Grand Prix Rejects

good_Ralf wrote:

Kimi-ICE wrote:What if Gilles Villeneuve hadn't died at Belgium 1982?

I'm not sure about what Villeneuve could have done had he survived in 1982, given that Imola marked only his first finish in the points that year.
However, if the Ferrari stayed reliable, Villeneuve, with consistency, would have been a contender, especially if Pironi still had his Hockenheim smash.

Would have been a contender? If Ferrari didn't have such appalling luck in 1982, either Pironi or Villeneuve would have won the title at a canter.

Anyway, I have another one for you all: What if Roy James had not been involved in the Great Train Robbery of 1963? From what I've read, he was fast becoming one of the next big things in British motorsport at the time.

What if, in the aftermath of Senna's death, Heinz-Harald Frentzen was signed as his replacement at Williams? I thought that Frank wanted to give him a go.

good_Ralf wrote:What if, in the aftermath of Senna's death, Heinz-Harald Frentzen was signed as his replacement at Williams? I thought that Frank wanted to give him a go.

IIRC Frentzen really only appeared on Sir Franks radar because of some impressive performances during the 1995 season, and then he signed a contract in 1996 for 1997.

Back in 1994 I doubt Frentzen couldve done much better than DC did, at least DC was familliar with the car from his testing role.

What if Lotus hadn’t discovered ‘ground effects’ in 1978?

Someone else would've. You cannae change the laws of physics...

CoopsII wrote:Someone else would've. You cannae change the laws of physics...

Quite true - Rudd had already experimented with a ground effect car at BRM in 1969 (only for Surtees to intervene and force Owen to cancel the project), whilst Wright intended the aerofoil shaped fuel tanks on the sides of the March 701 to also work in ground effect (although they never really worked as intended because of excessive turbulence from the front wheels). Both of those men were quite influential in Lotus's development of the 78 - Wright was in charge of the aerodynamics research team that lead that project, whilst Rudd was responsible for developing the chassis of the 78 and 79 to accommodate the tunnels. Now, with Rudd having head hunted Wright specifically for his own consultancy, it is plausible that, had Rudd ended up elsewhere, Wright probably would have followed, and they both might have drawn on their earlier research at whatever team they ended up at to develop a ground effect car - Rudd, after all, kept the wind tunnel mode that he'd made whilst at BRM in 1969 on public display in his office, so he could easily have replicated those results elsewhere.

It's also worth noting that some other outfits were, unintentionally, taking advantage of ground effects too, albeit not in the systematic manner in which Lotus went about it. Forghieri accidentally took advantage of ground effects with the 312T series - he noted that the use of the wider, lower chassis the 312T had produced better downforce figures in the wind tunnel, but initially he attributed that to improved airflow to the rear wing rather than the fact that the underbody was starting to act in ground effect.
Murray also inadvertently took advantage of ground effects with the front wings of the BT44 and BT45 - he experimented with air dams and skirts on the BT44, and he later realised that the BT45C's front wing was also acting in ground effect too (which was why Lauda repeatedly complained of chronic oversteer, because the aero balance was far too far forward thanks to the increased efficiency of the front wing). Murray worked out very quickly what was going on once he caught a glimpse of the underbody of the 79, so it is plausible that he might have had that stroke of genius instead and been the one who kick started ground effects instead.

mario wrote:

CoopsII wrote:Someone else would've. You cannae change the laws of physics...

Quite true - Rudd had already experimented with a ground effect car at BRM in 1969 (only for Surtees to intervene and force Owen to cancel the project), whilst Wright intended the aerofoil shaped fuel tanks on the sides of the March 701 to also work in ground effect (although they never really worked as intended because of excessive turbulence from the front wheels). Both of those men were quite influential in Lotus's development of the 78 - Wright was in charge of the aerodynamics research team that lead that project, whilst Rudd was responsible for developing the chassis of the 78 and 79 to accommodate the tunnels. Now, with Rudd having head hunted Wright specifically for his own consultancy, it is plausible that, had Rudd ended up elsewhere, Wright probably would have followed, and they both might have drawn on their earlier research at whatever team they ended up at to develop a ground effect car - Rudd, after all, kept the wind tunnel mode that he'd made whilst at BRM in 1969 on public display in his office, so he could easily have replicated those results elsewhere.

