planetf1.com

It is currently Tue Jul 22, 2014 11:38 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 3546
2000- onwards who are your top 5 teams in order? This is the table in is titles won. But then some teams like Mclaren have won a race every year in this period (bar 2006) while Renault had a golden period 2004-2006 like Red Bull are enjoying. What is better, to be the number two team for 9/10 years and win it once, or dominate for a short period but predominantly be in the upper midfield (Red Bull and Renault). Although Red Bull seem a true force now.

1) Ferrari - 12 titles -6 WDC/WCC titles - won a race in 13/13 years
2) Red Bull - 6 titles - 3 WDC/WCC titles - won a race in 4/8 years
3) Renault - 4 titles - 2 WDC/WCC titles - won a race in 5/9 years
4) Mclaren - 1 WDC - won a race in 12/13 years
5) Brawn - 2 titles - 1 WDC/WCC won a race in 1/1

EDIT - I forgot Brawn initially!

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


Last edited by lamo on Mon Feb 04, 2013 2:11 am, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:58 pm
Posts: 973
Same as yours.

But I would put Brawn GP at number 5.

_________________
http://top-people.starmedia.com/tmp/swotti/cacheYXLYDG9UIHNLBM5HUGVVCGXLLVBLB3BSZQ==/imgAyrton%20Senna2.jpg


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 6:31 am
Posts: 962
My order a bit different: what have you done for me lately ranking:

Red Bull
Braun
McLaren
Ferrari
Renault


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:09 am
Posts: 2101
Location: Perth, Australia
Ferrari
Red Bull
Renault
Brawn
McLaren

McLaren is last because of its failure to win a WCC whilst all the rest have taken both titles at least once.

_________________
Image
I also have one of these.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 3176
Location: Nebraska, USA
Bourbon...

It is quite convenient to revise the 21st century to fit the results that you want. However, no matter how you choose to spin it, Those Ferrari years are a part of the the time frame that the OP stated. I suspect that if it had been Ferrari who won the last 3 years and Red Bull who had 12 championships earlier in the time frame, you would not be so anxious to go with "what have you done for me lately".
;)

BTW, putting Braun #2 in either scenario is quite funny, in my opinion.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:33 pm
Posts: 1697
Location: Bangor, Gwynedd, Wales
Ferrari [thanks to the dream team]
Williams [best of the rest behind the dominant Ferraris]
Red Bull [2010-12 awesomeness]
McLaren [same as Williams plus title, but lose out in my view due to Spygate]
Honda [built the best car ever, then rather magnanimously handed it over to Brawn and Mercedes to make history...]

_________________
Copper Masked Sunrise
http://www.justgiving.com/CIN-Mystery-P ... 00b9467dcb
https://www.facebook.com/BadExcusesBand


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:09 am
Posts: 2101
Location: Perth, Australia
Tufty wrote:
Ferrari [thanks to the dream team]
Williams [best of the rest behind the dominant Ferraris]
Red Bull [2010-12 awesomeness]
McLaren [same as Williams plus title, but lose out in my view due to Spygate]
Honda [built the best car ever, then rather magnanimously handed it over to Brawn and Mercedes to make history...]


Interesting call with Williams as #2, especially considering they've done very little since the early-2000s.

_________________
Image
I also have one of these.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 3:29 pm
Posts: 441
1. Maranello (hard to argue this one - championships and consistent winning)

2. Milton Keynes (slow start but climbing rapidly - 21st century comes 2nd, but filter of last 10 years would be a contender for 1st)

3. Woking and Enstone (tough to call between multiple championships and few wins vs. one championship and many wins)

5. Brackley (2009 Brawn championships and decent 2004-2006 Honda teams)

Williams a close 6th with early 2000s success.

_________________
[ Kimi Raikkonen ]
2007 Formula 1 World Drivers Champion


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 5:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:33 pm
Posts: 1697
Location: Bangor, Gwynedd, Wales
Toby. wrote:
Tufty wrote:
Ferrari [thanks to the dream team]
Williams [best of the rest behind the dominant Ferraris]
Red Bull [2010-12 awesomeness]
McLaren [same as Williams plus title, but lose out in my view due to Spygate]
Honda [built the best car ever, then rather magnanimously handed it over to Brawn and Mercedes to make history...]


