9 races that cost Kimi Raikkonen the 2005 F1 title

[@Migrhejo]

21 races that cost Williams the 2019 f1 title

[@WushuMR2]

More like 60 (2017, 2018, 2019)

[@mikoku921]

The only difference being that McLaren had the fastest car in 2005 and Williams had the slowest one in 2019 :p

[@adamdickinson2894]

@@mikoku921 really? I don't think migrhejo knew that, can't have been joking at all 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

[@adamdickinson2894]

@@mikoku921 whoosh

[@cornevangulik6166]

They were so close, accept for those 21 races, otherwise they wouldve won the title.

[@TheLeewi98]

Kimi achieved 7 wins that season. Even though that is an impressive number, it could have very well been over 10 wins which would have been an amazing result. That MP4-20 is one of the most beautiful cars in the sports history but damn it was unreliable.

[@chasta634]

So the biggest point is that it doesn't really matter how fast a car is if it can't get the chequred flag..

[@TheLeewi98]

The Viewer II If you want to finish first, first you have to finish.

[@Formula1Madx]

@@TheLeewi98 You can't get quicker than a Kwikfit fitter.

[@Euclides287]

It seems to be a trend in Adrian Newey's designed cars, they're all quick but unreliable.

[@mattf4u-496]

Cletus Spuckler except the Red Bull’s really. And some of the Williams iirc. Although the 2010 and 2012 cars were less bulletproof than the 2011 and 2013 ones.

[@whac1c]

9 races is like...half the season lmao

[@markhenley3097]

@@ciaronsmith4995 Yup. The only bad luck Alonso really had was the DNF at Canada.

[@tuzipo]

@@ciaronsmith4995 he had brake failed Driver error LOL

[@Aiart_MG2209]

@@tuzipo No he touched the wall with the right rear tire.

[@mattiacurto4863]

@@Aiart_MG2209 he ran wide and hit the wall

[@acalin5]

Yup. Just shows how dominant the combination could have been. Just Imola, Nurbrugring, Hockenheim and possibly Indianapolis meant 40points. Jeeesus. Add Silverstone, Monza and France with engine penalties. Add to this Montoya's awfull races here and there. Horrible combination of factors and haven't seen something like that since. Not to blame Alonso for this though. Kimi had a similar year in 2003 to Alonso, being very consistent. The difference was Ferrari being the most reliable car on the grid, in opposition to 2005 McLaren. Remember when Kimi was blamed that he causes the engine failures in McLaren days? Just makes me laugh. And now look at where Mercedes are in F1. Life just has it's own irony. From 2005, I'll take the Monaco GP as the best race of Kimi. Qualy 0.5s, led the race with a healthy gap. Then a safety car occurs, he doesn't pit and has to increase again the gap. It was just a brilliant drive

[@weepjng]

I mean we can't change anything now, but if the McLaren was even a tiny bit more reliable, Raikkonen would've easily been champion.

[@matthewashley4276]

True

[@sultanabran1]

@@Loose89 plus, alonso and renault weren't exactly shit that year

[@Balnazzardi]

@@Loose89 I mean if Mclaren had been just 50% more reliable and Kimi had only half of the all technical failures with his car during that season, the championship would have indeed been his. Ofc you twist that saying that Renault sacrificed some performance for reliability and that you could not achieve both, but I think the dominance of Ferrari, Red Bull and Mercedes have shown that both can be achieved. While the unreliable Mercedes engine was responsible for putting Kimi 10 positions behind in 3 race weekends , for example that Imola driveshaft failure and Hockenheim hydraulics failure were things that had they not happened and Kimi would have avoided that flatspotted tyre in Nurburing (which was partly his own mistake, partly caused by Villeneuve for not moving away under blue flag), the championship would have been his. But ye to win championship you need car that is both fast and reliable and unfortunately Mclaren could never really provide Kimi with such a car....but with bit better job both 2003 and 2005 championship could have been theirs for the taking, including 2005's Constructor's title, something Mclaren last won in 1998.

[@jimmymagic2438]

I mean if the Renault was a tiny bit more fast, Alonso would've been champion even more easily. That's how you always can create if scenarios.

[@cd9759]

@@Loose89 well he wouldnt have just won. Alonso gained 52 points on kimi as stated in the video due to his failures and unreliability. Kimi would have won by 25+ points

[@moribed4056]

the nose cone of this car is simply the most beautiful in the history of formula 1

[@CicaeMeow]

The entire car is just beautiful. My favourite by miles.

[@AbrahamArthemius]

I'm gonna say the Renault R25 is the most beautiful F1 car from the noughties, though this one isn't that far off.

[@richboy900]

@@CicaeMeow agreed

[@CicaeMeow]

@@AbrahamArthemius nah

[@jamesjackson96]

Ferrari F2008 is the best in my opinion

[@TheLeewi98]

When Kimi was at Mclaren he raced in 88 races, retiring in 30 of them. That is around 34% of all races he didn't finish. There is of course some driver errors there but that just tells you how unreliable Mclaren was during his time there. Not trying to sound salty, but Lewis retired first time because of a technical failure in 2009 so he races over 2 years with very little technical problems. Sounds so weird.

[@limit4443]

Yeah true

[@richboy900]

Cost him in 03 and 05

[@myco9253]

It wasn't just the engine. Hydraylics, pit limiters, tyres, suspension. McLaren had reliability issues with everything during Kimi's time there. In 2003 Kimi not having the pit limiter fault in Melbourne would have been enough to win the championship.

[@d.a.5135]

Most of Kimis mechanical retirements were in 2002 and 2004, though. In 2003 he had only one mechanical DNF (Europe 2003), in 2005 he had two mechanical DNFs (San Marino and Germany) and in 2006 he had two mechanical DNFs as well (Monaco and China). The 2002 - and 2004- cars were absolute disasters in terms of reliability, no doubt about that.

[@myco9253]

@@d.a.5135 DNF is not only thing that equals unreliability. 2005 was the year of the grid penalty for Kimi. In 2003 Kimi had a faulty pit limiter which cost him the win and championship in Melbourne. 2003, 2005, 2007 and 2008 were all his years. In 2003 he was in the third fastest car yet he finished just 2 points behind Schumi (not to mention the Michelin tyre scandal). In 2005 he had so many problems with the car it was pretty much a joke and he still finished second. In 2007 he won the wdc in a car that was the second fastest, didn't suite him during the first half and had more technical faults than the 2007 mclaren. In 2008 the new Bridgestone control tyres and b-spec f2008 were an absolute killer for Kimi. Kimi's planted front end with excellent turn in driving style was near impossible to execute, due to the understeer of the Ferrari and the hard to heat up tyres. Kimi could not heat them up for qualifying and during the start of the race and stints. The 1st class speed was still there though. Once the rear tyres started fading during the race the car would start turning in and Kimi was able to drive like usual. Record 10 fastest laps during a season, but only 2 wins and pole positions is a pretty odd season for the defending champion. Kimi could have been a 4 time WDC, but why didn't achieve this is do to two reasons. Kimi was unlucky and Kimi was lazy. Kimi could have been better and he could have overpowered the badluck with some effort off the track. Coulthard was demoralized by the young finn always beating him with zero effort off track.when he himself was working so much harder. Anyhow Kimi is amazing when the car suites him.

