54 replies to this topic

[Barri]

Does anyone know why Stefan Bellof didn't make to the podium of the 1984 Monaco GP? He finished 3rd about 21s behind Alain Prost. 

 

We know his Tyrrell got disqualified days after but that doesn't explain why he didn't join Senna and Prost to the ceremony. 

Did he know he was getting disqualified and didn't bother? Who knows...

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=y9sZNGk-NZA

[Francesc]

If I'm not mistaken it was his only podium in F1, wasn't it?

 

A big shame he didn't join Alain and Ayrton on the rostrum.

[ensign14]

We know his Tyrrell got disqualified days after but that doesn't explain why he didn't join Senna and Prost to the ceremony. 

https://www.youtube....h?v=y9sZNGk-NZA

It was months after.  Following a number of legal challenges. 

 

Maybe he was there before?  Or maybe he was annoyed that the race had ended early?

[Collombin]

I'm more confused by De Angelis being up there after the 1982 race - but I guess everyone was confused that day.

[opplock]

I'm more confused by De Angelis being up there after the 1982 race - but I guess everyone was confused that day.

 

I was in the K2 stand and thought one of the Lotus drivers must have won. The team may have thought the same. 

[Tim Murray]

I’ve checked the contemporary race reports in both Autosport and Motoring News but there was no mention of Bellof’s absence from the 1984 podium.

[Arjan de Roos]

Well in the early eighties the Monaco GP did not have a podium ceremony like the others. Only the winner was invited to come to the Prince (with company). Like in 1981 when Villeneuve was accompanied by his wife Joan and mechanic Sergio Vezzali who joined in the party. The 1982 race was so chaotic that De Angelis expected to get a trophy there and then.

In 1983 Prost and Piquet joined Keke and there was a "podium". In 1984 Senna was more than keen to demonstrate his abilities and thus joined Alain. It was pretty chaotic after this soaking wet race. Bellof did rapidly change to dry clothes and was whisked off. Maybe Ken only wanted his driver to be there when he would win (next year)? But since those years the first three were invited to be handed their trophies and later on it became a more standard F1 protocol.

Edited by Arjan de Roos, 03 June 2020 - 16:43.

[Collombin]

I’ve checked the contemporary race reports in both Autosport and Motoring News but there was no mention of Bellof’s absence from the 1984 podium.

Nor in Autocar, although I did learn that none of the cars were weighed after the race as the scales were flooded.

[bsc]

I think, in some respects, it looks more strange with hindsight. As has been pointed out, 1983 featured an informal podium of the top three and, as from 1985,the top three were invited to the prize giving, Bellof's absence looks an anomaly. However, as pointed out, Bellof was just following the contemporary procedure at Monaco.

[opplock]

Nor in Autocar, although I did learn that none of the cars were weighed after the race as the scales were flooded.

 

I'm not surprised. We hadn't intended to see the GP that year but after dodging rain in Italy for a month turned up in Monaco on the Wednesday and managed to buy tickets for a stand on top of the Hotel Miramar (£50). Race day was the wettest I've ever known and we made it worse by arriving first and staking out places in top row. That meant we got soaked by rain coming up off sea to the front and the spray from cars accelerating up the hill immediately behind us. My brother had chosen to wear a brown woollen jumper and creamy colour cords under his coat. They were creamy, when we got back to the campsite at Menton they were dyed brown.  

[ensign14]

I'm more confused by De Angelis being up there after the 1982 race - but I guess everyone was confused that day.

 

I am pretty certain I saw a graphic at the end of the race that had the result as Patrese, Mansell, de Angelis, Henton, and Surer. And no sixth place.  As if whoever was doing them had forgotten classified finishers.

 

[Ivanhoe]

It was months after.  Following a number of legal challenges. 

 

Maybe he was there before?  Or maybe he was annoyed that the race had ended early?

I think this was exactly the reason. Stefan would probably have won the race weren’t it for Jacky Ickx controversially red flagging it. Stefan drove a N/A engine which was far more favorable in a wet race and Senna had a broken suspension. I think he just refused to attend the podium ceremony, just like Vettel intended to do at Canada.

Edited by Ivanhoe, 03 June 2020 - 18:34.

