There are a number of issues with that post, but let me take the biggest ones.
“Sorry but the data compiled …”
If the data shows something that does not compute with your impression, the data, the hard facts, is always correct. You can believe the data is incomplete, which is why encourage everyone to add to the list, but the hard facts are what they are.
“makes the RB7 look like a very unreliable car when it shattered records.”
They are not mutually exclusive. As evidenced by the RB7, since every single issue listed has actually happened.
“Another member on the forum pointed out that the list was incomplete and of course it was conveniently missing Webber’s issues”
He pointed it out, and ended up being incorrect.
the fine-tuning is a crowd-funded effort, I’m not omnipotent, but from first post to posting it at F1 Fanatic, the score went from Webber +5, to Webber +1. With the additional information here (I’m going to update later), it is now back to Webber +4, mind you, on a total of 80 odd mechanical issues. If you know anything about statistical relevance, you’ll know there is none in this case.
I’m sure there will be some issues left and right, but thus far, the conclusion of the article has remained the same: there is no relevant difference in the number of issues both drivers have had.
What you can’t conclude:
- Either Vettel or Webber has had exactly this many issues.
What you can conclude (as number of DNFs is correct):
- Webber has not had nearly as many mechanical DNFs as Vettel.
- Any statement, theory or implication that Vettel has ‘hardly lost anything due to mechanical DNFs’ is incorrect.
And regardless of the exact number, what you can conclude:
- Any statement, theory or implication that only Webber ‘always has mechanical issues’ is incorrect.
- Any statement, theory or implication that there is a relevant difference in issues both drivers had, is incorrect.
- Any statement, theory or implication that Webber receives less reliable material is incorrect.
“of course, Red Bull has to hide that but I don’t like fans of F1 being hypocrites and saying that the team has never favored Vettel.”
This is exactly why I do these kind of things: you make a bold statement, without providing proof. People have been making exactly these sort of statements about Webber-Vettel reliability, and it is clear now how wrong those were.
So please, substantiate your claim or retract it, because as is, it is just another unproven claim.
“2 pit stops are listed as a single issue for Webber”
Assuming you’re talking about Japan ’09, the issue was the headrest, not the pit stops, which were a result of the single headrest issue.
“while Vettel’s cracked chassis at Monaco which had no effect in the race”
Do you have any evidence of that?
If so, please provide it and it will be added to the last (or removed in this case). If there is no evidence, obviously the issue is not with the list.
And for the record, if this effort was as biased as you seem to want to imply, I would have listed the cracked chassis as an issue for each race it happened in. But it is one single issue, hence it is listed just once.
“most of the issues in 2011 with the exception of the DNF and maybe a couple more are really ridiculous … you’re still 1 second faster per lap.”
Setting aside the incorrectness of the claim of being 1 second faster per lap, again, the two are not mutually exclusive. Unless you want to claim that Red Bull just fakes reliability issues for… whatever reason. In which case, again, please provide evidence.