this year's statistics on who's faster

[chow wei hsien]

hi guys... i have to say that i really enjoyed all the opinions of all the posters.. they make sense, they are intelligent opinions and u posters are very knowledgeable.
i learnt lots of things from your posts.

they had been lots of arguement on who's faster, i mean between TGF and Mika. ok here's my analysis based on this year's stats. i might be wrong, but if i am wrong then tell me the reason.


Melbourne - mika's race ended prematurely
for us to determine who's actually
who's actually quicker. SCORE= TGF/Mika=0

Brazil - TGF on 2 stop strategy faster on
early part of race till his first
stop. Mika faster after that due to
ligther fuel load. Again Mika's
race ended prematurely.
Hard to determine who's faster due
to different strategy.
SCORE = TGF/Mika =0

Imola - TGF faster during the crucial part of the race. True that Mika lost
about 3 sec. due to misfire, but
TGF came out of 2nd stop more than
3 sec ahead of Mika.
SCORE - TGF=1

Silverstone- Mika fell asleep in the crucial
part of the race(during pitstops)
and only increase his pace towards
the end. TGF made full use of clean
air infront of him to jump from
eight to third after pitstops.
Mika might be faster here but
Michael has better racecraft.
SCORE= TGF-0.5

Nurburgring- TGF looked outright faster from the
start and even faster when rain starts
to fall. Mika just became too careful
with slicks on the damp track and
TGF took full advantage to overtake
him. After that, Mika can't threaten
TGF's lead.
SCORE= TGF-1

Barcelona- TGF has outright speed right from the
start, but Mika eat into his lead
easily and recorded fastest lap.
SCORE= Mika-1

Monaco - TGF performed faultlessly, but Mika
was behind slower cars most part of
the race.
SCORE= TGF-0.5

Montreal - Speed in the first part of race not
counted coz Mika blocked by JV. But
Mika can't match TGF in the wet.
SCORE= TGF-1

Paul Ricard- TGF faster at the beginning while
Mika is behind Rubens. Mika caught
up with TGF when he has excessive
tyre wear.
SCORE = Mika-0.5

Austria - Not counted. Though i believe Mika
might have the edge if TGF stays on
the track.

Hockeinheim - Not counted.

Hungary - Full marks to Mika, TGF might not
get the optimum tyre performance,but
the gap shouldn't be that big.
SCORE = Mika-1

Spa - TGF faster in the wet, but Mika
brilliant towards the end. Mika
caught TGF like a train.
SCORE = Mika - 1

Monza - TGF faster. With Mika's fastest race
lap towards the end of race, i
believe the Mac is very nearly as
good as Ferrari that fateful day
SCORE = TGF - 1

Indy500 - TGF's brilliant at the start and
great strategy, with Murray's famous
but controversial quote-Senna in
reverse. But after TGF's stop,
looked like it is Spa
all over again, Mika catching up
and overtaking. Too bad, Mercedes
engine expire. However, TGF felt
that he is having heavy fuel load
and his car is faster on the oval
section. Perhaps, the same thing that
happened in Spa might not have happen
here.
SCORE = TGF - 0.5


Total Score = TGF - 5.5 Mika - 3.5

Surely, lots of you guy might disagree with me. But i would love to hear your reasonings if you disagree coz the debates you guys have are great!

But I believe there are two observation of mine most people will agree.
1. TGF has better racecraft and very fast in the crucial
part of the race (near pitstops period). Mika, i dunno
why, can always find extra speed at the end of the race,
which doesn't really make any difference except for Spa.
2. TGF has the edge in the wet conditions.

[Valve Bounce]

WELCOME TO OUR FORUM, WH. (sorry for the caps, guys). Your post is so long that I couldn't remember the start by the time I got half way down. Nevertheless, I am glad you went to all that trouble. Which ever car is faster for what ever reason nowadays, depends a lot on car set up for the race and tyre wear. So when Mika is going faster sometimes, it could be because he has preserved his tyres better than the Ferarri. As for racecraft, I think that Ross Brawn might have something to do with that. Obviously you are a Ferrari fan, so you will find many friends here.

