Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 5 votes

F1's Greatest Myths


  • Please log in to reply
946 replies to this topic

#901 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 10,552 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 29 July 2015 - 11:13

I remember thinking at the time that if the race had a normal number of cars in, then that battle for the lead would have made people think it was a good race.

If there had been a normal number of cars, it would have been a good race.



Advertisement

#902 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 4,571 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 29 July 2015 - 11:36

Reading this thread I don't know what a Myth is any more. It seems it is confused with opinion.

 

There are as many different opinions as there are people.

Person A doesn't think too much of driver Z, thinks him labelled good "is a myth".

Person B thinks highly of driver Z, thinks him being labelled bad "is a myth".

 

OK... Well.. I think by this criteria we can safely assume everything is a myth in the world and there is nothing more to discuss.:)



#903 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 4,571 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 29 July 2015 - 11:44

The G. Villeneuve debate is fascinating, but I am slightly uneasy about claims that he "for sure would have won the 1982 WDC". Pironi was having a good season and you never know. Hakkinen was supposed to dominate in 1999 after Schumi's injury, but he barely beat Irvine.

 

Same thing with claims that Senna would have clinched all F1 titles in 1994-1997...

 

Expectations, predictions, wishes... and then reality. Different things. Even in nostalgic guessworks.



#904 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 4,571 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 29 July 2015 - 11:53

Regarding Damon Hill... In all honesty even looking retrospectively there is not much difference between him and Villeneuve, Frentzen, Alesi, and the likes talent-wise. They all had different careers, different opportunities, different peaks and throughs, but overall pretty much in the same class. And I am not fond of nitpicking in details, who was better or who was not.

 

Hill indeed was handicapped by late entrance to F1, but we can rate drivers only based on what we have. Not imagine that what if Hill was in F1 in the 1980s in his 20s. I mean everyone's life is what it is. Everyone's career is what it is. We can rate only based on what was. Of course there are always different circumstances, which makes it hard to compare/rate... but also fascinating.



#905 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 4,571 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 29 July 2015 - 11:59

Fair point... But his 2002 season was as close as perfect as they come, IMHO. He had the chance to win 17 races in a row given his car that year, which would have been a realistic shot, easily. If you take 2015 point system, Michael would have won by 157 points over Rubens. That is an unbelieveable feat. Whereas in 2004, if you do the math, he "only" won by 96 points over Rubens in '04. Yeah, I think 2002 was the better season. Even more staggering if you include the 2014 points system for 2002, Michael would have won by 164 points...

 

Funny thing is that I personally rate M. Schumacher's 2001 campaign higher than 2002. In 2001 Schumacher held a big pace advantage over Barrichello, who was really struggling with that car. In 2002 Rubens was too close to Michael pace-wise. Look at qualifying gaps/results. Rubens outqualified Michael quite a fair amount in 2002. And Barrichello had a pretty bad reliability in 2002, which cost him a lot of points.

 

I think 2001 is one of the best championship campaigns I have seen, which was magnified by lack of opposition, but competition - as always - it what it is. But Schumi in 2001 has fallen somewhat under the radar. I don't think Ferrari really had pace-advantage that year (on average) though they certainly had far better reliability. M. Schumacher was also helped by having "only" Coulthard, Barrichello and R. Schumacher as his closest championship rivals.

 

Looking at point standings though - you wouldn't think there was some good competition between cars that year (Williams and McLaren really competed for lots of race wins), you'd think it was an utter Ferrari whitewash! That's the illusion Schumacher (and also Ferrari's great team work) has managed to create about 2001. Myth or Not?

 

People rightfully claim that 2002 and 2004 were dominant Ferrari cars, but barely mention F2001 among them. Yet Schumacher did win dominantly that year!


Edited by sopa, 29 July 2015 - 12:05.


#906 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 4,571 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 29 July 2015 - 12:22

In measures of dominance, I still think the FW14B is the ultimate yardstick. It was Mansell proof. Think of it. It made Mansell have a Schumacher-02/04 like season.

 

FW14B is certainly up there with the most dominant cars of all times, like also the modern Mercedes.

 

But what about the Ferrari of 1952-53 after Alfa Romeo had pulled out and F1 effectively became F2. I have checked some qualifying (called practice then) gaps and Ferrari's advantage over the rest was... utterly huge to put it softly.



#907 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 4,571 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 29 July 2015 - 12:26

I don't agree with that.

The FW14B with Mansell on board lost too many races. (Only two in the first 10 races but 5 of the last 6 races! And his team mate won only one single of those 6 last races)

In fact, even if all statisitics of the most dominant cars ever in F1 are looked upon, the best ever Williams with the most victories and highest poinst score ever is the 1996 FW18. (12 victories vs 10 for FW14B)

Much of the myth of the invincible FW14B is because of Mansell-Mania kept alive by patriotic British fans and the fact that it was indeed among the dominatings car that won races with the largest margins over its opponents, like the 1988 MP4/4 as well. Strong images about its utter dominance during a race, certainly. But the bare statistics tell different.

