I seem to have read that in the year 1988(?) McLaren Honda dominated F1
winning 15 out of 16 races… Was there a dominance factor at that time
too? I mean, was it the #1 driver who won most of the time…
I was 8 and didn’t know about the existence of F1, so please excuse the
ignorance
–
Regards,
Sparky
From: "Sparx" <sp…@myrealbox.com>
> I seem to have read that in the year 1988(?) McLaren Honda dominated F1
> winning 15 out of 16 races… Was there a dominance factor at that time
> too? I mean, was it the #1 driver who won most of the time…
Taht year, McLaren had Alain Prost and Ayrton Senna driving for them – the
best two racing rivers of the era, bar none. There were no team orders
between them, other than the general "don’t take each-other out".
I’m not sure what the win ratio was betwen them but I believe it was evenly
matched. They /raced/ each other for those wins, though, unlike the Ferrari
situation this year.
Paul
Comment by admin — December 31, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 16:16:58 +0000, Paul Harman wrote:
> I’m not sure what the win ratio was betwen them but I believe it was evenly
> matched. They /raced/ each other for those wins, though, unlike the Ferrari
> situation this year.
Senna won 8 races, Prost 7
Senna won San Marino, Canada, Detroit, Great Britain, Germany, Hungary,
Belgium and Japan
Prost won Brazil, Monaco, Mexico, France, Portugal, Spain and Australia
–
———————————————————————–
(o_ Vinci registered Linux User #276630
//\ " I find your lack of faith disturbing "
V_/_ Darth Vader, Star Wars : A New Hope
Comment by admin — December 31, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
Sparx,
> I seem to have read that in the year 1988(?) McLaren Honda dominated F1
> winning 15 out of 16 races.
Yep and it sparked a hell of a noise in some R&D departments. Everybody
got very pissed off and very busy and stressed and the result was a
whole lot of fun, like two guys named Frank and Patrick loaning their
toys to a certain Nigel and drivers swapping teams to get away from each
other to have a better chance to have a go at each other and Ferraris
being absolute dogs and losers, the time when a young’hun (ok, worst pun
of the year) tested a Jordan at Spa and Prost was making money. Magic
times they were.
It’s not Ferrari domination that makes the racing look bad. That is only
an excuse by those who make the rules. We need updated = intelligent
rules is all.
—
I think all the people who bemoan "domination by Ferrari" blaming that
for the boredom is an insult to all those guys who drive their balls off
in the "lesser" cars.
If the worldfeed was showing only half the action that happens behind
the top four or five, we’d have plenty to see on Sundays.
IMO, the present situation proves one thing, and one thing only: F1
needs to take a good, close and honest look at itself and wonder if it
is up to the 21st century. If not,, time to draw conclusions. And
implement them.
—
Good question, I hope the answer helps some in a general way.
Guy
—————————————————————
http://www.solforum.com Racing forum
Comment by admin — December 31, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
"Guy Felten" <nos…@solforum.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1367439273_1034619097485@solforum.com…
> I think all the people who bemoan "domination by Ferrari" blaming that
> for the boredom is an insult to all those guys who drive their balls off
> in the "lesser" cars.
> If the worldfeed was showing only half the action that happens behind
> the top four or five, we’d have plenty to see on Sundays.
Well even though I do not disagree that the world feed is crap most of the
time, racing for anythin outside top 6-8 is pretty pointless, quit
litterally, because of the scoring system, and therefor not really
interesting. The only teason we would like to see it, is because there is no
way will see it up front, were people are not allowed to race
> IMO, the present situation proves one thing, and one thing only: F1
> needs to take a good, close and honest look at itself and wonder if it
> is up to the 21st century. If not,, time to draw conclusions. And
> implement them.
Well, that is what they are trying to do, but some idiots call the people
trying to come up with interesting solutions for idiots…
Joakim
Comment by admin — December 31, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
"Vinci" <vinc…@libero.it> wrote in message
news:pan.2002.10.14.16.45.38.886169@libero.it…
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 16:16:58 +0000, Paul Harman wrote:
> > I’m not sure what the win ratio was betwen them but I believe it was
evenly
> > matched. They /raced/ each other for those wins, though, unlike the
Ferrari
> > situation this year.
