86 replies to this topic

[Spa65]

As is usual for a Wednesday night as a happily retired gentleman, I was down the pub having a few pints when my attention was drawn to the inevitable sport on the widescreen TV. This particular subject was entitled "Classic F1" on one of the Sky channels. I recognised the F1 cars of the period - homing in on 1981 as the likely year. I wondered about the venue for a minute or two before the penny dropped - this was the 1981 Las Vegas Grand Prix. "Classic F1" indeed - what loonies saw this as a classic? Though perhaps the appalling nature of the event might label it as "Classic". However I think Sky had not considered irony. This simpleton cheapo pretentious garbage had never been subject to any analysis as to its true merits, and whoever raised it to the level of being broadcast had no sympathy for anyone who knew anything about the sport - that's probably being overgenerous as the cretin responsible probably couldn't tell a John Player from a Marlboro.

 

I remember reading at the time that this had been held in a car park for the Caesar's Palace casino. I think that was probably some Jenks comments. It may even have been called something like "The Pepsi Cola Grand Prix" (and that definitely was a development that horrified Jenks, and which sadly has become the norm). However this is the first time that I had seen the true nature of the circuit. True, it goes through the car park, and there are a couple of smallish grandstands in that area. However 90% of the circuit just zigzags back and forwards, almost in parallel lines, through the desert, with plenty of sand and not a single spectator in sight. There is nobody out there, so may as well just compress the circuit into the smallest space possible.

 

What on earth caused this nonsense to take form? Perhaps some Mafia involvement? I had the benefit of watching it with no sound available, thus showing it in its purest form. But I can't help thinking that Murray Walker would have been screaming at the most minor item as per his norm to the TV audience at the time, deluding some into thinking it might be exciting, while making the purists cringe. Why can't we have another Raymond Baxter on the scene with a reasoned commentary. When he got excited you knew it was worth watching -  Monza '67 et al.

 

Baxter was a Spitfire pilot doing dangerous attacks for real in WW2. Mind you I have to say that I was very surprised to see him on TV on one occasion when he apparently did one of his party pieces - some sort of one man show when he was dressed 100% in drag with mannerisms to suit. What is it with the English that this is found to be so amusing?

 

Getting back on topic I thik the recent Russian GP was pretty dire, running as possibly the second worst GP ever, though I think the organisers were pretty unlucky. They could hardly be blamed for a pretty incident-free race, or the extended reaction to Bianchi's accident.

 

So who have I upset this time?

 

 

[George Costanza]

2005 US GP.

[Lee Nicolle]

2005 US GP.

Agreed.

If anyone has a link to that Vegas GP I would like to see it. I do remember reading about it. From memory Jonesy was not impressed.

[George Costanza]

in recent memory, Korea had made some horrible racing.

 

But no GP will top the 2005 US GP for the worst ever.

 

The 70s and 80s had their fair share of boring races, but you would have to dig deep to find a GP that bad, as with every decade has boring and horrible races and vice versa.

Edited by George Costanza, 30 October 2014 - 02:03.

[E1pix]

Per the 2005 nominations, was that more race or supplier snafu?

Hard to agree with a vote based entirely on rubber, that'd be too much like our 2000 Presidential election.

Now Las Vegas, on the other hand... I'm in.

[Rob G]

 

But no GP will top the 2005 US GP for the worst ever.

 

 

I beg to differ by mentioning the 1926 French GP at Miramas. One team, three cars, zero excitement.

Edited by Rob G, 30 October 2014 - 02:34.

[D28]

Agreed  USGP 2005. F1 has never fully recovered stateside from that fiasco; don't know about Michelin.

 

!967 Monaco GP was a disaster as totally inadequate safety procedures contributed to Lorenzo Bandini's death. Track safety standards were unimaginable by todays standards.

[Ray Bell]

Running in the same vein as the 2005 US GP would be the 1960 Italian GP...

The organisers dug in and insisted they'd use the banked circuit so all the British teams (or almost all?) stayed away.

[George Costanza]

I beg to differ by mentioning the 1926 French GP at Miramas. One team, three cars, zero excitement.

 

Ok, but that was not on TV or when F1 was a billion dollar business or F1 didn't exist in 1926.

So, 2005 wins.

[Emery0323]

Don't forget Australia 1991.   Horrible monsoon conditions, even worse than 1989.  Senna led Mansell around for only 14 laps (< 20% of the scheduled 81 !) before they stopped the race due to multiple crashes.  

