Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

Championships won NOT in the "best car"?


  • Please log in to reply
381 replies to this topic

#51 MPea3

MPea3
  • Member

  • 2,144 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 28 August 2009 - 18:34

Rosberg, Williams, 1982.

Sheckter, Ferrari, 1979.

Brabham, Brabham, 1967.


You mean Hulme, Brabham, 1967. Brabham won in his own car in 1966


Advertisement

#52 PNSD

PNSD
  • Member

  • 3,276 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 28 August 2009 - 18:44

Best car or quickest car?

The best car is not always the quickest, 2005, and 2000 are obvious examples.

IMO for as long as I can remember the best car has always won the championship, may not have been quickest, but the best.

I vote for 1995.

I highly disagree with 2005 and 2000... both seasons were won by cars with better reliability, but still quick. In the end they were the better car.


#53 ZZMS

ZZMS
  • Member

  • 1,645 posts
  • Joined: July 00

Posted 28 August 2009 - 20:13

I highly disagree with 2005 and 2000... both seasons were won by cars with better reliability, but still quick. In the end they were the better car.


Hakkinen's McLaren was just as reliable as Schumacher's Ferrari. IIRC he had maybe 1 more car failure, but he actually had fewer DNFs

#54 Villes Gilleneuve

Villes Gilleneuve
  • Member

  • 2,248 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 28 August 2009 - 20:20

1979 was a good example of Ferrari having a slow, but reliable car, that somehow manged to beat ground-effects Lotuses (loti?).
These days, cars rarely break.

#55 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 2,340 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 28 August 2009 - 20:32

Best car or quickest car?

The best car is not always the quickest, 2005, and 2000 are obvious examples.

IMO for as long as I can remember the best car has always won the championship, may not have been quickest, but the best.

I vote for 1995.

I highly disagree with 2005 and 2000... both seasons were won by cars with better reliability, but still quick. In the end they were the better car.




Ferrari in 2000 was not as quick as the McLaren. Mid season performance determines that, yes they had the better reliability....

Edited by George Costanza, 28 August 2009 - 20:32.


#56 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 2,340 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 28 August 2009 - 20:33

94/95/00/03/08



Why 2003? Ferrari was clearly the best car. (might not have the best tires, though that season).

#57 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 14,242 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 28 August 2009 - 20:42

Its highly unlikely that a superb Newey chassis with the same engine and tyres that was superior in qualifying, would lose that speed advantage in the race. If you look back at that season the williams drivers generally had the speed advantage over schumacher on race day but they just couldnt race. Hill was all over schumacher at monza, silverstone, nurburg ect.

Johnny Herbert won 2 races in 1995.

I think when both drivers of a team win races the car can't be considered that bad, even when I consider that Damon Hill made life hard for himself and Williams.

#58 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 14,242 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 28 August 2009 - 20:50

Why 2003? Ferrari was clearly the best car. (might not have the best tires, though that season).

The long wheel based GA? The tires were a problem only because of the direction of development Ferrari took that year. Had McLaren abandoned the MP4-18 earlier in favour of the MP4-17D, Kimi might have won the championship. Williams was also the best car at some stages.

To me in 2003 there were 3 cars that were pretty much equal. Not saying the Ferrari was worse though.

#59 DarthWillie

DarthWillie
  • Member

  • 1,724 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 28 August 2009 - 21:05

1986 was really the last time for me. 1991 Senna didn't have the best car over the whole season, but the first 4 races he had, and in those 4 races he could build enough of a lead to last the season.
The other mentioned years after that I don't think there was a dominant car, more equal cars.

Advertisement

#60 Muz Bee

Muz Bee
  • Member

  • 2,531 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 28 August 2009 - 21:08

Newey is by far the best designer in history. Not only did he acheive his staggering results without the most dominant driver in history but he did it racing against him. Just imagine his results without having to race against Schumacher, then imagine them, racing with Schumacher. :drunk:

Ever heard of Gordon Murray? The dominant designer of his era - too hard to compare his revolutions with Newey's brilliant iterations of F1 car specs going stale. People talk of 90s cars as "the best looking" - totally subjective issue, I like early Lotus and McLaren and Ferrari and Tyrell etc.

