| Welcome to The Pit Lane. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Ferrari's Kimi Raikkonen hit back at critics | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 27 2008, 07:45 PM (952 Views) | |
| RJHSaints | Sep 1 2008, 10:04 PM Post #31 |
![]()
Chief Engineer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Actually, even at the start of the year, Massa was a match for Raikkonen. At Malaysia, he outqualified him by half a second, and although Raikkonen pulled aay in the second stint, I'd put that down to Massa losing concentration - his lap times were pretty erratic in that race. Australia is impossible to judge because both Ferrari drivers were so poor, but Massa had initially recovered well from his first-lap cock-up, until he got involved with DC later on. I have always said the two are pretty much level on performance and over the two seasonsI think that is borne out by the facts. I do not buy into the idea that Raikkonen is simply suffering from a lack of motivation; for me, it is just that Massa has the upper hand at this particular stage of the season. |
![]() |
|
| AndyW76 | Sep 2 2008, 09:04 AM Post #32 |
|
Team Boss
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well the real caonspiracy starts when Schumi is seen wearing anything other than a Dekra cap.
|
![]() |
|
| John | Sep 2 2008, 09:21 AM Post #33 |
|
Team Boss
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Schumacher stopped wearing Dekra caps in 2000, from 2001 he wore DVAG caps
|
![]() |
|
| AndyW76 | Sep 2 2008, 09:30 AM Post #34 |
|
Team Boss
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Isn't it pretty much the same company under a different name? |
![]() |
|
| John | Sep 2 2008, 09:43 AM Post #35 |
|
Team Boss
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Deutsche Vermögensberatung AG which in English loosely translates as "German fortune advisors", is a German Multi-level marketing investment company based in Frankfurt, Germany. DEKRA is an Automotive supplier... |
![]() |
|
| AndyW76 | Sep 2 2008, 09:57 AM Post #36 |
|
Team Boss
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I see. |
![]() |
|
| Rob | Sep 2 2008, 02:04 PM Post #37 |
![]() ![]()
|
I have one of the Deutsche Vermögensberatung, never knew what it meant.... |
![]() |
|
| Red Andy | Sep 3 2008, 06:25 PM Post #38 |
![]()
|
Regarding San Marino, Martin Whitmarsh admitted later in the season that the driveshaft failure had been Kimi's doing - the team had warned him not to make too many practice starts and he ignored them. I said that, through two mistakes, Kimi lost 24 points relative to Alonso, because in both cases Alonso inherited victory from Kimi, therefore giving him ten points instead of the eight he would otherwise have scored from second place. I take your point about the unreliability Kimi suffered throughout 2005. However, my point is not that Kimi lost the title solely through driver errors. My point is that it is incorrect to assert that the only reason Raikkonen did not win the 2005 world title is due to unreliability with the car. He could have won the title, even with all the unreliability, if he had not made those two mistakes. |
![]() |
|
| Rams | Sep 3 2008, 08:08 PM Post #39 |
|
Chief Engineer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
[citation needed]
My point is that reliability cost Kimi a lot more than 1 or maybe 2 mistakes that season, I can think of one mistake Alonso made at Canada. If Alonso and Kimi made a similair number of errors, but Kimi suffered much worse reliability, the only sensible conclusion to draw is that poor reliablility cost him the title. IIRC Kimi won the Autosport driver of the year title and F1 Racing's man of the year title too. He was regarded as probably the best driver that year, and was very much the people's champion. |
![]() |
|
| Red Andy | Sep 3 2008, 08:48 PM Post #40 |
![]()
|
F1 Racing, December 2006, p. 25 (Peter Windsor's column):
My recollection that Whitmarsh had something to do with it was mistaken, and Windsor does not cite his source, but that's not uncommon in F1. In any case, Windsor is usually pretty reliable. I have to disagree with the popular consensus that Kimi was the best driver of 2005, simply because those two errors were way too costly. He had the faster car, and on two of the days where it could all have gone right for him, he threw it away. Alonso made that error at Canada, granted, but as it turned out he was in a position to do so, so that mistake was less significant in the long run. That is why I believe Kimi cannot blame poor reliability alone for losing the 2005 WDC. |
![]() |
|
| Rams | Sep 3 2008, 09:31 PM Post #41 |
|
Chief Engineer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But it was clear that the reliability was more costly. That is undisputable. Ferrari decided from that year and 2003 that Raikkonen was the best driver in the sport to hire as M Schumacher's replacement. It's arguable who was better out of Kimi and Alonso, but you'll find noone in the F1 world blamed Kimi's mistakes for him not winning the 2003 and 2005 title. He won the Autosport driver of the year title for a reason. |
![]() |
|
| vikki | Sep 3 2008, 09:38 PM Post #42 |
|
Refueller
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
liz windsor? yes i would agree. book her for a gig like the opening of parliament or whatever and she will turn up on time, know her lines, get the job done. peter windsor? long since given up believing anything he writes. or indeed reading it.especially since it will change with the flow anyway. one particulary annoying habit he used to have was to say "as I predicted " when actually looking back the events that occured were in fact the exact opposite of what he had predicted.ar$e. |
![]() |
|
| Rob | Sep 3 2008, 09:43 PM Post #43 |
![]() ![]()
|
Good for you, it's your right to disagree. That doesn't mean the masses won't disagree right back. I think it's a bit unfair to pin losing the 05 WDC on Kimi when he made one more terminal mistake that Alonso in 05, and the team made many more than Kimi did. Please note that in either France or Brittan (cannot remember which right now) Kimi blew a brand new engine in the first free practice, a driver would have to be VERY hard on the car for that to be driver error. McLaren would have had to eliminate only 2 of 5-6 huge errors to have won Kimi the 05 WDC (aprox 30-40%) where Kimi would have had to eliminate 100% of his huge errors to have been the 05 champ. I'm not saying Kimi was perfect in 05, yes Alonso did less than Kimi to lose the title in 05, but McLaren did much much less than Renault did to win it. |
![]() |
|
| Red Andy | Sep 3 2008, 10:16 PM Post #44 |
![]()
|
I think the idea that Kimi was somehow responsible for blowing up his own engines in 2005 has long since been laid to rest. But then I'll reiterate my point: the poor reliability of the McLaren car cannot be blamed as the only reason for Kimi losing the 2005 title. Often the mistakes Kimi made throughout the season (and I haven't brought up his stalling on the grid in Australia, which likely cost him several points) are overlooked because of the unreliability he suffered, which I think is unjustified. Oh, and Rob, another way of looking at it is that Kimi made twice as many mistakes as Alonso.
|
![]() |
|
| Rob | Sep 4 2008, 01:17 AM Post #45 |
![]() ![]()
|
In all reality Kimi did make twice the mistakes Alonso did, and it was also 1 more. Kimi did make some mistakes so he does share some blame, so I guess 66% to 34% would be fair. |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · Formula 1 · Next Topic » |






![]](http://z6.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)






12:48 AM Jul 11