883 replies to this topic

[Iscreamforkimi]

 

Lets say the recent form is 3 years then, 2012 on (massively favours Kimi as it doesn't include 2011). I still think JB has outperformed Kimi car corrected over that period of time. 

I think an example of difference is that JB worked hard with his engineers and his driving style to overcome his car issue in 2012, in 2014 Kimi did not. That shows a depth to JB's talent that is hugely overlooked. You'd really expect a WDC driver with bags of experience to make more progress than Kimi managed - its one thing having a problem with a car which your teammate does not - its another think to be stuck with it. I also don't think 2013 was all that impressive, relative to Grosjean. Meanwhile JB has beaten each teammate he's faced and the early signs are he's not going to be run over by Fernando.

Moreover I think if JB was in Vettels Ferrari now, he'd have the edge on Kimi. I think he's got that little bit extra behind the scenes and throughout the race weekend. Certainly there would be phases where Kimi was quicker, but outscore Button, I really doubt it. 

 

 

 You're arguments have no foundation in fact.

 

All assumptions, your completely biased towards Button, he was beaten in 2 of 3 years since Kimi's comeback, arguably the 2012 McLaren was a better car.

 

Your clutching at straws, all records and history will show that Kimi is a better driver. 

 

This very poll a majority have voted Kimi better than Button and a Majority voted Button worse than Kimi. 

 

Deal with it.

 

 

Again that goes completely against everything that the team and Kimi himself said....they worked VERY hard to understand the issues behind F14T and especially during 2nd half of the season they tried different things that would be usefull considering 2015 season. And James Allison himself said that the the main problem was at the very BASIS of the car, something that they simply couldnt fix in the middle of the season, so they did what they could to find solutions for 2015. And Kimi himself said that there were simply no way to fix things quickly, that it would take long time to solve the issues.

 

Take for example Arrivabene's recent statement:

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/118690

It took the team 3 months to make that change with weight, so that is one example what simply couldnt be done in middle of the season and was much more sensible do during winter for 2015 car.

 

This at least has foundation. Rineheart assumption that Jenson works with his engineer and Kimi does not is based on Media Fiction. 
Ferrari would not have hired Kimi back if he could not work with Engineers, and they probabley would of fired him if they thought he was the problem not the car.

Admittedly he could have done better, but what does it matter, if your not winning, it really doesn't matter. Alonso's career move is proof of that. Doesn't want to second anymore. 

Edited by Iscreamforkimi, 05 May 2015 - 12:18.

[Rinehart]

Where's-the-balance-Button of all people...Sorry, I really like Jenson, as a person and as a driver, but no.

Before you jump in with your lazy logic, consider the fact that whilst JB is known to be particularly affected by balance issues due to his sensitivity of feel at the wheel, he actually has a very impressive record at finding that balance over the course of the weekend, with his engineers - its what makes him invariably quick in race trim. He's gone batches of races where he is not comfortable with a car but  has solved it - he has never gone an entire season with an insurmountable balance issue with the car relative to his teammate (as Kimi has, at least twice if you include 2008). The point I am making is about the capacity to solve the problem through working with engineers and driving around it. 

[Force Ten]

Yeah, thats nonsense. I don't think fans as a whole generally understand the whole race pace v tyre life compromise very well. You commonly hear things like "Driver A was faster, but Driver B just used his tyres better" when in actuality Driver A was faster because he was taking more life from his tyres. Therefore his wasn't actually faster because over the stint he was slower.

 

But thats a bit of a different subject anyway.

Even commentators don't get it, sometimes it feels like AT ALL. They are all "guy one was so quick building a massive lead over his teammate, the other guy simply has no answer" and then are like "oh no, guy 1 has slowed down, I guess he has problems with his car! It was going so well but now the slow guy 2 can again become dangerous to him".

[Rinehart]

 

 

 

 

 You're arguments have no foundation in fact.

 

All assumptions, your completely biased towards Button, he was beaten in 2 of 3 years since Kimi's comeback, arguably the 2012 McLaren was a better car.

 

Your clutching at straws, all records and history will show that Kimi is a better driver. 

 

This very poll a majority have voted Kimi better than Button and a Majority voted Button worse than Kimi. 

 

Deal with it.

 

 

There I was providing a subjective argument... I wasn't aware that only "factual" arguments (hilarious) such as Kimi in a better car beat JB in a worse car, counted. Silly me. 

