Horner hits back over Webber criticism

Korean Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by

Red Bull team principal Christian Horner described claims that driver Mark Webber tried to take one of his championship rivals out during the Korean Grand Prix as “absurd”.

After crashing into a wall on lap 19 of the race Webber’s car swung into the path of Nico Rosberg.

The Mercedes driver was running fourth at the time in between Webber’s championship rivals Fernando Alonso and Lewis Hamilton.

Gerhard Berger was quoted saying it was “clear” Webber hoped to take another driver out after crashing during the Korean Grand Prix, adding “He took out Rosberg, but it was the wrong one. I think in his mind he would have preferred Alonso or Hamilton.”

Horner told the Daily Telegraph:

As with every incident in Formula One, opinions will always be made without all the facts. Just to be absolutely clear – Mark’s intention was not to take out another driver after his crash in the Korean Grand Prix and it’s ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

After Mark’s impact with the wall, it was clear on the TV and from the data that his car was badly damaged. However, the natural and immediate instinct of any competitive driver is not to give up and to keep going.

In the atrocious conditions, Mark made the snap decision to continue as every driver would in that situation – it’s absurd to suggest that Mark would ever deliberately take out another driver.
Christian Horner

Rosberg also questioned Webber’s actions during the crashsaying it was “crazy” of him to allow his car to roll back across the track.

2010 Korean Grand Prix

    Browse all 2010 Korean Grand Prix articles

    Author information

    Keith Collantine
    Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

    Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

    205 comments on “Horner hits back over Webber criticism”

    1. My initial thought was that he was just trying to save his race, but that doesn’t excuse him for letting his car roll across the track like that. If it was someone else lower down the pecking order, shall we say, they would have been given a grid penalty or worse.

      Even if it was in the heat of the moment and all that other stuff people keep sayin

      1. I agree that penalties should be consistent. If you’ve broken the rules, written or sporting, then you should be punished: whether you’re Ferrari or Force India.

        1. ………….or mclaren

          1. Yes: of all the teams, McLaren are probably most keen for consistent penalties…

        2. What rule has he broken?

          1. causing an avoidable accident

            1. To prove that you’d have to be able to prove that the car could be stopped in time from hitting Rosberg. That’s going to be tough given the state of the car.

            2. If he just had kept his foot on the brake it would have slid along the wall.

            3. Can you be sure that’s what would have happened?

            4. patrickl you are absolutely right as the end of this video on youtube shows

            5. Yes; and bringing the sport into disrepute: by cheating.

            6. Indeed, Patrickl. But Mark didn’t want to put his car safety out of the race by the wall: his rivals would overtake him. So he did everything in his power, by steering and not braking, to put his car onto the racing line of the traffic he could see was coming towards him in the spray.

      2. His car was damaged when he hit the wall. His brakes were gone. He couldn’t have stopped if he really wanted too. These accusations are utterly ridiculous.

        1. Really? All 4 brakes were gone? And I’m guessing the clutch was also stuck disengaged because of the damage?

          I personally didn’t see anything wrong with what he did, until I read this article, and now I think there was a quick lapse of moral judgement on his side.

          Either way, we will never know.

          Note: Buttons recovery after his spin was brilliant.

          1. That is why Button is a World Champion :) abd Mark isn’t (yet?)

            1. well, you can say Mark has no experience LOL

            2. Button’s recovery was almost Senna-esq.


          2. horrible driver anyway

          3. Several F1 drivers have questioned this incident. I think that that should be sufficient, at least, for a Stewards’ investigation. Let’s examine the telemetry and the situation in full. Red Bull’s opponents should insist on an investigation: to discover the truth; to unsettle Red Bull at a crucial moment in the season.

        2. Well, no, they’re not at all ridiculous: Horner has basically confirmed that Webber was in control of the car and tried to rejoin the track and the race. Minimally that shows a complete disregard of his safety and that of other drivers.

          Add to that the incident with Hamilton at Singapore and, yes, there are some grounds for people to be suspicious he was trying to take out a rival. Neither is provable, though, either way. Though Rosberg was undoubtedly bemused by his action, as was Button with Vettel’s ‘lack-of-control-in-his-direction’ at Spa. I know, I know, just an unfortunate coincidence too!

          1. It was Rosberg who came around the corner and hit Webber. Not the other way round.

            1. If there was no input from Webber, that would be true. But there apparently was: read carefully, Horner is explaining what Webber was *trying to do*, continue racing, which implies input and a degree of control. As I’ve written elsewhere, my impression from looking at the YouTube clips posted here is that Webber accelerated into the path of the oncoming car – which he could see since he was facing the wrong way on the track. I’ve really nothing against Webber, just saying what I think I’m seeing. I guess the telemetry would clear this up.

            2. But if he tried to continue racing, hitting another car wouldn’t make your car any better ……. so logically, that can’t have been his plan.

              I still believe that he tried to steer the car somewhere out of the racing line and probably just misjudged the situation.

      3. After tha crash you can see tha the car went really fast to the other side of the track we know that web is a good driver but not crazy my opinion is that he forgot to hit the brakes at the precise moment of the crash after that he couldnt brake if he had break he would just sit on the middle of the track since he had no steering

      4. where he ended up against the wall was on the racing line too. so drivers whould have come around the relatively blind right hander and then move to the right (where webber would have been of he had stopped)to take the left hander. so for webber to roll to the left side of the track kinda makes sense. i just suspect rosberg saw the incident cause he was so close behind and so took the natural avoiding action from where the initial incident was. so by both of them trying to avoid further contact, they came together

        1. Spot on, TommyC.

          This is nonsense. Now we’re going to analyse how a person reacts after a CRASH?
          In a wet race? Next it’ll be Webber sabotaging Seb’s engine before the race…

          Seriously, if people are taking the word of Christian ‘foot-in-his-own-mouth’ Horner about Webber’s actions, you’re reading too many tabloids – and paying for them too.

          I think I’ll wait for Webber’s response to this before even thinking about it again, and I’m pretty sure there’ll be silence from him, which is frankly what Berger’s (and some on this blog’s) comments deserve.

          1. Very true, we should remember media outlets will go fishing for what they want to hear and will often (i want to to say always) take comments out of context. I am not fluent in German, but it could just have easily been that Berger only agreed with the possibility of a deliberate move by Webber. When taken in the context of when he was a driver that is entirely plausible (senna v prost)

          2. this is the only sensible comment i’ve read so far.

        2. That just dosnt make sense.

          How come Rosberg was taken out if Webber had stayed off the racing line?

          He reversed right across it.

          1. Rosberg was not taken out. Webber had a terminally damaged vehicle as a result of contact with a concrete wall. It then becomes the responsibilty of other drivers to avoid the resulting debris.

            This is not NASCAR, these are the worlds best drivers and none of them would be in the position that they are in if they had ever thought about conducting their behaviour in such a way as to deliberately cause a crash with another car. Just stop and think about what you are about to write Platine, before you commit.

        3. Webber was sliding on all 4 tyres. If he’d kept his brake down he would have continued sliding along the wall (on the outside of the corner) towards the patch of grass.

          He was not on the racing line and he would not have ended up there if he simply had braked.

      5. You all got it wrong: Mark tried to stop in the middle of the road so a Safety Car would be on track and Vettel could not escape from Alonso. Now that’s thinking on the championship and status quo at Red Bull!


    2. Hopefully it’s the end of this non-story.

      Notice though on occasions like these involving Vettel, Horner will then sometimes go on to say Vettel was actually doing very well and something along the lines of being robbed by the other driver involved. Interesting he didn’t blame Nico for trying to dive onto the inside of Webber.

      Just had another look at the video, you can see Alonso notice Webber and then move in the opposite direction. Some keep talking about it being a blind corner but if anything it would have been spray that impaired his vision – less spray and more time to react than Alonso, though.

      1. Like Webber, Rosberg only reacted instinctively in the limited time he had. I don’t think it is worth blaming either driver.

