Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

Championships won NOT in the "best car"?


  • Please log in to reply
381 replies to this topic

#251 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 17 February 2012 - 13:31

WilliAms engines(BMW) were fragile, they had more DNFs.


Montoya had one engine blower (and a DNF due to hydraulics) , Raikkonen one, RSC zero.

Edited by LiJu914, 17 February 2012 - 13:34.


Advertisement

#252 discover23

discover23
  • Member

  • 4,361 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 17 February 2012 - 13:37

Montoya had one engine blower (and a DNF due to hydraulics) , Raikkonen one, RSC zero.

Montoya had two dnfs from the lead, austria was definetly a blown engine and what a out Japan - i thought that was an engine failure also.

#253 PretentiousBread

PretentiousBread
  • Member

  • 2,905 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 17 February 2012 - 13:38

Vettel 2011...................... :lol:


Funny, I thought i'd see a lot more of this nonsense because there are a few Vettel fans who actually believe this, rather than the logical conclusion that as brilliant as Vettel was, Webber was utterly pants last year.

#254 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 17 February 2012 - 13:48

Montoya had two dnfs from the lead, austria was definetly a blown engine and what a out Japan - i thought that was an engine failure also.



Raikkonen´s DNF was also from the lead.

and btw. Montoyoa´s DNF in Japan(Hydraulics, but it´doesn´t really matter) was at a very early stage of the race, so it´s not like he lost an almost secure win.

#255 BenettonB192

BenettonB192
  • Member

  • 856 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 17 February 2012 - 13:57

Regarding 95. I remember an interview with Berger who tested the Benetton after the season and said he couldnt believe Schumacher won anything with that car.

#256 discover23

discover23
  • Member

  • 4,361 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 17 February 2012 - 13:58

He was in the lead and faster than rubens who went on to win the race. No one else came close to challenge rubens for That race win as the shumi brothers were at he back spinning left and right.

Anyways, ferrari had the best car that year, shumi just made too many screw ups early on in the season.
I think maybe lewis in 08 did not have the best car but i cant really prove this.

#257 discover23

discover23
  • Member

  • 4,361 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 17 February 2012 - 14:00

Regarding 95. I remember an interview with Berger who tested the Benetton after the season and said he couldnt believe Schumacher won anything with that car.

Was it actually Shumis car?

#258 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 17 February 2012 - 14:04

He was in the lead and faster than rubens who went on to win the race. No one else came close to challenge rubens for That race win as the shumi brothers were at he back spinning left and right.


And? It was still damp at that stage. The michelins had an advantage under these conditions, but the track dried out pretty quickly....

Edited by LiJu914, 17 February 2012 - 14:06.


#259 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 17 February 2012 - 14:08

Was it actually Shumis car?


Does this question imply doubts about the legality of MSC´s B195 or what else do you mean?

Advertisement

#260 midgrid

midgrid
  • Member

  • 4,814 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 17 February 2012 - 15:15

Regarding 95. I remember an interview with Berger who tested the Benetton after the season and said he couldnt believe Schumacher won anything with that car.


IIRC, both Alesi and Berger crashed heavily when testing the B195 for the first time, and the team struggled to adapt to its new drivers' driving styles for 1996. The B197 was a big step forward in this respect, but then its chief designer, Rory Byrne, moved to Ferrari before the start of the season, and his replacement, Nick Wirth, had problems getting the tyres up to temperature, particularly at high-downforce circuits.


#261 Jejking

Jejking
  • Member

  • 2,441 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 17 February 2012 - 15:17

So? 2000 ist before 2003, if i remember correctly ;)
10+2x6 = 22 and 10+6=16...not 20

Just a typo there.

Edited by Jejking, 17 February 2012 - 15:20.


#262 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 9,382 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 17 February 2012 - 15:26

Here's a controversial one: Jenson Button 2009.

Was the Brawn a better car than the RBR overall that season? Was it definitely the best car for the first 8 or so races, or did the RBR or Toyota not win races it should have won?
Should Alonso or Hamilton have won in 2010.
Should Kimi or Massa have won in 2008.
Should Hamilton or Alonso have won in 2007.
Should MS have won in 2006.

