Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

"Worst" Championship car to win in the past 40 years?


  • Please log in to reply
232 replies to this topic

#201 Claudius

Claudius
  • Member

  • 5,210 posts
  • Joined: December 02

Posted 10 August 2022 - 09:03

Add to that Damon having confidence and mental health issues beginning to rear their head in 1995. It's difficult to say which car was actually better. But the likelihood is both the Williams and Benetton were legal in 1995....

 

I don't think Damon having issues negates the Williams car being better. This is about the car, not the the whole team/driver combo.



Advertisement

#202 messy

messy
  • Member

  • 7,438 posts
  • Joined: October 15

Posted 10 August 2022 - 09:32

My gut feeling has always been that if you put Schumacher into the 1995 Williams and Hill into his Benetton, then Schumacher absolutely destroys everyone and Hill isn’t remotely a title threat. But that’s based on absolutely nothing, so I won’t even mention it. *post*

#203 Rediscoveryx

Rediscoveryx
  • Member

  • 3,403 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 10 August 2022 - 10:08

My gut feeling has always been that if you put Schumacher into the 1995 Williams and Hill into his Benetton, then Schumacher absolutely destroys everyone and Hill isn’t remotely a title threat. But that’s based on absolutely nothing, so I won’t even mention it. *post*

 

I think the same goes for 1994, regardless of whether or not the Benetton had TC.



#204 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 4,529 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 10 August 2022 - 20:57

My point wasn’t that the B195 was superior to the Williams. Just that it was close enough to not be the answer to the OP’s question. Close enough that Schumacher made the difference. But in comparison to the competition, it was a better car than the B194.

As for swapping the drivers, that’s pure speculation.



I am sure Michael would have won the championship in the 1995 Williams rather easily.

#205 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 4,529 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 10 August 2022 - 20:58

My gut feeling has always been that if you put Schumacher into the 1995 Williams and Hill into his Benetton, then Schumacher absolutely destroys everyone and Hill isn’t remotely a title threat. But that’s based on absolutely nothing, so I won’t even mention it. *post*


The 95 Williams was a indeed a better car IMHO than the Benetton by a good margin. It was one of Adrian's favorite cars.

Edited by George Costanza, 10 August 2022 - 20:59.


#206 Peeko

Peeko
  • Member

  • 3,852 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 10 August 2022 - 22:53

I am sure Michael would have won the championship in the 1995 Williams rather easily.

Damon would not be able to take the Benetton where it needed to go to be fast. I don't see him winning 9 races in that car while Michael is in the Williams.


Edited by Peeko, 10 August 2022 - 22:54.


#207 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 45,700 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 11 August 2022 - 13:08

Damon would not be able to take the Benetton where it needed to go to be fast. I don't see him winning 9 races in that car while Michael is in the Williams.


But the B195 would have been a much different handling car with Damon driving development of it.

#208 Beri

Beri
  • Member

  • 11,448 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 11 August 2022 - 13:10

But the B195 would have been a much different handling car with Damon driving development of it.

 

Sincere question; you think it would have been better? Because hearsay tells me that Schumacher his weakness was that he never mounted to be a good development driver.



#209 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 45,700 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 11 August 2022 - 13:21

Sincere question; you think it would have been better? Because hearsay tells me that Schumacher his weakness was that he never mounted to be a good development driver.


I think it would have been different to drive. Damon was an excellent test driver and with him involved the car would probably have been quick for a smooth driver like him. The inherent pace given by the Renault engine and the basic mechanicals and aerodynamics would be there nonetheless.

I think if Damon had been at Benetton, Herbert would have got better results than he did in real life, all things being equal.

But there are too many variables to say whether Damon or Michael would have smashed it. So any claims either way are pure fan wank.

#210 PlatenGlass

PlatenGlass
  • Member

  • 4,648 posts
  • Joined: June 14

Posted 11 August 2022 - 14:13

If Damon was in the 1995 Benetton, it might have been an easier car to drive, but I don't see it as being significantly faster overall. Damon wasn't a magician. So I don't see him being quicker than Schumacher was in it, even if both Hill and Herbert would be faster than Herbert was in real life. Whereas I do see Schumacher walking into the 1995 Williams and being quicker than Hill and Coulthard. So I still see this as a Schumacher title.



#211 Risil

Risil
  • Administrator

  • 61,328 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 11 August 2022 - 14:16

Schumacher: faster driver than Hill and made fewer mistakes. 
 
