102 replies to this topic

[eifelland]

The phrase under quotes was borrowed from Patrick Head who once said something similar about J. Villeneuve's 1997 WDC-winning season. So, to make the week leading to the Brazilian GP pass quicker, I decided to start a thread about the drivers who just barely managed to win the WDC when the equipment on their disposal shoud have made it a lot easier, and the ones who even managed to miss the title despite the evidence pointing to the fact that their car was good enough (quick enough + reliable enough).

Surprisingly, it did not happen many times, IMHO. Close fights between teammates (like 1988 or 1989) were not taken into account because, despite the car was obvioulsy good enough, someone had to be beaten and if it was done by a small margin, it's considered a fair shot by both drivers.

1. Championships won "unnecessarily hardly"

1997 - J.Villeneuve
1999 - Häkkinen
2007 - Räikkönen

2. Championships lost against the odds

1958 - Vanwall was fragile but had Moss not missed that shift at Spa...
1986 - Piquet, Mansell. Yes, they fought each other but the car was so good that they simply had to have Prost covered.
2008 - Räikkönen, Massa. No apologetics please. The car was obviously good enough.

3. Championships won against the odds

Winners of the years of the list #2, naturally!

4. Honourable mentions:

1966 - Ferrari made the mess of the championship that was almost served on a plate to them.
1974 - Lauda too young perhaps. Also, the same intra-team rivalry that would beset Williams years later decreased Ferrari's chances.
1981 - None of the Williams drivers were consistent enough to capitalize where IMHO they could.
2003 - see 1981, 1986.

Edited by eifelland, 30 October 2010 - 09:56.

[boldhakka]

I would be very worried if a competitive sport wasn't close more often than not. It's normally meant to be a very difficult thing, winning the WDC. It's a property of the sport, nothing to do with the drivers.

[BlackCat]

boldhakka: It's a property of the sport, nothing to do with the drivers.

Every rule (?) has it's exceptions. Lauda frightening out in 1976 was definitely a human factor. And - it's arguable, but I still think Ickx did not want to take the 1970 title.

[valuk]

2008 - Räikkönen, Massa. No apologetics please. The car was obviously good enough.

Maybe, but then you have to include:

2007-Hamilton, Alonso. No apologetics please. The car was obviously good enough.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Eh? How can you include 2007 but not 2009?

[wingwalker]

I'd say 2007 fits much more into 'against the odds', not 'unnecessary hard'.

Damon Hill certainly made the job harder than it had to be for himself in 1996.

[eifelland]

Eh? How can you include 2007 but not 2009?

What happened in 2009? Brawns were dominant and took the titles. Button won it in second last race and it was never really close.

Edited by eifelland, 30 October 2010 - 11:07.

[r4mses]

In "Rennreport 1998" (one of the very few motorsports/f1 books i have) they mention McLaren as one of the "Losers 98" because they didn't manage to win both championships until the final race of the season*. By that, 1998 McLaren/Häkkinen would be a candidate for your first category as well.

*I always disagreed with that - imo totally stupid - statement.

[eifelland]

I'd say 2007 fits much more into 'against the odds', not 'unnecessary hard'.

Damon Hill certainly made the job harder than it had to be for himself in 1996.

It was "against the odds" because of the gap 2 races from the end but over the whole season, considering how good the Ferrari was it's "unnecessarily hard", on par with the 1999 season, for example.

[Ross Stonefeld]

What happened in 2009? Brawns were dominant and took the titles. Button won it in second last race and it was never really close.

He did his best to stumble to the end from the halfway point of the season.

[eifelland]

In "Rennreport 1998" (one of the very few motorsports/f1 books i have) they mention McLaren as one of the "Losers 98" because they didn't manage to win both championships until the final race of the season*. By that, 1998 McLaren/Häkkinen would be a candidate for your first category as well.

*I always disagreed with that - imo totally stupid - statement.

I would say that the 1998 was a great fair fight without really major mistakes that occured a year later. Yes, had the drivers been reversed in the teams, it might have happened that Schumacher would have won it easier than Häkkinen managed eventually but it's questionable and in any case not much different. In 1999, Mika simply kissed the wall two times too much and won far too seldom.

