I remember when Kimi came to F1, how some older drivers said that a guy that young and lacking experience would be a safety hazard. Well, he turned out to be one of the safest drivers ever.
Its because of the dirt roads which are sometimes snow/ice roads even, most of them barely dont have any barriers so if you go off you go boom, right into the trees. this makes it necessary for people living there to learn to drive very well. Thats also why rally is so popular, because the rural roads through the forests are very rally-like.
@@oharryc plus because of such dangerous conditions they have a 2 year liscence program you need to finish in order to get your liscence They teach you literally everything you became very good at car control
He is, just with a German nationality, and his father didn't bother to teach him the language, living in Germany etc. In Finland it's been traditional for men to do, not talk. Those good in languages go to other professions - these guys are those who lived their childhood and youth behind the wheel, even skipping school, if it gave them wheel time. The drivers are famous and notorius in Finland for speaking a dialect of English we call - 'Rally English'.
I would say Räikkönen also had far more bad luck than Häkkinen. 2007 was really his first year in F1 when he had some luck on his side. Kimi would have been able to win multiple championships at McLaren if it would have been up to him. But reliability problems meant that he lost, first to Michael Schumacher who he would later replace, and then to Fernando Alonso who would later replace Räikkönen but then Räikkönen would team up with him and remain in Ferrari after Alonso left - so they sort of replaced each other. And when Räikkönen fought against Schumacher and lost by few points - he did it in last year's car because McLaren's new car had been failure. And Räikkönen is one of the few drivers to have ever been re-hired by Ferrari, most iconic of F1 teams, and even though he had couple of terrible seasons they still kept him. I would say there is far more to this competition than just titles. Also far more than public ever sees, we don't see what happens behind the scene, all the development stuff. More accurate comparison would take far longer than this video. And of course they are from different eras, and in Formula 1 machines matter more than humans (drivers still matter, but when everyone in F1 is brilliant driver, it comes down to car most of the time). And of course it also is team work, team matters a lot, they are people who design, build and develop the car. This kind of comparisons can be made for fun, but they really don't tell all that much. Personally i would rank Räikkönen above Häkkinen, but it definetly is not simple to say which of them is better.
@@deliriumbee4678 about Kimi being better. Because if we are being honest he was. Fighting for title in 02 car in 03 season against fricking Schumacher is incredible achievement.
My top-5 favorite drivers of all time: M. Schumacher, Raikkonen, Hakkinen, Lauda, Piquet honorable mentions: Senna, Ascari, Clark, Hunt, Massa, Vettel, Alonso, G. Villeneuve, etc...
2008 Kimi has a good car. Just look at how masa almost got the championship. He lost because of Singapore GP pit crew error and a blew engine at the last lap of a race. Kimi on the other hand could not drive the car as well and keep crashing.
pls search in google: kimi-Ferrari 2008...... then you see why Kimi was not that good in 2008...and even Schumacher (worked for Ferrari in this time) said that it is Ferraris fault that Kimi had such a bad season and did not fight for the championship
+zhen86 F1 is more than the driver alone. Everything that happened in 2008 is just a result of Byrne, Brawn and Todt leaving Ferrari. Domenicali had a job that nobody want's to do, the load was simply too high for anyone. The car was a reflection of the team: insecure. Ferrari trying all different kind of stuff on the car which would suit either Raikkonen or Massa. Deciding which driver was better at Ferrari in 2008 is like flipping a coin.
Kimi had alot more technical issues in 2008 than Massa. Like losing victory in magnycours becose broken exhaust. Or hamilton crashing with Kimi on pitlane when Kimi had good chance for win.. Ofcourse Kimi also did mistakes during the season like losing victory at spa on final lap. Then Kimi let Massa overtake him at China for to championship. Well these races only makes 20+ points which would have put him close to first place at the end..
I think Kimi had superb pace...but for me its Hakkinen, he was much agressive on track and better wheel to wheel duelist...aldo he did some jaw dropping overtakes...
Both equally good. 20 wins on each. Both drove in their career with both McLaren and Lotus. One more world champion in the cache is more, but Räikkösä has more than half of the podiums. Hard to say who would win. David Coulthard could tell us when he drove with each other for several years.
@@zeminoidso you think Alonso is automatically worse than Hamilton for having less titles? Kimi lost 2 titles due to bad luck, against Schumacher and Alonso. Kimi is multi WDC level talent.
Kimi is not bothered by anything else, but racing. Häkkinen is more complex. But with Kimi you feel the honesty, while with Mika... He is just another F1 driver from this point of view.
Mika was just another F1 driver with near dead accidents, unbelivable problems with car reliabilities, unique and special charismar and respect from Schumi
just a small correction, kimi didn't move to Ferrari in 2003 but stayed with Mclaren for 6 years from 2001-2006. He then left to join Ferrari in 2007 and won the world title in his debut season with them.
This is an interesting comparison. Mika Häkkinen has one world championship more than Räikkönen. But Räikkönen has one GP victory more than Häkkinen. Räikkönen has 5 World Championship medals, 1 gold (2007), 2 silver (2003, 2005), 3 bronze medals (2008, 2012, 2018). Häkkinen has a three MM medals, 2 golds (1998-1999), and one silver (2000). So who has achieved more? You can have a taste. For years, David Coulthard ran as a teammate and lost to both. Coulthard has said he was not as talented as Mika or Kimi. Both Häkkinen and Räikkönen drove both with McLaren and Lotus. The Häkkinen career came only in these two teams. Räikkönen also drove with Ferrari and Sauber. In my opinion, Häkkinen is perhaps a quicker Qualifying driver. But Räikkönen is a more comprehensive and better race-driver. It must be remembered that both could be tripled world champions. Häkkinen was forced to suspend the Australian, Brazilian, and Indianapolis GPs during the 2000 season. Räikkönen's better tour would be for both the 2003 and 2005 World Champions. Häkkinen and Räikkönen otherwise reached their first pole position at Nurburgring (Häkkinen 1997, Räikkönen 2003). And Häkkinen's last victory was the victory of the US GP in 2001. And it seems that Räikkönen's last victory was also in the USA. The victory of the 2018 season in Austin. So much of the same is found in the career of both Finns. Small Finland can be happy to have three world champions, Keke Rosberg, Mika Häkkinen and Kimi Räikkönen.🏆🏆🏆
Haikkenen even on his best days was no where near as quick as Kimi of the Michellin Era! He was undoubtedly the fastest during '01-'06! Haikkenen would never match a 2005 Kimi raikkonen!