Myths? FW14B the best Williams ever. Maybe in performance potential, but not in its final achievements

 

Henri

 

I think that's what we are discussing - PERFORMANCE POTENTIAL. Ultimately F1 races are what they are - you can always lose points and results. Even the most dominant car can crash out or retire with a loose wheelnut. Just because its dominance would not be statistically reflectedthen, does not mean it wasn't dominant engineering-wise.



#908 E.B.

E.B.
  • Member

  • 2,242 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 29 July 2015 - 12:29

F1 effectively became F2.


Urgh, I sense a few historians cringing at that comment!

As for 1982 GV was well ahead of Pironi that season, and we all know the circumstances of the exception.

#909 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 5,473 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 29 July 2015 - 12:40

FW14B is certainly up there with the most dominant cars of all times, like also the modern Mercedes.

 

But what about the Ferrari of 1952-53 after Alfa Romeo had pulled out and F1 effectively became F2. I have checked some qualifying (called practice then) gaps and Ferrari's advantage over the rest was... utterly huge to put it softly.

 

 

FW14B is nowhere near as dominant with results in the statistics to prove so as you think.

 

Quoting from an article I published on the Internet in 2009,  http://8w.forix.com/dominators.html

I take to following part and added the results of the F2004 that I initially had included separate.

 

I judged the all time dominator cars on the following standards

  • A. Number of Grand Prix victories
  • B. Number of doubles
  • C. Highest percentage of maximum points score

I considered all cars making it into the top 5 in each of these categories the genuine F1 dominators. This was the score:

 

A. GP winners
1= 1988 McLaren (15)

1= 2004 Ferrari (15)
3. 2002 Ferrari (14)
4= 1984 McLaren (12)
4= 1996 Williams (12)
5. 1995 Benetton (11)

 

B. Double victories
1. 1988 McLaren (10)
2. 2002 Ferrari (9)

3 2004 Ferrari F2004
4= 1992 Williams (6)
4= 1996 Williams (6)
6. 1998 McLaren (5)

 

C. Highest percentage maximum score

1. 2002 Ferrari (88.46%)
2. 1988 McLaren (83.59%)

3. 2004 Ferrari (79.19%

4. 1996 Williams (68.36%)
5. 2001 Ferrari (65.81%)
6. 1993 Williams (65.63%)

 

What truly surprised me was that both the 1992 and 1993 Williamses managed to make just one of these top-5 scores each! Most remember 1992 and 1993 for their overwhelming superiority but the bare results and statistics compared to other cars don’t show this.

 

 

End quote:

 

Mind you, this was published in 2009 and thus it has not been written with the 2010-2013 Red Bulls and 2014 Mercedes results included as well

I believe the Mercedes woould join the racks by qualifying in all three categories, I am not so sure on any of the Red Bulls.

Also: The maximum point score was calculated for all cars using the 10-6-4-3-2-1 point system since all but the MP4/4 ran under that score system so I recaluclated that for the MP4/4 as well. The missing of RedBulls and 2014 Merc in this list is because I don't bother (yet) to do the same for those cars. The more while they have driven more races in a season than 17, under rules that focussed on reliability because of cars needing to use a limited number of engines. if you have to inculed all of that as well.....pffff

 

 

 

The superior FW14B ??? A myth!

 

Henri

 

 

 

Edit

 

Posted this before your reply on an earlier post you made.

 

using your logics then I remember another dominant car: the 1982 Renault that was qualified on the front row ever so often that year by both Prost and Arnoux, only to retire every 3 out of 4 races....

engineering wise the FW14B may have been dominant as you claim and it got away with the world titles. But there are other dominant cars engineering wise that ended up empty handed. Like that Renault and the 1977 Lotus of Andretti. And they don't live on as being as dominant they were: Why?

Because they have not enought results to prove it, something the FW14B at least did manage to achieve to some extend but nowhere near as impressive af the other cars I mentioned.

 

Henri


Edited by Henri Greuter, 29 July 2015 - 13:25.


#910 uffen

uffen
  • Member

  • 1,129 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 29 July 2015 - 13:13

I know you qualified your statement quite a bit, but Richard Hammond, really, really disagrees!

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=9773pisjCSw

F1 cars are phenomenally difficult to drive.

And I don't think Hammond's "life was single seat racing."



#911 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 11,022 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 29 July 2015 - 14:55

Nice work with the numbers, but direct comparisions will only favor the more reliable cars from 2001 onwards, or those with stronger driver pairs, or those which benefitted from more generous point systems.

 

21 podiums from 22 races. The only non podium coming from the day Patrese was leading but suffered hydraulic problems with 6 laps to go. Plus all other other qualifying and race stats. That's enough dominance to me, even if it might not have been the utmost dominant car of all.

 

I'd save that distinction for the F2002.


Edited by Atreiu, 29 July 2015 - 15:53.


#912 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 5,473 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 29 July 2015 - 16:49

Nice work with the numbers, but direct comparisions will only favor the more reliable cars from 2001 onwards, or those with stronger driver pairs, or those which benefitted from more generous point systems.

 

21 podiums from 22 races. The only non podium coming from the day Patrese was leading but suffered hydraulic problems with 6 laps to go. Plus all other other qualifying and race stats. That's enough dominance to me, even if it might not have been the utmost dominant car of all.

