125 replies to this topic

[TazioRaikkonen]

Frankly, the 2003 and 2012 world championships were two of the best seasons of this century. Both had stand-out performances by the runner-up in the WDC.

 

I reckon Kimi's performance in a one year old McLaren that year is up there amongst the greatest individual achievements of the sport, but was somewhat overlooked by the continued dominance of Michael Schumacher.

 

Alonso got a lot of credit in 2012 for doing the impossible, but was his season any better, given the Ferrari was clearly dominant at some tracks, (Hockenheim). I cannot remember the McLaren dominating any track like that.

 

Interesting to hear thoughts of those that can compare.

Edited by TazioRaikkonen, 01 January 2017 - 09:50.

[RPM40]

I consider the 2012 Ferrari to be the less competitive of the pair, but maybe thats just my opinion of Kimi being heavily influenced by his "post McLaren" performances.

[George Costanza]

No contest IMO. Fernando's 2012 is superior.

[PlatenGlass]

I don't think the fact that the McLaren wasn't a new car in 2003 is relevant. If anything it's an achievement from McLaren to keep it competitive.

I'd go for Alonso in 2012 of these two but these wouldn't be my overall top two.

[blacky]

given the Ferrari was clearly dominant at some tracks, (Hockenheim). 

 

Yeah, pure dominance in Germany from Ferrari.

[BittenHeroes]

Worth noting that Kimi only actually won one race in 2003, though he was unlucky not to get the victory at the Nurburgring.

 

He (Kimi) did do very well in 2003 in the circumstances, however. It was only his 2nd year in a big team and he totally trounced Coulthard and made very few mistakes despite the pressure he was under in challenging for the WDC in an 'old' car. 

 

[sennafan24]

Alonso got a lot of credit in 2012 for doing the impossible, but was his season any better, given the Ferrari was clearly dominant at some tracks, (Hockenheim). I cannot remember the McLaren dominating any track like that.

You're thinking of 2010.

 

 

 

I reckon Kimi's performance in a one year old McLaren that year is up there amongst the greatest individual achievements of the sport, but was somewhat overlooked by the continued dominance of Michael Schumacher.

It wasn't overshadowed at the time. Autosport correctly ranked Kimi as the best driver in 2003. 

 

 

Frankly, the 2003 and 2012 world championships were two of the best seasons of this century. Both had stand out performances by the runner-up in the WDC

 

Interesting to hear thoughts of those that can compare.

They are indeed two of the best. Both drivers took what was on average the third quickest car to the last round of the WDC. Of course, in 2012, it wasn't the fault of the McLaren drivers that the WDC fell out of their grasp. Lewis in particular was stunning that year, and even in Alonso's range in terms of performance. Anyway, let's look at the bad points of either season. Given these two kept their WDC chances alive due to consistency, it's better to weigh up who was less consistent. 

 

Kimi threw the win away at Oz due to speeding in the pitlane. He also made a mess out of his qualifying laps at Spain and Canada. Although he mostly rectified the latter with a strong drive in the race, which meant he only lost a few points. The points system in 2003 called for consistent driving, and Kimi did that better than anyone that year. All his other performances ranged from reasonable to excellent. His car was also less reliable than Schumacher's Ferrari. He was also unlucky at Hockenheim to be taken out on the opening lap. 

 

Alonso's arguably made an error at Japan, which eliminated him from the running. He could have easily finished on the podium that day. It was also hard to praise his drive at America, due to the team smashing up Massa's gearbox so Alonso could start higher. Other than that, he was flawless, barring a few other minor errors that you would have to be picky to highlight. However, I do think Alonso's 2012 is slightly overrated compared to his other efforts. I think his 2005, 2006 and 2014 campaigns are just as impressive, if not more so. I consider his 2006 WDC to be the best of this century. (pad down your erection Marklar)

 

Which was better then? Hard to split them. I'll go with Kimi's 2003 just because it gets my juices flowing more. I prefer Alonso in general, and rate him as a much more well-rounded driver, but I'm slightly more taken with what Kimi did in 2003. In 2012, Alonso shared my kudos with Lewis. They were peers. In 2003, even though JPM had a career year in F1, I felt Kimi was peerless. 

