200 replies to this topic

[sopa]

The discussion in the "worst team-mate" threads created an idea. Maldonado-Senna from 2012 gets mentioned there a lot for not delivering on the car potential in good cars. So which seriously good cars have been wasted?

 

My point is more like about cases, where both drivers (and/or team also contributed to lack of score) underperform heavily, so you can't even be sure, how good that car was! So I do not mean the likes of Frentzen-Hill in 1999, where Hill was obviously nowhere, but Frentzen still delivered a lot. Or like Alonso delivered the max from 2008-09 Renaults, while his team-mates were nowhere. Because in those instances the car potential was still delivered by one driver at least and we could roughly see, how far up in the standings could that car finish in the championship.

 

Another one sometimes mentioned is Perez-Kobayashi from 2012 Sauber. In this case I believe team errors (and unluck) also contributed to the lack of score, as IIRC there were quite a few strategy blunders. In addition to the strategy genius in Canada and Italy.

 

And then... what about 1986 Ligier? Ancient 42-year-old Jacques Laffite and Rene Arnoux. Laffite drove only for half a season by the way, and still outscored Arnoux. What was the car's potential?

[KingTiger]

Ferrari F2008

[ninetyzero]

Williams FW34. I know it won a race but it was capable of so much more.

[George Costanza]

Williams FW16 of 1994...  Who knows how good that car truly was. I reckon Ayrton could have won 7-8 times after Imola had he lived. 

Edited by George Costanza, 28 April 2015 - 21:14.

[Collombin]

First thought is Williams 1995 - not really bad drivers, but at times eg Suzuka it got a little embarrassing to watch.

[ninetyzero]

I wonder if the 1999 Williams could have won with better drivers?

[Disgrace]

The FW17 is hopelessly overrated. Things fell apart for the drivers towards the end of the season but it had gearbox unreliability that would make even Craig Pollock's BAR blush. Just as much if not more was lost by the car than the drivers.

[Spillage]

Ferrari F2008

This gets mentioned out a lot, but I don't agree for a few reasons. I think that the car and the MP4-23 were evenly matched for pace, but even if we accept that the F2008 shaded it, we have to remember that the F2008 was less reliable - Massa's car failed from a points-scoring position in Melbourne and also cost him two wins - a certain victory at Hungary and what would have been a pretty lucky win (but a win nontheless) at Hockenheim when failing brakes left him unable to either defend against Hamilton or attack Piquet. This without mentioning the misfortune that befell him in Singapore... Raikkonen, meanwhile, had engine failures in Melbourne and Valencia. Hamilton had no mechanical retirements all season, all of the MP4-23's failures occurring on Kovalainen's car.

 

It's true that Massa and Raikkonen made sloppy errors, but that's equally true of Hamilton in the Mclaren. And we must also factor in that the Ferrari drivers had each other to contend with, whereas Mclaren had a 1-2 driver policy and in any case Hamilton easily had the measure of Kovalainen. I'd contend that, had Kovalainen and Raikkonen been in each other's cars, Massa would have beaten Hamilton to the title. 

 

So, the F2008, in my opinion, was very close to the MP4-23, probably a shade faster. But just too darn unreliable. I would say its speed was 'wasted' by its tendency to break down, but its performance was no more wasted by its drivers than Mclaren's was by theirs.

 

Anyway, my nominations: I can't help but think Williams ought to have won the titles in 1994 and 1995. To be honest, I wonder that their car last year shouldn't have been a racewinner as well.

Edited by Spillage, 29 April 2015 - 13:20.

[george1981]

I wonder if the 1999 Williams could have won with better drivers?

 

It nearly did win the European grand prix only being stopped by a puncture. Zanardi was poor that year but IMO that was one of Ralf's best seasons. It still had the Supertec engine which was showing its age by then.

I would say the FW36 was let down by the drivers. I'm a fan of both Massa and Bottas but I think certain other drivers would have won in that car last year.

[Rob]

The FW17 is hopelessly overrated. Things fell apart for the drivers towards the end of the season but it had gearbox unreliability that would make even Craig Pollock's BAR blush. Just as much if not more was lost by the car than the drivers.

 

Benetton had some really good strategists too. Damon lost several races through poor strategy calls.

[ninetyzero]

It nearly did win the European grand prix only being stopped by a puncture. Zanardi was poor that year but IMO that was one of Ralf's best seasons. It still had the Supertec engine which was showing its age by then.

I would say the FW36 was let down by the drivers. I'm a fan of both Massa and Bottas but I think certain other drivers would have won in that car last year.

 

Yeah but Europe was a crazy race,it was won by Johnny Herbert after all!

 

I think the FW36 was let down by bad strategy if anything. Williams seemed content to get podiums instead of fighting for wins, which is disappointing from a multiple world championship winning team.

