F1 winners first time out

[D28]

In Red-Hot Rivals, Karl Ludvigsen writes that the Maserati 250F was the rare example of a winner on its debut in Argentina, 1954. That got me wondering how rare this really was. For arguments sake, lets consider F1 cars in World Champion races, excluding the Indy events, and the F2 cars of 1952-53. This would exclude the 61 Ferrari 156 F1, for example as it was a winner in the Syracuse non-championship F1 race, but not in its WC debut at Monaco.
I will include Farina's Alfa-Romeo 158, though far from new, it technically meets the other requirements.

Given these criteria the list would seem to include:
Alfa-Romeo 158 1950
Maserati 250F 1954
Mercedes-Benz W196 1954
BRM P57 1962
Lotus 49 1967
Wolf-Ford 1977
Lotus 79 1978
McLaren-Honda MP4/4 1988
Brawn BGP 001 2009

I am sure there are some others, and some of these may be disputed.
Anyone wish to add to this?

[Don Capps]

In Red-Hot Rivals, Karl Ludvigsen writes that the Maserati 250F was the rare example of a winner on its debut in Argentina, 1954. That got me wondering how rare this really was. For arguments sake, lets consider F1 cars in World Champion races, excluding the Indy events, and the F2 cars of 1952-53. This would exclude the 61 Ferrari 156 F1, for example as it was a winner in the Syracuse non-championship F1 race, but not in its WC debut at Monaco.
I will include Farina's Alfa-Romeo 158, though far from new, it technically meets the other requirements.

Given these criteria the list would seem to include:
Alfa-Romeo 158 1950
Maserati 250F 1954
Mercedes-Benz W196 1954
BRM P57 1962
Lotus 49 1967
Wolf-Ford 1977
Lotus 79 1978
McLaren-Honda MP4/4 1988
Brawn BGP 001 2009

I am sure there are some others, and some of these may be disputed.
Anyone wish to add to this?

By using only events in the Championnat du Monde des Conducteurs using the Formule Internationale rather than events run to the formula you can create erroneous results for those occurrences prior to 1981. Using the criteria of an event run using the Formule Internationale post-WW2 (which would not include the 1952/53 CdMdC seasons and certainly the IMS after 1953 as as probably prior to that) regardless of where it counted towards the CdMdC or not, this would eliminate the Alfa 158 and the BRM P578, but add the Dino 156 due to the victory at Siracusa. Looking the question in this light makes it interesting to note that two marques had models win on their inaugural events in a single season: 1954.

I think that you overlooked the Lola T130/Honda RA300 when you made your list. There could be others, but I have not looked that closely.

[Rollo]

Arguably when teams produce a new car to contest a new season, then whoever wins the first GP of the year would also hold this accolade.

If McLaren-Honda MP4/4 is on the list, then MP4/2, MP4/3, the Ferrari 640, MP4/6 etc. should also be on the list. (as is the Alfa-Romeo 113T in the 2013 season (after Ferrari bought the Toro Rosso team)).

[D-Type]

Don has a valid point: the definition of "First time out" should include non-championship races.

The question of what constitites a new car is far thornier. Taking the original example, was the 1957 250F sufficiently different from the 1954 250F to be described as a new car? Bringing that up to date by substituting 2011 Brawn and 2009 Brawn and the difficulty becomes obvious. The 1961 Ferrari 156 wasn't new at Syracuse - it had run the previous year as a Formula 2 car, but I can't remember if it won on its debut. Pragmatic criteria could be: change of engine, or significant change of chassis and running gear (with the inevitable question of what constitutes "significant"). There can be no hard-and-fast rule and with all the shades of grey, I think you would end up having to justify each case you select.

[Don Capps]

Given that the chassis used by Baghetti ('0008') was the one driven by Ginther at Monaco the previous year (sixth), it needs to be once more removed from the list. It was successful on its F2 debut (Solitude, 1960), but that is irrelevant.

"Rollo" has a point in that after the new championship was established beginning with the 1981 season, there is a greater likelihood that a model will win the first time out.

Duncan also makes a good point in that the 250F/54 and the 250F/57 models were quite different in most respects, the 1957 cars being quite literally a new car when compared to the those from 1954. One can spin all this in a myriad of ways....

[D28]

I sought to keep the criteria simple as possible, by limiting the races specifically to F1 events on the World Championship calendar.
I anticipated the problem of F2 cars evolving into F1 models, as happened with the Ferarri 156 F1. The 120 degree engined car was different enough to be designated a new model. which Ferrari did. Ginther finished 2nd to Moss in the Championship season opener at Monaco 1961, so this would excludes it.
The problem of what constitutes a new model is thorny for sure. The Maserati 250F always carried the same model name, even the V12 version, which would normally call for a different appendage.

The Lola-Honda RA300 I agree should be included. I'm not sure of the others on Rollo's list.
So depending how one frames the definitions, the occurance is not so rare afterall, but still a notable achievment.

