44 replies to this topic

[silver fan]

First things first, I'm new on this board so hi everyone, and if you haven't guessed I'm something of a Mclaren/Hakkinen fan,oh dear say you.Okay down to business,it's been said over the last four years that the true performance of the Ferrari is best measured by the results of one "Swervin Irvin",something I agree with totally. However the same has never really been said about the Mclaren's, rather it has often been insinuated by large sections of the media that nearly any of the current crop of drivers could be champion in the Mclaren. If that were so then the performance difference between Hakkinen and "Cubehead" rather disproves the point in that few would argue that there is little to separate Irvine and Coulthard in terms of talent, on the track that is, and yet it is invaribly Hakkinen and Schumacher fighting it out at the front with Irvine and Coulthard closely matched behind them. My point beiing that in this common scenario Schumacher is praised for rising above the limitations of the Ferrari, while Hakkinen is in the position to challenge Schumacher only because of the car that he is driving, and yet he more often than not finishes well clear of Irvine and Coulthard. It seems to me that Hakkinen has matured into a driver that can drive and win beyond the perceived limitations of his car.

[theMot]

hello!

I think hakkinen has gotten better as hes gotten older but hes still not as good all round as shume. Ive seen him at least have one or two really good races unlike JV who everyone just loves because he went of the road a few times and smashed. Hey maybe if i smash my car into a wall everyone will love me too! Or maybe if i just have a legend for a father people will try to live his life through mine! Bah

anyway back on topic. I think he is now able to get more out of a machine than anyone except for shumacher. I also think it has alot to do with adrian newey though.

[mono-posto]

Welcome to the board Silver Fan.

I think you'll find that this topic has been debated up and down here!
You'll find die hard Mika fans that will refuse to admit that the superiority of the McLaren has anything to do with Mika's sucess and you'll find die hard Schumacher fans that will argue that it has everything to do with it!

Personally, I'll agree that Mika has developed into an incredible driver and is technically very good and deserves his championships, but I personally like Schueys driving style better. That is not to say that I am a huge Michael fan. I find Ralf, HH Frentzen and Barichello all more enjoyable to support!!!

[Daemon]

In '98 yes, I would say it was the car that helped Mika along to the WDC, although he was still up there with Villeneuve, Schuey and Hill. In '99 Mika proved how good a champion he is with back to back titles. The Ferrari was almost as quick as the Mclaren, and it was shaping up to be the best showdown in a while, but as we all know, Schuey went out at Silverstone. With Schuey gone, Mika didnt show to great in som races, althought had MS been there, the pressure would have been greater and Mika's concentration would have been better. He still came back to show his dominance at Suzuka with that great drive, leading from start to finish....

[Horse]

Mika is a wonderful driver ... he has certainly gained my respect. He certainly has had the car. HOWEVER, he has done something with the car. Look no further than what he's done against DC. He's absolutely wiped the floor with poor old DC. Furthermore, he's put in some marvelous performances, both in races & especially in qualifying & he's got the job done in Suzuka the last couple of years.

In my view, I do not believe he is Schuey's equal ... but he may be close. He certainly does do some things better ... i.e. I think he's a better qualifier & a better starter). Would he have been able to carry Ferrari on his back, bbringing them to the edhge of the title. My guess is no. Conversely, I think Michael may well have been going for WC # 5 this year if he was in a McLAren.

As I indicated in a post of a couple weeks back, I'd like to see the roles reversed this year ... i.e. MS in a bit of a stronger car, MH in a bit of a weaker car & see what happens. I might almost bet that MH would like this scenario to prove the naysayers to his talent wrong.

Bottom line, both are great 2 x WC's and it's gonna be a hell of a fight this year ......is it Friday 11am yet??????????

[foster]

Welcome Silver,
Just between you and me, it's the car.
Just don't tell anyone else.



