52 replies to this topic

[ch103]

Alonso says that Hamilton had it too easy this year.  Hamilton and Vettel haters both say they are getting all their stats while driving the best cars...

 

So who are the drivers who won the WDC but not in the WCC winning car?  Shouldn't these drivers be regarded as the creme de la creme?

[ArrowsLivery]

Hamilton and Hakkinen off the top of my head. McLaren have a talent for screwing up the WCC.

[expert]

Schumacher 94.

[917k]

Prost, 86?

[Tim Murray]

Since the start of the Constructors’ Championship in 1958:

Hawthorn 1958
Stewart 1973
Hunt 1976
Piquet 1981
Rosberg 1982
Piquet 1983
Prost 1986
Schumacher 1994
Häkkinen 1999
Hamilton 2008

I think that’s the lot.

[lamo]

Since the start of the Constructors’ Championship in 1958:

Hawthorn 1958
Stewart 1973
Hunt 1976
Piquet 1981
Rosberg 1982
Piquet 1983
Prost 1986
Schumacher 1994
Häkkinen 1999
Hamilton 2008

I think that’s the lot.

1999 - star driver injured for 6 races, likely would have been WDC + WCC

1994 - star driver tragically killed whilst Benetton ran essentially a 1 car team

 

So really, Hamilton is the only driver to do it properly since 1986. Even 1986 was kind of circumstantial as the Williams pair took lots of points off of each other. Williams won 9 races, Mclaren just 4 that year. That figure was 9-3 going into the final race amazingly.

Edited by lamo, 31 October 2017 - 02:19.

[PlayboyRacer]

McLaren should have walked the 1999 WCC. They screwed that up and Mika/DC made too many errors for drivers of their experience and quality.

The standout in my days of watching is Alain Prost in 1986. The McLaren TAG was far outclassed by the Williams Hondas. Prost was sublime.

[Ramses1348]

1999 - star driver injured for 6 races, likely would have been WDC + WCC
1994 - star driver tragically killed whilst Benetton ran essentially a 1 car team

So really, Hamilton is the only driver to do it properly since 1986. Even 1986 was kind of circumstantial as the Williams pair took lots of points off of each other. Williams won 9 races, Mclaren just 4 that year. That figure was 9-3 going into the final race amazingly.

Kimi 2007 also did it, well kind of

[l2k2]

Kimi 2007 also did it, well kind of

Not quite, McLaren would only have got 203 points given their no-WCC-points-from-Hungary penalty (costing them 15 WCC points). Ferrari got 204 points.

They likely would have appealed that part of the penalty at the end of the year, maybe with success. But, given their punishment for espionage, did not.

[Celloman]

1999 - star driver injured for 6 races, likely would have been WDC + WCC

1994 - star driver tragically killed whilst Benetton ran essentially a 1 car team

 

So really, Hamilton is the only driver to do it properly since 1986. Even 1986 was kind of circumstantial as the Williams pair took lots of points off of each other. Williams won 9 races, Mclaren just 4 that year. That figure was 9-3 going into the final race amazingly.

 

Yes 1999 Michael was injured but that doesn't explain why McLaren didn't win the WCC that year, should have with the same reasoning been much easier to win both titles without Schumacher there. But fact is Hakkinen won the WDC and McLaren couldn't win the WCC.

[Ramon69]

Alonso says that Hamilton had it too easy this year.  Hamilton and Vettel haters both say they are getting all their stats while driving the best cars...

 

So who are the drivers who won the WDC but not in the WCC winning car?  Shouldn't these drivers be regarded as the creme de la creme?

