do not worry Kimi would never drive for Toyota, thats why he gave that strange interwiev some days ago, about retireing if not geting competetive ride. Toyota is anything but competitive ride...

Raikkonen had a bad year and Kubica his best one...

Perhaps we should remember that in 2007 Kubica failed to score a podium finish and was trounced by Heidfeld.

I think that Hamilton, as McLaren's Boy Wonder, will have some say. The final decision is obviously made by the top brass, but if Hamilton raises objections or has input, they will listen to him.

Kimi wasn'T WDC material last year.

Of the 47 race wins achieved by drivers who have been Nick's team-mates, just one has been has been won while they were his team-mates. And he's 32, the age at which Mansell won his first Grand Prix. Okay, you might argue that the average age in F1 was older then but I think that Rubens' recent performances suggest that the recent preference for drivers barely out of their teens has more to do with fashion than anything. And Nick's younger than Mark Webber, who won his first race this year.

There are drivers in lower categories whom I want to see in F1 but I'm puzzled by the appeal of novelty in the sport. There's no reason Nick couldn't do what Jenson Button and Mark Webber have done this year and the idea that he should be moved on simply to give his seat to someone else is strange to me.

I'm sure Hamilton wouldn't have anything against McLaren retaining the servicess of a harmless teammate like Kovalainen but like Whitmarsh himself said in Singapore on sunday after the race (quote): "We aspire to be a top team so we want the best drivers in Formula 1". Mclaren want the services of Raikkonen because in order for them to be able to win both the championships you need two top drivers. Hamilton might not be thrilled about it but I'm sure he undertands the need for it.

What a silly argument, maybe in 2007 Kubica has a bad year, and Heidfeld his best one? And we can so go on.

Fact is, that Raikkonen scored less points than Kubica in 2008 having a much better car (Ferrari has 37 more points in the WCC than BMW!)
Fact, that Kubica struggled in 2007 with his car (broken engines, brakes, bad strategy)

Let take a look at the 2009 season, if you want to write that Nick has more points:
AUS - Nick 10th, Kubica has fighting for the win, and colision with Vettel, but Robert had better pace than Nick
MYS - Nick 2th because of interrupted GP in best moment for him, Robert - engine broken. Hardly to say who has the better pace
CHN - Nick 12th, Robert 13th, Nick starting from 11th, Robert from boxes, so better pace for Robert
BAH - Nick 19th, Robert 18th, in Q Robert 13th, Nick 14th, again, faster Robert
ESP - Nick 7th, Rob 11th, in Q Robert 10th, Nick 13th, better race for Nick
MCO - Nick 11th, Rob, broken breaks.
TUR - Nick 11th, Rob 7th, again Rob.
GBR - Nick 15th, Rob 13th...
DEU - Nick 10th, Rob 15th - faster Nick
HUN - Nick 11th, Rob 13th - faster Nick
VAL - Nick 11th, Rob 8th - faster Rob
BEL - Nick 5th, Rob 4th - faster Rob
ITA - Nick 7th, Rob didn't ended the race because of accident with Webber, but he was far ahead of Nick before that, so I assume faster Rob
SGP - Rob 8th, Nick didn't ended because of Sutil, but he was on the end because of bad weight, in Q Nick was one place higher with a much lighter car, BAR crash, so hard to say who would be faster.

Resuming 8 GP's where Rob was faster, 3 GP's where Nick was faster, only the points don't say all.

Dude, Kubica is only 24...the best season is still before him.
In 2007 Kubica had a couple of car failures (gearbox)
Remember that he was 3rd in his 3rd GP in career (Monza 2006)
And a title "Driver of the year 2008" (Autosport) for Kubica was a mistake?
Kubica is definitely WDC material.

He has zero say on the matter. You think Raikkenon, the former golden boy had any say?

I certainly think Kubica is World Champion material but I disagree with some of your race comparisons. It's been a while since some of them and I don't remember all the details but, for example, Robert was a couple of places in front of Nick in Italy because his engine had lasted slightly longer in qualifying. They were very close and then Robert had his accident. In Australia Nick was caught up in someone else's accident at the start, although Robert was probably faster there anyway but then Nick was ahead in Monaco before Robert's retirement.

I am starting to think we are more concerned with lifes and contracts of the drivers than the drivers themselves

Hello alecc

I think you would do yourself a favour by checking the results.

Regards,
Anssi.

Well it has been suggested that he did with Todt's support against Montezemolo.

You're right, I only say that talking that Kub isn't WDC material is completely BS sayed only by some fanboys here.
Another thing is, that about Nicks 2010 seat is here complete silence, for me, if he have only a little worse pace than Kub (and sometimes even better) he should be a silly seaseon "star" either, but the only rumours that here was, that he will land in Williams, now will it be Rubens and Nico H.
So, is there really no place for Nick in a top/mid team? Only Sauber or one of the newbies?



