Petrov and Senna not good enough – Trulli

F1 Fanatic round-up

In the round-up: Jarno Trulli criticises teams who hire “those who pay” as speculation surrounds his future with his current team.

Links

Top F1 links from the past 24 hours:

Pay drivers ‘uncommitted’ says Trulli (ESPN)

Robert [Kubica] is a great driver who can get the very best from the car. Because of that they were a dark horse. When Robert was out, that was the end. Petrov was not in a position to lead the team, and Senna showed that he was not good enough.”

Berger – STR did the right thing (Sky Sports)

“The demands at Red Bull are very high, as we know, and these two [Alguersuari and Buemi] are at the best average.”

Abu Dhabi?s Aldar receives further bail-out (FT, registration required)

“Aldar, the struggling Abu Dhabi property developer, has received a second government bail-out package worth about $4.6bn, raising the bill for state assistance this year to almost $10bn.”

Mercedes on target with 2014 engines (James Allen)

Mercedes engine chief Andy Cowell: “The engines are high-revving. You don?t get the maximum fuel flow rate until you are above 10,500rpm, and the maximum revs are at 15,000rpm.??

Mann?s world a potent mix of dynamism, courage and a begging bowl (The Times, subscription required)

“In Europe, doing GP2 would cost at least ??1 million and double that for a good team, so it is not much different. But I have good relationships in the United States and people seem to want to help.”

Kubica loss ‘biggest blow’ to Renault (Autosport)

Eric Boullier: “We don’t know how much it cost us, because maybe part of the development of the forward exhausts could have been done differently with the comments of Robert.”

Follow F1 news as it breaks using the F1 Fanatic live Twitter app.

Comment of the day

Sean Newman offers some perspective on the race ratings published yesterday:

The best racing for four years? Well the most passing yes for sure. The new-for-2011 combination of Pirelli, KERS and DRS, plus the more prevalent safety car periods promised the more unpredictable results that we crave. Yet somehow we got more one car, one driver domination.

You can only blame the rule makers for not making a more level playing field. DRS has devalued the art of overtaking and in my view it?s an unnecessary and unmitigated disaster. KERS I can live with because it can be deployed anywhere and at any time provided some is left. Also as in the old days of unreliability it adds an element of uncertainty, which is good. Pirelli have been great at mixing it up (not so much latterly) and I hope they continue to be brave with their compound choices.

So rulemakers, get rid of DRS and 75% of the downforce and next year will be even better.
Sean Newman

From the forum

Younger Hamii asks what should be done to increase strategies?

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to JSC!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling, using Twitter or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

On this day in 2009 Marc Gene claimed Michael Schumacher would have made his F1 comeback with Ferrari instead of Mercedes had the team been allowed to run a third car:

Advert | Go Ad-free

95 comments on Petrov and Senna not good enough – Trulli

  1. Franton said on 29th December 2011, 0:04

    A bit rich of Trulli to say that, considering how low he sank in recent years. (Trulli Train anyone?)

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 29th December 2011, 0:12

      Especially when you consider the way he criticises Petrov and Senna for “underperforming” in a car that was obviously terrible in the second half of the season – particularly at Singapore – when he himself was very quick to blame a faulty power steering system on his lacklustre performances in the middle of the season.

      Like I said when I posted the story last night: I think Trulli just feels threatened by the idea of someone replacing him. I’m guessing that person could be Petrov, since Trulli seems to have more contempt for him than he does Senna. I can’t think of any other reason for him to criticise Renault’s driver choices if he wasn’t feeling the pinch, and so he has gone for the softest target he can find.

    • Fer no.65 (@fer-no65) said on 29th December 2011, 0:12

      that doesn’t mean he’s wrong, and it doesn’t mean he cannot have his word either.

      The fact of the matter is that Petrov did better than in 2010 (as expected), but never good enough. The same happened with Senna. Neither impressed.

      So Renault got Kimi and Grosjean instead. A much better line-up on all grounds: speed, experience, age…

      • Regardless of whether one agrees with your assessment of these drivers, the basic point still stands: Trulli is not exactly one to be throwing stones with regard to performance, after the season he just had.

