Never heard about Migeot being against the introduction of the transversal gearbox, but again, what we actually know from the Ferrari 1986-1992 years (other than one-side testimonies) is little and will remain for a while because no one likes failure, least remembering it and especially when it involves a car manufacturer running havoc in a celebrated F1 team and putting less than competent people (who are still around) in charge.
The best article I've ever read about the F92 draws on Steve Nichols' contribution: https://www.autospor...-famous-failure
And the second although very brief appeared on the Red Bull bulletin of the USA GP 2007: and there already Capelli talks about having to race with the longitudinal gearbox.
The F92 was a classic commitee design. For a while Migeot got the upper hand but I doubt it was for long. From Migeot's testimony to the Red Bull bulletin, he argues that he did not have his say on the useless monoshock suspension design - that was supposed to be active and according to Nichols, Migeot underestimated that his car needed an active suspension to have a chance of working. Others involved in designing the car included Nichols and Paolo Massai, head of engines who beforehand had worked for Fiat and now collaborates with Quattroruote.
Knowing that the 91 & 92 Mclarens had a transversal gearbox (presumably to counter the V12's length) it's quite probable that the F92 was indeed expected to have the tranversal since the start and as such I find no reason to doubt of Capelli (whose testimonies on the F92 have remained pretty much the same through the years).
Please keep in mind that the recent testimony by Alesi (taken for granted by Nugnes at Motorsport Italia, seconded by Migeot and already in wikipedia) that the F92's problems all derived from the Massai-designed engine has to be taken with a gigantic grain of salt. Alesi himself in 2007 recognised that the aero was causing plently of drag. Surely the engine was not up to scratch and that was widely reported by the Italian press at the time, including the lack of bhp (50) and the need to put an extra oil tank. Already the engine from the previous year was not at par with the Honda but as Nichols (and Piola) point out (and I'm yet to see anyone rebut their arguments) the car's true problems were elsewhere: an overly ambitious aero philosophy that forgot that race tracks are not the ideal world of wind tunnels; an aero that needed an active suspension as good as the Williams (which Ferrari never had even in 93) to at least have a chance of working, the absence of which resulted in a very nervous car, too pitch-sensitive; too much drag; a flexy chassis & high CoG, all caused by the double floor. In short, a disaster. But what a beautiful disaster it was!
Edited by guiporsche, 25 November 2020 - 11:10.
