172 replies to this topic

[FTB]

Seeing a video in youtube about whether the F2012 ( Ferrari 2012 ) was the worst car to fight for title, I wondered about the cars of the past. So I opened this thread.

 

I don't think Ferrari 2012 was the worst car to fight for a title, but I would say it is in that group with the likes of Ferrari 1997 for example, though I would say Ferrari 1997 was a worse car than Ferrari 2012. Williams in 1982 won the WDC with Keke Rosberg despite being a massive pace disadvantage but it was a very weird season, where Renault had ridiculous amount of reliability issues despite having fastest car ( they retired in half the races or so ), and Ferrari had Villeneuve's death and Pironi's injury.

 

So, which F1 car was the worst car to fight for a title?

Edited by FTB, 29 January 2021 - 08:48.

[PlayboyRacer]

Ferrari 1997? You mean the same car Eddie Irvine scored 5 podiums with and a high of 2nd? Lol

[Risil]

I wonder how you evaluate what's a good car and what's a bad car. Obviously the drivers have an opinion and increasingly the engineers have quantitative ways of telling.

 

And is it an absolute measure (objectively it's a nasty and difficult car to handle) or a relative one (worse laptimes than competitors, or perhaps slower in a straight line) ?

[PayasYouRace]

Usual caveats apply to this thread. Discussions about what is the “worst” of a fantastic bunch alway descend into petty squabbles with agendas to big up someone’s favourite driver.

Don’t say you weren’t warned.

[Risil]

It's a shame the Mastercard Lola never challenged for the world championship because then we'd have a quick answer.

[PlayboyRacer]

I think Rosbergs 1982 Williams is a fair shout. But obviously circumstances played heavily into that, not taking anything away from Keke though. He was sensational and a great champion. Backed it up with a brilliant 1983 season too.

The 1999 Jordan?

Edited by PlayboyRacer, 29 January 2021 - 09:29.

[PayasYouRace]

Actually, good point there. Define “challenge for the championship”.

How close to the last race of the season should a car be mathematically in contention to count as having challenged? Or should we have some other criteria?

[Muppetmad]

BMW 2008 has to be up there. In the first half of the season, it wasn't far off Ferrari and McLaren; by the end of the season, it was behind Renault and probably Toro Rosso too. Kubica still hung in there until very late in the game.

[KavB]

I would throw the 2003 McLaren in there as well. I know Kimi's stock has fallen and it has made people question whether his earlier cars were better than they seemed (I don't agree) but even out of all the championship competing cars he has driven, this one is definitely the slowest and I think he had a 1997/2012-esque performance that year. 

[PlatenGlass]

I think Rosbergs 1982 Williams is a fair shout. But obviously circumstances played heavily into that, not taking anything away from Keke though. He was sensational and a great champion. Backed it up with a brilliant 1983 season too.

The 1999 Jordan?

I think 1982 Williams is a good one too. It actually won as well which is a bonus. It could be argued that it wasn't (much) worse than the faster Renault and Brabham because of reliability but the Ferrari was good all round and the best car of the season. It was just circumstances that stopped it. But yeah, Keke was a worthy champion regardless.

Jordan 1999 - I suppose this comes under the "how close does it need to be to count as a challenge?" category.

[PayasYouRace]

I would throw the 2003 McLaren in there as well. I know Kimi's stock has fallen and it has made people question whether his earlier cars were better than they seemed (I don't agree) but even out of all the championship competing cars he has driven, this one is definitely the slowest and I think he had a 1997/2012-esque performance that year.

I was thinking about it, but I wasn’t sure where to place it. At the end of the day, the MP4-17D was a year old car, so the fact that it was good enough to fight for the championship in its second year must surely make it one of the best, right?

[shure]

The 2009 Brawn was definitely a car of two halves.  It only got 4 podiums in the second half of the season (5 depending on where you put GB in a 17-race season).  And was clearly being out-developed by others.  Not sure if it qualifies as it didn't just challenge but won but I'd say it wasn't a clearly best car all year

[FTB]

I would say mathematical title chance heading into last race. But it may be different for others, as some cars like Jordan 1999 had a mid season momentum and looked in the title fight in critical stages ( Frentzen at Nurburgring 1999 before DNF ).

Edited by FTB, 29 January 2021 - 10:15.

