Horner trashes Webber conspiracy theories

F1 Fanatic round-up

Mark Webber, Christian Horner, Red Bull, Valencia, 2011In the round-up: Christian Horner dismisses conspiracy theories about Mark Webber as “complete rubbish”.

Links

Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.

Horner: Webber conspiracy claims ‘rubbish’ (The Telegraph)

“It’s complete rubbish, forget conspiracy. We’re all about trying to get two cars to the finish as high as we can. Anybody who thinks there is a conspiracy here against either driver does not know what they are looking at.”

F1 rookies set for extra Friday tyres (Autosport)

Pirelli motorsport director Paul Hembery: “It would be a compound that gives you as many laps as you need on the assumption that you run a rookie driver.”

Title race is wide open – Alonso (BBC)

“I don’t see anyone has a clear advantage. Maybe Red Bull was very dominant in Australia in all free practices; in qualifying and the race they were suffering a little bit of [tyre] degradation but definitely very fast. In Malaysia, they were maybe a little bit more in the groove but here they were similar to the others so let’s wait and see what the updates of every car brings to the pace, and we will see how luck plays.”

Free F1 Sky boxes would drive subscriptions says Bernie Ecclestone (Daily Express)

“In response to criticism from fans, Ecclestone says he advised Sky to consider distributing dedicated F1 set-top boxes as it could not only boost race figures, but demand for other Sky services too.”

Graphene in F1 (F1 Elvis)

“In Formula One terms it?s the kind of thing that designers have dreams about, although having spoken to the drawing office at a leading team on the subject, whilst they?re not yet looking at it in serious terms, it?s certainly on the radar and one day, someone will take the lead like McLaren did in 1981.”

Tweets

https://twitter.com/PaulHembery/status/323376641206280192

Comment of the day

No prizes for guessing what the two big talking points were after yesterday’s race:

1) The tyres. I’ve never criticised them in the past but this was too much. My criticism is mostly directed at F1 though not Pirelli, because they?re only doing what they were asked to do.

2) Pathetic DRS. Really one of the worst implementations of DRS ever. In China overtaking was not too hard even without the DRS so to give them two big zones is a joke. For next year only the pit-straight one should remain.
@Montreal95

From the forum

Happy birthday!

No F1 Fanatic birthdays today.

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Jim Clark continued his domination of the Grand Prix scene by winning the non-championship race on the Pau street circuit in France 50 years ago today.

Team mate Trevor Taylor was second ahead of Heinz Schiller in a Porsche.

Image ?? Julien Leroy / firstlap.be

Promoted content from around the web | Become an F1 Fanatic Supporter to hide this ad and others

Advert | Go Ad-free

138 comments on Horner trashes Webber conspiracy theories

  1. Becken Lima (@becken-lima) said on 15th April 2013, 0:11

    Conspiracy theories? After the Front Wing Affair in Silverstone 2010, Horner, Marko and CIA have only themselves to blame for all those distrust coming from fans and press…

    • David-A (@david-a) said on 15th April 2013, 0:16

      Except that these distrusting people assume sabotage for things that happen to other drivers. Running out of fuel in qualifying, for instance, and getting DQ’d from qualifying happened a few races ago to Red Bull, but not with Webber’s car.

      • BreezyRacer (@breezyracer) said on 15th April 2013, 13:00

        You know, I can understand boths sides .. 2 mechanical problems in 2 days? Okay, they ran into a problem fueling .. but the rear tire, come on! It’s not like it was even a fast stop .. they had lots of time to make sure and get that right. I think it’s likely that yes, as Horner says, there is no conspiracy, teamwise. However there is a rogue element within RB that want to force a change and his name is Helmut Marko. Marko will practically own the team if he can just rid of Webber. He will have both drivers and direct contact with the owner.

        I think that’s why there was voiced interest in Kimi, so that Marko would be told that RB had no requirement to pick a driver from the RB academy. There is much more brewing in back of the garages than is being let on IMO.

    • Guilherme (@guilherme) said on 15th April 2013, 0:31

      C’mon @becken-lima, the conspiracy theories are completely unjustifiable. To believe that a team would willingly sabotage half of a hundred-million pound operation just so that one driver might not race the other on track (something that is sporadic enough already at Red Bull) requires quite a good deal of lunacy.

      If they wanted to do something as stupid as sabotage themselves they would just field Vettel’s car (or maybe hire Yamamoto as the number 2, that would erradicate any and all intra-team fight there). It strikes me as disheartening how many people jump at this bogus conspiracy even though it became clear in Malaysia that Red Bull are willing to favour Webber with team orders when they want.

      • matt90 (@matt90) said on 15th April 2013, 1:02

        Exactly. Suspecting unequal treatment is one thing, thinking a team would sabotage their own car is something else (mostly idiocy).

        • xbx-117 (@xbx-117) said on 15th April 2013, 5:52

          Yup, cause no team has ever gone so far as to even ask one of their drivers to purposely crash their car before. Nope. Never. Formula 1 is above such things.

          • matt90 (@matt90) said on 15th April 2013, 11:29

            What advantage did Vettel or Red Bull get from Webber’s exit (besides Vettel almost being taken out by Webber’s wheel)?

          • Ginola14 (@ginola14) said on 16th April 2013, 5:01

            Scarcely believable that Red Bull will resort to sabotaging Webber’s car to ensure Vettel gets clean air to race in.

            It is more plausible to say Webber’s car does not get the same amount of devoted attention compared to Vettel’s car judging from the number of electronics issues, KERs woes etc Webber is always afflicted by.

          • Kirk (@kirk) said on 16th April 2013, 16:16

            What an asinine statement. These comments are not suggesting that Formula 1 is ‘above such things’, just that it is illogical to sabotage Webber’s car as there is no benefit to Vettel.

            It has never happened in the absence of some larger strategy. If Webber’s stop had caused a safety car which helped Vettel, or took out Alonso / Hamilton, or somehow otherwise gave the team a benefit, then your statement might be meaningful.

        • Ean (@ean) said on 16th April 2013, 10:29

          Totally agree

      • Becken Lima (@becken-lima) said on 15th April 2013, 3:36

        I think you don´t understood my point: I myself don´t believe that Red Bull would sabotage Webber. Would be stupid to do in that way.

        In fact, Autosport sugested that would be smarter put too much more fuel in Webber´s car.

        What I said is that with actions like that one in Silverstone 2010, those guys in charge of the team constructed this perception into the minds of fans and press.

        Whatever they try to do to dissipate this impression, their actions in last years has said the opposite.

        ;)

        • magon4 (@magon4) said on 15th April 2013, 7:58

          Silverstone was understandable. There was only one piece, and it went to the driver better ranked in the WDC – anyone would have done that! It wasn’t Seb’s fault that his was not useable.

          • Michel S. (@hircus) said on 16th April 2013, 4:13

            If there was only one wing to begin with, sure; the problem is taking off the wing after it’s already installed on his car, and forcing him to thus cope with re-adjusting his set up for the older wing.

          • Drezone said on 16th April 2013, 12:56

            You know vettel was only 3 points ahead before the British GP courtesy of heikki creating webbers somersault in Valencia the previous race and this was the only time vettel was ahead of webber from Spain till the last race

            So it really was a lame excuse and vettel wasn’t a triple world champion then either

          • David-A (@david-a) said on 16th April 2013, 19:59

            @Drezone – And again, you’re inaccurate. The contact with Heikki was entirely Webber’s fault, while Vettel lost numerous points and wins to mechanical issues that year, indicating that Vettel did a better job than the points showed (which still had Vettel ahead).

