116 replies to this topic

[Gareth]

If you were an F1 driver and you had the choice at the start of the '07 season to drive any car on the grid knowing what we know now - which car would you have chosen?

[Rinehart]

Unless I am very much mistaken (where have I heard that before) its 8 wins McLaren v 7 wins Ferrari and the Ferrari should have won in Malaysia, Nurburgring and should win at least 1 of the last 2 so I'll go with the Ferrari on that rather unscientific basis.

[kar]

Problem isn't the Ferrari's pace, it is 2007's fastest car. Just as it was in 2006.

Being fastest is pretty useless though if you fail to finish 2 grandsprix due to reliability issues.

So on that grounds and it is really those grounds McLaren will win the WDC and had they not been banned the WCC, you have to say the McLaren was the 'best' car, if not the fastest.

[Jodum5]

Has McLaren had a mechanical failure this year? To my knowledge they havent so I went them.

[jcbc3]

Isn't the thread title wrong then????

Shouldn't it have been "What car was perceived as the best of 2007"

At the start I think most would have gone for the Ferrari. Today I think it's safe to say that the McLaren turned out to be better as a total package.

[rhm]

Originally posted by Rinehart
Unless I am very much mistaken (where have I heard that before) its 8 wins McLaren v 7 wins Ferrari and the Ferrari should have won in Malaysia, Nurburgring and should win at least 1 of the last 2 so I'll go with the Ferrari on that rather unscientific basis.

Shoulda, coulda, woulda. You can drive the Ferrari if you want the uncertainty that it might just break down during the race. I'll take the McLaren thanks.

[King Stromba]

Has anyone ever calculated the pounds spent for points gained ratio?

Be interesting to see who was the most efficient team in terms of cash invested.

[Gareth]

Originally posted by jcbc3
Isn't the thread title wrong then????

Shouldn't it have been "What car was perceived as the best of 2007"

At the start I think most would have gone for the Ferrari. Today I think it's safe to say that the McLaren turned out to be better as a total package.

Picky!

Okay, maybe the thread title and the opening post have a bit of a disparity. The title being more objective ("which is the best car"), the OP revealing a bit about my thought process in deciding which I think is the best car. But ultimately, a vote in a poll is going to represent someone's perception of the answer - so I think your amendment to the question isn't strictly necessary.

Originally posted by kar
Problem isn't the Ferrari's pace, it is 2007's fastest car. Just as it was in 2006.

Being fastest is pretty useless though if you fail to finish 2 grandsprix due to reliability issues.

So on that grounds and it is really those grounds McLaren will win the WDC and had they not been banned the WCC, you have to say the McLaren was the 'best' car, if not the fastest.

Pretty much my thinking too. The Mac was the more reliable. The Ferrari was the fastest, on most occasions, but there were still a number of occasions where the Mac showed the Ferrari a clean pair of heals (any "point and squirt" circuit, as far as I could tell, so: Monaco, Canada, Monza etc). So on that basis, the Mac would have been the car for me.

[Mauseri]

Undoubtedly McLaren. Mostly due reliability, but also the pace is good, even superior in certain conditions.

[eoin]

Mclaren by a mile.

[Allin]

It's close but I voted Ferrari...as the WCC table clearly shows ;)

[Buttoneer]

Originally posted by eoin
Mclaren by a mile.

It is waaaay closer than that.

[RTX]

Originally posted by eoin
Mclaren by a mile.

The reality is that they have been extremely close. Ferrari slightly faster, Mclaren more reliable. Upto this point the Mclaren would be slightly the better car because of reliability. But overall nothing much to choose.

[fnz]

Originally posted by Allin
It's close but I voted Ferrari...as the WCC table clearly shows ;)

[Orin]

McLaren by a hair (a really fine one at that). Qualifying pace has given them the edge.

[Mauseri]

Originally posted by RTX
The reality is that they have been extremely close. Ferrari slightly faster, Mclaren more reliable. Upto this point the Mclaren would be slightly the better car because of reliability. But overall nothing much to choose.

Put Lewis in the Ferrari and he wouldn regularly beat Kimi or Massa. That's the truth which hurts you. McLaren has been better for lot of the season.

[Timstr11]

This is a no brainer. Mclaren.

