Grand Prix Rejects

This is the thread where we discuss Formula 1 designs which weren't terrible, but failed simply because of one reason or another. I'll start of with;

Pretty Much All Minardi Cars


Its a well known fact that Minardis were slow because they couldn't afford a good engine, or, they did in 1995. The Mugen-Honda engine scandal has been documented pretty well, and there's no doubt that with it, Badoer, and maybe Lamy or Martini, would have done well in it. Had Ligier, ahem, TWR, not snatch the supply from under their noses, Minardi might have entered 1996 a very different team, and might have still been in F1 today. I liked the Brunner cars because they looked good, with or without the livery, but they were good cars overall.

The Brabham BT60Y/BT60B


Yamaha engines are just rejects. No doubt about it. Their points in 1991 may have been lucky, but to be fair to Brabham, they had no money, their engine was terrible, and so you couldn't really expect much.

Arrows A19


I dare say that the A19 was the best car in 1998. Okay, so McLaren had all their crazy brakes and other thingys, but if you took all the gadgets out, and left a car, the A19 would have come on top. The engine was its weakness. As much as Yamaha had failed Damon and Tom the previous year, it was more powerful than the Arrows, err, Hart engines, and with a little bit of effort, they could have got rid of reliabliity problems. With a little more money, they would have been able to develop the car itself more as well.

Prost AP01


I might just be putting this because I like PGP, but there's much to like about Loic Bigois design. Firstly, it looks awesome. Secondly, I'm pretty sure the car had potential just waiting to be unlocked. The Peugeot engine was ****. This actually puzzles me, because Jordan didn't do too badly in 1997 with what was practically the same engine. The gearbox was another thing. If they stuck to a more conventional design, they would have got it right.

Lola T97/30


Sadly, this car was so fast that the FIA forced them to go very slow, and exit after the first round.

Jeroen Krautmeir wrote:
Lola T97/30


Sadly, this car was so fast that the FIA forced them to go very slow, and exit after the first round.

LOL.

Jeroen Krautmeir wrote:This is the thread where we discuss Formula 1 designs which weren't terrible, but failed simply because of one reason or another. I'll start of with;

Pretty Much All Minardi Cars


Its a well known fact that Minardis were slow because they couldn't afford a good engine, or, they did in 1995. The Mugen-Honda engine scandal has been documented pretty well, and there's no doubt that with it, Badoer, and maybe Lamy or Martini, would have done well in it. Had Ligier, ahem, TWR, not snatched the supply from under their noses, Minardi might have entered 1996 a very different team, and might have still been in F1 today. I liked the Brunner cars because they looked good, with or without the livery, but they were good cars overall.

The 1995 Minardi was an extremely advanced car for its time. The aerodynamic arrangement of the front end, especially the front wing mounts on the nose and the mounting of the lower wishbone of the front suspension, was a good few years in advance of everyone else.

Jeroen Krautmeir wrote:Prost AP01


I might just be putting this because I like PGP, but there's much to like about Loic Bigois design. Firstly, it looks awesome. Secondly, I'm pretty sure the car had potential just waiting to be unlocked. The Peugeot engine was ****. This actually puzzles me, because Jordan didn't do too badly in 1997 with what was practically the same engine. The gearbox was another thing. If they stuck to a more conventional design, they would have got it right.

I would say that the AP01 was actually a terrible car as well. It was built as Prost moved his team from the old Ligier base near Magny-Cours to new premises, and so it had numerous problems. Its gearbox was incredibly unreliable, and the chassis was not structurally strong enough. Not only did this mean that the AP01 failed several crash tests (only passing on the Thursday before the Australian GP!), but that it flexed in high-speed corners, and had poor weight distribution due to the heavy reinforcement parts added to the chassis.

The '94 Tyrell. The '99 Stewart. The '00 Jordan to some extent.

The Arrows A21 could come into this category - the car had good potential, being very aerodynamically efficient and often topping the straight line speed charts, but was a bit underpowered with the "Supertec" engines, and unreliable to boot.