------------------
CHEERS,
FOSTER

[Keith Steele]

mono-posto summed up what you will get in terms of arguement on this board when it comes down to it. Occasionally a discussion breaks out, but the beliefs are very strong in most cases and hardly ever budge. That being said, We know that Mika is superior to DC. Michael was superior to Irvine. Hill beat out Villeneuve in his rookie year. Hill got beaten by Schumacher. Irvine's first ride in the '96 Ferrari earned him a podium. It has been the second best car on the grid for four years running, and proved to be the best last year. I will of course be chastized for such blasphemy, oh well. Michael broke his leg, so he couldnt take the car to the WDC. Mika brain froze twice and threw away easy victories. What we don't know is how Mika, Michael and Jacques stack up against eachother in 2000. Lots of people are picking Ferrari and perhaps they are right. I personally feel that had Micahel not got injured that Mika would have still been WDC. He performs better when the pressure's on it seems. When Michael was out of the equation he nearly coasted to a second place finish. For that he loses some credibility. But I guess if the debate as to whether Schumi was too upset to be beaten off the line by Irvine is true(Silverstone), than he certainly paid for it didnt he? I don't think anyone in recent memory has not deserved the title. Irvine, had he won it, would have been an undeserving champion in my mind, but that didnt happen. So yes, Mika is defiantely one of the top drivers. And possibly (close your ears Jacques), the best. Great drivers put themselves in winning situations. For the last two years JV has lost points for this. So to answer your question. I wish I knew. Welcome to Atlas.

[IRISH]

The car.

[Todd]

Allow me to give you another perspective. When the car is the best, Mika can win. When it was not, he did not win. That makes him a very good and competent F1 driver. It doesn't make him a real competitor in talent to Michael Schumacher, but being a very good F1 driver is quite a step up from being a very good high school athlete. Mika is probably one of the 10 best active drivers in the world. He is more complete than Jacques Villeneuve, but Jacques seems stronger mentally. It is possible that Mika is a better driver now then he was prior to 1998 just because he has more confidence. It took two arranged wins to achieve, but you can't argue with the result.

I can't resist addressing the quality of the past 4 season's Ferraris. They were not the 2nd best cars on the grid until 1998. In 1996, the Benetton-Renaults designed by Byrne and evolved from the championship winning B195 were certainly the 2nd best cars. Unfortunately, they were squandered on Alesi and Berger. It is still absurd to suggest that frustrated Barnard leap-frogged Benetton while trying to integrate a new engine configuration that he didn't even understand well enough to know it would vibrate more than V12's, V8's, and V6's. Eddie Irvine said the Jordan Puegeot he drove in 1995 was superior to the F310 of '96 and the McLaren-Mercedes MP4/11 was also a solid contender with Ferrari. Just look how Cubehead scored 18 poits in his unreliable McLaren while Mika Hakkinen scored 31 points in his reliable McLaren. It is worth noting that Mika was recovering from his terrible accident at the time and almost certainly would have achieved more in that car any other season. Eddie only scored 11 points in his F310 while Michael had to fight hard to get clear of Alesi in the points by the end of the season. The F310 being the 2nd best car of '96 is one of those statements that just makes me wonder how people avoid learning about a subject they're obviously interested in.

The '97 Ferrari F310b was conceptually flawed by Bernard, once again. It had the benefit of being developed by the rather more contemporary Rory Byrne once the season began. Byrne still lamented over the far-superior B197 he designed for Benetton before he left, but he did what he could with the F310b until they gave up trying to fix it at Monza. It had too little potential and too many inherent flaws to make any more progress without an entirely new concept. Over the course of the season, the ranking for car quality was Williams, Benetton, McLaren, and then Ferrari. Doubters of the McLaren ranking can try explaining David Coulthard's two wins or all the races it lead. The Jordan challenged too and the combination of Bridgestone and Panis was formidable before his wreck.

In 1998 the first Byrne Ferrari was clearly the 2nd best car. That would have been enough, but unfortunately it also had the 2nd best tires in an field of two.

The 1999 Ferrari was a good car in that Eddie's was reliable. It was nothing like as fast as the Newey-McLaren-Illmor, which is an important quality for any racing car. It also let Schumacher down when it mattered most and cost him the chance at competing. That hardly makes for the season's best car in my book. The reason it won the WCC comes down to McLaren making more mistakes during the races and Ferrari having Schumacher and Salo as second drivers against McLaren's pitiful David Coulthard.

