before the last race in 1956(monza) fangio was leading collins by 8 points.fangio´s car broke down during the race.therefore collins could have become champion in case of a victory.had he won,they both would have had 30 points,but collins in that case would have had 3 lone wins compared to 2 lone and 1 shared win by fangio.I guess that would have meant the championship for collins.had collins also posted the fasted lap he would have been ahead by one point anyway.but after about 2/3 of the race ferrari put fangio in collins car thereby immedeatly ending all wdc chances of collins.
now my qustion is,what was ferrari´s motivation? was fangio the declared no1 and collins had no right to become champion instead of him? or did they do that to increase the chance to win the monza race itself(which failed anyway)? moss was out of contention before the race already, so the wdc was in ferraris hand and it was an internal matter. I know that collins would hardly have beaten moss in this race and that a 2nd place even alone would not have helped him to overtake fangio. but fact is that he had an absolute realistic chance to become champion(f.e:breakdown of moss´car),before ferrari put fangio in his car.
please help and comment!
World Drivers Championship 1956
Started by
Viceroy
, Jan 11 2001 08:10
44 replies to this topic
Advertisement
#2
Barry Lake
-
- 2,169 posts
- Joined: February 00
Member
Posted 11 January 2001 - 13:00
This has all been analysed in great detail and it always comes down to the fact that Collins did not have a realistic chance of winning the title at the time he handed over his car (which was his own decision).
It was discussed and explained on another thread in The Nostalgia Forum. I have just searched for it and couldn't pick which thread it was in.
Can anyone remember where it was? Ray Bell seems to have a good memory for this sort of thing.
It was discussed and explained on another thread in The Nostalgia Forum. I have just searched for it and couldn't pick which thread it was in.
Can anyone remember where it was? Ray Bell seems to have a good memory for this sort of thing.
#3
Ray Bell
-
- 82,283 posts
- Joined: December 99
Member
Posted 11 January 2001 - 13:30
Not this time, Barry, but I do recall it was a post about a week ago. Can't think of what thread, and the only way would be to use search and be thorough as you look.
May be in the Moss thread.
May be in the Moss thread.
#4
Barry Boor
-
- 11,557 posts
- Joined: October 00
Member
Posted 11 January 2001 - 22:59
I confess I have always thought that Peter decided to hand his car over to Fangio himself - and that it was not a decision forced upon him by the team.
Either way it underlines what a fine sportsman (and man) Peter Collins was. I regret I was not old enough fully to appreciate his talent before he was lost to us.
Either way it underlines what a fine sportsman (and man) Peter Collins was. I regret I was not old enough fully to appreciate his talent before he was lost to us.
#5
Don Capps
-
- 5,933 posts
- Joined: May 99
Member
Posted 12 January 2001 - 01:39
Keep in mind that Collins needed a win to tie Fangio and Luigi Musso and Moss were not cooperating with this goal. When Collins handed over to Fangio, Collins was in 3rd or 4th place if I recall. It was an outside chance for the WDC that Collins had -- however, if the tie-breaker was placings or points, the nod would go to Fangio since he actually ended up dropping points, the points for Monza!
Still, it demonstrates a quality that is rare today -- and was rare even then.
Still, it demonstrates a quality that is rare today -- and was rare even then.
#6
David J Jones
-
- 448 posts
- Joined: August 00
Member
Posted 12 January 2001 - 07:39
Don
Yes. Peter was in third at the time of his last pit stop in the race. In order to take the Championship he needed a win and the single point for fastest lap
I would agree that it only looked an outside chance at that time but as events turned out in the final stages of the race the championship chances were more open. What is interesting is to consider what the position would have been had Collins chosen not to hand his car to JMF at Monaco when he already held second to Moss.
I have a feeling though that even if Collins had been within just a couple of points of Fangio at Monza he would have still handed his car over - such was the respect he had for JMF. That was the sort of a guy he was.
I have just found a VHS video of the 1956 World Championship season is on sale here in the UK and I have been debating if it is a worthwhile buy. Has anyone seen it?
Yes. Peter was in third at the time of his last pit stop in the race. In order to take the Championship he needed a win and the single point for fastest lap
I would agree that it only looked an outside chance at that time but as events turned out in the final stages of the race the championship chances were more open. What is interesting is to consider what the position would have been had Collins chosen not to hand his car to JMF at Monaco when he already held second to Moss.
I have a feeling though that even if Collins had been within just a couple of points of Fangio at Monza he would have still handed his car over - such was the respect he had for JMF. That was the sort of a guy he was.
I have just found a VHS video of the 1956 World Championship season is on sale here in the UK and I have been debating if it is a worthwhile buy. Has anyone seen it?
#7
Viceroy
-
- 412 posts
- Joined: January 01
Member
Posted 12 January 2001 - 08:28
thanks all of you for educating me.it looks like collins respect for fangio was the main reason why things happened how they happened.DonCapps-you surprised me with saying that in case of a tie fangios droped points would have decided for him.....ahead of wins?could you or anyone else provide me with a rulebook of this time?
I would like to elaborate on ferraris role.someone said,they put fangio in the car,because collins wdc chance was small.well, it might have been very small,but stranger things have happenen in f1.
ísn´t it a bit too tough, to deny a driver a small, but surely not impossible wdc-chance,just to maybe win a race(the chance for that was small as well aslong moss wouldn´t drop out)?
I would like to elaborate on ferraris role.someone said,they put fangio in the car,because collins wdc chance was small.well, it might have been very small,but stranger things have happenen in f1.
ísn´t it a bit too tough, to deny a driver a small, but surely not impossible wdc-chance,just to maybe win a race(the chance for that was small as well aslong moss wouldn´t drop out)?
