Grand Prix Rejects

Tyrrell should not have been disqualified from the 1984 championship.

Think about it, they were the only team on the grid stuck with normally-aspirated engines, so obviously they were going to be disadvantaged from the start. The idea of using ballast in the fuel tanks after the race was a clever bending of the rules. And if Stefan Bellof had won the Monaco Grand Prix that year, only for it to be taken away from him, well imagine the uproar that would have provoked.

And surely it was unfair on Tyrrell to have to conform to the same regulations as the turbo cars, despite not having a turbo?

East Londoner wrote:Tyrrell should not have been disqualified from the 1984 championship.

Think about it, they were the only team on the grid stuck with normally-aspirated engines, so obviously they were going to be disadvantaged from the start. The idea of using ballast in the fuel tanks after the race was a clever bending of the rules. And if Stefan Bellof had won the Monaco Grand Prix that year, only for it to be taken away from him, well imagine the uproar that would have provoked.

And surely it was unfair on Tyrrell to have to conform to the same regulations as the turbo cars, despite not having a turbo?

That Tyrrell couldn't manage to get a supply of turbo engines was not FISA's fault. They bent the rules, easy as that.

No but Balestre was being a complete tool at that moment in time, had been stung by the FISA-FOCA war and probably just fancied throwing his weight around a little bit to create the impression that he still bossed the paddock.

AndreaModa wrote:No but Balestre was being a complete tool at that moment in time, had been stung by the FISA-FOCA war and probably just fancied throwing his weight around a little bit to create the impression that he still bossed the paddock.

I think your version is perhaps exaggerate. Balestre only really showed abuse of power when handling the Senna vs Prost case.

Phoenix wrote:

AndreaModa wrote:No but Balestre was being a complete tool at that moment in time, had been stung by the FISA-FOCA war and probably just fancied throwing his weight around a little bit to create the impression that he still bossed the paddock.

I think your version is perhaps exaggerate. Balestre only really showed abuse of power when handling the Senna vs Prost case.

Probably, though having read Bernie Ecclestone's biography, and from widespread knowledge, it's known that Balestre was a bit prone to being unstable at times, and it wouldn't surprise me if that had something to do with Tyrrell's disqualification.

AndreaModa wrote:

Phoenix wrote:

AndreaModa wrote:No but Balestre was being a complete tool at that moment in time, had been stung by the FISA-FOCA war and probably just fancied throwing his weight around a little bit to create the impression that he still bossed the paddock.

I think your version is perhaps exaggerate. Balestre only really showed abuse of power when handling the Senna vs Prost case.

Probably, though having read Bernie Ecclestone's biography, and from widespread knowledge, it's known that Balestre was a bit prone to being unstable at times, and it wouldn't surprise me if that had something to do with Tyrrell's disqualification.

I couldn't find any proof of it. For me, it's dubious. Perhaps the teams also felt a bit embarrassed for a team like Tyrrell, running their simple Cosworths, to show them up at times.

Phoenix wrote:

East Londoner wrote:Tyrrell should not have been disqualified from the 1984 championship.

Think about it, they were the only team on the grid stuck with normally-aspirated engines, so obviously they were going to be disadvantaged from the start. The idea of using ballast in the fuel tanks after the race was a clever bending of the rules. And if Stefan Bellof had won the Monaco Grand Prix that year, only for it to be taken away from him, well imagine the uproar that would have provoked.

And surely it was unfair on Tyrrell to have to conform to the same regulations as the turbo cars, despite not having a turbo?

That Tyrrell couldn't manage to get a supply of turbo engines was not FISA's fault. They bent the rules, easy as that.

I have a sneaking suspicion that part of the reason why FISA were so harsh on Tyrrell would be because quite a few teams had been consistently cheating the weight checks for the previous few years, including Tyrrell themselves (Alboreto's autobiography refers to Tyrrell using fake components, particularly "weight check wings" (extra heavy wings, probably with a lead core inside them, which would be used for the weight checks and then quickly switched for the real wings afterwards) to get through scruitineering).
To a certain extent, therefore, it might be that FISA's heavy punishment of Tyrrell was intended to be a blunt warning to the other teams that they were intending to take a much harsher line on what they considered major rule breaches.

mario wrote:

Phoenix wrote:

East Londoner wrote:Tyrrell should not have been disqualified from the 1984 championship.

