70 replies to this topic

[Archybald]

So i done a search for a post along these lines and suprisingly i couldn't find anything. So im curious what car seemed to be the fastest car throughout the whole season?

Just want to clarify this isnt for the "best car" or the most "reliable" car. What do you think was the "fastest" car on average through out the season?


My personal opinion would be the red bull's had the fastest cars for the whole season.

At the start of the season they seemed to catch up with the brawn car very quick (sooner then the scores would show) they just appeared to get stuck behind "kers" cars in the early races. Their true placements also had problems with reliablity.

Brawn would have been up there but they appeared to have taken atleast 2 steps back by mid season.

Toyota were also another that seemed to have a car that was faster then the results they got?

Would the sheer speed and progression of the McLaren car make it on average the fastest car of the year?

Where would you put each car in a fastest car league (had the cars not had various reliability issues or if they had the "perfect" driver in them)

So discuss? Opinions? etc

Edited by Archybald, 06 December 2009 - 14:53.

[Jackmancer]

Red Bull. They didn't have the double diffuser, we can say it was by a misunderstanding. If they had it directly and more consistent drivers, they would have clinched the WCC. Oh well, that's my opinion.

[Seanspeed]

The Brawn for me, if we look over the whole season.

Clearly the fastest for the first 7 races or so.

Red Bull may have caught up and had advantages when the temperature was relatively low, but I think the Brawn was always the better car under normal conditions.

Its also a comment on how I rate the drivers of Red Bull vs the Brawn drivers. I think both Webber and Vettel are better than Button/Barrichello, so I think the gap between the cars was bigger(or smaller when Red Bull was winning) than it appeared.

I'd also like to note that I think the Mclaren was the best car by season's end. It was quick and consistent in any temperature, it was reliable as ever, it had KERS so even a 3rd spot qualifying meant P1 into the 1st corner, and the same KERS meant that it was nearly impossible to pass on-the-track.

[Archybald]

The Brawn for me, if we look over the whole season.

Clearly the fastest for the first 7 races or so.

Honestly i think red bull had caught up by monaco its just monaco wasnt a track that suited their car. Also Turkey would have gone to Vettel if Button hadnt passed him early on with the results being 1:brawn 2:red bull 3:red bull. At this stage of the season it seemed like red bull and brawn were on equal footing in terms of race pace. Then in the british GP brawn appeared to take a few steps back that took a few races to fix.


Also in spain if im not mistaken the red bulls were very fast they just got stuck behind the kers cars.

Edited by Archybald, 06 December 2009 - 14:27.

[craftverk]

Red Bull. Brawn may have been the quickest early on but the Red Bull overall became the quickest car quite convincingly; their drivers didn't do the car justice though.

[MikeTekRacing]

so if red bull was the car to have...then vettel is nothing special since he couldn't clinch the title?

p.s. I think BGP was the best car to have

[Archybald]

so if red bull was the car to have...then vettel is nothing special since he couldn't clinch the title?

p.s. I think BGP was the best car to have

Don't get me wrong when i say this but for the 2009 season vettel made WAY too many mistakes. Re-watch the turkish grand prix vettel made 1 mistake which put him behind button. He was then going faster then button but couldnt pass him. Which eventually lead to mark webber being able to beat him on strat. Not to mention a large amount of other mistakes throughout the season. Give vettel a year or 2 to smooth out the mistakes and im sure he will have atleast 1 if not more WDC'S to his name. But in 2009 he made too many mistakes.

[moredeep]

so if red bull was the car to have...then vettel is nothing special since he couldn't clinch the title?

yup, that's about right

[Seanspeed]

Honestly i think red bull had caught up by monaco its just monaco wasnt a track that suited their car. Also Turkey would have gone to Vettel if Button hadnt passed him early on with the results being 1:brawn 2:red bull 3:red bull. At this stage of the season it seemed like red bull and brawn were on equal footing in terms of race pace. Then in the british GP brawn appeared to take a few steps back that took a few races to fix.


