planetf1.com

It is currently Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:18 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Underdog winners
PostPosted: Sun Mar 05, 2017 4:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 9:04 pm
Posts: 2022
POBRatings wrote:
Lotus 49:Agree the 2012 Ferrari was not fast at qualy in the early season, and that the Mercedes qualified faster too.
Average grid positions: the Alonso/Ferrari 6.1; the Vettel/Red Bull 5.1 and the Hamilton/Mercedes 4.3.

Can we forget Alonso's starts and gaining places before the first corner? And his exceptional racing skills?
Average race finishing positions: Alonso/Ferrari 3.277; Vettel/Red Bull-Renault 3.444 and Hamilton/McLaren-Mercedes 5.100.

Quoting some qualifying times can be misleading in the overall race-finishing picture. Racing is more important than qualifying.

My stats have the Ferrari as the second fastest car of 2012, behind the Red Bull-Renault and the McLaren-Mercedes tied as the fastest cars at 100.0.


So that'd be 3rd fastest? :-P

I think some factors in 2012 were overlooked, though. Most of them stems from Alonso's incredible consistency and good fortune throughout the season. The Ferrari was from time to time 4th, 5th even 6th best car on certain tracks but the way those races turned out masked it. Just few of the examples that I can remember on top of my head

Australia: McLaren, Red Bull, Lotus (RoGro was taken out early and Kimi started 19th or something like that) were clearly faster. The Williams I'd say was faster as Maldonado was glued to Alonso the whole race but couldn't pass him. The Mercs had early problems (Rosberg had late problems with a puncture as well?). I'd say all of those cars were faster. Toro Rosso (qualified well, both involved in T1 crash?), Force India (qualified well, Nico was taken out and PdR started way back) and Sauber - I can't really recall their performance on Sunday.

China: McLaren, Red Bull, Mercedes & Lotus clearly faster. Similarly paced with Sauber & Williams IIRC

Bahrain: RBR, Lotus much faster. I'm guessing McL as well but I think they had some kind of a pit-stop issue?

I'm too lazy to type but in Hungary, Valencia, Singapore, Abu Dhabi and Malaysia the F2012 was at best 4th in the pecking order. But due to order driver misfortune/Alonso being Alonso he was fighting in Brazil.

@POB, what's rating that you have for the Ferrari? 100.2?
By the way, is your rating system based on race weekend or the relative pace of teams throughout the season? For example

2-race championship. Team A wins race 1 by dominating Team B by 60s for race distance. Team B wins race 2 by 10s.

Would Team A & B both be rated at 100.0 (as both dominated one race and each race has equal importance) or would Team A be rated higher as on average it was faster?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Underdog winners
PostPosted: Sun Mar 05, 2017 4:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:06 am
Posts: 3184
VDV23: my System measures each race in isolation, but scores all season's races and averages the figures to obtain the season-average Ratings.

In my post above I did make an error: I meant the Alonso/Ferrari was the second fastest Package, not the second fastest Car. The Vettel/ Red Bull and Hamilton/Mercedes tied as the fastest Packages.

Car-ratings: the Ferrari ranks as the 3rd fastest car, behind the Red Bull and the Mercedes tied/fastest, and the Lotus-Renault second-fastest. As you guessed the Ferrari car-rated at 100.2.

As we've agreed here, 2012 was a strange season of ups and downs. But what a difference driver Alonso made, as you point out.

Although I scored the Vettel/RBR and the Hamilton/Merc as the equal fastest packages, I think Hamilton should have had a couple more wins but for the McLaren team's experimenting with wheel hub mechanisms and a couple of grid penalties.

_________________
http://grandprixratings.blogspot.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Underdog winners
PostPosted: Sun Mar 05, 2017 8:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 1628
So, Ferrari in '12 was the fourth fastest car and FA/Ferrari the third fastest package - according to your rating.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Underdog winners
PostPosted: Sun Mar 05, 2017 8:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12369
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
So, Ferrari in '12 was the fourth fastest car and FA/Ferrari the third fastest package - according to your rating.


Would tally in with what we saw on track.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Underdog winners
PostPosted: Sun Mar 05, 2017 10:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8742
Factor in reliability and the Ferrari comes a bit higher too. Alonso was bullet proof all year whilst Vettel and Hamilton had 2 and 3 mechanical break downs over the season.