[@Andrew81au1]

As the saying goes "To finish first first you must finish" McLaren reliability cost Kimi the championship so while the hare was fast yes the tortoise (Renault) was finishing races and scoring points so Alonso is the rightful winner of the title that year. This coming from a Kimi fan (still am btw)at the time.

[@vladnebrat4466]

And also Alonso had problems in Canada and Hungary.

[@tombardsley3081]

Vlad Nebrat they were caused by his own doing . Alonso hit the wall in Canada which caused the suspension problem. And for Hungary he went up the inside on the kerbing when trying to overtake Ralf Schumacher at the start which damaged his front wing

[@dewaayodhyaa.9694]

After 15 years, It's still painful. And don't forget 2003 season, If Kimi can keep his GP Brazil results, his McLaren engine not blew up at Nurburgring & not tangled with Barrichello's Ferrari at first turn on first lap in Hockenheim. It would be a different story.

[@sidzeret]

21 races that cost Grosjean the 2019 WDC 🧩

[@aziaat2198]

You mean pastor maldonaldo

[@minimead368]

And in how many of those 21 races does Ericsson play a predominate roll?

[@niklas7835]

Damn I had the same joke idea...

[@richboy900]

Some say he cost Alonso the title with the crash he caused at spa

[@dhanarputra555]

Purely on McLaren's faulty and unreliable car. This was the most tearjerking season because I saw all of the race and rooted for Raikkonen.

[@tonimaestre96]

Raikkonen only cared about driving, full throttle since practice and thats why the unreliable engines broke, its in the team and also in the driver

[@hammermigg]

You know you’ve had an inconsistent season when 9 races costed you the title (I’m obviously talking aboout the car)

[@DavidNatanael]

Too bad indeed, MP4-20 was undeniably fast, but it was fragile like glass cannon.

[@richboy900]

Well at least the car was consistently unreliable

[@ardaakdeniz3905]

Some of them were Kimi's fault.

[@tombardsley3081]

Yet no one ever mentions this vs what happened to Hamilton in 2016. I use this season in 2005 as an example of how reliability and bad luck affect championships

[@richboy900]

@@ardaakdeniz3905 I heard one of the engineers say (might even have been Marc Priestley) that Kimi would always push the car flat out. As in all or nothing. That caused some of those reliability problems

[@iceman1125]

absolute monster of a car...I loved the devil horns on it...it was really beautiful and quick

[@johnniecinco6698]

I'm a Ferrari fan but damn, that car was so beautiful.

[@theelf152]

Except for Reliability, Best Looking and Quickest Car in F1 ever, at least with Kimi.

[@robleurni8420]

The championship is a marathon, and Adrian Newey usually likes to take the risk of the posibility of having an unreliable car to get a bit more speed

[@oscarshen6855]

His concepts were too ahead of its time, now everyone is using these concepts.

[@superelkhound7517]

I think it’s unfair that Newey is blamed for the unreliability of the McLaren cars just because he was a Technical Director. He wasn’t responsible for engineering the parts that failed, and the Red Bulls that were so successful were reliable. Therefore, Newey wasn’t responsible for the poor reliability, and people who say otherwise aren’t familiar with the role he had in designing the cars or the nature of the car failures.

[@robleurni8420]

Mitchell Przybylowski Newey likes to design cars with very little air intakes (refrigeration), which can increase the risk of engine failures

[@superelkhound7517]

Roble urni Other than Monaco 2006, I cannot think of an instance where one of his McLarens had a cooling related retirement. Can you provide any examples?

[@oscarshen6855]

@@superelkhound7517 Red Bulls are never realiable. In 2010 season their cars are domainate in terms of speed. But they had too many DNFs so the title fight came to the line. They alwasys have the most DNFs in top teams in passed years (in 2019 the works engine seems to helped a lot). Newey isn't directly responsible for reliablity problems, but he gave other engineers a tough time, very tight packaging, small intake, blown diffuser that needed special engine mapping, all introduced big challenges. It's just other engineers are not as talented as Newey and he doesn't want to compromise on anything.

[@Balnazzardi]

Matter of fact is Kimi would have only needed to win 2 our of the 3 races (Imola, Nurburing, Hockenheim) he was leading but had DNF and which Alonso then won to become champion of 2005. So even with all the other blunders, all he needed was those 2 race wins..... but as it is you need to finish the races to win and for that you need reliability/race without mistakes. Kimi was deserving of winning the title in 2005 (as was Alonso, dont get me wrong), but Mclaren definitely was not and F1 is team effort.

[@Sonu666]

he deserved to win the 2003 title more

[@acalin5]

I also have the same thougths now and then. Nurburging 2005 is also the reason I disprespect Alonso. He was so joyful for a race he hadn't any chance of winning. When destiny/fate/luck (whatever) gives you such a present, I would be really reserved and respectful for the one who lost it, but deserve it. Anyhow - that was for the WDC, but I gues without a blunder from Montoya or one of these wins for Kimi, McLaren would have been WCC as well... with that unreliable car.

[@chamindujanith6337]

@@Sonu666 Hard to say. Because he didn't have the car to compete with Ferrari and Williams

[@Duval-In-The-Wall]

It’s incredible just how much went wrong for McLaren and Raikkonen in 2005. And notice how he had no crashes or driver error retirements It was brutal, how many times was he leading, forced to retire with mechanical failure, and then Alonso took the win. Painful

[@cornevangulik6166]

1998 - 2008 was a bit of a sweet spot for f1 car aesthetics.

[@Raffini]

Idk, They are the cars of my childhood, so I'm a bit biased towards them. Objectively they were a bit long and thin though. And I'm glad they got rid of the grooved tires. 2009-2016 was a lot worse, but I like the current designs, minus the halo.

[@lorenzoabanes6351]

Raffini I think the halo is fine, I prefer the Indycar halo screen, but the halo isn’t as bad as people say imo, and it does do the job too

[@nightvvisher7713]

I started watching f1 in 2006 from time to time, I skipped 2009 and from 2010 I watched every race But now looking old videos, I would say that cars from 2003 to 2008 looked the best I was born in 1996 and was only kid at that time, who didn't know what f1 is, so without any nostalgi or prejudices I can say that today's cars are ugly and total shitt compared to 2004 or 2005 cars

[@banabreadd]

I’m kinda new to F1 (started watching last year) and I personally agree and think that the cars of the late 90s and early 2000s look the best. I think it’s something about their proportions vs the unusually long and wide cars of today. The halo isn’t really the aesthetic issue for me, but the weird proportions are lol.

[@CyclistChris]

97>Any of those years. Grooved tyres, winglets everywhere, X-Wings... F1 was sweet in 1997.

[@darksephiroth92]

Coming next: The 21 races that cost Robert Kubica the 2019 F1 Title with Williams.

