44 replies to this topic

[f320v10]

What is the race wins count ?

[cheesy poofs]

[FerrariFanInTexas]

I think it will depend on what you define as a "Newey" car or a "Bryne" car.

At some point they were both part of the design team, as opposed to being the head of design or whatever. so at what point do you say they were "responsible" for the car?

Ciao,

CAC

[KWSN - DSM]

Well Michael Schumacher have 56 wins while at Ferrari. The first season he drove a Barnard design, and since then a Byrne mobile. Of the 19 wins Michael had at Benneton I think he was the designer on all the cars, but not sure, so conservatively Byrne have designed the car for 60 of Michael's wins.

No matter how you place Newey into a team, that will leave him traling Byrne.

I am not sure that number of wins is the on ly way to measure how good a designer is, althoug it is obviously a good part of it. Byrne have not been a good designer for +10 years together with Michael Schumacher, he has been a good designer for +20 years. Eversince the second Toleman I think he has been penning cars that were able to move.

Byrne gets my vote for best F1 designer.

[HBoss]

Does Newey's count start in '91 or '92?
From '91 to '97 Williams won 59 races, and from '98 to today McLaren has won 30 races, which would leave the Newey cars with 89 wins.

And when does Byrne's count begin?

Regardless, it seems nowadays that Newey reach a top level earlier, but wasn't able to maintain it or evolve more, while Byrne has consistently improved. Although I'm absolutely sure the score would be other if we had Schumacher driving Newey's cars and anyone else driving Byrne's cars.



For a better comparision, why done we put together only how many wins the number 2 drivers of Byrne's and Newey's cars have won?

[f320v10]

I found some info by myself:

Adrian Newey | Rory Byrne
===========================+===============================
Cars Entered 529 | Cars Entered 657
Races Contested 265 | Races Contested 333
Wins 89 | Wins 83
2nd Places 83 | 2nd Places 64
3rd Places 52 | 3rd Places 69
4th Places 24 | 4th Places 44
5th Places 27 | 5th Places 35
6th Places 16 | 6th Places 25
Retirements 185 | Retirements 222
Failures to start 1 | Failures to qualify 33
Failures to qualify 7 | Failures to pre-qualify 4
Pole Positions 111 | Pole Positions 61
Fastest Laps 105 | Fastest Laps 77
Grands Prix Led 226 | Grands Prix Led 154
Laps Led 6174 | Laps Led 4659
Race Distance Led 29206 km | Race Distance Led 22231 km

Adrian Newey
------------ Races
Leyton House March Racing Team 64 1988 - 1989
Leyton House Racing 32 1990
Canon Williams Team 64 1991 - 1992
Canon Williams 32 1993
Rothmans Williams Renault 131 1994 - 1997
West McLaren Mercedes 206 1998 - 2004

Rory Byrne
----------- Races
Candy Toleman Motorsport 60 1981 - 1983
Toleman Group Motorsport 71 1982, 1984 - 1985
Benetton Formula Ltd 64 1986 - 1987
Benetton Formula 96 1988 - 1990
Camel Benetton Ford 62 1991 - 1993
Mild Seven Benetton Ford 32 1994
Mild Seven Benetton Renault 66 1995 - 1996
Scuderia Ferrari-Marlboro 100 1998, 2000 - 2001
Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro 106 1999, 2002 - 2004

[SeanValen]

What do you want to know from these stats though?

Newey lost out on alot of wins because of Michael Schumacher not being in his cars, Hill, DC, were ok, but when Senna died, not enough talent in his Williams cars.

Originally posted by HBoss
.



For a better comparision, why done we put together only how many wins the number 2 drivers of Byrne's and Newey's cars have won?

Good idea.

[FerrariFanInTexas]

Originally posted by HBoss

For a better comparision, why done we put together only how many wins the number 2 drivers of Byrne's and Newey's cars have won?

Umm, I see a similar problem with this effort, as well. Who is the Number 2 in the McLaren team? Do we assume it is Coulthard?

If so, the results are:

Newey - Williams/McLaren - A guesstimated 22 wins by # 2 drivers

Coulthard - Williams 1995 - 1 win; 1998 - 1 win; 1999 - 2 wins; 2000 - 3 wins; 2001 - 2 wins; 2002 - 1 win; 2003 - 1 win - for a Coulthard total of 11 wins (all in Newey-mobiles? In particular, what about the 1997 McLaren, was that Newey, or was he still at Williams? If it was Newey, add 2 wins for DC, and subtract the 1 win for HHF below)

Patrese - Williams 1991 - 2 wins; Williams 1992 - 1 win for a Patrese total of 3 wins total (both Newey-mobiles?)