 

Is there another Grand Prix where championship points were awarded after less than 25 minutes of racing, or <20% of the scheduled distance?

 

http://statsf1.com/e...r-par-tour.aspx

Edited by Emery0323, 30 October 2014 - 05:14.

[Tim Murray]

Ok, but that was not on TV or when F1 was a billion dollar business or F1 didn't exist in 1926.
So, 2005 wins.

You cannot erase an event from history just because it doesn't fit certain arbitrary criteria of your choice. Until 1926 the French Grand Prix had been the major event of the year. The 1926 race which, as Rob said, had only three starters, ended up after over four and a half hours with only one classified finisher. The event was a complete fiasco.

[Glengavel]

 

What on earth caused this nonsense to take form? Perhaps some Mafia involvement? I had the benefit of watching it with no sound available, thus showing it in its purest form. But I can't help thinking that Murray Walker would have been screaming at the most minor item as per his norm to the TV audience at the time, deluding some into thinking it might be exciting, while making the purists cringe. Why can't we have another Raymond Baxter on the scene with a reasoned commentary. When he got excited you knew it was worth watching -  Monza '67 et al.

 

Baxter was a Spitfire pilot doing dangerous attacks for real in WW2. Mind you I have to say that I was very surprised to see him on TV on one occasion when he apparently did one of his party pieces - some sort of one man show when he was dressed 100% in drag with mannerisms to suit. What is it with the English that this is found to be so amusing?

 

 

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with Baxter's wartime experience. Murray Walker was a tank commander, after all.

[2F-001]

Considering what kind of racing might be possible with so few runners, the 2005 US race was no worse than plenty of other Grands Prix - just a little more sparsely populated.

If you are going take into account all the circumstances surrounding an event, or the consequences of its running (as well as the closeness, or otherwise, of the result) then the Belgian Grand Prix of 1960 was not so good.

[Henri Greuter]

Don't forget Australia 1991.   Horrible monsoon conditions, even worse than 1989.  Senna led Mansell around for only 14 laps (< 20% of the scheduled 81 !) before they stopped the race due to multiple crashes.

 

Is there another Grand Prix where championship points were awarded after less than 25 minutes of racing, or <20% of the scheduled distance?

 

http://statsf1.com/e...r-par-tour.aspx

 

 

One reason for stopping that race may have been because Senna was in one of those accidents and when he was out of the race, all mathematical and other chances Senna still had to take the title (Appeal about outcome at Japan...) were gone. Prost was 100% certain champ. It was the final race of the season...

With all the accidents etc: why risk the driver's lives even longer and get a lot of critics should something more diabolical than had happened till that time come true?

 

Henri

[Henri Greuter]

Worst race ever for me:  Suzuka 1990.

 

A driver who had an issue with politics and rule makers can't behave himself and let his frustration loose on another driver instead deliberately.

And getting away with it too.

 

Morals and rules of on-track behaviour went down the drain ever since.....

 

 

Henri

[Barry Boor]

I dipped into that '81 Vegas race occasionally last night.

I too find it hard to imagine anything more boring, if boring is a criteria upon which to describe the 'worst' race.

Otherwise I would tend to agree with 2F about Belgium 1960. Must rank with the worst, although saddest might be a better description.

[ensign14]

I beg to differ by mentioning the 1926 French GP at Miramas. One team, three cars, zero excitement.

 

One of which retired before half-distance and one other which would not be classified as a finisher under today's rules.

[Lee Nicolle]

Don't forget Australia 1991.   Horrible monsoon conditions, even worse than 1989.  Senna led Mansell around for only 14 laps (< 20% of the scheduled 81 !) before they stopped the race due to multiple crashes.

 

Is there another Grand Prix where championship points were awarded after less than 25 minutes of racing, or <20% of the scheduled distance?

 

http://statsf1.com/e...r-par-tour.aspx

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes but the whole field started. About 28 cars? 

Though that circuit was a useless place when wet. Drainage was never taken into account, the drainage is for the full road not just selected bits used and the bitumen compound while very tough a durable is also like ice when wet.

And yes I have raced on that track in the 'damp',, on slicks. I had a harmless little spin, quite a few did not

Edited by Lee Nicolle, 30 October 2014 - 08:22.

[TennisUK]

One reason for stopping that race may have been because Senna was in one of those accidents and when he was out of the race, all mathematical and other chances Senna still had to take the title (Appeal about outcome at Japan...) were gone. Prost was 100% certain champ. It was the final race of the season...

