256 replies to this topic

[Arrow]

I think he might be.
i cant think of another driver whos abilities have been so misjudged and overestimated.
This is a driver who came AND WENT with the best car,yet somehow managed to garner a reputation of stupendous speed and seemingly convince everyone he was one of the top drivers of recent times.

What a joke.
This is a driver who could not best johnny herbert for 2 seasons.

This is a driver who was for the first 7 years of his F1 career was ANONUMOUS, did not lead a race,set a pole or fastest lap!

A driver who only got noticed in the best car and was forgotten without it.

This all of course happened pre 98 which it seems many seem to forget or ignore was a part of his career.

I always found it interesting how DC used to be drawn "up" to mikas level when really mika should of been drawn down to DCs level.
The precdent had been set in the years before their time together.
Mika had established himself as nothing more than a swift gridfiller and DC had established himself himself as no more than a match for Damon and more importantly he had been THRASHED by michael in 94/95 despite having a superior car.
Now how out of all this did many come to the conclusion that mika was as fast or faster than michael schumacher?
Exaclty what kind of bent logic is as work here

Surely a driver of such supreme speed should of been able to elevate his car beyond its deserved position yet the mclarens of the mid 90s stayed in 4th place where they rightfully belonged on merit.

Mika not being more than a hair faster than DC should of relegated his speed not elevated Couthards.

There is no better illustration of mikas unspectacular speed than the fact that he made his team-mate david coutlhard look fast ,as opposed to making him look slow which is what all the real fast men of the sport have done to their team-mates and what michael has made a career of.
Michael wrecked reputations,Mika inflated them.

His rightful place in history should be next to the hills and villeneuves.
Mika is overrated.
It pays to be a nice guy i guess.:/

[Moanaman]

Im going to enjoy this one....

/ me sits back and orders a large vodka.

[Get Sirius]

biggest Fraud ever?

Yeah, right. :

Next!

[NickeF1]

Well he outqualified Senna in his first race with McLaren.

[flyingfin]

personally i don't agree with the whole thing about mika being an 'overly hyped' racer. he sure deserved his position at McLaren and sure lived upto it. when motivated no one can't beat him...u can't blame him just because he had a good car and performed better than his team mate.

[lukywill]

in the old days of hakkinen at lotus he was on pair with herbert.
herbert was a very good driver.

[LuckyStrike1]

Originally posted by flyingfin
u can't blame him just because he had a good car and performed better than his team mate.

A lot of people blame Hill, Coulthard and Villeneuve based on that ...

[Romulus]

Oh joy

[confucius]

I think most of us already know of Arrow's issues with Mika, there was really no need for this thread.

I don't post much around here, because while I more than believe in each person having a right to an opinion, the armchair "experting" gets a bit tiring.

But....I don't see anything wrong with being rated with Hill or Villeneuve to be honest

[Riker!]

Hey arrow im with ya man I wholeheartdly agree. I remember back when people had the BEST 10 drivers EVER list and Mika was in most but people like Jack Brabham etc werent.

[Tomecek]

Ehm, it's nothing new that Mika was 100% driver only when his car was also 100%, otherwise he was without motivation and did not perform for 100% (Adrian Newey said that). Which is not sign of excelent driver.

But he had good sense of humor

[WACKO]

Originally posted by Arrow
I think he might be.
i cant think of another driver whos abilities have been so misjudged and overestimated.
This is a driver who came AND WENT with the best car,yet somehow managed to garner a reputation of stupendous speed and seemingly convince everyone he was one of the top drivers of recent times.

I think this really doesn't make sense. I have not been a Hakkinen fan, but he has definitely proved himself as a worthy world champion. He was the strong competitor ever for Michael Schumacher and did a fantastic job winning the 1998 season and with a numerous pole position streak he was after all the right champion of 1999. That he has struggled in the early phase of his carreer, who cares? At least it means that he has made definite progress as a driver and that is not something to be ashamed of. The same so for Nigel Mansell, who is by many rated very highly.

