planetf1.com

It is currently Fri Oct 24, 2014 12:41 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 11:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 1960
Location: Belgium
Let me tell you that this is your opinion only. This is not saying that some WDC's were undeserved. But there are some seasons that you believed another driver should have won the title.

1958: Moss is often quoted as best driver to have never won WDC, I think having a better record against Hawthorn when both finished he should have been WDC, but Hawthorn was more consistent, with Moss having worse reliabilty, I think Moss deserved at least 1 WDC, can't say if Hawthorn never deserved a WDC but he has a poor winning record but he died however not long after his WDC
1986: I think Mansell should have won his first WDC there but a tyre decided elseway
1989: Senna having worse reliability than Prost but finishing higher up than Prost in almost every race they both finished, and the Japan DSQ of Senna with a very partial Balestre makes me believe Senna deserved title more than Prost, I think had he lived he would have been at 5 times WDC
1994: Hill should have won, Schumi retired and deliberately ran into Hill, plus Schumi running illegal traction control at the start of the season, however I don't think Damon was that good to have 2 WDC's to his name, Schumi being 6 times WDC would be more correct I think

Other opinions?

_________________
F1 fan since 1989
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 11:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2012 2:49 pm
Posts: 432
By deliberately disregarding the bad luck of other drivers throughout a season, and subjectively (with bias) nominating only one driver to have wishfully had nothing but good luck, Mark Webber in 2010.

Had he not drifted wide on (I think) lap 17 of the Korean Grand Prix, I think he would have been on to win that race. Again, disregarding any bad luck anyone else ever faced in that season (with a bias view), that would have given Mark the championship by 11 points over Vettel.

Maybe his fractured shoulder played a part. He himself says it didn't, but Mark doesn't like to make excuses and perhaps preferred not to excuse his shortcomings. Either way, I look to 2010 as a way of coping with Mark's bad run of late.

_________________
This is where the party's at.
Webber.Button.Ricciardo.Grosjean.Hulkenberg.Lowndes.Power.Marquez.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 11:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:33 pm
Posts: 1719
Location: Bangor, Gwynedd, Wales
Senna should have been champion in 1994. Yes his season started badly, scoring nothing in 3 races if memory serves, but ultimately he was a better driver than Hill, and even Damon managed to take it down to the wire.

_________________
Copper Masked Sunrise
http://www.justgiving.com/CIN-Mystery-P ... 00b9467dcb
https://www.facebook.com/BadExcusesBand


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 11:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 5:02 am
Posts: 136
Nigel Mansell, Damon Hill and Mark Webber.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 12:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 6:20 pm
Posts: 1622
Location: Secret Volcano Lair
Raikonnen should have won with Mclaren... I think it was 2002? I forgOt

_________________
Loading Quote.......
--------------------


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 12:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
Gotta say Mansell.

It wasn't even the team that dropped the ball but Good Year.

From days of yore I'll go with Von Tripps

_________________
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: Thu Dec 06, 2012 12:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 4958
Ok this is interesting I will go through the years:

1958: Moss probably deserved the tittle more than Hawthorn

1961: Von Trips was the better driver and I think would have won the tittle had he not died

1964: I think on pace Clark should have taken the tittle away from Surtees.

1966: Brabham one the tittle by a margin but got very lucky, I would pick Surtees as the best driver

1967: Another one that should have gone to Clark in my opinion easily the fastest driver.

1976: Lauda should have won that and would have easily without the crash

1981: Ruetemann drove very well that year and deserved the tittle

1982: Pironi would have one easily had he not hurt his legs

1983: Prost lost the tittle as much as Piquet won it

1984: Another tittle Prost should have won, Lauda stealthed his way to it.

1986: Mansell and Prost were both great but for me Nigel would just edge it

1990: Senna should have been excluded

1999: Schumacher would have won had it not been for his injuries, Hakkinen did not have a good year

2003: Raikkonens greatest masterpiece

2007: Hamilton was the driver of the year

2012: Alonso deserved the tittle for his best ever year.


