In 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.”
“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
For the record: #Porsche spokesman at Silverstone officially denies Mark Webber having done a five year deal with them. #nofurthercomment
— René de Boer (@renedeboer) April 14, 2013
https://twitter.com/PaulHembery/status/323376641206280192
Fastest Woman In The World documentary could not possibly be more patronising to the idea of women drivers.
— Νίκο (@icthyes) April 14, 2013
- Find more official F1 accounts to follow in the F1 Twitter Directory
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
Becken Lima (@becken-lima)
15th April 2013, 0:11
Conspiracy theories? After the Front Wing Affair in Silverstone 2010, Horner, Marko and CIA have only themselves to blame for all those distrust coming from fans and press…
David-A (@david-a)
15th April 2013, 0:16
Except that these distrusting people assume sabotage for things that happen to other drivers. Running out of fuel in qualifying, for instance, and getting DQ’d from qualifying happened a few races ago to Red Bull, but not with Webber’s car.
BreezyRacer (@breezyracer)
15th April 2013, 13:00
You know, I can understand boths sides .. 2 mechanical problems in 2 days? Okay, they ran into a problem fueling .. but the rear tire, come on! It’s not like it was even a fast stop .. they had lots of time to make sure and get that right. I think it’s likely that yes, as Horner says, there is no conspiracy, teamwise. However there is a rogue element within RB that want to force a change and his name is Helmut Marko. Marko will practically own the team if he can just rid of Webber. He will have both drivers and direct contact with the owner.
I think that’s why there was voiced interest in Kimi, so that Marko would be told that RB had no requirement to pick a driver from the RB academy. There is much more brewing in back of the garages than is being let on IMO.
Guilherme (@guilherme)
15th April 2013, 0:31
C’mon @becken-lima, the conspiracy theories are completely unjustifiable. To believe that a team would willingly sabotage half of a hundred-million pound operation just so that one driver might not race the other on track (something that is sporadic enough already at Red Bull) requires quite a good deal of lunacy.
If they wanted to do something as stupid as sabotage themselves they would just field Vettel’s car (or maybe hire Yamamoto as the number 2, that would erradicate any and all intra-team fight there). It strikes me as disheartening how many people jump at this bogus conspiracy even though it became clear in Malaysia that Red Bull are willing to favour Webber with team orders when they want.
matt90 (@matt90)
15th April 2013, 1:02
Exactly. Suspecting unequal treatment is one thing, thinking a team would sabotage their own car is something else (mostly idiocy).
xbx-117 (@xbx-117)
15th April 2013, 5:52
Yup, cause no team has ever gone so far as to even ask one of their drivers to purposely crash their car before. Nope. Never. Formula 1 is above such things.
matt90 (@matt90)
15th April 2013, 11:29
What advantage did Vettel or Red Bull get from Webber’s exit (besides Vettel almost being taken out by Webber’s wheel)?
Lewis Stroll (@ginola14)
16th April 2013, 5:01
Scarcely believable that Red Bull will resort to sabotaging Webber’s car to ensure Vettel gets clean air to race in.
It is more plausible to say Webber’s car does not get the same amount of devoted attention compared to Vettel’s car judging from the number of electronics issues, KERs woes etc Webber is always afflicted by.
Kirk (@kirk)
16th April 2013, 16:16
What an asinine statement. These comments are not suggesting that Formula 1 is ‘above such things’, just that it is illogical to sabotage Webber’s car as there is no benefit to Vettel.
It has never happened in the absence of some larger strategy. If Webber’s stop had caused a safety car which helped Vettel, or took out Alonso / Hamilton, or somehow otherwise gave the team a benefit, then your statement might be meaningful.
Ean (@ean)
16th April 2013, 10:29
Totally agree
Becken Lima (@becken-lima)
15th April 2013, 3:36
I think you don´t understood my point: I myself don´t believe that Red Bull would sabotage Webber. Would be stupid to do in that way.
In fact, Autosport sugested that would be smarter put too much more fuel in Webber´s car.
What I said is that with actions like that one in Silverstone 2010, those guys in charge of the team constructed this perception into the minds of fans and press.
Whatever they try to do to dissipate this impression, their actions in last years has said the opposite.
;)
magon4 (@magon4)
15th April 2013, 7:58
Silverstone was understandable. There was only one piece, and it went to the driver better ranked in the WDC – anyone would have done that! It wasn’t Seb’s fault that his was not useable.
Michel S. (@hircus)
16th April 2013, 4:13
If there was only one wing to begin with, sure; the problem is taking off the wing after it’s already installed on his car, and forcing him to thus cope with re-adjusting his set up for the older wing.
Drezone
16th April 2013, 12:56
You know vettel was only 3 points ahead before the British GP courtesy of heikki creating webbers somersault in Valencia the previous race and this was the only time vettel was ahead of webber from Spain till the last race
So it really was a lame excuse and vettel wasn’t a triple world champion then either
David-A (@david-a)
16th April 2013, 19:59
@Drezone – And again, you’re inaccurate. The contact with Heikki was entirely Webber’s fault, while Vettel lost numerous points and wins to mechanical issues that year, indicating that Vettel did a better job than the points showed (which still had Vettel ahead).
