planetf1.com

http://www.foxsports.com.au/motor-sport ... 6531815486

I agree, with a bit more consistency and a further of his start line improvements this year 2013 could be golden.

_________________
[[[[Mark Webber for the win in 2013 and beyond]]]
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[http://www.octanic.com]]]]]]]]]]]]

On his day at certain tracks, frankly his starts are usually awful. And as he has been in f1 for so long if he hasn't found consistency yet he isn't really going to. Although he did seem to get his fair share of bad luck tail end of 2012

Nothing really controversial here. Over one in lap in qualifying he's rarely been too far behind Vettel, and beats him at times.

But inconsistency, and poor starts in races, and hit or miss performance through the season keeps him from coming out on top over the course of a year. He does have his days, but they always seem to come at the same tracks every year. Istanbul, Silverstone, Monaco particularly seem to suit him.

He has the pace to challenge for the title no doubt, its just the little things like race starts and Tilke tracks that he needs to manage.

_________________
Danger is real, fear is a choice.
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
Best Round Result: 1st (Monaco 2012)
Podiums: 4
2013 Championship Standing: 78th

On a perfect day... sure. But he doesn't have the consistency to put enough perfect days together. Same as all the other good, but not great, F1 drivers.

Thing is, he says that Vettel's advantage is in qualifying but I'd say this year it was in the race where Vettel had Webber handled.

I'd really love to think so but I don't think it's the case. As an Aussie I'd love Webber to win (although I am a Schumi/Ferrari fan).

I always thought in 2010 that it was his one chance, even as the season was unfolding and nearing the conclusion.

I'd love to see him at the front but I don't think he can just manufacture the consistency all of a sudden.

I like you Mark, but show me it over the course of a season, don't tell me about in an interview.

_________________

Doesn't ever specifically say "I'm a match for Vettel". If you were a journalist, sensationalism would be your area!

What he's saying is that he was able to keep up with Vettel in qualifying in 2012 and he's happy with that - and wouldn't you? The guy that is regarded as the best qualifier on the grid only just beat you. It's got to be a confidence boost for Mark after the enormous qualifying deficit in 2011.

_________________

I also have one of these.

regardless of what he actually said in the article.

I think he is a match for Vettel speed wise and in racecraft. Just better consistency and better judgement in ontrack battles and he is a WDC.

Even if Webber matches Vettel on 15/20 races he always seems to have 5/20 were he is just some way off the pace and that is were Vettel moves forward.

Also with the RBR car development basically being built around what suits Vettel's driving style and Vettel getting strategic advantage, its hard to imagine Webber ever one uping him.

_________________
Supporting in 2012:
Mark Webber.
Lewis Hamilton.

All he needs is the consistency and he can match Vettel, he has the speed that's for sure.

Straight away - cars are not developed toward a particular driver's style, they are developed to be as fast and efficient as they can be. Tailoring for a style of driving in this day and age is a myth.

I've now come to this thread and written a response and then not actually posted it, three times. Each one was different. I guess I don't know how to explain my thoughts on Mark. He lacks that something special that the WDC's on the grid have. None of them have the same special quality, but they all have one. I don't see one in Mark. He's fast, his race craft is excellent. His terrible starts will always be a mystery. I'm pretty sure his inconsistency comes from the head game. Over the course of the season he can't seem to keep it together. Sometimes even just over the course of a single race he seems to fade. Its like something not so good happens, and he can't fight back to overcome it...while every time something not so good happens to his teammate, his teammate goes all HAM and gets the job done in spite of it. Also, I don't think he's ever come to grips (pardon the pun) with the Pirellis, particularly on heavy fuel. If you watch his times over a stint they don't always make sense - by that I mean you can see a pattern in the times of most of the guys at the front that shows how they are trying to balance tire management and their gaps ahead and behind. Mark's stints, especially the first, can be all over the place sometimes.

