Could a team 'do a leicester' in F1?
Discussion
Redlake27 said:
The closest comparison for me was Heinz-Harald Frentzen getting into the championship showdown in 1999 with Jordan.
OK, Jordan had won a race before, but that was in freak conditions. In the second half of 99, for a couple of weekends in a row, it looked like HHF was about to top the might of Ferrari and McLaren.
When I read the OP this was exactly what came to my mind too.OK, Jordan had won a race before, but that was in freak conditions. In the second half of 99, for a couple of weekends in a row, it looked like HHF was about to top the might of Ferrari and McLaren.
There are similarities with this years Premier League as one of the reasons that Jordan (and to a lesser extent Stewart) were able to get so close was that the 4 teams that had dominated in recent years (McLaren, Ferrari, Williams and Benetton) all produced either slow or unreliable cars and were very inconsistent. The McLaren drivers did not find the MP4/14 as nice to drive as the MP4/13 and there were rumours that they wanted to carry on with the 98 car but changes to the regulations made this impossible.
However, there were also rumours that the Jordan 199 was running an illegal launch control system. The retirements at the European GP were regarded as suspicious with both cars retiring at the first corner (Hill on the first lap, Frentzen after a pit stop) with "electrical problems". Paddock gossip was that the system was hidden using some form of self-deleting software which on this occasion caused the engine to stop. Frentzen's race engineer, Sam Michael, gave an interview in Motor Sport several years that confirmed this but insisted it was, just about, legal. He did acknowledge that it was the cause of the FIA reintroducing traction control part way through the 2001 season. Only the introduction of the standard ECU in 2008 saw it finally banned.
kambites said:
ukaskew said:
Button was 5-1 for the Championship after pre-season, 50-1 prior to that.
OK so nowhere near the 5000:1 that Leicester were. I wonder what the odds of Manor winning this year were? It would be interesting to know which side of 5000:1 they were. The only other example I can think of off the top of my head is Cooper in 1959.
Not the same
RYH64E said:
Do you think that Brawn designed a new car in the time between Honda leaving and the new season starting? The car was basically a works Honda fitted with a Mercedes engine, all of the double diffuser and chassis design work was done under Honda ownership and with lots of Honda money, if Honda hadn't sold up they would have won the 2009 championship. The biggest change to the car was the name on the front.
Strange. Honda have been in F1 one way or another for quite some time, with very little to show for it, only really achieved some success as an engine supplier many years ago.
They spent big sums of money with stupid 'earth cars' and the like and never looked remotely successful. I'm curious as to why you definitely think they would have won in 2009. Surely the fact that they sold up at possibly the worst time indicates their management/structure was as bad as ever?
Money has never been a guarantee of success. It's taken Merc a long time to get where they are now.
Vaud said:
AndrewEH1 said:
RYH64E said:
Do you think that Brawn designed a new car in the time between Honda leaving and the new season starting? The car was basically a works Honda fitted with a Mercedes engine, all of the double diffuser and chassis design work was done under Honda ownership and with lots of Honda money, if Honda hadn't sold up they would have won the 2009 championship. The biggest change to the car was the name on the front.
You should listen to the recent Motorsport podcast with Brawn, lots of behind-the-scenes insight.
heebeegeetee said:
RYH64E said:
Brawn reaped the rewards of massive Honda investment the year before, it wasn't the underdog it looks at first sight.
Honda invested massively year after year for no reward. Plus, all the investment and planning the year before would have been with a different engine. The turmoil of Honda withdrawing and a last minute change of engine supplier means for me Brawn is definitely still the answer.
Brawn did well but there was a perfect storm of circustances that lead to their win.
Redlake27 said:
The closest comparison for me was Heinz-Harald Frentzen getting into the championship showdown in 1999 with Jordan.
OK, Jordan had won a race before, but that was in freak conditions. In the second half of 99, for a couple of weekends in a row, it looked like HHF was about to top the might of Ferrari and McLaren.
These days, with such a gulf in budgets, I can't see it happening again. But I'd love to be proved wrong.
interestingOK, Jordan had won a race before, but that was in freak conditions. In the second half of 99, for a couple of weekends in a row, it looked like HHF was about to top the might of Ferrari and McLaren.