Another one would be the Lotus 80, which was supposed to replace the 79 after Chapman realised that they couldn't develop the 79 much further (with such a weak chassis - famously, one engineer said it had "the torsional rigidity of wet lettuce" - the chassis was twisting and cracking under load).
Conceptually, the Lotus 80 was going to be the ultimate Lotus ground effect car, with the entire underside of the car acting as one Venturi from the nose to the rear wheels. However, whilst it produced a lot of downforce, and was very stable at speed, in slower corners, and in the braking zones, the car would pitch and lurch violently due to porpoising - making it very difficult, if almost impossible, to drive. Although good for one podium finish (and two retirements), it wasn't significantly quicker then the 79, being so difficult to drive, and a lot harder to set up, so eventually Lotus had to abandon it.

mario wrote:Another one would be the Lotus 80, which was supposed to replace the 79 after Chapman realised that they couldn't develop the 79 much further (with such a weak chassis - famously, one engineer said it had "the torsional rigidity of wet lettuce" - the chassis was twisting and cracking under load).
Conceptually, the Lotus 80 was going to be the ultimate Lotus ground effect car, with the entire underside of the car acting as one Venturi from the nose to the rear wheels. However, whilst it produced a lot of downforce, and was very stable at speed, in slower corners, and in the braking zones, the car would pitch and lurch violently due to porpoising - making it very difficult, if almost impossible, to drive. Although good for one podium finish (and two retirements), it wasn't significantly quicker then the 79, being so difficult to drive, and a lot harder to set up, so eventually Lotus had to abandon it.

I've had the pleasure of talking to Peter Wright about the 80. It was a complete bastard to set-up because of the nature of the all-wing-car configuration. All racing cars that are heavily dependent on their aerodynamic configuration need to have the suspension set-up in such a way as to maintain a constant attitude or rake, to obtain the most downforce. Therefore, any violent changes in ride height must be minimised or eliminated, which necessitates a very stiff suspension set-up. The very stiff suspension meant that the car would absorb all of the force created from bumps and changes in the track surface, which a softer suspension would normally deal with. The problem is that such a long wing profile as the Lotus 80 had is extremely sensitive to pitch changes, so the centre of aerodynamic pressure would move around wildly and unpredictably and so the car would 'porpoise' or rock back and forth in a completely unpredictable way, because essentially the wing was stalling. This prompted Peter to consider the idea separating the suspension set-up from the aerodynamic set-up, which eventually became the Lotus 88. According to Peter, the Lotus 80 was incredibly fast in the initial back-to-back testing at Paul Ricard, which happened to have an incredibly smooth track surface.
By the way, the Lotus active suspension system was developed to ensure that a wing car maintained a constant and controlled attitude, not to improve the handling or the ride quality.

mario wrote:The Arrows A21 could come into this category - the car had good potential, being very aerodynamically efficient and often topping the straight line speed charts, but was a bit underpowered with the "Supertec" engines, and unreliable to boot.

The engine was a bit gutless by 2001, because basically there had been no development on it since 1998. The carbon-fibre gearbox casing was the main problem. Took a long time to get that perfected and that caused a lot of DNFs. The guys under-estimated the forces being placed on the gearbox casing and it just kept breaking. Suspension mounting points would break, gearbox oil leaks, weird twisting causing severe and rapid changes in the behaviour of the rear suspension, you name it.

What about the 1994 Tyrrell 022? That seemed to do a fine job, certainly it wasnt a bad car (Katayama's performances in it are already well documented on the main site here) and with a bit of luck could have gained even more points, I reckon

Pretty much any Arrows from 1997 onwards. They were always pretty good in the low power circuits and in the rain, so the main problem was pretty much the engine.

The Raikkonen/Coulthard era McLarens were blisteringly fast but went bang all the time.