Damon Hill - Williams 1993 - 3 wins (I guess technically he became the number one driver after Senna's death in 1994, yeah?) for a Damon Hill total (as number 2 driver) of 3 wins

Mansell (!) - Williams 1994 - 1 win (Do we call him the number two that year? Not to his face, I bet!)

J. Villenueve - Williams 1996 - 4 wins (I assume we give D. Hill # 1 status that year?)

HHF - Williams 1997 - 1 win (was that a Newey-mobile? See above, if it was not)



Byrne - Benetton/Ferrari - A guestimated 13 wins by # 2 drivers

Herbert - Benetton 1995 - 2 wins

Irvine - Ferrari 1999 - 4 wins

Rubens - Ferrari 2000 - 1 win; 2002 - 4 wins; 2003 - 2 wins - for a Rubens total of 7 wins


Total Wins, assuming we credit Newey with starting in 1991 at Williams and moving to McLaren in 1998 and Byrne as starting in 1991 at Benetton and moving to Ferrari in 1997, we get the following:

Newey - 59 + 30 = 89

Williams - 59

1991 - 7 wins
1992 - 10 wins
1993 - 10 wins
1994 - 7 wins
1995 - 5 wins
1996 - 12 wins
1997 - 8 wins

McLaren - 30

1998 - 9 wins
1999 - 7 wins
2000 - 7 wins
2001 - 4 wins
2002 - 1 win
2003 - 2 wins
2004 - 0 wins


Bryne - 23 + 64 = 87

Benetton - 23

1991 - 1 win
1992 - 1 win
1993 - 1 win
1994 - 9 wins
1995 - 11 wins
1996 - 0 wins

Ferrari - 64

1997 - 5 wins
1998 - 6 wins
1999 - 6 wins
2000 - 10 wins
2001 - 9 wins
2002 - 15 wins
2003 - 8 wins
2004 - 5 wins

All stats courtesy of F1-facts.com

Confusion as to the date each designer was with what Team exists solely in the mind of the poster, and should not be taken as a reflection of the data available on the F1-facts.com site.

[FuscaBala]

My perception is Byrne is better on the mechanical aspects of F1 cars (equilibrium, suspension, acceleration/braking), while Newey is better on the aerodinamic concept.

Byrne cars were always efficient and equilibrated - except for Beneton 1995 - while Newey's were not good on bumpy pavement being fast but nervous and difficult to drive as Mika can attest by crashing alone in Imola and Monza.

In average Byrne make better cars and has learnt a lot about aero in recent years but, IMO, Newey has the highlight in Williams 1995 and 1996, a great car in mechanic and aero without many electronic aids.

I also believe that both guys are humble and have a open mind to always learn with the opposition. That's why F1 doesn't have a rivalry about these excellent engineers.

[wawawa]

In "A Mechanic's Tale", Steve Matchett gives a lot of credit to Ross Brawn for toning down some of Byrne's over-aeodynamically focussed approach by realizing that some aero benefits came with too great a penalty in other terms. I seem to remember Head being credited with similarly toning down Newey's aero-related focus in order to get a better overall package at Williams. Since Newey moved to McLaren, perhaps there hasn't been enough of a counter-balance to Newey's aero-focus. So, the cars have tended to be great aerodynamically, but weak in terms of reliability.

[Arrow]

Bryne has needed arguably the greatest driver of all time to make his cars tick.
Without schumacher bryne cars would of won only a handfull of races.

Neweys cars worked with assorted randoms,so well in fact they were able to beat arguably the best driver of all time, many times.

[Ricardo F1]

Originally posted by Arrow
Bryne has needed arguably the greatest driver of all time to make his cars tick. Without schumacher bryne cars would of won only a handfull of races.

Now Michael has definitely taken a tough car to wins that it probably shouldn't have won . . .but to say a handful is laughable in the extreme.

[Group B]

Originally posted by FuscaBala
My perception is Byrne is better on the mechanical aspects of F1 cars (equilibrium, suspension, acceleration/braking), while Newey is better on the aerodinamic concept.

Byrne cars were always efficient and equilibrated - except for Beneton 1995 - while Newey's were not good on bumpy pavement being fast but nervous and difficult to drive as Mika can attest by crashing alone in Imola and Monza.