        1. I don’t think anyone’s blaming Rosberg!

          Webber, however, had several seconds in which to turn into the wall or away from the racing line – and brake! He did nothing constructive: quite the opposite. It was, therefore, either deliberate or incredibly stupid on his part. The more likely explanation is that it was deliberate.

          1. Okay, I watched it about fifteen times Here
            or here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi7Cifaby3k
            and although it was foolish for Webber to continue rolling, I think Rosberg tempted fate a little by not slowing down enough.
            He seemed to guess inside and guessed wrong.

            1. Jarred Walmsley
              27th October 2010, 19:38

              What I think happened was Webber was trying to get his car off the track as it would be a lot less dangerous on the side of the track (where it ended up) than stuck in the middle of the track where it would have been had he applied brakes.

              Also, I bet if he had applied his brakes and stopped on the track there’d be controversy over that as well. So Webber made a split-second decision of what he thought would be the safest thing to do in those circumstances.

            2. Thanks for the video. Watching it a lot of times my opinion is that Webber thought of rejoin the race cause when he hits the wall his car is still with four wheels, pointing in the wrong direction but still in one piece, so he tries to do a spin or something and then he is hit by Rosberg and game over.

            3. Looking again and again at the video I can see no sign of any driver input into the car after it hit the barriers. The front wheels turn but that’s caused by the impact. So I assume he did what all inteligent drivers do when about to crash into the barriers, take his hands off the wheel and move his feet as far back as possible and off the pedals.

              To me he Webber just looks like a passenger after the crash.

          2. I don’t think anyone’s blaming Rosberg!

            Yes of course, Nico rammed Webber on purpose and retrospectively caused his crash against the wall.

            Now seriously: is (big if) Mark Webber did in purpose, we’ll never know for sure unless he says so (and he won’t). And a penalty for the next race would cause a mighty uproar at this time in the season, I’m 99.9% sure they won’t dare even if they think they should (and they surely don’t).

            People should get over it. We’ll never know about Mark’s intentions and there will be no penalty. Besides he’s got plenty of damage as it is now.

            Although Seb Vettel and Lewis Hamilton (well, and Jenson too, but forget it) still have a slim chance, Mark Webber is by far the most serious rival for FA Diaz and a penalty now would ruin his chances. Even though I support FAD and the Scuderia, I would hate it, we’d miss a lot of excitement at Interlagos (and probably Yas Marina too).

            And FWIW, I don’t really believe that Mark is guilty anyway.

            1. did in purpose

              did it on purpose (sorry)

            2. Just rewatched the video again and again. How could Webber continue to “go”? Has anyone noticed how hard it is to get an F1 gearbox into reverse? The guy was going backwards, so for those who say he kept his foot in, please explain the physics of that to me. Otherwise, the silly camera angles FOM uses have made it seem like he sped up, when he was probably just a pure passenger by that stage, and also probably trying to steer the car off the track once he was halfway across it. Safer than braking, if you ask me. Pity for Rosberg for going to the left, as Webber has said himself.

            3. Reminds me of when Murray used to say, “look at him accelerate as he hits the grass.” Which was plainly impossible given the lack of grip on the grass.

          3. I completely agree. I have seen onboard video and other angles over a dozen times, and there wasn’t the slightest effort made by Webber to keep it off the track.

            Additionally, for Horner to come and say that the natural instinct of every f1 driver, after an accident, is to steer back on track and continue racing, is just ABSURD! I haven’t seen any crashes other than Schumacher in Adelaide 94 that prove Horner’s theory right.

            I think the FIA should at least look at the telemetry and investigate the issue.

          4. VirginRacing posted the following on twitter.

            @formula1blog If you tear front right and left right calipers off an F1 car and hit the brakes, would you expect pedal pressure? #justSayin

            @formula1blog Front/rears are obviously completely separate, but I think it’s quite possible that the rear circuit was u/s too. Will ask ;-)

            Only thing that could/would prove if he did or didn’t is telemetry if he tried to break.

            But further my person opinion here is if he had hit the breaks after the wall hit he would have more then likely ended up stopped on the race line which would been far worse potentially then what now happened.

            I feel for Nico and shame what happened happened for him. But it’s racing. After a crash the car generally are out of control and what normally would work might not work.

            So far this year the ONLY penalties that been issued is where a in control driver have caused a accident. By the comments by some that think Webber should been penalized here then the same goes for example for Kamui Kobayashi at Sauber whom for starters crashed out both Nico Hulkenberg AND Sebastien Buemi in Austrlia, then again in China crashed out Sebastien Buemi. Never as far as I recall or remember seeing was there talks about giving Kamui a penalty at either of these cases.

            I don’t see much difference with the crash of Webber. It’s a post race crash Nico was innocent bystander that tried to squeeze past.

            It’s about as absurd to call for penalty on Webber as it was for people to call for a penalty for Kimi Rikkonen for loosing control and crashing into the back of Sutils Force India at Monaco which there was also very mixed feelings about. If people want to recall Kimi had by the time he hit Sutil already lost control of his car and was just a passenger at the time he hit Sutil. On the video replay you can see when he looses the car around the point of expected breaking point and is skidding out of control into Sutil and clips him from the rear.

            We could compare this to the Vettle issue this year in Spa, which was a avoidable crash, he just tried to hard to overtake Button in slippery conditions but before he attempted the fatal overtake he was in complete control of the car but lost the control when he got close to Button but instead of backing off he continued on with the result that Button was taken out of the race which for he got a penalty. That penalty was very harsh because after all don’t we want overtaking in F1 and I think penalizing for this incident could been detrimental to people want to overtake but also when they do they need to do it safely without taking others out so it was justified.

            1. Don’t forget about the Spa bus stop this year. The track was mostly dry but there it was still quite wet. Almost everybody went off track except for FDA that got it right… only to get hammered by Rubens.

              RB got no penalty, and rightly so of course. By the he was just a passenger in his skidding car. But no doubt it was all his fauilt.

            2. FDA

              I presume you mean Alonso?

            3. Yep it should be FAD, Fernando Alonso Diaz. I’m just not good with the keyboard

            4. Or you could just write ‘Alonso’ it would be a lot less confusing.

            5. Or if you must use shorthand, use ALO as everyone else in F1 does.

          5. he couldnt turn the wheel but he could had brake

            1. Dude (spectator). You need to work on your grammar :)

      2. because it’s a story when is a ferrari involved. if it’s somebody else is a non-story.

        1. Well, MSC in Adelaide was driving a Benneton, And still it was a story.

          1. Don’t forget about the Spa bus stop this year. The track was mostly dry but there it was still quite wet. Almost everybody went off track except for FDA that got it right… only to get hammered by Rubens.

            RB got no penalty, and rightly so of course. By the he was just a passenger in his skidding car. But no doubt it was all his fauilt.

            But you just said Webber did it on purpose…. He himself has admitted fault, but claiming he did it on purpose is a whole different animal.

        2. Hey, if Ferrari insist on being controversial, no wonder ;)

    3. Yes he tried to safe the car, but it ruined Rosberg’s race completely. When there is other cars on track it is very very stupid to let the car roll across. That shouldn’t really come as a surprise.

      1. Yes; it’s either incredibly stupid (in not braking and in fact turning your car back onto the racing line on a race track with very poor visiability making a collision highly likely) or it’s a deliberate and most unsporting attempt to take out a competitor. Either way, it reflects most poorly on Webber.

        I think that it’s so stupid, it must be deliberate: I can’t imagine that Webber, or anyone, could be that dumb; I can imagine, however, that a driver would want to save his WDC, even through unsporting means.

        1. Really? You think it’s more stupid to want to keep on driving than it is to deliberately take out a competitor?

          Some people are so desperate to see a conspiracy or controversy in everything that they ignore logic and common sense and jump to the most ridiculous conclusion possible.

          1. “Never attribute to malice anything than can be adequately explained by sheer stupidity”

            (who said that?)

