@@nisu_unn Did you watch the stint? 35 seconds in 15 laps. Alonso was nowhere near the lapped car, who was none other than Jarno Trulli, a so-called master of Monaco
seriously, what a grid this was in 2005...kimi, the michael, alonso, quick nick, montoya, trulli, fisi, ralf, webber, massa, rubinho, jacques, button, dc, taku...
@@James-gl5do stroll and latifi still decent, I mean stroll is the youngest podium taker and also took pole when it mattered ... And latifi recently has been good too ...like 12th in quali spa....
people used to say it was Kimis driving style that broke the cars... but they did give easy points away like when they stayed out on a dodgy tyre and it went bang
@@robmalkin6863 yeah heard this loads - in terms of raw speed, a lightning quick driver but he only knew how to drive one way. Flat out with no compromise. If we stripped back all the titles and purely judged drivers on ability in terms of overall "greatness", the reason a lot of people wouldn't put him right up at the top is due to his general car management being really poor. If you compared him to the likes of Alonso for example, they're like chalk and cheese when it comes to tyre / car management etc. The hilarious clip of Kimi not warming his tyres on the straight when at Ferrari pretty much sums him up as a driver 😂
@@apollon7341 2005 would have been his as well if it weren't for horrible reliability issues. Nurburgring was his own fault but he had 3 other races where he DNF'd from the lead due to hydraulic issues (if i recall correctly) that's 30 points lost, which was a lot back in those days.
@@lunasilvermoon2283 with the Nurburgring it wasn’t just Kimi, the team kept him out as well. Also the damage caused to the tyre wasn’t severe enough that the team wouldn’t be penalised for changing it (due to the no tyre change rule in 2005). After this GP the rules were changed to allow for such instances. But the early 200’s were a disaster for Mercedes, extremely powerful engines but they were made of glass
@@christiansimmons630 That no-tyre change rule was horrific. That was the start of the whole ''save/perserve tyres'' campaign that we're still seeing to this day.
@@lunasilvermoon2283 I mean, I sort of liked it, it was different but tbh it was done to severely peg back Ferrari as Bridgestone made tyres for them only (Jordan and Minardi didn’t have a say in development). Raikkonen put in tremendous laps with this rule, look at Spain, Monaco, Turkey, Japan, that McLaren was a beast with those tyres but yeah I’m not a fan of Pirelli now, prefer Michelin
My favourite F1 driver of all time. With sheer pace and tire management... Also knowing where grip would be in track. No one can match all these skillsets...
@Stealth Leopard nope. Kimi beat him in multiple occasions with shittier cars. Schumacher was a great driver and was at the right place at the right time. With Kimi he is a fantastic driver but was at the right place just wrong time.
@Stealth Leopard No. Alonso literally never beat MSC with a worse car. In 2004 Alonso won 0 races. The Renault was super fast at Hungary 2003 and Alonso got lucky Webber held up the field in that race.
Kimi was so good in the smaller/lighter V10/V8 cars anyone new or young to F1 needs to go back and watch him then and see just how good he was. He is just doing it for fun these days, back then he was going all out.
There's a back story to Kimi being this demonic in this stint. When the safety car came out on lap 25, a lot of the driver including the 2 Renaults came and pitted. Initially Mclaren is also going to do the same to Kimi but missed it. All seems lost but they trusted the word of a Mclaren boffin back at Woking who said Kimi could still win if they stuck to the original planned pitstop. After the safety car peeled off, Kimi immediately dropped the hammer and drive like the wind. And that's how he managed to built a sufficient gap to pit safely and rejoin in the lead.
Yeah as incredible as it may sound 35 seconds in 15 laps isn't that unbelievable. All the others had pitted and had a heavy car while he was able to just let it fly on an empty fuel tank. In today's F1 it's like he's on the soft tires while the others are on the hards. It's still incredible that he basically did 15 qualifying in a row without ending up in the wall though. That was a stint like prime Schumi would do.
Very talented driver. Shame to see him taken out of his prime early by poor cars and having teammates favored. If things went his way, he'd comfortably be a 4-time champion
I think people miss that, to me, it feels like Kimi wanted 1 (obv idk the guy so who knows). Once he got his 1 he REALLY didn't care anymore lmao, just wanted to have fun. So, I think the people who say "he would've won 4" could be right, as like '02, '03', and '05 the car was probably good enough but fate and reliability got in the way. But, I also think if he had won in '03 or '05 he would've then just been there to enjoy himself and maybe a 2nd chip or more wouldve been collateral lol. either way, dude is one of the fastest and purest drivers to ever race
@@Jorge.Painkiller not really. He could've been headed to a championship in 2008. Unfortunately at that time Santander wanted to sponsor Ferrari and pushed for Alonso to go there. That lead to a very dirty PR campaign that affected Kimi and prompted Massa up the ranks. Up to the 2008 spanish grand prix, Kimi had every ounce of passion still in him and he was leading the championship
Raikkonen deserved 2005, 2008, 2003, and maybe 2006. He got screwed over. He was so much better if a driver than Alonso, Schumacher, Hamilton. Literally anyone contesting him. He was so much better.
