128 replies to this topic

[HistoryFan]

Ah okay, as Alex Wurz is today at Williams.

[Lee Towers]

He was a mentor/driver coach to Pedro Diniz, I believe.

A full time job then

[William Hunt]

I wonder, after all these years, is there still no-one who knows the real story about why Ferrari dumped René after race 1 in 1985?

We know that there are stories about cocaïne and the grand daughter of Enzo Ferrari or the official story of a problem with his leg but they could all be made up stories. It's strange really that they managed to keep that a secret for so long. In these days of internet that would have been more difficult.

I thought Arnoux was a marvelous driver, he was so bloody quick in that Renault, often quicker as Prost, and he could have won the title in '83. In '86 he also still had several excellent drives in the Ligier imho. Pitty he had a poor car in his final 3 F1 years but then he wasn't too young anymore by then. Maybe he should have stopped 2 years sooner. I miss drivers like René these days in F1: he had a lot of charisma, a wild image, working class roots and nowadays he is known as a kind gentleman.

[PCC]

I wonder, after all these years, is there still no-one who knows the real story about why Ferrari dumped René after race 1 in 1985?

There are many who know. They choose not to speak, and I trust their judgement.

[eldougo]

Really do not care i will always think of him as a good racer that got the best out of his cars.

[William Hunt]

On the F3000 team DAMS (nowadays GP2 / World Series), the name stands for Driot Arnoux Motor Sport so he was involved when that team was created but when did he get out and how much was he involved?

Edited by William Hunt, 06 August 2013 - 14:32.

[HistoryFan]

I think he wasn't yet involved as the team decided to got to F1 in the mid 90s.

[La Sarthe]

I've always been impressed that, whatever lay behind his sacking at Ferrari, he kept his council then and continues to do so. There might be a legal reason for this, but nevertheless he just seemed to shrug his shoulders and get on with life.

[ghinzani]

Rene was an engine builder for Conrero in Italy at an early stage too wasnt he? When was the last time a lowly mechanic got to F1 eh? not for a while.

[JackMcFadden]

Hi: I can't say for sure, but after René won in Montréal, 1983, I took the subway back to town, and I swear it was M. Arnoux beside me, giving me a weak smile.

Jack

[Doug Nye]

No schadenfreude. Only the need of being desired (don't forget : the journalist isn't the formula 1 driver or the lead guitarist. His ego needs compensations for that ...

Amusingly close to the truth in several cases that I can recall - but please don't take this jaundiced notion as applying to all who have scribbled about top-line motor sport. Not every specialist journo is a frustrated superstar racing driver. Indeed, most racing writers of my acquaintance accepted very early on that they could never do it themselves, but the game interested and attracted them so much that if there was a way 'in' by writing about it, then that's what they would do instead. I agree it is quite naughty to infer that one has inside knowledge that one could not possibly share, "...but hey, I know the unutterable truth, so you less well-connected mortals can chew on that". Bad, isn't it. But naughtiness is sometimes easy to commit, and only when you see it printed in stark black and white does it seem the wrong thing to have done.

DCN

Edited by Doug Nye, 12 August 2013 - 09:33.

[Thundersports]

Rene is making a comeback in Historics at the Monaco Historique driving a Ferrari B3. Good luck to him.

[Lee Nicolle]

Rene was an engine builder for Conrero in Italy at an early stage too wasnt he? When was the last time a lowly mechanic got to F1 eh? not for a while.

An engine builder is generally far more than a mechanic.

The average mechanic maintains and repairs road cars. Most are competent at that, they can assemble an engine that comes back from being machined. Some can even double check clearances. And even there you get the engine machined as you want it.

But engine building is an art that your average mechanic only has a vague idea on. A lot of thought is required. The reason many good engine builders are not trained. Mechanics get this is how it is done at trade school. But not why and what is the altenatives.

Unless they read up or work with engine builders.

As a some time engine builder and  an engine sealer for a spec class I have seen the very best and very worst machining and assembly.

And having been roped in to helping other competitors pro built engines I have seen more than the odd boo boo there. Including on Supercar engines. 

