19 replies to this topic

[RaggedEdge]

I read Nigel Roebuck's "Chasing the Title", and was fascinated by a lot of points, especially the 1982 season.

During that year, one had turbo vs. normally aspirated engines, ride height confusion, double wings, driver strikes and team race boycots, huge row about the minimum weight limit of the car, and even flagmen trying to abort races prematuraly.

Specifically for WDC, during 1982, Rosberg won but was disqualified from second place in Rio (alongside with winner Piquet), which cost him dearly. The ruling was highly controversial, since only those two were disqualified for having the water cooled brakes, even though several of the drivers behind them (e.g. Watson) also used them.

This sounds like a moderately insulting FIA decision, but nevertheless adds further shine to Keke's WDC victory.

Who, in your opinion, has had the most satisfyind run to World Drivers Championship-title, despite being disadavataged by FIA unfairly.

In the 1990s, some examples also come to mind, but perhaps these are lesser in comparison to stuff that took place in 1980s and before?

1994 Schumacher won despite being banned for three races for ignoring black flag in Silverstone and having too much wear in the plank of his car
1997 Villeneuve won despite being banned from one race for ignoring yellow flags during practice
1998 Hakkinen won despite FIA allowing Schumacher to win by ignoring a stop&go penalty in Silverstone, despite Ferrari breaking FIA's no team orders rule, and despite McLaren's auxiliary braking system being questionably banned
1999 Hakkinen won despite FIA allowing Ferrari to finish first and second in an arguably illegal car, taking away Mika's (temporarily) and McLaren's (permanently) championship by this controversial ruling


[This message has been edited by RaggedEdge (edited 12-03-1999).]

[Duane]

The only 'fix' of the nineties was 94, and MS does and did deserve that title, for the reasons youmentioned above. I'm hesitant to write this because I hope this place does not become another MS bashing/worshipping centre. As for the others, they don't really qualify as FIA rigging or interference, as the 98 point was local and JV was simply guilty and should have been dq'd from at least one race in 97. To me, the biggest FIA interference of all time, was probably following Malaysia this year, but then again maybe that was nothing ;)

[RaggedEdge]

Duane,

Oops, I of course meant 1994, not 1995.

Yeah, hopefully this thread will focuse more on past than 1990s, but why not discuss 1990s as well?

Obviously you are a Schumi-fan and I am a Hakkinen one, but surely it is not just black and white?

1994: I think FIA rigged the championship, which increased the value of Schumi's WDC win. But Benetton was not very clean either.

1998: Silverstone issue was not really local, since McLaren appealed and FIA then favoured Ferrari. Likewise, Brazil brake decision was not really local either, since the ruling was universal. And finally, the team order issue, was clearly a universal interpretation by FIA in favour of Ferrari.

1999: "The only 'fix' of the nineties was 94" versus "To me, the biggest FIA interference of all time, was probably following Malaysia this year, but then again maybe that was nothing". So you also agree 1999 was also a fix, right ?

[Don Capps]

The whole FIA "rigging" mentality is essentially a "90's Thing."

Why? For years the FIA and its sporting authority the CSI were too incompetent to be that organized to "rig" anything.

The problems in the mid-70's: Spain, Brands Hatch, etc., came about due to the CSI not being able to match wits with FOCA as the rules became more complicated, technical, and enforced spottily as well as generally being poorly written.

Then came J.M. Balestre, the head of the FFSA who watched as FOCA rolled over the CSI at Monaco in 1972 in a power play that CSI lost. When JMB became the head of the CSI and immediately turned it into the FISA, the FOCA elements turned nasty at being challenged. As a result, 1980 thru 1982 were touchy years in F1.

The FISA was very calculating in how it went about thngs and by 1983 had seized control for all intents and purposes from the FOCA guys - Max & Bernie.

Guess what, when Max became Emperor, he abolished the FISA, brought that power into the FIA and created the F1A for Bernie to milk dollars from whoever and deposit them into his pocket as well as the FIA's. The only difference twix JMB and MM is that JMB was French...

