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

Advert | Go Ad-free

138 comments on Horner trashes Webber conspiracy theories

  1. 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…

  2. 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.

  3. 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?

    • 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. Bernie makes a lot of sense here: I’ve gathered that there are many British fans on here who don’t care about other sports and can’t afford the subscription to Sky Sports, so it would make sense to offer SkyF1 as a single subscription for a reduced fee – it would attract many other subscribers I imagine.

  7. Still camileon (@stillcamileon) said on 15th April 2013, 21:14

    Redbull is a world wide brand and this cant be doing the brand any favours and Webber’s job has already gone for next season and Christian Horner must now be worrying about his own job all because a greedy little German thinks he can do what he likes, when will the Germans ever learn ?.

  8. svianna (@svianna) said on 15th April 2013, 21:20

    It looks like most of you don’t support the conspiracy theory. So, please explain to me what exactly is Helmut Marko’s role at RBR? Why do they need him so close to the team? Arent’ Horner and Newey very capable people? Does anyone really doubt who is the favorite driver of Marko and Dietrich Mateschitz?

    • David-A (@david-a) said on 15th April 2013, 21:51

      @svianna

      So, please explain to me what exactly is Helmut Marko’s role at RBR?

      Head of the young driver program.

      Does anyone really doubt who is the favorite driver of Marko and Dietrich Mateschitz?

      That is an irrelevant point- favouritism (clearly based on driver perfornce) =/= reason for sabotage.

      • svianna (@svianna) said on 15th April 2013, 22:35

        Well, if you really believe that HM has no direct involvement with the RBR F1 team inner dealings, we can not converge and it is helpless to attempt to dialogue. For those who, like me, question what HM’s role really is, and suspect that he is there to make sure that Mateschitz’s wishes come through, there are a lot of unanswered questions. The thing about conspiracy theories is the fact that SOME of them are true.

        As I mentioned earlier, people try to use common-man logic and apply to a guy that has so much much money (Mateschitz) that he banks not one, but TWO F1 teams. For four years now, it is clear that Vettel has been destined to be the focal point of RBR F1 team. MW should have accepted that a long time ago.

        • David-A (@david-a) said on 15th April 2013, 22:56

          @svianna – You raised the point that Marko and Mateschitz favour one driver, and used that as a springboard to suggest that the conspiracy theories might be true. That’s why I pointed out that just because the favouritism you suggested goes on, doesn’t mean anything sinister is going on. Or is every team that favours one driver sabotaging the other?

          You also claim that Vettel was “destined to be the focal point” of the team, but that is only because Vettel came into the team in 2009 and beat Webber (who had been with the team since 2007), having also beaten him before even getting to RBR.

  9. At the 2009 Hungarian Grands Prix, Renault were fined for releasing Fernando Alonso’s car from the pits with a loose rear wheel. The rules state that a team must have their driver stop on track as soon as possible and not attempt to return to the pits, if a team knowlingly continue with a loose wheel they are in effect breaking the rules. Renault were found guilty of this four years ago and rightly so.
    For Red Bull to deliberately not fit Webber’s rear wheel properly in order to scupper his race is pure lunacy, and I don’t believe any team would do this. We all remember what happened to poor Henry Surtees at Brands Hatch, which is a classic example of what a loose wheel can do if struck at high speed.
    Many people claim that Mark Webber’s race was sabotaged by the team for what happened in Sepang. No one mentions Red Bull’s curious decision to not put soft tyres on Vettel’s car earlier, instead of four laps from the end. This to me appeared more of a stitch up than short fuelling Webber’s car or not fitting a wheel properly.

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.