Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

Championships won NOT in the "best car"?


  • Please log in to reply
381 replies to this topic

#101 Fabs

Fabs
  • Member

  • 248 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 26 September 2009 - 23:08

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


Senna poled the FW16 because he was the BEST ever in qualifyings.. simple as that.. NO ONE else would have done that.. Frank Williams said "It was amazing.. we were not in pole for those 3 races.. Senna was" when talking about the problems of the car..

So I think Fw16 being on pole was more Senna's sheer brilliance than FW16 being a good car.. just look at Damon Hill.. he was winning races and outqualifying Senna in 1993 and starting behind Ferraris early 1994

You can't take this accomplishment by Senna as an indication that FW16 was the best car.. unless you would like to believe that Lotus 86 was the best car because Senna managed to pole it 8 times..

Or that Senna's MP4/4 was better than Prost's because he poled it 13 times against 2...

I think it is pretty clear what Senna could do in one single lap.. especially in a car that had a fast engine like Lotus Renault or Williams Renault.. but to say they were the best cars in 1986 or 1994.. I dont think so... Schumacher lapped Hill in Brazil and only Senna (in my opinion, at the peak of his form and skills) could keep up with him

PS: I remember some articles from 1990/91 arguing that Ferrari would be superior to Mclaren in 1990.. can anyone confirm that? I know they had semi-automatic transmission which was a nice advantage over the McLarens

Edited by Fabs, 26 September 2009 - 23:11.


Advertisement

#102 raiseyourfistfor

raiseyourfistfor
  • Member

  • 2,177 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 26 September 2009 - 23:39

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


Whoa in Silverstone, Barcelona, Nurburgring the Ferrari was much better.

In Silverstone after the race Alonso estimated they had .5s over the Mclaren. The only reason Kimi didn't start first was because he messed up his Qualifying lap.

Barcelona again the Mclaren was eating up its tires compared to the Ferrari, and in Nurburgring in the dry Massa was pulling away from Fred with every passing lap, the only reason he won was because of the rain. Also Fuji and China had all the markings of tracks that the Ferrari would've dominated in, except they couldn't drive fast in the wet.

#103 ryan86

ryan86
  • Member

  • 1,100 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 27 September 2009 - 00:13

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.


The 2003 McLaren was reliable, it's just the one time it decided to break down was in the worst possible time (when 10 points were on the cards).

Perhaps you can look at Raikkonen making several costly errors throughout the season in qualifying (Melbourne, Catalunya, Canada) as well.

#104 Andretti Fan

Andretti Fan
  • Member

  • 355 posts
  • Joined: October 05

Posted 27 September 2009 - 00:49

1978. Now, before ya'll call the guys in the little white coats with the straight jackets, let me give you two little words. FAN CAR!

#105 midgrid

midgrid
  • Member

  • 4,774 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 27 September 2009 - 01:09

PS: I remember some articles from 1990/91 arguing that Ferrari would be superior to Mclaren in 1990.. can anyone confirm that? I know they had semi-automatic transmission which was a nice advantage over the McLarens


Ferrari set numerous lap records in winter testing, often going under the existing mark by several seconds, but were not actually on the pace of the McLaren at the start of the year. Ron Dennis congratulated Ferrari on winning "the winter World Championship" which has often since been used to describe a team which goes unexpectedly well in testing, only to return to a more normal level of performance at the first race, for example Prost in 2001. Brawn bucked the trend this year!


#106 ForeverF1

ForeverF1
  • RC Forum Host

  • 6,522 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 27 September 2009 - 01:18

Just what is the 'best car'?

Is it the one which is fastest out of the box at the start of the season?

Is it the one which develops most during the season?

Is it the one that stays consistently good throughout the season?


Questions, always questions...

Edited by ForeverF1, 27 September 2009 - 01:19.


#107 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 27 September 2009 - 02:24

Senna poled the FW16 because he was the BEST ever in qualifyings.. simple as that.. NO ONE else would have done that..


Thats right because Senna could defy physics, he could make cars go faster around corners than the tyres could grip and with some telekinesis thrown in could make the car accelerate faster. :rolleyes:

One of the saddest things about such a talented man was his inability to accept that others were just as good as him. His screaming about Benneton must have been cheating and the FW16 was crap isn't the only time by far that he showed this mentality in his career.

A fast car not handling to the drivers liking and a slow car that handles perfectly are 2 different things and I certainly know which I would rather have under me.


