172 replies to this topic

[ARTGP]

Marklar, on 29 Jan 2021 - 21:35, said:

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.

 

I think that mantle belongs to the Williams of '14. The lotus project never had the right backing to challenge for the title. They were just lucky to have a car that whispered sweet nothings to it's tires. It wasn't all that quick in raw pace.

Edited by ARTGP, 29 January 2021 - 23:18.

[messy]

Nah, the 2014 Williams was probably good for a circumstantial win or two (that all went to Red Bull in the end) but rather like the 2004 BAR it was “just” the closest opposition to a very dominant car in the Mercedes. It wasn’t that close really. It would never have got much nearer to title contention than say Ricciardo managed that season. The 2012 Lotus, with Alonso or someone like that at the wheel, we’ll never know for sure but I suspect it might have been a very different story.

[Alfisti]

Lotus were never in it, bits and pieces team, never in it for a second. 

[John B]

Agree the 1981 Ligier is a good thought. Also that year, while a stretch to say legit contender Villeneuve was one point behind eventual champ Piquet after Spain, almost the season's halfway point, with the infamous Ferrari (both behind Reuteman).

Edited by John B, 30 January 2021 - 05:38.

[Kalmake]

BiggestBuddyLazierFan, on 29 Jan 2021 - 20:58, said:

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.

If we go down this road... In 1978 BT46 (fan car) was way better than anything else that season. Relative to it, even Lotus 78/79 were way worse yet they won the championship. We can't fault the car for Bernie's political decision to withdraw it after just one race.

[PayasYouRace]

PlayboyRacer, on 29 Jan 2021 - 23:11, said:

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.
 

 

The MP4-8 seems like it's a really good shout, but the drivers' title was decided with two races to go and the constructors' was a foregone conclusion, so I guess it depends on how we define challenging for the championship.

 

Then again, the MP4-20 was similarly close to the drivers' championship, decided with two races to go too.

[BiggestBuddyLazierFan]

Kalmake, on 30 Jan 2021 - 08:21, said:

If we go down this road... In 1978 BT46 (fan car) was way better than anything else that season. Relative to it, even Lotus 78/79 were way worse yet they won the championship. We can't fault the car for Bernie's political decision to withdraw it after just one race.

This is simply untrue. Niki Lauda himself told that the fan car didnt drove any better than the regular car. Besides the fan never decreased sufficient air pressure to increase ground effect. The fan was just a stunt. Possibly even a red herring to cover up something else. Something they presumably used through the whole season.

Also its a myth that Lotus was dominant car that season. It had efficient ground effects, but its chassis was flexing too much, thus making it difficult to set up. A lot of credit has to go to the two magnificent drivers Andretti (probably the best ever driver on this Planet) and Peterson who made that car look faster than it really was. It was fast. But not as fast as people tend to think.

When Carlos Reutemann joined them for the 1979 season they were still using the same car Lotus79 from the previous season and Lole said that he expected much faster car. Previous year he was with Ferrari and challenged them sometimes, and he thought that Lotus79 was faster. But once he sat in it he realised it was not so much faster than his Ferrari was.

Edited by BiggestBuddyLazierFan, 30 January 2021 - 08:59.

[BiggestBuddyLazierFan]

PayasYouRace, on 30 Jan 2021 - 08:26, said:

The MP4-8 seems like it's a really good shout, but the drivers' title was decided with two races to go and the constructors' was a foregone conclusion, so I guess it depends on how we define challenging for the championship.

Then again, the MP4-20 was similarly close to the drivers' championship, decided with two races to go too.

Senna led the points the whole spring. Untill 6th or maybe even 7th race in the season. I guess it qualifies it as a championship challenge. Only afer Canada (june race) things started to rapidly deteriorate.

Actually it is very much reminiscent to MP4-6 it also had a huge slump in the summer part of the championship, also after Canada, but they managed to improve her by Hungary and they were back in their original speed relative to Williams. They did huge amount of work during summer. It was reported they did 10.000 miles of testing during weeks between races.

The same was happening in 1993, but they managed to improve MP4-8 a little bit too late, around Portugal time. And they easily won last two races.

So im reality Mclaren MP4-6 and MP4-8 had simmilar relative speed to its Williams counterpart it was just that MP4-8 summer slump lasted longer so more points were lost.

[Murl]

ensign14, on 29 Jan 2021 - 17:16, said:

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.