            In addition, Webber was more comfortable with the older spec wing, which is why they put it on Vettel’s car, as he gained more than MW did with the new wing.

            And you do come across as butthurt, since Vettel is a triple world champion, and denial on your part won’t change that.

        • What is with this OCD-like obsession with the stupid wing? Every team does this all the time with car parts. Lotus routinely favor Kimi over Grosjean with respect to new parts, for instance. And it’s never a big deal – except in this one case. Why is that?

          I suppose for the same reason why everybody pretended that it’s shockingly unusual for a driver to ignore team orders after Sepang.

      • FLIG (@flig) said on 15th April 2013, 4:20

        I don’t think that this is the case, as I really can’t see Webber winning anything at all, so there’s really no need for sabotage, but I would say it does happen sometimes. I can’t help but think Ferrari did it to Irvine in the early Schumacher days.

        • David-A (@david-a) said on 15th April 2013, 20:22

          Nah, Ferrari were just poor back then. Even Schumacher retired from one race because his gearbox was missing some nuts & bolts or something.

        • Ivano (@) said on 16th April 2013, 6:52

          @flig @david-a

          LOL. No, Ferrari never sabotaged Michael against Irvine. Michael was just a far better driver, and the Ferrari especially in 96 was another red donkey. Actually in that year, Michael’s car lost it’s prop shaft and most of it’s engine in pieces during the Canadian GP, and the engine went on the warm up lap of the French GP when he was on pole.

    • celeste (@celeste) said on 15th April 2013, 2:42

      Here is an idea, what if RB wanted Webber to have little fuel, but not to sabotage him, but to help him get a higher position in Q. But they went a little to far and ended with Webber stoping.

      The wheel was just really bad luck. It has happened a lot of times to other drivers in other teams, and as much as RB is a champion team, their employees are human.

      • Dane. (@dane-1) said on 15th April 2013, 6:10

        Was it a part failure? Bc the stop wasnt one of their record breaking ones. They had to change the nose as well

        • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 15th April 2013, 8:12

          @dane-1 – it could’ve been, but I was bemused how they managed to do that with a 12 second stop…

        • celeste (@celeste) said on 15th April 2013, 16:37

          @dane-1 don´t know. Some tweets yesterday say that RB and Webber notice the problem with the wheel and that´s the reason Webber was driving so slow in that lap. He probably was trying to made it back to the pit so it could be properly attach…
          Anyway, is a silly idea that Webber is being sabotage. If RB has decided they don´t longer want him, they would have pay him out and that would have being it. Instead of sabotagind an operation of million of dollars.

          • Some tweets yesterday say that RB and Webber notice the problem with the wheel and that´s the reason Webber was driving so slow in that lap.

            He had a puncture and was trying to limp back to the pits. If he had made it back he’d have retired from the race, most likely, as even if his car had been repairable he’d have been a lap behind the last man.

    • Ivano (@) said on 15th April 2013, 10:24

      Seems like after the Kimbots from the 2008 “conspiracies”, we now have the Webbots…
      No team will ever purposely damage a driver’s car and risk to murder him.

      • Jono (@me262) said on 15th April 2013, 23:53

        @ivano ‘Things are not always as they seem’…to me it could seem as if there is a conspiracy brewing against Mark…much like it was McLaren(Ron Dennis) vs Alonso in 2007…or is it just a coincidence that the race after the Malaysian Red Bull kerfuffle, they simply didnt fit on of Marks wheels on properly on top of suffering a fuel pickup problem in qualy? “the problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence”

        • Ivano (@) said on 16th April 2013, 5:59

          @me262

          Firstly, I’m offended by your comment, as it’s coming across that you’re impying “I’m a stupid one full of confidence.”

          Secondly, re-read my comment’s motive, and think a bit for yourself. Do you honestly believe that Red-Bull, a multi billion Dollar brand, would purposely not properly mount a bolt on a F1 car, televised to millions of people worldwide when that bolt could have loosened into a accident killing Mark and other drivers? Do you realize that would have been the end of Red Bull in F1? Do you believe Red Bull would allow such a risk onto their global brand?

          Don’t think emotional here. And in no way this fiasco can be related to Alonso vs Dennis in 2007, as already there, there wasn’t even a loose bolt on any wheel.

          • Jono (@me262) said on 16th April 2013, 6:10

            Do you honestly believe that Red-Bull, a multi billion Dollar brand, would purposely not properly mount a bolt on a F1 car, televised to millions of people worldwide when that bolt could have loosened into a accident

            I still don’t believe Nelson Piquet was ordered to crash into a wall in Singapore 2009….a multi million dollar operation ordering one of their drivers to crash to benefit the other: can you honestly believe these conspiracy theorists?? even after Horner said there was no conspiracy, it was on the news….> unequivocal truth

            impying “I’m a stupid one full of confidence.”

            well I may have confused your confidence with stupidity…my apologies

          • Jono (@me262) said on 16th April 2013, 6:11

            @ivano ^^

          • Ivano (@) said on 16th April 2013, 6:23

            @me262

            You just proved my point. Thank you.

            Firstly in the Renualt case, it was instructed by a select few with the driver’s agreement, of which the driver was fully aware in how not to kill himself, and harm others. Again, totally diffirent to your presumed Redbull notion.

            Secondly, Renualt bailed it’s team name from F1 to not have any relation to that incident, and it cost them their image and sums of money, and the jobs of the people involved. So yes, I’m certain Horner had in mind to taint his reputation and ruin his career to murder Mark.

            Thirdly, how old are you? 12?

          • Jono (@me262) said on 16th April 2013, 6:36

            @ivano

            Firstly in the Renualt case, it was instructed by a select few with the driver’s agreement, of which the driver was fully aware in how not to kill himself, and harm others. Again, totally diffirent to your presumed Redbull notion.

            Secondly, Renualt bailed it’s team name from F1 to not have any relation to that incident, and it cost them their image and sums of money, and the jobs of the people involved. So yes, I’m certain Horner had in mind to taint his reputation and ruin his career to murder Mark.

            so crashgate happened because it was only carried out by a select few and driver was aware on how to crash safely? totally different to red bull notion…as in the whole team is alleged to have been involved? webber wasnt fully aware on how to not kill himself? how do you know? if a scandal was to surface from webber and redbull, how are you already able to describe differences within the 2 scandals if a scandal has not been revealed to the public? are you a fly in the redbull garage?

          • Ivano (@) said on 16th April 2013, 6:43

            @me262

            You got no more arguement. So go believe Horner and his team are murderers, and want to see Mark dead because they wanted him to win in Malaysia.

        • Jono (@me262) said on 16th April 2013, 6:55

          @ivano

          No team will ever purposely damage a driver’s car and risk to murder him

          crashgate 2009 buddy

          lol I think your the one with no argument…but plenty of confidence. Point is: Formula 1 is no stranger to spying, scandals, crashgates and for fans to be claiming absolute certainties without 1st hand access to facts is a little delusional and presumptuous me thinks

          • Ivano (@) said on 16th April 2013, 7:09

            @me262

            See, you’re being selective in what you choose to read.
            Renualt, never agreed to it. It was Briatore, Pat and Nelson the driver. Of which, the whole incident is diffirent to Marks, as they did it let Alonso win. They never sabotaged Nelson’s car to kill him!

