The most dominant car in F1 history

[elf341]

If you adjust for reliability, most might agree that the W05 would have had 17 out of 19 1-2s, and who knows what would've happened in Hungary had Hamilton qualified on pole...

But I do think that reliability is part of the equation. Adrian Newey alluded to the idea that the ideal car would win the race, and then break down just past the finish line - since not breaking down means they have overengineered something and that would cost performance. Obviously, he went to the extreme to make his point, but I think it does stand. I believe there is a correlation between the W05's extreme performance and also their unrealiability.

[Blanchimont]

Almost the same topic title: http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... =1&t=12219

For the W05, the numbers are:
Win-rate: 84.2%
Qual-rate: 94.7%
Fastlap-rate: 63.2%

F500 had a Win-rate of 87.5%
F500 had a Qual-rate of 87.5%
F500 had a Fastlap-rate of 87.5%
__________________________________

F2002 had a Win-rate of 78.9%
F2002 had a Qual-rate of 57.8%
F2002 had a Fastlap-rate of 78.9%
__________________________________

F2004 had a Win-rate of 75%
F2004 had a Qual-rate of 60%
F2004 had a Fastlap-rate of 70%
__________________________________

RB6 had a Win-rate of 47.3%
RB6 had a Qual-rate of 78.9%
RB6 had a Fastlap-rate of 31.5%
__________________________________

RB7 had a Win-rate of 63.1%
RB7 had a Qual-rate of 94.7%
RB7 had a Fastlap-rate of 52.6%
__________________________________

FW14B had a Win-rate of 62.5%
FW14B had a Qual-rate of 93.75%
FW14B had a Fastlap-rate of 68.7%
__________________________________

FW15 had a Win-rate of 62.5%
FW15 had a Qual-rate of 93.75%
FW15 had a Fastlap-rate of 62.5%
__________________________________

FW18 had a Win-rate of 75%
RW18 had a Qual-rate of 75%
FW18 had a Fastlap-rate of 68.75%
__________________________________

MP4/4 had a Win-rate of 93,75%
MP4/4 had a Qual-rate of 93,75%
MP4/4 had a Fastlap-rate of 62,5%

[CBeck113]

Thanks Blanchimont, that is the necessary data.

What are these cars designed to do? Win GPs. Therefore, the percentage of wins has to be the data used to say which one dominated, and that is the McLaren MP4/4.

End of discussion. =D>

[Kingshark]

Thanks Blanchimont, that is the necessary data.

What are these cars designed to do? Win GPs. Therefore, the percentage of wins has to be the data used to say which one dominated, and that is the McLaren MP4/4.

End of discussion. =D>

The MP4/4 had the privileged of having the 2 best drivers' of it's era driving them. I mean, Piquet and Mansell were great, but Senna and Prost were just on another level.

The FW14B was driven by Mansell and Patrese, who were both nearly 40 years old. Despite that, it's gaps in performance (when running properly) to the rest of the field was bigger than that of the '88 Macca.

If car performance should be taken into account when judging drivers, shouldn't driver performance be taken into account when judging cars?

[CBeck113]

The driver must be considered part of the car and therefore is rated with the car by the number of wins.

[Sebp]

What are these cars designed to do? Win GPs.

I would call that into question. Winning provides a good points haul. I think some teams don't care so much about winning single GPs but the constructors championship instead. So the cars might not be designed to win every single GP but rather to maximise points over the course of a season.

As a fan I off course prefer the contenders going all out for wins.

[Andres125sx]

I usually avoid this sort of discussions because it´s always the same, an endless discussion about something neither of you will ever know...

Different eras, can´t be compared, as simple as that. Think about this, a 9/10 car battling against a 8/10 car will look more dominant than a 10/10 car if his rival is a 9,5. And people will say that 9/10 car is one of the best ever and ignore the 10/10 one....

