125 replies to this topic

[VresiBerba]

Now I've read people speaking about this in other threads a bit too many times for me to take it anymore, so instead of polluting the threads and go off-topic, I decided to start this thread. So, what exactly was Williams and McLaren 'colluding' about?

[ensign14]

"Ron, if Jacques comes in the top six he wins the title. We're a bit concerned that his car is fatally damaged after the serial cheat tried to punt him off. If you hang back a bit, and protect him from the Ferrari, you are gonna get the win anyway. Deal?"

[Wouter]

There was collusion between Ferrari and Sauber (or Norberto Fontana at least, in any case) as well, in the same race.

[Duck of Death]

There was collusion between Ferrari and Sauber (or Norberto Fontana at least, in any case) as well, in the same race.

Indeed Fontana admitted that Todt had spoken to him.

[pRy]

Totally off subject but the last comment reminded me of something.

Remember when Schumacher piled into the back of Coulthard at Spa that year in the wet. Jean Todt was to blame. Reason being he had walked to the McLaren pit wall and told McLaren to make sure Coulthard didn't hold up Schumacher. It was raining so Todt probably felt paranoid he would be held up in the spray or something. And I guess McLaren got on the radios, told Coulthard to let Schumacher by and thats why Coulthard backed off.

Quite amusing if you think about it.

[JPW]

Ohh crap did I stumble into the Nostalgia forum?

[Ross Stonefeld]

That happened constantly in the 90s but we haven't seen it for several years. Is there a rule about it now or do they just email each other? I always thought it looked incredibly arrogant to have the team manager of the race leader lecturing the other teams on what to do with their drivers. It's F1, we're all professionals here mate.

[sreevishnu]

Totally off subject but the last comment reminded me of something.

Remember when Schumacher piled into the back of Coulthard at Spa that year in the wet. Jean Todt was to blame. Reason being he had walked to the McLaren pit wall and told McLaren to make sure Coulthard didn't hold up Schumacher. It was raining so Todt probably felt paranoid he would be held up in the spray or something. And I guess McLaren got on the radios, told Coulthard to let Schumacher by and thats why Coulthard backed off.

Quite amusing if you think about it.

and also Todt was responsible 4 a donkey cr@pping at euo rouge during lap 34

[Vic Vega]

Let me quote Ron "Integrity" Dennis on this one: "Today the good guys won.". Matters like cheating and fixing the outcome of a Grand Prix race in agreement with Williams are trivial.

[Tenmantaylor]

The Todt Spa 98 thing shows what paranoia causes. DC was never going to try anything stupid or underhand in such a dangerous race. The fact Ferrari and Michael thought he may, IMO, says more about Ferraris mindset at the time than anything else. Schumacher admitted as much when he and DC spoke with the BBC pundits at the German GP. DC was insistent that it was a compliment from Michael to him that he would be able to see Michael in his mirrors through the spray and take him out whilst staying on the line to which MS arrogantly replied "I drive looking forwards and in the mirrors" so Michael obviously still harbours some suspicion which reflects quite poorly on him IMO.

[VresiBerba]

Right... uhm, so no one can say what the collusion was all about, how it came to play and why, for instance Williams would even want or even need to collude with McLaren?

[Vic Vega]

Right... uhm, so no one can say what the collusion was all about, how it came to play and why, for instance Williams would even want or even need to collude with McLaren?

Jock Clear provided the best explanation of the situation (Canadian singer was leading the race at the time):
“Hakkinen is immediately behind. Last lap. Last lap. Hakkinen has been very helpful. Jacques, position two. Don’t let me down, Jacques. We have discussed this.”

Edited by Vic Vega, 10 September 2009 - 11:54.

[Gilles12]

Right... uhm, so no one can say what the collusion was all about, how it came to play and why, for instance Williams would even want or even need to collude with McLaren?

Errrr, like OK...

[jimjimjeroo]

Story from The Independent newspaper...

Motor Racing: McLaren deny Jerez pact with Williams

Derick Allsop


Tuesday, 11 November 1997
Share
Close
Diggdel.icio.usFacebookRedditGoogleStumble UponFarkNewsvineYahooBuzzBeboTwitterIndependent MindsPrintEmailText Size
NormalLargeExtra LargeMichael Schumacher is not the only one having to explain his actions to motor sport's governing body today.