#8
Barry Lake
-
- 2,169 posts
- Joined: February 00
Member
Posted 12 January 2001 - 11:39
Viceroy
The point is that it was not team orders. Collins made the choice himself.
At the time he made the decision, although I agree that in F1 anything can (and often does) happen, Collins didn't appear to believe that he had a realistic chance of winning.
He also is quoted as saying later that he was only young and had plenty of time left to win the world championship. Whether or not he really believed that is another matter.
The point is that it was not team orders. Collins made the choice himself.
At the time he made the decision, although I agree that in F1 anything can (and often does) happen, Collins didn't appear to believe that he had a realistic chance of winning.
He also is quoted as saying later that he was only young and had plenty of time left to win the world championship. Whether or not he really believed that is another matter.
#9
Don Capps
-
- 5,933 posts
- Joined: May 99
Member
Posted 12 January 2001 - 15:46
Viceroy,
Why the surprise? Both would have had three victories, albeit one of Fangio's being shared with Musso. This was 1956 and not 2000. The rules were not the airtight, covering every conceiveable contingency, product of legions of lawyers sort of affair that they are today. Fangio scored more points and that would have probably been the decider. Victories would not necessarily been the determing factor.
There is virtually no one in racing -- much less F1 -- today remotely of the stature of Fangio. In those days, deference to the acknowledged team leader was not unusual and Collins made the decision on his own, as has been said many times.
The Scuderia Ferrari was generally something of a shambles during this period with personality conflicts, bickering, and massive egos being bantered about -- and we haven't even gotten to the drivers yet! Team orders were a touchy subject and only Fangio and Collins seemed to transcend the chaos of the team and function in spite of it all. It was a very volatile team and I have often thought that without Fangio, there probably would not have been a Championship for the Scuderia that season. Wins, yes, but Championship, no.
Fangio spent a miserable year with the Scuderia and was happy to return to the Officine Alfieri Maserati where life was a bit more relaxed and easier going. In 1958, Fangio was still fully capable of pinning back the ears of every driver on the GP grid with a capable car under him. The decison to retire had more to do -- in my opinion -- with his reluctance (refusal) to return to the Scuderia Ferrari than anythng else. The Vandervell team was for all intents and purposes closed and Officine Alfieri Maserati was down for the count and out of the game -- so that left only the Scuderia Ferrari. Retirement then took on a glow it previously did not have I am sure....
Also, as an aside, initially almost all of the praise heaped on Collins came from the British press whereas everyone else thought Collins' action as commendable, but expected. As much as I liked Collins -- I saw the wins at Spa and Reims -- I assumed that Fangio was Numero Uno and it would be Collins' turn some other time.
Quote
DonCapps-you surprised me with saying that in case of a tie fangios droped points would have decided for him.....ahead of wins?could you or anyone else provide me with a rulebook of this time?
Why the surprise? Both would have had three victories, albeit one of Fangio's being shared with Musso. This was 1956 and not 2000. The rules were not the airtight, covering every conceiveable contingency, product of legions of lawyers sort of affair that they are today. Fangio scored more points and that would have probably been the decider. Victories would not necessarily been the determing factor.
There is virtually no one in racing -- much less F1 -- today remotely of the stature of Fangio. In those days, deference to the acknowledged team leader was not unusual and Collins made the decision on his own, as has been said many times.
The Scuderia Ferrari was generally something of a shambles during this period with personality conflicts, bickering, and massive egos being bantered about -- and we haven't even gotten to the drivers yet! Team orders were a touchy subject and only Fangio and Collins seemed to transcend the chaos of the team and function in spite of it all. It was a very volatile team and I have often thought that without Fangio, there probably would not have been a Championship for the Scuderia that season. Wins, yes, but Championship, no.
Fangio spent a miserable year with the Scuderia and was happy to return to the Officine Alfieri Maserati where life was a bit more relaxed and easier going. In 1958, Fangio was still fully capable of pinning back the ears of every driver on the GP grid with a capable car under him. The decison to retire had more to do -- in my opinion -- with his reluctance (refusal) to return to the Scuderia Ferrari than anythng else. The Vandervell team was for all intents and purposes closed and Officine Alfieri Maserati was down for the count and out of the game -- so that left only the Scuderia Ferrari. Retirement then took on a glow it previously did not have I am sure....
Also, as an aside, initially almost all of the praise heaped on Collins came from the British press whereas everyone else thought Collins' action as commendable, but expected. As much as I liked Collins -- I saw the wins at Spa and Reims -- I assumed that Fangio was Numero Uno and it would be Collins' turn some other time.
#10
David J Jones
-
- 448 posts
- Joined: August 00
Member
Posted 12 January 2001 - 19:41
Don
I can't help but think that the swapping cars capers of the Scuderia in 1956 led to the reversion back to almost the pre war rule of one car one driver and no shared points in 1958.
I think it is a fact that without swapping cars JMF would not have secured the 1956 Championship. That does not mean to say I would downplay his achievements in any way but the Lancia-Ferrari (despite the Lancia design having been almost ruined) was the class car of the year in my book and I can't have seen the Championship going elsewhere.
I do agree that JMF could not have suffered another year with the Scuderia after that (he did not have the facilities of a stable and consisitent pit crew) and retirement was the only option available in 1958.
Such was the respect he was held in that Mike Hawthorn would not lap him in his final GP in France and chose to remain behind him until the end of the race.
I can't help but think that the swapping cars capers of the Scuderia in 1956 led to the reversion back to almost the pre war rule of one car one driver and no shared points in 1958.
I think it is a fact that without swapping cars JMF would not have secured the 1956 Championship. That does not mean to say I would downplay his achievements in any way but the Lancia-Ferrari (despite the Lancia design having been almost ruined) was the class car of the year in my book and I can't have seen the Championship going elsewhere.