With all the accidents etc: why risk the driver's lives even longer and get a lot of critics should something more diabolical than had happened till that time come true?

 

Henri

You are thinking of 1989 when the race was not stopped. Senna had the championship done and dusted by Adelaide in '91 after Mansell slid off at Suzuka. IIRC in '91 Senna did not go off (though Mansell did and injured his ankle - though wether this was a real injury or a 'Mansell' injury I can not recall).

Edited by TennisUK, 30 October 2014 - 09:52.

[ensign14]

One other thing about the 1926 GP de l'ACF - it was at Miramas. 

 

Behold the magnificence of its challenge.

 

[Manfred Cubenoggin]

HA!  Good one, Esign14! 

 

I'm pretty sure I still have the GPI issue of the Caesar's Palace GP down in the basement.  I'll see if I can't dig it up and post a few scans.

 

[Emery0323]

You are thinking of 1989 when the race was not stopped. Senna had the championship done and dusted by Adelaide in '91 after Mansell slid off at Suzuka. IIRC in '91 Senna did not go off (though Mansell did and injured his ankle - though wether this was a real injury or a 'Mansell' injury I can not recall).

 

That's correct - Don't confuse Adelaide '89 with Adelaide '91.   In '89, the race still went the full distance after Senna crashed out, Thierry Boutsen won.   In '91, Senna had clinched the championship at Suzuka and was also leading early at Adelaide, but it was Mansell who crashed out in 2nd place, and  the race was called after only 14 laps.    Senna got 5 championship points for a race that ran < 1/5 th the scheduled distance!

 

The interesting thing about the 1989 Adelaide GP was that Senna and Ron Dennis were trying to appeal Senna's disqualification at Suzuka, which had given Prost the championship.   Senna still needed to win both Suzuka and Adelaide to catch up to Prost, but his crash in the wet at Adelaide made the appeal  moot, since he could not catch Prost without a win at Adelaide.  Prost, of course, withdrew on the grid.
 

[Mallory Dan]

I thought Vegas '81 was decent all told. 2, or was it 3, drivers going for the title, plenty of cars in contention, Jonesy's last race (or so we thought at the time), a street race always had a little something extra too. I can think of many worse events.

[2F-001]

That Vegas race is mainly remembered now for the circuit, its bland setting and the physical challenge it (and the heat) presented.
But as a temporary street-style circuit it was never going to win hearts when we still had places like the Osterreichring, Zandvoort and Dijon (a much underrated challenge) on the calendar.
We've had plenty of circuits in recent times that have been no better (and that have not produced racing as good). It was by no means a 'classic' race in my book (though the name of the venue might qualify it as 'classical'…) but, as Dan points out, the racing - if you ignore the scenery - wasn't bad. I mean, have you seen the places they race these days?

As to what makes a circuit a worthy venue: if Monza was built today as a new circuit, same layout on a similarly flat site but devoid of the wooded parkland setting, with acres of run-off and views of little or nothing into the distance… would anyone really think that could be called 'interesting'?

Edited by 2F-001, 30 October 2014 - 11:13.

[uechtel]

I think it is very much like the question for the best/worst driver/car ever. You can not really compare times and circumstances. Also what criteria you take to say it was a "bad" Grand Prix. Dreadful accidents, bad competition, outside influences (like weather), small grids, inadequate ciruits, ridiculous politics etc. etc. So it is hard to say which was the "worst".

 

So I can make only suggestions for some real "low points":

 

1925 Belgian GP - two teams at the start only, one superwhelmingly superior, only two Alfas left after half of the race

1926 French GP - only one team competing, boring circuit, three cars at the start, one finisher

1926 Italian GP - not much better than the two events listed above. The Maseratis out after less than 10% of the race leaving the Chiribiri as the only competitor to three Bugattis

1927 Milan GP/Italian GP - event split into several races allowing the two major competing constructors to avoid facing each other and leading to very poor competition

1928 Italian GP - 22 deaths in Materassi´s fatal crash, race continued for over two hours to the end

1933 Monza GP/Italian GP - a very sad day with deadly accidents of three top drivers

1960 Belgian GP - another dark weekend with the sport overshadowed by the fatal accidents

1960 Italian GP - the decision to use the banked circuit made all the British teams staying away leaving virtually no competition to the Ferraris

1961 US GP - having won the championships already the Ferrari team did not make the trip as they had done in 1960, but this time turning the event into kind of a farce