In average Byrne make better cars and has learnt a lot about aero in recent years but, IMO, Newey has the highlight in Williams 1995 and 1996, a great car in mechanic and aero without many electronic aids.

I also believe that both guys are humble and have a open mind to always learn with the opposition. That's why F1 doesn't have a rivalry about these excellent engineers.

I'm inclined to agree; so perhaps the next question is - did he design cars in this "go-kart" man-handlable fashion in order to suit MS, or is it just good luck (for him) that MS found his way into Byrne cars.

[Arrow]

Originally posted by FuscaBala


Byrne cars were always efficient and equilibrated - except for Beneton 1995 - while Newey's were not good on bumpy pavement being fast but nervous and difficult to drive as Mika can attest by crashing alone in Imola and Monza.

What a crapfest.Mika crashing out of a couple grandprix means newey cars were difficult to drive?
There is a whole era of drivers who would attest that newey cars were limousines.
And what about the 94/96/97 benettons?

[FuscaBala]

Originally posted by Group B


I'm inclined to agree; so perhaps the next question is - did he design cars in this "go-kart" man-handlable fashion in order to suit MS, or is it just good luck (for him) that MS found his way into Byrne cars.

Byrne said at the lauch of F-2003 (or F-2002) that he doen't project cars suited to MS, but the most neutral as possible.
I don't get it bcs RByrne would never draw a car opposite to MS driving style.
Deep inside, maybe at an unconcious level, RB is making a car optimized according to MS drive, F1 tracks and the rivals' strong points in an strategical intent.

[baddog]

Originally posted by Ricardo F1




Now Michael has definitely taken a tough car to wins that it probably shouldn't have won . . .but to say a handful is laughable in the extreme.

it may be that without michaels successes inthe earlier cars, rory would never have been in a position to develop from that base the great car of 2002 for example?

[Ricardo F1]

Originally posted by baddog


it may be that without michaels successes inthe earlier cars, rory would never have been in a position to develop from that base the great car of 2002 for example?

True. Could have been someone else's successes in Rory's earlier cars.

[baddog]

hah arguing for arguings sake ricardo?

ar eyou REALLY suggesting anyone else would have won the 94-5 wdc and won those races in 96 and taken the championship close in 97, thus creating the confidence and stability in ferrari to allow the 'dream team' to really bond into the force it has become?

[Ricardo F1]

Originally posted by baddog
hah arguing for arguings sake ricardo?

ar eyou REALLY suggesting anyone else would have won the 94-5 wdc and won those races in 96 and taken the championship close in 97, thus creating the confidence and stability in ferrari to allow the 'dream team' to really bond into the force it has become?

Anything's possible. Maybe without Schumacher Senna would've turned up at Benetton. Who the hell knows? Whats and ifs. Could another driver have won the WDC in 94 and 95 in the Benetton - absolutely.

[baddog]

senna could have. hard to see another active driver in the last 10 years or so doing so though. but regardless, its pretty fair to suggest that without that consistency of driving success in 96-97 the brawn/byrne/todt experiment at ferrari might well have been stillborn.

Shaun

[Marlowe]

Originally posted by baddog
but regardless, its pretty fair to suggest that without that consistency of driving success in 96-97 the brawn/byrne/todt experiment at ferrari might well have been stillborn.

Shaun

I get the impression that designers can do well irrespective of any driver/team. Consider Newey' success at Williams and McLaren, Gascoyne ( at Jordan and Renault) and Willis (at Williams and BAR). Surely, Byrne/Brawn could produce a winningcar at McLaren with Mika Hakkinen at the wheel.

[Ricardo F1]

Originally posted by baddog
senna could have. hard to see another active driver in the last 10 years or so doing so though. but regardless, its pretty fair to suggest that without that consistency of driving success in 96-97 the brawn/byrne/todt experiment at ferrari might well have been stillborn.

Shaun

Yeah quite probably, though who knows how the progress was viewed from the inside. Clearly the 97 car was a pretty damn good stepping stone.

[BuonoBruttoCattivo]

Rory Byrne is like the Arthur C. Clarke of Formula One.
Shun the world to go scuba-diving, but then come up with visionary thinking.
As we are in an aquatic-theme, I recall Steve Machette once saying that RB used to run back to see his Benetoon after running in wet conditions, just to see how water droplets dissapated on his designed car...it sounds like someone desperately needed a better wind-tunnel.