Bullet proof reliability. Best qualifying speed. Best mechanical grip. Best overall speed.

[Allin]

Originally posted by micra_k10

Put Lewis in the Ferrari and he wouldn regularly beat Kimi or Massa. That's the truth which hurts you.

Oooops, wait a second now! How do you know that?!? Any proofs? Arguments?

[Buttoneer]

Originally posted by RTX


The reality is that they have been extremely close. Ferrari slightly faster, Mclaren more reliable. Upto this point the Mclaren would be slightly the better car because of reliability. But overall nothing much to choose.

Oh no, we agree. May the Good Lord have mercy on our souls.

[RTX]

Originally posted by micra_k10

Put Lewis in the Ferrari and he wouldn regularly beat Kimi or Massa. That's the truth which hurts you. McLaren has been better for lot of the season.

You have no basis to say that at all. On the other hand I have plenty of basis to say Alonso would have crushed Massa, something which Kimi cannot do.
My basis is Massa's career record in F1 and especially how he compared to Fisichella. Not concrete of course but a much stronger basis than your claim which you just pulled out of thin air

[Clatter]

Originally posted by micra_k10

Put Lewis in the Ferrari and he wouldn regularly beat Kimi or Massa. That's the truth which hurts you. McLaren has been better for lot of the season.

Before the season started no one thought he would be beating FA either, so if he can do that in the Mac, there is no reason to suppose he wouldnt be able to do the same in the Ferrari.

The simple truth is that speed wise Mac and Ferrari are too close to call, but Mac win on reliability.

[Tigershark]

Originally posted by Jodum5
Has McLaren had a mechanical failure this year? To my knowledge they havent so I went them.

No, or perhaps you can argue Alonso had a mechanical failure in France in qualifying. Fernando's DNF in Fuji was McLaren's first in 2007.

[sensible]

Mac by a distance:
Far better reliability
Good on all circuit types
Fastest on about half circuits

Ferrari by contrast, while excellent on circuits like Spa is nowhere on certain circuits (eg monaco) and has had crap reliability (5 or 6 failures that cost the chance of a win).

Mac otoh were pretty **** unitl they worked out how to use the bridgestones, so given how they did that, maybe it is ferrari

[gerry nassar]

Mclaren. Fast and incredibly reliable. Not one race mechanical DNF all year

[Oho]

I think this season is quite a bit like 00 with roles of McLaren and Ferrari reversed.

[Hacklerf]

Originally posted by Jodum5
Has McLaren had a mechanical failure this year? To my knowledge they havent so I went them.

Alonso had a gearbox go at the French GP Q3

[kar]

Originally posted by Oho
I think this season is quite a bit like 00 with roles of McLaren and Ferrari reversed.

I was thinking the same.

[Rinehart]

Originally posted by rhm


Shoulda, coulda, woulda. You can drive the Ferrari if you want the uncertainty that it might just break down during the race. I'll take the McLaren thanks.

I'm not talking about coulda woulda of the reliability though am I. The two races I site where Ferrari should have beaten the McLaren was driver related. And for the purposes of this thread I am imagining I could have won those races in the Ferrari!!!

That Ferrari was capable of outscoring the McLaren WITH the reliablity as it stands.

[Rinehart]

Originally posted by Timstr11
This is a no brainer. Mclaren.

Bullet proof reliability. Best qualifying speed. Best mechanical grip. Best overall speed.

The judgement of these three 'Best qualifying speed. Best mechanical grip. Best overall speed' is being clouded though by the drivers.

[noikeee]

In qualy it's been pretty even, in the races Ferrari has had some advantage overall. However, this slings to McLaren's favour, not only because of Ferrari's reliability problems (which often hit them in the weekends in which they had a pace advantage), but also because of several big strategical/organizational mistakes (forgetting to fuel Massa at Hungary qualy, tyre strategy at Fuji), and the fact that having an advantage in race pace is less important this year anyway, as overtaking has been very difficult this season and track position has been all that matters - turning problems, like Kimi's strange sequence of poor starts at the start of the season, into something very costly.

[silverado07]

Ferrari is the best car but McLaren have the better drivers

[miniman]

McLarenrrari is by far the best car.