Edited by sennafan24, 22 February 2017 - 17:30.

[GoldenColt]

I'd put MSCs 1997 campaign above Kimi's 2003 one.

[Slowersofterdumber]

Alonso's 2012. He retained incredible shape for the full year, Raikkonen faded a bit in the second half of 13.

Oops. Sorry, I misread 2003 as 2013. I would say Raikkonen's 03 was better then.

Edited by Slowersofterdumber, 01 January 2017 - 09:19.

[Marklar]

This will be a bit one-sided, but I will never get the hype about 2012.

There was no single track where Ferrari was the best car in 2012, yes. In fact, speed wise Red Bull was always quicker, McLaren in most tracks too and Lotus was argueably quicker too.

However, while I rate Alonso's 2012 campaign highly I'm not even sure if he was the best driver of that season (Hamilton was very impressive that year) and I'm not sure if it was even his best season (2006 is massively underrated, because many people have a totally false perceiption of the performance of Renault & Ferrari that year).

Why I dont rate 2012 that high? Because performance wise Ferrari was better than it looked. Sure, in qualifying Red Bull (struggled often with the tyres), Lotus and McLaren (albeit inconsistent) were usually quicker. But Red Bull was unreliable in the races, McLaren was even disastrous, while Ferrari was flawless. Then the Ferrari had competitive race speed, as Massa's year-end form where he was often quicker than Alonso proved. Both Red Bull and McLaren struggled that year to have consistent race speed: Red Bull because they stressed the Pirellis too much. McLaren because they didnt understood their own car. Red Bull fixed this just by the crucial time of the season. McLaren went up and down the whole season. The only other team which had the same consistency as Ferrari was Lotus: a bit quicker in qualifying, a bit slower in the race. Considering all these things as well (consistency, reliability, race pace) I rate just the Red Bull to be the better package that year.

In that sense Alonso's task in 2012 was easier than Kimi's in 2003: It's easier to be in contention if everything is all over the place than in an relatively clear competitive order. In 2003 both Williams and Ferrari had the better package. Kimi was clearly the best driver of that season. No contention (actually Alonso in the Renault was the 2nd best that year for me). But yet I dont think that it has to be better than Alonso in 2012: Kimi did more mistakes than Alonso did in 2012 and he had less memorable races (Alonso in Malaysia).

So overall it's a tie for me.

[TazioRaikkonen]

I don't think the fact that the McLaren wasn't a new car in 2003 is relevant. If anything it's an achievement from McLaren to keep it competitive.

I'd go for Alonso in 2012 of these two but these wouldn't be my overall top two.

But DC's performance hardly changed did it? In fact he dropped back. I put it down to the significant change in the steering rack and ABS system as explained by Mark Slade. I am trying to find the link to where I read that. Kimi really felt good in that car. Both had first lap crashes which affected their title chances oddly enough...

Edited by TazioRaikkonen, 01 January 2017 - 09:49.

[Slowersofterdumber]

ABS? What?

[TazioRaikkonen]

 

Kimi threw the win away at Oz due to speeding in the pitlane.

Wasn't that a software glitch? Kimi's 2 crashes/errors in qualifying cost him dearly, while Alonso had 2 mishaps in the race. He would have won that race otherwise as you said.

[TazioRaikkonen]

ABS? What?

 

Ahhh sorry. I meant the engine braking profile was easier to change in the V10 era. ABS has been banned I believe. I am trying to remember the article Mark Slade spoke about.

[TazioRaikkonen]

Worth noting that Kimi only actually won one race in 2003, though he was unlucky not to get the victory at the Nurburgring.

 

He (Kimi) did do very well in 2003 in the circumstances, however. It was only his 2nd year in a big team and he totally trounced Coulthard and made very few mistakes despite the pressure he was under in challenging for the WDC in an 'old' car. 

