Robert Kubica, Renault, Valencia, 2011

Kubica only looking for F1 return

F1 Fanatic round-up

Posted on

| Written by

Robert Kubica, Renault, Valencia, 2011In the round-up: Robert Kubica says he’s not considering a racing comeback in anything other than an F1 car for now.


Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.

Kubica: F1 only racing series of interest (Autosport)

“I’m not able to come back into single-seaters at the moment, and my vision is not to come back in saloon cars on the circuit at this stage.”

Robert Kubica ‘helping’ Mercedes Formula 1 team (BBC)

Toto Wolff: “If there’s any chance of getting him back in a DTM touring car or F1 cockpit, we’d love to do it. Any team would love to have a Robert Kubica.”

Damon Hill Q&A (Sky)

Kimi Raikkonen is coming on strong and he just delivers all the time which is very impressive. But they are a relatively small team and they haven’t got the resources and the budget that the big boys have got, so whether they can fight for a full campaign or not we will have to wait and see.”

Rossi’s Caterham FP1 run rescheduled for Canada (ESPN)

“Caterham reserve driver Alexander Rossi will take part in Friday morning practice at the Canadian Grand Prix after the team rescheduled his debut in this year’s CT03.”


Comment of the day

@Red-Andy on the state of the engine supply in F1 next year:

Only three engine suppliers will be a serious problem for F1. Ten years ago we had seven or eight. What if one more drops out? It doesn?t say much for the pinnacle of motorsport if the overwhelming majority of the automotive industry simply isn?t interested.

Really, this shows why the original proposals for the 2014 engines (rather than the pitiful watered-down version that was eventually accepted) might have been the right way to go. Their increased road relevance might have brought some new or returning marques to the sport. F1 needs that to stay relevant.

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Jack Sargeant, Martin Stanley, Three4Three, Skodarap and Vickyy!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Michael Schumacher held off a feisty Fernando Alonso to win the Spanish Grand Prix ten years ago today. The Ferrari driver won but Spain had a new F1 hero:

Image ?? Renault/LAT

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

Posted on Categories F1 Fanatic round-upTags

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 57 comments on “Kubica only looking for F1 return”

    1. I am a fan of Kubica. But unfortunately I believe he has missed the boat. At this point I don’t see him replacing either Rosberg or Hamilton at Merc. Other teams are kind of filled up. The chances Replace Mark at Redbull and Massa at Ferrari ? If he is not in by next year. It will be too late for him

      1. Still only 28, if he can get fit enough before he’s 30/31 then there’s a still a wee chance of an F1 drive. :D

        1. @calum That is true. But imagine by that time he would have been out of Action from F1 for almost 5 – 6 Years. Too much of changes , I am sure the young talent pool is building up. TO add to that , the current stars (Hamilton, Rosberg, Vettel) are all younger than him. They will be peaking too. The youngsters Perez, Hulkenburg, Grosjean, Di Rista, Sutil et all would have had much more mileage than him. Needless to say if the ‘OLDIES’ Button, Mark, Massa, Alonso and Kimi are still around imagine the competition that he will face.

          1. youngsters [such as] Sutil

            Sutil is 2 years older than Kubica!

      2. I feel sad for him because he was a genuine F1 talent. Kimi / Kubica could have been an Renault Dream team.

      3. IF he comes back, I could see him continuing with Lotus to replace Kimi when he replaces Mark at Redbull (my prediction anyway).

        1. +1. Vettel & Kimi would make a great team any day. They seems to be better buddies too :) Just that they don’t tweet their Lunches like Button, Mark and Fernando

          1. Traverse (@)
            4th May 2013, 1:15

            That is if Vettel doesn’t leave and join Ferrari…

    2. Agreed with COTD: quite why these new engines became so restricted has bewildered me – I’d have engine development at the expense of gurney flap development any day of the week!

      1. …and of course, that would’ve likely attracted automotive manufacturers which surely had to be the objective.

        1. Are Honda not “really likely” to join the turbo-party in 2015 with Mclaren?

          That would put us back up to 4 engine manufacturers.