Of course both were helped by a very strong car, but when they had it they really peaked. There have been drivers that had the same car that didn't particularly impress despite taking the glory (remember 1996 for example )

[maclaren]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tomecek
Ehm, it's nothing new that Mika was 100% driver only when his car was also 100%, otherwise he was without motivation and did not perform for 100% (Adrian Newey said that). Which is not sign of excelent driver.[/QUOTE]
Ermmm you started watching in 2001 right? By the way, if car is not 100% the it's not physically possible to drive it as fast as if it was 100%. If it was, you would not be in limit when car is 100%.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Arrow
This is a driver who could not best johnny herbert for 2 seasons.[/quote]
Have a look in the points standings and come back then

[quote]This is a driver who was for the first 7 years of his F1 career was ANONUMOUS, did not lead a race,set a pole or fastest lap!

A driver who only got noticed in the best car and was forgotten without it.

This all of course happened pre 98 which it seems many seem to forget or ignore was a part of his career.
Bettering every teammate doesn't count?
[quote]Now how out of all this did many come to the conclusion that mika was as fast or faster than michael schumacher?
Exaclty what kind of bent logic is as work here [/quote]
They bettered Marting Brundle by same marigin?
[quote]Mika not being more than a hair faster than DC should of relegated his speed not elevated Couthards.[/b][/quote]
Winning 2 world championships, and being little faster than Coulthard (who was able to equalize another world champion) is not an indication of speed?

By the way, if you wonder why Michael was so much faster than Herbert, he had great lack of support and wasn't allowed to use Michaels setup, where was already 90% of attention.

[HSJ]

Arrow, the reason you're having problems with rating drivers properly is that you rely almost solely on team-mate comparisons. You rate the cars based on the drivers and the drivers based on team-mate comparisons. Nothing unusual there, most people do it exactly like that, but just like most people you then run into paradoxes and what not with it. That's why I try to rely as little as possible on that method nowadays.

Certainly it seems to be true that MH was never a driver to give his all, or more, when he felt his car wasn't on par with the others. But when MH had a car on par with the others there was nobody faster than him, not even Michael.

According to Forix, in 1991 qual went to Herbert 5-3. In 1992 qual went to Herbert 9-7. Notice the change in ratios from 91 to 92. Herbert was also getting #1 treatment in the team (don't ask about the details, I don't remember them anymore, but they did include stuff like a better engine). MH did outscore JH 2-0 in 1991, and 11-2 in 1992.

Anyway, that was merely the start of MH's F1 career. Prior to that he was faster and better than MS in F3, for example, outqualifying MS on MS's backyard (Hockenheim) by about 1 sec on his first F3 race there (he'd visited the track once in FOpel though). There was also little doubt which was the better driver in Macau, dirty tricks aside.

You might also be interested in MH-Brundle and MS-Brundle comparisons. In 1992 MS outqualified Brundle 16-0. Impressive. But then, in 1994 MH did virtually the same: 15-0.

However, like I said, I'm not too inclined to rate the drivers with such stats. Instead I look what a driver does with the car he has. The first time MH had a car in the same class as MS's car, in 1998, MH won. Of course the McLaren+Bstone was better than the Ferrari+GY. In 1999, as long as MS was still in the hunt, MH lead the WDC with the cars being quite closely matched by then. In 2000 MS's Ferrari had a 10+ hp advantage and better aero, the cars being pretty equal in other respects. The title went to the penultimate round, with MH having the worst luck with reliability of all the McLaren and Ferrari drivers, while MS had the best luck. (I say luck because reliability of the cars is mostly out of the drivers' hands these days.)

Then there were the seasons besides 98-00 during which MH didn't have such a great car, and it did indeed show in his determination, commitment, and motivation.

So while I'm not claiming that MH ranks as an equal to MS, there's little reason to think that he's a fraud. Without doubt he runs MS close in terms of ability; at peak level he was beyond MS in fact, but faltered in his ability to keep it going when the going got tougher.

