Jump to content


Photo

The numbering system of yesteryear?


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#1 Megatron

Megatron
  • Member

  • 3,688 posts
  • Joined: January 99

Posted 07 August 2000 - 15:59

As I look at pictures of cars from say, 1970, I see many cars with very different numbers.

Like the BRM with Rodrigez won with at Spa, it had NO 1 on it I think, but Stewart was the champion in 69?

And I remember Seeing Jackie Stewarts Tyrrell with 3, 5, 6, and I think 9.

Why did they change the numbers around so much?

Advertisement

#2 Michael M

Michael M
  • Member

  • 142 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 07 August 2000 - 20:03

Race numbers had been decided by each race organizer separately, mostly in the sequence of the receipt of entries. Thefore very often the teams had successive numbers for their cars. Each race organizer handles his own system, very often only even numbers were taken (in order to avoid to 13?), and sometimes the list starts very high, e.g. at the GP Germany 1951 lowest # was 71.

#3 Eric McLoughlin

Eric McLoughlin
  • Member

  • 1,622 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 07 August 2000 - 21:35

One of Bernie's innovations in the 70's was the standardisation of team numbers for the entire season. Teams now carry the same number for at least one whole season, sometimes longer. The only trouble is they're too small to read! Bring back big white discs and Les Leston's stick on numbers - and while you're at it, white rectangles with driver's names in black (or turquois - I'm not fussy). You can see I hanker after 1966.

#4 Leif Snellman

Leif Snellman
  • Member

  • 1,078 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 08 August 2000 - 06:49

Originally posted by Michael M
Each race organizer handles his own system, very often only even numbers were taken (in order to avoid to 13?), and sometimes the list starts very high, e.g. at the GP Germany 1951 lowest # was 71.


I think the reason was that odd numbers were reserved for the T cars and even numbers for the race cars. Expecially the Italian GP always used that system. The reason that the race numbers sometimes were high was often that several classes were raced that day with small classes having low numbers and the big classes high numbers.

#5 Hans Etzrodt

Hans Etzrodt
  • Member

  • 3,173 posts
  • Joined: July 00

Posted 08 August 2000 - 06:53

Eric,
This would be the logic way to do it. But expensive space for sponsors decals would be lost.

#6 Michael M

Michael M
  • Member

  • 142 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 08 August 2000 - 07:30

The standardisation of numbers came in 1973, when the dwarf was still busy with his Brabham team, so one of the few rules in F1 for which we cannot blame him ...

By the way, what are "Les Leston's stick-on-numbers"? In historic motorsport today we use these nice self-adhering PVC foil numbers, optional in black or white, depending on car's colour, but how did they manage this in earlier times? Very early photos - up to the 20s - sometimes give the impression that the race numbers had been painted to the cars with some kind of easily removable medium, like i.e. chalk slurry, but already in the 30s these numbers had been very accuralety, like professional paint job, or even modern foils. However, PVC foils as far I know not invented then, and I also cannot believe that they re-painted the cars for every race, so what did they use??


#7 Gil Bouffard

Gil Bouffard
  • Member

  • 597 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 15 August 2000 - 17:31

I came across this thread the other day and it lit a recent memory. An old friend of mine, Doug Stokes, sent me a request to help some people who were trying to determine what number they should request for their race car.

They had gotten off on a tangent, if you will, and started looking at historical numbers.

This, then, is the exchange:

"Gurney always ran 48, no matter what he drove.
(Jim) Hall had 66, while Phil Hill ran 65 in the Can-Am.
Foyt...he's running IRL, so who cares...
Petty had 43.
88 belongs to Dale Jarret in NASCAR. Would be an easy number for scorers, as well as #60.
Stokes would know ALL of (Rick) Mears numbers...
Stokes used to race with 28.
Senna ran 12 with Lotus, and besides, the GP only numbers cars to 28 or so because of the size of the field.
How old is Scot? Your dad? Your mom? Your favorite classic car?"

Stokes sent me this request: "GIL: HELP THESE GUYS PICK A NUMBER FOR THEIR F/FORD."


Re: Gurney. Not so, the Ferrari and Lotus he drove for Arciero was number 69

Mears drove whatever number Penske assigned.

In most cases Phil Hill drove whatever number the entrant had assigned.