I know a lot of people think Felipe has it rough with his role at Ferrari, but honestly I think Mark has it worse. It really is HIS doing when the team shifts its support behind his teammate, its not the default setting. They start as equals. Its only going to get worse too - no one else on the grid now has to share a garage with a triple world champion. You could say Nico had a tough situation partnering Michael, but given Michael's recent performance and the shortcomings of the cars they had, it wasn't the same as Mark's position.

I like Mark, and I think he's an integral part of his team, but sometimes I can't help but shake my head at his decisions on track. I hope he can have another strong start to the year in 2013 and keep it going til the end.

_________________

I don't know why but it seems i have been running in you a lot on here lately!

I don't agree with the initial bit. car's are made to:
1. suit the tyres
2. suit the Aero
3. suit everything else mechanical
4. suit the driver

The driver is not the most integral part, but he is a part. Knowing what he likes does make a factor.
Cars are made with some tune-ability so that they can be adjusted for different circuits, conditions AND driver preference.
For example selecting roll rates the drivers are comfortable with, frequencies, aero balance, mechanical balance all these are partially dependent on the driver and in a sport as close and demanding as F1 suiting the driver is sometimes the difference between finishing 1st and 10th or even worse.

Yes, those are all elements of set up, and can be different between the two cars. The design and development of the cars is singular, and not tailored for drivers.

_________________

What is the range for their adjust ability? a wide range will normally mean a heavier, more complex and expensive setup. and this is where driver input is needed.

Webber, like button has his good days and bad days... When he is good, he is untouchable, but on the bad days, he is often an embarrassment to watch.. and sadly, bad days outnumber the good days.

_________________
KIMI: Yeah,Winning feels good.But I am not the type of guy to jump up and down and rub it in everyone's face.

I think you'd find a driver at this level would only be unable to find a comfort zone within the operating window if the design treatment were fundamentally bad. That's not unheard of. Sometimes the various windows for different parts of the cars have no overlapping happy place, like a venn diagram where the circles DON'T intersect. If a design is good, and the modeling and simulation say it should work, any of these guys will be able to drive it. It also just doesn't make sense to tailor the design to one driver. What if he breaks his leg in the 2nd race and your reserve has different preferences and doesn't hold a candle to the other driver who you haven't based your design on anyway? These guys are all the same - you give them a stable car with gobs of downforce and the ability to be on the throttle more than everyone else and they will be fast.

edit: wanted to add - when it seems a car is suited to one driver and not the other, its more likely that the regulations suit one driver over the other. The designers will always build the car that is the best balance of performance and reliability within those regs.

_________________

they will be able to drive it alright, but when the difference from 1-10 in Q2 is 0.3s (Chinese GP for example) a driver with a good car suited to him will most likely make the cut while if his teammate doesn't get the car to his liking won't.


I think we may have to agree to disagree on this one

It doesn't, but I copied that from the original link I clicked on rather than the headline

_________________
[[[[Mark Webber for the win in 2013 and beyond]]]
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[http://www.octanic.com]]]]]]]]]]]]

I agree with Toby's view that Mark's remarks only seem to suggest his satisfaction at nearly matching Seb in qualifying.

But in response to what the article suggests though, I say that Mark was aided by the fact that the Red Bull development in the initial phase of the season suited him much more than it did Sebastian. Vettel had to try different tyre strategies in the races and even tried to steer the direction of car development when he switched to the older spec Red Bull (was it China when he tried that?), and in spite of these struggles, he was a match for Webber in the standings and would have been ahead were it not for his reliability issue in Valencia.

When the car's development favoured him though, he was excellent. I feel this is is what separates the great drivers from the good ones - they're able to grind out results when things are not going their way, and can win comfortably when things do, and this produces the "consistency" in their results. This is why I believe that Jenson is not a as good as Seb, Fernie, Hammy or Kimi - like Webber, he suffers miserably when he's not happy with the car, and barely finishes in the points while the 4 top drivers are able to manage a top-5 finish (given a similarly competitive car). Barring a 2011-style dominant season, there are bound to be 7-8 races a season where a driver will struggle and the top pilots are worth an extra 50 points at least in these situations. I'd like to see the two Nicos get a good car to see what they're capable of. These 2, and perhaps di Resta potentially have that top-driver consistency (note though that consistently slow is also consistent).

