178 replies to this topic

[cartman]

Now that he isn't in McLaren he can speak freely about what he thinks about their drivers.

He confirmed what most of people on this board were saying for some time: Montoya is overrated , Kimi is the real deal.

Of course I don't doubt that some armchair experts will be again smarter that the man who was working from inside the team for almost a decade.
;)

[emburmak]

Well we always have this season. At the end of 2006 we will all know the answer!! JPM vs KR may the best man win! As for KR vs MH PLEASE! 2 bridemaid seasons does not a champion make.

[fasteR]

Kimi and JPM are BOTH great drivers ( with a slight advantage for JPM imo) whatever mister Illien has to say...

[cartman]

Originally posted by fasteR
... whatever mister Illien has to say...

Of course. What would he know. He was not like working with them or something like that.

[Fortymark]

Originally posted by fasteR
Kimi and JPM are BOTH great drivers ( with a slight advantage for JPM imo) whatever mister Illien has to say...

So true
I´m mean for the first part. But for far, Kimi has been better teamed up.

[boostpressure]

kimi has the potential to be as good if not better than Hakkinen, no doubt. Right now? A bit premature.

[fasteR]

Originally posted by cartman


Of course. What would he know. He was not like working with them or something like that.

I was refering to the "Montoya overatted driver"... i dont have membership so i cant read the full article , did he say that or that comes from your imagination ?


He may find that Raikkonnen is better than JPM (not very accurate though when you look at time respectively spent in the team for both drivers ), each one has his own opinions, but saying Montoya is an overrated driver is kinda funny...

[Mauseri]

KR doesn't spin from lead, can drive faster in unideal conditions (broken car, rain, close barriers, whatever), and won't give up. I agree with MI. MH was fast but that was all.

[Dragonfly]

Kimi has the potential and has showed he's very good. But until he has a WDC on his belt I would refrain from saying he's better than Mika.

[boostpressure]

Originally posted by micra_k10
KR doesn't spin from lead, can drive faster in unideal conditions (broken car, rain, close barriers, whatever), and won't give up. I agree with MI. MH was fast but that was all.

they are good points actually. Mika did have a tendancy to drop his head when things weren't right and made a few big errors for a man so experienced at the time. He was very very fast though, particularly in qualifying. 1998 he impressed me alot, very much. 1999 not much at all. In 2000, he was back to his 1998 form.

You can't say he wasn't good with close barriers though, didn't he take the pole and win Monaco in 1998? Im sure he did.

[yr]

Originally posted by Dragonfly
Kimi has the potential and has showed he's very good. But until he has a WDC on his belt I would refrain from saying he's better than Mika.

Being a WDC is of course the best way to show your value, but a guy like Ilien, who has
been inside the team long enough to witness best years of Mika and all years of Kimi,
can surely compare them better than we ever could. He knows quite well how much each
driver in his team has got out of his car, Kimi isn´t a WDC yet, that doesn´t mean he is
inferior to Mika. Winning the championship is always a combination of many things;
fast car, reliable car, good tyres, good strategy, fast and consistant driver, good luck etc.
So who are we to say that Kimi can´t be better than Mika before he wins few WDC´S?
If Ilien thinks he is already better, then there is probably a reason for it, no? I mean, it´s
not like Ilien isn´t aware of Mika being a double champ and Kimi having none.

[MortenF1]

I'm prepared to agree with Räikkönen now being better (not necessarily faster, but he might be indeed) than Häkkinen was, but it seems a bit premature to say that. Häkkinen has afterall, got "two times WDC" beside his name.
Räikkönen is certainly of the same ability, yes perhaps even better, but Häkkinen has to get the nod for a little while yet I think.

I don't care too much though, 'cause both are absolutely magnificent drivers.

[Alfisti]

People seem to forget the car that is under the drivers bum. This whole obsession with WDC, honestly in 2002 or 2004 I genuinley feel someone like say Klien could have been WDC in a Ferarri. Mika's McLarens were a tad more dominant and reliable than Kimi's.

I'd put Kimi in the car if I had to choose, I thought he was over rated at Sauber but if he loses to Monty this year it will be a real shock IMHO. He and Fred are fantastic drivers, really are very, very good.