[Don Capps]

I sought to keep the criteria simple as possible, by limiting the races specifically to F1 events on the World Championship calendar.
I anticipated the problem of F2 cars evolving into F1 models, as happened with the Ferarri 156 F1. The 120 degree engined car was different enough to be designated a new model. which Ferrari did. Ginther finished 2nd to Moss in the Championship season opener at Monaco 1961, so this would excludes it.
The problem of what constitutes a new model is thorny for sure. The Maserati 250F always carried the same model name, even the V12 version, which would normally call for a different appendage.

The Lola-Honda RA300 I agree should be included. I'm not sure of the others on Rollo's list.
So depending how one frames the definitions, the occurance is not so rare afterall, but still a notable achievment.

While using the championship criteria obviously works for recent examples, it does necessarily not work so well for the deep, dark past.

Knowing what I know regarding the Maserati 250F series, I will simply take note of your comment.

As for the Dino 156 cars, the only difference twix the 65 degree and 120 degree models were the engines, both using the same chassis with the necessary mods to accomodate the wider engine. But, in relation to the query, also irrelevant.

Given that the W25 did not start at the AVUSrennen, but did win on its first race outing, the Eifelrennen, it could make the list, but for the minor point that it was not a Formule Internationale event, even if the cars apparently conformed to the formula. There are other examples from way-back-when, of course, so might be more of there being an era or seasons when this was unusual rather than being a blanket sort of thing.

It might be more accurate to note that while relatively rare at one time in GP, some decades ago, the occurence is not that unusual in contemporary F1 racing.

Also, simplicity of the sort suggested often simply opens the door to skewed information.... which is bountiful enough as it is.

[D28]

I meant to include only races from 1950-on. I thought F1 World Championship races implied that, could have been more specific. Lack of details on results prior to 1950 and also all non-championship races prompted me to exclude them.
Anyway I found no list in records sources of first time winners, probably because there would be no agreement on inclusion.

I don't feel I have contributed to skewed information, I simply suggested a list stating "for agruments sake' and asked for additions, thinking it could make for an interesting discussion.

[Don Capps]

I meant to include only races from 1950-on. I thought F1 World Championship races implied that, could have been more specific. Lack of details on results prior to 1950 and also all non-championship races prompted me to exclude them.
Anyway I found no list in records sources of first time winners, probably because there would be no agreement on inclusion.

I don't feel I have contributed to skewed information, I simply suggested a list stating "for agruments sake' and asked for additions, thinking it could make for an interesting discussion.

There were no "F1 World Championship races" until the 1981 season. Indeed, not until the 1961 season did the regulations for the CdMdC specify for the first time that the events in the championship had to be run using the International Racing Formula 1. Just pointing this out so that you might understand just how loose and inaccurate such terms are that tossed around people who then seem unable to grasp the idea of, "The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there." (L. P. Hartley, The Go-Between, 1953)

It is an interesting question, but by skewing the selection criteria to only world champion events since 1950 -- while excluding the F2 seasons of 1952/53 and the IMS races of the 1950/60 period, "such arguments" may create false information of the sort that already clogs the system. As difficult as it may seem to many to realize, to arbitrarily ignore events outside those run as part of the championship is a form of revisionist history, often of the worst sort.

Again, it an interesting question and a bit of a surprise to realize how infequent such an occurance was at times.

[D28]

Yes, you have made these ponts before on this and other forums (see Feb 11 here). You are correct and 99 % of others commenting on F1 are wrong. Do you really expect the other 99% to conform to your terminology? Yes, I get it that there were no F1 World Championship races before 1981, but in the mean time, I am unable to pose a question, or even make a comment as I don't have the correct terminology, the french title of whatever the series prior to 1981 was called. There is no need to explain further, i've read it.

I really do not understand how you view this discussion forum. I object to being accused of posting skewed information. It is a list, nothing that anyone will quote as fact. Something like greatest drivers of 20th century, nothing more important.

I really regret ever posting the thread in the first place, as I anticipated something similar. I will not make the same mistake again.

[Don Capps]

Do you really expect the other 99% to conform to your terminology?

In a word: Yes.


Yes, I get it that there were no F1 World Championship races before 1981, but in the mean time, I am unable to pose a question, or even make a comment as I don't have the correct terminology, the french title of whatever the series prior to 1981 was called. There is no need to explain further, i've read it.

So, why having the snit? You were told that you were asking what was, basically, a very good and interesting question, one which would prompt some digging and thinking. It would have required not much effort to craft your question in such a way as to cover all the bases that could be considered.


I really do not understand how you view this discussion forum. I object to being accused of posting skewed information. It is a list, nothing that anyone will quote as fact. Something like greatest drivers of 20th century, nothing more important.

There is the word "history" in the title of this sub-forum. History is not, contrary to what seems to be the usual thinking in these sort of groups, nostalgia or opinion or the events of last week. To paraphrase Pat Moynihan, while you and others are certainly entitled to your opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts. If there is a problem with me ensuring that the facts are correct, then there is no need for me to waste any further time here. That simple. I do have lots of other things to do, to include my research.

[D28]

Right, if I worked around the clock, there is no way I could arrive at a question satisfactory to you. I delayed posting for days simply because I didn't wish to hear from you what was wrong. If I had left the Indy cars unmentioned, you would have pointed to the Bowes Seal Fast..... etc. This is the basic problem.