[Keith Steele]

1996
Ferrari
rd 1 Irvine 3rd Schumacher retired
Benetton
rd 1 Berger 4th Alesi crash

Ferrari
rd 2 Irvine 7th Schumacher 3rd
Benetton
rd 2 Berger retired Alesi 2nd

Ferrari
rd 3 Irvine 5th Schumacher broken wing
Benetton
rd 3 Berger 4th Alesi 3rd

Ferrari
rd 4 Irvine retired Schumacher 2nd
Benetton
rd 4 Berger 9th Alesi crash

Ferrari
rd 5 Irvine 4th Schumacher 2nd
Benetton
rd 5 Berger 3rd Alesi 6th

Ferrari
rd 6 Irvine 7th Schumacher spun off
Benetton
rd 6 Berger retired Alesi retired

Ferrari
rd 7 Irvine spun off Schumacher 1st
Benetton
rd 7 Berger spun off Alesi 2nd

Ferrari
rd 8 Irvine retired Schumacher retired
Benetton
rd 8 Berger spun off Alesi 3rd

Ferrari
rd 9 Irvine retired Schumacher retired
Benetton
rd 9 Berger 4th Alesi 3rd

Ferrari
rd 10 Irvine retired Schumacher retired
Benetton
rd 10 Berger 2nd Alesi retired

Ferrari
rd 11 Irvine retired Schumacher 4th
Benetton
rd 11 Berger 13th Alesi 2nd

Ferrari
rd 12 Irvine retired Schumacher 9th
Benetton
rd 12 Berger retired Alesi 3rd

Ferrari
rd 13 Irvine retired Schumacher 1st
Benetton
rd 13 Berger 6th Alesi 4th

Ferrari
rd 14 Irvine spun off Schumacher 1st
Benetton
rd 14 Berger retired Alesi 2nd

Ferrari
rd 15 Irvine 5th Schumacher 3rd
Benetton
rd 15 Berger 6th Alesi 4th

Ferrari
rd 16 Irvine crash Schumacher 2nd
Benetton
rd 16 Berger 4th Alesi spun off

retired meaning a mechanical error.

Pole pos.
Ferrari 4
Benetton 0

Fastest Laps
Ferrari 2
Benetton 3

Season Points
Ferrari 70
Schumacher 59
Irvine 11
Benetton 68
Alesi 47
Berger 21

We will have to agree to disagree Todd. The Ferrari had a bad string rounds 8-10. But it was certainly not worse than the Benetton and if you'd care to do the McLaren analysis knock yourself out. Its laughable.

[man from martinlaakso]

I think, that in Mika's case the car means 80% and the driver 20%. That is a common ratio. If Mika would drive a Minardi, we would not talk about super-Mika. However, as a driver he is at the same level as Schumey. JV is very close and HHF and RB might rise to the same level, but they are not thre yet.

[Nikolas Garth]

Keith,
How do you come to the conclusion that the Ferrari was better than the Benetton, when Eddie gets outscored by Alesi, 4 to 1????

[GoAlesi]

Obviously Alesi is faster than Irvine by far!

[Franco]

Todd you ignorant fool, how can you say with a straight face that Ferrari wasnt the (at least!) the second best car in 97!? It was very much on par with the Williams throughout the season, and you even dare say the Benetton 97 and McLaren 97 was better!! Geesh talk about not been biased towards Schumacher! In 98 and especially 99 they qualified many times in front of the Macs, especially towards the end of the season. Ferrari have been AT LEAST the second best since 97 (IF NOT EQUAL), and in 98 and 99 they were at least EQUAL IF NOT SUPERIOR towards the end of the season. Anyways if you insist they werent so good then I wont argue anymore, I guess you must be convinced Ferrari suck big time!!! Well for all the money they spend yes they do!!!


[This message has been edited by Franco (edited 03-07-2000).]

