[Race] 2013 Japanese F1 GP Preview

[p-matt]

Originally Posted by gert

Vettel, more often than not. But not by a margin of 9 laps (even more than half of a stint)

There was no evidence in Webber's laptimes that his tires were going off.
I'm wondering which fact you see for him unable to manage his tires.

The team have confirmed it. They have access to much more data than we do. Given his record of not being able to manage tyres as well it's believable. Red Bull have been nothing but equal handed to Mark this year - they were happy to let him go for the win in Malaysia and openly chastised Vettel for taking it off him. So why would Red Bull strategise Mark out of the race win, especially when Seb's title is all but guaranteed?

[bella]

forgive my ignorance, because i fell asleep midway through, but how do red bull force webber to come in for a third stop? if he is the man that the conspiracists think he is, and the strategy change he had was indeed unnecessary (as the same people seem to think) then don't you think he'd have faked a radio failure?

[gert]

Originally Posted by bella

forgive my ignorance, because i fell asleep midway through, but how do red bull force webber to come in for a third stop? if he is the man that the conspiracists think he is, and the strategy change he had was indeed unnecessary (as the same people seem to think) then don't you think he'd have faked a radio failure?

It's not the 3rd stop that is the problem.
The 3rd stop was necessary because the 2nd came too early.

When instructed to pit, I think most drivers will just do that.

[gert]

Originally Posted by p-matt

The team have confirmed it

What else would they say? Sorry, we made you stop to make sure Vettel got by? Or to make sure spectators had a race going on for the final 10 laps? Or because we wanted to practice pit stops one more time?

Sorry, I don't buy it.

[gert]

Originally Posted by p-matt

So why would Red Bull strategise Mark out of the race win, especially when Seb's title is all but guaranteed?

Maybe because "Sebastian Vettel (Red Bull Racing) won five races in a row" (or maybe 6, 7, 8 or even 9) appeals more to them than "Sebastian Vettel (Red Bull Racing) won four races in a row".

[p-matt]

Originally Posted by gert

Maybe because "Sebastian Vettel (Red Bull Racing) won five races in a row" (or maybe 6, 7, 8 or even 9) appeals more to them than "Sebastian Vettel (Red Bull Racing) won four races in a row".

To be honest, I think it was more within Red Bull's interests to have a Webber win than a Vettel win today. There's already talk likening F1 now to the Schumacher domination so a long string of Vettel wins is only worsen that and make people less likely to watch. A Webber win in the final races of his career would have gone down much better given how popular he is.

[Paradise City]

Originally Posted by Beetle

Push, Webber, PUSH.

He's not giving birth, Beetle.

Well, Grosjean came of age. Vettel initially played tortiose, was swiftly effective at the end. He has the tyre touch. I was tired as well having enjoyed most of Red Bull being beaten for once at Bathurst.

[jsTrecu]

Originally Posted by gert

That is also just an assumption, right?

It is not, Vettel is a step above managing his tyres, it's been the same story the whole year. Webber's remark after the race says it all... Source

“No, Seb is… he stops 18 laps to go and the tyres are still in pretty good shape,” Webber told Sky after the race.

Great race, Vettel had to work a little bit but was great on his tyres. His second stint was impressive.
Webber couldn't do the same, and struggled too much overtaking Grosjean.
Grosjean was great too, I'm happy for him.

[chunterer]

Nice to see another round of Perez bashing again by the experts today.

The Rosberg 'incident' was a total nothing to report. Checo took the correct line out of 130R into the final chicane and Britney just ran out of road on the left of him, he wasn't even in an overtaking position (that tends to be on the inside, even if Kimi pulled off a stupendous opportunistic move that way).

How on earth did people see Perez as moving over on him?

Shame he had that and the pitstop rubbish as he genuinely was on it today and a 6 or 7th place was possible.

Elsewhere, Grosjean was excellent, he really is putting together a strong run in to the season close. Vettel was meteoric again, and Alonso did another 'never say die' sort of race to net 4th. Hulk again very stubborn and Gutierrez is also revelling with the Sauber's Ferrari engine's extra 50 brake horses!

Move of the race?

Kimi at the chicane. Probably.

[gert]

It's all very well that Vettel is better at managing his tires than Webber, but I have not seen evidence (or fact, like you call it) that Webber could not handle his tires in this race and HAD to switch to a 3-stop strategy.

There's nothing in that quote that refers to eventual tire problems, just Webber telling that it was impossible to catch and pass Vettel in the given circumstances (i.e. with an extra stop and 20-something seconds to make up)

18 laps weren't enough for Vettels tires to wear out. That's what he is referring to, I think.
Of course that would be the case, after he (SV) did 27 laps on a set earlier and 'even' Webber did 17 without any drop in laptimes.

[gert]

Originally Posted by chunterer

Nice to see another round of Perez bashing again by the experts today.

The Rosberg 'incident' was a total nothing to report. Checo took the correct line out of 130R into the final chicane and Britney just ran out of road on the left of him, he wasn't even in an overtaking position (that tends to be on the inside, even if Kimi pulled off a stupendous opportunistic move that way).

How on earth did people see Perez as moving over on him?

Shame he had that and the pitstop rubbish as he genuinely was on it today and a 6 or 7th place was possible.

I totally agree there.

Originally Posted by chunterer

Move of the race?

Kimi at the chicane. Probably.

Yes, wow!

[p-matt]

Originally Posted by gert

It's all very well that Vettel is better at managing his tires than Webber, but I have not seen evidence (or fact, like you call it) that Webber could not handle his tires in this race and HAD to switch to a 3-stop strategy.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/110626

And as I already said, there's no reason to doubt that this isn't true. It makes a lot of sense knowing what we know about how ark eats through the tyres a bit more than Seb.

