planetf1.com

It is currently Wed Sep 03, 2014 4:38 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 5:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 12:35 pm
Posts: 868
Well, I want to hear everyones opinion later. I'm still reading this, but from what I see is that Kova needed more backing, but he did not want to go after it. I understand completely where Gascoyne is coming from because to make the leap into the points would be difficult and after three years and all of the hype behind the team it is a bit dissapointing. Still, even Schumi said "It will take five years minimium to build a team". Kova did not do himself any favors this year either by being matched by Petrov and honestly I would miss Petrov before I would miss Kova... I'm sorry to his fans in advance, but beating Jarno Trulli in 10-11 and some solid performances... Meh, I want to see what Pic can do with his soon to come teammate. Heikki is extremely talented and I bet he's an awesome guy, but if it was not for his qualifying, I honestly think he would not be as noticeable.

Please correct me if I'm wrong though. I like a good arguement.

_________________
Felipe Massa fan/supporter since 2002 and counting!

We ALL love you Schumi! Don't ever give up!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 5:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 4:34 pm
Posts: 245
I didn't see Gascoyne admit he was wrong anywhere in this article, he just changed his tune from previous years.

Sounds to me like Kovalainen's management weren't offering enough money; Kovalainen always said he wasn't going to be a pay driver so it looks like this ended up in the right place. Caterham needed money, Kovalainen's not offering any, he doesn't get a drive.

These days in the lower teams talent is not enough, it takes money too. Sad but true.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 10:53 am
Posts: 101
kova has every right to not offer money for a drive. Its not as if he is desperate to drive in F1 at all cost. I respect that attitude and i havent seen him crib about the prospects of not making on the grid for coming season.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 7:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2012 10:08 am
Posts: 792
Location: Derby
I think he meant he should have showed more respect when mid season people were linking him with other drives he said he wanted to leave, then when they didn't materialize he made out Caterham had let him down as they wanted a pay driver instead. I think his recent interviews said it all he expected to be in a bigger team, i like kov but he and his management jumped the gun and i agree didn't really show enough respect to Caterham he could have easily said "I'm very flattered but am a Caterham driver and focusing on doing my best for the team" instead you get the yeah i think its my last season here i want to be in a top team scoring points i cant do that here.

it may upset him and his fans but Caterham gave him a seat when his reputation was at its lowest.. A paid seat at that, they didn't promise points they wanted to start to build a team that would compete within a set time frame.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 7:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 27
Location: Oxfordshire
Maybe if he showed more respect at toyota instead of just riding the money train he may have got more results from that project. At least Kova sticks to his morals.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 9:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 9:10 am
Posts: 410
I think Gascoyne is the biggest faker in the business. He claimed a lot of undue respect for his time at Jordan, where his lack of ability was masked by his attitude and his friendship with Eddie Jordan. Then he took a lot of money from Toyota - even getting them to fly him daily from his home in the UK to their base in Cologne in a private jet - and he then sucked badly at his job. He's done bugger all at Lotus/Caterham too, except talk a lot.

He's supposed to be a 'great' designer, but can anyone name any of his cars that were any good? Thought not.

_________________
90% of the topics on the PF1 Forum consist of this: "My favourite driver didn't win! The driver I hate the most did win!! Wah! WAH!! WAAAAHHHHH!!!"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 9:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 3204
Is bringing money to the team part of a drives job? I would have to say yes, especially in a team that is struggling financially and a driver who is unlikely to be in a position to bring them in points.

Is kovi at fault for it? I dont know, as we have no idea of his contract details. Then again, would you hire an employee who would not do the extra bit to help you keep afloat if his job depended on it?

This may well be a clash of personalities in the negotiating teams as much as a team v driver problem, but if I were a driver who knew I needed to to do the rounds to keep my drive, I think I would probably sacrifice a small section of my holidays to do the rounds, especially if the team made it clear that is what is required. Its not like there are many options down the job centre.

_________________
I have nothing to offer but blood, oil, gears, and sweat.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 9:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
Kovi said somewhere a while back that he wouldn't pay unless their were certain assurances. It was basically every year Caterham say they will be good for points and they are not. So he wouldn't be willing to put other peoples money down on false promises. If he was to bring money it would need to be a guaranteed step up.

Can't really blame him.