The late 90s Minardis are an interesting case, particularly the 2000 car. That car used a modified version of Stewart's 98 engine, so it was clearly down on power, but aerodinamically it was pretty efficient. It always lacked single lap pace, so Gené and Mazzacane used to share the last row (usually they weren't more than 3 seconds off the pace, the pack was pretty close that year).

But come race day and, on full tanks, they would mix with the midfield cars most of the time, particularly Gené (who we know is no Nuvolari). In the Austrian GP, as some of you will remember, there was a big the pile-up at the first corner that took a lot of cars out of the race. In the middle of the mayhem, Gené managed to climb up to something like 9th (out of 14 or so remaining cars) and, after a few laps under SC conditions, the race was restarted and... voilà, Gené spent the whole race fighting in the middle of the pack, finishing the race on 8th position, ahead of better cars (Diniz, Wurz) and more importantly, a mere 14 seconds away from 4th-placed Villeneuve on the BAR (Button, Salo and Herbert were 5th-7th). There were no more SC periods after the early race one, so it was genuine pace. There were several similar races, but that was the best one I think.

There was an interesting feature of these Minardi cars that says a lot about Minardi's engineering in the pre-Stoddart era. In spite of having a poor engine by any standards, Minardi used to do well on low downforce tracks and not so well on high downforce ones. The A1 Ring wasn't a high downforce track, for example. Gené managed to qualify 15th at the old Hockenheim in '99, and both Minardis qualified in front of both Arrows at Monza; but then they didn't do particularly well at tracks such as Monaco or the Hungaroring, which were Minardi strong tracks in the early 90s (as you'd expect).

A few years ago, I came across an interview with Fernando Alonso (in Spanish) at the end of his season with Minardi. It was a true gem, and shame on me for not saving it, because the web that hosted it disappeared a while ago (and now I don't even remember what its name was). It was a very long interview where he talked about a wide range of things. At one point, he was asked about Minardi's perspectives for 2002, with the new Asiatech engine (more powerful than the '98 Cosworths that they were still using in 2001), and he said that he couldn't be sure, because they would need a very different chassis to handle that engine. He explained that Brunner designed the 2001 car (the last Minardi he designed, and an evolution of the '98-'99 and '00 ones) taking into account the power of the engine, so that the car would generate very little drag on the straights, to avoid being "eaten" on the straights by other cars with more powerful engines. This was, of course, at the expense of some aerodynamical performance in the corners, and explains why the car wasn't a dog at the tracks it was expected to, but didn't run in the midfield at twitchy places.

Sorry if that was an awfully long post, but I've always had a soft spot for Minardi

Ferrim wrote:Sorry if that was an awfully long post, but I've always had a soft spot for Minardi

Great post, thanks for taking the time.

Dare I say it, the Andrea Moda?

Run by a competent team who knew how to set up and develop a car, and I reckon it could have been a consistent qualifier.

Collieafc wrote:What about the 1994 Tyrrell 022? That seemed to do a fine job, certainly it wasnt a bad car (Katayama's performances in it are already well documented on the main site here) and with a bit of luck could have gained even more points, I reckon

Finally someone else mentions that Tyrell car!

I think the Tyrrell 024 from 1996 also qualifies in this category, as it was a good chassis hampered by its underpowered and unreliable Yamaha engines. Mika Salo scored points on several occasions in the first few races, but he was also on course for a possible podium finish at the San Marino Grand Prix until his engine failed.

I will also nominate the Simtek S951: a simple, uncomplicated car that allowed Jos Verstappen to run solidly in the midfield. The car was hampered by gearbox unreliability as the team couldn't afford many units. I think the S951 could have scored points if Simtek had the budget to complete the season.

Jeroen Krautmeir wrote:

Completely off-topic I know, but where do you get these brilliant images from?

Maybe the Toleman TG185? Even with the Hart engine, Teo Fabi scored a pole in Germany with it.

Valrys wrote:Dare I say it, the Andrea Moda?