@Ovidiu Andries 03? Guy lost title by 2 points in slightly changed 2002 car. Lost it because of luck and reliability. Alex here has point. Kimi was without question able to match Alonso in those years meaning that Kimi also is incredible talent.
Raikkonen never got tired of F1, he was paid not to race for anyone else while Alonso took his seat. So he did whatever he had access to doing outside of F1, so as not to break his contract with Ferrari. So the assertion that he was tired of F1 is incorrect.
I don't think this is a close one. I really like both drivers but i remember who's the driver that took 2 years in a row the championship while facing against the GOAT Michael Schumacher. With all the respect to kimi, he was never the driver to fear from like hakkinen or schumacher. Even in 2007, he didn't thrive under ferrari and just won the championship thanks to hamilton lack of expirance.Raikonen is still one of the best drivers in his era, Hakkinen is one of the best in the sports history in my opinion.
It's a lot closer than people actually think. Hakkinen drove a car capable of being a lap faster than the whole field in 98, where even Coulthard was able to do the same,which is why he won the championship in 98. In 99, Schumacher broke his leg in silverstone, and even Irvine was able to drag himself into the championship. Before the last race, Frentzen with a Jordon was able to close down the championship, and if he wouldn't have crashed in the penultimate race, Hakkinen, Irvine and Frentzen would have been in the title contention. In 2000, up until Austria, Coulthard was the main rival of Schumacher, and from there onwards, Hakkinen got his form back. In 97 and 01, Coulthard convincingly beat Hakkinen. Now compare what Raikkonen did in his Mclaren stint. In 2002, Raikkonen had 10 DNFs to Coulthard's only 4, even then he only finished one place behind Coulthard. In 2003, arguably Raikkonen's greatest year in F1, Raikkonen with the 3rd best car on the grid and a 1 year old car almost won the championship only losing out to Schumacher by 2 points. If his engine didn't blow out in Nirburgring, he would've won the championship.In 2004, with again horrible unreliablity including 11 retirements, he still pulled out a win in Spa. In 2005, Raikkonen's second greatest year, he finally had the car to win the championship, but reliabiliy still wasn't there for Mclaren. But even then. he pulled out 7 wins from that year and one of the greatest drive in F1. Overall, a comparision could be made between Raikkonen and Hakkinen on the basis of there respective performances to Coulthard, in which Raikkonen comes out decently better than Hakkinen.
for us who are not Finnish Hakkinen is the best in f1. 2000 the system was with Ferrari...otherwise hakkinen would become the first with three consecutive championships in new f1 age.
Bold prediction but I'll agree about one thing - Kimi Raikkonen *hates* holding back and driving "tactically" and the current regulations aren't to his liking if anybody. He only knows how to drive as fast as he possibly can and race the wheels off the car. This is why he has 43 fastest laps - second only the Schumacher in the all-time fastest laps list and more than any other F1 driver currently racing. When it comes to raw speed Kimi has few peers and age doesn't seem to have slowed him down. He also needs a car set to his liking but if it is he's very tough to beat. Fact is he won the qualifying duel with 11-10 against his highly rated team-mate Vettel. Not bad. While I don't doubt Kimi will love the new faster cars with more mechanical grip and more power I have my doubts about Ferrari producing a winner that can beat Mercedes and the ever improving and faster Red Bull. It's very rare that a team goes from zero wins in one season to winning the title in the next. If the new Renault/TAG Heuer engine is any good I see Red Bull winning the 2017 title. Ricciardo will be champion. He is consistent and fast and doesn't get into trouble. Verstappen is just fast as of yet.
With only 4 engines, no longer an free practice/Friday engine allowed and no longer a 72 grid penalty as Hamilton did on Spa, 2017 will even be more about nursing the engine.
Lauri Seppä yea.. maybe spoke to soon. but you never know. Vettel doesn't seem to handle stress very well when things do go his way. he can pass but if that Mercedes is constantly getting in his way whether it be strategy or whatever. well start hearing him complaining and when that happens he somewhat breaks down
Kimi Raikkonen is the superior driver. How is this even a question? Mika was a flash in the pan, who only won when he had the most dominant car and lost to DC twice. Kimi is a true racer, has insane raw speed, race craft, race pace and has won more races than Mika. The only area Mika has a chance is qualifying, since he was very consistent there, but Kimi was better.
Well you need to watch more races where Hakkinen was wheel to wheel to understand how much better of a racer he was than pretty much anyone. Pit Raikkonen against Hakkinen today, in the same car? Hakkinen's edge for speed is insane. No one has ever some close. Maybe Gilles Villeneuve. And he was literally insane.
@@OpinionatedMonk Hakkinen was inconsistent wheel to wheel. Spa 2000 was great, but lots of times he would mess up or be anonymous in the races. Mika was also massively incident prone in his early years and was beaten by DC twice. Honestly, I like Mika, he's a great qualifier, but Kimi is a monster racer.
@@ciaronsmith4995 Fair comment, and it's hard to judge drivers against other drivers of a different era. Kimi and Mika were generations apart; I'd put money on Mika personally, as he was ultimately aggressive but knew where to draw the racing line (something Schumacher never learned, after nearly killing Barrichello). Would be interesting to see them against each other. I agree Kimi is a mean machine, but Mika is just a robot.
Nah for me Raikkonen has a bit of edge...Hakkinen got beaten by Coulthard in 3 out of 6 of his season with McLearn and was often beaten by his teammates in lotus..Whereas Raikkonen(being so young and inexperienced) just whooped coulthards ass between 2002-2004... And if you only look at the no. of championships Raikkonen was just extremely unlucky otherwise he in my eyes is a 3 time world champion(2003,2005,2007or 08)...If you are just judging Raikkonen based on his current performance then I guess you haven't witnessed what a driver he was in his prime..
