Yet more Trivia...

Yet more Trivia...

Post by Mike Whoole » Wed, 30 Jun 1999 04:00:00


Ok, I'm confusing, so bear with me...

Most seasons there are two drivers (and two teams) in serious contention
for the championship. Can anyone tell me when was the last time (before
this weekend) when a driver not from those two teams won a race, while
those two teams still had cars finish the race.

Thus, Irvine's, Hill's and Panis' victories would be excluded. I'm not sure
about Berger's, I can't recall who was still running. I believe Alesi's
victory would also be excluded.

The point of this: I think you could make a good argument that Frentzen's
win was the first one in a while won on merit. (Better qualifying and
strategy than Schumacher, better qualifying, strategy and consistency
than Hakkinen).

(I hope you don't think I'm saying this just because I'm a raving Jordan
fanatic. I am. I just hope you're not thinking it...)

Mike.
------------------------------------------------
I have an opinion. I think.

 
 
 

Yet more Trivia...

Post by Roger Vir » Thu, 01 Jul 1999 04:00:00

 >Ok, I'm confusing, so bear with me...

 >Most seasons there are two drivers (and two teams) in serious contention
 >for the championship. Can anyone tell me when was the last time (before
 >this weekend) when a driver not from those two teams won a race, while
 >those two teams still had cars finish the race.

How about

1987    United States GP        Detroit, 21 June

Senna won in a Lotus Honda. Williams-Honda and McLaren-TAG who finished first
and second in the Constructors Championship had finishers in 2nd/5th and
3rd/7th. But only the two Williams drivers were in contention for the drivers
championship whereas the two McLaren drivers only finished fourth and fifth
in the Champioship after Senna who was third. So this may not count.

prior to that maybe

1981    French GP               Dijon, 5 July

Prost won in a Renault, the drivers title was being fought between Piquet and
Reutemann who finished 3rd and 10th. The constructors championship was between
Williams-Ford and Brabham-Ford who had both cars finish the race in 3rd/9th and
10th/17th. This I think fits the question better.

Roger and out...

 >The point of this: I think you could make a good argument that Frentzen's
 >win was the first one in a while won on merit. (Better qualifying and
 >strategy than Schumacher, better qualifying, strategy and consistency
 >than Hakkinen).

Every race is won on merit.

Roger and out...

--
Roger Virgo                             Information Systems Division

"I raced in an era when motor racing       61-67 Ryrie St Geelong
was dangerous and sex was safe"    - JYS   Victoria 3220 Australia

 
 
 

Yet more Trivia...

Post by clem.. » Thu, 01 Jul 1999 04:00:00



Quote:
> Ok, I'm confusing, so bear with me...

> Most seasons there are two drivers (and two teams) in serious
contention
> for the championship. Can anyone tell me when was the last time
(before
> this weekend) when a driver not from those two teams won a race, while
> those two teams still had cars finish the race.

> Thus, Irvine's, Hill's and Panis' victories would be excluded. I'm not
sure
> about Berger's, I can't recall who was still running. I believe
Alesi's
> victory would also be excluded.

> The point of this: I think you could make a good argument that
Frentzen's
> win was the first one in a while won on merit. (Better qualifying and
> strategy than Schumacher, better qualifying, strategy and consistency
> than Hakkinen).

You're not clear on what you mean by 'two drivers,
two teams', but.

(i) In Spa, 1998 (Hill's Jordan win), Coulthard was
still running in a McLaren. Hence even if the two
top drivers were out, there was a car from the
top two teams that completed the race.

(ii) In Australia, 1999 (Irvine's win) both Ferraris
were still running. Shurely this is obvious since it
was Irvine that won. Hence both top team and top
driver cars were still running.

(iii) From memory, when Berger won in 1997, MS was
still running, in about 4th place, and gave GF a
lift back to the pits where GF looked rather 'strained'
*** onto the airbox of the Ferrari for dear life.
Hence, both top drivers and top cars.

What's more important is looking at whether the
race was won because top cars dropped out in front
of the driver who won, or whether the top cars
dropped out after they were already beaten. It also
depends on why they dropped out. In Spa, MS was
driving far too quick for the conditions, and paid
the price for his mistake. Damon drove at what
turned out to be the fastest speed that still
allowed him to finish the race. The McLaren of
Hakkinen dropped out from behind Damon, not from
in front.