Run by a competent team who knew how to set up and develop a car, and I reckon it could have been a consistent qualifier.

it was based on a bmw-test-chassis made by simtek, so i suppose it was basically a very decent car which would certainly be the better of the brabhams, and probably competetive with the venturi's, fondmetals and marches that season if it was run properly - which obviously didn't happen
oibviously the car wasn't developed properly after andrea moda bought the design, and probably not decently adapted to the judd engine instead of the bmw
but moreno actually qualifying the thing means there must have been something good on that car

Pieman wrote:

Jeroen Krautmeir wrote:

Completely off-topic I know, but where do you get these brilliant images from?

If you look at the picture's URL, you'll probably manage to make something out of it.

http://www.f1-geschiedenis.be/FORMULE%2 ... s_1995.htm

HRT F110

1) started too late on development
2) no more chandhok
3) see sidepod

JohnMLTX wrote:
HRT F110

1) started too late on development
2) no more chandhok
3) see sidepod

Like Gary Anderson said, if you gave HRT, Lotus and Virgin the same amount of money, a designer of equal talent, the F110 would have emerged the better over the course of the season, as its a simple design, with tons of potential.

Tyrrell 025


As much as the Yamaha engine was utterly useless in terms of reliability, it was powerful enough to put Salo and Katayama in good positions in 1996. Unfortunately, the Ford V8's were reliable, but simply gutless. The chassis was good, and I liked the unique front wing design.

Leyton House CG901


Ivan Capelli was at home and Adrian Newey was designer. All the ingredients were right, well, some of them. Leyton House didn't have riches, and so Newey was not able to develop the car to its full potential, plus, the Judd V8 wasn't an amazing motor.

Jeroen Krautmeir wrote:Leyton House CG901


Ivan Capelli was at home and Adrian Newey was designer. All the ingredients were right, well, some of them. Leyton House didn't have riches, and so Newey was not able to develop the car to its full potential, plus, the Judd V8 wasn't an amazing motor.

Was that the same car that nearly took Leyton House to a 1-2 at the French Grand Prix?

Wizzie wrote:

Jeroen Krautmeir wrote:Leyton House CG901


Ivan Capelli was at home and Adrian Newey was designer. All the ingredients were right, well, some of them. Leyton House didn't have riches, and so Newey was not able to develop the car to its full potential, plus, the Judd V8 wasn't an amazing motor.

Was that the same car that nearly took Leyton House to a 1-2 at the French Grand Prix?

Indeed, it is.

I would suggest Toyota from, well, pick a year, any year! They could never attract a real top line driver, though I'm sure Ralf, Trulli and Glock are good drivers, you wouldn't say they
are the best of the best, and if they were able to get podiums, imagine what an Alonso, Hamilton or Kubica may have achieved. Certainly if they had been able to attract someone
like that it may well have given them the focus they needed to succeed.

I guess by that rule you could also mention BAR / Honda, though by the later years the car's chassis was so bad no-one would have been able to get good results in it.

madmark1974 wrote:I would suggest Toyota from, well, pick a year, any year! They could never attract a real top line driver, though I'm sure Ralf, Trulli and Glock are good drivers, you wouldn't say they
are the best of the best, and if they were able to get podiums, imagine what an Alonso, Hamilton or Kubica may have achieved. Certainly if they had been able to attract someone
like that it may well have given them the focus they needed to succeed.

The TF-105 could have been a world beater if they had a Raikkonen, Schumacher or Alonso who could fully utilise the car.

The problem is Toyota were really hit and miss season by season and even race by race and the performance of the cars NEVER had any sort of inherant pattern (Take last year for example. The Toyota was crap around Monaco yet Glock finished on the podium at Singapore later in the season)