There are too many factors to compare different eras, it´s an useless and endless discussion

[WaikeCU]

Almost the same topic title: http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... =1&t=12219

For the W05, the numbers are:
Win-rate: 84.2%
Qual-rate: 94.7%
Fastlap-rate: 63.2%

F500 had a Win-rate of 87.5%
F500 had a Qual-rate of 87.5%
F500 had a Fastlap-rate of 87.5%
__________________________________

F2002 had a Win-rate of 78.9%
F2002 had a Qual-rate of 57.8%
F2002 had a Fastlap-rate of 78.9%
__________________________________

F2004 had a Win-rate of 75%
F2004 had a Qual-rate of 60%
F2004 had a Fastlap-rate of 70%
__________________________________

RB6 had a Win-rate of 47.3%
RB6 had a Qual-rate of 78.9%
RB6 had a Fastlap-rate of 31.5%
__________________________________

RB7 had a Win-rate of 63.1%
RB7 had a Qual-rate of 94.7%
RB7 had a Fastlap-rate of 52.6%
__________________________________

FW14B had a Win-rate of 62.5%
FW14B had a Qual-rate of 93.75%
FW14B had a Fastlap-rate of 68.7%
__________________________________

FW15 had a Win-rate of 62.5%
FW15 had a Qual-rate of 93.75%
FW15 had a Fastlap-rate of 62.5%
__________________________________

FW18 had a Win-rate of 75%
RW18 had a Qual-rate of 75%
FW18 had a Fastlap-rate of 68.75%
__________________________________

MP4/4 had a Win-rate of 93,75%
MP4/4 had a Qual-rate of 93,75%
MP4/4 had a Fastlap-rate of 62,5%

You can't compare era's in F1 I think. Lookin at the stats of the MP4/4, it does look staggering. I believe that the MP4/4 had new parts race weekend in, race weekend out. They even had a T-car. So the word 'save' was hardly known back then. Look at the era today, we hear lots of save this and save that. Cars are limited by PU's, ,tyres, gearboxes, etc. Certain changes on the car throughout the weekend would mean a 10 place grid penalty and I haven't mentioned the amounts of lifts and coasts. When the car in front has a clear lead, it would cruise to the finish line just to save as much as possible of the parts that are vital on the car and are limited in amount. Be sure to see more of that in the future.

[elf341]

Thanks Blanchimont, that is the necessary data.

What are these cars designed to do? Win GPs. Therefore, the percentage of wins has to be the data used to say which one dominated, and that is the McLaren MP4/4.

End of discussion. =D>

Not quite. If that were true you would only get points for 1st place. As it stands, both the constructors and the drivers champions are crowned by those with the most points. What this means is that the aim of the constructor is to come as high as possible with /both/ cars, with the ideal being 1st and 2nd with their cars.

[Moose]

A percentage of times not beaten by any car other than itself would be an interesting stat to look at instead:

MP4/4: 78.1%
FW14B: 53.1%
RB7: 60.5%
W05: 76.3%

[CBeck113]

Thanks Blanchimont, that is the necessary data.

What are these cars designed to do? Win GPs. Therefore, the percentage of wins has to be the data used to say which one dominated, and that is the McLaren MP4/4.

End of discussion. =D>

Not quite. If that were true you would only get points for 1st place. As it stands, both the constructors and the drivers champions are crowned by those with the most points. What this means is that the aim of the constructor is to come as high as possible with /both/ cars, with the ideal being 1st and 2nd with their cars.

Don't mix the championships with the question of the fastest car, because this is about the most dominant car, and not the most dominant team. If we stick to a simple definition without favoritism then we can achieve a simple, direct answer.

[i70q7m7ghw]

I think many are missing the point here, we aren't trying to compare cars from different eras against each other. We are simply trying to compare the level of dominance enjoyed by those cars in their given era. We're comparing the performance delta over the rest of the field, i.e. number of wins in a season etc. Who cares if they had V10s, V8s or V6s? In each given season, the rules were the same for everybody.

[WaikeCU]

I think many are missing the point here, we aren't trying to compare cars from different eras against each other. We are simply trying to compare the level of dominance enjoyed by those cars in their given era. We're comparing the performance delta over the rest of the field, i.e. number of wins in a season etc. Who cares if they had V10s, V8s or V6s? In each given season, the rules were the same for everybody.

Then surely it's the MP4/4, since that car had been 10 seconds faster than the slowest car I believe in 1988. MP4/4 in the hands of the two best drivers of the field doesn't get any better than that. Red Bull RB6 or RB7 doesn't have that. I don't rate Vettel or Webber the best drivers that's the problem. I still rate Alonso and Hamilton better drivers than Vettel or Webber.
I think Monaco 1988 was a perfect example on how dominant and how good Senna and Prost really were. Senna was a whopping 1.4 seconds clear on P2 Prost and another 2.7 seconds clear of Berger's Ferrari. Mclaren made a joke of the other competitors out there. Monaco circuit is one of those circuits that the driver can make a massive difference. Senna and Prost were Monaco masters and with a masterpiece like the MP4/4, it just can't get any better than that.

[i70q7m7ghw]

I think many are missing the point here, we aren't trying to compare cars from different eras against each other. We are simply trying to compare the level of dominance enjoyed by those cars in their given era. We're comparing the performance delta over the rest of the field, i.e. number of wins in a season etc. Who cares if they had V10s, V8s or V6s? In each given season, the rules were the same for everybody.

Then surely it's the MP4/4, since that car had been 10 seconds faster than the slowest car I believe in 1988. MP4/4 in the hands of the two best drivers of the field doesn't get any better than that. Red Bull RB6 or RB7 doesn't have that. I don't rate Vettel or Webber the best drivers that's the problem. I still rate Alonso and Hamilton better drivers than Vettel or Webber.
I think Monaco 1988 was a perfect example on how dominant and how good Senna and Prost really were. Senna was a whopping 1.4 seconds clear on P2 Prost and another 2.7 seconds clear of Berger's Ferrari. Mclaren made a joke of the other competitors out there. Monaco circuit is one of those circuits that the driver can make a massive difference. Senna and Prost were Monaco masters and with a masterpiece like the MP4/4, it just can't get any better than that.

Okay, sorry maybe I was a bit misleading. I wasn't referring to the actual performance delta in seconds. Trying to compare that would be pointless, different era's etc. I was referring to the number of wins, number of poles etc. Purely results based information, facts.

[WaikeCU]

I think many are missing the point here, we aren't trying to compare cars from different eras against each other. We are simply trying to compare the level of dominance enjoyed by those cars in their given era. We're comparing the performance delta over the rest of the field, i.e. number of wins in a season etc. Who cares if they had V10s, V8s or V6s? In each given season, the rules were the same for everybody.

Then surely it's the MP4/4, since that car had been 10 seconds faster than the slowest car I believe in 1988. MP4/4 in the hands of the two best drivers of the field doesn't get any better than that. Red Bull RB6 or RB7 doesn't have that. I don't rate Vettel or Webber the best drivers that's the problem. I still rate Alonso and Hamilton better drivers than Vettel or Webber.
I think Monaco 1988 was a perfect example on how dominant and how good Senna and Prost really were. Senna was a whopping 1.4 seconds clear on P2 Prost and another 2.7 seconds clear of Berger's Ferrari. Mclaren made a joke of the other competitors out there. Monaco circuit is one of those circuits that the driver can make a massive difference. Senna and Prost were Monaco masters and with a masterpiece like the MP4/4, it just can't get any better than that.

Okay, sorry maybe I was a bit misleading. I wasn't referring to the actual performance delta in seconds. Trying to compare that would be pointless, different era's etc. I was referring to the number of wins, number of poles etc. Purely results based information, facts.

ah stats wise you mean? well, then it's just the highest rate number is the winner. For me, it still remains the MP4/4, because other than the win-rate and quali-rate, I don't see what influence fastest lap rate has.