256 replies to this topic

[Rene]

Quote

Originally posted by Julli


Hi,

If you are going to do a statistic comparison, then do it properly. That applies to qualifying. You should exclude the races where they DNF due to a car reliability problems. Or if you want to include those, you should consider their relative position at the DNF moment. Not just the final results.

But about a topic at hand. A person who calls MH a fraud does not know his stuff. Back to school Arrows. Watch 96(or was it 95?) Monza while you are at it.

Julli

Given the sheer number of results, we should be able to get an accurate view of Mika visa vie his teammates through this method....if we were talking about a sampling of say 50 races I would agree with you, but with a sampling of 164 races, we can make reasonable conclusions from simply looking at classifications....

[Yelnats]

Gianni Agnelli: "Schumacher is the best pilot of the World. But if we lost him, I would absolutely put Hakkinen as the substitute. I had always loved his way of driving, his loyalty, honesty in the track, his real drive and his coolness"

Amen !

[Julli]

Quote

Originally posted by Rene


Given the sheer number of results, we should be able to get an accurate view of Mika visa vie his teammates through this method....if we were talking about a sampling of say 50 races I would agree with you, but with a sampling of 164 races, we can make reasonable conclusions from simply looking at classifications....

Hi ,

I don't agree. By this method the ratio of MH's wins over a teammate reduces if they both have the same amount of DNFs. If the winratio would be 50-50 then it would be ok to do this kind of generalition, but MH's winratio is over 50, and thus the "wins" counted from the DNF's lower's MH's real winratio.
A extreme example: If a driver A wins driver B 10 - 1 when they both finish races. Then the winratio of driver A is 91% Let's say that both has 3 DNFs and we include them to the sample. Then the wins would 13 - 4. Now the winratio is only 76%. You see?

And also as a sidenote I believe that MH has retired more due to a mecahical problem than his teammates so "the teammates" gain in the winratio also because of this. But as I'm biased, I could have a distorted picture of the amount of Mika's DNFes.

Julli

[Big Block 8]

[

Quote

Originally posted by Vrba

Giorgio Piola and ing. Enrico Benzing are quite famous Italian journalists and writers (Piola being most famous for his technical drawings in Auto Sprint and Autosport, as well as for his annual "Formula 1 Technical Analysis" books). The quotes I provide are from Piola's 2000 book. I don't say they got the things 100% correct and I don't know the details about how they obtained their data but their estimations are generally accepted as generally accurate (it is interesting that they credited 1998 Ferrari engine with 5 bhp more power than 1998 Mercedes). I agree that, thaking everything into account, there wasn't much to choose between 2000 Ferrari and McLaren but if any car had the slight edge it certainly wasn't Ferrari.

Hrvoje

Thanks for info, I'll have to try to find those Piola books for closer look. I have no trouble accepting the figures, as obviously the two cars were very close in overall performance in '00, too bad there's no mention at which race the Piola's estimates were made. I wonder if these were their best for the season? Other, numbers happen to be close to the Quattroruote-magazine's numbers (they gave 790 for Mercedes and 803 for Ferrari at Canada GP '00 race trim).

About aerodynamics, there actually also is a differing statement from John Sutton (the gearbox engineer who switched from Ferrari to McLaren), that the Ferrari aero was slightly better in '00 compared to McLaren. Too bad that there currently doesn't seem to be a link available regarding that statement.

Cars seem to be close in performance regardless of the source, but I don't think that it's unreasonable for someone say, that the reliability and team policy gave Ferrari the edge in the WDC hunt.

[Torx]

Quote

Originally posted by Deeq
McLaren stayed with that awfull suplier for one more season, and still hade better tyre handling than the Ferrari the following season.

By what definition? The only way that could have been the case was because the 2001 Mac was so much slower than Ferrari that it wouldn't have stressed the tyres so much.

[Big Block 8]

Quote

Originally posted by Julli


Hi ,

I don't agree. By this method the ratio of MH's wins over a teammate reduces if they both have the same amount of DNFs. If the winratio would be 50-50 then it would be ok to do this kind of generalition, but MH's winratio is over 50, and thus the "wins" counted from the DNF's lower's MH's real winratio.
A extreme example: If a driver A wins driver B 10 - 1 when they both finish races. Then the winratio of driver A is 91% Let's say that both has 3 DNFs and we include them to the sample. Then the wins would 13 - 4. Now the winratio is only 76%. You see?

And also as a sidenote I believe that MH has retired more due to a mecahical problem than his teammates so "the teammates" gain in the winratio also because of this. But as I'm biased, I could have a distorted picture of the amount of Mika's DNFes.

Julli

This is true, although I think a better example would be: with 100 % reliability, 10 - 0 to driver A, with 50 % reliability, it could go as bad as 5-5.

Also the reliability problems that didn't result in a DNF, blunders by the team in the pitstop etc., should be removed from the comparisons, for these to make sense.

[Rene]

Quote

Originally posted by Julli


Hi ,

I don't agree. By this method the ratio of MH's wins over a teammate reduces if they both have the same amount of DNFs. If the winratio would be 50-50 then it would be ok to do this kind of generalition, but MH's winratio is over 50, and thus the "wins" counted from the DNF's lower's MH's real winratio.
A extreme example: If a driver A wins driver B 10 - 1 when they both finish races. Then the winratio of driver A is 91% Let's say that both has 3 DNFs and we include them to the sample. Then the wins would 13 - 4. Now the winratio is only 76%. You see?

And also as a sidenote I believe that MH has retired more due to a mecahical problem than his teammates so "the teammates" gain in the winratio also because of this. But as I'm biased, I could have a distorted picture of the amount of Mika's DNFes.

Julli

2 points....when you are talking about 10 finishes, of course this using classifications would be 100% useless....however when one talks about 164 races, anomalies become less and less statistically relevant....I would dare say the end numbers I came up with are within 5% +/- if one takes into account mechanical DNF's, and position prior to retirement.

My second point is that it seemed that Mika actually had far less DNF's than his teammates over the years, especially early in his career. In his first year, he was classified ahead of his teammate 8 times purely due to the fact that his teammates failed to qualify for the race!

If you think my numbers might be off, I suggest you go through the all of the races, and see how far off my numbers are.....I think you will be surprised at how accurate these numbers really are...

