Jump to content


Photo
* * - - - 8 votes

Webber: Did he need to stop three times?


  • Please log in to reply
276 replies to this topic

#1 Forma1

Forma1
  • Member

  • 351 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 13 October 2013 - 09:38

First of all after 4 joy races where Vettel was given present wins, this time he had to fight. He made a few mistakes, he messed up the start and run the track off a few times, but he did a  nice job.

 

It remained to be a mystery whether Webber really needed to come to the box so early. He was comforably in the high-mid 37,5 range. People start thinking RB ruined his race to give Seb a nice run into the lead.

 

 

Ted K.: @tedkravitz says on @SkySportsF1 Webber's 2nd stint times were good and don't appear to warrant 2nd stop on lap 25 - much as Webber said


Edited by Forma1, 13 October 2013 - 09:42.


Advertisement

#2 Trust

Trust
  • Member

  • 3,195 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 13 October 2013 - 09:39

No.



#3 muelte

muelte
  • Member

  • 521 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 13 October 2013 - 09:40

Obvious answer...

3 stopper was about 10 seconds slower in their simulations according to Pdlr. Also, it forces the driver to make more overtaking on track, and it was pretty difficult here.

Edited by muelte, 13 October 2013 - 09:42.


#4 Atic Atac

Atic Atac
  • Member

  • 327 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 13 October 2013 - 09:41

First of all after 4 joy races where Vettel was given present wins, this time he had to fight. He made a few mistakes, he messed up the start and run the track off a few times, but he did a  nice job.

 

It remained to be a mystery whether Webber really needed to come to the boxs so early. He was comforably in the high-mid 37,5 range. People start thing RB ruined his race to give Seb a nice run into the lead.

 

 

Ted K.: @tedkravitz says on @SkySportsF1 Webber's 2nd stint times were good and don't appear to warrant 2nd stop on lap 25 - much as Webber saidI

 

 

 

IMO, the whole 3 stops strategy was designed to give Seb P1. This was a circuit were 2 stops were clearly faster and PDRL said that on TV before the start.

 

Webber was in clean air, had a nice lead and was making good enough times to make him stay in a 2 stop strategy and win the race. 3 stops in a circuit were overtaking is as hard as this makes no sense.



#5 JRUK

JRUK
  • Member

  • 71 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 13 October 2013 - 09:42

Once he made his second stop on lap 25, yes.

There was a valid reason for making the stop then, it wasn't just Red Bull been big horrible meanies who wanted to make Webber cry. If Webber and Vettel were on the same strategy, how can you be sure that either would have beaten Grosjean?

Edited by JRUK, 13 October 2013 - 09:43.


#6 Ferrari_F1_fan_2001

Ferrari_F1_fan_2001
  • Member

  • 3,121 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 13 October 2013 - 09:43

If he did the two stop, he would have been slow towards the end but he was managing the gap well with 11 laps to go (16 seconds IIRC?) and wasn't losing 1 second per lap to Sebastian. It would have been very tight but I think he could have held on.

 

Coulda, woulda, shoulda.

 

The team would have known this more than armchair experts such as myself.



#7 TomNokoe

TomNokoe
  • Member

  • 5,089 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 13 October 2013 - 09:43

The second stints for both drivers made the race.

#8 tsk19xx

tsk19xx
  • Member

  • 41 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 13 October 2013 - 09:43

To get to the end of the race, obviously not.

 

The change to a three stopper was a mid race improvisation. It makes sense though.

The Red Bulls are so fast they could get by with any strategy on raw pace alone. The key is not to get stuck behind an other car with similar strategy. That's why you see both Webber and Vettel not running on optimal strategy. Webber nearly f*cked it up though haha. And he did f*cked it up in relation to Vettel.



#9 ConsiderAndGo

ConsiderAndGo
  • Member

  • 1,204 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 13 October 2013 - 09:44

Simply, no. Poor form by RB.



#10 apoka

apoka
  • Member

  • 3,573 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 13 October 2013 - 09:47

I just thought this could be a good thread when I saw that it is just the same biased poster with his/her anti Vettel race weekend thread. I know my post doesn't help, but that's bound to become a bash fest for Webber, Vettel and RB. I would very much prefer those threads to start with some analysis in the opening post and the attempt to stay neutral. That would make a much better discussion.



