49 replies to this topic

[tghik]

For sure he will have an easier time in F1. What I don't understand why so many ppl attacked him so badly for his driving in WRC? Rally is much more difficult than racing and you need to have more experience, and I'm not even mentioning his arm. He pushed more in order to learn faster and the result was what we saw.

 

Edited by Risil, 07 August 2017 - 12:48.

[PedroDiCasttro]

For sure he will have an easier time in F1. What I don't understand why so many ppl attacked him so badly for his driving in WRC? Rally is much more difficult than racing and you need to have more experience, and I'm not even mentioning his arm. He pushed more in order to learn faster and the result was what we saw.

Not only that, but he was simply a rally enthusiast and had very little driving experience driving in rally. His entire career revolved around single seaters, if I'm not mistaken.

 

I don't know if it's true but it's said that the rally event in which he suffered his accident was one of the first he ever participated, if not the first.

 

His accident forced him to jump to rallycars as driving in single seaters wasn't possible because of the space limitations.

[Myrvold]

For sure he will have an easier time in F1. What I don't understand why so many ppl attacked him so badly for his driving in WRC? Rally is much more difficult than racing and you need to have more experience, and I'm not even mentioning his arm. He pushed more in order to learn faster and the result was what we saw.

Attacked him? Not sure so many actually "attacked" him, but like I said earlier, when you after over 20 WRC-rallies have more than 1 crash per rally on average, that is way too much.
 

I don't know if it's true but it's said that the rally event in which he suffered his accident was one of the first he ever participated, if not the first.
 
His accident forced him to jump to rallycars as driving in single seaters wasn't possible because of the space limitations.

That's not true, he had somewhere between 15 and 20 rallies before the one he got severely injured in.

Actually, it took Kubica one rally longer to win his first WRC-2 event than it took Teemu Suninen to do the same. I am not saying that Kubica should've been just as good, stable, consistent etc. as Suninen are now, but in terms of rally experience, had more experience at the time of their first win, he had bigger programmes than Suninen after as well, but never could manage to drive fast and consistent, while Suninen is looked at as one of the biggest talents at present time after two very good WRC events and not much testing beforehand.

Edited by Myrvold, 06 August 2017 - 20:41.

[thuGG]

Attacked him? Not sure so many actually "attacked" him, but like I said earlier, when you after over 20 WRC-rallies have more than 1 crash per rally on average, that is way too much.

 

Second season was way better than the first, I dont think it was that high. 

Still I find I very impressive how quickly he had pace in WRC cars.

It was a matter of choice, go slowly and develop pace slowly (i.e. Evans), or go fast risking crashes. He chose the latter, in hindsight first option would be probably better. Though, the first option was more spectacular, and many loved him for this flat out attitude ;)

[tghik]

Attacked him? Not sure so many actually "attacked" him, but like I said earlier, when you after over 20 WRC-rallies have more than 1 crash per rally on average, that is way too much.
 

That's not true, he had somewhere between 15 and 20 rallies before the one he got severely injured in.

Actually, it took Kubica one rally longer to win his first WRC-2 event than it took Teemu Suninen to do the same. I am not saying that Kubica should've been just as good, stable, consistent etc. as Suninen are now, but in terms of rally experience, had more experience at the time of their first win, he had bigger programmes than Suninen after as well, but never could manage to drive fast and consistent, while Suninen is looked at as one of the biggest talents at present time after two very good WRC events and not much testing beforehand.

 

I don't know how you can compare a Finnish driver to Kubica, it's not about how many rallies you have but age you start driving on slippery roads. Slippery roads are more related to rally way of driving. Now, I know you r much more rally expert than me, so tell us at what age WRC drivers started rallying, and not the drivers from scandinavian countries but more south.

[Myrvold]

Second season was way better than the first, I dont think it was that high. 
Still I find I very impressive how quickly he had pace in WRC cars.
It was a matter of choice, go slowly and develop pace slowly (i.e. Evans), or go fast risking crashes. He chose the latter, in hindsight first option would be probably better. Though, the first option was more spectacular, and many loved him for this flat out attitude ;)

It might've been a bit better. Not able to remember if his first spin in Monte caused more issues, or if the electrical/light issues came random after. But he crashed out of the rally later on.
Sweden was good. Frustrating to see him with only FWD second time around on the stage I watched.
Mexico he crashed out of Day 1.
Portugal was good.
Crashed again in Italy
Poland was good
Crashed in Finland
Crashed twice in Germany, only one that caused Rally-2
Double puncture in Corsica. Not having luck is the most likely cause there.
Went off, causing a puncture, losing any chance of points.
And ok in GB.
Monte 2016 - crash
 
8/12, better but not exactly great.
 

I don't know how you can compare a Finnish driver to Kubica, it's not about how many rallies you have but age you start driving on slippery roads. Slippery roads are more related to rally way of driving. Now, I know you r much more rally expert than me, so tell us at what age WRC drivers started rallying, and not the drivers from scandinavian countries but more south.

And lack of experience isn't really an excuse when you pass 50 rallies. Like I said. Suninen have less than 50 rallies overall, Loeb had just passed 50 rallies when he got 2nd for Citroën in his first WRC rally for Citroën. Ogier had done his first WRC season and still not had 50 rallies overall.

Both Ogier and Loeb had their first rallies at age 23. Kubica had his first at age 20, first year with many rallies, 25 and then followed up with loads of rallies age 26.

Edited by Myrvold, 06 August 2017 - 21:09.

[DrProzac]

That's not true, he had somewhere between 15 and 20 rallies before the one he got severely injured in.

 

16 actually, most of them short ones in S1600 or R3 FWD cars. Plus one start as a course car.

 

Actually, it took Kubica one rally longer to win his first WRC-2 event than it took Teemu Suninen to do the same. I am not saying that Kubica should've been just as good, stable, consistent etc. as Suninen are now, but in terms of rally experience, had more experience at the time of their first win, he had bigger programmes than Suninen after as well, but never could manage to drive fast and consistent, while Suninen is looked at as one of the biggest talents at present time after two very good WRC events and not much testing beforehand.

 

I don't know what's the point of this comparison, but Kubica won in his second WRC2 rally. The first one was Portugal, his very first graver rally (he was 6th). As far as I can tell Suninen was 6th in his first WRC2 start, in Poland. Than he was 5th, 13th, and finally 1st.  Kubica won his WRC2 title in hist fist year, Suninen never did. I don't know if their rivals were comparable, but you're wrong as far as the results are considered. Given that he is Finnish, my bet is that he is rallying since he was a kid.

 

Also, Kubica's best result in WRC was 5th in a RRC car. Not that bad compared to 4th and 6th in a proper "factory" provided WRC car and two fully functional hands. Unfortunately Robert's later starts in WRC were much worse. Probably due to many different reasons.

 

BTW I'm not saying that Robert is a better rally driver than Teemu. Or has more talent rallying wise.

[Myrvold]

16 actually, most of them short ones in S1600 or R3 FWD cars. Plus one start as a course car.

