42 replies to this topic

[Don Capps]

I am really not sure where comments on this belongs, but after mulling it over for a few days, I thought it might best be placed here.

Realizing that the success in "The Most Successful F1 Cars Ever" means the CSI/FISA World Championship for Drivers/FIA F1 World Championship, which meant, in turn, excluding any successes in those events outside the CSI/FISA/FIA championships -- which is always the implication of course, there was a statement at the end of the article that somewhat stumped me:

2. Modern day 'B' versions are not listed as separate chassis as usually only comparatively minor modifications have been made. Further back in time B versions are listed separately wherever relevant as they were often more different from each other as successive years' chassis in the modern era. If the different versions of these chassis are listed as one, the top ten would read 1: McLaren MP4/2, MP4/2B, MP4/2C, 2 wins; 2: Lotus 72C, 72D, 72E, 20 wins; 3: Williams FW11, FW11B, 18 wins; 4: Williams FW14, FW14B 17 wins; 5: McLaren MP4/5, MP4/5B 16 wins; 6: McLaren M23, 16 wins; 7: McLaren MP4/4, 15 wins; 8: Ferrari F2002, 15 wins; 9: Ferrari 500: 14 wins; 10: Lotus 25, 14 wins.

Not seeing the Lotus Type 72 listed anywhere was a real surprise until I saw this footnote. It would have been better to have had a better idea of the criteria prior to the listing in my opinion. Naturally, there are those who could argue that the Ferrari 500 doesn't belong on the list since it was an F2 car. Given that the McLaren M23 was extensively modified over its career in much the same matter as the Lotus Type 72, I better understand why I avoid such articles when and where possible!

MY view is the "B" specification and so forth is fairly irrelevant when viewing a type in the overall sense. In the case of Lotus, one could invoke the mystifying "25B" or "25C" designations that were used in the Press which the team never used. Indeed, in the case of the Type 72 the team often avoided used the type number altogether, the Official Designation being the John Player Special.

Or is this just another case of the usual inability to just leave well enough alone?

[dretceterini]

Where is the Lotus 49 (all versions) ?

[leadhead]

I totally agree with with you. I checked in old magazines photos of the mcl mp4/2 and save for the wings and some minor changes it was the same car fro 84,85 and 86,There was an article by the late Rob Walker stating mcl would be in troble in 86 for using what was basically a 2 seasons old design.

[Gary C]

'Indeed, in the case of the Type 72 the team often avoided used the type number altogether, the Official Designation being the John Player Special.'
Really, I thought it was the team itself who designated the car 'C', 'D' and 'E' and that it was John Player who called it the JPS??

[Roger Clark]

Should the Lotus 33 be included with the 25?

[Don Capps]

Originally posted by Roger Clark
Should the Lotus 33 be included with the 25?

I thought the same thing.... especially since the chassis numbers continued in sequence.

[Vitesse2]

Originally posted by Don Capps


I thought the same thing.... especially since the chassis numbers continued in sequence.

That makes three of us ... and you could use the same argument for the 76, which continued on from the 72 numbering sequence, even if they did insist on calling them JPSs at the time.

[Roger Clark]

And should a 1957 Maserati be regarded as the same type as a 1954 model?

[Doug Nye]

Having identified the difficulty in laying down ground rules about what constitutes "a car" in the sense of a generic design series perhaps there's rather more merit in seeking the most successful individual Formula 1 car thus far?

Ferrari 500 chassis '5', Tyrrell '003', Niki Lauda's 1984 McLaren MP4/2 whose chassis serial I forget - each are candidates... Of course, one now encounters the difficulty of what constitutes "an individual car" - taking into account swopped chassis etc, etc, etc.... And that's where it can become quite intriguing....

Then if we widen the notion - what about the most successful individual pre-war GP car - or the most successful National Championship/Indy car?????? Any interest???????

DCN

[Bladrian]

Doug makes a very valid point - trying to identify a type that retained a unique id long enough could lead to .... acrimony and argument.

But a particular chassis - now there would be a worthwhile project. And it would have real impact on the value of such a car, assuming it still exists, of course.

