188 replies to this topic

[absinthedude]

It might be relevant that Mario has often said "If you can drive, you can drive. Period"....by which he means that a top racing driver can successfully drive any kind of racing car. For Mario this was true. Perhaps that's part of the reason why Michael didn't approach F1 with the dedication he really needed.  Michael, along with Little Al, was one of the superstar Americans in IndyCar in the 80s and 90s. But he always came across as having too much belief in himself to the extent of being rather arrogant.....when he failed (mostly) at F1 while Nigel Mansell took IndyCar by storm it mut have been galling. 

[2F-001]

It was in the Motor Sport podcast, Tony - @ 48:10 in the video (he talks about Mario and Marco at the beginning as well).

 

The whole thing's fascinating. Rob Wilson needs to write his autobiography - I expect he will (hopefully) when he retires!

Ah, yes - thanks Kyle; I can watch it again now!

Some of the chats Rob has had online with Peter Windsor or very absorbing too.

[chrisj]

It might be relevant that Mario has often said "If you can drive, you can drive. Period"....by which he means that a top racing driver can successfully drive any kind of racing car. For Mario this was true. Perhaps that's part of the reason why Michael didn't approach F1 with the dedication he really needed.  Michael, along with Little Al, was one of the superstar Americans in IndyCar in the 80s and 90s. But he always came across as having too much belief in himself to the extent of being rather arrogant.....when he failed (mostly) at F1 while Nigel Mansell took IndyCar by storm it mut have been galling. 

Yes, I think the gigantic chips on Mario and Michael's shoulders got even bigger when Mansell took over Michael's car, was quicker than Mario and became a huge sensation in the states. People rag on Mansell for being a moaner, but he had nothing on the Andrettis.

[JacnGille]

Just came across this:

 

https://www.roadandt...dretti-f1-1993/

[guiporsche]

Thx for sharing JacnGille.

Personally, I find the article quite hilarious, on many levels. From the author's attempt to portray those F1 cars as unfitting to Andretti's sensorial capabilities, to Andretti's tortuous explanations of his, to put it very simply, underperformance. He also does not seem to understand the difference between testing, qualifying, and racing. Add a sprinkle of conspiracy and this speaks for itself:

 

" Drawing back to his great qualifying-but-poor race result routine, Andretti is convinced McLaren manipulated the computerized MP4/8 chassis to limit his race-day performances.

“It was cool when I was quicker than [Senna] in certain corners and stuff, and it was never on a race weekend because my car never did the same thing at a test,” he says. “At tests, I’d always be right there with him, literally within a tenth, but I go to a race and mysteriously I’m two seconds off the pace.

“I qualify at a race last, and then we go to test the day after the race, and I’m running pole speeds with Senna. It’s like, okay... But anyway, it was a cool experience to be able to race with Senna, and I knew that I was being compared to one of the best ever. There were times when I was right there on pace with him.”

 

I also take issue with all the contextualisation of Mclaren being an impoverished team, on the way down and centred on a prima donna; it certainly did not stop Häkkinen from being fast once he had his shot. And we know now, based on the various biographies written about Senna available, that according to Ron Dennis he went along with Senna's ploy so as to force Marlboro and other sponsors to pony up. Whether it was really like that, it's still debated , but I find the idea that 'the monies to pay F1’s demi-God were supposedly robbed from the team’s 1994 R&D fund' a bit sketchy. The 94 Mclaren was certainly hampered not by lack of money, but by that impressively grenading Peugeot engine (a company whose history of its involvement in F1, warts and all, remains to be written). 

Edited by guiporsche, 28 December 2018 - 23:48.

[E1pix]

It really boils down to whether one respects the Andrettis' character enough to believe them -- or not.

Spending the last fifty years of my life exposed to them has me believing at least most of their take. Something was certainly amiss in the team dynamics for it all to go this wrong.

We all know this is a game of time and circumstance, and Michael was certainly good enough.

[PCC]

It really boils down to whether one respects the Andrettis' character enough to believe them -- or not.

