Formula 1 cars straddle the blurred boundary between science and alchemy.
At their most basic, they are simply machines designed to do a job. Yet the finest of their breed cast off their shackles as mere mechanical instruments, developing their own character and adding to the beauty of grand prix racing.
Such cars are rare. To find out which ones stood out about the rest, AUTOSPORT's sister publication F1 Racing asked the people who know best: the designers and technical staff, past and present, who have devoted their lives to improving the breed of F1 cars.
These are the results of that poll.
The voting panel: James Allison, Nick Chester, Andy Cowell, Frank Dernie, Andrew Green, Robin Herd, Dominic Harlow, Paul Hembrey, Paddy Lowe, Stevee Nichols, Jo Ramirez, Neil Oatley, Sergio Rinland, Enrique Scalabroni, Guenther Steiner, Andy Stevenson, Pat Symonds, Otmar Szafnauer, Willem Toet, Jonathan Williams, Peter Wright
The game-changer: Lotus 49
From the moment the new - and slightly late - Lotus 49s rolled out of the trucks, down the ramp and on to the sandy grass of the Zandvoort paddock in June 1967, change was inevitable in Formula 1. Colin Chapman had already rendered conventional F1 chassis design obsolete in 1962, with his monocoque Lotus 25, and now he would reboot a concept first tried in the 1950s to move the game on again.
Making one item fulfill more than one function is among the holy grails of engineering. By using the skin of the 25 as a load-bearing part of the chassis, with integrated fuel tanks mounted on each side of the driver in a folded steel structure, Chapman had eliminated the inherent wastefulness of the steel spaceframe concept.
This was perfect for the 1.5-litre F1 era, when engines were underpowered and lightweight, and aerodynamic efficiency was the key competitive differentiator. And after the three-litre formula began in 1966, the 49, designed by Chapman and Maurice Philippe, took this a step further, by using an engine specifically created to act as a structural element of the car.
Lotus, like other British teams, were initially caught out by the new formula; engine manufacturers such as Climax had wasted development time by complaining about the change and lobbying against it rather than designing units to suit it.
Clark won on the 49's debut after team-mate Hill claimed pole position © LAT |
That left Lotus struggling to design their 1966 car around BRM's absurd H16: two flattened-out 1.5-litre V8s mated at the crank. The only advantage of this overweight behemoth was its strength, meaning the car could lose the subframes used at the rear to carry the engine and absorb suspension load. Instead, the engine could do both jobs.
The 1966 Lotus 43 might have been more successful but for the BRM engine's weight and unreliability - Jim Clark managed just one grand prix win - a fact that was not lost on Chapman.
He needed a different, better engine. Having just won the Indy 500 using Ford power, Chapman deployed his legendary charm to persuade Ford's Walter Hayes to underwrite the costs of developing a new aluminium V8 to be designed and built by Cosworth.
Modern Formula 1's Year Zero began in 1967. Graham Hill set pole position on the 49's debut at Zandvoort, and after he retired from the lead team-mate Jim Clark won.
Rivals were soon lining up to obtain Ford-Cosworth power for themselves. Poor reliability cost Lotus the 1967 title, but every championship since then has been won with an engine acting as a structural element of the car.
How the voting went:
1st Lotus 49
2nd Lotus 78
3rd McLaren MP4/1
4th Cooper-Climax T43
5th Lotus 25
Designer Colin Chapman
Chassis Aluminium monocoque
Engine 3-litre Ford Cosworth DFV V8
Power 409bhp
Transmission Hewland FG400
Wheelbase 241.3cm
Weight 510kg
Tyres Firestone
Best-looking: Jordan-Ford 191
When you need to design a Formula 1 car with a minimal staff and limited access to a windtunnel, your solutions had better be as simple and as effective as possible.
The young Gary Anderson was a mechanic under Gordon Murray at Brabham at their inventive zenith in the 1970s, but he had a yearning to build his own cars. First at weekends, then full-time in partnership with ex-Tyrrell mechanic Bob Simpson, he designed the moderately successful Anson Formula 3 cars.