Interesting call with Williams as #2, especially considering they've done very little since the early-2000s.

I agree it's contentious, especially coming from me as a Williams fan, but I do feel they earned that position 2000-2004.

_________________
Copper Masked Sunrise
http://www.justgiving.com/CIN-Mystery-P ... 00b9467dcb
https://www.facebook.com/BadExcusesBand


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 6:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 5:57 pm
Posts: 291
statistics wise:

Ferrari
Red Bull
Renault
Brawn
McLaren

but from what i saw on tv in races :

Ferrari
McLaren
Red Bull
Williams
Renault


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 7:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 6:33 am
Posts: 2090
number_two wrote:
statistics wise:

Ferrari
Red Bull
Renault
Brawn
McLaren

but from what i saw on tv in races :

Ferrari
McLaren
Red Bull
Williams
Renault


:thumbup: pretty much agree with this

_________________
2013 PF1 Pick 10 Competition:
- 4 podiums
- 2013 Rookie of the Year
- 2014 Championship leader (post-Austria)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 7:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 4389
Ferrari
Red Bull
Mclaren
Renault
Brawn

Mclaren ahead of Lotus because I think it is harder to be consistently challenging at the top than win a couple of tittles and fall back into the midfield.

Coincidentally these teams finished in the top 5 of the constructors championship last year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 7:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 4389
Tufty wrote:
Toby. wrote:
Tufty wrote:
Ferrari [thanks to the dream team]
Williams [best of the rest behind the dominant Ferraris]
Red Bull [2010-12 awesomeness]
McLaren [same as Williams plus title, but lose out in my view due to Spygate]
Honda [built the best car ever, then rather magnanimously handed it over to Brawn and Mercedes to make history...]


Interesting call with Williams as #2, especially considering they've done very little since the early-2000s.

I agree it's contentious, especially coming from me as a Williams fan, but I do feel they earned that position 2000-2004.


In that period Williams won 10 races. In a similar period Red Bull have won 34, surely Red Bull deserve to be ahead of Williams based on that alone.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 1:55 pm
Posts: 724
Location: Tampere, F1nland
McLaren is the major disappointment of the past 12 seasons. When they've been fast they've usually been unreliable, and when reliable they've been comparatively slow. Only one drivers' title in 08 and they came close in 00, 03, 05, 07, 10. And it's still hard to believe they managed to throw the 1999 constructors' title away.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 9:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 3556
Location: Belgium
RaisinChips wrote:
McLaren is the major disappointment of the past 12 seasons.

I agree. And it's good RaisinChips pointed out we've had 12 seasons this century, not 13 Lamo! ;)

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 9:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 5124
Fiki wrote:
RaisinChips wrote:
McLaren is the major disappointment of the past 12 seasons.

I agree. And it's good RaisinChips pointed out we've had 12 seasons this century, not 13 Lamo! ;)

Nope, 13 is correct :)

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Rosberg - Bottas


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 9:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 3556
Location: Belgium
Covalent wrote:
Fiki wrote:
RaisinChips wrote:
McLaren is the major disappointment of the past 12 seasons.

I agree. And it's good RaisinChips pointed out we've had 12 seasons this century, not 13 Lamo! ;)

Nope, 13 is correct :)
Only if you already know who's going to win in year 13 of this century. They've only just unveiled the cars, Covalent.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 9:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 5124
Fiki wrote:
Covalent wrote:
Fiki wrote:
RaisinChips wrote:
McLaren is the major disappointment of the past 12 seasons.

I agree. And it's good RaisinChips pointed out we've had 12 seasons this century, not 13 Lamo! ;)

Nope, 13 is correct :)
Only if you already know who's going to win in year 13 of this century. They've only just unveiled the cars, Covalent.

*sigh*

2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012

Count them.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Rosberg - Bottas


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 9:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:09 am
Posts: 2101
Location: Perth, Australia
Covalent wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Covalent wrote:
Fiki wrote:
RaisinChips wrote:
McLaren is the major disappointment of the past 12 seasons.

I agree. And it's good RaisinChips pointed out we've had 12 seasons this century, not 13 Lamo! ;)

Nope, 13 is correct :)
Only if you already know who's going to win in year 13 of this century. They've only just unveiled the cars, Covalent.