[maximilian]

And ironically Prost lobbying for the race to be red flagged so he could save his win probably lost him the championship later, by that famous HALF point.

[Ivanhoe]

Yep, Jacky waived the flag about 25 laps to early

Edited by Ivanhoe, 03 June 2020 - 20:55.

[Spillage]

I am pretty certain I saw a graphic at the end of the race that had the result as Patrese, Mansell, de Angelis, Henton, and Surer. And no sixth place. As if whoever was doing them had forgotten classified finishers.

Certainly Murray Walker made this mistake in the commentary box. Probably De Angeli's did the same.

[Izzyeviel]

it is a bit weird, plenty of (otherwise trustworthy) sites all say he was there, but looking at the video footage, he's clearly absent. And speaking of the footage, how miserable does Senna look?

[Michael Ferner]

Actually, it's more of a surprise to find Senna there - usually, at Monaco it was only the winner who got a pot and a handshake! Maybe Senna thought he'd won?

[GLaird]

Since the 1000Kms at Silverstone in 1983, where I got a chance to chat to SB as he filled his company car after the race, I was a huge fan. He was very down to earth, and easy to talk to, and by all accounts remained so. At that time I got both Autosport and Motoring News, but there was nothing in either about anything unusual at the Podium. In those days the 'ceremony' wasnt as orchestrated as it is today, with fresh towels, putting on the sponsors watch etc.

Also in Autosport a week later there would have been Fifth Column with Nigel Roebuck, whom I also greatly respect. Something which he deprecates, and has called out down the years is petulance, and bad manners, and I am sure if that was the case surrounding the Podium, it would have been mentioned, and if not then, subsequently. Can any Tyrrell insiders help with the final version?

[Sterzo]

Well in the early eighties the Monaco GP did not have a podium ceremony like the others. Only the winner was invited to come to the Prince (with company). Like in 1981 when Villeneuve was accompanied by his wife Joan and mechanic Sergio Vezzali who joined in the party. The 1982 race was so chaotic that De Angelis expected to get a trophy there and then.

In 1983 Prost and Piquet joined Keke and there was a "podium". In 1984 Senna was more than keen to demonstrate his abilities and thus joined Alain. It was pretty chaotic after this soaking wet race. Bellof did rapidly change to dry clothes and was whisked off. Maybe Ken only wanted his driver to be there when he would win (next year)? But since those years the first three were invited to be handed their trophies and later on it became a more standard F1 protocol.

This answers the question, so I'm not too sure what the continuing debate is about.

[Dicun]

And ironically Prost lobbying for the race to be red flagged so he could save his win probably lost him the championship later, by that famous HALF point.

 

That is a fairly common misconception. Had the race been continued it wouldn't have made a difference anyway because Prost was struggling with the same brake issues that made Lauda spin. The race was stopped after lap 31 and to score full points 75% of the scheduled 76 laps total race distance should have been completed. This means Prost would have had to survive another 26 laps with failing brakes, allowing only Senna to catch and overtake him in the process whilst fending Arnoux, Rosberg and de Angelis off. It is safe to say even Prost wouldn't have been able to do that, and he most likely would have DNFd in a handful of laps.

[bigears]

I watched the race highlights on Sky Sports F1 recently and noticed there is no Bellof on the podium. I know the Tyrrell team was disqualified at the end of the season but where was Bellof on the day at the time of the podium ceremony?

 

Nice video of the ceremony here:

 

[2F-001]

Methinks this thread has now gone full circle...!

[Arjan de Roos]

Well, Bellof was sad it was over so suddenly (he would have liked to continue) yet at the same time he was happy that he managed not to shunt. He did not tank for water what led to rumors his car was under weight. But it turned out that the scales were also flooded and could not be operated. 

Ickx got a fine from Balestre (!), yet had the race continued: Senna would have caught Prost, Bellof would have caught Prost had he not been eliminated by his brakes, Senna would have stopped due to his damaged suspension, and a Rothmans overall would have been seen on the podium. Leading to a possible higher fine for Jacky: why did he not stop the race earlier... 

[Henri Greuter]

Well, Bellof was sad it was over so suddenly (he would have liked to continue) yet at the same time he was happy that he managed not to shunt. He did not tank for water what led to rumors his car was under weight. But it turned out that the scales were also flooded and could not be operated. 

