63 replies to this topic

[austin]

Why was Alain Prost given only 4.5 points for his victory in the 1984 Monaco Grand Prix? I believe the conditions were extremely wet, and Senna drove a fantastic race to finish second. But it seems that everyone who finished the race was awarded only half of the points for their respective finishing positions.

[Rob G]

Actually, the rule is, or at least was at the time, that if at least 75% of the race is not completed then only half points are awarded. Ironically, Prost's win cost him the championship. Had the race gone beyond the 75% mark, Prost would have been WDC even if he had finished second to Senna.

[Ray Bell]

In the sense that because he won and was not passed by Senna as the race ran its full course, yes that could be the case, it did 'cost him the championship'...

But let's not forget that Stefan Bellof was catching Senna as well, which would have resulted in Prost getting four points instead of four and a half - had the three of them run the whole distance as they were running at the time the flag was brought out.

[dmj]

...and there is a thread in TNF where someone claims De Angelis would eventually win it... Who knows what might have been? Only thing I know for sure is that it was the day when I found my childhood hero and driver whom I adored ever since. And I doubt I'll ever support anyone as much as I did support Ayrton in his too brief time in F1...

[Ray Bell]

True, it was a good day for Senna, and an equally good (but unfortunately all too rare) day for Bellof.

[Rob G]

Originally posted by bertocchi
No offense, however, "Prost's win" did not really cost him the title. A win surely doesn't 'cost'.' The decision of the clerk of the course cost him full points in that GP. At the end of the season, THAT decision cost him the title. Again, no offense meant.

No offense taken. Actually, I was referring to the whole situation costing Prost the championship. Otherwise, it could be argued that it was God, Mother Nature, or the weatherman that cost him the title.

[Ray Bell]

Or Jacky Ickx?

Spread the blame around...

[Marcor]

some other races with half points
1975 Spanish GP at Montjuich, race stopped one lap after the Stommelen crash which killed some marshalls (photograph, journalist ?). Mass was declared winner.

1975 Austrian GP, race stopped because of heavy rain. Vittorio Brambilla led the race and when he saw the flag he spun and damaged his March. Not really an half winner, he deserved to win !

later in Australia, Senna won a race which was stopped after some kilometers. Heavy rain, was it in 1991 ?

[uechtel]

Originally posted by Ray Bell
In the sense that because he won and was not passed by Senna as the race ran its full course, yes that could be the case, it did 'cost him the championship'...

But let's not forget that Stefan Bellof was catching Senna as well, which would have resulted in Prost getting four points instead of four and a half - had the three of them run the whole distance as they were running at the time the flag was brought out.

...but let us also not forget that later in the year the Tyrrell team was disqualified so everybody behind Bellof would have been moved up one place again...

[Vrba]

Originally posted by Marcor
some other races with half points
1975 Spanish GP at Montjuich, race stopped one lap after the Stommelen crash which killed some marshalls (photograph, journalist ?). Mass was declared winner.

1975 Austrian GP, race stopped because of heavy rain. Vittorio Brambilla led the race and when he saw the flag he spun and damaged his March. Not really an half winner, he deserved to win !

later in Australia, Senna won a race which was stopped after some kilometers. Heavy rain, was it in 1991 ?

1991 Australian Grand Prix was stopped on lap 16 after Mansell had gone out (on lap 15) but results after 14 instead of after 15 laps were taken into account. Nevertheless, it's still the shortest World Championship race with a little more than 50 km covered.

Hrvoje

[cheesy poofs]

Originally posted by Vrba

1991 Australian Grand Prix was stopped on lap 16 after Mansell had gone out (on lap 15) but results after 14 instead of after 15 laps were taken into account. Nevertheless, it's still the shortest World Championship race with a little more than 50 km covered.

...and Mansell still made the podium....technically not physically !

[Vrba]

Originally posted by cheesy poofs


...and Mansell still made the podium....technically not physically !

Yes, I remember wondering at the time was it the reason for taking the results after 14 and not 15 laps (and being angry because otherwise Piquet would have been on the podium :-)).

