FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[deMuRe]

I reckon the greatest Formula 1 team ever should be decided in terms of units currency of your choice spent per point or win.

For example Torro Rosso made alot of very well funded teams look silly last year.

That's a really good idea actually...

[Gert]

I reckon the greatest Formula 1 team ever should be decided in terms of units currency of your choice spent per point or win.

For example Torro Rosso made alot of very well funded teams look silly last year.

That's a really good idea actually...

Thanks, now get started. It may only take 6 months or so but with the right people kept informed about you might get a Master's out of it.

[Denthúl]

I reckon the greatest Formula 1 team ever should be decided in terms of units currency of your choice spent per point or win.

For example Torro Rosso made alot of very well funded teams look silly last year.

Toro Rosso don't count in such a comparison - they didn't spend as much as the bigger teams because they don't pay for their car and any of the development work carried out on it. They don't have to fund their own wind tunnels and CFD machines and don't need to employ a design department. So of course their costs are going to be at least €50m less than anybody else's.

[AKR]

Honestly, did anybody expect anything else from some Ferrari fans?

Let's just ignore this sort of thing & concentrate on the posts that actually offer something to the thread.

As I see it there are 2 approaches suggested so far:-

A. Technical innovation

B. Cash per point

Taking point B 1st, it should be possible to look at all the teams that have ever raced in F1, allow for inflation since 1950 & see which team wins that way. That is, however, a very long process & to whoever is inclined to do it you have my respect.

Point A is where the interest is 'cos we should be able to spend some considerble time discussing whether introducing monoque (spelling?) chassis & ground effects brought more to F1 than carbon fibre chassis & looney metals in the engines did & that's where I think we should spend our time.

Perhaps if some Ferrari fan(s) would like to tell us which innovations their team is responsible for we could then try to analyse their worth to F1.

Inovation doesn't give you success or glory if you don't win races and championships. That is a fact. In WW2 Germany came up with some of thr best weaponry or innovative ideas so to say. Jet fighter planes, rockets, missiles and they still lost the war. So what good was that in the end to them as they lost. So Lotus and McLaren had more innovative ideas than Ferrari but Ferrari still won more races and championships which is what the goal to do is in F1. So I don't know who you are trying to kid, but you certainily won't be convincing me nor many with this idea or theory and how you determine who the greatest F1 team ever actually is.

[Denthúl]

Honestly, did anybody expect anything else from some Ferrari fans?

Let's just ignore this sort of thing & concentrate on the posts that actually offer something to the thread.

As I see it there are 2 approaches suggested so far:-

A. Technical innovation

B. Cash per point

Taking point B 1st, it should be possible to look at all the teams that have ever raced in F1, allow for inflation since 1950 & see which team wins that way. That is, however, a very long process & to whoever is inclined to do it you have my respect.

Point A is where the interest is 'cos we should be able to spend some considerble time discussing whether introducing monoque (spelling?) chassis & ground effects brought more to F1 than carbon fibre chassis & looney metals in the engines did & that's where I think we should spend our time.

Perhaps if some Ferrari fan(s) would like to tell us which innovations their team is responsible for we could then try to analyse their worth to F1.

Inovation doesn't give you success or glory if you don't win races and championships. That is a fact. In WW2 Germany came up with some of thr best weaponry or innovative ideas so to say. Jet fighter planes, rockets, missiles and they still lost the war. So what good was that in the end to them as they lost. So Lotus and McLaren had more innovative ideas than Ferrari but Ferrari still won more races and championships which is what the goal to do is in F1. So I don't know who you are trying to kid, but you certainily won't be convincing me nor many with this idea or theory and how you determine who the greatest F1 team ever actually is.

Greatness != success.

[bud]

time is fluid, the Greatest can really only be judged at the end. Right now youd have to say Ferrari is but ten years from now that could all change. so really who gives a s***!

[EwanM]

As ive said earlier these things cannot be judged.
Mind you nobody was paying much attention to that.

[Gert]

Honestly, did anybody expect anything else from some Ferrari fans?

Let's just ignore this sort of thing & concentrate on the posts that actually offer something to the thread.

As I see it there are 2 approaches suggested so far:-

A. Technical innovation

B. Cash per point

Taking point B 1st, it should be possible to look at all the teams that have ever raced in F1, allow for inflation since 1950 & see which team wins that way. That is, however, a very long process & to whoever is inclined to do it you have my respect.

Point A is where the interest is 'cos we should be able to spend some considerble time discussing whether introducing monoque (spelling?) chassis & ground effects brought more to F1 than carbon fibre chassis & looney metals in the engines did & that's where I think we should spend our time.

Perhaps if some Ferrari fan(s) would like to tell us which innovations their team is responsible for we could then try to analyse their worth to F1.

Inovation doesn't give you success or glory if you don't win races and championships. That is a fact. In WW2 Germany came up with some of thr best weaponry or innovative ideas so to say. Jet fighter planes, rockets, missiles and they still lost the war. So what good was that in the end to them as they lost. So Lotus and McLaren had more innovative ideas than Ferrari but Ferrari still won more races and championships which is what the goal to do is in F1. So I don't know who you are trying to kid, but you certainily won't be convincing me nor many with this idea or theory and how you determine who the greatest F1 team ever actually is.

I claim Godwin's law.

[scotty]

In one sense, the greatest team ever would be the members of the 1988 McLaren team...

[EwanM]

In one sense, the greatest team ever would be the members of the 1988 McLaren team...

But then by that logic the Second Greatest team would be that of Ferrari in 2002?

[scotty]

In one sense, the greatest team ever would be the members of the 1988 McLaren team...

But then by that logic the Second Greatest team would be that of Ferrari in 2002?

I guess so, yeah... although that didn't have the total domination in every area like some other cars imo, looking at the fact that Montoya got so many poles that season... the '92 and '96 Williams teams were very good too.

[EwanM]

In one sense, the greatest team ever would be the members of the 1988 McLaren team...

But then by that logic the Second Greatest team would be that of Ferrari in 2002?

I guess so, yeah... although that didn't have the total domination in every area like some other cars imo, looking at the fact that Montoya got so many poles that season... the '96 Williams team was very good too.

That's true, Williams had very good qually pace back then.

The 96 Williams operation was great - And 97 should have been a cake walk if Jacque wasn't so inconsistent.
Williams 92 as well until Mansell won his title and sat back slightly were also amazing.

Damn Williams, get out of Tyrrell Mode and get back to the front!

[scotty]

Holy crap, i never knew Mansell got 14 out of 16 poles in 1992, that is quite incredible...

[EwanM]

Holy crap, i never knew Mansell got 14 out of 16 poles in 1992, that is quite incredible...

Exactly, the season Nigel undermined his greatness. If luck had transpired differently, Alain Prost would only be a 3 time champ, and Piquet a double.
Mansell 3 time.

BUT it's in the past, we all know he was a class act. Indy Car underlined that.

[scotty]

Holy crap, i never knew Mansell got 14 out of 16 poles in 1992, that is quite incredible...

Exactly, the season Nigel undermined his greatness. If luck had transpired differently, Alain Prost would only be a 3 time champ, and Piquet a double.
Mansell 3 time.

BUT it's in the past, we all know he was a class act. Indy Car underlined that.

...if only Prost hadn't gotten in the way of Mansell from having that FW15 too, damn him!

Back OT, i guess it all depends on what criteria you set for 'greatness'.