417 replies to this topic

[PlatenGlass]

Well, the standings ended 78-71 in favor Senna and he had been on 78 points since Portugal where he finished 2nd. So I was wrong when I said he failed to score a point in the final two races. Infact, he failed to score a point in the final three races (Spain, Japan and Australia). Prost's last three races were Win, DNF (Suzuka crash), third. But I guess you have in mind that only the best 12 results counted towards the WDC. Well, yes, but it's impossible to know what results would have counted had the Suzuka race finished in a different scenario, and then Australia would have been different. My scenario only took into account a Prost win in the two final races. I'm not going to calculate what finishes he would have to drop but it feels it wouldn't have mattered for the WDC. He would most likely had won the WDC considering Senna's and McLaren's bad form.

I don't think Senna or McLaren were in particularly bad form. Since Prost's midseason hat-trick, Spain was the first race that Senna didn't beat him. Given the championship position, had there been live betting, Senna would have still been favourite had they both emerged unscathed from turn one at Suzuka with Prost in front. Prost wasn't out of it, but it was really just an outside chance going into Suzuka.

Edited by PlatenGlass, 09 November 2014 - 19:11.

[Collombin]

Maybe, but as I said, if Prost could have led Senna home in Suzuka then Adelaide would have been winner takes all.

[fque]

Considering McLaren was the fastest car on the grid from Imola onwards till basically China (the last race), it is safe to assume those were all lost wins. Because in each of those weekends McLaren was the fastest car, it could be seen. When they didn't hit trouble, they dominated easily. When they hit trouble, they either retired or finished lower down, but raw speed was always there. For example in France Raikkonen started from 13th due to engine penalty and lost lots of time in traffic, yet still finished comfortably second. Let's look at Germany - there Montoya finished second behind Alonso after starting from last position. Race which Raikkonen easily dominated before car gave up. Just examples, where McLaren had the fastest car, but Alonso won due to McLarens hitting trouble.

 

As for comparison with Montoya - the main comparison is with Alonso and the title matter. Had Raikkonen not DNF or finished races behind Alonso due to troubles, he would have gained many points, even if he finished a race behind Montoya. Plus Montoya troubles helped Alonso as well. Montoya retired in both Turkey and Belgium, promoting Alonso up to second position from third.

How can you simply assume if Renault didn't have point advantage early in the season, they wouldn't push the car/engine closer to the limit?

The whole Renault team was executing perfectly for almost the entire season, criticism can be made on they were too conservative, but it's unbelievable how fans can simply discard all that.

You are assuming Renault will do nothing if they weren't comfortable in point standings, that's a huge assumption with no evidence.

Can you be sure that R25 wouldn't adept to 7speed gearbox if they were behind? can you be sure they wouldn't tune the engine up a bit more?

R25 was using 6 speed gearbox if people don't remember.

[Dolph]

Wouldn't happen, would it?  Because then McLaren would have two drivers on 2 wins, ready for the latter half of the season.  Rather than putting all the eggs in the Button basket, which would have been shown to be vulnerable to the Hamiltonian omelette.

 

Incidentally, one obvious problem with the wins table is 1983, as Piquet gave a win to Patrese, knowing 3rd would guarantee him the title.

 

But isn't 4 wins doubly better than 2 wins? Its a well known strategy to play on a single driver. As you know its been the main modus operandi for example in Ferrari in the Schumacher and Alonso years

 

 

The medals systems would really favour such a strategy.

[ensign14]

And the emphasis on one driver cost Ferrari the 1999 title.  Irvine sacrificed a place to Schumacher at the French GP that ultimately proved decisive.

[Ragingjamaican]

His countless pirouettes at Silverstone were deliberate???

 

Commonly brought up about Massa. Fact is, Raikkonen spun three times in that race and both Ferrari drivers where left on the intermediate tyres while 90% of the field went on to full wets, the Ferrari's and those not on full wets were down 2-4s per lap.

 

As for my list from the seasons I've watched:

 

2003 - Raikkonen's least competitive car out of the three, least amount of mistakes, was going to say Montoya but he had a better car and made more mistakes.

2008 - Massa let down by the car and team, lot of points squandered by Ferrari, and just realised he had a several reliability issues, then there's Singapore.

2012 - Hamilton edges out Alonso due to the fact Alonso was getting outperformed by Massa in the last few races and because his car was bulletproof and the team on top form. Hamilton like Massa in 2008 was let down by the car and team.

 

You could argue 2005 as Raikkonen was always on the backfoot and Alonso had unbelievable luck. In Nurburgring where Raikkonen went off the last lap the same could have happened to Alonso as his rear wing would have failed in a lap or two. Then there's the countless reliability issues in qualifying and the race, and Montoya not being helpful either.

 

2007 maybe, but the fact is Alonso and Hamilton had a bulletproof car, Raikkonen lost out in reliability a couple of times earlier on but came back strong.

2010 is another maybe, would give it to Hamilton as he made the least amount of mistakes, but Vettel lost too many points through reliability.

 

Then there's 1999...a title nobody wanted to win.

Edited by Ragingjamaican, 09 November 2014 - 23:45.

[hittheapex]

Hakkinen eight wins, Schumacher six, and they both retired three times. Hakkinen almost double the points of his teammate. Yes, Schumacher as well, but I regard Coulthard higher than Irvine.

I do as well, although "without a clue," I think is quite harsh considering the superiority of the McLaren. They did lose some of that once they lost their brakesteer system but even so, I think there is a strong case for both Schumacher and Hakkinen that year.

[George Costanza]

And the emphasis on one driver cost Ferrari the 1999 title.  Irvine sacrificed a place to Schumacher at the French GP that ultimately proved decisive.