[silverado07]

BTW, isnt it funny how somehow Kimi always loses the WDC because his car isnt as reliable as his competitor's?



In 2003 Kimi lost the WDC because Macca was more unreliable than Ferrari.


In 2005 Kimi lost the WDC because Macca was more unreliable than Renault.


In 2007 Kimi lost the WDC because Ferrari was more unreliable than Macca.



Hmmm, Im seeing a trend here...


I guess in 2008 and 2009, Kimi will lose the WDC because Ferrari will be more unreliable than _____.

[Mauseri]

Originally posted by silverado07
Ferrari is the best car but McLaren have the better drivers

It's unly your inagination. Alonso has done pretty poor job as a whole this year, compared to last years, and yet he is still 2nd in championship, only behind his rookie teammate. That talks something about the car.

Kimi hasnt done a lot wrong, apart from banging it in Monaco, which cost 5 points.

[Mauseri]

Originally posted by silverado07
In 2003 Kimi lost the WDC because Macca was more unreliable than Ferrari.

Untrue. That McLaren was slow but reliable. Even if he made mistakes that year, he made less them than MS, and ultimately lost it only because the car had no pace to win races all year.

In 2005 Kimi lost the WDC because Macca was more unreliable than Renault.

It's a fact.

In 2007 Kimi lost the WDC because Ferrari was more unreliable than Macca.

True.

Hmmm, Im seeing a trend here...

I guess in 2008 and 2009, Kimi will lose the WDC because Ferrari will be more unreliable than _____.

Well, someone will always have more the reliable car and someone less reliable. If it ends up like this that Kimi had more often less reliable cars than not, then what? There's nothing abnormal in it.

[silverado07]

Originally posted by micra_k10

It's unly your inagination. Alonso has done pretty poor job as a whole this year, compared to last years, and yet he is still 2nd in championship, only behind his rookie teammate. That talks something about the car.

Kimi hasnt done a lot wrong, apart from banging it in Monaco, which cost 5 points.

Eh, in Malaysia and in Nurburgring, Ferrari had the better car for those 2 circuits but it was a McLaren driver that won BOTH races...

Lewis and Alonso have extracted more from their cars than Kimi and Massa.



Wake up.

[SeanValen]

Got to be the Mclaren, of should I say the Mclaren-Ferrari data car

Reliability issues pretty much dented ferrari's drivers titles for 2 years in a row now, the Sepang-Albert Park piston engine problems for example last year for Schumi and Massa, dented 2 gps at the start of the season, very un-ferrari like compared to their title winning years, then of cource reliability issues come to dent MS at the end of the season in Japan-race and Brazil-quali-which effected his race. I think Ferrari's reliability record since MS and his dream team won alot earlier this decade was remarkable stuff, there was a ferrari on the podium for every race from sepang 1999 to Brazil 2003-when both ferraris went out, that's a hell of a streak.

So can't keep that efficiency up forever. Renault in 2005-2006 for Alonso was reliability in ferrari standards way.


The spy scandel this year however it went, means Mclaren is the overall better car, but the process of that performance has been polluted, but yet it still remains the car to have, the points systems favor finishes these days, not fight backs, which is stupid

If the winner was getting more points, I'm sure podium finishers behind the winner would feel more like losers. I miss the big pushing factor, the qualifying engines, the one race engines, every go existed within itself, more risk taking for the ultimate reward, I miss that formula one, time hasn't been kind to the sport and the rules.

[silverado07]

Originally posted by micra_k10

Untrue. That McLaren was slow but reliable. Even if he made mistakes that year, he made less them than MS, and ultimately lost it only because the car had no pace to win races all year.

[B]
It's a fact.

[B]
True.

[B]
Well, someone will always have more the reliable car and someone less reliable. If it ends up like this that Kimi had more often less reliable cars than not, then what? There's nothing abnormal in it.

Well what a coincidence that as soon as Kimi leaves Macca the car becomes reliable. Hmmmm.. Ferrari will probably become reliable when Kimi leaves.

[silverado07]

Originally posted by Rinehart
Unless I am very much mistaken (where have I heard that before) its 8 wins McLaren v 7 wins Ferrari and the Ferrari should have won in Malaysia, Nurburgring and should win at least 1 of the last 2 so I'll go with the Ferrari on that rather unscientific basis.