        • Mike (@mike) said on 29th December 2011, 2:35

          … Ignoring whether Trulli should say this or that… Do you think he is wrong?

          • Yamashita said on 29th December 2011, 7:35

            Trully right!!

          • @mike Yes, I do think he’s wrong, for many of the reasons others have mentioned here. Petrov and Heidfeld were fairly even in the first half of the season, if I recall correctly, and once Heidfeld was gone it was the car that went downhill, not the drivers. Renault’s interesting choice of exhaust configuration apparently resulted in them not being able to develop the car the way they needed to, or it at least made it very difficult. So, although I don’t think Heidfeld did anything that merited him getting booted unceremoniously off the team the way he was, I also don’t think Renault’s problems from then on was a result of their driver choices. I especially take issue with those who are overly critical of Senna, being put in that car halfway through the season. What, exactly, were people expecting?

            As for taking shots at “pay drivers” in general, as though they’re some monolithic class uniformly lacking talent or commitment — that’s something that will always irritate me. In Trulli’s case, I think it’s pretty transparently a case of someone whose best days are behind him grasping at straws when he feels threatened. So, what — avoid hiring “those who pay” in favor of…hiring someone like him?

          • Petrov and Heidfeld were not even. Not by a long shot. Heidfeld, as seen in other years, had problems qualifying. But on race pace Petrov was well behind.

            I wouldn’t particularly criticize Senna or Petrov. Given their circumstances they did quite well I think. However, I do criticism Boullier for allowing his team to have what was one of the weakest line ups of the year.

            monolithic class uniformly lacking talent or commitment

            I believe when the term “pay driver” is used. That’s exactly what it means.

          • I wouldn’t particularly criticize Senna or Petrov. Given their circumstances they did quite well I think. However, I do criticism Boullier

            I see — don’t blame the no-talent hacks, blame the guy who hired them?

            Seriously, though, on the basis of Heidfeld’s race-pace advantage earlier in the season, how well do you think he would have done in that car in the second half of the season? I’m guessing he would have done a decent job in a bad car, just like he did a decent job in a better car while he was there, but I don’t think he was going to be knocking anyone’s socks off — not in that car!

            And pointing out Heidfeld’s points total relative to Petrov’s at the end of the season was a bit ridiculous on Trulli’s part, I thought. Sure, we’ll never know with 100% certainty whether Heidfeld would have been racking up the points left and right had he stayed on — but that car became, by all accounts, a dog, and it seems pretty unlikely.

            I have yet to see a persuasive argument that Renault’s car design is not the main factor that ruined their season for them. I’m not sure even Kubica being there would have helped hugely.

            I believe when the term “pay driver” is used. That’s exactly what it means.

            Often it’s used as a pejorative term, but sometimes it’s used merely descriptively; for the sake of the point I’m trying to make, though, replace it with Trulli’s own words in this interview: “those who pay.” I still think it’s inaccurate and insulting to generalize about such drivers and their lack of commitment. Would he say the same about, say, Sergio Perez. I suppose he might, if it suited his purposes.

          • @aka_robyn

            Boullier wants Renault to be a strong team. To do this, you need a decent line up. I don’t know how it happened, but you can’t say straight faced that Petrov-Senna is a desirable line up for a team as ambitious as Renault.

            pointing out Heidfeld’s points total

            I agree, that’s a cheap shot.

            I won’t argue that car development, or lack there of, was their biggest problem. However, more could have been achieved with a better line up.

          • @mike No, I’d agree that Petrov/Senna would be few people’s dream team, at least in terms of their current levels of consistency/experience. What might have happened if at least one of their drivers had been someone closer to or at the top level, even given the car’s late-season performance? I guess we’ll never know.

            I do think their lineup for next season could end up being very exciting. Do you approve of the choice of Räikkönen and Grosjean?

          • Mike (@mike) said on 31st December 2011, 1:29

            @aka_robyn

            I think it should be a good line up. Kimi is the big name they needed. So that’s good.

