Most dominant car of the past 20 years?

Sorry if there's a thread already open on this, but I'd be interested to see your opinions. What, in your view, is the most dominant car (chassis + engine) of the past 20 years? I've included 3 (fairly obvious) options initially, but any further suggestions are welcome. Remember, the car only is to be considered, not the drivers who were lucky enough to pilot these great machines...

The fact that Rubens could leave the field behind as well as Michael shows that the Ferrari had something neither of the others had...

But over a longer period, I'd go for Williams Honda in the eighties.

I voted for Williams FW14B as I think it had greatest peformance advantage but I doubt its drivers exploited it fully.

Hrvoje

When you see Mansell 2s faster than Senna, then Patrese at least 1s faster than Senna, on a car he didn't trust, no doubt : The Williams is the most dominant car of the last 20 years.

It is in a class of his own.

Originally posted by Vrba
I ... I doubt its drivers exploited it fully.
Hrvoje

Interesting point and one that's moot, I suppose, but IMHO Noige, for all his foibles, and on a good day, drove the 14B about as fast as any of his contemporaries could have. Patrese has said, I believe, that Mansell came to truly believe in the magic of the active suspension and attacked corners in a way he really couldn't.

Isn't this the "Nige sacrificed the first part of the season so he could come to grips with what would ultimately be the fastest car, while Riccardo plumped for the one that was fast at the start" story?

What about the MP4/2? Ran with only minor changes for a few years, and the pack was still struggling to keep up with until the end of its career? OK, it wasn't a one season wonder like MP4/4 but Barnard really was years ahead with his thinking.

pete

I've been doing a bunch of statistics on the most dominant F1 car ever in F1, tho one generally overlooked but still a solid third is the 1996 Williams! Many remeber the '92 car because of Mansell winning 9 times with it but the '96 car scored 12/16!

MP4/4 and F2002 are the top scorers. MP4 doing slightly better in several absolute scores due to the fact it ran 16 races (*2) while the F2002 made only 29 starts alltogether. I exclude the starts for this year with the car in this. Otherwise the F2002 could have equalled some performance records of the MP4/4 and even crushed some of the standards still held by MP4/4.

I can't vote between these two cars.
If people are interested, I'll be happy to post this piece in the forum but can't do this before next week.
Let me know ahw you want me to do fellows.

greetings,

Henri Greuter

Henri

What you don't say is that the MP4/4 and the F2002 were driven by the best drivers of the time, which was not the case of the Fw14.

Plus, look at the relative gap with rivals : FW14 is much more impressive.

Originally posted by B.Verkiler
Henri

What you don't say is that the MP4/4 and the F2002 were driven by the best drivers of the time, which was not the case of the Fw14.

Plus, look at the relative gap with rivals : FW14 is much more impressive.

That's exactly the reason why I say FW14B's drivers didn't exploit its potential to the full. This car probably shouldn't have lost a single race. Nevertheless, they achieved what was needed.

Hrvoje

Henri

What you don't say is that the MP4/4 and the F2002 were driven by the best drivers of the time, which was not the case of the Fw14.

Plus, look at the relative gap with rivals : FW14 is much more impressive.

===================


I am aware of that. And there is much more to consider too by the way.
But if numbers are talking, FW14 isn't the best car ever.
This is the Nostalgia Forum so I won't use the flame thrower as is happening in the "readers comments" but if we only look to numbers and results then FW14 is a top 5 car but not much more than that. Only when we consider all those artefacts involved then it becomes a different matter.

But read a number of the threads in the "readers comments" in which several persons try to make their points clear and don't hesitate to use rude language to prove their point (I admit, I'm guilty of that too....) so I try to avoid all this keeping in mind that and so on and make my point against every cost and rude language.
I admit: I look to the results and then, FW14 is impressive but not breathtaking.
The '96 Williams came off better than it probably deserved because of other matters too. For example: if Schuey had stayed with Benetton-Renault one more year instead of ending up in a crappy Ferrari.
Let's try to agree on disagreeing in that opinion, OK?