I do agree that JMF could not have suffered another year with the Scuderia after that (he did not have the facilities of a stable and consisitent pit crew) and retirement was the only option available in 1958.
Such was the respect he was held in that Mike Hawthorn would not lap him in his final GP in France and chose to remain behind him until the end of the race.
#11
oldtimer
-
- 1,291 posts
- Joined: October 00
Member
Posted 12 January 2001 - 20:10
If you want to see the respect that Fangio's Ferrari team-mates had for him, I refer you to Jesse Alexander's book 'Looking Back', which has a wonderful picture of Collins, Castelotti and Gendebien listenening with rapt attention to the 'old man' explaining a point or two.
In the race in question, it has been reported that Fangio signaled Collins to pace him, rather than chase Caselotti and Musso who were setting a pace that their tyres could not handle. It was a different time as Don said. And how about race winner Moss getting an on-track push to the pits from a team mate when he ran out of fuel? Put that in the context of the present day!
In the race in question, it has been reported that Fangio signaled Collins to pace him, rather than chase Caselotti and Musso who were setting a pace that their tyres could not handle. It was a different time as Don said. And how about race winner Moss getting an on-track push to the pits from a team mate when he ran out of fuel? Put that in the context of the present day!
#12
Roger Clark
-
- 7,570 posts
- Joined: February 00
Member
Posted 13 January 2001 - 01:51
Quote
Originally posted by oldtimer
It was a different time as Don said. And how about race winner Moss getting an on-track push to the pits from a team mate when he ran out of fuel? Put that in the context of the present day!
Not even a team mate; Piotti was a private entrant. Autosport suggested that this wan't a deliberate act by Pioyyi at all and that when Moss slowed suddenly the Italian unavoidably ran into the back of him, providing sufficient impetus to propel him to the pits. On the other hand, Motor Sport says that Piotti pushed Moss sme 2.5 kms. Pity the poor historian!
It's worth remembering that Luigi Musso would probably have won that race if his steering hadn't broken three laps from the end. He was well behind Moss when the Maserati made its fuel stop on lap 45. Musso took the lead and, as Moss rejoined the race, the Maserati pit noticed that his near-side rear tyre was bald. Moss slowed down after breaking the lap record on lap 47, the same lap as Musso retired. I suppose nobody knows whether Moss could have caught Musso and whether his tyres would have lasted if he'd tried.
Peter Collins'act as, I think, aimed more at giving Ferrari a chance to win what was to them the most important race of the year than any considerations about the championship. Individual races were more important ralative to the championship in those happy days. Everybody knew who the Champion was and he didn't have to gather more points than his rivals to prove it.
THere is no doubt that all Fangio's team mayes at Ferrari deferred to him and, most of the time, did what was necessary to help him. As well as the occasions when he took over a team mate's car, the wonderfull tactical batle at Reims against Schell's faster Vanwall illustrates this. Moss was in a similar position at Maserati and later at Vanwall. What I can't understand is how some people can look back nostagically on these examples of a team working together to support its number one driver, and then be critical of the same situation at Ferrari today.
#13
Barry Lake
-
- 2,169 posts
- Joined: February 00
Member
Posted 13 January 2001 - 04:25
Roger
I agree. I don't think the world championship was considered by the drivers of those times as being anywhere near as important as in recent times. I have often thought that at the time he decided to hand over to Fangio, Collins wasn't even thinking of the championship, only of Ferrari's chances of winning the race.
Regardinig Piotti's push of Moss, I have seen a photo where Moss is clearly waving "OK" to Piotti, that he had made contact and could now start pushing. I also believe he pushed for quite a distance - perhaps not 2.5 km, but at least from the Parabolica. I have never had any real doubts that it was a bit of quick thinking on Piotti's part and a very generous gesture. On the other hand, someone running laps behind doesn't have a lot to lose, and it no doubt strengthened his bargaining posiiton with Maserati thereafter...
I agree. I don't think the world championship was considered by the drivers of those times as being anywhere near as important as in recent times. I have often thought that at the time he decided to hand over to Fangio, Collins wasn't even thinking of the championship, only of Ferrari's chances of winning the race.
Regardinig Piotti's push of Moss, I have seen a photo where Moss is clearly waving "OK" to Piotti, that he had made contact and could now start pushing. I also believe he pushed for quite a distance - perhaps not 2.5 km, but at least from the Parabolica. I have never had any real doubts that it was a bit of quick thinking on Piotti's part and a very generous gesture. On the other hand, someone running laps behind doesn't have a lot to lose, and it no doubt strengthened his bargaining posiiton with Maserati thereafter...
#14
Viceroy
-
- 412 posts
- Joined: January 01
Member
Posted 13 January 2001 - 07:16
I want to thank all of you again to give me so many interesting insides about grand prix racing in the 50ties.
I got much more than I expected,instead of just getting possible answers,you gave me some good insight and "feeling"
for f1 in those days. and I realized that without feeling onself into those times one cannot understand what happened in monza 56.
therefore thanks,again!
I got much more than I expected,instead of just getting possible answers,you gave me some good insight and "feeling"
for f1 in those days. and I realized that without feeling onself into those times one cannot understand what happened in monza 56.
therefore thanks,again!
#15
David McKinney
-
- 14,156 posts
- Joined: November 00
Member
Posted 13 January 2001 - 07:33
Don't jump in too fast, Viceroy - TNF threads tend to run and run!
I’m not sure that I'd agree with Roger Clark’s view. I would have thought those people who “look back nostalgically” on that period, myself incuded, can’t see what all the fuss is about in current F1 racing. It’s those with no sense of tradition, no idea where F1 came from, who criticise the present situation.
