38 replies to this topic

[HistoryFan]

Ferrari is the most successful team in F1 history. But for me it's very surprising how less success they really have.

 

1950/1951: Alfa Romeo dominating

1952/1953: F2 rules what Ferrari really plays into their cards, not really opponents.

1954/1955: Mercedes dominating

1956 (-58): Fangio title winning, but was lucky to have Lancia cars... but was Maserati really still on their top? Was Maserati really in F1 with same ressources like Ferrari?

1959/1960: No chance against stronger British teams, small teams.

1961: New rules, again F2 rules, what again plays into Ferrari's hands

1962-1964: One titel with Surtees, what is very lucky

1965-1974: 10 years without a title what is very interesting as there were just some small manufactures and a lot of smaller British teams involved!

1975-1979: More titles, Lauda makes Ferrari more stronger

1980-1999: 21 years without a title, they missed the turbo engines, had a heavy V12 engine, they never had really aerodynamical break-throughs like Lotus, McLaren and Williams, but also were a bit unlucky especially 1982 with Villeneuve/Pironi tragedies.

2000-2007: strong Schumi years

2008-2017: 11 years without a title - Red Bull and Mercedes were stronger than Ferrari

 

So what do you think about Ferrari?

Do you think they had to have more success?

Why do you think they have so less success?

 

 

[Bloggsworth]

Ferrari in F1, a triumph of marketing over failure, specially considering their $100,000,000 built in bonus.

[Nonesuch]

If you focus exclusively on the title, there will be gaps. With all teams that are around for a long time.

 

They have won 16 constructor's titles. The second and third best team have 9 and 8. Third place has half of Ferrari's total.

 

They have won 229 races. The second and third best teams have 182 and 114 wins. Third place has less than half of Ferrari's total.

 

They have 727 podium finishes. The second and third best are at 485 and 312. Third place has way less than half of Ferrari's total.

 

They have 213 pole positions. The second and third best teams have 155 and 128.

 

Ferrari hasn't finished outside the top three more than a small number of times in decades.

 

Those second and third best teams? McLaren and Williams. Where are they? One is a backmarker, the other a refuge for pay-drivers.

 

Ferrari is without doubt the best team in F1's long history, not in the least because they've been around forever. But that doesn't mean they win everything all the time.

Edited by Nonesuch, 10 February 2018 - 16:26.

[D28]

Ferrari is the most successful team in F1 history. But for me it's very surprising how less success they really have.

 

 

 

1980-1999: 21 years without a title, they missed the turbo engines, had a heavy V12 engine, they never had really aerodynamical break-throughs like Lotus, McLaren and Williams, but also were a bit unlucky especially 1982 with Villeneuve/Pironi tragedies.

2000-2007: strong Schumi years

2008-2017: 11 years without a title - Red Bull and Mercedes were stronger than Ferrari

 

So what do you think about Ferrari?

Do you think they had to have more success?

Why do you think they have so less success?

1982-83 Ferrari scored back to back Constructors titles. Even 1982 despite losing both top drivers and employing 4 different ones they won the title. The 21 year drought story ignores this completely.

Edited by D28, 10 February 2018 - 16:45.

[Glengavel]

If you focus exclusively on the title, there will be gaps. With all teams that are around for a long time.

 

They have won 16 constructor's titles. The second and third best team have 9 and 8. Third place has half of Ferrari's total.

 

They have won 229 races. The second and third best teams have 182 and 114 wins. Third place has less than half of Ferrari's total.

 

They have 727 podium finishes. The second and third best are at 485 and 312. Third place has way less than half of Ferrari's total.

 

They have 213 pole positions. The second and third best teams have 155 and 128.

 

Ferrari hasn't finished outside the top three more than a small number of times in decades.

 

Those second and third best teams? McLaren and Williams. Where are they? One is a backmarker, the other a refuge for pay-drivers.

 

Ferrari is without doubt the best team in F1's long history, not in the least because they've been around forever. But that doesn't mean they win everything all the time.

 

In percentage terms, Ferrari have won ~24% of the races they entered and McLaren have won ~22%, so the gulf isn't as large as it looks.

