Ideas for more Reject Centrale articles

[dinizintheoven]

Was it Enzo Ferrari still insisting that "Aerodynamics were for teams who couldn't build proper engines"?

Wouldn't surprise me. Old Enzo always came across to me as a massive stick-in-the-mud who wouldn't change anything about his team or his cars until they were thrashed so hard by the competition he'd be forced to do so, however grudgingly. And then, the changes would work, and they'd be back to winning ways. Take 1960: Ferrari, with their old-fashioned, front-engined car that had resulted from Enzo continuing to say "hmph, the horse pulls the cart, it does not push it" were given such a kicking by Jack Brabham and Cooper that they only managed to win in Italy because the Monza organisers shifted the goalposts so far in their favour by bringing back the banked track that half the field boycotted the race. Enzo had to change, so he did - and in 1961, with the rear-engined shark-nose 156, Ferrari were back on top again. But the old biffer didn't learn from his mistakes! Take 1973; Ferrari were yet again being trounced by those "garagistes" that Enzo must have arrogantly assumed he had a divine right to beat. The 312B2 was an elderly design; the Lotus 72 that had debuted at the same time wasn't, and it was one-way traffic. Never mind no wins; no podiums, either, and that should have been all the evidence that was needed to shelve the B3 for a newer car. It wasn't... and the main reason why 1974 was better were due to the words "Niki" and "Lauda". What could he do if he was finally given a contemporary car to compete with? The answer came in 1975 with the launch of the 312T... boom, championship. Lightning wouldn't strike three times, though, would it? I suppose we might be able to let Enzo off a bit for the 1980 disaster, given that the 312T4 was a championship winner in 1979, but the year before we'd all seen what the ground-effect Lotus 79 could do when it wasn't breaking down the way any Lotus was expected to, and in 1979 Ferrari were certainly aided by Lotus shooting themselves in the face with the 80. The real wake-up call should have come from Williams and the winning streak Alan Jones went on at the end of the season - plus, Renault had just racked up the first win for a turbo. Yet again, Enzo didn't see the writing on the wall, or maybe he did and he was still convinced that he would be proved right even though one of these new challengers wasn't a garagiste. I don't think anyone could have foreseen how badly wrong 1980 would go, though; Ferrari had two top-drawer drivers, one of whom was the World Champion and the other would surely be (we'd have said so at the time), the T5 was an update of the T4 so they hadn't stood completely still, but even so, if it hadn't taken all of Gilles Villeneuve's skill to wrench two fifth places out of it as its best result, if Jody Scheckter hadn't fallen to an ignominious DNQ in Canada, I can't help thinking 1981 would have seen Ferrari starting the season with the 312T6 instead of finally seeing the light. OK, the 126CK wasn't a great car, but look who hauled it to two wins, and when it was finally updated to be the car it always should have been in 1982, I have no doubt that Gilles Villeneuve would have driven it to the championship if he hadn't been killed at Zolder, despite the intra-team unpleasantness and the FISA-FOCA politics... despite the tumultuous 1982 season which Ferrari were right at the centre of, that car did eventually win the Constructors' Championship.

(Now, I wonder if there'll be an errant "Bathplug" with a capital B in there?)

[TomWazzleshaw]

...and when it was finally updated to be the car it always should have been in 1982, I have no doubt that Gilles Villeneuve would have driven it to the championship if he hadn't been killed at Zolder, despite the intra-team unpleasantness and the FISA-FOCA politics... despite the tumultuous 1982 season which Ferrari were right at the centre of, that car did eventually win the Constructors' Championship.

Hell, if it wasn't for the ridiculously bad luck Ferrari had they year, they would have romped away with both titles by such a large margin it's not funny.

[mario]

Was it Enzo Ferrari still insisting that "Aerodynamics were for teams who couldn't build proper engines"? Or did Ferrari try a ground effect concept by failed miserably? Or could they not incorporate ground effects in 1980, due to their flat V12 engine...if so why didn't they sort it out in 1978? Or was it down to poor Bathplug from the drivers / engineers or even internal politics at Ferrari etc?

It's the return of the haywire word filter!

I'm pretty sure that the Cosworth DFV played a large role in this upheaval, as the engine was vee-shaped, it meant there was plenty of space at the rear of the car for teams like Lotus and Ligier to take full advantage of ground effects. The flat-12 engine, whilst being significantly more powerful, wasn't vee-shaped, I believe, which meant ground effects would be compromised.

I was also under the same impression - the geometry of the tunnels beneath the car was compromised because of the shape of the engine, severely restricting the effectiveness of their udnerbody.

Now, in theory Ferrari might have done what Alfa Romeo did and convert their engine into a V12 to work around that problem (the Ferrari engine was a sort of hybrid flat 12 at the time - it was effectively designed as a V12 with a very large V angle rather than a true flat 12), but my understanding is that Ferrari chose to focus their efforts on the 126 series instead once they saw that Renault's turbo engine was becoming increasingly competitive.
With the expense and difficulty of developing a new turbo engine, plus an entirely new chassis to house it, the team knew that they would be uncompetitive in 1980 but hoped that they could return to form in 1982 with a car that had much more long term development potential than the ageing 312T series - so the lack of competitiveness of Ferrari in 1980 was kind of expected by the team.