 

I'd save that distinction for the F2002.

 

 

21 podiums from 22 races? Isn't that a typo for 21 in 32 races? Or do you ignore 10 races for some (what???)  reason?

 

What really is a challenge: make all top scorers being scored equal to the manner that the career of F2002 was: meaning: The first race onluy the core of the eventual World champion counting (Barrichello still had an uprated F2001 in the first race for the F2002 with MS. And then score only the 14 following races. Using that manner of rating what is the best ever F1 car in its first 15 races is quite a challenge.

F2002s records are only vulnerable because of RB's two non starts (when the car failed to leave the grid and his 7th place at Monaco.

 

Like I wrote, when I did those maths I was so surprised to see the 92 and 93 Williams barely making the top 5's of those categories I selected. I left out qualifying results and margins of victory but I'm pretty sure that the FW14B and FW15 did better in qualifying than F2002. In that respect they were doing better against their opponents than the F2002 did. But grid positions don't yield points, neither do larger margins of victory yield bonus points.

F2004 did even worse in qualifying due to the stange qualifying rules of those years with single lap qualifying....

 

 

 

Henri



#913 grandepreuve

grandepreuve
  • Member

  • 136 posts
  • Joined: March 15

Posted 29 July 2015 - 19:47

The G. Villeneuve debate is fascinating, but I am slightly uneasy about claims that he "for sure would have won the 1982 WDC". Pironi was having a good season and you never know. Hakkinen was supposed to dominate in 1999 after Schumi's injury, but he barely beat Irvine.

 

Same thing with claims that Senna would have clinched all F1 titles in 1994-1997...

 

Expectations, predictions, wishes... and then reality. Different things. Even in nostalgic guessworks.

Pironi was no slouch, and doubtless he would have pushed Villeneuve harder in the C2 than the original Ck, because Pironi was far more comfortable with it. But...Villeneuve lead the Brazilian GP that year and dumped it through a silly mistake. Pironinowhere near him. Long Beach....Villeneuve again way ahead of Pironi. At Imola..if you watched the race, the first time Pironi catches Villeneuve off-guard once Villeneuve was past he stretched out a pretty impressive lead over a couple of laps...then he slowed it down, because the PIT signals were ordering them to SLOW (and hold position). Villeneuve had Pironi beat hands down on pace that race....a fact that the result belies.

 

I can't say for certain that Villeneuve would have beaten Pironi, though he outperformed him throughout the previous season and the season up to that point; but if I'd had to bet my money on one over the other, it would have gone onto Villeneuve, no question.


Edited by grandepreuve, 29 July 2015 - 19:51.


#914 Rob

Rob
  • Member

  • 8,631 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 29 July 2015 - 21:30

While I remember, Masahiro Hasemi did not set the fastest lap in the 1976 Japanese GP. The circuit issued a correction after the race, but barely anyone picked up on this so Hasemi's name was the one that was written in the history books.



#915 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 5,473 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 30 July 2015 - 07:33

Pironi was no slouch, and doubtless he would have pushed Villeneuve harder in the C2 than the original Ck, because Pironi was far more comfortable with it. But...Villeneuve lead the Brazilian GP that year and dumped it through a silly mistake. Pironinowhere near him. Long Beach....Villeneuve again way ahead of Pironi. At Imola..if you watched the race, the first time Pironi catches Villeneuve off-guard once Villeneuve was past he stretched out a pretty impressive lead over a couple of laps...then he slowed it down, because the PIT signals were ordering them to SLOW (and hold position). Villeneuve had Pironi beat hands down on pace that race....a fact that the result belies.

 

I can't say for certain that Villeneuve would have beaten Pironi, though he outperformed him throughout the previous season and the season up to that point; but if I'd had to bet my money on one over the other, it would have gone onto Villeneuve, no question.

 

 

I am also a great fan of Villeneuve. But it are exactly the two incidents in 1982 that you mention that make that I am not sure that Gilles would have become the world champion in 1982. Both these accidents show his determination to get the max out of the car but overstepping the edge too often a bit too far to get away with it and thus ending up in retirement (Brazil). Long Beach he didn't suffer because third was the maximum he could achieve that race. Rosberg was better and had the better car.

 

But the maniac he is always told to be, he wasn't.  3 years ago to commemorate the 30th anniversary of his death Autosport magazine published a tribute to Gilles and I still have that somewere. One article, I forgot who what interviewed but i believe it was someone from Michelin, told about how carefully Gisses could be with his car and optimize it to get the best out of it within the limits of what the car could do. It had a number of stories about Gilles preserving components that were said to be too weak to endure a full race yet he got away with it. According the men who was interviewed, this talent of Gilles was almost neglected when talking about him because of the bravado and excitement he created and was much better known for.

 

One legendary performance at Watkins Glen was of course that rained out training. I have spoken an American witnesses of that practice who told me that it was one of the most  legendary and beyond belief performances they had ever seen in their life time. But it was also the event of another, almost forgotten achievement by Gilles, lost in the legend of that practice session.