Think about it, they were the only team on the grid stuck with normally-aspirated engines, so obviously they were going to be disadvantaged from the start. The idea of using ballast in the fuel tanks after the race was a clever bending of the rules. And if Stefan Bellof had won the Monaco Grand Prix that year, only for it to be taken away from him, well imagine the uproar that would have provoked.

And surely it was unfair on Tyrrell to have to conform to the same regulations as the turbo cars, despite not having a turbo?

That Tyrrell couldn't manage to get a supply of turbo engines was not FISA's fault. They bent the rules, easy as that.

I have a sneaking suspicion that part of the reason why FISA were so harsh on Tyrrell would be because quite a few teams had been consistently cheating the weight checks for the previous few years, including Tyrrell themselves (Alboreto's autobiography refers to Tyrrell using fake components, particularly "weight check wings" (extra heavy wings, probably with a lead core inside them, which would be used for the weight checks and then quickly switched for the real wings afterwards) to get through scruitineering).
To a certain extent, therefore, it might be that FISA's heavy punishment of Tyrrell was intended to be a blunt warning to the other teams that they were intending to take a much harsher line on what they considered major rule breaches.

I remeber reading somewhere that the wings were so heavy it took 4 or 5 mechanics to lift them

According to 8w's FISA-FOCA war articles Tyrell couldn't get a turbo as punishment for going to the boycotted Imola race (they gave the race just enough entrants to be a legal grid IIRC). If this is true, my unpopular opinion is old Kenny screwed himself. His ridiculous protest of turbos being "turbine variants" didn't help.....

Wallio wrote:According to 8w's FISA-FOCA war articles Tyrell couldn't get a turbo as punishment for going to the boycotted Imola race (they gave the race just enough entrants to be a legal grid IIRC). If this is true, my unpopular opinion is old Kenny screwed himself. His ridiculous protest of turbos being "turbine variants" didn't help.....

The biggest irony is that Tyrrell were the very first team to be offered a turbocharged engine - Renault originally wanted to be just an engine manufacturer, and offered Tyrrell the opportunity to use their engine, which would be paid for by Elf and come with full works support from Renault, for the 1977 season onwards. Ken refused their offer, however, because he was too concerned about the reliability of the engines, which is why Renault eventually created their own works team to showcase their engine (incidentally, the connection with Elf is thought to be how Ken eventually got his hands on the Renault turbo engine in 1985).

As for the protest about turbo engines and the reference to the turbines, I believe that his protest was intended to attack one particular invention that made the turbo engines much more competitive, which was Ferrari's invention, in 1982, of an anti-lag system. The argument turned on whether the burning of fuel within the exhaust system meant that the turbocharger was effectively being used to generate power - hence the reference to the Lotus 56B's turbine engine - although FISA threw that argument out because the turbocharger itself isn't directly powering the car (there is no mechanical linkage or any other mechanism to allow power to be taken directly from the turbine).

Never knew Tyrell could have had turbos early, talk about the ultimate what if

Great stuff Mario, thanks.

Wallio wrote:Never knew Tyrell could have had turbos early, talk about the ultimate what if

Great stuff Mario, thanks.

It is an interesting question, although to be fair to Ken Tyrrell I can understand his reluctance - the team had just come off the back of a fairly successful campaign in 1976 that saw them narrowly beaten by McLaren to 2nd in the WCC, with Scheckter finishing in 3rd in the WDC and Depailler in 4th. Although Goodyear were lagging behind with tyre development for the P34, the car had been fairly competitive that year, and things looked reasonably good for 1977 too.

