Rubens and McLaren

#11

Simon says <Wcub4 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote in
news:1bd1acc8-5b82-43ca-ae1a-255fe4012cc7 (AT) s31g2000yqs (DOT) googlegroups.com:

Quote:

On 6 nov, 04:15, CatharticF1 <rasf1pos... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
Seems McLaren had talks with him after he'd already signed for
Williams.

So that's pretty clear - none of you chaps consider Rubens a #2,
right?

http://tinyurl.com/ybwtdwu

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&tl=en&u=http%3A
%2F%
2Fwww.thef1.com%2Fnoticias%2Fnoticias-2009%2Fnoviembre-2009%2Frubens-
barrichello-rechazo-a-mclaren-por-williams

--
CatharticF1

"What you thought was freedom is just greed."

It's too put pressure on Kimi not to demand too much money if you knew
anything about doing business. Everybody knows that, so why can't you?

Yes - I had heard that and not brought it up because neither Kimi nor
his manager (he's rather good you may recall) would be even slightly
rattled by Rubens.

And I'm sure that even though you don't know that, McLaren do.

Quote:

http://ferrarif1forum.com/2009/10/29/exclusive-ferrari-f2010-f61-previe
w/

Rubens would make a fine #2 at Ferrari.

"After the disappointing 2009 season Ferrari is willing to re-install
a system that is similar to that of the Schumacher era a policy
Ferrari have been both loved and criticized for – both for leaving and
implementing. Everything will be built around one superstar. Will let
you debate on who that is going to be but it’s not hard to imagine. "

So Ferrari is going to focus 100% on Alonso while Massa is getting
screwed over. Seems Rubens would fit excellent there.

A little bit touchy, huh?

Most are acknowledging Alonso may have it tough with an entrenched and
politically well supported Massa. And Ferrari have two drivers capable
of the WDC.

But I suspect the possibility that McLaren might continue to mimic
Ferrari's much derided _former_ policy is too much for you to bear.

Poor dear.

--
CatharticF1

"What you thought was freedom is just greed."

#12

On Nov 6, 7:16*am, CatharticF1 <rasf1pos... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

Bob Dubery <megap... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in news:7d4e33d4-423f-43b7-9785-
0630224f3... (AT) j24g2000yqa (DOT) googlegroups.com:

On Nov 6, 6:45*am, CatharticF1 <rasf1pos... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
"Chad" <cbs... (AT) safemail (DOT) com> wrote innews:4af3a0e7 (AT) news (DOT) x-privat.org:

CatharticF1 wrote:
Seems McLaren had talks with him after he'd already signed for
Williams.

So that's pretty clear - none of you chaps consider Rubens a #2,
right?

http://tinyurl.com/ybwtdwu

I'm not 100% sure I get the point. Are you saying an approach from
McLaren for 2010 means the driver is only a #2 standard?

No - I'm not saying an _approach_ means he's a number 2. More that the
unkind view of Rubens when he was at Ferrari was that.

Well that's what he was. You didn't see Schumacher being told to pull
over to let Rubens win.

Schumacher got special treatment at Ferrari, even if that meant
reigning in whoever his teammate was and irrespective of what was in
anybody's contract. Some might say that's understandable, I might be
amongst them, though I thought that what happened at the A1-ring was
going too far.

So it's not unkind to suggest that Rubens, or Irvine for that matter,
was a number 2 driver at Ferrari. It's just stating the obvious.

OK - to extrapolate then. McLaren presumably wanted him to play the same
role for Lewis..?
I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. If you want to take your

usual tilt at McLaren and by extension at all things British then do
it like a man, say it outright and take responsibility for it.

#13

CatharticF1 wrote:

Quote:

"Chad" <cbstun (AT) safemail (DOT) com> wrote in news:4af3a0e7 (AT) news (DOT) x-privat.org:

CatharticF1 wrote:
Seems McLaren had talks with him after he'd already signed for
Williams.

