My Past F1 Predictions

[rjbetty]

Since I´ve been having fun trying to predict how F1 would turn out this year, I thought I'd share some of the expectations I had in the past, so you can see how wrong they were. I always imagined the field closing up more and more, but it almost never happened that way. The first season I really made a prediction for was 1999, and it went something like this.

Average Qualifying
1.Mika Hakkinen (McLaren)
2.Michael Schumacher (Ferrari) +0.21
3.David Coulthard (McLaren) +0.24
4.Damon Hill (Jordan) +0.78
5.Eddie Irvine (Ferrari) +0.78
6.Heinz-Harald Frentzen (Jordan) +1.00
7.Ralf Schumacher (Williams) +1.08
8.Giancarlo Fisichella (Benetton) +1.15
9.Jacques Villeneuve (BAR) +1.22
10.Alessandro Zanardi (Williams) +1.26
11.Alexander Wurz (Benetton) +1.40
12.Jean Alesi (Sauber) +1.40
13.Ricardo Zonta (BAR) +1.69
14.Pedro Diniz (Sauber) +1.90
15.Rubens Barrichello (Stewart) +2.04
16.Jarno Trulli (Prost) +2.13
17.Olivier Panis (Prost) +2.43
18.Johnny Herbert (Stewart) +2.44
19.Tora Takagi (Arrows) +2.90
20.Pedro de la Rosa (Arrows) +2.98
21.Luca Badoer (Minardi) +3.86
22.Marc Gené(Minardi) +4.28

Points
1.M.Schumacher 82pts
2.Hakkinen 76pts
3.Coulthard 62pts
4.Irvine 38pts
5.Hill 35pts
6.R.Schumacher 26pts
7.Frentzen 19pts
8.Fisichella 19pts
9.Villeneuve 14pts
10.Zanardi 14pts
11.Alesi 12pts
12.Wurz 10pts
13.Zonta 8pts
14.Diniz 6pts
15.Barrichello 5pts
16.Trulli 3pts
17.Herbert 2pts
18.Panis 2pts
19.Takagi 2pts
20.de la Rosa 1pt
21.Badoer
22.Gené

1.McLaren 138pts
2.Ferrari 120pts
3.Jordan 54pts
4.Williams 40pts
5.Benetton 29pts
6.BAR 22pts
7.Sauber 18pts
8.Stewart 7pts
9.Prost 5pt
10.Arrows 3pts
11.Minardi


As you can see, how wrong was I?! I absolutely did not forsee how well Stewart and Frentzen, and Irvine would do, or how badly Hill, Zanardi or BAR would be.

[jens]

Wow, that's a long time ago and you must have been quite a bit younger while doing this prediction.

To be honest, I'd say it was not too far off. Obviously Stewart wasn't foreseen and Prost was also quicker than that, but the team standings is pretty close. First two well clear, then Jordan best of the rest, then skipping the Stewart come Williams and Benetton. Arrows and Minardi slowest.

Qualifying averages were also pretty good, with minor exclusions of Stewart and Prost only. You said BAR had a bad season, but in terms of speed they were pretty okay and Villeneuve qualified into top 10 a lot.

I think had I made a 1999 prediction back then, it would have been worse. It would have seen Zanardi up there in the top six almost certainly.

[rjbetty]

Haha thanks Jens, yes I was just turning 15 when I did this. Boy has time gone fast!

I was still new-ish to F1 then. 1998 was my first full season, but I was too 'not-into-it-yet' and didn't have a thought or clue as to how the season would go. I didn't know who was driving for who, and didn't clock any new colour schemes till the first race.

Hey actually I just remembered I did have some thoughts!! I expected M.Schumacher would take the title with about 78pts, Villeneuve would have about 72pts. But the big thing I was expecting was Fisichella to come 3rd with around 42pts, since he had made a big move to Benetton which I regarded as a top team (they had come 3rd in '97 and at the time I hadn't understood it wasn't a great season by their standards). As for Wurz, since he wasn't a big name (imo), I didn't expect much and thought he'd bank around 15pts and be miles off Fisi.

I didn't rate Irvine that much and predicted Damon Hill in a Jordan would outscore him (around 28pts to 24). My sister wasn't too happy with this prediction!

