35 replies to this topic

[HistoryFan]

With Kimi Räikkönen, Romain Grosjean, Pedro de La Rosa (okay he drivers at Canadian Grand Prix 2011) and perhaps Nicolas Hülkenberg we have four drivers who come back in F1 field after at least one year brake. Is that a record? Which season's had more comeback-drivers?

And also: Lotus had two drivers which last F1 races were two years ago (Grosjean, Räikkönen). Had we ever F1 teams which had two drivers with comebacks after two years brake?
We have the March team in 1982 with Marc Surer and Rupert Keegan with one year brake? More with that?

[Tim Murray]

Marc Surer drove for Arrows in 1982. Are you perhaps thinking of Jochen Mass?

[plutoman]

1993 had four 'comeback' drivers. Alain Prost returned after a year away and won the championship. Fabrizio Barbazza also returned after a year out, and both Derek Warwick and Philippe Alliot came back after two years in sports cars.

[f1steveuk]

I'd venture 1946 had a high number, but it's not really the same thing is it!!??

[HistoryFan]

Marc Surer drove for Arrows in 1982. Are you perhaps thinking of Jochen Mass?

Yes, sorry...

[HistoryFan]

1993 had four 'comeback' drivers. Alain Prost returned after a year away and won the championship. Fabrizio Barbazza also returned after a year out, and both Derek Warwick and Philippe Alliot came back after two years in sports cars.

Thank you very much. More such years?

[HistoryFan]

I'd venture 1946 had a high number, but it's not really the same thing is it!!??

Of course...

[plutoman]

1974 had Mario Andretti, Mark Donohue, Derek Bell and David Hobbs, though they didn't all do the whole season.

[HistoryFan]

It should be drivers who competed the whole season.

I think there are not much years with such drivers....

[bsc]

1993 had four 'comeback' drivers. Alain Prost returned after a year away and won the championship. Fabrizio Barbazza also returned after a year out, and both Derek Warwick and Philippe Alliot came back after two years in sports cars.

Mark Blundell can also be added to that list.

1994 featured seven drivers who were making come backs after more than a season away: Paul Belmondo; Eric Bernard; David Brabham; Yannick Dalmas; Bertrand Gachot; Nicola Larini; and Nigel Mansell

Edited by bsc, 17 December 2011 - 12:56.

[scheivlak]

I'd venture 1946 had a high number, but it's not really the same thing is it!!??

Which driver competed in F1 before 1946?

I think 1954 had a pretty high number of returnees ;)

Edited by scheivlak, 16 December 2011 - 21:48.

[Doug Nye]

Is this important?

DCN

[HistoryFan]

1982:

Jochen Mass
Rupert Keegan
Geoff Lees
Manfred Winkelhock
Emilio de Villota => not raced, but in practice

[Stephen W]

Is this important?

DCN

Unfortunately someone must think that it is!

[stuartbrs]

Is this important?

DCN

A successful comeback is a rare animal indeed.. apart from Alain and Niki, comebacks do seem to be a bad idea... it often reminds of bands that should let it go, they almost become a cheesy tribute band to the actual band, even though they retain the same names...

[HistoryFan]

It depends on the circumstances. For Hülkenberg it is not that bad, for Schumacher perhaps it is...

[Bauble]

Is this important?

DCN

Come on Doug, you know how important these things are to the tnfosi!

[WhatOh]

Slightly off topic but should so many comebacks be encouraged? There are only 24 (?) F1 seats available and it seems that younger drivers are not getting a chance because of older drivers who have had their time previously.

[HistoryFan]

which young drivers do you mean? Perhaps Bianchi and Wickens, but there are no others really good young drivers. And Hülkenberg, Grosjean - are these really old drivers?

But that's really offtopic. So perhaps there are more examples what is asked.

[helioseism]

Is this important?

DCN

Absolutely none of the topics on this board (by which I mean every forum and subforum at Autosport.com) are important. They are simply entertaining to discuss.

[Alexey Rogachev]

...except those that are in "Historical research", I hope.

[helioseism]

...except those that are in "Historical research", I hope.

No. Those are also unimportant. Does it really matter what color the roundel of Moss' Ferrari was? What chassis number driver x drove in race y? I don't think so.

[Alexey Rogachev]

Seemingly unimportant small things about days gone by in whole make a big thing called history - history of motor racing in the present case. Someone may need such stuff like Moss' Ferrari colours and chassis numbers to solve some general question. That one, in its turn, may become a 'brick' in solving a more general question etc.

[Frank S]

I should never have plucked the wings off that fly.

[Alexey Rogachev]

One more correction: generally speaking, I don't like 'statistic F1 threads' like this (they are absolutely senseless IMO), but even bare statistics sometimes is able to give a key to an obscure question.

[HistoryFan]

so back to topic?

For those who aren't interested in this thread: Why do you read here?

[Catalina Park]

so back to topic?