Bear in mind that, back in 1977, Renault's turbo engine was only marginally more powerful that the Cosworth DFV (in principle - the early versions produced 500bhp in the workshop, but it took them some time to actually achieve that on track), came with a noticeable weight penalty and fuel penalty (Renault were relying, to a certain extent, on evaporative cooling to prevent overheating), terrible turbo lag (the original EF1 engine used a single turbocharger, whereas the later versions used twin turbochargers to manage the turbo lag) and the fact that nobody believed that a turbo engine could be made reliable enough, nor have a smooth enough power delivery, to compete with the existing engines of the time.
Renault themselves were rather dubious about the project - it was mainly because their partner, Elf, insisted on the project and stumped up the initial capital that they went ahead with it - so you can see why others would have been rather doubtful too, even if turbocharged engines were very competitive and popular over in the US racing scene (both in Can-Am and assorted open-wheeled racing cars in the US).

Accepting Renault's offer would have meant Tyrrell would have had to write off the 1977 season as an experimental year, with no guarantees that Renault could overcome the technical challenges facing them at the time. All things considered, it would have been a major gamble for Tyrrell with no guarantees of long term success and a lot of potential short term pain, so you can see why he would have preferred to stick with the tried and tested Cosworth DFV.

Wallio wrote:Never knew Tyrell could have had turbos early, talk about the ultimate what if

Whislt one can completely understand Ken Tyrell's reluctance in accepting turbo's for 1977, after reading Mario's brilliant post. I suspect that had Tyrell & Renualt Turbo engines got together then, they would have been even more successful than the Renualt works team were in reality.

Mainly because Renualt could totally focus on the engine side of things, without having to worry about things like the chassis, suspension & ground effects, etc. Furthermore Tyrell chassis' weren't too shoddy either.

So I think it is likely they would have won the WDC in 1982, possiblity even as early as 1981. Who know's just how this might have changed Tyrell's fortunes thereafter? Interesting stuff indeed.

mario wrote:Accepting Renault's offer would have meant Tyrrell would have had to write off the 1977 season as an experimental year, with no guarantees that Renault could overcome the technical challenges facing them at the time. All things considered, it would have been a major gamble for Tyrrell with no guarantees of long term success and a lot of potential short term pain, so you can see why he would have preferred to stick with the tried and tested Cosworth DFV.

Just to add to this, perhaps the 6 wheel car was already quite a gamble for Tyrell. So they were even less inclined to choose the 'riskier' turbo option, than they would have been had they been running a more conventional 4 wheel car.

Also I wonder just how wary Ken Tyrell still was of French state owned engine manufactures after being forced to use the Matra V12 engines in 1970.

Finally I believe Ken Tyrell was generally against the idea's of turbo's & for instance the massive increase costs that might be assicoated with running them. Although whether this was his feelings before he got 'stung' by not running turbos from 1977 - 1984, or not is difficult to say.

ibsey wrote:
Also I wonder just how wary Ken Tyrell still was of French state owned engine manufactures after being forced to use the Matra V12 engines in 1970.

Actually, Tyrrell set up his own team with Jackie Stewart just so they would be able to keep running the Ford Cosworth engines in 1970, which they believed were superior to the Matras. Matra used their own engines, but Tyrrell was a completely separate entity from that year onwards, running March chassis before designing their own with Derek Gardner. They kept the Elf backing though, but the chassis were paid by Ford.

Phoenix wrote:

ibsey wrote:
Also I wonder just how wary Ken Tyrell still was of French state owned engine manufactures after being forced to use the Matra V12 engines in 1970.

Actually, Tyrrell set up his own team with Jackie Stewart just so they would be able to keep running the Ford Cosworth engines in 1970, which they believed were superior to the Matras. Matra used their own engines, but Tyrrell was a completely separate entity from that year onwards, running March chassis before designing their own with Derek Gardner. They kept the Elf backing though, but the chassis were paid by Ford.

That is correct - Tyrrell did carry out some tests with the Matra V12 but found it to be distinctly lacking in mid range power (Stewart's comments about Matra's V12 were, I believe, "The exhaust note was fantastic - mainly because that's where all the power went"), not to mention thirstier and with higher cooling demands than the DFV. In some ways, though, that isn't entirely surprising - the Matra V12 was, IIRC, a slightly under developed version of BRM's V12 engine (BRM and Matra were co-developing a V12 engine until their sponsors drove them apart, so the final designs that they came up with did share a number of features), and the packaging of the ancillaries was much better suited to sports cars (which the engine was originally developed for) than Formula 1.

