A Driver A Day - Keeps The Boredom Away

[Autumnpuma 0]

Actually....

The Monaco 2006 failure was a heat shield failure, not an engine failure. The heat shield overheated from lack of cooling from running behind the safety car. This then caused some wiring looms inside the engine bay to melt, causing an electronics failure. And running behind another driver is what F1 drivers do, Alonso would do the same thing if it was him. The idea is that the Engineers compensate for circuits where cooling is going to be an issue.

My bad. I was typing without thinking there. Many posts in the past I have said the exact same thing about the heat shield. James Allen on itv-f1.com had the idea that since Monaco is so tight and airflow there is pretty restricted, Kimi should have realized that running in Alonso's dirty, heated air would make the heat shield problem worse. As for saying Alonso would do the same, I don't think so. If Alonso knew that the heat shield was already an issue, he would have backed off and brought the car in a safe second place. I believe there's more than enough evidence out there to say that about Alonso, no?

The story I have heard for the 2006 hungarian problem is that he was trying to let pedro by, and liuzzi slowed down in a place where raikkonen wasn't expecting him

to. He braked and understeered into the back of him.

OK, lets say that story is true. First, was that the best place to be letting Pedro past? Right at the exit of a turn? Also, didn't he know Liuzzi was there and was certainly in a slower moving Toro Rosso? A thinking driver would have exited the turn, past the backmarker, then let Pedro by on the straight.

Also, the 2005 races Raikkonen made quali mistakes in where Brazil, Belgium, and Australia. Australia, it was hard to know his true pace because he was corked up behind schumi for most of the race, Belgium he won, and Brazil he finished second in a McLaren 1-2 (again in front of Alonso)

You obviously looked that up on a website. Good research but I was going by memory. So, are you suggesting that Kimi made no qualifying mistakes that hindered him?

The great majority of wins inherited for Alonso where inherited by the way of mechanical failures, the only one I would say Kimi blew was Nurburgring by his own error. The fact he had more mechanical failures than Montoya was odd, yes but I have personally never seen anything which can prove he causes them by over driving his car.

If you take away his Mechanical DNF's (of which there have been LOADS) his mistake record is not that much worse than anyone elses. The question is if he causes them, and that is really a subjective opinion, and would be hard to prove without access to car telemetry

We're back where we started then. You believe what you choose to believe. As for the telemetry, we should perhaps take the words of Mario Illien then, a person who has actually seen that telemetry. Didn't he say something to the effect that Kimi was hard on the engines? What about Webber mentioning that the word from McLaren is that Kimi is hard on his cars? Do those two items spring from nothing? I suppose there are possible political reasons for them to say such things.....again, we are back where we started. You believe what you choose to believe.

[Autumnpuma 0]

Now a homework lesson for anyone who cars to try: Pull up the DNF comparisons between Kimi and his teammates from every year he has been in F1. I have a feeling you'll notice that he has had more DNFs than the guy in the other car. This is not by accident or clever puma design. This is because Kimi has zero mechanical sympathy.

I have done my own homework. The amounts of DNFs compared to his teammates do indeed seem to be a clever puma design. Kimi had a few years in which he suffered more DNFs than his teammate, but not to the degree I'd thought. I'll admit to being wrong about this statement*.

*This statement should not be used to imply that all puma-ramblings are similarly wrong but should apply to this statement only as stipulated by state and federal laws. Void if tampered with. Non-refundable. Non transferrable. No cash value.

[Jem of the Shire 0]

some good points mike, the most convincing i've seen so far. i agree with a lot them to an extent, but i think some if it is a little harsh. With the imola 05 incident i dont think kimi can really be blamed, and don't forget Kimi had FOUR grid-penalties that year due to his engine dying in practise sessions.

I would again refer to Sato's 2004 season with BAR - his engine died on him so many times that year but the team confirmed that it was nothing that Sato could be doing to cause it. I dont think Kimi should be criticised for driving hard, it is a racing car after all and should be designed to handle it.

The incident with Liuzzi was indeed a blunder and I still dont really understand why or how it happened.

2007 will be very interesting to see if Kimi really does make any mistakes, but I think the whole thing is a bit exaggerated and to be honest what the hell does Mark Webber know about Kimi's telemetry/data, Mark Webber has plenty of retirements himself, is he too harsh on cars? Its a weird subject

[Shane2 0]

Oh no, not at all the Quali mistakes did hinder him there's no doubt about that (especially the one in Australia) I am just trying to say I dont think the problem is as bad as you first made out. Yes, maybe he should have backed off, but the problem with monaco is if you don't drive it on the edge, you really do lose disproportionate amounts of time due to the large amount of breaking and acceleration zones. I can see your point, But my guess is that because his margin of speed over Alonso was so small, he needed to stay as close as possible to spring him in the pit, but thats just guesswork, and without telemetry, and access to their pit radio, again A very tough one to make a judgment on.

As for the Hungary one, yes I agree that was a bit of a stupid place to let pedro past (well I dont actually know if he was gonna let him past right there but he said he reduced speed so pedro could pass him), but in the wet, the other part of the accident was one almost anyone could have had in theory. The McLaren had a reputation on being too easy on its tyres, and although its hard to be certain, he may just have not had enough grip, but Yes it could possibly have been avoided.

