British Grand Prix

[Caesar 0]

How does one define a "gift"!? Let's look at 2005 shall we.

- Kimi had pole in San Marino and was leading until his driveshaft failure on lap 9. Too soon in the race to know if he would have won, but he did have pole and was leading, thus he had a very good shot. Alonso got the win instead.

- Kimi was leading the Euro GP until the very last lap when his suspension exploded. 10 points and Alonso got the win instead.

- Kimi had pole for the German GP and lead until lap 35. Again Alonso took the win.

Hypothetical territory here. Out of Kimi's 3x retirements, Alonso took the win in each situation. Out of Alonso's one retirement, Kimi took the win. Playing devil’s advocate, if Kimi had won those 3x races, he would have finished with 142 points instead of his 112 points. Now to square things up so that this also takes into account Alonso's retirement we deduct 2 points from Kimi and award him 2nd place Canada behind Alonso. That leaves Kimi with 140 points.

Alonso. He retired once in Canada whilst leading the race. His total was at 133. So add in the potential race win in Canada and he's then sitting on 143 points. But then we deduct the 3x races wins he inherited due to Kimi's retirements whilst in the lead. That's a 3x2=6 point’s deduction. Thus Alonso ends up with 137 points. Kimi finished with 9x fastest laps over the year.

Kimi takes the title hypothetically by 3 points over Alonso. I still put forth the notion that Kimi had far more to do than Alonso to take the title. 3x retirements whilst leading vs 1x retirement whilst leading.

10 place grid penalties. Qualified on pole. Got a 10 place grid penalty. Started 11th, finished 4th. The engine penalties Kimi got were pretty damaging to his titles hopes.

- In the French GP he qualified 3rd, received a 10 place grid penalty, and still finished the race in 2nd also with the fasted lap time. Could he have done one better and taken the win? All signs point to him quite possibly doing so.

- In the British GP, he qualified 2nd, received a 10 place grid penalty, and still finished the race in 3rd place. Again he got the fastest lap. I'm sure he could at last have gotten 2nd if not 1st in this race as well.

- At the Italian GP, again Kimi received another 10 place grid penalty after qualifying on pole position. He ended up 4th in the race with another fastest lap to his name. Without the 10 place grid demotion, another win was well within his grasp.

- Suzuka. I only include this to say wow, what a race. One of my all time favourites. Kimi did get caught out by the rain in qualifying, but so did Alonso who started only one position ahead of him. Thus qualifying can't be used to say where he could have ended up. He won the race!

On the flip side, I don't recall Alonso having any grid penalties during the year.

At the end of the day, all these what if's don't change the results, but maybe it might affect how people view things. Alonso was the WDC but Kimi was clearly the faster racer that year. Had only a few things gone differently and we most likely would have been a different result.

Emmcee, Kimi had 3x retirements in 2005 whilst leading the race, not two. San Marino, Euro and the German GPs.

I think Hamilton was lucky to have moved to Merc when he did. I would have really liked Schumi to have stayed another year, got some races wins, who knows maybe fought Nico for the championship and left on a high. But he put in the hard work to help build up that team, and it would have been very nice to have seen him on the top step a few more times before he retired.

Hamilton going there didn't suddenly make the Merc a winning car, because Nico wasn't winning races consistently before he arrived. It was such short period of time between Hamilton turning up and the season starting, that Hamilton's input on the car would have been minimal other than when it came to setup. The car was a winner period, Hamilton just happened to step in at the perfect time to capitalize on that. That to me is perfect timing, but just as much luck as well. Imagine if the Merc then turned into a McLaren. Timing is everything, but because you don't know how the car will be the next year, it is luck in the regard.

But it really was the culmination of Brawn's long term strategy to bring the team up the grid. Thus Hamilton or any other driver, at that point in time when he first joined Merc, would have been winning races. Well maybe not if it was the 3x stooges in GRO, Maldonado and Perez lol

Maure, I agree that Massa is dead weight. He's quick, he's ok and consistent when not in the wet, but what it shows to me really, is that Bottas is not smashing him. Bottas is hailed as the next Mika,Kimi,Vettel,Schumi all in one. I don't see it. He's got a mighty car underneath him; he should be getting better results. At the start of the year I thought Ferrari had the 2nd best car. Now I'm not so sure. I think Williams has the 2nd best car with Ferrari having the 3rd best.

Kimi . Rain always makes things unpredictable. It happens, but still a shame. It could have been a genius choice to pit for inters, but it didn't play out that way for him.

I wonder if Alonso will put up a plague in his own museum he created for his very first McLaren/Honda point! I doubt it.

Absolutely true! Someone might say that Kimi caused himself losing points at Nurburgring that year by not slowing down a bit, or Kimi had much faster car because in Monaco he was more than a second faster than Alonso who had new tyres and Kimi had older tyres! There is no point in saying what could have been! That season is over!

[maure 1]

Yep. I agree on Bottas on that one, KoolMonkey. He didn't do enough. But the team gave up podiums at least if not a victory so it matters that Bottas could've made a difference specially when the decision to let Massa prance around was based on indecisiveness. Williams seems lost to me.

[Jem of the Shire 0]

It's funny that Williams used to be inferior to Benetton when it came to strategy in the 90's, and the same thing is happening now; obviously the difference being Merc have greater pace than Williams, but to be leading 1 - 2 then end up behind Vettel at the flag is a failure.

2005 example just goes to show that there's no use looking back on seasons and saying 'what if'. You could argue Kimi & McLaren didn't deserve it as their car was less reliable than the bullet-proof Renault.

In '09 Brawn built the best car, don't quote diffuser at me cos Toyota & Williams had it too, and Jenson made impeccable use of that advantage while he could. His team-mate won diddly-squat during that same period.