Greetings,

Henri Greuter

Originally posted by Vrba


That's exactly the reason why I say FW14B's drivers didn't exploit its potential to the full. This car probably shouldn't have lost a single race. Nevertheless, they achieved what was needed.

Hrvoje

The FW14B was probably the most dominant, but I don't think you can claim Mansell didn't get the most from it.

He won the first 5 races of the season (a rare record no held by MS).

In Monaco a late puncture prevented him from winning - even then if the puncture had occurred at any other track I'm sure he would have won. Passing at Monaco is impossible, even with fresh tires and a huge performance advantage. You can argue Mansell should have pushed to gain a bigger advantage over Senna, but then had Mansell blown the car up or something whhen pushing despite leading by 30 seconds he would be labelled an idiot...in the eyes of many Mansell was never right.

Canada - Mansell threw it away through impatience. No argument there.

He won the next 3 races, giving him 8 of 10.

Hungary Patrese threw away. Mansell played it safe for 2nd to get the WDC - understandable seeing how close he got to the WDC in the past only to lose it.

Spa Mansell's engine went sick when gaining on MS. Settled for 2nd. I'm sure he would have won otherwise - a V10 Renault having more than enough grunt to see off a Ford V8 at such a power track.

Italy - both Williams retired while running 1-2

Portugal Mansell won.

Japan - Mansell retired, Patrese won.

Australia - Mansell taken out by Senna.

So Mansell won 9, had 3 seconds (2 of those places due to car problems, 1 due to WDC).

He had 2 mechanical failures while running 1st or immediately behind his teammate.

He had one accident where he threw it away, and one where he was taken out.

So on only one occasion did he waste the FW14B. He took 14 poles as well, a record.

Prost did not do any better in 1993. Dominant as the FW14B was, you can't really argue Mansell didn't get 110% from it.

Originally posted by Henri Greuter
This is the Nostalgia Forum so I won't use the flame thrower as is happening in the "readers comments" but if we only look to numbers and results then FW14 is a top 5 car but not much more than that. Only when we consider all those artefacts involved then it becomes a different matter.

But read a number of the threads in the "readers comments" in which several persons try to make their points clear and don't hesitate to use rude language to prove their point (I admit, I'm guilty of that too....) so I try to avoid all this keeping in mind that and so on and make my point against every cost and rude language.
I admit: I look to the results and then, FW14 is impressive but not breathtaking.
The '96 Williams came off better than it probably deserved because of other matters too. For example: if Schuey had stayed with Benetton-Renault one more year instead of ending up in a crappy Ferrari.
Let's try to agree on disagreeing in that opinion, OK?

Greetings,

Henri Greuter [/B]

On nostalgia forum, thinks which are talked about are long gone, so I guess there is no flame thrower.

Your point is valid, I was just trying to talk about "other matters". Indeed in 96, Williams benefited from Schumacher's move to Ferrari.

What order of dominance do the numbers give, exactly, anyway?
And what number did you use. For example, If the F2002 was impressive in races, it was not as much impressive in qualifying.

And, since it's the nostalgia forum, what others cars would you call almost as dominant as this 3? (don't know before 84)

Well..

I voted McLaren Honda MP4-4 for the "simple" fact that had Senna not tripped over Schlesser at Monza, it would ahve won every single race of the season. Racing is about winning races, not about qualifying faster than everyone else; Not about being able to lap faster than everyone else.

Winnning is what it is all about. At Monaco 2002 the F2002 was beaten on the track. No car were able to beat McLaren Honda MP4-4 on the track.

In fact, we have all forgotten 1952/53 Ferrari 500 - this car raced for two seasons, albeit when there was smaller number of races and lesser competition, and lost only one race, 1953 Italian Grand Prix (the last race of 1953 season). It brought Ascari two world titles.

Hrvoje

Originally posted by KWSN - DSM
Well..

I voted McLaren Honda MP4-4 for the "simple" fact that had Senna not tripped over Schlesser at Monza, it would ahve won every single race of the season. Racing is about winning races, not about qualifying faster than everyone else; Not about being able to lap faster than everyone else.

Winnning is what it is all about. At Monaco 2002 the F2002 was beaten on the track. No car were able to beat McLaren Honda MP4-4 on the track.

But even if Senna hadn't collided with Schlesser, there's a possibility he would have been overtaken by Berger. Senna was in fuel trouble. However, this is only a speculation.

Hrvoje

And speculation is not what this thread is about.

Which car were the most dominat the last 20 years. McLaren was for the reasons that I stated. Problems, ifs, maybes does not come into the equation.

Ferrari were beaten on the track.

Williams was beaten on the track.

McLaren fell once over it's one toes - Never beaten directly on the track.

Case closed!!

On nostalgia forum, thinks which are talked about are long gone, so I guess there is no flame thrower.

Your point is valid, I was just trying to talk about "other matters". Indeed in 96, Williams benefited from Schumacher's move to Ferrari.

What order of dominance do the numbers give, exactly, anyway?
And what number did you use. For example, If the F2002 was impressive in races, it was not as much impressive in qualifying.

And, since it's the nostalgia forum, what others cars would you call almost as dominant as this 3? (don't know before 84)

=======

Thanks for the kind words to begin with. Good to know we are on the same terms of speaking.
That piece with what I believe to be the F1 dominators is somewhere else than here right now but I will post it next week. It is a rather long piece I am affraid but I have tried to explain what kind of rules I applied and what the results in evaluation became. I did include both qualification and race performances in the equation.

But in short, the most dominant cars (out of the top of my head) I could detect were:

MP4/4, F2002, '96 Williams, the '92 and '93 Wiliams's, F2001, F2000, and the McLaren-Honda V10's.
There are a lot of exclusion criteria to be applied to narrow it down. And of course, there is always the possibility that I rate a certain level of achievement too low or too high. But applying my, high standards, the top three of best ever cars in performance must be the MP4/4, F2002 and the '96 Williams (FW18?).
Yep, F2002 wasn't exactly dominating in practice. But take away Montoya's results and it becomes one of the all time classics in qualifying results!

Of course, the FW14 was superior in performance level but it didn't achieve the maximum possible due to circumstances. But then, what about the '82 Renaults? Almost unstoppable in practice and as long as they didn't break in the race. They could so easily have dominated the season if only....
So I do undersatnd it to consider all kind of things and matters in the final evaluation. And in case of the FW14 that is definitely justified.

===

Originally posted by KWSN - DSM
Well..

I voted McLaren Honda MP4-4 for the "simple" fact that had Senna not tripped over Schlesser at Monza, it would ahve won every single race of the season. Racing is about winning races, not about qualifying faster than everyone else; Not about being able to lap faster than everyone else.

Winning is what it is all about. At Monaco 2002 the F2002 was beaten on the track. No car were able to beat McLaren Honda MP4-4 on the track.

====

Interesting point of view. I am loosing my own religion in this one! Because: had the F2002 been a better performing car in qualifying (here: MS qualifying at the front row..) then it might have been a differen matter. Michael could not overtake Coulthard, despite being faster that DC. But the nature of the track prevented that. Thus: Qualifying can be of importance: Monaco and Hungary in particular.
But if bare facts are all that matters: you're right.





Greetings
Henri Greuter

Originally posted by KWSN - DSM
And speculation is not what this thread is about.

Which car were the most dominat the last 20 years. McLaren was for the reasons that I stated. Problems, ifs, maybes does not come into the equation.

Ferrari were beaten on the track.

Williams was beaten on the track.

McLaren fell once over it's one toes - Never beaten directly on the track.

Case closed!!

Hm, if it started the race and didn't win it, it *was* beaten, no matter for what reason. Had it not broken (Prost's car), maybe it would have won. This way, it's mechanical fragility speaks against its supremacy :-)

Hrvoje

By "beaten on the track" I mean that the car in question completed the race, without winning it. This happend to the F2002 last season in Monaco. The "reason" that the F2002 were not "strong" in qualifying was due to the tyre war, and the fatc that the Michelin tires were much better qualifiers than the Bridgestones.

Going further back than the last twenty years....McLaren build a car early 70ies, which won races in 3 or 4 years running. On top of my head no idea of the number, but think that both Fitipaldi and Hunt won the WDC in that one.. Someone willing to pay for Forix can find this one for us.

Going further back than the last twenty years....McLaren build a car early 70ies, which won races in 3 or 4 years running. On top of my head no idea of the number, but think that both Fitipaldi and Hunt won the WDC in that one.. Someone willing to pay for Forix can find this one for us.



point taken about the MP4/4 & F2002.
Still, I rate them equal if you don't mind.



The car you refer to is the M23.

henri greuter

An evolutionary biologist might say that the March 881 was the dominant car of the last 20 years, because even though it didn't win anything, almost every car from '89 through to '91 was "son of" it in terms of design! (kind of the same way the Lotus 79 and Williams FW07 were cloned to hell in '79).

pete

Originally posted by petefenelon
An evolutionary biologist might say that the March 881 was the dominant car of the last 20 years, because even though it didn't win anything, almost every car from '89 through to '91 was "son of" it in terms of design! (kind of the same way the Lotus 79 and Williams FW07 were cloned to hell in '79).

pete

Guess that would make the March 881 the most dominat design, and not the most dominat car???

Originally posted by petefenelon
An evolutionary biologist might say that the March 881 was the dominant car of the last 20 years, because even though it didn't win anything, almost every car from '89 through to '91 was "son of" it in terms of design! (kind of the same way the Lotus 79 and Williams FW07 were cloned to hell in '79).

pete

It did briefly lead the Japanese GP of 1988 for about 200 yards, so it does have some pedigree!

To the readers who came this far:

I have posted the article about the evaluation of the F1 dominators I mentioned earlier in this thread in a new thread, entitled:

A study on the F1 dominators (a rejected article)

I didn't want to ruin this thread with inserting a long article.
Thanks.

Greetings,

Henri Greuter

Malaysian GP 2003 -



Qualifying, session 1

A full second faster with a year old car seems pretty dominant to me...




Position/Driver Team Fastest Lap


1 Michael Schumacher Ferrari 1m34.980s



2 Rubens Barrichello Ferrari 1m35.681s



3 Juan Pablo Montoya Williams 1m35.939s



4 Kimi Raikkonen McLaren 1m36.038s



5 David Coulthard McLaren 1m36.297s



6 Jarno Trulli Renault 1m36.301s



7 Nick Heidfeld Sauber 1m36.407s



8 Heinz-Harald Frentzen Sauber 1m36.615s



9 Jenson Button BAR 1m36.632s



10 Fernando Alonso Renault 1m36.693s



11 Cristiano da Matta Toyota 1m36.706s



12 Giancarlo Fisichella Jordan 1m36.759s



13 Ralf Schumacher Williams 1m36.805s



14 Olivier Panis Toyota 1m36.995s



15 Jacques Villeneuve BAR 1m37.585s



16 Mark Webber Jaguar 1m37.669s



17 Ralph Firman Jordan 1m38.240s



18 Jos Verstappen Minardi 1m38.904s



19 Justin Wilson Minardi 1m39.354s



20 Antonio Pizzonia Jaguar -m-s

Originally posted by KWSN - DSM
Well..

I voted McLaren Honda MP4-4 for the "simple" fact that had Senna not tripped over Schlesser at Monza, it would ahve won every single race of the season. Racing is about winning races, not about qualifying faster than everyone else; Not about being able to lap faster than everyone else.

Winnning is what it is all about. At Monaco 2002 the F2002 was beaten on the track. No car were able to beat McLaren Honda MP4-4 on the track.

I agree 100%
Nothing to add