 

It's interesting to consider Jacques' place in the order of things.

 

He held his own in many settings.

He's as underrated as anyone, I would have loved to see him snatch a WDC.

[RedRabbit]

Marklar, on 29 Jan 2021 - 21:35, said:

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.

 

Yeah, I agree with this. Good car let down with average driving, poor strategy most of the time and below par race operations at almost every race. If that car was handed to the Ferrari team that year, Alonso would have comfortably won the title.

[PayasYouRace]

BiggestBuddyLazierFan, on 30 Jan 2021 - 08:52, said:

This is simply untrue. Niki Lauda himself told that the fan car didnt drove any better than the regular car. Besides the fan never decreased sufficient air pressure to increase ground effect. The fan was just a stunt. Possibly even a red herring to cover up something else. Something they presumably used through the whole season.
 

 

You're making that up. Lauda specifically said that the car was incredible, and in the race he could "pass everybody round the outside". (3:25 below)

 

 

Gordon Murray "couldn't believe" the amount of downforce the car created. They qualified on full fuel tanks to hide how quick the car was.

 

 

Whatever you think they might have been using the rest of the season, it didn't work as effectively as the fan. The team didn't win a single other race that year, apart from taking advantage of Andretti and Villeneuve's 1 minute penalties at Monza.

[RedRabbit]

In recent times, the Ferrari F2012 stands out as having absolutely no business taking the title fight down to the wire. For the first half of the season, it was terribly unstable and inconsistent. I remember it suffered badly with understeer into the corners that could often become a snap oversteer. It also looked quite skirmish under braking. I remember watching the season opener with wide eyes, as both Alonso and Massa wrestled that car around the track. It just looked undrivable and Alonso's 5th place was honestly miraculous, and then winning the next race was virtually unbelievable. McLaren, Red Bull and even Lotus had better overall cars, while Ferrari spent the whole year focused on making it more stable, instead of faster.

 

The biggest let down was probably McLaren that year. It was easily the fastest car, let down terribly with reliability, horrendous race and pit operations, poor strategies half the time and a development team that were so completely lost, that in the mid-season they seemed nowhere. They then threw the baby out with the bath water for the next season.

 

Lotus had the kind of car that needed a Ferrari level of combined effort, and they could have comfortably won that title.

[DS27]

PayasYouRace, on 30 Jan 2021 - 09:54, said:

You're making that up. Lauda specifically said that the car was incredible, and in the race he could "pass everybody round the outside". (3:25 below)

 

 

 

Thanks, you saved me the effort.  

[Spillage]

PlayboyRacer, on 29 Jan 2021 - 09:02, said:

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

All five of its race wins were pretty unusual though - Monaco and Spa were wet races where the team correctly selected intermediates (and had the best wet-weather driver by a distance), Canada was inherited following Coulthard's disastrous pitstop a couple of laps before the red flags came out and Suzuka was a strategic game. The French GP may have been the only time they had the fastest car out there, and even then there was huge rain shower at the end. 

 

You wouldn't expect a car like that to challenge for a title under normal circumstances, so I think it's worth considering in this thread. 

[Nemo1965]

ensign14, on 29 Jan 2021 - 17:16, said:

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.

 

Oh, let us not forget one ingredient in this 'the worst car that...' and that ingredient is the tyre or the tyres.

 

I don't want to be a party pooper and I always admire admiration... but Jacques Laffitte wasn't all that. His brilliant races in 1981, IMHO, were largely down to his excellent contacts with Pierre Dupasquier of Michelin. Or rather: the excellent contact that his brother-in-law, Jean-Pierre Jabouille, had with the French tyre-magician. As we all know, Jabouille was the first race-winner of Renault F1, basically the driver that tested the team to the top. Jabouille signed for Ligier for 1981, crashed in his last race for Renault, got crippled and became an extra engineer for Ligier.

 

Pierre Duspaqier had a knack for choosing unconvential tyrechoices for races, for particular drivers that, one way or another, had his sympathy. So he would whisper in Jabouille's ear in Canada (where Laffitte won): take the soft tyre on the left and the hard on the right (or something like that). And lo and behold: the heavy Ligier shone in the rain.

