Renault wins are two or three years away – Hulkenberg

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Nico Hulkenberg expects it will be at least two years before Renault are able to compete for wins in F1.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

Comparing F1 to Van Halen? Good work Neuralfraud!

Van Halen are notorious for keeping quiet and ignoring the world for years at a time, until they’re 100% certain they’re going on tour – and even they’re coy about it.

To me, “80 or 90%” means “we’ve almost got the salary figured out”!

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Ben73!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

  • Nigel Mansell won the French Grand Prix at Paul Ricard for Williams on this day in 1987

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.

50 comments on “Renault wins are two or three years away – Hulkenberg”

  1. To that last tweet: no, the contact wasn’t deliberate today, even if it caused an accident. Also, it was racing at top speeds.

    1. I’m not sure on whether Sagan’s use of the elbow was deliberately trying to cause Mark to crash or just “getting the elbows out” to defend space, as is typical in bike races. However, as has been pointed out many times (but continues to be ignored by large sections of the English press), there is a huge difference between those high speed contacts and the “wake-up-to-yourself”s at low speed that are no risk to anyone.

      Hamilton (e.g. Suzuka v. Rosberg), Rosberg (e.g. Spain v Hamilton) and Verstappen (e.g. Spa v Kimi) have all done extremely dangerous things in recent seasons and escaped any sort of punishment.

      1. I agree with @hunocsi that tweet that example, has nothing to do with f1, that incident is an example of bias, favouritism, and above all else lobbying.

        @juan-fanger You should watch the footage again, Cavendish is trying to pass Sagan, there’s no gap, Mark ends up headbutting Sagan loses balance and has a very nasty crash, the elbow you see from Sagan is nowhere near Cavendish, who’s shoulder is already brushing the barriers. Sagan’s elbow came up as a result of the contact and didn’t touch nobody, Sagan was regaining control as he almost fell too. Sagan if anything is guilty of obstruction, though obstructions are so common in sprints most of the times nothing is done about those, especially because you can’t really prove intent as the riders are all trying to overtake each other. Honestly Cavendish’s crash is really unfortunate for him and it’s a big loss for the tour, in a myriad of ways but just because he’s out you don’t have to penalize Sagan. Very unjust. It’s like as if Hamilton had gotten a penalty for getting rammed over and not the other way round.

        1. Not how the experts at the race saw it. Maybe you know better ?

          1. @smudgersmith1 The jury’s reasoning was that Sagan endangered other riders, but that was somewhat started by Demare swiftly changing pace ahead of him and crossing the road as well. I’m not saying Sagan is completely clean here, he could have left a bit more space and and maybe could have been aware of Cavendish coming up (and he didn’t push him with his elbow as @peartree pointed out), but this most certainly wasn’t a DQ worthy incident.

            Also, for experts’ opinion, just go on a site like and you can read tons of other riders disagreeing with the DQ as well.

            Really if we want to make a comparison with the Baku incident, we could say that every part is the complete opposite, which was capped off by Sagan immediately going over to Cavendish’s team apologizing ans asking how he is.

        2. Interesting Interpretation. I am a former racing cyclist
          ( admittedly from another era ! ) and the first thing I’d like
          to say is that the camera angle and telephoto effect distorts
          so heavily that it would be impossible, without high-speed
          stop-motion, as used in velodrome races, to make any clear
          conclusions about the Sagan/Cavendish incident.
          So Sagan’s punishment seems excessive on the very limited
          evidence we are provided with. The fact that Cavendish
          has a severely damaged shoulder which will put him out of serious
          competition for quite some time is no small matter.
          But that also implies that the F1 incident between Vettel and
          Hamilton, where speeds were very low and virtually everything
          that took place was clearly recorded on camera, emphasises
          Vettel’s blatant act of retaliation for entirely wrongly perceived
          action on the part of Hamilton.

          No top F1 driver is an entire innocent. It’s a tough, agressive
          world where your competitors will do everything to place you at
          a disadvantage. But there are firm rules, and Vettel hot-headedly
          broke those rules and got away with it. That fact is not a good
          image for the FIA to project. Very damaging to the sport.

          If Vettel’s punishment during the race had been ten seconds
          longer in duration the result of the race would have been transformed
          and the matter would now be closed. But the fact that he still
          extended his points lead over his nearest and greatest rival after committing
          a deliberate act of retaliation cannot be judged a fair outcome.