            So again, I’ll say it, go believe Horner and his team are murderers, and want to see Mark dead because they wanted him to win in Malaysia.

    • petebaldwin (@petebaldwin) said on 15th April 2013, 11:58

      It genuainly didn’t cross my mind but as a rule, I don’t believe anything Horner says so I’m caught in an interesting position.

      Of more interest to me is the rumours that Mark has signed a deal to race in the Le Mans series next year. I wouldn’t blame him – being a number 2 driver in a team like Red Bull can’t be any fun and I doubt he needs the money anymore.

      • being a number 2 driver in a team like Red Bull can’t be any fun

        I’d imagine it’s a good deal more fun than being number 2 driver at Ferrari, Mercedes, McLaren, Lotus, etc.

        • Michel S. (@hircus) said on 16th April 2013, 4:21

          What makes you say that? At McLaren, arguably it’s being the #1 that is unpleasant if you have a big ego; at Ferrari, in recent years you know you’re the #2 (public protestations to the contrary, and with the exception of when Raikkonen and Massa were there). Lotus does what reasonably-cash-strapped teams do, so Mercedes is the only one at which the management seems reasonably as conflicted as Red Bull’s

          • Ivano (@) said on 16th April 2013, 6:09

            @hircus @jonsan

            In regards to Ferrari. Their team orders come half way through the season to support the driver with most points. Evidence of this is Germany 2010 with Alonso and Massa, otherwise before that, Massa raced and couple of times finished ahead of Alonso. So their #1 and #2 policy is in favour at a more logical point of the championship. Yes, there’s Austria 2002 with Schumacher and Barrichello, but Rubens was never going to win a title against Michael, and once the Championship was sealed, Rubens was allowed to win races.

            So aside those two incidents, Ferrari may always favoured a leading driver with a support driver, but their #2 seat has always been up to that driver to make the most of it, otherwise respect the contract and logical reasoning of supporting the driver with the best chance of the championship, which did as said mentioned McLaren during Hakkinen and Coultard era, where once Mika established himself as championship contender, Coultard automatically became his shoulders.

            And pre-Schumacher era, Ferrari never really had a #1 and #2.

  2. John H (@john-h) said on 15th April 2013, 0:15

    100% agree with COTD. F1 is just a time trial with DRS like that. Still, we’ll probably here the experts calling for 3 zones to try to improve the show next season.

    • andae23 (@andae23) said on 15th April 2013, 6:32

      @john-h

      F1 is just a time trial with DRS like that.

      Every driver had the opportunity to make his strategy work without getting stuck behind another driver, which basically means every single driver was driving his own race – so yes, I would agree with that statement. From a strategy point of view, I thought this was very interesting as you could follow the different strategies teams were doing very well. But you have to question if this is ‘racing’, or more importantly if this is what we want F1 to be like in future seasons.

      The strange thing to me is that the race was rated very high, which is quite weird considering there wasn’t much (non-strategy related) excitement.

    • HoHum (@hohum) said on 15th April 2013, 13:43

      @john-h, I’ve noticed quite a few comments, starting ” I am a supporter of ” DRS/new tyres, then comes the “but” I think the penny is beginning to drop, novelty doesn’t last long.

  3. cg22me (@cg22me) said on 15th April 2013, 0:20

    About the COTD…
    I agree completely with the use of the DRS being cut short during the Race, especially at Tacks like China…

    But I can’t see why they don’t introduce a Qualifying DRS Zones.
    This allows the “Ultimate Pace” to still be seen on the Saturday, as DRS is used [safely] around all appropriate parts of the track…
    But also allows fair use of the DRS on the Sunday, without it being royally overused.

    If we have Quali DRS Zones, then they can cherry pick or adapt the best one to be the Race Zone… Perhaps even get a driver vote/feedback on which one would be most fair.

    Probably a few flaws in this idea, but surely it’s still better than having identical Quali/Race Zones.

    • @cg22me – honestly, I think they should have kept DRS as it was wen it was introduced; I still fail to see how it was unsafe!

      Agreed though; two DRS zones are completely unecessary on most tracks.

      • cg22me (@cg22me) said on 15th April 2013, 14:47

        I think, in itself, it wasn’t particularly unsafe…
        But the potential to push the use of the DRS too much, using it mid-corner etc. to super-maximise alp times is where the risk was.

        Maybe they could make (for Quali), all usable straights DRS Zones, but with a cut off point distinctly before the corner entry, so the risk of overuse is limited.

        Again, I’m not expert enough on the specifics to give a completely analytical response. But that’s what I think from what I know.

        • cg22me (@cg22me) said on 15th April 2013, 14:48

          Apparently this is only applicable for driving in the Alps :P
          Obviously meant Lap Times XD

        • @cg22me – I don’t know if that would make it too complex, as obviously then you would have to police where the activation zones are for each of the areas where DRS is allowed, so really what they should do (if we have to keep DRS at all) is have two zones on each track but here’s my idea, only allow a driver to use DRS in one of them during the race if they are chasing a driver.

          So for example, you could use DRS to close up on in the first zone but then not have the benefit of it to get the pass done in the second, or not use it in the first with the hope you close up enough in the first one with the slipstream and under braking anyway, then use it in the second to complete the move.

          Thoughts?

  4. mantresx (@mantresx) said on 15th April 2013, 0:30

    So the rookies are getting an extra set of “training” tyres?!?! That’s funny, but it is indeed a very good idea so that we see more running on Fridays and eventually less crashes, although I have to say I’m glad we haven’t had many serious incidents with rookies so far, let’s hope it continues that way.

    • mantresx (@mantresx) said on 15th April 2013, 0:37

      Now that I think about it, wouldn’t the teams without rookies be in a disadvantage? Being able to run more definitely helps getting the right setup for the car or at least to test development parts.
      I can see some teams against that idea.

      • Iestyn Davies (@fastiesty) said on 15th April 2013, 0:56

        It’s a good step forwards. All the teams have development drivers and testers, so this gives the youngsters like Frijns something to do to learn competitive F1. I’m intrigued as to who Force India will use for this – Rossiter is their simulation driver at the moment and would fulfill the rookie criteria. This will also benefit Rossi, Ma, Felix da Costa, Valsecchi, Gonzalez no doubt, Wolff, and we could see some new drivers in the last two races of the season once the other junior formulae have concluded. The top teams’ spare rookies are all racing in other series due to no competitive F1 running previously being available!

      • BasCB (@bascb) said on 16th April 2013, 9:01

        They can still have their 3rd driver run on those tyres @mantresx

  5. Abdurahman (@) said on 15th April 2013, 0:45

    Why don’t they just dis allow the use of DRS for battles in the top 10? Only allow it’s use to pass backmarkers and such. DRS is a absolute joke and the constant pit stops are really turning F1 into a farce.

    • matt90 (@matt90) said on 15th April 2013, 1:10

      As backmarkers are already supposed to move out of the way, that would probably be a little pointless. I doubt they will, but with new regs next year I hope they scrap it.

      • @matt90 sadly no, DRS is actually becoming more powerful.

        “Furthermore DRS is currently allowed to move the top flap from a gap of 10mm to 50mm from the mainplane, the 2014 regulations adjust this to between 10mm and 65mm.”