 

The funny thing is, the next year, in 1982 McLaren drove with Michelin tyres. Drivers were John Watson and the returned Niki Lauda. Duspaqier liked Watson more than he liked Lauda. To be fair: Duspaqier always was fair and open and would suggest the same tyres to Lauda he 'offered' to Watson. But Lauda never wanted to take unconventional advice. Watson did: because he always kept tinkering and doubting until the start.

 

And who outperformed who that year and the year after, often in very peculiar races? Watson won Detroit 1982 from the 17th spot on the grid. In 1983, Watson and Lauda (in that order) were 1 and 2 in Long Beach... starting from the last two places on the grid. In Monaco they did not even qualify! Talking about 'the worst car' winning against all odds...

Edited by Nemo1965, 30 January 2021 - 10:11.

[PlayboyRacer]

Spillage, on 30 Jan 2021 - 10:07, said:

All five of its race wins were pretty unusual though - Monaco and Spa were wet races where the team correctly selected intermediates (and had the best wet-weather driver by a distance), Canada was inherited following Coulthard's disastrous pitstop a couple of laps before the red flags came out and Suzuka was a strategic game. The French GP may have been the only time they had the fastest car out there, and even then there was huge rain shower at the end.

You wouldn't expect a car like that to challenge for a title under normal circumstances, so I think it's worth considering in this thread.

I see where you're coming from. You're not wrong certainly and make some valid points. That's concrete evidence though I'd argue Suzuka was more than just a strategic win. Ferrari were plenty quick there with both drivers.

Balancing out what you've said though is Schumachers pole in Canada so again plenty of speed there. Ditto Silverstone where Villeneuve and Schumacher were trading fastest laps, miles out front in a personal duel till they both hit major trouble. Again plenty of speed in that Ferrari. Even winding it back to Imola - Schumacher was dicing with Villeneuve, then Frentzen basically all race. Irvine was strong in Argentina and finished 2nd.

The 1997 Ferrari is actually hard to judge. Especially so because it was a really competitive season with the tyre war and wild fluctuations amongst the teams, race to race.

[messy]

I think the 1997 and 1998 Ferraris were probably pretty well on a par in terms of how close they were to the front pace, but the two seasons were vastly different. In 1997 you had wild fluctuations between races - one weekend Williams would be way ahead, then Ferrari would be right there, then McLaren would lock out the front row and look dominant before the engines inevitably blew, god even Benetton had their weekend at Hockenheim. In 1998 it was all about the MP4/13 and Schumacher’s heroic battle to overturn their advantage, which was spellbinding to watch.

I think Eddie Irvine was a pretty decent example of a ‘good to middling’ driver who probably represented just above the mean on that grid - so seeing him both years taking occasional podiums kinda tells you where the car’s place in the competitive order was if you ignored the Schumacher factor. Bit maybe Irvine was slightly closer to the front - if less consistently scoring - in 1997?

[PlayboyRacer]

messy, on 30 Jan 2021 - 10:45, said:

I think the 1997 and 1998 Ferraris were probably pretty well on a par in terms of how close they were to the front pace, but the two seasons were vastly different. In 1997 you had wild fluctuations between races - one weekend Williams would be way ahead, then Ferrari would be right there, then McLaren would lock out the front row and look dominant before the engines inevitably blew, god even Benetton had their weekend at Hockenheim. In 1998 it was all about the MP4/13 and Schumacher’s heroic battle to overturn their advantage, which was spellbinding to watch.

I think Eddie Irvine was a pretty decent example of a ‘good to middling’ driver who probably represented just above the mean on that grid - so seeing him both years taking occasional podiums kinda tells you where the car’s place in the competitive order was if you ignored the Schumacher factor. Bit maybe Irvine was slightly closer to the front - if less consistently scoring - in 1997?

Eddie had 6 or 7 retirements in 1997 so that did hamper his points scoring. He was more consistent in 1998 but, then again, there was a large gap back to Benetton/Williams/Jordan in 1998 so no doubt it was easier to churn out consistent 3rd and 4ths. Whereas in 1997 as you said there was wild fluctuations.

Schumacher in 1997 was very consistent. As Spillage said there was the brilliance in Monaco, Spa which everyone talks about. But the rest of his season was very Prost like. Great wins in France, Japan and Canada with a strong car and then a string of 2nds elsewhere bolstering his points scoring.

That played into his hands perfectly because while Williams had their advantage for 6 races - they didn't maximise it and that left them well catchable. And ironically in that period Villeneuve didn't actually do much wrong. He owned pole position and won regularly. Dropping likely big scores in Melbourne (punted off) Imola (gearbox) and the debacle of Monaco was all very costly. Thereafter the grid was very competitive.

