178 replies to this topic

[Mauseri]

Quote

Originally posted by Arrow
Stabilized it by losing out to an average rookie? What do you think Kimi would have done to him.
Ill give you a hint. 2003-2004

It's easy to look good when your teammate isn't ahead and you don't need to try too hard. I never believed the theory of DC suddendly just upping his game. If you look 2004, DC had a couple good races and qualifyings. But the rest of the season was below that. Just like in McLaren. Klien was badically just as fast as DC, but DC beat him on experience.

[Arrow]

Quote

Originally posted by race addicted


You have to call him "average", ¨'cause you're too small a man to admit he's become a very good driver.
Yeah, Klien put one on him in the end, but it was visible through the entire season; DC drove better in qualifying. At McLaren he often overshot corners/missed apexes, and generally focused too much on not making a mistake, which in turn only prevented him from going as fast as he could've.

I call him average because he was destroyed by Webber. He should thank god he some DC this time around to revive his career.

[Mauseri]

Quote

Originally posted by Arrow
I call him average because he was destroyed by Webber. He should thank god he some DC this time around to revive his career.

Klien surely has imporved since his first races with Webber.

[dde]

Quote

Originally posted by Fortymark


Michael said that he didn´t have problems with his tyres.
Anyway, even if Michael had an setup which was more towards wet and Hakkinen had one more to dry, Hakkinen was still faster in the wet..

Hakkinen was slower than MS in the wet. He was faster than Trulli and Button, and till MS was behind them, he was also slower. As soon as he passed both of them, he caught uop Hakkinen.

Schumacher had pbs with his tyres, you don't go in the wet part of the track with dry tyres just for the pleasure of losing time.

Ferrari worked only on tyres between Spa and Monza. They solved their pbs and Schumacher won the last 4 races, simply cos he could fight in races, and that he couldn't do on the hungaroring or Spa in the dry.

[Speed_A]

Quote

Originally posted by Spunout
To be fair, Japan 2003 was more about wrong fuel load (1-stop strategy) then setup.

Not that being marginally slower than DC is embarrassing. Ask 2XWDC Mika Häkkinen...

We don't know how much DC could have been faster had he been allowwd to race KR.

I agree with the fuel load but, to use Tubbs terms, "fuel load decided by KR".

[Spunout]

Quote

I agree with the fuel load but, to use Tubbs terms, "fuel load decided by KR".

Or the team. Or the team and KR together. We don´t know if it was his decision.

[HP]

Quote

Originally posted by Arrow


I call him average because he was destroyed by Webber. He should thank god he some DC this time around to revive his career.

When did it happen that Jaguar provided two equally competetive cars?

[Speed_A]

Quote

Originally posted by Spunout


Or the team. Or the team and KR together. We don´t know if it was his decision.

I know, I was using Tubbs' logic.

[HP]

Quote

Originally posted by race addicted

And I think you're a little off on how you saw DC's performance in the 12 lap/four runs-qualifying. DC actually very often posted a very good run on his first attempt, and improved less than say Schumacher and H�kkinen. That's why he had total confidence in his own ability to nail it with just one lap, going into the 2003 season. And looking at how he did in the first few runs, I can see what he meant. His first runs, Melbourne excepted, was brilliant. He then later fell apart, sadly.

Many people at that time expected that DC will struggle with the one lap qualification format and so it was. Somehow I remember even DC expecting to need time to adjust, before the season even started. And there were races where Michael (and Mika from the top of my head) nailed pole with the first run, can't however remember DC ever doing this.

[SeanValen]

Quote

Originally posted by HP
Many people at that time expected that DC will struggle with the one lap qualification format and so it was. Somehow I remember even DC expecting to need time to adjust, before the season even started. And there were races where Michael (and Mika from the top of my head) nailed pole with the first run, can't however remember DC ever doing this.

I agree, DC is and was a workman like driver over the weekend, his skills are technical, he knows more about himself and the car each time he went out, sunday race warm up being dropped for 2003 as well as one lap quali mean less time adjusting the car and making changes, his Imola pole in 2001 was it was a perfect example of a DC pole, was hooked up, wasn't great in the first 2 sectors, but ok, and nailed the last sector, he is kinda like Mansell at times, although Mansell was more consistent and a better talent, but never the less, a bit like Mansell. The rule changes in 2003, to bring randomness into race results and peanalise successful drivers and teams like ferrari and MS at the time, also had another effect, it took away the routine that DC used to perfect his gp weekend, not that he was consistently great at it, but he was alot better then he has been post 2003 era, that along with Kimi being very quick, made him look quite bad at times at mclaren, occasionally he had good races, at japan etc, but quali effects race result, it gets harder.

