What If?

[Sonic 06]

What if the Mercedes drivers win every race this year?

McLaren fanboys will curse the name of Jean-Louis Schlesser ever harder.

Just realised something.

Jean-Louis Schlesser is the nephew of Jo Schlesser.
Jo Schlesser was killed racing the magnesium bodied Honda RA302.
McLaren used Honda engines in the 1988 season.

Therefore Jean-Louis deliberately hit Senna as revenge on Honda for building such a dangerous car.

Did you say jean louis schlesser killed ayrton senna?

[RonDenisDeletraz]

Just realised something.

Jean-Louis Schlesser is the nephew of Jo Schlesser.
Jo Schlesser was killed racing the magnesium bodied Honda RA302.
McLaren used Honda engines in the 1988 season.

Therefore Jean-Louis deliberately hit Senna as revenge on Honda for building such a dangerous car.

Did you say jean louis schlesser killed ayrton senna?

[Sonic 06]

Just realised something.

Jean-Louis Schlesser is the nephew of Jo Schlesser.
Jo Schlesser was killed racing the magnesium bodied Honda RA302.
McLaren used Honda engines in the 1988 season.

Therefore Jean-Louis deliberately hit Senna as revenge on Honda for building such a dangerous car.

Did you say jean louis schlesser killed ayrton senna?

What do you mean i'm an idiot? i was just shocked at what RonDenisDeletraz said.

[pi314159]

What do you mean i'm an idiot? i was just shocked at what RonDenisDeletraz said.

Watka was referring to a collision between Ayrton Senna and Jean-Louis Schlesser in the 1988 Italian GP. That collision cost Senna the win, resulting in the only race which was not won by a McLaren that year. The incident is completely unrelated to Imola 1994, which is why RonDenisDeletraz called you an idiot.

[WeirdKerr]

What if the Mercedes drivers win every race this year?

McLaren fanboys will curse the name of Jean-Louis Schlesser ever harder.

Just realised something.

Jean-Louis Schlesser is the nephew of Jo Schlesser.
Jo Schlesser was killed racing the magnesium bodied Honda RA302.
McLaren used Honda engines in the 1988 season.

Therefore Jean-Louis deliberately hit Senna as revenge on Honda for building such a dangerous car.

AS far as conspiracy theories go this one is so out there that Even Jocke01's mind is probably blown....

[Dj_bereta]

What if FIA had forced the teams to accept the rule changes for 2003 season (traction control ban, launch control ban and some other things that I cant remember)? Most of teams refused the rule changes in that moment.

[More_Blue_Flags]

What if Jean-Eric Vergne had been selected for the Red Bull drive this year instead of Daniel Ricciardo? Would JEV have adapted as quickly to the RB10 as Dan has and be making Vettel look ordinary as well? Would Dan be struggling to stand out against Kyvat with the Toro Rosso?

[Aerospeed]

What if Jean-Eric Vergne had been selected for the Red Bull drive this year instead of Daniel Ricciardo? Would JEV have adapted as quickly to the RB10 as Dan has and be making Vettel look ordinary as well? Would Dan be struggling to stand out against Kyvat with the Toro Rosso?

Well, Australia would certainly make Red Bull their most hated team for sure...

I think Vergne will still adapt quickly to the RB10 but he doesn't have a second place performance in Melbourne. He still gets DSQd in that race, and the disqualification crisis is on a much smaller scale. Good news for the Red Bull PR. In regards to Vettel, I think their performance is about the same as it is right now, maybe even less, and I don't think Vettel would move over to Vergne in Bahrain and China. Ricciardo probably stays at Toro Rosso but might consider other options, unless Vergne tanks in the standings during the rest of the season. I hardly think Ricciardo would be behind Kvyat in any way, but I think Kyvat would still be as impressive as he has been.

What if FIA had forced the teams to accept the rule changes for 2003 season (traction control ban, launch control ban and some other things that I cant remember)? Most of teams refused the rule changes in that moment.

The changes last one season, as the teams find a loophole that means they can only accept the changes for one season. The teams either from a breakaway series or they manage to convince the FIA otherwise. Ferrari still dominates 2004, but not to the scale that they did in reality.

And the only reason why the teams can quickly change back and forth between regulations is because all the teams (save Minardi and probably one more that's passing my mind right now) had money.

