Brundle'S Constant Pandering About Kubica.

[KoolMonkey 0]

I hope Robert is healing well and is able to lead a good life. If that means coming back into racing, great, if not then he's no doubt done quite well for himself financially to live a comfortable life.

However, I'm now getting very annoyed with the constant mention by Brundle and other commentators about Kubica every time Renault is named. And then denouncing the achievements of Petrov and Heidfeld with quips about how well Kubica would have done over them. I don't think there's anyone here who would state on record they actually believe Kubica could have done one better and won one or both of this years races so far.

Kubica was only marginally better than Heidfeld in their days at BMW Sauber. And even that is debatable as Heidfeld had the upper hand at times. So it wasn't a one way trouncing of the likes of Alonso vs Piquet, or Kimi vs Badoer. I don't mean any disrespect by this, but the fact remains Kubica has only won one race. Granted that is more than Heidfeld has won, but it doesn't automatically mean he's a Senna, a Prost, Fangio in the making. Yet every time he's mentioned it's with this awe and reverence, that he was the greatest driver of his generation kind of crap. And this was going on BEFORE he had his accident, so you can imagine now how treacly and feel good the comments are of him.

Am I wrong on this? Or is that the facts. He's won a race, is a good driver, but I feel does not deserve (yet) or has earned the importance his name seems to have in the press. Ralf, Coulthard, Hill Jr, Fisi, Trulli and Barrichello have all won more races than Kubica. I don't ever recall hearing those names in the same stratosphere or worship when compared with Kubica. Sometimes I want to punch Brundle really hard and tell him to cut the idol worship of a driver who no doubt has good skills, but in a factual sense has achieve very little in F1 apart from a solitary win. It might be cold to his supporters, but it's absurd on so many levels.

[Piotr 0]

Yes, you are wrong about this. Kubica was on podium in his second or third race in F1. He was marginally better then heidfeld in 2008. in 2009 he demolished Heidfeld. The reason he was so revered last year was because he consistently put that hog of a yellow honeybee of a car where it did not belong - top 6. He took a team that was underfinanced, with low morale, and drag it into the competition with Maclarens, Ferraris, Red Bulls and Mercedes. Because he likely commits the least amount of mistakes by any driver currently in F1. Because he would sweep the floor with Vettel, Webber and Hamilton given an equal car. Because if you put the Holy Schumacher in 2010 Renault, he would still be irrelevant, while Kubica was up front.

So yes, you are completely wrong.

[KoolMonkey 0]

Yes, you are wrong about this. Kubica was on podium in his second or third race in F1. He was marginally better then heidfeld in 2008. in 2009 he demolished Heidfeld. The reason he was so revered last year was because he consistently put that hog of a yellow honeybee of a car where it did not belong - top 6. He took a team that was underfinanced, with low morale, and drag it into the competition with Maclarens, Ferraris, Red Bulls and Mercedes. Because he likely commits the least amount of mistakes by any driver currently in F1. Because he would sweep the floor with Vettel, Webber and Hamilton given an equal car. Because if you put the Holy Schumacher in 2010 Renault, he would still be irrelevant, while Kubica was up front.

So yes, you are completely wrong.

While I appreciate your response, I honestly can't take your post too seriously when you make broad sweeping comments like that. The fact is, those scenarios will probably never happen.

[jackgarrett 0]

i never noticed that he was annoying. I do imagine that RK could do better if he didnt have his accident.

Scoring 136 point to his 2010 teammate's 27, is huge. I think he also outqualified him in every race execpt one or two races. Also he was very clean and solid in all of his races so even if he was as fast as NH or VP he propably would of stay out of trouble and finshed at the max points the car would allow. ie pomiums in both races maybe win/s.

[Kopite Girl 0]

I see your point. But I'm not Heidi's biggest fan, and made my opinions on him clear in other threads, so I'll try not to wind you up KM by re-visiting old comments and opening up old wounds.

However, I get your point on Robert. The reason why I think Brundle does this is in my view he thinks much the same as the majority of F1 fans; He thinks he has the potential to become champion. Renault seem to have a car that could quite possibly take the odd win or two this season.

Either that, or the curse of Murray Walker has finally hit Martin; 'When all else fails, repeat!'

