Ranking Niki Lauda's F1 cars!

[Everso Biggyballies]

Bottom post of the previous page:

was the 1973 BRM any good?

Great chassis but down on power engine and suffered poor reliability. Lauda himself said he took many of their handling traits and instigated the handling traits of the car to Ferrari for Forghieri to work on for the 75 car. Again Lauda's words taken from a tribute I have seen.

[Antonov]

so the 1973 BRM (2 points) vs. 1979 Brabham (4 points) for penultimate place?

[Everso Biggyballies]

The BRM should go higher than the Brabham. As I said it was a brilliant chassis, traits of which he tried to re-create in his Ferraris.

[Antonov]

yes. Agreed. So. Ranking worst to best so far:
- March 1972
- Brabham 1979
- BRM 1973
- McLaren 1983 pre-turbo (?)

[Michkov]

The MP4/1 is better then any off the three, at least it won the occasional race. Not to forget the carbon chassis it introduced to F1

[XcraigX]

So I have update the list with the Early 73 and later 73 BRMs. Am i safe to assume the later one (with lots of input from Niki) was much better than the first one?

[XcraigX]

yes. Agreed. So. Ranking worst to best so far:
- March 1972
- Brabham 1979
- BRM 1973
- McLaren 1983 pre-turbo (?)

So why would the 83 McLaren be worse than some of the others on this list (like some of the Brabham entries)?

[XcraigX]

Interesting interview that @Everso Biggyballies posted in an F1 Niki tribute thread where he speaks about how well the BRM handled prior to moving to the Ferrari team. (Bad engine, but it handled excellent) Should it be above the '83 McLaren?

Amusing tales from Niki about talks with Enzo first about 'this car is shit' and also about Niki's financial demands when he was negotiating his second year contract Enzo.

@kals J@ohn @sadsac @caneparo @DoubleFart @Michkov @PTRacer

So any other votes for the next cars up on the list? '82 McLaren?

[PTRACER]

Let's try to keep it simple in this case. He ran some of those Marches for just one or two races. Same with the BRM - two races in the 160C, one in the 160D and the rest of the season in the 160E. So I think rating these separately would be futile, especially since we understand so little about each variant.

With your permission I would like to also replace those images with the ones I sent you so the thread is like the Senna thread

------------------

In terms of the rank - 1972 March at the bottom, absolutely. It finished almost all its races, compared to the 1973 BRM which almost didn't finish any. But Lauda often finished so many laps off the pace in 1972 he may as well have been driving in a different championship. And the BRM was running up a bit higher when it failed - in the points on three occasions.

The 1979 Brabham? Yeah, the results suggest it was pretty horrendous. Constantly breaking down. And doing so while well out of the points. Only the BRM seems to compare and I would be tempted to put it below. Actually yes, I would move it below the BRM. For a team so professional and as well-funded as Brabham, they shouldn't have made such an awful car. BRM had an excuse.

Just above the Brabham, I would put the 1983 McLaren MP4-1C/E.

[XcraigX]

Let's try to keep it simple in this case. He ran some of those Marches for just one or two races. Same with the BRM - two races in the 160C, one in the 160D and the rest of the season in the 160E. So I think rating these separately would be futile, especially since we understand so little about each variant.

Agreed. I can fix this. However, do we rate the BT46 different from the BT46B fan car? This is where I started having different variants.

With your permission I would like to also replace those images with the ones I sent you so the thread is like the Senna thread

That was one where I am trying to find my "Round Tuit". If you have a simpler way (I was going to cut and paste and then find a web host), please share.
------------------

In terms of the rank - 1972 March at the bottom, absolutely. It finished almost all its races, compared to the 1973 BRM which almost didn't finish any. But Lauda often finished so many laps off the pace in 1972 he may as well have been driving in a different championship. And the BRM was running up a bit higher when it failed - in the points on three occasions.

The 1979 Brabham? Yeah, the results suggest it was pretty horrendous. Constantly breaking down. And doing so while well out of the points. Only the BRM seems to compare and I would be tempted to put it below. Actually yes, I would move it below the BRM. For a team so professional and as well-funded as Brabham, they shouldn't have made such an awful car. BRM had an excuse.

Just above the Brabham, I would put the 1983 McLaren MP4-1C/E.

And this was my reasoning for having the 79 Brabham 2nd to last also. I have updated the list in the 3rd thread.

And I would nominate the 78 Brabham (BT46) as the next up above the MP4-1C.

[PTRACER]

I made some cars for your post @XcraigX. I pulled one of the Brabhams and was tempted to take out the 45C since it only raced twice, but we'll keep it since I made it in Photoshop. Also added the 1971 March 711, so we need to find a place for that!

Just to help out, here's the current rank at the bottom of the list:

11th


12th


13th


14th

[PTRACER]

About the BT46 (regular version) - It's a difficult choice. Perhaps I would put it one space higher in 9th. Wherever the BT46B goes, the BT45C will inevitably be one space below since the 46B was an evolution of the 45C.

[XcraigX]

Also added the 1971 March 711, so we need to find a place for that!

Thanks! Changing the pictures was super helpful!

I struggled with including the 71 March since he only drove a few races in it. But to me it obviously goes straight to the bottom of the list.

About the BT46 (regular version) - It's a difficult choice. Perhaps I would put it one space higher in 9th. Wherever the BT46B goes, the BT45C will inevitably be one space below since the 46B was an evolution of the 45C.

Agreed, but are you suggesting the 45C is 9th with a different car in 10th? Or 46B is 9th and the 45C is 10th?

[PTRACER]

Also added the 1971 March 711, so we need to find a place for that!

Thanks! Changing the pictures was super helpful!

I struggled with including the 71 March since he only drove a few races in it. But to me it obviously goes straight to the bottom of the list.

Np! I would put that March much higher. The same chassis (711-2) took Ronnie Peterson to 2nd and 4th place early in the season. The car was slightly less developed than the chassis Peterson switched to after 5 races (711-6) but he still finished 2nd overall in the driver's championship.

So perhaps I would put the 711 up ahead of the 721X, which was a complete dog and even above the BRM and Brabham.

About the 45C - I meant if the 46B went in 10th the 45C must be in 11th since they were so closely related.

[XcraigX]

The same chassis (711-2) took Ronnie Peterson to 2nd and 4th place early in the season. The car was slightly less developed than the chassis Peterson switched to after 5 races (711-6) but he still finished 2nd overall in the driver's championship.

So perhaps I would put the 711 up ahead of the 721X, which was a complete dog and even above the BRM and Brabham.

So this is like the discussion on the 94 Williams in the Senna thread. The car ultimately went on to come 2nd in the WCC. However, we ranked it low due to the state of the car when Senna drove it.

The March 711 ultimately came 2nd in Peterson's hands, but Niki retired from the races he drove it in.

Perhaps it does not deserve to be on the bottom, but I hesitate to move it very high.

[erwin greven]

Agree with that. Now it is known that Ronnie was fast in whatever he drove. But he was not a driver who could develop a car. I wonder how Niki thought about that particular car.