[@Mr_Baele]

He scored 100% of the points of Williams tho.. Still got replaced -_-

[@syncrosimon]

Kimi will always be a legend👍👍

[@ApexCris]

Even if he didn't win the Championship, this was Kimi at his absolute best. Imo he was deserving of the championship, but in the end, F1 is s team sport, and McLaren-Mercedes didn't deliver. It's a massive shame, as i believe Kimi would be remembered as an all-time great, had he had more reliable cars in his time at McLaren.

[@TheSt1092]

Kimi was unlucky in 2003 and 2005 but both Schumacher and Alonso respective Championships in those years because they they did the best most consistent job with their teams. Lots of people were happy for Kimi when he finally did win it it including many in Britain despite disappointment with LH . Kimis career does hold some good lessons for youngsters like Leclerc and Verstappen . These youngsters need to learn the virtue of patience. Being impatient leads to errors. Verstappen and Leclerc want to win everything very young and quickly and they need to calm down . Kimi had to wait 8 seasons for a title. Also Kimis slump after his WDC is a warning to anyone not to rest on t your laurels and stay motivated to carry on winning

[@simo2805]

This was hands down his best season in his career, should have won it absolutely. I love Kimi since 2003, and you can imagine being italian and a Ferrari fan...

[@siulong1394]

In 2005 Kimi was flying in that McLaren. He was so fast and consistent and he was able to be super-aggressive, something that a lot of people seemed to have forgotten (i.e. when they say he takes ages to overstake another car. Just watch the 2005 season. He was savage in that car!). If the McLaren was as reliable as the Renault, he would have won the title, no doubs about that.

[@richboy900]

Remember when f1 was on itv and expecting to see Raikkonen parked on the side of the track in a cloud of smoke after the adverts. He deserved that title for sure for the suzuka drive alone

[@marekmasopust3998]

2005 McLaren was one of the fastest cars in the history of F1 and probably the most beautiful at the same time.

[@NEKASABA]

You can't beat Black & White combo. Orange is a yoke.

[@imperialkitkat]

@@NEKASABA orange is my favourite colour, therefore I think black & White & Orange would work

[@65corgex]

The r25 are most beauty

[@moribed4056]

@@imperialkitkatI would like to see this mclaren with the actual livery but changing red lines and logos for orange

[@tan9640]

Usually its 1-2 events in a season that costs a title, here it was 9 out of which majority Kimi could do nothing about. But those qualities laps when he had penalties and recoveries from the back of the pack? wow. That version Kimi was ridiculously fast

[@gusb6502]

21 races that cost george russell the 2019 title

[@toodsf1]

exactly XD

[@StoopsyDaisy]

Hahah thought the same thing when reading the title of this video. Make it sound like he still had a chance haha

[@darchandarchan7036]

williams fw42 was actually more reliable than mclaren

[@ICEMANZIDANE]

1998 - 2005 the best era in Formual 1. And the 2005 season is by far my favorite season ever. Kimi Raikkonen was UNBELIEVABLY fast. Listen, Alonso is a very fast driver even though a shit character. Kimi was half a second, half a second faster in Monaco! Montoya is one of the fastest drivers aswell. Kimi was ALWAYS 0.5-1 second faster than him considering fuel levels on the same car. After a few races McLaren-Mercedes realised this and always gave Kimi the heaviest car and he would still qualify P1. Its ridiculous. It was a pleasure watching this season live. I will never forget it. Kimi, for me, is easily World Champion in 2005, hell even 2003 and 2004. I could write a whole book about Kimi. I remember at the Italian Gp, Kimi, like always, had a 10place grid penalty. In quali, when Kimi crossed sector 1, everyone was thinking he had low fuel to be able to get P1 which would put him P11. I remember how he touched the sand outside of Lesmo 2. He was giving it 120%. The next day, everyone pitted except him and one other driver. He was driving the whole time😅 Then, only then ppl realised how ridiculous the quali lap was

[@dougjudy5352]

If anyone thinks Kimi Raikkonen deserved 2005 title over Fernando Alonso read this out -: Fernando Alonso was leading the championship by 29 points against Kimi Raikkonen after Imola. Then Kimi won Spanish and Monaco Grand Prix. By this point it was clear that Mclaren was much faster car than Renault. Here Renault had two choices either to improve the car performance by improving the engine and taking the risk of unreliability or take the conservative approach. Since Renault and Fernando had this huge margin they opted for more conservative approach and you can see conservative approach in Fernando's driving style as well he chose to stay out of trouble all the times, not making dangerous overtakes, not defending too hard not pushing way too much settling for 2nd or 3rd place early in the race and working the strategy accordingly if Victory doesn't seem likely. You can also see this conservative approach was no longer to be seen after Alonso won the championship in Brazil. In Japan after championship was won, Alonso made some spectacular moves twice on Schumacher and one on Mark Webber. He could have won the race himself if there wasn't misunderstanding with FIA which led to Alonso giving the place back to Christian Klien twice after overtaking him which cost him about 10 seconds. If not for that Alonso would not have stuck in traffic after his pit stop and could have won the race. In China Renault used the improved engine (they couldn't use it in Japan as 1 engine for 2 races rule and Japan was 2nd race for old engine) In China Alonso build the 20 seconds gap before 1st pit stop which was vanished after a safety car but still Alonso won the race comfortably. You can watch that race and listen to Alonso in press conference where he talks about the improved engine he said,"If we want to take a little risk, If we want to beat Mclaren we could do it as we have shown today, I could have won 10-11 races instead of 7 which we won if we had used this engine from the start." in response to a question that you and kimi had won same number of races but you won the championship by 21 points. So in conclusion had Renault used the better engine. Alonso would have won the championship with far more points if it were reliable. But instead they went for conservative approach and won the title without risk of unreliability. And had Mclaren focused more on reliability instead of performance they would have less retirements and engine penalties but also less race wins, so they still wouldn't win the championship. And to round up the discussion, Alonso had his share of bad luck as well but not close to what Kimi had like -: In Hungary, Ralf Schumacher crashed into him causing damage to Alonso's car which saw Alonso P20 at the end of lap 1 and giving him no chance for points since damage was costing him 1.2 seconds per lap as reported by Pat Symonds In Imola, Alonso's engine was down on power and he had to defend against Michael Schumacher for 13 laps which he did amazingly and is considered as one of the greatest defensive driving in F1 In Monaco, bad timing of safety car and poor strategy of one stopping saw Alonso and Fisi carrying much heavier fuel load which led to Alonso's and Fisi's tyres to be completely worn down. Although Fisi finished outside points Alonso managed to hold off train of 4 cars which finished just within a second of him and finished P4. In Australia, A poor timed rain in quali meant Alonso had to start from P13, he finished P3 while Fisi won (his only win of the season)because he got lucky with quali due to rain. Alonso could have easily won that race. (Although rain affected Kimi's quali as well) Again same as Australia happened in Japan with both Alonso and Kimi, but after overtaking Klien, Alonso had to give him the place back twice once immediately and once after overtaking again and creating a significant gap, due to misunderstanding from FIA which cost him about 10 seconds. Alonso could have most probably won the grand prix as he wouldn't have stuck behind traffic and would be ahead of Kimi after final pit stops In Silverstone, Alonso was held up while lapping Coulthard and Vileneuve first and then Trulli afterwards no blue flags were shown to them which caused him time and most probably victory I can understand why some people think Raikkonen deserved it but I am sure Fernando more than deserves it. The maturity and conservative approach by Alonso and Renault and Alonso's supreme driving won them the title despite Mclaren being faster(but unreliable) car.