If the "best car" is just the fastest but is unreliable, then is it the best. Hulme defeated Clark's Lotus in 1967 because the car was very reliable. Rosberg kept picking up points and podiums while others crashed and expired. Clark lost 62 and 64 titles by a whisker because of reliability of Lotus at this time. Maybe a better question would be "what drivers took an ordinary car and made it a (title) winning car through their own brilliance?"


#61 Wouter

Wouter
  • Member

  • 5,778 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 28 August 2009 - 21:11

From the years I have followed in F1, I would say 1979 (between the Lotus, Ligier and Williams Ferrari was not really the best car that year), 1982 (the Ferrari was the best car overall but the tragic accidents meant the WDC was wide open) and 1986 is indeed the poster example. This is not like the discussion for the recent years whether the McLaren or the Ferrari was that little bit better, in 1986 the Williams could even lap the McLaren/Prost at the French GP. Every driver would have wanted the Williams over the McLaren that year, but Mansell and Piquet took points off each other and that helped Prost secure the title "in extremis".

After that, maybe 1991. The Williams was unreliable at first but it was quite a bit quicker than McLaren from mid-season on. As the McLaren was not bulletproof either I would say the Williams was the car to be in, overall.

1995 probably as well, Williams seemed to make many mistakes in the races (both by drivers and as far as race strategy went). The 1994 Benetton was, relative to the competition that year, actually better than the Renault-engined one of 1995 IMO.

#62 Rabbit123

Rabbit123
  • Member

  • 255 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 28 August 2009 - 21:15

Fangio - Alfa Romeo 1951
Hunt - McLaren 1976
Rosberg - Williams 1982
Senna - McLaren 1991
Schumacher - Benetton 1994


#63 Anomnader

Anomnader
  • Member

  • 8,616 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 28 August 2009 - 21:16

I agree, and this year will be the next one with Button/Vessel/Webber winning instead of those McLarens and Ferraris.


I'm not getting you. If a McLaren or Ferrari won this year then they would certainly appear in the list. As it is, if Button, Vettel or Webber win it then, no I don't think they'll have a place in this list.

#64 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,485 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 28 August 2009 - 21:21

Best car or quickest car?

The best car is not always the quickest, 2005, and 2000 are obvious examples.

The clearest example is 1967 - the Lotus 49s were in a class of their own, but mostly failed to finish.

#65 ZZMS

ZZMS
  • Member

  • 1,645 posts
  • Joined: July 00

Posted 28 August 2009 - 21:30

Johnny Herbert won 2 races in 1995.

I think when both drivers of a team win races the car can't be considered that bad, even when I consider that Damon Hill made life hard for himself and Williams.



his wins were clearly freak wins. Both required brainfade of DH, eliminating DH and Schumacher. I'm a bit vague on Silverstone (was it that?) but at least in Monza it required freak self-elimination of both Ferrari (Alesi's camera fell off and ended Berger's race). I think DC also ran in front of Herbert both times. Not sure about Macs.

in 1995 Williams was clear #1, and Benetton was perhaps worse than Ferrari in pace, especially given after-season testing done by Schumacher and Berger/Alesi. Schumacher commented in a way that he couldn't understand how come Berger and Alesi didn't challenge for.. umm.. was that wins or the championship itself... and Berger/Alesi found Benetton undriveable.

Edited by ZZMS, 28 August 2009 - 21:35.


#66 ZZMS

ZZMS
  • Member

  • 1,645 posts
  • Joined: July 00

Posted 28 August 2009 - 21:32

Why 2003? Ferrari was clearly the best car. (might not have the best tires, though that season).


HP has already replied. IMHO that year Williams was easily as good as Ferrari in the race and superior to Ferrari in qualifying. Williams drivers underperformed.

Edited by ZZMS, 28 August 2009 - 21:32.