[Amir_S]

Originally posted by Arrow
I think he might be.
i cant think of another driver whos abilities have been so misjudged and overestimated.
This is a driver who came AND WENT with the best car,yet somehow managed to garner a reputation of stupendous speed and seemingly convince everyone he was one of the top drivers of recent times.

What a joke.
This is a driver who could not best johnny herbert for 2 seasons.

This is a driver who was for the first 7 years of his F1 career was ANONUMOUS, did not lead a race,set a pole or fastest lap!

A driver who only got noticed in the best car and was forgotten without it.

This all of course happened pre 98 which it seems many seem to forget or ignore was a part of his career.

I always found it interesting how DC used to be drawn "up" to mikas level when really mika should of been drawn down to DCs level.
The precdent had been set in the years before their time together.
Mika had established himself as nothing more than a swift gridfiller and DC had established himself himself as no more than a match for Damon and more importantly he had been THRASHED by michael in 94/95 despite having a superior car.
Now how out of all this did many come to the conclusion that mika was as fast or faster than michael schumacher?
Exaclty what kind of bent logic is as work here

Surely a driver of such supreme speed should of been able to elevate his car beyond its deserved position yet the mclarens of the mid 90s stayed in 4th place where they rightfully belonged on merit.

Mika not being more than a hair faster than DC should of relegated his speed not elevated Couthards.

There is no better illustration of mikas unspectacular speed than the fact that he made his team-mate david coutlhard look fast ,as opposed to making him look slow which is what all the real fast men of the sport have done to their team-mates and what michael has made a career of.
Michael wrecked reputations,Mika inflated them.

His rightful place in history should be next to the hills and villeneuves.
Mika is overrated.
It pays to be a nice guy i guess.:/

I have to disagree. I think that Mika was a much better driver than Villeneuve and Hill. He was to Michael to some degree what Prost was to Senna. However I can agree with you on one point. Mikas qualifying speed was overestimated. Fact was that he started to bag poles only when he got the best car in 98. In 2000 he got beaten in qualifying easily by Michael. The same Michael that poled 4 times with the 96 Ferrari. Mika never poled with such equipment and yet he was hailed as a better qualifier than Michael based on his preformances in 98 and 99 which was totally wrong in my opinion.

[speedy]

This flame bait thread is in line with Arrow's attacks against the person of Mika Häkkinen.
I think MH only performed below par in 2001 when Mclaren was 2nd in WCC table and MH himself was 5th. Well that was his last year and you could see that he was already unmotivated.

96 Mclaren was 4th, MH was 5th
97 Mclaren was 4th, MH was 6th
98 Mclaren was 1st. MH was 1st
99 Mclaren was 2nd, MH was 1st
00 Mclaren was 2nd, MH was 2nd
01 Mclaren was 2nd, MH was 5th

That looks ok to me at least.

The driver that you worship has not performed any better despite sitting in a car that has been 2nd best in WCC two years in a row. Somehow he has not managed to perform better than the car enables. Is he becoming the biggest fraud ever in F1 ? Last year he even lost to a junior driver who managed to take championship to the wire with a car that was only 3rd in WCC tables.

Everyone is entitled to his opinion, however unlogical it may be ;)

[davegp3]

Please Arrow, go home and take your pills

[Ross Stonefeld]

Very fast driver, sadly nothing more.

[Vilenova]

Definetly worthy of a flame bait thread award of some kind.

While not being a fan of Mika, even a lowly JV fan like myself can acknowledge this guys speed. Not to mention his legendary post race interviews. I think I looked forward to those more than the race.
But he was one of the few to be able to give MS a run during qualifying. (back when qualifying actually meant something)

[logic]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
Very fast driver, sadly nothing more.

Why sadly?

[LuckyStrike1]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
Very fast driver, sadly nothing more.

You forgot two WDC-titles, back-to-back. I'd say he was bit more than ony fast.