[maclaren]

Quote

Originally posted by Rene
2 points....when you are talking about 10 finishes, of course this using classifications would be 100% useless....however when one talks about 164 races, anomalies become less and less statistically relevant....I would dare say the end numbers I came up with are within 5% +/- if one takes into account mechanical DNF's, and position prior to retirement.

Yep it converges to certain value, but not to the correct one. Its possible to do 100% domination in qualifying but in races equal domination would only result in 70%, if the car is 30% unreliable.

[Big Block 8]

Quote

Originally posted by Rene


2 points....when you are talking about 10 finishes, of course this using classifications would be 100% useless....however when one talks about 164 races, anomalies become less and less statistically relevant....I would dare say the end numbers I came up with are within 5% +/- if one takes into account mechanical DNF's, and position prior to retirement.

No they won't, as statistically all DNFs hurt the faster driver more, as has been pointed out.

Quote

Originally posted by Rene

My second point is that it seemed that Mika actually had far less DNF's than his teammates over the years, especially early in his career. In his first year, he was classified ahead of his teammate 8 times purely due to the fact that his teammates failed to qualify for the race!

Well then, if the teammate failed to qualify in the race, doesn't that mean Mika actually did better in the race that far? During those days, qualifying meant more to the race than just grid arrangement.

Quote

Originally posted by Rene

If you think my numbers might be off, I suggest you go through the all of the races, and see how far off my numbers are.....I think you will be surprised at how accurate these numbers really are...

I think you would be the one who would be surprised - one only needs to look at 1995 results, where Mark Blundell was supposedly "better" than Mika in the races, when he actually didn't finish in front of Mika when they both finished, not one single time.

[BuzzingHornet]

I've seen Hakkinen from trackside and the phrase Maximum Attack just about sums him up... he was awesome. surely you are only joking Arrow..?

[Blue]

He might be the biggest fraud ever, fooled quite a few peoples, including me, completely.

Quote

Originally posted by Big Block 8
I think you would be the one who would be surprised - one only needs to look at 1995 results, where Mark Blundell was supposedly "better" than Mika in the races, when he actually didn't finish in front of Mika when they both finished, not one single time.

Nice detail

[BMW4life]

Quote

when two cars differ substantialy[in there tyre handling] someone is going to get the short end no matter what choise is made my the tyre suplier

Well, we agree on something at least. But my point is that BS changed their construction to favor ferrari. Their relationship was solidified from that point on. I'm certain that was my initial comment, but why that has bothered so many of you is beyond me.

Edit....

See Big Block's post above. It's as clear as can be.

[Deeq]

Quote

Originally posted by Big Block 8


But neutral it was - obviously there must have been a base design tyre in the winter break by Bridgestone, around which the following year's car designs were based, both at McLaren and Ferrari. If it's reported, that McLaren / driver combo was "better" in the early season, it simply means they did a better job in that area. However, if there was a fundamental design change during the season in favor of one team / driver, it would clearly appear to be favoritism. There's no way to go around that.

The allegation of favoratism is so conditioned that it isn't meaningfull in addion to a host of assumptions


No it wasn't[infact that is developing a mcLaren special tyre] : . Obviosly BS can't satisfy both cars at the same time without having able to specialised tyres. And Obviously that is why specialised tyres where introduced in to the sport
Your first assumption is quite wrong neither that it is neccesery to build this years tyre compound around last years[you get pasted] not do tyre development stay static. BTW the fact that McLaren was able to maximise could be a clear sign of Favoratism By BS, By simply listning one side during the development of said tyre, What makes you think it didn't happen that way? Why would n't last years design be the wrong one to go by[favorate one side over the other]?

The *Fundamental* change in design did it happen? and how extraordinary would it have been?was it justified by development/research and track changes making it the optimum choise?

You simply asummed that BS brought a Neutral compound[there isn't one, even if its the last years one] and that by chance McLaren did adapt to the tyre better what is worse elevated this condition to the status of being "Natural" then tryed to prove any deviation from it being unnatural. All it is shown is your bias.


*We* have seen that Ferrari was getting shafted by not having addressed their tyre problems by their supliers so there is no way around of the fact that they got treated wrong.

BMW4life
"..Well, we agree on something at least. But my point is that BS changed their construction to favor ferrari".

Quite on the contrary my point is BS [designed its tyre innitialy around the McLaren] was favoring mcLaren by making bespoke tyres for them hence any change of policy was to adress that.

[BMW4life]

Quote

BTW the fact that McLaren was able to maximise could be a clear sign of Favoratism By BS,

What an empty statement. Well, if I had wings I could fly.

Quote

Quite on the contrary my point is BS [designed its tyre innitialy around the McLaren] was favoring mcLaren by making bespoke tyres for them hence any change of policy was to adress that.

If you're saying that during the winter BS built bespoke tyres for Mac, only to change their favor to ferrari, then I think we must agree to disagree.

But either way, it still emphasises my original point in that BS designed tyres which favored ferrari in the last four races of the season, hence their strong showing. I don't see where you guys got confused (rose tinted glasses *can* alter one's views on things.... ).

[Deeq]

Quote

Originally posted by BMW4life


What an empty statement. Well, if I had wings I could fly.


Well that must be just after a "Mcfan" accepted there is no conspiracy to get them among the rest.

No more so than which it was blancing this gem: obviously there must have been a base design tyre in the winter break by Bridgestone, around which the following year's car designs were based, both at McLaren and Ferrari.



If you're saying that during the winter BS built bespoke tyres for Mac, only to change their favor to ferrari, then I think we must agree to disagree.

I thought we agreed that allready. LOL
But either way, it still emphasises my original point in that BS designed tyres which favored ferrari in the last four races of the season, hence their strong showing. I don't see where you guys got confused (rose tinted glasses *can* alter one's views on things.... ).

And countred by the fact that its rich complain when they hade that favor the better part of the season. Just an illustration of how things could be seen by others. Yes we are all *biased*. I guess you guys are so used to whine that U don't know even when u have the "uperhand".

[Big Block 8]

Quote

Originally posted by Deeq

No it wasn't[infact that is developing a mcLaren special tyre] : . Obviosly BS can't satisfy both cars at the same time without having able to specialised tyres. And Obviously that is why specialised tyres where introduced in to the sport
Your first assumption is quite wrong neither that it is neccesery to build this years tyre compound around last years[you get pasted] not do tyre development stay static. BTW the fact that McLaren was able to maximise could be a clear sign of Favoratism By BS, By simply listning one side during the development of said tyre, What makes you think it didn't happen that way? Why would n't last years design be the wrong one to go by[favorate one side over the other]?