            1. The person who didn’t realise that, in this case, Occam’s razor dictates that Webber’s move can only be adequately explained through ‘malice’; though,’desperation’ and ‘panic’ are better words which I would substitute here.

              P.S. If Webber does have the ‘Schumi instinct’, that might actually make him a better driver. So I might actually be paying him a compliment.

            2. I agree with Alistair that Webber is either a ‘bit of a dill’ who made an embarrassing basic mistake (and was thinking “how am I going to keep going with only 2 wheels on the ground”) OR he is a cunning evil genius with a split second ‘Schumi instinct’.

              I’m going with the ‘bit of a dill myself’.

            3. It would have to be a misfiring shumi innstince because apparently he wanted to hit Hamilton or Alonso?!

            4. Hanlon’s Razor:
              Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

          2. @Hitchcock. I’m sure Singapore 2008 took a lot of people by surprise, and this incident, actually seems a whole lot more blatant. We do not see people jumping at conspiracy theories at every crash, but this one just looked debatable enough.

            1. So you’re suggesting Mark Webber purposely crashed whilst in second place meaning he’d get no points, in order to stop either Alonso or Hamilton from getting points? Even though had Webber not crashed he would have beat Alonso and Hamilton, and still be leading the championship anyway. Really clutching a straws there.

            2. @Pinball. Im suggesting he crashed unintentionally, and then made a split second decision to steer back on track and take someone else out.

          3. I think it’s stupid to turn (or allow your car to turn, through your nigh constant contact with your wheel) so that it returns from a heavy impact with a wall, onto the racing line of a soggy track, with terrible visibility around, and with cars that you know and can SEE are going to be where your car is drifting. I think it’s stupid, moreover, not to brake! Yes; I think that’s pretty stupid. Stupid, that is, if simply unintended and unintentional. Then, it’s just bad driving: it can be nothing more.

            If Webber had wanted simply to ‘keep on driving’, the sensible thing to do would have been to have braked, turned away from the oncoming traffic and waited until it was safe to rejoin the race. He did none of this.

            But, of course, to simply ‘keep on driving’ would have ended any hope of his scoring any points in the race – or his keeping right in touch with his main competitors in the WDC! Webber would have been right at the back of the pack with a damaged car needing a lengthy pit stop: if, indeed, the damage could be fixed. Alonso & co. would be up front.

            So, once you’ve hit the wall and are effectively out of the race, it’s clever, not sporting (best not to conflate the terms) to try and take one or more of your main championship opponents out with you. If Webber had got Hamilton, Hamilton would have been (effectively) eliminated from the championship hunt. Moreover, some people can’t see logic and common sense, and so would not ever think to find him guilty of a deliberate move! He got away with it: that’s clever.

            In summary, if the move (his ‘reversing’ onto the racing line with his wheel input and his not braking) was accidental, it was so stupid that no competent driver could have made it: it required said driver to react entirely the wrong way, for several whole seconds, to his interest of ‘keep on driving’. I’m sure we would agree that Webber is, at least, a ‘competent’ driver. Ergo, it wasn’t accidental: he had a different interest: he tried to take out an opponent: it was deliberate.

            1. That’s ridiculous logic. He did something stupid, he’s not usually stupid, therefore it was deliberate. Of course.

              Like you said, he’s in the title fight and desperate for points. He obviously didn’t realise the extent of the damage to the car so he wanted to try to continue with the race.
              In doing so I agree he pulled off an extremely stupid and dangerous move, but to accuse him of risking his life and the lives of his fellow competitors in the name of a few points is incredibly crass and insulting.

            2. Totally agree with M. HITCHCOCK.
              That’s a nonsense logic. You’ll never know what happened in his head. So don’t say that it was intentional. Maybe he broke under pressure and didn’t realize what he was doing ? Maybe his mind was in the championship ? Anyway, I’m just speculating but the way you’re thinking is just wrong. It’s not because it is not “this” that it has to be “that”.

              He did a mistake (and a stupid one) but don’t be like that stupid Berger by trying to say what was going through his head.

            3. Actually I’d say that in Webber’s defense, he usually IS stupid. Look at how he ran into the back of Hamilton in Australie. or tha back of Kovalainen in Valencia and then how he’d imagined to ever take the corner in Singapore without running into Hamilton.

              Somehowe he just does not seem to factor in that other cars are on the road.

            4. It’s First Class logic, Hitchcock ;) ……Don’t set up a straw man by grossly misrepresenting my argument. If you’re going to report an argument, you need to accurately describe the premises; otherwise, your putative ‘refutation’ has fallen at the first hurdle. Here’s my argument:

              If Webber’s move (his ‘reversing’ onto the racing line of a sodden track with terrible visibility through his wheel input and his not braking, whilst he’s facing the oncoming traffic, after hitting a wall, which would end his race: a manoeuvre, in toto, which took several whole seconds) was accidental, it was so stupid that no competent driver could have made it: it required said driver to react entirely the wrong way, for several whole seconds, to his interest of ‘keep on driving’. If it were accidental, his super-license should be taken away, just until he has mastered how to steer and brake. I’m sure we would agree that Webber is, at least, a ‘competent’ driver; one fully deserving of his super-license. Ergo, it wasn’t accidental: he had a different interest: he tried to take out an opponent: it was deliberate.

              My argument is deductively valid. You should follow the former and current F1 drivers Berger and Rosberg, no strangers to the race track, and have the good grace to admit it, Hitchcock! Once Webber hit the wall, he knew his race was over; so he had to end someone else’s. He probably thought something like this: ‘that silver car approaching me, it looks like a McLaren. Ah; my old friend, Hamilton! Do you know the klingon proverb which says that revenge is a dish best serve cold? Well, it’s very cold…in Korea!’

              You also offer yet more red herrings: no one’s suggesting that Webber risked his or anyone else’s life: F1 is now so safe, thankfully, that that is most highly unlikely to happen. Using emotive language like this is nothing but a diversionary tactic. Webber and his competitors were traveling too slowly for a serious impact, anyway: another reason to deliberately crash?

        2. Webber isn’t dumb at all,but he sure gets away with murder!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ask Lewis.

          1. He murdered Lewis?

            1. ‘gets away with’: attempted ‘murder’. Four counts, this year alone.

    4. I said it looked to me that Webber tried to engineer a collision with Hamilton right after the race; in fact, I thought it as soon as it happened. It looked dodgy; and Webber has a history of taking Hamilton out of races.

      After the impact with the wall, why did Webber deliberately turn his wheel so that he’d go backwards onto the racing line – where he was very likely to meet another car? Why didn’t he hit the brakes? Horner’s ‘explanation’ that Webber was simply trying to continue is not very plausible. Once more, doing what Webber did made a collision highly likely: there was poor visibility and very little track in which another car could avoid a collision. If Webber was simply trying to rejoin the race, he should have waited until the pack had passed. But, surely, he knew that his car was damaged and that any points – even if he could continue – were well gone. Hence the Schumi Survival Instinct crept in and he tried to take out Hamilton. If it had worked and Alonso had won, this would have pretty much elimitated Hamilton from the WDC challenge. It didn’t work: he hit Rosberg, who had overtaken Hamilton.

      1. He didn’t turn his wheel, he let go of it when he hit the wall, the wheel spun when he made contact which made his car turn that way which can be seen onboard shot.

        However, why he didn’t hit the brakes is a question I think all of us would like to know did they fail did he not use them what? I think it should be investigated.

        1. No; Webber lets go of the wheel only for a second, no longer, at the moment of impact with the wall. Thereafter, he keeps his hands on the wheel in a position that would return him, backwards, onto the soggy track. He, seemingly, makes no attempt to brake, either.

          See below (before Bernie removes it)


          1. Wow Alonso had it real close!! the way he manages to change course in a split second on such a slippery track is worth seeing. Some people may say he got the win on pure luck, but there you go, that was more than luck.

            Nico really had a lot more time to avoid Mark and he didn’t, he turned to the wrong side. Well, nobody blames him if he didn’t get a win last Sunday maybe it’s because he just wasn’t good enough. Not yet at least.

