626 replies to this topic

[thegamer23]

You really shouldn't. Valsecchi wouldn't have performed much better. Remember D'Ambrosio last year?

 

Valsecchi completed various race simulations during the Abu Dhabi and Silverstone rookie test, plus some additional mileage during the first day of Barcellona pre-season testing.
If i remember correctly d'Ambrosio only drove a few kilometers during the Mugello test...

 

[X61]

Career might be finished now.

Where was he before these two starts?  I wasn't aware he still had an F1 career to be finished.

[KavB]

It was still the right decision by Lotus. Their best option was to go for someone proven to get them points and unfortunately it did not work out. If they went for Davide, he most likely would have had the same results but the team would have felt massive regret not going for an experienced driver. I don't think Lotus are feeling any regret not going for Davide, who no offence is not exactly the brightest prospect out there. 

 

Two races is such a small sample to judge a driver's ability. It was always going to be difficult for any driver to jump into the car and perform straight away. 

[SophieB]

Davide Valsecchi ‏@davidevalsecchi 1h

I told to @Lotus_F1Team that was better to choose my heart and my motivation than the experience of Kova. I'm really sorry they didn't do it

[redreni]

It was never going to be easy to get points as an unfamiliar driver in that car. Kovaleinen has always struggled to get decent points, even when he was at Enstone with Alonso and the car was about as good as it is now. What on earth made anyone think he would do substantially better under these difficult conditions is pretty optimistic by nature, I‘d say.

[SophieB]

@H_Kovalainen 3m

By the way, everyone who's asking me to give up on F1 - I won't. Lot's of positives to take from these races. Gotta run, Sao Paulo calling!!

[Cyanide]

Started well during Friday practices but never really materialized into any decent result. Even an 11th place would have meant more, but Heikki's performances were disappointing. Race pace was truly horrible. 

 

Oh well, he gambled and he lost. Question is how much did he lose?

[toroRosso]

this is the guy who was about the get sacked in Renault mid season, then went on to drive better. Maybe it's his legacy

[Ross Stonefeld]

Valsecchi is the only one I can excuse for thinking he'd have done a better job. Though he's not very bright for saying it out loud.

[scandyman]

Why would have Valsecchi done any better? Completed rookie who has not driven a one f1-race (except some fancy simulators).

[P123]

It was never going to be easy to get points as an unfamiliar driver in that car. Kovaleinen has always struggled to get decent points, even when he was at Enstone with Alonso and the car was about as good as it is now. What on earth made anyone think he would do substantially better under these difficult conditions is pretty optimistic by nature, I‘d say.

 

Eh?  Kovy never raced with Alonso.  He raced with Fisichella in his rookie season, and beat him.

[billm99uk]

Why would have Valsecchi done any better? Completed rookie who has not driven a one f1-race (except some fancy simulators).

Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't. But I can understand him being ticked off at not getting the chance. May be the end of his F1 hopes now and to have come so close....

[moistabduction]

Why would have Valsecchi done any better? Completed rookie who has not driven a one f1-race (except some fancy simulators).

 

Well in hindsight, he probably wouldn't have done any worse, and it wouldn't have mattered anyways, since Heikkis effort didn't bring any points, but at least he would have had a chance to get some racing experience, and show people his skills. Which could have been pretty harmful for his career. So it was probably better for him not to drive, but he should have kept his mouth shut, saying stuff like that to the press is just dumb.

 

It sucks for Heikki since his pace was decent in practice, but somehow didn't manage to maintain it in the race at all. The start was so bad that it had to be due to not being able to get the settings correct. 

[santori]

I thought Heikki did well under the circumstances without being exceptional, which is how I thought of his F1 career already. I don't think these two races will revitalise his career but they probably won't have harmed his prospects, either.

 

 

 

On a side note

 

You really shouldn't. Valsecchi wouldn't have performed much better. Remember D'Ambrosio last year?

 

I thought D'Ambrosio did well, too.

 

http://www.crash.net...ee_display.html

[boldhakka]

Davide Valsecchi ‏@davidevalsecchi 1h

I told to @Lotus_F1Team that was better to choose my heart and my motivation than the experience of Kova. I'm really sorry they didn't do it

 

Yep. Davide was the right person for the job. No harm in expressing his disappointment. 

[SonJR]

This only proves how difficult it is to get into the car you don't know and be quick right away. Actually, Kovalainen was quick in qualifying, in Austin at least, and decent in Brazil. Odds were stacked against him though, missing time in FP in Austin and the rain in practice and qualifying (and then dry race, which wouldn't have helped set-up wise) in Brazil. Plus, the bad starts.