> Senna won 8 races, Prost 7
McLaren dominated the season, apart from Senna being taken out by Schlesser
while he was miles ahead at Monza.
The difference in that season to this season was that whereas there is a
clear number 1 and number 2 at
Ferrari, in 88 at McLaren Prost had equal status and fought hard with each
other all season, so although it
was "boring" as in the sense of one team winning all the time, at least
there was racign within the dominant
team, so it was still interesting to watch. This season has just been very
boring
Mike
Comment by admin — December 31, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
Joakim,
> Well even though I do not disagree that the world feed is crap most of the
> time, racing for anythin outside top 6-8 is pretty pointless>
To me, anything involving Villeneuve for example is fun most of the time
even when he’s way out of the points. When nothing happens at the front,
I watch whatever else is happening on the track. There is always
something going on or something building up or something going to
happen. Anything lower than P8 may be pointless to you, it’s definitely
not so for those who race as hard as they can to get into the top 8.
Racing is not only happening at the front and therefore not pointless to
me.
>The only teason we would like to see it, is because there is no
> way will see it up front, were people are not allowed to race >
This may be so for you but I’ll watch anybody racing anybody.
As for the "not allowed to race" bit, it’s been a teamsport, it is a
teamsport, it will be a teamsport. Some teams do it better, other foul
up. No team lets their drivers race beyond the limits of simple
arithmetics. The only time a team will not impose teamorders until the
last races of a season is when they either know that they will win
either way or if they are not sure who is going to win.
If it wasn’t a teamsport, they could make it a one-car per team sport
but that would be a very different sport IMO.
> >F1 needs to take a good, close and honest look at itself and wonder if it
> > is up to the 21st century. If not,, time to draw conclusions. And
> > implement them.
> Well, that is what they are trying to do, but some idiots call the people
> trying to come up with interesting solutions for idiots…
Anyone suggesting seriously and publicly that drivers should swap teams
and cars every race is an idiot.
But hey, what do I know, feel free to believe that the nine points plan
is a bright idea. Wait for Playstation3 to experience it yourself.
Guy
—————————————————————
http://www.solforum.com Racing forum
Comment by admin — December 31, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
"Mike P" <michael.pearso…@ntlworld.com> wrote in
news:aoevbc$lsvqi$1@ID-163316.news.dfncis.de:
> The difference in that season to this season was that whereas there is
> a clear number 1 and number 2 at
> Ferrari, in 88 at McLaren Prost had equal status and fought hard with
> each other all season, so although it
> was "boring" as in the sense of one team winning all the time, at
> least there was racign within the dominant
> team, so it was still interesting to watch.
It was especially interesting: the two very best drivers on equal cars –
what could be better? I think most F1 fans don’t care that much for the
teams (except for Ferrari), but the drivers.
–
Matti Vuori, <http://sivut.koti.soon.fi/mvuori/index-e.htm>
Comment by admin — December 31, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
Paul Harman wrote:
> Taht year, McLaren had Alain Prost and Ayrton Senna driving for them – the
> best two racing rivers of the era, bar none. There were no team orders
> between them, other than the general "don’t take each-other out".
> I’m not sure what the win ratio was betwen them but I believe it was evenly
> matched. They /raced/ each other for those wins, though, unlike the Ferrari
> situation this year.
> Paul
I still say that McLaren didn’t have a choice. Try telling Prost or
Senna that they have to act as number two in the team. Fat chance.
Mike
Comment by admin — December 31, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
Matti Vuori wrote:
> …I think most F1 fans don’t care that much for the
> teams (except for Ferrari), but the drivers.
I agree with that, but don’t understand why. If the drivers are the
most important part to most fans, why follow F1 where the rules
demand technological diversity. Spec car racing, ALMS, Indy cars. IRL,
Nascar, Ford Spec car racing, etc., are series where the cars are the
same or very similar to each other. These are the driver oriented series.
Comment by admin — December 31, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 16:16:58 GMT, "Paul Harman"
<chatter…@doctorwhowebguide.net> wrote:
>From: "Sparx" <sp…@myrealbox.com>
>> I seem to have read that in the year 1988(?) McLaren Honda dominated F1
>> winning 15 out of 16 races… Was there a dominance factor at that time
>> too? I mean, was it the #1 driver who won most of the time…
>Taht year, McLaren had Alain Prost and Ayrton Senna driving for them – the
>best two racing rivers of the era, bar none. There were no team orders
>between them, other than the general "don’t take each-other out".
>I’m not sure what the win ratio was betwen them but I believe it was evenly
>matched. They /raced/ each other for those wins, though, unlike the Ferrari
>situation this year.
And ended up hating each other and leaving a bad taste in everybody’s
mouth. For me, Senna’s on-track behaviour in his feud with Prost rules
him for ever from considerations of greatness. A thoroughly nasty
state of affairs. I can’t help feeling it was all much more
‘unsporting’ than running as a team. On the other hand, the
controversy (rather than the racing) did a great deal for F1′s
popularity.
David Betts (dav…@motorsport.org.uk)
"In the end it’s always a matter of more accelerator and less brake" – Frank Gardner
British Racing Green: http://dbetts.motorsport.org.uk/brg
Comment by admin — December 31, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 18:44:56 GMT, "Joakim Lauridsen" <a…@li.is>
wrote:
>Well even though I do not disagree that the world feed is crap most of the
>time, racing for anythin outside top 6-8 is pretty pointless, quit
>litterally, because of the scoring system, and therefor not really
>interesting.
Not sure I understand you here. Why should it matter whether a
position scores points or not? One car is trying to get ahead of
another guy, right. They are not doing it for ‘points’. It is called
racing.
The important thing in my book is to get the emphasis back on the
individual races and away for this season long irritant of
points-scoring.
Preferably, I would do away with the drivers’ championship altogether.
Recognising that to be an impossibility, why not simply do away with
the horrid points system? The driver who wins the most races is
‘champion’. If two drivers win the same number of races, use
countback.
Works for me.
What I would really hate to see is the points system extended so that
more positions count for points and more things over a weekend count
for points. You eventually end up like NASCAR, where you get a point
just for finding the circuit.
David Betts (dav…@motorsport.org.uk)
"In the end it’s always a matter of more accelerator and less brake" – Frank Gardner
British Racing Green: http://dbetts.motorsport.org.uk/brg
Comment by admin — December 31, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 20:48:41 GMT, "Mike P"
<michael.pearso…@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>McLaren dominated the season, apart from Senna being taken out by Schlesser
>while he was miles ahead at Monza.
Senna tripped over Schlesser rather than the other way around. No way
was it Jo’s fault, who was doing his best to keep out of the way.
Basically, Senna panicked because he’d backed off and let the Ferraris
get too close…so he tried to dive through where there wasn’t room.
David Betts (dav…@motorsport.org.uk)
"In the end it’s always a matter of more accelerator and less brake" – Frank Gardner
British Racing Green: http://dbetts.motorsport.org.uk/brg
Comment by admin — December 31, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
Mike,
> I still say that McLaren didn’t have a choice. Try telling Prost or
> Senna that they have to act as number two in the team. Fat chance.
That’s never been put better. I’ll quote you in the future with full
credits.
Guy
—————————————————————
http://www.solforum.com Racing forum
Comment by admin — December 31, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
David Betts wrote:
> I can’t help feeling it was all much more
> ‘unsporting’ than running as a team. On the other hand, the
> controversy (rather than the racing) did a great deal for F1′s
> popularity.
Personally, given a choice of watching two drivers racing and battling
for the championship or watching a team dominate, I know which I’d
rather do. And so did Ferrari in the early 90s.
–
Stephen Baines
Comment by admin — December 31, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
Paul Harman wrote:
> I’m not sure what the win ratio was betwen them but I believe it was evenly
> matched. They /raced/ each other for those wins, though, unlike the Ferrari
> situation this year.
That was the major difference, and the thing that made it so memorable.
It was something like my second full season of watching F1, and I was
gripped – you had no idea which of the two was going to win out. Plus
there was the memorable Ferrari victory courtesy of Nigel Mansell and
Williams at Monza that year. Also, it was the year – for one year only –
that Silverstone had a marina.
–
Stephen
Comment by admin — December 31, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
David Betts wrote:
> What I would really hate to see is the points system extended so that
> more positions count for points and more things over a weekend count
> for points. You eventually end up like NASCAR, where you get a point
> just for finding the circuit.
Would have encouraged Arrows to have turned up a bit more often, though
Stephen
Comment by admin — December 31, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
Stephen M Baines <step…@localhost.motorsport.org.uk> wrote:
> Paul Harman wrote:
>> I’m not sure what the win ratio was betwen them but I believe it was evenly
>> matched. They /raced/ each other for those wins, though, unlike the Ferrari
>> situation this year.
> That was the major difference, and the thing that made it so memorable.
> It was something like my second full season of watching F1, and I was
> gripped – you had no idea which of the two was going to win out. Plus
> there was the memorable Ferrari victory courtesy of Nigel Mansell and
> Williams at Monza that year. Also, it was the year – for one year only –
> that Silverstone had a marina.
Jean-Louis Schlesser, unless you’re citing Our Noige’s chickenpox as a
cause of Ferrari victory
–
p…@fenelon.com "there’s no room for enigmas in built-up areas" HMHB
Comment by admin — December 31, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
Pete Fenelon wrote:
> Stephen M Baines <step…@localhost.motorsport.org.uk> wrote:
>>That was the major difference, and the thing that made it so memorable.
>>It was something like my second full season of watching F1, and I was
>>gripped – you had no idea which of the two was going to win out. Plus
>>there was the memorable Ferrari victory courtesy of Nigel Mansell and
>>Williams at Monza that year. Also, it was the year – for one year only –
>>that Silverstone had a marina.
> Jean-Louis Schlesser, unless you’re citing Our Noige’s chickenpox as a
> cause of Ferrari victory
Indeed I am <G>
If he’d been there, it’s unlikely Senna would have tripped over
Schlesser in the Williams.
—
Stephen M Baines
Comment by admin — December 31, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
Mike <mc…@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message <news:3DAB8A93.9070709@worldnet.att.net>…
> Matti Vuori wrote:
> I agree with that, but don’t understand why. If the drivers are the
> most important part to most fans, why follow F1 where the rules
> demand technological diversity. Spec car racing, ALMS, Indy cars. IRL,
> Nascar, Ford Spec car racing, etc., are series where the cars are the
> same or very similar to each other. These are the driver oriented series.
I can’t really see how you can count in ALMS here. AUDI has dominated
the last few years in the same way Ferrari has dominated F1 – with a
car that is both faster and more reliable than anyone else.
Prototype sports car racing is mainly about creating the best car and
then finding a few decent drivers who can keep it on the track. F1 has
always been very focused on drivers, which is one reason why it is so
popular. Ferrari is driving the sport towards the same direction as Le
Mans and ALMS, where few people really care which driver wins.
Comment by admin — December 31, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
Erik Runeson <erik.rune…@telia.com> wrote:
> Mike <mc…@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message <news:3DAB8A93.9070709@worldnet.att.net>…
>> Matti Vuori wrote:
>> I agree with that, but don’t understand why. If the drivers are the
>> most important part to most fans, why follow F1 where the rules
>> demand technological diversity. Spec car racing, ALMS, Indy cars. IRL,
>> Nascar, Ford Spec car racing, etc., are series where the cars are the
>> same or very similar to each other. These are the driver oriented series.
> I can’t really see how you can count in ALMS here. AUDI has dominated
> the last few years in the same way Ferrari has dominated F1 – with a
> car that is both faster and more reliable than anyone else.
Yes — but (A) the car’s available to customers – Dave Maraj’s Champion
team has run the works very close this year and (B) the works team are
pulling out next season.
Also, down in the classes LMP675 is very technically diverse.
> popular. Ferrari is driving the sport towards the same direction as Le
> Mans and ALMS, where few people really care which driver wins.
I can only assume you’ve never heard one of the moderators here
cursing when a certain driver is beaten — or me cheering Duncan
Dayton in 675s. :)
pete
—
p…@fenelon.com "there’s no room for enigmas in built-up areas" HMHB
Comment by admin — December 31, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
Stephen M Baines <step…@localhost.motorsport.org.uk> wrote:
>> Jean-Louis Schlesser, unless you’re citing Our Noige’s chickenpox as a
>> cause of Ferrari victory
> Indeed I am <G>
> If he’d been there, it’s unlikely Senna would have tripped over
> Schlesser in the Williams.
