Grand Prix Rejects

GerhardTalger wrote:Zolder 1981. (Both the Reutemann and the Patrese/Stohr crash along with the idiotic, frantic parade lap and the inability to show a bathplug red flag) It marked complete unprofessionalism and idiocracy.

I think that's a fair shout. I was reading the Grand Prix International magazine covering that race recently, and it is astonishing how utterly chaotic the whole weekend was. Apparently the police and marshals were running the pit lane like their own personal kingdom, the strike in support of the mechanics (which indirectly led to the chaos of the parade lap) was disorganised and right up to the last minute no-one knew which drivers would or wouldn't join in. The Stohr crash we all know about - if you look at his record, he was never going to be a world beater but he had been steadily improving. That incident killed his career stone dead, and it was lucky that was all that it killed.

They shouldn't even have gone to Zolder in 1982 but Bernie already had his claws in by then and they were obviously paying him plenty of cash.

Barbazza wrote:

GerhardTalger wrote:Zolder 1981. (Both the Reutemann and the Patrese/Stohr crash along with the idiotic, frantic parade lap and the inability to show a bathplug red flag) It marked complete unprofessionalism and idiocracy.

I think that's a fair shout. I was reading the Grand Prix International magazine covering that race recently, and it is astonishing how utterly chaotic the whole weekend was. Apparently the police and marshals were running the pit lane like their own personal kingdom, the strike in support of the mechanics (which indirectly led to the chaos of the parade lap) was disorganised and right up to the last minute no-one knew which drivers would or wouldn't join in. The Stohr crash we all know about - if you look at his record, he was never going to be a world beater but he had been steadily improving. That incident killed his career stone dead, and it was lucky that was all that it killed.

They shouldn't even have gone to Zolder in 1982 but Bernie already had his claws in by then and they were obviously paying him plenty of cash.

At least the marshalling wasn't as bad as at Zandvoort due to the behaviour of the circuit owners - Forix has an article on Roger Williamson which also covers the string of fatal accidents that had taken place over the previous years and the hopelessly inadequate training that the marshals had when trying to deal with the wreckage of Courage's burning car in the 1970 race (with marshals not being equipped or trained to put out fires, and indeed actively discouraged to take any action).

mario wrote:

Barbazza wrote:

GerhardTalger wrote:Zolder 1981. (Both the Reutemann and the Patrese/Stohr crash along with the idiotic, frantic parade lap and the inability to show a bathplug red flag) It marked complete unprofessionalism and idiocracy.

I think that's a fair shout. I was reading the Grand Prix International magazine covering that race recently, and it is astonishing how utterly chaotic the whole weekend was. Apparently the police and marshals were running the pit lane like their own personal kingdom, the strike in support of the mechanics (which indirectly led to the chaos of the parade lap) was disorganised and right up to the last minute no-one knew which drivers would or wouldn't join in. The Stohr crash we all know about - if you look at his record, he was never going to be a world beater but he had been steadily improving. That incident killed his career stone dead, and it was lucky that was all that it killed.

They shouldn't even have gone to Zolder in 1982 but Bernie already had his claws in by then and they were obviously paying him plenty of cash.

At least the marshalling wasn't as bad as at Zandvoort due to the behaviour of the circuit owners - Forix has an article on Roger Williamson which also covers the string of fatal accidents that had taken place over the previous years and the hopelessly inadequate training that the marshals had when trying to deal with the wreckage of Courage's burning car in the 1970 race (with marshals not being equipped or trained to put out fires, and indeed actively discouraged to take any action).

That series of articles is terrifying, Mario. I first read it at home, and my wife came in, she read it, and was convinced it was a badly written (in terms of taste and believeability) fan-fic. When I finally convinced her it was a true account, she was physically I'll. It says something about how bad the dune track was, that it took me considerable effort to convince a college educated woman that it did happen.

midgrid wrote:

ibsey wrote:Incidentally has there been a podium when the drivers couldn't open the champagne bottle? I recall seeing a photo some years ago of the podium finishers at IIRC one race around 1988 / 1989 where the top 3 (I think Prost & Nannini were amongst them) appeared to be struggling to open the champs. But don't know if they managed it in the end. Reckon that's worth a mention here if they didn't.

