is that I have shut up my opinion because it annoys you?

        What I donĀ“t value other opinions? is for this that I have apologized when I was wrong

        I stop believing in Santa Claus long ago.

        PS: Sorry by the comment below because frankly just tired with his impertinences.You couldnĀ“t have begun by the end instead of giving so many twists would have saved us lot of work.

        • David-A (@david-a) said on 3rd December 2011, 2:09

          In formula 1 everything not forbidden is allowed,if you want to call it cheating
          call it what you want.Is there any regulation that requires Red Bull Racing to give the same software to its two riders?ā€¦ violate any rules?, essentially no, so they are not cheating,cars are statutorily equal, yesā€¦then do not cheat.What you you think ā€œnonsenseā€ is standard operating common in F1,all are cheating in the sense that they are loopholes that be allow them,another thing is that the gentlemen who have to ensure compliance by the rules to do their job or not,that other topic if the two cars are not the same the team in question may be disqualified from the competition.

          Teams isn’t obligated to give the same equipment to its two drivers, but when when the article is discussing a driver saying that his teammate had a gearbox problem, why pick on them for that?

          You started your first to respect my opinions?ā€¦Or is do I have no right to defend my opinion as I think necessary?ā€¦or is that I have shut up my opinion because it annoys you?

          What I donĀ“t value other opinions? is for this that I have apologized when I was wrong

          Fine, I said your initial post was “mostly nonsense”, and that was overstepping the mark. I retract it. But all we have regarding the initial story is that Webber knows that Vettel had a gearbox problem which slowed him down. That people would believe a driver who is known for being honest and outspoken, is nothing like believing in “Santa Claus”.

  10. Jonathan_Byron said on 2nd December 2011, 19:50

    The evidence are used in court an observer only relies on evidences.I have no special manic with Sebastian Vettel but I like to watch sport clean and free of cheaters.driver isnĀ“t to blame for these situations but it is part of the farce.The regulation says you can activate the aggressive engine map in Q3 and disconnect in the first pit stop, is where Vettel makes the difference with their rivals. This is the agreement that was reached after Silverstone, curiously until two runs Silverstone(prohibited) and Germany donĀ“t saw the manner and form surround back the new rule ,the trick turned in Hungary curiosly in these two races Webber has in front in qualifying.After you can analyze the progression in times in qualifying session and see how this progression is abnormal in Q3.If added that Webber the times in the second part of his races are equal or better in fast and regularity than his teammate and when you see that with this car Webber has made 7 laps by 3 of Vettel ,so be removed the “excuse” of maladaptive to Pirelli,besides being an very experienced driver with a different tyres in his long career.

    The best driver in the best car usually mark the best times in qualifying and mark the best times in race,this is a trend that is repeated throughout the history of F1.For example
    in 1992 mansell perform 8 fastest laps in 14 races,Ricardo Patresse no perform any fastlap,is very evident the parallelism between 92-93 and this season.

    Only expose my comment after the season and analyze the numbers which give me the analysis and that would be confirm my suspects,not a Act of Faith only is an opinion,evidently a out-liner opinion.If Vettel was so good as all say, wouldnĀ“t need a publicity campaign so strong, it’s only corporate marketing and in my opinion a mediatic highly inflated balloon.

    • raymondu999 (@raymondu999) said on 2nd December 2011, 20:38

      Incorrect. BEGINNING IN VALENCIA, from the moment you come out of your garage in Q1, until the end of the race, you are on the same engine mapping.

      • Jonathan_Byron said on 2nd December 2011, 21:33

        You are quite right, the prohibition start in Valencia
        with immediate effect may not change engine maps between qualifying and the race is in next race at Silverstone when the FIA decided to introduce a limit of 10% of throttle when the driver was not pressing the accelerator,this second rule is annuled but the first not.

        I have mixed for error two things ,this is problem when speak to memory….SORRY.

        Do you think that you can use this engine map for the entire race without bursting the engine?

        I think that in RBR also believe it.

        it does not change nothing my asertacion.

        • raymondu999 (@raymondu999) said on 3rd December 2011, 3:52

          You can definitely run the thing for the whole race. But if you do it will probably make you slower, and it will give you more tyre wear, and also more tyre degradation; because you’re carrying a lot more fuel.

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.