#67 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,485 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 28 August 2009 - 21:38

his wins were clearly freak wins. Both required brainfade of DH, eliminating DH and Schumacher. I'm a bit vague on Silverstone (was it that?)

Sure it was.


#68 BMW_F1

BMW_F1
  • Member

  • 7,670 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 28 August 2009 - 21:50

HP has already replied. IMHO that year Williams was easily as good as Ferrari in the race and superior to Ferrari in qualifying. Williams drivers underperformed.


BS.. Williams only started picking up the pace in Monaco before that with the exception of Australia they were literally nowhere. Even Renault was better

Edited by BMW_F1, 28 August 2009 - 21:51.


#69 BMW_F1

BMW_F1
  • Member

  • 7,670 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 28 August 2009 - 21:54

To me in 2003 there were 3 cars that were pretty much equal. Not saying the Ferrari was worse though.


it is true that in some races one team dominated the others but another fact is that Ferrari was the ONLY team out of the three which did not suffer a single mechanical failure. (MS's car) - Those DNF's (2 for JPM and 1 for Kimi) was the main reason those 2 drivers did not win the title.


#70 Wouter

Wouter
  • Member

  • 5,778 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 28 August 2009 - 21:58

his wins were clearly freak wins. Both required brainfade of DH, eliminating DH and Schumacher. I'm a bit vague on Silverstone (was it that?) but at least in Monza it required freak self-elimination of both Ferrari (Alesi's camera fell off and ended Berger's race). I think DC also ran in front of Herbert both times. Not sure about Macs.

I agree they were freak wins, and I would also say that Herbert flattered the 1995 car compared to what the injured Lehto and the very inexperienced Verstappen did with the 1994 car (which was easily faster than the 1995 car IMO - Schumacher won by large margins in 1994, while in 1995 he often got ahead at the pitstops only to then have Hill on his tail).

Hakkinen was second, behind Herbert, in Monza. But the MP4/10 is one of the worst McLarens ever build, so it doesn't say much.

#71 GiancarloF1

GiancarloF1
  • Member

  • 925 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 28 August 2009 - 21:59

Räikkönen in 2007. The McLaren was super reliable and super fast.


:o

In fact, most tracks prefered Ferrari and it's superior aero. It was clearly the best car, altough McLaren looked better because of its drivers.

Edited by GiancarloF1, 28 August 2009 - 22:00.


#72 GiancarloF1

GiancarloF1
  • Member

  • 925 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 28 August 2009 - 22:01

Johnny Herbert won 2 races in 1995.

I think when both drivers of a team win races the car can't be considered that bad, even when I consider that Damon Hill made life hard for himself and Williams.


And how great those wins were. :rotfl:

#73 wepmob2000

wepmob2000
  • Member

  • 709 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 28 August 2009 - 22:01

Fangio - Alfa Romeo 1951
Hunt - McLaren 1976
Rosberg - Williams 1982
Senna - McLaren 1991
Schumacher - Benetton 1994


Got to disagree with the last one, the B194 seemed pretty much the best car throughout the season, albeit that it was built around Schumachers preferences, also it wasn't the most legal car on the grid..... (the recent adverts in Motorsport mag rather gave that away.....)

#74 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,485 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 28 August 2009 - 22:03

BS.. Williams only started picking up the pace in Monaco before that with the exception of Australia they were literally nowhere. Even Renault was better

"literally nowhere" is a bit strong, and Renault were as good as anyone in quite a few races!

#75 wepmob2000

wepmob2000
  • Member

  • 709 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 28 August 2009 - 22:07

Johnny Herbert won 2 races in 1995.

I think when both drivers of a team win races the car can't be considered that bad, even when I consider that Damon Hill made life hard for himself and Williams.


Herbert himself said the B195 was absolutely horrible (for him) to drive, since it was totally built around Schumacher's preferences. It might not have been the absolute best car on the grid, but it certainly the best 'made for Schumi' car.

#76 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,485 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 28 August 2009 - 22:08

:o

In fact, most tracks prefered Ferrari and it's superior aero. It was clearly the best car, altough McLaren looked better because of its drivers.

