13 replies to this topic

[Bob Nomates]

Which do you think was the better car.
This years Ferrari seem to have problems with Tyre wear and it wasn't as fast at some circuits as it has been in previous years.
The 99 Ferrari seem to go well every where and even out qualified a Mac by nearly a second at Malaysia.
Personally I would say Last years Ferrari was better, this years car seem completely different to all the others Schumacher as driven and if it wasn't for Hakkinen's early season run of poor results the championship would have been much closer.
Which car do you think was better?

[!!ManumissioN!!]

I think this year`s car was probably better, but not by much.
Last year`s car was clearly very good, but could not perform well everywhere. This year`s car, on the other hand, as Schumacher himself said, went well everywhere and right from the start.

[RedFever]

This year's car was better. Last year, it was still slower in race pace and often so also in qualyfing. It had however better reliability.

This year's car was really fast in qualyfing,superior to the Mac 70% of the time. In race pace was still not as good as a Mac on some tracks, like Japan, just a 0.1" tenth slower, but definetly right there.

I know it'sdifficult to make a comparison because last year during the most important part of the season, when the kinks have been worked out of new models, the F399 was driven by eddie and Salo rather than Michael, but the F1-2000 was fast the entire season and I think was the best car coming from Maranello since the 126C2 in 1982.

[man from martinlaakso]

Last year McLaren had an average speed advantage for about 0.4 - 0.5 sec pro a lap to Ferrari, although in some tracks Ferrari was faster. In this year Ferrari has had the speed advantage in the time trials in 2 tracks out of 3. In the race the situation had been a more balanced one, but the advantage for McLaren has not been very big, and without tyre wear Ferrari might have had an upper hand in the races, too. Now everything counted together it is a tie between Ferrari and McLaren or Ferrari has had a small advantage.

In 1999 McLaren was a better car than Ferrari, because the speed difference was so big, although the reliability of Ferrari was better than McLaren.

This year's McLaren has been a better car than the last year's model. This year's car was much steadier and easier to handle. The Ilmor engine was not much stronger than in 1999, and that gave Ferrari an edge. Also in aerodynamics Ferrari is not as far behind as before.

So when McLaren has gone forwards in this year, and Ferrari still has bounched from behind McLaren to the same level or slightly ahead of it, it is clear, that this year's Ferrari is much better than the last year's model. It is much faster, but obviously more difficult to drive than the earlier model. Also the reliability has suffered, but MS still had only one engine related DNF (Michael had other kind of bad luck), when MH had three, and Ilmor was still not making such a revolutionary engine model than Ferrari did.

[FlatFoot]

This years car was 'better' because it was on pace right from the get-go. This allowed Ferrari to capitalize on Maclaren/Mika problems.

Previous years it's not until a 1/4 of the way thru the season that the Ferrari gets on the pace....of MacLaren that is.

[mhferrari]

Ferrari 99' was more reliable, but Ferrari 00' was more powerful.

[Mike_in_the_US]

'99 car was more reliable? Maybe a little bit, late in the season, but I can only remember one blown up engine this year, maybe one other failure. Certainly the reliability of the '00 was excellent and not responsilbe for the majority of MS DNFs.

I think that FlatFoot has it right, the '00 was fast and reliable enough right out of the box and the Mac wasn't. This gave Mika a big hill to climb to get back into the WDC while Michael could afford the occasional DNF. A huge advantage.

What I continuely wonder is what would have happenend if DC's car had been the one to have most of the problems for McLaren instead of Mika's? Since two of DC's biggest problems where his own dumb fault giving him better reliability would not change much. But giving Mika the reliability of DC's car might have resulted in a different WDC.

I think the biggest difference was balance and horsepower between the two years. Ferrari made a very driveable car with enough horsepower to give them what they needed to close the gap to the McLaren. Given a reliability advantage to boot and the WDC was really decided very early on, we just never knew it.

[Bex37]

99 Ferrari had its moments as it was well suited to some circuits, but the F1-2000 is a better all round car. Both cars suffered from excessive tyre wear compared with the Mac.

I think the gap between McLaren and Ferrari really only tells you how good the McLarens were in comparison to the Ferrari and not how good each Ferrari was. I mean, if McLaren had made some huge technological leap forward, like a hyperspace drive, does that make the Ferrari worse???? I don't think so.

I believe the thread topic was "99 Ferrari V's 00 Ferrari" so I don't think the Mac comes into it. If you do want to bring it into the equation, I think you will find that the 2000 Mac is also a much improved car, therefore, that automatically makes the 2000 Ferrari better than the 99 Ferrari.

[Mrv]

Without a doubt the F1-2000 for quickness is faster than the F399. But the F399 was much more reliable. Depends how you differentiate what is better, speed vs reliablity. For me I will take the F1-2000 as the better car.

[desmo]

[RedFever]

well, I guess they are both excellent cars, I mean 2, maybe three world titles, guys.........

[Todd]

Ferrari management strikes again. The F399 started the '99 season at a big disadvantage to the MP4/14. The Ferrari team performed a miracle of development that practically closed the gap. Then things got tricky while Schumacher was injured. When he came back, it was clear that the car was very close to the McLaren again. The F399's biggest strengths were reliability, with the exception of Michael's brakes, and successful development. Its biggest weaknesses were its lack of outright pace and its lack of fulltime Michael Schumacher driving.

The F1-2000, on the other hand, started the season on the pace. The combination of competitive lap times for the Ferraris and DNFs from McLaren led to a great deal of conservatism and complacency from Ferrari management. This meant that the F1-2000 that was so fast in preseason testing and early races was allowed to be eclipsed by the McLaren, even as McLaren and Ilmor sorted their own reliability problems. When Michael didn't complete a lap for two races in a row, Ferrari management failed to discover that the F1-2000's race pace was no longer competitive. The conservatism that they had planned to win the championship with had been defeated by two first corner crashes and all they were left with was a car that had been allowed to fall off the development pace of McLaren. Ferrari woke up and focused on performance, but only when the alternative was to concede the title. Had they conducted the 2000 season with the same mentality that they did the '98 season, they would have won at least two more races and the F1-2000 would have been the car of the year. As it is, the MP4/15 has been more consistently competitive and similarly reliable. It is also far kinder to its tires, as Rubens' performance in France proved.

Overall, I'd say the F1-2000 was the better car. It wasn't as reliable as the F399 and its development wasn't as close to a linear progression, but it was fast early in the season and there was only one race where it wasn't one of the two best cars to have. Besides, it has the best looking side pods.

[Peeko]

Besides, it has the best looking side pods.

YES! the first time I ever saw the car, the sidepods were the first thing that caught my eye!!

[Bex37]

The high nose is what got my attention. I thought they must have used Jean Todt as a model