1069 replies to this topic

[DrivenF1]

What do you think are the greatest F1 Myths (stories/events/opinions believed to be true but are not)?

An example of this could be the 2012 grid was the best in history or tyres are more important now than they ever were etc. It might be more driver related like you feel a particular driver is/was rated highly in a certain aspect e.g. qualifying but you don't feel they are.

I'm planning on doing research and writing a series of articles about F1 myths and I'd like to get some opinions!

[MrAerodynamicist]

Genuine tyre wars.

What you actually get is one tyre that is far superior, and teams on other brands have to fight for the scraps.

[GodHimself]

The single biggest myth surrounding Formula 1 is that it is in any way relevant to the automotive industry.

[SR388]

That BAR-Honda was a crap team.

[MikeV1987]

The single biggest myth surrounding Formula 1 is that it is in any way relevant to the automotive industry.

F1 may not have direct relevance to the typical commuter car, but teams like Ferrari do use F1 tech for their newest road car models. La Ferrari is the latest example with its HY-KERS system.

[Collombin]

That Henri Toivonen lapped a Lancia rally car around the Estoril circuit fast enough to have qualifed 6th for that year's GP.

That Jack Brabham won the world championship in 1959 by pushing his car over the line in the final race at Sebring.

That Gilles Villeneuve was 11 seconds faster than everyone else in the rain at Watkins Glen in 1979.

That 1988 was the only season in which the driver with most total points did not become champion.

That Bernie Ecclestone was entered for the 1958 Monaco GP.

[mnmracer]

• The idea that 'the greatest Formula One drivers used to win by fighting through the field. Senna for instance actually only won two races from lower than second row.
  I actually wrote an article about that (in 2011), so feel free to use the information: http://f1stats.blog....from-the-front/
• The idea that nowadays cars are more important than 'in the old days'. Perhaps in the very early years, when everyone pretty much drove the same car, but you only have to look at the massive lap time differences to see that cars have always been important.
• Like above, the idea that 'back in the days' races were fought until the last lap. For instance, in 1982, the year with most different race winners, the average gap to the second placed driver was ~18 seconds, and a full minute to 3rd place. In only races was the gap less than 13 seconds. Compare that to 2011, this 'dominant' year, where the average gap to second was 7,5 seconds, and 18 to third.
• The idea that Red Bull has been dominant since 2010. (link: http://www.f1fanatic...nating-formula/)
• The idea that the 2011 RB7 was a dominant car. (link: http://www.f1fanatic...eason-compared/)

[mnmracer]

The single biggest myth surrounding Formula 1 is that it is in any way relevant to the automotive industry.

Like NASA is nothing but big boy toys?

[Skinnyguy]

Drivers being partially responsable for their teams general shape (engineer drivers ).

[David Lightman]

I once read that when driver aids were at their height in early 90s, McLaren set competitive lap times at Silverstone without a driver in the car. Always assumed it was nonsense but would love it to be true

[ensign14]

Ayrton Senna screwed Prost at San Marino 1989 - as the race was decided on aggregate times Senna was never behind.

Peter Collins gave up the world title by giving Fangio his car at Monza 1956 - he only gave up a remote chance of winning, which as it turned out would not have happened.

In the pre-war era of Grand Prix racing, the Tripoli GP 193whatever was fixed - there was an arrangement to share prize money, but the finishing order was not pre-arranged

[FerrariV12]

That Lotus were the first team to enter a World Championship race with commercial sponsorship.

[Skinnyguy]

Rain as car equalizer, so best drivers will emerge on the rain.

Actually rain is just another condition that sets a new pecking order, with different cars working well at different levels.

[SR388]

F1 was better 25 years ago than it is now.

[Collombin]

Peter Collins gave up the world title by giving Fangio his car at Monza 1956 - he only gave up a remote chance of winning, which as it turned out would not have happened.

Another myth I have read a couple of times about that race is that Jean Behra was also in contention for the title going into the final round! Even Chris Nixon's "Mon Ami Mate" makes that error.

[Santosdf]

Alonsos's 6 tenths

[FerrariV12]

F1 was better 25 years ago than it is now.