Of course the development isn't static. That's why the car design was obviously based on the last iteration of given tyre. McLaren apparently just did better job in making the cars suited for that iteration and design. Favoritism of McLaren you say? I don't recall complaints or reports of Ferrari people storming out of conference rooms after meetings with Bridgestone people. What has caome up so far and looking where McLaren is a current customer, it was definitely the other way around.

Quote

The *Fundamental* change in design did it happen? and how extraordinary would it have been?was it justified by development/research and track changes making it the optimum choise? [/B]

According to McLaren, it wasn't. So what was the "optimum" choice? Against whom exactly?

Quote

You simply asummed that BS brought a Neutral compound[there isn't one, even if its the last years one] and that by chance McLaren did adapt to the tyre better what is worse elevated this condition to the status of being "Natural" then tryed to prove any deviation from it being unnatural. All it is shown is your bias.[/B]

And I assume you consider yourself being free of any bias?

I really see nothing extraordinary or questionable in the above interpretation. At the start of the season, Ferrari obviously agreed that the current iteration and design guideline of the tyre was satisfactory. If you don't agree, please show reports implying otherwise. You make the assumption, you back it up. I'm interested to see what comes up.

Quote

*We* have seen that Ferrari was getting shafted by not having addressed their tyre problems by their supliers so there is no way around of the fact that they got treated wrong. [/B]

Really? As written above, please show those reports from the season start. Who's "*we*" by the way?

Quote

BMW4life
"..Well, we agree on something at least. But my point is that BS changed their construction to favor ferrari".

Quite on the contrary my point is BS [designed its tyre innitialy around the McLaren] was favoring mcLaren by making bespoke tyres for them hence any change of policy was to adress that. [/B]

Again, please show something to verify that claim.

[Big Block 8]

Quote

Originally posted by Deeq

No more so than which it was blancing this gem: obviously there must have been a base design tyre in the winter break by Bridgestone, around which the following year's car designs were based, both at McLaren and Ferrari.

Now that's interesting, what's "blancing"?

[Julli]

Quote

Originally posted by Big Block 8


Also the reliability problems that didn't result in a DNF, blunders by the team in the pitstop etc., should be removed from the comparisons, for these to make sense.

Yes, very true

Julli

[Julli]

Quote

Originally posted by Rene

If you think my numbers might be off, I suggest you go through the all of the races, and see how far off my numbers are.....I think you will be surprised at how accurate these numbers really are...

I don't have time to do it.
And you are providing the stats as reliable stats so you should then prove those to be accurate. It always goes like that. The presenter(you) is questioned(by me) and then the presenter(you) then proves in a properiate manner that he(you) is right/wrong.

Julli

[SeanValen]

Mika Hakkinen is a great driver when things are right with the car and stuff, infact he's on Michael's planet like that, but he wasn't as consistent as the reputation he got, and he lacked motivation when not contending for top spots, he was great at qualifying, and in races he didn't always deliver his qualifying pace into the races, it's where Michael got a one over on him.

Although I don't agree with some things Arrow's have said like Fraud, there's definatly this over hype reaction to Mika, I mean, before 1998, the only think he did for memory, in one qualifying session in 1993, was by the smallest of margins beat Senna in quali, but if you looked at that race, Mika didn't fail because of a DNF, he did a driver error, and was nervous to establish himself from the get go, Senna was the boss man in the race, in which I think he'd DNF by reliability problems very early, but Mika dnf from driver error.

So flashforward to 1998, Mika worked well with a dominant car, and it took him the last race to do it, and again in 99 without Michael fighting him as well.

What impressive races do people remember about Mika, Hungary 2000, Spa 2000, great ones, but if he was so fast naturally, he would of been making a difference in alot more races, when he's up front, he's expected to win and likes it like that, when it was behind other cars, he's not as motivated and was a big flaw of his race craft..


He was a very good driver and sportsmenship showed, that made Mika more liked, but for some, it gave them a excuse to hype him up, as the ultimate driver to take on Michael.

The one thing I was disappointed with in Mika, that took away some element of his sportsmenship, is he plainly said he didn't want to help DC with the champioship in Monaco 2001, even though DC helped him out in Aussie 98, Mika wants to be up front and competing, otherwise racing is boring for him, Mika was motivated by success, Michael is motivated by failure, and being moviated by success has its drawbacks, if you know it's unlikely you'll win, you don't push as much, like Hungary 2001, when Michael lapped Mika, even Newey had a go at him there.

[ViMaMo]

Ofcourse mika has been overhyped but he was a fantastic driver when he was given a fast car. But i for one did not think he was an equal to michael schumacher.

1) His apparent lack of motivation, well sort of an excuse for poor performances.
2) He was a ordinary F1 driver when it was damp or wet.
3) Yes he did not return favours to DC
4) Prone to mistakes even when not under pressure.
5) Season 99 made him look so ordinary with eddie irvine challenging him.

But he was so calm and did not let a schumacher chop flutter his nerves. Given the best car, he won two championships, which is atleast what is required, regardless of the margin he won. I think he is a worthy adversary, to be feared and respected for his speed and racing .

[Big Block 8]

Quote

Originally posted by SeanValen
Although I don't agree with some things Arrow's have said like Fraud, there's definatly this over hype reaction to Mika, I mean, before 1998, the only think he did for memory, in one qualifying session in 1993, was by the smallest of margins beat Senna in quali, but if you looked at that race, Mika didn't fail because of a DNF, he did a driver error, and was nervous to establish himself from the get go, Senna was the boss man in the race, in which I think he'd DNF by reliability problems very early, but Mika dnf from driver error.

And he was beaten by Senna by the smallest of margins in the other qualifying. During those days, there were 2 quals per race and if I remember correctly in out of total six their quals went 3-3.