[skinnylizard]

i thought Mika was spectacular 98-99. but i never thought he was great or a fraud. i agree with most of what Arrow says regarding him being an also ran for most of his career except when he recieved a car which was head and shoulders above. then when things got bad again..boom he was gone.
not an indictment of the guy. he is still rated to be pretty quick but he just wasnt THE talent right from the start.
and outqualifying Senna once dosent make you a great.
xxx
g

[hedges]

Originally posted by maclaren
By the way, if you wonder why Michael was so much faster than Herbert, he had great lack of support and wasn't allowed to use Michaels setup, where was already 90% of attention.

Firstly I don't agree with Arrow but I get sick of hearing the Herbet didn't have MS data crap. Herbet himself has said while MS did not share his data his own engineer would pull up the data after MS left the garage. While I think it was pretty childish of MS to do it, it did not effect Herbet in terms of knowing MS telemetry or setting up of his own car. Hell, the supposed argument for MS denying Herbet his data was that Herbets setups were superior in the first place.

Further more this lack of support and 90% of the attention is also rubbish. Everyone at the factories are working for both drivers, they have no idea who will end up with which part. The drivers have their own team of mechanics striveing to do the best for their driver. This is amply demonstrated by MS incorporating some of Eddies crew after he left for Jag. Drivers generally get to choose their own tyres, setups and strategies. So where is the lack of support?

As to the topic I think MH was one of those drivers who really shines when the car is working for him but perhaps wasn't able to adapt that style to get the best out of a car when it wasn't to his likeing. While it can be taken into account this does not in any way take away from his ultimate speed or his worthiness as a WDC in my opinion. Drivers have different strengths and weaknesses and I fail to see how Mikas speed and ability to get an extra tenth or so in a well balanced car is less important as another drivers ability to wring a tenth or so out of a poorly balanced one.

It's not like we know how much a car does/doesn't suit a given driver at any given time anyway.

All we know is given a car capable of winning the championship (98,99,00) he did so 2 out of 3 times. Allright he probably wouldn't have won it in 99 if MS had been driving the whole season but he wasn't and the Ferrari may have been better overall anyway. Certainly looked good on MS return. Hell, Mika Salo would have won the only race of his career in that car and MS could have won Malaysia twice before handing it to Eddie. I'm not so sure Mika would have won Suzuka had it been Michaels title on the line and not Eddies either.

Anyway if Mika wasn't that good then who is nowdays. Not Kimi, he was bested by Heidfield and has done no better against DC than Mika. I don't see JPM as any better than Kimi (but a I guess we will know soon) given the relative strengths of their cars and their final positions in the standings. And MS only just beat Kimi and JPM in the closest fought championship for years.

I think MS is one of the greatest drivers in F1 history, definitely a top ten (I think having a claim to the greatest along with about 4 or 5 others). Mika on the other hand doesn't make it into my top ten, probably coming in 20th or so (my knowledge of early F1 is pretty limited to stories I have heard on this board so there may be more who should be in front of him). The thing is I think the differences in those top drivers are so small that 20th or so isn't a bad thing.

[Torx]

Originally posted by skinnylizard
i thought Mika was spectacular 98-99. but i never thought he was great or a fraud. i agree with most of what Arrow says regarding him being an also ran for most of his career except when he recieved a car which was head and shoulders above.

The 1998&1999 McLarens were not "head and shoulders" above the competition (Ferrari) except during the first two races of 1998 season after which Goodyear got its act together.

[skinnylizard]

well thats not how i recall it but ill take your word for it. regardless 99 his breakdown etc didnt show him up to be terribly strong..but
i guess he was really emotionally invested..
xxx
g

[nigel red5]

This is probably the single most useless thread i`ve ever seen at Atlas.

Arrow, you either don`t know your F1 history, or just go around permanently with blinkers on.

