Surly Mika H has to show his stuff this year

Surly Mika H has to show his stuff this year

Post by Phillip McNelle » Fri, 23 Jan 1998 04:00:00


I know many people have very high opinions of Mika H., including Ron Dennis,
but after the last few lack lustre years I feel its about time for him to
show his reputed brilliance. It seems that David has his mark. Everyone
keeps saying what bad luck he has had but this starts to wear a bit thin
after a while. Sooner or later he has to do something to vindicate all the
expressions of faith shown in him. If after 1998 he still hasn't preformed
well against David then it'll be hard not to feel he's somewhat overrated.

Just A thought.

Bye.

Phillip McNelley

 
 
 

Surly Mika H has to show his stuff this year

Post by Christian Ehrnroot » Sat, 24 Jan 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> I know many people have very high opinions of Mika H., including Ron Dennis,
> but after the last few lack lustre years I feel its about time for him to
> show his reputed brilliance.

Lack lustre? You are naturally entitled to your opinion, but consider
this:
- Retired from the lead at Silverstone with a blown engine.
- Retired from the lead at A1-Ring with a blown engine
- Retired from the lead at Nurburgring with a blown engine.
- Retired with a good chance of winning at Hungaroring with a blown
engine (or was it the hydraulics?).
- Limped back to the pits with a faulty tyre at Monza. Later recorded
the fastest lap of the race and would most certainly have been at least
second without the faulty tyre.
There are probably more examples, but I can't recall them at the moment.
This is racing so bad luck is unfortunately part of the game, but at the
least the above mentioned examples should prove that he's still got some
of that Flying Finn in him!

X-ian
Finland

 
 
 

Surly Mika H has to show his stuff this year

Post by Seppo Kopone » Sat, 24 Jan 1998 04:00:00



Quote:
> I know many people have very high opinions of Mika H., including Ron
Dennis,
> but after the last few lack lustre years I feel its about time for him to
> show his reputed brilliance.

I agree that Mika has to show what he's made of this coming season.

Quote:
> It seems that David has his mark.

Excuse me? For the two last seasons DC has been slower than MH,
although it is true that he has won 2 races to MH's "0.5". Then again,
surely you admit that bar the engine MH would have 1-3 more victories
by now.

Quote:
>If after 1998 he still hasn't preformed
> well against David then it'll be hard not to feel he's somewhat

overrated.

He has outqualified DC for two seasons, outraced for the first season.
Not "well" enough? You could also remember that MH comfortably
outraced and outqualified Brundle, Blundell and Mansell, all of whom
seem to be held in high regard here.

 
 
 

Surly Mika H has to show his stuff this year

Post by Eddie Dubour » Sat, 24 Jan 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> I agree that Mika has to show what he's made of this coming season.

Ditto

Quote:
> > It seems that David has his mark.

> Excuse me? For the two last seasons DC has been slower than MH,
> although it is true that he has won 2 races to MH's "0.5". Then again,
> surely you admit that bar the engine MH would have 1-3 more victories
> by now.

It seems to me that this is a re-hash of the arguments used for
JVerstappen.  The principle criterion for performance is points, and
this season DC beat Mika hands down.  Incidentally, DC lost at least one
more win in Canada, and his car failed when he was in the points once or
twice (Austrian?)

Quote:
> >If after 1998 he still hasn't preformed
> > well against David then it'll be hard not to feel he's somewhat
> overrated.

> He has outqualified DC for two seasons, outraced for the first season.

After having already had a season in the car - DC was new.

Look at the figures:-

Coulthard has started 58 GPs, obtained 117 points, 3 wins, 15 podium
positions, 5 fastest laps, led 21 GPs/310 laps/1456 km, 5 pole
positions, (front row 7 times)

Hakkinen has started 96 GPs, obtained 118 points, 1 win, 16 podium
positions, 1 fastest lap, led 10 GPs/67 laps/324 km, 1 pole position
(front row 3 times)

So Hakkinen has got 1 more point and 1 more podium position in 38 more
GPs.  In every other statistic, Coulthard has beaten him.

I like Mika, I just think that DC beat him last season, and will do it
again in the coming season (he'd better, I've got a tenner on him to win
the Championship)

(Figures obtained from FORIX, http://www.siii.pt/f1 )

Time to sit back and wait for the flames.