Chinoo Tripathi actually you’re forgetting that early in Hakkinen’s career as Senna’s teammate, he out qualified senna in a few races. And if he really lost to coulthard then how did he win the championship? When cougars spun Hakkinen and he came back to third from last, that proves the skill difference between the two.
Austin Green Well if u compare Hakkinen and Coulthard as teammates then u can clearly see that Coulthard outperformed Hakkinen in 1997 and 2001 and was almost at par with him in 2000. Whereas with Raikkonen, they both were at par with each other in 2002 and Kimi was just in another level in 2003 and 2004. The gap between Raikkonen and Coulthard was really huge in 2003, even bigger than whatever Hakkinen has done throughout his Mclearn stint with Coulthard. At the end of the day, I think it is not that easy to pick who was the fastest between the two, both have given amazing memories to the the sport and great overtakes(Hakkinen move on Schumi in spa and Raikkonen's last lap overtake on Fisichella in Japan). Overall Hakkinen had a pretty short career (9-10 years) whereas Raikkonen is still in this sport for around 16-17 years. As of Hakkinen coming from last to 3rd, I think u should watch Suzuka 2005 (Raikkonen's signature race) and Bahrain 2006.
2003 he was stronger than schumi and 2005 he was much stronger than alonso but finish people looks like very unlucky. see mika 2000 2001 see kimi 2002 so often the teammates dont have probs. everytime kimi and mika. yea and barichello everysingle time when he leads brasilien :D
Stats your settling which driver is better with stats Ronnie Peterson has 0 titles but I hold him to a higher esteem than Lewis Hamilton who is on his way to win a 5th title.
Mika has the car balanced going in and try's to power walk it wide to the exit. Kimi brakes last possible moment to apex and then progressively blends back on. Who's the fastest. Well Damon of course
1. Qualifying. Mika is better. I consider Mika Hakkinen one of the top qualifiers and he famously outqualified Senna in their first race as team mates at McLaren. 2. Raw pace. Kimi is better. He might very well be one of the most naturally fast drivers ever. The record for most fastest laps in a season is 10, Kimi managed it *twice* (2005,2008). 3. Racecraft. Mika is better. Though Kimi's is not that far behind. 4. Consistency. Both have/had it, Mika knew his limits better though. 5. Driving smart. Mika was the smarter driver. 6. Dealing with pressure. Kimi is on top. 7. Car development skills. Hard to tell, a lot of team people rank Kimi as a great developer. 8. Shrewdness as a driver. Mika is better. 9. Team player. Mika is better. 10. Adaptability. Mika is better. Kimi only knows how to drive flat out. Mika is a more complete driver. Kimi has the raw pace but if he had Mika's composure and adaptability he'd win 3-4 titles instead of the 1 he has now.
So would Mika. He'd win the 2000 title too if not his engine giving up in three races that year. Fact is winning just one of the ones he retired from the lead and finishing 2nd in another would be sufficient to be 2000 champion.
How can u say that Hakkinen was better? His whole career screams overrated. He got outqualified by Herbert, was evenly matched with Salo in F3 , got beaten by Senna, got beaten by Coulthard in 97 and 01. 98 was his peak, but even then, bear in mind that he had the outright fastest car in his hands. Coulthard and Hakkinen used to lock the front row all the time and even then Schumacher challenged Hakkinen that year. He was awfull from late 1999 to the first half of 2000, though gained some momentum from the 2nd half of 2000. Now if u compare Raikkonen and Coulthard as teammates between 2002-04 , his gaps with Coulthard were ridiculous. Not only race, even in qualifying Coulthard was atleast 3 to 4 places down to Raikkonen. Moreover, Hakkinen never was great in wet, but Raikkonen was amazing in wet, early in his career(China 2006, Brazil 2003, Indianapolis 2003, China 2007, Hockenheim 2006).If u look at the comparision of Coulthard and Hakkinen, then it is 35-26 in races, but with Raikkonen it is 19-7 in races. Every mathematical model has ranked Hakkinen really low in comparision to Raikkonen. One of the amazing site that has done great research is this one - f1metrics.wordpress.com/2014/07/18/who-was-the-greatest-f1-driver/ . In this list, Hakkinen is ranked 56th whereas Raikkonen is ranked 14th in all time list.
Sounds good. I like metrics. However most of these comparisons tend to ignore important variables. I read Motorsport Magazine (has been around since 1924) and they ranked Hakkinen the 26th best driver ever in the all-time top 100 list of all drivers (not just F1). I'd like to see what 55 are ahead of Hakkinen. He was "awful" yes, kind of hard to collect points when your car keeps letting you down. "Outqualifed by Herbert", yes and outqualified Senna in their first race at team mates. Hate to say this but as fast as Raikkonen is he's not a good qualifier. As for matched by Salo in F3, well by that rationale Senna was matched by Martin Brundle in F3 too. Kind of an absurd comparison. Btw, I just had a look at that list. Any "metric" that places Stefano Modena, Eddie Cheever, Jean-Pierre Beltoise ahead of Hakkinen is clearly made by an alien. The same list ranks Heinz-Harald Frentzen ahead of Ayrton Senna. John Watson ahead of Alain Prost and Alonso the third (!) best F1 driver of all time. Not worth my consideration. There's only ONE thing I agree with that list - Jim Clark being the best F1 driver ever. I came to the same conclusion by studying stats and reading journalists in the mentioned MotorSport magazine - some of which had seen him race in their youths. Senna certainly believed he was "the best of the best". Listen, I'm a huge fan of Raikkonen's but there's no way he is better than Prost and Senna. This list claims he is. I have always found James Hunt underrated and his racecraft and will to win probably was second to none in the 70's. But him as the 6th best F1 driver? Never. Always found Piquet slightly overrated (fine car developer though) but to place him 55th is way too harsh. Btw, Giuseppe Farina is nowhere to be found. Neither is Didier Pironi. There's no way Vettel is better than Hamilton. The bottom line is that Hakkinen beat Schumacher in his absolute prime driving for a team which arguably was the best managed ever. He was his peer too since they were roughly the same age. Certainly counts more than Alonso beating a past-his-prime Schumacher being 12 years his senior. Adieu.