You are correct!

With the Berger crash earlier in the race I don't think if the race had happened recently the drivers would of not bothered with the champagne

Spa 1999 - Both B.A.R's binning it spectacularly at Eau Rouge within 10 minutes of each other.

Cue frantically arranged flights to get another spare car from the UK!

The finish of Austria 2002.
Especially the way Schumacher tried to make it up with the angry crowd, letting Rubinho stand on the top-spot of the podium and handing him the trophy for the first place.

I also remember the commentary (translated to English from Dutch).

There they go, there they go..
Oh no, man how sick!
bathplug.. jesus.. not normal..
Disgusting, disgusting, disgusting..

Ben Edwards and John Watson's commentary on Austria 2002's finish was excellent, unlike James Allen's "I DO NOT ADAM AND EVE IT!"

The Brazilian commentary was just tragic, excitement going to utter disappointment.

I'm not going to say it's the most rejectful moment (because it clearly wasn't), but Adelaide 1991 is quite rejectful, all the same. How they even decided to start that race beggars belief. And how they kept it running with no visibility, standing water, broken cars + course vehicles on the main straight is even more of a mystery. I suspect they might have continued it, if Senna hadn't suddenly decided enough was enough.

I think it's also one of the few cases when getting the sack can save your career.* Imagine what would have happened had Prost not been given his marching orders by Ferrari after Japan. Even though he was ultimately right, I don't think Prost's refusal to race in Adelaide in 89 helped his image any - there was certainly a bit of the 'moaning frenchman' sentiment going about. What would people have thought about him if he did it again?

* Okay, I realise he only drove for one more year, but it was his own choice to retire, rather than just being booted from a team, and then being unable to find a seat in another top team.

To me D'Ambrosio spinning at the pitlane in Hungary 2011 has to be the most rejectful moment in a pitlane evah, along with other classics such Massa's pitstop in Singapore 2008

Patrese trying to spin turn the car on a really wide track at Brazil 1982 was pretty funny. (Yes I know heat fatigue got the better of him at that moment).

I can also remember Nakajima Snr also doing a similarly poor spin turn and hitting the barrier at Hungary 1990.

And Andrea de Cesaris causing all sorts of bother after a spin turn at IIRC Canada 1985?

Minardi's PS02 during the 2002 Spanish Grand Prix. Wing fail after wing fail after wing fail. And then a DNS.

1975 British GP; a late race downpour meant loads of cars aquaplanning and crashing out at Corpse corner. Just like at Nurburgring 2007 & Interlagos 2003.

Whilst on the subject of the 2003 Brazilian GP surely that must count as a pretty rejectfully moment in F1 history when the organisers can't even tell who has won the GP!

MadGaz85 wrote:Ben Edwards and John Watson's commentary on Austria 2002's finish was excellent, unlike James Allen's "I DO NOT ADAM AND EVE IT!"

The Brazilian commentary was just tragic, excitement going to utter disappointment.

Oh yeah, I remember that day. I was so angry that I turned off the TV just after the checkered flag.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jGr7B2XJuY



For me this is the most rejectful moment ever. This incident threatened F1 popularity and credibility. Also, this destroyed Barrichello's reputation in Brazil (but he could had disobeyed). No wonder Ferrari had a huge fine for that.

Dj_bereta wrote:

MadGaz85 wrote:Ben Edwards and John Watson's commentary on Austria 2002's finish was excellent, unlike James Allen's "I DO NOT ADAM AND EVE IT!"

The Brazilian commentary was just tragic, excitement going to utter disappointment.

Oh yeah, I remember that day. I was so angry that I turned off the TV just after the checkered flag.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jGr7B2XJuY



For me this is the most rejectful moment ever. This incident threatened F1 popularity and credibility. Also, this destroyed Barrichello's reputation in Brazil (but he could had disobeyed). No wonder Ferrari had a huge fine for that.

