32 replies to this topic

[Viryfan]

Hi all,

I have a question, the regulation back then would be that the team in which the WDC of the previous year would take number 1 and 2 by switching its number with team previously holding the number 1 and 2.

So by that logic, Mclaren should've raced with the number 5 and 6 instead of 7 and 8 in 1993 while Benetton should've kept number 19 and 20.

My hypothesis is that FISA used Ricardo Patrese as a reference for the switch as he was the first driver in WDC classification in 1992 remaining on the grid in 1993. Then Mclaren took the first available number which were 7 and 8 following Brabham demise.


Can anyone have the information ?

[FLB]

I need to look in Renaud de Larborderie's L'année Formule 1 1993 because I think he mentions it. Something as simple as McLaren getting its historic numbers back from pre-1985 as a gesture of goodwill from Max Mosley to Ron Dennis, as there were a *lot* of tensions between the FIA and McLaren at the time, which culminated in the 1994 rules being passed by force.

[PlatenGlass]

The weirder one would be Benetton then since they had no history of 5/6.

Maybe with Brabham leaving (having been 7/8) they wanted to fill in all the gaps, as well as giving McLaren their more traditional numbers.

[FLB]

The weirder one would be Benetton then since they had no history of 5/6.

Maybe with Brabham leaving (having been 7/8) they wanted to fill in all the gaps, as well as giving McLaren their more traditional numbers.

And Riccardo Patrese had already worn no. 6 when he was with Brabham in 1983. Ecclestone has (had) always liked him.

[PayasYouRace]

I’ve seen it referenced that the numbers weren’t anywhere as permanent as it was made out, and the system was extremely flexible. Every few years they’re was a reshuffle to fill gaps.

 

I can see why, by 1993, McLaren would have preferred to have numbers they were more associated with, 7 & 8, rather than numbers normally associated with their main rivals at the time, Williams. Had the system been applied strictly, then they should have had 5 & 6, like they did back in 1974, and any team might have filled the gap left by Brabham.

 

I’d like to know who Zakspeed pissed off in 1988, to go from using 9 & 10 to be “demoted” to running 34 & 34 the following year with the newbies.

 

Another interesting hypothetical is what would have happened if Alain Prost had been tempted back into action by Ron Dennis in 1994. With entry list already published, would Williams and McLaren have done a last minute swap, or would the entry list have kept Williams 0 & 2 and McLaren 1 & 7?

[PlatenGlass]

I think I saw a preview thing that had the numbers as 1 and 7 if Prost was driving.

[NewMrMe]

I did read somewhere that the team vacating numbers 1 and 2 didn't have to swap numbers with team taking them, they were free to take any vacant pairs of numbers. McLaren chose to take 7 and 8 as they were available as a result of Brabham folding during the 1992 season. The same place also said as part of their entry teams were asked if they wanted to keep their current numbers or switch to a lower pair if available. Teams who opted to take a lower number would be allocated them in order of the previous constructor's championship. If you work through the number changes between 1992 and 1993 this system works.

 

1992 Constructors Championship and car numbers

1 Williams (5-6)

2 McLaren (1-2)

3 Benetton (19-20)

4 Ferrari (27-28)

5 Lotus (11-12)

6 Tyrrell (3-4)

7 Footwork (9-10)

8 Ligier (25-26)

9 March (16-17)

10 Scuderia Italia (21-22)

11 Jordan (32-33)

12 Minardi (23-24)

13 Larousse (29-30)

14 Fondmetal (14-15) Folded mid season freeing up their numbers

15 Brabham (7-8) Folded mid season freeing up their numbers

16 Andrea Moda (34-35) Folded mid season freeing up their numbers.

 

It should also be noted that March did initially enter the 1993 championship. They folded before the first race of the season.

If you switch Williams to 0-2 and McLaren to 7-8 and keep the rest of the 1992 numbers for the teams on the 1993 entry list you get:

 

0-2 Williams

3-4 Tyrrell

5-6 

7-8 McLaren

9-10 Footwork

11-12 Lotus

14-15

16-17 March

19-20 Benetton

21-22 Scuderia Italia

23-24 Minardi

25-26 Ligier

27-28 Ferrari

29-30 Larousse

32-33 Jordan

Unassigned - Sauber

 

Now go through the rest of the teams looking at whether or not they opted to change to a lower number if available.

Benetton - Opt to change. Taking the lowest available pair which is 5-6

Ferrari - Opt to keep 27 and 28.

Lotus, Tyrrell and Footwork - No lower numbers available so it doesn't make a difference what they chose to do.

Ligier - Opt to keep 25 and 26

March - Opt to keep 16 and 17

Scuderia Italia - Opt to keep 21 and 22

Jordan - Opt to switch to a lower number. The lowest available is 14-15.