1966 Monaco GP - 9 of the 16 participants with engines inadequate to the current Formula

1969 Spanish GP - ridiculous wings mounted on even more ridiculous tubes - the resulting accidents made a mid-season rule change inevitable

1970 Mexican GP - a really frightening event with spectators all over the track

1973 Dutch GP - Roger Williamson died very much the same way as Piers Courage three years before - nothing learned

1973 Canadian GP - confusion because of incompetent handling of the pace car completely spoiled the result of the race

1975 Spanish GP - race is held against strong safety concerns of the drivers with the consequent result

1980 Spanish GP - race fell victim to politics because of the escalation of the FISA-FOCA war during the weekend

1981 Las Vegas GP - completely inadequate environment and and club-event-like circuit layout

1982 San Marino GP - another climax of the FISA-FOCA war with most of the competitve FOCA teams boycotting the race 

1984 Monaco GP - still many suspect, that the moment to flag off the race was deliberately chosen to secure victory to Alain Prost

1989 and 1990 Japanese GP - with starting do deliberately drive into their opponents cars Prost and Senna start a new stage of escalation into driver duels

1991 Australian GP - pouring rain mad it necessary to stop the race after less than quarter of distance

1994 San Marino GP - black weekend with the deaths of two drivers. The information about Senna´s death is held back until after the race over the whole distance

1994 Australian GP - Schumacher decides the championship in the same way as Prost/Senna in 1989/1990

1997 European GP - Schumacher takes another try, becoming the first driver to get excluded from the championship

2005 European GP - ridiculous rules with required pitstops for refuelling but not allowing tyre changes lead to an avoidable, dangerous accident of Raikkonen out of leading position in the last lap

2005 US GP - only six cars competing because of the tyre war

2008 Singpore GP - in a new stage of team tactics Briatore ordered Piquet to crash deliberately in order to fix the race for Alonso

2014 Abu Dhabi GP - double points for one race - how stupid will that become?

 

I am sure there will be also some more. And since around 2000, with the increasing number of Tilke circuits in unpopulated areas of the world, the frequent use of safety cars influencing the results of more and more races and finally the introduction of DRS as another element of 'lottery', it gets hard for me to list all the farcical races...

 

Finally, rather a GP by spirit than by name, the Gordon Bennett races of 1901 and 1902 would certainly also fit well into that list with the contest being degraded into a mere sub-category of a concurrent race, receiving only very little interest, extremely few participants and only one surviving car on both occasions, which was way behind the winner of the 'main' event.

Edited by uechtel, 31 October 2014 - 09:04.

[Spa65]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with Baxter's wartime experience. Murray Walker was a tank commander, after all.

Nothing malicious or implied. I remain to this day a great fan of Baxter - I think he was the best motor racing commentator I ever came across and a gentleman to boot. I was just mentioning other strings to his personality, without passing comment. I can only admire his wartime courage (as I can also admire Murray's ability to be a tank commander, though I may not be a fan of his commentating style).

 

And no, please don't try to read anything between the lines that I might be suggesting anything about his sexuality. I am not. I read somewhere once that even cross dressers are almost exclusively heterosexual.

 

And no, I am not suggesting that he was a cross dresser. He was just doing an act on one occasion for the cameras.

 

And I am inadvertently saying things I never intended and am hoping this is not misconstrued. 

 

And I must stop starting sentences with "And".

 

One of my abiding memories of Baxter was on an edition of Tomorrow's World. He was giving a commentary on a machine that could whack golf balls with a driver 300 yards perfectly every time. The machine mimicked Nicklaus's swing perfectly, until the split second after impact when the club would rotate at high speed at the top of the grip, due to its polar moment of inertia, and the complete lack of any damping at the wrist. RB's dead-pan comment: "I love that beautifully elastic follow-through".

 

And that's all.

[jeffbee]

2005 US GP.

What about the first Borerain GP?

[Michael Ferner]

I haven't been watching Grands Prix for nigh on 15 years now, so I'm sure I missed the bulk of contenders, but Las Vegas '81 wouldn't be on my list anyway. Much was made at the time of the "carpark nature" of the circuit, but in truth it wasn't half bad, and so was the race. Most races are interesting for one reason or another, if you're not focused on who's winning, so I had little to complain during my times. 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. I'll make allowances for Miramas in '26, though...

[jj2728]

Take your pick, anything post 1989 qualifies........and that's being kind.

[Nonesuch]

1960 Belgian GP - another dark weekend with the sport overshadowed by the fatal accidents

A good candidate; as far as I know it's the only F1 Grand Prix with two fatal accidents during a single race (Alan Stacey and Chris Bristow).