[ibsey]

Was it Enzo Ferrari still insisting that "Aerodynamics were for teams who couldn't build proper engines"?

Wouldn't surprise me. Old Enzo always came across to me as a massive stick-in-the-mud who wouldn't change anything about his team or his cars until they were thrashed so hard by the competition he'd be forced to do so, however grudgingly. And then, the changes would work, and they'd be back to winning ways. Take 1960: Ferrari, with their old-fashioned, front-engined car that had resulted from Enzo continuing to say "hmph, the horse pulls the cart, it does not push it" were given such a kicking by Jack Brabham and Cooper that they only managed to win in Italy because the Monza organisers shifted the goalposts so far in their favour by bringing back the banked track that half the field boycotted the race. Enzo had to change, so he did - and in 1961, with the rear-engined shark-nose 156, Ferrari were back on top again. But the old biffer didn't learn from his mistakes! Take 1973; Ferrari were yet again being trounced by those "garagistes" that Enzo must have arrogantly assumed he had a divine right to beat. The 312B2 was an elderly design; the Lotus 72 that had debuted at the same time wasn't, and it was one-way traffic. Never mind no wins; no podiums, either, and that should have been all the evidence that was needed to shelve the B3 for a newer car. It wasn't... and the main reason why 1974 was better were due to the words "Niki" and "Lauda". What could he do if he was finally given a contemporary car to compete with? The answer came in 1975 with the launch of the 312T... boom, championship. Lightning wouldn't strike three times, though, would it? I suppose we might be able to let Enzo off a bit for the 1980 disaster, given that the 312T4 was a championship winner in 1979, but the year before we'd all seen what the ground-effect Lotus 79 could do when it wasn't breaking down the way any Lotus was expected to, and in 1979 Ferrari were certainly aided by Lotus shooting themselves in the face with the 80. The real wake-up call should have come from Williams and the winning streak Alan Jones went on at the end of the season - plus, Renault had just racked up the first win for a turbo. Yet again, Enzo didn't see the writing on the wall, or maybe he did and he was still convinced that he would be proved right even though one of these new challengers wasn't a garagiste. I don't think anyone could have foreseen how badly wrong 1980 would go, though; Ferrari had two top-drawer drivers, one of whom was the World Champion and the other would surely be (we'd have said so at the time), the T5 was an update of the T4 so they hadn't stood completely still, but even so, if it hadn't taken all of Gilles Villeneuve's skill to wrench two fifth places out of it as its best result, if Jody Scheckter hadn't fallen to an ignominious DNQ in Canada, I can't help thinking 1981 would have seen Ferrari starting the season with the 312T6 instead of finally seeing the light. OK, the 126CK wasn't a great car, but look who hauled it to two wins, and when it was finally updated to be the car it always should have been in 1982, I have no doubt that Gilles Villeneuve would have driven it to the championship if he hadn't been killed at Zolder, despite the intra-team unpleasantness and the FISA-FOCA politics... despite the tumultuous 1982 season which Ferrari were right at the centre of, that car did eventually win the Constructors' Championship.

(Now, I wonder if there'll be an errant "Bathplug" with a capital B in there?)

Brilliant post dinizintheoven. Loving the passion in your rant, & reading it has already made my weekend.

I've always felt the same way about Enzo as well, i.e. that he came across as a massive stick-in-the-mud particularly with new ideas. I mean, I may be wrong on this, but I don't think Ferrari came up with too many new ideas/developments when Enzo was in charge? They only seemed to copied other teams ideas instead. Only after Enzo's time did it seem to me that Ferrari finally started to introducing new developments on their F1 race cars, like the semi automatic gearbox in 1989. BTW I say 'race cars' because I read somewhere that Ferrari had a form of semi automatic gearbox on one of their testing cars as long ago as 1979, but they only introduced on their race cars after Enzo had passed away.

It's the return of the haywire word filter!

Yes either that, or we are no longer 'down with the kids' anymore on the latest swear words.

I was also under the same impression - the geometry of the tunnels beneath the car was compromised because of the shape of the engine, severely restricting the effectiveness of their udnerbody.

Thanks for clearing that up Mario. I still can't but wonder whether Ferrari could have taken steps earlier than they did to avoid the underbody of their 1980 car being so compromised however? Particularly since Lotus were whipping Ferrari's behinds with their ground effect cars in 1978. One wonders if there might there have been an element of Enzo Ferrari 'burying his head in the sand' around that time in regards to the future need to implement ground effects on his cars.

[ibsey]

Sorry if I'm hogging all the suggestions here, but wouldn't might an article on the downfall of the Renualt team after they pioneered the turbo charged engine, then subsequently failed to win the 1st world championship, powered by a turbo engine. Then the story of why Alain Prost left them at the end of 1983. And how it all went downhill from there. I have a feeling there might be a few funny stories of bad management, arguments, & general disarray just waiting to be unearthed within this one.

[mario]

I was also under the same impression - the geometry of the tunnels beneath the car was compromised because of the shape of the engine, severely restricting the effectiveness of their udnerbody.