For those who aren't interested in this thread: Why do you read here?;)

Maybe they read the thread title and thought it was compulsory?

[Stephen W]

Absolutely none of the topics on this board (by which I mean every forum and subforum at Autosport.com) are important. They are simply entertaining to discuss.

That is a matter of opinion!

No. Those are also unimportant. Does it really matter what color the roundel of Moss' Ferrari was? What chassis number driver x drove in race y? I don't think so.

I think that IF you owned a genuine Lotus 18 then which chassis it was may be rather important.

One more correction: generally speaking, I don't like 'statistic F1 threads' like this (they are absolutely senseless IMO), but even bare statistics sometimes is able to give a key to an obscure question.

You know what they say "There are lies, damn lies and statistics!"

so back to topic?

For those who aren't interested in this thread: Why do you read here?;)

I think most people at least look at each new thread and then make a decision whether to follow it or not. In the case of this one I suspect this will be my last visit.

Maybe they read the thread title and thought it was compulsory?

[HistoryFan]

I like statistics, so where is the problem? But now please back to topic.

[Alexey Rogachev]

You know what they say "There are lies, damn lies and statistics!"

Of course I do. But if you collect these statistics yourself, check again and again every item of them and don't have an intention to use them for bolstering some misrepresented facts - well, they may be of some value, I daresay ;)

[Glengavel]

It might add interest to ask, what motivates a driver to make a comeback? With Lauda it was a case of financing his airline. With Schumacher...trying to relive his glory days? So why was Lauda succesful and Schumacher wasn't? (I suppose he could yet surprise us...)

[B Squared]

So why was Lauda succesful and Schumacher wasn't?

Possibly the amount of respective input of the car/ driver combination. Could a driver in Lauda's era use his talent and speed to help overcome shortcomings in the car?

In Schumacher's case, where would he be in a McLaren or Red Bull? Possibly his decison to return would look much wiser. I'm of the firm opinion that competitors of this level don't forget how to drive.

[BullHead]

Jan Lammers spent 10 years out of the cockpit. I think that's a record. (and maybe slightly off topic)

[ryan86]

They certainly not. However.

Lauda came back to a very different F1 than he left: turbo engines, ground effect, composite chassis . It could be argued that possibly the technological development he found on his return suited well his approach to racing, meaning that his brainpower was such that he could handle it well. And he beat a quicker and younger teammate.

Schumacher, on the other hand, has pretty much never been on top of his teammate, Nico Rosberg, who seems not capable to fulfill his potential. In comparison, Vettel won on a Minardi.

Edit: As they (we) say in Italy, time is a gentleman. From Schumacher's and Ferrari's plight in recent times, we have discovered that the key name in the org chart of Ferrari's Schumacher years was a certain Rory Byrne.

Vettel didn't win in a Minardi. He won for the team used to be Minardi, in a car designed by Adrian Newey. I wouldn't disagree that he did a much better job than the 4 drivers who drove that car that year or that he is indeed a great talent. By that logic we can congratulate Jackie Stewart and Jaguar on their recent title successes.

I think that IF you owned a genuine Lotus 18 then which chassis it was may be rather important.

In my opinion every thread is unimportant and yet every thread is also important. The beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some threads are of great interest are of no interest to other. Lotus 18 chassis numbers are of interest to some, however it's never been something that interest me. So a thread about any subject will be important and unimportant. That's my personal view. A thread may not add new research, but sometimes hearing opinions on events can be just as interesting.

It might add interest to ask, what motivates a driver to make a comeback? With Lauda it was a case of financing his airline. With Schumacher...trying to relive his glory days? So why was Lauda succesful and Schumacher wasn't? (I suppose he could yet surprise us...)

I believe Schumacher when it looekd like he might deputise for Massa in late 2009 discovered he hadn't lost the racing bug. We could debate his ethics etc., but at the moment, combined with his bike escapades, it certainly looks like he has the need for speed.

It might also be worth noting that in his first two seasons, Lauda lost out on both occasions to John Watson. After two years, is Lauda necessarily doing better than Schumacher?

[HistoryFan]

1982:

Jochen Mass
Rupert Keegan
Geoff Lees
Manfred Winkelhock
Emilio de Villota => not raced, but in practice

Of course Niki Lauda

[Charlieman]

Is this important?

During contemporary F1 commentary, I think that there is an over reliance on statistical fluff. The precision of a stat about, say qualifying performance, is unnecessary if a driver's unlucky season/woeful effort can be described in an anecdote. But statistics are easy; the TV programme researchers have created a crib sheet for every driver whereas it takes effort to tell a story. Plus there is always the chance that the clever story will be interrupted by something eventful on the track.

On this occasion, I think the stats question makes us think. Accepting that it has always been difficult to get any sort of drive at the top, let alone one that offers the chance of a top three placing, there is a valid query. Behind the crude numbers, do we think that a competitive comeback was easier at some time in the past? Who were the drivers given a second chance who made us think: thank you for giving him another break.