planetf1.com

Chunky wrote:Do you:

a) Go to the team which has never made a half decent turbo engine so it doesn't bode well for next year.

Oh really? Who won WCC 1982&1983, and was 2nd 1984&1985?

EverestBaseCamp wrote:

PrancingRocket_ wrote: Everest, Kimi was Mclaren's number 1 option to race alongside Hamilton. The reason they picked Button was because JB was willing to race for a 6 million pound salary, where as Kimi wanted more than that.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2009/n ... laren-snub

and

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/formul ... talls.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsp ... 365967.stm

Mclaren couldn't afford to have Kimi, their budget to have him was 6 million, he rejected that because leaving would give him more money.

Please read the sources i posted above before you reply. It clearly states that both mclaren and Kimi were interested with a 2010 partnership, but Mclaren chose Button because Button was willing to drive for 6 million pounds a year where as kimi wanted more than that. Therefore he did have the choice for racing for Mclaren in 2010, but he chose to leave as it gave him more money because he'd make more money leaving F-1 and sitting at home than he would make by racing for Mclaren.

"They couldn't afford him," "It wasn't in his interests to race for what they were offering so he's going to go rallying instead." That is what kimi's manager said about the Mclaren deal.

You are missing the point very badly!!

He had a Contract to drive a "Ferrari" in 2010. Ferrari broke that contract.... so he left Formula 1!! End of Story!

Thereafter, Driving for "Mclaren, Toyota, Mercedes or Sauber" in 2010 wasn't what his "Broken" Contract stated..... just like he didn't get hired by Williams for 2012 although he started negotiations with them.

Money Money Money... you must ask Ferrari why they didn't honour Kimi's Contract for 2010 if you are so desperate for him to have driven in Formula 1 back then... not question Kimi Raikkonen or Mclaren.

How am i missing the point? You claimed that Raikkonen didn't leave Formula-One for money, when in reality he did. I gave you sources to show he did. Kimi had a seat at mclaren waiting for him, but he wanted more than 6 million to drive, so HE decided to reject the Mclaren offer and leave F-1, as he would earn more money if he left F-1 than if he raced for Mclaren, So he did indeed leave F-1 for money.

EverestBaseCamp wrote: speedfreak95....
-Can anyone show me where I called Lotus a "Midfield" Car"??

-I called Lotus a "MidField Team" with their budget that can't even pay Kimi's Salary... and that Kimi is outperforming some Big Boys in TOP TEAMS driving for a "MidField Budgeted Team", who lack Development money to push forward unlike a Ferrari, RedBull or Mercedes.

Kimi Raikkonen being 2nd in the WDC is a pretty shame for drivers driving 1 RedBull, 2 Ferrari & 2 Mercedes. Now, People can look at excuse why these certain drivers are behind a guy who is forever demotivated, lacks development skills and is lazy and is getting delayed Salary... but it's not a Fluke.

He did the same to Top Teams in 2012 as well... with the exception of 1 RedBull & 1 Ferrari. It's not Kimi's fault that the Top Driver/Top Team combo he's currently beating cannot get their act together and get constantly outperformed by a Lotus... even though they got massive resources to "Fix" them.

Maybe they lack Kimi's Feedback & Setup skills, maybe they don't. But I never called Lotus a "Midfield Car". It's a good car... and Kimi is maximizing it to great effect.

Which in turn has made him the Centre of the Driver Market for 2014!

Do you ever tone it down? In almost every post, you get aggressive with whoever you are posting with, and you make claims as though they are irrefutable fact when they are merely your OPINION. A number of people in here have called you on this and you just keep on doing over and over again. It is one thing to state your opinion, everyone is entitled to that. It is something else however to continually come up with outrageous or over-the-top statements/claims and then insist they are "fact".

-I called Lotus a "MidField Team" with their budget that can't even pay Kimi's Salary

I have yet to see any mention of Kimi not being paid. got proof of it, or is that just another of your over the top statements. Perhaps it is true, but I would have thought we would see a lot more talk of it. As for next year, Lotus may or may not be paying Kimi's salary, so far all we know is speculation that Kimi is leaving. However, even he does, it does not mean that Lotus could not afford to pay him, only that they chose not to.

Kimi Raikkonen being 2nd in the WDC is a pretty shame for drivers driving 1 RedBull, 2 Ferrari & 2 Mercedes.

More of your opinion, not fact... those other drivers are not shamed because of Kimi, except in your mind. There are many things that contribute to championship standings, and although you are quick to dismiss anything that does not push your Kimi pedestal ever higher, they are factors. Nor is the season over.

He left Formula 1 because Ferrari broke his Valid, Legally-binding Contract for 2010!

Did they? I understood that the two sides agreed to terminate the Valid, Legally-Binding Contract for 2010. Was the process initiated by Ferrari? Apparently so. Was it "broken", not necessarily. Had Ferrari "broken" the Valid, Legally-binding Contract", then they would have been subject to a lawsuit most likely, which is why an agreement was made that allowed Kimi to get a year's salary for not driving. Just doesn't sound as good for your purposes though does it?

Please get your facts correct, because it becomes useless to put forth an argument with ill-informed people otherwise! Every thing else is "conjecture" thereafter from your part

You have repeatedly posted things that are not facts, and then blasted those who have pointed that out to you, basecamp. Your opinions are often "conjecture", or even ill-informed, so for you to call others on it is quite rich.

Before you post another "I can't be bothered" reply, understand that I am not and have not put down Kimi, who I think is doing a fine job this year, more power to him. Should he come to Ferrari next year, I will support him just as I do Nando & Massa now.

What am fed up with is the manner of posting and the wild claims. Others appear to be feeling that way as well, so why not tone it down?

speedfreak95 wrote:
Well you can immediately remove Ferrari from the equation as their car is worse than the Lotus' anyway. It's not always about the money, it's about the car too. If Lotus had the same budget as Ferrari, RBR and Merc, and he was in the same position as he is in now, would that makes his performances less impressive? No.

No one is saying it's a fluke, i never said it was a fluke, those are your words. Again being outperformed by Lotus isn't impressive considering they have the 3rd best package. Who cares that it has a midfield budget. Button won the 2009 world drivers championship in a team which ran out of money 3/4 of the way through the season. Alonso won 2 WDC's 2005/2006 in the same team that Raikkonen is with now, with the same budget deficit in relation to the top spenders in F1 over those 2 years, they had 100 million less spending money than Mclaren, ferrari, toyota in 2005 and 2006 .It's not extraordinary that Kimi is doing as well as he is, as it's not always about the budget, it's about the car that's made.

To be fair, had Alonso not had that DRS issue in bahrain, and been unbelievably unlucky in malaysia (Yes it was his fault for hitting Vettel, but we've seen front wing hits much more devastating than that, and the wing of the car doesn't fall of) and had Hamilton not had that blowout in great britain and Vettel DNF in Great Britain, Kimi would be 4th in the WDC with Alonso 2nd and Lewis 3rd, and Vettel's lead would be larger than 38 points to Kimi. Therefore leaving Kimi in the 3rd fastest car (currently) - 4th, Hamilton in the 2nd fastest car (currently) - 3rd (my opinion, it's really tight between RBR and Merc), Alonso in the 4th fastest car (currently) - 2nd, and Vettel in the fastest car (currently) - 1st.

