Webber: Did he need to stop three times?

I really fear his was Webber's last chance for a win, so RB could have gone the safer way. Webber should have done 5 more laps in his second stint, then pit a lap earlier then Romain. So he could have jumped Romain. Vettel hadn't been an issues, cos his tyres would have only been fresher by 5 laps.

Every one of those 25 laps that Webber spent under Grosjean's rear wing without making a pass, he was wasting tyre life. So he brought the three-stopper on himself. And if he had dealt with Grosjean immediately like he should have on lap 47-ish, he could have challeneged Vettel for the lead.

If Webber had used his faster car correctly he wouldn't have been in the situation he ended up in. In the end, he was lucky to catch lapped traffic at the right spot to disrupt Grosjean's exit from the chicane, because for five laps Grosjean had nailed the exit and kept too far ahead for Webber (despite his higher top speed, DRS and softer, fresher tyres).

It didn't work at the first stops, why would it work at the second? The Lotus is simply too good on old tyres to gain enough time out of one lap.

It is not true. Webber was a few secods behind at the first stop, that's wh it didn't work. He had a fantastic pace during his second stint though, he was faster than Grosjean. They could have jumped him cos Romain was even more struggling later on his second stint because he was on used tyres.

It is not true. Webber was a few secods behind at the first stop, that's wh it didn't work. He had a fantastic pace during his second stint though, he was faster than Grosjean. They could have jumped him cos Romain was even more struggling later on his second stint because he was on used tyres.

Well, Red Bull could not do anything to guarantee Grosjean not pitting first if they kept Webber out for more laps. Especially with the gap being cut down, Lotus should have been aware of the possibility of the undercut, and pit as early as possible to try to keep the lead.

Well, Red Bull could not do anything to guarantee Grosjean not pitting first if they kept Webber out for more laps. Especially with the gap being cut down, Lotus should have been aware of the possibility of the undercut, and pit as early as possible to try to keep the lead.

That is true, you can't be sure, but you can't hide the fact with goinf for a three stopper they knew they would give the best card into Seb's hand. Mark's race eng. said: You are racing Grosjean". Nothing more needs to be said.

That is true, you can't be sure, but you can't hide the fact with goinf for a three stopper they knew they would give the best card into Seb's hand.

However, unlike sticking with the 2-stop strategy for both cars, it made a Red Bull win (regardless of by which driver) very likely, no matter what Lotus did. That is what is most important to the team, to secure a win, and, if possible, a 1-2.

Edited by sv401, 13 October 2013 - 11:19.

Of course not. Everybody knows 2 stops is the optimal strategy. Red Bull are aware of their pace and playing with pit stops was going to be  enough for Vettel to win the race.

Webber has been also used as bait for Lotus (to make them pit Gorsjean as early as Mark) but even if Lotus didn't play that game Red Bull had a much stronger pace. The only reason why Grosjean kept 1st spot for all those laps is because it's very difficult to overtake in Suzuka and you need to preserve your tires and being too close to the car in front destroys them. Pit stops were enough for Red Bull to play their cards the way they wanted.

Edited by Nitropower, 13 October 2013 - 11:20.

Posted this on the race thread. But thought, would pose the question here as well.

Those saying Webber should have two-stopped: How do you think the race would have panned out for Webber in that case?

Points to note:

1. He was among the first to pit among the front-runners for the first stop.

2. He struggled to overtake Grosjean with 15 laps fresher tyres, not sure that would have happened with 1-4 lap fresher tyres, if it had come to that.

Would be interested to hear where Webber would have finished with two stops.

Grosjean looked like he was pressured into stopping to potentially cover Webber (whilst staying on a two stop). If none of them had pitted early Webber could have quite easily jumped Grosjean in the pits for his second stop. And given how quickly the mediums go off it was always going to be hard after the first attempt didn't come off - you can criticise him for that first attempted pass, sure, but many drivers (and arguably better ones) have been in that position too.

 

I think this is the last I will say on the matter as it's becoming rather repetitive - I'm not so sure either Red Bull would have won if Webber hadn't done the three stop and forced Grosjean in early. Therefore I can fully see the arguments for doing so. However, what I don't agree with is the attitude that Red Bull wouldn't do so (Abu Dhabi 2010?) and that the three-stop was just as good as the two-stop. Team's have to make tough decisions sometimes, but I would prefer they were honest and stood by them.