          1. Well, when Vettel was given the penalty, no one could foresee that Hamilton has a headrest issue. This skewed the race result in a way that a lot of people feel that Vettel got away too easily and extended his lead by 2 points.

            If Hamilton’s headrest would’ve stayed intact, then he’d gotten 25 points and Vettel 10? and I’m sure that there would not have been such an outcry

          2. @loen I think admiral hits the nail in the head.
            IMO the most disturbing part is that Vettel’s penalty is only issued after Mercedes glitch. The other correlation between the cycling incident and f1’s is that Sagan is only disqualified because Cav broke his shoulder as initially he was docked 30 seconds. Not to mention the whole incident comes as a result of the action of other riders, therefore there can’t be any malice, it’s not premeditated, sure there’s aggression but in the end this is a pure case of favouritism.
            Mark is not devastated, he’s just recovered from Esptein-barr, he’s got a good vacation ahead of him, and a painful recovery, sky is probably going to pay him anyway, just not some bonus he may have never even get to win
            For those who didn’t see the cycling incident with their eyes, check this out. and this

  2. “If you recall the token system, perhaps a new entrant might get more development tokens for the first couple of years – there are some smart initiatives you can use to encourage people into F1.”

    When they announced the token rules all those years ago, I found it ridiculous that this wasn’t already going to be the rule. Brawn sounds as if it’s being suggested as if it’s a fantastic ‘smart’ new idea, rather than common sense (of which the previous rule-makers perhaps lack).

    However it’s too late for that now. F1 has proven that expensive engines with complicated development, tokens or no tokens, will not work to attract new manufacturers who aren’t already interested. Tokens lead to engine performance frozen unevenly, no tokens lead to a permanent game of catch-up.

    Does F1 think that a few small rule tweaks will see disinterested manufacturers suddenly flooding in? The only way to solve this mess is to get rid of it completely. Get rid of these expensive complicated expensive ‘power unit’ regulations, and go back to an engine being an engine.

    In fact, perhaps if they’re really desperate to get new manufacturers, they ought to open up the regulations a little to allow manufacturers to develop what they are interested in, that would surely help. If they want to keep developing their V6 engines go for it, and if not then there’d be cheaper options available (of course, the details of such rules would need thinking through thoroughly).

    But what I don’t get is why they are so obsessed with attracting new engine manufacturers. The V8 era had 4 main engines (at least in the latter years), the V6 era has 4 (I’m not sure if you can count Honda but points for effort!). The fact is when you only have 10–11 teams on the grid, there’s not exactly a lot of demand for different engines. You could have 8 engine manufacturers, but if the same 3 engines are always ahead (which is probable) what difference does it make? All the teams will want the best engines. Brawn acknowledges this at the end of the interview saying variation is needed, but surely we have that variation currently. As long as future engine regulations don’t put them off then all should be fine.

    1. @strontium, why do you think that the previous engine formulas were cheap when they were not?

      As I’ve pointed out before, the V8 engines were only brought down to an artificially low level because the FIA forced the engine suppliers to artificially cap their prices (Renault alone were effectively subsidising the sport to the tune of €60 million a year through selling engines at a loss).

      Before that, they were running at a comparable price to the current power units, if not being slightly more expensive on introduction than the current power units are now when you account for inflation. If you go back to the V10 engines before that, a factory supply of those engines was more expensive, inflation adjusted, than the current power units now.

      1. Interesting, didn’t know this. But is there any source for this cost information?

      2. @anon: regarding the prices: is this per engine or per year? I expect these engines to be more expensive, but since they are more reliable (well at least some of them…) the price is reduced at the end of the year. Bear in mind that they can only use 4 of them in a whole year, as in the previous era one could use 4 per weekend.

        1. @matthijs, the figure from Renault came from an interview that James Allen had with the head of mechanical engineering at Renault F1 in 2013.

          He stated that their annual expenditure on F1 was €120 million a year, but they were only able to reclaim €60 million of that back through fees – however, given the success they were enjoying through Red Bull, the remaining €60 million was written off against Renault’s advertising budget.

          With regards to the cost of the engines, that wasn’t made explicitly clear at the time as the cost cap covered both an engine and transmission deal, since most teams would usually buy both from the same supplier (Sauber is a good example of that). It’s a little difficult to find the price now – if you search now, the more recent price cap agreement swamps most searches, and some of the older articles are now inaccessible – but IIRC the price worked out at about €7 million for the engine, with another €1.5 million for the transmission system.