[KWSN - DSM]

In percentage terms, Ferrari have won ~24% of the races they entered and McLaren have won ~22%, so the gulf isn't as large as it looks.

 

One could argue that 25 and 22 percent is a very impressive batting average, and that winning every 4th race must be prettu darn good over a 60 year span. Maybe that is just me.

 

[john aston]

They have won more races, been in the sport longer than anybody else , have always made their own engines and are the most charismatic team - in many people's view anyway , mine included . And few would disagree they make the sexiest sports cars on the planet, and have done so for most of their history . Not too shabby a record really. 

 

Not liking them ,and some do have a visceral dislike , is fine but the Cavallino Rampante's grand prix record speaks for itself- as long as one leaves out the shoulda woulda coulda element.    

[garoidb]

1982-83 Ferrari scored back to back Constructors titles. Even 1982 despite losing both top drivers and employing 4 different ones they won the title. The 21 year drought story ignores this completely.

 

Indeed. There were genuine challenges for the driver's title in 1983 and 1990, and to a lesser extent 1985. They also won the 1999 constructors title which was really the end of the drought. They also won races in most of those years, apart from 1980, 1986, 1991, 1992 and 1993. They were part of the story in most of those "drought" years. 

[D28]

What I admire most about Ferrari is that they answered the bell in 1950 (second race) and were racing last Nov in Abu Dhabi. In all those 68 seasons the number of missed F1 races can be counted on a few fingers. For Enzo and the current Team the next best thing to winning is racing. And that is what sport should really be about.

[HistoryFan]

In percentage terms, Ferrari have won ~24% of the races they entered and McLaren have won ~22%, so the gulf isn't as large as it looks.

 

But Ferrari is a manufacture, McLaren wasn't a long time...

Ferrari had mostly much more budget than the small British teams like McLaren (until Dennis take over the team).

 

[D-Type]

But Ferrari is a manufacture, McLaren wasn't a long time...

Ferrari had mostly much more budget than the small British teams like McLaren (until Dennis take over the team).

 

If you want to talk manufacturers, as opposed to garagistes, who are they?
Alfa Romeo

Ferrari

Maserati

Gordini (or were they just a garagiste using SIMCA engines?)

Lancia

Mercedes (or post-Brawn are they just a glorified garagiste?)
BRM

Vanwall

Porsche

Honda

Matra (but the Matra-Ford was a garagiste car)

Renault (but latterly they are a garagiste)

any more?

 

And to eliminate the longevity factor, rather than the absolute number of championships (Drivers' and Manufacturers'), or race wins these should be measured on a per year raced or per race started.

[KWSN - DSM]

But Ferrari is a manufacture, McLaren wasn't a long time...

Ferrari had mostly much more budget than the small British teams like McLaren (until Dennis take over the team).

 

 

So you have an agenda creating this thread, you should have made that more clear in your opening post.

 

[HP]

Were Ferrari's stats much, much better, then Formula 1 had morphed into Formula Ferrari long, long ago, because nobody else held a candle against them and lost interest.

 

By any way of looking at the numbers, Ferrari leads the statistics. Doesn't mean everybody likes the team, but that is to be expected. In fact I'd be worried about Ferrari, if everybody liked the team.

 

I remember Ron Dennis talking about the 20 year drought. Even during those years Ferrari was always at least 3rd best team in the WCC of any of those 20 seasons ( from the top of my head )  Now check on the 2 nearest teams on that.

 

So to answer the question of the OP. For me, Ferrari is the best team, even the stats show it.

[D28]

 

I remember Ron Dennis talking about the 20 year drought. Even during those years Ferrari was always at least 3rd best team in the WCC of any of those 20 seasons ( from the top of my head )  Now check on the 2 nearest teams on that.

 

So to answer the question of the OP. For me, Ferrari is the best team, even the stats show it.

A cursory check of the so called drought years 1984-98 (a bad patch is my term), shows Ferrari with 31 wins. Many respected outfits would give up eye teeth for such a record. If Ferrari had only competed in those 15 years they would still rank 8th in total wins and ahead of  Benetton, Tyrell, BRM, Cooper. March and so on.  I did not look at rebranded names and the older teams are disadvantaged by number of races, still not too shabby a record.