        :(

        • matt90 (@matt90) said on 15th April 2013, 16:49

          @vettel1 Eurgh, it’s as though the FIA hasn’t watched a single race in the last 2 years, and particularly yesterday. How depressing that what was supposed to be a last-ditch stop-gap solution is being kept and made even more potent despite the pile of evidence suggesting it isn’t needed at all.

          • @matt90 precisely! The aerodynamic effects of the cars on general should be greatly reduced from the slimming down of the front wing; the reduced nose heights no longer allowing for so much airflow underneath the cars; the single, central exhaust exit now also no longer allowing for exhaust blowing and the removal of the beam wing.

            So in theory, overall downforce levels and hence the dirty air effect should be reduced – that coupled with what will likely continue to be a close grid, probably the continued use of degradable tyres and the significantly more powerful KERS systems and DRS is looking increasingly unnecessary. So that news makes me particularly sad.

        • Michel S. (@hircus) said on 16th April 2013, 4:25

          Hopefully they’ll at least reduce the length of the DRS zones. Probably better to do that than to keep fiddling with the regulations, especially only months away from introduction

    • JCost (@jcost) said on 15th April 2013, 7:42

      @abdurahman

      In the words of Marx, what once was a tragedy is quickly turning into a farce.

      #ihate2013tyres

  6. JimmyTheIllustratedBlindSolidSilverBeachStackapopolis III said on 15th April 2013, 0:54

    It seems lotus have trouble understanding kimi http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVDApUlueyQ&feature=youtu.be i’m not particularly impressed by this as someone who works with alot of people for which english is not a first language ignoring the problem or indeed laughing at it, (which this video seems to show lotus doing both of) is exactly the wrong thing to do as it will just alienate that person. I would certainly expect better from a proffesional racing team who seek global sponsors for a global sport.

    • Joe Papp (@joepa) said on 15th April 2013, 19:17

      (which this video seems to show lotus doing both of)

      I think you might be reading a bit too much into that contextually-challenged video. Why would you think that Lotus team would ignore a communication issue b/w driver and team, if such a problem existed, let alone make a joke about it??

  7. Maksutov (@maksutov) said on 15th April 2013, 0:58

    “It’s complete rubbish, forget conspiracy. We’re all about trying to get two cars to the finish as high as we can. Anybody who thinks there is a conspiracy here against either driver does not know what they are looking at.”

    I doubt there was any conspiracy with Webber’s misfortunes during the Chinese GP or others he has had in the past; however, the real question lies in whether the RBR team are providing enough time and effort on Webber’s car, as they are on Vettel’s car? I would say NO. Statistically it seems impossible for one car to have so many problems, while the other (Vettel who pounds the living daylights out of his car), nothing ever happens to it. So, I would say there is no conspiracy, but there certainly is neglect.

    • celeste (@celeste) said on 15th April 2013, 2:48

      I get your point, but as I understand every driver has his own mechanic team, meaning that the same number of man power work on Vettel as on Webber´s car.

      I think DC said today that if Mark Webber didnt have back luck he would have no luck at all, maybe Webber does not have “the luck of the champion”.

    • SoerenKaae (@soerenkaae) said on 15th April 2013, 4:50

      @maksutov

      Statistically it seems impossible for one car to have so many problems, while the other (Vettel who pounds the living daylights out of his car), nothing ever happens to it.

      Well to you it might seem impossible, but when you have been part of various racing teams, you would know this is indeed very possible. I have encountered more than one weekend with both, Formula Ford’s and touring cars, that even though cars are identical, and prepared and serviced by the same people, one car has all the problems and the other one has none.

    • GeeMac (@geemac) said on 15th April 2013, 6:13

      however, the real question lies in whether the RBR team are providing enough time and effort on Webber’s car, as they are on Vettel’s car? I would say NO. Statistically it seems impossible for one car to have so many problems, while the other (Vettel who pounds the living daylights out of his car), nothing ever happens to it. So, I would say there is no conspiracy, but there certainly is neglect.

      The same thing happened at Ferrari from 1996 – 2006, the problems were always on Irvine, Barrichello and Massa’s side of the garage. Successful drivers have a tendancy not to break their cars…

      • mnmracer (@mnmracer) said on 15th April 2013, 9:15

        Someone seems to have forgotten the 6 victories Vettel saw go down the drain due to “nothing ever happening” to his car.

      • montreal95 (@montreal95) said on 15th April 2013, 10:34

        @geemac Don’t think this applies here. More appropriate would be to say “clear no. 1 drivers in a team tend not to break their cars”. Don’t forget that Mark Webber went a huge amount of time without retirement for technical reasons. But in that amount of time he had much more “small” problems than Vettel that affected his qualy/race performances. So my theory is that indeed more attention is given to the perceived number 1 car of the team. However, MW didn’t have more big problems that caused him to retire because big problems cannot be dealt with just by more attention. That’s an answer also to @mnmracer ‘s very valid remark below

        Nothing of the above means that there is a conspiracy. As a fan of MW I very well remember that he had misfortune way before becoming SV’s team-mate. There is such a thing as bad luck. After all, no one has blamed Chris Amon’s misfortune on conspiracy, for example

        • GeeMac (@geemac) said on 15th April 2013, 12:45

          I don’t know about that. The top teams have big budgets and employ hundreds of staff. Because of their success the staff they employ tend to all be the very best at what they do, from the drivers to the chef. Each car has a set of mechanics who work on it and each set of mechanics wants it to be their car that crosses the finish line first. I honestly don’t think that RBR, or any other team for that matter (barring Andrea Moda like levels of amatuerism and lack of cash or unique champiosnhip situations), would “pay more attention” to one car than the other. It’s a team game, they have 2 cars, they send them both out in a state that they feel can challenge for wins. If a team were to spend the majority of their time honing one drivers car while simply kciking the tyres of tyhe other and saying “yeah mate, it kinda looks ok”, that would do no one any good at all.

          I’ve just run through the numbers quickly at work (so these are by no means gospel), in their time as team mates Vettel and Webber have retired 8 times each. Of those 8, 4 of Vettel’s were mechanical (without his technical issue in Bahrain in 2010) and only 2 that I can see of Webber’s were mechanical. From that, if anyone should be aggreved, it’s Vettel.

        • Drezone said on 16th April 2013, 13:05

          Yes he had bad luck prior to red bull cos he had a crap car

          He then got into red bull and stopped having issues till he became a threat to vettel

          We won’t call it conspiracy we’ll call it coincidence

    • Statistically it seems impossible for one car to have so many problems, while the other (Vettel who pounds the living daylights out of his car), nothing ever happens to it.

      Statistics show that what you think happens does not in fact happen. Vettel’s car has been rather more unreliable than Webbers over the last few years.

  8. M Dickens (@sgt-pepper) said on 15th April 2013, 1:11

    “It’s complete rubbish, forget conspiracy. We’re all about trying to get two cars to the finish as high as we can. Anybody who thinks there is a conspiracy here against either driver does not know what they are looking at.

    Well he was hardly going to admit it, was he.

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 15th April 2013, 2:18

      I very much doubt this is true – for now.

      Webber has handled the fallout from the Malaysia episode pretty well. Upset as he was at the time, he’s now got a cool head about him. He’s not going to go making snap decisions, especially considering that he doesn’t enter into contract negotiatons with Red Bull until the middle of the season. At the very least, I’d expect him to see what kind of offer they make for 2014, and go from there.

