Most successful marques?
#1
Posted 17 November 2011 - 10:01
Second in the list is Renault with 35 victories followed by BRM with 17. Suprisingly (?) Alfa Romeo are fourth with 10 wins while Matra, Maserati, Mercedes and Vanwall all have nine to their credit, Honda have three and Porsche a single victory.
I just thought I would share this with you as it is quite possible that "Not many people know that!"
bauble.
Advertisement
#2
Posted 17 November 2011 - 10:13
#3
Posted 17 November 2011 - 10:19
I think that you should also include Eagle.
#4
Posted 17 November 2011 - 10:27
Matra?
I think that you should also include Eagle.
Shouldn't Lotus be in there too ?
#5
Posted 17 November 2011 - 10:54
I assume that Bauble is using the term "marque" to refer to F1 entrants who make the whole car (or at least both the chassis and engine) in-house. On that basis, neither Eagle nor Lotus are eligible as neither produced their own F1 engines in-house. Ford commissioned Cosworth to produce the DFV on Lotus's behalf just as TAG commissioned Porsche to produce an engine for McLaren. Dan Gurney commissioned Weslake to produce the V12 engine but it was not actually built by AAR.Shouldn't Lotus be in there too ?
However, the term "marque" could also be used to mean a company that produces road cars as well as F1 cars - in which case Lotus should be added, as should McLaren but BRM and Vanwall would be excluded.
#6
Posted 17 November 2011 - 10:57
Matra?
Quite right it was an error 'Matra never won a Grand Prix, I did not check my facts sufficiently. Which only goes to prove no one is perfect.
I think that you should also include Eagle.
No!
Edited by Bauble, 17 November 2011 - 11:01.
#7
Posted 17 November 2011 - 11:04
Could this be termed sophistry? My grasp of the Englisg language is not perfect.
However, Amphicar, as always, you have grasped the gist of my drift with alacrity.
Edited by Bauble, 17 November 2011 - 11:06.
#8
Posted 17 November 2011 - 11:21
To quote Winston Churchill: "There are lies, damned lies, and there are statistics". ie define the criteria the way you want to get the answer you want. (Having looked it up, I now realise that's what 'sophistry' means)
#9
Posted 17 November 2011 - 11:50
What are you trying to prove with this series of posts? Ask a vague undefined question and you'll get a variety of answers.
To quote Winston Churchill: "There are lies, damned lies, and there are statistics". ie define the criteria the way you want to get the answer you want. (Having looked it up, I now realise that's what 'sophistry' means)
You beat me to the punch!
#10
Posted 17 November 2011 - 12:02
What are you trying to prove with this series of posts? Ask a vague undefined question and you'll get a variety of answers.
To quote Winston Churchill: "There are lies, damned lies, and there are statistics". ie define the criteria the way you want to get the answer you want. (Having looked it up, I now realise that's what 'sophistry' means)
Sorry if I gave he impression I was trying to prove something, it my opinion that any team that uses proprietory engines or uses any outside source to manufacture their motive power, is not a fully fledged Grands Prix team. Using this simple rule means that the likes of Lotus, Williams, Connew, McLaren et al do not qualify, hence my list. It might be controversial and clearly everyone is entitled to agree or disagree with my view, however, with all of the resources some of the bigger players have behind them I have often wondered why they don't produce a whole car themselves, in-house.
The purpose of these seemingly provoking posts is to canvas opinions on subjects that are some times taken for granted without proper insight.
Why be boring, when one can inject a little excitement into one's life?
#11
Posted 17 November 2011 - 12:14
Why be boring, when one can inject a little excitement into one's life?
[/quote]
That confirms, that like me, you dont get out much these days.
#12
Posted 17 November 2011 - 12:14
Oh, and what about BMW Sauber?
Edited by Tim Murray, 17 November 2011 - 12:17.
#13
Posted 17 November 2011 - 12:22
The list in post 1 totals 309 wins (excluding Matra). Who won the other 500+ World Championship GPs?
A bunch of garagistes, of course.
Oh, and what about BMW Sauber?
?????? Which marque are claiming victories for Tim, Sauber or BMW? I can't trace any victories for either!
#14
Posted 17 November 2011 - 12:26
Do try and keep up with the issues.
Kindest regards,
Bauble.
Who does get around a little these days, but mainly to supermarkets!! Wilfred to you Og!
#15
Posted 17 November 2011 - 12:26
2008 Canadian GP?????? Which marque are claiming victories for Tim, Sauber or BMW? I can't trace any victories for either!
At the time the Sauber team was owned by BMW and called BMW Sauber.
#16
Posted 17 November 2011 - 12:38
A bunch of garagistes, of course.
And the Marques would have been competing against some pretty thin fields without them, in 1974 for example without the Garagistes you would have been looking at 5 car grids IIRC correctly and from 1975 to 1976 you would have only had two car grids except on those occasions when the Stanley could be made to co-oporate
Or is Stanley also considered a Garagiste with a BRM engine ?
#17
Posted 17 November 2011 - 12:57
Yes, and no cars at all in the 1976 Austrian GP.... and from 1975 to 1976 you would have only had two car grids except on those occasions when the Stanley could be made to co-oporate
Edit: ... and, who knows, John Watson might still have his beard.
Edited by Tim Murray, 17 November 2011 - 13:00.
#18
Posted 17 November 2011 - 13:07
And more recently, many of the apparent Marques have really been Garagistes in drag: Renault bought Benetton to build their chassis at Enstone, Honda did the same with BAR, BMW did likewise with Sauber - and Mercedes went one better buying both Ilmor to make their engines and Brawn/Honda/BAR/Tyrrell to make their chassis.And the Marques would have been competing against some pretty thin fields without them, in 1974 for example without the Garagistes you would have been looking at 5 car grids IIRC correctly and from 1975 to 1976 you would have only had two car grids except on those occasions when the Stanley could be made to co-oporate
Or is Stanley also considered a Garagiste with a BRM engine ?
“The creatures outside looked from marque to garagiste, and from garagiste to marque, and from marque to garagiste again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
with apologies to George Orwell (who was really Eric Blair, of course)
#19
Posted 17 November 2011 - 14:19
Yes, and no cars at all in the 1976 Austrian GP.
Edit: ... and, who knows, John Watson might still have his beard.
Killing Luca de Montezolo's assertion that Formula one can't exist without Ferrari !
... but I digress EFFWon without Ferrari, Austin Texas and a handful of other Marques would be a shame
Advertisement
#20
Posted 17 November 2011 - 15:49
I know that Mclaren Ford, McLaren Honda and McLaren Mercedes have all won races, while McLaren Serenessima, McLaren BRM and McLaren Peugeot have not, however I cannot recall ever reading about a McLaren winning anything. A similar point may be made for many constructors, including Sauber BMW!
I thought that my point was fairly plain, non-controversial and expressed as a personal opinion.
Noothing is being taken away from those 'constructors' who rely on customer engines, there results are still valid, it is just that I do not consider them real marques.
The rest of you may do so if you wish, and I will not comment on your sincerely held views.
I can't say fairer than that!
#21
Posted 17 November 2011 - 16:34
Oh, and Mercedes hasn't won anything in racing since 1926, much the same same as Benz.
"Subjects that are some times taken for granted without proper insight"? Oh, how true.
#22
Posted 17 November 2011 - 19:30
I wouldn't consider any wins from a team that doesn't even build its own chassis "in-house", so in my book Ferrari have never really won a Grand Prix.
Oh, and Mercedes hasn't won anything in racing since 1926, much the same same as Benz.
"Subjects that are some times taken for granted without proper insight"? Oh, how true.
Absolutely (Here I go again) no racing team has ever built a complete car 'in-house' as far to many proprietory accessories are used such as tyres, brakes, carburettors, fuels, spark plugs, meaning that in your view there is no such thing as a 'proper marque' as I define it.
I retire defeated by your inescapable logic.
#23
Posted 17 November 2011 - 20:34
Edited by gkennedy, 17 November 2011 - 20:36.
#24
Posted 17 November 2011 - 23:03
#26
Posted 18 November 2011 - 02:34
#27
Posted 18 November 2011 - 07:59
Tarso?
Very droll
#28
Posted 18 November 2011 - 10:29
That is perfectly logical - however, Article 6.3 of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations states:The official definition of a "marque" must surely be the rules for the Manufacturer's Championship. This is essentially the combination of car (chassis) and engine. eg Cooper-Climax and Cooper-Maserati were different marques, while Lotus-BRM V8 and Lotus-BRM V16 were the same.
A constructor is the person (including any corporate or unincorporated body) which designs the Listed Parts set out in Schedule 3 to The 2009 Concorde Agreement. The make of an engine or chassis is the name attributed to it by its constructor.
The obligation to design and use Listed Parts shall not prevent a constructor from outsourcing the design and/or manufacture of any Listed Parts to a third party in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 3 to The 2009 Concorde Agreement.
If the make of the chassis is not the same as that of the engine, the title will be awarded to the former which shall always precede the latter in the name of the car. (my emphasis)
Actually, the answer to Bauble's original question, most successful marques? is easy - Marques & Spenceur.
#29
Posted 18 November 2011 - 10:30
Sorry if I gave he impression I was trying to prove something, it my opinion that any team that uses proprietory engines or uses any outside source to manufacture their motive power, is not a fully fledged Grands Prix team. Using this simple rule means that the likes of Lotus, Williams, Connew, McLaren et al do not qualify, hence my list. It might be controversial and clearly everyone is entitled to agree or disagree with my view, however, with all of the resources some of the bigger players have behind them I have often wondered why they don't produce a whole car themselves, in-house.
It's an almost interesting point, but the only valid answer is that no one has ever built an entire F1 car.
If you are trying to discredit the recent tendency to encourage so called manufacturers into F1 I heartily support you, F1 has been ruined since becoming publicity campaign for road car manufacturers who have no interest in racing as a sport.
So:
What is the difference between a company that owns an engine builder and one that has exclusive use of an engine it has commissioned from an engine builder (that it usually ends up having a financial stake in anyway)?
(A few bits of paper (shares) change hands and the team is now a part owner of the engine builder).
e.g. do you discount Renault engines derived from the Hart project they took over, or Renault badged engines & cars from after they sold off the relevant company?
Why is that so different to the McLaren-TAG engine comissioned by McLaren from Porsche.
Connaught had some financial involvement with Alta who built the 2½ litre engine exclusively for them - does that make them a 'marque'?
Presumably you discount all of the Ferraris that were built or designed by outside companies (such as Thompson or GTO) and all the Fiats since that is a different company.
Anything with Hewland, Colotti or Xtrac gearbox internals should presumably be ruled out as well.
They all use other peoples dampers, brakes and tyres - and these days they all run a McLaren ECU so presumably none of the current cars can be counted.
So what percentage of a car does a team have to construct in order to become a 'marque', it clearly can't be 100%...
#30
Posted 18 November 2011 - 11:55
Like it! It serves an indictment of all those seeking to discredit my perfectly logical description of a marque.
#31
Posted 18 November 2011 - 12:12
Didn't Lola try to go that way? And failed abysmally. (Or was that March?)~ however, with all of the resources some of the bigger players have behind them I have often wondered why they don't produce a whole car themselves, in-house.
That may be today's rule but it wasn't the case in 1966.That is perfectly logical - however, Article 6.3 of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations states:
A constructor is the person (including any corporate or unincorporated body) which designs the Listed Parts set out in Schedule 3 to The 2009 Concorde Agreement. The make of an engine or chassis is the name attributed to it by its constructor.
The obligation to design and use Listed Parts shall not prevent a constructor from outsourcing the design and/or manufacture of any Listed Parts to a third party in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 3 to The 2009 Concorde Agreement.
If the make of the chassis is not the same as that of the engine, the title will be awarded to the former which shall always precede the latter in the name of the car. (my emphasis)
Actually, the answer to Bauble's original question, most successful marques? is easy - Marques & Spenceur.
Again, one of the points that Bauble is making obliquely with these loose questions: "When considering statistics over the over the 60+ years that the World Drivers' Championship has existed (or the 100+ years that Grand Prix racing has existed), which year's rules should we apply?"
#32
Posted 18 November 2011 - 12:26
Meanwhile I will start to think of another 'wind-up'.
