Grand Prix Rejects

What if Scott Dixon's tests with Williams in 2004 led to a race drive with the team for the 2005 season?

Wizzie wrote:What if Scott Dixon's tests with Williams in 2004 led to a race drive with the team for the 2005 season?

Casey Mears or Tomas Scheckter in the Ganassi car for IndyCar. Remember, Mears failed to qualify for the 2000 Indy 500 and is already in the Ganassi organization as a NASCAR driver although with mediocre results at that time. Dixon probably wins at least once in F1 although when is a good question.

I have some interesting what ifs from this blog post here.

The entire last paragraph has a few questions for us to ponder. I wonder how an actually powerful Ford engine would impact Alan Jones' reputation as a driver, as well as how well this team could have done if it had lasted more than a season and some change.

Hound55 wrote:I have some interesting what ifs from this blog post here.

The entire last paragraph has a few questions for us to ponder. I wonder how an actually powerful Ford engine would impact Alan Jones' reputation as a driver, as well as how well this team could have done if it had lasted more than a season and some change.

It is indeed a great "what if" given the evident talent that the team had in its design department - at the very least, you suspect that Jones would probably have remained more committed and perhaps performed more strongly if he felt that the team were making progress. That said, by 1986 the TAG-Porsche engine that they tried to get their hands on was, officially at least, less powerful than Ford's unit - I believe that a figure of about 850bhp in race trim was quoted for the TAG-Porsche unit, as against that claimed output of 900bhp for the Ford engine - even if it was probably more fuel efficient.

On a side note, I wonder if the reference to the experimental inline four cylinder engine was to Zakspeed? I believe that Zakspeed were also in the running for the contract that was eventually awarded to Cosworth given that Zakspeed were familiar with small capacity turbo engines (via the Group 5 version of the Capri they were using in the DRM series).

Wizzie wrote:What if Scott Dixon's tests with Williams in 2004 led to a race drive with the team for the 2005 season?

Id forgotten about that! Does anyone remember why he didnt end up in F1?

Anyway, clearly he was unlikely to get a win in 2005 as McLaren and Renault were, for the most part, in charge. Had he stuck with Williams he would've slid down the grid with them but perhaps he would've shown well enough to earn a better drive, maybe to Red Bull instead of team-mate Webber?

Perhaps thats why he didnt sign for Williams, he didnt want to make the numbers up?

CoopsII wrote:

Wizzie wrote:What if Scott Dixon's tests with Williams in 2004 led to a race drive with the team for the 2005 season?

Id forgotten about that! Does anyone remember why he didnt end up in F1?

Anyway, clearly he was unlikely to get a win in 2005 as McLaren and Renault were, for the most part, in charge. Had he stuck with Williams he would've slid down the grid with them but perhaps he would've shown well enough to earn a better drive, maybe to Red Bull instead of team-mate Webber?

Perhaps thats why he didnt sign for Williams, he didnt want to make the numbers up?

It might be more of the Rick Mears type where Dixon didn't want to bring sponsorship into F1. In that case, he probably is good enough to be a contender for wins in F1 but didn't want to bring the sponsorship money with him. Once that is known, F1 teams didn't pursue Mears or Dixon since even with improving their already impressive performances.

I finally got one:

What if Michael Schumacher didnt break his leg at the 1999 British Grand Prix?

Perhaps he got his leg replaced with some cyber one that let him win 5 championships in a row?

CaptainGetz12 wrote:I finally got one:

What if Michael Schumacher didnt break his leg at the 1999 British Grand Prix?

Perhaps he got his leg replaced with some cyber one that let him win 5 championships in a row?

What if Robert Kubica received a similarly bionic arm that allowed the two to have the most epic battle in all of time?

Hound55 wrote:

CaptainGetz12 wrote:I finally got one:

What if Michael Schumacher didnt break his leg at the 1999 British Grand Prix?

Perhaps he got his leg replaced with some cyber one that let him win 5 championships in a row?

What if Robert Kubica received a similarly bionic arm that allowed the two to have the most epic battle in all of time?

It would be the rivalry that might trigger a Polish Gran Prix.

CaptainGetz12 wrote:I finally got one:
What if Michael Schumacher didnt break his leg at the 1999 British Grand Prix?