[Oho]

Originally posted by race addicted
I'm prepared to agree with Räikkönen now being better (not necessarily faster, but he might be indeed) than Häkkinen was, but it seems a bit premature to say that. Häkkinen has afterall, got "two times WDC" beside his name.
Räikkönen is certainly of the same ability, yes perhaps even better, but Häkkinen has to get the nod for a little while yet I think.

I don't care too much though, 'cause both are absolutely magnificent drivers.

Somehow I read into Illiens comment that Räikkönen is more consumate/single minded/focused, rather than having otherwise better skills set than Häkkinen, this is were I incidentally think Schumacher excelled over Häkkinen. I guess it makes, form my perspective, Räikkönen as racing driver more out of Schumacher than Häkkinen mould.

[MortenF1]

yeah, that sounds right to me as well, Oho.

[yr]

Yep, very good point there Oho. But that might well be a crucial point between top drivers.

[miniman]

Kimi is a great driver with occasional flashes of brilliance and incredible speed but at this point in his career I wouldn't consider him superior to MH. Kimi's performance in qualifying is certainly inferior to MH and in a race I think that Mika's judgement was slightly better - he could nurse a sick car to the finish line.

As well, Kimi's supposedly lifstyle is not conducive to a long career, never mind a stellar one. Only time will tell if he is really better than MH

[BRG]

Originally posted by cartman
Of course I don't doubt that some armchair experts will be again smarter that the man who was working from inside the team for almost a decade.

Was he? I thought that he was supposed to have been running Ilmor? Maybe if he had spent a bit more time doing his own job, rather than hanging around McLaren, some of that infamous unreliability might have been avoided...

[SeanValen]

Originally posted by miniman
Kimi is a great driver with occasional flashes of brilliance and incredible speed but at this point in his career I wouldn't consider him superior to MH. Kimi's performance in qualifying is certainly inferior to MH and in a race I think that Mika's judgement was slightly better - he could nurse a sick car to the finish line.

As well, Kimi's supposedly lifstyle is not conducive to a long career, never mind a stellar one. Only time will tell if he is really better than MH

The problem is, since Mika retired, people only choose to remmeber his stronger traits, as if he was pretty much perfect, in reality, he's welcomed to constructive criticism as well as any other driver.
Mika wasn't always on it, his set up skills wasn't his best strength, there was races in 2000 like Monaco, where he just wasn't getting to grips with the car, and he allowed DC in with a crack at the title, when he should of been maximising his opportunties. When Mika sometimes knew he wasn't in the chance for some good points, he would lose motivation from racing in the pack, this goes back to early on his career.

Other then reliability in 2001, Mika was again off the pace at Monaco again, and DC was at home in the mclaren, I just think that's too weird for who is considered a top driver, Mika done well when everything was working well for him, he was as fast as anyone, yet he was sensitive to car set up and handeling, that's why DC got the jump on him at times. Kimi doesn't have a weakness like that I've seen.

If you wanna be comparing anyone to Hakkinen, I think the closest is Alonso, Alonso like Kimi said of him, was especially fast in that renault of 2005, in 2004 he looked alright, but was anyone calling him a top driver up until Monaco, he was not getting to grips with that car like Trulli was, and it reminded me of DC and Hakkinen, where as Hakkinen was better, sometimes DC would just make him look about the same.


When Todt and MS talk drivers, Kimi's name comes up, their not idiots.
I'm not a Kimi fan, but you have to be a idiot not to reconise the speed of the man, he's the only one apart from MS who has proved more, that would look fast in any car, any set up, any chassic, Alonso's 2004 campaign is more telling of his talents then the 2005 season, even if he did win the title, trulli's performances against him and how he reacted to them, by crashing out at monaco, shows perhaps not the cool head when the chips are down, and Canada 2005, one of the rare races he was under pressure, as the mclaren lead wasn't too far apart then, he crashed out again, his anger on the radio, reminded me of his sticking his hands up in the monaco tunnel in 2004 after he crashed out, a weakness perhaps, future will tell.