Your post, and a couple of others are crap saying that "Hakkinen did`nt have any motivation unless he was in the best car".
Maybe you have`nt seen the 1991 San Marino Grand Prix weekend then? - when on the Saturday wet qualifying session he set 3rd fastest time in a POS Lotus ford that was barely grid worthy. Also you also seem to have forgotten how he came from his P25 starting spot into 15th place by lap 7... when such names as Prost, Mansell, Piquet & Alesi were throwing it into the landscape at the first available opportunity.
You also obviously seem to forget the excellent performances in 1992 Lotus. It was`nt a back-end car that year, but it certainly was`nt a front runner.... You can`t pass Alesi in a Ferrari (in the damp in France), or buzz round the outside of Brundle in Hungary (turn 1) unless you have that "something special".
Then there`s the outqualifying of Senna in Portugal 1993 that has already been mentioned...

Oh, and don`t even dare tell me the guy has no motivation.... Just watch the Adelaide accident again, and the photos of him being lifted out the car, with his face covered in blood......the rehabilitation, and the desire to get back racing again asap.

In summary you really have no clue what you are talking about.

[BuonoCattoTifosi]

Originally posted by nigel red5
Oh, and don`t even dare tell me the guy has no motivation.... Just watch the Adelaide accident again, and the photos of him being lifted out the car, with his face covered in blood......the rehabilitation, and the desire to get back racing again asap.

Some of you really have no clue what you are talking about.

...but it's always great to see that even somebody has a clue what he is talking about.

[The Kanisteri]

Looks like only joke in this topic is only you Arrow.

[Tommy]

You dont know what youre talking about Arrow
of all his competitors in recent years
Mika was the only driver Schumi really rated and respected
Martin Brundle believes that Mika had the edge in speed but was the less complete racer
and this coming from someone whos been teammate with both

[Mat]

Schumacher seemed to rate Mika pretty highly.

[Lantern]

Originally posted by nigel red5
This is probably the single most useless thread i`ve ever seen at Atlas.

you lot either don`t know your F1 history, or just go around permanently with blinkers on.

25 posts of crap saying that "Hakkinen did`nt have any motivation unless he was in the best car".
Maybe you guys have`nt seen the 1991 San Marino Grand Prix weekend then? - when on the Saturday wet qualifying session he set 3rd fastest time in a POS Lotus ford that was barely grid worthy. Also you also seem to have forgotten how he came from his P25 starting spot into 15th place by lap 7... when such names as Prost, Mansell, Piquet & Alesi were throwing it into the landscape at the first available opportunity.
You also obviously seem to forget the excellent performances in 1992 Lotus. It was`nt a back-end car that year, but it certainly was`nt a front runner.... You can`t pass Alesi in a Ferrari (in the damp in France), or buzz round the outside of Brundle in Hungary (turn 1) unless you have that "something special".
Then there`s the outqualifying of Senna in Portugal 1993 that has already been mentioned...

Oh, and don`t even dare tell me the guy has no motivation.... Just watch the Adelaide accident again, and the photos of him being lifted out the car, with his face covered in blood......the rehabilitation, and the desire to get back racing again asap.

Some of you really have no clue what you are talking about.

Unfortunately, stats are the way people who either haven't watched F1 for long or don't really watch the race for the race rather than the EVENT can make driver comparos. Stats can be used to inforce a FACT, but mostly they are used to tell half truths........which we all know is a whole lie.


I know the '98 Mclaren was quite a bit faster than the rest of the field at the start of the season and that advantage stayed until about the last three races then things were just even. But, all one has to do is realise that it STILL takes an outstanding driver to do the things Mika did that season.........let alone TWO seasons back to back.

The man was blindingly fast BEFORE the '98 season, but when given the chance to take center stage he was MAGIC!!!

And to beat it all, even though I was pissed that Schumacher didn't win the race he could always get a chuckle out of me with his post race sense of humor.

Mika was most definitely special.

[RX-7]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
Very fast driver, sadly nothing more.