Ickx got a fine from Balestre (!), yet had the race continued: Senna would have caught Prost, Bellof would have caught Prost had he not been eliminated by his brakes, Senna would have stopped due to his damaged suspension, and a Rothmans overall would have been seen on the podium. Leading to a possible higher fine for Jacky: why did he not stop the race earlier... 

Ensign14  won't believe his eyes this time if he reads the first line of this post    Only to read familiar things after this first line....

 

I think there is a decent chance that, even if the scales were not flooded and usable, the Tyrrell would still be heavy enough to be declared legal due to the amount of unused fuel still in the car.

 

But of course, there is also a decent chance that it would have been so much more lighter than every other car at the finish that was weighted that by then the approval owf what was going on had been all but clear for everyone to see. And by then coming down on the team as happened was way more justified than it (at least for me) already was.

[hogstar]

Well, Bellof was sad it was over so suddenly (he would have liked to continue) yet at the same time he was happy that he managed not to shunt. He did not tank for water what led to rumors his car was under weight. But it turned out that the scales were also flooded and could not be operated. 

Ickx got a fine from Balestre (!), yet had the race continued: Senna would have caught Prost, Bellof would have caught Prost had he not been eliminated by his brakes, Senna would have stopped due to his damaged suspension, and a Rothmans overall would have been seen on the podium. Leading to a possible higher fine for Jacky: why did he not stop the race earlier... 

 

I didn't know that Ickx got a fine, but I'm bloody well pleased he did! I was very annoyed that it got red flagged when it did. 

[ensign14]

Ensign14  won't believe his eyes this time if he reads the first line of this post    Only to read familiar things after this first line....

 

Sounds a veeeery convenient excuse for FISA to me...

[kyle936]

I didn't know that Ickx got a fine, but I'm bloody well pleased he did! I was very annoyed that it got red flagged when it did. 

I was annoyed too, although Ickx sued Balestre for libel, more or less, but I don't know how it turned out...

 

"Jean-Marie Balestre made some completely unacceptable statements concerning the Monaco Grand Prix which are utterly unforgivable. In the heat of the moment, he often comes out with rash comments. However he insinuated several things about me, not once but several times. He repeated them in subsequent interviews, knowing exactly what he was doing. I will not tolerate anyone saying that my reasons were anything other than in the name of sport while I was doing my duty, which I freely chose to do.

 

Let's be frank. It has been suggested that you were favouring Porsche, for whom you race in Endurance, by stopping the Monaco Grand Prix just when Prost, driving a Porsche-powered McLaren, was about to be overtaken by Senna...

 

"That is insinuating that I was obeying instructions from one person in particular. It can be interpreted in any one of several ways. I reckon that it was extremely bad taste for a FISA president to have said something like that at all. It was he who decided to change the Clerk of the Course at Monaco, and at the time he didn't see anything wrong with the idea that FISA should issue an official licence to me. That was before the race, he can't say now that it was a put-up job.

 

"I informed Balestre by post that I was going to officiate at Monaco as soon as Yvan Leon, the FISA secretary, granted me the necessary licence. If he thought that I shouldn't be a driver, TV commentator and Clerk of the Course at the same time, he should have said so then. I'm going to court to defend myself. I regret having to do this. It's normal that you come up against criticism in life. But there are limits to what you can do or say. For Balestre, it's just another court case. He must have a full-time lawyer working for him. I don't.

 

"Whether it was Prost or Senna who came through to win was the least important of my worries. I have been accused of favouritism (towards Prost). Allow me to return the question: I have a clear impression that the press would have preferred it if Senna had won. If I had dropped the flag two laps later, with a win for Senna, everyone would have been delighted. It so happened that my decision was to Prost's advantage. That's the way it happened, sorry, I was not aware that it would turn out that way.

 

"I didn't see his [Prost's] signals. Race Control looks out over the swimming pool, away from the pits. I believe that the signals he was making were to his own team, whose pits were just before the timekeeping booth. And even if I had seen these famous signals they would not have affected my decision. It has nothing to do with the matter. Talk about how hard the rain was falling, about the simultaneous showing of the red and chequered flags which isn't strictly permitted by the rules, or about the timing of the race being stopped - that's OK; when you agree to act as Race Director you know that you're opening yourself to possible criticism. But the insinuations made by Jean-Marie Balestre are unacceptable."

http://www.sportscar...aco'84ickx.html

 

(Quote abridged from interview in link.)

 

In case anyone thinks that the photo in the avatar (I took it at Le Mans after the finish of the 1977 race) means I'm biased in favour of Jacky Ickx, I'm not, certainly not in this case - I was just as frustrated as everyone else - but Balestre was a scourge on the sport.

Edited by kyle936, 10 June 2020 - 18:26.

[Michael Ferner]

Does anyone know why Stefan Bellof didn't make to the podium of the 1984 Monaco GP? He finished 3rd about 21s behind Alain Prost. 
 
We know his Tyrrell got disqualified days after but that doesn't explain why he didn't join Senna and Prost to the ceremony. 
Did he know he was getting disqualified and didn't bother? Who knows...
 
https://www.youtube....h?v=y9sZNGk-NZA

Bellof was not disqualified at all. Balestre is on record as saying "the FIA does not have the power to change race results", and it's true: when a race is finished, there is a period of grace when protests can be made, and after that the results are official - and final! No protests were entered after the finish of the Monaco GP, so the results are still the same as they were that afternoon, 1 Prost, 2 Senna, 3 Bellof. You need to read the fine print of the later Tyrrell judgement.

[Tim Murray]

And yet all records show that Lauda won the title by half a point. He would have won by 1.5 points if Brundle had retained his second place in Detroit (even with no points).

[as65p]

Forix also lists Bellof as disqualified, Arnoux 3rd instead.

 

Same on formula1.com

 

I guess that's official enough?

[Michael Ferner]

I think Brundle at Detroit was the only Tyrrell ever actually disqualified in 1984*. That's why I said "read the fine print". The FIA wanted to come down hard on Tyrrell, but realized that wasn't going to be easy, legally. Every entry blank in the world carries the rule that after a short time window for protests, race results become official, and thus final - it's a pure necessity for promoters to be able to pay out the purse; they are never going to get back money they have already paid out, thus they need the disclaimer by the recipient that the results are accepted as final. But, the FIA is not in the business of promoting races, that's the duty of the national clubs, who are all members of the FIA, of course (and most of them, by the way, hired a certain Mr. B. C. Ecclestone to do business for them). Conceivably, the FIA could have ordered the national clubs to disqualify the Tyrrells, but I don't think they had the formal power to do so, and anyway, every national club would then have been liable to legal action by Tyrrell, if they so desired, and it doesn't take a legal eagle to work out that Tyrrell would very probably have won every case handily. With Tyrrell conceivably seeking court action in six or seven countries at once, and likely to succeed at that, it would have been a mighty mess, and the likely outcome nothing short of a catastrophe for the FIA!

 

But, the FIA sanctioned the World Championships, and since the Concorde Agreement in 1981, every team had to formally enter the World Championship competition through the FIA. What they did, then, was to "exclude (the Tyrrell team) from the FIA World Championship", and "as a result its entry is cancelled", that's the aforementioned fine print. With that, Tyrrell's results so far in 1984 were simply ignored within the FIA documentation of the World Championship, and regarded to be "outside of competition" for the same. That was within their powers, they simply struck them from their own records. Of course, all the statistical mumbo jumbo sites can't tell the difference, they have a hard time accepting that there was Formula One without a World Championship, and a World Championship without Formula One. And even if you're going to provide me with a link to an official FIA source showing that Arnoux was third, that doesn't make it any less wrong because the FIA wouldn't be the first organisation to rewrite history in their favour. No doubt, they'll give a damn about what pesky historians write, and it's their right to do so, but the fact remains that Tyrrell #4 (driver Stefan Bellof) was never disqualified from the results of the 1984 Monaco Grand Prix.

 

 

* It was the only time all year that results were declared provisional pending a protest or the outcome of post-race scrutineering, in this case the latter because the SCCA sought evidence from further analyses of their findings. This then triggered the FIA Executive Committee fine, in the light of which it seems unnecessary to actually disqualify Brundle from the Detroit race - however, the SCCA may have independently done so, and probably did.

Edited by Michael Ferner, 16 June 2020 - 19:44.