@@McLarenMercedes Maybe the list might be a bit exaggerated( btw this list was made in 2013), but even then, if u compare what Hakkinen did throughout his career and what Raikkonen did throughout his career, Raikkonen will come out better. The only thing maybe Hakkinen was better than Raikkonen was in qualifying. Moreover, Hakkinen had really dominant cars in throughout his Mclearn stint, but Raikkonen only had a dominant McLaren in 05 and we know what the result was. I don't think Hakkinen could have made a 1 year old McLaren almost win a championship in 03. And I said originally in the comment, Raikkonen outperformed Coulthard more than whatever Hakkinen did throughout his stint. Moreover, Raikkonen just had a 32( I am not sure of the no.) single seat experience before he came in F1, and within 2 years, he was outperforming the car. Thus for me, Kimi is (was) better than Mika. Moreover, not only this list, but every mathematical model has ranked Raikkonen ahead of Hakkinen. newatlas.com/computer-modelled-top-50-f1-drivers-of-all-time/43147/ (This survey was taken in 2016 and here Raikkonen is ranked 34th whereas Hakkinen is not even in top 50) www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0313592609500355 (This survey was taken in 2006, where Raikkonen is ranked 11th and Hakkinen is 39th
Kimi was far better overall. Kimi at his peak was a race demon. Mika had favoritism by Ron and barely beat shitty Irvine in 1999. Peak 2003/2005 Kimi DESTROYS Hakkinen.
Can't even compare these 2 drivers. They are in a different league. Hakkinen belongs with the very best. Raikonen is an excelend 2nd driver like Massa.
Raikkonen was far better than Mika peak for peak. The Kimi of 2003-2006 destroys Mika. Kimi is the definition of a #1 at his peak. Alonso meanwhile lost to Trulli...
Dani dont care who is better, Hakkinen or Raikkonen. Obviously so called fans like you who underestimates Kimi have no idea about the politics behind, and believes what the press writes, since other drivers will aways keep on praising themselves, massa, alonso, hamilton, vettel, verstappend, they will never take the blame for their mistakes and claim they are the best etc. İn return they wont get bashed by the press since they exactly act according to media expectations. It is all about lies and politics in f1. Ferrari cost kimis 2008 championship just like lotus killing his chances in 2013 after a strong start. If you know that you are the best in something, you wont say it out loud. But when you are not, you talk about it to increase your value and press buy it that way.
I remember when Kimi came to F1, how some older drivers said that a guy that young and lacking experience would be a safety hazard. Well, he turned out to be one of the safest drivers ever.
Hakkinen said to Dennis when he left... 'If you want to win, then hire the finn'
That's incredible how finland managed to produce such a lot of good pilots in every field of racing. Something is going on in this country for sure
Its because of the dirt roads which are sometimes snow/ice roads even, most of them barely dont have any barriers so if you go off you go boom, right into the trees. this makes it necessary for people living there to learn to drive very well. Thats also why rally is so popular, because the rural roads through the forests are very rally-like.
@@oharryc plus because of such dangerous conditions they have a 2 year liscence program you need to finish in order to get your liscence
They teach you literally everything you became very good at car control
@@tony_5156 they teach you how to win a race in the common world !!
Finnish people are Aliens. Hakkinen was actually brought here from a spaceship
Bruh Kimi and Mika are on their own league, others are average drivers like Salo, Kovalainen, Bottas. Bottas was the wingman like DC to those.
They should have called it The Finnish line lol
Yes
Assoluta bwoah.
Hakkinen > Raikkonen > Bottas
When you listen to Mika Hakkinen, Kimi Raikkonen and Valterri Bottas, you understand why Nico Rosberg is not a Finn.
Morello lol fuck rosberg
Valtteri Bottas English is good
He is, just with a German nationality, and his father didn't bother to teach him the language, living in Germany etc.
In Finland it's been traditional for men to do, not talk. Those good in languages go to other professions - these guys are those who lived their childhood and youth behind the wheel, even skipping school, if it gave them wheel time.
The drivers are famous and notorius in Finland for speaking a dialect of English we call
- 'Rally English'.
@@darrenfranz2631 ....? And youre fucking russian
Heikki Kovalainen is not Finnish though. He spoke so much that he had to be kicked out of Formula 1 for not being Finnish enough.
Jk ;)
I would say Räikkönen also had far more bad luck than Häkkinen. 2007 was really his first year in F1 when he had some luck on his side. Kimi would have been able to win multiple championships at McLaren if it would have been up to him. But reliability problems meant that he lost, first to Michael Schumacher who he would later replace, and then to Fernando Alonso who would later replace Räikkönen but then Räikkönen would team up with him and remain in Ferrari after Alonso left - so they sort of replaced each other.
And when Räikkönen fought against Schumacher and lost by few points - he did it in last year's car because McLaren's new car had been failure.
And Räikkönen is one of the few drivers to have ever been re-hired by Ferrari, most iconic of F1 teams, and even though he had couple of terrible seasons they still kept him. I would say there is far more to this competition than just titles. Also far more than public ever sees, we don't see what happens behind the scene, all the development stuff. More accurate comparison would take far longer than this video. And of course they are from different eras, and in Formula 1 machines matter more than humans (drivers still matter, but when everyone in F1 is brilliant driver, it comes down to car most of the time). And of course it also is team work, team matters a lot, they are people who design, build and develop the car.
This kind of comparisons can be made for fun, but they really don't tell all that much. Personally i would rank Räikkönen above Häkkinen, but it definetly is not simple to say which of them is better.
in 2003 he lost a championship by 1 Point. What a Shame......
Wtf are u talking about casual kid
If you know about Mika's story, Kimi's story is just not that special
@@deliriumbee4678 about Kimi being better.
Because if we are being honest he was.
Fighting for title in 02 car in 03 season against fricking Schumacher is incredible achievement.
@@russotusso1695 Kimi was slaughtered by Alonso and Vettel though.
My 2 favourite drivers of all time and im not even close to Finland
Me too 😅
My top-5 favorite drivers of all time: M. Schumacher, Raikkonen, Hakkinen, Lauda, Piquet
honorable mentions: Senna, Ascari, Clark, Hunt, Massa, Vettel, Alonso, G. Villeneuve, etc...
The numbers of championships does not show how good a driver is....
Medet Nagaev Yes. Especially if a driver has the fastest car on the grid for more than 3 years straight.