Once in the lead and the race almost won, his engine lost oil pressure. Nevertheless he managed to slow down enough to keep the engine alive yet still win the race.

I am not sure if it it strue but I have heard the rumour that once the engine was inspected the mechanics concluded that it was virtually impossible to have kept the engine alive to the finish and that it was a sheer miracle that it had survived. Only a very delicate treatment by the driver could have saved that engine. Gilles had not been known for that but by then the mechanics realized that, if he really wanted it, he could bring a wreck home.

 

He had the talents and the gifts to get the job done in 1982. But I am not yet convinced that he would have get it done. But had it happened it would have been the most cherished world title victories of all that I have seen for me.

Addio Gilles, it still hurts....

 

 

Henri


Edited by Henri Greuter, 30 July 2015 - 07:34.


#916 garoidb

garoidb
  • Member

  • 4,426 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 30 July 2015 - 07:51

Concerning Gilles and 1982, I would also worry a bit about whether things like the mistake in Brazil would have ultimately proved costly. He was definitively better than Pironi in 1981, but it is the high points of the season that we remember - mistakes (like Silverstone, for example) didn't really matter. 

 

We also can't know how his feud with Pironi would have affected his temperament for the rest of the season. A few dominant wins might have been enough, but you never know.



#917 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 39,014 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 30 July 2015 - 10:47

The way 1982 panned out, 5 wins would have been enough.  The two in the remainder of the season for Pironi and Tambay would surely have been Gilles'; he would probably have taken Monaco as well as he thraipsed the Ferrari far less at San Marino and was kinder on fuel than Pironi. 



#918 garoidb

garoidb
  • Member

  • 4,426 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 30 July 2015 - 12:58

The way 1982 panned out, 5 wins would have been enough.  The two in the remainder of the season for Pironi and Tambay would surely have been Gilles'; he would probably have taken Monaco as well as he thraipsed the Ferrari far less at San Marino and was kinder on fuel than Pironi. 

 

Five out of the twelve remaining races is a tall order given that he didn't especially dominate the first four. He would have had to take lower placings in more races on a consistent basis IMO. We can't be definitive, but there is room for doubt about whether he really would have done that. I don't think we can assume that he would always have outscored Pironi, who we know was assiduously garnering points, so it would depend quite a lot on Gilles staying out of trouble. 


Edited by garoidb, 30 July 2015 - 12:58.


#919 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 5,473 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 30 July 2015 - 14:05

Five out of the twelve remaining races is a tall order given that he didn't especially dominate the first four. He would have had to take lower placings in more races on a consistent basis IMO. We can't be definitive, but there is room for doubt about whether he really would have done that. I don't think we can assume that he would always have outscored Pironi, who we know was assiduously garnering points, so it would depend quite a lot on Gilles staying out of trouble. 

 .... and his rage about Imola not getting too much of the upper hand.

 

But another thought.

There was some talk already about plans he had to leave Ferrari after 1982. Should that have been more into the open and known to Enzo and the team management, would they still have been behind him and not favour Pironi, the man who was gonna staying?

 

Henri


Edited by Henri Greuter, 30 July 2015 - 14:05.


Advertisement

#920 PlatenGlass

PlatenGlass
  • Member

  • 454 posts
  • Joined: June 14

Posted 30 July 2015 - 14:19

What truly surprised me was that both the 1992 and 1993 Williamses managed to make just one of these top-5 scores each! Most remember 1992 and 1993 for their overwhelming superiority but the bare results and statistics compared to other cars don’t show this.

There are obviously different measures of dominance. The 1992 Williams had a few mechanical failures, so in that sense wasn't as dominant as some other cars. Also, a lot of the 2002 Ferrari dominance was tyre-based, and depending on which way someone is inclined they may or may not define that as part of the "car". But the 1992 Williams dominated the opposition in terms of pace in a way very rarely seen. And Patrese (not part of the car) was weak that year, so with two drivers at Mansell's level it would have been pretty much unbeatable.

Edited by PlatenGlass, 30 July 2015 - 14:20.


#921 FBJim

FBJim
  • Member

  • 148 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 31 July 2015 - 03:14

Sorry if it got brought up, but-

 

 

Myth: The MP4/4 was more impressive than the MP4/2. 



#922 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 5,473 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 31 July 2015 - 06:23

Sorry if it got brought up, but-

 

 

Myth: The MP4/4 was more impressive than the MP4/2. 

 

 

Looking to the bare statistics: No. Looking further than that: very plausible, if not actually true. (For me personally: True)

 

The one thing that for me makes MP4/4 less impressive than the Ferrari F2002 (and to some extend the F2004) is that the MP4/4 was about the only purposely designed turbocharged F1 car in 1988, entirely designed for the rules of that one year, a transition year. Just about every other car that season was a stopgap measure, the only exception being the Lotus of that year. It was also newly designed yet nowhere near as taking advantage of the rules als the MP4/4.

All other turbocars were modified 1987s, used to keep on racing while the team worked on the new atmo contenders necessary for the next year while just about all atmo contenders were falling back on existing engines in 3.5 liter trim there were no brand new generation 3.5 liter engines available yet.

