Just watching the review of the 1981 season it has suddenly dawned on me the real reason why the red flag was shown. I always thought it was a bit odd that it should have come out for a bit of rain. There were plenty of other mixed weather races that season and nobody had any problems changing tyres from wet to dry or vice versa during those events.
It does appear to me that the organisers of the Dijon race perhaps feared (or maybe were informed) the Renaults might not be as quick on a wet track as they were in the dry. More than likely the lighter and better handling DFV cars would have been superior in wet conditions. The only way to give the Renaults a chance would be to stop the race and start it again when the conditions were more suitable for the 1.5L turbo cars.
Whats the general opinion, was the race stopped for safety reasons or was it stopped to allow Alain Prost to claim his first victory?
French GP 1981
Started by
Chris Bloom
, Jul 10 2007 17:43
16 replies to this topic
Advertisement
#2
Risil
-
- 61,843 posts
- Joined: February 07
Administrator
Posted 10 July 2007 - 19:03
Although short-lived, the rain was incredibly heavy, and I guess the nature of the track (lots of sweepers, with what appears to be run-off, but then sharply dropping away ground and forests) would have made running under those conditions, however temporary (which obviously was not known at the time) unnecessarily dangerous. Also the pitlane at Dijon is quite narrow, and indeed there were not many race tracks that could accomodate 20+ cars all charging in needing new tyres (cf. Kyalami in 1979, where similarly sudden rainfall caused a stoppage). At Zolder that year the race was stopped before full distance due to a similar problem.
That said, your hypothesis does sound sadly plausible (although I'm in no position to judge).
That said, your hypothesis does sound sadly plausible (although I'm in no position to judge).
#3
F1Fanatic.co.uk
-
- 1,725 posts
- Joined: May 05
Member
Posted 10 July 2007 - 19:43
Strange how something very similar happened at Magny-Cours in 1992, in a race won by Williams-Renault.
But I wouldn't make a case suggesting they needed any help winning anything that year.
But I wouldn't make a case suggesting they needed any help winning anything that year.
#4
COUGAR508
-
- 1,184 posts
- Joined: February 07
Member
Posted 10 July 2007 - 20:14
The rain WAS quite heavy, and it just so happened that Michelin had some very effective, super-sticky tyres waiting in the pits for Alain to use when the weather cleared! I remember Piquet being particularly crestfallen about the turn of events on the re-start.
#5
Matt Hughes
-
- 375 posts
- Joined: September 04
Member
Posted 10 July 2007 - 23:30
Your cynicism is perfectly justified if the 1982 Swiss GP and Dijon is anything to go by.
I mean, had there ever been anything quite as blatant as a flag marshal trying to show the chequer a few laps early when the home nation's car was in the lead, and then eventually show it a few laps late in case it managed to overtake Rosberg? There were some seriously dodgy goings-on there, and given that the French public were paying a good amount of francs tax toward the running costs of the Renault F1 team at the time then you'd imagine that the 'powers that be' were more than happy to ease the Renault path to victory.
I mean, had there ever been anything quite as blatant as a flag marshal trying to show the chequer a few laps early when the home nation's car was in the lead, and then eventually show it a few laps late in case it managed to overtake Rosberg? There were some seriously dodgy goings-on there, and given that the French public were paying a good amount of francs tax toward the running costs of the Renault F1 team at the time then you'd imagine that the 'powers that be' were more than happy to ease the Renault path to victory.
#6
David M. Kane
-
- 5,402 posts
- Joined: December 00
Member
Posted 10 July 2007 - 23:32
Wasn't Balestre still in power too?
#7
HDonaldCapps
-
- 2,482 posts
- Joined: April 05
Member
Posted 10 July 2007 - 23:39
I am shocked, shocked I tell you....
#8
COUGAR508
-
- 1,184 posts
- Joined: February 07
Member
Posted 11 July 2007 - 19:45
The ironic thing was that Prost himself was highly embarrassed by the alleged attempts of the French motorsport establishment to favour him, both when he was at Renault and afterwards.
#9
Peter Morley
-
- 2,263 posts
- Joined: October 02
Member
Posted 12 July 2007 - 09:44
Did the 1984 Monaco GP not end in similar style?
#10
D-Type
-
- 9,706 posts
- Joined: February 03
Member
Posted 12 July 2007 - 10:18
So the Senna fanboyz say - personally I think Jackie Ickx red flagged the race because he genuinely decided that conditions were becoming impossible and that there was no pressure from Pporsche, the French speakers, Bernie or whoever.Originally posted by Peter Morley
Did the 1984 Monaco GP not end in similar style?