[PlatenGlass]

On the 1993 McLaren - I'm not sure I'd call it a real title challenge since it was fairly clear Senna wasn't going to win for the entire second half of the year. But these things are subjective. Even when he led in the first half, it seemed a matter of time.

Edited by PlatenGlass, 30 January 2021 - 11:10.

[PlayboyRacer]

PlatenGlass, on 30 Jan 2021 - 11:09, said:

On the 1993 McLaren - I'm not sure I'd call it a real title challenge since it was fairly clear Senna wasn't going to win for the entire second half of the year. But these things are subjective. Even when he led in the first half, it seemed a matter of time.

That's fair enough. I thought it was worth mentioning. Senna hung in there heroically deep into the season but the deficit to Williams was way too steep.

[DutchQuicksilver]

messy, on 29 Jan 2021 - 23:21, said:

Nah, the 2014 Williams was probably good for a circumstantial win or two (that all went to Red Bull in the end) but rather like the 2004 BAR it was “just” the closest opposition to a very dominant car in the Mercedes. It wasn’t that close really. It would never have got much nearer to title contention than say Ricciardo managed that season. The 2012 Lotus, with Alonso or someone like that at the wheel, we’ll never know for sure but I suspect it might have been a very different story.

Here we go again. Alonso at best would have extracted possibly one or two tenth’s more out of that car, nothing more. Raikkonen was magical on raceday in that car. Though, I agree he wasn’t that strong on Saturdays, but maybe the Lotus car itself just wasn’t either. Grosjean was regarded as a very fast qualifier and didn’t put the car on the front row either.

[Jovanotti]

DutchQuicksilver, on 30 Jan 2021 - 11:22, said:

Here we go again. Alonso at best would have extracted possibly one or two tenth’s more out of that car, nothing more. Raikkonen was magical on raceday in that car. Though, I agree he wasn’t that strong on Saturdays, but maybe the Lotus car itself just wasn’t either. Grosjean was regarded as a very fast qualifier and didn’t put the car on the front row either.

Exactly, it's just another of those numerous cars Alonso would have won the title in with absolute certainty.

[Spillage]

I think the reason the '97 Ferari is difficult to judge is because both the driver and the pitwall were really getting the best out of the machine. With a lesser driver, less strategic know-how and less luck they wouldn't have been anywhere near the title. As we've seen, almost all of their wins were duemat least in part to one of those factors. Canada was lucky, Suzuka was strategy (though I'll concede that they were very fast that race anyway) and and the two wet races were all three (lucky that it rained, clever to select inters and executed by a driver able to waltz away from the field without throwing it off the road).

 

Without Ferrari's superior strategies and driver they could easily have had a similar season to Benetton and Mclaren - scrapping for occasional wins but a long way off a title challenge. They did have a slightly better car than Benetton or Mclarenbut ultimately Schumacher's points tally on his own was more than Benetton or Mclaren managed in the WCC. I don't think the Ferrari package was that much better than those cars but they did a much better job of squeezing the best out of what they had.

[messy]

DutchQuicksilver, on 30 Jan 2021 - 11:22, said:

Here we go again. Alonso at best would have extracted possibly one or two tenth’s more out of that car, nothing more. Raikkonen was magical on raceday in that car. Though, I agree he wasn’t that strong on Saturdays, but maybe the Lotus car itself just wasn’t either. Grosjean was regarded as a very fast qualifier and didn’t put the car on the front row either.

Nah I’m not falling into that one, not intentionally anyway. I’m saying that with an established top line driver like Alonso or Hamilton or Vettel a title tilt is far from a stretch. That was a good car. Raikkonen was - by his own admission as well as Allison, Boullier, etc, highly rusty yet it made him look like a hero. Grosjean wasn’t just Grosjean in those days, he was a really raw, inexperienced and even more erratic version, and it repeatedly made him look like a hero. Even a rusty, out of practice Raikkonen finished third in the championship ahead of both McLaren drivers, Webber.... Had Alonso been two tenths quicker, he’d have probably been a title contender in it. Is that a stretch to say, or unfair? I don’t think so personally.