------------------
Yr fthfl & hmbl srvnt,

Don Capps

[Duane]

I guess I'm of all the drivers to a certain extent, but Ferrari is certainly my favorite team, followed by Jordan. Although I like and admire MH, I detest Ron dennis.
I just view 94 as the worst of the FIA.
The stuff from 97 to 99 was to keep it close, but not nearly as crippling as 94 was to MS. I think 94 has shaped his attitude ever since, for the worse.
Anyway, the FIA has interfered too much as of late, and usually it is to help either Ferrari or McLaren to catch the other or to keep the Title fight tight. Ferrari has benefited more from this than Mac, but both are certainly the favorite sons of Bernie and Co.
The 90's have been a bit of mess. One glaring overlook by the FIA that you missed, was the Williams/Mac inter-team pact at Jerez, which both got away with probably more as a result of the MS body-check more than anything else!
I don't agree that JV title was made difficult by the FIA, but quite the reverse. It was JV who almost threw it away, and he did ignore yellow flags on 3-4 occasions at different races. By choosing to race in Japan, he shpould have been dq'd in Spain, whether the appeal was dropped or not.
Anyway, that's just my thoughts, and it's just modern F1 really it's not all that important!

[Dennis David]

Don is actually right on here. With the FIA and FOCA controlled by the previously mentioned duo that's when the "fix" became possible. This more than anything has allowed for the growth of F1 but also the cheapening of the product. Thank God they are reaching the end of their tenures. While they originally came into their leadership of the sport with the best of intentions their hubris has become unbearable.

------------------
Regards,

Dennis David
Yahoo = dennis_a_david

Life is racing, the rest is waiting

Grand Prix History
www.ddavid.com/formula1/

[RaggedEdge]

Duane,

Yeah, Jacques was pushing the envelope by continuing to ignore yellow flags, but a race disqualification was a bit much, IMHO, since FIA did not even enforce a pending ban Schumi had, I believe, after the Jerez 1997 race. Anyway, Jacques lost 2 points, i.e. not much.

But you cannot be serious claiming that McLaren has been FIA's favourite?? All decisions during 1997-1999 have gone against them, unless you count FIA not taking away Hakkinen's Monaco pole position for "only" raising his hand and slowing down in that particular sector in response to yellow flag?

The Jerez Williams-McLaren 1997 Jerez pact may have something to it, but I doubt it. MH for example lost enormous amount of time driving behind HHF in the mid part of the race, and neither McLaren slowed down Ferraris during the race.

For example, more logical place to do any collaboration that would have been in Japan, where Williams clearly did not communicate to McLaren their plan of trying to put as many cars ahead of Villieneuve (and consequently Schumacher) as possible, as Jacques was not likely to get points anyway due to his driving under appeal.

Instead, in Suzuka 1997, MH did not try to overtake a deliberately slow Jacques, and hence lost a possible race win because of this. MH was angry about that missed opportunity.

Don Capps,

Surely drivers have been banned/excluded during 1980s and before in a controversial way?

The stuff I am really after is Senna and Mansel etc being banned for various reasons such as ignoring black flags etc and how all that affected the end result in WDC?

IMHO, the actual structuring and development of the governing bodies of F1 is interesting, but of secondary importance to the actual "injustices".

[Dennis David]

Rag This idea of banning is a recent development or at least in the frequency we now see. I guess the worst episode in the past was when Tyrrell was censured. That was a bad one. Add Patrese to the list when the other drivers refused to drive with him.

------------------
Regards,

Dennis David
Yahoo = dennis_a_david

Life is racing, the rest is waiting

Grand Prix History
www.ddavid.com/formula1/

[Duane]

I guess my point is that tyhey would rather see a Ferrari-McLaren battle than a Williams-anybody else battle; just for a change of scene more than anything else. I don't think I intended to say that Mac are favoured more than anyone else, Ferrari does benefit more than others, as of late anyway.
However, my pount is that the leading contenders, whoever they may be, often tend to get better treatment than those who are not in the wc battle.
For example, Panis would have most likely been penalized in Monaco had it been him instead of MH who ignored the yellow, as well, if the Stewarts were dq'd instead of Ferrari in Malaysia, then it's my guess that the dq's would have stood.
Anyway, it's just opinion, don't take it too seriously.
I post here because the atmo is so much better than the reader's comments BB, so if you want to argue Mac/Ferrari/Williams or JV/MS/MH stuff then that would be the best place; you'll find a lot of takers! As for me, I won't take the hook!

