Which was more pathetic car? 2005 Ferrari or 2006 McLaren?

Question

Not a team bashing question folks, just to know your thoughts.

Answer 1

Mcaren 2006 was by far worse than the 2005 Ferrari because the only thing that made the Ferrari bad in 2005 was its tyres

Michellin were by far the best tyre supplier when the rules stipulated that a set of tyres must last the whole race. Ferrari were always comfortably the fastest Bridgestone runner (although the other Bridgestone teams were not exactly front runners)

Answer 2

none of those

Answer 3

both

Answer 4

The Ferrari, The '06 Mclaren was Gorgeous

Answer 5

This question shoud be which car is the most pathetic the 1997 lola or the 1990 Life F1 cars, both of which was never fast enough to qualify for a grand prix!

Answer 6

I'd say the 2006 McLaren because it didn't win a single race. The Ferrari 05 did win at Indianapolis, albeit with only about 6 rivals.

I'd not call either of them 'Pathetic' cars though.

Answer 7

Well, why not ask if the 2005 Renault or the 2003 Ferrari was more pathetic?  You say you are not team bashing, but you make some choice words to describe a pair of cars that each managed a third place finish in those years.  I would hardly consider either car "pathetic."

Of course, both cars were well off the expected pace based on what each had done the previous year.  And based on expectations, the drop-off at Ferrari was greater than the drop off at McLaren.  Ferrari went from a string of world championships to challenging for podium finishes, while McLaren went from a great (and very unreliable) pace to just being the best of the rest.

But, one key detail that would favor the 2005 Ferrari was the state of Bridgestone's tires that year.  Looking at how far Michelin was ahead in 2005, it seems like Ferrari's step backwards wasn't anywhere near as great as it seemed.

So while the total performance drop was much greater in Ferrari's case, the '06 McLaren had very competitive tires, and the drop in pace has to be placed entirely on the car.

Answer 8

the McLaren ( if you have to pick )

Answer 9

2006 McLaren. But I think the 2004 McLaren was worse. It kept breaking down.

Answer 10

The '06 McLaren because they didn't win a Race and it looked like a few of the GP2 cars were faster than the McLaren c**p.

Answer 11

It's clearly the Ferrari of 2005, after winning the previous five WDC and six WCC 2005 must have been a huge let down, even though the poor performance of the Bridgestones that year played a huge part.

Answer 12

McLaren by a mile !