There was nothing wrong with the gearbox, the fact he kept pushing and they kept telling him to slow down was just an attempt to let Webber run away with the win. Vettel didn't look happy as he should of if it was a genuine problem with the car, you would of expected him to be happy that he still managed 2nd, but the fact is the car was fine, he was still setting great laps during the race after the knowledge of this 'problem'.
Neither Mark OR Seb was happy, which only suggests one thing, the result was plastic.
Well, obviously there was oil in there, or his box would be in pieces. Use logic, it wasn't a big enough problem that with a **** tonne of torque input it didn't break for like a 200km race.
Obviously there was some oil left (or there would have been a catastrophic failure...). The point is that if Vettel had not been forced to nurse the problem (by short-shifting) then he would likely have run out of oil. This is, of course, subject to us believing what Red Bull tell us. However, in the past when there have been team orders at Red Bull they have been open about it. Think back to Silverstone where there was a clear message on the radio. It doesn't make any sense for Red Bull to try and disguise team orders by inventing a phantom problem.
@BlueFlame: I know what I'm about to write isn't going to change your mind, but I'm still going to write it just to point out to those who have the slightest belief in your theory how false it is.
Now I don't remember the exact lap when gearbox problems hit Vettel, but was somewhere around lap 20. So let's say it was on lap 20 then, which makes it 51 laps to the end of the race. By this point Vettel had somewhat 3sec gap, but for the sake of argument let's make it 5sec. I remember very well that after they suggested Vettel to shortshift 2nd and he pretty much refused it, gap was still dropping 1 sec in 5 laps. What this means is, that with 51 lap to go Webber would have closed the gap easily at that rate even and still have plenty of time to overtake Vettel if he defended.
Furthermore, Hamilton experienced gearbox problems and his team told him there is nothing they could do, which I suspect is untrue for two reasons. Hamilton would drop badly from 6th down the grid with half a race to go and .7 deficit to what already weren't really good laps and most likely finished a lap down out of points or with a point or two. Even if he scored couple of points (or even stayed in 6th) it wouldn't have made any difference to drivers nor constructors championship. The benefit of DNF is that it trows a clear suspicion on RedBull and their management of same problem and also gives easier life to Hamilton without him going thru all the trouble for nothing. I believe F1 teams are perverted enough to do these kind of things.
And to support high possibility of gearbox problems at this track, we have Senna who also had gearbox trouble and all three of them are very aggressive with curbs. Also his uncle managed gearbox issue back in 1991 to take victory at that grand prix with what were then H shift gearboxes.
So it's clear as a day this was nowhere near a gift to Webber who made an amazing drive and took victory with a little bit of luck to his side.
Alonso's overtake from button was magnificent, too bad I couldn't see more than the first 40 minutes of the race. Webber's victory might be set up and then again, it might not be. Honestly, if Webber's victory wasn't set up it probably would've been set up if Vettel hadn't had problems because thanks to the victory Webber was third in the overall points, winning Alonso by a single point. Congratz to Vettel for astonishing dominance and a well earned championship victory.
Button drove well the entire season and was the second best driver in the grid. The 43 point difference between him and Hamilton (although some of that came because of Hamilton's gear problem) proves that you don't get points by crashing no matter how fast you are (referring to Hamilton and his ''superior skill compared to Button'' in case you didn't notice). Button's championship victory with Brawn was mainly because of the car but now he showed that he's truly capable of competing in the highest level and that he's among the best drivers in the grid.
Well watch the race over, you'll hear Vettel short shifting early on in the race, and after that he's not short shifting anymore.
It doesn't make sense to cover up team orders to FiA and other teams because it's legal it's true, but of course it makes sense to cover it up from Vettel who wouldn't want to give up position to Webber for obvious ego reasons.
The fact people (not just me I'll add) are talking about a conspiracy theory (in FAVOR of Webber) to me, shows that this conspiracy theory has credibility.
Do you remember Vettel looking through the telemetry data after his tire was destroyed? I'm quite sure RBR couldn't hide the truth from Vettel since Vettel will most likely go through the telemetry data after this race as well. If Vettel found out he had been cheated how do you think he'd react? The risk the consequences of lying to Vettel will keep RBR from lying to him.
