© 2020 MOTORSPORT NETWORK. All rights reserved.
Sign up to receive latest updates for Ferrari News, Threads, and Classifieds
Discussion in 'Other Racing' started by urraco, Jun 26, 2004.
prior to MS who was the last to win the title and what season?
Jody Scheckter, 1979.
(But Ferrari did win Constructor's titles in 1982 and 1983.)
thanks.....that's what I thought No 80's, 90's champions
also who is second to MS in winning most races and how many?
any other interesting "Schumacher/Ferrari dominance stats or facts will be welcome.
Okay we all know MS has the most victories in a Ferrari. (59 victories with Ferrari)
Don't forget he has 78 wins all time -with Ferrari and Benetton.
After the 59 victories by MS in a Ferrari , you have Niki Lauda with 15 and Alberto Ascari with 13 victories.
Both Lauda and Ascari won 2 championships in a Ferrari.
Lauda: in 1975 and 1977
Ascari: in 1952 and 1953
What would be the top 5 in F1 (not only ferrari related)
both drivers and constructors.
For all the numbers...
Constructor's titles :
1961, 1964, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1979, 1982, 1983, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003.
Alberto Ascari: 1952 and 1953
Mike Hawthorn: 1958
Phil Hill: 1961
John Surtees: 1964
Niki Lauda: 1975 and 1977
Jody Scheckter: 1979
Michael Schumacher: 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and counting...
Ferrari debut in F1: Monaco, 1950
How many drivers drove for Ferrari until now: 88
Ferrari GP victories in F1 since they've started : 176 and counting...
Okay you mean the top 5 drivers who have the most victories and top 5 teams with most constructor's titles.
1. MS -78 wins...
2. Alain Prost -51 wins-
3. Ayrton Senna -41 wins-
4. Nigel Mansell -31 wins-
5. Jackie Stewart -27 wins-
I just know Ferrari has 13 , Williams 9 and McLaren with 8.
1956 - Juan Manuel Fangio
great year, great car, great drivers.....
Here is a small piece of trivia that may surprise you...
If you count the total points scored by a driver driving a Ferrari in F1, the person in first place is Michael Schumacher.
In second place.... drum Roll.... Rubens Barrichello. Yes not as many victores as the other but much more points than the others while driving the Ferrari.
Which simply means that finally Ferrari has got their act together and are running an efficient, effective team ... and actually designing consistently good cars. Again please read and understand that Ferrari have up to the year 1999 built about 10 really could race cars ... in 50 years.
Nothing to do with RB's ability IMO, ie. he is doing nothing than just about any of the other drivers in the current F1 grid could not do in that car. Even your mate Sato would easily get a second place in a Ferrari ... after all he managed a third place in a piece of **** BAR (your definition of the BAR team, not mine ... ).
1. One thing to consider in the old days, the head of the team would take over the next in lines car if his faultered ... thus no points for other driver.
2. In the 60's Ferrari fell behind the technology race (if they were ever at the fore front?) and the English teams had F1 their own way thanks to the likes of Colin Chapman, etc. Though yes Ferrari won with Surtees but that has a lot to do with getting on with racing while the other teams moaned about change.
3. In the 70's Ferrari had no money and tried to race modified sportscar engines and then stuck with a flat 12 engine. A great engine, but hardly effective for ground effects ... thus again they restricted themselves and allowed the English teams to walk all over them. Thankfully skilled drivers like Lauda, Sheckter and Gilles Villeneuve (late 70's) drove their heart out and made up for the crappy car in many ways.
4. Hiring of slack drivers such as Berger and Alesi (great talent but unable to turn that in to winning), and many others. I guess mainly because the good drivers did not want to drive for such an impotent team ...
5. No more in fighting in the team thus while RB is NOT allowed to win, he if he is a good little puppy can follow his boss home and rack up the scraps.
6. 8 points for second instead of 6 ...
While points is one way to define a driver it does not allow for the rule changes, etc. Thus number of pole positions and wins is a better count IMO.
just a piece of trivia... nothing more!
And interesting and I guess will make RB feel good about accepting the first loser role after he retires ...
Pete's trying to understand/justify why somebody would accept RB's position
99.9% of Rubens' critics would not even be able to handle a FIA classified supercar. I guess they would be considered one of the many losers playing their loser roles.