          For historic engine prices, as one comparison, whilst he was working for Cosworth, Mark Gallagher mentioned that, even with Honda partially subsidising the cost of the engine, back in 2000 Jordan were paying $7 million a year for the Mugen Honda MF-301HE (which I believe now works out at $10 million a year today if you allow for inflation).

      3. Engine costs across time, from the perspective of one team:

        In 1996-1997, Jordan paid $4-6 m for a Peugeot (the estimate I saw was definitely one of those or the other, but I can’t remember which) on a total income of $17 m. 23.5-35.2% of income is rough in 21st century terms, but this was before the big money came in – $17 m was a slightly-above-average budget and completely in keeping for a midfield team making a small profit on its F1 adventure.

        In 1998-2000, Jordan was paying $7 m for a Mugen-Honda. Its estimated income then was somewhere between $120 m and $160 m (I’ve seen both figures quoted) thanks to sponsors flocking to its late-1990s success, so the engine proportion 6.3-8.4%.

        In 2001-2002, Jordan got their engine free from Honda. Jordan’s fortunes were starting to fall in this time, and I saw $110 m for an estimated 2002 figure. Engine proportion is still 0%.

        In 2003-2004, Jordan paid $20 m for a Ford. On a 2004 income of $100 m. 20% is a pretty rough proportion to pay for an engine even before stating that it was the worst one in the field – and that by this point a competitive midfield income was just above $200 m (and therefore spending a little under 10% on the engine).

        In 2005-2006, Jordan/Midland was paying around $14 m for a Toyota. Income started to pick up a little, but at no point did I see an estimate I’m willing to trust for its total income.

        I’m not clear on how expensive the Ferrari units were in 2007 and 2008 for Spyker/Force India, but this would have been the era of the fully-controlled engine/transmission deal (it appeared in stages, and the Toyota deal in the previous paragraph was based on the “trial” version of the restriction) I think in practise, Force India paid Ferrari $10 m, because there were a few non-covered but highly useful ancillaries in addition to the engine and gearbox. In 2008, income was around $80 m (recovering from the nadir of funding in 2007, when Spyker tried to exist on a shoestring), giving an engine proportion of 12.5%.

        In 2009-2014, Force India’s Mercedes engine supply was about $20 m – and, to the best of my knowledge, had been consistently so since 2009. Unlike the previously-mentioned figures, this includes gearbox and ancillaries. I’ve seen $105 m quoted for the 2013 campaign, giving a proportion of 19%.

        I believe, but am not certain, that Force India paid the same price in 2015.

        In 2016-2017, Force India paid/pays around $14 m for a Mercedes (note that current V6s, like the V10s before them, are price-controlled for customers and have been since last year – though I’m not aware of the gearbox being covered in the current version of customer price control). Force India was up to around $136 m for its 2016 income, so the engine proportion is a nice shapely 10.3%.

        Engine prices have long fluctuated for customer teams. The trouble is that while 10.3% is perfectly doable for Force India, there are teams (notably Toro Rosso and Sauber) on worse incomes, and the same costs – and Force India itself has often relied on credit to get through tough parts of the year. I’ve seen a Sauber income estimate for 2016 of $85 m, which on the costs Force India pays would yield an engine proportion of 16.5%. As for Manor, which went under at the start of the year, I don’t think it ever had an annual income of more than $55 m, giving its engine proportion as a rather scary 25.4%. Can you imagine how much Eddie Jordan would have screamed if he’d ever been the boss of a team in that situation (given how noisy he was when he had the Fords and spent a “mere” 20% of his team’s income on engine costs?

        @matthijs, I believe @anon means per year, across the average of two paying customer teams it supplied.

    2. It’s quite a contradictory read, the engines are clearly the decisive factor in current F1.
      The token system was one of the dumbest decisions made and meant we had to endure some extremely frustrating F1. If your going to set regulations that ensure F1 is so massively complicated then only an idiot would not allow people to learn quickly. For me the problem are the power units and not the time it takes to develop them. I want to see drivers get in their cars and push straight away not circulating at 7/10s trying to optimise all of its component parts.