Effectively that made the MP4/4 the only car in its category, facing stopgap opposition and without any serious opposition worth that name so once reliability would be good it had every opportunity to overwhelm the oppononts and rewrite the record books.

It was reliable and thus the record books were rewritten.

 

MP4/2 on the other hand faced opponents that were designed and built under the same rules and the same intentions. It raced against far more equal opposition and for that reasons alone any achievements with the MP4/2 can be rated higher. Life was too easy for the MP4/4 to be impressed with how it humiliated its opposition. It was a like fielding Ben Johnson  at a local athletics club and have him run against the local members. MP4/4 performed admirably and the levels of performance it was capable of are truly impressive for sure. But given the weak opposition it was up against, the results of how it humiliated the opposition? it would be a shame if it had not done so. Only a lack reliabilty could prevent total domination.

 

Henri

 

 

Edit:

For pretty much the same reasons valid for MP4/2, F2002 was also designed and built in a period of rules stability and built for competition against components built under the same rules and with allowance for unlimited development during the season. Therefore, F2002 's dominance over its opponents is, in my point of view more more impressive (be it less absolute) then that of MP4/4 over its opponents. F2002 beat opponents that in theory could be equal to it under the rules of the time, MP4/4 was built in a time of far less rule stability and equality and the only one of its kind among the field it as part of.

End Edit


Edited by Henri Greuter, 31 July 2015 - 07:17.


#923 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 8,544 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 31 July 2015 - 07:11

 Just about every other car that season was a stopgap measure, the only exception being the Lotus of that year. It was also newly designed yet nowhere near as taking advantage of the rules als the MP4/4.

 

 

Henri

 

No, even the Lotus 100T was just the 99T modified for the new rules for the driver's feet being behind the front wheels and slightly sleeker bodywork.



#924 garoidb

garoidb
  • Member

  • 4,426 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 31 July 2015 - 07:14

No, even the Lotus 100T was just the 99T modified for the new rules for the driver's feet being behind the front wheels and slightly sleeker bodywork.

 

... and no active suspension. 



#925 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 5,473 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 31 July 2015 - 07:32

No, even the Lotus 100T was just the 99T modified for the new rules for the driver's feet being behind the front wheels and slightly sleeker bodywork.

 

From what I have understood, the 100T was based on the 99T but still had a number of differences. Repositioning the front suspension to comply to the foot rules and reduce fuel tank capacity is for me a major difference to consider it a new design. Also with the major changes in suspension: (from active to conventional, as gariodb pointed out [Piquet fan as he is he must be quite much into that car.....] ))

Biggest handicap for the 100T was that the latest Honda engine was much lower, due to a new, much smaller flywheel. McLaren built a bespoke gearbox for the MP4/4 to benefit maximally from this new feature. Lotus did not have the opportunity do do so and instead they `angled the engine-transmission` within the chassis, which to some extend took away much of the benefits this lower engine had to offer. Had Lotus had acces to a similar kind of gearbox as McLaren used, the performance gap to the McLaren MP4/4 might have been smaller then that it was now. I talk about performance levels of the cars alone, I do not bring in the factor of who drove the respective cars. )

Teh other turbo teams (Arrows & Ferrari in particular) used 1987 cars with way less modifications for '88 that what made the 100T differ from the 99T.

 

Henri


Edited by Henri Greuter, 31 July 2015 - 07:34.


#926 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 8,544 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 31 July 2015 - 07:42

From what I have understood, the 100T was based on the 99T but still had a number of differences. Repositioning the front suspension to comply to the foot rules and reduce fuel tank capacity is for me a major difference to consider it a new design. Also with the major changes in suspension: (from active to conventional, as gariodb pointed out [Piquet fan as he is he must be quite much into that car.....] ))

Biggest handicap for the 100T was that the latest Honda engine was much lower, due to a new, much smaller flywheel. McLaren built a bespoke gearbox for the MP4/4 to benefit maximally from this new feature. Lotus did not have the opportunity do do so and instead they `angled the engine-transmission` within the chassis, which to some extend took away much of the benefits this lower engine had to offer. Had Lotus had acces to a similar kind of gearbox as McLaren used, the performance gap to the McLaren MP4/4 might have been smaller then that it was now. I talk about performance levels of the cars alone, I do not bring in the factor of who drove the respective cars. )

Teh other turbo teams (Arrows & Ferrari in particular) used 1987 cars with way less modifications for '88 that what made the 100T differ from the 99T.

 

Henri

 

Everything I've ever read about that car just call it an update on the 99T to comply with the new rules.



#927 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 5,473 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 31 July 2015 - 08:24

Everything I've ever read about that car just call it an update on the 99T to comply with the new rules.

 

My best source of info on that was the book by Ian Bamsey about the McLaren-Honda MP4/4 (McLaren-Honda Turbo a technical appraisal) Bamsey also paid attention to the differences as of why the Lotus that used the same engine as the McLaren was no match for the McLaren.

I post the link below because it leads to a page with a cover of the book, not because I want to promote the seller.

 

http://www.amazon.co...l/dp/0854298401

 

 

If you don't know that book yet and have interest in the subject, despite being 25 years old by now, I can recommand it.

