180 replies to this topic

[WonderWoman61]

Or even Toleman, with two dozen failures to qualify before scraping onto a grid, then another season and a half before scoring points.
But winning the world title in next decade.

Oh yes, the TG181 or the "General Belgrano" as it was infamously dubbed, only scored 3 finishes and 32 DNQs/DNPQs in 26 races. It would have scored the team's first point though if Teo Fabi had completed enough laps to be classified as Imola in 1982. He came 7th and last on the road but then 6th placed Manfred Winkelhock was disqualified because his ATS was found to be underweight. Unfortunately Fabi was 8 laps down at the finish after a long pitstop for repairs due to boost problems. Didn't the car get crushed into a cube and remained in the possession of one of the drivers (Derek Warwick I believe or Brian Henton)?

[john aston]

Either that or everyone still remembers Michael Andretti for his disastrous stint at McLaren in 1993 and they believe he'll fare even worse running an F1 team. I see your point though.

That is the received wisdom , repeated ad nauseam . Andretti had a huge obstacle to surmount, called Senna , and tracks he'd never even seen to race upon. He didn't help himself by commuting from the USA but he was decent enough in the car , if never as fast as Senna. If he'd committed , I am sure he'd have done well. As for running a race team , I suggest you   might look at his results in Indy car racing .......they are none too shabby . 

Edited by john aston, 06 October 2023 - 10:50.

[WonderWoman61]

That is the received wisdom , repeated ad nauseam . Andretti had a huge obstacle to surmount, called Senna , and tracks he'd never even seen to race upon. He didn't help himself by commuting from the USA but he was decent enough in the car , if never as fast as Senna. If he'd committed , I am sure he'd have done well. As for running a race team , I suggest you   might look at his results in Indy car racing .......they are none too shabby .

I am not doubting Andretti's credentials as a team owner, given what they have achieved in Indy car racing, it's F1 that has something against him as well as their own greed and prejudices and whatever other bad qualities apply in this instance.

[70JesperOH]

That is the received wisdom , repeated ad nauseam . Andretti had a huge obstacle to surmount, called Senna , and tracks he'd never even seen to race upon. He didn't help himself by commuting from the USA but he was decent enough in the car , if never as fast as Senna. If he'd committed , I am sure he'd have done well. As for running a race team , I suggest you   might look at his results in Indy car racing .......they are none too shabby . 

 

From what I remember the 1993 McLaren was very nervous and the customer Ford engine was down on power and it took the talent of Ayrton Senna to win five races that season. Andretti being away from the team between races didn't help, but I had and still have high regard of his driving talent. Having watched him in ChampCar from the late 1980s on the telly Michael Andretti was clearly one of the best of his generation of american drivers. Al Unser Jr. was mentioned in connection to Benetton at around the same time, and another of the great ones, but apparently didn't like being removed from home soil and eventually didn't make the move to F1.

 

I took a young, very hungry Mika Häkkinen, Michael's replacement, to challenge Senna in the latter half of 1993.

 

Jesper

[rl1856]

WonderWoman61, on 06 Oct 2023 - 04:27, said:

Either that or everyone still remembers Michael Andretti for his disastrous stint at McLaren in 1993 and they believe he'll fare even worse running an F1 team. I see your point though.

"That is the received wisdom , repeated ad nauseam . Andretti had a huge obstacle to surmount, called Senna , and tracks he'd never even seen to race upon. He didn't help himself by commuting from the USA but he was decent enough in the car , if never as fast as Senna. If he'd committed , I am sure he'd have done well. As for running a race team , I suggest you   might look at his results in Indy car racing .......they are none too shabby . "

 

 

30yrs on I think we can look back objectively at Michael's year in F1.  It definitely qualifies as a failure on its own, and by the definition of this thread.

 

Michael handled the transition worse than anyone could have imagined.  He was the #2 driver to perhaps the greatest driver of his generation.  He was put into a car that had....issues.  Rules were changed to limit the amount of preseason testing.   Then he qualified mid field with a surprising gap to Senna, and proved incapable of lasting past the first lap of several early races.  The F1 establishment had high expectations for Michael given his pedigree, how easily his father assimilated into F1, and how Michael had completely dominated CART in the US.  Then the F1 establishment saw how easily Mansell adapted to CART.   What was lost in the comparison is that it is much easier for an excellent driver to move down in car technology than it is for a driver to move up to a level where he is still feeling out limits.

