49 replies to this topic

[DutchQuicksilver]

We've had topics about Ralf and Montoya, so why not shoot out another. Back in 2001, Mika Hakkinen announced that he would take a sabbatical, and Kimi Raikkonen would replace him for 2002. We all know Mika never came back and Kimi naturally took over the Finnish pride in F1.

But, what if Hakkinen had lived up to his promise and came back after his sabbatical. Would we have seen anything different? Perhaps he would have taken the title in 2003, because of his experience? Or could he have taken the title in the superfast MP4-20 in 2005, because he made it more reliable with his experience?

My guess is he would have replaced DC for 2003 and teamed up with Kimi (would have been a great line up btw) and taking a couple of wins for sure. I'd say he would have retired again after 2005. Or maybe after 2004, because that car was so disappointing.

What do you guys think?

[Vesuvius]

We've had topics about Ralf and Montoya, so why not shoot out another. Back in 2001, Mika Hakkinen announced that he would take a sabbatical, and Kimi Raikkonen would replace him for 2002. We all know Mika never came back and Kimi naturally took over the Finnish pride in F1.

But, what if Hakkinen had lived up to his promise and came back after his sabbatical. Would we have seen anything different? Perhaps he would have taken the title in 2003, because of his experience? Or could he have taken the title in the superfast MP4-20 in 2005, because he made it more reliable with his experience?

My guess is he would have replaced DC for 2003 and teamed up with Kimi (would have been a great line up btw) and taking a couple of wins for sure. I'd say he would have retired again after 2005. Or maybe after 2004, because that car was so disappointing.

What do you guys think?

Well he would have been extremely fast like always...like Withmarsh said this year during Canada gp weekend to Peter Windsor, Mika Häkkinen was the fastest driver ever driven McLaren (since 1989 when Withmarsh has been working for them), motivated Häkkinen would have surely been title contender again.

By the way Mika Häkkinen was so close to comeback that one can be, he first talked with BAR 2004 but then decided Williams would be better option, the talks with Williams went so far that Mika was already made up his mind going to go and sign deal with them but then he heard shocking news that Williams had signed Jenson Button. Mika was angry and decided F1 is over from him forever (source is Mika's own book)

Edited by Vesuvius, 15 August 2013 - 13:51.

[Trust]

Well he would have been extremely fast like always...like Withmarsh said this year during Canada gp weekend to Peter Windsor, Mika Häkkinen was the fastest driver ever driven McLaren (since 1989 when Withmarsh has been working for them), motivated Häkkinen would have surely been title contender again.

By the way Mika Häkkinen was so close to comeback that one can be, he first talked with BAR 2004 but then decided Williams would be better option, the talks with Williams went so far that Mika was already made up his mind going to go and sign deal with them but then he heard shocking news that Williams had signed Jenson Button. Mika was angry and decided F1 is over from him forever (source is Mika's own book)

Any quote for this?

Then again when Kimi was driving in early years for McLaren, RD said the same for him.

[alframsey]

Mika is my all time favourite racing driver! Absolutely love him and he first got me hooked on F1, was so devastated he didn't come back I was sure he would go on to win a couple more titles.

[AJFIN]

He would have been the fastest man in qualifying at Monaco in 2012...

NOT.

[Vesuvius]

Any quote for this?

Then again when Kimi was driving in early years for McLaren, RD said the same for him.

Watch racer edge video (montreal) from peter windsor there it's

[1Devil1]

Wasn't Hakkinen dead slow the last time he jumped into a Formula one car. His time was over, his 2001 season was a clear sign nothing more was left in the tank. It's debatable if he would have be fast as ever, I really doubt that

Edited by 1Devil1, 15 August 2013 - 14:09.

[BoschKurve]

Wasn't Hakkinen dead slow the last time he jumped into a Formula one car. His time was over, his 2001 season was a clear sign nothing more was left in the tank. It's debatable if he would have be fast as ever, I really doubt that

That was at the end of the 2006 season, at which point he hadn't even driven in 5 years.

[Vesuvius]

Wasn't Hakkinen dead slow the last time he jumped into a Formula one car. His time was over, his 2001 season was a clear sign nothing more was left in the tank. It's debatable if he would have be fast as ever, I really doubt that

Uhm he didn't try to do fast laps at all, he actually said after the test that he could still make it to the top....but without motivation he surely wouldn't have been able to win anymore titles.

[akshay380]

Uhm he didn't try to do fast laps at all, he actually said after the test that he could still make it to the top....but without motivation he surely wouldn't have been able to win anymore titles.

Do Finns suffer from this lack-of-motivation syndrome? Mika in 2001 and Kimi in 2009.