Out of the top 4, Kimi has had the least amount of bad luck.

he's arguably been one of the best performers of the first half of the season, no doubt about that. He's done an absolutely terrific job, but you have to consider the situation too. He's been lucky as well.

Lotus have been quicker than Ferrari in only the past 2 races. And in Bahrain, Ferrari did advise Alonso to not open DRS so he possibly cost himself a podium position. If you are saying that Alonso was unlucky in Malaysia, then Kimi was unlucky in monaco.This is without taking into account his slow pitstop in Canada or the strategy mess up in Silverstone. So Kimi has been unlucky.
What amuses me most is that as a supposed Raikkonen fan, you overlooked all these incidents. Weird.

To the ones criticizing Kimi for taking the money and leaving; If someone offered you several million to take a couple years off from a job you've grown tired of to spend time with a hobby you've dreamed about for years and years, you'd not take it right?

BBC and Finland's media taken by Ferrari - Kimi's contract is signed - SuomiF1
14.08.2013 22:03 | Formula 1 | (Translate- Nicole @ Racingnerds)

Today on Wednesday 14th August 2013, BBC published an article to which they boldly gave the headline ”Kimi Raikkonen link has ’no foundation’, say Ferrari”. The headline is boldly formed, since the quoted part is not found in the article itself. The only thing related to Ferrari is their publicists comment word for word:- "At the moment we are really not thinking about the situation in the driver markets."

For those who have followed F1 and Ferrari more closely, that sentence surely is familiar. Ferrari's spokesman said the exact same thing immediately after German Sport Bild -magazine scooped that Ferrari had made Kimi Räikkönen an offer.

Ferrari's clever media trick
The same week on August 1st SuomiF1-website published as the first media in the world the information that Räikkönen had already signed the contract with Ferrari. I added in the same article the above mentioned quote from Ferrari's publicist and opened it up more closely:

The sentence was interpreted in the media so that Ferrari denies Sport Bild -magazine's information. As a matter of fact their lack of interest in driver markets probably stems from them already having Räikkönen's name in the contract and hence they have no need to look elsewhere.

Now the majority of Finnish media and BBC are once again taken by Ferrari's clever wordplay. It's significant how Ilta-Sanomat is the only one from the mainstream of Finland's media who hasn't translated the news from BBC (at least while I am writing this). We should keep in mind that IS published as early as yesterday their news about Kimi's contract with Ferrari basing it on their own sources.

Since both SuomiF1 and IS know about the existance of Räikkönen's Ferrari-contract, it would be crazy to publish BBC:s article in their own media.

Can a young media scoop Kimi's contract?
Since we were the first one to publish Kimi's Ferrari-contract the social media was filled with both suspicion and also with hope that "it would be nice if a smaller media would succeed".

Sentences like how can "some SuomiF1" be the first one to know anything about these kind of news stemmed from suspicion. Our 2-year old media's young age became the criterion of reliability, not the fact that doers behind our website have been in the business starting from year 1996 - like for example yours truly.

I have however wondered how the worldwide scoop I wrote two years ago, about Schalke's concrete interest in Teemu Pukki, was quoted very widely in the Finnish media. When publishing that news our SuomiFutis-website was exactly four days old! Three days after the news the contract was sealed and confirmed.

I stand personally by the source of my Kimi-news and also by the information that Räikkönen's contract with Ferrari is already signed. Ferrari's sneaky wordplay doesn't waver itone bit.

Pekka Franck (Twitter @PekkaFranck)
The author has worked in the media starting from year 1996. He lived in Germany during 1998-2006 while working as a correspondant for Veikkaaja-magazine and Ilta-Sanomat among others, writing mainly about football and F1.
http://www.suomif1.com/2013/08/kommentt ... rjoitettu/

PrancingRocket_ wrote:

EverestBaseCamp wrote:

PrancingRocket_ wrote: Everest, Kimi was Mclaren's number 1 option to race alongside Hamilton. The reason they picked Button was because JB was willing to race for a 6 million pound salary, where as Kimi wanted more than that.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2009/n ... laren-snub

and

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/formul ... talls.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsp ... 365967.stm

Mclaren couldn't afford to have Kimi, their budget to have him was 6 million, he rejected that because leaving would give him more money.

Please read the sources i posted above before you reply. It clearly states that both mclaren and Kimi were interested with a 2010 partnership, but Mclaren chose Button because Button was willing to drive for 6 million pounds a year where as kimi wanted more than that. Therefore he did have the choice for racing for Mclaren in 2010, but he chose to leave as it gave him more money because he'd make more money leaving F-1 and sitting at home than he would make by racing for Mclaren.

"They couldn't afford him," "It wasn't in his interests to race for what they were offering so he's going to go rallying instead." That is what kimi's manager said about the Mclaren deal.

You are missing the point very badly!!

He had a Contract to drive a "Ferrari" in 2010. Ferrari broke that contract.... so he left Formula 1!! End of Story!

Thereafter, Driving for "Mclaren, Toyota, Mercedes or Sauber" in 2010 wasn't what his "Broken" Contract stated..... just like he didn't get hired by Williams for 2012 although he started negotiations with them.

Money Money Money... you must ask Ferrari why they didn't honour Kimi's Contract for 2010 if you are so desperate for him to have driven in Formula 1 back then... not question Kimi Raikkonen or Mclaren.

How am i missing the point? You claimed that Raikkonen didn't leave Formula-One for money, when in reality he did. I gave you sources to show he did. Kimi had a seat at mclaren waiting for him, but he wanted more than 6 million to drive, so HE decided to reject the Mclaren offer and leave F-1, as he would earn more money if he left F-1 than if he raced for Mclaren, So he did indeed leave F-1 for money.

Ferrari gave Kimi Raikkonen $25Million for breaking his Contract & Buying out a Corporate Legal Litigation.

Kimi getting paid to leave Formula 1 got nothing to do with Mclaren. Get over it

EverestBaseCamp wrote:

PrancingRocket_ wrote:

EverestBaseCamp wrote:

PrancingRocket_ wrote: Everest, Kimi was Mclaren's number 1 option to race alongside Hamilton. The reason they picked Button was because JB was willing to race for a 6 million pound salary, where as Kimi wanted more than that.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2009/n ... laren-snub

and

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/formul ... talls.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsp ... 365967.stm

Mclaren couldn't afford to have Kimi, their budget to have him was 6 million, he rejected that because leaving would give him more money.

Please read the sources i posted above before you reply. It clearly states that both mclaren and Kimi were interested with a 2010 partnership, but Mclaren chose Button because Button was willing to drive for 6 million pounds a year where as kimi wanted more than that. Therefore he did have the choice for racing for Mclaren in 2010, but he chose to leave as it gave him more money because he'd make more money leaving F-1 and sitting at home than he would make by racing for Mclaren.

"They couldn't afford him," "It wasn't in his interests to race for what they were offering so he's going to go rallying instead." That is what kimi's manager said about the Mclaren deal.

You are missing the point very badly!!

He had a Contract to drive a "Ferrari" in 2010. Ferrari broke that contract.... so he left Formula 1!! End of Story!