[MortenF1]

Well, he said a couple of times before the '03 season, that he had total confidence in his own ability to post a very good lap with just one try. That could for instance, be read in McLaren's members mag "Racing Line". And as I said, looking at the first qualifying sessions, before his confidence dissapeared, one could see what he meant. However this "requires" that you agree that his form from Imola onwards (with a few exceptions), was not close to his true level.

[Fortymark]

Quote

Originally posted by dde


Hakkinen was slower than MS in the wet. He was faster than Trulli and Button, and till MS was behind them, he was also slower. As soon as he passed both of them, he caught uop Hakkinen.

Schumacher had pbs with his tyres, you don't go in the wet part of the track with dry tyres just for the pleasure of losing time.

Ferrari worked only on tyres between Spa and Monza. They solved their pbs and Schumacher won the last 4 races, simply cos he could fight in races, and that he couldn't do on the hungaroring or Spa in the dry.

Look at when they had wet tyres. First lap was behind SC after that he was free to race.
Schumacher had lost 10 seconds to Hakkinen in 4 laps when they had wet tyres.

[Just me]

Quote

Originally posted by race addicted


Errr, Häkkinen had to lap the same cars you know.

Not lap,pass.

While i agree that Hakkinen was faster at that stage of the race,there's no way that a figure of 10 seconds in 4 laps represented his true advantage.

[Pinguin]

Quote

Originally posted by Spunout


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.

Austria 2003 -stuffed engine

[Tubbs]

Quote

Originally posted by Pinguin


Austria 2003 -stuffed engine

Kimi came 2nd on that race brilliantly holding off charging Barrichello who had vastly faster car.

[Speed_A]

Quote

Originally posted by Tubbs


Kimi came 2nd on that race brilliantly holding off charging Barrichello who had vastly faster car.

At no point in 2003 was Ferrari vastly faster than McLaren. Just take a look at the first part of 2004 to see what "vastly faster" means.

[Spunout]

Quote

At no point in 2003 was Ferrari vastly faster than McLaren. Just take a look at the first part of 2004 to see what "vastly faster" means.

But it is fair to say RB´s Ferrari was vastly faster than KR´s McLaren with faulty engine?

[Speed_A]

Quote

Originally posted by Spunout


But it is fair to say RB´s Ferrari was vastly faster than KR´s McLaren with faulty engine?

It depends on what fault the engine had and noone knows it for real.

[Mila]

Quote

Originally posted by BRG
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...

agreed.


maybe Illien is sore that Hakkinen rated Tennessee Steinmetz a better engineer.

[dde]

Quote

Originally posted by Fortymark



Look at when they had wet tyres. First lap was behind SC after that he was free to race.
Schumacher had lost 10 seconds to Hakkinen in 4 laps when they had wet tyres.

He was free to race stuck behind Button and Trulli ?

[Fortymark]

Quote

Originally posted by dde


He was free to race stuck behind Button and Trulli ?

Yes
It´s wet on Spa, a track which is 7 km long. If you are fast, much faster than others you pass immediately. As Schumacher wasn´t so quick (in the wet) he couldn´t pass them straight away.
Look at Fisichella this year at Spa. How many laps did he do before he started passing people?

[Speed_A]

Quote

Originally posted by Fortymark


Yes
It´s wet on Spa, a track which is 7 km long. If you are fast, much faster than others you pass immediately.

In 1995 Damon Hill was much faster then MS yet it took 3 laps for DH to get past MS. Overtaking is not a trivial thing done at someone's wish.

[dde]

Quote

Originally posted by Fortymark


Yes
It´s wet on Spa, a track which is 7 km long. If you are fast, much faster than others you pass immediately. As Schumacher wasn´t so quick (in the wet) he couldn´t pass them straight away.
Look at Fisichella this year at Spa. How many laps did he do before he started passing people?