But what would MG know anyway he's been away sailing for most of '12 and doesn't seem to have much to do with the team these days.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 10:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 11:53 am
Posts: 588
Location: York, United Kingdom.
I dont think Heikki has been that impressive so the team have every right to demand money from him if he wants to stay. The problem with him is he seems to think he deserves a Ferrari/Red Bull seat when in fact he was fairly well matched by Petrov in a Caterham. Game over, go rallying.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 10:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 10:50 am
Posts: 1188
OutKast wrote:
Quote:
Stuff Mike Gascoyne said


Without wanting to derail this, I think the problem here all stems back to the business model of F1. Somewhere in the region of 50% of the colossal funds raised by F1 goes out of the sport and into the pockets of venture capitalists. When teams can't afford to pay drivers, and circuits with sold-out Grands Prix are only just breaking even, there is, in my eyes at least, a clear imbalance. Perhaps this scenario wouldn't arise if there was a little more prize money available to teams, and it was more evenly spread. The whole 10th-place situation is madness in my eyes. The fact that 11th and 12th position offers only $30m each, with far fewer benefits, is mad. The fact that no points are awarded at all below 10th position, meaning that a team that has been consistently the worst throughout an entire season can jump into 10th in the constructors', with all the extra $$$ and benefits, through one freak 11th place finish, is also mad. IMHO.

I like Mike, I've always found him to be a very interesting person to listen to, but what he has failed to notice is that we already have twenty Caterhams painted different colours; it's called GP2. Whilst I love GP2 - I'm beginning to follow it almost as closely as I do F1 - it's clear that there is something about F1, in addition to the history and far-greater access to it over GP2, that draws people into it.

And I believe that draw is the knowledge that, for example, the 2011 Red Bull is probably the fastest that any car can go within that set of rules. I don't know if I'd be as interested if I was aware that the fastest car at any given time could probably go 3 or 4 or 5 seconds a lap faster if only they'd spent a hundred-or-so more million dollars on its development.

Interestingly, Mike didn't seem to have any issues with spending hundreds of millions when he was at the pissing-its-money-away-like-water-from-a-shredded-hose-pipe Toyota team...

Obviously I don't know the full ins and outs of the Kovalainen/Caterham breakup, but I personally don't feel that a driver of Heikki's abilities should be expected to find funds to secure a seat.

I used this source for some of those figures: http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2012/10/ ... y-drivers/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 10:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 1:37 pm
Posts: 1737
Drivers job is to drive the car not bring money. If you can't make enough money to ensure your driver doesn't have to find money to drive then don't enter F1. Pinnacle of Motorsport? Pish...

_________________
If...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 11:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 12:07 am
Posts: 539
Heikki isn't really bankable as a paid driver, and he really does need to accept that. He didn't take the opportunity offered by his time at McLaren, so like many other fast-ish but not truly blinding drivers, ever since that blown chance, he's been on the slow but inexorable slide down the grid and finally out altogether.

He's not bad, it's just he wasn't good enough to take that once in a lifetime chance and he will now forever be seen as a journeyman.

Having said that Gascoigne is just an idiot. He's much less worthy of employment than Heikki!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 11:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:51 am
Posts: 561
Location: Finland
Johnston wrote:
Kovi said somewhere a while back that he wouldn't pay unless their were certain assurances. It was basically every year Caterham say they will be good for points and they are not. So he wouldn't be willing to put other peoples money down on false promises. If he was to bring money it would need to be a guaranteed step up.

Can't really blame him.


You do raise a good point here. I personally have mixed feelings.

Seeing Kova a lot here in Finnish media, he has been quite negative towards Lotus, but still absolutely being his PRself.
In a other hand i can remember how happy Kovalainen has seemed before season starts. Telling what promises the team has given and how they are working on it. I can also remember how crushed he has been after tests and season start seeing the car is just as crappy as before. Neither do the changes along the season bring any improvements.


Thinking that i absolutely agree with some above that he doesn't owe them anything. It would make absolutely no sense for him to go and pay for the crappy position. He has earned his position to start from the back after McLaren, but i don't think he deserves to be driver that needs to pay for his seat. He knows it and is leaving F1.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 11:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:09 am
Posts: 2170
Location: Perth, Australia
Is it really that surprising that Kovalainen has finally found himself without a seat? After 2008-2009, it was nothing short of a miracle that a few 'new' teams came in and needed experienced drivers. He's been praised for his efforts against his two team-mates during his time at Caterham. Unfortunately, when you look at the big picture, Jarno Trulli and Vitaly Petrov aren't top caliber drivers. Let's not forget that Petrov finished higher in the standings at the conclusion of the 2012 season.

After his annihilation at the hands of Hamilton, no top team was going to hire Kovalainen. A lot of people hoped somebody would throw him a lifeline, but it was never going to happen. Button, who many people didn't rate particularly highly before he joined McLaren, managed to challenge Hamilton's position in the team. Kovalainen failed to score 1/3 of Hamilton's scores over the 08 and 09 seasons. Would you have signed him even if he was able to beat Jarno Trulli?

And Kovalianen was putting himself out there to leave the team. He's said many times that he'd happily go to a better team if somebody offered him a seat. It doesn't fill the mechanics and board members with confidence when you're so happy to go to somebody with a better car without considering your own team first.

_________________
Image
I also have one of these.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 12:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
tissot wrote:
Johnston wrote:
Kovi said somewhere a while back that he wouldn't pay unless their were certain assurances. It was basically every year Caterham say they will be good for points and they are not. So he wouldn't be willing to put other peoples money down on false promises. If he was to bring money it would need to be a guaranteed step up.