Edited by eifelland, 30 October 2010 - 11:19.

[Koen]

Eh? How can you include 2007 but not 2009?

You mean 2008?
Also, Red Bull this year makes it unnecessarily hard. But I'm sure most people are happy about it because we can follow quite exciting season.

[eifelland]

He did his best to stumble to the end from the halfway point of the season.

But he was still in control all the time, with a nice points' cushion.
For example, had he managed to lose the lead and then had to barely bounce back, that would qualify him.

[Ross Stonefeld]

He was losing the lead throughout the summer. To both Vettel and his team-mate. And he was being outperformed in speed by his team-mate. No he didn't lose the points lead but he let it get way too close.

[eifelland]

I'd say 2007 fits much more into 'against the odds', not 'unnecessary hard'.

Damon Hill certainly made the job harder than it had to be for himself in 1996.

Yes but his main competitor was at least in the same car, it's not as if Hill enjoyed the car advantage over Villeneuve.

[eifelland]

Maybe, but then you have to include:

2007-Hamilton, Alonso. No apologetics please. The car was obviously good enough.

It was not. It was made to look so (as in 2008) mainly by Ferrari drivers failing to capitalize on their equipment.
Besides, there's an interesting theory quite popular in South America about the 2007 season but it's better left to some competent journalist from thereabouts to put it forward.

Edited by eifelland, 30 October 2010 - 11:24.

[Jackmancer]

Schumacher could have won his WDC long before Adelaide as well in 1994. But then again, could or should it been Senna's?

[eifelland]

boldhakka: It's a property of the sport, nothing to do with the drivers.

Every rule (?) has it's exceptions. Lauda frightening out in 1976 was definitely a human factor. And - it's arguable, but I still think Ickx did not want to take the 1970 title.

This is a very interesting theory. Presumably you refer to the US GP? It would show a great respect on Ickx side.

[r4mses]

Imo 2007 and 2008 are quite the same. Both category 1 and 2, depending on the point of view.

1. Championships won "unnecessarily hardly"
2007 Räikkönen
2008 Hamilton

2. Championships lost against the odds
2007 Hamilton/Alonso
2008 Massa

[...]
Besides, there's an interesting theory quite popular in South America about the 2007 season but it's better left to some competent journalist from thereabouts to put it forward.

...aha? Which is? (the theory, i mean ofc )

[valuk]

It was not. It was made to look so (as in 2008) mainly by Ferrari drivers failing to capitalize on their equipment.
Besides, there's an interesting theory quite popular in South America about the 2007 season but it's better left to some competent journalist from thereabouts to put it forward.

How was it not? Lewis had 17 points advantage with 2 races to go. You can't do that with a car that is not good enough.
Then you have to include also:

2. Championships lost against the odds

2007-Lewis Hamilton-17 points advantage with 2 races to go

[eifelland]

How was it not? Lewis had 17 points advantage with 2 races to go. You can't do that with a car that is not good enough.
Then you have to include also:

2. Championships lost against the odds

2007-Lewis Hamilton-17 points advantage with 2 races to go

Absolutely against the odds if you look at the last 2-3 races. But lost very expectedly if you look at the season as a whole.

[eifelland]

...
...aha? Which is? (the theory, i mean ofc )

It goes against my personal opinion of Ferrari's superiority and mixes some outside factors in. But it's not particularly important for this thread.

[valuk]

Absolutely against the odds if you look at the last 2-3 races. But lost very expectedly if you look at the season as a whole.

Why do you say that? I remember that he was leading the standings for most of the season (did he not?) so how can you say that he lost "very expectedly"?

[boldhakka]

It was "against the odds" because of the gap 2 races from the end but over the whole season, considering how good the Ferrari was it's "unnecessarily hard", on par with the 1999 season, for example.