Can you think of an example of a design element that can be made to suit one over another? PM me if you want, its not strictly relevant to the thread topic I guess.

_________________

If cars are not developed to the driving style of a particular driver, then it is not going to be as fast as it can possibly be. You can design a car that you think will be the fastest, but unless your driver can excel under those particular (car) conditions, it's not going to be of much use. However, if say for example a driver was better suited to a car with a loose rear end (first idea that came to my head) you would find that given they had a car which had the aforementioned rear end, they would drove around a circuit better, through being used to a car that reacts in the way of which you'd expect a loose car to do.

_________________
DISCLAIMER #1: You're probably going to ignore the above post.
DISCLAIMER #2: My posts often tend to deter any users from posting again on a thread. I'm a thread-killer.

Only Tilke tracks? Granted he has been excellent at Monaco and Silverstone, but I remember at Spa Vettel was simply driving circles around Webber. Monza, Vettel. Suzuka, Vettel. Brazil, Vettel.

He has his days, but I don't think he will contend for the title. His big chance obviously was 2010.

edit: however, I do think he's doing a good job keeping Vettel honest. He is allowed to be quite competitive and to take points off Vettel. Which can be a disadvantage if your main title rival is called Alonso (Massa won't be taking points off him), but could also keep you more competitive.

I'm looking at Webbers career, not just 2012. In the last couple of years he's had pole and almost won Spa 2010 & 2011, won Brazil twice, Monza granted as he usually retires from that race, Suzuka 2nd 2010 less than a second behind Vettel at the finish.

_________________
Danger is real, fear is a choice.
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
Best Round Result: 1st (Monaco 2012)
Podiums: 4
2013 Championship Standing: 78th

But he needs to do better than be good at a handful of tracks in order to be a proper contender. On his day he's great, but unfortunately his day seems few and far between.

Take this year. He was very consistent in the first half of the year and seemed to have the edge overall on his team mate. But his second half of the season just fell apart. A couple of good performances, but more mediocre ones. And it wasn't that the car didn't suit the tracks or anything since his team mate had exactly the reverse of fortunes.

I honestly can't make Mark out. How he can be blindingly fast one minute and then fumbling around the track the next, getting involved in pointless battles and making a meal of it. The only way I can rationalise it is that when the car has more downforce it suits Seb better and Mark struggles with his driving style, but he's a bit of a mystery overall.

Give him KERS reliability and take away his bad starts and he's in with a chance for sure. Just like in 2010.

Peter Windsor made a good point recently...the driver actually has less input in getting a good start these days than ever before in F1. It is not his reaction time...the data says otherwise...he's on par with Seb, Lewis, Jensen and others on that front...sometimes slightly better, sometimes slightly worse. Unfortunately it's something that his team has been struggling with for more than 2 years now. If the engineers can't tell a driver where they are going wrong it must be very frustrating.

I find it one of the most bizarre phenomenon in F1 in recent times.

p.s. take away a bit of rear downforce and he'll be more than a match for Seb too..

_________________
‘Ayrton had taken pole and now Alain said to me: “where the f*** did he find that time? How the hell can he be that quick?” In the corner, Senna…he looked up and winked at me. Ayrton had a look in his eye that said, “I’ve done it.”
Jo Ramírez

@purchville
I agree with you on the downforce thing, as i believe that plays to Vettels's strengths. But the starts are down to Mark. He's a top driver with many years' experience; he should have the hang of them by now.

And it's not just starts, I'm afraid. With some notable exceptions, he hasn't shown himself to be able to consistently carve his way through the field in the way that Seb has when he's found himself down the field. With the car he had under him this year that should have been a formality, yet often he made it seem like hard work. On his day, he's brilliant, but he shouldn't really have to hope that today's the day each time. He's a great number two but needs to sort his issues out if he wants to be a number one.

Someone else mentioned in another thread that Mark's driving style may have had an impact on his KERS issues by putting undue strain on the system. Can anyone confirm / deny this?