[DeKnyff]

I don't know if any of them were properly "contenders", but BRM finished 2^nd at WCC and Ronnie Peterson, driving a March, finished ^2nd at the WCC in 1971, so both the BRM and the March were somehow "contenders" behind the unattainable Tyrrell of Jackie Stewart. None of them has made it into history as "great F1 cars", although the field in 1970/71 was probably more equalized than ever and there weren't many "good" or "bad" cars. A bit like in 1982, BTW.

[dissident]

No bad cars fight for the tittle in the first place, but 2012 is a good shout.

 

It was clearly slower than RB and McLaren, but made up for it with good reliability and race operations.

[Rinehart]

The 2009 Brawn was definitely a car of two halves.  It only got 4 podiums in the second half of the season (5 depending on where you put GB in a 17-race season).  And was clearly being out-developed by others.  Not sure if it qualifies as it didn't just challenge but won but I'd say it wasn't a clearly best car all year

Agree with that, but would go further. There were 2 or 3 races earlier in the season that Red Bull should have won.

I'd also say the 2008 BMW - that was just a mega engine with wheels that happened to be attached to it! 

[shure]

Another shout from me for the 2012 Ferrari.  Combination of the first half tyre lottery and Alonso performing some minor miracles kept it in the hunt when it really shouldn't have been there.

[Clatter]

Seeing a video in youtube about whether the F2012 ( Ferrari 2012 ) was the worst car to fight for title, I wondered about the cars of the past. So I opened this thread.

I don't think Ferrari 2012 was the worst car to fight for a title, but I would say it is in that group with the likes of Ferrari 1997 for example, though I would say Ferrari 1997 was a worse car than Ferrari 2012. Williams in 1982 won the WDC with Keke Rosberg despite being a massive pace disadvantage but it was a very weird season, where Renault had ridiculous amount of reliability issues despite having fastest car ( they retired in half the races or so ), and Ferrari had Villeneuve's death and Pironi's injury.

So, which F1 car was the worst car to fight for a title?

Ferrari 97 nearly took the WDC, although Schumacher did resort to cheating in the last race, and they were 2nd in the WCC. Im struggling to understand how that gets on a worst car list.

Edited by Clatter, 29 January 2021 - 10:26.

[balage06]

Ha, I wanted to create a thread about a similar topic, the most competitive cars deemed dangerous/hard to drive by its drivers.

[BiggestBuddyLazierFan]

Brabham BT24 in 1967 on paper it appeared midfield car comparing to Lotus 49 or Eagle. But in reality it was a championship winning material.

It's really hard to say. I was always under impression that it won the WDC and WCC because it was robust and basic design that could endure the pounding of the whole race distance. Whereas more advanced cars such as Lotus and Eagle would just fall aparat

[ensign14]

Could commit heresy and suggest the Maserati 250F, in 1957.  OK, it monstered the first race, when everyone was using old cars, but afterwards it was thanks to Fangio that it was at the sharp end. 

[Nemo1965]

The answer is obvious: the Ferrari F1 car of 1977, the Ferrari 312T2. Carlos Reutemann grumbled, after the year: 'If you want to see car with a totally wrong geometry: there it is.' Gilles Villeneuve said (Gilles! The master of driving any car, anywhere! 'I can't understand how someone can become world champion in THAT car.'

 

The whole year was a technical nightmare for the team. As Carlos said: there was a basic design-flaw in the geometry of the suspension. Only after the year, they discovered that the pressure put on the tires by the suspension was always exceeding what pressure the tires could handle. As Lauda said: 'A rather simple problem. A hell to figure out.' It took them about three quarters of a year to discover it. So they stumbled from track to track. The car was good here and then it bad there. Or it was good in the morning and terrible in the afternoon. It would understeer on one track, or oversteer on another, or between corners. And vice-versa.

 

The whole year, Lauda had to pick his fights (and there was trouble IN his team as well). Some races he just trundled to a meagre points finish. Some races he became second in which he should have been lapped. It was only because his biggest rivals made big mistakes all the time (and Lauda did not), he became world champion. 

So the 1977 Ferrari F1 car.

Edited by Nemo1965, 29 January 2021 - 10:34.

[noikeee]

Pushing it, and certainly not as bad as the 82 Williams or the 99 Jordan or the 2003 McLaren or the 2012 Ferrari, but I don't think the 1986 McLaren should have won that championship.