[@adityapandya8554]

2003, 2005 were rightfully his championship years. 2007 not so much yet he won that. I think Kimi deserved 3 WDC in his lifetime, viz. 2003, 05 and 07.

[@Sp4mMe]

2000 - 2006: McLaren Mercedes could have dominated as MGP does now, but unlike their rivals they hadn't figured out reliability as a key factor yet.

[@adrianalprin5752]

Raikkonen was quick that season but McLaren's incompetence and Mercedes' lack of reliability, yes there was a time when the Mercedes was unreliable, cost him the title

[@The_Curious_Cat]

I don´t know how guilty Mercedes are on that department, because if you compare up until 2013, the problems other teams with Mercedes engines have (including the Mercedes team itself) are lower then Mclaren. Just see years like 2012, where the Mclarens where parking every other race with something broken, while Mercedes was running fine. So something was way off when it came to reliability on the Mclaren team itself.

[@adrianalprin5752]

@@The_Curious_Cat u could say that because McLaren demands a lot from Mercedes in those days because of Newey and his packaging demands he wants the engine low compact, tightly crammed, whilst also producing the power to match the Ferraris

[@nfernandes2254]

Prime Raikkonen was one of the best I have ever seen. No less than 3 WDC would do justice to his talent.

[@tonimaestre96]

Well, he was fast but also broke cars so not all fault on the team

[@elliotttalksf1825]

Räikkönen was a beast in 05! Best driver of the season for sure. 👍

[@_TenaciousD_]

This was a heartbreaking year. Had always been a McLaren fan, and with Kimi joining in I became a Kimi fan, 2003 came close due to slow but reliable car, but 2005 was going to be the year. Kimi was so exciting to watch, he was so aggressive and hungry but the car kept breaking.

[@icemax7]

It was so much so phenomenal with the pairing between Kimi and McLaren during that season that I spent all my savings up until then as a school kid to purchase an authentic die cast model of the MP4-20

[@aximusroh6453]

nice........do you still have it?

[@icemax7]

@@aximusroh6453 of course

[@darchandarchan7036]

taking nothing from fernando but kimi was utterly fast that year. Probably the quickest driver we’ve seen from the time we lost senna

[@elliotcrossan6290]

Nah -- Schumacher, Häkkinen, Alonso, Hamilton and Vettel were/are all faster

[@Palf3993]

@@elliotcrossan6290only schumacher rivals prime raikkonen (2003-07).

[@alexmansell8385]

Would've been pretty crazy if Kimi's McLaren years had've gifted him with a bit more luck. I wonder if he'd even have gone to Ferrari if he'd won in '03 and '05

[@praveenas4675]

He could’ve been a 3 time champion

[@cornevangulik6166]

Yeah but on the other hand winning the title every season you’ve got a chance is not realistic. In the end I’m happy he won the title in ‘07, even though it seemed like that ship had sailed going into the title finale.

[@becharasaliba]

Just like Schumi a 10 time champion as well ! 97/99/06

[@kj48tiger]

@@becharasaliba schumi didnt deserve any of the 3 tho. In 97 he crashed into Villeneuve, in 99 he broke his leg so you cant know and in 06 Alonso had the same amount of problems as michael

[@lizzardmann7927]

@@kj48tiger mate he deserved the 99 title. I mean Irvine came short with only 2 points less now imagine what a healthy Micheal could've done with that car. He would've easily won the championship if it wasn't for his broken leg

[@1greenMitsi]

well he broke his leg lol Schumacher was one of the greats but no way he couldve won a title with a broken leg

[@Joshciza223]

I think Kimi deserved to win but Alonso equally deserved to as well as he barely made any mistakes and was more consistent. Besides, it wouldn't seem right if Kimi had more titles than Alonso so i guess in the end i'm at least happy he got that 2007 title

[@sankalppatil9725]

2005 was a disaster as a Mclaren fan....its simply amazing how they dint even win a single WCC since 1998....2005, 2008, 2010, 2012 all missed opportunities!!

[@fenhen]

1999 too. So many points thrown away.

[@d.a.5135]

Tbh at least in 2010, the RB6 was comfortably better anyway and it should have been never close in the first place. I do agree with the other seasons, though.

[@cornevangulik6166]

In 98 and 08 at least you had a title But I agree, a lot of missed chances.

[@RobotLunchboxProductions]

and 2007

[@sankalppatil9725]

@@RobotLunchboxProductions yeah i excluded it deliberately to be politically correct :P....By nos Mclaren had won it comfortably!!

[@Nikelaos_Khristianos]

The trouble with "What if..." and F1, it's hard to stop. Should Webber or Alonso have won in 2010? Alonso in 2012? Massa in 2008? Hamilton or Alonso in 2007? Kimi or Montoya in 2003? It's pointless dealing in hypothetical history, but it can be good fun.

[@t.mcgarry4]

Kimi would approve of this comment

[@futbolista24]

Very good fun, agreed. Even Michael Schumacher's not immune to it: What if he and David Coulthard hadn't collided in Belgium 1998? What if he hadn't broken his leg in 1999? What if his engine hadn't blown in Japan 2006? What if technical gremlins hadn't taken him out of strong race positions in pretty much every race in 2012? Speaking of that last one, though, you could probably have a laundry list just made out of 2010 and 2012, as well, just because of how wild those seasons were.

[@crashking7059]

How about the fact that jacques Villenerve turned down an offer from mclaren in 1999 to join BAR. He might of been a world champion

[@EmilForsberg_GRYBO]

It's insane how unlucky Kimi was that season. And he still was a title contender!

[@nopomegranates1876]

The content you guys have been putting out has been top quality!

[@DerNesor]

I remember watching the germany race and just walking out of the house after Raikonnen was hit AGAIN with failure....

[@SiVlog1989]

On pace Raikkonen probably deserved the title, but to quote one of Ron Dennis's favourite motorsport phrases, "to finish first, first you have to finish." The MP4-20 was a typical Adrian Newey design, nobody doubted its speed, but was either winning or retiring with a mechanical failure

[@Balnazzardi]

Actually in 2005 they didnt have THAT main DNFs in races due to mechanical failures...it definitely was more reliable than 2002 or 2004 cars atleast. But ofc then to add to those the engine failures in practice sessions that then added +10 grid penalties to Kimi in France, Silverstone and Monza made his championship challenge that much more difficult. But ye Newey's designs in 2002 and 2004 were much more unreliable than the 2005 car. But ofc still not reliable enough to win the championship.