I'll re-write my post as, having said MSC would be an eight times WDC and Hakkinen only one Im not so sure.

So, I'll settle for Eddie Irvine would have retired without ever winning a grand prix.

CoopsII wrote:

CaptainGetz12 wrote:I finally got one:
What if Michael Schumacher didnt break his leg at the 1999 British Grand Prix?

He'd be an eight times WDC, Eddie Irvine would never had won a race, Herbert possibly wouldnt have won at Nurburgring and Hakkinen would have one WDC title not two. I think.

Actually, Irvine had already won at Australia that year.

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:[
Actually, Irvine had already won at Australia that year.

Oh thats right. Does someone have a Stupid hat for me to wear?
EDIT Ive found my own

CoopsII wrote:

CaptainGetz12 wrote:I finally got one:
What if Michael Schumacher didnt break his leg at the 1999 British Grand Prix?

I'll re-write my post as, having said MSC would be an eight times WDC and Hakkinen only one Im not so sure.

Well, I for one can't help that feel that McLaren, and Hakkinen in particular, would have had been more on the ball for the second-half of the season if they were up against Michael rather than Eddie, as Michael would have more likely to punish them for any mistakes than Irvine was. So whether Michael could have trumped McLaren or whether Mika would have held on for another title is anyone's guess.

What if Cosworth never built the DFV engine in 1967? Might this have changed the face of F1?

Wizzie wrote:

CoopsII wrote:

CaptainGetz12 wrote:I finally got one:
What if Michael Schumacher didnt break his leg at the 1999 British Grand Prix?

I'll re-write my post as, having said MSC would be an eight times WDC and Hakkinen only one Im not so sure.

Well, I for one can't help that feel that McLaren, and Hakkinen in particular, would have had been more on the ball for the second-half of the season if they were up against Michael rather than Eddie, as Michael would have more likely to punish them for any mistakes than Irvine was. So whether Michael could have trumped McLaren or whether Mika would have held on for another title is anyone's guess.

Hakkinen was at his peak in the late 90's, and I think he backed off a bit, as did the team, because they felt (rightly or wrongly) that Irvine wasn't a realistic threat. If Schumacher had been in the car, I think Hakkinen and the team would have been more focused, and he would still have won the title.

ibsey wrote:What if Cosworth never built the DFV engine in 1967? Might this have changed the face of F1?

Undoubtedly. I dare say we may not even have F1 now had it not been for the (relatively) cheap combination of Cosworth engine, Hewland gearbox, a homebrew chassis and a tyre contract throughout the late 1960s and the whole of the 1970s. I suspect it would have died out with a lack of manufacturer support.

CaptainGetz12 wrote:I finally got one:
What if Michael Schumacher didnt break his leg at the 1999 British Grand Prix?

takagi_for_the_win wrote:

Wizzie wrote:

CoopsII wrote: I'll re-write my post as, having said MSC would be an eight times WDC and Hakkinen only one Im not so sure.

Well, I for one can't help that feel that McLaren, and Hakkinen in particular, would have had been more on the ball for the second-half of the season if they were up against Michael rather than Eddie, as Michael would have more likely to punish them for any mistakes than Irvine was. So whether Michael could have trumped McLaren or whether Mika would have held on for another title is anyone's guess.

Hakkinen was at his peak in the late 90's, and I think he backed off a bit, as did the team, because they felt (rightly or wrongly) that Irvine wasn't a realistic threat. If Schumacher had been in the car, I think Hakkinen and the team would have been more focused, and he would still have won the title.

Any chance there could have been another controversial season finale show-down, in a similar vein to Adelaide 1994 and Jerez 1997 in this scenario?

AndreaModa wrote:

ibsey wrote:What if Cosworth never built the DFV engine in 1967? Might this have changed the face of F1?

Undoubtedly. I dare say we may not even have F1 now had it not been for the (relatively) cheap combination of Cosworth engine, Hewland gearbox, a homebrew chassis and a tyre contract throughout the late 1960s and the whole of the 1970s. I suspect it would have died out with a lack of manufacturer support.