#11
Rockford
-
- 421 posts
- Joined: February 05
Member
Posted 12 July 2007 - 12:02
Originally posted by D-Type
So the Senna fanboyz say - personally I think Jackie Ickx red flagged the race because he genuinely decided that conditions were becoming impossible and that there was no pressure from Pporsche, the French speakers, Bernie or whoever.
I was only watching highlights of that race last night, and the conditions were really abysmal, the rain was bouncing off the track. It probably shouldn't have been started in the first place. And as for the Senna fanboyz, Bellof wasn't doing a bad job either..
#12
John B
-
- 7,963 posts
- Joined: June 99
Member
Posted 12 July 2007 - 14:22
As Cougar508 pointed out, tires were the big story that enabled Renault to claim victory. The French GP was the first race of Goodyear's midseason return, and their past teams like Williams and Brabham switched back to them after running on Michelins for the first half. Michelin was pretty pissed off that teams were dropping them after they went to the trouble to supply most/all of the grid, so they produced a number of different compounds to give their teams an edge. This became crucial because of the rain/sprint situation, because they had a tire suited to a short sprint. This was proven by Prost and Watson, and also Pironi who managed to recover to a top 5 with the terrible handling Ferrari (I think he may have passed NP on track, but finished behind due to aggregate time). So the stoppage obviously benefitted Prost and Renault.
On the other hand...the Goodyears proved to be nearly useless in the heavy rain at Montreal, much worse than the Michelins, so NP would have had his work cut out. In any event, his expression on the podium made race reports and Autocourse - not a happy person!
On the other hand...the Goodyears proved to be nearly useless in the heavy rain at Montreal, much worse than the Michelins, so NP would have had his work cut out. In any event, his expression on the podium made race reports and Autocourse - not a happy person!
#13
COUGAR508
-
- 1,184 posts
- Joined: February 07
Member
Posted 14 July 2007 - 16:51
Originally posted by Rockford
I was only watching highlights of that race last night, and the conditions were really abysmal, the rain was bouncing off the track. It probably shouldn't have been started in the first place. And as for the Senna fanboyz, Bellof wasn't doing a bad job either..
Yes, if you watch the footage of the bit where Prost comes to a halt just after the start/finish line, the rain is truly torrential. Looking back now, it was perfectly understandable that Ickx made that decision, although at the time the conspiracy theorists had a field day, adding 2 and 2 together and making 5.
Some of the theories were very spurious anyway, especially the assertion that Ickx's links with Porsche were a factor. They conveniently overlooked the fact that the engine in the McLaren was not really a Porsche engine as such, being badged as a TAG. Paranoia of this sort tended to be prevalent in the early to mid 1980s in F1.
In any event, Ickx was always his own man.
#14
Twin Window
-
- 6,611 posts
- Joined: May 04
Nostalgia Host
Posted 16 July 2007 - 20:48
Indeed it was - I got drenched.Originally posted by Risil
Although short-lived, the rain was incredibly heavy...
Same at Monaco three years later, although that day it was raining non-stop. And trust me; had it not been stopped early Bellof would have won it.
#15
MattFoster
-
- 4,831 posts
- Joined: May 00
Member
Posted 16 July 2007 - 21:25
Yes, if Monaco 84 has run its course Bellof would most likely had won, however it would have just been cruel if he had as Tyrrell got disqualified from the season so it wouldn't have stood as a win.
#16
Bill Becketts
-
- 344 posts
- Joined: July 06
Member
Posted 16 July 2007 - 21:32
Originally posted by Twin Window
Indeed it was - I got drenched.
Same at Monaco three years later, although that day it was raining non-stop. And trust me; had it not been stopped early Bellof would have won it.
......Before being disqualified for having a seriously underweight car as demonstrated by his team mate the previous day at Tabac. Brundle displayed the underside of the Tyrrell to the world's photographers and exposed the drain holes for the "Water cooled brakes"
I too was there and the rain started light, but got steadily worse..........Does anyone really think Ayrton would have let Herr Bellof past
#17
Twin Window
-
- 6,611 posts
- Joined: May 04
Nostalgia Host
Posted 16 July 2007 - 22:39
Originally posted by Bill Becketts
I too was there and the rain started light, but got steadily worse...
Tommy & I were absolutely saturated at least an hour before the start - which, IIRC, was delayed due to the standing water...
He wouldn't necessarily have had a choice in the matter. Myself, Tommy, David Kennedy, Fiona Butterfield, Gary Anderson and Jeremy Rossiter were all there together and - without exception - couldn't see Bellof losing it.
Does anyone really think Ayrton would have let Herr Bellof past