It's also worth noting that some other outfits were, unintentionally, taking advantage of ground effects too, albeit not in the systematic manner in which Lotus went about it. Forghieri accidentally took advantage of ground effects with the 312T series - he noted that the use of the wider, lower chassis the 312T had produced better downforce figures in the wind tunnel, but initially he attributed that to improved airflow to the rear wing rather than the fact that the underbody was starting to act in ground effect.
Murray also inadvertently took advantage of ground effects with the front wings of the BT44 and BT45 - he experimented with air dams and skirts on the BT44, and he later realised that the BT45C's front wing was also acting in ground effect too (which was why Lauda repeatedly complained of chronic oversteer, because the aero balance was far too far forward thanks to the increased efficiency of the front wing). Murray worked out very quickly what was going on once he caught a glimpse of the underbody of the 79, so it is plausible that he might have had that stroke of genius instead and been the one who kick started ground effects instead.

I seem to remember Vic Elford mentioning somewhere that the privateer McLaren (edit, just checked - M7B) he drove for someone-or-other (edit, just checked - Colin Crabbe's Antique Automobiles Racing Team) in 1969, with the additional side-mounted fuel tanks being faster than the factory cars at some race, because unwittingly it may have been generating some sort of ground-effect.

mario wrote:

CoopsII wrote:Someone else would've. You cannae change the laws of physics...

Quite true - Rudd had already experimented with a ground effect car at BRM in 1969 (only for Surtees to intervene and force Owen to cancel the project), whilst Wright intended the aerofoil shaped fuel tanks on the sides of the March 701 to also work in ground effect (although they never really worked as intended because of excessive turbulence from the front wheels). Both of those men were quite influential in Lotus's development of the 78 - Wright was in charge of the aerodynamics research team that lead that project, whilst Rudd was responsible for developing the chassis of the 78 and 79 to accommodate the tunnels. Now, with Rudd having head hunted Wright specifically for his own consultancy, it is plausible that, had Rudd ended up elsewhere, Wright probably would have followed, and they both might have drawn on their earlier research at whatever team they ended up at to develop a ground effect car - Rudd, after all, kept the wind tunnel mode that he'd made whilst at BRM in 1969 on public display in his office, so he could easily have replicated those results elsewhere.

It's also worth noting that some other outfits were, unintentionally, taking advantage of ground effects too, albeit not in the systematic manner in which Lotus went about it. Forghieri accidentally took advantage of ground effects with the 312T series - he noted that the use of the wider, lower chassis the 312T had produced better downforce figures in the wind tunnel, but initially he attributed that to improved airflow to the rear wing rather than the fact that the underbody was starting to act in ground effect.
Murray also inadvertently took advantage of ground effects with the front wings of the BT44 and BT45 - he experimented with air dams and skirts on the BT44, and he later realised that the BT45C's front wing was also acting in ground effect too (which was why Lauda repeatedly complained of chronic oversteer, because the aero balance was far too far forward thanks to the increased efficiency of the front wing). Murray worked out very quickly what was going on once he caught a glimpse of the underbody of the 79, so it is plausible that he might have had that stroke of genius instead and been the one who kick started ground effects instead.

Thanks for your detailed reply Mario, and for the addition info Faustus.

That was what I was hoping to understand; which other teams might have discovered ground effects instead? And how this may have altered the results, up until that someone else might have discovered ground effects?

I have a triple Senna/Prost Suzuka special:

In 1988, what if Senna had never got going after stalling on the grid?

In 1989, what if Prost had managed to rejoin after the collision?

In 1990, what if Senna had got away from the start in the lead?

James1978 wrote:I have a triple Senna/Prost Suzuka special:

In 1988, what if Senna had never got going after stalling on the grid?

In 1989, what if Prost had managed to rejoin after the collision?

In 1990, what if Senna had got away from the start in the lead?

1988: Prost would be on the Brink of the title

1989: Prost would have been world champion

1990: Senna would have taken the title

Faustus wrote:

mario wrote:

CoopsII wrote:Someone else would've. You cannae change the laws of physics...