So the changes that would make:

Moss = 1 tittle
Hawthorn = 0
Von Trips = 1
P.Hill = 0
Clark = 4
Brabham = 2
Hulme = 0
Hunt = 0
Reutemann = 1
Piquet =1
Pironi = 1
Rosberg = 0
Prost = 6
Senna = 2
Mansell = 2
Hamilton = 2
Alonso = 3
Vettel = 2

Lauda, Raikkoenen, Surtees and Schumacher all maintain the same tittles but with different years.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 12:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:19 am
Posts: 499
2003 Raikkonen 2 points away due to bad McLaren reliability

2008 Massa 1 point away due to Singapore crash


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 12:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:12 pm
Posts: 189
2005 Raikkonen, his best year in the sport for me. Showed blinding speed and was badly let down by McLaren's poor reliability, similar to what Hamilton had this year

_________________
Support: Kimi, Lewis, Jenson, THE HULK and Super Kevin Magnussen
Respect: Eyebrow man, Schumi and finally after three long years Sebastian Vettel. Fairplay to the guy he is quick!
Still don't like: Di Resta and his neck glassing team mate


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 12:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:45 am
Posts: 1321
Location: Sydney, Australia
Race2win wrote:
Raikonnen should have won with Mclaren... I think it was 2002? I forgOt

I am one of those people that think that whoever ends up with the most points at the end of the season deserves to win the WDC but, having said that, I was so impressed with Kimi when he drove for McLaren that I always thought each year that he would finally win the Championship. And he probably would have if it wasn't for the continuous unreliability of his car. This is why I always laugh when certain fans of Lewis make up conspiracy theories about his car's unreliability this year. If they had followed F1 for a long time they would know that McLaren has a history of being fast but unreliable, just ask Kimi 8O :D


Last edited by DrG on Thu Dec 06, 2012 12:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 12:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:53 am
Posts: 2630
Location: Somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert
Senna88 wrote:
2005 Raikkonen, his best year in the sport for me. Showed blinding speed and was badly let down by McLaren's poor reliability, similar to what Hamilton had this year

I agree. Maybe I remember wrong but, in addition to the reliability, Montoya seemed to let Alonso pass him at every opportunity.

_________________
I went skating on your name,
And by tracing it twice,
I fell through the ice,
of Alice


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 1:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 7:48 pm
Posts: 1284
I've often thought about what I would have liked to have happened if I was writing the sport as a book, I guess this is a good place to put some of my thoughts.
Sticking to the last ten years as my memory is fuzzy for any further back, and yes these are contradictory in some places, multiple universes are required...

2003 Raikkonen wins the WDC.
2005 Raikkonen wins. As I've said previously, 2012 was Hamilton's equivalent of Raikkonen's 2005, even to the superficial similarities of deciding to leave the team for possibly similar reasons, and enforcing Schumacher's retirement from a huge and famous works team.
2006 Schumacher retires as WDC. Brasil was one of the best drives I've seen.
2007 Hamilton wins in his first year.
2007 Alonso wins in his first year at McLaren, and so gets three WDC in a row, in two different teams.
2008 Massa wins.
2010 Webber wins.
2012 Raikkonen wins.

Each change should be considered individually and not along with the other changes. For example, I don't think that Raikkonen should necessarily have four WDCs, or Alonso three, or Schumacher eight.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 1:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 6:20 pm
Posts: 1622
Location: Secret Volcano Lair
@DRG: Yeah I know what you mean. But you gotta give it to them for pulling out theories right out of their arses at the drop of a hat. They are good to read for a good hearty laugh

_________________
Loading Quote.......
--------------------


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 1:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:58 pm
Posts: 973
mikeyg123 wrote:
Ok this is interesting I will go through the years:
1990: Senna should have been excluded

2003: Raikkonens greatest masterpiece

If Senna should have been excluded, so should have Schumi in 1994 and maybe even Prost in 1989

I agree with 2007 and 2012 with you but 2003 I think Juan maybe deserved it.

Remember if his car would have not failed him in the last race he would have tied Schumi on points, as he was winning comfy. The title could have easily gone 3 ways that year.

I would add Senna in 1989 as well, he outraced Prost 9-1 when noting went wrong.

