Best non-WDC winning car

[Kingshark]

To me it was a toss-up between any of the cars which I listed, but I voted for the 2008 Ferrari F2008 in the end. That car was wasted by its drivers IMO.

[PlatinumZealot]

2012 Lotus e20.

[Kingshark]

Really? E20? MP4/17D? People are really choosing those cars over the F2008?

Everyone has their personal opinion I guess, but those are some strange choices to say the least.

Of all time, the 1986 Williams FW11 is probably the winner.

[FW17]

Why no one talking of the 1999 Ferrari, the one in which even Irvine won races and Schumacher would have been champion had he not broken his leg at Silverstone?

[basti313]

Why no one talking of the 1999 Ferrari, the one in which even Irvine won races and Schumacher would have been champion had he not broken his leg at Silverstone?

Oh yeah....this one is really a good remark =D>
I would also choose the F399. Would have been a walk in the park for Schu...

The Mercedes W05!

In all seriousness though it's got to be a tie between the 2007 and 2012 McLarens for me.

Concerning the McLarens: The poll is called "Best non-WDC winning car". If we take that serious it can not be the 2005 or the 2012 McLaren as these cars were breaking down all the time. This is the opposite of a good car. They would win a poll called "Best car that was breaking down all the time".

[WaikeCU]

If looking at the whole history of F1 I think these deserve a mention:

1974 Tyrell 006
1976 Ferrari F312T2
1982 Ferrari F126C2
1989 Ferrari F641
1994 Williams F16B
1995 Williams F17
2007 Mclaren MP4/22

[Gerhard Berger]

RB5 in my opinion.

[Miguel]

So, in short, we have the following cases:

1. The car was a monster, but reliability sucked (2000, 2005, McLaren, '86 Williams... the lotus 49 back in '67!)
2. The car was great, but the drivers sucked (2008 Ferrari, '94, '95 & 2003 Williams)
3. The car was great, but the driver was killed/broke his legs ('82 & '99 Ferrari)
4. Maamaaaa, Max let Braw race with the DDD!!! (the RB5)

I really don't know where to put the MP4/27. I mean, Button kinda sucked, the pit crew sucked and Hamilton had horrendous reliability. Alonso considered Hamilton, as far as Suzuka, his biggest threat. Ironically. Alonso would have been WDC had hamilton won in Singapore. Woulda, coulda. That Ferrari was so close from being the worst car since 1982 to win the WDC.

Back on topic, I don't think the RB5 qualifies. Yes, it had massive DF, but with the DDD the Brawn was plain better in the first half of the championship. You can't have both of "Button has a gifted WDC" and "The RB5 was the best car that year". The 1986 Williams is a good option, but Prost gave the Williams duo a run for their money. The 1982 Ferrari, however, is tainted with a different kind of curse. I've never heard anybody doubt it was the best car that year, and perhaps only the Williams had better reliability.

[Kingshark]

So, in short, we have the following cases:

1. The car was a monster, but reliability sucked (2000, 2005, McLaren, '86 Williams... the lotus 49 back in '67!)
2. The car was great, but the drivers sucked (2008 Ferrari, '94, '95 & 2003 Williams)
3. The car was great, but the driver was killed/broke his legs ('82 & '99 Ferrari)
4. Maamaaaa, Max let Braw race with the DDD!!! (the RB5)

I think that case #4 could be more broader.

4. The car was great, but a quesitonable device on the rival car gave it an early season advantage.
(The 2006 Ferrari, 2009 Red Bull)

[adrianjordan]

I think it's interesting that the 3 cars with the most votes are all McLarens...says a lot really!!

[Miguel]

So, in short, we have the following cases:

1. The car was a monster, but reliability sucked (2000, 2005, McLaren, '86 Williams... the lotus 49 back in '67!)
2. The car was great, but the drivers sucked (2008 Ferrari, '94, '95 & 2003 Williams)
3. The car was great, but the driver was killed/broke his legs ('82 & '99 Ferrari)
4. Maamaaaa, Max let Braw race with the DDD!!! (the RB5)

I think that case #4 could be more broader.

4. The car was great, but a quesitonable device on the rival car gave it an early season advantage.
(The 2006 Ferrari, 2009 Red Bull)

Look, I've had a bad day, so the banning of the mass damper in 2006 really can make me sputter white foam through my mouth. Run. Away. Now. A bit more seriously, I can't see how the F248 would qualify in #4, as the mass damper was actually approved by the FIA the year before.

This, however, reminds me of a different category: #5 - The car was a beast, but the FIA banned it. The prime example would be the BT46B fan car. The 6-wheeled 1983 Williams could also figure here, or the double-chassis Lotus 88, except they never raced. The R26 doesn't belong here, because Alonso actually won the WDC.

By the way, would the 1991 Williams FW14 count (#1: Senna had better reliability)? It is, after all, the basis for the world beaters in 1992 and 1993. Or the Lotus 78 in 1977?

[AnthonyG]

F2008, I can't judge good on most of the other cars, but the F2008 is a car that I feel is so let down by bad team decisions. (Monza qualifying, Singapore, Silverstone...) and of course driver mistakes...

[heidenreich27]

2012 car to beat from mclaren, sad what mclaren is now

[Kingshark]

Look, I've had a bad day, so the banning of the mass damper in 2006 really can make me sputter white foam through my mouth. Run. Away. Now. A bit more seriously, I can't see how the F248 would qualify in #4, as the mass damper was actually approved by the FIA the year before.

I know, I never argued that the mass damper was illegal. I merely said that it was "controversial" (in a vague sense) because it was banned.

I agree though that the mass damper should never have been banned, and that was unfair for Renault.

[TzeiTzei]

1984 Brabham.