2012 was a fascinating year because you’ve got a number of cars which achieved really strong results despite - with the benefit of hindsight - not having fantastic driver lineups. Williams won a race with Maldonado, Sauber could easily have won two or three, Force India should have won in Brazil all day long. I still can’t quite work out why 2012 was such a weird anomaly in that era. But it was fun.

Edited by messy, 30 January 2021 - 13:14.

[PlatenGlass]

Spillage, on 30 Jan 2021 - 12:32, said:

I think the reason the '97 Ferari is difficult to judge is because both the driver and the pitwall were really getting the best out of the machine. With a lesser driver, less strategic know-how and less luck they wouldn't have been anywhere near the title. As we've seen, almost all of their wins were duemat least in part to one of those factors. Canada was lucky, Suzuka was strategy (though I'll concede that they were very fast that race anyway) and and the two wet races were all three (lucky that it rained, clever to select inters and executed by a driver able to waltz away from the field without throwing it off the road).

 

Without Ferrari's superior strategies and driver they could easily have had a similar season to Benetton and Mclaren - scrapping for occasional wins but a long way off a title challenge. They did have a slightly better car than Benetton or Mclarenbut ultimately Schumacher's points tally on his own was more than Benetton or Mclaren managed in the WCC. I don't think the Ferrari package was that much better than those cars but they did a much better job of squeezing the best out of what they had.

They also lost a lot of points - e.g first lap collisions for Schumacher at Argentina and Nurburgring, and Schumacher got a 10-second stop/go at Austria losing him a load of points. So the season certainly wasn't optimised.

 

A lot of it comes down to how one rates Schumacher and Villeneuve's own performances that year, both against team-mates that weren't keeping up.

[Spillage]

Schumacher had very strong reliability too, which helped a lot. I think he only had one mechanical retirement all season. The car has to get plus points for that; as we saw in 2005, a fast but unreliable car is usually beaten by a slightly slower but also much more reliable one.

[DutchQuicksilver]

messy, on 30 Jan 2021 - 12:54, said:

Nah I’m not falling into that one, not intentionally anyway. I’m saying that with an established top line driver like Alonso or Hamilton or Vettel a title tilt is far from a stretch. That was a good car. Raikkonen was - by his own admission as well as Allison, Boullier, etc, highly rusty yet it made him look like a hero. Grosjean wasn’t just Grosjean in those days, he was a really raw, inexperienced and even more erratic version, and it repeatedly made him look like a hero. Even a rusty, out of practice Raikkonen finished third in the championship ahead of both McLaren drivers, Webber.... Had Alonso been two tenths quicker, he’d have probably been a title contender in it. Is that a stretch to say, or unfair? I don’t think so personally.

2012 was a fascinating year because you’ve got a number of cars which achieved really strong results despite - with the benefit of hindsight - not having fantastic driver lineups. Williams won a race with Maldonado, Sauber could easily have won two or three, Force India should have won in Brazil all day long. I still can’t quite work out why 2012 was such a weird anomaly in that era. But it was fun.

 

You say Raikkonen was rusty, but how can you tell? If you compare his comeback to let’s say Schumi’s. Now you could call Schumi rusty and he couldn’t shake off that rust in those three years. There’s no signs Raikkonen was rusty, quite the opposite really if you compare his 2012/2013 form to how he performed at the end of 2008 and most parts of 2009.

[messy]

DutchQuicksilver, on 30 Jan 2021 - 16:02, said:

You say Raikkonen was rusty, but how can you tell? If you compare his comeback to let’s say Schumi’s. Now you could call Schumi rusty and he couldn’t shake off that rust in those three years. There’s no signs Raikkonen was rusty, quite the opposite really if you compare his 2012/2013 form to how he performed at the end of 2008 and most parts of 2009.

I’m not saying Kimi wasn’t very good in those Lotus years, because he was. But his qualifying pace at very least was lacking and often meant he started a row further back than he probably should have. The car was very good on its tyres and he used to routinely pull himself up closer and closer to the front on race day, often beating Grosjean who stared ahead of him. I suppose my ‘what if’ is ‘what if they’d had a driver who’d actually starred in the positions that the sector times (and Grosjean) suggested it should have?’ Better results, surely. And given Kimi already finished third in the points, is it too much of a stretch to think a title tilt was a real possibility?

Edited by messy, 30 January 2021 - 16:42.

[eibyyz]

Nemo1965, on 29 Jan 2021 - 10:34, said:

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.