Technically, they didn't. IIRC the fines were for the podium and interviews afterwards where Schumi let Rubens sit/stand in the middle. Remember there was NOTHING illegal about it. In fact no one cared when McLaren repeatedly did it for Mika, and Williams for Nigel and Patrese before than. But Ferrari does something and whoo boy. The fact that Rubens kept the winners trophy, was paid his contracted "winners bonus" and received Indy as a payback, are all forgotten.

ibsey wrote:Patrese trying to spin turn the car on a really wide track at Brazil 1982 was pretty funny. (Yes I know heat fatigue got the better of him at that moment).

I can also remember Nakajima Snr also doing a similarly poor spin turn and hitting the barrier at Hungary 1990.

And Andrea de Cesaris causing all sorts of bother after a spin turn at IIRC Canada 1985?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP2Lj-_4fQg

One of our F1Rejects, Domenico Schiattarella also attempts to do a spin turn at Monaco, with similar success https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP2Lj-_4fQg

Also, Ricardo Rosset goes one better at Monaco https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-7y1_cju4c (Skip to 1:17, with some wonderful commentary)

Wallio wrote:

Dj_bereta wrote:

MadGaz85 wrote:Ben Edwards and John Watson's commentary on Austria 2002's finish was excellent, unlike James Allen's "I DO NOT ADAM AND EVE IT!"

The Brazilian commentary was just tragic, excitement going to utter disappointment.

Oh yeah, I remember that day. I was so angry that I turned off the TV just after the checkered flag.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jGr7B2XJuY



For me this is the most rejectful moment ever. This incident threatened F1 popularity and credibility. Also, this destroyed Barrichello's reputation in Brazil (but he could had disobeyed). No wonder Ferrari had a huge fine for that.

Technically, they didn't. IIRC the fines were for the podium and interviews afterwards where Schumi let Rubens sit/stand in the middle. Remember there was NOTHING illegal about it. In fact no one cared when McLaren repeatedly did it for Mika, and Williams for Nigel and Patrese before than. But Ferrari does something and whoo boy. The fact that Rubens kept the winners trophy, was paid his contracted "winners bonus" and received Indy as a payback, are all forgotten.

Yes, the fine that Ferrari received was for violating the podium procedure rather than for the team orders which were entirely legal and in routine use at the time (for example, there is footage of Massa being order to move aside for Heidfeld during the German GP, IIRC, from that same era).

To a certain extent, though, the perception alone was damaging enough - it was the fact that many felt the imposition of team orders was unnecessary in a year where the F2002 was crushingly dominant, with Schumacher already 21 points clear of his nearest rival and Rubens on a mere 6 points, that seems to have rankled so much, along with Rubens's decision to make the imposition of the order as obvious as he could by handing over the lead in the most damning way possible.

Whilst it may have served as a way of allowing Rubens to vent his displeasure, at the same time it could ultimately be argued that it lead to the farce that was the 2010 German GP - team orders may have been officially banned in the intervening period, but we all know that teams were simply using coded methods to impose team orders until that point. Even now, despite the fact that team orders are legal again, some teams still seem uncomfortable with explicitly imposing team orders - witness how many times a driver is told that his team mate is faster than him as a euphemism for him to let his team mate through - which perhaps feeds back into the furore that occurred in 2002 and in 2010.

Not necessarily a moment, but BAR's entire 1999 season. In hindsight, their claims that they would win their first race could class as that rejectful moment.

FullMetalJack wrote:Not necessarily a moment, but BAR's entire 1999 season. In hindsight, their claims that they would win their first race could class as that rejectful moment.

Well, technically, under a different iteration, the team did win their first race, exactly ten years later

30 minutes before the 1999 Oz GP and when Mika Hakkinen left his pit garage he accidental ran over a wire which then brought down the McLaren pit roof. I'm sure someone who is smarter than me can find a utube video of this incident to post here (I'm at work so can't look for this myself).