Also in spain if im not mistaken the red bulls were very fast they just got stuck behind the kers cars.

Monaco was the first time Red Bull had their DD diffuser, which was underdeveloped at the time.

And no, Button was clearly faster in Turkey, demonstrated by the fact that Button pulled away once Vettel made his mistake. I think Button would have passed Vettel in the pits had Vettel not made a mistake, anyways.

Race pace was always Brawns' advantage. We saw that ever since Brawn started their late winter testing program. Their final times were impressive, but their long runs were just scary.

In the British GP, the Brawns didn't take a step back, the temperatures just didn't suit their car. But not being good in colder temperatures is not a *huge* weakness, considering the period that the F1 season is run and the places they race at.

And again, I think Webber and Vettel are better drivers than both Button and Barrichello so when the Red Bulls were leading, the gap was bigger than it appeared, and when the Brawns were leading, the gap was smaller than it appeared.

See it how you want, though. This is just how I interpreted what happened this season.

[Dolph]

so if red bull was the car to have...then vettel is nothing special since he couldn't clinch the title?

p.s. I think BGP was the best car to have

That's a whole bunch of over generalizations, isn't it?

[nada12]

Red Bull. Brawn may have been the quickest early on but the Red Bull overall became the quickest car quite convincingly; their drivers didn't do the car justice though.

BS. The Red Bull never had the kind of domination the Brawn had for the first half of the season. The Red Bull had a period of two races where it was the convincingly fastest car, Silverstone and Nürburgring, tracks that are tailor-made for their car. After that on different kinds of tracks they fell back on par with the other cars. If you look at the whole season and not just selective races it's quite definitely the Brawn.

[Sarhan]

easy the Red Bull. showed that without ddd.

[robracer]

So i done a search for a post along these lines and suprisingly i couldn't find anything. So im curious what car seemed to be the fastest car throughout the whole season?

Just want to clarify this isnt for the "best car" or the most "reliable" car. What do you think was the "fastest" car on average through out the season?


My personal opinion would be the red bull's had the best cars for the whole season.

I think you meant to say red bull's had the fastest cars

And I think you are right.

Vettel should have been WDC but he made some mistakes (Monaco, Hungary) and the engine wasn't reliable enough (Valencia).

[Seanspeed]

easy the Red Bull. showed that without ddd.

An interesting answer.

Maybe had Red Bull developed the DDD in-line with Brawn(Honda), maybe they would have a dominant car from the get-go(for a direct comparison), but obviously, that didn't happen and this isn't a question of what could have hypothetically happened. The fact is that the Brawn DID have the DDD from the beginning and it led to Red Bull needing to catch up.

So taken from a full season's perspective, I still find it hard to see how the Red Bull was the better car, even if maybe it had more potential.

[Seanspeed]

I think you meant to say red bull's had the fastest cars

And I think you are right.

Vettel should have been WDC but he made some mistakes (Monaco, Hungary) and the engine wasn't reliable enough (Valencia).

Since the Red Bull was obviously not the fastest car for most of the 1st half of the season, it would have been very difficult for him to make a huge comeback during the half of the season where the Mclaren, Ferrari and even Force India started coming to the front.

Vettel may have not been as close as he should in the WDC standings, but saying he should have won it seems to be a little short-sighted.

[Archybald]

I think you meant to say red bull's had the fastest cars

And I think you are right.

Vettel should have been WDC but he made some mistakes (Monaco, Hungary) and the engine wasn't reliable enough (Valencia).

Fixed (whoops)

Regarding vettel's mistakes it could also be argued that if he hadn't gone wide in melbourne kubica wouldn't have caught up thus the crash wouldn't have happened and he would have had 8 more points to his name.

However thats just speculation and to give the man his dues hes an incredibly fast driver and once he smooth's out his mistakes hes going to be a force to be rekoned with.