That's about it for 98.



1999 was my first season where I was able to have some knowledge and preparations and thoughts during the pre-season. Though being my first time, I couldn't see Zanardi beating Ralf. I just remember being very excited for the season, not knowing how it was all going to turn out, how BAR were going to do etc!

I'm sure I remember Damon Hill coming 2nd in a testing day at Barcelona, leading me to proclaim he could fight with the McLarens on some days. I remember how I creased up laughing when I read Alain Prost considered 3rd in the WCC a realistic aim possibly. But even that didn't beat the ridicule when I read (not Sir at the time) Jackie Stewart's prediction that the team could win a race.

In hindsight, I can see that Prost had some potential against the Supertec teams, and if you don't realise how well Jordan and Stewart would do, but regard them more on '98 levels, I can see his thinking.

I was however, humbled in regard to JYS prediction - well done.

I could NEVER have forseen neither Zanardi AND BAR not scoring at all, and the former struggling so much.

You're right Jens about BAR not being bad. I was aware Villeneuve was good in qualifying, but I meant their ability to score any points.

[jens]

So it was 1. M. Schumacher, 2. Villeneuve, 3. Fisichella for 1998? Not too bad if you forgot the McLarens, who were so far out in front that you failed to notice them.

But yeah, if I try to recall early 1998, then behind the McLarens we quite often had Schumacher, Villeneuve, Fisichella racing for positions. Obviously Irvine had a good season as well as Wurz. And later in the season Jordan emerged.

In retrospect I have had to adjust some of my past understandings or at least re-define them. For example it was mysterious to me, how could rookie Alex Wurz be so damn good in 1998 and beat Fisichella, yet be nowhere in 1999/2000. In retrospect I have concluded that the early-1998 Benetton on superior Bridgestone tyres was a damn good package and Fisichella was still adapting to the team and not fully up-to-speed. That's how Wurz stood out. But while in the subsequent seasons circumstances weren't so favourable for Wurz any more, he dropped back. A bit like circumstances were very favourable for Kevin Magnussen in Australia 2014 and he finished second, yet has failed to repeat the drive/result in subsequent races.

That's just one example. I am sure there is more to analyze in retrospect.

[jens]

More to note from that era. I have to say 1999 was a meaningful year to me too. It was the second season I followed very closely like a proper fan and it was fascinating to see all those changes. It already felt like being a somewhat experienced viewer if you get to experience a new season and new things.

During 1998 you got used to the same thing all year (only Jordan moved up through the field), so 1999 was pretty enlightening to see a new F1. McLaren/Ferrari and its line-ups were still the same, but behind them there were interesting new combinations and how they performed.

I saw already in 1998, how much car counts in performance due to big gaps between teams that year, and 1999 taught me quite more, how different can fates be depending on car choice. For example in 1998 Villeneuve and Frentzen had been team-mate with Villeneuve coming out on top. Then suddenly in 1999 I saw them in different teams with Villeneuve scoring nothing at all, yet Frentzen being close to the sharp end.

I remember I considered Frentzen just a lucky bastard at the time, who had got both a fast and reliable car while Villeneuve's BAR was anything but reliable. It was retrospectively I started rating HHF's driving that year very highly.

Another thing about 1998 vs 1999 was that in 1998 I got used to team-mates performing pretty closely. It was largely influenced by gaps between teams obviously. But 1999 saw some big team-mate gaps. Hill, Zanardi really not scoring anywhere in the region of their team-mates, Herbert was trailing Barrichello for much of the year too before late-season resurgence. Salo qualified 18th in Hungary for Ferrari.

I also realized, how important luck is, esp regarding reliability, because Hill, Villeneuve, Zanardi, Alesi, etc all suffered from bad reliability and didn't get many good results. And also I could see that in the same team luck could be very different, because R. Schumacher's and Frentzen's cars were running like clockworks.

[rjbetty]

I remember my sister was a huge fan of Wurz in 1998 while I supported Fisichella. Given how I thought Fisi was the best thing since sliced bread, I also found it surprising how well Wurz did. But somehow, even in my very primitive understanding, I was somehow able to know that though Wurz was great, he had had more preparation and understanding of how to drive the 1998 cars. I remember either F1 Racing or Autosport saying he was quick because he understood how the new generation of cars needed to be driven.

Alex actually outscored Fisi by 1pt, but even then I noticed that from mid-season, Fisi had a clear advantage, and could tell it was because Fisi was taking some time to get up to speed in his new team. I felt Wurz would have a poorish year in 99, and so it proved, but much more so than expected.

I also remember 1999 being notable for one team-mate dominating the other in most teams, except the bottom two.



I remember at the time thinking Frentzen was amazing! I never saw him beating Damon, simply because of Hill's status; a bit immature in my understanding there.

tbh even at the time I didn't really understand why Zanardi was rated SO highly, so much so that I read in F1 Racing that new signing Ralf Schumacher's contract was for 2 years and would automatically be renewed for another 2 years if he scored at least 60% of Zanardi's points total over 1999-2000. This was before the 1999 season started and even then this surprised me. I never expected Zanardi would beat Ralf in 1999, though I thought he'd perform well, like he did from Hungary-Monza, but like that most of the time.

Again, I could never, ever have imagined that neither he, or both BAR drivers, would both score no points at all... Incredible.

I also thought Herbert would be closer to Barrichello.

Speaking of Rubens, he impressed me in 1999, and it was during 1998-99 that I could not understand how he did not seem well rated and was not in a top drive. My understanding of F1 at the time was shaped a lot by Grand Prix 2 which I'd got in February 1998, which was based on the 1994 season, and had the season results for all points scoring drivers in the handbook, plus driver profiles for all drivers in the game.

From this, my understanding was that Barrichello was a brilliant driver, having finished 6th in the championship with 19pts in a humble Jordan-Hart, MUCH better than Irvine who only banked 6pts. Also, I usually only did quickraces, and Barrichello would always start high up while Irvine was in the midfield. The default quickrace performances of the A.I. drivers shaped my opinions of them early on. It was only years later I realised I had underrated Martin Brundle and overrated Rubens somewhat.

I also understood later on that the main reason most people weren't convinced by Barrichello was because of his poor 1995 season, which I was unaware of.

[journeyman racer]

Why would you try to predict anything is such detail? You only leave yourself to being more and more wrong!

A pity for you the two of you that you started following F1 from 98/99. Overall, 97 was the best, and my favourite, F1 season. So many twists and turns, so many points of interest. The last season of F1 before the FIA really started mucking around with the cars.

- HHF seemed to benefit from being in a new environment at Jordan. There was a lot of unnecessary pressure at Williams previously, it seemed.

- Barrichello was a rated driver in the mid 90s, but an opportunity hadn't yet opened for him. You can't just move anytime you like. He wasn't rated as highly as HHF I don't recall, otherwise it may've been him going to Williams for 97. There was the opportunity at Ferrari for 96, but I think Ferrari chose Irvine because he could be treated as second class, like he was, without disturbing the team focus on Schumacher too much.

- After the success of JV, Zanardi was supposed to continue on with that form having won the last two Champcar titles. So that's where the expectation came from.

I would never have seriously thought Webber would ever win a GP. I'm disappointed to be wrong.

[jens]

Why would you try to predict anything is such detail? You only leave yourself to being more and more wrong!

Yeah, I think this is just fun. Regardless of how wrong or right it goes. Actually the more wrong it goes, the more exciting it is.

And other thing is that perhaps it is not so much "prediction", but "expectation". And even if we do not predict precisely, we still have expectations. But once I thought it would be better to project those expectations in a proper prediction to systemize, what exactly do I think.

For example I can't expect like 6 teams going for the championship or all the teams doing very well or being competitive, that would be impossible! So if I play through some scenarios, I'll find out some teams naturally disappoint and regardless of the pre-season PR they can't all do well.

And rjbetty...
About 2000.

I didn't really predict that year, but I remember reading a newspaper section after pre-season tests and before actual season. On those days I didn't follow winter tests, so it was interesting to read, how did those comments match up to my "expectation". Basically the newspaper analysis put teams into groups in terms of how good they might be in the upcoming season. It was like that:

5 (championship contender): McLaren, Ferrari
4 (front-runner threat): Jordan
3 (should get regular points): Williams, Benetton, Sauber
2 (struggle): Jaguar, Prost, BAR, Arrows
1 (backmarker): Minardi.