[KoolMonkey 0]

It's all good Kopite. I'm not a Heidfeld supporter, but I acknowledge he's a dependable driver. So if you're worried about opening up old wounds when it comes to Heidi, chances are it wasn't me in those heated discussions from olde yonder, as I have no interest in putting down Heidi or propping him up.

Of course Kubica has the potential of becoming a champion if given a great car, but the final step of actually becoming one is light year step ahead. Just look at all the also rans to see how hard it is to actually win a WDC. I mean Massa was a WDC for all of 20secs, Webber almost had one. Heck even Barrichello was in with a shot for awhile in 2009. Kimi could have potentially had two more WDCs, Alonso another one as well, plus Hamilton too. The point being is even if given a great car, it's no given a championship will actually happen.

I'm not trying to rip apart Kubica here, but the blind worship is unwarranted based on his achievements thus far. There can be a middle ground where most folks on here will acknowledge he's a good solid racer. But to then claim it's an absolute given he'd win a WDC when in the right car, causes me to say you could insert a dozen drivers in there who could potentially do the same as well if they were also given the "right" car.

[dribbler 6]

Impossible to say whether Kubica would be doing a better job, of course. But I do beleive it's accepted amongst the majority of F1 fans that he would, myself included.

Brundle mentions him so much for this reason, and as a fellow racer he understands the real trajedy of this situation better than most; a great driver on the cusp of realising his hard work with the Renault team, only to be cut off in his prime.

If Brundle is gooey eyed and gets sentimental as a result, it's no bad thing, in my book.

[AleHop 0]

Agree with dribbler and Piotr.

Kubica is a #1 driver that belongs to a different class of drivers than most included Heidfeld.

You just need to know what mechanics, engineers, directors, commentators, ex drivers and drivers said about him in the paddock before his accident. Nothing has changed on that respect this season, they still say the same things. The Renault looked very good during testing in Kubica's hands and we don't know how much better it would be in his hands now. In just 1 race anything can happen but no doubt he would put the car much higher than Heidfeld an Petrov in a whole season.

[Rainmaster 7]

Results are a matter of having the right car (Barrichello, DC, Trulli, Fisi, etc). Being highly rated is a matter of maximising your opportunities and impressing those people who are in the sport and know what they are talking about (Kubica, Peterson, Gilles, etc). The difference between such drivers is usually easy to see by just watching them on an onboard camera.

It is often the case that those who get the former never receive latter, and much worse than that, those who get the latter never have the chance to achieve the former. Kubica is part of the latter group, and was even before his accident, and hopefully will one day be part of the former group too.

[Kopite Girl 0]

It's all good Kopite. I'm not a Heidfeld supporter, but I acknowledge he's a dependable driver. So if you're worried about opening up old wounds when it comes to Heidi, chances are it wasn't me in those heated discussions from olde yonder, as I have no interest in putting down Heidi or propping him up.

Of course Kubica has the potential of becoming a champion if given a great car, but the final step of actually becoming one is light year step ahead. Just look at all the also rans to see how hard it is to actually win a WDC. I mean Massa was a WDC for all of 20secs, Webber almost had one. Heck even Barrichello was in with a shot for awhile in 2009. Kimi could have potentially had two more WDCs, Alonso another one as well, plus Hamilton too. The point being is even if given a great car, it's no given a championship will actually happen.

I'm not trying to rip apart Kubica here, but the blind worship is unwarranted based on his achievements thus far. There can be a middle ground where most folks on here will acknowledge he's a good solid racer. But to then claim it's an absolute given he'd win a WDC when in the right car, causes me to say you could insert a dozen drivers in there who could potentially do the same as well if they were also given the "right" car.

Again. Good points.

I feel as if I halfheartedly agree with what you say. But some little parts I understand why Brundle does what he does.

I think Robert Kubica for a lot of the old timers represent their way of thinking. Racing, racing, racing and more racing. He's an old timer in a new generation. I do not dispute that his colleagues are dedicated to the job also, but I feel that people see RK as the a pure bred two hundred percent petrol head like us fans. Other drivers have their money earners such as sponsorship deals, endorsements, and the like. Now I'm not sure if RK does the same, but I don't think he does. Even Michael Schumacher has other interests. I've only ever witnessed Kubica's interest in motorsport.

If you want to know why Brundle and a lot of people believe in Kubica, check Autumnpuma's signature. There's a quote from Robert Kubica. It says something like "All I need is food, a roof over my head and a racing car. That's all I need. That's all I'll ever need."