#108 ForeverF1

ForeverF1
  • RC Forum Host

  • 6,522 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 27 September 2009 - 03:30

I certainly know which I would rather have under me.


Me too,.....errr, are we taking about cars?..... :blush:

#109 Oho

Oho
  • Member

  • 7,595 posts
  • Joined: November 98

Posted 27 September 2009 - 04:45

Just what is the 'best car'?


It is the car your favorite driver developed because he is the best developer.

At the same it is never the car your favorite driver gets drive because he always wins with inferior machinery.

So go figure....

Now if I could make up a third definition I'd about as convoluted as the holy trinity.....

Oh its always the car the driver you hate has in his disposal because it is designed by the presumed best designer and the shitty driver just don't know how to drive.

It never is the car the driver you hate the most gets to drive because he is so full of shit and absolutely useless during the development stages.

Oh I went one over...

#110 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 14,254 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 27 September 2009 - 05:23

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.

Competition was weak IMO after Imola. With Senna still alive, we'd had a better picture of that season.

The Benetton was a hand full to drive, and not everyone was able to do so fast.

And I would say that it's always the combination of driver and car that determines outcome. If we could time travel and swap drivers around, we might get a few suprises.

#111 Fabs

Fabs
  • Member

  • 248 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 27 September 2009 - 06:38

Thats right because Senna could defy physics, he could make cars go faster around corners than the tyres could grip and with some telekinesis thrown in could make the car accelerate faster. :rolleyes:

One of the saddest things about such a talented man was his inability to accept that others were just as good as him. His screaming about Benneton must have been cheating and the FW16 was crap isn't the only time by far that he showed this mentality in his career.

A fast car not handling to the drivers liking and a slow car that handles perfectly are 2 different things and I certainly know which I would rather have under me.


Well.. that's not me saying about those poles.. it was Frank Williams.. I guess you know a little bit more about F1 than him. right? :rolleyes:

Well.. if you are denying Senna's ability to take more than the others could to make a single fast lap, why did Senna score 26 pole positions to Prost's 4 when they raced together with the exactly same car and same equipment?

Prost is not a Nakajima or a Piquet Jr... Prost is one of the greatest of all times.. why did Senna outqualify him 26-4 with the same car?

Now, you paint Prost's McLaren of 88 and 89 in red and call it a Ferrari... People like you would be here saying that Senna's car was obviously superior because Senna could outpole Prost by 26-4.

People like me would argue using other methods of analysis that maybe the cars were equivalent and that those poles were Senna's merit and not a result of a nonexistent supremacy of Senna's car

And then, people like you, obviously a Senna hater, would make ironies like "Senna could defy physics, he could make cars go faster around corners than the tyres could grip and with some telekinesis thrown in could make the car accelerate faster" and tell me that NO DRIVER, no matter how good he is or what special skill he has, would be able to outpole 26-4 a driver of Alain Prost's class with the same car.. and that it would be OBVIOUS that Senna's car was better (see how it can be misleading? using sheer numbers you can conclude that a McLaren was better than a..... McLaren)

Well.. I just showed you.. Senna did 26-4 with the same car.. with a slightly worse car maybe that would be 20-10.. and with a worse car but not that much it would be 10-20... now tell me another driver who would outqualify a multiple world champion in the same car at this rate? NO one would be able to do that.. and NO one would be able to pole the FW16 ahead of the illegal Benetton Ford early in the season but Senna, who has proved enough times that getting a PP was his special gift

So why couldnt Williams be inferior to Benetton? just because Senna outpoled Schumacher 3-0? He outpoled Mansell and Piquet in 1986 with the class of the field Williams.. Are you telling me the Lotus was the better car? He outpoled Prost 26-4, are you telling me McLaren number 1 was better than McLaren number 2?

:wave:

PS: Senna never went public about Benetton cheating, so he wasnt "screaming".. and later, it became obvious they were.. so...why do you call it "crap" when time proved him right?

You should watch his last interview, the one to a croatian television just before Imola... he praises Schumacher and Benetton for the great work and great races.. and tells that Williams is working hard and is just a matter of time until they get the results.. this coming from a man who was the overwhelming favorite before the season and was trailing Schumacher 20-0 in the standings.. .how is this bad behaviour?

Edited by Fabs, 27 September 2009 - 06:52.