Foyt's lead car is number 14

In the U.S., Briggs Cunningham's lead driver was given number 60 (Phil Walters, Sherwood Johnston, Walt Hansgen). At Le Mans he took whatever number he was given.(Usually a low number, because Le Mans numbered the cars by engine capacity. Larger the engine lower the number)

In NASCAR the numbers are assigned or requested by the teams. If Dale Earnhardt left Richard Childress, the number 3 would not go with him! Number 88 was not the car number when Dale Jarrett drove for Joe Gibbs.

Penske and Donohue were 6 (Penske's choice?)

Anyone who drove for John Edgar drove the number 98

Pre BE (Bernie Ecclestone), Formula One racing numbers and formats were assigned by the race organizer. And in many cases, would change year by year. According to my sources, racing numbers were assigned based on the date of arrival of the entry from the factory. Therefore if Ferrari beat Maserati to the mail box, they would get the lower numbers. An added twist was whether the numbers would start with 1 and be sequentially (1-2-3-4) or even numbered (2-4-6-8) or if they would start in the teens. 1961's Grand Prix of France was like that. Hence the Ferraris had 14-16-18 for von Trips, Hill and Ginther. Backgrounds for the numbers were also decided by the organizer. Which is why photos from one race would show cars with a white roundel and a black number and a week or two weeks later the cars wouldn't have a white background and the number would be white.

Location such as canted to one side or the other or straight on. All of this was at the whim of the organizer. In many cases the organizers didn't tell the team the numbers they were assigned until they registered at the track. They would then offer the services of their resident sign painter. The ever efficient Mercedes guys had their own sign painter.

At the Grand Prix of France in 61, Porsche used black tape for their numbers which blew off of Gurney's car. That's why you only see one number on the front of his car at the finish behind Baghetti Ferrari. Baghetti was entered as a privateer which is why his Ferrari is numbered 50.

I was there at the Thillios Hairpin getting a sunburn!

FOCA and Ecclestones first move was to assign 1 and 2 to the team employing the reigning Formula One World Champion. The rest were decided on entrant's choice. The next step was to assign the number of the winning team to the last year's World Champion. 11 and 12 went to Lotus when Jody Scheckter won the championship. The following year Alan Jones, driving Williams number 27 won and Ferrari gained the number 27 and 28.

The current policy is based on points. Villeneuve wins the championship, Williams gets 1-2. Schumacher finishes second, Ferrari gets 3-4. If a team drops out. The team with the next highest points moves up. New teams are assigned the higher or last numbers in the set.

Oh yeah, World Champion retires from sport after winning. Car gets number 0.

Sorry you asked?

Gil Bouffard

With regards to "T-cars," of the time. T-cars were not numbered, but had a large "T" emblazoned on the car. This was in case a driver wrecked his car badly, they could wash the "T" off the car and give it to another driver for the race.

Gil Bouffard

#8 Eagle104

Eagle104
  • Member

  • 123 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 15 August 2000 - 19:27

I'll touch on just a few numbers...

Dan Gurney: though "48" ultimately came to be his "pet" number in his US racing, Jochen Rindt actually drove the first Eagle #48. It was at Indianapolis '67, where he was a part of a three-car AAR effort. Dan drove #74(dohc Ford)..Jerry Grant drove #42(dohc Ford)..and Jochen drove #48(Gurney-Eagle 305cid pushrod). Dan took the number on, for good, in Dec'67 at Riverside for the 300mi race which he won. From that point, until he retired at the end of '70, his team numbers were 48 & 42. When Bobby Unser became AAR's number-oe driver, in '71, they stopped using 48, and Bobby would use the "earned" number according to the previous years USAC Natl Championship placing. The team kept #42 for their other car, in '71. Then, 48 re-surfaced in '72 with Jerry Grant as Bobby's teammate. In '74, AAR went to a one-car team, and Bobby began using #48. They won the USAC Championship that year and could have used #1 for 1975, but instead stuck with #48. And so, it was #48 that wheeled into Victory Lane at the 1975 Indianapolis 500.

From what I've heard, Dan adopted #48 from the number that his NFL buddy, Les Richter, wore while he played for the Los Angeles Rams. Les was a big racing enthusiast. I think he later was involved with Riverside Raceway. And ultimately ended up with NASCAR as (I think) Dir. of Competition.