[Disgrace]

Benetton had some really good strategists too. Damon lost several races through poor strategy calls.

 

That's true - Benetton in 1995 were really the first to master refuelling pitstops and strategy. I suppose team waste is just as valid as driver waste in context of this thread, in which case the MP4-27 is the overwhelming favourite from this century.

[scheivlak]

That's true - Benetton in 1995 were really the first to master refuelling pitstops and strategy.

Benetton weren't that bad in 1994 either.

[Disgrace]

I suspect you're being mischievous there. 

[polesetter1]

Lotus R31 and E20.

[ensign14]

Here's a conundrum.

The March 731.

 

Because the works March team had very good drivers in Jarier and poor Williamson, but never got a sniff of a point.  Whereas Lord Hesketh's ostensibly casually run privateer version was scoring podia and nearly winning GPs with Hunt up.

 

I've long contended that Hunt is ginormously underrated as a driver - he won the title in a half-decade old car, his GP-winning team-mate being marmelized in the process - but that the quick tail-off to his career did to him what Fittipaldi's Fittipaldi did for his.  But Jumper should have been getting points in the same equipment.  Especially as Mike Beuttler, who was not his equal, was getting similar results in the stockbroker special.

 

Hesketh had a secret weapon in Harvey Postlethwaite, which suggests that, basically, the 731 was a decent motor which needed decent fettling.  March was at a low ebb financially so I wonder if they put too much into the volume side of things to notice that they let a chance slip.  Robin Herd was a talent so what was he doing?

[Rob]

Benetton weren't that bad in 1994 either.

 

You could say they were on fire...

[P123]

That's true - Benetton in 1995 were really the first to master refuelling pitstops and strategy. I suppose team waste is just as valid as driver waste in context of this thread, in which case the MP4-27 is the overwhelming favourite from this century.

From the same season, the Merc W03 is also a contender. Not the best car by any means, but quite a spectacular nose dive in performance, from early season race winner and double pole sitter to scoring only six points over the final six races.

[Massa_f1]

For me the 1995 Williams is always the car that springs to mind when this question gets asked .

[George Costanza]

1995 was just a pure driving show by Michael. Damon and David simply weren't good enough to handle it. Now the 1995 Williams was a great car and could have won more. had Mika Hakkinen been in the car, it would have been a different story, IMO.

Edited by George Costanza, 28 April 2015 - 22:10.

[Rob]

1995 was just a pure driving show by Michael. Damon and David simply weren't good enough to handle it. Now the 1995 Williams was a great car and could have won more.

 

You see, I would argue that the fault lies just as much with Williams as it does with the drivers. I can think of several races that Michael shouldn't really have won, but did so because Benetton were far superior in the strategy department.

[Atreiu]

Between poor reliability and driver errors, the ones I first think of are the 

 

- FW14

- F2008

- F10

- MP4-27

Edited by Atreiu, 28 April 2015 - 22:21.

[sennafan24]

1995 was just a pure driving show by Michael.

Indeed, but what Rob says still applies. It was a combination of efficient strategies and superior driving. 

 

The Pacific Grand Prix of that year is a prime example. Yes, Hill's performance was pretty dire, but D.C did little wrong, and really should have won that race.. However, Schumi was on the better strategy, and made the most of it.

[MikeV1987]

[George Costanza]

Rob and Jim, I can't disagree that Benetton had better outcomes, as they did in 1994 as well.

 

I will throw another wasted car. Benetton B196? That was a Rory/Ross design too....

 

McLaren of 1997 or 2000?

Edited by George Costanza, 28 April 2015 - 22:57.

[Disgrace]

From the same season, the Merc W03 is also a contender. Not the best car by any means, but quite a spectacular nose dive in performance, from early season race winner and double pole sitter to scoring only six points over the final six races.

 

True, but that's a rather conventional story of falling behind in development. The MP4-27 began and ended the season as easily the fastest car in the field. That ought to end with titles in the bag, but with McLaren it ended with a distant third in the championship despite it being one of Hamilton's best seasons. Their strategic failures were extraordinary.

[George Costanza]

Williams of 2012? I don't think so. I think it did very well, but would the car have won the championship? I disagree there. Maybe in Fernando Alonso's hands of that year he had.

[sennafan24]

I have seen some suggest that Lewis or Alonso could have mounted a serious title challenge in the Lotus E20.

[PlatenGlass]

Benetton had some really good strategists too. Damon lost several races through poor strategy calls.

I think Benetton's strategies were overrated somewhat. I'm not saying they weren't better than Williams, but the Williamses tended to be faster in qualifying than the Benetton and this was often reversed in the race. This being the case, it was hard to keep the faster car (or faster car + driver combination at least) behind at every round of stops unless you know their strategy in advance. What specific races are there where you think Schumacher benefited from strategy?