Thereafter, Driving for "Mclaren, Toyota, Mercedes or Sauber" in 2010 wasn't what his "Broken" Contract stated..... just like he didn't get hired by Williams for 2012 although he started negotiations with them.

Money Money Money... you must ask Ferrari why they didn't honour Kimi's Contract for 2010 if you are so desperate for him to have driven in Formula 1 back then... not question Kimi Raikkonen or Mclaren.

How am i missing the point? You claimed that Raikkonen didn't leave Formula-One for money, when in reality he did. I gave you sources to show he did. Kimi had a seat at mclaren waiting for him, but he wanted more than 6 million to drive, so HE decided to reject the Mclaren offer and leave F-1, as he would earn more money if he left F-1 than if he raced for Mclaren, So he did indeed leave F-1 for money.

Ferrari gave Kimi Raikkonen $25Million for breaking his Contract & leave Formula 1.
So Kimi left Formula 1. Get over it

Exactly, which is more than what mclaren were willing to give him if he were to drive for them, hence why he left F-1. No one is criticizing Kimi's decision to leave or criticizing him on leaving F-1 for money. You seem to be the only one that's taking it that way. Especially when it's a fact that he did leave F-1 for money, otherwise he would've taken the Mclaren drive. You need to "get over it" and get your own facts right, rather than blurting out anything you want whilst criticizing and insulting others without any solid backing.

PrancingRocket_ wrote: Exactly, which is more than what mclaren were willing to give him if he were to drive for them, hence why he left F-1. No one is criticizing Kimi's decision to leave or criticizing him on leaving F-1 for money. You seem to be the only one that's taking it that way.

Especially when it's a fact that he did leave F-1 for money, otherwise he would've taken the Mclaren drive. You need to "get over it" and get your own facts right, rather than blurting out anything you want without any solid backing.

That is NOT a Fact! He didn't leave Formula 1 for Money

He left Formula 1 because Ferrari "Paid" him that "Money" to leave Formula 1. Get your facts correct. Kimi would have driven a Ferrari in 2010, i.e. Formula 1, if Ferrari honoured their contract.

sandyf1 wrote:

speedfreak95 wrote:
Well you can immediately remove Ferrari from the equation as their car is worse than the Lotus' anyway. It's not always about the money, it's about the car too. If Lotus had the same budget as Ferrari, RBR and Merc, and he was in the same position as he is in now, would that makes his performances less impressive? No.

No one is saying it's a fluke, i never said it was a fluke, those are your words. Again being outperformed by Lotus isn't impressive considering they have the 3rd best package. Who cares that it has a midfield budget. Button won the 2009 world drivers championship in a team which ran out of money 3/4 of the way through the season. Alonso won 2 WDC's 2005/2006 in the same team that Raikkonen is with now, with the same budget deficit in relation to the top spenders in F1 over those 2 years, they had 100 million less spending money than Mclaren, ferrari, toyota in 2005 and 2006 .It's not extraordinary that Kimi is doing as well as he is, as it's not always about the budget, it's about the car that's made.

To be fair, had Alonso not had that DRS issue in bahrain, and been unbelievably unlucky in malaysia (Yes it was his fault for hitting Vettel, but we've seen front wing hits much more devastating than that, and the wing of the car doesn't fall of) and had Hamilton not had that blowout in great britain and Vettel DNF in Great Britain, Kimi would be 4th in the WDC with Alonso 2nd and Lewis 3rd, and Vettel's lead would be larger than 38 points to Kimi. Therefore leaving Kimi in the 3rd fastest car (currently) - 4th, Hamilton in the 2nd fastest car (currently) - 3rd (my opinion, it's really tight between RBR and Merc), Alonso in the 4th fastest car (currently) - 2nd, and Vettel in the fastest car (currently) - 1st.

Out of the top 4, Kimi has had the least amount of bad luck.

he's arguably been one of the best performers of the first half of the season, no doubt about that. He's done an absolutely terrific job, but you have to consider the situation too. He's been lucky as well.

Lotus have been quicker than Ferrari in only the past 2 races. And in Bahrain, Ferrari did advise Alonso to not open DRS so he possibly cost himself a podium position. If you are saying that Alonso was unlucky in Malaysia, then Kimi was unlucky in monaco.This is without taking into account his slow pitstop in Canada or the strategy mess up in Silverstone. So Kimi has been unlucky.
What amuses me most is that as a supposed Raikkonen fan, you overlooked all these incidents. Weird.

supposed fan? Just because they are trying to be objective? Since when did being a fan mean that one wasn't allowed to present a balanced view?

Zoue wrote:

sandyf1 wrote:

speedfreak95 wrote:
Well you can immediately remove Ferrari from the equation as their car is worse than the Lotus' anyway. It's not always about the money, it's about the car too. If Lotus had the same budget as Ferrari, RBR and Merc, and he was in the same position as he is in now, would that makes his performances less impressive? No.

No one is saying it's a fluke, i never said it was a fluke, those are your words. Again being outperformed by Lotus isn't impressive considering they have the 3rd best package. Who cares that it has a midfield budget. Button won the 2009 world drivers championship in a team which ran out of money 3/4 of the way through the season. Alonso won 2 WDC's 2005/2006 in the same team that Raikkonen is with now, with the same budget deficit in relation to the top spenders in F1 over those 2 years, they had 100 million less spending money than Mclaren, ferrari, toyota in 2005 and 2006 .It's not extraordinary that Kimi is doing as well as he is, as it's not always about the budget, it's about the car that's made.

To be fair, had Alonso not had that DRS issue in bahrain, and been unbelievably unlucky in malaysia (Yes it was his fault for hitting Vettel, but we've seen front wing hits much more devastating than that, and the wing of the car doesn't fall of) and had Hamilton not had that blowout in great britain and Vettel DNF in Great Britain, Kimi would be 4th in the WDC with Alonso 2nd and Lewis 3rd, and Vettel's lead would be larger than 38 points to Kimi. Therefore leaving Kimi in the 3rd fastest car (currently) - 4th, Hamilton in the 2nd fastest car (currently) - 3rd (my opinion, it's really tight between RBR and Merc), Alonso in the 4th fastest car (currently) - 2nd, and Vettel in the fastest car (currently) - 1st.

Out of the top 4, Kimi has had the least amount of bad luck.

he's arguably been one of the best performers of the first half of the season, no doubt about that. He's done an absolutely terrific job, but you have to consider the situation too. He's been lucky as well.

Lotus have been quicker than Ferrari in only the past 2 races. And in Bahrain, Ferrari did advise Alonso to not open DRS so he possibly cost himself a podium position. If you are saying that Alonso was unlucky in Malaysia, then Kimi was unlucky in monaco.This is without taking into account his slow pitstop in Canada or the strategy mess up in Silverstone. So Kimi has been unlucky.
What amuses me most is that as a supposed Raikkonen fan, you overlooked all these incidents. Weird.

supposed fan? Just because they are trying to be objective? Since when did being a fan mean that one wasn't allowed to present a balanced view?

Except it was not Balanced . It was biased towards Alonso. A balanced post would have pointed out the "luck" both driver's had.