Alonso, as great as 2012 had some ridiculous good fortune in cars falling off the road in front of him. His last 7 finishes were all on the podium, but he literally had about 10-12 break down/ collide or something else happen to them during that period. He was often running p4-p5 in most of those races before somebody broke down ahead and he got onto the podium. It was an amazing run of fortune.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Underdog winners
PostPosted: Sun Mar 05, 2017 11:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 1628
lamo wrote:
Factor in reliability and the Ferrari comes a bit higher too. Alonso was bullet proof all year whilst Vettel and Hamilton had 2 and 3 mechanical break downs over the season.

Alonso, as great as 2012 had some ridiculous good fortune in cars falling off the road in front of him. His last 7 finishes were all on the podium, but he literally had about 10-12 break down/ collide or something else happen to them during that period. He was often running p4-p5 in most of those races before somebody broke down ahead and he got onto the podium. It was an amazing run of fortune.


Spa, Suzuka, ...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Underdog winners
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 12:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 3614
POBRatings wrote:
F1Oz wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
POBRatings wrote:
2004: Trulli 7th fastest package.
2008: Vettel/Toro Rosso 11th fastest.
2008: Alonso/Renault 5th
2008: definitely not Kubica/BMW which was 3rd fastest package close to top.
2012: Rosberg/Mercedes 7th fastest.
2012: Maldonado/Williams 10th fastest.
2012: definitely not Alonso/Ferrari which was 2nd fastest package and the Ferrari was close to the top.
2013: Raikkonen/Lotus-Renault 4th fastest package, car also close to top, so should not qualify here.


Not before Spain could it be considered near 2nd, their coanda was terrible and they were being outqualified regularly by Sauber and Mercedes never mind McLaren,Lotus-Renault and Red Bull who they fought with after Spain.

Mercedes outqualified them by over a second at every race until Spain and in China nearly a second by a Sauber for good measure.

It was a dog then, Alonso only won Malaysia because it was wet and Perez threw it away after the Mercs,L-R,RB and McLarens all ran into trouble.

2012 was a strange season because of the tyres and teams getting to grips with their Coanda exhaust. That Williams you rate 10th got pole and won at Spain and qualified on the first row at a track like Singapore later in the season. It was woefully driven throughout that year to be honest.

And the Mercedes was never 7th quickest pre Spain upgrades, They were outqualifying the Ferrari's by over a second and one of them was never off the second row in qualifying in those opening rounds including the weekend Nico got pole and dominated the race to a win,although they did fall back a bit on a Sunday it was never down to 7th.


Err, the Toro Rosso was on pole and 5th (with significantly more fuel than Vettel so pole on fuel corrected weight) - NO way was this car other than 3rd best (if not higher) at that race - I think given circumstances it was no more than 4th - and with wet start favouring those in front (and Vettel lucky his team mate got a bad start) - this was a race to be lost (or a guaranteed podium) rather than anything lucky.


Lotus 49:Agree the 2012 Ferrari was not fast at qualy in the early season, and that the Mercedes qualified faster too.
Average grid positions: the Alonso/Ferrari 6.1; the Vettel/Red Bull 5.1 and the Hamilton/Mercedes 4.3.

Can we forget Alonso's starts and gaining places before the first corner? And his exceptional racing skills?
Average race finishing positions: Alonso/Ferrari 3.277; Vettel/Red Bull-Renault 3.444 and Hamilton/McLaren-Mercedes 5.100.

Quoting some qualifying times can be misleading in the overall race-finishing picture. Racing is more important than qualifying.

My stats have the Ferrari as the second fastest car of 2012, behind the Red Bull-Renault and the McLaren-Mercedes tied as the fastest cars at 100.0.


I think we have to forget his starts and overtaking skills when trying to place the cars. I understand you talk more about the package(car+driver) but in this case of underdog victories I think we're talking about the car and the Ferrari up to Spain had a fundamental flaw with it's coanda.

It was certainly better in the race than qualifying so I'm not just looking at the numbers there but the cars that were a second quicker in Q were not losing all that advantage on a Sunday, this wasn't 2013 Pirelli's and Mercedes' woe's repeated.

Team/driver errors and unreliability allowed him to take advantage of a few races up until Spain as his car was bulletproof and Ferrari didn't make any mistakes.

Overall looking at the season I have no problem with your rating, In fact it's the same as mine usually.(Effectively 3rd but sometimes I'm tempted to put the Lotus-Renault ahead but that was generally in the higher temperatures).