The point, if that isn't obvious, was that Mika proved he could hang out with the greatest qualifier in the F1 history and hence had speed and talent in abundance ==> if given top caliber machinery, he'd get the championships. So what if he didn't beat Senna in those races? So far he had driven 2 seasons in a grid filler Lotus and currently was a McLaren test driver out of the cold - who was seriously expecting he'd instantly stomp on a (probably fastest ever) WDC in his prime in the races? Excluding his mom and dad, not that many. In years to come, it's of course a different story, as at that time he only had the goods, but lacked in experience. What he did in those quals, was definitely more than enough. I wonder what people would have said a couple of years ago, if some test driver would be hired to do racing in mid season and suddenly would be outpacing Michael Schumacher in quals?

Quote

Originally posted by SeanValen
So flashforward to 1998, Mika worked well with a dominant car, and it took him the last race to do it, and again in 99 without Michael fighting him as well.

Except the first two races in 1998, the "dominance" of the McLarens is a debatable issue. Factoring in the reliability and team tactics, I wouldn't call Mika's ride dominant, unless of course Schumi's Ferrari is considered "dominant" as well. In 99, Mika also beat Michael in total points, in the races they both raced.

Quote

Originally posted by SeanValen
What impressive races do people remember about Mika, Hungary 2000, Spa 2000, great ones, but if he was so fast naturally, he would of been making a difference in alot more races, when he's up front, he's expected to win and likes it like that, when it was behind other cars, he's not as motivated and was a big flaw of his race craft..

Obviously you didn't follow Mika's career before 1998 at all.

Quote

Originally posted by SeanValen
He was a very good driver and sportsmenship showed, that made Mika more liked, but for some, it gave them a excuse to hype him up, as the ultimate driver to take on Michael.

The one thing I was disappointed with in Mika, that took away some element of his sportsmenship, is he plainly said he didn't want to help DC with the champioship in Monaco 2001, even though DC helped him out in Aussie 98, Mika wants to be up front and competing, otherwise racing is boring for him, Mika was motivated by success, Michael is motivated by failure, and being moviated by success has its drawbacks, if you know it's unlikely you'll win, you don't push as much, like Hungary 2001, when Michael lapped Mika, even Newey had a go at him there.

Aus 98 wasn't "helping" nor "team orders", but an agreement between Mika and David. This was many times confirmed afterwards, as David was routinely allowed to finish in front of Mika many times. And as said, if you think Mika was motivated by success only, you didn't see much before 1998. The guy was probably the unluckiest guy on the grid, but he just simply refused to give up.

[Big Block 8]

Quote

Originally posted by Simioni


More. Consistent fast, and more so than any other MS rival, consistently on it. He also didnt make many mistakes and he thrived under pressure. That added up to a very strong package, and the fact that the whole ferrari team had such respect for him backs up the belief he was a quite formidable opponent to MS.

He might not have been the main gear in his team operations the way Senna was or Schumacher is, but you could hardly get a better driver to exploit a top car than Mika. This was not to say he was not a promising driver with a midfield car - despite losing out qualifying to Herbert in the lotus days (which in hindsight seems much down to inexperience), he achieved the best race performances (think of Hungary 92 when Mika finished 4th battling with the big guns the whole way through). Once at mclaren he was always quick at testing and he looked capable compared to Senna in their brief stint together. Senna was mighty impressed with Mika and was probably the only driver alongside Prost to earn his public respect. After that, mclaren was not a good place to be in 94 and 95, the first car being too unreliable and the second just plain crap. Still he had a run of podiums in the end of 94 and when the car was midly competitive in 95 he did pretty good as in Brazil and Suzuka where he finished 2nd. Than 96 was a year for recovery after his terrible accident at Adelaide but he was still by and large a lot quicker than DC. Than in 97 he struggled at first but was probably the top driver in 2nd half of the season, losing several possible wins due to DNFs.

That was a thing that Mika never had much of, which was luck with reliability and with his team's pit work. Through 1997 to 2001 Hakkinen must have lost more near certain victories than most other drivers score in their careers. It certainly seemed to hinder his performance to some point in 99 and 00, and given the frequency and cost of those failures you could harldy blame Mika for being disheartned for a couple of races. 00 and particularly 99 were terrible in this regard.

Once 98 and the Newey Mclaren came though Mika's true potential (already demonstrated way back in his F3 days) was fully unleashed. He drove a beatiful season that year despite some bad luck in the midseason to convincingly gained the edge over MS at Nurburgring going into the last race where he clinched it. The following year, now with WDC confidence, Mika was truly flying and was beating MS again until Mclaren began messing it all up beginning at Silverstone. He took a lot of flak after his Monza off but the reality of it was that Mclaren and bad luck in general had already lost him some 4 races. Then in 00 he hit a rough patch in the 2nd quarter after some major poor luck in the first races, but by Austria he was back on it and would at least have taken it down to the wire had it not been for that crucial Indy failure.

In 01 the bad luck stroke hard again and this time, coupled with the mental scare of his traumatic accident, it was enough to lose him the edge and lead to retirement. As a consequence I think we never truly saw the best Mika had to offer, but what he had achieved by then when the car was up to the job was IMO enough to gain him a place in the gallery of truly worthy multi-champions. Like Mansell, he thrived on a quick car which is something not all talented drivers get in their careers, but when the opportunity came for Hakkinen he was fully up for it and did more than any other driver other than MS has done in the past 10 years. If that constitutes him as a fraud, what does it make of the others?

This one deserves to be reposted...

[Oho]

Ave !!

So do you think Schumacher had motivational problems for instance at Hungary and Spa 2000, after all had it been Häkkinen the standard answer would have been brought to fore in no time. After all anything and everything from blown engines and broken suspension with Mika in picture has been attributed to motivational problems, as it is such a nice tight answer to everything and as if he could have held the Mercedes-Illmor grenade running with pure will alone like Michael aparently can. After all he always had better car than Micheal, even with con rods stciking out of the block.

Oh by the way the single most hyped driver for the past decade is, with hardly as much as shred of doubt, Michael Schumcaher, as in contrasting his actual being with the ideal repeated in mantra like manner by millions of his loyal followers. He may have been practically uninterruptedly the best fro the past decade and certainly is the most accomplished but god that he is frequently potrayed as he is not.

- Oho -

[Big Block 8]

Quote

Originally posted by Oho
After all he always had better car than Micheal, even with con rods stciking out of the block.

Funnily put, but unfortunately this impression is rather popular.

It's understandable though, as apparently almost one third of the posters on this board are supporters of MS.

http://forums.atlasf...&threadid=65790

[SeanValen]

Quote

Originally posted by Big Block 8





Obviously you didn't follow Mika's career before 1998 at all.

