Printable View
Between the 5 June 1952 (Belgian GP) and 21 June 1953 (Belgian GP), Alberto Ascari drove 9 times in a row as the winner over the finish line. But I think, this record is not really a record. Because there was the Indy 500 which was won by Bill Vukovich on 30 May 1953.
I know not all F1 drivers took part at the Indy 500 but it was part of the F1 championship. So the record doesn't count as a record in my opinion.
What do you think?
Any race on the F1 calender counts for me. It would be like saying Shumi's win at Indy with 6 starters doesn't count.
No, it counts. I mean the Indianapolis 500 which was part of the F1 championship between 1950 and 1960. The other races are the US GPs. They had took the Indy 500 in the F1 calender to call the championship as a world championship, because almost every GP was in Europe in the 1950s.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic
The first US GP was on 12 December 1959. In Sebring which was won by Bruce McLaren.
There are valid arguments for and against the 9 in a row record
On one hand, the 500 was part of the championship. All the 500 winners of that era are also scored championship points so not taking part and not winning it means he didn't win 9 championship races in a row
On the other hand the 500 ran to its own regulations and was never a Formula One race so even without taking part in that he still won 9 Formula One races in a row
In any case 7 or 9 races, its still a record
Not really. Michael Schumacher had 7 wins in a row in 2004. Between the European GP (30 May 2004) and the Hungarian GP (15 August 2004). :pQuote:
Originally Posted by ChrisS
so? even if you only count 7, Schumacher just tied the record, he didnt break itQuote:
Originally Posted by cynisca
There are no valid arguments for the 9 in a row record. This is the reason:Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisS
The Indianapolis 500 was part of the championship because the FIA sanctioned that... it was part of the championship. Since the FIA are the owners of the title, they alone decide the conditions which make up how it shall be run and won.Quote:
Originally Posted by cynisca
It really doesn't matter what regulations the race itself was run to. By virtue of above, that is an irrelevancy.
http://www.formula1.com/results/season/1953/690/
The official FIA website counts it as part of the '53 season. This battle is over!
it wasn't an F1 race (then again none of the 52-53 championship races were) so for most consecutive F1 wins 9 can be considered correct
Ascari won in NINE CONSECUTIVE STARTS
nuff said, thats a record in my view
91 wins, 7 WDC's, 22 consecutive podiums and 13 wins in a single season...
nuff said, that's a record in my view
Put another way, in 1952 and 1953 Ascari won every Championship GP he started except for France and Italy in 1953.
Indianapolis is an irrelevance - when the World Drivers' Championship was inaugurated the Americans quite rightly said that it couldn't be termed a 'World' championship without the world's greatest race. (Incidentally when Formula 1 was introduced in 1947, the organisers tried to change the Indianapolis rules to make the race compliant but under pressure from the runners of 3-litre supercharged cars, principally the Novis, they stayed with what they had that was essentially the 1938 Grand Prix rules).
And please, don't use F1 as shorthand for World Championship - they are not the same thing. Remember it has only been named the "FIA Formula 1 World Championship" since 1982. There were 30 years of World Championship history before then!
The record is correct - because he didn't enter the Indy 500 - therefore he won 9 races out of 9 that he entered in succession. Had he entered the Indy 500 and not won then that would have been a different story.
Ascari`s achievements in 52-53 are amazing! but sadly not a record. The WDC records would show the indy500 breaking up ascaris fine run of success, so even though he won 9 times from 9 starts, thats NOT the same as winning 9 consecutive world championship events.
One strange thing from this period is the WDC being run to F2 regs + indy 500.The F2 regs were used because of a lack of competitive F1 machinery after Alfa`s withdrawal at the end of 1951, leaving Ferrari the only competitve F1 team ( the theortically faster BRM V16 being woefully unreliable at this time). So, to improve the competition the wdc was run to F2 regs - which Ferrari completely dominated! So, management meddling didnt work in the 50`s either!
Plus ca change, plus ca mem chose!
or something :)
I have alway considered Ascari's string to be the record, perhaps Grand Prix wins, if we have to be picky. 9 GP wins in a row, over a years's period is no snall feat. It is about the only record that M. Schumacher does not own.