It's just up until Spain it really wasn't very good, I've long felt it really should have been an A and B classed car as the issue was so fundamental to performance. http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2012/07/05/f ... t-problem/

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Underdog winners
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 1:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:06 am
Posts: 3184
Apologies Lotus49: my mistake above here, as I explained to VDV23: it was NOT the Ferrari CAR that was the the second fastest of 2012, but the Alonso/Ferrari Package, behind the Red Bull-R and the McL-M tied for fastest at 100.0.

The 2012 Ferrari Car on my System ranked third: behind the Red-Bull-R and the McL-M tied for first, then the Lotus-Renault as the second fastest car. Good that we are on the same page. I'd like to Have seen Alonso or Hamilton in the Lotus that season.

These stats are season-averages, but your info and analysis of the Ferrari performing in 'two stages' during 2012 makes sense, looking at my race-by-race running average figures.

_________________
http://grandprixratings.blogspot.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Underdog winners
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 1:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:06 am
Posts: 3184
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
So, Ferrari in '12 was the fourth fastest car and FA/Ferrari the third fastest package - according to your rating.


Yes, sorry about my confused pit-radio signals. Lucky Kimi or Sebastian were not on the other end. :lol:

_________________
http://grandprixratings.blogspot.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Underdog winners
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 2:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 3614
POBRatings wrote:
Apologies Lotus49: my mistake above here, as I explained to VDV23: it was NOT the Ferrari CAR that was the the second fastest of 2012, but the Alonso/Ferrari Package, behind the Red Bull-R and the McL-M tied for fastest at 100.0.

The 2012 Ferrari Car on my System ranked third: behind the Red-Bull-R and the McL-M tied for first, then the Lotus-Renault as the second fastest car. Good that we are on the same page. I'd like to Have seen Alonso or Hamilton in the Lotus that season.

These stats are season-averages, but your info and analysis of the Ferrari performing in 'two stages' during 2012 makes sense, looking at my race-by-race running average figures.


:thumbup:

It's an aspect of your ratings I enjoy that you incorporate both car and driver as a package as well as individually. We're usually on the same page, with the odd exception of course, and I agree Lewis or Alonso in the Lotus-Renault would have been very interesting.

Not that Kimi didn't do great of course, I don't think he left much performance in that car at all, but he must have been a little rusty in the opening rounds at least and RoGro didn't cover himself in glory much that year so it would have been interesting to see one of those at the wheel too.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Underdog winners
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 4:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20994
Lotus49 wrote:
POBRatings wrote:
Apologies Lotus49: my mistake above here, as I explained to VDV23: it was NOT the Ferrari CAR that was the the second fastest of 2012, but the Alonso/Ferrari Package, behind the Red Bull-R and the McL-M tied for fastest at 100.0.

The 2012 Ferrari Car on my System ranked third: behind the Red-Bull-R and the McL-M tied for first, then the Lotus-Renault as the second fastest car. Good that we are on the same page. I'd like to Have seen Alonso or Hamilton in the Lotus that season.

These stats are season-averages, but your info and analysis of the Ferrari performing in 'two stages' during 2012 makes sense, looking at my race-by-race running average figures.


:thumbup:

It's an aspect of your ratings I enjoy that you incorporate both car and driver as a package as well as individually. We're usually on the same page, with the odd exception of course, and I agree Lewis or Alonso in the Lotus-Renault would have been very interesting.

Not that Kimi didn't do great of course, I don't think he left much performance in that car at all, but he must have been a little rusty in the opening rounds at least and RoGro didn't cover himself in glory much that year so it would have been interesting to see one of those at the wheel too.

Re: the Lotus - I think Kimi drove very well, but I'm almost certain he did leave some performance on the table because of his inability to get the best out of the Pirelli tyres. Qualifying especially when it was cooler and/or wet left a lot to be desired and I think some other drivers would have managed to generate and maintain heat in the tyres better than Kimi did.

Put another way, if the Lotus had Michelins I think Kimi would have won a race or two more. As it is I think Lewis, Alonso or Vettel woud have gained a couple of tenths more per lap.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Underdog winners
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 4:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:06 am
Posts: 3184
My driver-rating for Kimi in 2012 also showed he did leave a couple of tenths on the table driving the Lotus.

Looking back on Raikkonen's long career: perhaps he has not been as driven to win as other WDCs? In 2004-6 he really was fast. After 2007 Kimi definitely slowed a bit and helped Massa in 2008. Since his return in 2012 maybe he just enjoys his racing without wanting to beat everyone and be WDC? Perhaps he is sensibly cautious? He seldom gets involved in incidents. Still one of my favourite drivers too :thumbup: .