Faustus wrote:I've had the pleasure of talking to Peter Wright about the 80. It was a complete bastard to set-up because of the nature of the all-wing-car configuration. All racing cars that are heavily dependent on their aerodynamic configuration need to have the suspension set-up in such a way as to maintain a constant attitude or rake, to obtain the most downforce. Therefore, any violent changes in ride height must be minimised or eliminated, which necessitates a very stiff suspension set-up. The very stiff suspension meant that the car would absorb all of the force created from bumps and changes in the track surface, which a softer suspension would normally deal with. The problem is that such a long wing profile as the Lotus 80 had is extremely sensitive to pitch changes, so the centre of aerodynamic pressure would move around wildly and unpredictably and so the car would 'porpoise' or rock back and forth in a completely unpredictable way, because essentially the wing was stalling. This prompted Peter to consider the idea separating the suspension set-up from the aerodynamic set-up, which eventually became the Lotus 88. According to Peter, the Lotus 80 was incredibly fast in the initial back-to-back testing at Paul Ricard, which happened to have an incredibly smooth track surface.
By the way, the Lotus active suspension system was developed to ensure that a wing car maintained a constant and controlled attitude, not to improve the handling or the ride quality.

And as we have seen, the Mclaren MP4/25 suffers from similar problems - they concentrated on maximising the performance of a conventional double deck diffuser, but that has also made the current car very pitch sensitive. As such, we have seen that the current car has to run very stiff suspension to prevent the diffuser stalling, much like the Lotus 80 - and causing similar problems for Mclaren now as the Lotus 80 did all those years ago.

Jeroen Krautmeir wrote:

Ferrim wrote:Sorry if that was an awfully long post, but I've always had a soft spot for Minardi

Great post, thanks for taking the time.

Don't worry - it's very well written, and interesting to read. I'd always wondered how Alonso had done so well at Hockenheim in 2001 (the last race on the old layout), and now that explains why.

Wizzie wrote:

madmark1974 wrote:I would suggest Toyota from, well, pick a year, any year! They could never attract a real top line driver, though I'm sure Ralf, Trulli and Glock are good drivers, you wouldn't say they
are the best of the best, and if they were able to get podiums, imagine what an Alonso, Hamilton or Kubica may have achieved. Certainly if they had been able to attract someone
like that it may well have given them the focus they needed to succeed.

The TF-105 could have been a world beater if they had a Raikkonen, Schumacher or Alonso who could fully utilise the car.

The problem is Toyota were really hit and miss season by season and even race by race and the performance of the cars NEVER had any sort of inherant pattern (Take last year for example. The Toyota was crap around Monaco yet Glock finished on the podium at Singapore later in the season)

With Toyota, you always felt that they could build a car which could go quickly, but they would never be quite sure why it was so fast. The other problem was that they could produce a car that was aerodynamically strong, but was let down by poor mechanical grip. Last year, it seems that they had finally improved on that at the end of the season - Glock's podium finish in Singapore coincided with a major upgrade of the suspension system, which unlocked a fair bit more of the potential of the car, but by then, it was clear that the RB5 and MP4/24 were the cars to beat (depending on the track). Dare I say it, had Toyota had that new suspension configuration available to it earlier in the season, they might have been able to finish a few more times on the podium, or possibly even take a win?

JohnMLTX wrote:
HRT F110

1) NEVER STARTED on development
2) no more chandhok/klien
3) see sidepod

Corrected.

mario wrote:Don't worry - it's very well written, and interesting to read. I'd always wondered how Alonso had done so well at Hockenheim in 2001 (the last race on the old layout), and now that explains why.

Well, very few cars finished that day... don't know if it's the most representative example. Although it's true that he didn't qualify too far behind way better engined cars.

Another example that has just come to my mind is Häkkinen's troubles to pass Mazzacane at Indy.

The FW20.
The car wasn't that bad, but the Mechachrome engine was out of its depth.
And the Stewart SF-1. Reliability was horrible.

Jeroen Krautmeir wrote:

Wizzie wrote:

Jeroen Krautmeir wrote:Leyton House CG901


Ivan Capelli was at home and Adrian Newey was designer. All the ingredients were right, well, some of them. Leyton House didn't have riches, and so Newey was not able to develop the car to its full potential, plus, the Judd V8 wasn't an amazing motor.

Was that the same car that nearly took Leyton House to a 1-2 at the French Grand Prix?

