184 replies to this topic

[PlatenGlass]

I always thought DC needed the perfect car/set up/tyres to perform at his best. If something was off he just couldn't get the best out of himself or the car. Mika on the other hand could get around slight anomalies with the car. Plus not many could cope with Mika when on "maximum attack"

 

I'm not sure that's necessarily completely the case. Hakkinen had a few weird anomolous weekends when he was slow and they were more frequent than they should be. I always felt that the inconsistent gap between the two was more down to Hakkinen than Coulthard - if Hakkinen was on it, Coulthard was unlikely to challenge him.

[PlatenGlass]

By the way with Alonso/Hamilton and Raikkonen/Massa in 2007 this was particularly notable because of the way they both happened simultaneously. With Schumacher retiring at the end of 2006, I think it was felt by a lot of people that Alonso and Raikkonen were head and shoulders above the others and that they would go on to dominate for the next few years. Then right from the start of 2007, not one but both drivers struggled to beat their team-mates. Because of this I think it was one of the biggest mismatches between expectation and reality we've had in the sport.

 

Hamilton turned out to be a mega-star himself of course and this retrospectively saved Alonso's 2007 to some extent and Alonso carried on at a top level regardless of how one rates that season from him, but Raikkonen's reputation was never the same again.

[noikeee]

By the way with Alonso/Hamilton and Raikkonen/Massa in 2007 this was particularly notable because of the way they both happened simultaneously. With Schumacher retiring at the end of 2006, I think it was felt by a lot of people that Alonso and Raikkonen were head and shoulders above the others and that they would go on to dominate for the next few years. Then right from the start of 2007, not one but both drivers struggled to beat their team-mates. Because of this I think it was one of the biggest mismatches between expectation and reality we've had in the sport.

 

Hamilton turned out to be a mega-star himself of course and this retrospectively saved Alonso's 2007 to some extent and Alonso carried on at a top level regardless of how one rates that season from him, but Raikkonen's reputation was never the same again.

 

Yes but I think this was immediately recognised, or at least, suspected, at the time. Hamilton came in with a bit of hype as a potential future great, whereas Massa had had a few seasons, started F1 pretty poorly and wasn't really seen as a legit star.

 

What momentarily saved Kimi's reputation was that he ended 2007 so strongly with a pretty miraculous return, and the silverware associated. If it wasn't for that, there would've been a few questions already about how good he really was. But then it happened anyway as in 2008 he took a step backwards compared to Massa.

[Alfisti]

Anyone surprised Alonso hammered Fisichella was not paying attention. It was abundantly clear in the Minardi that alonso had something special.

[PlayboyRacer]

Anyone surprised Alonso hammered Fisichella was not paying attention. It was abundantly clear in the Minardi that alonso had something special.

It was also abundantly clear that Fisichella wasn't big league material and totally suspect between the ears. I thought that from the late 90s. Can't say I had ever seen champion qualities in him.

[messy]

Anyone surprised Alonso hammered Fisichella was not paying attention. It was abundantly clear in the Minardi that alonso had something special.

Yes and no. Fisichella, much like Hulkenberg more recently I guess, built up a reputation for being some kind of lower league superstar just waiting for a top seat and it wasn’t totally without foundation. On his best days he could be brilliant and he was coming off the back of a season in the Sauber where he’d been ranked really highly. Alonso was clearly brilliant, but he’d had some difficulty with Trulli in 2004, who I think most people rated (slightly) below Fisichella. So I think there were a pretty large group of fans who were genuinely thinking that Fisi was going to really impress. Personally, I really hoped Fisichella was going to do really well because I was one of those people who still had a bit of belief - but it kinda went the way I expected.

[Trust]

Anyone surprised Alonso hammered Fisichella was not paying attention. It was abundantly clear in the Minardi that alonso had something special.

Raikkonen smashed the same Fisichella.

