54 replies to this topic

[selena]

I stick to the above opinion. I say the McLaren is the better car because of its durability/reliabilty. I am not a technical person but for those of you who say that Ferrari is the better car, please enlighten me.

[Williams]

If you are right, then by judging the way MS walked all over McLaren this weekend, McLaren has a couple of really crummy drivers.

[The RedBaron]

Don't be silly Selena!
Schuey was going to get a DNF sooner or later, its the law of averages. Maybe you should concentrate on the pace of the car and its getter better and better all the time. They will correct the reliability problem soon or later, its the reversal of last season - last year Maclarens had fastest car and Ferrari a more reliable one, this year is the opposite. Rubens just makes the Ferrari look slow thats all!

[Daemon]

I would rate the cars as equal...and for once agree with Alan Jones in that the Ferrari has the best Mechanical Grip, whereas the Mclaren has the edge on the Aerodynamic front...

[The RedBaron]

Straightline speed i would say Ferrari, it has been obvious since Silverstone and they have taken 3 of the last 4 poles and I can see more coming their way from here on in.

[silver fan]

McLaren the better car based on reliability... are we watching the same races?

[selena]

Eh, RedBaron, I am not silly. Look at the durability/reliability of the McLaren cars. Ferrari is still the lesser car. It is only Michael that makes the car look good. Rubens is good. As I mentioned in another thread, he drives slowly and steadily to obtain points. That is fine.

[The RedBaron]

Your so wrong Selena, its not Michael's doing wholly, the Ferrari is faster, the Mac's are marginally more reliable than Ferraris. Mika, Schuey and Rubens have had problems, DC
has had only 1. Answer me this then, why isn't Mika so dominant in terms of Pole positions anymore?. Remember 1999 when Mika had 11 poles from 16 races, the last pole Mika had was at Imola 4 races ago. Most people including myself
would argue that Mika is the fastest in terms of qualifying,
Coincidence since the change of rules at Silverstone and introduction of aerodynamic parts and revised engine from Ferrari!!!
If Ferrari are slower, then how come Schuey made a monkey out of the Macs today....he was 30 secs up!!

Rubens is slow full stop, he couldn't even catch Alesi in a Prost!!. Do you know how crap a Prost is? Alesi showed what a fast driver can do with a mediocre car, meanwhile the fastest car on the grid is being driven by Rubens at snail's pace!![p][Edited by The RedBaron on 06-05-2000]

[selena]

To The RedBaron,

I am not saying that Ferrari is a bad car. It is only slightly less better than McLaren. Anyway, Michael takes the times out of himself and not the car.

[The RedBaron]

Selena, your not really stating anything. Which are we talking about? Fastest car or most reliable car, these are two different criteria. I'm solely talking about "Fastest" car - if you think Maclarens are faster, you should then at least list some points to back this claim up instead of making a statement.
Maybe we are watching something completely different.

What your implying is that Ferrari are slighly slower, but Schuey makes the difference -thus getting back to the old
thinking/argument that Schuey is worth an extra 0.5 sec per lap over everybody. I don't think that would go down to well, plus that is not true either.[p][Edited by The RedBaron on 06-05-2000]

[selena]

To The RedBaron,
McLaren is faster, more durable and more reliable. See the way they are driven and you will know. Michael and Rubens really got their work cut out for them. That's it.

[The RedBaron]

Selena -its no point even arguing with you, most people
woulds say your wrong about the cars including Mika/DC fans.
Beleive what you want -the evidence is starring you in the face, but your not ready to accept it!

Tell me why Mika is not so dominant anymore in qualifying, bear also in mind that Schuey blew the first 3 qualifying sessions -Oz,Brazil & Imola, they could have been poles too! (well at least in Oz & Imola).....now compare that to 1999 season. See the difference?

By the way you didn't present any analysis or counter-arguments, just more statements!