[neutral]

If you are after pure speed this year, then Formula1.co.uk provides qualifying statistics. This years stats are below



P.CarDriver Best Worst Average
1 3 Michael Schumacher 1 5 2.133
2 1 Mika Hakkinen 1 5 2.600
3 2 David Coulthard 1 5 2.667
4 4 Rubens Barrichello 1 18 4.933
5 6 Jarno Trulli 2 12 6.933
6 5 Heinz-Harald Frentzen 2 17 7.733
7 9 Ralf Schumacher 4 19 8.667
8 22 Jacques Villeneuve 4 17 8.867
9 11 Giancarlo Fisichella 3 18 9.467
10 7 Eddie Irvine 6 17 10.786
11 10 Jenson Button 3 21 11.467
12 18 Pedro de la Rosa 5 19 13.600
13 23 Ricardo Zonta 6 20 14.133
14 8 Johnny Herbert 8 20 13.933
15 19 Jos Verstappen 8 20 14.133
16 12 Alexander Wurz 7 20 14.333
17 17 Mika Salo 9 22 14.733
18 16 Pedro Diniz 9 20 15.400
19 14 Jean Alesi 7 20 16.467
20 15 Nick Heidfeld 13 22 17.067
21 20 Marc Gene 18 21 20.600
22 7 Luciano Burti 21 21 21.000
23 21 Gaston Mazzacane 20 22 21.667

Last updated: US Grand Prix

In qualifying Michael seems to have the edge this year. In terms of race craft, not only do I think Schumi is better but I also think DC has the upper hand on Mika. The problem with DC is that he often finds himself behind at the start thus limiting his potential speed and pit strategy (Since the leading Mac always gets the flexibility). However, given pole, a quick getaway and no events in a race(i.e rain) Mika is very good in the lead and difficult to beat.

[EERO]

Welcome to the Forum, chow wei hsien. May we call you CWH?

I appreciate your efforts to compile the stats. Though I don't like your conclusion, I cannot disagree with it. I hope that now that you've jumped into the fray, you'll come back often.
Cheers, -E.

[freud]

Dear Chow wei hsien

Firstly, you must take into consideration the qualifying sessions and qualifying differentials. We all know that on a single lap Mika is faster than Michael. I believe Mika's pole lap at Imola was in a car inferior to Michael's Ferrari.

Secondly, your point system is quite inadequate. You dont realize that Mika was setting the pace at Melbourne, Brazil and Indianapolis when in strange circumstances his Mercedez engine blew-up. Michael just cruised for his wins. In other circumstances Michael has given a few fast laps before pits on low feul loads which is expected. Has he given a btilliant overtaking manouvere as Mika at Belgium? Has he given a dominating qualifying lap as Mika at Belgium and Imola? Has he fought his teammate fairly as Mika?

C'mon Chow, Mika is fighting 3 drivers including his teammate, Michael just two excluding his teammate. Take this into consideration also!!

[neutral]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by freud


We all know that on a single lap Mika is faster than Michael.

Well, I think you will have a lot disagreeing here. If Mika is so quick over a single lap, then why has Michael outqualified him this year? Surely your not saying that the Mclaren has been inferior to the Ferarri over the course of the season. If anything, I think most would say that McLaren has had a slight advantage. Your views are based on the 98 season, where both Mika and David were clearly faster in the first part of the season. In fact, if we look above at the statistics, we see that David has equally performed this year with his teamate. In equal cars, Michael has shown to have the legs on Mika, and Mika's speed, while superb, still lags behind Michaels.

[freud]

Neutral, experienced f1 vets like Martin Brundle, Clay Regazzoni, Alan Jones think that Mika is faster than Michael ON A SINGLE LAP! We can talk and discuss about their race pace but when it comes to qualifying there are no second thoughts on who is the f1 speed king! Cheers.

[neutral]

Since when has three made a majority. For every experienced F1 vet that thinks Mika is quicker, there are probably ten others who would say Michael is quicker. As for racecraft, it is ludicrous to suggest that Mika comes even close to Michael. Anyway, instead of listening to everybody's opinion, why dont we just stick to facts. Michael and Mika have had, on the majority, close to equal cars and Schumi has outperformed Mika fair and square in qualifying. It seems as if you have run out of statistics to back up Mika.
As for what Alan Jones thinks, I must say that I do not believe this and it seems as if you have grabbed this out of thin air. Alan Jones does the pre and post race commentary in Australia, and has always stated that Michael is by far away the quickest and best driver of the current crop. I admit that Mika was quicker in the first half of 98, and the first couple of races in 99, but now his free ride is over. His true speed is now showing, it is a pace, which while quick, is a step short of Michaels.

