There have been numerous stories about championships being lost due to unreliability or lack of car performance but when has a driver lost a championship simply because he wasn't fast enough?
When would the championship certainly have been won with a better driver during that year?
Who lost a championship due to simply poor driving?
Started by
karlth
, Aug 10 2005 11:39
19 replies to this topic
Advertisement
#2
charger2000
-
- 19 posts
- Joined: September 04
New Member
Posted 10 August 2005 - 11:51
definitely Irvine in 1999, and if Schumi wouldn't injured in Silverstone... 
#3
ian senior
-
- 2,165 posts
- Joined: September 02
Member
Posted 10 August 2005 - 11:57
Sory, but I don't quite get this. Presumably if a driver wasn't fast enough, he wouldn't have been in the running for the championship? Unless we are talking about one title-deciding race in which he failed to deliver?
#4
petefenelon
-
- 4,815 posts
- Joined: August 02
Member
Posted 10 August 2005 - 12:02
Reutemann at Las Vegas in '81. I think he'd stopped caring, and I think his decision to retire early in '82 was very closely tied to his inexplicably duff performance in that race.
#5
lukywill
-
- 6,660 posts
- Joined: March 01
Member
Posted 10 August 2005 - 12:38
ferrari 1983: tambay and arnoux were fast sure, but not the entire year. if only prost was at ferrari...
williams 1994/95: hill lost the championship. it should be senna on that williams.
1989: senna has more poles and wins than his teamate prost.
there are also the examples of too much faster:
-1984 prost was much faster than lauda but had not the reliability.
-1987 mansell lost the championship to a imperial (but slower) piquet
williams 1994/95: hill lost the championship. it should be senna on that williams.
1989: senna has more poles and wins than his teamate prost.
there are also the examples of too much faster:
-1984 prost was much faster than lauda but had not the reliability.
-1987 mansell lost the championship to a imperial (but slower) piquet
#6
karlth
-
- 16,290 posts
- Joined: August 99
Member
Posted 10 August 2005 - 14:06
Any examples from the 60s?
#7
Kpy
-
- 1,259 posts
- Joined: February 01
Member
Posted 10 August 2005 - 14:21
Originally posted by karlth
When would the championship certainly have been won with a better driver during that year?
Every year since 1950.
#8
WHITE
-
- 1,498 posts
- Joined: July 05
Member
Posted 10 August 2005 - 14:28
Originally posted by Kpy
Every year since 1950.
Nothing else to say !
#9
Gilles4Ever
-
- 24,873 posts
- Joined: June 04
RC Forum Admin
Posted 10 August 2005 - 14:30
Originally posted by lukywill
ferrari 1983: tambay and arnoux were fast sure, but not the entire year. if only prost was at ferrari...
IIRC 83 went bad when Michelin got their radials right and Ferrari were still on cross ply Good Years.
#10
ensign14
-
- 61,992 posts
- Joined: December 01
Member
Posted 10 August 2005 - 14:53
Graham Hill lost it in 1964 because of Lorenzo Bandini's bad driving, pace John Surtees...Originally posted by karlth
Any examples from the 60s?
There have been all sorts of titles lost because of a mistake, e.g. Moss in '58 by missing a gear at Spa, Mansell in '86 by stalling at Mexico &c, but there are part of the warp & woof of history and had it not been for their brilliant driving elsewhere in the season they would not have been in with a shout. Show me the guy who claims not to have made a mistake all season and I'll show you a liar.
I really wish Irvine in 1999 had won the title - that would have shown its genuine worth in the grand scheme of things.
I'm also really tempted to suggest Pironi in 1982, but I might be a bit biased with that one.
#11
simonlewisbooks
-
- 2,118 posts
- Joined: January 02
Member
Posted 10 August 2005 - 15:14
Originally posted by lukywill
williams 1994/95: hill lost the championship. it should be senna on that williams.-1987 mansell lost the championship to a imperial (but slower) piquet
Err....no, frankly..
1994 Hill was taken out in a blatent and totally callous manner by Schumacher and that is why he didn't win the title.
And don't forget the stories of a " leading team " also cheating that year (traction control etc) and in 95.....and they got away with that too, apparently, despite being found out.
1987 That had rather a lot to do with Piquet being a 'Honda Man' and Mansell being the contracted No.2 who was certainly not getting Honda's full attention, or Williams'. "At this rate the world championship will win Nelson Piquet" was Autosport's memorable mid season comment...
Simon Lewis
Transport Books & Motorsport Photos
http://simonlewis.com/oscart/index.php
#12
subh
-
- 1,191 posts
- Joined: July 04
Member
Posted 10 August 2005 - 15:52
every single Minardi driver lost the championship through not being fast enough...
