Kubica's replacement... (It's Heidfeld!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jens

The arguments regarding Villeneuve are quite funny, especially when they contain criticism directed at Heidfeld. When Jacques was last racing in F1, it was 2006 and his team-mate was no-one else than Nick. As we remember, Heidfeld was a bit better. The gap wasn't big, JV was having a solid season, but he still got beaten. We can add that in the meantime Villeneuve has never driven an F1 car, while Heidi has had lots of seasons under his belt and kept himself warm in F1 circles. Now tell me, according to which logic now 5 years later that inferior driver would suddenly turn out to be better out of the two, especially as the former has had zero practice at all? The only logic tells me that the gap has only enlarged.



Doesn't make much sense. Heidfeld usually runs quite close to car's potential. Let's say Kubica would finish 3rd in that car in a race, then Heidfeld could be around something like P4. Now compare that to the likes of Senna and Petrov, who would be around P7-P8 in case they didn't crash out. Di Grassi? Bah, he was outraced by Glock most of the season.

--

People want to see "new talent", but forget that Renault already has one such "new talent" - Petrov. How many of those underperforming inexperienced drivers do you need - the whole grid? And the only reason Senna is Renault's reserve and even has a shot at the race drive, is because of his name and the "connection to Lotus". Renault already has recent experience with a driver with a famous name of a multiple world champion (Piquet Jr).



Er... shouldn't the quicker team-mates get a chance before him then?

Such arguments could be made about any driver. Maybe Baumgartner deserves a shot in a good team too. Okay, Bruni was quicker than him, but the car was too bad and he didn't get a proper chance.

---

Common sense at last ! I agree with virtually all of the above post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jens

The arguments regarding Villeneuve are quite funny, especially when they contain criticism directed at Heidfeld. When Jacques was last racing in F1, it was 2006 and his team-mate was no-one else than Nick. As we remember, Heidfeld was a bit better. The gap wasn't big, JV was having a solid season, but he still got beaten. We can add that in the meantime Villeneuve has never driven an F1 car, while Heidi has had lots of seasons under his belt and kept himself warm in F1 circles. Now tell me, according to which logic now 5 years later that inferior driver would suddenly turn out to be better out of the two, especially as the former has had zero practice at all? The only logic tells me that the gap has only enlarged.

---

People who think Villeneuve should get the seat are so out of the reality of modern F1 that their postings should be ignored, not commented on. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wasted Talent

Have you seen how fast a driver goes without a car?? ;) ;) ;)

WT

---

A lot faster than a car without a driver........ :p

Having considered the predicament the team formerly known as Renault find themselves in, and nice and cuddly though Eric Boullier's stance on allowing Robert to participate in rallying may be, they have shot themselves quite royally in the foot.

The car will no doubt have been designed with Robert in mind, the sponsors - Lotus, Lada, Proton et al were expecting a better year that 2010.

Now, they look confined to midfield at best.

You don't want to curtail your drivers to the nth degree, but seriously, allowing the participation in such a potentially dangerous activity so close to the season start, and especially during crucial limited testing days seems to me a little foolhardy.

What say folks?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DexDexter

People who think Villeneuve should get the seat are so out of the reality of modern F1 that their postings should be ignored, not commented on. :rolleyes:

---

Indeed, in fact, why not ask Berger or Alesi or Herbert or Coulthard or Hill or Ralf.

OK, sorry, Ralf was just a joke........ ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Indeed, in fact, why not ask Berger or Alesi or Herbert or Coulthard or Hill or Ralf.

OK, sorry, Ralf was just a joke........ ;)

---

What's Mansell up to these days? :p

IMHO Heidfield would be the most logical and smart choice ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave B

What's Mansell up to these days? :p

---

Driving his wife's Micra, if the MoneySupermarket ads are to be believed.... :laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave B

What's Mansell up to these days? :p

---

No! There can and will be no talk of a Mansell return unless he grows back his 'stash!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koz

No! There can and will be no talk of a Mansell return unless he grows back his 'stash!

---

Stash? Is he cultivating that marijhuana stuff nowadays then??????? :laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Stash? Is he cultivating that marijhuana stuff nowadays then??????? :laugh:

---

Wait, what? His mustache was actually marijuana growing on his face??? :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave B

What's Mansell up to these days? :p

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZG_wN9G3uo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Having considered the predicament the team formerly known as Renault find themselves in, and nice and cuddly though Eric Boullier's stance on allowing Robert to participate in rallying may be, they have shot themselves quite royally in the foot.

The car will no doubt have been designed with Robert in mind, the sponsors - Lotus, Lada, Proton et al were expecting a better year that 2010.

Now, they look confined to midfield at best.

You don't want to curtail your drivers to the nth degree, but seriously, allowing the participation in such a potentially dangerous activity so close to the season start, and especially during crucial limited testing days seems to me a little foolhardy.

What say folks?

---

I agree about the Rally participation part. I'm curious; do most drivers have claus' in their contracts, forbidding them from undertaking activities that are considered extremely dangerous?
For instance what if "The Boss" decided he wanted to dive off the cliffs in Acapulpo :p :
(Just kidding I meant Acapulco). If he clocked himself, and was unable to race for a season, do you think he would forfeit that portion of pay from his contract?
I bet if Flavio was his agent he would not!
Just kidding about the Flavio part.......... :s mokin:
Later!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Julle69

Here is more speculations:


I don't believe that Kimi will come back to F1 but you never know. There is again possibility for Kimi's management to make big money, so now we will know if Kimi really want to stay in rally as said...

---

While I don't see Kimi driving for Renault, there's one szenario I could imagine:

Kimi gets the Red Bull Racing seat alongside Vettel, thus keeping his Red Bull sponsorship.

RBR lend Webber, who they are not entirely happy with anyway, to their engine-supplier Renault.

That would give Renault the best available driver, Webber a number-one-drive in a competitive team, RBR a driver unlikely to complain about his team-mate being given preference (and an excellent marketing tool - vodka Red Bull anyone?) and Kimi a chance to get back to F1 without severing the ties with Red Bull.

If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Alcatraz

I agree about the Rally participation part. I'm curious; do most drivers have claus' in their contracts, forbidding them from undertaking activities that are considered extremely dangerous?
For instance what if "The Boss" decided he wanted to dive off the cliffs in Acapulpo :p :
(Just kidding I meant Acapulco). If he clocked himself, and was unable to race for a season, do you think he would forfeit that portion of pay from his contract?
I bet if Flavio was his agent he would not!
Just kidding about the Flavio part.......... :s mokin:
Later!

---

Some certainly do. Point is, if you invest a lot of money in a driver, and then even more money to insure them, it would surely make sense to ensure your premiums are kept down by limiting the exposure to dangerous sports. Of course, you could just as easily get mowed down by a bus when crossing the road...........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Some certainly do. Point is, if you invest a lot of money in a driver, and then even more money to insure them, it would surely make sense to ensure your premiums are kept down by limiting the exposure to dangerous sports. Of course, you could just as easily get mowed down by a bus when crossing the road...........

---

Yes but we know the distinction between performing acts of Daring-do, and being involved in an accident that was in no way of your own making. I'm not addressing the eventuality of the guy being "muerto"
In the case of the bus accident there would be a lawsuit against the second party.

All:
God save your majesty!


Cade:
I thank you, good people—there shall be no money; all shall eat
and drink on my score, and I will apparel them all in one livery,
that they may agree like brothers, and worship me their lord.


Dick:
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

Cade:
Nay, that I mean to do.


Henry The Sixth, Part 2 Act 4, scene 2, 71–78

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

You don't want to curtail your drivers to the nth degree, but seriously, allowing the participation in such a potentially dangerous activity so close to the season start, and especially during crucial limited testing days seems to me a little foolhardy.

What say folks?

---

In what sense is participating in a rally any more dangerous than participating in an F1 test, or going skiing, or any number of other pre-season activities that drivers indulge in?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

In what sense is participating in a rally any more dangerous than participating in an F1 test, or going skiing, or any number of other pre-season activities that drivers indulge in?

---

....or riding a mountain bike.

I say bravo to Renault (or perhaps Robert and his management) for insisting he be allowed to compete in other sports. He's not a child. He knew the risks. End of story.

Boullier says the options are Senna, Liuzzi, Heidfeld. If those are the options, then I can't see a reason to choose the other two over Heidfeld. He is the one with the most experience and probably the most speed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

In what sense is participating in a rally any more dangerous than participating in an F1 test, or going skiing, or any number of other pre-season activities that drivers indulge in?

---

Well, to begin with the medical facilities that are provided during tests coupled with the safety track record of modern F1 cars..............

Bear in mind Robert 'lost a lot of blood' and was 'trapped in the car' for some time...............................

Also, did you notice the steep drop to the side of the road on the video posted earlier........

Sadly, Roberts accident, although freak, need not have happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Well, to begin with the medical facilities that are provided during tests coupled with the safety track record of modern F1 cars..............

Bear in mind Robert 'lost a lot of blood' and was 'trapped in the car' for some time...............................

Also, did you notice the steep drop to the side of the road on the video posted earlier........

Sadly, Roberts accident, although freak, need not have happened.

---

The issue of the crashworthiness of S2000 rally cars — and I am, as I said in another thread, very surprised indeed that it should have been possible for the barrier to pierce the car as it did — is an entirely separate matter from whether or not he should have been allowed to compete at all. There is no need at all, other than perhaps financially, to prevent F1 drivers from undertaking such 'extra-curricular' activities. Would you seek to prevent them from skiing, for example? How would one measure the potential danger of one activity compared to another? I am delighted that Renault never stopped Kubica from rallying, and think all teams should adopt the same approach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Would you seek to prevent them from skiing, for example?

---

How long, on average, do broken limbs take to heal? I'd suggest a clause in a drivers contract, vis a vis skiing, that prevents participation within 2 months of the start or during an F1 season. Thus allowing for participation in such activities, but not so that their main employment - F1 - is jeopardised should injury occur.

Personally, given the sums invested in drivers, I'd say that was common sense, and moreover good business sense?

How much do Lotus/Renault stand to lose in prize money alone due to the loss of Robert for this season?

If the teams want to be inhuman corporate monsters, sure, as long as it's clear when the driver signs the contract. But surely you wouldn't want to force the teams to add such a clause, right..?

Personally I'm delighted Robert was allowed to participate in such an activity; the drivers should still be allowed to live and have some fun even if it is at a certain risk. Sure, money this and money that and it's all very important I'm sure, but I still get a fuzzy feeling whenever there is actually a sense of humanism and good ol' fun involved in such a high profit sport in this day and age.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

How long, on average, do broken limbs take to heal? I'd suggest a clause in a drivers contract, vis a vis skiing, that prevents participation within 2 months of the start or during an F1 season. Thus allowing for participation in such activities, but not so that their main employment - F1 - is jeopardised should injury occur.

---

But, as you say, what happened to Kubica was a freak occurrence. It is entirely possible that he could 'just' have broken a limb in the accident, but it turned out rather worse. An even greater probability, if we're looking at this statistically, is that he would have completed the rally unscathed. Sadly, he didn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

But, as you say, what happened to Kubica was a freak occurrence. It is entirely possible that he could 'just' have broken a limb in the accident, but it turned out rather worse. An even greater probability, if we're looking at this statistically, is that he would have completed the rally unscathed. Sadly, he didn't.

---

But, if he had 'just' have broken a leg, he'd still miss the start of the season and the all important testing. If he'd broken the leg in December, chances are it would have healed.........

So, perhaps don't operate a blanket ban, just a 'sensible window of allowable time to do extra curricular stuff'........

I'm firmly on the side of letting drivers take risks. Not stupid ones, but taking part in an organised rally seems perfectly sensible. What about Adrian Newey's racing exploits? I seem to remember last year somebody fearing that he was jeapordising Red Bull's championship chances.

Getting behind the wheel helps keep drivers fit and sharp, if that brings a negligable risk then so be it. He could just as easily slipped in the shower.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

But, if he had 'just' have broken a leg, he'd still miss the start of the season and the all important testing. If he'd broken the leg in December, chances are it would have healed.........

So, perhaps don't operate a blanket ban, just a 'sensible window of allowable time to do extra curricular stuff'........

---

So you would prohibit any current driver from taking part in the Goodwood Revival, then, if they wanted to (and as Dario Franchitti does)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

So you would prohibit any current driver from taking part in the Goodwood Revival, then, if they wanted to (and as Dario Franchitti does)?

---

I think so, yes, and for the reasons I stipulated before - look where Lotus Renault are right now. As for the Festival of Speed I would allow participation in this but stipulate they not drive the car on the limit for obvious reasons.

Simply because of the limited testing, there is little scope for keeping your reserve driver up to speed with current machinery. I am sure the insurance money will help, but that won't win races.

But I don't care where Renault 'are now'. Their driver is injured and needs to be replaced. They probably (surely?) won't do as well in 2011 as a result. Does this concern me? No. These things happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

But I don't care where Renault 'are now'. Their driver is injured and needs to be replaced. They probably (surely?) won't do as well in 2011 as a result. Does this concern me? No. These things happen.

---

Would it concern you if you were running the team?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Would it concern you if you were running the team?

---

Were I a team owner/boss, I would not prevent any of my drivers from doing anything they want to in the off-season, on the grounds that the statistical probability of something happening is so small as not to merit being 'regulated' against. For years, F1 drivers habitually took part in other forms of motorsport, and I would very much like to see that being the case again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maxter

If the teams want to be inhuman corporate monsters, sure, as long as it's clear when the driver signs the contract. But surely you wouldn't want to force the teams to add such a clause, right..?

Personally I'm delighted Robert was allowed to participate in such an activity; the drivers should still be allowed to live and have some fun even if it is at a certain risk. Sure, money this and money that and it's all very important I'm sure, but I still get a fuzzy feeling whenever there is actually a sense of humanism and good ol' fun involved in such a high profit sport in this day and age.

---

Are you kidding me - I am paying a driver 10 million per year and have no contract to regulate his activities - Not something I would do as a team owner. So now I have to find another driver. Do I still pay Robert? Say I pick Hulk and I think he is better - do I get to cut Robert when he heals. F1 is a big dollar sport and living you life is making it and getting paid huge amounts of money. Robert has shown arrogance and disrespect for the team who is paying him a ton of money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RS

Boullier says the options are Senna, Liuzzi, Heidfeld. If those are the options, then I can't see a reason to choose the other two over Heidfeld. He is the one with the most experience and probably the most speed.

---

I don't know, Renault is not a factory team any more and lately their decisions have been business (money) driven so there could be a situation where Brazilian sponsors help Senna to get the drive. Senna in black and gold Lotus...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roamy

Are you kidding me - I am paying a driver 10 million per year and have no contract to regulate his activities - Not something I would do as a team owner. So now I have to find another driver. Do I still pay Robert? Say I pick Hulk and I think he is better - do I get to cut Robert when he heals. F1 is a big dollar sport and living you life is making it and getting paid huge amounts of money. Robert has shown arrogance and disrespect for the team who is paying him a ton of money.

---

No, he hasn't. The team was fully aware of what he was doing. They could have prevented him from rallying, but they chose not to, quite rightly.

So would you stop Webber riding his Mountain bike.

Calculate the potential risk vs potential gain .

The gains:
Some of these guys are addicts , and need to race . Denying this is folly , as they feel hemmed in , and become unhappy , waiting .
And , even though this is a completely different discipline , it certainly keeps the car control reflexes sharp , which is important , off season .
The possibility that they do well in another racing series only can add to the press that the team receives already , just from the actual entry .

But , somehow , Renault has forgotten that , to mitigate the risk that one takes , it is often wise to have a solid back-up plan in waiting .

The risk:
It is what happened to Robert .

They may be in luck , though .
Jacques should take his place , and by the time Robert comes back they will have realized they don't need Petrov's cash .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roamy

Are you kidding me - I am paying a driver 10 million per year and have no contract to regulate his activities - Not something I would do as a team owner. So now I have to find another driver. Do I still pay Robert? Say I pick Hulk and I think he is better - do I get to cut Robert when he heals. F1 is a big dollar sport and living you life is making it and getting paid huge amounts of money. Robert has shown arrogance and disrespect for the team who is paying him a ton of money.

---

You're right on that , cowboy , but I would think that if you were going to let someone do these things , you would get something in return for this risk .
Whether you get them for less , or the insurance covers it , you shouldn't out of pocket in the long run .

Fact is , though , if there's no "plan B" , yer screwed .

Unless there happens to be a WDC around , looking for a seat .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

You're right on that , cowboy , but I would think that if you were going to let someone do these things , you would get something in return for this risk .
Whether you get them for less , or the insurance covers it , you shouldn't out of pocket in the long run .

Fact is , though , if there's no "plan B" , yer screwed .

Unless there happens to be a WDC around , looking for a seat .

---

Yea and they keep digging up Nick who has never won sh!t - But oh no lets not go with a winner. It is ok because the championship will be down to alonso vetted and hamilton and the rest of the teams will be fighting over the scraps and spending themselves broke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

No, he hasn't. The team was fully aware of what he was doing. They could have prevented him from rallying, but they chose not to, quite rightly.

---

Indeed. It's not like he went behind anybody's back or breached his contract, so I can't see how he would be blamed here.

Whether it was smart or enough of the team to let him rally is another question, though I've already stated my opinion about that as well. That's just a matter of viewpoint and opinion and I have no illusion or want to successfully "convert" anyone, I'll just state once again that I'm happy money doesn't always come first.

Plus, accidents with outcomes even close to this in S2000/equal cars are just so rare nowadays. If the team would have forbidden him to race they might just as well have forbidden him to walk out of his front door.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maxter

Indeed. It's not like he went behind anybody's back or breached his contract, so I can't see how he would be blamed here.

Whether it was smart or enough of the team to let him rally is another question, though I've already stated my opinion about that as well. That's just a matter of viewpoint and opinion and I have no illusion or want to successfully "convert" anyone, I'll just state once again that I'm happy money doesn't always come first.

Plus, accidents with outcomes even close to this in S2000/equal cars are just so rare nowadays. If the team would have forbidden him to race they might just as well have forbidden him to walk out of his front door.

---

well thank god I am not paying you 10mil to drive. It just shows you the disrespect by the current crop of drivers. And yes probably a handful of them are not competent enough to walk out their front door. So you want all the freedom and all the money too. Well a Pig gets fatter and a Hog gets slaughtered. Ole Kub may never even make it back to F1 and when he does he may be driving for HRT