[WOT]

In percentage terms, Ferrari have won ~24% of the races they entered and McLaren have won ~22%, so the gulf isn't as large as it looks.

 

Certainly not doubting Ferrari's resolve and it's consistency to continue competing, but sorry, but I have this "thing" against statistics. Statistics can be used to tell any story you wish. But statistics are meaningless until placed in context.

 

Totally OT but to prove a point about statistics:

Michael Schumacher is the statistical Champion of F1, but:

 

Percentage of wins per starts:

M Schumacher - 37%

J Clark - 35%

J M Fangio - 47%

 

Percentage of wins per starts excluding mechanical failure:

M Schumacher - 40%

J Clark - 52%

J M Fangio - 60%

 

Percentage of Pole positions:

M Schumacher - 27%

J Clark - 46%

J M Fangio - 57%

 

Percentage of Fastest lap per starts:

M Schumacher - 31%

J Clark - 39%

J M Fangio - 45%

 

Percentage of Fastest lap per starts excluding mechanical failure:

M Schumacher - 33%

J Clark - 58%

J M Fangio - 58%

 

Percentage of Laps lead per laps raced:

M Schumacher - 37%

J Clark - 49%

J M Fangio - 44%

 

OK, continue....

[john aston]

Oh that is a slippery slope ,and when you hit the bottom you realise that if Baghetti had retired after his debut GP win , he was the best of all. Which , manifestly , he wasn't. The only stat that means much is who has won the most - and you know the answer to that. 

 

But who cares really? I will admit to loving the flawed , mercurial  and near operatic SEFAC even more when they are making a total hash of things ...  

Edited by john aston, 11 February 2018 - 07:48.

[HistoryFan]

If you want to talk manufacturers, as opposed to garagistes, who are they?
Alfa Romeo

Ferrari

Maserati

Gordini (or were they just a garagiste using SIMCA engines?)

Lancia

Mercedes (or post-Brawn are they just a glorified garagiste?)
BRM

Vanwall

Porsche

Honda

Matra (but the Matra-Ford was a garagiste car)

Renault (but latterly they are a garagiste)

any more?

 

And to eliminate the longevity factor, rather than the absolute number of championships (Drivers' and Manufacturers'), or race wins these should be measured on a per year raced or per race started.

 

Mercedes has a much more higher percentage of wins: 42:24%

The same for Vanwall

 

Alfa Romeo was dominating Ferrari, it was just the 80s, when they won nothing. But I think that's because they didn't put that much money into F1 than Ferrari.

 

[stuartbrs]

I like how the modern Ferrari resembles the Ferrari I liked in the 80`s.. mostly fast, occasionally very competitive.. 

I hated the Schumacher years from 2001-2006. 

I liked the Schumacher years from 1997-99 (I`m talking about Ferrari not the driver).

[Charlieman]

When trying to write generalisations about the history of Ferrari in single seater racing, I have always found that they unravel quickly. In the 1950s for example, Enzo Ferrari became annoyed by criticism of customer F2 cars and ceased single seater sales. Sort of. The team continued to support Peter Whitehead's private cars and supplied F1 cars to favoured friends of the company.

 

Professional writers have found generalisations difficult too. In the Hans Tanner/Doug Nye Ferrari reference, some of the chapter themes (e.g. Dino V6 F1/F2/Tasman cars) wander a bit. The themes exist as they are, I guess, because a taxonomy of Ferrari single seaters is so difficult to construct.

 

The only generalisation which sticks is that Ferrari have made some weird decisions in engineering, driver politics etc over the years. With hindsight, we can have an opinion about some. I'd argue that F1 development with the (ghastly) 312T5 made sense and that Ferrari were quick to realise that turbo technology was the way ahead. Everything took too long and Ferrari were out-developed by other teams, leading to one of the lean periods in WDC wins. However the logic behind the decision to build V8 and V12 1.5 litre engines in the 1960s defeats me. Either would have been a good enough improvement if the V6 had reached end of development.