Lotus was never going to let Webber jump Grosjean. They were always going to pit Grosjean earlier than Webber knowing that their tyres would last longer. That was their plan. The moment they got into the second stop window (theirs extend more than Red Bull's) they were going to pit Grosjean.

I always thought Red Bull went different ways with both their cars to beat Grosjean by pushing from both sides.

Lotus was never going to let Webber jump Grosjean. They were always going to pit Grosjean earlier than Webber knowing that their tyres would last longer. That was their plan. The moment they got into the second stop window (theirs extend more than Red Bull's) they were going to pit Grosjean.

It is not true. Webber was a few secods behind at the first stop, that's wh it didn't work. He had a fantastic pace during his second stint though, he was faster than Grosjean. They could have jumped him cos Romain was even more struggling later on his second stint because he was on used tyres.

Why was he a few seconds behind a potentially slower car in the moment it matters most? 

In the second stint he was only faster from the moment they switched him and he could waste his tyres in a short stint. Before that he had the same 2-3 seconds gap to Romain right till lap 22 or so, and it would have clearly stayed like that had he needed to manage the tyres like everyone else. 

Why was he a few seconds behind a potentially slower car in the moment it matters most? 

 

In the second stint he was only faster from the moment they switched him and he could waste his tyres in a short stint. Before that he had the same 2-3 seconds gap to Romain right till lap 22 or so, and it would have clearly stayed like that had he needed to manage the tyres like everyone else. 

Because he ate up his soft tyres, but he was faster in his second stint, there was no point in brining him into the pit. There's no need for philosophy and hauling anyboy up on anything.

Perfect result for the team. Had they stayed with the conventional 2-stoppers for both drivers, both of them will finish 2nd and 3rd.

They got 1st and 2nd as the result of splitting the strategy. Perfect result for the team and Vettel, but maybe not an ideal result for Webber but it is not like he lost any position because he would likely have finished 2nd with a 2-stopper.

why are we all so surprised??  Webber is the no 2 driver according to webber himself

And all of this could have been avoided if Webber had a made a decent start.

He was on pole position after all.

I was talking about this with SpaMaster in the race thread, I am going to quote myself here because it might be a more appropriate place for the discussion:

OK, this is what I understood from De la Rosa: a 2-stop strategy is 10 to 15 seconds faster than a 3-stop one. RBR was correct in thinking that they needed to split their strategies if they wanted a 1-2, because getting one of your cars to get past Grosjean on the same strategy was achievable, but getting both was much more difficult - so you needed to try something to destabilise him. As we saw on the race, it worked to perfection; it would have equally worked had the RBR cars's roles been reversed, ie, had Vettel been given the 3-stop. What was also to be expected was that your 3-stop car would never be able to overcome the strategy disadvantage, and end up ahead of your 2-stop car (which the 3-stopper would have had to pass on track in any case, and Suzuka is known as not particularly easy for overtakings).

 

So there you are: RBR knew, from the moment they put Webber in a 3-stop strategy, that he would never end ahead of Vettel. Given that Webber was leading his teammate, had they wanted to be fair they would have given Vettel the 3-stop strategy, which would have given him 2nd place in the race. They chose to give Vettel the best strategy and to get him even closer to the WDC title. As I said, people are very much entitled to thinking that they did what they had to do, I can actually see why they would want to play safe and secure both titles. But Webber would in all likelihood have won this race with the correct strategy, and that is as close to a fact as a professional driver like De la Rosa could get from his analysis.

I think that Vettel has almost secured the title and that a 2nd place for him today would have been more than enough; but mathematically he could still lose it, and I understand RBR wanting to play safe.

Edited by Fontainebleau, 13 October 2013 - 11:58.

Because he ate up his soft tyres, but he was faster in his second stint, there was no point in brining him into the pit. There's no need for philosophy and hauling anyboy up on anything.

No he wasn't faster in the second stint. The gap to Grosjean actually increased between lap 13 and lap 22. If anything he was slower. At that moment they changed his strategy and he could abuse his tyres for the 3 laps up to his stop, gaining a second. 

RedBulls did look to be struggling in the earlier 1/2 of the race esp 1st stint.

Seems Webber had only 1 set of new hards left for the race while Seb had 2, for whatever reason? If so Webber would have struggled at closing stage of the race had he gone 2 stopper.

And all of this could have been avoided if Webber had a made a decent start.

He was on pole position after all.

Even if he'd made a blistering start and left them all for dead, RBR would find a way of putting golden boy in front.

Mark is a nice guy, why he continues to put up with this treatment is beyond me.

 

I think that Vettel has almost secured the title and that a 2nd place for him today would have been more than enough; but mathematically he could still lose it, and I understand RBR wanting to play safe.

Yes, I think to some extent RBR want to put themselves in the best position to seal it in India, and they want as many breathing space as they can have. And it's not like they're risking a probable better result for WCC by going for a Vettel win anyway. It's not over until it's over, even if now it's all but certainty.

Edited by fatd, 13 October 2013 - 12:13.

Even if he'd made a blistering start and left them all for dead, RBR would find a way of putting golden boy in front.

 

Mark is a nice guy, why he continues to put up with this treatment is beyond me.

Yes, I think to some extent RBR want to put themselves in the best position to seal it in India, and they want as many breathing space as they can have. And it's not like they're risking a probable better result for WCC by going for a Vettel win anyway. It's not over until it's over, even if now it's all but certainty.

fantastic. Webber didn't deliever the speed and it was not his but Red Bull's fault.

I was talking about this with SpaMaster in the race thread, I am going to quote myself here because it might be a more appropriate place for the discussion:
 
 
 
I think that Vettel has almost secured the title and that a 2nd place for him today would have been more than enough; but mathematically he could still lose it, and I understand RBR wanting to play safe.

Edited by Exb, 13 October 2013 - 12:16.

I think it was quite obvious that Mark is a wingman now for Seb's title ambitions so Redbull are making sure they get 1 and 2 and hopefully it will be Seb 1 so he gets better strategy.  Logically that is the right thing to do, I guess we all want Mark to win though so we feel a bit uncomfortable about that.

Looking at Redbull I think there is the assumption there  is a central European "flavour" to the team that supports a central European result. Strangely I don't get that feeling with Mercedes. I think  Lauda et al will play a straighter bat.

That's just feelings rather than actually what happens of course. 

Andy

No he wasn't faster in the second stint. The gap to Grosjean actually increased between lap 13 and lap 22. If anything he was slower. At that moment they changed his strategy and he could abuse his tyres for the 3 laps up to his stop, gaining a second. 

But Romain could only post 38,0s in the last laps of his second stint, Webber could have post them as well supposedly cos he managed mid 37s.

Edited by Forma1, 13 October 2013 - 12:21.

fantastic. Webber didn't deliever the speed and it was not his but Red Bull's fault.

It's a strategy that slightly favored Vettel, but for all the right reason: he's known to be better with tyre management, his car is setup more towards tyre preservation, and he is generally safer bet to pull off that long middle stint.

Webber still had a chance to make his 3-stop work and it's only his fault that he didn't, I agree with you on that. Had the strategy been switched for both driver it's probable that Vettel could've come out on top anyway. The two strategy don't really give one THAT much advantage over the other.

I really fear his was Webber's last chance for a win, so RB could have gone the safer way. Webber should have done 5 more laps in his second stint, then pit a lap earlier then Romain. So he could have jumped Romain. Vettel hadn't been an issues, cos his tyres would have only been fresher by 5 laps. 

In the actual race Webber pitted 4 laps before Grosjean. In your scenario, you want him to stay out for 5 more laps and still pit him before Grosjean. Since Lotus is not particularly interested in a Webber win, I believe your scenario requires too much cooperation from them.

And all of this could have been avoided if Webber had a made a decent start.

He was on pole position after all.

All of this could have been avoided if Vettel hade made a decent start.

This race reminded me of Barcelona 2009. 

But Romain could only post 38,0s in the last laps of his second stint, Webber could have post them as well supposedly cos he managed mid 37s.

It would have been the same as in the first stint, or even worse since Webbers tyres were a little older than Grosjeans. 

Alonso: "It will be nice to come back to the old days at Ferrari, where we were fighting for first and second, and then decide in the races who wins.

Or do like Red Bull does - one car does two stops, one car does three stops, and they finish first and second. This is a much easier life."

Haha 

Alonso: "It will be nice to come back to the old days at Ferrari, where we were fighting for first and second, and then decide in the races who wins.

Or do like Red Bull does - one car does two stops, one car does three stops, and they finish first and second. This is a much easier life."

Haha 

Did he really say that, sitting in his crumbling glasshouse? 