 

I don't know what's the point of this comparison, but Kubica won in his second WRC2 rally. The first one was Portugal, his very first graver rally (he was 6th). As far as I can tell Suninen was 6th in his first WRC2 start, in Poland. Than he was 5th, 13th, and finally 1st.  Kubica won his WRC2 title in hist fist year, Suninen never did. I don't know if their rivals were comparable, but you're wrong as far as the results are considered. Given that he is Finnish, my bet is that he is rallying since he was a kid.

 

Also, Kubica's best result in WRC was 5th in a RRC car. Not that bad compared to 4th and 6th in a proper "factory" provided WRC car and two fully functional hands. Unfortunately Robert's later starts in WRC were much worse. Probably due to many different reasons.

 

BTW I'm not saying that Robert is a better rally driver than Teemu. Or has more talent rallying wise.

 

Shorter rallies in FWD cars are what Loeb and Ogier had in their first years as well though.

 

Wrong as far as the results are considered? One rally longer in terms of total number of rallies, not WRC-2 rallies. And no, the level of competition was lower in WRC-2 then, actually the level in PWRC, SWRC, WRC-2 have usually been quite low, it's an anomaly with Suninen, Tidemand, Lappi, Mikkelsen, Evans the last two seasons. And yes, Suninen will probably have been in cars before he was legally allowed to drive. But I would guess that goes for Kubica as well ;)

Kubicas best results overall in a rally with the RRC car was very good, but again, he is a bit unlucky that while he did very good in the RRC-car, the overall position is flattered by the lack of proper WRC drivers. Citroën had 2, Ford had 3 and VW had 2. I mean, the fact that Prokop got 4th shows it all. Kubica was a faster rally driver than Prokop, without doubt.

 

It's just that it frustrates me slightly as a rally-fan to see the excuses being made for Kubica. He wasn't that inexperienced compared to other drivers that's become top drivers. Certainly not when it comes to 4WD experience going in to his second WRC-season

[tghik]

And lack of experience isn't really an excuse when you pass 50 rallies. Like I said. Suninen have less than 50 rallies overall, Loeb had just passed 50 rallies when he got 2nd for Citroën in his first WRC rally for Citroën. Ogier had done his first WRC season and still not had 50 rallies overall.

Both Ogier and Loeb had their first rallies at age 23. Kubica had his first at age 20, first year with many rallies, 25 and then followed up with loads of rallies age 26.

It might've been a bit better. Not able to remember if his first spin in Monte caused more issues, or if the electrical/light issues came random after. But he crashed out of the rally later on.

First of all you just skipped the part where I talked Suninen being raised in the climate when slippery roads occur on regular basis. From young age he was exposed to "rally" kind of conditions. Not only that he started rallying at 20.

 

Second Loeb didn't start rallying at age 23. Loeb "Sébastien ran several GTIs into the ground before his attention was caught by a recruitment ad looking for young rally drivers for ‘Opération Rallye Jeunes’. This was 1995. Sebastian was 21"

 

Third, Ogier didn't start at 23 but at 20.

 

Fourth, Kubica didn't professionally start rallying at age 20 as you say to have regular rallying like Loeb or Ogier. He started at 26 which was still not a career but occasional appearances.

 

And lastly, Kubica started rallying after being programmed to drive in racing when drifting is a no-no, drifting is forbidden in racing as it makes you lose time. So in order to drive rally he had to unlearn first. The WRC drivers mentioned started directly in rally, their head learning rallying as the first professional way of driving.

 

And lastly number 2, which is on sporting side, Kubica drove with the handicap compared to other WRC drivers, which you ignore. Only this I would be less inclined to pinpoint his rally accidents. But you still happily do.

 

All the facts given by you were wrong, so no point talking anymore about rallying. Sorry Myrvold, I'm dissapointed

Edited by tghik, 06 August 2017 - 22:02.

[Myrvold]

First of all you just skipped the part where I talked Suninen being raised in the climate when slippery roads occur on regular basis. From young age he was exposed to "rally" kind of conditions. Not only that he started rallying at 20.

Yes, slippery roads occur regularly here in Scandinavia, but I really don't see how that would be that huge of a factor. It's not like Kubica was a tarmac-specialist like Gilles Panizzi. Kubica was not bad on gravel, but not good in Sweden. Though, I've never been in Poland. I would assume that there are more than one slightly deserted gravel road in the country that people have fun on.

Second Loeb didn't start rallying at age 23. Loeb "Sébastien ran several GTIs into the ground before his attention was caught by a recruitment ad looking for young rally drivers for ‘Opération Rallye Jeunes’. This was 1995. Sebastian was 21"

The GTI's are reffering to regular road driving, with a regular drivers license etc. Which is why this "and his licence spent more time with the police than in his wallet" is 2 sentences before the part you decided to copy and paste from the sebastianloebrallyevo.com site. He did not win the talent competition in 95. Waited another year, and didn't win that year either. This was a talent competition. Not a rally championship,

Third, Ogier didn't start at 23 but at 20.

Ogier won the same talent competition in 2005, and was rewarded with a place in the Peugeot 206 Cup in 2006. He is born in 1983.

Fourth, Kubica didn't professionally start rallying at age 20 as you say to have regular rallying like Loeb or Ogier. He started at 26 which was still not a career but occasional appearances.

I answered when the first rally for the ones I mentioned was, and when Kubice drove his first rally. I also said what year he did many rallies, which was 5 in 2009 he followed up with 10 in 2010. he was then 25 and 26. 10 rallies in one year is actually quite a bit. Here in Norway the championship is 6 rallies, and it's normal that people do 2-4 non championship rallies and maybe a sprint or two depending on budget. Yes it was a hobby aside from F1 in 2010, but still. It was a good amount of rallies.

And lastly, Kubica started rallying after being programmed to drive in racing when drifting is a no-no, drifting is forbidden in racing as it makes you lose time. So in order to drive rally he had to unlearn first. The WRC drivers mentioned started directly in rally, their head learning rallying as the first professional way of driving.

This is true, but that don't explain his relative problems in a WRC car compared to the RRC car which seemed to have much more control over. Also, it would've meant that he should've had bigger issues on loose surface than solid. This was not the case either.

And lastly number 2, which is on sporting side, Kubica drove with the handicap compared to other WRC drivers, which you ignore. Only this I would be less inclined to pinpoint his rally accidents. But you still happily do.
 
All the facts given by you were wrong, so no point talking anymore about rallying. Sorry Myrvold, I'm dissapointed

Where have I ignored that? Of course it would be more useful with two uninjured arms. At the same time, he was allowed a gearing system that meant he could keep his right hand on the wheel. How much of the accidents was due to this, and how much was just by driving too fast is impossible to say.

I do wonder where I was wrong though.

Loeb did no rallies in 95 or 96.
Ogier did his first 06 and born in 83 (so, granted, he might've been 22, no idea when in the year he was born).
Professionally start rallying was not the question I answered as far as I understood it. And regardless with "started rallying" we would probably disagree, as you will likely say 2013, but at that time he had already been in 24 of them, more than Ogier had before he joined JWRC.

[evo]

myrvold - i thought the biggest barrier to being competitive is the lack of using/trusting a co-driver's pacenotes to navigate through stages rather than terrain.

 

that and his mindset would have to be 'fastest' everywhere possible given his circuit racing experience.

 

I might be late to this conversation but age (especially under 30) shouldn't be a mitigating factor.