Racing on a shoestring did not suit him, and he headed to America to work as a race engineer for Roberto Moreno in IndyCar (racing against Adrian Newey-engineered Bobby Rahal, among others) and ultimately secured a design job with the Brackley-based customer chassis builder Reynard.
Not long after Jean Alesi had won the 1989 Formula 3000 championship in an Anderson-designed Reynard-Mugen run by Eddie Jordan Racing, Anderson received the first of many phone calls from Jordan, who claimed to have secured enough budget from his sponsor, Camel, to build and run an F1 car. Anderson eventually submitted to Jordan's charm offensive and accepted a job.
The Jordan F1 project began in February 1990. Anderson and his staff of two - Andrew Green and Mark Smith - had a mountain to climb.
De Cesaris showed well at Spa in Jordan © LAT |
There was little money for windtunnel testing and, since the F1 grid was oversubscribed in those days, any new team would have to pre-qualify - a short and vicious Friday-morning session in which only the four fastest cars fielded by the championship's lowest points scorers got through to qualifying proper.
Thus the 191 was shaped by expediency. With track time in short supply, it had to be quick out of the box, easy to understand and quick and easy to adjust. That dictated both its elegant shape and its neat suspension.
Jordan had a rough introduction to Formula 1. They managed to secure a supply of Ford customer engines in place of the anticipated Judd V10 - forcing Anderson to redesign the 191's engine cover with a slight bulge - only for Ford to then whisk Camel off to their works team, Benetton.
No matter: the car looks so much better in the green of 7-Up, a deal Jordan put together at the last minute.
By mid-season the 191 had made it out of pre-qualifying and was carving its place in history: Michael Schumacher made his debut in one at Spa, while in the same race the often erratic Andrea de Cesaris heroically pursued Ayrton Senna for the lead until his engine blew. Expediency had shaped not just a beautiful car, but a quick one, too.
How the voting went:
1st Jordan-Ford 191
2nd Eagle-Weslake Mk1
3rd Brabham-BMW BT55
4th Maserati 250F
5th Ferrari 312 T2
Designer Gary Anderson
Chassis Carbonfibre monocoque
Engine 3.5-litre Ford HB4 V8
Power 730bhp
Transmission Jordan transverse
Wheelbase 289.5cm
Weight 505kg
Tyres Goodyear
Best technology: Williams FW14B
Had this category been for the most technically advanced F1 car, the Mercedes W05 Hybrid would have won. And, in fact, it almost did. But we had also asked our panel of designers to consider how technologically advanced each car was for the era in which it raced. That resulted in a narrow win for the Williams FW14B, the first car to truly master active suspension in the driver-aid-fuelled early 1990s.
The machine was an evolution of the FW14, which combined the aerodynamic wizardry of Adrian Newey with the engineering nous of Patrick Head. Thanks to Renault's potent 3.5-litre V10 engine and a semi-automatic gearbox, the FW14 was the fastest car on the 1991 grid by season's end.
However, early unreliability, much of it linked to the gearbox, let McLaren's Ayrton Senna build up an unassailable points lead.
For 1992, Newey and Head opted for evolution with the FW14B chassis now enhanced by an active-suspension system, developed by current Merc tech chief Paddy Lowe. This meant the suspension could be automatically adjusted for each corner to ensure a consistent ride height, thus greatly increasing cornering speed. Such was the team's dominance that Nigel Mansell and Ricardo Patrese often qualified several seconds ahead of their rivals.
While rivals teams ran their own active-suspension systems, none of them were able to match that of the Williams unit, and the following year's more refined Williams FW15C remained dominant - indeed, it finished third in this very poll.
An evolution of the 1991 car, the Williams FW14B was a potent weapon © LAT |
The following year, the FIA banned active suspension, traction control and other driver aids. It wasn't until the introduction of the 2014 hybrid power units that F1 really placed itself near the cutting edge of road-car-relevant technology again.
The FIA's argument for banning driver aids in 1994 was to put the emphasis back on the driver, the implication being that the active cars were becoming too easy to drive. Yet, ironically, the qualities needed to extract ultimate speed from the FW14B's incredible technology were very human: brute force and immense self-belief.
"The commitment was such that, if it didn't stick, there would be a big accident," said Nigel Mansell, whose perfect mix of brute force, finesse, and immense self-belief had helped him to dominate in the Williams FW14B in 1992.
"You almost had to hang onto it. If you had to alter it halfway through the corner, you almost didn't have enough strength to catch it. It was terrifying. But if you got it right, it was satisfying - and it was quick."
How the voting went
1st Williams FW14B
2nd Mercedes W05 Hybrid
3rd Williams FW15C
4th McLaren MP4/1
5th Mercedes W196
Designers Patrick Head and Adrian Newey
Chassis Carbonfibre/honeycomb composite
Engine 3.5-litre Renault RS4 V10
Power 750bhp
Transmission Williams six-speed
Wheelbase 292.1
Weight 505kg
Tyres Goodyear
Coolest car: Mercedes-Benz W196
Defining what's 'cool' isn't easy - after all, 'cool' is a very personal thing. So what makes a 'cool' car? We asked our panel of designers to pick the machine they best connected with... that they were most drawn to... that they wished they had designed. No surprise, then, that this category attracted the widest range of responses.
The Mercedes-Benz W196 is a very worthy winner. After all, how cool is a car that won nine of the 12 grands prix it entered over the course of 1954 and 1955, as well as two world championships in the hands of Juan Manuel Fangio? And how cool is a car that was withdrawn from competition before it could be eclipsed by the opposition? And how cool is a car that featured two distinct bodywork types, and engine technology inspired by fighter jets?
In the aftermath of World War II, Mercedes-Benz rebuilt their racing division, committing considerable resources to the sport with a team of more than 200 designers and engineers creating machines for multiple categories.
The W196 first ran at the French Grand Prix at Reims in 1954 and won first time out in the hands of Juan Manuel Fangio. For that race, it sported Streamliner bodywork that enclosed the wheels for maximum efficiency. That bodywork was also used at Silverstone and Monza - hence the 'Type Monza' tag - and elsewhere the car ran in substantially altered open-wheel form.
Mercedes was also available in streamline form © LAT |
Reflecting the effort the modern Mercedes team has put into engine development, the W196 featured a cutting-edge 2.5-litre straight-eight (complete with a direct injection unit developed for Messerschmitt), with power rising from 257bhp to 290bhp over the car's two-year life.
Other notable features included huge inboard drum brakes and a lever that allowed the driver to change the oil pressure in the shock-absorbers mid-race, effectively altering the suspension feel to aid handling as fuel loads fell. It was the sort of attention to detail that could come only from a well-funded manufacturer effort.
The W196's incredible two-year domination of grand prix motor racing came to an abrupt end when Mercedes suddenly withdrew from motor racing altogether, following a terrible accident at the 1955 24 Hours of Le Mans, when their driver, Pierre Levegh, lost his life in a crash that killed 82 spectators and injured 120 others.
That tragic end to the car's competition career leaves questions over the unfulfilled potential of the machine.
How the voting went
1st Mercedes-Benz W196
2nd McLaren-Honda MP4/4
3rd Lotus 79
4th Ferrari 126C
5th Benetton-BMW B186
Designer Rudolf Uhlenhaut
Chassis Tubular spaceframe
Engine 2.5-litre eight-cylinder in-line
Power 290bhp
Transmission five-speed manual
Wheelbase 235cm
Weight 720kg
Tyres Continental
F1's all-time greatest car: McLaren-Honda MP4/4
While beauty, innovation, lateral thinking, speed and style all mattered to our panel of designers when it came to picking the greatest car of all time, it was clear that one criteria outweighed all the others: winning.
