Everso Biggyballies wrote: ↑5 years ago
It would be strange for it not to be there I think, in all honesty, given its 1988 results with both Prost and Senna.
XcraigX wrote: ↑5 years agoOf course, the MP4/4 has to be at the top.
Michkov wrote: ↑5 years ago
Was the MP4/4s position ever in question?
Well, it seemed obvious from the beginning until John posted this earlier in the thread, which made me think someone would question it:
John wrote: ↑5 years ago
If we're just going to go by outright wins and points we might as well stick the 1988 car on the top of the list and be done with it.
-------------------------------
BEFORE we talk about the FW16, let's just talk about the McLarens. If we assume the 1988 car is at the top, then we only have the championship-winning 1989, 1990 and 1991 cars left to go. Would you want to put them above all of the Lotuses, the Tolemans?
The MP4/4 should be #1, no doubt, because it is far bigger than the points scored by the team that year. It's THE car with which Senna made that lap around Monaco. It won 15 of 16 races. It's up there with the Lotus 49, the 78, and the like, among the most iconic cars ever.
1989 car should be second. 1991 I’m undecided. The 1990 car should be mid-list as it was a very tricky car thanks to a newly designed diffuser, it was fine over a single lap but meant the car was highly unpredictable during races and ate its tyres. McLaren only got a handle on after Prost’s three win streak mid-season. Considering the car was a development of the 1989 machine, it was a poor execution.
Was Senna under any actual real threat in 1991? After the 4 win streak in the beginning of the year, it seemed like they were being conservative mid-season. Whenever they needed pace, they had pace. They had some mishaps, but that car was probably the best "manual" car there has ever been in F1. A much more controlled season by both Senna and McLaren than 1990.
But I think the '89 has to be 2nd on the list, followed by 1991.
I don't agree with the 1987 Lotus being that low on the list. It was the 2nd best car that year (maybe thanks to the engine). The Williams was far ahead, but Lotus was still better than the champ winning team from the last 3 seasons. Also the car Senna won his first Monaco in. Maybe not as spectacular and memorable as the JPS cars, but a solid car, much more competitive against the field than the crude 1985 car.
***Some say you should live each day like it was your last... but who wants to live each day in wild panic and extreme death anxiety?
The universe, look at the hugeness of it... it is a dizzying thought that little ol' me is the centre of it all!***
PTRACER wrote: ↑5 years ago
Well, it seemed obvious from the beginning until John posted this earlier in the thread, which made me think someone would question it:
John wrote: ↑5 years ago
If we're just going to go by outright wins and points we might as well stick the 1988 car on the top of the list and be done with it.
I would imagine he was just being grumpy at the time.
-------------------------------
PTRACER wrote: ↑5 years ago
BEFORE we talk about the FW16, let's just talk about the McLarens. If we assume the 1988 car is at the top, then we only have the championship-winning 1989, 1990 and 1991 cars left to go. Would you want to put them above all of the Lotuses, the Tolemans?
Here is where it gets hard. All have won WDC and WCC. All have historic moments.
However the one minor thing that could possibly stand out was the MP4/5B. The MP4/5 was so good that McLaren just decided to make a few minor modifications and race it again the next year. They did not try very hard (but they didn't have to apparently as they won both titles with it again). Therefore, I would put the MP4/5 (89) above the MP4/5B ('90). And it may also tell me that it should be a better car than the MP4/6 since they just ran it two years in a row. But what complicates things is the fact that Senna didn't capture the WDC crown with the MP4/5 (thanks to that underhanded Prost guy). So it could lose some points there also elevating the MP4/6 above it. (?) Still not so sure where that last one ranks, so I'll wait for others to weigh in.
Cheeveer wrote: ↑5 years ago
Was Senna under any actual real threat in 1991? After the 4 win streak in the beginning of the year, it seemed like they were being conservative mid-season. Whenever they needed pace, they had pace. They had some mishaps, but that car was probably the best "manual" car there has ever been in F1. A much more controlled season by both Senna and McLaren than 1990.
Senna achieved those 4 wins despite various reliability issues, which shows you how little competition McLaren truly had in the early stages of the season. Once Williams found it's feet from Canada onward then McLaren had nothing on them. From that point in Canada, ignoring Japan and Australia, Senna only once beat Mansell on pace. That was in Hungary when Honda built a brand new engine in an attempt to challenge Renault.
Cheeveer wrote: ↑5 years ago
Was Senna under any actual real threat in 1991? After the 4 win streak in the beginning of the year, it seemed like they were being conservative mid-season. Whenever they needed pace, they had pace. They had some mishaps, but that car was probably the best "manual" car there has ever been in F1. A much more controlled season by both Senna and McLaren than 1990.
Senna achieved those 4 wins despite various reliability issues, which shows you how little competition McLaren truly had in the early stages of the season. Once Williams found it's feet from Canada onward then McLaren had nothing on them. From that point in Canada, ignoring Japan and Australia, Senna only once beat Mansell on pace. That was in Hungary when Honda built a brand new engine in an attempt to challenge Renault.
Well, Canada was only Round 5 and only Senna was unchallenged for the first four races because the Ferrari was not quite on the pace and both them and the Williams cars had either mechanical problems or crashes. Between their 8 entries in Rounds 1-4, they only brought the car home twice. Had Mansell not accidentally switched his engine off at Canada and spun off at Suzuka he would have been a convincing champion. So in terms of what @Cheeveer said, then yes, I think they were very under threat and as good as beaten.
Cheeveer wrote: ↑5 years ago
Was Senna under any actual real threat in 1991? After the 4 win streak in the beginning of the year, it seemed like they were being conservative mid-season. Whenever they needed pace, they had pace. They had some mishaps, but that car was probably the best "manual" car there has ever been in F1. A much more controlled season by both Senna and McLaren than 1990.