_________________
http://top-people.starmedia.com/tmp/swotti/cacheYXLYDG9UIHNLBM5HUGVVCGXLLVBLB3BSZQ==/imgAyrton%20Senna2.jpg


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:56 am
Posts: 7678
Location: London
I'll get flamed for it but oh well,

Massa in 2008.
Hamilton in 2007.
Raikkonen in 2003 and 2005.
Alonso in 2012 and 2010.
Schumacher in 2006.

_________________
1994 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Get well soon Schumi.

No one call anyone a moo-pickle...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 10:02 am
Posts: 178
Location: Paris, France
in order of my liking
Kimi: 2003 and 2005
Hamilton: 2007 and 2012
Felipe: 2008
Alonso: 2010

and making this (in my opinion) the most reflective in the terms of WDC success on the current grid with Kimi, Alonso and Hamilton at 2 each and Felipe, JB and Vettel at 1
2003: Kimi
2004: MS (6)
2005: Kimi (2)
2006: Alonso
2007: Hamilton
2008: Felipe
2009: JB
2010: Alonso (2)
2011: Vettel
2012: Hamilton (2)

_________________
Image go Felipe, baby!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 2:48 pm
Posts: 123
Laura23 wrote:
I'll get flamed for it but oh well,

Massa in 2008.
Hamilton in 2007.
Raikkonen in 2003 and 2005.
Alonso in 2012 and 2010.
Schumacher in 2006.


:thumbup: Have to agree with that. Be close between Alonso and Webber in 2010 but Alonso just edges it for me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 2:48 pm
Posts: 123
Not all will agree with this but oh well:

1994: Hill
1995: Schumi
1996: Hill
1997: Villeneuve
1998: Hakkinen
1999: Hakkinen (Thankfully Schumi broke his legs that year, Mika wasn't as consistent )
2000: Would have loved to see Hakkinen win it 3 times but Schumi did deserve it in the end, Spa and Suzuka were epic races
2001: Schumi
2002: Schumi
2003 Raikkonen
2004: Schumi
2005: Raikkonen
2006: Schumi
2007: Hamilton
2008: Felipe
2009: JB
2010: Alonso or Mark
2011: Vettel
2012: Alonso
2013: Bring it home Kimi :D :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:09 am
Posts: 2232
Location: Perth, Australia
Of the past few years,

Raikkonen 2003, 2005
Hamilton 2007
Webber 2010
Karthikeyan 2011, 2012

_________________
Image
I also have one of these.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 3:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 10:21 pm
Posts: 1736
Kamui Kobayashi, 2009 for his performance in the last 2 races.

_________________
Official Kamui Kobayashi Fanboy


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 3:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 3436
Location: Nebraska, USA
Kimi 2012 wrote:
Not all will agree with this but oh well:

1999: Hakkinen (Thankfully Schumi broke his legs that year, Mika wasn't as consistent )
:D


Fascinating thought process. Mika was wasn't as consistent so THANKFULLY Schumi broke his leg??? Thus making Mika more deserving?

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
:?

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 3:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 10:14 pm
Posts: 2460
Amon wrote:
1994: Hill should have won, Schumi retired and deliberately ran into Hill, plus Schumi running illegal traction control at the start of the season, however I don't think Damon was that good to have 2 WDC's to his name, Schumi being 6 times WDC would be more correct I think


Schumi was not running illegal traction control at any point of the season. However the incident with Hill is a legitimate grievance, although not one I particularly feel sorry for, it was a risky pass and Schumacher was driving a damaged car.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 3:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 2:48 pm
Posts: 123
Blake wrote:
Kimi 2012 wrote:
Not all will agree with this but oh well:

1999: Hakkinen (Thankfully Schumi broke his legs that year, Mika wasn't as consistent )
:D


Fascinating thought process. Mika was wasn't as consistent so THANKFULLY Schumi broke his leg??? Thus making Mika more deserving?

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
:?


Hakkinen wasn't as consistent in 99 making some errors while in the lead of races (mainly imola and monza if memory serves me correctly) and the mclaren wasn't as reliable that year. Irvine fought him to the end and I have a suspicion that had schumi not broken his legs in silverstone (I'm not saying I'm glad he did my respect for Schumacher has increased massively since his comeback and I would never willingly want to see any racing driver get hurt so apologies if thats the way it came across) he would've taken the title in 99. Who was more deserving...being a Hakkinen fan i would go with my initial statement but it would've been interesting to see who would've came on top had Schumi been able to compete at all the races.