 

An objective look at Michael's results would show a driver who faced a steep learning curve, but showed steady progress in ascending the curve.  By the later third of *his* season (dismissed after Italy), he had narrowed the qualifying gap to Senna, and had delivered several impressive drives through the field culminating in a 3rd place podium finish in Italy.   There was promise if one choose to see it.   Unfortunately opinions had been formed, and decisions made.     

 

Unfortunately Michael was not Mario.  Heck even Mario commented that Michael could have been a greater driver, but actually preferred management.  His results as a team manager show that he is more than capable.   There were several prizes that eluded him as a driver; Indy being one.  But he has now won several as an owner, along with many other races and championships across several racing classes.  I have no doubt the team will be well run.  I have 3 concerns  1) Funding.  Cadillac is the brand behind the team.  How much of a commitment will they actually make ?  Unlimited, or watching every penny, and declining some things due to "cost".  2) Technology.   F1 is a very pointy sword, with the top teams separated by the sharpness of their technology.   Hamilton looked like the GOAT, now he can't get a break because of the changing tide of tech.  3) Driver.  They will need a top, or near top line driver to have any real chance at success.   

 

My prediction is they will be mid field in their first season, with success being defined by achievement of a few lower points finishes.    Year 2 will be much the same with some flashes of potential.  Year 3 will make or break the team- can they routinely qualify in the top 10 or close, can they finish in the middle of the points ?   Then an "evaluation" will be made that will determine yrs 4 and beyond.

 

In a few years will we include the Andretti-Cadillac team in a continuation of this thread ? 

 

Liberty ownership brought some "American" spectacle to F1 and some have said they are trying to remake the sport into an international Nascar style series.   All in the name of increasing the fanbase, and revenue stream.  Nascar, as a governing body has a history of allowing things to happen that penalize some teams and benefit others.   It would be a slippery slope if Liberty F1 begins to embrace the same model.

Edited by rl1856, 06 October 2023 - 13:15.

[PCC]

I am not doubting Andretti's credentials as a team owner, given what they have achieved in Indy car racing, it's F1 that has something against him as well as their own greed and prejudices and whatever other bad qualities apply in this instance.

I actually doubt that anyone in the paddock cares about Michael's stint in F1 30 years ago - or that many even know about it. TNF cares about that. F1 cares about money and power.

[KWSN - DSM]

 

WonderWoman61, on 06 Oct 2023 - 04:27, said:

"That is the received wisdom , repeated ad nauseam . Andretti had a huge obstacle to surmount, called Senna , and tracks he'd never even seen to race upon. He didn't help himself by commuting from the USA but he was decent enough in the car , if never as fast as Senna. If he'd committed , I am sure he'd have done well. As for running a race team , I suggest you   might look at his results in Indy car racing .......they are none too shabby . "

 

 

30yrs on I think we can look back objectively at Michael's year in F1.  It definitely qualifies as a failure on its own, and by the definition of this thread.

 

Michael handled the transition worse than anyone could have imagined.  He was the #2 driver to perhaps the greatest driver of his generation.  He was put into a car that had....issues.  Rules were changed to limit the amount of preseason testing.   Then he qualified mid field with a surprising gap to Senna, and proved incapable of lasting past the first lap of several early races.  The F1 establishment had high expectations for Michael given his pedigree, how easily his father assimilated into F1, and how Michael had completely dominated CART in the US.  Then the F1 establishment saw how easily Mansell adapted to CART.   What was lost in the comparison is that it is much easier for an excellent driver to move down in car technology than it is for a driver to move up to a level where he is still feeling out limits.

 

An objective look at Michael's results would show a driver who faced a steep learning curve, but showed steady progress in ascending the curve.  By the later third of *his* season (dismissed after Italy), he had narrowed the qualifying gap to Senna, and had delivered several impressive drives through the field culminating in a 3rd place podium finish in Italy.   There was promise if one choose to see it.   Unfortunately opinions had been formed, and decisions made.     