[Don Capps]

I'm game!

[Bladrian]

This could be fun.

Ground rules, gents; the topic states F1 cars, but surely that would rule out some cars with racing histories more significant than even F1/F2 cars?

For instance - and let me put my tentative nomination in straight away - ERA chassis number R4B. I'm not quite sure how many years, and in how many events, that particular chassis has competed in ..... but it's a LOT. And it's had one or two notable pilots along the way, as well.

[panzani]

IMVeryHO not only wins should be counted for this project.
If a car had won, let's say, 14 races and had also 7 seconds and 6 thirds it is more succesful than a car with 15 wins and a some DNFs, isn't it? This way the years with absolute absence of competition will have less weight on the final results, I think.

[bira]

Why not create an agreed weighting for this? Say, give weight to reliability, to wins, to podiums, to pole positions, to fastest laps, etc. Once you establish the 'formula', decide on the definition of a 'car'. And then get working on the definitive list of best cars ever

[DOHC]

Originally posted by dretceterini
Where is the Lotus 49 (all versions) ?

12 GP wins, plus a few nonchampionship events. Plenty of Tasman series wins for eaxmple.

[biercemountain]

Why not simply add up all the points a car accumulated during it's career and divide by the number of races it was entered in?

[Racer.Demon]

So I presume this interesting exercise would exclude cars that were "rebuilt" after a write-off but got the same chassis number, and cars that got their chassis number plate carried over from another car for some reason or another?;)

[Geoff E]

Originally posted by Bladrian
For instance - and let me put my tentative nomination in straight away - ERA chassis number R4B. I'm not quite sure how many years, and in how many events, that particular chassis has competed in ..... but it's a LOT. And it's had one or two notable pilots along the way, as well.

It's still winning Ade! http://www.shelsley-...rts/july03.html

[Bladrian]

I think we better start looking for the SECOND most successful car .....

[QdfV]

Originally posted by bira
Why not create an agreed weighting for this? Say, give weight to reliability, to wins, to podiums, to pole positions, to fastest laps, etc. Once you establish the 'formula', decide on the definition of a 'car'. And then get working on the definitive list of best cars ever

And now how do you take the driver out of the equation?

[Don Capps]

Originally posted by biercemountain
Why not simply add up all the points a car accumulated during it's career and divide by the number of races it was entered in?

Why should this be confined to only CSI/FISA WCD/FIA F1 WDC events? I certainly don't think it should.

[Doug Nye]

Oh Gawd....

Don't for goodness sake end up with one of these crumby statistical scoring lists which 'prove' through some numerical rating that the Skoda Penetrator Mark XXIV is - startlingly - the shock winner of the Most Successful Racing Car Ever award.

Might I earnestly suggest that outright victory is the real arbiter and - what's more - outright victory at premier level ONLY. As for the problem of when is an individual car truly that individual and when is it changed beyond redemption by modification ... well, that IS another problem...

DCN

[Racer.Demon]

Originally posted by Doug Nye
Don't for goodness sake end up with one of these crumby statistical scoring lists which 'prove' through some numerical rating that the Skoda Penetrator Mark XXIV is - startlingly - the shock winner of the Most Successful Racing Car Ever award.

Being the proud owner of a rather brisk Skoda I wouldn't be surprised if it is. etc.

But seriously, I agree with the winner-takes-all philosophy when it comes to defining "success".

[panzani]

Originally posted by Don Capps

Why should this be confined to only CSI/FISA WCD/FIA F1 WDC events? I certainly don't think it should.

Me either; I think a successful car belongs to the motorsports itself and not to the Organisations/Federations' championships. Non-official races as well as Festivals should be counted also.

By the way I was remembering the very first time I closely saw a Ferrari, it was a 512S, in the Brazilian 1,000 Miles, Interlagos, in 1970. Moretti and Manfredine were the pilots; they didn't win but they'd flyied after a 3-hours stay in the pits [fuel injection problems]. Was it a winner car? I am sure it was, but 3 hours with the mechanics was too much to cope with... This Ferrari won in Sebring, IIRC, with Andretti/Merzario. And it is probably still running nowadays, unless it is in a museum.