[Steve99]

Rene is making a comeback in Historics at the Monaco Historique driving a Ferrari B3. Good luck to him.

 Good to hear ! It was Rene who got me 'into' F1 and motor racing when I was a youngster.

[William Hunt]

In an interview, early 2017, with Brenda Vernor, who was Enzo Ferrari's personal secretary throughout most of her life (and als the fiancée of Mike Parkes at the time he died in a traffic accident), for the Motorsport Magazine she said the following that should shed a light:

 

"She won’t admit to having favourites, but some drivers figure larger in her stories, especially those she’s still in touch with – Arnoux, Scheckter, Tambay, Alesi. “They were all my boys. René Arnoux never grows up. He’s always the same, a heart of gold. I won’t have anything said against him. Unfortunately he’s very naïve and he gets into the wrong company who lead him astray…”  

 

Vernor did not seem to like Alain Prost at all.

 

And on René's personality. My brother, who's a photographer, once met him, at Goodwood I think, and he told me that René's one of the most charming and nicest people he ever met in the autosport world.

I always liked him (and strongly disliked Prost) but Ferrari made a wrong decision by keeping Arnoux and letting go Tambay imho. Patrick was not as spectacular as Renée but, unlike Alboreto & Arnoux, Tambay was a much better test driver and able to develop a car, huge mistake by Ferrari if you ask me. I also believe that Patrese would have been a better choice as Alboreto for Ferrari for '84 so I would have opted for Tambay-Patrese as the line-up.

And if they wanted to get rid of Tambay... John Watson was also on the market, I think he was a pretty good test driver as well but probably not as good as Tambay.

in '86 Arnoux still had some pretty good drives, he still had pace then but he should have stopped after '87 really, he continued too long and in his final year, '89, newcomer Olivier Grouillard outpaced him and was clearly performing better.

The Alfa Romeo debacle in the winter of '86 really wasn't that much Arnoux' fault, yes he said that the engine wasn't good but FIAT had just bought Alfa Romeo and they didn't want Alfa Romeo in F1 anymore (they already were present with Ferrari) and FIAT was looking for a way out so they just used Arnoux as the scapegoat. Alfa Romeo had also bought Brabham end of '86 and Fiat didn't allow them to compete with Brabham either, they even refused to give the new engine to Osella who were using an engine from '82-'83...

Edited by William Hunt, 19 June 2020 - 00:24.

[guiporsche]

Forghieri likewise preferred to have kept Tambay rather than Arnoux due to his capability of giving technical feedback and developping a car (something Arnoux was definitely not known for). Against him Tambay had the fact that his physical condition was not the best (back problems). He also fell out with Piccinini who (on Tambay's view) preferred to keep Arnoux. Meanwhile, the Old Man, so the story goes, wanted Arnoux not only for his speed but for memories of Paul Ricard 79 and all that it entailed.

Alboreto was bound to join Ferrari since he had made a mark with Tyrrell, for before that he had already talked with Ferrari. He was fast, motivated, and had the 156/85's development rate kept up with Mclaren he could have been world champion in 85. There is the story of Ferrari losing that WDC by switching from KKK to Garrett out of conspiracionist fears that KKK was benefitting Mclaren/Porsche but everyone forgets that Renault (for 84) and Brabham (for 85) did exactly the same. The 'truth' was that the V6 120° was getting long in the tooth, did not allow a good streamlined coca-cola section, and that Ferrari still did not have its own wind-tunnel ready. 

Just like today, the drivers were definitely not the reason why Ferrari did not win (more).

 

Alfa-Romeo wasn't really on F1 since 1984, when Euroracing was put in charge of running the F1 program. Even before that things were not designed in house: aero was done in France, the monocoques in England, engines in Italy. It was a mess. Ducarouge in 82 for GP International recalls having a hard time trying to figure out just how the whole setup worked. Fiat's question in the late 80's was what to do with Autodelta-Alfacorse and its talented engineers, at a time when Abarth was taking care of rallying and the half-hearted LC2 effort in endurance, while Alfa was doing badly financially but still needing to compete to strenghten its sporting image and sell more but did not have enough funds of its own to mount a winning challenge in any leading competition, be-it F1 or out of F1. There was no way that it would have been allowed to mount its own F1 effort against Ferrari - it did not make any sense from any perspective and still does not.  