Yep losers because we did not make it to F1 and thus RB was more successful.
But then many others did not have winning the F1 WC (for drivers) as their lifes ambition. I did when I was a lot younger and accept my failure in this area ... in the end I did not have the commitment to back myself hard enough and took the easy road out and took the normal life path.
RB obviously did and does (?, see later) and for that part he has been 75% successful, ie. he made it to F1, has become known as a fast and careful driver and unlike many others has actually won a race or 2. Excellent stuff.
If you study F1 carefully you will see that many drivers make reaching F1 their goal, and thus when they get there they cannot make the mental step challenge of bagging a championship or even race win. This is understandable but a little sad because their goals should be to win the WC (for drivers) not just to fill the grid.
Not just in F1, but in many other race series you see this happen when a driver reaches a high level and just cannot ask enough from themselves to become a dominant force at that level.
One can see regarding MS that reaching F1 meant very little to him it was just another race series, but winning at that level is what pushes his button. I think drivers like RB, DC, Irvine and half of the grid are very comfortable with having reached F1 ... and thus are not hungry enough IMO. Undoubtably while DC and Irvine are b*nging models they feel pretty happy about what they have acheived ... MS was never interested in that side of the sport and contently married which 100% seals the fact that glamour and the high life mean little to MS.
Thus if you think like MS then RB will have failed when he retires, but if you think like Irvine, DC and RB then RB will be successful, ie. he made the holly grail of F1 won a race or 2 but otherwise did not make a great impression.
Like you say it is all relative to where you set your sights. I failed as a race driver, not because I could not drive, but because I did not risk everything and try to climb the ladder hard enough. This is probably one of the reasons why I never race again ... as the motivation will not be there as I will be racing 100% just for fun ... is that enough for me?
was Alberto Ascari italian?
is he the only Italian champion ever?
did Fangio drive Ferrari at F1? when?
Fangio was champion driving......what?
isn't a shame no Italians drive for Ferrari?
Farina who won the first F1 drivers WC was Italian as is Mario Andretti IMO (was born in Italy) and arguably the finest driver Italy ever produced.
1956 and he won the championship for them. This was a case of driver far, far better than the car as the '56 Ferrari was a piece of ****.
Alfa Romeo ('51), Mercedes('54 and '55), Ferrari ('56) and Maserati ('57)
Have tried over the years but Italian drivers suffer from the same overdose of passion as the old Ferrari team. Hard to finish a race when tears are blinding you
ps: MS BTW is the first German WC too, before you knock the Italians. Saying that if 'Taffy' von Trips had not tangled with Jim Clark at Monza in '61 and as a result died he might have been the first ...
Thus I think the British lead this battle of the nations.
Rubens has led the Ferrari team to 4 Constructors championships.
stating the fact
Until 1960 drivers could share points, which is how Fangio clinched the 1956 WDC...by taking over Peter Collins' car at Monza after his own failed (in archives there are notable anomalies where some drivers such as ***lioli and Musso are credited with a grand total of half a GP win when Fangio had taken over their car and dragged it to the front). After 1961 neither driver of a shared car could score points, so the only possibility was to try to take points off the opposition, as Lotus tried at Watkins Glen in 1964.
In 1964 Ferrari were up with the GB teams in technology, and ahead in having a flat-12 engine, but their fuel-injection was less consistent than the British Lucas-type (or so John Surtees told me on Friday - name dropping or what!) and little car development took place on the F1 until after Le Mans as usual.
It was 1966 to 1969 when they used the modified sports engines and got left behind; from 1970 with the flat-12 and a decent chassis it was only the genius of Rindt in 1970, Stewart in 1971 and Fittipaldi in 1972 that kept Ickx off the top. In 1973 they had a poor chassis and Ickx lost interest, but from 1974 the car-development skill of Lauda put them on top until 1978 when ground-effect came in (which they couldn't have anticipated), and they still sneaked the 1979 WDC when Lotus slipped and Williams didn't bring their car out in time. Then they cut their losses and went for turbos, but lost Villeneuve and Pironi; Tambay and Arnoux didn't do too badly, although the chassis was left behind until Ferrari got the hang of CFC.
In 1984 Alboreto was in the hunt for the WDC for much of the season; Honda then pulled away with Williams and McLaren, but Berger and Alesi were as good a pairing as most. Mansell and Prost didn't mind joining SF, but then Ferrari held onto the V12 for too long..........and they went through a lot of designers (Postlethwaite, Brunner, Barnard, Nicholls) before getting the stability of the MS/Brawn/Byrne package that had worked at Benetton.
Who led? ... you have got to be joking. Rubens led the Ferrari team ...
Man please share some of that stuff you smoke ... I could use some
Pete's amazed yet again by stupid comments
Thank you, just learnt something. I was unaware that after '61 a shared car could not score points.
From what I can remember reading about Surtees time he hated the 12 cylinder car and the testing car (v6 2.4 ltr Formula Tasman engined) that Ferrari built for him to heal after his sportscar accident (Lola T70?) was something like 2 seconds a lap faster around Foreno (sp?).
During this time (as you would know) Dragoni the team manager was pushing Italian talent and thus was giving Bandini (I think or was it Baghetti?) the 12 cylinder car and leaving the v8 (I think again) to Surtees. Unfortunately for Bandini this actually favoured Surtees because in Surtees words the 12 was a piece of ****. These comments come from a book called 'Ferrari the Grand Prix cars'.
Ferrari was already way behind in chassis development. In the 1.5 ltr Formula Colin Chapman showed the world the way forward with the monocoque chassis (Lotus 25). Ferrari with their head firmly up their arse did not build a monocoque chassis to the end of the 3 ltr flat 12 engine ... that means something like 1980!!!!!!. How fncken pathetic
Other teams like Alfa Romeo built flat 12s and when they intelligently realised that flat 12s where the wrong format, they turned the engine into a v12. Ferrari while they were not intelligent enough to anticipate ground effects (funny all the other teams got on it real quick ... so why not Ferrari?) they should have watched and learned and adapted. That is how you are successful in motorsport. Again Ferrari won when others stuffed up ... cool atleast they were there to grab it.
Ferrari tried to get a compressor version of a turbo working even though it meant that it had to sit in the v of the v6 engine ... hardly good for CofG, but none-the-less they managed to waste considerable resources with this idea before shelving it and going turbo like everyone else. While I do not knock them for trying something different, looking at the concept on the paper it clearly shows that they would have sacrificed handling completely ... again Ferrari have trouble thinking of anything but engine power (especially back then). Tambay and Arnoux were both useless second rate drivers ... but they did ocassionally pull out brilliant races ...
Early 80's Ferrari was a great, neat car!
Sorry Berger was a useless driver that only tried when he was in a good mood. Read up about the man, he is an immature fool that risked a friends childs life by purposely rolling a car with his friend and his child in it. If that had been my child and I ... there probably would not still be a Berger.
Alesi had brilliant car control but could not handle the mental pressure of driving for Ferrari. Admittedly probably not all his fault
Yes the Mansell/Prost era cars where okay, but Barnard really was a fool for insisting on an English factory, and Ferrari management were fools for allowing it. He also lost the plot with over stiff cars (by this I mean cars where the suspension had little movement if any at all) that needed perfectly flat tracks to be effective. Witness the speed of the then Ferraris at the then new French Many-Cours (sp?) track. Prost kept telling the team that it was hard work ... the great team eventually sacked him instead of listening to him ... great stuff guys
Thus what we currently have at Ferrari is the Benetton designers honed in English teams now REPLACING the Italian mix. Thus is it really the same team or just a red Benetton. I guess so, but Todt quite rightly had to remove almost the whole old Ferrari team and start again to make it work.
Pete's discussing with a realistic view of the Ferrari GP team
I remember that in 1967 the Ferrari may have been the best-handling chassis, but it was down on power. Chris Amon complained that it was hard to convince the team that the engine wasn't powerful enough because it sounded so wonderful!
I think Amon may still be the most talented driver never to win an official Grand Prix. He should have won at Spain in 1968 and 1969 and at Canada in 1968; in all three races he had huge leads before the car let him down late in the event. Apparently early reliability problems in testing the 312B led him to quit the team; based on what happened late in 1970, that was the wrong thing to do!
Best handling does not necessarily mean fastest around the corner ... more likely more forgiving for the driver as it flexed all over the place
Agreed, he made many, many mistakes in choosing teams, etc.