I'd like to understand what data you're using to support your various assertions about the car being "good enough". All we have as a barometer is teammate performance, but you obviously don't seem to be including that in your assessment either. Are you ignoring reliability? Otherwise this topic is just a whole bunch of people arguing about which was the "best" car in each season. Elucidate your data please - or at least explain what parameters you're using to judge the performance of the car. It's not clear in your original post.

This could be another thread about which cars were dominant in which season - no problem, I just think you should make it clear if it is.

[eifelland]

Why do you say that? I remember that he was leading the standings for most of the season (did he not?) so how can you say that he lost "very expectedly"?

Before the season nobody gave him any chance. It was only McLaren's support, Alonso's immaturity and Räikkönen's bad driving that pushed him in a position where he was doomed all the time and it was only a matter of "what will happen" and not "will it happen" that Hamilton would lose the title. Even when he had that 17-points advantage I never expected him to win, in fact I would have regarded him becoming the WDC as a far greater miracle than losing the 17-points lead.

Edited by eifelland, 30 October 2010 - 11:44.

[RC127]

Imo 2007 and 2008 are quite the same. Both category 1 and 2, depending on the point of view.

1. Championships won "unnecessarily hardly"
2007 Räikkönen
2008 Hamilton

2. Championships lost against the odds
2007 Hamilton/Alonso
2008 Massa



...aha? Which is? (the theory, i mean ofc )

Might that be the theory that McLaren didn't want Hamilton's first championship to be tainted by Spygate, so took their foot off the gas in the last couple of races?

[Ross Stonefeld]

Even a tainted victory is better than not winning.

Alonso should have been 2007 champion but he let his emotions get the better of him. Lewis was the 'rightful' 2008 champion but made it more difficult than it needed to be sometimes.

[valuk]

Before the season nobody gave him any chance. It was only McLaren's support, Alonso's immaturity and Räikkönen's bad driving that pushed him in a position where he was doomed all the time and it was only a matter of "what will happen" and not "will it happen" that Hamilton would lose the title. Even when he had that 17-points advantage I never expected him to win, in fact I would have regarded him becoming the WDC as a far greater miracle than losing the 17-points lead.

But how can 2007 Kimi's championship be won "unnecessarily hardly" if he beat 2XWDC and maybe the best rookie ever? Each of those three drivers (Kimi, Lewis, Fernando) had their problems during the season but only one kept his focus till the end.
Lewis was great in 2007 and not so great in 2008. Did he won his championship "unnecessarily hardly"?

[ivanalesi]

Damon Hill is the 1st name that comes to mind! Then it's Jacques, then Mika especially in 99.
Of course Prost shouldn't have won in '86, but Mansell and Piquet helped him a lot!
Now of course both Red Bull drivers, but the team as with Williams is largely to blame.
The others were all very tight.

[jjcale]

It was not. It was made to look so (as in 2008) mainly by Ferrari drivers failing to capitalize on their equipment.
Besides, there's an interesting theory quite popular in South America about the 2007 season but it's better left to some competent journalist from thereabouts to put it forward.

... you mean the one that supplies a reason for Macca leaving LH out in China even though his tyres were worn down the canvas.

[eifelland]

... you mean the one that supplies a reason for Macca leaving LH out in China even though his tyres were worn down the canvas.

It encompasses that event as well, yes.

[Wingcommander]

Before the season nobody gave him any chance. It was only McLaren's support, Alonso's immaturity and Räikkönen's bad driving that pushed him in a position where he was doomed all the time and it was only a matter of "what will happen" and not "will it happen" that Hamilton would lose the title. Even when he had that 17-points advantage I never expected him to win, in fact I would have regarded him becoming the WDC as a far greater miracle than losing the 17-points lead.

You're making you're own opinions sound like facts. How do you argument that Ferrari was the best car in 2007? The least reliable it was, as Raikkonen retired twice and Massa once because of technical problems. Neither of the McLaren drivers had to retire due to the car letting them down.

And what's your point in Raikkonen driving badly? Ok, he had some mediocre qualifyings and made a couple mistakes in races, but still he beat Massa and won the WDC as his competitors made mistakes. I admit that probably no one thought before the season, that Hamilton could be in the title hunt, but during the season he clearly showed that he had what it takes. In the end it was his title to lose, and he lost it.