            As for Grosjean, I think he will be good. At least in terms of a rookie. If he can at least compete with Kimi, It’ll make his career. So there’s a bit of pressure on him I think. I like that he has some real guts in his driving. As seen here.

      • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 29th December 2011, 0:26

        I’d be very interested to hear what he has to say if his seat was under threat from someone like Adrian Sutil. Sutil has his personal sponsor – Medion – but their money would not be a condition of Sutil’s contract with a team like Caterham, even if that money was used to buy Trulli out of his contract. They would be at the team because Sutil is at the team. Sutil would basically be Trulli 2.0: he’s younger and stronger, and during his time at Force India, the team went from the back to the grid to an all-time high in the Constructors’ Championship (and very nearly caught Renault in the process). He can do everything that Trulli did for Caterham, and he can do it for longer, because Trulli has, at most, only one or two seasons left in him. But in order to replace Trulli, Sutil would have to buy him out – so I’d be very interested to see if Trulli thinks the same thing of Sutil as he does Senna and Petrov.

        • Enigma (@enigma) said on 29th December 2011, 1:04

          Not sure what Trulli would say about Sutil but I’m sure he’d have pictures.

          • Hahahaha! Man, I wish I’d thought of that. :-D

          • Can anyone explain the “Trulli and pictures” comment to me, please? :)

            I already saw that some time ago (in reference to the whole “Sutil & champagne glass” affair), but my Google-jitsu is failing me.

          • George (@george) said on 29th December 2011, 2:12

            @perf In Brazil (think it was 2009), Trulli and Sutil had an on-track incident, which as far as I remember neither got penalized for, although it put both out of the race. Afterwards, they’re in a press conference together and Trulli pulls out a lot of large photographs to prove it was Sutil’s fault, which pretty much everyone laughed at.

            Here’s the conference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfRVctse_KQ

          • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 29th December 2011, 2:25

            Afterwards, they’re in a press conference together and Trulli pulls out a lot of large photographs to prove it was Sutil’s fault, which pretty much everyone laughed at.

            I believed everyone laughed because that press conference was held two weeks later in Abu Dhabi and Trulli simply would not let it go.

      • deanmachine (@deanmachine) said on 29th December 2011, 7:55

        I don’t think you could really put Grosjean into the “speed, experience, age” categories, not saying that he won’t be quick this time round, but he is still a bit of an unknown quantity in a decent F1 car.

    • Exactly. Pot, kettle.

  2. Lin1876 (@lin1876) said on 29th December 2011, 0:18

    Pay drivers not committed? I know we all think of Jean-Diniz Deletraz and the ilk, but don’t let’s forget that Nikki Lauda was a pay driver at March in the early 70s! Nevertheless, Renault have done the right thing. Petrov and Senna was a decent line-up, Raikkonen and Grosjean is potentially explosive.

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 29th December 2011, 0:29

      Raikkonen and Grosjean is potentially explosive.

      When I read that, the first thing that came to mind was the track marshalls picking up bits of carbon fibre from a dozen cars at the first corner in Melbourne.

      Whatever potential Raikkonen and Grosjean have is likely to be undermined by Renault’s constant mismanagement.

      • natkid (@natkid) said on 29th December 2011, 14:53

        track marshalls picking up bits of carbon fibre from a dozen cars at the first corner in Melbourne.

        you referring to the 2001 Melbourne accident involving Villeneuve resulting in a race marshall killed and prior to the race Villeneuve said the inexperienced Raikkonen “might kill someone”
        i love that karma :D

    • Burnout (@burnout) said on 29th December 2011, 8:07

      Raikkonen and Grosjean is potentially explosive.

      Not sure that’s a good idea. Heidfeld already proved that the Renault cars themselves were explosive!

    • topdowntoedown (@topdowntoedown) said on 29th December 2011, 10:20

      Alonso is also a pay-driver at Ferrari. Think I’m right in saying that $40m from Santander is conditional on him racing for them…

      • Days of Thunder said on 29th December 2011, 10:45

        I would rather say sponsor attraction driver, Alonso already double world champion before Santander-Ferrari not a pay driver with 0 championship or an unpromising driver.

