A Good Start

teabagyokel

#dejavu
Valued Member
Who wants to win the flyaways?
CTA.jpg


Only on 5 occasions in the last 17 years (since 1994) has the World Champion not been leading after 4 races.

  • In 1999, Michael Schumacher was injured at Silverstone and did not complete the season
  • In 2003, Ferrari's running of the F2002 in the first few races backfired
  • In 2007, McLaren imploded
  • In 2008, Hamilton pinched the title which should have been Ferrari's
  • In 2010, Button's position was a little false due to rain, although Vettel was down in 5th at this stage
This all suggests that it is a good idea to start well in the first couple of races if you want to be crowned champion. In F1, a good start can be very difficult to pull back...
 

Galahad

Not a Moderator
Valued Member
There's a much stronger correlation between some of the early races and the eventual world champion than, for example, Spa, or Monza (which is almost never won by that season's champion).

Without the figures in front of me I think Melbourne and Sepang are the ones you really want to win, based on historical precedent.
 

teabagyokel

#dejavu
Valued Member
What about Shanghai? Don't the champions often win there in their year?
2009,10 - didn't, 2007,08 - did, 2006 - didn't, 2005 - did but after winning title, 2004 - didn't

So that's 3/7 for the Champions.
Melbourne tends to be good, but not last year; Monza has only 2 winner champions in the last 20 years - both Schumacher!
 

snowy

Champion Elect
I wonder if anyone would deliberately not win in Monza just to improve their chances of winning the Championship?:blink:

Perhaps that was Lewis's thinking last year...
 

cider_and_toast

Exulted Lord High Moderator of the Apex
Staff Member
Premium Contributor
I wonder what it is about Monza that makes it like that? 2 out of 16 is more than just chance.

Suzuka I can understand being predominately gold because it appears near the end of the season and therefore is either a track where a world champion is almost as good as confirmed or one where he needs to win to stay in the chase.

All though, having said that, since Brazil was moved from near the start of the season to the end of the season it's gone from 8 out of 10 champions winning between 1994 and 2003 to only 2 out of 7 champions winning between 2004 and 2010.

 

tooncheese

Hans Heyer
Contributor
Well Spa tends to wet, and if it isn't t is chaotic anyway. Monza is a unique track, so a car that is fast there will be much worse at one of the many slower tracks that fill the calendar. Suzuka and Catalunya are generally won by the best car, due the the perfect downforce that is needed.
 

teabagyokel

#dejavu
Valued Member
Well Spa tends to wet, and if it isn't t is chaotic anyway. Monza is a unique track, so a car that is fast there will be much worse at one of the many slower tracks that fill the calendar. Suzuka and Catalunya are generally won by the best car, due the the perfect downforce that is needed.
Spa also tends to be dominated by a driver in recent times; Senna, Hill, Schumacher and Raikkonen have had long runs of Spa wins.

Note that the years Catalunya is missed were:
  • 2000 - McLaren arguably best car
  • 2005 - McLaren certainly best chassis
  • 1994, 2007*, 2008, 2010 - Wins for WCC!
It is Monza's exceptionalness that creates this pattern (added to a bit of luck), in 1994-01 there were only two Champion winners at old Hockenheim, for example. The pattern is replicated in Hungary, too, since 2002 only Schumi in 2004 has taken both the slowest (non-street) race and the crown. The story in Monte Carlo is more about Ferrari being particularly poor - in a decade giving them 7 Constructors' crowns they won there once.
 

KekeTheKing

Banned
Supporter
Only on 5 occasions in the last 17 years (since 1994) has the World Champion not been leading after 4 races.
Indeed. But 3 of those have been in the last 4 years.

The competition in Formula One is tighter than ever. I'm looking forward to another incredibly close season.
 
Top Bottom