[PlatenGlass]

Indeed, but what Rob says still applies. It was a combination of efficient strategies and superior driving. 
 
The Pacific Grand Prix of that year is a prime example. Yes, Hill's performance was pretty dire, but D.C did little wrong, and really should have won that race.. However, Schumi was on the better strategy, and made the most of it.

Coulthard was way ahead of Schumacher and just took his eye off the ball (like Austria 1999). Schumacher's strategy may have been faster, but not enough faster to make up the gap he was behind. (He was way behind with one more stop to make.)

Edit - Also, take Silverstone. Hill was on a theoretically faster two-stopper and driving away, while Schumacher was stopping once and stuck behind Alesi. Should have been an easy win for Hill. But no, he didn't drive fast enough, and perhaps he (and the team) thought he'd done enough and didn't expect the one stop from Schumacher. (In the end that collision decided it.)

Edited by PlatenGlass, 28 April 2015 - 23:24.

[Exb]

hmmm, what about that Red Bull car of 2009, trying to think back I wonder if they had 2 'better' drivers that year (as opposed to 1 very inexperienced driver and 1 that drove part of the season injured) if it could have ended up winning a championship?

[Dan333SP]

Ferrari F399. Broken leg ended a real shot for a WDC. Yes, it won the WCC, but if Irvine could sustain a title challenge to the last race, I think that car should have won both titles.

[Atreiu]

Any car driven by Irvine was a wasted car.

 

tum-dum tsss

[Imateria]

Ferrari F399. Broken leg ended a real shot for a WDC. Yes, it won the WCC, but if Irvine could sustain a title challenge to the last race, I think that car should have won both titles.

I would say that makes the MP4-14 an almost wasted car. It only just won the title, yet was by far the faster car. A combination of driver errors from Hakkinen and Coulthard and unreliability kept Ferrari in the huntmore than the F399's or Irvine's pace did. I still remember Autosport calling it the title that no one wanted.

[Collective]

 

 

Another one sometimes mentioned is Perez-Kobayashi from 2012 Sauber. In this case I believe team errors (and unluck) also contributed to the lack of score, as IIRC there were quite a few strategy blunders. In addition to the strategy genius in Canada and Italy.

People seemed to ignore how bad that car was in the slow stuff... in the stop-go, 90 degree turn tracks they were awful, clearly behind Force India and Lotus, and even Toro Rosso towards the end of the year. Of course, in the fast stuff, it was a great car, which explains Spa, Monza and Suzuka

[Lemans]

Mp4/27.

It hurts becuase it was pretty, too.

[MightyMoose]

Nice thread, I'll throw in a couple of oldies with different reasons why they were wasted:

 

Ligier 1979, an awesome start to the season with an effective ground effect car, allegedly the magic set up was scribbled on a fag packet and then throw away, but after dominating the early races, Depailler's hang-gliding and the surge from Williams left them almost forgotten about when you talk about that season.

 

Renault 1982, sure they won multiple races that season, but in a year when it seemed nobody could grab the title, I really feel Renault could & should have been better prepared to grasp it. At some tracks they were virtually unstoppable, Prost won from a lap back at Kyalami, but in case you think "it was all horsepower" both drivers crashed out of the lead at Monaco so clearly not too much was wrong all round with the car other than a remarkable inability to drive all the distance required - fairly basic and a fundamental flaw.  Yes, Ferrari had the best car overall and Pironi would/should have walked to the title but for Hockenheim, but imo given all that went on, Renault were the disappointment of that season.

[DanardiF1]

I'd like to suggest two different cars driven by the same pair of drivers... the 1995 Ferrari 412T2 and the 1996 Benetton B196, both driven by Jean Alesi and Gerhard Berger.

 

Michael Schumacher when testing the 95 Ferrari for the first time after joining the Scuderia thought that he could've battled for the championship in the car that year, and whilst Alesi did win his only race that season, I also think in better hands it would've been a more potent weapon than it showed. Berger was an ageing, whilst still quality driver and Alesi was spectacular but IMO was beginning to lose that mojo he'd had early in his career.

 

Same applies for the 96 Benetton. It was a car designed to Schumacher's needs more than the two incoming drivers, but it was still a mighty quick car and definitely a better package overall than the Ferrari. I think Schumacher might've challenged Villeneuve's 2nd place in the championship had he stayed in the Benetton rather than move to Maranello...

[BlinkyMcSquinty]

The first car that springs to mind was the McLaren MP4-22. It was a refinement of Newey's previous designs, and should have won both titles. But driver squabbles and a team torn apart by mistakes and internal politics made this a car that should have, but did not win the WDC.

 

The next is an obvious choice, it won it's one and only race, but was withdrawn mainly for political reasons. The Brabham BT46B.

 

[BoschKurve]

The Jordan 191 was a wasted car. 

 

de Cesaris did have quite the inspired drive at Spa, and it wasn't his fault things went south...and he did get some decent results. 

 

But Betrand Gachot and Robert Moreno being relied upon to deliver results? 

 

The car definitely should have scored some podiums at a bare minimum. Not sure it could have won a race or not. 

Christ, if they didn't screw up the Schumacher thing....

[George Costanza]

I'd like to suggest two different cars driven by the same pair of drivers... the 1995 Ferrari 412T2 and the 1996 Benetton B196, both driven by Jean Alesi and Gerhard Berger.

 

Michael Schumacher when testing the 95 Ferrari for the first time after joining the Scuderia thought that he could've battled for the championship in the car that year, and whilst Alesi did win his only race that season, I also think in better hands it would've been a more potent weapon than it showed. Berger was an ageing, whilst still quality driver and Alesi was spectacular but IMO was beginning to lose that mojo he'd had early in his career.

 

Same applies for the 96 Benetton. It was a car designed to Schumacher's needs more than the two incoming drivers, but it was still a mighty quick car and definitely a better package overall than the Ferrari. I think Schumacher might've challenged Villeneuve's 2nd place in the championship had he stayed in the Benetton rather than move to Maranello...

 

Yes the 1995 Ferrari was a very quick car, and Schumacher said he could have won the championship with that in 1995. Too bad the Ferrari's aero was pretty "bad" in 1995 compared to others.

 

As for 1996, I think Schu wins the title in that Benetton. He would have faced off vs Hill and JV, and I think given the 1996 car was still a quick car itself, and I think he would have won the championship for 1996.

[KingTiger]

I'd like to suggest two different cars driven by the same pair of drivers... the 1995 Ferrari 412T2 and the 1996 Benetton B196, both driven by Jean Alesi and Gerhard Berger.

 

Michael Schumacher when testing the 95 Ferrari for the first time after joining the Scuderia thought that he could've battled for the championship in the car that year, and whilst Alesi did win his only race that season, I also think in better hands it would've been a more potent weapon than it showed. Berger was an ageing, whilst still quality driver and Alesi was spectacular but IMO was beginning to lose that mojo he'd had early in his career.

 

Same applies for the 96 Benetton. It was a car designed to Schumacher's needs more than the two incoming drivers, but it was still a mighty quick car and definitely a better package overall than the Ferrari. I think Schumacher might've challenged Villeneuve's 2nd place in the championship had he stayed in the Benetton rather than move to Maranello...

 

I don't think it's wasted if only a few very select drivers in the history of the sport would've been able to maybe challenge at the front with the car. 

[TF110]

The Toyota TF109 was a wasted car with Trulli and Glock imo. It was at least podium capable, but Trulli kept hitting Sutil, and Glock couldnt even match Trulli with lighter fuel loads. If someone like Kimi was in the car, it could have won at least Bahrain and Spa.

Edited by TF110, 29 April 2015 - 04:17.

[Baddoer]

McLaren MP4/23. MP4/27

Ferrari F10

Toyota TF105,TF109,TF110

[maverick69]

The failure of McLaren with the MP4/27 was frankly bizarre. Thankfully it pointed Lewis in the direction of bigger and better things........

[CountDooku]

Gotta be the MP4-27. The car had all the qualities to be an easy WDC/WCC car. The team, the reliability and Jenson that season were dire though.

[velgajski1]

Ferrari F2008 is probably most extreme example I can think of - I think Hamilton or Alonso would make that car look completely dominant. 

 

Also, not many will agree, but I feel FW25 could have done much better in hands of a stronger driver pairing.

Edited by velgajski1, 29 April 2015 - 05:34.

[Wuzak]

The next is an obvious choice, it won it's one and only race, but was withdrawn mainly for political reasons. The Brabham BT46B.

 

You mean it was withdrawn after it was banned?

 

I don't think that qualifies, since it won the only race it entered. 

[teejay]

I am going to go with the 2009 MP4-24.

 

Sure, it was a dog to begin the season, and yes, it did win.

 

But for a few crucial McLaren mistakes and a couple of Lewis's, he could have almost been in contention to fight for the title.

 

The points gained at Germany, Australia, Valencia, Abu Dubai and Monza and their point swings to other drivers would of made it interesting at the least.

[ensign14]

You mean it was withdrawn after it was banned?

 

I don't think that qualifies, since it won the only race it entered. 

 

It was never formally banned.  Bernie withdrew it to play the long game.

 

Had it received its deserved DQ at Sweden, Arrows would have had a Grand Prix win.  The argument was that the fan was a moveable aerodynamic device.  Brabham relied on the rule book saying that, to count as such, aero had to be its primary purpose.  And Brabham showed evidence that 70% of its use was for cooling rather than aero.

 

But they wouldn't have had it on the car had it not been for the aero benefit - which meant that its primary purpose was indeed the aero...