            1. Well, nobody blames him if he didn’t get a win last Sunday

              Well, nobody blames him, but if he didn’t get a win last Sunday…

          2. From this you can see that when he grabs the steering wheel again the wheel has spun around so is actually upside down. This means that the direction he is steering it (at 8 seconds) is opposite to the way the wheels are turning. He is trying to turn the other direction away from the oncoming cars, but because its upside down, is inadvertantly turning into the cars.

            1. ‘He is trying to turn the other direction away from the oncoming cars, but because its upside down, is inadvertantly turning into the cars’. (Firebreather)

              Webber is an F1 driver. Don’t you think he knows how to operate his steering wheel with the desired result!? If he does, it’s deliberate. If he doesn’t, he has no business in F1.

            2. with the damage to the front tires it is not implausible that the steering is not functional.

              Further VirginRacing tweeted the following

              @formula1blog If you tear front right and left right calipers off an F1 car and hit the brakes, would you expect pedal pressure? #justSayin

              @formula1blog Front/rears are obviously completely separate, but I think it’s quite possible that the rear circuit was u/s too. Will ask ;-)

              so who knows if he tried or not tried to break. Might have tried but the breaks might been completely nonfunctional.

              Also I believe the way the car rebounded and how slick the track was if he had hit the breaks and they worked his car might ended up stopped in the middle of the track. Which is worse car completely stopped on racing line or a car rolling across racing line out to the side of the track?

            3. From this you can see that when he grabs the steering wheel again the wheel has spun around so is actually upside down. This means that the direction he is steering it (at 8 seconds) is opposite to the way the wheels are turning. He is trying to turn the other direction away from the oncoming cars, but because its upside down, is inadvertantly turning into the cars.

              I completely agree 100%. This completely ends any conspiracy in my mind.

              Webber is an F1 driver. Don’t you think he knows how to operate his steering wheel with the desired result!? If he does, it’s deliberate. If he doesn’t, he has no business in F1.

              So let me get this straight. In that instant of say 1/2 a second, he let go of the wheel, hit the wall, had his brain slosh around a little, grabbed the wheel, figured out where he was on the track, realized his steering wheel was upside down (which would be harder because there is no LED display on the red bull steering wheel), went against instinct and turned the wheel the opposite direction because he had already processed his previous thought that the wheel was upside down, and actively thought lets not hit the brakes because I want to take out Fernando or Lewis because it would be best for my title chances. Oh in addition to no doubt letting out a huge swear.

              i knew f1 drivers were talented, but thats quite a lot for an split-second.

            4. @Alastair: Yeah, too right. And how stupid was that Massa guy to drive straight into that wall last year. His car wasn’t even broken, how could Ferrari have given him a drive again. /sarcasm.

          3. Around 29-30 sec of this clip, after hitting the wall, Webber’s car actually appears to accelerate backwards, just as Rosberg is approaching, suggesting he actually drove into his path. Is that right?

            The point is Webber was up to something and presumably the telemetry shows driver input (and some control) after the crash, which is why Horner is defending him with the explanation/excuse that he was trying to continue racing.

          4. How can anyone tell whether he tried to brake? Can you see his feet in the video? No! Can you be sure the brakes were still working? No!

            1. A comment worthy of Hitchcock, Daniel! Massa was unconscious as soon as he had his impact. Webber wasn’t. Massa couldn’t consciously brake; apparently, he managed to brake a little, unconsciously. Webber didn’t brake: consciously or unconsciously.

              It’s a shame that some people simply can’t follow an argument.

            2. We can tell that he didn’t brake because he didn’t slow down! If his brakes were faulty, don’t you think Christian, Webber, and Red Bull would have said so by now; especially as Christian has already postulated a ‘defence’ for Mark, one which made no mention of the rather salient point of whether Webber had any brakes! No: this was deliberate, obviously.

        2. Also, after hitting the wall, Mark is actually facing the oncoming traffic: he can SEE one or more cars approaching – whether he can identify them in the time and spray, who knows.

          Have a look at this replay, the key bit is at 13 seconds onwards.


      2. “why did Webber deliberately turn his wheel so that he’d go backwards onto the racing line ”

        you do realise he reversed off the racing line. if he braked and stayed where he was, he’s have remained on the racing line which would have been more dangerous.

        1. Webber slid towards the racing line. He wasn’t ON it.

    5. Wow – while I don’t really believe he intended to knock anyone out, it is pretty shocking that they are saying he tried to continue the race and could have applied the brakes etc. Very strange… Don’t know why they felt the need to say that.

      1. Agreed. He obviously didn’t try to take anyone out, but if he rolled back across the track in order to try to carry on in the race then that’s still a very dangerous and stupid thing to do.
        Deserves some sort of punishment in my opinion.

    6. I can’t believe we are still talking about Webber trying to take out someone. If anyone happened to have watched what happened, they would observe that Webber’s left front suspension was collapsed, and the right front wheel was sticking straight up in the air. He thus had no steering. And if he did slam on the brakes, assuming the rear brakes circuits were intact, and assuming they could have arrested the car before it left the track, he would have more likely ended up in the middle of the road with no way to move the car from that position, sitting there like a crash-test dummy.

      People like Berger should be ashamed to suggest that a F1 driver willfully would try on have a head on collision with another driver. Not even Senna or Schumacher in their most ruthless moments would have contemplated that kind of madness.

      1. Alonso did that in the first corner in Turkey when he spun the car. He just slammed the brakes and then let the other drivers go around him and then he turned the car back in the right direction. A car that is stationary is easier to get around then a car that is rolling uncontrolled across the track.

        1. And how did Alonso turn his car at Turkey? I’m going to say it was by using the front wheels. You might recall that Webber did not have the use of his front wheels. And it might now become apparent that this discussion about waiting to turn the car around is thus similarly unconvincing. More broadly, the suggestion that he somehow aimed or steered for someone, which would require controlling both speed and direction, is thus also completely incoherent.

          Obviously a die hard [blank] fan and all that. Really boring. I have my favorites; but Webber does not happen to be among them. But even Webber or soda pop firm fanatics would get to point to facts.

          As for Senna and Suzuka, don’t agree these incidents are the same by degree or form (not least because the primary proof we have of Senna’s state of mind is what he said before and afterward), but it’s neither here nor there, because Webber was not able to do what Senna did of what he’s accussed of.

          1. Actually the way they all turn their car they hardly need the front wheels to turn, they shall just grip and then a dap on the throttle and they are around.
            But if he braked he would have realized that his front suspension was all smashed up and there would be no need for him to turn it around, then the marshall’s should just come and move it for him anyway.
            I don’t think he steered after someone, i just think that it was stupid that he didn’t hit the brakes to stop the car from ramming Rosberg off the track.

          2. M not saying he did all that to drive into another driver. But itz obvious. When in a crash the first thing u do is stop. u dont try to get the car back on track in reverse.
            What Horner said isnt very convincing. It sounds a lot like he’s trying to make up a fair explanation. Hence the conspiracy.

      2. You’re probably a die hard webber fan, hence the outrage. Had Alonso done the same, n I am not saying that webber actually did that, but had Alonso done that, and probably even you would’ve been in the list of conspiracy theorists.
        It’s like the Lewis Hamilton crashing into Kimi in the pitlane incident.

      3. Sorry but Ayrton Senna da Silva did it. And it’s not an opinion. He said he was going to do it before the fact, he did it, and afterwards he declared he had done it on purpose.

        He’s the best that ever was, but still…

    7. So, is this Horner admitting that Webber did not brake after hitting the wall?

      I am rooting for Webber to win the championship. Having said that, I don’t understand why his car rolled across the track like that. Without seeing the telemetry, we have to give him the benefit of the doubt, but there are certainly a lot of questions about the path of his car.

      Watching it live, I couldn’t believe he rolled backwards like that without the front wheels locked. Then for a moment I thought that perhaps he was seriously injured and unable to brake. It is puzzling and it was dangerous, and a terrible shame for Rosberg who deserved a podium.