 

More to the point wasn't asking you to agree with me and rather ironically, I wasn't aware that I was under some sort of contractual obligation to agree with you or the majority either. 

 

It my opinion. I happen to know that there are senior figures in the pitlane who rate JB ahead of Kimi also. Isn't it the beauty of these 100 year old debates about drivers that we don't actually know for sure? 

[Iscreamforkimi]

As I said, it was possible for it to go, in its existing configuration, as fast as Alonso made it go. 

Given they acknowledged that it couldn't be fixed through engineering, was it not even an option for a driver with a 15+ years of experience in an F1 car to make some sort of temporary adjustment to his driving, as an intermediate measure to partially mitigate it? Alonso's telemetry would surely have provided a clue. I don't know, but I'd expect a WDC to do more than write off a season because he doesn't like the car. Now he has the new car with everything learnt in 2015 and this problem corrected, its not as if he's leaving the new boy Vettel in his wake...

I don't think you'd get a Kimi 2014 from Hamilton, Alonso or Button. 

 

Yeah because Button is so adaptable!! Gimme a break, Kimi got beat by Alonso not Button, let see how Button fairs against Alonso when the McLaren get better. 

 

You cannot compare them in a slow car, its the last half second when your fighting for top 6 positions that will see Alonso through. 

 

I don't think Alonso will have any trouble with Button at all.

[aramos]

Even commentators don't get it, sometimes it feels like AT ALL. They are all "guy one was so quick building a massive lead over his teammate, the other guy simply has no answer" and then are like "oh no, guy 1 has slowed down, I guess he has problems with his car! It was going so well but now the slow guy 2 can again become dangerous to him".

 

They don't generally. You won't like the example, but I noticed it a lot last year with Ricciardo and Vettel, the commentators were saying things all the time "Vettel's pace is similar to Ricciardo, he just cant eek out the same stint length". These guys aren't driving flat out in races, practically anyone could go faster, they're pegging their pace to the limit of the tyre life.

[Force Ten]

They don't generally. You won't like the example, but I noticed it a lot last year with Ricciardo and Vettel, the commentators were saying things all the time "Vettel's pace is similar to Ricciardo, he just cant eek out the same stint length". These guys aren't driving flat out in races, practically anyone could go faster, they're pegging their pace to the limit of the tyre life.

You vastly overestimate my interest in all things Vettel btw. I wasn't paying that close of an attention last year but as a casual observer I did notice that Vettel last year was often given Webber-like 3-stop aggressive strategies when Ricciardo made do with two. Now it was established on the earlier years that Vettel could handle his tyres pretty well so I have no idea if it was by strategic choice or was he indeed simply unable to make this configuration of car/tyres last long enough quick enough stints.

[Rinehart]

Yeah because Button is so adaptable!! Gimme a break, Kimi got beat by Alonso not Button, let see how Button fairs against Alonso when the McLaren get better. 

 

You cannot compare them in a slow car, its the last half second when your fighting for top 6 positions that will see Alonso through. 

 

I don't think Alonso will have any trouble with Button at all.

Everyone seems to have Button down as someone who constantly has balance issues with the car.

 

So which is it then, either as I'm saying, "yes but he also has a tremendous ability to work with his engineers to figure out these issues - hence he ends up being fast" OR he's miraculously become one of the top 25 F1 drivers of all time, whilst all the while being completely hamstrung because he's unable to overcome these balance issues. What a hero if that's the case. 

[aramos]

Even commentators don't get it, sometimes it feels like AT ALL. They are all "guy one was so quick building a massive lead over his teammate, the other guy simply has no answer" and then are like "oh no, guy 1 has slowed down, I guess he has problems with his car! It was going so well but now the slow guy 2 can again become dangerous to him".

Seb's tyre life wasn't really poor compared to the field (The Williams and Ferrari) but Ricciardo was consistently getting 5 laps more per stint whilst running similar/superior pace during the stint, so Vettel was nearly always having to stop once more or be on older tyres.

I mean, these days race pace could more or less be summed up as maintaining pace while maintaining tyres, tyre life is the name of the game, which is why it shits me when people say "They're just good at tyre maintenance", I mean what else is there really to racing these days? If you can make each stint 5 laps longer by the end of the race you'll be on 10-15 lap fresher tyres.

[Iscreamforkimi]

Everyone seems to have Button down as someone who constantly has balance issues with the car.