[patgaw]

I think Brawn, but there wasnt any top driver in top2 teams, so hard to say.
At beginning Brawn was dominating, but later (form silverstone) red bull looked better.

[bankoq]

Red Bull had overall fastest car, but Vettel & Webber simply couldn't get settled in a position of potential winners of every race.

[Seanspeed]

Red Bull had overall fastest car, but Vettel & Webber simply couldn't get settled in a position of potential winners of every race.

Which had nothing to do with the car not being well-suited to warmer conditions(of which most races occured), right?

[robracer]

Since the Red Bull was obviously not the fastest car for most of the 1st half of the season, it would have been very difficult for him to make a huge comeback during the half of the season where the Mclaren, Ferrari and even Force India started coming to the front.

Vettel may have not been as close as he should in the WDC standings, but saying he should have won it seems to be a little short-sighted.

He did make a huge comeback, he won 2 of the last 3 races and finished 11 points behind. He should have been on the podium in Australia, and in the points in Monaco had he not crashed, and Hungary had he not collided with Raikkonen. He also had an engine go in Valencia.

Button is my favourite driver but I will be one of the first people to say he was fortunate to beat Vettel to the WDC. Vettel was definately stronger, he just had bad luck.

[Seanspeed]

He did make a huge comeback, he won 2 of the last 3 races and finished 11 points behind. He should have been on the podium in Australia, and in the points in Monaco had he not crashed, and Hungary had he not collided with Raikkonen. He also had an engine go in Valencia.

Button is my favourite driver but I will be one of the first people to say he was fortunate to beat Vettel to the WDC. Vettel was definately stronger, he just had bad luck.

Button won 6 out of the first 7 races. It was always going to be catch-up for the other guys.

And had Button not just plain sucked in the 2nd half of the season, I think the gap would have been insurmountable much earlier than just the 2nd-to-last race. Barrichello showed that the Brawn was still a winner all throughout the year, while the Red Bull was only capable of winning at select tracks and in certain conditions, for the most part.

[stuckinsecond]

I'd also like to note that I think the Mclaren was the best car by season's end. It was quick and consistent in any temperature, it was reliable as ever, it had KERS so even a 3rd spot qualifying meant P1 into the 1st corner, and the same KERS meant that it was nearly impossible to pass on-the-track.

I disagree. Your whole analysis was based on looking at the performance of only one McLaren driver and completely disregarding the other driver's performance simply because doing so would mean it doesn't fit your theory. Case of selective analysis i.e you've made up your mind and seek evidence to prove your view rather than use all available evidence to form the view in the first place.

Truth be told, only thing we know for sure is that the McLaren improved significantly throughout the season. To make the assumption that Heikki is crap is an unfairly negative assumption on BOTH McLaren drivers and further proof is required to do so.

[Ricardo F1]

Went for Red Bull too. Brawn pwned the start of the season but Red Bull was quicker by mid and always in with a chance. Vettel's mistakes and reliability ended their shot at the Championships, not speed.

[apoka]

I think Brawn had the patter race pace on average. Webber and Vettel are excellent qualifyiers, which made their cars look very strong. On Sundays, Brawn was competitive in most races and dominating in the first part of the season. (I also think that Vettels mistakes are exaggerated. He was not error free, but you can hardly say that he made mistakes very frequently considering that he often had to push very hard.)

[FPV GTHO]

I think the Red Bull ended up as the fastest car through all conditions by the end of the year with their Singapore upgrades, but the Brawn was fastest on average over the course of the year.

[Wingcommander]

Voted for Red Bull. Brawn was faster at the start of the season, but since that RB was the car to beat.

McLaren became very fast in the latter part of the season, but it's hard to say how much of that was credit to Hamilton. Anyway one of the fastest cars when they got it right.

Ferrari had it's moments, but it wasn't the fastest car by any means. I'd say that Felipe and Kimi outperformed their car's. Began fading away in the end. The same could be said about Williams. Very fast at the beginning, but Rosberg's great perfomance kept them in the points. Toyota was inconsistent. BMW and Renault never really delivered. FI was spectacular on fast tracks and STR made a great leap forward in the end.