There's nothing wrong with constructive criticism, but I get peed's off that we have to treat Mika extra special because he's retired, he was great, and he was excellent competititor for MS, he was as fast as anyone at times, but he did have flaws, maybe Kimi will be weak at certain tracks when the car becomes rubbish, and he loses out to montoya, who knows, but I haven't seen that yet, but it's good to keep a open mind about it.

[peroa]

Originally posted by SeanValen



The problem is, since Mika retired, people only choose to remmeber his stronger traits, as if he was pretty much perfect, in reality, he's welcomed to constructive criticism as well as any other driver.
Mika wasn't always on it, his set up skills wasn't his best strength, there was races in 2000 like Monaco, where he just wasn't getting to grips with the car, and he allowed DC in with a crack at the title, when he should of been maximising his opportunties. When Mika sometimes knew he wasn't in the chance for some good points, he would lose motivation from racing in the pack, this goes back to early on his career.

Other then reliability in 2001, Mika was again off the pace at Monaco again, and DC was at home in the mclaren, I just think that's too weird for who is considered a top driver, Mika done well when everything was working well for him, he was as fast as anyone, yet he was sensitive to car set up and handeling, that's why DC got the jump on him at times. Kimi doesn't have a weakness like that I've seen.

If you wanna be comparing anyone to Hakkinen, I think the closest is Alonso, Alonso like Kimi said of him, was especially fast in that renault of 2005, in 2004 he looked alright, but was anyone calling him a top driver up until Monaco, he was not getting to grips with that car like Trulli was, and it reminded me of DC and Hakkinen, where as Hakkinen was better, sometimes DC would just make him look about the same.


When Todt and MS talk drivers, Kimi's name comes up, their not idiots.
I'm not a Kimi fan, but you have to be a idiot not to reconise the speed of the man, he's the only one apart from MS who has proved more, that would look fast in any car, any set up, any chassic, Alonso's 2004 campaign is more telling of his talents then the 2005 season, even if he did win the title, trulli's performances against him and how he reacted to them, by crashing out at monaco, shows perhaps not the cool head when the chips are down, and Canada 2005, one of the rare races he was under pressure, as the mclaren lead wasn't too far apart them.

There's nothing wrong with constructive criticism, but I get peed's off that we have to treat Mika extra special because he's retired, he was great, and he was excellent competititor for MS, he was as fast as anyone at times, but he did have flaws, maybe Kimi will be weak at certain tracks when the car becomes rubbish, and he loses out to montoya, who knows, but I haven't seen that yet, but it's good to keep a open mind about it.

[armonico]

Originally posted by SeanValen


If you wanna be comparing anyone to Hakkinen, I think the closest is Alonso, Alonso like Kimi said of him, was especially fast in that renault of 2005, in 2004 he looked alright, but was anyone calling him a top driver up until Monaco, he was not getting to grips with that car like Trulli was, and it reminded me of DC and Hakkinen, where as Hakkinen was better, sometimes DC would just make him look about the same.


When Todt and MS talk drivers, Kimi's name comes up, their not idiots.
I'm not a Kimi fan, but you have to be a idiot not to reconise the speed of the man, he's the only one apart from MS who has proved more, that would look fast in any car, any set up, any chassic, Alonso's 2004 campaign is more telling of his talents then the 2005 season, even if he did win the title, trulli's performances against him and how he reacted to them, by crashing out at monaco, shows perhaps not the cool head when the chips are down, and Canada 2005, one of the rare races he was under pressure, as the mclaren lead wasn't too far apart them.

That's right. In addition, Alonso failed the overall F1 challenge, he already proved he coudn't win in a Minardi.

However, for Michael and Kimi is an uncertainty so they can still prove Alonso is highly overrated (well the challenge will be in ToroRosso. Isn't Liuizi aiming for podiums?)


Was Kimi driving the R25 in a secret test to know about Alonso speed?

Very telling indeed, Kimi has proved he coudn't win two championships.

[Arrow]

Mika gave Coulthard credibility. Kimi took it away.
Enough said.

[Tubbs]

Originally posted by Arrow
Mika gave Coulthard credibility. Kimi took it away.
Enough said.

