Button Fans Gutted, Webbo Fans Rejoicing

[Kay 0]

He could hit a Ferrari or two.

[nojvnof1 0]

Cav, no doubt about it Michael drove a storming race, top line drive. However, Michael has a strong Ferrari/BStone package under him. Webber did all his work in the Williams which is a mid grid car from what we've seen so far. The fact he was genuinely mixing it with Renault and McLaren is a testament to the calibre of his race.

So Mark Webber was on a glory run in a car running beyond its limits, until it gave up. He was not in a position to win at any time - the failure was inevitable, since it happened to both their cars,

How was it a glory run? It's not as if he had 5 laps of fuel on board. He qualified in P2 on the heaviest fuel load of the front runners and was easily keeping up with Kimi and Fernando until the blue flag debacle. I strongly disagree and I say he was in a very strong, winnable position.

Otherwise I can contend that Klien has as much right to be driver of the day as Webber (and certainly Coulthard), since all other things being equal, they were both in a potential third place when they retired.

Webber was where he was when he retired on pure pace, genuine pace. The Red Bull cars lucked into their spots.

[ykickamoocow 0]

The Red Bull cars lucked into their spots.

Maybe so but most of the drivers behind DC only got points because of retirements.

[Jem of the Shire 0]

Maybe so but most of the drivers behind DC only got points because of retirements.

Everyone behind alonso benefited a lot from retirements, thats including the legendary Coulthard

[nojvnof1 0]

Most of the drivers behind Montoya benefitted from attrition, including DC as Jem rightly points out.!

[Jenson_Rules 0]

Who retired ahead of DC???? MW, KR, JT, Rubens had a drive through. So yeah, if all that didnt happen DC would have finished 7th, which is still good considering the Red Bull is not too good.

[ykickamoocow 0]

Who retired ahead of DC???? MW, KR, JT, Rubens had a drive through. So yeah, if all that didnt happen DC would have finished 7th, which is still good considering the Red Bull is not too good.

Yes you are correct. The RB2 from what ive seen is a dog of a car and it is amazing that the Red Bull drivers managed to manhandle both cars to such a impressive position (until Klien retired).

[cavallino 2]

Webber did all his work in the Williams which is a mid grid car from what we've seen so far. The fact he was genuinely mixing it with Renault and McLaren is a testament to the calibre of his race.

He drove well, but the car was fast at Monaco, where aero efficiency doesn't matter that much.

How was it a glory run? It's not as if he had 5 laps of fuel on board.

They had the same failure on both cars, which indicates an inherent issue. This is what gp2006 said

Thursday practice. Mark Webber, another potential winner, was also forced to park his Williams with electrical cables ablaze. The source of the Australian driver

[Kay 0]

Look at what you posted again and you see it is nothing to do with revs or pushing the boat out too much. Infact it suggests it could be down to being stuck behind slower cars and then so not able to cool as efficiently as it would do.

If they turned down the revs it wouldn't matter, they'd still have a lack of cooling and still be stuck behind cars which is the nature of Monaco, so I do not understand the conclusion you make that it was a "glory run" by overreving it.

Perhaps anything to take away credit from what was a superb drive.

[cavallino 2]

I used the term Glory Run for Williams, not for Webber personally, in any case it's not necessary, I retract it if you want.

The GP2006 article says they upped the revs. A heating problem can be a direct result of that. Whatever they did it was a fundamental issue with the car and it might have been solved if they hadn't gone all out for performance - just like Mclaren who opted to run new aero with a new engine cover that caused Kimi's problem - he would have been slower if they hadn't, but would probably have finished the race.

[nojvnof1 0]

He drove well, but the car was fast at Monaco, where aero efficiency doesn't matter that much.

True, but even allowing for that, the Williams is still not that close to Renault or McLaren.

They had the same failure on both cars, which indicates an inherent issue. This is what gp2006 said

What's that got to do with it being a "glory run"? I think we've got very different definitions of the term, so we might just have to agree to disagree on that one.

Maybe if they had turned down the revs for the race, the cars would have finished in the points?