 

I really don't think Valsecchi would've done better. He only had a day and a half in the E21 and if anything his five (!) years in GP2 have shown, is that he's not a quick study with amazing natural pace. That Lotus was so hesitant to put him in and they've never considered him a serious option for 2014, tells you enough about how they rate him.

[Petroltorque]

It was still the right decision by Lotus. Their best option was to go for someone proven to get them points and unfortunately it did not work out. If they went for Davide, he most likely would have had the same results but the team would have felt massive regret not going for an experienced driver. I don't think Lotus are feeling any regret not going for Davide, who no offence is not exactly the brightest prospect out there. 

 

Two races is such a small sample to judge a driver's ability. It was always going to be difficult for any driver to jump into the car and perform straight away. 

Choosing Kovalainen was a mistake. yes I know it's easy to say that with the benefit of hindsight. But how many of those 'expereienced' drivers brought back have made an impact? It did not work for Villeneuve or Heidfeld and to a lesser extent Schumacher.

 2 races are a small sample but Kovalainen has been lucklustre at best even at Caterham . Lotus should simply have put Valsecchi in the car, the guy is a quick and he would have been given a chance to hone racecraft.

Edited by Petroltorque, 25 November 2013 - 09:38.

[Rinehart]

Hindsight being a wonderful thing, but next time Lotus complain their rookies aren't able to get enough experience behind the wheel of an F1 car they can swivel.

[SpeedRacer`]

His performance in Brazil was dire, but he would've scored points in US if not for his issues so I feel a bit sorry for him. And Grosjean's pace was nowhere for most of the first 1/3 of the season so it takes time to adapt.

[F1ultimate]

Davide Valsecchi ‏@davidevalsecchi 1h

I told to @Lotus_F1Team that was better to choose my heart and my motivation than the experience of Kova. I'm really sorry they didn't do it

 

He's wrong. 

 

3rd in the WDC was at stake and from a corporate point of view, an MD or team principal would, in such a money sensitive issue, go for the logical choice than to gamble. If the logical choice doesn't prevail, at least he can cover his own arse by saying that he made a calculated decision that under delivered. 

 

There are no guarantees that Valsecchi would have fared any better than Heikki, even though I wanted the rookie to get the seat.

[billm99uk]

There are no guarantees that Valsecchi would have fared any better than Heikki, even though I wanted the rookie to get the seat.

 

True. But all he had to do was score points, in a car that was definitely second only to the Red Bulls. That's a fairly low hurdle to jump, eben with his lack of simulator time. 

[Arska]

If Lotus had chosen Valsecchi instead and if he had done at least a little better than Heikki (say, scored a point or a few) people would be saying:"Well there you go, Heikki would have done better, what a poor decision."

 

With that said, Heikki had a good opportunity and he blew it. He showed decent one lap pace but his racecraft, in particular the starts, left a lot to be desired. I can't see why even Caterham should hire him as a race driver now.

[redreni]

Why would have Valsecchi done any better? Completed rookie who has not driven a one f1-race (except some fancy simulators).

There‘s no way of knowing what he would have done. Maybe he‘d have been terrible. Maybe he‘d have been straight on the podium and people would have said "is this the next Lewis Hamilton?"

Give me a choice between an unproven driver and a proven failure, I‘d take the unproven one, please, especially if I‘m fighting against the odds to gain WCC positions as opposed to nursing a lead over a rival team.

[InSearchOfThe]

True. But all he had to do was score points, in a car that was definitely second only to the Red Bulls. That's a fairly low hurdle to jump, eben with his lack of simulator time. 

If it was easy, anybody could do it. I agree with F1 Ultimate, Lotus made a educated guess that came up short. Lesson learned. Move on with life.Second guessing does nothing.

[Ross Stonefeld]

And if Heikki didn't work I don't see how the better choice is someone with less experience and a lower rating.

[garoidb]

There‘s no way of knowing what he would have done. Maybe he‘d have been terrible. Maybe he‘d have been straight on the podium and people would have said "is this the next Lewis Hamilton?"

Give me a choice between an unproven driver and a proven failure, I‘d take the unproven one, please, especially if I‘m fighting against the odds to gain WCC positions as opposed to nursing a lead over a rival team.

 

The gap to Ferrari was 39 points in the end. With the benefit of hindsight, he would have had to win one of the races to make up the gap. Without a win, the most he could have contributed was 36 points (and that would have involved demoting Grosjean in Austin, so 3 points less for Lotus, and costing Ferrari 2 in Austin and 4 in Brazil). I make that a net gain of 39 points for Heikki scoring two second places. With Ferrari having two wins, it would not have been enough. 

[masa90]

Must say i was reall dissapointed by Heikkis results to be totally honest.

 

I really would love if he would get another shot at it but realistically it propably wont happen in another good car atleast when the pool is filled with young wealthy potential drivers.