Minardi - Opt to keep 23 and 24

Larousse - Opt to switch to a lower number. The lowest available is 19-20 vacated by Benetton.

Sauber - As a new team is assigned the lowest available pair of numbers, which is 29 and 30

 

Applying those changes gives us the below, which is the numbers on the initial 1993 entry prior to March's withdrawal.

 

0-2 Williams

3-4 Tyrrell

5-6 Benetton

7-8 McLaren

9-10 Footwork

11-12 Lotus

14-15 Jordan

16-17 March

19-20 Larousse

21-22 Scuderia Italia

23-24 Minardi

25-26 Ligier

27-28 Ferrari

29-30 Sauber

 

This explanation does appear to work. The big question mark as pointed out by PayAsYouRace is what happened to Zakspeed in 1989.

[PayasYouRace]

That’s the first time I’ve seen a working explanation. 1989 is odd. Not just for Zakspeed but also for AGS, Dallara and Rial. But that season had a lot of teams expanding to two cars, so it might have pushed the system to breaking point.

[ensign14]

Nearly all of the pre-qualifiers for 1989 were pushed to 31+.  The exceptions were Brabham (after their year out, getting their old numbers back, suggesting there was an agreement to keep them in abeyance pro tem), Scuderia Italia, and Osella, who filled in gaps further up.

[FLB]

Nearly all of the pre-qualifiers for 1989 were pushed to 31+.  The exceptions were Brabham (after their year out, getting their old numbers back, suggesting there was an agreement to keep them in abeyance pro tem), Scuderia Italia, and Osella, who filled in gaps further up.

The interesting bit about the two Italian teams is that Larini wore the 21 in 1988, so it would have made sense to have the *Osellas* with the 21 and 22 in 1989 (and not the Dallaras), but no...

[PayasYouRace]

The interesting bit about the two Italian teams is that Larini wore the 21 in 1988, so it would have made sense to have the *Osellas* with the 21 and 22 in 1989 (and not the Dallaras), but no...

But Osella were “promoted” to 17 & 18, after Arrows got Zakspeed’s old 9 & 10. Only to move to 14 when they went to one car in 1990.

[FLB]

But Osella were “promoted” to 17 & 18, after Arrows got Zakspeed’s old 9 & 10. Only to move to 14 when they went to one car in 1990.

I understand what you're saying, but it would have kept a certain continuity since 1986 and it would have avoided this: 

 

Why Do Italians Consider Friday the 17th Unlucky?

 

Why 17 is Unlucky in Italy - An American in Rome

[August]

I kinda miss this system. 27 and 28 on a Ferrari, or 5 and 6 on a Williams feels timeless like 3 on a Penske Indy car or 3 on RCR's Cup car.

[lustigson]

I kinda miss this system. 27 and 28 on a Ferrari, or 5 and 6 on a Williams feels timeless like 3 on a Penske Indy car or 3 on RCR's Cup car.

 

I also miss them.

 

For 2025 the grid would look like this, with old numbers:

 

1 + 2 : Red Bull

3 + 4 : Mercedes

5 + 6 : McLaren

7 + 8 : Williams

9 + 10 : Alpine

11 + 12 : Ferrari

14 + 15 : Aston Martin

16 + 17 : Kick Sauber

18 + 19 : Racing Bulls

20 + 21 : Haas

 

I've followed the logic of the WDC-losing constructor getting the WDC-winning constructor's numbers and vice versa since 1995 (the last season with old number).

 

However, for 1996 I tried to consolidate the teams, with the disappearance of Simtek, Pacific and Larrousse (after) the previous season.

 

Additionally, with the disappearing of e.g. Prost, Arrows, Toyota, and Marussia since then, I had to take some arbitrary decisions in those situations, too.

[jonpollak]

Mansell’s fault.
Taking the #1 to Indycar.

Then as New Mr.Me recollects.
Jp

[PayasYouRace]

Mansell didn’t take the No.1 anywhere. As reigning WCC and in the absence of a WDC, Williams were entitled to numbers 1 & 2 in both 1993 and 1994, like Lotus had done in 1974 (and countless F3000 teams had done). Their drivers didn’t want to carry it without earning it, hence Damon using 0, but it didn’t affect the rest of the grid.

Plus, Mansell earned his own Indycar No.1 for 1994.

[Risil]

I'm interested that Williams could've run the number 1 in 1993 and 1994 if they'd wanted too.

 

(I'm also sad that Lewis or Valtteri didn't run the number 0 in 2017 but anyway, water under the bridge.)

[Jellyfishcake]

I'm interested that Williams could've run the number 1 in 1993 and 1994 if they'd wanted too.

 

(I'm also sad that Lewis or Valtteri didn't run the number 0 in 2017 but anyway, water under the bridge.)

 

I didn't actually realise they had a choice on that front, cool to know.