That said, Tyrrell found that the design of their chassis was a lot better - the first in house chassis that Tyrrell designed, the 001, did share a number of design features with Ducarouge's MS80, some of which were carried on in turn to the 003. So, even though Matra had cut their links with Tyrrell a number of years earlier, Matra's designers did still indirectly contribute to the competitiveness of Tyrrell in the early 1970's.

ibsey wrote:

mario wrote:Accepting Renault's offer would have meant Tyrrell would have had to write off the 1977 season as an experimental year, with no guarantees that Renault could overcome the technical challenges facing them at the time. All things considered, it would have been a major gamble for Tyrrell with no guarantees of long term success and a lot of potential short term pain, so you can see why he would have preferred to stick with the tried and tested Cosworth DFV.

Just to add to this, perhaps the 6 wheel car was already quite a gamble for Tyrell. So they were even less inclined to choose the 'riskier' turbo option, than they would have been had they been running a more conventional 4 wheel car.

Also I wonder just how wary Ken Tyrell still was of French state owned engine manufactures after being forced to use the Matra V12 engines in 1970.

Finally I believe Ken Tyrell was generally against the idea's of turbo's & for instance the massive increase costs that might be assicoated with running them. Although whether this was his feelings before he got 'stung' by not running turbos from 1977 - 1984, or not is difficult to say.

The cost question is interesting - the implication is that Elf would have initially paid for, or at least subsidised, Renault's engine program: Tyrrell would have had the initial tranche of engines paid for them, but there was no guarantee that Elf would have continued paying for them over an extended period of time.
The possibility of having to partially bear the cost of future development work - and a lot of development work needed to be carried out before the EF1 could be competitive - might well have worried Tyrrell. It cost Elf around 500,000 Francs just to develop and test two engines, which was not an inconsiderable amount of money at the time, and Tyrrell were never an especially wealthy team even with backing from Elf. By comparison, the DFV was quite widely available at the time, and as a result was, relatively speaking, dirt cheap - it cost a fraction of what the turbo engines cost for engines, including maintenance by Cosworth, so there is a certain financial logic in Tyrrell's decision too.

Micheal Schumacher was more dominant in 2002 than he was in 2004.

eurobrun wrote:Micheal Schumacher was more dominant in 2002 than he was in 2004.

I think that's true too, considering that Schumacher was always on the podium in 2002 (compared to his retirement in Monaco, his 12th in China and his 7th in Brazil in 2004), the fact that Schumacher always finished a race, and the fact that Ferrari won 15 out of 17 races in 2002 (compared to 15 out of 18 in 2004). Also, Ferrari scored half (half!) of the points scored in 2002, as compared to 2004 when they scored about 40% of the points. (Quick maths.) Keep in mind, both seasons were very dominant for Ferrari. It's just that I feel in 2002 nobody was even close to catching Ferrari.

The F2004 was the better car than the F2002, but Ferrari just phoned it in after the titles were locked up, which was so flippin early that year. Also, they weren't nearly as ruthless/dastardly/cheating/pick your adjective in 2004 either, although the team orders ban had alot to do with that. I honestly feel that if they kept their foot on the gas, they would be up there with Mclaren in '88 for GOAT status.

Wallio wrote:The F2004 was the better car than the F2002, but Ferrari just phoned it in after the titles were locked up, which was so flippin early that year. Also, they weren't nearly as ruthless/dastardly/cheating/pick your adjective in 2004 either, although the team orders ban had alot to do with that. I honestly feel that if they kept their foot on the gas, they would be up there with Mclaren in '88 for GOAT status.

I think the only way anyone can go up and compare to McLaren '88 is to have both drivers fighting for the championship... Which considering how that relationship turned out, I doubt any teams, considering if they have the best car on the grid by far, won't let both drivers fight for the championship as fiercely as that.