[tghik]

I think the best is to count the number of rallies for each driver, not years.

so how many rallies did Kubica do when he was 20 ? because if I read your arguments that's when he started his rally career even if following years he had nothing. But you are using double standard "Loeb did no rallies in 95 or 96" but you don't apply the same for RK.

On top of that counting rallies is one but it should be rather for each surface. RK initial rallying in Italy which is on tarmac in huge majority but you still count it, even tho WRC is mostly on other surfaces on which he had no experience

 

food for thought:

"Question to Kubica: do you remember the first time you saw Ogier? What did you think?

RK: I remember him driving in the JWRC. I was following rallies, but I was quite busy in F1. You always follow the results, but never that close. In all my life I had only been twice to watch rallying - in Sardinia in 2007 and then in Catalunya. Actually, three rallies. I was also in Corsica when the Suzuki [SX4 WRC] came for the first time; that was an interesting car to watch at shakedown!"

so looking at his answer I don't know what kind of rally you mention at 20 because that would make it in 2004 but RK says in 2007 he was only watching it?

 

 

Question to Kubica: what about next year?

RK: I don't know. It's too early. I have a lot to learn and a lot to discover. I also have a lot of bad moments to live in order to learn. I have a new goal after the accident and I would like to achieve it. It depends on the conditions of the WRC and how I will be able to compete. It's no secret that you need a lot of experience and I need a lot of time to learn; I am coming from zero.

I can use 10 per cent of my experience from circuits. Maybe a bit more on Tarmac, but on gravel I drove for the first time last March after just 150 kilometres of testing. It's quite a lot to learn and for that reason I need more time

so once again from his answer how can you compare his experience with experience of other WRC drivers ? he says he drove on gravel for the first time in 2013 although I am not sure if he meant 2014

 

RK:Eighty per cent of rallies are gravel and I only had eight rallies on gravel in my life

so by august 2014 he had only 8 rallies on gravel, so can I ask you Myrvold how many Ogier/Loeb and other WRC already had ?

 

SO: What do you miss from racing and reverse: what do you get in rallying you didn't get in racing?

RK: It's a completely different world. In F1 you get everything at the maximum: performance from the car, the organisation, the teams, the people. Everybody is working much more on the details. I grew up with people working on the very small details and then you come to rallies where it matters, but it's not such an important thing – especially at the beginning.

My mentality is trying to maximise and improve everything I can. I have to understand it's too early for me to do this in rallying. In order for me to fight at the top like Seb, you need to work on the very small details and be very precise – but on the circuit, you go nowhere without these details. On the circuit, on one lap of five kilometres, three tenths of a second is the difference between an average driver and an F1 driver.

SO: Without the right car in F1 you go nowhere, but in rallying, like you say, it's much more about experience.

Ogier says himself here:but in rallying, like you say, it's much more about experience.

 

look at what Ogier says next:

Maybe the gap [to move to circuit racing] is not as big as for Robert to move the other way. It takes a long time to build the experience of rallies – you only get it by competing and doing rallies and rallies and rallies all the time.

You keep repeating that 50 rallies is enough but why then Ogier repeats 3 times "It takes a long time to build the experience of rallies – you only get it by competing and doing rallies and rallies and rallies all the time"

[Domi]

https://rally-base.c...772&ssGroupId=1

His speed was just too big for the experience he had

[Crazy Canuck]

Can't have this discussion without watching this epic footage.  But you need to watch it through, it gets better, so take the 15 mins and enjoy.

 

 

 

Robert is phenomenally fast and unquestionably courageous.

 

 

 

CC

[redreni]

Hard to say. I don't follow rallying closely. All I remember is a sequence of rallies where clips were emerging of Kubica's latest terrifying roll seemingly on a fortnightly basis. I don't know what his finishing record actually was compared to other top rally drivers, but I do think that would have to be taken very much into account in assessing whether he was any good.

Edited by redreni, 07 August 2017 - 13:29.

[Balnazzard]

The way I saw it,  just like with Kimi Raikkonen, Kubica could do incredibly well in Rally (with the experience he had) when the route/stage was already familiar to him....but when it was not, he could drive too fast in some places and crash out, just like with Kimi.

If you want to compare them just through statistics, Kimi took 59 points in 22 WRC starts , Kubica took 43 points  in 33 starts, although all of them were after his accident in 2011. That being said I think Kubica too much more risks and was driving very boldly, but more often than not thats not a good approach to take in WRC, and I think thats why Kubica crashed out way too often, where as Kimi didnt try to take the fastest stage times, but drove more "safely", thus managed to finish races more oftne and take points when other drivers made mistakes or were unlucky.

But that's just my view and what I could gather from what I occasionally saw and read about, I didnt follow their short rally careers that closely to be honest to make really accurate analysis

 

Edited by Balnazzard, 07 August 2017 - 13:43.

[JRodrigues]

If you want to compare them just through statistics, Kimi took 59 points in 22 WRC starts , Kubica took 43 points  in 33 starts, although all of them were after his accident in 2011.

 

 

This is not comparable. Raikkonen did 21 of those starts with a WRC car, while Kubica did roughly half os those starts with a WRC2 car.

 

In 2007 Kubica was already doing rally stuff:

He's long been a rallying fan and played many rally games, specially RBR. So, his involvment/liking with WRC is something that started a little while ago.

[Dicun]

For sure he will have an easier time in F1. What I don't understand why so many ppl attacked him so badly for his driving in WRC? Rally is much more difficult than racing and you need to have more experience, and I'm not even mentioning his arm. He pushed more in order to learn faster and the result was what we saw.

 

I always rejected this seemingly widespread notion.

 

In GP racing you have to have race craft, you have to know how and where to defend, how to attack, how to start off the grid and how to position your car when others are around you, all the while thinking about tyres and fuel and whatnot. Rally on the other hand is basically doing qualifying runs - going flat out through the stages with nobody to race with you but the stop watch. 

 

I vividly remember how Tommi Mäkinen back in the day tried to drive a Williams FW20 only to first stall the engine in the pit lane then spin and crash the car in a matter of a few corners. He couldn't believe how short braking distances were in F1. I think that alone tells you how untrue and pointless it is to claim that rallying is harder than driving in F1 or vica versa. Both are very different kettles of fish and require a totally different set of skills.

[messy]

Was very impressed with Kubica when he was in WRC2. He got up to speed quickly, he was fast enough to score World Championship points and win the WRC2 title. I think maybe, at that point, the pressure was a bit different. The competition wasn't as strong at WRC2 level and that was his direct comparison, he was comfortably able to beat them quite regularly. Any overall top ten results were a bonus. Obviously he had a strong, well funded team behind him and a good car.

When he stepped up into 'proper' WRC cars it seemed to go a big wrong. I'm not sure whether his injury contributed, but suspect that was an issue in those days. Did he put himself under too much pressure, did he find those cars harder to drive, did he just push that bit harder because he felt he had the pace to compete right at the top? Dunno, but a lot of the time he was an accident waiting to happen. He seemed to crash at pretty much every event, and usually driver error through pushing too hard (or at least that's how it seemed). He could pull out some very impressive stage times, but I always felt there was an accident just around the corner all the time. Maybe that's unfair.