[Londoner]

What if Gonzalo Rodriguez hadn't been killed at Laguna Seca in 1999? Would he have made it to F1 at some point, considering he was starting a CART career at the time of his death?

[W12]

What if Gonzalo Rodriguez hadn't been killed at Laguna Seca in 1999? Would he have made it to F1 at some point, considering he was starting a CART career at the time of his death?

He would probably be in F1 in 2001-02... He was a really good driver, some say even better than Schumi...

[Onxy Wrecked]

What if Gonzalo Rodriguez hadn't been killed at Laguna Seca in 1999? Would he have made it to F1 at some point, considering he was starting a CART career at the time of his death?

He would probably be in F1 in 2001-02... He was a really good driver, some say even better than Schumi...

I wonder if that would have made Juan Pablo Montoya stay in CART if Rodriguez made it into F1?

[Normal32]

What if Mazzacane wold stay 3rd in the 2000 USGP,having no trouble in pit lanes and having none of the parts of the car failing nor him crashing?

What if the Life W12 was the fastest engine ever?

What if Alonso never move to Ferrari?

[Shizuka]

What if Alonso never move to Ferrari?

Massa would have still lost some of his 08-09 spark, but would be treated as undisputed number 1 driver... until Kubica starts punching above his weight, like he did IRL with the R30.
They get equal treatment throughout the season, and would most likely have a chance at the WDC. WCC is not impossible.

Glock would most likely get the Renault seat, and the Virgin drive would be up for grabs.

[Salamander]

What if Alonso never move to Ferrari?

Massa would have still lost some of his 08-09 spark, but would be treated as undisputed number 1 driver... until Kubica starts punching above his weight, like he did IRL with the R30.
They get equal treatment throughout the season, and would most likely have a chance at the WDC. WCC is not impossible.

Kubica would've won the 2010 WDC had he had a car capable of it. The things he did in that R30 were simply out of this world. So, by that token, I don't see Massa's Ferrari fortunes improving any.

[girry]

What if Jenson Button retired from F1 after the pitiful 2008? Would Bruno Senna be a World Champion?
What if Emmo didn't do a Jacques before Jacques, how many titles did he end up losing?

[RonDenisDeletraz]

What if Jenson Button retired from F1 after the pitiful 2008? Would Bruno Senna be a World Champion?

He would have certainly beat Barrichelllo

[Salamander]

What if Jenson Button retired from F1 after the pitiful 2008? Would Bruno Senna be a World Champion?

No. It would've been close between Vettel and Barrichello, but I think Vettel would've edged him given Rubens' notorious bad luck at Interlagos.

[mario]

What if Alonso never move to Ferrari?

Massa would have still lost some of his 08-09 spark, but would be treated as undisputed number 1 driver... until Kubica starts punching above his weight, like he did IRL with the R30.
They get equal treatment throughout the season, and would most likely have a chance at the WDC. WCC is not impossible.

Glock would most likely get the Renault seat, and the Virgin drive would be up for grabs.

I think that it would depend which driver might have ended up alongside Massa instead as to whether Massa would have had No. 1 status. I suspect that Kimi would still have left the team at the end of 2009 - his relationship with the senior management was quite strained at that time - so we have to assume that Ferrari would still have needed a replacement for Kimi.

Now, we know that Ferrari made repeated efforts to hire Kubica as a replacement for Massa when he was injured in 2009, so I suspect that he would have been the prime alternative candidate for Ferrari if Alonso had not signed for Ferrari.
Although Massa would be the incumbent driver in that situation and given that he had beaten Kimi in 2008 and was beating him in 2009 (up until his accident), I agree that Ferrari would have put both drivers on an equal footing given the question marks over the after effects of Massa's injuries.

Similarly, I suspect that Kubica probably would have been in the WDC fight that season - Massa's relative form is still a big question though, and not one that can easily be resolved. Would we have had an incident like the German GP where Massa would have been asked to move aside for his team mate? Possibly, and with similar consequences I suspect.

The flip side of that question is where Alonso might have ended up in that scenario. If he chose to stay with Renault/Lotus, then they probably would have done similarly well in recent years, if perhaps slightly better, than they have with Kimi at the helm. If he chose to move on, well, there were a few other teams interested in his services at the time - he might have moved to Mercedes given that Honda had previously tried to hire him, or possibly also to Red Bull (another outfit that had tried to hire him in the past), choices that perhaps in retrospect he might have wished he had made.