The Benetton and Williams cars were pretty close in performance.
 
Hard to see how Schumacher doesn't win the title in either car!


#212 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 45,700 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 11 August 2022 - 14:18

As I think I said before. Probably a similar result and Michael would probably be champion at Aida.

#213 Risil

Risil
  • Administrator

  • 61,328 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 11 August 2022 - 14:23

I think these arguments often go around in circles as what's in question isn't whether Schumacher was a better driver than Hill (pretty easy), it's how much Schumacher was better than Hill.



#214 Peeko

Peeko
  • Member

  • 3,852 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 11 August 2022 - 14:47

But the B195 would have been a much different handling car with Damon driving development of it.

Possibly, but the B195's biggest issue when on the edge was stalling mid corner, I don't think its a trait Schumacher particularly enjoyed but could deal with. If there was an simple way to develop this problem out of the car, I'm sure Schumacher, Brawn, and Byrne could have figured it out. It was born into the car and I don't think Damon is the magic ingredient. If he couldn't win 9 races in the Williams, I doubt he pulls it off in the Benetton.


Edited by Peeko, 11 August 2022 - 14:48.


#215 Gravelngrass

Gravelngrass
  • Member

  • 1,356 posts
  • Joined: April 21

Posted 10 October 2022 - 17:33

Was watching Race to Perfection on HBO and was reminded of the Prost-Senna rivalry, especially the 1990 season where I thought Prost had a master season and would have qualified as a great example for this thread, especially after the absolute domination Mclaren had in 1988 and 89. I have read several accounts of that season but can’t find more on what happened to the invincible McLaren. It seemed to have become more unreliable, which is surprising given that in the previous 2 seasons it was indestructible. And there were also some mistakes by Senna. Does anyone think that if Senna hadn’t run Prost out of the track at Suzuka, Prost would have had a real chance at the title? I mean, that car deserved a title from its looks alone!

#216 PlatenGlass

PlatenGlass
  • Member

  • 4,648 posts
  • Joined: June 14

Posted 10 October 2022 - 17:55

Was watching Race to Perfection on HBO and was reminded of the Prost-Senna rivalry, especially the 1990 season where I thought Prost had a master season and would have qualified as a great example for this thread, especially after the absolute domination Mclaren had in 1988 and 89. I have read several accounts of that season but can’t find more on what happened to the invincible McLaren. It seemed to have become more unreliable, which is surprising given that in the previous 2 seasons it was indestructible. And there were also some mistakes by Senna. Does anyone think that if Senna hadn’t run Prost out of the track at Suzuka, Prost would have had a real chance at the title? I mean, that car deserved a title from its looks alone!

Prost's season pretty much revolved around that mid-season hat-track. Other than that Senna largely dominated and Prost was really just hanging on by the time they got to Suzuka.

#217 TheFish

TheFish
  • Member

  • 6,307 posts
  • Joined: October 14

Posted 10 October 2022 - 19:38

Was watching Race to Perfection on HBO and was reminded of the Prost-Senna rivalry, especially the 1990 season where I thought Prost had a master season and would have qualified as a great example for this thread, especially after the absolute domination Mclaren had in 1988 and 89. I have read several accounts of that season but can’t find more on what happened to the invincible McLaren. It seemed to have become more unreliable, which is surprising given that in the previous 2 seasons it was indestructible. And there were also some mistakes by Senna. Does anyone think that if Senna hadn’t run Prost out of the track at Suzuka, Prost would have had a real chance at the title? I mean, that car deserved a title from its looks alone!

I don't know enough about 89/90 to be certain like some others, but I always found it a bit off that neither decider was actually the final race. It's why Senna doing what he did stinks even more to me. He could have overtaken Prost and won the race anyway, but even if he didn't he still had another race to be a dirty bastard should he so desire. Same in 89, Senna was DQ'd but there was still another race to go for Prost to win the title.



#218 eab

eab
  • Member

  • 1,028 posts
  • Joined: February 21

Posted 10 October 2022 - 21:05

Does anyone think that if Senna hadn’t run Prost out of the track at Suzuka, Prost would have had a real chance at the title?

I've never read or heard anything that would make me guess he wouldn't have, so yeah I'd say. 2 wins would be enough, regardless Senna's results. But I also reckon that Prost's chances were less than Senna's.