Hrvoje

[Ferrari_F1_fan_2001]

Originally posted by Vrba


1991 Australian Grand Prix was stopped on lap 16 after Mansell had gone out (on lap 15) but results after 14 instead of after 15 laps were taken into account. Nevertheless, it's still the shortest World Championship race with a little more than 50 km covered.

Hrvoje

I bet the spectators werent too pleased!

[mikedeering]

Of course had the 10 points for a win system been in effect in 1984, Prost would have been WDC - by 2 points.

So blame the points system as much as Jacky Ickx, the weather, Niki Lauda et al.

[cheesy poofs]

Did Prost ever gesture to the officials to stop the race as Senna did in Adelaide ?

[D-Type]

Yes

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by Ferrari_F1_fan_2001
I bet the spectators werent too pleased!

Yes and no...

They were standing in pouring rain, unable to see the race...

At least now they could justify being sane and going home!

[Vrba]

Originally posted by mikedeering
Of course had the 10 points for a win system been in effect in 1984, Prost would have been WDC - by 2 points.

So blame the points system as much as Jacky Ickx, the weather, Niki Lauda et al.

Or better, don't blame anyone!

Hrvoje

[king_crud]

The 91 oz gp was the first one my mate from school went to. I was green with envy until i saw the race. He was mighty pissed off. Needless to say he was even more pissed off when i took my first gp trip two years later and the weather was great

[dmj]

I certainly can remember one special stage of a INA Croatia rally, under such heavy rain that there was only one spectator at entire stage... Yours truly, of course. A few drivers almost crashed when they saw me, from disbelief...

[masterhit]

I would also like to add that Tyrell were running illegally underweight that year - Bellof's drive was sensational, but it is doubtful that the points for the result would have stood, had he won.

[TODave2]

Well, illegal maybe during the race, but those late stage pitstops for water ballast made it legal in scrutineering

Even if Prost had been passed by both Senna and Bellof the 4 points for 3rd would have secured him the title at the end of the year. He only lost by 1/2 point remember...

I remember the 'Monaco 84 analysis thread' as well - it was very well written (apologies to the chappie who did all the work). I seem to recall my contribution to the thread was to comment on how well Rosberg was doing in the rain with the light-switch-power-delivery Honda...

[Vrba]

Originally posted by masterhit
I would also like to add that Tyrell were running illegally underweight that year - Bellof's drive was sensational, but it is doubtful that the points for the result would have stood, had he won.

There's no doubt at all, in fact. Tyrrell was later scrapped of all their points and the same would have happend even if Bellof had won Monaco Grand Prix. But the memory of the drive would have remained.

Hrvoje

[stephen jenkins]

Originally posted by TODave2
Well, illegal maybe during the race, but those late stage pitstops for water ballast made it legal in scrutineering

Even if Prost had been passed by both Senna and Bellof the 4 points for 3rd would have secured him the title at the end of the year. He only lost by 1/2 point remember...

I remember the 'Monaco 84 analysis thread' as well - it was very well written (apologies to the chappie who did all the work). I seem to recall my contribution to the thread was to comment on how well Rosberg was doing in the rain with the light-switch-power-delivery Honda...

Surely if the race had gone the distance, and had Prost finished third, gaining 4 points, he would have lost the championship by 1 point. NB he got 4.5 for the rain shortened win.

[TODave2]

You are absolutedly correct

[ensign14]

Originally posted by stephen jenkins


Surely if the race had gone the distance, and had Prost finished third, gaining 4 points, he would have lost the championship by 1 point. NB he got 4.5 for the rain shortened win.

But Bellof would then have been excluded from 1st or 2nd, moving Prost up to 2nd, so he would have got 6 points.

masterhit, there seems to be little doubt that the Tyrrells were not illegal but Uncle Ken was stitched up to allow a rule change through to which he was opposed. I still think all the turbos were illegal anyway.