I think Kimi probably went too far the other way. People said at the time, that on a stage that Kimi knew well he could be right up with the top guys, but rallying is more about improvising I guess, and I think Kimi erred more on the side of caution in a 20 minute long stage, bringing home points but not troubling the top of the leaderboard.

[MikeV1987]

Fast but not good with pace notes. 

 

edit: unless I'm getting him mixed up with Raikkonen.

Edited by MikeV1987, 07 August 2017 - 15:00.

[thuGG]

Why?

[Myrvold]

I think the best is to count the number of rallies for each driver, not years.

Which I did in the first post, then I was asked about first rally, so I answered that. Now it's back to number of rallies. See post #3 and #6
 

so how many rallies did Kubica do when he was 20 ? because if I read your arguments that's when he started his rally career even if following years he had nothing.

One single rally. As I have written, the first year he did more than one rally in the same calendar year was 2009. And, if that is what you read, you really need to read better. I wrote "Professionally start rallying was not the question I answered as far as I understood it". Again. He did his first rally at age 20, that was what I answered - I would put somewhere around 09/10 when the rallying started to "take off", but that was not the initial question I answered many posts ago. Again. That was first rally.

 

But you are using double standard "Loeb did no rallies in 95 or 96" but you don't apply the same for RK.

Because Robert Kubica did a rally at age 20 in 2004. Sebastien Loeb did not do any rallies in 95 or 96 or any year before that. Sebastien Loeb's first rally was in 1997. How is it double standards? One did participate a rally, another one did not participate.
 

On top of that counting rallies is one but it should be rather for each surface. RK initial rallying in Italy which is on tarmac in huge majority but you still count it, even tho WRC is mostly on other surfaces on which he had no experience

Which would've been a perfectly fine thing, if he'd actually been consistently much better on tarmac than on loose surface. The 2014 Alsace rally, was probably the best rally Kubica did in a WRC-car. He was consistent, fast and would've had a safe 4th place, but retired on the power stage with a crash. Other than that, his standout moments are from Monte Carlo on the stages with variable surface and the first day of Rally Catalunya 2015, which was on gravel.

 

food for thought:
"Question to Kubica: do you remember the first time you saw Ogier? What did you think?
RK: I remember him driving in the JWRC. I was following rallies, but I was quite busy in F1. You always follow the results, but never that close. In all my life I had only been twice to watch rallying - in Sardinia in 2007 and then in Catalunya. Actually, three rallies. I was also in Corsica when the Suzuki [SX4 WRC] came for the first time; that was an interesting car to watch at shakedown!"
so looking at his answer I don't know what kind of rally you mention at 20 because that would make it in 2004 but RK says in 2007 he was only watching it?

2004 Rajd Barboka. A sprintrally in Poland. Some of the big Polish rally names were present, Michal Solowow,Thomas Kuchar, Krzysztof Holowczyc. Kubica beat Holowczyc. In 2005 he was the last course car in Wawelski, in a proper rally car he would've done proper speeds, but not being in the competition, proper rally over 2 days and 220km.
 

Question to Kubica: what about next year?
RK: I don't know. It's too early. I have a lot to learn and a lot to discover. I also have a lot of bad moments to live in order to learn. I have a new goal after the accident and I would like to achieve it. It depends on the conditions of the WRC and how I will be able to compete. It's no secret that you need a lot of experience and I need a lot of time to learn; I am coming from zero.
I can use 10 per cent of my experience from circuits. Maybe a bit more on Tarmac, but on gravel I drove for the first time last March after just 150 kilometres of testing. It's quite a lot to learn and for that reason I need more time
so once again from his answer how can you compare his experience with experience of other WRC drivers ? he says he drove on gravel for the first time in 2013 although I am not sure if he meant 2014

How can I do that? He had his first gravel rally in 2013, in the FAFE Rally Sprint as a pre event, event for rally Portugal - so you can be sure it was 2013 that was "last march" and this was before the 2014 season.
It is a lot to learn. Then back to how I can compare, in 2015, starting in Sweden, that was Kubica's 18th event on loose surface, and the 18th with a 4WD car. In 2009, Ogier started in Norway, it was his 14th loose surface rally. And it was his 4th(overall, not just loose surface) with a 4WD car. In his 20th rally on loose surface he was 2nd overall. That was his 9th rally in a 4WD car. And his 42nd rally of his career. Even if you remove every rally before 2012 from Kubica, and don't count the Italian shows, he had that amount of rallies in mid 2015, and more loose surface rallies than Ogier at the same point in their careers.
 

RK:Eighty per cent of rallies are gravel and I only had eight rallies on gravel in my life
so by august 2014 he had only 8 rallies on gravel, so can I ask you Myrvold how many Ogier/Loeb and other WRC already had ?

Already had when joining WRC. Ogier had 13 (including the Rally GB in 08 as "pre-WRC", even though it was with a WRC car) as Kubica includes his Rally GB in 13 in his 8th before the 2014 season, again though. Ogier had one single of them with a 4WD car. Kubica had all.
Loeb had 14 events on loose surface before 2002 and his first WRC season. 0 of them in anything other than a FWD car.
The reason I chose those drivers to compare is that they are top drivers, with a tarmac background, and joining WRC at a surprisingly "high" age. Loeb was actually just about to be 28 years old when he did his first 4WD event on loose surface in Sweden 02.
 

SO: What do you miss from racing and reverse: what do you get in rallying you didn't get in racing?
RK: It's a completely different world. In F1 you get everything at the maximum: performance from the car, the organisation, the teams, the people. Everybody is working much more on the details. I grew up with people working on the very small details and then you come to rallies where it matters, but it's not such an important thing – especially at the beginning.
My mentality is trying to maximise and improve everything I can. I have to understand it's too early for me to do this in rallying. In order for me to fight at the top like Seb, you need to work on the very small details and be very precise – but on the circuit, you go nowhere without these details. On the circuit, on one lap of five kilometres, three tenths of a second is the difference between an average driver and an F1 driver.
SO: Without the right car in F1 you go nowhere, but in rallying, like you say, it's much more about experience.
Ogier says himself here:but in rallying, like you say, it's much more about experience.

Of course, experience is important. But as seen with the VW cars, you need the "right car". Or like in the early 00's. Not a chance Loeb would've been that good in a Hyundai Accent or Skoda Octavia.
And what I am trying to show is that in terms of number of rallies, Kubica wasn't that massively inexperienced. And when 2015 came around, his rally experience should've meant that he did better than what he actually did.
 

look at what Ogier says next:
Maybe the gap [to move to circuit racing] is not as big as for Robert to move the other way. It takes a long time to build the experience of rallies – you only get it by competing and doing rallies and rallies and rallies all the time.
You keep repeating that 50 rallies is enough but why then Ogier repeats 3 times "It takes a long time to build the experience of rallies – you only get it by competing and doing rallies and rallies and rallies all the time"

Experience are important, and you need to do rallies to get it. But like I said. Ogier had 35 rallies when he started on his first WRC campaign. In his 42nd he was 2nd. In his 56th rally he won. Having two podiums in between those achievements.

Kubica had glimpses of good speed, but was very erratic, not consistent and it didn't seem to get much better no matter how much experience he got. In 2013 he was good. In 2014 he showed potential, in 2015, he wasn't able to actually get better. In broad terms he either went slow (in between the fast guys and the gentleman drivers( or went off. Note again: In broad terms. At that point of his rally career he should've been better.

