Ask Nigel Roebuck: June 16

Dear Andy,

No, I don't take these rumours of a Hakkinen comeback seriously, I'm afraid. I'm quite prepared to believe Williams sounded him out about a possible return, but frankly I would be astounded to see Mika in an F1 car again.

Why? Various reasons, really. First of all, I think there's no doubt that the accident in the 2001 Australian Grand Prix shook Hakkinen considerably. He was closing on Schumacher for the lead at the time, and the shunt occurred because of suspension failure. Such a thing is a real rarity for McLaren, but the fact is that Mika was involved in a big accident not in any way of his making, and I think it made him strongly consider his own mortality. At the time he had very recently become a father for the first time. Let's not forget that he had already come very close to death during qualifying at Adelaide in 1995.

There had been signs for some time, too, that perhaps his commitment was not what it had been. On a given weekend, he was still capable of beating everyone, but such weekends were getting fewer and farther between. At Monaco, for example, he parked a healthy car, convinced there was 'something not quite right' with it, and the Hakkinen of old would never have done that.

I was delighted when he won the 2001 US Grand Prix, at Indianapolis, for it was the penultimate race of his career, and he won it on merit. I was then very happy to see him retire, because the time was right for him.

Professionally, I was sad to see him stop, because Hakkinen at his best was a very great Grand Prix driver, and I've no doubt whatever that Schumacher feared him as he has never feared anyone else. And personally, too, I miss his presence in the paddock, for I always found him very pleasant to deal with, and a man of sometimes forthright opinions.

For a while, after his retirement, Mika lived the high life to some degree, put on quite a lot of weight, and took up smoking at the age of 34! "A typical Finn!" according to his former manager Keke Rosberg. When I saw him recently at Monaco, though, he looked very trim, and had apparently kicked his cigarette habit. I don't doubt Hakkinen still has it in him to be ferociously quick in an F1 car - over one lap I think he was superior to Schumacher, and better under pressure, too - but I truly believe his career - his serious career, anyway - is over. I don't discount his racing in some capacity in the future, but F1, no.



Dear Alan,

Actually, when it comes to 'creative interpretation of rules', the example that comes immediately to mind doesn't require the withholding of names - it was a matter of record, and anyway declared legal.

In an attempt to slow the cars for the 1981 season, the FIA banned the 'skirts' (which effected a seal between the car and the ground, and hugely increased cornering speeds), and announced that there should be a six-centimetre gap between the car and the ground, this to be measured as the cars came into the pits at the end of a qualifying session or race.

Fine. Realistically, however, you can only measure a car's ground clearance when it's at rest. And by the time of the Argentine Grand Prix, the second race of '81, there was no doubt that the Brabhams of Nelson Piquet and Hector Rebaque were running - at speed - very much closer to the ground than six centimetres.

They were also significantly quicker than anything else. It was one thing for Piquet to lead the race, quite another for renta-drive journeyman Rebaque to pass the Williams of local hero Carlos Reutemann for second place! Rebaque ultimately retired, but Piquet won - and passed the post-race check with flying colours. In effect, it had been like sprinting between 'Gatsos'...

So what was going on? Gordon Murray had swiftly cottoned on to the fact that, obviously, the car's ground clearance could only be measured at rest - so how to get his Brabham lower at speed? What he came up with ingenious: hydraulically-controlled suspension. In effect, at high speed air pressure squeezed the car down on to the track - where great speed benefits are to be found, of course. As soon as the car slowed up again, and the air pressure reduced, so the suspension rose - allowing the car to pass the check. At first, Nelson would deliberately clatter over a kerb on his slowing-down lap, to give the suspension a nudge...

Soon every other team followed suit, but once the principle had been (unfathomably) declared kosher by the FIA, they didn't bother with elegant engineering: the drivers simply had a switch in the cockpit, which raised the car immediately before the ground clearance test! It made a complete farce of Grand Prix racing for the whole season, with every car in the race blatantly flouting the spirit of a regulation, if not strictly the letter of it. But what could have been done about it? You couldn't, after all, disqualify everyone...



Dear Caroline,

No, believe me, no one 'gifted' that race to Jarno. First of all, his qualifying lap was one of the greatest I've ever seen by anybody. Second, he led from the start, and looked impervious to attack all afternoon. Not once, but twice (after the restart, following Fisichella's accident), Trulli confidently pulled away from Alonso - and anyone who can do that to Fernando in equal cars is some racing driver.

There's no doubt he has so far had the better of Alonso so far this year - and no doubt, too, that almost no one would have predicted that. It's true that, prior to this year, he was always known as a qualifier, rather than racer, but I think there's been a transformation in him in 2004: for the first time, he truly believes in himself, and it's showing.