[Schuperman]

Originally posted by Ricardo F1



Now Michael has definitely taken a tough car to wins that it probably shouldn't have won . . .but to say a handful is laughable in the extreme.

Please check again 1996 results.... Benetton without MS...

Originally posted by Ricardo F1
Anything's possible. Maybe without Schumacher Senna would've turned up at Benetton. Who the hell knows? Whats and ifs. Could another driver have won the WDC in 94 and 95 in the Benetton - absolutely.

As for Senna to drive for Benetton 1994, very very unlikely, Senna had said he would only drive for the fastest car that's why he went to Williams and not Benetton..

[AD]

Originally posted by wawawa
In "A Mechanic's Tale", Steve Matchett gives a lot of credit to Ross Brawn for toning down some of Byrne's over-aeodynamically focussed approach by realizing that some aero benefits came with too great a penalty in other terms. I seem to remember Head being credited with similarly toning down Newey's aero-related focus in order to get a better overall package at Williams. Since Newey moved to McLaren, perhaps there hasn't been enough of a counter-balance to Newey's aero-focus. So, the cars have tended to be great aerodynamically, but weak in terms of reliability.

You took the words right out of my mouth

[FuscaBala]

Senna already drove a Byrne car.
The Toleman 198? can in which he run constantly in P3 in Portugal GP, when Lauda became WDC again.
That was a genuine Byrne. Equilibrated and underpowered good car correctly driven by Senna.

[Ricardo F1]

Originally posted by Schuperman


Please check again 1996 results.... Benetton without MS...

And please show me the 1996 results again with Benetton with MS.

Originally posted by Schuperman


As for Senna to drive for Benetton 1994, very very unlikely, Senna had said he would only drive for the fastest car that's why he went to Williams and not Benetton..

True, and then he found out his mistake.

[schna]

Of course, its Newey!

Byrne got close work with Ross Brawn and of course M. Schumacher.....

Newey dont have... alot difference enginees/drivers and still very good car.....

[schna]

Originally posted by Ricardo F1


And please show me the 1996 results again with Benetton with MS.

so Benetton have 5+ winner with MS in 96, maybe WDC again

[Ricardo F1]

Originally posted by schna


so Benetton have 5+ winner with MS in 96, maybe WDC again

Or maybe it performs against the vastly improved Williams as Berger and Alesi did. Now clearly Schumacher would fare better than those two, but the Williams would have been WDC regardless.

[Arrow]

Originally posted by Ricardo F1


Or maybe it performs against the vastly improved Williams as Berger and Alesi did. Now clearly Schumacher would fare better than those two, but the Williams would have been WDC regardless.

lol
Was the williams vastly improved or was it simply the fact michael schumacher was no longer in a competitive car,thus giving the illusion it had improved?

The answer is so basic.

[Ricardo F1]

Originally posted by Arrow


lol
Was the williams vastly improved or was it simply the fact michael schumacher was no longer in a competitive car,thus giving the illusion it had improved?

The answer is so basic.

Indeed the 1996 and 97 Wililams were peaches.

[Arrow]

Originally posted by Ricardo F1


Indeed the 1996 and 97 Wililams were peaches.

So was the 95 williams.It allowed a rookie DC to outqualify michael more often than not.
I think even you should be able to comprehend the scale of that.

[Heathcliff]

Originally posted by Arrow



So was the 95 williams.It allowed a rookie DC to outqualify michael more often than not.
I think even you should be able to comprehend the scale of that.

So you agree that Montoya, while good in qual, totally sucks in the race?

[Arrow]

Originally posted by Heathcliff


So you agree that Montoya, while good in qual, totally sucks in the race?

I agree that the michelins of 2002 sucked in races compared to bridgestones.

[Heathcliff]

Originally posted by Arrow


I agree that the michelins of 2002 sucked in races compared to bridgestones.

Do you think the same may apply to 1995, only that in that case it was the Williams car that wasnt as good in race trim as in qual trim?

[Arrow]

Originally posted by Heathcliff


Do you think the same may apply to 1995, only that in that case it was the Williams car that wasnt as good in race trim as in qual trim?

I know its very conveinant to say that but how about putting up some supporting evidence?

[Heathcliff]

Originally posted by Arrow


I know its very conveinant to say that but how about putting up some supporting evidence?

small fuel tank which forced williams to adopt a failure strategy a few times.

[Arrow]

Originally posted by Heathcliff


small fuel tank which forced williams to adopt a failure strategy a few times.

Evidence?

[Heathcliff]

Originally posted by Arrow


Evidence?