Edited by Wingcommander, 30 October 2010 - 13:24.

[PayasYouRace]

Damon Hill is the 1st name that comes to mind! Then it's Jacques, then Mika especially in 99.
Of course Prost shouldn't have won in '86, but Mansell and Piquet helped him a lot!
Now of course both Red Bull drivers, but the team as with Williams is largely to blame.
The others were all very tight.

What did Damon do wrong in 1996 apart from hitting the tyres at Monza? His car failing him cost him far more points. It was close at the end because Villeneuve was also having a great season, but I don't think he made in unnecessarily hard for himself.

I also think that 1986 is getting too much of a reputation for Williams losing it because they were fighting each other. There was an element of that, but it's been so exaggerated now that it's a cliche. The Williams were not that far ahead of the opposition that year, compared to 1987. It was just a close season.

[eifelland]

What did Damon do wrong in 1996 apart from hitting the tyres at Monza? His car failing him cost him far more points. It was close at the end because Villeneuve was also having a great season, but I don't think he made in unnecessarily hard for himself.

I also think that 1986 is getting too much of a reputation for Williams losing it because they were fighting each other. There was an element of that, but it's been so exaggerated now that it's a cliche. The Williams were not that far ahead of the opposition that year, compared to 1987. It was just a close season.

Damon drove well in 1996, I don't think there's any real doubt about that.

In 1986, I do not agree. Williams really had the dominant car, after all they used the same car in 1987 (when, if anything, lowering of the boost limit could only have diminished HOnda engine's fuel efficiency advantage). Prist drove brilliantly but the main reason for his WDC victory was scandalous team management at Williams.

[rm111]

What happened in 2009? Brawns were dominant and took the titles. Button won it in second last race and it was never really close.

An Alonso, Raikonnen or Hamilton would of won WDC with four or five races to go in that car.

[PayasYouRace]

Damon drove well in 1996, I don't think there's any real doubt about that.

In 1986, I do not agree. Williams really had the dominant car, after all they used the same car in 1987 (when, if anything, lowering of the boost limit could only have diminished HOnda engine's fuel efficiency advantage). Prist drove brilliantly but the main reason for his WDC victory was scandalous team management at Williams.

I just think what happened in 1986 has become a bit exaggerated. In 1987 they seemed to lose less the the opposition too. At least in raw pace. In 1986 there weren't many cases of Williams running 1-2, or together on track. Mansell and Piquet simply had to do the best they could. So maybe the case could be made for each Williams driver not making the most of their chances, but Williams could not have effectively favoured one over the other.

[jonpollak]

Championships won in "unnecessarily hard" fashion make the best television.
Hence, are the most exciting.
Jp

Edited by jonpollak, 30 October 2010 - 14:27.

[tohru222]

The phrase under quotes was borrowed from Patrick Head who once said something similar about J. Villeneuve's 1997 WDC-winning season. So, to make the week leading to the Brazilian GP pass quicker, I decided to start a thread about the drivers who just barely managed to win the WDC when the equipment on their disposal shoud have made it a lot easier, and the ones who even managed to miss the title despite the evidence pointing to the fact that their car was good enough (quick enough + reliable enough).

Surprisingly, it did not happen many times, IMHO. Close fights between teammates (like 1988 or 1989) were not taken into account because, despite the car was obvioulsy good enough, someone had to be beaten and if it was done by a small margin, it's considered a fair shot by both drivers.

1. Championships won "unnecessarily hardly"

1997 - J.Villeneuve
1999 - Häkkinen
2007 - Räikkönen

2. Championships lost against the odds

1958 - Vanwall was fragile but had Moss not missed that shift at Spa...
1986 - Piquet, Mansell. Yes, they fought each other but the car was so good that they simply had to have Prost covered.
2008 - Räikkönen, Massa. No apologetics please. The car was obviously good enough.

3. Championships won against the odds

Winners of the years of the list #2, naturally!