 

Agreed his improvement was impressive from 2002, although as we discussed in the earlier thread his car was so unreliable in 2002. I just felt Kimi wringed the neck of that car every time he had a chance. Qualifying and the race he was sublime. Massa was out qualifying Alonso in the second half of the season. Many of Kimi's quali laps that year, (Imola 2003, Austria 2003, Monza 2003), were singled out as the best of the session even though he didn't have a fast enough car for pole.

 

Alonso is incredible. An amazing phenomenon. But I feel that in terms of  total driver performance, Saturday and Sunday, Kimi's 2003 season was better. I could change my mind if someone argued diff though...

[TazioRaikkonen]

I'd put MSCs 1997 campaign above Kimi's 2003 one.

Interesting. Where would you put Alonso's 2012 on that list?

[sennafan24]

Wasn't that a software glitch? 

I have read mumblings to that effect. However, I have never seen any official confirmation. All the reports that I have read claim it was a driver error. If you have a source to contradict that, it would be grand. 

[GoldenColt]

Interesting. Where would you put Alonso's 2012 on that list?

 

MSC '97

Kimi '03

ALO '12

 

However, there's not much between these three seasons imo. In all of these years the runner-up did an amazing job.

Edited by GoldenColt, 01 January 2017 - 10:03.

[TazioRaikkonen]

I have read mumblings to that effect. However, I have never seen any official confirmation. All the reports that I have read claim it was a driver error. If you have a source to contradict that, it would be grand. 

http://www.motorspor...yBLWRwBX1xzg.97

 

This hardly counts. But if I find another I will update with even more credible source. It says software glitch there.

Edited by TazioRaikkonen, 01 January 2017 - 10:11.

[Marklar]

(pad down your erection Marklar)

[P123]

This all reminds me what a cracking season 2003 was. Until the FIA intervened.

[PlatenGlass]

I think both the McLaren of 2003 and the Ferrari of 2012 are underrated by some.

As I said earlier, the fact that the McLaren was last year's car doesn't necessarily mean that much if it's been heavily upgraded. Wasn't the 1992 Williams the same basic car as the 1991 version? And look how that did! Also, Coulthard had a pretty poor couple of years in 2003 in 2004, particularly not getting to grips with single lap qualifying. Of course, I fully acknowledge that Raikkonen's own performance made Coulthard look worse as well.

Raikkonen had a consistent year, and Sennafan24 pointed out that he drove very well to the points system despite just one win. But I'm not sure he actually drove with the points system in mind - it's just that his results happened to favour it. But Schumacher was consistent too, only failing to score in one round - Brazil, which was a bit of a lottery. It was also arguably harder for Schumacher's results to be as consistent. Being on the Bridgestone tyres, which fewer top teams/driver had, he would slip down more places on a Michelin-suited track. On a Bridgestone track, the top Michelin runner could still easily get a podium, with just two Ferraris to worry about, and mainly just one Ferrari.

The 2012 Ferrari was also a pretty good car over the whole year. The McLaren simply wasn't reliable enough, and I think Hamilton was just as good, and arguably better, than Alonso that year. The Red Bull had good and bad races, and really only found their proper form towards the end of the year. I think the Red Bull was the best overall and Vettel should have won the title earlier, but prior to the four consecutive wins starting in Singapore, I'd rate the Ferrari as the best up to that point, taking into account performance and reliability.

So while these were very good years by Raikkonen and Alonso, I'm not sure they were even necessarily the best drivers in these years, with Schumacher in 2003 and Hamilton in 2012 as serious contenders for top driver.

[Afterburner]

If I recall correctly, if Vettel hadn't blown up in Valencia and instead won that race, he would've kept the lead from something like Bahrain until the end of the year. Alonso also went off the boil in the latter half of 2012; Korea and USA being two examples.