 

Yeah because Michael was going to win that 1999 championship....

[George Costanza]

I do as well, although "without a clue," I think is quite harsh considering the superiority of the McLaren. They did lose some of that once they lost their brakesteer system but even so, I think there is a strong case for both Schumacher and Hakkinen that year.

 

Given the car advantage the Macs had, Michael had no place to win the title.

 

Mike was indeed the better driver in 1998. If he didn't stall in Japan, he probably wins the title. Or of course, Spa 1998.... The one that got away, as often I say, it was going to be the greatest wet weather drive ever by him or any driver (surpassing Spain 1996 and Senna's 1985 win at Portugal and 1993 win at Donington).

[HP]

And the emphasis on one driver cost Ferrari the 1999 title.  Irvine sacrificed a place to Schumacher at the French GP that ultimately proved decisive.

1999 was the year that looked as if nobody wanted to win the championship. It certainly wasn't Ferrari biggest blunder that season. Remember GP Europe?

[Gary Davies]

I'm trying to work this one out if Rosberg wins the title because one race is arbitrarily given double points and his team-mate has the bad luck to retire.

 

Piquet did not deserve it in 1987; he was outclassed by Mansell all year but a cross-threaded wheelnut at Hungary decided the title.  Piquet also didn't deserve it in 1981 because he had an illegal car at the start of the year with which he scored enough points to make the difference.  And he also didn't deserve it in 1983 because his car used illegal fuel which enabled him to overhaul Prost and his over-rampant libido.  Conversely Piquet deserved it more in 1982 when he was the best driver that year.  And had Bernie not short-termed Brabham onto Pirelli's concrete rubbish he might have taken the fight to McLaren over the next couple of years.

 

Other definitely wrong years: Surtees in 1964, benefitted from his kamikaze team-mate taking out Graham Hill; Schumacher in 1994, for reasons even Stevie Wonder could see; Lauda in 1984, although he was closer to Prost that year than Rosberg has been to Hamilton.

 

But it's all fairly meaningless.  Fangio was the best in the world until 1957, then it was Moss until 1962, then Clark until 1968, then Stewart until 1973, then a varying interregnum until Prost reigned from 1983 to 1987, Senna until 1994, Schumacher until 2003 with a brief Hakkinen usurpage, then Alonso to 2007ish and Hamilton and him as duarchs since.  Although Hamilton has added much more race intel this year which might give him clear blue water.

Thumbsup!

 

This could be close to being the post of the year. Or decade!

 

I'm with DSJ who thought all this world championship malarkey was silly.

[Oho]

Given the car advantage the Macs had, Michael had no place to win the title.

 

Mike was indeed the better driver in 1998. If he didn't stall in Japan, he probably wins the title.

 

Really, winning the race would not have done it for him, Häkkinen would have taken the title with second.

 

As far as travesties in 98 go,well Spa wasn't all that much worse than Silverstone, where the head steward, Ferrari fan by his own admission, delayed a fully deserved penalty to Schumacher long enough to make it moot.....

 

Well perhaps it wasn't malice but incompetence, suffice to say while FIA intially shelved him it was quickly swept under the rug.

Edited by Oho, 10 November 2014 - 08:47.

[sopa]

Retrospectively I have been thinking that Irvine may not have been a worse driver than Coulthard at all in 1998. Even if you get such impression. But the impression is because McLaren was a faster car and DC often locked out front row together with Hakkinen. But Irvine had a decent season as well - okay, he couldn't match Schumi or win a race, but he was very consistent and half-regularly on the podium. I think it was a good improvement from Eddie after the severe inconsistencies of 1996-97, a platform from which he put together another consistent season in 1999 to challenge for the title. In 1998 in the end DC beat Irvine by mere 9 points. Though I also recall DC had more reliability issues than Irvine that year, so this further reduced the gap.

Edited by sopa, 10 November 2014 - 09:49.

[HammyHamiltonFan]

so rather than this being sensible it's just become "I don't like xyz driver so I think abc driver should've won the title(s) they won" pathetic.

[Collombin]

so rather than this being sensible it's just become "I don't like xyz driver so I think abc driver should've won the title(s) they won" pathetic.

I think we jumped the shark once people started suggesting drivers that didn't even compete in the season in question.

[ensign14]

so rather than this being sensible it's just become "I don't like xyz driver so I think abc driver should've won the title(s) they won" pathetic.

 

I'm glad that Surtees made history in 1964, and both Clark and Hill won titles in other years, so no overall harm, but even so there is something a little unjust about it.  Maybe Il Grande John would have won in 1966 sans Dragoni.

[hittheapex]

so rather than this being sensible it's just become "I don't like xyz driver so I think abc driver should've won the title(s) they won" pathetic.

Really? Has seemed, with the occasional exception, a well mannered and reasoned discussion to me, even if there have been points I disagreed with, all part of the fun.

[Leprechau]

Just consider "wrong WDC" as being synonym to "lease impressive WDC".

 

Vettel's 2010 campaing was not the most impressive. Neither was Alonso's. Hamilton was the best driver that year, but it does not mean was the wrong driver or underserving, he simply had the chips stacked in his favour and yet barely escaped with it.

This post represents perfectly what threads like this will lead to, ie, members claiming their favourite driver should have won this and that years....

 

As somebody who no longer support any driver for some years, this claims seems preposterous in my view. Alonso did far more with a car that was far worse than Mclaren up until Monza. Plus, not only Alonso drove better than Hamilton, Vettel, Webber but also Kubica who had some brilliant performances with that Renault