What picture am I trying to paint? The Ferrari in 1995 finished 3rd in the wcc. Hamilton and Schumacher have driven cars that finished 3rd in the wcc twice and 3 times respectively. Hamilton actually had won 6 races and Schumacher 3, including the USGP which was not a genuine race.
It's one thing to want to diminish Hamilton, as I do as well on other forums. But it's completely ignorant to not recognise his quality. It's also ignorant to embellish Schumacher. Especially when both drivers have are having similar careers.
I think you're referring to 2012 when claiming McLaren had the fastest car but unreliable? That's horseshit. The RB was always the fastest car from 2010-13, but Vettel didn't drive as well as in 11, and Webber was out of his depth except for 1 year. If it was more reliable, it'd be slower, therefore offering more opportunities to take advantage of others misfortune and mistakes (Like Alonso did that year)
The 1995 Ferrari is a John Barnard car. John Barnard doesn't make shit cars. The engine, tyres, drivers, team management/personnel/budget might not be up to it. But the actual chassis and body work is the highest quality. But people want to make out like it's comparable to Alan Jones' Lola. It's ridiculous, but a long standing myth perpetuated for reason I don't know?
Before diminishing the car, you might want to look at the two potatoes that were using it for a Sunday drive? I'm looking at the 95 results on wiki. If you couldn't move the results of the Williams drivers, then I reckon Hamilton would've won at least two races, beaten Coulthard for 3rd, and threatened Hill for 2nd in the 95 championship in a Ferrari.
The Spanish GP typically shows an outsider which is the best car. Along with a Schumacher biased Benetton, both Ferrari's qualified ahead of both Williams',