[@SiVlog1989]

@@Balnazzardi once they got up to speed with the MP4-20, if Raikkonen wasn't winning, he was hampered by either a DNF or a ten place penalty for engine changes. Imola, had the car to beat, but had a driveshaft failure. Nurburgring, leading with a flat spotted tyre that fatigued the suspension to destruction on the last lap. France and Britain, ten place penalty for engine changes in consecutive weekends. Germany, leading comfortably when he had a hydraulic failure. Italy, yet another engine change, left him 11th on the grid and couldn't recover any better than 4th. By Spa, despite winning that race, it was only a matter of time before Alonso secured the title. By my calculations, through all these, Raikkonen lost 18 points over Alonso (relative to where Alonso would have finished had Raikkonen kept going)

[@martina2659]

It was fascinating watching Kimi race back in 03 and 05. What I remember most are the times he started way back on the grid and ran circles around his opponents to end up on the podium. The only two drivers to impress as much since then for me are Verstappen and Ricciardo in the Redbull car

[@markhenley3097]

@@ciaronsmith4995 Ricciardo is as good as Verstappen.

[@MP422ownz]

@@ciaronsmith4995 Nat they are about equal.

[@Youtubax]

Looking back now I’m sure the 2005 Mclaren was the experimental platform for future Newey’s Redbull WC cars. Most of the unreliability was tested and solved for later...

[@Digggyyyyy]

I've never been as captivated by a season as this one. The dynamic of the brilliant, limit-pushing Raikkonen and the steady, reliable Alonso was so thrilling. As a Kimi fan I was obviously sad he didn't win the championship, but when you consider McLaren's poor performance in the early races, the woeful reliability and that regulation problem causing the crash at the nurburgring, it's easy to see why Alonso won. Kimi was the icarus of F1 that year

[@thobelomhlope4472]

Reno finished races,unfortunately it was otherwise with McLaren,if it was based on poles maybe he would have,but it was the races that mattered.I was so furious with McLaren being a staunch Kimi from his first race being a Hakinen fan before...

[@dario272]

"To finish first, first you have to finish" i'll always feel Mclaren let Kimi down in 2005.

[@rene21071987]

In his McLaren years Räikkönen was the fastest Driver on the grid I think.

[@radityaindera3442]

At least we can call Kimi a world champion. He deserved it in 05.

[@dougjudy5352]

If anyone thinks Kimi Raikkonen deserved 2005 title over Fernando Alonso read this out -: Fernando Alonso was leading the championship by 29 points against Kimi Raikkonen after Imola. Then Kimi won Spanish and Monaco Grand Prix. By this point it was clear that Mclaren was much faster car than Renault. Here Renault had two choices either to improve the car performance by improving the engine and taking the risk of unreliability or take the conservative approach. Since Renault and Fernando had this huge margin they opted for more conservative approach and you can see conservative approach in Fernando's driving style as well he chose to stay out of trouble all the times, not making dangerous overtakes, not defending too hard not pushing way too much settling for 2nd or 3rd place early in the race and working the strategy accordingly if Victory doesn't seem likely. You can also see this conservative approach was no longer to be seen after Alonso won the championship in Brazil. In Japan after championship was won, Alonso made some spectacular moves twice on Schumacher and one on Mark Webber. He could have won the race himself if there wasn't misunderstanding with FIA which led to Alonso giving the place back to Christian Klien twice after overtaking him which cost him about 10 seconds. If not for that Alonso would not have stuck in traffic after his pit stop and could have won the race. In China Renault used the improved engine (they couldn't use it in Japan as 1 engine for 2 races rule and Japan was 2nd race for old engine) In China Alonso build the 20 seconds gap before 1st pit stop which was vanished after a safety car but still Alonso won the race comfortably. You can watch that race and listen to Alonso in press conference where he talks about the improved engine he said,"If we want to take a little risk, If we want to beat Mclaren we could do it as we have shown today, I could have won 10-11 races instead of 7 which we won if we had used this engine from the start." in response to a question that you and kimi had won same number of races but you won the championship by 21 points. So in conclusion had Renault used the better engine. Alonso would have won the championship with far more points if it were reliable. But instead they went for conservative approach and won the title without risk of unreliability. And had Mclaren focused more on reliability instead of performance they would have less retirements and engine penalties but also less race wins, so they still wouldn't win the championship. And to round up the discussion, Alonso had his share of bad luck as well but not close to what Kimi had like -: In Hungary, Ralf Schumacher crashed into him causing damage to Alonso's car which saw Alonso P20 at the end of lap 1 and giving him no chance for points since damage was costing him 1.2 seconds per lap as reported by Pat Symonds In Imola, Alonso's engine was down on power and he had to defend against Michael Schumacher for 13 laps which he did amazingly and is considered as one of the greatest defensive driving in F1 In Monaco, bad timing of safety car and poor strategy of one stopping saw Alonso and Fisi carrying much heavier fuel load which led to Alonso's and Fisi's tyres to be completely worn down. Although Fisi finished outside points Alonso managed to hold off train of 4 cars which finished just within a second of him and finished P4. In Australia, A poor timed rain in quali meant Alonso had to start from P13, he finished P3 while Fisi won (his only win of the season)because he got lucky with quali due to rain. Alonso could have easily won that race. (Although rain affected Kimi's quali as well) Again same as Australia happened in Japan with both Alonso and Kimi, but after overtaking Klien, Alonso had to give him the place back twice once immediately and once after overtaking again and creating a significant gap, due to misunderstanding from FIA which cost him about 10 seconds. Alonso could have most probably won the grand prix as he wouldn't have stuck behind traffic and would be ahead of Kimi after final pit stops In Silverstone, Alonso was held up while lapping Coulthard and Vileneuve first and then Trulli afterwards no blue flags were shown to them which caused him time and most probably victory I can understand why some people think Raikkonen deserved it but I am sure Fernando more than deserves it. The maturity and conservative approach by Alonso and Renault and Alonso's supreme driving won them the title despite Mclaren being faster(but unreliable) car.

[@ardaakdeniz3905]

@@dougjudy5352 Alonso had the pace to win in Japan too. The Klien situation compromised his race ( overtook him, was told to give the position back and he did and overtook him again but he didn't need to give the position, it was a miscommunication ) When Alonso won WDC and Renault needed to win WCC Alonso was very fast ( Japan and China )

[@mikoku921]

There's no wrong champion in the sport. It takes a combination of a good driver and a good car over the full season to win the title. As bad as I feel for Räikkönen, Alonso and Renault deserved this one as they had a better combination and consistency. A great driver and a reliable, fast-enough car.

[@Amin310892]

Yes, at the time I was very bitter about it and insisted that Kimi was the moral champion but looking back, Alonso and Renault were flawless. I still think Kimi deserved at least 1 championship from his McLaren days but it wouldn't be fair to Alonso to take a championship away from him.

[@parkershaw8529]

@@Amin310892 Sure, car did let Kimi down in some of the races in 2005. But he also did it for himself. I always claim if he switched car with Alonso in 05, Alonso will still get the WDC. In European GP, Alonso would surely nurse the car home in P1. Kimi braked normally at last turn 1 and ended up in gravel; Alonso would brake much earlier and softer for the last turn 1 and let Kimi closed up to his tail without any chance to overtake for the rest of the last lap.

[@mikoku921]

@@parkershaw8529 Well, if you count the points Kimi lost due to the car breaking down, he would've been the champion. Even with all his own mistakes.

