Racing Incidents

[Peter Mallett]

Originally posted by ........

Was Jaques Villeneuve's move on Ralf in Canada avoidable. Yes it was, but I here no crys of favourtism towards Jaques!

Was Frentzens move on Rubens in Monza avoidable.
Yes it was, but I here no crys of favourtism towards Frentzen!

Was any action taken on Ayrton Senna for his deliberate shunt with Prost at Suzuka.

No, but I here no crys of favourtism towards Senna!

This was posted in another thread. The poster admits he has minimal experience having seen his first Grand Prix in 1994.

The point is that apart from the Senna/Prost incident, he's describing RACING incidents which are part and parcel of being a racing driver.

Of course all are avoidable but if you are racing you don't lift off.

Incidentally, the FIA was accused of favouritism in the Senna/Prost incident. Just like they were when they stripped MS of second in 1997 for his extremely avoidable move on Villeneauve at Jerez. Most right thinking people thought a two race ban at the beginning of '98 would be more suitable punishment.

It therefore appears that the newer race fans don't or can't differentiate between blatant cheating, aggressive but fair driving and out and out dangerous driving.

My list of "cheating" moves would include the Senna/Prost incident. It definitely includes the MS move on Hill in '94 and of course that move on JV at Jerez in '97.

The Prost/Senna chicane incident at Suzuka '89 was avoidable but I always put it down to a racing incident because Senna was so committed, Prost knew he was there and took his line in the knowledge that they would crash if Senna didn't back off. Two years later (1991) Senna finally admitted his culpability in their (1990) first corner crash and assumed that the FIA had been lenient because they (the FIA) felt that his punishment was too harsh after the 1989 incident.

[angst]

I've noticed this pattern too. There seems to be no difference in the minds of some younger fans between a deliberate act and an error of judgement made in the heat of the moment, as you say racing incidents. Further, there seems to be an acceptance of deliberate acts as part and parcel of modern racing. But I think the bottom line of all this is that the support seems to have become very partisan, almost like football supporters. I find this very odd. Although I have had my favourite drivers, I have always managed to keep a sense of perspective on those drivers and see the merits of others. As a Gilles Villeneuve fan, for example, I don't ever remember thinking " that Scheckter/Pironi/Jones/who-ever is ****, and isn't fit to be mentioned in the same breath as my hero" and I have trouble getting my head around this attitude at times.
In other words I think it is the partisan attitude of certain fans that leads them to try and excuse their favourite by ignoring the obvious differences in wholly unrelated incidents.
As an example, I used to have a soft spot for Reuteman, but couldn't condone his actions in Brazil '81 because he had agreed to his position within the team. If he had said before the race that he would not let his teammate through then fair enough. The same with Pironi and Imola, I still regard Pironi as one of the fastest but in other ways he went down in my estimation because of that.

[LYM]

The point is the definition orpopular opinions between agressive driving or a deliberate act changes over the years.

One cannot apply the same judgement as what they did from the 70s, 80s to the recent seasons. Yes there is a bottomline but the grey area is so wide most of the time it is up to individual's interpretation.

Don't forget that the recent drivers are under a lot more scutiny by the officials and TV audiences as well. That's why I always reluctant to compare drivers from different era. You never know out of Fangio's 5 titles, how many were won under deliberate cheating by the team or the driver do you?

[Liz]

I'll never have a good word to say about Pironi, but that has been covered before.

Peter, I agree with you, and would go so far as to say that a lot of the younger pilots seem to be taking advantage of this by giving interviews after a racing incident in which they loudly accuse Driver X of having punted him deliberately or "trying to kill me" and calling for any number of race bans for something that on replay proves to be one of those things that happens. Those who don't know how to judge for themselves, and who are favourably disposed toward the accusatory Driver Y will judge future racing incidents by what Driver Y said happened to him. Even when Driver Y later, after he has cooled off, has admitted that he was mistaken (for example, Rubens at Monza).

[Marshal]

Good topic Peter, from my view there are 3 types of accident that we're talking about.

Racing accidents - Jacques at Motreal this year is a good example, he made a mistake, ran into Ralf and appologised profusely. Fair enough, mistakes happen.