 

I checked Sordo as well, as he are the only driver I can think of that have a fairly OK level, that haven't struggled for years to get in to a WRC seat, and are from an area with mainly tarmac events.

 

Dani Sordo had just over 60 rallies when he got his first WRC start. Many of those had been in a Gr.N car. Not easy to pinpoint exactly the number of loose surface rallies, somewhere between 10 and 15. In his 2nd WRC rally on loose surface he was 4th, then 3rd in his 4th loose surface rally in WRC.

 

Anyway, this feels slightly pointless to be honest.

[Myrvold]

This is not comparable. Raikkonen did 21 of those starts with a WRC car, while Kubica did roughly half os those starts with a WRC2 car.

No it's not. But Raikkonen had as you said 21 starts in a WRC car in WRC events. Kubica did actually have 26 WRC events in a WRC car.

[EightGear]

He was very fast and impressive, but after some events it was clear he would never be able to keep that kind of speed over thr course of a whole rally.

[realracer200]

Raikkonen drove a Citroen which was clearly the best car back then while during Kubica's time in the WRC the VWs were clearly superior to all other cars. There's no doubt that in a VW Kubica would have won a Rally or two on asphalt.

Edited by realracer200, 07 August 2017 - 16:09.

[thuGG]

Yep, it's worth remembering that Kubica ran a private Fiesta on a tight budget.

[Myrvold]

Raikkonen drove a Citroen which was clearly the best car back then while during Kubica's time in the WRC the VWs were clearly superior to all other cars. There's no doubt that in a VW Kubica would have won a Rally or two on asphalt.

The C4 never was as dominant as the Xsara, and the DS3 certainly was not. And yes, it's a doubt if he'd done that. He only had one tarmac rally where he didn't go off in his time in a WRC car. That rally he got other issues not down to the car. There was only one asphalt rally you could do an argument that Kubica was the fastest Fiesta-driver, but then again. Hirvonen on asphalt or Evans in his first season isn't really on the level of Ogier or Latvala, or Neuville for what that matters.

 

Yep, it's worth remembering that Kubica ran a private Fiesta on a tight budget.

Which is a solid, and correct explanation for the random technical issues in 2015. However, in 2014 the car was run by M-Sport personnel. 

[thuGG]

 

Which is a solid, and correct explanation for the random technical issues in 2015. However, in 2014 the car was run by M-Sport personnel. 

 

Still, it wasn't a match for VW and Citroen.

[Myrvold]

Still, it wasn't a match for VW and Citroen.

 

VW are true. Citroën... I would actually argue that the Fiesta was a match for the DS3. Hirvonen was very close to Loeb in 2011, and I wouldn't say that Hirvonen was close to Loeb in any shape or form. 2012 the Ford drivers was awful (maybe the car was awful as well, but Latvala had one of his worst years, that says something. Solberg was erratic, even being beaten my privateer Østberg, who skipped a couple of rallies). In 2013 the best Fiesta was way ahead of the best Citroën. In 2014 Hirvonen was better than the Citroëns and in 2015 the M-Sport squad was awful driver wise. Then last year was a part-time effort for Citroën.

 

I don't think the Fiesta was much worse if any worse at all than the DS3.
 

The VW however, was a mighty beast!

[messy]

I think Citroen are kind of indebted to a certain Mr Loeb for making their cars look head and shoulders above everything else over the years. I think mainly the truth is that Loeb himself was head and shoulders above the rest.

Ford got very close over the years, with far inferior drivers. I'd even argue that Gronholm was well past his best when he fought out the destiny of the 2007 title with Seb. The common denominator in all of it is Sebastien Loeb.

Certainly in recent years with the Fiesta WRC, it clearly, clearly still had the pace to win on merit. Even with the loss of full factory support, and a succession of less than amazing drivers in the cars.

[chunder27]

I am not so sure Seb was leagues ahead of the best ever.

 

He was ahead of a decent bunch.  I would not put Latvala, Hirvonen et al as top level drivers of the past.

 

McRae had to beat Makinen Auriol, Sainz, Burns, Kankkunen, Delecour and a host of others to win. All good in some places.

 

Loeb had to beat Hirvonen or Gronholm, and once Marcus went away he was able to win everywhere. he had a team mate wgho never won anything in Sordo, and was pushed at times by Sainz and Duval even early on. 

 

For purists Loeb will always have doubt as he only drove one car and it was built for him, around him and he eliminated any threat, notably Ogier when he got too close.

 

Whiole agree Loeb was by far the best of his generation. I am doubtful he will ever be considered the great he should be, simply because the championship was garbage when he was winning and he had little opposition.

[EightGear]

People tend to forget Loeb did compete with- and beat McRae, Sainz, Burns, Gronholm, Solberg et al. The early 2000's really were pretty damn spectacular with loads of manufacturers, some old names and new guys coming up. Really he could well have won the 2003 title and beat some of those 'big names.'

[Myrvold]

People tend to forget Loeb did compete with- and beat McRae, Sainz, Burns, Gronholm, Solberg et al. The early 2000's really were pretty damn spectacular with loads of manufacturers, some old names and new guys coming up. Really he could well have won the 2003 title and beat some of those 'big names.'

 

To add to this, he also "dethroned" Gilles Panizzi as the absolute asphalt-warrior in the early 00's. It is quite likely that if Panizzi had not hurt his shoulder in 2002, he would've been 1st or 2nd in Germany (he didn't participate). That would've brought him to 2nd overall in the championship that year. Quite amazing to think that back in the early 00's there were so many drivers on a high level on loose surface, and the cars had different strenghts, so they always stole points from each other. That if you as a asphalt specialist managed to win all the asphalt rallies you could push for a top three overall. Or even better in 01, it would've been a possible title fight seeing how Burns only scored 44 points.

 

If we get Mikkelsen in a WRC car, Suninen full-time, Meeke getting consistent (as if...) and the C3 actually being a manageable car, there is a chance that we will have the same situation next year, but that is maybe more for the rally thread!

[chunder27]

Loeb was strong from the start, and my point is not that he is as good as them, but that he had little competition for most of his career.

 

I think sadly much as I like the guys from that era, Seb was a step above them.

 

But again, he only ever drive one car, and it was dominant pretty much from the moment it came out, taking over pretty much from the 206.

[BRG]

I think anyone who can't see that Loeb is the GOAT of rallying is deceiving themsleves.  To say he had no competition is nonsense - he dominated opponents that in a Loeb-less world would have been seen as real stars.  Nine WRCs (and a second place as well),plus a Junior WRC title and 78 WRC rally victories. 

 

I have seen them all - from Hopkirk and (Timo) Makkinen through Blomqvist, Vatanen, Alen, Mikkola, McRae, Sainz, (Tommy) Makkinen et etc and Loeb could knock spots off any of them.  And all with one of the best records for not throwing it into the bushes of almost any rally driver ever whilst still being the fastest as well.  And in the midst of all this dominance, he took time out in 2006 to come 2nd at Le Mans in a privateer Pescarolo, beating the works Audi of Le Mans-meister Tom Kristensen into 3rd place.

