Jump to content


Photo

Most successful marques?


  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

#1 Bauble

Bauble
  • Member

  • 1,040 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 17 November 2011 - 10:01

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. (for the purist I would point out that five of these were achieved using Lancia engines).
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 arttidesco

arttidesco
  • Member

  • 5,628 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 17 November 2011 - 10:13

If you had asked me which was more successful in terms of wins post 1950 BRM or ALFA Romeo I would have said the latter despite the fact I was not born until well after their winning days were well over. Must be the red paint that scews the perception so.

#3 Tim Murray

Tim Murray
  • Member

  • 14,207 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 17 November 2011 - 10:19

Matra? :confused:

I think that you should also include Eagle.

#4 arttidesco

arttidesco
  • Member

  • 5,628 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 17 November 2011 - 10:27

Matra? :confused:

I think that you should also include Eagle.


Shouldn't Lotus be in there too ?

#5 Amphicar

Amphicar
  • Member

  • 1,855 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 17 November 2011 - 10:54

Shouldn't Lotus be in there too ?

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.

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 Bauble

Bauble
  • Member

  • 1,040 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 17 November 2011 - 10:57

Matra? :confused:

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 Bauble

Bauble
  • Member

  • 1,040 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 17 November 2011 - 11:04

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.

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 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 8,022 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 17 November 2011 - 11:21

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)

#9 Stephen W

Stephen W
  • Member

  • 11,659 posts
  • Joined: December 04

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)


:up:

You beat me to the punch! :wave:

#10 Bauble

Bauble
  • Member

  • 1,040 posts
  • Joined: January 09

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 Eric Dunsdon

Eric Dunsdon
  • Member

  • 625 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 17 November 2011 - 12:14

[quote name='Bauble' date='Nov 17 2011, 13:02' post='5404054'

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. :cool:

#12 Tim Murray

Tim Murray
  • Member

  • 14,207 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 17 November 2011 - 12:14

The list in post 1 totals 309 wins (excluding Matra). Who won the other 500+ World Championship GPs? :p

Oh, and what about BMW Sauber?

Edited by Tim Murray, 17 November 2011 - 12:17.


#13 Bauble

Bauble
  • Member

  • 1,040 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 17 November 2011 - 12:22

[quote name='Tim Murray' date='Nov 17 2011, 12:14' post='5404069']
The list in post 1 totals 309 wins (excluding Matra). Who won the other 500+ World Championship GPs? :p

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 Bauble

Bauble
  • Member

  • 1,040 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 17 November 2011 - 12:26

I would not wish to give offence to my many virtual friends on TNF, but I have the impression that many of you are somewhat confused!

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 Tim Murray

Tim Murray
  • Member

  • 14,207 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 17 November 2011 - 12:26

?????? Which marque are claiming victories for Tim, Sauber or BMW? I can't trace any victories for either!

2008 Canadian GP

At the time the Sauber team was owned by BMW and called BMW Sauber.

#16 arttidesco

arttidesco
  • Member

  • 5,628 posts
  • Joined: April 10

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 :drunk:

Or is Stanley also considered a Garagiste with a BRM engine ?

#17 Tim Murray

Tim Murray
  • Member

  • 14,207 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 17 November 2011 - 12:57

... 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 :drunk:

Yes, and no cars at all in the 1976 Austrian GP. :lol:

Edit: ... and, who knows, John Watson might still have his beard. :cat:

Edited by Tim Murray, 17 November 2011 - 13:00.


#18 Amphicar

Amphicar
  • Member

  • 1,855 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 17 November 2011 - 13:07

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 :drunk:

Or is Stanley also considered a Garagiste with a BRM engine ?

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.

“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 arttidesco

arttidesco
  • Member

  • 5,628 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 17 November 2011 - 14:19

Yes, and no cars at all in the 1976 Austrian GP. :lol:

Edit: ... and, who knows, John Watson might still have his beard. :cat:


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 :up:


Advertisement

#20 Bauble

Bauble
  • Member

  • 1,040 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 17 November 2011 - 15:49

It is apparent that some do not agree with my interpretation of a 'proper marque', let me say that I have never heard of a Williams, Mclaren, Cooper, Brabham, Connew or Sauber engine, at least not as produced by any of these Formula 1 teams.

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! :wave:



#21 Michael Ferner

Michael Ferner
  • Member

  • 2,149 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 17 November 2011 - 16:34

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.

#22 Bauble

Bauble
  • Member

  • 1,040 posts
  • Joined: January 09

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.

:confused:
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 gkennedy

gkennedy
  • Member

  • 134 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 17 November 2011 - 20:34

I was just starting to get with the program. "Most successful, fully-fledged, Formula One, team, car, MARQUE (not counting Lancia engines in Ferraris)", wasn't it?

