Jump to content


Photo

The worst Grand Prix ever?


  • Please log in to reply
86 replies to this topic

#51 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 12,860 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 31 October 2014 - 12:18

I felt it showed a certain contempt for their drivers too - I don't think either of them were entirely comfortable with that.
And it was so unnecessary; strangely, it showed both a supreme arrogance and a curious lack of confidence that they were not going to dominate the season anyway.

 

Hmmm. remeber 1999 and how Michael was out of the championship that year?

As disgusting as it was in Austria in both 2001 and 2002, they did at least showed that they had learned from that 1999 experience.

 

Or another great example as of why they did it.

 

1991: Senna won the first four races in the season but from race 5 on Willimas was capable top take McLaren on and with a bit more reliability Mansell might have stolen that title away from Senna after all.

2007: Button/Brawn GP was overwhelming dominant in the first half of the season but the second half the were much more vulnerable and lost a number of races from then on.You can't be sure that you can keep the advantage you have early on.

I can understand why ferrari did it, I don't agree with it however from a sportman point of view. But it is comes to assist success guaranteed, it was indeed an option to choose for.

 

Henri



Advertisement

#52 2F-001

2F-001
  • Member

  • 4,237 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 31 October 2014 - 12:38

That's a fair point, Henri. 'though I don't imagine they intended Rubens to do it in quite such a dramatic way - not that that makes such a huge difference.

#53 Alan Baker

Alan Baker
  • Member

  • 199 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 31 October 2014 - 13:30

As far as duff GPs go, you'd have to walk a long way on a wet day for a more miserable experience than the 1967 French GP on the dratted Bugatti circuit at Le Mans.. Never mind the car park at Caesar's Palace, DSJ dismissed this as being run on a circuit through the car parks for the 24hr race. Only fifteen starters (occupying pits designed for 55), dull weather, feeble crowd, absolutely no atmosphere and Stewart came third in a 1964 BRM! And this coming just a few weeks after the tumultuous 1967 24hr race, very much a case of "after the Lord Mayor's show".



#54 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 61,701 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 31 October 2014 - 13:52

 

Hmmm. remeber 1999 and how Michael was out of the championship that year?
As disgusting as it was in Austria in both 2001 and 2002, they did at least showed that they had learned from that 1999 experience.

I would have said the opposite. Had Schumacher broken his leg at the next race, Barrichello would have sacrificed crucial points.

#55 Tim Murray

Tim Murray
  • Moderator

  • 24,581 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 31 October 2014 - 13:56

2007: Button/Brawn GP was overwhelming dominant in the first half of the season but the second half the were much more vulnerable and lost a number of races from then on.You can't be sure that you can keep the advantage you have early on.


2009, Henri. :)

#56 Michael Ferner

Michael Ferner
  • Member

  • 7,124 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 31 October 2014 - 15:11

Hm, it was neither the first nor the last time such had happened. team orders have always been there and will always be there. I think it is inevitable under the circumstances, as it is a team sport. If they didn´t have done it like that and then somehow lost the championship, wouldn´t everybody regard them to be stupid? In my opinion the only difference in 2002 was that it was not tried to be hidden by some kind of "choreography", so that the team order became so obvious to the public. To me that was much more honest and realistic than if they had tried to disguise it behind some "act playing".
 
And don´t say it was better in the old days, think of Andretti / Peterson.


When did Peterson ever sacrifice a position, let alone a win to Andretti? :confused:

#57 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 12,860 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 31 October 2014 - 15:40

2009, Henri. :)

 

Mea Supermaxima culpa.

You're right.

Sorry and thanks.

 

Henri



#58 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 12,860 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 31 October 2014 - 15:42

When did Peterson ever sacrifice a position, let alone a win to Andretti? :confused:

 

 

 

He was faster at Zandvoort while andretti had a broken exhaust. And Lauda was gaining rapidly on the two Lotus cars in th final stages.

That is about the only case I can think of that Ronnie could have taken a place from Andretti.

 

 

Henri



#59 Michael Ferner

Michael Ferner
  • Member

  • 7,124 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 31 October 2014 - 16:37

"... could have..."