Accidents due to careless driving - Such as Diniz at Montreal and Hockenhiem. Both of these occured as he was not aware of the position of cars around him. Now I'm always amazed how aware formula drivers are of where the other cars around them are, but they definiteely seem to be, so when someone moves over on someone on a straight its a shock, but it should happen, the drive should be aware.

Deliberate accidents - This is where the driver causing the accident does it deliberately, for reasons such as championships. (No examples needed!)

In my view, the seriousness of how the accident should be treated increases as we go down the page. These accidents are not all the same, and I speak as someone who has seen an awful lot of accidents...

[Peter Mallett]

First of all an apology. It may seem from my original post that I was taking a pot shot at our more recent enthusiasts. I wasn't but I used the example to highlight the current perception.

Liz and Angst (RE GV). I think Pironi was possibly the first driver to invoke partisan feelings in Formula one. In his day I considered him the equivalent of what MS is now.

IMO he was not the cause of GV's death. It was the naivitee of GV in believing that a gentleman's agreement would be kept under the pressure of winning.

However you look at it though, I don't think Pironi ever cheated.

The popint about the possibility of Fangio cheating is of course valid but contemporary reports always placed his level of skill above the need for cheating.

Lym, makes the point that these drivers are under so much scrutiny. Absolutely, but surely we, in our position as observers, should be able to determine what is and is not a dangerous (in terms of the skills we are talking about) move?

That's why I never really thought that the "MS Swerves" were dangerous or cheating this year because his opponents were a) watching him and b) his determination is never in doubt.

Maybe we have a problem with impetuosity. A lot was said about Button's move on Fissichella at Spa. Yet I just thought it was maybe ambitous. In truth, if Fissichella had given Button some room he (Fissi) would actually have got better traction out of the corner and down the hill and would have been ahead by Eau Rouge.

Still its interesting to think back through the years. What about Arnoux and Villenaeuve at Dijon? They banged wheels and generally fought like rock apes all round the circuit for the last five or six laps. Nobody considered that dangerous. And yet the cars are safer now but we cry "cheat" or dangerous driving at the first hint of firm or aggressive driving.

[Dan Friel]

Peter,

I was about to refer to exactly the same incident(s)- Dijon is an interesting one.. it's always reffered to as some of the best racing ever... however, if you watch the tape - they make contact about 20 times!! And most of those could have been avoided, perhaps some were even delibrate.. is it the best racing ever?? Or just dangerous??

[angst]

The race between Vlleneuve and Arnoux at Dijon could be seen as dangerous, but I think it was two drivers pushing each other very hard and not giving an inch to the other and trying to asset their right to the lines they had chosen. Similarly in alot of incidents (and Trulli/Button at Spa is a good example) the responsibility lies with both drivers to a greater or lesser extent. If one driver tries something a little over-ambitious then the other driver turning in is bound to result in contact. Button didn't deliberately ram Trulli, and Trulli didn't deliberately cut off his line....a racing incident.
Alot of the changes in perception, particularly among the drivers, is the increase in safety, so there is less need to allow for fellow driver's mistakes. Reading the chapter on Chris Amon in Nigel Roebuck's 'Grand Prix Greats', you realise that alot of the racing 'rules' were set up because of the danger to opponents or themselves of, say, not giving enough room to a driver who has miscalculated an overtaking manouvre.
But that doesn't mitigate a driver who deliberately attempts to take an opponent off the track, or out of the race, and I think that much one can pretty much judge.
Also, moves like the swerves at the start of GPs are a bit more ambiguous, in as much as, with the whole field bunched up the consequences of any collision at the front of the grid could be disastrous. As Senna at Imola showed, increased safety does not mean absolute safety. It also seems to me to be something of a cheat, the same as messing up a corner and just throwing your car in to the line of the car immediately behind you. ie you have cocked up the start/corner your opponent has done better and all you are doing is sabotaging their drive with a 'brake or we crash' attitude. That's my opinion on it, but others see it differently.