Dan later adopted other pet-#s. In the mid80s, he added #s 98 & 99 in honor of the late Indy car owner and racetrack promoter, JC Agajanian, who won Indy twice..'52 with Troy Ruttman and '63 with Parnelli Jones. Later, when Parnelli's son, PJ, became an AAR team-driver, it made for a nice 'symmetrical' fit. The other pet-number is "36"..the number that "Eagle104" carried to victory in the 1967 Belgian Grand Prix.

One of Dan's sons, Alex, now drives in Toyota-Atlantic competition, where he scored his first podium-finish just a couple of weeks ago. His number?...it's baaack, #48!

http://www.allameric...antic_2000.html

-------------------

Penske/Donohue did use #6. But on their USAC Championship Trail car, their number was always 66.
[p][Edited by Eagle104 on 08-16-2000]

#9 William Dale Jr

William Dale Jr
  • Member

  • 405 posts
  • Joined: April 00

Posted 16 August 2000 - 11:47

Kevin Schwantz always ran with the number '34' after he was given the number, I don't really remember the story, but he still uses the number today. Mick Doohan almost always ran with number '1', but that was because he was so good and was always champion :) The late Joey Dunlop ran with number '3' plenty of times, and I'm sure we all know of 'Our Nige's Red 5...

But what about times when numbers were assigned to people and they objected or refused to run with them. The Japanese have a superstition about the number '4', so that's why Satoru Nakajima ran with the number '3' at Tyrrell. And do Italians have a thing about the number '17'?

One addition about how numbers are currently issued in F1. Until 1996, teams ran the same number from year to year, apart from the new and previous champion teams who traded numbers, such as the case you stated Gil with Lotus and Ferrari and Williams. After 1996, the champion driver receives the numbers '1' and '2' for the team he drives for, and the rest of the numbers are allocated according to the results of the constructors championship, the same way that pit locations are allocated.

#10 Marcel Schot

Marcel Schot
  • Member

  • 5,459 posts
  • Joined: November 98

Posted 16 August 2000 - 12:33

The Italians that have driven with #17:
Pierro Taruffi in 1952 (1 race)
Lorenzo Bandini in 1965 (1 race)
Andrea de Adamich & Nanni Galli in 1971 (1 race each)
Renzo Zorzi in 1977 (3 races)
Nicola Larini in 1989 (16 races)
Gabriele Tarquini in 1990/91 (29 races)
Emanuele Naspetti in 1992 (5 races)
Andrea Montermini in 1995 (17 races)
Nicola Larini & Gianni Morbidelli in 1997 (5 and 8 races)

As you see, in the old days rarely an Italian used 17, so you might have something there. These days superstition can hardly be brought into contractnegotiations. Can you imagine Fisichella putting a clause into his contract saying he will drive for Benetton, provided that when they get assigned numbers 17 & 18, I must have number 18?

BTW both in 1989 and 1991 the team's other driver was also an Italian

#11 Piquet_1

Piquet_1
  • Member

  • 344 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 19 August 2000 - 01:06

I sorely miss the tradition of retaining the same numbers year in and year out with the exception being the incoming and outgoing WDCs' teams and the occasional reshuffling to accomodate new and retired teams. I guess with the fact that only three or four current teams have been around for longer than twenty years sort of makes it a moot point (Lotus should still be 11&12, Brabham 7&8 or 5&6, Tyrrell 3&4, Ferrari 27&28 in a perfect world)... Still, the teams should have to earn a number change. The fact that Tyrrell ran with 3&4 for nearly 30 years was a symbol of their plight to win as years went on...

#12 Gary Davies

Gary Davies
  • Member

  • 1,995 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 13 May 2003 - 13:44

I was motivated to revive this Olde Threade after doing a little reading on the German Grand Prix. I noticed that in the 1952 race, the cars were numbered from 101 to 136 and I wonder why. In previous and later years, German GP numbering seemed quite conventional as it was in the other Grands Prix of 1952.

I did notice that the 1952 race celebrated the 25th anniversary of the 'ring; was that a factor?

And a supplementary question on the same race. According to Lang, "No official practice times (were) issued by the organisers". Posthumus mentions practice times set by Ascari and Farina and FORIX quotes the fastest seven in practice (and show Ascari at 10'04.4 vs. the 10'04.9 mentioned by Posthumus).

So why no official practice times? My Motor Sport collection doesn't go back quite that far ... so I'm stuck!