That's a simple way of viewing things as you think DC's performance level remained the same during all his time at McLaren. It was not so much Mika giving DC credibility but more Coulthard taking it himself. Especially the first half of his 2001 season was brilliant when he ran circles around Schumacher despite driving inferior car performance wise.

[Arrow]

Originally posted by Tubbs


That's a simple way of viewing things as you think DC's performance level remained the same during all his time at McLaren. It was not so much Mika giving DC credibility but more Coulthard taking it himself. Especially the first half of his 2001 season was brilliant when he ran circles around Schumacher despite driving inferior car performance wise.

Well its awfully convenient to simply say Coulthard drove better when he was with Mika but its incredibly silly and transparent. Once established a drivers level of performance doesnt really change, so it doesnt even make sense to proclaim he drove well then and suddenly for no reason stopped when Kimi arrived. He didnt change teams, and he was the team incumbent yet Kimi sent him packing in 3 seasons (should have been 2), while when paired with Mika he got the reputation as a top driver.

And your dreaming about 2001. Apart from Brazil when did he 'run circles' around anyone let alone Michael? That year was another waste of a great car.

[Spunout]

Once established a drivers level of performance doesnt really change

BS.

[Arrow]

Originally posted by Spunout


BS.

Apart from age or getting used to a new team for a short period of time, why would it change? How can it?

[le chat noir]

Originally posted by Arrow

Apart from age or getting used to a new team for a short period of time, why would it change? How can it?

Because there's a difference between being established and being good.

Sato for instance had a safe seat, a Japanese in a Japanese team. And the best Japanese to boot. If only he'd managed to at least provided the same level of performance of 04, and if he really had levelled off, then it should have been better - more experience and understanding of previous mistakes reduces the number of potential future errors - yet he got worse while being established and it wasn't due to age or a new team.

[le chat noir]

Originally posted by Arrow


Well its awfully convenient to simply say Coulthard drove better when he was with Mika but its incredibly silly and transparent. Once established a drivers level of performance doesnt really change, so it doesnt even make sense to proclaim he drove well then and suddenly for no reason stopped when Kimi arrived. He didnt change teams, and he was the team incumbent yet Kimi sent him packing in 3 seasons (should have been 2), while when paired with Mika he got the reputation as a top driver.

And your dreaming about 2001. Apart from Brazil when did he 'run circles' around anyone let alone Michael? That year was another waste of a great car.

I'd also disagree with your DC comments. It is common opinion, it seems to me, that DC drove better in the Mika days, deteriorated while KR was there, and improved dramatically at Red Bull, though perhaps not quite to the same levels as his best days, but certainly better than 04.
If you're looking for a reason in that, I'd plump for him NOT changing teams or roles. If, Mac employed NH instead of KR when they did, DC would have been seen as no 1, and would perhaps have stepped up to that role. With KR they could only be seen as at most or equal status.
The new team environment relit his motivations and improved him, but by your thinking it seems that drivers in new teams should not be able to perform to the same standard as if they had stayed where they were (ignoring car and team ability), but that is simply not so, because the team environment can be a help or a hindrance, depending on personality.

And about the running circles thingamy. I was tempted to say all those sitting in the inside grandstands, but I don't need to be quite so silly. What about some of those he beats. He has never after all finished last in any championship, and consistently beats various drivers, some of which I'm sure it could be said he 'ran circles around'.

[Mauseri]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SeanValen
The problem is, since Mika retired, people only choose to remmeber his stronger traits, as if he was pretty much perfect, in reality, he's welcomed to constructive criticism as well as any other driver.[/QUOTE]
Every track isn't in Barcelona
[quote]Mika wasn't always on it, his set up skills wasn't his best strength, there was races in 2000 like Monaco, where he just wasn't getting to grips with the car, and he allowed DC in with a crack at the title, when he should of been maximising his opportunties. When Mika sometimes knew he wasn't in the chance for some good points, he would lose motivation from racing in the pack, this goes back to early on his career.[/quote]
Mika was good in Monaco. He has some good qualifying results from there. Only in two last years DC was better than him there. And in 2000 race Mika had a problem with car and he lost a lap in that.
[/quote]
Other then reliability in 2001, Mika was again off the pace at Monaco again, and DC was at home in the mclaren, I just think that's too weird for who is considered a top driver, Mika done well when everything was working well for him, he was as fast as anyone, yet he was sensitive to car set up and handeling, that's why DC got the jump on him at times. Kimi doesn't have a weakness like that I've seen.[/quote]
Yes. I think Kimi has better feel for the car, and that's why he can be fast in worse setup and changing conditions. Mika drove like a clock. Identic fast laps with reactions at the very right points. Kimi is more like Michael there, more natural and more control of the car.