#112 Roger Ramjet

Roger Ramjet
  • Member

  • 47 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 27 September 2009 - 07:30

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



Thats not even close to accurate. Ferrari was clearly fastest car at the following races.

Australia
Malaysia
Bahrain
Spain
France
Silverstone
Europe
Turkey
Belgium
China
Brazil

Its amazing Mclaren was even able to compete in the wc against ferrari, and just showed how superior the mclaren drivers were. They maximised their machinery so much more.



#113 Mansell's 'tash

Mansell's 'tash
  • Member

  • 54 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 27 September 2009 - 07:47

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

1991 Ayrton Senna (Willimas unreliability early in the season)

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


how does that mean that that Macca wasn't the best car??

#114 learningtobelost

learningtobelost
  • Member

  • 672 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 27 September 2009 - 07:52

Schumacher 95/94/00

Alonso 05/06

Hamilton 08


Schumacher 94 eh? I guess that's why Senna whipped him in the early sason then? oh wait. Williams struggled without electronic driver aids to start with, Benneton still had TC on the car but claimed "it was never turned on"... hmm. Senna claimed he heard it at Interlagos that year. I think you'll find that the cars were fairly even, maybe even leaning towards Benneton superiority (they definately had better pitstops :p)

Schumacher 00' - Whilst I don't disagree, there clearly wasn't a lot in it.

Hami 08' - The Macca was quicker at some tracks and slower at others, over the season Ferrari made more mistakes (although both drivers made an unholy amount of errors too). Again I'd say there was no clear dominant car.

#115 velgajski1

velgajski1
  • Member

  • 3,619 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 27 September 2009 - 09:41

1995 (cars probably equal when all taken into account)
1999 (Ferrari much better car, but MS broke a leg)
2003 (Williams, Mclaren and Ferrari equal in my view)
2006 (Ferrari and Renault equal in total)
2007 (Mclaren super reliable and faster on most circuits)
2008 (Ferrari faster on most circuits with close reliability)

To be honest - I don't know why people 2005. 2005 was a clear example of having a superior car (reliable and fast on most circuits, vs. unreliable car that didn't got fast until 6th race of season).

#116 Roger Ramjet

Roger Ramjet
  • Member

  • 47 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 27 September 2009 - 09:45

To be honest - I don't know why people 2005. 2005 was a clear example of having a superior car (reliable and fast on most circuits, vs. unreliable car that didn't got fast until 6th race of season).


It went faster than anything else (by a margin) by the 4th race.

2007 (Mclaren super reliable and faster on most circuits).


Thats just funny. I listed 11 races where the ferrari was fastest, which ones do you dispute exactly?

Edited by Roger Ramjet, 27 September 2009 - 09:47.


#117 velgajski1

velgajski1
  • Member

  • 3,619 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 27 September 2009 - 09:54

It went faster than anything else (by a margin) by the 4th race.


Ermm, that was by 5th race (Spain GP). Mind you, it wasn't faster on every track after it, and it was super unreliable. Championships are won by speed and reliability so from that premise best car has to be fast AND reliable which Mclaren wasn't.

Renault was clearly the best car in 2005. Of course if you're Alonso fanboy who believes in 0.6 sec magic or Kimi hater than it doesn't have to be like that for you...

#118 stevewf1

stevewf1
  • Member

  • 3,259 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 27 September 2009 - 09:58

I would start by looking for someone who won the WDC when the WCC was won by a different team.


1958 - Hawthorn
1973 - Stewart
1976 - Hunt
1981 - Piquet
1982 - Rosberg
1983 - Piquet
1986 - Prost
1994 - Schumacher
1999 - Hakkinen
2008 - Hamilton

* Constructor's Championship started in 1958


#119 Roger Ramjet

Roger Ramjet
  • Member

  • 47 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 27 September 2009 - 10:04

Ermm, that was by 5th race (Spain GP). Mind you, it wasn't faster on every track after it, and it was super unreliable. Championships are won by speed and reliability so from that premise best car has to be fast AND reliable which Mclaren wasn't.

It was dominating imola until Kimi broke it by curb banging. Its speed advantage of close to 1 second a lap outweighted the reliability issues.

Renault was clearly the best car in 2005. Of course if you're Alonso fanboy who believes in 0.6 sec magic or Kimi hater than it doesn't have to be like that for you...

Mclaren was clearly the best car in 2005. Of course if your a kimi fanboy or Alonso hater it doesnt have to be like that for you.

Advertisement

#120 sreevishnu

sreevishnu
  • Member

  • 1,514 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 27 September 2009 - 10:10

Thats not even close to accurate. Ferrari was clearly fastest car at the following races.

Australia
Malaysia
Bahrain
Spain
France
Silverstone
Europe
Turkey
Belgium
China
Brazil

Its amazing Mclaren was even able to compete in the wc against ferrari, and just showed how superior the mclaren drivers were. They maximised their machinery so much more.

Australia >> I agree
Malaysia >> Mclaren 1-2 ?
Bahrain >> Both Equal
Spain >> Both Equal
France >> I agree
Silverstone >> Both equal ....Lewis and Alonso lead almost 70% of the race
Europe >> Rain, Mclaren were faster
Turkey >> I agree
Belgium >> I agree
China >> Lewis was leading comfortably in rain
Brazil >> I agree

It was neck to neck between Ferrari and Mclaren all season
No particular car dominated

Edited by sreevishnu, 27 September 2009 - 10:12.


#121 Roger Ramjet

Roger Ramjet
  • Member

  • 47 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 27 September 2009 - 10:21

Malaysia >> Mclaren 1-2 ?

Ferrari were outraced by Hamilton who got ahead of both of them in the first corner and then fended them off.

Bahrain >> Both Equal
Spain >> Both Equal
Silverstone >> Both equal ....Lewis and Alonso lead almost 70% of the race


Ferrari dominated all 3 races, how can you say they were equal? :confused:

Europe >> Rain, Mclaren were faster
China >> Lewis was leading comfortably in rain


So being faster in the rain =Mclaren faster car? :confused:
I know its convenient to just say that but I dont buy it. In the dry the ferrari was fastest and I dont believe it changes in the rain. The Mclaren drivers have a history of being exceptional in the wet while the ferrari drivers dont.






#122 sreevishnu

sreevishnu
  • Member

  • 1,514 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 27 September 2009 - 11:17

First of plz define DOMINATION!

Malaysia >> Mclaren 1-2 ?

Ferrari were outraced by Hamilton who got ahead of both of them in the first corner and then fended them off.

You dont get 1-2 in race with an inferior car
& they were faster in q2 and got 2-3 on Grid...Massa was ligher than them and got pole
and Alonso was significantly faster than the ferraris in the first stint
Remember Ferrari had to remove and had to put a totally new floor for that race in the last minute
which surely had an effect on their race pace
I agree it was pretty EQUAL between them

Bahrain >> Both Equal
Spain >> Both Equal
Silverstone >> Both equal ....Lewis and Alonso lead almost 70% of the race

Ferrari dominated all 3 races, how can you say they were equal? :confused:



Bahrain > Quly Ferrari 1-3, Mclaren 2-4
and Lewis finished the race just 2 SEC behind Massa (even when this is Massa territory)

Spain > Alonso screwed it in the first corner
and Lewis finished 6 SEC behind Massa
It was pretty equal

Silverstone > Lewis lead the whole first stint, then it was Alonso's turn then Kimi had more fuel than them and got them all in the final stint...Mclaren Lead almost 70% of the race
even they qualified 1-3, Ferrari 2 -4

Europe >> Rain, Mclaren were faster
China >> Lewis was leading comfortably in rain

So being faster in the rain =Mclaren faster car? :confused:
I know its convenient to just say that but I dont buy it. In the dry the ferrari was fastest and I dont believe it changes in the rain. The Mclaren drivers have a history of being exceptional in the wet while the ferrari drivers dont.


Mclaren has the been the FASTER car in rain for as long as 3 years now, if you didnot know then i cant help

being faster in the rain mean Thats the car to HAVE in that condition
& That means that car is faster, as simple as that.

Edited by sreevishnu, 27 September 2009 - 11:21.


#123 Exposer

Exposer
  • New Member

  • 10 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 27 September 2009 - 11:18

Thats not even close to accurate. Ferrari was clearly fastest car at the following races.

x Australia
Malaysia
x Bahrain
x Spain
x France
Silverstone
Europe
x Turkey
x Belgium
China
x Brazil

Its amazing Mclaren was even able to compete in the wc against ferrari, and just showed how superior the mclaren drivers were. They maximised their machinery so much more.


Hrvoje,
Ferrari was only quicker in Australia, Bahrain, Spain, France, Turkey, Belgium and Brazil.
Mclaren was the faster car in rest of the races, 10 occasions out of 17 and it had better reliability.