#219 PlatenGlass

PlatenGlass
  • Member

  • 4,648 posts
  • Joined: June 14

Posted 10 October 2022 - 21:46

I've never read or heard anything that would make me guess he wouldn't have, so yeah I'd say. 2 wins would be enough, regardless Senna's results. But I also reckon that Prost's chances were less than Senna's.

Yeah, he had a chance but a slim one!

Advertisement

#220 JordanIreland

JordanIreland
  • Member

  • 513 posts
  • Joined: December 15

Posted 10 October 2022 - 22:24

The 95 Williams was a indeed a better car IMHO than the Benetton by a good margin. It was one of Adrian's favorite cars.


The 95 Williams was fast and still looks amazing. But even Schumacher would not have won in that car. It was so unreliable and the team couldn’t develop a decent strategy to work their way out of a paper bag. The team was so badly organised.

Have a look at their pit stops alone. They would take forever…..

There was a video of the 95 season (still can’t find it). Where Ross (Benetton) and Adrian (Williams) were interviewed regarding pit stop strategy… Ross was talking about prediction modelling and data science while Adrian was acting like a tool and kinda brushed the idea of not wanting to put too much effort into it. It was shocking… if anyone has the recording, please share.

#221 midgrid

midgrid
  • RC Forum Host

  • 10,126 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 10 October 2022 - 22:29

It's in the official season review. The mischievous producers show a side-by-side view of a Benetton and a Williams stop whilst they are talking. The Williams is stationary for about twice as long...

#222 Gravelngrass

Gravelngrass
  • Member

  • 1,356 posts
  • Joined: April 21

Posted 11 October 2022 - 16:01

Prost's season pretty much revolved around that mid-season hat-track. Other than that Senna largely dominated and Prost was really just hanging on by the time they got to Suzuka.


Senna did not dominate. He won 6 races to Prost’s 5, and both retired from 4 races. Senna’s retirements were: 2 for car problems and 2 for driver error (if by error one can count driving on purpose into another driver). Prost also retired from 4 races, 3 because of car problems and one in Suzuka because of the crash. So, if anything, it could be said that Prost had one of the best seasons of a driver without a dominating car and that it was an off year for Senna and/or Mclaren.
In any case, thought this instance should apply to this thread even though the Ferrari didn’t win in the end. One still wonders what would have happened in the championship if the Suzuka incident hadn’t happened or had been properly penalized. ..

#223 Gravelngrass

Gravelngrass
  • Member

  • 1,356 posts
  • Joined: April 21

Posted 11 October 2022 - 16:24

I don't know enough about 89/90 to be certain like some others, but I always found it a bit off that neither decider was actually the final race. It's why Senna doing what he did stinks even more to me. He could have overtaken Prost and won the race anyway, but even if he didn't he still had another race to be a dirty bastard should he so desire. Same in 89, Senna was DQ'd but there was still another race to go for Prost to win the title.


That documentary refreshed my memory. But I’m still not clear if in 1989 Ballestre effectively manipulated the championship or if there was a rule that stupid that you effectively had to rejoin the track at the same place you left it, making Senna’s return to the track illegal. Let’s suppose it was Ballestre that determined the result of 1989. Senna did not even remotely have the right to do what he did in retaliation in 1990. Aside from that, if he thought pole was on the wrong side of the track and knowing Ballestre, he could have let Prost get pole and pass him the way he was passed. Or wait till later and pass Prost during the race as some have said. In any case, that incident should have been penalized and that would have probably given Prost a much better chance at the championship. The end result would have been that both would have the same number of championships but exchanged the 1989 1990 ones. I still think that the accident of 1989 was nowhere close to the level of absurdity of the 1990 one and also still think that the culprit of 1989 is not clear cut. Big implications if you consider the legacy of both drivers…

Edited by Gravelngrass, 11 October 2022 - 16:32.


#224 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,524 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 12 October 2022 - 00:27

1982 Rosberg
1986 Prost
1991 is interesting. Although much is made of the reliability issues Williams faced, other than the first race, they finished every Grand Prix ( Nige stalled at the hairpin).Over the course of the season, the Williams was easily the better/faster car. In fact I would say Ferrari were in better shape than McLaren in Canada, France, Britain and Germany as well.

#225 Rediscoveryx

Rediscoveryx
  • Member

  • 3,403 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 12 October 2022 - 10:04

1982 Rosberg
1986 Prost
1991 is interesting. Although much is made of the reliability issues Williams faced, other than the first race, they finished every Grand Prix ( Nige stalled at the hairpin).Over the course of the season, the Williams was easily the better/faster car. In fact I would say Ferrari were in better shape than McLaren in Canada, France, Britain and Germany as well.

