257 replies to this topic

[FirstnameLastname]

A great video from The Hyphen Race

Aside from any Redbull drivers who aren’t called Vettel or Verstappen, who else would you add to the list?

[ARTGP]

I'm not sure I like how "wasted opportunity" is used here.  For example, Heikki was never supposed to beat Hamilton and he never threatened to either. That opportunity was hardly wasted. He did what he could against a superior Hamilton.

 

 

What I consider wasted:

1) The Mclaren drivers losing the title in 2007.  Hamilton rookie season WDC, or Alonso 3 time WDC. They certainly had the car to do it. Although Hamilton really had no business winning it in his rookie season, but still  it was within reach. Either driver should have snatched it if not for the politics and bitterness that each driver fed into.

2)  Franck Montagny...well...I believe he was better than that showing...and then threw away his motorsport career rather permanently later on and rumours that he dabbled in things he shouldn't have the whole time...

Edited by ARTGP, 14 May 2021 - 23:47.

[PlayboyRacer]

David Coulthard. Sat in the overall best car 4 times ('95, 1998-2000). Count up the number of wins he achieved in each of those four seasons.

[Leibowitz]

I don’t get how Albon/Gasly and Kovalainen wasted anything since no one expected them to beat Max and Lewis. Underdelivered yes, but wasted seems like a wishful thinking.

Mark Webber is to me a great example of “wasted opportunity”. Spent years in midfield cars, finally lucks into a top tier car with a young and error prone teammate who is plauged with reliability issues. And then he bins it in Korea.

[PlayboyRacer]

Yeah I think the likes of Coulthard, Webber and Fisichella fit the title perfectly. Particularly when they've got someone like Frentzen on the list. Some of other choices are odd.

[FLB]

Larry Perkins.

[ch103]

I'm not sure I like how "wasted opportunity" is used here.  For example, Heikki was never supposed to beat Hamilton and he never threatened to either. That opportunity was hardly wasted. He did what he could against a superior Hamilton.

 

 

What I consider wasted:

1) The Mclaren drivers losing the title in 2007.  Hamilton rookie season WDC, or Alonso 3 time WDC. They certainly had the car to do it. Although Hamilton really had no business winning it in his rookie season, but still  it was within reach. Either driver should have snatched it if not for the politics and bitterness that each driver fed into.

2)  Franck Montagny...well...I believe he was better than that showing...and then threw away his motorsport career rather permanently later on and rumours that he dabbled in things he shouldn't have the whole time...

 

Very strong rumors that McLaren were not allowed to win the title in 2007 due to stealing Ferrari IP.  Hamilton's 'crash' in China was always so suspect...

[Anderis]

Very strong rumors that McLaren were not allowed to win the title in 2007 due to stealing Ferrari IP.  Hamilton's 'crash' in China was always so suspect...

What if Kimi had a car failure in Brazil? They played it very risky there if we were to believe those rumours. 

 

Mark Webber is to me a great example of “wasted opportunity”. Spent years in midfield cars, finally lucks into a top tier car with a young and error prone teammate who is plauged with reliability issues. And then he bins it in Korea.

After his failed WDC campaign in 2010, Webber remained with Red Bull until 2013 when he retired at the age around which F1 drivers usually retire voluntarily. Yes, you can argue that semantically you were right and Webber did waste his big chance but clearly that's not what the author of the video had in mind, which was how those stints with those teams of those drivers completely shattered the prospects of landing equally competitive drives for said drivers in the future.

 

I'm not sure I like how "wasted opportunity" is used here.  For example, Heikki was never supposed to beat Hamilton and he never threatened to either. That opportunity was hardly wasted. He did what he could against a superior Hamilton.

Kovalainen had a very promising rookie season, then went to McLaren and finished 7th in WDC in a car in which his team-mate won the WDC. Didn't really improve in the following year, which resulted in being dropped by McLaren and never being picked up for a full season race seat by a competitive team again, how is that not a wasted opportunity?
He was never supposed to beat Hamilton but his rookie season promised better efficiency in securing results. He managed to finish 7th in WDC in his rookie season in a midfield car and then failed to improve by even one position having more experience and a championship capable car. You can easily justify the term "wasted opportunity" here as after a promising 2007 season, most people would've expected him to do a better job in 2008 and he failed to establish himself as one of the top6 or top8 drivers in F1 with a long career in upper midfield or even at the top of the grid, which seemed to be completely on cards for him if you asked an F1 follower after the 2007 season.