McLaren and Williams will also be in the dock accused of race-fixing, a charge they strongly deny. Derick Allsop reports.

Ron Dennis, the team principal of McLaren-Mercedes, insisted yesterday that there was no pact with Williams-Renault to ensure Jacques Villeneuve beat Michael Schumacher to the Formula One world championship.

And he denied his drivers, Mika Hakkinen and David Coulthard, were allowed to pass Villeneuve and take first and second places at the controversial Grand Prix of Europe as a reward.

The head of Williams, Frank Williams, had already dismissed the leaking of taped pit to driver conversations during the race as an attempt by Ferrari to discredit the British teams and deflect attention from Schumacher's disciplinary hearing in Slough today. "We reject in the strongest possible terms any allegation of unsporting or improper conduct," he said.

However, McLaren and Williams now find themselves on the same bill as Schumacher, defending charges brought by the FIA, motor sport's governing body, that they colluded.

Dennis' explanation is that he and his team merely honoured a commitment not to interfere in the contest between Villeneuve and Schumacher for the championship.

"My biggest concern is that all this may perpetuate a view that is obviously held by another team that we had something to do with the outcome of the world championship. That is obviously ludicrous," he said.

"We're being questioned about our integrity, but we have acknowledged that we specifically told our drivers before the last two races not to get in the way of the world championship. I'm not putting our team on a pedestal, but if our drivers had gone out and aggressively attacked they could have been involved in an incident that would have been detrimental to the sport.

"Our drivers were not involved in the world championship, so I believe it was the right sporting decision to let the two drivers contesting the championship fight it out."

Dennis is adamant his drivers were not instructed to protect Villeneuve from the other Ferrari driver, Eddie Irvine.

"Irvine dropped away. He was miles behind," he said. "In the closing stages our guys were catching Villeneuve. He knew he didn't have to win and in a situation like that he's not going to resist, he's going to move over."

Whatever verdict is reached at today's hearing, Formula One is likely to come out of it with another result.

There has been such posturing, pontificating, political conniving and mud-slinging in the 16 days since Schumacher turned his Ferrari into Villeneuve's Williams you might be led to believe grand prix racing is on the point of crisis and the authorities are cowering under the bombardment.

Far from it. This organisation revels in publicity and will take all the flak. The world-wide outcry over Schumacher's actions at Jerez and the stewards' ruling that it was "a racing accident" prompted Formula One's hierarchy to step in and summon the German to a World Council hearing.

Max Mosley, the president of the FIA, is a political opportunist and this was another situation where the leaders had to be seen to be leading. He, of course, is a long-time ally of Bernie Ecclestone, head of Formula One's commercial operation, and supreme business opportunist. Little happens in their world without them being involved.

Ecclestone has said it is not the image of the sport, but the image of Schumacher that is at issue here. At the end of the 1994 season, decided by Schumacher's collision with Damon Hill, Mosley openly expressed the opinion that if Formula One was the topic of conversation in pubs and clubs he saw no reason to be concerned.

The fact is that Formula One is not really a sport at all. It is an industry which makes some of those involved extremely wealthy. That prosperity depends on sponsorship and viewing figures, which in turn are driven by publicity.

Schumacher and Ferrari are the most productive sources of publicity: he is the best driver in the world, they are the legendary marque. To have the red car out at the front is especially good for business.

This may explain the leaking of the "Jerez tapes" which allegedly show McLaren and Williams behaving in an unsporting fashion. To that end also, it is being suggested Villeneuve should have been banned from the decisive Grand Prix of Europe after ignoring warning flags during the previous race in Japan, for which he was merely deducted points.

Schumacher has admitted he made a mistake at Jerez, but did not deliberately crash into Villeneuve. He knows he is likely to be punished, and has talked of losing points and/or a fine. Deducting points for the 1998 season could be a convenient means of punishing him yet ensuring the main attraction is on the grid for the opening race.

Hard-liners demand the World Council invoke a one-race suspended ban, throw him out of another couple and hit him with a fine of at least $1m (pounds 600,000).

With or without Schumacher, the show will go on - and so will the publicity machine.

[Orin]

"Ron, if Jacques comes in the top six he wins the title. We're a bit concerned that his car is fatally damaged after the serial cheat tried to punt him off. If you hang back a bit, and protect him from the Ferrari, you are gonna get the win anyway. Deal?"