2008 Kimi has a good car. Just look at how masa almost got the championship. He lost because of Singapore GP pit crew error and a blew engine at the last lap of a race. Kimi on the other hand could not drive the car as well and keep crashing.
pls search in google: kimi-Ferrari 2008...... then you see why Kimi was not that good in 2008...and even Schumacher (worked for Ferrari in this time) said that it is Ferraris fault that Kimi had such a bad season and did not fight for the championship
+zhen86 F1 is more than the driver alone. Everything that happened in 2008 is just a result of Byrne, Brawn and Todt leaving Ferrari. Domenicali had a job that nobody want's to do, the load was simply too high for anyone. The car was a reflection of the team: insecure. Ferrari trying all different kind of stuff on the car which would suit either Raikkonen or Massa. Deciding which driver was better at Ferrari in 2008 is like flipping a coin.
Kimi had alot more technical issues in 2008 than Massa. Like losing victory in magnycours becose broken exhaust. Or hamilton crashing with Kimi on pitlane when Kimi had good chance for win.. Ofcourse Kimi also did mistakes during the season like losing victory at spa on final lap. Then Kimi let Massa overtake him at China for to championship. Well these races only makes 20+ points which would have put him close to first place at the end..
Häkkinen racing against Schumacher was the Formula 1 I enjoyed watching. Hope that I get to see that anytime soon.
Mick Vs Raikkonen
After a short stint at McLaren? He was there 2002-2006 lol
My Dream Was Kimi And Mika At McLaren Fighting For The Championship !!
No contest, really. I like both. Each having their defining traits that make them great racers and people off the track
I think Kimi had superb pace...but for me its Hakkinen, he was much agressive on track and better wheel to wheel duelist...aldo he did some jaw dropping overtakes...
Hakkinen is not better than Kimi wheel-to-wheel at all.
Hakkinen is good at wheel-to-wheel, but Raikkonen knows what he's doing
I like Kimi but Mika is my favourite F1 driver of all time and a true role model. No contest.
Both equally good. 20 wins on each. Both drove in their career with both McLaren and Lotus. One more world champion in the cache is more, but Räikkösä has more than half of the podiums. Hard to say who would win. David Coulthard could tell us when he drove with each other for several years.
Although both are great, Häkkinen is better, he achieved in ten years what Räikkönen achieved in 20 and got himself 2 world championships vs 1.
@@zeminoidso you think Alonso is automatically worse than Hamilton for having less titles? Kimi lost 2 titles due to bad luck, against Schumacher and Alonso. Kimi is multi WDC level talent.
Kimi is not bothered by anything else, but racing. Häkkinen is more complex.
But with Kimi you feel the honesty, while with Mika... He is just another F1 driver from this point of view.
Mika was just another F1 driver with near dead accidents, unbelivable problems with car reliabilities, unique and special charismar and respect from Schumi
The only drivers who had affraided Shumi was Mika,,, the end of the debate!
Rumor has it that neither have ever touched the track surface
"Bwoah"
Mwoah
just a small correction, kimi didn't move to Ferrari in 2003 but stayed with Mclaren for 6 years from 2001-2006. He then left to join Ferrari in 2007 and won the world title in his debut season with them.
Häkkinen and Räikkönen are their names. Show some respect for heavens sake.!🇫🇮
This show didn't mention the other Finns. Mika Salo and Koveleinen And Keke Rosberg in F1.🇫🇮
This is an interesting comparison. Mika Häkkinen has one world championship more than Räikkönen. But Räikkönen has one GP victory more than Häkkinen. Räikkönen has 5 World Championship medals, 1 gold (2007), 2 silver (2003, 2005), 3 bronze medals (2008, 2012, 2018). Häkkinen has a three MM medals, 2 golds (1998-1999), and one silver (2000). So who has achieved more? You can have a taste. For years, David Coulthard ran as a teammate and lost to both. Coulthard has said he was not as talented as Mika or Kimi. Both Häkkinen and Räikkönen drove both with McLaren and Lotus. The Häkkinen career came only in these two teams. Räikkönen also drove with Ferrari and Sauber. In my opinion, Häkkinen is perhaps a quicker Qualifying driver. But Räikkönen is a more comprehensive and better race-driver. It must be remembered that both could be tripled world champions. Häkkinen was forced to suspend the Australian, Brazilian, and Indianapolis GPs during the 2000 season. Räikkönen's better tour would be for both the 2003 and 2005 World Champions. Häkkinen and Räikkönen otherwise reached their first pole position at Nurburgring (Häkkinen 1997, Räikkönen 2003). And Häkkinen's last victory was the victory of the US GP in 2001. And it seems that Räikkönen's last victory was also in the USA. The victory of the 2018 season in Austin. So much of the same is found in the career of both Finns. Small Finland can be happy to have three world champions, Keke Rosberg, Mika Häkkinen and Kimi Räikkönen.🏆🏆🏆
Kimi is always living the best life.
Hakkinen was faster. Kimi was very good in his McLaren years, but Mika was a notch above at his peak.
hakkinen had a faster mclaren and with lest fiability prob tha kimi...
Haikkenen even on his best days was no where near as quick as Kimi of the Michellin Era! He was undoubtedly the fastest during '01-'06! Haikkenen would never match a 2005 Kimi raikkonen!
@@binoy.bimbisaran nice joke clown
@@deliriumbee4678 honestly he is right.
Kimi in 05 lost because of his team.
That McLaren was fastest car on grid but also least reliable.
No Kimi was better 100%.
The music you're searching for
A friend without a smile -Fleming (dance club)
Change the title and description. They're wrong. They're: "Häkkinen" and "Räikkönen", not "Hakkinen" and "Raikkonen".
Shut up they know what they're doing.
Hakkinen was definitly better than Raikkonen, don't get me wrong, Raikkonen still a great driver.
Kimi is better
Kimi in 2nd year only with slower car almost atom ferrari.
Now he is in F1 for 15 years and still showing what makes him fast driver
Mika is a legend. Kimi is just kimi... a good driver but nothing special.
Pretty useless video. It does nothing to explain why Mika was ho-hum and we are continuously fascinated by Kimi.