          1. Still think they should have just gave a fuel quota for each race and let the engine companies decide how best to deal with that, be it i4/V6/V8 or whatever.

            1. That actually works very well, because if the cars start going too fast, just lower the fuel quota; that is the premise of the DeltaWing from Le Mans.
              Because, if you change the fuel limits between races, the teams can just change the engine maps and fuel mix etc to use.
              A whole formula could be run on efficiency, and you would end up with:
              Honda, Toyota, Mercedes, Porsche, Audi, BMW, Ford, Ferrari, Volkswagen, and maybe the odd privateer entrant giving no quarter to one another, and the only restriction being the amount of fuel used and basic things such as the width, length and height of the car.
              And also allow 3 car teams should numbers start dwindling.
              Also, to get the longevity of the Formula, ensure all manufacturers sign 10 year commitment deals to the sport.
              Then, as previously noted, should the cars start travelling too fast, all you need do is lower the amount of fuel you can use over a race distance.

        2. @vettel1 I only hope it does not end up in the situation like the tires today. The whole grid depending on one engine manufacturer. Indy was like that for a few years. Now Chevy has come in.

          I really hope the big guns like Lamborgini, Volkswagen(Audi or Bugatti) , BMW, Honda and Toyota should get back to F1. IT will spice up the field and also reduce the dominance and control of Ferrari on the FIA.

          1. A Lambo would be a Volkswagen as well, of course

            1. Volkswagen AG (VAG) are essentilly doubling their Le Mans investment; adding Porsche next season to compliment Audi; and they have also started a works WRC programme with Volkswagon.

              Obviously they are a massive company with many brands, but they don’t have infinite money to spend on motorsport and each new branch of VAG entering a different discipline cuts down the chances of a VAG F1 venture.

            2. Are Porsche doing LMP1 next year or are they entering the non-prototype categories?

          2. Bear in mind that there have been times when F1 was heavily dependent on a very small number of engine suppliers – in the early 1960’s, the sport was effectively down to four engine manufacturers (Ferrari, Honda, BRM and Coventry Climax), and only the latter two were willing to supply independent teams. Similarly, in the 1970’s the sport was, at times, almost a semi spec series because the bulk of the field was powered by Cosworth DFV’s, used Goodyear tyres and Hewland transmissions, to the point where some nicknamed it the “kit car” era.

            As for the question of engine development, the problem is that, if the rules were opened up, is that somebody would have to pick up the bill for ongoing development. The manufacturers are not going to write those costs off, even if there is the theoretical chance of technological trickle down, and the smaller teams don’t want to have the bill passed onto them at a time when their share of the spoils is being squeezed.
            The other problem was that, when the talks over the new engines started, the VW Group was party to those talks (Newey claimed that the inline four cylinder engine was their idea, even though none of the other manufacturers wanted it), and there were signs that the other manufacturers baulked at the prospect of VW using its financial muscle to steamroller the opposition (VW may be very successful in Endurance Racing, but they are also very heavy spenders by the standards of sportscar racing – Toyota’s budget is about $50 million a year, and, although Audi refused to confirm it, there are rumours that they are spending closer to $70 million a year).

            Similarly, to a certain extent, even if the rules were fairly open there would be very rapid technological convergence towards a single design – with the 3.5L normally aspirated engines, engine designs pretty rapidly converged towards 72º V10’s because it represented the best compromise.

            As an aside, it is worth noting that for, all the talk that Audi has come out with recently about how Le Mans is more relevant for road car technology and how F1 is dominated by aerodynamics, that most of their recent development work on the R18 has been on its aero package. They’re even copying F1 and using exhaust blowing on the R18 to improve its performance, and I fail to see how that can be construed as being “road relevant” in any way.

          3. Ooh how good does that sound? Bugatti F1 sounds pretty sick :P

          4. @tmax VW owns Lambo, and Lambo doesn’t really need racing to sell cars since they aren’t know for racing cars rather just super fast and stylish road hyper cars. Toyota is happy with Le Mans and will probably give Audi a run for their money this year more so than last year and be a challenge for Audi like Peugeot was. So that leaves Honda who are actually willing to do it. BMW has plenty of things with their Sedan cars in racing to worry about, Le Mans and DTM mainly but other auto areas as well.