That may be portrayed as a romanticised view, but one that holds some truth. Us petrol heads romanticise the sport and our favourite driver every single time we make a post. Whether it be about a 16 valve engine or about how much we like ________ (insert driver name)

[Argento Reloaded 1]

It´s a kind of footbal (soccer) tale: the one at the side of the field is always better than the one in the field! Take national teams for example. Always the one left out by the coach is better. So the same for Robert a strong driver with almost all to do -except to gain respect from the paddock- in F1. Le´s wait and see.

[Delta 0]

Robert is a great driver, and his loss is big to renault. Whilst Petrov and Nick have performed pretty impressive feats to get their cars respectively on the podium in the first 2 races, there is little doubt Robert's absence is going to be hurting Renault. It's relevant, and it gets discussed.

[ribbit 0]

I hope Robert is healing well and is able to lead a good life. If that means coming back into racing, great, if not then he's no doubt done quite well for himself financially to live a comfortable life.

However, I'm now getting very annoyed with the constant mention by Brundle and other commentators about Kubica every time Renault is named. And then denouncing the achievements of Petrov and Heidfeld with quips about how well Kubica would have done over them. I don't think there's anyone here who would state on record they actually believe Kubica could have done one better and won one or both of this years races so far.

Kubica was only marginally better than Heidfeld in their days at BMW Sauber. And even that is debatable as Heidfeld had the upper hand at times. So it wasn't a one way trouncing of the likes of Alonso vs Piquet, or Kimi vs Badoer. I don't mean any disrespect by this, but the fact remains Kubica has only won one race. Granted that is more than Heidfeld has won, but it doesn't automatically mean he's a Senna, a Prost, Fangio in the making. Yet every time he's mentioned it's with this awe and reverence, that he was the greatest driver of his generation kind of crap. And this was going on BEFORE he had his accident, so you can imagine now how treacly and feel good the comments are of him.

Am I wrong on this? Or is that the facts. He's won a race, is a good driver, but I feel does not deserve (yet) or has earned the importance his name seems to have in the press. Ralf, Coulthard, Hill Jr, Fisi, Trulli and Barrichello have all won more races than Kubica. I don't ever recall hearing those names in the same stratosphere or worship when compared with Kubica. Sometimes I want to punch Brundle really hard and tell him to cut the idol worship of a driver who no doubt has good skills, but in a factual sense has achieve very little in F1 apart from a solitary win. It might be cold to his supporters, but it's absurd on so many levels.

Two points here:

As Argento already stated it's easy for folks (especially RKs fans) to go with the grass is always greener line of thinking. There isn't anyway to argue with the people (SPEED announcers have been doing it also) that talk about how much better Kubica would be doing in the Renault if he were racing this year because he isn't. So the announcers point this out everytime one of the Renaults do well.

The other driving factor is how well Kubica did at the first test this year, how well Petrov and Heidfeld are doing this year and how well Kubica ran compared to both of them when they were teammates. I would like to point out that testing results have very little meaning but the "what ifs" and "what might have beens" will be filling our ears as long as either Renault driver does well. I don't necessarily agree that Kubica is THAT much better than Heidfeld but most people do and this won't go away until either Kubica comes back or the Renaults are running with the HRTs. Neither of which are likely this year, in my humble opinion.

~Ribbit

[Piotr 0]

While I appreciate your response, I honestly can't take your post too seriously when you make broad sweeping comments like that. The fact is, those scenarios will probably never happen.

Agreed. But I was trying to make a more subtle point here. The guys I mentioned did get their chance with great cars and made the best of it, and are considered the great drivers of today. Kubica has done almost as much with vastly weaker cars (OK, more generalities, but are you really going to make me waste my time proving to you that 2007-2009 BMW Suber and 2010 Renault were slower than Ferrari, Maclaren, and Red Bull? ). SO, although I do not provide a mathematical proof of thereof, It is generally believed that Kubica is on par with Alonso, Hamilton, Vettel, etc (in fact Vettel placed 2-3 positions lower while driving a BMW as a stand-in for Kubica than was customary for Robert. Although it was Vettel's first start in F1). I am sure that if it was Alonso or Rosberg, Brundle would spend just as much time talking about THEM.

Now, I'll stop before going on a rant. AND, still no news about RK despite the fact he was to make his first steps LAST WEEK. I have a bad feeling about that...