[Spunout]

Apart from age or getting used to a new team for a short period of time, why would it change? How can it?

Because we are talking about humans.

There are lots of factors making somebody fast - it´s more than natural talent.

Your favourite, MS, is an excellent example. He wasn´t always faster than everybody else. During his early years MS often had inconsistent pace. Why? Because his ability to concenrate wasn´t as good as it is now. You CAN practise it, believe me. Fitness is important, too. In one interview MS explained he used to train hard but in wrong way. When MS directed the training to the correct muscles, he tired less and managed to concentrate better. Thus, he became faster over the entire race. With DTM cars he learned more about correct lines, etc. The importance of being smooth. He gained more experience and knowledge -> more speed. And then of course there are setups, car development, style, etc. The point is he has kept the learning process/training "on" ever since, and 7 WDCs are the reward for his hard work over the years.

Going to F1 with the attitude like "I have learned everything, I am fast" doesn´t make you the next Schumi. Ever. There is always something to learn, you can always develop yourself. No exceptions.

How about Senna? At the beginning of his career he sucked at wet. He was slow because despite of natural talent he had no knowledge or experience. Then he learned, and became fast.

Then you have psychology: there are countless examples of somebody losing his confidence and never getting it back. Going fast is more than reflexes, it´s very much about your mind, really. Some DO get it back, for example HHF 97-99. Switching teams can either make you faster or slower, depending on situation. Or if something happens. From the times when you had near-fatal accidents all the time we could find lots and lots of great examples.

And of course you learn more about the machinery as well. Struggle 19 races with understeery car and you will sure as hell be faster with understeery car. In many races the 2002 McLaren wasn´t suiting KR at all. This was so easy to see from the in-car camera, etc. But he made it work. Then again somebody like JPM (who I believe can be as fast as anyone) seems to have "the car doesn´t suit my style" cases all the time - at Williams, at McLaren.

Of course, this is only stratching the surface. There is much more. But I hope this helps you to understand the drivers aren´t pieces of statistics, with the same constant speed

[skittt]

Once established a drivers level of performance doesnt really change

You are kidding, right? Look at Mika's performance in 2000 and then in 2001... He was an established driver but his level of performance diminished so much in 2001 when compared to 2000 that he retired in 2001...

[Tubbs]

Originally posted by SeanValen

Mika wasn't always on it, his set up skills wasn't his best strength, there was races in 2000 like Monaco, where he just wasn't getting to grips with the car, and he allowed DC in with a crack at the title, when he should of been maximising his opportunties.

You never get tired of sprouting this old mantra of yours where Mika sucks at setting up the car. It is a wonder he managed to win 2 WDC's actually if one were to believe you. And Monaco qualifying 2000 was spoiled for MH because every time he went for a fast lap there were yellow flags around except his last attempt where he had to secure a decent grid position. I think Mika maximised his opportunities quite well considering that McLaren left him trailing Schumacher by 24 points after Imola. And of course you cannot fathom the fact that DC is quite a good driver actually.

When Mika sometimes knew he wasn't in the chance for some good points, he would lose motivation from racing in the pack, this goes back to early on his career.

If that were true McLaren would have NEVER hired MH and nor would Williams have wanted him onboard for 1993 because until then he had driven only crappy cars which didn't even give him a chance to fight for "good points".

Other then reliability in 2001, Mika was again off the pace at Monaco again, and DC was at home in the mclaren, I just think that's too weird for who is considered a top driver

"Off the pace" LOL. We can as well say MS has been of the pace of Barrichello every time he has lost to him in qualifying since DC was effectively not in the race. And even if we took the view that based on qualifying Mika was off the pace it's really no shame in losing to DC who is a bit of Monaco specialist after all he beat MS with a superior Ferrari there in 2002.