 

In 1991, yes - on balance the Williams was possibly the better car. Certainly in the middle part of the season. But the start was tricky: Mansell didn't finish a race until round four and didn't qualify on the front row before Montreal (round five). Every race he finished he finished either first or second, but he was 34 points adrift of Senna already by round 4 (the equivalent of being 93 points behind using today's system), so the head start for Senna/McLaren was massive. 

 

Also; Patrese (in what may have been his single most impressive season) only outscored Berger by 10 points, and McLaren won the constructors title quite comfortably so it's certainly a debatable topic.


Edited by Rediscoveryx, 12 October 2022 - 10:06.


#226 SpeedRacer`

SpeedRacer`
  • Member

  • 1,421 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 12 October 2022 - 10:05

Schumacher in the Williams in '95 is an interesting one.

 

I think if Schumacher was Hill's team mate in the '95, he would probably only have a small advantage. But if they were both in the Benetton he would be like 0.5 secs quicker because that car was hard to drive to the limit. But then you could say, if Schumi was out of the car completely with Hill in it, maybe it would've been developed to be more drivable.

I personally feel that Williams drivers seem to get all of the blame for '95, unfairly IMO. Everyone seems to remember the driver errors but not the teams. A classic example, in Germany '95, Hill spins out and everyone blames him for another driver error. In the days that follows it was revealed to be a mechanical failure. But I didn't find this out until Hill's autobiography over 20 years later!

 

There were a ridiculous number of mechanical and strategic issues. They were still using graph paper for strategy! Some issues went hidden, like in Silverstone '95 Coulthard had an electrical failure that caused him to speed in the pits in Silverstone costing him the win, Hill should've won in Brazil, Coulthard also had a mechanical issue during the French GP.


Edited by SpeedRacer`, 12 October 2022 - 10:06.


#227 skinnyman

skinnyman
  • Member

  • 672 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 12 October 2022 - 10:16

Michael driving for Benetton in 1996 and 1997 would have been interesting.



#228 PlatenGlass

PlatenGlass
  • Member

  • 4,648 posts
  • Joined: June 14

Posted 12 October 2022 - 11:17

Senna did not dominate. He won 6 races to Prost’s 5, and both retired from 4 races. Senna’s retirements were: 2 for car problems and 2 for driver error (if by error one can count driving on purpose into another driver). Prost also retired from 4 races, 3 because of car problems and one in Suzuka because of the crash. So, if anything, it could be said that Prost had one of the best seasons of a driver without a dominating car and that it was an off year for Senna and/or Mclaren.
In any case, thought this instance should apply to this thread even though the Ferrari didn’t win in the end. One still wonders what would have happened in the championship if the Suzuka incident hadn’t happened or had been properly penalized. ..

 

Well, what I mean is that when both were running, Senna was largely dominant even if they were close on points. Prost was there by "stealth" rather than by being genuinely competitive with Senna at most of the races. For the first five races, Senna was basically quicker everywhere, but his impatience with a backmarker at Interlagos cost him the win to Prost. He also lost out on the win at San Marino due to a mechanical failure. Prost then got his mid-season hat-trick which kept him in the hunt. But then Senna finished ahead of Prost at the next five races before Prost's win at Spain. We all know what happened at Suzuka, and then Senna was dominating Australia before going off as a result of a gearbox problem. If Prost had been as competitive as his team-mate at Australia, he could have won (Mansell nearly did), and then Suzuka could have been looked back on as more likely to have been championship deciding. As it is, Senna's move was to clinch the title at Japan rather than to win it at all. Not that that justifies it, but as I say, Prost was an outsider hanging on mathematically.



#229 EvilPhil II

EvilPhil II
  • Member

  • 1,843 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 12 October 2022 - 11:18

Controversial: McLaren 1999

#230 Gravelngrass

Gravelngrass
  • Member

  • 1,356 posts
  • Joined: April 21

Posted 12 October 2022 - 12:14

Well, what I mean is that when both were running, Senna was largely dominant even if they were close on points. Prost was there by "stealth" rather than by being genuinely competitive with Senna at most of the races. For the first five races, Senna was basically quicker everywhere, but his impatience with a backmarker at Interlagos cost him the win to Prost. He also lost out on the win at San Marino due to a mechanical failure. Prost then got his mid-season hat-trick which kept him in the hunt. But then Senna finished ahead of Prost at the next five races before Prost's win at Spain. We all know what happened at Suzuka, and then Senna was dominating Australia before going off as a result of a gearbox problem. If Prost had been as competitive as his team-mate at Australia, he could have won (Mansell nearly did), and then Suzuka could have been looked back on as more likely to have been championship deciding. As it is, Senna's move was to clinch the title at Japan rather than to win it at all. Not that that justifies it, but as I say, Prost was an outsider hanging on mathematically.