#11 Exb

Exb
  • Member

  • 1,446 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 13 October 2013 - 09:47

He could have done a 2 stop - but only if he stayed out longer than lap 25 on the 2nd stint, in which case the chances are Lotus would have been able to cover him so he would still have finished 2nd.

#12 KateLM

KateLM
  • Member

  • 2,342 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 13 October 2013 - 09:47

Once he stopped on Lap 25 - probably. If it had been a rival car closing on him in the final laps they might have risked it but obviously...

 

Did he need to stop on Lap 25 - no. Many would say it got the right result for the team but it doesn't change the fact that it wasn't the strategy most would have chosen to run if there wasn't a teammate involved.

 

Edit: And how does the first stint suggest that Red Bull were so fast that strategy didn't matter? Grosjean holding his own there.


Edited by KateLM, 13 October 2013 - 09:49.


#13 Forma1

Forma1
  • Member

  • 351 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 13 October 2013 - 09:49

I wonder Webber would have only needed to go 5 laps in his second stint (at the end of it he FASTER than Romain so nodoby can say he was struggling with his tyres), then he could have easily gone to the end with a 24 lap-stint.



#14 Mr.Wayne

Mr.Wayne
  • Member

  • 572 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 13 October 2013 - 09:52

I wonder Webber would have only needed to go 5 laps in his second stint (at the end of it he FASTER than Romain so nodoby can say he was struggling with his tyres), then he could have easily gone to the end with a 24 lap-stint.

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.



#15 apoka

apoka
  • Member

  • 3,573 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 13 October 2013 - 09:54

Vettel had a setup aimed at longer tyre life and Horner confirmed from the pits that his tyres looked better. 

 

RB gave Webber the undercut on Grosjean at the first pit stop. This didn't work. After that it didn't look like Webber was able to pass Grosjean on track, so they had to do the undercut again. Do you agree?

 

If yes, then there was not much of a pitstop window. Even in hindsight, they could have done it only 2-3 laps later, which still leaves Webber on track for 26-27 laps with a setup not designed for this. For winning, he still would have to keep Vettel on 10 laps fresher tyres behind him.

 

http://en.mclarenf-1...er#.Ulpt1t8feak

 



#16 Thomas99

Thomas99
  • Member

  • 2,450 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 13 October 2013 - 09:56

For sure not. Red Bull got the result they wanted. Seb first Webber second.

 

There are plenty of people sensible enough to see that. Mark was managing his tyres perfectly fine. 



#17 Gorma

Gorma
  • Member

  • 1,564 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 13 October 2013 - 09:57

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.

Exactly as you say.

#18 Wanderer

Wanderer
  • Member

  • 292 posts
  • Joined: July 13

Posted 13 October 2013 - 09:57

Had he stayed on the same strategy as Grosjean he probably would have spent the second half of the race behind him just like the first half. Had he made the pass during the first stint as he should have he would have won the race. 



#19 fatd

fatd
  • Member

  • 800 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 13 October 2013 - 09:58

Once he stopped on Lap 25 - probably. If it had been a rival car closing on him in the final laps they might have risked it but obviously...

 

Did he need to stop on Lap 25 - no. Many would say it got the right result for the team but it doesn't change the fact that it wasn't the strategy most would have chosen to run if there wasn't a teammate involved.

 

I can agree with this. They decided to split strategy to make it harder for Grosjean to cover both of them. But had it been Webber on 2-stopper and Vettel on 3-stopper, it's not a given that Webber can still manage to stay ahead from Seb. There's even bigger possibility that both of them will end up behind Grosjean. 



Advertisement

#20 Diablobb81

Diablobb81
  • Member

  • 3,556 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 13 October 2013 - 09:58

Wrong question. I think the better question would be : "Could he have beaten Vettel and RG with a 2 stop strategy?"

 

A 2 stop strategy with a stop on lap 25 would never have worked.



#21 alfa1

alfa1
  • Member

  • 1,827 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:00

RB gave Webber the undercut on Grosjean at the first pit stop. 

 

I'm surprised to hear that the switrch to the 3 stop strategy came in the middle of the race, because once Webber stopped *so early* the first time, I figured it was three stops for sure, from then on.

I still think so. It might have just been that they only got around to telling Webber on lap 25.



#22 KateLM

KateLM
  • Member

  • 2,342 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:00

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.

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.