 

And likewise, with 2017, that would have been fun. 
I know it wasn't perfect, but I wish we still had the numbering system from 1996.

 

I don't care for personalised driver numbers, I thought it was cool when a team did well one year and the next season they jumped massively in the order.

Like Sauber running 16 and 17 in 2001, then getting 7 and 8 for 2002.

Or Hakkinen running number 8 in his title winning season (a fun cool number) with DC number 7 because he finished higher the year before

Or McLaren with 22 and 23 after the shenanigans in 2007

 

Also, just because my brain perfers the logical uniformity it had

Edited by Jellyfishcake, 20 January 2025 - 18:59.

[garoidb]

Mansell didn’t take the No.1 anywhere. As reigning WCC and in the absence of a WDC, Williams were entitled to numbers 1 & 2 in both 1993 and 1994, like Lotus had done in 1974 (and countless F3000 teams had done). Their drivers didn’t want to carry it without earning it, hence Damon using 0, but it didn’t affect the rest of the grid.

Plus, Mansell earned his own Indycar No.1 for 1994.

 

I can imagine some barbed comments from Nigel if it had been put on Alain's car. He was right to avoid it when the guy who won it felt let down by the team's management and was still active elsewhere.

[PayasYouRace]

I can imagine some barbed comments from Nigel if it had been put on Alain's car. He was right to avoid it when the guy who won it felt let down by the team's management and was still active elsewhere.

Running the 0 was a brilliantly diplomatic move.

[midgrid]

Another interesting hypothetical is what would have happened if Alain Prost had been tempted back into action by Ron Dennis in 1994. With entry list already published, would Williams and McLaren have done a last minute swap, or would the entry list have kept Williams 0 & 2 and McLaren 1 & 7?

Earlier times, but John Watson got to run the #1 when subbing for the injured Niki Lauda in 1985. And Ronnie Peterson had the honour of running the #1 for Lotus for all of 1974 as reigning constructors' champions in the absence of Jackie Stewart.

[midgrid]

I'm surprised that Frank and Patrick didn't say, with their oft-mentioned disdain for driver management and focus on engine excellence, didn't just say "we won the championships with our cars, so drive with the #1, like it or not!"

[garoidb]

I'm surprised that Frank and Patrick didn't say, with their oft-mentioned disdain for driver management and focus on engine excellence, didn't just say "we won the championships with our cars, so drive with the #1, like it or not!"

 

The average number of their two cars was 1, the lowest ever I imagine.

[jonpollak]

Mansell didn’t take the No.1 anywhere. ……

Plus, Mansell earned his own Indycar No.1 for 1994.

I know that , Jeezus..
Can you not see the mirth in what I had concocted?
You’re far too literal in your approach to this stuff.

Jp

[PayasYouRace]

I know that , Jeezus..
Can you not see the mirth in what I had concocted?
You’re far too literal in your approach to this stuff.

Jp

I often explain things for newbies that might be reading.

[jonpollak]

How sweet.

FYI: There are no “newbies” here.
Jp

[jonpollak]

It’s not Reddit or X.
Jp

[Risil]

I often explain things for posterity when future generations read this forum to understand the glories of 21st century civilization.

[Myrvold]

I didn't actually realise they had a choice on that front, cool to know.

 

I would like some actual source on this. I found the opposite here: https://atlasf1.auto.../nov22/faq.html

 

Nothing is mentioned in the 1994 sporting regulations as far as I can see. However, these sporting regulations does include Appendix II which is the Entry Form. and there is nothing there that points to NewMrMe's "The same place also said as part of their entry teams were asked if they wanted to keep their current numbers or switch to a lower pair if available." either.

I am really curious on it though, but cannot find any 1993 regulations -.-

 

The fia historic db only has F1 technical regulations from 1982-1999. No sporting regulations.

Edited by Myrvold, Yesterday, 02:18.

[PayasYouRace]

I thought the numbers were more by convention than by regulation.

[NewMrMe]

Nothing is mentioned in the 1994 sporting regulations as far as I can see. However, these sporting regulations does include Appendix II which is the Entry Form. and there is nothing there that points to NewMrMe's "The same place also said as part of their entry teams were asked if they wanted to 

 

That is interesting. I can't remember where I saw it now. It wasn't anywhere official, but the combination of it being simple, plausible and could fully explain the 1993 numbers if worked through, made me think there might be something to it.

[EvilPhil II]

I thought the only rule for the numbers was the no.1 belonged to the drivers champion. The remainder of the numbers were largely historical and agreed between the teams.

[Myrvold]

That is interesting. I can't remember where I saw it now. It wasn't anywhere official, but the combination of it being simple, plausible and could fully explain the 1993 numbers if worked through, made me think there might be something to it.

 

I agree. And, while I was too young to, well, remember anything from 1993. My understanding is that the FIA did handle things even more unofficial then.