383 replies to this topic

[PompousJester]

bimmeric, on Oct 21 2010, 12:39, said:

I honestly want to know... what logical reason do you have to think that Kubica doesn't pull the most out of the car? Do you have something to go on other than a gut feeling? As I stated before he's the only driver to have made Q3 in every race who's not in a Red-Bull, how does that not demonstrate both consistency and speed? As for Button... Kubica has out qualified him 6 legitimate times in 16 races (7 if you count Malaysia), on only one of those occasions did Kubica out qualify Hamilton as well (Monaco where the Renault was quite handy) meaning that Button failed to perform.

How does not annihilating Heidfeld make him mediocre? Heidfeld put up a fight and beat WDC winners and contenders, and anyways the one season BMW had a car that could fight for a podium on merit Kubica beat Heidfeld soundly. But let's not sell Heidfeld short, he finished 41 straight races and was consistently in the points. A couple DNF's and Heidfeld will have you beat.

But honestly if you want to compare their performances against each other you DO have to take circumstances into account. Like 2007 where Heidfeld beat Kubica soundly, how much closer would they be had Kubica not been injured in Canada and had raced in Indianapolis or had his car not failed him while in the lead of the Chinese grand prix (and remember you can't say well Heidfeld had DNF's as well... as he did not). 2009 was a mess, as the car was garbage and a single result being different would have changed the outcome of who beat who. Vettel not crashing into Kubica when he was P2, Malaysia being stopped a lap later, BMW putting the tires on the right wheel in Spain, not botching Kubica's stop in Abu Dhabi... if a single detail would have changed the points outcome would have been reversed. I know it's all if's ands or buts but the point I'm making is it's useless to care about a season in a crap car as a single lucky points finish is such a large percentage of the total point out come (just look at Barrichello vs. Button in 2008... then see what happened when they actually had a car that was worth a crap, how you perform in a good car is much more important then in crap car IMO). What can be quantified is that Kubica made it to Q3 twice as many times as Nick in 2009 though. Honestly I view there situation like when Webber and Heidfeld were teammates, Heidfeld may have scored more points but if you pay attention to more than just the numbers most will agree Webber was the faster driver.

But back to my first point. You're not the only person I've seen say that they think that "Alonso or Hamilton could pull more from that car than Kubica" so I don't mean to pick on you. Other than a gut feeling I just don't understand what evidence people have to think that Kubica can't extract the maximum from a car... I mean it comes across like me claiming that the RB6 is 4 seconds faster than the rest of the field and Vettel and Webber are simply garbage, theoretically it could be true but there is no reason to think that it is. Same goes for any driver and car combo.

end rant haha

No more to add.

Oh! Maybe this:

[zawisza]

Carlo's, on Oct 20 2010, 20:57, said:

James Allen:
I would put Rosberg and Kubica up there as two of the best drivers this year.
;)

It's not Allen's quote only some man's opinion on James' blog.

Edited by zawisza, 21 October 2010 - 11:06.

[Rinehart]

I like Kubica and think he is 'up there', but the premis of this thread is based on a slender theory at best:

"When taking into consideration the machinery at their disposal, how much they have squeezed from what they have, how few errors have been made, there is a very real case to be made for putting Kubica ahead of all the other drivers this year".

I think this has a lot to do with the fact that Kubica is demolishing Petrov, so it looks like Kubica is putting the Renault in positions it doesn't deserve to be. All that would change if:

1. Kubica had a top drawer teamate such as Alonso - both Renaults would then be performing and it would be assumed to be a better car.

2. If Petrov was say Buttons teamate at McLaren and Petrov was being dominated by Button. The McLaren wouldn't 'look' to be nearly as good as it does in the combined hands of Button and HAMILTON - hence the same sort of plaudits would be bestowed upon Button in that scenario.

[Megan]

Bimmeric, very good post.

[skipper]

bimmeric, on Oct 21 2010, 11:39, said:

I honestly want to know... what logical reason do you have to think that Kubica doesn't pull the most out of the car? Do you have something to go on other than a gut feeling? As I stated before he's the only driver to have made Q3 in every race who's not in a Red-Bull, how does that not demonstrate both consistency and speed? As for Button... Kubica has out qualified him 6 legitimate times in 16 races (7 if you count Malaysia), on only one of those occasions did Kubica out qualify Hamilton as well (Monaco where the Renault was quite handy) meaning that Button failed to perform.