Thanks for clearing that up Mario. I still can't but wonder whether Ferrari could have taken steps earlier than they did to avoid the underbody of their 1980 car being so compromised however? Particularly since Lotus were whipping Ferrari's behinds with their ground effect cars in 1978. One wonders if there might there have been an element of Enzo Ferrari 'burying his head in the sand' around that time in regards to the future need to implement ground effects on his cars.

It has to be said that, to begin with, the other manufacturers didn't anticipate what was in the wings - after all, the Lotus 78, whilst it had been quite successful, had also been troublesome due to various design flaws (the rear suspension partially blocked the tunnels and caused some airflow problems, whilst the centre of pressure of the car was too far forward and forced the team to have to install a larger than anticipated rear wing in order to balance the handling of the car), so, given that the Lotus 78 had underperformed to a certain extent, rival teams could have been forgiven for underestimating the potential of its successor.

Equally, it is worth pointing out that, in 1977 and 1978, Chapman and the senior designers at Lotus put a considerable amount of effort into - successfully - misleading their rivals by making it look as if other factors were responsible for the success of their car. Chapman put about various reasons for his success - a new differential design, a new gearbox design or the rear suspension layout of the 79 - and made a show of hiding those components to fool other teams into thinking that he had something to hide there rather than elsewhere.

All in all, Chapman's smokescreen method worked fairly well - it took several months before other designers realised what was going on and could develop, in a scientific manner, their own versions of Lotus's design, by which point most of the other teams had already started work on their cars for 1979.
Forghieri did kind of realise the significance of what Lotus had discovered - he himself had, unintentionally, partially discovered ground effects when wind tunnel testing the 312T3 - but at the same time he was limited by the fact that he was working from the existing 312T3 chassis and the existing engine design. Furthermore, the team had other problems to contend with at the time - they'd recently switched to Michelin, but Michelin were not especially co-operative when Ferrari were testing their tyres (sometimes Michelin would not even tell Ferrari what tyres they were giving them to test), so that was also causing them a number of problems too.

I don't think that it necessarily was a case of Enzo Ferrari just burying his head in the sand over ground effects - whilst it is possible that his technological conservatism over aerodynamics might have been a factor, he knew full well that the car had problems (the fact that he not only let Gilles essentially shout obscenities in his face but actually agreed with him shows that he knew the car was flawed). It is part of the reason why Enzo Ferrari put a lot of effort into securing the services of Postlethwaite in 1980 - he knew that the existing chassis designs that Ferrari were turning out were poor, and probably couldn't have taken the sorts of loads that were being put on them by ground effects (a lot of teams, including Lotus, suffered from problems with metal fatigue and cracked chassis with their early ground effect cars).

[ibsey]

Furthermore, the team had other problems to contend with at the time - they'd recently switched to Michelin, but Michelin were not especially co-operative when Ferrari were testing their tyres (sometimes Michelin would not even tell Ferrari what tyres they were giving them to test), so that was also causing them a number of problems too.

Interesting stuff as ever. Might you be able to tell us why Michelin were not especially co-operative to Ferrari, about their tyres?

I never tire of reading your brilliantly insightful posts Mario. Thanks once again. BTW Have you ever thought about writing a regular blog here (or something along the lines of this). Passing on your vast knowledge & thoughts on all things F1? I'm sure, if you or the site wanted to, you could earn an income from it through advertising or something (I know some people who can help you on that if you were interested). Furthermore I'm sure most of the people here would love to see it happen.

[mario]

Furthermore, the team had other problems to contend with at the time - they'd recently switched to Michelin, but Michelin were not especially co-operative when Ferrari were testing their tyres (sometimes Michelin would not even tell Ferrari what tyres they were giving them to test), so that was also causing them a number of problems too.

Interesting stuff as ever. Might you be able to tell us why Michelin were not especially co-operative to Ferrari, about their tyres?

I never tire of reading your brilliantly insightful posts Mario. Thanks once again. BTW Have you ever thought about writing a regular blog here (or something along the lines of this). Passing on your vast knowledge & thoughts on all things F1? I'm sure, if you or the site wanted to, you could earn an income from it through advertising or something (I know some people who can help you on that if you were interested). Furthermore I'm sure most of the people here would love to see it happen.

From what I have read elsewhere, I believe, though cannot be certain, that the reason why Michelin were not especially co-operative with Ferrari was because Michelin considered Renault to be their main development partners at the time - they had already developed a quite close relationship in sportscar racing through the Alpine-Renault A442 program, for example, and it was through Renault that Michelin became involved in F1 at all. Ferrari might have been important customers, but they were, ultimately, customers, and therefore not the primary focus for Michelin's activities - something which seems to have been reflected in the importance that Michelin accorded to them in testing.

Even in later years, when other major outfits signed contracts with Michelin, there were those who felt that Renault was still the favoured development partners - McLaren felt that the competitiveness of their cars in the early 1980's (particularly the MP4/1C) was hurt by the fact that the tyres were designed around Renault's turbo cars, which were heavier and had a more rearward weight bias than the Cosworth powered cars.
That meant that the rear tyres had to be structurally stiffer and caused McLaren a lot of issues with getting their tyres up to temperature - it was also why the car performed significantly better in race trim than in qualifying (at least according to Watson, who cited the effects of the increased fuel weight as the reason why they did better in race trim).