My mistake, they had both 75 points, but one of them had a worse car

Raikkonen wasn't groomed for a race seat from the age of twelve or so.

Wasn't Kimi 3rd in the points standings in 2008, after Hamilton and Massa? How can Kubica have collected more points then?

Other drivers were dropped from the Young Driver Program, you know, because they weren't as quick.

Even if you think it's clever to call it "grooming"

So? he's been running McLaren since 12?

I believe they scored the same amount of points. Kimi just ended up higher up in the table due to more no. of wins.

No, but I'd say that Lewis has had a much longer relationship with McLaren, wouldn't you? And considering how good he is, you'd think they'd want to try and retain him. Now, I don't think Hamilton would threaten to walk if he got a team-mate he wasn't happy with, but I do think that since he's been so closely associated with the team for the past decade, he'd at least be consulted as to who he'd like as team-mate. And that McLaren would take his opinion under advisement.

He was Ron's favourite golden boy though.

Did Ron ever cry when Mika won?

Nope. He won't be "consulted", he will be informed when a decision has been made. He's just a driver.

No, it's just your imaginings.

This.

Just because you have received major support in lower formulae would not, rationally, give you the right to veto driver transfers.

We know McLaren want him and have approached him, where do you get the idea that the Hamiltons don't want him? Where do you get the idea they have asked McLaren not to hire him? Don't you think they would have told Whitmarsh before he closed on a deal with Raikkonen? This post is a classic example of a theory based on a prejudice with no supporting evidence - not even rumour - to base it on. You might as well ask: what if Hamilton Snr punched Kimi's mum?

You honestly don't think McLaren wouldn't ask Hamilton's opinion of another driver?

Let's say they're looking at two people: Nico Rosberg and Robert Kubica. And let's say that for whatever reason, they're undecided on who to offer a contract to. You honestly believe McLaren wouldn't ask Hamilton what he thinks of both of them? Because what if Hamilton will get along with Rosberg, but not Kubica? You don't think that having a kind of harmony between drivers is important? McLaren don't want a repeat of 2007, when the atmosphere was less-than-affable (however exaggeratd by the media it may have been), because something like that could come up at an inopportune moment and potentially compromise a championship challenge.

McLaren value Hamilton; no driver and team have a closer association. There are some - like Massa-Ferrari, Alonso-Renault and Button-Brawn - that come close, but Hamilton has said he'd be happy at stay at McLaren for as long as he is in Formula One. He's been a part of them - and they a part of him - for a decade, so I'd be very surpirsed if they didn't ask what he thought of potential team-mates.

We know from 2007 that Hamilton doesnt like fast team mates and doesnt get on well with them, so he obviously would prefer to keep Heikki a driver he knows he can beat. Daddy hamilton is surely doing his best to veto Kimi to mclaren.

I'd give your post a suitable response ... but you go from saying McLaren have approached Raikkonen to McLaren have closed on a deal with him in the space of two setences. And you don't have a shred of proof of it (though I admit ... I haven't checked on the main Autosport page for a few hours, so something may have been annouced in the time since and I haven't heard of it yet). For all you know, Kimi has been seen in the McLaren garages because he's made up his mind that he's going to retire and wants to say good-bye. After all, pit crews work on a rotational basis to give them some rest and a chance to be with their families.

The only question he would be asked is "who do you think is faster?"
Seriously Alonso has said a few times he didn't have problem getting along with Hamilton (except he's too fast). Teammates don't have to be friends. Hamilton might no be thrilled to have Raikkenon as teammate (actually part of him would be thrilled), but he will understand that's just the way it is in a top team, you will be paired up with a decent teammate.

Perhaps you should notice that 2007 was his first full season in F1 but he managed to finish ahead of Nick in every race he did not have a technical problem. He struggled with reliability (and his clueless race engineer) all 2007 season but at least the car was fast and fairly competitive. This year car is total crap - dog slow and unreliable so any comparisons between the drivers are pointless.

But you've gone from that to "Kimi not going to McLaren because of the Hamiltons". All on your 'let's say" and "lets suppose".

It's on a par with your made-up Nurburgring episode, with Webber supposedly apologising for Lewis' "stupid mistake" .

No, I'm trying to build up a case by using hypotheticals to illustrate my point; the "Kimi not going to McLaren because of the Hamiltons" was the first of these hypotheticals. I was trying to make a case for conditons under which Raikkonen might consider a move to Toyota. Unfortunately, people started taking what I said too literaly, and it degenerated into a discussion about how much weight Hamilton has at McLaren and I've taken far too long to be able to make the point I was originally trying to make: that if Raikkonen wanted to stay in Formula One, but the current four top teams were full for whatever reason, then Toyota and Renault would have the best cars available.


