Would this season have been any different had Hakkinen been around?

Yoong Montoya · 19 Dec 2002, 20:47 (Ref:453744)

I am thinking aloud here, but was Hakkinen's retirement the catalyst for Ferrari's dominance? He had an inferior car in 2001, but still beat Schumacher and Ferrari twice in 2001. So if Hakkinen hadn't retired, do you think he could have given Schumacher a run for his money this year? Or would he have ended up being beaten by David Coulthard?

**Adam43** · 19 Dec 2002, 20:54 (Ref:453751)

If Mika was around, you have to assume it would have been becuase he wanted to be. In which case he would have been motivated and would have finished ahead of DC. IMHO.

But hte Ferrari was too good.

GXH · 19 Dec 2002, 21:16 (Ref:453763)

Mika new he was tired (2 be polite)... if u cant give it ur best then your just a danger to everyone around you

BootsOntheSide · 19 Dec 2002, 21:21 (Ref:453764)

A fully motivated, committed Hakkinen would've beaten Coulthard easily, as it did 96-2000 consistantly, and would've done if it'd been there in 2001, because he was a much better driver.

But he would've never had a hope of challenging Ferrari, and after a few races of being trounced by them, the motivation would've gone- this is the man who took 2 titles against Schumacher only a few years ago.

ASCII Man · 19 Dec 2002, 22:10 (Ref:453796)

1 title, the other one was against Irvine.

BootsOntheSide · 19 Dec 2002, 22:24 (Ref:453805)

D'oh! Right you are. All the same, my argument more or less hangs together.

Snrub · 19 Dec 2002, 22:33 (Ref:453816)

No MH's car wouldn't have been strong enough. Even with the same car to MS or RB he couldn't do much to stop either of them. I have always thought he was overrated. MH provided a challange to MS when he had the better car, but baring that he was cannon fodder. He did have some times when he shone, but it wasn't consistant enough. (and I don't mean 2001) DC blows, even an unmotivated MH can beat him.

The people with real talent come into conflict with MS and are disliked by him; DH, JV, JPM.

GTV27 · 19 Dec 2002, 22:33 (Ref:453817)

If Mika had of had Kimi's unreliability and only a bit more speed than DC (as per previous years), it wouldn't have made a difference to Ferarri, might have knocked the Williams around a bit more though.

GTV27 · 19 Dec 2002, 22:40 (Ref:453822)

Quote:

Originally posted by Snrub
Even with the same car to MS or RB he couldn't do much to stop either of them.

Sorry, can't agree with that at all.

In the the hypothetical world with everybody in F2002s, Mika would have eaten RB and pushed MS - split the wins 60/40.

Agree about the talent comment and JV and JPM - as to DH...I've always thought that result was purely on car superiority not TALENT per se (acknowledging that everybody needs SOME talent to even drive an F1 car, let alone win a championship). He's a nice guy though.

DNQ · 20 Dec 2002, 02:41 (Ref:453918)

Quote:

Originally posted by BootsOntheSide
A fully motivated, committed Hakkinen would've beaten Coulthard easily, as it did 96-2000 consistantly

It's funny, but DC was actually the quicker driver in 1997.

Three race wins to one. 36 points to 27.

JohnSSC · 20 Dec 2002, 04:11 (Ref:453941)

Mika H being in the mix in 2002 would have had more impact below him in the points, not above. For example, would Kimi have stayed at Sauber and if so, how would he have done?

Face it boys and girls, Michael and Ferrari are at the top of their game, Motivation alone is not what Mika or anyone need to knock them (Ferrari) off the top - somebody is going to have to build a better car or at the least an equal car.

Jukebox · 20 Dec 2002, 04:21 (Ref:453948)

Quote:

Originally posted by GTV27
In the the hypothetical world with everybody in F2002s, Mika would have eaten RB and pushed MS - split the wins 60/40.

You have got to be living in lala land...even if you put Mansell, Hill and Hakkinen allttogether in the Macs, Ferrari and Michael would still be untouchable. The F2002 is simply the most perfect racing car to date...

f1manoz · 20 Dec 2002, 05:02 (Ref:453959)

Quote:

Originally posted by DNQ
It's funny, but DC was actually the quicker driver in 1997.

Three race wins to one. 36 points to 27.

Don't just take statistics as argument DNQ.

Mika had at least 2-3 wins robbed from him during the season thanks to predictable McLaren ureliability (and suffered more mechanical gremlins throughout the year.) Britain and the Nurburgring are two examples that are most in my mind where Mika was robbed of a first victory (before he was gifted Jerez, which I've never really felt comfortable with, though I still cheered and cheered for days!!

)

This year, if Mika was completely fit and motivated, then I reckon he would have pushed TGF and most likely beaten Rubens, but if he also had the unreliability Kimi had, then no, it wouldn't have made much difference. But a fully fit and committed Mika Hakkinen would wipe the floor with DC.

But this is all 'What if' or 'What could have been' as there was no way that Mika was going to return this year. He proved last year a few times that his heart just wasn't in it anymore.

Snrub · 20 Dec 2002, 05:10 (Ref:453962)

Quote:

Originally posted by GTV27
Sorry, can't agree with that at all.

In the the hypothetical world with everybody in F2002s, Mika would have eaten RB and pushed MS - split the wins 60/40.

Agree about the talent comment and JV and JPM - as to DH...I've always thought that result was purely on car superiority not TALENT per se (acknowledging that everybody needs SOME talent to even drive an F1 car, let alone win a championship). He's a nice guy though.