[masterhit]

Originally posted by ensign14
But Bellof would then have been excluded from 1st or 2nd, moving Prost up to 2nd, so he would have got 6 points.

masterhit, there seems to be little doubt that the Tyrrells were not illegal but Uncle Ken was stitched up to allow a rule change through to which he was opposed. I still think all the turbos were illegal anyway.

He he! Argued well with charm and humour, Ensign 14!

What actually was the rule change anyway? No information on this!

[minardifan2]

Hey dudes.

If anyone is interested in seeing this race....I have it! Its not on my site list yet, though.
Along with about 146 other races on VHS that I would be willing to trade with other fans.
Take a look at my vid trading page below!

[mera308gtb]

Who knows what would have happened had the race gone the full distance. It's possible Senna would have crashed (he almost did early in the race but was lucky not to hit anything). Prost was the only driver who went the whole weekend without putting a foot wrong.

Besides, Senna got a lot more publicity by finishing second with all the controversy surrounding the race. It certainly made me sit up and take notice. And if I remember correctly, Senna was graceful in his "defeat" and didn't whine about being the "true" winner.

[bira]

Full laptimes of the Monaco 84 GP
Full lap chart (with all gaps) of that race

In case you're interested

[Rediscoveryx]

Are you guys sure that Bellof was running underweight? If he did then surely he would have been caught in post-race scrutineering, which he wasn't. And I seem to remember that the Tyrrell team didn't think of doing this until a couple of races into the season...

Anyway, the non-turbo cars were allowed to be something like 80 kgs lighter than the turbo's to give them some compensation for the big gap in power, but that couls hardly be called cheating as that was allowed by the rules

[Vrba]

Originally posted by Rediscoveryx
Are you guys sure that Bellof was running underweight? If he did then surely he would have been caught in post-race scrutineering, which he wasn't. And I seem to remember that the Tyrrell team didn't think of doing this until a couple of races into the season...

The point is that Tyrrell team was excluded from 1984 championship and it wouldn't have changed had Bellof won at Monaco.

Hrvoje

[Rediscoveryx]

Originally posted by Vrba


The point is that Tyrrell team was excluded from 1984 championship and it wouldn't have changed had Bellof won at Monaco.

Hrvoje

Yes, in the Championship it wouldn't have mattered, but I'm talking about the accusations of Bellof going fast due to an underweight car rather than driving skill

[masterhit]

Originally posted by Rediscoveryx



Yes, in the Championship it wouldn't have mattered, but I'm talking about the accusations of Bellof going fast due to an underweight car rather than driving skill

Honestly Rediscoveryx, there are no doubts regarding his driving talent, all I was pointing out was that if the race had gone full distance, it would not have made the championship any less controversial, and that for the purposes of this discussion we have to bear in mind that whatever the merits of Bellof's drive that day, (which as I said earlier was spectacular) talking strictly in terms of whether Bellof would have affected the results of the championship is a bit misleading for the above reasons, that's all.

I've even gone so far in admiration of Stefan Bellof's drive that day to say in another thread that if anything, in those conditions, it would have been even harder to drive such a light car...

[ensign14]

Originally posted by masterhit
What actually was the rule change anyway? No information on this!

Cannot remember the specifics, but it had been agreed that fuel capacity would reduce for the 1985 season. The turbo runners were against the reduction and if all the teams were unanimous the fuel limit would stay high.

Tyrrell was against because the Cossie's main advantage was its frugality. But when he was kicked out, the rule change (well, the non- rule change!) could go through unopposed before he was graciously allowed to return.

When you think about Imola 85 (Johansson running out of fuel from the lead, Prost DQd for being underweight when out of fuel after the finish) Ken would have been in a pretty good position...none of the turbos would have finished!

[masterhit]

Originally posted by ensign14
Cannot remember the specifics, but it had been agreed that fuel capacity would reduce for the 1985 season. The turbo runners were against the reduction and if all the teams were unanimous the fuel limit would stay high.

Tyrrell was against because the Cossie's main advantage was its frugality. But when he was kicked out, the rule change (well, the non- rule change!) could go through unopposed before he was graciously allowed to return.