[selena]

To The RedBaron,
As for analysis, look at the way MH and DC drive. They really drive their cars hard and their cars can take it. They always finish in the points now. When Michael or Rubens push hard, their cars give way.

[The RedBaron]

-that's it?

[selena]

To The RedBaron,
Yes, that's it. I am sorry I cannot continue with this debate as my computer is getting slow. We can debate again the next day, if you feel like it. I am ready to do so.

[rayyu882]

Personally! I think McLaren have a slightly better car then the Ferrari! It's just Schumacher is better then both McLaren drivers!

[Silver Arrow]

you think Mclarens are reliable? Then why was Mika bogged with mechanical problems all throughout the race? He had a brake problem in the first half and a gearbox problem near the end, that's why he was letting Salo go. Ad how do you explain Mika's 3 DNFs at the start of the season?

[Mobile_Chicane]

Selena,

Firtsly, your argument is completely flawed. Reliabilty wise McLaren have been by far inferior to Ferrari since 1998. If you look at it Michael has not had a mechanical breakdown like this since Melbourne 1998 which was an engine one. Sure there have been little things but some of them like stalling on the grid have been partly Michael's fault. Over two years of such good reliabity was bound to end one day.

McLaren as you must realise has had more reliability problems this year than Ferrari. Just look at the first 2 races. Imola was not perfect and neither Monaco in Mika's case. And now because of one race where Michael breaks down you stubbornly assert that the McLaren was/is the more reliable and faster car just because the Ferrari broke down. Ok I agree for Monaco but not the season so far.

On to speed. Which car is faster?
On straightline speed the Ferrari seems to have the edge over McLaren marginally. Also they have been able to run less rear wing all along. Does this indicate that they have better mechanical grip than the McLaren? While McLaren still has the aero package? I don't know. The experts seem to think so.

All over it is very even and qualifying wise it is so close now that traffic and conditions play a very big part. Monaco is a good example. It could have gone anyway. This time Hakkinen was spoiled 3 times and therefore the Jordan cars were able to benefit although they are clearly much slower cars. The race was then a forgone conclusion where Michaels victory hinged only on the possibility of mechanical failure or his own mistake.

The cars are very equal and so are the drivers. At least Michael and Mika are so close now. DC is improving like he said and with luck he has a chance like yesterday when he benefitted. Barichello's mood was all to apparent at the press conference you could see he was uncomfortable. All is not right with him. The car is definitely not built for him and he seems kinda distraught and disillusioned with being beaten so soundly every time.

[SpaRCo]

Ok redbaron,ill tell you why mclaren have the faster car.
In the races and qualifying coulthard is a match for schuey most of the time,and we all know that in equal cars he wouldnt stand a chance.Judge it by rubens,hes at least as fast as david,and hes been slower this year,so its pretty obvious mclarens are a bit faster.There isnt a huge difference but in the races i reckon the mac is about .3 a second faster.Reason the car is winning races is just schumachers speed.If any other driver was in his seat,you would all be saying the mclaren is a faster car.

[Resident]

There is a way to support Selena's point:
McLaren still has a faster car than Ferrari but Mika is tired and losing motivation, that's why he is slower than Schumacher. DC is full of... er, motivation and is almost on pace of Schumacher (more in qualifying, less in the race). And Barrichello... by the way who is Barrichello?
I'm not saying I believe in either of the above points but it could explain Selena's statement.

[man from martinlaakso]

I think, that RedBaron is right. Ferrari is indeed a slightly faster car than McLaren. Now it may seem odd, that DC has been so close to MS in many qualifyings and also in many races. But remember, that in most occasions the set-ups for DC have been very good. MS is not very much faster than DC, if both men have good set-ups. RB is not a good measure for the true potential of Ferrari, because his team obviously does not back him nearly as much as it backs Schumey.

