No complaints from Webber over tyre strategy

2013 Indian Grand Prix

Mark Webber, Red Bull, Buddh International Circuit, 2013Mark Webber said he was satisfied with his strategy in the Indian Grand Prix after a mid-race switch to the soft tyres.

Webber, who questioned his strategy for the previous race, started the race on the medium tyres and switched to the softs for the middle stint. He admitted it could have been more beneficial to run the soft tyre at the end of the race, but that would have left him vulnerable.

“You’ve got to protect against a Safety Car as well,” Webber told reporters.

“You’ve got to run them for a few laps, which we did. If you put the [mediums] on and you go again, obviously you’re a little bit exposed to the Safety Car.

“It’s probably a bit nicer to put the [mediums] but it’s very smelly if a Safety Car comes out. In the end I still have a smile on my face, couldn’t do any more today so that’s it.”

Webber’s strategy became a moot point when he retired with an alternator failure in the second half of the race.

“I felt already some problems in the gearbox and I told the guys about that,” he said. “And then they thought it would clear but it looks like it’s come back.”

2013 Indian Grand Prix

Browse all 2013 Indian Grand Prix articles

Image ?é?® Red Bull/Getty

Advert | Go Ad-free

31 comments on No complaints from Webber over tyre strategy

  1. TheBass (@) said on 27th October 2013, 12:57

    Webber isn’t complaining? Who said F1 doesn’t have surprises anymore? =P

  2. LawFish (@lawfish) said on 27th October 2013, 13:05

    lol….alternator failure. Webber was incredulous over the radio.
    What was Horner saying about their drivers being free to race?!

    • David Margono (@woshidavid95) said on 27th October 2013, 13:09

      @lawlfish

      I don’t think you were complaining when it was Vette’s car which broke down at Silverstone this year… or Valencia 2012, or Australia 2010, or Korea 2010 >_> There are maybe more but these are the few at the top of my head.

    • TheBass (@) said on 27th October 2013, 13:11

      Yeah, I’m pretty sure RBR pays Webber 10M/year just to have him stop for no reason, losing 18 points for the WCC (points that also mean money for RBR) just so Vettel… wait, Vettel was already leading, what did Vettel win again? Whatever, it had to be Red Bull, it just makes sense right? ;-)

      Seriously, think before posting, it’s not that hard.

      • Xander (@xander) said on 27th October 2013, 15:22

        It does cost the winning constructor US$6000 per championship point (on top of the US$500,000 base fee) as an entry fee for the 2014 season though.

        You want to win the world championship by as few points as possible.

        Stopping WEB from P2 saved them US$120,000 off next year’s entry fee.

        • Xander (@xander) said on 27th October 2013, 15:25

          Stopping WEB from P2 saved them US$120,000 off next year’s entry fee.

          EDIT – US$108,000.

          • TheBass (@) said on 27th October 2013, 15:35

            @xander You’d have to be extremely stupid to believe any team would stop a driver to save 80k Eur. Really, really stupid.

          • Xander (@xander) said on 27th October 2013, 15:51

            @silence Mate, I agree. But, consider that if RBR one-two the next 3 GPs, that extra 129 points will cost the team US$774,000. I am making the point that points don’t necessarily just mean more money. They cost money too.

          • HoHum (@hohum) said on 27th October 2013, 21:19

            @xander, you seem to be forgetting the distrbution of “prize money” from FOM,

          • Xander (@xander) said on 28th October 2013, 0:21

            @hohum But if RBR have already won the WCC, won’t they be taking maximum prize money anyway for finishing first? Or is there an advantage for RBR to try to get as many points as possible?

        • HoHum (@hohum) said on 28th October 2013, 1:22

          @xander, you may be right, I was under the impression that funds were distributed on a base + per point won system , just like the FIAs income tax fee, and being 2nd 3rd etc was just a prestige thing.

    • Psychotext said on 27th October 2013, 13:19

      Yeah, you’re right; Webber was all over Vettel so you can see why they’d want to do something about it.

      Wait…

    • Mads (@mads) said on 27th October 2013, 13:34

      @lawfish
      That is an absolutely ridiculous claim. Webber was over 10 seconds behind Vettel on tyres which were just a couple of laps newer. Webber was never in a position to take the win from Vettel. And they were on course to take their 4th WCC. I am absolutely certain everyone in the team would have loved to have celebrated that with a crushing 1-2 finish.
      And Why would Red Bull pay him to drive if they just force him to stop? What would the point of showing up be?
      And why would Renault react to Webber’s problem and pass that info to Lotus, who then told Grosjean to turn off everything electrical which wasn’t absolutely essential?