[HighwayStar]

By chance I watched extended highlights of the 1999 European GP yesterday evening, a race where first David Coulthard and later Giancarlo Fisichella spun off while leading. For Coulthard this was especially costly as it presented an ideal opportunity for him to bring himself into serious title contention, with Frentzen retiring through mechanical failure while Hakkinen and Irvine struggled on the wrong tyre strategy. For Fisichella it was a missed opportunity to pull off a surprise win in a lesser car and an example of his tendency to crumble when leading or under pressure (Japan 2005 being perhaps the ultimate example of this). Admittedly conditions were tricky for all drivers, but in light of their careers before and after it was not particularly surprising that those two fell off the road when well positioned for victory.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that Mika Hakkinen was a significantly better driver than David Coulthard, but I do think their relative levels changed somewhat over their six seasons as team mates. Looking at the qualifying statistics, Hakkinen trounced Coulthard in qualifying from mid-1997 through to the end of 1999. By my reckoning the qualifying score from the 1997 British GP until the 1999 Japanese GP was a very comfortable 35-6 in Mika's favour, including a clean sweep in the final nine races of 1997 and 21 pole positions to David's 3. In 2000 Mika again won the overall qualifying battle, but Coulthard outqualified him 7 times, more than he'd managed over the previous two and a half seasons. Interestingly, even in 2001, when it is widely acknowledged that Mika's motivation and performances declined, he still narrowly won 9-8 in qualifying. From this I tend to conclude that Hakkinen reached his peak in the latter half of 1997 and maintained this level of performance through to 2000, whereas I think Coulthard's peak was probably about 2000-2002, as he improved relative to Mika in qualifying, made fewer major errors in races and took a number of his most impressive victories such as France 2000 and Monaco 2002. I would say he definitely fell off after 2002, in no small part because he struggled with the single lap qualifying format introduced for 2003.

Edited by HighwayStar, 30 December 2021 - 23:39.

[PlayboyRacer]

Hakkinen I think just took a while to really hit his straps, career wise and get that consistency. I always felt Herbert gave him a far too hard a time at Lotus, yet he then swept Brundle in qualifying at McLaren in 1994. Though still he was error prone and messy at times, amongst the spectacular things he'd do (e.g Monaco qualy that sane year).

Obviously his huge accident and subsequent injuries in 1995 didn't help. But in his championship winning pomp he still would mix scintillating speed with occassional lapses or crashes. But as I've said earlier - the 1999 title was there for the taking - and DC had every chance. But the bottom line is, in the fastest car across 98/99, he took only 3 wins.

That was just a long way short of the level that was required. When you're given the best car, it's sink or swim. Nowhere to hide.

[jonpollak]

Button vs Villeneuve 2003. People were expecting Button to be smoked...

I'll think of more later.

Who thought that?
Not anyone who knew what DR was up to.

As we did here, back in the day, thanks to Jackman.

http://www.davidcame...-david-richards

Jp

[SpatialTech]

Hakkinen I think just took a while to really hit his straps, career wise and get that consistency. I always felt Herbert gave him a far too hard a time at Lotus, yet he then swept Brundle in qualifying at McLaren in 1994. Though still he was error prone and messy at times, amongst the spectacular things he'd do (e.g Monaco qualy that sane year).
Obviously his huge accident and subsequent injuries in 1995 didn't help. But in his championship winning pomp he still would mix scintillating speed with occassional lapses or crashes. But as I've said earlier - the 1999 title was there for the taking - and DC had every chance. But the bottom line is, in the fastest car across 98/99, he took only 3 wins.
That was just a long way short of the level that was required. When you're given the best car, it's sink or swim. Nowhere to hide.

I too think he took time to develop properly. He was clearly superior to DC, something I believe he (DC) even alluded to. We were discussing fair racers and the paucity of them earlier and DC, Hakk were good, fast Gentlemen racers, but Hakk a step above DC.

[SpatialTech]

Yes but I think this was immediately recognised, or at least, suspected, at the time. Hamilton came in with a bit of hype as a potential future great, whereas Massa had had a few seasons, started F1 pretty poorly and wasn't really seen as a legit star.

What momentarily saved Kimi's reputation was that he ended 2007 so strongly with a pretty miraculous return, and the silverware associated. If it wasn't for that, there would've been a few questions already about how good he really was. But then it happened anyway as in 2008 he took a step backwards compared to Massa.