Can't really blame him.


You do raise a good point here. I personally have mixed feelings.

Seeing Kova a lot here in Finnish media, he has been quite negative towards Lotus, but still absolutely being his PRself.
In a other hand i can remember how happy Kovalainen has seemed before season starts. Telling what promises the team has given and how they are working on it. I can also remember how crushed he has been after tests and season start seeing the car is just as crappy as before. Neither do the changes along the season bring any improvements.


Thinking that i absolutely agree with some above that he doesn't owe them anything. It would make absolutely no sense for him to go and pay for the crappy position. He has earned his position to start from the back after McLaren, but i don't think he deserves to be driver that needs to pay for his seat. He knows it and is leaving F1.



I think thats just the crux of it and like a lot of people fedup with the BS.


As for his period at Macca. I don't think you can compare him to Hammy and get a fair reflection of his talents. As has been pointed out many times. He was constantly getting the disreputable strategy for Quali AND was playing 2nd fiddle when it came to new parts. when Button came into the team they got equal treatment. Heikki never had that luxury. He was to Hammy what Massa is to Alonso.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 12:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm
Posts: 5386
Gascoyone talking about being realistic... From 2011:

http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/ ... 11684.html

Quote:
"We’ve said very clearly that we want to start challenging the established teams, and I think that’s very achievable. But that line has to continue going up, so we’ll have to target being up there with Toro Rosso, Sauber and Force India, and then end the season by targeting Williams and Renault.”


He is joke.

_________________
..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 12:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:06 am
Posts: 2326
I will also miss Heikki. Imo he actually was very fast at McLaren with Hamilton, so many incorrectly down-rating his 2008-9 performences. But I agree with the OP's comment that not beating Petrov was fatal to Heikki's career. Same as Trulli in his last seasons, on those big salareis, if you are slow, out you go. There are so many new, fatser drivers to replace you with.

_________________
http://grandprixratings.blogspot.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 1:55 pm
Posts: 740
Location: Tampere, F1nland
About a year ago Kovalainen was interviewed in a Finnish talk show and he said that if Caterham failed to deliver a better car and remained a backmarker then it would be time to look for a better team because he wasn't exactly a young guy anymore, and he was adamant he would kickstart his F1 career and get to a better team. And many thought he was one the better drivers in 2011, iirc James Allen and some other pundits placed him in the top ten of drivers in 2011.

Now a year has passed and by the season's end Kovalainen's only slim thread of hope was retaining his seat in the same backmarker team. But they're choosing Petrov who brings funding. To be honest, Kovalainen was better than Petrov over the course of the season, although Petrov beat him in the last five or so consecutive qualis and races. But Kovalainen isn't that much better so that Caterham would be better of choosing him instead of Petrov and the money. Especially because the car is pace-wise so much behind points positions that it doesn't matter if you're somewhat better than your team mate, you're still going to finish 14th or so, and it doesn't make any difference in the end. The only hope of even getting 10th in the constructors' was to get lucky and benefit from others' misfortunes, which was a lot to ask for considering reliability in today's F1. Who could blame Caterham for choosing Petrov and the money when it doesn't make a difference who drives the car because it's so hopelessly slow.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 2:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 6632
Johnston wrote:
tissot wrote:
Johnston wrote:
Kovi said somewhere a while back that he wouldn't pay unless their were certain assurances. It was basically every year Caterham say they will be good for points and they are not. So he wouldn't be willing to put other peoples money down on false promises. If he was to bring money it would need to be a guaranteed step up.

Can't really blame him.


You do raise a good point here. I personally have mixed feelings.

Seeing Kova a lot here in Finnish media, he has been quite negative towards Lotus, but still absolutely being his PRself.
In a other hand i can remember how happy Kovalainen has seemed before season starts. Telling what promises the team has given and how they are working on it. I can also remember how crushed he has been after tests and season start seeing the car is just as crappy as before. Neither do the changes along the season bring any improvements.


Thinking that i absolutely agree with some above that he doesn't owe them anything. It would make absolutely no sense for him to go and pay for the crappy position. He has earned his position to start from the back after McLaren, but i don't think he deserves to be driver that needs to pay for his seat. He knows it and is leaving F1.



I think thats just the crux of it and like a lot of people fedup with the BS.


As for his period at Macca. I don't think you can compare him to Hammy and get a fair reflection of his talents. As has been pointed out many times. He was constantly getting the disreputable strategy for Quali AND was playing 2nd fiddle when it came to new parts. when Button came into the team they got equal treatment. Heikki never had that luxury. He was to Hammy what Massa is to Alonso.