I'd remember saying something like that. My line of argument was that Hamilton made a stupid mistake by trying to win the race at the first corner. With KERS and a faster car at his disposal, he could have waited until the opportune moment, executed a pass and then went for the win, but his never-say-die attitude got in the way and he eared a puncture for his efforts. Webber's supposed apologising never came into it because he never actually did anything wrong; once again, I'm guessing this was born out of a misinterpretation.

The MS years have consistently shown that having a strong #1 driver is the best way to win a WDC. 2007 2008 and 2009 (vettel vs webber ) have shown that having two drivers take away points from each other is the best way to lose a WDC.

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Seriously dude. They finished 12 races together, at 5 of them Kubica was in front of Heidfeld. You saying he had a problem in all those racers? Get your facts straight kk??

Like I already said above I'm sure Hamilton would personally prefer the harmless Kovalainen over Raikkonen as a teammate. But like Whitmarsh said in a BBC interview in Singapore last sunday after the race (quote): "We wanna have the best two drivers in our car we can. It's as simple as that." "We aspire to be a top team so we want the best drivers in Formula 1". McLaren wants Raikkonen and whether or not the Hamiltons like it won't mean anything.

This was the same interview where Whitmarsh totally failed to deny that Kimi is returning to McLaren.

The BBC interview

I agree, but if the rival teams also have two fast drivers, then it's not a disadvantage. but I guess it's gonna be no.1/no.2 in Ferrari.....

He doesn't care where Kimi ends up, he's a Alonso fan. He's just trying to stir up the mess in 2007.

seriously, again?
"my d!ck is longer than yours!!!"
oops, sorry, my mistake "my driver is faster than yours!!!"
some people should find a sandbox and go play in there...

But BrawnGP has shown you can both race with 2 good drivers too. Williams 1996-1997, and best example of course Mclaren with Senna/Prost.

The issue with Vettel and Webber isn't them stealing points from eachother tbh, it's the team and drivers making mistakes or not being on pace.

Funnily enough, he totally failed to confirm that Kimi will return to McLaren. He didn't say no, but he didn't say yes either, and the suggestion that his silence meant assent was supplied by the interviewer, not Whitmarsh. So unless the video cut out just before Whitmarsh could say yes, that interview amounts to basically nothing.

jv was a rookie in 96. everyone was surprised when he stuck it on pole in melbourne.
and hhf massively underperformed in 97. obv wasn't comfortable in the team, only won once in imola.

but i'd agree, having two strong drivers is better than having one, if only for the constructor's championship....

Alright I agree if the top 4 teams are unavailable, and Kimi wants to stay in F1, then he has to consider the [edit] 5th and 6th teams.

I'm not going to agree that Lewis gaining hand over fist on Webbo should lift off saying "oh dear I'm going a bit fast I'd better lift before I overtake him" . He had plenty of room and time for the move, what went wrong was that Rubens moved on Webbo to make room for the corner, and that moved Webbo into Lewis. I would concede that next time Lewis will probably leave a bit more width, if you insist.

Funny your examples are all dominant cars.

Its easier with a dominant car, and weak opposition, like brawn have faced, but if they were in a big battle , then their 2 driver policy would be damaging. I think Ferrari should have a policy where if a team mate is holding the other up they must let him past, unless its for the lead of the race. Its silly to have a slower driver slow down the team so thats the only policy I would enforce and it would be fair and apply to both drivers. Next year might be tricky to overtake because you cant use fuel strategy. You only have tyre strategy to overtake which means, pitting first, but a team probably wouldnt allow the car behind to pit before his leading team mate, as it would be deemed unfair to give advantage to the car behind. Im not sure how it will work out.

He had serious problems with rear axle in Malaysia, drove with opened fuel flap in Bahrain, was penalised in Belgium for changing engine, lost win or second place in China because of hydraulics failure. I could add some more but thats enough to reverse your flawed "statistics".

BrawnGP was dominant at start but are they dominating now? Also, Williams wasn't that dominant in 1997.

In contrast, wasn't the Ferrari of 2000,2001,2002,2004? Or the Mclaren in 1998-1999? Or the Benneton in 1995? Etc etc.

What I mean that the issue isn't really teammates stealing points of eachother. Titles arn't really losed because of that. You could say 2007 but it's not. Hamilton made silly mistakes and that's whats cost him the title, not Alonso.

Well, I'm sure you understand that official driver confirmations are done differently than just straight out admitted during a televison interview but I do not think that anyone can honestly deny that Whitmarsh's reaction was very telling.

Jeez. Its not about Raikkonen. After 1/3 of season Kubica was beating EVERYONE. Its simple math, had BMW keep the third fastest car position in second half of season he'd be WDC by consistency, yet you doubt whether he is WDC material.