On a similar note Petrov also knocked over the TV they normally place in front of the driver (when they are sitting in their car in the garage) during a quali session in 2010, which was equally as funny and rejectful. I think it might have been at Korea or China?

tommykl wrote:

FullMetalJack wrote:Not necessarily a moment, but BAR's entire 1999 season. In hindsight, their claims that they would win their first race could class as that rejectful moment.

Well, technically, under a different iteration, the team did win their first race, exactly ten years later

No, they didn't, Button won Hungary'06

Aerond wrote:

tommykl wrote:

FullMetalJack wrote:Not necessarily a moment, but BAR's entire 1999 season. In hindsight, their claims that they would win their first race could class as that rejectful moment.

Well, technically, under a different iteration, the team did win their first race, exactly ten years later

No, they didn't, Button won Hungary'06

I wasn't aware Brawn competed in 2006?

Salamander wrote:I wasn't aware Brawn competed in 2006?

Well, Button won in a Honda (a successor to BAR, so technically a different iteration of theirs).

Reject_Dom wrote:

Salamander wrote:I wasn't aware Brawn competed in 2006?

Well, Button won in a Honda (a successor to BAR, so technically a different iteration of theirs).

The point is the team won their first race under the Brawn name - first as in the first race where they were entered as Brawn, not first as in their first win as a team.

Salamander wrote:

Reject_Dom wrote:

Salamander wrote:I wasn't aware Brawn competed in 2006?

Well, Button won in a Honda (a successor to BAR, so technically a different iteration of theirs).

The point is the team won their first race under the Brawn name - first as in the first race where they were entered as Brawn, not first as in their first win as a team.

Well, that was pretty confusing - as their first race has multiple meanings

Reject_Dom wrote:

Salamander wrote:

Reject_Dom wrote:Well, Button won in a Honda (a successor to BAR, so technically a different iteration of theirs).

The point is the team won their first race under the Brawn name - first as in the first race where they were entered as Brawn, not first as in their first win as a team.

Well, that was pretty confusing - as their first race has multiple meanings

Yeah, because their first win was either the Dutch GP 1968 as an entrant (a Ken Tyrrell-entered Matra) or the Spanish GP 1971 as a constructor (the Tyrrell 001)...

(Essay Alert)

The Most rejectful moment, I can safely say, has to be the 2005 United States Grand Prix weekend. For Obvious reasons, not only listed by f1 rejects forum members but also Paul Stoddart, in his greatest pitlane interview ever.
__________

The first moment of F1 I was aware of, that I thought was rejectful, was in 1989, at the Portuguese Grand Prix.

Nigel Mansell, in a Ferrari with a Ferrari engine, with the #27 on his car, after doing very well biding his time behind Aryton Senna and Gerhard Berger, catching up with his team mate and passing quite masterfully amongst backmarkers...

...until his first pitstop, Mansell not only missed his pitbox , hitting a tyre that was meant for his car, not only reversing his Ferrari back into where it was supposed to go, a move which (I've not seen mentioned recently, but I believe still) is forbidden during a race, and then going back out to the race, not only to ignore the black flag to withdraw him from the race on several occasions, but to cap it all off by attempting to get past a championship chasing Ayrton Senna, and take both himself and the Brazilian out of the race when Mansell went for a gap, and Senna did what he always did in those situations...

...at the time I was a dumb kid (I'm a pretty dumb adult now so at least some things change), and I never understood certain rules (,still dont) , but Imagine that happening in one of the races leading up to the final 3 races of this season, there are certain parallels (but obviously the drivers are completely different).
__________

The most recent rejectful moment (bearing in mind I've missed nearly 2 whole seasons) has to be the Formula One Teams Association's attempt to form their own championship, in the midst of some radical changes attempted to be enforced by the former FIA President Max Moseley, as the combined arguments which were going to heavily shake up the world of F1, have pretty much backfired and malformed the racing environment in the years since.

The new regulations were to restrict budgets of all the f1 teams, rewarding those that remained under a cap of 50 million dollars(?) with certain technical gadgetry that were originally forbidden 15 years previously, and an attempt to introduce new teams to F1, the latter being the only thing it succeeded in doing.