He was getting the poorer strategy in qualifying because in the races he was so poor, whenever he was in a good position after qualifying he would invariable fall away in the race, McLaren got rid of him simply because he wasn't good enough

_________________
PFI Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place

2014: Currently 2nd


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 2:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 6632
The bottom line is that Heikki wasn't prepared to find sponsorship just so he could drive around at the back of the grid, this is the disrespect part of it i believe, another part of it is that he's no better then many of the pay drivers now present on the grid, a very good qualifier but overall nothing really special and i think thats the last F1 will see of him

_________________
PFI Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place

2014: Currently 2nd


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2012 10:08 am
Posts: 792
Location: Derby
Toby. wrote:
Is it really that surprising that Kovalainen has finally found himself without a seat? After 2008-2009, it was nothing short of a miracle that a few 'new' teams came in and needed experienced drivers. He's been praised for his efforts against his two team-mates during his time at Caterham. Unfortunately, when you look at the big picture, Jarno Trulli and Vitaly Petrov aren't top caliber drivers. Let's not forget that Petrov finished higher in the standings at the conclusion of the 2012 season.

After his annihilation at the hands of Hamilton, no top team was going to hire Kovalainen. A lot of people hoped somebody would throw him a lifeline, but it was never going to happen. Button, who many people didn't rate particularly highly before he joined McLaren, managed to challenge Hamilton's position in the team. Kovalainen failed to score 1/3 of Hamilton's scores over the 08 and 09 seasons. Would you have signed him even if he was able to beat Jarno Trulli?

And Kovalianen was putting himself out there to leave the team. He's said many times that he'd happily go to a better team if somebody offered him a seat. It doesn't fill the mechanics and board members with confidence when you're so happy to go to somebody with a better car without considering your own team first.

my point exactly he was all ready to leave at the drop of a hat, the seats dry up and he expects Caterham to pay him for a drive when someone who brings in sponsors towards the end of the season and definitely wdc position wise did better?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
pokerman wrote:
He was getting the poorer strategy in qualifying because in the races he was so poor, whenever he was in a good position after qualifying he would invariable fall away in the race, McLaren got rid of him simply because he wasn't good enough



When you are starting off on heavier fuel than those around you, you are automatically screwed.

Thing is because the two drivers were on different strategies and different specs of cars you cannot draw fair conclusions by simply comparing the two performances. If it was 50/50 equal status fair enough but not when the deal was so weighted to one side.

I dare say having the reigning WDC ready to come along also had something to do with McLaren looking rid. Oddly too for someone not good enough McLaren more than once have been quite complimentary of Heikki. Even going as far as pointing out that Fuel corrected he beat Hammy in Quali a fair bit.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 3029
I've thought Heikki lacks motivation for a couple of seasons now. He doesn't seem willing to make F1 his life. That's fine....not everyone can be consumed by their job choice...but to be really good in F1 you kind of have to. For me its what holds JB, Lewis, and Kimi back as well.

I do wonder if Heikki had a choice that involved taking a salary cut, never mind bringing sponsorship, and decided his personal worth is greater than the good of the team. Or perhaps he was willing to do that if the team made a higher level of commitment to him. I guess I wouldn't want to sacrifice my paycheck to make the team better only to find myself not in the team.

Caterham frustrates the hell out of me. They aren't as broke as you think they are, and they really aren't proportionally better than the 2 (now 1) teams behind them. Given what a joke STR really is, Caterham should be spanking them by now. For years now my best F1 friend and I make predictions and wishes before every GP weekend, and every time we'd say "Heikki in the points. This is the week. So and so are gonna DNF and caterham is getting a point"...until about halfway thru 2012 when we just gave up and succumbed to the disappointment. We did the same with Sutil for years before hand, always having him in our fantasy league team, always willing him onto the podium, always getting disappointed :lol: I got especially tired of it after Heikki's comments in Canada I guess it was, about how its his job to push and the team's job to put the car back together when he goes past it, something like that. Its not that he's wrong really, but the way he said it left a bad taste in my mouth.

And just to illustrate the point, the aforementioned friend just sent me this IM while I'm writing this post: "Farce India and Catersham need to hurry up and decide their drivers." :lol:

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 6632
Johnston wrote:
pokerman wrote:
He was getting the poorer strategy in qualifying because in the races he was so poor, whenever he was in a good position after qualifying he would invariable fall away in the race, McLaren got rid of him simply because he wasn't good enough



When you are starting off on heavier fuel than those around you, you are automatically screwed.

Thing is because the two drivers were on different strategies and different specs of cars you cannot draw fair conclusions by simply comparing the two performances. If it was 50/50 equal status fair enough but not when the deal was so weighted to one side.

I dare say having the reigning WDC ready to come along also had something to do with McLaren looking rid. Oddly too for someone not good enough McLaren more than once have been quite complimentary of Heikki. Even going as far as pointing out that Fuel corrected he beat Hammy in Quali a fair bit.