I see the forum as a place where racing enthusiasts can duscuss some past events, in a non-confrontational mode; I go back 51 years for what its worth. You may have a different formal, academic forum in mind, where to discuss serial numbers, models and so on. If so I can add nothing.

As I mentioned I cannot understand your use of derogatory terminology, skewed information, revisionist history, clog the system .. and so on. The original question would be clear to 98% of readers of this forum. It is also clear to you, but not correctly expressed. Why exactly do you feel the need to downgrade other enthusiasts? Surely you recognize some other magazine writers, authors, commentators that have some valid opinions on motorsport? My experience with vintage racers and enthusiasts is that they are invariable polite, this is what drew me to vintage racing and here in the first place.

As for your goal to get the other 99% of writers to agree to your terminology, I simply cannot help you there.

Truly regret ever posing the qustion here, in the first place.

[Mark]

As far as most people are concerned, and indeed in practice is that Formula 1 started in 1950 and continues to this day. There may have been changes in the background a reforming of governing bodies, a recasting of the rules etc, but that doesn't change that there is a continuous line of Formula 1 all the way from 1950 to this day. And arguing over technicalities doesn't change that.

And to "do a Balestre" that's my decision therefore it's a good one ;)

PS. I guess the first time out question is a difficult one, what do you consider a new car? As F1 teams generally turn up to the first race of the season with new cars anyway! I guess you could only count new teams with brand new entrants.

In terms of drivers, I don't believe a driver has ever won their first F1 race, although Villeneuve came mighty close in Australia 1996.

[Alexamateo]

Giancarlo Baghetti won the French Grand Prix in 1961 although he had run in (and won) non-championship events prior.

[D-Type]

In Red-Hot Rivals, Karl Ludvigsen writes that the Maserati 250F was the rare example of a winner on its debut in Argentina, 1954. That got me wondering how rare this really was. For arguments sake, lets consider F1 cars in World Champion races, excluding the Indy events, and the F2 cars of 1952-53. This would exclude the 61 Ferrari 156 F1, for example as it was a winner in the Syracuse non-championship F1 race, but not in its WC debut at Monaco.
I will include Farina's Alfa-Romeo 158, though far from new, it technically meets the other requirements.

Given these criteria the list would seem to include:
Alfa-Romeo 158 1950
Maserati 250F 1954
Mercedes-Benz W196 1954
BRM P57 1962
Lotus 49 1967
Wolf-Ford 1977
Lotus 79 1978
McLaren-Honda MP4/4 1988
Brawn BGP 001 2009

I am sure there are some others, and some of these may be disputed.
Anyone wish to add to this?
I don't have a problem with this. D28 clearly set out the criteria he wanted to apply to his thread.

The complex question of whether we should retrospectively apply the current situation where "Grand Prix", "World Champion" and "Formula 1" are synonyms to the past should be the subject of a separate thread.

[D-Type]

Taking off my moderator's hat:

If we were to include non-Championship F1 races then Stirling Moss scoring the [Costin/Chapman] Vanwall's debut win in the 1956 Daily Express International Trophy would be a contender. And Baghetti winning the 1961 Syracuse GP would be the Ferrari 156 winning on its debut as a Formula 1 car - and Baghetti winning on his Formula 1 debut. But the rules of this thread exclude non-Championship races ...

[Don Capps]

As far as most people are concerned, and indeed in practice is that Formula 1 started in 1950 and continues to this day. There may have been changes in the background a reforming of governing bodies, a recasting of the rules etc, but that doesn't change that there is a continuous line of Formula 1 all the way from 1950 to this day. And arguing over technicalities doesn't change that.

And to "do a Balestre" that's my decision therefore it's a good one ;)

PS. I guess the first time out question is a difficult one, what do you consider a new car? As F1 teams generally turn up to the first race of the season with new cars anyway! I guess you could only count new teams with brand new entrants.

In terms of drivers, I don't believe a driver has ever won their first F1 race, although Villeneuve came mighty close in Australia 1996.

Well, no use for me hang around them if that is how it is going to be.

Yet another of the many cases of don't bother us with any actual history.

I had hoped for better, but then again, that was silly of me wasn't it?

Cheerio, Jean-Marie and gang!

[D-Type]

Don,
I think this is simply a case of "There's a time and place for everything" - and this wasn't really the time or place.

Your expert knowledge is welcome here - but please curb the abrasiveness.

[Mark]

Don, of course you are welcome here, but you have to remember that not everyone wishes to apply strict criteria to everything.

[Don Capps]

As Pat Moynihan observed, while someone may be entitled to their own opinion, they are not entitled to their own facts. You -- collectively -- want your own facts and that is unacceptable to me. Therefore, time to leave and move on, although not necessarily elsewhere given that all the other fora are pretty much a waste of time as well when it comes to automotive history. Besides, speaking of time, I am way behind on my research and -- especially -- my writing and given that any time here is time away from that, I was going to have to cut back drastically or leave soon anyway. It was good while it lasted and I do appreciate the opportunity, but I truly see no reason to remain.

Thanks and best wishes.