There have been endless discussions about this, "clearly the best car" is nonsense.
Ferrari was certainly not the best car in e.g. Monaco, Hungary ot Monza.

IMHO it's a draw when you consider the overall season.

#77 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,485 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 28 August 2009 - 22:11

Herbert himself said the B195 was absolutely horrible (for him) to drive, since it was totally built around Schumacher's preferences. It might not have been the absolute best car on the grid, but it certainly the best 'made for Schumi' car.

That quote only qualifies Herbert as total sucker.
He certainly doesn't do himself credit by that  ;)

#78 Wouter

Wouter
  • Member

  • 5,778 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 28 August 2009 - 22:18

That quote only qualifies Herbert as total sucker.
He certainly doesn't do himself credit by that ;)

He did do himself credit by winning twice in it, anyway. Herbert also drove the B194 (for 2 races) and was pretty fast in that one, IIRC. In any case, he enjoyed more success than Verstappen in 1994 and Alesi and Berger in 1996.

#79 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 9,888 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 28 August 2009 - 22:25

The F2003GA was the most reliable car and just as fast as anything else. Even when Bridgestone was outdone, the car itself was competitive and Schumacher was never too far from the podium. Look at how well Barrichello did in most of Schumacher's poor races. Hungary was, of course, their worse race, but they were up front everywhere else. Even if we consider the F2002's performance, the pattern remains, always fast and competitive. One must take in account what a mess Ferrari and its pilots made of their races from Australia to Brazil with spins, collisions and poor strategies.

The same cannot be said of the FW25. It took a very long while to become competitive and Montoya didn't even enjoy the same reliability Schumacher did, having retired twice from the lead.

As for the MP4-17D, it was outdated and not even meant to race that full season. One will be very hard pressed to find the events in which it was fast and displayed blistering pace (as the F2003 did at Silverstone with Barrichello, or the FW25 did with Montoya at Hockenheim). Neither was it as reliable as the Ferrari.

Not to mention Ferrari won the WCC and had more wins, podiums, poles and fastest laps than anyone else.

Edited by Atreiu, 28 August 2009 - 22:32.


Advertisement

#80 ZZMS

ZZMS
  • Member

  • 1,645 posts
  • Joined: July 00

Posted 28 August 2009 - 22:25

Herbert himself said the B195 was absolutely horrible (for him) to drive, since it was totally built around Schumacher's preferences. It might not have been the absolute best car on the grid, but it certainly the best 'made for Schumi' car.



what's funny is that Schumi absolutely hated the car too, he was very vocal about it in 1995 complaining that it was very nervous. IIRC in Spain he had an off (race ending) which he said he had no explanation as to how it happened, claimed that car just swerved and maintained this view ever since despite Briatore alluding to driver's error.

Basically, "made for Schumi" is BS. Or, if it isn't, they totally failed to build it for him.

#81 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,485 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 28 August 2009 - 22:30

He did do himself credit by winning twice in it, anyway. Herbert also drove the B194 (for 2 races) and was pretty fast in that one, IIRC. In any case, he enjoyed more success than Verstappen in 1994 and Alesi and Berger in 1996.

And especially that last fact shows that the car he drove in 1995 wasn't totally bad.

#82 Lazy Prodigy

Lazy Prodigy
  • Member

  • 2,452 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 28 August 2009 - 22:51

73
81
82
86
91

:o

In fact, most tracks prefered Ferrari and it's superior aero. It was clearly the best car, altough McLaren looked better because of its drivers.

still not driving for Ferrari, Giancarlo. :o

Edited by Lazy Prodigy, 28 August 2009 - 23:57.


#83 John B

John B
  • Member

  • 6,299 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 28 August 2009 - 23:39

Prost 1986 really stands out - it's rare that an imminent WDC is lapped on performance during a midseason race, as happened at Britain that year.