[panzani]

Originally posted by Doug Nye
Oh Gawd....

Don't for goodness sake end up with one of these crumby statistical scoring lists which 'prove' through some numerical rating that the Skoda Penetrator Mark XXIV is - startlingly - the shock winner of the Most Successful Racing Car Ever award.

Might I earnestly suggest that outright victory is the real arbiter and - what's more - outright victory at premier level ONLY. As for the problem of when is an individual car truly that individual and when is it changed beyond redemption by modification ... well, that IS another problem...

DCN

I think you are right, it will avoid misinterpretations, even though, if we come to the two McLaren's chassis driven by Senna and Prost by two years in a row, they were as successful as a car could be, and were only beaten by themselves or DNFs.
As long as this is too difficult to weight, I must admit, I will change my mind and stand with you, only wins should count: success = wins.

[Roger Clark]

May I respectfully suggest that we're in danger of spending more time discussing criteria for judging successful cars than in discussing the cars themselves? Let everybody nominate whatever they wish, recognising that these things are wholly subjective and an inconclusive debate is more interesting than the lists so beloved of a well known magazine.

I would like to nominate Lotus 25 R4, winner in 1963 of the Grands Prix of Belgium, Holland, the ACF, Great Britain, Italy, Mexico, and South Africa. It also won the non-championship Gold Cup at Oulton Park. It also finished second in Germany and third in the USA following the loss of a lap at the start. All these were driven by you-know-who.

In 1964 it passed to Pete Arundell who achieved a fine string of results before his terrible accident in a Formula 2 race at Reims.

[canon1753]

I would nominate McLaren MP4/2-1. Lauda won the 1984 WDC in the car and ran all 16 races in 84 with it (which would be a rarity probably in any age). Just on wins it only has 5, but it alone did win the WDC.

[Bladrian]

I know I've already nominated a chassis, but I've been thinking about another car with a long history of winning .... David Piper has a Ferrari 250 GTO that he's been campaigning for yonks, and with a great deal of success. It raced here in South Africa as well. Unfortunately I have no idea what it's chassis number is. Anybody out there know?

(I'd be bloody flabbergasted if you gentlemen didn't know it! )

[David McKinney]

Don't know about this Bladrian
Perhaps you mean his 250LM?

[Bladrian]

Originally posted by David McKinney
Don't know about this Bladrian
Perhaps you mean his 250LM?

I'm pretty sure it was a GTO, David. I definitely remember Piper driving it at the Kyalami 9 hours, with a local driver (as was his wont). Tony Maggs, or Peter de Klerk, perhaps?

[Roger Clark]

Another for the Golden Book is the Ford GT40, 1075. In 1968 it won the BOAC 500, the Spa 1000kms, the Watkins Glen 6 hours and the Le Mans 24 hours; in 1969 the Sebring 12 hours and the Le Mans 24 hours. In all it covered almost 12,000 racing miles. Undoubtedly the most historic GT40 and a contender for the most successful racing sports cr of all.

[David Beard]

Originally posted by David McKinney
Don't know about this Bladrian
Perhaps you mean his 250LM?

Yes, this one....

[Bladrian]

Well, at least the question by David forced me to go looking - and I actually found the chassis number of the car I'm referring to. Ferrari 250 GTO #3767; and Tony Maggs was Piper's co-driver at the 1963 Kyalami 9-hour race. It won.
Photo is Schlegelmilch, Nurburgring 1000km, 1963.

[David McKinney]

Sorry Bladrian, I was fooled by your reference to the long period Piper had allegedly owned his GTO.
He owned 3767 from about August 1962 all the way through to March 1963
The winning car in the 1963 Rand 9hrs was a different one (4491), though 3767 had been winner of the 1962 Kyalami race
Pipes has owned and raced many other GTOs over the years, but hasn't campaigned any of them nearly as long as the 250LM

[Bladrian]

My bad - I thought he only had ONE GTO.

