New F1 illustration: Input appreciated
This topic contains 18 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by Anonymous 4 years, 8 months ago.
14th March 2012, 18:01 at 6:01 pm #131076
Hi all. :)
So the idea for my next poster is to do an infographic of all the Formula 1 constructors, and right now I’m just gathering the data, primarily from Wikipedia.
Here’s the first draft of the info all collated.
It’s basically taking all the constructor data from the Wikipedia article (Formula One Constructors) and visualised it.
When I get round to make the actual poster, Renault and Honda need attention paid to them as they pseudo-merge with their 2000 era ones.
Other than that, if people could give a look through it and let me know if I’ve made any errors, that’d be great.14th March 2012, 18:31 at 6:31 pm #195591
As Mercedes had no relation toTyrell, surely original Merceds should be in the ‘old teams’ section. Otherwise the same team history should include the original Honda too. Also, if Caterham and Lotus are defined as being distinctly different, should Team Lotus from only 2010 not be included (instead of 2 years of plain Lotus)?14th March 2012, 18:46 at 6:46 pm #19559214th March 2012, 18:48 at 6:48 pm #195593
It’s awkward because “Old Mercedes” is directly related to “New Mercedes”, which is back-related to Brawn/Honda etc.
Essentially, “New Mercedes” has a split history.
Now the way to handle that would be something along the lines of what you see on the right below:
Each “block” in the ring (I’m going for a circular layout) represent a team/year. But teams with split histories will also have a line running through them to link them up. In the case of Honda/Mercedes (and also Renault/Benetton/”Old Renault”) that line would split into multiple parts.
The general theory is that each team base (for want of a better word) is one ring. The best example would be Jordan to Force India since that was all from the same foundation. The thing is that F1’s a little more complicated than that and no one system can work for everything, so compromises would have to be made.14th March 2012, 19:38 at 7:38 pm #195594
The question of how to connect up teams’ histories when they change identities so often, is one that’s provoked a lot of questions lately – particularly following the Lotus nonsense.
If I’ve read your description correctly, it seems to me you’re treating ‘constructors’ and ‘factories’ separately, which is a smart distinction to draw.
This means Lotus 1958-1994, 2010-2011 and 2012-present would be connected one way as having the same ‘constructor identity’, and Toleman, Benetton, Renault 2002-2011 and Lotus 2012- would be connected another way as having the same ‘factory identity’.
But, as you say, even this raises some tricky questions. Such as whether BAR should be considered a continuation of Tyrrell merely because they bought Tyrrell’s entry without (to the best of my recollection) taking over anything of substance such as the factory.
It seems to me that what you’re going to end up with is a kind of three-dimensional F1 family tree. Of course, there will be several lines where the ‘constructor’ and ‘factory’ identities are one and the same throughout, e.g. for Ferrari and McLaren.
If you decide you want an easier life – and I wouldn’t blame you if you did! – I would consider sticking with just the constructor identities. This is, after all, the means the FIA uses of distinguishing between teams.
It does mean you would end up showing Lotus as being unchanged throughout 2010 through to the present day, but you could just put in an asterisk and an explanation. Everything else will look fine: you can have Mercedes old and new on the same line and likewise for Renault and Honda.
More on this (if you can bear it) here:14th March 2012, 19:39 at 7:39 pm #195595
PS. Sauber were still BMW-Sauber in 2010 – they stop at 2009 in your first screenshot. The memorable madness of having a car called “BMW-Sauber Ferrari”…15th March 2012, 9:53 at 9:53 am #195596
@keithcollantine Yeah that’s right, I’m essentially using “constructors” as the basis of this. The main reason is that back in the early decades there were a TON of “teams” that only took part in one or 2 races while using a chassis from somebody else.
As for the whole “split histories thing”, this should in theory make sense if you read it from left to right:
Each block is the actual constructor entry, while the lines running through them show how one team became another etc. I’d only do this for split teams like this, Renault and Lotus pretty much.
PS: BMW Sauber 2010’s sorted now.15th March 2012, 12:51 at 12:51 pm #195597
I see what you’re getting at. Looks good so far!
Incidentally, the Australian GP press kit lists Lotus’s first race as 1977 “as Renault”. Hmm…19th March 2012, 18:06 at 6:06 pm #195598
Here’s a more developed version of the split histories idea:
Things to note:
This is a rough sketch, and not 100% accurate (it’s missing a few years from the 50s for a start)
The full infographic will (obviously) contain all teams.
Teams with single linear histories (Jordan through Force India for example) will all be in one “ring”.
Teams with split histories will have the white line split and “junctions” (it’s kinda like a tube map :D).
The final version will be fully labelled, I’m just testing layout here.
The above is an example of the split history of the current Mercedes AMG Petronas team. The graph runs clockwise from 1954 to 2012, with the following colour code:
Gray = Mercedes
Lime = Brawn
Red = Honda
Beige = BAR
Blue = Tyrell
You can see how the current Mercedes team can trace its history back to 1954, but also back through the Tyrell/Honda/BAR/Brawn period, with Honda itself being a returning team from decades past.
So again feedback on this would be great and if you guys have any other ideas I’m all ears.
Also, the up-to-date constructor list is in this Excel document if you want to take a look and possibly notify me to correct any errors: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/26395407/F1%20Teams.xlsx
Thanks again :)
-PJ10th May 2012, 8:16 at 8:16 am #195599
Just spotted the finished version by @pjtierney on his website – very impressive!10th May 2012, 8:54 at 8:54 am #195600
I LIKE! WOW. Brilliant work, PJ.10th May 2012, 9:30 at 9:30 am #195601
That is awesome PJ, it even looks like a graphical representation of an F1 wheel in motion!10th May 2012, 9:52 at 9:52 am #195603
Anonymous10th May 2012, 11:48 at 11:48 am #195604
That is absolutely fantastic.10th May 2012, 14:08 at 2:08 pm #195605
Wow ! I am new-ish to this forum, and whereas I’m an F1 fan, I take my hat off to the true “fanatics” on here. PJ, your artwork is brilliant, as is the incredible amount of research involved……loving it !
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.