 

Just the other day, retired rally driver Loeb popped out  for a Sunday driver in a R5 Peugeot 208 on the Rallye du Chablais with his wife on the notes.  Naturally, he won it.

[chunder27]

Personally I think you are wrong.

 

I don't think he would have been able to consistently beat McRae, Auriol, Makinen, Sainz, Burns, Juha and those guys as much as he beat drivers of his generation. He would have won yes, and would he have won routinely as he did in his time?  If you think he would then I think you are very wrong.

 

He would have melded in with them as they all did.  

 

In his era, who did he have to beat consistently?  A Spanish team-mate who has never won anything, Hirvonen who was only any good on certain gravel rallies. Solberg who was good for a few years then faded, Marcus was his biggest rival really and fair enough he beat him soundly. But Marcus was not the man then he was at Peugeot. 

 

But since then...  Latvala?  Lol  He soon packed Ogier off did he not!

 

I am not saying he is not the best, his record establishes that. But I simply cant see him dominating drivers of other eras, the way he did his, as there were more drivers in top cars back then, even back to the 70's.  

[BRG]

Personally I think you are wrong.

 

I don't think he would have been able to consistently beat McRae, Auriol, Makinen, Sainz, Burns, Juha and those guys as much as he beat drivers of his generation. He would have won yes, and would he have won routinely as he did in his time?  If you think he would then I think you are very wrong.

Yet in 2003, Loeb's first full WRC season, when he could only manage to come 2nd, beaten by Solberg by one whole point (!), he beat Sainz, Auriol, Burns, Gronholm, Makkinen,  and McRae fair and square.  Not to mention Marko Martin, Duval, Panizzi, Loix et al.  Just the five WR Champiosn there, plus Martin who should have been one.  And of course, Loeb nailed Solberg too the following year.  So, yes, he could and did consistently beat them.

[Spillage]

I thought he was solid, but it didn't look like his natural forte. He could ahve done a soldi job, but he was never going to win the WRC - for one thing, his name isn't Sebastien...

Edited by Spillage, 08 August 2017 - 21:28.

[chunder27]

The Xsara was a much better car in 2003 than anything else and was for its entire career.  Bloody Puras and Bug won rallies in it for goodness sake, you telling me now they were better than Panizzi, Delecour et al?

 

For a guy with such an inate knowledge of the series that would be obvious.

 

If you could drive that Xsara you would win in it. Colin couldn't, Duval couldn't and a few others couldn't. but Seb could.  It was the new era where there was no sideways, all understeer and those guys could not drive like that. End of their era, beginning of Loebs.

[BRG]

So your logic is that the Xsara was the best car and that Loeb could drive it, but those others, who you maintain were better than him, they couldn't drive it?  The simple fact is that he blew them away by sheer talent.  End of story.  All the facts show this to be the case, but I don't imagine that you will allow mere facts to persuade you.

 

Meanwhile, back at the thread, my view of Kubica the rally driver was that he was pretty good, but was too ambitious by making the leap to full WRC without the experience and skills to be able to match the leading drivers.  Rallying has always needed experience, just as circuit racing does and if you don't have the foundation, you cannot climb to the top.  Kubica clearly had speed but lacked something, hence the frequent crashes.  It may have been technique, it may have been inadequate pace note skills, it may have simply been over driving.  The two disciplines of top line single seater and top line rallying are far enough apart that you can't just move from one to the other ad lib.  But good luck to him for making the effort.

Edited by BRG, 09 August 2017 - 11:23.

[chunder27]

Facts are just stats on paper. They do not show the full story.

 

Are you telling me you think Loeb would win nearly every round in the era from 93 to when he started? So would have won 6 or 7 titles from say 95 to 2002? Surely not, surely you can see why?

 

He would NOT have won anything like as much in that era.  The car was pretty much built around him from 2003, much like the Lancer was for Tommi from 95 to 2000. But did he dominate?  No, coz he had lots of rivals who challenged him. Does that make him less of a driver than Loeb, no, coz he beat them 4 years in a row to titles, with the ability no Finns had before him much, to win and be quick on asphalt. 

 

Who did Loeb beat?  A past it Gronholm, Hirvonen, Latvala, Martin?  If you rank those guys up there with Tommi, Colin, Carlos, Burns and Juha then we will never agree and clearly have very, very different views on the various eras of rallying and the drivers who competed in them.

 

My point about 2003 is this.  The Xsara was developed around the tyres and stages they used then and in the future.  McRae, Makinen admitted they found it hard to feel comfortable in those cars and retired as they could not compete anymore. They weren't slower, they simply could not adapt and honestly did not like the new era of cars from that point on. The development went in a new way, and did not suit their driving styles. They had their time, this was Loebs time. The only man who really adapted for me was Marcus. Even Solberg found it hard to really consistently get close to Loeb. And Marcis obviously only on gravel.

 

Returning to Kubica, I think he did pretty well actually, he was very quick, and very, almost too committed.  He loved it, was clearly enjoying it, but perhaps went a little too close to hurting himself again.

[Darrenj]

Please, he is older man with a bad arm...he had his time " he could have been a contender"

We can not keep creating stops in the system for new upcoming exciting talent.  

There are only so many seats available. 

I do not know why the media is creating such a storm around someone who last drove an F1 car ....when?

Seems like the summer doldrums to me, bring on Belgium

Edited by Darrenj, 09 August 2017 - 13:32.

[BRG]

Who did Loeb beat?  A past it Gronholm, Hirvonen, Latvala, Martin?  If you rank those guys up there with Tommi, Colin, Carlos, Burns and Juha then we will never agree and clearly have very, very different views on the various eras of rallying and the drivers who competed in them.

We covered that point, if you had been bothered to read my post fully.  In 2003, Loeb (in his first full season, mind you) beat Sainz, Burns, Martin, Gronholm, McRae, Makinen, Duval, Panizzi, Rovanpera, Gaardemeister, Auriol and Loix.  And a few others.  Only Solberg managed to beat Loeb that year and that by just a single point.

 

And incidentally, your comment about Bugalski winning in the Xsara was an alternative fact.  He won in the FWD 2 litre n/a kitcar version of the Xsara which had a massive weight advantage over the Gp A cars of the time.  He did not win in the WRC Xsara.  Puras did win in the WRC version but he was a tarmac specialist on the Tour de Corse and it was his sole victory.

 

We can't know for sure what would have happened in the past, but given a competitive car, I think Loeb would have trounced the established stars of whatever period you choose.  Even Kankkunen who you obviously rate highly.  Not the complete rally driver though with his weakness on tarmac.

[tghik]

So your logic is that the Xsara was the best car and that Loeb could drive it, but those others, who you maintain were better than him, they couldn't drive it?  The simple fact is that he blew them away by sheer talent.  End of story.  All the facts show this to be the case, but I don't imagine that you will allow mere facts to persuade you.

 

Meanwhile, back at the thread, my view of Kubica the rally driver was that he was pretty good, but was too ambitious by making the leap to full WRC without the experience and skills to be able to match the leading drivers.  Rallying has always needed experience, just as circuit racing does and if you don't have the foundation, you cannot climb to the top.  Kubica clearly had speed but lacked something, hence the frequent crashes.  It may have been technique, it may have been inadequate pace note skills, it may have simply been over driving.  The two disciplines of top line single seater and top line rallying are far enough apart that you can't just move from one to the other ad lib.  But good luck to him for making the effort.