#23 DarthWillie

DarthWillie
  • Member

  • 1,737 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:00

given he could not overtake Grosjean on much fresher better tires, there is little chance he would have overtaken him on the same strategy. So yes he needed the three stop. He needed to bring out a gap to Grosjean big enough to make that extra stop (about 18 seconds) not doing that got him in trouble. Not being close to a win at the end was Webbers fault for not being quick enough and not overtaking quick enough. He knew he had a much shorter third stint so didn't have to save that set and still couldn't clear Grosjean.  



#24 Diablobb81

Diablobb81
  • Member

  • 3,556 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:02

 If none of them had pitted early Webber could have quite easily jumped Grosjean in the pits for his second stop.

 

But that didn't work in the first stint.



#25 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 6,765 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:03

But that didn't work in the first stint.


Because that wasn't the plan in the first stint when Webber was still working on a two stop plan.

#26 bourbon

bourbon
  • Member

  • 7,033 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:03

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.

 

Hyperbole.  Abu Dhabi 2010?  After Webber hit the wall?  He had no choice but to stop when he did. 



#27 KateLM

KateLM
  • Member

  • 2,342 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:04

But that didn't work in the first stint.

Argh, I thought it was the last I was going to say  :p . He was a lot closer when he pitted the second time - if Grosjean had pitted the lap after he would have jumped him. But I rather doubt that Red Bull thought he would.

 

EDIT: Abu Dhabi 2010 is what you think it is. Alonso was caught between covering two cars and lost out, as Grosjean did today. I'm not saying Red Bull deliberately screwed Webber's race, but they certainly knew it would make it very hard for Alonso either way.


Edited by KateLM, 13 October 2013 - 10:06.


#28 Wanderer

Wanderer
  • Member

  • 292 posts
  • Joined: July 13

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:07

I would love to know what would have happened had they kept him on 2 stops and behind Grosjean, switching Vettel on a 3 stopper with him doing a Singaporean performance passing them both in a remote speed fight. We would see the same people saying Webber was screwed by RB favouring Vettel. 



#29 ThomFi

ThomFi
  • Member

  • 629 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:10

Hyperbole.  Abu Dhabi 2010?  After Webber hit the wall?  He had no choice but to stop when he did. 

You beat me to it.

 

Webber's rear tires were gone and he even hit a wall. And the pit stop was Webber's call.

When will Webber fans stop selling this nonsense.



#30 rasul

rasul
  • Member

  • 955 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:11

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.

Exactly this. Webber ruined his race himself. 3 stops could have worked out if he did a better job. I doubt he could have passed Gro at all if he was in Vettel's place, since he barely managed to pass Gro on mediums later in the race.



#31 Wanderer

Wanderer
  • Member

  • 292 posts
  • Joined: July 13

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:15

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. 

 

How so? By stopping later? Gaining time with old tyres against Grosjean with a new set? It doesn't work like that anymore. The only way you can jump is by stopping earlier, as they tried. It didn't work because Mark wasn't close enough and wasn't able to make up enough time, and there's no reason why it would have been different at the second round. 



#32 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 2,746 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:18

Horner likes to preach about treating the two drivers equally. There is no need for team orders when the title race is all over by the shouting - any kind of podium finish would have been a great result for Vettel‘s WDC. If you are going out of your way to treat your two driver‘s equally you don‘t split the strategies.

The only rationale I can see for splitting the strategies is because of Grosjean. If they ran the same strategy, it would be easy for Lotus to cover. You can‘t cover two cars on different strategies. In the end you can‘t knock it, it worked. Lotus covered Webber‘s early first stop while Vettel was able to go longer on the option without losing much time, and this meant that when Lotus tried to cover Vettel on the second stint, they were fighting a losing battle against a car with newer tyres and they got overtaken.

#33 jee

jee
  • Member

  • 732 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:21

Red Bull simply played the Webber card -  again



#34 KateLM

KateLM
  • Member

  • 2,342 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:22

How so? By stopping later? Gaining time with old tyres against Grosjean with a new set? It doesn't work like that anymore. The only way you can jump is by stopping earlier, as they tried. It didn't work because Mark wasn't close enough and wasn't able to make up enough time, and there's no reason why it would have been different at the second round. 