[Emmcee 0]

I agree to an extent Jem but IMO, Rubens was stronger than Jenson on the back half of the season. But in saying that you could argue that Jenson was just trying his best not to do anything stupid and loose a good chance at the title.

[maure 1]

All the examples cited have been twisted to suit the argument.

There are times when the "competition" is between teams somehow on a similar level and there are times when there is a clear difference in performance. It's been a decade since a driver won anyone other than his teammate. Between here and then, it's been the car that's won, sometimes by little, oftentimes by a lot.

[KoolMonkey 0]

What car is better monkey? The Ferrari or Williams? I ask this as you say Bottas has a mighty car under him and should be getting better results.

The Williams. Despite their subpar pit strategies, they have a mightly Merc engine and it looks like it's a smooth good handling car. Ferrari don't look to have progressed at all this year in their car development. They might have, it just doesn't look like they have if that makes any sense.

Absolutely true! Someone might say that Kimi caused himself losing points at Nurburgring that year by not slowing down a bit, or Kimi had much faster car because in Monaco he was more than a second faster than Alonso who had new tyres and Kimi had older tyres! There is no point in saying what could have been! That season is over!

The Nurburgring whilst painful for many Kimi fans also brings home why people like him so much. He went all in 100%, and left nothing on the table for the win. He lost the race and all points, but I think it only added to his character. Slowing down wasn't something he did. And I think they honestly thought he'd make it too. I mean one more lap, that's all he needed.

Yep. I agree on Bottas on that one, KoolMonkey. He didn't do enough. But the team gave up podiums at least if not a victory so it matters that Bottas could've made a difference specially when the decision to let Massa prance around was based on indecisiveness. Williams seems lost to me.

Williams havn't been a force since the days of Ralfie and JPM. And it's no surprise that was when Frank and Patrick where more at the helm. Their decision to let Massa be a roadblock was utterly stupid. But Williams have always been apposed to Team Orders, so in a way I'm not sure how they would have dealt with it. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. It would have been a more enjoyable spectacle had Bottas gotten past. I think they should have never issued an order to Bottas to tell him not to pass, rather than saying to Massa to step aside. That way at least Bottas could have tried more.

It's funny that Williams used to be inferior to Benetton when it came to strategy in the 90's, and the same thing is happening now; obviously the difference being Merc have greater pace than Williams, but to be leading 1 - 2 then end up behind Vettel at the flag is a failure.

2005 example just goes to show that there's no use looking back on seasons and saying 'what if'. You could argue Kimi & McLaren didn't deserve it as their car was less reliable than the bullet-proof Renault.

In '09 Brawn built the best car, don't quote diffuser at me cos Toyota & Williams had it too, and Jenson made impeccable use of that advantage while he could. His team-mate won diddly-squat during that same period.

That is a valid way to think about it. Another way also is to look at it from the point of view that Kimi was the fastest and most daring racer that year. A bit more reliability and Alonso might only have 1x WDC to his name. I think 2003-2005 were Kimi's best years for balls to the wall racing. But 2007 was still amazing. I know some like to talk about him lucking into it, but he still had to win race after race to get the title. He came from a long way back to clinch it. That showed a steadiness and focus under pressure alot like to claim he's lost.

[Emmcee 0]

You got to be joking that the Williams is a better car. Ill stop here before it gets into an argument.

[spiral.out 0]

yeah or you report him for something

[Emmcee 0]

yeah or you report him for something

What are you on about? I don't report anyone. Just boggles me how someone thinks the Williams is a better car when the whole paddock and heaps of articles ask the question on when and if Williams will be as good as Ferrari. I see the field as this:

1- Mercedes

2- Ferrari

3-Williams

4- force India

5- lotus

6- toro rosso

7- Redbull

8- sauber

9- Mclaren

10- Marussia

These are my opinion based on results and down right pace if the car. The entire paddock knows the Williams chassis isn't as good as ferraris. But it's his opinion and I respect that.

[KoolMonkey 0]

You got to be joking that the Williams is a better car. Ill stop here before it gets into an argument.

And that somehow angers you? Yes I consider the Williams to be a better car. If you can't accept my opinion and then get bent out of shape because someone has a thought that differs from your own, it's a wonder you've made it this far in your life. What next? Someone cuts you off at the lights and you pull out a shotgun? /rage away.

[Emmcee 0]

And that somehow angers you? Yes I consider the Williams to be a better car. If you can't accept my opinion and then get bent out of shape because someone has a thought that differs from your own, it's a wonder you've made it this far in your life. What next? Someone cuts you off at the lights and you pull out a shotgun? /rage away.

You completly went passed my second post. I totally accept your opinion. I just thought you were going to loose it. Made it this far in my life, read posts before you jump to conclusions mate. Gee whiz, quick to point the finger arnt you?

[KoolMonkey 0]

No I only play the boardgame "Jump to Conclusions". Look it up, it's a riot!

[Jem of the Shire 0]

toro rosso is 4th best car surely?

[KoolMonkey 0]

Force India perhaps? They looked pretty strong during the last race.

[Emmcee 0]

Force India perhaps? They looked pretty strong during the last race.

Yeah force India is ahead of toro rosso as that Mercedes engine works wonders in the back of that car. We saw in Austria how the Redbull's couldn't even catch them when right on the back of them with drs, they just drive away on pure pace.

[Insider 0]

There are so many drivers who could have won the WDC during their careers if they had been in the best car. No one won it in a bad car. The greatest anomaly was the Brawn GP/Button win in 2009. Ron Dennis can bang on with his logic that only a 'works' team can win WCCs - a customer engine won't do. Well, Brawn disproved that theory in 2009. They were the 'customer' and in effect, McLaren had been the 'works' team since 1995. He does talk a load of rubbish sometimes.