These days, with such a gulf in budgets, I can't see it happening again. But I'd love to be proved wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Formula_One_sea...
looking at the table with 3 races to go HH frentzen had 50 points
Hakkinen and Irvine had 60 points each
RYH64E said:
heebeegeetee said:
RYH64E said:
Brawn reaped the rewards of massive Honda investment the year before, it wasn't the underdog it looks at first sight.
Honda invested massively year after year for no reward. Plus, all the investment and planning the year before would have been with a different engine. The turmoil of Honda withdrawing and a last minute change of engine supplier means for me Brawn is definitely still the answer.
Unlikely that Honda would have won in 09 if they'd been using their own dog of an engine. It was their weakest link for several years before 09.
Plus ca change, eh?
REALIST123 said:
Unlikely that Honda would have won in 09 if they'd been using their own dog of an engine. It was their weakest link for several years before 09.
Plus ca change, eh?
Vaud said:
REALIST123 said:
Unlikely that Honda would have won in 09 if they'd been using their own dog of an engine. It was their weakest link for several years before 09.
Plus ca change, eh?
cjm said:
Does anyone have a link to the podcast?
https://soundcloud.com/motor-sport-magazineAlso available on iTunes.
I don't think the structure of F1 really allows for it. A football game comes down to the 11 men on the pitch and the manager, with the supporting services of the hundreds of people in the background. Great teamwork or good strategy can overcome weaknesses in individual players.
If F1, it's really those engineers and supporting services in the background that win the championship before the season has started. A great driver or inspired strategy can sometimes rock the apple cart for one race, but Red Bull can't overcome a massive power defecit out of teamwork and inspired design, nor can Alonso drive the wheels off of his McLaren and into the championship lead.
An interesting comparison would be the Golden State Warriors (I don't follow basketball, so apologies for what you're about to read!) who basically sat down and statistically went about building a team around scoring three pointers and preventing orthers from doing so, buying players who might have been suffering a bad run of form or were unfancied but had just what they needed for the masterplan to work:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-the-golden...
I imagine theres not much in the way of statistical analysis that doesn't already happen in F1 (witness Mercedes mega testing on Mediums- which they'll spend the most laps on), and although Egos can still get in the way, I imagine improvements in team management are where the most gains can be had. But even that won't help if you have a crap engine.
If F1, it's really those engineers and supporting services in the background that win the championship before the season has started. A great driver or inspired strategy can sometimes rock the apple cart for one race, but Red Bull can't overcome a massive power defecit out of teamwork and inspired design, nor can Alonso drive the wheels off of his McLaren and into the championship lead.
An interesting comparison would be the Golden State Warriors (I don't follow basketball, so apologies for what you're about to read!) who basically sat down and statistically went about building a team around scoring three pointers and preventing orthers from doing so, buying players who might have been suffering a bad run of form or were unfancied but had just what they needed for the masterplan to work:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-the-golden...
I imagine theres not much in the way of statistical analysis that doesn't already happen in F1 (witness Mercedes mega testing on Mediums- which they'll spend the most laps on), and although Egos can still get in the way, I imagine improvements in team management are where the most gains can be had. But even that won't help if you have a crap engine.
Edited by glazbagun on Wednesday 4th May 10:26
EnglishTony said:
Let's not forget that Ross Brawn effectivly led the Tech. Commitee that left the hole that his double diffuser filled.
Yes, and let's not forget that he repeatedly asked that committee if they were really sure they wanted to proceed as he thought they had all spotted it. As it was only Williams and McLaren had but with much less mature developments of the concept.Listen to the podcast - it's well worth an hour of your time.
Vaud said:
EnglishTony said:
Let's not forget that Ross Brawn effectivly led the Tech. Commitee that left the hole that his double diffuser filled.
Yes, and let's not forget that he repeatedly asked that committee if they were really sure they wanted to proceed as he thought they had all spotted it. As it was only Williams and McLaren had but with much less mature developments of the concept.Listen to the podcast - it's well worth an hour of your time.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff