105 replies to this topic

[K-One]

According to SportBild, Ferrari, namely Luca, wanted to sign Hakkinen in 1999, but the move was blocked by Schumacher and Todt. Hakkinen has admitted this as well. This meant that next time Luca made a secret precontract with Kimi in 2005 and told Todt+Schumi only after it was signed.

According to insider Ferrari source, Schumacher was then forced to announce retirement. Apparently Todt was also angry at Luca and isnt' very fond of Kimi.

[Nathan]

All kinda old news to be honest.

[K-One]

Well after Monza last year, the consencus was that there was no precontract whatsoever, let alone secret one

[Oho]

Originally posted by K-One
Well after Monza last year, the consencus was that there was no precontract whatsoever, let alone secret one

It was rumored at the time, but sure I did not know, and quite frankly still do not know Ferrari and Häkkinen courted in 99 for 00 season I presume. I do understand why Todt and Schumacher would block Häkkinen as it could have disrupted the single pointed structure of the team.

Well as a matter of fact the negotiations must have taken place when Schumacher was still in the title hunt, as Häkkinen's contract for 00 at McLaren was announced at Hockenheim. Maybe thats why McLaren was courting Jacques Villeneuve, but it fell through when Häkkinen to Ferrari fell through.

[former champ]

All old news. Im sure there have been a stack of drivers who Ferrari have wanted alongside Schumacher over the years. Hakkinen was definetly a target from way back though.

Di Montezemolo has always struck me as a bit of an arrogant bloke, I can see he and todt having run in's on many things over the years, Raikkonen currently being one of them.

Personally I think Luca was sucked in a little over the whole Raikkonen saga. I'm sure Todt reminds him from time to time.

[pedrovski]

Yeah but it was Luca who led the team to their championships in the 70's and was brought back in to restructure the team after the Prost fiasco in the 90's, he hired JT. I think the main difference between the 2 is that LdM prob didn't want the team to revolve around 1 man in the same way that todt did.

[former champ]

Originally posted by pedrovski
Yeah but it was Luca who led the team to their championships in the 70's and was brought back in to restructure the team after the Prost fiasco in the 90's, he hired JT. I think the main difference between the 2 is that LdM prob didn't want the team to revolve around 1 man in the same way that todt did.

Your probably right. Yet if they hadn't structured it around the one driver who could make it really work and translate that into results, Ferrari would still be waiting for their first title since 1979.

[K-One]

Maybe this explains mysterious advisor role that Schumacher has - he is there to haunt Kimi!

[Mauseri]

Too bad Schumacher was afraid of any competition inside team. He propably threated "if you take him, I'm gone'.

[Big Block 8]

Originally posted by Oho


It was rumored at the time, but sure I did not know, and quite frankly still do not know Ferrari and Häkkinen courted in 99 for 00 season I presume. I do understand why Todt and Schumacher would block Häkkinen as it could have disrupted the single pointed structure of the team.

Well as a matter of fact the negotiations must have taken place when Schumacher was still in the title hunt, as Häkkinen's contract for 00 at McLaren was announced at Hockenheim. Maybe thats why McLaren was courting Jacques Villeneuve, but it fell through when Häkkinen to Ferrari fell through.

Actually I do remember a quote from Hakkinen from around 99-00, where MH told about the ongoing (or the past) contract negotiations and said that "it would be an exciting idea to be teamed with Schumacher". A little pun towards McLaren in order to get the salary up no doubt, but overall he sounded sincere. Later, there has been other reports that confirmed what's in the post 1.

[pedrovski]

Your right there, at least until 2002 when Hakkinen in a ferrari would have won the title anyway and probably in 2001 aswell, but Hakk wasn't in the same class as Schu and wouldn't have beaten schumacher (driving a Maclaren) in 2000.

[Big Block 8]

Yup, Hakkinen was in a different class and wouldn't have had a chance - a bit like Hamilton and Massa were in a different class and never had a chance against their teammates at the start of this year.