F1 fan since 97...
Kimi Raikkonen World Champion 2007
Gotta love this guy!!!! :D

....Just leave me Alone!!!! :D
--------------------------------------------------
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 4:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:29 am
Posts: 932
Heinz-Harald Frentzen. 1999.

Heartbreak at the Nurburgring.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 5:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
MistaVega23 wrote:
Heinz-Harald Frentzen. 1999.

Heartbreak at the Nurburgring.


Flip side Eddie Irvine same reason ;)

_________________
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: Thu Dec 06, 2012 5:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 1:13 pm
Posts: 30
Schumacher had to be WDC in 97, 99, 06. He could have 10 WDC which he deserved.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 5:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:29 am
Posts: 932
Johnston wrote:
MistaVega23 wrote:
Heinz-Harald Frentzen. 1999.

Heartbreak at the Nurburgring.


Flip side Eddie Irvine same reason ;)


Who can forget 'that' pit stop?! :lol:

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 5:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:56 am
Posts: 7678
Location: London
virus wrote:
Schumacher had to be WDC in 97, 99, 06. He could have 10 WDC which he deserved.

Schumacher didn't deserve 97 the minute he tried to drive JV off the road. No driver would have done. Just like Senna didn't deserve 90 for driving into Prost.

As for 99, Schumacher may have been driving great before the leg break and all but after that Hakkinen did get awfully complacent at times. If Schuey had been fine Mika wouldn't have slacked off at all and we will never know how Schuey would have fared the rest of the year.

_________________
1994 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Get well soon Schumi.

No one call anyone a moo-pickle...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 6:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:33 pm
Posts: 1719
Location: Bangor, Gwynedd, Wales
Just been doing a bit of research for a series of articles I'm working on: under today's points system, Eddie Irvine would be the 1999 World Champion. Given how he picked up the slack once Schumacher was out of the picture, I think he deserved to. I also think Hakkinen did though, so I'm happy with it as it is too.

_________________
Copper Masked Sunrise
http://www.justgiving.com/CIN-Mystery-P ... 00b9467dcb
https://www.facebook.com/BadExcusesBand


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 6:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:29 am
Posts: 932
Prost was lucky to win the title in 1993 - given the Williams' dominance he didn't exactly thrash Hill or Senna (the latter in a clearly inferior car).

If it wasn't for Hill's DNF's in South Africa, San Marino, Spain, GB, Germany and starting from the back in Portugal (he qualified on pole and was looking for his 4th win in a row and only finishing 4th) - Prost would have had his work cut out.

Prost's DNF's in Brazil, Hungary and Italy notwithstanding, Hill lost at least 40pts when either in the lead or a guaranteed podium (South Africa he was fighting his way back after spinning on lap one and probably would have finished in the top three).

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 6:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:12 pm
Posts: 189
Tufty wrote:
Just been doing a bit of research for a series of articles I'm working on: under today's points system, Eddie Irvine would be the 1999 World Champion. Given how he picked up the slack once Schumacher was out of the picture, I think he deserved to. I also think Hakkinen did though, so I'm happy with it as it is too.


Don't think he did deserve it, Eddie himself said he found it stupid that just to stay in the title hunt they had to effectively manipulate race results. Of his four wins that season two he got because of team orders (Salo at Germany, Schumacher at Malaysia) and Austria was pretty much handed to him on a plate once DC knocked off Hakkinen at the start.

_________________
Support: Kimi, Lewis, Jenson, THE HULK and Super Kevin Magnussen
Respect: Eyebrow man, Schumi and finally after three long years Sebastian Vettel. Fairplay to the guy he is quick!
Still don't like: Di Resta and his neck glassing team mate


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 6:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
Senna88 wrote:
Tufty wrote:
Just been doing a bit of research for a series of articles I'm working on: under today's points system, Eddie Irvine would be the 1999 World Champion. Given how he picked up the slack once Schumacher was out of the picture, I think he deserved to. I also think Hakkinen did though, so I'm happy with it as it is too.