Anyway nice to see this thread. He is one of my favorite drivers.

[holiday]

Do Finns suffer from this lack-of-motivation syndrome? Mika in 2001 and Kimi in 2009.

Mika was nice but Michael bulldozered him in term of ambition, drive and determination. This was even more remarkable since MH had enjoined a clear car advantage in 1998 and 1999, while MS's campaign was burdened by the ever increasing pressure on Ferrari to win the crown as well as his massive accident. And Ferrari falling out with Kimi had also something to do with the Scuderia likening his work-ethics to that of his predecessor and realizing that he was no Schumacher.

[Vesuvius]

Do Finns suffer from this lack-of-motivation syndrome? Mika in 2001 and Kimi in 2009.

Anyway nice to see this thread. He is one of my favorite drivers.

Well Mika was actually more scared than unmotivated... Kimi 2009 surely wasn't unmotivated, it was one of his best years in F1 and he gave his all..2008 he wasn't as motivated.

[SpeedRacer`]

Wasn't Hakkinen dead slow the last time he jumped into a Formula one car. His time was over, his 2001 season was a clear sign nothing more was left in the tank. It's debatable if he would have be fast as ever, I really doubt that

He really wasn't that bad in 2001. He just suffered some bad luck early on, his second half of the season was pretty impressive, bearing in mind McLaren had the third fastest car by then.

[DutchQuicksilver]

I remember his last win Indianapolis. At the time I think we all knew he wasn't going to come back, even though he said it was only a sabbatical. Mika had experienced fatherhood and didn't want to risk his life anymore behind the wheel.

[wj_gibson]

He won two races in 2001, one of which (Indianapolis) was about as strong an individual performance from any driver in the whole of that season. He was just burned out, but he still had it in him to rise to the occasion when he felt like it. Didn't the Melbourne accident also leave a big crack in his helmet? I'm sure I recall that being a major influence over his thinking.

[2ms]

I think it's a shame that he left so young, but that it was fortunate enough that he came back at all after coming so close to dying in 1995.

[JHSingo]

What is with all these "what if" threads lately?

What if Mika, what if Ralf, what if Montoya, etc, etc.

Why? What is there to discuss? We'll never know what might have happened, so it is pointless to speculate.

What did happen, happened. Leave it there, otherwise we'll probably end up with another "what if Ayrton hadn't died?" thread before long.

Edited by JHSingo, 15 August 2013 - 19:13.

[SpaMaster]

Entirely different situations. My understanding was Hakkinen took sabbatical for family reasons and after that fear-rustiness had crept in which made him believe he would not be good enough any more. He might have had wavering thoughts after a year or two, but once the fear had crept in you won't be the same driver and he realized that. Fear may be the wrong word, may I could say reluctance in terms of his family/young kid something like that..

[Atreiu]

2003 would have been even more exciting.

Edited by Atreiu, 15 August 2013 - 19:35.

[Antonov]

I didn't realise Mika was ever close to a comeback? I want to know more.

[Vesuvius]

I didn't realise Mika was ever close to a comeback? I want to know more.

Yes he was, first with BAR and the he had already decided to comeback with Williams 2005 but Williams then suddenly made deal with Button and Mika was furious and decided no more F1... His desire to race however was back and he went to DTM instead. I will find the book and tell you the whole story a bit better

[Antonov]

perfect, looking forward to that

[mustangnick78]

What is with all these "what if" threads lately?

What if Mika, what if Ralf, what if Montoya, etc, etc.

Why? What is there to discuss? We'll never know what might have happened, so it is pointless to speculate.

What did happen, happened. Leave it there, otherwise we'll probably end up with another "what if Ayrton hadn't died?" thread before long.

To be fair pretty much everything written on forums on the internet is speculation....

[George Costanza]

Mika would have been very fast as he was. But I don't think the cars that McLaren made at the time would have beaten Schumacher and Ferrari.

[dierome87]

Great topic and awesome driver.

I think he would have been very competitive in 2003. I'm not sure if he would have beaten Kimi but would have certainly taken points away from the main contenders that year.

He would have lost motivation with the 2004 McLaren and probably have retired at the end of that season.

The good thing for him is that he left when McLaren was starting to be eclisped technically by Ferrari. McLaren was no match for the Ferrari team of the early 2000s.

He did retire too early though. He was very competitive in the DTM. I don't think any other former F1 driver has done as well as he did.

[Jackmancer]

Mika didn't had the motivation anymore, that's why he stopped.
He would have done lacklustre if he returned. Like Kimi in 2009.

[jee]

He would have been the fastest man in qualifying at Monaco in 2012...