As for the question of setting up a blog, your offer of help is very kind but, to be honest, it is not something that I've thought of before. Whilst I guess that one can never say never about these sorts of things in life, it is probably not something that I would be able to do in the short term - besides, I enjoy the way in which conversations can spark off here about various aspects of F1 (the atmosphere and general tone of the conversation here feels like a friendly chat down at the pub), and I don't know if that atmosphere would carry over to a blog. Equally, there are thousands of talented writers commenting about F1, all the way from professionals to other enthusiastic amateurs, so I feel like my voice would be lost in the crowd anyway.

[ibsey]

As for the question of setting up a blog, your offer of help is very kind but, to be honest, it is not something that I've thought of before. Whilst I guess that one can never say never about these sorts of things in life, it is probably not something that I would be able to do in the short term - besides, I enjoy the way in which conversations can spark off here about various aspects of F1 (the atmosphere and general tone of the conversation here feels like a friendly chat down at the pub), and I don't know if that atmosphere would carry over to a blog. Equally, there are thousands of talented writers commenting about F1, all the way from professionals to other enthusiastic amateurs, so I feel like my voice would be lost in the crowd anyway.

No worries. Let me know if you do change your mind about it & need some help in looking into it (you can PM me). As for the info on Michelin thanks so much, I wasn't previously aware of that story. . The thought that Renault was the favored development partner of Michelin, even in the early 1980's does make you wonder even more how they failed to win that 1st world championship, powered by a turbo engine. And just how much internal fighting / politics etc must have taken place within the Renualt team, to reduce them from what they had (i.e. state funding IIRC, tailored Michelin tyres, more experience with turbos & Prost as a driver) to the lows of 1985, before their departure. Would therefore be very interesting to see an article detailing how Renault's downfall came about.

Even in later years, when other major outfits signed contracts with Michelin, there were those who felt that Renault was still the favoured development partners - McLaren felt that the competitiveness of their cars in the early 1980's (particularly the MP4/1C) was hurt by the fact that the tyres were designed around Renault's turbo cars, which were heavier and had a more rearward weight bias than the Cosworth powered cars.
That meant that the rear tyres had to be structurally stiffer and caused McLaren a lot of issues with getting their tyres up to temperature - it was also why the car performed significantly better in race trim than in qualifying (at least according to Watson, who cited the effects of the increased fuel weight as the reason why they did better in race trim).

IIRC during BBC's commentary for the 1983 Long Beach GP (the race where the Mclaren duo of Watson & Lauda finished 1 - 2 amazingly after starting the race in 22nd and 23rd positions). IIRC James Hunt was also saying something about how Mclaren where having to experiment with their tyres, and it wasn't the 1st time they had to do it. Like for example in Belgium 1982, Watson won by choosing a compound that was softer than his rivals. Maybe all of this is to do with what you have kindly highlighted above.

[AdrianSutil]

To be honest, seeing a blog or a website with both Mario and ibsey writing stuff would see massive support from this place.

[ibsey]

To be honest, seeing a blog or a website with both Mario and ibsey writing stuff would see massive support from this place.

Thank you for those kind words of support AdrianSutil . The reason I mention it, is because recently I have been looking at changing careers (currently working as a chartered surveyor...good money but getting bored with it). And my brother who designs websites etc suggested that I should start a new website about my main passion in life; F1. Although it is very much a ‘pipe dream’ at this stage, and as Mario correctly points out there are already thousands of talented writers commenting about F1.

Nevertheless if I was able to find subject within F1 which hadn't been covered much, and it was able to compliment rather than rival this site. Then ultimately it would be something I would truly love to do. I was also very much encouraged by the support on this forum shown towards f1-gast & project unracedF1.com. So whilst I make no promises about this, I am going to be investigating ideas & their feasibility over the coming months. In the meantime I would very much welcome any ideas or suggestions for a possible new website. As I say I don’t wish to be trending on the toes of this site. In fact I will even be open to the idea of covering those subjects / articles mentioned here, that either Eytl or Mario might not get time to research & write up here.

[1993DonningtonNo1]

I have an idea for an article called 'It runs in the family' by which I mean F1 reject status because inspite of all they have achieved in Sportscars and Touring Cars, the Winkelhock family (Manfred and Markus, of course Joachim already has a profile on this website) are eligible for F1 reject status. I do not mean that to be disrespectful of the late Manfred Winkelhock but it is just a suggestion.

[Bleu]

JJ Lehto's 1994. While it looked like he would have a chance to big break, testing accident happened and lots of other setbacks, then he was out of F1 at the end of the season.

I have some of Finnish magazines from that era which could help. Maybe for next year as 20-year-anniversary of the events.

[roblo97]

hoshino in japanese gp 1976 and how he could have been japans first ever world champion i could do

[takagi_for_the_win]

hoshino in japanese gp 1976 and how he could have been japans first ever world champion i could do

If you do write it, please, for the love of god, punctuate it properly

[dr-baker]

hoshino in japanese gp 1976 and how he could have been japans first ever world champion i could do

If you do write it, please, for the love of god, punctuate it properly .

I'm sure that Enoch would do that before it got published on the website...

Plus, I added a full stop for you.

[eytl]

JJ Lehto's 1994. While it looked like he would have a chance to big break, testing accident happened and lots of other setbacks, then he was out of F1 at the end of the season.

