Best non-WDC winning car

[woohoo]

I have to go with the McLaren MP4/20.
Had it not being for the silly no tire changes rule (Raikonnen lost a race on the last lap when his flat spotted tire destroyed the suspension), Raikonnen would have had the championship.

[Pierce89]

I have to go with the McLaren MP4/20.
Had it not being for the silly no tire changes rule (Raikonnen lost a race on the last lap when his flat spotted tire destroyed the suspension), Raikonnen would have had the championship.

Actually that rule is the only reason Mac ca and Renault were faster than Ferrari in 05

[JimClarkFan]

I don't understand why more people are not voting for the 2008 Ferrari, arguably the better car all season.

And I don't understand why there are soo many votes for the Mclaren 2012 car, it had some bad reliability problems.

[Stradivarius]

I have to go with the McLaren MP4/20.
Had it not being for the silly no tire changes rule (Raikonnen lost a race on the last lap when his flat spotted tire destroyed the suspension), Raikonnen would have had the championship.

Had it not been for t he silly no tire changes rule, Michael Schumacher and Ferrari might very well have continued their dominance from 2004.

I vote for F2008, not because I think the drivers made too many mistakes, but because the team did. Massa spun off in Malaysia and lost 8 points, but at least one mistake during a full season is quite normal. Hamilton made a mistake in Canada and Raikkonen crashed at Spa. The Ferrari team, however, did a lot of mistakes. In Monaco, they didn't fit the tires on Raikkonens car in time, resulting in a drive-through penalty. At Silverstone, they sent Massa out for his final Q3 run too late to start his lap. In the race, they decided not to change the tires in the first stop, hoping the rain would stop, which it didn't. This left both drivers on the track with worn-out intermediates, which proved impossible to handle. Raikkonen, who had been just a second behind Hamilton, started loosing 8 seconds per lap. And then the biggest mistake of all in Singapore, where Massa as race leader came into the pits only to be sent on his way with the fuel hose still attached to his car. Without these mistakes by Ferrari, their car was clearly good enough to take both titles with quite some margin.

I don't think the McLaren options from 2005 and 2012 make much sense (unless we are talking about quickest car and not best car), as it seems clear to me that they lost the titles precicely because of the car. The car was fast, but unreliable and therefore not good enough. A car that doesn't finish the race is about as bad as it can get.

[Gerhard Berger]

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.

RB5 should have won the championship but Vettel made too many errors (Australia, Malaysia, Monaco, Turkey, Singapore).

[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.

RB5 should have won the championship but Vettel made too many errors (Australia, Malaysia, Monaco, Turkey, Singapore).

Mmm... He did crash with Kubica in Australia, and spin out in Malaysia (50% points, though), he let Button in Turkey after a slight out, but what happened in Monaco and Singapore? I don't remember.

[SectorOne]

Mmm... He did crash with Kubica in Australia, and spin out in Malaysia (50% points, though), he let Button in Turkey after a slight out, but what happened in Monaco and Singapore? I don't remember.

Monaco he hit the barriers and in Singapore he sped in the pit lane giving him a drive-through.

[Jonnycraig]

2012 Ferrari. 3 wins, 15 podiums.

Only reason it wasn't a WDC winning car was Alonso playing silly buggers in Japan.

[FoxHound]

2012 Ferrari. 3 wins, 15 podiums.

Only reason it wasn't a WDC winning car was Alonso playing silly buggers in Japan.

1 mistake and it is WDC winning car?

[Gerhard Berger]

2012 Ferrari. 3 wins, 15 podiums.

Only reason it wasn't a WDC winning car was Alonso playing silly buggers in Japan.

thanks for the laugh.

Do you know what the nickname was for the F2012? I'll give you a clue:

[Vettel Maggot]

Would have loved to have seen what this thing would have done in the hands of someone more experienced than Ralf and Fisi. Championship, probably not, but race wins?

[WaikeCU]

I think the Jordan 199 had potential. Won a few races in 1999 season in the hand of Heinz-Harald Frentzen, but wondered what it could've been with a younger, faster and more consistent driver than Frentzen and Hill.

[Jonnycraig]

2012 Ferrari. 3 wins, 15 podiums.

Only reason it wasn't a WDC winning car was Alonso playing silly buggers in Japan.

thanks for the laugh.

Do you know what the nickname was for the F2012? I'll give you a clue:

Cool.

Sadly, simple facts are that only the 2005 McLaren of the poll options managed more podiums by a driver than Alonso's 14 provided by the F2012, but with 3 mechanical DNFs, to 0 for Alonso & Massa in the F2012.

Sorry my man.

[Gerhard Berger]

Sorry for what?

All credit to Alonso for getting so many podiums in such a mediocre car.

FYI All the cars in the the poll (bar the 2012 Mclaren) had more podiums than the F2012. All that despite starting less races than the F2012. But don't let facts get in your way. =D>

[SiLo]

So how many Mclarens feature on that list? A worrying amount...

I went for the MP4/20. It was just so much faster almost all the time, just let down my reliability. For me, Kimi's qualifying lap at Monaco. Destroyed even Alonso and the Renault and has just as much fuel if not more. Incredible car.

And I agree about the '99 Ferrari!