Don't forget that in 2008 Hamilton was nowhere near his current level, possibly his worst year in F1, a lot of mistakes which costed him points. Yet Kovalainen barely managed to score 50% of Hamilton's points. Rosberg, Bottas or Button were never outscored by such ratio by an arguably better performing Hamilton. And I guess late 2007 Kovalainen was perhaps more highly rated than 2021 Bottas and if you asked in 2007, many would've rated Kovalainen over Rosberg. So Heikki's career has definetely ended up a disappointment and it all started to go wrong when he went to McLaren where it felt like he didn't perform as well as he theoretically should've been capable of.

Edited by Anderis, 15 May 2021 - 01:39.

[Claymore25]

Eddie Irvine and Felipe Massa.

[l2k2]

Very strong rumors that McLaren were not allowed to win the title in 2007 due to stealing Ferrari IP.  Hamilton's 'crash' in China was always so suspect...

 

 

This is probably one of the most ridiculous conspiracy theories around F1.

 

In addition to the problem of McLaren drivers leading it going to the last race (and thus requiring Kimi to be able to finish in at minimum P2 even if McLaren's would “magically” break down), the other big problem is in general the way the season ended. Any problem with Kimi's Ferrari in any of the last about four races would have made it impossible for the McLaren drivers to yield the WDC away without making their ploy ridiculously obvious. The lead was 18 points with four races to go (45% maximum possible), 15 with three to go (50% ...), 17 with two to go (85% ...) and 7 going into the last race (70% ...).

 

Now, even when Kimi had his near perfect season ending, the McLaren drivers both needed to have one and two failed races each in the last four rounds. Think of any problem for Kimi and just try to play the method to still not win ...

Edited by l2k2, 15 May 2021 - 01:40.

[PlayboyRacer]

Eddie Irvine and Felipe Massa.

To be fair Eddie should never really have had a "golden opportunity" to begin with. An extraordinary set of circumstances gave him one and he was just nowhere near fast enough, despite Hakkinen and McLaren shooting themselves in the foot. 1999 really was a strange year.

[PlayboyRacer]

After his failed WDC campaign in 2010, Webber remained with Red Bull until 2013 when he retired at the age around which F1 drivers usually retire voluntarily. Yes, you can argue that semantically you were right and Webber did waste his big chance but clearly that's not what the author of the video had in mind, which was how those stints with those teams of those drivers completely shattered the prospects of landing equally competitive drives for said drivers in the future.

That's true. Yet Frentzen then went to Jordan, won multiple races and was actually in World Championship contention deep into the season. Whereas in 1997 he was never in contention. Arguably was driver of the year in 1999. He then showed very favourably against Trulli in 2000 - one of the fastest men over 1 lap apparently - by splitting 8-8 in qualy. Frentzen on his day was mighty.

I was reading some mid 90s material recently from various publications back then and I think it's forgotten just how massive the hype around Frentzen was. He was absolutely considered an F1 champion in waiting and the comparisons with Schumachers speed were endless.

So I suppose it came as a shock (to some) when he didn't translate that to Williams but it wasn't also known just how great Villeneuve would be. And by JV's 1995-2000 form, he was sensational in his pomp and more importantly - very hard headed and mentally tough. At Williams that was gold, for Frentzen who lacked that... it was kryptonite.

[r8c8r]

I'm not sure I like how "wasted opportunity" is used here.  For example, Heikki was never supposed to beat Hamilton and he never threatened to either. That opportunity was hardly wasted. He did what he could against a superior Hamilton.

 

 

What I consider wasted:

1) The Mclaren drivers losing the title in 2007.  Hamilton rookie season WDC, or Alonso 3 time WDC. They certainly had the car to do it. Although Hamilton really had no business winning it in his rookie season, but still  it was within reach. Either driver should have snatched it if not for the politics and bitterness that each driver fed into.

2)  Franck Montagny...well...I believe he was better than that showing...and then threw away his motorsport career rather permanently later on and rumours that he dabbled in things he shouldn't have the whole time...

Lewis would have run away with that title if not for McLaren over fueling his car for qualifying and forcing second car strategies on him even when he had superior pace. And that's obviously ignoring the poor tire strategy in China and the gearbox "malfunction" in Brazil.

