Please refresh my memory, because it surely must be failing me, but if Villeneuve did not have his tyre problem in the last race in 96, how would he have won the championship? You realize that Hill would have finished at least 2nd in that race right? He had a significant lead on Villeneuve in the points before that race.


Please don't bother arguing your point if your evidence is imaginary. Villeneuve had way more top-level experience in formula cars when he went to Williams in 96, and the 96 Williams was a super car with NO competition. NONE. You are comparing apples and oranges. Villeneuve was competing against a guy who at that point had no championships, and then happened to win one fair and square against Villeneuve, in a completely dominant car. Hamilton also had a very good car, but it was about equal to the Ferraris. So he had to beat his 2-time champ teammate, and the 2 drivers in the Ferraris. Totally different challenge, and I should say way more difficult.


That's not to say that Villeneuve wasn't great. He was. But I think Hamilton is something else altogether.


Cooper

I see the problem here.
Nobody is arguing about Heidfeld's failure to qualify properly.
He has failed badly in that department. But that's all.
A bad starting position is a huge handycap in F1 these days and no amount of racecraft will help overcome this.
But Nick has done the best one possibly could, given his starting positions.
I'm not happy with his qualifying. He's not happy with his qualifying.
But for the rest, he is outstanding.
I do not believe any other driver could mitigate such a situation as well as Heidfeld.
There is nothing to sugar coat here.
And Walsing ham. Of course the different starting positions will reflect on the +/- passing ratio.
But this is not the ONLY reason Nick does better on track. Much of it is due to his on-track passing ability.
Something that many (not I) have pointed out as lacking in Robert.

"None of what you say explains why Robert is going backwards."

You are amazing, metz, really amazing

two inches above that very sentene you write yourself that you are aware of fuel load and strategies.

THAT IS THE REASON why Robert starts races higher that his car's race pace dictates and THAT IS THE REASON why he then droppes back in races.

AND THAT IS EXACTLY THE REASON why Nick's move forward when he starts his race lower than his car's pace dictates.


So what does that tell you?

And here I agree.

I am impressed with Nick's passing ability. And I was dissapointed many times this year how Robert was stucked behind slower cars.

Bit too early to say.

But I hope we get
Lewis Hamilton
and Michael Schumacher-coming back for fun

The dream scenerio.

An interesting view point but i think McLaren would be the more likely to secure kubicas services for the 2010 season. Alonso's demand for No1 status and what could well be kubicas ( by this time 2010) need for a world title shot, having been vindicated by his performance at BMW Sauber, would mean that we could well see a Alonso/ Hamilton type feud develop over the season. Ferrari Seem no better placed to deal with such an unsettling situation than McLaren were last year.

Funny; I am probably the only one who wishes that Kubica, THE CRUISER, would leave asap, anywhere. NH' career is over for all practical purposes.

The article starts with
"With both Kimi Raikkonen and Felipe Massa contracted with Ferrari through next year"

And there is when you stop reading, since Massa is contracted UNTIL 2010...

So if you're the only one maybe it's time to rethink your attitude about Kubica?

Yes, you are the only one

Did you notice how much backwards he went today. 37 seconds behind Massa, terrible performance.

very true

I am sure metz is working on elaborate analysis how RK moved backward and NH forward today.

Kubica was faster all weekend. He was either slowed by a car ahead or just made a mistake in sec. 1 when he ran a 26.4. The rest of his lap was faster than Nick's. The faster guy gets the faster strategy.

Note how in Q3, Kubica was only 0.3 sec behind Massa, but had 3 more laps of fuel. On equal fuel, Kubica would have had the pole.

Nick went backwards today, depite having slower cars in front of him, while Kubica maintained his position despite having faster cars behind him. If it wasn't for Kimi's engine going, Nick would have gone back 2 positons, despite having a faster car than the guys in front of him.

I think you misunderstand, nothing in that sentence tells you massas contract ends earlier then 2010. It just states they are contracted through 2009 which is true.

I'll repeat myself here.
Robert drove a flawless race today...
Nick had a stupid strategy and a bad start and NOBODY could pass on this track.
Not even Nick.

Kubica's qualifying performance on Saturday was outstanding..

Yeah, and in the process it hints that he is without a contract for 2010, and hence Ferrari needs to find two drivers for that year, which is false.

You wrote your statement like there were other reasons of bad performance but not Nick's weak driving and I recommend you to read what he said after the race.

Bad days happen.

I went into details elsewhere.