Kimi was good, and he didn't even really care. Imagine how good he would have been had he spent more time in the simulator and less time partying. He could have been a multi-world champion.
He partied a bit too much, but that's not what cost him more titles in my view. Kimi was let down by the car in 2003 and 2005. He drove the wheels off it and was generally let down by mechanical unreliability. He could have been in the garage 24/7, it wouldn't have prevented suspension/engine/driveshaft failures and 10-place grid penalty drops.
Kimi's talent was so monumental that the instant he got a halfway working car, he won a title in 2007. Every other year McLaren could barely get him to the grid
@@MarcosM-fj6mn the pain of watching Kimi's McLaren struggles in the early 2000's made 2007 sweeter, especially with the competition that year. Nobody could say he didn't deserve it and I always got the impression he only ever cared enough for one WDC title, so I think it was a huge relief for him too - he pretty much just enjoyed himself in F1 after that.
@@MarcosM-fj6mn nope... Kimi was the only one among the three to have two reliability dnf's and no driver error dnf ...the other two had driver error dnf's. Without a reliability factor kimi would have wrapped up that year by China
@@amalkallarackal9293 The other one's didn't have that many reliability dnfs, but they did have a lot of reliability issues that costed that crucial positions (e.g. Turkey, Brazil for Hamilton). That being said I'm still happy Kimi won, he deserved at least one wdc, if not the four he should have gotten.
Yeah...also Kimi won 6 race in 2007 vs Alonso or/and Hamilton 4...It was not luck, it was his talent that bring that wdc 2007 to kimi. Anyone who is saying it was from good luck, or becauuse Ham and Alo fighting in McLaren and ruin it for them from inside, then I think we can say than more than 90% of all wdc's of f1 history was won by luck, and other reasons, like internal problems in opponent team...so, he deserve it more than anyone in the grid, taking.account last 5 years and that 2007 year only. End of the story
Several reasons: Totally different era. The 2014 car was totally unsuited to his driving style and it suited Alonso contrary to reports. The handling was totally geared towards mass understeer on corner entry - the very thing Kimi hates. First year of the hybrids and first year back at Ferrari. Alonso had been at Ferrari for 5 seasons already. Kimi got a rookie race engineer that couldn't speak English (later fired). Santander politics. Kimi never had the upgrades Alonso had at most weekends. Kimi at his peak is faster than Alonso for sure.
Nothing is more enjoyable than a beautiful Renault R25 and a fast Mclaren MP4-20, sounding like real engines and driving fast under the sunlights in Monte Carlo
Kimi deserved the 2005 WDC 110%. Drove like a demon that year. Michael deserved his 8th title in 2006. Too bad Ferrari let him down terribly that 1 time it shouldn't have.
Michael didin't deserve shit in 2006. Crashed himself in Australia/in Monaco got demoted to the back of the grid for dumb tactics .Alonso was better driver in 2006
Some information for people who think they know about the sport: Kimi was so quick partly due to him turning up the engine settings. In this era engines werent as reliable (go figure) and you could run them on higher power out of driver choice rather than FIA restricting it like they do now. As a result, Kimi was demon quick but his engine kept blowing up. Thats why he also DNF'd over and over. He was gambling on being quicker and making it to the end of the race. Ofc he has a wealth of skill and was very quick naturally. But he isnt the greatest to ever do it. Thats Lewis for modern F1 (1994-----) For retro F1 Id argue Jim Clarke or Niki Lauda, with Ayrton at a close second.
That is not true, the reason was because of McLaren's review processes which were antiquated. It wasn't just engines blowing up. It was driveshafts, hydraulics, suspension arms, heat shields etc. Whatever the engine settings, Kimi was the fastest in F1. His speed came from his mastery of the Michelin tyre more than anything.
@@ciaronsmith4995 nope. I agree that McLaren werent great at producing reliable machines, their rear wing failures are some of my favourite moments lol, BUT Kimi turning up the engine is definitely a factor. Running an engine at a higher output puts strain on every other part of the car too. It was a mix, but people often overlook the old rules that allowed drivers to do this, and they think Kimi is the greatest to ever do it. He’s not, but he sure was something special, and a GREAT personality for the sport.
@@ciaronsmith4995 theres not a lot of evidence for a lot of things. No evidence that the track actually moved for Senna, no evidence that there was a tiny crack in Kimi's monocoque that one time. No evidence that Schumacher purposefully crashed into Damon Hill that one time. Manipulating the engine settings to make sure you make it to the end of the race used to be a MASSIVE factor.