Last year Ferrari was perhaps some 0.2 - 0.25 sec feaster than McLaren in Monaco. I think, that the speed difference was now pretty much the same. Ferrari has gone ahead in engine strength, but not much in drivebility section. In McLaren it is almost an opposite situation, the engine is only a fraction stronger than in 1999, but the drivebility of the car is much better. That is perhaps the biggest reason, why the balance of power was about the same as in 1999. MS dominated heavily in the race, but it was partly because the Jordan cars blocked the Macs. On an open track Macs would have been pretty close to MS's Ferrari. Now McLaren took more points than Ferrari, but it was because Michael was so unlucky.

In Montreal and Magny-Cours Ferrari will very probably be a faster car - again. But not by much, perhaps by 0.2 - 0.3 sec. This speed difference is so small, that it will not decide the outcome of the race. The qualifying, the start, the race tactics and the pit stops are more important. So the battle is very much open.

Some of you wrote, that McLaren is now a more reliable car than Ferrari. However, the engine of DC's car failed at the warm-up, MH had problems with his break pedal and gearbox during the race, so I don't think, that the Macs are now very reliable.

[130R]

In a dynamic situation, which car is better depends on many variables. They are close in general terms, but one day it may be Ferrari, the next it may be McLaren. Depends who's driving, and with MS, every car appears very good. Try comparing DC and Rubens, see what happens.

[Eau Red]

Selena,

Do not listen to the rest of these people. They are fools. I have been as impressed as you by the bulletproof reliability of the McLarens this season. Mika's wins in the first three races were amazing, and even if Schumacher had not broken down he never would have caught the Flying Finn. Mika's on-track passes of Schumacher at Brazil and Nurburgring had me jumping out of my seat. And we saw the real story at Monaco, with Schumacher stuck in the middle of the pack at every timed session. And Mika certainly shut up the Ferrari fans with his last minute drive to pole! Amazing when you consider that he was still in 17th position with only 10 minutes left in the session. Watching David streak off into the distance for the first 55 laps was a beautiful sight. And Mika was his usual dominant self, passing other cars at will. Who says there's no passing at Monaco?!?! I'm glad to finally see someone on here who knows what she's talking about. Most of these people are lobotomized Ferrari fans or else sarcastic idiots with stupid names that involve some sort of play on words based on the name of a corner at Spa. It is very nice to meet you. Keep the great posts flyin' at us, similar to how those McLarens keep flyin' to victory in race after race!

[Ricardo F1]

McLaren have improved greatly since the start of the season, but to say their reliability gets close to Ferrari's is madness. As for the cars pace, I'd say the Macs still have the edge slightly, DC was the fastest driver consistantly on the track yesterday by a mile, once Truilli was out of his way.

[selena]

I think you should read comments from drivers/team managers on which car is better. McLaren has a slight edge over Ferrari overall. That is all, very slight. They had reliability problems with Mika's car in the first three races. Now they have finally gotten it right, 99.999 percent. From the fourth race onwards, they always finish in the points. Not so for the Ferrari cars. It is either MS's or RB's car that gives problems.

[PeaQ]

Damn!
Eau Red, You are my hero!!!

[selena]

I think you people should really ask Ron Dennis, Mika Hakkinen, David Coulthard, Schuey and Rubens on which car is the slightly better one overall! I have never heard Schuey say that Ferrari is the better car than the McLaren, by the way. If Ferrari wins the WDC, it is because of Michael, not the car, that is IF Ferrari wins the WDC.

[Sudsbouy]

I'm going to vote for McLaren having as a slight overall edge. When I make this statement, I'm considering both qualifying and racing.

So many people have said that MS is the best driver currently running in F1. If his car is equal or better than the McLaren, why hasn't he been able to run away at the races? (Please don't use this running of the Monaco GP as an example of MS running away, the Jordans were obviously much slower in race trim and significantly delayed the McLarens.)

I think the answer is that the Ferrari is not quite up to the McLaren in overall performance.

Thank you.

