WDC in history NOT in the best car?

Well, I think you can argue it happened many times; at the drop of a hat:
1967: Hulme in the Brabham-Repco; the Lotus 49 was faster, but more fragile
1973: Stewart in the Tyrrell; the Lotus 72 was faster, but Fittapildi and Peterson ate points to each other
1974: Fittipaldi, with the McLaren M23; it was not the best car, but McLaren was the best team
1977: Lauda in the Ferrari 312T2; the Lotus 78 was faster, but less reliable
1979: Scheckter in the Ferrari 312 T4; the Williams FW07 was faster, but ready too late, and the points system was absurd
1986: Prost in the McLaren Porsche; the Williams FW11 was much faster, but Mansell and Piquet ate points to each other
etc...

 

Interesting Q indeed.

Nerofer makes some good points, but I guess it comes down to what you believe to be the "best" car? Fastest? Most reliable? Least fragile?

I dunno, but it seems to me that the "best" car is the one that wins the WDC. One could argue the WCC is the more important in this context, but then it becomes the best team, not necessarily the best car. It's always been a long season, and in general the cream rises.....

One thing I don't quite get in either case is the idea that teammates can "steal" points from each other. To a very limited degree (1st -v- 2nd) I hear you. But I know that if I were a team principal I'd want both my guys scoring regularly; That's not stealing points from me, but rather the other guys, and that's gotta be good.

Cheers,
Ian

 

Won the WDC with inferior cars to their rivals:

Senna 1991
MS 1994
MS 1995
Alonso 2005

Recent near misses for the WDC in cars inferior to the WDC winner:

MS 1997
MS 1998
Kimi 2003
MS 2006
Alonso 2010
Alonso 2012

 

I haven't seen one yet. 67 with Hulme ? Impossible, his teammate finished 2nd!!!

Rosberg ? I don't know, in '82 the turbos were blowing up at a precarious rate, the Cosworths were doomed BUT they seemed the safe bet. 4th in WCC only means your teammate sucked (no comment but it was Derek Daly) or given little support.

Alonso would have been the first to have pulled it off.....

 

What about Kimi winning the championship with Ferrari in 2007. I think the Mclaren was a better car

 

Funny: When I saw the title of this thread (before opening it) I immediately thought of Keke.

The 126C2 was the undisputed king of the hill and would have won the title had its drivers not been killed and injured.

Another 2nd best car that brought the title: Hunt in the McLaren

 

What about 1999?

Which car was better? Ferrari or McLaren?

MS would have won that title if he hadn't broken his leg. In fact even his wingman Irvine almost got the title. So was the Ferrari better?

If so, then Mika gets the palmares.

 

I think this only happens when something really bad happens to the guy in the best car (death or injury).

The only barely "normal" case I can think of is Prost vs. the Williams, but the McLaren was not too far away and the Williams squad self-destructed.

 

IMO, the F399 was the fastest car out there. Nurburgring 1999 lost Irv the title.

 

I agree.

Note to mechanics: F1 cars have 4 wheels.

Well, for the most part.

 

The Mclaren for sure:

11 poles and 9 fastest laps for the Mclaren

3 poles and 6 fastest laps for the Ferrari

The only reason that title was close was because Hakkinen threw away an easy 20 points by crashing while leading by a mile at Imola and Monza.

 

I tend to agree that the McLaren was the fastest car (perhaps not the best); but I do recall that the Imola crash was claimed by Mika as "my fault", but most qualified observers (mmmh....) thought that it was in fact a mechanical failure at the rear of the car, and that Mika didn't want to disclose "something".

 

Hmm...I remember the crash but it looked to me like Mika got on it too hard out of the final corner and the car swapped ends on him and hit the wall before he could catch it. Hakkinen was really lucky MS broke his leg that year because that title would have been all his.