25 replies to this topic

[HistoryFan]

When did we have this as Chilton/Razia now for Marussia

Bellof/Brundle 1984 at Toleman
Chandhok/Senna 2010 at HRT
Albers/Friesacher 2005 at Minardi
Karthikeyan/Monteiro 2005 at Jordan

More?

[nicanary]

C.A.S.Brooks and L.Leston - Syracuse 1955.

(Sorry, couldn't resist )

[D-Type]

I think Graham Hill, Cliff Allison and later Alan Stacey at Lotus in 1958 qualify
Ian Ashley, Tom Pryce drove for Token in 1974 but not in the same race as Token were a 1-car team so maybe don't qualify

[Emery0323]

Bellof/Brundle 1984 at Toleman

1984 had Bellof/Brundle at Tyrrell

Toleman had Ayrton Senna and Johnny Cecotto

[David McKinney]

I think Graham Hill, Cliff Allison and later Alan Stacey at Lotus in 1958 qualify

...and Innes Ireland and Pete Lovely in 1959
And Jim Clark and John Surtees in 1960

[MCS]

If on different GPs qualify, then Regazzoni and Giunti with Ferrari, 1970; as well as Fittipaldi and Wisell (Soler-Roig too, but DNQ) with Lotus, 1970.

Regazzoni and Giunti alternated in the main as I recall and team leader Ickx was a very established Grand Prix driver. Fitiipaldi and Wisell were thrown in to the last two races together following the events at Monza, so I am not sure they fully meet HF's criteria, which I think means starting a season with two rookie drivers.

Did Sauber start a season with two rookies?

[scheivlak]

Lammers and De Angelis for Shadow in 1979.

[ryan86]

The Osella line-up in 1981 had Gabbiani (who had DNQ'ed for two races in 1978) and Guerra. Perhaps not as pure as the ones above, but had a total of 0 race starts at the time.

[LittleChris]

Lammers and De Angelis for Shadow in 1979.

Kennedy & Johansson the following year

[D-Type]

...and Innes Ireland and Pete Lovely in 1959
And Jim Clark and John Surtees in 1960

I think we are at cross purposes here: although the question was not explicit, it appeared to refer to modern two-man teams, ie the whole team being rookies. That being the case, in 1958 the three drivers named were the only drivers entered by Team Lotus and none had previous GP experience. In 1959 Graham Hill still drove for them regularly, and in 1960 Ireland drove regularly for them and Stacey and Flockhart also drove for the team, all of whom were no longer rookies.

[kayemod]

...all of whom were no longer rookies.

And in any case, no-one would have referred to them in that way back then. The word 'rookie' is a slightly insulting US import, remember when Jim Clark was referred to as one when he first entered the Indianapolis 500?

[D-Type]

And in any case, no-one would have referred to them in that way back then. The word 'rookie' is a slightly insulting US import, remember when Jim Clark was referred to as one when he first entered the Indianapolis 500?

Agreed - but the word appears in the thread title

[kayemod]

Agreed - but the word appears in the thread title

Having met you and experienced your command of the language we share at first hand Duncan, I never for one moment assumed otherwise. The problem sadly is the 'American English' that is now taught extensively to those who aren't fortunate enough to have it as their native tongue, I understand that many actually choose to learn it in preference to the genuine article. I know a couple of Austrians who've never left Europe, but who are immensely proud of their US accents, and before anyone takes offence at this, there's absolutely nothing wrong with an American accent, nothing at all, provided of course you were born there.

[garoidb]

I know this doesn't quite qualify, but the 1997 Jordan line up was one "rookie" and one driver with eight GP starts. For such a competitive team, and in comparatively recent times, it was a very inexperienced line up.

[HistoryFan]

Thank you for the examples.

[MCS]

Thank you for the examples.

I had assumed - and we all know you should never assume! - that you were asking for (two) rookie driver line-ups at the start of a Grand Prix season.

Is that what you meant?

Edited by MCS, 13 February 2013 - 18:57.

[midgrid]

Jarno Trulli and Shinji Nakano at Prost in 1997 (when Olivier Panis was injured).

[HistoryFan]

I had assumed - and we all know you should never assume! - that you were asking for (two) rookie driver line-ups at the start of a Grand Prix season.

Is that what you meant?

Yes that is what I mean.

But we could also count GP races in which teams entered at leat two cars with driver who haven't raced a F1 race before. So Trulli and Nakano didn't count as they were never rookies at one GP.

So rookie in that meaning is: 0 GP

[MCS]

Think I may have another one: the works March Grand Prix team in 1974 had Hans Stuck and Vittorio Brambilla as drivers, except that for the first two races Howden Ganley was Stuck's team mate - so maybe this doesn't strictly count.

They also provided Noritake Takahara with his Formula One debut at the non-championship International Trophy at Silverstone (sole entry as I recall).

[ChrisJson]

When did we have this as Chilton/Razia now for Marussia

Bellof/Brundle 1984 at Toleman
Chandhok/Senna 2010 at HRT
Albers/Friesacher 2005 at Minardi
Karthikeyan/Monteiro 2005 at Jordan

More?

How about Chilton/Bianchi?


Christer

[nicanary]

I was browsing the latest issue of Motor Sport last night and noted how many newcomers there were this season in GP racing (Effwun, what's that?). Apparently some young men named Van der Garde, Razia,Bottas,Chilton,Gutierrez and now Bianchi, are all deemed good enough for the top echelon of the sport. Presumably they've proved their worth over a long grind in the lower formulae.

