Vettel and traction control?

Valais, that is obvious. Sports tache.

Yup, very vague.

Absolutely. Webber also isn't as canny a driver as Vettel as witness in Japan. Him driving the wheels off his car and therefore knackering his tyres for the first stint behind Grosjean whilst Vettel sat back and bided his time.

That action ultimately cost him his chance to win it.

Good point.

I watch Vettel these days and see a combination of elements from Prost and from Schumacher, especially this year.

If you were to take a legal approach, the purposive rule of statutory interpretation applies here. The purpose is determined by the history of a statute and why it came about, which in this case was to ban traction control. The parts of the clause which gives focus to its purpose are: "excessive torque demand" and "spinning under power", which refer to actions that traction control systems are conventionally understood to act against.

With that in mind, a re-wording of the clause would prohibit any device or system which:

• Prevent the driven wheels from spinning beyond the limit of traction while under power (eg. rear wheels about to break traction, funny KERS kicks in to reduce rotational speed of the rear wheels); or
• Reduce torque demand in the event that the driver demands excessive torque (eg. driver presses throttle pedal too hard, device/system reduces throttle or cuts power).

^
Most important post of the last few pages. The noise is nothing to do with TC, and you'll notice he isn't on the power 50m before the rest (like Mr Minardi says) or 20m (like Hamilton said) but about 2m. If he was on the power 20m before anyone else, he'd be 20 seconds per lap faster.

How about we look at it from a different angle.

Lets assume for a moment now that there is something unique to Vettels car (traction control, special engine map, anything really) that makes him go that much quicker.

If you have two cars that have this advantage, chances are, both drivers (who would be more equal to each other) will push each other more during the race, add to the risk that both might clash or ignore team orders (as they have done previously) and more importantly, suddenly two cars (not just one) will display a superiority over other teams.

Usually, if a team gains some sort of advantage that the other teams don't through clever intepretation of the rules, you see other teams lobbying against it to the point where the rules are either clarified to allow it or that device is banned. We've had multiple examples of this: Double diffusors, EBD, F-duct, flexi-wings etc. If you have two cars showing superiority, you can't put it down to the sole brilliance of the driver [Vettel in this case] because it will be clear that there's something in the car that is making them go that much quicker.

It's a lot easier to maintain a strong position in both the WDC and WCC if you have a driver that is clearly quicker and the 2nd a consistent point-scorer. Vettel and Webber are doing that perfectly - and is proving that it's enough for them to easily rap up both championships with several races to go. Change that formula, you might upset the internal balance, give more people insight to what you might be doing with the car, leading to it being possibly banned or copied by other teams.

If it was my team and I had a device (legal or not) that the others don't - I'd be very careful about how I would use it to win my races. Simply giving it to both drivers would IMO upset the controlability of the team and you would only risk other teams being more suspicious, leading to further checks, lobbying and protests (until other teams either find out what you're doing, have it banned or successfully copy your idea).

Now, I am not saying that Redbull and Vettel do have such a device, but assuming he does, I think there are clear reasons on why they might only give it to one driver, rather than both. At the same time, Webber has been on a rolling contract year by year - given the likelyhood of him leaving one day (as he is now), it only adds to the reasons of why you might not want to trust him with this. Fair or not, whatever they are doing (if they are) - it's being executed flawlessly. And if they are really doing this - it's perfect, as Vettel gets the reward and is seen as the driver who is making "the difference" as everyone is assuming both cars to be identical and that there is no plausable reason for them to limit one car over the other.

No, Herbert didn't have it.

Thought I was going a bit mad so had a quick check. Herbert, Verstappen and Lehto all partnered the Cobbler in 1994.

Of this thread, I've read only this page (which is interesting). So, if I am repeating anything from earlier in the thread, I hereby offer my apology!

Whilst I acknowledge that Vettel has always been 'in favour' from Red Bull's upper management (Helmut Marko is particularly one-sided, for example), for the most part I do not believe there have been significant differences between his and Webber's respective chassis (*for a significant exception, please see footnote). However, there is a factor with a relatively unchanging theme which is rarely commented upon. It is something requiring fundamental differences in set-up and, over the Vettel / Webber partnership has been more significant at Red Bull than any other F1 team.

Webber weighs approximately 75kg; far more than his diminutive, 58kg team mate. To put it another way, Webber has been roughly 30% heavier than Vettel during their entire partnership. Driver weight can and does make a difference, especially when it is of this order, since it also raises the combined centre of mass (of car plus driver). The result is an increase in body roll which can only be countered through stiffer set-up (including stiffer, stronger, heavier anti-roll bars), which in turn results in increased tyre wear – unless a driver compensates by driving more slowly. In this sense, and through no fault save that of choosing drivers of such disparate physique, Red Bull has essentially been fielding two different cars, at least by comparison to most of its competitors.

* Suzuka, Japan 2013 was an exception, due to Webber having to use an old and heavily repaired chassis. According to some sources (please forgive lack of link), Webber's car for this event was 22kg heavier (before added ballast), than that which burned out in Yeongam, Korea. Of course, ballast is used to bring all cars up to the required minimum weight of 642kg, so every chassis will be of similar weight for the grid, but there is a significant advantage in being able to reduce the CM by placing as much of the total chassis weight as low down as possible (for the same reason given above with regard to drivers). In addition, it is worth mentioning that over time all chassis lose some torsional stiffness due to repeated loadings, even if they have not undergone repair. Furthermore, no repair can quite match the original for strength despite the additional weight; inevitably the chassis will lose some torsional rigidity.