 

Funny enough, at that time, I didn't like Mclaren, Honda, Prost, let alone Senna for a split second. But that book was a delight to read to find out how they did it. peronally I still can't like anything about that `tour the force` yet I respect and to some extend even admire it when looking back on it. At the time it took place I hated it and was fed up with it.

Sometimes you are able to re-evaluate something you hated at the time but of which you realize later on how historic it was in a more positive manner. MP4/4 ruining 1988 and Penske PC23-500I ruining Indy 1994 are two of the prime examples for me.

 

Henri


Edited by Henri Greuter, 31 July 2015 - 08:30.


#928 mzvztag

mzvztag
  • Member

  • 816 posts
  • Joined: August 13

Posted 31 July 2015 - 09:16

To be honest, I think that the Lotus 100T was very much a new design, just clumsily done.

99T was very bulky, very far from the refinement of FW11, that was basically a ultra-low vehicle within the limitations of its engine layout (it couldn't be as radical as BT55).

Then for 1988 Ducarouge and Dernie (IIRC) set out to copy FW11 and it did not work. However, to fit much lower bodywork, the chassis must have been quite different from 99T. Anyway, FW11 was obsolete by then and McLaren was able to go even much lower (that was Murray's way to prove the point of BT55).

Then indeed there was the issue of angling the powertrain, that Henri mentioned, instead of having a proper solution that McLaren employed.

Edited by mzvztag, 31 July 2015 - 09:26.


#929 PlatenGlass

PlatenGlass
  • Member

  • 454 posts
  • Joined: June 14

Posted 31 July 2015 - 10:17

Sorry if it got brought up, but-


Myth: The MP4/4 was more impressive than the MP4/2.

It would be easier if people gave the years of the cars rather than just the model code. I know people don't want to say anything for fear of sounding ignorant but most people don't have the model codes all memorised!

#930 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 5,473 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 31 July 2015 - 11:39

It would be easier if people gave the years of the cars rather than just the model code. I know people don't want to say anything for fear of sounding ignorant but most people don't have the model codes all memorised!

 

 

You are right in that. I am entirely not into Willams at all and after 1982 I've lost the numbers and years save for a few truly memorable ones. Same for most of the Dennis McLarens.

 

For the record: MP4/2 was the basic car used by McLaren between 1984 and 1986, the heydays of the Porsche/TAG turbo engine. There were B and C specifications of it in '85 and 86. In short, the cars that made Lauda (84) and Prost (85&86) champ and two constructor titles ('84&85). Very succesful cars in their own right.

You might debate if they were not entirely different cars alltogether but I'm not gonna do that since, like I've said, I am not a McLaren fan at all (at least the Ron Dennis McLarens, the older cars are fine with me) so I don't know enough about how to classify differences between the different versions. If my memory is correct: nomination MP4/2 is based around the fact that the cars used near similar design monocoques over the year but for certain that there will be McL fans capable to fill us in on that.

 

 

Henri



#931 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 4,571 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 31 July 2015 - 11:49

It would be easier if people gave the years of the cars rather than just the model code. I know people don't want to say anything for fear of sounding ignorant but most people don't have the model codes all memorised!

 

You are right. Most of the time I google to make sure I get the year right even if I have a vague hunch about what might be talked about.

 

It doesn't apply to some of the cars, which were nominated directly after the year, i.e Ferraris of early 2000s. The Renaults and Toyotas were by my memory also linked to year, i.e R25 of 2005, TF105 of 2005, which makes it easy to memorize.



#932 mzvztag

mzvztag
  • Member

  • 816 posts
  • Joined: August 13

Posted 31 July 2015 - 11:59

I am not a big McLaren fan (indeed I hated them back on 1984 but I was very young and supporting Brabham back then so I can be excused!) but perhaps I can fill a bit about MP4/2.

Indeed all the 1984-86 cars used basically the same monocoque. When the fuel allowance wa cut for 1986 (typo edited!), McLaren did not optimize the chassis, they simply added a CF bulkhead into the fuel tank to reduce its capacity. Yet Prost won the title what speaks of his brilliance and Head's horrible team management that year (Frank Williams was in the hospital back then).

In fact, the MP4/2 monocoque diferred only in the rear end (IIRC) from the 1981 MP4/1, mostly because turbo needed bigger tank and different mounting points.

MP4/2 was a brilliant proof for John Barnard's concept that a well conceived F1 chassis can remain successful for years.

MP4/2 should have been a ground effect car, or better said, Porsche designed the TTE-PO1 with ground effects on their minds (Barnard pushed it, of course) but then we know what happened in late 1982. It was too late to change the engine specs so the car was not fully optimized for flat bottom regulations but it was more than enough.

There is also an additional note to Lauda's 1984 title: for all 16 races he used the same chassis, the prototype MP4/2-1. Prost used only chassis 2 and 4 (again IIRC). That speaks volumes about the design and build quality. In total, only 4 cars were built and only 3 used in 1984.

Edited by mzvztag, 31 July 2015 - 12:12.