#13 Vitesse2

Vitesse2
  • Nostalgia Forum Moderator

  • 24,376 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 13 May 2003 - 13:53

I think the numbering was purely because they assigned different numbers to each race on the programme, without duplication. This was fairly common in German events at the time and also applied sometimes in Britain, notably at Charterhall. I have the relevant Motor Sport, but no time to check: due back at work in 6 minutes and it's a 10 minute drive! :eek:

#14 Gary Davies

Gary Davies
  • Member

  • 1,995 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 13 May 2003 - 14:00

Originally posted by Vitesse2
... due back at work in 6 minutes and it's a 10 minute drive! :eek:


And there was I assuming you had a second computer at work and posted to TNF while the staff fended off the customers! :D

#15 nrp

nrp
  • Member

  • 47 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 13 May 2003 - 15:49

Since this thread has been revived, I might as well stick in my two penn'orth:

Originally posted by William Dale Jr
And do Italians have a thing about the number '17'?


Yes, 17 to the Italians is as 13 to the English-speakers. A good Italian friend of mine frequently used to bemoan the fact that she was born on Friday the 17th ...

-- Neil

#16 rich42

rich42
  • Member

  • 279 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 13 May 2003 - 16:16

The most recent example of numerical superstition, as far as I can recall, is Villeneuve taking no. 10 whilst Panis took No. 9 at BAR 2001...the current system for numbering is very logical IMO, if only they made the numbers more visible...sorry, visible at all...

#17 Vrba

Vrba
  • Member

  • 3,334 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 13 May 2003 - 16:43

Originally posted by Hans Etzrodt
Eric,
This would be the logic way to do it. But expensive space for sponsors decals would be lost.


True, but if we take a look at this year's Renault, for example, its rear wing sideplates doesn'ta carry any logo, IIRC.
If we look at other cars, there are still enough space for relatively big numbers to be placed.
And, since 2002, there are no side numbers at all, only an invisible one on the top of the nose.
What's the reason for that because space could be found easily?

Hrvoje

#18 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,542 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 13 May 2003 - 17:01

Originally posted by Gil Bouffard
IFoyt's lead car is number 14

And in most years Foyt's other cars were various random combinations of 1, 4 and 8 - George Snider ran numbers 1 (as Gold Crown champion), 4 and 84 at Indy for Foyt.

NASCAR's obviously the king for numbers - you can go most of 1-99 with numbers sacred to certain drivers. Lord knows what the logic is. I suppose Jimmie Johnson uses 48 because it is double car owner Jeff Gordon's racing number, DEI use 15 because Dale used it for a couple of years, and Dale Jr uses 8 because it was Ralph's number (but why? -Ralph also used 88).

RCR use 3 because RIchard Childress was a fan of Junior Johnson, who used 3 (and 26) a lot (don't know why).

Lee Petty used 42 because that was his car number plate, so Richard used the next one along. Maurice Petty when racing used 41, Petty Enterprises went on to use 44, Kyle used 42 when he started and now uses 45, which was Adam's number. Ritchie Petty on an abortive Daytona attempt added 10 instead of 1 to get 53. :stoned:

And nearer the back OTTOMH Herman Beam used 19, HB Bailey 36, Friday Hassler 39, Wendell Scott 34 (reverse of the King? -he did at least win one), Cecil Gordon 24, JD McDuffie 70, Doc Faustina 5, EJ Trivette 08, Phil Barkdoll 73, Dr Don Tarr and Delma Cowart 0, Elmo Langley 64 (he won 2), Emanuel Zervakis 85 (also a double winner), Junie Donlavey 90 (50 years of racing = 1 win), Neil Castles 06, Tom Pistone 59 (another winner) and Jimmy Means 52, but I have no idea why. Consistent title contender James Hylton used 48. Dave Marcis uses 71, presumably because he took over the Krauskopf team, who also used 71 way back to Bobby Isaac (but why did they use 71?).

Technically the numbers in NASCAR go with the owners, which is why Dale moved to 3 with RCR when he had been number 2 at Rod Osterlund's; the sponsors wanted him to take the number 2, to save all the stickers &c being wasted after a mid-season move, but Osterlund would not give up the number. Then pulled out a couple of years later anyway. Of course many of the above drivers were owner-drivers.

#19 petefenelon

petefenelon
  • Member

  • 4,815 posts
  • Joined: August 02

Posted 13 May 2003 - 19:27

Originally posted by Vrba


True, but if we take a look at this year's Renault, for example, its rear wing sideplates doesn'ta carry any logo, IIRC.
If we look at other cars, there are still enough space for relatively big numbers to be placed.
And, since 2002, there are no side numbers at all, only an invisible one on the top of the nose.
What's the reason for that because space could be found easily?