Denys A Because of BWOAH
Hakkinen was ho-hum?
Lol. Mika was trolling interviewers while Kimi was still in go-karts. RUclips Mika Hakkinen's best moments.
They didn't even mention Kimi's surprise win in Australia in 2013! 🤦♂️
Raikonnen was in WRC
Rikkonen
Raikkonen
Maciej Macura lol
@@maciejmacura5529 *Räikkönen
He drove in nascar too.
KIMI CHAMPION IN 2017!
Renzo Moretti I wish
no
Vettel
Eetu Laitinen moro mäki oon laitinen
Guilherme Tieppo No Hamilton...
VITTU
PERKELEEN PERKELEEN HELEVETIN PERSE... SAATANA
Kimi at his peak > Mika at his peak. But Kimi not at his peak < Mika at his peak
@Ovidiu Andries 03?
Guy lost title by 2 points in slightly changed 2002 car.
Lost it because of luck and reliability.
Alex here has point.
Kimi was without question able to match Alonso in those years meaning that Kimi also is incredible talent.
Mika not at his peak in 2001 he got beaten by DC. 6-1 in races they both finished.
Raikkonen never got tired of F1, he was paid not to race for anyone else while Alonso took his seat. So he did whatever he had access to doing outside of F1, so as not to break his contract with Ferrari. So the assertion that he was tired of F1 is incorrect.
Kimi for me.
Kimi is Rossi of F1!
I don't think this is a close one. I really like both drivers but i remember who's the driver that took 2 years in a row the championship while facing against the GOAT Michael Schumacher. With all the respect to kimi, he was never the driver to fear from like hakkinen or schumacher. Even in 2007, he didn't thrive under ferrari and just won the championship thanks to hamilton lack of expirance.Raikonen is still one of the best drivers in his era, Hakkinen is one of the best in the sports history in my opinion.
It's a lot closer than people actually think. Hakkinen drove a car capable of being a lap faster than the whole field in 98, where even Coulthard was able to do the same,which is why he won the championship in 98. In 99, Schumacher broke his leg in silverstone, and even Irvine was able to drag himself into the championship. Before the last race, Frentzen with a Jordon was able to close down the championship, and if he wouldn't have crashed in the penultimate race, Hakkinen, Irvine and Frentzen would have been in the title contention. In 2000, up until Austria, Coulthard was the main rival of Schumacher, and from there onwards, Hakkinen got his form back. In 97 and 01, Coulthard convincingly beat Hakkinen. Now compare what Raikkonen did in his Mclaren stint. In 2002, Raikkonen had 10 DNFs to Coulthard's only 4, even then he only finished one place behind Coulthard. In 2003, arguably Raikkonen's greatest year in F1, Raikkonen with the 3rd best car on the grid and a 1 year old car almost won the championship only losing out to Schumacher by 2 points. If his engine didn't blow out in Nirburgring, he would've won the championship.In 2004, with again horrible unreliablity including 11 retirements, he still pulled out a win in Spa. In 2005, Raikkonen's second greatest year, he finally had the car to win the championship, but reliabiliy still wasn't there for Mclaren. But even then. he pulled out 7 wins from that year and one of the greatest drive in F1. Overall, a comparision could be made between Raikkonen and Hakkinen on the basis of there respective performances to Coulthard, in which Raikkonen comes out decently better than Hakkinen.
for us who are not Finnish Hakkinen is the best in f1. 2000 the system was with Ferrari...otherwise hakkinen would become the first with three consecutive championships in new f1 age.
Raikkonen's going to be 2017 champion mark my words, with the regulations back to high downforce cars he'll better Verstappen for the title
Bold prediction but I'll agree about one thing - Kimi Raikkonen *hates* holding back and driving "tactically" and the current regulations aren't to his liking if anybody. He only knows how to drive as fast as he possibly can and race the wheels off the car. This is why he has 43 fastest laps - second only the Schumacher in the all-time fastest laps list and more than any other F1 driver currently racing. When it comes to raw speed Kimi has few peers and age doesn't seem to have slowed him down. He also needs a car set to his liking but if it is he's very tough to beat. Fact is he won the qualifying duel with 11-10 against his highly rated team-mate Vettel. Not bad.
While I don't doubt Kimi will love the new faster cars with more mechanical grip and more power I have my doubts about Ferrari producing a winner that can beat Mercedes and the ever improving and faster Red Bull. It's very rare that a team goes from zero wins in one season to winning the title in the next.
If the new Renault/TAG Heuer engine is any good I see Red Bull winning the 2017 title. Ricciardo will be champion. He is consistent and fast and doesn't get into trouble. Verstappen is just fast as of yet.
With only 4 engines, no longer an free practice/Friday engine allowed and no longer a 72 grid penalty as Hamilton did on Spa, 2017 will even be more about nursing the engine.
adamsrt10 I think he'll beat Vettel but idk if Ferrari have what it takes to beat Ham and Mercedes for the championship.
Most likely not. The car this season apparently tends to understeer, and we all know how well that works for Kimi...
Lauri Seppä yea.. maybe spoke to soon. but you never know. Vettel doesn't seem to handle stress very well when things do go his way. he can pass but if that Mercedes is constantly getting in his way whether it be strategy or whatever. well start hearing him complaining and when that happens he somewhat breaks down
Kimi Raikkonen is the superior driver. How is this even a question?
Mika was a flash in the pan, who only won when he had the most dominant car and lost to DC twice.
Kimi is a true racer, has insane raw speed, race craft, race pace and has won more races than Mika.
The only area Mika has a chance is qualifying, since he was very consistent there, but Kimi was better.
Well you need to watch more races where Hakkinen was wheel to wheel to understand how much better of a racer he was than pretty much anyone.
Pit Raikkonen against Hakkinen today, in the same car?
Hakkinen's edge for speed is insane. No one has ever some close. Maybe Gilles Villeneuve. And he was literally insane.
@@OpinionatedMonk Hakkinen was inconsistent wheel to wheel. Spa 2000 was great, but lots of times he would mess up or be anonymous in the races. Mika was also massively incident prone in his early years and was beaten by DC twice. Honestly, I like Mika, he's a great qualifier, but Kimi is a monster racer.