Quite true - Rudd had already experimented with a ground effect car at BRM in 1969 (only for Surtees to intervene and force Owen to cancel the project), whilst Wright intended the aerofoil shaped fuel tanks on the sides of the March 701 to also work in ground effect (although they never really worked as intended because of excessive turbulence from the front wheels). Both of those men were quite influential in Lotus's development of the 78 - Wright was in charge of the aerodynamics research team that lead that project, whilst Rudd was responsible for developing the chassis of the 78 and 79 to accommodate the tunnels. Now, with Rudd having head hunted Wright specifically for his own consultancy, it is plausible that, had Rudd ended up elsewhere, Wright probably would have followed, and they both might have drawn on their earlier research at whatever team they ended up at to develop a ground effect car - Rudd, after all, kept the wind tunnel mode that he'd made whilst at BRM in 1969 on public display in his office, so he could easily have replicated those results elsewhere.

It's also worth noting that some other outfits were, unintentionally, taking advantage of ground effects too, albeit not in the systematic manner in which Lotus went about it. Forghieri accidentally took advantage of ground effects with the 312T series - he noted that the use of the wider, lower chassis the 312T had produced better downforce figures in the wind tunnel, but initially he attributed that to improved airflow to the rear wing rather than the fact that the underbody was starting to act in ground effect.
Murray also inadvertently took advantage of ground effects with the front wings of the BT44 and BT45 - he experimented with air dams and skirts on the BT44, and he later realised that the BT45C's front wing was also acting in ground effect too (which was why Lauda repeatedly complained of chronic oversteer, because the aero balance was far too far forward thanks to the increased efficiency of the front wing). Murray worked out very quickly what was going on once he caught a glimpse of the underbody of the 79, so it is plausible that he might have had that stroke of genius instead and been the one who kick started ground effects instead.

I seem to remember Vic Elford mentioning somewhere that the privateer McLaren (edit, just checked - M7B) he drove for someone-or-other (edit, just checked - Colin Crabbe's Antique Automobiles Racing Team) in 1969, with the additional side-mounted fuel tanks being faster than the factory cars at some race, because unwittingly it may have been generating some sort of ground-effect.

This photo isn't from the best angle, but I guess that this would be the car, with its side mounted fuel tanks, that you are referring to? I can see how those sidepods could have acted in ground effect given the way they were mounted to the car.

That particular shot appears to have been from the British GP, where Elford was about 0.7s being Bruce and 1.8s behind Hulme in that race - he was, however, much more competitive in the German GP (he actually managed to beat Bruce McLaren in qualifying), which might be the race which you are thinking of. Sadly, he ended up crashing out due to debris from Andretti's crash in the race, but it would have been interesting to see how competitive he might have been in the race if he hadn't crashed out.

mario wrote:

Faustus wrote:I seem to remember Vic Elford mentioning somewhere that the privateer McLaren (edit, just checked - M7B) he drove for someone-or-other (edit, just checked - Colin Crabbe's Antique Automobiles Racing Team) in 1969, with the additional side-mounted fuel tanks being faster than the factory cars at some race, because unwittingly it may have been generating some sort of ground-effect.

This photo isn't from the best angle, but I guess that this would be the car, with its side mounted fuel tanks, that you are referring to? I can see how those sidepods could have acted in ground effect given the way they were mounted to the car.

That particular shot appears to have been from the British GP, where Elford was about 0.7s being Bruce and 1.8s behind Hulme in that race - he was, however, much more competitive in the German GP (he actually managed to beat Bruce McLaren in qualifying), which might be the race which you are thinking of. Sadly, he ended up crashing out due to debris from Andretti's crash in the race, but it would have been interesting to see how competitive he might have been in the race if he hadn't crashed out.

That's the one.

What If Hiro Matsushita got into F1 in 1990?

darkapprentice77 wrote:What If Hiro Matsushita got into F1 in 1990?

A quick KataCesaris Award, then he leaves.

darkapprentice77 wrote:What If Hiro Matsushita got into F1 in 1990?

Pay driver extraordinaire who might have lasted a while in F1 on that Panasonic money assuming he could keep the FIA Superlicense. Regardless of how long he lasted, he'd have a reject profile just seeing how his IndyCar career lasted with over 100 starts and a career best of 6th.

What if Derek Warwick hadn't retired in Canada 1989? He was running ahead of the winning Williams duo...

good_Ralf wrote:What if Derek Warwick hadn't retired in Canada 1989? He was running ahead of the winning Williams duo...

Arrows wins! Derek Warwick leaves Arrows at the end of the season and goes to Benetton instead of Piquet?

Faustus wrote:

good_Ralf wrote:What if Derek Warwick hadn't retired in Canada 1989? He was running ahead of the winning Williams duo...