In addition, Webber was more comfortable with the older spec wing, which is why they put it on Vettel’s car, as he gained more than MW did with the new wing.
And you do come across as butthurt, since Vettel is a triple world champion, and denial on your part won’t change that.
Jon Sandor (@jonsan)
15th April 2013, 16:26
What is with this OCD-like obsession with the stupid wing? Every team does this all the time with car parts. Lotus routinely favor Kimi over Grosjean with respect to new parts, for instance. And it’s never a big deal – except in this one case. Why is that?
I suppose for the same reason why everybody pretended that it’s shockingly unusual for a driver to ignore team orders after Sepang.
FLIG (@flig)
15th April 2013, 4:20
I don’t think that this is the case, as I really can’t see Webber winning anything at all, so there’s really no need for sabotage, but I would say it does happen sometimes. I can’t help but think Ferrari did it to Irvine in the early Schumacher days.
David-A (@david-a)
15th April 2013, 20:22
Nah, Ferrari were just poor back then. Even Schumacher retired from one race because his gearbox was missing some nuts & bolts or something.
Ivano (@)
16th April 2013, 6:52
@flig @david-a
LOL. No, Ferrari never sabotaged Michael against Irvine. Michael was just a far better driver, and the Ferrari especially in 96 was another red donkey. Actually in that year, Michael’s car lost it’s prop shaft and most of it’s engine in pieces during the Canadian GP, and the engine went on the warm up lap of the French GP when he was on pole.
Jono (@me262)
15th April 2013, 2:25
http://jokesdiaryeea.blogspot.com.au/2009/08/conspiracy-theory.html
Dane. (@dane-1)
15th April 2013, 6:06
Haha, nice one.
Aish Heydrich (@aish)
15th April 2013, 9:56
@me262: Lol who are you implying to be Horner?
Jono (@me262)
15th April 2013, 23:55
@aish well thats a silly question! lol the sheep dog ofcourse :)
celeste (@celeste)
15th April 2013, 2:42
Here is an idea, what if RB wanted Webber to have little fuel, but not to sabotage him, but to help him get a higher position in Q. But they went a little to far and ended with Webber stoping.
The wheel was just really bad luck. It has happened a lot of times to other drivers in other teams, and as much as RB is a champion team, their employees are human.
Dane. (@dane-1)
15th April 2013, 6:10
Was it a part failure? Bc the stop wasnt one of their record breaking ones. They had to change the nose as well
Max Jacobson (@vettel1)
15th April 2013, 8:12
@dane-1 – it could’ve been, but I was bemused how they managed to do that with a 12 second stop…
celeste (@celeste)
15th April 2013, 16:37
@dane-1 don´t know. Some tweets yesterday say that RB and Webber notice the problem with the wheel and that´s the reason Webber was driving so slow in that lap. He probably was trying to made it back to the pit so it could be properly attach…
Anyway, is a silly idea that Webber is being sabotage. If RB has decided they don´t longer want him, they would have pay him out and that would have being it. Instead of sabotagind an operation of million of dollars.
Jon Sandor (@jonsan)
15th April 2013, 17:17
He had a puncture and was trying to limp back to the pits. If he had made it back he’d have retired from the race, most likely, as even if his car had been repairable he’d have been a lap behind the last man.
Ivano (@)
15th April 2013, 10:24
Seems like after the Kimbots from the 2008 “conspiracies”, we now have the Webbots…
No team will ever purposely damage a driver’s car and risk to murder him.
Jono (@me262)
15th April 2013, 23:53
@ivano ‘Things are not always as they seem’…to me it could seem as if there is a conspiracy brewing against Mark…much like it was McLaren(Ron Dennis) vs Alonso in 2007…or is it just a coincidence that the race after the Malaysian Red Bull kerfuffle, they simply didnt fit on of Marks wheels on properly on top of suffering a fuel pickup problem in qualy? “the problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence”
Ivano (@)
16th April 2013, 5:59
@me262
Firstly, I’m offended by your comment, as it’s coming across that you’re impying “I’m a stupid one full of confidence.”
Secondly, re-read my comment’s motive, and think a bit for yourself. Do you honestly believe that Red-Bull, a multi billion Dollar brand, would purposely not properly mount a bolt on a F1 car, televised to millions of people worldwide when that bolt could have loosened into a accident killing Mark and other drivers? Do you realize that would have been the end of Red Bull in F1? Do you believe Red Bull would allow such a risk onto their global brand?
Don’t think emotional here. And in no way this fiasco can be related to Alonso vs Dennis in 2007, as already there, there wasn’t even a loose bolt on any wheel.
Jono (@me262)
16th April 2013, 6:10
I still don’t believe Nelson Piquet was ordered to crash into a wall in Singapore 2009….a multi million dollar operation ordering one of their drivers to crash to benefit the other: can you honestly believe these conspiracy theorists?? even after Horner said there was no conspiracy, it was on the news….> unequivocal truth
well I may have confused your confidence with stupidity…my apologies
Jono (@me262)
16th April 2013, 6:11
@ivano ^^
Ivano (@)
16th April 2013, 6:23
@me262
You just proved my point. Thank you.