I was pointed to Hamilton in the early 2000’s by my best man, someone who worked inside F1. It was apparent he had something different than those around him, so it was no surprise to me in 2007. Genuinely think if it wasn’t for McLaren mismanagement of the 2007 drivers, that Kimis career could have been seen differently.

Edited by SpatialTech, 31 December 2021 - 00:59.

[messy]

By chance I watched extended highlights of the 1999 European GP yesterday evening, a race where first David Coulthard and later Giancarlo Fisichella spun off while leading. For Coulthard this was especially costly as it presented an ideal opportunity for him to bring himself into serious title contention, with Frentzen retiring through mechanical failure while Hakkinen and Irvine struggled on the wrong tyre strategy. For Fisichella it was a missed opportunity to pull off a surprise win in a lesser car and an example of his tendency to crumble when leading or under pressure (Japan 2005 being perhaps the ultimate example of this). Admittedly conditions were tricky for all drivers, but in light of their careers before and after it was not particularly surprising that those two fell off the road when well positioned for victory.
 

Watch Hockenheim 1997 too. For me that’s the most obvious example. He’s doing brilliantly, he takes the lead from Berger. Then as soon as he realises he’s leading, you can see him constantly checking his mirrors down every straight, and I mean constantly. And his pace drops off a cliff because he tenses up and simply can’t handle it. It was a shame because he never, ever got on top of it. Even in Monaco 1998 he was massively lucky to get away with clouting the inside barrier at Rascasse (I think?) and spinning while P2, and in Canada he should have won every day of the week three times over. That race, blowing a massive lead, was a sign of things to come at Suzuka 2005. He was such a lovely, talented, pure driver - on natural ability very possibly third behind Schumacher and Hakkinen in the mid-late 90s (although Villeneuve would probably punch me for saying that) - but he’s a perfect example that you need much more than natural talent.

[Beri]

Watch Hockenheim 1997 too. For me that’s the most obvious example. He’s doing brilliantly, he takes the lead from Berger. Then as soon as he realises he’s leading, you can see him constantly checking his mirrors down every straight, and I mean constantly. And his pace drops off a cliff because he tenses up and simply can’t handle it. It was a shame because he never, ever got on top of it. Even in Monaco 1998 he was massively lucky to get away with clouting the inside barrier at Rascasse (I think?) and spinning while P2, and in Canada he should have won every day of the week three times over. That race, blowing a massive lead, was a sign of things to come at Suzuka 2005. He was such a lovely, talented, pure driver - on natural ability very possibly third behind Schumacher and Hakkinen in the mid-late 90s (although Villeneuve would probably punch me for saying that) - but he’s a perfect example that you need much more than natural talent.

I've never looked at him in that way. I simply always thought he wasn't as good as everyone said he was. Looking at him in that way, he would be better than I always have thought.

[HighwayStar]

Watch Hockenheim 1997 too. For me that’s the most obvious example. He’s doing brilliantly, he takes the lead from Berger. Then as soon as he realises he’s leading, you can see him constantly checking his mirrors down every straight, and I mean constantly. And his pace drops off a cliff because he tenses up and simply can’t handle it. It was a shame because he never, ever got on top of it. Even in Monaco 1998 he was massively lucky to get away with clouting the inside barrier at Rascasse (I think?) and spinning while P2, and in Canada he should have won every day of the week three times over. That race, blowing a massive lead, was a sign of things to come at Suzuka 2005. He was such a lovely, talented, pure driver - on natural ability very possibly third behind Schumacher and Hakkinen in the mid-late 90s (although Villeneuve would probably punch me for saying that) - but he’s a perfect example that you need much more than natural talent.