The man has discerning tastes ....

[Allen Brown]

Originally posted by biercemountain
Why not simply add up all the points a car accumulated during it's career and divide by the number of races it was entered in?

I can think of at least one that won the only race it appeared in.

Allen

[Bladrian]

David McK has started this hound coursing on something really interesting by pointing me at David Piper's 250LM. I've found that he had two 250LM's (at least! ), #6023 and #6313 And that he probably swapped engines between them at one time. But #6023 appears to have had a longer and more successful history than #6313. Would #6023 be the one in your photo, David? And does David Piper still campaign it?

[David McKinney]

I'm not sure that he raced 6023 or 6313 very much, though he did race 5897 when he owned that one. He also drove 5907 and 5909 for other teams, and possibly other examples as well.
The 250LM he has been campaigning longest - since 1966, I believe - is numbered 8165

[David Beard]

Originally posted by Bladrian
Would #6023 be the one in your photo, David? And does David Piper still campaign it?

I've no idea on chassis numbers, I'm afraid Bladrian. All I can tell you is that the photo was taken at the Goodwood Revival 2002. Without the programme to hand I'm not even sure whether Pipes drove it himself, or whether it was one of his Rentadrivers.

Very Nice Colour that "BP green", I think. Is the GTO in your shot the same, do you think, with the photographic process trying to confuse us?

[Macca]

Yes, the LM in the picture is c/no 8165, which he bought from Filipinetti in 1965 to replace one he wrote off (5897?) in fog at Snetterton. He has owned it continuously since (mainly because he couldn't sell it for love or money in 1969-70) and it is the most developed LM in the world: lightweight GRP body, specially-cast wide alloy rims, lots of reliability mods from when he ran it at Le Mans in 1968.

I can't remember offhand who drove it at the Revival in 2002, but I remember Il Grande John peddling it very rapidly a couple of years ago - very impressive.

Apparently the reason for 8165 having such an out-of-sequence c/no is that is was built a year or two after the rest with experimental fuel-injection, which was unsuccessful.

I think that quite a large proportion of the total number of LM's has passed through Piper's hands over the years, and there is now a bit of controversy about one or two.


Paul

[Bladrian]

Originally posted by David Beard


I've no idea on chassis numbers, I'm afraid Bladrian. All I can tell you is that the photo was taken at the Goodwood Revival 2002. Without the programme to hand I'm not even sure whether Pipes drove it himself, or whether it was one of his Rentadrivers.

Very Nice Colour that "BP green", I think. Is the GTO in your shot the same, do you think, with the photographic process trying to confuse us?

It would have to be a pretty bad colour process in the older photo (GTO) to be that far off the LM, so I would guess no - the two colours are different. But I've guessed wrong before ....

[Don Capps]

We seem to be meandering all over the landscape here and generally not even seeing the scenary. DCN suggested that considerng the Ferrari Tipo 500 chassis '5' and the Lauda McLaren MP4/2 chassis '2' are more along the lines of what the intention of the thread was. Where things might be a bit fuzzy is the situation of certain cars like that of Lotus 72 chassis '3' in South Africa. However, to me the question of "F1" and "GP" are still open -- I think that perhaps the best place to start with the premier GP events and take it from there.

[Bladrian]

Originally posted by Don Capps
We seem to be meandering all over the landscape here and generally not even seeing the scenary.

Aah, but - as happens so often - it's the little detours that add to the pleasure one derives from the journey.

Right - back onto the main road. As a fan, I would of course consider Michael's F2002 car; produced the most wins (in fact, finished on the podium in every single event) in a single GP season; garnered the most points in a single GP season; and finished in every event during the season. That's a spotless record, and it's hard to imagine anyone requiring more from a racing chassis.

However, as we've touched upon in this thread - given sufficient longevity, the attributes of 'most wins' and 'most podium finishes' and 'most points' can be surpassed by other cars. I seem to recall the Maserati 250F as being used over quite a number of seasons in GP events - is there a particular chassis that spanned all (or most) of those years?