Reutemann did not have the burning need to beat others and drove almost as an 'artist' for himself, when there was no team or team-mate pressure on him. Maybe Kimi is similar? Providing his paint-brushes are to his liking!

Discussing these Packages, Drivers or Cars and say, when one is ranked 'fourth' or ' sixth' the differences are only scored in 0.1% between each. So fourth can be rated at 100.3. ie just 0.3-secs per lap off the fastest, which is about 18-seconds in a 60-lap race. These stats are averages for a whole season.

Back on topic: Lotus49 is right about 'underdogs': we are really discussing slow cars that win races, rather than drivers.

_________________
http://grandprixratings.blogspot.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Underdog winners
PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 11:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 415
How about Jaboiulle in 80 or 81?

He only finished 4 races, and scored points twice, both wins.

Even if the car was fast, surely the reliability made him a huge 'underdog'?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Underdog winners
PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 7:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:06 am
Posts: 3184
Jabouille in 1980 could be considered an underdog. His incredible record of 23 retirements with 2 wins in 1979 and 1980!

The Renault RS10 car in 1979 was fast enough to score wins, Jabouille borderline fast-enough as a driver, and the package not really fast enough on season-average. The Renault's performances were patchy: their huge torque and altitude-neutral turbo power made them fast on some circuits, but slow at most where their turbo-lag inhibited the cars.

For 1980 Jabouille was faster as a driver, but the RE20 was much slower than the RE10 in relation to the season's fastest cars. This made the 1980 Renault packages less competitive on season-average than in 1979. But Renault were improving their performances more often and scored 3 wins ((1 by Jabouille and 2 by Arnoux.) .

Were they underdogs in 1980? Brabham also scored 3 wins, Ligier 2 that season. I have not thought much about or defined the 'underdog' topic.

_________________
http://grandprixratings.blogspot.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Underdog winners
PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 8:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 2898
Banana Man wrote:

Force India; would have been interesting to see how Hulk would have faired in a dry Brazil, without the collision.


I guess you just meant without a collision. Because in the dry it would have been a Mclaren vs Redbull party for sure. The only chance Hulk had in that race was due to the rain, too bad he got overly ambitious with Lewis.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Underdog winners
PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 8:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 2898
Lotus49 wrote:
POBRatings wrote:
2012 was indeed strange. The Alonso/Ferrrari on season-average was very little slower than the top two packages. But these were exceptional packages that only needed a slight speed advantage: the Hamilton/McLaren and the Vettel Red Bull. They made the Alonso/Ferrari's results and comparative speed seem slow.

Overall the Mercedes were really slow, losing so much in races through rear tyre wear, dropping back rapidly. Thier fairl;y good qualifying wasd ifferent from their race pace. Individual races and season-average figures were in many cases during 2012, two different measures.


Yeah the season averages and individual races were incredibly varied in that season,absolutely. Which is why I think we need to separate them here with Nico's,Pastor's and Alonso's wins. Nico and Pastor got pole and dominated their races while Alonso won from 9th on the grid and thanks to quicker cars either messing up or suffering misfortune on the Sunday. He didn't storm through on pace alone.

Ferrari were marginally quicker than the Sauber on the dry Saturday for the battle for 5th quickest team but slower in the wet Sunday so there's no evidence it suddenly came good in the wet either. You'd also have to think the top 4(RB,Macca,Mercedes,Lotus-R) lost their 0.5-1.3s advantage from qualifying over those two cars as well in the wet, which is too much of a stretch for me personally.

All things considered I really can't see how Pastor's and Nico's count for this but Alonso's doesn't.


Pastor got pole because Lewis got disqualified from qualifying and I don't remember him dominating that race. I remember Alonso all over him during the final stint?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Underdog winners
PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 9:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 3614
kleefton wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
POBRatings wrote:
2012 was indeed strange. The Alonso/Ferrrari on season-average was very little slower than the top two packages. But these were exceptional packages that only needed a slight speed advantage: the Hamilton/McLaren and the Vettel Red Bull. They made the Alonso/Ferrari's results and comparative speed seem slow.

Overall the Mercedes were really slow, losing so much in races through rear tyre wear, dropping back rapidly. Thier fairl;y good qualifying wasd ifferent from their race pace. Individual races and season-average figures were in many cases during 2012, two different measures.