[Sash1]

Yeah I think the likes of Coulthard, Webber and Fisichella fit the title perfectly. Particularly when they've got someone like Frentzen on the list. Some of other choices are odd.

With Coulthard I always feel he was in it for the girls. An F1 James Bond.

[TecnoRacing]

I'm not sure I like how "wasted opportunity" is used here.  For example, Heikki was never supposed to beat Hamilton and he never threatened to either. That opportunity was hardly wasted. He did what he could against a superior Hamilton.

 

You forget what hot property Heikki was in 2006-2008. He was absolutely thought of as potential WDC material - another ice cool Finn to follow in the footsteps of Mika/Kimi at McLaren

[Calorus]

I'm not sure I like how "wasted opportunity" is used here.  For example, Heikki was never supposed to beat Hamilton and he never threatened to either. That opportunity was hardly wasted. He did what he could against a superior Hamilton.

 

 

What I consider wasted:

1) The Mclaren drivers losing the title in 2007.  Hamilton rookie season WDC, or Alonso 3 time WDC. They certainly had the car to do it. Although Hamilton really had no business winning it in his rookie season, but still  it was within reach. Either driver should have snatched it if not for the politics and bitterness that each driver fed into.

 

 

Not really wasted - this was what Hamilton vs Russell would be like with a fast Red Bull.

i.e. Nicking points off each other whilst Verstappen collects every win the car is capable of.

Edited by Calorus, 15 May 2021 - 06:50.

[Peat]

 The Hyphen Race
 

 

LOL 

[Trust]

Very strong rumors that McLaren were not allowed to win the title in 2007 due to stealing Ferrari IP.  Hamilton's 'crash' in China was always so suspect...

Yes yes, very suspect as his "crash"  this year in Imola.

Edited by Trust, 15 May 2021 - 07:18.

[Peat]

For example, Heikki was never supposed to beat Hamilton and he never threatened to either. 

 

I listened to his 'Beyond the Grid' interview just last week. 

He's in the unique position of being team-mates to Alonso & Hamilton during their championship years, he admits he just doesn't have that final couple of % ferocious drive. He was a clear No.2. He says he was more complete driver and gave his best performances in obscurity in the Caterham. 

[noikeee]

You forget what hot property Heikki was in 2006-2008. He was absolutely thought of as potential WDC material - another ice cool Finn to follow in the footsteps of Mika/Kimi at McLaren

The amount of times I've read here that he was better than Nico Rosberg (they fought a close battle for the inaugural GP2 championship so were often compared to one another)... That didn't age well.

[ensign14]

Dave Walker; F3 tyro who did the worst possible job in F1 - zero points in the Championship-winning car.

 

Philippe Alliot; Peugeot were pushing McLaren like mad to give him a go, he finally got his chance when Hakkinen was banned for a race, and in the very first practice session he binned it.  Brundle (who lost his Friday running time because Alliot pinched his car) was robbed of a podium in the race with a last lap problem, Alliot spent his entire race stuck behind a Minardi.

[hogstar]

Derek Daly. Although the FW08 wasn't the best car that year, it won the title with Keke. However, the Finn trounced Daly and effectively ended his F1 career. 

[greenman]

You forget what hot property Heikki was in 2006-2008. He was absolutely thought of as potential WDC material - another ice cool Finn to follow in the footsteps of Mika/Kimi at McLaren

This. He wasn't brought in as a #2, but because he had a very solid rookie season alongside Fisichella. And he started his year quite well IIRC, but then he had that failure and hard crash in Spain, and then another failure in Monaco, and then just couldn't recover. And in 2009 he just couldn't extract all he could from a mediocre car. If you asked somebody in 07 how they think his career will eventually develop, nobody would expect this for sure. So Heikki is definitely someone I agree on being on such a list.

 

There are some on the list that I feel don't belong there, because they were brought in as #2 and put in a position to fail from the start - e.g. Dumfries, Jos/Lehto, even maybe Gasly/Albon to an extent, although less so. Dumfries in particular was there because he was supposed to be "not as good as Warwick", and the 94-95 Benettons were all about Schumacher. With that in mind I see Irvine as more of a wasted opportunity, because he was propelled to a team leading seat, and failed, despite Hakkinen/Mclaren self inflicted issues.