--
Eddie Dubourg

 
 
 

Surly Mika H has to show his stuff this year

Post by Peter Scoula » Sat, 24 Jan 1998 04:00:00

Christian Ehrnrooth  writes

Quote:

>> I know many people have very high opinions of Mika H., including Ron Dennis,
>> but after the last few lack lustre years I feel its about time for him to
>> show his reputed brilliance.

>Lack lustre? You are naturally entitled to your opinion, but consider
>this:
>- Retired from the lead at Silverstone with a blown engine.
>- Retired from the lead at A1-Ring with a blown engine
>- Retired from the lead at Nurburgring with a blown engine.
>- Retired with a good chance of winning at Hungaroring with a blown
>engine (or was it the hydraulics?).
>- Limped back to the pits with a faulty tyre at Monza. Later recorded
>the fastest lap of the race and would most certainly have been at least
>second without the faulty tyre.
>There are probably more examples, but I can't recall them at the moment.
>This is racing so bad luck is unfortunately part of the game, but at the
>least the above mentioned examples should prove that he's still got some
>of that Flying Finn in him!

I certainly agree that Mika had more than his fair share of problems in
1997, but considering the number of times he "retired from the lead" one
could reasonably expect that he should have won more than one race on
the occasions that he didn`t have problems!  Sometimes I wonder if Mika
will be one of those drivers that, despite having more than average
talent, never wins very many races. A bit like Alesi or Herbert maybe?
Regards
--                                            
Peter :-)                Hill is the man  -  Keep the faith.
 
 
 

Surly Mika H has to show his stuff this year

Post by Gunter Rola » Sat, 24 Jan 1998 04:00:00


[snip]

Quote:
>Excuse me? For the two last seasons DC has been slower than MH,
>although it is true that he has won 2 races to MH's "0.5". Then again,
>surely you admit that bar the engine MH would have 1-3 more victories
>by now.

'bar the engine' Mika would have exactly ZERO victories - how fast
do you think he could push the McLaren? I don't see how you can
separate performance and reliability so easily and credit the fact
that they were running at the front on Mika and the car and blame
Mercedes for the DNFs.
They obviously decided to push power to the edge (which allowed
Hakkinen to get in the lead in the first place) and at the same
time sacrificed reliability (involuntarily, probably), which
lead to many embarrassing retirements, none more so than in
'Luxembourg'. If they had staid on the 'safe side' I doubt that
McLaren would have enjoyed as much time in the lead.

Gunther

 
 
 

Surly Mika H has to show his stuff this year

Post by Tuomo O. Vuolteenah » Sat, 24 Jan 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> > I agree that Mika has to show what he's made of this coming season.
> Ditto

This is a rare occasion -- everybody agrees on this statement. Hurrah!

Quote:
> The principle criterion for performance is points, and
> this season DC beat Mika hands down.

While the ex post evaluation of performance is based on points, the
qualifying performance have a much better predictive ability. So, yes, DC
scored more last year, but in my opinion a better prediction based on
points and qualifyings indicates that Hakkinen is likely to be better next
year. Not by much, though. My conjecture is supported by the British odds
-- while DC scored more last year, MH is expected to do better than DC
this year.

Quote:
> Incidentally, DC lost at least one more win in Canada, and his car
> failed when he was in the points once or twice (Austrian?)

If we actually calculate the points lost due to retirement (only
mechanical failures, assuming the position could've been held 'till the
end), Hakkinen lost about 35 points more than DC due to such misfortunes.
I did that calculation once, but I don't remember the exact figure.  The
above calculation doesn't adjust for Canada, so something like 25 would
probably be a better estimate.

Quote:
> After having already had a season in the car - DC was new.

You deliberately ignore two things. Hakkinen was badly injured late '95
and could not participate in testing the '96 car. First, a recovery from
such an accident takes anything from months to years. Second, Coulthard
had much more experience in the '96 car when the season started.

Quote:
> So Hakkinen has got 1 more point and 1 more podium position in 38 more
> GPs.  In every other statistic, Coulthard has beaten him.

Coulthard drove a Williams. Pretty much everybody *must* agree that since
the second half of '91, Williams has been the best car -- over whole
season, of course in some tracks Benetton, Ferrari, or McLaren has been
more competitive. So, if you would really like to know whose better, you
would compare how they did in McLaren.

Quote:
> I like Mika, I just think that DC beat him last season, and will do it
> again in the coming season (he'd better, I've got a tenner on him to win
> the Championship)

If you're right and the bookies are wrong, you should bet 10k instead of
10. I think

Quote:
> Time to sit back and wait for the flames.

Napalm to the balls! ;-) Seriously, during the last season, Hakkinen
clearly upgraded his opinion on Coulthard. Hakkinen clearly admitted that
he had problems during the first half of the season, and when paired with
a driver as talented as Coulthard, it showed.

                                                                Tuomo

 
 
 

Surly Mika H has to show his stuff this year

Post by Tuomo O. Vuolteenah » Sat, 24 Jan 1998 04:00:00

You write it in a somewhat negative tone, but basically I must agree. He's
had bad luck, been injured, qualified well, but still -- He has to beat DC
clearly next year and start bringing those wins to the team.

                                                                Tuomo

Quote:

> I know many people have very high opinions of Mika H., including Ron Dennis,
> but after the last few lack lustre years I feel its about time for him to
> show his reputed brilliance. It seems that David has his mark. Everyone
> keeps saying what bad luck he has had but this starts to wear a bit thin
> after a while. Sooner or later he has to do something to vindicate all the
> expressions of faith shown in him. If after 1998 he still hasn't preformed
> well against David then it'll be hard not to feel he's somewhat overrated.

 
 
 

Surly Mika H has to show his stuff this year

Post by Tuomo O. Vuolteenah » Sat, 24 Jan 1998 04:00:00

Gunther, while you're right that you cannot win races without an engine,
rest of your post is rather uninformed. The engine reliability problems
with the Mercedes/Ilmor were largely power independent. The problem was in
the oil circulation, and was known before the race. McLaren tested several
engines before A1 and Nurburgring, and located the problem but could not
fix it.

So, your statement that "they obviously decided to pus power to the edge"
is almost entirely incorrect. In Nurburgring, Hakkinen dropped the power
of the engine considerably after 25 laps when the oil feed problem
surfaced once again. The occurence of the problem was largely power
independent, but once it occured, the damages could be limited by lowering
the power.

Or at least that's what I've read.
                                                                Tuomo


Quote:
> 'bar the engine' Mika would have exactly ZERO victories - how fast do
> you think he could push the McLaren? I don't see how you can separate
> performance and reliability so easily and credit the fact that they were
> running at the front on Mika and the car and blame Mercedes for the
> DNFs. They obviously decided to push power to the edge (which allowed
> Hakkinen to get in the lead in the first place) and at the same time
> sacrificed reliability (involuntarily, probably), which lead to many
> embarrassing retirements, none more so than in 'Luxembourg'. If they had
> staid on the 'safe side' I doubt that McLaren would have enjoyed as much
> time in the lead.

> Gunther

 
 
 

Surly Mika H has to show his stuff this year

Post by Jamie Dye » Sun, 25 Jan 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>While the ex post evaluation of performance is based on points, the
>qualifying performance have a much better predictive ability. So, yes, DC
>scored more last year, but in my opinion a better prediction based on
>points and qualifyings indicates that Hakkinen is likely to be better next
>year. Not by much, though. My conjecture is supported by the British odds
>-- while DC scored more last year, MH is expected to do better than DC
>this year.

Qualifying can be distorted though.  Remember that Coulthard just by
turning up seems to be able to make up three or four places at the start
of a race.  Is it possible that he therefore spent a larger proportion
of practice setting his car up for the race, knowing that he could
overcome the deficiencies this would give his qualifying.

Just a thought.

JamieD.

 
 
 

Surly Mika H has to show his stuff this year

Post by Tuomo O. Vuolteenah » Sun, 25 Jan 1998 04:00:00

Quote:


> >>They obviously decided to push power to the edge (which allowed
> >>Hakkinen to get in the lead in the first place) and at the same
> >>time sacrificed reliability (involuntarily, probably), which
> >>lead to many embarrassing retirements, none more so than in
> >>'Luxembourg'.

> EXACTLY..... i tried to say this a couple months back but no one
> seemed to get it then.

Well, you're both uninformed on the subject. The fact that someone repeats
your nonsense doesn't make it true. Still, these postings do change
opinions without having any factual ground. Fortunately, there's only two
converts so far.
                                                                Tuomo
 
 
 

Surly Mika H has to show his stuff this year

Post by Ville Mann » Mon, 26 Jan 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>Qualifying can be distorted though.  Remember that Coulthard just by
>turning up seems to be able to make up three or four places at the start
>of a race.  Is it possible that he therefore spent a larger proportion
>of practice setting his car up for the race, knowing that he could
>overcome the deficiencies this would give his qualifying.

Hmmm..I was just wondering, where is the difference in qualifying and race
set-ups which allows better starts?? Let's face it, DC is just a damn good
starter. And Mika got the hang of it in the latter half of the season, he
was almost as good in starts as DC.
 
 
 

Surly Mika H has to show his stuff this year

Post by Markus Vars » Tue, 27 Jan 1998 04:00:00

|> I know many people have very high opinions of Mika H., including Ron Dennis,
|> but after the last few lack lustre years I feel its about time for him to
|> show his reputed brilliance. It seems that David has his mark. Everyone
|> keeps saying what bad luck he has had but this starts to wear a bit thin
|> after a while. Sooner or later he has to do something to vindicate all the
|> expressions of faith shown in him. If after 1998 he still hasn't preformed
|> well against David then it'll be hard not to feel he's somewhat overrated.
|>
|> Just A thought.
|>
|> Bye.
|>
|> Phillip McNelley

|>

Ave !!!

 True enough, but David Coulthard might be facing the same dilemma.
 Despite the fact that he outscore Mika last season his performance is
 generally rated below that of Mika making it two years in a row.
 If Mika is to fail yet another season and David can't relly
 beat him fair and square the careers of both of them might take
 a serious dip.

- Oho -

 
 
 

Surly Mika H has to show his stuff this year

Post by Markus Vars » Tue, 27 Jan 1998 04:00:00

|>

|> >
|> >While the ex post evaluation of performance is based on points, the
|> >qualifying performance have a much better predictive ability. So, yes, DC
|> >scored more last year, but in my opinion a better prediction based on
|> >points and qualifyings indicates that Hakkinen is likely to be better next
|> >year. Not by much, though. My conjecture is supported by the British odds
|> >-- while DC scored more last year, MH is expected to do better than DC
|> >this year.
|> >
|>
|>
|> Qualifying can be distorted though.  Remember that Coulthard just by
|> turning up seems to be able to make up three or four places at the start
|> of a race.  Is it possible that he therefore spent a larger proportion
|> of practice setting his car up for the race, knowing that he could
|> overcome the deficiencies this would give his qualifying.
|>
|> Just a thought.
|>
|> JamieD.

Ave !!

 Wronk. Coulthard was slower than Hakkinen the entire second half
 of 97 season, races and qualifyings. His only clear strong point against
 Hakkinen is his start. After Silverstone Coulthard was not once able to
 out perform Hakkinen in the race in convincing manner by pulling away
 from Hakkinen. On the other hand without exception when Hakkinen was
 ahead of Coulthard and had a clear road he pulled a good lead, speedwise
 Hakkinen was always able to respond, Coulthard had it tougher.

- Oho -

 
 
 

Surly Mika H has to show his stuff this year

Post by Tuomo O. Vuolteenah » Tue, 27 Jan 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> to me it is a given that you can tune an engine for either
> reliability or speed. like everything else in racing it's a
> tradeoff.

Yes, but in this particular case this tradeoff is irrelevant. You are not
well informed on this issue.

Quote:
> i read your other post in which you introduced some other factors. i
> still say that they could have de-tuned the engines for more
> reliability. of course the mclarens wouldn't have been as quick then
> would they?

You make little sense. Yes, if they'd detuned the engine, they'd been
slower, so far I can agree with you. However, in this particular case, the
reliability problem had very little dependence on the power output. It was
a problem in oil circulation.

Quote:
> perhaps what i said didn't go as far as what you said. that
> doesn't make it "nonsense".

It does. A reasonable person would've found out what was going on before
"explaining" the issue to others.

Quote:
> in the end it's the results that get remembered and mika has one
> of the most dismal win/start ratios in existence.

And you have one of the worst hits/misses ratio with your facts. And in
rasf1, it's an achievement to miss more than some of us here...

Quote:
> he didn't have the mercedes engine for all of that now did he?

No. At McLaren, he has raced with a Ford-Cosworth V8 (three races),
Peugeot V10 (one season), and with Mercedes-Ilmor V10 (three seasons).
Ford was not competitive, even though Senna managed to win one of those
three races. 1994 Peugeot was perhaps the most unreliable engine ever in
F1 -- at least it looked like that, because it always exploded instead of
just stopping. Mercedes-Ilmor '95 and '96 were reliable, but '95 car was a
catastrophe. '97 Mercedes-Ilmor was, once again, very unreliable, because
of a couple of design flaws.

                                                                Tuomo