#33
Posted 18 November 2011 - 13:40
No, it was Lola - Eric Broadley commissioned Al Melling to design and build a V10 engine for his ill-fated F1 entry in 1997. The engine wasn't ready for the start of the season so the Lola T97/30s turned up for the Australian Grand Prix with Ford ECA Zetec-R V8s. The cars were woefully slow (13 and 16 seconds slower than Jacques Villeneuve's pole time) and failed to qualify. That was that. The drivers turned up for the next race (Brazil) only to learn that the team had folded. Lola had not paid Melling and he took legal action, which resulted in Lola Cars going into receivership.Didn't Lola try to go that way? And failed abysmally. (Or was that March?)
Sadly, it wouldn't really have been an in-house engine anyway - anymore than the Weslake V12, the TAG-Porsche TTE PO1 or the Arrows T2-F1 were.
That may be today's rule but it wasn't the case in 1966.
I only have access to the current rules (via the FIA website) - what were the equivalent rules in 1966 (or in 1958 for that matter)?
#34
Posted 21 November 2011 - 08:01
The most sucessful Marque in the history of the World Championship, using the British Grands Prix as the starting point for the purposes of this assertion, is without doubt Ferrari with a total of 216 wins to it's credit.
Robert your spot on with your post and Power to the Prancing Horse.
#35
Posted 22 November 2011 - 11:36
So a Ferrari-Ferrari (A-A) and a BRM-BRM (B-B) would be elligible, while a McLaren-Mercedes (C-D) and STR-Ferrari (E-A) would not. (And neither would a BMW Sauber-BMW (F-G), in my opinion...;))
I know it's not perfect — the current Mercedes-Mercedes could just as easily be defined as a Tyrrell-Ilmor, for instance — but at least it's a start.
#36
Posted 22 November 2011 - 14:32
Now we have cars named after fizzy energy drinks, which may have been okay for Indianapois back then, but not Grand Prix racing.
Can you imagine Lucozade or Vimto Racing being on the 1950's starting grids?!. .
#37
Posted 22 November 2011 - 14:53
#38
Posted 22 November 2011 - 15:03
What was the Maserati that was entered in the Two Worlds Race at Monza called?
Eldorado Special
#39
Posted 22 November 2011 - 16:14
Eldorado Special
Exactly! Name after what?
Advertisement
#40
Posted 22 November 2011 - 16:16
Eldorado Special, sponsored by the Italian Ice Cream manufacturer, so not a fizzy energy drink. And not in a Grand Prix either!. It fitted in with all those Indy cars.What was the Maserati that was entered in the Two Worlds Race at Monza called?
#41
Posted 22 November 2011 - 16:18
Exactly! Name after what?
I think it was an Italian Ice Cream Company.
Edit: Eric beat me to it
Edited by alansart, 22 November 2011 - 16:20.
#42
Posted 22 November 2011 - 17:07
http://www.maseratic...k/trident23.htm
#43
Posted 22 November 2011 - 17:32
aka Maserati Gelati I seem to recall.Eldorado Special
#44
Posted 22 November 2011 - 18:17
#45
Posted 22 November 2011 - 18:32
Maserati Eldorado
but there doesn't seem to be any indication of the car's colour when run at Indy.
#46
Posted 22 November 2011 - 18:39
#47
Posted 22 November 2011 - 18:40
Judging by the model shown on this website, it was definitely red: https://modell-parad...1959-indy-50012On the subject of the Eldorado Maserati. It was white when it raced at Monza with varying signwriting (as discussed previously but I can't find it). But, does anybody know whether it was still white or had been repainted rosso corsa when it was run at Indianapolis (in 1959?) and failed to qualify?
Edit: confirmed by a photo on this website - http://www.randyayer...9805ce8b86fe309 (scroll down and it is the penultimate car before Rodger Ward's winning Leader Card roadster)
Edited by Amphicar, 22 November 2011 - 18:53.
#48
Posted 22 November 2011 - 23:02
Thanks for going to the trouble of digging it out for me.Judging by the model shown on this website, it was definitely red: https://modell-parad...1959-indy-50012
Edit: confirmed by a photo on this website - http://www.randyayer...9805ce8b86fe309 (scroll down and it is the penultimate car before Rodger Ward's winning Leader Card roadster)