Indeed, it is.

A couple of weeks after failing to qualify for the Mexico Grand Prix.

The 1996 Sauber c15.

Ford's first V10 Formula 1 engine wasn't up to speed yet, and the car wasn't very reliable, but the car was known to have potential and showed well in wet and street races (where power didn't matter so much) and was also believed to be excellent at generating downforce at high speed. This was the era between 'classic circuits' and 'Tilkedromes' and therefore full of chicane-ridden tracks that never got to show the car at it's best.

Frentzen127 wrote:And the Stewart SF-1. Reliability was horrible.

Yeah, I reckon Barrichello could have scored up to 20 points if it was more reliable, and Magnussen could have even unrejectified himself.

The Mclaren M19A, the first F1 car to feature rising-rate suspension on the front. It was a good car that lost a air bit of development time for one of the strangest reasons... early on the M19A was a total handful, for the first few races of the season in fact and the paddock was blaming the 'revolutionary' front suspension of the car. It only transpired a few races later that there was a giant crack in the tub that was causing all the issues. The strangest thing set them back several races with what was a very promising car.


The BRM 160B, another real oddity. BRM had a ridiculously outdated policy of trying to run as many cars as possible over a race weekend to lessen the impact of reliability issues. Of course this meant development was almost non-existent as the team was so thinly spread, which is a shame, especially when you consider the odd events that transpired at Monaco that year.

1972, wet race at Monaco. The BRM of Jean-Pierre Beltoise takes a surprise win. From 4th he makes a great start in to the lead, though that's not the odd part... what transpired is that the driver whacked the barrier with a front wheel, and according to Beltoise it was that crash that suddenly greatly improved the handling of the car and took him to the last ever BRM win in F1. Worse, he says BRM never followed up on that discovery.

A few cars come to mind:

2002 Arrows A22?

Had heaps of potential, i mean heaps. With no testing (money issues), they were confortably mid-field, when they developed it a little, they scored points: Monaco and Spain. Could have been on the podium for a race, cant remember which 1, and yes, Frentzen scored the points and did well, Bernoldi did well, and normally qualified in the middle/rear. Also had the twin suspension mounts, (twin keel), and high nose copied by Rinland from Sauber. Briefly tested by Minardi in 2003, then used by HondaSato team.

McLaren 2002: Another 2002 car, the first 1 on Michelin. The chassis was a gem, but the Merc was down on power at the start. When reliability and power were found, it beat the Williams fair and square, and had a few nibbles at Ferrari.

Tyrrell 020: 1991 car that was said to do very well. The chassis was meant to do very well, with the 'concorde beak', a Honda V-10 engine, and Pirelli tyres, but the engine was too heavy, the tyres weren't the best, and Harvey Postlewaite left mid-season.

Fondmetal GR02 (1992)/Forti FG03, 1996. Check the website!

Faustus wrote:

Jeroen Krautmeir wrote:This is the thread where we discuss Formula 1 designs which weren't terrible, but failed simply because of one reason or another. I'll start of with;

Pretty Much All Minardi Cars


Its a well known fact that Minardis were slow because they couldn't afford a good engine, or, they did in 1995. The Mugen-Honda engine scandal has been documented pretty well, and there's no doubt that with it, Badoer, and maybe Lamy or Martini, would have done well in it. Had Ligier, ahem, TWR, not snatched the supply from under their noses, Minardi might have entered 1996 a very different team, and might have still been in F1 today. I liked the Brunner cars because they looked good, with or without the livery, but they were good cars overall.

The 1995 Minardi was an extremely advanced car for its time. The aerodynamic arrangement of the front end, especially the front wing mounts on the nose and the mounting of the lower wishbone of the front suspension, was a good few years in advance of everyone else.

As a Minardi fan, it's so good not to have to write stuff like this in a forum, but to just be able to read it from someone else.
Just look at the seasons where they had "proper" engines:
With the Ferrari engines (1991?) they led a race and Piero scored two or three fourth places
With the Lambo engines (1992/3?) Fittipaldi and Barbazza both scored points.