Firstly in the Renualt case, it was instructed by a select few with the driver’s agreement, of which the driver was fully aware in how not to kill himself, and harm others. Again, totally diffirent to your presumed Redbull notion.
Secondly, Renualt bailed it’s team name from F1 to not have any relation to that incident, and it cost them their image and sums of money, and the jobs of the people involved. So yes, I’m certain Horner had in mind to taint his reputation and ruin his career to murder Mark.
Thirdly, how old are you? 12?
Jono (@me262)
16th April 2013, 6:36
@ivano
so crashgate happened because it was only carried out by a select few and driver was aware on how to crash safely? totally different to red bull notion…as in the whole team is alleged to have been involved? webber wasnt fully aware on how to not kill himself? how do you know? if a scandal was to surface from webber and redbull, how are you already able to describe differences within the 2 scandals if a scandal has not been revealed to the public? are you a fly in the redbull garage?
Ivano (@)
16th April 2013, 6:43
@me262
You got no more arguement. So go believe Horner and his team are murderers, and want to see Mark dead because they wanted him to win in Malaysia.
Jono (@me262)
16th April 2013, 6:55
@ivano
crashgate 2009 buddy
lol I think your the one with no argument…but plenty of confidence. Point is: Formula 1 is no stranger to spying, scandals, crashgates and for fans to be claiming absolute certainties without 1st hand access to facts is a little delusional and presumptuous me thinks
Ivano (@)
16th April 2013, 7:09
@me262
See, you’re being selective in what you choose to read.
Renualt, never agreed to it. It was Briatore, Pat and Nelson the driver. Of which, the whole incident is diffirent to Marks, as they did it let Alonso win. They never sabotaged Nelson’s car to kill him!
So again, I’ll say it, go believe Horner and his team are murderers, and want to see Mark dead because they wanted him to win in Malaysia.
petebaldwin (@)
15th April 2013, 11:58
It genuainly didn’t cross my mind but as a rule, I don’t believe anything Horner says so I’m caught in an interesting position.
Of more interest to me is the rumours that Mark has signed a deal to race in the Le Mans series next year. I wouldn’t blame him – being a number 2 driver in a team like Red Bull can’t be any fun and I doubt he needs the money anymore.
Jon Sandor (@jonsan)
15th April 2013, 18:08
I’d imagine it’s a good deal more fun than being number 2 driver at Ferrari, Mercedes, McLaren, Lotus, etc.
Michel S. (@hircus)
16th April 2013, 4:21
What makes you say that? At McLaren, arguably it’s being the #1 that is unpleasant if you have a big ego; at Ferrari, in recent years you know you’re the #2 (public protestations to the contrary, and with the exception of when Raikkonen and Massa were there). Lotus does what reasonably-cash-strapped teams do, so Mercedes is the only one at which the management seems reasonably as conflicted as Red Bull’s
Ivano (@)
16th April 2013, 6:09
@hircus @jonsan
In regards to Ferrari. Their team orders come half way through the season to support the driver with most points. Evidence of this is Germany 2010 with Alonso and Massa, otherwise before that, Massa raced and couple of times finished ahead of Alonso. So their #1 and #2 policy is in favour at a more logical point of the championship. Yes, there’s Austria 2002 with Schumacher and Barrichello, but Rubens was never going to win a title against Michael, and once the Championship was sealed, Rubens was allowed to win races.
So aside those two incidents, Ferrari may always favoured a leading driver with a support driver, but their #2 seat has always been up to that driver to make the most of it, otherwise respect the contract and logical reasoning of supporting the driver with the best chance of the championship, which did as said mentioned McLaren during Hakkinen and Coultard era, where once Mika established himself as championship contender, Coultard automatically became his shoulders.
And pre-Schumacher era, Ferrari never really had a #1 and #2.
John H (@john-h)
15th April 2013, 0:15
100% agree with COTD. F1 is just a time trial with DRS like that. Still, we’ll probably here the experts calling for 3 zones to try to improve the show next season.
andae23 (@andae23)
15th April 2013, 6:32
@john-h
Every driver had the opportunity to make his strategy work without getting stuck behind another driver, which basically means every single driver was driving his own race – so yes, I would agree with that statement. From a strategy point of view, I thought this was very interesting as you could follow the different strategies teams were doing very well. But you have to question if this is ‘racing’, or more importantly if this is what we want F1 to be like in future seasons.
The strange thing to me is that the race was rated very high, which is quite weird considering there wasn’t much (non-strategy related) excitement.
@HoHum (@hohum)
15th April 2013, 13:43
@john-h, I’ve noticed quite a few comments, starting ” I am a supporter of ” DRS/new tyres, then comes the “but” I think the penny is beginning to drop, novelty doesn’t last long.
cg22me (@cg22me)
15th April 2013, 0:20
About the COTD…
I agree completely with the use of the DRS being cut short during the Race, especially at Tacks like China…
But I can’t see why they don’t introduce a Qualifying DRS Zones.