In the early 1950s, it was almost impossible to compete at Indy and carry on a full European program. Ascari did enter the 1952 Indy, qualifying an ill-suited Ferrari 19th, and dropping out early with a broken wheel. He won much praise from the Americans for his smooth precise style. He paved the way for later attempts by Brabham and Clark. Had he entered the Swiss GP, instead of Indy, his record could have been 10 consecutive victories.
It would be 10 years from Ascari's time before Indy and F1 could be tackled in the same season. Jim Clark is the only driver to win at Indy and F1 in the same season; in 1965 he won 6 F1 races plus Indy and even then had to skip Monaco.
He did enter the Indy 500 one year (I think it was '53) and he finished 32nd after a wheel problem.
In 52 driving the 375 IndyQuote:
Originally Posted by woody2goody
He is the only European race at Indy as part of the World Championship
As Blito said the regs at the time were run as F2 which meant that the competition wasn't as tough (as there wasn't an abundance of cars) and also that the cars weren't F1 cars! Ascari is a strange one, nobody ever rates him as one of the best of all time despite his 2 championships, the only thing people remember him for was going for a swin at Monaco in 1955!
Most knowledgeable observers do list Ascari as one of the top drivers ever, Motorsport listed him as #16 for 20th century pilots and this included the pre war aces ( Nuvolari was 1).
In the early 50s he was considered on a par with Fangio, even quicker on certain days.
The decision to run the 1952-53 World Championship to F2 regulations should in no way detract from the results. If the current crop of F1 drivers were to race in GP2 cars, the competition would be just as fierce, maybe better. There were a host of F2 cars available, judging by the grids. Ferrari was dominant winning every race but one, but Maserati did field competitive cars in those days. Ascari still had to race teamates Farina,Taruffi and Villoresi. Fangio missed 1952 due to an injury but he was competitive in 53 for Maserati.
Any driver can only race against the field and Ascari took on all comers for over a year without defeat. He truly deserves a top ranking for F1 drivers, all time.
Not quite, 9 consecutive F1 Championship races is correct, there were plenty of non-championship F1 races in between which Ascari didn't winQuote:
Originally Posted by ChrisS
There were plenty of non-championship F1/F2 races in 1952-53, and Ascari won 6 of them. This gives more indication that he was the man to beat over this period.
Odly enough , the dominant car in those non-championship F1 races was the BRM V16, winning something like a Dozen races in those two years!
D28, I don't contest he was one of the best of his time, what I said was it's strange people don't regard him up there with the greats. Perhaps that is because he died in 55 and therefore was only in the F1 history books a short time. I guess what I meant was F2 cars are never going to be as tough as F1 cars to drive but I do agree the guys he was racing against were tough competitors.
The FIA did never "owned" the original championship, the Championnat du Monde des Conducteurs, in the sense that it now owns the current championship. Its sporting commission, the CSI, included the International 500 Mile Sweepstakes event at Indianapolis in the original 1925 world championship -- it was the inaugural event, in fact -- and included the event in the championship from 1950 to 1960.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Although the reason that is usually given and accepted for the switch to F2 in 1952 and 1953 as the lack of suitable F1 cars, the reasons are really a bit more complicated than that, of course. The failure of BRM to make a committment to the series -- the Spring race at Torino in particular being cited -- when Alfa stepped down in early 1952 seems to be the usual reason given, but even before that occurred several clubs had already opted for running their events to F2 or were openly discussing the possibility of doing so. As ever, the root of the issue was money, the organizing clubs often being somewhat stingy with their prize and starting monies. F2 was relatively cheaper and, therefore, an attractive option for the clubs. There was also the hazy, fuzzy role of the CSI and the championship in the grand scheme of things, the former allocating places on the international sporting calendar to the clubs for their national events, those counting towards the championship in other words, on the assumption that they would be run to the Formule Internationale. Initially, the CSI appeared to not be very concerned when a club or two decided to run their event to F2, but when the stampede began, the CSI -- in an unusually smart move for The Gents in Blazers -- went along with the tide, lest it end up like King Harold.Quote:
Originally Posted by blito
Although this has been mentioned before, from 1950 to 1953 the Indianapolis event was run to a formula that meant that the vast majority of the machines participating during those years conformed to the Formule Internationale, which was certainly not the case from 1954 to 1960, of course.
