Clicky

Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

duest

Kubica In Hospital After Rally Crash!

Recommended Posts

Well, Nick is being a chance to show his worth this week. Senna too, which is normal as he is a designated Third Driver. However, if NH puts in some decent times I believe he will get the nod.

I agree, Renault can't really take the risk of two inexperienced drivers. With Nick they know what they are getting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, looks like it's Nick who will get the nod. Always the safest and most realistic option for Renault even if dull from our fan perspective.

In other news there will be no change of policy on restricting drivers' activities out of the car, at least from Renault. I quite like that attitude. The day F1 drivers can't compete in other categories of motor sport for fun and to satisfy their competitive nature would be a sad day.

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/89396

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, it wouldn't be fair to not allow the drivers to have a life outside of F1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, it wouldn't be fair to not allow the drivers to have a life outside of F1.

True, but they still need to be responsible. Drivers can have a life and still not take part in activities that could jeopardise their careers and the well being of their employers, that's what everyone else does. It's all about moderation. Taking part in a rally during the testing season seems to be an unnecessary risk, in my opinion. Still, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see the difference between going rallying or such in the testing season or the season proper. A big off will have the same effect - you lose a driver. Having said that, I applaud the Renault stance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see the difference between going rallying or such in the testing season or the season proper. A big off will have the same effect - you lose a driver. Having said that, I applaud the Renault stance.

I wasn't suggesting that there are different implications in participating in such activity during the on or off season. My wider point was that activity like this seems unnecessary at any time. Renault can be applauded, yes, but they have a bit of corporate egg on their face too. I'm not suggesting drivers should be wrapped in cotton wool, rather that they should be a little more responsible and think through the implications. Because F1 drivers are inherently adrenalin junkies, it's difficult to police. But I don't think any driver is going to have their performance affected by not letting them indulge in such activity.

As a parent, I'm calling into question whether I should still ride my motorbike. It's a bit irresponsible. I enjoy it, yes, but it won't do my boy any good if I end up getting killed. If nothing else, it slows me down. If Bob had applied the same mind set, he might have decided that not being able to give ralling full beans meant not doing it at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand your argument, it makes a lot of sense, but I think it's more complex than that. I was going to waffle on about Clark, Hill and co., until I remembered the circumstances of Clark's demise and shot my own argument down. Have just read RK's first interview since the incident, and notice that one of the reasons he gives for the rallying shenanigans is that it keeps him sharp now that there is no in season testing, that he does not consider F1 enough of a challenge. He obviously feels that his extra curricular activity gives him an advantage and has a beneficial effect on his performance, and I'm sure he's aware of the implications. His other comments suggest he has no sense of his own mortality, however. He has also said, in the past, that F1 is his job but that rallying is his passion (which is why it's in his contract with Renault I suppose) which sometimes makes me wonder why he's in F1 at all. I'd sooner RK hooning around in his Skoda than Wibbah falling off his bike in the middle of nowhere - being speared by 20 feet of Armco does seem a bit of a freak accident.

Am I rambling yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's not being replaced. Merely a stand in. Better chance of JPM standing in for Robert.

Very nice of you to have ignored the instances of 'replace' in others' previous posts.

A glance at TF1's home page showed Kubica wanting to get back to racing this year. Way to go! You can do it, Kubi!:clap3:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand your argument, it makes a lot of sense, but I think it's more complex than that. I was going to waffle on about Clark, Hill and co., until I remembered the circumstances of Clark's demise and shot my own argument down. Have just read RK's first interview since the incident, and notice that one of the reasons he gives for the rallying shenanigans is that it keeps him sharp now that there is no in season testing, that he does not consider F1 enough of a challenge. He obviously feels that his extra curricular activity gives him an advantage and has a beneficial effect on his performance, and I'm sure he's aware of the implications. His other comments suggest he has no sense of his own mortality, however. He has also said, in the past, that F1 is his job but that rallying is his passion (which is why it's in his contract with Renault I suppose) which sometimes makes me wonder why he's in F1 at all. I'd sooner RK hooning around in his Skoda than Wibbah falling off his bike in the middle of nowhere - being speared by 20 feet of Armco does seem a bit of a freak accident.

Am I rambling yet?

Re Clark and co......me thinks the media makes too much of the fact that the men of the 50's, 60's and very early 70's used to drive other formula, other races. You have to remember that this is a modern media commenting on an historical event using the modern F1 driver as their basis for comment. In reality, if you compare the two, the drivers of the 50's, 60's and early 70's were more often than not competing in the races outside of F1 because:

  • There was only 10 or 12 F1 races in a year
  • Drivers were paid starting money, so it was an attractive way to compliment their meager earnings from F1
  • The teams they raced for built more formula cars than those of today - FJunior, FFord, F3, F2, sports car and F1 were all made by the teams....and they needed testing/results to sell them to the everyday racer

Compare that to todays pilots:

