Can someone become WDC without one of the best cars ?

DKGandBH · 27 Jul 2005, 01:00 (Ref:1364268)

Alonso looks like being the WDC this year in what was the best / second best car during the year.

With the amount of races and the current points distribution, I don't think that you can be a WDC in anything but the best equipment.

Previously, if you won a wet race or two in a sub standard car, because you were a champion driver, you had a chance at the WDC, but now you need more than 1 or 2 wins... and that just isn't going to happen.

DKGandBH

Gt_R · 27 Jul 2005, 02:53 (Ref:1364299)

Indeed, in modern era of F1, the best car would essentially win the driver the WDC. The points system doesn't seem to help either, placing larger emphasis on reliability than ever before.

Looking back, Michael won the WDC in cars that were clearly great. Mika won his WDC when Mclaren were at their recent best, and the same could be said for D.Hill and J.V who won when Williams are by far the best cars..the list just runs on.

When there is no clear car advantage, for example 2000 and 2003, the championship can be closer however.

Similarly, it's up to teams to compromise between speed and reliability. Kimi's Mclaren finally found speed after a handful of races this year, yet reliability is seriously lacking... so although the Mclaren may seem a "better car" by the end of the year... too much ground is lost to Renault which have a better car compromise. Familar grounds really, looking back to 98 and 97, when the catching up team just falls short because of the grounds lost early in the season... the same this year?

In any case, take no credit away from Alonso, who has a fantastic year. He may have the best car this year, but he's also doing a bloody good job to make sure he don't lose that advantage.

Hazza · 27 Jul 2005, 03:01 (Ref:1364301)

Quote:

Familar grounds really, looking back to 98 and 97, when the catching up team just falls short because of the grounds lost early in the season... the same this year?

And of course Mansell fans will remember 1991.

Can one then asume (from previous WCs) that Mclaren will cakewalk the next year or two?

Snrub · 27 Jul 2005, 03:51 (Ref:1364313)

For the most part the cars are now super reliable. To a certain degree McLaren haven't really stepped up to the top reliability standard that Ferrari forced all of the teams to adopt. The McLaren has been the fastest car for most of the season, but I think the Renault has been the best car.

Can someone in a worse than 2nd best car win the championship? Yes, but it takes poor luck or reliability of other drivers. HHF in '99 is the prime example, he almost did it. Back in 2003 both Kimi and JPM were in the championship fight right to the end (or near end). The McLaren probably was the 3rd best car. The new points system means that if one driver finishes more consistantly well and the other gets a DNF or two and gets some finishes in the points, but not always a win, the consistant driver CAN win.

Kicking-back · 27 Jul 2005, 05:15 (Ref:1364324)

No-one has ever won the World Championship in a car that wasn't close to the best.

vs346 · 27 Jul 2005, 05:31 (Ref:1364331)

The car can only get you so far. After that it's luck and the lack of mistakes that make all the difference. F1 is really unforgiving, and to an extent has always been so. A driver prone to errors will undoubtedly lose the championship, even in the best car (Eddie Irvine comes to mind).

But yes having the best car definitely gets you a head start. Alonso and Raikkonen are both WDC material, they are cool under pressure and are very fast and smooth. Raikkonen has been plagued of course by reliability issues, not so much mistakes. I'd say about 1/3 of the current F1 drivers could have a good go at the WDC given a Renault today. But then you think of Fisi, who supposedly has the same car but has been outshadowed by Alonso. So maybe that number is a bit high, perhaps 1/4 of the drivers could have a good crack at the WDC.

Xpunk75 · 27 Jul 2005, 06:02 (Ref:1364336)

Yeah I was going to say HHF in the Jordan that one year so close and then at one of the final races of the year he was leading the race and had an engine failure I almost cried. Other then that Senna's performance in 93 in the Ford Mclaren was very impressive and at the time the benetton, Williams, and Ferrari were faster i believe.

I think in todays F1 the closes someone can get to winning the championship with a bad car would DC in the Red Bull and maybe Jarno Truli in the Toyota. They both put in great performances in cars everyone knows are not as fast as their rivals.