 

Unfortunately Michael was not Mario.  Heck even Mario commented that Michael could have been a greater driver, but actually preferred management.  His results as a team manager show that he is more than capable.   There were several prizes that eluded him as a driver; Indy being one.  But he has now won several as an owner, along with many other races and championships across several racing classes.  I have no doubt the team will be well run.  I have 3 concerns  1) Funding.  Cadillac is the brand behind the team.  How much of a commitment will they actually make ?  Unlimited, or watching every penny, and declining some things due to "cost".  2) Technology.   F1 is a very pointy sword, with the top teams separated by the sharpness of their technology.   Hamilton looked like the GOAT, now he can't get a break because of the changing tide of tech.  3) Driver.  They will need a top, or near top line driver to have any real chance at success.   

 

My prediction is they will be mid field in their first season, with success being defined by achievement of a few lower points finishes.    Year 2 will be much the same with some flashes of potential.  Year 3 will make or break the team- can they routinely qualify in the top 10 or close, can they finish in the middle of the points ?   Then an "evaluation" will be made that will determine yrs 4 and beyond.

 

In a few years will we include the Andretti-Cadillac team in a continuation of this thread ? 

 

Liberty ownership brought some "American" spectacle to F1 and some have said they are trying to remake the sport into an international Nascar style series.   All in the name of increasing the fanbase, and revenue stream.  Nascar, as a governing body has a history of allowing things to happen that penalize some teams and benefit others.   It would be a slippery slope if Liberty F1 begins to embrace the same model.

 

 

The bold is really the issue here though, you may see a development, McLaren clearly did not, to the point they fired an Andretti mid-season.

[WonderWoman61]

I actually doubt that anyone in the paddock cares about Michael's stint in F1 30 years ago - or that many even know about it. TNF cares about that. F1 cares about money and power.

Well, some will, some won't.

The now-defunct F1 Rejects had a great article on Michael Andretti and his McLaren stint that has thankfully been archived.

https://web.archive....etti/index.html

[AJCee]

Re Andretti Jr, his 93 season is surely neither here nor there. It’s not as if success in the F1 World Championship is exactly a marker for success as a team owner/manager after all.

[PCC]

Well, some will, some won't.

I honestly doubt that any will. These guys have hundreds of millions worth of commercial interests to take care of. Michael Andretti's on-track performance in 1993 isn't going to be on their radar.

[WonderWoman61]

I honestly doubt that any will. These guys have hundreds of millions worth of commercial interests to take care of. Michael Andretti's on-track performance in 1993 isn't going to be on their radar.

You never know but each to their own.

There would be plenty of material eligible for this thread in the archived F1 Rejects and its successor GP Rejects.

The former had several articles on failed F1 teams, including the exploits of Messrs Franco Rocchi and Ernesto Vita, there were over 100 drivers profiled on that site as well and incidentally was my inspiration for creating this thread.

[KWSN - DSM]

I honestly doubt that any will. These guys have hundreds of millions worth of commercial interests to take care of. Michael Andretti's on-track performance in 1993 isn't going to be on their radar.

 

F1 Fans will, this thread and forum is primarily fans, not so many principals (I think).

 

We hold grudges for years and decades if something happened to one of our particular drivers perpetrated by another driver - Like me never forgiving Derek Warvick for punting Marc Surer our of a podium in Monaco.

[WonderWoman61]

From what I remember the 1993 McLaren was very nervous and the customer Ford engine was down on power and it took the talent of Ayrton Senna to win five races that season. Andretti being away from the team between races didn't help, but I had and still have high regard of his driving talent. Having watched him in ChampCar from the late 1980s on the telly Michael Andretti was clearly one of the best of his generation of american drivers. Al Unser Jr. was mentioned in connection to Benetton at around the same time, and another of the great ones, but apparently didn't like being removed from home soil and eventually didn't make the move to F1.
 
I took a young, very hungry Mika Häkkinen, Michael's replacement, to challenge Senna in the latter half of 1993.
 
Jesper

I thought Williams were interested in Al Unser Jr and Benetton in Paul Tracy? Ligier showed interest in Robby Gordon but I don't wish to drift too far from the subject.

