73 Can be debatable as Fittipaldi was leading the championship in the front but had a string of reliability issues and Ronnie Peterson also had reliability issues but had a hell of a surge at the end of the season. The Lotus was just as fast as the Tyrell 67-The lotus was faster than the BRM but also had the reliability problems. Chapmans designs were usually the fastest but never the most reliable. Clark could've secured his 3rd title. He won 4 out of the 6 races he finished (except running out of fuel at Monza after his ridiculous drive) But the old days were different we all know that and there is no comparison to now. Reliability back then made most of the cars equal in performance.
Because F1 is a team sport. Don't know when or if its happened but a team could take the WCC without one of its drivers taking the WDC.
Ferrari 2008 was the last time it happened. A complete list of Teams that have won the Constructors Championship, but not the Drivers Championship is: Vanwall - 1958 - Hawthorn wins WDC Lotus - 1973 - Stewart wins WDC Ferrari -1976 - Lauda crash - Hunt wins WDC Williams - 1981 - Piquet wins WDC Ferrari - 1982 - Gilles crash - Rosberg wins WDC Ferrari - 1983 - Piquet wins WDC Williams - 1986 - Prost wins WDC Williams - 1994- Senna crash - Schumacher wins WDC Ferrari - 1999 - Hakkinen wins WDC Ferrari - 2008 - Hamilton winds WDC
+1 1999 was the last I recall; Ferrari won the WCC & Mika the WDC with McSplutter. Pete's "dislike" (putting it mildly ) of the WCC is well known & documented. It may be "irrelevant" to many, but not to the teams themselves. Cheers, Ian
I view them as equally important. For the casual fan and those that follow the cult of personalty the WDC will be more important, for the fans of a team or constructor the WCC might be more important. Money and marketing is mostly about the driver. WCC requires that you have two cars that perform well which puts pressure on the team as a whole to perform, not just one driver.
+1 Thanks for that list - It's (disparate WCC/WDC's) happened more times than I thought. And we probably shouldn't revisit the fact that the money gets divvied up based on their WCC positions! Cheers, Ian
Welcome! Yes, from the team standpoint the WCC controls their payout. Probably time to put this one up again, as it is a fascinating look at the business of F1.: Image Unavailable, Please Login
Yup, you are correct. There is only so much one can write about Kimi and unmotivated, lackadaisical under performance for high levels of unwarranted compensation.... at some point it all comes down to Vodka, ice cream and mumbling....
So you keep saying, but I don't see it that way. For me, team sports are like football, basket ball, handball, hockey, where a group of people participates against another group. It may be the same in tennis double, or rowing, ot bobsleigh where 2 or more people are acting together. But when an individual is acting on his own like motorcycling, tennis single, F1, skying, horse racing and so on, this is not team sport to me. I do not pretend that the individual doesn't receive help in his preparation, training, or even from those who design his instruments, or his vehicle, etc... but he ALONE drives, rides, holds the racket, etc... A F1 team may have 100s of staff, engineers, designers, technicians, mechanics, managers, etc..., but that doesn't make it a team sport, IMHO.
I do and I don't. Having a $90 million head start on the financial side makes it very difficult to make the decision to go endurance racing and start from $0 in a less lucrative but more relevant automotive contest.
I think it's a blatant endorsement of inbuilt inequality in the system if you ask me. I don't see how these "historic" payments can be justified. I don't see that doing any good to Ferrari's image, and it's hard to defend when the results aren't forthcoming.
When you are there at the beginning and stay at it for 65 years, it gives a certain amount of clout. Love it or hate it, Ferrari is F1 and F1 is Ferrari. Without them F1 suffers and becomes just another race series. Without F1, Ferrari is just another automobile manufacturer making a fancy car. When it comes down to it, I think that Ferrari could go on more easily without F1 than the other way around. The payment acknowledges and supports that belief. Is it unequal? Yep, but I don't make the rules or negotiate the payouts.... As far as results, I think it is harder to justify the additional revenue when the results are coming rather than when they are not. BTW - going back to post 945 about JYS and the wrenches he would carry in the car..... Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
In the war between Balestre (FISA) and Mosley (FOCA), Ferrari was bribed to change side and join the British teams, the "garagists" by the promise of financial rewards. The system hasn't changed after more than 2 decades, and Ferrari still benefit from that. Is it still justified now, I don't think so, and many like me. But even some F1 insiders cannot see the sense of it now.
Google Image search. It helps to know that they exist, as I had seen them before. I believe the b&w image was included in Automobile Year for 1967 or 68.
That a competitor should be given any advantage by a sanctioning body is antithetical to any code of sportsmanship.