What if Jenson Button retired from F1 after the pitiful 2008? Would Bruno Senna be a World Champion?

He would have certainly beat Barrichelllo

Can you imagine the pressure that would come onto Bruno Senna if he had driven for Brawn that season? Given that his name was already creating a lot of media attention and pressure, if he had been in the title fight that media pressure would probably have become intolerable. I cannot see him competing for the title in that situation - I think that he'd simply crack under the pressure.

As for Rubens, well, it depends on whether having additional support from the team would have helped him overcome his set up issues that season, which is not certain. Perhaps Rubens would have taken the title that season, but given that Rubens's form was a bit inconsistent in the opening races of that season, the alternative is that we could have seen Vettel take the title that season and Red Bull take the WCC too.

[RonDenisDeletraz]

What if Jenson Button retired from F1 after the pitiful 2008? Would Bruno Senna be a World Champion?

He would have certainly beat Barrichelllo

Can you imagine the pressure that would come onto Bruno Senna if he had driven for Brawn that season? Given that his name was already creating a lot of media attention and pressure, if he had been in the title fight that media pressure would probably have become intolerable. I cannot see him competing for the title in that situation - I think that he'd simply crack under the pressure.

As for Rubens, well, it depends on whether having additional support from the team would have helped him overcome his set up issues that season, which is not certain. Perhaps Rubens would have taken the title that season, but given that Rubens's form was a bit inconsistent in the opening races of that season, the alternative is that we could have seen Vettel take the title that season and Red Bull take the WCC too.[/quote]

That comment was merely to annoy Klon

I agree with your analysis though

[watka]

What if the Life W12 was the fastest engine ever?

The chassis was so cack that they still would have struggled to get out of pre-qualifying!

[go_Rubens]

What if the Life W12 was the fastest engine ever?

The chassis was so cack that they still would have struggled to get out of pre-qualifying!

The chassis was the FIRST thingy from supposedly 1989. It didn't pass safety tests in 1989, and was allowed to "race" in 1990. Why? I don't know.

But the whole idea for the chassis was cack anyway, funding or none.

[Aerospeed]

What if the Life W12 was the fastest engine ever?

The chassis was so cack that they still would have struggled to get out of pre-qualifying!

The chassis was the FIRST thingy from supposedly 1989. It didn't pass safety tests in 1989, and was allowed to "race" in 1990. Why? I don't know.

But the whole idea for the chassis was cack anyway, funding or none.

That's true, but from what I've read, Ernesto Vita was trying to sell the idea of a W12 engine to another team. So if the engine was any good, perhaps somebody would have bought in his idea...

[Gerudo Dragon]

What if Group B wasn't scrapped?

[watka]

What if Group B wasn't scrapped?

Then there would have been an absolutely enormous accident at one of the rallies, probably with many spectator casualties. They were brilliant but brutal machines.

[Wallio]

I think the better question is, what if Group B only banned the Rallye cars. Remember, Group B was also a GT formula that never got off the ground (288 GTO anyone?). I wonder if Group C sportscars would have been at the top for so long if there was a viable alternative.

[mario]

I think the better question is, what if Group B only banned the Rallye cars. Remember, Group B was also a GT formula that never got off the ground (288 GTO anyone?). I wonder if Group C sportscars would have been at the top for so long if there was a viable alternative.

It's a good question, and it is likely that we might have seen something of a split in sportscar racing between Group B and Group C if Group B had remained viable for longer. It could be argued that, in some ways, it really was only rallying that needed such major reforms given that the cars of the time had reached the point where the existing organisation and routes could no longer cope - it is much easier to control the situation around a closed course/purpose built venue compared to an open course such as rallying.

[Jonny83]

I think the better question is, what if Group B only banned the Rallye cars. Remember, Group B was also a GT formula that never got off the ground (288 GTO anyone?). I wonder if Group C sportscars would have been at the top for so long if there was a viable alternative.

It's a good question, and it is likely that we might have seen something of a split in sportscar racing between Group B and Group C if Group B had remained viable for longer. It could be argued that, in some ways, it really was only rallying that needed such major reforms given that the cars of the time had reached the point where the existing organisation and routes could no longer cope - it is much easier to control the situation around a closed course/purpose built venue compared to an open course such as rallying.

Maybe instead of necessarily a split, maybe they'd have competed together in different classes the same way LMPs and GTs do these days, since the Group B cars were at least nominally production-based?

[Benetton]

I think the better question is, what if Group B only banned the Rallye cars. Remember, Group B was also a GT formula that never got off the ground (288 GTO anyone?). I wonder if Group C sportscars would have been at the top for so long if there was a viable alternative.

It's a good question, and it is likely that we might have seen something of a split in sportscar racing between Group B and Group C if Group B had remained viable for longer. It could be argued that, in some ways, it really was only rallying that needed such major reforms given that the cars of the time had reached the point where the existing organisation and routes could no longer cope - it is much easier to control the situation around a closed course/purpose built venue compared to an open course such as rallying.

In Group B rallying the problems were not the cars but the organisation of the events (especially length and spectator control).

[Jocke1]

What if Monisha Kaltenborn turns up at Monaco with tribal tattoos on her forehead, arms and neck, and two knocked out front teeth and
a huge two-inch scar on her lower left cheek, dressed in a pink latex halfbody-suit and is quoted in an interview with Autosport.com:

You know that feeling you usually get when you are alone, the one where you dont think you are totally alone? Sometimes its just your imagination. Sometimes..... but when you believe you are alone at night, and the moon is covered in clouds that pitch the world into what seems like eternal darkness, thats when your imagination isnt playing tricks on you. Thats when I am there. Knowing, watching, lurking; You never see me, because I havent wished to be seen, until now. Why now? You are asking in your head. Why this moment in my life? I know the answer to that riddle.

[mario]

I think the better question is, what if Group B only banned the Rallye cars. Remember, Group B was also a GT formula that never got off the ground (288 GTO anyone?). I wonder if Group C sportscars would have been at the top for so long if there was a viable alternative.

It's a good question, and it is likely that we might have seen something of a split in sportscar racing between Group B and Group C if Group B had remained viable for longer. It could be argued that, in some ways, it really was only rallying that needed such major reforms given that the cars of the time had reached the point where the existing organisation and routes could no longer cope - it is much easier to control the situation around a closed course/purpose built venue compared to an open course such as rallying.

Maybe instead of necessarily a split, maybe they'd have competed together in different classes the same way LMPs and GTs do these days, since the Group B cars were at least nominally production-based?

They could possibly have opted for that, though I guess that the viability of the two classes would have depended on both the cost and relative performance of the cars - if a Group B car was sufficiently close in performance to a Group C car, or Group B cars were significantly cheaper (one reason for the success of the Porsche 962 program was the fact that the cars were relatively affordable and competitive), that might have lead to a migration of the smaller privateers from Group C to Group B over time.

I think the better question is, what if Group B only banned the Rallye cars. Remember, Group B was also a GT formula that never got off the ground (288 GTO anyone?). I wonder if Group C sportscars would have been at the top for so long if there was a viable alternative.

It's a good question, and it is likely that we might have seen something of a split in sportscar racing between Group B and Group C if Group B had remained viable for longer. It could be argued that, in some ways, it really was only rallying that needed such major reforms given that the cars of the time had reached the point where the existing organisation and routes could no longer cope - it is much easier to control the situation around a closed course/purpose built venue compared to an open course such as rallying.

In Group B rallying the problems were not the cars but the organisation of the events (especially length and spectator control).

It could be argued that there were some flaws with the cars in terms of the crash protection designs - part of the problem is that the performance of the cars had increased quite rapidly but, given that the teams were still, to a certain extent, having to partially base crash protection designs on the data they had from older, slower cars. As you say, though, the biggest issues were with poor organisation - we've seen the barely in control crowds that used to form at those events which, combined with increasingly powerful cars that local drivers were not necessarily fully familiar with, meant that a major accident was sadly a question of when, not if.

[Wallio]

I think the better question is, what if Group B only banned the Rallye cars. Remember, Group B was also a GT formula that never got off the ground (288 GTO anyone?). I wonder if Group C sportscars would have been at the top for so long if there was a viable alternative.