            I disagree with the COTD to an extend, mainly about the idea that the V6s are watered down. I agree the premise behind them is to please Ferrari more so than anyone else and maybe Merc. However, Renault and Merc would have clearly been fine with a 4cylinder because unlike Ferrari, they have realistic everyday cars and super cars well Merc does. The idea of 6 cylinders to me is just fine, what becomes the problem is what the FIA will allow. I think the BAR (PSI) on the turbos is low and can be a bit higher it’s annoying that they wont run higher boost. Thus we could easily have 750-800+ with KERS and ERS yet 650 with force induction before hybrid systems are used and fuel restriction levels instead.

            It would be quite easy to allow teams to set up certain psi levels and then regulate their fuel restriction based on what they run. Better yet as others have said add inline 4 engines and keep the V8s while lifting the engine dev ban, and then restrict fuel based on the engine choice like the ACO or even better. However, I guess the fans don’t matter, cause when you can make up your money via pay tv, taking away prize money from teams, and charging more to run races and not wanting to reach out to sponsors but instead waiting for them to come to you…who needs to listen to the fans. Am I right FOM and FIA? To me it’s a bunch of elitist like any political field that say “we know best, you fans and team/manufactures (who live beyond F1) should just trust what we do because it’s best. No one is asking for fuel consumption of the late 80s early 90s when we saw all different types of V8s, V10s, and V12s. We are asking for a more eco yet technological F1 that could easily tout more people to become interested in the advance that F1 could bring to the world. Yet F1 rather stay in there perpetual bubble.

            1. @magillagorilla thanks for the correction.

              Speaking about fuel consumption and Eco friendly , I think it is high time F1 starts thinking about electric or solar powered cars. The dependence on fossil fuel is too high. F1 can be definitely a trend setter in this regard. Being the pinnacle of automotive engineering who is better than f1 to be a trend setter ?

            2. @tmax formula e is doing just that with full electric, and I’d expect F1 will follow its lead once the “engines” are fast enough.

              I’d personally like to see F1 use hydrogen, as that could work with an internal combustion engine currently so the noise would still be there and if anything they’d be more powerful!

            3. There is actually a quite simple idea (with a fairly complicated method) to solve this ‘problem’
              There exists at this point in time a method of turining air into petrol.
              What it does is take CO2 and water from the air and effectively forces them together to make synthetic perol, and if used on a global scale ‘global warming’ can cease to be an ‘issue’

            4. Just to make it clear, I personally believe F1 has no responsibility to set an example to road cars or anything like that.
              A whole season of F1 racing does an incomprehensibly small amount of damage to the environment on a global scale, so switching to electric cars is a mere flight of fancy, espescially as races would only be about 20 mins long before the cars run out of juice.
              I also don’t think hydrogen in an internal combustion engine is a great idea; the explosions would be immense espescially when compared to petroleum explosions, and the engines would have to be beefed up massively, oand you’d probably end up with an automotive version of the hindenberg disaster

            5. @xjr15jaaag your missing the point. Its not the damage F1 racing does to the environment, its the push for the image of a green Formula 1, to lead by example as the Worlds premiere motorsports series. Kinda like when they pay celebrities to drive electric cars

            6. It is just another pointless expense in my opinion, as I only see logic behind decisions; if it’s functional, then it’s good, but this ‘green’ F1 isn’t functional at all; it is a facade and an expensive facade at that, as anywork done to make F1 green is undone by China almost instantly.

        3. Michael Brown (@)
          4th May 2013, 15:24

          As a COTD several days ago said, WEC is doing a better job of attracting manufacturers than F1 is.

    3. I completely agree with COTD.

      Why did the FIA not allow any freedom with the new engines?

      In my opinion they should have just decided a maximum displacement, decided how much fuel could be used in a race and decided upon a maximum number of engines each year. Then engine manufacturers would be free to design the best engine for F1 and they would learn things that would be road relevant.

