WhiteBlue wrote:zeph wrote:Roland Ehnström wrote: Webber and Button have been more consistent, but also consistently slower than their team-mates.
In Webber's case, that is patently untrue. He has been faster than Vettel for much of the season.
Webber was the faster Red Bull driver when qualifying was wet and Vettel had issues with his car which is very little consolation to the fact that he is generally slower. If you just look at dry qualifying you see that even with damaged cars Vettel was on average 1.5 tenth faster than Webber. If you take out Monaco and Turkey were Vettels car was definitely damaged Vettel was 2.5 tenth faster on average. However you turn it Vettel qualifies faster by any given criterion. He gets pole more often, has the higher average qualifying position and wins on aggregate time.
In Korea Webber is only 0.7 tenth behind Vettel but you have to consider that he is using a new engine which is worth 2 tenth a lap. So the true difference is more like 2.5 tenth which is pretty typical of what the two drivers usually do. Webber was having a lot of good luck while lady luck was mostly crapping over poor Seb particularly in the reliability stakes.
So for me there is only one Red Bull driver who truly deserves the title at this point in time and it is Sebastian. Perhaps if Webber demonstrates some heroic stuff in the last three races and qualifies on pole for the last two times I'm prepared to change the opinion.
donskar wrote:The obvious response to your post (especially the portion I highlighted for clarity) is that the race does not always go to the swiftest. Or, more to the point, it is less important to start first than to finish first.
Giblet wrote:If Seb is so good, why hasn't he been able to dominate his teammate all year like Alonso has over Massa. At this point Alonso is the most deserving.
marcush. wrote:And i wonder why Webber could be quickest for all FP sessions and suddenly Vettel has the upper hand .
could it be they allowed him mappings not available to Webber to play it conservative for Mark?
Terrible3 wrote:ie: Flip a coin 3 times and then flip it 100 times. I am sure in the first three flips its possible to get at least two heads, but that does not mean heads will come up 60%+ of the time. In 100 flips it will work out to 50%
Miguel wrote:Terrible3 wrote:ie: Flip a coin 3 times and then flip it 100 times. I am sure in the first three flips its possible to get at least two heads, but that does not mean heads will come up 60%+ of the time. In 100 flips it will work out to 50%
Actually, even after 100 flips, the std deviation is sqrt(0.5*100)~7.
EDIT: Edited because I'm thick today. Anyway, what I mean is that in this era of ultrareliable cars, I don't think it's statistically significant if, even after two seasons, one driver accumulates two more engine failures than the other. It does suck, though. And no, I haven't counted if Vettel actually has 2 more engine failures than Webber, in case you wonder.
marcush. wrote:you make a interesting point here ..coin flipping .
Webber made two significant driver errors in races this year both leading to dnfs.
Vettel did at least one in spa . So thats ok with me.Both are not heros.
But how come that both use the same equipment and all technical issues leading to dnfs or loosing positions are concentrated on one car only ?
Can that be pure luck? Neverever.They work to the same standards on both sides of the garage ...they getthe same bits ..If you almost get a hit and miss on one car and the other is totally reliable something just has to be going on.I would not go as far as saying this is on purpose or playing higher risk and to let that driver shine more...but give me a better explanation for it please.the coin will not even come close as the risk for Webber is so low that it is NOT 50/50 as with a coin ...
Try it 16 times ...not a single time on the face..the explanation is they do not play the same game or to the same set of rules...
Users browsing this forum: Yandex [Bot] and 6 guests