[Sakae]

RBR won contest of fastest laps over the season. Vettel ahead of Webber. I am not however entirely sure that fastest laps accomplished confirms having fastest vehicle. It just helps.

[Seanspeed]

I disagree. Your whole analysis was based on looking at the performance of only one McLaren driver and completely disregarding the other driver's performance simply because doing so would mean it doesn't fit your theory. Case of selective analysis i.e you've made up your mind and seek evidence to prove your view rather than use all available evidence to form the view in the first place.

Truth be told, only thing we know for sure is that the McLaren improved significantly throughout the season. To make the assumption that Heikki is crap is an unfairly negative assumption on BOTH McLaren drivers and further proof is required to do so.

Anytime Lewis was strong, Heikki was very strong in practice and qualifying, so no, I'd say it has nothing to do with driver performances. It was very apparent before the Sunday of a race weekend that the Mclaren was a machine to be reckoned with.

Of course, people who believe Lewis is the next Schumacher will disagree, but thats their own prerogative.

[Seanspeed]

Red Bull was quicker by mid and always in with a chance.

Obviously some people paid more attention than others.

I think it was pretty clear that the Red Bulls only did well in select conditions for 90% of the season.

[robracer]

Obviously some people paid more attention than others.

I think it was pretty clear that the Red Bulls only did well in select conditions for 90% of the season.

Explain why Vettel was in the top 4 in qualifying in all but 3 races, whilst Button struggled to get into Q3 in the second half of the year.

[prty]

Explain why Vettel was in the top 4 in qualifying in all but 3 races, whilst Button struggled to get into Q3 in the second half of the year.

Button is a worse driver. There, explained

[robracer]

Button is a worse driver. There, explained

Whilst I agree that Vettel is better than JB, I think that it has more to do with the Red Bull being a much faster car throughout the year. Even when Brawn were going really well, the Red Bulls were right behind them.

[RodrigoL]

Whilst I agree that Vettel is better than JB, I think that it has more to do with the Red Bull being a much faster car throughout the year. Even when Brawn were going really well, the Red Bulls were right behind them.

BS, where were Red Bull in Monaco or Italy, for example? They lost big points in those places alone...

[mursuka80]

Who voted Ferrari? Brawn won both WDC and WCC,so it must be them.

[klover]

Who voted Ferrari? Brawn won both WDC and WCC,so it must be them.

vrba/Colombo/witgenstein would be my first guess Or someone was just taking the piss

[Tenmantaylor]

If by car you include the team I would definiately say Brawn. The Red Bull was probably better aerodynamically at alot of races mid season onwards but why didnt they do well at Spa the quintessential aero circuit? And they sucked at Valencia just when they needed to be at their best to challenge for the title.

Brawn had a much more reliable campaign both mechanically and tactically. Combine this with their start of season performance advantage and I know who Id rather have driven for. Red Bull just dont know how to consistently unlock the cars potential every race yet although their pace of improvement over the last 3 years has been great. Im sure they'll be challenging again next year with an improving Vettel. Unless they build a stinker.

[robracer]

BS, where were Red Bull in Monaco or Italy, for example? They lost big points in those places alone...

Where were Brawn in Hungary, or Belgium, or Singapore, or Japan.......

[Sarhan]

@Sean; good point about the RBR being better suited to hot weather. JB did beat SV with his experience

[Scotracer]

The laps the RB5 did around Silverstone at the British GP were simply awesome - circuit record in a car with 200BHP and loads of downforce less than 2004, and without a Shumacher at the wheel.

Simply, wow

[prty]

The laps the RB5 did around Silverstone at the British GP were simply awesome - circuit record in a car with 200BHP and loads of downforce less than 2004, and without a Shumacher at the wheel.