It's plausible that Seb still would have won with the strategies reversed. He's the quicker driver and made it swift when he had to overtake today.

If anything it was designed to avoid a situation like Turkey 2010.

OK, this is what I understood from De la Rosa: a 2-stop strategy is 10 to 15 seconds faster than a 3-stop one. RBR was correct in thinking that they needed to split their strategies if they wanted a 1-2, because getting one of your cars to get past Grosjean on the same strategy was achievable, but getting both was much more difficult - so you needed to try something to destabilise him. As we saw on the race, it worked to perfection; it would have equally worked had the RBR cars's roles been reversed, ie, had Vettel been given the 3-stop. What was also to be expected was that your 3-stop car would never be able to overcome the strategy disadvantage, and end up ahead of your 2-stop car (which the 3-stopper would have had to pass on track in any case, and Suzuka is known as not particularly easy for overtakings). So there you are: RBR knew, from the moment they put Webber in a 3-stop strategy, that he would never end ahead of Vettel.

It sounds odd, but I think I have to challenge De la Rosa here, since I can't believe that a 3-stop is 15s slower than 2-stop. Let's do the superficial math: 3 stops mean that your tyres are on average 4.5 laps fresher (calculation: 53/3-53/4) throughout the race. If a 1 lap fresher tyre gives you 0.05s advantage, then this amounts to 12 seconds in the race (53*4.5*0.05), which would make a 3-stop only 10 seconds slower than a 2-stop. Using a 0.05s advantage would be very much on the conservative side already.

Now let's look a little deeper: How much does a fresh tyre give you realistically? For this, you can roughly look at laps of a driver, especially before and after the pit stops, and take fuel into account. Fuel information can be found here: http://www.f1fanatic...-circuit-japan/ (time penalty per lap of fuel is ca. 0.112s). Lap time information can be found here: http://en.mclarenf-1...r2=Mark Webber# I didn't do the full maths, but even if you roughly compare the laps, you can see that they don't get much faster within a stint, which suggest that tyre deg is not much smaller than the time penalty per lap of fuel. At around 0.09s deg (meaning that a car is 0.4 faster at the end of a 20 lap stint than in the first lap), 2 and 3 stop would be balanced over the race.

I know that those things aren't linear and I also know that, in practice, you have to factor in more traffic on a 3-stopper. That is the main reason why team simulations might say that a 3-stop is worse. However, due to the large gap behind the top-3 traffic behind them was not a significant issue. Considering that, it seems that a 3-stopper isn't actually slower than a 2-stopper - at least not by a significant margin.

I was talking about this with SpaMaster in the race thread, I am going to quote myself here because it might be a more appropriate place for the discussion:

 

 

 

I think that Vettel has almost secured the title and that a 2nd place for him today would have been more than enough; but mathematically he could still lose it, and I understand RBR wanting to play safe.

Okay, good coherent post. This is what I wanted to know. I am just not sure about one thing. Webber would have had to overtake Grosjean on track just like Vettel had to do. I just don't think Webber would have overtaken Grosjean (this could be because of his inherent speed or the way he had differently set up the car) because if he struggled to overtake Grosjean with 15-laps fresher tyres I think the chance is very low with 1-5 lap fresher tyres.  Vettel would have probably been stuck behind Webber going by what you are saying and Red Bull most likely would have finished 2-3.

 

Alonso: "It will be nice to come back to the old days at Ferrari, where we were fighting for first and second, and then decide in the races who wins.

Or do like Red Bull does - one car does two stops, one car does three stops, and they finish first and second. This is a much easier life."

Haha 

Alonso is doing the very same to Lewis. They are trying to downplay Seb's success. It is understandable cos it could be damn frustrating to sit there in an underdog car, especially in case of Alonso. 

I know lot of you are fed up with my comments about RB's dominance but you can't ignore something which has been defining our beloved sport for 4,5 years. I can understand people like Lewis and Fernando who are IMO and accorinding to load of former drivers and team principals the best out there, who never ever get a real weapon to take on the fight. 

Edited by Forma1, 13 October 2013 - 13:26.

So someone could tell me was Webbo last stint on new mediums or scrub set after Q3 ? DC mentioned on bbc that they where scrub set

Edited by stulbenis, 13 October 2013 - 12:53.

As soon as I saw Vettel hanging back in third place and saving his tyres, there was only ever going to be one winner. A perfectly orchestrated race from Red Bull.