Senna achieved those 4 wins despite various reliability issues, which shows you how little competition McLaren truly had in the early stages of the season. Once Williams found it's feet from Canada onward then McLaren had nothing on them. From that point in Canada, ignoring Japan and Australia, Senna only once beat Mansell on pace. That was in Hungary when Honda built a brand new engine in an attempt to challenge Renault.
Well, Canada was only Round 5 and only Senna was unchallenged for the first four races because the Ferrari was not quite on the pace and both them and the Williams cars had either mechanical problems or crashes. Between their 8 entries in Rounds 1-4, they only brought the car home twice. Had Mansell not accidentally switched his engine off at Canada and spun off at Suzuka he would have been a convincing champion. So in terms of what @Cheeveer said, then yes, I think they were very under threat and as good as beaten.
It seems a bit lazy to put the McLarens in order of 1988 > 1989 > 1990 > 1991, but that's kind of how it was. Senna actually finished further ahead of the competition in 1991 championship compared to the 1990 championship and even won more races, but that was ONLY at the expense of lots of bad luck from Ferrari and Williams. If you look at the results for Senna's team mate Berger, 1990 does indeed look stronger.
--------------------------------
So, we move onto our final car - the Williams FW16. Where do people want to slot that in?
The 5B and 6 are pretty much on the same level for me, you could rank them either way.
As for the Williams, specifically the tricky FW16 not the later B spec car, on performance it's near the 98T. If I'm looking on the impact the car had on Senna and F1 I have to drop it down the list, let's say between the 99T and 97T.
PTRACER wrote: ↑5 years ago
So I feel we are almost there then.
It seems a bit lazy to put the McLarens in order of 1988 > 1989 > 1990 > 1991, but that's kind of how it was. Senna actually finished further ahead of the competition in 1991 championship compared to the 1990 championship and even won more races, but that was ONLY at the expense of lots of bad luck from Ferrari and Williams. If you look at the results for Senna's team mate Berger, 1990 does indeed look stronger.
1990 car doesn't deserve to be 3rd. 1991 car doesn't deserve to be 4th. While both were championship winning cars, both were underwhelming in various areas and challenged closely by Ferrari and Williams. So I would argue that they should be behind the Lotus 98T.
The FW16 should be last or last but one in the list. For a team with the resources and dominance of Williams (and aligned with Renault) the car was a total disappointment.
Yeah, the fatal crash is always going to be the problem. If we look at the emotion behind the FW16 then it should go below absolutely everything.
If we look at the performance alone, Senna put it on pole in all three of his races. He led in Brazil, but clearly it wasn't handling right and Senna spun while driving it at its limit, while Schumacher admitted he had paced himself when needed. Senna of course led at Imola until the crash too...
@kals I see what you're saying about the McLarens, but to put such championship-winning cars between two cars which could only scrape a few race wins and were unreliable and flawed doesn't seem right.
The ranking of the McLarens is a tricky one, but I think the MP4/4 also had the added benefit of being one of two new cars for 1988, whereas the rest were stop-gap models or development cars for the 1989 season and the naturally aspirated engine rules. Yes, it was a good car, but was it really as mythical as the stats seem to suggest?
Ferrari was still in the doldrums, even though they won the last two races of 1987. Lotus was turning into a spent force, even with Honda power and reigning champion Piquet. Williams were all at sea when they had to sign up for Judd V8 engines at short notice.
Having said that, I struggle to find compelling arguments for any of the other cars outranking the MP4/4.
With regards to the Williams FW16 it will always be hard to judge how good it really was in one and bit GPs in Senna's hands, just as with the first Toleman which Senna only raced for a few races. I'd put it between the 1986 and 1993 cars. It had potential and was only seriously matched by the Benetton of Schumacher, but was also tricky and difficult in race trim.
I'd say so, the car could have been a failure with the totally new engine Honda developed for the season. Keep in mind that turbos were quite limited on fuel allowance compared to 87 to make the NA engines competitive. Even with that Mclaren managed to dominate, look at the other Honda powered car running the same powerplant coming in 4th. That and the competitiveness of it's successor with yet another new engine should give them the top spots. The 5 comes in second because the other teams managed to catch up a bit.
PTRACER wrote: ↑5 years agoIf we look at the performance alone, Senna put it on pole in all three of his races. He led in Brazil, but clearly it wasn't handling right and Senna spun while driving it at its limit, while Schumacher admitted he had paced himself when needed. Senna of course led at Imola until the crash too...
The original FW16 had big aero imbalance issues caused by the switch from active to passive suspension. Williams hugely underestimated the driver aids ban. There’s an article somewhere about it, let me dig it out.
PTRACER wrote: ↑5 years ago@kals I see what you're saying about the McLarens, but to put such championship-winning cars between two cars which could only scrape a few race wins and were unreliable and flawed doesn't seem right.
I find it hard to agree that being a championship winner means it’s ranked above another. Both 1990 and 1991 cars were very good, yet they had the dual might and resources of McLaren and Honda and stumbled along the way. Back in 1986 Lotus were a top team but didn’t have the same level of resources as their rivals, and they had an inferior engine to Honda and TAG-Porsche. The car and engine combo were neat and aligned with Senna it was able to put up a championship challenge. That is more impressive and deserving of being ranked higher than the 1990 and 1991 McLarens.
Hard to say the FW16 was a bad car since Damon Hill nearly won the WDC with it. With Senna racing the entire year, there is no doubt he would have had another title.
However, due to the aforementioned instability, it should not be at the top. I would put it below the MP4/8 (and above the MP4/7).