  • There are 20 races this year - at one every other weekend, thats 40 weeks of the year, plus the three/four weeks pre-season = a 44 weeks a year profession. That sounds pretty much full-time to me, and doesn't even take into account "factory-time"
  • Drivers today are paid an incredible amount of money - there is no need to supplement their incomes from prize money or additional sponsorship
  • The teams today build one type of Formula car....F1 so have no need for their charges to be "showing how its done" in the lower formula. (Williams of course not withstanding as they build the modern F2 car)

The little Bambino is right. Basically what he is saying is that there is no point in putting yourself in harms way, if you can avoid it. Sometimes this might mean sacrificing something in your life. With all due respect to the young JHS' view point, he has not yet learnt the true meanings of responsibility and sacrifice - he is still looking at it from the all to easy and perfect world of scholarly endeavour. Wait till you are a parent and then you can discuss the merits and disadvantages of cotton wool. Wait too, till you have a job of a level where not meeting your responsibilities has consequential effects to more people than just you. (And if you use the argument that you have to be responsible to get your assignments done, I shall ask how many people have been affected by your F? Just the guy in the mirror, mate)

Rallying is inherently more dangerous than other forms of motorsport. You crash and you have no way of knowing what you will hit. The environment is completely open...not the manicured lawns, soft barriers and run off areas of circuit racing.

Could this situation have been avoided? Of course. Is it hindsight to say that. Of course. Is it possible that this could have been seen with foresight? Most definitely.

If you have to use hindsight in your life, it's because you haven't used your foresight in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand your argument, it makes a lot of sense, but I think it's more complex than that. I was going to waffle on about Clark, Hill and co., until I remembered the circumstances of Clark's demise and shot my own argument down. Have just read RK's first interview since the incident, and notice that one of the reasons he gives for the rallying shenanigans is that it keeps him sharp now that there is no in season testing, that he does not consider F1 enough of a challenge. He obviously feels that his extra curricular activity gives him an advantage and has a beneficial effect on his performance, and I'm sure he's aware of the implications. His other comments suggest he has no sense of his own mortality, however. He has also said, in the past, that F1 is his job but that rallying is his passion (which is why it's in his contract with Renault I suppose) which sometimes makes me wonder why he's in F1 at all. I'd sooner RK hooning around in his Skoda than Wibbah falling off his bike in the middle of nowhere - being speared by 20 feet of Armco does seem a bit of a freak accident.

Am I rambling yet?

Nah, you're on the money. I wouldn't sign any contract with any driver that had a clause allowing him to pursue other activities that may preclude him from competing for my team. It's probably why Proton/Genii/massive corporate egos bollocks with a Mechacrome lump won't win diddly Sh#t with a moron like Bouliier, who has never worked in F1 before and is for my money, culpable in Robert's misadventure. In my day at Renault, his head would have already been festering on a spike at the Bastille!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:blink::huh: Kubica's set to receive a drop of a pope John Paul's blood! http://msn.foxsports...donation-021111

What fucking retards! Sigh, Kubica will make a full recovery, thanks to his willpower and modern science, but these retards will be smart 'nuff to claim credit for it.

They need larger collections to fight child molestation law suits.................In nomine Patris et fillii et Spiritus Sancti ...oh yeah, and Roberto Kubica.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:blink::huh: Kubica's set to receive a drop of a pope John Paul's blood! http://msn.foxsports...donation-021111

What fucking retards! Sigh, Kubica will make a full recovery, thanks to his willpower and modern science, but these retards will be smart 'nuff to claim credit for it.

Religious. Nutters.

:P

There. I put the ":P" emoticon. Can people tell it's a joke before someone flames me again?! :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bullier is a nutter. I can't believe Renault are continuing to harp on how letting Kubica go rallying was a great thing. It's a smokescreen if you ask me to divert or fend off legal action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Religious. Nutters.

:P

There. I put the ":P" emoticon. Can people tell it's a joke before someone flames me again?! :rolleyes:

we will not flame you, but God will.

after you are dead you will burn in hell because of your sins.:reddevile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand your argument, it makes a lot of sense, but I think it's more complex than that. I was going to waffle on about Clark, Hill and co., until I remembered the circumstances of Clark's demise and shot my own argument down. Have just read RK's first interview since the incident, and notice that one of the reasons he gives for the rallying shenanigans is that it keeps him sharp now that there is no in season testing, that he does not consider F1 enough of a challenge. He obviously feels that his extra curricular activity gives him an advantage and has a beneficial effect on his performance, and I'm sure he's aware of the implications. His other comments suggest he has no sense of his own mortality, however. He has also said, in the past, that F1 is his job but that rallying is his passion (which is why it's in his contract with Renault I suppose) which sometimes makes me wonder why he's in F1 at all. I'd sooner RK hooning around in his Skoda than Wibbah falling off his bike in the middle of nowhere - being speared by 20 feet of Armco does seem a bit of a freak accident.

Am I rambling yet?