Arrows wins! Derek Warwick leaves Arrows at the end of the season and goes to Benetton instead of Piquet?

And IF Arrows won, then Minardi would have the record for most GPs without a win for teams?

What if Mansell died in this crash?

What if Gachot died in this crash?

(Apologies if done before!)

What would happen if Morgan Grenfell had allowed Red Bull to purchase Arrows (apparently they were keen!) in 2002 before they eventually went bust. Got the idea while browsing the Autosport 2002 review!

What would happen to the team then known as Jaguar?

Driver changes eg. Would Bernoldi be a regular point scorer, will HHF still be there etc etc..

darkapprentice77 wrote:What if Mansell died in this crash?

State funeral?
With the CART title already decided, Andretti might have retired early as a mark of respect, but I'm not who would have replaced Nigel at Lola.
After Senna's death in Formula 1, I think Coulthard would have taken the Williams seat for the rest of 1994 and would not miss any races. Winning some is another story.

Also Brundle would have kept the McLaren seat for 1995. Blundell probably would have gone to Indycars a year early and Suzuki would have had the 95 Ligier drive to himself.

What if Indygate happened in 2004, with Alonso and Schumacher's failures happening in free practice instead of the race?
What if it happened in 2006 instead of 2004 or 5?

what if F1 cars were allowed to use ground effect but at 50% of what it was in the 1980's today
and how much faster would they be if they had the 2004 spec engines

What If Jim Clark wasn't killed at Hockenheim in 1968
What If Tyrrell weren't kicked out of the 1984 World Championship

Kimi-ICE wrote:What If Jim Clark wasn't killed at Hockenheim in 1968
What If Tyrrell weren't kicked out of the 1984 World Championship

If Jim Clark wasn't killed, then he probably would have dominated the 1968, 1970 and 1972 championships if Lotus experienced the same fortunes unless Clark was injured or lost his life in another crash. If he didn't get hindered, Jimmy might have been a five-times WDC when he retired in the 1970s, probably due to the dominance of the Ferraris.

If Tyrrell weren't excluded, they would have scored about 15 points and finished somwhere like 8th in the constructors behind Toleman. However, I doubt that Brundle and Bellof would have been in top teams given what happened to Brundle in the years to come

good_Ralf wrote:

Kimi-ICE wrote:What If Jim Clark wasn't killed at Hockenheim in 1968
What If Tyrrell weren't kicked out of the 1984 World Championship

If Jim Clark wasn't killed, then he probably would have dominated the 1968, 1970 and 1972 championships if Lotus experienced the same fortunes unless Clark was injured or lost his life in another crash. If he didn't get hindered, Jimmy might have been a five-times WDC when he retired in the 1970s, probably due to the dominance of the Ferraris.

If Tyrrell weren't excluded, they would have scored about 15 points and finished somwhere like 8th in the constructors behind Toleman. However, I doubt that Brundle and Bellof would have been in top teams given what happened to Brundle in the years to come

Well Bellof had a contract at Ferrari for 1986. Unfortunately we never got to see him at Ferrari. If he had got that drive, Schumacher might not have been the first German WDC.

The Dutch Bear wrote:Well Bellof had a contract at Ferrari for 1986. Unfortunately we never got to see him at Ferrari. If he had got that drive, Schumacher might not have been the first German WDC.

I never knew that. Well, as the Ferrari was a bit of a crapbox until 1990, I can only see Bellof winning races and then being a serious WDC contender in that year, unless he transformed the team a la Schuey.

A sombre scenario here. What if Zanardi died in was Eau Rouge smash in 1993?

roblomas52 wrote:what if F1 cars were allowed to use ground effect but at 50% of what it was in the 1980's today
and how much faster would they be if they had the 2004 spec engines

I'd suspect a 170 to 173 mp/h lap at Monza with both being put in.

good_Ralf wrote:

The Dutch Bear wrote:Well Bellof had a contract at Ferrari for 1986. Unfortunately we never got to see him at Ferrari. If he had got that drive, Schumacher might not have been the first German WDC.

I never knew that. Well, as the Ferrari was a bit of a crapbox until 1990, I can only see Bellof winning races and then being a serious WDC contender in that year, unless he transformed the team a la Schuey.

Ferrari's form wasn't great those days and Bellof might have been too erratic to challenge for a WDC. That contract was only published after his death, probably explaining why you didn't know that.