This allows the “Ultimate Pace” to still be seen on the Saturday, as DRS is used [safely] around all appropriate parts of the track…
But also allows fair use of the DRS on the Sunday, without it being royally overused.
If we have Quali DRS Zones, then they can cherry pick or adapt the best one to be the Race Zone… Perhaps even get a driver vote/feedback on which one would be most fair.
Probably a few flaws in this idea, but surely it’s still better than having identical Quali/Race Zones.
Max Jacobson (@vettel1)
15th April 2013, 14:34
@cg22me – honestly, I think they should have kept DRS as it was wen it was introduced; I still fail to see how it was unsafe!
Agreed though; two DRS zones are completely unecessary on most tracks.
cg22me (@cg22me)
15th April 2013, 14:47
I think, in itself, it wasn’t particularly unsafe…
But the potential to push the use of the DRS too much, using it mid-corner etc. to super-maximise alp times is where the risk was.
Maybe they could make (for Quali), all usable straights DRS Zones, but with a cut off point distinctly before the corner entry, so the risk of overuse is limited.
Again, I’m not expert enough on the specifics to give a completely analytical response. But that’s what I think from what I know.
cg22me (@cg22me)
15th April 2013, 14:48
Apparently this is only applicable for driving in the Alps :P
Obviously meant Lap Times XD
Max Jacobson (@vettel1)
15th April 2013, 16:33
@cg22me – I don’t know if that would make it too complex, as obviously then you would have to police where the activation zones are for each of the areas where DRS is allowed, so really what they should do (if we have to keep DRS at all) is have two zones on each track but here’s my idea, only allow a driver to use DRS in one of them during the race if they are chasing a driver.
So for example, you could use DRS to close up on in the first zone but then not have the benefit of it to get the pass done in the second, or not use it in the first with the hope you close up enough in the first one with the slipstream and under braking anyway, then use it in the second to complete the move.
Thoughts?
mantresx (@mantresx)
15th April 2013, 0:30
So the rookies are getting an extra set of “training” tyres?!?! That’s funny, but it is indeed a very good idea so that we see more running on Fridays and eventually less crashes, although I have to say I’m glad we haven’t had many serious incidents with rookies so far, let’s hope it continues that way.
mantresx (@mantresx)
15th April 2013, 0:37
Now that I think about it, wouldn’t the teams without rookies be in a disadvantage? Being able to run more definitely helps getting the right setup for the car or at least to test development parts.
I can see some teams against that idea.
Iestyn Davies (@fastiesty)
15th April 2013, 0:56
It’s a good step forwards. All the teams have development drivers and testers, so this gives the youngsters like Frijns something to do to learn competitive F1. I’m intrigued as to who Force India will use for this – Rossiter is their simulation driver at the moment and would fulfill the rookie criteria. This will also benefit Rossi, Ma, Felix da Costa, Valsecchi, Gonzalez no doubt, Wolff, and we could see some new drivers in the last two races of the season once the other junior formulae have concluded. The top teams’ spare rookies are all racing in other series due to no competitive F1 running previously being available!
BasCB (@bascb)
16th April 2013, 9:01
They can still have their 3rd driver run on those tyres @mantresx
Abdurahman (@)
15th April 2013, 0:45
Why don’t they just dis allow the use of DRS for battles in the top 10? Only allow it’s use to pass backmarkers and such. DRS is a absolute joke and the constant pit stops are really turning F1 into a farce.
matt90 (@matt90)
15th April 2013, 1:10
As backmarkers are already supposed to move out of the way, that would probably be a little pointless. I doubt they will, but with new regs next year I hope they scrap it.
Max Jacobson (@vettel1)
15th April 2013, 16:45
@matt90 sadly no, DRS is actually becoming more powerful.
matt90 (@matt90)
15th April 2013, 16:49
@vettel1 Eurgh, it’s as though the FIA hasn’t watched a single race in the last 2 years, and particularly yesterday. How depressing that what was supposed to be a last-ditch stop-gap solution is being kept and made even more potent despite the pile of evidence suggesting it isn’t needed at all.
Max Jacobson (@vettel1)
15th April 2013, 16:57
@matt90 precisely! The aerodynamic effects of the cars on general should be greatly reduced from the slimming down of the front wing; the reduced nose heights no longer allowing for so much airflow underneath the cars; the single, central exhaust exit now also no longer allowing for exhaust blowing and the removal of the beam wing.
So in theory, overall downforce levels and hence the dirty air effect should be reduced – that coupled with what will likely continue to be a close grid, probably the continued use of degradable tyres and the significantly more powerful KERS systems and DRS is looking increasingly unnecessary. So that news makes me particularly sad.
Michel S. (@hircus)
16th April 2013, 4:25
Hopefully they’ll at least reduce the length of the DRS zones. Probably better to do that than to keep fiddling with the regulations, especially only months away from introduction
JCost (@jcost)
15th April 2013, 7:42
@abdurahman
In the words of Marx, what once was a tragedy is quickly turning into a farce.