Personally I think it is seldom that we have a season like 2011, where a car is head and shoulders above the opposition.



#263 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 10,038 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 17 February 2012 - 16:39

Here's a controversial one: Jenson Button 2009.

Was the Brawn a better car than the RBR overall that season? Was it definitely the best car for the first 8 or so races, or did the RBR or Toyota not win races it should have won?



There were some races in the first half of the season in which the RB5 already was very fast and capable of keeping up with the Brawn. I remember Vettel being fuel corrected pole at Bahrain, but traffic ruining his race while Button was very aggressive to get through it ASAP, especially as he overtook Hamilton. At Spain Webber's two stops were almost enough to beat Barrichello's 3 stops. I don't exactly remember how the race went, but I don't think he would have beat Button even if both race unaffected by traffic and grid position.

Looking at the whole season, it seems very hard to point out 8 or more races the RB1 was alone at the front, but it is definitely much better to start strong and manage a gap than play the chasing game Red Bull did. When was the last time someone won a title after starting the season short on points and with a less competitive car?

Edited by Atreiu, 17 February 2012 - 16:41.


#264 Slyder

Slyder
  • Member

  • 5,453 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 18 February 2012 - 06:02

I'd partially agree with you. I think that throughout the season Ferrari, Lotus, Wolf, a were pretty well evenly matched, McLaren to a lesser extent. I'd say that Niki's WDC was more a lesson in being consistent than having a lesser car.


The Lotus 78 was the best car that year, but it was so unreliable it cost him not only points, but wins at Sweden and Canada.

Regarding 95. I remember an interview with Berger who tested the Benetton after the season and said he couldnt believe Schumacher won anything with that car.


Anyone that says that the B195 was a bad car because they weren't Michael Schumacher is a liar. Schumacher has gone on record several times saying how much he hated that car. The key factor was the fact that both Michael and Rory Byrne figured out that the car was more stable with a heavy fuel load; Michael then made it count based on that and hence why they were faster. The Williams was the best car in 1995, though it wasn't without problems, it suffered several gearbox failures. It cost Damon a win at Brazil and 2 podiums at Spain and Canada, not to mention a sure win for DC in Spa. But ultimately, Damon just screwed it up when it counted.

#265 Sevach

Sevach
  • Member

  • 966 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 18 February 2012 - 06:19

Was it actually Shumis car?


Yes it was, and Berger said it was a piece of junk after he totalled it :rotfl:

#266 Sevach

Sevach
  • Member

  • 966 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 18 February 2012 - 06:27

Didn't Schu loved how the B195 handled and he could really drive it on the extreme? I read that he could have won the title in the 1995 Ferrari car when he tested it, but we'll never know that.


Actually no, Schumacher didn't criticize it during the season, but after the 95 he has many times said that the car wasn't good and much worst than the 94 car.

About the 95 Ferrari, Schumacher was very positive about it's engine (last V12) and sad that it was being retired, no comments about the chassis.

Edited by Sevach, 18 February 2012 - 06:28.


#267 Kubiccia

Kubiccia
  • Member

  • 1,370 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 18 February 2012 - 07:52

It was said to be a very advanced car, possibly more so than the FW15C in some respects, plus a nice handling car to boot. Hence Senna's excitement when it was
briefly mated with a more powerful engine (the Lamborghini) - he wanted to race that car as soon as possible.

I read some people claiming Benneton was the best car of 1993(engine, eletronics, active suspensions apart). I don't know if they go by only because of the nose but, even if so, only the tip of the nose was raised not the entire nose. And the shape of it is not the one used nowadays which feeds loads of air underside.

I don't believe that the MP4/8 had the best chassis however Senna did some amazing things in it no doubt. The fact that the master of pole positions was only able to get one pole plays testimony to that I think.

McLaren's wins only came from Senna (obviously) and only in rain effected races or street circuits. The low down power of the Ford V8 would have been superior at street circuits and helped in the wet.