[as65p]

"Striking them from the competition", "disqualification"... it all leads to the same, those results don't show up in the record books. Of course, I reckon in private everyone is free to be selective about which of those decisions he accepts and which not.

[D-Type]

"Striking them from the competition", "disqualification"... it all leads to the same, those results don't show up in the record books. Of course, I reckon in private everyone is free to be selective about which of those decisions he accepts and which not.

Michael Ferner explained it clearly.  Tyrrell, and hence Bellof, were disqualified from the Championship but not from the Race.  There is a difference.  Hence he should be listed in the race results in the record books, but with the explanation that he did not score Champoinship points. 

[ensign14]

It's not disqualifying them from the championship, but excluding them.  So their participation is outside the rules.  It is therefore a matter of semantics whether you say that e.g. Alboreto came 6th overall (on the basis that he was the 6th placed car complying with the rules) or was 6th of the Formula 1 cars.  Disqualifying from the Championship is like the bent non-penalty for Schumacher in 1997.

 

Damned if I can find the judgment though.

[William Hunt]

And ironically Prost lobbying for the race to be red flagged so he could save his win probably lost him the championship later, by that famous HALF point.

 

But we don't know where Prost would have finished if the race had gone full distance, surely Bellof would have passed him and since we know that Prost was a poor rain driver he might have finished lower as 2nd or maybe he would have crashed out. Since half of the points for a win (what he got) was 4.5 points that means that he would have even scored less if he was only third in a full distance race (4 pts) so if it went the full distance Prost needed 1st or 2nd to win the title, 3rd would not have been enough.

[as65p]

Michael Ferner explained it clearly.  Tyrrell, and hence Bellof, were disqualified from the Championship but not from the Race.  There is a difference.  Hence he should be listed in the race results in the record books, but with the explanation that he did not score Champoinship points. 

 

That's how it is handled with Schumacher in 1997.

 

But not with the Tyrell drivers in 1984. Instead they don't show up in neither race results nor championship table. Forix lists them as "disqualified" in every race they finished.

 

You guys may not like it, but it is what it is.

[William Hunt]

I've seen F1 books where they were kept in the race results but taken out of the championship tables (and thus with zero points) so clearly some publications had different interpretations as others.

I always understood that it was handled similar to Schumacher's situation and I own books that have handled it this way.
In the Mike Lang race-by-race account books they put an asterisk symbol in front of the driver in the result, mentioning excluded, with the 3rd place going to the 4th finishing driver (in case of Monaco) but I also have a book (a Belgian one) where they kept the Tyrrels in the result and simply didn't give them championship points so Bellof is 3rd (and not disqalified from the result) in Monaco and Brundle 2nd in Detroit (and not disqualified!) in this book. I always thought that was the correct way.

 

That book also counted the podia of Bellof (Monaco) & Brundle (Detroit) in the stats of those drivers so they were credited with their podium, I've seen other books doing that as well and rightly so imho.

 

The harsh way Tyrrell was punished in '84 was completely out of proportion and extremely unfair imho, it's like the FISA wanted to show a small team who's the boss, typical for Balestre really. Other teams who did similar or worse things in previous years would just be taken out of the result of that particular race and certainly not excluded from the championship. And in the '80s all teams were doing stuff like Tyrrell did (Brabham tried these kind of tricks all the time in the early '80s but off course Bernie could get away with it) and Tyrrell was forced to find something around the rules because they were excluded from a turbo engine in a year that almost all teams had a turbo... The way they punished Tyrrell was one of the most unfair things in the history of F1. I always count those podia from Bellof & Brundle as valid, they earned it.

Edited by William Hunt, 17 June 2020 - 06:46.

[Michael Ferner]

For me it's more of a paradigm shift, than a question of unfair treatment of drivers or teams (which effectively comes down to personal opinion or preference, which is of no consequence at all in the greater scheme of things). It's most likely nothing more but a coincidence, but 1984 was also the beginning of the "World Championship-only Formula 1" period, with the last non-championship race in 1983. The way the Tyrrell affair was handled by the media, it was clear that now the WC was more important than GP racing. Before, the World Championship had served Formula One, now Formula One was serving the World Championship.

[Michael Ferner]

But we don't know where Prost would have finished if the race had gone full distance, surely Bellof would have passed him and since we know that Prost was a poor rain driver he might have finished lower as 2nd or maybe he would have crashed out.