[@ElGringoFuerte]

still hurts today

[@artadhyay5462]

These were the years that built Kimi mentally. He knew he was good, we knew he was good and Alonso knew he was good. The ability to accept failure made him a even better and well rounded driver. Today, the 'GOATS' cry when they can't win one in 21 races.

[@peterfighter]

I don't like the word "bad luck". McLaren simply built an unreliable car and paid for this. Renault was awarded for their reliability and consistency.

[@TheCourage89]

That McLaren going flat out was the fastest car I've seen in Formula 1. I remember him at Magny Cours and Suzuka hunting down the field. It wasn't all Kimi, that car was super unrealiable but it's speed was as quick as anything there's been. An absolute bullet.

[@myco9253]

Kimi played a massive part into the speed. The car was made for him allowing him to drove faster than ever before. Once Kimi switcjed to Ferrari in 2007 he won the WDC in a car he disliked. That's pretty crazy. His speed from 2001-2008 was ridicilous. Sadly f1 is a team effort.

[@nuvolari6668]

That's totally wrong, Montoya finished BEHIND Schumacher that season. Kimi actually came closer to winning the title in 2003 but unfortunately 35% of his races ended in technical failure at McLaren.

[@PaulMarsay]

The good thing is he is still Ferraris last world champ, 13 years later, however he absolutely should have been champ in 05. No way the eyebrow man deserve one more title than the Kimster.

[@wolfgangvan-uber6515]

As a Kimi fan I remember back in those days I hated Alonso and Renault with a burning passion for their sheer luck they always seemed to have. Kimi wasn't to blame for any of his retirements and misfortunes and more than once, Alonso snatched a lucky victory that should have been Räikkönen's.

[@jameswhitehorn6432]

I remember having this discussion with my Uncle at the time (I would have been 16 for this season). My view was that Raikkonen was the better driver, and if not for bad luck would have won the title. My Uncle's view was that Raikkonen was faster (at least back then), but that Alonso was the better driver; Raikkonen kicked the shit out of his car and his all or nothing attitude, while winning us all over as fan's at races like Japan, they ultimately put him in compromised positions too much of the time. Alonso however drove with his head, and at almost every race in 2005, achieved the best result possible while maintaining reduced risk (less spins, less penalties, less retirements than Kimi) across the whole season. The kid in all of us loves Kimi - sensational raw speed, aggressive overtakes, retirements, spins, spills and thrills. But the points table doesn't lie - Alonso only failed to score points twice, and otherwise finished no lower than 4th. Supreme consistency - and by the way, Alonson has more poles than Kimi, so it wasn't as if he was not brilliant that year. Alonso deserved the title in 2005, because he scored the most points - that's all there is to it.

[@theelf152]

you cannot do anything about reliability. had nothing to do with the driving

[@nitaZera]

To win a championship you need not only speed but also consistency. And if your car breaks down constantly like it did with Kimi during that season, well... you can't win it.

[@adamdickinson2894]

Unless there's cheating or massive fuckery from the stewards the champion always deserves the championship. It's not just being the fastest car and driver, it's about being consistent, reliable and lucky

[@carlosjulian1128]

Loved this video! Looking back at history we only really see the names of the champions but not the entire story of how the season panned out and what could’ve been. Could you do a video on the 2003 season and what could’ve been for Montoya and Raikkonen and if any of them could’ve won it at the time? Thank you for the content!

[@LionMan98]

Can we get this same video idea towards Lewis Hamilton in 2012? He lost almost 100 points in retirements.

[@deeptenduganguly8530]

@Siddhant Patnaik Alonso was the luckiest lol, he had a bullet proof car in terms of reliability, and always benefited from the problems of Sebastian and Lewis

[@ardaakdeniz3905]

@@deeptenduganguly8530 How do you define 'luckiest'? I can argue that it were Alonso and Hamilton who were unlucky in the first place, Alonso due to a much slower car, awful Ferrari strategies and getting taken out twice and Hamilton due to huge amount of bad luck that year with reliability problems, team errors everywhere, being taken out multiple times. Actually, all things considered Vettel and Raikkonen had the best luck. With Vettel having the fastest car, a more reliable car than Mclaren, very good strategies from Red Bull and not being taken out, and with Raikkonen having a car that was comfortably faster than Ferrari and as reliable as Ferrari, and not being taken out. Their strategies were better than Mclaren/Ferrari too, thanks to Lotus preserving the tyres excellently.

[@arnaur2870]

Being faster doesn't make a driver more deserving of a championship. If you're the fastest but your car only lasts half a race, why you should be the champion? Races are 60 laps long, not 30

[@Joshciza223]

i think alonso said that once in germany when he won and kimi retired

[@ElliotStent]

McLaren's woeful reliability that season was mostly to blame, but mistakes from Raikkonen certainly didn't help - as this video explains. Alonso and Renault were just too consistent and error-free, and they deserved the titles in 2005.

[@Balnazzardi]

To be fair the only costly mistake Kimi made that year was the one in Nurburing...even with that Villeneuve should have given him more room sooner than he did and Mclaren should have played it safe, ordered Kimi to pit and get 2nd or 3rd position. That being said, even with that mistake ending his race, Kimi would have still been champion had his Mclaren not failed him so many times that season. Just by winning in Imola and Hockenheim (both of which races he was leading) he would have been champion. Ofc that being said I dont claim that Alonso and Renault would not have deserved it, because they certainly did (you also need reliability and they had more reliable car) but it was definitely not Kimi's own mistakes that costed him the championship that year.

[@nsp6590]

Waiting for the inevitable comments from Ciaron Smith.

[@Balnazzardi]

Ofc, he/she is after all one of Kimi's biggest fans :D

[@alvaro39mg30]

There's a difference between being a fan and being obsessed

[@cra5hno0ob]

I was a child back then and roughly remember that the McLaren constantly broke down between 2004-2006. But they had good speed and on the good days they could challenge ALO and MSC.

[@captaino16]

If it wasn't for Schumacher's engine failure in Japan 2006, plus all these things for Kimi in 2005, Alonso could have had no championships.

[@ardaakdeniz3905]

Schumacher was only in the WDC fight due to Alonso's wheelnut failure in Hungary and engine failure in Monza.

[@UlexBoi]

Idea for next Video: 21 Races that cost George Russel the title in 2019

[@TenorCantusFirmus]

Long story short: McLaren's MP4/20 was too unreliable to be a winning machine. The more consistent Alonso+R25+Renault (team) package was a better-rounded package and eventually deserved the Championship.

[@tarun1982]

Renault did but Alonso didn't.. he simply got a trophy that fell in his lap.. well eh did have to fight to come second so that i will give him. he wasnt anywhere close to Kimi though

[@ardaakdeniz3905]

@@tarun1982 Kimi binned it in Nurburgring and arguably Imola as well. Also, it is funny how Kimi looked unimpressive in the first 3 races when he did not have the fastest car.