4. Honourable mentions:

1966 - Ferrari made the mess of the championship that was almost served on a plate to them.
1974 - Lauda too young perhaps. Also, the same intra-team rivalry that would beset Williams years later decreased Ferrari's chances.
1981 - None of the Williams drivers were consistent enough to capitalize where IMHO they could.
2003 - see 1981, 1986.

Sorry but this post is full of nonsense.
1) First it's not clear to me how did J.Villeneuve made the championship "unnecessarily hard". He was in his second year and was fighting a peak Schumacher. He did well to take the title, just look where was Frentzen with the same car, he was nowhere close to get into the championship battle.
2) 1986. This "Mansell and Piquet fought each other and lost the title is purely a myth", in reality they did not take many points out of each other and neither did they have a Webber-Vettel style crash. In fact their battle might have even motivated themselves to extract the last bit of performance out of the car. Apart from that Piquet lost the title mainly because of some mechanical retirements when he at the front.
3) 2008 Championship lost against the odds. Not. McLaren and Ferrari were quite evenly matched.
4) 2003 uh, what?

[eifelland]

Championships won in "unnecessarily hard" fashion make the best television.
Hence, are the most exciting.
Jp

That's true!

[ensign14]

In 1986, I do not agree. Williams really had the dominant car, after all they used the same car in 1987 (when, if anything, lowering of the boost limit could only have diminished HOnda engine's fuel efficiency advantage). Prist drove brilliantly but the main reason for his WDC victory was scandalous team management at Williams.

Scandalous? Hardly. They let 'em race. Which is what they should do.

Reutemann in 1981. He was miles clear after the British Grand Prix and psyched himself out of it. Even at Vegas all he had to do was keep Piquet in sight; with Piquet practically unconscious in the cockpit, entirely drained physically, but hanging on to a fifth place, Reutemann had slid from pole to nowhere and made no effort to battle the Brabham.

[eifelland]

Sorry but this post is full of nonsense.
1) First it's not clear to me how did J.Villeneuve made the championship "unnecessarily hard". He was in his second year and was fighting a peak Schumacher. He did well to take the title, just look where was Frentzen with the same car, he was nowhere close to get into the championship battle.
2) 1986. This "Mansell and Piquet fought each other and lost the title is purely a myth", in reality they did not take many points out of each other and neither did they have a Webber-Vettel style crash. In fact their battle might have even motivated themselves to extract the last bit of performance out of the car. Apart from that Piquet lost the title mainly because of some mechanical retirements when he at the front.
3) 2008 Championship lost against the odds. Not. McLaren and Ferrari were quite evenly matched.
4) 2003 uh, what?

It may be seen that way. However...

About Villeneuve, it was the quote from P. Head that inspired me for this thread, he should have known. Villeneuve himself admitted it was not his best season and said already in 1998 that he drover better than in 1997.

Had Williams put all their weight behind one driver and cast the other one in a supporting role, they might have won in 1981, 1986 and 2003. (I am a supporter of team orders.)
In 1986, just a switch a Brands Hatch would have made Piquet the champion....a switch in Italy would have done the same for Mansell. Different strategies at a few other races could have helped as well. Considering how close was the 2003 championship, I am sure that JPM could have used the France and European GP team orders.

About 2008, I'm still sick when I remember how those two drivers in the red cars wasted the F2008's potential.

[eifelland]

Scandalous? Hardly. They let 'em race. Which is what they should do.

Reutemann in 1981. He was miles clear after the British Grand Prix and psyched himself out of it. Even at Vegas all he had to do was keep Piquet in sight; with Piquet practically unconscious in the cockpit, entirely drained physically, but hanging on to a fifth place, Reutemann had slid from pole to nowhere and made no effort to battle the Brabham.

There's a theory, I have no idea how truthful, that Williams intentionally sabotaged Reutemann in Vegas because of the events of the Brazilian GP. Anyway, Reutemann was entirely able to psyche himself out of it, as you said. But he also received zero help from Jones.

As a hard supporter of team orders, I don't think that "let 'em race" is the best method, except in the seasons like 1988.

