As a member of the strange breed that likes to write about F1 history, one is always on the lookout for anniversaries. Those of multiples of five. Or ideally multiples of 10.
They’re nice round numbers after all. And one such recent scan took me to 40 years ago – the 1977 season. On the face of it the campaign has little to recommend it. Back from his fiery accident Niki Lauda dominated the year for Ferrari, just as he did in 1975 and was on the way to doing in 1976 before the Nurburgring and all that. He was even able to sit out the final two rounds, his title already won.
But on closer inspection the season was not nearly so straightforward. It was in fact a year in which, as Peter Windsor described it in Autocourse, ‘the racers came second’. Far from crushing Lauda supremacy, in every round it seemed Mario Andretti in the Lotus and James Hunt’s McLaren led in a race of two. And this is reflected in the number of laps either spent in first place that season – Andretti’s 278 and Hunt’s 222 dwarf Lauda’s 190. Jody Scheckter on 198 beats the champion as well.
Yet equally it seemed that everywhere Andretti and Hunt would fail to make the finish. ‘Development’ Cosworth engines that often went pop were part of the problem. So were the pair’s strong arm racing styles, indeed they even wiped each other out contesting the lead at Zandvoort. Meanwhile ultra-reliable Lauda in his ultra-reliable Ferrari ghosted to the honours.
Far from crushing Niki Lauda supremacy in every 1977 round it seemed Mario Andretti in the Lotus and James Hunt’s McLaren led in a race of two. And this is reflected in the number of laps either spent in first place that season
Perhaps it’s something about years that end in seven, as 30 years ago we had something similar. The 1987 champion Nelson Piquet led 187 laps to his runner-up team mate Nigel Mansell’s 383. Yet Mansell mixed his habitual drama with bad luck and occasional error, while Nelson by accident or design came first by finishing second. Indeed that year fifth in the table Gerhard Berger – with fewer than half of Piquet’s points – led more distance than the champion did.
In 1967 too Jim Clark debuting the fast but then troublesome Cosworth DFV led 317 laps to champion Denny Hulme’s 216. Also the 2007 champion Kimi Raikkonen was third on that year's lap chart measure, his 212 laps led trailed Lewis Hamilton’s 321 and the 300 of the Finn’s Ferrari team-mate Felipe Massa.
1957 and 1997 spoil the trend, but the ‘year of the seven’ claim is deliberately facetious. What it all represents instead is F1 world champion drivers not being that year’s most common leader in fact has been fairly common, particularly in the previous age of F1 cars not nearly as reliable as now. The tortoise often beat the hare. Sometimes as the tortoise was skilled in car nursing. Sometimes the tortoise just got lucky.
But what if titles were not awarded on championship points but on laps led? So to ensure, to adapt Windsor’s phase, that the racers come first?
What if titles were not awarded on championship points but for laps led? So to ensure that the racers come first?
Stirling Moss is the first beneficiary in this alternate reality, as instead of his infamous zero he takes the titles in 1956, 1958 and 1959. While Wolfgang von Trips takes the 1961 crown from his Ferrari team-mate Phil Hill.
Clark doubles his title total, adding the 1964 and 1967 crowns. His countryman Jackie Stewart meanwhile gets five championships in a row, from 1968 through to 1972 inclusive. He however loses his final crown, from 1973, to Ronnie Peterson.
Lauda as noted loses his 1977 title to Andretti, and loses that from 1984 to Alain Prost, but gets partial compensation in gaining the 1974 championship from Emerson Fittipaldi. Gilles Villeneuve meanwhile takes the 1979 drivers’ crown from his Ferrari stable mate Scheckter.
Piquet as outlined loses his 1987 title to Mansell but makes up for it by taking the 1980 version. Prost meanwhile has quite a churn – losing all three of his championships won at McLaren but gaining three others in 1981 (from Piquet), 1982 (from Keke Rosberg) and, as cited, 1984 (from Lauda).
A young Ayrton Senna picks up 1985’s title as well as that in 1989, while Mansell takes that in 1986. Senna therefore becomes a five-time champion and Our Nige ends up with three.
There then is a 16 year stretch in which all champions led on laps as well, through to Raikkonen nabbing the first of Fernando Alonso’s titles in 2005. Kimi as mentioned loses his actual crown in 2007 to Hamilton.