#ihate2013tyres
JimmyTheIllustratedBlindSolidSilverBeachStackapopolis III
15th April 2013, 0:54
It seems lotus have trouble understanding kimi http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVDApUlueyQ&feature=youtu.be i’m not particularly impressed by this as someone who works with alot of people for which english is not a first language ignoring the problem or indeed laughing at it, (which this video seems to show lotus doing both of) is exactly the wrong thing to do as it will just alienate that person. I would certainly expect better from a proffesional racing team who seek global sponsors for a global sport.
Joe Papp (@joepa)
15th April 2013, 19:17
I think you might be reading a bit too much into that contextually-challenged video. Why would you think that Lotus team would ignore a communication issue b/w driver and team, if such a problem existed, let alone make a joke about it??
Maksutov (@maksutov)
15th April 2013, 0:58
I doubt there was any conspiracy with Webber’s misfortunes during the Chinese GP or others he has had in the past; however, the real question lies in whether the RBR team are providing enough time and effort on Webber’s car, as they are on Vettel’s car? I would say NO. Statistically it seems impossible for one car to have so many problems, while the other (Vettel who pounds the living daylights out of his car), nothing ever happens to it. So, I would say there is no conspiracy, but there certainly is neglect.
celeste (@celeste)
15th April 2013, 2:48
I get your point, but as I understand every driver has his own mechanic team, meaning that the same number of man power work on Vettel as on Webber´s car.
I think DC said today that if Mark Webber didnt have back luck he would have no luck at all, maybe Webber does not have “the luck of the champion”.
SoerenKaae (@soerenkaae)
15th April 2013, 4:50
@maksutov
Well to you it might seem impossible, but when you have been part of various racing teams, you would know this is indeed very possible. I have encountered more than one weekend with both, Formula Ford’s and touring cars, that even though cars are identical, and prepared and serviced by the same people, one car has all the problems and the other one has none.
GeeMac (@geemac)
15th April 2013, 6:13
The same thing happened at Ferrari from 1996 – 2006, the problems were always on Irvine, Barrichello and Massa’s side of the garage. Successful drivers have a tendancy not to break their cars…
mnmracer (@mnmracer)
15th April 2013, 9:15
Someone seems to have forgotten the 6 victories Vettel saw go down the drain due to “nothing ever happening” to his car.
celeste (@celeste)
15th April 2013, 17:47
@mnmracer Point. Is true Vettel has had lots of mecanichal troubles too
montreal95 (@montreal95)
15th April 2013, 10:34
@geemac Don’t think this applies here. More appropriate would be to say “clear no. 1 drivers in a team tend not to break their cars”. Don’t forget that Mark Webber went a huge amount of time without retirement for technical reasons. But in that amount of time he had much more “small” problems than Vettel that affected his qualy/race performances. So my theory is that indeed more attention is given to the perceived number 1 car of the team. However, MW didn’t have more big problems that caused him to retire because big problems cannot be dealt with just by more attention. That’s an answer also to @mnmracer ‘s very valid remark below
Nothing of the above means that there is a conspiracy. As a fan of MW I very well remember that he had misfortune way before becoming SV’s team-mate. There is such a thing as bad luck. After all, no one has blamed Chris Amon’s misfortune on conspiracy, for example
GeeMac (@geemac)
15th April 2013, 12:45
I don’t know about that. The top teams have big budgets and employ hundreds of staff. Because of their success the staff they employ tend to all be the very best at what they do, from the drivers to the chef. Each car has a set of mechanics who work on it and each set of mechanics wants it to be their car that crosses the finish line first. I honestly don’t think that RBR, or any other team for that matter (barring Andrea Moda like levels of amatuerism and lack of cash or unique champiosnhip situations), would “pay more attention” to one car than the other. It’s a team game, they have 2 cars, they send them both out in a state that they feel can challenge for wins. If a team were to spend the majority of their time honing one drivers car while simply kciking the tyres of tyhe other and saying “yeah mate, it kinda looks ok”, that would do no one any good at all.
I’ve just run through the numbers quickly at work (so these are by no means gospel), in their time as team mates Vettel and Webber have retired 8 times each. Of those 8, 4 of Vettel’s were mechanical (without his technical issue in Bahrain in 2010) and only 2 that I can see of Webber’s were mechanical. From that, if anyone should be aggreved, it’s Vettel.
Drezone
16th April 2013, 13:05
Yes he had bad luck prior to red bull cos he had a crap car
He then got into red bull and stopped having issues till he became a threat to vettel
We won’t call it conspiracy we’ll call it coincidence
Jon Sandor (@jonsan)
15th April 2013, 17:35
Statistics show that what you think happens does not in fact happen. Vettel’s car has been rather more unreliable than Webbers over the last few years.
M Dickens (@sgt-pepper)
15th April 2013, 1:11
Well he was hardly going to admit it, was he.
Jay Menon (@jaymenon10)
15th April 2013, 1:45
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/motor-sport/australian-mark-webber-signs-five-year-deal-to-drive-for-porsche/story-fnebo26y-1226620441226
So will Webber stay until the end of the season?
Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
15th April 2013, 2:18
I very much doubt this is true – for now.
Webber has handled the fallout from the Malaysia episode pretty well. Upset as he was at the time, he’s now got a cool head about him. He’s not going to go making snap decisions, especially considering that he doesn’t enter into contract negotiatons with Red Bull until the middle of the season. At the very least, I’d expect him to see what kind of offer they make for 2014, and go from there.
Journeyer (@journeyer)
15th April 2013, 8:32
@prisoner-monkeys Thing is, the rumor is that Webber has been talking to Porsche since… December 2012. If anything, I saw a lot of sportscar fans who were talking of this as one of the worst-kept secrets in WEC at the moment. So I wouldn’t be surprised if he was already leaning towards it at the end of last year (given his lackluster form at the final races), and Multi-21 was just the final straw.
He could wait for Red Bull’s offer, but this isn’t about the money. This is more of a trust issue now, and a new offer for 2014 won’t really change that. It’s either there or it isn’t.
montreal95 (@montreal95)
15th April 2013, 10:41
@journeyer MW said that he never ever makes decisions about his future at this time of year. So while there may be negotiations going on, I doubt you can infer from it that any kind of deal has been made. Especially since MW would still probably want to stay in F1 as first priority, if a competitive seat is available, even if not at RBR. For example, right now a swap deal with Lotus is possible, and its not a bad deal at all looking at their form
IDR (@idr)
15th April 2013, 6:56
Interesting to have a look at the comments of that article. Australian people is not quite happy with what is happening with Mark. Red Bull is a commercial Brand and they should take care about what is happening in Australia.
Journeyer (@journeyer)
15th April 2013, 8:25
@idr Nah, I don’t think they’d be too worried. Not all Australians are F1 fans (or even Mark Webber fans). In any case, fellow Aussie Daniel Ricciardo is one of the possible replacements for Webber. Assuming he does well, that should keep the Aussies happy enough.
Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
15th April 2013, 2:01
The problem with DRS was that it was based on the zones used in 2012. However, the cars have changed for 2013, and this wasn’t factored into the placement of the activation points.
montreal95 (@montreal95)
15th April 2013, 10:47
@prisoner-monkeys I believe the biggest factor is that now they can optimize the use of DRS for the race, while before they had to take differing DRS use in qualy into account when deciding gear ratios, etc.
Abdurahman (@)
15th April 2013, 2:52
I loved J. Villeneuves comments during the BBC Forum and watching DC and EJ scramble to cover what he said by calling him “controversial” and changing the subject. JV said that modern F1 racing sucks basically, drivers just going around saving their tires and not even trying to stop people from passing them, and then half the time it is pointless to even try to stop passes because DRS just blasts people by. Seriously, I am starting to see through this whole charade and I am not impressed.
Sensord4notbeingafanboi (@peartree)
15th April 2013, 4:17
Jv is right, and right to share is opinion. I think the biggest thing you could possibly do to promote actual definitive, decisive fighting is to end DRS all together or end the 1 sec restriction.
Ever since Pirelli re-entered F1, I never felt the need for DRS, even if it helped the flow of the races, in many other occasions the DRS areas were arguably bonkers. DRS never felt necessary in 2011 nor in 2012. Monaco 2011, one of the last races I remember feeling the so satisfying adrenaline of close meaningful racing. After that I thought DRS were to be reviewed hopefully in order to end it’s restricted or bias use. I want to watch F1 and feel the adrenaline, that boxing match adrenaline that feeling you get when your club is playing the champions league that same feeling so reminiscent of the time when Hakkinen was on the grid.
Joe Papp (@joepa)
15th April 2013, 5:09
@abdurahman – iirc, DC rightly called JV out though for the fact that he (JV) desperately wanted back onto the F1 grid, and JV admitted that he would love to be racing in F1 right now! Just another hypocrite, unfortunately…criticizes the F1 but would be first in line to join in the show if he could find a way! lol…
N
15th April 2013, 10:58
He said he wants an F1 drive because at the end of the day these are the fastest cars out there and are a thrill to drive. That dosnt mean he cant critise the rules that govern the sport.
tmekt (@tmekt)
15th April 2013, 17:10
No one said claimed couldn’t do that, he can be as much of a hypocrite he wants. We’re just as entitled to criticize his opinions as he’s entitled to do so to F1.
Trenthamfolk (@)
15th April 2013, 7:57
Villeneuve is an idiot: If he hates the F1 world so much, why did he try to make a comeback? And what the hell was he doing there in the first place!
Ivano (@)
15th April 2013, 10:18
@trenthamfolk @joepa
Let’s not take things out of context. He dislikes the present manner how it’s no longer pure racing like back in his days, but he’s not shutting the door at a another chance in F1.
He’s not being hypocritical, he’s being critical.
Dizzy
15th April 2013, 17:09
Also don’t forget that JV looked at coming back into F1 in 2009/2010, A time when DRS & Pirelli were not around.
He was just as critical of them when he was on Sky last year at Montreal.
Something i’ve disliked with the way the BBC have handled DRS since 2011 is that anytime anyone on there program is even slightly critical of it there view is either ignored or there called idiots.