By all accounts just 8 drivers will be taking part who have raced for more than 2 seasons in the World Championship. Ye Gods.

What's that? They've brought money? It's just becoming more of a joke every year. Will I watch? Does the sun rise in the East and sink in the West?

[scags]

I was browsing the latest issue of Motor Sport last night and noted how many newcomers there were this season in GP racing (Effwun, what's that?). Apparently some young men named Van der Garde, Razia,Bottas,Chilton,Gutierrez and now Bianchi, are all deemed good enough for the top echelon of the sport. Presumably they've proved their worth over a long grind in the lower formulae.

By all accounts just 8 drivers will be taking part who have raced for more than 2 seasons in the World Championship. Ye Gods.

What's that? They've brought money? It's just becoming more of a joke every year. Will I watch? Does the sun rise in the East and sink in the West?

By whose accounts? Someone who can't count.

[D-Type]

I've been keeping tabs for the last few years of the number of GP Winners, Maybes (> 1 season, and Rabbits (< 1 season). They are (hope the 'code' table works)

year winners maybes rabbits
2013	 9	 8   5
2012	 9	10   5
2011	10	11   4
2010	11	6	7
2009	11	8	1
2008	 9	8	5
2007	 9	8	5
2006	10	8	4
2005	10	6	8
2004	 9	5	6
2003	 8	8	4
2002	 9	7	6
2001	 9	7	6
2000	 8	10   4
Av 	9.4   7.9   5

The results are surprisingly consistent. This year is unexceptional as it's almost bang on the average

[ensign14]

Apparently some young men named Van der Garde, Razia,Bottas,Chilton,Gutierrez and now Bianchi, are all deemed good enough for the top echelon of the sport. Presumably they've proved their worth over a long grind in the lower formulae.

What's that? They've brought money? It's just becoming more of a joke every year. Will I watch? Does the sun rise in the East and sink in the West?

Well, hang on a sec. 40 years ago there was the same thing. Compare and contrast.

Van der Garde has won the FRenault 3.5 series, the equivalent of something like F5000; would you think that, say, Peter Gethin would have been worth an F1 drive?

Razia (who actually won't be taking part) was second in F1's feeder series; would you think that, say, Derek Bell would have been worth an F1 drive?

Bottas won the GP3 series, something like European F3, two years ago and spent a year test driving; would you think that, say, Roger Williamson would have been worth an F1 drive?

Bianchi's record is like a cross between van der Garde's and Bottas'. Max Chilton was 4th in the feeder series having bought his way through the formulae (shades of Niki Lauda). He was one place behind Gutierrez, whose "F2" record is better than those of Cevert, Reutemann, Lauda and Scheckter.

It's difficult to think of a reason why any of the F1 rookies are not actually worthy of their F1 spots on their own records.

The problem is you may be able to think of better drivers out there. But go back to 1971. Lotus, the world champions, had three drivers taking part in their first full F1 season. Ferrari, the runners-up, had two. March, in third, had one second-year driver and three full-season rookies. Tyrrell, who would win the title, did so with a rookie in their second car. You can go on down the field. And not all of these drivers had won championships on their way up. Indeed, the ones I've listed above have better lower formulae records than Emmo, Wisell, Cevert, de Adamich, Lauda, Peterson and so on.

The thing is, back then, there was a reason why there were so many rookies. There was quite the rate of attrition amongst top-level drivers. Which no longer applies. And which means drivers can pootle around being anonymous for years and years, without being shifted from Formula 1, because nobody will look for alternative talent. Look at the likes of Gary Paffett and Jamie Green and Bjorn Wirdheim and others who missed out because Jarno Trulli and Pedro de la Rosa and David Coulthard were, like the poor, always with us. An accident to Coulthard like at Brazil in 2003 would have wiped him out in 1971. At least put him on the sidelines for a while. So there was an incentive to get out rather than hang around, or a natural selection process that removed a certain number every year. Not today.

It just so happens that nobody's interested in paying for many of these past-it drivers any more. But don't just blame the sponsors. You'd think that someone like Trulli must have made tens of millions in racing over the years. Were he really that desperate to continue in F1 for the sake of being there he'd pony up some of his own savings, surely? But no, he wants other people to pay for it. As it is they'd rather have fresh blood.

There are many ways around the problem and they all involve cutting spending and opening the floodgates so that e.g. an ex-Surtees mechanic can knock something up in a garage and rock up at Silverstone with a Frenchman and others and take a punt, or Lotus/McLaren/BRM/whoever can give a sausage roll a spare motor to please the locals. That isn't going to happen. So here we are.

But it's not that different to what's always happened. Go back to the first-ever Grand Prix even. You reckon J. T. Alexander-Burton earned his drive?

Edited by ensign14, 04 March 2013 - 21:17.

[nicanary]

You've made some very good points there, and made me think a bit more about it. I realise now that I was just "rolling" with the journalist. It appears that my distaste for the modern way of selecting drivers has got the better of my logic.

It will be interesting to see how things pan out.

(PS - you calling Peter Connew a sausage roll?

[ensign14]

No - Alex Soler-Roig.

Thinking about 1971, in the previous five years F1 had lost Bandini, Clark, Spence, Courage and Rindt, amongst others, Brabham retired and Hill suffered his accident. In modern terms that would be like losing Maldonado, Hamilton, Hulkenberg, Perez and Vettel, with Schumacher retiring and Alonso being nearly terminally injured...