124 replies to this topic

[BertoC]

Yes, he got good results from the McLaren. Just not as good as team-mate David Coulthard who could win twice in the 1997 car that Mika could only manage third places with.

To be fair, Mika retired several times from the lead in 97.

[PlatenGlass]

It was a season of two halves. Coulthard was better pre-Silverstone and then Hakkinen was better, though very unlucky at times.

[Junky]

At 8:50 you should all listen to what is Button's opinion about Fisichella.

[PlatenGlass]

Yeah I did think of that quote when this thread came up.

[sniper80]

Damon Hill in the 97 Arrows

Damon Hill in the 98 Jordan

 

Hill is so underrated. He kept Prost & Senna honest at Williams, almost won from Schumacher in '94, won the title against hot shot Villeneuve in '96.

After Mika Hakkinen most likely my favourite F1 driver ever.

[messy]

Yes, he got good results from the McLaren.  Just not as good as team-mate David Coulthard who could win twice in the 1997 car that Mika could only manage third places with.

I think that’s a strange thing to say. It’s a strange point to make in the first place given that’s not what I’m getting at. Why bring DC into this? But it’s also a strange point because I’m pretty certain Mika was the better of the two McLaren drivers in 1997, and I think that’s probably the widely held consensus too. So….yeah. Good on DC, hurrah. But Hakkinen was a much better F1 driver than Coulthard was.

[BRG]

I think that’s a strange thing to say. It’s a strange point to make in the first place given that’s not what I’m getting at. Why bring DC into this? But it’s also a strange point because I’m pretty certain Mika was the better of the two McLaren drivers in 1997, and I think that’s probably the widely held consensus too. So….yeah. Good on DC, hurrah. But Hakkinen was a much better F1 driver than Coulthard was.

What's strange is saying that the pre-1998 McLaren was only good enough to allow Mika to take third place finishes, and yet completely ignore the fact that his team-mate WON on two occasions in that less than wonderful car.  And to say that the driver finishing 6th in the WC was the better driver than the one who finished 3rd is even more strange.  

[Alfisti]

What's strange is saying that the pre-1998 McLaren was only good enough to allow Mika to take third place finishes, and yet completely ignore the fact that his team-mate WON on two occasions in that less than wonderful car. And to say that the driver finishing 6th in the WC was the better driver than the one who finished 3rd is even more strange.

You're being obtuse, as always. I just watched the 1997 review and mikas engine blew up twice from the lead.

[noriaki]

Mika also won in 1997 but that obviously doesn't make him match DC. Similarly Ricciardo obviously is smoking Norris in the McLaren, Lando can't even win in a car Danny has comfortably scored a victory in.

[piket]

Senna in 86 is what first comes to mind. Then Kubica in 2010.

Lotus in 86 was 3 rd in rank . Williams and Mvlaren were better cars. Although with different strenghts.

I never thought Senna did miracles with 86 Lotus. It was a rocket in qualifying, bit thirsty and unreliable, but nevertheless I would never consider it a 2nd rate car.

[Currahee]

I think that’s a strange thing to say. It’s a strange point to make in the first place given that’s not what I’m getting at. Why bring DC into this? But it’s also a strange point because I’m pretty certain Mika was the better of the two McLaren drivers in 1997, and I think that’s probably the widely held consensus too. So….yeah. Good on DC, hurrah. But Hakkinen was a much better F1 driver than Coulthard was.

Why is it strange? Its a valid point is it not?

[messy]

What's strange is saying that the pre-1998 McLaren was only good enough to allow Mika to take third place finishes, and yet completely ignore the fact that his team-mate WON on two occasions in that less than wonderful car. And to say that the driver finishing 6th in the WC was the better driver than the one who finished 3rd is even more strange.

I've been here before with you many times (usually about Lance Stroll) and not making the same mistake. Feel free to have this argument with yourself.

Edited by messy, 20 October 2022 - 07:56.

[garoidb]

Lotus in 86 was 3 rd in rank . Williams and Mvlaren were better cars. Although with different strenghts.

I never thought Senna did miracles with 86 Lotus. It was a rocket in qualifying, bit thirsty and unreliable, but nevertheless I would never consider it a 2nd rate car.

 

In 1985 Senna had an established team-mate who he beat overall but who also showed the car was somewhat competitive.He then had two seasons without a normal team-mate situation (two inexperienced drivers who were not chosen for maximum performance). Then he, of course, faced Prost at McLaren and the rest is history. If we judge those two seasons at Lotus after 1985 based on how he subsequently did at McLaren then it seems the 86 and 87 Lotus's were comparatively poor but you would expect a driver at Elio's level (let's say Warwick, for example) to have also gained some results with them (so not that poor). 