[LYM]

From Alpha F1

KM Led
MS: 2279
MH: 1547

Laps Led
MS:493
MH:317

Pole Positions
MS: 7
MH: 5

Fastest Lap
MH:7
MS:2

[Bononi]

All these statistical numbers can fall down within the turn of a corner... We have seen many drivers outperformed all the championship winning in the end. At this present moment both drivers are close in points, and that is the only numbers that really counts.

[LYM]

This is how I conclude
MH is only faster on single laps while overall MS is faster.
Agree/Disagree?

[freud]

If stats portrayed the truth than Gilles and Ronnie would've been below average drivers.

[freud]

LYM

1. On a single lap....Mika is faster than Michael.
2. Dry race....Mika is faster than Michael.
3. Wet race....Michael set-ups the car better & probably faster.

[neutral]

Freud, Im fascinated to know exactly how you reach your conclusions. Why are you not using any statistics to back up your arguments. You have opinions but no reasoning. Just simply preaching that Mika is faster will win you no points. If you honestly believe Mika is faster then convince me!

[Dhru]

Freud, if Mika is the fastest man over a single lap, then why did he fail to shine until 1998? Michael has been fighting for the championship since 1994, but has shown his speed ever since his first races, even in qualifying with a bad car (First race with Jordan in Spa he qualified 7th ahead of his experienced team mate in a car that was terrible). Mika may not have had a great car when he started F1, and I'm aware that he once outqualified Senna, but other than that with a team that was well established when he arrived he did nothing until Newey came along to make a fast car, whereas Michael even qualified well in the '96 Ferrari, which was worse than both the Williams and th Bennetton that year, if not behind McLaren as well.
And remember, David was the one to bring home McLaren's first win (Melbourne '97) after their barren patch, and Mika had to be gifted two wins before he actually won one for himself.
Dhru.

[EERO]

Dhru, welcome to the board. I think you are somewhat mistaken about Hakkinen's career, though I would say that I agree with your general point.
The Lotus team for which Hakkinen drove his first two years was in complete disarray and it folded for good in early '94.
Hired as McLaren's test driver for '93, he replaced Andretti for the final races of the season. Not having driving a car in anger for nearly a year, in his first race back in the field, he outqualified his teammate Senna.
The following season, McLaren began a seemingly futile quest to garner a decent engine.
In '94, he had to contend with the Peugeot an enine which was best suited to spraying oil and and connecting rods around the track. In '95, McLaren got the Illmor/Mercedes engines which were still nearly worthless. At the conclusion of the season, Hakkinen nearly lost his life in a practise accident at Adelaide. Had Dr. Sid Watkins not been on the scene quickly and performed a trackside tracheotomy, Hakkinen would have died. Despite the fact that he was in a car a few months later, his performance was severly compromised by his injuries. It is widely believed that neurological damage suffered in the accident has effected his emotional state and his ability to speak. It is likely that his recovery must be measured in years and not months. In my mind, he is supremely brave man.

The McLaren in '96 was hardly the car that the Ferrari was.
Many people forget that DC was the driver who brought Mclaren their renewed success in '97, but once Hakkinn found the way to win, he has been formidible. It is clear that Schumacher feels him to be his chief rival. It follows that if we all esteem TGF's skills, that his respect for Hakkinen should engender our own for the Finn.

[chow wei hsien]

OK guys ...especially Freud... i admit that my favourite driver is TGF.
but i really believe my opinion is not biased to that TGF. TGF is the better overall package than Mika. TGF is the best in wet tracks, changeable conditions, together with Ross Brawn- giving the best race strategy.

OK Freud, u said that Mika is faster than TGF is dry?.
I am sorry but i don't fully agree with you.
This season, Mika might have a few setup problems, but TGF has his too, there had been a few races when his tyre wear is excessive.

Mika faster than TGF in the dry??... how about Imola, hmmm... Monza?? Maybe its fairer to put it this way, Mika and TGF are equal in the dry. Both had beaten each other fair and square in the dry in the past.

I believe only those who REALLY knows F1 racing can give a more accurate judgement, I mean people like ex-drivers and so on. But somehow, these people also have different opinions.

The only way to give the best jugdement is to put them into the same team, as what everybody says.
BUT i can also find the flaw of such judgement, Mika might better suit McLaren's handling characteristics while TGF may be able to drive the Ferrari harder than Mika driving the Ferrari.

Thanx for all your replies to my posts guys.

Hope to get more insight about who's better among the two best pilots today.
Surely, everyone agree this point, Mika and TGF is ahead of everyone, including David Coulthard.