How does not annihilating Heidfeld make him mediocre? Heidfeld put up a fight and beat WDC winners and contenders, and anyways the one season BMW had a car that could fight for a podium on merit Kubica beat Heidfeld soundly. But let's not sell Heidfeld short, he finished 41 straight races and was consistently in the points. A couple DNF's and Heidfeld will have you beat.

But honestly if you want to compare their performances against each other you DO have to take circumstances into account. Like 2007 where Heidfeld beat Kubica soundly, how much closer would they be had Kubica not been injured in Canada and had raced in Indianapolis or had his car not failed him while in the lead of the Chinese grand prix (and remember you can't say well Heidfeld had DNF's as well... as he did not). 2009 was a mess, as the car was garbage and a single result being different would have changed the outcome of who beat who. Vettel not crashing into Kubica when he was P2, Malaysia being stopped a lap later, BMW putting the tires on the right wheel in Spain, not botching Kubica's stop in Abu Dhabi... if a single detail would have changed the points outcome would have been reversed. I know it's all if's ands or buts but the point I'm making is it's useless to care about a season in a crap car as a single lucky points finish is such a large percentage of the total point out come (just look at Barrichello vs. Button in 2008... then see what happened when they actually had a car that was worth a crap, how you perform in a good car is much more important then in crap car IMO). What can be quantified is that Kubica made it to Q3 twice as many times as Nick in 2009 though. Honestly I view there situation like when Webber and Heidfeld were teammates, Heidfeld may have scored more points but if you pay attention to more than just the numbers most will agree Webber was the faster driver.

But back to my first point. You're not the only person I've seen say that they think that "Alonso or Hamilton could pull more from that car than Kubica" so I don't mean to pick on you. Other than a gut feeling I just don't understand what evidence people have to think that Kubica can't extract the maximum from a car... I mean it comes across like me claiming that the RB6 is 4 seconds faster than the rest of the field and Vettel and Webber are simply garbage, theoretically it could be true but there is no reason to think that it is. Same goes for any driver and car combo.

end rant haha

This

[swiniodzik]

Rinehart, on Oct 21 2010, 13:02, said:

I like Kubica and think he is 'up there', but the premis of this thread is based on a slender theory at best:

"When taking into consideration the machinery at their disposal, how much they have squeezed from what they have, how few errors have been made, there is a very real case to be made for putting Kubica ahead of all the other drivers this year".

I think this has a lot to do with the fact that Kubica is demolishing Petrov, so it looks like Kubica is putting the Renault in positions it doesn't deserve to be. All that would change if:

1. Kubica had a top drawer teamate such as Alonso - both Renaults would then be performing and it would be assumed to be a better car.

2. If Petrov was say Buttons teamate at McLaren and Petrov was being dominated by Button. The McLaren wouldn't 'look' to be nearly as good as it does in the combined hands of Button and HAMILTON - hence the same sort of plaudits would be bestowed upon Button in that scenario.

There's no way to logically suppose that the Renault is a better car than the Ferrari or the McLaren this year, yet as was already mentioned:

1. Kubica's average qualifying position is better than Button's and Massa's.

2. He's achieved some things that Alonso and Hamilton couldn't - being the only non-Red Bull driver to always qualify in the top ten so far, the only non-Red Bull driver to qualify on the first two rows at the so-called three real drivers' tracks - Monaco, Spa and Suzuka - and had it not been for the wheel failure two weeks ago, there was a big chance he would have also been the only non-Red Bull driver with a podium result at all the three venues.

So demolishing Petrov is one thing, but all the above is another and that's what I think truly makes Kubica a legitimate contender for Driver of the Year honours.