@@ciaronsmith4995 Fair comment, and it's hard to judge drivers against other drivers of a different era. Kimi and Mika were generations apart; I'd put money on Mika personally, as he was ultimately aggressive but knew where to draw the racing line (something Schumacher never learned, after nearly killing Barrichello). Would be interesting to see them against each other.
I agree Kimi is a mean machine, but Mika is just a robot.
Also calling Mika a flash in the pan is kinda rude and totally inaccurate, tbf
@@OpinionatedMonk Let's put it this way. He was a massive flash in the pan you'd need to put sunglasses on for. A legendary driver. I'm a Mika fan.
Hakkinen is just better, period.
Nah for me Raikkonen has a bit of edge...Hakkinen got beaten by Coulthard in 3 out of 6 of his season with McLearn and was often beaten by his teammates in lotus..Whereas Raikkonen(being so young and inexperienced) just whooped coulthards ass between 2002-2004... And if you only look at the no. of championships Raikkonen was just extremely unlucky otherwise he in my eyes is a 3 time world champion(2003,2005,2007or 08)...If you are just judging Raikkonen based on his current performance then I guess you haven't witnessed what a driver he was in his prime..
Chinoo Tripathi actually you’re forgetting that early in Hakkinen’s career as Senna’s teammate, he out qualified senna in a few races. And if he really lost to coulthard then how did he win the championship? When cougars spun Hakkinen and he came back to third from last, that proves the skill difference between the two.
Austin Green Well if u compare Hakkinen and Coulthard as teammates then u can clearly see that Coulthard outperformed Hakkinen in 1997 and 2001 and was almost at par with him in 2000. Whereas with Raikkonen, they both were at par with each other in 2002 and Kimi was just in another level in 2003 and 2004. The gap between Raikkonen and Coulthard was really huge in 2003, even bigger than whatever Hakkinen has done throughout his Mclearn stint with Coulthard. At the end of the day, I think it is not that easy to pick who was the fastest between the two, both have given amazing memories to the the sport and great overtakes(Hakkinen move on Schumi in spa and Raikkonen's last lap overtake on Fisichella in Japan). Overall Hakkinen had a pretty short career (9-10 years) whereas Raikkonen is still in this sport for around 16-17 years. As of Hakkinen coming from last to 3rd, I think u should watch Suzuka 2005 (Raikkonen's signature race) and Bahrain 2006.
Mika Häkkinen , he would of won more championchips if only had more reliable car!
Same goes for Kimi tbh
That's the realest talk ever!!!
1° Mika Hakkinen BI campeão F1 20 vitórias
2° Kimi Raikkonen Campeão F1 21 vitórias
Mika Hakkinen na minha opinião é mais rápido e completo
3:03 lol
BOTTAS VS RAIKONNEN
Mikka 4 life my favourite driver quickest of them all
Always funny to hear the names butchered like this. :D
2003 he was stronger than schumi and 2005 he was much stronger than alonso but finish people looks like very unlucky. see mika 2000 2001 see kimi 2002 so often the teammates dont have probs. everytime kimi and mika. yea and barichello everysingle time when he leads brasilien :D
i really loved boath but kimi is the better driver with more will
kimi deserves a second title more a title then vettle or hamilton
I am a Ham supporter but if Kimi got one more i would be very very happy
Whats the music called?
A friend without a smile -Fleming (dance club)
Flying Finn vs Iceman
You mean the Finnish line ??
Stats your settling which driver is better with stats Ronnie Peterson has 0 titles but I hold him to a higher esteem than Lewis Hamilton who is on his way to win a 5th title.
Hamilton is one of the all-time greats, Peterson wouldn't make top 20
@@olivermccall3898 Lewis Hamilton Isn't even in the top 10 of all time
@@andrewwright4195 He's a five-time champion you speng
Kimmi was a legend both on and off the track.. I’ll miss him
Adoro a Mika pero Kimi es más leyenda. No cualquiera es ídolo de MC Laren y Ferrari
Mika has the car balanced going in and try's to power walk it wide to the exit. Kimi brakes last possible moment to apex and then progressively blends back on. Who's the fastest. Well Damon of course
A Mika le sobraba lo que a kimi le falta........corazón en cada carrera
Hakkinen best
Both drivers are fucking unlucky
Wrong news.....
BWOAH I am better
Kimi you are good, but Mika got 2 world championships ;)
Hakkinen looks like brock lesnar.😄
1. Qualifying. Mika is better. I consider Mika Hakkinen one of the top qualifiers and he famously outqualified Senna in their first race as team mates at McLaren.
2. Raw pace. Kimi is better. He might very well be one of the most naturally fast drivers ever. The record for most fastest laps in a season is 10, Kimi managed it *twice* (2005,2008).
3. Racecraft. Mika is better. Though Kimi's is not that far behind.
4. Consistency. Both have/had it, Mika knew his limits better though.
5. Driving smart. Mika was the smarter driver.
6. Dealing with pressure. Kimi is on top.
7. Car development skills. Hard to tell, a lot of team people rank Kimi as a great developer.
8. Shrewdness as a driver. Mika is better.
9. Team player. Mika is better.
10. Adaptability. Mika is better. Kimi only knows how to drive flat out.
Mika is a more complete driver. Kimi has the raw pace but if he had Mika's composure and adaptability he'd win 3-4 titles instead of the 1 he has now.
So would Mika. He'd win the 2000 title too if not his engine giving up in three races that year. Fact is winning just one of the ones he retired from the lead and finishing 2nd in another would be sufficient to be 2000 champion.
How can u say that Hakkinen was better? His whole career screams overrated. He got outqualified by Herbert, was evenly matched with Salo in F3 , got beaten by Senna, got beaten by Coulthard in 97 and 01. 98 was his peak, but even then, bear in mind that he had the outright fastest car in his hands. Coulthard and Hakkinen used to lock the front row all the time and even then Schumacher challenged Hakkinen that year. He was awfull from late 1999 to the first half of 2000, though gained some momentum from the 2nd half of 2000. Now if u compare Raikkonen and Coulthard as teammates between 2002-04 , his gaps with Coulthard were ridiculous. Not only race, even in qualifying Coulthard was atleast 3 to 4 places down to Raikkonen. Moreover, Hakkinen never was great in wet, but Raikkonen was amazing in wet, early in his career(China 2006, Brazil 2003, Indianapolis 2003, China 2007, Hockenheim 2006).If u look at the comparision of Coulthard and Hakkinen, then it is 35-26 in races, but with Raikkonen it is 19-7 in races. Every mathematical model has ranked Hakkinen really low in comparision to Raikkonen. One of the amazing site that has done great research is this one - f1metrics.wordpress.com/2014/07/18/who-was-the-greatest-f1-driver/ . In this list, Hakkinen is ranked 56th whereas Raikkonen is ranked 14th in all time list.