JeremyMcClean wrote:

Wallio wrote:The F2004 was the better car than the F2002, but Ferrari just phoned it in after the titles were locked up, which was so flippin early that year. Also, they weren't nearly as ruthless/dastardly/cheating/pick your adjective in 2004 either, although the team orders ban had alot to do with that. I honestly feel that if they kept their foot on the gas, they would be up there with Mclaren in '88 for GOAT status.

I think the only way anyone can go up and compare to McLaren '88 is to have both drivers fighting for the championship... Which considering how that relationship turned out, I doubt any teams, considering if they have the best car on the grid by far, won't let both drivers fight for the championship as fiercely as that.

The thing that saved 1988 from being boring, in my opinion, was the intra-McLaren battle. If say Senna or Prost had a weak team mate, then one man would have won all of the races that year. Schumacher's dominance in 2002 and 2004 were boring because it was pratically a one man show.

1988 was, I think, the lag time the best team had two totally equal and dominant drivers fighting for the championship. 1996 had Hill and Villeneuve fighting but JV only caught up after Hill ran into mid-season problems. Could hard was never really a threat to Hakkinen despite running AHEAD during 1999 and 2000 at certain points. Barrichello and Schumacher is a no-brainer.

pasta_maldonado wrote:

JeremyMcClean wrote:

Wallio wrote:The F2004 was the better car than the F2002, but Ferrari just phoned it in after the titles were locked up, which was so flippin early that year. Also, they weren't nearly as ruthless/dastardly/cheating/pick your adjective in 2004 either, although the team orders ban had alot to do with that. I honestly feel that if they kept their foot on the gas, they would be up there with Mclaren in '88 for GOAT status.

I think the only way anyone can go up and compare to McLaren '88 is to have both drivers fighting for the championship... Which considering how that relationship turned out, I doubt any teams, considering if they have the best car on the grid by far, won't let both drivers fight for the championship as fiercely as that.

The thing that saved 1988 from being boring, in my opinion, was the intra-McLaren battle. If say Senna or Prost had a weak team mate, then one man would have won all of the races that year. Schumacher's dominance in 2002 and 2004 were boring because it was pratically a one man show.

Not quite. I could see Ferrari winning 4 or 5 races had McLaren only had one front-running driver. Maybe even Williams would have won a race after all (Mansell was not that far off doing so in Britain and Spain, probably Hungary too hadn't he been sick).

Norbert Haug is just an incompetent egomaniac, who just happened to stay Mercedes head of motorsport for over 20 years by now. Some might say that he's had some success in the past. Let's see:

- 9 DTM Championships (1992, 1994, 1995, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2010)
- 1 ITC Championship (1995)
- 4 F1 Championships (1998, 1999, 2008, 2009)
- 1 Indy 500 Win (1994)
- 2 FIA GT Championshios (1997, 1998)

But I have the feeling that Mercedes won most of its championship after spending so much money that most other manufacturers surrendered shortly afterwards (Old DTM, Old ITC). Also, the new DTM always has the "distinct" flavor of a Mercedes championship, so it wasn't too hard to rack up that much championships. But we should also take a look at Herr Haug's "mistakes":

- Failed to win Le Mans during the end of the '90s, with one occasion being such an embarrassing failure (1999) that Mercedes was never to be seen again at the Sarthe.
- Apperantly didn't have much interest in CART at the end of the 90's.
- Tried to push David Coulthard as McLaren's #1, while Mika Hakkinen was on the road of winning his 2nd championship! Thank god Ron Dennis put the kibosh on that one!
- Likes to pay old F1 drivers tons of money to compete 10 times a year in DTM, while doing some "marketing activities" (read: Waving to the crowd at some high society events.). And half of them weren't really successful (I think we all know who I'm referring to.)
- He doesn't seem to have much interest in any forms of motorsport outside F1 and DTM. Even the GT3 program is completely run by AMG.
- And of course the failure that has been the Mercedes F1 works team. I know, they scored a victory, but this season saw also Maldonado taking a win.

If I was Dieter Zetsche, I would closely review Haug's career and decide if he's still worth his money. If not, then I'd replace him with some fresh blood.

F1 drivers don't say "for sure" enough these days.

ibsey wrote:F1 drivers don't say "for sure" enough these days.