@@stevenshakespear8855 mazepin is not a real driver. the only evidence we know is russel replacing hamilton without knowing the car and a wrong seat and he beat the fuck out of bottas and everyone else
New age F1 fans will never understand why old heads put Kimi on the same level as Michael and Senna in terms of pace. When he had the fire in him, he was the best driver on the grid. Only reliability and bad luck fucked him over big times and nearly cost him the 2007 title aswell. 2007 should've been an easy cake walk. Also this race proves how we need refuelling back.
It just reminds me what Schumacher did a year later in the race. He nearly passed everyone on the track. Last week we saw it was impossible to pass someone even if you are 3 second faster. Was it really impossible?
Kimi was fast, yeah. But you guys should not forget that those 5.6 seconds in one lap are not the same as 5.6 these days. These days every driver is on the same fuel load which makes a big difference to the times when each driver was on different strategy carrying more/less fuel in the beginning etc..
Don't destroy their buble.CiaronSmith is biggest clown in F1 yt comunity together with MR_T and FireBolt these people don't listen to logic or facts only thing they do is bend facts to fit their narative and arguments
back when F1 cars looked like F1 cars, not some oversophisticated, pregnant, huge asphalt boats that they can't even design proper tires for any more to cope with the energy levels
@@srivatsansenthilkumar9582 Incorrect. Kimi destroyed Michael in this race and backed off before his stop as he had more than enough margin. That's the only reason MSC set some comparable lap times. Schumacher was barely quicker than Rubens in this race.
Mad to think that in two alternative universes, by changing only the smallest number of things, we could have had a Kimi with 2 or 3 titles and another with no titles at all... Don't think you could say that about many drivers in F1 history.
Kimi wasn't consistently pulling 4 second gap every race like Seb did in his prime but goddamn, over 5 seconds faster than the rest is unprecedented, especially in Monaco. That's probably equivalent to 7 or 8 second in a normal circuit. Mclaren truly wasted his full potential
F1 was so great back then. Better sounding cars.. also smaller cars which could pass one another. Now they are so fat and wide that Monaco is decided on saturday Q3.
Kart racing in America overall provides the better experience. At the very least the winner is not often obvious. And F1 has the follow the leader Monaco race and the Americans have Indy 500.
The good old days of Mclaren ran by Ron Dennis, Newey designing the car, illmor berylium engines... No wonder the Mclaren was said by Brundle to be 'beautful, and subtle'.
In this race Kimi was on Fire , yeah back in time there are different loads but Kimi was in own league that day he recoverrd After a McLaren strategic error with fast laps
What is James Allen smoking ffs? Safety car did not help Kimi, in fact it made his race more complicated if anything, he was on for an easy win anyway before SC.
There are a few things to be considered here. First, the Renault refuelled on lap 25 and topped up the tank to get to the end of the race. That's 53 laps of fuel. At the time, the fuel consumption was about 2 kg of petrol a lap, so roughly 106 kg. Raikkonen stopped on lap 42, so he was carrying 17 laps of fuel, 34 kg. An advantage of 72 kg. 10 kg of fuel costed around 2 tenths per lap back then in Monacc. So just the fuel itself gave Kimi 1"4 per lap of pace advantage. Not to mention the McLaren was 0"5 quicker than the Renault on the qualifying. So this adds up to 1"9 per lap. Last but not least, the Renault made a wrong compound choice, too soft, which dramatically worsened because of the huge amount of fuel the French car had (just see from this video how Fernando was struggling, and how much he struggled the whole race, being overtaken by the Williams and being caught at the end of the race by Montoya, the Schumacher brothers and Barrichello that were almost a lap down). Long story short, it was a great drive by Kimi, but he had a way better car (his fastest lap was 0"7 better than the Renault), way less weight and better tyres.
Ok let's consider Alonso being passed by 2 Williams cars, burning his rear tyres up, and getting outqualified in the low fuel quali session by half a second and losing to Jarno Trulli the year before as well. Kimi was just stronger.
@@ciaronsmith4995 considering you bring up alonso “losing” to trulli that one time in 2003, we should bring up more instances of kimi being absolutely destroyed by his teammates such as massa , alonso , vettel , giovinazzi
partly it was due to Kimi‘s speed. but partly also due to the tyres dying on the Renault cars. You can see the tail lights on the Renault cars blinking. Both drivers had to switch their traction control to the „rain“ setting in order not to crash out.
That was very unjust. Ferrari were forced to throw away all their advancement in 2004 and start from scratch for some diabolic new regulations designed to be anti-Ferrari.
this reminded me of the jacked doge and puny doge meme. to think that after 38 laps tyres are still healthy despite racking up fastest laps on fastest laps.....definitely can't happen now a days