 

There's another generalisation, perhaps -- that Ferrari may have been the best team in F1 for more periods of time. But that is a generalisation of wider F1 history rather than of Ferrari.

 

Ferrari lost its magic appeal to me a few years ago, probably before the Schumacher era. In sympathy with John Aston's comment at #16, I still find myself saying "What on earth made them do that?" when looking back at the 3 litre F1 rules period before 1974.

[lustigson]

2000-2007: strong Schumi years

2008-2017: 11 years without a title - Red Bull and Mercedes were stronger than Ferrari

 

I think your entire list needs nuancing, as the posters above have added.

 

My 2¢ about the last 18 years:

• Ferrari were dominant in 2000-'02, and '04, and strong in '03, and '05-'07.
• The 'Schumi years' were in fact 1996-2006 which gave the team 6 WCCs in a row as well as 4 runner-ups and a third place, in addition to 5 WDCs in a row, plus 2 runner-ups (not including '97), 2 thirds, and arguably a certain WDC lost in '99.
• After Schumacher's departure, Massa only lost out to Hamilton in the final corner of the final lap of the final race; Ferrari did take the WCC, though.
• Between 2010 and 2014, with Alonso, the team took 'only' one runner-up spot and 3 thirds in the WCC, but narrowly lost out on 2 WDCs in the final races, in addition to an other, more distant runner-up spot.
• Since 2015, the team have been runner-up in the WCC twice, and third once, albeit far behind Mercedes.

On a side note: Ferrari was a racing team first, car manufacturer second. I would reckon this was the case until at least the mid-1970s, but I'm no expert in this regard.

 

So, what was your point again?  

Edited by lustigson, 11 February 2018 - 16:17.

[john aston]

.

[On a side note: Ferrari was a racing team first, car manufacturer second. I would reckon this was the case until at least the mid-1970s, but I'm no expert in this regard.][

 

 

 I 'd guess slightly earlier, with the Dino 206/246 in the late Sixties. It  was a car which had the 911's territory in its sights as well as homologating the V6 , with help from Fiat's two takes on the Dino, both nearly as sublime as the pukka Dino. Pedantic point - the Dino was not sold as a Ferrari Dino but purely as a Dino but a rose by any other name and all that .... 

[Charlieman]

On a side note: Ferrari was a racing team first, car manufacturer second. I would reckon this was the case until at least the mid-1970s, but I'm no expert in this regard.

 

Dunno. Lotus and Brabham and Cooper raced in the same disciplines as Ferrari. 

[F1LH]

The only true lulls I can think of when considering the history of Ferrari would have to be the late-60s (when Enzo was more concerned with his beloved sports car team than F1) & the early 80s. Apart from that they've regularly been in the top 5 at the end of almost every season.

[Glengavel]

 

Certainly not doubting Ferrari's resolve and it's consistency to continue competing, but sorry, but I have this "thing" against statistics. Statistics can be used to tell any story you wish. But statistics are meaningless until placed in context.

 

Totally OT but to prove a point about statistics:

Michael Schumacher is the statistical Champion of F1, but:

 

Percentage of wins per starts:

M Schumacher - 37%

J Clark - 35%

J M Fangio - 47%

 

Percentage of wins per starts excluding mechanical failure:

M Schumacher - 40%

J Clark - 52%

J M Fangio - 60%

 

Percentage of Pole positions:

M Schumacher - 27%

J Clark - 46%

J M Fangio - 57%

 

Percentage of Fastest lap per starts:

M Schumacher - 31%

J Clark - 39%

J M Fangio - 45%

 

Percentage of Fastest lap per starts excluding mechanical failure:

M Schumacher - 33%

J Clark - 58%

J M Fangio - 58%

 

Percentage of Laps lead per laps raced:

M Schumacher - 37%

J Clark - 49%

J M Fangio - 44%

 

OK, continue....

 

 

The reliability statistics are interesting, aren't they? It would be interesting to project modern day reliability figures on to the results from the 1960s and predict how things might have turned out differently.

[WOT]

The reliability statistics are interesting, aren't they? It would be interesting to project modern day reliability figures on to the results from the 1960s and predict how things might have turned out differently.

