Most "deserving" F1 WDC
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
whatxd said:
There's no proof the traction control was ever used. None whatsoever.
It was there when it shouldn't have been.That should have been enough to have the car declared illegal and points lost.
JNW1 said:
The official line was no proof which is why Benetton kept their points; however, what was the option still doing there hidden away? It's also common knowledge that when Senna got taken out at the first corner in Aida he watched and listened trackside for a couple of laps and was so convinced the Benetton was running a form of traction control that he asked his Williams team to lodge a protest. So nothing proved but a distinct whiff of something not being quite right and, combined with what Schumacher did in the final race, I think that makes his WDC in 1994 a bit of a hollow victory.
If the FIA are going to ban Schumacher for 3 races because of the events at Silverstone, do you not think they would go for a harsher penalty if there was a shred of evidence to suggest traction control was being used?I wouldn't place any weight whatsoever on what a frustrated Senna said at the side of the track as he realized that 1994 was not going to be the breeze that it was for his rival the year before. For every good start Schumacher made in 1994 there's also a bad one where he lost places.
I agree that it was a hollow victory with all the circumstances but he was still far more deserving than Hill who, as I said, only finished ahead of Schumacher twice the whole season.
JNW1 said:
In terms of his titles at Ferrari, perhaps there wasn't much between his car and the McLaren in 2000 although from memory McLaren suffered with reliability problems early in the season. However, the fact remains he was always in a situation where he had undisputed number one driver status and a team-mate who simply wasn't allowed to challenge him; that certainly wasn't the case at McLaren where the drivers were free to race one another until one no longer had a chance of winning the championship. I'm not saying anything other than Schumacher was an outstanding driver (he was IMO) but the set-up in the Ferrari team made it easy for him to amass titles; it would have been much more difficult if he'd had a top class driver in the other Ferrari who was allowed to race freely and for that reason I personally think his string of titles are a bit less impressive in reality than they appear on paper. Of course Schumi deserves credit for helping to turn-round what was an under-performing team when he arrived but he made pretty sure nobody was going to be able to challenge him and once the Ferrari became competitive winning WDC's was relatively easy for a driver of his calibre!
Wasn't allowed or wasn't good enough?Whether or not Barrichello was "allowed" to challenge Schumacher in 2000 is irrelevant because he was never close enough in the first place. He was consistently behind Schumacher and both McLarens for the majority of the season.
01,02 and 04 would obviously have been more difficult with a better team mate but to suggest Barrichello "wasn't allowed" is nonsense. He simply wasn't good enough to mount a serious challenge.
1994 they were also caught with the fuel rig tamperingL which they admitted to, and gave them about 1 second advantage in an 8 second pit stop....but were let off..
the well known aeticle is reproduced here:
http://www.the-fastlane.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php...
the well known aeticle is reproduced here:
http://www.the-fastlane.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php...
whatxd said:
01,02 and 04 would obviously have been more difficult with a better team mate but to suggest Barrichello "wasn't allowed" is nonsense. He simply wasn't good enough to mount a serious challenge.
Quite. I'd also suggest that the Ferrari was nowhere near as dominant as the current Mercedes is, for example, where the car is so fast you can afford to other have #1 status as you are pretty much guaranteed first and second. vonuber said:
whatxd said:
01,02 and 04 would obviously have been more difficult with a better team mate but to suggest Barrichello "wasn't allowed" is nonsense. He simply wasn't good enough to mount a serious challenge.
Quite. I'd also suggest that the Ferrari was nowhere near as dominant as the current Mercedes is, for example, where the car is so fast you can afford to other have #1 status as you are pretty much guaranteed first and second. I agree the Ferrari wasn't quite as dominant in some seasons as the Mercedes has been for the last three but they certainly got pretty close in some (2002 and 2004 for example). However, the point is Schumacher just had a free run to the title whereas Mercedes have at least allowed their drivers to race; the Austrian GP was the 6th race of 2002, Schumacher had won 4 of the first 5 yet despite that Barrichello (you know, the one who wasn't good enough to mount a serious challenge!) was told to move over and concede what would have been an easy win to Michael. So yes Schumacher was good - very, very good - but he always made sure he could never be pushed by his team-mate and for me that does devalue his achievement of 7 world titles ever so slightly....