Curiously, Senna qualified 1,5 seconds behind Schumacher in Silverstone, 9 tenths slower than Schumacher in Spa and they already had same spec engine on both ocasions

I seriously wonder if Mclaren would be THAT slower than Benneton or if Schumacher was actually faster than Senna, at least on these circuits.

PS: I watched both qualifyings and Senna had clear lap with no traffic, visible error, car problem or etc.

I think this would be an intriguing topic in its own right, just how good was the MP4/8? Obviously we can only go by what we've read, but I've seen it said that in many ways the FW15C wasn't much of a step forward compared to FW14B, and was difficult to drive, whereas MP4/8 was simply one of the best and most advanced McLaren chassis ever. Certainly it (MP4/8) seemed to win where its engine disadvantage was less of a factor. But then again you have to factor in the genius of Senna in possibly his finest season.....hmmmmmm :confused:

When you heard MP4/8 was advanced chassis, did they mean because of eletronics or because of car aerodynamics?

Edited by Kubiccia, 19 February 2012 - 07:24.


#268 jjcale

jjcale
  • Member

  • 7,306 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 18 February 2012 - 13:13

Here's a controversial one: Jenson Button 2009.

Was the Brawn a better car than the RBR overall that season? Was it definitely the best car for the first 8 or so races, or did the RBR or Toyota not win races it should have won?
Should Alonso or Hamilton have won in 2010.
Should Kimi or Massa have won in 2008.
Should Hamilton or Alonso have won in 2007.
Should MS have won in 2006.

Personally I think it is seldom that we have a season like 2011, where a car is head and shoulders above the opposition.


Good shout... I remember LH saying that the RB was as fast as the Brawn as early as Barcelona... or maybe even a little before that. He said it at the time, not afterwards.... and the RB was the better car later in the season.

#269 PretentiousBread

PretentiousBread
  • Member

  • 2,905 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 18 February 2012 - 14:00

About 2009 - it's true that overall that season the RB was just as good as the Brawn, if not faster, but the difference is that they didn't have the headstart Brawn had to build up a points lead (which Button utterly maximised and is widely underappreciated) when that Brawn had a clear performance step on the whole field. By the time Red Bull genuinely became the fastest car in almost every track (Singapore onwards) McLaren, Williams and Ferrari had been up till then getting in the way of RB's fightback. So although statistically it might be the case that RB was fractionally the better car in 2009, Button had the most advantageous opportunity at the title compared to his competitors. Also it's worth mentioning that RB had more reliability issues than Brawn.

#270 rodfarva

rodfarva
  • Member

  • 51 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 18 February 2012 - 14:32

WRONG! although it was pretty close, the Red Bull was the faster car at more tracks. reliability differences between brawn and red bull were negligible so we can occlude that. vettel's mistakes early on (australia, malaysia) were quite costly in the end.

race - fastest car
1. australia - brawn (q1,q2,q3 all by about 0.75s! complete and utter domination)
2. malaysia - brawn (q1,q2,q3; great race pace)
3. china - red bull (q2, q3; easy 1-2 in race)
4. bahrain - toyota (q3 (fuel corrected); fastest lap but screwed up tyres)
5. spain - brawn (q2, q3; 1-2 in race)
6. monaco - brawn (q3; 1-2 in race)
7. turkey - brawn (q3 (fuel corrected); dominant win)
8. britain - red bull (q2, q3; dominant 1-2 race)
9. germany - red bull (q3; 1-2 race despite drive through!)
10. hungary - mclaren (comfortable win for hamster)
11. valencia - brawn (q3 (fuel corrected; narrow win for ruby)*
12. belgium - force india!!!!!!!!!! (q1, q3; fastest race pace)
13. italy - mclaren (kovy on pole; hamster on wrong strategy but faster than button at end of race)**
14. singapore - mclaren (q1, q3; comfortable win)
15. japan - red bull (q1,q2,q3; win, fastest lap)
16. brazil - red bull
17. abu dhabi - red bull

uncertain races (open for debate):
*mclaren were narrowly beaten to pole/victory
***toughest race to call - kovy on pole; hammy on wrong strategy (2 stops); force india quick; ferrari quick; brawn quick; (WOW! 4 teams in the hunt for fastest car!)

SUMMARY:

red bull - 6 races
brawn - 6 races
mclaren - 3 races
force india - 1 race
toyota - 1 race

TIEBREAKER:

4. bahrain - red bull (pretty close - vettel outqualified button, but button won race; giving it to red bull since vettel fastest q1 & q2)
10. hungary - red bull (easily - both web & vet faster in qualy; web fastest lap)
12. belgium - red bull (easily - vettel fuel corrected pole & fastest lap)
13. italy - brawn (easily - red bull struggled to get top 10)
14. singapore - red bull (pretty close - vet & web faster in qualy)

FINAL RESULTS:

red bull - 10 races
brawn - 7 races

so there you have it! undeniable proof button won the championship in the second best car! unless you think brawn was fastest at monza. either way though, the red bull was the faster package at more races than the brawn. the fact that most people think the brawn was dominant that year is laughable.


clearly no one has read this thread. i've already provided race by race analysis of 2009.

#271 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 18 February 2012 - 15:49

clearly no one has read this thread. i've already provided race by race analysis of 2009.


I did, but it wasn´t convincing.

#272 PretentiousBread

PretentiousBread
  • Member

  • 2,905 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 18 February 2012 - 15:58

Just caught the bit of Rodfarva's post about Monza 2009. Most evidence points to Brawn being fastest that weekend (regardless of the eventual 1-2 result) - Heikki put in by all accounts a stunning lap in qualifying - otherwise fuel corrected both Brawn's were quicker than Hamilton. Kovalainen moved backwards on race day, to an even greater extent than usual also suggesting a bit of a miracle qualifying lap. Hamilton was faster than Button at the end because he was pushing and Button was not (on top of being on much fresher tyres), Button made reference to this in his championship year book. I also recall Hamilton saying at some point around then that the car was good but that the Brawns was still a bit better.
McLaren also had a minor advantage in qualifying over Brawn as their entire 6 seconds KERS boost could be deployed on the exit of Parabolica, leading onto the pitstraight for the start of the timed lap, which was then reset to full for the actual lap - obviously they didn't retain this advantage in the race. A minor detail, but might have flattered McLaren by a tenth or two in qualifying trim.


#273 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 6,801 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 18 February 2012 - 16:00

The most recent ones I can remember are 2007 with Raikkonen and 2008 with Hamilton. Both had nearly the best car IMO.

#274 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 2,502 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 18 February 2012 - 16:49

Actually no, Schumacher didn't criticize it during the season, but after the 95 he has many times said that the car wasn't good and much worst than the 94 car.

About the 95 Ferrari, Schumacher was very positive about it's engine (last V12) and sad that it was being retired, no comments about the chassis.




Thanks for the correction, sir. I know he loved the B194.

As for Ferrari, he really enjoyed drivig the 95 car as a whole. I'll dig up the entire paragraph of what he said.

#275 rodfarva

rodfarva
  • Member

  • 51 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 18 February 2012 - 19:52

I did, but it wasn´t convincing.


not convincing?! come on. what do i have to do to make it convincing? i'm the only one in this thread to back up my theory with any evidence whatsoever. if you think brawn was the faster car, then prove it. theres plenty of data available on each race to form an argument. as i've already shown, in most races in 2009, it's cut and dry who had the faster package.