 

I think I'll leave that for someone else to ponder....

[uechtel]

But Ferrari is a manufacture, McLaren wasn't a long time...

Ferrari had mostly much more budget than the small British teams like McLaren (until Dennis take over the team).

 

What is the better fruit, apples or pears?

 

Such comparisons are nonsense. You can say, they have the bigger budget, so they are in advantage. On the other hand, McLaren and the other British 'garagistes' could concentrate on chassis development only and did not have to bother about the engine part at all. Also they were in total numerical advantage (2 cars against 20 or so), so in times when reliability was far from perfect such odds could make the difference.

 

Now to your original list

 

1950/1951: Alfa Romeo dominating - Ferrari strongly coming up, in 1951 only just beaten

1952/1953: F2 rules what Ferrari really plays into their cards, not really opponents. - Ferrari dominance was even greater in F1, that is why they switched to F2

1954/1955: Mercedes dominating - agreed, Ferrari nowhere, but Mercedes was an automobile works, Ferrari only a 'garagiste'...

1956 (-58): Fangio title winning, but was lucky to have Lancia cars... a win is a win

1958: Hawthorn champion because of Ferrari´s better reliability than the Vanwalls

1959/1960: No chance against stronger British teams, small teams.

1961: New rules, again F2 rules, what again plays into Ferrari's hands - the rules were known, can you blame Ferrari, because the others weren´t prepared?

1962-1964: One titel with Surtees, what is very lucky - quite a lot of titles of other makes were 'very lucky'. What is luck, what is deserved?

1965-1974: 10 years without a title what is very interesting as there were just some small manufactures and a lot of smaller British teams involved! - Ferrari was distracted with sports cars, also the death of Bandini was a setback. In 1974 they already came very close

1975-1979: More titles, Lauda makes Ferrari more stronger

1980-1999: 21 years without a title, they missed the turbo engines, had a heavy V12 engine, they never had really aerodynamical break-throughs like Lotus, McLaren and Williams, but also were a bit unlucky especially 1982 with Villeneuve/Pironi tragedies. - In 1982 they won the constructor´s championship and would have won the driver title as well if Pironi hadn´t crashed. In 1990 Prost was strongly catching up until.... 1999 Schumacher prevented from winning the title because of his accident, but even Irvine came very close

2000-2007: strong Schumi years

2008-2017: 11 years without a title - Red Bull and Mercedes were stronger than Ferrari - In 2008 Massa champion for a couple of seconds...

 

Now let´s do the same list with McLaren, Williams, Red Bull or Mercedes...

[kayemod]

In a somewhat contradictory way, I've always been a closet Ferrari fan. Certainly no admirer of their over protection by the authorities, their rules veto, extra payments etc, and they way the team and drivers, Michael Schumacher more than any of the others, escaped fitting punishment for serious transgressions. Also whilst admiring them, their road cars have never turned me on, even after Nick Mason's wife Annette once insisted I sit in his GTO at Goodwood one year, and if we're honest, some of their earlier products were quite agricultural. On the plus side though, most of their race cars have looked good, and until strangled by turbos, they sounded even better. No other team post WW2 has had Ferrari's charisma, and 'bad' characters have always fascinated me, Enzo Ferrari perhaps most of all. A difficult and contradictory person, but what achievements, and what a remarkable character he was. It's true that their on-track success has at times been somewhat patchy, but for me their history and longevity fully justifies their current status.

 

Maybe I should have written this in Enzo's violet ink.

 

  .

[Eric Dunsdon]

Statistics and percentages don't mean a lot to me. Politicians use them!. For me Ferrari are the only team that interests me in todays Formula One. I am not a natural Ferrari supporter, my original interest in the sport having been inspired by the Alfa Romeo 158/159's and Maserati 4CLT's of the late 1940's and early 1950's. The British Grand Prix of 1951 was a dark day for me!. Over the years  those marques fell by the wayside whereas Ferrari carried on,  bearing the prancing horse insignia that I had seen on the pre-war Alfa's pictured in the books that I read as a lad. That badge remains as rare a link with the past and is one that I can still  relate to. And so , even to an old Alfa Romeo, Maserati, Lancia and OSCA fan like me, Ferrari are the most important team in Formula One, or dare I say Grand Prix racing .