Hrvoje


Messing the numbers round every year based on constructors' positions means that merchandise goes out of date very rapidly - so, by downplaying the size of the numbers of the cars and stopping people associating them strongly with drivers/teams.... they become less and less important. ;)

pete

Advertisement

#20 Rob G

Rob G
  • Member

  • 10,911 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 13 May 2003 - 19:35

Originally posted by petefenelon


Messing the numbers round every year based on constructors' positions means that merchandise goes out of date very rapidly - so, by downplaying the size of the numbers of the cars and stopping people associating them strongly with drivers/teams.... they become less and less important. ;)

pete

Looking at the pic of Jarno Trulli's cap in the first post of this thread, that argument just got tossed out the window. :D I find it very strange that the number 7 on his cap is probably bigger and more legible than the one on his car.

#21 Vitesse2

Vitesse2
  • Nostalgia Forum Moderator

  • 24,376 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 13 May 2003 - 23:06

Originally posted by Vanwall
I was motivated to revive this Olde Threade after doing a little reading on the German Grand Prix. I noticed that in the 1952 race, the cars were numbered from 101 to 136 and I wonder why. In previous and later years, German GP numbering seemed quite conventional as it was in the other Grands Prix of 1952.

I did notice that the 1952 race celebrated the 25th anniversary of the 'ring; was that a factor?

And a supplementary question on the same race. According to Lang, "No official practice times (were) issued by the organisers". Posthumus mentions practice times set by Ascari and Farina and FORIX quotes the fastest seven in practice (and show Ascari at 10'04.4 vs. the 10'04.9 mentioned by Posthumus).

So why no official practice times? My Motor Sport collection doesn't go back quite that far ... so I'm stuck!


Sorry - no mention at all in Motor Sport, but they paid scant attention to practice times in those days anyway!

#22 F1Fanatic.co.uk

F1Fanatic.co.uk
  • Member

  • 1,725 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 13 August 2007 - 12:22

Does anyone know why Scheckter raced as number 0 for two races at the end of 1973? Emerson Fittipaldi's car bore number 1 at the time.

#23 conjohn

conjohn
  • Member

  • 487 posts
  • Joined: July 03

Posted 14 August 2007 - 16:12

Just a guess, but as Jody raced with a 0 in both F5000 and CanAm in North America, and as the two F1 races were in Canada and the US, maybe 0 was thought of as 'his' number...

/Conny

#24 subh

subh
  • Member

  • 1,021 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 15 August 2007 - 22:40

Originally posted by William Dale Jr
Kevin Schwantz always ran with the number '34' after he was given the number, I don't really remember the story, but he still uses the number today. Mick Doohan almost always ran with number '1', but that was because he was so good and was always champion :) The late Joey Dunlop ran with number '3' plenty of times, and I'm sure we all know of 'Our Nige's Red 5...

But what about times when numbers were assigned to people and they objected or refused to run with them. The Japanese have a superstition about the number '4', so that's why Satoru Nakajima ran with the number '3' at Tyrrell. And do Italians have a thing about the number '17'?

One addition about how numbers are currently issued in F1. Until 1996, teams ran the same number from year to year, apart from the new and previous champion teams who traded numbers, such as the case you stated Gil with Lotus and Ferrari and Williams. After 1996, the champion driver receives the numbers '1' and '2' for the team he drives for, and the rest of the numbers are allocated according to the results of the constructors championship, the same way that pit locations are allocated.


I know this is in response to a seven-year-old post, but it follows up with the relevant information.

Kevin Schwantz took his racing number 34 from his dirt-tracking uncle Darryl Hurst, a 1975 AMA national winner (Michael Scott, The 500cc World Champions). And in fact, many motorcycle racers do have the habit of keeping the same number, which is a particular tradition in the US. Joey Dunlop’s 3 is a good example, as is Barry Sheene’s 7 and Valentino Rossi’s 46 - which his father Graziano had used previously. There are loads more.

#25 gary24fan

gary24fan
  • New Member

  • 17 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 05 September 2009 - 21:01

[quote name='subh' date='Aug 15 2007, 18:40' post='2821252']
I know this is in response to a seven-year-old post....

And I know that, now, this is in response to a now-nine-year-old post, but glad I found this and thanks to all of you for your information. I often wondered why F1 teams had different car number race to race until mid-1973 or so.