#124 Roger Ramjet

Roger Ramjet
  • Member

  • 47 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 27 September 2009 - 11:22

Hrvoje,
Ferrari was only quicker in Australia, Bahrain, Spain, France, Turkey, Belgium and Brazil.
Mclaren was the faster car in rest of the races, 10 occasions out of 17 and it had better reliability.


Strange how you claim Mclaren was fastest in 10 races yet Ferrari had 12 fastest laps. :wave:
You seem to think just because a ferrari doesnt win it cannot have been the fastest car on the day. Thats very flawed.

#125 sreevishnu

sreevishnu
  • Member

  • 1,514 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 27 September 2009 - 11:23

Strange how you claim Mclaren was fastest in 10 races yet Ferrari had 12 fastest laps. :wave:
You seem to think just because a ferrari doesnt win it cannot have been the fastest car on the day. Thats very flawed.


Fastest lap means ONE lap out of 60 to 70 laps
it means nothing :wave:
Thats very flawed.

#126 Roger Ramjet

Roger Ramjet
  • Member

  • 47 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 27 September 2009 - 11:29

Bahrain > Quly Ferrari 1-3, Mclaren 2-4
and Lewis finished the race just 2 SEC behind Massa (even when this is Massa territory)

Spain > Alonso screwed it in the first corner
and Lewis finished 6 SEC behind Massa
It was pretty equal


In both these races Massa scored pole/fastest lap/win. If you wont accept that criteria as evidence of the best car and domination, then you wont accept anything.


Silverstone > Lewis lead the whole first stint, then it was Alonso's turn then Kimi had more fuel than them and got them all in the final stint...Mclaren Lead almost 70% of the race
even they qualified 1-3, Ferrari 2 -4

Lewis held up everyone in the first stint because he got pole with the lightest fuel load. After the pitstops Alonso was fueled lighter than kimi but still had no chance and kimi dominated in the end. Mclaren only led so much because Kimi made a mistake in qualifying.




Mclaren has the been the FASTER car in rain for as long as 3 years now, if you didnot know then i cant help

being faster in the rain mean Thats the car to HAVE in that condition
& That means that car is faster, as simple as that.


Why cant it mean the car simply has better wet weather drivers? Its known fact that the driver can make a big difference in the rain.

#127 sreevishnu

sreevishnu
  • Member

  • 1,514 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 27 September 2009 - 11:38

When Ferrari wins its coz of the CAR
when Mclaren wins its just coz of the DRIVERS :wave:
Typical fanboy statement

#128 Simon Says

Simon Says
  • Member

  • 2,163 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 27 September 2009 - 11:58

Schumacher 95/94/00

Alonso 05/06

Hamilton 08


Ferrari definetly had the best car in 2008, especially in the beginning of the season when Mclaren was struggling to beat the BMW's.

Edited by Simon Says, 27 September 2009 - 11:59.


#129 sreevishnu

sreevishnu
  • Member

  • 1,514 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 27 September 2009 - 14:04

Ferrari definetly had the best car in 2008, especially in the beginning of the season when Mclaren was struggling to beat the BMW's.


Same can be said about Ferrari 2006

The Renault was Flawlessly fast in the first half, when Ferrari were fighting with Redbulls

And still some say Renault was inferior car to Ferrari 2006

#130 velgajski1

velgajski1
  • Member

  • 3,619 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 27 September 2009 - 14:27

It was dominating imola until Kimi broke it by curb banging. Its speed advantage of close to 1 second a lap outweighted the reliability issues.

Mclaren was clearly the best car in 2005. Of course if your a kimi fanboy or Alonso hater it doesnt have to be like that for you.


Oh, so you're one of those people who believe its Kimi who breaks cars? Not a Kimi fan by a long shot, I dont even like him too much, but can you explain how come he only had reliability issues in 2004-2006 period?

#131 velgajski1

velgajski1
  • Member

  • 3,619 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 27 September 2009 - 14:40

I know its convenient to just say that but I dont buy it. In the dry the ferrari was fastest and I dont believe it changes in the rain. The Mclaren drivers have a history of being exceptional in the wet while the ferrari drivers dont.


This is one of the silliest things I've read on this forum. Do you know that cars are built for certain temperature/humidity ranges and that even a cold/hot track can make all the difference? Take rain / wet tyres into account and you have completely different story.