      With the 2014 specs I doubt anything will be filtered down to road cars

      1. I can think of two reasons. (1) Cost. (2) The desire to have cars which are quite close to one another in performance, and therefore the desire for differently branded engines which make very similar power. With e.g six radically different engine designs on the starting grid there’s a good chance that one would be be much better than the rest, and that’s something modern F1 tries hard to avoid.

        1. I don’t think cost is a relevant factor as the engine manufacturers will pump as much money in as required to find 1/100th of a second a lap.

          Although i do agree with you that the FIA, quite rightfully, want to keep the cars close together and by limiting alot of specifications the engines are more likely to be similar, however this is not an appealing factor to a an engine manufacturer that wants to revolutionize F1 or win.

          I guess one engine will always be the strongest.
          I think F1 at present shows the engines closest together, and even then the cosworth engine is clearly alot worse than the mercedes engine. Why not just stick with these engines but add unlimited turbos and a fuel limit ( my dream)

          1. engine manufacturers will pump as much money in as required to find 1/100th of a second a lap.

            That’s the problem.

            The problem is, Until F1 can sort out a way to limit spending, you can’t let them have completely free design. I love you fuel limit being the determining factor to hold the engines back thing, but it’s just not feasible.

            1. The teams should agree on a reasonable cap on engine development costs and then strictly enforce it. Require all engine suppliers to have audits conducted by one of the big four auditors (KPMG, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Deloitte, or Ernst & Young). You can open up engine regulations and have the suppliers innovate within the budget.

              It would probably also be good if the teams were required to have the same audits conducted, so a proper budget cap could be implemented. Although the cap should not be silly like Max Mosley’s was in 2009. This cap should be around $200m to $250m.

    4. Chris (@tophercheese21)
      4th May 2013, 1:04

      I wonder how Rosberg feels about his own team spruking for a return of Kubica to Mercedes?

      1. I think Toto’s real goal is to get Kubica in a DTM car. If you’ve seen any recent videos of Kubica, you’ll understand just how limited his movement is in his right elbow and wrist. I’d love to see him prove me wrong, but I really can’t see him back racing in F1.

      2. Omar R (@omarr-pepper)
        4th May 2013, 1:21

        If a man who can’t control his hand quite well endangers and replaces him eventually, it would be so much of an offense and a kick in the |3-U-tt for him. He’s been a loyal driver for Mercedes, and besides that I doubt Robert can become skilled enough to really replace Nico. It would be much more likely to happen to see if Mercedes can grab Hulkenberg or another rookie. IF… IF the car becomes good enough to lure good drivers.

    5. On COTD.

      It was the engine manufacturer’s rather than the FIA who came up with the 1.6Ltr V6 Turbo/ERS/8-speed gearbox units that will be introduced next year, The FIA only accepted the proposals that were put to them by the teams.

      The FIA originally put forward V4 Turbo’s for 2014 (Which was said to be Renault’s idea) & it was the teams via FOTA & engine manufacturer’s both current involved in F1 & looking to enter who countered with the 1.6 V6 Turbo idea that we ultimately got.

      Also do not forget that Audi were quite heavily involved in the push for V6 Turbo’s (In both F1 & Indycar) only to then decide to keep there focus on there Le Mans diesel program.

      In fact both Indycar & F1 held meetings with engine manufacturer’s to decide on the future formula & the reason both came up with V6 Turbo’s was because that was the formula most of the engine manufacturer’s involved said they wanted.

    6. Lotus may not have the budget of Red Bull or Ferrari or what Toyota ran, but they’re not Minardi in the Paul Stoddart years either, and it seems as if a lot of pundits are painting them as being closer to the latter example.

    7. As much as I like and support Robert, I´m afraid we won´t see him in an F1 car any time soon. I cannot see him handling the steering wheel with his “stiff” arm. It´s heartbreaking because I for one believed he was WDC material all the way but if he can make it back, props to him!!