One designer who picked the McLaren-Honda MP4/4 described his choice as: "By percentage, the car with the winningest season in F1 history." Another added: "The most successful car, winning 15 of 16 races." That explains how a car that didn't win in any of the nine other categories comfortably led the way in voting for the one that mattered most of all. The McLaren MP4/4 wasn't particularly revolutionary, radical, or unusual: it was simply dominant.
From the first time they drove the MP4/4 in testing, Alain Prost and Ayrton Senna knew they had been handed a machine capable of winning. But they couldn't possibly have realised the MP4/4 was capable of taking 15 pole positions, 15 wins and ten further podiums over a 16-race season - or that McLaren would score three times as many points as runners-up Ferrari.
The MP4/4 was developed by Steve Nichols and Gordon Murray. Murray had just arrived from Brabham, and the MP4/4 adopted many of the ideas seen on his ambitious BT55, including the low, sleek appearance. The Honda engine was mounted lower than on previous McLaren cars to reduce the centre of gravity and improve aerodynamics, while sophisticated rear suspension made it stable on the brakes and hugely quick in traction zones.
MP4-4 was an all-conquering machine © LAT |
Another key was the new engine, McLaren having switched from their Porsche-built TAG units to the turbocharged Honda RA168-E V6. Honda pushed to the limit and produced a unit that could put out well in excess of 700bhp. Throw in the car's superb reliability and the world's two best drivers, and the result was utter dominance. Had it not been for Senna's Monza clash with Jean-Louis Schlesser, the MP4/4 would have won every race.
That domination was all the more impressive because it didn't come from McLaren exploiting a rules loophole, or a change in technology: the MP4/4 was simply a better car than its 1988 rivals. In fact, its dominance came despite the best efforts of rule-makers: in the final year of turbo engines, forced-induction units had to overcome some harsh restrictions, including a huge reduction in boost and fuel allowance and a weight advantage for naturally aspirated cars.
The MP4/4's record of 15 wins in one season was finally bettered by Mercedes last year, although the W05's 16 victories came from 19 races, and as a result the MP4/4 has a better strike rate - 93.75 per cent. Such numbers are incredible, but the MP4/4 isn't just about the stats: it was the car in which the epic Senna/Prost rivalry really kicked off; the two legends engaged in an escalating private battle. Prost scored more points, but Senna won the title on dropped scores.
How would the course of the Senna/Prost rivalry have differed if the MP4/4 hadn't been so dominant in 1988? If another car had provided a challenge, would tensions between the two drivers have been diffused by the need to address an external threat?
That's a matter for debate. What isn't up for debate is that the McLaren-Honda MP4/4 is a great F1 car - a worthy recipient of the title 'greatest of all time'.
How the voting went
1st McLaren-Honda MP4/4
2nd Williams-Renault FW14B
3rd Lotus 25
4th Mercedes-Benz W196
=5th Lotus 78
=5th Mercedes F1 W05 Hybrid
Designer Steve Nichols and Gordon Murray
Chassis Carbonfibre monocoque
Engine 1.5-litre Honda RA168-E V6 turbo
Power 650bhp
Transmission McLaren six-speed
Wheelbase 287.5cm
Weight 540kg
Tyres Goodyear
Designer's view
"We were working with regulations designed to ensure that a normally aspirated engine would win. The non-turbo cars had more engine capacity: 3.5 litres. We had 150 litres of fuel, a 1.5-litre engine and limited boost. That meant, on average for a race distance, we probably had about 600bhp. Even so, we regularly beat the normally aspirated cars and beat and occasionally lapped the Lotus with the same engine.
"The MP4/4 was the culmination of all of McLaren's experience at the time and a perfect expression of the value of teamwork. It is a testament to the fantastic effort of all those McLaren people who produced and raced this wonderful car."
Steve Nichols, co-designer, McLaren MP4/4
Other winners
Most radical: Brabham BT46B
Must unusual: Tyrrell P34
Giantkiller: Brawn BGP 001
Formula 1 cars straddle the blurred boundary between science and alchemy.
At their most basic, they are simply machines designed to do a job. Yet the finest of their breed cast off their shackles as mere mechanical instruments, developing their own character and adding to the beauty of grand prix racing.
Such cars are rare. To find out which ones stood out about the rest, AUTOSPORT's sister publication F1 Racing asked the people who know best: the designers and technical staff, past and present, who have devoted their lives to improving the breed of F1 cars.
These are the results of that poll.
The voting panel: James Allison, Nick Chester, Andy Cowell, Frank Dernie, Andrew Green, Robin Herd, Dominic Harlow, Paul Hembrey, Paddy Lowe, Stevee Nichols, Jo Ramirez, Neil Oatley, Sergio Rinland, Enrique Scalabroni, Guenther Steiner, Andy Stevenson, Pat Symonds, Otmar Szafnauer, Willem Toet, Jonathan Williams, Peter Wright
The game-changer: Lotus 49
From the moment the new - and slightly late - Lotus 49s rolled out of the trucks, down the ramp and on to the sandy grass of the Zandvoort paddock in June 1967, change was inevitable in Formula 1. Colin Chapman had already rendered conventional F1 chassis design obsolete in 1962, with his monocoque Lotus 25, and now he would reboot a concept first tried in the 1950s to move the game on again.
Making one item fulfill more than one function is among the holy grails of engineering. By using the skin of the 25 as a load-bearing part of the chassis, with integrated fuel tanks mounted on each side of the driver in a folded steel structure, Chapman had eliminated the inherent wastefulness of the steel spaceframe concept.
This was perfect for the 1.5-litre F1 era, when engines were underpowered and lightweight, and aerodynamic efficiency was the key competitive differentiator. And after the three-litre formula began in 1966, the 49, designed by Chapman and Maurice Philippe, took this a step further, by using an engine specifically created to act as a structural element of the car.
Lotus, like other British teams, were initially caught out by the new formula; engine manufacturers such as Climax had wasted development time by complaining about the change and lobbying against it rather than designing units to suit it.
Clark won on the 49's debut after team-mate Hill claimed pole position © LAT |
That left Lotus struggling to design their 1966 car around BRM's absurd H16: two flattened-out 1.5-litre V8s mated at the crank. The only advantage of this overweight behemoth was its strength, meaning the car could lose the subframes used at the rear to carry the engine and absorb suspension load. Instead, the engine could do both jobs.
The 1966 Lotus 43 might have been more successful but for the BRM engine's weight and unreliability - Jim Clark managed just one grand prix win - a fact that was not lost on Chapman.
He needed a different, better engine. Having just won the Indy 500 using Ford power, Chapman deployed his legendary charm to persuade Ford's Walter Hayes to underwrite the costs of developing a new aluminium V8 to be designed and built by Cosworth.
Modern Formula 1's Year Zero began in 1967. Graham Hill set pole position on the 49's debut at Zandvoort, and after he retired from the lead team-mate Jim Clark won.
Rivals were soon lining up to obtain Ford-Cosworth power for themselves. Poor reliability cost Lotus the 1967 title, but every championship since then has been won with an engine acting as a structural element of the car.
How the voting went:
1st Lotus 49
2nd Lotus 78
3rd McLaren MP4/1
4th Cooper-Climax T43
5th Lotus 25
Designer Colin Chapman
Chassis Aluminium monocoque
Engine 3-litre Ford Cosworth DFV V8
Power 409bhp
Transmission Hewland FG400
Wheelbase 241.3cm
Weight 510kg
Tyres Firestone
Best-looking: Jordan-Ford 191
When you need to design a Formula 1 car with a minimal staff and limited access to a windtunnel, your solutions had better be as simple and as effective as possible.
The young Gary Anderson was a mechanic under Gordon Murray at Brabham at their inventive zenith in the 1970s, but he had a yearning to build his own cars. First at weekends, then full-time in partnership with ex-Tyrrell mechanic Bob Simpson, he designed the moderately successful Anson Formula 3 cars.
Racing on a shoestring did not suit him, and he headed to America to work as a race engineer for Roberto Moreno in IndyCar (racing against Adrian Newey-engineered Bobby Rahal, among others) and ultimately secured a design job with the Brackley-based customer chassis builder Reynard.
Not long after Jean Alesi had won the 1989 Formula 3000 championship in an Anderson-designed Reynard-Mugen run by Eddie Jordan Racing, Anderson received the first of many phone calls from Jordan, who claimed to have secured enough budget from his sponsor, Camel, to build and run an F1 car. Anderson eventually submitted to Jordan's charm offensive and accepted a job.
The Jordan F1 project began in February 1990. Anderson and his staff of two - Andrew Green and Mark Smith - had a mountain to climb.
De Cesaris showed well at Spa in Jordan © LAT |
There was little money for windtunnel testing and, since the F1 grid was oversubscribed in those days, any new team would have to pre-qualify - a short and vicious Friday-morning session in which only the four fastest cars fielded by the championship's lowest points scorers got through to qualifying proper.
Thus the 191 was shaped by expediency. With track time in short supply, it had to be quick out of the box, easy to understand and quick and easy to adjust. That dictated both its elegant shape and its neat suspension.
Jordan had a rough introduction to Formula 1. They managed to secure a supply of Ford customer engines in place of the anticipated Judd V10 - forcing Anderson to redesign the 191's engine cover with a slight bulge - only for Ford to then whisk Camel off to their works team, Benetton.
No matter: the car looks so much better in the green of 7-Up, a deal Jordan put together at the last minute.
By mid-season the 191 had made it out of pre-qualifying and was carving its place in history: Michael Schumacher made his debut in one at Spa, while in the same race the often erratic Andrea de Cesaris heroically pursued Ayrton Senna for the lead until his engine blew. Expediency had shaped not just a beautiful car, but a quick one, too.
How the voting went:
1st Jordan-Ford 191
2nd Eagle-Weslake Mk1
3rd Brabham-BMW BT55
4th Maserati 250F
5th Ferrari 312 T2
Designer Gary Anderson
Chassis Carbonfibre monocoque
Engine 3.5-litre Ford HB4 V8
Power 730bhp
Transmission Jordan transverse
Wheelbase 289.5cm
Weight 505kg
Tyres Goodyear
Best technology: Williams FW14B
Had this category been for the most technically advanced F1 car, the Mercedes W05 Hybrid would have won. And, in fact, it almost did. But we had also asked our panel of designers to consider how technologically advanced each car was for the era in which it raced. That resulted in a narrow win for the Williams FW14B, the first car to truly master active suspension in the driver-aid-fuelled early 1990s.
The machine was an evolution of the FW14, which combined the aerodynamic wizardry of Adrian Newey with the engineering nous of Patrick Head. Thanks to Renault's potent 3.5-litre V10 engine and a semi-automatic gearbox, the FW14 was the fastest car on the 1991 grid by season's end.
However, early unreliability, much of it linked to the gearbox, let McLaren's Ayrton Senna build up an unassailable points lead.
For 1992, Newey and Head opted for evolution with the FW14B chassis now enhanced by an active-suspension system, developed by current Merc tech chief Paddy Lowe. This meant the suspension could be automatically adjusted for each corner to ensure a consistent ride height, thus greatly increasing cornering speed. Such was the team's dominance that Nigel Mansell and Ricardo Patrese often qualified several seconds ahead of their rivals.
While rivals teams ran their own active-suspension systems, none of them were able to match that of the Williams unit, and the following year's more refined Williams FW15C remained dominant - indeed, it finished third in this very poll.
An evolution of the 1991 car, the Williams FW14B was a potent weapon © LAT |
The following year, the FIA banned active suspension, traction control and other driver aids. It wasn't until the introduction of the 2014 hybrid power units that F1 really placed itself near the cutting edge of road-car-relevant technology again.
The FIA's argument for banning driver aids in 1994 was to put the emphasis back on the driver, the implication being that the active cars were becoming too easy to drive. Yet, ironically, the qualities needed to extract ultimate speed from the FW14B's incredible technology were very human: brute force and immense self-belief.
"The commitment was such that, if it didn't stick, there would be a big accident," said Nigel Mansell, whose perfect mix of brute force, finesse, and immense self-belief had helped him to dominate in the Williams FW14B in 1992.
"You almost had to hang onto it. If you had to alter it halfway through the corner, you almost didn't have enough strength to catch it. It was terrifying. But if you got it right, it was satisfying - and it was quick."
How the voting went
1st Williams FW14B
2nd Mercedes W05 Hybrid
3rd Williams FW15C
4th McLaren MP4/1
5th Mercedes W196
Designers Patrick Head and Adrian Newey
Chassis Carbonfibre/honeycomb composite
Engine 3.5-litre Renault RS4 V10
Power 750bhp
Transmission Williams six-speed
Wheelbase 292.1
Weight 505kg
Tyres Goodyear
Coolest car: Mercedes-Benz W196
Defining what's 'cool' isn't easy - after all, 'cool' is a very personal thing. So what makes a 'cool' car? We asked our panel of designers to pick the machine they best connected with... that they were most drawn to... that they wished they had designed. No surprise, then, that this category attracted the widest range of responses.
The Mercedes-Benz W196 is a very worthy winner. After all, how cool is a car that won nine of the 12 grands prix it entered over the course of 1954 and 1955, as well as two world championships in the hands of Juan Manuel Fangio? And how cool is a car that was withdrawn from competition before it could be eclipsed by the opposition? And how cool is a car that featured two distinct bodywork types, and engine technology inspired by fighter jets?
In the aftermath of World War II, Mercedes-Benz rebuilt their racing division, committing considerable resources to the sport with a team of more than 200 designers and engineers creating machines for multiple categories.
The W196 first ran at the French Grand Prix at Reims in 1954 and won first time out in the hands of Juan Manuel Fangio. For that race, it sported Streamliner bodywork that enclosed the wheels for maximum efficiency. That bodywork was also used at Silverstone and Monza - hence the 'Type Monza' tag - and elsewhere the car ran in substantially altered open-wheel form.
Mercedes was also available in streamline form © LAT |
Reflecting the effort the modern Mercedes team has put into engine development, the W196 featured a cutting-edge 2.5-litre straight-eight (complete with a direct injection unit developed for Messerschmitt), with power rising from 257bhp to 290bhp over the car's two-year life.
Other notable features included huge inboard drum brakes and a lever that allowed the driver to change the oil pressure in the shock-absorbers mid-race, effectively altering the suspension feel to aid handling as fuel loads fell. It was the sort of attention to detail that could come only from a well-funded manufacturer effort.
The W196's incredible two-year domination of grand prix motor racing came to an abrupt end when Mercedes suddenly withdrew from motor racing altogether, following a terrible accident at the 1955 24 Hours of Le Mans, when their driver, Pierre Levegh, lost his life in a crash that killed 82 spectators and injured 120 others.
That tragic end to the car's competition career leaves questions over the unfulfilled potential of the machine.
How the voting went
1st Mercedes-Benz W196
2nd McLaren-Honda MP4/4
3rd Lotus 79
4th Ferrari 126C
5th Benetton-BMW B186
Designer Rudolf Uhlenhaut
Chassis Tubular spaceframe
Engine 2.5-litre eight-cylinder in-line
Power 290bhp
Transmission five-speed manual
Wheelbase 235cm
Weight 720kg
Tyres Continental
F1's all-time greatest car: McLaren-Honda MP4/4
While beauty, innovation, lateral thinking, speed and style all mattered to our panel of designers when it came to picking the greatest car of all time, it was clear that one criteria outweighed all the others: winning.
One designer who picked the McLaren-Honda MP4/4 described his choice as: "By percentage, the car with the winningest season in F1 history." Another added: "The most successful car, winning 15 of 16 races." That explains how a car that didn't win in any of the nine other categories comfortably led the way in voting for the one that mattered most of all. The McLaren MP4/4 wasn't particularly revolutionary, radical, or unusual: it was simply dominant.
From the first time they drove the MP4/4 in testing, Alain Prost and Ayrton Senna knew they had been handed a machine capable of winning. But they couldn't possibly have realised the MP4/4 was capable of taking 15 pole positions, 15 wins and ten further podiums over a 16-race season - or that McLaren would score three times as many points as runners-up Ferrari.
The MP4/4 was developed by Steve Nichols and Gordon Murray. Murray had just arrived from Brabham, and the MP4/4 adopted many of the ideas seen on his ambitious BT55, including the low, sleek appearance. The Honda engine was mounted lower than on previous McLaren cars to reduce the centre of gravity and improve aerodynamics, while sophisticated rear suspension made it stable on the brakes and hugely quick in traction zones.
MP4-4 was an all-conquering machine © LAT |
Another key was the new engine, McLaren having switched from their Porsche-built TAG units to the turbocharged Honda RA168-E V6. Honda pushed to the limit and produced a unit that could put out well in excess of 700bhp. Throw in the car's superb reliability and the world's two best drivers, and the result was utter dominance. Had it not been for Senna's Monza clash with Jean-Louis Schlesser, the MP4/4 would have won every race.
That domination was all the more impressive because it didn't come from McLaren exploiting a rules loophole, or a change in technology: the MP4/4 was simply a better car than its 1988 rivals. In fact, its dominance came despite the best efforts of rule-makers: in the final year of turbo engines, forced-induction units had to overcome some harsh restrictions, including a huge reduction in boost and fuel allowance and a weight advantage for naturally aspirated cars.
The MP4/4's record of 15 wins in one season was finally bettered by Mercedes last year, although the W05's 16 victories came from 19 races, and as a result the MP4/4 has a better strike rate - 93.75 per cent. Such numbers are incredible, but the MP4/4 isn't just about the stats: it was the car in which the epic Senna/Prost rivalry really kicked off; the two legends engaged in an escalating private battle. Prost scored more points, but Senna won the title on dropped scores.
How would the course of the Senna/Prost rivalry have differed if the MP4/4 hadn't been so dominant in 1988? If another car had provided a challenge, would tensions between the two drivers have been diffused by the need to address an external threat?
That's a matter for debate. What isn't up for debate is that the McLaren-Honda MP4/4 is a great F1 car - a worthy recipient of the title 'greatest of all time'.
How the voting went
1st McLaren-Honda MP4/4
2nd Williams-Renault FW14B
3rd Lotus 25
4th Mercedes-Benz W196
=5th Lotus 78
=5th Mercedes F1 W05 Hybrid
Designer Steve Nichols and Gordon Murray
Chassis Carbonfibre monocoque
Engine 1.5-litre Honda RA168-E V6 turbo
Power 650bhp
Transmission McLaren six-speed
Wheelbase 287.5cm
Weight 540kg
Tyres Goodyear
Designer's view
"We were working with regulations designed to ensure that a normally aspirated engine would win. The non-turbo cars had more engine capacity: 3.5 litres. We had 150 litres of fuel, a 1.5-litre engine and limited boost. That meant, on average for a race distance, we probably had about 600bhp. Even so, we regularly beat the normally aspirated cars and beat and occasionally lapped the Lotus with the same engine.
"The MP4/4 was the culmination of all of McLaren's experience at the time and a perfect expression of the value of teamwork. It is a testament to the fantastic effort of all those McLaren people who produced and raced this wonderful car."
Steve Nichols, co-designer, McLaren MP4/4
Other winners
Most radical: Brabham BT46B
Must unusual: Tyrrell P34
Giantkiller: Brawn BGP 001