And anything less than collusion in the light of what had happened in that race would have been wrong. Williams & McLaren ensured (as much as possible) that this time Schumacher wouldn't benefit from FIA inaction.

[Orin]

There was collusion between Ferrari and Sauber (or Norberto Fontana at least, in any case) as well, in the same race.

And that was Ferrari attempting to fraudulently win the WDC, far more serious than Williams' & McLaren's so-called transgression.

[MikeTekRacing]

far more serious because....? it's ferrari?

[Orin]

far more serious because....? it's ferrari?

Attempting to fraudulently win the championship is far more serious than two teams deciding not to fight over a meaningless result.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Even if the result affected the WC?

[Boing 2]

villeneuve and schumacher were fighting for the title, the season was a bit dirty with Ferrari using what were to become all too familiar tactics of using the 2nd car as a spoiler and leaning on the FIA for political favours.

Villeneuve was disqualified from the previous race for setting a fast lap in practice under a yellow (along with many others) but allowed to participate. In practice for jerez Irvine was blocking JV horrendously, trying to get into his head etc, not a clean year.

JV and MS in the race were out in front, whilst lapping a ferrari engined sauber of fontana, schumacher was let through immediately but JV blocked and lost a couple of seconds. He closed up again after the stops and when passing was rammed by MS (a move later described as a "racing incident" by stewards and left unpunished)

JV's car was not handling well after the impact and williams were worried it may fall back into the hands of Irvines ferrari who, most believed, wouldn't hesitate to have a second go at ramming him off. The McLarens were behind JV at this point and the theory goes that they agreed not to attack JV but to stay there as a buffer between the williams and the ferrari and in exchange Villeneuve would let them through at the end for a one-two and a first win for hakkinnen.

not a pretty end to the year but an end driven by the rather grubby tactics of the todt/schumacher ferrari era at the time.

[engel]

The collusion is that McLaren acted as Jacques rear gunners for pretty much all the race, making sure the surviving Ferrari went nowhere near Jacques, and in return they got a 1-2

And I have 0 issues with it, Schumi acted like an idiot, if I were Patrick or Frank I wouldn't put it past Irvine having a swing at Villeneuve and I 'd be pretty paranoid too. Williams didn't need the win (to be honest they couldn't really win, McLarens were way too fast for the limping Villeneuve) so why fight them?

The slightly annoying part was Ron's insistence that DC move over and let Mika get his maiden F1 victory

[Boing 2]

Even if the result affected the WC?

How? irrespective of where JV finished he still would have taken the title, the only reason McLaren were asked to remain as buffers was to protect JV from a second Ferrari attack.


refusing to attack a driver is not the same as ramming a car to win the championship.

[VresiBerba]

Jock Clear provided the best explanation of the situation (Canadian singer was leading the race at the time):
“Hakkinen is immediately behind. Last lap. Last lap. Hakkinen has been very helpful. Jacques, position two. Don’t let me down, Jacques. We have discussed this.”

But, what does this actually prove about a collusion between Williams and McLaren? Why would Williams even need to involve McLaren since all Villeneuve needed was two points and the championship would've been his in every possible scenario.

[learningtobelost]

Even if the result affected the WC?

Letting the Mclarens through did not effect the WC. What's your point?

Edited by learningtobelost, 10 September 2009 - 12:23.

[VresiBerba]

Errrr, like OK...

Huh

[Tenmantaylor]

I agree its far more fraudulent to dangerously take your opponent out on-track to win a title (for the second time) than what is alledged against McWilliams.

[Orin]

Even if the result affected the WC?

The WDC result has always been more important than the WCC. It was more important to ensure Schumacher couldn't be fraudulently crowned WDC, again.

Boing 2, excellent post.

[Galko877]

villeneuve and schumacher were fighting for the title, the season was a bit dirty with Ferrari using what were to become all too familiar tactics of using the 2nd car as a spoiler and leaning on the FIA for political favours.

Villeneuve was disqualified from the previous race for setting a fast lap in practice under a yellow (along with many others) but allowed to participate. In practice for jerez Irvine was blocking JV horrendously, trying to get into his head etc, not a clean year.