Cheers.

[Don Capps]

The Tyrrell Incident and the FIASCO War (FISA + FOCA = FIASCO, probably my favorite GP sign EVER) alone would fill a book (and interestingly enough, where is that book?) and was so much a question of "rigging" as of being vindictive in the former case and just mean & ugly in the second case.

------------------
Yr fthfl & hmbl srvnt,

Don Capps

[RaggedEdge]

Duane, OK then.

Don Capps,

was FIASCO what happened in 1982-83?

Was FISA the rule enforing (sporting rules?) party and FOCA the commercial interest party?

1982 looked terribly messy and the teams seemed mock the rulemakers with their disregard to the rules. I am sure several drivers suffered unfairly as a consequence.

Dennis David,

Did the Tyrrel thing have something to do with the fan car?

And Patrese incident had something to do with somebody dying/injuring?

[Lutz]

Don Capps,
I really enjoyed your "Season of seasons" articles, I see things alot different about the '82 season now. I did follow F1 back then as a kid, but certanly didn't understand much about what was going on off track. Could you sometimes do a similar article about the Tyrell ban in '84? To me it always seemed like they were banned because of massive cheating (i.e. a watertank to adjust the wheight of the car during a race). Until I read your articles it never occured to me that there were other motives behind the ban.

[Ray Bell]

FISA decisions are rank outsiders when it comes to making it hard to win a title. When Schumaker runs you off the road (Damon Hill at Adelaide) and wins a world title after having crashed his car prior to that it's just plain wrong.

[Witt]

Anyone, What happened in 1984 that got Tyrell disqualified from the whole championship?

Also, each year when the Spanish GP roles along, Alan Jones, our co-host to each GP down-under, likes to tell us how he won that race in 198? (he can't remember himself!), but the race results were not counted towards the championship for some reason.

AJ comes up with a novell reason every year as to why the results didn't stand, so i'm not sure what the real reason is. Can someone fill me in here? Thanks!

[Leo]

Tyrrell was in 1984 the only team without turbo engines. To be competetive they ran the car underweight and during the last pitstop they filled a watertank with small lead balls to bring the car up to the right weight.
Well, that's what I know of it.

The Spanish race was 1983. It was banned from the championship for 'political reasons'. I guess that doesn't help much...

[Leo]

Correction (Jones' loss of memory seems to wear off on me that Spanish race was 1980 of course. The race was declared a non-championship event by FISA after some drivers refused to pay fines from the Zolder dispute (No, I don't remember what that dispute was about). Ferrari, Renault and Alfa Romeo boycotted the race.

[Witt]

Thanks Leo!

[SB]

Leo,

I would like to know more about the 84 Tyrrell incident. How did the tricks been discovered ??

Thx in advance.

SB

[Don Capps]

I have been mulling over doing another RVM Epic Saga and doing a series on the FIASCO War and the Tyrrell Expulsion as a chapter in that war. Of course, that means laying the groundwork which while fascinating as hell to me, is probably a snozer to most.

This one of those Black Holes in GP History where most just scoot around it as if it was no big deal and carry on. Besides, 90%+ of modern F1 fans haven't the foggiest notion of F1 prior to the 90's. That is a reflection of the enormous growth in the sport and has nothing to do with the fans themselves - many are eager for information and often puzzled as the vast dfferences between Then and Now. Then again, aren't we all?

If there is sufficient interest, I will see what I can do.

------------------
Yr fthfl & hmbl srvnt,

Don Capps

Semper Gumbi: If this was easy, we’d have the solution already…

[PDA]

In 84, the Tyrell was, legally, carrying water ballast tanks to carry the "brake cooling water". They were accused of adding "none aqueous material" to whatever was pumped into the tanks to make up the weight. This was taken to be lead shot. Tyrell has always strongly denied that this was so. Some reckon it was not coincidence that Tyrell was the only team that was preventing the removal of NA engined cars from the championship. those same people reckon that this was a fix to stitch up Ken and as a result, invalidate his veto vote.

The irony is that a couple of years later they realised the folly and banned turbo engines.