The "cap" was seen as ambiguious by those in FOTA, there were a few months of political willy waving, even throwing teams like Force India and Williams out of their special club when those particular teams thought the changes were to be a good idea. The 2009 British Grand Prix was meant to be the weekend where FOTA were to break away and form their own championship, they didn't.

From 2010, the rules did not really change, except for mid race refuelling, that was no longer allowed, but the biggest change was the points structure, 25 points for the winner instead of 10, and the top ten finishers getting points instead of eight, as an attempt to "reward the lower, less successful and new teams" but thanks to the reliability of those in FOTA, it has pretty much (to me at least, so I could be wrong) appeard to be some kind of "protection" for those that were originally in those that wanted away in 2009.

The new teams that arrived in 2010, Except for HRT(, formerly Hispani(c)a, formerly Campos Meta, formerly Campos), on the assumption that this budget cap was being used, have quite cleraly struggled to break the FOTA Stranglehold. Until this year, Jules Bianchi finishing 9th in the 2014 at Monaco in a Marussia(, formerly Virgin, formerly Manor Motorsport), has put them above Sauber, leaving the only other team of the original "three at the back", Caterham(, formerly Lotus, formerly Lotus Racing, formerly litespeed) nowhere else to go but to find a new team name.

Moseley's personal habits were made public well before "Formula Elaborate Bluff" was at boiling point, meaning FOTA probably never took his attempt to radically change the landscape of F1 seriously, Max stood down as FIA President at the end of 2009.

Yeah, I think Formula Elaborate Bluff is pretty underrated in terms of rejectful moments - you could sense the whole time FOTA wasn't fully prepared to go through with it. At least it brought one of the best moments of the podcast with that "funeral" for FEB!

Salamander wrote:Yeah, I think Formula Elaborate Bluff is pretty underrated in terms of rejectful moments - you could sense the whole time FOTA wasn't fully prepared to go through with it. At least it brought one of the best moments of the podcast with that "funeral" for FEB!

While I agree that it wasn't ever going to really happen, I'm not sure you can call it rejectful, as it did get Mosely to abandon the cost cap and to step down/not run again for the Presidency, so it did sort of work.

Wallio wrote:

Salamander wrote:Yeah, I think Formula Elaborate Bluff is pretty underrated in terms of rejectful moments - you could sense the whole time FOTA wasn't fully prepared to go through with it. At least it brought one of the best moments of the podcast with that "funeral" for FEB!

While I agree that it wasn't ever going to really happen, I'm not sure you can call it rejectful, as it did get Mosely to abandon the cost cap and to step down/not run again for the Presidency, so it did sort of work.

I wouldn't necessarily say that it forced Mosely to step down from his position - I'd argue that was more down to losing the support of the delegates from the Middle East in the wake of the ANTSMSW5PG scandal, since their withdrawal of support left him exposed to those groups that were opposed to him and could disrupt his attempts to be renominated.

The other question is that, to a certain extent, is it necessarily the case that Max was fully committed to imposing a cost cap? The measure did have something that was rather typical of his style, which was to deliberately place a highly aggressive and extreme option on the table that he could potentially force through and to then persuade the other side to move towards a compromise that would probably be closer to what he actually wanted in the first place.
In this instance, there is a suggestion that Max's main objective was to force some sort of cost cutting measure through - not as extreme as a budget cap, but perhaps the eventual compromise of the Resource Restriction Agreements that the teams agreed upon as a private deal was the best he could hope for in a situation where the top teams were doing all they could to maintain the advantages they got from their financial musclepower.

mario wrote:

Wallio wrote:

Salamander wrote:Yeah, I think Formula Elaborate Bluff is pretty underrated in terms of rejectful moments - you could sense the whole time FOTA wasn't fully prepared to go through with it. At least it brought one of the best moments of the podcast with that "funeral" for FEB!

While I agree that it wasn't ever going to really happen, I'm not sure you can call it rejectful, as it did get Mosely to abandon the cost cap and to step down/not run again for the Presidency, so it did sort of work.