It may sound strange given it was one of the more one sided WDCs of recent, but the McLaren in 1985 wasn't anywhere near what it was the previous season - even Prost's wins had some fortune involved IIRC (Monaco, Silverstone). Lotus, Ferrari, and Williams were all better at times, but nowhere near as consistent, the latter (again) was much faster in the late season but too late. Perhaps not by coincidence, Prost got his first title with consistency after losing the previous 4 with the most wins.

1991 as mentioned Williams didn't get it together until the ill-fated Canadian race. 06 was a case of rules management, as Alonso went from cake walking race after race to struggling to keep up overnight.

The point splitting Wouter mentioned has been a key to many titles. It can be a bit relative - if Alonso stayed at McLaren last year and the team had an even lineup, he certainly takes away enough points from LH to cover LH's winning margin over Massa......the question is how many times does he finish ahead of Massa.

#84 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 29 August 2009 - 00:37

1981 Nelson Piquet (Williams team rivalry)
1982 Keke Rosberg (Renault's appalling reliability and Ferrari Tragedy hit)
1986 Alain Prost (Williams team rivalry
1992 Ayrton Senna (Willimas unreliability early in the season)
1995 Michael Schumacher (Williams was the better car)

1999 and 2000 are debatable

2005 perhaps as well ???


henri




1981, The Brabham was competitive, but it was a no.1 driver team.
1982, agreed, but if it's not reliable enough it's not the best (= reliable + fast + drivable),
1986, yep, but Williams also had their problems, witch is when Prost won all his victories
1992 ?!, you mean 91 ?!
1995, wrong the Benetton was the better car, it was just as fast, not as easy to drive but more reliable then the Williams


#85 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 29 August 2009 - 00:42

Fangio - Alfa Romeo 1951
Hunt - McLaren 1976
Rosberg - Williams 1982
Senna - McLaren 1991
Schumacher - Benetton 1994




1951, the Alfa was better in the first half of the season
1976, the cars where pretty equal after some races
1982, well yeah
1991, McLaren where more reliable
1994, wrong, the B194 was the best for most of the season.

#86 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 29 August 2009 - 00:46

>
^ BTW, who the **** said people are complaining about the better car ?!

This is, or should be, motorsport a.k.a. auto racing, not driversport FFS.
I personally don't want to watch a motorized version of tennis or some other crap like that.

75% car and mechanics (read team) and 25% driver and luck, as Fangio once said.



#87 canon1753

canon1753
  • Member

  • 618 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 29 August 2009 - 04:19

I disagree with Schuey in 1994 not winning in the best car. The 1994 Championship would have been won by Schuey by a mile had the FIA not gone to all the trouble of banning Michael for a few races over something stupid. That was so there was a title race.

#88 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,038 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 29 August 2009 - 05:42

My list from the 70´s, 80´s, 90´s and 2000´s:

1973 Jackie Stewart (Lotus, McLaren - Peter Revson of all people winning two races in the McLaren!)
1977 Niki Lauda (Lotus was massive - but yet unreliable)
1981 Nelson Piquet (Williams team rivalry)
1982 Keke Rosberg (Renault's appalling reliability and Ferrari´s double tragedy)
1986 Alain Prost (Williams team rivalry
1991 Ayrton Senna (Willimas unreliability early in the season)
1995 Michael Schumacher (Williams was the better car)
1999 Mika Hakkinen (Ferrari was the better car - even Eddie Irvine nearly won the WDC)
2000 Michael Schumacher (McLaren the better car)
2005 Fernando Alonso (McLaren the better car)
2006 Fernando Alonso (Ferrari the better car)
2007 Kimi Raikkonen (McLaren the better car)

So all in all it´s quite a number of WDC´s fulfilling the characteristics you ask for - 12 championships in 40 years.

#89 Slyder

Slyder
  • Member

  • 5,453 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 29 August 2009 - 05:46

2000 Mac-Merc the better car? Doubt it. I'd say they were evenly matched, with Ferrari having the edge.

2005. Nope, Renault WAS the better car. Mac-Merc was fastest, but it was too damned unreliable.

1974 I believe Emmo won WITHOUT the better car. Mac-Cosworth was nowhere compared to the rapidly improving Ferrari and the still competitive Lotus 72.