Just caught the bit of Rodfarva's post about Monza 2009. Most evidence points to Brawn being fastest that weekend (regardless of the eventual 1-2 result) - Heikki put in by all accounts a stunning lap in qualifying - otherwise fuel corrected both Brawn's were quicker than Hamilton. Kovalainen moved backwards on race day, to an even greater extent than usual also suggesting a bit of a miracle qualifying lap. Hamilton was faster than Button at the end because he was pushing and Button was not (on top of being on much fresher tyres), Button made reference to this in his championship year book. I also recall Hamilton saying at some point around then that the car was good but that the Brawns was still a bit better.
McLaren also had a minor advantage in qualifying over Brawn as their entire 6 seconds KERS boost could be deployed on the exit of Parabolica, leading onto the pitstraight for the start of the timed lap, which was then reset to full for the actual lap - obviously they didn't retain this advantage in the race. A minor detail, but might have flattered McLaren by a tenth or two in qualifying trim.


thanks for sharing your thoughts. at least someone here is thinking objectively.

yeah i agree with most of that. forgot hammy had the fresher tyres. i'm willing to give this race to brawn. doesn't change the final head-to-head score tho.

red bull 10
brawn 7

i don't know what more evidence people need. any one who thinks brawn was faster needs to provide some kind of argument. it seems people only remember the fairytale start to that season.

Edited by rodfarva, 18 February 2012 - 19:53.


#276 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 18 February 2012 - 19:54

not convincing?! come on. what do i have to do to make it convincing? i'm the only one in this thread to back up my theory with any evidence whatsoever. if you think brawn was the faster car, then prove it. theres plenty of data available on each race to form an argument. as i've already shown, in most races in 2009, it's cut and dry who had the faster package.


I don´t think the brawn was faster (over the whole season), but you missed the fact that there is nothing to prove as it cannot be proved.

And your so called race-by-race-analysis misses many important factors. But don´t expect from me to discuss that right now. I already voiced my opinion about the 2009 season in this thread.

Edited by LiJu914, 18 February 2012 - 19:58.


#277 Victor

Victor
  • Member

  • 440 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 19 February 2012 - 12:49

For what it's worth here goes my opinion:

Not in the best car
Hill 62 - Lotus was the best car with teeth growing problems
Surtees 64 - Lotus was the best car, Clark was unlucky
Hulme 67 - Lotus was the best car with teeth growing problems
Stewart 73 - Lotus was the best car but Fittipaldi-Peterson shared points
Piquet 81 - Williams was the best car but Reutemann was running against his team
Rosberg 82 - Ferrari, Renault, McLaren were better cars. Ferrari tragedy costed the title
Piquet 83 - Renault was the best car the team was not good enough
Prost 86 - Williams was the best car but Piquet-Mansell shared points
Schumacher 94 - Williams was the best car but Hill was not strong enough for MS
Räikkönen 07 - McLaren was the best car, Hamilton-Alonso shared points

Arguable
Fangio 51 - Ferrari was a much modern car but had some problems
Fangio 56 - Maserati was also very good
Hawthorn 58 - Vanwall was also very good
Brabham 66 - Ferrari had a lot of power but that was not enough
Scheckter 79 - Williams was better in the second half
Schumacher 00 - McLaren was as good as if not a better car

#278 PLAYLIFE

PLAYLIFE
  • Member

  • 899 posts
  • Joined: May 03

Posted 20 February 2012 - 01:43

Curiously, Senna qualified 1,5 seconds behind Schumacher in Silverstone, 9 tenths slower than Schumacher in Spa and they already had same spec engine on both ocasions

I seriously wonder if Mclaren would be THAT slower than Benneton or if Schumacher was actually faster than Senna, at least on these circuits.

PS: I watched both qualifyings and Senna had clear lap with no traffic, visible error, car problem or etc.



And that to me further proves that the MP4/8 was not such a great car, that Senna was that much slower on a handling circuit like Silverstone.

I was in Adelaide for his only pole of the season (and last win of his career) and it was a superb lap but no doubt that the Williams was not handling the streets of Adelaide all that well.


#279 Oho

Oho
  • Member

  • 7,734 posts
  • Joined: November 98

Posted 20 February 2012 - 07:57

Actually I have always thought in 94 Schumacher enjoyed, with respect to his main rivals, stronger car than in 95.

2000 is I guess about as close as it gets but reliability and me being a bit partial toward Häkkinen clinches it for Ferrari. For those who argue the reliability difference was insignificant I suggest a mental practice of considering scenario where the difference was reversed by Häkkinen's car not breaking in the first two races everything else remaining the same.

