Greatest disappointment of F1

Greatest disappointment of F1

  • Nigel Mansell 1986 tyre blow out

    Votes: 3 10.0%
  • James Hunt post 1976

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Jacques Villeneuve post 1997

    Votes: 2 6.7%
  • Jarno Trulli

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Juan Montoya

    Votes: 2 6.7%
  • Alex Zanardi

    Votes: 1 3.3%
  • Kimi Raikkonen post Mclaren

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Toyota

    Votes: 1 3.3%
  • Honda 2000 to 2008

    Votes: 2 6.7%
  • Lotus revival (1990-1995)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Lotus revival 2 (2010 to date)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Michael Andretti

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Jean Alesi

    Votes: 2 6.7%
  • Giancarlo Fisichella

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Lewis Hamitlon China 2007 Gravel Trap off

    Votes: 5 16.7%
  • Gerhard Berger unfulfilled career post 1988

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Robert Kubica 's career cut short

    Votes: 12 40.0%

  • Total voters
    30
  • Poll closed .

Incubus

Champion Elect
Tbh I always thought Hakkinen as a bit overrated. He was good but I don't think he was one of the all-time greats. I thought the McLaren was the best car for three years between 1998 and 2000.
He was paired with Johnny Herbert at Lotus and in terms of pace the two very closely matched, and quite often Herbert had the edge on him, even though he also seemed to have most of the retirements.
 

Monkeyhead

Points Scorer
Contributor
Ferrari won the WCC though. I think with the mistakes Hakkinen made, Schumacher would have taken that title with ease.

To me it seemed that Häkkinen didn't have the concentration after Schumacher had been sidelined. He and his team tried everything to lose the world championship. He should have won all seven races until Schumacher returned, but instead he only managed to win one race, so only when Schumacher obliterated the opposition in Malaysia, he fully realized what he'd done to himself. Finally, in Japan he drove a flawless race, which was just enough for him to win the title.

But suppose Schumacher hadn't crashed in Silverstone, would Häkkinen have performed so badly? I don't think so. It's the same with Schumacher in 1994, when he started to do silly things (such as overtaking Hill in the parade lap), which eventually cost him his very big championship lead. I don't think he would have done the same things if Senna had lived.

So, we can only speculate how different things would have been if history had taken another route. Interestingly, in 2000, when the Ferrari and McLaren were pretty closely matched, the championship battle was pretty tense. To me it seems that Häkkinen needed Schumacher to perform.
 

siffert_fan

Too old to watch the Asian races live.
Contributor
Surely if Mansell stayed he might have won another world title because Prost in all fairness was not really convincing in 1993

You may have considered it not very convincing, but Prost was (in)famous for only driving fast enough to win. If he had been pushed harder, I have no doubt that he would have found the pace to whip Mansell.

After all, he had the speed to win 4 WDCs and finish second in 3 others by a total of 5 points! That is all the convincing I need.
 

Il_leone

Champion Elect
You may have considered it not very convincing, but Prost was (in)famous for only driving fast enough to win. If he had been pushed harder, I have no doubt that he would have found the pace to whip Mansell.

After all, he had the speed to win 4 WDCs and finish second in 3 others by a total of 5 points! That is all the convincing I need.


in 1993 - Prost made a lot of very amateurish errors and only really some mechanical woes which always seems to be on Hill side allowed him to be champion

He showed his rustiness being out for 1 season
 

Il_leone

Champion Elect
Tbh I always thought Hakkinen as a bit overrated. He was good but I don't think he was one of the all-time greats. I thought the McLaren was the best car for three years between 1998 and 2000.
He was paired with Johnny Herbert at Lotus and in terms of pace the two very closely matched, and quite often Herbert had the edge on him, even though he also seemed to have most of the retirements.

Have to agree in some ways when you consider his first two wins were gifted by DC and he was not very good in the wet

1999 - he seemed to throw it all away too often
 

Il_leone

Champion Elect
To me it seemed that Häkkinen didn't have the concentration after Schumacher had been sidelined. He and his team tried everything to lose the world championship. He should have won all seven races until Schumacher returned, but instead he only managed to win one race, so only when Schumacher obliterated the opposition in Malaysia, he fully realized what he'd done to himself. Finally, in Japan he drove a flawless race, which was just enough for him to win the title.

But suppose Schumacher hadn't crashed in Silverstone, would Häkkinen have performed so badly? I don't think so. It's the same with Schumacher in 1994, when he started to do silly things (such as overtaking Hill in the parade lap), which eventually cost him his very big championship lead. I don't think he would have done the same things if Senna had lived.