Gary

#26 Barry Boor

Barry Boor
  • Member

  • 10,872 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 16 November 2012 - 21:41

I've come across another example of peculiar numbering at a race in the early 1950s. At Bari in 1951 there was an excellent entry which included factory cars from Alfa Romeo, Ferrari, Gordini, H.W.M as well as numerous Maseratis and Talbots.

The odd thing is that the Alfas were #4 and #16. Ferrari's four cars were #2, #8, #10 and #20 and Gordini's three were #14, #28 and #40. Interspered amongst these were the Talbots and Maseratis, although the two H.W.Ms were actually #44 and #46.

I suppose that over 60 years later, there is no point in asking 'why?' is there?

Incidentally, I was going to put this post on a thread I started that is called '1950s numbering systems'. but when I tried to open that one my laptop told me it was infected with Malware and advised me not to proceed.

#27 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,542 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 16 November 2012 - 22:15

Linked to a lottery perhaps? That was the race incidentally at which Moss turned up expecting to make his Ferrari debut...

There must have been some sort of planning as Bonetto's Alfa is listed as 34 even though it didn't turn up. The previous year's seems to have been just as stochastic - Alfas at 2 and 16, Ferrari at 12, 30 and 38, HWM at 10, 20 and 28.

#28 Lemnpiper

Lemnpiper
  • Member

  • 781 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 17 November 2012 - 03:19

NASCAR's obviously the king for numbers - you can go most of 1-99 with numbers sacred to certain drivers. Lord knows what the logic is. I suppose Jimmie Johnson uses 48 because it is double car owner Jeff Gordon's racing number, DEI use 15 because Dale used it for a couple of years, and Dale Jr uses 8 because it was Ralph's number (but why? -Ralph also used 88).


This explains why Dale jr took #88 when he went to Hendrick




Dave Marcis uses 71, presumably because he took over the Krauskopf team, who also used 71 way back to Bobby Isaac (but why did they use 71?).


THe Krauskopf team took the #71 as motivation when they 1st started up , since the plan was to win the championship in 1971 . They however did it a year early in 1970



Junie Donlavey 's 1st car came with the #90 allready painted on it .. so he decided to make that his number .



Paul

#29 robjohn

robjohn
  • Member

  • 35 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 17 November 2012 - 06:44

Another little numbering oddity, though not in GP racing:
Peter Brock, probably the most successful Australian touring car driver of the 1980s and early '90s, established 05 as his permanent race number.
At one stage, though, he was told the zero was against the rules and that he could use only the 5. Perhaps it was for the FIA (or FISA) world touring car championship races in 1987.

In F1, was Damon Hill's 1993 Williams the first to carry the 0 after the team's world champion retired, or in that case (Mansell) left F1 for other fields? I haven't researched this, but that's the first I recall.
Rob B


#30 Barry Boor

Barry Boor
  • Member

  • 10,872 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 17 November 2012 - 07:19

For no logical reason, that 0 on Damon's car annoyed me out of all proportion.


#31 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,542 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 17 November 2012 - 08:18

Another little numbering oddity, though not in GP racing:
Peter Brock, probably the most successful Australian touring car driver of the 1980s and early '90s, established 05 as his permanent race number.

That was because he had an anti-drinking & driving sponsor. 0.05 was the legal limit in Australia at the time. A similar charitable gesture saw Alex Lloyd have the number 40920 (a breast cancer charity text no.) for a race.

Hill was indeed the first to use 0 because the holder of 1 had gone AWOL. In 1985 when champion Lauda missed a race Wattie took over the 1.

#32 Tim Murray

Tim Murray
  • Member

  • 14,564 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 17 November 2012 - 08:53

Scheckter was given 0 when he drove the third McLaren in the Canadian and US GPs of 1973.

#33 Stephen W

Stephen W
  • Member

  • 11,775 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 17 November 2012 - 09:25

Scheckter was given 0 when he drove the third McLaren in the Canadian and US GPs of 1973.


Possibly something to do with his efforts at Silverstone perhaps?  ;)

#34 wenoopy

wenoopy
  • Member

  • 611 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 17 November 2012 - 09:44

I've come across another example of peculiar numbering at a race in the early 1950s. At Bari in 1951 there was an excellent entry which included factory cars from Alfa Romeo, Ferrari, Gordini, H.W.M as well as numerous Maseratis and Talbots.