How about 2 times World Champion?? Best car or not ,the titles are his and he earned them.

[Rene]

The fact that Mika was nothing overly special in the first 7 years of his career is really more down to the reality of modern F1 rather than anything to do with Mika.

Despite what many on this board think, without a good car, you simply cannot win in modern F1. The era of a driver over driving a poor car unto victory is over. There hasn't been a bad car winning on merit in 20 years (I dscount the lucky wins like Fisi last year).

Mika needed a good car to win, just as MS needs a good car to win....or JPM, Kimi, or any other driver. As there is no other way to win!

Some of the rabid fans think MS could win in a Minardi.....but that simply wouldn't happen, perhaps he could but it 17th on the grid instead of 20th, but to get a better result isn't really possible, as these cars are all being driven so close to the maximum, that a better driver simply doesn't have enough 'room' to demonstrate that.

I would say Mika had 3 reasonable chances to win a WDC, and he did so twice....not bad if you ask me....although if MS had stayed healthy I think Mika would have won 1....which again isn't bad at all....many driver have had shots and never won it....for examply I think DC has had 4 reasonable shots at a WDC, and so far has come away with nothing....Ruben has had 3 shots, and nothing....etc...

[HBoss]

As a fraud, he did an excellent job bending Schumacher at Nuburgring '98, Suzuka '99, Spa '00 and Barcelona '01. And as a fraud he also did a great job in '00, taking the title fight to Suzuka and forcing Schumacher to deliver his best performance ever.

I think Hakkinen's true measure is in the fact that it was him who brought the best out of Schumacher.

[The Vulcan]

By calling Mika "the biggest fraud ever" is probably going too far - it is difficult to find anybody in the F1 fraternity will totally agree with that statement. Enough said!

[Arrow]

Originally posted by Rene
The fact that Mika was nothing overly special in the first 7 years of his career is really more down to the reality of modern F1 rather than anything to do with Mika.

Despite what many on this board think, without a good car, you simply cannot win in modern F1. The era of a driver over driving a poor car unto victory is over. There hasn't been a bad car winning on merit in 20 years (I dscount the lucky wins like Fisi last year).

I wasnt just talking about winning.
Mika didnt do anything to show he was a force.
He did less than many other drivers that have been panned over the years,have done yet it seems to be ignored.
The alesi's,bergers did more in sub standard machinery.

[kos]

Coming back after he was almost killed by blown tyre and spent some time in coma is not "showing he was a force" to you?

There are plenty of examples of Mika "showing a force" during his early days in this thread, you are just chosing to ignore them

[RX-7]

Originally posted by Arrow


I wasnt just talking about winning.
Mika didnt do anything to show he was a force.
He did less than many other drivers that have been panned over the years,have done yet it seems to be ignored.
The alesi's,bergers did more in sub standard machinery.

Now if this thread had started as: "Was Alesi better than Mika?",I would have agreed with you.That goes for Berger as well.

[LuckyStrike1]

Originally posted by Arrow


I wasnt just talking about winning.
Mika didnt do anything to show he was a force.
He did less than many other drivers that have been panned over the years,have done yet it seems to be ignored.
The alesi's,bergers did more in sub standard machinery.

Ferrari 1994 and 1995 was much better than the McLaren from the same seasons. And if you had started watching F1 pre-1998 you would have seen some terrific drives from Häkkinen in sub-standard machinery where he raced much better than those cars deserved to be raced.

I also think you totally forget to take into account that Häkkinen actually was dead for a second in his horrible accident at Adelaide 1995. Drivers like Herbert and Wendlinger lost a lot of speed in major crashes, yet Mika managed to return within a couple of months be as fast as ever, despite being closer to death than most.

The first time the McLaren actually had a winning car during Mikas spell with the team was 1997, and then he duly won and you can easily add two more victories for Mika that year if it wasn't for poor reliability from car-engine.

I can understand your conclusions somewhat given that you apparently just look at statistics and didn't start watch F1 until just a couple of years ago. But I think you are quite wrong here - and all paddock insiders would think that too.

