Worst Car 2010
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 37 total)
11th June 2010, 20:57 at 8:57 pmParticipant
Now, it is clear that certainly in the first races, Red Bull have the strongest car and the top of the field roughly reads: RBR – McLaren – Ferrari – Renault/Mercedes.
What about the other end. Obviously the HRTs, Lotii and Virgins have been trailing around at the back but when you consider that one of them has had no pre-season testing, and have up until now been unable to add new bits to their car; and that all three had approximately 8 months to design and develop a car from scratch they are doing pretty well to be within 5 seconds of the leaders.
So taking into account all factors such as this and budget – which team has produced the worst car?
I’m personally going to plump for Williams. As I said, due to the circumstances surrounding the entry of the bottom three (bearing in mind when they started to bid they were under the impression that everyone’s budget would be sub-40million) and given the history of Williams they aren’t doing well. They must have a reasonable budget as they do have some sponsorship and they’ve got guys with a proven record of winning. Then again, is (as DC has suggested) that the problem, does the team need shaking up.
That’s my choice and reasoning, what’s everyone else’s?
11th June 2010, 21:23 at 9:23 pmKeymaster
Id go for Sauber, They used to have good relieability but now they rarely finish, weather this will improve in time after there re-takeover of BMW.
but Williams have been poor for a few years now
11th June 2010, 21:56 at 9:56 pmParticipant
Well, the obvious answer would be the Hispania. But here’s a more detailed look at it
Slowest car- Hispania
Most unreliable car- Sauber
Most inconsistent car- McLaren
Ugliest car- Sauber
Most disapointing car- Ferrari
11th June 2010, 23:50 at 11:50 pmParticipant
Ned – I think Sauber has one of the best looking cars this year! I love the clean white livery and the high pointy nose. Just a shame the car is underperforming; they’re the worst established team I reckon – such a shame after being competitive so recently.
12th June 2010, 1:10 at 1:10 amParticipant
It’s got to be Sauber, especially seeing how BMW claimed to have started developing it early and continuing to do so for a time after they pulled out. Plus their testing form suggested they’d do a decent job… but they’ve been out-developed and haven’t had the reliability, which was usually one of their best qualities in the BMW days.
12th June 2010, 1:24 at 1:24 amParticipant
Well BMW really left Sauber high and dry, so I’d say they’ve done a good job even with their bad results.
I agree with Ned, Ferrari have been highly disappointing.
But I’d go with James and say overall Williams have been the worst, all things considering.
12th June 2010, 1:42 at 1:42 amParticipant
Williams. They’ve spent the past few years bouncing between the upper and lower midfield, and now they’re just making talented drivers look silly (though since Hulkenberg was told to let Barrichello through in Istanbul, it’s not looking good for Nico). Worse, there’s no apparent reason for their lack of pace.
As for Ferrari, they’ve managed to go and shoot themselves in the foot. The F60 was a problematic car that only really came good under certain conditions and they ended development early to oncentrate on what became the F10. The problem was that the rule changes for 2009 rendered the pre-2009 data they had gathered as null and void. So Ferrari as essentially back at square one, developing a car from scratch because all their 2009 data was useless. As such, the F10 is very much a reactive car; it’s got a Red Bull nose, Brawn sidepods and a McLaren rear wing. It’s too conservative. In a sport where innovation is king, Ferrari have chosen to copy everyone else. McLaren, on the other hand, did things right. The MP4/24 was a disappointing car, but they took it from the lower midfield to the top step of the podium, giving them a workable platform for 2010.
12th June 2010, 9:39 at 9:39 amParticipant
I think Williams, based on budget and overall know-how, has the worst car of 2010. I think they should definitely be consistently beating Force-India, Torro-Rosso, Sauber, and at least giving Renault a hard time.
It’s obvious from what’s been said in the media and in articles on F1Fanatic that Sauber have very little budget to spend on improving the car as its seems they may be on the ropes. In conclusion, it seems fairly clear that from testing onwards they basically just lost ground the everyone else.
At the back of the field, I think by results that it’s pretty clear Lotus is doing the best. Considering HRT’s lack of funding that and the fact that for the first half of the season they were sorting out issues with Dallara, and hence having difficulty developing the car, I’d say Virgin were the biggest disappointment of the three. I say that on the assumption that they at least have parity of funding with Lotus, if not better funding.