I did, he achieved very little when not expected to win, I know the mclarens were not great in 94, 95, 96, didn't expect much from Mika, but still a driver makes a difference and he just wasn't exceptional to win against the odds, that something extra, like being exceptional in a wet race, a requirement in beating other drivers when not expected too as Senna and Schumacher have done.


Mika was a great driver, but he had flaws that some don't talk about as much as praising him, and thats my opinion on it, some others have different opinions.

I enjoyed Mika and Michael's battles alot, good sportsmenship, but it don't mean I will shy away from talking about Mika's strengths and weaknesses.

[Arrow]

Quote

Originally posted by Big Block 8


And he was beaten by Senna by the smallest of margins in the other qualifying. During those days, there were 2 quals per race and if I remember correctly in out of total six their quals went 3-3.

The point, if that isn't obvious, was that Mika proved he could hang out with the greatest qualifier in the F1 history and hence had speed and talent in abundance ==>

Friday qualifying was irrelavent back then.
The fact is that mika beat senna once when it counted and ca,e close at suzuka something which good old berger bettered the previous season when he poled it ahead of ayrton.
3 races is far to small of a window to draw the conclusion that he could hang with senna over a lap.
An old demotivated senna btw.

[Deeq]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Big Block 8


Of course the development isn't static. That's why the car design was obviously based on the last iteration of given tyre. McLaren apparently just did better job in making the cars suited for that iteration and design. Favoritism of McLaren you say? I don't recall complaints or reports of Ferrari people storming out of conference rooms after meetings with Bridgestone people. What has caome up so far and looking where McLaren is a current customer, it was definitely the other way around.


How do you know it was not a new type of tyre i.e. fundamental change from their earlier design philosophy? Wild assumptions there bud. I say they did made deliberately tyre that favourite McLaren[shown by the fact McLaren did handle better those tyres]. Did you see Mclaren folks storm out of press conferences when they[according to you] suffered BS favouritism toward Ferrari? If not then why ask that silly question? Is complaining a proof of suffering wrong doings? RD would have won WDC if that was the case[god knows how many times he whined against perceived injustices at the hand of FIA]. The last remark is supposed to say what?

According to McLaren, it wasn't. So what was the "optimum" choice? Against whom exactly?.

Did McLaren say that? That the trye favorite Ferrari and was abnormal? Well verify that

And I assume you consider yourself being free of any bias?

NO some are more biased so than othets thought

really see nothing extraordinary or questionable in the above interpretation. At the start of the season, Ferrari obviously agreed that the current iteration and design guideline of the tyre was satisfactory. If you don't agree, please show reports implying otherwise. You make the assumption, you back it up. I'm interested to see what comes up.

Did Ferrari have any other choice? [well than to complain there partners in public = not useful for future cooperation*]. Again show me a report saying That this was the optimum/neutral tyre and the only one possible. And It becomes extraordinary when made in the same post that Mclaren did suffer *favouritisms* later without showing any evidence to being that the case or making valid efforts showing the new tryes were Ferrari specialy[or atleast fundamentally different than what normal development would have brought]. Lastly its You is making the claims[ concerning the fundamental properties of the tyres] here bud perhaps you should direct that question to your self. Hence last request dismissed as nonsense QED.

Odd that you ask me for evidence when it is you who make claims here, How do you know what Ferrari agreed? Did they hade a Choice? and if they didn’t agree what could they do about the situation?. Throw a fit

Really? As written above, please show those reports from the season start. Who's "*we*" by the way?

Nice of you helping me out out Don't make my arguments for me i.e put words in to my mouth.

France MS: "The tyres on my car seemed to suffer a drop in performance earlier than on the others," Schumacher revealed later. "This problem was at its worst after the first pit stop. At first I could control the situation, but then the tyres went off and I tried to look after them knowing there were still a lot of laps to go."

The same driver suffered tyre deamination in Spain. in contrast during the year No McLaren suffered serious tyre problems.

Shown by the fact that the Ferraris were having problems with them vis a vis McLarens----> Mclaren optimised tyre. *We* being anyone but a "blinkered" McFAN


Now that's interesting, what's "blancing"?

Balancing[ here as counter argument].
Are you trying to make a *point* there? otherwise I did overestimated you.

[SeanValen]

Quote

Originally posted by Arrow


Friday qualifying was irrelavent back then.
The fact is that mika beat senna once when it counted and ca,e close at suzuka something which good old berger bettered the previous season when he poled it ahead of ayrton.
3 races is far to small of a window to draw the conclusion that he could hang with senna over a lap.
An old demotivated senna btw.

Qualifying means nothing if you can't deliver in the race, Senna won Japan, Mika didn't, whats the point of qualifying, if you can't deliver like it in the race. I agree with what you said, except the demotivated Senna, I actually thought Senna was very professional in 1993, perhaps apart of that professionalism, was concentrating on the races more, as his results showed, especially at Japan 93, Mika's qualifying no doubt was very good, I think Mika at times was exceptional fast over one lap, but Senna was a great racer as well, but qualifying is only part of the weekend, if you combine quali and race, Senna rules, and Mika's quali is only hyped more because he did it against Senna, but so what, if you can't be ahead in the race, it won't matter.

[Frogman]

Quote

Originally posted by Arrow
An old demotivated senna btw.

Eeeehhhh.......how did you come to that conclusion

[Torx]

Quote

Originally posted by SeanValen


I did, he achieved very little when not expected to win, I know the mclarens were not great in 94, 95, 96, didn't expect much from Mika, but still a driver makes a difference and he just wasn't exceptional to win against the odds

There were no odds to win with a McLaren during 94-96.

[Arrow]

Quote

Originally posted by Frogman


Eeeehhhh.......how did you come to that conclusion

Well he was 34 years old was racing on a race by race basis and had spent another season getting flogged by williams renaults.
The season was almost at an end and hes spent it with a team-mate who could not push him so it was only natural for ayrton to be complacent and not totally switched on by the time mika arrived.

[Big Block 8]

Quote

Originally posted by SeanValen

I did, he achieved very little when not expected to win, I know the mclarens were not great in 94, 95, 96, didn't expect much from Mika, but still a driver makes a difference and he just wasn't exceptional to win against the odds, that something extra, like being exceptional in a wet race, a requirement in beating other drivers when not expected too as Senna and Schumacher have done.