Nobody. You need the best car to win or at least one of the best. Senna won in the best car, Prost won in the best car, Schumacher won in the best car, Alonso won in the best car, Raikkonen won in the best car, Vettel won in the best car, Hamilton won in the best car. Should I go on? It doesn't mean that they weren't worthy of being champions, but you also have to admit that in the second, third or fourth best car they probably wouldn't have won. What I find funny is how some people try to take all the credit away from the team and give it to Hamilton as if he did some super human effort! Alonso's comments is not the comment of a hater, it's simply stating the fact. At least in 3 races this year, at the top of my head now, Hamilton had it easy, in terms of taking points away from his main rival (Singapore, Malaysia, Japan). In 2017 he was the best driver, but he was also IN THE BEST CAR! Simple as that.

Edited by Ramon69, 31 October 2017 - 06:35.

[gillesfan76]

Nobody. You need the best car to win or at least one of the best. Senna won in the best car, Prost won in the best car, Schumacher won in the best car, Alonso won in the best car, Raikkonen won in the best car, Vettel won in the best car, Hamilton won in the best car. Should I go on? It doesn't mean that they weren't worthy of being champions, but you also have to admit that in the second, third or fourth best car they probably wouldn't have won. What I find funny is how some people try to take all the credit away from the team and give it to Hamilton as if he did some super human effort! Alonso's comments is not the comment of a hater, it's simply stating the fact. At least in 3 races this year, at the top of my head now, Hamilton had it easy, in terms of taking points away from his main rival (Singapore, Malaysia, Japan). In 2017 he was the best driver, but he was also IN THE BEST CAR! Simple as that.

 

Did you even understand the poster's sentence? They said "who won the WDC but not in the WCC winning car". You've simply replaced "WCC winning car" with "best car" along with your subjective viewpoint.

 

There have been a few drivers, Hamilton included, who have won the WDC in a car where the team did not win the WCC.

[PlayboyRacer]

Yes 1999 Michael was injured but that doesn't explain why McLaren didn't win the WCC that year, should have with the same reasoning been much easier to win both titles without Schumacher there. But fact is Hakkinen won the WDC and McLaren couldn't win the WCC.

Even with Michael there the whole season, McLaren should have won both titles. They had the fastest car, Hakkinen took 11 pole positions and only 5 wins for example. DC only 2 wins and not a single pole.

It's a year where not much is said but I've always thought McLaren and both drivers underperformed that season considerably. The MP4/14 was the class of the field on the balance of the whole season and Michael was nowhere to be seen.

Edited by PlayboyRacer, 31 October 2017 - 07:09.

[lustigson]

2007 remains an interesting one, not just because of McLaren's dodged points or the $ 100 million fine, but rather because both McLaren drivers essentially screwed up. For most of the season, they fought each other, with the rooking coming out on top... only to blow it come the last 2-3 races. (The latter is not a stab at Hamilton, but rather at McLaren, who was unable to guide their prodigy to the WDC.)

[Ramses1348]

Not quite, McLaren would only have got 203 points given their no-WCC-points-from-Hungary penalty (costing them 15 WCC points). Ferrari got 204 points.

They likely would have appealed that part of the penalty at the end of the year, maybe with success. But, given their punishment for espionage, did not.

The two Ferrari drivers scored less points over the season than the two McLaren drivers, yet it's a Ferrari driver who won the wdc, that's my point

[Anuity]

It's a year where not much is said but I've always thought McLaren and both drivers underperformed that season considerably. The MP4/14 was the class of the field on the balance of the whole season and Michael was nowhere to be seen.

Nowhere to be seen?
Michael was not leading the championship only because he crashed out during Canadian GP while leading the race. And even then was just some points away from Hakkien. It was a very close fight until he broke his leg.

[Celloman]

Nobody. You need the best car to win or at least one of the best. Senna won in the best car, Prost won in the best car, Schumacher won in the best car, Alonso won in the best car, Raikkonen won in the best car, Vettel won in the best car, Hamilton won in the best car. Should I go on? It doesn't mean that they weren't worthy of being champions, but you also have to admit that in the second, third or fourth best car they probably wouldn't have won. What I find funny is how some people try to take all the credit away from the team and give it to Hamilton as if he did some super human effort! Alonso's comments is not the comment of a hater, it's simply stating the fact. At least in 3 races this year, at the top of my head now, Hamilton had it easy, in terms of taking points away from his main rival (Singapore, Malaysia, Japan). In 2017 he was the best driver, but he was also IN THE BEST CAR! Simple as that.