I will need some time to find a link, but Its a fact.

[Heathcliff]

Originally posted by Arrow


Evidence?

I will need some time to find a link, but Its a fact.

[Wouter]

Originally posted by Ricardo F1


Anything's possible. Maybe without Schumacher Senna would've turned up at Benetton. Who the hell knows? Whats and ifs. Could another driver have won the WDC in 94 and 95 in the Benetton - absolutely.

The 1994 Benetton was, by all accounts, a very difficult car to drive (certainly for rookies). But that doens't mean it isn't very fast intrinsically. Look at the 1999 McLaren - this was an extremely fast car, but it was also difficult to control, to get the most out of it. I think the 1994 Benetton is not incomparable - it may require a very able driver (able to adapt his style, probably), but it is extremely fast. The reason I believe this is that MS was so much faster than the opposition during most of 1994 (except at the last few races and at the real power tracks). He was even faster than Senna in the Williams, and lapped everyone including 2nd placed Hill in the first race - an extraordinary performance even by MS standards. MS couldn't do this after Benetton's switch to the so superior Renault engine - and he couldn't do it in 1993 either. MS won a lot in 1995, but this time his victories were often very hard fought, and at times handed to him by errors Williams (which was much more competitive in 1995). So, by comparing MS's own performance, it is clear that the 1994 Benetton was easily better, relative to competition, than both its predecessors and successors. Senna probably could have been champ with it easily, if he drove it instead of MS. And perhaps (allthough we can't really know) Hakkinen, who was apparently good at controlling nervous cars, or Villeneuve with his unconventional "stiff" setups (he could get out of the 1997 Williams what HHF couldn't), could have won many races with it, too.

[Big Block 8]

Originally posted by Wouter

So, by comparing MS's own performance, it is clear that the 1994 Benetton was easily better, relative to competition, than both its predecessors and successors. Senna probably could have been champ with it easily, if he drove it instead of MS. And perhaps (allthough we can't really know) Hakkinen, who was apparently good at controlling nervous cars, or Villeneuve with his unconventional "stiff" setups (he could get out of the 1997 Williams what HHF couldn't), could have won many races with it, too.

Good analogy about the 94 benetton.

I also remember that in 1994 shortly before Senna's death Hakkinen had commented that "if only I had Schumacher's Benetton, I'd be on pole every time". It sounds a bit harsh coming out of Hakkinen's mouth, even though he was young then. Perhaps I'm confusing M. Hakkinen with M. Salo?

[Schuperman]

Originally posted by Wouter

The 1994 Benetton was, by all accounts, a very difficult car to drive (certainly for rookies). But that doens't mean it isn't very fast intrinsically. Look at the 1999 McLaren - this was an extremely fast car, but it was also difficult to control, to get the most out of it. I think the 1994 Benetton is not incomparable - it may require a very able driver (able to adapt his style, probably), but it is extremely fast. The reason I believe this is that MS was so much faster than the opposition during most of 1994 (except at the last few races and at the real power tracks). He was even faster than Senna in the Williams, and lapped everyone including 2nd placed Hill in the first race - an extraordinary performance even by MS standards. MS couldn't do this after Benetton's switch to the so superior Renault engine - and he couldn't do it in 1993 either. MS won a lot in 1995, but this time his victories were often very hard fought, and at times handed to him by errors Williams (which was much more competitive in 1995). So, by comparing MS's own performance, it is clear that the 1994 Benetton was easily better, relative to competition, than both its predecessors and successors. Senna probably could have been champ with it easily, if he drove it instead of MS. And perhaps (allthough we can't really know) Hakkinen, who was apparently good at controlling nervous cars, or Villeneuve with his unconventional "stiff" setups (he could get out of the 1997 Williams what HHF couldn't), could have won many races with it, too.

Yes. the 1994 Benetton was fast enough in the hands MS... No evidence is available how it would behave in the hands of Senna, Hakkinen or Villeneuve. But generally speaking I wont suggest the 1994 Benetton was the faster cars than Williams by seeing how Jos and Lehto performed against DH. Eg. Jos 10th placed in qual in the first two races did not justify Benetton was the faster car.

Yes, MS' 1994 Benetton lapped 2nd placed DH in the first race. Lapping your 2nd placed opponents doesnt happen every race. It is said Ferrari 2002 and 2004 were/ are dominant team. But i cant remember MS lapped 2nd placed drivers. I remember Spa 1998 when MS about to lap DC and Japan 2000 when MS lapped DC in McLaren. Based on that can I say Ferrari 1998 and 2000 were more dominant (relative to its rivals) than Ferrari 2002 and 2004? I dont think so.