#132 Roger Ramjet

Roger Ramjet
  • Member

  • 47 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 27 September 2009 - 17:54

This is one of the silliest things I've read on this forum. Do you know that cars are built for certain temperature/humidity ranges and that even a cold/hot track can make all the difference?


I have never heard of cars being built for certain temp and humidity ranges. Infact that would be the silliest things ive ever read on a forum. I guess Ferrari forgot how to build all round cars once schumacher left? His ferraris seemed pretty good in the wet.

#133 sreevishnu

sreevishnu
  • Member

  • 1,514 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 27 September 2009 - 17:58

If you didnt know, the tyres engines etc work well at an optimum temperature so everyone try to build their cars to perform good in a particular temperature range

Ferrari in Schumacher era was faster in rain coz they had individual tyres made for their cars
and the B'stones back then were much better in rain especially on Ferraris.....rest of the teams really suffered(just like Ferrari's suffer now)

Edited by sreevishnu, 27 September 2009 - 18:02.


#134 Kenaltgr

Kenaltgr
  • Member

  • 892 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 27 September 2009 - 19:17

Schumacher has never won without the best car.
1994 B194 was the most dominant car he had until the F2002. This car was only ever beaten once on track during the whole 1994 season when it didn't suffer technichal problems. (Suzuka 94, and then it only lost by 2 seconds when Benetton picked the wrong 3 stop strategy) You can't compare the 2nd Benetton during these years, Flavio they were 2 different cars.
1995 B195 better race pace than the Williams. (Schumacher was never the fastest qualifier) Herbert's 2 wins to Coulthard 1.

In 2006 Schumacher even managed to lose the title with the best car. Their was little between the F1 248 and the R26 at the start of the year and by the US GP onwards it was the dominant car, even in Massa's hands.

Edited by Kenaltgr, 27 September 2009 - 19:22.


#135 klover

klover
  • Member

  • 3,862 posts
  • Joined: June 03

Posted 27 September 2009 - 19:21

Schumacher has never won without the best car.
1994 B194 was the most dominant car he had until the F2002. Can't compare the 2nd Benetton in these years, with Flavio they were 2 different cars.
1995 B195 better race pace than the Williams. (Schumacher was never the fastest qualifier)

In 2006 Schumacher even managed to lose the title with the best car. The 248 F1 was very close to the R26 at the start of the year and by USA onwards was the dominant car, even in Massa's hands as a #2.

Yes but you do realize your words are regarded as blasphemy among the Kerpenesque crowd?

#136 raiseyourfistfor

raiseyourfistfor
  • Member

  • 2,177 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 27 September 2009 - 19:50

Oh, so you're one of those people who believe its Kimi who breaks cars? Not a Kimi fan by a long shot, I dont even like him too much, but can you explain how come he only had reliability issues in 2004-2006 period?


Kimi also has reliability issues in Ferrari, who before him were considered the most reliable team on the grid.

#137 Anssi

Anssi
  • Member

  • 1,899 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 27 September 2009 - 19:59

About the reliability of the cars... did you see today how the mirror fell of from the Red Bull of Sebastian Vettel?

I saw mirrors falling off the McLaren's of Kimi Räikkönen and Juan Pablo Montoya... now what is the common factor between those cars? Yup, designer Adrian Newey is the common factor.

Now, don't get me wrong, I think Adrian Newey is an excellent car designer. But he pushes that little bit too much sometimes. He's a bit like the Lotus guy, Colin Chapman, I think. Thankfully the safety for the drivers is much better these days.

I'll have to add one thing... notice how Red Bull have been having engine woes this year? Look at how tight a package their car is. Wonder why their engines have been blowing up? I'd bet they run the engine hotter than the Renault team does - it might very well come as a result of the tight packaging around the engine. Engines overheating and blowing up would also be a common factor to his McLaren-Mercedes-Benz days. Can't blame it all on Mercedes-Benz, even though they have to also share a lot of the blame - a fact remains, the packaging around the engine also affects how well the engine will survive.

Edited by Anssi, 27 September 2009 - 20:06.