I will go further and say that IndyCar may have filled the void and there would be a lot of Offenhausers mentioned in the engine mythology instead of Cosworths. In fact, Offenhauser may have ended up making engines to this very day if Cosworth never built the DFV engine. Regardless, Mario Andretti would be a very significant name in racing regardless of the fate of F1.

AndreaModa wrote:

ibsey wrote:What if Cosworth never built the DFV engine in 1967? Might this have changed the face of F1?

Undoubtedly. I dare say we may not even have F1 now had it not been for the (relatively) cheap combination of Cosworth engine, Hewland gearbox, a homebrew chassis and a tyre contract throughout the late 1960s and the whole of the 1970s. I suspect it would have died out with a lack of manufacturer support.

In retrospect, it would be difficult to see who else could have filled the void that was created by the move to 3.0L engines given that outfits like Coventry Climax, the go to outfit during the 1.5L era, were not prepared to invest in the cost of developing a 3.0L engine. It is hard to see who else would have had the capacity to build a competitive engine that could have been mass produced at a reasonably low cost that could have then been used by the rest of the field.

The most likely source of 3.0L engines would probably have to have been from sports car manufacturers working within the 3.0L class - Ferrari's V12's came from the 275P, the Maserati V12's that Cooper used were originally developed for GT cars and BRM and Matra both used V12's originally designed for sports cars. Alfa Romeo also briefly cropped up in the early 1970's with the V8 from the T33 series, although that was mainly because they were backing one of their sports car drivers when he drove for McLaren.
Out of those, I guess that BRM's V12 might have proven to be one of the more popular choices, but the sport probably would have been left with a real mismatched collection of engines for quite some time - and, as you say, without a supply of competitive, inexpensive engines it is plausible that the sport may have gone into decline or died out altogether.

IndyCar might have then risen to greater prominence, but another series that could have also profited would have been the Formula 5000 series - as that series initially used 5.0L road car derived engines, to begin with it was relatively cheap and, for a while, very popular. It never really took off in Europe because the cheapness of the DFV meant that most prospective F5000 teams entered into F1 instead, but if the DFV hadn't existed it might have been a more viable alternative.

takagi_for_the_win wrote:Hakkinen was at his peak in the late 90's, and I think he backed off a bit, as did the team, because they felt (rightly or wrongly) that Irvine wasn't a realistic threat. If Schumacher had been in the car, I think Hakkinen and the team would have been more focused, and he would still have won the title.

I think this is a really good 'What If?' because I cant make my mind up. The question is whether the '99 Ferrari was a good as its subsequent versions, because if it was then perhaps Hakkinen would've struggled even though he was at his best. We cant say for sure because of MSCs injury and Irvine not being quite up to his level (despite his beating him in Oz ).

dr-baker wrote:Any chance there could have been another controversial season finale show-down, in a similar vein to Adelaide 1994 and Jerez 1997 in this scenario?

Something like this.
Schumacher was taken to the hospital, but it was found out he had no big injuries. However, he missed the restart and Häkkinen retired as happened in real life. 40-32 for Mika.
AUT: McLarens don't collide. Häkkinen goes to win, Schumacher beats Coulthard for 2nd. 50-38 Mika.
GER: Schumacher wins, Häkkinen DNF. 50-48 Mika.
HUN: Schumacher takes pole, but Häkkinen beats him in the race. 60-54 Mika.
BEL: Ferrari struggles a bit. McLarens 1-2 but DC ahead. 66-58 Mika.
ITA: No such mistake for Mika, so he wins. Ferrari a little off the pace, so Schumacher finishes behind Frentzen. 76-62 Mika.
EUR: Schumacher shines in the variable conditions and takes easy victory. Häkkinen struggles and is only 6th. 77-72 Mika.
MAL: Ferrari 1-2, obviously with Schumacher ahead. He turns the tables to lead 82-81 before the final round.

dr-baker wrote:Any chance there could have been another controversial season finale show-down, in a similar vein to Adelaide 1994 and Jerez 1997 in this scenario?

No, Schumacher had too much respect for Hakkinen to try anything like that. Also, with the fall-out from Jerez '97 still in his mind, it wouldn't happen anyway

What if Murray Walker followed his father into motorcycle racing, rather than motorsport commentary?

takagi_for_the_win wrote:

dr-baker wrote:Any chance there could have been another controversial season finale show-down, in a similar vein to Adelaide 1994 and Jerez 1997 in this scenario?