    3. Get rid of these expensive complicated expensive ‘power unit’ regulations, and go back to an engine being an engine.

      The problem is there is no such thing as a “cheap F1 engine”. A cheap engine won’t have the performance expected at the F1 level, so teams will buy the best engine they can afford so they can get the performance required to win.
      While a Token system sounds a nice way to encourage equalisation between the engines or power units, my observation of it over the last two or three years is it simply perpetuated the performance disparity. Those at the front would have found it easier to save their tokens until their competitors got close to having a competitive performance, when they could then use enough tokens to stay in front, while those behind had restrict the deployment of developments so they didn’t waste tokens. So those ahead tended to stay ahead and those behind tended to stay behind.
      I think one way to lower the cost of F1 is to question whether complexity is necessary. For example, F1 cars aren’t allowed to have active suspension systems, so instead they have highly complex suspension systems that behave in a similar fashion to an active suspension system. So why not simply allow active suspension systems?
      Another example is engines have rules surrounding the way fuel is injected into each cylinder. The consequence of this is you end up needing something like the Turbulent Jet technology to get the fuel saving and the engine performance. But is there another way to get the necessary performance without the need for a complex fuel dispensing system, and if there is why not use it?

      1. @drycrust, in the case of the Turbulent Jet Ignition systems, that system was originally developed by Bosch for use in road cars as a way of increasing their efficiency (though currently not being used – partly due to cost, and partly because the system was relatively untested). I might be mistake, but I don’t think that there are any other alternative systems that offer the same performance when dealing with a high boost turbocharged engine operating at very lean air-fuel ratios.

        As for active suspension systems, part of the reason why they were abandoned in the 1990’s was because there had been a number of accidents which were directly linked to failures in those systems (Zanardi’s practise crash in 1993 at Spa, shortly followed by Berger’s crash in the 1993 Portuguese GP), with costs being another factor. Incidentally, for all the discussion around the interlinked suspension systems, it is worth noting that it is actually fairly old technology – Tyrrell used such a system on the 023 back in 1995.

  3. Re Hulkenberg’s claim about Renault wins….

    My question is, when is he going to get a podium?

    He has started 123 GP’s, driven for 4 teams and apart from Palmer, all his other teammates have secured multiple podiums. Best result was a 4th place.

    Is this guy as good as they say he is? Why has he never been in the running for one of the top teams? Personally, I think he’s overhyped, and please don’t mention him winning Le Mans, that wasn’t a one man job and if anyone deserves credit for that, its Earl Bamber with his performance in the night stint.

    Think the games going to be up for him very soon.

    1. He has been very fast. Great driver and he did win le man so you cant take that away from him. Not over hyped

    2. Put him in a Merc and he will be WDC.

    3. Neil (@neilosjames)
      5th July 2017, 12:24

      I don’t really place any great importance on his lack of podiums, because his performance levels have remained high and very consistent. And he’s had misfortune on a few occasions – Brazil last year, for example, where he was extremely quick but ran into debris from Raikkonen’s accident, ended up with a puncture and dropped to the back of the field. Fought back and finished eight seconds off the podium – without the puncture, he’d have had a decent shot at beating Rosberg to second.

      1. Every driver has suffered some form of misfortune and you should place importance on his lack of podiums, especially when you consider that, Rosberg, Kamui & Perez all secured podiums whilst driving in the same team.

        He has been overlooked by nearly all the top teams and that should be a warning signal that something’s not right with him.

      2. @neilosjames, I would say it is because, in the three years that Perez and Hulkenberg drove against each other, Perez has managed to secure four podiums (incidentally, since you bring it up in your post, that 4th place that Hulkenberg secured was the only time in the three years he drove for Force India that he made it into the top four).

        Yes, he has been unlucky at times, but there have also been times when a podium was up for the taking and he wasn’t able to maximise his chances – the 2014 Bahrain GP comes to mind, where Perez seized the initiative by passing Hulkenberg on track for the position.

        1. Hulkenberg had an MGU-K issue after the safety car so he actually did well to get to hang on to fifth place

    4. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
      5th July 2017, 13:18

      @kgn11 Without a doubt the most ‘unlucky’ talent in F1 for a few reasons.

      1. Force India is a F1 career killer.
      2. Hulkenberg switched to Sauber and back to Force India at the wrong time – that was pivotal back then.
      3. The fact that Ferrari didn’t hire him hurt him but it was the way that they dropped him that must have hurt even more. Domenicali apparently texted his business manager or something like that.
      4. Perez is the king of mid-field podiums and they were teammates for a while. For whatever reason the VJMB helped Sergio a lot more than Nico and that didn’t help. In the end Nico was quicker but it took him a while to get there.
      5. No good spots available at the top teams during his career. If McLaren had taken him instead of Perez or Magnussen, things could have turned out better for both drivers.
      6. The worst luck by a mile of any driver alive in F1 – at this point, a lot of the bad luck is caused by him because he must be under enormous pressure, I’d say higher than Vettel’s last race in 2010. He doesn’t show it but it’s gotta be there and it’s affecting him when it matters.