So, we can only speculate how different things would have been if history had taken another route. Interestingly, in 2000, when the Ferrari and McLaren were pretty closely matched, the championship battle was pretty tense. To me it seems that Häkkinen needed Schumacher to perform.
-----------------

What was telling was Hakkinen's attitude in both Spa and Nurburgring

Spa - when DC overtook at the start he thought Ron was going to give team orders to tell DC to move over which never came and he ended up sulking afterwards

Monza - we all know about crying in the bushes for his huge blunder

Nurburgring - a crazy race which Mclarens did not look comfortable in the damp. There was a period in the race where it rained where Mclaren bungled a pit stop decision and Hakkinen was out of the points and was not really trying to fight to the end of the race it was only when Ferrari bungled their pit stop with the missing tyre debacle and a few late retirements it suddenly made Hakkinen consider there were points up for grabs still
 

teabagyokel

#dejavu
Valued Member
To be fair to Hakkinen, McLaren should have pulled Coulthard over at Spa at that stage of the season. They headed into Suzuka behind by those four points.
 

Il_leone

Champion Elect
To be fair to Hakkinen, McLaren should have pulled Coulthard over at Spa at that stage of the season. They headed into Suzuka behind by those four points.


Well Mika was not amused afterwards by the decision not to... I guess someone forgot to tell him he owes DC two favours because when DC did do it in Melbourne 98 previously it made the difference to leading the championship and being tied with Schumacher come last race in 1998
 

Monkeyhead

Points Scorer
Contributor
Well Mika was not amused afterwards by the decision not to... I guess someone forgot to tell him he owes DC two favours because when DC did do it in Melbourne 98 previously it made the difference to leading the championship and being tied with Schumacher come last race in 1998

True, but on the other hand Coulthard cost him six points (and relative to Irvine maybe 12) in Austria, and given the difficult situation Häkkinen was in, it was more sensible to give him that win anyway in Belgium. Instead, a guy who was having a disastrous season, was awarded the win, as the team felt he should get his chance to fight for the world title.

Some time ago, I stumbled upon some article about Häkkinen's 1999 season. I think it's very interesting reading material. It summarizes the numerous letdowns he had to experience that year. Coulthard's strange win at Spa, his strange mistake at Monza, and of course the wrong pit calls at the Nürburgring and then Schumacher's impressive return at Sepang: it must have been a terrible sequence of events for Häkkinen.

I always compare 1999 to Schumacher's smooth drive to victory in 2002. Both had a dominant car, but Schumacher managed to extract nearly everything from the car, so he was incredibly dominant, while Häkkinen was nearly beaten by Ferrari's number-two driver, as he lost more races than he won.
 

Il_leone

Champion Elect
You forgot to mention his whopping mistake in Imola where he binned way out in front

Nurburgring was the worst we saw in Hakkinen because he seems to give up and really he should be able to make a call when to come in those conditions which he seems incapable of
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Olivier

Race Winner
he actually come back strong
It was not this crash it was his crash in practice Australia 2001 which killed his motivation for that season and accelerated his season to take a break

I beg to differ but I can't prove one way or the other. What I can do is to quote Mika himself

“It really disturbed my career. You never get over an accident like that, you carry it with you for the rest of your life.” ... “That’s why I think my career in Formula One wasn’t that long. There aren’t many days in my life when I don’t think about what happened in Adelaide.”
 

Il_leone

Champion Elect
I beg to differ but I can't prove one way or the other. What I can do is to quote Mika himself


He did not show it in his race craft up until 2000.

2001 Melbourne practice crash spooked him but everyone noticed he came into the season very relaxed

It seems like the last 3 seasons took a lot out of him and he was not as motivated or prepared for another titanic battle with Schumacher
 

Johnny Carwash

Champion Elect
Contributor
We never got to see the full potential of Steffan Bellof in an F1 car. He could well have mixed it up with the top drivers of the the 80's like Senna, Prost , Mansell and Piquet.
 

TomysF1

Learner
Hamilton could be disappointment, but I would not be able to hold steering wheel steadily while fighting for title during first year in Formula One myself :)
 

TomysF1

Learner
I was massive, massive Montoya fan. He is super fast, but way too quick-tempered to achieve bigger results. I was not disappointed, when he decided to leave for NASCAR, but rather devastated ;)
 
Top Bottom