 

It takes both a good driver and a car to win the championship. Fisichella would not have won the championship in 2005/2006 Renaults, even if they made him a first driver, Barrichello only once finished top 2 in WDC with a superior Ferrari, Kovalainen was nowhere in 2008, Webber only challenged for title once in a superior Red Bull, etc. A good driver is needed to make a good car look good.

[AmonGods]

Nobody. You need the best car to win or at least one of the best. Senna won in the best car, Prost won in the best car, Schumacher won in the best car, Alonso won in the best car, Raikkonen won in the best car, Vettel won in the best car, Hamilton won in the best car. Should I go on? It doesn't mean that they weren't worthy of being champions, but you also have to admit that in the second, third or fourth best car they probably wouldn't have won. What I find funny is how some people try to take all the credit away from the team and give it to Hamilton as if he did some super human effort! Alonso's comments is not the comment of a hater, it's simply stating the fact. At least in 3 races this year, at the top of my head now, Hamilton had it easy, in terms of taking points away from his main rival (Singapore, Malaysia, Japan). In 2017 he was the best driver, but he was also IN THE BEST CAR! Simple as that.

 

Hi. For hate problems type 1. For reading a topic title problems type 2. For both press x in the top right corner and move on ! 

[jstrains]

One thing is probably forgotten - Eddie Irvine finished 3 times right behind Michael in 1999 before Michael broke his leg as he was supposed to be the No. 2 driver for the season. Noone knew what would have happened in Silverstone. Eddie lost the WDC jut by 2 points, had he been 3 times before Michael, it would be both WDC and WCC winner

 

Edit: Actually 4 times... but if Michael had Eddie let pass in Japan, it would not helped him as Mika had more victories on point equal. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Edited by jstrains, 31 October 2017 - 07:55.

[Lights]

So who are the drivers who won the WDC but not in the WCC winning car?  Shouldn't these drivers be regarded as the creme de la creme?

 

Had the Mercedes F1 W07 be given to Marcus Ericsson and Alfonso Celis to race in the 2016 season, Marcus Ericsson would be a WDC in a non-WCC car.

[Nonesuch]

1999 - star driver injured for 6 races, likely would have been WDC + WCC

1994 - star driver tragically killed whilst Benetton ran essentially a 1 car team

 

So really, Hamilton is the only driver to do it properly since 1986.

 

Then again, some might argue that...

 

2008 - star driver tragically partnered with Heikki Kovalainen

 

... could be added to the list.

[PlayboyRacer]

Nowhere to be seen?
Michael was not leading the championship only because he crashed out during Canadian GP while leading the race. And even then was just some points away from Hakkien. It was a very close fight until he broke his leg.

Michael didn't race for half the season. In the second half of the season McLaren, Mika and DC should have asserted themselves and it shouldn't have been a close contest at all.

[DeKnyff]

Alonso says that Hamilton had it too easy this year.  Hamilton and Vettel haters both say they are getting all their stats while driving the best cars...

 

So who are the drivers who won the WDC but not in the WCC winning car?  Shouldn't these drivers be regarded as the creme de la creme?

 

Not necessarily. Sometimes it's because the other driver of the team is (to put it mildly) "uncompetitive", for example Piquet's teammates in 1981 and 1983, Zunino and Rebaque. Not in the same league, but it could also be the case of Hunt's teammate (Mass) or even Kovalainen in 2008.

[SenorSjon]

Michael didn't race for half the season. In the second half of the season McLaren, Mika and DC should have asserted themselves and it shouldn't have been a close contest at all.

 

It was comedy gold what McLaren and Ferrari did mid-season that year.