NAS said:
And don't forget that it took 4 long years to build up (the) Ferrari from an absolute shambles to something approaching a proper car and team. Which deserves respect.
Alonso and Vettel (for example) haven't managed so far to do the same.
Surely that isn't down to the driver? I'd give Ross Brawn the credit for that Alonso and Vettel (for example) haven't managed so far to do the same.
JNW1 said:
However, the point is Schumacher just had a free run to the title whereas Mercedes have at least allowed their drivers to race; the Austrian GP was the 6th race of 2002, Schumacher had won 4 of the first 5 yet despite that Barrichello (you know, the one who wasn't good enough to mount a serious challenge!) was told to move over and concede what would have been an easy win to Michael. So yes Schumacher was good - very, very good - but he always made sure he could never be pushed by his team-mate and for me that does devalue his achievement of 7 world titles ever so slightly....
After the mid season events of 2000 they didn't want to take any chances. I'm sure in hindsight everyone involved would take that day back given how the season turned out. Still, for better or worse and nobody really knows whether or not it was intentional, that win was given back to Barrichello a few months later in the USAwhatxd said:
JNW1 said:
However, the point is Schumacher just had a free run to the title whereas Mercedes have at least allowed their drivers to race; the Austrian GP was the 6th race of 2002, Schumacher had won 4 of the first 5 yet despite that Barrichello (you know, the one who wasn't good enough to mount a serious challenge!) was told to move over and concede what would have been an easy win to Michael. So yes Schumacher was good - very, very good - but he always made sure he could never be pushed by his team-mate and for me that does devalue his achievement of 7 world titles ever so slightly....
After the mid season events of 2000 they didn't want to take any chances. I'm sure in hindsight everyone involved would take that day back given how the season turned out. Still, for better or worse and nobody really knows whether or not it was intentional, that win was given back to Barrichello a few months later in the USAukaskew said:
Button had a dominant car (well, at least for half a season) but I would still say it was a well deserved WDC (and perhaps more particularly a deserved constructors).
The Brawn Motorsport podcast just hit home for me what that team had (or didn't have) to get through a season, it was pretty remarkable in modern F1 that they won the lot with the resources they actually had available week to week. The entire team certainly earned those championships.
Agreed, but then I'm biased. The Brawn Motorsport podcast just hit home for me what that team had (or didn't have) to get through a season, it was pretty remarkable in modern F1 that they won the lot with the resources they actually had available week to week. The entire team certainly earned those championships.
I find it extraordinary that Button raced the whole season with one chassis, and by the time he won the WDC in Brazil, it was by far the oldest car on the grid! Even more amazing for me was the second half of the season, both drivers were pretty much mixing it in the midfield most of the time. The number of variables that could have had an effect on that Championship is huge in those circumstances...the consistency required is also extraordinary. I went off the sport during the Schumacher era and 2009 certainly grabbed my attention and I'm back for good.
It is an interesting question, OP. I do wonder if blind statistical analysis could be employed to answer it. I may try something.
I can't comment on the pre-Prost/ Senna / Mansell era, as it was before my time.
From the seasons I have watched, ie since '85, I would nominate Hamilton in 08. A 23 year old, in his second season in F1, driving for a works team (but not the best car), winning the title on the last corner of the last lap of the last race. Impressive stuff.
Alonso's effort for Ferrari in 2012 was , if anything, even better of. The car was nowhere near the fastest, yet Alonso carried it and the team all year and lost out in the final race.
From the seasons I have watched, ie since '85, I would nominate Hamilton in 08. A 23 year old, in his second season in F1, driving for a works team (but not the best car), winning the title on the last corner of the last lap of the last race. Impressive stuff.