So that's pretty clear - none of you chaps consider Rubens a #2,
right?

http://tinyurl.com/ybwtdwu

I'm not 100% sure I get the point. Are you saying an approach from
McLaren for 2010 means the driver is only a #2 standard?

No - I'm not saying an _approach_ means he's a number 2. More that the
unkind view of Rubens when he was at Ferrari was that. So I'm
wondering if that view has changed and if not what it indicates.

I'd say the Williams seat is the best place he could choose to change that
perception, if he cares what we think anyway.

I don't think my view changed that much this year, despite Rubens speaking
up about not wanting to play 2nd fiddle. But if he had stayed at Brawn or
moved to McLaren I think it would have confirmed that he really is happy to
drive as #2. (which isn't the worst thing in the world anyway)

If you are suggesting Rubens only got derision for being a dutiful team mate
at Ferrari and wouldn't at McLaren... I'm not so sure. I think he would cop
it from fans whether he complained about it or dutifully complied, because
it is an obvious support player drive. That seat is a bit if poison chalice
for 2010, any experienced driver who takes it would be in a bit of a
lose-lose situation imho.

--
Chad

#14

CatharticF1 wrote:

Quote:

Bob Dubery <megapode (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in news:7d4e33d4-423f-43b7-9785-
0630224f3cc3 (AT) j24g2000yqa (DOT) googlegroups.com:

On Nov 6, 6:45*am, CatharticF1 <rasf1pos... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
"Chad" <cbs... (AT) safemail (DOT) com> wrote
innews:4af3a0e7 (AT) news (DOT) x-privat.org:

CatharticF1 wrote:
Seems McLaren had talks with him after he'd already signed for
Williams.

So that's pretty clear - none of you chaps consider Rubens a #2,
right?

http://tinyurl.com/ybwtdwu

I'm not 100% sure I get the point. Are you saying an approach
from >> > McLaren for 2010 means the driver is only a #2 standard?

No - I'm not saying an approach means he's a number 2. More that
the >> unkind view of Rubens when he was at Ferrari was that.

Well that's what he was. You didn't see Schumacher being told to
pull over to let Rubens win.

Schumacher got special treatment at Ferrari, even if that meant
reigning in whoever his teammate was and irrespective of what was in
anybody's contract. Some might say that's understandable, I might be
amongst them, though I thought that what happened at the A1-ring was
going too far.

So it's not unkind to suggest that Rubens, or Irvine for that
matter, was a number 2 driver at Ferrari. It's just stating the
obvious.

OK - to extrapolate then. McLaren presumably wanted him to play the
same role for Lewis..?

Rubens has said, many times and in public, that he is not prepared to
play that role any more. Judging by his outburst at Brawn he's also
ultra-suspicious. Hardly likely that McLaren are blind to that.

--
Paul-B

#15

build wrote:

Quote:

On Nov 6, 2:15*pm, CatharticF1 <rasf1pos... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
Seems McLaren had talks with him after he'd already signed for
Williams.

So that's pretty clear - none of you chaps consider Rubens a #2,
right?

http://tinyurl.com/ybwtdwu

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F
%
2Fwww.thef1.com%2Fnoticias%2Fnoticias-2009%2Fnoviembre-2009%2Frubens
- barrichello-rechazo-a-mclaren-por-williams

--
CatharticF1

"What you thought was freedom is just greed."

Get serious !
Rubins would never ever sign with McLaren.
That is just silly.

No, not silly. Fact. If Rubens had been unable to get a seat in a good
team and was offered one at McLaren, proven race-winners and looking
good for 2010, do you seriously think he'd say "no" and walk away from
F1?

What kind of dream world are you living in?

--
Paul-B

#16

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 21:01:59 -0800 (PST), Bob Dubery
<megapode (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

No - I'm not saying an _approach_ means he's a number 2. More that the
unkind view of Rubens when he was at Ferrari was that.

Well that's what he was. You didn't see Schumacher being told to pull
over to let Rubens win.

Remind me - how often did Barrichello lead Schumacher in the
championship?

--

Ian D

#17

Simon says wrote:

Quote:

On 6 nov, 04:15, CatharticF1 <rasf1pos... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
Seems McLaren had talks with him after he'd already signed for
Williams.

So that's pretty clear - none of you chaps consider Rubens a #2,
right?

http://tinyurl.com/ybwtdwu

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F
%
2Fwww.thef1.com%2Fnoticias%2Fnoticias-2009%2Fnoviembre-2009%2Frubens
- barrichello-rechazo-a-mclaren-por-williams

--
CatharticF1

"What you thought was freedom is just greed."

It's too put pressure on Kimi not to demand too much money if you knew
anything about doing business. Everybody knows that, so why can't you?

http://ferrarif1forum.com/2009/10/29/exclusive-ferrari-f2010-f61-previ
ew/

Rubens would make a fine #2 at Ferrari.

"After the disappointing 2009 season Ferrari is willing to re-install
a system that is similar to that of the Schumacher era a policy
Ferrari have been both loved and criticized for – both for leaving and
implementing. Everything will be built around one superstar. Will let
you debate on who that is going to be but it’s not hard to imagine. "

So Ferrari is going to focus 100% on Alonso while Massa is getting
screwed over. Seems Rubens would fit excellent there.

That's nothing more than a forum, doesn't represent Ferrari's stance in
any way. Massa is Schumacher's protege, no way will Schumacher put up
with the kind of arseholing which went on when Irvine and Barrichello
were pimping for him.

--
Paul-B

#18

Ian Dalziel wrote:

Quote:

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 21:01:59 -0800 (PST), Bob Dubery
megapode (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

No - I'm not saying an approach means he's a number 2. More that
the >> unkind view of Rubens when he was at Ferrari was that.

Well that's what he was. You didn't see Schumacher being told to
pull over to let Rubens win.

Remind me - how often did Barrichello lead Schumacher in the
championship?

They were exactly equal at the start...

--
Paul-B

#19

"CatharticF1" <rasf1poster (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

Seems McLaren had talks with him after he'd already signed for Williams.

So that's pretty clear - none of you chaps consider Rubens a #2, right?

http://tinyurl.com/ybwtdwu

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%
2Fwww.thef1.com%2Fnoticias%2Fnoticias-2009%2Fnoviembre-2009%2Frubens-
barrichello-rechazo-a-mclaren-por-williams

--
CatharticF1

"What you thought was freedom is just greed."

Ferrari have 2 no2s (in both senses). So, McLaren need at least one.

AC

#20

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 21:22:04 -0800 (PST), Simon says
<Wcub4 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

http://ferrarif1forum.com/2009/10/29/exclusive-ferrari-f2010-f61-preview/

Rubens would make a fine #2 at Ferrari.

"After the disappointing 2009 season Ferrari is willing to re-install
a system that is similar to that of the Schumacher era a policy
Ferrari have been both loved and criticized for – both for leaving and
implementing. Everything will be built around one superstar. Will let
you debate on who that is going to be but it’s not hard to imagine. "

So Ferrari is going to focus 100% on Alonso while Massa is getting
screwed over. Seems Rubens would fit excellent there.

Hm? Hold on, does that mean that if I write something here and then
someone quotes it on some other forum - it becomes the truth?! What an
interesting thought! And the article you quoted actually provides-
here:

"Ferrari is working on new ‘working methods’, and once again they’re
speeding things up in order to have the Moog super simulator installed
in Maranello next month."

" By using that, they should be able to win at least one Academy Award
for "best soundtrack", especially if - as the rumour goes - they're
really going to ditch the old Mellotron. It is uncertain at this point
who exactly will play the Moog - Keith Emerson would be the obvious
choice, but the German press indicates some kind of a deal with the
Kraftwerk, while the italians would be more than happy to have Giorgio
Moroder. Of course we all know what Enzo Ferrari thought about having
italian musicians within the team..."

There, that should keep the Ferrari forum busy for a little while.

ADP.