With Irvine's victory, the McLarens dropped out from
in front of him. However, I don't think this means
that Irvine's victory was pure luck. Reliability and
speed are not independent variables. If a team makes
its car very fast, but does so by sacrificing
reliability (e.g. on standard engines, by increasing
the compression ratio for the engine, don't know how
this would apply for f1 engines), and both their
cars drop out while in the lead, then I don't see
that being just plain luck. Ferrari produced a car
which was quick enough to win the race while being
reliable enough to finish, and Irvine drove it fast
enough to win.

Wet weather races can be more of a lottery, i.e. who
hits the standing water and who doesn't. However,
nobody really dropped out from in front of Frentzen
due to blind luck (Mika overcooked it, MS was
(uncharacteristically) unlucky with his choice
of setup, and did not benefit from the race organisers
being conservative with their timing of ending
the safety car period.

Berger's win was masterful, especially so soon after
his father's death and having to miss races due to
poor health. Admittedly he was behind (? - from
memory) GF when GF's tyre blew out, but only bad
luck had put him behind.

Personally I think there's a lot less luck involved
in the victories mentioned than you suggest.

Cheers,

Ross-c

Sent via Deja.com http://SportToday.org/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

 
 
 

Yet more Trivia...

Post by Matthias Fla » Thu, 01 Jul 1999 04:00:00

Quote:

>(i) In Spa, 1998 (Hill's Jordan win), Coulthard was
>still running in a McLaren.

After MS crashed into him, Coulthard parked his rear-wing-less car,
got out of it and then was shouted at by MS.
I doubt McLaren repaired the car and sent him back in again.

Quote:
>The McLaren of
>Hakkinen dropped out from behind Damon, not from
>in front.

H?kkinen spun at the restart.

Quote:
>Berger's win was masterful, especially so soon after
>his father's death and having to miss races due to
>poor health. Admittedly he was behind (? - from
>memory) GF when GF's tyre blew out, but only bad
>luck had put him behind.

AFAIR, in 1997 Berger dominated the whole weekend at Hockenheim: pole,
fastest lap, win.

--
Matthias Flatt

 
 
 

Yet more Trivia...

Post by Martin Schmid » Thu, 01 Jul 1999 04:00:00



Quote:
> Thus, Irvine's, Hill's and Panis' victories would be excluded. I'm not
sure
> about Berger's, I can't recall who was still running. I believe
Alesi's
> victory would also be excluded.

Why Panis' victory? DC was still running in second place.

--
Martin Schmidt

Goodbye Damon

 
 
 

Yet more Trivia...

Post by Martin Schmid » Thu, 01 Jul 1999 04:00:00

Quote:
> >(i) In Spa, 1998 (Hill's Jordan win), Coulthard was
> >still running in a McLaren.
> After MS crashed into him, Coulthard parked his rear-wing-less car,
> got out of it and then was shouted at by MS.
> I doubt McLaren repaired the car and sent him back in again.

Actually, he was running until the end of the race. Lapped, but running.

Quote:

> >The McLaren of
> >Hakkinen dropped out from behind Damon, not from
> >in front.
> H?kkinen spun at the restart.

Damon won the start and was first in the first corner. Mika spun BEHIND
him.

--
Martin Schmidt

Goodbye Damon

 
 
 

Yet more Trivia...

Post by Tony Schole » Thu, 01 Jul 1999 04:00:00

Quote:


> >(i) In Spa, 1998 (Hill's Jordan win), Coulthard was
> >still running in a McLaren.
> After MS crashed into him, Coulthard parked his rear-wing-less car,
> got out of it and then was shouted at by MS.
> I doubt McLaren repaired the car and sent him back in again.

This is exactly what they did, he was several laps back, but they
figured they might luck out and have Coulthard finish in the points due
to more attrition...

Quote:

> >The McLaren of
> >Hakkinen dropped out from behind Damon, not from
> >in front.
> H?kkinen spun at the restart.

Hakkinen spun at the 1st corner whilst dicing with Schumacher, but after
he had been overtaken by Hill (and Irvine?) therefore (and IMHO) he was
behind Hill when he went out... :^)

Quote:
> >Berger's win was masterful, especially so soon after
> >his father's death and having to miss races due to
> >poor health. Admittedly he was behind (? - from
> >memory) GF when GF's tyre blew out, but only bad
> >luck had put him behind.
> AFAIR, in 1997 Berger dominated the whole weekend at Hockenheim: pole,
> fastest lap, win.