 

That's really the only thing I can think of that hasn't been mentioned already in this thread.

[Nemo1965]

By the way: a slow car is not always a bad car. The FW08 with which Keke Rosberg won the WC in 1982 was a fantastic car and Keke could play it like a fiddle...it just did not have a turbo. Further proof the point: Keke won the 1983 Monaco Grand Prix with a 'flat bottom'-FW08, which was basically the 1982 car but clipped of his ground-effect skirts and sidepods.

[shure]

Ferrari 97 nearly took the WDC, although Schumacher did resort to cheating in the last race, and they were 2nd in the WCC. Im struggling to understand how that gets on a worst car list.

it's worst to challenge for the title?  Which means they'd have to be 2nd or close to qualify, i.e. not the worst car on the grid

 

otherwise Williams would be taking their first title in years...

[Kalmake]

Brabham BT24 in 1967 on paper it appeared midfield car comparing to Lotus 49 or Eagle. But in reality it was a championship winning material.

It's really hard to say. I was always under impression that it won the WDC and WCC because it was robust and basic design that could endure the pounding of the whole race distance. Whereas more advanced cars such as Lotus and Eagle would just fall aparat

Clark would have needed to win every race the car didn't break down in to score higher than Hulme. Brabham was definitely the better car.

[PlayboyRacer]

Pushing it, and certainly not as bad as the 82 Williams or the 99 Jordan or the 2003 McLaren or the 2012 Ferrari, but I don't think the 1986 McLaren should have won that championship.

That's really the only thing I can think of that hasn't been mentioned already in this thread.

Given the other cars mentioned so far, I think the 1986 McLaren is a fair shout. Prost was brilliant. His finest season.

1998 Ferrari? Schumacher didn't take a pole position till Monza IIRC. In a year where literally the McLarens and Schumacher cleaned up the wins and were miles in front every weekend (unlike the 1997 and 2012 seasons which were much more competitive through the grid) it was arguably Schumachers finest season.

Edited by PlayboyRacer, 29 January 2021 - 12:23.

[ensign14]

The answer is obvious: the Ferrari F1 car of 1977, the Ferrari 312T2. Carlos Reutemann grumbled, after the year: 'If you want to see car with a totally wrong geometry: there it is.' Gilles Villeneuve said (Gilles! The master of driving any car, anywhere! 'I can't understand how someone can become world champion in THAT car.'

 

It was generally a bizarre year, everyone dropped the ball.  McLaren were still winning with a 4 year old car, Tyrrell had gone down the six wheel rabbit-hole, Bernie would rather be paid for using a foodmixer engine than pay for a proper one, and Wolf went from last to nearly champions.  Lotus' envelope-pushing cost them but would pay dividends the next year.
 

[Risil]

Could commit heresy and suggest the Maserati 250F, in 1957.  OK, it monstered the first race, when everyone was using old cars, but afterwards it was thanks to Fangio that it was at the sharp end. 

 

I'm very receptive to "Fangio was a genius" arguments but Jean Behra did alright in the 250F, didn't he?

[ensign14]

I'm very receptive to "Fangio was a genius" arguments but Jean Behra did alright in the 250F, didn't he?

Spent most of the French GP 4th, did lead the British but retired, 6th at Germany, ran 4th at Pescara until he retired, and was 4th-5th in Italy before dropping back and retiring.

 

I think overall 4th is about where the Maserati should have been.  Indeed, even at Aintree, Fangio was uncharacteristically midfield, and Schell and Menditeguy were never challenging for the points.  His best run was at Morocco but that was without Moss and with an ill Fangio (who was further delayed by Roche black-flagging him by accident).

[NewMrMe]

Going back to 1982, which was worst, the Williams or the McLaren that year? John Watson still had an outside chance of the title going into the last race so you can definitely say McLaren challenged for the title.

 

I would say you could say any of the leading teams from that time with the exception of Ferrari. If it wasn't for the accidents they could have won quite comfortably. The turbos had horrendous reliability, whilst the non-turbos were often a long way off the pace but more consistent. It was just odd the way in that points wise the two approaches scored about the same. 