Williams FW31, hampered by Kazuki Nakajima.

Ferrari 640, hampered by atrocious reliability, Berger didn't finish a race until Monza I think.

Brabham BT55. Radical chassis and would have had an extremely low CG, but the engine just didn't match it.

David AGS wrote:A few cars come to mind:

2002 Arrows A22?

Had heaps of potential, i mean heaps. With no testing (money issues), they were confortably mid-field, when they developed it a little, they scored points: Monaco and Spain. Could have been on the podium for a race, cant remember which 1, and yes, Frentzen scored the points and did well, Bernoldi did well, and normally qualified in the middle/rear. Also had the twin suspension mounts, (twin keel), and high nose copied by Rinland from Sauber. Briefly tested by Minardi in 2003, then used by HondaSato team.

McLaren 2002: Another 2002 car, the first 1 on Michelin. The chassis was a gem, but the Merc was down on power at the start. When reliability and power were found, it beat the Williams fair and square, and had a few nibbles at Ferrari.

Tyrrell 020: 1991 car that was said to do very well. The chassis was meant to do very well, with the 'concorde beak', a Honda V-10 engine, and Pirelli tyres, but the engine was too heavy, the tyres weren't the best, and Harvey Postlewaite left mid-season.

Fondmetal GR02 (1992)/Forti FG03, 1996. Check the website!

Ah yes, the A22. The race that you happen to be thinking of is the 2002 British Grand Prix, where Bernoldi started in 18th place. The race started off wet, and at the time the Bridgestone intermediate and wet tyres were far superior to the Michelin equivalents. As a result, Bernoldi made up six places on the opening lap alone, and had climbed into 6th place by lap 25 before his driveshaft gave him problems, and eventually failed altogether three laps later.
Now, I don't know if a podium was possible that day, since the track did start to dry out towards the end of the race, which would have hurt Bernoldi's chances. On top of that, the drivers directly in front of Bernoldi were Villeneuve and Montoya, in that order - both with more competitive cars (and Villeneuve was on the same Bridgestone tyres), and both drivers would have fought hard to keep their positions. However, a good points finish was definitely achievable - I think that Bernoldi could have finished in at least 5th place, and potentially better, if his driveshaft hadn't failed.

However, Bernoldi's success was mainly due to the fact that over half the grid were using the inferior Michelin intermediates, so it was more of a case of being on the right tyres at the right time. Still, the A22 was probably more competitive than you'd have thought, given the problems Arrows were facing, but reliability problems did have a habit of kicking in at just the wrong time.

As for the 2002 Mclaren, the main problem there was that the FIA had banned the use of beryllium in 2001. Now, at the time, Ilmor-Mercedes had developed beryllium engine parts, as beryllium has excellent flexural strength and a very high modulus of elasticity. That, coupled with its low density, made it an ideal material for strong but lightweight pistons. So, the Ilmor Mercedes engine had a much longer stroke than the Ferrari V10, say, giving it much better low range torque, but could rev at least as high, if not higher, than it's rivals.

Somehow, though, the secret came to the attention of the FIA, which was bad news for Ilmor-Mercedes (supposedly through Ferrari, who had used acoustic analysis to gain an insight into the properties of the Ilmor-Mercedes V10).
Whilst it has good material properties, beryllium dust is highly toxic and carcinogenic, which means that it is hazardous to machine and handle. After hearing about that, the FIA promptly banned the use of beryllium on health ground. It also had the effect of costing the Ilmor-Mercedes engine a noticeable amount of top end power, since they could no longer rev as high as their rivals - which in part explains the drop in performance of Mclaren Mercedes in 2002.

alright here we go...
I'm very surprised no one mentioned these.

the six wheelers. they were phenomenal on track. More traction, less drag. plain and simple.
all of them, being the obvious p34's also the fw08b and fw07e and the not as known march 240, were hampered pretty bad.

.....i mean... being banned in all.