[timmy bolt]

swiniodzik, on Oct 21 2010, 12:46, said:

There's no way to logically suppose that the Renault is a better car than the Ferrari or the McLaren this year, yet as was already mentioned:

1. Kubica's average qualifying position is better than Button's and Massa's.

2. He's achieved some things that Alonso and Hamilton couldn't - being the only non-Red Bull driver to always qualify in the top ten so far, the only non-Red Bull driver to qualify on the first two rows at the so-called three real drivers' tracks - Monaco, Spa and Suzuka - and had it not been for the wheel failure two weeks ago, there was a big chance he would have also been the only non-Red Bull driver with a podium result at all the three venues.

So demolishing Petrov is one thing, but all the above is another and that's what I think truly makes Kubica a legitimate contender for Driver of the Year honours.

Selective analysis

Firstly, by beating the lesser driver (Button and Massa) of a single test (qualifying) you can not say that is evidence that he is better than the better driver (Alonso/Hamilton)

Hamilton has three race victories despite not having the best car by a fair margin.

In the races Hamilton has finished, he has always done so above his starting position. (Except Monaco where he equalled it)

Therefore...that must mean Hamilton is the best driver.


(oh look, i forgot to mention he managed to crash out twice, oh well.)

Edited by timmy bolt, 21 October 2010 - 13:42.

[fastdriver]

swiniodzik, on Oct 19 2010, 09:42, said:

The similiarity between Kubica vs. Heidfeld and Hamilton vs. Button is that in both cases the latter's strongest weapon against the former wasn't/isn't raw speed but the insane consistency and ability to exploit opportunities in 'crazy' races. Robert scored twice as many podiums as Nick in 'normal' races just as Lewis scored more wins than Jenson in those, but points-wise they were/are evenly matched overall as raw speed is only one part of the equation that forms the final result in championship terms.

[korzeniow]

timmy bolt, on Oct 21 2010, 15:37, said:

Selective analysis

Firstly, by beating the lesser driver (Button and Massa) of a single test (qualifying) you can not say that is evidence that he is better than the better driver (Alonso/Hamilton)

Hamilton has three race victories despite not having the best car by a fair margin.

In the races Hamilton has finished, he has always done so above his starting position. (Except Monaco where he equalled it)

Therefore...that must mean Hamilton is the best driver.


(oh look, i forgot to mention he managed to crash out twice, oh well.)

I agree Hamilton is very very good. Certainly he did more than his car could do in other driver's hands.

[trogggy]

bimmeric, on Oct 21 2010, 11:39, said:

I honestly want to know... what logical reason do you have to think that Kubica doesn't pull the most out of the car? Do you have something to go on other than a gut feeling?

But back to my first point. You're not the only person I've seen say that they think that "Alonso or Hamilton could pull more from that car than Kubica" so I don't mean to pick on you. Other than a gut feeling I just don't understand what evidence people have to think that Kubica can't extract the maximum from a car...

If that's turned around it works equally well.

What you can say about Kubica this year is that he's been consistent and that he's been quicker than Petrov. That he can extract as much (or more, or less) from a car as Hamilton or Alonso (or Webber, or Button, or Vettel etc) is just speculation.
He remains an unknown quantity for now.

Edited by trogggy, 21 October 2010 - 14:25.

[alecc]

One thing suprises me a little bit, everytime when somebody want to underrate Kubica by bringing the "he didn't smashed Nick" argument, the majority of Robert fans bring the "he would smash him if, woulda, coulda...." argument, instead of the "Not beating a experienced driver being a rookie, don't tell anything bad about Robert, taking into account that Nick did beat the likes of Webber and Massa" argument.

[alecc]

trogggy, on Oct 21 2010, 15:24, said:

If that's turned around it works equally well.

What you can say about Kubica this year is that he's been consistent and that he's been quicker than Petrov. That he can extract as much (or more, or less) from a car as Hamilton or Alonso (or Webber, or Button, or Vettel etc) is just speculation.
He remains an unknown quantity for now.

Yep, he remains an unknown quantity for you and some other posters, but he has a very well known quantity among the majority of posters, f1 commentators and the f1 staff itself.

[trogggy]

alecc, on Oct 21 2010, 15:26, said:

Yep, he remains an unknown quantity for you and some other posters, but he has a very well known quantity among the majority of posters, f1 commentators and the f1 staff itself.