I wouldn't necessarily say that it forced Mosely to step down from his position - I'd argue that was more down to losing the support of the delegates from the Middle East in the wake of the ANTSMSW5PG scandal, since their withdrawal of support left him exposed to those groups that were opposed to him and could disrupt his attempts to be renominated.

The other question is that, to a certain extent, is it necessarily the case that Max was fully committed to imposing a cost cap? The measure did have something that was rather typical of his style, which was to deliberately place a highly aggressive and extreme option on the table that he could potentially force through and to then persuade the other side to move towards a compromise that would probably be closer to what he actually wanted in the first place.
In this instance, there is a suggestion that Max's main objective was to force some sort of cost cutting measure through - not as extreme as a budget cap, but perhaps the eventual compromise of the Resource Restriction Agreements that the teams agreed upon as a private deal was the best he could hope for in a situation where the top teams were doing all they could to maintain the advantages they got from their financial musclepower.

I don't know Mario, if only because the rules were so well fleshed out for the teams who agreed to it (bigger KERS, 4-wheel drive, movable aero just to name a few) which leads me to believe he was serious on some level. Ditto the "spec-engine" as the forms to apply to be the provider were quite detailed and available on the FIA's website. I know, because I printed them off and gave them to my father (an engine builder in real life as a joke). I doubt one would go to such lengths on a bluff.

However, I'm sure the actual cap number was negotiable. I think the original cap was only $50,000,000 which would barely fund the team, much less any of the "perks" allowed under the rules. I'm sure that Mosely would have agreed to quite a bit more spending so long as their was SOME limit, and it was less than the (then) current levels (which wouldn't have been hard to do).

Could Petrov binning it off the line at Suzuka qualify?

di Grassi binning it before lining up on the grid was much worse

Schumacher colliding with Albers (was it Albers?) on the way to the grid in China (was it China?) was equally as bad as di Grassi.

And who could forget Fisichella at Malaysia, twice lining up on the wrong grid slot

I think it's actually pretty cool but Andrea De Cesaris not even making to the end of a race in 1987. Still finished in 3rd in Belgium despite running out of fuel. This proves that De Cesaris is objective the best F1 driver of all time.

In terms of comedy value then Pele and the flag comes near the top. In terms of despicability, and it's never been proven, but the way Benetton, Briatore and Schumacher waged their 1994 campaign was beyond the pale. At least, up to a point, Piquet Jr could argue he was just doing as he was told but I believe Schumacher was complicit in some of the technical irregularites that the B194 seemed to benefit from.

Rob Dylan wrote:And who could forget Fisichella at Malaysia, twice lining up on the wrong grid slot

A forgotten classic!

He has a rejectful history at Sepang beside these troubles lining up he also had that incident with the other Jordan of Taku-San climbing on his rear-wing and a nice crash with Webber in 2005.
Then suddenly he decided to change his behaviour and won in 2006.

Fisi and Takuma had at least 4 incidents in the first half of season '02 (maybe I forgot one!).

First one: both out in pile-up in Australia
Second: Malaysian meeting in the second corner.
Third: Monaco: Taku crashing out when he thought it was smart to let Fisi overtake in the tunnel.
Fourth: Another hug at the first corner of the Nurburgring.

Fisichella also had three consecutive first-corner incidents in Turkey from 2006-8.

2006



2007



2008

I forti sopravivono wrote:Then suddenly he decided to change his behaviour and won in 2006.

IIRC the Renualt team accidentally put too much fuel in Alonso car for quali. Which then comprised his race. Otherwise I think 'Nando might have beaten Fisco as he usually did when they were teammates.

Sato had some truly reject moments of himself. Crashing out of quali in Australia 2005 just as his engineer his was telling him to take it easy due to the conditions.

Also I think his engineer Jock Clear had to give him instructions at the start of the race as to which gaps to go for like Bahrain 2005.

Just rewatched the 2009 Singapore GP and watching the two Toro Rossos come into the pits and retire right next to each other made me laugh quite a lot. Of course what happened to the Arrows in Spain 1998 was even sillier.