the team mate game

i would´ve loved to watch kimi on a crappy car or JPM,...,

and that´s that!

These comparisions are very difficult.

Some of my points:

1. Kimi, although he is great, is quite irregular and he was lucky to drive a Sauber in the best Sauber (2001) of recent years, because, under my point of view, he did not better than Heidfeld, who was fantastic that year and more consistent.

2. JB has not showed to much in a crap car as you say. He can't claim he the best when he's driving a fantastic car, much better than Renault or McLaren last year. I don't remember an "epic" performance of JB driving a car with low possibilities.

3. The overall comparision between Trulli and Alonso is much better if you consier the two years they were together, not only 2004. So the results are 8-3 podiums for Alonso, and better general results and quite more impressive performances, so you can't say they were tied at the end.

4. Comparing drivers in that loooong periods give strange results, I mean, Jacques was better than Frentzen in 1997, but was beaten by Jenson in 2003, after many seasons. The Villeneuve of 97 was better than the one in 03, at least in motivation.

I think the value of a driver can be seen when he drives a "crap car" (as you say). Is very different to start your career in a Williams than in a Minardi...

Well., jenson did good at the BAR in 2003., and taht was a crappy car, the best drive we could have seen out of him that year was in monaco but we all know what happened., so.., people judge him for 2001., but let´s face it, he didn´t have his mind in f-1 at that time., he was trying to be a "playboy".., i think if you put giancarlo with him now, the story would be so much different.,

it is true what you say though., kimi would probbably be a champion without driving a bad car.,.,

Ali Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> These comparisions are very difficult.
>
> Some of my points:
>
> 1. Kimi, although he is great, is quite irregular
> and he was lucky to drive a Sauber in the best
> Sauber (2001) of recent years, because, under my
> point of view, he did not better than Heidfeld,
> who was fantastic that year and more consistent.
>

yes but Nick was driving his second year in F1 and has tested much more than Kimi and still wasn't better than that. it was quite equal between them until McLaren told that Kimi will drive for them 2002 after that Kimi didn't have the same package than Nick did

I thought that it was mutual.

Sauber *may* have started to support Nick more but there was also this little matter of Raikkonen becoming useless w.r.t. feedback.

chet Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> u want chips with that?
>
>
>
>


i dont want anything because he wont become champ unless he goes to ferrari, renault or mclaren....

raikkonen got beaten in 2001 end of whether or not he was motivated in the last few races wasnt nicks fault........

raikkonen got beaten because he was a rookie that season , didnt even had super license for the first 4 races , is it that difficult to understand ?

edit : of course it wasnt just the rookie fact ... he was beaten by a very fast guy too



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/27/2005 02:21PM by Forgotten-Boy.

In Kimi's case you always have an excuse to justify why he was beaten. And you wouldn't accept those excuses in other drivers case...

kimi would not have got beaten by nick. His wheel fell off at imola and in other races he had the break downs but overal he got more out the car than nick did.

Funny,considering that Nick beat him when both cars finished.

not really tripleM .. just saw Austria, Silverstone , monza ... and when both finished they would be close each other

Even better,considering that Nick had to start from the pits in Austria and Italy.

look, kimi stands out from the crowd. He put in some SENSATIONAL performances in his debut year, taking the car way beyond its potential. Nick is a proeffecient driver, he can only do what his car is capable of in my opinion.

It is this 'X- Factor' that mclaren spotted as the marks of a great driver in kimi.

End of story..

(do you seriously think that Nick would have done half as good as kimi in mclaren??)

---

do you seriously think that it is possible to take a car way beyond it's potential?

For the record,yes Kimi is the better of the two,but i'm not getting all wet about it.

ok, its not possible to take a car 'beyond' its limits so to speak but only about 2% of drivers can ever maximise a cars potential the way people like Senna, Schumacher, Raikkonen etc can. Thats why they will always outshine their team mates.

When coulthard out performed kimi, it was never stunning was it? It was ordinary!

---

iceman kimi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ok, its not possible to take a car 'beyond' its
> limits so to speak but only about 2% of drivers
> can ever maximise a cars potential the way people
> like Senna, Schumacher, Raikkonen etc can. Thats
> why they will always outshine their team mates.
>
> When coulthard out performed kimi, it was never
> stunning was it? It was ordinary!
>

he didnt take the mp4/19 and maximise it potential......
raikkonen is better no doubt but you act as if he saved the world twice over in 2001 the fact is he was outperformed by heidfeld and heidfeld can strech a car further look at his performances in the EJ-14 last year and what he did at monaco with the crappy FW27
some people just cant accept that despite being awesome most drivers are beaten in their first season with the exception of senna and schumacher who were beaten because one died and the other got injured
And it wasnt really mclaren who spotted kimi..it would have been heidfeld but then mika had his say





Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/27/2005 05:13PM by Mini Maestro.

tbh , both Sauber drivers performance were very good in 2001 , Nick Heidfeld did what is his best season until last year IMO . Raikkonen was a rookie who did very good performances too , I was suprised I thought he would be a danger to everyone in first races , I´m glad he didnt .
in 2002 .. Kimi was faster than Coulthard in most races but still inconsistent and some bad luck, he deserved to win at France which was a misfortune he caught that oil on track. Coulthard´s experience ruled over youth. but since 2003 Kimi has done some very good performances with a 2002 car modified , which was the best in first races but just fell because the team was trying to introduce mp4-18. Still finished second 2 points behind schumacher. In 2004 ... yes , he wasnt very good, whenever he tried to push the car it would blow ... but since silverstone until now he has been doing very good performances( removing last year hungaroring )

So far IMHO , if there is a better driver than Kimi it has to be M.Schumacher, I think they are very close

Mini Maestro : Why would he maximise that car? a car that has a new engine for the race and blows in few laps can´t be worst



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/27/2005 05:15PM by Forgotten-Boy.

Nick was stunning in the ej14...but thats comparing to a rookie teammate(s) who were less than well... they werent the best out there..

This year imo nick has exeeded my expectations

---

"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL

I think Nick wasn't that good last year.on qualifying he only beated Pantano 9-5 and Glock 4-0 but Glock isn't that good driver .

I dont think heidfeld has the outright speed of kimi.but his ability to mangae a car is much greater than most of the grid. If you watch races.whenever he gets stuck behind a car..he doesnt do anyhting stupid..he turns down the revs..and drives saving fuel/tyres, if after that he can see a weakness in the other driver.he makes textbook overtaking manouvres.
Ok hes not a super exciting driver..but one who knows how to drive almost perfect races.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------