I can't help feeling...

I always thought Peterson was the faster, but Chapman gave Andretti "preference" because it was he who developed the car(s) to the point where they began to win again. Plus Andretti was much better at setting up the car. Andretti helped pull Lotus up from the doldrums and Chapman (or Andretti?) wasn't about to let Peterson just waltz in and take the glory.

(I have plenty of F1 books around here that I haven't read in awhile. This is re-igniting my interest in F1 history).

I'm certainly not under suspicion to be an MS apologists, yet I have to say that many of your above arguments would also apply to his years alongside Irvine and Barrichello.

Yes, and it's clear that Barrichello and Irvine were plainly not in the same class as MS and had they been allowed to race freely the results would probably have been largely the same (OTTOMH I can only think of two occasions where Irvine was faster than MS and the first time team orders ended up costing Ferrari the drivers' title). It's just that Ferrari told the world they WERE allowed to race, and the one time Rubens DID have Michael beaten, he suddenly was not allowed to beat him.

[pedantic mode] Andretti won 6 WCGP races in 1978, and outqualified Peterson 11-3 [/pedantic mode]

Edited by Tim Murray, 24 September 2009 - 09:25.

With respect to Peterson, how many times in 1978 was he ahead of Andretti? There are lies, damned lies and statistics, but even so, in 1978:

-Andretti beat Peterson in qualifying 8-3;
-Mario led 459 laps, Ronnie 49 - 37 of which came at the same race, where Andretti was out at the start;
-Ronnie only ran seconnd for 211 laps, so he was not always right behind Mario;
-Mario had 5 wins, Ronnie 2;
-1 of Ronnie's wins came by taking the lead on the last lap, long after Mario had retired from the lead, and the other came when Mario crashed on the first lap.

Ronnie scored three poles, in two of those races Mario was ahead of Ronnie by the fifth lap, on the other Mario retired at the start.

Lotus' 1-2s came at Belgium, where Mario led all the way and Peterson only clinched second with four laps to go, at Spain, where Mario led almost from the start and Peterson only took second at three-quarter distance, at France, where Mario led all the way and Peterson took second on lap ten, and the Netherlands, which was the one race where Peterson would probably have won had they been racing - but only because Andretti had a broken exhaust after leading from the start.

Andretti doubtless was favoured with things like spare cars. But there was a reason. He was better than Peterson.

Wasn't Belgium the race in which Mario had the brand new 79 and Peterson still with the 78 ?

I will give you instantly the agreement that Andretti was the more complete driver than Peterson (Particularly with developing and setting up a car) Some of the stats you boost are a reflectuion of that. But definitely not everything. Ronnie was even denied the use of qualifying tires on at least one occasion because Chapman favoured Mario.

All you bring up here doesn't take away the bare fact that any danger that Ronnie could have been for Mario was eliminated by contract already.
With approval of Colin Chapman Himself.

If I use your logics then it is indeed more than defendable that MS was so heavily favoured over his teammates and is that indeeed your opinion?

Henri

Wasn't Belgium the race in which Mario had the brand new 79 and Peterson still with the 78 ?

...
Henri

No, that was Jarama, the first race of the 79 (in Andrettis hands). And then of course Monza, when Petersons 79 was destroyed in practice.

No, that was Jarama, the first race of the 79 (in Andrettis hands). And then of course Monza, when Petersons 79 was destroyed in practice.

Thanks for correcting me, I knew there was one race in which both drivers used different cars.
And with 79 being so superior it is unfair to rate pettersone being in th same position as mario, hence why I brought it up.

Thanks again pal,

henri

With respect to Peterson, how many times in 1978 was he ahead of Andretti? There are lies, damned lies and statistics, but even so, in 1978:

-Andretti beat Peterson in qualifying 8-3;
-Mario led 459 laps, Ronnie 49 - 37 of which came at the same race, where Andretti was out at the start;
-Ronnie only ran seconnd for 211 laps, so he was not always right behind Mario;
-Mario had 5 wins, Ronnie 2;
-1 of Ronnie's wins came by taking the lead on the last lap, long after Mario had retired from the lead, and the other came when Mario crashed on the first lap.

Ronnie scored three poles, in two of those races Mario was ahead of Ronnie by the fifth lap, on the other Mario retired at the start.

