Kubica Hurt
Posted by mick_schumacher
Kubica2 - I still dont understand. What is the message you are trying to get across. Why exactly are people being disrespectful and why do you seem to be taking this so personal? Explain in simple terms because I really really dont understand. Are you this caught up in worldwide events such as the floods in Australia where thousands of people's homes/lives are destroyed? Do you have the same opinion there, that we shouldnt discuss it?
"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL
"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL
senninho Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It should be noted that Nannini
> never raced in F1 again.
As it stands, Kubica and Nannini both have 76 GP starts - an eerie coincidence
X (@ed24f1)
-------------------------------------------------------
> It should be noted that Nannini
> never raced in F1 again.
As it stands, Kubica and Nannini both have 76 GP starts - an eerie coincidence
X (@ed24f1)
Quote
kubica2
but gav, its too late for your words, you spoke way too soon in an arrogant arsehole voice declaring its just an everyday injury without knowing the facts. you didnt know the facts then and you probably still dont now or dont care, but your words were what was disrespectful.
Where was my arrogance? I'll admit I can be an arsehole sometimes, but that's dependant on whether I think I'm talking to one or not. My stance to one specific comment (which wasn't even yours) which was completely out of context was the one 'arseholey' comment I made.
I apologised if the strength of my wording offended anyone, but seemingly that's not enough?
Continuing the discussion of Kubica's injuries, there is zero solid word of any internal injuries. Not from any respectable media outlet. Not from any official statements. Not from any official press conferences. His injuries are fractures to the leg, elbow and shoulder and a trauma sub-amputation of his forearm leading to a loss of blood to his hand (which I believe is the reason for concern for a medical amputation of the hand, which thankfully appears to be receding). It appears there were initial concerns for his lungs and heart, but seemingly only due to the substantial loss of blood from his forearm and fractures (referred to as 'hemorrhagic shock'
.I'll happily be proved wrong, but from what I know, there's nothing other than sensationalist, tabloid-style scaremongering which continues to suggest anything else.
Nick - I think actually Senna beat his team mates more often than not. Poeple tend to overstate the Singapore qualifying IMO. It did end up being 2-1 to Klien in Q-trim but during a race Senna was as quick, if not quicker. Likewise with Chandock. Senna out qualified him more often than not, and again with racepace they were fairly equal but im pretty sure Senna beat him more than not. Its hard to judge race results for obvious reasons.
The idea that Senna was slower than Chandock and Klien is a quite simply wrong.
"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL
The idea that Senna was slower than Chandock and Klien is a quite simply wrong.
"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL
Plus Kubica is a big guy and as about as fit as it's possible to be, so he'd be in a good position to cope with it.
loque, i still think senna shouldnt be denied a chance in a decent car. Button was rubbish in 2001. and what ?!?1 now everyone loves him. Maybe because he is senna the standards are too high. Well it is bruno senna, not ayrton senna. we have to accept it and let the kiddow has a second go. i think he can do well. 
mitadumapaga Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> loque, i still think senna shouldnt be denied a
> chance in a decent car. Button was rubbish in
> 2001. and what ?!?1 now everyone loves him. Maybe
> because he is senna the standards are too high.
> Well it is bruno senna, not ayrton senna. we have
> to accept it and let the kiddow has a second go. i
> think he can do well.
I agree completely.. I wasn't actually being sarcastic. :P
-------------------------------------------------------
> loque, i still think senna shouldnt be denied a
> chance in a decent car. Button was rubbish in
> 2001. and what ?!?1 now everyone loves him. Maybe
> because he is senna the standards are too high.
> Well it is bruno senna, not ayrton senna. we have
> to accept it and let the kiddow has a second go. i
> think he can do well.
I agree completely.. I wasn't actually being sarcastic. :P
Nickv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why do people say Senna hasn't had a proper shot
> last year because he was in a HRT? All of his team
> mates drove in the same dreadful car and beat him,
> except for Yamamoto (but he isn't actually a
> racing driver, he's just a sushi chef who got
> lost).
Even Yamamoto was pretty close to him, and often ahead.
After Germany, he was never more than 0.35s behind Senna in qualifying, was within 0.1s twice, and outqualified Senna once.
At Japan and Korea, 2/3 of the races where both Senna and Yamamoto made it to the end, Yamamoto had a better fastest lap than Senna – and with a gap of 1s and 0.5s respectively, to his team-mate.
chet Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nick - I think actually Senna beat his team mates
> more often than not. Poeple tend to overstate the
> Singapore qualifying IMO. It did end up being 2-1
> to Klien in Q-trim but during a race Senna was as
> quick, if not quicker. Likewise with Chandock.
> Senna out qualified him more often than not, and
> again with racepace they were fairly equal but im
> pretty sure Senna beat him more than not. Its hard
> to judge race results for obvious reasons.
>
> The idea that Senna was slower than Chandock and
> Klien is a quite simply wrong.
OK, but the reality is, Senna had been in the car all year, and Klien hadn't qualified or raced for several years. To get beaten by 1.2s and 0.7s in their first two qualifying sessions is embarrassing.
In the races, I agree, it was more equal. His fastest lap at Singapore was 0.2 slower than Klien, at Brazil he was 0.1 slower, but 0.4 better at Abu Dhabi.
I don't think you can say that Senna was faster than Klien. Also, Klien would have some more development experience, which is what Renault needs at the moment.
X (@ed24f1)
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why do people say Senna hasn't had a proper shot
> last year because he was in a HRT? All of his team
> mates drove in the same dreadful car and beat him,
> except for Yamamoto (but he isn't actually a
> racing driver, he's just a sushi chef who got
> lost).
Even Yamamoto was pretty close to him, and often ahead.
After Germany, he was never more than 0.35s behind Senna in qualifying, was within 0.1s twice, and outqualified Senna once.
At Japan and Korea, 2/3 of the races where both Senna and Yamamoto made it to the end, Yamamoto had a better fastest lap than Senna – and with a gap of 1s and 0.5s respectively, to his team-mate.
chet Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nick - I think actually Senna beat his team mates
> more often than not. Poeple tend to overstate the
> Singapore qualifying IMO. It did end up being 2-1
> to Klien in Q-trim but during a race Senna was as
> quick, if not quicker. Likewise with Chandock.
> Senna out qualified him more often than not, and
> again with racepace they were fairly equal but im
> pretty sure Senna beat him more than not. Its hard
> to judge race results for obvious reasons.
>
> The idea that Senna was slower than Chandock and
> Klien is a quite simply wrong.
OK, but the reality is, Senna had been in the car all year, and Klien hadn't qualified or raced for several years. To get beaten by 1.2s and 0.7s in their first two qualifying sessions is embarrassing.
In the races, I agree, it was more equal. His fastest lap at Singapore was 0.2 slower than Klien, at Brazil he was 0.1 slower, but 0.4 better at Abu Dhabi.
I don't think you can say that Senna was faster than Klien. Also, Klien would have some more development experience, which is what Renault needs at the moment.
X (@ed24f1)
gav Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > but gav, its too late for your words, you spoke
> way too soon in an arrogant arsehole voice
> declaring its just an everyday injury without
> knowing the facts. you didnt know the facts then
> and you probably still dont now or dont care, but
> your words were what was disrespectful.
>
>
> Where was my arrogance? I'll admit I can be an
> arsehole sometimes, but that's dependant on
> whether I think I'm talking to one or not. My
> stance to one specific comment (which wasn't even
> yours) which was completely out of context was the
> one 'arseholey' comment I made.
>
> I apologised if the strength of my wording
> offended anyone, but seemingly that's not enough?
>
> Continuing the discussion of Kubica's injuries,
> there is zero solid word of any internal injuries.
> Not from any respectable media outlet. Not from
> any official statements. Not from any official
> press conferences. His injuries are fractures to
> the leg, elbow and shoulder and a trauma
> sub-amputation of his forearm leading to a loss of
> blood to his hand (which I believe is the reason
> for concern for a medical amputation of the hand,
> which thankfully appears to be receding). It
> appears there were initial concerns for his lungs
> and heart, but seemingly only due to the
> substantial loss of blood from his forearm and
> fractures (referred to as 'hemorrhagic shock'.
>
> I'll happily be proved wrong, but from what I
> know, there's nothing other than sensationalist,
> tabloid-style scaremongering which continues to
> suggest anything else.
here you go, a long an interview with his codriver about the incident:
[sport.onet.pl]
not my problem if you dont understand polish, the other polish articles on the site also address the issue of his blood loss and with interviews like this. the blood loss was the most critical aspect of saving his life before saving him. his codriver says it was the most difficult day of his life, and was also sad that other drivers drove passed the scene and didnt stop, he talks of the barrier as a guilotine that cut into the cut, and kubica was lucky it wasnt worse. look, you may not like it, but a lot more has been reported of the details of the accident in polish media, and polish language then any of the f1 english websites including, planet-f1.com. total f1, f1-live, f1racing.com/en plus bbc and other news agencies. a lot of the blood loss was also from his leg. eventually it will come out in english media, but just because it hasnt doesnt meen you can make judgement calls and say people should grow a pair just because they care about how he is and dont want to hear talk of replacements before knowing if he is ok. you have know idea how bad his state was and obviuosly didnt care and had a go at others like a complete jerk.
-------------------------------------------------------
> > but gav, its too late for your words, you spoke
> way too soon in an arrogant arsehole voice
> declaring its just an everyday injury without
> knowing the facts. you didnt know the facts then
> and you probably still dont now or dont care, but
> your words were what was disrespectful.
>
>
> Where was my arrogance? I'll admit I can be an
> arsehole sometimes, but that's dependant on
> whether I think I'm talking to one or not. My
> stance to one specific comment (which wasn't even
> yours) which was completely out of context was the
> one 'arseholey' comment I made.
>
> I apologised if the strength of my wording
> offended anyone, but seemingly that's not enough?
>
> Continuing the discussion of Kubica's injuries,
> there is zero solid word of any internal injuries.
> Not from any respectable media outlet. Not from
> any official statements. Not from any official
> press conferences. His injuries are fractures to
> the leg, elbow and shoulder and a trauma
> sub-amputation of his forearm leading to a loss of
> blood to his hand (which I believe is the reason
> for concern for a medical amputation of the hand,
> which thankfully appears to be receding). It
> appears there were initial concerns for his lungs
> and heart, but seemingly only due to the
> substantial loss of blood from his forearm and
> fractures (referred to as 'hemorrhagic shock'
.>
> I'll happily be proved wrong, but from what I
> know, there's nothing other than sensationalist,
> tabloid-style scaremongering which continues to
> suggest anything else.
here you go, a long an interview with his codriver about the incident:
[sport.onet.pl]
not my problem if you dont understand polish, the other polish articles on the site also address the issue of his blood loss and with interviews like this. the blood loss was the most critical aspect of saving his life before saving him. his codriver says it was the most difficult day of his life, and was also sad that other drivers drove passed the scene and didnt stop, he talks of the barrier as a guilotine that cut into the cut, and kubica was lucky it wasnt worse. look, you may not like it, but a lot more has been reported of the details of the accident in polish media, and polish language then any of the f1 english websites including, planet-f1.com. total f1, f1-live, f1racing.com/en plus bbc and other news agencies. a lot of the blood loss was also from his leg. eventually it will come out in english media, but just because it hasnt doesnt meen you can make judgement calls and say people should grow a pair just because they care about how he is and dont want to hear talk of replacements before knowing if he is ok. you have know idea how bad his state was and obviuosly didnt care and had a go at others like a complete jerk.
Sorry, you can't reply to this topic. It has been closed.