 

And yeah as people have said - Coulthard. Probably not what the author had in mind when making the list, but he was racing top cars most of his careers, yet when his team was actually the class of the field, he couldn't put it together. Barrichello in 2009 also comes to mind. And Fisichella I suppose but Fernando was already the golden boy there at the time...

 

Also, if Andretti is on this list, I think Zanardi could be too. Unfortunately just couldn't get to grips with that car.

Edited by greenman, 15 May 2021 - 09:25.

[PlayboyRacer]

Yeah Zanardi is a great shout. Off the back of major hype - two CART championships - he was a big letdown in 1999.

[PayasYouRace]

I listened to his 'Beyond the Grid' interview just last week. 

He's in the unique position of being team-mates to Alonso & Hamilton during their championship years, he admits he just doesn't have that final couple of % ferocious drive. He was a clear No.2. He says he was more complete driver and gave his best performances in obscurity in the Caterham. 

 

I haven't listened to it so I don't know what he actually said, but he was never Alonso's teammate, let alone in 2005/6.

[noikeee]

I think by Alonso team-mate he means he was test driver during 2006, at the time test drivers did a lot of laps. So they shared that car in a sense, he would've gotten an idea of how good Alonso is and what's he like, even if they never raced against each other both for Renault.

Edited by noikeee, 15 May 2021 - 08:52.

[Clatter]

Most of the names listed made it, but were ultimately not good enough. Names such as DC, Webber, Fisi etc. had good long careers, what did they waste? Not being good enough take a WDC should not be seen as them throwing something away. The ones who I see wasted their chance are the likes of Jan Magnussen, who it was reported didn't apply himself the way a modern driver was expected.

[Jovanotti]

Kimi 2008 definitely. Everything was lined up for him to take that WDC, he was leading after a third of the season or so, when a few weak races, wrong car development path and bad luck threw the campaign off. Still hurts and annoys me as a fan.

[P123]

David Coulthard. Sat in the overall best car 4 times ('95, 1998-2000). Count up the number of wins he achieved in each of those four seasons.

 

DC was never top tier, and has never claimed to be, but I think you are being a touch harsh on him.  The Williams was the fastest car in 95, but not the best. Retiring from podium positions three times with mechanical gremlins, electrical fault arguably costing him the win in Britain, comfortably leading in Belgium when the car let him down, again, wheel bearing issue throwing him off from the lead in Italy and arguably lost the Pacific GP due to inferior strategy (another weakness of Williams).  Sure, he did infamously lose another potential win by parking it in the pitwall at Adelaide, but the points or victory total weren't entirely representative of him or his season, and he was a rookie too.  '98 wasn;t a good season, but he was stuck in the shadow of Hakkinen and TO's from round 1.  '99 was much the same as '95- you won't win much or score much if you only finish half the races.  Only one retirement was self-inflicted.  In 2000 he scored one less victory than Hakkinen, but I wouldn't label that the overall best car either, much like '95 or '99.  Definitely not the most consistent driver, a touch frustrating at times, but I've no doubt with some decent reliability during at least a couple of those seasons then he'd have four or five more victories to his name.

[Sterzo]

Most of the names listed made it, but were ultimately not good enough. Names such as DC, Webber, Fisi etc. had good long careers, what did they waste? Not being good enough take a WDC should not be seen as them throwing something away. The ones who I see wasted their chance are the likes of Jan Magnussen, who it was reported didn't apply himself the way a modern driver was expected.

Exactly. The two I would nominate as having wasted their potential by not having applied themselves are Jan Magnussen and Derek Daly. Both have admitted as much.

 

Failure to be good enough, or failure to rise to the extra demands  of F1, are quite different things. By definition most GP drivers are going to end up in those categories. Otherwise everyone would be world champion at once.

[Yamamoto]

The amount of times I've read here that he was better than Nico Rosberg (they fought a close battle for the inaugural GP2 championship so were often compared to one another)... That didn't age well.

 

I think at the time there was a sort of wisdom that Kovalainen was a bit quicker (perhaps because it fit the "Fast Finn" trope). Easy to forget that he was a few years older than Rosberg. Still is, I suppose. Nico was very young when he broke into F1.

[Nemo1965]

What comes to MY mind with wasted opportunity is:

 

a. Abundance of talent.

b. An unique chance

c. A man-made disaster and the disaster was you.

 

I think that Eddy Irvine, Giancarlo Fisichella or David Coulthard just don't fall in this category. They did not have abundance of talent (if you compare them with the Alonsos, Hamiltons and Max Verstappens of this world). They did not get one, unique chance but several. And if they did not win as many GP's or even championships, it was not of their own making.

 

The only driver I could fit in MY definition, is Michael Andretti. Lots of talent. An unique chance. (One.) And he ruined it himself. Of course he could have been more lucky. For example: I think that if Jacques Villeneuve would have come to Williams in a year that they did not have the best car but one that could only win because of the genius of the number 1 driver, he probably would have made the same mistakes as Michael, hell, he DID make some of the mistakes Michael Andretti did. But not all of them, and he was smart enough to avoid the critical ones.

Edited by Nemo1965, 15 May 2021 - 10:07.

[ARTGP]

You forget what hot property Heikki was in 2006-2008. He was absolutely thought of as potential WDC material - another ice cool Finn to follow in the footsteps of Mika/Kimi at McLaren

 

But did he waste anything? He was highly disciplined and drove to his level. It just wasn't enough to touch Hamilton. I don't see that being a waste.

 

Whether or not fans misinterpreted or overrated his performances before Mclaren is a different matter entirely. Beating Fisichella by 1 position in the WDC? Come on. Fisi was dominated by Alonso. You could see Heikki's struggle coming just by watching Hamilton's own rookie season vs Alonso in 2007.

Edited by ARTGP, 15 May 2021 - 10:20.

[noikeee]

I think at the time there was a sort of wisdom that Kovalainen was a bit quicker (perhaps because it fit the "Fast Finn" trope). Easy to forget that he was a few years older than Rosberg. Still is, I suppose. Nico was very young when he broke into F1.

 

Plus Heikki had won the Race of Champions which meant nothing but gave him hype. And Nico was seen as a bit of a cocky guy getting the easy chances thanks to being son-of-a-champion, whilst Heikki was there just on talent. Nico's GP2 title came as a bit of a surprise, he hadn't been particularly amazing in F3 before it.

 

Didn't quite turn out that way. They weren't far off though, Heikki was unlucky that for his big break at McLaren the field was quite close. Being a few tenths behind Lewis immediately meant being a few positions behind and then at the time track position was king with no DRS, very hard to overtake once you've fell down the order. Whereas Nico, he was clearly more competitive compared to Lewis no questions, but did also have races he didn't have pace, but with the Mercedes being miles ahead of everyone, that was an easy 2nd place every time.

[Yamamoto]

Plus Heikki had won the Race of Champions which meant nothing but gave him hype. And Nico was seen as a bit of a cocky guy getting the easy chances thanks to being son-of-a-champion, whilst Heikki was there just on talent. Nico's GP2 title came as a bit of a surprise, he hadn't been particularly amazing in F3 before it.

 

Didn't quite turn out that way. They weren't far off though, Heikki was unlucky that for his big break at McLaren the field was quite close. Being a few tenths behind Lewis immediately meant being a few positions behind and then at the time track position was king with no DRS, very hard to overtake once you've fell down the order. Whereas Nico, he was clearly more competitive compared to Lewis no questions, but did also have races he didn't have pace, but with the Mercedes being miles ahead of everyone, that was an easy 2nd place every time.

 

I forgot about the ROC - didn't he beat Loeb and/or Schumacher or something like that?

 

I recall that on his better performances he ended up being upstaged anyway. Turkey he qualified on the front row on heavier fuel than Lewis but got a puncture on the first lap. Pole at Silverstone but the race was wet. And he was on the front row in Italy with the other contenders nowhere, but couldn't match Vettel. Certainly, had Mclaren and Ferrari had the performance edge of 2007 still I imagine he would have a bunch of podiums at least. 2009 didn't have many highlights, but I think the team were disappointed he couldn't at least take a podium or help Lewis win in Valencia.

[Misk]

I don’t get how Albon/Gasly and Kovalainen wasted anything since no one expected them to beat Max and Lewis. Underdelivered yes, but wasted seems like a wishful thinking.