I remember thinking the first three teams made sense, but was somewhat surprised to see Benetton and Sauber on level 3 (I thought particularly Benetton is going to struggle after disappointing 1999 and thought they'd fade during the season anyway as they did in 98-99) and Prost, BAR, Jaguar on level 2, while I had expected them to be more likely on "3".

More about Benetton. When I saw them being absolutely rubbish in 2001, then I thought that "oh well, I suspected this is going to happen one day anyway". Such had been my feeling since 1999 or even 1998. Especially as I was new to F1 and then learnt not long ago Michael Schumacher was winning for that team. So I guess I felt this team was a sinking ship in a way. And was relieved, when I heard that they were sold to Renault, then I thought "okay, maybe after 2002 they'll come good again".

Well, as the season started, the media projections were pretty close to be honest with the exception of BAR, who was well competing in points. And certainly in Australia it was like that in terms of speed - two top teams in front, then Jordan. And then the rest with Sauber going remarkably well and Salo competing for points.

--

I think randomly thinking about the future I had a small wish for 2000, but I guess I didn't believe it could come true. Jean Alesi to win a messy wet race in the Prost Peugeot. A bit like Hill in 1998 and Herbert in 1999. Based on that evidence I expected each season to have one such race, which is complete chaos. All front-runners (both Ferraris and McLarens) mess up and one surprise package wins. And I wished and felt Alesi the rainmaster in the surprisingly fast Prost can capitalize on that this time!

Also thought Irvine would get at least podiums somewhere. Rjbetty, I can understand, why did you project Irvine to do so well. I guess I could have made the same mistake if tried to predict properly. The thing was that in 1999 he was a great underdog, who didn't really have speed, but all the time capitalized on other misfortunes and scored big points. So the "feeling" was that he could do that in Jaguar too while racing in upper midfield, but getting on podiums with attrition. But I certainly would not have projected him 3 wins unless there was proper chaos. And in my imagination the "chaos" win went to Alesi. The rest of them to Ferrari and McLaren and maybe, maybe-maybe the Jordan nicking one too somewhere.

[rjbetty]

Yeah, I think this is just fun. Regardless of how wrong or right it goes. Actually the more wrong it goes, the more exciting it is.

And other thing is that perhaps it is not so much "prediction", but "expectation"

Jens, that is a good way of saying it. I was trying to find another word for prediction, which I think sounds like taking it too seriously and being too mechanical and unable to enjoy. "Expectations" is a better word.

5 (championship contender): McLaren, Ferrari
4 (front-runner threat): Jordan
3 (should get regular points): Williams, Benetton, Sauber
2 (struggle): Jaguar, Prost, BAR, Arrows
1 (backmarker): Minardi.

I have to say this is a surprise to me too. Around Dec/Jan 1999/2000 I would have said this:

5 - McLaren, Ferrari
4 - Jordan, Jaguar
3 - BAR, Williams, Benetton, Prost (just)
2 - Sauber, Arrows
1 - Minardi

I had a small wish for 2000, but I guess I didn't believe it could come true. Jean Alesi to win a messy wet race in the Prost Peugeot. A bit like Hill in 1998 and Herbert in 1999. Based on that evidence I expected each season to have one such race, which is complete chaos.

Yes, early on, in my immature expectations that year on year the field HAD to get closer and be more crazy than the year before, I had Salo on pole for Sauber in wet Brazil, and then during the season, Button winning a wet/dry USA (there was a good chance of him doing well as it turned out). Incidentally there was a small feature in F1 Racing where an actual fortune teller was asked to make predictions! This was after the season started. I remember him saying Jenson would win a race soon. As it happened, Jenson didn't win a race until 2006, and didn't win his 2nd til 2009... D'oh.

I too always expected one crazy race with 8 or less finishers. Sadly, I think we will never ever have one again, or anything like it at this rate. I still can't believe only 2 cars retired in China the other week. That is it for me, and it looks like unfortunately, the days of getting the occasional Monaco 96 or Nurburgring 1999 are truly gone forever.

Also thought Irvine would get at least podiums somewhere. Rjbetty, I can understand, why did you project Irvine to do so well.