Maybe Andretti "could have" driven faster, too. He didn't need to, beacuse of the team order. This all reminds me of the ridiculous claims that Ralf Schumacher would have won the 1998 Belgian GP if not for team orders, completely ignoring the fact that Hill pulled out about half a minute when both were driving under no orders. Or, that Gilles Villeneuve would have won the 1979 Italian GP, when he was all over the road and still only barely keeping up with a calm and extremely controlled Scheckter. Team orders in general let the slower driver look more competitive than he really is on the occasion.

Oh, I know, now there will be Ronnie and Gilles fans all over me for daring to say they were slower... :rolleyes:

Advertisement

#60 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 2,538 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 31 October 2014 - 16:52

When did Peterson ever sacrifice a position, let alone a win to Andretti? :confused:

The contract said that Andretti was number 1. Chapman said that Andretti was number 1.

 

At all times, Andretti had choice of cars: a Lotus 79 when it worked. At the start of the season, Andretti knew how to drive a Lotus 78 faster than Peterson. Later on, Andretti had the working Lotus 79. Andretti had advantage without asking Ronnie to give him space. Peterson in a Lotus 78 couldn't beat Andretti in a Lotus 79.

 

But is a useful word. But there weren't enough races when there were two fully working Lotus 79s to determine who drove the car faster. Mario Andretti was at his F1 peak and he earned his World Championship.



#61 sennafan24

sennafan24
  • Member

  • 8,362 posts
  • Joined: July 13

Posted 31 October 2014 - 17:42

The only thing that really grated with me was contrived racing, such as the 2001 (or was it '02?) Malaysian GP, when the Ferraris were so obviously illegal but allowed to race and win because they were considered to be money cows.

It is 2001 you are thinking of.

 

I dislike that race. The ITV commentators were hailing Schumi's overtakes as masterful. Yet they ignored that Rubens cut through the field as well.



#62 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 12,860 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 31 October 2014 - 20:45

"... could have..."

Maybe Andretti "could have" driven faster, too. He didn't need to, beacuse of the team order. This all reminds me of the ridiculous claims that Ralf Schumacher would have won the 1998 Belgian GP if not for team orders, completely ignoring the fact that Hill pulled out about half a minute when both were driving under no orders. Or, that Gilles Villeneuve would have won the 1979 Italian GP, when he was all over the road and still only barely keeping up with a calm and extremely controlled Scheckter. Team orders in general let the slower driver look more competitive than he really is on the occasion.

Oh, I know, now there will be Ronnie and Gilles fans all over me for daring to say they were slower... :rolleyes:

 

Michael,

 

As I have read it, Mario was slowing down (Now where heve we heard that one more often over the years....) so much that Ronnie had to back down massively because of his obligation to stay behind Mario.

Had Mario been even slower then it could have been interesting: would Ronnie have gotten a signal to pass Mario to win the race for Lotus after all.

Let me add to this: in that race it was not that Mario was slower than Ronnie. He had a malfunctioning car that aided to the situation. With equal healty cars, well, will we ever know? The stories are widely common that Mario was the undisputed, preferred driver within the team that year. If it had been free for both, who knows.

But I definitely am not one of them who claims that Ronnie was faster than Andretti and was that it was only because of that contract that Mario eventually became the champion. I have never said that.

 

 

Henri



#63 Michael Ferner

Michael Ferner
  • Member

  • 7,124 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 31 October 2014 - 21:28

I realize that, Henri. No misunderstandings. :)

#64 chdphd

chdphd
  • Member

  • 2,753 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 01 November 2014 - 09:54

The 2011 European Grand Prix at Valencia was dire. How often does someone start in 24th and finish 24th? Never before or since. Virtually nothing happened at a boring circuit.



#65 Roger Clark

Roger Clark
  • Member

  • 7,500 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 01 November 2014 - 10:32

How about a race with nine starters, the leading three car team so dominant that the fourth man finished 10 laps behind, the only conceivable opposition retired on the first lap and all on a circuit with three long straights and three corners? 



#66 chdphd

chdphd
  • Member

  • 2,753 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 01 November 2014 - 11:19

That does indeed sound a bit dull.



#67 cpbell

cpbell
  • Member

  • 6,964 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 01 November 2014 - 11:35

How about a race with nine starters, the leading three car team so dominant that the fourth man finished 10 laps behind, the only conceivable opposition retired on the first lap and all on a circuit with three long straights and three corners? 