Edited by Slyder, 29 August 2009 - 05:47.


#90 Slyder

Slyder
  • Member

  • 5,453 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 29 August 2009 - 05:50

The F2003GA was the most reliable car and just as fast as anything else. Even when Bridgestone was outdone, the car itself was competitive and Schumacher was never too far from the podium. Look at how well Barrichello did in most of Schumacher's poor races. Hungary was, of course, their worse race, but they were up front everywhere else. Even if we consider the F2002's performance, the pattern remains, always fast and competitive. One must take in account what a mess Ferrari and its pilots made of their races from Australia to Brazil with spins, collisions and poor strategies.

The same cannot be said of the FW25. It took a very long while to become competitive and Montoya didn't even enjoy the same reliability Schumacher did, having retired twice from the lead.

As for the MP4-17D, it was outdated and not even meant to race that full season. One will be very hard pressed to find the events in which it was fast and displayed blistering pace (as the F2003 did at Silverstone with Barrichello, or the FW25 did with Montoya at Hockenheim). Neither was it as reliable as the Ferrari.

Not to mention Ferrari won the WCC and had more wins, podiums, poles and fastest laps than anyone else.



The MP4-17D was not on par with the F2003 GA, but both cars and the FW25 were all wildly inconsistent. However, I'd say that the MP4/17D was a dark horse. Had it been a little bit more reliable, it would've spun surprises. I still believe had that car held together at nurburgring, and Raikkonen won that race, HE would've won the WDC and not Michael.

#91 fanboy

fanboy
  • Member

  • 999 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 29 August 2009 - 05:50

2007 Kimi Raikkonen (McLaren the better car)


Ferrari was the fastest car in at least 11 races. I cant see how Mclaren was the better car. Just imagine how dominant the ferrari would have been with the fastest drivers? :eek:

#92 Slyder

Slyder
  • Member

  • 5,453 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 29 August 2009 - 05:57

I don't wknow why people keep saying that Michael won 1994 without the best car.

The B194 WAS the best car on the grid. The Williams FW16 might have been faster, but was a ****ing pig compared to the nimbleness of the B194. Michael was simply superior in that car, and the FW16 was nowhere near its pace. The FW16B was much improved version, but it never overtook the B194.

#93 fanboy

fanboy
  • Member

  • 999 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 29 August 2009 - 06:00

I don't wknow why people keep saying that Michael won 1994 without the best car.

The B194 WAS the best car on the grid. The Williams FW16 might have been faster, but was a ****ing pig compared to the nimbleness of the B194. Michael was simply superior in that car, and the FW16 was nowhere near its pace. The FW16B was much improved version, but it never overtook the B194.



Probably because without Michael at the wheel the car was not even a top 10 car. Of course the other drivers were not experienced but you would expect them to be stronger in the best car. Dont forget you have to factor in the difference in driving ability between hill and schumacher when comparing the cars. Any car looked nimbled in Michaels hands.

#94 Slyder

Slyder
  • Member

  • 5,453 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 29 August 2009 - 06:07

Probably because without Michael at the wheel the car was not even a top 10 car. Of course the other drivers were not experienced but you would expect them to be stronger in the best car. Dont forget you have to factor in the difference in driving ability between hill and schumacher when comparing the cars. Any car looked nimbled in Michaels hands.


David Coulthard didn't necessarily do much in that car, he pretty much did a sub-par job on the FW16. Verstappen was getting much better at seasons end, scoring a 3rd and 4th at Hungary and Belgium, and might have been stronger by the end of the season had they not stuck Herbert in his stead.

Regarding Michael's ability, not necessarily. The 1996 F310 and 1997 F310B were EVIL handling cars, and you could tell that Michael was really working the wheel in those cars just to keep them on the road. Same with the B195, that one I can agree that Michael pulled it off because the B195 was not on par with the FW17, and the fact that Hill unfortunately just cracked.