Simply, wow

Schumacher's best qualifying time in 2004, which is the record for qualifying, is a 1:18.223, and it was done with race fuel. Vettel got under that time during Q2, with empty tanks, so it's not comparable. Schumacher's time still stands as the record though.

Anyway, yes, Vettel got under the record by 0.114 seconds, but Barrichello was just 0.102 secs away and Trulli 0,007 secs, so it's not really meaningful to state a point.

[BullHead]

The fastest car... just analyse the data. This isn't s topic for arguement. The fastest laptime in 2009 was... Vettel?

[klover]

Schumacher's best qualifying time in 2004, which is the record for qualifying, is a 1:18.223, and it was done with race fuel. Vettel got under that time during Q2, with empty tanks, so it's not comparable. Schumacher's time still stands as the record though.

Anyway, yes, Vettel got under the record by 0.114 seconds, but Barrichello was just 0.102 secs away and Trulli 0,007 secs, so it's not really meaningful to state a point.

Since Kimi took pole position at Silverstone in 2004, I fail to see how MS set the record in qualifying

[scheivlak]

Schumacher's best qualifying time in 2004, which is the record for qualifying, is a 1:18.223, and it was done with race fuel. Vettel got under that time during Q2, with empty tanks, so it's not comparable. Schumacher's time still stands as the record though.

Anyway, yes, Vettel got under the record by 0.114 seconds, but Barrichello was just 0.102 secs away and Trulli 0,007 secs, so it's not really meaningful to state a point.

1.18.223 was Kimi Raikkonen's 2004 pole time: http://forix.autospo...&r=20040011&c=3

[prty]

Since Kimi took pole position at Silverstone in 2004, I fail to see how MS set the record in qualifying

Oops, I said Schumacher by default, I wonder why Scotracer's "and without a Shumacher at the wheel" didn't help either. He has the race lap record though.

Edited by prty, 06 December 2009 - 23:33.

[scheivlak]

The fastest car... just analyse the data. This isn't s topic for arguement. The fastest laptime in 2009 was... Vettel?

And the fastest car was a Force India http://forix.autospo...&...090013&c=27

[BullHead]

ok then. there's the answer. end of.

[FlatOverCrest]

And the fastest car was a Force India http://forix.autospo...&...090013&c=27

Scheivlak are you the guy that voted with me for Force India?



The question asks which was the 'fastest' F1 car and it seemed to me that on the fastest circuits after the aero revision, the FI really did seem to be the fastest beast out there in a straight line..

[FPV GTHO]

but why didnt they do well at Spa the quintessential aero circuit?

They screwed up their strategy and went too heavy in qualifying. The car had the capability to win at Spa, but you cant do it from around 8th and 9th on the grid.

Valencia was a track that required characteristics from the car that were the weakest in comparison to the Brawn - low speed performance and engine performance.

[stuckinsecond]

Anytime Lewis was strong, Heikki was very strong in practice and qualifying, so no, I'd say it has nothing to do with driver performances. It was very apparent before the Sunday of a race weekend that the Mclaren was a machine to be reckoned with.

Of course, people who believe Lewis is the next Schumacher will disagree, but thats their own prerogative.

Practise times mean very, very little as most of us already know. Notwithstanding the fact that it's difficult for me to even verify your Practise Times claim as the data takes a bit more searching to find. However the Qualifying Times are much more easily available.

Was Heikki really stronger than Lewis during quali as you claim? As we're talking about the second half of the season, from and including the German GP, where Lewis scored more points than any other driver on the grid - a quick check of the stats shows that in those 9 races, Heikki started higher up the grid than Lewis for....just 1 race.

Assuming you are a reasonable person, I am somewhat perplexed on what basis you make your "qualifying" claim??

[stuckinsecond]

@Sean; good point about the RBR being better suited to hot weather. JB did beat SV with his experience

I would say the Brawns were better suited to hot weather as they had more trouble getting the tyres up to temperature. The RBRs were stronger in cooler conditions and were absolutely dominant in wet conditions.