    8. I love some of those super wide shots of the Spanish GP, you get a greater sense of scale and drama, especially on that big right hander, #3. Like American football, I feel so much effort has been made these days to crop in tightly on the drivers and give a detailed “portrait” view—while also likely hiding any empty grandstands—that we miss the bigger picture these days.

    9. I’m hopeful that Kubica will get back into Formula 1 one day.

    10. As an American desperate for a native driver in F1, I simply cannot wait to scream my head off as Rossi makes his debut at the Circuit Gilles Villeneuve in just 35 short, short days!

    11. Disagree completely with COTD. Since when F1 needs to be road-relevant? Was it ever? AFAIK no. Some technologies leaked from F1 to road cars, yes. But never before road technologies leaked to formula 1. I mean 4-pot engines? This is not Formula 1. Maybe it’s ok for touring cars but not for the pinnacle of motor racing. I have no problem with open engine regulations so if someone wants to design 4-pot turbo like BMW in the eighties then fine, but MANDATORY four pots? No thanks.

      F1 should stay the pinnacle of motor racing first and foremost. And for that IMO it should steer clear of being road relevant at all. The day F1 loses the “wow” factor is the way F1 dies. Or maybe COTD meant to say: relevant to road-legal supercars? Then, I wholeheartedly agree

      1. @montreal95

        F1 should stay the pinnacle of motor racing first and foremost.

        F1 hasn’t been the pinnacle of motor racing for a very long time; they’re using 20 year old technology in almost every aspect of the cars design and most of it is many years behind what you can find in many production cars.

        The only area that F1 is leading the world is aerodynamic downforce and as that’s an area that has no real world applications, costs an absolute fortune and ruins racing that’s hardly something to be celebrating.

        1. @beneboy Then the V12’s or the 4-litre double turbo charged V8’s of the modern supercars are an old design in your view? I bring this example because we’re talking engines here(see COTD), but there are also others. What is a new technology, maybe a Prius? Then I really prefer the “old technology”

          Also, I don’t agree with this statement you’d made:” they’re using 20 year old technology in almost every aspect of the cars design and most of it is many years behind what you can find in many production cars”. F1 has developed the KERS technology to extreme levels of efficiency and ERS next year will be more amazing. The suspension is cutting edge design and the electronics as well. Ferrari and Mclaren use technology developed in F1 in their road cars. So do Williams in their various collaboration projects. And that’s my main point I’ve emphasized in the original message. I want F1 to be road relevant to the Ferraris and Lamborghinis of the world. I don’t want it to be relevant to your “average Joe” driving cars. It never was relevant to such cars. Pinnacle of motorsport mainly means that it’s the fastest motorsport on the planet. Rolling prototypes designed to extract every last millisecond of performance. As such it’s as detached from a Honda Civic as the Blackbird or the F-22 Raptor from a Sessna. A technology from a Blackbird maybe could’ve been relevant to design a Concorde, but it would have no use on a Sessna. In the same way, aerodynamics are relevant to super-cars. Also, aerodynamics in themselves don’t ruin racing. Pegging back aerodynamics does. Give them ground effect and see if they can follow closely or not

          1. @montreal95
            The V12’s and turbo V8’s you find in most modern supercars generally make use of much more modern internal technology than the current F1 engines; technology such variable valve systems that have been banned in F1 are pretty much standard spec for a supercar while systems such as laser ignition are having to be developed for production cars because the FIA won’t allow teams to develop engines.
            Most of the performance advantage from modern F1 engines comes from the very expensive materials being used and the lifespan of the engine.

            KERS is old technology, McLaren wanted to run it in the 90’s and there are plenty of companies producing much more advanced systems, and other alternatives, outside of F1. The new specs coming next season are an improvement but still fail to promote serious R&D for this type of technology.

            The active suspension system in the FW14B was more advanced than anything you’ll find on a contemporary F1 car, as are similar systems found in many production cars; the suspension in the Ferrari F599GTB is far more impressive than what you’ll find in their current F1 car.