[SeanValen]

Originally posted by Tubbs


.



If that were true McLaren would have NEVER hired MH and nor would Williams have wanted him onboard for 1993 because until then he had driven only crappy cars which didn't even give him a chance to fight for "good points".

You fall into the department of denying that Mika had no flaws lol
Adrian Newey had a go at Hakkinen for his performance at Hungary 2001, when the was the last time he was vocal, Mika had motivational problems, he usually always took holidays when he had the chance, motoracing he took seriously up until a edge, it did get the better of him at times, DC was good at Monaco as well, I know that, where was Hakkinen in France in 2000, Schumi and DC headed off that GP, it was a big news related thing in 2000, Mika's motivation, he allowed things to get to him, I find that curious, because as soon as ferrari posed a consistent threat, they didn't in 98 or 99, things got tougher for Mika, Michael got more poles, and wins, and DC who had crap reliability in 99, didn't suffer as many DNFs in 2000, Mika was still awesome in the races he won, but for godsake, you can't deny he had a motivational problem at times when the going got tough, Monza 1999, crying after he selected the wrong gear, it's not the same as MS crying after he's secured his win at Monza, at least he secured the victory.

Mika needed his holidays, those GPs mentally drained him, and yes that was his flaw, mentally drained at times, and set up wise, technically , well I don't need to debate that, I remember Bira saying Mika's technical application wasn't the best, and DC got the better of him, and everyone can agree lol, if DC isn't more talented then Mika, then Mika lacked in areas, because tenths he lost on, I say he could of gained with more hard work and committment on the technical side, instead he took holidays, something Michael said to him before 2000 "You really need to work for it." said Michael, while Mika was on another holiday before the championship finale of Japan 2000, are these flaws?? I think so, beause, I think he wasn't always mentally on it. You can have talent, but sometimes that is not enough, Michael's talent matches his dedication and work ethic, it makes him the best, Hakkinen lacked in this area, and I certainly think it cost him at times.



Kimi has been criticised for drinking at night clubs, who knows what his future holds, so far, so good. But I don't see him crying after making a mistake on track, and I don't see him having motivational problems, f1 is about the mind game as well as driving talent, there's a healthy angre to this driver and he exerts it through driving fast.

[HardRock]

Originally posted by miniman
Kimi is a great driver with occasional flashes of brilliance and incredible speed but at this point in his career I wouldn't consider him superior to MH. Kimi's performance in qualifying is certainly inferior to MH and in a race I think that Mika's judgement was slightly better - he could nurse a sick car to the finish line.

I absolutely agree with you. Good post

[Spunout]

Kimi is a great driver with occasional flashes of brilliance and incredible speed but at this point in his career I wouldn't consider him superior to MH. Kimi's performance in qualifying is certainly inferior to MH and in a race I think that Mika's judgement was slightly better - he could nurse a sick car to the finish line.

Personally I think when Mika was "on", nobody could touch him. But Kimi is more consistent - even when the car is far from 100% he is very, very fast.

This "Kimi cannot nurse a sick car to the finish line" theory is wrong, though. Spa 2004 comes to mind, brilliant victory despite of gearbox problems.

[rfus]

canada 2005 - stuffed steering wheel

[Rob76]

Originally posted by cartman
Now that he isn't in McLaren he can speak freely about what he thinks about their drivers.

He confirmed what most of people on this board were saying for some time: Montoya is overrated , Kimi is the real deal.

Of course I don't doubt that some armchair experts will be again smarter that the man who was working from inside the team for almost a decade.
;)

Your first link is a little misleading for those without a subscription. Mario doesn't say Montoya is overated but rather thinks he was to blame for McLaren not winning the constructors championship due to his mistakes loosing the team points.

Although Mario doesn't say Kimi is 'the real deal', it's closer to summing up his opinions. He says Kimi is a 'real race animal', he rates Kimi 'a step above Mika' and says he's the 'true thoroughbred in F1'.