EverestBaseCamp wrote:

PrancingRocket_ wrote: Exactly, which is more than what mclaren were willing to give him if he were to drive for them, hence why he left F-1. No one is criticizing Kimi's decision to leave or criticizing him on leaving F-1 for money. You seem to be the only one that's taking it that way.

Especially when it's a fact that he did leave F-1 for money, otherwise he would've taken the Mclaren drive. You need to "get over it" and get your own facts right, rather than blurting out anything you want without any solid backing.

That is NOT a Fact! He didn't leave Formula 1 for Money

He left Formula 1 because Ferrari "Paid" him that "Money" to leave Formula 1. Get your facts correct.

It's impossible.... it's absolutely impossible to reason with you, even when someone presents factual proof that he chose money over a mclaren seat, you still can't accept it.

He CHOSE to take the money rather than take the mclaren seat, because the money he would earn at mclaren was much less than if he were to leave the sport, it was HIS choice.

here are the links again so you can read them everest:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2009/n ... laren-snub
and
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/formul ... talls.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsp ... 365967.stm


Kimi wanted more money from Mclaren, Mclaren couldn't afford to offer more money, hence why they hired Button instead. Kimi had the seat at Mclaren for 2010 waiting for him

sandyf1 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandyf1 wrote:

speedfreak95 wrote:
Well you can immediately remove Ferrari from the equation as their car is worse than the Lotus' anyway. It's not always about the money, it's about the car too. If Lotus had the same budget as Ferrari, RBR and Merc, and he was in the same position as he is in now, would that makes his performances less impressive? No.

No one is saying it's a fluke, i never said it was a fluke, those are your words. Again being outperformed by Lotus isn't impressive considering they have the 3rd best package. Who cares that it has a midfield budget. Button won the 2009 world drivers championship in a team which ran out of money 3/4 of the way through the season. Alonso won 2 WDC's 2005/2006 in the same team that Raikkonen is with now, with the same budget deficit in relation to the top spenders in F1 over those 2 years, they had 100 million less spending money than Mclaren, ferrari, toyota in 2005 and 2006 .It's not extraordinary that Kimi is doing as well as he is, as it's not always about the budget, it's about the car that's made.

To be fair, had Alonso not had that DRS issue in bahrain, and been unbelievably unlucky in malaysia (Yes it was his fault for hitting Vettel, but we've seen front wing hits much more devastating than that, and the wing of the car doesn't fall of) and had Hamilton not had that blowout in great britain and Vettel DNF in Great Britain, Kimi would be 4th in the WDC with Alonso 2nd and Lewis 3rd, and Vettel's lead would be larger than 38 points to Kimi. Therefore leaving Kimi in the 3rd fastest car (currently) - 4th, Hamilton in the 2nd fastest car (currently) - 3rd (my opinion, it's really tight between RBR and Merc), Alonso in the 4th fastest car (currently) - 2nd, and Vettel in the fastest car (currently) - 1st.

Out of the top 4, Kimi has had the least amount of bad luck.

he's arguably been one of the best performers of the first half of the season, no doubt about that. He's done an absolutely terrific job, but you have to consider the situation too. He's been lucky as well.

Lotus have been quicker than Ferrari in only the past 2 races. And in Bahrain, Ferrari did advise Alonso to not open DRS so he possibly cost himself a podium position. If you are saying that Alonso was unlucky in Malaysia, then Kimi was unlucky in monaco.This is without taking into account his slow pitstop in Canada or the strategy mess up in Silverstone. So Kimi has been unlucky.
What amuses me most is that as a supposed Raikkonen fan, you overlooked all these incidents. Weird.

supposed fan? Just because they are trying to be objective? Since when did being a fan mean that one wasn't allowed to present a balanced view?

Except it was not Balanced . It was biased towards Alonso. A balanced post would have pointed out the "luck" both driver's had.

I don't see how you can think it was biased towards Alonso, as the OP also mentioned Hamilton and Vettel. As far as I can see he was only trying to say that the points don't tell the whole story - there's sometimes a bit of luck, too. The OP wasn't obviously favouring any driver in their post

sandyf1 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandyf1 wrote:

speedfreak95 wrote:
Well you can immediately remove Ferrari from the equation as their car is worse than the Lotus' anyway. It's not always about the money, it's about the car too. If Lotus had the same budget as Ferrari, RBR and Merc, and he was in the same position as he is in now, would that makes his performances less impressive? No.

No one is saying it's a fluke, i never said it was a fluke, those are your words. Again being outperformed by Lotus isn't impressive considering they have the 3rd best package. Who cares that it has a midfield budget. Button won the 2009 world drivers championship in a team which ran out of money 3/4 of the way through the season. Alonso won 2 WDC's 2005/2006 in the same team that Raikkonen is with now, with the same budget deficit in relation to the top spenders in F1 over those 2 years, they had 100 million less spending money than Mclaren, ferrari, toyota in 2005 and 2006 .It's not extraordinary that Kimi is doing as well as he is, as it's not always about the budget, it's about the car that's made.

To be fair, had Alonso not had that DRS issue in bahrain, and been unbelievably unlucky in malaysia (Yes it was his fault for hitting Vettel, but we've seen front wing hits much more devastating than that, and the wing of the car doesn't fall of) and had Hamilton not had that blowout in great britain and Vettel DNF in Great Britain, Kimi would be 4th in the WDC with Alonso 2nd and Lewis 3rd, and Vettel's lead would be larger than 38 points to Kimi. Therefore leaving Kimi in the 3rd fastest car (currently) - 4th, Hamilton in the 2nd fastest car (currently) - 3rd (my opinion, it's really tight between RBR and Merc), Alonso in the 4th fastest car (currently) - 2nd, and Vettel in the fastest car (currently) - 1st.

Out of the top 4, Kimi has had the least amount of bad luck.

he's arguably been one of the best performers of the first half of the season, no doubt about that. He's done an absolutely terrific job, but you have to consider the situation too. He's been lucky as well.

Lotus have been quicker than Ferrari in only the past 2 races. And in Bahrain, Ferrari did advise Alonso to not open DRS so he possibly cost himself a podium position. If you are saying that Alonso was unlucky in Malaysia, then Kimi was unlucky in monaco.This is without taking into account his slow pitstop in Canada or the strategy mess up in Silverstone. So Kimi has been unlucky.
What amuses me most is that as a supposed Raikkonen fan, you overlooked all these incidents. Weird.

supposed fan? Just because they are trying to be objective? Since when did being a fan mean that one wasn't allowed to present a balanced view?

Except it was not Balanced . It was biased towards Alonso. A balanced post would have pointed out the "luck" both driver's had.

Oh i'm sorry. Yes Kimi is the best, he's done everything the best. Kimi would have won the WDC by now if he were in Vettel's RBR. Vettel has done an absolutely crap job, as have alonso and hamilton. Hamilton should have had 10 pole positions in his Mercedes this year. and Alonso? well he should've also wrapped up the title in that Ferrari by now. Now can i be looked as a Kimi fan from your eyes?

God-sake, just because I support Kimi, doesn't mean i'm going to be biased. I try to present an unbiased view, how is it biased to alonso? I also showed Vettel and Hamilton's bad luck. Both which would have moved Hammy ahead of Kimi in the WDC and Vettel further ahead in the WDC. geez. I actually feel insulted that you would claim that i'm "supposedly a kimi fan", he's been my favourite driver for ages.

PrancingRocket_ wrote:

EverestBaseCamp wrote:

PrancingRocket_ wrote: Exactly, which is more than what mclaren were willing to give him if he were to drive for them, hence why he left F-1. No one is criticizing Kimi's decision to leave or criticizing him on leaving F-1 for money. You seem to be the only one that's taking it that way.

Especially when it's a fact that he did leave F-1 for money, otherwise he would've taken the Mclaren drive. You need to "get over it" and get your own facts right, rather than blurting out anything you want without any solid backing.

That is NOT a Fact! He didn't leave Formula 1 for Money

He left Formula 1 because Ferrari "Paid" him that "Money" to leave Formula 1. Get your facts correct.

It's impossible.... it's absolutely impossible to reason with you, even when someone presents factual proof that he chose money over a mclaren seat, you still can't accept it.

He CHOSE to take the money rather than take the mclaren seat, because the money he would earn at mclaren was much less than if he were to leave the sport, it was HIS choice.

here are the links again so you can read them everest:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2009/n ... laren-snub
and
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/formul ... talls.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsp ... 365967.stm


Kimi wanted more money from Mclaren, Mclaren couldn't afford to offer more money, hence why they hired Button instead. Kimi had the seat at Mclaren for 2010 waiting for him

Stop being obtuse!! Ferrari made the choice for Kimi to begin with. Kimi didn't chose anything on his own and would have stayed in F1 for 2010.

Him not choosing Mclaren is upto him... maybe Mclaren Negotiations wanted to treat him like a Slave or take undue advantage of Kimi's situation brought upon him by Ferrari commiting a Corporate crime for which they Paid him heavily.... so he rejected them. Seriously move on

He could even have driven for Sauber in 2010 for free... geez. He prefered RedBull/Citroen offer to Rallying from all the options available to him. He didn't force Ferrari to break his contract or pay him.

EverestBaseCamp wrote:

PrancingRocket_ wrote: Exactly, which is more than what mclaren were willing to give him if he were to drive for them, hence why he left F-1. No one is criticizing Kimi's decision to leave or criticizing him on leaving F-1 for money. You seem to be the only one that's taking it that way.

Especially when it's a fact that he did leave F-1 for money, otherwise he would've taken the Mclaren drive. You need to "get over it" and get your own facts right, rather than blurting out anything you want without any solid backing.

That is NOT a Fact! He didn't leave Formula 1 for Money

He left Formula 1 because Ferrari "Paid" him that "Money" to leave Formula 1. Get your facts correct. Kimi would have driven a Ferrari in 2010, i.e. Formula 1, if Ferrari honoured their contract.

actually, as others have been trying to say, he left Ferrari because they paid him off. That's the only fact. Why he left F1 is conjecture, but the evidence is strong that he would have forfeited some of the payoff had he joined another team. This may have been a contributing factor as to why he left F1. Certainly the rumours were that the McLaren seat was his for the taking, but that's speculation

EverestBaseCamp wrote:

PrancingRocket_ wrote:

EverestBaseCamp wrote:

PrancingRocket_ wrote: Exactly, which is more than what mclaren were willing to give him if he were to drive for them, hence why he left F-1. No one is criticizing Kimi's decision to leave or criticizing him on leaving F-1 for money. You seem to be the only one that's taking it that way.

Especially when it's a fact that he did leave F-1 for money, otherwise he would've taken the Mclaren drive. You need to "get over it" and get your own facts right, rather than blurting out anything you want without any solid backing.

That is NOT a Fact! He didn't leave Formula 1 for Money

He left Formula 1 because Ferrari "Paid" him that "Money" to leave Formula 1. Get your facts correct.

It's impossible.... it's absolutely impossible to reason with you, even when someone presents factual proof that he chose money over a mclaren seat, you still can't accept it.

He CHOSE to take the money rather than take the mclaren seat, because the money he would earn at mclaren was much less than if he were to leave the sport, it was HIS choice.

here are the links again so you can read them everest:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2009/n ... laren-snub
and
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/formul ... talls.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsp ... 365967.stm


Kimi wanted more money from Mclaren, Mclaren couldn't afford to offer more money, hence why they hired Button instead. Kimi had the seat at Mclaren for 2010 waiting for him

Stop being obtuse!! Ferrari made the choice for Kimi to begin with. Kimi didn't chose anything on his own and would have stayed in F1 for 2010.

Him not choosing Mclaren is upto him... maybe Mclaren Negotiations wanted to treat him like a Slave or take undue advantage of Kimi's situation brought upon him by Ferrari commiting a Corporate crime for which they Paid him heavily.... so he rejected them. Seriously move on

He could even have driven for Sauber in 2010 for free... geez. He prefered RedBull/Citroen offer to Rallying from all the options available to him. He didn't force Ferrari to break his contract or pay him.

So. What does that tell you Everest?!?! That means that He left Formula-1 for MONEY! as he had drives available right there for him in 2010, but he took the money offered if he would leave the sport instead!!!!!! Oh my god......

Zoue wrote:

sandyf1 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandyf1 wrote:

speedfreak95 wrote:
Well you can immediately remove Ferrari from the equation as their car is worse than the Lotus' anyway. It's not always about the money, it's about the car too. If Lotus had the same budget as Ferrari, RBR and Merc, and he was in the same position as he is in now, would that makes his performances less impressive? No.

No one is saying it's a fluke, i never said it was a fluke, those are your words. Again being outperformed by Lotus isn't impressive considering they have the 3rd best package. Who cares that it has a midfield budget. Button won the 2009 world drivers championship in a team which ran out of money 3/4 of the way through the season. Alonso won 2 WDC's 2005/2006 in the same team that Raikkonen is with now, with the same budget deficit in relation to the top spenders in F1 over those 2 years, they had 100 million less spending money than Mclaren, ferrari, toyota in 2005 and 2006 .It's not extraordinary that Kimi is doing as well as he is, as it's not always about the budget, it's about the car that's made.

To be fair, had Alonso not had that DRS issue in bahrain, and been unbelievably unlucky in malaysia (Yes it was his fault for hitting Vettel, but we've seen front wing hits much more devastating than that, and the wing of the car doesn't fall of) and had Hamilton not had that blowout in great britain and Vettel DNF in Great Britain, Kimi would be 4th in the WDC with Alonso 2nd and Lewis 3rd, and Vettel's lead would be larger than 38 points to Kimi. Therefore leaving Kimi in the 3rd fastest car (currently) - 4th, Hamilton in the 2nd fastest car (currently) - 3rd (my opinion, it's really tight between RBR and Merc), Alonso in the 4th fastest car (currently) - 2nd, and Vettel in the fastest car (currently) - 1st.

Out of the top 4, Kimi has had the least amount of bad luck.

he's arguably been one of the best performers of the first half of the season, no doubt about that. He's done an absolutely terrific job, but you have to consider the situation too. He's been lucky as well.

Lotus have been quicker than Ferrari in only the past 2 races. And in Bahrain, Ferrari did advise Alonso to not open DRS so he possibly cost himself a podium position. If you are saying that Alonso was unlucky in Malaysia, then Kimi was unlucky in monaco.This is without taking into account his slow pitstop in Canada or the strategy mess up in Silverstone. So Kimi has been unlucky.
What amuses me most is that as a supposed Raikkonen fan, you overlooked all these incidents. Weird.

supposed fan? Just because they are trying to be objective? Since when did being a fan mean that one wasn't allowed to present a balanced view?

Except it was not Balanced . It was biased towards Alonso. A balanced post would have pointed out the "luck" both driver's had.

I don't see how you can think it was biased towards Alonso, as the OP also mentioned Hamilton and Vettel. As far as I can see he was only trying to say that the points don't tell the whole story - there's sometimes a bit of luck, too. The OP wasn't obviously favouring any driver in their post

But he didn't take into account Raikkonen's bad luck.Even an unbiased fan would have taken into account all these incidents before branding a certain driver lucky. If you are a fan of a certain driver, you generally tend to focus a bit more on your favourite driver. Which is why I am questioning his ability to recall these incidents. Surely, these incidents were unlucky .

Are we talking about 2010 here or 2013?

Covalent wrote:To the ones criticizing Kimi for taking the money and leaving; If someone offered you several million to take a couple years off from a job you've grown tired of to spend time with a hobby you've dreamed about for years and years, you'd not take it right?

If I grew tired if a job and got paid a bucket of cash to leave I wouldn't be back to a job I was tired of. You will find that to the majority of drivers it's not like a job

PrancingRocket_ wrote: So. What does that tell you Everest?!?! That means that He left Formula-1 for MONEY! as he had drives available right there for him in 2010, but he took the money offered if he would leave the sport instead!!!!!! Oh my god......

No it doesn't mean Kimi left Formula 1 for Money.

It means Kimi Raikkonen left Formula 1 because Ferrari broke his 2010 Formula 1 Contract and he was left without a valid Contract to continue!

The "existence" of Mclaren negotiations and subsequent rejection isn't related to Ferrari-Raikkonen Contract Breakoff!! Or his future choices to drive in Rally. If Mclaren couldn't agree to Kimi's terms & conditions... then it's Mclaren's Choice! Kimi wan't desperate to please Mclaren to adhere to their wishes... and Kimi was more than happy not to budge from his Stance.

In the end, Kimi Raikkonen does what he wants to do with his Career Choices.

Why do you guys keep feeding trolls like EverestBaseCamp?

We lose good posters to idiot trolls. Please don't feed the trolls.

A2jdl wrote:

Covalent wrote:To the ones criticizing Kimi for taking the money and leaving; If someone offered you several million to take a couple years off from a job you've grown tired of to spend time with a hobby you've dreamed about for years and years, you'd not take it right?

If I grew tired if a job and got paid a bucket of cash to leave I wouldn't be back to a job I was tired of. You will find that to the majority of drivers it's not like a job

Sometimes people need a break from doing the same thing year in and year out. Schumacher quit F1 for the same reasons and came back. In any case, I can't speak for Kimi but it could be possible he's back because his finances no longer allow him to "screw around" in rallying. He did mention he missed racing wheel to wheel, which he doesn't get from rallying.

sandyf1 wrote: But he didn't take into account Raikkonen's bad luck.Even an unbiased fan would have taken into account all these incidents before branding a certain driver lucky.

it's semantics. He was highlighting major events which could have impacted upon the points for all the drivers at the top. He never once said Kimi didn't deserve to be where he is, just that the points don't always tell the full story and luck plays a part. You may agree or disagree but it's wrong to question a fan's loyalty just because they try to be objective.

raceman wrote:Why do you guys keep feeding trolls like EverestBaseCamp?

We lose good posters to idiot trolls. Please don't feed the trolls.

You might not agree to my opinion just like I wouldn't to yours... but calling people Trolls on a "Debate & Discussion" forum is pretty lame.

raceman wrote:Why do you guys keep feeding trolls like EverestBaseCamp?

We lose good posters to idiot trolls. Please don't feed the trolls.

A2jdl wrote:

Covalent wrote:To the ones criticizing Kimi for taking the money and leaving; If someone offered you several million to take a couple years off from a job you've grown tired of to spend time with a hobby you've dreamed about for years and years, you'd not take it right?

If I grew tired if a job and got paid a bucket of cash to leave I wouldn't be back to a job I was tired of. You will find that to the majority of drivers it's not like a job

Sometimes people need a break from doing the same thing year in and year out. Schumacher quit F1 for the same reasons and came back. In any case, I can't speak for Kimi but it could be possible he's back because his finances no longer allow him to "screw around" in rallying. He did mention he missed racing wheel to wheel, which he doesn't get from rallying.

It's just to hard to resist sometimes.

EverestBaseCamp wrote:

PrancingRocket_ wrote: So. What does that tell you Everest?!?! That means that He left Formula-1 for MONEY! as he had drives available right there for him in 2010, but he took the money offered if he would leave the sport instead!!!!!! Oh my god......

No it doesn't mean Kimi left Formula 1 for Money.

It means Kimi Raikkonen left Formula 1 because Ferrari broke his 2010 Formula 1 Contract and he was left without a valid Contract to continue!

The "existence" of Mclaren negotiations and subsequent rejection isn't related to Ferrari-Raikkonen Contract Breakoff!! Or his future choices to drive in Rally. If Mclaren couldn't agree to Kimi's terms & conditions... then it's Mclaren's Choice! Kimi wan't desperate to please Mclaren to adhere to their wishes... and Kimi was more than happy not to budge from his Stance.

In the end, Kimi Raikkonen does what he wants to do! So chill out.

Nope, it means he left Ferrari because they paid him off. Whatever happened after that is a different story. If he couldn't agree terms with another team then there is an element of choice exercised on his part which affected whether or not he stayed. It's a fact that he was in discussions with at least one other team - Kimi himself admitted McLaren was a possibility - which means that he could have stayed had he wanted to. Whatever the reasons, be they money, PR, rally days or whatever was speculated at the time, leaving Ferrari and leaving F1 were two different things. Linked, certainly, but not necessarily the same.

I agree that Kimi didn't necessarily leave F1 for money, although that may have been a significant factor. He himself said that timing of the contracts with McLaren played a part, whatever that means. But it is absolutely not true to say that he left F1 because Ferrari broke his contract. That much is speculation on your part and no amount of exclamation marks will change that

EverestBaseCamp wrote:

raceman wrote:Why do you guys keep feeding trolls like EverestBaseCamp?

We lose good posters to idiot trolls. Please don't feed the trolls.

Everest, I think you'd get a much warmer reception towards your opinions and posts if you toned it down abit and was less aggressive in the way you put forward your thoughts.

Not like this:
NO!!! You should NOT post like that if you want people to respect your posts!! END OF STORY!!!!1

See what I mean?

Zoue wrote:

EverestBaseCamp wrote:

PrancingRocket_ wrote: So. What does that tell you Everest?!?! That means that He left Formula-1 for MONEY! as he had drives available right there for him in 2010, but he took the money offered if he would leave the sport instead!!!!!! Oh my god......

No it doesn't mean Kimi left Formula 1 for Money.

It means Kimi Raikkonen left Formula 1 because Ferrari broke his 2010 Formula 1 Contract and he was left without a valid Contract to continue!

The "existence" of Mclaren negotiations and subsequent rejection isn't related to Ferrari-Raikkonen Contract Breakoff!! Or his future choices to drive in Rally. If Mclaren couldn't agree to Kimi's terms & conditions... then it's Mclaren's Choice! Kimi wan't desperate to please Mclaren to adhere to their wishes... and Kimi was more than happy not to budge from his Stance.

In the end, Kimi Raikkonen does what he wants to do! So chill out.

Nope, it means he left Ferrari because they paid him off. Whatever happened after that is a different story. If he couldn't agree terms with another team then there is an element of choice exercised on his part which affected whether or not he stayed. It's a fact that he was in discussions with at least one other team - Kimi himself admitted McLaren was a possibility - which means that he could have stayed had he wanted to. Whatever the reasons, be they money, PR, rally days or whatever was speculated at the time, leaving Ferrari and leaving F1 were two different things. Linked, certainly, but not necessarily the same.

I agree that Kimi didn't necessarily leave F1 for money, although that may have been a significant factor. He himself said that timing of the contracts with McLaren played a part, whatever that means. But it is absolutely not true to say that he left F1 because Ferrari paid him off. That much is speculation on your part and no amount of exclamation marks will change that

Now that is more factually correct than off-handed statements like "Kimi left F1 for Money".... implying that he's a greedy sod who prefers money over Formula 1.

Kimi repeated in an interview in 2012 that "his negotiations with Mclaren weren't feasible because it was for "Few Months" contract... and he didn't feel that's a right way to take up an offer for him". Can't find it, but will look out if I come across.

All I am saying is that all this wouldn't have come to pass if Ferrari had honoured their Contract with Raikkonen 2010 in the first place. So if anyone's is to blame for Kimi leaving F1... it's got to be the party that's breaking a Legal Contract.... leaving their employee in a tough situation thereafter.

Covalent wrote:

EverestBaseCamp wrote:

raceman wrote:Why do you guys keep feeding trolls like EverestBaseCamp?

We lose good posters to idiot trolls. Please don't feed the trolls.

Everest, I think you'd get a much warmer reception towards your opinions and posts if you toned it down abit and was less aggressive in the way you put forward your thoughts.

Not like this:
NO!!! You should NOT post like that if you want people to respect your posts!! END OF STORY!!!!1

See what I mean?

Cool, I understand...
...not that I agree the behaviour of the posters who are replying my posts as well

EverestBaseCamp wrote:

Covalent wrote:

EverestBaseCamp wrote:

raceman wrote:Why do you guys keep feeding trolls like EverestBaseCamp?

We lose good posters to idiot trolls. Please don't feed the trolls.

Everest, I think you'd get a much warmer reception towards your opinions and posts if you toned it down abit and was less aggressive in the way you put forward your thoughts.

Not like this:
NO!!! You should NOT post like that if you want people to respect your posts!! END OF STORY!!!!1

See what I mean?

Cool, I understand...
...not that I agree the behaviour of the posters who are replying my posts as well

First, calling someone a troll is against the forum rules. Secondly, this thread has gone long ago off topic, seems no one can discuss about Ferrari/Kimi /Alonso relatioship without going to the memory lane. NOW keep it in topic or this thread will end up locked just like the other ones.
Everest, like the fellow poster here very politely showed you, please keep you voice down and discuss, not dictate. Otherwise I have to dig my handbag and get this:

Thankyou.

EverestBaseCamp wrote:
Now that is more factually correct than off-handed statements like "Kimi left F1 for Money".... implying that he's a greedy sod who prefers money over Formula 1.

Kimi repeated in an interview in 2012 that "his negotiations with Mclaren weren't feasible because it was for "Few Months" contract... and he didn't feel that's a right way to take up an offer for him". Can't find it, but will look out if I come across.

All I am saying is that all this wouldn't have come to pass if Ferrari had honoured their Contract with Raikkonen 2010 in the first place. So if anyone's is to blame for Kimi leaving F1... it's got to be the party that's breaking a Legal Contract.... leaving their employee in a tough situation thereafter.

I too would like to see that article. As far as I'm aware he said something on the lines of "it was a timing thing," which could mean anything from the contracts were longer/shorter than he wanted, to he had only a limited amount of time to make a decision on the rallying thing and McLaren took too long etc etc. This is the first I have seen which makes the claim the contract was only for a few months. If you can find it would be interesting...

edit: sorry, Mod-White. didn't see your post until after I wrote mine

EverestBaseCamp wrote:

Covalent wrote:

EverestBaseCamp wrote:

raceman wrote:Why do you guys keep feeding trolls like EverestBaseCamp?

We lose good posters to idiot trolls. Please don't feed the trolls.

Everest, I think you'd get a much warmer reception towards your opinions and posts if you toned it down abit and was less aggressive in the way you put forward your thoughts.

Not like this:
NO!!! You should NOT post like that if you want people to respect your posts!! END OF STORY!!!!1

See what I mean?

Cool, I understand...
...not that I agree the behaviour of the posters who are replying my posts as well

Cool

Last years interview with Kimi Raikkonen and future Teams like Mclaren or Ferrari - 30 Oct 2012

Kimi Raikkonen: you never know, after Lotus I could join Ferrari or McLaren
Raikkonen said that he would not rule out a future move to any team, including Ferrari with whom he parted on bad terms after they elected to buy him out of his contract at the end of 2009 to make way for Fernando Alonso.

“Ferrari could have ended in a slightly nicer way but the people I worked with who are still there, I had a very good relationship with them and go and talk to them still,” Raikkonen said.

“You know, it’s not like I had some fight against somebody. I’m okay with everybody it’s just that things could have ended in a nicer way. But it doesn’t mean that I couldn’t go back there. You never know. I don’t know how long I will be driving for. Maybe I don’t drive for many more years.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/motors ... Laren.html

ColdWinter wrote:

Chunky wrote:Well, pretty much true to form this thread is going nowhere with all the "my bloke is better than your bloke" stuff. Even for someone like me, who supports neither of them it's losing all entertainment value. So let's come at it from the opposite direction. We'll assume just about everything being speculated is correct. You have 2 questions.............

Question1 - You are Kimi Raikkonnen

You have come back into F1 into a promising team but which has limited funds and a recent history of middle field performanance. Your stock is in the ascendency and there are 3 options on the table. Do you:

a) Go to the team which has never made a half decent turbo engine so it doesn't bode well for next year. The team that chucked you out at the behest of the major sponsor, to replace you with an evil, manipulative genius who according to all the top professional commentators is the best on the grid. The evil genius has built the team around himself and will still be there. By the way, that's the team where Massa had the measure of you until he got clonked on the head by a spring.

b) Go to the most successful team on the grid in recent years. The Renault works team, the engine supplier who was triumphant throughout the turbo years. To drive alongside arguably the weakest of the top 4 drivers on the grid, who has only once won a race in less than the best car on the grid. And that was a Torro Rosso, in the rain, with a lot of luck.

c) Just take the deal with the best money on the table.

Question 2 - You are Raikkonnen's Management

Red Bull have declared an interest in your client. But they have an alternative option and are playing hardball about money. Do you:

a) Tell your client to stay at Lotus, where the money is better.

b) Tell your client to suck it up and take the RBR drive, even though your own commission will drop.

c) Float a spurious Ferrari story in the Finnish press to get RBR to up the offer.

Congratulations if you answered c) to both questions, you win a Walls Magnum.

Pretty good Chunky.

I do think KR has a better chance of becoming the #1 driver at Ferrari. So do you think that changes his choice?

Well.......... part 2 of the quiz was going to be along the lines of what happens when Alonso, being the cunning fox he is, makes the Senna-esque offer to drive a Red Bull for free. When that all pans out to a logical conclusion, Ferrari will be left with few options and inevitably, you may very well be correct.

But there's zero chance of anyone else being number 1 at Ferrari while ever Alonso is there. It would make McLaren 2007 look like a minor argument at the bowls club over who was supposed to bring the cucumber sandwiches.

P.S wrote:

Chunky wrote:Do you:

a) Go to the team which has never made a half decent turbo engine so it doesn't bode well for next year.

Oh really? Who won WCC 1982&1983, and was 2nd 1984&1985?

One view of the Ferrari engine,

" The engine had massive turbo lag, followed by a ferocious power curve; this upset the balance of the chassis. Coupled to the chassis' hard suspension, the car tended to slide into corners before the ground effect pulled the car back on to the track. This had the undesired effects of exposing the drivers to even larger g-forces than the Williams FW07 or Brabham BT49 and making the car tend to overuse its tyres. In all it made for a very tricky driving experience"

Granted, it did get better when Harvey Postlethwaite got involved and improvements to the car were considered to have been more important than those to the engine. But in the early days it was only Ferrari and Renault with turbos, plus lowly Toleman. Once Renault, TAG and Honda got into full swing Ferrari were never leaders in the technology.

My apologies, I should have worded it something like,
a) Go to the team who had some early days turbo success when they and Renault started off, but were always outclassed once the technology matured................

But the general theme is the same. It doesn't bode well for next year.

Chunky wrote:But in the early days it was only Ferrari and Renault with turbos, plus lowly Toleman.

1982: Five teams
1983: 10 teams
1984: Every team except Tyrrell
1985: Every team

Chunky wrote:My apologies, I should have worded it something like,
a) Go to the team who had some early days turbo success when they and Renault started off, but were always outclassed once the technology matured................

But the general theme is the same. It doesn't bode well for next year.

Well, 1988 Ferrari engine was most powerful on the grid. About 2014 - Honda & Porsche won't be there.

I just don't see why you doubt Ferrari's capability of building turbocharged engine. It's nothing new and exciting like KERS was couple of years ago.

PrancingRocket_ wrote:
Everest, Kimi was Mclaren's number 1 option to race alongside Hamilton. The reason they picked Button was because JB was willing to race for a 6 million pound salary, where as Kimi wanted more than that.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2009/n ... laren-snub

and

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/formul ... talls.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsp ... 365967.stm

Mclaren couldn't afford to have Kimi, their budget to have him was 6 million, he rejected that because leaving would give him more money.

Please read the sources i posted above before you reply. It clearly states that both mclaren and Kimi were interested with a 2010 partnership, but Mclaren chose Button because Button was willing to drive for 6 million pounds a year where as kimi wanted more than that. Therefore he did have the choice for racing for Mclaren in 2010, but he chose to leave as it gave him more money because he'd make more money leaving F-1 and sitting at home than he would make by racing for Mclaren.

"They couldn't afford him," "It wasn't in his interests to race for what they were offering so he's going to go rallying instead." That is what kimi's manager said about the Mclaren deal.

1. Kimi was never McLaren's #1 option. He was Norbert Haugs #1 option. Norbert Haug even got more money from Mercedes to add to the Kimi contract so Kimi wouldn't leave to Ferrari. McLaren didn't want Kimi as Kimi ratted out McLaren to Ferrari in 2007. He told several secretes including McLaren were able to spy into Ferrari messages on the track.

2. Kimi didn't want more money simply because. He wanted McLaren to buy out the remaining Ferrari contract.

3. Ferrari never broke the contract. Kimi was a Ferrari driver in 2009 and 2010. If Kimi drove another F1 car at the same time then Kimi would brake the contract. I don't understand why people here are saying Ferrari broke the contract. The contract was never broken and Kimi came back when it expired.

EverestBaseCamp wrote:

pokerman wrote:

EverestBaseCamp wrote:

pokerman wrote:

EverestBaseCamp wrote:
They are interested In Raikkonen.

I think you missed my point

No, you are missing the whole thread! Sato scored Podiums as well.

Yes when Sato had the second fastest car and not a midfield car, when his slower teammate can finish on the podium numerous times it might suggest that he's not driving a midfield car.

Only dumb Formula 1 Fans would suggest Romain Grosjean is a "Slow" driver to suit their own agenda!!

His Race Awareness or Racecraft isn't the best or World Class like Raikkonen's (not many in F1 do)...
...but you'd do well to follow his laptimes to realize he ain't a Slow Duck just to suit/validate your personal 'misplaced' opinion on Kimi Raikkonen.

I see how you change the slower than Kimi driver into me saying that Grosjean is a slow driver, or is it that you disagree that Grosjean is slower than Kimi?

The fact that Grosjean is able to get podiums on merit surely points to the fact that the Lotus to be better than just a midfield car, or are you suggesting that Grosjean is faster than some of the drivers presently driving for Red Bull, Ferrari and Mercedes?

pokerman wrote:The fact that Grosjean is able to get podiums on merit surely points to the fact that the Lotus to be better than just a midfield car, or are you suggesting that Grosjean is faster than some of the drivers presently driving for Red Bull, Ferrari and Mercedes?

Is there really a doubt that he's not fast?

2003 Renault Speed Trophy F2000 champion
2005 French Formula Renault champion
2007 Formula 3 Euro Series champion
2008 GP2 Asia Series champion
2010 Auto GP champion
2011 GP2 Series & GP2 Asia Series champion

PrancingRocket_ wrote:

EverestBaseCamp wrote:

A2jdl wrote:

keenf1fan wrote:The last thing anybody would want, whether in f1 or your own profession is to be publicly shamed about your suitability for your job and dumped from it after being given poor tools to do the job. If Kimi ignores all this and went back to ferrari, the only reason could be money and that will be a sad excuse.

For all the control freak ron dennis was or mid-fieldy team Lotus were, they gave kimi pride of place, did not question his skills and provided him a much better working environment.

dont see kimi in ferrari whilst ldm is the head chook there. Kimi hated ldm and made no secret of it.

He did leave the F1 for money so you never know ..

He left Formula 1 because Ferrari broke his Valid, Legally-binding Contract for 2010!!

Please get your facts correct, because it becomes useless to put forth an argument with ill-informed people otherwise! Every thing else is "conjecture" thereafter from your part.

Actually Everest, Kimi had the option to race for Mclaren in 2010, but the pay would have been less than if he had left the sport. So indeed he did leave the sport for money, a seat at Mclaren was still available to him for 2010

Wasn't there two levels of payment from Ferrari, $17M if he couldn't find another seat in F1, $10M if he could, McLaren just wanted to make up the difference so Kimi would get $17M if he drove for McLaren or not, so in essence he might have seen it as driving for free?

Edit: After reading other posts it suggests he would have been on much less