13th June 2010, 6:23 at 6:23 amParticipant
PM, hadn’t really thought of the F10 in those terms, but you’re right, it is just a copy of everyone else’s best components.
I would have to say the Sauber is the most disappointing, simply based on how competitive they looked in Winter Testing.
Overall though if you factor in reliability, pace, fuel pickup, and tank size, the Virgin has got to be the worst car of the year. They’ve definitely improved with the “Limo,” but HRT are still competing with them in a car that has had zero development!
13th June 2010, 10:14 at 10:14 amParticipant
Williams for sure.
13th June 2010, 10:32 at 10:32 amParticipant
Ned I’m not sure why you think McLaren has been the most inconsitant. Since race 1 it’s been podium worthy at every race but the highly specialised Monaco. It’s results have been slightly inconsitant due to crashes and finger trouble but from Australia onwards it’s almost always been the second fastest car in qualifying an slightly faster or slower than Redbull in the race, an it’s been consitantly improving as well, I’d go so far as to call it highly consitant in fact.
Sauber, it looks so good it promised so much, it was however conceived in a chaotic enivroment, it almost certainly suffered in the transition and from teh massive loss of it’s technical team and infrastructure, of course they tried to say it was quick in testing, but only really the first test if you ask me.
Williams then why they didn’t build on there car from last year baffles me, it wasn’t bad all those 4th places, why they need a clean sheet design after that makes no sense at all.
Virgin is the most disapointing new team, one of the first to start development and yet not able to keep up with Lotus a lot of the time, farcical design flaws, an an over ambitious remit.
13th June 2010, 11:07 at 11:07 amMember
I think Ferrari haven’t been the worst because of everything PM says about them going back to square 1. They were effectively a step behind. It isn’t the most original but they were playing catch up. The car was a race winner (albeit things came their way but honestly RBR should have won every race so far) at the first round so I think the car was good if not entirely original it’s just developing it nhas been rubbish really. I also think the fans expected perhaps too much because it is Ferrari and although they have every capacity to catch up and win I think, I prefer to always be a bit cynical and not get my hopes up.
Sauber – considering it’s lost BMW it may be doing alright but once again us fans and the media built up so much hype it’s no surprise it seems a let down. I do say seems there.
For me the worst car is Williams-for everything Scribe said.
Out of the newbies then Virgin. I can forgive the fuel tank mistake but HRT have started to be quicker than them on occassion. It’s hard to compare esp when between the two teams there are 3 rookies but Virgin should really be ahead of HRT. Also though well done to HRT for making good of what little they have.
13th June 2010, 11:41 at 11:41 amParticipant
Well I think up until yesterday Sauber’s performance when they’ve actually finished really hasn’t all been that bad. Considering they’ve hardly had finishes, their performance has often bettered Williams, Toro Rosso and broke into the top 10. I can’t help but think where they’d be if they’d finished every race! The reliability is down there with the worst i’ve ever known.
Toro Rosso haven’t really set the world alight, and as for Williams we’ll have to see if their fortunes change this weekend, as they seem to be doing pretty well!
13th June 2010, 11:48 at 11:48 amParticipant
Now I think of it actually I’d say Mercedes.
Loads of money, last years championship winners and they haven’t come close to winning a race.
Under achievers are clearly Williams, Sauber and however much it pains me to say it Toro Rosso.
13th June 2010, 11:57 at 11:57 amParticipant
Hmm difficult to answer this, I’ve just been reasoning out loud to Tom about this while he’s just sat there going ‘yeah’ ‘uhuh’ haha :) There’s a few I’d say aren’t doing as well as you’d expect but every year they’ll be people that are up and people that are down.
Just noticed Tom put a cheeky comment in! In reply to that Mercedes only have loads of money now, they didn’t as Brawn which might partly explain their lack of pace cos they couldn’t develop last years car.
I think Ferrari are probably doing the worst based on how much money and experience they have, you’d expect them to still be competitive as they were close behind the Red Bull of Vettel in the first race so they were close on pace then but seem to be nowhere near now, they’ve most definitely gone backwards (or really failed to improve whilst those around them have!)
Other teams that aren’t really achieving what you’d expect are Williams, Sauber and Toro Rosso, but I guess Williams is kind of where you’d expect them to be now, just outside the top 10, with Ferrari, Red Bull, Mclaren, Merc and now Renault making up the 10 places better than them.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 37 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.