      • Journeyer (@journeyer) said on 15th April 2013, 8:32

        @prisoner-monkeys Thing is, the rumor is that Webber has been talking to Porsche since… December 2012. If anything, I saw a lot of sportscar fans who were talking of this as one of the worst-kept secrets in WEC at the moment. So I wouldn’t be surprised if he was already leaning towards it at the end of last year (given his lackluster form at the final races), and Multi-21 was just the final straw.

        He could wait for Red Bull’s offer, but this isn’t about the money. This is more of a trust issue now, and a new offer for 2014 won’t really change that. It’s either there or it isn’t.

        • montreal95 (@montreal95) said on 15th April 2013, 10:41

          @journeyer MW said that he never ever makes decisions about his future at this time of year. So while there may be negotiations going on, I doubt you can infer from it that any kind of deal has been made. Especially since MW would still probably want to stay in F1 as first priority, if a competitive seat is available, even if not at RBR. For example, right now a swap deal with Lotus is possible, and its not a bad deal at all looking at their form

    • IDR (@idr) said on 15th April 2013, 6:56

      Interesting to have a look at the comments of that article. Australian people is not quite happy with what is happening with Mark. Red Bull is a commercial Brand and they should take care about what is happening in Australia.

      • Journeyer (@journeyer) said on 15th April 2013, 8:25

        @idr Nah, I don’t think they’d be too worried. Not all Australians are F1 fans (or even Mark Webber fans). In any case, fellow Aussie Daniel Ricciardo is one of the possible replacements for Webber. Assuming he does well, that should keep the Aussies happy enough.

  9. Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 15th April 2013, 2:01

    Pathetic DRS. Really one of the worst implementations of DRS ever. In China overtaking was not too hard even without the DRS so to give them two big zones is a joke. For next year only the pit-straight one should remain.

    The problem with DRS was that it was based on the zones used in 2012. However, the cars have changed for 2013, and this wasn’t factored into the placement of the activation points.

  10. Abdurahman (@) said on 15th April 2013, 2:52

    I loved J. Villeneuves comments during the BBC Forum and watching DC and EJ scramble to cover what he said by calling him “controversial” and changing the subject. JV said that modern F1 racing sucks basically, drivers just going around saving their tires and not even trying to stop people from passing them, and then half the time it is pointless to even try to stop passes because DRS just blasts people by. Seriously, I am starting to see through this whole charade and I am not impressed.

    • Jv is right, and right to share is opinion. I think the biggest thing you could possibly do to promote actual definitive, decisive fighting is to end DRS all together or end the 1 sec restriction.
      Ever since Pirelli re-entered F1, I never felt the need for DRS, even if it helped the flow of the races, in many other occasions the DRS areas were arguably bonkers. DRS never felt necessary in 2011 nor in 2012. Monaco 2011, one of the last races I remember feeling the so satisfying adrenaline of close meaningful racing. After that I thought DRS were to be reviewed hopefully in order to end it’s restricted or bias use. I want to watch F1 and feel the adrenaline, that boxing match adrenaline that feeling you get when your club is playing the champions league that same feeling so reminiscent of the time when Hakkinen was on the grid.

    • Joe Papp (@joepa) said on 15th April 2013, 5:09

      I loved J. Villeneuves comments during the BBC Forum

      @abdurahman – iirc, DC rightly called JV out though for the fact that he (JV) desperately wanted back onto the F1 grid, and JV admitted that he would love to be racing in F1 right now! Just another hypocrite, unfortunately…criticizes the F1 but would be first in line to join in the show if he could find a way! lol…

      • He said he wants an F1 drive because at the end of the day these are the fastest cars out there and are a thrill to drive. That dosnt mean he cant critise the rules that govern the sport.

        • tmekt (@tmekt) said on 15th April 2013, 17:10

          No one said claimed couldn’t do that, he can be as much of a hypocrite he wants. We’re just as entitled to criticize his opinions as he’s entitled to do so to F1.

    • Trenthamfolk (@trenthamfolk) said on 15th April 2013, 7:57

      Villeneuve is an idiot: If he hates the F1 world so much, why did he try to make a comeback? And what the hell was he doing there in the first place!

      • Ivano (@) said on 15th April 2013, 10:18

        @trenthamfolk @joepa

        Let’s not take things out of context. He dislikes the present manner how it’s no longer pure racing like back in his days, but he’s not shutting the door at a another chance in F1.

        He’s not being hypocritical, he’s being critical.

        • Dizzy said on 15th April 2013, 17:09

          Also don’t forget that JV looked at coming back into F1 in 2009/2010, A time when DRS & Pirelli were not around.

          He was just as critical of them when he was on Sky last year at Montreal.

          Something i’ve disliked with the way the BBC have handled DRS since 2011 is that anytime anyone on there program is even slightly critical of it there view is either ignored or there called idiots.
          Back at Melbourne in 2011 they asked Niki Lauda about DRS & when he said he didn’t like it DC looked at him like Niki had zero idea what he was on about.
          At Istanbul 2011 when people were critical of the way DRS & the Pirelli’s had affected the race they completely ignored the comments & quickly moved onto the next segment.

          Its as if they have specifically been told that No criticism of DRS/Pirelli is allowed as everytime there is some they quickly move onto something else.

          • Joe Papp (@joepa) said on 15th April 2013, 17:53

            Its as if they have specifically been told that No criticism of DRS/Pirelli is allowed as everytime there is some they quickly move onto something else.

            Hopefully they have been told this! Can’t risk spoiling the show, or offering anything other than token criticisms…

            You guys always seem to forget that modern F1 TV coverage does not cater first and foremost to you (though fair play to SKY for all the extras they offer beyond just commentary on a single mixed video feed)! You are elite, sophisticated Formula 1 fans, and in many cases may consider yourselves “purists”! Whether it’s BBC or SKY, it seems they assume a level of expertise and competence in their main viewership way, way, way below what’s manifest on a site full of true die-hard fanatics like this one (just look at the name of the site, for crying-out-loud! lol). Again SKY seems to allow more for your existence by offering all those extras that we in USA can only dream of (never mind dreaming just of competent, interesting, non-fossilized commentators!), but even then, the fact of the matter is “the show” is sacred and it’s almost like the F1 presenters and broadcast teams are complicit in producing and promoting it, rather than reporting on it impartially as would be expected of journalists representing media outlets that had no real skin in the game and certainly weren’t paying for the privilege of broadcasting the races.

            The point of my long-windedness is that I don’t think anyone here should be surprised that the pundits and commentators from the broadcasters who pay to televise F1 offer only the most token of criticisms of the fundamentals of the sport. Of course there are always individual stories that get reported, or unique aspects of the competition that might draw critical attention, but the last thing the BBC wants, for example, is to give exposure to those who would criticize the racing as contrived or otherwise somehow not as legitimate as it was in some previous era – or even a few years ago. They desperately need to keep the audience they have, and add to it. So allowing a voice to those who would argue that the sport is inauthentic or “fake” thanks to DRS or Pirelli tires or any other major, structural factor that is a fundamental aspect of the current iteration of F1 would be foolish.

            What I think it comes down to is they (the broadcasters) know their audiences very well, and that the ultra-sophisticated “purist” F1 fans like many who frequents sites like @keithcollantine‘s aren’t the ones for whom they’re producing coverage. You certainly factor into their coverage, and they can’t dumb it down too much, but putting the best spin possible on the current rules, regulations and practices will always take precedence over criticising the racing and lobbying for a return to a mythical “purists'” era.

            Of course, I could be totally wrong, in which case I would expect everyone to point that out very quickly, and unhesitatingly.

        • Joe Papp (@joepa) said on 15th April 2013, 18:03

          He’s not being hypocritical, he’s being critical.

          @ivano – I still think JV is being hypocritical, because he criticizes this F1 as not being real, but admits he would be eager to compete now because of how awesome the cars are, bringing into question how genuine his contrarian statements are.

          “Hypocritical” has a narrow, very specific meaning. It describes behavior or speech that is intended to make one look better or more pious than one really is. It is often wrongly used to label people who are merely narrow-minded or genuinely pious.

          Maybe we’re arguing semantics, or I’m just being pedantic. I’m a fan of JV, actually, and perhaps he’s just complaining to be controversial. I don’t think he’s an idiot like @trenthamfolk states (“Villeneuve is an idiot”), and I agree with @tmekt that JV has as much right to his opinions as we have to ours (“he can be as much of a hypocrite he wants”).

          • Ivano (@) said on 16th April 2013, 6:14

            @joepa

            Okay, so you’re saying that for someone to enjoy F1, they can’t critizes any of it’s features, because then they’re hypocritical?

            I admit, DRS is stupid, I dislike these cars with narrow rear wings and huge front ones. Yet I still watch it, I still enjoy the sport, love actually it. So does this make me hypocritical?

            Also, if you are going to quote the definition of hypocracy, please do it in full, not leave most of it out as that is hypocritical.

        • Jono (@me262) said on 16th April 2013, 0:05

          I think JV is quite delusional if he thinks he’s ever gonna get another shot at F1. One of the most unremarkable world champions in history – he does have a good point about modern Formula 1 though

          • Joe Papp (@joepa) said on 16th April 2013, 6:53

            Okay, so you’re saying that for someone to enjoy F1, they can’t critizes any of it’s features, because then they’re hypocritical?

            @ivano – I’m absolutely not saying that. I’m sorry if that’s what you interpreted my comment to mean, though. Cheers.

            he does have a good point about modern Formula 1 though

            @me262 – I guess the question is how contrived is too contrived, or when does adjusting the sporting rules to “enhance” the “show” fake the sporting aspect (if at all)? idk. I love watching F1 though. I’m not a fanatic for every detail of strategy or tech. development, but I really enjoy the total package that of GP experience that we’re presented by SKY (to a lesser extent BBC).

  11. eddie3 (@eddie3) said on 15th April 2013, 4:38

    Hey Mr Horner, if your drivers don’t know what you are trying to do how can us public be blamed for being sceptical . What does 21 really mean or do you like us not know.

  12. Osama Shahid (@os-shahid1) said on 15th April 2013, 6:43

    Personally I don’t really agree with the conspiracy theories about Webber’s problems, but there is a certain pattern to these problems, and it is that they mostly happen to car number 2 (Webber). A real disappointment for him, and if this continues to happen he won’t stick around for long. Even last year he was 2nd after silverstone and then he had these nightmare weekends where he was absolutely nowhere, I definitely want to see Webber challenge for the title this year which looks unlikely.

    • Personally I don’t really agree with the conspiracy theories about Webber’s problems, but there is a certain pattern to these problems, and it is that they mostly happen to car number 2 (Webber).

      Pretty much by definition, Webber’s problems do tend to happen to car number 2, Webbers car.

      Just as Vettels rather more frequent problems have a habit of cropping up in car number 1 – Vettels car.

  13. Drezone said on 15th April 2013, 6:50

    Wow
    What bad luck webber is having

    No fuel in quali and wheel coming off in race

    It would be crazy to think red bull sabotaged webber in quali cos he was faster than vettel all weekend and that they ordered vergne to sabotage webbers car after they realised vettel was behind after first pit stop and when this didn’t stop him sabotage his wheel after coming into pits

    It’s like saying red bull backed vettel in turkey and uk 2010 with front wing and Malaysia last race

    C’mon guys its obvious red bull give equal effort into both cars cough cough cough

    • Mads (@mads) said on 15th April 2013, 10:23

      What on earth did Red Bull do to favor Vettel in Malaysia? They used team orders to favor Webber for crying out loud. And then when Vettel didn’t obey they were publicly not very happy with him.
      In Turkey 2010 you are mistaking the words of Helmut Marko as the words of Red Bull. Understandable, but its not the same.
      In Silverstone they had one functioning component and gave it to the driver with the lead in the championship. Its the only logical thing to do.

      If they wanted Webber to qualify behind Vettel then they should have OVER fueled him. That could have gotten him into the top ten, but still make sure that Vettel would qualify ahead.
      Secondly, there is no way they order Torro Rosso to order their driver to crash into Webber. That is just insane. Even if you think that Helmut Marko is enough of a psyco to want Vergne to crash into Webber to give Vettel track position, but since Marko has no radio communication with Vergne he would have to ask either Franz Tost or Phil Charles to deliver the order. And what are the odds that both of them would be willing to do that? Ifinitely small I would say.
      Yeah sure Briatore was able to arrange it some years ago, but I think everyone has learned that forcing a driver to crash is not something you can get away with.
      And then there of cause is the fact that the stewards, even Webber him self, said that Webber was the one who caused the accident. If Vergne was the one who deliberately crashed into Webber wouldn’t he get the blame?

      • M Dickens (@sgt-pepper) said on 15th April 2013, 11:25

        (@mads) Even if RB didn’t instruct JEV to leave what appeared to be an open door, you have to ask about the sequence of events for Webber to end up behind JEV in the first place.

        Personally I feel the crash was his fault, and born of impatience at being where he was. However, still not sure how I feel about all of the ‘mistakes’ by the garage, seems just one too many, and too perfectly timed with Malaysia, to be merely a matter of coincidence and luck…

    • It would be crazy to think red bull sabotaged webber in quali cos he was faster than vettel all weekend

      Your attempts at sarcasm aside, yes, that would in fact be crazy.

      • Jono (@me262) said on 16th April 2013, 0:12

        @jonsan

        crashgate 2009 was pretty crazy too…fancy that, a team principal ordering his number 2 driver to crash out of a race ?? Nelson Piquet junior just lost control, all these conspiracy theories are too crazy for me

        • Mads (@mads) said on 16th April 2013, 12:02

          @me262
          And those responsible paid with their jobs.
          I really don’t think anyone has a desire to replicate that.
          Secondly, that was done in order to greatly benefit their no. 1 driver at the sacrifice of their no. 2.
          That makes sense, even if the method used was outright insane.
          If Red Bull had arranged Webber’s unattached wheel that would simply just half the teams firing power. It wouldn’t help Vettel move forward, and it certainly wouldn’t help the team in terms of the constructors championship.
          What would the benefit be? If Red Bull hates Webber so much, they wouldn’t have used team orders to favour him just weeks ago. And they would not have kept renewing his contract year after year.

  14. Joshua Mesh (@joshua-mesh) said on 15th April 2013, 7:30

    Most of the easy overtakes were due to the tyres and not the DRS. For example, Alonso overtaking Vettel.

    It looks too easy during the DRS zone because the effect is compounded by the massive difference in tyre life between the two cars. For example, on the long straight which comes out of a fast corner, there is no requirement for good traction and even with a big difference in tyre quality, most drivers could not make a pass stick by the end of that majorly long straight. With equal tyres a pass there would be almost impossible. The DRS on that track was mainly used to claw back time lost by sitting in the dirty air in the earlier part of the lap.

    As we saw with Hamilton, when the tyres are at an equal life, overtaking becomes much harder to do, even with DRS.

    If they had to remove a zone in China, they should remove the one on the long straight. But I feel if they did remove it, the cars would not be close enough to overtake on the pit straight.

    Unfortunately in F1 and exclusively to some tracks, overtaking is either easy or impossible.

    Personally I dont see what the sudden fuss is about. Are you guys mad because Lewis was overtaken by two Ferrari drivers on the same straight? Again that was due to tyres… (Lewis was slow out of the corner).

  15. ku (@kutovat) said on 15th April 2013, 11:09

    According to Herald Sun Australia, Webber is to quit F1 by end of this year. He has signed a 5 year deal to drive for Porsche to compete in Le Mans Endurance Championship

    If this is true – go all out mate

    • Joe Papp (@joepa) said on 15th April 2013, 18:08

      Since you didn’t share the link to the Herald Sun story, I dug it up and am posting it here for anyone who wants to view the source material:

      Australian Mark Webber signs five-year deal to drive for Porsche

      “AUSTRALIAN F1 driver Mark Webber has reportedly signed a new five-year contract to lead Porsche in their return to famous 24 hour endurance race Le Mans. Overnight Radio Le Mans announced that Mark Webber had put pen to paper making the deal official, meaning he would join Porsche in their assault on the World Endurance Championship.”

      Important to note though that Herald Sun is just reporting what Radio Le Mans announced…

  16. Michael (@freelittlebirds) said on 15th April 2013, 13:29

    Let’s take the odds:

    Chances of bowser failure: 0.1%
    Chances of Torro Rosso and Red Bull Colision: 1%
    Chances of Wheel flying off after slow pitstop: 1%
    Chances of Incident happening after Red Bull meltdown: 1%
    Chances of Horner denying it: 100%

    Chances of all those things happening in the same race: 1 in a billion

    Even with the absolute most optimistic estimates, you still come up with 1 in a million or conversely or 1 in a trillion if you swing the other way…

    • Chances of bowser failure: 0.1%

      Since it happened twice last year in 20 races, the odds seem a lot higher than that.

      Chances of Torro Rosso and Red Bull Colision: 1%

      Webber crashed into the TR. It’s hardly the first time he has collided with another car and I’m sure it won’t be the last.

      Chances of Wheel flying off after slow pitstop: 1%

      He damaged his car when he crashed. Prior to the wheel coming off he had a puncture and was crawling back to the pits.

      It would be nice if the “fans” pushing this conspiracy nonsense could be charged with bringing the sport into disrepute.

      • JimmyTheIllustratedBlindSolidSilverBeachStackapopolis III said on 15th April 2013, 17:35

        Actually sandor you should do the math before you slander someone you’re giving the non conspiracy camp as bad a name as the more silly conspiracy comments give the conspiracy side by being just as one sided with your views.

        I’m not going to work out the odds on a redbull torro rosso crash because i don’t think the chances of it happening matter. However since vettel into riccardo in brazil (im not even sure they made contact) and vettel into webber fuji 2007 are the only incidents i can think of i’d say 1% will not be far off the money

        As for fuel last year it happened twice across 2 teams with 2 different drivers so lets do some real maths. 12 teams x2 drivers =24 x20races x 5 sessions per race where they run cars, 3 practice 1 qualy 1 race they fuel multiple times in those sessions but lets just call it 1 per session for ease even though its alot lot more. Divided by 2 fuel problems that we know about across the whole year equals 1 fuel error per 1200 refuels or a fuel error percentage of …..0.1%

        As for your views on the crash Dc refused to lay blame either way for the crash because he just couldn’t call it that pretty much means racing incident. EJ said it was the vergnes fault because he left the door wide open and then cut across like webber wasn’t there when he most definetly was. he used the example of lewis and jenson racing side by side through turn 1 to 3 with no problems Jenson could have closed lewis out and crashed but he didn’t because they were aware of where each other were and gave space. If you think about it he’s right, if alonso was driving that torro rosso would they have crashed? I highly highly doubt they would have. Either way i’d take dc and ejs opinions over anyone commenting here any day.

        As for the wheel yes he damaged his car in that crash the *front* of his car then he returned to the pits which might not have been televised but he certainly did, all four wheels changed and the back right was not properly afixed and eventually went stray he was going slow because he and the team knew it was not attached. *Not* because he had a puncture. That is why redbull were fined 5000 for an unsafe pit release for letting him go with only 3 wheels on his wagon check autosport if you don’t believe me. Do i think redbull organised all of that? No. Do i think your reply was accurate though? No. Try wareing your sensible hat next time.

        • celeste (@celeste) said on 15th April 2013, 18:02

          However since vettel into riccardo in brazil (im not even sure they made contact) and vettel into webber fuji 2007 are the only incidents i can think of i’d say 1% will not be far off the money

          Buemi on Vettel China 2009, too.

          As for your views on the crash Dc refused to lay blame either way for the crash because he just couldn’t call it that pretty much means racing incident.

          I think DC needs glasses, he is getting old

        • I’m not going to work out the odds on a redbull torro rosso crash because i don’t think the chances of it happening matter.

          You’re stubbornly missing the point – calculating the odds of Webber crashing into Vergne in China makes as much sense as calculating the odds of Hulkenburg crashing into Hamilton at Brazil last year, or calculating the odds of Webber crashing into the barrier at Korea in 2010. The odds of any driver crashing, or of any two drivers crashing with each other, are always slim.

          And the even bigger problem for the conspiracy-mongers in this case is that Webber crashed into Vergne, not the other way around. Or does the conspiracy involve Marko hypnotizing Webber before the race and planting a post-hynotic suggestion in his mind – “You will crash into Verge!”?

          As for your views on the crash Dc refused to lay blame either way for the crash because he just couldn’t call it that pretty much means racing incident.

          The stewards, rightly, placed the blame on Webber. Which means not a racing incident.

          As for fuel last year it happened twice across 2 teams with 2 different drivers so lets do some real maths.

          It has happened twice to one team – once each to the two drivers on that team. Were you here last year after Abu Dhabi remarking on the extreme mathematical improbability of RB failing to fuel Vettels car correctly?

        • Divided by 2 fuel problems that we know about across the whole year equals 1 fuel error per 1200 refuels or a fuel error percentage of …..0.1%

          I’m impressed by your ability to manipulate the data in order to arrive at your desired outcome.

      • Michael (@freelittlebirds) said on 15th April 2013, 19:10

        @JonSan

        What odds would satisfy you? The odds of all these incidents occurring in a single race are astronomical.

        Thousands of folks have spent all their lives in jail for just being in the wrong spot at the wrong time because they couldn’t prove their innocence beyond reasonable doubt and while there was absolutely no motive for the crime or evidence to incriminate them. A person saw someone that looked like you and that’s the end of the person’s life…

        • Thousands of folks have spent all their lives in jail for just being in the wrong spot at the wrong time because they couldn’t prove their innocence beyond reasonable doubt and while there was absolutely no motive for the crime or evidence to incriminate them. A person saw someone that looked like you and that’s the end of the person’s life…

          Let’s assume this is true. (I’m sure it is true in come countries.) How is it even slightly germane to the topic at hand?