Mark Webber is to me a great example of “wasted opportunity”. Spent years in midfield cars, finally lucks into a top tier car with a young and error prone teammate who is plauged with reliability issues. And then he bins it in Korea.

 

I always think people don't mention it enough that Webber would be WDC if he had just managed to keep it on the road like all the other top runners did at Korea. Even at the time when I watched it live I remember thinking it was a huge moment in the championship battle and BBC chose to downplay it - but then again the coverage at that time was a Webber love in, so it's not that surprising I guess. 

[Yamamoto]

That was the universe balancing out Vettel's mechanical issues. It was clear which Red Bull driver was stronger that year.

[Misk]

 And he was on the front row in Italy with the other contenders nowhere, but couldn't match Vettel. 

 

It's probably easier to excuse him as Vettel turned out to be such a talent as well as a top level wet weather driver (regardless of what some people say about him, he is class in the wet), but it's pretty embarrassing that Kovalainen couldn't beat a Toro Rosso in a straight fight in a Championship winning car that day.

[ARTGP]

Kimi 2008 definitely. Everything was lined up for him to take that WDC, he was leading after a third of the season or so, when a few weak races, wrong car development path and bad luck threw the campaign off. Still hurts and annoys me as a fan.

 

Another good one. Really had no business whatsoever losing to Massa and was far more experienced than Hamilton. Call it lost motivation, lack of focus, too much booze, or whatever, a largely wasted campaign. A different driver in that seat would have drubbed Massa and won the title. That he basically accepted a bribe to quit the sport a year later about says it all where his head was.

Edited by ARTGP, 15 May 2021 - 10:35.

[Nobody]

some 40 years later I'm still trying to understand De Crasheris in a McLaren...

[Misk]

Another good one. Really had no business whatsoever losing to Massa and was far more experienced than Hamilton. Call it lost motivation, lack of focus, too much booze, or whatever, a largely wasted campaign. A different driver in that seat would have drubbed Massa and won the title. That he basically accepted a bribe to quit the sport a year later about says it all where his head was.

 

2008 is probably the biggest black mark against Raikkonen's whole career. The fact he couldn't beat Massa and an error prone Hamilton in his second season reflects pretty badly. Alonso would have walked that championship in the Ferrari I imagine. 

[Anuity]

Jos Verstappen in 1994. He had a chance to make a better impression and to have a longer and more successful career with some stronger teams.

Frentzen in 1997. He clearly had the speed and had the best car but really could not get anything out of it.

 

Kimi in 2008, on paper he should have walked that title. Being the more experienced, not having Alonso there he performed really inconsistent that season, although had plenty of speed. Should have been his title.

[HP]

Barrichello in the Brawn. Jenson Button was good, but Barrichello  could have won that year as well.

[F1matt]

Barrichello in the Brawn. Jenson Button was good, but Barrichello  could have won that year as well.

 

 

There was never much between Button and Barrichello up to 2009, Button started the season much stronger but Barrichello finished stronger. 

 

I would put Valterri Bottas as the man who has wasted his opportunity as much as any driver,  he has probably sat in one of the greatest race cars of all time yet has never been anywhere near looking like a championship contender. He even had a blueprint of how to beat Lewis Hamilton from the guy he took over from yet has never got anywhere near him. 

[Jovanotti]

2008 is probably the biggest black mark against Raikkonen's whole career. The fact he couldn't beat Massa and an error prone Hamilton in his second season reflects pretty badly. Alonso would have walked that championship in the Ferrari I imagine.

It is, but many tend to forget that, as I mentioned, also bad luck (France, Valencia, Canada) and a clearly wrong car development path were part of it which even "special advisor" MSC admitted. He was still mostly quicker than Massa during races, and in the latter half of the season even had to slow down sometimes to let him past.
Kimi's big failure imo was not to actively rally the whole team behind him after winning the WDC and let it slip away from him, it's probably not his character and it wasn't something necessary to do at McLaren.