      1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
        5th July 2017, 13:31

        It should also be noted that even with 4 podiums, Nico scored 226 while Sergio scored 238 points over 3 seasons.

        Sergio scored 12 points more but:

        – That was with 4 podiums for Sergio and countless bad situations (admittedly of his own doing sometimes) for Nico.

        4 podiums = 60 points out of 238 points which is almost 25% of Sergio’s points.

        – Also over 3 years, Sergio had 2 retirements while Nico had 10 – you can read this many ways and I don’t disagree that Nico has screwed up more than once. That’s a lot of unfinished races to nearly match a driver with 60 points out of podiums and possibly one of the “best midfield drivers of all time”.

        1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
          5th July 2017, 13:37

          Made a mistake on the 2 vs 10 retirements.

          It’s 12 retirements or DNS for Nico vs 4 for Perez.

          Perez was amazing in 2016 finishing every race.

          This was a case where 2 drivers kill each other’s career in my opinion and one needs to leave. Unfortunately, Nico leaving destroyed him again.

          1. @freelittlebirds, I think that you have underestimated your total there, as I think that the total number of retirements and did not starts for Perez is seven, not four, as you have discounted the races where Perez retired but, having completed more than 90% of the laps, he was still technically classified as finishing. That is apparent from the fact you state that Perez finished all races in 2016, but you forgot his crash in the Austrian GP after his brakes failed two laps from the end – he was classified as finishing, but not actually on track.

            With regards to approaches from top teams, in the case of Ferrari we know that he has been in talks with them on a number of occasions in the past. However, there were a few publications that claimed their interest waned after seeing the telemetry from his performances at Sauber, and in later years the negotiations seem to have been mainly carried out to ensure that they had a back up if talks with Raikkonen fell through (which is part of the reason why the talks were terminated so abruptly – he was, at best, only their third choice driver).

            I believe that there was also a claim that, a few years ago, he also approached McLaren, only for them to turn him down out of hand (I think that a few individuals there even went as far as suggesting that they thought he was a bit overrated).

          2. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
            5th July 2017, 15:40

            if he’s overrated, then his quali and race pace are simply astonishing or the other drivers in F1 are really…slow:-)

        2. @freelittlebirds, while I agree with nearly everything you wrote, I would note that Force India usually hires based on opportunism when nobody else is willing to hire. In other words, if you’re there and not a rookie, you’ve probably already had a career-killing event that was, at the very least, harsher than you deserved. In Nico’s case, his career-killing move was being dumped by Williams to make way for Rubens Barrichello (itself an opportunistic move on Williams’ part, but not, in retrospect, a performance improvement).

          1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
            7th July 2017, 1:22

            @alianora-la-canta Actually Williams dropped Nico to hire Maldonado, didn’t they? That went really well, didn’t it? :-)

            Actually, Pastor got them a victory in the crazy 2012 season. I don’t know which one is harder to believe – that Williams replaced Hulkenberg with Maldonado or that Maldonado won a race.

          2. Nico Hulkenberg was at Williams for only one season, 2010. Then he went to Force India…

            …however, @freelittlebirds, it turns out you are correct to say that Rubens wasn’t Nico’s replacement, but rather Maldonado. Pastor won the 2012 Spanish Grand Prix, so he wasn’t completely rubbish, but I can’t help but think Hulkenberg would have been a higher-performing driver for Williams in the overall sense.

      2. The fact McLaren went ahead and chose Kmag over him, says that none of the top teams rates him as highly as many think.

        “Perez king of the midfield podiums”…..

        Sorry, but is that not one of the reasons why he was given the McLaren drive, because he stood out the best amongst those in the midfield, including Hulkenberg? Now Perez is being talked about as a possible replacement for Kimi

        All the points you’ve listed, you can say the same for nearly (not all) every driver on the grid.

        1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
          5th July 2017, 17:09

          @kgn11 I can’t speculate why McLaren chose Kmag over him and why McLaren chose Perez.

          McLaren has been a very confused team (the term lost is more appropriate) since Lewis left and while Lewis was there imo – the fact that Button somehow nearly outscored Lewis in 2012 was a testament to the monumental incompetence of the team.