For sure they don't.

Ferrarist wrote:Norbert Haug is just an incompetent egomaniac, who just happened to stay Mercedes head of motorsport for over 20 years by now. Some might say that he's had some success in the past. Let's see:

- 9 DTM Championships (1992, 1994, 1995, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2010)
- 1 ITC Championship (1995)
- 4 F1 Championships (1998, 1999, 2008, 2009)
- 1 Indy 500 Win (1994)
- 2 FIA GT Championshios (1997, 1998)

But I have the feeling that Mercedes won most of its championship after spending so much money that most other manufacturers surrendered shortly afterwards (Old DTM, Old ITC). Also, the new DTM always has the "distinct" flavor of a Mercedes championship, so it wasn't too hard to rack up that much championships. But we should also take a look at Herr Haug's "mistakes":

- Failed to win Le Mans during the end of the '90s, with one occasion being such an embarrassing failure (1999) that Mercedes was never to be seen again at the Sarthe.
- Apperantly didn't have much interest in CART at the end of the 90's.
- Tried to push David Coulthard as McLaren's #1, while Mika Hakkinen was on the road of winning his 2nd championship! Thank god Ron Dennis put the kibosh on that one!
- Likes to pay old F1 drivers tons of money to compete 10 times a year in DTM, while doing some "marketing activities" (read: Waving to the crowd at some high society events.). And half of them weren't really successful (I think we all know who I'm referring to.)
- He doesn't seem to have much interest in any forms of motorsport outside F1 and DTM. Even the GT3 program is completely run by AMG.
- And of course the failure that has been the Mercedes F1 works team. I know, they scored a victory, but this season saw also Maldonado taking a win.

If I was Dieter Zetsche, I would closely review Haug's career and decide if he's still worth his money. If not, then I'd replace him with some fresh blood.

That's actually a fair shout. When you put it like that, it does seem like Mercedes has underachieved a bit. Plus that Indy 500 win was pretty much guaranteed, what with Mercedes abusing the rules as they did.

Mercedes didn't abuse any rules. USAC knew of the pushrod engine nearly a year before and approved it. It also didn't have the 1000+bhp thats often bemoaned. In race spec it barely pushed 880bhp. A not insignificant sum of course, but much closer to the Checies and Cossies than people care to remember. Also remember in 1994 only one of the Penskes even finished, and afterwards in an interview the head of the USAC tech department said he felt the Penskes would have been evwn more dominant if they had stuck with a quad-cam for the 500!

Cristijan Albers is a complete douchebag.

eurobrun wrote:Cristijan Albers is a complete douchebag.

You've said that a lot, but I'm curious as to what makes you think that...

tommykl wrote:

eurobrun wrote:Cristijan Albers is a complete douchebag.

You've said that a lot, but I'm curious as to what makes you think that...

He always came across in interviews as an idiot, and then France 2007 happened and and that made me dislike him even more.

eurobrun wrote:Christijan Albers is a complete douchebag.

I don't see anything unpopular in this opinion!

Sky Sports don't interview di Resta enough

Nuppiz wrote:

eurobrun wrote:Christijan Albers is a complete douchebag.

I don't see anything unpopular in this opinion!

Glad someone agrees with me.

Wallio wrote:Mercedes didn't abuse any rules. USAC knew of the pushrod engine nearly a year before and approved it. It also didn't have the 1000+bhp thats often bemoaned. In race spec it barely pushed 880bhp. A not insignificant sum of course, but much closer to the Checies and Cossies than people care to remember. Also remember in 1994 only one of the Penskes even finished, and afterwards in an interview the head of the USAC tech department said he felt the Penskes would have been evwn more dominant if they had stuck with a quad-cam for the 500!

I thought Emerson Fittipaldi had actually crashed out of the race because, to put it in very basic terms, the car was too powerful

And, in fact, in 1995, the team went back to a traditional engine, with the results we already know. It was said the chassis was terrible on high-speed ovals, the only saving grace of it being the engine. And that was utterly exposed in 1995 since the PC-24, based on the PC-23, failed to qualify. Not even using the old chassis was enough.