Back at Melbourne in 2011 they asked Niki Lauda about DRS & when he said he didn’t like it DC looked at him like Niki had zero idea what he was on about.
At Istanbul 2011 when people were critical of the way DRS & the Pirelli’s had affected the race they completely ignored the comments & quickly moved onto the next segment.
Its as if they have specifically been told that No criticism of DRS/Pirelli is allowed as everytime there is some they quickly move onto something else.
Joe Papp (@joepa)
15th April 2013, 17:53
Hopefully they have been told this! Can’t risk spoiling the show, or offering anything other than token criticisms…
You guys always seem to forget that modern F1 TV coverage does not cater first and foremost to you (though fair play to SKY for all the extras they offer beyond just commentary on a single mixed video feed)! You are elite, sophisticated Formula 1 fans, and in many cases may consider yourselves “purists”! Whether it’s BBC or SKY, it seems they assume a level of expertise and competence in their main viewership way, way, way below what’s manifest on a site full of true die-hard fanatics like this one (just look at the name of the site, for crying-out-loud! lol). Again SKY seems to allow more for your existence by offering all those extras that we in USA can only dream of (never mind dreaming just of competent, interesting, non-fossilized commentators!), but even then, the fact of the matter is “the show” is sacred and it’s almost like the F1 presenters and broadcast teams are complicit in producing and promoting it, rather than reporting on it impartially as would be expected of journalists representing media outlets that had no real skin in the game and certainly weren’t paying for the privilege of broadcasting the races.
The point of my long-windedness is that I don’t think anyone here should be surprised that the pundits and commentators from the broadcasters who pay to televise F1 offer only the most token of criticisms of the fundamentals of the sport. Of course there are always individual stories that get reported, or unique aspects of the competition that might draw critical attention, but the last thing the BBC wants, for example, is to give exposure to those who would criticize the racing as contrived or otherwise somehow not as legitimate as it was in some previous era – or even a few years ago. They desperately need to keep the audience they have, and add to it. So allowing a voice to those who would argue that the sport is inauthentic or “fake” thanks to DRS or Pirelli tires or any other major, structural factor that is a fundamental aspect of the current iteration of F1 would be foolish.
What I think it comes down to is they (the broadcasters) know their audiences very well, and that the ultra-sophisticated “purist” F1 fans like many who frequents sites like @keithcollantine‘s aren’t the ones for whom they’re producing coverage. You certainly factor into their coverage, and they can’t dumb it down too much, but putting the best spin possible on the current rules, regulations and practices will always take precedence over criticising the racing and lobbying for a return to a mythical “purists'” era.
Of course, I could be totally wrong, in which case I would expect everyone to point that out very quickly, and unhesitatingly.
Joe Papp (@joepa)
15th April 2013, 18:03
@ivano – I still think JV is being hypocritical, because he criticizes this F1 as not being real, but admits he would be eager to compete now because of how awesome the cars are, bringing into question how genuine his contrarian statements are.
“Hypocritical” has a narrow, very specific meaning. It describes behavior or speech that is intended to make one look better or more pious than one really is. It is often wrongly used to label people who are merely narrow-minded or genuinely pious.
Maybe we’re arguing semantics, or I’m just being pedantic. I’m a fan of JV, actually, and perhaps he’s just complaining to be controversial. I don’t think he’s an idiot like @trenthamfolk states (“Villeneuve is an idiot”), and I agree with @tmekt that JV has as much right to his opinions as we have to ours (“he can be as much of a hypocrite he wants”).
Ivano (@)
16th April 2013, 6:14
@joepa
Okay, so you’re saying that for someone to enjoy F1, they can’t critizes any of it’s features, because then they’re hypocritical?
I admit, DRS is stupid, I dislike these cars with narrow rear wings and huge front ones. Yet I still watch it, I still enjoy the sport, love actually it. So does this make me hypocritical?
Also, if you are going to quote the definition of hypocracy, please do it in full, not leave most of it out as that is hypocritical.
Jono (@me262)
16th April 2013, 0:05
I think JV is quite delusional if he thinks he’s ever gonna get another shot at F1. One of the most unremarkable world champions in history – he does have a good point about modern Formula 1 though
Joe Papp (@joepa)
16th April 2013, 6:53
@ivano – I’m absolutely not saying that. I’m sorry if that’s what you interpreted my comment to mean, though. Cheers.
@me262 – I guess the question is how contrived is too contrived, or when does adjusting the sporting rules to “enhance” the “show” fake the sporting aspect (if at all)? idk. I love watching F1 though. I’m not a fanatic for every detail of strategy or tech. development, but I really enjoy the total package that of GP experience that we’re presented by SKY (to a lesser extent BBC).
eddie3 (@eddie3)
15th April 2013, 4:38
Hey Mr Horner, if your drivers don’t know what you are trying to do how can us public be blamed for being sceptical . What does 21 really mean or do you like us not know.