Most of the time people don' t think of contradictions when they try such a vain thing as classifying drivers .
But, please, when those contradictions are easy to find, they are kindly invited to measure all the consequences of their choice.
Classifying Ascari is a good example of those : you' ll find most of the observers that will praise Fangio and put him always in the top ranked list, but at the same time doesn't want to see that their choice wld oblige them to put Ascari too. At least if they want their judgement to have some value . Why ? Simply because during 3 years Ascari was completely in par with him, and maybe better.
I have no particular sympathies for both of them, simply because I didn 't know them. Let us admire them for their accomplishments, but from a far distance.
So how Fangio can be so great, and Ascari effectively so much forgotten ?? ( remark won 't apply for serious observers and witnesses of that era, but for the main stream of motor racing followers )
Same apply for Senna : those who put him as the greatest or in the top ranked drivers, should as well have some praise for Prost, to give better value to their judgement .But in most case, Prost won't be on their list.Let me think we can guess why.Strange, isn' it ?
Michel
Ascari's proper place in F1 hierarchy continues to provoke lots of discussion on this and other blogs. For me his record speaks volumes and needs little further embelishment by supporters. In terms of legacy he was hugely unlucky. Ultimately to lose his life in a freak, unsheduled test drive, but also to see his greatest domination of GP racing run to F2 regulations. Secondly the 1952 season was run without JM Fangio's participation.
Ascari had no control whatever over either event, and probably wished Fangio had been present. He had no fear of racing against him having beaten him numerous times. Observers at the time certainly rated them as equals it is only in later years that Ascari's star has dimmed somewhat. As to why, there is no clear obvious answer.
Take it easy. 9 wins in a row in motor-racing history are more likely made by super power of a car&team. Not by any driver.
In this topic AA was just so lucky to have such dominant car&team. Just like Fangio had in other seasons, or like MS in 2002, 2004.
Quick fact: same driver, MS, but without dominant car, just loose to his team-mate 3 seasons in a row: 2010-2011-2012. Really?
What I think D-Type (in your other thread) and certainly me, are trying to point to, is the utter domination Alberto Ascari held over major GP racing in 1952-53. From Jun 52 to Jul 53 he not only did well, but won every WC European race held, and won another 5 or 6 non-championship F2 races. I don't know , or frankly care how the official F1 record book treats the streak, either 9, or "only" 7 GP; Michael Schumacher in 2004 equaled it at 7, but this does not surpass Ascari's feat.Quote:
Originally Posted by kup
On the Ferrari team were Taruffi, Villoresi, Farina and later Hawthorn, the latter two were not inclined to follow the leader; indeed Hawthorn finally ended the streak at 9 at the French GP.
For you to concoct a point system that somehow would deprive Ascari of top status in 1953, is utter nonsense, Ascari won more GPs in 1953 than Hawthorn did lifetime. Somehow I don't think it was all up to the car.
And why did Ascari, Fangio, Schumacher and others end up in the dominant car?Quote:
Originally Posted by kup
Answers:
(1) Team owners aren't stupid. They will try to get the best driver they can to drive their car
(2) Drivers aren't stupid either. They will try to get a drive in the best car they can
(3) One of the characteristics of a top driver is the ability to set up a car
(4) Combine (1), (2) and (3) and you find that the best drivers generally end up in the best cars
[i]" His untimely death at the age of 37 left the road clear for Fangio to drive on to immortality.To be sure, he was challenged on occasion by the young pretenders Mike Hawthorn and Stirling Moss, but their victories were few and far between and they never remotely challenged his overall supremacy, which he never possessed so long as Ascari was around. Ascari's record shows that he was capable of beating Fangio virtually any day of the week but with no Ascari to challenge him, Juan Manuel racked up four World Championships in a row before retiring in 1958and his outstanding success in the years after Alberto's death, culminating with that sensational drive in the 1957 German GP, have undoubtedly overshadowed the Italian's achievements. Yet in Ascari' s lifetime there were many who considered him to be better than Fangio and observers were referring to him as Maestro long before that accolade was bestowed upon the Argentine.