[BuonoBruttoCattivo]

Originally posted by HBoss
I think Hakkinen's true measure is in the fact that it was him who brought the best out of Schumacher.

Yes indeed. I think MS really missed MH, but by last year sort-of warmed-up to his new very young rivals (KR and FA etc.)

MS and MH trusted each other, and MS's smile after Spa 00 was emblematic of respect and admiration to his fellow man.

I miss MH myself, funniest guy in F1.

Not to forget that MH said in an interview w/ DC that MS is 'very fair', andI IRC cautioned viewers and DC that most may not understand why he's saying that.

[Spunout]

"What a joke.
This is a driver who could not best johnny herbert for 2 seasons."

It is well known Herbert was number 1 driver and had better parts in his car.

"This is a driver who was for the first 7 years of his F1 career was ANONUMOUS, did not lead a race,set a pole or fastest lap!"

He lead his first race at McLaren, after outqualifying Senna and overtaking Prost at lap 1.

"A driver who only got noticed in the best car and was forgotten without it."

He was noticed by Frank Williams who offered him a deal after those two seasons at Lotus. Too bad FW was forced to let MH go. Then he was noticed by Ron Dennis, among others.

Forgotten?

[scdecade]

Originally posted by NickeF1
Well he outqualified Senna in his first race with McLaren.

I believe this was the first and last time Mika ever did anything faster than Senna.

This thread has my vote for biggest flame bait fraud title ever.

JV is the biggest fraud ever.

I would like to see an authoritative comparison of Mika's performances versus his team mates prior to join McLaren (DC is/was a complete wanker). I recall Johnny Herbert having the measure of Mika.

Still nobody can argue that Mika maximized the opportunities present to him. What other F1 drivers in recent history, besides Michael, can you say that about?

[Jimmy]

Brundle has been team mates with both Hakk and Schumacher, and he rates Mika ahead in terms of out and out speed.

1994 was actually a very good year from Mika - I think the McLaren-Peugeot only finished about 8 or 9 races and Mika had something like 6 podiums.

I think people would say the same of Fisichella if he were to be handed a great car. He could win races and fight for the championship despite a few years in the proverbial wilderness.

[Ghostrider]

When Mika was "flat out and on optimal line" he was impossible to catch.

[Oho]

Originally posted by scdecade


I believe this was the first and last time Mika ever did anything faster than Senna.

Ave !!!

Well, Häkkinen and Senna ran all in all six qualifying sessions, 2 per event. They tied at three a piece. Senna besat Häkknen by less than a tenth at Suzuka, only at Adelaide Senna outqualified Häkkinen coomfortably.

- Oho -

[Wouter]

Originally posted by Rene
The fact that Mika was nothing overly special in the first 7 years of his career is really more down to the reality of modern F1 rather than anything to do with Mika.

Mika has always been special. I was a Mika fan since 1992, during his fine Lotus year. Frank Williams and Ron Dennis thought he was special, too, at the end of 1992. They were right.

[Raelene]

HSJ

pretty good post

[Vrba]

Originally posted by HSJ
....In 2000 MS's Ferrari had a 10+ hp advantage and better aero, the cars being pretty equal in other respects.

Yeah right. What other respects (of any significance) remained?
And how did you measure those 10+ HP?
McLaren was slightly better car in 2000 according the words of all involved parties (people from McLaren and Ferrari) as well as according to the specialized press (yes, I have the quotes if needed). It was slightly worse in terms of reliability but superior in other respects.
Dream on....

Hrvoje

[Menace]

Originally posted by Vrba

It was slightly worse in terms of reliability but superior in other respects.
Dream on....

Hrvoje

So, in what "other respects" was it "superior"?

[Menace]

Really shouldn't feed this thread.... for those of you who dont know Arrow; he has an anal fixation on Mika, whom he regards nothing more then an average sunday cruiser.