[selena]

I am hearing some sense from Sudsbouy. Currently, McLaren is the slightly better car. Ferrari will be improving of course. However, Michael must always take into account his less-than-perfect car and if he drives accordingly he would have gained points in Monaco and not got zero from there.

[slipstream]

From what I have seen this year the Ferrari seems to have the edge in Top speed and Braking while the McLaren has better Acceleration off the Corners and better corner speed too. Last year I thought the McLaren was still the better Car but this Year I would say that the McLaren and the Ferrari are about Even.

[Eau Red]

Originally posted by selena
However, Michael must always take into account his less-than-perfect car and if he drives accordingly he would have gained points in Monaco and not got zero from there.

How do you figure? What specifically about his exhaust failure leading to suspension failure causes you to believe that had he backed off, he would have finished in the top 6? Please answer this question. I am very interested to hear the inside information you must have based your statement on.

[The RedBaron]

Eau Red- i have tried in vain. You won't get an explanation
just a statement. Her statement implies that Macs are slightly faster and the only reason MS is now qualifying on pole or previously winning races is because of his driving ability along the lines that he is worth 0.x sec per lap faster than anybody else.
Well you can't have it both ways, its either :

-Ferrari are winning races because Schuey is driving the fastest car or
-Ferrari are winning races despite being marginally slower because Schuey is 0.x sec faster than anybody else and makes up the car's difference.

Which is it?

[Richard Border]

IMHO
McLaren's have a slight overall edge. Watching both team's pair of cars makes me think the McLaren's handling is superior to Ferrari's. MS is able to take the Ferrari to the edge, step over the edge, catch it and equal the McLaren's times, RB can't do that and looks slow as a result. DC and MH seem to get the same out of their cars, with DC having a few extra slip ups, and doesn't have MH focus in qualifying.

[Mrv]

Selena maybe you should stick to some other sport. It is clear now that the Ferrari is quicker than the Mclaren. Mika can no longer get poles. If you look at the weekends overall in the last 3 races Ferrari are indeed quicker. The F1-2000 ain't as reliable as the F399 was last year but it still quite good. Mika's car had a problem also but I guess you missed that.

[SpaRCo]

MRV i think you should get into a different sport.
You say the ferrari is faster just because mika cant get poles like he used to..what a pathetic statement.Have you ever thought that maybe,now the cars are closer and mika doesnt have the performance ADVANTAGE to get regular poles.
People like you annoy me,they just see mika getting poles for the last 2 years ,and so they think "gee he must be the fastest".He was the fastest becase he had the fastest car.Now he still has the fastest car but,not with enough advantage,schumacher is making the advantage.
Coulthard is no faster that rubens,in terms of speed ,but this year he has been faster because the mclarens are still a bit faster,not by much though.

Get into Nascars or something.

Oh and MAN FROM MOLIVE or whatever......are you a comedian?
saying shuey is not really faster than coulthard,obvious you havent been watching f1 for more than a race or 2,sad if you have watched it for longer.Schuey has been beating coulthard for the last 7 years,and in that whole time hes had slower cars,david isnt even close.[p][Edited by Pascal on 06-08-2000]

[selena]

Richard Border's and SpaRCo's explanations are good enough!

To Eau Red,
Did you not read Ron Dennis saying that MS pushed the car too hard? Read the news articles in AtlasF1. When MS and RB pushes too hard, something gives. MH and DC are able to drive to the limit now. Although MH had some problems in Monaco, both Macs still finished in the points. Perhaps that is why RB drives slowly: for reasons of mechanical sympathy. I stress that I am not saying Ferrari is lousy. I am only saying that McLaren has the slight edge overall.

I am tired of explanations. Perhaps you have got some connections. Talk to Dennis and MS. [p][Edited by selena on 06-06-2000]

[Zoe]

Does anybody get more than pure and plain bullsh*t out of Dennis? I wouldn't believe him a single word even if my life depended on it, especially when he is talking about Ferrari!