I’m not sure that I'd agree with Roger Clark’s view. I would have thought those people who “look back nostalgically” on that period, myself incuded, can’t see what all the fuss is about in current F1 racing. It’s those with no sense of tradition, no idea where F1 came from, who criticise the present situation.
#16
Roger Clark
-
- 7,570 posts
- Joined: February 00
Member
Posted 13 January 2001 - 08:26
In general, David, I agree with you. It's just the specific criticism of Ferrari devoting all their efforts to one driver that I was talking about. I certainly didn't want to criticise all those who prefer the past to the present; public self criticism was never a strength of mine.
Expanding slightly on the Piotti incident, Motor Sport says that Moss ran out of fuel at the Lesmos. Clearly he would have needed a substantial push from there. On the other hand, Motor Racing magazine, in a much less comprehensive report, says that Moss received an inadvertant push.
Expanding slightly on the Piotti incident, Motor Sport says that Moss ran out of fuel at the Lesmos. Clearly he would have needed a substantial push from there. On the other hand, Motor Racing magazine, in a much less comprehensive report, says that Moss received an inadvertant push.
#17
oldtimer
-
- 1,291 posts
- Joined: October 00
Member
Posted 13 January 2001 - 22:09
'Inadvertent push'? That sounds like the spin a contempary team would put on such an incident at the inevitable protest meeting. 
#18
Don Capps
-
- 5,933 posts
- Joined: May 99
Member
Posted 14 January 2001 - 04:00
The recent flap over team orders in bernie formula always puzzles me since that is the nature of the beast. The silly nonsense of several seasons ago in the Land of Oz -- I guess that is where it was -- was absolutely amazing to me. It merely reinforced my low opinion of the powers that try to be.
As for the race at hand, the only native English-speaking scribes present were probably DSJ, Jesse Alexander and the odd boffin on holiday. Few from The Island went to GP races on the Continent back then. Those 10 lap handicap events on the Silverstone Club Circuit were far more important....
My impression has always been that Piotti made a quick decison and somewhere between Lesmo and the start of the back straight starting tapping Moss back to the pits.
Had Musso not had problems and Collins not handed of to Fangio, he would have still finished in 3rd and not enough to take the WDC even with the point for fastest lap. However, Moss without Piotti and Musso crashing and ....
As for the race at hand, the only native English-speaking scribes present were probably DSJ, Jesse Alexander and the odd boffin on holiday. Few from The Island went to GP races on the Continent back then. Those 10 lap handicap events on the Silverstone Club Circuit were far more important....
My impression has always been that Piotti made a quick decison and somewhere between Lesmo and the start of the back straight starting tapping Moss back to the pits.
Had Musso not had problems and Collins not handed of to Fangio, he would have still finished in 3rd and not enough to take the WDC even with the point for fastest lap. However, Moss without Piotti and Musso crashing and ....
#19
Roger Clark
-
- 7,570 posts
- Joined: February 00
Member
Posted 14 January 2001 - 08:31
Quote
Originally posted by Don Capps
As for the race at hand, the only native English-speaking scribes present were probably DSJ, Jesse Alexander and the odd boffin on holiday. Few from The Island went to GP races on the Continent back then. Those 10 lap handicap events on the Silverstone Club Circuit were far more important....
....
Yuo're probably right about the national papers but wrong abot specialist publications. Gregor Grant of Autosport was definitely at the race. motor Racing published a two page report, but it's possible that was written from secondary sources. I would be very surprised if Peter Garnier of The Autocar wasn't there, and The Motor (I forget their sports editor) too.
Advertisement
#20
Roger Clark
-
- 7,570 posts
- Joined: February 00
Member
Posted 11 July 2001 - 18:16
I have revived this thread to raise another isse: how many points did Fangio get for monaco? Most people give him 4: 3 for sharing 2nd place and 1 for fastest lap. Yet he also drove the car that finished 4th (with Castellotti). Shoul he not have received anothr 1.5 points for that? If he did, then by my calculatioon, collins could not have overtaken him under any circumstances at Monza.
#21
Barry Boor
-
- 11,557 posts
- Joined: October 00
Member
Posted 11 July 2001 - 18:24
Maybe there was some sub-section to the 'shared-drives' rule that said a driver can only get the points for shared drives from the higher of his finishes in the event that he shared 2 cars that scored points.
It seems a logical direction to take.
It seems a logical direction to take.
#22
FLB
-
- 34,839 posts
- Joined: February 01
Member
Posted 11 July 2001 - 18:47
Barry, that's exactly what I gather also, after comparing Argentina 1955 vs Monaco 1956.
In Argentina, the second and third place cars were shared (Trintignant, Gonzales and Farina for second; Trintignant, Farina and Maglioli for third). Maglioli was the only one to get 1.33 pt. Farina, Le Pétoulet and El Cabezon got 2.
Following the same logic, Fangio would only have scored 3 for second and one for fastest lap, as it seems he did.
In Argentina, the second and third place cars were shared (Trintignant, Gonzales and Farina for second; Trintignant, Farina and Maglioli for third). Maglioli was the only one to get 1.33 pt. Farina, Le Pétoulet and El Cabezon got 2.
Following the same logic, Fangio would only have scored 3 for second and one for fastest lap, as it seems he did.
#23
Roger Clark
-
- 7,570 posts
- Joined: February 00
Member
Posted 11 July 2001 - 19:22
THat is the obvious explanation. Yet I have a championship table published after the 1955 monaco GP. It shows Trintingnant leading with 11.3 points. That is, 8 for a win at Monaco, 2 for a shared 2nd and 1.3 for shared 3rd in Argentina. Similarly Farina has 5.3. It is possible that the rules were changed in 1956, or that the rule makers never got round to thinking about this situation.