 

On the 4-cylinder Alfa engine, ing. Pino d'Agostino gave an interview to Motorsport.com (Italia) last month and without going too much technical, he basically admitted that the engine had key design mistakes (incidentally, he also goes on with some detail on Alfa's Indy effort). So the 4-cyl would not have been competitive - at all (especially if one thinks of the Honda or even the Ferrari V6 90° of 87-8, or the final Ford of 87). With Arnoux or without Arnoux, that engine would have never raced.

The true potential lay on the V10 Alfacorse designed in 1986, ahead of Honda and Renault - but precisely for that reason, how good would it have been in 89 or 90? In which car and with whose money would it have been developped and with which sporting goals? Ferrari anyways, would always run with the V12, which in 89-90 still compared well with the competition.

Edited by guiporsche, 18 June 2020 - 09:47.

[jcbc3]

. Ducarouge in 82 for GP International recalls having a hard time trying to figure out just how the whole setup worked. Fiat's question in the late 80's was what to do with Autodelta-Alfacorse and its talented engineers, at a time when Abarth was taking care of rallying and the half-hearted LC2 effort in endurance, while Alfa was doing badly financially but still needing to compete to strenghten its sporting image and sell more but did not have enough funds of its own to mount a winning challenge in any leading competition, be-it F1 or out of F1. There was no way that it would have been allowed to mount its own F1 effort against Ferrari - it did not make any sense from any perspective and still does not.  ...

 

I also seem to remember a GP International article about Ducarouge after he made the miracle Lotus 94T where someone said that his biggest obstacle at Alfa wasn't his competency but that his name wasn't Ducaroni....

[William Hunt]

....The 'truth' was that the V6 120° was getting long in the tooth, did not allow a good streamlined coca-cola section, and that Ferrari still did not have its own wind-tunnel ready. ...

Just like today, the drivers were definitely not the reason why Ferrari did not win (more).

 

 

Question: what does "a good streamlined coca-cola section" mean? I completely did not understand what you are talking about there, in particular the "coca cola section" description.

On the wind-tunnel. A couple of days ago I saw Stefan Johansson (great guy) talking about his carreer in a pod cast.
Stefan said that when he was driving for Ferrari (as Arnoux' replacement) in '85-'86 they would test a huge amount of time between grand prix, almost daily. Him and Michele (and I assume also Johnny Dumfries in '85 since he was hired as test driver) would start the day testing, then have lunch with 'il commendatore' and then had to test again in the afternoon 'until the sun went down'. Enzo Ferrari would all that time keep watching them outside on a chair.

Stefan then said that their competitors, like McLaren, would spent a lot of time working in their wind-tunnel whilst Ferrari didn't do this and let their drivers run around Fiorano until the evening fell. And that was not so efficient according to Johansson because the configuration of Fiorano was different from many other tracks so if a wing suited the car at Fiorano and Michele said 'great wing' to the engineers they would then arrive at Zeltweg for the Austrian GP and find out that this new wing didn't work at all at the Östereichring, which is logical off course considering how much faster the corners in Zeltweg where compared to Fiorano.
So Johansson seems to suggest that Ferrari still had no wind-tunnel in 1986 (or they didn't use it that much).
Stefan also mentioned that Enzo Ferrari only really cared about the engine since he thought it was the most important part of the car. Now I knew that Enzo had this mentality (that the engine is the most important part of the car) but I assumed he had changed his mind at least a bit after the introduction of ground effect and downforce / aerodynamics becoming more and more crucial in the 1980's. Ferrari also waited too long to switch to turbo and in particular waited too long to jump on ground effect.

 

If you consider all this, Ferrari putting so much emphasis on live testing (and not on wind-tunnel development), then it's even more silly that they let go a driver like Patrick Tambay, who was an immaculate test driver and one of the best in describing the car's behaviour to engineers.
At the time McLaren had Niki Lauda & Alain Prost: both great test drivers (Prost learned a lot from Lauda on that matter in '84 but both were great developers) and Brabham had with Nelson Piquet another driver who was technically strong and also ranks among the very best test drivers there ever were. And Ferrari chose to keep a driver who was agressive, quick & spectacular but a very poor car developer who's feedback would not be of much use when compared to Tambay and they partnered him with a driver, Alboreto, who also wasn't the greatest test driver around (at least at that stage in his carreer). Renault in the meantime picked up Tambay who's skills were more than welcome to them.