    • Strontium (@strontium) said on 27th October 2013, 15:07

      Please grow up. His car failed end of it. Red Bull wouldn’t stop him from getting 2nd place behind Vettel.

  3. ME4ME (@me4me) said on 27th October 2013, 13:18

    Sad for Mark, he’s had just no luck at all this season. Really alot of points down the drain. Hopefully he’ll trive better next season at Porsche.

  4. Webber’s strategy was predicted to be 3/4s faster than Vettel’s. What did Vettel go and do? Get himself through the traffic very quickly, whereas Webber couldn’t nail his start.

    He still had a very good race up until the very unfortunate alternator failure, don’t get me wrong, but that is why Vettel is the world champion and Webber isn’t in truth.

  5. Chris (@tophercheese21) said on 27th October 2013, 13:35

    I dont get it.
    His race is going very well, RBR are looking on for a 1-2, and then his alternator fails and he has to retire. He gets out of the cockpit smiling, and says that he was happy with the way the race was panning out, but nothing else could’ve been done…

    And people here decide that it’s a reason to criticize him.
    SMFH.

  6. Crackers (@crackers) said on 27th October 2013, 20:08

    I think this is getting a bit crazy. The conspiracy theorists don’t even get a chance to comment before the anti-conspiracy theorists jump in to criticise the conspiracy theorists for something they are predicted to say.

    • HoHum (@hohum) said on 27th October 2013, 21:28

      Vettels fans never miss an opportunity to rubbish Webber for not winning in the “best car” but can’t understand why people attribute Vettels success to having the “best car”.

      • David-A (@david-a) said on 27th October 2013, 21:41

        @hohum – If anything it’s more that people (not necessarily Webber fans) claim Vettel only has the best car (with its performance often exaggerated) and a “weak” teammate, then turn around and complain that Vettel only beats the “weak” driver because of whatever nonsense they can possibly type on a keyboard.

        On the one hand, Vettel is just far better than Webber, on the other hand, a driver who finished 5th on his debut for Minardi, beat all his teammates 2002-08, got a Jaguar and 2006 Williams to the front row and is a Monaco GP winner is far from bad.

        • Rhys Lloyd said on 27th October 2013, 21:58

          Exactly. Webber is far from a slouch. He’s a very fast and consistent driver. But, as a Webber fan it pains me to accept that Vettel is just faster. He’s won four consecutive titles. That doesn’t just happen. Sure, I’m still a bit ****** about Malaysia this year; but to be honest it really would have made little difference to the end result.

        • HoHum (@hohum) said on 27th October 2013, 22:03

          Quite right, had Vettel not arrived at Red Bull Webber would have at least 1 WDC .

  7. I don’t get why mark changed to softs for second stint. Surely the whole basis for the reverse strategy was to do THE REVERSE of Seb!

    All it did was rob Mark of grid positions by qualifying on the slower tyre.

    He should have been P2 and given it a crack from the front and try under/over cuts on Seb.

    This reeks of Suzuka. Changing the goal posts mid game.

    Not saying he had the pace to win. But if you chose a strategy, let it play out rather than aborting it mid race.

    And don’t tell me it was for SC. If that’s true, then this strategy should have never been an option.

    • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 28th October 2013, 8:51

      And don’t tell me it was for SC.

      It was for the Safety Car, as Webber said.

      He wasn’t the only driver to start on medium tyres and run a two-stopper: six drivers did, half ran the soft tyre for the middle stint and half ran it for the last stint.

      As noted in the race report, the explanation for the Safety Car being the deciding factor stacks up because the drivers who were closest to the front of the field all chose to use the soft tyre for the middle stint to avoid that vulnerability: Webber (running first before his second stop), Perez (third) and Ricciardo (fourth). Whereas those who were nearer the back of the field, who had less to lose by being caught out by the Safety Car, all waited until the end of the race before using the soft: Bottas (running ninth before his second stop), Gutierrez (14th) and Chilton (19th).

      This reeks of Suzuka.

      In that Vettel was so much quicker than Webber it didn’t matter which strategy each of them had? I agree.

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.