I'm not so sure. People who are fundamentally honest can still view the past through very selective lenses if the personal stakes are high enough and the memories difficult or painful. It doesn't mean they lack integrity, it just means they're human. In such cases, a grain of truth can be magnified into a boulder, and my gut tells me that's part of what's going on with the Andrettis' version of events.

[Nigel Beresford]

Think about this logically and rationally.

Although fans, drivers and enthusiasts focus on the WDC, Formula One teams themselves are primarily focused on the Constuctors Championship (with the WDC a close second). Therefore it makes no sense whatsoever for a team to purposely make one of its own cars uncompetitive, since it would directly harm their ability to score points and ultimately affect their income as calculated from the Concorde Agreement. It seems to me illogical that Ron Dennis or anyone else within McLaren would think it worth potentially sacrificing millions of dollars of income in order to make Michael Andretti look bad. Why would he do that? Because he didn’t like Americans (RD was married to one!)? Conspiracy theories like this make no sense.

[JacnGille]

Think about this logically and rationally.

Although fans, drivers and enthusiasts focus on the WDC, Formula One teams themselves are primarily focused on the Constuctors Championship (with the WDC a close second). Therefore it makes no sense whatsoever for a team to purposely make one of its own cars uncompetitive, since it would directly harm their ability to score points and ultimately affect their income as calculated from the Concorde Agreement. It seems to me illogical that Ron Dennis or anyone else within McLaren would think it worth potentially sacrificing millions of dollars of income in order to make Michael Andretti look bad. Why would he do that? Because he didn’t like Americans (RD was married to one!)? Conspiracy theories like this make no sense.

DING DING DING

 

The winning post in my opinion.

[PCC]

Conspiracy theories like this make no sense.

But you're forgetting one of the key things about conspiracy theories. Contrary evidence is considered to be part of the conspiracy - proof of the lengths to which the conspirators went in order to avoid detection. Conspiracy theories can't be argued with because there is nothing that can negate them. They  are a black hole that swallows all reason.

 

Glad I got that off my chest...

[Nigel Beresford]

Indeed, but nobody has provided a reason why McLaren would care to damage Michael Andretti’s reputation

[E1pix]

Maybe he smokes Camels. ;-)

[PCC]

Indeed, but nobody has provided a reason why McLaren would care to damage Michael Andretti’s reputation

Which is what makes it the perfect conspiracy, immune to all efforts to explain and expose...

[Charlieman]

Indeed, but nobody has provided a reason why McLaren would care to damage Michael Andretti’s reputation

See also Tommy Byrne. You have to acknowledge when team management thinks that the driver is a poor fit for them -- perhaps the driver will work somewhere else. No other F1 team thought that Michael Andretti was worth a driver change.

[MLC]

I don't think anyone would consider McLaren c1993 to be one of the top 2 or 3 cars at the time.   Senna was Senna and could deliver results in a less than stellar car.  

 

 

I agree with much of what you posted, except for this bit. The '93 McLaren was the second best car on the grid operated by the best-run team. The only other contender would be the Benetton, which had a driver who was equally as capable as Senna in getting results in a less than stellar car. The Ferrari wasn't a match for the McLaren, and no other car was close enough for consideration as second or third best.

 

Senna was Senna indeed, but he didn't win five races in the fourth best car. Andretti seriously under-performed.

[aportinga]

Think about this logically and rationally.

Although fans, drivers and enthusiasts focus on the WDC, Formula One teams themselves are primarily focused on the Constuctors Championship (with the WDC a close second). Therefore it makes no sense whatsoever for a team to purposely make one of its own cars uncompetitive, since it would directly harm their ability to score points and ultimately affect their income as calculated from the Concorde Agreement. It seems to me illogical that Ron Dennis or anyone else within McLaren would think it worth potentially sacrificing millions of dollars of income in order to make Michael Andretti look bad. Why would he do that? Because he didn’t like Americans (RD was married to one!)? Conspiracy theories like this make no sense.

 

I agree...

 

If you look at MA's performance and how that translated to WDC points - it was really no good at all. MANY accidents and ultimately non-finishes.

 

RD probably assumed - and rightfully so, that Senna was gone after 1993. I assume he saw Mika as the saviour of McLaren - which he eventually was. So given that and the fact that we were already at Italy... I can see why MA was asked to leave. Which only bolsters your point IMO.

[aportinga]

Who were the other rookies in 1993?

[Tim Murray]

Who were the other rookies in 1993?

Rubens Barrichello and Eddie Irvine went on to win GPs and finish runner-up in the championship. Pedro Lamy did manage to score a single championship point. The other 1993 rookies (Jean-Marc Gounon, Marco Apicella, Luca Badoer and Toshio Suzuki) never really made their mark in F1.

[PlayboyRacer]

RD probably assumed - and rightfully so, that Senna was gone after 1993. I assume he saw Mika as the saviour of McLaren - which he eventually was.

To be honest I think the saviour of McLaren (at that stage) was Adrian Newey. Getting him was the huge difference, it took McLaren to new levels and crippled Williams at the same time.

[Nigel Beresford]

Absolutely bang on.

Edited by Nigel Beresford, 05 January 2019 - 10:45.

[absinthedude]

Newey certainly was key to McLaren's future....but in terms of drivers, Ron will have been aware that Senna was on his way elsewhere and needed to choose drivers who would represent the future. Michael Andretti hadn't shown that he was going to commit sufficiently in 1993, let alone the long term. Mika was putting in lots of effort testing and really wanted to be a McLaren race driver. 

[PlayboyRacer]

Backing Hakkinen over Andretti was a no brainer and most certainly the right decision. Before Newey though McLaren were still nowhere...it was literally his influence that vaulted them back to the front.

Hakkinen made the most of it for sure but, before Newey, they weren't ever looking like winning anything.

Edited by PlayboyRacer, 05 January 2019 - 23:21.

[garoidb]

Backing Hakkinen over Andretti was a no brainer and most certainly the right decision. Before Newey though McLaren were still nowhere...it was literally his influence that vaulted them back to the front.

Hakkinen made the most of it for sure but, before Newey, they weren't ever looking like winning anything.

 

Why was it a choice, though? There were two drives available for 1994, with Senna leaving. From the outside, it doesn't look like they were forced to choose, and that dropping Andretti was essentially independent of Hakkinen being available. Was there some other driver besides Brundle in the mix for the other 1994 McLaren seat? Martin was appointed very late IIRC.

 

I seem to remember Prost doing some testing for McLaren Peugeot, but when exactly was that? 

[absinthedude]

Prost did test along with Brundle at Estoril I think, in the 93/94 off season. If I recall correctly, Ron wanted Prost back and Prost wasn't very enthusiastic. Coupled with the unreliability of the Peugeot which...again IIRC....blew up during that Estoril test with Brundle at the wheel....Prost wasn't going to be convinced. 

 

Anyhoo...Prost had already announced his retirement and was a bit of a long shot for 1994. Ron knew he needed a driver for the future, not just for the "right now". Marlboro put pressure on him to sign a WDC (hence the Prost test and the Mansell debacle a year later).

 

It wasn't just Newey....the Peugeot wasn't a race winner and I also recall Ron stating that Peugeot didn't understand how close the relationship between team and manufacturer needs to be. He jumped ship to Mercedes ASAP...but remember in 1995/96 the Merc wasn't a race winning engine either. Sure, Newey was the final piece in the jigsaw but all the pieces needed to fit....Hakkinen, Mercedes, Newey and the engineers.

 

For 1994, Ron knew Senna was gone to Williams. Marlboro were pressuring him to have a WDC in the lineup. It certainly wouldn't have been on his mind to have Hakkinen and Andretti drive for him. 

 

With regards to Brundle, didn't have have history with McLaren having tested for them much earlier in his career? I think by the end of his career he was in the process of being re-assessed as someone who could have been a top driver. His performances against Schumacher in 1992, by the time Brundle retired, were being seen in a different light because we now knew just how good Schumacher was. Andretti Jr never looked like a top driver in F1....ironically except at Monza. 

Edited by absinthedude, 06 January 2019 - 10:46.

[PlayboyRacer]

If you look where McLaren was prior to Newey starting to influence the 1997 car... then how fast they evolved when his influence took hold... it was a masterstroke getting him. Biggest mistake Williams ever made not giving Adrian what he wanted.

Hakkinen and Mercedes certainly played their parts to a high level but without Newey they would have likely remained also rans. He literally made that much difference. The 1998 car was absolutely brilliant.

Edited by PlayboyRacer, 06 January 2019 - 12:36.

[guiporsche]

This is off-topic, but Newey had nothing to do with the 97 car other than providing setup advice in two races (Hungaroring and Jerez, and only at Ron's request). He clearly states in his book that he joined Mclaren in August of that year and deisgn-wise begun working directly on the 98 rules car. Mclaren had been in ascending form since 95 (hardly difficult), but it's not as if they would absolutely be an also-ran without him. Surely his impact was decisive in 98-2000, but so were the Ilmor engines'. Meanwhile, the story of 2001-04 remains to be written and it tells much that he barely touches it in his book (other than a couple of remarks about Ilmor doing a bad job and his lacking some inspiration, which is a bit of understatement). End of off-topic remark.

[airbox]

I wonder if Andretti would have been kept on if he had shown equivalent performance to Berger at McLaren?

 

By this I mean qualifying around top 5, consistent points finishes and the odd win.

 

As per the comments above on Mansell, was he actually a choice to try and pacify Marlboro - if not a WDC then at least a son of one with some good potential US marketing opportunities.

 

Not to denigrate his CART results but I've always wondered if it was always a bit of an experiment from McLaren's perspective rather than an attempt to find a potential replacement for Senna?

[Sterzo]

If, as has been implied and/or suggested in the thread, Andretti didn't demonstrate total commitment to his F1 attempt, it wouldn't matter who the alternative drivers were. Ron Dennis would be unlikely to keep him.

[kayemod]

I wonder if Andretti would have been kept on if he had shown equivalent performance to Berger at McLaren?

 

 

I very much doubt it, Andretti was never in the same performance league as Berger. Gerhard was a worker and a tryer, solid. McLaren always knew he was never going to be another Senna.

 

Michael Andretti's problem was all lack of commitment and effort, I don't think he ever wanted to stay, never really wanted to be there in fact. Once he started to realise how tough it was, just what he was up against, he just wanted to get back home where he felt able to cope.

 

 

 

By this I mean qualifying around top 5, consistent points finishes and the odd win.

 

That was a fundamental requirement, he never even got close.

Edited by kayemod, 06 January 2019 - 22:52.

[Arjan de Roos]

...... Andretti Jr never looked like a top driver in F1....ironically except at Monza. 

 

I am afraid this is a wrong perception. In 1993 we visited the Italian GP. The race had a tumultuous start, Senna overriding Hill's rear wheel and the elimination of both Footwork's and Jordan's with Lehto.

Many main contenders later retired while Andretti coasted I would say to 3rd, one lap down. We were shocked how wide Andretti passed through the Variante Good Year. He did not impress. 

[john aston]

I make my entirely non scientific  judgement based solely on how good he looked from trackside. Which means  there's lot of background noise to ignore - I discount the usual  conspiracy theories as the tiresome nonsense they undoubtedly are and I  don't spend too much agonisjng over the minutiae of results either, as they are not the end of the conversation , but the beginning  . I also discount whether he was likeable or not - I couldn't care less if existed on a diet of Big Macs and fries and eschewed  the foie gras more Europhile drivers might have enjoyed. I suspect there was a lot of the type of resentment 'sons of' usually trigger (eg D Hill , J Villeneuve et al) , not to mention some silly sneering because he wasn't 'one of us' , and showed he wasn't by flying home a lot . Just like many European drivers have from the USA in fact   .