 

If Lotus had stayed away from the development DFV, Mario might have won two WDCs.

[DutchQuicksilver]

messy, on 30 Jan 2021 - 16:29, said:

I’m not saying Kimi wasn’t very good in those Lotus years, because he was. But his qualifying pace at very least was lacking and often meant he started a row further back than he probably should have. The car was very good on its tyres and he used to routinely pull himself up closer and closer to the front on race day, often beating Grosjean who stared ahead of him. I suppose my ‘what if’ is ‘what if they’d had a driver who’d actually starred in the positions that the sector times (and Grosjean) suggested it should have?’ Better results, surely. And given Kimi already finished third in the points, is it too much of a stretch to think a title tilt was a real possibility?

Of course not, but every now and then the myth comes up again that Alonso would magically have been so much faster than Kimi in that car and would have gloriously won the championship with it. I suppose that myth started because Alonso whiped the floor with Kimi in 2014, except we all know Kimi couldn’t get to grips with that car, which he did with the Lotus cars.

[noriaki]

But if Senna 93 counts then Kimi definitely *did* have a championship challenge in 2012. He was still ahead of Vettel in the standings after Monza.

Another Lotus driver who hung on to an outside title bid for much longer than could be remembered and expected was de Angelis in 1984. The dominant McLarens were less than 10 points ahead of the consistent Elio with 6 races to go.

[DanardiF1]

How do people feel about the Benetton B195? The Williams was a much better car not fully utilised by either the team with its continued slow grasp of the refuelling era strategic possibilities, and the two drivers who contrived to throw away all their best performances.

 

Schumacher said the B195 was a tricky car to handle, and it does seem to be a step back (or at least not the step forward Williams made from the FW16 to the FW17) from how good the B194 was but with the advantage of Renault power. Schumacher's God Tier driving aside, with a more normal (but still capable) driver in Johnny Herbert in the 2nd car it was more often battling with the Ferraris just behind the podium places, and only twice that season did both Benetton drivers stand on the podium together. Despite that it was a WCC winning car and Schumacher beat Mansell's points record and equalled his single-season win record in it.

 

Also add in that its exact copy in the form of the Ligier was hardly a massive improvement on their own design the year before...

Edited by DanardiF1, 30 January 2021 - 20:00.

[PayasYouRace]

DanardiF1, on 30 Jan 2021 - 19:59, said:

How do people feel about the Benetton B195? 

 

I feel it was roughly equal to the FW17, all things considered. It was a fast car, but difficult to drive fast. That's where Michael's skill paid off. In a year where there wasn't actually much to choose between the top 3 cars, I feel it often gets exaggerated.

[PlayboyRacer]

PayasYouRace, on 30 Jan 2021 - 21:09, said:

I feel it was roughly equal to the FW17, all things considered. It was a fast car, but difficult to drive fast. That's where Michael's skill paid off. In a year where there wasn't actually much to choose between the top 3 cars, I feel it often gets exaggerated.

I agree. In the early days Michael did often seem to make statements designed to enhance his own performances/image I felt... in a subtle way of course.

The infamous "I would have won the championship in the '95 Ferrari" line, after testing the car, is case in point. Whether that's true or not... I found it odd.

Then Berger and Alesi test the B195 and find it a real handful and everyone goes crazy. "Schumacher can walk on water", "only he could win in such an inferior Benetton" and on it goes till this very day. I always found that amusing - whilst I have the highest respect for Berger and Alesi, by 1995/96 they weren't the very elite of that time. Berger once might have been (or close), Alesi I felt never truly was... but it made them unreliable when it came to the B195 imo.

Now if Villeneuve, Hakkinen or Hill had jumped into the B195 and found it extremely difficult to drive on the very limit - I would have placed much more emphasis on that.

[messy]

I feel like this is one of those threads where you read it and think “this will be a great discussion” then realise there actually aren’t that many candidates and the one that most people are saying (the Ferrari from 2012) is probably the right one. The Benetton B195 was really good in the races, just lacking compared to Williams in qualifying. Herbert also won twice in it. Actually, talking Benetton v Williams, could the Williams FW16 have a shout? Not one of Newey’s finest, at least not at the start - and only really in it because Schumacher missed races, no disrespect to Damon Hill.

I suppose the main takeaway is maybe that bad cars might win individual races on occasion (hello Jordan EJ13) but just won’t contend for titles.

[MKSixer]

McLaren MP4-24.