[john winfield]

In the 1960s and 1970s there was an undeniable aura surrounding a Ferrari transporter arriving at a venue, and the team then setting up shop in the paddock. Perhaps there still is, but I'm not so sure. 

The racetrack ambition of Ferrari in those days was quite remarkable. For many years the racing team was trying to win simultaneously Grand Prix, the Formula 1 World Championship, Le Mans and the World Sportscar Championship. If things became too easy they'd also have a go at Formula 2, the European Hillclimb Championship, GT racing and a spot of Can-Am. These may not all have been full works teams but you have to admire them for having a go, particularly when most of the cars looked and sounded so beautiful.

[Sterzo]

...or dare I say Grand Prix racing .

 

Loud applause for that statement. When I saw the opening sentence "Ferrari is the most successful team in F1 history" the nitpicking pedant in me (which is actually most of me) thought: there is no "F1 history." Many formulae were devised throughout the course of racing, and in the forties they just happened to call the Grand Prix rules Formula One. There is no reason for the assumption made by so many magazines and books that racing history started then, rather than in 1894.

 

Apologies for going off topic, HistoryFan, but you've accidentally let my hobby horse out of its stable.

Edited by Sterzo, 12 February 2018 - 15:59.

[46700]

If you focus exclusively on the title, there will be gaps. With all teams that are around for a long time.

 

They have won 16 constructor's titles. The second and third best team have 9 and 8. Third place has half of Ferrari's total.

 

They have won 229 races. The second and third best teams have 182 and 114 wins. Third place has less than half of Ferrari's total.

 

They have 727 podium finishes. The second and third best are at 485 and 312. Third place has way less than half of Ferrari's total.

 

They have 213 pole positions. The second and third best teams have 155 and 128.

 

Ferrari hasn't finished outside the top three more than a small number of times in decades.

 

Those second and third best teams? McLaren and Williams. Where are they? One is a backmarker, the other a refuge for pay-drivers.

 

Ferrari is without doubt the best team in F1's long history, not in the least because they've been around forever. But that doesn't mean they win everything all the time.

IT would be interesting how Ferrari would have fared without the regs being slanted in their direction & also if their slice of the GP money cake had been equal to others&dependent on success

Edited by 46700, 01 May 2018 - 09:25.

[JoBo]

But Ferrari is a manufacture, McLaren wasn't a long time...

Ferrari had mostly much more budget than the small British teams like McLaren (until Dennis take over the team).

 

 

Not the fault of Ferrari!

 

JoBo

[JoBo]

IT would be interesting how Ferrari would have fared without the regs being slanted in their direction & also if their slice of the GP money cake had been equal to others&dependent on success

 

It is what it is - and it was what it was! The rest is speculation.

 

JoBo

[JoBo]

What is the better fruit, apples or pears?

 

Such comparisons are nonsense. You can say, they have the bigger budget, so they are in advantage. On the other hand, McLaren and the other British 'garagistes' could concentrate on chassis development only and did not have to bother about the engine part at all. Also they were in total numerical advantage (2 cars against 20 or so), so in times when reliability was far from perfect such odds could make the difference.

 

Now to your original list

 

1950/1951: Alfa Romeo dominating - Ferrari strongly coming up, in 1951 only just beaten

1952/1953: F2 rules what Ferrari really plays into their cards, not really opponents. - Ferrari dominance was even greater in F1, that is why they switched to F2

1954/1955: Mercedes dominating - agreed, Ferrari nowhere, but Mercedes was an automobile works, Ferrari only a 'garagiste'...

1956 (-58): Fangio title winning, but was lucky to have Lancia cars... a win is a win

1958: Hawthorn champion because of Ferrari´s better reliability than the Vanwalls

1959/1960: No chance against stronger British teams, small teams.

1961: New rules, again F2 rules, what again plays into Ferrari's hands - the rules were known, can you blame Ferrari, because the others weren´t prepared?

1962-1964: One titel with Surtees, what is very lucky - quite a lot of titles of other makes were 'very lucky'. What is luck, what is deserved?