When you think about Imola 85 (Johansson running out of fuel from the lead, Prost DQd for being underweight when out of fuel after the finish) Ken would have been in a pretty good position...none of the turbos would have finished!

Ah, thanks for that Ensign 14, the fuel reduction rule!

I seem to recall that in 1988, the last year of the turbos, Ferrari were allegedly running with refrigerated fuel, which, if I recall correctly was outlawed from Monza onwards.

I suppose there are a number of ways of looking at this - that rich teams hold more sway over the decision making process because they can afford better lawyers and bring more money into Formula One, or that in this case, Tyrell just made it so blatantly visible (there was less argument for other interpretation) that they had to be disciplined, a bit like the Brabham BT45 fan car, or the huge, visible, drop in ride height during cornering for aerodynamic performance that Williams introduced with their "self levelling suspension". I think it falls between the two, thinking about it more.

[KWSN - DSM]

I don't think that there is any doubt that Tyrrel were running illegal cars in 1984, however since mid- to late 1983 this had become an accepted illegality, since both Willams and Brabham(I think it was Brabham) were running "water cooled brakes".

In 1984 neither Williams nor Brabham (if it was indeeed Brabham) needed to run thus anymore, and the relative power of their engines, meant that it was'nt worth the "risk" anymore.

Tyrrel at the time had fallen from the front end of the grid, and were in no way, shape or form the team that they once were. He was the vote "against" all others, and a way to get him out of the equation had to be found. The down fall of Tyrrel in 1984 were not "water cooled brakes", but rather that they were filling lead pellets in the "water tanks", some of the lead diluted into the water, and the traces of this were seen to be an illegal powerboosting additive.

Thrown of the books. Vote taken, allowed back in. They even created the "Jim Clark championship" which were to be contended by the non-turbo cars, this were basically amends to Tyrrel for rail-roading them.

---
If if if....

I am a great fan of Stefan Bellof, and I truly belive that a potential GREAT driver was lost when he died. Now had the race continued, and had he won on the road, in Monaco of all places. I am sure that a major team would have signed him for 1985.

There is no way then that he would have had his points from Monaco disallowed, the disqualification of Tyrrel would have been from a point later in the season, maybe only one race. Still "iffing" Senna in second and Prost in third, then Lauda would still win the WDC.

[Rediscoveryx]

The question, as I see it, is why did Bellof pass post-race scrutineering if he was running with an underweight car? The way that Tyrrell exploited the rule was that they started the race underweight, then added weight (water + lead pellets) at the pitstops. Bellof didn't make a pitstop at Monaco and yet he passed scrutineering, which suggests to me that he wasn't running the car lighter than what the regulations specified

[John B]

There's an interesting comparison of how two Tyrrell 1984 drives are perceived. Shortly after the Monaco race, Martin Brundle finished a very close second to Piquet at Detroit. Though NP was probably easing up at the end Brundle still closed right up to him at the finish. Yet while the Bellof drive is regularly mentioned, I don't think I've ever seen a reference to Brundle's.

I'm not at all putting down Bellof's drive, just thought it was an interesting point. Bellof's death before his prime, the venue, and the rain all factor in to this - thoughts?

[dolomite]

Originally posted by KWSN - DSM
I don't think that there is any doubt that Tyrrel were running illegal cars in 1984, however since mid- to late 1983 this had become an accepted illegality, since both Willams and Brabham(I think it was Brabham) were running "water cooled brakes".

In 1984 neither Williams nor Brabham (if it was indeeed Brabham) needed to run thus anymore, and the relative power of their engines, meant that it was'nt worth the "risk" anymore.

In fact the water cooled brake scam was outlawed in 1982 after Piquet's Brabham and Rosberg's Williams were disqualified in Brazil.

[ensign14]

Originally posted by Rediscoveryx
The question, as I see it, is why did Bellof pass post-race scrutineering if he was running with an underweight car?

That's just it, the charges against Tyrrell kept changing until at the day of the hearing I think they charged him with illegal refuelling (hydrocarbons in the water, apparently remnants from the churn's previous use as a fuel canister). Or maybe it was the illegal addition of ballast, I cannot now remember, it varied as the King's foot. (Ballast could not be added unless it could not be removed without tools - only the lead pellets in the Tyrrell could NOT be removed from the tank without tools, so that blew the chances of conviction on that count in the eyes of an independent Court.)

Suffice it to say that NO Court of Law in England would have sanctioned the FIA's conduct and had I been Tyrrell I would have fought it every inch of the way in the English Courts.

Of course that could have resulted in a split in the championship with the English Courts nullifying the Tyrrell ban and ordering Tyrrell be permitted to race elsewhere...which injunction could have been ignored by the overseas Courts...therefore nullifying those races in the eyes of English law...cocking up the English tams' contracts with their sponsors and drivers...and possibly ruining motor sport as a result...

But then again Ken Tyrrell was a great man and effectively sacrificed himself. Bastardestre and his quislings showed just what small people they were.

now I've typed all that someone with inside knowledge will say that FISA was right all along...

[masterhit]

Originally posted by Rediscoveryx
The question, as I see it, is why did Bellof pass post-race scrutineering if he was running with an underweight car?

Good question Rediscoveryx!

I've certainly got no idea on that one!!!

[Dennis Hockenbury]

I'll bet that most would agree that l'affair Tyrrell reflected much more unfavorably upon FISA than Tyrell.

Ken was a honourable team owner, and I sincerely believe that he and Team Tyrrell believed that they were operating within the boundary of rule interpretation (or perhaps scrutineering as practiced by FISA).

[mera308gtb]

Yet while the Bellof drive is regularly mentioned, I don't think I've ever seen a reference to Brundle's.

Good point. Brundle in his first F1 season did a fantastic job that day. If a driver never goes on to greater glory, it seems their brilliant drives are often forgotten. As good as Senna did in the Toleman, people forget that other drivers put in similar performances. When Stephan Johanssen replaced Senna at Monza he managed to bring the Toleman home in the points (5th place). Also, Derek Warrick did a wonderful job at Brands in the Toleman in 1983, running in 2nd place on merit.

So here's a big to Martin!

[AndreasF1]

rediscoveryx wrote:
The question, as I see it, is why did Bellof pass post-race scrutineering if he was running with an underweight car? The way that Tyrrell exploited the rule was that they started the race underweight, then added weight (water + lead pellets) at the pitstops. Bellof didn't make a pitstop at Monaco and yet he passed scrutineering, which suggests to me that he wasn't running the car lighter than what the regulations specified
___________________________________________________________________
His Tyrell must have had more than half the fuel load left, since refueling was forbidden and the race was flaged before half-distance, so that the car when weighted was still legal.

[petefenelon]

Originally posted by mera308gtb


Good point. Brundle in his first F1 season did a fantastic job that day. If a driver never goes on to greater glory, it seems their brilliant drives are often forgotten. As good as Senna did in the Toleman, people forget that other drivers put in similar performances. When Stephan Johanssen replaced Senna at Monza he managed to bring the Toleman home in the points (5th place). Also, Derek Warrick did a wonderful job at Brands in the Toleman in 1983, running in 2nd place on merit.

So here's a big to Martin!

Brundle's best drive, IMHO, was five years later at Monaco. The revived Brabham-Judds (remember they'd sat out '88 and changed ownership, so they were languishing in prequalifying hell) were the most convincing cars on the day after the McLarens, and Martin ran third, looking smooth and damn quick for much of the race until he needed to pit for a new battery - lost two laps and still brought it home for a point.

pete

[dmj]

Originally posted by mera308gtb


Good point. Brundle in his first F1 season did a fantastic job that day. If a driver never goes on to greater glory, it seems their brilliant drives are often forgotten. As good as Senna did in the Toleman, people forget that other drivers put in similar performances. When Stephan Johanssen replaced Senna at Monza he managed to bring the Toleman home in the points (5th place). Also, Derek Warrick did a wonderful job at Brands in the Toleman in 1983, running in 2nd place on merit.

So here's a big to Martin!

I agree completely. But even living in a communist country at the moment it was known to me through the press that Senna was going to be "the next big thing" while others were regarded as prospective newcomers... I presume this hyphen originated from British press of the day but I can clearly remember that articles about Ayrton started to emerge in Croatian press before he even signed for any F1 team...

[D-Type]

Originally posted by mera308gtb


- - - - Also, Derek Warwick did a wonderful job at Brands in the Toleman in 1983, running in 2nd place on merit.

But didn't he start with only half a tank of fuel?

[subh]

Originally posted by Stephen W


If the officials hadn't been influenced by Prost's gestures (he was the only one waving to try & get the race stopped) then within three laps he would have been passed by Senna and Bellof.

I’ve read this one more than a few times. According to Mike Lang (Grand Prix! Volume 4), Jacky Ickx “decided that enough was enough and acted on instinct just after Prost, pointing to the front of his car (not, as some people thought, to have the race stopped but to indicate to the McLaren pit that his front brakes were vibrating badly), had gone through to complete his 31st lap.”

I’ve brought this in from another thread to ask, can anyone verify that Prost was trying to get the race stopped? I would be inclined to believe the above account, but it isn’t the most popular version of events.

[scheivlak]

Originally posted by subh


I’ve read this one more than a few times. According to Mike Lang (Grand Prix! Volume 4), Jacky Ickx “decided that enough was enough and acted on instinct just after Prost, pointing to the front of his car (not, as some people thought, to have the race stopped but to indicate to the McLaren pit that his front brakes were vibrating badly), had gone through to complete his 31st lap.”

I’ve brought this in from another thread to ask, can anyone verify that Prost was trying to get the race stopped? I would be inclined to believe the above account, but it isn’t the most popular version of events.

Just FYI Pascal's view in http://forums.autosp...ighlight=Monaco (post #7)

During the last few laps, the already horrendous conditions worsened noticeably, and I started to be concerned about the part of the track right in front of me, which looked one step short of being flooded. I was myself soaked and cold, but I kept on watching the race with renewed interest when it became obvious to me that Alain Prost had a problem with his brakes. At each lap, he seemed to be using his engine braking as much as he could to slow down his car, while Senna was steadily reducing the gap with a perfect drive. Bellof was getting closer as well, but the way his car was constantly going sideways under acceleration made me fear he would not be able to stay on the track until the end of the race. Lap after lap, Senna was getting closer to a desperate Prost, while the conditions were beyond what I had ever seen in Monaco. So the race interruption actually came as no surprise. I actually believe the race should have been stopped before, and it was obvious that the weather was not about to get better anytime soon. That might explain why no restart seemed to have been even considered by the race marshals, given the fact that the track was in several places completely unfit for a F1 race.

A few years later, working for the GP organisers in the press room of the Monaco Grand Prix, I had the opportunity to discuss this race with several of my colleagues from the Automobile Club de Monaco. And doing so, I heard an interesting tale from one of these people, who was present when the decision to stop the race was taken. According to that person, the decision to stop the race was first considered about 10 laps before it actually took place. The Race Commitee was receiving increasingly alarming radio reports from the track marshals about the tarmac condition, and it soon became obvious that the race could not be completed as it was. So Jacky Ickx and several people met and discussed if it was desirable to let the race go on a bit longer, while knowing that the risk was rising to a worrying level. After a few minutes, it was actually decided to red-flag the race, and while the decision was about to be transmitted to the marshals, Prost crossed the line with his hand raised, a gesture which would later fuel some people's suspicion that the race was fixed. But it was too late to worry about such considerations, and a lap later, the cars were stopped, probably depriving Senna of what could have been a stunning first victory. Is this story true? I have no proof of course, but knowing intimately the decision-making process within the Automobile Club and its Grand-Prix structure, I find that tale believable and consistent with the events as we all know them.

The debate went further BTW: http://forums.autosp...ighlight=Monaco