I have some of Finnish magazines from that era which could help. Maybe for next year as 20-year-anniversary of the events.

I only just saw this post but yeah, that's a topic I'm interested in as well. Although, as you say, next year might be appropriate. And besides, I can reveal that the project list for the rest of this year's articles/profiles is in place, so any Lehto 1994 article would probably have to wait until 2014 anyway!

[eytl]

hoshino in japanese gp 1976 and how he could have been japans first ever world champion i could do

Well yes, at some stage Hoshino will need a full profile on the site. As usual I'm happy for people to start the research and prepare a first draft for me to then add to/edit/revise as necessary.

Not to mention the other great mid-1970s Japanese warriors whom we haven't done yet. We've only done Kuwashima and Takahashi but there's still Fushida, Hasemi, Hoshino, and Takahara to go ...

[ibsey]

There was one I'd been planning to write myself for most of the 2012 season - but I had to wait until the end to see if Those Three At The Back actually managed to score. They didn't, and I had my ideas as to why - only thing is, I didn't, because I knew as soon as I did, Mario and/or Ibsey would jump up and point out all the technical errors that would surely render everything I'd said utterly invalid; I've never been into the technical side of things anywhere near as much as I'd need to be to write the article and get my facts right to a level I'd expect, so it's best run past either of those two first, or both, or anyone else who reads Racecar Engineering, before I even attempt the first sentence.

Sorry dinizintheoven, I completely forgot to reply to you first time around (please accept my sincerest apologies, I was busy around that time with a house move). So I was just wondering how did you get on in the end with that article?

If you still wanted me to look over it, then I would be more than happy to help out where I can. I would also echo Mario’s comments in that your theories may well have as much validity as any other F1 observer. Also in the case that Mario has already looked over the article, then to be honest I am not sure how much more help I will prove to be. But nevertheless in case you wanted a second pair of eyes to read over it, then I am always more than happy to help out a fellow F1 nut.

In regards to more ideas. I know we have the ATS team from the 1960’s but how about the ATS team from the 1970’s & 1980’s. I mean who would not love to see a profile about them. Especially when their Wikipedia page has such wonderful facts like;

...Due to his temper, Schmidt was notoriously difficult to work with, and a rapid turnover of staff plagued ATS for their entire history...

...A second car was entered in the 1977 German Grand Prix for German touring car racer Hans Heyer. Heyer failed to qualify, but famously took the start anyway in front of his home crowd at the Hockenheimring. The race organisers only noticed when he retired with a broken gear linkage....

... Indeed, the team's most high-profile moment came when Salazar was attacked by Nelson Piquet on live television at the German Grand Prix, the ATS driver having collided with the race-leading Brazilian while being lapped....

...At the end of the year, BMW revoked the use of their engines due to the bad PR the team and its owner generated, and Schmidt folded the ATS team as well as leaving the ATS company....

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATS_(wheels)

Brilliant stuff! Also is a profile about Osella in the pipeline, by chance?

[tommykl]

Brilliant stuff! Also is a profile about Osella in the pipeline, by chance?

About Osella, firstly, driver profiles are the main focus. Second, the team's history is obscenely long for a reject team. Third, there are some reject teams that, IMO, should get a profile before Osella (AGS, Super Aguri or Connew). Finally, there is still room for debate on whether or not Osella should count as a reject team. They scored 5 points, but if the stupid "no points with the second car" rule didn't exist, they would have 7.

[Ataxia]

Brilliant stuff! Also is a profile about Osella in the pipeline, by chance?

About Osella, firstly, driver profiles are the main focus. Second, the team's history is obscenely long for a reject team. Third, there are some reject teams that, IMO, should get a profile before Osella (AGS, Super Aguri or Connew). Finally, there is still room for debate on whether or not Osella should count as a reject team. They scored 5 points, but if the stupid "no points with the second car" rule didn't exist, they would have 7.

I think I said earlier that I'd be up for doing Super Aguri; I remember them quite well and the circumstances under which they entered/left F1. I'll put something together over the coming weeks and we'll see if it's any good.

[mario]

There was one I'd been planning to write myself for most of the 2012 season - but I had to wait until the end to see if Those Three At The Back actually managed to score. They didn't, and I had my ideas as to why - only thing is, I didn't, because I knew as soon as I did, Mario and/or Ibsey would jump up and point out all the technical errors that would surely render everything I'd said utterly invalid; I've never been into the technical side of things anywhere near as much as I'd need to be to write the article and get my facts right to a level I'd expect, so it's best run past either of those two first, or both, or anyone else who reads Racecar Engineering, before I even attempt the first sentence.

Sorry dinizintheoven, I completely forgot to reply to you first time around (please accept my sincerest apologies, I was busy around that time with a house move). So I was just wondering how did you get on in the end with that article?

If you still wanted me to look over it, then I would be more than happy to help out where I can. I would also echo Mario’s comments in that your theories may well have as much validity as any other F1 observer. Also in the case that Mario has already looked over the article, then to be honest I am not sure how much more help I will prove to be. But nevertheless in case you wanted a second pair of eyes to read over it, then I am always more than happy to help out a fellow F1 nut.