        • Alonso is the best driver on the grid, so its only natural that he would attract a large sponsorship like that.
          I think pay drivers have their place in F1. Not all teams have the huge dollars to seat the best talent. You can’t win without having a fast car, no matter how good the driver is. So if those extra dollars can help the smaller teams become more competitive, then that is the way to go. Then one day they might be in a position to decide whether the pay driver is good enough, or if they have the money to find someone better.
          Petrov is by far the best pay driver on the grid at the moment.

  3. F1andy83 said on 29th December 2011, 0:32

    I love these drivers who haven’t accomplished anything saying other drivers who also haven’t accomplished anything can’t drive.

  4. matt90 (@matt90) said on 29th December 2011, 1:04

    Well, if anybody has a right to say that, I suppose it’s Trul… oh wait no that can’t be right.

  5. Mr.Zing Zang said on 29th December 2011, 1:16

    I like how Berger said Alguesuari and Buemi are average at best. I think so too.

  6. George (@george) said on 29th December 2011, 1:31

    I disagree with the CotD, mostly this part:

    You can only blame the rule makers for not making a more level playing field.

    The rules are the same for everyone, the fact that Red Bull (or Vettel, more specifically) got the most out of them is down entirely to their hard work and ingenuity.

    In my opinion we did get better racing than the last few years. 2008 is pretty much remembered for two races, and they were both wet and chaotic. 2009 was terrible and 2010 wasn’t much better.

    The beginning of 2011 was the first period in a long time where we had several dry races producing close and tense racing. The reason for this I think can be put down to one thing: lack of testing. As the teams got more mileage on the Pirellis they learned how to use them better, how to make them last longer, and races became more predictable.

    Oh, and funny how Trulli (who gave up his seat for a pay driver because he didn’t like his power steering) is accusing others of being uncommited :D.

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 29th December 2011, 1:35

      2009 was terrible and 2010 wasn’t much better.

      How is a championship where the winning driver never actually leads the championship until his main rivals finish the final race of the season a bad thing? Even if the racing was occasionally a little bland, 2010 had one of the most intense title fights in the sport’s history with four contenders going into the final race. Not even the Hunt-Lauda battle of 1976 (where I do believe Hunt never actually led the championship until he won it) could match Vettel-Webber-Alonso-Hamilton.

      • George (@george) said on 29th December 2011, 1:47

        We’re talking about racing, not title battles. In the end the title battle was completely ruined by the fact Alonso couldn’t get past Petrov.

        • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 29th December 2011, 1:50

          You make out that the title fight was over the minute Alonso came out behind Petrov. It wasn’t.

          • George (@george) said on 29th December 2011, 1:54

            No, but it was over well before the end. That race was pretty much like the whole of the 2011 season, Vettel disappearing into the distance while everyone else squabbles over scraps.

          • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 29th December 2011, 2:24

            You actually expected it to be like 2008, with the title decided at the last corner of the last lap? If you did, don’t you think your expectations might have been a little bit unreasonable, since the 2008 title decided was the result of a mid-race downpour and varying strategies?

          • George (@george) said on 29th December 2011, 2:30

            I dont get why you’re trying to swing this conversation towards the title when I’m talking about racing. Abu Dhabi 2010 contained very little, end of discussion.

          • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 29th December 2011, 2:40

            No, but reading your comments, you gave the distinct impression that you felt a good race was a foregone conclusion simply because Abu Dhabi was the final race of the season, and that you were basing this assumption on the quality of racing witnessed in previous title deciders.

          • George (@george) said on 29th December 2011, 2:48

            Actually you’re the one who seems to think it was a foregone conclusion, as the only positive thing you have to say about it is that it was a 4-way championship decider.

          • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 29th December 2011, 2:58

            Nope, I didn’t think that at all, and I have no idea where you’re getting the idea that I did. I simply mistook the original intention of your post, because it was a little unclear what you were talking about, hence why I thought you were talking about championships rather than individual races.