To me, the bold part is really the most important point in refuting the "no drivers should compete in any rallies because look what happened to Kubica" argument stated so beautifully by Handy below. Accidents are not uncommon in rallying but how often do they actually lead to serious injury (with "serious" in this case being an injury that would affect driving an F1 car)? Not often at all. I seldom hear of any (professional or semi-professional) drivers being injured in a rally crash. Regarding foresight as Handy mentioned, I never saw anything before the event saying "Kubica really shouldn't be taking part in this rally", only afterwards, and nobody could have predicted such a strange accident and serious injuries even with 20/20 foresight; the reason being that while rallying on the face of it is extremely dangerous (as is F1 and most other forms of motor sport), the actual occurrences of serious injury are relatively few and far between.This is why the news of Kubica's accident was fairly shocking to a lot of people and people didn't just shrug and say "oh well he was rallying it was bound to happen". My point is that trying to make a general rule based on this one freak accident, where the barrier pierced the c#ckpit of the car, is fallacious. Of course such freak circumstances are always possible, but they are possible in any form of motor sport and in life generally, and on a daily basis we balance the risks of our activities with the pleasure we derive from them. In Kubica's case the subjective pleasure of driving outweighed the objective risks by a long way.

People can obviously make other arguments about why a driver shouldn't go rallying but one based on safety is not on solid ground. Once you stop a driver rallying you better stop them skiing, driving a road car, going karting etc, and ensure the application of copious amounts of cotton wool, none of which is practical or conducive to a good driver/team relationship (or a reasonable way to go about life).

...

The little Bambino is right. Basically what he is saying is that there is no point in putting yourself in harms way, if you can avoid it. Sometimes this might mean sacrificing something in your life. With all due respect to the young JHS' view point, he has not yet learnt the true meanings of responsibility and sacrifice - he is still looking at it from the all to easy and perfect world of scholarly endeavour. Wait till you are a parent and then you can discuss the merits and disadvantages of cotton wool. Wait too, till you have a job of a level where not meeting your responsibilities has consequential effects to more people than just you. (And if you use the argument that you have to be responsible to get your assignments done, I shall ask how many people have been affected by your F? Just the guy in the mirror, mate)

Rallying is inherently more dangerous than other forms of motorsport. You crash and you have no way of knowing what you will hit. The environment is completely open...not the manicured lawns, soft barriers and run off areas of circuit racing.

Could this situation have been avoided? Of course. Is it hindsight to say that. Of course. Is it possible that this could have been seen with foresight? Most definitely.

If you have to use hindsight in your life, it's because you haven't used your foresight in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we will not flame you, but God will.

after you are dead you will burn in hell because of your sins.:reddevile:

You're another who needs to take the chainsaw out his arse. I'm sorry, did I miss the memo about opinions now being banned or something? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're another who needs to take the chainsaw out his arse. I'm sorry, did I miss the memo about opinions now being banned or something? :rolleyes:

I think Caesar was being tongue-in-cheek.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re Clark and co......me thinks the media makes too much of the fact that the men of the 50's, 60's and very early 70's used to drive other formula, other races. You have to remember that this is a modern media commenting on an historical event using the modern F1 driver as their basis for comment. In reality, if you compare the two, the drivers of the 50's, 60's and early 70's were more often than not competing in the races outside of F1 because:

  • There was only 10 or 12 F1 races in a year
  • Drivers were paid starting money, so it was an attractive way to compliment their meager earnings from F1
  • The teams they raced for built more formula cars than those of today - FJunior, FFord, F3, F2, sports car and F1 were all made by the teams....and they needed testing/results to sell them to the everyday racer

Compare that to todays pilots:

  • There are 20 races this year - at one every other weekend, thats 40 weeks of the year, plus the three/four weeks pre-season = a 44 weeks a year profession. That sounds pretty much full-time to me, and doesn't even take into account "factory-time"
  • Drivers today are paid an incredible amount of money - there is no need to supplement their incomes from prize money or additional sponsorship
  • The teams today build one type of Formula car....F1 so have no need for their charges to be "showing how its done" in the lower formula. (Williams of course not withstanding as they build the modern F2 car)

The little Bambino is right. Basically what he is saying is that there is no point in putting yourself in harms way, if you can avoid it. Sometimes this might mean sacrificing something in your life. With all due respect to the young JHS' view point, he has not yet learnt the true meanings of responsibility and sacrifice - he is still looking at it from the all to easy and perfect world of scholarly endeavour. Wait till you are a parent and then you can discuss the merits and disadvantages of cotton wool. Wait too, till you have a job of a level where not meeting your responsibilities has consequential effects to more people than just you. (And if you use the argument that you have to be responsible to get your assignments done, I shall ask how many people have been affected by your F? Just the guy in the mirror, mate)

Rallying is inherently more dangerous than other forms of motorsport. You crash and you have no way of knowing what you will hit. The environment is completely open...not the manicured lawns, soft barriers and run off areas of circuit racing.

Could this situation have been avoided? Of course. Is it hindsight to say that. Of course. Is it possible that this could have been seen with foresight? Most definitely.

If you have to use hindsight in your life, it's because you haven't used your foresight in the first place.

Brilliantly excellent.

And how the f*ck is Robert going to receive Pope John Paul's post? For one, JP is dead and has been for some time and secondly wouldn't his blood be either congealed. Thirdly, He'd be in a seriously decomposed way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...