[PayasYouRace]

Had Williams put all their weight behind one driver and cast the other one in a supporting role, they might have won in 1981, 1986 and 2003. (I am a supporter of team orders.)
In 1986, just a switch a Brands Hatch would have made Piquet the champion....a switch in Italy would have done the same for Mansell. Different strategies at a few other races could have helped as well. Considering how close was the 2003 championship, I am sure that JPM could have used the France and European GP team orders.

Would a switch in either of those races been the clever thing to do? At Brands (where it would have been a "hold station" order to keep Mansell behind Piquet) it made sense to have Mansell finish first, as he had just won 3 of the previous 4 races and had good momentum. At Monza, a switch would have gone against Piquet's momentum in a similar way, he had won 2 of the last 3 races.

[robefc]

It encompasses that event as well, yes.

Could you elaborate on this theory please?

[eifelland]

Would a switch in either of those races been the clever thing to do? At Brands (where it would have been a "hold station" order to keep Mansell behind Piquet) it made sense to have Mansell finish first, as he had just won 3 of the previous 4 races and had good momentum. At Monza, a switch would have gone against Piquet's momentum in a similar way, he had won 2 of the last 3 races.

But respecting those momentums made the team lose the WDC title. OK, Williams scored the WCC title and that's the most important thing for Frank and Patrick so they were probably happy. Honda was less so and the consequences were felt in 1988.

Edited by eifelland, 30 October 2010 - 16:07.

[wj_gibson]

Scandalous? Hardly. They let 'em race. Which is what they should do.

Reutemann in 1981. He was miles clear after the British Grand Prix and psyched himself out of it. Even at Vegas all he had to do was keep Piquet in sight; with Piquet practically unconscious in the cockpit, entirely drained physically, but hanging on to a fifth place, Reutemann had slid from pole to nowhere and made no effort to battle the Brabham.

I've never understood why Reutemann out in his most abject performance of the season at LV and nor does anyone else. I seem to recall Nigel Roebuck suggesting that Carlos, perhaps subconsciously, perhaps not, didn't really want to be champion.

[ivanalesi]

What did Damon do wrong in 1996 apart from hitting the tyres at Monza? His car failing him cost him far more points. It was close at the end because Villeneuve was also having a great season, but I don't think he made in unnecessarily hard for himself.

I also think that 1986 is getting too much of a reputation for Williams losing it because they were fighting each other. There was an element of that, but it's been so exaggerated now that it's a cliche. The Williams were not that far ahead of the opposition that year, compared to 1987. It was just a close season.

Well, Hill was sometimes lucky(i.e. Berger's engine at Hockenheim). But in general, your teammate in his 1st season and taking pole the 1st race, then having some tech problem... Ferrari and Benetton were just so far away from them, Hill had to dominate! Also in 95 he was simply not anywhere near close a top driver, which is the prime reason I list him first.

[eifelland]

Well, Hill was sometimes lucky(i.e. Berger's engine at Hockenheim). But in general, your teammate in his 1st season and taking pole the 1st race, then having some tech problem... Ferrari and Benetton were just so far away from them, Hill had to dominate! Also in 95 he was simply not anywhere near close a top driver, which is the prime reason I list him first.

But Hill did dominate. He won 8 races (half of all the season's races) to Villeneuve's 4 and at the end won by a margin of 19 points (today it would be something like 47-48).
Sometimes it got closer than expected but his season was quite good.

[PayasYouRace]

But respecting those momentums made the team lose the WDC title. OK, Williams scored the WCC title and that's the most important thing for Frank and Patrick so they were probably happy. Honda was less so and the consequences were felt in 1988.

But would that have been the logical position when the decisions were made? No. That's why the blame can only be put on Mansell and Piquet themselves, and only for just not being consistant enough. Each had poorer parts to their seasons.

[eifelland]

But would that have been the logical position when the decisions were made? No. That's why the blame can only be put on Mansell and Piquet themselves, and only for just not being consistant enough. Each had poorer parts to their seasons.

Or to the team not favouring Piquet after the victory in the first race...but of course, that's the beauty of the hindsight.

Edited by eifelland, 30 October 2010 - 16:39.