1922 GP de l'ACF, Strasbourg?



#68 Tim Murray

Tim Murray
  • Moderator

  • 24,581 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 01 November 2014 - 11:50

1938, not 1922, and at Reims.  :)


Edited by Tim Murray, 01 November 2014 - 11:53.


#69 Roger Clark

Roger Clark
  • Member

  • 7,500 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 01 November 2014 - 11:53

1938, not 1922.  :)

Of course, but the sight and sound of three W154s flat out for mile after mile may have compensated for the rest!



#70 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 9,571 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 01 November 2014 - 12:29

Of course, but the sight and sound of three W154s flat out for mile after mile may have compensated for the rest!

 

Probably not if you were an Auto Union, Talbot or Bugatti driver.



#71 cpbell

cpbell
  • Member

  • 6,964 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 01 November 2014 - 13:02

1938, not 1922, and at Reims.  :)

 

Of course - the SEFAC! :drunk:  I misread your post, BTW - had I read it correctly I'd never have guessed at 1922.


Edited by cpbell, 01 November 2014 - 13:04.


#72 Michael Ferner

Michael Ferner
  • Member

  • 7,124 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 01 November 2014 - 13:46

There was no TV in '38, so I'm sure everybody enjoyed that race. You are comparing apples with oranges.

#73 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 9,571 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 01 November 2014 - 15:09

Michael has a point, sort of, some of us are guilty of judging these old races by modern standards. In my teenage years I attended races at Oulton Park, and sometimes at Aintree. Without our own transport, getting there could be quite an adventure, but we drank it all in avidly, standing as close as we could get to the track, held back by nothing more than a protective length of rope. We'd hear engines in the distance, then after a short interval, the field would flash by, sometimes almost all of them Chevron B8s. About all that happened over the next ten laps or so is that the gaps between the cars became greater, we hardly ever witnessed an overtaking manoeuvre or position change that wasn't caused by an unseen retirement, but we'd seen and experienced racing, and that was enough entertainment for us. Just imagine though, how dull it would have appeared on TV, even a shouty Murray Walker couldn't have injected much excitement into the event. By today's standards of course, we were less demanding and more easily satisfied, but I suppose that's 'progress' for you, if I'd been there in 1938, I'm sure that seeing those 154s dominating the event would have been quite exciting enough for me.



#74 Coral

Coral
  • Member

  • 6,682 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 01 November 2014 - 15:50

My contenders for worst race are these :-

 

Imola 1994 - For obvious reasons. I still can't believe that that race was allowed to continue after Senna's accident...I remember sitting on the couch watching it on TV almost feeling as if I was paralysed. Murray Walker's grim commentary just summed the whole thing up. Not a day that I care to remember. :|

 

Indianapolis 2005 - What a shambles. Made worse for me by the fact that it could have affected the WDC as Schumacher was able to take part but Alonso wasn't (I was a massive fan of Alonso at the time). I didn't know whether to laugh or cry while watching this.

 

Hockenheim 2010 - The infamous "Fernando is faster than you." I'm not particularly a Massa fan but for Ferrari to do that to him on the first anniversary of his accident was just too cruel.

 

And don't even start me on Spa 2008...although that wasn't so much the race than the aftermath. :mad:



#75 E1pix

E1pix
  • Member

  • 23,415 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 01 November 2014 - 15:59

Maybe Andretti "could have" driven faster, too.

As fill-in for the late Peterson in the final two rounds, I've long wondered if Jean-Pierre Jarier considers Montreal, 1978 as his worst or best GP. He flat drove away most of the race, to the tune of a second a lap until breaking. It was amazing to witness and has since had me thinking Peterson was unquestionably held back during his tenure at Lotus. One can picture Colin saying, "Next year will be yours, Ronnie," which sadly we didn't get to see.

Edited to add: http://en.espnf1.com...tory/10287.html

Edited by E1pix, 01 November 2014 - 16:13.


#76 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 7,836 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 01 November 2014 - 18:05

 One can picture Colin saying, "Next year will be yours, Ronnie," which sadly we didn't get to see.

Edited to add: http://en.espnf1.com...tory/10287.html

 

But of course 1979 - even if Ronnie had not moved to McLaren - would not have been Lotus' year to give victories to Ronnie.



#77 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 16,465 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 01 November 2014 - 23:19

The 2011 European Grand Prix at Valencia was dire. How often does someone start in 24th and finish 24th? Never before or since. Virtually nothing happened at a boring circuit.

Not the greatest race to put it mildly but there was at least some passing in the midfield - mostly by Alguersuari. IMHO the inaugural 2008 one was far more a contender for most boring race ever - no passing at all on track for an entire race after the first few corners! In the mid nineties after refuelling was introduced you had some of those races as well when everyone just focused on pitstop strategy.

 

Other rather recent contenders for the title of most boring GP: the 2002 San Marino GP and the 2004 Hungarian GP.



#78 Zippel

Zippel
  • Member

  • 1,145 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 03 November 2014 - 03:50

Doug,

 

Funny enough, something similar happened in 2001 already at the same track but then it was for 2nd and 3th place. But that one never got that much attention.

But that was certainly made up for one year later......

 

Henri

 

I recall it did ruffle a few feathers but because Coulthard was close to Schumi in the championship at the time and there was a certain level of understanding. 2002 was clearly going to be a very easy one for Ferrari and Rubens hadn't won a race for 2 years.

 

I think some are confusing specific events within a GP as opposed to worst overall GP ever. Spain 99 was cited as nothing much happened and that was certainly true as well as a few GPs during the Schumacher domination era.

 

US 2005 would have been amusing had the Ferraris taken each other out like they almost did at one stage.



#79 uechtel

uechtel
  • Member

  • 1,960 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 03 November 2014 - 08:23

I realize that, Henri. No misunderstandings. :)

 

I did not claim that either. I just said there were team orders.



Advertisement

#80 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 12,860 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 03 November 2014 - 09:37

I recall it did ruffle a few feathers but because Coulthard was close to Schumi in the championship at the time and there was a certain level of understanding. 2002 was clearly going to be a very easy one for Ferrari and Rubens hadn't won a race for 2 years.

 

I think some are confusing specific events within a GP as opposed to worst overall GP ever. Spain 99 was cited as nothing much happened and that was certainly true as well as a few GPs during the Schumacher domination era.

 

US 2005 would have been amusing had the Ferraris taken each other out like they almost did at one stage.

 

 

From what I remember and each and every time I must look it up but I could swear there was also a monumental high speed crash in that race of 2001 that took everyone's breath away since it could have ended up in tears. Involved a Jordan (?) and an Sauber (?)

I don't mean the restart, it happened later on in the race.

 

 

Henri



#81 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 16,465 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 03 November 2014 - 12:31

From what I remember and each and every time I must look it up but I could swear there was also a monumental high speed crash in that race of 2001 that took everyone's breath away since it could have ended up in tears. Involved a Jordan (?) and an Sauber (?)

I don't mean the restart, it happened later on in the race.

 

 

Henri

That was in 2002 - Heidfeld and Sato.



#82 seb333

seb333
  • New Member

  • 22 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 03 November 2014 - 20:38

Well, after the US Grand Prix yesterday, I'm afraid having to give a very Nostalgia-ish answer to the question: The worst Grand Prix ever?
Always the next one...

#83 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 12,860 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 05 November 2014 - 08:01

That was in 2002 - Heidfeld and Sato.

 

 

OK,

 

I certainly must doe something about my brains, too often close but not on cue anymore wit a number of things.....

 

 

Henri



#84 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 9,571 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 05 November 2014 - 10:18

OK,

 

I certainly must doe something about my brains, too often close but not on cue anymore wit a number of things.....

 

 

Henri

 

Don't know where you're up to Henri, but believe me, it's only ever going to get worse.



#85 Michael Ferner

Michael Ferner
  • Member

  • 7,124 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 05 November 2014 - 10:40

Who needs brains, anyway.

#86 bill p

bill p
  • Member

  • 697 posts
  • Joined: December 08

Posted 05 November 2014 - 11:01

Well, after the US Grand Prix yesterday, I'm afraid having to give a very Nostalgia-ish answer to the question: The worst Grand Prix ever?
Always the next one...

 

You took the words out of my mouth or off my keyboard!   ;)


Edited by bill p, 05 November 2014 - 11:02.


#87 thiscocks

thiscocks
  • Member

  • 1,489 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 05 November 2014 - 12:43

For some reason I remember struggling through Hungary 1999. Makes Russia this year look good.