JV and MS in the race were out in front, whilst lapping a ferrari engined sauber of fontana, schumacher was let through immediately but JV blocked and lost a couple of seconds. He closed up again after the stops and when passing was rammed by MS (a move later described as a "racing incident" by stewards and left unpunished)

JV's car was not handling well after the impact and williams were worried it may fall back into the hands of Irvines ferrari who, most believed, wouldn't hesitate to have a second go at ramming him off. The McLarens were behind JV at this point and the theory goes that they agreed not to attack JV but to stay there as a buffer between the williams and the ferrari and in exchange Villeneuve would let them through at the end for a one-two and a first win for hakkinnen.

not a pretty end to the year but an end driven by the rather grubby tactics of the todt/schumacher ferrari era at the time.

Yes, yes, everything is Schumacher's fault, even if his opponents cheat. Nice whitewashing attempt.

Edited by Galko877, 10 September 2009 - 12:27.

[VresiBerba]

Even if the result affected the WC?

The result of what, the collusion?

[learningtobelost]

Yes, yes, everything is Schumacher's fault, even if his opponents cheat. Nice whitewashing attempt.

No, but it certainly is when he does. Let's not forget the FIA took away his points for the season for that incident.

Who is trying to whitewash here... really?

[Oho]

The collusion is that McLaren acted as Jacques rear gunners for pretty much all the race, making sure the surviving Ferrari went nowhere near Jacques, and in return they got a 1-2

The slightly annoying part was Ron's insistence that DC move over and let Mika get his maiden F1 victory

Actually for bottom third only, before the incident McLaren's really had no role though Häkkinen got tangled in the fight being blocked by Frentzen which lost him the position against Coulthard.

The running order of the McLarens was more or less artificially decided twice during the race. During the first pit rotation Häkkinen was left behind Frentzen busy blocking Schumacher and he lost his track position to Coulthard, in the closing laps Coulthard was told to let Häkkinen through. For what its worth for the few laps Häkkinen actually raced Coulthard he was faster.

[Galko877]

No, but it certainly is when he does. Let's not forget the FIA took away his points for the season for that incident.

Who is trying to whitewash here... really?

I thought the thread was about the McLaren-Williams collaboration, not the Schumacher-Villeneuve crash.

[Gilles4Ever]

The thread is about McLaren and Williams colluding and not about Michael Schumachers antics. Keep it on topic or it will be closed.

[Big Block 8]

JV's car was not handling well after the impact and williams were worried it may fall back into the hands of Irvines ferrari who, most believed, wouldn't hesitate to have a second go at ramming him off. The McLarens were behind JV at this point and the theory goes that they agreed not to attack JV but to stay there as a buffer between the williams and the ferrari and in exchange Villeneuve would let them through at the end for a one-two and a first win for hakkinnen.

The Macs being an "irvine buffer" is a bit far fetched, as Berger was in front of Irvine and behind the two Macs, and Berger had a couple of seconds lead on Irvine. Macs didn't try passing JV however despite being much quicker, so they apparently waited word go from the pits. IMO it was probably more because they had promised to stay out of the way of JV and MS and didn't want to risk a pass and possible collision with JV, which would have then decided the WDC.

[engel]

Actually for bottom third only, before the incident McLaren's really had no role though Häkkinen got tangled in the fight being blocked by Frentzen which lost him the position against Coulthard.

The running order of the McLarens was more or less artificially decided twice during the race. During the first pit rotation Häkkinen was left behind Frentzen busy blocking Schumacher and he lost his track position to Coulthard, in the closing laps Coulthard was told to let Häkkinen through. For what its worth for the few laps Häkkinen actually raced Coulthard he was faster.

You are correct, when I said "annoying" I meant it was poorly executed and made lots of people scream gifted win gifted win

[SpeedRacer`]

Ron also threatened to sack Coulthard if he didn't let Hakkinen through in that race.

[Gareth]

What position did JV need to come to win the WDC?

[Gareth]

The running order of the McLarens was more or less artificially decided twice during the race. During the first pit rotation Häkkinen was left behind Frentzen busy blocking Schumacher and he lost his track position to Coulthard

What was "artificial" about that? Other cars being on track and pit stop strategies is racing, isn't it?

[Victor_RO]

What position did JV need to come to win the WDC?

With Schuey out, 5th. He was one point behind and, I think, had less wins.


EDIT: Scratch that, he needed only a single point, he would have won on win countback if in 6th (7 wins to 5).

Edited by Victor_RO, 10 September 2009 - 12:40.