[Piotr 0]

While I appreciate your response, I honestly can't take your post too seriously when you make broad sweeping comments like that. The fact is, those scenarios will probably never happen.

[KoolMonkey 0]

Agreed. But I was trying to make a more subtle point here. The guys I mentioned did get their chance with great cars and made the best of it, and are considered the great drivers of today. Kubica has done almost as much with vastly weaker cars (OK, more generalities, but are you really going to make me waste my time proving to you that 2007-2009 BMW Suber and 2010 Renault were slower than Ferrari, Maclaren, and Red Bull? ). SO, although I do not provide a mathematical proof of thereof, It is generally believed that Kubica is on par with Alonso, Hamilton, Vettel, etc (in fact Vettel placed 2-3 positions lower while driving a BMW as a stand-in for Kubica than was customary for Robert. Although it was Vettel's first start in F1). I am sure that if it was Alonso or Rosberg, Brundle would spend just as much time talking about THEM.

Now, I'll stop before going on a rant. AND, still no news about RK despite the fact he was to make his first steps LAST WEEK. I have a bad feeling about that...

There's no disputing the Sauber was a weaker car than the top 3 teams. However still that does not mean Kubica then is in the same league as Alonso, Hamilton and Vettel. Kubica will be in the same league when he wins a WDC. Granted having a good car is part of the equation. But there are many other drivers other than Kubica who could do the same and win as well if given a top car as well. Kubica is not unique in this regard. Using Vettel's stand in race for BMW to prove Kubica is a superior driver is simpleton talk. It's more complicated than that. Just look at Fisi. He won races in his career and had some very good drives. Then look at his fill gig at Ferrari and see how that played out. He wasn't that bad a driver, but he looked horrible. Are you then going to claim Fisi was no better than Badoer? Of course not. He beat Alonso in some races, so I could then argue he was his equal at certain times, or just below him. That too would be too simpleton a description.

The problem with Brundle and other commentators harping on how good Kubica would be doing because Petrov and Heidfeld did well, again is only speculation. We have no idea how well he would have done in those races. But I'm pretty sure he would have had a solid season.

I see Kubica at this point in his career as where Button was before Brawn. They both in some sense had the perfect day of luck on their side by securing a GP win. Button got even better luck with Brawn and won a WDC. Kubica might be able to do the same, but you can't say it's a given he will at this point. The fact is we don't know because it hasn't happened.

As for his recovery, I feel all the information we've had on his crash, condition etc., has been downplaying how serious it was. Honestly I don't think Kubica will race in F1 again, and I certainly don't think he'll be at the level he used to be.

[cavallino 2]

Kubica was the best most complete driver on the grid, Brundle knows that. With this car, he would have had a chance to show it, because soon, Hamilton and Vettel will do something stupid to throw points away in their superior car just like erratic Alonso has already done. Kubica in an almost competitive Renault would give them a run for their money, which is why when you see Renault doing as well as they are, his absence is felt even more.

[ribbit 0]

Kubica was the best most complete driver on the grid, Brundle knows that. With this car, he would have had a chance to show it, because soon, Hamilton and Vettel will do something stupid to throw points away in their superior car just like erratic Alonso has already done. Kubica in an almost competitive Renault would give them a run for their money, which is why when you see Renault doing as well as they are, his absence is felt even more.

Calling Kubica the best most complete driver seems a bit of a stretch. He's the ultimate underdog, nothing more. I'm not saying he's trash or anything but to put him in the class of Vettel, Hamilton and Alonso seems ridiculous to me.

[cavallino 2]

You don't watch that carefully though, you need to pay more attention to figure out how well drivers not driving the best cars are doing, the commentators won't tell you and the camera won't focus on them all the time.

[ribbit 0]

So I don't watch carefully enough? C'mon. That's your defense of "Kubica is the best most complete driver out there". Shouldn't it be relatively obvious if he's the best? I'm trying to be objective and was hoping you could convince me.

[Piotr 0]

So I don't watch carefully enough? C'mon. That's your defense of "Kubica is the best most complete driver out there". Shouldn't it be relatively obvious if he's the best? I'm trying to be objective and was hoping you could convince me.