I think Vettel and Hamilton were both better than Alonso in 2012. The Ferrari wasn't as bad as it seemed. Kimi's 2003 season is a good comparison, actually. He made a few crucial errors, too. Ultimately in both seasons the drivers we're talking about were the beneficiaries of inconsistencies in their rivals' machinery; Kimi with Bridgestone, Fernando with Macca/RBR unreliability (and pit f&$k-ups, in Macca's case, lol). I think it's harder from a psychological perspective to drive an unreliable machine to the finish than it is to fight with a weaker car, just like it's easier to be the chasing driver than the leading driver, mentally.

I still maintain that the real tragedy of 2012 is not that Alonso didn't win, but that Hamilton never had a shot. Would've been better than 2010 with him involved.

[George Costanza]

I'd put MSCs 1997 campaign above Kimi's 2003 one.

yup. I agree.

[Marklar]

I think Vettel and Hamilton were both better than Alonso in 2012. 

Hamilton is debatable, Vettel definetely not. It was not his best season and Red Bull was certainly overall the best car even if including Ferrari's better reliability. Webber was able to keep up with him quite well for a long time too. Just at the tail end of the season he was better than Alonso.

 

 

I still maintain that the real tragedy of 2012 is not that Alonso didn't win, but that Hamilton never had a shot. Would've been better than 2010 with him involved.

That I agree with.

[sennafan24]

I'd put MSCs 1997 campaign above Kimi's 2003 one.

 

yup. I agree.

 

Hmmm.

 

 But Schumacher was consistent too, only failing to score in one round - Brazil, which was a bit of a lottery. It was also arguably harder for Schumacher's results to be as consistent. Being on the Bridgestone tyres, which fewer top teams/driver had, he would slip down more places on a Michelin-suited track. On a Bridgestone track, the top Michelin runner could still easily get a podium, with just two Ferraris to worry about, and mainly just one Ferrari.

The only race where the Ferrari were really out at sea was Hungary. Other than that, they were always competitive with the top two Michelin runners, and often better. The points scale worked in a way where the higher you finish, the more points you can put over your rivals. This was lessened in 2003, but still present. Williams being competitive, and faster than the McLaren from Imola onward, denied Kimi a lot of opportunities to wrack up the wins, and therefore achieve massive points gains over Schumacher. 

 

Schumacher's results were consistent, his performance not so much. He had just as many sub-par performances in 2003 as strong ones. Yes, there were days like Canada where he was the outright driver of the day, winning without the best car. But there also days like Sepang where he made a right mess out of things. 

[Zava]

Hamilton is debatable, Vettel definetely not. It was not his best season and Red Bull was certainly overall the best car even if including Ferrari's better reliability. Webber was able to keep up with him quite well for a long time too. Just at the tail end of the season he was better than Alonso.

 

 

That I agree with.

come on, only because Webber had his bad luck concentrated in the second half, while Vettel had to endure his problems (engine blow, cucumber attack etc) mostly in the first half. Webber outclassed him in about 3 races or so that year.

[f1paul]

Both seasons were great performances by both drivers. I wanted them both to win the championship in each of the seasons but sadly a German was always in the way. I can't separate the performances but I reckon Alonso's season was slightly easier to stay in contention for the title. But that said, he always maximised his races aside from Japan. Kimi was excellent as well and if it wasn't for those 3 or 4 retirements (can't remember how many) then he would've won the championship with some ease. But his car wasn't the fastest over the whole season but Kimi was supremely quick in some races, including that weekend in the Nurburgring. I have to say though that I loved both of those seasons and they were definitely 2 of the best from this century.  

[sopa]

In an interesting way both 2003 and 2012 have several similarities.

 

You could say four impressive drivers in four different teams: 

(In WDC order) M. Schumacher, Raikkonen, Montoya, Alonso from 2003;

Vettel, Alonso, Raikkonen, Hamilton from 2012.

 

Behind them Webber '03 and Hulkenberg '12 shared some similarities. Both in their second full season put in a promising season with plenty of decent point-finishes.