It's a good question, and it is likely that we might have seen something of a split in sportscar racing between Group B and Group C if Group B had remained viable for longer. It could be argued that, in some ways, it really was only rallying that needed such major reforms given that the cars of the time had reached the point where the existing organisation and routes could no longer cope - it is much easier to control the situation around a closed course/purpose built venue compared to an open course such as rallying.

In Group B rallying the problems were not the cars but the organisation of the events (especially length and spectator control).

I don't know man. I''ve read that Toivonen would have survived if his car just had a fuel cell. If that true, that's beyond unacceptable. How can a car with that much power not be mandated to run a cell? How is that even an option?

[mario]

I don't know man. I''ve read that Toivonen would have survived if his car just had a fuel cell. If that true, that's beyond unacceptable. How can a car with that much power not be mandated to run a cell? How is that even an option?

It is possible that would have been the case, but given that the fire destroyed much of the wreckage of the car it is difficult to tell - either way, it is true that fuel cells really should have been in use on all of the cars at the time, but somehow that slipped through the net even though fuel cells were in reasonably widespread use by the 1980's.

[good_Ralf]

What if McLaren sacked Prost immediately after he tossed his trophy into the Tifosi at Monza 1989?
What if Barrichello flopped at Ferrari in 2001-2 and was also sacked? Would someone like Badoer or Massa have taken his seat and what could they have done?

[Aerospeed]

What if McLaren sacked Prost for tossing his trophy into the Tifosi at Monza 1989?
What if Barrichello flopped at Ferrari in 2001-2 and was also sacked? Would someone like Badoer or Massa have taken his seat and what could they have done?

1. He did that??? lol... I doubt McLaren would have done that, it would have been a case of over-reacting. I think Berger would have come in right afterwards, given that he only finished his first race for Ferrari in that race. This means Senna easily wins 1989, and Prost certainly joins Ferrari as a result, and wins 1990 with them, with Senna not looking for revenge. Having a WDC on his belt means that his off-pace season in 1991 is seen as a blip in his career and he stays on for 1992. But with that season going downhill, he calls it a career after that season. Senna wins 1991 as planned, as does Mansell in 1992. With Prost retiring, Mansell stays at Williams for 1993 alongside Damon Hill. Mansell wins the 1993 championship as well, and stays on for 1994. Senna stays at McLaren, with Ferrari going downhill and Williams not having an open seat. Schumacher still wins 1994 and 1995, with Senna staying with McLaren until his retirement in 1997. Hakkinen joins as planned around 1993 and slowly matches his pace to Senna. After Senna's retirement, Frentzen replaces Senna and he takes the place of where Coulthard would have been. The champions remain the same afterwards.

2. Let's say Barrichello is sacked after 2001. I doubt Badoer would have joined Ferrari despite his testing experience with the team, and Massa was inconsistent and inexperienced in 2002, so let's say someone else gets the seat. Raikkonen was highly touted for Ferrari after 2001...

[More_Blue_Flags]

What if McLaren sacked Prost immediately after he tossed his trophy into the Tifosi at Monza 1989?

This is a really good one. My initial reaction was "Wow, Senna wins WDC in 1989, no Suzuka 1989 and 1990 clashes, things are completely different!"

But on reflection, probably not as different in the long run as I first thought. Even if Berger stays at Ferrari until the end of 1989 and Prost sits the end of the season out, I think there is a good chance Prost still wins the 1989 title. Monza sees Prost on 71 points and Senna on 51 - assuming Mansell and Senna still collide at Estoril, Senna goes on to win in Jerez and Suzuka, which takes his score to 69. Senna only needs a 5th to beat Prost on count-back (7 wins to 4), but driving for that sort of result just isn't Senna - he still pushes hard in Adelaide's downpour and crashes out. So Prost is still WDC even without driving in the last four races, which puts a tiny dent in the Senna legend, but ... the believers still believe, and there is not quite as much heat in the Senna-Prost rivalry without Suzuka.

1990 onwards looks pretty much the same, however. There is still no love lost between the pair, and at Suzuka Senna still rams Prost. Without Suzuka 1989 as a backdrop, Senna is a bit less forthcoming about doing it deliberately as a response to perceived injustice, but this incident is generally viewed in the same light as in real life - if you have picked a side between Senna and Prost now, you would probably pick the same side in these circumstances.

If Berger and Prost do a straight swap after Monza, then there is even less change - it just happens to be a McLaren and Ferrari tangling at Suzuka's first corner rather than two McLarens. The only other wild card I can think of is if Berger stays at Ferrari until 1990, who fills in at McLaren for Prost and what do they make of the opportunity? Sadly, nothing that comes out of Prost's Monza sacking nudges events away from Imola '94.

History or people's perceptions of either driver aren't ultimately changed that much - perhaps there is a little bit more respect for Prost than in real life, but this still gets written after last weekend's Spanish GP:

And then as now, the out-and-out fastest driver of the era was in one of the cars, and quickly established himself as the championship favourite.
Hamilton finds himself in the Senna role; Rosberg the Prost, a driver not as exceptionally gifted but who, on the occasions he can get the car set-up to his liking, is able to challenge and sometimes beat his opponent.

(Thanks to DanielPT for finding that quote and posting it on the Spanish GP thread)

[Dj_bereta]

What if McLaren sacked Prost immediately after he tossed his trophy into the Tifosi at Monza 1989?
What if Barrichello flopped at Ferrari in 2001-2 and was also sacked? Would someone like Badoer or Massa have taken his seat and what could they have done?

2 - Well, considering Ferrari never hire rookies in recent times, Badoer gets the seat for remaining of the season (finally) and Fisichella for 2002 season and ahead (in other words, almost the same thing that happened in 2009 season). Fisichella wins 3 races and get some podiums. After 2005 season, Massa replaces him. Barrichello goes to Williams as test driver and returns for 2003 season, replacing Ralf Schumacher, because Frank is bored with Michael brother. Ralf quits F1 and goes to DTM, following Hakkinen footsteps.

Jordan make a good offer for Alesi give up of retirement and race one more season for team. He accepts, but retires after 2002 season.

[Dj_bereta]

What if the deal of Minardi with Mugen Honda had success for 1995 season (Minardi with Mugen-Honda engines)?

[Shizuka]

Jeroen Krautmeir (who has disappeared off the forums) described it well here.

[Bleu]

What if the deal of Minardi with Mugen Honda had success for 1995 season (Minardi with Mugen-Honda engines)?

Minardi's car seemed very good on slower circuits that year. With better engine I would have expected even more success. They wouldn't have been as good as Ligier was, but something like 5 to 10 points.

[James1978]

What if McLaren sacked Prost for tossing his trophy into the Tifosi at Monza 1989?

1. He did that??? lol... I doubt McLaren would have done that, it would have been a case of over-reacting. I think Berger would have come in right afterwards, given that he only finished his first race for Ferrari in that race. This means Senna easily wins 1989, and Prost certainly joins Ferrari as a result, and wins 1990 with them, with Senna not looking for revenge. Having a WDC on his belt means that his off-pace season in 1991 is seen as a blip in his career and he stays on for 1992. But with that season going downhill, he calls it a career after that season. Senna wins 1991 as planned, as does Mansell in 1992. With Prost retiring, Mansell stays at Williams for 1993 alongside Damon Hill. Mansell wins the 1993 championship as well, and stays on for 1994. Senna stays at McLaren, with Ferrari going downhill and Williams not having an open seat. Schumacher still wins 1994 and 1995, with Senna staying with McLaren until his retirement in 1997. Hakkinen joins as planned around 1993 and slowly matches his pace to Senna. After Senna's retirement, Frentzen replaces Senna and he takes the place of where Coulthard would have been. The champions remain the same afterwards.

I think slightly different to that - I agree up to the end of 1992 but I think with Prost retired, Senna is free to go to Williams for 1993, Mansell goes off to the USA in a huff as in real life, but Patrese stays on at Williams for 1993 as Senna's number 2, so Brundle stays on at Benetton alongside Schumacher in 1993 and Benetton get 2nd in the Constructors. Hill only gets to race for Williams in 94 after Patrese still retires after the end of 93, so Imola 94 is as was sadly. Berger stays on at McLaren in 1993 and doesn't go to Ferrari as McLaren don't want to gamble on having two youngsters, but Hakkinen gets the full-time seat and not Andretti.

Only questions after that are - does Hill get a race seat at a midfield team in 93, who goes to Ferrari alongside Alesi for 93, and who takes the Williams seat after Imola 94, as Hill is less experienced in a top team as in real life, could they gamble on having the debutant Coulthard there as well?