You flatter me too much with your comments - actually, I do recall reading over some of dinizintheoven's thoughts about those teams and did think that there was a fair bit of merit in what he was saying.

As for the German ATS outfit, although there is plenty that the team have done that would certainly make them eligible in some senses for a profile, IIRC they did score just enough points over their lifespan to escape Reject status (they picked up 7 points in total). Actually, in some ways the D7 was an interesting car as it featured a quite clever use of carbon fibre in its chassis design, but sadly the team never could capitalise on some of the more interesting aspects of that car.

[ibsey]

As for the German ATS outfit, although there is plenty that the team have done that would certainly make them eligible in some senses for a profile, IIRC they did score just enough points over their lifespan to escape Reject status (they picked up 7 points in total).

I was under the impression that this thread is to post ideas on other articles, that don't actually fit into the standard Reject Profiles section. Therefore belong in the Reject Centrale section instead. Where for instance there is an article about Michael Andretti, a driver who of course had scored too many points to make him eligible for standard reject profile. Or likewise an article on TWR Arrows etc.

Hence the reason I have been submitting teams like ATS. Who even though they scored enough points to escape reject status. It appears that still didn’t stop them from acting like a reject team (for most of the time at least). Or Osella, whom I was aware was a bit of a debatable one hence why I wondered if it might go in Reject Centrale instead of getting a standard reject team profile.

[mario]

As for the German ATS outfit, although there is plenty that the team have done that would certainly make them eligible in some senses for a profile, IIRC they did score just enough points over their lifespan to escape Reject status (they picked up 7 points in total).

I was under the impression that this thread is to post ideas on other articles, that don't actually fit into the standard Reject Profiles section. Therefore belong in the Reject Centrale section instead. Where for instance there is an article about Michael Andretti, a driver who of course had scored too many points to make him eligible for standard reject profile. Or likewise an article on TWR Arrows etc.

Hence the reason I have been submitting teams like ATS. Who even though they scored enough points to escape reject status. It appears that still didn’t stop them from acting like a reject team (for most of the time at least). Or Osella, whom I was aware was a bit of a debatable one hence why I wondered if it might go in Reject Centrale instead of getting a standard reject team profile.

Ah, I'd misinterpreted your comments slightly - yes, as you rightly say, although ATS did just about escape from Reject status, they certainly did manage to behave like one for most of their existence (although they did sometimes show flashes of promise, especially with the D7 in the early part of 1984 - Winkelhock was able to stick that car surprisingly far up the grid on occasion).

[Nessafox]

As for the German ATS outfit, although there is plenty that the team have done that would certainly make them eligible in some senses for a profile, IIRC they did score just enough points over their lifespan to escape Reject status (they picked up 7 points in total).

I was under the impression that this thread is to post ideas on other articles, that don't actually fit into the standard Reject Profiles section. Therefore belong in the Reject Centrale section instead. Where for instance there is an article about Michael Andretti, a driver who of course had scored too many points to make him eligible for standard reject profile. Or likewise an article on TWR Arrows etc.

Hence the reason I have been submitting teams like ATS. Who even though they scored enough points to escape reject status. It appears that still didn’t stop them from acting like a reject team (for most of the time at least). Or Osella, whom I was aware was a bit of a debatable one hence why I wondered if it might go in Reject Centrale instead of getting a standard reject team profile.

From the same peroid, Ensign, Theodore would be interesting teams too. None of them fit the reject criteria, but they've been around for a while, hosting lots of reject drivers, but also having some good moments.
And then there's RAM, who are genuine rejects. If we include the March years and the customer years, this is a rejects goldmine.

[FantometteBR]

One fine idea (at least for me) is about Tyrrell after their 1984 debacle, from the point of reinstatement until being sold to BAT. Merely pointing the reasons despite Tyrrell had a few of lone bright spots, the team went downfall and if it's related in someway with their punishment at the mentioned year

[Nessafox]

One fine idea (at least for me) is about Tyrrell after their 1984 debacle, from the point of reinstatement until being sold to BAT. Merely pointing the reasons despite Tyrrell had a few of lone bright spots, the team went downfall and if it's related in someway with their punishment at the mentioned year

I think the reasons for the 'decline of Tyrrell' story started way back in the seventies. Would still be an interesting read, though.

[takagi_for_the_win]

One fine idea (at least for me) is about Tyrrell after their 1984 debacle, from the point of reinstatement until being sold to BAT. Merely pointing the reasons despite Tyrrell had a few of lone bright spots, the team went downfall and if it's related in someway with their punishment at the mentioned year

I think the reasons for the 'decline of Tyrrell' story started way back in the seventies. Would still be an interesting read, though.

To be honest, they never really recovered from the death of Cevert

[mario]

One fine idea (at least for me) is about Tyrrell after their 1984 debacle, from the point of reinstatement until being sold to BAT. Merely pointing the reasons despite Tyrrell had a few of lone bright spots, the team went downfall and if it's related in someway with their punishment at the mentioned year

I think the reasons for the 'decline of Tyrrell' story started way back in the seventies. Would still be an interesting read, though.

To be honest, they never really recovered from the death of Cevert

They were reasonably competitive in 1974 when Scheckter was still in contention for the WDC in the last race, even if it was something of a long shot due to breakdowns earlier in the season.