Very little, that's relative. Saubers, Benettons and Renaults of this millenium would have been more than delighted with the point roster Mika achieved with relative equipment.

As for wet races, true enough that everything just didn't click together with his strategy and setups, but it was more than often up to the team decisions than just driving. Suzuka 95 and France 99 come to mind, where Mika did some spectacular wet weather races.

Quote

Originally posted by SeanValen

Mika was a great driver, but he had flaws that some don't talk about as much as praising him, and thats my opinion on it, some others have different opinions.

I enjoyed Mika and Michael's battles alot, good sportsmenship, but it don't mean I will shy away from talking about Mika's strengths and weaknesses.

Fair enough, although in my opinion those "flaws" are more than often result of expectations bloated out of proportion, regarding his equipment / team/ status.

I'm not implying he was flawless, but so far there hasn't been anyone who was.

[SeanValen]

Quote

Originally posted by Big Block 8



I'm not implying he was flawless, but so far there hasn't been anyone who was.

Of cource, but thats commensense, to move on from commonsense, is to say: it's about who has less flaws, no one is perfect, that's the commensense answer, don't mean all the drivers are the same either, the flaws single out some drivers, and strengths praise them.

The thing about talking about your favorite drivers is, you don't know everyone on this website, that well, I don't know you, you don't know me, you don't know what other drivers I like, values of fans sometimes effect what they say, they will turn a blind eye to some truths and twist some information to feel better, maybe you've done that to my posts, I think you have, but there's no point in debating about it, it gets silly, some people will post like that, because some people don't like hearing flaws from their favorite drivers, I'm sure you would like a thread where Mika's strengths were celebrated and everyone got along, toasting to Mika:D But it can't happen, because the fans are very well divided in their tastes and who they support, so this thread can go on forever, but not everyone is going to say "Ok, I'm wrong about that." Some forumers will just not reply or answer a question with a question, or select part of a quote, I don't agree with the title of this thread, because it's harsh on Mika, I would have said, what do you really think of Mika Hakkinen, then everyone could write strengths and weaknesses.

Whatever you think of Mika likely won't change or you admit it hasn't change, maybe you've read posts that shine a light on Mika to see info you didn't know or think about him, maybe you won't admit it, and I don't expect you too, but thats how posting usually is, and I've found in threads like this, I've seen the same chaos over and over again, not everyone is going to agree, and not everyone wants to see some truths in their face, and say "ok I see that." That's a big shame, because it usually pollutes the forums of wasted time on debates that keep on going, it is ok to say I was wrong or say I value those views, thanks alot.

So perhaps, it's better to avoid the thread, but then again, it irks at some fans, that someone discussing your favorite driver, and saying stuff about him you may not like or agree with, that's apart of discussing f1 these days, you have a idea of Mika Hakkinen in your head, and others are trying to say, those are wrong ideas, either way, your reading them, so beaware your getting educated into The Mika Hakkinen class of debates, and the objective of some people, that maybe you as well, is to defend any criticism as much as possible, even if you think its true, and to praise anything that tailors to Mika's strenghts, even if you think another forumer is making up a mika strength, it works with you, so very few people here are interested in discussing mika's real flaws and strengths based on his career, very few, but those few usually get little replies, why, because some of you are interested in the fictional career of Hakkinen, where info is twisted to defend critisicm.

Information twisted to defend criticism A blinded f1 fan's title to his f1 values bible.
Harsh, but likely true for some f1 fans, whether that includes you, only you know and don't expect you to admit.

[Oho]

Quote

Originally posted by SeanValen

I enjoyed Mika and Michael's battles alot, good sportsmenship, but it don't mean I will shy away from talking about Mika's strengths and weaknesses.

Ave !!!


NAAAAAAAHH hype cubed, there was no special sportsmanship worth mentioning, incidents like Spa 00 pretty much disqualify that bit, There was Schumcaher ambitious like hell prepared to do just about anything to achive his goals, then there was Häkkinen not at all happy about Schumcahers on track conduct and not quite so willing to put his and others lives on the line, but also unwilling to air his opinions as he saw nothing good coming out of it...... A real sportmanship and sporting relationship should have seen more symmerty, between Hakkinen and Schumacher there was none worth mentioning.

Incidentally when will you not shy away from Schumachers weaknesses.... Sorry I forgot, there are none..

Frankly I am just a bit more than sick and tired of this Hakkinen Schumacher relationship praise from the Schumcaher camp because it is so incredibly self serving...... after all canonical glorification of Schumacher would quite a bit harder without the "great sporting relationhsip and mutual respect" mantra of the red corner. There was none, at least Mika said as much, period.........

- Oho -

[SeanValen]

Quote

Originally posted by Oho


Ave !!!


NAAAAAAAHH hype cubed, there was no special sportsmanship worth mentioning, incidents like Spa 00 pretty much disqualify that bit, There was Schumcaher ambitious like hell prepared to do just about anything to achive his goals, then there was Häkkinen not at all happy about Schumcahers on track conduct and not quite so willing to put his and others lives on the line, but also unwilling to air his opinions as he saw nothing good coming out of it...... A real sportmanship and sporting relationship should have seen more symmerty, between Hakkinen and Schumacher there was none worth mentioning.

Incidentally when will you not shy away from Schumachers weaknesses.... Sorry I forgot, there are none..

Frankly I am just a bit more than sick and tired of this Hakkinen Schumacher relationship praise from the Schumcaher camp because it is so incredibly self serving...... after all canonical glorification of Schumacher would quite a bit harder without the "great sporting relationhsip and mutual respect" mantra of the red corner. There was none, at least Mika said as much, period.........

- Oho -

Why should I spend my time highlighting Schumi's weaknesses, this thread isn't about it, and Schumi gets separate topics about him all the time, like his starts, which some think it isn't as good as others, I agree, his reactions are not always quicker then others, there you go, a highlighted a flaw, wasting my precious time to please you.


Forget about the schumi camp, Hakkinen himself said "Michael was a bit too nice to me." Its a popular quote he said in 2002 I believe. Sure 2000 Spa wasn't nice and pretty, but it was well within the understanding of defending your position, he did move across once, a well timed and agressive move, but within the rules , but what wasn't pretty was Damon Hill moving three times the line on Michael in Canada 98, yet that isn't seen as popular as it's done on Michael.