MS wasn't so quick in the wet indeed... But surprise, surprise, as soon as he passes Button and Trulli, he is faster than Hakkinen, who according to you was so much superior 1 lap before, turning 2s a lap faster than MS in a regular comparison.

Should make you think a little bit, me think.

[Fortymark]

Quote

Originally posted by dde



MS wasn't so quick in the wet indeed... But surprise, surprise, as soon as he passes Button and Trulli, he is faster than Hakkinen, who according to you was so much superior 1 lap before, turning 2s a lap faster than MS in a regular comparison.

Should make you think a little bit, me think.

1. HAK 3:29.931 2. TRU +0.821 3. BUT +1.615 4. MSC +2.246

2 1. HAK 5:35.989 2. TRU +2.130 3. BUT +2.831 4. MSC +3.879

3 1. HAK 7:41.414 2. TRU +3.859 3. BUT +4.194 4. MSC +5.838

Please check again for the forth time.
Can you see that the gap increases ?

On lap 1, Schumacher was 0,631 seconds behind Button
On lap 2, Schumacher was 1,048 seconds behind Button
On lap 3, Schumacher was 1,644 seconds behind Button
On Lap 4 Button hits Trulli when he tries to pass him, that´s why Schumacher gets pass them. Not because he was faster.

Or can´t I calculate properly?

[Just me]

Schumacher passed them before they collided.

[Fortymark]

Quote

Originally posted by Just me
Schumacher passed them before they collided.

Quote

For the first couple of laps the track was obviously too wet for dry tires but quickly it began to dry. In those early laps Hakkinen disappeared at the head of the field, pulling out 10 seconds in the first five laps as those behind him slittered and slipped about. Trulli was obviously having trouble with Button and then Jenson tried a move but got it wrong and Michael Schumacher was able to slip into third at the Bus Stop chicane. Michael immediately tried to overtake Trulli who went wide at La Source. Button tried to follow Michael through but the move was misjudged and poor Jarno was tipped into a spin. Button just missed him but lost momentum and so lost out to Coulthard and to his Williams team mate Ralf Schumacher. The steering was also not quite right and so Button was out of the hunt for victory .

You are half correct
As you can read, Schumacher only got passed Button as the latter failed to overtake Trulli.
But Schumacher couldn´t follow Jensons pace early as the gap increased.
You don´t overtake somebody being 1.6 seconds behind.

[Oho]

Quote

Originally posted by dde



MS wasn't so quick in the wet indeed... But surprise, surprise, as soon as he passes Button and Trulli, he is faster than Hakkinen, who according to you was so much superior 1 lap before, turning 2s a lap faster than MS in a regular comparison.

Should make you think a little bit, me think.

IICR Schumcher and majority of the field stopped for dries on lap 5 or six, Häkkinen one lap later and Coulthard who wanted to line behind Häkkinen one lap after Häkkinen. Indeed Schumcaher was way faster than Häkkien after the first round of stops, his car was working better on the drying track and he had less fuel. As a matter of fact Schumcaher posted his fastest lasp of the race around lap 18 and it was faster than what Mika would eventually post. Overall the fastest lap went to Barichello who ran out of fuel.

Interestingly Schumachers setup that was tended toward wet explains why his rear tyres degraded so quickly and why Häkkinen was so much quicker in the dying stages of the race, but Schumcahers edge over Häkkinen when the track was drying and getting increasingly quicker cannot be attributed to the same. Häkkinen had some unspecified setup change doen to his car at his second stop, perhaps a front wing adjustment, after that he really started to fly against rivals.

[Just me]

Button went wide trying to overtake Trulli at La Source,Schumacher passed him almost a lap later at the Bus Stop.

Sure,the failed attempt allowed Schumacher to get closer but if Button was really faster he could have pulled out enough of a gap.

[Fortymark]

Quote

Originally posted by Just me
Button went wide trying to overtake Trulli at La Source,Schumacher passed him almost a lap later at the Bus Stop.

Sure,the failed attempt allowed Schumacher to get closer but if Button was really faster he could have pulled out enough of a gap.

Why´s that?! You can loose everything in 1 move

On lap 4 he was +9.629 behind Hakkinen. He went from being 4,2 seconds to 9,6 in 1 lap.
No wonder MS could pass despite "if Button was really faster"