He did beat Hamilton a fair bit in qualifying moreso than Button, but even fuel corrected Hamilton came out on top, the extra fuel that Heikki carried never accounted for the performance difference between the two of them come raceday, some drivers in fact would prefer to carry a little more fuel for the overcut during pitstops. What seemed to be a constant factor with Heikki was that the better he qualified the more places he would lose during the course of the race so why put the better driver on the inferior strategy?

Also i'd like to add having 2 to 3 laps more fuel is not going to screw your race especially as along with Ferrari you have a faster car than the rest of the grid, Kimi out of preference nearly always qualified with more fuel in Massa, running too little fuel in qualifying could be a disadvantage as well

_________________
PFI Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place

2014: Currently 2nd


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 5:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
pokerman wrote:
He did beat Hamilton a fair bit in qualifying moreso than Button, but even fuel corrected Hamilton came out on top, the extra fuel that Heikki carried never accounted for the performance difference between the two of them come raceday, some drivers in fact would prefer to carry a little more fuel for the overcut during pitstops. What seemed to be a constant factor with Heikki was that the better he qualified the more places he would lose during the course of the race so why put the better driver on the inferior strategy?

Also i'd like to add having 2 to 3 laps more fuel is not going to screw your race especially as along with Ferrari you have a faster car than the rest of the grid, Kimi out of preference nearly always qualified with more fuel in Massa, running too little fuel in qualifying could be a disadvantage as well


Lewis getting the upgrades first would ;)

And again I'm not saying anything about inferior drivers etc. Just that you cannot compare the difference between two drivers when a) one is always getting the upgrades first and b ) one is always on the inferior strategy.

In other words before you even start it's a biased comparision.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 9:59 pm
Posts: 198
So he is back from his boat trip then!

The guy cares more about his trips and tattoo's than he does about the team, Kovi put more effort in developing the team than he ever will.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
I thought he was sidelined from the team, hence his sailing.

Is he not supposed to be in the Caterham road car end now ?

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2012 2:25 pm
Posts: 148
pokerman wrote:
He did beat Hamilton a fair bit in qualifying moreso than Button, but even fuel corrected Hamilton came out on top, the extra fuel that Heikki carried never accounted for the performance difference between the two of them come raceday, some drivers in fact would prefer to carry a little more fuel for the overcut during pitstops. What seemed to be a constant factor with Heikki was that the better he qualified the more places he would lose during the course of the race so why put the better driver on the inferior strategy?

Also i'd like to add having 2 to 3 laps more fuel is not going to screw your race especially as along with Ferrari you have a faster car than the rest of the grid, Kimi out of preference nearly always qualified with more fuel in Massa, running too little fuel in qualifying could be a disadvantage as well


Heikki was with more fuel on and still had to pit earlier than Hamilton. He could have Q in better places with quite the same fuel loads but mostly he was had way too much fuel on. He lost places in Q and at start when starting heavier than others. He didn't have 2-3 more laps more fuel but 5-10 laps.

McLaren was interested on Hamilton and Heikki didn't have management that could have gained him position in the team that sounds equal. He was number 2 and bad one. Car was bad with him and really all upgrades was only for Hamilton driving style. With bigger balls he would have got better position in team but he was too good and fair. Good guys don't always win.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 7:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 6632
Johnston wrote:
pokerman wrote:
He did beat Hamilton a fair bit in qualifying moreso than Button, but even fuel corrected Hamilton came out on top, the extra fuel that Heikki carried never accounted for the performance difference between the two of them come raceday, some drivers in fact would prefer to carry a little more fuel for the overcut during pitstops. What seemed to be a constant factor with Heikki was that the better he qualified the more places he would lose during the course of the race so why put the better driver on the inferior strategy?

Also i'd like to add having 2 to 3 laps more fuel is not going to screw your race especially as along with Ferrari you have a faster car than the rest of the grid, Kimi out of preference nearly always qualified with more fuel in Massa, running too little fuel in qualifying could be a disadvantage as well


Lewis getting the upgrades first would ;)

And again I'm not saying anything about inferior drivers etc. Just that you cannot compare the difference between two drivers when a) one is always getting the upgrades first and b ) one is always on the inferior strategy.

In other words before you even start it's a biased comparision.

I've read about the upgrades before, this being 2009 i believe when McLaren were playing catch up, there was only 1 or 2 races were their cars were different, one upgrade had to be delayed because it involved the drivers changing their driving techique to make it work which Heikki had more trouble adjusting to.

Also were there's not time to get upgrades onto both cars at the same time its obvious that the faster driver will get preference. i think will find there are very few races were Hamilton had a more updated car than Heikki during their 2 year spell as teammates

_________________
PFI Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place

2014: Currently 2nd


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 7:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 6632
WJF1 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
He did beat Hamilton a fair bit in qualifying moreso than Button, but even fuel corrected Hamilton came out on top, the extra fuel that Heikki carried never accounted for the performance difference between the two of them come raceday, some drivers in fact would prefer to carry a little more fuel for the overcut during pitstops. What seemed to be a constant factor with Heikki was that the better he qualified the more places he would lose during the course of the race so why put the better driver on the inferior strategy?