 

So which is it then, either as I'm saying, "yes but he also has a tremendous ability to work with his engineers to figure out these issues - hence he ends up being fast" OR he's miraculously become one of the top 25 F1 drivers of all time, whilst all the while being completely hamstrung because he's unable to overcome these balance issues. What a hero if that's the case. 

 i dont think that, I think he's solid but just not as good as Ham/Vet/Alon/Raik

[sopa]

So Raikkonen v Button.

 

A valid question has been raised - what about Kimi's 2012-2013 Lotus seasons, even if he hasn't appeared "at his best" for a long time.

 

Well, qualifying was a weakness also on comeback. And overall I didn't feel Kimi's performance matched that of Vettel, Alonso, Hamilton these years though you could claim he seemed like a match to Hamilton in 2013. Certainly till late-season slump.

 

But Raikkonen's 2012 was definitely better than Button's, no question about that. As for 2013, harder to tell since the cars were so different. Also depends, how you rate Grosjean's and Perez' comparative performance to their team-mates. Both seemed to be well off the pace early in the season, but come good later on. With Grosjean having specifically deep fluctuations - utterly nowhere early on, impressively consistent in the run-in of the season.

[Rinehart]

So Raikkonen v Button.

 

A valid question has been raised - what about Kimi's 2012-2013 Lotus seasons, even if he hasn't appeared "at his best" for a long time.

 

 

Has that specific question been raised?! It rather conveniently omits 2011 (!) and 2014 in which JB was hands down better! 

I'd say Kimi was consistently better than JB in 2012. JB suffered that slump which obviously defined his season, but I'd also say the fact JB recovered to give strong performances in the seconds half of the season, including wins, such has his domination at Spa (which was surely a better individual performance than any single race by Kimi that year) demonstrates JB's actual performance ceiling and reflects well compared to Kimis 2014, shows Button has the ability to turn a season around. 2013, nothing notably stellar nor sorry from either driver, I'd score that a draw.

Personally I believe that Kimi was a better driver in the first half of their careers (for lots of reasons I can't be bothered to go into) but I think JB is the better driver in their respective second halves.

Its just the order in which they've been handed cars of a certain performance level and the rate at which they've allowed skill and experience to inform their respective performance levels. 

I think over the course of their entire careers, predictably I think they're basically about even then - but right now - I'd have JB a tier above Kimi - I think Kimi's on the decline.

[CountDooku]

I very much "like" Kimi as a personality, and his driving style. But purely who is the better all round driver right now, I'd have to say JB. I just think he's sustained his highest level of performance deeper into his career (which has surprised me), I think he's the better complete package today. If it was just about raw pace, then I wouldn't have a clue. 

 

 

I find the term "raw pace" ludicrous. WTF is "raw pace" exactly? Is Kimi's 2014 qualifying pace his "raw pace"? Is Lewis qualifying pace his raw pace and Nico's his? Why then did Nico beat Lewis in qualy and Lewis did the opposite at races? Does Nico have a better raw pace than Lewis and was simply unlucky at races (an argument used many times against drivers like Jenson)? Would you need to place them all in Top gear's Reasonably Priced Car challenge on the same day on the same wind conditions to find out? What if they change the reasonably priced car, do you then have to measure the raw speed again?

The only thing worse than "raw pace" in my opinion is "true pace" that can be pretty much made to explain anything to up your driver and smack down the one you don't like.

 

 

There's a simple solution for both of you:

 

Out of Jenson and Kimi, who would be most likely to beat Lewis or Fred over a season now?

 

Answer the above honestly and you can put the convo to bed.

[aramos]

There's a simple solution for both of you:

 

Out of Jenson and Kimi, who would be most likely to beat Lewis or Fred over a season now?

 

Answer the above honestly and you can put the convo to bed.

 

neither

[Rinehart]

neither

The question was "most likely". As JB has done it before... I'd say he is the more likely (though not betting on it)! 

I'd also say that right now Kimi and JB have reasonably similar challenges. Lets see who beats, or more likely comes closest to beating their certified tier 1 teammates this time around...

[RubalSher]

The question was "most likely". As JB has done it before... I'd say he is the more likely (though not betting on it)! 

I'd also say that right now Kimi and JB have reasonably similar challenges. Lets see who beats, or more likely comes closest to beating their certified tier 1 teammates this time around...

 

Kimi and Button are both past performing any miracles. Both are at the fag end of their careers and in my ranking neither is a tier 1 driver. As for Kimi vs Button, this is not the thread for it.