[pedrovski]

So you think hakkinen was better than Schumacher? In 98 massive early car advantage plus illegal Brake steer system. 99 a certain M schumacher breaks his leg, there's Hakkinen's 2 world championships. One thing though, he never had no.1 status at Mac as Schu did at Ferrari, that would have helped big time in 2000.

[Oho]

Originally posted by Big Block 8
Yup, Hakkinen was in a different class and wouldn't have had a chance - a bit like Hamilton and Massa were in a different class and never had a chance against their teammates at the start of this year.

Indeed if the story holds water it seems Schumacher and Todt were not that sure either, the main reason for blocking Häkkinen if it happened was most likely a fear that Häkkinen might actually have what it takes to challenge Michael, fear they did not have with Irvine and Barrichello.

[Mauseri]

Originally posted by pedrovski
wouldn't have beaten schumacher (driving a Maclaren) in 2000.

Well if Alonso cant beat Hamilton in his new team, I'm not sure Schumacher could have beaten Hakkinen at all in 2000.

[Oho]

Originally posted by pedrovski
So you think hakkinen was better than Schumacher? In 98 massive early car advantage plus illegal Brake steer system. 99 a certain M schumacher breaks his leg, there's Hakkinen's 2 world championships. One thing though, he never had no.1 status at Mac as Schu did at Ferrari, that would have helped big time in 2000.

Oh please the brake steer system which was out lawed per Ferrari request only featured in one race and thus in real terms was more of an hindrance than advantage.

In 99 at the time of Schumachers accident he didn't seem like champion elect, as a matter of fact Häkkinen had overturned a 12 point deficit into 8 point lead in the past three races and if anyone seemed like loosing the plot it was Schumacher not Häkkinen. Häkkinen and McLaren then took their eye of the ball and almost lost it, but I would think this was dependent on Schumachers absence.

No, number one position at McLaren in 00 would hardly have made the difference, better reliability in the early races, now thats a different story,

[Levike]

Originally posted by pedrovski
So you think hakkinen was better than Schumacher? In 98 massive early car advantage plus illegal Brake steer system. 99 a certain M schumacher breaks his leg, there's Hakkinen's 2 world championships. One thing though, he never had no.1 status at Mac as Schu did at Ferrari, that would have helped big time in 2000.

That Brake Steer system was totally legal, although the FIA and Ferrari was very keen to eliminate Mclaren's success for years.
In 99 Michael broke his leg but Hakkinen's reliability was khm not top notch so...
I really believe that Hakkinen from 94-95 onwards to 99 was a good match to Schumacher and that he could have been a force to run for his Money. He was extremely brave and fast. In the right environment he was consistent enough too.

[baddog]

Originally posted by Oho

Häkkinen and McLaren then took their eye of the ball and almost lost it, but I would think this was dependent on Schumachers absence.

yeah... thats a plausible story. not even a weak excuse in any way at all.

[Oho]

Originally posted by baddog


yeah... thats a plausible story. not even a weak excuse in any way at all.

I love you too...


why don't you put me on your ignore list, would make us both happier

[kar]

I don't think anyone would confuse Hakkinen for a greater overall driver than Schumacher, but he was definitely up there with Schumi on pace, particularly in qualifying.

I don't doubt Michael would have beaten Hakkinen over the course of a season with each in their respective primes, but having two drivers like that in the same team would have led, sadly, to a fractious arrangement.

Sad though, seeing Michael and Mika battle it out in the same car would have been amazing to witness.

[DavidG]

Mika usually had his hands very full with Coulthard (when he wasnt making errors) so it would have been pretty ugly if had ever been Schumachers team mate. The myth that he was anywhere near as quick as Michael would have been exposed very quickly.

[pedrovski]

Originally posted by Oho


Oh please the brake steer system which was out lawed per Ferrari request only featured in one race and thus in real terms was more of an hindrance than advantage.

