F1 winners first time out

[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.