[sennafan24]

Hamilton Fanboys forever claim Hamilton is best coming from behind etc. he is great at overtaking, blah blah and so on yet he has won only a single race from outside the 2nd row in his whole career. Vettel has never won from further than 4th on the grid. Rosberg has never won from further than 3rd on the grid.

Kimi & Alonso have both won from pole, 2nd etc and from considerably further back. 

Its easy to say oh they are bad qualifiers but the others have also had bad qualification as well in the past, but none of them converted a poor Saturday into a race victory.

 

So I think your logic is flawed. 

 

None of the others have ever had races were their performances was really really special except maybe Hamilton in Silverstone from 6th.

I didn't say they were bad qualifiers. My point was to demonstrate how easy it is to fudge stats. I could argue that Lewis and Seb simply qualify well, so there is no need for them to charge through the field.

 

Lewis is a great overtaker, no "fanboyism" is needed! Check his pass over Vergne at Hungary last year, or the one over Massa at Monza. Want to see him charge through the field? Check Germany and Hungary.

 

 

 Because its a no brainer, he's won twice as many races and has been a title contender far more times than Jenson. 

 

Using that logic, Seb is better than Kimi. Something you seem opposed to. You are mixing and matching where you see it. there is no consistency to your posts.

 

 

 

2012 lost to Hamilton by 2 points. both were beaten by Raikkonen in his return season, in a clearly worse car than the McLaren.

So you provide context for 2008 to defend Kimi, yet state this? Which overlooks Lewis's reliability woes, and general bad luck?

[BARHonda006]

This place always boils down to a beat up JB thread.

[anneomoly]

But if Kimi is overhyped and an average tier 2 driver, how does this make ferrari look since they paid a large bonus to Kimi in 2009 just for not to drive for a rival team, secondly they even rehired him, which effectivelly means admitting they made a mistake in 2009, thirdly they invested a huge amount of everything (time, money) this year to get the car to his liking and fourthly are now very close to extened his contract. Would ferrari really be that stupid to do all that for an average miedfield nothing special tier 2 driver?

 

It makes them look like they don't know their arse from their ****.

 

On the other hand. If Kimi is a tier one driver, the same decisions make Ferrari look like they don't know their arse from their ****. Whatever you think of Kimi, you are probably more decisive than Ferrari about it

 

 

It's just an expression people often use 'wrong'. If a guy builds 10 second lead over his teammate early in the stint, destroys his tyres and loses all the advantage he had in 2 laps then it is often described as "guy 1 had better raw pace and guy 2 is simply a tyre whisperer". Again, 2 very similar results on the racetrack overall but described as one guy being vastly superior over the other one and the other guy again simply "lucking in" to a result not really deserving it.

 

In defense of 'raw pace' as a term, it's got its uses, and I'd use it differently over the course of a driver's career. The non raw pace bits are the bits added onto raw pace (like wheel to wheel, like tyre management, like strategy) to make a proper racer as the driver learns.

[Force Ten]

 

In defense of 'raw pace' as a term, it's got its uses, and I'd use it differently over the course of a driver's career. The non raw pace bits are the bits added onto raw pace (like wheel to wheel, like tyre management, like strategy) to make a proper racer as the driver learns.

Yeah, but there is absolutely NO real way of measuring it. The variables are simply too many and it always comes down to the whim and general predisposition of the observer. If the observer is interested in the term "raw pace" and in proving "his driver" possesses it then he is also likely to find grounds to interpret the term just so that his driver appears to have lots of raw pace.

[anneomoly]

Yeah, but there is absolutely NO real way of measuring it. The variables are simply too many and it always comes down to the whim and general predisposition of the observer. If the observer is interested in the term "raw pace" and in proving "his driver" possesses it then he is also likely to find grounds to interpret the term just so that his driver appears to have lots of raw pace.

 

Well, I'll take your point there.

[sopa]

"Raw pace" is a very vague concept and pretty hard to determine.

 

I'd say "qualifying pace", "race pace" and "pace consistency" (across a string of GP weekends) are already much clearer terms. What is raw pace? A summary of all these?