[Toxicant]

Being faster doesn't seem to have as much meaning anymore. Look at how "fast" Alesi is, we hear all the time how "fast" Rubens is but neither one have been able to turn this raw speed into results.

I find it amusing how some here will degrade DC but infact there have been many times that he and Mika are the ones fighting for the pole. Mika coming out on top by the smallest margin in many cases. It is a known fact that McLaren has put everything behind Mika, he is and has been the number one driver for years.

So keeping this in mind, there are not many on here that say DC is a "fast" driver but having the second tier car he is able, many times to come very close or beat Mika.

From this we should conclude either DC is a far better driver then he is given credit for or Mika's success is based solely on his car being faster then the rest of the grid and better prepared then his teammates.

I don't think there is any question about the status of DC's car, it fails quite often and I'd say it maybe equal to Mika's at times but more often it is second tier.

DC has had the best car under his ass for quite sometime but it has always been the number two car. Considering how close he has been to his teammates over the years I would say that DC, Damon and Mika are all about the same.

Who ever has the number one seat in the fastest car wins the championship.

Tox!

[J]

Todd,

Excellent, well thought out post. I beg to differ with some of your conclusions, and hopefully will have enough time tomorrow to reply in full.

J

[Nuno]

In short : Cry-Baby's 1998 and 1999 drivers championships were won BY THE CAR ( like Hill in 1996 and Villeneuve in 1997 ).

[mono-posto]

See what I mean!

------------------
"If I had to live my life over again, I'd be a plumber."
-Albert Einstien

[This message has been edited by mono-posto (edited 03-07-2000).]

[Bob Nomates]

I personaly don't think that Mika would have the strengh of personality to build up a team like Ferrari like Schumacher has done.
I don't think that he comes across as the sort of person that insires people to work hard for him, to be a top driver I think you have to come across as some sort of God.
In short you not only have to be a good driver but a good charater too.

I don't think Irvine learn't too much about driving from Schumacher, but I think he learn't some lessons about how to motivate the team.

Mika hasn't got the personality to be extra special like Micheal....It's definately the car in Mika's case.

[SpaRCo]

Todd you really are a joke saying the 97 ferrari was 4th best.

It was second best and near the end it was pretty much equal.

Look at irvines performances,he was ahead of hakkinen and coultard on most occasions.

So if the ferrarri was the 4th best,irvine must be superiour to hakkinen right?

Fact is on a few tracks the mclaren was fast
on the others it wasnt at all.

You are really dumb if u think the ferrri was the 4th best car .

[130R]

Welcome SilverFan, watch out for Todd, he hates McLaren and absolutely despises Ron Dennis. But he makes an excellent debater and is a valuable member to the board.

Anyway, my two cents: I have heard many F1 drivers claim themselves that winning is mostly up to the car. How much, I don't know. Driver skill, tactics and luck fill in the equation.

One thing is certain, a driver can make the difference. It is rare, but it can happen in combination with luck. For example, last year, prior to his broken leg, MS was in the hunt because a) he is worth 2/10ths over Hakk and the McLaren was unreliable/off the road. But it took both MS and luck.

IMHO Again, welcome!

[Keith Steele]

Nik, the same way I reason that Schumacher outscored Berger 3-1. Irvine finished 6 races to Bergers 10. MS also completed 10 races. Alesi completed 11 races. So you tell me how 16 beats 21?

Almost forgot,
Race wins
Ferrari 3
Benetton 0

[Nikolas Garth]

Hmmmm, not sure how to break this to you Keith, but Schumacher is a lot better than Berger or Alesi.

If you think that Schumacher in supposedly a better car, would only finish 12 points ahead of Alesi, well ................

[This message has been edited by Nikolas Garth (edited 03-07-2000).]

[Todd]

There have been two powerhouse teams during the past 20 years of Formula 1. Michael Schumacher has driven for neither of them. Since he started driving, McLaren has won 30 grands prix that Michael started. Williams won 53. That is 83 races to the dominant teams of the 80's and 90's. Of the 46 races Michael took part in that were won by non-McLaren/Williams drivers, Michael Schumacher won 35 races. His teammates accounted for 4 race wins in his 128 starts and 7 races were won by the combined might of Ferrari, Jordan, Benetton, Prost/Ligier, and Stewart/Jaguar.