 

Thanks for the recommendation, I will certainly watch that Hockenheim race. A few months ago I was speaking to one of my cousins who followed F1 in the late 1990s and found out he was a fan of the Jordan team and Fisichella along with Frentzen was one of his favourite drivers, his view was more or the less the same on his talent and limitations. I find it interesting that Fisichella often did well at Monaco and Spa-Francorchamps, both traditionally regarded as 'driver's circuits' (I'm fairly sceptical of this notion in the modern era, not least because the two tracks have little in common) and I suspect this contributed significantly to his reputation prior to joining Renault. I remember only the final few years of his career but even then he produced strong performances at both tracks. For Spa the 2009 race is the obvious standout, but even in 2007, which I think was even weaker than his two seasons alongside Alonso, he came fourth in Monaco with only the dominant McLaren pair and Massa's Ferrari ahead.

[PlatenGlass]

Anyone surprised Alonso hammered Fisichella was not paying attention. It was abundantly clear in the Minardi that alonso had something special.

It certainly wasn't surprising that Alonso beat Fisichella. And it wasn't exactly a surprise that he hammered him, but it was a disappointment. If Fisichella had been able to bring his A game, he probably would have been beaten but not hammered.

[absinthedude]

Fisichella was very fast, but lacked the ability to transform all that speed into consistently top results. That mention of him watching his mirrors is a good example. He had the speed but not sufficient acumen. Someone like Alonso, who is the complete package, was always going to beat him over a season.

 

DC exploded onto the scene as he got his first change in a pretty competitive car against a team mate who was having an inconsistent season. 1995 made him look like a potential champion.....after all, Hill had almost taken the title in 1994 and here was a rookie challenging and sometimes beating him. Now, DC was good but we now know that Hill was already suffering depression and doubting himself. Hakkinen started off in an uncompetitive Lotus which became a midfield Lotus and then sat in upper midfield McLaren cars until his opportunity came....he was probably a top driver all along but hadn't yet had the chance to really show it. Then in 2001 he was in the process of checking out, and was highly inconsistent. WHereas DC was consistent throughout his career, but more a Valtteri Bottas than a Lewis Hamilton. Not to denigrate DC, as nobody wins 13 grands prix by accident. 

[garoidb]

On the Frank Williams documentary recently reshown on UK TV, one of the interviewees mentioned that Alan Jones performed better than expected against Regazzoni in 1979, implying that Clay was expected to be a cut above him. It might have been Frank Dernie who said it. Anyway, that's an interesting one. Like so often, the pecking order between them is so well known now that it seems impossible that it might have been expected to be different. Of course, Jones was already a GP winner before 1979 (as was Clay) so the signs were there.

[KWSN - DSM]

On the Frank Williams documentary recently reshown on UK TV, one of the interviewees mentioned that Alan Jones performed better than expected against Regazzoni in 1979, implying that Clay was expected to be a cut above him. It might have been Frank Dernie who said it. Anyway, that's an interesting one. Like so often, the pecking order between them is so well known now that it seems impossible that it might have been expected to be different. Of course, Jones was already a GP winner before 1979 (as was Clay) so the signs were there.

 

In hindsight they were two upper middle of the pack drivers in the right car at the right time.

[PlatenGlass]

In hindsight they were two upper middle of the pack drivers in the right car at the right time.

Well Jones was quite a bit better than Regazzoni so I don't think they can both be put in this same category.

[Dhillon]

Kimi vs Badoer, not that anyone had high expectaions from Luca but no one expected him to be that bad.

I wonder what must have gone wrong.

[absinthedude]

Kimi vs Badoer, not that anyone had high expectaions from Luca but no one expected him to be that bad.

I wonder what must have gone wrong.

 

That Ferrari was undrivable. Kimi had lots of experience in taming it.

[absinthedude]

Jones had a very patchy career prior to joining Williams. His part season for Shadow in 1977 was impressive but inconsistent. In 1978 the WIlliams wasn't good enough for people to be sure, that was my first season watching F1 and I recall him getting a podium and surprising everyone. Then 1979....and in the second half of the season he just came alive and was on it. 

 

Regga had been around the best part of a decade, had done several full seasons for Ferrari and was surely seen as a fast, safe pair of hands. 

[PlatenGlass]

Kimi vs Badoer, not that anyone had high expectaions from Luca but no one expected him to be that bad.
I wonder what must have gone wrong.