The odd thing is that the Alfas were #4 and #16. Ferrari's four cars were #2, #8, #10 and #20 and Gordini's three were #14, #28 and #40. Interspered amongst these were the Talbots and Maseratis, although the two H.W.Ms were actually #44 and #46.

I suppose that over 60 years later, there is no point in asking 'why?' is there?

Incidentally, I was going to put this post on a thread I started that is called '1950s numbering systems'. but when I tried to open that one my laptop told me it was infected with Malware and advised me not to proceed.


I am sure this query has come up before, possibly on your previous thread. I wondered then if this was to assist sales of the official programme by not issuing the official numbers until it was too late for "bootleg" programmes to be printed. Don't know how recording of practise times would have worked, though .

In the 50's and 60's teams entered as few or as many cars/drivers as they chose(or were allowed)in each race. Thus the orderly 2-car teams of recent times and the consequent permanent numbers were not practicable or necessary. Sometimes teams didn't enter some GP's, and without penalty! There were also private entries as well as factory teams, and the number of entries/starters in World Championship races could vary from 10 (Argentina 1958) to over 30(some British, German and Italian GP's). There were relatively few restrictions. There wasn't even a European Community! The tracks were usually quite different from each other, so it wasn't like the same play with a different backdrop.

But we haven't lost something over the years, have we?

Stu


#35 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,542 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 17 November 2012 - 10:06

I am sure this query has come up before, possibly on your previous thread. I wondered then if this was to assist sales of the official programme by not issuing the official numbers until it was too late for "bootleg" programmes to be printed. Don't know how recording of practise times would have worked, though .

I thought about this, but would they have allocated numbers to non-arrivals? In 1950 there were a good few. Unless they had their programmes &c printed up weeks in advance with the secret number allocations listed.

#36 racer69

racer69
  • Member

  • 222 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 18 November 2012 - 01:06

Another little numbering oddity, though not in GP racing:
Peter Brock, probably the most successful Australian touring car driver of the 1980s and early '90s, established 05 as his permanent race number.
At one stage, though, he was told the zero was against the rules and that he could use only the 5. Perhaps it was for the FIA (or FISA) world touring car championship races in 1987.


That was at the 1987 WTCC round in Wellington. He was allowed to use the #05 at Bathurst and Calder, but not at the following.

When he did some ETCC races in 1986, he ran with plain #5 as well

#37 uechtel

uechtel
  • Member

  • 1,528 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 19 November 2012 - 08:41

I thought about this, but would they have allocated numbers to non-arrivals? In 1950 there were a good few. Unless they had their programmes &c printed up weeks in advance with the secret number allocations listed.


They would of course not have printed them on race day morning. So there was always a chance of some dna or even late entries.


#38 Allan Lupton

Allan Lupton
  • Member

  • 3,064 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 20 November 2012 - 09:33

In the 50's and 60's teams entered as few or as many cars/drivers as they chose(or were allowed)in each race. Thus the orderly 2-car teams of recent times and the consequent permanent numbers were not practicable or necessary. Sometimes teams didn't enter some GP's, and without penalty! There were also private entries as well as factory teams, and the number of entries/starters in World Championship races could vary from 10 (Argentina 1958) to over 30(some British, German and Italian GP's).
But we haven't lost something over the years, have we?

Yes one thing we have lost is visible competition numbers!
Back in the time we are (mostly) interested in timekeeping and lapcharting depended on people looking out of the window and identifying the cars as they raced past. The spectators benefitted from those clear numbers of course, but now, although the passage of cars is recorded electronically, the spectators have to guess which is which, resorting to recognisimg helmet colours - just like the first season at Brooklands where the drivers wore jockey's silks like the riders of nags did :drunk:

#39 Barry Boor

Barry Boor
  • Member

  • 10,872 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 20 November 2012 - 09:57

Have you actually looked at current cars? granted some numbers are hard to see but a few of them have very clear numbers on the side - particularly HRT whose numbers are huge.

Nose numbers are fairly clear on most cars but of course, standing beside the track they are hard to see. You can always look at the camera colour.....

Advertisement

#40 uechtel

uechtel
  • Member

  • 1,528 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 20 November 2012 - 10:46

...but now, although the passage of cars is recorded electronically, the spectators have to guess which is which, resorting to recognisimg helmet colours...


Well, you can not even rely on this any more...