[WonderWoman61]

I celebrate disasters such as Life - racing was all the richer for their presence. Every court needs a jester , and I applaud these absurdly overambitious efforts like LIfe tilting at the F1 establishment windmill . And now that F1 has become a nasty little cartel , with huge resistance to any new team sharing the TV cash spoils   , while also insisting upon almost identical cars , we will never see teams like LIfe , Zakspeed and Eifelland again. We are unlikely even to see an Andretti team , as people like the absurdly pompous  Toto Wolff don't think they are up to his standards .

For the Life effort, we have to thank Messrs Franco Rocchi and Ernesto Vita, it's more interesting to learn more about unsuccessful efforts or at least I think it is.

[Henri Greuter]

I thought Williams were interested in Al Unser Jr and Benetton in Paul Tracy? Ligier showed interest in Robby Gordon but I don't wish to drift too far from the subject.

Al jr had his experience with Williams F1 in 1992 mentioned within the book about him.

I consider the co-author of that book, Jade Gurrs   a friend of me so I won't quote or reveal details about that deal.

But I can tell this: ( I think)

 

This was in 1992 and remember what happened with the men who won the WDC driving with the cars provided to them by Williams Grand Prix Engineering in and around those years.

With that in mind, how do you think that Patrick Head dealt with Al jr those days of that test and what kind of result that had on Al?

 

Confirmed a lot of feelings and thoughts I already had about him and Frank.

[70JesperOH]

..but what other team than Dollop decided to enter an Argo with a F1 derived Motori Moderni engine for 1988 group C2 sports prototype racing. Only to replace that car with an ageing Lancia LC2 later in the season. Absolutely fabulous and the last season of World championship group C racing when this type of entry had a realistic chance of entering.

 

Jesper

 

Dollop Racing and their Argo-MM might not have been such a failure after all! Nicola Marozzo won the C2 class at the opening round of the 1988 German Supercup. Details of the C2-competition are sketchy though, so..

 

Jesper

[sabrejet]

Dollop Racing and their Argo-MM might not have been such a failure after all! Nicola Marozzo won the C2 class at the opening round of the 1988 German Supercup. Details of the C2-competition are sketchy though, so..

 

Jesper

 

Dollop also had a Lancia LC.2, which IIRC came after Sponsor Geest and Mussato had failed to do much with theirs.

[funformula]

The Arrows A2 might fall in this category. Whether it was something fundamentally wrong with it or if the team just didn´t fully understand the then new wing car caused set-up challenges I´m not sure. I read somewhere that Jochen Mass wanted to try significantly stiffer springs to the car which the team rejected as they couldn´t believe the car producing so much downforce.

 

Another Arrows example is the A9 which had some fundamental design flaws, hence the mechanics christened it K9 as it was a real dog.

In an older thread here on TNF Peter Elleray gave some interesting inside information about it.

[AJB2]

The Nethercutt Mirage:

Though even from its worst angle, it still looks sleek.

[PCC]

Interesting to speculate what might have happened if Tyrrell had opted to continue with March chassis into 1971 instead of developing their own car. The March 711 was good enough to finish runner up in Peterson’s hands. Could Stewart have still won the championship in a Tyrrell run 711?

Well, since the only one who proved able to beat the 711 was JYS in a Tyrrell, I suspect the answer is yes.

[WonderWoman61]

The Peugeot 307 WRC

Hot on the heels of one of the most successful cars of its time, the Peugeot 206 WRC, came ... this thing, unaffectionately dubbed "the whale". In a sport where a short wheelbase and a low centre of gravity are to be prized, the decision to enter the top-heavy and over-long 307 was baffling to say the least. It might have won three rallies (hardly a patch on its predecessor and really more a testament to the drivers rather than the car), but its most notable achievement was the way it made the talented Marcus Gronholm and Markko Martin look very silly.

[flatlandsman]

It cannot really be called a failure as it won rallies and also had  a decent career as a private car for many years hence.

 

It was not competitive against the Xsara, but it did win rallies.  My favourite Gronhlm quip was after they decided to try 4 gears and he lost one and comes to the stage interview "you can tell Corrado that we can try three now, I hate this car"

[Myhinpaa]

That was Finland '04  at the end of SS14, Ouninpohja 2 where they lost 4th gear early on in the stage.