I think with no testing he probably hadn't set foot in a racing car of any sort for a few years. It would have been interesting to see what he would have done in the 1999 Ferrari instead of Salo.

[garoidb]

In hindsight they were two upper middle of the pack drivers in the right car at the right time.

 

I think Jones held up well against Reutemann who was essentially a known quantity and one of the best drivers never to win a title. I wonder, though, why Frank felt it necessary to drop Regazzoni to bring in Carlos? 

[piket]

In hindsight they were two upper middle of the pack drivers in the right car at the right time.

I think they were surprised that Jones was so quicker than Regga. About a second in quallys.. I think that is what surprised F. Williams.

[piket]

I think Jones held up well against Reutemann who was essentially a known quantity and one of the best drivers never to win a title. I wonder, though, why Frank felt it necessary to drop Regazzoni to bring in Carlos?

Frank said he wanted a faster qualifier than Regga due to competition catching up

[Bleu]

I think with no testing he probably hadn't set foot in a racing car of any sort for a few years. It would have been interesting to see what he would have done in the 1999 Ferrari instead of Salo.

 

I would say no highs like Hockenheim and no lows like Hungaroring. 

[Cornholio]

Regarding Hakkinen v Coulthard, while I agree Mika was impressive and seen as a coming man right from his Lotus days (not to mention outqualifying Senna his first time in a McLaren), I always felt he had a touch of the Mansells about him, in that getting his hands on a title-winning car (with all the pressure and expectation that comes with it) seemed to make him go up a level, in contrast to the likes of Fisichella, Frentzen etc. So while DC was impressive in 1997 and generally not having his doors blown off in the first two seasons, it was Mika that got the job done once they got their hands on a Newey car.

 

I also wonder about his very sloppy 1999, when Schumacher's broken leg seemed to give him an open goal only to almost lose the title to Irvine, only to then deliver when it really mattered at Suzuka. While in 1998 and 2000 where win or lose he showed himself mentally capable to go toe-to-toe with Schumacher in the title run-ins. It was almost as if he was wilting under the absence of pressure, that year.

Edited by Cornholio, 01 January 2022 - 19:25.

[PlayboyRacer]

I've always wondered though how Japan 1998 might have played out without Schumacher stalling on the grid.

1999 was odd. It's pretty simple, for a champion of his experience (8 seasons in F1), with his main rival out and a teammate he had covered, he should have waltzed to the title. Binning it in both Italian races - from race winning leads - was very costly. I know he had some bad luck elsewhere but that's the game, you have to maximise the weekends where you have no issues.

[Anderis]

Kimi vs Badoer, not that anyone had high expectaions from Luca but no one expected him to be that bad.

I wonder what must have gone wrong.

I think Kimi vs Fisichella was more suprising.

 

Fisi had just almost won a race for Force India, then Ferrari bought him out of contract to replace Massa for him only to score 0 points, qualify last in 2 out of 5 occasions and always at least 0.5 secs behind Raikkonen, barely better than Badoer.

But maybe not that surprising with hindsight as I had an impression that besides Spa, Sutil was the faster Force India driver that year anyway. Based on Fisi's failure I had very low expectations for Kobayashi (which I've mentioned on page 1 of this thread) but he somehow did very well. 2009 was a very unique season.
 

[noikeee]

Kobayashi was really strange, he'd been a poor midfielder in GP2 yet he was immediately on the pace in F1.

I guess maybe he just didn't click with the car setup that season in GP2, because on hindsight he did have two pretty good championships earlier on in the bag, Euro FR2.0 (the most important championship you could win below F3, still is these days even if it now has another name), and GP2 Asia. I guess the potential to be quite good was always there, but he had an off season just before joining F1.

[Bleu]

I've always wondered though how Japan 1998 might have played out without Schumacher stalling on the grid.

1999 was odd. It's pretty simple, for a champion of his experience (8 seasons in F1), with his main rival out and a teammate he had covered, he should have waltzed to the title. Binning it in both Italian races - from race winning leads - was very costly. I know he had some bad luck elsewhere but that's the game, you have to maximise the weekends where you have no issues.