Advertisement

#280 Kubiccia

Kubiccia
  • Member

  • 1,370 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 20 February 2012 - 08:20

And that to me further proves that the MP4/8 was not such a great car, that Senna was that much slower on a handling circuit like Silverstone.

I was in Adelaide for his only pole of the season (and last win of his career) and it was a superb lap but no doubt that the Williams was not handling the streets of Adelaide all that well.

His best laps were partially shown from onboard view and partially from outside. In Belgium, I think he was not driving even close to the limit, it was an okay lap because he didn't miss apexes or something like this but he was not using all the track and was extremely smooth in the steering wheel. In Silverstone, I didn't see much differ from his driving to the one of Schumacher and still the gap was very big, so there I think Mclaren really had a bad car.

PS: Senna was also 1,3 seconds slower in Hungary but I don't have that session to see what happened, so maybe there was some traffic, error etc.

Edited by Kubiccia, 20 February 2012 - 08:21.


#281 W03

W03
  • Member

  • 197 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 24 February 2012 - 09:42

As for 2006, Alonso himself is on record as saying he had the better car in 2006. The opinion of youtubing, wikipediaists that didn't even follow the season live does not, IMO, count as a legitimate 'opinion'. Plenty of them on this thread, it seems.



wow, so you think Alonso is so brilliant that he is able to judge other cars even without even driving them?


Championships without the best car in recent years.

05
06
08

Edited by W03, 24 February 2012 - 09:47.


#282 britishtrident

britishtrident
  • Member

  • 1,954 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 25 February 2012 - 22:43

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


and Hulme won with the slower 66 engine, Brabham had the more advanced 67 Repco.


Another from the the 1960s John Surtees Ferrari in 1964 ---- like Waterloo a dam close run thing.

#283 britishtrident

britishtrident
  • Member

  • 1,954 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 25 February 2012 - 22:50

I'd partially agree with you. I think that throughout the season Ferrari, Lotus, Wolf, a were pretty well evenly matched, McLaren to a lesser extent. I'd say that Niki's WDC was more a lesson in being consistent than having a lesser car.


1976 is also a case in point the 76 McLaren was poor for most of the mid-season because of a complete lack of understanding of the importance of aero,

#284 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,916 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 25 February 2012 - 23:04

1976 is also a case in point the 76 McLaren was poor for most of the mid-season because of a complete lack of understanding of the importance of aero,

I don't think they understood the importance of aero mid season significantly less than in the early part or the later part of the season  ;)


#285 Bunchies

Bunchies
  • Member

  • 1,500 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 26 February 2012 - 20:03

wow, so you think Alonso is so brilliant that he is able to judge other cars even without even driving them?


Shouldn't any racing fan be able to do this anyway?

#286 Otaku

Otaku
  • Member

  • 527 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 27 February 2012 - 01:19

How do you define "best" car?

Sometimes some cars are the fastest on the field so they may appear to be the best, but they actually aren't because they are too unreliable and hardly finish races. Others are super consistent and they score points, but not "big" points cause they are not fast enough. Balanced cars are difficult to judge.

For example 1984. Lauda was champion in what is considered the best car that year (McLaren won 12 races of 16) but the fastest car was clearly the Brabham, though super unreliable.

In 91 i think Senna started with the best car, but as the season evolved, the Williams became the best car and Mansell almost clinched the WDC. 92 and 93 is known history.

#287 BigCHrome

BigCHrome
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 27 February 2012 - 01:50

I can't believe anyone is actually saying 2007. The Ferrari was at least ~0.5s faster than the McLaren at every race after Silverstone. Raikkonen had slightly more reliability woes than McLaren but the "-22" wasn't bullet proof either. They had quite a few troubles with the gearbox especially.

#288 CatharticF1

CatharticF1
  • Member

  • 259 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 27 February 2012 - 02:49

I can't believe anyone is actually saying 2007. The Ferrari was at least ~0.5s faster than the McLaren at every race after Silverstone.


This is a lie.

There are plenty of arguable races, like the Nurburgring (won by Alonso) and China where McLaren and Lewis screwed up (and started from pole). Yet you claim half a second advantage to Ferrari there..?

But onto ones which are quite clear:

* in Hungary McLaren were dominant in qualifying and that was enough, because you don't pass in Hungary without DRS, KERS or some dramatic advantage,
* in Japan they locked out the front row and were plainly easier cars to drive than the Ferraris on race day - and won,
* In Monza they locked out the front row and got a 1-2!

Half a second - ha!



#289 W03

W03
  • Member

  • 197 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 27 February 2012 - 05:06

This is a lie.

There are plenty of arguable races, like the Nurburgring (won by Alonso) and China where McLaren and Lewis screwed up (and started from pole). Yet you claim half a second advantage to Ferrari there..?

But onto ones which are quite clear:

* in Hungary McLaren were dominant in qualifying and that was enough, because you don't pass in Hungary without DRS, KERS or some dramatic advantage,
* in Japan they locked out the front row and were plainly easier cars to drive than the Ferraris on race day - and won,
* In Monza they locked out the front row and got a 1-2!

Half a second - ha!



The Ferrari was at least half a second faster the entire season, not just after silverstone. Time for some perspective. The Ferrari was not driven by the best drivers, yet it, scored the most poles, wins, laps led, and the driver who led the most laps in 2007 was Felipe Massa. It was a red RB6/7.

#290 midgrid

midgrid
  • Member

  • 4,814 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 27 February 2012 - 14:53

The Ferrari was at least half a second faster the entire season, not just after silverstone. Time for some perspective. The Ferrari was not driven by the best drivers, yet it, scored the most poles, wins, laps led, and the driver who led the most laps in 2007 was Felipe Massa. It was a red RB6/7.


Except in Malaysia, Monaco, Italy, Japan, Canada, the United States, and Hungary, where the McLaren was clearly superior. And whenever it rained (due to car characteristics, not driver limitations). And not forgetting the F2007's worse reliability record.

The F2007 had better aero and was superior in high-speed corners, but the McLaren was superior in slow corners, over kerbs and at warming its tyres in cool and/or damp conditions. Due to the range of tracks and weather conditions raced on and through in 2007, the two cars' performance was remarkably even over the course of the full season.

Massa and Raikkonen both lost form since then for various reasons, but in 2007 they were a match for a troubled Alonso and a rookie Hamilton, in my opinion.


#291 Skinnyguy

Skinnyguy
  • Member

  • 4,391 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 27 February 2012 - 15:09

Except in Malaysia, Monaco, Italy, Japan, Canada, the United States, and Hungary, where the McLaren was clearly superior. And whenever it rained (due to car characteristics, not driver limitations). And not forgetting the F2007's worse reliability record.

The F2007 had better aero and was superior in high-speed corners, but the McLaren was superior in slow corners, over kerbs and at warming its tyres in cool and/or damp conditions. Due to the range of tracks and weather conditions raced on and through in 2007, the two cars' performance was remarkably even over the course of the full season.

Massa and Raikkonen both lost form since then for various reasons, but in 2007 they were a match for a troubled Alonso and a rookie Hamilton, in my opinion.


Wow, so someone actually remembers the season :p

#292 4L3X

4L3X
  • Member

  • 2,013 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 27 February 2012 - 16:16

Perhaps, but I'd argue that McLaren had the better car in both instances....purely because of their reliability record. Kimi and Massa lost around 15-20 points per season just because of mechanical DNFs. :down:


quoted for truth.

#293 MikeTekRacing

MikeTekRacing
  • Member

  • 5,785 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 27 February 2012 - 16:25

It was a red RB6/7.

:lol: :drunk:
of course it was

#294 Group B

Group B
  • Member

  • 13,971 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 27 February 2012 - 16:48

wow, so you think Alonso is so brilliant that he is able to judge other cars even without even driving them?

Well you can apparently judge them from your sofa, so I fail to see why Fred can't judge them from a few yards away for several hundred laps.