[BRG]

You're being obtuse, as always. I just watched the 1997 review and mikas engine blew up twice from the lead.

Which makes up for the other 15 failures to win?  

 

Mika also won in 1997 but that obviously doesn't make him match DC. Similarly Ricciardo obviously is smoking Norris in the McLaren, Lando can't even win in a car Danny has comfortably scored a victory in.

Yes, I wasn't going to mention that Coulthard in fact won THREE races in 1997, except he was forced to surrender the final one under team orders to allow his 'exceptional' team-mate finally manage to break his duck.  One of the more shameful of Ron Dennis's decisions.

[Astandahl]

Schumacher with the 96 Ferrari

 

 

 

Leclerc with the SF 1000

 

https://twitter.com/...092683636228099

[Burtros]

Which makes up for the other 15 failures to win?

Yes, I wasn't going to mention that Coulthard in fact won THREE races in 1997, except he was forced to surrender the final one under team orders to allow his 'exceptional' team-mate finally manage to break his duck. One of the more shameful of Ron Dennis's decisions.

DC have won Canada too if he hadn’t pitted just before Panis horrible accident I think!

1997 he was the better of the McLaren pairing. Of course that changed completely from 1998 onwards.

Edited by Burtros, 20 October 2022 - 09:21.

[PlatenGlass]

Yes, I wasn't going to mention that Coulthard in fact won THREE races in 1997, except he was forced to surrender the final one under team orders to allow his 'exceptional' team-mate finally manage to break his duck. One of the more shameful of Ron Dennis's decisions.

Which makes up for the other 14 failures to win?

[messy]

DC have won Canada too if he hadn’t pitted just before Panis horrible accident I think!
1997 he was the better of the McLaren pairing. Of course that changed completely from 1998 onwards.

Hakkinen would have won Silverstone, Austria and probably the Nurburgring but for unreliability, outqualified Coulthard and I think net lost more points to unreliability than DC did. BUT, Coulthard lost a certain win in Canada too, was running just behind Mika at the Nurburgring and had a failure too while the McLarens were running 1-2....

Both of them lost a hell of a lot through the Mercedes engine's habit if grenading itself and I think 1997 was a pretty good year for Coulthard, one where he proved he could flat out beat Mika at time, which ofcourse he proved throughout his time at McLaren.

Give him his dues. But undoubtedly Hakkinen was the better driver of the two. He was the one who went on to become a double World Champion after all. And I do think the signs were there in 1997 even if it wasn't until the following year where Mika really seemed to step up.

Personally, 2001 aside I think 1997 was probably Mika's weakest season at McLaren, and but for reliability it could still have yielded multiple wins on merit as opposed to one slightly dubious one.

[PlatenGlass]

Hakkinen was also the likely winner at Monza until he encountered that Sauber on his in-lap (then I think had some sort of tyre failure anyway). And he was in a better position than Villeneuve at Hungary and would have been the likely inheritor of that win as well with Hill and Frentzen gone.

And if Jerez doesn't count for Hakkinen, it doesn't count for Coulthard either, given that Villeneuve let them go ahead. Coulthard was only ahead anyway because Frentzen backed Hakkinen into him and Coulthard jumped him at the stops.

Edit - But as I said earlier it's not that I'm saying Hakkinen was always better than Coulthard in 1997. Coulthard was better prior to Silverstone.

Edited by PlatenGlass, 20 October 2022 - 10:48.

[Sterzo]

Nuvolari. 1935 Alfa Romeo Tipo B.

 

/END THREAD

[Otaku]

Damon Hill in the 97 Arrows
Damon Hill in the 98 Jordan

Hill is so underrated. He kept Prost & Senna honest at Williams, almost won from Schumacher in '94, won the title against hot shot Villeneuve in '96.
After Mika Hakkinen most likely my favourite F1 driver ever.

Kept Senna honest? You should recheck the performances (which are very few btw)

Edited by Otaku, 21 October 2022 - 00:16.

[William Hunt]

For sure Toni Brise in the Hill (Lola).

[NickeyF1]

Vettel in Toro Rosso in 2007 (third til his 'accident' in Fuji, fourth in Shanghai) and especially in the second half of the 2008 season.

[baggish]

Gilles Villeneuve in the Ferrari 126CK.

[Scaboo22]

JB outqualifying Michael at Imola in 2004 when Michael was driving the best Ferrari F1 car ever made deserves a mention. And actually Jenson's entire 2004 season, BAR had a decent car no doubt, but Jenson was ultra fast and consistent all year.