#13
John B
-
- 7,961 posts
- Joined: June 99
Member
Posted 10 August 2005 - 18:44
The WIlliams drivers in 1986 is another case of teammates splitting lots of points, had one established dominance over the other for the balance of the year it would have been a title.
The aforementioned Ferrari 1983 was a similar situation - two even drivers, with Arnoux not asserting himself until too late in the second half, though he did take it to the last race with a tire handicap at some tracks. Ferrari was up against it doubly that year, as both Prost and Piquet had essentially one-car operations with zero points competition from their teammates, Patrese's due to dreadful reliability. Some blamed Prost for losing that year due to the ill-fated pass attempt at Zaandvoort, but that seems a stretch.
Reutemann in 1981 just didn't get it done in the last two races.
The aforementioned Ferrari 1983 was a similar situation - two even drivers, with Arnoux not asserting himself until too late in the second half, though he did take it to the last race with a tire handicap at some tracks. Ferrari was up against it doubly that year, as both Prost and Piquet had essentially one-car operations with zero points competition from their teammates, Patrese's due to dreadful reliability. Some blamed Prost for losing that year due to the ill-fated pass attempt at Zaandvoort, but that seems a stretch.
Reutemann in 1981 just didn't get it done in the last two races.
#14
D-Type
-
- 9,704 posts
- Joined: February 03
Member
Posted 10 August 2005 - 19:20
There was a reason for Reutemann's 1981 Las Vegas performance. I forget what it was - either a strange engine fault or his tyres going off
#16
William Dale Jr
-
- 405 posts
- Joined: April 00
Member
Posted 11 August 2005 - 00:43
Originally posted by D-Type
There was a reason for Reutemann's 1981 Las Vegas performance. I forget what it was - either a strange engine fault or his tyres going off
I remember reading something about that. I think it might have been in a letter printed in MotorSport. The letter said it was definitely something to do with his tyres, that they were fine in practice, but come the race the car handled much worse than it had the previous two days.
#17
AAA-Eagle
-
- 1,044 posts
- Joined: July 04
Member
Posted 11 August 2005 - 01:44
Reutemann had problems with handling and his tires were the main suspects
#18
Manfred Cubenoggin
-
- 977 posts
- Joined: October 02
Member
Posted 11 August 2005 - 01:48
Reutemann being an also-ran at Vegas? IIRC, it was gearbox woes right from the green flag.
At least, that's my vote seeing as how just about everybody is throwing in everything from soup to nuts. Next excuse, svp!
At least, that's my vote seeing as how just about everybody is throwing in everything from soup to nuts. Next excuse, svp!
#19
Ruairidh
-
- 1,074 posts
- Joined: November 02
Member
Posted 11 August 2005 - 03:23
Originally posted by ian senior
Sory, but I don't quite get this. Presumably if a driver wasn't fast enough, he wouldn't have been in the running for the championship? Unless we are talking about one title-deciding race in which he failed to deliver?
I also miss the point of this, unless it is like Ian suggests: a failure to perform at a critical juncture rather than the case of right car, wrong driver in a particular year (i.e. the best car didn't win the championship 'cos its driver(s) weren't able to fulfill its potential).
I guess one other suggestion might be Emmo in 1973, but like John B's example of Williams in 1986, you could point to the increasing influence of Ronnie and say that over the deciding stretch of 1973 that fragmented the advantage that the Lotus 72 arguably had over the Tyrrell 005/006.
Advertisement
#20
ensign14
-
- 61,992 posts
- Joined: December 01
Member
Posted 11 August 2005 - 06:29
Jim Rathmann never liked driving on the dirt and only ventured onto it late in 1957 in an attempt to win the USAC crown; his paved oval races - a win, 2nd at point- heavy Indy, a 5th and 6th - gave him the title lead. But at Sacramento and Phoenix he had a lowly 12th and lapped 6th (both times out of 18 runners), whereas Jimmy Brian took a 2nd and 1st to pip him for the title by 80 points; a top 5 at Sacramento or following Bryan home would have given him the title.
The "poor driving" bit is that he was apparently all over the place at Phoenix and took out Elmer George; and with 4 laps to go, when being lapped by Bryan, Jimmy somehow found himself up against the fence. Rathmann's excuse was his inability to handle his car on the dirt.
The "poor driving" bit is that he was apparently all over the place at Phoenix and took out Elmer George; and with 4 laps to go, when being lapped by Bryan, Jimmy somehow found himself up against the fence. Rathmann's excuse was his inability to handle his car on the dirt.