 

In hindsight, could Michael have returned sooner? Rossi leapt on his bike after a broken leg within a month. But on bikes, rear brakes and transmission are the only things controlled with your legs, in a F1 car, it is constant throttle/brake pressure.

[RandomG]

Since the start of the Constructors’ Championship in 1958:

Hawthorn 1958
Stewart 1973
Hunt 1976
Piquet 1981
Rosberg 1982
Piquet 1983
Prost 1986
Schumacher 1994
Häkkinen 1999
Hamilton 2008

I think that’s the lot.

 

 

Not necessarily. Sometimes it's because the other driver of the team is (to put it mildly) "uncompetitive", for example Piquet's teammates in 1981 and 1983, Zunino and Rebaque. Not in the same league, but it could also be the case of Hunt's teammate (Mass) or even Kovalainen in 2008.

 

That's so strange to think that Nelson Piquet is "technically" the best in the world at winning in inferior cars. However at the same time, I don't think even Schumacher could get a whole team around him like Nelson could. It was so extreme that it left the Number Two driver as a complete waste of space.

 

Then again perhaps that only applies to 1981. Surely Riccardo Patrese wasn't that useless in 1983

[Slowersofterdumber]

2007 and 2008 are the only "modern" titles won without the best car of that year. Even then they were close second in both cases. You need the a great car to win, that will never change.

I disagree Hamilton had it "too easy". It's true he had the best car but had decent competition. This is not a title he could have won without driving a good season.

[ensign14]

Not necessarily. Sometimes it's because the other driver of the team is (to put it mildly) "uncompetitive", for example Piquet's teammates in 1981 and 1983, Zunino and Rebaque. Not in the same league, but it could also be the case of Hunt's teammate (Mass) or even Kovalainen in 2008.

 

Piquet's team-mate in 1983 was Patrese, who was plagued with a lack of reliability.  Took him till the tenth race to finish - and that was in third place.  Albeit one of his retirements (San Marino) was self-inflicted.
 

[ensign14]

That's so strange to think that Nelson Piquet is "technically" the best in the world at winning in inferior cars. However at the same time, I don't think even Schumacher could get a whole team around him like Nelson could. It was so extreme that it left the Number Two driver as a complete waste of space.

 

That was also cos Ecclestone was addicted to deal-making.  Look at the no. 2s at Brabham over the period.  Zunino, a panic choice who was utterly useless; Rebaque, who brought Mexican money, and even got a one-off NC drive in 1983 rather than Bernie testing out someone with a future; Hesnault, who must have brought money, because he brought no talent; a pair of Fabis, which was a bizarre concept, and I wonder if that was down to Teo ratting on the other drivers at Kyalami in 1982; and Winkelhock and Surer, who were presumably placed there by BMW.

 

The one exception to that was Patrese.  And that showed Brabham was too straitened to run two competitive cars.  Patrese couldn't buy a finish for most of 1983.
 

[DeKnyff]

Piquet's team-mate in 1983 was Patrese, who was plagued with a lack of reliability.  Took him till the tenth race to finish - and that was in third place.  Albeit one of his retirements (San Marino) was self-inflicted.
 

 

Yup, I was wrong for 1983, Patrese was a decent driver.

 

However, you could also include Derek Daly (Williams 1982) amongst the "uncompetitive" second drivers of WCC winning teams. Maybe Williams could have won both Championships with Reutemann in the other car.

[MrMonaco]

1999 - star driver injured for 6 races, likely would have been WDC + WCC

1994 - star driver tragically killed whilst Benetton ran essentially a 1 car team

 

So really, Hamilton is the only driver to do it properly since 1986. Even 1986 was kind of circumstantial as the Williams pair took lots of points off of each other. Williams won 9 races, Mclaren just 4 that year. That figure was 9-3 going into the final race amazingly.

Depends on what do you consider to be proper in that regard. For me 2008 has McLaren as basically one driver team. In contention for WCC, for most of the season Lewis was on his own while Heikki was a shadow of his teammate. Apart from his Hungaro win and podium at Monza and Sepang Kovalainen was luckluster, often taking a beating from BMW duo and Alonso. That really resembles Benetton in 94'.