          • Mike (@mike) said on 29th December 2011, 3:03

            I for once agree with PM, Alonso couldn’t get past Petrov, isn’t that Alonso’s problem?

            I want to add, That I dunno about you guys, but each year there are never more than say, at the very most a couple of races I’m really disappointed with. Even when my drivers do rubbish, I still enjoy each lap of each race. Even when there’s no passing, even when the safety car is brought out for 30 laps. I love every minute.

            I hope you guys feel them same, because I hear so many people saying that there was only two good races or other stuff like that. And it saddens me to be honest.

            Maybe I just am easy to please.

          • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 29th December 2011, 3:27

            I’m the same. I thoroughly enjoyed the Alonso-Petrov battle at Abu Dhabi, even if it fizzled out towards the end of the race when it became apparent that even if Alonso passed Petrov, he would not be able to catch and pass Rosberg in time. I enjoyed it not because it meant Alonso lost the championship, but because Alonso would have had to produce a champion’s drive to secure the title – just as Vettel needed to produce a champion’s drive in Brazil and Abu Dhabi to come from behind and claim the title after his disaster in Korea, which is exactly what he did. Petrov standing between Alonso and the title meant that the best man on the day was going to be World Champion – and the best man was.

          • George (@george) said on 29th December 2011, 3:28

            @prisoner-monkeys I did start the paragraph with this:

            In my opinion we did get better racing than the last few years.

            Seems pretty obvious to me.

            @Mike

            Alonso couldn’t get past Petrov, isn’t that Alonso’s problem?

            Yep, but it did mean he was never close to beating Vettel in the championship, it’s just one of those things. If he only needed to beat Petrov to win it would have been exciting, but once he couldn’t catch the guy he needed there was no longer any tension.

            On boring races:
            I quite happily sit through 5/10 races, but then I forget them. In 2008 there are two that stick in my mind, being Spa and Interlagos, and I imagine that’s the same for most people.

          • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 29th December 2011, 6:56

            it did mean he was never close to beating Vettel in the championship

            What do you mean? Going into Abu Dhabi, Alonso had 246 points. Vettel had 231.

            If he only needed to beat Petrov to win it would have been exciting

            He did – to begin with. If he got past Petrov he would have been in a position to leapfrog Roberg and Kubica when they made their stops. This meant he would have finished fourth, and would have become champion. But then Petrov started backing him up, and it became apparent that passing Petrov would not be enough; he would have needed to reel in Rosberg, too, because Kubica was third on the road and needed to pit. And when Kubica did finally pit, it became obvious that Alonso would not be able to do anything.

            Ferrari’s mistake was in assuming that Mark Webber would be Alonso’s title rival. While Alonso had a 15-point lead over Vettel, he only had 8 on Webber, and if Webber finished ahead of him, it could easily be a disaster. That’s why they reacted to Webber’s stop and not to Vettel’s. Even if (as the conspiracy theorists believe) Red Bull pitted Webber early to lure Ferrari into trapping Alonso behind Petrov and into a position where he could not win the title, Ferrari still took the bait.

          • Ilanin (@ilanin) said on 31st December 2011, 10:28

            The title fight was over before that – when Alonso unnecessarily pitted to follow Webber. A strategy that relies on overtaking at Abu Dhabi?

  7. wasiF1 (@wasif1) said on 29th December 2011, 2:33

    What’s wrong with Trulli?

  8. Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 29th December 2011, 4:12

    So rulemakers, get rid of DRS and 75% of the downforce and next year will be even better.

    The problem is that the teams fight to keep as much downforce as possible. The rules were overhauled in 2009 to cut downforce levels, but by the middle of 2010, the cars were generating more downforce than they had at the end of 2008. And we saw this tendency to fight things at Silverstone this year. The teams agreed to bans on blown diffusers, but then turned around and applied for all manner of exemptions to the ban (and tried to get everyone else’s appeals rejected) to try and keep as much downforce as possible, because they knew that more downforce meant more speed. So long as the teams can generate more aerodynamic grip than mechanical, they will keep relying on it. As soon as regulations are introduced to cut downforce levels, the teams will go over them with a fine-toothed comb, looking for loopholes to exploit. And short of limiting front and rear wings to a single plane and introducing a spec floor that allows for ground effects, I can’t see any major changes coming any time soon. The races would be incredible to watch then, but the teams will resist change if they think it will cost them downforce. For all their posturing about “improving the show”, each and every team will happily sacrifice “the show” if and when they find something that will give them an advantage over the rest of the field.