#295 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 10,038 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 27 February 2012 - 16:53

Make that thousands of laps. :up:

#296 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 7,468 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 27 February 2012 - 16:57

wow, so you think Alonso is so brilliant that he is able to judge other cars even without even driving them?



But he did have Ferrari data around that time so I guess he was in a better position to judge.  ;)






Sorry that was too easy. :kiss:

#297 W03

W03
  • Member

  • 197 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 28 February 2012 - 05:22

Except in Malaysia, Monaco, Italy, Japan, Canada, the United States, and Hungary, where the McLaren was clearly superior. And whenever it rained (due to car characteristics, not driver limitations). And not forgetting the F2007's worse reliability record.

The F2007 had better aero and was superior in high-speed corners, but the McLaren was superior in slow corners, over kerbs and at warming its tyres in cool and/or damp conditions. Due to the range of tracks and weather conditions raced on and through in 2007, the two cars' performance was remarkably even over the course of the full season.

Massa and Raikkonen both lost form since then for various reasons, but in 2007 they were a match for a troubled Alonso and a rookie Hamilton, in my opinion.


This is all pure myth which was originally created by people who refused to accept the Mclaren drivers were superior to the Ferrari drivers. Hamilton and Alonso are both much better than the Ferrari drivers in the wet, so they were naturally quicker in the wet races, it has nothing to do with the Mclaren being better. I seem to remember Massa pulling away from Alonso in the wet at Nurburging in the early laps anyway.

You are right that the Ferrari had great aero and was far superior in high speed corners, but you are mistaken when you beleive this meant the Mclaren was actually the better car on those tracks you listed, when Mclaren did dominant. I will give you a good example.

Monaco. The common consenus is that Mclaren was the dominant car there, yet Felipe Massa only qualified 0.250 behind Alonso on equal fuel. Considering he rarely ever gets that close in equal cars, does anyone really think he managed that in an inferior car? At Monaco of all places? Of course not. Same as Indy. Mclaren were only a few tenths quicker in qualifying, and Ferrari was faster in the race. Hungary, the Ferrari drivers failed in qualifying, but Kimi was all over Hamilton in the race.I doubt Mclaren was ever the best car, apart from maybe Canada, and maybe one or two others. The only fluctuation we saw was the superiority of the Ferrari which was reduced at lower speed tracks, which allowed the superior Mclaren drivers to make the difference.

#298 TheBunk

TheBunk
  • Member

  • 4,083 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 28 February 2012 - 08:43

Here's a controversial one: Jenson Button 2009.

Was the Brawn a better car than the RBR overall that season? Was it definitely the best car for the first 8 or so races, or did the RBR or Toyota not win races it should have won?
Should Alonso or Hamilton have won in 2010.
Should Kimi or Massa have won in 2008.
Should Hamilton or Alonso have won in 2007.
Should MS have won in 2006.

Personally I think it is seldom that we have a season like 2011, where a car is head and shoulders above the opposition.


Nah, the Brawn 2009 was absolutly the best car that year. It had no engine until 6 weeks before the start of the season, and was underdeveloped by a team that had to shed half its workforce, and no or little money for updates. Epic win by both Ross Brawn and Button.

#299 MikeTekRacing

MikeTekRacing
  • Member

  • 5,785 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 28 February 2012 - 10:59

This is all pure myth which was originally created by people who refused to accept the Mclaren drivers were superior to the Ferrari drivers.

so that is a myth? or what you say is a myth? :)

Hamilton and Alonso are both much better than the Ferrari drivers in the wet, so they were naturally quicker in the wet races.... I seem to remember Massa pulling away from Alonso in the wet at Nurburging in the early laps anyway.

well? how is that possible? if they're so naturally quicker in the wet races how was Massa pulling away
and if you say it's car related how do you know which way?

Advertisement

#300 W03

W03
  • Member

  • 197 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 28 February 2012 - 11:05

well? how is that possible? if they're so naturally quicker in the wet races how was Massa pulling away


Ferrari was much quicker.

and if you say it's car related how do you know which way?


In case you haven't noticed, Massa and Alonso have been team mates the last 2 years. Do I really need to go further?