#24
Don Capps
-
- 5,933 posts
- Joined: May 99
Member
Posted 11 July 2001 - 19:45
As Roger correctly points out:
And as Roger also correctly infers, dealing with the CSI at this time often defies logic....
Often, getting a straight "official" answer on these sorts of things is one for the IMF. However, you are free to shop around for the answer you want since you will probably find it! Roger is correct to point out the inconsistencies from journal to journal at time of the races, as well as over time, of some of these scoring irregularities. Personally, I would defer to Roger and what he thinks concerning this one.
Quote
That is the obvious explanation.
And as Roger also correctly infers, dealing with the CSI at this time often defies logic....
Often, getting a straight "official" answer on these sorts of things is one for the IMF. However, you are free to shop around for the answer you want since you will probably find it! Roger is correct to point out the inconsistencies from journal to journal at time of the races, as well as over time, of some of these scoring irregularities. Personally, I would defer to Roger and what he thinks concerning this one.
#25
fines
-
- 9,647 posts
- Joined: September 00
Member
Posted 11 July 2001 - 23:19
The reason is much more simple: dropped scores! Fangio scored seven times during 1956, but only his best five counted for the championship: 9 in Germany, 8 in Britain, 5 in Argentinia, 4 in Monaco (car #26) and France each. Dropped scores: 3 in Italy, 1.5 in Monaco (car #20). Easy!
#26
Roger Clark
-
- 7,570 posts
- Joined: February 00
Member
Posted 12 July 2001 - 05:57
Quote
Originally posted by fines
The reason is much more simple: dropped scores! Fangio scored seven times during 1956, but only his best five counted for the championship: 9 in Germany, 8 in Britain, 5 in Argentinia, 4 in Monaco (car #26) and France each. Dropped scores: 3 in Italy, 1.5 in Monaco (car #20). Easy!
Tables published during the 1956 season give Fangio 4 points for monaco. This was before he started dropping points under the "best 5" rule.
#27
David J Jones
-
- 448 posts
- Joined: August 00
Member
Posted 12 July 2001 - 10:21
Checking the details in Mike Lang's GP vol1 reveals
Fangio -
Argentina 5 pt shared drive / Musso includes 1pt fastest lap
Monaco 4 pt shared drive / Collins includes 1pt fastest lap
Indy DNS
Belgium DNS
France 4 pts includes 1pt fastest lap
Britain 8 pts
Germany 9 pts includes 1pt fastest lap
Italy 3 pts shared drive Collins
Total Points = best five - 30 pts
Re Monaco. The table is noted that Fangio shared two drives but was only awarded points for 2nd and not 4th place.
It was as a result of the car swapping antics which occured in this season that the scoring rules were changed for 1958. From this season onwards drivers could only score points in the car they started the race in.
What if shared drives are discounted for 1956?
Without the benefit of shared drives Fangio would only have scored 21 pts.
On the same basis Moss would have scored 24 pts.
Collins however benefits with his score being adjusted to 28 pts
Because of this I always tend to regard Peter as the 'uncrowned champion' for that year. Morally he was the first British World Champion.
But, of course, it never happened..............
Fangio -
Argentina 5 pt shared drive / Musso includes 1pt fastest lap
Monaco 4 pt shared drive / Collins includes 1pt fastest lap
Indy DNS
Belgium DNS
France 4 pts includes 1pt fastest lap
Britain 8 pts
Germany 9 pts includes 1pt fastest lap
Italy 3 pts shared drive Collins
Total Points = best five - 30 pts
Re Monaco. The table is noted that Fangio shared two drives but was only awarded points for 2nd and not 4th place.
It was as a result of the car swapping antics which occured in this season that the scoring rules were changed for 1958. From this season onwards drivers could only score points in the car they started the race in.
What if shared drives are discounted for 1956?
Without the benefit of shared drives Fangio would only have scored 21 pts.
On the same basis Moss would have scored 24 pts.
Collins however benefits with his score being adjusted to 28 pts
Because of this I always tend to regard Peter as the 'uncrowned champion' for that year. Morally he was the first British World Champion.
But, of course, it never happened..............
#28
fines
-
- 9,647 posts
- Joined: September 00
Member
Posted 12 July 2001 - 10:38
You're right Roger, I checked "Das Auto" issues of 1956 and found them also consistently ignoring the 1.5 points from Monaco. I always thought this to be an easy explanation, will try to remember not to rely too much on my intellect!;)
David, if you ignore shared drives, how do you get 28 points for Collins? My calculation is:
Moss 24
Behra 22
Fangio 21
Collins 16
David, if you ignore shared drives, how do you get 28 points for Collins? My calculation is:
Moss 24
Behra 22
Fangio 21
Collins 16
#29
David J Jones
-
- 448 posts
- Joined: August 00
Member
Posted 12 July 2001 - 11:17
Fines
Ignoring shared drives for Collins actually increases his score. In the official table Collins is given 25 pts.
The results for Collins would be
Argentina DNS
Monaco 6 pts (he was 2nd before giving his car to Fangio)
Belgium 8 pts
France 8 pts
Britain DNS
Germany DNS
Italy 6 pts (he was 3rd giving his car to Fangio - Musso ret)
I guess what I am saying is Peter's car would have finished where it did regardless of who was driving it.
One thing I have not checked though is which cars Fangio / Moss set their fastest laps in which would slightly adjust their scores
I like these what ifs - should we start one on 1958 and afterwards 1959?
Ignoring shared drives for Collins actually increases his score. In the official table Collins is given 25 pts.
The results for Collins would be
Argentina DNS
Monaco 6 pts (he was 2nd before giving his car to Fangio)
Belgium 8 pts
France 8 pts
Britain DNS
Germany DNS
Italy 6 pts (he was 3rd giving his car to Fangio - Musso ret)
I guess what I am saying is Peter's car would have finished where it did regardless of who was driving it.