[Dunc]

I hate the argument that a WDC is unworthy because they had the best car. One of the reasons they become WDC is that they have been able to take that best car and win with it consistently which is an immensely tough thing to do. To use football as an analogy, Liverpool have some amazing players but they are only ever a cup-winning side because they never seem able to handle the pressure of consistently winning, which you need for the Premiership.

[Oho]

1999 - star driver injured for 6 races, likely would have been WDC + WCC

 

Well perhaps, though in the races Häkkinen and Schumacher both competed Häkkinen did outscore Schumacher. How badly he and McLaren took their eye off the ball is somewhat relevant.

[PlayboyRacer]

It was comedy gold what McLaren and Ferrari did mid-season that year.

In hindsight, could Michael have returned sooner? Rossi leapt on his bike after a broken leg within a month. But on bikes, rear brakes and transmission are the only things controlled with your legs, in a F1 car, it is constant throttle/brake pressure.

Think Michael was too busy playing football in the backyard to return in a hurry! 😂

Edited by PlayboyRacer, 31 October 2017 - 12:48.

[PayasYouRace]

I think a few of you are zeroing in on what I believe to be the primary factor in this phenomenon, and it’s the quality of the teammates.

Looking at the list Tim Murray put up, I’d say 73, 81, 83, 86 and 08 fall most neatly into that category. Even in cases where the WDC’s teammate was a decent driver, even a good driver, the WCC had a team of higher performing drivers.

Then 58, 76, 94 and 99 has some sort of tragic side to them. Ferrari lost drivers in 58. Lauda has his accident in 76, and Schumacher mirrored that in 99.

94 was odd because it was almost like two one car teams that year. Verstappen, Lehto and Herbert didn’t contribute much to Benetton’s tally. Meanwhile Williams lost an unlucky and tragically pointless Senna, and had to make do with an inexperienced DC, so I believe Mansell made the difference in the WCC that year.

82 was just too chaotic and tragic, especially for Ferrari. Anything could have happened that year.

[Brazzers]

2007 and 2008 are the only "modern" titles won without the best car of that year. Even then they were close second in both cases. You need the a great car to win, that will never change.

I disagree Hamilton had it "too easy". It's true he had the best car but had decent competition. This is not a title he could have won without driving a good season.

 

The Ferrari was the better in both seasons, McLaren had the better drivers as proven by Alonso's trashing of Raikkonen and Massa. I definitely think if either driver was in the Ferrari the championship would have been sealed a few races before hand. 

Edited by Brazzers, 31 October 2017 - 21:44.

[Martijn]

Id like to reverse the question: Which champion did have a car clearly capable of winning the championship (being WCC) yet failed to become champion himself? 

From the top of my head, most champions fail this test at least once (Senna, to Prost, and vv; Hamilton to Rosberg, Alonso in 2007) yet Schumacher and I think Vettel never failed to win a WDC on such terms. 

[Collombin]

The Williams pairs of 1986 and 1995.

[Slowersofterdumber]

The Ferrari was the better in both seasons, McLaren had the better drivers as proven by Alonso's trashing of Raikkonen and Massa. I definitely think if either driver was in the Ferrari the championship would have been sealed a few races before hand.

Nope. McLaren was the best car in 2007. They splitted the speed advantage pretty much 50/50 and the McLaren was bulletproof while the Ferrari was not.

[DaytimeUTT]

The Ferrari was the better in both seasons, McLaren had the better drivers as proven by Alonso's trashing of Raikkonen and Massa. I definitely think if either driver was in the Ferrari the championship would have been sealed a few races before hand. 

 

It hardly proved anything. Kimi was having his worst ever season in 2014 and Massa being a head driver, wasn't enjoying the support of the team he had in 07-09 when he was actually performing very well. 2016 Kimi would have given 2014 Alonso a sterner test as would 2008 Massa given 2010 Alonso. In 2007, they both would have compared just fine with Fernando and Lewis.