It was a fairly steady slide in performance from then on in though, although that perhaps owes as much to Ferrari's reorganisation in the mid 1970's that saw them focussing on F1 much more intensely (Ferrari didn't even turn up for two races in 1973) and the rise of McLaren as a serious competitor as much as to Tyrrell declining.
There is an article on Forix that argues that the P34 was probably part of the reason why Tyrrell's fortunes really declined in the late 1970's, due to the cost of development and lack of support from Goodyear (especially in 1977), compounded with Derek Gardner's decision to leave and Maurice Philippe's conservative philosophy for the 008 and 009. Also, given that Tyrrell ran on a pretty modest budget, the loss of support from Elf after Ken Tyrrell declined the offer of Renault turbo engines hurt too - by the end of the 1970's, Williams already had a budget stretching into millions, whereas Tyrrell's budget hadn't really grown all that much over that decade.

[roblo97]

I really want to chip in on this as this is a really personal thing for me since my third(?) cousin Nigel Steer worked for the team from the late 1970's(?) until 1998 by which point, he was the chief engineer for Salo and Verstappen in 1997

[ibsey]

Also, given that Tyrrell ran on a pretty modest budget, the loss of support from Elf after Ken Tyrrell declined the offer of Renault turbo engines hurt too - by the end of the 1970's, Williams already had a budget stretching into millions, whereas Tyrrell's budget hadn't really grown all that much over that decade.

Here is some very interesting insight on the matter from an ex Tyrell engineer (Nigel Beresford);

Sadly, Tyrrell was doomed because in spite of the talent that passed through its doors there was never the will from the ownership to put the money-finding structure in place to support and keep such people. Nonetheless, all of us who worked there look back on it with nothing but huge affection. I went back for 1995 having worked at Penske Racing for three years, but in spite of my affection for Ken, the team and its people I couldn't bear the lack of a "will to win" from the top, especially after having worked for Roger and experiencing his drive & desire for success…

…I made that comment in the light of having worked for Roger Penske, who would go and get for the team whatever resource it needed to win. Roger is the quintessential racer, but he also, of course, understands commerce and business and the importance of servicing the sponsors. Ken was also a real racer, but his interest seemed to be limited to the racing side of things, and he allowed misguided nepotism & loyalty to influence his approach to the commercial side of things. Consequently the team simply never had the funding to achieve whatever sporting ambitions Ken might have had. Basically the commercial side of the team was too ineptly run to attract a tobacco title sponsor (as opposed to the relatively minor Camel engine cover deal). Unknown fact - an 018 was painted in Rothmans colours as part of a pitch to them, and it looked absolutely fabulous. Of course, they ultimately took their money to Williams (as you would expect)…

…Ken didn't run the commercial side, so I should emphasise that it wasn't him personally who was so inept - he was universally respected, of course. As was the case with the technical side of the team, many good people came and went, disillusioned with the company director charged with responsibility for things commercial. Sadly, the Tyrrell family's ability to attract sponsors and convince them of the worth of being in F1 (e.g. Benetton, Courtaulds etc. etc) was more than matched by their ability to subsequently disenfranchise them…

Source; http://forums.autosport.com/index.php?s ... ibsey&st=0

[mario]

I really want to chip in on this as this is a really personal thing for me since my third(?) cousin Nigel Steer worked for the team from the late 1970's(?) until 1998 by which point, he was the chief engineer for Salo and Verstappen in 1997

It'd be interesting to hear more of his time in the sport if possible - the sport evolved a lot over those year and I'd like to hear more about what it was like from an inside perspective.

Also, ibsey, the comments by Nigel in that thread also shine quite a lot of light on the workings of the team and the technical challenges of that era (and I note that you had a good few questions for Nigel too, and his responses to those also made for a quite good read too). Thanks for bringing that thread up, because it provides a good insight into the workings of Ken Tyrrell's team and his mindset in those later years.

[ibsey]

Also, ibsey, the comments by Nigel in that thread also shine quite a lot of light on the workings of the team and the technical challenges of that era (and I note that you had a good few questions for Nigel too, and his responses to those also made for a quite good read too). Thanks for bringing that thread up, because it provides a good insight into the workings of Ken Tyrrell's team and his mindset in those later years.

No worries. I honestly could have spent all day asking Nigel all sorts of questions, regarding his experiences within Tyrrell. But thought it might be rude to ask too many questions.

I really want to chip in on this as this is a really personal thing for me since my third(?) cousin Nigel Steer worked for the team from the late 1970's(?) until 1998 by which point, he was the chief engineer for Salo and Verstappen in 1997

I also second Mario comments, about how it would be extremely interesting to hear more about your relative experiences within F1 & the team. Tyrrell also holds a slightly special place in my heart as well. Aside from considering them as the ‘British’ Minardi team back in the mid to late 90’s (i.e. battling against the better funded teams). Ken Tyrell & his mindset has always intrigued ever since he & the team started doing things their way like the 6 wheel car. Or Imola 1982 (IIRC the only FOCA team to race that day, due to sponsor’s pressures – all of which came back to bite the team very hard a couple of years later). Or the way Tyrrell when against the grain & was the last normally aspirated car back in 1984 & early / mid 1985 etc.