[Peter Mallett]

Well the idea is to get ahead and stay there. Whilst I have no F1 experience I can tell you that it is possible to anticipate another competitor's moves (see the write-ups from my last race) and therefore avoid unnecessary contact.

These guys are paid to be that good aren't they?

I can still picture GV and Arnoux knocking each other off the track. Was it exciting. Most definitely but dangerous. I don't think the subject ever came up. Do we remember that it was the very first win for a turbocharged car? Nope. We just remember the battle for second place.

[angst]

Well, by that way of thinking then it would be perfectly acceptable to weave all the way down a straight while somebody tries desparately to slipstream past, first one way then the other. After all you are ahead, and it is your right to try and stay there. I think you would agree that that course of action would be dangerous and unsporting. So the FIA said it's OK to have one move accross the track. My understanding of this was that a driver may want to change his positioning on the track totake the following corner correctly/defensively. Then a whole new interpretation has been added, so that a driver can pull accross an opponent, even though this is not the line he wishes to take for the next corner (first corner at the start) and then drift back onto the line that they wish to be on. This strikes me as very different to what had previosly been understood.
The thing that makes it so dangerous at the start is that, because it relies on a driver to brake quite violently, in an environment where there are many speed differentials anyway, and where drivers are trying to gain positions over slower starters. ie there is already alot of confusion and potential for accidents, and it seems irresponsible to me to add further (and very dramatic) complications.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally posted by angst
Well, by that way of thinking then it would be perfectly acceptable to weave all the way down a straight while somebody tries desparately to slipstream past, first one way then the other. After all you are ahead, and it is your right to try and stay there. I think you would agree that that course of action would be dangerous and unsporting. So the FIA said it's OK to have one move accross the track. My understanding of this was that a driver may want to change his positioning on the track totake the following corner correctly/defensively. Then a whole new interpretation has been added, so that a driver can pull accross an opponent, even though this is not the line he wishes to take for the next corner (first corner at the start) and then drift back onto the line that they wish to be on. This strikes me as very different to what had previosly been understood.
The thing that makes it so dangerous at the start is that, because it relies on a driver to brake quite violently, in an environment where there are many speed differentials anyway, and where drivers are trying to gain positions over slower starters. ie there is already alot of confusion and potential for accidents, and it seems irresponsible to me to add further (and very dramatic) complications.

Well, I take your point but when a driver overtakes somebody the chances are that he/she will actually be going into a corner "off line" therefore they will be slower out of it and will need to defend the position for a short distance.

You are right about constant weaving but then you need long straights to put that into practice. We don't have any tracks wjere that happens unless you count Indy. And there we saw that the cars slipstreamed along the straights and then overtook into the slow corner at the end. Classic moves where the folowing driver needed some spact to get past but was ably blocked due to the configuration of the corner.

I think the FIA'srules are misleading. In any other class of racing you are allowed to move accross the track but you must not take up more than 50% of the width. That seems fair to me. BTW. We are talking here about cars and drivers that are generally "evenly" matched.

However yopu also need to think back to Jarama in 1978? GV held back a train of cars for virtually the whole race and he was praised for it. Perception again.

[angst]

Gilles' win at Jarama '81. Fine win. There he basically used the superior power of his Ferrari to stay ahead on the straights and taking the right lines to keep his followers behind. As far as the rules regarding moving across the track, but no more than 50% well, I will have to watch the replays again but I think at least one of TGF's starts may have been classified as illegal under those rules.
But, point taken about perceptions. It is only my opinion, but I do feel uncomfortable with them. As I say, if somewone is having to slam the anchors on to avoid a car swerving across their path, in the middle of all the hurly-burly of a standing start, and with 22 cars jostling for position then if it's not illegal then I would certainly see it as irresponsible .
But back to the original point, I know TGF isn't trying to deliberately push anyone off the track in that instance, but it does bring another dimension into the equation. What is deemed as an irresponsible action? That is a grey area.
I will point out here, before his fans start to barrack me, that I do not condemn TGF for the moves, I condemn (from my personal observation of the situation) the FIA , in that a marker should have been set down by the FIA about the driver's responsibilities to the whole field at the start of the race. If TGF is told what he is doing is correct then why should I condemn him?