[cpbell]

I don't know if any of them were properly "contenders", but BRM finished 2^nd at WCC and Ronnie Peterson, driving a March, finished ^2nd at the WCC in 1971, so both the BRM and the March were somehow "contenders" behind the unattainable Tyrrell of Jackie Stewart. None of them has made it into history as "great F1 cars", although the field in 1970/71 was probably more equalized than ever and there weren't many "good" or "bad" cars. A bit like in 1982, BTW.

Wasn't the 1970/1 BRM a pretty good car, though?  AFAIK, it wax more competitive on quick circuits thanks to its power and length.

[cpbell]

Brabham BT24 in 1967 on paper it appeared midfield car comparing to Lotus 49 or Eagle. But in reality it was a championship winning material.

It's really hard to say. I was always under impression that it won the WDC and WCC because it was robust and basic design that could endure the pounding of the whole race distance. Whereas more advanced cars such as Lotus and Eagle would just fall aparat

Tauranac's Brabhams might have been spaceframes, but they were very good spaceframes, easy to adjust, and were aerodynamically very good.

[cpbell]

Could commit heresy and suggest the Maserati 250F, in 1957.  OK, it monstered the first race, when everyone was using old cars, but afterwards it was thanks to Fangio that it was at the sharp end. 

I'm not sure that it was that bad, just that it was underpowered relative to the Ferrari (yet handled much better) and much less aerodynamically-efficient (drag vs. cooling) than the Vanwall.  I'd almost suggest the Vanwall was the actual candidate - the gearbox was awful and it was inclined to transition from entry understeer to exit oversteer.  It remaind competitive owing to the grunt from the engine, the straight-line speed and the genius of Moss, Brooks and Lewis-Evans.

[Claymore25]

What about Lotus in 2012?

[noikeee]

What about Lotus in 2012?

I think that car was probably just about better than the Ferrari and didn't really challenge as much...

[Collombin]

John Watson still had an outside chance of the title going into the last race

Strictly speaking, so did Lauda!

[noriaki]

How about Laffite's Ligier Matra in 81? Sure, considering the... Frenchness of the Ligier team and the clear #1 status of Jacques it's not the perfect gauge, but he somehow managed to hang onto his title bid until Vegas while his 3 team mates had scored a grand total of 0 points and nobody else had any interest in the obsolete Matra V8.

[PayasYouRace]

Strictly speaking, so did Lauda!

 

How do you work it out that he could have made up the 12 points necessary to overhaul Rosberg? Watson was 9 behind so he had to win with Keke not scoring to be champion on a tiebreaker.

[Collombin]

The appeal hearing in regard to Lauda's disqualification from 3rd place at Zolder had still not taken place by the time of the Las Vegas race. There was a small but nevertheless possible chance that he'd get those 4 points back. He didn't.

[ensign14]

How about Laffite's Ligier Matra in 81? Sure, considering the... Frenchness of the Ligier team and the clear #1 status of Jacques it's not the perfect gauge, but he somehow managed to hang onto his title bid until Vegas while his 3 team mates had scored a grand total of 0 points and nobody else had any interest in the obsolete Matra V8.

Brilliant suggestion.  Arguably Jacques was the class of the field that year.  It's not as if his team-mates were tuggers either; OK, Jabouille had not fully recovered from injury, but Jarier had been on the podium the previous year and Tambay would have a title tilt in 1983.

[Astandahl]

Given the other cars mentioned so far, I think the 1986 McLaren is a fair shout. Prost was brilliant. His finest season.

1998 Ferrari? Schumacher didn't take a pole position till Monza IIRC. In a year where literally the McLarens and Schumacher cleaned up the wins and were miles in front every weekend (unlike the 1997 and 2012 seasons which were much more competitive through the grid) it was arguably Schumachers finest season.

MSC finest season was 2001.

 

On this topic i'd like to add Ferrari 2012 as one of the worst car. Extremely slow over one lap but fairly decent on tyres.

Edited by Astandahl, 30 January 2021 - 18:07.

[BiggestBuddyLazierFan]

Clark would have needed to win every race the car didn't break down in to score higher than Hulme. Brabham was definitely the better car.

Statistics never tell true story. Besides Lotus 49 was ready only at 3rd race. In the first race at Kyalami Team Lotus raced Lotus 43 and in 2nd championship race at Monaco they used Lotus 33. It was only at Zandvoordt a third round of eleven round championship that they finally raced Lotus 49 and it was miles ahead of anything else. Miles ahead. Different planet.

[messy]

I really can’t think of a better candidate than the 2012 Ferrari to be honest. They thought it was a weaker car than the (identically engined) Sauber that year didn’t they? It was the brilliance of Alonso that kept it in the hunt, and McLaren’s mistakes, and Red Bull’s uncharacteristic struggles, and Vettel and Webber and Hamilton and Button taking points off each other, and....

I mean the only thing is that mid season it clearly got better. Alonso even got a pole at Hockenheim didn’t he? And dominated the race. And Massa showed some speed in it later in the season. Maybe the “real” answer is one of the late 90s Ferraris that Schumacher dragged kicking and screaming to title contention.

Edited by messy, 29 January 2021 - 21:10.

[Alfisti]

I can only talk since 1990. 

 

In that time, I never ever once for a split second thought the 99 Jordan or 2008 bmw were a shot at a tile, NOT A SECOND. So they are out. 

 

That leaves me with the 98 and 2012 Ferrari's. I willgo with 98 because Schumacher was just electric, Alonso was superb but Schumi was barely human in a CLEARLY inferior car.

[Alfisti]

What about Lotus in 2012?

Never in it

[PlayboyRacer]

That leaves me with the 98 and 2012 Ferrari's. I willgo with 98 because Schumacher was just electric, Alonso was superb but Schumi was barely human in a CLEARLY inferior car.

I thought the same thing earlier. I was looking at 1998 again yesterday and - just slightly off topic for a minute - what struck me was Coulthard finished less than 10 points in front of Irvine. I actually had remembered the gap being larger... But my memory was playing tricks. Has to be said DC really underperformed that season, particularly when his 1997 season wasn't bad at all.

I don't see a big difference between 1997 and 1998. The former gets mentioned alot, the latter not so much (perhaps because Hakkinen is quiet and loved while Villeneuve is loud and loathed?) but really - If anything - 1998 was Schumacher at his absolute peak. He didn't have the advantage of anyone else taking big points off McLaren because they were miles in front of everyone else. Which certainly differs from 1997 (post Monaco) and 2012. Also didn't take a pole position till Monza...

Both years Ferrari developed like crazy and certainly caught up as the season progressed. But unlike 1997... no other team had super strong weekends getting amongst/in front of the title challenging teams. McLaren only had Schumacher to worry about in terms of race pace literally 90% of the time, apart from two outliers (Villeneuve at Hockenheim, Fisichella in Monaco). Everything else was a McLaren/Schumacher benefit unless external factors intervened such as reliability.

If you asked me whether any of these Ferraris should be included (particularly using Rosbergs 1982 Williams as a barometer) prior to this thread...I would have said a firm no. BUT if the 1997/2012 Ferraris are fair game, then so is 1998. Perhaps even 1999...

Edited by PlayboyRacer, 29 January 2021 - 22:59.

[Marklar]

What about Lotus in 2012?

From what I've heard most of the F1 paddock thought that it was the best car in recent times that didnt challenge for the title, so quite the opposite.

[Anderis]

From what I've heard most of the F1 paddock thought that it was the best car in recent times that didnt challenge for the title, so quite the opposite.

That was my immediate idea about a new thread when I read this one.
 

[PlayboyRacer]

I think 1982 Williams is a good one too. It actually won as well which is a bonus. It could be argued that it wasn't (much) worse than the faster Renault and Brabham because of reliability but the Ferrari was good all round and the best car of the season. It was just circumstances that stopped it. But yeah, Keke was a worthy champion regardless.

Jordan 1999 - I suppose this comes under the "how close does it need to be to count as a challenge?" category.

True. The '99 Jordan could be included or not depending on one's criteria. I suppose this applies to much of what we're talking about though.

The 1993 McLaren I don't think has been mentioned yet. Senna was in contention up till Prost clinching the WDC in Portugal. So only two races remained. Again it depends on your criteria but I think that's a glaring example - perhaps much more than the Alonso/Schumacher Ferrari examples given. Because unlike those, Williams literally had dominant pace right through 1993 and I wouldn't say McLaren (or any team) closed them down at all.

Forget about pole positions. Senna qualified on the front row only 3 times during 1993. Incredible. He was simply brilliant in a truly outclassed car.

Edited by PlayboyRacer, 29 January 2021 - 23:50.