2005 European GP - ridiculous rules with required pitstops for refuelling but not allowing tyre changes lead to an avoidable, dangerous accident of Raikkonen out of leading position in the last lap

The rules did allow teams to change tyres, under three circumstances: 'Unless a precautionary tyre change is necessary for clear and genuine safety reasons, only a punctured or damaged tyre may be changed during a race.' (2005 Formula 1 Sporting Regulations, 74.A)

McLaren and Räikkönen decided to take the risk on the damaged tyre, which given the championship situation wasn't necessarily unreasonable.

[Henri Greuter]

You are thinking of 1989 when the race was not stopped. Senna had the championship done and dusted by Adelaide in '91 after Mansell slid off at Suzuka. IIRC in '91 Senna did not go off (though Mansell did and injured his ankle - though wether this was a real injury or a 'Mansell' injury I can not recall).

 

 

 

Yes, you are right.

I stand correcrted.Thanks.

 

Henri

[Henri Greuter]

I think it is very much like the question for the best/worst driver/car ever. You can not really compare times and circumstances. Also what criteria you take to say it was a "bad" Grand Prix. Dreadful accidents, bad competition, outside influences (like weather), small grids, inadequate ciruits, ridiculous politics etc. etc. So it is hard to say which was the "worst".

 

So I can make only suggestions for some real "low points":

 

1972 Dutch GP - Roger Williamson died very much the same way as Piers Courage two years before - nothing learned

.

 

 

 

OK, I'm not the only one mixing years;

 

Willimason's death wasn't in 1972 (No Dutch GP) but one year later in 1973. I'll never forget that day in my life anymore.

 

henri

[Emery0323]

I haven't been watching Grands Prix for nigh on 15 years now, so I'm sure I missed the bulk of contenders, but Las Vegas '81 wouldn't be on my list anyway. Much was made at the time of the "carpark nature" of the circuit, but in truth it wasn't half bad, and so was the race. Most races are interesting for one reason or another, if you're not focused on who's winning, so I had little to complain during my times. 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. I'll make allowances for Miramas in '26, though...

Just my opinion, but as street circuits go, Las Vegas wasn't that bad.  Unlike most modern street circuits, it wasn't all concrete barriers around the perimeter of the track, which made it more like a natural terrain circuit than is the case with other street circuits.  Detroit, Phoenix, Dallas were probably worse, though that isn't saying much. 

[scheivlak]

“This magnificently constructed circuit.....”

 

Murray Walker, 1981, about Las Vegas.

[Rob G]

One other thing about the 1926 GP de l'ACF - it was at Miramas. 

 

Behold the magnificence of its challenge.

 

Yes, and it wasn't even a short oval. With a distance of 5 km, lap times were around two and a half minutes. The drivers probably hardly even had to lift off the throttle unless a pit stop was involved.

Edited by Rob G, 30 October 2014 - 17:28.

[lanciaman]

The 2005 USGP.  There was a near riot when the grid formed, a huge outburst of fury from the stands, a roar you could hear for miles.  I quickly took myself next door to the Speedway Motel and the manager, a friend of mine, let me in to sit at the bar (as he blocked the door to furious fans who wanted to break something).  By then it was widely known that Tony G. had made a disadvantageous deal and that Bernie was milking the events; pouring gas on the fire, Bernie also made it known that he would not spend the night in Indianapolis because there were no accommodations that met his standards.  He won no friends and when the race became a non race, it added insult to injury and people were mightily upset.

 

I was at Caesar's in 1981 and it was an OK race at a peculiar venue.  You simply could not make it look right.   I was there as part of the supporting "CanAm" race (quotes intended)

[Tim Murray]

I've always relished Keke Rosberg's comments on Las Vegas when interviewed at the 1982 race (as recounted by Nigel Roebuck in Grand Prix Greats) :
 

'Did you find the track different at all this year?' asked an intense Vegas commentator after the race.

'Yes, sure, I thought it was much better than last time.'

'Oh really?' said the man, unable to believe his luck - and unaware of the trap before him. 'Why is that, Kay-kay?'

'Well, since last year we've been to Detroit ... '

Edited by Tim Murray, 30 October 2014 - 18:52.

[Marc Sproule]

one of my favorite pics from las vegas.....