In 99 at the time of Schumachers accident he didn't seem like champion elect, as a matter of fact Häkkinen had overturned a 12 point deficit into 8 point lead in the past three races and if anyone seemed like loosing the plot it was Schumacher not Häkkinen. Häkkinen and McLaren then took their eye of the ball and almost lost it, but I would think this was dependent on Schumachers absence.

No, number one position at McLaren in 00 would hardly have made the difference, better reliability in the early races, now thats a different story,

Wasn't it in Brazil 2nd race that the photo was taken from inside the mac? I can't remember. But hakkinen won brazil Schu a minute behind AFAIK.

[Oho]

Originally posted by kar


I don't doubt Michael would have beaten Hakkinen over the course of a season with each in their respective primes

I think you should, not that Schumacher did not hold an edge over Häkkinen which he probably did but the overlap and variance was such that I would think season is not long enough to argue Schumacher would have come out on top with certainty.

But its all academic not only because its in the past but because I tend to think blocking drivers like Häkkinen as a team mate was part of the parcel with Schumacher who not only aimed but also succeded at being the sole focus of the team, it was an aspect of his immense talent.

[Oho]

Originally posted by pedrovski


Wasn't it in Brazil 2nd race that the photo was taken from inside the mac? I can't remember. But hakkinen won brazil Schu a minute behind AFAIK.

No the photo was taken at Monza in 97. McLaren and other teams (half a grid) employing roughly similar systems were forced to remove them before first practice session at Brazil.

[Big Block 8]

Originally posted by pedrovski
So you think hakkinen was better than Schumacher? In 98 massive early car advantage plus illegal Brake steer system. 99 a certain M schumacher breaks his leg, there's Hakkinen's 2 world championships. One thing though, he never had no.1 status at Mac as Schu did at Ferrari, that would have helped big time in 2000.

I don't know which one was better, no one does, that was the point. Hype doesn't win WDCs. Regards 98 and 99, in 98 Hakkinen also had a massive reliability disadvantage and in 99 he beat Schuamacher in the races they both participated, so for me both his championships were ok.

[DavidG]

Originally posted by Big Block 8


I don't know which one was better, no one does, that was the point. Hype doesn't win WDCs. Regards 98 and 99, in 98 Hakkinen also had a massive reliability disadvantage and in 99 he beat Schuamacher in the races they both participated, so for me both his championships were ok.

What massive reliability disadvantage did Mika have in 98 when Michael has 3 mechanical dnfs and Mika 2? You wouldnt be trying to rewrite history by any chance would you know? Yeh you are

[Big Block 8]

Originally posted by kar
I don't think anyone would confuse Hakkinen for a greater overall driver than Schumacher, but he was definitely up there with Schumi on pace, particularly in qualifying.

I don't doubt Michael would have beaten Hakkinen over the course of a season with each in their respective primes, but having two drivers like that in the same team would have led, sadly, to a fractious arrangement.

Sad though, seeing Michael and Mika battle it out in the same car would have been amazing to witness.

Well, I do think Hakkinen was a greater overall driver than Schumacher, because for me Schumacher's dubious on track antics and team preference claims outweigh the bigger number of WDCs, which is in any case mostly related to a considerable better machinery Schumacher overall had at his disposal during their respective careers.

I agree with the rest, although I'd give them about 50-50 chance on who would have been better in equal situation.

[Big Block 8]

Originally posted by DavidG


What massive reliability disadvantage did Mika have in 98 when they both retired 3 times with car problems? You wouldnt be trying to rewrite history by any chance would you know? Yeh you are

No, Arrow. Check the McLaren 2007 reliability thread for example.

[DavidG]

Originally posted by Big Block 8


Well, I do think Hakkinen was a greater overall driver than Schumacher, because for me Schumacher's dubious on track antics and team preference claims outweigh the bigger number of WDCs, which is in any case mostly related to a considerable better machinery Schumacher overall had at his disposal during their respective careers.