[Liz]

Saying Pironi didn't cheat is like Gore saying "There is no controlling legal authority" about whether or not it is legal to take obviously illegal campaign contributions. It is a bit of a weasel, in other words. Still, I might have grudgingly conceded him the point if only he had not lied about why he did it - and perhaps if Ferrari had not agreed with his lying. In the end it was Gilles' bitterness that killed him ... but if Pironi had been a man about it, perhaps it would not have happened.

Anyway, it is for them to work out where they are now.

I notice that Peter Sauber's take on the demo run his cars made in Malaysia on city streets was "Pedro managed to not kill anyone," so I would say his boss (or ex boss?) agrees with those who question his attention span if nothing else.

And as far as favoritism goes, Senna's general response to those who pointed out that he was guilty of things that he condemned in others was, "But I am Senna." Perhaps one component of being judged by the press and public as one of the best is the personal opinion that one is above the law.

[TimD]

Thinking of the weaving and blocking, and the mention of Ayrton Senna.

Do you remember that classic Monaco GP of 1992, which broke Nigel Mansell's run of consecutive victories in his champion year?

Nigel pitted a very few laps from the end for tyres, and came out right behind Senna. Ayrton then spent the remainder of the race inches ahead of Nigel, not weaving, but keeping Nigel on his toes with sudden and random brake tests.

Ayrton would come out of a corner, hit the throttle for the straight, and then give the brakes a good stomp right in the middle of the acceleration curve. The telemetry would have proved it, even if Ayrton and Nigel hadn't joked in public afterwards about what went on.

I find it fascinating that hundreds of lesser drivers would have found themselves in a big accident with those kinds of tactics, but Ayrton was confident in Nigel that he would be able to react evasively, and Nigel had that billionth in reserve that meant he could tackle those sorts of tactics.

[Valve Bounce]

Great Thread, Peter. I enjoyed reading all the posts. There is one way of avoiding all that mad weaving at starts: paint a line down the middle of the track for the first 100 (or so) metres from the start line, and stipulate that cars must remain on their side of that line until the end of the line; the only exception is when a car is stalled on the grid, and following cars have to take evasive action to avoid an accident.
What do you guys think??

[Peter Mallett]

Originally posted by TimD
Thinking of the weaving and blocking, and the mention of Ayrton Senna.

Do you remember that classic Monaco GP of 1992, which broke Nigel Mansell's run of consecutive victories in his champion year?

Nigel pitted a very few laps from the end for tyres, and came out right behind Senna. Ayrton then spent the remainder of the race inches ahead of Nigel, not weaving, but keeping Nigel on his toes with sudden and random brake tests.

Ayrton would come out of a corner, hit the throttle for the straight, and then give the brakes a good stomp right in the middle of the acceleration curve. The telemetry would have proved it, even if Ayrton and Nigel hadn't joked in public afterwards about what went on.

I find it fascinating that hundreds of lesser drivers would have found themselves in a big accident with those kinds of tactics, but Ayrton was confident in Nigel that he would be able to react evasively, and Nigel had that billionth in reserve that meant he could tackle those sorts of tactics.

Absolutely right Tim. And your point about lesser drivers is valid. Maybe its the lack of skills due to the current cares which makes these tactics appear more dangerous.

VB. I'm not sure I would like to see that but it is a solution.

[Tris]

Hi all!

My opinion on Dijon was that after the race Pironi and Villeneuve leapt into each other’s arm and embraced each other after the race. Thus showing that what you do on the track was largely governed by what was acceptable to the other drivers. All the other drivers said Gilles was very fair on the track, he would race hard but you could trust him not to put you into the barrier. I know there has been a lot of flack on Jacques after his indecent at Canada this year but it kin of reminded me of Gilles at Silverstone in 1981 racing indident. Persoanlly I would prefer to see drivers trying harder rather than hanging in for teh points.

Look at Zandvoort in 79 when Gilles took Jones around the outside of Tarzan. Jones was a hard racer but he would have never though of squeezing Villeneuve out, something that I do not believe all today's drivers would have done.

