“Still too much tyre-saving” for Webber

2013 Singapore Grand Prix

Mark Webber, Red Bull, Singapore, 2013Mark Webber believes F1 races are still excessively dominated by having to manage tyre wear.

Webber said the Singapore race was “quite good” but believes there was “still too much tyre-saving going on”.

“But that’s the way it is,” he added. “I think towards the end you could give it a go but a bit of a novelty.”

Webber has repeatedly criticised the policy of using tyres that degrade rapidly to produce more unpredictable races in F1.

He leaves Singapore point-less after his car developed a fault at the end of the race while he was running in fourth place. “I didn’t get to the end which was a shame, did everything I could.”

“I’m happy with how I drove,” he added. “That’s the way it goes.”

2013 Singapore Grand Prix

Browse all 2013 Singapore Grand Prix articles

Image ?? Red Bull/Getty

Advert | Go Ad-free

23 comments on “Still too much tyre-saving” for Webber

  1. Considering these last two races it’s more of “too much drivetrain-saving”

    • 2 Renault engine failures in one race, just like the good old days of 23,000 rpm. Seriously someone has dropped the ball at Renault, maybe they’ve given the v8s to the apprentices to build while the real engineers play with the new v6s.

      • bosyber (@bosyber) said on 22nd September 2013, 16:36

        Except that it was more than likely his gearbox giving up, the same gearbox that had the problems already in Monza that then stressed the engine, so maybe that was RBR themselves then @hohum?

        Perhaps you are right with lumping it with Grosjean’s problem as an indication of engine fragility, but I still think that the gearbox was Webbers real problem and what caused his failure.

        • possibly, if the gearbox is cooled by the engine coolant, otherwise it’s hard to see how a gearbox problem could cause flames out of the exhaust pipe.

          • @bosyber, this is the same reliable engine that has had development frozen for several years, sudden failures suggest a quality control problem rather than a design problem.

          • bosyber (@bosyber) said on 22nd September 2013, 17:47

            @hohum, wasn’t the problem in Monza some leak leading to the gearbox being ‘dry’, or something like that, if so that could be the issue? I do agree that it is a quality control issue or quality of implementation of the packaging; Could it be that had Vettel not had free air, he too would have overheated engine? Hard to know, but otherwise that points to a rather big difference in quality of components they ended up with [no, certainly not suggesting inequality, but yes, QA problem, maybe].

          • Jeff Bird (@jedoublef91) said on 22nd September 2013, 17:48

            It’s also 2 engines failed in one race not really that high a figure seems like it’s probably a coincidence to me unless more Renault engines fail before the end of the season

        • Mike Dee (@mike-dee) said on 22nd September 2013, 17:31

          Horner told Vettel before the podium that Webber had a loss in water pressure over the last five races.

  2. Yes it’s silly people saying he wasn’t fast enough, it was only 2 laps into the race and he was being told to back-off Alonso to save the tyres. Kimi was the only driver actually racing in the early laps and he made several passes but his tyres were ruined in 10 laps because of it.

  3. andae23 (@andae23) said on 22nd September 2013, 16:44

    I have to agree with Mark there. After the safety car, Vettel had to make sure he covered Alonso, who would go to the end. He did so by going 4 or 5 seconds quicker per lap, on the same tyres as Alonso. I mean, how are be supposed to determine which driver is the best? The one that goes least slowly?

    Let’s say, overall the races this year have been quite ‘dull’, despite there being more overtaking than in many years before Pirelli came into the sport. So back in the day when we still had ‘good’ tyres, what made those races more enjoyable than races today? I guess it’s just the knowledge that those drivers are going as fast as they possibly can for 90 minutes. I’m just not excited to see Alonso drive knowing he could go 4 or 5 seconds faster per lap.

    • He did so by going 4 or 5 seconds quicker per lap, on the same tyres as Alonso. I mean, how are be supposed to determine which driver is the best?

      Let me float a trial balloon here. How about we say that the driver who is “4 or 5 seconds quicker per lap, on the same tyres” is the better driver?

      I’m just not excited to see Alonso drive knowing he could go 4 or 5 seconds faster per lap

      You don’t actually know that he could have though. If he could have and did not then that was a very strange decision by him and/or Ferrari. And by “strange” I mean “bad”.

    • After the safety car, it was obvious to everyone Seb needed another stop. Alonso could have pushed at the same time and 3 stopped the race if he really was 4-5 seconds faster than he was lapping. On fresher tires he should have been faster than Seb.

  4. Eddie (@wackyracer) said on 22nd September 2013, 16:48

    The one guys struggling with tyre wear and is told to save tyres, the other one sets fastest laps on whichever lap he desires, im not one of those “webber gets the total failure of car while vettel doesn’t” but what’s so different?

  5. Pirelli’s 2011 tires were the best.

  6. Alex Brown (@splittimes) said on 22nd September 2013, 19:07

    Marbles off-line make it harder to pass, too, and at a track like this no-one wants to go slithering embarrassingly into the barriers.

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.