Yeah the season averages and individual races were incredibly varied in that season,absolutely. Which is why I think we need to separate them here with Nico's,Pastor's and Alonso's wins. Nico and Pastor got pole and dominated their races while Alonso won from 9th on the grid and thanks to quicker cars either messing up or suffering misfortune on the Sunday. He didn't storm through on pace alone.

Ferrari were marginally quicker than the Sauber on the dry Saturday for the battle for 5th quickest team but slower in the wet Sunday so there's no evidence it suddenly came good in the wet either. You'd also have to think the top 4(RB,Macca,Mercedes,Lotus-R) lost their 0.5-1.3s advantage from qualifying over those two cars as well in the wet, which is too much of a stretch for me personally.

All things considered I really can't see how Pastor's and Nico's count for this but Alonso's doesn't.


Pastor got pole because Lewis got disqualified from qualifying and I don't remember him dominating that race. I remember Alonso all over him during the final stint?


Fair point about Lewis getting DQ'd and while dominate might be a touch strong he did lead throughout rather than have to rely on quicker cars failing/tripping over themselves so I think the wider point stands that the Williams was very quick there.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Underdog winners
PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 9:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12369
Lotus49 wrote:
kleefton wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
POBRatings wrote:
2012 was indeed strange. The Alonso/Ferrrari on season-average was very little slower than the top two packages. But these were exceptional packages that only needed a slight speed advantage: the Hamilton/McLaren and the Vettel Red Bull. They made the Alonso/Ferrari's results and comparative speed seem slow.

Overall the Mercedes were really slow, losing so much in races through rear tyre wear, dropping back rapidly. Thier fairl;y good qualifying wasd ifferent from their race pace. Individual races and season-average figures were in many cases during 2012, two different measures.


Yeah the season averages and individual races were incredibly varied in that season,absolutely. Which is why I think we need to separate them here with Nico's,Pastor's and Alonso's wins. Nico and Pastor got pole and dominated their races while Alonso won from 9th on the grid and thanks to quicker cars either messing up or suffering misfortune on the Sunday. He didn't storm through on pace alone.

Ferrari were marginally quicker than the Sauber on the dry Saturday for the battle for 5th quickest team but slower in the wet Sunday so there's no evidence it suddenly came good in the wet either. You'd also have to think the top 4(RB,Macca,Mercedes,Lotus-R) lost their 0.5-1.3s advantage from qualifying over those two cars as well in the wet, which is too much of a stretch for me personally.

All things considered I really can't see how Pastor's and Nico's count for this but Alonso's doesn't.


Pastor got pole because Lewis got disqualified from qualifying and I don't remember him dominating that race. I remember Alonso all over him during the final stint?


Fair point about Lewis getting DQ'd and while dominate might be a touch strong he did lead throughout rather than have to rely on quicker cars failing/tripping over themselves so I think the wider point stands that the Williams was very quick there.


I think the Williams was generally a very quick car. Put Alonso in the Williams or Sauber in 2012 and I think he would have scored multiple wins.

Alonso won the Malaysian grand prix in a car no better than 6th best so it has to go down as an under dog win. Probably the weakest car to win a race since Fissichella in 03.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Underdog winners
PostPosted: Wed Mar 08, 2017 7:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:06 am
Posts: 3184
Kleefton analyses that 2012 Maldonado/Willimas win correctly :thumbup: luck with Lewis being dsq, but then holding off Alonso for many laps at the end.

I think working on season-averages is often going to show different impressions/results from individual races or portions of seasons. For 2012 my stats score the Alonso/Ferrari as the 3rd fastest package, the Rosberg/Merc 7th and the Maldo/Wms 10th.
However as Lotus49 points out, in China Rosberg/Merc was dominant (cool enough for his rear tyres) and at some circuits the Williams was fast too.

A similarly strange situation occurred in the 1954 season, when Fangio dominated with 2 wins for Maserati then 4 wins for Mercedes: ie a dominant 6 wins from 8 races. When analysing the actual on-track times, the Fangio/Maserati ranks only 6th fastest package, his Merc streamliner 2nd and his open-wheeled Merc 3rd.

Other packages were faster or as fast : the Ascari/Lancia was fastest of all at 100.0, but it only competed in one race; the Ascari/ Ferrrari 625 was equal to the Fangio Merc but only competed once. Could they be considered underdogs?

I suppose the term 'underdogs' should be closely defined.

_________________
http://grandprixratings.blogspot.com


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group