True. Nige would’ve caned the nuts off the underpowered car around
Monza, probably around 7th or 8th, and it would’ve retired with
overheating problems – Williams’ favourite cause of retirements
after they’d designed the active system out of FW12.
pete
—
p…@fenelon.com "there’s no room for enigmas in built-up areas" HMHB
Comment by admin — December 31, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
"David Betts" <dav…@motorsport.org.uk> skrev i en meddelelse
news:jdhnqu4l7krhbc0td6ch6g2u9e1qikkr4g@4ax.com…
> >Well even though I do not disagree that the world feed is crap most of
the
> >time, racing for anythin outside top 6-8 is pretty pointless, quit
> >litterally, because of the scoring system, and therefor not really
> >interesting.
> Not sure I understand you here. Why should it matter whether a
> position scores points or not? One car is trying to get ahead of
> another guy, right. They are not doing it for ‘points’. It is called
> racing.
Should have clarified. I personnaly also like racing, even if it is for
secondlast place. However, if the same fight was for 1st place, it is
infinately more interesting to me. One of the main reasons that "we" care
about racing for the lower positions is that it’s the only racing we get.
Ok, maybe not us, as we are racing fans, but the very vast majority who
follows the drivers champions and stop watching when that’s decided and even
amost of the rest too, are very fixated on the points scoring positions.
When maybe 96% of the "fans" follows the top 6 because that are the point
scorers, and then maybe 7th and 8th too, because they have a chance to move
up into the points, of course thats were the tv directors focus there
atention. And the only reason you need the digital coverage wich follows the
midfield, is that there isn’t any racing up front, just 6 cars parading
around hoping that an engine will blow up, or that their "strategy" is
better than the oposistion.
> The important thing in my book is to get the emphasis back on the
> individual races and away for this season long irritant of
> points-scoring.
I would love that there wasn’t any championship at all, just Grand Prixs.
But that is as unthinkable to be introduced, as driver swapping. Actually,
friover swapping has a better chance!
> Preferably, I would do away with the drivers’ championship altogether.
> Recognising that to be an impossibility, why not simply do away with
> the horrid points system? The driver who wins the most races is
> ‘champion’. If two drivers win the same number of races, use
> countback.
Is it better to win one race and crash out of the rest, than finnish every
race in number 2 spot?
> What I would really hate to see is the points system extended so that
> more positions count for points and more things over a weekend count
> for points. You eventually end up like NASCAR, where you get a point
> just for finding the circuit.
I don’t want points for fastest lap, pole most led laps etc. either. And not
points for everybody who finishes either, but the top 10 would be nice in my
opnion. Would also make more of th racing less pointless in a lot of other
more casual fans’ eyes, hopefully the producers eyes, and also more
interesting for everybody not rooring for just the top 3 teams, that run
away with what 90%+ of the points?
Joakim
Comment by admin — December 31, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
"David Betts" <dav…@motorsport.org.uk> wrote in message
news:87hnqu4sl6hijbau1ila2rh16vb48pjg3v@4ax.com…
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 20:48:41 GMT, "Mike P"
> <michael.pearso…@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >McLaren dominated the season, apart from Senna being taken out by
Schlesser
> >while he was miles ahead at Monza.
> Senna tripped over Schlesser rather than the other way around. No way
> was it Jo’s fault, who was doing his best to keep out of the way.
> Basically, Senna panicked because he’d backed off and let the Ferraris
> get too close…so he tried to dive through where there wasn’t room.
Yes, sorry I didn’t make that clear David. Senna was rather too impatient
that day
No blame on JLS at all..
Mike
Comment by admin — December 31, 2009 @ 4:41 pm
David Betts <dav…@motorsport.org.uk> wrote:
>Senna tripped over Schlesser rather than the other way around.
>No way was it Jo’s fault…
http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/drv-schjo.html
http://www.forix.com/asp/pi.asp?z=0&k=0&l=0&r=6806018&c=0
http://www.forix.com/asp/pi.asp?z=0&k=0&l=0&r=8303018&c=0
—
Sylvan Smyth
syl…@islandnet.com
Victoria, BC, Canada
Comment by admin — December 31, 2009 @ 4:41 pm