1965-1974: 10 years without a title what is very interesting as there were just some small manufactures and a lot of smaller British teams involved! - Ferrari was distracted with sports cars, also the death of Bandini was a setback. In 1974 they already came very close

1975-1979: More titles, Lauda makes Ferrari more stronger

1980-1999: 21 years without a title, they missed the turbo engines, had a heavy V12 engine, they never had really aerodynamical break-throughs like Lotus, McLaren and Williams, but also were a bit unlucky especially 1982 with Villeneuve/Pironi tragedies. - In 1982 they won the constructor´s championship and would have won the driver title as well if Pironi hadn´t crashed. In 1990 Prost was strongly catching up until.... 1999 Schumacher prevented from winning the title because of his accident, but even Irvine came very close

2000-2007: strong Schumi years

2008-2017: 11 years without a title - Red Bull and Mercedes were stronger than Ferrari - In 2008 Massa champion for a couple of seconds...

 

Now let´s do the same list with McLaren, Williams, Red Bull or Mercedes...

 

Exactly! Ferrari is a legend (with strong ties even to the prewar aera) and the rest (despite Mercedes) are just teams that were more or less successful.

 

JoBo

[D-Type]

Nobody has commented on this query from the first post:

~ but was Maserati really still on their top? Was Maserati really in F1 with same resources like Ferrari? ~

 

Maserati policy was totally different to Ferrari.  Maserati existed to manufacture and sell racing and sports cars.  They only reluctantly ran a factory team and even then many "factory entries" were privately owned cars entered by the works to extract more starting money or because race regulations limited the entry to factory entries.  On the other hand, Ferrari has traditionally existed simply to race.  Sales to customers, whether of single seaters, sports-racers or road cars, were intended primarily to provide extra funding for the Scuderia.  Until they were bought out by Fiat, of course.

[chr1s]

The only true lulls I can think of when considering the history of Ferrari would have to be the late-60s (when Enzo was more concerned with his beloved sports car team than F1) & the early 80s. Apart from that they've regularly been in the top 5 at the end of almost every season.

I would add 1973 to this list,  they even temporarily withdrew, although not for long.

[JoBo]

Nobody has commented on this query from the first post:

Maserati policy was totally different to Ferrari.  Maserati existed to manufacture and sell racing and sports cars.  They only reluctantly ran a factory team and even then many "factory entries" were privately owned cars entered by the works to extract more starting money or because race regulations limited the entry to factory entries.  On the other hand, Ferrari has traditionally existed simply to race.  Sales to customers, whether of single seaters, sports-racers or road cars, were intended primarily to provide extra funding for the Scuderia.  Until they were bought out by Fiat, of course.

 

In 1957 Maserati was definitely on their top!

In F1 they had their magic 250F - a car with much better handling and better balanced than any of the Ferrari cars.

With Sports Cars it was -almost- the same. their brutish 450S could steamroll any Ferrari like in Sebring and Sweden.

 

General problem with Maserati was that they spread their sources too much on unreliable project like the 350S (dry- and wet-sump versions) and fuel injection in F1 and Sports Cars. This was clearly too much for such a small company. Sometimes their cars were absolutely on the top and next week they failed completely. All this due to lack of reliability and poor preparation etc. 

 

JoBo

Edited by JoBo, 01 May 2018 - 23:07.

[AJCee]

But were the early 80s such a lull? Race wins in 81, very competitive in 82, constructors champions 83, second in 84 to the all conquering McLaren, Alboreto second to Prost in 85.
That looks pretty decent to me.
Awful in 86 granted, but after that they were about where they were through the early 80s again.

[airbox]

Even in an 'awful' year (1986) they finished 4th in the constructors title - only beaten by Williams, McLaren and Lotus

Johansson was 5th for the drivers championship - only beaten by Prost, Mansell, Piquet and Senna.

No doubt the F186 was far from the best car Ferrari produced, but there are a lot of teams that would be delighted with those results. 

 

Looking back the only really poor seasons they have had over the last 40 years would be 1973, 1980 and 1992 - no wins and no podiums either