Mr V · 27 Jul 2005, 06:56 (Ref:1364359)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xpunk75

I think in todays F1 the closes someone can get to winning the championship with a bad car would DC in the Red Bull and maybe Jarno Truli in the Toyota.

No way! Whilst both drivers and teams are having a good season - in relation to other seasons, they are light years away from the possibility of a WDC.

The only car that can win a WDC this year is the Renault, whilst it may not be the fastest out there, it's still fast and extremely reliable.

Kicking-back · 27 Jul 2005, 07:08 (Ref:1364366)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xpunk75

Yeah I was going to say HHF in the Jordan that one year so close and then at one of the final races of the year he was leading the race and had an engine failure I almost cried. Other then that Senna's performance in 93 in the Ford Mclaren was very impressive and at the time the benetton, Williams, and Ferrari were faster i believe.

Williams, yes, Benetton, sometimes, Ferrari, no.

Super Tourer · 27 Jul 2005, 07:20 (Ref:1364371)

1982 - Rosberg won the title for Williams with one win during the season. It was a series of circumstances that led to that, both the main title contenders were eliminated (GV tragically killed and Pironi seriously injured) and the two Renaults were fast yet unreliable.

This allowed Rosberg in the normally aspirated car to claim the title, Pironi still finished 2nd despite missing the last 5 races.

It was a season where the Cosworth DFV powered cars defeated the turbo's through a combination of circumstance, greater agility and driveability at some tracks, coupled with the turbo cars still being in development and the ensuing reliability and handling problems.

Rosberg's car wasn't the 'best' it was one of the best of the rest evenly matched with the McLarens and Brabhams.

BootsOntheSide · 27 Jul 2005, 09:05 (Ref:1364441)

You can win the title in the third best car if things go your way, and there isn'#t a huge performance difference. Look at 2003, where 3 cars all come close to producing the champion driver. Admittedly, the two changes in tyres that year made the difference - Ferrari dominated with the ruled-to-be-illegal Bridgestones on their new car, but were nowhere until the rules were 're-interpreted' to exclude Michelin's previously-legal tyres.

When you go into a season in a car which is third-best, your aim is to do so well that either the team becomes championshuip-capable, or bring yourself to the attention of a team which can win the championship.

Menelaos · 27 Jul 2005, 09:39 (Ref:1364472)

The only way you can win the title without having the best car is if the guys in front of you crash/spin/retire all the time. But no, without any strange combinations of facts, no there's no way one can win it this way. Raikkonen has the fastest car this year and clearly the second best and is miles behind Alonso, who has not the fastest but the overal better car. Of course, if Alonso was not a top driver (like Fisico is not - sorry), Kimi would have a chance. But that's as far as it goes: maybe with the second best car, but not with not a really really good car.

BSchneiderFan · 27 Jul 2005, 11:26 (Ref:1364573)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Super Tourer

1982 - Rosberg won the title for Williams with one win during the season. It was a series of circumstances that led to that, both the main title contenders were eliminated (GV tragically killed and Pironi seriously injured) and the two Renaults were fast yet unreliable.

This allowed Rosberg in the normally aspirated car to claim the title, Pironi still finished 2nd despite missing the last 5 races.

Didn't John Watson finish as runner-up in 1982?

crozier74 · 27 Jul 2005, 11:29 (Ref:1364577)

Yes. By the margin of a single point IIRC.

Super Tourer · 27 Jul 2005, 11:46 (Ref:1364584)

Pironi and Watson tied on 39 points, they also had the same number of wins (2 each), but Pironi is listed above JW in the rankings on formula1.com - presumably on countback of other results.

Rosberg won the title on 44 points - 5 ahead of 2nd place.

BootsOntheSide · 27 Jul 2005, 12:00 (Ref:1364596)

Around that time the turbo cars (Brabham, Ferrari adn Renautl that year) were fastest, but the NA cars were mroe reliable and managed to steadily pick up results. GV wasn't actually anywhere near the front of the championship when his accident unfolded, but he was showing plenty of pace.

Dan Rear · 27 Jul 2005, 12:26 (Ref:1364625)

Prost, Mclaren 1986 ? Not as fast as Willys or Lotus, even Benetton quicker by the end too. Or Jody S in 79, at various times that year his Ferrari was much slower than the Willys, Ligiers, Renaults, yet he still won it quite convincingly.