Maybe, but you can't based an argument on if's and but's.

The bottomline is the Williams was fast there - Webber was not taking a midfield car to the top of the grid, he was driving it where it belonged on the day.

Refer to my first answer.

I'd say he wasn't, because his car was never going to make it to the finish.

Well that's easy to say now we know what happened. Fact is he was in a winnable position. The problem was not foreseen otherwise they'd have asked Mark to pit and retire.

[cavallino 2]

True, but even allowing for that, the Williams is still not that close to Renault or McLaren.

The Bridgestones were better on the day.

What's that got to do with it being a "glory run"? I think we've got very different definitions of the term, so we might just have to agree to disagree on that one.

As Isaid I can retract that term, it's hardly relevant.

Maybe, but you can't based an argument on if's and but's.

I think it's fairly clear that Williams screwed up somewhere, and if they had done something different, their cars would have made it to the finish. We don't know what. What does seem clear is the failures were inevitable, even if they were running 1-2, they wouldn't have finished.

Well that's easy to say now we know what happened. Fact is he was in a winnable position. The problem was not foreseen otherwise they'd have asked Mark to pit and retire.

The fact is we don't know if he would have been in a winnable position, if the Williams were good enough to get to the finish on the day.

[Sato 0]

How can you suppprt Fisichella, and then not give credit to a driver who just did a better race then Fisichella has ever done? Doesn't add up.

The driver can only do what the car will do. He was easily the best DRIVER (not Car, not Team, but DRIVER).

[cavallino 2]

Eh? I said he drove well, but he wans't the best driver on the day - he did screw up and the car was good.

That's rich coming from a Sato fan

Michael Schumacher was easily the best driver, I am amused that some people can still deny that.

[irishfemalefan 0]

Michael Schumacher was easily the best driver, I am amused that some people can still deny that.

happy days glad someone else agrees with me on that one though thought Alonso did a pretty good job himself even though he had a no competition (hell find things very different next year i imagine), Webber did a fantatsic job & since i knew MS wasnt going to win (or doubted it anyway) it was Webber i was cheering on very loudly!!!

How can you suppprt Fisichella, and then not give credit to a driver who just did a better race then Fisichella has ever done?

i think thats been a bit harse on Fisi - he has had some very very good races - unfortunately not enough to count - but when he wakes up he is a veruy good driver - problem is he tends to enjoy sleeping through races a bit too often!!! maybe he indulges too much on the wine he makes at his vineyard

[nojvnof1 0]

The Bridgestones were better on the day.

Refer again to my answer. Still doesn't make it a match for Renault or McLaren.

The fact is we don't know if he would have been in a winnable position, if the Williams were good enough to get to the finish on the day.

I think the fact Webber was keeping up with Alonso and Kimi, quite easily it has to be said, and was fuelled to go longer in the second stint shows he had a chance to win. I'm not saying for a moment he was definitely going to win, but he was in with a chance.

[rodders47 2]

I agree totally, finishing in a position is an unknown, but to me what it did show was that Weber was able to RACE at a strong pace, unlike many times before where he Qualified up the top but his race pace was somewhat asking.

One can only judge by performance, but going by Marks performance and his lap times he appears to have the same ability as those at the top, now if ONLY that BLOODY car could last the distance !!!!!

[BradSpeedMan 6]

I agree totally, finishing in a position is an unknown, but to me what it did show was that Weber was able to RACE at a strong pace, unlike many times before where he Qualified up the top but his race pace was somewhat asking.

One can only judge by performance, but going by Marks performance and his lap times he appears to have the same ability as those at the top, now if ONLY that BLOODY car could last the distance !!!!!

I've been a fan of Weber for long time, i'm happy he's got a car now to show his true capabilities as a race driver...

[ykickamoocow 0]

I've been a fan of Weber for long time

Why are you a fan of Michael Schumacher's manager?

[nojvnof1 0]

[BradSpeedMan 6]

Why are you a fan of Michael Schumacher's manager?

heheeheh , add the other +b for me willya