Also i'd like to add having 2 to 3 laps more fuel is not going to screw your race especially as along with Ferrari you have a faster car than the rest of the grid, Kimi out of preference nearly always qualified with more fuel in Massa, running too little fuel in qualifying could be a disadvantage as well


Heikki was with more fuel on and still had to pit earlier than Hamilton. He could have Q in better places with quite the same fuel loads but mostly he was had way too much fuel on. He lost places in Q and at start when starting heavier than others. He didn't have 2-3 more laps more fuel but 5-10 laps.

McLaren was interested on Hamilton and Heikki didn't have management that could have gained him position in the team that sounds equal. He was number 2 and bad one. Car was bad with him and really all upgrades was only for Hamilton driving style. With bigger balls he would have got better position in team but he was too good and fair. Good guys don't always win.

I'd like to see the proof for this that Heikki often had 5 to 10 laps more fuel than Hamilton but still pitted before him, and these not being stops were Heikki had tyre issues as he often use to wear them out too quick.

_________________
PFI Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place

2014: Currently 2nd


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 7:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
pokerman wrote:
I've read about the upgrades before, this being 2009 i believe when McLaren were playing catch up, there was only 1 or 2 races were their cars were different, one upgrade had to be delayed because it involved the drivers changing their driving techique to make it work which Heikki had more trouble adjusting to.

Also were there's not time to get upgrades onto both cars at the same time its obvious that the faster driver will get preference. i think will find there are very few races were Hamilton had a more updated car than Heikki during their 2 year spell as teammates


It was constant throughout 2009. And again if one driver is getting preference over parts how do you draw a fair comparison?

With in-season testing banned how is a driver to adapt to a new part without running it? If he only runs it in FP then that limits his set up time. Lose Lose situation.


Another way of looking at it. Is comparing Alonso and Massa over the last three years a fair comparison?

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 7:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 10:50 am
Posts: 1188
For me, trying to decipher the 2008/2009 Hamilton v Kovalainen situation always concluded with a chicken/egg scenario. Was (a) Heikki slower because he didn't get the new parts first, or (b) did he not get the new parts first because he was slower?

I would have thought/hoped (although really what the hell do I know?) that a team as experienced as McLaren would not have allowed scenario (a) to happen. But, as a fan of F1 for long enough, nothing would surprise me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 8:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 12:17 pm
Posts: 2412
pokerman wrote:
Johnston wrote:
pokerman wrote:
He did beat Hamilton a fair bit in qualifying moreso than Button, but even fuel corrected Hamilton came out on top, the extra fuel that Heikki carried never accounted for the performance difference between the two of them come raceday, some drivers in fact would prefer to carry a little more fuel for the overcut during pitstops. What seemed to be a constant factor with Heikki was that the better he qualified the more places he would lose during the course of the race so why put the better driver on the inferior strategy?

Also i'd like to add having 2 to 3 laps more fuel is not going to screw your race especially as along with Ferrari you have a faster car than the rest of the grid, Kimi out of preference nearly always qualified with more fuel in Massa, running too little fuel in qualifying could be a disadvantage as well


Lewis getting the upgrades first would ;)

And again I'm not saying anything about inferior drivers etc. Just that you cannot compare the difference between two drivers when a) one is always getting the upgrades first and b ) one is always on the inferior strategy.

In other words before you even start it's a biased comparision.

I've read about the upgrades before, this being 2009 i believe when McLaren were playing catch up, there was only 1 or 2 races were their cars were different, one upgrade had to be delayed because it involved the drivers changing their driving techique to make it work which Heikki had more trouble adjusting to.

Also were there's not time to get upgrades onto both cars at the same time its obvious that the faster driver will get preference. i think will find there are very few races were Hamilton had a more updated car than Heikki during their 2 year spell as teammates

Would you like to guess why Heikki made it public? He was tired of the team favouring Lewis, so much so that Heikki was in a somewhat similar situation to Massa at Ferrar(2012). He made a statement in '09, but it doesn't mean '08 was much better.

_________________
My Top 5 drivers of all times:
1) Prost/ Schumacher
3) Fangio
4) Lauda
5) Brabham

if you don't like it, too bad! There's a reason why it says "My Top 5"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 10:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 3204
The point some posters above seem to be missing it that he is not going to a better car, he is out of F1.

Fine to wave 2 fingers and saunter off with a swagger cos you could not be arsed to help look for funds if you are going to another team where that is accepted for the driver, but he is not. I think a committed driver would do what is required to keep the seat if he can. It is not like being a Taxi driver or a bus driver where you are an employee on a wage or a salary and can go to another company if you dont like what you are asked to do, as they take on hundreds every year

_________________
I have nothing to offer but blood, oil, gears, and sweat.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 10:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 6632
Johnston wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I've read about the upgrades before, this being 2009 i believe when McLaren were playing catch up, there was only 1 or 2 races were their cars were different, one upgrade had to be delayed because it involved the drivers changing their driving techique to make it work which Heikki had more trouble adjusting to.

Also were there's not time to get upgrades onto both cars at the same time its obvious that the faster driver will get preference. i think will find there are very few races were Hamilton had a more updated car than Heikki during their 2 year spell as teammates


It was constant throughout 2009. And again if one driver is getting preference over parts how do you draw a fair comparison?

With in-season testing banned how is a driver to adapt to a new part without running it? If he only runs it in FP then that limits his set up time. Lose Lose situation.


Another way of looking at it. Is comparing Alonso and Massa over the last three years a fair comparison?

But it doesn't limit Hamilton's set up time how you do you figure that out?

_________________
PFI Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place

2014: Currently 2nd


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 10:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:49 am
Posts: 2069
Location: Australia
Regardless of what I think of Gascoyne, I think his comments are fairly accurate.

I don't think that Kovalainen's reputation suffered more than it should have up against Hamilton in 08 and 09. The sport is about results and if you get thrashed by your teammate or your performances aren't good enough then it doesn't matter how many reasons you give for it. Whilst the overall impression may have been compromised by him not getting the better parts and taking the strategy that didn't enable him to shine, a better driver would still have come out of that looking better than he did. The best drivers simply don't find themselves having to give justifications all the time.

Kovalainen should have done what Button has done, which is to focus on his opportunities and his strengths and develop them to maximise what he can get out of the sport. Having said that, the sport has changed a bit since Button was in a similar position. There is a much higher level of competition now - top established drivers and a lot of exciting up and comers. So whilst a driver of Kovalainen's calibre may have had more opportunities in the past to stick around and develop themselves now those simply aren't available. The best drivers will be fine, but the sport is not in a place where journeyman-style drivers are needed anymore. Moreover, the financial side of things has changed. Now exciting young talent has to pay a lot to get a chance at an F1 drive. So unless you're an established top driver or someone a top team wants to take a chance with you're going to have to be prepared to pay. Kobayashi has been caught in a similar situation.

IMO this is where Kovalainen and his management made a crucial mistake. It was as though they looked at the sport as it was 10 years ago, when a driver like Coulthard could enjoy several years with McLaren when they should have recognised that Caterham was the best Kovalainen could hope for and he needed to knuckle down, stay positive and set an example and maximise the opportunity provided him. Instead, based on the comments throughout the year, they treated it like a stop-gap where he could tread water.

_________________
Twitter @Jo_Soucek


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 11:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 6632
WJF1 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
He did beat Hamilton a fair bit in qualifying moreso than Button, but even fuel corrected Hamilton came out on top, the extra fuel that Heikki carried never accounted for the performance difference between the two of them come raceday, some drivers in fact would prefer to carry a little more fuel for the overcut during pitstops. What seemed to be a constant factor with Heikki was that the better he qualified the more places he would lose during the course of the race so why put the better driver on the inferior strategy?

Also i'd like to add having 2 to 3 laps more fuel is not going to screw your race especially as along with Ferrari you have a faster car than the rest of the grid, Kimi out of preference nearly always qualified with more fuel in Massa, running too little fuel in qualifying could be a disadvantage as well


Heikki was with more fuel on and still had to pit earlier than Hamilton. He could have Q in better places with quite the same fuel loads but mostly he was had way too much fuel on. He lost places in Q and at start when starting heavier than others. He didn't have 2-3 more laps more fuel but 5-10 laps.

McLaren was interested on Hamilton and Heikki didn't have management that could have gained him position in the team that sounds equal. He was number 2 and bad one. Car was bad with him and really all upgrades was only for Hamilton driving style. With bigger balls he would have got better position in team but he was too good and fair. Good guys don't always win.

I've just read through all the races in the second half of the 2009 season Heikki pitted later than Hamilton every race

_________________
PFI Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place

2014: Currently 2nd


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 11:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
pokerman wrote:
Johnston wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I've read about the upgrades before, this being 2009 i believe when McLaren were playing catch up, there was only 1 or 2 races were their cars were different, one upgrade had to be delayed because it involved the drivers changing their driving techique to make it work which Heikki had more trouble adjusting to.

Also were there's not time to get upgrades onto both cars at the same time its obvious that the faster driver will get preference. i think will find there are very few races were Hamilton had a more updated car than Heikki during their 2 year spell as teammates


It was constant throughout 2009. And again if one driver is getting preference over parts how do you draw a fair comparison?

With in-season testing banned how is a driver to adapt to a new part without running it? If he only runs it in FP then that limits his set up time. Lose Lose situation.


Another way of looking at it. Is comparing Alonso and Massa over the last three years a fair comparison?

But it doesn't limit Hamilton's set up time how you do you figure that out?