Prost didn't exactly look like a poor wet weather driver that day, at least not to me. And all that talk about where Senna or Bellof would have finished is idle talk anyway, just look at other years to see where drivers finished who were running second or third on lap 31. A full GP distance is a long way to go, especially at Monaco, and even more so in wet weather. We know that both Prost and Senna were "mortally wounded" and would likely have retired within a few laps. Would Bellof have stayed out of trouble? Maybe Ghinzani would have won in the end!!!

[Tim Murray]

There have been other occasions where the results now generally accepted don’t seem to reflect the decisions of the FIA at the time. The Benettons of Boutsen and Nannini finished third and fourth in the 1988 Belgian GP, but were later disqualified for alleged fuel irregularities. At an FIA hearing in December 1988 these disqualifications were confirmed, but it was understood at the time that the cars which had finished behind the Benettons would not be reclassified two places higher, so there would effectively be no third and fourth place finishers.

This situation had previously occurred at other WC GPs (eg Brazil 1983 and France 1963) where cars were disqualified from leading finishing positions, but the cars behind weren’t moved up to fill the gaps.

However, all the sources I can find now show the 1988 Belgian GP results with Capelli third, Piquet fourth etc, and I’ve never understood quite how this came about. I asked the question here many years ago:

Belgian GP 1988

but no concrete info emerged.

[MCS]

Prost didn't exactly look like a poor wet weather driver that day, at least not to me. And all that talk about where Senna or Bellof would have finished is idle talk anyway, just look at other years to see where drivers finished who were running second or third on lap 31. A full GP distance is a long way to go, especially at Monaco, and even more so in wet weather. We know that both Prost and Senna were "mortally wounded" and would likely have retired within a few laps. Would Bellof have stayed out of trouble? Maybe Ghinzani would have won in the end!!!

Excellent post, Michael.  And what a wonderful suggestion; a victory for Ghinzani ! 

[Michael Ferner]

îî 

 

 

Tim, that's interesting! I don't recall discussing this before, and I don't think I have seen the suggestion that the places remain vacant in the German press, then. I'm not sure if it counts as official, but the 1988 Olivetti Longines TIming Report (which makes plenty use of the word "official" and the FIA logo) redistributes the points for third through sixth to Capelli, Piquet and the Arrows drivers.

 

Thanks also for mentioning the Hill and Rosberg "disqualifications", which (I think) further illustrate my point: in both cases, the drivers weren't really disqualified, but punished by withholding their due championship points. That was not a real issue in 1963, and you will usually find Hill listed as finishing third in all period sources, with or without reference to the points situation. Not so in 1983, when many magazines and yearbooks listed Rosberg as disqualified, and no second place finisher at all, which doesn't really make sense: when there's a first and a third, there must be a second, too! Again, the it seems that the World Championship (results) had become bigger and more important than the individual Grand Prix (results)!

[Tim Murray]

Not so in 1983, when many magazines and yearbooks listed Rosberg as disqualified, and no second place finisher at all, which doesn't really make sense: when there's a first and a third, there must be a second, too!

Agreed absolutely, Michael, and the only way I could ever get my head around the Rosberg and Hill ‘disqualifications’ was to regard them as having been merely docked their championship points. For many years I assumed the same about Belgium 1988. It was only when I ‘discovered’ the internet that I realised that some sources had moved Capelli, Piquet etc up the order to fill the gaps.

To be fair, the Autosport report of the December 1988 FIA hearing which confirmed the Benetton penalties only said that ‘they understood’ that the Benetton championship points would not be redistributed. Possibly they just assumed that this was another illogical FIA decision similar to the one about Rosberg in Rio.

[Henri Greuter]

 

snip

 

The harsh way Tyrrell was punished in '84 was completely out of proportion and extremely unfair imho, it's like the FISA wanted to show a small team who's the boss, typical for Balestre really. Other teams who did similar or worse things in previous years would just be taken out of the result of that particular race and certainly not excluded from the championship. And in the '80s all teams were doing stuff like Tyrrell did (Brabham tried these kind of tricks all the time in the early '80s but off course Bernie could get away with it) and Tyrrell was forced to find something around the rules because they were excluded from a turbo engine in a year that almost all teams had a turbo... The way they punished Tyrrell was one of the most unfair things in the history of F1. I always count those podia from Bellof & Brundle as valid, they earned it.

eh....