No, Schumacher had too much respect for Hakkinen to try anything like that. Also, with the fall-out from Jerez '97 still in his mind, it wouldn't happen anyway

I think the second reason is the only thing that would've prevented another controversial incident. Im not sure MSC ever really respected anyone, the closest thing Ive seen to respect from him was his slightly-concerning-due-to-the-age-difference bromance with Vettel. I recall reading he was wary of certain drivers, he knew the ones who wouldnt be intimidated and they included Hakkinen, Villenueve and Hill. Although if the last name prompts a mahoosively exhausting dissertation from Ibsey I'll delete him off

That was an article I read round about 2000 so Im sure other names like Montoya and Alonso would be added in time.

CoopsII wrote:Im not sure MSC ever really respected anyone,

IIRC after Hakkinen retired M Schumi did say something like, Mika was the only rival he truly respected. That's just from my vague recollection however.

CoopsII wrote: Although if the last name prompts a mahoosively exhausting dissertation from Ibsey I'll delete him off

Don't worry CoopsII, I think I won't trouble you with one of those on this particularly occasion.

Especially since I have now had my monthly 'pop' at Hill. So it is out of my system (at least until next month ).

ibsey wrote:Especially since I have now had my monthly 'pop' at Hill. So it is out of my system (at least until next month ).

Hill strike again....

Yeah, that one was questionable...I'll get my coat

pasta_maldonado wrote:

ibsey wrote:Especially since I have now had my monthly 'pop' at Hill. So it is out of my system (at least until next month ).

Hill strike again....

Yeah, that one was questionable...I'll get my coat

....When all 'Hill' will break lose.

ibsey wrote:IIRC after Hakkinen retired M Schumi did say something like, Mika was the only rival he truly respected. That's just from my vague recollection however.

If we all went around believing the things that MSC said what kind of world would it be? I also remember some sort of quote like that and I thought it was amusing as he waited until Hakkinen was no longer going to be a thorn in his side to say it. Im sure I read some quite respectful comments about Barrichello being bandied about when he left Ferrari but that was nothing a good Hungarian pit-wall couldnt put right

ibsey wrote:

pasta_maldonado wrote:

ibsey wrote:Especially since I have now had my monthly 'pop' at Hill. So it is out of my system (at least until next month ).

Hill strike again....

Yeah, that one was questionable...I'll get my coat

....When all 'Hill' will break lose.

What the Hill is with all these puns

Bloody Hill, I'm sick to death of all these Trulli awful driver puns. They just get Wurz and worse...

takagi_for_the_win wrote:Bloody Hill, I'm sick to death of all these Trulli awful driver puns. They just get Wurz and worse...

Fisichella sick or just metaphorically?

Puns are punny. Not gonna Pic a favourite punniest pun, though.

I can feel a light Breeze as I Reid these puns. I could go on, but I don't think many people would be Keen on these puns...

dr-baker wrote:Puns are punny. Not gonna Pic a favourite punniest pun, though.

Alesi what you did there...

Not gonna deny, that was poor...

Phew, I'm Justin Time to reply to this thread. But Justin Case I would feel a Tingle to climb up a Damn Hill later on, I'll just click the submit Button now.
Better bring my hair Trimmer as well. Justin Case.

I cannot taki anymore

Arnoux, this is Di Grassi-ful! Inoue all Hill would break loose when people started Pic-ing out puns all over again. What's da Matta with everyone? You're all far too Yoong to be taking the Mika out of F1 drivers. I'll be setting up a Piquet line until all this madness stops, and F1 Rejects returns to being the Fontana of knowledge that we all know and Love.

Driver puns are past their Pic....

AndreaModa wrote:Arnoux, this is Di Grassi-ful! Inoue all Hill would break loose when people started Pic-ing out puns all over again. What's da Matta with everyone? You're all far too Yoong to be taking the Mika out of F1 drivers. I'll be setting up a Piquet line until all this madness stops, and F1 Rejects returns to being the Fontana of knowledge that we all know and Love.

Fontana? It's not just a F1 reject (Norberto), but the location of a NASCAR track (Fontana, California). Fontana is the universal racing pun word!