 

Pronounced as unacceptable by Martin Whitmarsh.  

[PayasYouRace]

MKSixer, on 30 Jan 2021 - 22:38, said:

McLaren MP4-24.

Pronounced as unacceptable by Martin Whitmarsh.

Didn’t challenge for the championship at all though.

[MKSixer]

PayasYouRace, on 30 Jan 2021 - 22:46, said:

Didn’t challenge for the championship at all though.

True.  It ran out of races.  It scored the 2nd most points in the 2nd half of the season in a certain driver's hands, if I remember correctly. 

[PlatenGlass]

A lot of this comes down to one's assumptions about how relatively good the drivers in the cars were. But at the risk of being jumped on by PlayboyRacer, I would say that the 1997 Ferrari is a contender.

I'm surprised I haven't seen the 1999 Ferrari mentioned at all by the way. It was kept in contention by McLaren/Hakkinen losing points - Irvine was basically never on race-winning pace on merit. I know Schumacher's return in Malaysia made people see things differently, but I also think Irvine was more competitive there so the car was probably improved. I know he required Schumacher's help to get second, but I think at most races before that (where Hakkinen didn't hit trouble) there's not much a roadblock could do to get Irvine ahead of Hakkinen.

[PlatenGlass]

MKSixer, on 30 Jan 2021 - 22:38, said:

McLaren MP4-24.

Pronounced as unacceptable by Martin Whitmarsh.

Which one is that? People don't all remember the model names of cars.

[blackmme]

BiggestBuddyLazierFan, on 30 Jan 2021 - 08:52, said:

Also its a myth that Lotus was dominant car that season. It had efficient ground effects, but its chassis was flexing too much, thus making it difficult to set up. A lot of credit has to go to the two magnificent drivers Andretti (probably the best ever driver on this Planet) and Peterson who made that car look faster than it really was. It was fast. But not as fast as people tend to think.

When Carlos Reutemann joined them for the 1979 season they were still using the same car Lotus79 from the previous season and Lole said that he expected much faster car. Previous year he was with Ferrari and challenged them sometimes, and he thought that Lotus79 was faster. But once he sat in it he realised it was not so much faster than his Ferrari was.

The in my opinion wide of the mark comments on the BT46 have been covered by others so I will have a crack at the Lotus 79.

Firstly it didn’t take part in the whole season but apart from Sweden and the fan car in terms of speed it was comfortably the fastest car.  Being Lotus of course it was always troubled by poor reliability (quite frankly often as a result of 1 mechanic doing the work of 2 plus ACBC’s absolute on a knife-edge engineering).  
The 79’s chassis rigidity was by the current overall standards for 1978 very high (and certainly when the chassis were new) but of course the 79’s aerodynamics were loading the chassis with forces never experienced before (it wasn’t Mario and Ronnie discovering a new way of driving that was doing that by the way).

When it ran reliably nothing could touch it for speed that year.  If as you suggest it’s critical advantage was down to its drivers (both of whom I admire(d) greatly) then just how bloody good was Jean-Pierre Jarier then?!

When Carlos Reutemann first sat in a Lotus 79 it was already obsolete compared to its new 1979 opposition such as the Ligier JS11 (very stiff chassis and a neat aerodynamic ‘cheat’) and the very soon to arrive Williams FW07.  Of course  Carlos shouldn’t have been sitting in a 79 at all that season but with the failure of the 80 he was and it was a 79 with practically no development from the previous season and tired monocoques that whilst being re-stitched and bonded from the previous season were definitely well below the standard being set by then.  
 

Finally of course you have to take into account Carlos talking in 1979 was hardly an unbiased source!  Carlos wasn’t exactly known for talking up the quality of his equipment at the best of times and 1979 was definitely not his best of times!

 

Regards Mike

Edited by blackmme, 31 January 2021 - 09:02.

[Nemo1965]

eibyyz, on 30 Jan 2021 - 16:58, said:

If Lotus had stayed away from the development DFV, Mario might have won two WDCs.

 

That was not the only problem. Twice Chapman - who had a reckless tendency 'to make it fast and then make it faster by making it lighter' - put not enough fuel in the car for the whole race. Andretti lost two races that he was destined to win, because of that. And Andretti threw two racewins away himself, chief among those at Zolder where he was 1,5 seconds faster than anyone else in qualifying. And there were also three other races where Andretti just was plain stupid. 