 

So ,with those caveats, what do  I think ? I wish he had stayed longer in F 1 as unlike , say , Zanardi ,Follmer  or Donohue , he looked at one with the car, quick and aggressive . But not much light could ever have shone  into the shadows  Senna  cast  . He was doomed from the start - not by a lack of ability, but by everything else . 

[Michael Ferner]

I think I can underwrite everything John just wrote.

But, back to McLaren and Newey making all the difference - c'mon, nothing's ever so simple. In a team as big and complex as McLaren, Newey was just one piece of the jigsaw puzzle, nothing more, nothing less.

[Nigel Beresford]

I think I can underwrite everything John just wrote.

But, back to McLaren and Newey making all the difference - c'mon, nothing's ever so simple. In a team as big and complex as McLaren, Newey was just one piece of the jigsaw puzzle, nothing more, nothing less.

You can say that, but with my direct experience of Tyrrell (arrival Postlethwaite & Migeot) and Penske (arrival Nigel Bennett) I would have to respectfully disagree

Edited by Nigel Beresford, 07 January 2019 - 12:26.

[Michael Ferner]

Then we agree to disagree - that's all right

[Nigel Beresford]

Very good!

[guiporsche]

You can say that, but with my direct experience of Tyrrell (arrival Postletheaite & Migeot) and Penske (arrival Nigel Bennett) I would have to respectfully disagree

 

Glad to see Messrs. Posthethwaite and Migeot getting some praise. I would say this deserves some anedoctal follow-up... even it's own thread perhaps 

[Ray Bell]

I'll second that motion...

 

Such insights are always interesting.

[kayemod]

If you look where McLaren was prior to Newey starting to influence the 1997 car... then how fast they evolved when his influence took hold... it was a masterstroke getting him. Biggest mistake Williams ever made not giving Adrian what he wanted.

Hakkinen and Mercedes certainly played their parts to a high level but without Newey they would have likely remained also rans. He literally made that much difference. The 1998 car was absolutely brilliant.

 

Ron Dennis knew how much difference Adrian could make to McLaren, just look at the Newey record of success at every other team he'd worked for, count the race wins and championships. Adrian still had two years of his Williams contract to run, they didn't want to release him of course, but Ron paid an undisclosed but obviously huge amount of money to get Adrian released early, and to shorten the inevitable period of "gardening leave".

 

 

 

But, back to McLaren and Newey making all the difference - c'mon, nothing's ever so simple. In a team as big and complex as McLaren, Newey was just one piece of the jigsaw puzzle, nothing more, nothing less.

 

 

When Adrian arrived in Woking, he discovered that almost everything in the place was painted a uniform grey, apparently Ron's favourite colour. Almost immediately, while Adrian, Ron and most others were in Hungary, Adrian managed to get his own office brightened up, by having it redecorated in a more cheerful duck-egg blue, with a much lighter carpet and other changes. The first time he saw it, Ron almost had a heart attack, but he said nothing and let it pass, allowing Adrian to have the only non-grey room in the building, who else could have got away with that? It's impossible to deny, that with the spectacular success his cars achieved for McLaren, Adrian was very much more than a mere cog in a big wheel. As Michael says, McLaren were a large and complex organisation, but Adrian's arrival August 87 arrival was the main reason for the subsequent upturn in the Company's on-track performance.

[aportinga]

Prost did test along with Brundle at Estoril I think, in the 93/94 off season. If I recall correctly, Ron wanted Prost back and Prost wasn't very enthusiastic. Coupled with the unreliability of the Peugeot which...again IIRC....blew up during that Estoril test with Brundle at the wheel....Prost wasn't going to be convinced. 

 

Anyhoo...Prost had already announced his retirement and was a bit of a long shot for 1994. 

 

I believe there was a $2 million payment made to Prost from Williams to stay out of F1 for 1994.