One thing I have not checked though is which cars Fangio / Moss set their fastest laps in which would slightly adjust their scores
I like these what ifs - should we start one on 1958 and afterwards 1959?
#30
fines
-
- 9,647 posts
- Joined: September 00
Member
Posted 12 July 2001 - 14:15
Quote
Hmm, a bit of speculation, isn't it?Originally posted by David J Jones
I guess what I am saying is Peter's car would have finished where it did regardless of who was driving it.
Quote
All their fastest laps were recorded during their relief stints:Originally posted by David J Jones
One thing I have not checked though is which cars Fangio / Moss set their fastest laps in which would slightly adjust their scores
RA: Fangio took over Musso's car on lap ~27, fastest lap: 57
MC: Fangio took over from Collins on lap ~54, fastest lap: 100
B: Moss took over from Perdisa on lap ~12, fastest lap: 30
#31
David J Jones
-
- 448 posts
- Joined: August 00
Member
Posted 12 July 2001 - 15:40
Fines
I don't think it too speculative at all.
We must remember the L-F was the class car of the field for that year and Collins had already got into a challenging position in HIS car at Monaco and Monza before handing over to JMF. Collins was a competent driver and it is not beyond comprehension that he could have kept the car there or improved its positon still more.
Maybe he would have done it in 1958 as well had he not been tragically caught out at the Pflanzgarten
I am completely and unashamedly biased in favour of Collins in this instance - not because he is British - but because he is a fellow West Midlander (also like Nigel Mansell)
I don't think it too speculative at all.
We must remember the L-F was the class car of the field for that year and Collins had already got into a challenging position in HIS car at Monaco and Monza before handing over to JMF. Collins was a competent driver and it is not beyond comprehension that he could have kept the car there or improved its positon still more.
Maybe he would have done it in 1958 as well had he not been tragically caught out at the Pflanzgarten
I am completely and unashamedly biased in favour of Collins in this instance - not because he is British - but because he is a fellow West Midlander (also like Nigel Mansell)
#32
fines
-
- 9,647 posts
- Joined: September 00
Member
Posted 12 July 2001 - 15:50
Quote
No doubt about that, but I'd still think it's a bit speculative. But then again, so are many threads here on Atlas, so keep it coming. BTW, I also happen to be somewhat of a Collins fan.Originally posted by David J Jones
We must remember the L-F was the class car of the field for that year and Collins had already got into a challenging position in HIS car at Monaco and Monza before handing over to JMF. Collins was a competent driver and it is not beyond comprehension that he could have kept the car there or improved its positon still more.
#33
Roger Clark
-
- 7,570 posts
- Joined: February 00
Member
Posted 12 July 2001 - 18:22
Quote
Because of this I always tend to regard Peter as the 'uncrowned champion' for that year. Morally he was the first British World Champion.
In the same way that Hermann Lang was the uncrowned champion of Europe in 1939? The rules were the rules and who's to say that the rules that applied in one year were better than any other? The difficulty is finding out what the rules actually were.
#34
FLB
-
- 34,839 posts
- Joined: February 01
Member
Posted 12 July 2001 - 18:41
Does anybody have another 1955 championship table beside Monaco? If so, what does it say about Trintignant's points for Monaco?
#35
David J Jones
-
- 448 posts
- Joined: August 00
Member
Posted 12 July 2001 - 19:06
Roger
Muller (see 1939 EC thread) was the uncrowned and rightful champion - Lang was appointed German champion in the guise of European Champion.
Maybe I am being harsh on JMF but at Monaco he well and truly trashed his car and then took over Collins car in the hunt for championship points. At Monza his car failed.
There is no doubt the authorities felt this practice led to an unfair championship situation and the rules were changed for 1958.
When the test I suggested is applied you get a different completely for the Championship - hence it cannot have been just
Muller (see 1939 EC thread) was the uncrowned and rightful champion - Lang was appointed German champion in the guise of European Champion.
Maybe I am being harsh on JMF but at Monaco he well and truly trashed his car and then took over Collins car in the hunt for championship points. At Monza his car failed.
There is no doubt the authorities felt this practice led to an unfair championship situation and the rules were changed for 1958.
When the test I suggested is applied you get a different completely for the Championship - hence it cannot have been just
#36
Roger Clark
-
- 7,570 posts
- Joined: February 00
Member
Posted 12 July 2001 - 19:56
David,
As Hans said on the first line of the first post of the 1939 thread, by 1938, Lang was the fastest Grand Prix driver and 1939 was his most successful year. To my mind, any fair champioonship scoring system would have recognised that. I completely accept that Muller won the championship according to the rules which actually did apply and I applaud the efforts of you and others to give him belated credit for that achievement.
THe same applies to Fangio in 1956. He won according to the rules of the time. The only difference is that Fangio was universally regarded as the pre-eminent driver of the time, and I really don't think anybody would say that of HP Muller.
Personally I regret the passing of the days when a number one driver could take over a team mate's car and fight to regain position. Of course it gives complications for championships, but the answer to that and many other ills is to abandon championships and to give individual races greater prominence.
As Hans said on the first line of the first post of the 1939 thread, by 1938, Lang was the fastest Grand Prix driver and 1939 was his most successful year. To my mind, any fair champioonship scoring system would have recognised that. I completely accept that Muller won the championship according to the rules which actually did apply and I applaud the efforts of you and others to give him belated credit for that achievement.
THe same applies to Fangio in 1956. He won according to the rules of the time. The only difference is that Fangio was universally regarded as the pre-eminent driver of the time, and I really don't think anybody would say that of HP Muller.
Personally I regret the passing of the days when a number one driver could take over a team mate's car and fight to regain position. Of course it gives complications for championships, but the answer to that and many other ills is to abandon championships and to give individual races greater prominence.
#37
fines
-
- 9,647 posts
- Joined: September 00
Member
Posted 12 July 2001 - 20:05
Quote
Originally posted by Roger Clark
Of course it gives complications for championships, but the answer to that and many other ills is to abandon championships and to give individual races greater prominence.
#38
David J Jones
-
- 448 posts
- Joined: August 00
Member
Posted 12 July 2001 - 20:31
Roger
I don't think we are miles apart in our views - although it may seem so at first glance - but when it comes to Hawthorn, Collins and Mansell well I am biased. I don't think any of them got the credit they deserved.
Neither would I wish to diminish JMF's achievements since I hold him in, well, quite high esteem. All I was seeking is to point out that 56 was not one of his outstanding years. I was not however trying to rewrite history or invent it just indulging in a bit of 'what if'
As regards Muller - Oh perhaps I should go to the other thread.
I would not wish though to see a return to car swapping as I feel when it went the racing benefited more.
What I would wish is to -
see an end to the tyre nonsense
see an end to qualifying engines
see an end to refuelling and tyre change stops
see the races conducted in the cars they qualify in
I think we should examine other F1 seasons in the same way - is anyone up for 58 to be reviewed
I don't think we are miles apart in our views - although it may seem so at first glance - but when it comes to Hawthorn, Collins and Mansell well I am biased. I don't think any of them got the credit they deserved.
Neither would I wish to diminish JMF's achievements since I hold him in, well, quite high esteem. All I was seeking is to point out that 56 was not one of his outstanding years. I was not however trying to rewrite history or invent it just indulging in a bit of 'what if'
As regards Muller - Oh perhaps I should go to the other thread.
I would not wish though to see a return to car swapping as I feel when it went the racing benefited more.
What I would wish is to -
see an end to the tyre nonsense
see an end to qualifying engines
see an end to refuelling and tyre change stops
see the races conducted in the cars they qualify in
I think we should examine other F1 seasons in the same way - is anyone up for 58 to be reviewed
#39
roger_valentine
-
- 208 posts
- Joined: October 02
Member
Posted 27 August 2003 - 11:52
The question still hasn't been answered. What if...
Collins had won at Monza 1956, WITHOUT setting fastest lap?
Scores would be tied, Fangio and Collins 30 each, so what would have been the deciding tie-breaker?
Don Capps (of all people!) has misled us by talking about dropped points:
I cannot believe this comment has been allowed to remain uncorrected for over 2 years. For the tie-break to become an issue, Collins (alone) would have to have won at Monza, so Fangio wouldn't have got any Monza points to drop!
So the possibilities are:
1) If Fangio's Argentine shared drive counts as 'half a win' then Collins is WC with 3 wins to Fangio's 2 and a half.
2) If Fangio's Argentine shared drive counts as a win, then they have 3 wins each. Fangio has one shared second place (with Collins(!), at Monaco). Collins has two shared second places (Monaco and Silverstone). But, in this scenario, shared places are as good as full places, so again Collins is WC.
3) Dropped points suddenly become undropped. I have never heard any evidence to suggest that this was a possibility in tie-break situations, but it would certainly make sense. But neither driver actually dropped points, with the possible exception of Fangio at Monaco. Did Fangio drop points for his 4th place, or were they, as contemporary evidence suggests, never awarded? Would these hypothetical points have come into play to decide the tie-break? A fascinating 'what if'.
Anyway, the assertion that Collins had "no realistic chance of winning the championship" isn't quite true. Musso retired and Moss, by all common sense and logic, should have been disqualified, so Collins would indeed have won the race (and championship) had it not been for his magnanimous gesture.
Incidentally, has anyone read Geoff Tibballs's entertaining but hardly authortitive "Motor Racing's Strangest Races'? Two interesting comments on Monza 1956:
"The pit signalled for Musso ... to come in and hand over his car to Fangio ... but Musso ignored the instruction"
and
"... when asked by Fangio's manager if he would consider handing his car over ... Collins did not hesitate"
Is Tibballs making this up, or did the Ferrari team have more say in whether a driver should hand over his car than we are assuming? Asking Musso, rather than Collins, to hand over to Fangio would have made an awful lot more sense. Was there a pit signal to Musso?
Collins had won at Monza 1956, WITHOUT setting fastest lap?
Scores would be tied, Fangio and Collins 30 each, so what would have been the deciding tie-breaker?
Don Capps (of all people!) has misled us by talking about dropped points:
Quote
however, if the tie-breaker was placings or points, the nod would go to Fangio since he actually ended up dropping points, the points for Monza!
I cannot believe this comment has been allowed to remain uncorrected for over 2 years. For the tie-break to become an issue, Collins (alone) would have to have won at Monza, so Fangio wouldn't have got any Monza points to drop!
So the possibilities are:
1) If Fangio's Argentine shared drive counts as 'half a win' then Collins is WC with 3 wins to Fangio's 2 and a half.
2) If Fangio's Argentine shared drive counts as a win, then they have 3 wins each. Fangio has one shared second place (with Collins(!), at Monaco). Collins has two shared second places (Monaco and Silverstone). But, in this scenario, shared places are as good as full places, so again Collins is WC.
3) Dropped points suddenly become undropped. I have never heard any evidence to suggest that this was a possibility in tie-break situations, but it would certainly make sense. But neither driver actually dropped points, with the possible exception of Fangio at Monaco. Did Fangio drop points for his 4th place, or were they, as contemporary evidence suggests, never awarded? Would these hypothetical points have come into play to decide the tie-break? A fascinating 'what if'.