No.
My gut feeling is that he's very good, and possibly close to LH and FA. There is no way to know that at the moment though - and if you claim that there is then you're in cloud-cuckoo land. No point in me arguing if you disagree - see previous sentence for the reason.

[velgajski1]

bimmeric, on Oct 21 2010, 10:39, said:

I honestly want to know... what logical reason do you have to think that Kubica doesn't pull the most out of the car? Do you have something to go on other than a gut feeling? As I stated before he's the only driver to have made Q3 in every race who's not in a Red-Bull, how does that not demonstrate both consistency and speed? As for Button... Kubica has out qualified him 6 legitimate times in 16 races (7 if you count Malaysia), on only one of those occasions did Kubica out qualify Hamilton as well (Monaco where the Renault was quite handy) meaning that Button failed to perform.

How does not annihilating Heidfeld make him mediocre? Heidfeld put up a fight and beat WDC winners and contenders, and anyways the one season BMW had a car that could fight for a podium on merit Kubica beat Heidfeld soundly. But let's not sell Heidfeld short, he finished 41 straight races and was consistently in the points. A couple DNF's and Heidfeld will have you beat.

But honestly if you want to compare their performances against each other you DO have to take circumstances into account. Like 2007 where Heidfeld beat Kubica soundly, how much closer would they be had Kubica not been injured in Canada and had raced in Indianapolis or had his car not failed him while in the lead of the Chinese grand prix (and remember you can't say well Heidfeld had DNF's as well... as he did not). 2009 was a mess, as the car was garbage and a single result being different would have changed the outcome of who beat who. Vettel not crashing into Kubica when he was P2, Malaysia being stopped a lap later, BMW putting the tires on the right wheel in Spain, not botching Kubica's stop in Abu Dhabi... if a single detail would have changed the points outcome would have been reversed. I know it's all if's ands or buts but the point I'm making is it's useless to care about a season in a crap car as a single lucky points finish is such a large percentage of the total point out come (just look at Barrichello vs. Button in 2008... then see what happened when they actually had a car that was worth a crap, how you perform in a good car is much more important then in crap car IMO). What can be quantified is that Kubica made it to Q3 twice as many times as Nick in 2009 though. Honestly I view there situation like when Webber and Heidfeld were teammates, Heidfeld may have scored more points but if you pay attention to more than just the numbers most will agree Webber was the faster driver.

But back to my first point. You're not the only person I've seen say that they think that "Alonso or Hamilton could pull more from that car than Kubica" so I don't mean to pick on you. Other than a gut feeling I just don't understand what evidence people have to think that Kubica can't extract the maximum from a car... I mean it comes across like me claiming that the RB6 is 4 seconds faster than the rest of the field and Vettel and Webber are simply garbage, theoretically it could be true but there is no reason to think that it is. Same goes for any driver and car combo.

end rant haha

I see all what you think and my gut feeling says he's somewhere up there (definitely better than 1 GP win in 70+ races), but not as good as Hamilton and Alonso. I actually like Kubica and would be delighted if I'm proven wrong, but for that to happen he needs to win at least 1 WDC and beat one top driver in same car (Hamilton did that), or win 2 WDC (Alonso did that).

At this point Hamilton, Alonso, Button and even Vettel, Webber and Massa - have much more fruitful F1 careers and in the end this is one of the big factors I take in mind when rating drivers. I rate Kubica with Button (altough I do give slight advantage to Button), just below Hamilton and Alonso, and just above Vettel, Webber and Massa.

[Hezz]

alecc, on Oct 21 2010, 14:24, said:

One thing suprises me a little bit, everytime when somebody want to underrate Kubica by bringing the "he didn't smashed Nick" argument, the majority of Robert fans bring the "he would smash him if, woulda, coulda...." argument, instead of the "Not beating a experienced driver being a rookie, don't tell anything bad about Robert, taking into account that Nick did beat the likes of Webber and Massa" argument.

You are right in case of 2006/07 but some people seems to think that in 2009 Nick also was a better driver (only on the basis of points). That poor year was all about "... if, woulda, coulda..."
But You are right. Let's leave that. Better driver is almost gone, the worst one is on fire. Shame that some of "his fans" can't stand it ;)

I'm out of here. Bye.