Which also brings up the question of what happened to that reliability the Mclarens showed in 1989. But it still would have been a great achievement to win the title in the Ferrari…

#231 Claudius

Claudius
  • Member

  • 5,210 posts
  • Joined: December 02

Posted 12 October 2022 - 12:37

Schumacher in the Williams in '95 is an interesting one.

 

I think if Schumacher was Hill's team mate in the '95, he would probably only have a small advantage. But if they were both in the Benetton he would be like 0.5 secs quicker because that car was hard to drive to the limit. But then you could say, if Schumi was out of the car completely with Hill in it, maybe it would've been developed to be more drivable.

I personally feel that Williams drivers seem to get all of the blame for '95, unfairly IMO. Everyone seems to remember the driver errors but not the teams. A classic example, in Germany '95, Hill spins out and everyone blames him for another driver error. In the days that follows it was revealed to be a mechanical failure. But I didn't find this out until Hill's autobiography over 20 years later!

 

There were a ridiculous number of mechanical and strategic issues. They were still using graph paper for strategy! Some issues went hidden, like in Silverstone '95 Coulthard had an electrical failure that caused him to speed in the pits in Silverstone costing him the win, Hill should've won in Brazil, Coulthard also had a mechanical issue during the French GP.

 

Hill made 3 race ending mistakes that season. In 2 of them he took Schumacher out which mitigated his losses. 

Hill didn't have a good title campaign and was rightly blamed for his mistakes. Not to say Williams were blameless but they provided a great car to him and Coulthard. 



#232 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,524 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 12 October 2022 - 13:25

In 1991, yes - on balance the Williams was possibly the better car. Certainly in the middle part of the season. But the start was tricky: Mansell didn't finish a race until round four and didn't qualify on the front row before Montreal (round five). Every race he finished he finished either first or second, but he was 34 points adrift of Senna already by round 4 (the equivalent of being 93 points behind using today's system), so the head start for Senna/McLaren was massive.

Also; Patrese (in what may have been his single most impressive season) only outscored Berger by 10 points, and McLaren won the constructors title quite comfortably so it's certainly a debatable topic.


Senna was on another planet for the US GP.

For Brazil, you get the impression Williams were quicker in the race, though Mansell spun and Patrese really should have beaten Senna who was stuck in gear.

Mansell was taken out by Brundle at Imola so we don't know what would happened to him though he did have gearbox issues. Patrese was driving at a pace that Senna couldn't match, but more reliability issues so the McLaren was the car to have.

Monaco was another Senna job, but let's give it to McLaren.

Williams were dominant in Mexico, Canada, France, Britain and Germany.

McLaren had a light weight car for Senna in Hungary though Mansell was hounding him until his tyres dropped off. Hard to know how hard Senna was pushing.

Belgium, Italy, Portugal and Spain clearly belonged to Williams.Granted, Mansell retired from Spa with mechanical issues.

Japan is tricky as Senna was intentionally holding up Mansell to allow Berger to get away but I think McLaren seemed to have the edge at Suzuka judging by the pace of Patrese.

Adelaide was the farce that it was.

With the Honda qualifying engines, it at times allowed McLaren to have track position but in terms of a competitive race car, I would opt for the Williams by some margin. I would have taken the Ferrari over the McLaren for Canada, France, Britain and Germany too.

#233 AnttiK

AnttiK
  • Member

  • 140 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 12 October 2022 - 17:18

Which also brings up the question of what happened to that reliability the Mclarens showed in 1989.

McLaren reliability was actually worse in 1989. Senna had 5 mechanical failures in 1989 (the Silverstone spin was caused by a gearbox problem. Whether Senna could have avoided spinning out or not is debatable though). On top of this Prost lost the win in Hockenheim due to a gearbox problem. As James Hunt loved to repeat in his commentary in almost every race, the gearbox was McLaren's Achilles heel in that 1989-1991 era.