What makes you think I'm from the schumi camp, thats the problem with some of you, quick to place someone under a driver's fan gang: I like alot of drivers, you don't know me well to say that, I'm from the Mika camp, Michael camp, montoya camp, alonso camp, I like to go camping everywhere.
But this thread is about Mika, so I talk about Mika, discuss formula one without thinking you know every fan from their posts to put a tag on their forehead, stating what camp there from, it's pretty silly thinking you know me that well to say that.

Quote

Originally posted by vivian
Ofcourse mika has been overhyped but he was a fantastic driver when he was given a fast car. But i for one did not think he was an equal to michael schumacher.

1) His apparent lack of motivation, well sort of an excuse for poor performances.
2) He was a ordinary F1 driver when it was damp or wet.
3) Yes he did not return favours to DC
4) Prone to mistakes even when not under pressure.
5) Season 99 made him look so ordinary with eddie irvine challenging him.

But he was so calm and did not let a schumacher chop flutter his nerves. Given the best car, he won two championships, which is atleast what is required, regardless of the margin he won. I think he is a worthy adversary, to be feared and respected for his speed and racing .

I agree with your reasons, I don't enjoy talking about Mika's flaws, because I like him, but cannot deny what I've seen when he raced, what he said, what he did etc.

[zengiman]

Quote

Originally posted by SeanValen



I like alot of drivers, you don't know me well to say that, I'm from the Mika camp, Michael camp, montoya camp, alonso camp, I like to go camping everywhere.

True fan

[Dr. Strangelove]

MH=Double world champion, a Fraud, dont be ridiculous.
I agree he had some weaknesses but even taking these into account, he would be in most people top 5 drivers of the last 10 years. He was inconsistent at times, spinning out in Imola and Monza 99 springs to mind, but he was excellent in 98 and 2000. Only for that mechanical dnf at indy 2000 he could have been a 3timesWDC, we'll never know.
His primary weakness was that when things went against him, he could disappear.

Mika in an interview with F1racing I think implied that where MS was the best was in his consistent drive, hunger and need to be on top whereas Mika was basically exhausted after a few years at the top.

In his prime Mika was a true great, those pole laps were memorable, as was his performances at Suzuka 98,99, 00. However his prime was shorter than Schumi, Senna, Prost etc.

A fraud, no way. Complicated, yes.

[Torx]

Quote

Originally posted by SeanValen

Forget about the schumi camp, Hakkinen himself said "Michael was a bit too nice to me." Its a popular quote he said in 2002 I believe. Sure 2000 Spa wasn't nice and pretty, but it was well within the understanding of defending your position, he did move across once, a well timed and agressive move, but within the rules , but what wasn't pretty was Damon Hill moving three times the line on Michael in Canada 98, yet that isn't seen as popular as it's done on Michael.

Apparently Mika did not agree with you because immediately after climbing out of the car he had a little talk with MS.

This from a 2003 interview:

Q. Did you ever had the chance to talk with each other? Or was your duel
always so fierce that you didnt talk to each other much?

MH. We were always in the duel. So it was difficult for us two to talk
to each other. But all the "nasty" stuff between each other took place
on the track. We never said anything bad about each other in public. But
there were couple of incidents on the track that werent completely
perfect.

I don't the popularity of the supposed quote in 2002 but this is what Google had to say:

"Your search - "michael was a bit too nice to me" - did not match any documents."

[Deeq]

Quote

Originally posted by Oho


Ave !!!


NAAAAAAAHH hype cubed, there was no special sportsmanship worth mentioning, incidents like Spa 00 pretty much disqualify that bit, There was Schumcaher ambitious like hell prepared to do just about anything to achive his goals, then there was Häkkinen not at all happy about Schumcahers on track conduct and not quite so willing to put his and others lives on the line, but also unwilling to air his opinions as he saw nothing good coming out of it...... A real sportmanship and sporting relationship should have seen more symmerty, between Hakkinen and Schumacher there was none worth mentioning.

Incidentally when will you not shy away from Schumachers weaknesses.... Sorry I forgot, there are none..

Frankly I am just a bit more than sick and tired of this Hakkinen Schumacher relationship praise from the Schumcaher camp because it is so incredibly self serving...... after all canonical glorification of Schumacher would quite a bit harder without the "great sporting relationhsip and mutual respect" mantra of the red corner. There was none, at least Mika said as much, period.........

- Oho -

Thank you Mika for setting the records straight we mistakenly believed you enjoyed and respected MS but alas we all have our flaws.

Yes we understand and sympathise you how you feel about the Schumacher camps glorification of their Idol by using your politeness. Shame on them

No tell us how you really feel about say Macau.. [Sarcasm]

Why generalise and on what authority did you spoke there? As Mikas Bud, for you seem to know allot how he felt and what he thought about MS. Not to mention how *Schumacher’s gang*[indiscriminately all of them BTW] perceive him i.e. GOD.

Very melodramatic I must say about your post.

[Oho]

Quote

Originally posted by Dr. Strangelove


Mika in an interview with F1racing I think implied that where MS was the best was in his consistent drive, hunger and need to be on top whereas Mika was basically exhausted after a few years at the top.

In his prime Mika was a true great, those pole laps were memorable, as was his performances at Suzuka 98,99, 00. However his prime was shorter than Schumi, Senna, Prost etc.

A fraud, no way. Complicated, yes.

Ave !!!

Actually he should be in the top 2 list of the last 10 years or the top three should one include Sennas brief but unfortunate stay in 94.....

I guess Mika was quite tired after 2000 but the real willies and push to retirement especially as there was nothing to gain he got at Melbourne after the collapsed suspension put him to wall, cracked his helmet and concussed him. Hell of reminer of ones mortality in hell of a place and time from ones perspective. He simply lost the reliance he needed in the car and the team to carry on, can't blame him, I would have too.

- Oho -

[Vrba]

Quote

Originally posted by Dr. Strangelove
MH=Double world champion, a Fraud, dont be ridiculous.
I agree he had some weaknesses but even taking these into account, he would be in most people top 5 drivers of the last 10 years. He was inconsistent at times, spinning out in Imola and Monza 99 springs to mind, but he was excellent in 98 and 2000. Only for that mechanical dnf at indy 2000 he could have been a 3timesWDC, we'll never know.
His primary weakness was that when things went against him, he could disappear.