Based on what I've heard and read in the past 2-3 years, it is rather obvious to people who make a living out of knowing F1. Brundle is only one of many of them. In fact, other than some people in GB who were sore at him for making life difficult for the golden boy Hamilton a couple of years back, I would say it's been pretty anonymous that he has been in the top 3-5 of F1 drivers with some (albeit I agree it was a stretch) believed he was either #1 or #2 last year. I don't go that far, but outside England that opinion seems to be shared by the majority of experts. Do you guys want to waste my time and pull out some kind of the statistic to show what the majority of experts think? Because I'm relatively sure I could prove it to you...

[Piotr 0]

There's no disputing the Sauber was a weaker car than the top 3 teams. However still that does not mean Kubica then is in the same league as Alonso, Hamilton and Vettel. Kubica will be in the same league when he wins a WDC. Granted having a good car is part of the equation. But there are many other drivers other than Kubica who could do the same and win as well if given a top car as well. Kubica is not unique in this regard. Using Vettel's stand in race for BMW to prove Kubica is a superior driver is simpleton talk. It's more complicated than that. Just look at Fisi. He won races in his career and had some very good drives. Then look at his fill gig at Ferrari and see how that played out. He wasn't that bad a driver, but he looked horrible. Are you then going to claim Fisi was no better than Badoer? Of course not. He beat Alonso in some races, so I could then argue he was his equal at certain times, or just below him. That too would be too simpleton a description.

The problem with Brundle and other commentators harping on how good Kubica would be doing because Petrov and Heidfeld did well, again is only speculation. We have no idea how well he would have done in those races. But I'm pretty sure he would have had a solid season.

I see Kubica at this point in his career as where Button was before Brawn. They both in some sense had the perfect day of luck on their side by securing a GP win. Button got even better luck with Brawn and won a WDC. Kubica might be able to do the same, but you can't say it's a given he will at this point. The fact is we don't know because it hasn't happened.

As for his recovery, I feel all the information we've had on his crash, condition etc., has been downplaying how serious it was. Honestly I don't think Kubica will race in F1 again, and I certainly don't think he'll be at the level he used to be.

Robert Kubica is recovering so well he is reportedly planning to attend the beatification of his late Polish countryman and former Pope John Paul II on May 1. The Renault driver, recovering from horrific rally crash injuries in an Italian hospital, already has a fragment of the late pontiff's robe and a drop of his blood in a medallion to help aid his recovery.

300,000 pilgrims are expected to descend on Rome on May 1 for the beatification ceremony, the first step to sainthood for John Paul II.

The news agency SID said 26-year-old Kubica's recovery is going so well it has "surprised doctors", as he is already putting weight on his badly injured foot, clenching the fist on his injured right hand, and pushing to leave the hospital soon.

Seems you are wrong aboput that as well....

[Piotr 0]

So I don't watch carefully enough? C'mon. That's your defense of "Kubica is the best most complete driver out there". Shouldn't it be relatively obvious if he's the best? I'm trying to be objective and was hoping you could convince me.

Not only you don't watch carefully enough, you don't read or listen (well, at least in my and Cav's opinion). The value of the F1 driver (or his skills) cannot be measured by statistics alone...

[KoolMonkey 0]

Oh come on, you can't honestly say Kubica is one of, if not the "most complete driver on the grid". And then justify that by saying Brundle, Brundle of all people knows talent when he sees it, and then try smash (or dribble) home the point by saying it's the stuff we don't see, you got to read between the lines etc. etc etc. I'm well aware of Kubica's talent, but this is ridiculous when you then use the flip side of statistics to say a driver is better than his results say he is. We already know this, but at the end of the day, if a driver has only won 1 GP in their career, I don't care what you respond with, oh the cars were crap, bad luck etc. the results will tell the story in the end. In the absense of statistics and results, it's now the things we don't "see" and not watching or looking carefully enough that make this driver greater than all the others who have won tons of races, WDCs etc. Hilarious, seriously this is a hoot.

No one on here is saying Kubica isn't good, but now he's suddenly the best driver since X? And Piotr stating you're siding with cav in a post isn't a good idea when you're trying to convince another of your opinion. Secondly it's not a good idea to bluntly tell people they are wrong all the time. It's one thing to disagree, but another to try and push someones nose in it. People will see things differently, and you have to accept that because there's nothing you can do about it in the end.

[Max Mosley 2]

that opinion seems to be shared by the majority of experts. Do you guys want to waste my time and pull out some kind of the statistic to show what the majority of experts think?

We already did in the global warming thread.