 

We got a shock-winner in the form of Fisichella and Maldonado. They didn't score much apart from their wins, but reasons for that were different. Slowmobile in Fisi's hands, while reckless driving in Maldonado's case.

 

What concerns Raikkonen '03 and Alonso '12 specifically, they both had cars, which were better in race trim than in qualifying in their respective seasons. This makes you look more impressive, because it always looks better if you come from behind, rather than drop away from the front.

 

I am prepared to rate Alonso's season marginally higher though, perhaps because overall his qualifying was slightly more convincing. Plus THAT Malaysian Grand Prix of 2012. This drive was the stuff of legends.

Edited by sopa, 01 January 2017 - 18:57.

[PlatenGlass]

Plus THAT Malaysian Grand Prix of 2012. This drive was the stuff of legends.

Really? Because to me, Valencia was his stand-out drive.

[sopa]

Really? Because to me, Valencia was his stand-out drive.

 

Early in the season Ferrari was still hard to drive. And while it had more innate pace in the wet than in the dry, Massa was completely at sea with this car, as that race showed.

 

Valencia needed the technical problems of Vettel and Grosjean for Alonso to take a convincing victory. 

[Dabash]

Plus THAT Malaysian Grand Prix of 2012. This drive was the stuff of legends.

 

I would have thought Valencia was the Crème de la Crème 

[Dabash]

Early in the season Ferrari was still hard to drive. And while it had more innate pace in the wet than in the dry, Massa was completely at sea with this car, as that race showed.

 

Valencia needed the technical problems of Vettel and Grosjean for Alonso to take a convincing victory. 

 

Didn't Alonso overtake Grosjean at the restart?

[sopa]

Didn't Alonso overtake Grosjean at the restart?

 

He did. But Grosjean was all over him before DNF. Had Alonso resisted the pressure and kept him behind till the chequered flag, it would have been very impressive. But we don't know, what would have happened.

 

Never mind. I am not trying to argue hard about that. Different memories and impressions at play again.

[TazioRaikkonen]

In an interesting way both 2003 and 2012 have several similarities.

 

You could say four impressive drivers in four different teams: 

(In WDC order) M. Schumacher, Raikkonen, Montoya, Alonso from 2003;

Vettel, Alonso, Raikkonen, Hamilton from 2012.

 

Behind them Webber '03 and Hulkenberg '12 shared some similarities. Both in their second full season put in a promising season with plenty of decent point-finishes.

 

We got a shock-winner in the form of Fisichella and Maldonado. They didn't score much apart from their wins, but reasons for that were different. Slowmobile in Fisi's hands, while reckless driving in Maldonado's case.

 

What concerns Raikkonen '03 and Alonso '12 specifically, they both had cars, which were better in race trim than in qualifying in their respective seasons. This makes you look more impressive, because it always looks better if you come from behind, rather than drop away from the front.

 

I am prepared to rate Alonso's season marginally higher though, perhaps because overall his qualifying was slightly more convincing. Plus THAT Malaysian Grand Prix of 2012. This drive was the stuff of legends.

I would argue Raikkonen's qualifying was more convincing. I remember Massa out qualifying Alonso in the second half of the season a few more times than usual. Kimi had some stunning laps.

 

I agree with all the similarities though between the seasons.

[jwill189]

For the first quarter of the season, Alonso had the seventh or eight best car.  Even Sauber clearly had a better car than Ferrari!  The rest of the season, at no point did Ferrari have a better car than the Red Bull, McLaren, or Lotus.

 

Reliability aside, Alonso outraced other drivers with an inferior car time and time again, and he had the most to risk by having to pass so many others on track.  But his brilliant race craft that season was a thing of magic.

 

There's no way he could have contended for the championship if he settled for sixth or seventh place finishes.

[LORDBYRON]

No contest there different cars you just cant compare them . 

[Marklar]

For the first quarter of the season, Alonso had the seventh or eight best car.  Even Sauber clearly had a better car than Ferrari! 

Dream on.

 

 

The rest of the season, at no point did Ferrari have a better car than the Red Bull, McLaren, or Lotus.