#933 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 5,473 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 31 July 2015 - 12:08

aI am not a big McLaren fan (indeed I hated them back on 1984 but I was very young and supporting Brabham back then so I can be excused!) but perhaps I can fill a bit about MP4/2.

Indeed all the 1984-86 cars used basically the same monocoque. When the fuel allowance wa cut for 1985, McLaren did not optimize the chassis, they simply added a CF bulkhead into the fuel tank to reduce its capacity. Yet Prost won the title what speaks of his brilliance and Head's horrible team management that year (Frank Williams was in the hospital back then).

In fact, MP4/2 monocoque diferred only in the rear end (IIRC) from the 1981 MP4/1, mostly because turbo needed bigger tank and different mounting points.

MP4/2 was a brilliant proof for John Barnard's concept that a well conceived F1 chassis can remain successful for years.

There is also an additional note to Lauda's 1984 title: for all 16 races he used the same chassis, prototype MP4/2-1. Prost used only chassis 2 and 4 (again IIRC). That speaks volumes about the design and build quality. In total, only 4 cars were built and only 3 used in 1984.

 

One question/comment.

As for Prost's titles with MP4/2, Williams-Honda was no serious contender yet for the title in 1985, Alboreto with Ferrari was the most serious opponent to Prost that year but they faded in the late summer and fall, coincidentally about the time that Williams-Honda finally got their act together. They had a strong ending of the season; sign of what was to come one year later.

Your comment is however entirely correct if it comes to 1986. As for the rest of your post, that is also what I remember.

 

 

Henri



#934 mzvztag

mzvztag
  • Member

  • 816 posts
  • Joined: August 13

Posted 31 July 2015 - 12:17

One question/comment.
As for Prost's titles with MP4/2, Williams-Honda was no serious contender yet for the title in 1985, Alboreto with Ferrari was the most serious opponent to Prost that year but they faded in the late summer and fall, coincidentally about the time that Williams-Honda finally got their act together. They had a strong ending of the season; sign of what was to come one year later.
Your comment is however entirely correct if it comes to 1986. As for the rest of your post, that is also what I remember.


Henri

Henri,
You are 100% right. I made a typo in the original post (now corrected). Indeed I meant 1986 and not 1985.

The 1985 car was little changed from 1984, new wings, a few details.

For 1986, the bodywork was a bit lower (cockpit surround) and the turbochargers were different, left-and rear-handed ("mirrored") so the turbo installation was symmetrical.

But it was still basically the same car.

Edited by mzvztag, 31 July 2015 - 12:19.


#935 MrTea

MrTea
  • New Member

  • 11 posts
  • Joined: September 13

Posted 31 July 2015 - 15:41

That F1 fans dislike dominance by one driver/team. They only do when it's not 'their' driver/team dominating. The British fans were loudly complaining during the Vettel/Red Bull era, to the point where they were doing everything to diminish Vettel's achievements ("it's all Newey") but are they complaining now, when it's Hamilton/MGP doing the dominating (with a much bigger car advantage)?



#936 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 59,165 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 31 July 2015 - 15:48

The 1988 McLaren season is overrated, but it's not really a myth. Though in a way you could say Honda Amazingness© was a bit of a myth.



#937 Jimisgod

Jimisgod
  • Member

  • 3,956 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 31 July 2015 - 16:02

The 1988 McLaren season is overrated, but it's not really a myth. Though in a way you could say Honda Amazingness© was a bit of a myth.

 

It is just remembered as the first instance of utter crushing domination by a team in F1. I suppose you could add Ferrari in the early 50s, but the number of non-championship races was so great that lots of teams won during the season even if they weren't WDC races.

 

I think the alleged superiority of the 1992 and 1993 Williams is overstated; they were the best cars to have but I'd call them less advantageous than having a 2014/15 Mercedes or 2002/04 Ferrari. Yes, Mansell - who was up until that point not on a level with Senna or Prost - had a dominant season in one, but they don't deserve to be called the most dominant F1 cars ever. I think it's a little too much nostalgia directed towards the most advanced of the pre-1994 cars because of the unpopularity of the changes.



#938 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 12,671 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 31 July 2015 - 16:17

The British fans..

.

It is well known that every single person in Britain holds exactly the same opinions about everything.  That's why at the recent General Election, Supreme Leader Cameron was returned to power with 100% of the votes.   :rolleyes:



#939 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 59,165 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 31 July 2015 - 16:44

It is just remembered as the first instance of utter crushing domination by a team in F1. I suppose you could add Ferrari in the early 50s, but the number of non-championship races was so great that lots of teams won during the season even if they weren't WDC races.

 

 

But in a way I feel like even the domination is questionable. McLaren had Prost and Senna, which kinda screws everyone else. Even if they were running the same cars.

 

Honda had who as competition? Williams-Judd? FerrarI? Pause for giggle. Lotus-Honda? Lotus wasn't going to match McLaren. Piquet and Nakajima? Please...

 

Mansell goes to Ferrari and suddenly is a threat. Prost goes to Ferrari and it's a serious problem. Williams gets a Renault engine and things start to become a lot less easy.

 

So it was more the Perfect Storm than the Perfect Car.