*sigh*

2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012

Count them.


Beat me to it.

_________________
Image
I also have one of these.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 9:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 3556
Location: Belgium
Covalent wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Covalent wrote:
Fiki wrote:
RaisinChips wrote:
McLaren is the major disappointment of the past 12 seasons.

I agree. And it's good RaisinChips pointed out we've had 12 seasons this century, not 13 Lamo! ;)

Nope, 13 is correct :)
Only if you already know who's going to win in year 13 of this century. They've only just unveiled the cars, Covalent.

*sigh*

2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012

Count them.
*giggle* Is there a special rule I wasn't aware of that you have to include the last year of the twentieth century? Or is a century now 101 years? :D

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 9:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 5124
I didn't include 1999 :? I'm lost!

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Rosberg - Bottas


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 9:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:29 pm
Posts: 1362
Location: Wrexham, UK
Fiki wrote:
Covalent wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Covalent wrote:
Fiki wrote:
I agree. And it's good RaisinChips pointed out we've had 12 seasons this century, not 13 Lamo! ;)

Nope, 13 is correct :)
Only if you already know who's going to win in year 13 of this century. They've only just unveiled the cars, Covalent.

*sigh*

2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012

Count them.
*giggle* Is there a special rule I wasn't aware of that you have to include the last year of the twentieth century? Or is a century now 101 years? :D

So you're saying the year 2000 isn't a part of the 2000's?

_________________
"You are the universe expressing itself as a Human for a little while..."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 9:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 4744
jammin78 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Covalent wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Covalent wrote:
Nope, 13 is correct :)
Only if you already know who's going to win in year 13 of this century. They've only just unveiled the cars, Covalent.

*sigh*

2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012

Count them.
*giggle* Is there a special rule I wasn't aware of that you have to include the last year of the twentieth century? Or is a century now 101 years? :D

So you're saying the year 2000 isn't a part of the 2000's?


Part of the 2000's, not part of the 21st century.
OP's fault for conflicting thread title and starting post ;)

But he clearly intended for 2000 to be inclusive here, since he's counting 6WDC's and WCC's for Ferrari.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 9:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 5:16 pm
Posts: 79
Of course it's not. Was there a year zero? Decade, century or millenium must have ten, hundred or thousand years. If 2000 is 21th century, then somewhere there's one century with 99 years.


Anyway:

Ferrari (can't look past them)
Red Bull (based on last few years)
McLaren (not enough titles but the amount of wins puts them ahead of Renault)
Renault
Williams (2001-2004)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 10:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:29 pm
Posts: 1362
Location: Wrexham, UK
mds wrote:
jammin78 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Covalent wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Only if you already know who's going to win in year 13 of this century. They've only just unveiled the cars, Covalent.

*sigh*

2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012

Count them.
*giggle* Is there a special rule I wasn't aware of that you have to include the last year of the twentieth century? Or is a century now 101 years? :D

So you're saying the year 2000 isn't a part of the 2000's?


Part of the 2000's, not part of the 21st century.
OP's fault for conflicting thread title and starting post ;)

But he clearly intended for 2000 to be inclusive here, since he's counting 6WDC's and WCC's for Ferrari.

I blame the idiots who decided 1900 wasn't part of the same century as 1901, same goes for 800 and 801 etc. I mean surely common sense could have prevailed? Yes there was no year 0 I presume, but I also presume before that they weren't counting down the years or saying "Happy Negative 2012!"

Stupid year system, I'm going to continue saying 2000 is part of the 21st century, my way makes sense.

_________________
"You are the universe expressing itself as a Human for a little while..."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 10:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:29 pm
Posts: 1362
Location: Wrexham, UK
rocks4brains wrote:
Of course it's not. Was there a year zero? Decade, century or millenium must have ten, hundred or thousand years. If 2000 is 21th century, then somewhere there's one century with 99 years.


Anyway:

Ferrari (can't look past them)
Red Bull (based on last few years)
McLaren (not enough titles but the amount of wins puts them ahead of Renault)
Renault
Williams (2001-2004)

There is no 21th century. :-P

_________________
"You are the universe expressing itself as a Human for a little while..."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 10:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 4744
jammin78 wrote:
I blame the idiots who decided 1900 wasn't part of the same century as 1901, same goes for 800 and 801 etc. I mean surely common sense could have prevailed? Yes there was no year 0 I presume, but I also presume before that they weren't counting down the years or saying "Happy Negative 2012!"