No argument, but IIRC strategy (did Berger do two stops and get lucky
with the traffic, while the rest did one?) helped here. Masterful
nontheless. IIRC Ralf Schumacher tried the same last year but didn't
have the same luck with the traffic.

AIIRC didn't Berger try the same in 96 and lead to a few laps from the
flag, just to have his engine go with  Hill right behind him? Hockenhiem
did seem to be his track.

Quote:
> --
> Matthias Flatt

--
Tony Scholes
 
 
 

Yet more Trivia...

Post by Mike Whoole » Fri, 02 Jul 1999 04:00:00

Quote:



>> Thus, Irvine's, Hill's and Panis' victories would be excluded. I'm not
>sure
>> about Berger's, I can't recall who was still running. I believe
>Alesi's
>> victory would also be excluded.

>Why Panis' victory? DC was still running in second place.

Was he? My mistake. (Though any race with only 4 finishers is bound
to be more of a lottery)

Mike.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Millenium bug? Pah! That won't hit me for another -99 years...Doh!

 
 
 

Yet more Trivia...

Post by Mike Whoole » Fri, 02 Jul 1999 04:00:00

Quote:

>You're not clear on what you mean by 'two drivers,
>two teams', but.

I suppose, what I'm really trying to determine is what (non championship
contending) drivers have won races due to speed and not just due to
consistency/lack of mistakes.

The reason I want to know is because I'm so annoyed by some of the
unreasonable arguments I've read here. "Schumacher is the best driver"
(I agree) "win or lose" (I can't agree). "If someone beats Schumacher,
they must have a much better car" or "If Schumacher beats Hakinnen,
it could only be because the Ferrari is now better than the McLaren",
or any non McLaren/Ferrari win must be simply due to luck.

I was hoping to find examples of where drivers from non championship
contending teams drove storming races and won without the leaders
having to spin out ahead of them. Still, even after Frentzen's win, I
heard "Hakinnen could easily have passed Frentzen, but he didn't need
to".

Still, it's nice to see many reports/websites giving Frentzen the
recognition he deserves after the race.

Quote:
>(i) In Spa, 1998 (Hill's Jordan win), Coulthard was
>still running in a McLaren. Hence even if the two
>top drivers were out, there was a car from the
>top two teams that completed the race.

Yes, but he'd been in a bad crash, and had been out of his car for some
minutes in the pitlane. A very extreme case (but you are correct).

Quote:
>(ii) In Australia, 1999 (Irvine's win) both Ferraris
>were still running. Shurely this is obvious since it
>was Irvine that won. Hence both top team and top
>driver cars were still running.

Yes, but since Irvine is also in a chamionship contending car, that's why
I 'excluded' him.

Quote:
>(iii) From memory, when Berger won in 1997, MS was
>still running, in about 4th place, and gave GF a
>lift back to the pits where GF looked rather 'strained'
>hanging onto the airbox of the Ferrari for dear life.

I wasn't sure about this, thanks for the info. I do remember that
'lift' Giancarlo got. I've never seen anyone's eyes open up that
wide before! The devil in me couldn't help but wonder what
would happen if Schuey had accelerated to 150-ish and
slammed on the brakes. No, actually I know the answer to
that question...

Quote:
>Hence, both top drivers and top cars.

Sorry, who do you mean by 'both'?  Certainly, Berger beat Schuey
in a straight fight, and Schuey, in a Ferrari is certainly a championship
contender, so that fulfulls my criteria, seeing as the Benetton that year
was hardly a championship contender.

Quote:
>What's more important is looking at whether the
>race was won because top cars dropped out in front
>of the driver who won, or whether the top cars
>dropped out after they were already beaten. It also
>depends on why they dropped out. In Spa, MS was
>driving far too quick for the conditions, and paid
>the price for his mistake. Damon drove at what
>turned out to be the fastest speed that still
>allowed him to finish the race. The McLaren of
>Hakkinen dropped out from behind Damon, not from
>in front.

Of course, I'm not suggesting that Damon's win doesn't have *any*
merit, it's just that when any driver wins with others dropping out,
so many people here attribute the win to luck.

Even after Damon's win, some suggested he was lucky that Mika
had spun out, even if he was behind Damon and not a noted wet
weather driver.