Yes. MS could not lap his opponents in 1993. IMO the secret was "driver aids". 1993 Williams and McLaren superiority were largely backed up by driver aids and too much superior to Benetton. Thus MS in his earlier stages of driving was not able to make the difference as he did in 1994, when the driver aids were banned.

[Wouter]

Originally posted by Schuperman


Yes. the 1994 Benetton was fast enough in the hands MS... No evidence is available how it would behave in the hands of Senna, Hakkinen or Villeneuve. But generally speaking I wont suggest the 1994 Benetton was the faster cars than Williams by seeing how Jos and Lehto performed against DH. Eg. Jos 10th placed in qual in the first two races did not justify Benetton was the faster car.

Yes, MS' 1994 Benetton lapped 2nd placed DH in the first race. Lapping your 2nd placed opponents doesnt happen every race. It is said Ferrari 2002 and 2004 were/ are dominant team. But i cant remember MS lapped 2nd placed drivers. I remember Spa 1998 when MS about to lap DC and Japan 2000 when MS lapped DC in McLaren. Based on that can I say Ferrari 1998 and 2000 were more dominant (relative to its rivals) than Ferrari 2002 and 2004? I dont think so.

Yes. MS could not lap his opponents in 1993. IMO the secret was "driver aids". 1993 Williams and McLaren superiority were largely backed up by driver aids and too much superior to Benetton. Thus MS in his earlier stages of driving was not able to make the difference as he did in 1994, when the driver aids were banned.

The 1994 Benetton was a very difficult car, but also an incredibly fast one. Lehto was not in a condition to race anymore after his terrible crash in winter testing, and Verstappen was apparently not ready at all to start F1 in such a nervous car - never coming to grips with it. So, the B194 isn't faultless by any means. But that doesn't mean it wasn't extremely fast - MS could wrung things out of it that he couldn't get from the B195, or for that matter, the F2003. I don't understand why Verstappen was so slow in the B194 (given that he was quite fast at Simtek in early 1995), but it can happen at times that drivers don't get to grips with a car - as, for example, even MS had some difficulties with the F2003 in combination with wide tyres compared to Barrichello - so strange then that the same MS blows the same RB off the track in the F2004! Other examples: DC was quite uncompetitive at Monza 1999 in the so very fast MP4/14 - while he was so fast at other tracks with it. Moreover, there's Salo's strange (un)performance in Hungary 1999 with the Ferrari - while he was faster than Irvine at some other tracks. This illustrates that bad performances with a fast but difficult car can happen - and may happen frequently to rookies like Verstappen in 1994.

As for the lapping, you have to keep in mind that Brazil 1994 was a regular dry-weather race without accidents/tech problems for Damon Hill - he was lapped regularly, it wasn't a fluke. MS continued to just drive away from everybody in the next 5,6 or even 7 races (with exception of his memorable race stuck-in-5th, where he was still beaten only narrowly!). This illustrates how good MS is, yes, but it also shows the quality of B194 - the very same MS, against the same opponents, could not repeat such ease in 1995 (allthough he had a better engine then). MS domination was effectively comparable to 2002 and 2004, for at least half of 1994. If not for the multiple race bans (in 4 races!), MS would have clinched the title early on.

The 1998 doubling of DC in Spa by MS was a fluke as far as car performance goes - it was a rain race and DC's car was damaged. Suzuka 2000 was also a race distorted by rain, and I doubt DC was performing well then - probably a bit demotivated at that point in the season, on a circuit that used to be far from his best. MS sure didn't lap Hakkinen though, defeating MH due to his weak point - variable weather (and yes, he didn't lap Senna in 1994 either, but this is Senna we're talking about, and it was in the dry)!

Another point of the B194 is, which car would have been better than it? A bit like this year, most teams were struggling with their design in 1994. Ferrari was still recovering from a bad period and had a decent but not exceptional car, McLaren was trying to come to grips with the Peugeot engine, and while Williams had an excellent engine, the chassis was a big disappointment, even Senna having troubles with its handling. The Williams did improve a lot through the year (with eg. a B-version being brought in), and was probably the best car at the end of the year, but it had come a long way by then.

By virtue of MS' own performance, I reckon the B194 was clearly better than B195 and the Ferrari's of 1996-2000, relative to their respective opposition.