[Zoetrope]

Regarding Kimi: He has been shown up by Massa, Alonso and will probably be exposed by Vettel now. Nothing to see here

[HeadFirst]

Regarding Kimi: He has been shown up by Massa, Alonso and will probably be exposed by Vettel now. Nothing to see here

 

Yet Kimi has the WDC, not Massa. As far as Alonso goes, no escape there. Kimi was well and truly beaten, and by a better driver too. Is that worse than being beaten by Ricciardo? Personally, between Seb and Kimi I think there will be much to see.

[anneomoly]

"Raw pace" is a very vague concept and pretty hard to determine.

 

I'd say "qualifying pace", "race pace" and "pace consistency" (across a string of GP weekends) are already much clearer terms. What is raw pace? A summary of all these?

 

I'd define it as literally 'how fast the driver is capable of going over a very short distance'. So dry qualy pace to me would be the closest. Almost like a peak performance over one lap. So a driver that qualified higher than finished in races might have high raw pace without the skills to convert to points. A driver that qualifies lower than normally finishes in the race probably has other skills that outstrip his raw pace.

 

It's kind of like the 100m being a test of raw human pace. But even once you get to 200m other things like strategy start to intrude on who's going to win.

[Force Ten]

I'd define it as literally 'how fast the driver is capable of going over a very short distance'. So dry qualy pace to me would be the closest. Almost like a peak performance over one lap. So a driver that qualified higher than finished in races might have high raw pace without the skills to convert to points. A driver that qualifies lower than normally finishes in the race probably has other skills that outstrip his raw pace.

 

It's kind of like the 100m being a test of raw human pace. But even once you get to 200m other things like strategy start to intrude on who's going to win.

This is where the wheels come off your logic wagon. This might have been true up until, say, 2002, when they didn't have Parc Ferme rules and could set their car up for qualifying and then again set it up for race. So it really was then everybody versus the next guy both in qualy and in the race. They also had refuelling so fuel tank wasn't as big and the mass differences were not that big between qualy and race.

Then came "qualifying with race fuel" and suddenly a bunch of very different quys seemed like the quickest in raw speed, guys that had the ability to drive very quickly with some race fuel on the board, namely guys like Räikkönen and Button, guys whom NOBODY today would accuse of having superior qualifying speed. The difference was that qualifying was done with the car on the same condition as it was racing, so their long game scheme wasn't in as disadvantaged position. Räikkönen in particular and also apparently Alonso were benefitting from the Michelin tyre compounds that apparently suited their driving style well.

These days, as there is a whopping 100kg's difference of the empty and full tanks and cars behave vastly differently over different fuel levels some guys have their setup skewed somewhat towards qualifying and some others somewhat towards the race. So it is entirely possible that a "raw speed" simply has his setup such as to help himself in qualy. Kvyat immediately came to mind - great qualy performances last year, massive drop-off in races. Mind you, he did everything right and landed himself a spot in the big team.

Edited by Force Ten, 06 May 2015 - 07:06.

[Rinehart]

Yeah, but there is absolutely NO real way of measuring it. The variables are simply too many and it always comes down to the whim and general predisposition of the observer. If the observer is interested in the term "raw pace" and in proving "his driver" possesses it then he is also likely to find grounds to interpret the term just so that his driver appears to have lots of raw pace.

I think everybody acknowledges that - but as soon as you say I think Hamilton is faster than Stevens, you are subjectively estimating raw pace (or whatever you want to call it), whether you like it or not. We all do it, yourself included. So I'm not really sure why you have such a problem with the term "raw pace" (otherwise known as natural talent) - how else are we supposed to judge drivers without considering this invisible force?

[Rinehart]

"Raw pace" is a very vague concept and pretty hard to determine.

 

I'd say "qualifying pace", "race pace" and "pace consistency" (across a string of GP weekends) are already much clearer terms. What is raw pace? A summary of all these?

This is getting over-analysed. Raw pace refers to the fundamental peak speed of the driver over a lap, all other things being equal (err, the cars basically). Race pace, consistency, race craft etc bring into the equation more factors in the drivers skillset....

 

Guestimating a drivers raw talent/speed is as old as motor racing itself. Everyone knows its a hugely subjective estimation. Not sure why its suddenly such a taboo criteria. 

[sopa]

This is getting over-analysed. Raw pace refers to the fundamental peak speed of the driver over a lap, all other things being equal (err, the cars basically). Race pace, consistency, race craft etc bring into the equation more factors in the drivers skillset....

 

Guestimating a drivers raw talent/speed is as old as motor racing itself. Everyone knows its a hugely subjective estimation. Not sure why its suddenly such a taboo criteria. 