Quote:
>With Irvine's victory, the McLarens dropped out from
>in front of him. However, I don't think this means
>that Irvine's victory was pure luck. Reliability and
>speed are not independent variables. If a team makes
>its car very fast, but does so by sacrificing
>reliability (e.g. on standard engines, by increasing
>the compression ratio for the engine, don't know how
>this would apply for f1 engines), and both their
>cars drop out while in the lead, then I don't see
>that being just plain luck. Ferrari produced a car
>which was quick enough to win the race while being
>reliable enough to finish, and Irvine drove it fast
>enough to win.

I was happier that anyone at Eddie's win. I just wish he'd win
with the two McLarens and Schumacher still running!

Quote:
>Wet weather races can be more of a lottery, i.e. who
>hits the standing water and who doesn't. However,
>nobody really dropped out from in front of Frentzen
>due to blind luck (Mika overcooked it, MS was
>(uncharacteristically) unlucky with his choice
>of setup, and did not benefit from the race organisers
>being conservative with their timing of ending
>the safety car period.

Jordan posted a 'weather spotter' out on the other side of the track with
a mobile phone who reported back on the weather conditions well before
they'd be spotted in the pits. Apparently it was on his advice they
changed the strategy.

It does take a bit of the 'luck' factor out of his win.

Quote:
>Berger's win was masterful, especially so soon after
>his father's death and having to miss races due to
>poor health. Admittedly he was behind (? - from
>memory) GF when GF's tyre blew out, but only bad
>luck had put him behind.

I was amazed (and thrilled) at Berger's pace in both race and
qualifying. GB was ahead of GF when the tyre blew:  though
Giancarlo got ahead when Gerhard came out of the pits, and
the second next chicane Giancarlo made a mistake and
Gerhard was through in a flash, and went on to build up a 4-5
second lead. Then Giancarlo started putting in fast laps (due
to lightening fuel load?) and started reeling him in, but then
the tyre blew and the race win was gone.

Quote:
>Personally I think there's a lot less luck involved
>in the victories mentioned than you suggest.

True, if you're fast, consistent and reliable, you don't need luck ;)

Mike.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Millenium bug? Pah! That won't hit me for another -99 years...Doh!

 
 
 

Yet more Trivia...

Post by Martin Schmid » Fri, 02 Jul 1999 04:00:00



Quote:
> Was he? My mistake. (Though any race with only 4 finishers is bound
> to be more of a lottery)

AFAIK just three drivers finished. What many people don't know: HHF
didn't finish. Instead of crossing the finish line he went into the
pits.

--
Martin Schmidt

Goodbye Damon

 
 
 

Yet more Trivia...

Post by Mike Whoole » Fri, 02 Jul 1999 04:00:00

Quote:



>> Was he? My mistake. (Though any race with only 4 finishers is bound
>> to be more of a lottery)

>AFAIK just three drivers finished. What many people don't know: HHF
>didn't finish. Instead of crossing the finish line he went into the
>pits.

If he crosses the line in the pitlane, that' s just the same. I've always
thought
it would be good for a laugh if the race leader pulled into the pits on the
last
lap, just to scare people.

Mike.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ferrari -> Tifosi... Jordan -> Letsgosee

 
 
 

Yet more Trivia...

Post by Martin Schmid » Fri, 02 Jul 1999 04:00:00

Quote:
> If he crosses the line in the pitlane, that' s just the same. I've
always
> thought
> it would be good for a laugh if the race leader pulled into the pits
on the
> last
> lap, just to scare people.

HHF wasn't one lap down during the final laps, but according to the
final results he has indeed been lapped. So he did NOT cross the finish
line in the pits.

--
Martin Schmidt

Goodbye Damon

 
 
 

Yet more Trivia...

Post by Toni Lassi » Fri, 02 Jul 1999 04:00:00

Quote:
>If he crosses the line in the pitlane, that' s just the same. I've always
>thought
>it would be good for a laugh if the race leader pulled into the pits on the
>last
>lap, just to scare people.

He did, in Silverstone '98. But that was more of a farce.
 
 
 

Yet more Trivia...

Post by aej » Fri, 02 Jul 1999 04:00:00


Quote:

>If he crosses the line in the pitlane, that' s just the same. I've always
>thought
>it would be good for a laugh if the race leader pulled into the pits on the
>last
>lap, just to scare people.

I think you'll find that one's been done (and folk are *still* talking
about it).

--
aej
"It's one of the best events of the year. Bernie's not in charge." - Jack
Brabham on Goodwood