[Boing 2]

The Macs being an "irvine buffer" is a bit far fetched, as Berger was in front of Irvine and behind the two Macs, and Berger had a couple of seconds lead on Irvine. Macs didn't try passing JV however despite being much quicker, so they apparently waited word go from the pits. IMO it was probably more because they had promised to stay out of the way of JV and MS and didn't want to risk a pass and possible collision with JV, which would have then decided the WDC.

yes but if both McLarens had passed JV (who was running slow) then only one car would separate Villeneuve from Irvine, i think that would be too much of a risk to take when a title hung in the balance.

[Galko877]

it was schumacher's ramming that made Villeneuve lose pace and become vulnerable to irvine, that was the basis of the collusion, you can't discuss one without the other.

Villeneuve was not vulnerable to Irvine. Also the collusion between McLaren and Williams was discussed and agreed between the two teams before the race, not during it.

[Ross Stonefeld]

How? irrespective of where JV finished he still would have taken the title, the only reason McLaren were asked to remain as buffers was to protect JV from a second Ferrari attack.

I thought MS was ahead on points (by 4?) hence why he could take JV out to secure the championship. Thus the McLarens could have prevented JV from finishing too low.

[Gareth]

With Schuey out, 5th. He was one point behind and, I think, had less wins.

So the Mac's would need to have protected him from being overtaken by 3 other cars in order for this to have had an effect on the WDC?

Given that the 6th placed driver was HHF, I think we can assume he wouldn't have overtaken. And given Panis was a further minute down the road, i think we can rule him out.

So even if it took place, this supposed "rear gunner" role had absolutely no impact on the WDC result?

[Duck of Death]

I thought MS was ahead on points (by 4?) hence why he could take JV out to secure the championship. Thus the McLarens could have prevented JV from finishing too low.

Yes, Williams didnt know that Schumacher was going to be booted out of the whole championship for his intentional Cheating at the time. After 1994 they probably though he'd get away with it, Again.

[Victor_RO]

So the Mac's would need to have protected him from being overtaken by 3 other cars in order for this to have had an effect on the WDC?

Given that the 6th placed driver was HHF, I think we can assume he wouldn't have overtaken. And given Panis was a further minute down the road, i think we can rule him out.

So even if it took place, this supposed "rear gunner" role had absolutely no impact on the WDC result?

No impact. Jacques only needed to finish somewhere in the points after MS got stuck. (Check the edit in the earlier post)

[engel]

I thought MS was ahead on points (by 4?) hence why he could take JV out to secure the championship. Thus the McLarens could have prevented JV from finishing too low.

Schumacher was 1 point ahead of Villeneuve before the race started.
With Schumacher retired, Ferrari needed Villeneuve to finish outside the points.
Race order was Villeneuve - Coulthard - Hakkinen - Berger - Irvine - Frenzen
Obvious implication was that if the McLarens cleared villeneuve earlier than the last lap Berger would attack him too, and Villeneuve would have to let him by and then he'd be in Irvine's clutches who might get an order from Todt to punt Villeneuve off the track and gift MS the championship.

[Big Block 8]

yes but if both McLarens had passed JV (who was running slow) then only one car would separate Villeneuve from Irvine, i think that would be too much of a risk to take when a title hung in the balance.

Sure it would had been a risk, but we don't know if they were actively protecting JV or just staying out of JV's way, as Irvine never had the time to reach them. So it's unfair to accuse Mac/Williams from something that never even happened.

[Gilles4Ever]

On to page 2 and no mention of collusion! You were warned.

[VresiBerba]

The collusion is that McLaren acted as Jacques rear gunners for pretty much all the race, making sure the surviving Ferrari went nowhere near Jacques, and in return they got a 1-2

Since Villeneuve didn't need to win the race, what protection did the McLaren's need to provide? And Villeneuve didn't let the McLaren's pass because Williams felt they needed to return a pointless favour, he most likely did because his car was... well, not exactly healthy, and this could very well have been what Clear meant when he said to Villeneuve that 'we talked about this', like 'if you're in the lead and Shumi's nowhere to be seen, take it easy, you don't have to win the race'.

[Gilles4Ever]

I am re-opening this thread but please understand:

The thread is about Jerez 1997 - collusion between Williams and McLaren.

By all means discuss the act of collusion and extend the discussion to the events that may or may not have led to the collusion and other events of collusion.

Do not let this turn into a discussion about Schumachers actions beyond that he drove into JVi and the subsequent (alleged) collusion between Williams and McLaren.