 

Prompted by Timo (in Finnish) Matcus says: "You can tell Corrado now that 3 is enough" https://youtu.be/cOfCa8p7Otw?t=704

 

The much disliked (Hewland) 4-speed dual clutch gearbox was homologated as an addition  to the 5-speed, which wasn't used much.

When Marcus and Markko rather would have had a 6-speed as an option racing bred engineers insisted on the 4-speed.

 

Another disliked idea from them was shock absorbents that the drivers could not adjust themselves, which in Prodrive's situation

with Petter Solberg - in '06 - '08 especially - would have been a fantastic idea! But not with Marcus in Markko in '04.

 

Added to the above the car was plagued by hydraulic failures affecting steering and gearshift too.

This again led to the drivers overdriving the cars to gain some advantage for as long as the car was in full working order.

 

Like Harri Rovanpera did in Finland in '04, he drove insanely fast on SS6 Ruuhimaki, until the inevitable happened.

 

The 307 WRC was also the car in which Markko Martin had his accident where his co-driver Michael Park tragically lost his life

during the '05 Rally GB, SS6 Margam.

[WonderWoman61]

Maybe not a failure but still a disappointment compared to the 206.

[WonderWoman61]

BMW Sauber And Robert Kubica's 2008 And 2009 Seasons

They messed up big time. At the 2008 Canadian Grand Prix Robert Kubica scored his and the team's first win a year on from his horrific crash at the event. It was a fairytale story and the BMW Sauber's early year consistency meant Kubica led the championship after this event. 4 points ahead of Hamilton, 4 points ahead of Massa, 7 points ahead of Räikkönen; the three best drivers that year.

So what happened to Kubica and BMW Sauber?

Well, after this race the team stopped the development of the 2008 car when it was leading the driver's championship and started looking towards their 2009 car, ostensibly because the rules for 2009 were so different that the team decided to maximise development time to the detriment of their current car.

Up until this point Kubica had never failed to finish outside of the top four barring a retirement at the first race. Six consecutive finishes inside the top four culminating in a win which saw him lead the championship. After this, however, the lack of development meant that over the remaining 11 races Kubica only finished inside the top four twice and would end up 4th in the championship, some 22/23 points behind Massa and Hamilton.

Never mind. Maybe the gamble would pay off? Maybe BMW Sauber's long development of their 2009 car would mean 2009 would be even better?

It didn't. The car was woefully off the pace, lucky to grab any points at all which didn't really happen until the second half of the season, and a fluke 2nd place at the penultimate race in Brazil was scant consolation for a season of disappointment. Kubica moved to Renault, frustrated at what could have been, and BMW pulled out of the sport with their tail between their legs.

[F1matt]

Do we consider series such as Group B rallying, and the mid 90s DTM as motorsport failures or series that got out of hand and the governing bodies failed to get a grip of? There is an argument that both could have been reined in and allowed to flourish if the rule makers kept the manufacturers on a tighter leash and organised events better. 
 

In the case of Group B there were warning signs from drivers about the rapid development of the cars which were getting quicker and lighter and a willingness to bend the rules to gain an edge, as these cars become quicker, louder, and scarier the crowds wanted to see them at close quarters which ultimately led to disaster and Group B was ditched almost overnight, and the new to be introduced group S canned before it even started. My question is was the series ditched to quickly, one manufacturer had an almost monopoly on fatalities, I appreciate Ari Vatanen had a bad accident in the Peugeot but the series managed to have a relative balance up until 1995. If the FIA had managed to work with rally organisers to help control the crowds to avoid sintra like incidents outdoors the series have continued? As an additional question was the decision to ditch Group B all down to Jean Marie Balestre who was at the Tour De Corse in 1986 when it was effectively culled, I remember seeing a photo of him acting as official starter dressed like Napoleon. 
 

onto the mid 90s DTM, proof that if you let manufacturers run a series it will end in disaster, constant F1 levels of development, overpaid drivers, some were also participating in F1, races in countries such as Brazil and Japan, and in front of crowds that club events would be disappointed with. The series died a painful death in 1996, only for to repeat it all again a few years later.

 

Don’t get me started on the bright idea of utilising F1 3.5 engines in the back of sportscars or a silhouette touring car. 

[flatlandsman]

+Balestre was largely the man making group B decisions, in fairness he probably had to.