 

And regarding the development DFV: it blew up a lot, yes. But that Andretti made a pig's mess of several starts, then had to charge through the field, stressing the engine unnecessary. I am a big fan of Mario, by the way. But he and Colin Chapman threw away at least four victories in 1977.

[messy]

PlatenGlass, on 31 Jan 2021 - 08:31, said:

A lot of this comes down to one's assumptions about how relatively good the drivers in the cars were. But at the risk of being jumped on by PlayboyRacer, I would say that the 1997 Ferrari is a contender.
I'm surprised I haven't seen the 1999 Ferrari mentioned at all by the way. It was kept in contention by McLaren/Hakkinen losing points - Irvine was basically never on race-winning pace on merit. I know Schumacher's return in Malaysia made people see things differently, but I also think Irvine was more competitive there so the car was probably improved. I know he required Schumacher's help to get second, but I think at most races before that (where Hakkinen didn't hit trouble) there's not much a roadblock could do to get Irvine ahead of Hakkinen.

Wasn't Schumacher leading the championship at the moment of his crash? He'd taken a couple of pretty convincing wins in it anyway as well as throwing one away in Canada and the whole campaign was looking like it might be "the one" until his accident. Irvine was routinely over half a second behind Schumacher and stayed in title contention, something he'd never been close to before so....nah. that was a good car. I think it was also a development of the 1998 car, then the 2000 car was a development of that- so they developed it into a title winner. If anything the original 1998 car was the candidate I think.

[noriaki]

Eddie Irvine scored 74 points in the 1999 Ferrari. All due respect to Ed but it literally cannot be the winner here when in another 1999 championship contending car Damon Hill scored a grand total of 7 points.

[DutchQuicksilver]

PlatenGlass, on 31 Jan 2021 - 08:32, said:

Which one is that? People don't all remember the model names of cars.

 

The 2009 car I believe.

[FTB]

1998 Ferrari is also a good shout but I always thought 1997 Ferrari was a bit worse than 1998 Ferrari.

1986 Mclaren is also a good pick, since Williams was the better car.

Ligier Matra @ 81 is very interesting. And my main aim was to have an idea about the inferior cars of the past that fought for championship.

Edited by FTB, 31 January 2021 - 13:27.

[PlayboyRacer]

PlatenGlass, on 31 Jan 2021 - 08:31, said:

I'm surprised I haven't seen the 1999 Ferrari mentioned at all by the way.

I mentioned it earlier. Which was my whole point - fair game if anyone wants to say the 1997/2012 Ferraris own this thread. But if they do... then so does the 1998/99 Ferraris. There is little difference between all four if we're analysing them all equally.

I still say none of them come close to Rosbergs 1982 Williams and perhaps a couple of others.

[TomNokoe]

MKSixer, on 30 Jan 2021 - 22:38, said:

McLaren MP4-24.

Pronounced as unacceptable by Martin Whitmarsh.

I'm living in total fantasy land, but when you consider the points LH lost throughout the season:

Australia, liegate (+6)
China, his worst wet race ever (+2)
Monaco, Q1 crash (?, lightning quick in FP)
Germany, start puncture (+6, maybe +8)
Valencia, slow stop (+2, generous)
Belgium, lap 1 crash (?, hard to quantify, Heikki finished P6)
Monza, final lap crash (+6)
Suzuka, slow stop + lost KERS (+2)
Abu Dhabi, reliability (+10)

That is an extra 34 points, without adding Monaco and Belgium, plus the scraps of points Jenson inherited from the above. Hamilton finished 46 points behind.

Sometimes I think if McLaren had managed expectations at the start of the year, maybe brought performance to the car quicker, and LH made fewer mistakes, then he could have had an outside shot. I was only young at the time, but it felt like McLaren had wrote their chances off before a wheel was turned.

Edited by TomNokoe, 31 January 2021 - 18:10.

[Flyhigh]

PlayboyRacer, on 29 Jan 2021 - 10:48, said:

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.

1998 Schumacher was amazing. Mclaren that year started by clearing the field well over a second, Ferrari´s car even had to use those weird winglets for aerodynamics crutches,Irvine was nowhere in sight, and Schumacher nearly won it if it wasn´t many unlucky things that happened in Suzuka in 1998.   

[flingsofdeon]

Hmm, the Brawn GP in the second half of the season in 09 😉