It was mostly because I believed the hype Ford were making, with Jac Nasser and Wolfgang Reitzle talking about a sea of green at Silverstone (meaning the crowd wearing Jaguar gear like all the tifosi wear red). I remember in hindsight some magazine said basically "Ford's attitude was pretty much 'Ferrari had better watch out'". I expected Jaguar would make good progress after Stewart's 1999 and have a strong car, though unreliable; almost as strong as the Ferrari, with a more powerful engine. Also, 3 race wins for Irvine and more podiums, but not much more points in a very win-or-bust season, because I just thought the season had to be even more crazy than 99.

[rjbetty]

BAR - HONDA
I never quite understood the hype around BAR for 2001. They were expected to beat Jordan quite easily, which I couldn't work out, and be at least 4th in the WCC. This sat wrong with me, though I did predict a definite improvement from a leaner, meaner BAR, with a possible win, and certainly a 3rd for Panis, and probably a 2nd for Jacques. I was excited to see how Panis would do; his stock had soared after a good season testing for McLaren. In fact, he did do well for the firt half of the season. Panis amazed me actually, leading me to overrate him a bit. I was really like "WOW" during 2001 for Olivier, though he did tail off when the McLaren drive became available and he realised he missed out on a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to be a McLaren race driver. The way he matched and beat JV caused me to re-evaluate opinions.




JAGUAR
Now I knew they weren't going to make a big leap and they would have to contend against other improving teams, but I still expected Jaguar to be more respectable and get more points. I had Irvine 10th in qualifying as I couldn't conceive a Jaguar being out of the 10 best qualifiers. So Jaguar to improve, but others improving more. Luciano Burti was never really going to be a long term bet, and I guess he beat Dario Franchitti to the drive as the team were worried he'd be another Zanardi.




SAUBER
I well remember how Heidfeld was maligned after 2000 where he struggled and little was expected. This was always so wrong to me. Yes he did qualify last twice I think, but this was down to struggling with a terrible car. Few seemed to notice after the first 6 or so races, that for the rest of the season he matched Alesi - I certainly did, and this was a truer barometer of his ability. People judged Nick far too harshly and made their minds up after the first half of the season. I though, thought he would quietly be more impressive and perform at a higher level generally than Alesi this year.

As for Raikkonen, I so clearly remember like it was last year how Kimi was a shock signing to RACE for Sauber after a single test. At the time, Red Bull were pushing for Enrique Bernoldi and I think Mateschitz (or maybe Dr Marko but I think the former) called Peter Sauber crazy for choosing Raikkonen. There had also been a rumour around Spa 2000 that Johnny Herbert could rejoin (since no-one better was available), but that was immediately rubbished by Martin Brundle.

So, great rejoicing at Sauber having signed an exciting mega-rookie. But what's this? Max Mosley and the FIA have immediately refused Raikkonen a superlicence saying he was too young and inexperienced, and potentially very dangerous. Even at the time I found this ridiculous and unjust. The way I see it, if a person can do the job, regardless of age, gender, anything else, then they can do the job - no argument! This row raged on for ages until Max finally got his way.

The really bad thing about this was that Raikkonen had turned down a good drive at either Manor Motorsport in British F3 or for Dr Marko's Red Bull Jr F3000 team for 2001, I can't quite remember which one. But by the time the FIA finally demanded no, the drive had been filled and it looked like Raikkonen would be out of a proper drive altogether.

The F1 seat was essentially confirmed for Luca Badoer, so much so that I ran him in my GP2 seasons, 19th and marginally ahead of Alonso.

Thankfully, weeks or even months later, Raikkonen was reinstated but given a stern probation for 4 races - one slip and you're out. So Kimi, with 23 British Formula Renault races behind him, went into his first F1 season with many burning eyes practically willing him to fail.

Those eyes were soon filled with tears as their doomsday prophecies turned out to be so much trash, as Raikkonen came 6th on debut. His season amazed me so much, I never imagined anything like it.

You have to remember I only really got into F1 in time for 1998, so I had never witnessed an amazing debut season. I only knew of Takagi, Tuero, de la Rosa, Zonta etc. So when Jenson Button came and had the season he had in 2000, I found this utterly amazing, to the point where at the time I thought he could go on to be the best driver ever, ahead of Moss, Fangio etc...