Edited by Hezz, 21 October 2010 - 15:10.

[Muppetmad]

The 2009 car was such a shambles that I believe it was incredible that either Heidfeld or Kubica could do anything with the car at all - bad luck or not, their points tallies were impressive considering how poor the car was at the vast majority of circuits.

[swiniodzik]

trogggy, on Oct 21 2010, 16:31, said:

No.
My gut feeling is that he's very good, and possibly close to LH and FA. There is no way to know that at the moment though - and if you claim that there is then you're in cloud-cuckoo land. No point in me arguing if you disagree - see previous sentence for the reason.

I think many Kubica fans have no problems with an opinion like the above from you. The problem, for me at least, are all those stating that the guy can't be in the same ballpark with Alonso and Hamilton because he only won a single race in more than 50 starts (who cares that Alonso also won his second race when he already had 50 starts under his belt), because he couldn't dominate Heidfeld (who cares that Alonso and Hamilton also had team-mates in their careers they couldn't dominate) and that today we can't judge how quick the Renault is (but magically we can judge the pace of all the other cars).

Another problem in these threads is that, on purpose or not, people often misunderstand each other - proposing Kubica as a contender for Driver of the Year honours got me accused of claiming he's better than Hamilton

alecc, on Oct 21 2010, 16:24, said:

One thing suprises me a little bit, everytime when somebody want to underrate Kubica by bringing the "he didn't smashed Nick" argument, the majority of Robert fans bring the "he would smash him if, woulda, coulda...." argument, instead of the "Not beating a experienced driver being a rookie, don't tell anything bad about Robert, taking into account that Nick did beat the likes of Webber and Massa" argument.

This is happening everywhere. Go and have a look at the McLaren or Red Bull drivers threads where half of the posts are always about how much slower, more passive and generally how rubbish but lucky Jenson and Mark really are. The funny thing is that discrediting the qualities of the rival drivers actually down-plays the achievements of our favourites who can't dominate them, yet it's being done all the time

[alecc]

^^ this

[Massacrator]

Being the best driver includes having one of the best cars, something Kubica has been lacking for some years now.

[ktsayshi]

Massacrator, on Oct 20 2010, 17:54, said:

Wow yes, it's about the same pressure as losing the WDC!

Nobody same it was the same pressure, just that the pressure exists - as opposed to your idea that drivers are under "no pressure" when their teammates aren't collecting points. Or do you think Ferrari would be perfectly happy for Massa to crash out in the first turn at all the remaining races, as long as Alonso delivers the groceries?

[Andy865]

Surely Yamamoto is the best driver in f1??

[corps]

Another poor article by Hughes. He has serious problem of being very biased, looking too much into little things, not seeing the big picture and flying off in all sorts of crazy tangents. He obviously got excited after Kubica qualified 3rd at Suzuka and wrote this article, and in that excitement he forgot that Kubica's previous 4 years in the sport where he has looked average compared to Heidfeld, a driver who cannot even find a drive. Heidfeld matched him in every category, even in raw speed.

I took both drivers fastest low fuel qualifying times in 2009, and averaged them and the result is Heidfeld was quicker by half a tenth. Kubica does not show the raw raw speed to compared to Hamilton and Alonso. He is like a montoya or alesi, something very quick when everything is perfect, but usually average. Frentzen and Fisichella were more impressive in midfield cars than him.

[Lee Nicolle]

Robert Kubica is a good operator no doubt. But the best in F1! Someone is dreaming. It would be good to see him in a better car and see just how good he is but to me he is in the top half dozen. And smarter than most as he has generated less controversy than most this year.

[goldenboy]

swiniodzik, on Oct 21 2010, 18:24, said:

This is happening everywhere. Go and have a look at the McLaren or Red Bull drivers threads where half of the posts are always about how much slower, more passive and generally how rubbish but lucky Jenson and Mark really are. The funny thing is that discrediting the qualities of the rival drivers actually down-plays the achievements of our favourites who can't dominate them, yet it's being done all the time

exactly. Its a poison that jumps from thread to thread. cant win an argument on one thread, go and destroy another thread because they have an agenda and need to discredit that driver at all costs.

obviously it's hard to say a driver is the best when he's never been in the equipment to be, but thread should be called something like "arguably in top 3" or "is as good as alonso and hamilton" but definately not "IS the best driver..."

[Muppetmad]

corps, on Nov 1 2010, 03:02, said:

compared to Heidfeld, a driver who cannot even find a drive.

Just because he can't find a drive doesn't mean he doesn't deserve a drive. Should we say Massa's poor because he was beaten by Raikkonen in 2007 but can't find a drive now to suit him?

Edited by Muppetmad, 01 November 2010 - 06:26.

[MrMonaco]

bimmeric, on Oct 21 2010, 11:39, said:

I honestly want to know... what logical reason do you have to think that Kubica doesn't pull the most out of the car? Do you have something to go on other than a gut feeling? As I stated before he's the only driver to have made Q3 in every race who's not in a Red-Bull, how does that not demonstrate both consistency and speed? As for Button... Kubica has out qualified him 6 legitimate times in 16 races (7 if you count Malaysia), on only one of those occasions did Kubica out qualify Hamilton as well (Monaco where the Renault was quite handy) meaning that Button failed to perform.

How does not annihilating Heidfeld make him mediocre? Heidfeld put up a fight and beat WDC winners and contenders, and anyways the one season BMW had a car that could fight for a podium on merit Kubica beat Heidfeld soundly. But let's not sell Heidfeld short, he finished 41 straight races and was consistently in the points. A couple DNF's and Heidfeld will have you beat.

But honestly if you want to compare their performances against each other you DO have to take circumstances into account. Like 2007 where Heidfeld beat Kubica soundly, how much closer would they be had Kubica not been injured in Canada and had raced in Indianapolis or had his car not failed him while in the lead of the Chinese grand prix (and remember you can't say well Heidfeld had DNF's as well... as he did not). 2009 was a mess, as the car was garbage and a single result being different would have changed the outcome of who beat who. Vettel not crashing into Kubica when he was P2, Malaysia being stopped a lap later, BMW putting the tires on the right wheel in Spain, not botching Kubica's stop in Abu Dhabi... if a single detail would have changed the points outcome would have been reversed. I know it's all if's ands or buts but the point I'm making is it's useless to care about a season in a crap car as a single lucky points finish is such a large percentage of the total point out come (just look at Barrichello vs. Button in 2008... then see what happened when they actually had a car that was worth a crap, how you perform in a good car is much more important then in crap car IMO). What can be quantified is that Kubica made it to Q3 twice as many times as Nick in 2009 though. Honestly I view there situation like when Webber and Heidfeld were teammates, Heidfeld may have scored more points but if you pay attention to more than just the numbers most will agree Webber was the faster driver.

But back to my first point. You're not the only person I've seen say that they think that "Alonso or Hamilton could pull more from that car than Kubica" so I don't mean to pick on you. Other than a gut feeling I just don't understand what evidence people have to think that Kubica can't extract the maximum from a car... I mean it comes across like me claiming that the RB6 is 4 seconds faster than the rest of the field and Vettel and Webber are simply garbage, theoretically it could be true but there is no reason to think that it is. Same goes for any driver and car combo.

end rant haha

Great post!

and what you really pointed out is that one can truly judge drivers if he closely follow their footsteps - in this case that would be a BMW saga. I also think that many people are rating Kubica with a wrong basic concept - that Heidfeld is an average driver and he definitely isn't/wasn't one. I totally agree about 2009 and you have to admit that Robert lost by 2 points which is not that much after all. Overall I think they were very close in terms of pace with luck maybe more on the Nick's side.

[alecc]

I simply don't get it why Nicklaus "Nick" Heidfeld is by so much F1 fans (at least on this BB) labeled as average?

So what are the facts, that suggest that he is an average driver indeed?
-He never won a race
-He never raced a noticeable race "on the edge" driving the wheels off the car (in metaphore, not like Nico or Robert in Japan this year;))
-He never got a top car to drive

The thing is, the first two "facts" (hardly the second one is a fact, rather a opinion) are directly related to the third one, and so far we now, there were talks with Mercedes and McLaren, both interrupted by pretty suprising comeback from Michael, and a not less suprisingly team change by Jenson. We have now talks with Renault (if we consider them as a top team, in some races they seemed at least near) confirmed by Eric Boullier.