The Dutch Bear wrote:

good_Ralf wrote:

The Dutch Bear wrote:Well Bellof had a contract at Ferrari for 1986. Unfortunately we never got to see him at Ferrari. If he had got that drive, Schumacher might not have been the first German WDC.

I never knew that. Well, as the Ferrari was a bit of a crapbox until 1990, I can only see Bellof winning races and then being a serious WDC contender in that year, unless he transformed the team a la Schuey.

Ferrari's form wasn't great those days and Bellof might have been too erratic to challenge for a WDC. That contract was only published after his death, probably explaining why you didn't know that.

The Ferrari was a unreliable car especially in 1989. I'm sure we've all heard about Mansell booking an early flight home in Brazil only to win the race. Would Bellof have scored many points for Ferrari in that year? I'm not so sure when you look at the fact that Berger had to wait till Italy just to score a point

What could Roger Williamson, Tony Brise and Tom Pryce have achieved if they had all had full careers?

good_Ralf wrote:A sombre scenario here. What if Zanardi died in was Eau Rouge smash in 1993?

Then we would not claim him to be one of the true heroes of Motorsport.

takagi_for_the_win wrote:What could Roger Williamson, Tony Brise and Tom Pryce have achieved if they had all had full careers?

I think Williamson would have done something special. Tom Pryce was quiet and reserved outside the car, but everything but that in the car, so I think he could have done more than he did at Shadow. Possibly a World Champion for Pryce. Brise, well I don't know about him.

How about this: What could Alessandro Nannini have done had his career not been cut short by his helicopter crash?

go_Rubens wrote:How about this: What could Alessandro Nannini have done had his career not been cut short by his helicopter crash?

I believe Nanninni was in contention for a Ferrari contract, so his career would probably have been snuffed out by a series of godawful early 90's cars

The Dutch Bear wrote:

good_Ralf wrote:

The Dutch Bear wrote:Well Bellof had a contract at Ferrari for 1986. Unfortunately we never got to see him at Ferrari. If he had got that drive, Schumacher might not have been the first German WDC.

I never knew that. Well, as the Ferrari was a bit of a crapbox until 1990, I can only see Bellof winning races and then being a serious WDC contender in that year, unless he transformed the team a la Schuey.

Ferrari's form wasn't great those days and Bellof might have been too erratic to challenge for a WDC. That contract was only published after his death, probably explaining why you didn't know that.

Had he actually signed the contract at the time? I thought that Ferrari were in the process of making him an offer, with Enzo Ferrari wishing to interview him for the role before making the final decision, but had not committed to the move at the time of his death?

You're probably right, though, that a move to Ferrari probably would not have been that successful to begin with, with the period from 1986 to 1989 being a period where Ferrari were either not fast enough, or, in some instances, reasonably competitive but lacking reliability to mount a consistent challenge across the season. Bellof might have been in a position to take a few victories over that period of time and perhaps make more of a name for himself in the process, but would he have been willing to tough it out at Ferrari for that many years before Ferrari finally had a car that was both competitive and reasonably reliable, as was the case in 1990, where he might have been able to rack up multiple victories in the same season? You'd have to have a lot of faith and perseverance in the team to do that.

Alesi tried to wait a while for Ferrari to provide a competitive car, but it never really happened

Onxy Wrecked wrote:

roblomas52 wrote:what if F1 cars were allowed to use ground effect but at 50% of what it was in the 1980's today
and how much faster would they be if they had the 2004 spec engines

I'd suspect a 170 to 173 mp/h lap at Monza with both being put in.

Ok cheers for that mate, I just wondered how fast it would be which as it turns out is too fast

mario wrote:Had he actually signed the contract at the time? I thought that Ferrari were in the process of making him an offer, with Enzo Ferrari wishing to interview him for the role before making the final decision, but had not committed to the move at the time of his death?

I can’t be 100% sure on this, but IIRC I think I read somewhere in the Autosport Nostalgia Forum that the Bellof / Ferrari contract was all signed and completed at the time of his death. If I remember rightly Ferrari were going to announce the deal a week after that tragic Spa race, in which Bellof was killed.

go_Rubens wrote:

good_Ralf wrote:A sombre scenario here. What if Zanardi died in was Eau Rouge smash in 1993?

Then we would not claim him to be one of the true heroes of Motorsport.

And how might IndyCar and ChampCar have changed or not changed if Zanardi had died in his crash at Lausitz the weekend after 9/11?