Dare I say it, but if Vettel was on Webber's strategy I think he could have won the race. He was that good today.

[gert]

Like I said earlier, what else would you expect Red Bull to tell?
And no, I'm not believing it.

I agree that Mark uses his tires faster than Vettel, but the difference between the two is not 9 laps.

Originally Posted by p-matt

Dare I say it, but if Vettel was on Webber's strategy I think he could have won the race. He was that good today.

Who is the "he" you are referring to? Vettel or Webber? That isn't really clear to me.

I for one don't think Vettel would have won if they would both have been on the same strategy.

[p-matt]

You can't really say that there's no evidence that Webber was burning through his tyres quicker and when presented with evidence from the team's press release dismiss it. I really don't know what other evidence you could get.

I'm obviously referring to Vettel. His middle stint was exceptional. Mark wasn't quick enough when it counted, and couldn't clear Grosjean quickly enough.

[jsTrecu]

Actually I think you are right, gert. A 2 stopper was possible for Mark looking at the lap charts. But... Was it just to gift Vettel the win ?

At first they had to pit Webber early to undercut Grosjean, lap 11 and it seemed too early. Grosjean responded on 12 and stayed in front, Vettel waited until 14 so he was already preparing his attack on Romain, conserving his tyres and keeping a constant 5 seconds gap with Webber until lap 21, when when he started to push.

At that point it was clear that Webber was faster than Grosjean, and Vettel faster than both so by not pitting Mark, they would have affected Vettel's attack on Romain.
So it was either moving Mark to a 3 stopper, or risking both cars sitting duck behind Romain until the second pit stop and therefore gifting Lotus a good opportunity to win.

Now, if it was just to keep Webber behind Vettel or because they thought Vettel had a better chance, everyone can have his own opinion.
But the splitting makes sense from a team point of view, it increases the chances of beating Grosjean by letting Seb fight him, who was on a stronger position tyre wise.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by p-matt

To be honest, I think it was more within Red Bull's interests to have a Webber win than a Vettel win today. There's already talk likening F1 now to the Schumacher domination so a long string of Vettel wins is only worsen that and make people less likely to watch. A Webber win in the final races of his career would have gone down much better given how popular he is.

I dont think RBR think that way - at all. Total Vettel dominance is what they want. And I don't think Horner and co could care one jot about what people may think about that.

[gert]

Originally Posted by p-matt

You can't really say that there's no evidence that Webber was burning through his tyres quicker

I CAN say that because there *is* no such evidence.
Look at the laptimes, there is no drop in laptimes. So where is that evidence?

Originally Posted by p-matt

... and when presented with evidence from the team's press release dismiss it.

Yes, I do. A Press Release is just that ... PR talk ...

[jsTrecu]

No drop in lap times doesn't mean much in this case in my opinion.

The fact is Webber couldn't overtake Romain until the last stint, when he had a brand new set 13 laps younger than the French's, and even then he struggled badly and needed 11 laps to do it.
On a two stopper with the same tyres as Romain he would be stuck behind until the end, and Seb could lose the degradation advantage he created by pitting last the first time.

So why keep Mark there and affect both his and Seb's races ?
You may not like the fact that the strategy helped Vettel, but I don't see how a two stopper for Webber is a better option for the team, and for for himself.

[Spritle]

Stop making sense, this all about speculation, sabotage and conspiracy theories.

[p-matt]

Originally Posted by jsTrecu

No drop in lap times doesn't mean much in this case in my opinion.

The fact is Webber couldn't overtake Romain until the last stint, when he had a brand new set 13 laps younger than the French's, and even then he struggled badly and needed 11 laps to do it.
On a two stopper with the same tyres as Romain he would be stuck behind until the end, and Seb could lose the degradation advantage he created by pitting last the first time.

So why keep Mark there and affect both his and Seb's races ?
You may not like the fact that the strategy helped Vettel, but I don't see how a two stopper for Webber is a better option for the team, and for for himself.

Agreed. If Mark stayed on a two stopper he would have fallen off the cliff at the end of the stint and would have easily been in 3rd place.

Don't worry though, I'm sure Vettel will gift him a win in Brazil again this year

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by gert

Vettel, more often than not. But not by a margin of 9 laps (even more than half of a stint)

There was no evidence in Webber's laptimes that his tires were going off.
I'm wondering which fact you see for him unable to manage his tires.

On lap 23 Webber set the fastest lap of the race, so far, to reduce the gap with Romain Grosjean to 1.4 seconds. with 30 laps remaining. Webber then came in on lap 26, had an excellent stop with the chance of undercutting Grosjean and was then switched to a 3 stop strategy.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by p-matt

Agreed. If Mark stayed on a two stopper he would have fallen off the cliff at the end of the stint and would have easily been in 3rd place.

I'm still struggling to see where this fact is coming from.....

[p-matt]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

I'm still struggling to see where this fact is coming from.....

It would have meant him doing the best part of half the race on one set of tyres. I don't think any driver out there could have made that stick.

[Aysedasi]

It all depends on which theory you prefer as per jsTrecu's post #65.

[Knowlesy]

He possibly could have. But the combined strategies of the two RBR cars really forced the hand of Lotus, so it was quite clever. Just a shame Mark was the collateral as we won't be spared his bitter, bitter tears. Isn't this the guy who sells T-shirts with 'AUSSIE GRIT' on them for god's sake? He's as gritty as a fondant.