Although he may be better positioned to form his opinions than most on this forum, they are still just opinions. I pretty much agree with his rating of Kimi, but I think a few mistakes from Montoya were only one factor in McLaren not winning the constructors championship. Mario acknowledges the cars early season poor pace and reliability hurt McLaren but curiously only cites non-engine failures as costing points. Correct me if I'm wrong, but 10 place grid penalties for engine failures also usually cost points. Actual Mercedes engine failures in races may have been far rarer than many people perceive, but they had quite a few engine changes during race weekends, costing grid places.

[Arrow]

Originally posted by le chat noir


I'd also disagree with your DC comments. It is common opinion, it seems to me, that DC drove better in the Mika days, deteriorated while KR was there, and improved dramatically at Red Bull, though perhaps not quite to the same levels as his best days, but certainly better than 04.
If you're looking for a reason in that, I'd plump for him NOT changing teams or roles. If, Mac employed NH instead of KR when they did, DC would have been seen as no 1, and would perhaps have stepped up to that role. With KR they could only be seen as at most or equal status.
The new team environment relit his motivations and improved him, but by your thinking it seems that drivers in new teams should not be able to perform to the same standard as if they had stayed where they were (ignoring car and team ability), but that is simply not so, because the team environment can be a help or a hindrance, depending on personality.

Your just making blatant excuses. Your saying that DCs only drove poorly with Kimi as his team-mate but suddenly found his form when he left Mclaren? Its easier to look good against rookies like Klien ad Luizzi than Kimi , and at Mclaren he was totally settled and used to the cars and environment, and he also got to pick the best engineers at Mclaren when Kimi came.
As i said before there was no reason for his performance to suffer at Mclaren with Kimi. You show biased you are by proclaiming DC suddenly started driving good again at Redbull.

[Naushad78]

Originally posted by Tubbs


That's a simple way of viewing things as you think DC's performance level remained the same during all his time at McLaren. It was not so much Mika giving DC credibility but more Coulthard taking it himself. Especially the first half of his 2001 season was brilliant when he ran circles around Schumacher despite driving inferior car performance wise.

I always thought that the 01 title was DCs had it not been for McLaren's reliability. He was on fire, absolutely scorching! And finally proving that he could battle with MS and Mika on equal terms.
The car let him down big time. I think the stall on pole at Monaco was decisive.

[Arrow]

Originally posted by Naushad78


I always thought that the 01 title was DCs had it not been for McLaren's reliability. He was on fire, absolutely scorching! And finally proving that he could battle with MS and Mika on equal terms.
The car let him down big time. I think the stall on pole at Monaco was decisive.

How many races did he win in 01? Two or three?
Nothing special really.

[zfh10]

Mario makes race engines.
As far as I'm concerned his opinion on driver ability carries as much weight as the average F1 fan.
Am I wrong here?

[Fortymark]

Originally posted by zfh10
Mario makes race engines.
As far as I'm concerned his opinion on driver ability carries as much weight as the average F1 fan.
Am I wrong here?

Yes, you are wrong.
Race engines are developed (fine tuned) together with the drivers.
What do you think Senna discussed several hours with the Honda engineers
during tests and raceweekends, politics in Japan?

Look at Heidfeld, BMW claimed that he directly found something with the BMW engine that could be improved and it showed in lap times also.

[boostpressure]

Originally posted by Oho


Somehow I read into Illiens comment that Räikkönen is more consumate/single minded/focused, rather than having otherwise better skills set than Häkkinen, this is were I incidentally think Schumacher excelled over Häkkinen. I guess it makes, form my perspective, Räikkönen as racing driver more out of Schumacher than Häkkinen mould.

quite accurate I think Oho.

[peroa]

Isn`t it interesting how quick a guy is discredited that worked almost 20 years in F1 and has far superior knowledge then the f****** average forum poster?

Emm, he actually knows the guys behind the visor and the overall.

You don`t, I don`t.

So please...

[boostpressure]

Originally posted by SeanValen
[B]The problem is, since Mika retired, people only choose to remmeber his stronger traits, as if he was pretty much perfect, in reality, he's welcomed to constructive criticism as well as any other driver.
Mika wasn't always on it, his set up skills wasn't his best strength, there was races in 2000 like Monaco, where he just wasn't getting to grips with the car, and he allowed DC in with a crack at the title, when he should of been maximising his opportunties. When Mika sometimes knew he wasn't in the chance for some good points, he would lose motivation from racing in the pack, this goes back to early on his career.