Zoe

[selena]

Ron Dennis is one of the most intelligent men in F1! His track record proofs it.

[Zoe]

I'm not talking about anybodys intelligence, I am talking about Dennis just secreting gibberish. His "track record" (whatever that should mean) doesn't mean anything.

And there is some reason why there is even a term like "RonSpeak"

Zoe

[selena]

Track record means the number of victories he achieved in McLaren.

Who coined the phrase RonSpeak? Bah!

I am sure that Ron Dennis is professional enough to give a frank, honest and unbiased opinion on McLaren and Ferrari!
(By the way, intelligence has something to do with whether a person talks rubbish or does not talk rubbish. As Dennis is an intelligent man, we should listen to his point of view. Can learn something from there.) Perhaps I should start another thread to discuss this man.[p][Edited by selena on 06-06-2000]

[Zoe]

Originally posted by selena
I am sure that Ron Dennis is professional enough to give a frank, honest and unbiased opinion on McLaren and Ferrari!

Oh yes, definitely! And Murray Walker never confused anything.

Didn't we already have enough threads about RonSpeak?

Zoe

[Mosquito]

I am sure that Ron Dennis is professional enough to give a frank, honest and unbiased opinion on McLaren and Ferrari!

HAHAHAHAHAHA AAAAA
HAHA HAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAAAA
HAHAAAHAAA HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAAAA AHAHAHAHAHA

Selena, you use to much the I am sure phrase on the wrong places, HAHAHAHAHA

Sorry, just can't help myself....;)

[Mosquito]

Shit, Zoe beat me to it...

Darn...

[selena]

Suffice to say, I respect the opinions of Ron Dennis.

[Williams]

Selena is it possible, that, yes, Ron Dennis is an intelligent man, and yes, his opinion can be respected, but that in the case of him talking about the Ferrari exhaust failure, that we cannot take his word for it, because he has a vested interest in trying to unsettle Ferrari ? Sometimes things are said in F1 which are not necessarily true, in order to put pressure or undermine the confidence of an opponent.

I hope I explained that clearly

[Peeko]

Didn't you guys see Denis walk into the Ferrari garage to look and discuss the reason behind the suspension failure?

Selena, this is the same man that complains backmarkers cost his driver(s) the race, then in another race, orders one of them to hold up a leading car.

[Mrv]

Sparco, I wonder who the real idiot is? If you new half the stuff I know about F1 you would keep youre trap shut? Why would an Italian be interested in Nascar? Expecially one that grew up at the grounds of Maranello. If you think the Mclaren is faster then the Ferrari so be it. The last to weekends has proved that Ferrari have the quicker car. Maybe you should look at the test times once and a while.[p][Edited by Pascal on 06-08-2000]

[selena]

Ferrari may or may not be faster. The thing is they do not have one hundred percent reliability. Perhaps this incident will jolt them up a bit. In a way, it is better for MS to suffer some reliability problems now so that they will wake up to the fact that they have to do something real quick to achieve 100 or 99 percent reliability. Otherwise, they will not win the WDC not to mention the WCC. Also, this is the best year for them to do so. Compared to previous years this is the best package they have so far but if they ignore the warning signs as shown by problems suffered by RB and now recently MS, I don't know when they will ever win the WDC.

[P1 Pyrsol]

I suspect you may be trolling Selena, b/c in multiple posts you push ridiculous suppositions. The latest in this one being that Ferrari is not reliable because they are not 100% reliable. I'll just remind you that this is the pinnacle of motorsports, where the cars which show up at Australia are rarely similar to the ones at Suzuka.

Try to come up with some better ones.

[selena]

A reliable car comes home in the points or at least finishes in the race. So Ferrari had better improve to make BOTH cars finish in the top six. Like Jaguar whose TWO cars have been finishing races lately. They have got the reliability and now they must improve on the speed.