Edited by gkennedy, 17 November 2011 - 20:36.


#24 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 8,022 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 17 November 2011 - 23:03

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.

#25 helioseism

helioseism
  • Member

  • 1,429 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 18 November 2011 - 01:32

http://www.flickr.co...ach/6086790844/

#26 ringers23q

ringers23q
  • New Member

  • 21 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 18 November 2011 - 02:34

Tarso?

#27 Bauble

Bauble
  • Member

  • 1,040 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 18 November 2011 - 07:59

Tarso?


Very droll :clap:

#28 Amphicar

Amphicar
  • Member

  • 1,855 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 18 November 2011 - 10:29

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.

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.

#29 Peter Morley

Peter Morley
  • Member

  • 1,888 posts
  • Joined: October 02

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 Bauble

Bauble
  • Member

  • 1,040 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 18 November 2011 - 11:55

http://www.flickr.co...ach/6086790844/


Like it! It serves an indictment of all those seeking to discredit my perfectly logical description of a marque.

#31 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 8,022 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 18 November 2011 - 12:12

~ 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.

Didn't Lola try to go that way? And failed abysmally. (Or was that March?)

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.

That may be today's rule but it wasn't the case in 1966.

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 Bauble

Bauble
  • Member

  • 1,040 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 18 November 2011 - 12:26

I am constantly being accused of 'loose questions', then would someone who does not agree with my original surmise re-phrase it in a form that might help to concentrate peoples minds and help us bring to a happy conclusion this whole contentious affair.




Meanwhile I will start to think of another 'wind-up'.

#33 Amphicar

Amphicar
  • Member

  • 1,855 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 18 November 2011 - 13:40

Didn't Lola try to go that way? And failed abysmally. (Or was that March?)

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.

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 eldougo

eldougo
  • Member

  • 6,192 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 21 November 2011 - 08:01

[quote name='Bauble' date='Nov 17 2011, 19:01' post='5403862']
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.
:wave: Robert your spot on with your post and Power to the Prancing Horse.



#35 lustigson

lustigson
  • Member

  • 4,751 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 22 November 2011 - 11:36

Interesting discussion about what constitues a 'marque' and what doesn't. Wouldn't it be easier to come up with a top x list by define a 'marque' as a car that is designated as A-A and not A-B.

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 :p — but at least it's a start.

#36 Eric Dunsdon

Eric Dunsdon
  • Member

  • 625 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 22 November 2011 - 14:32

It was all a lot simpler when I were a lad. Alfa Romeo, Maserati, Ferrari, OSCA, BRM, Lago-Talbot and Alta.

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?!. :rolleyes: .

#37 Bauble

Bauble
  • Member

  • 1,040 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 22 November 2011 - 14:53

What was the Maserati that was entered in the Two Worlds Race at Monza called?

#38 alansart

alansart
  • Member

  • 4,006 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 22 November 2011 - 15:03

What was the Maserati that was entered in the Two Worlds Race at Monza called?


Eldorado Special


#39 Bauble

Bauble
  • Member

  • 1,040 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 22 November 2011 - 16:14

Eldorado Special


Exactly! Name after what?

Advertisement

#40 Eric Dunsdon

Eric Dunsdon
  • Member

  • 625 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 22 November 2011 - 16:16

What was the Maserati that was entered in the Two Worlds Race at Monza called?

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.

#41 alansart

alansart
  • Member

  • 4,006 posts
  • Joined: March 07

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 alansart

alansart
  • Member

  • 4,006 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 22 November 2011 - 17:07

Ironically I came across this the other day whilst looking for something else!

http://www.maseratic...k/trident23.htm

#43 Allan Lupton

Allan Lupton
  • Member

  • 3,022 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 22 November 2011 - 17:32

Eldorado Special

aka Maserati Gelati I seem to recall.

#44 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 8,022 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 22 November 2011 - 18:17

On 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?

#45 Tim Murray

Tim Murray
  • Member

  • 14,207 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 22 November 2011 - 18:32

This could be the old thread:

Maserati Eldorado

but there doesn't seem to be any indication of the car's colour when run at Indy.

#46 La Sarthe

La Sarthe
  • Member

  • 100 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 22 November 2011 - 18:39

Was the 'Honda' that won the 1967 Italian GP actually a Honda, or was it really a Lola-Honda? :drunk:

#47 Amphicar

Amphicar
  • Member

  • 1,855 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 22 November 2011 - 18:40

On 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?

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)

Edited by Amphicar, 22 November 2011 - 18:53.


#48 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 8,022 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 22 November 2011 - 23:02

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)

Thanks for going to the trouble of digging it out for me.