          What odds would satisfy you? The odds of all these incidents occurring in a single race are astronomical.

          The odds of the particular incidents which occur in every single race occurring in that race are “astronomical”. What are the odds that, all in one race, we would see (1) Alonso crash into the back of Vettel, taking himself out of the race: (2) Rosberg ordered to hold station behind Hamilton: (3) Vettel ignore team orders to pass Webber and take a race win: and (4) not one but both Force India cars drop out of the race with wheel change problems?

          How often have we seen ANY of these things happen before? Never, never, never, and never. So what are the odds of all four of them happening in the same race? Why, the odds must be “astronomical”! And that must mean the whole F1 show is staged, QED.

          • Michael (@freelittlebirds) said on 15th April 2013, 21:53

            What I’m saying is that juries make decisions to incarcerate people for life (mind you) based on circumstantial data every day – it doesn’t stop them from doing so.

            We all know F1 is a dirty sport – any claim to the contrary shows a genuine lack of understanding of the sport itself. So your contempt for conspiracy theorists does suggest that you lack an understanding of the sport.

            Now as for your other examples, did they involve the same driver? We all know that incidents happen during races but all of these involved 1 driver and 1 company – Webber and Red Bull.

            If Vettel’s 4 wheels fell off, his KERS broke down and then finally his car exploded as he drove to the podium, should the police be investigating the incidents or would it make more sense to categorize them as random events? After all we’ve seen wheels come off, we’ve seen KERS break down and we’ve seen cars explode or catch on fire before, right?

          • Jon Sandor (@jonsan) said on 16th April 2013, 0:39

            What I’m saying is that juries make decisions to incarcerate people for life (mind you) based on circumstantial data every day – it doesn’t stop them from doing so.

            I can’t help but notice that in this analogy, the person “convicting” based on what could only charitably be called “circumstantial evidence” is .. you.

            We all know that incidents happen during races but all of these involved 1 driver and 1 company – Webber and Red Bull.

            We know that his car was underfueled. This might be considered “evidence” of “sabotage” – if we were willing to consider it likewise evidence of sabotage when Vettels car was underfueled. Since we’re not willing to do that, this looks like just another incident.

            We know he crashed his car. I’m not sure how this is “evidence” of a plot and you have not even tried to explain it.

            And we know he had problems with is wheel, though we don’t know exactly what. Again, problems with wheels are not exactly unknown in F1.

            So all you really have is a strong desire to see ordinary events in a certain way.

          • Michael (@freelittlebirds) said on 16th April 2013, 1:34

            So all you really have is a strong desire to see ordinary events in a certain way.

            Arguing without arguments is like playing tennis without a racquet…

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 16th April 2013, 9:06

      But only if you treat all of them as a having to occur – i.e. as in predicting when they all will happen during a race.
      In reality each had its own chance of happening, and I really am not all to sure you have got your estimates of the likeliness right there @freelittlebirds

      • Michael (@freelittlebirds) said on 16th April 2013, 12:57

        @Bascb – Correct the probability of each occurring is independent but the chance that all 3 would occur in 1 race is much, much smaller. Webber is no stranger to “bad luck” but usually his bad luck is limited to a single bad event that distances him dramatically from Vettel. 3 events in a single race are quite uncommon. The fact that they all happened after the meltdown at Sepang makes them even more unlikely. It’s almost like winning the lottery except in a negative way…

        But even if my numbers were way off and they were totally independent and the chance of these events occurring was 1% as opposed to lottery-winning odds, wouldn’t it still be illogical to assume that RB did not have a hand in this?

      • Michael (@freelittlebirds) said on 16th April 2013, 13:02

        What I was trying to say is that there is a number for everyone out there that would lead them to believe that this is not sheer coincidence and foul play was involved with Red Bull being the obvious suspect. For some people that number is 20%, for other it might be 10%, skeptics might only believe it at 1%.

        I just can’t see anyone believing this was just sheer coincidence at 1 in 1000 or 1 in a million.

  17. Bernard (@bernard) said on 15th April 2013, 15:40

    Susie Wolff is nowhere near good enough for F1, she’s not even good enough for motorsport in general and is more self absorbed than Paul Di Resta which is saying a lot. There are countless people out there with far greater talent who will never ‘make it’ in Formula 1, DTM or even Formula Renault for that matter.

    She is a marketing tool and has been blinkered into thinking she is ‘good enough’.

    Race seats should be granted on merit, it’s a shame that’s not the case – male or female.

    • JimmyTheIllustratedBlindSolidSilverBeachStackapopolis III said on 15th April 2013, 16:43

      sorry when did williams announce she was replacing bottas i must have missed that one?

      • Bernard (@bernard) said on 15th April 2013, 17:56

        @JimmyTheIllustratedBlindSolidSilverBeachStackapopolis

        Sarcasm aside, I think it’s apparent that you missed the point. :)

    • Joe Papp (@joepa) said on 15th April 2013, 18:36

      “Susie Wolff is nowhere near good enough for F1…She is a marketing tool and has been blinkered into thinking she is ‘good enough’.”

      @bernard – although at this moment no male driver is about to be kicked out and replaced by a girl, I agree 100% w/ you, and as I’ve said previously, I do NOT want to see a female F1 driver competing just for the sake of there being a Danica Patrick-like token woman on the grid. Nothing would undermine the effort to appeal to a demographic like potential female motorsports fans (assuming they exist) more than to promote into F1 an unqualified pilot just because she was a chick (probably with a pretty, camera-friendly face to boot). The only thing that could be worse than that would be for her entry to be accompanied by special concessions of some sort, given the undismissable physical superiority of male athletes with respect to their ability to meet the athletic demands of driving.

  18. brny666 said on 15th April 2013, 17:13

    Interesting about the free sky boxes Ecclestone is suggesting, it seems that he is not overly happy with the UK viewing figures. I was just thinking the other day that surely changing to pay TV didn’t only lower the viewing figures, it probably caused a shift in the kind of people that watch the sport now. For advertising purposes casual viewers (or “sometimes” fans) are far more important than hardcore sports fans and it’s pretty obvious that changing to Sky butchered the casual audience figures especially when compared to the BBC that showed a steady increase in viewer figures over the years which can be safely assumed to be all casual viewers. No one who doesn’t actively follow the sport would pay Sky just for the privilege of “maybe sometimes” watching the sport. The advertisers are aware of this and surely this has devalued the sport to some extent.

    • Still camileon (@stillcamileon) said on 15th April 2013, 21:21

      Sky’s coverage his like watching cheap porn, all mini skirts and bimbo’s, its not for me at any price and Motogp is better anyway.

      • Dizzy said on 16th April 2013, 1:06

        all mini skirts and bimbo’s

        Eh?
        They have 1 female presenter (Natalie Pinkham) who doesn’t appear much on there main race coverage.

  19. karter22 (@karter22) said on 15th April 2013, 17:23

    Horner may say whatever he likes. I for one have no doubt in my mind that Webber´s wheel coming off was just Helmet´s revenge for Webber hitting the STR ! XD
    This whole weekend was just terrible for Mark.

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.

Skip to toolbar