Eh, sort of. Emerson wrote it off because he was trying to lap his teammate. While you coukd make the argument it was needed to win (as Emmo was on a different fuel strategy) it really was more for his ego IMO and the car stepped out in the corner and bam!

The main reason for the wreck was the '94 chassis had a lot of the problems the '95 chassis had, i.e high speed oval uneasiness.(The car ran poorly at Michigan too) The pushrod motor only made this worse, while the motor wasn't that much heavier than the quad-cam, it was much taller due to the the long intake runners and that absolutely destroyed the cars handling. Remember that Paul Tracy wrecked twice during May and really had no chance of winning. Emmo then wrecked, but all three said during the run up through May all three drivers claimed they couldn't take the corners flat (obviously a must at Indy) but everyone said they were sandbagging.

The "do better with a quad-cam" thoughts came from a winter test at Indy (remember when you could still do that?) Where the '94 chassis ran a cammer, had them run much much better which then lead to, Penske cars merely evolving '94 chassis for '95 thus keeping all of its faults. Also remember the '94 chassis in quad-cam trim won all but four races in the '94 CART season, and of the four that they lost, they had podium finishes in three of them. Only one they failed to crack the podium at? Michigan.


As for being too powerful, Emmo and Tracy did say it was difficult to leave the pits, and the torque did break a few gearboxes in early May until a pitlane fix was created. But raw power at speed was never a complaint. The Greeenfield 209 pushrod raced in '94 but due to all kinds of problems DNQ'd. If it had raced, I think it would have been competitive, as it ran a modified chassis that allowed the motor to sit lower, to help the CoG.

An unpopular opinion is that by neutering the pushrod, USAC killed off the two motors (Greenfield and the unraced Menard) that it created the rule to advance. So it goes.


EDIT: Just noticed the last few lines were cut off. Bathplugging smartphones. It should make more sense now.

F1 should get rid of all the Tarmac traps on new circuits and prevent them being installed on existing ones.I feel that drivers can afford to run wide and not lose any time,like Alonso at Abu Dhabi 2010. IIRC,he went off a lot of times when stuck behind Petrov,but due to the massive expanse of asphalt beyond the kerbs, he was able to stick on Petrov's tail.Had that been at a circuit with gravel traps,or on a circuit like Monaco,he would probably lose a lot of time or maybe a front wing,which is punishing those mistakes.

WaffleCat wrote:F1 should get rid of all the Tarmac traps on new circuits and prevent them being installed on existing ones.I feel that drivers can afford to run wide and not lose any time,like Alonso at Abu Dhabi 2010. IIRC,he went off a lot of times when stuck behind Petrov,but due to the massive expanse of asphalt beyond the kerbs, he was able to stick on Petrov's tail.Had that been at a circuit with gravel traps,or on a circuit like Monaco,he would probably lose a lot of time or maybe a front wing,which is punishing those mistakes.

You're not the only person who wants a return to the gravel traps!

WaffleCat wrote:F1 should get rid of all the Tarmac traps on new circuits and prevent them being installed on existing ones.I feel that drivers can afford to run wide and not lose any time,like Alonso at Abu Dhabi 2010. IIRC,he went off a lot of times when stuck behind Petrov,but due to the massive expanse of asphalt beyond the kerbs, he was able to stick on Petrov's tail.Had that been at a circuit with gravel traps,or on a circuit like Monaco,he would probably lose a lot of time or maybe a front wing,which is punishing those mistakes.

Exactly. I think the risk of a car digging into the gravel is assumable, and pretty uncommon anyway.

Definitely bring back gravel traps, punish mistakes don't encourage them. And besides asphalt traps can turn bizarre. Bernie had Hockenheim scrub the dragstrip to turn it into an asphalt trap for the German GP, and the strip was so bad at the Nitrolympx the Top Fuel guys boycotted!

Wallio wrote:Definitely bring back gravel traps, punish mistakes don't encourage them.

Brundle has mentioned this a few times, and to be honest, I completely agree with him. We may get a bit more attrition if this were to happen, although on the other hand, it may prevent people from trying to overtake.