Vettel, Webber and reliability at Red Bull
10th September 2013, 19:49 at 7:49 pm #241598
Updated it.10th September 2013, 20:21 at 8:21 pm #241600
First of all, a thank you to @mnmracer because this takes a lot of time and it’s something that can be referenced any time we talk.
I don’t want to throw water into the oil, I just want to add some perspective because looking at the plethora of issues that Vettel experienced in 2011, it makes RB look bad.
When you look at 2011, Vettel managed to do the following in 19 races which included a DNF:
– He had 15 pole positions (record)
– He won 11 races (2nd highest with MS 2002 and 2004)
– He had 18 front row starts (record)
– He had 17 podiums (record with MS 2002)
– He scored 82.53% of the maximum possible points (2nd after MS 2002 84.71%)
This is a car that shattered many records. In fact, the Red Bull was much more reliable in 2009 but fared much worse!
Are we suggesting that the increasing unreliability of the car propelled Vettel to dominate in 2011?
If so, I’m sure that Max Chilton would gladly trade in his ultra-reliable Marussia for the stupendously unreliable RB9:-)10th September 2013, 20:42 at 8:42 pm #241601
Are we suggesting that the increasing unreliability of the car propelled Vettel to dominate in 2011?
To be honest, I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. Vettel lost a lot fewer points to mechanical problems in 2011 then he did in 2010, or 2012. This is a list of all car-related issues suffered by both drivers. It’s a response to those people – people like you, in fact – who keep claiming that Webbers cars has been much more unreliable than Vettels. That’s all it is.10th September 2013, 20:47 at 8:47 pm #241602
Impressive work, must have taken some doing. Just a few other things from 2011;
Spain Webber KERS failure
Canada Webber Intermittent KERS Steering Wheel replaced during race.
Japan Webber Team Orders to back off.
Abu Dhabi Webber lost lap time due to debris from Vettel’s tyre damage stuck in car. Long pit stop 9sec+.10th September 2013, 21:23 at 9:23 pm #241603
I’m saying that the list shows that Vettel’s car had 11 issues in 2011 yet Vettel shattered almost every record that year.
The important thing that I noticed are the number of DNFs which are very different. It happened across 4 seasons with different chassis. Why would Red Bull provide Vettel with less dependable cars when he’s supposed to be winning the WDC with Webber as the wingmate for the WCC?10th September 2013, 21:38 at 9:38 pm #241604
And I’m pointing out that the list has absolutely nothing to do with the RB7 (not the RB9) performance or reliability vis-à-vis Chiltons car, or vis-à-vis anybodies cars except Webbers. The point is that the RB cars have been roughly equal in reliability, with Vettels cars having slightly the worst of it. It had nothing to do with the RB7 being stupendously unreliable, or stupendously reliable, or stupendously fast or stupendously slow. It has nothing to with any Red Bull car in comparison to any non-Red Bull car.
Not that it might not be interesting to see a similar account of how many car issues Ferrari or Mclaren have had over the last few years. Why don’t you make such a list?10th September 2013, 21:48 at 9:48 pm #241605
Why would Red Bull provide Vettel with less dependable cars when he’s supposed to be winning the WDC with Webber as the wingmate for the WCC?
Obviously – because they are doing their best to stop Vettel from winning the WDC!
All right, I’ll give a serious answer to what is basically a non-serious question. Red Bull are not trying to do anything except give both drivers the best, fastest, most reliable car they can. Sometimes, things just break. They are not deliberately providing Vettel with less dependable cars. Luck plays a role in F1 and SV has simply been unlucky in terms of serious mechanical failures.10th September 2013, 22:51 at 10:51 pm #241606
Luck plays a role in F1 and SV has simply been unlucky in terms of serious mechanical failures
Of course Red Bull is not giving SV less dependable cars:-)
I remember Steve Matchett saying (and I paraphrase) that the job of an F1 engineer is to make the car go as fast as possible without it breaking down. It’s the fine line that any championship team has to walk very carefully. It seems to me that Red Bull’s engineers might be walking that line a little more closely with Sebastian’s car.
Alternatively, one can also make the claim that SV pushes the car closer to its limits.
There’s the final argument that it’s just pure luck over 4 seasons.
When you are talking about creating a brand that’s worth a billion dollars, I would say that luck would be at the bottom of my list. I’m leaning towards a top-heavy combination of the first two.11th September 2013, 1:10 at 1:10 am #241607
Ah. I wondered how you’d fit this data into your worldview without altering your predetermined conclusions. You’re going with the “The fact that Vettel’s car has had more DNF’s shows that it’s faster and better than Mark’s” option.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that you don’t work in any science or technical field. Sometimes, things just happen, no matter how big the engineering budget. All of NASA’s billions did not prevent two of their space shuttles being destroyed with heavy loss of life. The fact that those two were destroyed and the others were not does not indicate that NASA management (or the shuttle pilots) pushed too close to the line on those particular machines. It was just bad luck.