Lewis then experiences similar by losing his 2008 crown to Massa. The Englishman gets the recompense of taking last year’s title from Nico Rosberg however, ending another stretch of 12 years where no championship is reallocated.
At the time of writing it’s unlikely to happen this year either, as clear leader on points Hamilton also is clear leader on laps led, with 412 to Sebastian Vettel’s 224. Certainly no extreme outlier on laps led will take the crown – Valtteri Bottas next up is well back on 133, then it’s Raikkonen with 38.
Title winners become more standard – going more frequently to F1’s big names. Spells of championships won in a row for a single driver also become more common
As for other lessons, it’s likely no coincidence that raw racers Ronnie and Gilles – you might put Mario in the camp too – gain in this model.
Also noticeable is that title winners become more, for the want of a better term, standard – going more frequently to F1’s big names. Spells of championships won in a row for a single driver also become more common. The number of F1 world champions all-in drops from 33 to 29.
Moss, Clark, Stewart, Mansell and Senna win big in this. Hamilton wins a little bit. Alberto Ascari, Graham Hill, Prost, Michael Schumacher, Mika Hakkinen and Vettel keep all of their multiple title totals. Juan Manuel Fangio, Jack Brabham, Lauda and Piquet experience only dents in theirs.
Yet many one-time title winners lose their crowns – Mike Hawthorn, John Surtees, Denny Hulme, Jochen Rindt, Alan Jones as well as Keke and Nico Rosberg get nothing.
It’s only partially offset by Peterson, Alonso and Massa becoming single-time champions (albeit in Alonso’s case from a different direction) while von Trips and Gilles Villeneuve replace other one-time recipients. Nino Farina, Hunt, Damon Hill, Jacques Villeneuve and Jenson Button have their one-time champion status unaltered. Kimi as noted loses his crown but gains another. Mansell and Andretti as noted win more.
Titles changing hands on this basis is less common in the modern era, indeed of the total 25 that change only four are from 1990 onwards. It likely reflects a previous age where cars were not nearly as reliable
So what’s going on? As intimated titles changing hands on this basis is less common in the modern era, indeed of the total 25 that change only four are from 1990 onwards (by contrast from 1979 to 1989 inclusive only two champions also led the most laps). As noted too it likely reflects a previous age where cars were not nearly as reliable – the laps led model does a lot to neutralise unreliability.
It’s striking also looking at a full list of actual F1 champions the stark shift from roughly the mid-1980s; certainly from the mid-1990s. As late as 1986 Prost became only F1’s fourth back-to-back world champion, and the first since 1960. Yet that kicked off a modern age characterised by repeated stretches of drivers’ titles won on the trot by a dominant individual.
With a few aberrations we had a Prost era, then a Senna era, then a Schumacher era, then a Vettel era. Hakkinen and Alonso even threw in back-to-back titles between times. And now perhaps we’re in a Hamilton era, him well on the way to three championships from four.
Yet with titles awarded on laps led such stretches become more common further in the past as well. In addition to Fangio getting three crowns from four seasons, Moss gets three from four; Clark four from five; Stewart five in a row; Lauda and Andretti each get two in row; and Prost three from four in the early 1980s. It suggests that much of the ‘more competitive’ F1 of yore is in fact a function of the greater unreliability variable. It stands to reason that if cars make it to the end then the quickest guy always wins.
It suggests that much of the ‘more competitive’ F1 of yore is in fact a function of the greater unreliability variable. It stands to reason that if cars make it to the end then the quickest guy always wins
Fittipaldi is the ultimate victim in this model, as the only multiple champion to end up with nothing.
He also has the dubious distinction of fewest laps led in a championship winning season, with his mere 77 spent in first place in 1974. Moreover in the final 10 rounds he led but 13 tours, though in a competitive year his consistency was rewarded. Lauda meanwhile led 338, yet due to one thing after another he barely made the finishing flag in the latter part of the season.
1982 of course is an outlying campaign for many reasons, as is reflected by champion Keke Rosberg leading only 80 laps and taking one win. But it could have been even more extreme. John Watson, who finished joint runner-up and entered the final race still with a title chance, led but 28 tours.
And just think, had something struck down Rosberg’s Williams in the last race, and winner Michele Alboreto stopped on the last lap, then Watson would have been world champion having led just 29 laps… To provide a yardstick, that’s half of the Singapore Grand Prix just passed.
The past is a foreign country, as they say. They do things differently there.
Discussion about this post