Well if HK wasn't racing with it because he needed more miles. Then the only time he could gain the milage was in FP. If he wasn't racing them then those parts wouldcome off and effectively a reset button pressed for set up. However if Hammy was keeping those upgrades on he effectively would have an extra FP or 2 with his race parts. Therefore in that Scenario HK lost out from having to revert to the old parts.


Although I don't think HK ever had the parts on in FP for that scenario to work out. It wasn't a case of needing more miles. He simply didn't get them.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 11:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 6632
Johnston wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Johnston wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I've read about the upgrades before, this being 2009 i believe when McLaren were playing catch up, there was only 1 or 2 races were their cars were different, one upgrade had to be delayed because it involved the drivers changing their driving techique to make it work which Heikki had more trouble adjusting to.

Also were there's not time to get upgrades onto both cars at the same time its obvious that the faster driver will get preference. i think will find there are very few races were Hamilton had a more updated car than Heikki during their 2 year spell as teammates


It was constant throughout 2009. And again if one driver is getting preference over parts how do you draw a fair comparison?

With in-season testing banned how is a driver to adapt to a new part without running it? If he only runs it in FP then that limits his set up time. Lose Lose situation.


Another way of looking at it. Is comparing Alonso and Massa over the last three years a fair comparison?

But it doesn't limit Hamilton's set up time how you do you figure that out?


Well if HK wasn't racing with it because he needed more miles. Then the only time he could gain the milage was in FP. If he wasn't racing them then those parts wouldcome off and effectively a reset button pressed for set up. However if Hammy was keeping those upgrades on he effectively would have an extra FP or 2 with his race parts. Therefore in that Scenario HK lost out from having to revert to the old parts.


Although I don't think HK ever had the parts on in FP for that scenario to work out. It wasn't a case of needing more miles. He simply didn't get them.

Heikki needing more time to get use to the new parts than Hamilton is surely down to him, i know Hamilton had to make an adjustment to his driving to make some of the up grades work, McLaren weren't prepared to slow development down waiting for Heikki to catch up, this is what some feared might have happened with Button when perhaps they had to take a step back for Button to catch up?

_________________
PFI Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place

2014: Currently 2nd


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2013 12:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 4:46 am
Posts: 327
kai_ wrote:
Regardless of what I think of Gascoyne, I think his comments are fairly accurate.

I don't think that Kovalainen's reputation suffered more than it should have up against Hamilton in 08 and 09. The sport is about results and if you get thrashed by your teammate or your performances aren't good enough then it doesn't matter how many reasons you give for it. Whilst the overall impression may have been compromised by him not getting the better parts and taking the strategy that didn't enable him to shine, a better driver would still have come out of that looking better than he did. The best drivers simply don't find themselves having to give justifications all the time.

Kovalainen should have done what Button has done, which is to focus on his opportunities and his strengths and develop them to maximise what he can get out of the sport. Having said that, the sport has changed a bit since Button was in a similar position. There is a much higher level of competition now - top established drivers and a lot of exciting up and comers. So whilst a driver of Kovalainen's calibre may have had more opportunities in the past to stick around and develop themselves now those simply aren't available. The best drivers will be fine, but the sport is not in a place where journeyman-style drivers are needed anymore. Moreover, the financial side of things has changed. Now exciting young talent has to pay a lot to get a chance at an F1 drive. So unless you're an established top driver or someone a top team wants to take a chance with you're going to have to be prepared to pay. Kobayashi has been caught in a similar situation.

IMO this is where Kovalainen and his management made a crucial mistake. It was as though they looked at the sport as it was 10 years ago, when a driver like Coulthard could enjoy several years with McLaren when they should have recognised that Caterham was the best Kovalainen could hope for and he needed to knuckle down, stay positive and set an example and maximise the opportunity provided him. Instead, based on the comments throughout the year, they treated it like a stop-gap where he could tread water.


I'd agree, but for additional reasons. It turned out that Button is quite politically adept, as well as being a very good driver. Lewis is also good at looking out for himself (usually). But, unfortunately, a driver who just accepts what they're given and drives their best is often made to look a real chump, no matter how talented they are. Just look at Kimi and Heikki in '08-'09. If Massa hadn't had Shumacher working behind the scenes for him at Ferrari when he partnered Kimi, or if Ron hadn't been favoring Lewis so ruthlessly, I think Kimi's and Heikki's respective reputations would each be far better. (Luckily Kimi's return has now silenced much of the garbage that many forumers used to spew forth here.)

I don't see Petrov's performance casting a bad light on Heikki's abilities either, as I considered Petrov's GP2 performances to be very promising and didn't share everyone's prejudice that a paydriver must necessarily be bad. Petrov, though, never got a real chance to prove himself in F1, while Kovi did but blew it due to his lack of political acumen.

I think it's no accident that during the 80's Niki Lauda considered the up-and-coming Senna to be the most "complete" driver of the then-younger group because in addition to his talent he "got" the political side to Formula 1. It just goes to show, political instinct is as vital as talent in order to succeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group