    • SempreGilles (@sempregilles) said on 29th December 2011, 11:18

      The problem is that the teams fight to keep as much downforce as possible.

      This is more of a consequence of the current regulations. Aerodynamics is about the only thing on a car you can change to get more speed out of it (and thus beating your opponents).

      • sumedh said on 29th December 2011, 14:12

        This is not a consequence of the regulations. It is a consequence of technology.

        Even if all the engine regulations were unfrozen and teams allowed to use custom-made superfast tyres, aerodynamic force would still be the only thing that would help the car go faster around circuits.

        This is because at high speed, mechanical grip is dwarfed by aerodynamic grip. And engines are heavy, hence whatever high speed they generate is offset by its own increase in weight.

        • HoHum (@hohum) said on 29th December 2011, 22:25

          @sumedh ,you are right about aerodynamics but wrong about engine development, extra power does not mean extra weight (given a capacity limit) and in fact the regulations ban lightweight alloys ( that are available in road-going cars) in the mistaken belief that they are “expensive” to use.

  9. Tiago Carvalho (@tiagocomodoro) said on 29th December 2011, 4:32

    Trulli should say good-bye, nobody likes him anymore, except Fernandes! haha

    • KeeleyObsessed (@keeleyobsessed) said on 29th December 2011, 13:38

      @Tiago-Carvalho I like Trulli, he’s been in F1 for as long as I’ve been watching it (and a bit extra)…

      Although, I suppose I have been called nobody before.. :P

      But seriously, Trulli has a point, it may have been put quite bluntly in that quote/article, but he has a point.. I still wonder why they dropped Heidfeld midway through the season despite the fact he was the team ‘leader’ (and by that, I mean he was leading Petrov, not that he was the best driver in the team. The team clearly missed out on a good trick when Kubica crashed)

      • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 29th December 2011, 21:24

        @KeeleyObsessed

        I still wonder why they dropped Heidfeld midway through the season

        He was being thrashed by Petrov in qualifying, and Petrov is no Kubica. I don’t think that car was getting results that were anywhere near what it was capable of after round two.

  10. Faisal Iqbal Roxna (@faisaliqbalroxna) said on 29th December 2011, 5:11

    I absolutely agree with Jarno Trulli. What he may say might taste bitter to some people, but it is the absolute truth. Senna & Petrov are in F1 just because of their surname & money respectively.

    Trulli was a great guy, until Flavio backstabbed him back in 2004. He saw Trulli to be a serious threat to Alonso in 2005. I believe Trulli would have given Alonso a run for his money.

    But pay drivers have existed in this sport since the very beginning. We’ve got to accept this fact.

    While one can excuse Bruno for this below average performances, since he was never allowed to go kart because of Ayrton’s tragic death, Petrov has absolutely no excuse. He has underperformed abysmally. He is a real liability for Renault. All the money that he brings onboard is negated by his lack of talent.

    But again, is Trulli should be talking about this. Since his switch to Toyota back in 04, he has become a shadow of his former self. He has gained notoriety by holding up people in races. Its best he calls it quits.

    thank you.

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 29th December 2011, 5:57

      Petrov has absolutely no excuse. He has underperformed abysmally.

      When Heidfeld left the team, he had 34 points to Petrov’s 32. After that, Renault collapsed. Petrov scored 5 points for the rest of the season, while Senna picked up 2. I seriously doubt Heidfeld could have done much better than that if he had stayed with the team. By Renault’s own admission, they failed to develop the R31, and so fell down the order. While they had a car that was capable of scoring podiums at the start of the season, by the time they got to Abu Dhabi, scoring even two points required a massive effort. Petrov even said that by the end of the season, just finishing in the top ten felt like scoring a podium.