It is worth noting that Fangio declined Gianni Lancia 's invitation to join Ascari in his Grand Prix team and the fact that, had he done so, one of them would have proved to be faster than the other may well have had something to do with it.In the light of Fangio's god-like reputation today that may seem like heresy, but in 1954 both were in the Lancia sportscar team for two events and whether racing on the wide, aerodrome spaces of Sebring through the serpentine roads that ran between the hedgerows of Dundrod, Ascari was consistently the quicker and, in the Tourist Trophy by a considerable margin . Autocourse published the lap times of every car ( to seconds only, no tenths)and Ascari's fastest lap was 4'50", as opposed to Fangio 4' 55".
Alberto Ascari was unquestionably one of the greatest drivers of all time. He excelled on any circuit you care to name and at the Nürburgring, the most demanding of all, he was virtually unbeatable.He won pole position in all four GPs he entered(1) , set fastest lap in three and won three.And he won the first 1000 kms. If the Nordschleife is a yardstick of a driver's greatness, then Alberto Ascari has no superiors. "
from the late Chris Nixon recommandable book : "Kings of the Nürburgring" published in 2005
(1) 1950 race with F2 rules
so these are arguments .
Ascari overshadowed greatness suffer certainly of the few litterature available on him.Now, youngsters and even Motor Racing enthusiasts in their fifties don't have much way to appreciate Ascari ( or simply the time to look closely at this driver) because his name is rarely pronounced in debates.
From a distance, I still think the definitive book on Ascari's achievements has to be written . But the sad thing is there are few chances one of Ascari's contemporary will be there to do the job.
michel
I agree completely. I see there is a biography still available from noted journalist Karl Ludvigsen, published in 2000. Perhaps someone would care to comment on this book?
I've just realised that having been born in 1918, Ascari missed many of what might have been his best racing years due to World War 2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by D-Type
accurate and fine remark .
It cld apply to another italian in cyclism : Gino Bartali wld certainly have enlarged his collection of trophies, had WW2 not happened. Thus,deprieving him to be regarded as an all time great, he certainly deserves to be.
( for info :no, I am not Italian :D )
Quote:
Originally Posted by D28
This book is the next priority order .I always postponed it of the list. Ludgvisen is old enough certainly to have collected some
inputs from people of the fifties.
For a thread title that was not at all defined that way (loads of people have had 9 wins in a row at all sorts of levels) this seems to have generated one hell of an argument!
Yes but not in F1, which I think is the point of most of the discussion. The thread seems to have evolved into Ascari's proper place in GP hierarchy, nothing wrong there.
I am intrigued by the "loads of people" who have won 9 on the trot. I thought of Mark Donohue in Trans Am sedans, but even winning 10 of 13 in 68, he didn't quite do this; Tommy Kendall did 11 in a row in 1997, but I don't know how competitive
that season was. Could you provide some examples of 9 consecutive wins, in a reasonably familiar international series?
In addition to Kendall, I found Richard Petty winning 10 NASCAR races in a row, 1967. That is all I found.
FAL or anyone, who else won 9 consecutive races?
This topic may be about to heat up again with Vettel's win in Abu Dhabi. A lot of news stories have muddled things by claiming Vettel equaled Schumacher's record of 7 in a row, rather than Ascari's. If they mean 7 consecutive wins in a season, they must say so. This seems grossly unfair to Ascari as there were 7 European GP in 52 and 8 in 53. Had he skipped Indy is 1952, the 7 in one season would easily have been his.
He was about the only driver of the era to give Indy a serious try, yet his recognition of achievement probably would have been greater had he skipped it. Very hard for him to get much respect these days, and that is a shame.
They have been mentioning the record of 7 wins in a row has been equalled for current generation drivers. The 9 wins in a row by Ascari is still the overall record since F1 came into inception :)Quote:
Originally Posted by D28
F1 racing is very poorly reported in N America, a lot of the items here simply say Schumacher's record was matched, no mention of Ascari.
The entire file of F1 records reach back only 53 years, so its rather dubious to talk of current generation; no other sport does this.
I am concerned that should Vettel win in Texas, he will be credited with the streak record period, and any mention of Ascari will cease.
I sincerely hope this doesn't happen, Vettel has years to add all kinds of records, but a few deserve to be held by the initial F1 group.
I hope not too, the fact is Ascari won 9 in a row that he raced in. Until Vettel achieves that in Brazil, Ascari is ahead and should be recognised a such.