 

https://www.flickr.c...N03/13987182998

[Gabrci]

I really don't think Indy 2005 was bad as a race. There was a decent fight for the win and don't be a hypocrite, we all enjoyed the curiosity of seeing 6 cars lining up on the grid. I do remember for example Spain 1999 though with one overtaking recorded over the whole race and being Hungarian I endured a few absolutely awful races at the Hungaroring particularly in the early 2000's. 

[ensign14]

Yes, and it wasn't even a short oval. With a distance of 5 km, lap times were around two and a half minutes. The drivers probably hardly even had to lift off the throttle unless a pit stop was involved.

 

To sum up this one, the spectators would have watched, for about two hours, three Bugattis going around, then for the next two and a half, two Bugattis going around, with one of them miles quicker than the other.  And they would have seen them pass at speed 20 or so times in the hour, going in what is more or less a straight line. 

 

It's not even as if there would have been any tension as to the winner.  De Vizcaya was a ride-buyer, and although Costatini was good, it was the mechanical grind of the Targa that suited his talents more.

[uechtel]

OK, I'm not the only one mixing years;

 

Willimason's death wasn't in 1972 (No Dutch GP) but one year later in 1973. I'll never forget that day in my life anymore.

 

henri

 

My only excuse is, it´s long ago and I was only eight years old...

[Doug Nye]

2002 Austrian Grand Prix - reprehensible, unforgivable, for me a life-changing moment...

DCN

[Lee Nicolle]

I really don't think Indy 2005 was bad as a race. There was a decent fight for the win and don't be a hypocrite, we all enjoyed the curiosity of seeing 6 cars lining up on the grid. I do remember for example Spain 1999 though with one overtaking recorded over the whole race and being Hungarian I endured a few absolutely awful races at the Hungaroring particularly in the early 2000's. 

You would be a very small minority.

Six cars killed F1 yet again in the US. One quarter of the field. 

[uechtel]

2002 Austrian Grand Prix - reprehensible, unforgivable, for me a life-changing moment...

DCN

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. And who complains about fifties, where in case of Fangio ran into a problem the "B-driver" of his team was ordered in to hand over his car? Or even more back, even of Caracciola / Fagioli (or Varzi / Stuck). In the latter cases it was only for reasons of politics, so much more annoying in my opinion, than team tactics to optimise the championhip standings.

Edited by uechtel, 31 October 2014 - 10:27.

[ensign14]

At least with Fangio, it was because he was the best driver in the world, and the chance of winning any individual GP could only be increased by putting him at the wheel.

 

2002 Austrian Grand Prix - reprehensible, unforgivable, for me a life-changing moment...

DCN

 

Doug - was that worse than Le Mans 1966?  That one always seems to get a free pass because of the myth that there was a dead heat, but in reality it seems to have been Ford deliberately screwing Ken Miles from the immortality he deserved.  That to me is far more repugnant than Rubens losing out on one of the few times he genuinely had Schumacher beaten.

 

And it certainly wasn't worse than Belgium 2008, when the governing body conspired to fix the result.

[2F-001]

How would we feel about a race in which, say (hypothetically speaking of course…) one driver made a rather clumsy attempt to eliminate a rival, merely excluding himself - and in the aftermath two other teams colluded over the outcome of the race. Viewing such a thing as that wouldn't be a particularly edifying experience.

Edited by 2F-001, 31 October 2014 - 11:18.

[Doug Nye]

Austria 2002 disgusted me not because I was naive enough to think that team order finishes should not be orchestrated (give me a break - I had already been around a very long time)but because it was only May, early in the season, and without a second thought a commercial scenario was played out without a second's thought given for how it would appear to the uninitiated, and perhaps moreso to the paying public in the grandstands that day. With the winner celebrating as if something had been achieved on merit - and team management displaying surprised disbelief at the crowd's adverse reaction - that was the day much of my long-strained enthusiasm really deflated. I'd been following F1 avidly since I was six years old - and that was the day I could no longer instinctively make excuses for what it had become. So - personally speaking - that's the race that stuffed it for me.

DCN

Edited by Doug Nye, 31 October 2014 - 11:34.

[ensign14]

To add to that, Rubens and Ferrari had been telling everyone that he was allowed to race Schumacher and did not have a contractual requirement to finish behind him. So there was mendacity as well.

But I'd long ignored the championship as being any realistic measure, and it was obvious Rubens had won Austria, so it was more the overt contempt Ferrari showed to the world that was aggravating.

[2F-001]

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.

[Henri Greuter]

2002 Austrian Grand Prix - reprehensible, unforgivable, for me a life-changing moment...

DCN

 

 

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