You definately rate MH higher than I do. I think DH, JV, JPM had/have a higher level of skill than MH, that's why I think MS was threatened by them, but not MH when he was in the same position of having the good car. MH either had him because the car was good or MS's luck + skill got him by. The three I've mentioned also have evidence of rather tense passing scenerios. I can't recall MS and MH ever having that sort of scenerio.

Every F1 driver is elevated to their position in the field mostly based on car. The driver makes .5s a lap tops (that's saying two top drivers same car). Everyone has their own personal favorites based on their perception of how well someone is doing with the car and they have and other biases too. Personally I'd put Mika similar...probably a bit lower than RB. I'd admit in his peak he did have a few times when he went beyond this level, but there were lots of times when he was probably below. I don't rate DC highly at all, despite sparatic moments of being better than that. I question to some degree, was KR just really good this season or was DC just comparatively poor.

As to the original point of the thread, the McLaren had nothing on the F2002 this year, MS in a McLaren wouldn't have had much luck against Alex Yooung in a Ferrari.

ASCII Man · 20 Dec 2002, 11:13 (Ref:454113)

No such scenario's between MH and MS?
Forgot about that move from Mika at Spa 2000?

I was wetting my pants during that move...

DNQ · 20 Dec 2002, 12:49 (Ref:454174)

Quote:

Originally posted by f1manoz
Don't just take statistics as argument DNQ.

Mika had at least 2-3 wins robbed from him during the season thanks to predictable McLaren ureliability (and suffered more mechanical gremlins throughout the year.) Britain and the Nurburgring are two examples that are most in my mind where Mika was robbed of a first victory (before he was gifted Jerez, which I've never really felt comfortable with, though I still cheered and cheered for days!! )

Yeah, I didn't watch a lot of F1 there, I was basing that on raw stats. I know that Mika should have won before Jerez.

Jellybabe · 20 Dec 2002, 15:43 (Ref:454291)

Of course this season wouldn't have been different. Ferrari had the best car and the best tyres. Mika, who would have been in a McLaren (Ron Dennis had been ready to take him back if he'd wanted to come back), would only have done as well as DC and Kimi did, which is to say he wouldn't have scored any more than the one win DC did.

DavidStHubbins · 20 Dec 2002, 17:11 (Ref:454348)

Quote:

Originally posted by DNQ
Yeah, I didn't watch a lot of F1 there, I was basing that on raw stats. I know that Mika should have won before Jerez.

Then why did you bother to post something that is so blatantly untrue?!! Whats the point?

Having ACTUALLY watched the 97 season Mika was by far the quicker of the two - in qualies and also in the races. He was leading more races and would have won more races than DC. SAdly he bore the brunt of the Mercedes unreliablity more than DC.

If a fully motivated Hakkinen had been driving this year then Rubens may not have finished second, however MS would still have won because he is the most complete F1 machine ever in the fastest and most reliable F1 car ever.

If Hakkinen had a car equal to MS then maybe the result would be different. On sheer pace over one lap I rate Mika ahead of Michael (similar to Juan Pablo) but over a season Michael is supreme and unbeatable by humans.

ASCII Man · 20 Dec 2002, 17:29 (Ref:454355)

Unbeatable, Hmm?

I might have a little idea for that.

Maybe we could take some DNA-samples from Senna, create an invitro clone, fertilize the embryo for enhanced growth, insert Fangio/Moss/Stewart/Lauda/Prost-genes and maybe we could have the ultimate contender by 2006?

**Adam43** · 20 Dec 2002, 17:50 (Ref:454374)

2006. The cockpit wouldn't have to be too big.

And that just covers the nature, what about the nurture.

As for Mika and 1997 I think DavidStHubbins assessment is spot on. There were plenty of races that Mika was unfortunate (Silverstone, Monza and Nurburgring to name but three). It used to make me laugh when DC was talked of being unlucky!

Snrub · 20 Dec 2002, 21:51 (Ref:454521)

Quote:

Originally posted by ®îjñtjûh
Unbeatable, Hmm?

I might have a little idea for that.

Maybe we could take some DNA-samples from Senna, create an invitro clone, fertilize the embryo for enhanced growth, insert Fangio/Moss/Stewart/Lauda/Prost-genes and maybe we could have the ultimate contender by 2006?

Email that Quebec cult who claims to be merely weeks away from a human clone. Maybe you can work something out. 40 million a year is nothing your driver will make 80.

You should throw in some elder Andretti and Jim Clark genes for good measure.

SALEEN S7R · 20 Dec 2002, 22:07 (Ref:454530)

I agree if Hakinen was around he would have probably beaten DC, but he still woudnt have touched the 2 Ferraris in my opinion, nobody could this year.

Sodemo · 21 Dec 2002, 00:10 (Ref:454584)

If Mika had been around things may have been ever so slightly more boring.

fousto · 21 Dec 2002, 01:58 (Ref:454656)

Mike would have won the race where Kimi spun off and probably one more!!

Speedworx · 21 Dec 2002, 19:02 (Ref:455004)

I think it could have been different. Mika and Kimi would have been a great combination.

View Poll Results: If Hakkinen hadn't retired, would he have made a difference in 2002?
Yes	9	29.03%
No	22	70.97%
Voters: 31. You may not vote on this poll

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Hakkinen to BAR?	Inigo Montoya	Formula One	61	12 Aug 2004 16:04
Hakkinen Petition.	Y! da Man!	Formula One	45	9 Jun 2004 19:41
Hakkinen	davebreen	Formula One	13	2 Jul 2001 12:33
Who now for WDC?? Not Hakkinen surely.....?	Tristan	Formula One	12	14 Aug 2000 15:00
Hakkinen has won the Austrian GP!	wodonnell	Formula One	11	26 Jul 2000 05:26