Anyway, the assertion that Collins had "no realistic chance of winning the championship" isn't quite true. Musso retired and Moss, by all common sense and logic, should have been disqualified, so Collins would indeed have won the race (and championship) had it not been for his magnanimous gesture.
Incidentally, has anyone read Geoff Tibballs's entertaining but hardly authortitive "Motor Racing's Strangest Races'? Two interesting comments on Monza 1956:
"The pit signalled for Musso ... to come in and hand over his car to Fangio ... but Musso ignored the instruction"
and
"... when asked by Fangio's manager if he would consider handing his car over ... Collins did not hesitate"
Is Tibballs making this up, or did the Ferrari team have more say in whether a driver should hand over his car than we are assuming? Asking Musso, rather than Collins, to hand over to Fangio would have made an awful lot more sense. Was there a pit signal to Musso?
Advertisement
#40
Don Capps
-
- 5,933 posts
- Joined: May 99
Member
Posted 27 August 2003 - 15:01
Excuse me Roger, but the points would never have become "undropped." Somewhere buried in the musty files of the CSI is a procedure for breaking ties which looked first at the number of first places and so forth down the list until -- using a coin toss as a last resort -- a winner was determined. This procedure was listed in the Yellow Books whcih I first laid my hands on in the 1960's.
Perhaps it is good that things turned out as they did since it has given many the opportunity to play Harry Turtledove.
Perhaps it is good that things turned out as they did since it has given many the opportunity to play Harry Turtledove.
#41
D-Type
-
- 9,759 posts
- Joined: February 03
Member
Posted 28 August 2003 - 22:06
Quote
Two questions still unanswered:Originally posted by Don Capps
- - - Somewhere buried in the musty files of the CSI is a procedure for breaking ties which looked first at the number of first places and so forth down the list until -- using a coin toss as a last resort -- a winner was determined. This procedure was listed in the Yellow Books whcih I first laid my hands on in the 1960's. - - -
(1) Did the procedure count a shared win as one win or half a win?
(2) Do the yellow books (assuming you still have them) answer the "1 point for 6th place" question that was raised on another thread a while back? (I know it's OT but i would like to know the answer)
#42
Rob29
-
- 3,582 posts
- Joined: January 01
Member
Posted 29 August 2003 - 06:50
I seem to remember buying the first yellow book in 1968,so it would have been unlikely to be any help in solving 1950s queries. I guess there must have been some sort of official FIA documents before then,does anyone still have these?
#43
ensign14
-
- 64,927 posts
- Joined: December 01
Member
Posted 29 August 2003 - 07:05
Rodney Walkerley in the Motor of 24.9.58, quoted in "Champion Year", suggests that had Moss and Hawthorn finished level on counting points (from 6 races) the seventh best score is taken.
#44
Don Capps
-
- 5,933 posts
- Joined: May 99
Member
Posted 29 August 2003 - 14:40
Quote
Originally posted by ensign14
Rodney Walkerley in the Motor of 24.9.58, quoted in "Champion Year", suggests that had Moss and Hawthorn finished level on counting points (from 6 races) the seventh best score is taken.
This sort of comment appears a number of times when certain permutations of the CSI championship is mentioned during the 1950's. The CSI had a tie-breaking system in place, but the actual wording seems to be a bit vague since what has been available is secondhand information. However, in certain areas the CSI did not see any sense for encouraging originality so the wording found in many of the early editions of the Yellow Books was carried over after years of being on the books, so to speak.
#45
conjohn
-
- 487 posts
- Joined: July 03
Member
Posted 29 August 2003 - 15:46
For what it's worth, here is the how the rules were in the Yellow Book of 1969 (my first).
(Art 8 sets out the points structure: 9 - 6 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1; Art 9 says they will have to drive the same car through the whole event, and cover at least 9/10th of the distance.)
Art 10 - The total of the events qualifying for the World Championship and actually organized will be divided into two parts of equal importance.
Should the total of qualifying events correspond to an uneven number, the first part of this total should contain one event more than the second part. For each part will only be retained the best results obtained by a driver in a number of events equal to the total of events organized, less one.
Art 11 - The driver who has won the greatest number of points according to the above articles 8 to 10 shall be declared champion.
Art 12 - Should several drivers get the same amount of points, for deciding between ex-aequo, consideration would be given to the quality of the places (1st places, 2nd places, etc) obtained by them in the events taken into account for the granting of points (see art 10).
Should this first method prove to be ineffective, consideration would be given to the quality obtained by the ex-aequo drivers in all (my bold) the Championship events in which they have competed.
Art 13 - Should the method provided under article 12 prove to be ineffective, the CSI shall designate the Champion according to such other considerations as would be deemed convenient.
(Art 8 sets out the points structure: 9 - 6 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1; Art 9 says they will have to drive the same car through the whole event, and cover at least 9/10th of the distance.)
Art 10 - The total of the events qualifying for the World Championship and actually organized will be divided into two parts of equal importance.
Should the total of qualifying events correspond to an uneven number, the first part of this total should contain one event more than the second part. For each part will only be retained the best results obtained by a driver in a number of events equal to the total of events organized, less one.
Art 11 - The driver who has won the greatest number of points according to the above articles 8 to 10 shall be declared champion.
Art 12 - Should several drivers get the same amount of points, for deciding between ex-aequo, consideration would be given to the quality of the places (1st places, 2nd places, etc) obtained by them in the events taken into account for the granting of points (see art 10).
Should this first method prove to be ineffective, consideration would be given to the quality obtained by the ex-aequo drivers in all (my bold) the Championship events in which they have competed.
Art 13 - Should the method provided under article 12 prove to be ineffective, the CSI shall designate the Champion according to such other considerations as would be deemed convenient.