You are confusing 'quicker' with 'better'

 

 

Reliability aside, Alonso outraced other drivers with an inferior car time and time again, and he had the most to risk by having to pass so many others on track.  But his brilliant race craft that season was a thing of magic.

He was great, but not as flawless as you are painting him.

[Dicun]

(pad down your erection Marklar)

 

[TazioRaikkonen]

ABS? What?

Edited by TazioRaikkonen, 01 January 2017 - 22:20.

[TazioRaikkonen]

In an interesting way both 2003 and 2012 have several similarities.

 

You could say four impressive drivers in four different teams: 

(In WDC order) M. Schumacher, Raikkonen, Montoya, Alonso from 2003;

Vettel, Alonso, Raikkonen, Hamilton from 2012.

 

Behind them Webber '03 and Hulkenberg '12 shared some similarities. Both in their second full season put in a promising season with plenty of decent point-finishes.

 

We got a shock-winner in the form of Fisichella and Maldonado. They didn't score much apart from their wins, but reasons for that were different. Slowmobile in Fisi's hands, while reckless driving in Maldonado's case.

 

What concerns Raikkonen '03 and Alonso '12 specifically, they both had cars, which were better in race trim than in qualifying in their respective seasons. This makes you look more impressive, because it always looks better if you come from behind, rather than drop away from the front.

 

I am prepared to rate Alonso's season marginally higher though, perhaps because overall his qualifying was slightly more convincing. Plus THAT Malaysian Grand Prix of 2012. This drive was the stuff of legends.

 

Both drivers were great in the wet that year as well. Indy '03, Brazil'03, Malaysia 2012, Silverstone, Brazil 2012. I would argue Kimi was going up against a greater performance advantage. Alonso claims 2012 was his best season, but I am starting to think 2006 or 2008 might be better options. The 2012 Ferrari improved a lot. McLaren failed to launch their car that year yet Kimi stayed in the hunt.

[TazioRaikkonen]

 

 

 

Melbourne:

 

 

 

Something is different in the handling.

 

Alonso's Ferrari looked slightly HARDER to drive in 2012 frankly. Which makes it more impressive. Maybe suited him...who knows.

Edited by TazioRaikkonen, 01 January 2017 - 22:28.

[TazioRaikkonen]

I would have thought Valencia was the Crème de la Crème 

I thought Silverstone was amazing. Maybe Ferrari had a top car there, but Alonso was in imperious form there.

 

He qualified 1.3 seconds ahead of Massa in Silverstone. Ridiculous. That was Alonso in the wet doing magic. But no doubt the car was good there too. I think Massa underperformed, and Alonso just did an amazing job. That is why the gap was so big.

 

Hard to tell.

 

Edited by TazioRaikkonen, 01 January 2017 - 22:36.

[George Costanza]

But of all the best driving seasons with inferior cars is Senna of 1993. It was unbelievable what he did in a a car that was slower than Williams and Benetton.

Edited by George Costanza, 01 January 2017 - 22:45.

[George Costanza]

Ayrton basically had the championship lead in June of 1993 before the Canadian GP... if McLaren had the latest spec engine from Ford, who knows... maybe he would have given Alain Prost a better run.

[Niceman]

But of all the best driving seasons with inferior cars is Senna of 1993. It was unbelievable what he did in a a car that was slower than Williams and Benetton.

 

I thought the Mclaren of 93 is recognised as being the most technically advanced car out there in terms of electronics and systems.  The engine was the only real limiting factor.

[George Costanza]

I thought the Mclaren of 93 is recognised as being the most technically advanced car out there in terms of electronics and systems. The engine was the only real limiting factor.

it is. But it was significantly behind Benetton and Williams. If it had halfway decent engine, Ayrton could have won the championship. If that McLaren is one of the best ever, imagine if it had a great engine in it? It was 80 horsepower down on the Williams and 35 horsepower down on the Benetton... that is a pretty significant gap.