Don't think he did deserve it, Eddie himself said he found it stupid that just to stay in the title hunt they had to effectively manipulate race results. Of his four wins that season two he got because of team orders (Salo at Germany, Schumacher at Malaysia) and Austria was pretty much handed to him on a plate once DC knocked off Hakkinen at the start.



The flip side is he handed at least one position to Schui before Silverstone. (France I think)

_________________
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: Thu Dec 06, 2012 7:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:33 pm
Posts: 1719
Location: Bangor, Gwynedd, Wales
I'd forgotten the ins and outs of the 1999 campaign - I was only 7! - so I'll rescind that one on the basis of the above posts :)

_________________
Copper Masked Sunrise
http://www.justgiving.com/CIN-Mystery-P ... 00b9467dcb
https://www.facebook.com/BadExcusesBand


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 7:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 1:55 pm
Posts: 762
Location: Tampere, F1nland
McLaren wasn't horribly unreliable in 2003 so that wasn't their main downfall. Of course the most conspicuous misfortune was when Kimi lost an almost sure victory at Nurburgring due to the Mercedes engine blowing up, his two other retirements where at race starts 1) Spain where started from last place and hit the back of a stalled car on the grid 2) Germany where he was wiped out in the first corner crash with Barrichello and Firman. Team mate Coulthard had 3 mechanical DNFs. At Ferrari Schumacher had 0 mechanical DNFs, and only one retirement overall when he crashed out in the rain at the Brazilian GP, whereas Barrichello had 2 mechanical DNFs and 3 collisions. McLaren's main problem was that the car was usually slow compared to Ferrari and Williams, ie. the problem was the exact opposite they had in 2005 when the car was unreliable. IMO Kimi's 2003 is better than 2005, although the results don't show it (only 1 victory and 2 poles) but he was fast and consistent in a car that over the course of the season wasn't a match for Ferrari or Williams. And he finished only 2 points off the title. Therefore, I think he was the driver of the year ahead of Schumi or Monty.

Then 2005 was the other way round. The car was the fastest on a majority of circuits but it wasn't reliable. Kimi only had two mechanical DNFs (both from the lead) but he incurred several 10-place grid penalties due engine problems in FPs, meaning he had to start from way back and could never contest for the win in those races.

_________________
Image

2014: Currently 1st in everything


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 7:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:33 pm
Posts: 1719
Location: Bangor, Gwynedd, Wales
Actually, I'll throw out there the legendary MP4-18 as another reason for Kimi Raikkonen to have taken the 2003 title - had the car not spent the year blowing up and trying to kill its test drivers it would have blown the competition away. As it was, it probably soured the McLaren-Newey relationship.

It also says a lot that a heavily modified '17D could take the fight the the F2003 when the '17 itself could never really match the F2002.

_________________
Copper Masked Sunrise
http://www.justgiving.com/CIN-Mystery-P ... 00b9467dcb
https://www.facebook.com/BadExcusesBand


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 5:19 pm
Posts: 897
Location: Los Angeles, California
Tufty wrote:
Actually, I'll throw out there the legendary MP4-18 as another reason for Kimi Raikkonen to have taken the 2003 title - had the car not spent the year blowing up and trying to kill its test drivers it would have blown the competition away. As it was, it probably soured the McLaren-Newey relationship.

It also says a lot that a heavily modified '17D could take the fight the the F2003 when the '17 itself could never really match the F2002.



They can thank Michelin and their "widening" tires for that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:33 pm
Posts: 1719
Location: Bangor, Gwynedd, Wales
Ah, I forgot that one too Snake! God, my posts are taking a beating and a half here :lol:

_________________
Copper Masked Sunrise
http://www.justgiving.com/CIN-Mystery-P ... 00b9467dcb
https://www.facebook.com/BadExcusesBand