Keith,

You seem to want it both ways. You want to compare Alesi and Berger's results to Schumacher's to prove his Ferrari was better than their Benetton, but Michael was driving a less powerful car designed by the same guy who drew the car they failed miserably with in '94 and '95. Are you saying that Barnard revitalized his career in '96 while Rory Byrne designed two crappy Benetton's in '96 and '97 only to replace Barnard at Ferrari and remember how to design cars again? I'm sorry, but the only consistent truths of the decade have been that Michael and Newey are great and Byrne has been very good and Alesi achieved less then he should have every season.

[Laphroaig]

Comparing cars is always difficult, cause you can bend it 2 ways...

"Ferrari 99 was worse than the McLaren 99, even in the end, look at Malaysia, ok, they were ahead in qualifying, but the Macs were faster in the race, Hakk just couldn't get round Schum."
"McLaren 99 was worse than the Ferrari 99, look at qualifying and they race, McLaren couldn't get passed!"

Ok.. then we change the comparison a bit "Ferrari/McLaren were supperior on most circuits!"
and so on, and so on...

Anyways... that's the eternal debate, and because of that this BB is still fun!
As for my opinion? I think Schummacher can 'add' more to a car than Hakkinen. But that's (almost) always untestable! (only Senna/Prost tested it one, and we all know how that ended ;) )

[Keith Steele]

Nik, lemme try this one last time. Michael beat Alesi by 12 points finishing one less race. MS is clearly better than the two Benetton drivers, but if you think that Michael is three times and then some the driver Berger was in 96, than I shall have to refrain from reading your posts. Where I have no doubt that Alesi was 4 times the driver Irvine was. Underachiever?!?
Alesi is still possibly a better driver than Irvine.

Todd, I honestly don't care who penned which car for the sake of this discussion. The results are what motivate my beliefs. At a quick glance of 97, the Benetton looks like it may be stronger than it was in 96 relative to the rest of the field. When I have time I'll post McLaren, Ferrari and Benetton for 1997. One thing is certain for 1997. Ferrari was a one car team. Irvine was again able to finish few races.

[Grano]

In short : Cry-Baby's 1998 and 1999 drivers championships were won BY THE CAR ( like Hill in 1996 and Villeneuve in 1997 ).

Wow once again Nuno shows what a fantastic contributor he is to this board! Aren´t we all lucky to have him aboard? His posts are always so wonderfully thought through and never offencive in any way. Nuno I applaud you!


Back to trying to discuss with people who are worth the effort of try and talk too.

It is worth noting that Mika was recovering from his terrible accident at the time and almost certainly would have achieved more in that car any other season.

Todd if we are discussing if Häkkinens success comes from the car or his driving skill isn´t the fact that he couldn´t perform better that year because he was recovering from injury the most valid point you can make of that year when looking to his performance? Ignoring that is like just looking at the final points from 99 and say that Irvine performed better than Schumacher because he had more points and not taking into account the fact that Schumacher was out injured for a great part of the season. As for Irvine only scoring 11 points, well the fact that he only finished something like five races might to have something to do with that.

Doubters of the McLaren ranking can try explaining David Coulthard's two wins or all the races it lead.

Well look at the last part of that quote and you might get a clue to way Häkkinen scored so few points that year. Noone is debating that the MacLaren wasn´t fast towards the end of that season but just look at all the races in which it selfdestructed when Häkkinen was going for good points finishes and wins. If the basis of your argument about Häkkinens wins only being because of the car you must also adress why he didn´t win the years he didn´t.

After all this it is also quite clear that Häkkinen now is a better driver than he was at his early MacLaren years. In my opinion he is up there with Schumacher contending for the title as the best driver out there today, I´m sure more of you will come to this conclusion in a few years time too. So his championships are just as much dependent of the car that anyone elses, inlcuding Schumachers, are. The fact is that noone will win the championship in a car that is not one of the best.




[This message has been edited by Grano (edited 03-07-2000).]

