- 182
- United Kingdom
It has still taken 15 years for this significant first to occur.
What makes it significant?
It has still taken 15 years for this significant first to occur.
We get it, you don't like the stat, move on.What makes it significant?
We get it, you don't like the stat, move on.
You've questioned it at every given opportunity. The stat is clear, it's obvious why it's a significant first, it's been explained on the last page.You don't get it. I asked a simple question. I haven't given any opinion whether I like the stat or not.
You've questioned it at every given opportunity. The stat is clear, it's obvious why it's a significant first, it's been explained on the last page.
Ok then, here's why it's significant.
Formula 1 as a series is noteworthy because it has history. 75 seasons of racing is not anything to be sniffed at and most impressive records have been set. Things like debut points, podiums and wins have all been done before. So to find a new thing to set is an impressive achievement with so many other opportunities for it happen.
Every F1 driver has to make a debut at some point. A first Grand Prix start is one where you're coming in as a rookie, probably not in a good team and have to face a load of other drivers with a lot more experience. Jumping into an F1 car for the first time is a massive step up from whatever they were in before in terms of speed, complication, race length, fitness and most of all pressure. So to score points on debut is an impressive feat. This doesn't even add the complication of a driver's debut being a last minute reserve driver promotion, compared to being signed for a season and turning up to race 1.
79 drivers out of over 1000 have scored points on their Grand Prix debut. This is already an impressive stat, thusly bringing down the sample size of drivers who can score points on their first two races. There is also a smaller pool of drivers who made 1 start for one team and their second for another. I don't have a full list of the drivers who did that, but you saw my previous post explaining some recent examples. To only do 1 race for a team usually means they're either a reserve driver or were terrible. Quite a few cameos may end up being a couple of races, like Timo Glock at Jordan or Robert Doornbos at Red Bull.
The fact that despite these 75 seasons and plenty of different ways drivers have entered races for different teams or made debuts, Bearman is the only one to have scored points in his first two races, with both being in different cars. Michael Schumacher, Sebastian Vettel and Phil Hill are champions who did their first two races for different constructors and scored points in one of those races.
Jack Brabham, Jochen Rindt, Nelson Piquet and Keke Rosberg also did their first two races for different teams but didn't score points in either.
Fact of the matter is that a not-so unique opportunity has been grabbed and Ollie Bearman has shown that he has plenty of speed and talent and has what it takes to make it in F1, having taken the two opportunities he has been given brilliantly. If you want to dismiss a statistic for being convoluted, the guess what, all statistics are. Stats like this are what makes F1 interesting. There's always a bit of history backing something up or ability to remember some obscure thing that happened in the past to link together and event in the modern day to something which happened in the 70's.
CART tried to compete with the Indy 500 during the INDYCAR split by holding the Michigan 500 as a direct competitor to the Indy 500. It failed miserably because nobody cared and it didn't have 80 years of history and notoriety. The 1118th Grand Prix was the first time a driver scored points in their first two races with both being for different teams. That is why it matters and why it is being celebrated. I have listed 7 World Champions who were offered the same chance to do the stat and didn't. If you want to discredit this further, please do some research and find something to make it insignificant and we'll agree with you. But for the moment, it's worthy of celebration.
That's because it doesn't. "First to do [x]" stats don't really predict anything, generally, even when they're success stats.I see no indication of what this stat could predict about Bearman's future success.
Does this include when the Indy 500 was considered part of the F1 world championship (1950-1960)?In terms of drivers who could have scored points in the modern points system in their first two starts for two different teams, there's also:
1950/1 - Brian Shawe-Taylor (10th in British GP for Joe Fry, 8th in British GP for himself!)
1958 - Phil Hill (7th for Jo Bonnier in France, 7th for Ferrari in Germany)
1961/2 - Roger Penske (8th in USA for John Wyatt, 9th in USA for Dupont Team Zerex)
1965 - Paul Hawkins (9th in South Africa for John Wilment, 10th in Monaco for DW Racing; Hawkins also raced two non-championship F1 events for JW prior to either, retiring from his first)
1966/7 - Chris Irwin (7th in the British GP for Brabham, 7th in the Netherlands for Reg Parnell; Irwin also raced an NC event between the two for Reg Parnell at the Race of Champions and actually scored points in 6th so would qualify whether NC races are counted or not)
1967 - David Hobbs (8th in the British GP for Bernard White, 10th in the German GP for Lola; however that latter race was an F2 entry and wouldn't have been eligible for points)
1971/3 - Gijsbert van Lennep (8th in the Netherlands for Stichting, 6th in the Netherlands for Williams; he did have a DNS entry for Surtees in 1971 between them so may not qualify if we mean "entries" rather than "starts")
Yes, only Bill Vukovich won it more than once and he did so back-to-back for the same team - Howard Keck - and died while leading it the next year for same.Does this include when the Indy 500 was considered part of the F1 world championship (1950-1960)?
I imagine there were plenty of US drivers who never did any other F1 races and probably drove for different teams over the years.
In terms of drivers who could have scored points in the modern points system in their first two starts for two different teams, there's also:
1950/1 - Brian Shawe-Taylor (10th in British GP for Joe Fry, 8th in British GP for himself!)
1958 - Phil Hill (7th for Jo Bonnier in France, 7th for Ferrari in Germany)
1961/2 - Roger Penske (8th in USA for John Wyatt, 9th in USA for Dupont Team Zerex)
1965 - Paul Hawkins (9th in South Africa for John Wilment, 10th in Monaco for DW Racing; Hawkins also raced two non-championship F1 events for JW prior to either, retiring from his first)
1966/7 - Chris Irwin (7th in the British GP for Brabham, 7th in the Netherlands for Reg Parnell; Irwin also raced an NC event between the two for Reg Parnell at the Race of Champions and actually scored points in 6th so would qualify whether NC races are counted or not)
1967 - David Hobbs (8th in the British GP for Bernard White, 10th in the German GP for Lola; however that latter race was an F2 entry and wouldn't have been eligible for points)
1971/3 - Gijsbert van Lennep (8th in the Netherlands for Stichting, 6th in the Netherlands for Williams; he did have a DNS entry for Surtees in 1971 between them so may not qualify if we mean "entries" rather than "starts")
That's because it doesn't. "First to do [x]" stats don't really predict anything, generally, even when they're success stats.
Phil Hill is the only World Champion who would have achieved it if points went down to 10th (or even 8th, as we used for a while), while van Lennep was also a double outright Le Mans winner, but even so we can't really say that others on different points systems wouldn't have done it had more points been available to more drivers, because they change what's on the line and that changes motivation and decision-making.