Lotus' 1-2s came at Belgium, where Mario led all the way and Peterson only clinched second with four laps to go, at Spain, where Mario led almost from the start and Peterson only took second at three-quarter distance, at France, where Mario led all the way and Peterson took second on lap ten, and the Netherlands, which was the one race where Peterson would probably have won had they been racing - but only because Andretti had a broken exhaust after leading from the start.

Andretti doubtless was favoured with things like spare cars. But there was a reason. He was better than Peterson.

With respect to Ensign14, there are also countless statements by Lotus employees, Rex Hart and Peter Warr being prominent amongst them, that indicate that Andretti was favoured in terms of new developments/parts, and furthermore, Ronnie's car was frequently 'sandbagged', denied qualifying tyres and forced to qualify with full tanks or at least 20 gallons of fuel. No 1978 comparison can be a fair one. Whilst Andretti may have been the more complete driver, Ronnie was undoubtedly faster given the same equipment, but then we are veering off topic!

No, that was Jarama, the first race of the 79 (in Andrettis hands). And then of course Monza, when Petersons 79 was destroyed in practice.

Thanks for correcting me, I knew there was one race in which both drivers used different cars.
And with 79 being so superior it is unfair to rate pettersone being in th same position as mario, hence why I brought it up.

Thanks again pal,

henri

Henri, you were right all along. Andretti won in Belgium in 79/2 with Peterson second in 78/2. They then both raced 79s in Spain.

Whilst Andretti may have been the more complete driver, Ronnie was undoubtedly faster given the same equipment, but then we are veering off topic!

By the standards of today Team Lotus and all the other teams of that era were run on quite limited budgets, many who weren't there would be surprised to learn of some of the economies that were, indeed had to be made. Although Lotus managed it more often than not, preparing two cars to exactly the same standard was a task beyond most of them, so written into contracts or not, it made perfect sense to have a 'favoured' driver, the one most likely to bring success to the team. Mario was fast and consistent, and he was also tremendously skilled from a technical point of view, the appeal to Chapman would have been that the two could almost read each other's minds when discussing car performance, just as it had been with Jim Clark. For all his qualities and undoubted speed, Ronnie was a much less safe bet where championships, even wins were concerned. In this area at least, criticism of Chapman is unreasonable and unfair, he was only doing what any other sensible team owner of that era would have done, in fact almost all of them did. Things were very different from today, where in comparison there seem to be almost unlimited amounts of cash to throw around, it certainly wasn't like that back in the 70s!

Henri, you were right all along. Andretti won in Belgium in 79/2 with Peterson second in 78/2. They then both raced 79s in Spain.

Really? Then my fault, I was talking from (obviously shaky) memory. I thought Spain was before Belgium in the calendar...

[pedantic mode] Andretti won 6 WCGP races in 1978, and outqualified Peterson 11-3 [/pedantic mode]

Yes, thanks. I think I was counting poles for the latter rather than qualifyings. God knows which race I missed for Andretti.

By the standards of today Team Lotus and all the other teams of that era were run on quite limited budgets, many who weren't there would be surprised to learn of some of the economies that were, indeed had to be made. Although Lotus managed it more often than not, preparing two cars to exactly the same standard was a task beyond most of them, so written into contracts or not, it made perfect sense to have a 'favoured' driver, the one most likely to bring success to the team. Mario was fast and consistent, and he was also tremendously skilled from a technical point of view, the appeal to Chapman would have been that the two could almost read each other's minds when discussing car performance, just as it had been with Jim Clark. For all his qualities and undoubted speed, Ronnie was a much less safe bet where championships, even wins were concerned. In this area at least, criticism of Chapman is unreasonable and unfair, he was only doing what any other sensible team owner of that era would have done, in fact almost all of them did. Things were very different from today, where in comparison there seem to be almost unlimited amounts of cash to throw around, it certainly wasn't like that back in the 70s!

In defence of Chapman I must indeed admit that working with two equal #1's: he had been there before: 1973. When neither Fitti, nor Ronnie was consistent enough all season long and Stewart took off with the title, even being able to forsake Watkins Glen....

And preferring Andretii over Ronnie, it made some sense that can't be denied.
But it can't be denied either that whatever thread Ronnie could have been for Mario: he was to some extend even less of thread then the Ferrari and/or Brabham drivers who, if they ever were in the position to do so, they could have a go at Mario, Ronnie couldn't.


Henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 24 September 2009 - 10:51.

While I completely agree with your point, I think there is another very significant aspect of this, and that's the TV time. It would take a lot of time to stop and restart a race and they could well run out of the usually allocated two hours, that's why it's necessary not to prolong a race if possible.