So the answer to the question is yes easily, reliability has much to do with winning, as well as a sympathetic and intelligent driver of course.

Dutton · 27 Jul 2005, 21:56 (Ref:1365081)

Didn't Piquet win it one year in a Brabham, when the rather unreliable but notably faster Renaults kept falling out of the lead? However, it would still come under one of the best cars I guess....or was it more purely down to an inspired Piquet?

I am just jumbling together unclear memories of stuff read in the past.

Kicking-back · 28 Jul 2005, 05:22 (Ref:1365242)

It was down to dodgy fuel, some say, Dutton!

The 1983 championship is significant though - it was the last time anyone other than a Williams/McLaren driver or Michael Schumacher won the world championship.

Dutton · 28 Jul 2005, 05:44 (Ref:1365252)

If only the same team could win the WCC this year as did in '83,

.

N I Tram · 28 Jul 2005, 13:45 (Ref:1365609)

Well, we've had a 'clarification' on tyre rules after a run of Michelin successes, just like 2003, so who knows?

Dutton · 28 Jul 2005, 19:10 (Ref:1365874)

Urrgghhh.

And the pre-Monaco clarification that went against Bridgestone didn't happen then, I presume?

krt917 · 29 Jul 2005, 12:35 (Ref:1366540)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

No-one has ever won the World Championship in a car that wasn't close to the best.

You do need something near the best, particularly now with the number of races. A couple great performances in a mediocre car would have given you a chance in the 50's, but wouldn't now with so many opportunities for drivers in better cars to score.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Rear

Prost, Mclaren 1986 ? Not as fast as Willys or Lotus, even Benetton quicker by the end too. Or Jody S in 79, at various times that year his Ferrari was much slower than the Willys, Ligiers, Renaults, yet he still won it quite convincingly.

So the answer to the question is yes easily, reliability has much to do with winning, as well as a sympathetic and intelligent driver of course.

I'd certainly put Prost's '86 title win as one of the best, notwithstanding the bad luck that befell Mansell. However, the answer is no though, surely? Best cars have to combine speed with reliability. The '79 Williams was faster in the end than the '79 Ferrari, but had various problems early on. Both were among the best, for different reasons.

Stewart's '73 win was pretty good - the Lotus 72s were quicker and the McLaren M23 was potentially a better car - but you'd still have to sat that the 006 was one of the quicker cars on the grid.

Snrub · 29 Jul 2005, 15:11 (Ref:1366635)

I really think a simply solid and consistant driver could have the championship this year if they were in a Renault. Fisi is just plain off his form, but even someone who's consistantly a tenth or two slower than Alonso could win in this year's Renault. I'm not exactly sure how the following compare to Alonso, but a Button, Rubins (although he's off this year), Heidfeld, Trulli, Ralf (off this year), JPM (off, but possibly not enough), etc. could win the WDC in this year's Renault. If it eases one's mind, assume that for this theoretical situation that Alonso isn't at Renault.

Menelaos · 29 Jul 2005, 15:41 (Ref:1366663)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snrub

I really think a simply solid and consistant driver could have the championship this year if they were in a Renault.

Button, Rubins (although he's off this year), Heidfeld, Trulli, Ralf (off this year), JPM (off, but possibly not enough), etc. could win the WDC in this year's Renault.

I agree that any really good driver could (but not necessarily would) win the title. But RB and Ralf are definitely not among those. Maybe not even Heidfeld. Button, JPM and Trulli (not to mention MS or KR, of course) could have done it, for sure.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
wish list of cars to be made to gt1 cars	slicktsax	Sportscar & GT Racing	24	6 Oct 2005 09:02
GP 2 cars are approximately 3 secs faster than the F3000 cars	Frank_White	National & International Single Seaters	18	5 Nov 2004 23:06
IMSA GTP cars should have been 2,000+ horsepower cars	Green Monster	North American Racing	29	17 Jun 2004 01:20
F1 Safety Cars / Medical Cars	Mark Stevens	Formula One	8	21 May 2004 18:10
2003 Touring cars - what predictions for teams and cars (and colours!!)	adamp_uk	Touring Car Racing	16	17 Oct 2002 20:12