Edited by William Hunt, 19 June 2020 - 00:56.

[Tim Murray]

Question: what does "a good streamlined coca-cola section" mean? I completely did not understand what you are talking about there, in particular the "coca cola section" description.

Since the 1980s the shape of the bodywork on F1 cars when viewed from above has been said to resemble the shape of a Coca Cola bottle:



The tighter the ‘neck of the coke bottle’ where the bodywork wraps around the engine and transmission at the rear of the car, the greater the scope for increasing downforce and reducing drag at the rear of the car.

[William Hunt]

On Arnoux and the French GP of 1982. It's in a way very hypocritical of people / fans to blame Pironi for ignoring team orders (that are disputed by some) at Imola but at the same time applauding Arnoux (France '82) and Reutemann (Brazil '81) for ignoring team orders. This is contradictory.

 

Now I thought Arnoux won that French GP on merit: he finished 17 secs ahead of Prost and had a lot of bad luck that year + he was quicker as Prost (René had 4 pole positions compared to 2 for Prost at that point in the season) and he really deserved that win, there were still 5 races after France so I thought those team orders were out of order, especially since it was in France and how much a win there would mean to any French driver.

 

In Reutemann's case it happened only in the 2nd race of the season, simply outrageous, especially when you consider that Carlos only missed out on the world title by 1 point in a team that didn't support him (they backed Jones as their lead driver up until the end of the season even though Carlos could have won that title as well). The San Marino GP of '82 only was the 4th race of the season so the drivers should have been allowed to battle it out on the track imho.

But my point is: it's unfair to blame Pironi and at the same time praise Arnoux & Reutemann for doing the same as Pironi did (ignoring team orders) and on top of that Ferrari held out 'slow' orders (meaning save fuel) and not 'hold' orders (meaning don't overtake each other, hold position). Arnoux actually became more popular after his French win whilst Pironi became hated for his Imola win, makes you wonder.... Schumacher was also hated for winning in Austria 2002 because Barrichello had to move over, all the fans back then were saying that Rubens should not have moved over...

 

As someone who strongly disliked Prost I was and still am off course very happy that Arnoux ignored those team orders   

Edited by William Hunt, 19 June 2020 - 06:15.

[Nemo1965]

Regarding the firing of Arnoux (and the same applies for the sacking of Prost at Ferrari or the neglect Lauda suffered after his accident in 1977) and even perhaps Sebastian Vettel: at Ferrari there does not have be a real reason (like a romance with the grand-daughter of this or that person... in the history of Ferrari, there are so many stories of a political wind developing against a driver and if (like Lauda with Di Montezemolo and Schumacher with Todt) you don't have a strong ally WITHIN the management, as a driver you will be slowly buried, like your feet slowly sink in the shallow the surf...

 

The most famous example is John Surtees... he and Enzo Ferrari really liked each other... Surtees was probably the best driver Ferrari could have at that time... but still Enzo allowed all kinds of machinations against Surtees which led to his sudden departure on the eve of the Le Mans 24h hours race...

 

One quick anecdote to illuminate: Lauda writes in his first autobiography why Clay Regazzoni lost his favour with Enzo Ferrari. The main reason? Clay had made the infamous decision to start selling Clay Regazzoni-jeans... and the name of the jeans, as so often, was put smack bottom at the bottom of the jeans... which enraged Enzo. Why? Because Clay had used the Ferrari-symbol, the Cavallino Rampante ("prancing horse")... the shame, the scandal! Enzo had seen girls in Maranello, with on their asses the the sacred cavallino rampante! 

[AJCee]

“Ferrari also waited too long to switch to turbo “

Just a minor point, but is that really the case? Ferrari won the 1979 championship with the 312 flat 12, in 1980 they had already put their turbo V6 into a formula 1 car and it was on the Grand Prix grid the following year. They were the first team to follow Renault’s turbo lead.

[guiporsche]

This thread is quickly getting out of topic, with everything and nothing being thrown into the discussion. Very RC, if I may say. And as in everything Ferrari, it seems that facts and cold-headed analysis get mixed very easily with hearsay and the usual stories…

Some points:

1. Ferrari was most definitely not late in joining the Turbo brigade: it was the first after Renault and the only after Renault to actually built entire cars around the Turbo engine. It actually started winning in less time than Renault, when one considers how long before the latter had started working on their Turbo. The financial and engineering efforts behind developing a winning Turbo engine in the early 1980s without outsourcing it to a manufacturer (while learning how to do composite chassis at the same time when rules changed every year) should most definitely not to be underestimated.
2. Ferrari’s wind tunnel was ready (as in built) in September 86. As for the myth about caring only for the engines… Belatedly or not, during the life of Enzo Ferrari its company was never shy about getting outside (human) experience and materials be it in chassis or engine-wise. Until his last breath Ferrari only cared about winning, which was why Barnard eventually came in.
3. Tambay was not a major success with the Renault camp. They thought of him as washed up by his two years at Ferrari and inconstant. Tambay (with very good reason) thought instead the cars were not reliable enough in 84. In 85 the car was dismal: drivers’ testing skills cannot be held responsible for badly designed cars.
4. Alboreto not a good ‘test driver’? That’s a first. Prost in ‘Science de la course’ points out that Johansson, in fact, was not capable of giving reliable feedback and was not a technical (as in a thinking driver, capable of describing what the car was doing).
5. 1982 and the meaning of ‘slow’ have been talked about forever. It seems the root of these new interpretations are that infamous Sedgwick book, which reminds me of alt-right ‘historiography’. A look at its ‘footnotes’ tells how serious it is. ‘Slow’ meant exactly that, hold positions – that was how it had been used before. How can you save fuel by overtaking? Forghieri has admitted, however, that had he been there he would have put more clear orders.
6. Every driver cited as leaving Ferrari left for very different reasons.
7. Arnoux left for reasons which have never been disclosed, seemingly because they involve living people’s private lives. As it seems that disclosing whatever might have happened will not make the world a better place, it’s best left out as it is.
8. Surtees ultimately left not because of any Dragoni (or Mike Parkes)-schemes and not because he had no lines of communication with Enzo Ferrari but because the latter wanted him out. This is fact, as evident in the Dal Monte biography. My very personal opinion is that Ferrari, rightly or wrongly, was wary of seeing Surtees becoming too interventive and ‘bossy’ on technical matters. His involvement with Lola, in the end, did not help either and it was a question of time until suspicions of knowledge transfer, even if they were false, would arise. Lola were a competitor of Ferrari in sports cars, even if a minor one compared to Ford. A Surtees-type of situation would have never, ever been accepted these days.
9. Regazzoni left because Ferrari had Reutemann and Lauda (both faster drivers) available; that he had criticised the team publicly did not help, especially after feeling robbed of the 74 title by lack of support from Ferrari. As for the jeans-episode, it’s called copyright. While it’s hilarious and so very Clay, I wonder what’s astonishing about Ferrari’s displeasure. Quite justified.  
10. As for Prost, Turrini tells the story of how at a certain point in 1990 Prost went straight up to Cesare Romiti, the Fiat boss (thus above Ferrari president Fusaro), so that the Cesare Fiorio talks with Senna would be brought to a halt. So, he did have good lines of communication… Ferrari was however in the midst of multiple internal conflicts, essentially because Fiat (after Ghidella) had no idea about how to run it and put people in charge that were not good enough (Fusaro). Eventually Fiorio, Prost, and Fusaro by this order were out. And in came Luca. The rest is well known.
11. And Vettel… Vettel (whom I admire greatly) is leaving not because of any politics but simply because ultimately Ferrari no longer wants to offer him or to recognise him a no.1 status for they have a very fast and talented driver available. And this happens because he simply is not faster enough than his teammate to justify it. And then, it’s not like the 2020 & 2021 Ferrari is looking to be better than the Mercedes, is it?
12. Ah, Ducarosso adapted very well to Italy and did good work in the short amount of time that he was over there. He answered directly to Massacessi, Alfa president, not to Chiti. Alfa wanted to get control of Autodelta away from Chiti, who answered back by, apparently, by scheming (the extinguisher episode) so as to find a way to get Ducarouge out.

https://web.archive....-ducarouge.html

In my opinion (again), Ducarouge would have left anyways not because he was not Italian (!) but because Alfa (which was bleeding money) wanted to quit F1 without being seen to quit F1 and put Euroracing in charge of its F1 program. Euroracing wanted to do it all in-house with its own engineers (which essentially meant low cost), with support from Gianni Tonti from Alfa. And that meant there would be no place for Ducarouge, who I doubt would have accepted working with less means than those hitherto available.

[Nemo1965]

This thread is quickly getting out of topic, with everything and nothing being thrown into the discussion. Very RC, if I may say. And as in everything Ferrari, it seems that facts and cold-headed analysis get mixed very easily with hearsay and the usual stories…

Some points:

1. Ferrari was most definitely not late in joining the Turbo brigade: it was the first after Renault and the only after Renault to actually built entire cars around the Turbo engine. It actually started winning in less time than Renault, when one considers how long before the latter had started working on their Turbo. The financial and engineering efforts behind developing a winning Turbo engine in the early 1980s without outsourcing it to a manufacturer (while learning how to do composite chassis at the same time when rules changed every year) should most definitely not to be underestimated.
2. Ferrari’s wind tunnel was ready (as in built) in September 86. As for the myth about caring only for the engines… Belatedly or not, during the life of Enzo Ferrari its company was never shy about getting outside (human) experience and materials be it in chassis or engine-wise. Until his last breath Ferrari only cared about winning, which was why Barnard eventually came in.
3. Tambay was not a major success with the Renault camp. They thought of him as washed up by his two years at Ferrari and inconstant. Tambay (with very good reason) thought instead the cars were not reliable enough in 84. In 85 the car was dismal: drivers’ testing skills cannot be held responsible for badly designed cars.
4. Alboreto not a good ‘test driver’? That’s a first. Prost in ‘Science de la course’ points out that Johansson, in fact, was not capable of giving reliable feedback and was not a technical (as in a thinking driver, capable of describing what the car was doing).
5. 1982 and the meaning of ‘slow’ have been talked about forever. It seems the root of these new interpretations are that infamous Sedgwick book, which reminds me of alt-right ‘historiography’. A look at its ‘footnotes’ tells how serious it is. ‘Slow’ meant exactly that, hold positions – that was how it had been used before. How can you save fuel by overtaking? Forghieri has admitted, however, that had he been there he would have put more clear orders.
6. Every driver cited as leaving Ferrari left for very different reasons.
7. Arnoux left for reasons which have never been disclosed, seemingly because they involve living people’s private lives. As it seems that disclosing whatever might have happened will not make the world a better place, it’s best left out as it is.
8. Surtees ultimately left not because of any Dragoni (or Mike Parkes)-schemes and not because he had no lines of communication with Enzo Ferrari but because the latter wanted him out. This is fact, as evident in the Dal Monte biography. My very personal opinion is that Ferrari, rightly or wrongly, was wary of seeing Surtees becoming too interventive and ‘bossy’ on technical matters. His involvement with Lola, in the end, did not help either and it was a question of time until suspicions of knowledge transfer, even if they were false, would arise. Lola were a competitor of Ferrari in sports cars, even if a minor one compared to Ford. A Surtees-type of situation would have never, ever been accepted these days.
9. Regazzoni left because Ferrari had Reutemann and Lauda (both faster drivers) available; that he had criticised the team publicly did not help, especially after feeling robbed of the 74 title by lack of support from Ferrari. As for the jeans-episode, it’s called copyright. While it’s hilarious and so very Clay, I wonder what’s astonishing about Ferrari’s displeasure. Quite justified.  
10. As for Prost, Turrini tells the story of how at a certain point in 1990 Prost went straight up to Cesare Romiti, the Fiat boss (thus above Ferrari president Fusaro), so that the Cesare Fiorio talks with Senna would be brought to a halt. So, he did have good lines of communication… Ferrari was however in the midst of multiple internal conflicts, essentially because Fiat (after Ghidella) had no idea about how to run it and put people in charge that were not good enough (Fusaro). Eventually Fiorio, Prost, and Fusaro by this order were out. And in came Luca. The rest is well known.
11. And Vettel… Vettel (whom I admire greatly) is leaving not because of any politics but simply because ultimately Ferrari no longer wants to offer him or to recognise him a no.1 status for they have a very fast and talented driver available. And this happens because he simply is not faster enough than his teammate to justify it. And then, it’s not like the 2020 & 2021 Ferrari is looking to be better than the Mercedes, is it?
12. Ah, Ducarosso adapted very well to Italy and did good work in the short amount of time that he was over there. He answered directly to Massacessi, Alfa president, not to Chiti. Alfa wanted to get control of Autodelta away from Chiti, who answered back by, apparently, by scheming (the extinguisher episode) so as to find a way to get Ducarouge out.

https://web.archive....-ducarouge.html

In my opinion (again), Ducarouge would have left anyways not because he was not Italian (!) but because Alfa (which was bleeding money) wanted to quit F1 without being seen to quit F1 and put Euroracing in charge of its F1 program. Euroracing wanted to do it all in-house with its own engineers (which essentially meant low cost), with support from Gianni Tonti from Alfa. And that meant there would be no place for Ducarouge, who I doubt would have accepted working with less means than those hitherto available.

 

Regarding number 8. OF COURSE I did not dare to suggest that this was the number 1 reason Arnoux got the axe... but I am quite convinced that at organisations as Ferrari it are the little, personal things that eff up relationships...

 

Regaring Enzo and Surtees: Ferrari had given Surtees explicit permission to drive the Lola in which he had that dreadful accident AND Ferrari paid all the hospital costs and the costly, dangerous repatriation to England when he did not have to... so that Ferrari later pushed Surtees away was a bit...eh... strange. Whatever Surtees behaviour was, later. 

Edited by Nemo1965, 19 June 2020 - 21:07.

[chr1s]

Question: what does "a good streamlined coca-cola section" mean? I completely did not understand what you are talking about there, in particular the "coca cola section" description.


So Johansson seems to suggest that Ferrari still had no wind-tunnel in 1986 (or they didn't use it that much).
 

.

Ferrari did have access to the Pininfarina wind tunnel and had been using it for their Formula one and Sports cars since the early 1970s.

[GMiranda]

Question: what does "a good streamlined coca-cola section" mean? I completely did not understand what you are talking about there, in particular the "coca cola section" description.

On the wind-tunnel. A couple of days ago I saw Stefan Johansson (great guy) talking about his carreer in a pod cast.
Stefan said that when he was driving for Ferrari (as Arnoux' replacement) in '85-'86 they would test a huge amount of time between grand prix, almost daily. Him and Michele (and I assume also Johnny Dumfries in '85 since he was hired as test driver) would start the day testing, then have lunch with 'il commendatore' and then had to test again in the afternoon 'until the sun went down'. Enzo Ferrari would all that time keep watching them outside on a chair.

Stefan then said that their competitors, like McLaren, would spent a lot of time working in their wind-tunnel whilst Ferrari didn't do this and let their drivers run around Fiorano until the evening fell. And that was not so efficient according to Johansson because the configuration of Fiorano was different from many other tracks so if a wing suited the car at Fiorano and Michele said 'great wing' to the engineers they would then arrive at Zeltweg for the Austrian GP and find out that this new wing didn't work at all at the Östereichring, which is logical off course considering how much faster the corners in Zeltweg where compared to Fiorano.
So Johansson seems to suggest that Ferrari still had no wind-tunnel in 1986 (or they didn't use it that much).
Stefan also mentioned that Enzo Ferrari only really cared about the engine since he thought it was the most important part of the car. Now I knew that Enzo had this mentality (that the engine is the most important part of the car) but I assumed he had changed his mind at least a bit after the introduction of ground effect and downforce / aerodynamics becoming more and more crucial in the 1980's. Ferrari also waited too long to switch to turbo and in particular waited too long to jump on ground effect.

 

If you consider all this, Ferrari putting so much emphasis on live testing (and not on wind-tunnel development), then it's even more silly that they let go a driver like Patrick Tambay, who was an immaculate test driver and one of the best in describing the car's behaviour to engineers.
At the time McLaren had Niki Lauda & Alain Prost: both great test drivers (Prost learned a lot from Lauda on that matter in '84 but both were great developers) and Brabham had with Nelson Piquet another driver who was technically strong and also ranks among the very best test drivers there ever were. And Ferrari chose to keep a driver who was agressive, quick & spectacular but a very poor car developer who's feedback would not be of much use when compared to Tambay and they partnered him with a driver, Alboreto, who also wasn't the greatest test driver around (at least at that stage in his carreer). Renault in the meantime picked up Tambay who's skills were more than welcome to them.

May I know which podcast did you hear, please?

[William Hunt]

May I know which podcast did you hear, please?

 

It was via a link I saw someone post on this forum, can't find it right away, will look for it

[FLB]

This thread is quickly getting out of topic, with everything and nothing being thrown into the discussion. Very RC, if I may say. And as in everything Ferrari, it seems that facts and cold-headed analysis get mixed very easily with hearsay and the usual stories…

Some points:

 

[...]

1. Tambay was not a major success with the Renault camp. They thought of him as washed up by his two years at Ferrari and inconstant. Tambay (with very good reason) thought instead the cars were not reliable enough in 84. In 85 the car was dismal: drivers’ testing skills cannot be held responsible for badly designed cars.
2. Arnoux left for reasons which have never been disclosed, seemingly because they involve living people’s private lives. As it seems that disclosing whatever might have happened will not make the world a better place, it’s best left out as it is.
3. Surtees ultimately left not because of any Dragoni (or Mike Parkes)-schemes and not because he had no lines of communication with Enzo Ferrari but because the latter wanted him out. This is fact, as evident in the Dal Monte biography. My very personal opinion is that Ferrari, rightly or wrongly, was wary of seeing Surtees becoming too interventive and ‘bossy’ on technical matters. His involvement with Lola, in the end, did not help either and it was a question of time until suspicions of knowledge transfer, even if they were false, would arise. Lola were a competitor of Ferrari in sports cars, even if a minor one compared to Ford. A Surtees-type of situation would have never, ever been accepted these days.
4. Regazzoni left because Ferrari had Reutemann and Lauda (both faster drivers) available; that he had criticised the team publicly did not help, especially after feeling robbed of the 74 title by lack of support from Ferrari. As for the jeans-episode, it’s called copyright. While it’s hilarious and so very Clay, I wonder what’s astonishing about Ferrari’s displeasure. Quite justified.  

1. On Tambay: He was shocked how bad the RE50's gearbox was, especially compared to the C3's:

 

https://www.classicc...-reves-envoles/ (en francais)

 

2. Arnoux himself at the time intimated he'd had an operation on a leg and that 'Ferrari does not like drivers who go to clinics' (I'm paraphrasing, but that's from a Sport Auto that was published around the time he was fired. He got a very nice watch from Enzo Ferrari as a parting gift, one that did not have a handle for seconds... seemingly because Il Drake thought such a thing was not useful for a driver who was so slow his lap times should be counted in minutes, not seconds)

 

3. Surtees also gave an interview in a book by Anthony Pritchard (Scarlet Passions, ISBN 978-1859608722) where he confirms that Dragoni and Parkes had nothing to do with his firing and that it was Ferrari himself who did the deed. Ferrari did indeed build a few Can-Am cars later and of course the 512S and Ms were direct competitors of the T70 MkIII B, but still thought enough of Surtees as an engineer to ask him to race a 512S a few times in 1970.

 

4. Ah yes, the (in)famous Cavallino nello culo! incident!   

Edited by FLB, 20 June 2020 - 18:55.

[LittleChris]

It was via a link I saw someone post on this forum, can't find it right away, will look for it

Maybe the link I posted on the You Tube thread ?