NOT.

But would have started from pole

Edited by jee, 16 August 2013 - 09:10.

[Richard T]

Just watched this. What a personality, and the reason i started watching F1..

F1 Legends - Mika Hakkinen (Sky Sports)

[Big Block 8]

McLaren was no match for the Ferrari team of the early 2000s.

Looking back now, Mac stopped being a match already in 99. Mika did a great job in 00.

[Group B]

Looking back now, Mac stopped being a match already in 99. Mika did a great job in 00.

MH was a fantastic driver, one of the very best of the last 20 years, but it's simply not true to say he had a car disadvantage in 1999 & 2000. The balance swayed from race to race, on the whole the two cars were very well matched. (As were the drivers)

[Big Block 8]

MH was a fantastic driver, one of the very best of the last 20 years, but it's simply not true to say he had a car disadvantage in 1999 & 2000. The balance swayed from race to race, on the whole the two cars were very well matched. (As were the drivers)

Speed was equalish I agree, it was the reliability advantage of the Ferrari that puts it on top for me.

[chumma]

I am THE biggest Mika fan in the world, and I will say this, I am glad he didn't end up coming back to the sport as gut wrenching as it was to see him leave, the decline was visible and 2001 was very telling, his head, heart, and 'fearlessness' was slipping. What we should be asking is, had his suspension failure in Melbourne 2001 not happened, would he have taken a sabbatical at all? I don't think so. It was that crash that scared the lift out of him and brought back memories of his near fatal accident in Adelaide and made mika think "is my heart really in this anymore? I have a son now...do i still want to do this?"

It sucked to see him leave, but I am glad he didn't make a comeback like Schumi and lose some of his legendary mythical status.

[DutchQuicksilver]

Speed was equalish I agree, it was the reliability advantage of the Ferrari that puts it on top for me.

Didn't Schumacher have three or four DNF's in a row in 2000, which allowed Hakkinen to come back and lead the championship again? So, to call the F1-2000 reliable is a bit too much. Though, it was more reliable than the MP4-15, I agree.

[Vesuvius]

Didn't Schumacher have three or four DNF's in a row in 2000, which allowed Hakkinen to come back and lead the championship again? So, to call the F1-2000 reliable is a bit too much. Though, it was more reliable than the MP4-15, I agree.

Yes that happend, althought Michael did get big lead early on because retired from first two races.

[SpaMaster]

I am THE biggest Mika fan in the world, and I will say this, I am glad he didn't end up coming back to the sport as gut wrenching as it was to see him leave, the decline was visible and 2001 was very telling, his head, heart, and 'fearlessness' was slipping. What we should be asking is, had his suspension failure in Melbourne 2001 not happened, would he have taken a sabbatical at all? I don't think so. It was that crash that scared the lift out of him and brought back memories of his near fatal accident in Adelaide and made mika think "is my heart really in this anymore? I have a son now...do i still want to do this?"

It sucked to see him leave, but I am glad he didn't make a comeback like Schumi and lose some of his legendary mythical status.

My thoughts are similar as well..

[chumma]

Yes that happend, althought Michael did get big lead early on because retired from first two races.

The McLaren failed in Melbourne while leading, and Brazil while leading (i believe both races would have been won by Mika) it had a glitch in Imola or a broken floor from a rock or something, it had a glitch in Monaco that cost Mika 2nd place (arguably). It also failed at Indy while catching Schumacher for the lead.

Michaels car failed in France due to an engine problem, he was taken out in Germany and Austria (Germany was his fault) and the retirement in Monaco is questionable, Ferrari said the suspension failed due to a cracked exhaust but opinion at the time was Michael gave a few barriers one whack too many which caused the suspension to fail as he was coming down the pit straight. The Ferrari was probably the most reliable car in 2000 in Michaels hands. Rubens had a blown engine in Brazil and he ran out of fuel in Spa. So by that count, Rubens and Michael both had one blown engine each.

[Oho]

The McLaren failed in Melbourne while leading, and Brazil while leading (i believe both races would have been won by Mika) it had a glitch in Imola or a broken floor from a rock or something, it had a glitch in Monaco that cost Mika 2nd place (arguably). It also failed at Indy while catching Schumacher for the lead.

Imola he had both, he hit debris which broke off floor front supports and lost drive momentarily, the affect of the damage on the car is anybody's guess but after the incident Schumacher who had been slightly slower on similar fuel level was matching if not slightly quicker with what was likely almost 10kg extra fuel.

At Monaco transmitter blocking brake pedal may actually have cost a win which would have been decided during pitstops.