            I believe that F1 should be the place where new technologies are developed that benefit the sport, other sports cars and production cars and I also believe that it did used to be.
            One example (probably the best) would be the Ford Cosworth DFV which completely revolutionised engine design for the track and the road. You may not have got the V8 DFV from an F1 car in your road car but the flat 4 you’ll find in most Ford’s (and many other cars too) are effectively road going versions of that engine that’s lost half of its cylinders. Even cheap mass produced cars such as the Ford Fiesta are now powered by engines based on the DFV’s design.
            A great retelling of the DFV story can be found here:

            Apologies for not being specific but when I wrote aerodynamic downforce what I meant was downforce produced be wings (particularly the front wing) and the body; I’m all for ground effect and think that the original rules for next season that would have allowed such systems would have been much better than what we’re getting.

            I don’t believe that F1 is a series where prototypes are designed to extract every last millisecond of performance any more; if it were we wouldn’t need rev limits, a freeze on engine development that lasts years on end or such restrictive rules that have effectively done away with innovation.

            Apologies also for the length of my reply, I just don’t know when to stop sometimes :-)

            1. @beneboy No need for apologies for a well thought out and intelligent reply. However this has consequences. In order to reply accordingly, one must have some spare time, which I didn’t have those past few days. So I won’t apologize for taking my time with this :)

              Well, yes true in a way, everything you say, but it’s a difficult thing to balance all the parameters. The VVT for example is good for fuel economy in supercars which let’s be honest, aren’t driven in anger for 95% of the time. Would it make sense in F1? Doubtful. Anyway, next year’s engines will save 30% of the fuel in comparison to the current ones. And overall, the idea is to be faster than anything else, but without the escalating budgets race before the freeze. It’s a question of compromise, you can’t have your proverbial cake and eat it. Sure, you must go with the times, that’s why ERS is coming on next year and by the looks of it, going to be a super-advanced system. But we mustn’t forget that F1 is first and foremost the premier racing series in the world. It’s based on fan support, not on manufacturer support. Without fans(most of whom don’t care about VVT etc.), there’s no F1 it’s not an abstract engineering exercise designed to test new tech for car makers. It’s designed to be the fastest series in the world and it is. Yes it’s not as fast as the 2004 rocket-ships but do I want to go back to 2004? A million times no! So, in that context You’re correct. The performance could be much better(see the Red Bull X1 prototype here: But it’s still faster than anything else, and other issues have become more important, as I’ll show later in my reply

              Another thing we need to take in context, is that much of road car tech these days is designed to protect the drivers for themselves. These are effectively driving aids like active suspension that you’d mentioned or CVT. I don’t want any of these in F1! Let me refine the question: which road car today has a more advanced non-active suspension system? Or a better gearbox technology, that wouldn’t make the driver effectively a weight adding nuisance? Btw, here’s the Top Gear test of the Mclaren MP4-12c where Clarkson explains why Ferrari 458 is better, despite being slower. I especially laughed when he asked the Mclaren engineer why it’s so difficult to turn the traction control off :) Anyway, enjoy!

              Many thanks for the link to the Cosworth DFV article. Even though I knew the story, it wasn’t in such detail. However, the DFV is a rather extreme example. I should’ve used more careful wording in my previous replies. Of course you can find such rare examples. But as a whole F1 never INTENDED for its technologies to seep through to “average Joe” cars. Ferrari used F1 tech in its supercars as a policy, and many other supercar companies were influenced by F1 tech but can’t say the same for the mundane cars manufacturers. Also the DFV is from a different time, when Costin and Duckworth could sit with their pencils and papers and change the world. Now, everything costs huge sums of money and there’s a recession going on, a prolonged one. So that brings us again to the main point I’m trying to make here: F1 at it’s core is a racing series. That’s the main part. The technology developing part is less important in comparison. The main thing F1 should think about is the benefit of the teams, who are the main protagonists and F1 racing is their core business. Car companies come and go but it’s the teams that stay and race and fight. That’s why is BE treatment of Marussia is infuriating, but it’s OT so I won’t be grumbling about it here.