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 10:14 pm
Posts: 2460
RaisinChips wrote:
McLaren wasn't horribly unreliable in 2003 so that wasn't their main downfall. Of course the most conspicuous misfortune was when Kimi lost an almost sure victory at Nurburgring due to the Mercedes engine blowing up, his two other retirements where at race starts 1) Spain where started from last place and hit the back of a stalled car on the grid 2) Germany where he was wiped out in the first corner crash with Barrichello and Firman. Team mate Coulthard had 3 mechanical DNFs. At Ferrari Schumacher had 0 mechanical DNFs, and only one retirement overall when he crashed out in the rain at the Brazilian GP, whereas Barrichello had 2 mechanical DNFs and 3 collisions. McLaren's main problem was that the car was usually slow compared to Ferrari and Williams, ie. the problem was the exact opposite they had in 2005 when the car was unreliable. IMO Kimi's 2003 is better than 2005, although the results don't show it (only 1 victory and 2 poles) but he was fast and consistent in a car that over the course of the season wasn't a match for Ferrari or Williams. And he finished only 2 points off the title. Therefore, I think he was the driver of the year ahead of Schumi or Monty.


The thing is unlike Montoya and Schumacher racing each other, Raikkonen never seemed to be racing Schumacher. This is partly because of the tyres. When Ferrari brought out their delayed new car, the F2003-GA, all seemed to be well as Schumacher closed down Raikkonen's lead. But a very hot summer (record breaking) made the Bridgestones struggle while the Michelins excelled. This suddenly made it a very close fight for the championship, along with the Williams that suddenly figured out how to set up the car, and became the car to beat much of the time.

Kimi did a very good job and was very consistent, he lost 10 points in Nurburgring to engine failure but Schumacher also lost a whole load of points due to puncture in Hockenheim and bargeboards falling off in Australia, as well as being caught on the wrong side of the rain in Japan.

Kimi also benefited from the bizarre tyre ruling that lead Bridgestone to turn up to Brazil 2003 having only inters, and Michelin only wets. Whatever costs were saved were surely lost again in the crashes... . In any case Schumacher was doing a pretty good job hanging onto the McLarens, far ahead of Barrichello, before he crashed right as the safety car came out because it was raining even harder and too wet for the Bridgestone Inters.

Turns out Schumacher (even if he had trundled around behind Barrichello) would have won if he had waited for the restart in much drier conditions, while Coulthard would have had bad luck if he had had any luck at all. So it's not like all the misfortune in 2003 befell Kimi. Unlike 2005!

Brazil 2003 was a somewhat farcical example, but it reflects generally that in modern wet races, gambling on the race being stopped seems to be something of a strategy. Vergne in Malaysia was all over the place and about to be caught by a whole host of cars lead by Schumacher (ironically) who had the lap before pitted for the appropriate tyres, and then the race was stopped allowing him to not only keep the position but save a few laps on his tyres!

RaisinChips wrote:
Then 2005 was the other way round. The car was the fastest on a majority of circuits but it wasn't reliable. Kimi only had two mechanical DNFs (both from the lead) but he incurred several 10-place grid penalties due engine problems in FPs, meaning he had to start from way back and could never contest for the win in those races.


He had three mechanical failures if you count Nurburgring, and what 5 grid penalties or something... a lot. A lot of this handed points to Alonso as well, so pretty unlucky for Kimi.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 8:08 pm
Posts: 370
2005 - Raikkonen
2006 - Schumacher
2007 - Hamilton
2008 - Hamilton
2009 - Button
2010 - Vettel
2011 - Vettel
2012 - Alonso

_________________
Supporter of:

Fernando Alonso
Pastor Maldonado
Sergio Perez
Michael Schumacher
Lewis Hamilton


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 7:48 pm
Posts: 1284
SnakeSVT2003 wrote:
Tufty wrote:
Actually, I'll throw out there the legendary MP4-18 as another reason for Kimi Raikkonen to have taken the 2003 title - had the car not spent the year blowing up and trying to kill its test drivers it would have blown the competition away. As it was, it probably soured the McLaren-Newey relationship.

It also says a lot that a heavily modified '17D could take the fight the the F2003 when the '17 itself could never really match the F2002.



They can thank Michelin and their "widening" tires for that.

I did a quick internet search and found nothing, what's this about?


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: AdsBot [Google], fabr68, Google [Bot], mas, pokerman, spooky 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