          So I’m not surprised that they chose Perez or Magnussen or chose to keep Button. Their only good choice was to bring back Alonso whose career has been buried by McLaren just like Lewis’ nearly did…

          If they cared about outright speed they should have gone with Hulkenberg imo. I don’t think the F1 teams care about much about speed and consistency for some reason which is a pretty strange thing.

          Hulkenberg is a fantastic teammate as well – you just get results from him, no talk or politics. I think Force India owe him a huge debt in getting them where they are today. They did not treat him they way he deserved but he never said anything – class of class!!!

          1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
            5th July 2017, 17:24

            As for Ferrari choosing Raikonnen, that was more Fernando’s decision I would have to guess. I don’t think he wanted Hulkenberg there once they saw the telemetry from Sauber. Fernando would be behind him a lot of the time…

            Vettel would never pair up with Hulkenberg either so that excluded Red Bull then and Ferrari now.

            The only guy who wouldn’t mind is Lewis…

            So the guy is practically double screwed cause he can only go 1 team but he can’t catch a break to get there.

          2. @freelittlebirds

            At the end of 2013, Kimi was a much hotter prospect than Hulkenberg. Everyone rated Kimi more highly especially because he took 2 wins in a not so fancied Lotus. Hulkenberg on the other hand, had still to get a podium.

            If Alonso, was picking his teammates, I’m pretty sure he’d choose Hulkenberg over a WDC with 2 race wins in the last 2 seasons.

      3. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
        6th July 2017, 12:35

        From Alonso:
        “The lack of victories hurts the career, the motivation and happiness,” Alonso told Sky F1. “That’s been the biggest loss of the last couple of years.”
        “But at the same time l look at other drivers, Nico Hulkenberg, Daniel Ricciardo, even Max Verstappen, who are super talented guys, and they have two or three podiums in the last couple of years.

        Overrated? I don’t think so. Easily the most underrated driver in F1. If you don’t believe me, ask Fernando.

    5. It was Nick Tandy if i’m not wrong who drove a blistering stint in the night

  4. About tweets from Jason Swales, I remember FIA or FOM already promised they would show data and footage from controversial moments. But at the end they only released it from Hamilton-Trulli incident in 2009 Australian GP and that was it.

    Does anyone have a link with that promise (it would be somewhere in early 2009 or late 2008 after Spa, I guess) or am I imagining things?

      1. Yeah some aggressive engine braking there. It looked like brake testing to me. Naturally cars brake in many ways, not all of which are with left foot.

        Pop in to first gear, get some harvesting mode on… lift and viola, probabl more than 1g stoping force.

  5. So far away is Kubica from 300km at race speeds in current car?

  6. How awesome to see Billy back behind the wheel.

    Titanium cajones on that lad.

  7. 2 or 3 seasons til wins? How about podiums… Though knowing Nico’s luck, he’ll get ruined by the team or just random stuff when there’s a chance for a podium (eg Monaco and Brazil last year)… But still…

    And it was so great to see Billy Monger behind the wheel of a car again. Will be his generations Alex Zanardi. Insane how he’s 17 and has been through so much these past months and is still so positive, what a guy.

    Also, re Kubica. I saw somewhere that he’s putting in times just slower than Hulkenberg but faster than Palmer on the simulator, so he clearly has the speed in the 2017 cars. It’s just a question of the fitness with the G Forces and higher downforce cars etc.

    1. petebaldwin (@)
      5th July 2017, 12:39

      @hugh11 – I was amazed when I read that Billy Monger was back in a car already. 11 weeks ago he had just has both legs amputated and yet he’s already back driving a car!?

      That has completely blown my mind…. Most people struggle with leaving the house and getting back into society after an incident like that where as he’s jumped straight back into a car with a huge grin on his face.

  8. So with Renault needing two or three years to start winning, depending of course on a lot of ifs, as in, if there isn’t another team dominating etc etc, then that counts FA out from going to Renault.

  9. :) Mclaren said 3 years ago they were on track to winning races in 3 years.

    Now they are competing for last spot in the championship. Mostly doing a good job of it.

    1. What does your comment have to do with Renault? I think we should have a “Team Jureo” and see how far it gets in F1… I’m a bit harsh on you I suppose, but that’s F1.

      1. What it has to do with Renault… …is that there’s many a slip between cup and lip. Many things can – and in F1, frequently do – go wrong in the process of making ambitions come true. So it pays to be sceptical of big shiny promises, even when lots of evidence to believe them can be seen.

Comments are closed.