I suppose the bottom line is, Would YOU (anyone on this board or elsewhere) choose him over Vettel if you wee a team boss?

Being realistic, you cant really put them in the same group while driving todays cars.

_________________
I find television very educating. Every time somebody turns on the set, I go into the other room and read a book.

Marx (Groucho)

This year qualifying was Vettel 11 - 9 Webber. Hardly to say Vettel was so excellent in a relation to Webber.

In races, Webber got plenty of clutch and KERS issues. Yet his engineer can't solve the problem. Mysterious.

I don't deny that Vettel is a great driver, but i disagree that Webber is only a good driver.

If Newey didn't give attention to Vettel's problem, I doubt Vettel will have his 3rd WDC.

While Webber, i don't know if he really have some serious attention from his engineers.

Pretty much.

On his day he is almost unbeatable, but this day is at best a couple of times a year. Pretty much like Rubens, Trulli or Ralf maybe.

But his starts still need improvement; starts can very often make or break someone's race, especially from the front rows. He needs to do better.

I agree with the overall sentiment here.

He's a quick guy, can qualify well & is well able to win a race.

But on a bad day Mark struggles to extract a result. That's the difference between good drivers and champions.

_________________
"I am a believer, but I start each Grand Prix with 195 liters of fuel behind me," he explains. "I don't rely entirely on God, I rely on Prost."

No he's not, he is not a match for Vettel. 3 titles to none. He might have had his share of bad luck with mechanical failures, but overall Vettel has trounced him. He has occasional races where he's put in some excellent performances, but they're few and far between... Massa has beaten Alonso in the last 3 years a few times, but is that enough to suggest he's a match for him? No fam.

_________________
PLAY A RECORD KARL COS I'M GUNNA KNOCK YOU OUT!!!

I'd probably replace Istanbul with Interlagos, but you're absolutely right.

_________________
I don't follow F1 so I don't know what I'm talking about

Webber might be a match for Vettel but I get the feeling that the environment in Red Bull is much better for Vettel than it is for Webber. From the Silverstone wing debacle, it's always been like Mark is the outsider, the also ran. He didn't let it get to him in 2010 (yes, he made mistakes and lost but his attitude remained optimistic, like he knew he could win) but after that year, he just seemed to fade mentally.

It's a shame really. If he had a team behind him and a fast car, I've no doubt he could have won a WDC. Assuming he gets his starts right, of course...

No it's not a myth, couldn't say it better than brundle http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOhgI1hQA68

_________________
Latest F1 vid I made http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C4qJXyRLDg&feature=youtu.be

Red Bull did look a bit silly in pre-season for 2011 when it was Webber's turn to get in the car and it was physically too short to accommodate him, though! If constructing the car a certain size isn't tailoring to one driver, I don't know what is!

_________________

I also have one of these.

This is why you read the article and not the PlanetF1 forum topic headline

_________________

I also have one of these.

Joke of the day?

_________________
Kimi Raikkonen / Red Bull Racing / Lotus F1

"As they can be" is a reflection of what modeling and simulation tell the team. The cars only work in a small window as a whole, so you can't have anything too one way or the other. If one driver needs one end of the car to slide a bit more, that's what setup adjustments are for. Changing adjustable components of the car at the weekend isn't tailoring a car's design or development toward one driver. Design and development are tailored to problem solving and exploitation. Problem: the car can only get its tires up to temp quickly AND keep them in their operating window for a useful amount of time if we run it with X amount of rake, but the aero package doesn't work at that amount of rake. Solution: Alter suspension design to better handle/control the changes in dynamic ride height. That's just an example. An example of what DOESN'T happen...Problem: Lewis likes an oversteery car. Solution: design a car to be very loose. Why not? because the regulations dictate a car of shape and proportion that doesn't handle a lot of slip angle, and hanging it out there is NOT the fastest way around the circuit anyway. Grip is faster than slip. So you build the most planted car you can, and let the boys play with their adjustable elements to get the feel they want.

_________________

2011/12/13 cars, regs and tires are not as they were in 2006.

_________________