At the risk of going off topic - that one is a pure matter of opinion, and depends what you prefer from your racing (close racing and overtaking, technical freedom, good looking cars, pure competition where it doesn't matter if a guy does a good job and wins by a minute - lots of these things tend to conflict with each other). I preferred the late 80s/early 90s to now, that's not a myth, just my opinion, which I realise puts me in the minority.

[FordFan]

That experience makes one appreciably faster.

Fast is fast. Drivers that are slow on day one are slow on day 100.

[Massa]

The idea that F1 drivers are the best on the planet. For me it's the greatest myth ever.

[Jazza]

Drivers tracks.

[rhukkas]

The idea that F1 drivers are the best on the planet. For me it's the greatest myth ever.

x1000

[mnmracer]

The idea that results from someone's junior career are an indication of the driver's real full-grown talent, good or bad.

Edited by mnmracer, 19 March 2013 - 15:22.

[Sakae]

What do you think are the greatest F1 Myths (stories/events/opinions believed to be true but are not)?

- Grand Prix racing without the F1 organization would not exist
- F1 will be "better off" without automakers (manufacturers)

Edited by Sakae, 19 March 2013 - 15:24.

[Skinnyguy]

Drivers tracks.

This is good.

[DampMongoose]

At the risk of going off topic - that one is a pure matter of opinion, and depends what you prefer from your racing (close racing and overtaking, technical freedom, good looking cars, pure competition where it doesn't matter if a guy does a good job and wins by a minute - lots of these things tend to conflict with each other). I preferred the late 80s/early 90s to now, that's not a myth, just my opinion, which I realise puts me in the minority.

I agree, to me F1 was better 25 years ago, but that is my opinion and I don't expect everyone to agree, I would also suggest that from what I have read and seen etc, that F1 was even better 20 years before that...

Back to the topic, a few myths I would mention are:

That Ricardo Patrese was responsible for Ronnie's Monza crash...

That Stefan Bellof's performance in his (illegal) car at the 1984 Monaco GP was particularly special given he had the distinct advantage of a normally aspirated car that was also running underweight...

That the 1968 Formula 2 race at Hockenheim where Clark was killed, was a 'minor' event.

[darkkis]

Alonsos's 6 tenths

Also that Bernie Ecclestone has done something good for F1.

[DampMongoose]

Also that Bernie Ecclestone has done something good for F1.

Hmmm, go back to 1978 and the majority of teams would disagree with you...

[readonly]

The idea that BE has been a beneficial factor for F1.

Edit: ha ha. Just beaten.

Edited by readonly, 19 March 2013 - 15:57.

[pingu666]

The idea that results from someone's junior career are an indication of the driver's real full-grown talent, good or bad.

I think f1 is a very different environment to the lower levels (f3 etc etc), so not performing in f1 doesnt nessiarly mean the talents not there, its just the driver couldnt show it in f1, for whatever reason.

[readonly]

Hmmm, go back to 1978 and the majority of teams would disagree with you...

Today's fans disagree with BE.

[PayasYouRace]

That Henri Toivonen lapped a Lancia rally car around the Estoril circuit fast enough to have qualifed 6th for that year's GP.

That Jack Brabham won the world championship in 1959 by pushing his car over the line in the final race at Sebring.

That Gilles Villeneuve was 11 seconds faster than everyone else in the rain at Watkins Glen in 1979.

That 1988 was the only season in which the driver with most total points did not become champion.

That Bernie Ecclestone was entered for the 1958 Monaco GP.

Not necessarily picking on you, but could we say what the real situation was for those of us who don't know any better?

[metz]

That F1 is still a sport.

That drivers are picked on merrit.

That Max was somehow responsible for the tyre failures at Indianapolis.

That Mercedes started their own team because Ron Dennis and co. refused to hire a German driver.

[limit]

That Kimi burns engines

[abc]

Luck evens out throughout the season.

[PayasYouRace]

That F1 is still a sport.

I would say it still is, and has always been a mixture of sport, business and politics. I think the myth is that it was ever a pure sport.

[crbassassin]

The idea that Senna is a better overall driver than Prost.

[Wander]

That Kimi burns engines

Kimi's lack of motivation

[DampMongoose]

Today's fans disagree with BE.

I know they do, but that doesn't mean he hasn't ever done anything good for F1 because by creating FOTA in '78 he did... short lived but hey, believe me the current state of F1 is disgusting but he gave the teams power when they needed it which cannot be overlooked.