#95 Chezrome

Chezrome
  • Member

  • 1,218 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 29 August 2009 - 07:47

Suprisingly, I did not see the name of Lauda and Ferrari in 1977. Villeneuve said later that he could not understand how someone could win the World Title with such a bad car. Better drivers/cars that year: Lotus (Andretti), Hunt (McLaren), Scheckter (Wolf) and then some others. Lauda won two Grand Prix that year, often qualified midfield or thereabouts. Andretti put his car on pole often, with enormous margins. Lauda said: 'Someone who is 1.5 seconds faster than anyone else should not get nervous.' And about Hunt: 'He was the best driver. I just don't know why it did not happen for him that year.'

Apologies: I just saw another post Lauda's name. But I still knew to add some insight, I hope.

Edited by Chezrome, 29 August 2009 - 07:48.


#96 Mauseri

Mauseri
  • Member

  • 7,509 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 29 August 2009 - 08:05

wasnt as super fast in all the high aero efficiency tracks - Spa, Silverstone, Turkey, Barcelona, Malaysia, Brazil, Nurburgring.....

But was faster in the stop and go tracks, Monaco, Montreal, Monza,... and not forgetting the wet weather so Nürburgring and the other wet races go to McLaren. And not forgetting the reliability factor, I'd say McLaren was the best car, Alonso just made way too many mistakes, and the rookie almost winning the WDC says a lot about the car.

#97 sreevishnu

sreevishnu
  • Member

  • 1,514 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 24 September 2009 - 19:52

wasnt as super fast in all the high aero efficiency tracks - Spa, Silverstone, Turkey, Barcelona, Malaysia, Brazil, Nurburgring.....

Ferrari was the fastest car in at least 11 races. I cant see how Mclaren was the better car. Just imagine how dominant the ferrari would have been with the fastest drivers? eek.gif



lets see

Ferrari Dominated Tracks
Spa
Turkey
Brazil
France
Australia

Now lets come to Mclaren Dominated Tracks

Monaco
Hungary
Canada
Indy
Monza
Fuji
China

Closely matched tracks
Silverstone
Barcelona
Nurburgring
Malaysia
Bahrain

The Mclaren was the car to have for that season, it was fast in almost 80% tracks
And to add Ferrari had 3 Mechanical DNFs
Where as Mclaren ZERO!

Edited by sreevishnu, 24 September 2009 - 20:00.


#98 PNSD

PNSD
  • Member

  • 3,276 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 24 September 2009 - 19:57

Fuji and China were wet.

You can not use them two as examples tbh.


#99 sreevishnu

sreevishnu
  • Member

  • 1,514 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 24 September 2009 - 20:04

Fuji and China were wet.

You can not use them two as examples tbh.


yes we can
as the Mclaren car was really fast in Rain and its still is.
It was clearly the dominant and fastest car in rain, as shown in Nurburing aswell
And Ferrari did a special test Mugello with water sprayed on track, just to catch up.

and also Remember they were running 1-2 in Both Fuji and China, when one of them crashed or slid wide

Edited by sreevishnu, 24 September 2009 - 20:06.


Advertisement

#100 craftverk

craftverk
  • Member

  • 2,810 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 24 September 2009 - 20:19

There have been endless discussions about this, "clearly the best car" is nonsense.
Ferrari was certainly not the best car in e.g. Monaco, Hungary ot Monza.

IMHO it's a draw when you consider the overall season.

Fastest car was F2007, most reliable car was MP4-22.

F2007 - 9 wins - 9 pole positions - 12 fastest laps

MP4-22 - 8 wins - 8 pole positions - 5 fastest laps

I find it puzzling why people say McLaren had the quickest car in 07.

Michael Schumacher in 1994 and 1995 definitely goes down in the category. I know alot of people disagree with 1994, but really, Schumacher was a genius by the time, all this traction control business doesn't register in my mind if Senna managed to pole the FW16 three times, Schumacher was just better in the races. Same goes exactly for 1995, Schumacher just better when it counted. 1994 and 1995 are pretty much the same

Edited by craftverk, 24 September 2009 - 20:25.