#41 Allan Lupton

Allan Lupton
  • Member

  • 3,064 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 20 November 2012 - 11:16

Have you actually looked at current cars? granted some numbers are hard to see but a few of them have very clear numbers on the side - particularly HRT whose numbers are huge.

Nose numbers are fairly clear on most cars but of course, standing beside the track they are hard to see. You can always look at the camera colour.....

I have only seen these cars on the television. I would have thought that if I cannot see numbers there it would be even harder to see them trackside
This is the sort of view I see and I can't see a number anywhere:
Posted Image

This is what we used to see:
Posted Image

Edited by Allan Lupton, 20 November 2012 - 11:17.


#42 Michael Ferner

Michael Ferner
  • Member

  • 2,289 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 20 November 2012 - 19:33

I have only seen these cars on the television. I would have thought that if I cannot see numbers there it would be even harder to see them trackside
This is the sort of view I see and I can't see a number anywhere:
Posted Image


Let me guess: the two cars crashing off course in the background regained the track after some "off road" driving over the smooth asphalt run-off area, and continued in the race... :rolleyes:

Otherwise I'm with Allan. I don't watch TV, but occasionally see pictures of current F1 cars - I haven't seen a competition number in donkey's years!

#43 LittleChris

LittleChris
  • Member

  • 2,185 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 20 November 2012 - 21:47

Let me guess: the two cars crashing off course in the background regained the track after some "off road" driving over the smooth asphalt run-off area, and continued in the race... :rolleyes:


The silver one not only continued but won the race :D

#44 Michael Ferner

Michael Ferner
  • Member

  • 2,289 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 20 November 2012 - 22:08

This is ridiculous. And why I don't miss watching F1 these days.

#45 Barry Boor

Barry Boor
  • Member

  • 10,872 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 21 November 2012 - 06:53

Each to his own, of course, Michael, but I have to say you are missing some wonderful entertainment by not watching F.1 these days.

Maybe entertainment is not high on your list of requirements when it comes to motor sport but the essential word here is SPORT.

Forget the money aspect - forget the ludicrous quantities of technical gizmos, when the lights go out on a Sunday afternoon, it's just a car race between 24 blokes in 24 cars and for edge of the seat, breath-taking tension, many (though not all) of the 2012 races have been filled with it.

Would I rather watch Jim Clark strolling away from a line of underpowered 1.5 litre cars in 1963? Awful to say it but I'm not sure that I would. :)

#46 Michael Ferner

Michael Ferner
  • Member

  • 2,289 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 21 November 2012 - 20:36

You're an unflagging champion of the current F1 scene, Barry, and I admire your enthusiasm. But I fear you're wasting your time trying to convert me. If edge-of-the-seat, breath-taking tension" were high on my priority list, I could just as easily watch NASCAR, or in fact any footie game on the telly. I don't mind a bit of tension here and there, but I don't get a kick out of watching Arsenal London playing Bayer München, beacuse I don't care about them. Nor do I care about Jimmy Spencer or Jeff Gordon, or Vettel, Alonso, Hamilton & co. Back in the days, I did care about Prost & Senna, Mansell & Lauda. Something has changed, and I don't really know what it is, but I'm sure it has to do with the cars. I can't get hot about some guys running behind a leather ball, or some taxi chauffeurs or pubescent boys running cookie-cutter F1 cars. There was a time when the drivers were part of something bigger, something nicer, something far more interesting. Then, I did care about them, because I could relate to that; in fact I tried to understand every facet of the sport, from the psychological setup of a driver to the temperature of a qualifying tyre. Now, I only see a few guys running around in circles. One of them is going to win, but I really couldn't care less who it will be. I'd probably doze off during the warm-up lap.

#47 Peter Morley

Peter Morley
  • Member

  • 1,910 posts
  • Joined: October 02

Posted 22 November 2012 - 09:56

Forget the money aspect - forget the ludicrous quantities of technical gizmos, when the lights go out on a Sunday afternoon, it's just a car race between 24 blokes in 24 cars and for edge of the seat, breath-taking tension, many (though not all) of the 2012 races have been filled with it.


Aren't you forgetting the guys sat behind computers and drivers sat in simulators (driving the same 'race') who are all analysing the race and determining their "driver's" strategy?
I agree that recent F1 can be entertaining but the idea that fuel and tyre management are a major part of the event doesn't seem right to me - especially when the tactical decisions are made outside of the car.