As for weaving... I think the first real memorable (for me) incident of that was Mansell at Detroit in '84 all that weaving and brake testing to Keep Rosberg behind. I was and still amazed that he was not black flagged.

I think the one of the main reasons that you do not get to see this kind of thing now are due to the regulations but that is another topic entirely. I personally think that F1 has become too PC. Driver’s can’t express them selves properly, on the track or in a press conference.. Coulthard and Dennis made some comments about the FIA this year that most people accept as fact. They were labelled as whiners. If a driver like Jacques Jnr or Schumacher does anything on the track that is out of the ordinary they are labelled as dangerous.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally posted by Tris
Hi all!

My opinion on Dijon was that after the race Pironi and Villeneuve leapt into each other’s arm and embraced each other after the race.

Tris,

It was Arnoux and Villeneauve but you are right. They believed that was what racing was about.

And they respected each other. The same with Senna, Prost and Mansell. All three got to a level of understanding which allowed them to race closely without endangering theirs or anyone else's life.

Remember Barcelona 1992? Mansell and Senna wheel to wheel down the staight? No more than 100mm apart (from the camera angle) and they were both trying to out-psyche the other.

[Tris]

[QUOTEIt was Arnoux and Villeneauve but you are right. They believed that was what racing was about.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Hi Peter

Do'h! I knew that.... my brain is scrambled at the moment.

As for out psyching each other. I think a classic example of this was at Silverstone in 1994. Schumacher was very clever psychologically. Practice starts like that heh heh! Ok so it backfired but I though it would have rattled Hill more than it did.

I think the time that Senna squeezed Prost nearly into the pit wall at Estoril in 88 was a classic bit of on track psychology. Not exactly fair but it put out the right message.

Back to racing incidents. What do you make of the Senna / Mansell Estoril 89 incident? Did Mansell do it on purpose?

[Peter Mallett]

Hmm,

That was after receiving the black flag and Mansell shouldn't have even been on the track. He didn't deserve the black flag in the first place because it wasn't his fault it was the team's. Having said that, he was flagged and should have stopped. He deserved the punishment for it.

But it was exciiting wasn't it?

[Gt_R]

it sure beats a hell out of current F1.

I wish it would rain at every GP next year. perhaps racing would be as interesting as Nurburgring, Germany and USA 2000~~~

[Gt_R]

it sure beats a hell out of current F1.

I wish it would rain at every GP next year. perhaps racing would be as interesting as Nurburgring, Germany and USA 2000~~~.

i realised that every year's (at least these 2 years) Spanish and Hungary GP's are the more (if not most) boring races...

[Tris]

Originally posted by Peter Mallett
Hmm,

That was after receiving the black flag and Mansell shouldn't have even been on the track. He didn't deserve the black flag in the first place because it wasn't his fault it was the team's. Having said that, he was flagged and should have stopped. He deserved the punishment for it.

But it was exciiting wasn't it?

I would not say that it was the teams fault....

Coming into the pit-lane too hot Mansell locked up his wheels under braking and slid past his pit box. The mechanics ran to pull him back but ignoring his lollypop man Mansell selected reverse gear and reversed back into the pit box. Reversing in the pit lane was (and still is) illegal and Mansell was shown the black flag for three laps after he rejoined the track after his pit stop. He was fighting with Senna for second place and claimed he did not see the black flag for the three laps it was shown. To make matters worse Mansell tried for a gap that was not there into turn one and both he and Senna were eliminated. Mansell and Senna were about 50% 50% to blame for the accident but Mansell should have not been there. He was to be banned form the next race in Spain and Ferrari got a $50,000 fine for not pulling him in.

Senna after hearing all this believed that Mansell having reversed in the pit-lane knew he was going to be black-flagged and thus Senna said that he believed that Mansell took him out on purpose!

[Peter Mallett]

Blimey.

What a memory! You are right of course. Mansell was wrong but I got confused with the time when his wheel fell off as he was leaving the pits.

[Tris]

Originally posted by Peter Mallett
Blimey.

What a memory! You are right of course. Mansell was wrong but I got confused with the time when his wheel fell off as he was leaving the pits.

It's just that I am sad...