[Dino IV]

Welcome to 10-Tenths, Chow wei hsien.
Firstly let me say that I am not really a fan of these two drivers but I value their abilities. Secondly don't take these comments personal, 'coz it's meant for general TGF-believers.

There's this thing about F1 and it's superficial fan perception of commonly spread nonsens and rumours, which if said long and often enough about a driver will be accepted as true. Especially the ol' boys squad of F1 drivers which state something briefly in the press so now and then are accepted without a tat of doubting the guys own racing history, which team he drove for, which boys where his friends and who where his enemies back then. It's almost like asking a nation's leader who he like best of his collegues now. So mr. Milosovic, who do you think is doing a better job, Clinton or Hussein? The statement will be completely coloured and except for maybe some inside info as valuable as any other.

I won't talk through all the races, but give you an example. TGF rules in wet conditions, Mika is uncompetitive. Unaware of Mika's out of the spotlight years of which you probably can't tell a thing about his performance, TGF has done well in wet conditions most of his races. In the beginning he flew off, but he and Ross found their way of judging race conditions well and anticipating best by setting up the car for wet or damp conditions. Most of the times they were spot on and that's why their relationship is so especially succesfull, but sometimes they we're a bit or completely beside it, like this year at Spa or the best example Magny Cours '99.

Now about Mika in wet conditions. Changing conditions, so when it just starts raining or drizzling or when the track is half slippery and half dry is something he doesn't like -as he is out of his normal speed flow where he's not consiously thinkig but is in a clear natural state of mind, doing everything automaticly - starts thinking about the conditions, worrying about some spots, keeps saying to himself 'watch out here, there's so much at stake, don't lose the car', his race-engineer starts informing about track conditions, tyre changes etc etc. Natural faith is gone and worries come up and that simply isn't the way he drives best and it costs time and makes the spectator wondering what's going wrong with him.

As for Michael it doesn't matter: he drives in that thinking way all the time. His actions are consciously on the forefront of his mind, makes decisions every corner and sticks to them; dry, wet or changing conditions, his speed is unaffected.

Television coverage is really poor in comparing two drivers as it mostly shows the leader and just a few times during the races some lap comparisons, which won't tell you a lot if strategy or traffic conditions are different. So you might have missed it, but Mika was actually the fastest man on the track in full wet conditions this year. Both on the Nurburgring as well as at Montreal he was faster than Michael in the wet. In the latter race he was after finally overtaking the slow guys in front of him. At the Nurburgring he was too cautious in lap 4-8 because of the doubts that start to speed through his mind as described above. Even in such a way that he was worrying so much about the grip in the fast righthander before the hairpin he seemed not even to notice TGF as he moved to the inside of him and didn't even make an attempt to block or outbreak him.

But when Mika keeps a clear mind, gets the flow - and he does in constant conditions, dry or wet - he's really lightning fast. And to return to your original question: yes, my belief is, when Mika is in that state, he is faster than TGF. It's not a very big margin, not as big as Mika is faster than DC, who looks really pale when Mika's in the mood for flying, but faster it is.

Regards,
Dino.


PS: You won't deduct anything very usefull from statistics, like freud already said wonderfully with his Gilles and Ronnie-posting, coz F1 isn't a human perfromance alone. It's nothing like track and field where a simple run over 100 m, will tell you who is actually faster. F1 Performance is a summa of a lot of factors of which the driver is just a small one, about 20%. Deducting who has the edge over whom is therefore really difficult if not almost impossible as the only thing to stand on is team-mate performance really and even that is very clouded or explainable sometimes. Some of your and neutral (you simply are not ) statements show the TGF-bias but that's ok and sometimes I want to make comments on them ('96 Ferrari worthlessly slow? It was really fast, maybe the fastest that year, but not handling very well and unreliable as well) but most of the time I don't feel like it. Like now ...

[neutral]

I admit that statistics are misleading if you are comparing drivers with less than equal equipment or drivers of different era's. However, our discussion is on Mika and Michael. Both these drivers have had equal equipment for the majority of the season, so why is it inappropriate to use qualifying statistics? I think the reason behind these claims is that the statistics dont suit your argument so you dismiss them as misleading. But why exactly are these qualifying statistics misleading? The simple fact is that Schumi has outqualified Mika and reinforced his reputation as the quickest driver, a fact which some of you can simply not handle.

[Dino IV]

I tried to give my perception of Mika and TGF, neutral, in race-conditions, dry, changing and wet. Any argument on qualifying in that context wouldn't be much of one, wouldn't you say?

The post-scriptum didn't have anything to do with the above point of view but was a comment on those who do use statistics like that to prove some point about performance differences with drivers in different cars. And I still stand for that whatever the argument. As I pointed out with the track and field comparison it isn't that simple to deduct conclusions from that. When performance is clearly visible and consistent one could say the guy is fast. Senna was clearly a bomb in qualifying, untouchable performance for instance so no-one will disagree he was good at that.

But in this case? Mika and TGF? Equal machinery? When the drivers share in the performance is only 20% of total performance it's way more interesting to compare the McLaren's and Ferrari's performance with each other. A simple statement as 'equal machinery' won't do in that case. Like in driver's performance which is deductable from many, many factors, car's performance is really far more complex. A driver can be a bit off by a lot of factors, but generally is doing the best he can. A car isn't that simple at all, and although it seems a logical build-up to its maximum performance during the weekend it usually isn't achievable to get 100% from the car and even then it can have it's limitations in performance compared to other cars.

When you argue from an 'equal machinery' point of view, I simply have to say, no, impossible. Rate some car performance characteristics like traction; downforce for body and each wing configuration; diffuser behaviour; peak power; midrange; torque; dry weight; ballast and it's positioning possibilities; stiffness of suspension and chassis; travel; damping; roll; ride height; brake friction; stability; nervousness; pitch; vibrations; diff- and gearing settings; tire-grip, -damping, -wear and pressures too name just a few. Match that to each of the fifteen tracks we have been on this year and each of their different characteristics, like surface grip, temperature, bumpiness, curbs and every corner's details and the way all the car characteristics interact with those and then try stating the cars show equal performance.

In my opinion they don't; not even remotely close. Differences are quite large between some features and the one car's strong points makes the qualifying difference over the other given a certain track. They do not have the same strong points and weaknesses in their performance - if they would one could be talking about 'comparable machinery' - but they are not the same. Each car has some areas where it's clearly better than the other and therefore, given the track that allows you to take advantage of those features which exploit your advantage in one or better multiple area(s) over the same area where your opponent lacks a bit, will get you in front of your opponent. On the grid as well as in the statistics.

Cheers,
Dino

PS: Don't mistake my post again, neutral and come up with 'driver's can make a difference' in the total performance. Yes, they do and Mika and TGF are among the fastest guys around but this is about your 'equal machinery' argument on which you conclude who is the faster of the two. Just to be ahead of misinterpretations ...

[neutral]

I never for once said that they shared identical equipment, I said they have CLOSE to equal cars. Are you in some way, by objecting to my "close to equal cars argument", insinuating that Michael has had superior equipment to Mika? Surely not. Now back to the original argument, we seem to have decided to debate the question from 3 different angles- 1) dry conditions 2) changing conditions 3) wet conditions. My argument was initially focused on qualifying, as this allows us to eliminate a lot of variables that come with a race i.e different rates of tyre wear, different fuel levels etc. Over a single qualifying lap, a lot of these race variables are constant. As for the second and third scenarios I assumed there would be no objection on who was the quicker, but this is clearly an arrogant view and I apologise and will now give reasons for my view.

In changing conditions, I thought you put it quite well, Mika does seem a bit startled at first, but once he gets some confidence his times tend to improve. Michael seems to be able adapt quite quickly.

It is the last scenario where I find it hard to understand your rationale. Mika quicker than Michael in constant wet conditions? In the first instance you stated that Mika was quicker in the nurburgring. Now by the time both had changed to wets Michael already had a lead. During the race, never for one moment was Mika hounding Schumi. Michael kept the lead at at a comfortable level. Why would he need to push, he was leading comfortably? Mika on the other hand was second, and was the man needing to push. There have been instances in past races where Michael has caught Mika by over 2 secs a lap in the last 10 laps of a race. But does this mean Michael was that much quicker? No, Mika was backing off knowing he had the lead in control. If the positions were reversed, Im sure we would have seen different lap times from Schumi. Dino, I dont need to bring out the statistics, but there have been many races that have rained throughout that Schumi has won and won significantly. Mika on the other hand has never shone in the wet, even when the conditions were constant. Im sorry, but no matter how hard I try read into your argument, I can not find anything that suggests that Mika is even close to Michael in the wet(I honestly do try to look at your views objectively).

P.S Please do not get the impression that I view Mika lowly. On the contrary, I think he is an exceptional driver and I agree with you that both he and Michael are a class above the rest. On this point, I can respect your opinions of Mika because you reason quite well, and despite disagreeing on some points I generally agree with what you have said.

One final thought- Suzuka is going to be a ripper.

[Dino IV]

Equal? Close to equal? Superior? Difficult to catch performance in words rather than numbers I know. Virtually impossible to quantify either so we'll have to deal with it this way I guess.

I'll comment back on the dry\changing\wet stuff, this is qualifying talk now at your request. To finish, you first have to finish things.
Let's look at a more transparant example, Monza's qualify. Michael on pole, Rubens about equal time. From the track characteristics we can say that top end power is the most important thing. Looking on the grid with a lot of teammates side by side or really close we can also conclude that driver's influence on the total performance is limited to less than say 5%. Therefore one conclusion can be drawn for instance: Ferrari's top-end power is clearly more than the McLaren's.

But what can one say about the gaps that existed between some teammates?
Why is DC 4 tenths off Mika for example?
Set-up or other mech-trouble; not the same speedparts; no clear run; not feeling well; driver mistakes; that's just the gap between them or a combination of these?
Mika allegedly suffered from massive misfires and DC stated not having any clear run.

Exactly the same for Rubens' and Michael's - where Rubens sector-times where even more promising - equal performance? Set-up or other mech-trouble; not the same speedparts; not feeling well; driver mistakes; that's just the gap between them or a combination of these?
Michael noted a mistake on his first run and Rubens just felt he did ok.

So what do you think can be stated of car and driver performance for this relatively simple set-up and track GP?
Who is faster than who? Which factors of a car shows equal, close to equal or superior performance compared to another car and which don't?

[freud]

Dhru/Neutral

I would just add on some excellent points of EERO and DINO IV. Mika is often criticized by the Michael-loving journos for being a nobody before 1998. This is the biggest bull**** I've heard in ages. Fact is that Mika was always there when it mattered it's us who werent noticing. We were just too occupied with the Damon/Michael fiasco. He was driving sh1t car....as simple as that. He was always known to be "as fast as Michael" even by his harshest critics. Flavio Briatore once said "Mika deserve a better team." So his potential was always there yet hidden.

Another important point is that Mika has the sort of Senna-like attitude of always learning and improving. This year as DINO IV puts it he's been the fastest driver in full wet conditions. He hasnt got an arrogant psyche like some others who think they were born with throttle in their hands. Just like Senna his quest for ever improving and learning the art of driving a f1 car is commendable. He is now definitely a better driver than he was in 1995. I cant say that about Michael.

Mika Hakkinen is a victim of circumstances. He belongs to a small nation so he isnt as attractive to sponsors as Michael. Since he's not driving a "passionate, red, heroic" Ferrari and instead is sitting on a "cold, professional, villainish" Mclarens (some tifosi even think that Ron Dennis is a robot who doesnt have a family) he doesnt get the adulation that he deserves. Secondly he is driving a supposedly "character" team of f1 that insists on fighting between its team-mates.

Do you have the heart to give some credit to Mika for being a double f1 world champion yet NOT using his influence to pass DC at France & Britain? He's a great driver and a lovely guy.....every body should be a Mika fan

_________________
"If Mika wins 3rd it would be the best thing to happen to f1 in ages."

[neutral]

Whenever I think of Mika, the 99 season pops into my mind. I dont think Ive ever seen such a poor performance by a WDC. As Senna once said "Each year there is a winner but not necessarily a champion". On the thing about Mika being a champion before the 98 season, well I must agree. Who could forget all those brilliant wins in the rain before the 98 season in an inferior car. How was Mika able to dominate in the wet and show his superiority in places like Monaco or Spa. OH sorry, I think Ive mistaken Mika for someone called Schumi. Fact is, Mika did nothing before 98, drivers such as Giancarlo have done more this year in an inferior car than Mika ever did at Mclaren before 98.

[Dino IV]

I'll refrain from any of this tifosi\mikosi-war of words. Maybe I was mistaken this for a performance-issue instead of simply bashing eachothers favs. Freud is in favour of Mika obviously and neutral likes Michael. There's no need in my opinion to demand any halleluja on the driver the other doesn't favour nor to belittle any driver's abilities.

Given both of your opposing views, I'd like to ask both of you to give your analysis on the performance and differences between them of both drivers and their cars in the Monza-case I described above.