F1 Fanatic

Actually Ned it probably proves everything. The F2004 was faster than the F2002. That’s all we’re comparing, not them and say the FW14B. The cars were only two years apart, not fifty!

So by that logic the 2004 Minardi was better than the F2002, because it could get around a lap more quickly. But then you’d expect that with two years extra technology and rule changes

Another example- would you consider the 1997 McLaren better than the 1998 McLaren, simply because it was quicker around a lap? Surely not, considering the former was nothing special and the latter won two world title’s. (I’m assuming that the 1998 car would’ve been slower because of the regulation changes for that season, but perhaps I’m wrong)

If the question is simply what was the fastest car/ driver of all time, then you’d have to say the F2004, because it set so many lap records, and probably Michael Schumacher, because he set the most pole positions

Um, Ned, Schumacher’s best lap of Silverstone in the F2002 (in race conditions) was 1:23.826. In 2004, Bruni did it in 1:24.296.

Unless your point was that it automatically made it a better car if it <i>had</i> been faster. But the original question which was the best of the decade. Here we have two cars that were the most dominant of the Noughties, how do you decide between them? It seems simple to me. Even if you look beyond speed, that F2002 only had a slightly better win ration in comparison to the F2004′s superior reliability.

Of course, personal preferences are a different matter. Personally I liked the way the F2002 looked more!

No, I do see what you’re saying now. It would be interesting indeed to compare the victory margins between the two, see which one was more dominant. And to be honest the F2004 was such an evolution if the F2003 and F2002, whereas the F2002 was a much bigger leap from the F2001.

Victory margins, was something i did think about looking into, but it dawned on me that its rather pointless, as clear leaders don’t drive their cars hard for the whole race, but tend to manage the gap and look after their car. So it rarely tells us the true possible performance.

Qualifying results and times against the opposition is also is not a good indication for these years, as the qualifying rules were changing from year to year. In 2004 they had to qualify with race fuel onboard. I remember Schumacher would often sacrifice grid positions, in favour of carrying more fuel to run longer in the 1st stint.

I also understand what your saying Ned about not comparing the out right speed of cars from different years. And their is clear arguments for either side of the F2002 v F2004 debate.

I think the “what was the best car in the 2000′s that wasn’t a Ferrari?” question is an interesting one.

I think i would have to go for the 2006 Renault R26.

The best non-Ferrari? I would throw my hat in with the BGP0001. A very nice car to watch, drive, superb mechanical grip and with a simple idea it won 8 races. If only they had had the development budget, 2009 would have been a very boring season.