In 2001 I was even more shocked as Kimi, imo, had an even more impressive debut season. He didn't have the overall 3rd best car after all and only scored 3pts less than Jenson.

Full credit to Michael Schumacher, who always believed Raikkonen should have a chance. And shame on Mika Salo, who with his usual swearing negative style railed against Raikkonen, then had to sit and watch as Kimi put in a first season which imo was at least at the level, probably higher than any season Salo had had.



PROST
Like everyone else, I expected some improvement here with Ferrari engines. However, I was one of the few who never bought the testing times and the hype. Autosport tipped Alesi as an outsider for victory at Melbourne, as at the time, there were concerns about the reliability of both the McLaren and the Ferrari. I never accepted any of this, and instead tipped Prost for a season garnering about 5pts, with Alesi a little behind Heidfeld, not matching the lofty expectations, but nevertheless having a much more respectable season. I tipped Mazzacane to average 1sec off Alesi.

For a long time, the drive looked like going to Spanish CART driver Oriol Servia, who I rooted for, or Bernoldi, with Mazzacane in the mix too. For much of my GP2 seasons I had Servia in the 2nd Prost.



ARROWS
At the time I rated Peugeot fairly highly, believing their figure of 792bhp the year before. Therefore, this seemed like an increase over the Supertec, so I thought Arrows would make a slight improvement, though others would improve more. I didn't know that Asiatech would only achieve reliability by detuning the ex-Peugeot engine so it had only 750bhp iirc.

There was an uproar when Pedro de la Rosa was dumped for Bernoldi, who was placed by Red Bull. A real shame for Pedro but Enrique was unfairly maligned and didn't deserve that. I liked Enrique as his 2000 F3000 season impressed me. He was pretty much the best and most consistent qualifier of all, against more experienced and highly rated drivers, though he only scored 5pts through a mix of poor racing and terrible, terrible misfortune mechanically. He turned out closer to Verstappen than expected though I think Jos underperformed.

So a slightly weaker season than 2000, but still good I thought it would be.



MINARDI
Unknown and to me, surprisingly unheralded Spaniard Fernando Alonso was signed for Minardi in late 2000, having only recently turned 19. He would bring sponsorship that could save Minardi, who suddenly and inexplicably had gone from having a good year with one of THE best chassis in F1(!) and a Supertec deal in their pocket, to being about to close down.

Thanfully Stoddy saved the day. The Minardi seat was the final seat to be resolved. Enrique Bernoldi was such a shoe-in for a drive at one point, I had him in my GP2 season. Then since due to money, Alonso couldn't be confirmed, he was set to be announced alongside Mark Webber at Super Nova for a 2nd season of F3000.

At the time, strangely now, Giorgio Pantano was THE next big name, and McLaren and Ferrari (the dominant teams of 2000) engaged in a battle to secure him on a long-term contract, joined by Flavio Briatore at Benetton too! At one point, he was 99.99% for a race seat at Minardi (who I had given a blue/white/Telefonica lime green (and maybe an extra colour or two) livery) so Pantano and Bernoldi were my drivers in Grand Prix 2.

By late January though I think I'd realised the cars were going to be black(?) Now with Alonso confirmed, there was a new twist regarding 2nd seat, the last to be filled in F1. The seat would go to a mystery experienced driver who has driven in F1 before! Wooooooo who would it be? The 2 drivers in contention were eventually revealed to be Tarso Marques and Gianni Morbidelli!! I was begging for Morbidelli who was dreaming of a comeback, but was still happy to see Marques back! It really felt like a strange good dream somehow, a strange good feel about it.

Back then, Marques was highly rated, for driving his appaling Swift chassis in CART and for qualifying 14th ahead of Martin Brundle at Argentina '96. He was regarded as a driver with potential. I thought he could even match or beat Alonso after settling back in. He was one of the biggest unknowns to me in terms of potential. At the time, despite witnessing Alonso in F3000 I didn't realise how good he was. As it turned out, Marques "couldn't drive a nail into a piece of wood" (lol).



That's about that then. *Checks Post* Wow I got carried away. I just love living in the past.