    8. Horner’s been spouting the same rubbish as Berger all year.

    9. It’s unfortunate that the actual act of having the car roll across the track, something highly dangerous and illegal in itself, is being overlooked by the question of Webber’s intention to roll across the track.

      Don’t people understand that what he did was wrong, dangerous and should be punished, no matter what his intentions were?

      1. It would be very unfair to punish him if he was no longer in control of the car when it rolled across the track. It had taken a hell of a whack against the wall, after all.

        1. It should be recognized and a fine (at least) should be handed to him so that it does not happen again. There is a legal way to rejoin the track. I don’t think a racing penalty is appropriate because there will not be enough proof that his car was ‘too broken’ to control….

        2. The telemetry should be analysed to see Webber’s steering input and whether he hit the brakes or not. If he is proved innocent after the analyisis, then all is good and well, but the telemetry should definitely be analysed . Just because he was leading the championship, and has a lot of fans supporting him this year, should make him no exception to the rule.

          1. Yes, the telemetry should be analysed.

        3. Vettel was also punished for ramming into Button even though he at the time he hit Button he were just a passenger, but he had made the mistake that made his car slide away underneath him.

    10. I don’t think the point of this issue is that Webber deliberately tried to take another driver out (forget about Berger’s comment).

      The point is that he did not try to stop his car to let the others by and instead chose to attempt to keep his race alive by rolling backwards.

      If this is the case ((and it seems obvious based on the video evidence and what Horner said “However, the natural and immediate instinct of any competitive driver is not to give up and to keep going”)) then what Webber did was absolutely outrageous and should be penalized.

      That said, he will not (and should not) receive any type of racing penalty (i.e. a drop in grid position). the race is over, it will not happen. A fine is unfortunately the appropriate thing to do.

      The funny thing is that Webber has always been at the forefront of safety in F1, but his judgment got the better of him in this case and he made a massive and very dangerous mistake.

      1. Yep, I think that most people would accept a fine, a serious one I mean. But not a racing penalty at this time.

        1. Well, ‘the punishment should fit the crime’. IF the move was deliberate, Webber has intentionally tried to ruin at least one driver’s race. And Webber did ruin at least one driver’s race (Rosberg’s). Considering that Rosberg was on for a podium, it was a heavy blow for him. Webber retired from the race; but that doesn’t and cannot negate the damage he inflicted. So Webber needs a penalty for the subsequent race. I think that a grid penalty of 5-10 places would be sufficient. It would be draconian to throw him out of the championship a la Schumi in 97. (N.B., IF the move was accidental, perhaps Webber’s super-license should be revoked, just till he learns how to steer and brake.)

          1. Well, I’m not a Webber tifoso, but I find it a bit too hard. If they revoke MW’s superlicense and are consistent about it, soon there will be nodody left to race.

            And let’s get real, a grid penalty could have been feasible earlier and the season, but not now. Well, ok, justice is justice and ought not to depend on the circunstances. But in the real world it very much does.

          2. I will never be possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was Mark’s intention to take another driver out. He will say (and likely it is true) that he was just trying to spin around to get back on track not knowing his car was dead. However, that action should be punished….

          3. I will never be possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was Mark’s intention to take another driver out. He will say (and likely it is true) that he was just trying to spin around to get back on track not knowing his car was dead. However, the dangerous move of sliding across track to rejoin should probably be punished….

          4. Just out of curiosity, how many open wheel race cars have you raced?
            And of all of those race cars, how many have you ever had to deal with your front suspension being torn apart and possibly your brakes losing pressure? And then had to deal with traffic around you after a crash?

            It sounds like you should take over Webber’s drive as obviously you are a FAR better driver than he is.

    11. has anyone ever considered the idea that the racing line at the point he hit the wall was toward that side of the track and he was trying to get it out of the way? Especially if he was trying to carry on like was said. For all we know he was facing backwards and couldn’t tell that’s where the turn started, thus inadvertently throwing himself into the line where he thought it wasn’t.

      All in all, this seems a bit silly to me since I don’t think he’d WANT to take someone out who could be barreling towards him at full speed with next to no visibility due to spray and completely t-bone the cockpit. And as has been said, we’ll never REALLY know. If it was on purpose, he’d probably take that secret to his grave. Schumacher never admitted if his moves in ’94, ’97 and ’06 were intentional, Prost never admitted if ’89 was intentional and in fact, the only case I can think of where this sort of move was admitted to be intentional, was Senna in ’90. If you know of any time a driver said “yep, I tried to hit him on purpose,” then please correct me.

      1. ‘For all we know he was facing backwards and couldn’t tell that’s where the turn started, thus inadvertently throwing himself into the line where he thought it wasn’t’. (Joey-Poey)

        We can’t accept this. Webber didn’t even spin completely around once: he went 180 degrees on way and back. He’s an F1 driver: he knew which way he was facing. Helped by his SEEING the approaching cars on the racing line. Moreover, the left and right side of the tracks look completely different: one has a big wall; the other, green grass.


        ‘If it was on purpose, he’d probably take that secret to his grave. Schumacher never admitted if his moves in ’94, ’97 and ’06 were intentional, Prost never admitted if ’89 was intentional and in fact, the only case I can think of where this sort of move was admitted to be intentional, was Senna in ’90’. (Ibid)

        I think Schumi has admitted to taking Hill out (to Clarkson and in Autosport). But he denies deliberately taking Villeneuve out at Jerez. I think that Prost has admitted to 89, as well.

        1. Don’t tell Rubens, or he will report it AGAIN :) :) :)

        2. I’m not saying he didn’t know which way he was facing, I meant how close to the turn he was. Obviously he was aware which way he was facing, but in that situation it seems feasible that he might have thought he was still on the short straight and that it was wiser to move toward the inside of the straight since most cars will be weaving toward the outside before entering the turn.

          Helped by his SEEING the approaching cars on the racing line.

          By that alone, wouldn’t he have seen the car coming wasn’t Alonso or Hamilton and not swung into Rosberg in the first place? You have to assume he could not see the cars coming regardless of intent because if he could see Rosberg coming, he wouldn’t have swerved into him whether or not he wanted to take out one of the other championship leaders.

          I think Schumi has admitted to taking Hill out (to Clarkson and in Autosport). But he denies deliberately taking Villeneuve out at Jerez. I think that Prost has admitted to 89, as well.

          Huh. I did not know. I’ll have to check these out now.

    12. i have not forgotten that bbc interview whereby mark told jake humphreys that he is prepared to do anything to win the championship.
      can some one find that clip please?…
      And soon after he took Hamilton out when hamilton overtook him in singapore and the whole media passed it off as a racing incident.
      There is no reason why HE LET his car rolL onto the face of on coming traffic unless he intentionally wanted the race to be stopped for any MORE reasons if more cars crushed into his knowing that in that mix Hamilton might be in it if it happened.
      mark webber is not really being straight here.

      1. Talking about singapore, that was another moment of brain fade from Webber. He braked far too late on the off-line slippery bit and simply ran into Hamilton who actually did give him some room on the inside – even though the corner was his and he was hit from behind as a ‘thank you’. I think that Webber’s move there was deliberate, also. It deserved a drive-through.

        1. You can add his brain fade in Melbourne to that list.

          1. Yes; Webber tried to take Hamilton out of that race twice – and sucseeded once. Webber is a danger to the other drivers, especially Lewis, to whom he seems drawn somehow…

    13. And even if Webber did it cause he wanted to crash with fernando or lewis, so what? Its F1

      1. It certainly has happened plenty of times before. And almost everyone involved has got away with it. Jerez 97 was the exception.

        Suzuka 90 would probably not have gone unpunished if the FIA didn’t have their hands tied for not having punished Suzuka 89.

    14. These accusations are absurd. Would you rather have him brake and stop right in the middle of the racing line? Total rubbish!

      1. I agree with you..

        if he break and stop in the middle of racing line it would be more disaster and perhaps more than one car will hit webber.

        when I look at the replays I don’t understand why rosberg didn’t slow a bit when he saw webber’s car spin, hit the wall and rolls back into the circuit.

        but it pointless to point fingers at who is to blame and Gerhard Berger maybe having too much beer while making those accusation

      2. Yes actually. A stationary car (even on the racing line) would have been easier to avoid than one moving across the track like that.

        1. moving across the line might cause risk for crash with one or two cars tops. Stopped in the middle of a race line after a fast corner and in spray from his position on the grid and you now have 22 chances of getting hit. Consider his “lead” spray for the first two was minimal but further back they where at that point fairly closely packed. Stopped on race line I could see 2 or 3 cars taken out of the race and double or triple chance of webber or another driver getting seriously injured. Now that would been a good reason to penalize for. Any sane driver will try to get his car of track and off race line in any crash/accident/failure.

          1. They should not try to move their car off the track if it means rolling across the entire track. Also the spray should not be a problem because the drivers behind has a team which has a lot of monitors showing things like that and they could just get on the radio and say “car in the middle of the road just after turn …. ” And there would be deployed yellow flags anyway.

            1. No, your assessment is ridiculous. Have you not watched the incident back? If Webber had braked immediately he would have stopped near the wall on the far side of the track from the racing line.

              Even if he had stopped in the middle of the track he’d still have been well away from the racing line.

              I cannot understand at all why he wouldn’t have braked instinctively as he was rolling backwards, actually looking at the fast approaching cars and must have known he was about to cross the racing line. I think anyone who was rolling into fast approaching traffic would slam the brakes on, so I do wonder if they somehow failed.

    15. This whole argument is hysterical. Watching the replay and seeing it in the race, I didn’t once think Webber intentionally let the car go back across the track. If you see the reply footage showing the right side of Webber’s car, you can see after he hits the wall, the damage to the rear right suspension is so severe (as it really was) that the front right is in the air. Also watching the replay, only two seconds really pass from impact to Rosberg and him colliding. You’re telling me that in that short time after experiencing a rapid deceleration from an impact, spun completely around, that Webber made the conscious decision to make it hit Rosberg? Honestly, get off it. It was a racing incident.

      1. Yeap, he certainly did let the car travel across the track, not to take Rosberg out though most likely Alonso he would not have known Alonso was already clear.

        But really who cares, no one will prove it one way or the other… move on.

      2. Horner has said that Webber did indeed roll across the track on purpose. He tried to continue his race.

    16. Without telemetry proving otherwise, these accusations are unfounded. However, I think what goes against Mark Webber is the number of incidents involving him this season with other drivers. Personally, I love it because its exciting to watch, but I bet other drivers and teams have talked about it behind closed doors.
      With Rosberg I can feel alot of sympathy. He got passed Lewis Hamilton early in the race, and for once the Mercedes had good pace and Nico was handling the grands prix well. Would Lewis have been fast enough to beat Rosberg if not for the accident? Now that is an interesting question, and one Lewis is no doubt thankful he didn’t have to answer.
      As for Christian Horner, he is doing everything a team leader should be doing, and that is by supporting Webber. Horner would no doubt have been singing from a different hym sheet had a Ferrari or McLaren plowed into one of his drivers, but that is the nature of the beast.

    17. To anyone who thinks Webber could and should have stopped on the racing line, rather than roll: you do know that the track isn’t very wide at that point, right? That there would be only just enough width for a car to go by, since it’s highly unlikely Webber would have been able to stop it dead before the car rolled part-way onto the line? That Rosberg or anyone else wouldn’t have had enough time to slow down to be able to hit that gap and would probably have hit Webber anyway?

      Then there’d be this great big conspiracy that Webber deliberately left it on the line for Hamilton to hit him and right now conspiracy theorists would be saying he should have parked it off the line like he actually did in real life.

      I wonder if the people who’ve seen the video a million times noticed that Mark had his wheels locked before the impact and then they were immediately loose again after he’d hit the wall. It absolutely couldn’t have been brake failure, could it? I guess they missed the part where it shows Webber with only one wheel on the actual racetrack.

      Let’s see if there’s any inquiry and if data shows anything before calling Webber a dangerous cheat.

      1. Webber should have slid along the wall onto the grass that was straight ahead.

        He should NOT have released the brake and rolled back on track.

        1. Again, you’re assuming he could control the brakes. Let’s see.

          And it would have been impossible to purposefully slide along the wall given he had at least one wheel off the ground and an unbalanced car.

    18. It does look like he did it on purpose but im not going into that at the moment, but Rosberg would have won. He was ahead of Hamilton whom ended up ahead of Alonso after Fernando’s botched pitstop. Vettel’s engine would have gone anyway because of the safety car period’s, and only Hamilton going wide would have let Alonso past, into 2nd. Rosberg would have won. But Mark’s a smart bloke, in the instance he crashed, he knew he was out and thought the best thing would be to take a title rival with him, but he missed and cost Nico his first Victory

      1. Well, sometimes you also get your victories being able to change your trajectory fast enough and getting it exactly right when the unexpected happens.

        Alonso got it right and Rosberg didn’t, when surely Rosberg had it easier, he went the wrong way and lost it. No wonder Alonso won.

        1. Rosberg hasn’t got Alonso’s experience.

          1. Exactly, that’s the point. I said before: maybe he’s not good enough yet

            1. Rosberg has definitly got the skill, he just hasnt got the experience of dodging bumper cars…

            2. No, just luck, Alonso was on the straight between the two corners, he had the choice and correctly did what Brundle always says steer to where the car is, it will be gone by the time you get there. Rosberg was already committed to the apex of the second corner, he couldn’t of gone around the outside, he didn’t have a choice, unless he had and 99 times out of 100 would of been ok if Webber had slide down the wall which is what normally happens.

    19. I don’t think it was anything malicious. He’d just lost the car, thought he saved it and then crashed I doubt he had time to think “oh look Hamilton”. He was probably just trying to carry on or get out of the way of all the oncoming cars plus he’d picked up a puncture.

      I know Nico’s upset he was in a good position but given the conditions there’s no guarantee where he would have ended up. Plus, I think he should have gone right rather than left and he’d have been ok but he barely had any time to react just like Webber. It was just one of those unfortunate things to me and thanfully noone was injured.

    20. Listen Why would Mark crash on purpose?? Isn’t he fighting for a championship??. Berger’s comments were distasteful and childish I’ve lost the tiniest respect I had for him.
      Webber would not crash on purpose. Everyone who that Mark should have braked is clueless you talk like you were in that situation. If this was Jenson. There would be no debate they would say something was wrong with the car. Biased.

      1. Why would Mark crash on purpose?

        No-one’s saying he crashed on purpose. Berger said that after he went into the wall he tried to steer his damaged car into the path of one of his championship rivals.

    21. I suppose that it’s possible that the outcome could have been different had Webber kept his foot planted on the brakes (if, in fact, he hadn’t), but to suggest that he made a split second decision to allow the car roll out in an attempt to take out someone behind him is quite a stretch. I don’t buy it.

    22. Berger is trying hard to be the new Lauda of controversial comments.

      Back to the point though, I believe Webber just tried too hard to recover from the crash and didn’t take into consideration the other cars. The way his car hit the wall it appeared like it had come to rest, then suddenly swerved back onto the track which appears to me like he tried to recover.
      The fact that the front right tyre wasn’t making contact with the ground as he came back on track, makes me believe he had left rear suspension failure, that might also explain why he couldn’t execute a recovery spin and hence wandered across the track.

      Alonso was just fortunate, by the time Rosberg arrived, the dynamics had changed Hamilton was just lucky that the second accident didn’t throw the car back on the road.

      1. Alonso was just fortunate, by the time Rosberg arrived, the dynamics had changed Hamilton was just lucky that the second accident didn’t throw the car back on the road.


    23. about the ‘splitsecond’ point… I ve been in a couple of carcrashes in my life and i can tell you i had complete stories in my head in those split seconds. It s adrenaline and in such a situatin you get a big shot of it. So that is no point in this debate.

    24. Alonso was just fortunate

      I beg to differ. Watch the vid (there are plenty of youtube links already in the thread) Alonso swerves to avoid Webber. At first he goes right, in the same direction Webber is going, a split second afterwards he turns left to avoid him. How he did that without losing grip is beyond me, but by going straight ahead he would certainly have t-boned Mark begore he got to the wall. By the time Hamilton arrived, both Mark and Nico were safely off track.

      1. So you agree that Alonso met Webber while he was going off track, and Rosberg met Webber while he was coming back on track. Two very different situations. Because the first spin was a somewhat predictable motion of the car, hence Alonso being fortunate. The second spin was unpredictable hence Rosberg’s misfortune.

    25. utter nonsense… the damage for him was already done.

      Why taking out someone that, at that point, wasn’t his major rival?????

      hope this is the end of this stupid theory. And don’t look at my Webber avatar.

      1. Alonso was behind and his main threat, he wouldn’t of know he was clear at that point he decided to let the car slide back across the track… and it was split second it happen relatively slowly in F1 terms. More than enough time to think about it. As a top sports man if you can’t think that quickly… well…

    26. dragon_2712 (@)
      28th October 2010, 0:53

      Why are you all arguing with Alistair? Please just ignore him. His posts are stupidity to the point of trolling.

    27. Okay, I’m really not trying to be contentious. But look at around 20 sec on this clip:


      After spinning, hitting the wall and facing the approaching traffic, Webber clearly seems to accelerate across track and *into* the path of the oncoming car – as it happened, Rosberg. Other clips appear to support the idea that he accelerated backwards into the oncoming driver’s path.

      If so, draw your own conclusions. But personally I think Berger is probably correct. Not that it matters much now!

    28. what i find to be somewhat troubling about the Webber slide is that his rear wheels were actually rolling in reverse. this means that either his engine had shut down, while in no gear, or he had actually shifted the tranny into reverse. this would explain the sudden acceleration after his initial contact with the wall. This still does not mean that he was trying to take out any other drivers, he simply may not have known exactly how long he would slide and thought that the trajectory would be a little straighter than it was. In any event, there will always be victims in unexpected crashes, just take a look at any NASCAR race.

      1. Phew, not just me seeing that acceleration then! Everyone is discussing whether he braked or not when it looks like he’d shifted into reverse and maybe accelerated too, just after the car had realigned from roughly parallel to the wall to pointing across the track. Presuming he’s the one responsible for these movements, what was he up to? Maybe he was trying to return as fast as possible, reversing and then looking to spin on track to the face the right way. Which would have been fine on an empty freeway. Or maybe he knew his race was over and he drove straight into the path of what he thought was a championship rival. Either way, pretty mad.

    29. I doubt that Webber is stupid to do something of that magnitude.It is more about putting the media pressure on Webber (as someone pointed in the web) so that he crack some other wins the WC.

    30. i think as Hornor said…Every driver would try his best to continue..thats what he was trying to do….i believe these things are just crap…

    31. When I saw Webber reverse back across the track, my first initial reaction was he was trying to take out Hamilton (unaware Rosberg had passed him).

      Looking back on it, I’m not sure. I agree that where he initially crashes is not ideal however reversing along the track is 10 times worse in my opinion. I don’t think he was thinking about taking any driver out though, but just made a mistake in where to park it.

    32. Let me guess if this is right. Webber leading championship in horrid conditions choreographs to lose it around an off camber corner and plan to hit the wall and hope the car is still driveable enough to go back across the track and take out opponents.

      Wouldn’t this have just allowed Vettel to have the edge going into the last two races and hinder his chances?

      Has anyone sensible thought of the possibility that he made an error a lap earlier and was losing time to Vettel with Alonso closing in and took the corner a little wrong and had an ACCIDENT and panicked when he realised he was off and tried to keep on racing as most race drivers do and probably didn’t realise the car was as damaged as it was. hmmm.

      And Berger. where have you been for a while. what a great way to get back into the spotlight. noticed you mentioned great drivers like Senna, Schumacher and Alonso. Wonder if any of these have blatantly taken off other drivers to claim drivers titles. maybe you’re upset that Webber may win one and you never did.

      1. er, yeah, of course dropping it on the wet kerb was not planned.

        The subsequent deliberate crash is the issue here.

    33. The moment Mark came off the wall he knew his right suspension was damaged and he might as well make the most of the incident by accelerating backwards and cause some collateral damage to one or more of his rivals.
      It’s just another example of his “over my dead body” mentality he’d shown in Turkey and Singapore,not only remarkably scoring twice 15 points ,but also getting 2 close competitors DNF’ed.
      I’m not putting the blame on him for those 2 racing incidents,I just want to point out the guy has been playing “all in”in tricky conditions even with a properly functioning car!
      Alonso should not be lauded for avoiding a collision with a car sliding away from him and the racing line and only impacting the wall after he had passed.
      He should just be counting his blessings he wasn’t in Nico’s situation who didn’t stand a decent chance.
      I’m just wondering if Schumacher would get punished if he had pulled off the same trick ?
      He did get demoted to the back of the grid for hampering the other racers at the end of qualifying in Monaco 2006,also without full proof evidence of intention…

      1. ‘Accelerating backwards’ hey. In turkey Webber gave Vettel enough room to do what he needed to. Webber would have to be retarded to just hand it to him. Vettel was just greedy. And in Singapore, Webber hit his braking marker perfectly and Hamilton came across his front. Webber cannot brake any harder or just disappear. In all of these situations the most professional people were in position penalise Webber though they did not. You obviously know more with your racing expertise.

    34. My intital thoughts were not good about how it looked but I am a Webber fan and decided to think the best of him.

      After looking a little further I would like to think perhaps that by the time he got his hands back on the steering wheel the rear of the car was already pointing into the middle of the track. At the speed he was travelling, had he swung the wheel back around and veered back toward the wall he may have in fact spent more time on the racing line and caused more danger.

      Thoughts on this theory?

      1. The video supports your theory. Webber catches the steering wheel and the car is already turning to the right.

      2. Come on!


        I just watched the onboard, he steers on to the racing line quite deliberately!!!!!


        1. When he catches the wheel it is upside down, he didn’t have much control over which way the car was travelling.

    35. wow i cant believe this.
      1. the conditions were terrible, on a new track that was very very slippery.
      2. Webber made a genuine error.
      3. after hitting the wall it is clear webbers car is badly damaged. on the left rear suspension.
      4. webbers front right wheel is raised off the ground due to the damage to his left rear suspension.
      5. after contact with the wall webbers dashboard is like a cristmas tree sujesting the cars gearbox was in neutral or broken.
      6. people say webber speed up this is imposible beacuse the car is not in reverse gear.
      7. webber after initaly sliding back on track steers left in an attempt to prevent the car rolling backwards but due to the damage to the left rear and the fact his right front is not touching the ground means he just keeping heading backwards.
      8. thier is no way webber meant to continue across the track like he did. the damage to his car contributed significantly.
      any questions i think that wraps it up?

      1. One question:

        Why didnt he brake?

        Why didnt he steer along the wall, off the racing line?!

        Driving for beginners.

        1. How many questions?

    36. Some of these excuses for Webber are just plain stupid and Some people even say Rosbergs fault, at the end of the day we dont know why he even came back across the track it looked like he could have rolled backwards or stopped completely but he decided to try and correct himself probably not knowing just how severe the damage was to the rear. Its a stupid decision since the race was still young and the field wasnt spread out very much. But I dont think he intentionally thought to himself ” let me take out another title runner”

    37. He doth protest too much! How could he be so sure of the motives of MW in the heat of the moment! Busted!

      It is so obvious that Webber tried to take out what he assumed would be a rival.