And what are the facts, that suggest that Nick is at least a bit above a average driver?
-He beat or matched: Felipe Massa, Kimi Raikonnen, Robert Kubica, Mark Webber, in rookie years or not, but still, we can say that are 4 seperate facts
-He has the record for a serie of races without a DNF
-He have a bunch of pretty awesome overtaking manouvers

So IMHO the 3,5 years where Robert and Nick where team-mates, are a pretty good argument that Robert is among the best drivers on the grid, and not the other way around, especially if you were watching them closely, and not only by checking the final result after a GP weekend where you were only following the top 2 teams fighting. Not mentioning if you even weren't checking that, and making now assumptions based only on the final points standings, that sounds to me then like a classic armchair-expert assumpation.

PS:I know that this post seem little bit off-topic, but since the one and only argument that is mentioned to "underrate" Robert Kubica is his comparison with Nick, I think that Nicks pace alone is on-topic here.

Edited by alecc, 01 November 2010 - 09:22.

[TURU]

alecc, on Nov 1 2010, 10:22, said:

I simply don't get it why Nicklaus "Nick" Heidfeld is by so much F1 fans (at least on this BB) labeled as average?

So what are the facts, that suggest that he is an average driver indeed?
-He never won a race
-He never raced a noticeable race "on the edge" driving the wheels off the car (in metaphore, not like Nico or Robert in Japan this year;))
-He never got a top car to drive

The thing is, the first two "facts" (hardly the second one is a fact, rather a opinion) are directly related to the third one, and so far we now, there were talks with Mercedes and McLaren, both interrupted by pretty suprising comeback from Michael, and a not less suprisingly team change by Jenson. We have now talks with Renault (if we consider them as a top team, in some races they seemed at least near) confirmed by Eric Boullier.

And what are the facts, that suggest that Nick is at least a bit above a average driver?
-He beat or matched: Felipe Massa, Kimi Raikonnen, Robert Kubica, Mark Webber, in rookie years or not, but still, we can say that are 4 seperate facts
-He has the record for a serie of races without a DNF
-He have a bunch of pretty awesome overtaking manouvers

So IMHO the 3,5 years where Robert and Nick where team-mates, are a pretty good argument that Robert is among the best drivers on the grid, and not the other way around, especially if you were watching them closely, and not only by checking the final result after a GP weekend where you were only following the top 2 teams fighting. Not mentioning if you even weren't checking that, and making now assumptions based only on the final points standings, that sounds to me then like a classic armchair-expert assumpation.

PS:I know that this post seem little bit off-topic, but since the one and only argument that is mentioned to "underrate" Robert Kubica is his comparison with Nick, I think that Nicks pace alone is on-topic here.

The fact is that people always see what they want to see. You will never convince them. Personally, I gave up trying. I just wait until Robert finally gets a top (or near to it) car and hopefully we won't have to wait much longer. Then he will show them...

Edited by TURU, 01 November 2010 - 09:31.

[alecc]

TURU, on Nov 1 2010, 09:31, said:

The fact is that people always see what they want to see. You will never convince them. Personally, I gave up trying. I just wait until Robert finally gets a top (or near to it) car and hopefully we won't have to wait much longer. Then he will show them...

IMHO even if he gets a WDC someday, there still will be opinions that "meh, he didn't demolished Nick, what a undeserved WDC"

[corps]

alecc, on Nov 1 2010, 09:22, said:

I simply don't get it why Nicklaus "Nick" Heidfeld is by so much F1 fans (at least on this BB) labeled as average?

So what are the facts, that suggest that he is an average driver indeed?
-He never won a race
-He never raced a noticeable race "on the edge" driving the wheels off the car (in metaphore, not like Nico or Robert in Japan this year;))
-He never got a top car to drive

The thing is, the first two "facts" (hardly the second one is a fact, rather a opinion) are directly related to the third one, and so far we now, there were talks with Mercedes and McLaren, both interrupted by pretty suprising comeback from Michael, and a not less suprisingly team change by Jenson. We have now talks with Renault (if we consider them as a top team, in some races they seemed at least near) confirmed by Eric Boullier.

And what are the facts, that suggest that Nick is at least a bit above a average driver?
-He beat or matched: Felipe Massa, Kimi Raikonnen, Robert Kubica, Mark Webber, in rookie years or not, but still, we can say that are 4 seperate facts
-He has the record for a serie of races without a DNF
-He have a bunch of pretty awesome overtaking manouvers

So IMHO the 3,5 years where Robert and Nick where team-mates, are a pretty good argument that Robert is among the best drivers on the grid, and not the other way around, especially if you were watching them closely, and not only by checking the final result after a GP weekend where you were only following the top 2 teams fighting. Not mentioning if you even weren't checking that, and making now assumptions based only on the final points standings, that sounds to me then like a classic armchair-expert assumpation.

PS:I know that this post seem little bit off-topic, but since the one and only argument that is mentioned to "underrate" Robert Kubica is his comparison with Nick, I think that Nicks pace alone is on-topic here.

Nick is above average but that is still a far cry from among the best drivers on the grid, which makes all the talk of Kubica being possibly the best or equal best a little ridiculous. It is correct that just looking at the final results can be misleading, but looking at every statistic between Nick and Kubica shows them as equal. Even on raw qualifying pace last year Nick was actually quicker on average on low fuel. Real special drivers put 3-4 tenths over their regular team mates. Look at Hamilton and Alonso.

[TURU]

corps, on Nov 1 2010, 10:38, said:

Nick is above average but that is still a far cry from among the best drivers on the grid, which makes all the talk of Kubica being possibly the best or equal best a little ridiculous. It is correct that just looking at the final results can be misleading, but looking at every statistic between Nick and Kubica shows them as equal. Even on raw qualifying pace last year Nick was actually quicker on average on low fuel. Real special drivers put 3-4 tenths over their regular team mates. Look at Hamilton and Alonso.

1) What makes you think that Nick is a far cry from the best drivers, apart from the fact that he has never had a top car and couldn't find a seat last year due to series of unlucky events (described 2 post earlier) ?

2) All your way of thinking is based on an assumption that Nick Heidfeld is rubbish. So there's no way I can convince you that Robert Kubica who was matched by Nick, is one of the best drivers in F1. Like I said, all he needs is a winning (and not quite as dominant as RB6 is this year) car. Then Kubica will do all 'convincing' for me.

To end this, I would like to show You all an opinion of no-doubt one of the best drivers in the world...

Lewis Hamilton - Guardian - 2008 said

Which of your challengers do you fear most?

I don't fear anyone. Kubica is going to be a serious challenger in the future. He and Alonso will be, perhaps, the two most fierce competitors I have to face.

(there was also some other interview, but I couldn' t find it now. will look later)

Interestingly, when Robert Kubica was asked the same question, he replied: Lewis Hamilton.

[alecc]

corps, on Nov 1 2010, 09:38, said:

Real special drivers put 3-4 tenths over their regular team mates. Look at Hamilton and Alonso.

So you are suggesting that Nick Heidfeld is on the level of Heikki Kovalainen, Giancarlo Fischicella, Nelson Piquet, Romain Grosjean, Alex Yoong? Because that are the "regular team mates" that Hamilton and Alonso demolished by 3-4 tenths... If that is what you are suggesting, then you seem to have a pretty black-white image of the pace of drivers.

[alecc]

TURU, on Nov 1 2010, 10:16, said:

Interestingly, when Robert Kubica was asked the same question, he replied: Lewis Hamilton.

Yeah, in the back Alonso heard that, and sayed under his breath "pfff.. and I thought we were friends some day, what a disgrace... lewis the biggest thread... pff.. and what more... man has he a big nose..."

[metz]

corps, on Nov 1 2010, 05:38, said:

Nick is above average but that is still a far cry from among the best drivers on the grid, which makes all the talk of Kubica being possibly the best or equal best a little ridiculous.

Yes, Nick is not as good as some of us think because he did not destroy Kubica....see how that works?