 

the cars were insanely fast and powerful and the orgainsers could not really do much to make it safe, they were starting to be regular accidents and the cars were not all very safe, some where some not.

 

I do think it could have been fixed easily, better marshaling, some sensible car mods.  if you think when henri died there were stages on that rally that were very long, up to 40 miles I thin, all basically endless twists and turns, it was crazy really

[RS2000]

Group B was not originally intended to be used as a rallying category. The only difference from Group A in the original Appendix J was dry sumping and the 200 production quantity. You could argue that individual event organisers should not have provided a Gp B category (but would the FIA then have removed events from the WRC?).

For the sake of history it is essential to record that GpB was not banned at the end of1986 - only over 2000cc GpB was. The vast majority of vehicles homologated in GpB were very ordinary ones. Without them, events would not have been viable in the earlier years of the new Appendix J.

Manufacturer pressure (especially for Evolution that was not in the original regulations) was ultimately to blame?

[F1matt]

I agree, the blame can be laid at the doors of the manufacturer, the cars became more fearsome with each new evolution. Some of them were deathtraps if the stories are to be believed. The FIA are guilty of allowing this rapid progress though, the manufacturers were almost given carte blanche to do what they want, and some of the ideas they had for Group S were even scarier. As pointed out above, the length of competition stages, the amount of time spent on road sections should have been factored in by the FIA, they were clearly caught out by the rapid development of the cars and the lengths the manufacturers were willing to go to create these machines. The writing was clearly on the wall. 

 

Although it was a short and exciting era of rallying there were some cruel losses that shouldn’t have happened. 

[Myhinpaa]

Despite the rule changes there was a fatal accident on the 1987 Tour de Corse rally, for the third year in a row.

This time in a Group N Peugeot 205 GTI, co-driver Jean-Michel Argenti lost his life when the car left the road

and rolled end over end down a steep hillside. This happened on SS9, Carnavaggia - Borgio.

 

The driver, Jean Marchini suffered  quite serious head injuries, but survived.

 

The 26km Corte - Taverna stage was used as SS15, this was SS18 the previous year, where Toivonen/Cresto had their tragic accident.

[flatlandsman]

I think some of the criticism of the manufacturers is a little harsh.  One or two of them pushed the boundaries, namely Lancia, but the other cars were relatively safe. Metro's are still being rallied now for goodness sake. 

 

The big issues were the reality of driving those cars on stages that were fine in a Mk2 Escort or Ascona 400 but in a car with 4wd, 500hp and all sorts of other issues those stages became very demanding narrow and tough.  But the biggest problem of all was the one Balestre really failed to do much about, and that was spectator control and the issues that are still seen on events to this day.  You will recall Poland a few years ago the stages were very fast, but also very narrow, fans were in all sorts of stupid places and it was dropped as a result, all you needed was a fatality or a big name to crash there and the issue would be there again. 

 

In  the UK we had two awful fatalities many years ago now and the sport has been utterly ruined for spectators on the whole on lower level events, one of the accidents was a freak event entirely and a failure of communication both in stage and in car to warn drivers of a very sudden increase in people, the other was people standing in a stupid place despite being warned not to on a notoriously difficult area and being in the line of fire, as a result a lot of venues are now so anti spectator that going is worthless. yet elsewhere in the world there is still an element of freedom to rally watching, in the UK in some places you are literally only allowed to stand in little pens!]]

 

The GpB cars continued into rallycross where they raced until 1992 and were replaced by GpA based cars and funnily enough the incidents came then when more standard cars were pushed and there as a fatal accident in France, ironically crowd based again. 

 

Balestre was knee jerk, as he always was.  Something needed doing but bringing in GpA so quickly was a very rough ride for most, led to marque domination for several years and it was not until the Japanese got involved that rallying regained its popularity again in the early 90's, but the crowd issues were still there, witness McCrae and Grist in Spain basically driving down a line of people at 100mph, saying it should never have run., It has got better but the big issue was always fans and orgainsers, not cars. 

 

My only caveat was that there should have been a way of limiting who could drive one, as you had a few incidents when people who were really not at the level to drive a 500hp rally car, were able to. You can easily argue this is the case with a lot of amateur sports like WEC GTWCk, IMSA etc over the years.