Sounds good. I like metrics. However most of these comparisons tend to ignore important variables. I read Motorsport Magazine (has been around since 1924) and they ranked Hakkinen the 26th best driver ever in the all-time top 100 list of all drivers (not just F1). I'd like to see what 55 are ahead of Hakkinen.
He was "awful" yes, kind of hard to collect points when your car keeps letting you down.
"Outqualifed by Herbert", yes and outqualified Senna in their first race at team mates. Hate to say this but as fast as Raikkonen is he's not a good qualifier.
As for matched by Salo in F3, well by that rationale Senna was matched by Martin Brundle in F3 too. Kind of an absurd comparison.
Btw, I just had a look at that list. Any "metric" that places Stefano Modena, Eddie Cheever, Jean-Pierre Beltoise ahead of Hakkinen is clearly made by an alien. The same list ranks Heinz-Harald Frentzen ahead of Ayrton Senna. John Watson ahead of Alain Prost and Alonso the third (!) best F1 driver of all time. Not worth my consideration. There's only ONE thing I agree with that list - Jim Clark being the best F1 driver ever. I came to the same conclusion by studying stats and reading journalists in the mentioned MotorSport magazine - some of which had seen him race in their youths. Senna certainly believed he was "the best of the best".
Listen, I'm a huge fan of Raikkonen's but there's no way he is better than Prost and Senna. This list claims he is. I have always found James Hunt underrated and his racecraft and will to win probably was second to none in the 70's. But him as the 6th best F1 driver? Never. Always found Piquet slightly overrated (fine car developer though) but to place him 55th is way too harsh.
Btw, Giuseppe Farina is nowhere to be found. Neither is Didier Pironi.
There's no way Vettel is better than Hamilton.
The bottom line is that Hakkinen beat Schumacher in his absolute prime driving for a team which arguably was the best managed ever. He was his peer too since they were roughly the same age. Certainly counts more than Alonso beating a past-his-prime Schumacher being 12 years his senior.
Adieu.
@@McLarenMercedes Maybe the list might be a bit exaggerated( btw this list was made in 2013), but even then, if u compare what Hakkinen did throughout his career and what Raikkonen did throughout his career, Raikkonen will come out better. The only thing maybe Hakkinen was better than Raikkonen was in qualifying. Moreover, Hakkinen had really dominant cars in throughout his Mclearn stint, but Raikkonen only had a dominant McLaren in 05 and we know what the result was. I don't think Hakkinen could have made a 1 year old McLaren almost win a championship in 03. And I said originally in the comment, Raikkonen outperformed Coulthard more than whatever Hakkinen did throughout his stint. Moreover, Raikkonen just had a 32( I am not sure of the no.) single seat experience before he came in F1, and within 2 years, he was outperforming the car. Thus for me, Kimi is (was) better than Mika. Moreover, not only this list, but every mathematical model has ranked Raikkonen ahead of Hakkinen. newatlas.com/computer-modelled-top-50-f1-drivers-of-all-time/43147/ (This survey was taken in 2016 and here Raikkonen is ranked 34th whereas Hakkinen is not even in top 50) www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0313592609500355 (This survey was taken in 2006, where Raikkonen is ranked 11th and Hakkinen is 39th
@@chinootripathi9719 haha tht why Michael Schumacher only feared Mika hakkinen not Kim or Alonso or hill
So american
Kimi raikkonen should have won 2003 and 2005 title but his mclaren is low on reliability
Engine failure , suspension failure
Mika
Woah... Kimi
Донному Ботасу далеко до них
Bwoah!
Hakkinen is less talented and less popular but a workoholic and that matters.
Less talented? When did you start watching F1? Must be after Hakkinen retired..
OK, my mistake, I can`t say he was less talented really.
margus kiis equal talent
@@marguskiis7711 even shumi said he was the only he feared on the track amateur casual f1child
@@Dani-it5sy Nobody is more gifted than Kimi.
Mika es mucho mejor que kimi, mucho más luchador
boawh
No competition whatsoever. Kimi has nothing on Mika.
Kimi was far better overall. Kimi at his peak was a race demon. Mika had favoritism by Ron and barely beat shitty Irvine in 1999. Peak 2003/2005 Kimi DESTROYS Hakkinen.
@@ciaronsmith4995 Absolutely. Hakkinen's only benchmark is Coulthard LOL.
😎😎😎🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😎😎😎
Can't even compare these 2 drivers. They are in a different league. Hakkinen belongs with the very best. Raikonen is an excelend 2nd driver like Massa.
Kimi Räikkönen is much better than Felipe Massa. Kimi is a world champion. Felipe is not.
Raikkonen was far better than Mika peak for peak. The Kimi of 2003-2006 destroys Mika. Kimi is the definition of a #1 at his peak. Alonso meanwhile lost to Trulli...
Are you a alonso fan? Sounds deluded as much as alonsı is.
@@cemcemraikko3211 Ok he is more than just an excellent 2nd driver. He's a champion for sure. But Hakkinen was one of the greatest imo.
Dani dont care who is better, Hakkinen or Raikkonen. Obviously so called fans like you who underestimates Kimi have no idea about the politics behind, and believes what the press writes, since other drivers will aways keep on praising themselves, massa, alonso, hamilton, vettel, verstappend, they will never take the blame for their mistakes and claim they are the best etc. İn return they wont get bashed by the press since they exactly act according to media expectations. It is all about lies and politics in f1. Ferrari cost kimis 2008 championship just like lotus killing his chances in 2013 after a strong start. If you know that you are the best in something, you wont say it out loud. But when you are not, you talk about it to increase your value and press buy it that way.