[@benjaminplut9448]

@@ardaakdeniz3905 Imola???? also Kimi was pretty impressive considering everything in the first 3 races, fighting from the back to 8th in australia, he was running very well in malaysia before his tyre decided to deflate and in Bahrain he got a podium so pretty good if you ask me and the nurburgring the fia are at least partially to blame due to the no tyre changes rule, which from the next race included that a damaged/dangeours tyre like Kimis can be replaced as lock ups happens to everyone and if they're bad you replace the tyre and on you go, glad they got rid of the no tyre changes rule after the end of the season

[@tarun1982]

@@ardaakdeniz3905 all said and done Alonso was nowhere near Kimi's level and Kimi almost equalled Alonso despite finishing only 10 races. So give it a rest.

[@dougjudy5352]

@@tarun1982 If anyone thinks Kimi Raikkonen deserved 2005 title over Fernando Alonso read this out -: Fernando Alonso was leading the championship by 29 points against Kimi Raikkonen after Imola. Then Kimi won Spanish and Monaco Grand Prix. By this point it was clear that Mclaren was much faster car than Renault. Here Renault had two choices either to improve the car performance by improving the engine and taking the risk of unreliability or take the conservative approach. Since Renault and Fernando had this huge margin they opted for more conservative approach and you can see conservative approach in Fernando's driving style as well he chose to stay out of trouble all the times, not making dangerous overtakes, not defending too hard not pushing way too much settling for 2nd or 3rd place early in the race and working the strategy accordingly if Victory doesn't seem likely. You can also see this conservative approach was no longer to be seen after Alonso won the championship in Brazil. In Japan after championship was won, Alonso made some spectacular moves twice on Schumacher and one on Mark Webber. He could have won the race himself if there wasn't misunderstanding with FIA which led to Alonso giving the place back to Christian Klien twice after overtaking him which cost him about 10 seconds. If not for that Alonso would not have stuck in traffic after his pit stop and could have won the race. In China Renault used the improved engine (they couldn't use it in Japan as 1 engine for 2 races rule and Japan was 2nd race for old engine) In China Alonso build the 20 seconds gap before 1st pit stop which was vanished after a safety car but still Alonso won the race comfortably. You can watch that race and listen to Alonso in press conference where he talks about the improved engine he said,"If we want to take a little risk, If we want to beat Mclaren we could do it as we have shown today, I could have won 10-11 races instead of 7 which we won if we had used this engine from the start." in response to a question that you and kimi had won same number of races but you won the championship by 21 points. So in conclusion had Renault used the better engine. Alonso would have won the championship with far more points if it were reliable. But instead they went for conservative approach and won the title without risk of unreliability. And had Mclaren focused more on reliability instead of performance they would have less retirements and engine penalties but also less race wins, so they still wouldn't win the championship. And to round up the discussion, Alonso had his share of bad luck as well but not close to what Kimi had like -: In Hungary, Ralf Schumacher crashed into him causing damage to Alonso's car which saw Alonso P20 at the end of lap 1 and giving him no chance for points since damage was costing him 1.2 seconds per lap as reported by Pat Symonds In Imola, Alonso's engine was down on power and he had to defend against Michael Schumacher for 13 laps which he did amazingly and is considered as one of the greatest defensive driving in F1 In Monaco, bad timing of safety car and poor strategy of one stopping saw Alonso and Fisi carrying much heavier fuel load which led to Alonso's and Fisi's tyres to be completely worn down. Although Fisi finished outside points Alonso managed to hold off train of 4 cars which finished just within a second of him and finished P4. In Australia, A poor timed rain in quali meant Alonso had to start from P13, he finished P3 while Fisi won (his only win of the season)because he got lucky with quali due to rain. Alonso could have easily won that race. (Although rain affected Kimi's quali as well) Again same as Australia happened in Japan with both Alonso and Kimi, but after overtaking Klien, Alonso had to give him the place back twice once immediately and once after overtaking again and creating a significant gap, due to misunderstanding from FIA which cost him about 10 seconds. Alonso could have most probably won the grand prix as he wouldn't have stuck behind traffic and would be ahead of Kimi after final pit stops In Silverstone, Alonso was held up while lapping Coulthard and Vileneuve first and then Trulli afterwards no blue flags were shown to them which caused him time and most probably victory I can understand why some people think Raikkonen deserved it but I am sure Fernando more than deserves it. The maturity and conservative approach by Alonso and Renault and Alonso's supreme driving won them the title despite Mclaren being faster(but unreliable) car.

[@OscarLopez-bv1pp]

The Alonso-Renault association are the fair winners. It is useless to be fast if you cannot finish the races. Renault made the best compromise between speed and reliability. Of course, Alonso and Renault are the fair winners of 2005

[@simonwolff929]

i wouldnt say alonso isnt the right champion of 2005 but kimi was the better driver. the inconsistency of mclaren cost him the title and not any drivers faults. 2005 was kimis strongest season in my opinion and the drive in suzuka alone was his mastery, his 9th beethoven, a real champions drive. im not saying alonso is a bad driver dont get me wrong, he is a great talent and showed it many many times. as you said "relentless reliability" was the key in this season

[@ScowlerJase]

Next up : How not being a Formula One driver cost me the last 7 World Titles.

[@attiladezso8508]

One of the best cars ever designed in F1 in terms of aerodynamics. The 2005 championship should have been much much tigthter.

[@AudreyH48]

The fastest car doesn't always win. It's such a true statement in racing. Being consistent wins championships, plus the old luck factor every now and then.

[@pretentiousarrogance3614]

one of the most beautiful cars and with a very cool name shame they didn't managed to make the most out of it

[@Tushka154]

The ‘05 championship should have been Kimi’s if his car would have been as reliable as it was fast. I remember following the season and constantly being dissapointed whenever he had a car issue. His car and team really let him down that year. Alonso’s consistency throughout the year earned him the title, however it was so satisfying to see Kimi with Ferrari against the McLaren of Alonso in ‘07. It felt sort of like redemption.

[@toptanupat]

To conclude : If McLaren didn’t have shitty unreliable car, Alonso wouldn’t have the titles and Kimi would have been a 3 world title champ in 2000’s

[@toptanupat]

Siddhant Patnaik that why I labeled 2000’s. I still gutted for Alonso in 2010’s Ferrari

[@mrdraw2087]

3 times? 2005, 2007 and...?

[@mr_pennason5329]

To finnish first, first you must finnish. I’m a massive Kimi fan but Mclaren let him down massively, he was right to move to Ferrari and i’m glad he’s still racing.

[@hyunterks]

2003년은 논란이 있을 수 있을지 몰라도 2005년은 Kimi가 챔피언이 됐어야 하는 시즌이다. 2005년은 너무 아쉬운 해다.

[@SuperKingRiz]

I reckon McLaren lost 5-6 drivers/contractors championships between 1999-2012 because of unreliabilities. So many times they had to the fastest cars in the field but came up with nothing.

[@raomega6460]

Looking back at that season, it was very unfortunate circumstances that cost the fans a nail biting down to the wire season finale. The reliability of the McLaren/Mercedes combo just wasn't good enough. I wish kimi and McLaren would have won that year as I think the combination of kimi/McLaren was faster than Fernando/Renault both on qualifying and race pace. I think Alonso got off the hook way to easy that year. He was never really troubled in the points standings, because of McLaren's poor reliability.