Mika in an interview with F1racing I think implied that where MS was the best was in his consistent drive, hunger and need to be on top whereas Mika was basically exhausted after a few years at the top.

In his prime Mika was a true great, those pole laps were memorable, as was his performances at Suzuka 98,99, 00. However his prime was shorter than Schumi, Senna, Prost etc.

A fraud, no way. Complicated, yes.

This sums it up perfectly, at least in my opinion.

Hrvoje

[Dr. Strangelove]

Quote

Originally posted by Vrba

This sums it up perfectly, at least in my opinion.

Hrvoje

Thanks VRBA

[Deeq]

Quote

Originally posted by Vrba

This sums it up perfectly, at least in my opinion.

Hrvoje

I Second that.

[Oho]

Quote

Originally posted by Deeq

Why generalise and on what authority did you spoke there? As Mikas Bud, for you seem to know allot how he felt and what he thought about MS. Not to mention how *Schumacher’s gang*[indiscriminately all of them BTW] perceive him i.e. GOD.

Very melodramatic I must say about your post.

Ave !!!

But then again you do the same by assuming there was some mutual respect that put tham apart from the rest of the drivers. Mika has never said anything to particualrly support that view, he has discredited it however, it seems Michael was a rival he kept his distance with, nothing more nothing less.

And yes once the accepted mantra "Schumacher cannot be beaten in equal or worse machinery" became the standard, he had evolved from mere mortal to some unspecified stellar hights. Not only that but this view of Schumacher is concistently applied in "reasonable" analysis, such that the reason and explanation for any defeat is searched from the car, as the man cannot be held responsible. It is neat ofcourse as Schumacher not winning is alone proof enough of him not having the best car.

Se koira ällähtää johon kalikka kalahtaa,

- Oho -

[Taxi]

I was "in love" with mika for the first time in Argentina 1995. he was driving a disastrous car. And yet he made a fantastic qualifýing. 5th or 6th don't quite remember. In the start he jumped up two positions like a mad man. In the first corner he was out of the race. and I thought.. "this guy..."
You Know, I used to hate him,especialy after Portugal 1993 and Hungaroring 1994. I liked Brundle, but he was always behind Mika.

My anti hero was Senna, and after his death Mika was the man to folow. But Argentina 1995 realy opened my eyes. " this guy is impetuous, but stupidly fast..."
MIka was not the all time best like Schumacher nor senna or Prost or even Piquet and Lauda. But sure he could drive above the limite of eveyone else many times. Talk about it to Martin Brundle.

See his telemetry in Eau Rouge: flat out. He was the best of his generation in the very veryyyy fast corners. Even Schumacher had to seat and learn. No Fraud. If eddie Irvine had got the championship in 99, that would be a fraud. Not mika.

[Deeq]

Quote

Originally posted by Oho


Ave !!!

But then again you do the same by assuming there was some mutual respect that put tham apart from the rest of the drivers. Mika has never said anything to particualrly support that view, he has discredited it however, it seems Michael was a rival he kept his distance with, nothing more nothing less.

Well I didn't say anything[like that] but nevertheless reasonable argument[by you] except berhaps the bit about how did he discredit[the context] and when?.

And yes once the accepted mantra "Schumacher cannot be beaten in equal or worse machinery" became the standard, he had evolved from mere mortal to some unspecified stellar hights. Not only that but this view of Schumacher is concistently applied in "reasonable" analysis, such that the reason and explanation for any defeat is searched from the car, as the man cannot be held responsible. It is neat ofcourse as Schumacher not winning is alone proof enough of him not having the best car.

Thsi is the burden[even the cause] of being the minority, We live in democracies where the majority rules and defines the rules and norms, And ultimately write history. Besides we are more hence probably right .


Oho I don't know Finnish so could you Plz help me understand this---->


Se koira ällähtää johon kalikka kalahtaa,



- Oho - [/B]

But point taken i just thought you were being harsh on your *critisism*

[goGoGene]

Having weaknesses, dealing with them, working around them, and coming out victorious in spite of them. That's what I call a champion.

[Big Block 8]

Deeq,

To make a long story short, you are insinuating that the change to harder compounds by Bstone was "correcting" the favoritism towards McLaren from the start of the season. Anything but favoritism of McLaren by Bridgestone from the season start, is a "wild assumption". As your "proof" of that favoritism, according to MS his tires wore out at the French GP (9th of the season) faster than with other drivers, including Barrichello. There was also one leaking tire in Spanish GP. (Curiously, in 2003 the situation was rather similar, one blown tyre due to excessive wear and Barrichello being able to use softer compounds without problems. Was there another case of favoritism towards McLaren by Bridgestone in 2003? Or could it be related to driving style? )

On the other side of the scale, we have Mika saying he was unhappy with the harder compounds provided by Bstone in the end of the season 00, reports of exclusive deals between Ferrari and Bridgestone and McLaren packing their bags and moving to Michelin camp after 2001.

Somehow I don't find it difficult to guess, which was the "favored" team here, if there was any.

Quote

Originally posted by Deeq

Shown by the fact that the Ferraris were having problems with them vis a vis McLarens----> Mclaren optimised tyre. *We* being anyone but a "blinkered" McFAN


Now that's interesting, what's "blancing"?

Balancing[ here as counter argument].
Are you trying to make a *point* there? otherwise I did overestimated you. [/B]

First, I'm not a McFAN and I consider myself too old to be a driver fan either.

And no need to get upset about the latter, I really just didn't have a clue what you meant with the "blancing".

[Big Block 8]

Quote

Originally posted by Arrow


Friday qualifying was irrelavent back then.
The fact is that mika beat senna once when it counted and ca,e close at suzuka something which good old berger bettered the previous season when he poled it ahead of ayrton.
3 races is far to small of a window to draw the conclusion that he could hang with senna over a lap.
An old demotivated senna btw.

He was 2 times out of 3 within hundreths of a sec "when it counted". More, I don't recall Senna being a person, who exactly liked being beaten, especially in his favorite game by a kid from somewhere up north, so I'd count in the total of six. Drivers are hired or fired with "windows" far more narrow than that. As for being "old and demotivated", I didn't know Senna was planning to quit after 1993.