I do really want to leave this but that isn't what I said. If none of them had 3-stopped but Webber had pitted a lap earlier than Grosjean, he would have most likely jumped him. He WAS closer in the second stint - less that a second when he pitted, which is why it initially looked like a good move until it became obvious that no one else would three-stop. Of course, the risk is that Grosjean would have gone for the undercut and it would be a moot point - which is why I think Red Bull split the strategies. And is why I don't necessarily think they were wrong to do so.

 

The question of the topic was did Webber need a three-stop. There seems to be a lot of bloated points (which I am guilty of too, admittedly) considering that the reason for stopping him on Lap 25 wasn't because his tyre wear was too marginal for a two-stop. And neither was it because the three-stop was better.

 

I think more will be said in the next few days about this by those who do actually have an insight, and personally I'm going to leave it there and wait and see what they do say.


Edited by KateLM, 13 October 2013 - 10:23.


#35 DutchQuicksilver

DutchQuicksilver
  • Member

  • 2,004 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:23

If Webber didn't want to come in, he hadn't come in. His tyres would have been destroyed in the last few laps, possibly causing a Raikkonen China 2012 situation. He played it safe and got a second place.



#36 boldhakka

boldhakka
  • Member

  • 2,802 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:30

From whose perspective?

Also, it's his own mistake that he had to deal with RBR strategy shenanigans. He qualified on pole and should have run away with it in that car like Seb usually does. But no, he has to make a meal of it and get the strategy folks some room to play with.

#37 ANF

ANF
  • Member

  • 828 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:31

I do really want to leave this but that isn't what I said. If none of them had 3-stopped but Webber had pitted a lap earlier than Grosjean, he would have most likely jumped him (...)

But then Vettel would have jumped them both. :wave:



#38 David1976

David1976
  • Member

  • 884 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:32

The three stop for Mark seemed a bit contrived to me. Red Bull playing games again I feel.

#39 LuckyStrike1

LuckyStrike1
  • Member

  • 5,705 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:33

Let's close this once and for all as we know the purpose with the question. 

 

No. 

 

They (evil Red Bull) had to do it to force the superior Webber finish behind the inferior and overrated Vettel in the race. 

 

Let's now join each other in the Booooo.

 

Booooooooo. 



Advertisement

#40 joshb

joshb
  • Member

  • 3,312 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:34

Webber could've overridden the order and stayed out, no?



#41 JRUK

JRUK
  • Member

  • 71 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:35

If he did the two stop, he would have been slow towards the end but he was managing the gap well with 11 laps to go (16 seconds IIRC?) and wasn't losing 1 second per lap to Sebastian. It would have been very tight but I think he could have held on.
 
Coulda, woulda, shoulda.
 
The team would have known this more than armchair experts such as myself.


A lot of the other drivers did final stint lengths in the early-mid 20s and some of those like Massa, Bottas and Hulkenberg were clearly dropping off in their final few laps. 28 laps would have been very risky and even if we ignore the fact it was in Red Bull's interest for Vettel to win, it made sense to pit him and secure the one-two.

Edited by JRUK, 13 October 2013 - 10:36.


#42 LoudHoward

LoudHoward
  • Member

  • 1,318 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:37

Did he need to 3 stop? No. 

 

However, RBR were running 2nd and 3rd, it's lap 25, two ways to get the win here. Have Webber maintain the 2 second gap, close up just before his 2nd (and final) stop and try and undercut. Is that going to work? Well, Lotus has better tyre life as far as we know, this is borne out in the first stint, so it might not work. Secondly, even if Webber has better tyre life than Grosjean, when it gets to the 2nd (final) stop window, Webber goes out of the 2-2.5 window and starts closing up, easily giving Lotus the warning they need to bring Grosjean in and cover him either on the same lap, or a lap earlier? So, yeah undercut might've worked, but it might not have.

 

Second option, split the strategies, goad Lotus into covering both to maintain track position by pitting very early for their 2nd and final stop. Defend everywhere, defend nothing! Worst case it all flops over, and you're in the exact same situation (2nd/3rd) at the end. As an added bonus, if you move Webber onto a 3 stopper, Vettel moves up into Webbers spot, giving you the option of Webbers previous undercut strategy if Lotus don't fall for it. For me, this is clearly a superior option.

 

If you make that decision you have to chose who is going to go onto the 3 stopper. No brainer really. Seb is already on fresher tyres, has shown better tyre management like every race ever, has a higher downforce setup which will just amplify that, and Mark has a higher top speed which in theory should give him an easier time overtaking. Not to mention he's already ahead, makes perfect sense to me.