Edited by DaytimeUTT, 31 October 2017 - 23:11.

[Brazzers]

It hardly proved anything. Kimi was having his worst ever season in 2014 and Massa being a head driver, wasn't enjoying the support of the team he had in 07-09 when he was actually performing very well. 2016 Kimi would have given 2014 Alonso a sterner test as would 2008 Massa given 2010 Alonso. In 2007, they both would have compared just fine with Fernando and Lewis.

 

The results speak for themselves and Alonso's time at Ferrari Massa was outclassed. Massa may be a 'head driver' like you just said but that also makes me believe he had an easier time beating Kimi overall but when a truly top-tier driver like Alonso rocked up Massa couldn't cope. Massa went from looking ordinary with Schumacher to extraordinary with Kimi and then ordinary again with Alonso. 

 

Kimi had issues in 08 as well, regardless Alonso and Hamilton would have done better than both Ferrari drivers. Neither of are susceptible to handling issues like Kimi. End of the day, Kimi I don't believe would have given Alonso a harder test than what Massa did, even if it were the 2016 edition. 

[Brazzers]

Nope. McLaren was the best car in 2007. They splitted the speed advantage pretty much 50/50 and the McLaren was bulletproof while the Ferrari was not.

 

I was referring to the Ferrari being the faster car out of the lot. 

[Oho]

The results speak for themselves...

 

Yes but that is about how far they go...

[noikeee]

82 was just too chaotic and tragic, especially for Ferrari. Anything could have happened that year.

Also, Derek Daly.

[Blackmamba]

2007 and 2008 are the only "modern" titles won without the best car of that year. Even then they were close second in both cases. You need the a great car to win, that will never change.

I disagree Hamilton had it "too easy". It's true he had the best car but had decent competition. This is not a title he could have won without driving a good season.

Ferrari had the best car in 2007 and 2008. If Michael had stayed on for 2 more years he would be a 9 time world champion right now. 

[Marklar]

Alonso says that Hamilton had it too easy this year.  Hamilton and Vettel haters both say they are getting all their stats while driving the best cars...

 

So who are the drivers who won the WDC but not in the WCC winning car?  Shouldn't these drivers be regarded as the creme de la creme?

Hamiltons least competitive car of all WDC seasons was probably 2008, yet it was his worst championship.

Meanwhile Alonso won the title in 2006, while his team won the WCC, though argueably the Ferrari was the better car that year. And Alonso produced a near flawless championship to bring himself in contention.

WCC are often pretty meaningless in assessing the level of performance of the car and thus of the driver. So I dont quite agree with Alonso's comments, unless he means that Ferrari made it to easy with their brainfarts of course.

[Slowersofterdumber]

I was referring to the Ferrari being the faster car out of the lot.

Fastest, probably. It was the best car on Sunday marginally more often, and on Saturday they held their own well even. Better, not. Reliability was a huge problem in the 10-8-6-5 days.

[Slowersofterdumber]

Ferrari had the best car in 2007 and 2008. If Michael had stayed on for 2 more years he would be a 9 time world champion right now.

They did in 2008. And with a dry season McLaren would stand no chance. The rain brought them into contention and Lewis managed to snitch it.

They didn't in 2007. They were pretty much equal speed wise with Ferrari having an extra fast race or two, but reliability difference was more than enough to offset that.

[Spillage]

Ferrari threw away loads of points in 2008, though. Sound familiar?

Technically Fangio won the title on these terms five times. There was no WCC before 1958.

[Collombin]

For many years the WCC points were only awarded to the highest placed car from each team FWIW.

[crespo]

Coulda/woulda/shoulda, hindsight, etc...

 

Would Alonso's 2010 and/or 2012 been the best example of this, judging where Massa placed? I'm too lazy to crunch the numbers...