In what areas as a driver was Mika better than Michael in your opinion? Im assuming you have actually bothered to consider this before forming your opinion... lol.

[DavidG]

Originally posted by Big Block 8


No, Arrow. Check the McLaren 2007 reliability thread for example.

Link? I have seen the results of the season anyway. Mika retired twice from car issues and had problems at Hungary where he lost some points. Michael retired 3 times with car issues. Explain Mikas massive reliability disadvantage.

[pedrovski]

I'm not trying to put hakk down I always liked him, especially those last ditch pole positions. But MS was a superior driver I wouldn't be convinced otherwise. There was only 2 points in it between Hak and Irvine I thinks resonable to say the best thing that happened to him that year was MS breaking his leg. They both had 3 DNf's in 1998 and schumacher had 4 in 2000 (nearly all his fault.), so I don't think MS had such a huge advantage there.

[Oho]

Originally posted by pedrovski
There was only 2 points in it between Hak and Irvine I thinks resonable to say the best thing that happened to him that year was MS breaking his leg.

Thats a pretty good reason for not ignoring the possibility that Häkkinen might actually have beaten Schumacher. What ever difference there was between Häkkinen and Schumacher I tend to believe was smaller than between Häkkinen and Irvine.

[pedrovski]

Let me think about that

[Spunout]

Originally posted by Big Block 8


No, Arrow. Check the McLaren 2007 reliability thread for example.

Darn...I was wondering why DavidG´s style seemed so familiar. "Mika would have been exposed" and all that.

[dde]

If Todt and Schumacher were afraid of Hakkinen, they were as wrong as when they have been afraid of Raikkonen. None of them were a match for him. None of them were something else than a n°2. Unfortunatly for Raikkonen, he has had the occasion of showing he is more a Massa than a Schumacher. Fortunatly for Hakkinen, he hasn't had the occasion to show he was more a Barrichello than a Schumacher.

[dde]

Originally posted by Levike [/b]
I really believe that Hakkinen from 94-95 onwards to 99 was a good match to Schumacher and that he could have been a force to run for his Money. He was extremely brave and fast. In the right environment he was consistent enough too. [/B]

In 94, Hakkinen was far less fast than Schumacher in 92. Hakkinen being slower on one or 60 laps, less consistant from a race to another, less technical, and not being a leader, I wonder how he could have been a match for Schumacher.

[HP]

Originally posted by Oho


I think you should, not that Schumacher did not hold an edge over Häkkinen which he probably did but the overlap and variance was such that I would think season is not long enough to argue Schumacher would have come out on top with certainty.

But its all academic not only because its in the past but because I tend to think blocking drivers like Häkkinen as a team mate was part of the parcel with Schumacher who not only aimed but also succeded at being the sole focus of the team, it was an aspect of his immense talent.

I think we were lucky that they never drove for the same team, as either Mclaren or Ferrari would have been dominating the sport even longer than Ferrari did. As to the outcome between them in the same team, my take would be that both would have won championships.

[former champ]

Originally posted by Oho
why don't you put me on your ignore list, would make us both happier

maybe not everyone is so weak minded as some others on this BB?

That's a plausible excuse I would think.

[glorius&victorius]

shouldn't this thread be moved to the NOSTALGIA FORUM??

[former champ]

Originally posted by Big Block 8


I don't know which one was better, no one does, that was the point. Hype doesn't win WDCs. Regards 98 and 99, in 98 Hakkinen also had a massive reliability disadvantage and in 99 he beat Schuamacher in the races they both participated, so for me both his championships were ok.

We all know Hakkinen was a fantastic driver, super quick.

However many know who was better because there is one standout driver since Ayrton passed on and that isn't Mika Hakkinen. Ok, we never saw them in the same car but I really think Michael proved himself enough in other areas to guarantee most think the same. I think you need to speak to a few people in the know, or maybe read a little more.

Lets face it, we use your theory, we can claim that for any driver at his peak. Alonso, Villeneuve, Montoya, Raikkonen, Hill, etc. It's not exclusive to Hakkinen yet, honestly, I wouldn't even try to claim that for any other driver simply because Schumacher achieved things these other drivers never came near to.

Just have a look at some of the races Schumacher won in appaling conditions. Game over there really, isn't it? After all, rain is the great equaliser. Every driver I mentioned above has been fast in wet conditions at some point, yet none have come close to achieveing what MS did in such circumstances.

That's just one example of very many.

Most talk of Schumacher in the same breath as Ayrton Senna and Alain Prost. That's for a legitimate reason, Hakkinen just isn't in that class. For sure he would have given MS his toughest battle yet and beaten him outright on some weekends. Over a whole year though? Strongly doubtful.

[Mohican]

Hakkinen never parked his car across the track, weaved at the start, ran into people in the rain, drove Hill off the road, tried to run Villeneuve off the road or made his team-mate more or less stop 2 metres short of the finish line.

He just won the championship twice, after first enduring more years of uncompetitive cars than Schumacher ever did.

Basta.

[Umpire]

Conversely, Hakkinen never put in a performance like Spain 1996, Monaco 97, Hungary 98, and so on. But that's another issue.

Anyway, each one is entitled to their opinion. What any side should not dispute is that they were the best of the best during their duel years.

[tkulla]

I'm sorry, Schumi fans, but I think it's ridiculous to assume that MS would have trounced MH. Yes, he MAY have gotten the better of him (in fact, I'd guess that it was likely), but he may not have as well. What IS ridiculous is that we really don't have much to go on, and that is all Schumi's fault because he never allowed a fair fight with his teammate. There's an implied fear and self-doubt in doing so that wasn't present in Prost & Senna (or even Alonso & Kimi). To me, that's the biggest blemish on his truly outstanding career. The few poor sportsmanship incidents pale by comparison.

[Oho]

Originally posted by former champ


maybe not everyone is so weak minded as some others on this BB?

That's a plausible excuse I would think.

I'd rather see you put me on yours as well,

[Oho]

Originally posted by Umpire
Conversely, Hakkinen never put in a performance like Spain 1996, Monaco 97, Hungary 98, and so on. But that's another issue.

Matter of taste I guess......

[rye&ginger]

Schumi still conculting for at Ferrari cools this story off a bit. If he was really 'upset' he could have just left, or went to BMW or whatever.

[MikeTekRacing]

Originally posted by Mohican
Hakkinen never .......weaved at the start..............

sure he didn't
he did the chop before schumi did
you got this one wrong pal

[J]

Well, Martin Brundle seems to think MH was faster over one lap than MS. But then again what does he know. He just used to get his ass handed to him by both of them, while he was their team mate.

No, I take DavidG´s word over an ex-F1 hack any day of the week. After all, DavidG has been a member of this board since june 2007, and that´s a qualification that cannot be surpassed by actually participating it the sport (or even actually following the sport) during the nineties.

Keyboard warriors rule!

-J

[DaleCooper]

Originally posted by Big Block 8
Yup, Hakkinen was in a different class and wouldn't have had a chance - a bit like Hamilton and Massa were in a different class and never had a chance against their teammates at the start of this year.

One conjecture had strong evidence the other was a fantasy born in a young man's wet dream.

But you can choose to see them as equal in order to feel better ;)


Cooper

[DaleCooper]

Originally posted by micra_k10

Well if Alonso cant beat Hamilton in his new team, I'm not sure Schumacher could have beaten Hakkinen at all in 2000.

But then you're not sure of anything are you? Like whether or not Kimi boy is actually faster than Massa, despite all the excuses. Stick to the current bullshit and don't rub your nose in things you can't make sense of. The way you spout your bias around here I would almost think you are Finnish; oh well no way to tell


Cooper