Alonso's effort for Ferrari in 2012 was , if anything, even better of. The car was nowhere near the fastest, yet Alonso carried it and the team all year and lost out in the final race.
Dr Z said:
Agreed, but then I'm biased.
I find it extraordinary that Button raced the whole season with one chassis, and by the time he won the WDC in Brazil, it was by far the oldest car on the grid! Even more amazing for me was the second half of the season, both drivers were pretty much mixing it in the midfield most of the time. The number of variables that could have had an effect on that Championship is huge in those circumstances...the consistency required is also extraordinary. I went off the sport during the Schumacher era and 2009 certainly grabbed my attention and I'm back for good.
It is an interesting question, OP. I do wonder if blind statistical analysis could be employed to answer it. I may try something.
I tried something similar. My criteria were:I find it extraordinary that Button raced the whole season with one chassis, and by the time he won the WDC in Brazil, it was by far the oldest car on the grid! Even more amazing for me was the second half of the season, both drivers were pretty much mixing it in the midfield most of the time. The number of variables that could have had an effect on that Championship is huge in those circumstances...the consistency required is also extraordinary. I went off the sport during the Schumacher era and 2009 certainly grabbed my attention and I'm back for good.
It is an interesting question, OP. I do wonder if blind statistical analysis could be employed to answer it. I may try something.
1 - more wins than runner-up
2 - team mate 3rd or lower in world championship (attempt to eliminate dominant car from equation)
3 - more pole positions than runner-up
4 - more podium finishes than runner-up (rewarding consistency)
5 - points margin more than one race's worth
There are other factors I could add, but these were easiest and quickest to calculate! This gives me:
Year Champion Runner-up
1954 Juan Manuel Fangio José Froilán González
1957 Juan Manuel Fangio Stirling Moss
1963 Jim Clark Graham Hill
1966 Jack Brabham John Surtees
1971 Jackie Stewart Ronnie Peterson
1972 Emerson Fittipaldi Jackie Stewart
1975 Niki Lauda Emerson Fittipaldi
1980 Alan Jones Nelson Piquet
1985 Alain Prost Michele Alboreto
1991 Ayrton Senna Nigel Mansell
1993 Alain Prost Ayrton Senna
2000 Michael Schumacher Mika Häkkinen
2001 Michael Schumacher David Coulthard
2011 Sebastian Vettel Jenson Button
2013 Sebastian Vettel Fernando Alonso
No great surprises there, except perhaps for Fittipaldi, who's never usually acclaimed as one of the greats.
I can use the same criteria to give the "least deserving" champion:
Year Champion Runner-up
1950 Giuseppe Farina Juan Manuel Fangio
1979 Jody Scheckter Gilles Villeneuve
1984 Niki Lauda Alain Prost
2016 Nico Rosberg Lewis Hamilton
Hmm.
George29 said:
NAS said:
And don't forget that it took 4 long years to build up (the) Ferrari from an absolute shambles to something approaching a proper car and team. Which deserves respect.
Alonso and Vettel (for example) haven't managed so far to do the same.
Surely that isn't down to the driver? I'd give Ross Brawn the credit for that Alonso and Vettel (for example) haven't managed so far to do the same.
This is why I respect him. He didn't run away, invested heavily and made it work (with key people in the right places as you say, but he wasn't the only one with good bosses). Other (very good drivers) have failed where he succeeded.
tommunster10 said:
Most deserving? Massa 2008.... if only his engine had not of blown in Hungry he'd of been WDC....
But it doesn't work like that does it? You quote a blown engine- fine-not his fault then . But you could also have mentioned a spin and a collision in Australia and a spin in Malaysia . Whoever wins,wins. No consolation prizes.
coppice said:
tommunster10 said:
Most deserving? Massa 2008.... if only his engine had not of blown in Hungry he'd of been WDC....
But it doesn't work like that does it? You quote a blown engine- fine-not his fault then . But you could also have mentioned a spin and a collision in Australia and a spin in Malaysia . Whoever wins,wins. No consolation prizes.
2008 was worse though as Lewis let through so he could win the WDC.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff