Vettel on Kubica comeback: “Why did he not do this earlier?”

MONTMELO, SPAIN – MARCH 04: Sebastian Vettel of Germany and Ferrari looks on outside the garage during day four of F1 winter testing at Circuit de Catalunya on March 4, 2016 in Montmelo, Spain. (Photo by Mark Thompson/Getty Images)

Now that the season is done, news not as easy to come by but Sebastian Vettel still has plenty to say during a rare(ish) interview with Swiss newspaper SonntagsBlick.

Vettel explains what he thinks of Formula E and Robert Kubica’s comeback attempt. The four-time champion also explains why Halo is needed in his view.

After the Formula E opener in Hong Kong last weekend, Vettel gave his opinion as to why he’s simply not interested in electric racing.

“For me, that’s not the future. Yes E-mobility is currently very popular throughout the world. But anyone who identifies with motor racing and is honest, can’t identify much with Formula E.”

The sound (or lack thereof) is not even the biggest problem for Vettel.

“First of all, the cars are not very fast,” he emphasises, and says: “Many drivers driving there have told me that driving is not actually very exciting”

Turning to Kubica’s likely imminent, yet unannounced, comeback into the sport, the 4 time champion had this to say:

“I think it’s very tragic what happened to him back then. He was considered a future champion. However, I do not understand why he is now pushing for a comeback. Why did not he do this earlier? For him it would certainly be a nice story. On the other hand, it would be a pity for younger drivers, whom he would take away a drive.”

Incidentally, Vettel also takes a not very popular opinion when it comes to the controversial Halo coming to F1 next year revealing:

“I think if you can save a life with it then it’s necessary. I’m not a statistician, but if you can spare a driver an injury, then he’s justified. Of course, the whole thing is not very aesthetic, but we will get used to it”

11 responses to “Vettel on Kubica comeback: “Why did he not do this earlier?”

  1. Anyone who watched the Formula E race in Hong Kong over the week-end would agree.FE was established for political reasons and it shows. Cars that can only run for 30 minutes, as most cities are built on a grid system the track is a straight then a 90 turn, a straight then a 90 turn, a straight then a 90 turn, a straight then a 90 turn…… The FIA doesn’t even show the trap speeds of the cars. It’s an electric car go-kart race.

    On Kubica – he showed that he isn’t any faster than Massa, Stroll or Sirotkin. It will come down to who has the most cash to pay for the seat. Sad really that this is what Williams have turned into – both seats are up to the highest bidder.

    • he did not show he is no faster… it was a test in a car he was not allowed to set up – was set up for all 3 drivers the same as it was a TYRE TEST, and it was also a way to let Kubica acclimatize to the team, not a timed lap shootout.

    • It will be interesting to see if Kubica should he return be able to beat Stroll. If he cant it will be egg on face at Williams.

    • I think Formula E cars race on street tracks for a reason. They have good torque, but not much top speed. Hence the street course suit these cars well. There is no need for super long straight because these cars are already achieving near their top speed anyways.

      I am starting to find FE racing boring too. The first season was interesting because there was a lot of unpredictability, since the cars would break all the time. But as the reliability improved, these races look processional. Once you know how people qualified, it’s easy to predict they will finish the same way.

  2. Can’t fault anything Seb offered. But in regards Kubica, he was regarded by champions as the biggest talent within the sport.

    Without question his disability is a factor now, but as many professional commentators say, it’s the six inches between the ears that define top level athletes.

    From memory, only Mick Doohan has competed at World level with a handicap. A few mechanical changes to his bike and bingo, 5 titles…

    • It’s 2017 not 2010. Schumacher, without question one of the greatest F1 drivers ever, came back to F1 after 3 years, claiming he was in the best shape of his life and with 2 arms, and after a couple of races it was clear he should have stayed retired. I suspect the same thing is going to happen here. If Kubica does get the seat it will be for one reason and one only – the money he brings.

      • I don’t want to believe you
        But Sebastian raises a fair point. Or not.
        Because recovery is physical and psychological, so I understand why Kubica took his time.

        I think Schumacher just didn’t know what to do with his time and he seemed to be a different person when he came back.

        So if Kubica really has found his fire again…

        • Schumacher isn’t the only one. Alan Jones, another WC, came back after essentially 4 seasons of being out, he did do 3 or 4 races during that time, but when he came back full time he like Schumacher and showed he should have stayed retired. The only driver I can think of that was out for 3 seasons or more and recaptured his old gory was Niki Lauda. And Kubica is no Lauda.

          Kubica reminds me of the old boxer that comes back hoping to regain his past fame, lots of hype, PR, but inevitably gets KO’d in the first round.

      • There is no question that making a comeback after a long break is hard, and who knows, Schumacher should not have returned. But I think it makes everything worse when you return to racing in a dud of a car. I mean, the Mercedes of 2010-2013 are really a disappointing car. When Schumacher was coming back in 2010 he was probably pumped up by the thought that he will be driving for the same team that won the 2009 championships under a different name, but this car turned out to be at best capable of fighting for the title of best of the rest in those years. It was surprising that Rosberg could beat Schumacher, but then again Rosberg also beat Hamilton for a season or two.

        Also don’t forget that some people did succeed in making a good comeback. Raikkonen looked incredible in 2012. It felt like he hadn’t missed a single season between 2009 and 2012. Also Montoya’s return to IndyCar in 2014 was surprisingly good (four podiums, including a win). In 2015 he was runner up for the champion title. He should have won the title, if it wasn’t for his idiot teammate in the last race of season.

  3. –“I think if you can save a life with it then it’s necessary.”
    By which logic we should abolish all motor racing because it is, I would say, an absolute certainty that that would save lives and save drivers from injuries… There needs to be assessment of risk, not just that there is one.

    The question is not whether it makes racing less dangerous, the question is how often the dangers it will protect against are likely to occur. Halo wouldn’t have helped Massa, nor I think would it have helped Bianchi. Would it have saved Alonso if Grosjean’s car had been a little lower when spinning over him? I don’t know, but suspect not. So it seems to me that it’s giving us the worst of both worlds in being both ugly and not actually any use in protecting the drivers from the small pieces of debris which they are far more likely than (say) loose wheels.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.