Alonso: "It will be nice to come back to the old days at Ferrari, where we were fighting for first and second, and then decide in the races who wins.

...with team orders.

Mark would have been on used mediums at the end.

that didnt help Mark then ....

All of this could have been avoided if Vettel hade made a decent start.

Or have a fully working KERS in qualifying. It is easier to start well from pole position on the clean side.

Alonso: "It will be nice to come back to the old days at Ferrari, where we were fighting for first and second, and then decide in the races who wins.

Or do like Red Bull does - one car does two stops, one car does three stops, and they finish first and second. This is a much easier life."

Haha 

He really believes that he has the morale high ground here---

it would have equally worked had the RBR cars's roles been reversed, ie, had Vettel been given the 3-stop. What was also to be expected was that your 3-stop car would never be able to overcome the strategy disadvantage, and end up ahead of your 2-stop car (which the 3-stopper would have had to pass on track in any case, and Suzuka is known as not particularly easy for overtakings).

Webber was the better choice for the 3-stop strategy for multiple reasons:

- he was close enough to undercut Grosjean right then, while Vettel was not (Lotus could have covered him by pitting Grosjean 1 lap later)

- he had 3 laps older tyres than Vettel

- his setup was presumably more optimized for overtaking (high top speed) and less for conserving tyres

that he would never end ahead of Vettel. Given that Webber was leading his teammate, had they wanted to be fair they would have given Vettel the 3-stop strategy, which would have given him 2nd place in the race.

Webber could have won the race if it was Vettel who struggled with overtaking Grosjean (which is what one would have expected given the tyres they had) and not him. Also, the team will not sacrifice their chances for maximizing the WCC points scored in the race for "being fair to Webber". In other words, they valued a VET-WEB 1-2 over a WEB-VET 2-3.

Or have a fully working KERS in qualifying. It is easier to start well from pole position on the clean side.

Yeah, this time he didn't have the luxury for that. I think Alonso who made the last year interesting under the RB era, has already forgotten how to start from pole (or how to start from the first two rows) cos his car has been slow. So starting from second place should be that bad.  

Alonso is doing the very same to Lewis. They are trying to downplay Seb's success. It is understandable cos it could be damn frustrating to sit there in an underdog car, especially in case of Alonso. 

I know lot of you are fed up with my comments about RB's dominance but you can't ignore something which has been defining our beloved sport for 4,5 years. I can understand people like Lewis and Fernando who are IMO and accorinding to load of former drivers and team principals the best out there, who never ever get a real weapon to take on the fight. 

So, if Hamilton and Alonso are the best, why is Red Bull sticking with Vettel ahead of the other two?

So, if Hamilton and Alonso are the best, why is Red Bull sticking with Vettel ahead of the other two?

 

Because they are winning so why change?

people like Lewis and Fernando who are IMO and accorinding to load of former drivers and team principals the best out there. 

If I quote people from 2008, I can also make it look like "accorinding to load of former drivers and team principals" Lewis and Felipe are the best out there, and Fernando not so much. However, that would just make me look silly, like I'm purposely ignoring more recent information because I would otherwise not have a case.

Mark sealed his fate in first stint, where he was losing time to RG, therefore had to pit earlier and at the same time couldnt manage undercut. Since then he could just about manage 2 stops race, but without big chance for overtaking RG.

RG would pit immediately when window for 2 stops occurs and control the race till the end.

RB had to go for 3 stopper while another guy had to go longer in 2nd stint to get big tire advantage for 3rd stint over RG. 

So I assume RBs decision was only logical, but unfortunately it will not make people happy

Given his inhability to mount any sort of challenge on Grosjean, then it is not a question of "had to" but "was there an option for him to pass Grosjean without 3-stopping?" 

 

After seeing the mess he made of himself passing (on new mediums) Grosjean (who was on quite old hards) I think the answer is quite obvious: Webber would have finished behind the Lotus had he stayed on the original 2-stop strategy.

This.

And RB needed to cover their bets for a highly possible SC.

Apologies for not having read the thread - but I am a massive Webber fan and to be honest he has clearly not been as good on his tyres as Vettel all season and it did not surprise me one little bit that they had different strategies. I can't tell you how much I wish it wasn't so; but Vettel is a class above and can combine all virtues as required - today he needed guile and patience.

After thinking about it, I think Webber lost it at the start, really. Like usual.