People talk about a lot of things of which they have no idea whatsoever. There were stupid claims that NASA's moonwalk was a fraud at that time but did the fact that some people thought so make their claims any more credible? All that matters is hard evidence and currently we have none supporting this conspiracy theory. Translated: we don't have any theories that would be credible, only speculations based on our imagination.
3rd looks better than 4th in the final standings for Webber. And it did gain him that position so it would've been worth it. Truth is we'll never know if it was staged or not so there's no real point speculating... Unless a team member or one of the drivers confess to something which is pretty unlikely.
You could say that but then again half the feild had some kind of gearbox problem during the race, it's no coincidence IMO.
Im assuming it's a stressful track for the gearbox.
The car was fine, and there was nothing wrong with the gearbox, whether you believe the information Red Bull gave or not, the level of oil in a gearbox isn't a direct problem with the gearbox. There was no shift issue in the whole race and he brought it home driving faster than Button/Alonso.
Why isn't the level of oil a problem? If it's falling, then temperatures will rise. When temperatures rise, close tolerances become too tight. On the TV you could see Vettel short-shifting - not every corner, but certainly at least once every time we went onboard with him.
Why should take make him instantly slower than Alonso or Button? He was nursing the problem, but there's no point going slowly for the sake of it. For all we know the gearbox was about to seize with one more lap, and it JUST survived, suggesting that he nursed it correctly.
Given Red Bull's past on team orders I don't think they'd bother to make something like this up. Especially that early in the race when there were no guarantees that Webber would beat the others.
The level of oil is a direct problem with the gearbox. When the oil level drops, it indicates a problem with the integrity of the device - a compromised seal, metal fatigue, etc. That is a direct problem.
To me, a problem with a gearbox means something isn't working. Mechanically the gearbox would still turn fine (albeit slowly) with or without oil.
If someone didn't put enough oil in for example, then it's not fault of the gearbox it's fault of an individual. Although if we're lead to believe it was a genuine problem, one would assume there was an oil leak on the transmission.
Low oil is an indirect problem as oil is a 3rd party substance used for lubrication, it's not entirely integral to mechanical movement (speaking not just for engines/gearboxes here). You don't build a gearbox that's already oiled, it's something that's put in after the box is made, oil isn't a component of the gearbox.
It's like saying a puncture was a problem with a car, but it would be a problem with the tyre, not the car. The car wouldn't have made a difference, a puncture is a puncture, it can happen on any car, a car can't CAUSE a puncture (generally speaking 99% of all punctures). Or another example would be a bulb on a headlight burning out, this isn't a direct problem to the car.
Vettel only became slower than Webber until he was overtake, after such event he was able to stay ahead of 3rd position easily. ( this is a fact )
Right. So a boiling engine isn't an engine problem. A flat tyre isn't a tyre problem, as the air is added afterwards. A driver error isn't a team issue because the driver is added afterwards. Having a gear ratio break isn't a problem, as the gears are added after the gearbox is manufacturered.
Good luck running a gearbox without oil.
The 'box had a leak. A slow leak, but nevertheless a leak. It's quite obvious.
When Vettel slowed, Webber caught him. Once Webber was passed, Vettel was still slower, except that changing tyres and falling fuel levels meant he was still quite fast - but probably a second slower than he should have been. Yes, Vettel could go fast, but at the expense of expected gearbox life. He clearly got the balance right because he finished. Maybe the leak wasn't as bad as the data suggested, and Vettel got lucky. Maybe the leak was as bad as the data suggested, and Vettel managed it perfectly.
The point is, the car clearly had a problem that needed to be managed.
And why do you think the oil level was dropping? The reason for the oil getting low has to be caused by some sort of a mechanical failure. If the gearbox was fine the oil level would not drop enough to force Vettel to shortshift.
Now you're being facetious, if there's a rip in the tyrewall or a leak giving way to air then it's a direct problem with the tyre.
And it's true, a driver error isn't a team mistake. It's a driver mistake.
Anything mechanically attatched to something is a component of it.
If you have a 3rd party substance and the problem is based on this 3rd party substance, then it's an indirect problem. I'm not trying to say you can run a gearbox on no oil at high speed which I think people may be confused about. I'm just saying pedantically that it's an indirect problem, which it is. In a way, the definition of indirect couldn't find a better place to be applied than in the context of oil/lubrication. It's an indirect entity.