Also IIRC Eddie Jordan has previously stated how Ken was a bit of a hero of his when they were both team owners. Since Ken was usually the only team principle willing to stand up to Bernie etc. So for me Ken is a very fascinating character indeed. So would love to hear anymore insight your relative many have. Finally Tyrrell has always held a special place in my heart ever since I got the see the ex Tyrell site in Ockham, Surrey in some detail back in 2005 & 2006. When I was undertaking a valuation of their former premises for loan security purposes (as well as a development appraisal & feasibility study IIRC). I couldn't believe how small it was, especially in comparison to the MTC in Woking.

[roblo97]

Also, ibsey, the comments by Nigel in that thread also shine quite a lot of light on the workings of the team and the technical challenges of that era (and I note that you had a good few questions for Nigel too, and his responses to those also made for a quite good read too). Thanks for bringing that thread up, because it provides a good insight into the workings of Ken Tyrrell's team and his mindset in those later years.

No worries. I honestly could have spent all day asking Nigel all sorts of questions, regarding his experiences within Tyrrell. But thought it might be rude to ask too many questions.

I really want to chip in on this as this is a really personal thing for me since my third(?) cousin Nigel Steer worked for the team from the late 1970's(?) until 1998 by which point, he was the chief engineer for Salo and Verstappen in 1997

I also second Mario comments, about how it would be extremely interesting to hear more about your relative experiences within F1 & the team. Tyrrell also holds a slightly special place in my heart as well. Aside from considering them as the ‘British’ Minardi team back in the mid to late 90’s (i.e. battling against the better funded teams). Ken Tyrell & his mindset has always intrigued ever since he & the team started doing things their way like the 6 wheel car. Or Imola 1982 (IIRC the only FOCA team to race that day, due to sponsor’s pressures – all of which came back to bite the team very hard a couple of years later). Or the way Tyrrell when against the grain & was the last normally aspirated car back in 1984 & early / mid 1985 etc.

Also IIRC Eddie Jordan has previously stated how Ken was a bit of a hero of his when they were both team owners. Since Ken was usually the only team principle willing to stand up to Bernie etc. So for me Ken is a very fascinating character indeed. So would love to hear anymore insight your relative many have. Finally Tyrrell has always held a special place in my heart ever since I got the see the ex Tyrell site in Ockham, Surrey in some detail back in 2005 & 2006. When I was undertaking a valuation of their former premises for loan security purposes (as well as a development appraisal & feasibility study IIRC). I couldn't believe how small it was, especially in comparison to the MTC in Woking.

Yes, Tyrell were the only FOCA team that day at Imola.

I also had a chat with my dad about Nigel Steer and my dad hasn't seen him for 2 decades and I have know idea if he is still in f1 because I know he used work for Minardi after BAT brought out Tyrell and I think he still works for Torro Rosso so I shall email them tomorrow and I shall let you guys know how I get on if/when(delete whichever one is unecessery) they do reply
EDIT: Might ask my Nan for his contact details on Saturday

[Alextrax52]

What about why Jaguar were unable to achieve their dream of becoming the British Ferrari in the early 2000's?

[Salamander]

What about why Jaguar were unable to achieve their dream of becoming the British Ferrari in the early 2000's?

That's a pretty open and shut case. The management was piss poor and no-one was in charge long enough to make any kind of difference.

[go_Rubens]

What about why Jaguar were unable to achieve their dream of becoming the British Ferrari in the early 2000's?

That's a pretty open and shut case. The management was piss poor and no-one was in charge long enough to make any kind of difference.

Are you kidding me? Jag was probably the worst when it came to team management in 2000-2004! The only ones that run close are Arrows in '02. Look at this crap!

[takagi_for_the_win]

That's a pretty open and shut case. The management was piss poor and no-one was in charge long enough to make any kind of difference.

Are you kidding me? Jag was probably the worst when it came to team management in 2000-2004! The only ones that run close are Arrows in '02. Look at this crap!

Controversial Takagi is going to stick his neck on the line and say that perhaps Jaguars management wasn't the best...

[go_Rubens]

That's a pretty open and shut case. The management was piss poor and no-one was in charge long enough to make any kind of difference.

Are you kidding me? Jag was probably the worst when it came to team management in 2000-2004! The only ones that run close are Arrows in '02. Look at this crap!

Controversial Takagi is going to stick his neck on the line and say that perhaps Jaguars management wasn't the best...

I think what BCS and I saying Jag's management was piss poor in two different ways says enough, I think. The facts say it, too. No one stated in charge long enough for the team to make a damn difference in F1.

[UncreativeUsername37]

That's a pretty open and shut case. The management was piss poor and no-one was in charge long enough to make any kind of difference.

Are you kidding me? Jag was probably the worst when it came to team management in 2000-2004! The only ones that run close are Arrows in '02. Look at this crap!

Controversial Takagi is going to stick his neck on the line and say that perhaps Jaguars management wasn't the best...

I think what BCS and I saying Jag's management was piss poor in two different ways says enough, I think. The facts say it, too. No one stated in charge long enough for the team to make a damn difference in F1.

The main problem with Jaguar from 2000 through to 2004 was that no one was really in charge long enough to give them any sort of direction.