#43 Exb

Exb
  • Member

  • 1,446 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:40

The problem for Red Bull, if keeping Mark on a 2 stop, would be how to get ahead of the Lotus which they know is easier on the tyres than them. What lap would Mark have needed to get to, to enable him to do a 2 stop? Chances are Romain would have pitted earlier to stop them getting the undercut (something Romain said they were trying to do last week in Korea to jump Vettel before it was ruined by the safety car). Also an early stop for Mark on a 2 stop would still have left him vulnerable to Vettel on fresher tyres at the end in the same way he managed to pass the Lotus. I think he got the best position he could today, and on either strategy he would only have been 2nd (or possibly 3rd)

#44 Forma1

Forma1
  • Member

  • 351 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:40

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. 



#45 Wanderer

Wanderer
  • Member

  • 292 posts
  • Joined: July 13

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:41

Did he need to 3 stop? No. 

 

However, RBR were running 2nd and 3rd, it's lap 25, two ways to get the win here. Have Webber maintain the 2 second gap, close up just before his 2nd (and final) stop and try and undercut. Is that going to work? Well, Lotus has better tyre life as far as we know, this is borne out in the first stint, so it might not work. Secondly, even if Webber has better tyre life than Grosjean, when it gets to the 2nd (final) stop window, Webber goes out of the 2-2.5 window and starts closing up, easily giving Lotus the warning they need to bring Grosjean in and cover him either on the same lap, or a lap earlier? So, yeah undercut might've worked, but it might not have.

 

Second option, split the strategies, goad Lotus into covering both to maintain track position by pitting very early for their 2nd and final stop. Defend everywhere, defend nothing! Worst case it all flops over, and you're in the exact same situation (2nd/3rd) at the end. As an added bonus, if you move Webber onto a 3 stopper, Vettel moves up into Webbers spot, giving you the option of Webbers previous undercut strategy if Lotus don't fall for it. For me, this is clearly a superior option.

 

If you make that decision you have to chose who is going to go onto the 3 stopper. No brainer really. Seb is already on fresher tyres, has shown better tyre management like every race ever, has a higher downforce setup which will just amplify that, and Mark has a higher top speed which in theory should give him an easier time overtaking. Not to mention he's already ahead, makes perfect sense to me.

 

You make way too much sense for a Forma1-thread. 



#46 ANF

ANF
  • Member

  • 828 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:42

Webber could've overridden the order and stayed out, no?

Yes. And he could have passed Grosjean immediately on his fresh set of mediums had he only had better traction out of the chicane. Then he even could have challenged Vettel for the lead. That was obviously the plan, and I bet Webber thought it was a great one until he got stuck behind Grosjean.



#47 JRUK

JRUK
  • Member

  • 71 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:45

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.


But they already tried that in the first stint and it didn't work. If it didn't work again, Grosjean wins the race and Webber is at best second anyway.

Edited by JRUK, 13 October 2013 - 10:45.


#48 Wanderer

Wanderer
  • Member

  • 292 posts
  • Joined: July 13

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:45

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. 

 

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.



#49 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 853 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:47

Red Bull completely outplayed Lotus using their 2 cards, Webber and Vettel. Could Webber done 2 stop? Obviously he could, but it would result in a 2nd or 3rd place for Webber and possibly he same for Vettel.

 

Had Webber stopped latter like lap 28 Gorsjean would mimic and Webber would still be behind Grosjean and Vettel would have to not only overtake Grosjean as well as Webber. After stopping lap 25 Webber could have gambled and try to stay out for the rest of the race, what could resulted in 4 possibilities.

1- He managed the tyres very well and hold Sebastian (not likely)

2- He managed the tyres well but not manage to hold Seb but still finish ahead of Grosjean

3- Tyres fall out, he is some 5s slower per lap in the lasts laps and finishs 3rd. (the most probable result)

4- Tyres fall out completely, don't hold resulting in lots of time lost plus another stop or even a possible retirement. (not likely)



#50 F.M.

F.M.
  • Member

  • 5,577 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:47

Webber could probably have made to the end on his hard tyres in P2: Vettel would have definately closed the gap of 15 seconds he had and overtaken him, since on his fresh tyres he would have been much faster, and as we know, Vettel won't let an easy win slip away. Pitting Webber saved the F1 world another Vettel overtaking Webber controversy