[OvDrone]

From all my conscious personal F1 memories:

Vandoorne and Albon in F1 as a whole.
Palmer at Renault 2016
Kvyat at Red Bull 2015
Perez at McLaren 2013
Heidfeld at Lotus 2011
Fisichella at Ferrari 2009
Kovaleinen at McLaren 2008
Giorgio Pantano
Everything and everyone at Toyota
Coulthard at McLaren 2003
Frentzen at Williams 1997
Magnussen, the Jan
Verstappen, the Jos
Andretti at McLaren 1993

[Leibowitz]

You forget what hot property Heikki was in 2006-2008. He was absolutely thought of as potential WDC material - another ice cool Finn to follow in the footsteps of Mika/Kimi at McLaren

I disagree. Maybe he wasn’t brought as a outright second driver, but I distinctively remember thinking that Lewis is going to trash him. He did beat Fisi (although that isn’t some kind of gigantic achievement) and he capitalized on a strong race in Japan to present himsef as a new “Flying Finn”. His 2 seasons with McLaren turned out to be mediocre - one lucky victory, couple of podiums here and there, but nothing special.
One could say that his performance were below expectations (I agree) ,but I never saw him getting anywhere close to Lewis.

Edited by Leibowitz, 15 May 2021 - 11:10.

[hogstar]

some 40 years later I'm still trying to understand De Crasheris in a McLaren...

 

The one word answer is Marlboro. They were his personal sponsor and they sponsored McLaren. Plus he had raced for Ron in European F2, so he was a known quantity. He had potential, but there were many others that had more. 

 

I guess it was always a short term thing, unless he blew away the experienced Watson - which he did not, plus a few accidents did not endear him to Barnard and the mechanics. 

[PlayboyRacer]

As early as 2007 you could see that Raikkonen wasn't the same as the 2003-2006 beast in the McLarens, Massa looked more convincing at times even during Kimi's WDC season. What happened in 2008 was no surprise.

[HighwayStar]

This is my first post here so first off I'd like to say hello to everyone!

 

I started watching F1 in 2007 and I remember Heikki Kovalainen felt very much part of the new wave of drivers that were coming through at that time (Hamilton, Kubica, Rosberg, Vettel). I wasn't expecting him to get close to Hamilton, but I thought he'd do better than he did. In 2007 I think he started off quite poorly but from about round 6 onwards he comfortably beat Fisichella, who actually got his best results in the early part of the season when Kovalainen was struggling. My recollection of Kovalainen in his 2008-09 seasons at McLaren is that he generally displayed decent speed in qualifying - even more so considering this was during the qualifying with fuel era and he was usually the more heavily fueled of the two McLaren drivers - but his race pace was less impressive and he was rarely a realistic contender for race wins. He was similar to Bottas now in some respects, but his results were much more disappointing, in the WCC he finished behind both BMW drivers and Alonso and I think he only finished on the podium three times all season. This wasn't entirely his fault as he had several unlucky races (he was forced to start at the back at Monaco I think), but on the other hand his sole victory at Hungary was very fortunate with Massa's engine failure and Hamilton's puncture taking them out of contention, without that he would have only been third, and he also made several mistakes which cost him. I think his first GP for McLaren (Australia 2008) was a microcosm of his two years there - I remember he was on course for second place until the safety car came out just before he was due to pit, which cost him several places, but then when he had just overtaken Alonso for fourth he accidentally hit his pit lane speed limiter, immediately gifting Alonso the position back.

 

From the same era, I agree that Raikkonen's 2008 title defence was underwhelming, but it really fell apart for him in the second half of that season (he had four straight non-scores from Valencia to Singapore if I remember rightly). As late as the British GP in mid-season I thought Raikkonen was the more likely of the two Ferrari drivers to win the title - he was 3-2 down on Massa for wins, but that included Magny-Cours where Raikkonen looked set for victory until his exhaust broke, and he was running ahead in Canada prior to the pit lane incident. I still had him down as the title favourite at the mid-point of the season, particularly as the 2008 Ferrari seemed better than the McLaren and was highly competitive at wider range of circuits than their 2007 car (I remember being very surprised when the Ferraris took first and second on the grid at Monaco in 2008, as they couldn't get near McLaren the previous year there). Overall I think Raikkonen's 2008 season wasn't quite as bad as it is sometimes painted, and he finished only 23 points down on Hamilton, but he definitely missed a golden opportunity to win another title that year. The main problems were that he lost quite a few points through his own mistakes, losing a potential win in Belgium, but also lost points finishes through his crashes in Monaco and Singapore (all of those errors were towards the end of those respective races too, making them seem even more costly), and that he was expected to comfortably get the better of Massa, particularly with the benefit of adapting to the team after his first season.