#138 Fabs

Fabs
  • Member

  • 248 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 27 September 2009 - 20:11

Schumacher has never won without the best car.
1994 B194 was the most dominant car he had until the F2002. This car was only ever beaten once on track during the whole 1994 season when it didn't suffer technichal problems. (Suzuka 94, and then it only lost by 2 seconds when Benetton picked the wrong 3 stop strategy) You can't compare the 2nd Benetton during these years, Flavio they were 2 different cars.
1995 B195 better race pace than the Williams. (Schumacher was never the fastest qualifier) Herbert's 2 wins to Coulthard 1.

In 2006 Schumacher even managed to lose the title with the best car. Their was little between the F1 248 and the R26 at the start of the year and by the US GP onwards it was the dominant car, even in Massa's hands.


pssssiiii.. dont say that too loud..

Some people here may react badly to the truth

#139 Willow Rosenberg

Willow Rosenberg
  • Member

  • 355 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 27 September 2009 - 22:15

I'm no Schumacher fan, but he definitely didn't have the best car in 1995.


Advertisement

#140 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,552 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 27 September 2009 - 22:26

Herbert's 2 wins to Coulthard 1.

Errr..... Herbert only won those races because Damon rammed Schumi both times off the track (and both Ferraris falling by the wayside in Monza as well).

#141 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 2,374 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 27 September 2009 - 22:51

Schumacher has never won without the best car.
1994 B194 was the most dominant car he had until the F2002. This car was only ever beaten once on track during the whole 1994 season when it didn't suffer technichal problems. (Suzuka 94, and then it only lost by 2 seconds when Benetton picked the wrong 3 stop strategy) You can't compare the 2nd Benetton during these years, Flavio they were 2 different cars.
1995 B195 better race pace than the Williams. (Schumacher was never the fastest qualifier) Herbert's 2 wins to Coulthard 1.

In 2006 Schumacher even managed to lose the title with the best car. Their was little between the F1 248 and the R26 at the start of the year and by the US GP onwards it was the dominant car, even in Massa's hands.



Years of 1995, 2000, 2003, he didn't have the best car. The seasons when Schu really showed his true skill were 1997 and 1998 when he could have won the title in those Ferrari's which were certainly inferior to Williams (1997) and McLaren (1998).

#142 Ricardo F1

Ricardo F1
  • Member

  • 38,487 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 28 September 2009 - 00:26

Years of 1995, 2000, 2003, he didn't have the best car.

:rotfl:

Brilliant.


#143 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 2,374 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 28 September 2009 - 00:36

:rotfl:

Brilliant.



1995: Williams Renault, without a doubt. Even DC was quicker in Qualifying and had some FLs.

2000: McLaren were quicker all season, (yes, they had some engine troubles & failures) and Ferrari didn't have a good summer that season...

2003: Ferrari wasn't on pace mid season, Williams, McLaren and even Renault were quicker (That is largely a tyre issue, but it is part of the total package). Then at Monza, the car found form.

So, what's so "funny?"

Edited by George Costanza, 28 September 2009 - 00:38.


#144 senna da silva

senna da silva
  • Member

  • 4,431 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 28 September 2009 - 00:45

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.


Byrne's chassis have won more championships than Newey's!  ;)

#145 velgajski1

velgajski1
  • Member

  • 3,619 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 28 September 2009 - 11:10

I have never heard of cars being built for certain temp and humidity ranges.


In that case, I think we should conclude our discussion and you should learn a bit more about Formula 1.


#146 Colombo

Colombo
  • Member

  • 682 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 28 September 2009 - 12:06

:rotfl:

Brilliant.

About 2003, I would say Ferrari was the best car that year but 1995 and 2000 are very clear cases of Williams and McLaren being better, there's no doubt about it.
The 1995 miserable form of Hill and Coulthard was the reason that Hill's contract was not renewed (Frentzen was signed in 1995 for 1997) and Coulthard was not retained either.
The 2000 McLaren was faster and slightly less reliable but overall was better car....just.

GC

Edited by Colombo, 28 September 2009 - 12:10.


#147 Simon Says

Simon Says
  • Member

  • 2,163 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 29 September 2009 - 08:29

About 2003, I would say Ferrari was the best car that year but 1995 and 2000 are very clear cases of Williams and McLaren being better, there's no doubt about it.
The 1995 miserable form of Hill and Coulthard was the reason that Hill's contract was not renewed (Frentzen was signed in 1995 for 1997) and Coulthard was not retained either.
The 2000 McLaren was faster and slightly less reliable but overall was better car....just.