 

Probably Schumacher would have needed to go to tactic which Hamilton later tried in 2016. Because Schumacher 1st Häkkinen 2nd would have not been enough. 

[HighwayStar]

I think Kimi vs Fisichella was more suprising.

 

Fisi had just almost won a race for Force India, then Ferrari bought him out of contract to replace Massa for him only to score 0 points, qualify last in 2 out of 5 occasions and always at least 0.5 secs behind Raikkonen, barely better than Badoer.

But maybe not that surprising with hindsight as I had an impression that besides Spa, Sutil was the faster Force India driver that year anyway. Based on Fisi's failure I had very low expectations for Kobayashi (which I've mentioned on page 1 of this thread) but he somehow did very well. 2009 was a very unique season.
 

 

I suspect I might be going against the grain but I think Ferrari were correct to replace Badoer with Fisichella. While I sympathise with Badoer's situation, he was the outright slowest car in qualifying and a backmarker in both races he competed in. In the same two races, Raikkonen finished third in Valencia and won Spa. Although Fisichella failed to score any points, he was competitive enough to give him a chance of scoring in at least one race (his pace didn't seem too bad at Monza, where he finished ninth, but I think he made a couple of mistakes) whereas Badoer was just too slow to have any realistic chance. I believe the 2009 Ferrari was a very difficult car to handle and along with McLaren they were the only team to persist with KERS during that season, which would have made it even more difficult for a driver unfamiliar with the car to adapt. I recently heard that the design of the rear end of that year's Ferrari prevented them from exploiting the full potential of the double diffuser concept, which may explain why their pace dropped in the final few races of the season, best indicated by Raikkonen finishing outside the points in two of the final four races (Singapore and Abu Dhabi) after a run of four consecutive podiums.

 

On the other hand, Fisichella missed out on another opportunity for an excellent result at Monza as the 2009 Force India was actually very quick in low downforce configuration and also had the powerful Mercedes V8 engine. At Monza Sutil qualified on the front row and finished fourth, but even more interestingly, Fisichella's replacement Vitantonio Liuzzi qualified seventh and was well on course for a points finish when his car failed approaching half distance. The team scored no further points that season and Liuzzi was anonymous in those races. My recollection is that Fisichella and Sutil were quite evenly matched over 2008 and 2009, but Sutil comfortably beat Liuzzi during their time as team mates so another strong finish was possible for him at Monza. However, for an Italian driver seeing out his F1 career in a smaller team, the lure of Ferrari would have been very difficult to resist and I can't blame him for taking that opportunity. On a side note, it was a shame for the team that Canada wasn't on the calendar that year as the Montreal circuit may also have suited their car well. 

Edited by HighwayStar, 02 January 2022 - 11:04.

[messy]

I've always wondered though how Japan 1998 might have played out without Schumacher stalling on the grid.
1999 was odd. It's pretty simple, for a champion of his experience (8 seasons in F1), with his main rival out and a teammate he had covered, he should have waltzed to the title. Binning it in both Italian races - from race winning leads - was very costly. I know he had some bad luck elsewhere but that's the game, you have to maximise the weekends where you have no issues.

I think Schumacher would have been on a hiding to nothing even if he’d won the race, because Mika never looked like putting a foot wrong. Hakkinen’s errors came when he wasn’t under pressure, he responded to the real pressure moments magnificently. Schumacher was the one who made mistakes under pressure so I don’t think the stall was the defining moment of that title fight, far from it. Mika had that four point advantage, he just had to deliver in the race and he was champion regardless of Schumacher, and there’s nothing in his history that makes me think he wouldn’t have done just that.

1999 saw a couple of very high profile Hakkinen errors , both while he was cruising miles out in front, but I do think Coulthard was the worst offender that year. With Schumacher out, Mika having all kinds of issues and the possibility that he only had to beat Irvine to win the title, the fact he couldn’t do that - with his inability to beat Irvine in Austria the most damning - just reinforces that he didn’t really have what was needed to be World Champion. He had some really strong afternoons over his F1 career and can be proud of them, but 1999 was a bit of a black mark against him in my book. The way it all played out in terms of reliability etc, it was an open goal.