      Horner says he was trying to carry on… What with no suspension or front wing?

      Why would he keep going backwards, I assume he would have spun the car round the right way at some point? And maybe steered away from the second wall?

      I make it four avoidable collisions that Webber has had , three with Hamilton, and one with a silver car having just taken Hamiltons track position.

      Webber is a dirty driver, and not particularly talented.

      If Rosberg drove for RB he and they would already be WC.

      Rosberg is an outstanding driver, his time will come.

      If MW is WC it will be the lamest chmpion ever!

      1. Put it this way, if I was Hamilton, still fighting for the championship and about to pass Webber, I’d give him a lot of track room. Just to be on the safe side.

      2. Webber beat Rosberg, his team mate for Williams, in 2006. Your theory is mud. Also, if he is so ‘lame’ why is he bashing his way more fancied German team mate. And lastly, Webber is the cleanest, friendliest driver going around. All of the drivers like him.

      3. Also, Nico Rosberg just happens to be son of former champion, Keke. Daddy has obviously set him up well as a manufactured seat occupier. Ralf Schumacher comes to mind at this moment, and we all know what raw talent he had.

    38. Your posts are increasingly lacking credibility Platine. I am not looking forward to the next one you post.

      1. Your comments begin by saying “I am a Webber fan and decided to think the best of him.”, and that you are basically looking for excuses! You are not exactly credible either.

        The fact that Rosberg seems to agree with me lends me rather a lot of credibility.

        As does the fact he clearly steers across the track.

        1. You will note all of my ‘excuses’ or not excuses at all. Hence explicit justification of the fact that ‘i would like to think that this is what happened’; that this is but a ‘theory’. And I would strongly argue that wanting to think the best of someone does indeed hold credibilty.

          Now, allow me to turn your attention to but one of your responses in which the follwing ridiculous statements were made, all of which hold no credibiltity whatsoever:

          “It is so obvious that Webber tried to take out what he assumed would be a rival.

          “Webber is a dirty driver, and not particularly talented.

          “If Rosberg drove for RB he and they would already be WC.

          “If MW is WC it will be the lamest chmpion ever!”

        2. Rosberg agrees with you??? What ever you’re smoking, I want some.

          All of your comments are completely biased and offensive. You keep forcing opinion without factual backing, and it’s becoming irritating for this audience.

    39. but if it had been Schumacher…..! and only because he has previous would you consider it potentially devious.

      Its so against Webbers character that i find it impossible to believe. He may have made a wrong decision but to think he would risk himself by rolling across the track sideways is beyond anything even MS would consider. It sounds like something Lauda would say, im suprised at Berger. ( btw im not a Webber fanboy)

      As for the guy who said it was Rosbergs fault because he ran into Webber. Im lost for words, a staggeringly stupid comment.

      Still intrigue feeds F1 like seals feed polar bears

    40. i think berger is in on the psychological game against webber…

    41. Be nice to see the in-car footage of Webber, if a front wheel is bobbling round the nose then it looks bad. Plus telemmetry would give an indication of his actions. But id still look at a mans character first.

    42. I said this debate would ring on……..

      In my personal opinion, given the fact I can remember him running into Hamilton twice wrecklessly in Australia through desperation to get past and impress his home crowd, and then again in Singapore which seemed either ridiculously stupid or deliberate, I wouldn’t put it past him he would try it again here seeing the championship slipping away after he hit the wall. Schumacher did it in 94, and with how safe the cars are now….. I’d probably do it to in the ‘heat of the moment’

    43. Great debate!

      Did he? Did’nt he?
      Only problem is, only Mark Webber really knows the answer…

    44. Webber’s ‘move’ after crashing is no worse than Sutil’s in Singapore in 2009 where he spun then tried to rejoin and hit Heidfeld, and he only got a token fine and a telling off by the Stewards

      1. That may well be the case, its still wrong though.

    45. certainly he will not win a championship 2010 due to his actions! shameful if he does winning this year.

      1. Apologies I Screwed Up The Link =(
        Just Click On The Highlighted Text It Will Take You To The Footage.

        1. The Link isn’t the only thing you Screwed Up!
          Webber spun and hit the wall going backwards and he continued going backwards across the track to the other side. Rosberg would only have been in mirror for a split second before he hit him.


          There has been 4 pages of this nonsense over what was clearly an unintentional racing incident.

    46. Keith, a poll for this one please …
      a) voluntary doing nothing to prevent an avoidable crash
      b) deliberately steering across the track
      c) undecided

      1. – purposefully rolling back on track when the car could have stayed off track.

    47. Berger should never be asked to steward a race again. Not a very impartial comment made by a former steward, who has no RB telemetry to back his accusation.

      You conspiracy spitters are rediculous. Get real.

    48. One thing is certain, conspiracy theories and biases will only grow in intensity as the season comes down to the wire. No matter what, people will be blinded from the facts and share their own skewed viewpoints — I don’t think it’s worth taking too seriously ;)

      I love this… It’s like a political race.

    49. 1. Webber left the steering wheel just before impact and grabbed it after impact (for obvious reasons). he had no imput into steering.
      2. Webber had broken his rear left suspension losing road contact with front right and rear left tyres. Leaving only two tyres to even attempt braking.
      3. It would have taken Webber a second to realise he had terminal damage, the same time it took for Rosberg to collide with him.

      Anybody that has followed Webber’s career knows he is just about the cleanest racer going around, and to suggest otherwise is misguided.

    50. Gazz. He was not looking in his mirrors, and he did not do any steering. He was looking at Rosberg to know if he should tense up for collision. Webber is innocent. He is also belting his much more fancied team mate in the championship. When are people going to give this driver the respect he deserves?

      1. In Reply To Joe’s Comment

        “He was not looking in his mirrors, and he did not do any steering. He was looking at Rosberg to know if he should tense up for collision”

        Well If he was Looking At Rosberg Then He Was Clearly Using His Mirrors To Do So!
        And C’mon He Was CLEARLY Holding The Steering Wheel In The Given Position, His Hands Are On The Damn Thing!

        “He is also belting his much more fancied team mate in the championship”

        Really? Yes The Points Speak For Themselves But Thinking about Pure Pace Then As Much As I Hate Vettel, He Should Be Leading This By A Considerable Margin. I Respect Webber Fully, Id Rather See Him Win The Championship Than The Likes Of Alonso Or Vettel, But On This Occasion I Think He Has Done Wrong. OPINION Not Fact.

        1. Well If he was Looking At Rosberg Then He Was Clearly Using His Mirrors To Do So!

          He was going Backwards On The Track ,Rosberg wasn’t in his mirror until they hit!

          Why do you persist in this absolute nonsense?

          1. All Im Saying is That He WAS Looking In His Mirrors, Yes It Was Literally For A Split Second But This Reverts us Back To the Original Debate Why Didnt He Brake? No One From RBR has Mentioned Brake Failure! So He Could Have Avoided That Incedent, Therefore He Should Get A Penalty At Interlagos.

    51. The more I look at the footage the more I’m convinced Webber should be penalized. Unless he suffered from brake failure, which has not been stated by Red Bull, then he had ample time to process the idea that he should have braked; Webber himself said the whole thing felt like it was in slow motion, and most importantly, he said it was all his fault – not the cars (meaning no failure). His Fault because of how he managed the situation which lead to crash into the wall and for taking out Rosberg.

      But…As a Hamilton fan, I think it would be better for Lewis if Webber is not penalized, as he needs Webber to take points from Alonso.

    52. Wow what a great debate!

      If Berger hadn’t decided he needed some attention because he hasn’t been in the news for a while, and if Rosberg hadn’t gone “Great this would justify me out of a potential podium, why didn’t I think of this”, then I don’t believe anybody else accused Webber of a delibirate accident. (i.e Ferrai or McLaren)

      Afterall everyone seems to thin that Webber was trying to take out Hamilton. Wouldn’t Alonso be the bigger threat and what about his team mate Vettel??? some people just have no idea.

    Comments are closed.