[DampMongoose]

The idea that Senna is a better overall driver than Prost.

[BoschKurve]

- F1 will be "better off" without automakers (manufacturers)

That's a purely subjective opinion. What I could say to that is that to date, there has been no benefit for auto manufacturers fielding teams as all of them have eventually been shut down. Winning World Championships doesn't even matter, just ask Renault how much value they got for those titles.

For me one of the biggest myths is that in a far, distant, and smoke-shrouded past, F1 and Grand Prix racing never saw the despicable pay driver involved in any way. A rather large, and very vocal contingent seems to think the idea, or even existence of a pay driver is somehow new to the sport.

[tifosi]

That Ron Dennis and Frank Williams don't employ team orders.

[Spillage]

That the opposition Schumacher faced in the early 2000s was of particularly low quality compared to other eras of the sport.

The idea that Red Bull in 2011 was an especially dominant car. You only have to compare the performance of Webber to those of Barrichello in 2002 or 2004 to recognise it wasn't on that kind of level.

[eronrules]

Kimi's lack of motivation

beaten

[Watkins74]

That Massa didn't beat Raikkonen in 2008.


That Santander tells Ferrari what to do.

[eronrules]

1. Max mosely has done nothing for F1

2. Drivers influence in Designing a Car

3. someone Being a 'Rain-Meister' (all good drivers are good on all surfaces, but people make legends out of some)

4. pure engine noise is most important than racing

[Collombin]

Not necessarily picking on you, but could we say what the real situation was for those of us who don't know any better?

That Henri Toivonen lapped a Lancia rally car around the Estoril circuit fast enough to have qualifed 6th for that year's GP.
I don't know the source for this one, but it's just so obviously bollocks.

That Jack Brabham won the world championship in 1959 by pushing his car over the line in the final race at Sebring.
He had won the title irrespective of whether he finished or not. Of course, without Moss retiring from the lead 3 times during the season with gearbox woes, then Stirling would have been champion by a considerable margin, but I digress.....

That Gilles Villeneuve was 11 seconds faster than everyone else in the rain at Watkins Glen in 1979.
The gap was about 9.5 seconds.

That 1988 was the only season in which the driver with most total points did not become champion.
1964: Graham Hill 41 pts, John Surtees 40 pts.

That Bernie Ecclestone was entered for the 1958 Monaco GP.
All the evidence points to this being untrue. Did he drive the car in practice? Yes, but so what?

[DampMongoose]

That the opposition Schumacher faced in the early 2000s was of particularly low quality compared to other eras of the sport.

How many ex-champions were on the grid in the early 2000's? 2 apart from Schumacher himself? With one of them in a BAR? Then Hakkinen left... Hardly a great crop was it?

[PayasYouRace]

That Henri Toivonen lapped a Lancia rally car around the Estoril circuit fast enough to have qualifed 6th for that year's GP.
I don't know the source for this one, but it's just so obviously bollocks.

That Jack Brabham won the world championship in 1959 by pushing his car over the line in the final race at Sebring.
He had won the title irrespective of whether he finished or not. Of course, without Moss retiring from the lead 3 times during the season with gearbox woes, then Stirling would have been champion by a considerable margin, but I digress.....

That Gilles Villeneuve was 11 seconds faster than everyone else in the rain at Watkins Glen in 1979.
The gap was about 9.5 seconds.

That 1988 was the only season in which the driver with most total points did not become champion.
1964: Graham Hill 41 pts, John Surtees 40 pts.

That Bernie Ecclestone was entered for the 1958 Monaco GP.
All the evidence points to this being untrue. Did he drive the car in practice? Yes, but so what?

Thanks. I've never seen any evidence for the Lancia one. Yeah, I also it's obviously just made up.

I think the Bernie one depends on how exactly entries were handled and are recorded on whether you'd consider it a myth or not.

[apexpredator]

That F1 drivers have 'fast reflexes'.

This is not true, they're fast decision-makers.

[eronrules]

That Massa didn't beat Raikkonen in 2008.

totally agree, no argument against it.

That Santander tells advises (and influences) Ferrari what to do.

i'm not sure this is a myth TBH

Edited by eronrules, 19 March 2013 - 17:01.