[@TripleTSingt]

In other news: 21 races that cost George Russell the 2019 F1 title.

[@TheDiasporaMedia]

lol i know thanks for this comment. ridiculous videos. the fat man and harry potter must be bored... slow news weak.

[@rdug2165]

The retirements from the lead were costly. I remember this season vividly. If he had won in imola, europe and Germany. That is a net gain of 36, correct me if I'm wrong.

[@mafiousbj]

With that kind of reliability you can't be champion, not even in the 80's...maybe in the 70's.

[@Born2rue]

The number of grand prix wins that came to Alonso by means of mechanical/strategic failures of other drivers/teams deserves a video of it's own. I count at least 9 of his 32 victories. Great driver but boy was he lucky.

[@VigneshBalasubramaniam]

Kimi Raikkonen will always be the best!

[@JayB-lz6yd]

let's be honest, Newey and Dennis killed Raiko's career. Newey for his stubborn attitude concerning the car cooling issues and Dennis for his lack of balls and way of doing politic.

[@theelf152]

He still won 7/15 races despite all mechanical failures. # Races he had a comfortable lead before engine let go. His .48s quali advantage over Alonso In Monaco said it all as the circuit is more driver focused. In 2005 Raikkonen was faster than anyone before him or since. He is the best racer I've ever seen.

[@emp.splash]

Championship played into Alonso hand, and he deserves credit for being consistent and mature all year long. But yeah, Kimi somehow feels like the moral victor of that season.

[@fahadtahir1116]

Championship taken away from Kimi, if it hadn't for those mechanical troubles kimi would have been champion for sure.

[@ElonJusk]

Love this content

[@happy2bhardcore420]

A major change in 2005 was the absence of tyre changes during pit stops. Under new regulations, a driver had to use one set of tyres during qualifying and the race itself So kimi couldn't come im for a new tyre when his was falling apart

[@F1N175]

Kimi had an amazing speed that year, but there is always "but" with Kimi.

[@F1god04]

Kimi proved that he’s a World Champion that year, but it took a season with Ferrari to prove it. McLaren didn’t earn it that year at all. I’m glad Kimi got his in 2007.

[@SilverScarletSpider]

9 races is nearly half the 2005 race calendar of 19 races. That’s like saying if Verstappen or Bottas had 9 race wins instead their lowest 2019 results they would have been World champions too

[@PP-vr1cf]

What does that have to do with anything? Look at the 2005 Season and you see just how often Kimi DNF when leading the race handing the victory to Alonso. Down to the last lap. Alonso surely deserved his title but Kimi was just a beast in his Mclaren that deserved a Championship.

[@PhilipTheBigOne]

Raikkonen absolutely deserved that title in 2005. McLaren absolutely didn't. What a waste...

[@dougjudy5352]

If anyone thinks Kimi Raikkonen deserved 2005 title over Fernando Alonso read this out -: Fernando Alonso was leading the championship by 29 points against Kimi Raikkonen after Imola. Then Kimi won Spanish and Monaco Grand Prix. By this point it was clear that Mclaren was much faster car than Renault. Here Renault had two choices either to improve the car performance by improving the engine and taking the risk of unreliability or take the conservative approach. Since Renault and Fernando had this huge margin they opted for more conservative approach and you can see conservative approach in Fernando's driving style as well he chose to stay out of trouble all the times, not making dangerous overtakes, not defending too hard not pushing way too much settling for 2nd or 3rd place early in the race and working the strategy accordingly if Victory doesn't seem likely. You can also see this conservative approach was no longer to be seen after Alonso won the championship in Brazil. In Japan after championship was won, Alonso made some spectacular moves twice on Schumacher and one on Mark Webber. He could have won the race himself if there wasn't misunderstanding with FIA which led to Alonso giving the place back to Christian Klien twice after overtaking him which cost him about 10 seconds. If not for that Alonso would not have stuck in traffic after his pit stop and could have won the race. In China Renault used the improved engine (they couldn't use it in Japan as 1 engine for 2 races rule and Japan was 2nd race for old engine) In China Alonso build the 20 seconds gap before 1st pit stop which was vanished after a safety car but still Alonso won the race comfortably. You can watch that race and listen to Alonso in press conference where he talks about the improved engine he said,"If we want to take a little risk, If we want to beat Mclaren we could do it as we have shown today, I could have won 10-11 races instead of 7 which we won if we had used this engine from the start." in response to a question that you and kimi had won same number of races but you won the championship by 21 points. So in conclusion had Renault used the better engine. Alonso would have won the championship with far more points if it were reliable. But instead they went for conservative approach and won the title without risk of unreliability. And had Mclaren focused more on reliability instead of performance they would have less retirements and engine penalties but also less race wins, so they still wouldn't win the championship. And to round up the discussion, Alonso had his share of bad luck as well but not close to what Kimi had like -: In Hungary, Ralf Schumacher crashed into him causing damage to Alonso's car which saw Alonso P20 at the end of lap 1 and giving him no chance for points since damage was costing him 1.2 seconds per lap as reported by Pat Symonds In Imola, Alonso's engine was down on power and he had to defend against Michael Schumacher for 13 laps which he did amazingly and is considered as one of the greatest defensive driving in F1 In Monaco, bad timing of safety car and poor strategy of one stopping saw Alonso and Fisi carrying much heavier fuel load which led to Alonso's and Fisi's tyres to be completely worn down. Although Fisi finished outside points Alonso managed to hold off train of 4 cars which finished just within a second of him and finished P4. In Australia, A poor timed rain in quali meant Alonso had to start from P13, he finished P3 while Fisi won (his only win of the season)because he got lucky with quali due to rain. Alonso could have easily won that race. (Although rain affected Kimi's quali as well) Again same as Australia happened in Japan with both Alonso and Kimi, but after overtaking Klien, Alonso had to give him the place back twice once immediately and once after overtaking again and creating a significant gap, due to misunderstanding from FIA which cost him about 10 seconds. Alonso could have most probably won the grand prix as he wouldn't have stuck behind traffic and would be ahead of Kimi after final pit stops In Silverstone, Alonso was held up while lapping Coulthard and Vileneuve first and then Trulli afterwards no blue flags were shown to them which caused him time and most probably victory I can understand why some people think Raikkonen deserved it but I am sure Fernando more than deserves it. The maturity and conservative approach by Alonso and Renault and Alonso's supreme driving won them the title despite Mclaren being faster(but unreliable) car.

[@ramaanomuravha8575]

I remember this season very well, in my view he was suppose to win, but the car's reliability what so terrible, fast but not reliable.

[@JoeStudd96]

9 races seems a bit of a reach. Kimi only needed 1 more decent result to claim the 2003 Championship, but no one ever seems to talk about that. His retirement from the lead of the European GP that year cost him hard.

[@RobotLunchboxProductions]

Please do 22 races that cost Ferrari the 2022 championship

[@ajyates91]

My 3 favorite Formula 1 cars of all time are (Mclaren MP4/6 Drove by Senna 1991) - (Williams FW14 Drove by Mansell 1992) and (Mclaren MP4-20 Drove by Kimi 2005).