^The most interesting thing of this contest was the differences in those two hybrids, I believe Toyota's setup worked instantly from no speed/revs but was short lived where as the Audi setup only came on after 120km/h and you seen the effects with the Toyota getting the jump out of the corners and then the Audi coming strong near the end of the straights.
There comes a point beyond which you've raced a certain number of Grand Prix, that the win ratio IS the best way to determine who is the most successful F1 team. What that figure is can be debated, however, nobody should really argue that a team entering just one race and winning it and therefore having a win ratio of 100% is the best ever. But, a team entering 1,000 Grand Prix and winning 300 for example, is surely better than a team entering 2,000 Grand Prix and winning 320.
^That's the problem with the "hit rate." How can you ever know when that figure is enough? You can't. Perhaps people shouldn't be so concerned with hit rates, as that can skew things heavily to one manufacturer within the context of when you make the assessment (like Audi in recent times, or Bentley many decades ago). With regard to McLaren vs Ferrari, it's a tough call in deciding who is surely better, when Ferrari build their own chassis, engine, and transmission.
I think 710 races and 46 years in F1 is enough for McLaren's win ratio to be valid.
No one is saying what Red Bull has achieved is any less credible and maybe they will continue and become the most successful F1 team. But for me at least there is something that's more credible with a race that runs for 24hr compared to just 2hr and over the last 13 years that Audi have competed they have only lost twice, once to a competitor and the other to another sub brand within VAG.
No I am saying that to me the ability to race none stop for 24hrs at maximum attack mode is more of an accomplishment by the car and the whole team.
Lemantech
Highway Hunter
That's ridiculous. Both the 24 hours of LeMans and Formula 1 are equally taxing on the drivers, the car, and the team. They are two different types of motorsport. One is endurance racing, the other is racing at maximum intensity over a shorter period of time. Frankly speaking, to say to win one is more of an accomplishment than the other is baseless.
That's your opinion and I respect that but my personal opinion is that whilst F1 is more demanding on both driver and car this is for brief period compared to endurance racing. I can only imagine the mental discipline require to drive at the maximum over a 24hr with only brief power naps.
I don't see how that's markedly different from your original post or my interpration of it: It seems like you're saying that even if Red Bull wins 11 straight 2-hour F1 races, it's less of an accomplishment than Audi winning 1 24 hour race. If this is not a remark on the credibility of F1 vs Le Mans in terms of racing success, then what is it? To me, it sounds like you're saying credibility, upon which you place your admiration for Audi's achievement, rests on one metric: duration of an event.
If you want to break it down to 24-hour endurance racing in general, consider what Porsche have done in the races at Nurburgring, Daytona, and Spa.
This remark is so laughable I won't even reply to it.
^So tell me, what is the cutoff point at which Red Bull's accomplishments can be put on the same level of Audi's? You said "there is something that's more credible with a race that runs for 24hr compared to just 2hr", so I'm interested to know where the point of parity is, if indeed there is one.
According to Wikipedia the Red Bull team has races in 133 races and won 29. Not sure as to whether this includes this year's F1 season.
Audi
R8 : races 79 : wins 63
R10 : races 48 : wins 36
R15 : races 10 : wins 3
R18 : races 7 : wins 4
Total races : 144 : wins 106
You do the maths.
Audi
R8 : races 79 : wins 63
R10 : races 48 : wins 36
R15 : races 10 : wins 3
R18 : races 7 : wins 4
Total races : 144 : wins 106
You do the maths.
What your maths ignores is that Le Mans is not exactly like Formula One in the numbers of entrants from each manufacturer. Having 4 Audis competing against 2 cars from Toyota, who haven't even raced at Le Mans in the top class in 13 years, is not quite like Red Bull competing against the likes of McLaren or Ferrari, is it? And even if Red Bull has a higher ratio than Ferrari, can it be considered a higher "accomplishment" when Ferrari is making its own engines, transmissions, and chassis?
So you are now saying Audi's achievements aren't even as good as Red Bull because they have to compete against the likes of Ferrari and McLaren. Audi entered Le Mans with the goal of dominating it regardless of who they need to compete against and in this they have done what the set out to do, many have tried to take their hold on the sport but as yet no one has gotten close.
Where did you see me saying that Audi's achievements "aren't even as good?" I'm just trying to illustrate the apples vs oranges nature of some of these comparisons. The kind of competition that each company faces within its respective field is definitely a consideration, and further muddies attempts at comparing "hit ratios" and the like.
Well, 133 races is enough in my opinion to start forming a conclusion on their win ratio, but it's not as accurate as 710 races. What's your point? Obviously the relative merits of each team's success rate is debateable and impossible to compare accurately, but I highly doubt that's going to stop you from having a mass debate over it.
As it happens, Red Bull with 133 races and 29 wins is not as good as McLaren's with 710 races and 177 wins.
^And many would feel that they have had the best possible start otherwise Guibo wouldn't have mentioned them in the first place and when I highlighted their success rate was light years away from what Audi have achieved he say 'oh but they have to compete against McLaren and Ferrari' as an excuse so as to show their success is harder to achieve. lol