GC


Mclaren being better in 2000? :p It was because of Mclaren that MS became World Champion. Mika retired 3 times in leading position because of engine problems. It's no wonder Mika got frustrated and quit since all his effort always got cut short because of unreliabilty problems.

That's a total of easy 30 points that he lost and that is all to blame to Mclaren/Mercedes. Ferrari > Mclaren that year easily.

Edited by Simon Says, 29 September 2009 - 08:33.


#148 Colombo

Colombo
  • Member

  • 682 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 29 September 2009 - 08:42

Mclaren being better in 2000? :p It was because of Mclaren that MS became World Champion. Mika retired 3 times in leading position because of engine problems. It's no wonder Mika got frustrated and quit since all his effort always got cut short because of unreliabilty problems.

That's a total of easy 30 points that he lost and that is all to blame to Mclaren/Mercedes. Ferrari > Mclaren that year easily.

30 points you say....what about Schumacher's mechanical retirements? You conviniently forgot them, 20 points.

McLaren was a slightly faster car with slightly stronger engine and slightly worse reliabilty. Period motoring newspapers and journalists generally agree that McLaren held a slight edge over Ferrari on the average over the season.
Mika retired in Australia, Brazil and the USA and that may be 30 points but you forgot that Schumacher did not enjoy perfect reliability either. He retired in Monaco and France due to realiability problems (20 points) so there was n ot much difference. That Häkkinen was able to claw back the 24-pts deficit is a good testimony of the MP4-15 pace. So it was slightly less reliable (3 to 2 retirements) but was faster. In the days of 10-6-4 points system, it was easier to compensate for the lesser reliability and therefore it's safe to say that the McLaren just had the edge over Ferrari in 2000.

GC

Edited by Colombo, 29 September 2009 - 08:43.


#149 Jejking

Jejking
  • Member

  • 2,424 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 14 February 2012 - 14:47

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

Considering the overall reliability, McLaren and Ferrari were EQUAL in 2000. 4 vs 4 mech. retirements. McLaren seemed to be worse but that's due to their double retirement in Australia. They had the faster package on Saturday convincingly while Ferrari was quite quick on the Sundays but still rating the McLaren a bit higher.

For 2008, YES. The Ferrari was definitely faster if you compare positions. Hamilton drove the wheels of that thing at pretty much any track but quite often didn't just make it for pole f.e.

2007, NO. pfooh, tough one. Ferrari 3, McLaren 0 race-ending woes. McLaren were faster overall but only just, when looking at the finishes. Ferrari was a bit more prone to problems with Massa recovering from the back. So in that sense you could say that Kimi, albeith strong, won with luck just from a more complete (and beautiful) package.

2006, NO. Ferrari vs Renault has been discussed often. Ferrari: 1x bad luck. Renault: 2. Ferrari was faster, had greater peaks but Renault was more consistent in the end. Both cars were simply very good and matched very well. It was Alonso who brought the cake home, Schumacher made too many mistakes.

2005, NO, Alonso won with the most consistent package. 3 for Renault and 4 for McLaren. They made the difference at the start of the reason and kept topgun spot with a bit of luck (Montoya's rotten luck and/or mistakes).

2003, NO. Oh boy.. McLaren best allrounder on finishes but on the greatest speed I'd give Ferrari the edge and Williams secondbest. Reliabilitywise: Ferrari 1, Williams 1, McLaren 5. Schumachers mistakes should have cost him the WCC in my opinion, Kimi with two mech retirements (1 in Nurburgring + 1 in Spain, him starting at the back due to problems indirectly and having a raceincident cost him the WCC, with more points lost in Canada due to losing a tyre. He lost a couple of extra points due to small mistakes, about 4). But Schumacher tripped over himself in more than one occasion, Brazil, Germany and Japan cost him big points and Barrichello finished in front of KR a crucial couple of times).

1999, NO. Ferrari 3 vs Mc 7 but much more podiumfinishes for McLaren so no prizes there. 1999 was the second-best driver with the best car, in absence of the best driver.

For me it's clear that there are 3 categories:
1. fastest.
2. most reliable.
3. best allrounder.

Edited by Jejking, 14 February 2012 - 15:19.


#150 Massa_f1

Massa_f1
  • Member

  • 3,340 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 14 February 2012 - 14:55

Schumacher 95/94/00

Alonso 05/06

Hamilton 08



What about Schumachers 2003 title? Dont agree with Alonso in 2006 the Reanult was much better than the Ferrari for the first half of the season.