Osama Shahid (@os-shahid1)
15th April 2013, 6:43
Personally I don’t really agree with the conspiracy theories about Webber’s problems, but there is a certain pattern to these problems, and it is that they mostly happen to car number 2 (Webber). A real disappointment for him, and if this continues to happen he won’t stick around for long. Even last year he was 2nd after silverstone and then he had these nightmare weekends where he was absolutely nowhere, I definitely want to see Webber challenge for the title this year which looks unlikely.
Jon Sandor (@jonsan)
15th April 2013, 16:36
Pretty much by definition, Webber’s problems do tend to happen to car number 2, Webbers car.
Just as Vettels rather more frequent problems have a habit of cropping up in car number 1 – Vettels car.
Drezone
15th April 2013, 6:50
Wow
What bad luck webber is having
No fuel in quali and wheel coming off in race
It would be crazy to think red bull sabotaged webber in quali cos he was faster than vettel all weekend and that they ordered vergne to sabotage webbers car after they realised vettel was behind after first pit stop and when this didn’t stop him sabotage his wheel after coming into pits
It’s like saying red bull backed vettel in turkey and uk 2010 with front wing and Malaysia last race
C’mon guys its obvious red bull give equal effort into both cars cough cough cough
Mads (@mads)
15th April 2013, 10:23
What on earth did Red Bull do to favor Vettel in Malaysia? They used team orders to favor Webber for crying out loud. And then when Vettel didn’t obey they were publicly not very happy with him.
In Turkey 2010 you are mistaking the words of Helmut Marko as the words of Red Bull. Understandable, but its not the same.
In Silverstone they had one functioning component and gave it to the driver with the lead in the championship. Its the only logical thing to do.
If they wanted Webber to qualify behind Vettel then they should have OVER fueled him. That could have gotten him into the top ten, but still make sure that Vettel would qualify ahead.
Secondly, there is no way they order Torro Rosso to order their driver to crash into Webber. That is just insane. Even if you think that Helmut Marko is enough of a psyco to want Vergne to crash into Webber to give Vettel track position, but since Marko has no radio communication with Vergne he would have to ask either Franz Tost or Phil Charles to deliver the order. And what are the odds that both of them would be willing to do that? Ifinitely small I would say.
Yeah sure Briatore was able to arrange it some years ago, but I think everyone has learned that forcing a driver to crash is not something you can get away with.
And then there of cause is the fact that the stewards, even Webber him self, said that Webber was the one who caused the accident. If Vergne was the one who deliberately crashed into Webber wouldn’t he get the blame?
M Dickens (@sgt-pepper)
15th April 2013, 11:25
(@mads) Even if RB didn’t instruct JEV to leave what appeared to be an open door, you have to ask about the sequence of events for Webber to end up behind JEV in the first place.
Personally I feel the crash was his fault, and born of impatience at being where he was. However, still not sure how I feel about all of the ‘mistakes’ by the garage, seems just one too many, and too perfectly timed with Malaysia, to be merely a matter of coincidence and luck…
Jon Sandor (@jonsan)
15th April 2013, 16:32
Your attempts at sarcasm aside, yes, that would in fact be crazy.
Jono (@me262)
16th April 2013, 0:12
@jonsan
crashgate 2009 was pretty crazy too…fancy that, a team principal ordering his number 2 driver to crash out of a race ?? Nelson Piquet junior just lost control, all these conspiracy theories are too crazy for me
Mads (@mads)
16th April 2013, 12:02
@me262
And those responsible paid with their jobs.
I really don’t think anyone has a desire to replicate that.
Secondly, that was done in order to greatly benefit their no. 1 driver at the sacrifice of their no. 2.
That makes sense, even if the method used was outright insane.
If Red Bull had arranged Webber’s unattached wheel that would simply just half the teams firing power. It wouldn’t help Vettel move forward, and it certainly wouldn’t help the team in terms of the constructors championship.
What would the benefit be? If Red Bull hates Webber so much, they wouldn’t have used team orders to favour him just weeks ago. And they would not have kept renewing his contract year after year.
Jono (@me262)
17th April 2013, 0:15
@mads well said. conspiracy theories are just that: theories, not reality
Joshua Mesh (@joshua-mesh)
15th April 2013, 7:30
Most of the easy overtakes were due to the tyres and not the DRS. For example, Alonso overtaking Vettel.
It looks too easy during the DRS zone because the effect is compounded by the massive difference in tyre life between the two cars. For example, on the long straight which comes out of a fast corner, there is no requirement for good traction and even with a big difference in tyre quality, most drivers could not make a pass stick by the end of that majorly long straight. With equal tyres a pass there would be almost impossible. The DRS on that track was mainly used to claw back time lost by sitting in the dirty air in the earlier part of the lap.
As we saw with Hamilton, when the tyres are at an equal life, overtaking becomes much harder to do, even with DRS.
If they had to remove a zone in China, they should remove the one on the long straight. But I feel if they did remove it, the cars would not be close enough to overtake on the pit straight.
Unfortunately in F1 and exclusively to some tracks, overtaking is either easy or impossible.
Personally I dont see what the sudden fuss is about. Are you guys mad because Lewis was overtaken by two Ferrari drivers on the same straight? Again that was due to tyres… (Lewis was slow out of the corner).