We all agree that Kubica had too many crashes. I don't know exactly the reason for this but I think we (Myrvold and I) disagree on if he should have those crashes with the rally experience he had. First off RK didn't really start rallying at age 20 as Myrvold was saying, yes he did attend a rally of Barborka, which is short rally, which he did for fun/curiosity with no career intention what so ever. The next rally with some more serious thinking behind it was 6-7 years later, which had still no career intent, occasional rallies from time to time, but more hobby and becoming more complete driver to help him in F1. He was around 26y old. Ogier when he started was 22, with rallying with a goal to become a rally driver in JWRC (which is closer to real real WRC than rallying on tarmac in Italy for Kubica...of course correct me here if I'm wrong). Loeb started rallying  at 23 and at 27 in JWRC. As we see Both of them started earlier in life with a different mindset, their goal was to become rally drivers whereas Kubica was only for improving driving skills which would help him in racing. The differences don't stop here, Kubica started with a different skill set, he was already a complete racing driver, where the style is different so he had to change his habits which takes time. in 2015, he was running his own stable where he had to prepare the logistics and that maybe hindered him slightly in his performance, maybe. Only after his accident, when he came back to motorports, in 2012 he concentrated on rallying thinking of it as a career.

 

I honestly don't know how good in WRC he could become if only given more time, maybe he would not improve at all. However he gave an interview for WRC at the end of his adventure, end of 2015, where he states it's the worst time to stop.

http://www.wrc.com/e...11--12-12-.html

 

Ogier and Loeb both said that Kubica was better WRC driver than Kimi

"He is fast, he does need more experience but I think Robert will become faster than Kimi"

"Kimi was really good straight away, but then was not able to improve in the way he wanted. He returned to F1 and won again, which shows just how completely different F1 and rally are."

"

RK: The difference is you have 200 laps to try. Also on the circuit you have data from the other drivers – you know this corner is possible. The question is how to do it, 3km/h faster, 10km/h faster, then you touch the limit and it's 'Oh ****', but it works.

If you go off, most of the time you come back off the run-off. You can take it step by step and that makes it a bit easier.

In rallies, you don't have 20 passes. I'm not going to drive the stage 20 times and then we start. Marcus [Gronholm] came to my Sweden test. I drove 12 passes of the stage with my co-driver until I remembered the road perfectly.

After five kilometres he said, 'I came for nothing, I don't know what to say.' But I said, 'I know Marcus, but this is my 12th pass, I know how to do it. I need to do it with just two passes, but I cannot do this with the tools I have.' The most important tool – the experience – is missing. This is not just about driving fast. I know Kimi was very fast.

SO: Not as fast as you on gravel. He never understood gravel. On Tarmac he was."

 

Ogier said you stop crashing after 2 years in WRC, unfortunately Kubica had only 2 years, would he improve the following year if he stayed ?

"SO: Yeah, but you saw the events in the championship. I think with two full seasons in WRC after that, normally you are able to fight at the top. For me, I did some small rallies before and then after two seasons in WRC I was on a good pace.

Of course, I was making small mistakes and these stop when you have more experience, but I would say two full seasons is enough. The problem for him is that it's two hard seasons because he wasn't doing rallies before and it's good to get some smaller rallies in to work with pacenotes.

RK: Twenty years of circuits is penalising me. When I started, I was writing the notes for the corner I saw, but, especially on gravel, when I came to the corner it was not there –the line was straight."

 

 

I don't know. I can only talk for myself, in my opinion he created the PR problem for himself. He wanted to fight with Ogier ASAP and in order to do that he wanted to learn faster. How ? He said many times himself, he pushed to the max and that shortens the learning curve, you learn faster. And this approach created the crashes we saw. Was it smart ? I understand his thought process, because I used it in another sport, but I don't know if it is the best way in motorsport. Unless he returns to WRC, we'll never know if he was slow learner, or it was only wrong approach or if he had the potential at all to fight at the top as Ogier/Loeb were predicting. In one way I'd like him to give us the final answer and complete the WRC cycle, but in another I'm happy to see him try again in F1.

Edited by tghik, 09 August 2017 - 21:22.

[Myrvold]

First off RK didn't really start rallying at age 20 as Myrvold was saying, yes he did attend a rally of Barborka, which is short rally, which he did for fun/curiosity with no career intention what so ever.

Oh for crying out loud. It's all fine that we disagree on stuff, and it's all fine that you seemingly have ignored my last post. But stop with the nonsense. I understood the question as when the first rally was done, and that was my answer. And it is factually correct. That we would disagree on "starting serious with rally" with 09/10 and 2013 is a total fair game. But that you still spew out that nonsense is utterly irritating.
 

The next rally with some more serious thinking behind it was 6-7 years later, which had still no career intent, occasional rallies from time to time, but more hobby and becoming more complete driver to help him in F1. He was around 26y old. Ogier when he started was 22, with rallying with a goal to become a rally driver in JWRC (which is closer to real real WRC than rallying on tarmac in Italy for Kubica...of course correct me here if I'm wrong). Loeb started rallying  at 23 and at 27 in JWRC. As we see Both of them started earlier in life with a different mindset, their goal was to become rally drivers whereas Kubica was only for improving driving skills which would help him in racing. The differences don't stop here, Kubica started with a different skill set, he was already a complete racing driver, where the style is different so he had to change his habits which takes time. in 2015, he was running his own stable where he had to prepare the logistics and that maybe hindered him slightly in his performance, maybe. Only after his accident, when he came back to motorports, in 2012 he concentrated on rallying thinking of it as a career.

This is true, that the end goal was different. But I have no doubt that Kubica went in to the rallies with total commitment, proper preparation and a clear goal to do as good as possible. I see no other reason why he would be frustrated with Renault not allowing him to drive for another marque in the IRC Rally Monte Carlo, and thus not being able to use an S2000 car. The 2012 rallies he did was more relevant towards the WRC and RRC driving than the FWD's, as he mainly used WRC cars there.
 

Ogier said you stop crashing after 2 years in WRC, unfortunately Kubica had only 2 years, would he improve the following year if he stayed ?
"SO: Yeah, but you saw the events in the championship. I think with two full seasons in WRC after that, normally you are able to fight at the top. For me, I did some small rallies before and then after two seasons in WRC I was on a good pace.
Of course, I was making small mistakes and these stop when you have more experience, but I would say two full seasons is enough. The problem for him is that it's two hard seasons because he wasn't doing rallies before and it's good to get some smaller rallies in to work with pacenotes.
RK: Twenty years of circuits is penalising me. When I started, I was writing the notes for the corner I saw, but, especially on gravel, when I came to the corner it was not there –the line was straight."
 
 
I don't know. I can only talk for myself, in my opinion he created the PR problem for himself. He wanted to fight with Ogier ASAP and in order to do that he wanted to learn faster. How ? He said many times himself, he pushed to the max and that shortens the learning curve, you learn faster. And this approach created the crashes we saw. Was it smart ? I understand his thought process, because I used it in another sport, but I don't know if it is the best way in motorsport. Unless he returns to WRC, we'll never know if he was slow learner, or it was only wrong approach or if he had the potential at all to fight at the top as Ogier/Loeb were predicting. In one way I'd like him to give us the final answer and complete the WRC cycle, but in another I'm happy to see him try again in F1.