Of course, if Vettels car had fewer DNF’s than Webber’s, that would have led you to exactly the same conclusion – “The fact that Vettels car had fewer DNF’s shows it is better than Webbers”. There is no data which can ever alter your conclusions, because they are not based on data in the first place.11th September 2013, 2:53 at 2:53 am #241608
Ah. I wondered how you’d fit this data into your worldview without altering your predetermined conclusions.
Well, there’s something to be said about consistency, right?:-)
Excellent point, you can twist a pretzel into a donut if you try hard enough…
I provide my viewpoint – it doesn’t have to match yours. That’s why this is a forum – otherwise, we’d all accept Keith’s comments as gospel and march in unison to the tune of Pink Floyd’s The Wall.
The DNFs are surprisingly high for Vettel. Sure it may not be statistically significant to a CI of 95% but it’s still based on data collected by mnmracer.
You pushed your luck with your other conclusion and DNF’ed;-) Or was the DNF the result of your luck? I forget…11th September 2013, 7:33 at 7:33 am #241609
I provide my viewpoint
Good laugh. Your viewpoint changed from “Webber’s car breaks all the time so it must be sabotaged” to “Vettel has more DNFs because his car is built closer to the limit”. And now you have a complete list of issues form Q and Race in front of you and you talk about “pure luck”. And twisting. How convenient of you to remember Steve Matchett words now. Or am I mistaken and you quoted him when you blamed RBR of sabotaging Webber’s car?11th September 2013, 7:33 at 7:33 am #241610
You might as well be trying to convince a Christian that the Bible is wrong. “ah!”, they’ll say “of course there’s evidence that the Earth is older than it says in the Bible. Everyone knows that God puts false evidence there to test the faith of His followers. So the existence of false evidence proves that it must be true!”
Some people sadly don’t form their opinions based on logical observations of the real world. They form an opinion based on their own preconceptions and then resolutely stick to it no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.11th September 2013, 13:05 at 1:05 pm #241611
Sorry but the data compiled by @mnmracer makes the RB7 look like a very unreliable car when it shattered records.
Another member on the forum pointed out that the list was incomplete and of course it was conveniently missing Webber’s issues – a strategy that is similar to Red Bull’s. I don’t even believe that @mnmracer did it consciously. His goal was to prove that Vettel suffered as many reliability issues as Webber and, believe it or not, that’s exactly what he did.
This is exactly what Red Bull did too. They started favoring Vettel and continued doing so throughout the seasons. I have said it before that the strategy was golden and Horner deserves huge credit for doing that as history has shown. The hypocrisy is what I don’t like – 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 – that is almost as preposterous as the claim that the RB7 was unreliable.
Even the list is subjective as 2 pit stops are listed as a single issue for Webber while Vettel’s cracked chassis at Monaco which had no effect in the race is listed as in an issue. How is a tire puncture at Abu Dhabi a reliability issue?
Then most of the issues in 2011 with the exception of the DNF and maybe a couple more are really ridiculous. “Seb, you’ve lost KERS, your engine is out, the suspension broke, you also have no fuel, brakes aren’t working but you’re still 1 second faster per lap. We’d like you to pick up the pace over the next 55 laps.”11th September 2013, 14:38 at 2:38 pm #241612
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.11th September 2013, 15:05 at 3:05 pm #241613
You admitted that you missed the 5 Webber-related issues that were brought up by another member.
I will just post this
Britain: A faulty wheelgun at his pit stop drops Vettel from the lead into 2nd place.
Britain: Vettel has KERS issues late in the race.
Britain: Webber was given team-orders not to challenge Vettel, who had KERS issues.
Britain: Vettel was challenged by Webber, who ignored the team orders not to.
How did that tally up into your count of issues? If we are talking car related issues, a faulty wheel gun and team orders need to be in their own category so we can compare apples to apples. not applie pies to strawberry pies…
Please stop making the biased claim. When you and Jon Sandor say that, it’s laughable. I think on the bias scale, if I’m in the middle I wouldn’t even be able to see you on the other side of the spectrum.
Yes, I can’t believe how Vettel did it in 2011 – that car was breaking down all the time… It’s a testament to his virile driving ability. It’s too bad Bernie won’t let him race on a real bull – a red one if they can find one – and show the other guys what he’s really made of.
Perhaps Vettel should ask Bernie to add a F1 race on the water so he can be the only one to finish it….
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.