 

Fundamental peak speed over a lap?

Sounds like Jarno Trulli has/had one of the best "raw paces" in the sport. But I am unsure many would be happy with such definition, because it means raw pace is very close to qualifying pace in definition. Just a way of making it sound "bigger". "Qualifying pace" sounds like a driver is good at qualifying. But if you say "raw pace", it sounds better. Something like - wow, he is really fast generally.

[Rinehart]

Fundamental peak speed over a lap?

Sounds like Jarno Trulli has/had one of the best "raw paces" in the sport. But I am unsure many would be happy with such definition, because it means raw pace is very close to qualifying pace in definition. Just a way of making it sound "bigger". "Qualifying pace" sounds like a driver is good at qualifying. But if you say "raw pace", it sounds better. Something like - wow, he is really fast generally.

Are you purposely making this difficult?

Ask yourself the question, in the same car, who do you think is quicker, Hamilton or Ericsson? If you have a view on that, you have subjectively assumed one driver is faster than the other. Call this natural talent, raw pace, faster, 1 lap pace or whatever. Its the same thing. The phrase "raw pace" has been around for years. Its hardly a headline that there is more than one phrase available to explain the same thing. We all know what it means. 

[Force Ten]

Are you purposely making this difficult?

Ask yourself the question, in the same car, who do you think is quicker, Hamilton or Ericsson? If you have a view on that, you have subjectively assumed one driver is faster than the other. Call this natural talent, raw pace, faster, 1 lap pace or whatever. Its the same thing. The phrase "raw pace" has been around for years. Its hardly a headline that there is more than one phrase available to explain the same thing. We all know what it means. 

When you brought up the current champion and a pay driver I would go one further and say that I think Hamilton is even quicker than me, Force Ten! Ain't that the s***?

Where the complications arise are when you find a bit more suitable comparison subjects like Hamilton and Rosberg. Or Button and Vettel. Or Kvyat and Max Junior. People also compare those all the time and usually it is done so that first they figure out which way they want the result to go, then present that result and then start gathering data that supports that result.

[Rinehart]

When you brought up the current champion and a pay driver I would go one further and say that I think Hamilton is even quicker than me, Force Ten! Ain't that the s***?

Where the complications arise are when you find a bit more suitable comparison subjects like Hamilton and Rosberg. Or Button and Vettel. Or Kvyat and Max Junior. People also compare those all the time and usually it is done so that first they figure out which way they want the result to go, then present that result and then start gathering data that supports that result.

Well, I've no basis on which to judge who is quicker out of Force Ten or Hamilton, therefore I'll put you in tier 1, with an asterisk by your name. 

 

I hear what you are saying about the human nature of selecting facts to support beliefs - but I would add to that, there are many different skills and characteristics to admire and respect in drivers and people have differences of opinions in where these rank - and rightly so, who knows for sure. So its not always reverse-engineered, if you like. Personally I believe that the best driver is the one capable of scoring the MOST points in a season (car equalised). This does not necessarily mean the fastest driver for instance, as we all know F1 tests a lot more than, (ahem) raw pace. 

[REDalert]

"Raw pace" is a very vague concept and pretty hard to determine.

 

I'd say "qualifying pace", "race pace" and "pace consistency" (across a string of GP weekends) are already much clearer terms. What is raw pace? A summary of all these?

There is the set up factor too. If another driver is known to be good to his tires, they might maximize that benefit with set up, even if that would add a tenth or two to his absolute best lap time.  

Edited by REDalert, 06 May 2015 - 23:34.

[REDalert]

Regarding Kimi: He has been shown up by Massa, Alonso and will probably be exposed by Vettel now. Nothing to see here

Much to see for the rest of the season. 

Kimi had some bad races/ luck in first half of 2008 and had to take the supporting role, just like Massa had in 2007. 2009 is a bad year to make conclusions because Massa got injured while leading Kimi and after that Kimi were the best driver out there for the rest of the season.

 

2014 was definitely the worst season in Kimis whole career. First of all he had Alonso against him, with a car that was pretty much opposite of his liking. Secondly the issues with the car were build in and there were no way to fix them during the season, as Allison mentioned. I don't like Alonso, but it is a shame that he had to left Ferrari, because it would be interesting to see how he would do against Kimi with the car that does not work against Kimi, but quite the opposite. On the other hand I guess the car wouldn't be the same if Alonso would still be in the team..