Other then reliability in 2001, Mika was again off the pace at Monaco again, and DC was at home in the mclaren, I just think that's too weird for who is considered a top driver, Mika done well when everything was working well for him, he was as fast as anyone, yet he was sensitive to car set up and handeling, that's why DC got the jump on him at times. Kimi doesn't have a weakness like that I've seen.[B]

I agree with everything you said there, very good assessment.

[boostpressure]

Originally posted by Spunout
Personally I think when Mika was "on", nobody could touch him.

You could say that for ALOT of drivers, some of which aren't even World Champions. That is hardly an endorsment.

[Speed_A]

Originally posted by Tubbs


That's a simple way of viewing things as you think DC's performance level remained the same during all his time at McLaren. It was not so much Mika giving DC credibility but more Coulthard taking it himself. Especially the first half of his 2001 season was brilliant when he ran circles around Schumacher despite driving inferior car performance wise.

Yeah, "run circles"

In the first half of 2001 DC beat MS in Brazil in the rain (setup issue but a good drive) and in Austria and finished behind MS 5 times. He also qualified only twice in front of MS, despite McLaren being, on pure pace, very close and sometimes faster than Ferrari.

That MH was indisposed that season (as shown in races when he could be bothered, like Silverstone, is a completely another matter.

[Oho]

Originally posted by skittt



You are kidding, right? Look at Mika's performance in 2000 and then in 2001... He was an established driver but his level of performance diminished so much in 2001 when compared to 2000 that he retired in 2001...

No I think you have your cause consequence mixed here, Mikas performances vaned off in 2001 because he had made the decision to retire.

[Oho]

Originally posted by SeanValen



The problem is, since Mika retired, people only choose to remmeber his stronger traits, as if he was pretty much perfect, in reality, he's welcomed to constructive criticism as well as any other driver.
Mika wasn't always on it, his set up skills wasn't his best strength, there was races in 2000 like Monaco, where he just wasn't getting to grips with the car, and he allowed DC in with a crack at the title, when he should of been maximising his opportunties. When Mika sometimes knew he wasn't in the chance for some good points, he would lose motivation from racing in the pack, this goes back to early on his career.

Other then reliability in 2001, Mika was again off the pace at Monaco again, and DC was at home in the mclaren, I just think that's too weird for who is considered a top driver, Mika done well when everything was working well for him, he was as fast as anyone, yet he was sensitive to car set up and handeling, that's why DC got the jump on him at times. Kimi doesn't have a weakness like that I've seen.

This is what Atlas race report has on Monaco qualifying in 2000:

"Mika, on the other hand, simply had a dreadful weekend. Just prior to the end of qualifying, the Finn was languishing in seventeenth – the result of a combination of one poor lap (Editorial: Ralf Schumacher) and two episodes of traffic and turmoil. McLaren's tactical disadvantage was heightened in qualifying – the team failing to manage a gap wherein Mika could be effective."

Häkkinen who could not find his feet around Monaco still set the fastest lap of the race, it doesn't mean whole lot but it certainly casts a shade on assesment that he did not know his way around the track and sends a bull **** warning when some one starts blabbering how bad he was around the track.

In 2001 Häkkinen qualified third and was running second catching Schumcaher when for one reason or another he retired. In parctices leading to qualifying he was at or very close to top of the timing sheets. Jesus you keep on posting the same ****, you wont polish a turd get it....

What is really stange is that for all intents and purposes Häkkinen had problems qualifying in 2000, after all he qualified further ahead of David in 01 when he could no longer bother than hed did in 00 when he was still wery much in it. It has been suggested for the lack of heat in rear tyres. Apparently his requirement for grippy front end and sharply responsive handling combined with light front made it very difficult to set the car up for him for the short qualifying runs, and you chose to use the instance where Mikas problems could not be attributed to his set up problems and where the track is one where they should not even be running F1:s, a total anomaly. Talk about obtuse.

[Big Block 8]

Originally posted by Oho

...

Excellent!