[George Costanza]

Had Mika finished ahead of Schumacher in 2000 Japan, I think he would have won the championship.

[chumma]

Imola he had both, he hit debris which broke off floor front supports and lost drive momentarily, the affect of the damage on the car is anybody's guess but after the incident Schumacher who had been slightly slower on similar fuel level was matching if not slightly quicker with what was likely almost 10kg extra fuel.

At Monaco transmitter blocking brake pedal may actually have cost a win which would have been decided during pitstops.

It was when Michael hadn't stopped yet where Mika lost, what was it, between 4 and six seconds over a few laps? Without that and the damage Imola may have been another Mika win. Wurz didn't help Hakkinen's push in Suzuka but I don't know if it was enough to cost Mika the win there.

ps, and of course, who could forget the idiot at Hockenheim which cost Mika a win and McLaren a 1, 2. Another 4 points lost.

Edited by chumma, 17 August 2013 - 23:08.

[Currahee]

Mika on 'maximum attack' was a joy to behold.

He seemed mentally drained just before his sabbatical.

He done the right thing imo.

[holiday]

Had Mika finished ahead of Schumacher in 2000 Japan, I think he would have won the championship.

Had Michael an equal car in 1998-2000, I think he would have won three in a row.

Wait, I am sure.

[sopa]

I suspect Hakkinen would have had the kind of season Coulthard had in 2003. And in 2004. After that would have been replaced by Montoya anyway like DC was. So not much would have been changing.

[Big Block 8]

Had Michael an equal car in 1998-2000, I think he would have won three in a row.

Wait, I am sure.

As sure as in one of those cold February mornings back in 2010 that Michael would beat Rosberg?

[Big Block 8]

As for the topic, IIRC Hakkinen totally quit racing (and exercising) for at least a year and concentrated mostly to drinking. That's not good for comebacks, although he was pretty solid in DTM later on. With exercise and determination he'd probably done good but determination is the hardest thing to find.

[Oho]

As for the topic, IIRC Hakkinen totally quit racing (and exercising) for at least a year and concentrated mostly to drinking. That's not good for comebacks, although he was pretty solid in DTM later on. With exercise and determination he'd probably done good but determination is the hardest thing to find.

I thought Häkkinen's DTM stint was marred by difficulties in finding motivation (..and responsive handling), certainly during his last season which reminded his last in F1. His last win at Mugello exemplifies it. He had been nowhere all weekend until the opportunistic pit stop strategy put him into lead. After which he suddenly was the quickest Mercedes on the track with only Eriksson having out qualified Häkkinen by nearly two seconds able to keep up and challenge him. The transformation brought about by prospect of victory was nothing short of amazing.

Edited by Oho, 19 August 2013 - 09:24.

[Massa_f1]

Wasn't it his massive crash at the first race in Melbourne in his last season which kind of made the jitters/doubts set in? I am convinced he lost 2 or 3 tenths in speed that year because of that one accident.

[Massa_f1]

Had Michael an equal car in 1998-2000, I think he would have won three in a row.

Wait, I am sure.

Not so sure about 1998 that was always going to be Hakkinen's year, he drove brilliant. I would certainly agree with 1999 though had Michael not of broken his leg.

[Oho]

Not so sure about 1998 that was always going to be Hakkinen's year, he drove brilliant. I would certainly agree with 1999 though had Michael not of broken his leg.

Why? Do you think McLaren and Häkkinen somehow operated in vacuum where Schumacher's injury went all but unnoticed. At the time of the accident Häkkinen looked stronger and more composed of the two having overturned a 12 point deficit into 8 point lead in 3 races and starting from pole after Schumacher squandered his qualifying.

[holiday]

As for the topic, IIRC Hakkinen totally quit racing (and exercising) for at least a year and concentrated mostly to drinking. That's not good for comebacks, although he was pretty solid in DTM later on. With exercise and determination he'd probably done good but determination is the hardest thing to find.

Not sure about the drinking part, but certainly he was into eating. I clearly remember that speculation about him continuing his career promptly and thoroughly stopped after he showed up overweight in the paddock in the 2002 pre-season. That was one hell of a statement of commitment to retirement.

[Jejking]

Not so sure about 1998 that was always going to be Hakkinen's year, he drove brilliant. I would certainly agree with 1999 though had Michael not of broken his leg.

Schumacher always was on his backfoot with Ferrari unable to challenge McLaren for pure pace. He could have turned that around. I'm thinking the same, although I'm not sure how Hakkinen would have been driving (epic?) instead of mediocre against The Unusual Suspect he found in Irvine. Schumacher required everyone to be on top form if they were to beat him. Hakkinen could still have pulled that one off.