Yes, but only another argument, that "fairness" has to remain behind the "show" aspect now, so that´s the message to everybody involved in the sport. Maybe they should be even grateful to Briatore for keeping Formula 1 in the headlines...

In only wanted to point, that if there was any interest in a real fair procedure there would be a solution.

I thought Spain was before Belgium in the calendar...

A quite understandable mistake, I think. In the 1970s Spain came before Belgium in every year that both races ran - except 1978.

Yes, and it's clear that Barrichello and Irvine were plainly not in the same class as MS and had they been allowed to race freely the results would probably have been largely the same (OTTOMH I can only think of two occasions where Irvine was faster than MS and the first time team orders ended up costing Ferrari the drivers' title). It's just that Ferrari told the world they WERE allowed to race, and the one time Rubens DID have Michael beaten, he suddenly was not allowed to beat him.

No argument, we're on the same page in that regard. For me it's not about that a team hierarchy was in place, but how the participants handled that fact. And that difference couldn't have been greater in those two cases.

For the first part of your post I disagree, as team orders obviously were part of the sport since there were teams. I never understood why this partciular scene caused that kind of scandal, where there have been so many previous examples (not that I am Schumacher fan, but I would blame him rather for so many other unsporting acts than this one).

I fully agree on this one. Many times I have explained that motor racing has a few similarities with cycling that faded over years (especially due to rules). In cycling (you know the peddaling guys) most teams have a lead man aiming to win the race or tour, others are plain water bearers/slaves obeying team orders from a commendatore.

Ask Mario Andretti and any other still living Team Lotus team member who was supposed to win races in 1978 if it was between Mario himself and Ronnie Peterson to decide and fight for the wins. The so often loathed #1 driver policy by Ferrari (MS) and Renault (FA) was used in 1978 already by Team Lotus.....

The great 'what if' of the 1978 F1 season was nourished by the tragic events in Monza, the race before Monza where Ronnie remained in close contact with Mario for most part of the race and the many pictures of them together at Zandvoort that where used for the year books, magazines and countless other articles on 1978 and Lotus. It was a public secret then already that Ronnie was told to 'stay'.
But it remains the big 'if'.

Ronnie apparently couldn't set a car up. This was the main problem in his first stint at Lotus with the 72 - he couldn't input to developing the handling.
He may have been able to lap faster than Mario in a 78 or 79 but only after Mario had set the car up

Ronnie apparently couldn't set a car up. This was the main problem in his first stint at Lotus with the 72 - he couldn't input to developing the handling.
He may have been able to lap faster than Mario in a 78 or 79 but only after Mario had set the car up

Agreed, I never thought I'd find myself using this horrible Americanism, but in the circumstances, whatever it may have said in contracts, having Mario as de facto number one was a 'no-brainer'. After that, I'll go and wash my mouth out.

Going back to the Briatore business, what about this mysterious and so far unnamed 'Witness X', supposedly unearthed by Renault, who turned up at the FIA hearing to corroborate all that Nelson Junior said? What's the betting that he's going to wake up one morning to find that he's sharing his bed with a horse's head?

Does the fact that 'Witness X' seemingly knew about the plan suggest that Piquet, Briatore & Symonds weren't the only people in the team who knew about it?
If so, how does that fit in with the remarkably leanient penalty 'suffered' by the team on the basis that those 3 were the only players involved?

The only real upside to the whole thing would seem to be the possibility that Max might wake up with a horse's head next to him (but as we now know it is wrong to discuss his private life...) and Flav's departure of course.

Does the fact that 'Witness X' seemingly knew about the plan suggest that Piquet, Briatore & Symonds weren't the only people in the team who knew about it?
If so, how does that fit in with the remarkably leanient penalty 'suffered' by the team on the basis that those 3 were the only players involved?

The only real upside to the whole thing would seem to be the possibility that Max might wake up with a horse's head next to him (but as we now know it is wrong to discuss his private life...) and Flav's departure of course.

Mr X has been named as Alan Permane on some websites ,but I saw he was still on the pit wall on Sunday, so it seems unlikely

The only real upside to the whole thing would seem to be the possibility that Max might wake up with a horse's head next to him.

What Max gets up to in private is entirely his own affair (apparently), and anyway, would it still be bestiality if Max had got the horse to place a hoofmark on some kind of consent form? Knows all the legal dodges does our Mr Mosley.