Public Group active 21 minutes ago
I think with his DNFs and lost running time in practices, Renault couldn’t have been as strong as they could have been.
But that’s what you get when you bring a rookie on board I guess…
Specially after MSC difficulties with the car.
With a driver consistent enought, the 2nd Renault would’ve got in the way of MSC, thus both getting points and pushing MSC out of the top 10.
And he’d picked points when Kubica retired.
For a car that started 2nd at Monaco and Spa, and 3rd at Suzuka, just scoring 4 times (just 1 top 5) it’s both dissapointing and ridiculous.
I’m reminded of Spa (quali I think?) when Petrov decided to see how slippery the kerbs were.
Quite slippery it seems!
Robert Kubica – 126
Vitaly Petrov – 19
Kamui Kobayashi – 32
Nico Hulkenberg – 22
It’s amazing to think Petrov and Kubica are the same age. Sure Kubica has had 4 years more experience but still the gap is ridiculous. If he keeps that drive I will be amazed, when he crashed in Brazil practice you could tell he was a man who knew he was going to lose his drive.
(Nothing to do with the thread but he was mentioned)
Schumacher, say what you will about him but the last few races have been great performances, I believe he’s on par with Nico now and will be a strong contender next year if the car is right. Don’t forget, Schumi had barely any testing before the season and had to deal with a fully fueled car, different aero, different tyres, and tracks he will only have tried in a simulator. If he matches Nico at Abu Dhabi it will be his best result of the season.
Kubica has spent all his racing career in europe driving single seaters and is in his 3rd year of F1. Petrov has spent his career in Russia Ice racing and in his first year of F1. There’s not a lot of legitimate comparison to make.
4 Mercedes GP 202
5 Renault 145
7 Nico Rosberg 130
8 Robert Kubica 126
9 Michael Schumacher 72
15 Vitaly Petrov 19
So if say Glock had been in a Renault, how many points would he have gotten, 70-80? Almost definatley more than that, an that would have been enough for Renault to get fourth. No question Petrov has cost Renault fourth spot, lost them millions and therefore costs more than his sponsership probably brings.
However, if Mercedes had two drivers performing at full capacity for the whole season, Renault might never have got the chance, Michaels low scoring is what made Vitalys pathetic scoring so painfull.
I think Petrov undoubtedly cost them 4th place, but ask yourself this:
Before the season began, who honestly thought Renault were going to be anything other than a backmarker outfit, if they survived at all? Everybody.
Equally, who thought Schumacher was going to be so comprehensively beaten by Rosberg? Nobody.
The decision to take Petrov on was made when the team was in the abyss, not when it was battling for podiums in Monaco. It was the right decision then. Had Schumacher performed at Rosberg’s level, then Petrov’s mythical replacement wouldn’t have been able to make up the difference to Mercedes anyway.
Hairs, the decision was definitely made when they were in the abyss, but now that they’re not, hopefully they’ll recruit Glock to the seat he should’ve been in this year… That would also allow Virgin to hire D’Ambrosio and still retain Di Grassi.
Without Petrov’s money, it’s become apparent that Renault wouldn’t have been able to develop the car. It’s all well and good to throw out statistics comparing Kubica to the Russian, but you really should be comparing Renault to Mercedes. Mercedes have has both their cars (or all of their cars when just one made it) finish ahead of Renault in twelve races this season. Even if someone else in the second Renault, Mercedes would still be untouchable.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Log in or create an F1 Fanatic account.
Advert | Go Ad-free
Adverts | Go Ad-free
© Keith Collantine 2015 • Disclaimer