When you're 30 and 2 months, are you in the 30th year of your life, or in the 31st? ;)
It's pretty logical. A mark was agreed upon, and from that on we had the first year - year one. And before, they had another system of keeping time. Our current system just has been decided like this.

You're free to use whatever you want ofcourse, but there can be confusion from time to time (like now).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 10:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:29 pm
Posts: 1362
Location: Wrexham, UK
mds wrote:
jammin78 wrote:
I blame the idiots who decided 1900 wasn't part of the same century as 1901, same goes for 800 and 801 etc. I mean surely common sense could have prevailed? Yes there was no year 0 I presume, but I also presume before that they weren't counting down the years or saying "Happy Negative 2012!"


When you're 30 and 2 months, are you in the 30th year of your life, or in the 31st? ;)
It's pretty logical. A mark was agreed upon, and from that on we had the first year - year one. And before, they had another system of keeping time. Our current system just has been decided like this.

You're free to use whatever you want ofcourse, but there can be confusion from time to time (like now).

Oh I understand the reason why it was introduced (the lack of year zero for whatever reason), I just prefer my way of looking at it :) Its just something that bugs me. I still think there should have been a year zero.
For instance, the first minute of any timing is 0 minutes and so many seconds, then it becomes 1 minute. So my thinking is a year should be 0 years and however many days until it hits 365 days and becomes... 1. Though at the same time Year 1 implies that it's the first year... whilst the way I look at it (the same way I look at minutes/hours being counted) it implies that there has BEEN a year.

I'm just awkward. When I'm world leader it's one of the things I'm changing. One of many many things. Cenrury's will go 0-99, 100-199, 2000-2099 etc.

Anyway, Ferrari come out on top no matter which way I look at century depictions, and McLaren really don't deserve their high and mighty status :D

_________________
"You are the universe expressing itself as a Human for a little while..."


Last edited by jammin78 on Mon Feb 04, 2013 10:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 10:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 11:35 am
Posts: 698
McLaren having 1 WDC and 0 WCC since the start of the 21st Century is absolutely pathetic for a team like them!! my god!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 10:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 3556
Location: Belgium
jammin78 wrote:
I blame the idiots who decided 1900 wasn't part of the same century as 1901, same goes for 800 and 801 etc. I mean surely common sense could have prevailed? Yes there was no year 0 I presume, but I also presume before that they weren't counting down the years or saying "Happy Negative 2012!"

Stupid year system, I'm going to continue saying 2000 is part of the 21st century, my way makes sense.
It does take a little reflection to remember that 1666 was in the 17th century, but a little reflection is all it takes.
Much less than is required to understand all the artificiality in the current F1 rules. Like DRS to placate the overtake addicts. Or the necessity of having such a thing as FIArrari for so many years.

I was suprised when Britain wanted to get the Millennium Bridge ready for the year 2000. :? No wonder it wobbled!

Anyway.... I hope Sauber will become one of the top 5 teams this century. But so far, it's still their engine supplier.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 10:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 5124
I just read on wikipedia that " The century began on January 1, 2001, and will end on December 31, 2100"
Now that is stupid.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Rosberg - Bottas


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 10:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:29 pm
Posts: 1362
Location: Wrexham, UK
Covalent wrote:
I just read on wikipedia that " The century began on January 1, 2001, and will end on December 31, 2100"
Now that is stupid.

I concur.

_________________
"You are the universe expressing itself as a Human for a little while..."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 11:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2010 5:05 pm
Posts: 2323
Location: Helsinki, Finland
bourbon19 wrote:
My order a bit different: what have you done for me lately ranking:

Red Bull
Braun
McLaren
Ferrari
Renault

Image

Image

_________________
On question about his donuts at the end of the 2007 Belgium Grand Prix, his reply was: “I lost it!”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 11:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 8:01 pm
Posts: 813
jammin78 wrote:
Oh I understand the reason why it was introduced (the lack of year zero for whatever reason), I just prefer my way of looking at it :) Its just something that bugs me. I still think there should have been a year zero.


Completely off-topic, but the reason why there was no year zero was because the Western world started counting the years as we do now (years after Jesus Christ was born) in 607, under the rule of Pope Gregory XIII, that's why it was the called the "Gregorian Calendar".

That was about six centuries before the algebric asbstract concept of "number zero" was introduced in the Christianity throughout Spain by the Arabs. Before then, numbers were merely a way of counting horses or heads of killed ennemies. There was little need of abstract algebra in early Middle Age in Europe, although the Greeks had developped sophisticated maths several centuries before. So, the Gregorian Calendar started by "1" and not by "0".

Mods, feel free to delete my post if you consider it has nothing to see with the thread ;)

_________________
I'm a racing driver. Always was, always will be.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 11:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:29 pm
Posts: 1362
Location: Wrexham, UK
Porsan wrote:
jammin78 wrote:
Oh I understand the reason why it was introduced (the lack of year zero for whatever reason), I just prefer my way of looking at it :) Its just something that bugs me. I still think there should have been a year zero.


Completely off-topic, but the reason why there was no year zero was because the Western world started counting the years as we do now (years after Jesus Christ was born) in 607, under the rule of Pope Gregory XIII, that's why it was the called the "Gregorian Calendar".

That was about six centuries before the algebric asbstract concept of "number zero" was introduced in the Christianity throughout Spain by the Arabs. Before then, numbers were merely a way of counting horses or heads of killed ennemies. There was little need of abstract algebra in early Middle Age in Europe, although the Greeks had developped sophisticated maths several centuries before. So, the Gregorian Calendar started by "1" and not by "0".

Mods, feel free to delete my post if you consider it has nothing to see with the thread ;)

Thank you for the explanation, I did not know that. :D

Please, you may now continue with the thread ladies and gentlemen.

_________________
"You are the universe expressing itself as a Human for a little while..."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 11:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 11:24 am
Posts: 1374
My personal order would be:

1. Ferrari - Had a race winning car every year except 1 (2005, I know it won a race but I wouldn't call it a race winning car)
2. Mclaren - As above but Ferrari have a far superior record in terms of Championships
3. Jaguar/Red Bull - I'm Including rebranded teams as being the same, although in this instance Jaguar contributed f**k all.
4. Benetton/Renault/Lotus - After a dodgy start with the last of the Benneton days, they had a car capable of winning most seasons, 2007, 2009 and 2011 being the exceptions when they were off the pace.
5 = Williams - Only really looked like WC material once (2003) a couple of years of inconsistent race wins.
5 = BAR/Hona/Brawn/Merc - As above

_________________
I remember when this website was all fields.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 12:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 1:55 pm
Posts: 724
Location: Tampere, F1nland
Banana Man wrote:
My personal order would be:

1. Ferrari - Had a race winning car every year except 1 (2005, I know it won a race but I wouldn't call it a race winning car)


Fair enough because few people would call the 2005 USGP a race.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 3176
Location: Nebraska, USA
RaisinChips wrote:
Banana Man wrote:
My personal order would be:

1. Ferrari - Had a race winning car every year except 1 (2005, I know it won a race but I wouldn't call it a race winning car)


Fair enough because few people would call the 2005 USGP a race.


Of course it was a "race", I paid good money to be there and watch 6 cars run around the track thanks to Michelin and the Michelin shod teams. Can't really blame the three teams that ran for having done so.

I understand what you are saying, but no matter how we see it, the record will reflect a race took place and points were scored. However, let us put a lid back on that can of worms!
:nod:

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm
Posts: 5162
Ferrari
Red Bull
McLaren
Renault
Williams

_________________
..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 1899
Ferrari
Red Bull
McLaren


Renault




Brawn

The top three are very close - Ferrari and Red Bull dominated 2001-2004 and 2009-2012 respectively, however McLaren have been the most consistent challenger against the respective winner.

Brawn gets fifth place because of the historical significance of winning the championship in their maiden year and on a shoestring operating budget - even if they did start the year with the most expensive F1 car in the history of the sport thanks for Hondas billions.


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: Arai_or_Nothing, Good_Year, growers, LKS1, Volantary 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
[ Time : 0.144s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]