      He is a real liability for Renault. All the money that he brings onboard is negated by his lack of talent.

      That’s open to debate. The real liability at Renault is Renault – the team fundamentally was mis-managed from the start of the European season. Eric Boullier made some utterly bizarre decisions during the 2011 season.

    • GameR_K (@gamer_k) said on 29th December 2011, 6:07

      Petrov never karted, he came though LADA championship so why should only Bruno get the exemption?

    • PieLighter (@pielighter) said on 29th December 2011, 6:08

      @faisaliqbalroxna
      Summed it up perfectly, that deserves COTD.

    • Fernando Cruz said on 29th December 2011, 20:21

      Senna and Petrov were second in GP2 (2008 and 2009). They have results to be where they are regardless of the surname or the money. Trulli also forgets talent is not enough these days, drivers have to take money to get a seat. Trulli himself could have started his F1 career as a pay driver if it was like today in his time.

      Anyway, Senna had no time yet to show what he could do, as he entered with Renault only in the 12th GP. In an entire season, in equal terms with other drivers, he can do much better than he did racing only in 8 GP.s with a decent car.

  11. deanmachine (@deanmachine) said on 29th December 2011, 7:51

    I completely agree with Berger.

    I really don’t see the fuss surrounding Buemi and Alguersuari they’ve done absolutely nothing in there few years at Toro Rosso, many people say that Jaime should be given another chance because of his performance this year, which all I can remember him really doing was decent qualifying at Spa at his third attempt at the track in F1.

    Yeah he may be good for another average team, but Red Bull aren’t looking for average, and who can blame them? I don’t think Ferrari or McLaren would back them for as long as Red Bull backed them either.

    • celeste (@celeste) said on 29th December 2011, 15:29

      I agree too. I neve understood why everybody was so shocked about it.

      If any I totally call it with my family, I think I will win more money predicting wich drivers aren´t gonna keep their seats that wich driver is gonna win the race :P

  12. Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 29th December 2011, 8:37

    After my little tirade against Autosport for making headline news out of month-old stories, I find it very interesting that they make no mention of Trulli slamming Petrov and Senna, which is actual news …

    • That interview with Trulli in longer form was posted on Autosport’s site 6 days ago on 23rd under title Trulli says Caterham is ready to score its maiden F1 points finish in 2012.

      Funny thing is it was included here in the round-up for that day. Talking about ”making headline news out of days-old story”…

      • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 29th December 2011, 21:28

        I must admit I hadn’t seen those quotes had already been in an earlier article elsewhere – if I had I wouldn’t have used them today.

        I’m afraid not all sites are conscientious about crediting original sources and that makes tracing the origins of articles very difficult. I’m happy to give Autosport the credit they deserve.

  13. BasCB (@bascb) said on 29th December 2011, 8:52

    Happy Birthday to JSC! Celebrate it while the year lasts :-)

  14. Days of Thunder said on 29th December 2011, 9:56

    Interesting there from Mercedes 2014, would like to see Schumacher hangs on till 2014 but i’m afraid his speed might shed off couple of tenth more. By the way it would be great to see Schumy back with Ferrari eventhough it is a slim chance

  15. I genuinely think Trulli is wrong. Petrov was a lot more consistent this year and I think has potential and a decent amount of speed. Senna came in and was bang on the pace. He was inconsistent but he did on occasion show speed which was impressive given his time out. Plus, the Renault was just awful this year. Who cares whether they’re pay drivers? So was Lauda at one point. You need a decent amount of money just to be able to buy a kart never mind get into F1 and that’s the real problem not whether these guys are talented or not because to me, they are.

    • I disagree about Petrov, he started the year well but he quickly returned to his inconsistent formerself. After scoring points in three of the first four races, he never scored points in at least two consecutive races again. He was more consistent in qualifying, but he often couldn’t translate that into points. With Senna, he started reasonably well, but silly errors and a lack of consistency looks really bad on him for me. Renault in my opinion have done the right thing in dropping both of them.

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.