I mean him being a complete dick sometimes. Sure everyone hates media and he wants to concentrate when racing but he doesn't have to behave like that.
And giving a **** about his drinking is already too late since world thi-I mean knows that finns are drunks.
He had a bad period? So what. Alonso had a bad period in 04, 07, early 08 and some periods of 09 too. Hamilton in 2011 too. Vettel in 2010 and 2012 had some bad periods too.
If you're going to make an argument, atleast make it 2 sided. I mean, you've missed out France where he was leading from pole until an exhaust issue. However, he's the luckiest driver in Formula 1 . He was also going great in Silverstone until the team made a strategy error with the tyres, they put worn intermediates on and it started to rain again, and after that he couldn't switch on the tyres - an issue that plaged the Ferrari all season in those conditions. He finished 4th on a day that Massa could barely keep his car pointing straight. If Alonso did that, he would be a god.
Thats a characteristic of modern Ferrari's. The amount they turn in the car doesn't have to mean anything, it could be just that they have different steering settings. Its a very "simplistic" approach to say someone who likes oversteer would use less steering lock
Put words into peoples mouths and say 1 persons opinion represents an entire country. Hate...
So when Massa gets new parts over Kimi in 08, thats logical and Kimi's fault but when Kimi gets new parts over Grosjean thats something to hold Kimi back for?
Someone went into the pitlane while he was trying to pass them at Monaco, and it cost him a position. His team told him he had time for 1 more lap at Australia, and he didn't so he didnt even make it out of Q1. He had no KERS at the start of the Hungarian GP which cost him the first stint behind Alonso, wich arguably cost him the win. But ye, no bad luck
But you're an F1 expert, but yet got so much wrong in your post. Good job mate
Vettel and Raikkonen are the two most naturally gifted F1 drivers this millennium. One works at it, and will become, statistically, the greatest of all time. The other does work at it, but his James Hunt esque character will make him a favourite for many more people in 20 years time.
Massa will be forgotten.
Hamilton will be remembered by geeks, but not by normal fans
Schumacher will be considered like Fangio.
Alonso will be remembered as being one of the best all-rounders ever, a bit like Prost.
Vettel's records will be beaten within 6 years of him setting them.
Just to clear some things, Kovalainen was, if I remember correctly, once or twice in 2008 with the same fuel strategy as Hamilton. And those times he was ahead of Hamilton in the qualifying. At the time it was actually quite often calculated how much fuel was needed per lap and how much that weighted and how much that weight affected the lap times. No doubt you can remember this. Kovalainen lost to Hamilton in almost every qualifying because his car was around 0.5 seconds slower. His race pace is a completely different story but it is undeniable that Kovalainen wouldn't have won a lot more qualifyings. In Q2 Kovalainen was at least 0.1s faster than Hamilton 5 times, there were 6 races where their Q2 time was within 0.1s and Hamilton was at least 0.1s faster in 7 races. Kovalainen was very even in qualifying with Hamilton in Q2. In media it was often calculated that had Kovalainen had as much fuel as Hamilton he would've been faster in I think about 50% of the qualis. Kovalainen's tactics were shit and they never worked that was Mclaren's fault not his and his image suffered a lot because nobody looks at facts but only your positions in the grid and in the finish line. He lost his confidence and ended up with horrible 2009 season and losing his job. Also Hamilton had in at least half of the races newer parts than Kovalainen because for some reason they only had time or materials to make just one of the upgrades for the race. You know this as well as I do. I'm not saying Kovalainen was better than Hamilton as a driver but he was a lot better than any of you give him credit and I think he applies rather well to the context I used him in my previous post.
Juzaa, Kovalainen was outclassed at McLaren there's no way around it. He's a decent driver and maybe now he's actually a better driver than he was but at McLaren he was ungodly slow 90% of the time compared to Hamilton.
You don't like Hamilton anyway, maybe this is the reason why, but if you think McLaren <3 Hamilton then how did Button manage to come to the team and seem to mould the team around him no problems and Lewis seemed like an outsider (maybe that's why he left for Merc).
I think that's one of the overlooked elements of a really good driver. Honestly, I bet all of the drivers (at least the non-pay ones) are almost exactly the same pace if they have the car driving like they want it to. It's the ability to fix a car you don't like or adapt yourself to the car's style that makes good drivers truly great.
I feel like that's something Button did that Kovalainen didn't. As for Hamilton, I know the McLaren has been slow at times but I feel like he hasn't had the sort of experience with this that other drivers have. Hopefully we'll get to see how he deals with it at Mercedes next year.
Blueflame just check the numbers I gave. They are 100% correct and I stand by them. Mclaren learned from their mistake with Alonso and got Hamilton a second driver who was given completely different tactics. Kovalainen even said in few of the interviews that it'd be nice to once start with a light fuel setup.
You are right that I don't like Hamilton's character (I prefer Button a lot more) but I've NEVER questioned his speed. All I'm saying is that Kovalainen was about as fast in qualifying as Hamilton was in 2008. Statistics from that season support that statement. Check it if you don't believe me, you can find the qualifying times from Formula 1's official website.
Kovalainen's race pace was off (as I've already mentioned but you don't seem to read) which was as much his as the fuel setups fault since he suffered a lot from his tactics. He was slower in races than Hamilton but in no way did Hamilton make Kovalainen look like a fool. That was Mclaren, and Mclaren only.
2009, that is another story and is mainly focused on Kovalainen losing his confidence in himself and the team.
The reason why Button found home at Mclaren is as much about his speed as his character. Hamilton is arrogant and annoying while everyone likes Button as everything in him is what you'd expect from a British driver. Class, style, humility(at least compared to some other F1 drivers), consistency with tires and of course, speed. He's not as fast as Hamilton but easier to work with.
It's actually funny that here everyone who dislikes a driver seems to believe that driver is almost nothing and deserves nothing. Vettel, Räikkönen, Schumacher. I'm betting you don't dislike Kovalainen but you rather never cared about him or followed him which is why you don't know he always had large fuel load and was actually about as fast as Hamilton in Q2's in 2008 (Q2 times are easy to check through F1 webpage if you don't believe me).
It's the same if you ask about Heidfeld from me, I have no recollection of his driving, only some generic comments about how he was supposed to be the next top driver but lost his chance to go to Mclaren as Kimi was a better driver. That actually tells nothing about the guy but still shows some bias as I already have a way I think I should feel about the guy. Same with you and Kovalainen. At times the feelings are right and at times wrong, you just need to either dig to the facts or have someone to explain them to you (assuming you can admit to yourself that you actually don't remember much)
No, don't say that, because it's nonsense. Nose cones are solid structures.
Nobody knows exactly what Red Bull are doing, but it appears to be a flexible skin over the camera pods and wing pylons. The wing and nose pass all the FIA tests, so what they're doing is very clever but currently within the rules. Maybe there are springs and hinges (unlikely as it'd get found out quickly), maybe it's a complex carbon lay up (very likely given recent CFD/FEA advances).
you must be blind then
at ~0:15 you can see the tip of the nosecone (first 10-15cm of it) deform and break away and by the looks of it its not part of the nose crash structure (presumably to allow modifications to the shape of the nose without having to go through crash testing again)
my guess is the tip not being part of the rigid crash structure is probably made from very few layers of carbon (the small frontal area of it means it doesnt have to bear a lot of load and it should get a lot of strength from its round shape so they can probably get away with a very thin layup) which has obvious advantages considering the nose is fairly high up on the car
if that bit breaks it will lose a lot of its rigidity and will easily bend as much as you can see on the red bull