Formula 1 - 2013 - Page 58

On October 13 2013 02:06 a176 wrote:
what the hell

i didnt catch quali. im reading that vettel's KERS was not working. but he still managed 2nd slot ... only .174 behind webber and even larger .338 ahead of hamilton ?!

On October 13 2013 15:20 Lachrymose wrote:
What an exciting sport.

Three laps of racing, maybe, followed by mandated 2 second gaps by Red Bull.

On October 13 2013 17:01 Release wrote:

P4 - P10 was quite intense for the whole race. Ricciardo was in there too.

Red Bulls race sensibly. Can't blame them for trying to win

On October 13 2013 17:27 zeo wrote:
Really nice race, Grosjean such a pleasant surprise and another young one Gutiérrez going up like 13 places and getting his first points in F1. People saying Webber didn't need 3 stops is silly, he had pneumatic and spoiler problems early on (causing him to waste his tires faster) so Red Bull needed to change his strategy, also he took way too long fighting Grojean near the end.

On October 13 2013 17:41 Lonyo wrote:

Not to mention it was only about 5 seconds slower than Vettel's 2 stop, and would have been less if he'd managed to pass Grosjean faster.

On October 13 2013 07:21 1Dhalism wrote:
i wasn't arguing with you, i was arguing with the other guy, and the general crowds.
However your second point is definitely wrong. Alonso beat Webber in 2010, Button beat webber in 2011, and Ferrari was damn competitive in 2012. If you put a driver who's just slightly worse in redbull and you put Vettel in those Ferrari's/McLaren(although probably not the McLaren) he could very well have won WDC.

Also on that note it's not like Alonso's Renault was anything less than the best car on the grid when he won WDC.

On October 13 2013 17:56 zere wrote:
So Mark's 2nd stint tyres were fine, and he had a fresh set of Primes left; so what they do here is put him on a 3stopper with used Options because he would have contested Veetle's win.

On October 13 2013 18:28 PoP wrote:


Webber is a lot worse than Vettel actually, so your reasoning does not work. Also Ferrari 2012 wasn't that competitive (still easily 0.5 secs slower on average), more like Alonso had quite a few formidable races combined with Vettel not being lucky/making unusual mistakes in the middle of the season.

On October 13 2013 18:37 1Dhalism wrote:

that's like your opinion man.

On October 13 2013 18:47 PoP wrote:


Well you can also find stats:
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2012/12/03/2012-f1-car-performance/

Even though the competition was overall tighter, only McLaren could have, theoretically, contested RBR in actual pace. Ferrari was only a tiny bit better off than the year before.

edit: Lotus was also overall faster than Ferrari, which means Ferrari had the fourth fastest car on average.

On October 13 2013 19:28 1Dhalism wrote:
I didnt say Ferrari had the best car. I said they had car capable of winning WDCs.
Yes Alonso was on the back foot, but if he was slightly better and Vettel was slightly worse he wouldve won.