To be "as fast as Kimi" isn't that much of a positive thing to say though. Kimi was not that good at all.

 

Also, the thing Ogier says about "small rallies" are again, just the same as Kubica did. That Ogier says you stop crashing after 2 years seems very fitting towards Kubicas two years. As he himself stopped crashing way earlier than that (after 1 year), and others have kept on crashing for years (Latvala, Meeke just to mention some).

The whole "wasn't doing rallies before" are a nice PR-Spin, especially when it comes to the WRC-2 title. It is also a good excuse to use. But again, he had done more rallies that Ogier at the time both of them debuted in a WRC car.

 

When it comes to the approach, I do understand it, and yes, it is normally easier to reduce the number of incidents, than it is to start slow and suddenly be very fast. However, if the "lack of experience" was the biggest issue, then the focus should've been on gaining more experience. The only way to do that is to actually drive the rallies. Not just small parts of them.

 

Lastly. It is perfectly normal that drivers talk good about others, especially when they are to no threat at all. Kubica never showed that he had the combined pace and consistency to fight at the top. The closest he came was Alsace 2014, and he blew it on the very last stage.

A good example of properly inexperienced drivers getting a chance in the WRC are Petter Solberg. He had done 24 rallies (including sprints) when he had his first outing for Ford. And in his 25th rally of his life he got 5th in Safari. Regardless of that, in 2001 there were talk about Solberg being too erratic even though he had only been in 41 rallies before that, even though it was his first full season, he got it together halfway through that season, and had still not done 50 rallies.

 

Experience is important, but you need to show some actual progress regardless. Every top driver have done so.

[chunder27]

The point Iw as trying to make about Loeb was simply this.

 

When he debuted in the Xsara, and before that in the 206, he showed great pace yes.  Citroen knew what they had, they knew from the testing pace.

 

He was their future, and the car was designed around him and guys like Bug.  You seriously think Puras or Bug would have won a WRC event in anything else?  Maybe a factory 206, but no chance in anything else.  That early Xsara was leagues ahead of anything else. LIke the Polo was later.

 

My point about the champions that drove it later is simple.  The cars had developed to a level where they simply could not and did not want to drive them anymore to a winning level. McRae admitted this several times in his Xsara year, he could not get it set up like he wanted. Neither could Sainz, though he did a good job, there were inherent reasons for this.  Does that mean Loeb is better?  Of course it doesn't, it simply means he was the new generation and 15 years of experience was not tainting his driving as it did with guys like Tommi, Colin and the like.  if you take that as meaning Loeb was better than fine, but I think anyone with any common sense would simply see it is an evolution of driving and car setup, as it did from Blomqvist and Rohrl to Sainz and Auriol.  To the point where previous skills and speed were almost null and void. No more sideways, no more Scandy flicks, no more handbrake.  That takes a lot of getting used to, Loeb did not need to get used to it as he STARTED in this era.

 

Put Loeb in a 95 Impreza in New Zealand or Monte and what would you think would happen?  If you think Loeb would trounce McRae or Carlos then you are simply deluded. He has not done much in rallycross, did not amount to much in WTCC or GT racing. And has not yet really done much in raids.  

 

Stick him in a Citroen WRC car and fine, the DNA is all his.

[BRG]

 

Put Loeb in a 95 Impreza in New Zealand or Monte and what would you think would happen?  If you think Loeb would trounce McRae or Carlos then you are simply deluded. He has not done much in rallycross, did not amount to much in WTCC or GT racing. And has not yet really done much in raids. 

Second place at Le Mans and second place on the Dakar and wins in the WTCC - once again your grasp of facts is suspect.  As for rallycross, who cares?  Loeb is too good a driver to degrade himself in the crash bang wallop brigade. 

 

As for a1995 Impreza, they wouldn't have seen him for dust.  Whilst the others were wasting time with their flicks and sideways driving, Loeb would be getting on with it.  Yes, he did herald a new style of rally driving, one that was just simply quicker.  If those others could not match it, then clearly they weren't in the same league.

[chunder27]

So Solberg is no good then coz he won a few titles in WRX, and neither is Ekstrom who has too? In DTM aswell adn is a decent rally drover to boot, that matters not?  he is there for money and isn't interested simple, that's why he is being beaten every week.

 

Loeb jumped into best cars as usual and did OK. In WTCC he was usually the slower of the three works cars. Still quick though. in Dakar he was quick yes, but still not won it, in the best car by hours. GT racing I know sod all about thankfully.

 

AS I sad earlier, you and I are clearly at odds about this, Loeb would not have been able to drive a 90's car like that, as they were not set up to be like that, duh!!  You seriously think ANYONE on here thinks Loeb would have spanked McRae, Makinen, Sainz, Auriol?  That opinion is disrespectful at best, ill advised at worst.  If you think that makes him better, fine. I will ALWAYS disagree and I base my opinions on driver comments, journalists views and those of engineers who I have seen interviewed about this, not stats.

[noriaki]

I think Loeb is the greatest rally driver of them all and by some margin, surely at his best he would have beaten anyone in any car. 

 

However the thing is that even Seb wasn't invicible every season and thus there's merit in the claims that he was rather fortunate to race in the period and in the environment he did. Had Loeb's career been 10 years earlier against the peak Sainz, McRae, Makinen, I'm sure he would have beaten them all and been a multi champion anyway - but no way he would have gotten nine in a row without a hitch. Or had there been someone better than a Hirvonen or a fading Gronholm in those late noughties Fords (especially on asphalt), surely Seb would have lost either 2007 or 2009. Had Ogier been there a few years earlier I'm sure he would have stolen at least one from Loeb. Had Citroën followed their initial 2005 plan through and pulled out - or had the 2017 ruleset, clearly more beneficial to the "flicks and sideways" crew including the likes of Latvala and Tanak, been introduced in the middle of Loeb's career, then I'm not sure he would have won quite as much on the gravel as he did...and so on.

 

Again I'm not denying his prowess and in hindsight I've actually become a fan of Loeb's (especially after Ogier showed what a jerk he is), and would be thrilled if the light rumours actually were to turn true and he returned to Citroen for next year - but the point I'm trying to put out is that he was also somewhat lucky to have the circumstances he had; had he been as "lucky" (or "unlucky") as Sainz was on his career, for example - I'd estimate Loeb would be a six or seven time champion...only. 

Edited by noriaki, 11 August 2017 - 12:19.

[chunder27]

Honestly I would also welcome Loeb back.

 

My posts insinuate I do not like him, that is not the case at all.  I admire his achievements. I simply think he was in an era with less competition.

 

For me, WRX has died pretty quickly, WRC with Loeb would perhaps nail the coffin closed I hope as for a life long rallycross fan WRX is a total waste of what the sport might be.

 

I had an opposite opinion years ago, and sadly had to change my mind when I see what IMG have done to it.

MA surprised they have not tried to coax Kubica into a car actually, they have tried just about everyone else!!