[Makarias]

Nice typo in the end there, Grano!

[Nikolas Garth]

Keith,
Is it just a coincidence that Alesi scored more points in the 96 Benetton, than in any other year in any other car????

My rationale for choosing Alesi over Berger for comparison purposes, has a lot to do with Berger being 37 in 1996 and winding down his career.

Also keep in mind that in 96, two of Alesi's non finishes, involved him in crash's with other drivers. Admittedly I don't know who was at fault in those incidents, but I would be surprised if Alesi was not to blame in at least 1 incident.

Also, Alesi hit the barrier once, as did Schumacher. So in terms of their respective DNF's.

Alesi had 2 pure mechanical DNF's, 3 other DNF's that involved crashes with other drivers and the barrier.

Schumacher had 5 pure mechanical DNF's, and 1 other with the barrier.

So in assessing who had the best car of the two in 96, are you going to totally disregard the reliability factor in determining who had the better car.

Don't you find it odd that Ferrari dumped a guy(Banard) who supposedly made them a better car than the Benetton, and hired the Benetton designers???

[This message has been edited by Nikolas Garth (edited 03-07-2000).]

[Makarias]

Todd btw, I wrote a reply to you on this thread: http://www.atlasf1.c...TML/006522.html some time ago, and I think you might have missed that. It might go as a reply on this thread too.

All good people (and bad ones too), show how knowledgeable you really are! How? When? Where? At
http://www.atlasf1.c...TML/006689.html
of course!

[Grano]

Nag nag nag mak ;) Well I fixed the typo now!

[Keith Steele]

Nik using your logic Heinz Harald Frentzen scored 54 points last year in the Jordan. In 1997 he scored 42 for the "dominate" Williams. Are you saying last years Jordan was better relative to the rest of the field than the Williams in 97?

Without knowing the cause of the accident, I can come back and easily say, the car's must have had poor drivability, which is why he crashed it twice as many times as Irvine/Schumacher crashed his. Sounds pretty absurd doenst it?

I stated that Ferrari had a rough go of it races 8-10. But if Irvine hadnt have spun off twice and crashed etc... If, if, if.

So reliability of couse means alot. Ferrari finished 5 races less. But still scored more points. So as much as reliability plays a part so too does how you place when you finish, winning three races to the opponents 0.

[Nikolas Garth]

Keith,
It was pretty obvious that HHF was suffering from a form of mental abuse by Patrick ******** and co. Also he was the No.2 driver. With Jordan, he was not abused and was after a few races the No.1 driver. His points tally was also boosted by Schumacher's absence, Alesi had no such luck in 96.

Besides the fact that it destroys your argument, why don't you give some theory behind why the "superior" car designer Banard was shown the door, and replaced by the "inferior" car designers of Benetton??????

Do you really think that the 96 Ferrari with its first generation V10 engine and the "superior" but given the arse, designer Banard, was better than the 96 Benetton with the all conquering Renault V10 and Brawn and Byrne???????

Methinks you are in denial.

[Keith Steele]

oh puhlease, mental abuse? More unfounded claims. You and nobody else on this BB knows what stresses a driver faces. I personally have no idea why Ferrari hires who they do. Lucky you, privy to such information. If I had to guess, it would be because it was Michael's team. We are speculating about second best here. Not best! Obviously Ferrari brought in the people who MS was comfortable with and who had won the championship with. Not had the second best car on the grid with. Benetton had five more chances to win than Ferrari did in 1996 and they did not pull it off. More if you include that Alesi put it in the wall. Alesi had three chances to score points when Michael was out of the race in 96, each time scoring a podium.

[Todd]

Keith,

So basically the ONLY reason you think the Ferrari of '96 was superior to the Benetton of '96 was because Michael Schumacher did more with it then Alesi and Berger did with the Benetton. You also think that Barnard's V10 Ferraris were second best while Byrne's Renaults of '96 and '97 were no better then third. Then, when Byrne came to Ferrari, Rory designed a better car even though he didn't have 12 years in the same environment and the best engine, as he did when he penned the Benetton B197. There is nothing unsubstantiated about the relative strengths of these designs. The only mystery is whether you're trying to preserve an iflated opinion of Jacques Villeneuve or Jean Alesi with these rationalizations.

------------------
Forza Michael Schumacher,
Todd

[This message has been edited by Todd (edited 03-07-2000).]

[Peeko]

Which of the 2 cars (F310, F310B) was it that Michael didn't want? He has a collection of each car he has ever driven in F1, but did not want one of these 2, because it was pathetic...

[Keith Steele]

Todd, have you ever worked at a job that you liked well enough and stayed on for several years. Then, one day, one of your buddies leaves. He finds the grass is greener at the new place and tells you to come with him. It happens in the restaurant buisness all the time. Sometimes a chef will take a whole crew with him leaving the old place in a shamble. So since much is speculation here anyway. Is it really beyond the realm of possibility to think that Rory didnt pen the best design because he knew full well he'd be leaving to join MS? How strong was the Benetton after Rory left again? One surely wouldnt want the team they just left to be better than the team they are going to. If you don't think that kind of stuff happens with huge amounts of dollars on the line than you're living in a fairy tale. As you know my loyalties rest with Jacques but I see where that has little to do with what's being discussed here. Alesi, I can take or leave, he was certainly impressive in the Tyrrell. I have simply stated the 1996 Ferrari was a better car than all but the Williams. You can disagree all you want. The fact remains it was a car very much capable of winning races. The Benetton was also as shown by the fact it scored several podiums. If you choose to believe that Michael ressurected a beast from the dead, than by all means believe it. I disagree. I think it was a better car and have given several reasons as to why I think so. Michael is great, but how can he smoke Berger so when the Renault was so much better? Honestly? Gotta be the car G.

[614david]

Silver- welcome to the board, i too support McLaren, though i do support their other driver, David Coulthard, i do however, also like Mika Hakkinen!!
I don't think this question is easily answered to be honest. There are situations to be taken into consideration. There are times when, without a doubt, Mika has had the best car and has had to put relatively little effort into the race, other than keeping going. Take San Marino as a classic example- The car is so damn good that Mika gets into a comfort zone, and loses so much concentration through knowing that nobody can touch his car, lets it slide into a barrior!! Then there are situations such as Canada, where the car doesn't do ALL of the work for Mika, but is a very important factor, in his winning, Then we have Belgium, where Mika's car seems to be a bit of a dog, and knowing that it isn't as good as his teammates, he grabs a hold of it by the throat and strangles it until it guarentees him second place.
The situation that a driver is in, is high up on the list of factors that allow a driver to win. Mika Hakkinen does have an excellent car beneath him, but a good car is useless without a good driver to get the most out of it, and Mika is very good at getting the most out of his car!!
Sometimes, the car is so good that Mika's hard work in other races is rewarded and he can take it SLIGHTLY easier, with the knowledge that if he needs to pull away from another driver the car is capable of it.
Other times, the car isn't so good, but Mika has an ability to find something good about it, work on it, and get the car onto the front row.
So to (eventually) answer your question Silver, i think it is a combination of the car and Hakkinens best efforts and ability, that make him what he is- Double world champion. There is another factor though- the team, Mika has the full support of a brilliant team behind him, and that has got to be a boost to him.

[RaggedEdge]

Surely Mika needed those WCC No.1 and WCC No. 2 cars in 1998-99 to win those double WDCs. In doing so, however, he is the only multiple world champion to always triump when given car capable of winning championship. None of Prost, Schumacher, Senna or Fangio did that - all of them have "wasted" at least one chance while drinving WCC No.1 or No.2 car.

Moral of the story: make most of your WDC opportunities, they do not come often your way.

Moral of the story2: yes, it is the car, but even if you have the car to do it, you still have to do it.

[Todd]

Ragged,

The difference is, Michael made some of those cars into #2 WCC finishers. Has Mika ever elevated a car in the constructor's order? The F310 and F310b wouldn't have made it to #2 in the constructors' without Schumacher. Does Mika have an accomplishment to match that? Only DC has failed to win a WDC in a Newey car, of the last 5 drivers to spend at least a full season in one. That is not very special for anyone but Adrian Newey.