Exactly.

[silverado07]

Originally posted by Rinehart


I'm not talking about coulda woulda of the reliability though am I. The two races I site where Ferrari should have beaten the McLaren was driver related. And for the purposes of this thread I am imagining I could have won those races in the Ferrari!!!

That Ferrari was capable of outscoring the McLaren WITH the reliablity as it stands.

True.

Originally posted by Rinehart


The judgement of these three 'Best qualifying speed. Best mechanical grip. Best overall speed' is being clouded though by the drivers.

Yup.

Originally posted by paranoik0
overtaking has been very difficult this season and track position has been all that matters - turning problems, like Kimi's strange sequence of poor starts at the start of the season, into something very costly.

Exactly.

[Mauseri]

Originally posted by silverado07
Well what a coincidence that as soon as Kimi leaves Macca the car becomes reliable. Hmmmm.. Ferrari will probably become reliable when Kimi leaves.

McLaren was very reliable last year. This year they are even more reliable, because they are fighting for the championship and dont take unnecessary risks like trying to catch up when behind someone. Also the limiter helps.

[SeanValen]

Originally posted by micra_k10

McLaren was very reliable last year. This year they are even more reliable, because they are fighting for the championship and dont take unnecessary risks like trying to catch up when behind someone. Also the limiter helps.

Mclaren was reliable last year, but not fast and reliable. reliabiltiy when your not fast is failure.

[yr]

Originally posted by Rinehart

That Ferrari was capable of outscoring the McLaren WITH the reliablity as it stands.

Sure, and BMW too, if only their drivers were up to the task Mclaren drivers would be behind Heidfeld at least (if not for his short commings) also Renault drivers should have beat Mac drivers, just that lack of talent.

[Spunout]

Originally posted by micra_k10

Untrue. That McLaren was slow but reliable. Even if he made mistakes that year, he made less them than MS, and ultimately lost it only because the car had no pace to win races all year.

Hmm...but the 2003 McLaren was less reliable than the 2003 Ferrari. Nurb DNF alone cost 10 points. Most likely pitlane speed limiter glitch cost the win in Melb. Significant difference, IMO. Especially with current points system you simply can´t have that. In worst case you must win 5 races to make up one DNF. 2005 was even more radical example: between Spain and Belgium (that´s 12 races, people!!!), Kimi won every GP where he had no mech problems and yet the gap to Alonso didn´t reduce that much. Ok Nurb DNF was partly his own doing, but then again Alonso hit the wall in Canada and tangled with Ralf in Hungary.

2007? There is no question whatsoever McLaren has been the best car.

[Spunout]

Originally posted by silverado07


Eh, in Malaysia and in Nurburgring, Ferrari had the better car for those 2 circuits but it was a McLaren driver that won BOTH races...

Lewis and Alonso have extracted more from their cars than Kimi and Massa.



Wake up.

Nice examples there...

In Malaysia KR had detuned engine. In Nurburgring he was fastest man on track before another mech failure ended his race.

How do you know Ferrari had better car, anyway?

[Spunout]

One more thing...how come the Cretin Squad always points out how KR and FM "underperformed" in races where they failed to beat their teammate? If losing to your teammate counts as underperforming, then at least one driver from both teams underperformed in every single race.

It cannot be that Räikkönen underperformed in Turkey, but Alonso didn´t underperform in USGP. Or that Räikkönen underperformed in Bahrain, but Alonso didn´t underperform...in Bahrain. And the same applies to Massa and Hamilton, who isn´t critisized for losing to Alonso.

Let´s treat all drivers with same criteria, shall we?

[Sarkon]

- McLaren, no question

They are/were untouchable on high and low downforce circuits and equal, respectively only slightly slower on mid downforce tracks in comparison to Ferrari + amazing reliability.

[Atreiu]

I'd go for the McLaren because, even if it hasn't always the fastest car, it has been the most reliable.

[bubchronic]

The Mclaren is practically a Ferrari this season anyway.

[Ural]

McLaren MP4-22 is a car to have! It's a pain to see how fast and reliable it is. Of course Lewis and Fred are great drivers, but it's the McLaren machinery what makes them really shine!