 

It's a shame that F1 just narrowly missed an almighty showdown. If the Williams had come good a year or two sooner or had Prost survived at Ferrari the McLaren/Senna-Williams/Mansell-Ferrari/Prost war would have been gold-plated.



Advertisement

#940 garoidb

garoidb
  • Member

  • 4,426 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 01 August 2015 - 20:46

But in a way I feel like even the domination is questionable. McLaren had Prost and Senna, which kinda screws everyone else. Even if they were running the same cars.

 

Honda had who as competition? Williams-Judd? FerrarI? Pause for giggle. Lotus-Honda? Lotus wasn't going to match McLaren. Piquet and Nakajima? Please...

 

Mansell goes to Ferrari and suddenly is a threat. Prost goes to Ferrari and it's a serious problem. Williams gets a Renault engine and things start to become a lot less easy.

 

So it was more the Perfect Storm than the Perfect Car.

 

It's a shame that F1 just narrowly missed an almighty showdown. If the Williams had come good a year or two sooner or had Prost survived at Ferrari the McLaren/Senna-Williams/Mansell-Ferrari/Prost war would have been gold-plated.

 

The pity is that we couldn't have had Senna and Prost in McLaren Hondas against Mansell and Piquet in Williams Hondas for some overlapping years during the mid-late eighties. 



#941 DS27

DS27
  • Member

  • 1,340 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 01 August 2015 - 21:47

This has probably been said already but for me the biggest myth is  "If is F1 spelt backwards"



#942 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 39,014 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 01 August 2015 - 22:20

This has probably been said already but for me the biggest myth is  "If is F1 spelt backwards"

 

That's enof.



#943 R Soul

R Soul
  • Member

  • 825 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 01 August 2015 - 23:07

What about the idea that "the team has designed this car to suit driver X"? If teams could actually choose understeer or oversteer, no car on the grid would have any balance problems. I don't dispute that are car can suit a driver more than his team mate, and that the engineers might give more weight to one driver's feedback over his team mate's, but they don't actually try to make an unbalanced car.

 

edit: And let's not forget the pre-season myth: "Looks fast". No, you cannot tell just by looking, even if the car does have a coke bottle stuck on the end of a rake.


Edited by R Soul, 01 August 2015 - 23:09.


#944 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 59,165 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 01 August 2015 - 23:56

I think cars/settings/setup can definitely favor one driver over another, we're only talking about a few tenths over a 90 second adventure. That's nothing in real terms. Vettel didn't look like much in the early part of 2008(or at least Bourdais looked a lot better). Once they made some mid-season updates Vettel was off and into the driver we now know. Likewise there were periods/configurations in the Red Bull era where Webber was much much more competitive against his teammate, despite it always being the same person.



#945 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 2,856 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 02 August 2015 - 01:25

It is just remembered as the first instance of utter crushing domination by a team in F1. I suppose you could add Ferrari in the early 50s, but the number of non-championship races was so great that lots of teams won during the season even if they weren't WDC races.

 

I think the alleged superiority of the 1992 and 1993 Williams is overstated; they were the best cars to have but I'd call them less advantageous than having a 2014/15 Mercedes or 2002/04 Ferrari. Yes, Mansell - who was up until that point not on a level with Senna or Prost - had a dominant season in one, but they don't deserve to be called the most dominant F1 cars ever. I think it's a little too much nostalgia directed towards the most advanced of the pre-1994 cars because of the unpopularity of the changes.

Sorry. I gotta disagree. On outright pace, the 1992-1993 Williams puts the 2002/04. and 98/99 McLarens and 14/15 Mercedes to shame. They were often 1-2 seconds quicker the whole season in qualifying.... beating the two of the greatest pole sitters in F1 at the time, Ayrton and Michael with ease. Nigel was indeed fast, but I don't think he would be THAT fast. He got 14 poles that year in 1992.... 1993? Williams locked every grid with ease except for a superman effort from Ayrton at last grand prix of the season. Yes Red Bull did that in 2011, matched 1992-1993 Williams feat, but they weren't 1-2 seconds quicker than anyone else the whole season long. The 2014 Mercedes is close to that level as well as 2015, but it quite falls short in some areas.


Edited by George Costanza, 02 August 2015 - 02:12.


#946 Mat13

Mat13
  • Member

  • 477 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 02 August 2015 - 09:43

That F1 fans dislike dominance by one driver/team. They only do when it's not 'their' driver/team dominating. The British fans were loudly complaining during the Vettel/Red Bull era, to the point where they were doing everything to diminish Vettel's achievements ("it's all Newey") but are they complaining now, when it's Hamilton/MGP doing the dominating (with a much bigger car advantage)?


Bollocks. The only time I moaned in 2010-2013 was the last half of 2013, when F1 was boring. I'm a Hamilton fan, and I'm still moaning this year- it's boring. British fans aren't a hive mind.

#947 R Soul

R Soul
  • Member

  • 825 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 02 August 2015 - 14:02

I think cars/settings/setup can definitely favor one driver over another

I know, and I did say it could happen. The myth is that it's a deliberate design choice. The designers want the cars to be neutral with high downforce all round.