Don't you think that `uncle Ken` keep on protesting against the legality of turbo engines with no valid argument in 1982 was a very clever thing to do? The more if you are one of the two teams with  elf  sponsorship, the other team having such sponsorship being the Renault factory team ????

And then, after all that work on getting turbo's banned having failed see engine builders turning you down from then on?

 

Tyrrell dug his own hole he tumbled in when no-ne wanted to supply him with turbo engines after 1983.

[William Hunt]

The more if you are one of the two teams with  elf  sponsorship, the other team having such sponsorship being the Renault factory team ????

 

 

Tyrrell did not have Elf sponsorship on their car in 1982. Elf stopped sponsoring them after 1978 and Candy became their lead sponsor in '79.
In '82 they had Ceramica (an Italian sponsor of Alboreto), Candy and Denim (end of season) on their cars as sponsors depending on which race because it varied, they also did races without lead sponsor that year with just "Tyrrell" on the side of the car.

Edited by William Hunt, 17 June 2020 - 15:39.

[Henri Greuter]

Tyrrell did not have Elf sponsorship on their car in 1982. Elf stopped sponsoring them after 1978 and Candy became their lead sponsor in '79.
In '82 they had Ceramica (an Italian sponsor of Alboreto), Candy and Denim (end of season) on their cars as sponsors depending on which race because it varied, they also did races without lead sponsor that year with just "Tyrrell" on the side of the car.

I stand corrected, you are right

But I do recall that elf and Tyrrell also fell out with another because of, among other things, their disagreement about turbocharged engines. That was why I wrote my post. But I should have looked up the facts about the team sponsorship. My bad.

 

Anyway, I am pretty sure that the ever continuing fighting aganst turbos being legal certainly didn't help Ken in his qeust to get turbos one way or another when it became clar that they were the way to go from 1986 on when F1 had that year of only allowing 1.5 liter turbos.

[William Hunt]

The Brazilian GP of 1983 in particular was weird because Rosberg was disqualified but instead of moving Lauda up to 2nd and Laffite to 3rd they simply 'didn't allocate' 2nd place!

 

During the Australian GP of 1987 Yannick Dalmas finished 5th (in his 3rd Grand Prix) in the Larrousse-Lola but he wasn't awarded the 2 points for it because he was 'only a part time entrant' thus not allowed to score points but he did keep his 5th place. Roberto Moreno, who was 6th in the AGS, didn't score the 2 pts that Dalmas should have gotten but just 1 pt for his 6th and Christian Danner who finished 7th in the Zakspeed didn't score a point so those 2 points simply weren't awarded.

[ensign14]

The non-entrant thing was a bit inconsistent as well.  Guy Ligier scored his one point despite being beaten by F2 cars, because they were outside the championship.  Yet at Italy 1984, they didn't allocate points to 7th and 8th, given that 5th and 6th were both ineligible for points.

 

Which is one of the great travesties of motor racing history.  Because that would have been a Grand Prix in which both Osella and Spirit would have scored points...

[William Hunt]

I find it strange that a sport can decide to 'not allocate points', in probably any other sport Danner & Zakspeed would have received a point for 7th in Adelaïde (since the 5th placed car wasn't eligible for points) and the same for the Italian GP of '84.

 

But the Rosberg case at Brazil '83 is the strangest of all because there they not only did  they not allocate the 6 points for 2nd place (since Keke was disqualified) but noboy was awarded the 2nd place. So the result reads: 1st place, 3rd place, 4th place etc... That's so strange because in any other race where a driver was disqualified all the drivers finishing behind him would move a place up, why did they do that?

Edited by William Hunt, 18 June 2020 - 02:39.

[Tim Murray]

Guy Ligier scored his one point despite being beaten by F2 cars, because they were outside the championship.

This was as it should be. At the 1967 German GP the F2 cars did not comply with F1 regulations and were in a separate event run concurrently with the F1 event, starting from a separate starting grid.

The F2 races at the 1957, 1958 and 1966 German GPs were also separate races in their own right, but didn’t have separate starting grids.