Edited by George Costanza, 01 January 2017 - 23:03.

[PlatenGlass]

But of all the best driving seasons with inferior cars is Senna of 1993. It was unbelievable what he did in a a car that was slower than Williams and Benetton.

I don't think it was necessarily inferior to the Benetton at the races he won though.

Schumacher was ahead of Senna at a lot of races but unfortunately for him there was normally at least one Williams in front too! And when there wasn't a Williams in front at Monaco, Schumacher had a mechanical failure.

Overall I'd certainly give Senna driver of the season but I don't think he was markedly superior to Schumacher. Circumstances made the gap look bigger.

[Dicun]

But of all the best driving seasons with inferior cars is Senna of 1993. It was unbelievable what he did in a a car that was slower than Williams and Benetton.

 

Williams, obviously. But Benetton? I beg to differ and so does the WCC, despite an utterly underwhelming performance from Andretti. In fact the sole reason why some might feel that the Benetton was a better package is that Andretti was so atrocious that he needed 16 drivers to DNF at Monza to finish on the podium and hence adding 4 points to his tally - making it a total of only 7 points in 13 races whilst Senna had scored 53 by that time and had beaten Andretti 13-0 (!) in qualifyings. I consider Andretti's campaign to be one of the worst ever in the history of the sport by a driver in a front running car. He retired seven times but was only running in points scoring positions in 2 races out of those (5th at San Marino and 6th at Hungary).

 

After Andretti was finally replaced by Häkkinen, he immediately outpaced Senna in the qualifying at Estoril and finished behind Senna just by 0.042 two weeks later at Suzuka, scoring a podium there in the race to boot. He was also running in the points when retiring from the other two races - and he did all that after spending almost a full year on the sideline without any actual F1 racing on track. Just imagine what could have happened had Mika been put in that other McLaren seat right from Kyalami. How many points could he have scored? That MP4/8 was the second best car of that season, no doubt.

[sennafan24]

That MP4/8 was the second best car of that season, no doubt.

I think you should read up about the fuel economy issues that the McLaren faced after they got an engine upgrade after Silverstone, and to a lesser extent before that. Also, the general feeling around the paddock at Silverstone was that the Benetton had the better aero, as reported on BBC during the race. This was due to mid-season upgrades on the McLaren not working out as planned, as the BBC McLaren documentary showed. The McLaren was better at wet races at the start of the year due to having traction control, and at the end of the season (Italy onward), after they got their fuel issues sorted out and had further upgrades, but the Benetton was the better car otherwise. As dire as Andretti was, Patrese wasn't much better in the second Benetton. One of the reasons that Andretti left because of the fuel economy issues that plagued McLaren throughout the year.

 

After Andretti was finally replaced by Häkkinen, he immediately outpaced Senna in the qualifying at Estoril and finished behind Senna just by 0.042 two weeks later at Suzuka, scoring a podium there in the race to boot. He was also running in the points when retiring from the other two races - and he did all that after spending almost a full year on the sideline without any actual F1 racing on track. Just imagine what could have happened had Mika been put in that other McLaren seat right from Kyalami. How many points could he have scored? 

Mika was McLaren's test driver in 1993. He was arguably more in-tune with upgrades than Senna. I also read somewhere that Estoril was a McLaren testing track, but I admit, I can't find a source for it. Mika gave an excellent account of himself in late 1993. Well prepared or not, he out-qualified Senna on merit at his first race. Even if Senna had him in check in the early stages of the race before Senna retired, that's impressive. The gap at Japan qualifying is slightly misleading. Senna was blocked on his final flying lap, and was prevented from doing another due to a mechanical fault. Senna was also in a league of his own at Australia. Mika struggled there, although he was unlucky in the race with brake issues.

 

I think speculating about how well Mika would have done in a full season says more about him than the McLaren car. Mika was far superior to Patrese and Andretti, and truth be told, wasn't that less talented than Schumacher when his head was right. 

Edited by sennafan24, 02 January 2017 - 09:03.