As for the points about Ilien and Webber... yes, they do hint at it, that cannot be denied, I suppose I just personally don't like finger pointing without irrefutable evidence.

The problem is that DNF's are such a big grey area, the opinions on them are subjective, and there are 1001 different ways to interpret a lot of them, I am not trying to argue with you, You could well be right, I am just trying to say it is very hard to cast those kind of aspersions on a driver with no concrete proof.

Oh and on the 2005 races... memory I didn't need to look that info up, I remember the last 2 seasons very well.

The worst season I think Raikkonen had was 2004, I believe he had something like 5 engine failures in races, and another 2-3 in practise/qualifying, that particular season was a rather large dent on his record.

Oh and @ jemstride... I don't think Webbo was too hard on his cars, most of his retirements have been due to accident damage, with the exception of 2006, where the car was unreliable in the hands of both weebbo and rosberg

[Autumnpuma 0]

some good points mike, the most convincing i've seen so far. i agree with a lot them to an extent, but i think some if it is a little harsh. With the imola 05 incident i dont think kimi can really be blamed, and don't forget Kimi had FOUR grid-penalties that year due to his engine dying in practise sessions.

I would again refer to Sato's 2004 season with BAR - his engine died on him so many times that year but the team confirmed that it was nothing that Sato could be doing to cause it. I dont think Kimi should be criticised for driving hard, it is a racing car after all and should be designed to handle it.

The incident with Liuzzi was indeed a blunder and I still dont really understand why or how it happened.

2007 will be very interesting to see if Kimi really does make any mistakes, but I think the whole thing is a bit exaggerated and to be honest what the hell does Mark Webber know about Kimi's telemetry/data, Mark Webber has plenty of retirements himself, is he too harsh on cars? Its a weird subject

After Shane's good rebuttal, I've begun to see that I'm perhaps too hard on Kimi. This year I'll give him a clean slate and see what happens.

Oh no, not at all the Quali mistakes did hinder him there's no doubt about that (especially the one in Australia) I am just trying to say I dont think the problem is as bad as you first made out. Yes, maybe he should have backed off, but the problem with monaco is if you don't drive it on the edge, you really do lose disproportionate amounts of time due to the large amount of breaking and acceleration zones. I can see your point, But my guess is that because his margin of speed over Alonso was so small, he needed to stay as close as possible to spring him in the pit, but thats just guesswork, and without telemetry, and access to their pit radio, again A very tough one to make a judgment on.

As for the Hungary one, yes I agree that was a bit of a stupid place to let pedro past (well I dont actually know if he was gonna let him past right there but he said he reduced speed so pedro could pass him), but in the wet, the other part of the accident was one almost anyone could have had in theory. The McLaren had a reputation on being too easy on its tyres, and although its hard to be certain, he may just have not had enough grip, but Yes it could possibly have been avoided.

As for the points about Ilien and Webber... yes, they do hint at it, that cannot be denied, I suppose I just personally don't like finger pointing without irrefutable evidence.

The problem is that DNF's are such a big grey area, the opinions on them are subjective, and there are 1001 different ways to interpret a lot of them, I am not trying to argue with you, You could well be right, I am just trying to say it is very hard to cast those kind of aspersions on a driver with no concrete proof.

Oh and on the 2005 races... memory I didn't need to look that info up, I remember the last 2 seasons very well.

The worst season I think Raikkonen had was 2004, I believe he had something like 5 engine failures in races, and another 2-3 in practise/qualifying, that particular season was a rather large dent on his record.

Oh and @ jemstride... I don't think Webbo was too hard on his cars, most of his retirements have been due to accident damage, with the exception of 2006, where the car was unreliable in the hands of both weebbo and rosberg

Good points. I'm jealous of your memory! Mine seems to be like a steel collander at times.....

My opinion on Kimi has been building up since he was at Sauber. I've watched him and been awed by his speed....and disappointed with a seemingly endless stream of DNFs that kill his chances, each year, for the title. Like I said, I'll wipe the slate clean on him this year and see what happens.

[Shane2 0]

Same. This whole issue intrigues me, and I can't wait to see how he does at ferrari

[pumpdoc 2]

I've been waiting for this ever since McLaren nicked him, remember boys Mc Laren has not won a WCC since '98 and I don't see it happening this year...................Forza Ferrari

[goferrarigo 0]

I've been waiting for this ever since McLaren nicked him, remember boys Mc Laren has not won a WCC since '98 and I don't see it happening this year...................Forza Ferrari

FORZA FERRARI

[Player(1) 0]

eeeerrrrrr......TALLY HO MCLAREN!.....

[goferrarigo 0]

eeeerrrrrr......TALLY HO MCLAREN!.....

That sounds pretty bad....IMO

[Quiet One 15]

eeeerrrrrr......TALLY HO MCLAREN!.....

[pumpdoc 2]

eeeerrrrrr......TALLY HO MCLAREN!.....

We are not on a fox hunt..................