              It has become a compromise. True. But everything is, as of right now. the question of whether F1 has found the right balance will not be determined for some time yet. But the racing is the most important part of the equation, unquestionably, not road relevance and not the number of car manufacturers involved

    12. It’s complex to get every team to agree to a set of rules, or anything.
      In the end I think that no amount of ‘fixing’ will prevent that F1 will gilde into obsoleteness, especially when Google-cars (or aeroplanes) become the norm.
      Look how fast riding a big black stallion became obsolete when the car was introduced.

    13. I do not quite get the cry for more engine manufacturers at this stage. What would we lose if we ended up with, say, two engine manifacturers?
      Less competition? Since the engine freeze we did not see any development anyway.
      And it might have its benefits, a reasonably priced semi-mass-produced engine could only help smaller teams. We have a precedent, in the 1970’s pretty much everybody ran the Cosworth. The engine was available and relatively cheap, and as a result we had a very varied field with great many entries, ranging from semi-serious to completely wacky, which certainly had its charm. Where would all the “10 worst looking F1 cars” lists be without the 70’s?

    14. I’d love to see a Hamilton vs Kubica intra team battle, but I think if he wants to come back, 2014 would be the right yeast to do so, because of the rule changes.

      So it’s really up to him, teams like lotus showed they are willing to take a chance.

      Im just hoping he gets recovered enough by then.

      I think there’s a chance for him at lotus, if Raikkonen leaves to rbr, or Grosjean can’t keep the right form he showed last time out.

    15. I’d love to see a Hamilton vs Kubica intra team battle, but I think if he wants to come back, 2014 would be the right yeast to do so, because of the rule changes.

      So it’s really up to him, teams like lotus showed they are willing to take a chance.

      Im just hoping he gets recovered enough by then.

      I think there’s a chance for him at lotus, if Raikkonen leaves to rbr, or Grosjean can’t keep the right form he showed last time out.

    16. Am I the only one who had more fun watching that 10 minute highlight of the 2003 spanish gp than I’ve had watching any race in the DRS/KERS/pirelli/V8 era of F1? I mean, it was amazing, you could actually see the drivers pushing to limits of their cars and tyres! And coming up with inventive ways of passing instead of pressing a button!

      1. But back then everyone complained that there was no passing in F1!!

    17. Alonso already in 2013 constantly complaining about everything and everyone.

      1. 2003 that is.

    18. I have never really understood the hype surrounding Kubica. This is the guy that beat Heidfeld 1/3 seasons. Heidfeld was always underrated, but he’s not in the same league of Vettel, Hamilton, Alonso or Kimi.

      I can’t see someone being competitive anyway after such a long lay off (Kimi kept his skills sharp in competitive rallying during his exile) and having to deal with a disability.

      1. same as saying I dont understand the hype surrounding Lewis Hamilton, he’s only ever come 4th best since being world champion..or Alonso: he’s not won a title in 6 years

        I thought he was impressive the way he walked into the Alonso vacuum at Renault and got some solid results for them. Was indisputable team leader and was looking as if he was building some momentum for the next year. He was a quick qualifier too

        It would be fairytale stuff if he could make a successful comeback. I knew he wouldnt be back anytime soon when 4-5 months passed. I for one have have missed him

        1. I don’t understand the hype around Alonso either. Consistent, but doesn’t handle pressure well, poor qualifier and doesn’t have the pure pace of a Vettel or Hamilton. Alonso is the guy who couldn’t beat Trulli in 04 and couldn’t beat a first year driver in 07. Hasn’t got any closer to winning a championship with Ferrari than Massa did in 08. Alonso was brought to Ferrari to replace Kimi precisely for his ability to work well with engineers and help develop the car, but it just hasn’t happened.

          The hype around Hamilton is understandable. If he had reliability and luck like Alonso, and McLaren didn’t make pit error after pit error he would have won last year with 4-5 races remaining. Hamilton came into F1 as a rookie and matched Alonso the double world champion immediately.

          When I try to assess a driver I look towards how he performed against a good driver (Heidfeld) rather than against a first year pay driver (Petrov). Kubica is quick, he’s not in that top echelon.

    Comments are closed.