[theMot]

35 wins

[Mila]

silver fan, welcome. I'm a MH fan--he could be in a Minardi (or should I say BAR) and I would still root for him.

anyway, it's worth noting that your questions prompt comparisons to MS--the driver commonly regarded as the best--rather than to his teammates. I take that as a good sign for MH.

for me, Toxicant, if MH is getting (secretive) number 1 treatment at Mclaren, it's for good reason--he has pretty consistently out-performed his teammates. here I am thinking of not only in terms of raw speed (however slim his advantage might be), but also in terms of driver errors. if MH had performed as had his teammates, we wouldn't be asking these questions, because he wouldn't be winning WDCs. if there is another reason for favoritism, it's MH's loyalty to Mclaren. (now, to read between the lines from the end of 99, when MH started to pit Ford/Jaguar money against Mercedes money for the 2000 season, Ron called the Finn's bluff. MH pouted at Spa, cried at Monza, and flaked out at the Nurburgring, because--at least in part--he wasn't getting the customary support. that is, the pressure felt by the Finn had less to do with EI and Ferrari and everything to do with Ron and Mclaren. "playing hardball" for once, MH had to grow-up at the end of 99, and fast, in order to retain the title.)

Bob Nomates, you point about MS's ability to rally the troops is well taken. he has obviously drawn the gifted towards him, as well as inspires the people around him to attain new levels of talent. it was funny to hear Berger's incredulous claim that MS in 96 was reaping the benefits of the hard work he and Alesi put in at Ferrari.

Todd, I'm pretty much with you on your initial comments. one thing you touched on I've wondered about for some time, though. it seems that many of us have taken for granted that, as a result of Jerez 97 and Melbourne 98, the confidence levels of DC and MH went opposite ways. but let's think about this. before these GPs, the Finn, not for lack of ability, had not scored a single victory in some 90 attempts. sure the two wins seem fine stat-wise, but why should he have come away feeling good about his performances? I would think that the circumstances of these two wins would have, if anything, brought about more damage than good. as for DC, why should his self-belief suffer, particularly from Jerez, since he was running ahead of MH? at the end of 97, wouldn't he have assured himself in thinking that MH needed the team's aid to better him?

[Todd]

Mila,

This is pure suposition, but do you think he could have felt jinxed by his near misses? Maybe he was starting to think that he would never win a race. Then he got to climb the podium a couple times and he lost that sense of futiility. Perhaps, ESPECIALLY because a win that he would have missed for a silly mistake(his or the teams, it doesn't really matter) was restored to him by team orders.

[RaggedEdge]

Todd, about Mika elevating his team. Perhaps one could look at McLaren picking up Mercedes engine from Sauber which scored 11 points in 1994 and with the help of Mika's developing ability, McLaren was in 1997 a fast but very unreliable car (No. 4 in WCC), but scored the jackpot in 1998 (No. 1 in WCC), and levelled off in 1999 (No. 2 in WCC). Surely that is a nice upward path.

About Newey champions - HHF did not win WDC in a Newey car. He barely won one race.

We will see this year, perhaps the Newey myth is broken by Byrne.

[Daemon]

Ragged - as for Mika and Mclaren developing the Mercedes to a race winner, whereas Sauber could not. Ah, well, Mclaren have 10 times the money that Sauber do. Not hard with the best organised and run teams on the grid. Its like saying that Williams can develop the BMW better than Arrows. Really?

Oh, and as to H²F not winning in a Newey car. JV did, and I know for a fact that H²F never got the equipment or info that JV said. The same person said that JV has had more prefferential treatment than any other F1 driver in recent years. BTW, wonder how Jax would have done in a Jordan. No better than H²F thats for sure. Senna was the one who recommended H²F to Frank Williams.

No, the only one incapable of winnng races in a Newey car (except for when you tap your teammate wide at the first corner, or he breaks down) is Mr Coulthard.

[This message has been edited by Daemon (edited 03-08-2000).]